Hi Joseph and list,
How many times must something be said to understood & not ignored? And
please do not cheapen my questions by putting me in a category amongst those
who feel squeemish, or feel that the piece is in bad taste. I am hoping that
you are able to discern my misgivings. Also, I do not wish you to take this
personally - and I am sure you will not. I am hoping that you will be able
reevaluate and appreciate that their are some genuine points being shared
here, with you and who ever is interested. Although, I am in not in the same
league as Eyrk regarding criticizing your very existence.
I would like to begin, by clearing up the confusion (or diversion) between
seeing images of [REAL] dead people being used for art, and the other
references that a peer stated below.
>Do you think we should reject
> for example "A Modest Proposal" (Swift's satirical essay in which he
> proposed that the starving Irish should eat their children) on
> grounds of taste?
No, of course not, It is not about taste, sheesh! It is about empathy on a
deeper level, deeper than art.,
To use history to justify a contempoary situation wthout recognizing that
present day mediums used for art are very different now, is a blind
acceptance or denial of media progression, and showing such literal
representations can distract one from seeing the real death, murder at hand.
Images can sometimes lose essence…
With what is mentioned below - as far as I know, there is not any
declaration or proof that the use of images (photographs) of real people
(actual people) for art work is used in these people's work - this is the
point.
> Possibly we
could argue about the execution of Joseph's pieces but I think their
> intent is in a pretty honorable line of Hogarth, Swift and more
> recently Grosz and John Heartfield.
Or on the grounds that the Irish peasants would not
> understand/ be offended by the piece?
Different issue entirely…
Here in, we can then move into a territory that eradicates confusion of
other works - for the issue is not about whether other artists have done the
same thing. It is about media representation of [REAL] people being seen and
recontextualized. And their last essence of existence being placed into a
context not of their own choice, and certainly not on their own terms. All
we see is their death, their own lives discarded and forgotten and
re-invented in a moment.
I can appreciate satire - but using the victims themselves. Why not the
killers themselves instead?
Have we all become so desensitized that we for some delusory reason, think
that satire is beyond questioning, in repsect the use of [REAL] people's
deaths? If so, what does this mean?
Each day and night of the ongoing war in Iraq is different with different
grieves, different acts of defiance, different stupidities. It remains,
however, the same war, the war which almost everyone in the world perceived,
before it began, as an aggression of unprecedented cynicism (the ravine
between declared principles and real aims), undertaken to seize control of
one of the world's richest oil reserves, to test out new weapons, like the
microwave bomb, weapons of pitiless destruction, many of which were offered
free to the Pentagon by the manufacturers in the hope of winning substantial
contracts for wars to come, but principally and above all undertaken to
demonstrate to the present fragmented but globalised world what Shock and
Awe is! http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-2-95-1154.jsp
The argument is clear - I am against images of real (dead) people being used
for art in a world that thrives on an (almost orgazmicly) visual experience
of death, on an everyday basis. In films, games and in the news. What do
other people's lives mean to those who accept such images? The cause and
effect of 'top down' discrimination mediates what we see, and we've got it
24 hours a day. What difference does it make when it is re-introduced into
the form of an artwork, when we have the 'kill thrill horror' being beamed
into our craniums every second of the day?
Doesn't it mean that it might be a good idea to find alternative and more
imaginative ways of expressing our creative grievances against such
atrocities? If not, why not?
We know that dead people are easy pickings for news sensation, but for art
as well.
marc
[REAL] dead people...
-
Type: discussion
Comments
Quoting "marc.garrett" <[email protected]>:
> Hi Joseph and list,
>
> How many times must something be said to understood & not ignored? And
> please do not cheapen my questions by putting me in a category amongst those
> who feel squeemish, or feel that the piece is in bad taste. I am hoping that
> you are able to discern my misgivings. Also, I do not wish you to take this
> personally - and I am sure you will not. I am hoping that you will be able
> reevaluate and appreciate that their are some genuine points being shared
> here, with you and who ever is interested. Although, I am in not in the same
> league as Eyrk regarding criticizing your very existence.
