Anyone talk about serious art theory on this group?

[Walter Alter]

Any post-modern junkies or Bauhaus groupies here trying to tackle the
ultimate meaningfulness/meaninglessness of art images in a sea of web
content?

Walter

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||
walter alter artist - heretic - savant
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||
PORTFOLIO: www.geocities.com/yollopoliuhqui
PSYOPS: www.fortunecity.com/victorian/mill/1189

[RolandKoch]

Hmmm, Walter!
That's exactly that - we ARE in a 'sea of web content'. And people who love
art gotta make a living too - so I don't see any problem with _most_ of the
kinds of messages that appear in this NG - it's free - and art embodies a
valuable freedom - a freedom to create - a freedom to appreciate, a freedom
to condemn even.

Anyhow, my opinion on the meaning of any kind of art is
"Art is in the eye of the beholder"
Ciao
Roland Koch
http://www.xlab.co.za

Walter Alter <lime...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:hvsf6.1027$iM6.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

[Walter Alter]

Yah bur Roland, we can't be bllindly picking up any cliche that happens to
be hitchhiking on the 2 lane blacktop of fate. I can't imagine that this
newsgroup is about artists trying to make money. This is simply not how it
is done, even if there was a Napster for creative images. If you want to
make money at art, you have to first- be very good, scond- be politically
correct, third- don't threaten anyone by implying that you are a font of
original thought, and fourth- play the holy fucking game.

If art is in the eye of the beholder, then why create art? Why not simply
give the authority to any citizen to name some commonplace things as art and
name all else as not art, like- "today my toaster will be a work of art that
I will appreciate as a thing in and of itself, devoid of utility or service
to human volition. Today my toaster will celebrate the awesome passive
spectacle of being perceived by one who names it godlike, an object of
contemplation..."

So what's your take on the concept of attention? Is the command of
attention a trick that art plays on us?

Walter

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||
walter alter artist - heretic - savant
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||
PORTFOLIO: www.geocities.com/yollopoliuhqui
PSYOPS: www.fortunecity.com/victorian/mill/1189

RolandKoch <rol...@netactive.co.za> wrote in message
news:95mna8$1fjr$1...@nnrp01.ops.uunet.co.za...

[Walter Alter]

Duchamp is rightfully considered a genius, but he was a genius of his era,
who possibly allowed himself to be hypnotized by perceptions of futility.
The danger for a true genius is that this genius allows in tidal waves of
truth, which is not always pretty.

Duchamp produced very little work in his life. He mocked himself with his
miniature retrospective sets and stream, pardon, series of urinals signed by
R. Mutt. The question for contemporary artists is how to avoid paralysis
from cynicsm and sadness, or a flight from the shrieking horror of insane
society instead of trying to do the impossible and fix it.

Duchamp and Rauschenberg and certainly others, have copped to the fact that
a work of art is the orchestration of choices about form and content- color,
line, area, space, sequence, all the constituent elements. There is merit
in observing newly that this act of choice alone is an indivisible component
in creative mentation. An artwork that brings attention to the process that
conceived it, is advanced, in my book. Thus, the mere act of choice such as
naming a commonplace item as art, is a discovery and an authentic addition
to a culture's esthetics, _the first time_. Flogging the concept cannot be
considered original.

I think that the element of discovery is essential to art, both by the
artist and by the spectator.

Walter.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||
walter alter artist - heretic - savant
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||
PORTFOLIO: www.geocities.com/yollopoliuhqui
PSYOPS: www.fortunecity.com/victorian/mill/1189

WL131 <wl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010206152930...@ng-fl1.aol.com...

> >If art is in the eye of the beholder, then why create art? Why not
simply
> >give the authority to any citizen to name some commonplace things as art
and
> >name all else as not art, like- "today my toaster will be a work of art
that
> >I will appreciate as a thing in and of itself, devoid of utility or
service
> >to human volition. Today my toaster will celebrate the awesome passive
> >spectacle of being perceived by one who names it godlike, an object of
> >contemplation..."
> >

> Isn't this precisely the issue Marcel Duchamp raised long ago? His was the
> logical culmination of decades of expanding the boundries of Modernism.
What is
> so consternating is that, instead of exhausting things as it should have,
the
> point was by and large missed and the rest of the 20th century was spent
> regurgitating and choking on theories already chewed up and swollowed.
> Theorists like Greenberg offered volumes of convoluted supposedly "fresh"
> reasoning and even now there are Greenbergs-o-plenty but the logical
conclusion
> that Modernism allows ANYTHING to become art merely by declaring it so and
> convincing (or to the cynic, duping) the connoisseurs was demonstrated
grandly
> by Duchamp. Instead of responding to his challenge the swank art world has
> spent the better part of a century restating it and striving to introduce
> variations on his theme and calling it sensible when he plainly meant it
to be
> nonsense.
>
> Before Duchamp Modernists struggled to understand what made art worthy of
the
> name. Since him they have strugged to understand what makes ANYTHING
UNworthy
> of the name. Before Modernism those questions were just silly. Art was
judged
> as simply poor or better not art or not art. This was before avant-garde
> theorist/critics and dealers replaced artists as the new "makers" of art.
> IMHO,
> Larry E.
>

[WL131]

>Duchamp is rightfully considered a genius

The next step past declaring anything can be art is declaring that anything can
be great art and after that, magnificent art and it's creator (or discloser to
be more precise) a genius, the corollary to which is, anyone can be a genius.
Duchamp may have been very clever but he was no genius in the proper sense of
the word. But why should we care about the proper use of words? We're ARTISTS!
-Larry E.

