I promise...

Posted by M. River | Mon Jul 14th 2003 9:08 p.m.

http://tinjail.com/promise.html

=====
http://mteww.com
http://tinjail.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
  • MTAA | Mon Jul 14th 2003 10:05 p.m.
    On Monday, July 14, 2003, at 08:08 PM, Mark River wrote:

    > http://tinjail.com/promise.html

    i think 15, 16, 18 and 32 are very relevant.

    Sentences on Conceptual Art

    by Sol Lewitt

    1. Conceptual artists are mystics rather than rationalists. They leap
    to conclusions that logic cannot reach.
    2. Rational judgements repeat rational judgements.
    3. Irrational judgements lead to new experience.
    4. Formal art is essentially rational.
    5. Irrational thoughts should be followed absolutely and logically.
    6. If the artist changes his mind midway through the execution of the
    piece he compromises the result and repeats past results.
    7. The artist's will is secondary to the process he initiates from idea
    to completion. His wilfulness may only be ego.
    8. When words such as painting and sculpture are used, they connote a
    whole tradition and imply a consequent acceptance of this tradition,
    thus placing limitations on the artist who would be reluctant to make
    art that goes beyond the limitations.
    9. The concept and idea are different. The former implies a general
    direction while the latter is the component. Ideas implement the
    concept.
    10. Ideas can be works of art; they are in a chain of development that
    may eventually find some form. All ideas need not be made physical.
    11. Ideas do not necessarily proceed in logical order. They may set one
    off in unexpected directions, but an idea must necessarily be completed
    in the mind before the next one is formed.
    12. For each work of art that becomes physical there are many
    variations that do not.
    13. A work of art may be understood as a conductor from the artist's
    mind to the viewer's. But it may never reach the viewer, or it may
    never leave the artist's mind.
    14. The words of one artist to another may induce an idea chain, if
    they share the same concept.
    15. Since no form is intrinsically superior to another, the artist may
    use any form, from an expression of words (written or spoken) to
    physical reality, equally.
    16. If words are used, and they proceed from ideas about art, then they
    are art and not literature; numbers are not mathematics.
    17. All ideas are art if they are concerned with art and fall within
    the conventions of art.
    18. One usually understands the art of the past by applying the
    convention of the present, thus misunderstanding the art of the past.
    19. The conventions of art are altered by works of art.
    20. Successful art changes our understanding of the conventions by
    altering our perceptions.
    21. Perception of ideas leads to new ideas.
    22. The artist cannot imagine his art, and cannot perceive it until it
    is complete.
    23. The artist may misperceive (understand it differently from the
    artist) a work of art but still be set off in his own chain of thought
    by that misconstrual.
    24. Perception is subjective.
    25. The artist may not necessarily understand his own art. His
    perception is neither better nor worse than that of others.
    26. An artist may perceive the art of others better than his own.
    27. The concept of a work of art may involve the matter of the piece or
    the process in which it is made.
    28. Once the idea of the piece is established in the artist's mind and
    the final form is decided, the process is carried out blindly. There
    are many side effects that the artist cannot imagine. These may be used
    as ideas for new works.
    29. The process is mechanical and should not be tampered with. It
    should run its course.
    30. There are many elements involved in a work of art. The most
    important are the most obvious.
    31. If an artist uses the same form in a group of works, and changes
    the material, one would assume the artist's concept involved the
    material.
    32. Banal ideas cannot be rescued by beautiful execution.
    33. It is difficult to bungle a good idea.
    34. When an artist learns his craft too well he makes slick art.
    35. These sentences comment on art, but are not art.

    First published in 0-9 (New York), 1969, and Art-Language (England),
    May 1969
    --
    <t.whid>
    www.mteww.com
    </t.whid>
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Tue Jul 15th 2003 5:19 a.m.
    Sentences On Art

    1. Mystics are rationalists rather than conceptual artists. They leap to
    logic that conclusions cannot reach.
    2. Repeat judgements rationalize judgements.
    3. Irrational judgements arrive at repetition.
    4. Logically irrational thoughts should be followed absolutely.
    5. If the artist changes his piece midway through the execution of his mind
    he compromises the result and repeats the past results.
    6. The artists ego is secondary to the process he initiates from the idea of
    will.
    7. When words such as painting and sculpture are used, they connote a whole
    tradition and imply a consequent acceptance of this tradition, thus placing
    limitations on the artist who would be reluctant to make art that goes
    beyond the artist.
    8. The concept and the idea are different. The former implies a component
    while the latter is the general direction. Ideas are a concept.
    9. Ideas can be works of art; they are in a chain of development that may
    eventually find some form. All ideas need not be made physical.
    10. One usually understands the art of the present by applying the
    convention of the past, thus misunderstanding the art of the present and the
    past.
    11. Beautiful ideas cannot be rescued by banal execution.
    12. It is very, very easy to bungle a good idea.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>
    To: <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 9:02 PM
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: I promise...

