two things (not an exhaustive list) about which I was wrong on this list

Hi Michael,

I'm not trying to put you on the spot or anything, but it would be interesting to hear you expound a bit more on:
1. what you thought about the works before
2. what you think about them now
3. (most interestingly) what changed in your understanding that caused you to appreciate them.

Personally, I like data diaries on several different levels, not the least of which is abstract/aesthetic.

Tracy Emin's work still seems awkward. So much of its alleged impact is derived from Emin's alleegedly self-aware situationing of the work vis-a-vis the context of the artworld stage she's been given, which in turn undermines any endearing outsider impact the work might otherwise have had. I love the rhetorical deftness of this dis (by Richard Dorment): "What interests me about Emin is not her relentless self-absorption, limitless self-pity or compulsion to confess the sad details of her past life, but that all of this adds up to so little of real interest." Ouch.

Are you up to defending "My Bed," or is it her entire oeuvre that need be considered?

peace,
curt



Michael Szpakowski wrote:

> For anyone who cares:
> I was wrong about Tracey Emin - it's a body of work of
> real substance & I'm now especially taken by her
> drawing.
> I was also dead wrong about Cory Arcangel's Data
> Diaries -I've been looking at these again prompted by
> a post on Doron's DV Blog & I think they're great ( I
> love the sound in particular, but its all good)
>
> In both cases it was a combination of personal
> experience ( so, getting stuck into drawing & also
> doing hard practical thinking about lots of different
> approaches to video) but also mulling ( over some
> time) over stuff discussed , points made, here on RAW
> that made me (a) appreciate the value of stuff I
> hadn't really got before & (b) come to slightly more
> nuanced positions on some of the philosophical issues.
> best
> michael
>

Hi Curt
< I'm not trying to put you on the spot or anything,>

well I pretty much invited it..

<what you thought about the works before…2. what you
think about them now…3. (most interestingly) what
changed in your understanding that caused you to
appreciate them>
I *was* pretty splenetic about Data Diaries - a few
things came together on that but the gist of my
position was that it was a one liner - essentially
fairly disposable conceptualism with some almost
optional visuals and sounds ( and way too many of
them, in that I felt then that they were there just to
*illustrate the point*) that came with the "idea".
Furthermore Alex Galloway in his intro piece made a
big point, indeed a virtue, ( and of course it was
entirely unfair of me to take this out on the work
itself) of that fact that it stemmed from a clever but
essentially very quick hack.
I would want to say that I find the one liner culture
in general a depressing thing & that I see lots of
work that gives me no reason to feel any more
charitable to it than I did then. The artistic one
liner currently comes, as you know, almost inevitably
with some sort of explicatory statement, usually by
the artist her/himself although in this case the
honours were done by Alex Galloway. In general, its
something I'm pretty uncomfortable with since the
pairing of one liner and usually theory laden
explanation is often at kindest banale.
Nevertheless I was wrong about Data Diaries.
The main reason is that I was blind then to the fact
that the work is simply enormously beautiful - I've
spent a lot of the past two years thinking about film
and video both theoretically and practically and I
think that this has perhaps improved my *looking* - I
do see the piece in a completely different way now
-I've also recognised ( and said elsewhere) that I've
come to understand that artists whom I don't greatly
care for have made it possible for me to use -rather
conservatised -forms of their innovations within my
own work and this has made me less ready to rush to
judgement.
Secondly I feel less dogmatic than I did about the
artist statement, again partly through personal
experience; whilst I hope never ever to be caught
quoting Baudrillard in speaking about my work I
realised practically that when people ask me questions
about it I'm not averse to answering, either
artistically and technically, so it seem both
hypocritical and perverse to rail *on principle*
against those who provide such answers in advance (
when they write crap, as is so often the case, because
someone has told them that what artists do is to write
inpenetrable artists statements, they are of course
entirely fair game). I also have thought a great deal
about how art fits into society more generally,and
the more I think about it the more it seems to me that
the life of any artwork exists way beyond the
boundaries of the work itself, indeed way beyond the
artworld - it's part of an huge ongoing conversation
between human beings, some of whom are members of the
"artworld" many of whom are not -this is what a
"tradition" is, or rather this is what a tradition is
part of. "Everything is connected" as good old
Vladimir Ilyich so rightly said.
So I now accept the factual content of Galloway's
introduction as a helpful and enlightening contexting
of the piece.
Lastly, I think I was rather stuck up about craft -
I'm not recanting here, it's something I'll continue
to fly the flag for *but*
(a) Data Diaries *is* *very* clever -and a bit like
jazz improvisation, which we've discussed before, the
act of creating a particular, apparently effortless (
not quite effortless, I'm trying to say something like
apparently-unstriven-for) piece has to be put into
the context of all the preparatory work on pieces or
solos that necessarily prepared the artist for *this
one*
(b) which of us has not made work that contains whole
strings of accidents? I think my former , rather
prudish, account of how an artist worked, couched in
terms of an initial vision realised through a highly
controlled craft process simply doesn't match up to
the evidence of my own making experience ( and what my
increasingly educated eye reads in the work of
others.)
which is maybe 50-80% planning and craft, 20-50%
accident.
Another factor that helped along my change of mind was
my growing appreciation of the work of MTAA, to which
I was originally quite hostile, but which gradually
really got under my skin for a number of reasons -
wit, a way of generating real substance from quite
flimsy conceptualist premises and last but not least
the fact that craft-wise their work is always *so*
irreproachably made.
I think my essential postition and tastes have not
substantially altered from those I've argued and
displayed here on a number of occasions - what I think
has changed is that I'm looking and thinking better -
I've understood that work I intially dismissed has
merits that with a little bit of wriggle room are
pretty much within my consciously articulated tastes
-of course enjoying them viscerally is the key test,
the thing that always come first.
This brings me on to Emin. Didn't like her at all -now
a lot of what she does, I do like -especially the
drawings & the embroidery pieces & it's a visceral,
not an intellectual change - the drawings were the way
in.For the last year or so I've been struggling with
drawing, which I find *really* difficult but also
fascinating and absorbing - I saw some of Emin's a few
months back and they *moved* me.
'Bed' seems to me pretty dull, derivative and lazy &
but I now think this is the exception and that I was
wrong about her in general.
The reason that I posted the original "recantation"
was that I enjoy enormously the stimulation of being
involved with discussions here about work - I don't
think *my* change of heart is of any great
significance to anyone but I did want to say in all
honesty that I think I did make two serious errors of
judgement - I don't feel guilty or anything but I
wanted to offer testimony of a mind changing through
doing, looking, thought and discussion.
warmest wishes
michael

