>At 4:10 AM -0800 11/18/02, Jim Andrews wrote:
>
>I am trying to figure out who said what but I do want to clarify a
>point. I definitely was not using the word Art to describe a
>personal search. I was using Art to mean "ART, Inc".
+++
first, ART, Inc is a great way to discuss this subject as the
definition of art has so many meanings to so many people. it's good
to define professional pursuit of an art career as ART, Inc.
secondly, we've had this discussion SO many times and everyone seems
to stay in their camps (except liza). side A, "professionalism sucks
the life out of art; it should be done with passion"; side B,
"without an audience (aka art world) art is functionally meaningless."
personally i don't see the two as exclusive. one has 2 jobs as an
artist imo, making the work and selling the work. artists hate
selling the work so they farm that part out, that's why galleries and
agents exist.
(of course one could argue that, with this new-fangled Internet and
all, one doesn't need the art world to have an audience and that
person would be right–sort of. because if one is making work that
has it's roots in the history and tradition of the 'art world' (aka
ART, Inc.) then one needs an educated audience to appreciate the
work. the average web surfer (esp an USAian one) isn't going to have
experiences necessary to understand or appreciate some work; even
something as old hat as abstract expressionism! go to a museum–no
cut that–go to the Met and stand next to the huge, awesome "Autumn
Rhythm (Number 30)"
(http://www.metmuseum.org/collections/view1zoom.asp?dep!&full=0&mark=1&itemW%2E92)
and count how many assholes say, "I could do that." fuck that
audience, i don't need 'em.)
thirdly, um.. there is no third :-)
+++
>
>I do not only personally think but, given that I help write the
>grants, that the "ART, Inc." is not conducive to creating Art. Let
>me put it another way: I have seen the dark side and I don't like it.
+++
funny, here you're defining ART, Inc. as the non-profit institutional
art world. i was thinking more the gallery world.
i was at a panel a while back re: public funding of art (the panel
was 'FOR' it) ie funding outside of the market. everyone on the panel
assumed that BETTER work was made when it was publicly funded. the
notion being that the market produces crap art. i thought that that
was bullshit. if you are lucky enough to have a gallery you don't
ever fill out a f*cking grant application. it's simple, "when's the
show?", "ok pick my stuff up on this date" and back to the studio you
go. (of course you get pressure from the gallerist to make saleable
work but life ain't easy and i'd rather argue with a dealer over a
nice dinner and wine then be stuck at home shoving slides in an
envelope.)
+++
>
>When Curt or Mark asked, "If art falls in the forest, does it make a
>sound?" I answered, YES for the forest and NO for the world or ART,
>Inc. Artists have always had to make a decision between making a
>sound in the forest versus making a sound in the art world. That's
>the way things have always been. But nowadays it is even more
>pressing because there are curators, foundation directors and
>gallery owners who are weighing this decision as well.
>
>What is exciting and yet overwhelming is that there is a real shift
>happening out there. More and more people are pondering the forest
>because what they see in the art "world" is way passed saving. This
>mean that more and more people have not a clue as to where things
>are heading to but they know they are going somewhere.
+++
i don't agree that ART, Inc. is past saving. it doesn't need to be
saved, it is what it is and some really good stuff gets shown. for
example, my friend Inka Essenhigh makes great work and she's having a
big show right this very minute at 303 (high-end chelsea gallery).
see her work: http://www.303gallery.com/artists/essenhigh/exh2002.html
(don't get me wrong, the art world is fucked in fifty different ways,
no arguing that. but every line of work i've been is fucked fifty
ways (fucked=politics, lying, cheating, etc). unless i want to move
back to ohio and live the quiet life (which for me would be something
akin to soul suicide and i couldn't get my native nyc gal to go with
me no how) then i'm going to be dealing with some sort of industry,
organization, or 'world' that has some seriously funky aspects to it.
personally, i'd rather deal with one than two so my only choice is to
make a career out of ART, Inc.)