    >
    > On Monday, July 14, 2003, at 08:08 PM, Mark River wrote:
    >
    > > http://tinjail.com/promise.html
    >
    > i think 15, 16, 18 and 32 are very relevant.
    >
    > Sentences on Conceptual Art
    >
    > by Sol Lewitt
    >
    > 1. Conceptual artists are mystics rather than rationalists. They leap
    > to conclusions that logic cannot reach.
    > 2. Rational judgements repeat rational judgements.
    > 3. Irrational judgements lead to new experience.
    > 4. Formal art is essentially rational.
    > 5. Irrational thoughts should be followed absolutely and logically.
    > 6. If the artist changes his mind midway through the execution of the
    > piece he compromises the result and repeats past results.
    > 7. The artist's will is secondary to the process he initiates from idea
    > to completion. His wilfulness may only be ego.
    > 8. When words such as painting and sculpture are used, they connote a
    > whole tradition and imply a consequent acceptance of this tradition,
    > thus placing limitations on the artist who would be reluctant to make
    > art that goes beyond the limitations.
    > 9. The concept and idea are different. The former implies a general
    > direction while the latter is the component. Ideas implement the
    > concept.
    > 10. Ideas can be works of art; they are in a chain of development that
    > may eventually find some form. All ideas need not be made physical.
    > 11. Ideas do not necessarily proceed in logical order. They may set one
    > off in unexpected directions, but an idea must necessarily be completed
    > in the mind before the next one is formed.
    > 12. For each work of art that becomes physical there are many
    > variations that do not.
    > 13. A work of art may be understood as a conductor from the artist's
    > mind to the viewer's. But it may never reach the viewer, or it may
    > never leave the artist's mind.
    > 14. The words of one artist to another may induce an idea chain, if
    > they share the same concept.
    > 15. Since no form is intrinsically superior to another, the artist may
    > use any form, from an expression of words (written or spoken) to
    > physical reality, equally.
    > 16. If words are used, and they proceed from ideas about art, then they
    > are art and not literature; numbers are not mathematics.
    > 17. All ideas are art if they are concerned with art and fall within
    > the conventions of art.
    > 18. One usually understands the art of the past by applying the
    > convention of the present, thus misunderstanding the art of the past.
    > 19. The conventions of art are altered by works of art.
    > 20. Successful art changes our understanding of the conventions by
    > altering our perceptions.
    > 21. Perception of ideas leads to new ideas.
    > 22. The artist cannot imagine his art, and cannot perceive it until it
    > is complete.
    > 23. The artist may misperceive (understand it differently from the
    > artist) a work of art but still be set off in his own chain of thought
    > by that misconstrual.
    > 24. Perception is subjective.
    > 25. The artist may not necessarily understand his own art. His
    > perception is neither better nor worse than that of others.
    > 26. An artist may perceive the art of others better than his own.
    > 27. The concept of a work of art may involve the matter of the piece or
    > the process in which it is made.
    > 28. Once the idea of the piece is established in the artist's mind and
    > the final form is decided, the process is carried out blindly. There
    > are many side effects that the artist cannot imagine. These may be used
    > as ideas for new works.
    > 29. The process is mechanical and should not be tampered with. It
    > should run its course.
    > 30. There are many elements involved in a work of art. The most
    > important are the most obvious.
    > 31. If an artist uses the same form in a group of works, and changes
    > the material, one would assume the artist's concept involved the
    > material.
    > 32. Banal ideas cannot be rescued by beautiful execution.
    > 33. It is difficult to bungle a good idea.
    > 34. When an artist learns his craft too well he makes slick art.
    > 35. These sentences comment on art, but are not art.
    >
    >
    > First published in 0-9 (New York), 1969, and Art-Language (England),
    > May 1969
    > --
    > <t.whid>
    > www.mteww.com
    > </t.whid>
    >
    > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
    > -> 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
    >
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Tue Jul 15th 2003 5:24 a.m.
    My most recent grant rejection was almost entirely conceptual art. It has
    proven to me: Conceptual art is not a good foundation for a grant
    application.

