Baudrillard's *Transaesthetics*
A.A. Raimes
Baudrillard, the essay on Transaesthetics discusses today's art which JB
claims is devoid of soul.
"We see Art proliferating wherever we turn; talk about Art is increasing
even more rapidly. But the soul of Art - Art as adventure, Art with its
power of illusion, its capacity for negating reality, for setting up an
'other scene' in opposition to reality, where things obey a higher set
of rules, a transcendent figure in which beings, like line and colour on
a canvas, are apt to lose their meaning, to extend themselves beyond
their own *raison d'être*, and, in an urgent process of seduction, to
rediscover their ideal form (even though this form may be that of their
own destruction) - in this sense, Art is gone. Art has disappeared as a
symbolic pact, as something thus clearly distinct from that pure and
simple production of aesthetic values, that proliferation of signs of
*infinitum*, that recycling of past and present forms, which we call
*culture*. There are no more fundamental rules, nor more criteria of
judgement or of pleasure."
Is he right ? If so, what then is today's role of the artist and why is
there such an increase in those who choose art as their vocation ?
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
GERALD O'CONNELL
to get.
But academics and cultural critics are like artists and pop stars now: they
must compete for a 'share of voice' in an increasingly media-rich cultural
environment. A proven, though crass, formula for succeeding in this is to
shock.
So we are bombarded by the imbecilic outpourings of fashion-conscious french
pseudo-academics scrambling to board the iconoclasm gravy train to
reputational nirvana. You quote an example of the process in progress.
The saps who soak up this guff and discuss it seriously for years afterwards
are in the same boat as the kids on the corner comparing designer labels on
trainers and track-suits: consumerist fashion victims of somebody's brand
awareness stunt...
Gerald O'Connell
http://www.gacoc.demon.co.uk/
A.A. Raimes wrote in message ...
A.A. Raimes
O'CONNELL <g...@gacoc.demon.co.uk> writes
>Of course he is wrong, you know that he is about as wrong as it is possible
>to get.
I don't know that he is wrong, at least not on all accounts ? care to
expand on why you would think I do ?
>But academics and cultural critics are like artists and pop stars now: they
>must compete for a 'share of voice' in an increasingly media-rich cultural
>environment. A proven, though crass, formula for succeeding in this is to
>shock.
You are in effect saying that artists are like pop stars now ? This in
itself confirms what Baudrillard purports - that the motives for art are
conditioned by alternative reasons - fame and financial. In the closing
paragraph of the essay he concludes that there are two art markets
today. "One is still regulated by a hierarchy of values .... the other
resembles nothing so much as floating and uncontrollable capital in the
financial market ..... Should we be scandalised ? No. There is nothing
immoral here. Just as present day art is beyond beautiful and ugly, the
market, for its part, is beyond good and evil."
>So we are bombarded by the imbecilic outpourings of fashion-conscious french
>pseudo-academics scrambling to board the iconoclasm gravy train to
>reputational nirvana. You quote an example of the process in progress.
>The saps who soak up this guff and discuss it seriously for years afterwards
>are in the same boat as the kids on the corner comparing designer labels on
>trainers and track-suits: consumerist fashion victims of somebody's brand
>awareness stunt...
>
>Gerald O'Connell
>http://www.gacoc.demon.co.uk/
And the saps who don't question and defend thereby providing a reasoned
argument against such people are not ? So the voice of the imbeciles
succeeds.
John Haber
sounds silly to me as well, a lesser philosopher who celebrates
existence as a byproduct of TV, you can easily get trapped if you then
use him as an excuse to damn the intellectual crowd. You thus, as she
notes, accept his paranoic vision, simply refusing his celebration of
it. Either way, reality is out the window.
You should tell us more about your interests. I know you like
contemporary art and philosophy, so I suspect I'm just misled by the
recent and only posts of yours I've seen. They're all so dismissive
-- of pollock, americans, critics, whatever -- as big frauds. I hate
to say it, but it's not something one should call right or wrong:
it's just silly. You're not following your own standards, and I
really apologize for the curtness in turn of my replies yesterday.
John
Ariane
On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, A.A. Raimes wrote:
> In _The Transparency of Evil: essays in extreme phenomena_ by Jean
> Baudrillard, the essay on Transaesthetics discusses today's art which JB
> claims is devoid of soul.
>
> "We see Art proliferating wherever we turn; talk about Art is increasing
> even more rapidly. But the soul of Art - Art as adventure, Art with its
> power of illusion, its capacity for negating reality, for setting up an
> 'other scene' in opposition to reality, where things obey a higher set
> of rules, a transcendent figure in which beings, like line and colour on
> a canvas, are apt to lose their meaning, to extend themselves beyond
> their own *raison d'être*, and, in an urgent process of seduction, to
> rediscover their ideal form (even though this form may be that of their
> own destruction) - in this sense, Art is gone. Art has disappeared as a
> symbolic pact, as something thus clearly distinct from that pure and
> simple production of aesthetic values, that proliferation of signs of
> *infinitum*, that recycling of past and present forms, which we call
> *culture*. There are no more fundamental rules, nor more criteria of
> judgement or of pleasure."
>
> Is he right ? If so, what then is today's role of the artist and why is
> there such an increase in those who choose art as their vocation ?
=== He's claiming that art, as a human and `soulful' endeavour has been
`seduced' by society, by `mass' culture, to the point where this cultural
hegemony over art threatens to stifle the human production and
appreciation of art itself....whether the artist her/himself becomes a
cultural victim as well depends on her or his strength (as Nietzsche
pointed out).....The artist's role is a self-defined voyage toward
liberation from....many people choose to do art because it is much more
than a vocation, it has the power to become a `raison d'etre'......at
least these are my opinions.
au revoir,
A.
Ariane
On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, GERALD O'CONNELL wrote:
> Of course he is wrong, you know that he is about as wrong as it is possible
> to get.
> But academics and cultural critics are like artists and pop stars now: they
> must compete for a 'share of voice' in an increasingly media-rich cultural
> environment. A proven, though crass, formula for succeeding in this is to
> shock.
> So we are bombarded by the imbecilic outpourings of fashion-conscious french
> pseudo-academics scrambling to board the iconoclasm gravy train to
> reputational nirvana.
=== Yes, France is such an intellectual backwater.....The whole of French
thought is an ingenuous fashion-show devoid of any content or
value....Thank god you're around to set us all straight.
> You quote an example of the process in progress.
> The saps who soak up this guff and discuss it seriously for years afterwards
> are in the same boat as the kids on the corner comparing designer labels on
> trainers and track-suits: consumerist fashion victims of somebody's brand
> awareness stunt...
>
> Gerald O'Connell
> http://www.gacoc.demon.co.uk/
=== The saps who dismiss this stuff without ever being capable of
understanding it are in the same boat as the kids on the corner looking
for the next person toward whom they'd like to harass and abuse: bourgeois
cultural victims of their apotheosis of intellectual and existential
mediocrity...
A.
> A.A. Raimes wrote in message ...
> >In _The Transparency of Evil: essays in extreme phenomena_ by Jean
> >Baudrillard, the essay on Transaesthetics discusses today's art which JB
> >claims is devoid of soul.
> >
> >"We see Art proliferating wherever we turn; talk about Art is increasing
> >even more rapidly. But the soul of Art - Art as adventure, Art with its
> >power of illusion, its capacity for negating reality, for setting up an
> >'other scene' in opposition to reality, where things obey a higher set
> >of rules, a transcendent figure in which beings, like line and colour on
> >a canvas, are apt to lose their meaning, to extend themselves beyond
> >their own *raison d'être*, and, in an urgent process of seduction, to
> >rediscover their ideal form (even though this form may be that of their
> >own destruction) - in this sense, Art is gone. Art has disappeared as a
> >symbolic pact, as something thus clearly distinct from that pure and
> >simple production of aesthetic values, that proliferation of signs of
> >*infinitum*, that recycling of past and present forms, which we call
> >*culture*. There are no more fundamental rules, nor more criteria of
> >judgement or of pleasure."
> >
> >Is he right ? If so, what then is today's role of the artist and why is
> >there such an increase in those who choose art as their vocation ?
> >
mark webber
(snipping)
> - in this sense, Art is gone. Art has disappeared as a
> symbolic pact, as something thus clearly distinct from that pure and
> simple production of aesthetic values, that proliferation of signs of
> *infinitum*, that recycling of past and present forms, which we call
> *culture*. There are no more fundamental rules, nor more criteria of
> judgement or of pleasure."
>
> Is he right ?
I think the complaint is a fair one when it comes to much of what is
covered in the mainstream art press these days. I don't find many articles
about the sort of painting or esthetic experience I enjoy.
But that doesn't mean *all* art has taken what I call the "cool attitude".
There is still painting about visual experiences, visual play. It just
isn't hip to write about it these days.
> If so, what then is today's role of the artist and why is
> there such an increase in those who choose art as their vocation ?
>
> Alison A Raimes
Alison, I don't know if you saw my brief reply to three consecutive
"Chelsea" posts you wrote, but I found them to be very much on the money
and well-put. This question you've raised is also pretty interesting,
because in spite of the fact that we want to catagorize and determine
roles, I'm quite sure that any list of ten great artists of the past would
represent several different opinions (by the artists themselves) of what
their roles were supposed to be.
To the first part of your question I would say there isn't one particular
correct role.
To the second part I would say that many people who feel they are
outsiders, rebels, unconventional in any way, see themselves as artists.
This expanded temp pool is intriguing but not definitively raising the
quality or standards of what we call art.
Enjoying your writing,
Mark
mark webber
> Of course he is wrong, you know that he is about as wrong as it is possible
> to get.
> But academics and cultural critics are like artists and pop stars now: they
> must compete for a 'share of voice' in an increasingly media-rich cultural
> environment. A proven, though crass, formula for succeeding in this is to
> shock.
> So we are bombarded by the imbecilic outpourings of fashion-conscious french
> pseudo-academics scrambling to board the iconoclasm gravy train to
> reputational nirvana. You quote an example of the process in progress.
> The saps who soak up this guff and discuss it seriously for years afterwards
> are in the same boat as the kids on the corner comparing designer labels on
> trainers and track-suits: consumerist fashion victims of somebody's brand
> awareness stunt...
>
> Gerald O'Connell
I like this too! Nice, Gerald.
Mark
Marilyn
>
> On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, A.A. Raimes wrote:
>
> > In _The Transparency of Evil: essays in extreme phenomena_ by Jean
> > Baudrillard, the essay on Transaesthetics discusses today's art which JB
> > claims is devoid of soul.
> >
> > "We see Art proliferating wherever we turn; talk about Art is increasing
> > even more rapidly. But the soul of Art - Art as adventure, Art with its
> > power of illusion, its capacity for negating reality, for setting up an
> > 'other scene' in opposition to reality, where things obey a higher set
> > of rules, a transcendent figure in which beings, like line and colour on
> > a canvas, are apt to lose their meaning, to extend themselves beyond
> > their own *raison d'être*, and, in an urgent process of seduction, to
> > rediscover their ideal form (even though this form may be that of their
> > symbolic pact, as something thus clearly distinct from that pure and
> > simple production of aesthetic values, that proliferation of signs of
> > *infinitum*, that recycling of past and present forms, which we call
> > *culture*. There are no more fundamental rules, nor more criteria of
> > judgement or of pleasure."
> >
> > there such an increase in those who choose art as their vocation ?
>
> `seduced' by society, by `mass' culture, to the point where this cultural
> hegemony over art threatens to stifle the human production and
> appreciation of art itself....whether the artist her/himself becomes a
> cultural victim as well depends on her or his strength (as Nietzsche
> pointed out).....The artist's role is a self-defined voyage toward
> liberation from....many people choose to do art because it is much more
> than a vocation, it has the power to become a `raison d'etre'......at
> least these are my opinions.
>
> au revoir,
>
> A.
Ariane
Thanks for translating that. It has now piqued my interest.
At first I thought "art" expressed there to be a general term.
Would you say that the original post was a good translation from
the French?
Marilyn
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"A.A. Raimes" <ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
> In _The Transparency of Evil: essays in extreme phenomena_ by Jean
> Baudrillard, the essay on Transaesthetics discusses today's art which JB
> claims is devoid of soul.
>
> "We see Art proliferating wherever we turn; talk about Art is increasing
> even more rapidly. But the soul of Art - Art as adventure, Art with its
> power of illusion, its capacity for negating reality, for setting up an
> 'other scene' in opposition to reality, where things obey a higher set
> of rules, a transcendent figure in which beings, like line and colour on
> a canvas, are apt to lose their meaning, to extend themselves beyond
> their own *raison d'être*, and, in an urgent process of seduction, to
> rediscover their ideal form (even though this form may be that of their
> own destruction) - in this sense, Art is gone. Art has disappeared as a
> symbolic pact, as something thus clearly distinct from that pure and
> simple production of aesthetic values, that proliferation of signs of
> *infinitum*, that recycling of past and present forms, which we call
> *culture*. There are no more fundamental rules, nor more criteria of
> judgement or of pleasure."
>
> Is he right ? If so, what then is today's role of the artist and why is
> there such an increase in those who choose art as their vocation ?
>
I honestly have to say, Alison, that reading this paragraph just raises
questions about Bs whole essay. It seems a bit unreasonable for you to ask
your questions based on a simple snip. Questions that come to my mind, since
I have not read this essay, go along the line -- Is B weeping over an
aesthetic 'paradise lost'? Is B laying the groundwork for a new way of
looking at art or visual culture? (He often does this--disenfranchises
various cultural 'sacred cows' in preparation to describing the terms of an
alternative concept.) Well, I'm sure you get the gist of what I'm saying.