+++
why is it that i keep using painting as examples in my little rant
here? i suppose that i feel more of an affinity for painting and it's
old economy ART, Inc-ness than i do for new media institutionalized,
grant-subsidized work. hmmm, funny.
+++
>
>I guess the forest has always been the place for art but many are
>just starting to reckon with this.
–
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
ART, Inc. necessary evil
-
Type: discussion
Comments
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Curt Cloninger wrote:
> Actually, I'm not sure if art and philosopy are that akin.
Dunno, I never implicated thatthey are.
> So for t. to say, "why can't art be boring and tough to crack?
> philosopy is boring and tough to crack, yet people wade through it," I
> already have a problem with that analogy. Because a philosophical
> essay is an attempted mind transfer.
Is it?
> But if that's all art is, then I think the art is already failing.
I am not anywhere near minds in my statement.
> As far as all the "dumbed down" accusations,
What 'dumbed down' accusations?
> Michelangelo's David is pretty popular and has been for a while,
> but I don't think you can accurately call it dumbed down.
It is not Michelangelo's David that has been popular.
How many can actually SEE it?
> Accessible and dumb aren't necessarily the same, any more than inaccessable and smart are the
> same.
Wasn't anywhere near terms such as accessible and dumb.
No idea what you're on about.
>side A, "professionalism sucks the life out of art; it >should be done with passion"; side B,
>"without an audience (aka art world) art is functionally >meaningless."
>personally i don't see the two as exclusive.
So art can both require an audience and still have the life sucked out of it. I can't argue with that. Actually, I do agree that the "for profit" vs. "for passion" dichotomy is largely a bogey. Is the work good? That's the question I can't escape.
Some "for passion" work is bad and some "for profit" work is bad, but often for different reasons. The "for passion" work will tend to be bad because it's ill-considered, hastily made, and unwittingly exploring areas that have already been well-explored. The "for profit work" can tend to be bad because it is narrow, micro-scene-dependent, contrived to sell, relying on the punch of its context rather than the punch of its craft.
>if one is making work that
>has it's roots in the history and tradition of the 'art >world' (aka ART, Inc.) then one needs an educated >audience to appreciate the
>work. the average web surfer (esp an USAian one) >isn't going to have experiences necessary to >understand or appreciate some work; even something >as old hat as abstract expressionism!
This pretty much sticks right in my craw. The roots in art history you're talking about go back to Duchamp. Are you in dialogue with stuff back to Bosch? It seems you are rooted in a veneer.
I know plenty of people who are blown away by Arvo Part or Steve Reich who grew up on the Beatles and T.Rex. They don't have to read the liner notes or take a course in minimalism to be impacted by the actual work. Because it's good work. And Charlie Parker dug Bartok. If I have to be smart and schooled to be impacted by your work, how good is your work? Is the goal of art to speak to humanity, or to speak only to the relatively few people who have been filtered through the thin pipe of contemporary art education?
>go to the Met and stand next to the huge, awesome >"Autumn Rhythm (Number 30)" and count how many >assholes say, "I could do that." fuck that
>audience, i don't need 'em.)
so people either like what you like or they are uninformed redneck idiots. Might there be a third class of people who get it but still don't like it. Or does one's dislike of a piece of work defacto prove that they just don't get it?
Tim, I'm not dissing your personal decision to pursue the sale of your art. To do that would be to dis your chosen lifestyle, and one's lifestyle is a personal issue. Everybody's different, so the way you choose to make your money is up to you.
My take on it is this – everybody needs a place to fail. My life would be poor indeed if there was nothing I did that was just for the pure pleasure of it. If when working on one of my sites I was always thinking in the back (or front) of my mind, "is this new enough? will this get press?" then I would have to find another hobby [to me, "hobby" is not a diminutive but rather a sacred term].
http://www.playdamage.org and http://www.neuralust.com/~curt/ are ongoing personal public experiments. What I learn there gets applied to future work. The advantage is, I can fail in public. It's open source. It doesn't matter. if my work isn't in dialogue with anything else out there, it doesn't matter. I don't have to push my work (or hire someone to push my work). I don't have to fit it into anything. There's no temptation for me to make my work anything other than what I want it to be.
