Pop Quiz:
wsparker
Ehud Tal wrote:
>
> questions (try Yes and No where possible, otherwise answer briefly, in
> simple terms):
I shall be happy to participate!
>
> 1. are there criteria in deciding what "modern" [let's say post-urinal]
> art piece is better than another?
>
Better than what? (define the what). Better for whom? (qualify the
whom).
I suppose there are criteria and you would have reveal them to leave
them open for examination.
I have never been too bothered by "better or not" question. Really, I
have never been bothered by this question, I have never ever thought of
it at any point in my life as a useful question; even if it were to have
a meaningful answer, which it DOES NOT and never will.
> 2. what are they?
Ultimately arbitrary, and agreed upon, in every case.
>
> 3. are any criteria used in deciding what belongs in a museum and what
> doesn't?
Yes, many are highly problematic.
>
> 4. if there are, what are they?
>
The problematic sprouts from the fact that the intention of museums are
not well known and are often contradictory. They are good places to put
established art, e.g. Art (capital A) that critics, board members,
philanthropists, donation givers, scholars and thinkers have "agreed
upon" in the past as belonging in a museum. The museum is a freaky
out-of-date concept born out of the need for the Mellons, Hearsts, and
Carnagie, to have a place where their benificience might become
immortalized. All sorts of other people followed each with their own
interests.
> 5. if there are not, is there a need for museums?
There is a need for education, so as far as that is concerned, there is
a need.
> 6. if there is, what is the need?
Education.
>
> 7. if there isn't, why is "post-urinal" art put in museums?
There are other reasons why there is stuff in museums. Many have nothing
to do with the actual art (i.e. it's original connection to the artist).
>
> 9. define "artist"
>
For me it is the same as shaman, priest, monk, a private affair which
eventually, if called upon becomes public.
> 10. are there any requirements of artists today?
>
First and foremost to be a decent person, one of high integrity, and to
be highly educated, both formally and informally. If you don't have
either of those qualities you are probably making art that looks like
art ought to look like.
> 11. if there are, what are they?
see above
>
> 12. if there are not, is there a need for the term "artist"?
Society needs to label people as artists and criminals for the same
reason: to define themselves as sane.
>
> 13. if there is, what is this need?
there is always a need for decent people, informed, highly aware
people.
>
> 14. if there isn't, why are people involved in this area still called
> artists?
>
Whom is calling who whom? I mean, "geez Bob-bee, yeer en ardist, dis
pizzas tastin' guud!"
> 15. define "art object"
Any physical object, gesture or action, placed in an art context.
Seriously folks, it is that simple!!! "Most people" won't buy it because
ART is supposed to be something special!
>
> 16. what, if at all, is the difference between "art object" and anything
> else?
>
Anything else is that which is not placed in an art context.
> 17. what, if at all, is the difference between "artist" and anyone else?
>
The same difference there is between priest, monk, shaman, etc. and
everybody else.
> 18. what would any "pre-urinal" person probably answer q. 16 and 17?
>
Either a modernist definition oir a premodernist definition as follows:
The former would be isolated, tormented, singular, visionary genius. One
whom challenges perceptions of himself and society as a whole.
The latter is very tame "creative sort," one whom would be "interesting"
(intellectually digestible and reassuring) to have at a society dinner
party, one whom would be delighted to kiss your ass the next day if you
have money and would meet him at the gallery in which his work was
showing.
> 19. what do most "ordinary" people think of Michaelangelo or Da-Vinci?
A real ardist! A Rennaisance genius, "too deep for us," ultimately
someone whose head should be smashed with a rock while he sleeps.
>
> 20. do people doubt their creations are, *and always were*, art?
>
No one will doubt it today because they have been cannonised. The common
man knows it is art. The scholar and student know it too.
> 21. do people doubt their creations are *better* than anything they
> could attempt doing without any training?
What people? The common folk think skill/training is a prereqisite for
art. BTW, Duchamp and DaVinci are the same level of genius.
>
> 22. what is the common opinion (and statement) about the urinal?
The common, (i.e. not-well-educated) opinion: Its not art. Stated
thusly, "Uhhh, dat ain't art."
>
> 23. could it be that 5000 years of art and most of the world's
> population are wrong about what is and isn't art, and only a few
> "artists", "critics", "curators" and "historians" are right?