So I can only put Bs clip in the context of what I already know about his
various projects. He seems to be saying that art has fallen into the platter
of simulacra, as so many modern forms, where they only replicate themselves
endlessly as opposed to the idea of a form representing something outside or
beyond the boundaries of the form's particular discourse. It's not too much
of a mystery that several of the arts created in the past 40 years can be
described this way, self-referential, repoducing themselves, no longer about
a world outside of the art world. The question again come to my mind if B is
complaining about this, or merely setting the stage for another explanation
which may give us some direction in this simulacrum? Maybe you would care to
comment on the 'rest of the story."
Erik Mattila
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
GERALD O'CONNELL
Jean Baudrillard writes:
>
>"We see Art proliferating wherever we turn; talk about Art is increasing
>even more rapidly. But the soul of Art
What is this mythical 'soul of art' construct save a fictional device upon
which the author hangs his vague, inaccurate and self-opinionated (yes,
that's right, I said 'self-opinionated', and , before you ask, I'll tell you
what gives me the right to belittle this 'intellectual giant' thus: his
views are sui generis, based neither on empirical evidence nor sound
deduction; wheras mine are based firmly on a rigorous, though sometimes
rather sarcastic analysis of the detail of the text before us...read on...)
views ? As a rhetorical device it strikes a deep enough chord, but as
intellectual substance it carries no more weight than than a mere medieval
superstition - we appeal to the 'soul' now as an emotional lender of last
resort when, bankrupt in the court of analysis, we search in desperation for
a target for our elitist's unease at the democratisation of culture.
'Everybody's doing it now', this joker wails in anguish, 'there must be
something wrong with that, or there will be no place for me...'.
And so, without a blush, on he goes: having invented a spurious reason to
ignore the flowering of culture around him (See how it is stigmatised as
'proliferation' ? And, even worse for this critic chilled by the wind of
change, 'talk about art' is 'proliferating', virus-like, at an even greater
rate !) , to manufacture something that, now, art is not ! This is the
worst kind of arrogant intellectual laziness: a high-class case of 'Not
Invented Here'. Too lazy to go out and look at it, sort the good from the
bad, do some work coming to terms with a load of new, threatening stuff ?
Easy. Just dismiss it all and bemoan the fact that it fails to meet the
'standards' you have invented to sell another book.
- Art as adventure,
So no 'adventures' now ? Nothing new happening ? Nobody taking any risks ?
All out on a Sunday morning painting the roses are we ?
>Art with itspower of illusion,
Tell me what art is not built on that. It is a precondition, part of the
craft. To posit this as a mystical componenent of the 'soul' of art
absolutely reeks of the effete condescendece of somebody who never got their
hands dirty and who wants to treat 'the artist' as a curiously talented
monkey fit only to use the tradesman's entrance.
>its capacity for negating reality,
Sorry, but the negation of reality is fiction. Is he saying that art has
stopped being fictional ? Has he stopped to consider what art, anything for
that matter, starts being when it stops being fictional ?
>for setting up an
>'other scene' in opposition to reality, where things obey a higher set
>of rules,
'Higher' ? Why 'higher' ? Are we not feeling our way back to another moan
about 'proliferation' here ? Getting ready to set up a new hierarchy of
taste and appreciation with Guess Who at the top ?
>a transcendent figure in which beings, like line and colour on
>a canvas, are apt to lose their meaning, to extend themselves beyond
>their own *raison d'être*, and, in an urgent process of seduction, to
>rediscover their ideal form (even though this form may be that of their
>own destruction)
Yes, well, they will be destroyed if they lose their meaning won't they ?
And did you spot the tortured spiritual reification of these 'entities'
line and colour (he's obviously done SOME homework) ? Reaching, grasping
for some ('higher' ?) purpose in life they topple over the precipice (of
verbiage, no doubt) and plunge to their deaths, only in their obliteration
to recover their non-existent obedience to a 'higher set of rules'.
So now we have those famed but doomed teenage lovers, line and colour, as
hero and heroine of a great tragic romance do we ? Arrant nonsense it may
be, but to what other conclusion does that gratuitous 'urgent process of
seduction' lead us ?
> - in this sense, Art is gone. Art has disappeared as a
>symbolic pact,
?! Between whom ? Line and Colour ? Patron and tradesman ?
as something thus clearly distinct from that pure and
>simple production of aesthetic values, that proliferation of signs of
>*infinitum*, that recycling of past and present forms, which we call
>*culture*.
So where are up to now in this turgid potboiler ? Line and Colour, after a
playfully sensuous romp on the canvas, have entered a suicide pact in order
to rediscover their 'ideal form' of non-existence and mutually assured
destruction rather than go on living in a world where art and criticism have
proliferated to the point where they are part of the mainstream culture.
If this describes the world in which you are living, then you can, I
believe, get some kind of medical help for it.
>There are no more fundamental rules,
Quite right.(As if there ever really has been ! These 'fundamental rules'
are invariably an ex-post construct imposed by academics in order to make
sense of the unruly output of human genius through the ages.) But the
relativism of the 20th century marks a great forward step in our
intellectual evolution, a reflexive leap towards the formulation of a true
understanding of the nature of rules, assumptions, conclusions and value
systems, not a cause for regret. And this has happened, not as a result of
the democratisation of access to art, culture and knowledge, but rather as a
consequence of a massive step change in the quality of the ideas that form
the material basis of our intellectual culture. A new light starts to shine
on and from these endeavours as we see ever more sophisticated models of
cause and effect fall into the hands of an ever larger proportion of the
population.
Meanwhile, Baudrillard and his caste of old-style intellectual elitists
resemble cloistered clerics recoiling in terror as the first printing
presses threatened to put the bible (and worse, literacy itself) into the
hands of the masses. His craving for 'fundamental rules' is also a craving
for a value-system that is ultimately a recondite tool of repression, secure
in the grasp of its true interpreters. They don't want us to read the
original text, they want us to recite the catechism that they are
desperately re-inventing in a vain attempt to stem the tide of
intellectual egalitarianism they most fear. Their mystical appeal to the
'soul of art' and their special understanding of it is a uniquely retrogade
step. Like those guys who hate the PC and want to reclaim the 'soul of the
computer'. Absurd, and, in positions of influence, dangerous....
> nor more criteria of
>judgement or of pleasure."
>
>Is he right ? If so, what then is today's role of the artist
May I suggest that the role of the artist is to make works of art, no more
or less than it has ever been ?
(To those who subscribe to the 'canary in a coalmine' theory of the arts,
the view that artists are a super-sensitive breed apart who are the first to
keel over in response to society's ills, I can offer no comfort. When you
feel an attack coming on, reach either for the pills or a paintbrush. Your
choice.....)
>and why is
>there such an increase in those who choose art as their vocation ?
>
>Alison A Raimes
> ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
> http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
>
Anyway, I hope that's given you a glimpse into some of what lies behind my
occasional bouts of iconoclasm.
best regards,
Gerald O'Connell
http://www.gacoc.demon.co.uk
GERALD O'CONNELL
A.A. Raimes wrote in message <$6Uo5gBA...@raimes.demon.co.uk>...
>In article <924957448.4280.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, GERALD
>O'CONNELL <g...@gacoc.demon.co.uk> writes
possible
>>to get.
>
>expand on why you would think I do ?
Expand ?
Because I don't think you favour rhetoric over evidence and argument. JB's
stuff is little more than rhetoric.
>
>>But academics and cultural critics are like artists and pop stars now:
they
>>must compete for a 'share of voice' in an increasingly media-rich cultural
>>environment. A proven, though crass, formula for succeeding in this is to
>>shock.
>
>You are in effect saying that artists are like pop stars now ?
Only on their public manifestations: they all have the same problem - share
of voice, 'me me me'
This in
>itself confirms what Baudrillard purports - that the motives for art are
>conditioned by alternative reasons - fame and financial.
It was ever thus.
In the closing
>paragraph of the essay he concludes that there are two art markets
>today.
And that is a one-eyed view; not all art is in the marketplace, and there
are more than two public arenas, or types of public arena, for art...
> "One is still regulated by a hierarchy of values .... the other
>resembles nothing so much as floating and uncontrollable capital in the
>financial market ..... Should we be scandalised ? No. There is nothing
>immoral here. Just as present day art is beyond beautiful and ugly, the
>market, for its part, is beyond good and evil."
>
>
>>So we are bombarded by the imbecilic outpourings of fashion-conscious
french
>>pseudo-academics scrambling to board the iconoclasm gravy train to
>>reputational nirvana. You quote an example of the process in progress.
>>The saps who soak up this guff and discuss it seriously for years
afterwards
>>are in the same boat as the kids on the corner comparing designer labels
on
>>trainers and track-suits: consumerist fashion victims of somebody's brand
>>awareness stunt...
>>
>>Gerald O'Connell
>>http://www.gacoc.demon.co.uk/
>
>
>And the saps who don't question and defend thereby providing a reasoned
>argument against such people are not ? So the voice of the imbeciles
>succeeds.
>
mark webber
Gerald, I was going to ask you why you let a writer like Baudrillard annoy
you, but I think he brings out something pretty terrific in you, so please
do stay annoyed.
Mark
A.A. Raimes
O'CONNELL <g...@gacoc.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>
>Anyway, I hope that's given you a glimpse into some of what lies behind my
>occasional bouts of iconoclasm.
Frankly you lost me after the first paragraph.
Best regards too !
A.A. Raimes
writes
>
>I honestly have to say, Alison, that reading this paragraph just raises
>questions about Bs whole essay. It seems a bit unreasonable for you to ask
>your questions based on a simple snip. Questions that come to my mind, since
>I have not read this essay, go along the line -- Is B weeping over an
>aesthetic 'paradise lost'? Is B laying the groundwork for a new way of
>looking at art or visual culture? (He often does this--disenfranchises
>various cultural 'sacred cows' in preparation to describing the terms of an
>alternative concept.) Well, I'm sure you get the gist of what I'm saying.
>
Sorry about that Erik - I realised that taking it out of context would
be a problem but hoped that it would provide fuel for discussion away
from the current undertone of this newsgroup. I think Ariane's synopsis
of what Baudrillard is trying to say is first class. Glad to expand
further ... for now off to the canvas.
CYA.
A.A. Raimes
100...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>, mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> writes
>I think the complaint is a fair one when it comes to much of what is
>covered in the mainstream art press these days. I don't find many articles
>about the sort of painting or esthetic experience I enjoy.
>
>But that doesn't mean *all* art has taken what I call the "cool attitude".
>
>There is still painting about visual experiences, visual play. It just
>isn't hip to write about it these days.
Spot on, Mark. Baudrillard dissects the twentieth century and attempts
to find reason for the increase in *indifference* that shrouds our
societies. His pessimistic tone, which I perceive as *honesty*, is often
grounds for severe criticism. He sees the decline of the west, and,
quite rightly, gets out his scalpel to analyse the cause.
I think he is wrong, not about the decline of the west, but about art.
Art has become a *product* - sensationalist, attention seeking,
scrambling for recognition - no different to the days of the Academy
except in the volume of artists today. While it may reflect western
society it only reflects those who have fallen foul of the consumerist
society that it has neatly become inextricably entangled in. The greater
picture is that of people who want no part of it. Art History has always
been like this - excluding the majority - but today I think we have a
moral obligation, as artists, to stand against this force that controls
who and what we are portrayed as - the dilemma then being that we have
to come out from our hideaways and join the masses. Its easier not to
even though I think artists have become more socio-politically inclined
than ever before - at least certainly in UK. A few years ago it seemed
that finally artists were no longer going to allow the critics the power
to control and that they were finally going to start to make history
through their own voices. That, for me, seems to be the way for
equilibrium.
>Alison, I don't know if you saw my brief reply to three consecutive
>"Chelsea" posts you wrote, but I found them to be very much on the money
>and well-put. This question you've raised is also pretty interesting,
>because in spite of the fact that we want to catagorize and determine
>roles, I'm quite sure that any list of ten great artists of the past would
>represent several different opinions (by the artists themselves) of what
>their roles were supposed to be.
I agree wholeheartedly with Ariane - art does provide a 'raison d'ętre'
for many and this, I think, is one of the most important causes of the
increase in the production of art. However, the exercise of placing this
to a world forum of artists should provide us with a considerable
variety of viewpoints, which is the most important aspect of such a
debate.
Life is an extreme circumstance - one in which it is easy to get sucked
into the vortex of self destruction - and the focus that I spoke of in
another posting, whereby the studio allows a connection with a random
universe in which the artist is able to seek unity through his work.
Call that *romantic* if you want - I can only speak subjectively on this
matter and that is how it is for me and for many artists I spend time
with.
>To the first part of your question I would say there isn't one particular
>correct role.
I agree - maybe we can get some ideas on what artists believe their role
is. Mine is totally selfish. Absolutely. The studio is my sanctuary from
a society that I rarely feel in tune with. I have abandoned as far as
possible, the expectations of that society and I suspect that there are
a lot more like me.
>
>To the second part I would say that many people who feel they are
>outsiders, rebels, unconventional in any way, see themselves as artists.
>This expanded temp pool is intriguing but not definitively raising the
>quality or standards of what we call art.
This seems to fit in with what I said earlier. Feelings of
insignificance; voices that need to be louder than others; one
upmanship; they are all part of the culture we have developed that has
insisted we affirm our place in it. It has become a scramble - and yes
an intriguing one to observe.
Best regards.
John Haber
>French thought is an ingenuous fashion-show devoid of any
>content or value....Thank god you're around to set us all straight.