— curt cloninger <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Michael,
>
> I'm not trying to put you on the spot or anything,
> but it would be interesting to hear you expound a
> bit more on:
> 1. what you thought about the works before
> 2. what you think about them now
> 3. (most interestingly) what changed in your
> understanding that caused you to appreciate them.
>
> Personally, I like data diaries on several different
> levels, not the least of which is
> abstract/aesthetic.
>
> Tracy Emin's work still seems awkward. So much of
> its alleged impact is derived from Emin's alleegedly
> self-aware situationing of the work vis-a-vis the
> context of the artworld stage she's been given,
> which in turn undermines any endearing outsider
> impact the work might otherwise have had. I love
> the rhetorical deftness of this dis (by Richard
> Dorment): "What interests me about Emin is not her
> relentless self-absorption, limitless self-pity or
> compulsion to confess the sad details of her past
> life, but that all of this adds up to so little of
> real interest." Ouch.
>
> Are you up to defending "My Bed," or is it her
> entire oeuvre that need be considered?
>
> peace,
> curt
>
>
>
> Michael Szpakowski wrote:
>
> > For anyone who cares:
> > I was wrong about Tracey Emin - it's a body of
> work of
> > real substance & I'm now especially taken by her
> > drawing.
> > I was also dead wrong about Cory Arcangel's Data
> > Diaries -I've been looking at these again prompted
> by
> > a post on Doron's DV Blog & I think they're great
> ( I
> > love the sound in particular, but its all good)
> >
> > In both cases it was a combination of personal
> > experience ( so, getting stuck into drawing & also
> > doing hard practical thinking about lots of
> different
> > approaches to video) but also mulling ( over some
> > time) over stuff discussed , points made, here on
> RAW
> > that made me (a) appreciate the value of stuff I
> > hadn't really got before & (b) come to slightly
> more
> > nuanced positions on some of the philosophical
> issues.
> > best
> > michael
> >
> +
> -> 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
>

Thanks Michael,

That all makes sense.

I haven't seen Emin's drawings, so I can't comment.

Regarding MTAA, I'm surprised at how frequently I wind up showing
their work to students as an example of this or that conceptual
approach. For whatever reason, it is pedagogically illustrative and
object-lesson oriented (while still being funny). We had a lively
discussion in class the other day about the relative merits of:
http://www.mccoyspace.com/201/
vs.
http://mteww.com/RAM/

(but my favorite is still:
http://mteww.com/five_small_videos/on_then_off/ )