>
What a loaded question! Yeah, let them go thru the museums and history
books and scholarly journals and private papers and books and exclude,
censor, and even burn anything they ignorantly deem 'not art"
Let's let them decide where to spend the money for cancer research; who
the hell needs experts anyway, "We ken fly this 747 ourselves?! Yeah,
hoot,hoot,hoot!!!"
This is a trend in thinking today: distrust the professional. Sadly this
is a (toedally stoopid) overreaction.
> 24. howcome?
>
Because people should be educated and should not be stupid
> 25. could it be that your above definitions are only considered to be
> right by your fellow "artists" and "intellectuals"?
>
Who else is there, again?
> 26. howcome?
Because, at a certain level, any level actually, there is an overall
mutual understanding of the subject. It is only when someone from a
"lower" level of understanding (less sophisticated) comes along and
wants to be a member of a the more informed, refined-in-their-awareness
group, there is trouble for the non-member of the group.
This is what is happening to you! The only difference is that no one
who is really aware of the issues is going to deal directly with your
problems which you are raising in such an apparently threatening,
unrefined and unenlightened way!
>
> 27. could it be that patronization and "elitism" have become the
> cornerstone of anything related to the "art world" today?
>
"Elitism" BAAAAD.
I don't know about that. But You're wrong. There is alot of art for
everybody at every level and every taste, and every intention. Why
should it all be the same? There's alot to go around! It is all art,
ART, Art! Born from the same essential human need!
You gotcher museum kid programs, your "tea set" luncheons, your
tormented pseudo "genius," your European intellectual, your American
intellectual, your hippie pottery sculptor, your watercolorist aspiring
to originality and museum accreditation, your seekers of all various
types of **certificates of authenticity.**
> 28. howcome?
I think the art scene it so vast it cannot BE dominated!
>
> I think it would be better if everyone would to question
> the weak aspects of "modern art" argument and then let the silence (or
> "blah blah ism ism blah blah...") speak for itself!
What? Sounds vaguely familiar... .
>
> I will gladly answer a similar "pop quiz" asking your main questions.
> and please take another look at my "clarification" before composing
> it...
I have retired from the "is-it-art-or-not" debate. In the current form,
I suspect it is a well disguised attempt at censorship.
I enjoyed your quiz, really.
Ehud Tal
questions (try Yes and No where possible, otherwise answer briefly, in
simple terms):
1. are there criteria in deciding what "modern" [let's say post-urinal]
art piece is better than another?
2. what are they?
3. are any criteria used in deciding what belongs in a museum and what
doesn't?
4. if there are, what are they?
5. if there are not, is there a need for museums?
6. if there is, what is the need?
7. if there isn't, why is "post-urinal" art put in museums?
9. define "artist"
10. are there any requirements of artists today?
11. if there are, what are they?
12. if there are not, is there a need for the term "artist"?
13. if there is, what is this need?
14. if there isn't, why are people involved in this area still called
artists?
15. define "art object"
16. what, if at all, is the difference between "art object" and anything
else?
17. what, if at all, is the difference between "artist" and anyone else?
18. what would any "pre-urinal" person probably answer q. 16 and 17?
19. what do most "ordinary" people think of Michaelangelo or Da-Vinci?
20. do people doubt their creations are, *and always were*, art?
21. do people doubt their creations are *better* than anything they
could attempt doing without any training?
22. what is the common opinion (and statement) about the urinal?
23. could it be that 5000 years of art and most of the world's
population are wrong about what is and isn't art, and only a few
"artists", "critics", "curators" and "historians" are right?
24. howcome?
25. could it be that your above definitions are only considered to be
right by your fellow "artists" and "intellectuals"?
26. howcome?
27. could it be that patronization and "elitism" have become the
cornerstone of anything related to the "art world" today?
28. howcome?
I think it would be better if everyone would to question
the weak aspects of "modern art" argument and then let the silence (or
"blah blah ism ism blah blah...") speak for itself!
I will gladly answer a similar "pop quiz" asking your main questions.
and please take another look at my "clarification" before composing
it...
Ehud Tal
http://www.geocities.com/~bbbsot
Euphemism
> questions (try Yes and No where possible, otherwise answer briefly, in
> simple terms):
>
Here goes.
> 1. are there criteria in deciding what "modern" [let's say post-urinal]
> art piece is better than another?
