Hi all,
I have been offline in Kentucky. I'll try address what I perceive to
be cruxy issues:
+++++++++++++++++++++
1.
There is no patent on the English adjective "conceptual." It existed
before the 60s. One can use the word "conceptual" to mean
"conceptual," even in a discussion about art, even in a discussion
about contemporary art.
Duchamp's fountain is conceptual and anti-object. Magritte's "this
is not a pipe" paintings address similar issues. There was talk
about the tyranny of the object prior to the 60s.
2.
Eduardo, your form of art criticism [What was the artist trying to
achieve? How well did he achieve his stated or implicit goals?] is
too relativistic for me. I believe in truth and beauty beyond any
single human perspective, and I think it's fair (although admittedly
dicey) to approach art with said belief in mind. An artist chooses
to fail, and he makes some piece of crap that fails. He succeeds
according to your critical approach, but I still think he fails.
T., your form of art criticism [to understand a work in its
historical context, in relation to previous historical movements,
considering extant texts by the artist and critics describing the
piece] is too academic and socio-political for me.
I believe art is most beneficially judged one piece at a time, with
the art speaking for itself as its own "text." Art unable to do this
fails to me. Which is why I'm going to value art that imbues its
object with meaning. If I had to ally my critical approach with any
single historical camp, it would be most akin to the literary
criticism of the New Critics (alan tate, john crowe ransom, andrew
lytle, etc.).
I'm not going to abandon my critical perspective simply because
others have done some coursework.
3.
I don't consider Rhizome raw an academic publication. There are
numerous academic fora where my conversational theorizing would be
disallowed without the requisite footnotes. But rhizome raw seems
more like a place where artists talk shop, one to another. At least
that's how I approach it and what I hope to get out of it.
So I think it's fair to ask me to define what I mean by "conceptual,"
but once I explain what I mean, to take me to task for meaning the
wrong thing is to avoid the discussion put forward. It comes across
as academic filibustering.
I'm interested in talking about creative process from the "maker" end
of things. I mentioned the work of beuys and hirst, not to re-write
art history, but to reference a confined body of known work and to
discuss it (from my critical perspective) in terms of a creative
continuum I am proposing.
If I abandon the term "conceptual" and substitute the totally new
term "idea-ual;" if I confine my references only to net art work
created within the last 10 years, then can we revisit the dialogue
itself without re-hashing meta-critical issues, or is such a "good
faith" conversation not possible?
The continuum I am proposing (with idea-ualism on one side and
sensory aesthetics on the other), far from being obtuse, seems
pertinent and instructive to our medium, particularly given its
development over the last few years. (It seemed particularly
applicable to the Flash discussion.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Tim, you say "own, be owned, or remain invisible" is just as idea-ual
and object-ephemeral as playdamage.org. I disagree. The issue is
not about the physicality of the bits (just as it never was about the
physicality of the paint [if you'll allow me to talk about paint]).
It's about sensory perception. It's about the senses. Bunting's
piece could have been set in any typeface, the text could have been
any height, the background of the page could have been any color.
None of these sense-affecting changes would have affected the impact
of the piece, because the piece is not dialoguing in the senses at
all. It's an idea-ual piece. playdamage.org is (in part) about the
senses. It is dialoguing (in part) in the realm of the senses. Turn
off your speakers and you greatly affect the impact of the piece.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Eryk wrote:
> I am really at a loss for this argument. Am I right, Curt, that your
> position is:
>
> 1. Art that concerns itself primarily with aesthetics is dull
no. I usually like that kind of art a lot. Klee rocks my world.
> 2. Art that concerns itself primarily with concept is dull
if the concept is not encoded aesthetically into media that dialogues
with the senses in some way, yes, on the whole.
> 3. Art that concerns itself with a little of both is just right.
it has the potential to be just right. it depends on the piece, of course.
> In general it seems like you need to budget your critique instead of
> spending it all in one place; you can't write off "conceptual art"-
Dang! If I ask nicely may I?
> maybe
> one day a piece of conceptual art may bowl you over, and what will you
> do
> then?
cross that bridge. Maybe one day I'll be sexually attracted to a 500
lb. skinhead albino midget named Gary. But until then….
