Kate Southworth
Since the beginning
Works in Cornwall United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

PORTFOLIO (4)
BIO
glorious ninth (http://www.gloriousninth.net) is a collaboration between artists Kate Southworth and Patrick Simons. They make artworks and DIY installations for galleries, online and other places. Recent works have started to explore the use of protocol as a medium. Kate Southworth is research leader of the iRes research cluster in Network Art at University College Falmouth (http://www.ires.org.uk).
Discussions (51) Opportunities (1) Events (5) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: what if and tid bits i cry to much


Hi Kanarinka & List

Kanarinka6/10/02 18:02kanarinka@ikatun.com wrote

> Are you proposing a movement, describing what is happening right now, or
> informing us of your own personal approach to art & the art world?

Its a combination. Its partly my own approach, but contains elements that I
have not managed to bring about yet. It has been formed partly by debating
these issues on Rhizome, and by engaging with other artists' work, so to
that extent it is describing what is happening right now.

A movement? perhaps something looser than a movement. Perhaps the
recognition of and describing of a number of elements that can be put
together in numerous ways, and a recognition of and describing of the system
that comes into being through the interconnectedness and interdependence of
these elements.

best wishes, Kate

DISCUSSION

Re: what if and tid bits i cry to much


Plasma Studii6/9/02 21:05office@plasmastudii.org wrote:

>
> So much by us computer geeks, really only appeals to like-minded
> computer geeks. plenty of art (esp in the last 50 yrs) really only
> works under one standard (no matter which standard that is, none is
> superior) and communicates nothing or disappointment to all but a
> select audience. That, to me, is the stuff that didn't work, that we
> can discard and try something else.

I think these points are really at the heart of things. So, if its OK with
you, I should just like to pull them around a bit.
Anyone can be creative.

Creativity, as is generally understood nowadays, is the production of
innovative, novel, useful artefacts or services.

A person can be personally creative (P), making art works, cakes, flower
beds in such a way that it is new to them.

A person can be historically creative (H), making art works, cakes, flower
beds in such a way that it is new for all of human kind.

If H Creativity occurs then, necessarily, P Creativity occurs also.
but, P Creativity can occur without H Creativity occurring.

An artist can be either P or H creative or both.
A scientist can be either P or H creative or both.

For H creativity to take place, it has to be measured in some way, usually
by a panel of experts. They are assessing whether a contribution to
knowledge has been made.

In academia these experts can be Journal referees. In art these experts can
be curators, critics, theorists.

This system has operated relatively successfully for quite some time.
Your point regarding
> plenty of art (esp in the last 50 yrs) really only
> works under one standard (no matter which standard that is, none is
> superior)
seems to be an accurate description of this system in action.

you go on to say
>and communicates nothing or disappointment to all but a
> select audience.

like other areas of knowledge production, only a relatively few people are
engaged in specific areas of art practice.

So does it makes sense that only a few people will be able to 'understand'
specific areas of art as only a few people would be able to understand a
scientific paper as it was written for peers?

>That, to me, is the stuff that didn't work, that we
> can discard and try something else.

Is it true that the framework within which art is judged as having made a
contribution to knowledge, is limited.

Artists have very little real power in terms of assessing whether new work
by peers has made a contribution to knowledge.

The fact that art is judged as an autonomous artefact means that its
relation with its producer(s) and consumers(s) is disregarded when judging
whether it has made a contribution to knowledge.

If art makes a contribution to knowledge, and only a few people are able to
understand it, is there a role for artists making different versions of
their work, for different audiences - or is that what different cultural
forms are anyway?

very best, Kate

DISCUSSION

Re: what if and tid bits i cry to much


Hi Marc, List

furtherfield6/9/02 2:23info@furtherfield.org wrote a whole lot of things
that I believe raise really important points. I would like to come back to
them when I've a little more time if that's OK.

very best wishes

Kate

DISCUSSION

Re: what if and tid bits i cry to much


Pet Name6/8/02 15:56muserna@muserna.org wrote:

>
> Dance I said! Get up and boogie!! What? You don't have a boogie-down tape
> from last summers napped mp3s? Hell DL some new ones, or I'll burn you my
> boogie-down cd if you like.

I've followed your recommendation.

If I can't dance then I don't want to be part of this digital revolution.

best wishes, Kate

DISCUSSION

Re: what if and tid bits i cry to much


Hi Eryk and List

Apologies for not getting back sooner - I was gardening all weekend!

In a previous post I wrote:
>> The perception of ourselves as artists inspired to create beautiful objects
>> without consciously knowing how we make work (for fear that knowing might
>> spoil the magic) has to be rejected. Completely rejected.
>>

Eryk replied:
> Why?

My response is this:

It has to be rejected because it represents a skewed and restricted view of
the artist and the production and consumption of art.

I'm calling for a radical aesthetics.

1. A radical philosophy of art, that views art not just as the end product
of creative processes, but sees art as the processes of and the relationship
between the production and consumption of artistic activity.

2. A radical aesthetics that is relevant to the production and consumption
of art rather than the theory of art.

3. A radical aesthetics that encourages contradiction as a useful means of
understanding, rather than as the antithesis of understanding.

4. A radical aesthetics that promotes the role of art, and the role of the
producer and consumer of that art, as a means by which our contemporary
world in all its complexity, can be better understood.

5. A radical aesthetic that re-evaluates the relationship between producer
and consumer of art and perhaps allows for a number of relationships to
co-exist.

6. A radical aesthetic, that whilst recognising its contradictory nature,
explores the contemporary and historical relationship between the
production and consumption of art and the market, with the aim of developing
an alternative model.

7. A radical aesthetics that promotes art as being as pro-active and
significant as any other form of knowledge production.

8. A radical aesthetic that acknowledges that depending upon which aspect of
the world art is investigating, then different tools, techniques,
methodologies and approaches will be used, and that throughout all the
different forms of art there are different political and ethical
perspectives being reflected.

9. A radical aesthetics that recognises the practice of art as just that -
something that is worked at daily over a life time. A practice that through
the process of making art (of whatever kind - yes, even painting) the artist
(and hopefully, the audience of the work produced) grows in understanding of
the inner and outer worlds and their relationship to each other.

10. A radical aesthetics that promotes debate - between artists, and between
artists and theorists, and between artists and audiences.

11. A radical aesthetics that takes what it wants from traditional
aesthetics, and from any other area of academic or non-academic life, and
which rejects those elements which constrict or hinder it in any way.