Joseph Beuys Social Sculpture Q&A

On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Liza Sabater wrote:

> I never said ART Inc is evil.

Nor did I ever imply that you said that its evil.
Not been naywhere NEAR evil, dearest.

> It's just that, b'ness.

Nothing is just business. But let me remind you
that what you wrote is wrong. By your own word,
you've seen the dark side of.. and it isn't pretty.

You made a quality statement.

> Which leads me to respond that Beuys is b'ness.

Except for Beuys is not 'just business'
no matter how much you insist on it.

> Tribe with Rhizome is b'ness.

Right. All the human subscribers to rhizome are just commodities.
Tribe owns everybody, n'est pas? But he's a grand benefactor
providing a platform, averily saintly saint.

So glad you said everybody is Tribe's property.
So glad that everybody must pay for the privilege of being
Tribe's property.


> And for that matter, Napier with his "for sale art" is b'ness.


You're simply attempting to peddle your own flattening of
the situation as 'the truth'.

> Still, my point was that Beuys has been commodified
> a long, long time ago.

Sorry but Beuys hasn't been commodified.
Commodification is simply a manner of relating
to reality, just like boredom and anger.

If you see Beuys as a commodity it is only because you choose to
commodify him.

> Beuys and only Beuys made it possible.

Yes, you commodify Beuys and he's the culprit.

It just couldn't be YOUR RESPONSIBILITY could it?

Poor Beuys, he was asking for it.

The unstoppable desire to debase humans.

Nevermind that my comment was to Tribe, and your reply
simply hasn't got anything to do with it.

Or is that a reply for TRibe?

Grin.

I never said ART Inc is evil. It's just that, b'ness.

Which leads me to respond that Beuys is b'ness.
Tribe with Rhizome is b'ness.
And for that matter, Napier with his "for sale art" is b'ness.

Still, my point was that Beuys has been commodified
a long, long time ago. Beuys and only Beuys made it possible.

Cheers,
Liza



At 9:41 PM -0800 11/23/02, -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:
>http://www.ginkopress.com/_cata/ima1/beuyso-0.htm
>
>So, how did exactly Mark Tribe 'start thinking' about rhizome
>as a social sculpture in Beuys terms, without making any
>'spiritual claims'?
>
>Or is Mark Tribe attempting to commodify + kitschify rhizome
>and_ beuys?
>
>And to Ms. Sabater: isn't this a marvellous example of ART, INC
>or does one 'selectively' idolize net.art because it is the
>'hopeful upcoming latest populist gadget that is to get funding'
>from the EVIL ART INC?