Re: SMALL s IS STILL S?

Geert Dekers send this link few days ago:
http://witcombe.sbc.edu/ARTHLinks.html
We were inspired to wrote something about that,but "link" is so funny and g=
rotesque,we let it past with other dilettante invention(link,not Geert's ch=
oice)…We thought some student of art history will be hit by unusual quant=
ity of nonsense,favor of American artist(especially in XXI century art-most=
ly unknown),but there's no Jeff Koons,there's no New British sculpture R.De=
acon,A.Kapoor…Russian Actionist-Kulik,Brener,one of funniest performer on=
the world(with Paul McCartney)Marina Abramovich,Russian avant-garde's with=
out Rodchenko(he made first monochrome 1912,see Pontus Hulten book about XX=
century art),Byzantine art is completely without Serbian fresco painting,i=
t's focused on Greek and Russian…etc.List is very long and sad,but that's=
only parts we examine (just have no time for handicraft product like that)=
.But,always some but make us to come out repeating same story about paravan=
e art,about,now not so hidden, games around&in 'world of art"…garrulousne=
ss,boring,minimalist repeating of few decisive fact in contemporary art str=
eaming.
If we study problem of exhibition policy in one of
greatest museum like MoMA as a represent(one of) most powerful art institu=
tion in the world we study politics in USA in generally,and we shall see fa=
rther politics of"Main Subject"(term by J,Habermas)of The World,yes cowboy,=
I see your modest smile-USA again!Our experience with museums is extreme ba=
d;out of current fight for power(which is immanent political) and everythin=
g which goes with that:money for survive before all(in this processes art i=
s only mediator,something from second plan,important but not decisive)we we=
re witness of events,similar to happening in MoMA(everything's reflection o=
f "Main Subject"even in distortion,invalid, without glamour and poor(small =
shit is still shit?).
Not to strong(structurally) for open fight against art(it's hard to find su=
bstitute) ,for open take over field which still laying under 'mystic'protec=
t of beauty and sense(art),museums and their stuff(bureaucracy) used to mak=
e kind of inside subversion against works which doesn't fit in main politic=
al (global) projection well enough,but make something what "we"and "they"st=
ill called aesthetic("cultural product"term by R.Myers).Institutional ackno=
wledgment is first step toward wide public.Wide public's ruling class(race)=
and they,in last instance fix order in art.To be warm accepted from this c=
lass and besides be good artist(like Mathew Barney)is wining combination.Th=
at's how actualize became Myth,almost indestructible culture creation,and f=
ar more how Myth became obstacle and how this mythologized discourse became=
discourse of ruling class before skip over and became empty speech which k=
eep world in unchangeable state.
Last decade is mark by "neo-nato"art,taking space(of art)by force (USA),=
everything wrapping in futile mythologeme about liberalism,globalism and o=
pen borders which is shameless lie ever.Democracy is very slow system incap=
able to adapt one's behavior to fast changes.Most of art,theory and discou=
rse glow like dead star.Today's effort to understand complex problem of art=
and position of this "cultural product"depend of timely reaction and merc=
iless point to possible solution out of clumsy institution.
MANIK

(___________________________________________________________( =
=
)
If MoMA are just presenting Pixar as a gee-whizz cash cow blockbuster
show (as it sounds they are), then I agree that it is bad. Museums in
the UK are starting to do that sort of thing as the funding dries up.

But please don't throw the Pixar baby out with the MoMA water. Rent
the 2-disc version of The Incredibles and watch the documentaries.
Consider the finished film as a competent cultural product. And take
a look at http://www.renderman.org/ .

As artists we can learn a lot from Pixar. And there is content to
their films, as much as to any non-cultural-studies-academic art.
And, if you want to go the subtext route or look at the argument over
how nietzschean The Incredibles is, there's probably more.