Another advantage is that, on this list, I can lose face without losing financial worth. If someone influential disses you and your work, or C.P. and his work, or Valery and his work, y'all stand to lose future customers. Your brand value is decreased. If someone influential disses me and my work, oh well.
on the record, I like your printer tree.
peace,
curt
_
_
_
At 12:18 -0500 11/19/02, curt cloninger wrote:
>>side A, "professionalism sucks the life out of art; it >should be
>>done with passion"; side B,
>>"without an audience (aka art world) art is functionally >meaningless."
>>personally i don't see the two as exclusive.
>
>
>So art can both require an audience and still have the life sucked
>out of it. I can't argue with that. Actually, I do agree that the
>"for profit" vs. "for passion" dichotomy is largely a bogey. Is the
>work good? That's the question I can't escape.
>
>Some "for passion" work is bad and some "for profit" work is bad,
>but often for different reasons. The "for passion" work will tend
>to be bad because it's ill-considered, hastily made, and unwittingly
>exploring areas that have already been well-explored. The "for
>profit work" can tend to be bad because it is narrow,
>micro-scene-dependent, contrived to sell, relying on the punch of
>its context rather than the punch of its craft.
++
we absolutely agree, one needs to judge the work individually. i
won't say anything about craft tho. personally i love great technique
and craft, but i don't think it's necessary to make good art.
++
>
>
>>if one is making work that
>>has it's roots in the history and tradition of the 'art >world'
>>(aka ART, Inc.) then one needs an educated >audience to appreciate
>>the
>>work. the average web surfer (esp an USAian one) >isn't going to
>>have experiences necessary to >understand or appreciate some work;
>>even something >as old hat as abstract expressionism!
>
>This pretty much sticks right in my craw. The roots in art history
>you're talking about go back to Duchamp. Are you in dialogue with
>stuff back to Bosch? It seems you are rooted in a veneer.
++
i was attempting to speak broadly (ie i'm not talking about my own
work in the passage above). by 'roots in the history and tradition of
the 'art world' i was thinking of the entire history of western art.
i believe that MTAA's work is in dialogue with this history.
++
>
>I know plenty of people who are blown away by Arvo Part or Steve
>Reich who grew up on the Beatles and T.Rex. They don't have to read
>the liner notes or take a course in minimalism to be impacted by the
>actual work. Because it's good work. And Charlie Parker dug
>Bartok. If I have to be smart and schooled to be impacted by your
>work, how good is your work?
++
very good.
++
Is the goal of art to speak to humanity, or to speak only to the
relatively few people who have been filtered through the thin pipe of
contemporary art education?
++
that question is answered individually by each artist. should one
dumb-down one's work to appeal to the masses if that's not what one
believes to be the proper course for their work? PLUS, americans are
being schooled everyday in how to respond to the aesthetics and
techniques of pop culture. in the cultural context of contemporary
america, when you say 'speak to humanity' i hear 'britney spears
videos'.
++
>
>>go to the Met and stand next to the huge, awesome >"Autumn Rhythm
>>(Number 30)" and count how many >assholes say, "I could do that."
>>fuck that
>>audience, i don't need 'em.)
>
>so people either like what you like or they are uninformed redneck
>idiots. Might there be a third class of people who get it but still
>don't like it. Or does one's dislike of a piece of work defacto
>prove that they just don't get it?
++
if someone isn't intensely moved by the example i site above then,
yes, imo they just don't know how to look at and openly experience a
painting (you may fill in your own derogatory term for one who's
uncultured; redneck is good, philistine, cretin). perhaps if ART,
Inc. wasn't so derided and dismissed in contemporary american culture
the general public would know how to look at a Pollack painting. they
don't. I'm not an educator so until they learn i don't give a damn
what they think about Pollack's work or mine own.
++
>
>
>Tim, I'm not dissing your personal decision to pursue the sale of
>your art. To do that would be to dis your chosen lifestyle, and
>one's lifestyle is a personal issue. Everybody's different, so the
>way you choose to make your money is up to you.
