Popular resurgence of collectivism in art
*Anarcissie*
I note with interest the conflation of postmodernism and collectivism.
Hitherto, I thought collectivism was supposed to be one of the
strategies of Modernism. Secondly, while it has occurred to many
that user-provided content is an as-yet uncharted uprising from the
lower orders into the realms of politics and art, it seems far afield
from the densely knotted philosophical arguments which are the
usual connotations of the postmodern, as well as the dour,
mechanistic authoritarianism of later official collectivism. Is
the (r)evolution at hand?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: AVANT-GARDE / COLLECTIVISM AFTER MODERNISM:
The Art of Social Imagination after 1945
From: Stacy Lienemann <lien...@umn.edu>
Analyzes collective artistic practice from the Cold War to the global
present.
COLLECTIVISM AFTER MODERNISM: The Art of Social Imagination after 1945
Blake Stimson and Gregory Sholette, editors
University of Minnesota Press | 240 pages | 80 halftones | 2007
ISBN: 978-0-8166-4461-2 | hardcover | $84.00
ISBN: 978-0-8166-4462-9 | paperback | $27.95
Organized around case studies spanning the globe from Europe, Japan,
and
the United States to Africa, Cuba, and Mexico, Collectivism after
Modernism
covers such renowned collectives as the Guerrilla Girls and the Yes
Men, as
well as lesser-known groups. Together, these essays demonstrate that
collectivism survives as an influential and increasingly visible
artistic
practice despite the art world's star system of individuality.
Collectivism
after Modernism provides the historical understanding necessary for
thinking
through postmodern collective practice, now and into the future.
Contributors: Irina Aristarkhova, Jesse Drew, Okwui Enwezor, Ruben
Gallo,
Chris Gilbert, Brian Holmes, Alan Moore, Jelena Stojanovic; Reiko
Tomii,
Rachel Weiss.
"Don't start an art collective until you read this book." -- Guerrilla
Girls
"Ever since Web 2.0 with its wikis, blogs and social networks the art
of
collaboration is back on the agenda. Collectivism after Modernism
shows that
cooperation amongst artists, activists, and designers has a rich
history.
Showcasing examples from around the world, this anthology maps group
work
throughout the 20th century. This collection convincingly proves that
art
collectives did not stop after the proclaimed death of the historical
avant-gardes. Like never before technology reinvents the social and
artists
claim the steering wheel!" -- Geert Lovink
James Whitehead
I was watching Kenneth Clark's Civilization last night - very un PC!
Threats to Civilization -
Fear (of terrorism)
Boredom
Lack of Permanence - transient objects
Superstition
Traits of Barbarism-
Nomadic exist
Love of Gold
Decoration as opposed to representation -
.........
is collectivism here similar to nomadic art? I thought the modern art was
always the solitary genius?
"*Anarcissie*" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174090535.0...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
*Anarcissie*
wrote:
> Perhaps nothing to do with this but it provoked a thought-
> I was watching Kenneth Clark's Civilization last night - very un PC!
>
> Threats to Civilization -
>
> Fear (of terrorism)
> Boredom
> Lack of Permanence - transient objects
> Superstition
>
> Traits of Barbarism-
>
> Nomadic exist
> Love of Gold
> Decoration as opposed to representation -
> .........
>
> is collectivism here similar to nomadic art? I thought the modern art was
> always the solitary genius?
Not at the beginning of Modernism, i.e. Dadaism. I
was looking at YouTube a week or so ago and thought
how much the Dadaists would have liked a lot of it --
not the straight copies of television shows, but the
little films worked up by teenagers in the garage or
by mashing up more orthodox video. It may not be
well executed, but it's surprising and entertaining.
A lot of what happens in big-ticket art has to do
with sales. Besides the ineffable qualities of art
works, other important influences on the amount of
money you can get for a work of art are the supposed
repute of its maker, excuse me, _creator_, because
we're Godlike here, and the fact that for one reason
and another most people can't do what the creator
does and can't go where he goes. (Almost always
male.) The idea of the solitary, unique genius is
obviously more conducive to high prices than
the idea of collectives, of art emanating from the
commons which anyone can make.
What has happened with YouTube, flickr, and the
innumerable artificial world programs is that new
tools have been dropped into the laps of the public
and people are taking them up with a great deal
of enthusiasm. They are collaborative works
composed, by and large, of other collaborative
works. The providers are not (yet) making any
money and apparently don't care.
The vigor with which the established media are
attacking the new media may have something
to do with the dangers to commerce and social
status presented by this new phenomenon.
>
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1174090535.0...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I got the following from a mailing list.
>
> > I note with interest the conflation of postmodernism and collectivism.
> > Hitherto, I thought collectivism was supposed to be one of the
> > strategies of Modernism. Secondly, while it has occurred to many
> > that user-provided content is an as-yet uncharted uprising from the
> > lower orders into the realms of politics and art, it seems far afield
> > from the densely knotted philosophical arguments which are the
> > usual connotations of the postmodern, as well as the dour,
> > mechanistic authoritarianism of later official collectivism. Is
> > the (r)evolution at hand?
>
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
>
> > Subject: AVANT-GARDE / COLLECTIVISM AFTER MODERNISM:
> > The Art of Social Imagination after 1945
> > From: Stacy Lienemann <liene...@umn.edu>
James Whitehead
> On Mar 17, 4:29 am, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
> wrote:
> > Perhaps nothing to do with this but it provoked a thought-
> > I was watching Kenneth Clark's Civilization last night - very un PC!