- Rob.
Rob Myers wrote:

> If MoMA are just presenting Pixar as a gee-whizz cash cow blockbuster
>
> show (as it sounds they are), then I agree that it is bad. Museums in
>
> the UK are starting to do that sort of thing as the funding dries up.
>
> But please don't throw the Pixar baby out with the MoMA water. Rent
> the 2-disc version of The Incredibles and watch the documentaries.
> Consider the finished film as a competent cultural product. And take =

> a look at http://www.renderman.org/ .
>
> As artists we can learn a lot from Pixar. And there is content to
> their films, as much as to any non-cultural-studies-academic art.
> And, if you want to go the subtext route or look at the argument over
>
> how nietzschean The Incredibles is, there's probably more.
>
> - Rob.
I have had to deal with this issue at a new student level (first year arts =
students) for the past semester.
It is a daunting task to point out the need for a conceptual underpinning i=
n art while still maintaining a level of currency.
I must admit there are times when I have said to myself "well the 19th cent=
ury academy wasn't overthrown it was slowly abandoned".
What I think is merely rendering and design is, to many of the new students=
, a holy grail.
It is very difficult to show them why Robert Irwin's fence is more importan=
t than the rendering of Jaba the Huts village.And a MacArthur grant cuts no=
ice with them.
It sounds absurd, but are we missing a major sea change?
The pressure of omni-present multi media productions on the new students is=
very hard to overcome.
What passes for mere culture to me is high Art (with a capital A) to them.
I do not have an answer, but I am very aware of the change that is overwhel=
ming arts instructors at every major college and University.
Before I tell them they are wrong, I should address why they don't think I =
am right.
Eric Dymond


I only sent this to rob.
However, I thought about this, and I still stand on something. It's
still big money either way, (PIXAR/Barney), and neither include you. I
might say that Barney might be a little more empowering (slightly)
because it challenges you to think about possibilities of reality, if
only for a moment. Pixar wants to sell you suspension of belief.

This is the difference (challenge vs. empowering ) which is the difference.

My original answer is as follows.





In what way does Pixar's work have no discursive component?

Where is there any? Maybe I'm missing something. It's got a visual
culture element, and it says something about culture through the way
they use technology and the range of stories they use.

> But then, maybe this is an apt reflection of our society's desire for
> challenging work - they'd rather have PIXAR, and I'd rather eat
> broccoli
> for dinner. Maybe I'm just out of step.

Ignore the accompanying essay, or lack of it, and look at the work.

In this case, I'd _rather_ look at the essay.

Besides, define 'work' here. I see a lot of interesting entertainment
ephemera that don't challenge me more than in a Modernist criterion of
virtuosity in form.

Does Blue Sky (Robots, Ice Age) belong in the Guggenheim?
Does Final Fantasy belong in the Met?
Does Pixar belong in the MoMA?
We have Blockbuster for that. Seriously - a Beuysian art for the masses
if we want to equate PIXAR with a MoMA space. Therefore, Dreamworks,
Square, et al should not be in the MoMA, as they're doing tremendous
conceptual work, getting the cultural product to the masses.

If we want to revisit the argument that museums are elitist and they
should be torn down to be replaced with cinema, why don't we talk to
Marinetti about that, but I don't find it a particularly interesting
argument.

Actually, I think that Pixar is as elitist as a Matthew Barney
extravaganza. With PIXAR, you just have big entertainment money than big
art money.

If I were to have pop culture in a museum, I'd rather have things like
"All Your Base are Belong to Us" and "The Terrible Secret of Space" than
The Incredibles.

Sorry, I'm totally cranked up today.


To view this entire thread, click here:
http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread=19702&text=37467#37467

+ + +

Here's the problem with this show-
BTW, my masters have unshackled me for 3 weeks from my MFA studies at
which time they will finish polishing the institutional gem they've been
reshaping for the last 18 months. >:o

(or, at least, trying to! For God's sake, Patrick, stop shooting the
art!)

Case in point: Bowling Green State University - which has been my happy
home for that time.

When we woo potential undergrads, the dream for half of them is, what?
PIXAR. "Oh, I wanna work at PIXAR." I just want to make
shaders/textures/meshes, monsters, entertainment, etc. This is enough
to get a New Media high/conceptual artist ready to slam their head
through a titanium wall after hearing it for the 1xxxxxth time. Almost
as bad as hearing the Foundations students wanting to "express their
creativity", and a priori assumption, being they're not enrolled in bake
sale management…

Two points here.
One, the PIXAR show gives the MoMA 'squeal of Approval' like the 'Art of
the Motorcycle show at the Gugg. Not exactly, but you get my drift. The
problem is that we in the classroom are going to get kids popping out
the catalogue, saying "See, who's right? You or the MoMA?".

Fortunately, most of my undergrads aren't quite _that_ sharp. Some are
close, though.

Another is that sure, I actually wanted to work at ILM until I hit 30.
Then my wife got me hooked on philosophy. There goes the Millennium
Falcon, out the door…

I guess I get a bit provoked when I see a show like this, as I think
that the curators don't quite understand the sort of acritical effect
that the show will have on American culture, however small. Just
another small notch down, IMO.