+++++++++++++++++++++
"i never did see that movie / i never did read that book,"
curt
_
_
Re:conceptual art was:[best work with Flash?]
-
Type: discussion
Comments
hi curt,
hope you had a good 4th.
thoughtful reply, thanks.
just one thing from me tonight, below:
On Sunday, July 6, 2003, at 11:10 PM, Curt Cloninger wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have been offline in Kentucky. I'll try address what I perceive to
> be cruxy issues:
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++
>
> 1.
> There is no patent on the English adjective "conceptual." It existed
> before the 60s. One can use the word "conceptual" to mean
> "conceptual," even in a discussion about art, even in a discussion
> about contemporary art.
>
> Duchamp's fountain is conceptual and anti-object. Magritte's "this is
> not a pipe" paintings address similar issues. There was talk about
> the tyranny of the object prior to the 60s.
>
of course. but when we start talking about 'conceptualists' and
'conceptualism' and 'conceptualist' when referring to art we run into
the confusion as it's also the name of a certain strategy and movement.
in other fields, like design and illustration for example, you can use
the term without confusion. for example, my gfriend is an illustrator
and illustrators and art directors will talk about illustrations being
'conceptual' and i'm never confused that they're talking about a work
that looks like a vito acconci video or something.
in art criticism, there is a model which defines the 3 main properties
of an artwork: form, content, subject and crits art on how these 3
properties interact. your definitions fit this model but you collapse
subject and content into one property called 'concept'. it's a
modernist view of art.
cya
—– Original Message —–
From: "Curt Cloninger" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 9:10 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re:conceptual art was:[best work with Flash?]
> "i never did see that movie / i never did read that book,"
> curt
The ending phrase might be: "But I do have an opinion about their role in
culture."
That makes sense to me…
I already explained the role of conceptualism. I do not think I can add
much more at this point. I will admit that the main reason why there seems
to be a disagreement is not so much on the definitions, but rather on
ideological positioning. This may be why Curt decided to drop the term
conceptualism and use the word "idea-ual." But either way, there needs to
be an understanding where one is coming from.
Conceptualism developed as a way to question Beauty because the idea of
beauty relies on an ideological infrastructure of the priviledged few. Much
conceptualism functions as a way to expose the contradictions in the art
system while working within it. Many artists have developed an interesting
art practice by choosing this line of work. Michael Asher, whom I
previously mentioned is a good example:
http://www.lacma.org/MICNow/artists/Asher/asherbio.htm
http://stuartcollection.ucsd.edu/asher/index.html
Hans Haacke is another:
http://www.dialnsa.edu/iat97/Sculpture/haacke.html
And an even more interesting person who actually makes full on saleable
objects is Dennis Oppenheim:
http://www.hainesgallery.com/DO.work.html
There are lots more who are still active, but if anyone is interested,
should of course do the research.
As it becomes obvious when reading through the material provided above, the
term conceptual is rather slippery. Just because the emphasis is on ideas
does not mean that the work does not have aesthetics. It has aesthetics! I
already explained how conceptualism works, it is just another form of
artistic production. At this point, it is coming down to disliking the
medium maybe because the particular people who dismiss it do not like
"beauty"
to be questioned. That can not be changed, but we should not confuse
ideological positioning with the necessity for clarity. Which if I may be
allowed to point out is what Curt is doing.
All I am saying is, that if one is going to mention anything at all, one
should be clear of where one is getting the information. This has nothing
to do with academia, but basic courtesy. Misinformation in the end is
embarrasing. Asking for historical awareness in our situation is no
different than when discussing sports. Can we imagine someone saying over
the fifth beer at the local bar: "Yeah, I never saw that game between Jordan
and Magic, but it sure led to Magic's retirement!" Obviously, people would
immediately want the person making such comment to clarify the historical
"facts" behind such a statement.
I think it is good to talk about Flash from a different perspective, but
when statements arise that need clarification, the occasional link and
necessary definition should be provided.
I am all out with challenging definitions and labels, but one needs to know
them in order to confuse them.
Enough meta talk, where is that damn flash work?
Here is one: http://rhizome.org/splash/chatonsky/
Be well,
Eduardo Navas
Sorry for the double post, but in my previous answer to Curt's comments I
wrote:
> I am all out with challenging definitions and labels, but one needs to
know
> them in order to confuse them.