>
>My take on it is this – everybody needs a place to fail. My life
>would be poor indeed if there was nothing I did that was just for
>the pure pleasure of it. If when working on one of my sites I was
>always thinking in the back (or front) of my mind, "is this new
>enough? will this get press?" then I would have to find another
>hobby [to me, "hobby" is not a diminutive but rather a sacred term].
>
>http://www.playdamage.org and http://www.neuralust.com/~curt/ are
>ongoing personal public experiments. What I learn there gets
>applied to future work. The advantage is, I can fail in public.
>It's open source. It doesn't matter. if my work isn't in dialogue
>with anything else out there, it doesn't matter. I don't have to
>push my work (or hire someone to push my work). I don't have to fit
>it into anything. There's no temptation for me to make my work
>anything other than what I want it to be.
>
>Another advantage is that, on this list, I can lose face without
>losing financial worth. If someone influential disses you and your
>work, or C.P. and his work, or Valery and his work, y'all stand to
>lose future customers. Your brand value is decreased. If someone
>influential disses me and my work, oh well.
++
i'm not trying to diss anyone's choices either. sometimes i see a
notion on the list that those who do work from 'passion' are somehow
more genuine as opposed to us careerists. i'm just giving the other
side of the argument.
++
>
>on the record, I like your printer tree.
++
so why aren't you on the mailing list :-)
++
>
>peace,
>curt
c-ya
–
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
> > c:
> > that response comes across as elitist and
> > disdainful. popular = dumb = britney spears. it's
> > too simple, like a prejudice.
> >
>
>m: Tim an elitist? I think you two need to get
>together have dinner or something.
c: Tim started his art career by copying Iron Maiden album covers (by
his own admission!), so how can he have legitimate beef with pop
culture? Maybe since Iron Maiden is British he thinks this lets him
off the hook.
m:
>How long is the
>drive to get down to you? What are you doing for
>Thanksgiving?
c:
Thanksgiving is not a good time because my brother and his family are
coming up. But y'all can come most any other time. Email me offlist.
According to mapquest, it takes 12 hours:
http://www.mapquest.com/directions/main.adp?go=1&do=nw&ct=NA&1y=US&1a=
100+Freeman+Street&1p=&1c=brooklyn&1s=ny&1z=&2y=US&2a(+etta+drive&2p
=&2cEnton&2s=nc&2z=&lr=2&x8&y
Here are some pictures taken from my yard:
http://www.neuralust.com/~curt/fall/
>m: I think my job description is to make art and hope
>for the best.
c: Fair enough.
>c:
>Is the goal of art to speak to humanity, or to speak only to the
>relatively few people who have been filtered through the thin pipe
>of contemporary art education?
>
>t:
>that question is answered individually by each artist. should one
>dumb-down one's work to appeal to the masses if that's not what one
>believes to be the proper course for their work? PLUS, americans are
>being schooled everyday in how to respond to the aesthetics and
>techniques of pop culture. in the cultural context of contemporary
>america, when you say 'speak to humanity' i hear 'britney spears
>videos'.
>
>c:
>that response comes across as elitist and disdainful. popular =
>dumb = britney spears. it's too simple, like a prejudice.
+++
t: it's also simple to think that 'speaks to humanity' has any REAL
relevance to a working artist. do you think it's possible that an
artist could create something that truly 'speaks to humanity' and it
isn't recognized by the bulk of that humanity? I'm sure of it. imo
Pollack 'speaks to humanity' in a visceral way which needs no
intellectualism whatsoever, yet one finds dolts everyday, "i could do
that." they don't need to learn anything to see it but imo they need
to unlearn quite a bit (illusionism, perspective, cinema, etc)
i wouldn't dissuade an artist from attempting to create universal
work which attempts to 'speak to humanity', but i would tell her not
to be surprised when most of humanity doesn't give a shit and is deaf
to the message.
