Terrence writes;
Aaron Kimberly wrote:
> Terence, This was an interesting post. Thanks.
>
> Do you think artists should keep an audience in mind when making work? Or do
> you think art can be made without regard to others, and then finds its
> market later? Maybe its not an either or.
Trying to respond to that inner voice or a strong inclination to speak out to
the world. I wonder if what a world is may be the world that the sum total
experiences that leads one to strike a balance. The means is more the techne
and is perhaps the fun part once there is mastery.
Tu et em.
>
>
> I've said this before, but as someone who's fresh out of art school, I can
> tell you that we spent a great deal of time studying "visual culture" (not
> even art history anymore) including post-modern theory, modern theory,
> Marxist theory.... and the studios were emptying. I think a lot of artists
> (my age at least) are responding to this with a kind of concretism or
> aesthetic Puritanism - almost a swing back to modernism, but less confident
> or Absolute.. I think that's what my posted Manifestos (I haven't heard any
> remarks about the Ludic Stratagem Post) were motivated by. It's not (always)
> an attitude of apathy, just a reaction to being overwhelmed, paralysed by
> theory and an insistence that art is something other than literary
> criticism. If I felt that I could write or say something clearly enough,
> then I'd just say it, not make art about it.
>
> Do you think this idea corresponds with the
> "This is so as the essential
> > techno-nomadic criticism aims for the rhizomatic emotional movement - that
> > of replacing social criticism with social aesthetics."
> as said below? Every aesthetic operates socially in some capacity as long as
> it's seen.
>
> What I tend to see though, is politically motivated art that illustrates a
> theory or politic in an instructive way.
> Many others agree though, that red beside orange can also be socially
> invested. Unfortunately, that's an idea being lost in art ed. today as I
> have experienced it. So I'm struggling to understand it and develop a
> concrete/abstract visual language of my own.
there are so many traditional genres out there.
if its amatter of means. its usually best to match the method to emotional bent
of the work
where it ends up and the interaction seems more important. it seems less about
career now and more about a social adventure. I mean i left art school 14 years
ago! I am giving work away. Aquaintences come back and mention how much money I
want for it. I go to a party and theres a painting i gave to someone else.
They're happy so am I.
> I've been listening to a lot of
> new music instead of looking art, trying to sensitize myself to the
> material, temporal and the concrete. I rely too much on representations and
> have difficulty reading art that I can't locate in the theory/history that I
> have learned.
>
> hmmm. there's no real solution to that.
Listening to music/ life and keeping a keen eye on world politics and seeing
constants in your imediate environment. Taking it in then coming up with
compressed metaphores that can speak to many. The work's connotative power
denotes strings of words, the multifarious interpretatons of the art object, in
any language. At that end it can be confusing and is less the bussiness of the
artist who must concentrate on the means.
Terrence
> Aaron, what a ramble.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Terrence Kosick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; alex galloway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 10:30 AM
> Subject: FLUXLIST: Re: <thingist> What actually IS wrong w/ the Art World
>
> Terrence writes;
>
> To achieve such ends it could be merely the application of a network way of
> thinking. Formal application of art for culture has ended up in museums
> that
> protect it from the people. Most of the largest institutions are buildings
> whose donators are from periods where there was a a nationalistic bent and
> great wealth was generated. Their lasting presence house not only art work
> but
> the idea of the passive end of wealth. It is a matter of seeing a goal for
> creative works that will keep their ideas more active. What better place
> then
> here to establish such ends?
>
> The West's democratic achievements of the free flow of information and the
> rights for many groups to be herd could easily be drowned out by commercial
> onslaught and the success blur caused by ever increasing rewards for art
> works.
> Rewards that stifle the voice from the work as it is placed in the din of
> success and rewards. How great the reward and where it is placed but never
> much of the message of the work or the realization that its very success is
> an
> attention concentration that removes the focus of the media and thus the
> eyes
> of the greater audience from the multifarious voice.
>
> What have you got to say to the greatest number of people? Do you want to
> speak to the ever widening Network Audience or a few collectors and
> institutional bodies and critics, the clamor of a few? Do you want to hear
> what many more are saying? Perhaps it is the foil for art, that catalyst
> that
> interfaces culture that needs to be widened to accommodate this evolutionary
> faze of the network mind. It is about seizing the idea of values for art
> as
> ever widening network commincation and not falling back to the sweet silent
> end
> of traditional form in the rich tombs that represent past ideas and ends of
> culture. The passive efiigies of the wealthy.
>
> Artnatural + network catalyst
>
> please forward
>
> Joseph Nechvatal wrote:
>
> > ethic-aesthetic redemption*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
> >
> > This morning I agree with the general tenants of Blackhawk's call for an
> > ethic-aesthetic redemption (It is only too true that the
> techno-mediacratic
> > developments in art recently offer no inherent lasting freedoms, no
> inherent
> > widening of aesthetic horizons, no inherent democracy and no inherent
> wealth
> > of art) - but this means that we have to develop an ability to transform
> > the info-productive circuit of the net-artworld into a circuit of cultural
> > and social aesthetic evaluations.
> >
> > In these terms, what I think the NYC-based artworld lacks is a
> > techno-nomadic mode of thought - because techno-nomadic thought analyses
> > capitalism's art in terms of its semiotic flow ? not its monitory flow.
> Many
> > European avant-garde intellectuals are particularly attracted to the
> > techno-nomadic tradition because it places in flux the burden of criticism
> > and transformation in terms of the molecular self-organization of art
> > against the flow of the capital state that divides this flow repressively
> > into territories. For example, techno-aesthetics are at the heart of Felix
> > Guattari's theories (what a great guy he was the night I went to his flat
> in
> > Paris and played for him a selection of audio art from the TELLUS Audio
> Art
> > Project (http://www.harvestworks.org/tellus/tellus.html)). For Guattari,
> our
> > most delicate and extreme battles are fought on the emotional level. If
> you
> > read Guattari's last book, "Chaosmose", you will find that there is a
> > chapter entitled "Le nouveau paradigme esthetique" (New Aesthetic
> > Paradigms).
> >
> > For Guattari, techno-nomadic thought is a specific emotional subversion ?
> > thus the art criticism needed today. This is so as the essential
> > techno-nomadic criticism aims for the rhizomatic emotional movement - that
> > of replacing social criticism with social aesthetics.
> >
> > When the production process of art interweaves its rhizomatic and
> molecular
> > paths to such an extent that they can no longer be recognized by a
> > centralized brain structure - and when economic and communication streams
> > move away from the areas where they can be controlled and governed by
> > corporate media politics into a viractual realm where no authority holds
> > reign - then we are capable of taking upon ourselves the emotional
> > responsibility of self-organization. But for sure, the expectations of
> media
> > bombardment have a brutal effect on the techno-nomadic sensitivity - the
> > imagination is overrun by monsters moving at hyper speed and the
> collective
> > psyche is invaded by mutagenic viruses. We have to see to what extent the
> > importance of techno-nomadic aestheticism represents an extremely useful
> key
> > for interpretation of NYC-sold art - and how it has nothing whatsoever to
> do
> > with late-romantic (or Greenbergian) snobbishness. It does require a
> > discussion of time though, I think.
> >
> > Yours in increasing bifurcations,
> > Joseph Nechvatal
> >
> > www.dom.de/groebel/jnech/
> >