> 2. what are they?
Yes, there are criteria for judgement, although I don't think the vast
body of art activity since 1917 can usefully be ordered in a hirarchy of
"best" to "worst," as your question seems to imply.
Many of these "quiz" questions suggest that the questioner longs for a
culture that is as unambigous as a weight-lifting championship. Can you
reasonably expect to find an unchanging yardstick which can apply to all
art works regardless of form, time and place? This would imply that all
works are better-or-worse approximations of the same ideal--a dubious
premise. More to the point, it devalues the relationship of the "'modern'
art piece" to other art works, to the place and time in which the work is
being exhibited, to other aspects of culture, even to other works by the
same artist. If you've decided from the outset that these contingincies
are irrelevant--that the art is the object inside the frame, irrespective
of context, history and other "intellectual" matters--then Duchamp's
readymade is indeed the devil, as it opened the door to consideration of
such things in the context of art.
The criteria will shift in relation to the work, the exhibition context,
and the values of the viewer. This does not mean that "everything's
relative" or "it's all subjective." Rather, there are several
sophisticated points of view in the discussion of art, and different
issues take on urgency at different times, in response to changing
conditions. The work that is most highly valued is likely to be that
which seems most provocative or compelling in terms of that ongoing
discussion. Over time, this regard is manifest in the work's influence on
other artists.
For example, art might be valued because: it challenges the viewer's
assumptions about art; it provides an experience of that which cannot be
expressed in language; it provocatively reflects the social conditions of
production; it vividly describes subjective experience; it displays
unusual formal invention or astute analysis of form, or it represents
interests or "voices" that have been omitted or overlooked in the art
discourse.
These criteria share an understanding that art is not identical to craft.
In other words, a display of mastery of some pre-industrial craft, e.g.,
Italian renaissance-style fresco painting, will be subject to questions
like "what does it mean to use these antiquated production techniques
now?" Educated artists are aware of the history and connotations of the
forms and techniques they use, and they account for those connotations in
their work.
> 3. are any criteria used in deciding what belongs in a museum and what
> doesn't?
> 4. if there are, what are they?
See above. Less exalted criteria figure in, of course, as with any social
activity.
> 5. if there are not, is there a need for museums?
> 6. if there is, what is the need?
Good question (and one that I don't think you'd be asking but for
Duchamp's legacy). Museums have a particular history and set of social
functions. What are these? Whose interests do they serve? Should
museums be changed or eliminated? Are there other models for art practice
that don't rely on museums for their cultural legitimacy? Many
contemporary artists address questions such as these through their work.
>
> 7. if there isn't, why is "post-urinal" art put in museums?
Huh?
>
> 9. define "artist"
> 10. are there any requirements of artists today?
> 11. if there are, what are they?
> 12. if there are not, is there a need for the term "artist"?
> 13. if there is, what is this need?
> 14. if there isn't, why are people involved in this area still called
> artists?
> 15. define "art object"
> 16. what, if at all, is the difference between "art object" and anything
> else?
> 17. what, if at all, is the difference between "artist" and anyone else?
>
Artists are people who produce art. Educated artists are expected to
rigorously account for the choices they make. In other words, there
should be a well-founded reason why specific materials, location, imagery,
style, scale etc. are used in their work.
> 18. what would any "pre-urinal" person probably answer q. 16 and 17?
>
"Where's the outhouse?"
> 19. what do most "ordinary" people think of Michaelangelo or Da-Vinci?
> 20. do people doubt their creations are, *and always were*, art?
> 21. do people doubt their creations are *better* than anything they
> could attempt doing without any training?
>
Who are the "ordinary" people?
I guess most Europeans and North Americans learn about Michelangelo and
Leonardo through primary school, TV, and religious indoctrination.
Generally, their names are defined in terms of individual genius and
timeless masterpieces. I don't know whether children think themselves
capable of producing timeless masterpieces.
> 22. what is the common opinion (and statement) about the urinal?
I don't know.
>
> 23. could it be that 5000 years of art and most of the world's
> population are wrong about what is and isn't art, and only a few
> "artists", "critics", "curators" and "historians" are right?
> 24. howcome?
Culture changes. Western culture is notable for criticising its own
assumptions. It never has consisted of a fixed set of eternal standards.