+++
>
>+++
>
>t:
>>>go to the Met and stand next to the huge, awesome >"Autumn
>>>Rhythm >>(Number 30)" and count how many >assholes say, "I could
>>>do that." >>fuck that
>>>audience, i don't need 'em.)
>
>c:
>>so people either like what you like or they are uninformed
>>redneck >idiots. Might there be a third class of people who get it
>>but still >don't like it. Or does one's dislike of a piece of work
>>defacto >prove that they just don't get it?
>
>t:
>if someone isn't intensely moved by the example i site above then,
>yes, imo they just don't know how to look at and openly experience a
>painting (you may fill in your own derogatory term for one who's
>uncultured; redneck is good, philistine, cretin). perhaps if ART,
>Inc. wasn't so derided and dismissed in contemporary american
>culture the general public would know how to look at a Pollack
>painting. they don't. I'm not an educator so until they learn i
>don't give a damn
>what they think about Pollack's work or mine own.
>
>c:
>again, it sounds like you've got the secret knowledge [decoder ring]
>we all lack. Might someone understand Pollock and still not like
>him?
+++
t: i think someone could understand Pollack and not like his work.
But they wouldn't make the mistake of thinking they could make the
work. (and btw, there is nothing to understand about Pollack, one
needs no special information, it's the opposite of intellectual).
their critique wouldn't be "i could do that", so i guess i've been
vague. my point was that people dismiss much art without
understanding it or even attempting to give it a reasonable amount of
consideration.
+++
c: Is the reason most people dislike contemporary art because they
haven't been properly educated [programmed], is it because
contemporary art is dismissed and derided by the media, or is it
simply because a lot of contemporary art is self-referential,
academic, overly cerebral, and boring?
+++
t: imo most people don't like contemporary art because they don't
allow themselves to be open to it. they don't trust it (a learned
reaction imo). it's not easy and it's not entertainment and much of
it does suck (but there are lots of movies and popular music that
also suck). the general (american) public doesn't want to try to
figure out what it is, doesn't look at enough of it to tell what
sucks, and isn't entertained by it so they dismiss it.
most people don't understand philosophy either, it's mind-numbingly
boring and thick to most people. should philosophers make their texts
easy to read so that the general public can understand it? should
they write pop songs to appeal?
+++
c: Might the artist be responsible to create work that acts as a
bridge to bring people into a deeper appreciation of contemporary
art, or is that just the job of the educator?
+++
t: artists should make their own decisions about what they would like
to do with their work. personally, i don't feel like giving any
remedial courses with my work.
take care
+++
c:
>
>Mind art. Smat art. Educated art. Art (even Art Inc.) has only
>recently been about such things. And I think those emphases have
>only made art worse, less resonant, thinner, more parochial [even if
>your parish happens to be New York City]. "Everyone is smart; not
>everyone is brave."
>_
>_
>_
>+ i saw a lion he was standing alone with a tadpole in a jar
>-> post: [email protected]
>-> questions: [email protected]
>-> 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
–
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
c:
Is the goal of art to speak to humanity, or to speak only to the relatively few people who have been filtered through the thin pipe of contemporary art education?
t:
that question is answered individually by each artist. should one dumb-down one's work to appeal to the masses if that's not what one believes to be the proper course for their work? PLUS, americans are being schooled everyday in how to respond to the aesthetics and techniques of pop culture. in the cultural context of contemporary america, when you say 'speak to humanity' i hear 'britney spears videos'.
c:
that response comes across as elitist and disdainful. popular = dumb = britney spears. it's too simple, like a prejudice.