[Walter Alter]

Your not saying that originality, inventiveness, iconoclasm, and the ability
to define oneself on a basis other than the opinions of others is instictive
to our species, are you? Even a peek at the human condition would establish
with scientific precision that we are herd animals.

OK, Duchamp was a minor genius justified by his refusal to play the game,
which, in my book, is one of the few redeeming qualities of our species.

Walter

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||
walter alter artist - heretic - savant
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||
PORTFOLIO: www.geocities.com/yollopoliuhqui
PSYOPS: www.fortunecity.com/victorian/mill/1189

WL131 <wl...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20010207130258...@ng-cr1.aol.com...

[WL131]

>If
>someone like the ubiquitous Tretchikoff produces works that sell hugely -
>does that make him a 'good' artist? Who's to have the final say?

Until such time as there is a world art czar no one has the final say.

Wrigley made a fortune selling chewing gum. So far as I know, no one has made
so much money selling caviar, yet ounce for ounce we know which is more
costly.That's because one is hard to obtain and the other is not. Some people
will eat caviar holding back their gag reflex just because caviar is chic and
expensive. Don't kid yourself that many people's appreciation for art doesn't
follow the same principle.

The wonderful thing for the art marketeer today is that he can deal with a
product that is rare and hence coveted and yet is not at all costly to produce
(meaning it is ARTIFICALLY rare). Imagine if caviar was plentiful but caviar
from XYZ cannery was what people really wanted currently because the caviar
journals said it was best, when in fact the only actual difference between it
and other caviar was the label and what the "buzz" was on it, ("Yum yum, it's
sooo much better.)
If people found out that XYZ caviar was actually taken from the same lots as
any other brand while caviar journals implied it wasn't, buyers might feel
duped. But so long as all they care about is the label and the prestige it
carries they probably would rather not learn the truth. Especially if they had
bought cases of the stuff, they certainly would not want ANYONE ELSE to learn
the truth.

Although chewing gum is not as coveted as caviar, I'm sure you can appreciate
why for the great unwashed masses it is more satisfying and desirable for it's
simplicity and obtainability. So we might think of "chewing gum" art as just
art for the masses.
-Larry E

[WL131]

>
>OK, Duchamp was a minor genius justified by his refusal to play the game,
>which, in my book, is one of the few redeeming qualities of our species.
>

That depends of which game is meant. To refuse to bend to rules that are good
and proper is a sure way to remain unredeemed. I disagree that Duchamp refused
to play the game if the game is Modernism. He played that remarkably well
though I don't thing doing that requires genius. As I said before I think
cleverness will do the trick. He also had connections which helps a lot too.
-Larry E.

[Craig4CSTONE]

Duchamp was indeed a genius, while Rrose Selavy was his best invention:
He left at the peak of his game to play chess for the later years.
C>
samples of my current series: http://art4med.artistnation.com

.........

[Craig4CSTONE]

I like what I have read in the past 2 days, keep it up.
C>
Samples of my current series: http://art4med.artistnation.com

[Walter Alter]

No telling what artifacts would have been left for art histororians to cluck
over had Duchamp materialized his Rrose Selavy as Kokaschka materialized his
anatomically correct leather manniken playpal.

Walter

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||
walter alter artist - heretic - savant
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||
PORTFOLIO: www.geocities.com/yollopoliuhqui
PSYOPS: www.fortunecity.com/victorian/mill/1189

Craig4CSTONE <crai...@medical-illustration.com> wrote in message
news:3A82DE68...@medical-illustration.com...

[Walter Alter]

C,mon, you know what game is meant here. As a member of the post-modern
generation, intuiting the poetic implications of any metaphor should be
second nature. Of course I meant the game of mindless, approval seeking,
consumerist careerist conformity.

Yer right about the conections part. Not too many working class heavy
hitters in modern art of thGogh, Modigliani and a few others were
exceptions, but most of the movers and shakers could afford to not sell
while experimenting and holding salons and hob nobbing like the leizured
classes and idle bourgeoise.

-Walter

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||
walter alter artist - heretic - savant
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||
PORTFOLIO: www.geocities.com/yollopoliuhqui
PSYOPS: www.fortunecity.com/victorian/mill/1189

WL131 <wl...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20010208150837...@ng-fm1.aol.com...

[WL131]

>C,mon, you know what game is meant here. As a member of the post-modern
>generation, intuiting the poetic implications of any metaphor should be
>second nature.

I should've known, you're right. I don't believe there really is such a thing
as post modernism. It looks to me like an attempt to revitalize modernism by
giving it a name calculated to make it seem like something new.

> Of course I meant the game of mindless, >approval seeking,
>consumerist careerist conformity.

I don't know that he cared a wit about consumerism but he comformed to
Modernism nicely and in an odd way did have a career from it, so I suppose he
did play that game rather well.

>Yer right about the conections part. Not too many working class heavy
>hitters in modern art of thGogh, Modigliani and a few others were
>exceptions, but most of the movers and shakers could afford to not sell
>while experimenting and holding salons and hob nobbing like the leizured
>classes and idle bourgeoise.
>-Walter

Yes, virtually all came from the upper middle class or higher. Contrary to
popular myth, few ever needed to worried about their next meal. Duchamp was
really not much more than a dandy and he was not the only one.
-Larry E.

[BIO]

"Im interested in any Swedis artists in this groupe?
If you like you can see my page at...
http://www.zyworld.com/BrittOlofsson/index.htm

BIO

[P.M.]

I am a painter. I've done it all my life. I like painting, but ultimately, I
don't think art as important as some would like it to be.

"Walter Alter" <lime...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:hvsf6.1027$iM6.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...