the unrepublic of art

Posted by Jim Andrews | Thu May 31st 2007 10:07 a.m.

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
  • Pall Thayer | Thu May 31st 2007 10:19 a.m.
    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 | Thu May 31st 2007 2:53 p.m.
    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 | Fri Jun 1st 2007 9:48 a.m.
    Come on, you guys can do better than this!!!
    b b b b b b boring
  • Pall Thayer | Fri Jun 1st 2007 10:23 a.m.
    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 | Fri Jun 1st 2007 12:06 p.m.
    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 | Fri Jun 1st 2007 8:21 p.m.
    > 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 | Sat Jun 2nd 2007 10:27 a.m.
    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 | Sat Jun 2nd 2007 11:41 a.m.
    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 | Sat Jun 2nd 2007 12:13 p.m.
    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 | Sat Jun 2nd 2007 6:45 p.m.
    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 | Sun Jun 3rd 2007 12:10 p.m.
    > 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 | Sun Jun 3rd 2007 6:38 p.m.
    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 | Sun Jun 3rd 2007 11:08 p.m.
    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 | Mon Jun 4th 2007 10:38 a.m.
    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 | Tue Jun 5th 2007 3:51 a.m.
    > 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
Your Reply