I appreciate that you feel what you say. But I don't feel I should say it the
way you would. I am sentimental about different things than you. And I would
say that it is not me that fails to read deeply. Nor you alone.
> The argument is clear - I am against images of real (dead) people being used
> for art in a world that thrives on an (almost orgazmicly) visual experience
> of death, on an everyday basis. In films, games and in the news. What do
> other people's lives mean to those who accept such images? The cause and
> effect of 'top down' discrimination mediates what we see, and we've got it
> 24 hours a day. What difference does it make when it is re-introduced into
> the form of an artwork, when we have the 'kill thrill horror' being beamed
> into our craniums every second of the day?
After a certain point, you can't stop an alcoholic from being an alcoholic.
And that is not a throw away statement. An alcoholic has to hit rock bottom.
>
> Doesn't it mean that it might be a good idea to find alternative and more
> imaginative ways of expressing our creative grievances against such
> atrocities? If not, why not?
>
You should be proving it to me, not asking me.
Joseph
—– Original Message —–
From: "marc.garrett" <[email protected]>
> Although, I am in not in the same
> league as Eyrk regarding criticizing your very existence.
I don't criticize his "existence", I criticize his facade of a "seeker" of
"enlightenment" who tosses Buddhist references around like nobodies dirty
buisiness, and then doesn't have the sense to know that putting the images
of dead people into a sexualized context is a poor decision from a
"compassionate" world view. Furthermore, as you'll see below, my problems
with the piece don't neccesarily have to have anything to do with Joseph
being the artist- something he'll try to deflect [and has succesfuly
deflected] with his claim that I have "an irrational hatred" towards him-
just like he tried to present in his "newsletter" that the work was
"controversial." It doesn't matter- the piece is still irresponsible, and
poor art, and my reasons for it are perfectly valid- and only one of those
reasons has anything to do with "who made it."
> Here in, we can then move into a territory that eradicates confusion of
> other works - for the issue is not about whether other artists have done
the
> same thing. It is about media representation of [REAL] people being seen
and
> recontextualized. And their last essence of existence being placed into a
> context not of their own choice, and certainly not on their own terms. All
> we see is their death, their own lives discarded and forgotten and
> re-invented in a moment.
Exactly- human beings entire lives reduced to military statistics and your
snapshot at that moment being what flashes along to disco music- to serve
the purposes of the "evil" US Military, as well as the intentions of
journalists, politicians and artists. I don't see "compassionate" here. But
I would also venture to say that the dead themselves are not the victims of
being re-appropriated- they themselves are dead; and thier death is what it
is: They no longer exist. While I personally place value in human life, it
is an intrinsic value.
The greater responsibility stems from the use of those images by the
aggressors. What does use of these images say to the living, and what does
use of these images say about our "victory?" I had pointed out in another
discussion that the use of artifacts or images of the dead is a quick
sensational tactic to get to the mind of its intended audience- whether that
is rhizome or not doesn't matter. If an artist can start assuming that they
can just use images of the dead because it automatically imbibes the piece
with "power" then we start running into a drainage of the power of those
images in the first place. [This sort of power is not cumulative.] But from
a compassionate worldview, you have to know that re-appropriation drains the
power of whatever you are re-appropriating. You cannot endlessly photocopy
without degradation, you cannot mass produce w/o decreasing the value of an
original. You can recontextualize in order to intentionally "decrease" the
power of the original context by way of irony/satire as a way of expressing
"reality" in relief- the very presence of which turns the subject the butt
of a joke. In the form of most satire there's never compassion involved- SNL
skits about GW Bush are "funny" maybe, but they are not "enlightened" or
"compassionate." When these skits make use of real death as the setup for
telling a joke, a line is crossed in most peoples ethical boundaries. Of
course, plenty of artists do this on a constant basis.