peace,
curt

At 3:47 PM -0700 9/8/05, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
>Hi Curt
>< I'm not trying to put you on the spot or anything,>
>
>well I pretty much invited it..
>
><what you thought about the works before…2. what you
>think about them now…3. (most interestingly) what
>changed in your understanding that caused you to
>appreciate them>
>I *was* pretty splenetic about Data Diaries - a few
>things came together on that but the gist of my
>position was that it was a one liner - essentially
>fairly disposable conceptualism with some almost
>optional visuals and sounds ( and way too many of
>them, in that I felt then that they were there just to
>*illustrate the point*) that came with the "idea".
>Furthermore Alex Galloway in his intro piece made a
>big point, indeed a virtue, ( and of course it was
>entirely unfair of me to take this out on the work
>itself) of that fact that it stemmed from a clever but
>essentially very quick hack.
>I would want to say that I find the one liner culture
>in general a depressing thing & that I see lots of
>work that gives me no reason to feel any more
>charitable to it than I did then. The artistic one
>liner currently comes, as you know, almost inevitably
>with some sort of explicatory statement, usually by
>the artist her/himself although in this case the
>honours were done by Alex Galloway. In general, its
>something I'm pretty uncomfortable with since the
>pairing of one liner and usually theory laden
>explanation is often at kindest banale.
>Nevertheless I was wrong about Data Diaries.
>The main reason is that I was blind then to the fact
>that the work is simply enormously beautiful - I've
>spent a lot of the past two years thinking about film
>and video both theoretically and practically and I
>think that this has perhaps improved my *looking* - I
>do see the piece in a completely different way now
>-I've also recognised ( and said elsewhere) that I've
>come to understand that artists whom I don't greatly
>care for have made it possible for me to use -rather
>conservatised -forms of their innovations within my
>own work and this has made me less ready to rush to
>judgement.
>Secondly I feel less dogmatic than I did about the
>artist statement, again partly through personal
>experience; whilst I hope never ever to be caught
>quoting Baudrillard in speaking about my work I
>realised practically that when people ask me questions
>about it I'm not averse to answering, either
>artistically and technically, so it seem both
>hypocritical and perverse to rail *on principle*
>against those who provide such answers in advance (
>when they write crap, as is so often the case, because
>someone has told them that what artists do is to write
>inpenetrable artists statements, they are of course
>entirely fair game). I also have thought a great deal
>about how art fits into society more generally,and
>the more I think about it the more it seems to me that
>the life of any artwork exists way beyond the
>boundaries of the work itself, indeed way beyond the
>artworld - it's part of an huge ongoing conversation
>between human beings, some of whom are members of the
>"artworld" many of whom are not -this is what a
>"tradition" is, or rather this is what a tradition is
>part of. "Everything is connected" as good old
>Vladimir Ilyich so rightly said.
> So I now accept the factual content of Galloway's
>introduction as a helpful and enlightening contexting
>of the piece.
>Lastly, I think I was rather stuck up about craft -
>I'm not recanting here, it's something I'll continue
>to fly the flag for *but*
>(a) Data Diaries *is* *very* clever -and a bit like
>jazz improvisation, which we've discussed before, the
>act of creating a particular, apparently effortless (
>not quite effortless, I'm trying to say something like
>apparently-unstriven-for) piece has to be put into
>the context of all the preparatory work on pieces or
>solos that necessarily prepared the artist for *this
>one*
>(b) which of us has not made work that contains whole
>strings of accidents? I think my former , rather
>prudish, account of how an artist worked, couched in
>terms of an initial vision realised through a highly
>controlled craft process simply doesn't match up to
>the evidence of my own making experience ( and what my
>increasingly educated eye reads in the work of
>others.)
>which is maybe 50-80% planning and craft, 20-50%
>accident.
>Another factor that helped along my change of mind was
>my growing appreciation of the work of MTAA, to which
>I was originally quite hostile, but which gradually
>really got under my skin for a number of reasons -
>wit, a way of generating real substance from quite
>flimsy conceptualist premises and last but not least
>the fact that craft-wise their work is always *so*
>irreproachably made.
>I think my essential postition and tastes have not
>substantially altered from those I've argued and
>displayed here on a number of occasions - what I think
>has changed is that I'm looking and thinking better -
>I've understood that work I intially dismissed has
>merits that with a little bit of wriggle room are
>pretty much within my consciously articulated tastes
>-of course enjoying them viscerally is the key test,
>the thing that always come first.
>This brings me on to Emin. Didn't like her at all -now
>a lot of what she does, I do like -especially the
>drawings & the embroidery pieces & it's a visceral,
>not an intellectual change - the drawings were the way
>in.For the last year or so I've been struggling with
>drawing, which I find *really* difficult but also
>fascinating and absorbing - I saw some of Emin's a few
>months back and they *moved* me.
>'Bed' seems to me pretty dull, derivative and lazy &
>but I now think this is the exception and that I was
>wrong about her in general.
>The reason that I posted the original "recantation"
>was that I enjoy enormously the stimulation of being
>involved with discussions here about work - I don't
>think *my* change of heart is of any great
>significance to anyone but I did want to say in all
>honesty that I think I did make two serious errors of
>judgement - I don't feel guilty or anything but I
>wanted to offer testimony of a mind changing through
>doing, looking, thought and discussion.
>warmest wishes
>michael

"What interests me about Emin is not her relentless self-absorption, limitless self-pity or compulsion to confess the sad details of her past life, but that all of this adds up to so little of real interest."
But for myself, this is what is so lacking elsewhere. It IS important, and it is Human rather than machinic by nature. With that I find the work very interesting.
Dorment is looking for more glass beads, and I'm looking for expressions of feeling, intimate and close. This is easy to do with gestural works, but hasn't been wideley explored in machine based art.
It's also more anarchic, where Doement sems to be hoping for Donald Judds Niece.
Eric

it should read:
"It's also more anarchic, where Dorment seems to be hoping for Donald Judds Grand Daughter"
a good one liner.

Eric