Besides, who says 5000 years, etc. is wrong? Nobody I know.
>
> 25. could it be that your above definitions are only considered to be
> right by your fellow "artists" and "intellectuals"?
> 26. howcome?
You started by asking for the criteria for judging art and selecting art
for museum display. These criteria are primarily defined by and debated
among art professionals and intellectuals. Unfortunately, the history of
twentieth century art is not really part of the common culture, in the US
at any rate. As a result, people may reasonably be baffled by some of the
art that is highly regarded within the "art world."
This is a problem worth considering, but I doubt that anti-intellectualism
is the solution. What's your alternative?
> 27. could it be that patronization and "elitism" have become the
> cornerstone of anything related to the "art world" today?
> 28. howcome?
"Patronization"? I don't know what this means.
It seems that artists and critics who address the ways class interests
shape art are exactly the ones that you are attacking.
>
> I think it would be better if everyone would to question
> the weak aspects of "modern art" argument and then let the silence (or
> "blah blah ism ism blah blah...") speak for itself!
I get a sinking feeling...have I been wasting my time?
I'll check back in case anyone cares to respond.
Neal Weiss
Question posed:
> 7. if there isn't, why is "post-urinal" art put in museums?
The urinal (and it is not a urinal, it is 'FOUNTAIN' ,just as it is not
oil and colored dirt on a wall, but a Rubens) needs the museum as much or
even more than any other art artifact. It is the consummate museum piece.
On a personal note, the urinal in a plumbing store bathroom or in the
viewer's imagination is enough to enact the Fountain, but it's supreme
usage is in entering the (historical)current of art, it's public role,
gaining entry to the cultural institutions that engender and define art:
most importantly, the museum and history. Fountain helped succesive
generations of artists explore the discources that inhere within the
activity of Art. A traditional straightforward reading of Fountain (and I
have numerous others) is that by dint of it's entering into the current of
the mainstream, it partakes of the same discources, mystifications, the
same meaning evaluations, the same transfiguration as any other object
that enters the currents of the art institution. It reverts back to a
urinal in the plumbing store or bathroom: in Art it is 'Fountain'. (what
was the Mona Lisa when still on DaVinci's easel; what is it now,
institutionalized, sqaturated with 500 years of history, discource,
mystification, erudition?...it is like a Saint's relic, a charm, voodoo ).
Fountain becomes art for the wider culture the moment it is
recontextualized, titled by the artist, signed, and exhibited( any
fortunate for Fountains trajectory, rejected). It raises too many
questions to pose here, many lifetimes of possibilities (perhaps why
Duchamp has become so popular among artists). The discources and
conventions that allow it to exist as art are similar to and often the
same discources and conventions that allow Rubens to exist as art....why
should certain conventions of schematics and wiping materials with sticks
of hair, in classified patterns be called 'Painting" and situated
culturally as they are? Technical craft alone cannot answer this or any
good or even great plumber would be the consummate equal of Rubens
(perhaps he is?). Problem solving, solutions, relevance, imagination,
form...they all inhere in plumbing, but the pipes are hidden in the
museum.
We have habits and traditions, all of them entirely mystified to one
degree or another(depending how far back you are willing to look). The
history of Painting is a flow of such successive mystification, belief
systems. etc. The question of Fountain as art isn't really an issue. It
has long reached a place in the cultural and historic flow: it is now a
part of our consciousness and the conditions of being an artist at the end
of the 20th century, contemporaneously more significant to many than any
Rubens painting, respectfully [Duchamp had written on the usage of
Rembrant's paintings to iron his socks on...a reversal of the
mystification that has incarnated "Art" culturally , and painting
specifically]. The people of France decided at a certain point that Kings
did not receive their mandate from God and the heavens, and the myths that
propped them up collapsed in a major way, as the first Royal heads
started to roll.
If you REALLY take Duchamp at his word (whatever that may be) you get some
radical rethinking and re-evaluating of cultural and human activity...it
seems we have built many of our collective and personal desires into
paintings, but just as possible, we could remove them from paintings and
focus these needs elsewhere, on other activities, 'artistic' or otherwise,
quite possibly with the same or better results, at the very least have a
different understanding of the discourses, perhaps freeing us to try our
hands and eyes in different ways. What those ways might contain are for
each artist to discover. At the least, one is made aware of the pomp and
circumstance that keeps paintings as art and in and out of museums, both
Rembrant's and Duchamp's, fortunately or unfortunately, both yours and
mine.
