. community —

the unrepublic of art

what you think and feel about art is as important as what anyone else thinks
and feels about art.

this is the saving grace and the social dysfunction of art.

art is the one and only republic of anarchy.

long may it bumble and muddle through.

ja
http://vispo.com

Comments

Pall Thayer 8 years, 8 months agoReply

You're absolutely right.

Even the thought that art is irrelevant and a waste of time is
important.


On 31-May-07, at 9:08 AM, Jim Andrews wrote:

> what you think and feel about art is as important as what anyone
> else thinks
> and feels about art.
>
> this is the saving grace and the social dysfunction of art.
>
> art is the one and only republic of anarchy.
>
> long may it bumble and muddle through.
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com
>
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> 29.php
>





Pall Thayer
p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca

http://www.this.is/pallit

Jim Andrews 8 years, 8 months agoReply

You're absolutely right.


Even the thought that art is irrelevant and a waste of time is important.




perhaps this is the most widespread notion of what art is.

art is irrelevant and a waste of time, but art is also its own opposite.

so it is difficult, if not impossible, to say anything absolutely true
about art.

when assumptions contradict, that which follows is all true, but trivially
so, since what follows is also all false.

art defies simple logic, is more rich than simple logic. but art can also
be less rich than simple logic.

it is a question of how contradictions are conceived and handled, not
whether they are present or not.

ja

Erika Lincoln 8 years, 8 months agoReply

Come on, you guys can do better than this!!!
b b b b b b boring

Pall Thayer 8 years, 8 months agoReply

Your contribution to the discussion isn't exactly brimming with
insight either.

Pall

On 1-Jun-07, at 8:48 AM, Erika Lincoln wrote:

> Come on, you guys can do better than this!!!
> b b b b b b boring
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> 29.php
>





Pall Thayer
p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca

http://www.this.is/pallit

jacky Sawatzky 8 years, 8 months agoReply

hi all,

I want give a few points for discussion; how one thinks or feels about
art doesn't come out of nowhere, it's part of a larger context,
historical, socially , cultural, economically. How I think about art
comes from growing up in a particular culture, I can dispute, negate
it, but both of these actions are based on something that was already
there. The art people are exposed to is selected and juried as too is
qualities and worth. The rhizome art base being on of them. What I
find very important is to understand what are the criteria of a
selection process and put these to discussion, through art or theory
or…
art is a republic

cheers, Jacky

http://www.jackysawatzky.net

On 1-Jun-07, at 6:23 AM, Pall Thayer wrote:

> Your contribution to the discussion isn't exactly brimming with
> insight either.
>
> Pall
>
> On 1-Jun-07, at 8:48 AM, Erika Lincoln wrote:
>
>> Come on, you guys can do better than this!!!
>> b b b b b b boring
>> +
>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at
>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
>
>
>
>
> –
> Pall Thayer
> p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
>
> http://www.this.is/pallit
>
>
>
>
>
>

Jim Andrews 8 years, 8 months agoReply

> The art people are exposed to is selected and juried as too is
> qualities and worth. The rhizome art base being on of them. What I
> find very important is to understand what are the criteria of a
> selection process and put these to discussion, through art or theory
> or…
> art is a republic
>
> cheers, Jacky
> http://www.jackysawatzky.net

there are two types of personal power.

the first is the type that can be bestowed upon you by others. the second is
your own.

which do you want?

art arises out of the latter. the former may or may not follow.

what is selected is what validates the world view of the selector.

artistic darwinism: what survives is the best art.

heraclitean poetics: "time is a child playing at dice. the kingdom is a
child's."

art is invisible: look at the paintings.

art is invisible, slips past the borders.

"art is a dream for awakened minds."

there still is such a thing as an independent intellectual.

art is no republic.

ja
http://vispo.com

Erika Lincoln 8 years, 8 months agoReply

Jacky is making some important points that seem to be ignored in these current posts.
As "no man is an island" the same goes for art.

As to my previous post on the b b b b b boringness of this topic the posts are always couched in a framework that has romantic tendencies, as well, there seems to be undertones of desperation and personal crisis. Perhaps the crisis is that, while maintaining these notions of art which are arrived at through the values of individuality, objectivity, and ownership, an art has emerged that does not fit into these criteria.

To me a continual assertion of individualism denotes a desire for control.

Pall Thayer 8 years, 8 months agoReply

Hi Erika,
While I agree that assertions of individualism denote a desire for
control, I don't think that that was the point of the original post.
At least, that's not the way I took it. I think the interesting point
was that regardless of what we say or do, people are always going to
have their individual notions regarding art and that it's important
that we're aware of this. It's certainly a case of "pointing out the
bleedin' obvious" but sometimes that just has to be done. Whether art
is a republic or not depends on who you ask. Jacky backs up the point
that it's a republic by referring to juries, selection criteria and
discussions but that's a reflection on her involvement in the "art
world". I know people who will argue vehemently that the only thing
that matters is their own opinion and who the hell am I to point out
art theoretical or historical hot air that contradicts it. It's easy
for us "art-elitists" (yes, we are) to dispel this sort of thing off
with "They don't know what they're talking about." When it would
actually be equally correct to say, "They don't know what WE'RE
talking about."