> >
> > Threats to Civilization -
> >
> > Fear (of terrorism)
> > Boredom
> > Lack of Permanence - transient objects
> > Superstition
> >
> > Traits of Barbarism-
> >
> > Nomadic exist
> > Love of Gold
> > Decoration as opposed to representation -
> > .........
> >
> > is collectivism here similar to nomadic art? I thought the modern art
was
> > always the solitary genius?
>
> Not at the beginning of Modernism, i.e. Dadaism. I
> was looking at YouTube a week or so ago and thought
> how much the Dadaists would have liked a lot of it --
> not the straight copies of television shows, but the
> little films worked up by teenagers in the garage or
> by mashing up more orthodox video. It may not be
> well executed, but it's surprising and entertaining.
>
opposite - and its success in destroying culture is proven by YouTube.
> A lot of what happens in big-ticket art has to do
> with sales. Besides the ineffable qualities of art
> works, other important influences on the amount of
> money you can get for a work of art are the supposed
> repute of its maker, excuse me, _creator_, because
> we're Godlike here, and the fact that for one reason
> and another most people can't do what the creator
> does and can't go where he goes. (Almost always
> male.) The idea of the solitary, unique genius is
> obviously more conducive to high prices than
> the idea of collectives, of art emanating from the
> commons which anyone can make.
>
Artist is singular - what emanates from groups - common or otherwise is the
lowest common denominator - its best example being the factory - e.g. A Ford
or a Honda- Warhol's genius to parody this...
> What has happened with YouTube, flickr, and the
> innumerable artificial world programs is that new
> tools have been dropped into the laps of the public
> and people are taking them up with a great deal
> of enthusiasm.
who owns Myspace? Google are making a great deal of money...
>They are collaborative works
> composed, by and large, of other collaborative
> works. The providers are not (yet) making any
> money and apparently don't care.
They are junkies - the pushers make money...
>
> The vigor with which the established media are
> attacking the new media may have something
> to do with the dangers to commerce and social
> status presented by this new phenomenon.
>
Its perfect consumerism - why make TV when you can make money buy letting
people make their own... its like those web sites which sell no-study
degrees...
i'd almost like one myself. The established media have democratised
themselves out of existence - - its so funny.
*Anarcissie*
wrote:
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
What is that, a religious creed?
> > What has happened with YouTube, flickr, and the
> > innumerable artificial world programs is that new
> > tools have been dropped into the laps of the public
> > and people are taking them up with a great deal
> > of enthusiasm.
>
> who owns Myspace? Google are making a great deal of money...
But how little the participant pays for it. And in the
case of YouTube and flickr, nothing.
sirblob
it be, but that's only cuz the hilariously extended copyright law was
an ultra puritan capitalistic corporate enterprise into its darwinian
cultural social engineering bollocks i mean after all mtv hopes to
erase thousands of clips from it. we have one of these autistic born
again mutants in past films named stewe, and another in books by the
name of mackie. a living breathing spectacle it doth be
sirblob
On 17 mar, 14:27, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
sirblob
tsk tsk tsk
On 17 mar, 14:27, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul.Br...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Perhaps nothing to do with this but it provoked a thought-
> I was watching Kenneth Clark's Civilization last night - very un PC!
>
> Threats to Civilization -
>
> Fear (of terrorism)
> Boredom
> Lack of Permanence - transient objects
> Superstition
>
> Traits of Barbarism-
>
> Nomadic exist
> Love of Gold
> Decoration as opposed to representation -
> .........
>
> is collectivism here similar to nomadic art? I thought the modern art was
> always the solitary genius?
>
>
> news:1174090535.0...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I got the following from a mailing list.
>
> > I note with interest the conflation of postmodernism and collectivism.
> > Hitherto, I thought collectivism was supposed to be one of the
> > strategies of Modernism. Secondly, while it has occurred to many
> > that user-provided content is an as-yet uncharted uprising from the
> > lower orders into the realms of politics and art, it seems far afield
> > from the densely knotted philosophical arguments which are the
> > usual connotations of the postmodern, as well as the dour,
> > mechanistic authoritarianism of later official collectivism. Is
> > the (r)evolution at hand?
>
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
>
> > Subject: AVANT-GARDE / COLLECTIVISM AFTER MODERNISM:
> > The Art of Social Imagination after 1945
Check out the Neue Slowenische Kunst:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_Slowenische_Kunst
James Whitehead
> >
> > Artist is singular - what emanates from groups - common or otherwise is
the
> > lowest common denominator - its best example being the factory - e.g. A
Ford
> > or a Honda- Warhol's genius to parody this...
>
> What is that, a religious creed?
Its a statement about art- the idea of The Artist differentiated him from
the Craftsmen who were a group - and (from memory) from commissions which
stipulated who what and how - to 'anything by the hand of Michelangelo...'
>
> > > What has happened with YouTube, flickr, and the
> > > innumerable artificial world programs is that new
> > > tools have been dropped into the laps of the public
> > > and people are taking them up with a great deal
> > > of enthusiasm.
> >
> > who owns Myspace? Google are making a great deal of money...
>
> But how little the participant pays for it. And in the
> case of YouTube and flickr, nothing.