I meant to say:
"I am all out for challenging definitions and labels, but one needs to know
them in order to question them."
I think that makes more sense,
Peazzeee,.
eduardoN.
t.whid wrote:
> in art criticism, there is a model which defines the 3 main
> properties
> of an artwork: form, content, subject and crits art on how these 3
> properties interact. your definitions fit this model but you collapse
> subject and content into one property called 'concept'. it's a
> modernist view of art.
Eduardo Navas wrote:
> "I am all out for challenging definitions and labels, but one needs to
> know
> them in order to question them."
curt responds:
Both statements above implicitly assume that contemporary models of
art criticism are the default standard for net art discussions. Why
should this necessarily be so?
My reading is in media theory, literary criticism, Biblical studies,
interface design, Appalachian culture, and audio production. I've
been approaching net art on this particular thread from a
McLuhan-esque perspective.
The question is not which of these models of understanding is
"right." The question is not even which of these models of
understanding leads to interesting discussion. The question (for me)
is which of these models of understanding leads to the production of
interesting art in this particular medium.
media theory:
medium / message
semiotics:
signifier / signified
human-computer interface studies:
user >> interface << machine
medieval art practice:
man >> act/agent of worship >> God
programming:
data >> processing >> information
the list goes on and on.
So why is contemporary art history the default context in which to
discuss the future of creative net art processes? Why must it pro
forma be addressed before dialogue can proceed? Because it is the
majority standard? I don't believe that. Because rhizome raw has
been earmarked for formalistic/academic contemporary art criticism?
I don't believe that. Because smart people read in the field of
contemporary art history? Because important / fancy / well-funded
people read in that field? Because art-history-writin' people read
in that field?
If the latter explanations are even implicitly argued, then the
Marxists have failed to eradicate a priviledged position of critique.
They have merely replaced a good-looking priviledged position with a
barren-looking and more historically-dependent priviledged position.
What's the big deal about being remembered anyway? Remembered by
whom? In what circles? For how long? With the art history "canon"
increasingly slouching toward the scatalogical, why do I want to be
archived on that compilation CD anyway? File me under "seventh son"
in your personal experiential database, and I will have left my
desired dent. "No page in history, baby / that I don't need / I just
wanna make some eardrums bleed" - Spinal Tap
And so we return full circle to my initial barb that sparked this diversion:
"There is an entire culture of Flash-prodigy experimental web
designers that visit Rhizome and say, 'all that net art crap looks
the same.' But our ideas of 'legitimate' net art are more 'right'
than their ideas because…? Because Duchamp [mis-]signed a urinal 80
years ago, our predecessors agreed that his doing so mattered, and we
assented?"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jeremy: My footnotes for my nineteenth book. This is my standard
procedure for doing it, and while I'm composing it, I'm also
reviewing it.
John Lennon: Well, did you notice it's good?
Jeremy: It's my policy never to read my reviews.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
peace,
curt
_
_
yo,
see my reactionary response below:
At 13:01 -0400 7/7/03, Curt Cloninger wrote:
>t.whid wrote:
>
>> in art criticism, there is a model which defines the 3 main
>> properties
>> of an artwork: form, content, subject and crits art on how these 3
>> properties interact. your definitions fit this model but you collapse
>> subject and content into one property called 'concept'. it's a
>> modernist view of art.
>
>
>Eduardo Navas wrote:
>
>> "I am all out for challenging definitions and labels, but one needs to
>> know
>> them in order to question them."
>
>
>
>curt responds:
>
>Both statements above implicitly assume that contemporary models of
>art criticism are the default standard for net art discussions. Why
>should this necessarily be so?
++
twhid:
good question. i don't think it needs to be so, but if you put your
creative endeavors into an art context you shouldn't be surprised if
people discuss it within that context. there is a large contingent of
net artists, curators, writers and thinkers who operate within these
modes of thought and rhizome has been a place where they've met to
discuss. (these modes are far from concrete however, they are
constantly changing, shifting, being added to and being edited.)
my question would be, if not here, where? there are plenty of places
to discuss 'design-y' web work. why force it in here? why are you
intent on driving one of the only places with lively 'art' discussion
into discussing something else? is it because you think contemporary
art discussions are simply wrong and immoral? as is the art that they
surround? simply because you think it 'sucks' and should be something
else? simply because there a few more conceptually-oriented artists
who discuss work here and you just don't like it? (we've already
established that net art isn't being held hostage by 'conceptual art'
as you seem to imagine.)