So how much of a "republic" is art? Komar and Melamid attempted a
republic approach to art and look at the outcome (http://
www.diacenter.org/km/usa/most.html). Perhaps it is the dysfunction
and anarchy that Jim mentions that saves us from this kind of stuff.

Pall


On 2-Jun-07, at 9:27 AM, Erika Lincoln wrote:

> Jacky is making some important points that seem to be ignored in
> these current posts.
> As "no man is an island" the same goes for art.
>
> As to my previous post on the b b b b b boringness of this topic
> the posts are always couched in a framework that has romantic
> tendencies, as well, there seems to be undertones of desperation
> and personal crisis. Perhaps the crisis is that, while maintaining
> these notions of art which are arrived at through the values of
> individuality, objectivity, and ownership, an art has emerged that
> does not fit into these criteria.
>
> To me a continual assertion of individualism denotes a desire for
> control.
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> 29.php
>





Pall Thayer
p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca

http://www.this.is/pallit

Rob Myers 8 years, 8 months agoReply

Erika Lincoln wrote:

> As "no man is an island" the same goes for art.

This is untrue. Paintings of Venice involve depicting islands, and
Christo wrapped islands to make an artwork. Islands may therefore be
art, and art may be islands, even before we get to nomination.

> […] Perhaps the crisis is that, while maintaining
> these notions of art which are arrived at through the values of
> individuality, objectivity, and ownership, an art has emerged that
> does not fit into these criteria.

Which art is that?

- Rob.

Jim Andrews 8 years, 8 months agoReply

perhaps there are types of art where some sort of semi-concensus is possible and common, but the more adventurous the types of art under consideration, the less that's likely to be true. even if jurors do not simply reward their friends and contacts (which is reprehensible), the range of types and approaches to art typically under consideration in media art competitions is very wide. media/um x art(s) x technical level x millieu x subject matter x aesthetic x language x politics x experimental level x artist experience level… a forbidding cross product of considerations that may leave jury members shaking their heads about the differences in opinion they have about the relative value of the proposals and the art and the artists.

also, the more original the proposal, the harder it is to convey the value of the project when it's not finished to view, as is the case with proposals submitted to juries.

it's a crap shoot. it really is. the jury can be structured so that the jury ranges fairly widely in their backgrounds over the proposals (usually not) and then each juror has a say and they can talk until they're blue in the face, but it remains a relatively meaningless crap shoot.

that's the scary but fascinating reality of it.

to me, it highlights the existential individuality of art and the experience of art, erika and jacky. we are so similar and so different.

what you think and feel about art is as important as what i think and feel about art. even when an 'expert' has his/her say in the matter, it is bound to be very different from the next 'expert'. we all have things to teach each other, and we do well to try to listen to one another and learn from one another, but what is most powerfully meaningful to us, via the art experience, is ours and ours alone, however much we may learn from each other, and we treasure our own experiences of art and what makes it meaningful to us above what anyone else says, and rightly so.

also, artists put their blood sweat and tears into creating a situation where we can actually experience afresh. where we are challenged to abandon our preconceptions and experience afresh, rather than experience an easily categorized representation. The artists and audience alike seek out this befuddling multiplicity toward fresh experience and apprehension.

art challenges our categories rather than willingly conforming to them.

there's nothing wrong with placing value on individuality. it's ok. you can be an individual. individuation. it's ok.

ja
http://vispo.com


> Jacky is making some important points that seem to be ignored in
> these current posts.
> As "no man is an island" the same goes for art.
>
> As to my previous post on the b b b b b boringness of this topic
> the posts are always couched in a framework that has romantic
> tendencies, as well, there seems to be undertones of desperation
> and personal crisis. Perhaps the crisis is that, while
> maintaining these notions of art which are arrived at through
> the values of individuality, objectivity, and ownership, an art
> has emerged that does not fit into these criteria.
>
> To me a continual assertion of individualism denotes a desire for control.

Mario Klingemann 8 years, 8 months agoReply

> artistic darwinism: what survives is the best art.
>
>
Not necessarily. What survives is the art that has shown the best
adaptiveness to the prevalent art habitat. That why you usually just
find shrubs in a desert. Which is fine as long as you have never seen
flowers.

Mario Klingemann

Christina McPhee 8 years, 8 months agoReply

some of the most beautiful flowers live in the desert , thanks to the
cacti family.

http://www.huntington.org/Information/desertcent.htm

http://www.astroshow.com/flowers/index.htm

Deserts here in California are some of the most complex and intricate
rich biosystems, shrubs notwithstanding.

