A Dookie for Every Sandanista

At 01:22 AM 5/06/2003 -0400, you wrote:

>I think maybe it's time to stop worrying about work being appropriated- I
>think maybe that's a bit of an Oro Bourous concern as well. "Anything I do,
>could be used against me in the court of life- I'll do nothing, and then
>nothing can be appropriated." You make art and the next thing you know
>there's a beer commercial that looks just like it. I don't have an answer-
>and I'm not correcting you, I think this is what you were getting at anyway-
>but in the end, I am not sure if an artist can really wonder about thier
>contributions being assimilated into the corporate/political machine once it
>leaves thier hands. And I don't think it matters. The best art would
>idealistically destroy itself under captivity, but of course, for every
>Clash there is a Greenday, ["A Dookie for Every Sandanista!"] and for every
>Greenday, there is an audience. This is not to say that artists don't have
>responsibilities to thier work and to thier audience, but simply put, if
>they want to make a beer ad that looks like your work, they might do it, so
>maybe make the work implode- it's up to debate but I think Barbera Kruger
>did this somewhat. I think this issue is very sticky, particularly for me-
>how do you make a piece of art that doesn't have a potential negative
>ramification, that doesn't somehow support the status quo, the patriarchy,
>the whateveryouwannablameyourproblemsonogarchy? I can only think of one way,
>which is not to make work that attempts to subvert those paradigms, but
>rather, work that stands outside of it to give perspective into them.
>
>And I certainly don't see a lot of that type of work being produced. I
>certainly haven't gotten there yet, personally.


lets all create rhizome beanies with PANS attached. that's original, right?

:)




>-e.
>
>
>
>
>
>—– Original Message —–
>From: "ryan griffis" <[email protected]>
>To: <[email protected]>
>Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:47 PM
>Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Corporate [Art]Rule
>
>
> > it seems like "political" has become a narrowly defined term here - by
>accepting the way it was used in the original call (i would assume it was
>meant to discourage references to US electoral politics/partisanship),
>though eryk offered alternatives to the binary logic that are no less
>"political," i.e. seeking to engage in some kind relationship involving
>persuasion. i don't mean this to sound corrective - i'm sure everyone's
>aware of the semantic use of "politics." but the insidious demotion of the
>word (in the US) to the vulgar and dishonest has given far too much power to
>oppressive ideologies that rely on anti-intellectualism and populist
>rhetoric, while discouraging civic involvement. i mean, when saying that a
>political debate is "just about politics" is used as a negative - what the
>hell does that mean? or "get the government out of our lives" - shouldn't it
>be "get our lives into the government?"
> > now i'm just ranting about linguistics (sorry) - but it does matter.
> > defining the context of what is "political" or "pornographic" would be of
>interest - as many corporations thrive on images of "radicality" that many
>might consider to be both of those terms. there's always regulating
>structures (and counter structures) for culture, but determining the power
>afforded to some is worth considering, maybe. joseph's idea of subversion
>has a history of practice (from muralists like Ben Shaun and Rivera), but
>eryk's got a point, subversion (reaction) is easily just appropriated by the
>media machine it tries to oppose. positive proposals are too, as PR
>"greenwashing" illustrates. both seem necessary to me.
> >
> >
> > + 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
> >
>
>+ 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

- pro][rating][.lucid.txt
-
-

http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker
_
_men[iscus_heart] plucking via broken bag.gages_

Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

> how do you make a piece of art that doesn't have a potential negative
> ramification, that doesn't somehow support the status quo, the
> patriarchy,
> the whateveryouwannablameyourproblemsonogarchy? I can only think of
> one way,
> which is not to make work that attempts to subvert those paradigms,
> but
> rather, work that stands outside of it to give perspective into them.
>

The moment you use any definition to describe a work, you enter into the paradigm. You would have to create work that has no description and no determination of its relative value. But to formulate such work, you would have to be a savant the moment you were born and capable of building such. Perhaps aliens will land.

The question is how do you make art that has a positive power. It's not the art, its the artist. The other question is how do you get people to make a change? Take matters to the extreme.

BTW - check out how we are decorating the Bronx…

http://www.electrichands.com/flowers/May_2003_Beauty_Salon
http://www.electrichands.com/flowers/May31_2003_Bruckner_A&A Fair
http://www.electrichands.com/flowers/Labrynth_Pagent_May_2_2003