No free lunch - i remember when ISPs were free... the revenue model has to
somewhere along the line get money from the punters...
and if in the process culture is reduced to such empty inanities then its
the punters loss... its like the native americans and fire-water...?
perhaps?
*Anarcissie*
wrote:
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1174148492.2...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > > Artist is singular - what emanates from groups - common or otherwise is
> the
> > > lowest common denominator - its best example being the factory - e.g. A
> Ford
> > > or a Honda- Warhol's genius to parody this...
>
> > What is that, a religious creed?
>
> Its a statement about art- the idea of The Artist differentiated him from
> the Craftsmen who were a group - and (from memory) from commissions which
> stipulated who what and how - to 'anything by the hand of Michelangelo...'
That sounds more like branding to me. Branding can be
corporate as well as individual, even in -- maybe especially
in -- the arts. ("The Beatles", "Subpop", "Wu-Tang", etc.)
And there are definitely instances of collaboration which
produce work that is better by most people's standards than
the work of any of the individuals involved. Looks like the
mighty individualistic hero of Art is just another religious
myth which we can safely jettison unless we're selling
something.
> > > > What has happened with YouTube, flickr, and the
> > > > innumerable artificial world programs is that new
> > > > tools have been dropped into the laps of the public
> > > > and people are taking them up with a great deal
> > > > of enthusiasm.
>
> > > who owns Myspace? Google are making a great deal of money...
>
> > But how little the participant pays for it. And in the
> > case of YouTube and flickr, nothing.
>
> No free lunch - i remember when ISPs were free... the revenue model has to
> somewhere along the line get money from the punters...
> and if in the process culture is reduced to such empty inanities then its
> the punters loss... its like the native americans and fire-water...?
> perhaps?
The "punters" apparently don't think the culture is
inane.
James Whitehead
Thats an extreme position - and with it we can jettison certain ideas of art
as well - to the extent of saying it nolonger and never did exist... this is
good news for youtubers...
>
> > > > > What has happened with YouTube, flickr, and the
> > > > > innumerable artificial world programs is that new
> > > > > tools have been dropped into the laps of the public
> > > > > and people are taking them up with a great deal
> > > > > of enthusiasm.
> >
> > > > who owns Myspace? Google are making a great deal of money...
> >
> > > But how little the participant pays for it. And in the
> > > case of YouTube and flickr, nothing.
> >
> > No free lunch - i remember when ISPs were free... the revenue model has
to
> > somewhere along the line get money from the punters...
> > and if in the process culture is reduced to such empty inanities then
its
> > the punters loss... its like the native americans and fire-water...?
> > perhaps?
>
> The "punters" apparently don't think the culture is
> inane.
>
maybe not - but my feeling is thats part of the fun - the debasement /
replacement of high art - its why alot of greek statues had bits knocked
off....?
sirblob
wrote:
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1174148492.2...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > > Artist is singular - what emanates from groups - common or otherwise is
> the
> > > lowest common denominator - its best example being the factory - e.g. A
> Ford
> > > or a Honda- Warhol's genius to parody this...
>
> > What is that, a religious creed?
>
> Its a statement about art- the idea of The Artist differentiated him from
> the Craftsmen who were a group - and (from memory) from commissions which
> stipulated who what and how - to 'anything by the hand of Michelangelo...'
>
>
>
> > > > What has happened with YouTube, flickr, and the
> > > > innumerable artificial world programs is that new
> > > > tools have been dropped into the laps of the public
> > > > and people are taking them up with a great deal
> > > > of enthusiasm.
>
> > > who owns Myspace? Google are making a great deal of money...
>
> > But how little the participant pays for it. And in the
> > case of YouTube and flickr, nothing.
>
> No free lunch - i remember when ISPs were free...
when? the 80s? 90s? who what nostalgia. next thing you'll be praising
grazing cows
sirblob
> On Mar 18, 6:20 am, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1174148492.2...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > Artist is singular - what emanates from groups - common or otherwise is
> > the
> > > > lowest common denominator - its best example being the factory - e.g. A
> > Ford
> > > > or a Honda- Warhol's genius to parody this...
>
> > > What is that, a religious creed?
>
> > Its a statement about art- the idea of The Artist differentiated him from
> > the Craftsmen who were a group - and (from memory) from commissions which
> > stipulated who what and how - to 'anything by the hand of Michelangelo...'
>
> That sounds more like branding to me. Branding can be
> corporate as well as individual, even in -- maybe especially
> in -- the arts. ("The Beatles", "Subpop", "Wu-Tang", etc.)
> And there are definitely instances of collaboration which
> produce work that is better by most people's standards than
> the work of any of the individuals involved. Looks like the
> mighty individualistic hero of Art is just another religious
> myth which we can safely jettison unless we're selling
> something.
>
and so we're back to square one; youtube is postmodernist!
*Anarcissie*
> On 18 mar, 21:19, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 18, 6:20 am, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
> > > > > Artist is singular - what emanates from groups - common or otherwise is
> > > the
> > > > > lowest common denominator - its best example being the factory - e.g. A
> > > Ford
> > > > > or a Honda- Warhol's genius to parody this...
>
> > > > What is that, a religious creed?
>
> > > Its a statement about art- the idea of The Artist differentiated him from
> > > the Craftsmen who were a group - and (from memory) from commissions which
> > > stipulated who what and how - to 'anything by the hand of Michelangelo...'