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habitats/WDP/region-mojave/overview.html

But humans are trashing the desert in So Cal: re anthropogenic
destruction
http://www.werc.usgs.gov/hq/restore.htm

Approaching art practice as an ecological/human practice, I am a fan
of Keith Armstrong:

http://www.embodiedmedia.com/philospy/philecos.htm


he writes
> The practice, theoretical development and production of artistic
> works that embody principles of an 'ecosophy' are best thought of
> as being part of a broader process of making sense of the world,
> and hence a way of determining engagement with it. The approach of
> an ecosophy is therefore deeply entwined within human concepts of
> individualism, difference, gender and morality; in other words all
> of what it means to be a human



Keith is doing a new installation of Intimate Transactions here in
California this week at (simultaneously) Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and
UC Santa Barbara. Sign up to participate at:
ddgillet@calpoly.edu (poly) or august@develop.ment.org (UCSB),
June 4, 5, and 6.

www.intimatetransactions.com


-c

On Jun 3, 2007, at 8:09 AM, Mario Klingemann wrote:

>
>> artistic darwinism: what survives is the best art.
>>
>>
> Not necessarily. What survives is the art that has shown the best
> adaptiveness to the prevalent art habitat. That why you usually
> just find shrubs in a desert. Which is fine as long as you have
> never seen flowers.
>
> Mario Klingemann
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> 29.php

jacky Sawatzky 8 years, 8 months agoReply

hi all,

thanks for your insights all of you.

I have to clarify myself when I am talking about juried and influence,
I was predominantly talking about the historical context, art -history,
to give an example of myself what I have been exposed for someone
growing up and living in Holland Rembrandt, Vermeer, and not to forget
Mondriaan. Or writing in english other then the language I grew up
in dutch makes a big difference how I express myself and how I see the
world.

Being older I now have a choice which painting, media works, book,
films, ext, I find interesting. Though this interest is formed by what
I have been exposed to before and the content of this exposure was for
a part determined by the school curriculum. (just an average public
school) thus juried by the process of history (maybe if I was exposed
to Duchamp in addition to the others I would have not disliked high
school art so much. I found it stupid. ) It's a base I can't ignore
even negating art-history means for me that I dealing with it.

I am from opinion that independent thinking is acknowledging ones
dependence, MAYBE it's because this dependence is unique,
individualized, and so results in independent thought.
Maybe that was makes art so unique and so powerful at times, that each
individual has an individual and a collective experiences and views and
there own way of dealing with art-history. Art is complex dynamic of
give and take, time and place, of history and no-history, a system that
is in flux I don't know, really mostly I don't understand what makes
me pause, but I do see art as something outside me (hmm sounds
vague..)

The current juried systems , would this be CC or Rhizome or some
radical art group, interest me, more from the point of what kind of art
is supported or not and through these choices understanding which
criteria are underneath the selection. This understanding explains the
political and social climate of different groups and countries.

and Pall, for me what Jim said was not "bleedin' obvious" .

cheers, Jacky







On 2-Jun-07, at 2:46 PM, Jim Andrews wrote:

> perhaps there are types of art where some sort of semi-concensus is
> possible and common, but the more adventurous the types of art under
> consideration, the less that's likely to be true. even if jurors do
> not simply reward their friends and contacts (which is reprehensible),
> the range of types and approaches to art typically under consideration
> in media art competitions is very wide. media/um x art(s) x technical
> level x millieu x subject matter x aesthetic x language x politics x
> experimental level x artist experience level… a forbidding cross
> product of considerations that may leave jury members shaking their
> heads about the differences in opinion they have about the relative
> value of the proposals and the art and the artists.
>
> also, the more original the proposal, the harder it is to convey the
> value of the project when it's not finished to view, as is the case
> with proposals submitted to juries.
>
> it's a crap shoot. it really is. the jury can be structured so that
> the jury ranges fairly widely in their backgrounds over the proposals
> (usually not) and then each juror has a say and they can talk until
> they're blue in the face, but it remains a relatively meaningless crap
> shoot.
>
> that's the scary but fascinating reality of it.
>
> to me, it highlights the existential individuality of art and the
> experience of art, erika and jacky. we are so similar and so
> different.
>
> what you think and feel about art is as important as what i think and
> feel about art. even when an 'expert' has his/her say in the matter,
> it is bound to be very different from the next 'expert'. we all have
> things to teach each other, and we do well to try to listen to one
> another and learn from one another, but what is most powerfully
> meaningful to us, via the art experience, is ours and ours alone,
> however much we may learn from each other, and we treasure our own
> experiences of art and what makes it meaningful to us above what
> anyone else says, and rightly so.
>
> also, artists put their blood sweat and tears into creating a
> situation where we can actually experience afresh. where we are
> challenged to abandon our preconceptions and experience afresh, rather
> than experience an easily categorized representation. The artists and
> audience alike seek out this befuddling multiplicity toward fresh
> experience and apprehension.
>
> art challenges our categories rather than willingly conforming to them.
>
> there's nothing wrong with placing value on individuality. it's ok.
> you can be an individual. individuation. it's ok.
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com
>
>
>> Jacky is making some important points that seem to be ignored in
>> these current posts.
>> As "no man is an island" the same goes for art.
>>
>> As to my previous post on the b b b b b boringness of this topic
>> the posts are always couched in a framework that has romantic
>> tendencies, as well, there seems to be undertones of desperation
>> and personal crisis. Perhaps the crisis is that, while
>> maintaining these notions of art which are arrived at through
>> the values of individuality, objectivity, and ownership, an art
>> has emerged that does not fit into these criteria.
>>
>> To me a continual assertion of individualism denotes a desire for
>> control.
>
>
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
http://www.jackysawatzky.net