(bbs.thing.net is the only other place (in english) that i know of
that's dedicated to discussing nma and it's on some shaky legs these
days. nettime doesn't count, their focus isn't art)
>
>My reading is in media theory, literary criticism, Biblical studies,
>interface design, Appalachian culture, and audio production. I've
>been approaching net art on this particular thread from a
>McLuhan-esque perspective.
>
>The question is not which of these models of understanding is
>"right." The question is not even which of these models of
>understanding leads to interesting discussion. The question (for
>me) is which of these models of understanding leads to the
>production of interesting art in this particular medium.
++
twhid:
it's only fair to judge work within the context the creator meant for
it. you wouldn't judge a 10-year-old on his math abilities by giving
him a calculus test. i wouldn't really care to have my work judged in
the context of biblical studies (whatever that is but where i'm sure
it wouldn't rate) and than have it publicly condemned within an art
context without any clue given as to what standards are being applied.
personally, I wouldn't tell an artist what or how they should
approach their work. but if they put it into an art context i'll
apply those standards. if they put it into a non-context (which is
impossible really), i'll apply all sorts of standards. if they put it
into a design context, i'll apply those standards. i don't dis k10k
for uncritically pushing commercial themes and forms which promote a
capitalist agenda. I don't go to T3 expecting Citizen Kane and i
don't play ps2 expecting Mark Twain. but when i look at net art i
expect it to rise to the level of the greatest artists and i judge it
as such. Duchamp is the touch-stone of the 20th century imo. perhaps
we'll find one for the 21st, perhaps it's Will Wright, or perhaps
art, as such, will simply go away.
it's very fluid, things slip back and forth btw contexts all the time
(some of my art is in my design portfolio, not the other way around
however) one way to judge something is how easily and thoroughly it
can slip btw contexts. that happens to be my favorite sort of work.
cya
curt's post continues below for your easy reference:
>
>So why is contemporary art history the default context in which to
>discuss the future of creative net art processes? Why must it pro
>forma be addressed before dialogue can proceed? Because it is the
>majority standard? I don't believe that. Because rhizome raw has
>been earmarked for formalistic/academic contemporary art criticism?
>I don't believe that. Because smart people read in the field of
>contemporary art history? Because important / fancy / well-funded
>people read in that field? Because art-history-writin' people read
>in that field?
>
>If the latter explanations are even implicitly argued, then the
>Marxists have failed to eradicate a priviledged position of
>critique. They have merely replaced a good-looking priviledged
>position with a barren-looking and more historically-dependent
>priviledged position.
>
>What's the big deal about being remembered anyway? Remembered by
>whom? In what circles? For how long? With the art history "canon"
>increasingly slouching toward the scatalogical, why do I want to be
>archived on that compilation CD anyway? File me under "seventh son"
>in your personal experiential database, and I will have left my
>desired dent. "No page in history, baby / that I don't need / I
>just wanna make some eardrums bleed" - Spinal Tap
>
>And so we return full circle to my initial barb that sparked this diversion:
>"There is an entire culture of Flash-prodigy experimental web
>designers that visit Rhizome and say, 'all that net art crap looks
>the same.' But our ideas of 'legitimate' net art are more 'right'
>than their ideas because…? Because Duchamp [mis-]signed a urinal
>80 years ago, our predecessors agreed that his doing so mattered,
>and we assented?"
–
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
t:
> my question would be, if not here, where? there are plenty of places
> to discuss 'design-y' web work. why force it in here?
c:
i don't want to discuss design-y web work. I was trying to discuss
net art that considers a sensory aesthetic.
t:
why are you
> intent on driving one of the only places with lively 'art' discussion
> into discussing something else? is it because you think contemporary
> art discussions are simply wrong and immoral? as is the art that they
> surround? simply because you think it 'sucks' and should be something
> else? simply because there a few more conceptually-oriented artists
> who discuss work here and you just don't like it? (we've already
> established that net art isn't being held hostage by 'conceptual art'
> as you seem to imagine.)