>
> > That sounds more like branding to me. Branding can be
> > corporate as well as individual, even in -- maybe especially
> > in -- the arts. ("The Beatles", "Subpop", "Wu-Tang", etc.)
> > And there are definitely instances of collaboration which
> > produce work that is better by most people's standards than
> > the work of any of the individuals involved. Looks like the
> > mighty individualistic hero of Art is just another religious
> > myth which we can safely jettison unless we're selling
> > something.
>
> and so we're back to square one; youtube is postmodernist!
Postmodern. I don't think there is any -ism / -ist to be
applied to it. Somebody did a time-lapse video of a Halloween
pumpkin rotting into a black pool, then (the video being run
backwards, no doubt in a computer program) reinflating to its
pristine state, while Death Metal played as a soundtrack.
If you asked the artist(s) whether he, she, it or they were
"postmodernists" I think you'd get a blank stare, although it
is true some "alternative" bands have appropriated the
sobriquet. If one of the _auteurs_ was a wise-ass you
might get a remark about it being a French pumpkin.
But this isn't Art-with-a-capital-A, I guess. It's just stuff
people do and want to look at and enjoy and find some kind
of meaning in. You don't get licensed to practice it the way
you do at Gina's Beauty School, or Harvard.
John W. Kennedy
> That sounds more like branding to me. Branding can be
> corporate as well as individual, even in -- maybe especially
> in -- the arts. ("The Beatles", "Subpop", "Wu-Tang", etc.)
> And there are definitely instances of collaboration which
> produce work that is better by most people's standards than
> the work of any of the individuals involved. Looks like the
> mighty individualistic hero of Art is just another religious
> myth which we can safely jettison unless we're selling
> something.
/Most/ successful artistic collaborations are in mixed media or in
necessarily collaborative media.
Many successful two-man collaborations also seem to involve something
analogous to two-phase engineering materials, in which the faults of
either one exactly counter those of his partner. Lennon and McCartney,
Simon and Garfunkel, and Gilbert and Sullivan all spring immediately to
mind. (Perhaps Boito and Verdi, as well.) Such partnerships, however,
are usually unstable.
--
John W. Kennedy
"I want everybody to be smart. As smart as they can be. A world of
ignorant people is too dangerous to live in."
-- Garson Kanin. "Born Yesterday"
* TagZilla 0.066 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
sirblob
and if you asked them if they were ''unfinished modernity fanboys'',
you'd get a blank stare, so you dont have a point. postmodernism isnt
anymore a label than modernityers is. postmodernism is the death of
the author. corporate copyright is unfinished modernity. youtube and
emule has seen the masses shift paradigm from their postmodern tv
watching selves to postmodernist tendencies. youtube has many many
many of the strategies described in postmodernist art; borrowed art,
pasted upon drawings, pointful pointlessness, home videos,
structuralism, certain kinds of humour, ridicule and directness being
some of them. even you said it was collectivist, perhaps too much of a
hyperbole but be that as it may, one of the main complaints of
postmodernism; too much info emanating from too few sources. and with
emule, youtube allows the global village to be not as boring as it
could be and was. as far as media goes, i think it's the most exciting
time to be living in, so you wont be getting any nostalghia from me.
*Anarcissie*
Sure I do. The point is that there is no ism. We have
seen the death of Ismism.
sirb...@hotmail.com
no you havent. and you dont. and if you had, you'd have noticed the
death of the unfinishedmodernityism too, so there's no ''we'' there to
be had, im afraid
*Anarcissie*
Let me put it this way, then: We have been shown the death
of Ismism, and some have chosen to see it, and some have
chosen not to. Modernism, finished or unfinished, is long gone,
except for the games of Dada.
It was after all a marketing technique. Marketing techniques
wear out, and new ones are needed.
sirblob
not anymore than you're a result of marketing techniques, so wrong
again; you live in a postmodern era and postmodernism is alive and
well.
James Whitehead
"sirblob" <sirb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174323278.9...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Of course as well as everything / body else...
I'm a barbie girl, in a barbie world
Life in plastic, it's fantastic!
you can brush my hair, undress me everywhere
Imagination, life is your creation
Come on Barbie, let's go party!
I'm a barbie girl, in a barbie world
Life in plastic, it's fantastic!
you can brush my hair, undress me everywhere
Imagination, life is your creation
I'm a blond bimbo girl, in a fantasy world
Dress me up, make it tight, I'm your dolly
You're my doll, rock'n'roll, feel the glamour in pink,
kiss me here, touch me there, hanky panky...
You can touch, you can play, if you say: "I'm always yours"
(uu-oooh-u)
I'm a barbie girl, in a barbie world
Life in plastic, it's fantastic!
you can brush my hair, undress me everywhere
Imagination, life is your creation
Come on Barbie, let's go party!
(Ah-ah-ah-yeah)
Come on Barbie, let's go party!
(uu-oooh-u)
Come on Barbie, let's go party!
(Ah-ah-ah-yeah)
Come on Barbie, let's go party!
(uu-oooh-u)
Make me walk, make me talk, do whatever you please
I can act like a star, I can beg on my knees
Come jump in, bimbo friend, let us do it again,
hit the town, fool around, let's go party
You can touch, you can play, if you say: "I'm always yours"
You can touch, you can play, if you say: "I'm always yours"
Come on Barbie, let's go party!
(Ah-ah-ah-yeah)
Come on Barbie, let's go party!
