Re: Conceptual Art

Eryck,

Clearly we disagree, but I appreciate your eloquence and interesting comments.

Joe :)

Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

> Joe and Curt,
>
> Might I take a stance in defense of conceptual art?
>
> One of the ways art is most interesting to me is when it exposes a
> new
> possibility, reframes an old problem, or explores limitations of
> current
> ways of thinking. This is why new media is fascinating to me- even if
> it is,
> for example, the concept of blogging, podcasting, etc that excite me
> for the
> sake of its possibilities, these do lead to a tangible reframing of
> ideas
> about access, distribution, and waking up creative potentials in
> people that
> might otherwise rest unstirred. Whether I ever hear a podcast that
> blows me
> away is almost irrelevant to the benefits of the technology simply
> existing.
>
> How we think about the world, and the words and concepts that we use
> to
> describe a world to ourselves, are what define us, probably more than
> the
> world itself manages to define us. Conceptual art is a means of
> breaking out
> of boxes and exploring different ways of doing things (and a lot of it
> is
> deliberately engaged in violating the rules of language itself as a
> means of
> exploring the limitation of language itself. An idea is not always, as
> you
> say, "a collection of words"). Like any other art, some of it will
> resonate
> and some will not. But I have never really been comfortable with the
> segregation of "forms" of creative thought. If a piece of software
> comes
> along that radically changes my way of thinking about the world, it is
> about
> the same to me as if a new piece of art comes along that radically
> changes
> my way of thinking about the world. If that piece of art is, say,
> something
> Jenny Holzer writes with LED lights, I don't believe it is separate
> from if
> she said it to me in person.
>
> Artistry is fast losing its definition as a skill set; technology is
> going
> to make sure of it. As that opens up the creative process, ideas are
> going
> to grow far more important than the technical execution of an idea.
> It's not
> about the quality of the art, it's about the quality of the
> articulation.
> Consider, for example, what spellcheck has done for an entire
> generation of
> grammatically challenged poets. It isn't very difficult to imagine a
> computer program that will automatically replace your word with a word
> that
> helps your stanza fit into the template of a sestina, for example, and
> at
> the click of a button make suggestions for changing it to a ballad. (A
> more
> practical example is the notion of audio tracking software that allows
> for
> an entire genre of popular music to be made by individuals without any
> idea
> of how to play an "actual" instrument). As technology accelerates the
> number
> of radio producers, musicians, film makers, magazine publishers, and
> artists, the tangible output is going to be secondary to the concept
> driving
> it. In other words, if anyone can make anything with the tap of their
> finger, then the idea of what they make, and the fact that they have
> articulated it, will be far more important than the process of how it
> was
> made.
>
> I've read Curt using, specifically, the example of Michael
> Mandiberg's
> "After Sherri Levine": Walker Evans takes photographs of share
> croppers in
> 1936, Sherri Levine, in 79, takes pictures of the pictures and puts
> them on
> line. Mandiberg, in 2001, scans Evans' originals, and puts them on
> line,
> then scans Levine's pictures of those pictures and puts them on line,
> elsewhere. Curt says the work is poor because it couldn't exist
> without an
> artists statement- and that, therefore, the artists statement is the
> piece.
> The artists statement is always an explanation of history and context.
> But
> Mandiberg's artist's statement is a history and a context, of art, and
> how
> we re-evaluate art as technology changes our interactions with the
> world.
> "After Sherri Levine" makes a point that strikes a nerve; but also
> crackles
> the synapses as it makes new connections between ideas.
>
> It is not exactly a moving piece of emotional art, a call to arms, a
> protest
> piece, or anything of the sort. But it does say something interesting
> in an
> interesting way- and saying something interesting is about all any of
> us
> with access to the right technology will need to know how to do.
>
> Two Cents,
> -e.
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From:
> To:
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 3:43 PM
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Regarding The "Anti-Nike"
>
>
> >A friend of mine just sent me a link to Charlotte's front page
> rant/spoof
> >regarding flooding the meme-way with concepts alone instead of
> "realized"
> >conceptual art. Although this is obviously a fun/tongue in cheek
> call to
> >arms, in many ways I think this is a fundamental critique of
> "conceptual
> >art" and a pointed observation of it's fundamental flaws.
> >
> > I invite you to continue reading a section of a recent blog from my
> > website (www.joenolan.com) in which I address the same subject more
> > directly.
> >
> > Thanks and enjoy!
> >
> > Joe Nolan
> >
> >
> > I have been finishing up a series of drawings that I hope to include
> in a
> > book of poetry that will be available some time this summer
> (hopefully).
> > They are "self portraits" and also religious iconography. Those of
> you who
> > are familiar with my other my work know that I feel that "All Art
> is
> > Martial Art". Which is to say, the elements that create the
> successful
> > martial moment are the same ones that create successful art.
> >
> > These elements are: 1) confrontation, 2) impact and 3) movement.
> >
> > Anyone who is familiar with the visual work I have done in the past
> knows
> > that it is my contention that "art" is best employed to express that
> which
> > is beyond the bounds of language. In this sense I reject all
> "conceptual
> > art" out of hand as an intellectual conceit and an ignorant
> > miscalculation.
> >
> > A concept is an idea. An idea is a collection of words. A collection
> of
> > words is most simply (i.e. most elegantly and therefore most
> beautifully
> > and therefore most artistically successful)conveyed by…wait for
> > it…more words!
> >
> > Please just write me the essay you are going to have to post in the
> > gallery anyway to explain your faulty efforts.
> >
> > Because of my understanding of "art" as the language that is beyond
> > language, in my opinion it is most effectively applied to those
> concerns
> > that elude our clumsy mouthings: emotions, impulses etc. Being
> somewhat
> > over-the-top as an artist and a person I, naturally, tend to push
> this to
> > it's logical conclusion and concern myself with the ultimate
> > "unspeakable": God and man's impulse toward the transcendent.
> >
> > +
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> 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
> >
>