c:
I am not trying to derail any topic you propose. All sorts of
discussions occur here without the least input from me, because they
don't interest me or I have nothing to add to them. Quite the
contrary. It seems in this instance you are trying to derail a topic
that I have proposed. I am talking about net art, just not through
your grid.
t:
> it's only fair to judge work within the context the creator meant for
> it.
c:
that's certainly one approach. there are others.
t:
you wouldn't judge a 10-year-old on his math abilities by giving
> him a calculus test.
c:
I would if she were applying to take a course in calculus.
t:
i wouldn't really care to have my work … publicly condemned within an art
> context without any clue given as to what standards are being applied.
c:
i've presented my standards. you just don't subscribe to them. we
disagree. it happens all the time.
t:
I don't go to T3 expecting Citizen Kane and i
> don't play ps2 expecting Mark Twain.
c:
Does net art = citizen kane/mark twain, or does net art = T3/ps2?
what do you expect out of mark twain? What do you expect out of ps2?
Where did you learn those expectations? Need I subscribe to your
expectations, or may I explore other expectations based on
first-person analysis of the media themselves?
_
_
I'm not sure if this is at all relevant, but there is something about what
Curt is saying that resonates with some of my own thoughts on the subject of
criticism.
Firstly, I am an autodidact when it comes to critique. Most of what I come
up with is simply through reason, and frankly, I have had so many arguments
shot down with "oh, thats a modernist idea" that it's starting to look
really hollow, particularly since I simply don't subscribe to any of those
labels anyway- "pomo" or "modernist" are as meaningful as "liberal" and
"conservative" in that they are completely imaginary seperations which imply
that the two cannot cross over, when in fact they can and oftentimes do. If
I look at a piece without training and contextualizing histories; it's
usually responded to with the dismissal that I simply don't know what I am
talking about. So, what I get from Curt- and correct me if I am wrong- is
that art can be evaluated based on zero; art can be looked at purely in
contemporary contexts and if one does not appreciate it based on thier own
internal reasoning, then sure- I am uneducated, but I still don't like the
piece, and the piece still failed in that regard. It is still a criticism
worth looking at.
Plenty of people can listen to and enjoy an Aphex Twin CD without
understanding Stockhausen. In fact, that is almost entirely what the pomo
"anti-canon" is about. It's the heart of pop art. One can hate Harmony
Korinne regardless of whether one understands how "Julian Donkey Boy" was
influenced by Stan Brakhage. In short, history is only one vector towards
understanding an art work; and history is only social agreement. A work of
art can- and most succesful work does- transcend societal agreement. And to
evaluate work from within social agreement is a surefire way to miss a bulk
of potential ideas out there. I also think the academic filibustering point
is valid- and I don't think it's intentional, it's never intentional, but
there is a tendency to safeguard the progression of ideas by finding thier
source code. Of course, every idea has a source code which can stifle it,
and I rarely see any point in tracing ideas back to a particular originating
category. I found this happening in regards to my essay on gender- the idea
that my essay needed to include a prehistory of feminism in order for people
to read it was, in my opinion, ridiculous. The tendency to look at an idea
and find its seed as a means of finding its core is one way to do things,
extrapolation of where ideas can lead are seldom considered, however, and
rarely discussed.
This whole conversation is another case in point- how many emails exchanged
about Curts ideas, and I can't remember anything but the argument over how
he said them. Why that happens here so often is anyone's guess. I can see
where it would come from though. In my psych classes we are taught to read
essays from a "critical perspective" which means looking at what school the
writer fits into and then applying what we know are flaws in that model to
the essay. It happens in art school too, I am sure, or theory of any kind.
Unfortunately, it sucks for what we are doing here- trying to progress a
medium. Critical Perspectives are not designed for progress; they are
inherently conservative; and predicting flaws based on comparison to other
flaws is nowhere near as much fun as extrapolating possibilities. The
transparency of "subscribing to a school" is really evident in psychology,
since behaviorism, psychotherapy, gestalt and cog-sci all have proven
themselves in various ways. In art, it's even more absurd, because it yields
no measureable results either way. It's not like you kill the patient if you
get something about post modernism wrong, you just make art that works or
doesn't work. Depending on what set of ideas you personally subscribe to.
-e.