(uu-oooh-u)
Come on Barbie, let's go party!
(Ah-ah-ah-yeah)
Come on Barbie, let's go party!
(uu-oooh-u)
I'm a barbie girl, in a barbie world
Life in plastic, it's fantastic!
you can brush my hair, undress me everywhere
Imagination, life is your creation
I'm a barbie girl, in a barbie world
Life in plastic, it's fantastic!
you can brush my hair, undress me everywhere
Imagination, life is your creation
Come on Barbie, let's go party!
(Ah-ah-ah-yeah)
Come on Barbie, let's go party!
(uu-oooh-u)
Come on Barbie, let's go party!
(Ah-ah-ah-yeah)
Come on Barbie, let's go party!
(uu-oooh-u)
James Whitehead
>
> It was after all a marketing technique. Marketing techniques
> wear out, and new ones are needed.
>
and the process is called consumerism.....
sorry couldnt resist-
Two, one, two, three, four
Ev'rybody's talking about
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism,
Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, That-ism, is-m, is-m, is-m
All we are saying is give piece a chance,
All we are saying is give piece a chance
C'mon
Ev'rybody's talking about ministers,
Sinister, Banisters
And canisters, Bishops, Fishops,
Rabbis, and Pop eyes, Bye, bye, bye byes
All we are saying is give peace a chance,
All we are saying is give peace a chance
Let me tell you now
Revoluton, evolution, masturbation,
Flagellation, regulation, integrations,
Meditations, United Nations,
Congratulations
Ev'rybody's talking about
John and Yoko, Timmy Leary, Rosemary,
Tommy Smothers, Bobby Dylan,
Tommy Copper,
Derek Taylor, Norman Mailer,
Allen Ginsberg, Hare Krishna,
Hare
Krishna
*Anarcissie*
We are each the result of sexual marketing techniques, at
least, and a good many others as well in most cases.
> you live in a postmodern era and postmodernism is alive and
> well.
If you keep saying it, maybe it'll come true.
*Anarcissie*
wrote:
> > wear out, and new ones are needed.
>
> and the process is called consumerism.....
>
> sorry couldnt resist-
That's all right. I'll give you consumerism.
sirblob
it's called a mirror, or as dylan would say, a mrrr.
and you have no desire to address the subject in question, you're just
happy repeating that unfinishedmodernityism is alive, so what were you
expecting me to do?
i understand the charm in repetition thou, so i dont blame you. still,
you could do better. you could be more exciting. more mounardesque and
less maniesque. more mounardism and less manism.
sirblob
wrote:
> "sirblob" <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
i already told you, i've done my share of grazing in the fields in
ireland, next to sheep n cows and neither the sexual satisfactions
provided by the former nor the rural villageness from the grazing at
the stars of the latter charmed me out of existance.
*Anarcissie*
If Ismism is dead, then Modernism must too have been
gathered to its ancestors.
James Whitehead
Robert Morpheal
> On Mar 17, 4:29 am, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
> wrote:
Delete: > > Fear (of terrorism)
Add: Paranoia (Fear based on false knowledge believed true.)
> > Boredom
> > Lack of Permanence - lack of stability - hindering progress
Add: Excessive permanence - too much stability - lack of progress
Delete > > Superstition
Add: Drugs as the accepted cure for all ills caused by dysfunctional
society.
>
> > Traits of Barbarism-
>
> > Nomadic exist
> > Love of Gold
Add: Love of God and other absolutes
> > Decoration as opposed to representation -
Add: Terrorism
Add: Superstition
I think there is more.... but not right now.
R.M.
Robert Morpheal
Oh, as soon as you get the thing you really needed
circumstances will conspire to change everything so
that you no longer need that thing but need something
else. Thus infinitum.
Probably a good definition of hell.
R.M.
Robert Morpheal
Modernism and postmodernism, along with much else that can be
declared a generic, identifiable category, is merely the official
acknowledgement
of a recognizable trend, fad, or immitation of style,... in effect an
epidemic
of contagion. It is as if a virus has been identified by the
curatorial and critical
elite, with certain symptomologies. The contagion always runs its
course, and the epidemic dies down, leaving a few cases, here and
there, as with surrealism, for instance. There are surrealism
sufferers today, who are infected with that virus, but not very many.
The epidemic has died down. Other epidemics have taken its place.
Consider what happened to the epidemic of Deconstructionism.... and
how Derrida's stature changed in the course of the epidemic. Rise and
fall from grace, as the epidemic grows and subsides.
I am not saying that there is nothing of value. On the contrary, there
is much of value in each movement, genre, style, trend, fad,.... but
what I am saying is that the rise and fall of each is similar to how
we regard contagion. A few cases chance to spread, infecting more, and
the progress of the contagion is similar to medical epidemiological
findings. There is a strong parallel there.
Perhaps why art and illness are sometimes equated by some. Wrongly, of
course, but we must understand why the equating of the two happens as
it does. It is only in that way that we can overcome the obstacles.
Robert Morpheal
James Whitehead
"Robert Morpheal" <morp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174768438.2...@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
yes - i've thought the same - from the idea that god must be complete -
therefore we are for ever separate from god - the space we therefore must
inhabit is hell - where god is not.
James Whitehead
> On Mar 17, 8:27 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 17, 4:29 am, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
> > wrote:
>
> Delete: > > Fear (of terrorism)
> Add: Paranoia (Fear based on false knowledge believed true.)
