sample of our trivial existence

Posted by Plasma Studii | Wed Aug 17th 2005 3:12 p.m.

so i have a question, mostly for eryk, but welcome any opinions out there.

why would anyone continue to subscribe to the idea that triviality = bad, while broadening
the qualifications for things like aretistic merit? hence, the value of trivial things (i seem to
remember a mention a while ago of a found red mitten) have equal value as (for example)
desmoiselles d'avignon.

rather than broaden the good/bad dichotomy, many seek to broaden the definition of
whatever seems important. if "art" is important, claim all things are equally artistic and thus
equally important. (not that "art" is the only nebulous term, but a pretty ubiquitous one)
certainly the labels "computer art", "web art", "net art","digital" popularly obscure the real
things they refer to, such that no one agrees on any logical definition.

what's wrong with saying trivial is fine. despite the superlatives in marketing like movie ads
and artistic statements, most things are actually trivial. i like trivial things, i am lucky to have
a chance to make them. trivial things certainly don't have to equal malevolence, like hitting
somebody on the head. they also don't have to be phenominal Michaelangelo masterpieces
to be enjoyed. in fact, why would there be anything wrong with enjoying the trivial more
than the phenominal?

what's wrong with saying you can like a rothko, but not equate it with a monet? (with a
rothko, the artist is making their statement as a responce to an event, after the fact. with a
monet, the event is a responce to the artist. the statement, after the fact, is an unessential
addition to something else. a person could easily just say i like the statementy stuff, without
saying it has as much to offer, or arguing that a 4-year-old could NOT do that.

rather than argue 4-year olds make neat things, but of no great artistic merit. liking things
of no great artistic merit is fine. but the popular art argument is to say "if a 4-year-old can,
their works must be genius." (the unspoken way of saying, call everything equal, rather than
alloow mediocrity to be acceptable.)

___________________
PLASMA STUDII
501(c)(3) non-profit
stage * galleries * web
POI Box 1086
Cathedral Station
New York, NY 10025
http://plasmastudii.org
  • Eric Dymond | Fri Aug 19th 2005 9:12 p.m.
    Plasma Studii wrote:
    > what's wrong with saying trivial is fine. despite the superlatives in
    > marketing like movie ads
    > and artistic statements, most things are actually trivial. i like
    > trivial things, i am lucky to have
    > a chance to make them.

    I don't see a problem with producing trivial things. We make trivial decisions all our lives, and sometimes live painfully by their outcome.
    But when you say trivial is the antithesis of well marketed media hype, then I have to complain.
    If you meant vernacular( I know it sounds like I'm splitting hairs, but there's a big difference) then i can agree with all the derivative metaphorical content of your posting. Stephen Shore deals beautifully wiht the vernacular, but it's not trivial, yet it isn't part of the mass media either.
    We can derive pleasure from many things, but if saying "I like it" doesn't lead to discourse, it's still a good statement, but hard to pursue in a discussion.
    But I think, the transition from vernacular to the trivial is a
    big one.
    Eric
Your Reply