+++
t:
>>go to the Met and stand next to the huge, awesome >"Autumn Rhythm >>(Number 30)" and count how many >assholes say, "I could do that." >>fuck that
>>audience, i don't need 'em.)
c:
>so people either like what you like or they are uninformed redneck >idiots. Might there be a third class of people who get it but still >don't like it. Or does one's dislike of a piece of work defacto >prove that they just don't get it?
t:
if someone isn't intensely moved by the example i site above then,
yes, imo they just don't know how to look at and openly experience a painting (you may fill in your own derogatory term for one who's uncultured; redneck is good, philistine, cretin). perhaps if ART,
Inc. wasn't so derided and dismissed in contemporary american culture the general public would know how to look at a Pollack painting. they don't. I'm not an educator so until they learn i don't give a damn
what they think about Pollack's work or mine own.
c:
again, it sounds like you've got the secret knowledge [decoder ring] we all lack. Might someone understand Pollock and still not like him? Is the reason most people dislike contemporary art because they haven't been properly educated [programmed], is it because contemporary art is dismissed and derided by the media, or is it simply because a lot of contemporary art is self-referential, academic, overly cerebral, and boring? Might the artist be responsible to create work that acts as a bridge to bring people into a deeper appreciation of contemporary art, or is that just the job of the educator?
Mind art. Smat art. Educated art. Art (even Art Inc.) has only recently been about such things. And I think those emphases have only made art worse, less resonant, thinner, more parochial [even if your parish happens to be New York City]. "Everyone is smart; not everyone is brave."
_
_
_
— curt cloninger <[email protected]> wrote:
> c:
> Is the goal of art to speak to humanity, or to speak
> only to the relatively few people who have been
> filtered through the thin pipe of contemporary art
> education?
>
m: Binary questions. Dam, I'm going to kick T. Whid
for starting this thread.
> c:
> that response comes across as elitist and
> disdainful. popular = dumb = britney spears. it's
> too simple, like a prejudice.
>
m: Tim an elitist? I think you two need to get
together have dinner or something. How long is the
drive to get down to you? What are you doing for
Thanksgiving? Glad you liked the tree. Thanks.
> c:
> >so people either like what you like or they are
> uninformed redneck >idiots. Might there be a third
> class of people who get it but still >don't like it.
> Or does one's dislike of a piece of work defacto
> >prove that they just don't get it?
m: Koons? Oh sorry. I was listing to my LD trying to
spec a focus for one of his new paintings over the
phone. Man, I dislike his new work. I use to like his
work, then I hated it, then he went away and now he is
making paintings. I'm back to hate. Does this make me
a redneck?
> c:
> again, it sounds like you've got the secret
> knowledge [decoder ring] we all lack. Might someone
> understand Pollock and still not like him? Is the
> reason most people dislike contemporary art because
> they haven't been properly educated [programmed], is
> it because contemporary art is dismissed and derided
> by the media, or is it simply because a lot of
> contemporary art is self-referential, academic,
> overly cerebral, and boring? Might the artist be
> responsible to create work that acts as a bridge to
> bring people into a deeper appreciation of
> contemporary art, or is that just the job of the
> educator?
m: I think my job description is to make art and hope
for the best.
=====
http://mteww.com
http://tinjail.com
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
Hi T.Whid,
> i wouldn't dissuade an artist from attempting to create universal
> work which attempts to 'speak to humanity', but i would tell her not
> to be surprised when most of humanity doesn't give a shit and is deaf
> to the message.
> +++
Just saw a documentary featuring John Lennon & Yoko Ono, and some woman
getting pretty angry with them for enjoying the experience of promoting
peace.
Reading this thread kind of tells me that it isn't really about trying to
'speak & tell' humanity about such issues, its about sharing the load of
what is…that is real communication - whether one uses a pen, a brush, a
camera, an art piece, a song, or intimacy.
"Ive been growing up all day" emma, aged 4
marc
Actually, I'm not sure if art and philosopy are that akin. So for t.
to say, "why can't art be boring and tough to crack? philosopy is
boring and tough to crack, yet people wade through it," I already
have a problem with that analogy. Because a philosophical essay is
an attempted mind transfer. But if that's all art is, then I think
the art is already failing.
As far as all the "dumbed down" accusations, Michelangelo's David is
pretty popular and has been for a while, but I don't think you can
accurately call it dumbed down. Accessible and dumb aren't
necessarily the same, any more than inaccessable and smart are the
same.