LOL. Thank goodness someone's still capable of irony here.
Here in raf we keep facing the same annoying rhetorical devices. It's
worse than American politics. Here it is again: "Of course he is
wrong, you know that he is about as wrong as it is possible to get.
But academics and cultural critics are...." No fuss, no muss.
That handy little shift to the plural, no different than in "red
scares." (They're all a fraud, a menace, a plot. They're all like
that. They're all the same.)
The personalization of ideas. (It's about their motives, or YOUR
motives, not ideas.)
The certainty. ("Of course....")
Why? I know it's a tribute to ideas that they cut us where we live,
define us, or ask us to define ourselves. We want to personalize
them. And yet there has to be something left over, something in
respect for both IDEAS and for EACH OTHER -- that knowledge that words
matter and we're not playing games for our own sake. (At least they
matter to me and, obviously, to you.)
John
John Haber
participants are all basically in agreement. Both A's did separate
good summaries of what Baudrillard was getting at, its interest, and
why they dissent -- in both cases because of what their art means to
them. I admired their posts a lot.
However, I don't think it's about empiricism. Baudrillard reads to me
like pop sociology, like McLuhan on drugs, but he's certainly trying
to write about the outside world.
John
Marilyn
John:
While you continue to be challenged by ideas,
allowing them to upset your own bias, some
people have already found the Truth. For them
the search is over, and now its time to
proseletize.
adieu,
M.
A.A. Raimes
>Anyway, I hope that's given you a glimpse into some of what lies behind my
>occasional bouts of iconoclasm.
>
>best regards,
>
>Gerald O'Connell
>http://www.gacoc.demon.co.uk
Ok, I gave it another go Gerald - only thing is I can't stop laughing
... did you deliberately revert to rhetorical writing to join
Baudrillard or to outwit him ?????
Come on, old bean, how do *you* see your role as an artist today ?
Alison.
PS. That bomb was just a little too close for comfort yesterday ...
thought it was my exhaust backfiring .... what a world ....
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
mark webber
>
> Spot on, Mark. Baudrillard dissects the twentieth century and attempts
> to find reason for the increase in *indifference* that shrouds our
> societies. His pessimistic tone, which I perceive as *honesty*, is often
> grounds for severe criticism. He sees the decline of the west, and,
> quite rightly, gets out his scalpel to analyse the cause.
>
> I think he is wrong, not about the decline of the west, but about art.
> Art has become a *product* - sensationalist, attention seeking,
> scrambling for recognition - no different to the days of the Academy
> except in the volume of artists today. While it may reflect western
> society it only reflects those who have fallen foul of the consumerist
> society that it has neatly become inextricably entangled in.
The "art as a product" - particularly the way you have it defined
above - is an annoying and overwhelming element today, I agree. And as
recently as forty years ago, the general public didn't care enough about
contemporary art to be so desperately hip.
But truthfully, it doesn't get me all that upset. I would prefer to see
current writers challenging themselves a bit more, rather than
re-reviewing the same old over-rated art stars, but that aspect of it
seems very unimportant in a large scheme. I have friends who make
beautiful, brilliant paintings; Museums continue to unfold surprises;
Travel still yields new lessons, newly discovered old masters (for me)
and painting is still a very meaningful way to spend time.
One other little rant: I think the "art is a reflection of the culture
that produces it" cliche is one big part of this whole problem.
*Everything* is a reflection of the culture that produces it. How can it
not be?
Not seeing more than this in art is exactly what takes the recognition
of sensibility out of it. It seems an incredibly lazy approach, to me, to
stop at the "reflection of culture" position and not go further. This is
what I find handicapping many of todays critics.
> ...into the vortex of self destruction - and the focus that I spoke of
> in another posting, whereby the studio allows a connection with a random
> universe in which the artist is able to seek unity through his work.
> Call that *romantic* if you want - I can only speak subjectively on this
> matter and that is how it is for me and for many artists I spend time
> with.
Well, anyone who thinks they can do more than speak subjectively on this
is kidding themselves. Subjectivity is not a handicap. It is not a less
evolved awareness or lower rung on the philosophical foodchain. It is all
we have, and is the premise from which art making begins.
thanks for another fine thread, Alison.
Mark
Brian Shapiro
Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote in message news:37233D...@bc.ca...
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"A.A. Raimes" <ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
> Sorry about that Erik - I realised that taking it out of context would
> be a problem but hoped that it would provide fuel for discussion away
> from the current undertone of this newsgroup. I think Ariane's synopsis
> of what Baudrillard is trying to say is first class. Glad to expand
> further ... for now off to the canvas.
> CYA.
>
from the lack of B's full essay. Some of points seem to violate one important
principle, as expressed in the quote below, cited in Gane.
'To assert that "we're in a state of simulation" becomes meaningless, because
at that point one enters a death-like trance. The moment that you believe
that you're in a state of simulation you're no longer there. The
misunderstanding here is the conversion of a theory like mine into a
reference' (Gane: 166).
The key here is the relationship of theory to reference. A particular
concept of 'play' runs throughout B's work, and it's important not to forget
this. The 'world' that B is describing has Georges Bataille as its Pacific
Ocean, and Lacan as it Himalayas. This is not to say the there's nothing
about the real world in his writing -- it's just that its mediated by theory
to the degree that resemblance is almost coincidental. He's not called the
"Walt Disney of metaphysics' for nothing.
There's a great online essay about 'play' in Baudrillard at the URL below:
VIRTUAL PLAY: BAUDRILLARD ONLINE
Alan Aycock
Department of Anthropology
University of Lethbridge
Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1K 3M4
ayc...@hg.uleth.ca
http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Outlaws/BaudrillardOnline.html
I think one way the paragraph that you clipped suffered was that B wasn't
really trying to describe 'art', but rather use 'art' as an example to talk
about the theoretical concept of transaesthetics. I mean he isn't going to
go to the Louvre and say the Mona Lisa isn't really there, although he may
argue, with potential merit, that the Mona Lisa has become an empty
signifier, due to the ceaseless recapitualtion and circulation of the image
in culture.
--"Interestingly, Baudrillard also casts his critique in aesthetic terms: he
argues that in today's "transaesthetic" world, dominated by simulacra, "art
has been dissolved with a general aestheticization of everyday life, giving
way to a pure circulation of images, a transaesthetics of banality, of market
art, designed to sell, to 'perform'" [11]. Again, Baudrillard critiques the
leveling of depth and perspective, claiming that "the possibility of metaphor
is disappearing in every sphere [affecting] all disciplines as they lose
their specificity and partake of a process of confusion and contagion" [7].
The hypervisibility of the similar leads only to the hollow aesthetic of "the
look," in a kind of postmodern pornography where the undifferentiated other
is objectified by the universal global gaze, as we check out the other's
factitious image in a parody of desire." [ Review Essay -- The Listening Eye:
Postmodernism, Paranoia, and the Hypervisible--Jerry Aline Flieger ]
Mark's comments about reflection are interesting. I can agree with Mark on
the basis if my understand of what he is talking about, but if you put it on
the basis of Baudrillard I would have to disagree.
Mark wrote: "One other little rant: I think the "art is a reflection of the
culture that produces it" cliche is one big part of this whole problem.
*Everything* is a reflection of the culture that produces it. How can it not
be?
Not seeing more than this in art is exactly what takes the recognition of
sensibility out of it. It seems an incredibly lazy approach, to me, to stop at
the "reflection of culture" position and not go further. This is what I find
handicapping many of todays critics."
Baudrillard writes: "Moreover, the materiality of language is the stuff of
projective identification in symbolic space, rather than narcissistic
reflection. It does not repeat self-sameness, like [End Page 95] a flat
reflective surface; it alienates and constitutes subjects in an act of
projective identification with the Others who monitor them, producing
something like a "paranoid" bond."
So rather than 'art as a reflection' being a cliché, B would argue that this
essentially what he calls a 'simulacrum,' although he wouldn't call art
produced prior to modernism this. The whole idea is bound up in the concpet
of the 'other.' It was the lack of simultaniety between the painting and the
thing represented that produced meaning (or 'the projective identification in
symbolic space'). So he's almost writing off post modern art as
'narcissistic reflection,' which goes along with the 'cliché' that Mark is
talking about.
I still haven't read the essay, but I did indulge in a few reviews and relata
today. My sense is that your question "If so, what then is today's role of
the artist and why is there such an increase in those who choose art as their
vocation ?" in the context of this essay would be that artists still have the
privilege of re-estblishing the 'other' via the work of art -- in other word
can be a force 'against' the simulacra, and perhaps this is why (if it is
true) that there are so many artists (a new marginality, subversion, etc
[NeoBoho, as I've said before]). On the other hand, the proliferation of
artist may be nothing more than mass neurosis -- desperate people looking for
some last vestige of individuality in a world that is increasingly, as
Baudrillard claims, suffering from a generic sameness. Or maybe both
trajectories are the same. What I found to be very interesting from my
reading around the internet today was that apparently both Baudrillard and
Lyotard are poised to claim the death of post modernism. Oh, Brave New World
---
A.A. Raimes
writes
>Well, the responses to your post are terrific. But I think they are suffering
>from the lack of B's full essay. Some of points seem to violate one important
>principle, as expressed in the quote below, cited in Gane.
Erik: I don't know if the essay is online or not - I doubt it, as the
book was only published six years ago, although I know he regularly
writes articles for CTHEORY. The gist of his book is to show that
society can no longer distinguish between good and evil; beauty and
ugly; real and unreal. The essay _Transaesthetics_, discusses Art, with
a capital A, as opposed to 'art'. Present day images (which I perceive
as media promoted Art) present us with "nothing to see" ... the feeling
that something has disappeared - they give what he describes as a
"negative intensity" using as an example Warhol's soup images which
"release us from the need to decide between beautiful and ugly". He goes
on then to say that as we are unable to determine between these things
any longer and that perhaps it is unwise to try and assess Art on
aesthetic value but start to continue to evaluate Art from purely an
anthropological stand - as a "set of rituals". (He is not the only
person who has suggested we are returning to a primitive cultural
society). Because we are no longer able to judge aesthetics we are
"condemned to indifference" which has now been replaced by monetary
value placed on works of art that release us from making these decisions
- the more expensive the work the better ... right ?
Personally, I can see how this becomes a strong basis for Baudrillard's
essay - but of course it is a generalisation based on those that have
been chosen to represent the masses of artists. I was thinking about the
exhibitions that I have visited over the last twelve months trying to
search for work that held my attention. In particular the RA *Sensation*
show, which I approached with great pessimism and ended up visiting five
times because of my increased fascination. In that show there was the
usual cut in half cows; fried eggs on plates; a picture of a mass child
murderer made from tiny hand prints; tents with names of sexual
conquests; videos of urban life; and so on. My interest was nothing more
than voyeuristic - almost disbelief that this represented the world of
art in which I am immersed in. It took an amazing amount of discipline
not to be completely dismissive and to look further at the paintings and
sculpture that stood in the shadows, and to realise that there was, in
fact, a lot more to that show than pure *sensation*.
As am a member of the Institute of Contemporary Art, I subscribe more
out of obligation than anything else ... so far the shows there have
failed to capture my attention or interest. The work is generally badly
executed and pays little or no attention to the fundamental demands of
making art that result in what we know as *aesthetics*. This is hardly
surprising when one takes a look at the people who run these institutes
... one of the ICA curators was a theory tutor of mine at university and
is herself a self admitted failed artist.
The representation of contemporary Art is NOT in the hands of the
artist.
A.A. Raimes
>
>One other little rant: I think the "art is a reflection of the culture
>that produces it" cliche is one big part of this whole problem.
>
>*Everything* is a reflection of the culture that produces it. How can it
>not be?
>
>Not seeing more than this in art is exactly what takes the recognition
>of sensibility out of it. It seems an incredibly lazy approach, to me, to
>stop at the "reflection of culture" position and not go further. This is
>what I find handicapping many of todays critics.
>
Been thinking about this Mark, while the wind was rushing through your
hair and the roar of that motor was destroying the peace of the
countryside ;-)
In Baudrillard's essay _In the Shadow of the Millennium, or the Suspense
of the Year 2000_ (which can be found at http://www.ctheory.com/ ) he
discusses the possibility that society is forcing this - that the cliché
*reflecting culture* is directly affecting the way art is produced.
History is being *deliberated* - the work of art moves directly from the
studio into the museum - that the concerns are there to become
immediately famous and the issues are *forced* in order to be part of
the *in crowd*.
This all makes a lot of sense to me as I only recently graduated from
one of the largest and longest established art schools in England, where
it was without a doubt a *you have to be in to win* atmosphere. The
emphasis was on being part of the *postmodern* scene. I spent five years
representing the students and as chairman of the faculty staff/student
committee so got to know the younger students pretty well, and to spend
time talking to them about what they were producing. My opinion is that
they, much as I love them, were mesmerised by the idea of fame and being
part of the Britpack, to the extent that they had little or no grasp on
what *postmodernism* was about. How then can they produce work and
directly relate it to a concept they don't understand ? The work was
generally shallow and executed without concerns to skill yet managed to
deceive through the apparent *reflection of society* syndrome. They were
having a blast ! Two years later the majority of these artists no longer
make art - do you see the dilemma ? For myself it has put me off doing
my Masters degree until I am so secure in what I believe in, that I can
stand my ground at a London school without being sucked into a form of
art that simply is not of my making. Maybe I am almost there !