—– Original Message —–
From: "Curt Cloninger" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 5:46 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re:conceptual art was:[best work with Flash?]
> t:
> > my question would be, if not here, where? there are plenty of places
> > to discuss 'design-y' web work. why force it in here?
>
> c:
> i don't want to discuss design-y web work. I was trying to discuss
> net art that considers a sensory aesthetic.
>
>
> t:
> why are you
> > intent on driving one of the only places with lively 'art' discussion
> > into discussing something else? is it because you think contemporary
> > art discussions are simply wrong and immoral? as is the art that they
> > surround? simply because you think it 'sucks' and should be something
> > else? simply because there a few more conceptually-oriented artists
> > who discuss work here and you just don't like it? (we've already
> > established that net art isn't being held hostage by 'conceptual art'
> > as you seem to imagine.)
>
> c:
> I am not trying to derail any topic you propose. All sorts of
> discussions occur here without the least input from me, because they
> don't interest me or I have nothing to add to them. Quite the
> contrary. It seems in this instance you are trying to derail a topic
> that I have proposed. I am talking about net art, just not through
> your grid.
>
>
> t:
> > it's only fair to judge work within the context the creator meant for
> > it.
>
> c:
> that's certainly one approach. there are others.
>
>
> t:
> you wouldn't judge a 10-year-old on his math abilities by giving
> > him a calculus test.
>
> c:
> I would if she were applying to take a course in calculus.
>
>
> t:
> i wouldn't really care to have my work … publicly condemned within an
art
> > context without any clue given as to what standards are being applied.
>
> c:
> i've presented my standards. you just don't subscribe to them. we
> disagree. it happens all the time.
>
>
> t:
> I don't go to T3 expecting Citizen Kane and i
> > don't play ps2 expecting Mark Twain.
>
> c:
> Does net art = citizen kane/mark twain, or does net art = T3/ps2?
> what do you expect out of mark twain? What do you expect out of ps2?
> Where did you learn those expectations? Need I subscribe to your
> expectations, or may I explore other expectations based on
> first-person analysis of the media themselves?
>
> _
> _
> + 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
>
Hi Eryk,
Yes, you get my critical approach.
Three further thoughts:
1. My critical approach works particularly well in a medium where:
a. an entire piece of work can be experienced by anyone anywhere. No
longer just black and white snapshots of a distant happening in an
art history textbook. Thus the experts can't say, "This picture
doesn't really do it justice. You have to travel to Paris and
actually SEE his brush strokes up close," or whatever. Now everyone
has equal access to the source "texts," the works themselves.
b. anyone can publish their opinion from anywhere to anywhere,
without having to grow a beard, or live in a certain area, or wear a
certain uniform, or walk a certain way, or attend certain functions.
2. The approach only works if one is allowed to use the English
language unencumbered to explain what she is talking about, and if
the merit of one's arguments are given credence in a somewhat
aristotilean system, where rules of logic and sense (and yes even
courtesy) are more or less adhered to.
3. I would never tackle feminism with such a critical approach
(although I realize that's not exactly what you did), because
feminism is a totally human construct. So it must mean what people
say it means, because people made it up. To dialogue in that
"language" is to be subject to the rules of the language. Art is
different because every piece is its own text, it presents itself as
such, and can be "read" as such by anybody.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why would anybody want to take art (a language always dialoguing in
some sense with "reality" and the senses up until the last century)
and make it a human construct? To prove some theoretical/moral point
like "the senses are cheats. nothing is based in reality. all human
communication, even art, is based on relativistic human constructs of
our own devising." But if I don't subscribe to that point of view
(and I don't), then I don't have to buy into that system of criticism
(and I don't). My approach must still be admitted by
"context-dependent" art critics [here someone may even try to nitpick
my use of the word "context"], because they can't say it's "wrong."
They castrated themselves of the ability to declare anything wrong.
So all they can do is say, "It's mean. It's moralizing [what a
moralization]. It's uneducated and plebian [what an ironic return to
the very type of criticism they were originally trying to free
themselves from], we just don't do it that way here."
But the net is still an open system (more or less, last time I
checked), and my posts go in with the rest of them, to be chewed on
by all according to each one's personal mind and system.
peace,
john cage bubblegum
_
_
At 2:35 AM -0400 7/8/03, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>I'm not sure if this is at all relevant, but there is something about what
>Curt is saying that resonates with some of my own thoughts on the subject of
>criticism.
