In a recent post Dyske Suematsu put a lot of emphasis on the "profound and
meaningful" as some sort of art indicator. Now this is probably something
we've all heard before and although it may, at first, seem a bit narrow to
encompass all that we wish to call art, it is a valid point. However, one
persons "profound and meaningful" can not be easily transferred to someone
else. Meaning that if one artist creates work that is truly profound and
meaningful, another artist could not have done the same sort of artwork and
have it be truly profound and meaningful. Now this is a point that I think
Dyske may be overlooking although I can't be sure. Also, if something
happens accidentally, it might be profound in some way but it can hardly be
construed as MEANINGFUL seeing that it wasn't necessarily MEANT to happen.
A good example to use would be Robert Rauschenberg's white paintings. Simply
white house paint on a canvas. It's entirely possible that anyone could have
come up with it. Let's say Joe Shmoe in Timbuktu decided to cover a couple
of canvases with some left over white paint in the garage, so he could hang
them in the living room because the color they painted it was a lot darker
than it looked in the store and he just wanted to try to brighten things up
a little bit. Are these two instances, of identical work, equally "profound
and meaningful"? One was done with "profound and meaningful" intent, the
other because the materials were there and the living room needed
brightening.
Ivan Pope mentioned that he knows plenty of artists who set out to make work
that is shallow and meaningless and that this seems like a valid response to
the world. Well, doesn't it then have the potential to be profound and
meaningful in it's meaninglessness? If it's a response to the state of the
world, it certainly could become a profound and meaningful response.
Pall Thayer
artist/teacher
Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
http://www.this.is/pallit
http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
http://130.208.220.190/panse
On the profound and meaningful (was A Posteriori art)
-
Type: discussion
Comments
> Ivan Pope mentioned that he knows plenty of artists who set out to make
work
> that is shallow and meaningless and that this seems like a valid response
to
> the world. Well, doesn't it then have the potential to be profound and
> meaningful in it's meaninglessness?
Well, yes, that was my point.
Anyway, to demonstrate the difficulty of using a glib phrase like 'profound
& meaningful' to define what artists attempt to do, consider the definitions
of profound (from dictionary.com):
1. Situated at, extending to, or coming from a great depth; deep.
2. Coming as if from the depths of one's being: profound contempt.
3. Thoroughgoing; far-reaching: profound social changes.
4. Penetrating beyond what is superficial or obvious: a profound insight.
5. Unqualified; absolute: a profound silence.
Do we use profound here to mean coming from the depths of one's being or do
we mean penetrating beyond what is superficial? Surely these are very
different things.
Cheers,
Ivan
In my view "art" means nothing, cannot even exist,
without the ongoing human dialogue that surrounds it.
It's not as simple as "let history judge" because
tastes change, artists are rediscovered but the
"meaning " of art surely lies in the ongoing human
dialogues that surround it and these are contributed
to by all sorts of factors , historical, social,
economic and political, plus the bodies of thoughts
and words about art that we might designate
"aesthetics" and the sum of technical practice that we
call "tradition".
I'm not arguing a relativist position here - a good
deal of the meaning *is* within the artist's control (
conscious or otherwise)- it does matter, I think, what
the artist "means"- but without society, without the
possibilty of a listener, viewer, to complete the
equation I don't believe we can talk of art.
Seen in this context many different practices-
outsider art, the conceptual, Ivan's "deliberately
shallow"- take on meaning through all the human voices
and minds that dialogue with them and discover their
weight over time in history and human culture.
That dialogue has made for example ,Duchamp, a
significant figure. Whether the same will happen to
Hirst or the lights-on-&-off-guy, whose name I can't
even be bothered to summon up, remains to be seen.
Anyway my general point is that although the artist
herself has some control over where her work fits and
how it means, that this control is necessarily and in
all cases circumscribed, and that this is both a
powerful explanatory factor and something profoundly (
sorry Ivan!) to be welcomed
best
michael
— Ivan Pope <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Ivan Pope mentioned that he knows plenty of
> artists who set out to make
> work
> > that is shallow and meaningless and that this
> seems like a valid response
> to
> > the world. Well, doesn't it then have the
> potential to be profound and
> > meaningful in it's meaninglessness?
>
> Well, yes, that was my point.
>
> Anyway, to demonstrate the difficulty of using a
> glib phrase like 'profound
> & meaningful' to define what artists attempt to do,
> consider the definitions
> of profound (from dictionary.com):
>
> 1. Situated at, extending to, or coming from a great
> depth; deep.
> 2. Coming as if from the depths of one's being:
> profound contempt.
> 3. Thoroughgoing; far-reaching: profound social
> changes.
> 4. Penetrating beyond what is superficial or
> obvious: a profound insight.
> 5. Unqualified; absolute: a profound silence.
>
> Do we use profound here to mean coming from the
> depths of one's being or do
> we mean penetrating beyond what is superficial?
> Surely these are very
> different things.
>
> Cheers,
> Ivan
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> 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
=====
*DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
Hi all,
My arguments are for those who share similar views with me. By no means, I
intend to propose a definitive explanation of what happens to all artists.
If you do not agree, you just don't. I have no interest in trying to argue.
I could only try to correct or elaborate points that I feel were
misinterpreted or not communicated.
As I said before, what matters in the end is that something is profound and
meaningful to me. I cannot speak for others. Although what is profound and
meaningful varies person to person, it is a common practice by artists to
seek profundity and meaningfulness. I am not arguing about what is profound
or meaningful; I'm discussing the problems associated with pursuing it
(whatever "it" may be). And, their pursuits often are for something that can
be perceived by the art world to be profound and meaningful, even if what it
takes to achieve it is to create something absolutely meaningless. In many
ways, calling yourself an "artist" implies that you want other people to
know and recognize your pursuit of meaningfulness and profundity. Pursuing
alone is not enough; you want others to know that you are pursuing it. This
is all fine and well, but there is a danger here of alienating yourself.