I'm sure it's a lovely show, and yes, I went to the Art of Star Wars at
the Houston MFA (a show I had similar problems with, but sorry, I had to
see the X-wings and Star Destroyers…)

I do believe that museums are repositories of a society's culture, and
sure, maybe PIXAR is part of that mission. But I get peeved with work
that has no discursive component lodges in these museums.

But then, maybe this is an apt reflection of our society's desire for
challenging work - they'd rather have PIXAR, and I'd rather eat broccoli
for dinner. Maybe I'm just out of step.



Patrick Lichty
Editor-In-Chief
Intelligent Agent Magazine
http://www.intelligentagent.com
1556 Clough Street, #28
Bowling Green, OH 43402
225 288 5813
[email protected]

"It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees."


—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of T.Whid
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 12:39 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: NYT art critic reviews Pixar exhibition at
MoMA

On 12/16/05, Jason Van Anden <[email protected]> wrote:
> What would Jackson do?
>
> There are so many artists making so many different things that I have
> to wonder if the original comment addresses artists at all.
>
> Based upon an abstract definition of what Murphy is calling Visual Art
> (VA) and Visual Culture (VC), I suspect that if anyone is to blame, it
> is the collectors (consumers) rather than the artists. To say
> otherwise suggests that there are a finite of artists in the world at
> any point in time endowned with super hero art skills - and that these
> super talented few have opted to waste their talent making Visual
> Culture instead of Visual Art.

I'm not really following this arg – I don't see how it follows that
it's not the artists fault if they choose to spend their talents at
Pixar as opposed to PS1.

I think what Murphy meant was that, in art, one usually assumes that
the artist is trying to create an entire package of form, subject and
content (i know, i know – hopelessly modernist definition of art).
Whereas, in visual culture, most practitioners are consumed with the
form (or technique). Pixar is a great example. As far as 3D
representations of form go they are extremely far advanced – way
beyond any individual artists working today. But their subject and
content – tho entertaining – doesn't attempt a sophistication or
critical awareness that one would presume to find in art.

Murphy was suggesting that a lot of art out there these days may have
the same issue, but since it purports to be art, it's a problem. Pixar
doesn't have a problem because they don't pretend to make art, they're
just damn good entertainers.

>
> If Jackson Pollack was embarking on a career in the arts today -
> would he opt to manufacture well presented one liners instead of
> making expressive paintings?
>
> Jason Van Anden
> www.smileproject.com
>
>
> On 12/16/05, T.Whid <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Perhaps I should have said it's relevant for all of us to
consider…
> >
> > On 12/16/05, Jason Van Anden <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > …a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider.
> > >
> > > who? example?
> > >
> > > jason
> > >
> > > On 12/16/05, T.Whid <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/arts/design/16pixa.html
> > > >
> > > > Murphy posted on Thingist this quote:
> > > >
> > > > "Still, there is much to see in the show, and if a lot of it is
more
> > > > visual culture than art, much less great art, the focus is in
accord
> > > > with the museum's long tradition of attention to all kinds of
visual
> > > > disciplines, especially design."
> > > >
> > > > To which he added this commentary:
> > > >
> > > > "Yeah, most of what passes for Visual Art these days is Visual
> > > > Culture. A totally respectable field of study but it's not art.
What
> > > > the two share is Design."
> > > >
> > > > …a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider.
> > > >
> > > > –
> > > > <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
> > > >
> > > > +
> > > > -> 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > –
> > > Jason Van Anden
> > > http://www.smileproject.com
> > >
> >
> >
> > –
> > <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
> >
> > +
> > -> 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
> >
>
>
> –
> Jason Van Anden
> http://www.smileproject.com
>


–
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>

+
-> 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


+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Rhizome.org is a 501©(3) nonprofit organization and an affiliate of
the New Museum of Contemporary Art.

Rhizome Rare is supported by grants from the Rockefeller Foundation, the
Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, and with public funds from
the New York State Council on the Arts, a state agency.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Rhizome Rare is filtered by Rhizome SuperUsers, a dedicated group of
volunteer editors. To learn more about becoming a Rhizome SuperUser,
please email [email protected].

To unsubscribe from this list, visit http://rhizome.org/subscribe .

Subscribers to Rhizome Rare are subject to the terms set out in the
Member Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php.