Cheers !
mark webber
(snipping myself a bit)
> >Not seeing more than this in art is exactly what takes the recognition
> >of sensibility out of it. It seems an incredibly lazy approach, to me, to
> >stop at the "reflection of culture" position and not go further. This is
> >what I find handicapping many of todays critics.
> >
>
> Been thinking about this Mark, while the wind was rushing through your
> hair and the roar of that motor was destroying the peace of the
> countryside ;-)
Such pleasing imagery!
>
> In Baudrillard's essay _In the Shadow of the Millennium, or the Suspense
> of the Year 2000_ (which can be found at http://www.ctheory.com/ ) he
> discusses the possibility that society is forcing this - that the cliché
> *reflecting culture* is directly affecting the way art is produced.
Yes, it is really hard for me not to come to the same conclusion.
> History is being *deliberated* - the work of art moves directly from the
> studio into the museum - that the concerns are there to become
> immediately famous and the issues are *forced* in order to be part of
> the *in crowd*.
It's no secret, I suppose, but in the States this began in full swing with
what is commonly called the second generation abstract expressionists.
I still wonder why so many people felt they could speak with Dekooning's
accent and be authentic.
>
> This all makes a lot of sense to me as I only recently graduated from
> one of the largest and longest established art schools in England, where
> it was without a doubt a *you have to be in to win* atmosphere. The
> emphasis was on being part of the *postmodern* scene.
This isn't unusual. Plenty of schools in the U.S., including some of the
best known, are involved in the same sort of fashion fabrication. It's
really pretty sad in a way, (and not for the reasons that the "no skill -
no art" hysterics believe it is) because the individual sensibility is
sacrificed, ignored.
If art is a reflection of anything, I think it is a reflection of the
*sensibility* that produces it. And Great Art is a reflection of a sublime
sensibility.
This notion makes so much more sense to me than the "culture" approach.
> ...My opinion is that
> they, much as I love them, were mesmerised by the idea of fame and being
> part of the Britpack, to the extent that they had little or no grasp on
> what *postmodernism* was about. How then can they produce work and
> directly relate it to a concept they don't understand ?
And perhaps more to the point, *why* should anyone try to produce work
about someone else's concept?
> The work was
> generally shallow and executed without concerns to skill yet managed to
> deceive through the apparent *reflection of society* syndrome. They were
> having a blast ! Two years later the majority of these artists no longer
> make art - do you see the dilemma ?
Esthetic Darwinism... but is it really a dilemma? Isn't it very much what
needs to happen? With all these art schools, we need enrollment.
Teachers accept the fact the very few of their students are serious, and
that the remainder subsidize the experience.
(These may be offensive facts, but facts they are.)
> For myself it has put me off doing
> my Masters degree until I am so secure in what I believe in, that I can
> stand my ground at a London school without being sucked into a form of
> art that simply is not of my making. Maybe I am almost there !
With your remarks here I think you are well on your way. I haven't a
chance to look at your web page, but I will try to today.
regards,
Mark
mark webber
(snipping heavily)
> I think one way the paragraph that you clipped suffered was that B wasn't
> really trying to describe 'art', but rather use 'art' as an example to talk
> about the theoretical concept of transaesthetics. I mean he isn't going to
> go to the Louvre and say the Mona Lisa isn't really there, although he may
> argue, with potential merit, that the Mona Lisa has become an empty
> signifier, due to the ceaseless recapitualtion and circulation of the image
> in culture.
...And...
>
> Mark's comments about reflection are interesting. I can agree with Mark on
> the basis if my understand of what he is talking about, but if you put it on
> the basis of Baudrillard I would have to disagree.
I see your point, Erik, and can only point out that not only do I have
little interest in seeing the Mona Lisa as a signifier, no matter how
empty, but I fear I am completely unqualified to do so.
> So he's [Baudrillard] almost writing off post modern art as
> 'narcissistic reflection,' which goes along with the 'cliché' that Mark is
> talking about.
Did I write "clich"? I meant to write "cliche." Anyway, I can't tell any
more if I agree with Monsieur B. or not. I am sure, however, that language
and painting are quite different from each other and it is a mistake to
evaluate or examine the processes of painting and art-looking the same way
one examines language. After all, language does not equal poetry. Music
doesn't *simply* communicate.
There is something a tad amusing to me about using a painting as an
example of what signage is or does, when a painting does a hell of a lot
more than signify. Even a bad painting.
warmly,
Mark
mark webber
(snip)
>
> As am a member of the Institute of Contemporary Art, I subscribe more
> out of obligation than anything else ... so far the shows there have
> failed to capture my attention or interest. The work is generally badly
> executed and pays little or no attention to the fundamental demands of
> making art that result in what we know as *aesthetics*. This is hardly
> surprising when one takes a look at the people who run these institutes
> ... one of the ICA curators was a theory tutor of mine at university and
> is herself a self admitted failed artist.
>
> The representation of contemporary Art is NOT in the hands of the
> artist.
>
> Alison A Raimes
The new director of the local art museum here in Northeast Pennsylvania
has no art or art history degree. I am told he holds a degree in
sociology.
And a pop star is on the editorial board of Modern Painter! I'm still
delighted by that one!
regards,
Mark
Peter Nelson
>I think he is wrong, not about the decline of the west, but about art.
>Art has become a *product* - sensationalist, attention seeking,
>scrambling for recognition - no different to the days of the Academy
>except in the volume of artists today. While it may reflect western
>society it only reflects those who have fallen foul of the consumerist
>society that it has neatly become inextricably entangled in.
Which art are you referring to? Do these comments apply equally
to Rothko, Rockwell, Monet and DaVinci? If so than are there
any exceptions?
Anyway, why do you call getting "inextricably entangled in" it
having "fallen foul"? Isn't all art in all cultures "inextricably
entangled" in the culture? Was art from Sierra Leone or Mali
or Egypt or China or Tahiti less entangled? Maybe its a peculiar
western affectation that the artist is supposed to be above
and apart from vulgar society.
---peter
A.A. Raimes
<plne...@mediaone.net> writes
>Which art are you referring to? Do these comments apply equally
>to Rothko, Rockwell, Monet and DaVinci? If so than are there
>any exceptions?
Peter: I am directly referring to the *Art* that Baudrillard uses to
illustrate what he sees as the cause of the decline in aesthetics ...
from his writings I understand this to be art from the 1960's onwards
... which he calls the years of the *orgy*.
>
>Anyway, why do you call getting "inextricably entangled in" it
>having "fallen foul"? Isn't all art in all cultures "inextricably
>entangled" in the culture? Was art from Sierra Leone or Mali
>or Egypt or China or Tahiti less entangled? Maybe its a peculiar
>western affectation that the artist is supposed to be above
>and apart from vulgar society.
>
>
>---peter
>
Yes. If you read back you will see that the debate is about the effect
of mass media and film star attitudes that have dominated Western
culture - you have it right - turn off the TV and get on with the work.
The only criticism I have following this is that if you are to turn off
the TV then you must also turn off the computer.
A.A. Raimes
>If art is a reflection of anything, I think it is a reflection of the
>*sensibility* that produces it. And Great Art is a reflection of a sublime
>sensibility.
Ok, you have my *absolute* attention. But you are going to have to help
me out a little. A sublime sensibility ? can you expand ?
>And perhaps more to the point, *why* should anyone try to produce work
>about someone else's concept?
To try and produce art specific to something you have no direct
involvement in is a concern to me. How can, for instance, I produce art
about the Kosovan massacres when my only involvement is through mass
media ? It is an insult and it is false and *that* is shallow and forced
art. However, the kids who want to be *hip* through their art are
actually reflecting the condition they live in, wouldn't you say ? They
in fact personify the *postmodern condition* (as we now understand it),
so it is hard to then condemn their art.
>
>
>> The work was
>> generally shallow and executed without concerns to skill yet managed to
>> deceive through the apparent *reflection of society* syndrome. They were
>> having a blast ! Two years later the majority of these artists no longer
>> make art - do you see the dilemma ?
>
>Esthetic Darwinism... but is it really a dilemma? Isn't it very much what
>needs to happen? With all these art schools, we need enrollment.
>
>Teachers accept the fact the very few of their students are serious, and
>that the remainder subsidize the experience.
>
Good point and one I can confirm as correct as most of my friends are
art teachers.
Don't look at that website ... it might shatter your illusions !
Best to you.
John Haber
>little interest in seeing the Mona Lisa as a signifier, no matter how
>empty, but I fear I am completely unqualified to do so.
Try to get past the jargon of its time (structuralism). The public
has no problem seeing art as expression, which also is a metaphor from
signifying and language. Structuralism was just an attempt to make
some sense of that. I won't defend it or attack it glibly here. I'll
just still try to urge twe stay open to unfamiliar ideas.
John
mark webber
On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, A.A. Raimes wrote:
> >If art is a reflection of anything, I think it is a reflection of the
> >*sensibility* that produces it. And Great Art is a reflection of a sublime
> >sensibility.
>
> Ok, you have my *absolute* attention. But you are going to have to help
> me out a little. A sublime sensibility ? can you expand ?
Sure, I'll try... all I mean by this is that if we can agree that one
person's decision-making process (how a work is composed, how the
contrasts work, the shape-making, the general concern for pictorial
unity)... their sensibility, that is - if one person's is more developed,
more engaged, perhaps, than another person's, then we might, upon
encountering that sensibility through their work, find it to be so unique,
so enriching and memorable that we might see it as sublime.
(I hope I'm not being too obvious. This is a sincere attempt to verbalize
something I find a bit difficult to articulate.)
Anyway, this comparison bit, it may seem rather useless or even chidish at
times - I understand that point of view. We don't have to always be going
around saying "oh well, this is better than that" or "she's a better
painter then he is."
But on the other hand, I'm very much aware of the fact that my paintings
don't just make themselves "wonderful". I have to rework them, sometimes
make huge changes in composition or color. And there is an evaluative
process at work here, and this process is really nourished by looking at
art by other people this way. Judging. Developing criteria.
And I don't mean theorizing. I'm not talking about content. I'm talking
about that visual information and my visceral response to it.
(And if it saves some bandwidth, I don't need it pointed out to me - by
anyone, thanks - that this is a subjective process. I'm well aware of
this, and find it to be a keystone of creativity. Anyone here know what
"Objective Creativity" might be?)
Anyway, my point here is that if I weren't a painter, it might not matter
too much to me why I find Titian to be enormously important - much more so
than, say, Rubens (I am well aware that I am opening myself up here for a
direct hit, but so be it....)
But Rubens decision-making - all those things I cited above as earmarks of
sensibility, and more - it doesn't seem as, well, sublime as Titian's.
Or Piero's, or Raphael's, or Corot's, Cezanne's, Caravaggio's, Watteau's,
Michelangelo's, the painter of the fresco's in the Mystery Villa.
Or Picasso and Braque's around 1912, or Matisse's or Mondrian's,
Soutine's, or Bonnard's. Some Derain. Certainly Balthus.
Those, for me, are some really sublime sensibilities - expressed
sublimely.
Likewise, Dekooning and Clifford Still. There are several periods where
Dekooning is so on top of his game, so in touch with his personal language
of shape and color that his intimacy, his fluency with paint yeilds these
incredibly perfect expressions of, well, what beauty is, for him. And for
me.(I'm thinking especially of the mid-70s work.)
But Clifford Still *never* achieves anything like that for me. His work is
so formulaic and uninventive. To me.
So as much as this "comparison" game may be, well, not very democratic to
some folks, I find it a pretty vital part of looking.
Is this helping?
>
> >And perhaps more to the point, *why* should anyone try to produce work
> >about someone else's concept?
>
> To try and produce art specific to something you have no direct
> involvement in is a concern to me. How can, for instance, I produce art
> about the Kosovan massacres when my only involvement is through mass
> media ? It is an insult and it is false and *that* is shallow and forced
> art. However, the kids who want to be *hip* through their art are
> actually reflecting the condition they live in, wouldn't you say ? They
> in fact personify the *postmodern condition* (as we now understand it),
> so it is hard to then condemn their art.
> >
Well, I suppose that if what someone wants to do is make art about Kosovo,
and they feel they can only access it through the media, then they should
make a point about the media, and I suppose that is what a lot of art is
"about" these days.
But I generally find that, no matter what the "subject matter" is, the
best art I see is about what the artist thinks looks best.
That old "It's not what you say but how you say it" deal.
>
> Don't look at that website ... it might shatter your illusions !
I did already. Nothing shattered, not at all. I couldn't see the work
extremely well, and wouldn't want to form conclusions based on a computer
image (there seemed to be an awful lot of blue, very electric blue, and I
couldn't tell if that was your work or the digital process...) but I felt
I could really relate to the direction you were/are taking. From what I
could see, you are pretty well focused on formal concerns - personally I'm
in favor of that.
Anyway, very nice talking with you, and thanks for asking me to modify
those thoughts. If I'm still unclear, I'm happy to try some more. That's
really why I'm here.
warmly,
Mark
mark webber
Thank you for the advice, John, and I do try to stay open to *new* things.
This may sound a very lame excuse, but I am very happy with my processes
as they are, and I'm very much involved in them. When they slow down or
cease to unfold new things, I'll certainly try another approach.
I don't mean, at any rate, to belittle anyone else's process.
warmly,
Mark
peter nelson
><plne...@mediaone.net> writes
>Yes. If you read back you will see that the debate is about the effect
>of mass media and film star attitudes that have dominated Western
>culture - you have it right - turn off the TV and get on with the work.
>The only criticism I have following this is that if you are to turn off
>the TV then you must also turn off the computer.
The main reason I turned off the TV was that I found it insufferably
stupid, boring, and predictable. YMMV in the UK, I don't know,
but here in the US TV really sucks.
