normalization vs. generativity
-
Type: discussion
<lurk mode cautiously lowered a fraction> Not managing to follow a lot on Rhizome but would like to posit some basic ponderings/questions. Here goes. There seems to be growing tension between two philosophical poles of/in art, in one corner is art that hangs out comfortably on the wall, and in the other art that is somewhere else, doing something other and being very much off-off the wall. The first perhaps the
Comments
It is entirely conceivable that net.art is essentially a bowl of grapes with almonds living inside the grapes and with horse-flies eating all the seeds and spreading their maggots over the network of grape juice with a preponderance of straws mingling about such that the bandwidth via straw sucking is easily described as the ratio of flies to grape-almond fluid thus giving net.art an inconceivable nature with all the entropic discussions about hair dryers, ectoplasmic fluidial dynamics, or even ladders. Just my 2 cents anyways…
The most effective work of art will reflect both normative and generative aspects. The normative aspect serving as a leveragable point of departure or reflexive ground for new lines of flight. The Different does well when respecting the Same in at least this way (e.g. viral effects are produced by forming a vital symbiosis or generative difference with the host, not by destroying the host).
This is why I see ignorance of the classical as a crippling defect in much contemporary art. It's often difficult to see, but per below, the would-be radically different depends and finds it's ground for launch from the fertile ground of the classic.
> The most effective work of art will reflect both normative and
> generative aspects. The normative aspect serving as a leveragable
> point of departure or reflexive ground for new lines of flight. The
> Different does well when respecting the Same in at least this way
> (e.g. viral effects are produced by forming a vital symbiosis or
> generative difference with the host, not by destroying the host).
"Crippling defect"? HUUuuuhhh? I don't see how classical nor contemporary is crippled nor defective. I don't see anything but good in both. The only thing cripple or defective that I can see are my smallest of toes, my VCR, and most of the software code which I write.
-Stevie
Tom McDonald wrote:
> This is why I see ignorance of the classical as a crippling defect in
> much contemporary art. It's often difficult to see, but per below, the
> would-be radically different depends and finds it's ground for launch
> from the fertile ground of the classic.
>