Thank you for responding...
I find your questions challenging and it helps to me keep on my toes.
Here's a reference:
'Virtually all organizations known to you work largely by means of your
greed. They attract you because what they say or do appeals to your
greed. This is concealed only by their appearance. If you stop listening
to their words and look at the effect, you will soon see it'.
Idris Shah. Learning how to Learn.
> It is an interesting essay in many ways. Let me start a discussion here.
> I must assume that your use of the term "deconstruct" is not Derridean.
> are using it to mean "destruct," "undermine", or "subvert." You are not
> using it to mean "decenter," for otherwise it would not make sense. So
> assuming this is what you mean. I continue.
Your definition of deconstruction is a literary one, not one that relates to
conscious. Meaning that language has nuances that fit into many cavities,
necessarily txt book based representations.
I feel that the way that you see things, is not specifically fully informed
your own mind. Now, this is not to say that you do not know what you are
- you do. But a lot of what you say is backed up by reference, it does not
be coming from your own the heart. I also feel that we will probably not
meet on a
middle ground - for where I am coming from there are not many accepted
like Derrida, to help me out of a fix. But for this txt, I am going to
question my own
method and use references, thus enhancing our complex communication. For it
is complexities that form energy, and realization occurs once we see
clearly once we emerge out of complexity.
> The central criticism of your essay is towards the structure of the art
> world; institutions such as museums, galleries, artistic funds, and online
> venues (such as turbulence.org
) as structural centers and artists as their
> elements. Here you are proposing to decenter (or deconstruct) this
> (though you do not use the term "deconstruct" in this context.). My first
> question is that in our past discussion, you have stated:
> "Deconstruction is such a bad doctor, as a tool it slices through the body
> to reveal guts and then cannot put the body back together again, leaving
> to fall apart, like an old car body part."
> But in your latest essay, you are suggesting to deconstruct the structure
> the art world (in Derridean sense of the term).
No way am I dissing anyone - and especially not Turbulence.org
or Alex - in
fact I have been visiting their site quite a lot, its kool.
You need to remember here Dyske, that one might be in the Army because you
love certain things about it, but this does not mean that you have to agree
its rules or ideas. We are all in the human race together, the same goes for
art arena to some degree, just because I have questions about it does not
that I do wish to be part of it - that kind of simplistic 'side-taking' is
I am on everybody's side here really and wish everyone well, I bear no
against them, I am not like that.
Life's full of shadows and perspectives, it's not about sitting on one side
fence, the kind of 'You are either with us or against us' nonsense. I am
change things but I am also here to be changed. And you may contribute in
We are all hypocrites to a point, who isn't? For me, life is not about
picking a team
and saying I'm on their side. We are all dealing with various tugging
or multi-chotomies, which ask very strong questions in relation to our
motives. I cannot get by in the world on my own, I need you to reflect back
my failings and successes, so I can grow. And this goes the same for
who frequents this list, some may admit, some may not. I admit it...
The problem with Art becoming official - is that it always has to have a
it can't just be there like having a piss. It's like this has got to fit
there, and that has
to fit here. Too much time is spent on space filling. Sometimes it's ok to
unsure till something comes along that seems appropriate.
> However, a deeper reading of your essay reveals that what you are
> may not be deconstruction of the art world at all. What you are suggesting
> towards the end of your essay is not to deconstruct, but simply to use the
> same structure, but in what you perceive to be a better (or fairer) way of
> using the structure. What you criticize is not the structure of the
> say "A", determining the worth of the artist, "B", but "A" deciding the
> worth of "B" to be more than "C". In this sense, you are not
> at all. You are simply frustrated that certain works of art you deem to be
> better are being ignored by the structure. And, your criteria for making
> piece of art better is the existence of "narrative", or discourse with the
> audience. (Correct me if I'm wrong here.)
Now, here you are closer - but also further away at the same time. Your use
of the accepted notion of deconstruction, thus literary; skews my reasoning.
My standards inform me that I must adapt accordingly via intuitive process.
Perhaps, some institutional dudes will see me via cliche protocols as a
whining artist'. That presumption will deny them the ability to understand
real essence of where I am coming from, as an artist and a human being. By
being openly vulnerable - I declare my ideas and thoughts around a subject
as best I can, hopefully with mutual sensibilities.
I remember hearing about a woman on the radio and her husband who used t
o beat her. The authorities asked her 'why did he beat you?' She said 'he
that he hated me nagging him all the time'. They said 'did you nag him? hum
of the time?' The woman was probably questioning her spouse or husband on
why does he always spend all the families money at the pub, so he hit her.
In a sense I ma asking people to suggest alternative vistas on how we could
operate. No way do I have even 10% of the answers but I know that we can do
better and others can do better.
I also have nothing against applying for funding. Although 'furtherfield',
the other way round first. We did not apply for funding because we got a lot
negative responses due to us harboring transgressive art on the site with
much sex on it, and at the time - funding bodies were obsessed with
and children being apart of them. So we were seen as offensive. So instead,
started a web design business, and offered educational resources to teach
stuff using a business name, this got us cash to do what we wanted to do.
getting staff who had not had experience of web design but a passion to
working with 'strange' people like ourselves, we then paid wages once they
building and designing web sites and teaching themselves. To this day we
one paid member of furtherfield, and it is not us, it is Matt, who we love
I used to earn money by working in homeless hostels, then working in
resource center's for the homeless, teaching them all kinds of applications.
applying for funding - getting them paid intern situations in working
of their choice. I did this for about 9 years, and learnt an amazing amount
humans, and how vulnerable we all really are. And that institutions do not
for people's emotional needs. Now I teach dissertation to students, and
still do not
earn anything from furtherfield, and neither does Ruth. And we vowed years
if anyone wanted to have work furtherfield on who did not know how to make a
site that we would either show them how to, or do it for them. Also, Our
choosing, has consciously been from an angle of not creating competitions.
invite people on to furtherfield mainly, look at people's work. They do not
need a CV,
or had to have gone to college, or have references, if we like the work,
do. It's not perfect but it works for us and those who use furtherfield,
only had one
complaint, and that was because I said I would get someone an interview and
too long getting it arranged for them.
We've always tried to work our way around brick walls, now we collaborate
other artists/people and apply for funding but on our terms. What I am
is something that is actually much more of an attitude shift regarding art
communication. Forget about looking at language, look at ways around
That creates change...
best - marc