The Internet has a wider range of stuff to offer, *some* of which
is stimulating. Moreover it is easier to search and catalog so
I can FIND the stimulating stuff. That was always my biggest
complaint about TV - even if there was something good on there
was no reliable way to FIND it. Program reviews were always
retrospective so by the time you read the review the program
had already been broadcast.
Another difference is that computers are creative tools as well.
You can MAKE art, present ideas (as we are doing here),
write programs, design web pages, etc. You can't really
use TV (i.e., broadcast and cable TV) as a tool for self-expression.
---peter
peter nelson
(He is not the only
>person who has suggested we are returning to a primitive cultural
>society). Because we are no longer able to judge aesthetics we are
>"condemned to indifference" which has now been replaced by monetary
>value placed on works of art that release us from making these decisions
>- the more expensive the work the better ... right ?
But who really buys this, so to speak? In reality who ARE all these
people who supposedly judge art based on what it costs?
(As an aside my wife and I have the opposite problem. We have an
art budget just the way some people have a retirement budget or a
car budget or a rainy day fund that they add to monthly. So we spend
a lot of time visiting galleries or artists' studios. At the time we
look
at the work we never know the price, but we usually discover afterwards
when we look at the price list or ask the artist, that the pieces we like
the
most are also the most expensive.)
---peter
Ariane
On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, Marilyn wrote:
> Ariane
> Thanks for translating that. It has now piqued my interest.
> At first I thought "art" expressed there to be a general term.
> Would you say that the original post was a good translation from
> the French?
>
> Marilyn
=== On the whole, yes. Baudrillard lacks the historical distance of other
continental writers such as Apollinaire, Baudelaire, Mallarme, etc.
Despite the convolutions of his prose, on the whole, he's a lot easier to
translate, relatively speaking, than are the early modernists, symbolists,
German idealists, etc. His outlook is contemporary.....
a bientot,
A.
Ariane
On Sun, 25 Apr 1999, A.A. Raimes wrote:
> Spot on, Mark. Baudrillard dissects the twentieth century and attempts
> to find reason for the increase in *indifference* that shrouds our
> societies. His pessimistic tone, which I perceive as *honesty*, is often
> grounds for severe criticism. He sees the decline of the west, and,
> quite rightly, gets out his scalpel to analyse the cause.
>
> I think he is wrong, not about the decline of the west, but about art.
> Art has become a *product* - sensationalist, attention seeking,
> scrambling for recognition - no different to the days of the Academy
> except in the volume of artists today. While it may reflect western
> society it only reflects those who have fallen foul of the consumerist
> society that it has neatly become inextricably entangled in. The greater
> picture is that of people who want no part of it. Art History has always
> been like this - excluding the majority - but today I think we have a
> moral obligation, as artists, to stand against this force that controls
> who and what we are portrayed as - the dilemma then being that we have
> to come out from our hideaways and join the masses. Its easier not to
> even though I think artists have become more socio-politically inclined
> than ever before - at least certainly in UK. A few years ago it seemed
> that finally artists were no longer going to allow the critics the power
> to control and that they were finally going to start to make history
> through their own voices. That, for me, seems to be the way for
> equilibrium.
=== Is it the cause of the artist to make history? Is this not how art
has been `seduced' by mass culture in the first place? Should artists
not be content to make art and thereby, increase the breadth of what
constitutes `history'? The history-makers would devour art & artists if
we offer ourselves up to be devoured...
Autonomy is perhaps, at bottom, not a collective venture....Art is
perhaps, at bottom, less about politics and history, than it is about
autonomy. As Foucault once put it: "I do my research and leave it for
the bureaucrats, the police, and the officials to put my papers in order".
(...)
> I agree wholeheartedly with Ariane - art does provide a 'raison d'ętre'
> for many and this, I think, is one of the most important causes of the
> increase in the production of art. However, the exercise of placing this
> to a world forum of artists should provide us with a considerable
> variety of viewpoints, which is the most important aspect of such a
> debate.
=== The art will be `placed' regardless. Let the artists create, let
those to whom `placing art' is a priority engage in their proper task.
> I agree - maybe we can get some ideas on what artists believe their role
> is. Mine is totally selfish. Absolutely. The studio is my sanctuary from
> a society that I rarely feel in tune with. I have abandoned as far as
> possible, the expectations of that society and I suspect that there are
> a lot more like me.
=== Deciding to make art, honestly, is enough of a task for an individual
to undertake. Selfishness notwithstanding, we can't berate artists for
not being bureaucrats as well. A chacun son propre gout.... Have a
creative day.
a la prochaine,
A.
Ariane
On Sun, 25 Apr 1999, John Haber wrote:
> > Yes, France is such an intellectual backwater.....The whole of
> >French thought is an ingenuous fashion-show devoid of any
> >content or value....Thank god you're around to set us all straight.
>
> LOL. Thank goodness someone's still capable of irony here.
>
> Here in raf we keep facing the same annoying rhetorical devices. It's
> worse than American politics. Here it is again: "Of course he is
> wrong, you know that he is about as wrong as it is possible to get.
> But academics and cultural critics are...." No fuss, no muss.
>
> That handy little shift to the plural, no different than in "red
> scares." (They're all a fraud, a menace, a plot. They're all like
> that. They're all the same.)
=== A convenient way to cope with what is singularly transcendent
vis-a-vis one's own intellectual depth or breadth. Baudrillard speaks for
France roughly to the same degree that Harold Bloom represents America.
So let's not kill a country so as to bring down one individual...
> The personalization of ideas. (It's about their motives, or YOUR
> motives, not ideas.)
>
> The certainty. ("Of course....")
>
> Why? I know it's a tribute to ideas that they cut us where we live,
> define us, or ask us to define ourselves. We want to personalize
> them. And yet there has to be something left over, something in
> respect for both IDEAS and for EACH OTHER -- that knowledge that words
> matter and we're not playing games for our own sake. (At least they
> matter to me and, obviously, to you.)
>
> John
=== Without each other, there would be no ideas, no growth, no moments of
epiphany when we wander beyond our personal borders to explore exotic (to
us) horizons. If this `suspended disbelief' or `openness' is allowed to
fuction, for the sake of possibility if nothing else, then thinking
becomes an adventure. When one's motives are interconnected with the flow
of ideas, hence possibility, then growth through debate is more likely
than possible. Otherwise the insularity is most obvious.
ciao,
A.
Ariane
On Sun, 25 Apr 1999, mark webber wrote:
> One other little rant: I think the "art is a reflection of the culture
> that produces it" cliche is one big part of this whole problem.
>
> *Everything* is a reflection of the culture that produces it. How can it
> not be?
>
> Not seeing more than this in art is exactly what takes the recognition
> of sensibility out of it. It seems an incredibly lazy approach, to me, to
> stop at the "reflection of culture" position and not go further. This is
> what I find handicapping many of todays critics.
>
=== Well put. Yes, bravo! Very well put indeed.
je vous remercie,
A.
Ariane
=== To hold Baudrillard to objectivist and/or empirical criteria for truth
is as patently unfair as is, say, berating Einstein for not accounting for
the origins of desire. Baudrillard speaks of subjective/objective
relationships, social dialectics, this is simply not amenable to an
empirical approach to reality. (As social scientists are slowly
learning). Theory, in this sense, refers to possibilities and relational
dimensions: theory IS play, a creative process, and not a map of
`reality'. In short, this criticism imposes criteria for truth on to
Baudrillard which he himself would not accept.
On another note, in the dialectic of self-other, we can't allow the self
to be subsumed by its `other,' or rather, its context. Art especially,
can afford a form of self determination in the very act of embracing the
alterity around us. Self-stylization was Foucault's answer to the main
body of his life's work. It was here, he thought, that a measure of
autonomy was possible.....An aesthetics of life as a personal strategy
toward freedom. Following from Foucault, it would seem that artists are
better placed than most to avoid being subsumed by the shifting deployment
of alterity. At least the possibility is always there......
a bientot,
A.
On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
Ariane
=== Bravo! I agree wholeheartedly with your post Alison. Context is but
one pole of the dialectic....one dimension of being and expression. The
Self also has the power to recreate society (see Creativity/Anthropology
by R. Rosaldo, Lavie, Narayan). Art is creation stemming from a Self (who
has been relating to/influenced by, one, two, or perhaps more cultures).
Artists have to recognize the face in the mirror as much as, or more than,
the commotion outside their windows. Good luck on your voyage....
a la prochaine,
A.
On Mon, 26 Apr 1999, A.A. Raimes wrote:
(...)
> In Baudrillard's essay _In the Shadow of the Millennium, or the Suspense
> of the Year 2000_ (which can be found at http://www.ctheory.com/ ) he
> discusses the possibility that society is forcing this - that the cliché
> *reflecting culture* is directly affecting the way art is produced.
> History is being *deliberated* - the work of art moves directly from the
> studio into the museum - that the concerns are there to become
> immediately famous and the issues are *forced* in order to be part of
> the *in crowd*.
>
> This all makes a lot of sense to me as I only recently graduated from
> one of the largest and longest established art schools in England, where
> it was without a doubt a *you have to be in to win* atmosphere. The
> emphasis was on being part of the *postmodern* scene. I spent five years
> representing the students and as chairman of the faculty staff/student
> committee so got to know the younger students pretty well, and to spend
> time talking to them about what they were producing. My opinion is that
> they, much as I love them, were mesmerised by the idea of fame and being
> part of the Britpack, to the extent that they had little or no grasp on
> what *postmodernism* was about. How then can they produce work and
> directly relate it to a concept they don't understand ? The work was
> generally shallow and executed without concerns to skill yet managed to
> deceive through the apparent *reflection of society* syndrome. They were
> having a blast ! Two years later the majority of these artists no longer
> make art - do you see the dilemma ? For myself it has put me off doing
> my Masters degree until I am so secure in what I believe in, that I can
> stand my ground at a London school without being sucked into a form of
> art that simply is not of my making. Maybe I am almost there !
>
> Cheers !
Ariane
On Sun, 25 Apr 1999, GERALD O'CONNELL wrote:
> OK, I don't mind, let's do it the old-fashioned way, line by line:
>
> Jean Baudrillard writes:
> >
> >"We see Art proliferating wherever we turn; talk about Art is increasing
> >even more rapidly. But the soul of Art
>
> What is this mythical 'soul of art' construct save a fictional device upon
> which the author hangs his vague, inaccurate and self-opinionated
=== Personally based qualitative judgements, based on a plurality of
available theoretical, intellectual, aesthetic options.
> (yes,
> that's right, I said 'self-opinionated', and , before you ask, I'll tell you
> what gives me the right to belittle this 'intellectual giant' thus: his
> views are sui generis, based neither on empirical evidence nor sound
> deduction;
=== No, he's not an empirical, positivist, objectivist, science-minded
thinker. Neither does he follow the strictures of analytic logic which,
since Hegel invented the dialectic, has only been ONE philosophical
option open to those who wonder about their existence.
> wheras mine are based firmly on a rigorous, though sometimes
> rather sarcastic analysis of the detail of the text before us...read on...)
> views ? As a rhetorical device it strikes a deep enough chord, but as
> intellectual substance it carries no more weight than than a mere medieval
> superstition - we appeal to the 'soul' now as an emotional lender of last
> resort when, bankrupt in the court of analysis, we search in desperation for
> a target for our elitist's unease at the democratisation of culture.
=== Not everyone supports the `court of analysis,' itself rather bankrupt
in philosophical matters relating to life humanly lived. Analytics is a
valuable approach for building bridges, bombs, and operating systems...
It has its philosophical limits however.
And the `democratisation of culture' is not in and of itself something to
be uncritically accepted as another step in the social evolution of
humanity. If culture has a qualitative component, (which it does in
abundance), then its democratisation perhaps signals its qualitative
impoverishment. Unless of course, there are people who actively critique
and contribute to its qualitative deployment.
> 'Everybody's doing it now', this joker wails in anguish, 'there must be
> something wrong with that, or there will be no place for me...'.
=== He's got a point. Cultural democracy can be as exclusionary and
tyrannical as any other oppressive regime. Exclusion, even under the
banner of democracy, is still exclusion. Uhh, that seems to be his point
eh?
> And so, without a blush, on he goes: having invented a spurious reason to
> ignore the flowering of culture around him (See how it is stigmatised as
> 'proliferation' ?
=== Yes, the `flowering of culture' is such an analytically rigourous
improvement over Baudrillard's `soul of art'. You wouldn't be resorting
to those "banal rhetorical devices" now would you? The flowering of your
prose does not betray your analytic affinities.
> And, even worse for this critic chilled by the wind of
> change, 'talk about art' is 'proliferating', virus-like, at an even greater
> rate !) , to manufacture something that, now, art is not ! This is the
> worst kind of arrogant intellectual laziness: a high-class case of 'Not
> Invented Here'. Too lazy to go out and look at it, sort the good from the
> bad, do some work coming to terms with a load of new, threatening stuff ?
> Easy. Just dismiss it all and bemoan the fact that it fails to meet the
> 'standards' you have invented to sell another book.
=== `Standards' are historically encoded in a society, not invented by an
author. If they were invented by Baudrillard it wouldn't just be people
like you who don't understand them. His work would be unintelligible to
everyone but himself. But, this is clearly not the case. Talk about art
is a poor substitute for works of art in his opinion. You're entitled to
disagree, but your criticisms here amount to a verbal tantrum because not
everyone shares your personal political and hence, cultural predilections.
So much for your `analytic rigour'.