    As a conceptual artist, could I write a proposal to a grant committee that
    says my piece is based on thier rejection of my application, and that
    payment is to be expected in full if they reject said application? They
    would then have no choice but to accept, and pay me anyway. It may be weak
    ideologically, but it might just get me paid, and I owe money on a new
    Hyundai.

    Ultimately, this is the value of performance art, yeah?

    -e.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>
    To: <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 9:02 PM
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: I promise...

    >
    > On Monday, July 14, 2003, at 08:08 PM, Mark River wrote:
    >
    > > http://tinjail.com/promise.html
    >
    > i think 15, 16, 18 and 32 are very relevant.
    >
    > Sentences on Conceptual Art
    >
    > by Sol Lewitt
    >
    > 1. Conceptual artists are mystics rather than rationalists. They leap
    > to conclusions that logic cannot reach.
    > 2. Rational judgements repeat rational judgements.
    > 3. Irrational judgements lead to new experience.
    > 4. Formal art is essentially rational.
    > 5. Irrational thoughts should be followed absolutely and logically.
    > 6. If the artist changes his mind midway through the execution of the
    > piece he compromises the result and repeats past results.
    > 7. The artist's will is secondary to the process he initiates from idea
    > to completion. His wilfulness may only be ego.
    > 8. When words such as painting and sculpture are used, they connote a
    > whole tradition and imply a consequent acceptance of this tradition,
    > thus placing limitations on the artist who would be reluctant to make
    > art that goes beyond the limitations.
    > 9. The concept and idea are different. The former implies a general
    > direction while the latter is the component. Ideas implement the
    > concept.
    > 10. Ideas can be works of art; they are in a chain of development that
    > may eventually find some form. All ideas need not be made physical.
    > 11. Ideas do not necessarily proceed in logical order. They may set one
    > off in unexpected directions, but an idea must necessarily be completed
    > in the mind before the next one is formed.
    > 12. For each work of art that becomes physical there are many
    > variations that do not.
    > 13. A work of art may be understood as a conductor from the artist's
    > mind to the viewer's. But it may never reach the viewer, or it may
    > never leave the artist's mind.
    > 14. The words of one artist to another may induce an idea chain, if
    > they share the same concept.
    > 15. Since no form is intrinsically superior to another, the artist may
    > use any form, from an expression of words (written or spoken) to
    > physical reality, equally.
    > 16. If words are used, and they proceed from ideas about art, then they
    > are art and not literature; numbers are not mathematics.
    > 17. All ideas are art if they are concerned with art and fall within
    > the conventions of art.
    > 18. One usually understands the art of the past by applying the
    > convention of the present, thus misunderstanding the art of the past.
    > 19. The conventions of art are altered by works of art.
    > 20. Successful art changes our understanding of the conventions by
    > altering our perceptions.
    > 21. Perception of ideas leads to new ideas.
    > 22. The artist cannot imagine his art, and cannot perceive it until it
    > is complete.
    > 23. The artist may misperceive (understand it differently from the
    > artist) a work of art but still be set off in his own chain of thought
    > by that misconstrual.
    > 24. Perception is subjective.
    > 25. The artist may not necessarily understand his own art. His
    > perception is neither better nor worse than that of others.
    > 26. An artist may perceive the art of others better than his own.
    > 27. The concept of a work of art may involve the matter of the piece or
    > the process in which it is made.
    > 28. Once the idea of the piece is established in the artist's mind and
    > the final form is decided, the process is carried out blindly. There
    > are many side effects that the artist cannot imagine. These may be used
    > as ideas for new works.
    > 29. The process is mechanical and should not be tampered with. It
    > should run its course.
    > 30. There are many elements involved in a work of art. The most
    > important are the most obvious.
    > 31. If an artist uses the same form in a group of works, and changes
    > the material, one would assume the artist's concept involved the
    > material.
    > 32. Banal ideas cannot be rescued by beautiful execution.
    > 33. It is difficult to bungle a good idea.
    > 34. When an artist learns his craft too well he makes slick art.
    > 35. These sentences comment on art, but are not art.
    >
    >
    > First published in 0-9 (New York), 1969, and Art-Language (England),
    > May 1969
    > --
    > <t.whid>
    > www.mteww.com
    > </t.whid>
    >
    > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
    > -> 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
    >
  • Michael Szpakowski | Tue Jul 15th 2003 9:55 a.m.
    I love lists and it's a great list.
    Some of it I really agree with and some not, but I
    feel that way about Eryk's counter list too.
    What occured to me after reading Eryk's account of the
    faiure of his 'conceptual' application is that maybe
    there is a real cultural gap here between the UK and
    the US -I suspect that the conceptual is not only not
    a disadvantage here but that it's difficult to be
    taken at all seriously without a nod in its direction,
    given the hegemony of the YBAs, Saatchi and Serota.
    On another note I got my MTAA postcard yesterday and I
    think it's a really good piece.
    There's a great, almost "koan" like, quality to the
    thing which sets up all sorts of interesting
    reverberations in the mind, plus the postcard (and
    presumably the artwork) evidence a great deal of care
    and attention (craft) which reinforce the
    aforementioned resonances.
    The piece leaves a real and lasting dent in the mind,
    not only intellectually but affectively also.
    best
    michael

