Re: Re: Re: Regarding The

Posted by Eryk Salvaggio | Mon Aug 8th 2005 10:33 p.m.

Hi Joe,

I would challenge the idea that there is no physical manifestation of even
the most purely conceptual art. If it can be recieved by another person,
then it has a medium. The only completely conceptual piece, then, is an idea
no one talks about.

It would seem to me that you're advocating language into a particular corner
here, with the idea that since words are the simplest and most direct form
of elucidation we have at our disposal, then we should use language for that
purpose, and art for purposes that extend beyond our linguistic landscape.
I'll say that's a choice, though it's not a choice I make. I feel that
whatever can be signified can be signified in an endless number of ways. You
can write a play or a song about the same ideas, and signify them in a whole
new way. But to dismantle or draw new connections between concepts is a real
challenge, and this can be done through a reinvention of them, which is the
role art plays in our brains.

After all, an art object is still signifying, it's a stand in for something
else, a representation of an emotion or idea or event. The idea of
conceptual art, to elicit the response from the thoughts it evokes, instead
of from an art object, is essentially the same thing once it gets behind our
eyeballs. Whether it's flowing to the amygdala or the cerebral cortex
depends more on the ideas within us already that are evoked by the piece, or
the idea. I have had emotional responses to conceptual art; I've had
intellectualized responses to physical art. Both are valid, and they are not
mutually exclusive.

It's clear you and I make different choices about what interests us, but I
just wanted to step up to the plate and put in a defense of the conceptual
side of things.

-e.

----- Original Message -----
From: <joenolan7@comcast.net>
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 9:04 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Regarding The

>I just received an email regarding Charlotte's article, my comments and
>Curt's additional support links.
>
> Please post your comments here as this is what these boards are for and
> it's more fun when we get to share. :)
>
> To put my comments above more succinctly, ideas are ultimately only
> capable of being broken down into smaller groups of words. The clearest
> way to elucidate various word-groups (ideas) is to use more words to
> attempt a further clarification.
>
> That is why I am not creating an animated gif here to explain this
> concept. A visual/sculptural/audio etc. "something" happening here would
> be ridiculous in place of this simple explanation of my "concept".
>
> When it comes to those things we can never clearly communicate (justice,
> love, the religious impulse etc) we turn to the arts as a higher form of
> communication than the mundanities of the 1=1 reasoning of facts that and
> the left brained prejudices that the advent of language (particularly
> phonetic alphabets and typography) created in our species.
>
> The root of "Philosophy"is "Philos", LOVE!
>
> The Philosophy of an Art that is purely "conceptual" is an intellectual
> mistake. It says more about onanistic ritual-in which the "realized"
> object becomes a fetish-than it does about the potency of the artist in
> his/her ability to move the viewer.
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> +
> -> 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
>
  • Geert Dekkers | Tue Aug 9th 2005 2:40 a.m.
    Hi

    I find this discussion extremely interesting -- and indeed I wish I
    could be a more eloquent speaker on the subject -- here goes anyway.

    I'll start with just a critique -- just to form my thoughts -- read
    between the lines, please

    Geert
    http://nznl.com

    On 9-aug-2005, at 6:33, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

    >
    > Hi Joe,
    >
    > I would challenge the idea that there is no physical manifestation
    > of even the most purely conceptual art. If it can be recieved by
    > another person, then it has a medium. The only completely
    > conceptual piece, then, is an idea no one talks about.

    And I'd say the "talking about it" is what makes a work of art
    culturally important -- think about how much is said about
    Michelangelo's David on a daily basis. You might retort that there
    could be important works that nobody talks about -- that would indeed
    mean that these works have conceptual, ie unrealised, importance.
    These works might not be talked about YET. Undiscovered. Or yet to be
    made.

    >
    > It would seem to me that you're advocating language into a
    > particular corner here, with the idea that since words are the
    > simplest and most direct form of elucidation we have at our
    > disposal, then we should use language for that purpose, and art for
    > purposes that extend beyond our linguistic landscape. I'll say
    > that's a choice, though it's not a choice I make. I feel that
    > whatever can be signified can be signified in an endless number of
    > ways. You can write a play or a song about the same ideas, and
    > signify them in a whole new way. But to dismantle or draw new
    > connections between concepts is a real challenge, and this can be
    > done through a reinvention of them, which is the role art plays in
    > our brains.
    >
    > After all, an art object is still signifying, it's a stand in for
    > something else, a representation of an emotion or idea or event.

    But that's the main issue, isn't it? How do we know that art is a
    representation? Language builds its own reality. Is there something
    out there, or is it just us, talking?