At 4:32 PM -0800 11/19/02, -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
>
> > <… should make their texts as easy to read as
> > possible without sacrificing the meaning they are
> > trying to convey…>
> > excellent! -it should be a kind of hippocratic oath
> > for artists , philosophers and politicians.
> > ..and how easy to encapsulate thusly and how difficult
> > to do!
> > Michael
>
> Absolutely. Cater to thelowest common denominator.
> Simplistic flatness uber alles.
>
>`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
>on the t,c exchange:
c:
t:
should philosophers make their texts easy to read so that the general public can understand it?
c:
they should make their texts as easy to read as possible without sacrificing the meaning they are trying to convey.
—- Curt Cloninger <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > c:
> > > that response comes across as elitist and
> > > disdainful. popular = dumb = britney
spears. it's
> > > too simple, like a prejudice.
> > >
> >
> >m: Tim an elitist? I think you two need to get
> >together have dinner or something.
>
> c: Tim started his art career by copying Iron
Maiden album covers (by
> his own admission!), so how can he have
legitimate beef with pop
> culture? Maybe since Iron Maiden is British he
thinks this lets him
> off the hook.
t: i love pop culture. but i don't confuse my artwork
with pop culture. i wish i still had those Iron
Maiden drawings tho. and i wish that art with a
capital A, the stuff you find in galleries, was a
bigger component of contemporary american
culture.
>
> m:
> >How long is the
> >drive to get down to you? What are you doing
for
> >Thanksgiving?
>
> c:
> Thanksgiving is not a good time because my
brother and his family are
> coming up. But y'all can come most any other
time. Email me offlist.
> According to mapquest, it takes 12 hours:
> http://www.mapquest.com/directions/
main.adp?go=1&do=nw&ct=NA&1y=US&1a=
> 100+Freeman+Street&1p=&1c=brooklyn&1s=
ny&1z=&2y=US&2a(+etta+drive&2p
> =&2cEnton&2s=nc&2z=&lr=2&x8&y
>
> Here are some pictures taken from my yard:
> http://www.neuralust.com/~curt/fall/
>
> >m: I think my job description is to make art and
hope
> >for the best.
>
> c: Fair enough.
>
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
<… should make their texts as easy to read as
possible without sacrificing the meaning they are
trying to convey…>
excellent! -it should be a kind of hippocratic oath
for artists , philosophers and politicians.
..and how easy to encapsulate thusly and how difficult
to do!
Michael
=====
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
> <… should make their texts as easy to read as
> possible without sacrificing the meaning they are
> trying to convey…>
> excellent! -it should be a kind of hippocratic oath
> for artists , philosophers and politicians.
> ..and how easy to encapsulate thusly and how difficult
> to do!
> Michael
Absolutely. Cater to thelowest common denominator.
Simplistic flatness uber alles.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, marc.garrett wrote:
> Reading this thread kind of tells me that it isn't really about trying to
> 'speak & tell' humanity about such issues, its about sharing the load of
> what is..
Yes exactly. Off–loading. Venting. Ah, art.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
I agree Tim. Clarity and complexity don't exclude each other any
more than simple = minimalistic. My comment below was meant
specifically for philosophers. I might not even apply that criterion
to artists. I haven't really thought about it. So in that sense, i
am granting artists more license.
In the person of McLuhan, I even find an idea man who most clearly
conveys his ideas by NOT being overt. But his probes (pithy
abstractions) actually make him more "clear" in the end, that is if
you can "dig" his method.
McLuhan on the McLuhan dialectic mojo: "You have not studied Joyce or
Baudelaire yet, or you would have no problems in understanding my
procedure. I have no theories whatever about anything. I make
observations by way of discovering contours, lines of force, and
pressures. I satirize at all times, and my hyperboles are as nothing
compared to the events to which they refer."
But he's the rare excetion. More often than not, to be misunderstood
is not be great; it's simply to be misunderstood.
peace,
curt
At 3:33 PM -0800 11/20/02, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
>of course the notion that artists should be 'as
>complex as necessary but no more so' or ' they should
>make their texts as easy to read as
> possible without
> sacrificing the meaning they are trying to convey.'