    --- Mark River <mriver102@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > http://tinjail.com/promise.html
    >
    > =====
    > http://mteww.com
    > http://tinjail.com
    >
    > __________________________________
    > Do you Yahoo!?
    > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
    > http://sbc.yahoo.com
    > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
    > -> 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

    =====
    **DISCLAIMER:
    Roth and Walker the joy of the anthem of Carletta to the edible one.
    East of Wind. Phillips, Gordon. A painting.
    Song of the Chorrito of Lewis Lacook. It is a strange song.
    Woodland of Teratology. Does Bruce Conkle study the legend of Sasquatch?
    Finally the young Salvaggio d'Eryk - a surrealista world where George Washington, a fox and a hen, a MUSE, fight in imaginary loneliness - a game.
    District Postmaster: http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/5operas.html **

    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
    http://search.yahoo.com
  • MTAA | Tue Jul 15th 2003 10:44 a.m.
    >My most recent grant rejection was almost entirely conceptual art. It has
    >proven to me: Conceptual art is not a good foundation for a grant
    >application.
    >

    MTAA hasn't quite figured that one out yet.

    >As a conceptual artist, could I write a proposal to a grant committee that
    >says my piece is based on thier rejection of my application, and that
    >payment is to be expected in full if they reject said application? They
    >would then have no choice but to accept, and pay me anyway. It may be weak
    >ideologically, but it might just get me paid, and I owe money on a new
    >Hyundai.
    >
    >Ultimately, this is the value of performance art, yeah?

    i'm not sure i know what you mean...

    the ultimate value of performance art is getting paid?

    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • curt cloninger | Tue Jul 15th 2003 12:15 p.m.
    Your grant application itself could constitute your conceptual art.
    The application spells out your concept, after all. And "words that
    proceed from ideas about art are art," as the man says. Why then
    would they need to fund something that's already been handed to them
    gratis? Problem solved.

    ___

    Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

    >
    >
    > My most recent grant rejection was almost entirely conceptual art. It
    > has
    > proven to me: Conceptual art is not a good foundation for a grant
    > application.
    >
    > As a conceptual artist, could I write a proposal to a grant committee
    > that
    > says my piece is based on thier rejection of my application, and that
    > payment is to be expected in full if they reject said application?
    > They
    > would then have no choice but to accept, and pay me anyway. It may be
    > weak
    > ideologically, but it might just get me paid, and I owe money on a new
    > Hyundai.
    >
    > Ultimately, this is the value of performance art, yeah?
  • christopher otto | Tue Jul 15th 2003 12:20 p.m.
    good idea i tried it with "financial pop" a few months ago someone offered me a cheque for $20 which isnt so bad.

    i think alot of sol lewitt's list is great, and also break some of the pre-conceptions often aired about it. i think what is often described as conceptual art is more aptly shown in robert irwin's "notes on a conditional art" which reads very differently, almost like tractaco logico philosophicus by wittgenstein but based on form. i've said this before i think, and lewitt's text adds to this, that conceptual art is as much punk rock as it is academic.

    michaels point about london has alot of validity. los angeles has a similar vibe too.

    i am all for the return of hardcore conceptual art! i've had similar problems as Eryk in terms of grants though. especially in terms of speaking i get conceptually based projects accepted though the travel costs involved are often more than i want to spend [ though less than another year at art school i guess:)].