Sensationalism is the art of transforming compassion into pity and then into
entertainment. Joseph has recently said that we are not the "audience" for
these pieces, so we have to ask who the audience is- and we cannot assume an
individual comes to the piece with the full understanding of the context of
this war. Certainly, the piece fails to provide any internal context or
education on the matter. So, what does this piece say to someone who is
pro-war? While it's not a sin to preach to the choir, it doesn't help to
convert anyone, either. If this was intentional it would be admirable, but
I'm not stupid.
I would also venture to say that in the process of making political art, the
use of symbols of our own aggression in an "entertainment" context greatly
undermines the ability for any audience to understand the impact of what is
happening. In this case, the context of this war, the soldiers are well
known to be conscripts, often forced to fight at gunpoint. What does a piece
of art say when it takes the images of these "spoils of war," and, as the
aggressor nation, utilizes them for entertainment?
> I can appreciate satire - but using the victims themselves. Why not the
> killers themselves instead?
Dead American Soldiers would be in just as poor a choice as Dead Iraqis, but
I think because of underlying elements of racism in our culture, it is more
forgivable for a piece to show images of dead "enemy" [ie, arab/muslim]
soldiers- another reason that I find this piece irresponsible, is that it
appeals to racist divisions in world views by using solely dead Iraqis as
the source of its sensationalism- just like the media it is pretending to
"critique."
> The argument is clear - I am against images of real (dead) people being
used
> for art in a world that thrives on an (almost orgazmicly) visual
experience
> of death, on an everyday basis. In films, games and in the news. What do
> other people's lives mean to those who accept such images?
What about those who see these images as a "resource" to "plunder" in order
to create work that has "emotional urgency and rawness?" The whole world
"accepts" these images- precisely why Joseph had to attempt to place them in
a context that would "shock him." Pieces have already been made that prove
this point- protesters "dead-ins," are one example, in which the
representation of the dead is used to create a linkage between the dead
civilians in Iraq and to break through our unfortunately racist [+
"distance-ist"] view of them. A work that subverts the defense mechanisms of
racism, emotional distance, and the"righteousness" of war is "anti-war" art.
This piece reinforces all of them- shoot the flowers to shoot the enemy,
[working on a flowers/enemy dichotomy is also suspect], get your thrill from
killing the brown enemy, and don't forget to conflate your sexuality with
murder while waiting for the piece to load. It is not the requirement of any
artist to take a "compassionate world view" however; and it is barely within
my ability to comment on "compassion" myself- something which is fraught
with misconceptions and conflation with "niceness." In order to take issue
with this work, I have to look at the artist who makes it- and the artist in
this case makes a claim to "compassion," which is clearly radically
redefined if it allows a piece like this to be created.
> The cause and
> effect of 'top down' discrimination mediates what we see, and we've got it
> 24 hours a day. What difference does it make when it is re-introduced into
> the form of an artwork, when we have the 'kill thrill horror' being beamed
> into our craniums every second of the day?
Propaganda is an art form, it works with emotional manipulation as opposed
to those of reason; in our modern day it employs shock tactics and edge of
your seat titillation combined with elements of reward [this just in, and
you saw it live]- humans want "knowledge" and "facts" like a junkie needs
junk. So the news throws it at you; maybe you'll get to see it unfold [just
click right here….] But do you think Peter Jennings "knows" [or even
believes for a minute] that he's pulling your strings? Does it matter to you
if he "knows what he's doing" or not? The end result is the same. We have a
right to ask that the people in such positions are capable and responsible.
So it goes for art that claims to be about war, or about philosophy, or
religion, or politics- if an artist is commenting on any given subject,
there should be a great awareness of the rudimentary concepts associated
with that subject. In this case, the subject was propaganda/war hype and it
fell into the hands of what it was that it was trying to unsuccesfully
"satire" by coming too close to its subject matter.
-e.
Hi Joseph,
Well, Turmoil was a conscious side-step (personally) from using real dead
people…
http://www.furtherfield.org/mgarrett/turmoil/
marc
> > Doesn't it mean that it might be a good idea to find alternative and
more
> > imaginative ways of expressing our creative grievances against such
> > atrocities? If not, why not?