    > The idea of conceptual art, to elicit the response from the
    > thoughts it evokes, instead of from an art object, is essentially
    > the same thing once it gets behind our eyeballs. Whether it's
    > flowing to the amygdala or the cerebral cortex depends more on the
    > ideas within us already that are evoked by the piece, or the idea.
    > I have had emotional responses to conceptual art; I've had
    > intellectualized responses to physical art. Both are valid, and
    > they are not mutually exclusive.
    >
    > It's clear you and I make different choices about what interests
    > us, but I just wanted to step up to the plate and put in a defense
    > of the conceptual side of things.
    >
    > -e.
    >
    >
    >
    > ----- Original Message ----- From: <joenolan7@comcast.net>
    > To: <list@rhizome.org>
    > Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 9:04 PM
    > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Regarding The
    >
    >
    >
    >> I just received an email regarding Charlotte's article, my
    >> comments and Curt's additional support links.
    >>
    >> Please post your comments here as this is what these boards are
    >> for and it's more fun when we get to share. :)
    >>
    >> To put my comments above more succinctly, ideas are ultimately
    >> only capable of being broken down into smaller groups of words.
    >> The clearest way to elucidate various word-groups (ideas) is to
    >> use more words to attempt a further clarification.
    >>
    >> That is why I am not creating an animated gif here to explain this
    >> concept. A visual/sculptural/audio etc. "something" happening
    >> here would be ridiculous in place of this simple explanation of my
    >> "concept".
    >>
    >> When it comes to those things we can never clearly communicate
    >> (justice, love, the religious impulse etc) we turn to the arts as
    >> a higher form of communication than the mundanities of the 1=1
    >> reasoning of facts that and the left brained prejudices that the
    >> advent of language (particularly phonetic alphabets and
    >> typography) created in our species.
    >>
    >> The root of "Philosophy"is "Philos", LOVE!
    >>
    >> The Philosophy of an Art that is purely "conceptual" is an
    >> intellectual mistake. It says more about onanistic ritual-in which
    >> the "realized" object becomes a fetish-than it does about the
    >> potency of the artist in his/her ability to move the viewer.
    >>
    >> Joe
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> +
    >> -> 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
    >>
    >
    > +
    > -> 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
    >
  • M. River | Wed Aug 10th 2005 10:42 a.m.
    >curt cloninger wrote:

    > Joe Nolan wrote:

    Truman Capote wrote:

    It must have been the spring of 1950 or 1951, since I have lost my notebooks detailing those two years. It was a warm day late in February, which is high spring in Sicily, and I was talking to a very old man with a mongolian face who was wearing a black velvet Borsalino and, disregarding the balmy, almond-blossom-scented weather, a thick black cape.

    The old man was Andre Gide, and we were seated together on a sea wall overlooking shifting fire-blue depths of ancient water.

    The postman passed by. A friend of mine, he handed me several letters, one of them containing a literary article rather unfriendly toward me (had it been friendly, of course no one would of sent it).

    After listening to me grouse a bit about the piece, and the unwholesome nature of the critical mind in general, the great French master hunched, lowered his shoulders like a wise old . . . shall we say buzzard?, and said, "Ah, well. Keep in mind an Arab proverb: 'The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.'
  • curt cloninger | Wed Aug 10th 2005 12:19 p.m.
    Or, "the rabid coyotes encroach as the caravan is forced to circle the wagons and chase its own tail in a self-referential ouroboros/mobius strip of rapidly decreasing relevance."

    meow,
    curt

    -

    M. River wrote:

    > >curt cloninger wrote:
    >
    > > Joe Nolan wrote:
    >
    >
    > Truman Capote wrote:
    >
    > It must have been the spring of 1950 or 1951, since I have lost my
    > notebooks detailing those two years. It was a warm day late in
    > February, which is high spring in Sicily, and I was talking to a very
    > old man with a mongolian face who was wearing a black velvet Borsalino
    > and, disregarding the balmy, almond-blossom-scented weather, a thick
    > black cape.
    >
    > The old man was Andre Gide, and we were seated together on a sea wall
    > overlooking shifting fire-blue depths of ancient water.
    >
    > The postman passed by. A friend of mine, he handed me several letters,
    > one of them containing a literary article rather unfriendly toward me
    > (had it been friendly, of course no one would of sent it).
    >
    > After listening to me grouse a bit about the piece, and the
    > unwholesome nature of the critical mind in general, the great French
    > master hunched, lowered his shoulders like a wise old . . . shall we
    > say buzzard?, and said, "Ah, well. Keep in mind an Arab proverb: 'The
    > dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.'
  • Rob Myers | Wed Aug 10th 2005 12:49 p.m.
    In this scenario the paradigmatic artist is Road Runner. Or possibly
    the Mynah Bird.

    - Rob.

    On 10 Aug 2005, at 19:19, curt cloninger wrote:

    > Or, "the rabid coyotes encroach as the caravan is forced to circle
    > the wagons and chase its own tail in a self-referential ouroboros/
    > mobius strip of rapidly decreasing relevance.
Your Reply