Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How to make a perfect Malevichpainting using only basic HTML code

>On Jan 27, 2006, at 4:29 AM, [email protected] wrote:

>>Quoting Eric Dymond <[email protected]>:

>>I don't care about Malevich, I don't care about Rembrandt and Warhol.
>>They made artifacts like the dead sea scrolls. Interesting to targeted markets, but >>insignificant to the rest of humanity.

>Art's target market is humanity.

yeah, but so often, the ideal target is not the actual target.

malevich may have even told folks he liked humanity (many artists think they make art for humanity, but are just not admitting they're work is really mostly for themselves, they don't even consider many other humans' wants/needs.), but look at his product, it's not FOR everyone to appreciate. certainly doesn't include babies who haven't formed the ability to keep an object they see in their head in an abstract form. or even kids, because it just plain isn't fun. it doesn't include some starving person in some third world country that would be fed for a year with the money that's gone into it. and investments for no practical reason other than: because we can, and someone cares more about this bafflingly useless object than you. that's a little melodramatic, but "humanity" is a big word to use with "art".

some art may be for a larger chunk of humanity than others but lots (particularly this kind) is for the people who have an art background only, and rejects all others (from their perspective, pretty furiously).


>>What I am saying here is that here and now…, everything is good, in fact it's very good.

>Then so is the attitude of caring about Malevich.

both totally cool.


>>I should add that digital works will last forever, if properly nurtured. Like the old movies of the avant-garde re-issued on DVD, the current wealth of new media will be accumulated in databases, and will be available in 2600

>It is incredibly unlikely that systems in 2600 will still be able to run code
written for the 2600.

true, but his point remains. we don't generally own cylinder type record players in our home. but the music that was recorded that way, with a long extinct technology, is obviously still preserved/preservable. not every title gets the attention. but go into a big CD store (like tower in NY) and you'll find stuff from that era. then it's the Darwin gamble what survives. so much the current art that gets acknowledgment from the big institutions now is of little interest to humanity as a whole. we'll see.

actually, we won't. we'll be dead. so it's pretty unimportant to try to determine.


and therein is the crux of the biscuit. too easily in-discernible. but while art isn't necessarily FOR humanity, humanity does decide what will be preserved. the engineers who are budgeted to re-release those old records from the 20's needn't give a hoot about that era in music. somebody who works for the Smithsonian, may value preservation of history more than appreciation for any actual object. in fact, probably what will be saved, is the pieces that say "that is SO early 21st cent", not necessarily the most interesting in and of themselves.


>>( if humans are still around, and if they aren't .. who cares?).

>I do. I like humans.

but there's an awfully big likelihood they are screwing themselves over as a whole and a few with business priorities may ruin it for those with human priorities. like em or not, the ship is sinking fast. the best way to counter it, is not to ignore it or be convinced it won't happen, but assume it will and hopefully be wrong.