Erika Lincoln 8 years, 8 months agoReply

Wanted–
One large vacuum tube, preferably large enough to contain cacti flower. Tube must be wrapped in fabric, ivory is prefered but will accept any shade of beige.

Jim Andrews 8 years, 8 months agoReply

> jacky sawatzky wrote:
>
> hi all,
>
> thanks for your insights all of you.
>
> I have to clarify myself when I am talking about juried and influence,
> I was predominantly talking about the historical context, art -history,
> to give an example of myself what I have been exposed for someone
> growing up and living in Holland Rembrandt, Vermeer, and not to forget
> Mondriaan. Or writing in english other then the language I grew up
> in dutch makes a big difference how I express myself and how I see the
> world.
>
> Being older I now have a choice which painting, media works, book,
> films, ext, I find interesting. Though this interest is formed by what
> I have been exposed to before and the content of this exposure was for
> a part determined by the school curriculum. (just an average public
> school) thus juried by the process of history (maybe if I was exposed
> to Duchamp in addition to the others I would have not disliked high
> school art so much. I found it stupid. ) It's a base I can't ignore
> even negating art-history means for me that I dealing with it.
>
> I am from opinion that independent thinking is acknowledging ones
> dependence, MAYBE it's because this dependence is unique,
> individualized, and so results in independent thought.

The notion of an independent artist intellectual does not involve the
assumption that we are free of influence. It means we are more interested in
'art' than 'community'. It means that we do not simply 'run with the pack'.
Concerning matters of decisions about art, it means we try hard to see
beyond friendships, enmity, and associations in the art we champion. It
means that rather than simply valuing institutions and purveyors of art, we
value the individual artists who dedicate their lives to the actual creation
of the art. It means trying to work toward poetics that counter barbarism
and the simple, witless admiration of conferred power.

> Maybe that was makes art so unique and so powerful at times, that each
> individual has an individual and a collective experiences and views and
> there own way of dealing with art-history. Art is complex dynamic of
> give and take, time and place, of history and no-history, a system that
> is in flux I don't know, really mostly I don't understand what makes
> me pause, but I do see art as something outside me (hmm sounds
> vague..)

I understand. And I agree with what you say, for the most part, Jacky. Also,
thanks for writing in English.

But, also, I think we easily surrender too much of art to something external
to ourselves. We impart more artistic power to the external than to
ourselves. One of the really interesting things I learned (or confirmed) in
computer science is that meaning is something we costruct. It isn't
available on a platter. We create it. Computers can parse language for
syntax easily. But not easily for semantics, for meaning. That involves
bringing a world view to bear on the language. Of course computers can sort
of do this now, but it is an extrordinarily rich process. Which isn't to say
that there is absolutely no meaning on the platter. But the degree to which
we construct it is high. Which is to say art is not simply to be absorbed
but, to an important extent, created and interpreted to be understood at
all. The act of really digging a work of art requires a creativity in
constructing the meaning at all. Also, it's usually a very ambiguous
process–that's why computers can't do it very well–so the 'meaning' can be
very different–though usually share common points–between people.

So, yes, it's sort of out there, external to us, but it is semi-meaningless
without creative, constructive perception and interpretation by others. Art
is irrelevant and a waste of time without creative apprehension. And when it
is creatively apprehended, it is not so much a case of 'message received' as
'creation in process'. though there's also some 'message received'.

> The current juried systems , would this be CC or Rhizome or some
> radical art group, interest me, more from the point of what kind of art
> is supported or not and through these choices understanding which
> criteria are underneath the selection. This understanding explains the
> political and social climate of different groups and countries.
>
> and Pall, for me what Jim said was not "bleedin' obvious" .

Message received?

I just got back from my first trip to Holland. Wow. Amsterdam and Haarlem
are fascinating.

ja
http://vispo.com