Overcome by schizophrenia - post-modernities muti (faith / cultural /
user....)
> > > Boredom
> > > Lack of Permanence - lack of stability - hindering progress
> Add: Excessive permanence - too much stability - lack of progress
Overcome by Dionysus.. accepatance of the eternal return of the same -
gladly.
> Delete > > Superstition
> Add: Drugs as the accepted cure for all ills caused by dysfunctional
> society.
> >
Now sing yourselves the song whose name is "Once more" ...The Druken Song
brique
James Whitehead <some...@overtherainbow.com> wrote in message
news:11748171...@proxy01.news.clara.net...
but if your god is complete, it must be omni-present... so there would be
nowhere that this god is _not_. so, no hell. which means....some-one lied
somewhere, doesn't it?
James Whitehead
"brique" <briqu...@freeuk.c0m> wrote in message
news:117482785...@damia.uk.clara.net...
Depends - if hell is nowhere - (maya) then god wouldnt be there if
omni-present. If we are nowhere then we will always find no foundation no
certainty and no truth...
*Anarcissie*
> James Whitehead <somewh...@overtherainbow.com> wrote in message
>
> news:11748171...@proxy01.news.clara.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Robert Morpheal" <morph...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
God is present in Hell. The inhabitants don't like him,
but can't get rid of him.
brique
If a god is omnipresent. there is nowhere which is _nowhere_, because it
would be _there_. the only way to have a _nowhere_ without the presence of
this _god_ is for the _god_ not to be omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient,
etc...
Like I said.... someone lied somewhere...
John W. Kennedy
> There are surrealism
> sufferers today, who are infected with that virus, but not very many.
Check out "Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo", Saturdays on the Cartoon Network.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Sweet, was Christ crucified to create this chat?"
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
brique
What, some sort of eternal newsgroup and he keeps cross-posting trolls to
them? Okay, that definition of hell I can understand.....
*Anarcissie*
Exactly. "The flames of Hell are the love of God."
However, this leads us to another problem: If he-or-
other-pronoun-of-your-choice is omnipresent and
omniscient, then he is also in the minds of the damned
and suffers their every pain for all eternity. Even if he
annihilated the damned, their suffering would remain
eternally in his mind in infinite detail, by his omnipotent
will. Not only can the damned not get rid of God, he
can't get rid of _them_. Ever.
James Whitehead
"brique" <briqu...@freeuk.c0m> wrote in message
be present - and this world marked by the lack of presence - its almost like
a clue... the ghostly non-existence of god is our reflection.
Of course nowhere is nowhere - just as Gods total being - precludes our
being - hence our problems with ontology.... Reminds me of the Grandi
series...
James Whitehead
word omnipotent.
sirb...@hotmail.com
> *Anarcissie* wrote:
> > That sounds more like branding to me. Branding can be
> > corporate as well as individual, even in -- maybe especially
> > in -- the arts. ("The Beatles", "Subpop", "Wu-Tang", etc.)
> > And there are definitely instances of collaboration which
> > produce work that is better by most people's standards than
> > the work of any of the individuals involved. Looks like the
> > mighty individualistic hero of Art is just another religious
> > myth which we can safely jettison unless we're selling
> > something.
>
> necessarily collaborative media.
>
> Many successful two-man collaborations also seem to involve something
> analogous to two-phase engineering materials, in which the faults of
> either one exactly counter those of his partner. Lennon and McCartney,
> Simon and Garfunkel, and Gilbert and Sullivan all spring immediately to
> mind. (Perhaps Boito and Verdi, as well.) Such partnerships, however,
> are usually unstable.
>
> --
> John W. Kennedy
> "I want everybody to be smart. As smart as they can be. A world of
> ignorant people is too dangerous to live in."
> -- Garson Kanin. "Born Yesterday"
> * TagZilla 0.066 *http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
well a corporate mass always requires its products mirror their own
myths dont it
sirb...@hotmail.com
modernism and postmodernism are far more alive than renewalism, and
it's an either/or situation. i mean when renewalists laugh, what do
they laugh at, how do they laugh? how do they play soccer? how do they
engage in bitch fights? how do they watch 70s mud fights including pam
grier?
brique
or just nothing there....
brique
Oh, wow.. that I like..... the idea that I could be some sort of eternal
head-ache in the cosmic skull is..... almost worth beleiving in the silly
idea in the first place!
>
brique
You have met James A Donald then?
>
baby_ifritah
hmmm, we get to give the sky bully food poisoning when he steals our lunch.
i like it too.
frisbie...@yahoo.com
>
>
> A lot of what happens in big-ticket art has to do
> with sales. Besides the ineffable qualities of art
> works, other important influences on the amount of
> money you can get for a work of art are the supposed
> repute of its maker, excuse me, _creator_, because
> we're Godlike here, and the fact that for one reason
> and another most people can't do what the creator
> does and can't go where he goes. (Almost always
> male.) The idea of the solitary, unique genius is
> obviously more conducive to high prices than
> the idea of collectives, of art emanating from the
> commons which anyone can make.
Yeah, the US art scene is mostly about producing capital goods that
will appreciate in value. I read a biography of Andy Warhol and that
was what his entire life revolved around. He didn't care about self-
expression or spiritual uplift or any of that kind of stuff.
