"Art should problematize popular relationships: work/play,
usefulness/uselessness, public/private, engaged/dis-engaged etc. For
example, art creates tension where it is both commodity (“valuable”) and
non-work (“useless” play). Art then, does not escape capitalism,
replacing it with a powerless utopia, but can problematize it with a
continuous re-negotiation of its power. Art has the potential to be a
constant thorn in the side of the status quo and, above all, to have
enormous fun while being there." Quote from A._S.L.O.T.H. MANIFESTO
Question #1 So did you write this document Aaron?
some comments/questions
Why should it problemize? And to whom would it become a problem?
Where's the tension between commodity and "useless play"?
It can only be a commodity when this useless play is happening within a
comodity driven society. I think the real tension is when EVERYONE is
engages in useless play and there is no way to sell, trade or barder
your objects because nobody has anything except their own useless
objects to trade you and we all eventually starve to death (which is a
possible solution for regaining a balance in the world.)
To be useless (engage in useless activity - I am not sure I would place
art in any form in this catagory) and to aspire toward revolution or
power do not go hand in hand.
To be useless means to have no value/use to others which can be
exploited. The best example I can think of is the old story (Taoist?
Zen?) of the old guy who sits under an old tree who comments that the
best thing is to be like the scraggily old tree that has so many knots
and the wood is so poor that no carpenter ever cut it down due to being
useless, thus it has its own life and lives to an old age due to its
'uselessness' to others. Its uselessness preserved it from harm.
The most potent form of revolution is changing one's self without regard
of others' actions or surrounding conditions. Thus, the pursuit of the
goals espoused by s.l.o.t.h. , it seems to me, are strictly individual
and should not encourage group effort or group support.
What would then constitute the desired change? Toward what would one
aspire if anything that would be worth the bother of changing one's
self? Once one has disengaged one's self from 'work' and livelihood,
what then does one do with one's time? I already know the "whatever one
want's" angle. I mean more specifically, what is worth doing. What is
worth engaging one's self in? What is worth aspiring toward?
I think the model of the sufi dervish is a good example of someone who
has withdrawn from work. Then there's the Buddhist idea of equinimity or
looking on all things with the same indifference, work, play, making
money, not making money, whatever.
As I said in a previous post, I basicly live like this I think but I
don't especially like being in abject poverty so I do devise ways of
working which allow me to make money. I don't ever try getting money
from sources which do not directly exchange one thing for something of
mine based on the other's desires. In short, people desire art, some of
them desire my art, I do not mind fulfilling that desire by them paying
for the art which helps to reenforse the value of their desire for art.
I do not seek goverment grants, jobs, etc, but live on "God's good
graces" as they say and do not directly engage in any form of work with
the direct intention of reward. The reward part is out of my hands as I
do not directly participate in the sale of my works other than to make
them available to those who do wish to sell them. I personally believe
that there are spiritual forces at work that somehow ensure that I (and
my family that I support) are provided for so long as I leave myself in
a state of dependance and do not attempt to provide for myself by my own
hand. The "give us this day our daily bread" concept ( which also
includes the rent art supplies, money for clothes etc.).
Interesting topic which I would like to hear some PRACTICAL discussion
on. That is to say, a discussion of the idea as it is practiced.
Cecil