The rest of your post admirably displays your position on art,
Baudrillard, culture, hierarchy, but also your complete misunderstanding
and oversimplification of the issuess which characterize Baudrillard's
perspectives and his work. You're simply not doing justice to his work.
A.
mark webber
>
> On Sun, 25 Apr 1999, mark webber wrote:
>
> > One other little rant: I think the "art is a reflection of the culture
> > that produces it" cliche is one big part of this whole problem.
> >
> > *Everything* is a reflection of the culture that produces it. How can it
> > not be?
> >
> > Not seeing more than this in art is exactly what takes the recognition
> > of sensibility out of it. It seems an incredibly lazy approach, to me, to
> > stop at the "reflection of culture" position and not go further. This is
> > what I find handicapping many of todays critics.
> >
>
> === Well put. Yes, bravo! Very well put indeed.
>
> je vous remercie,
>
> A.
Bonjour et merci Ariane. Glad to see you back! How is the paper coming? Is
it a thesis - sorry, I don't remember....
Ariane
=== Yeah (sigh) its a thesis. A big, long (too long) rambling analysis
that I'll be ecstatic to finish. Actually, its not so bad, I think the
idea is worse than the task itself, kind of like a `blank canvas'
phenomenon. Only this `canvas' is on chapter 2!! I find making art
to be so much more personally rewarding than is writing about it. But
the research is quite interesting......
Anyway, thanks again for the interesting posts, good luck with your work,
a la prochaine,
A.
John Haber
wanted to quote this one again to myself:
>Without each other, there would be no ideas, no growth, no moments of
>epiphany when we wander beyond our personal borders to explore exotic (to
>us) horizons. If this `suspended disbelief' or `openness' is allowed to
>function, for the sake of possibility if nothing else, then thinking
>becomes an adventure. When one's motives are interconnected with the flow
>of ideas, hence possibility, then growth through debate is more likely
>than possible. Otherwise the insularity is most obvious
jh
Marilyn
>
> In article <Pine.PMDF.3.96.990426091204.543221030A-
> 100...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>, mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> writes
>
> >*sensibility* that produces it. And Great Art is a reflection of a sublime
> >sensibility.
>
> Ok, you have my *absolute* attention. But you are going to have to help
> me out a little. A sublime sensibility ? can you expand ?
>
> >about someone else's concept?
>
> To try and produce art specific to something you have no direct
> involvement in is a concern to me. How can, for instance, I produce art
> about the Kosovan massacres when my only involvement is through mass
> media ?
It seems to me that the events taking place in Kosovo have entered your
consciousness and you have taken in visual images from mass media therefore
you could if you wanted to, produce paintings reflecting that
consciousness. They would be paintings of your response to what you know
and how you feel, metaphoric.
An artist from the former Yugoslavia in Vancouver, hearing the news
about his homeland has produced a series of garden paintings with
a lot of dead nature. (I've only heard them described on the radio).
It's called "The Forgotten Garden." He spoke of how he used to live
in paradise and now he lives in emptiness (describing the concrete
jungle of downtown Vancouver and also that his family is scattered
around the globe.) As for whose side he takes in the war, he says
it's madness on all sides,
"the same madness that Goya has showed us."
Marilyn
emat...@tomatoweb.com
jha...@haberarts.com (John Haber) wrote:
> >I see your point, Erik, and can only point out that not only do I have
> >little interest in seeing the Mona Lisa as a signifier, no matter how
> >empty, but I fear I am completely unqualified to do so.
>
> Try to get past the jargon of its time (structuralism). The public
> has no problem seeing art as expression, which also is a metaphor from
> signifying and language. Structuralism was just an attempt to make
> some sense of that. I won't defend it or attack it glibly here. I'll
> just still try to urge twe stay open to unfamiliar ideas.
>
>
Well, semiology seeks to describe and provide a grammar for something that
actually happens, and this something will continue to happen when semiology
takes a sabatical leave or gets laryngites and can't speak. The problem is
that Baudrillard's point it wrapped-up in the terminology of semiology. So
the challenge is, once confronted with a desire to 'reject' the propriety of
semiology totally, to provide a alternative terminology for that something
that actually happens which isn't infected. So when Baudrillard says that
the 'simulation' results from the emptying of the signifier, I suppose we can
also say that the 'simulation' if the product of 'fashion' or 'a look.' The
emptyness is of course that 'a look' is so shallow, almost two dimensional.
It's like the popularity of people talking to each other in media bytes,
phrases extracted from TV Shows. "Sorry about that" (Maxwell Smart). "Have
a nice day" (I don't know where that one came from); "Get a LIfe." Or the
BTW, LOL, IMHO types of statements that we see here so often. A 'fashion
statement' always says the same old thing, over and over again (I'm in vogue
-- I'm contemporary). That's all it ever says. (As Barthes pointed out that
the advertising message always says the same old thing, over and over --
"this product is good').
I don't know how many people have noticed that tennis shoes have invaded the
'look' of advertising, but ever since the redesign of Adidas and Nike, away
from the sneaker look to this new look, this design style has spilled out to
the most inane corners of visual culture -- we have automobiles that resemble
tennis shoes, and web sites that resemble tennis shoes. What does it 'mean?'
I submit, absolutely nothing. It just has been observed by advertisers that
people enjoy indulging in the familar -- subsequently the power of the tennis
shoe look is that it is familar.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
>
> =3D=3D=3D To hold Baudrillard to objectivist and/or empirical criteria for =
> truth
> is as patently unfair as is, say, berating Einstein for not accounting for
> the origins of desire. Baudrillard speaks of subjective/objective
> relationships, social dialectics, this is simply not amenable to an
> empirical approach to reality. (As social scientists are slowly
> learning). Theory, in this sense, refers to possibilities and relational
> dimensions: theory IS play, a creative process, and not a map of
> `reality'. In short, this criticism imposes criteria for truth on to
> Baudrillard which he himself would not accept.
>
> On another note, in the dialectic of self-other, we can't allow the self
> to be subsumed by its `other,' or rather, its context. Art especially,
> can afford a form of self determination in the very act of embracing the
> alterity around us. Self-stylization was Foucault's answer to the main
> body of his life's work. It was here, he thought, that a measure of
> autonomy was possible.....An aesthetics of life as a personal strategy
> toward freedom. Following from Foucault, it would seem that artists are
> better placed than most to avoid being subsumed by the shifting deployment
> of alterity. At least the possibility is always there......
>
> a bientot,
>
> A.
>
well, what you are saying is more or less what I was trying to say (maybe it's
unbelievable that we would agree!)
Erik
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
>
years keenly absorbing Yankee ideology.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>
<snipped>
Web Marker wrote:
> Well, I suppose that if what someone wants to do is make art about Kosovo,
> and they feel they can only access it through the media, then they should
> make a point about the media, and I suppose that is what a lot of art is
> "about" these days.
>
> But I generally find that, no matter what the "subject matter" is, the
> best art I see is about what the artist thinks looks best.
>
> That old "It's not what you say but how you say it" deal.
>
Coinkidentaly I did that once, and I've posted my work on the web so that you
can look at it:
http://www.impix.com/apr/at1.htm
I did this lithograph in 1986 in April, just after Ronald Reagan bombed
Tripoli in an attempt to get Quadaffi. Do you remember? There were several
things that impressed me about this, which led me to think it was a
worthwhile subject for a work of art.
One was the television imagery, which I endeavored to represent. I
exaggerated the 'pop culture' aspect of "Intendo War" (a term coined several
years later with 'Desert Storm') by basing my stereotype of Tripoli on the
illustration on a pack of Camels, which I thought was appropriate (What do we
know about Tripoli, sitting in front of our TV sets?). I was especially
impressed with the cartoon quality of the Ack Ack's tracers that showed up on
the TV screen during the bombing.
The other quality that I though worthy of art was the irony. Quadaffi was
being attacked because of his sponsosrship of terrorism. Ultimately, we hear
over and over again that terrorism is the threat par excellance to family
life, civility, and so on, often underscored by the question about whether a
child could enjoy saftey in her/his life. (The child is the most piognant
victim of indiscrimant killing). Yet the result of the bombing was the
murder of several children in Tripoli. It goes back to the old ends
justifying the means argument.
At any rate, I'll let the work speak for itself. I would be interested in
your views of this piece functioning as a work of art and a political
statement at the same time. You might just hate it, of course.
Erik Mattila
A.A. Raimes
<jha...@haberarts.com> writes
And I will second it !
Have a great day all.
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
9th - 23rd May 1999 @ Peterbourough Arthouse
26, Fitzwilliam Street. Peterborough
Tel: 01733 319581 (for gallery opening hours)
A.A. Raimes
<pne...@ultranet.com> writes
>
>The main reason I turned off the TV was that I found it insufferably
>stupid, boring, and predictable. YMMV in the UK, I don't know,
>but here in the US TV really sucks.
It's no good me saying it is different here Peter, because as the
ultimate copycat culture, most Brits are glued to hours of cable,
satellite or digital TV. For those that aren't we have five channels -
each channel has a *style*. I don't watch much TV myself and certainly
didn't watch any when living in the States for the very reasons you
point to. However, British TV satisfies me for educational value - arts,
science, politics and nature - and I wouldn't want to eliminate any of
that from my life. The alarm I feel, concerning our *culture*, which
originally made me decide to give Baudrillard consideration, was firmly
cemented this morning as I drove into London city centre. On one of the
hundreds of billboards that line the way I saw an advertisement that
simply said *Jamie's party tonight - must remember to buy some coke* ...
underneath it had two boxes to tick 1) a gram 2) two litres. As I passed
it at the very bottom it was an advertisement for a magazine for *boys
who are turning into men*. Innovative eh ? (is there a symbol for
sarcasm ... maybe :^) ? )
>
>The Internet has a wider range of stuff to offer, *some* of which
>is stimulating. Moreover it is easier to search and catalog so
>I can FIND the stimulating stuff. That was always my biggest
>complaint about TV - even if there was something good on there
>was no reliable way to FIND it. Program reviews were always
>retrospective so by the time you read the review the program
>had already been broadcast.
>
Ok - I find it the other way around. Using the Internet is an expensive
was of entertainment in Britain. An hour on the Internet costs almost a
dollar off peak and three dollars peak time (or is you use a mobile
phone like I do, five dollars off peak and ten dollars peak time). So
personally, I don't *surf* the net very often from home and I am rarely
in the studio *off peak*. TV reviews are written up at the beginning of
the week and newspapers like _The Guardian_ provide excellent programmes
of the weeks entertainment including TV, film, theatre, music, and arts.
>Another difference is that computers are creative tools as well.
>You can MAKE art, present ideas (as we are doing here),
>write programs, design web pages, etc. You can't really
>use TV (i.e., broadcast and cable TV) as a tool for self-expression.
>
>---peter
>
Yes, and they provide interactive contact with other people throughout
the world. If we use this machine correctly it should be the best source
of multi-cultural contact available - and perhaps if we can finally be
aware of world cultures and viewpoints, and learn to respect that
*everyone* has different views which they are entitled to, then some of
the barriers can be broken down that prevent us living together in
harmony. Seems like a long shot right now.
Regards.
A.A. Raimes
<pne...@ultranet.com> writes
>>- the more expensive the work the better ... right ?
>
>But who really buys this, so to speak? In reality who ARE all these
>people who supposedly judge art based on what it costs?
Well from what I can see Peter, there are plenty of people on this list
alone. Otherwise I guess the professional collectors who spend their
days at Christies and Sothebys. Are you suggesting there is not an
capitalist art market ?
>
>(As an aside my wife and I have the opposite problem. We have an
>art budget just the way some people have a retirement budget or a
>car budget or a rainy day fund that they add to monthly. So we spend
>a lot of time visiting galleries or artists' studios. At the time we
>look
>at the work we never know the price, but we usually discover afterwards
>when we look at the price list or ask the artist, that the pieces we like
>the
>most are also the most expensive.)
>
>---peter
I have a lot of problems pricing my work - but I do know that the work I
like the most is the work I price the highest, if only as an attempt to
hang onto it a bit longer. My glamorous, sports car driving agent, does
the same - she decides in seconds what she likes and determines the
price of it instantly, with me trying to look blasé about the whole
thing and usually failing. If I want to sell work myself there is the
dilemma of knowing that she can sell it for some ridiculous prices
against mine (which are generally give aways). The other problem is that
it is easy to get seduced into the producing work that you know will
sell because it is the work the agent likes. This, I believe, is the art
as a consumerist product that Baudrillard cites.
A.A. Raimes
>sublimely.
>
and if you don't mind I am going to respond in a couple of days when I
have more time.
>I did already. Nothing shattered, not at all. I couldn't see the work
>extremely well, and wouldn't want to form conclusions based on a computer
>image (there seemed to be an awful lot of blue, very electric blue, and I
>couldn't tell if that was your work or the digital process...) but I felt
>I could really relate to the direction you were/are taking. From what I
>could see, you are pretty well focused on formal concerns - personally I'm
>in favor of that.
Did you click on the new works ? the five images that come up are so
clear which makes me think maybe you didn't ? They show not only the
resin *crinkles* that are my *trademark* but also actual brushstrokes. I
had a professional take the slides and then had them put onto CDrom
before having them transferred to the site. The older work - the
*mindescapes*- have been transferred from an old website, badly, which
is a shame because if you click on some of the close ups you can get a
pretty good idea of the way I am using resins, glues, inks, oils and
acrylics all on the same canvas - there are some pretty interesting
*reactions*. The work that is *new* on that site is now six months old
and when I have the money I will update it because the work has taken
quite a turn recently.