A friend of mine who brewed beer said, "You put 10% of your effort
into making good beer and 90% into telling people how good it is." A
smart artist does the same, making certain he/she is seen with the
right faces in the right places and gets his/her name in the
newspaper.
As far as communal art goes, a long time ago I went to see Judy
Chicago's "Dinner Party," a work created communally. It was
displayed in a very plain little attic. You wouldn't believe how bad
of press it got, though probably not because of politics but because
it was created by women and art criticism is dominated by gay men who
don't want to let girls into the clubhouse.
Gary Childress
> was looking at YouTube a week or so ago and thought
> how much the Dadaists would have liked a lot of it --
> not the straight copies of television shows, but the
> little films worked up by teenagers in the garage or
> by mashing up more orthodox video. It may not be
> well executed, but it's surprising and entertaining.
>
> A lot of what happens in big-ticket art has to do
> with sales. Besides the ineffable qualities of art
> works, other important influences on the amount of
> money you can get for a work of art are the supposed
> repute of its maker, excuse me, _creator_, because
> we're Godlike here, and the fact that for one reason
> and another most people can't do what the creator
> does and can't go where he goes. (Almost always
> male.) The idea of the solitary, unique genius is
> obviously more conducive to high prices than
> the idea of collectives, of art emanating from the
> commons which anyone can make.
>
> innumerable artificial world programs is that new
> tools have been dropped into the laps of the public
> and people are taking them up with a great deal
> of enthusiasm. They are collaborative works
> composed, by and large, of other collaborative
> works. The providers are not (yet) making any
> money and apparently don't care.
>
> The vigor with which the established media are
> attacking the new media may have something
> to do with the dangers to commerce and social
> status presented by this new phenomenon.> >news:1174090535.0...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > I got the following from a mailing list.
>
> > > I note with interest the conflation of postmodernism and collectivism.
> > > Hitherto, I thought collectivism was supposed to be one of the
> > > strategies of Modernism. Secondly, while it has occurred to many
> > > that user-provided content is an as-yet uncharted uprising from the
> > > lower orders into the realms of politics and art, it seems far afield
> > > from the densely knotted philosophical arguments which are the
> > > usual connotations of the postmodern, as well as the dour,
> > > mechanistic authoritarianism of later official collectivism. Is
> > > the (r)evolution at hand?
>
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----------------
>
> > > Subject: AVANT-GARDE / COLLECTIVISM AFTER MODERNISM:
> > > The Art of Social Imagination after 1945
> > > From: Stacy Lienemann <liene...@umn.edu>
>
> > > Analyzes collective artistic practice from the Cold War to the global
> > > present.
>
> > > COLLECTIVISM AFTER MODERNISM: The Art of Social Imagination after 1945
> > > Blake Stimson and Gregory Sholette, editors
> > > University of Minnesota Press | 240 pages | 80 halftones | 2007
> > > ISBN: 978-0-8166-4461-2 | hardcover | $84.00
> > > ISBN: 978-0-8166-4462-9 | paperback | $27.95
>
> > > Organized around case studies spanning the globe from Europe, Japan,
> > > and
> > > the United States to Africa, Cuba, and Mexico, Collectivism after
> > > Modernism
> > > covers such renowned collectives as the Guerrilla Girls and the Yes
> > > Men, as
> > > well as lesser-known groups. Together, these essays demonstrate that
> > > collectivism survives as an influential and increasingly visible
> > > artistic
> > > practice despite the art world's star system of individuality.
> > > Collectivism
> > > after Modernism provides the historical understanding necessary for
> > > thinking
> > > through postmodern collective practice, now and into the future.
>
> > > Contributors: Irina Aristarkhova, Jesse Drew, Okwui Enwezor, Ruben
> > > Gallo,
> > > Chris Gilbert, Brian Holmes, Alan Moore, Jelena Stojanovic; Reiko
> > > Tomii,
> > > Rachel Weiss.
>
> > > "Don't start an art collective until you read this book." -- Guerrilla
> > > Girls
>
> > > "Ever since Web 2.0 with its wikis, blogs and social networks the art
> > > of
> > > collaboration is back on the agenda. Collectivism after Modernism
> > > shows that
> > > cooperation amongst artists, activists, and designers has a rich
> > > history.
> > > Showcasing examples from around the world, this anthology maps group
> > > work
> > > throughout the 20th century. This collection convincingly proves that
> > > art
> > > collectives did not stop after the proclaimed death of the historical
> > > avant-gardes. Like never before technology reinvents the social and
> > > artists
> > > claim the steering wheel!" -- Geert Lovink- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The marxist interpretation of art is such crap. Garage artists,
underground artists. Anyone without talent is allowed to be called an
artist by virtue of being the "little guy". I had friends who were
all into the "underground"/"alternative" music scene in college. A
band could only be "good" if it was undiscovered, up and coming or
didn't "sell out" (i.e. the kids don't even know how to play their
instruments yet). What a bunch of pretentious garbage. And of course
the really nice polished stuff is not "true" art because it's
"commercial." Talk about putting the cart before the horse!
"Underground" seems to be just another word for artists who couldn't
even draw a cartoon if their life depended upon it. Crap is art, art
is crap, war is peace and all the rest.
Gary Childress
What is so great about "Dinner Party"? It's a bunch of ornamental
plates spread out on a table for crying out loud? A lot of the
ornaments remind me of something an Aztec might create. A bunch of
three year olds with paint brushes can easily make colorful wavy lines
on a piece of pottery. Is that supposed to be "fine" art?