    lately i have felt that some shows have been cropping up around here ["trespassers" at www.lyonswiergallery.com is one example] that are very conceptually based. also MTAA's new show sounded excellent from the postcard how did it go?

    t.whid wrote:

    > >My most recent grant rejection was almost entirely conceptual art. It
    > has
    > >proven to me: Conceptual art is not a good foundation for a grant
    > >application.
    > >
    >
    > MTAA hasn't quite figured that one out yet.
    >
    > >As a conceptual artist, could I write a proposal to a grant committee
    > that
    > >says my piece is based on thier rejection of my application, and that
    > >payment is to be expected in full if they reject said application?
    > They
    > >would then have no choice but to accept, and pay me anyway. It may be
    > weak
    > >ideologically, but it might just get me paid, and I owe money on a
    > new
    > >Hyundai.
    > >
    > >Ultimately, this is the value of performance art, yeah?
    >
    >
    > i'm not sure i know what you mean...
    >
    > the ultimate value of performance art is getting paid?
    >
    > --
    > <twhid>
    > http://www.mteww.com
    > </twhid>
  • curt cloninger | Tue Jul 15th 2003 12:31 p.m.
    Where else [but in the United States] can we see the unbelievable
    but frequent phenomenon of succesful radicals becoming "fast friends"
    with succesful academicians, united only by a common success and
    deliberately insensitive to the fundamental issues their different
    values imply? I wonder where else but here can be found that
    shutting of the eyes to the question of purpose. Perhaps in the
    United States such a question could not ever before exist, so
    pervasive has been the amoral mush.

    This everyday world affects the way art is created as much as it
    conditions its response -- a response the critic articulates for the
    patron, who in turns acts upon it. Melodrama, I think, is central to
    all this."

    - Allan Kaprow, 1961

    _____

    Michael Szpakowski wrote:

    > What occured to me after reading Eryk's account of the
    > faiure of his 'conceptual' application is that maybe
    > there is a real cultural gap here between the UK and
    > the US -I suspect that the conceptual is not only not
    > a disadvantage here but that it's difficult to be
    > taken at all seriously without a nod in its direction,
    > given the hegemony of the YBAs, Saatchi and Serota.

    _
    _
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Tue Jul 15th 2003 12:33 p.m.
    Yes: conceptual art is all about the benjamins, baby. Just as net.art was
    all about fast cars and even faster women. And impressionism was all about
    bringin' the bling blingin'.

    -e.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>
    To: <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Thursday, January 08, 1970 10:45 AM
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: I promise...

    > >My most recent grant rejection was almost entirely conceptual art. It has
    > >proven to me: Conceptual art is not a good foundation for a grant
    > >application.
    > >
    >
    > MTAA hasn't quite figured that one out yet.
    >
    > >As a conceptual artist, could I write a proposal to a grant committee
    that
    > >says my piece is based on thier rejection of my application, and that
    > >payment is to be expected in full if they reject said application? They
    > >would then have no choice but to accept, and pay me anyway. It may be
    weak
    > >ideologically, but it might just get me paid, and I owe money on a new
    > >Hyundai.
    > >
    > >Ultimately, this is the value of performance art, yeah?
    >
    >
    > i'm not sure i know what you mean...
    >
    > the ultimate value of performance art is getting paid?
    >
    > --
    > <twhid>
    > http://www.mteww.com
    > </twhid>
    > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
    > -> 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
    >
  • Lewis LaCook | Wed Jul 16th 2003 12:25 a.m.
    this is just brilliant!

    i once read that syd barrett, in his drug-fueled decline, wrote a song called "Have You Got It Yet?"---this piece consisted mostly of Syd trying to teach the other members of Pink Floyd to play it---he would change it as he was teaching it, thus making it impossible to learn---the chorus was, "Have you got it yet?" to which the bewildered musician had to reply, "no..."

    that's my kinda art!