Thanks for looking anyway and more on the sublime later.
Best to you.
-N.
"The man had dressed, as for an afternoon lawn party, in a costume of
conventional perfection. A blazer of not-quite-navy blue followed the
slope of his shoulder and the fall of his slack right arm with uncluttered
smoothness. Above the flattened collar of the jacket appeared a neat ring
of off-white crepe de chine shirting, its points drawn together with a
glint of gold beneath a rep tie of plum and pewter stripes, whose mild
bulge was nipped by a more visible clasp of gold above the open middle
button of the blazer. From a gently cinched waist fell pleated trousers of
dove-grey flannel--my mental fingertips fondled their imagined softness,
confirmed by the delicacy with which they broke, an inch above their
cuffs, against the insteps of brown-and-amber saddle shoes. To complete
the array, the man in his left hand held a high-crowned, pale-yellow
Panama hat, using it as a fan--so solemnly I wondered any air was
displaced--his sweatless head.
Tipped forward, turned a little to one side, the head looked strong and
sleek, although, in its details, less than handsome: the aquiline nose was
too thick at its tip, the space between the eyes too narrow, the lips too
thin. These flaws hardly mattered. It has been said that being perfectly
dressed provides a satisfaction no religion can give: and from this man,
even in our nondescript surroundings, such satisfaction emanted like light
from a filament. The way he assumed his elegance implied an imperiously
debonair attitude to the world around him. He seemed to invent his very
presence here, imagining himself in some sublime farce staged for the
amusement of his friends, and for his own."
-Henry Mathews, Cigarettes.
-N.
--
N
To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
John Haber
>like the most is the work I price the highest, if only as an attempt to
>hang onto it a bit longer. My glamorous, sports car driving agent, does
>the same - she decides in seconds what she likes and determines the
>price of it instantly, with me trying to look blasé about the whole
>thing and usually failing. If I want to sell work myself there is the
>dilemma of knowing that she can sell it for some ridiculous prices
>against mine (which are generally give aways). The other problem is that
>it is easy to get seduced into the producing work that you know will
>sell because it is the work the agent likes. This, I believe, is the art
>as a consumerist product that Baudrillard cites.
These things -- the associations with value -- are an awful burden, I
bet, to place on an artist emotionally. A lot of other people's
values to live up to. A friend who's a struggling painter pointed out
that Pollock went off work and on to a terminal binge rignt after that
day being photographed through glass at work. My friend said he could
identify with that paradoxical moment of giving up.
John
peter nelson
>In article <7g4vdj$g33$1...@ligarius.ultra.net>, peter nelson
><pne...@ultranet.com> writes
>
>>>- the more expensive the work the better ... right ?
>>
>>But who really buys this, so to speak? In reality who ARE all these
>>people who supposedly judge art based on what it costs?
>
>Well from what I can see Peter, there are plenty of people on this list
>alone. Otherwise I guess the professional collectors who spend their
>days at Christies and Sothebys. Are you suggesting there is not an
>capitalist art market ?
No, I'm questioning whether there are many people who decide
whether a painting, or other piece, is "good" or "bad" based on
its price. (there are probably a few who "know the price of everything
and the value of nothing" but I don't think this is very common) In
other words I'm questioning whether an artist can get better reviews
by raising his price.
Incidentally, David Galenson at the University of Chicago recently
published a study of pricing and critical evaluations of late 19th
and 20th century artists in which he concluded that prices do
reflect critical evaluations of art. A related study also looks at the
relationship of the age of the artist to the quality of his work
and impact on the art world. National Bureau of Economic
Research - "The Lives of the Painters of Modern Life: The Careers
of Artists in France from Impressionism to Cubism" by David W.
Galenson ,NBER Working Paper No. W6888, and "The Careers
of Modern Artists: Evidence from Auctions of Contemporary Paintings"
by David W. Galenson, NBER Working Paper No. W6331.
---peter
mark webber
Webber
mark webber
> I have snipped this bit Mark because I am taking it in - its beautiful
> and if you don't mind I am going to respond in a couple of days when I
> have more time.
>
Thank you very much, and please take your time.
>
> Did you click on the new works ? the five images that come up are so
> clear which makes me think maybe you didn't ?
I think you are right - I was a bit pressed for time, and didn't look at
everything.
> They show not only the
> resin *crinkles* that are my *trademark* but also actual brushstrokes. I
> had a professional take the slides and then had them put onto CDrom
> before having them transferred to the site. The older work - the
> *mindescapes*- have been transferred from an old website, badly, which
> is a shame because if you click on some of the close ups you can get a
> pretty good idea of the way I am using resins, glues, inks, oils and
> acrylics all on the same canvas - there are some pretty interesting
> *reactions*. The work that is *new* on that site is now six months old
> and when I have the money I will update it because the work has taken
> quite a turn recently.
That must be pretty exciting. Perhaps some of the energy of the upcoming
show? Same thing for me.
I'll try to stop in to your site again this weekend.
regards,
Mark
Marilyn Welch
How Proustian! how Jamesian! and yet what does it mean here?
A comment perhaps on the inability to discuss such a thing
as "the sublime" or the realization of its opposite:
the ridiculous.
Actually the text you quote reminded me of the film "Death in Venice"
and I could see Dirk Bogarde's black hair dye beginning to ooze
down onto the pristine white of his fine linen suit coat.
But then, your character has a sweatless head,
but then he is not dying
(yet).
M.
mark webber
> Coinkidentaly I did that once, and I've posted my work on the web so that you
> can look at it:
>
> http://www.impix.com/apr/at1.htm
>
> I did this lithograph in 1986 in April, just after Ronald Reagan bombed
> Tripoli in an attempt to get Quadaffi. Do you remember? There were several
> things that impressed me about this, which led me to think it was a
> worthwhile subject for a work of art.
(snip)
>
>
> At any rate, I'll let the work speak for itself. I would be interested in
> your views of this piece functioning as a work of art and a political
> statement at the same time. You might just hate it, of course.
>
> Erik Mattila
Hi Erik,
I look forward to having a look - this weekend I think.
Mark
A.A. Raimes
100...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>, mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> writes
>Sure, I'll try... all I mean by this is that if we can agree that one
>person's decision-making process (how a work is composed, how the
>contrasts work, the shape-making, the general concern for pictorial
>unity)... their sensibility, that is - if one person's is more developed,
>more engaged, perhaps, than another person's, then we might, upon
>encountering that sensibility through their work, find it to be so unique,
>so enriching and memorable that we might see it as sublime.
Mark: been thinking a lot about this. At first I disagreed, then I went
back and did some more reading of Hegel and Kant and now I have some
ideas that I think may parallel what you are saying here. Firstly, the
problem seems to be one of semantics. The word *sublime*, in its
original understanding, is no longer reflected in the present day
interpretation, and I think this comes from the idealistic origins of
the 18th and 19th century that no longer exists in today's 20th century.
Secondly; the idea of something beyond our grasp has become almost
preposterous - science has provided us with explanations for almost
everything. Religion has broken down so catastrophically with the
atrocities that have now become the *norm* of twentieth century
existence, that a belief in the omnipotent is no longer viable. We are
left then, with scientific explanations for our existence which somehow
fails to make us feel a part of the *whole* that the *sublime*, in its
original interpretation, offered. Thirdly; the powers of reason we now
display deny us the sensation of awe when presented with a piece of art.
Unique, enriching and memorable are sensations that we encounter when we
are faced with something beyond our comprehension and I wonder if this
is at all possible in the world of today. If this is to be found in the
energy and innovation of an artist who channels it into a piece of art
then I believe this is a different form of the *sublime* which may be a
way of interpreting it today. If so then it can no longer be associated
with the idea of *romantic* that provides an instant barrier to those
who reject the notion.
Thanks for the intelligent exchange !
mark webber
>
> >Sure, I'll try... all I mean by this is that if we can agree that one
> >person's decision-making process (how a work is composed, how the
> >contrasts work, the shape-making, the general concern for pictorial
> >unity)... their sensibility, that is - if one person's is more developed,
> >more engaged, perhaps, than another person's, then we might, upon
> >encountering that sensibility through their work, find it to be so unique,
> >so enriching and memorable that we might see it as sublime.
>
> Mark: been thinking a lot about this. At first I disagreed, then I went
> back and did some more reading of Hegel and Kant and now I have some
> ideas that I think may parallel what you are saying here. Firstly, the
> problem seems to be one of semantics. The word *sublime*, in its
> original understanding, is no longer reflected in the present day
> interpretation, and I think this comes from the idealistic origins of
> the 18th and 19th century that no longer exists in today's 20th century.
Well other words would do just as well, I suppose. My point is only that I
think an aspect of visual art that is much over-looked and under-rated is
the esthetic experience, the visual experience. This is tied to what the
artist expresses about his/her sensibility - not to how modern, hip,
fashionable, hermetic, oblique, obscure or cutting edge they are.
> Secondly; the idea of something beyond our grasp has become almost
> preposterous - science has provided us with explanations for almost
> everything. Religion has broken down so catastrophically with the
> atrocities that have now become the *norm* of twentieth century
> existence, that a belief in the omnipotent is no longer viable. We are
> left then, with scientific explanations for our existence which somehow
> fails to make us feel a part of the *whole* that the *sublime*, in its
> original interpretation, offered.
Well, then maybe sublime is one of the best words. Science, violence,
religion, atrocities - these things don't exist for me when I am with
Masaccio or Matisse. Remember, I see art as much more than a reflection of
the culture that produces it.
> Thirdly; the powers of reason we now
> display deny us the sensation of awe when presented with a piece of art.
Oh what a shame to read this from you! Then be unreasonable!
> Unique, enriching and memorable are sensations that we encounter when we
> are faced with something beyond our comprehension and I wonder if this
> is at all possible in the world of today.
My my. Alison, there are little things coming up out of the ground in my
garden that easily stop me in my tracks in awe.... Get to your National
Gallery, look at Piero's Nativity! Look at that cow's head and those
angels' mouths! The "world of today" will be completely forgotten while
that sublime, perfect arrangement of colored shapes will still be offering
awe to those open to it.
> If this is to be found in the
> energy and innovation of an artist who channels it into a piece of art
> then I believe this is a different form of the *sublime* which may be a
> way of interpreting it today. If so then it can no longer be associated
> with the idea of *romantic* that provides an instant barrier to those
> who reject the notion.
It needn't be labled "romantic" need it? Yes, I understand your difficulty
with the word, now. No, I don't mean that at all. I mean that Piero's
inventiveness, his touch, his color choices, his shapes, the air around
them - these things combine to make something really extraordinary, really
unique. Very perfect.
>
> Thanks for the intelligent exchange !
>
The pleasure is all mine,
Mark
A.A. Raimes
>Well other words would do just as well, I suppose. My point is only that I
>think an aspect of visual art that is much over-looked and under-rated is
>the esthetic experience, the visual experience. This is tied to what the
>artist expresses about his/her sensibility - not to how modern, hip,
>fashionable, hermetic, oblique, obscure or cutting edge they are.
No, no Mark! what I am questioning is whether the *experience* of the
sublime can be participated in, in today's world - as per Baudrillard's
line of inquiry. The aesthetic experience and its *sensibility* is NOT
the sublime experience that I refer to. In other words this experience
may now be beyond our comprehension. The experience you speak of, the
modern experience, is of particular interest to me though and if you
have a chance to get hold of
_Art and Design: The Contemporary Sublime, sensibilities of
transcendence and shock_ Issue 40
or
_Contemporary Visual Arts: Focus on the Sublime_ Issue 19
the comparison's may be more evident. I will try to explain it at a
later date.
>Well, then maybe sublime is one of the best words. Science, violence,
>religion, atrocities - these things don't exist for me when I am with
>Masaccio or Matisse. Remember, I see art as much more than a reflection of
>the culture that produces it.
Sublime, I think, is not the word at all. What you describe is a re-
focusing of ones attention from the normal experiences of *life* to an
aesthetic experience which leaves one feeling *in awe* of the person who
produced it. Of course, I may be misjudging the experience you are
having but this does not register as what I believe the original feeling
of *sublime* as per Hegel and Kant was.
>> Thirdly; the powers of reason we now
>> display deny us the sensation of awe when presented with a piece of art.
>
>Oh what a shame to read this from you! Then be unreasonable!
The argument as per Baudrillard not Raimes ! part of the analyser in me
is to place myself in the position of the opponents argument.
Occupational hazard ! but a good one to be able to do. Maybe I should
have been a law judge instead.
>My my. Alison, there are little things coming up out of the ground in my
>garden that easily stop me in my tracks in awe.... Get to your National
>Gallery, look at Piero's Nativity! Look at that cow's head and those
>angels' mouths! The "world of today" will be completely forgotten while
>that sublime, perfect arrangement of colored shapes will still be offering
>awe to those open to it.
Again that is not the experience that I speak of. I spent a day at the
National Gallery doing exactly that recently, and yes, I understand this
experience you talk of. But again, this is not what I perceive the
experience to be.
>It needn't be labled "romantic" need it? Yes, I understand your difficulty
>with the word, now. No, I don't mean that at all. I mean that Piero's
>inventiveness, his touch, his color choices, his shapes, the air around
>them - these things combine to make something really extraordinary, really
>unique. Very perfect.
Give me a few days at this end and I will make a much more constructive
response that may, or may not, explain what I am trying to investigate.
I simply can't do justice to it at the moment. Time is not marching on
at this end ... it is racing past.
Later !