>
>Firstly, I am an autodidact when it comes to critique. Most of what I come
>up with is simply through reason, and frankly, I have had so many arguments
>shot down with "oh, thats a modernist idea" that it's starting to look
>really hollow, particularly since I simply don't subscribe to any of those
>labels anyway- "pomo" or "modernist" are as meaningful as "liberal" and
>"conservative" in that they are completely imaginary seperations which imply
>that the two cannot cross over, when in fact they can and oftentimes do. If
>I look at a piece without training and contextualizing histories; it's
>usually responded to with the dismissal that I simply don't know what I am
>talking about. So, what I get from Curt- and correct me if I am wrong- is
>that art can be evaluated based on zero; art can be looked at purely in
>contemporary contexts and if one does not appreciate it based on thier own
>internal reasoning, then sure- I am uneducated, but I still don't like the
>piece, and the piece still failed in that regard. It is still a criticism
>worth looking at.
>
>Plenty of people can listen to and enjoy an Aphex Twin CD without
>understanding Stockhausen. In fact, that is almost entirely what the pomo
>"anti-canon" is about. It's the heart of pop art. One can hate Harmony
>Korinne regardless of whether one understands how "Julian Donkey Boy" was
>influenced by Stan Brakhage. In short, history is only one vector towards
>understanding an art work; and history is only social agreement. A work of
>art can- and most succesful work does- transcend societal agreement. And to
>evaluate work from within social agreement is a surefire way to miss a bulk
>of potential ideas out there. I also think the academic filibustering point
>is valid- and I don't think it's intentional, it's never intentional, but
>there is a tendency to safeguard the progression of ideas by finding thier
>source code. Of course, every idea has a source code which can stifle it,
>and I rarely see any point in tracing ideas back to a particular originating
>category. I found this happening in regards to my essay on gender- the idea
>that my essay needed to include a prehistory of feminism in order for people
>to read it was, in my opinion, ridiculous. The tendency to look at an idea
>and find its seed as a means of finding its core is one way to do things,
>extrapolation of where ideas can lead are seldom considered, however, and
>rarely discussed.
>
>This whole conversation is another case in point- how many emails exchanged
>about Curts ideas, and I can't remember anything but the argument over how
>he said them. Why that happens here so often is anyone's guess. I can see
>where it would come from though. In my psych classes we are taught to read
>essays from a "critical perspective" which means looking at what school the
>writer fits into and then applying what we know are flaws in that model to
>the essay. It happens in art school too, I am sure, or theory of any kind.
>Unfortunately, it sucks for what we are doing here- trying to progress a
>medium. Critical Perspectives are not designed for progress; they are
>inherently conservative; and predicting flaws based on comparison to other
>flaws is nowhere near as much fun as extrapolating possibilities. The
>transparency of "subscribing to a school" is really evident in psychology,
>since behaviorism, psychotherapy, gestalt and cog-sci all have proven
>themselves in various ways. In art, it's even more absurd, because it yields
>no measureable results either way. It's not like you kill the patient if you
>get something about post modernism wrong, you just make art that works or
>doesn't work. Depending on what set of ideas you personally subscribe to.
>
>-e.
>
>
>
>
>—– Original Message —–
>From: "Curt Cloninger" <[email protected]>
>To: <[email protected]>
>Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 5:46 PM
>Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re:conceptual art was:[best work with Flash?]
>
>
> > t:
> > > my question would be, if not here, where? there are plenty of places
> > > to discuss 'design-y' web work. why force it in here?
> >
> > c:
> > i don't want to discuss design-y web work. I was trying to discuss
> > net art that considers a sensory aesthetic.
> >
> >
> > t:
> > why are you
> > > intent on driving one of the only places with lively 'art' discussion
> > > into discussing something else? is it because you think contemporary
> > > art discussions are simply wrong and immoral? as is the art that they
> > > surround? simply because you think it 'sucks' and should be something
> > > else? simply because there a few more conceptually-oriented artists
> > > who discuss work here and you just don't like it? (we've already
> > > established that net art isn't being held hostage by 'conceptual art'
> > > as you seem to imagine.)
