OK, good. I like it. wc
________________________________ From: saul ostrow <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, January 15, 2013 10:01:55 AM Subject: Re: Art is money The qualities are those that come first to be introduced into the process and then come to be be subscribed to or reproduced. As for circular - not so much circular as a feedback loop and therefore cybernetic - this is the reason the subject/object is not fixed or fixable but emergent - as such art exists in time On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:14 AM, William Conger <[email protected]>wrote: > Are the qualities of art assigned to things themselves or to the network > system > that circumscribes those qualities? What is a quality in itself or can it > only > be recognized in relation to a thing? What is a history? Why isn't > history > itself unstable and merely another mode of qualities, like art? > > I like Saul's statement and I think it's a good explanation of the fact > that art > is a societal construct, and not simply objects with inherent features, > but I'm > not sure his argument is not circular. > > WC > > > > > ________________________________ > From: saulostrow <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tue, January 15, 2013 8:55:36 AM > Subject: Re: Art is money > > The "art" I have in mind encompasses an activity that results in a variety > of "qualities" that are best represented by a collection of works > (things). The nature of this activity is circumscribed by a history, which > then informs in part the intentions of the agent who performs the act that > will potentially result in generating a variety of qualities (both > previously associated with and on occasion previously not associated > with)the collection of works (things) that are indexed to the > aforementioned history. I say potentially because there are external > conditions > that effect the process that may not be determined. These contingencies are > a result of the fact that both the activities, qualities and the collection > of works is under constant revision and therefore may be considered > emergent as both a subject and a form. Those things not included in that > collection of objects have yet to be circumscribed by that the > aforementioned history are not called art - and therefore are not > those things > that come to mind when art is signified. Inversely, all aspects of this > process may not please all those who make reference to it (art) - but in > those cases they are merely stipulating that sub-category which they wish > to privilege - Any discussion concerning these sub-categories become a > discussion of standards, criteria and value. At this point we are no > longer referencing art but merely using certain works as ideological or > philosophical examples of what it is that might pleases us in comparison to > another example - to discuss taste, a.e., or market value is not the same > thing as discussing art. In closing to discuss art is to discuss a systems > network and not a thing. > > > > > > > > > > -- > S a u l O s t r o w > > *Critical Voices* > 21STREETPROJECTS > La Table Ronde > 162 West 21 Street > NYC, NY 10011 > > [email protected] > www.21stprojects.org > > -- S a u l O s t r o w *Critical Voices* 21STREETPROJECTS La Table Ronde 162 West 21 Street NYC, NY 10011 [email protected] www.21stprojects.org