> >
>
> You should be proving it to me, not asking me.
>
> > Hi Joseph and list,
> >
> > How many times must something be said to understood & not ignored? And
> > please do not cheapen my questions by putting me in a category amongst
those
> > who feel squeemish, or feel that the piece is in bad taste. I am hoping
that
> > you are able to discern my misgivings. Also, I do not wish you to take
this
> > personally - and I am sure you will not. I am hoping that you will be
able
> > reevaluate and appreciate that their are some genuine points being
shared
> > here, with you and who ever is interested. Although, I am in not in the
same
> > league as Eyrk regarding criticizing your very existence.
>
> I appreciate that you feel what you say. But I don't feel I should say it
the
> way you would. I am sentimental about different things than you. And I
would
> say that it is not me that fails to read deeply. Nor you alone.
>
> > The argument is clear - I am against images of real (dead) people being
used
> > for art in a world that thrives on an (almost orgazmicly) visual
experience
> > of death, on an everyday basis. In films, games and in the news. What do
> > other people's lives mean to those who accept such images? The cause and
> > effect of 'top down' discrimination mediates what we see, and we've got
it
> > 24 hours a day. What difference does it make when it is re-introduced
into
> > the form of an artwork, when we have the 'kill thrill horror' being
beamed
> > into our craniums every second of the day?
>
> After a certain point, you can't stop an alcoholic from being an
alcoholic.
> And that is not a throw away statement. An alcoholic has to hit rock
bottom.
>
> >
> > Doesn't it mean that it might be a good idea to find alternative and
more
> > imaginative ways of expressing our creative grievances against such
> > atrocities? If not, why not?
> >
>
> You should be proving it to me, not asking me.
>
> Joseph
> + 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
>
well, I got a nice moment of insight from camoflauge, and the others were good,
but I did not get a shudder.
joseph & donna
www.electrichands.com
joseph franklyn mcelroy
corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
[email protected]
Quoting "marc.garrett" <[email protected]>:
> Hi Joseph,
>
> Well, Turmoil was a conscious side-step (personally) from using real dead
> people…
>
> http://www.furtherfield.org/mgarrett/turmoil/
>
> marc
>
>
>
> > > Doesn't it mean that it might be a good idea to find alternative and
> more
> > > imaginative ways of expressing our creative grievances against such
> > > atrocities? If not, why not?
> > >
> >
> > You should be proving it to me, not asking me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > > Hi Joseph and list,
> > >
> > > How many times must something be said to understood & not ignored? And
> > > please do not cheapen my questions by putting me in a category amongst
> those
> > > who feel squeemish, or feel that the piece is in bad taste. I am hoping
> that
> > > you are able to discern my misgivings. Also, I do not wish you to take
> this
> > > personally - and I am sure you will not. I am hoping that you will be
> able
> > > reevaluate and appreciate that their are some genuine points being
> shared
> > > here, with you and who ever is interested. Although, I am in not in the
> same
> > > league as Eyrk regarding criticizing your very existence.
> >
> > I appreciate that you feel what you say. But I don't feel I should say it
> the
> > way you would. I am sentimental about different things than you. And I
> would
> > say that it is not me that fails to read deeply. Nor you alone.
> >
> > > The argument is clear - I am against images of real (dead) people being
> used
> > > for art in a world that thrives on an (almost orgazmicly) visual
> experience
> > > of death, on an everyday basis. In films, games and in the news. What do
> > > other people's lives mean to those who accept such images? The cause and
> > > effect of 'top down' discrimination mediates what we see, and we've got
> it
> > > 24 hours a day. What difference does it make when it is re-introduced
> into
> > > the form of an artwork, when we have the 'kill thrill horror' being
> beamed
> > > into our craniums every second of the day?
> >
> > After a certain point, you can't stop an alcoholic from being an
> alcoholic.