> >
> > c:
> > I am not trying to derail any topic you propose. All sorts of
> > discussions occur here without the least input from me, because they
> > don't interest me or I have nothing to add to them. Quite the
> > contrary. It seems in this instance you are trying to derail a topic
> > that I have proposed. I am talking about net art, just not through
> > your grid.
> >
> >
> > t:
> > > it's only fair to judge work within the context the creator meant for
> > > it.
> >
> > c:
> > that's certainly one approach. there are others.
> >
> >
> > t:
> > you wouldn't judge a 10-year-old on his math abilities by giving
> > > him a calculus test.
> >
> > c:
> > I would if she were applying to take a course in calculus.
> >
> >
> > t:
> > i wouldn't really care to have my work … publicly condemned within an
>art
> > > context without any clue given as to what standards are being applied.
> >
> > c:
> > i've presented my standards. you just don't subscribe to them. we
> > disagree. it happens all the time.
> >
> >
> > t:
> > I don't go to T3 expecting Citizen Kane and i
> > > don't play ps2 expecting Mark Twain.
> >
> > c:
> > Does net art = citizen kane/mark twain, or does net art = T3/ps2?
> > what do you expect out of mark twain? What do you expect out of ps2?
> > Where did you learn those expectations? Need I subscribe to your
> > expectations, or may I explore other expectations based on
> > first-person analysis of the media themselves?
> >
> > _
> > _
> > + 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
> >
hi guys,
my last thoughts on this, snipped horribly eryk.
and i take full responsibility for derailing the conversation into
the meta discussion on critique.
At 2:35 -0400 7/8/03, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>I'm not sure if this is at all relevant, but there is something about what
>Curt is saying that resonates with some of my own thoughts on the subject of
>criticism.
>
>Firstly, I am an autodidact when it comes to critique. Most of what I come
>up with is simply through reason, and frankly, I have had so many arguments
>shot down with "oh, thats a modernist idea"
when i called Curt's view a modernist view I wasn't disparaging it,
simply labeling it, not discounting it. I wasn't aware if he knew
that his definitions, his mode of thought or critique, had a similar
presence in 20th century art which might be useful to him.
Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>>I look at a piece without training and contextualizing histories; it's
>>usually responded to with the dismissal that I simply don't know what I am
>>talking about. So, what I get from Curt- and correct me if I am wrong- is
>>that art can be evaluated based on zero; art can be looked at purely in
>>contemporary contexts and if one does not appreciate it based on thier own
>>internal reasoning, then sure- I am uneducated, but I still don't like the
>>piece, and the piece still failed in that regard. It is still a criticism
>>worth looking at.
My point is that you're always interrupting work through your own
history and experience. So, even if you think you're measuring from
0, you're not. The problem is with this idea of 0. what is it?
classic greek statuary. A sunset? Your way your cat feels on your
tummy? The Sims?
I would like to think that I measure work based solely on my own
innate senses that are attuned to the infinite truth and humanity of
the universe.
but i don't.
If one's experience with contemporary art is limited than their
opinions might seem limited to other's whose experience is more rich
and varied. call it snobbery, call it elitism, call it taste; call it
whatever you want, but (allow me one of my analogies) when i need
wine recommendations I don't ask the 18-year-old clerk at the local
Piggly Wiggly*.
++++
*what the hell is Piggly Wiggly? Piggly Wiggly
t.whid wrote:
If one's experience with contemporary art is limited than their
> opinions might seem limited to other's whose experience is more rich
> and varied. call it snobbery, call it elitism, call it taste; call it
> whatever you want, but (allow me one of my analogies) when i need
> wine recommendations I don't ask the 18-year-old clerk at the local
> Piggly Wiggly.
curt laments:
the clerk at the piggly wiggly, is it? after all we've been through,
i rate no higher than the 18-year old clerk at THE PIG! I would have
hoped you could at least concede me clerking at Food Lion, or Food
Tiger if nothing else! But no, I see how you are.
I've got a better one. MAYBE (just maybe), while you're down at some
lower east side wine merchant's shop sampling the merlot, i'm up on
cold mountain with the apple dumpling gang stoking the corn mash
still.
http://ps2.praystation.com/pound/assets/2001/09-04-2001/
http://www.deepyoung.org
cheers,
curt