If my arguments sound like naive gibberish of a college student, then so be
it. This is not a theoretical thesis. It is written only for those who share
my views–even if that's no one else.
-Dyske
http://www.dyske.com
Ultimately, this is where this kind of critical writing takes you… having
arguments that are only for people who agree with you. That's not an
argument its a clique.
> Hi all,
>
> My arguments are for those who share similar views with me. o
/^ rssgallery.com
][
> Ultimately, this is where this kind of critical writing takes
> you… having
> arguments that are only for people who agree with you. That's not an
> argument its a clique.
Hi Jess,
I think it would be misguided to think that ANY arguments or critical
writing can achieve anything else. Any effort to communicate with others
must rely on the willingness of the other to understand and accept. As
theoretical or critical as any piece of writing may be, you are still
writing with a certain amount of faith in others. Anything can be counter
argued if you wanted to. In this sense, there is no difference between
fiction and nonfiction.
As I have said before, I only speak to the converted. I write, because it
helps me to clarify my thoughts. I often read for the same reason. Getting
exposed to different ways of thinking helps me to align my thoughts on
issues that I already feel and understand intuitively. I share my writings
with the world because 1. they can help others who share my views to
articulate their feelings, and 2. any feedback I get from sharing can
further encourage me to articulate what I'm feeling. If someone who
disagrees with me changes his mind through my writings, that is great, but I
don't expect it, nor is it what I aim for.
I do not buy into the notion that critical writing can prove something right
or wrong definitively, and that some sort of indestructible system or
structure of theory can be built. I am not engaged in this type of activity.
If you want to call it "clique", yes, that's what I do.
-Dyske
http://www.dyske.com
Whoops -meant to post the following to the list, but
half asleep & sent it only to the individuals
concerned.
Hi Eryk
I haven't read every post in this thread -so I missed
Dyske getting called a fascist -clearly as ridiculous
as Valery Grancher's similar attack on you last year.
But have we been reading the same things here? -I saw
a whole number of fairly nuanced posts in which I
found something to agree in most of them - & I think
this is because people were posting quite thoughtful ,
provisional stuff.
I thought T.Whid's contributions in particular were
thought provoking and ,you know, personally I *do*
quite often change my opinions as a result of the
arguments of others.
The sharpest contribution I read was from Jess who can
hardly be accused of being at the centre of the
international art establishment- and her point I think
was polemical but fair
I'd be very sorry if you decided to limit your
contributions merely to announcements &c - naturally I
don't agree with every one ( or perhaps nowadays even
a majority) of your positions but I never find what
you have to say less than interesting.
I urge you -reread all the posts - was the overall
tone and content really that negative?
best
michael
=====
*DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
> The sharpest contribution I read was from Jess who can
> hardly be accused of being at the centre of the
> international art establishment-
I'll take that as a compliment - I think !!!
hee! hee! hee!!
j.
o
/^ rssgallery.com
][
Dictionary definitions don't always manage to convey the full meaning of
terms as they are used in real life. I think that when we talk about art
work being profound and meaningful, we do in fact mean both "coming as if
from the depths of one's being" and "penetrating beyond what is superficial
or obvious". They are very different things but together they could mean
"pointing out a very personal point of view that goes beyond the common
perception of something". Which is what I think most art endeavors to do.
The artist has a way of approaching something or a certain view of something
and tries to clarify/convey it through art. Often these approaches or views
are so beyond the common way of approaching the matter at hand or the common
view, that it takes years to figure out what exactly the artist was
attempting to convey. When art work has been established as being profound,
it means that the work has actually managed to change the way a group of
people think and/or do and/or see something. I doubt that a single work of
art is ever truly profound. It would have to be a body of work. There might
be one key piece in the body of work that is considered the prime element
but it's the body of work that clarifies and isolates the point being made.
Pall
—– Original Message —–
From: "Ivan Pope" <[email protected]>
To: "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "Dyske Suematsu"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 2:54 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: On the profound and meaningful (was A Posteriori
art)
> > Ivan Pope mentioned that he knows plenty of artists who set out to make
> work
> > that is shallow and meaningless and that this seems like a valid
response
> to
> > the world. Well, doesn't it then have the potential to be profound and
> > meaningful in it's meaninglessness?
>
> Well, yes, that was my point.
>
> Anyway, to demonstrate the difficulty of using a glib phrase like
'profound
> & meaningful' to define what artists attempt to do, consider the
definitions
> of profound (from dictionary.com):
>
> 1. Situated at, extending to, or coming from a great depth; deep.
> 2. Coming as if from the depths of one's being: profound contempt.
> 3. Thoroughgoing; far-reaching: profound social changes.
> 4. Penetrating beyond what is superficial or obvious: a profound insight.
> 5. Unqualified; absolute: a profound silence.
>
> Do we use profound here to mean coming from the depths of one's being or
do
> we mean penetrating beyond what is superficial? Surely these are very
> different things.
>
> Cheers,
> Ivan
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> 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
Jess:
in my book it was.
best
michael
— Jess Loseby <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The sharpest contribution I read was from Jess who
> can
> > hardly be accused of being at the centre of the
> > international art establishment-
> I'll take that as a compliment - I think !!!
> hee! hee! hee!!
> j.
> o
> /^ rssgallery.com
> ][
>
>
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> 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
=====
*DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com