A.A. Raimes
N. <redi...@earthlink.net_xxx> writes
>
>The incentive was from the Baudrillard's *Transaesthetics* thread (hence
>the Bard's *Test-tics*) and the citing of 'fashion' in the pejorative.
>This reduction of fashion in the attempt to elevate art is an oft
>encountered strategy, and I'm stating for the record that I don't buy it.
>Look elsewhere for spiritual, aesthetic, and semiotic impoverishment.
Baudrillard would thoroughly approve of all this. In 1991 he was invited
by a New York gallery to *exhibit* his work - he explained that he was
not a visual artist but that didn't seem to deter them. So, armed with
35mm camera off he went to take photographs of anything that *attracted*
him - a few weeks later he had all the films developed and chose a dozen
or so to have blown up and then mounted onto board. They included shots
of stacks of cars piled high in junk yards - the show was such a success
that it travelled onto Europe. Baudrillard, just like Damien Hirst and
his gang, freely admits that he is *taking the piss* out of contemporary
academia - and succeeding.
mark webber
>
> No, no Mark! what I am questioning is whether the *experience* of the
> sublime can be participated in, in today's world - as per Baudrillard's
> line of inquiry. The aesthetic experience and its *sensibility* is NOT
> the sublime experience that I refer to.
Ok, I guess I don't understand the original meaning of the word - that got
me off track with this. But can you give us a better idea of how you are
using it?
> In other words this experience
> may now be beyond our comprehension. The experience you speak of, the
> modern experience, is of particular interest to me though and if you
> have a chance to get hold of
> _Art and Design: The Contemporary Sublime, sensibilities of
> transcendence and shock_ Issue 40
> or
> _Contemporary Visual Arts: Focus on the Sublime_ Issue 19
> the comparison's may be more evident. I will try to explain it at a
> later date.
Ok, I will look for these, and look forward to your follow-up.
>
> Sublime, I think, is not the word at all. What you describe is a re-
> focusing of ones attention from the normal experiences of *life* to an
> aesthetic experience which leaves one feeling *in awe* of the person who
> produced it. Of course, I may be misjudging the experience you are
> having but this does not register as what I believe the original feeling
> of *sublime* as per Hegel and Kant was.
As you say, we do have a semantic problem here, and I am intrigued. So if
you want to try to summarize thia application I'm all ears.
>
> Again that is not the experience that I speak of. I spent a day at the
> National Gallery doing exactly that recently, and yes, I understand this
> experience you talk of. But again, this is not what I perceive the
> experience to be.
I think it's very fine, very exciting, that there is another experience
besides this one I'm speaking of. Is it in response to art? You have me
pretty curious!
>
>
> Give me a few days at this end and I will make a much more constructive
> response that may, or may not, explain what I am trying to investigate.
> I simply can't do justice to it at the moment. Time is not marching on
> at this end ... it is racing past.
I understand, and I'll be patient,
regards,
Mark
A.A. Raimes
>me off track with this. But can you give us a better idea of how you are
>using it?
It was fun going off track though wasn't it Mark ? ... storing up the
*get you back* for later ;-)
I am taking most of the following ideas from the _Cambridge dictionary
of Philosophy_: The *sublime*, in its original context, was a feeling
brought about by objects that are infinitely large or vast or
overwhelmingly powerful - in Kantian terminology the former is the
*mathematical* sublime and the latter *dynamic*. The feeling is a
mixture of unpleasant and pleasure - [like an adrenaline rush I think].
In Kantian thinking this pleasure arises because of our powers of reason
that are not dependant on sensation - sense experience versus mind. It
became an important aesthetic theory of the 18/19th century after a
translation of Longinus _Peri hypsous (On the Sublime)_ in 1674. The
*postmodern sublime* has emerged as a 20th century way of asking
questions about art - beauty is associated with form that we can
comprehend - the *sublime* is associated with the formless, that which
is *unpresentable* in sensation.
Maybe that helps. Here is how I perceive it. As I said in my previous
post, I believe that it may be that most 20th century beings are unable
to associate with this feeling - technology has provided us with the
explanations for phenomena that used to be part of the feeling of awe in
a cosmos that was inexplicable. Religion no longer offers or satisfies
the modern world with the sort of spiritual experience of the 18/19th
century. These days we can go to an IMAX cinema and experience the
sensations of the dynamic sublime or we can jump out of aeroplanes or
dive to the bottom of the ocean - and soon we will all be off into the
galaxy for our space vacations. We get an adrenaline rush but it is
associated more with the intrigue at being able to experience the
*sublime* directly. We have what we believe is *control* over the cosmos
and yet in essence we have none. If one imagine the 18/19th century
before these artificial sensations were possible then the experience
becomes one of spirituality - of belief in a force beyond our control.
>I think it's very fine, very exciting, that there is another experience
>besides this one I'm speaking of. Is it in response to art? You have me
>pretty curious!
OK. I have this experience too - if you can explain yours maybe we will
make some headway. For me the experience rarely happens in front of a
piece of art in a gallery but it does happen when I am focused on my
work in the studio. If the conditions are good in the Seagram room at
the Tate - where the distractions of children and people who *can do
that* are not present - then bearing in mind what I know that Rothko was
aiming, there is a sort of transcendental experience which comes from a
focusing on the work and the feeling of *peace* where the world is
pushed to the back of the mind. This may be because of my understanding
of Rothko though - I suspect that this experience would be there from
just viewing the work without this knowledge. I think Rothko was
incredibly aware and frustrated by the realisation that so many people
would not have the experience he aimed for and that the *new* world was
depriving us of this experience.
*Transcending* is a difficult concept for many. We live in an
environment that bombards us with images and information that our minds
are constantly active. Mine certainly is - I wake in the middle of the
night and it races. In response to this many seek the experience of
*sublime* through meditation; martial arts; activities that include
mountain and hill climbing; deep sea diving; and many through art. It is
almost as if we are trying to create a modern day response. Recently I
was taught to *release* tension by a cranial osteopath. Apart from
orgasm (which is the nearest concept we can to relate to where we have
an *outer body* experience) this experience is the only one I have had
where I was released from my body - it only happened once because from
there on after I attempted to create the experience. It was both
incredibly exhilarating and terrifying at the same time. I know people
who can astrally project - and have described a similar feeling.
Sorry, I could ramble on for hours on the subject ... I will stop for
now and wait to hear comments.
Pity you can't be at the opening on Sunday, Mark - it would have been a
great pleasure to buy you a drink ! That's not to say i won't make an
appearance in October however ....
Cheers !
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
9th - 23rd May 1999 @ Peterbourough Arthouse
mark webber
On Thu, 6 May 1999, A.A. Raimes wrote:
>
> It was fun going off track though wasn't it Mark ? ... storing up the
> *get you back* for later ;-)
Yes, this is new stuff for me; I'm enjoying this alot!
>
> I am taking most of the following ideas from the _Cambridge dictionary
> of Philosophy_: The *sublime*, in its original context, was a feeling
> brought about by objects that are infinitely large or vast or
> overwhelmingly powerful - in Kantian terminology the former is the
> *mathematical* sublime and the latter *dynamic*.
OK, well I'm not as well versed in Kant as you, and you are right, this
isn't at all what I was trying to convey.
> The feeling is a
> mixture of unpleasant and pleasure - [like an adrenaline rush I think].
> In Kantian thinking this pleasure arises because of our powers of reason
> that are not dependant on sensation - sense experience versus mind.
The sense experience vs. mind part comes a bit closer, though.
>
> Maybe that helps. Here is how I perceive it. As I said in my previous
> post, I believe that it may be that most 20th century beings are unable
> to associate with this feeling - technology has provided us with the
> explanations for phenomena that used to be part of the feeling of awe in
> a cosmos that was inexplicable. Religion no longer offers or satisfies
> the modern world with the sort of spiritual experience of the 18/19th
> century. These days we can go to an IMAX cinema and experience the
> sensations of the dynamic sublime or we can jump out of aeroplanes or
> dive to the bottom of the ocean - and soon we will all be off into the
> galaxy for our space vacations. We get an adrenaline rush but it is
> associated more with the intrigue at being able to experience the
> *sublime* directly. We have what we believe is *control* over the cosmos
> and yet in essence we have none. If one imagine the 18/19th century
> before these artificial sensations were possible then the experience
> becomes one of spirituality - of belief in a force beyond our control.
Beautifully put and very evocotive!
>
> OK. I have this experience too - if you can explain yours maybe we will
> make some headway. For me the experience rarely happens in front of a
> piece of art in a gallery but it does happen when I am focused on my
> work in the studio.
My work unfortunately never stuns me the way Giorgione's, for example,
does. Or Bonnard's.
>
> *Transcending* is a difficult concept for many. We live in an
> environment that bombards us with images and information that our minds
> are constantly active.
Marilyn has written pretty nicely about the transcendent quality of art -
particularly Rothko's.
> Mine certainly is - I wake in the middle of the
> night and it races. In response to this many seek the experience of
> *sublime* through meditation; martial arts; activities that include
> mountain and hill climbing; deep sea diving; and many through art. It is
> almost as if we are trying to create a modern day response. Recently I
> was taught to *release* tension by a cranial osteopath. Apart from
> orgasm (which is the nearest concept we can to relate to where we have
> an *outer body* experience) this experience is the only one I have had
> where I was released from my body - it only happened once because from
> there on after I attempted to create the experience. It was both
> incredibly exhilarating and terrifying at the same time. I know people
> who can astrally project - and have described a similar feeling.
Again, you are conveying this very nicely. Don't stop!
>
> Sorry, I could ramble on for hours on the subject ... I will stop for
> now and wait to hear comments.
Rats.
>
> Pity you can't be at the opening on Sunday, Mark - it would have been a
> great pleasure to buy you a drink ! That's not to say i won't make an
> appearance in October however ....
Well that is a delightful possibility! The best of luck on Sunday!
Mark
A.A. Raimes
>My work unfortunately never stuns me the way Giorgione's, for example,
>does. Or Bonnard's.
No, no, not the work - the experience of *producing* the work - the
absorption, the focus, the total preoccupation. It doesn't happen all
the time ... in fact it only happens in those rare and wondrous moments.
I don't know how you work but I do a lot of *research* being reading and
thinking and as I do it I paint and draw constantly. But at one point
all that I have been thinking about and working on in my head suddenly
clicks and Voila ! that is when the experience I am trying to describe
happens. And usually that is when the decent art is produced.
>Well that is a delightful possibility! The best of luck on Sunday!
Thanks ! guess I better wash my hair ... two newspapers and the local TV
station attending ... what to wear (only possess one pair of trainers
and the funeral shoes) .......aaaaaaaaaaaargh.
More again later !
mdeli
>Allons! - I seem to have smoked out your resident lunatique. He makes bold
>to throw le comments pornographique at my humble person.
You smoked yourself out toots.
Corrosive wrote:
> >It's good you have respect. Yes, Bouguereau was an even bigger
> >sap than you guys could possibly imagine. Silly, sentimental
> >canvases targeted to the rich and vacuous, nudes calculated to
> >titillate, etc.
>
(mdeli) wrote:
>> Did all that Titillation make you come in your panties?
> >It is my guess that I have *come,* as you say so cleverly, in the last
> >month of my life on earth, more times than perhaps you have in the last
> >ten years, Mr. Deli. With another person, that is.
Glad to hear you're getting laid. My advice is to fire your private
dick. I suspect he's investigated the wrong Mani..
> >Coming by ones self does not count to a Frenchman! Pah! I spit on it! (Oh - bad choice of le English words. I mean, I despise the
> > abominable practice.)
Indeed. So, best stop getting your titillation from B. Perhaps some
variety might help.
> >My advice, cher ami, is to find an amiable woman (or man, as the preference
> >may be), and get some amor physicale, as we say. On my honor, it will
> >improve your disposition and lengthen your life.
Having Casanova-ed my way through Europe in the late 60's I have
always prefered Scandinavians to prudish phoney French Picassoholics
like you. (I actually suspect you're really a Brit Twit). Continuing
this alluring trend leaves me surprised that you find it necessary to
get titillated by Bouguereau. Vargas might improve you orgasms.
> > But the lad could market!
>
> We'll have none of that. Money-bad bad.
>Ah, the amusing baby talk. I can assure you, monsieur, that we all have sold art for money. It is an agreeable way to pay le rent. I remind you that an artist becomes commerciale only when he (or she - I am now so moderne!) paints solely with money in the mind - like your Norman Rockwell.
Picassoholic art history-- Rockwell painted solely with "money in
mind." M. here only does it to pay the rent and buy spare panties. How
touchingly moral.
> >We have a contest up here about once a month -
> >the winner gets to kick Bouguereau's ass. Recent winners are
> >Pollack and Rothko, with Greenberg as referee (sorta like your
> >wrestling referees in effectiveness - some things never change).
> >
>>> The ass is in her closet. Somewhat smaller than her's.
> >I am not understanding this. Probably my English is not enough
> >sophisticated.
No need to play stupid just point your ass to the mirror and compare.
>>> ...no skill no art
>>This preoccupation with skill! As though it were the main thing. The main
>>thing is .... is... [loosing connection] ..........
After you're finished looking at Bouguereau try completing the
sentence.
Its always nice to hear that you get so much pleasure from Bouguereau.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Glenn Geist
>
> Having Casanova-ed my way through Europe in the late 60's I have
>always prefered Scandinavians to prudish phoney French Picassoholics
>like you. (I actually suspect you're really a Brit Twit).
I'm surprised we didn't bump into each other then - but I usually give
a wide berth to the park benches when someone's sleeping on them.
And if the French Girls were ignoring you, it's because I was there
first.
Bond
No pill, no swill
>