> > And that is not a throw away statement. An alcoholic has to hit rock
> bottom.
> >
> > >
> > > Doesn't it mean that it might be a good idea to find alternative and
> more
> > > imaginative ways of expressing our creative grievances against such
> > > atrocities? If not, why not?
> > >
> >
> > You should be proving it to me, not asking me.
> >
> > Joseph
> > + 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
> >
Turmoil is not specifically about the experience of shuddering - if that is=
what you need from it, then it is probably not an appropriate site for it,=
the feelings around it are concerning confusion/allegiances & intimate vis=
ceral experience with a contemplative edge. I think that 'fear of beauty' i=
s the closest shuddery piece really.
If you wanna shudder, listen to http://www.furtherfield.org/otmonkeys/docs/=
wife_beaterz.htm
Wife Beaterz Hate Art - An anti- wife beater noise, with cut up rhythms and=
screaming vocals. Crackling, sizzling electro grunge.
I ain't in the business of trying to make people shudder - my work is not r=
eally so goal orientated, it is much more about intuitive reasoning, side-s=
tepping mediated spectacle rulez…
marc
> well, I got a nice moment of insight from camoflauge, and the others were=
good,
> but I did not get a shudder.
>
> joseph & donna
> www.electrichands.com
> joseph franklyn mcelroy
> corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com
>
> go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
> call me 646 279 2309
>
> SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
> Quoting "marc.garrett" <[email protected]>:
>
> > Hi Joseph,
> >
> > Well, Turmoil was a conscious side-step (personally) from using real de=
ad
> > people…
> >
> > http://www.furtherfield.org/mgarrett/turmoil/
> >
> > marc
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Doesn't it mean that it might be a good idea to find alternative and
> > more
> > > > imaginative ways of expressing our creative grievances against such
> > > > atrocities? If not, why not?
> > > >
> > >
> > > You should be proving it to me, not asking me.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Hi Joseph and list,
> > > >
> > > > How many times must something be said to understood & not ignored? =
And
> > > > please do not cheapen my questions by putting me in a category amon=
gst
> > those
> > > > who feel squeemish, or feel that the piece is in bad taste. I am ho=
ping
> > that
> > > > you are able to discern my misgivings. Also, I do not wish you to t=
ake
> > this
> > > > personally - and I am sure you will not. I am hoping that you will =
be
> > able
> > > > reevaluate and appreciate that their are some genuine points being
> > shared
> > > > here, with you and who ever is interested. Although, I am in not in=
the
> > same
> > > > league as Eyrk regarding criticizing your very existence.
> > >
> > > I appreciate that you feel what you say. But I don't feel I should sa=
y it
> > the
> > > way you would. I am sentimental about different things than you. An=
d I
> > would
> > > say that it is not me that fails to read deeply. Nor you alone.
> > >
> > > > The argument is clear - I am against images of real (dead) people b=
eing
> > used
> > > > for art in a world that thrives on an (almost orgazmicly) visual
> > experience
> > > > of death, on an everyday basis. In films, games and in the news. Wh=
at do
> > > > other people's lives mean to those who accept such images? The caus=
e and
> > > > effect of 'top down' discrimination mediates what we see, and we've=
got
> > it
> > > > 24 hours a day. What difference does it make when it is re-introduc=
ed
> > into
> > > > the form of an artwork, when we have the 'kill thrill horror' being
> > beamed
> > > > into our craniums every second of the day?
> > >
> > > After a certain point, you can't stop an alcoholic from being an
> > alcoholic.
> > > And that is not a throw away statement. An alcoholic has to hit rock
> > bottom.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Doesn't it mean that it might be a good idea to find alternative and
> > more
> > > > imaginative ways of expressing our creative grievances against such
> > > > atrocities? If not, why not?
> > > >
> > >
> > > You should be proving it to me, not asking me.
> > >
> > > Joseph
> > > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > > -> post: [email protected]
> > > -> questions: [email protected]
> > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rh=
iz
> > > -> 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.p=
hp
> > >
>