On the surface, this Fountain may appear trivial: indeed an item as
trivial as a urinal was needed to surface the discourses into our
consciousness. Before the era of Fountain, "Art" went about it's business,
unconcerned with the discourses of it's cultural mandate. After Fountain,
a fissure appears, one that stretches all the way back to the mythic roots
of art in our culture, and forward into the possible role visual culture
will play in the coming century.
Plus, if you really needed to once inside the museum, and the pressure was
really getting to you, you could walk with determination into the Men's
room, take a piss, and imagine how all of this might have begun.
-N
-----------------------------------------
Neal Weiss
Founder: L' Ecole De Fromage.
Originator of a Greater Shoe of Mud.
Finder of the Country Blue Squeak-Out.
wsparker
Euphemism wrote:
>
> , Ehud Tal asked:
>
> > 1. are there criteria in deciding what "modern" [let's say post-urinal]
> > art piece is better than another?
> > 2. what are they?
>
> Yes, there are criteria for judgement, although I don't think the vast
> body of art activity since 1917 can usefully be ordered in a hirarchy of
> "best" to "worst," as your question seems to imply.
>
> Many of these "quiz" questions suggest that the questioner longs for a
> culture that is as unambigous as a weight-lifting championship. Can you
> reasonably expect to find an unchanging yardstick which can apply to all
> art works regardless of form, time and place? This would imply that all
> works are better-or-worse approximations of the same ideal--a dubious
> premise. More to the point, it devalues the relationship of the "'modern'
> art piece" to other art works, to the place and time in which the work is
> being exhibited, to other aspects of culture, even to other works by the
> same artist. If you've decided from the outset that these contingincies
> are irrelevant--that the art is the object inside the frame, irrespective
> of context, history and other "intellectual" matters--then Duchamp's
> readymade is indeed the devil, as it opened the door to consideration of
> such things in the context of art.
Very well said... .
>
> The criteria will shift in relation to the work, the exhibition context,
> and the values of the viewer. This does not mean that "everything's
> relative" or "it's all subjective." Rather, there are several
> sophisticated points of view in the discussion of art, and different
> issues take on urgency at different times, in response to changing
> conditions. The work that is most highly valued is likely to be that
> which seems most provocative or compelling in terms of that ongoing
> discussion. Over time, this regard is manifest in the work's influence on
> other artists.
and clearly too...
>
> For example, art might be valued because: it challenges the viewer's
> assumptions about art; it provides an experience of that which cannot be
> expressed in language; it provocatively reflects the social conditions of
> production; it vividly describes subjective experience; it displays
> unusual formal invention or astute analysis of form, or it represents
> interests or "voices" that have been omitted or overlooked in the art
> discourse.
>
> These criteria share an understanding that art is not identical to craft.
> In other words, a display of mastery of some pre-industrial craft, e.g.,
> Italian renaissance-style fresco painting, will be subject to questions
> like "what does it mean to use these antiquated production techniques
> now?" Educated artists are aware of the history and connotations of the
> forms and techniques they use, and they account for those connotations in
> their work.
Euphemism goes on to bring the issue home:
>
> You started by asking for the criteria for judging art and selecting art
> for museum display. These criteria are primarily defined by and debated
> among art professionals and intellectuals. Unfortunately, the history of
> twentieth century art is not really part of the common culture, in the US
> at any rate. As a result, people may reasonably be baffled by some of the
> art that is highly regarded within the "art world."
>
> This is a problem worth considering, but I doubt that anti-intellectualism
> is the solution. What's your alternative?
>
There's a nice question for you...
Well now, how about that? What do you think, E.T.? Please don't make me
sorry I asked.
Neal Weiss
In article <5a1rt9$j...@news.interlog.com>, hu...@interlog.com (Mdeli) wrote:
In article <5a1rt9$j...@news.interlog.com>, hu...@interlog.com (Mdeli) wrote:
> Neal Weiss after a lot of profound Artspeak about
> Duchamp's pisspot says:
>
> >On the surface, this Fountain may appear trivial: indeed an item as
> >trivial as a urinal was needed to surface the discourses into our
> >consciousness.
>
> I think this pisspot is on your conscience, not our
> collective conscience.