>or however one chooses to put it, begs a lot of very
>interesting questions about what exactly constitutes
>artistic 'clarity'. I don't think a definition of this
>would exclude complexity , depth or richness all of
>which qualities seem to me to be pretty well
>*defining* in terms of art.
>I just got home from a performance of Heiner Goebbel's
>'Hashirigaki' ( Brits out there -it's at the Barbican
>till Saturday -buy or steal a ticket - it's
>stunning!)and both of us who went agreed that we felt
>the the piece achieved an enormous level of clarity
>but without having a clear narrative & with a real
>depth of light and shade and very wide and complex
>cultural references from Brian Wilson to kabuki ( and
>which tellingly in this context never came over as
>clever-clever or showing off)
>I'd have to do a lot of thinking to articulate why I
>can justify that feeling of clarity but I'm convinced
>I could. I'm convinced thee are hard won but
>relatively clear words that would explain this
>feeling.
>As for philosophers Curt - don't let them off the
>hook! -actually they and politicians and cultural
>commentators and sociologists &c&c should be granted
>*less* licence than artists in my view.
>best
>michael
>
>
>— "t.whid" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 05:22 PM, curt
> > cloninger wrote:
> >
> > > t:
> > > should philosophers make their texts easy to read
> > so that the general
> > > public can understand it?
> > >
> > > c:
> >
> > >
> >
> > hah! can't argue with that. of course a writer
> > should attempt to be
> > clear. artists have the privilege of being ambiguous
> > tho.
> >
> > + pre.live.life.net.post.real.social.sensitive.art.?
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> 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.somedancersandmusicians.com/
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
>http://webhosting.yahoo.com
of course the notion that artists should be 'as
complex as necessary but no more so' or ' they should
make their texts as easy to read as
possible without
sacrificing the meaning they are trying to convey.'
or however one chooses to put it, begs a lot of very
interesting questions about what exactly constitutes
artistic 'clarity'. I don't think a definition of this
would exclude complexity , depth or richness all of
which qualities seem to me to be pretty well
*defining* in terms of art.
I just got home from a performance of Heiner Goebbel's
'Hashirigaki' ( Brits out there -it's at the Barbican
till Saturday -buy or steal a ticket - it's
stunning!)and both of us who went agreed that we felt
the the piece achieved an enormous level of clarity
but without having a clear narrative & with a real
depth of light and shade and very wide and complex
cultural references from Brian Wilson to kabuki ( and
which tellingly in this context never came over as
clever-clever or showing off)
I'd have to do a lot of thinking to articulate why I
can justify that feeling of clarity but I'm convinced
I could. I'm convinced thee are hard won but
relatively clear words that would explain this
feeling.
As for philosophers Curt - don't let them off the
hook! -actually they and politicians and cultural
commentators and sociologists &c&c should be granted
*less* licence than artists in my view.
best
michael
— "t.whid" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 05:22 PM, curt
> cloninger wrote:
>
> > t:
> > should philosophers make their texts easy to read
> so that the general
> > public can understand it?
> >
> > c:
>
> >
>
> hah! can't argue with that. of course a writer
> should attempt to be
> clear. artists have the privilege of being ambiguous
> tho.
>
> + pre.live.life.net.post.real.social.sensitive.art.?
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> 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.somedancersandmusicians.com/
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
<At 4:32 PM -0800 11/19/02, -IID42 Kandinskij @27+
wrote:
Absolutely. Cater to thelowest common denominator.
Simplistic flatness uber alles.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42>
gosh! is he still there? zzzzzzzzz.
Michael
=====
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
On Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 05:22 PM, curt cloninger wrote:
> t:
> should philosophers make their texts easy to read so that the general
> public can understand it?
>
> c:
> they should make their texts as easy to read as possible without
> sacrificing the meaning they are trying to convey.
>
hah! can't argue with that. of course a writer should attempt to be
clear. artists have the privilege of being ambiguous tho.