>I am pleased to invite you to answer the following question:
you're funny. i like you. this question seems absurd. and maybe
you really even mean it. but i wouldn't count that against you, even
if you did. in fact, it's good to be a little absurd.
in my book, labels are silly. hit your thumb with a hammer, and see
if the hammer exists. now try it with a label. labels just don't
exist. it's like watching a movie with 3d glasses and panicking
because you think something's really flying at you. sometimes brains
are suckers, don't buy everything they tell you.
>As a cultural operator (organizer, curator,...) and considering the
>notorious conditions of precariousness in which, often, you work,
oh, this is a fine apartment. i don't make a ton of money, but
plenty to pay the bills and then buy everything i want. and have
plenty of "play time" to work on the projects i like (which end up
being labelled "art". who cares though. no harm done)
>think that this service rendered to the community is a form of sacrifice
>(gift of oneself, offering, oblation...)?
everything's a sacrifice if you look at it that way. breathing is a
sacrifice. people can think they are walking down the street as
it's like going to church. is there really a god? does that god
care if you are in church? that's one perspective, but not a
particularly helpful one. instead ask what are the tangible results,
if i do or don't go to church? martyrdom is totally subjective, it
doesn't come from some external source. self-inflicted POV.
>In the affirmative, as a
>sacrificed do you see yourselves rather like a martyr or a holy monster
>(supernatural being at the same time benefic and malefic) ?"
if one did, seems like they're missing the point. if you aren't just
enjoying creating or giving it some intangible reason, there are
other problems to look into. deciding they are martyrs is some
completely separate paranoid psychosis, that they misdirect blame art
for. if anyone feels martyrdom, they would no matter what they
decided to do, curators or plumbers.
making the art and assembling it into concepts (curating) are really
the same mental activity. the difference is in making it you can do
something REAL in the physical world, with tangible results. In
assembling concepts, it never becomes real. though actually things
like hanging it are certainly real. it's like the difference between
watching that 3d movie and reflexively jerking your head when
something flies at you and getting up and running out of the theater
but people assume organization is a real thing? i don't count it.
(reading a great book by Steven Johnson, Emergence, who i think's at
NYU. so if anyone knows him, pass on my compliments. i love
Gordon's ants) But anything is organized or disorganized exactly to
the degree the observer comprehends it. (as in those ants, humans
juxtapose organization, ants don't design it). comprehend is active,
not a passive.
of course, there can be work involved in presenting that art.
there's a myth that judges still judge art on quality or merit or
aesthics, etc. but now that submissions have grown exponentially,
and funding has diminished, judges have a split second to determine
if they should really put their attention into your work. it's not
judgement, it's self-preservation of a finite attention spans. this
process is essentially one of the biggest reasons it's so difficult
to "work" your way up in the arts. why hype gets the most attention.
for those who believe they need to struggle, they can.
oddly, many feel compelled to endure this process, (perhaps because
they feel the need to help the "public"), yet continue to make work
that is either uncommunicative or even exclusionary to the public.
all too often artists make work for their "tormentors". the peers
and judges who are making this process so difficult for them. and
exclude the public they insist they are serving.
>Please send your answer :
>Image .jpg, .gif 72 dpi max 100 Kb
>Animation .swf, .dcr .gif max 1 Mb
>Music & video .mov max 1 Mbhttp://plasmastudii.org/arch/jack/jack.html