    bliss
    l

    Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

    >
    >
    > My most recent grant rejection was almost entirely conceptual art. It
    > has
    > proven to me: Conceptual art is not a good foundation for a grant
    > application.
    >
    > As a conceptual artist, could I write a proposal to a grant committee
    > that
    > says my piece is based on thier rejection of my application, and that
    > payment is to be expected in full if they reject said application?
    > They
    > would then have no choice but to accept, and pay me anyway. It may be
    > weak
    > ideologically, but it might just get me paid, and I owe money on a new
    > Hyundai.
    >
    > Ultimately, this is the value of performance art, yeah?
    >
    > -e.
    >
    >
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>
    > To: <list@rhizome.org>
    > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 9:02 PM
    > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: I promise...
    >
    >
    > >
    > > On Monday, July 14, 2003, at 08:08 PM, Mark River wrote:
    > >
    > > > http://tinjail.com/promise.html
    > >
    > > i think 15, 16, 18 and 32 are very relevant.
    > >
    > > Sentences on Conceptual Art
    > >
    > > by Sol Lewitt
    > >
    > > 1. Conceptual artists are mystics rather than rationalists. They
    > leap
    > > to conclusions that logic cannot reach.
    > > 2. Rational judgements repeat rational judgements.
    > > 3. Irrational judgements lead to new experience.
    > > 4. Formal art is essentially rational.
    > > 5. Irrational thoughts should be followed absolutely and logically.
    > > 6. If the artist changes his mind midway through the execution of
    > the
    > > piece he compromises the result and repeats past results.
    > > 7. The artist's will is secondary to the process he initiates from
    > idea
    > > to completion. His wilfulness may only be ego.
    > > 8. When words such as painting and sculpture are used, they connote
    > a
    > > whole tradition and imply a consequent acceptance of this tradition,
    > > thus placing limitations on the artist who would be reluctant to
    > make
    > > art that goes beyond the limitations.
    > > 9. The concept and idea are different. The former implies a general
    > > direction while the latter is the component. Ideas implement the
    > > concept.
    > > 10. Ideas can be works of art; they are in a chain of development
    > that
    > > may eventually find some form. All ideas need not be made physical.
    > > 11. Ideas do not necessarily proceed in logical order. They may set
    > one
    > > off in unexpected directions, but an idea must necessarily be
    > completed
    > > in the mind before the next one is formed.
    > > 12. For each work of art that becomes physical there are many
    > > variations that do not.
    > > 13. A work of art may be understood as a conductor from the artist's
    > > mind to the viewer's. But it may never reach the viewer, or it may
    > > never leave the artist's mind.
    > > 14. The words of one artist to another may induce an idea chain, if
    > > they share the same concept.
    > > 15. Since no form is intrinsically superior to another, the artist
    > may
    > > use any form, from an expression of words (written or spoken) to
    > > physical reality, equally.
    > > 16. If words are used, and they proceed from ideas about art, then
    > they
    > > are art and not literature; numbers are not mathematics.
    > > 17. All ideas are art if they are concerned with art and fall within
    > > the conventions of art.
    > > 18. One usually understands the art of the past by applying the
    > > convention of the present, thus misunderstanding the art of the
    > past.
    > > 19. The conventions of art are altered by works of art.
    > > 20. Successful art changes our understanding of the conventions by
    > > altering our perceptions.
    > > 21. Perception of ideas leads to new ideas.
    > > 22. The artist cannot imagine his art, and cannot perceive it until
    > it
    > > is complete.
    > > 23. The artist may misperceive (understand it differently from the
    > > artist) a work of art but still be set off in his own chain of
    > thought
    > > by that misconstrual.
    > > 24. Perception is subjective.
    > > 25. The artist may not necessarily understand his own art. His
    > > perception is neither better nor worse than that of others.
    > > 26. An artist may perceive the art of others better than his own.
    > > 27. The concept of a work of art may involve the matter of the piece
    > or
    > > the process in which it is made.
    > > 28. Once the idea of the piece is established in the artist's mind
    > and
    > > the final form is decided, the process is carried out blindly. There
    > > are many side effects that the artist cannot imagine. These may be
    > used
    > > as ideas for new works.
    > > 29. The process is mechanical and should not be tampered with. It
    > > should run its course.
    > > 30. There are many elements involved in a work of art. The most
    > > important are the most obvious.
    > > 31. If an artist uses the same form in a group of works, and changes
    > > the material, one would assume the artist's concept involved the
    > > material.
    > > 32. Banal ideas cannot be rescued by beautiful execution.
    > > 33. It is difficult to bungle a good idea.
    > > 34. When an artist learns his craft too well he makes slick art.
    > > 35. These sentences comment on art, but are not art.
    > >
    > >
    > > First published in 0-9 (New York), 1969, and Art-Language (England),
    > > May 1969
    > > --
    > > <t.whid>
    > > www.mteww.com
    > > </t.whid>
    > >
    > > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
    > > -> 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
    > >
    >
Your Reply