joseph





>
>
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "ryan griffis" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:47 PM
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Corporate [Art]Rule
>
>
> > it seems like "political" has become a narrowly defined term here -
> by
> accepting the way it was used in the original call (i would assume it
> was
> meant to discourage references to US electoral politics/partisanship),
> though eryk offered alternatives to the binary logic that are no less
> "political," i.e. seeking to engage in some kind relationship
> involving
> persuasion. i don't mean this to sound corrective - i'm sure
> everyone's
> aware of the semantic use of "politics." but the insidious demotion of
> the
> word (in the US) to the vulgar and dishonest has given far too much
> power to
> oppressive ideologies that rely on anti-intellectualism and populist
> rhetoric, while discouraging civic involvement. i mean, when saying
> that a
> political debate is "just about politics" is used as a negative - what
> the
> hell does that mean? or "get the government out of our lives" -
> shouldn't it
> be "get our lives into the government?"
> > now i'm just ranting about linguistics (sorry) - but it does matter.
> > defining the context of what is "political" or "pornographic" would
> be of
> interest - as many corporations thrive on images of "radicality" that
> many
> might consider to be both of those terms. there's always regulating
> structures (and counter structures) for culture, but determining the
> power
> afforded to some is worth considering, maybe. joseph's idea of
> subversion
> has a history of practice (from muralists like Ben Shaun and Rivera),
> but
> eryk's got a point, subversion (reaction) is easily just appropriated
> by the
> media machine it tries to oppose. positive proposals are too, as PR
> "greenwashing" illustrates. both seem necessary to me.
> >
> >
> > + 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
> >
>

I personally think that there needs to be much more art that looks like that
award winning beer commercial played during the superbowl.

Ever think that maybe its the other way around.
"appropriated" is such a mis-understood word these days.

Do you watch TV?
Give me three artists that are truly original.

The age old myth of the art world floating outside the real world, making
attempts at objectivity and accepting little responsibility for ones
artistic manifestations.

"work that stands outside of it to give perspective into them"

on 6/5/03 1:22 AM, Eryk Salvaggio at [email protected] wrote:

> "Anything I do, could be used against me in the court of life- I'll do
nothing, and then nothing can be appropriated." You make art and the next
thing you know there's a beer commercial that looks just like it.

I can only think of one way, which is not to make work that attempts to
subvert those paradigms, but rather, work that stands outside of it to give
perspective into them.

—– Original Message —–
From: "Lee Wells" <[email protected]>


> I personally think that there needs to be much more art that looks like
that
> award winning beer commercial played during the superbowl.

Right, I don't.


>
> Ever think that maybe its the other way around.
> "appropriated" is such a mis-understood word these days.

I know, and I don't think artists should worry about it.

>
> Do you watch TV?
> Give me three artists that are truly original.

Why? So you can say they aren't? Who cares? But here's some:
Warhol, Ghandi, and DuChamp.

> The age old myth of the art world floating outside the real world, making
> attempts at objectivity and accepting little responsibility for ones
> artistic manifestations.

I'm all for the exact opposite. But also, I believe in such a thing as true
objectivity and responsibility.

> "work that stands outside of it to give perspective into them"

I don't think there is enough art that truly stands outside of percieved
social agreements.

-e.



>
> on 6/5/03 1:22 AM, Eryk Salvaggio at [email protected] wrote:
>
> > "Anything I do, could be used against me in the court of life- I'll do
> nothing, and then nothing can be appropriated." You make art and the next
> thing you know there's a beer commercial that looks just like it.
>
> I can only think of one way, which is not to make work that attempts to
> subvert those paradigms, but rather, work that stands outside of it to
give
> perspective into them.
>
> + 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
>

<much more
art that looks like that
award winning beer commercial played during the
superbowl.>
I think this is a really interesting question.
I don't know the ad in question, but the other week in
the UK there was an anthology on TV of the
"100 best ever" ads, voted for by the public .
I turned it on idly and I was totally gripped.
In many ways it was a manual, a masterclass, in short
film making, and it made me reflect on this whole
question of whether we should perhaps aspire to the
production values of what Capital can buy in terms of
the "creatives".
I can't help feeling that we can learn useful lessons
but as to whether we can simply say "We should be as
sharp as this" &c I'm really doubtful and it comes
back I think to the distinction that I would want to
make between corporate entertainment ( and ad making
for that matter) and art.
I believe craft is absolutely crucial to what we do
and quite often I would want to "bend the stick" to
disparage work that is trendy but ultimately craftless
and lazy.
Nevertheless it seems to me that craft is a necessary
but far from sufficient condition for the creation of
great art. Furthermore, what is striking about many
authentic works of art is a certain lack of finish
-its almost as if the artist were too focussed on the
whole complex of things going on in the piece to be
overly concerned about the minutiae of complete
technical perfection.
So if you compare fine and graphic arts 9/10 times
technically the makers of ads trump the fine artists.
The difficulty in seeing the woods for the trees
involves the fact that the ad makers and the artists (
increasingly?) use the same tehcniques, equipment,
materials.
A certain variety of sloppy and lazy postmdernism says
"it doesn't matter: all discourses can be analyzed on
the same continuum" - the ad is the same kind of beast
as a Fellini film.
I don't accept that - its necessary to look at the
entire social, historical and cultural context that
surrounds a piece of work to know how to situate it.
Having done that I want to insist on the difference
between the artist who in some way struggles to tell
the truth and the corporate entertainer or "creative"
who struggles to sell beer or to flatter the wealthy
and powerful.
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