I just had supper, there are plates from all different manufacturers
spread out in our kitchen. For $50 I'll let anyone who wants to, come
over and admire the scene!
Gary Childress
And here is a page dedicated to Judy Chicago! Wow what simplistic
nonsense. Dare I say I could reproduce some of these items, given 15
minutes of spare time? Can you imagine what an art gallery devoted
entirely to her stuff would look like? Her "works" remind me of some
of my worst 6th grade art projects. Oh, but anyone can be an artist
according to the marxist interpretation of art! Her stuff might look
good at Pier 1 imports, though.
Gary Childress
> smart artist does the same, making certain he/she is seen with the
> right faces in the right places and gets his/her name in the
> newspaper.
>
That is such a superficial understanding of art...
Mani Deli
wrote:
>
>And here is a page dedicated to Judy Chicago! Wow what simplistic
>nonsense. Dare I say I could reproduce some of these items, given 15
>minutes of spare time? Can you imagine what an art gallery devoted
>entirely to her stuff would look like? Her "works" remind me of some
>of my worst 6th grade art projects. Oh, but anyone can be an artist
>according to the marxist interpretation of art! Her stuff might look
>good at Pier 1 imports, though.
>
>
>http://www.lewallencontemporary.com/judychicago
Judy was once considered the cat's ass. She's just another phony with
no talent who had the right connections. The right connections moved
on and Judy is a has been. A common occurrence with most no ability
modern artists.
No skill, no art
James Whitehead
"Gary Childress" <grchi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1176353297....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
"If the world were clear, art would not exist."
Camus
*Anarcissie*
Fusspot.
michael
what this has to do with marxism, i can't begin to imagine... but if
you're interested in a more cogent discussion of this mindset, go to
http://www.armchairnews.com/freelance/eggers.html
and read the addendum to the interview...
michael
Gary Childress
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm sure you can't even imagine what marxism is for that matter.
michael
> I'm sure you can't even imagine what marxism is for that matter.
marxism is generally not discussed as being "for" this or that matter...
marxism is for the workers...but i'm sure you knew that...
michael
Gary Childress
Yeah, contemporary art criticism pays no homage to Marx. It spawned
itself in an intellectual vacumm tube. It was immaculate conception.
They just happen to accidently bear family resemblance. Or maybe it
was the "young hegelian", and great philosophical celebrity (and
household name) Peter Kropotkin who brought wide-spread critical,
intellectual focus upon his instructor's master/slave relationship and
not Marx?
Paul Bramscher
Collectivism in art had reached a high form with the NSK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_Slowenische_Kunst.
Not pretentious at all. In fact, you may be hard-pressed to determine
where genuine avante garde art and reality meet one another.
*Anarcissie*
>
> what this has to do with marxism, i can't begin to imagine... but if
> you're interested in a more cogent discussion of this mindset, go to
>
> http://www.armchairnews.com/freelance/eggers.html
>
> and read the addendum to the interview...
>
> michael
He's dealing with the printed word, an artistic world which is
already rather collectivistic, although it retain some elements
of romantic individualism (the heroic author). The _oncoming_
collectivism of writing, however, is not the heroic author's
novel, but the electronic media -- Usenet, blogs, web sites
reflecting and commenting on one another, user-supplied
content, multi-player games, artificial worlds, Web 2.0. I
can't imagine what Marx would have made of it -- or why
that matters.
Paul Bramscher
Marx would say that this is all FINE AND DANDY for communications,
knowledge dissemination and organizing. But, *beyond* this, it's
another opiate of the masses. Even worse than previous opiates, because
it keeps people locked in their homes. Shouting and ranting in the
bricks&mortar world did nothing to change things in the 60's. Why
should we expect the same in the digital world to have any impact
whatsoever?
But as communications & organizing tools, it's a goldmine.
Gary Childress
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't find collectivist art nor thinking to be extremely brilliant.
I remember being in a therapy group for schizophrenia. We had an art
session where we were told to paint something "self expressive". I
painted a picture representing myself--surounded by an empty sheet of
paper. The group psychiatrist's comments..."Look he doesn't think the
rest of us count". What a dumbass...
Collectives are often havens for some power hungry central figure to
gain dominance over independent thought. I used to belong to a
"collective" of friends. What a nauseating experience that was! I've
since struck out on my own and have found myself in much better
company.
Gary Childress
>
> - Show quoted text -
Humans are nearly always in groups of some sort or another. One is
almost always surounded by other human beings. The fact that anybody
has to stand up and officially proclaim, "Let's form a collective"
should be more than a little suspect.
Erik A. Mattila
Indeed. Imagine a group of hermits forming a collective.
*Anarcissie*
I think the idea of the thing I quoted was that the
collectivities had formed spontaneously. In the age
of the Internet, the idea of collectives of hermits
isn't so far-fetched. It might well be the predominant
form, in fact.
Don Tuite
wrote:
At the risk of invoking Moggin, I think that a collective of hermits
is what you hat at Iona and elsewhere in the early years of the CE.
Patrick's sin lay in making the Celtic Christians subjects of the
Roman Church.
Don (At the risk of invoking Kennedy)
Jim
I mentioned this in another newsgroup. Does everyone here
know that Ireland's state broadcaster, RTE, now runs ads for
the medical treatment of erectile dysfunction?