You are reading about it, writing about it et al. bro,....furthermore,
doing it responsively to other's similar activities.....seems like a
textbook example of an object of consciousness, personal, collective.
> > Before the era of Fountain, "Art" went about it's business,
> >unconcerned with the discourses of it's cultural mandate.
>
> What "era of fountain?"
Anywhere loosely from earlier in 1917 when Fountain was first exhibited
and later in that year (May 1917) when Duchamp, Beatrice Wood, and H.P.
Roché published an article referring to it in the second issue of THE
BLIND MAN....up to an including 12/27/97 when you contributed your
(rather unacomplished) commentary on it.
[By the way, you keep referring to modernism this, modernism that: please
be advised that Modernism roughly ended about a third of a century
ago...somewhere around ...say, 1962. It must be rather painful to be in
your shoes(not vital pair of Gustonesque shit-kickers, perhaps some dusty
pilgrim's puritan pumps with blown out heels, in need of a polish)....to
be so out of touch with the world.
> > After Fountain,
> >a fissure appears, one that stretches all the way back to the mythic roots
> >of art in our culture, and forward into the possible role visual culture
> >will play in the coming century.
>
> Actually your cherished pisspot has influenced nothing
**See it's heated influence on Mani Deli directly above and below (both
the bride's and the bachelor's domain)...
> more than convoluted Artspeak. Imagine how many artists
> besides the Founder of the: L' Ecole De Fromage sit
> down before their empty canvas and think of pisspots.
I'm assuming you paint while seated?
> >Plus, if you really needed to once inside the museum, and the pressure was
> >really getting to you, you could walk with determination into the Men's
> >room, take a piss, and imagine how all of this might have begun.
>
>
> And this reminds me of something:
>
> After doing my thing in the men's room in an art
> department of a large university, I turned and reached
> for the paper. Someone had drawn a peculiar arrow
> pointing to the roll dispenser hanging on the wall.
> Above it was inscribed a penciled note which read, "ART
> DEGREE, TAKE ONE."
>
> That pretty well summarizes a particular attitude
> toward Modern Art and education. Like much other
> graffiti, it says something which remains for the most
> part publicly unspoken.
I'm venturing here: That Mani Deli is full of shit?
I'll defer to D. Clowes here (comic quotes UP):
'The teachers are not there to help you. Most of them are still
freelancers and the last thing they want is competition. They are there
because they need a steady paycheck and hope they might score some pussy!"
"In the old days, Art schools taught practical techniques to the eager,
dedicated few who possessed the temperament to keep up with the demanding
curriculum....
-"This is a photo airbrushing class, Mister -- if you want to do that
PICASSO stuff go to PARIS!"
"Rare is the pragmatist among art-school professors...only very
occasionally do you come across someone who is willing to level with
students about their bleak prospects...
[detached objective faced female teacher]"Only one student out of a
hundred will find work in his chosen field. The rest of you are
essentially wasting your time learning a useless "hobby".
[Four students all thinking to themselves in unison]("I'll be that one!)
'You could always put in a few more years and become a teacher yourself
(steady paycheck, pussy, etc.).
[Short neckless bent-back, bald old, insecure feeble male instructor]:
"You have an interesting bone structure Geraldine...I -- eh -- I wonder if
you'd like to pose for some ph-photographs...'
[Quotes down]
As for my education, (formal and autodidactic, I put much into it, and I
got much out of it...sorry to hear things didn't go so well for
you....yeah, I've seen allot of embittered losers without the drive,
direction, or ambition to get anything together, than revert to irrelevant
mutterings, soon to be forgotten by everyone, including themselves. I even
find some of them charming.
> On one hand all this could simply be considered as just
> another mundane everyday object or it could be defended
> as a genuine artistic artifact, a work of art. It could
> even be categorized as Pop or Conceptual art or,
> perhaps, a bit of both. It was certainly more amusing
> and self explanatory than the usual Artspeak about
> Duchamp’s earth-shatteringly important pisspot.
Perhaps more important for artists than classifying, qualifying, or
quantifying, is registering the inspirational and imaginative impulses
that are engendered with one's relation to an object, object of art(or
non-art); conversely....classifying, qualifying, or quantifying can often
be part of that process.
The notion of what is and isn't art is of little concern to me, it's a
dead issue. Rather, I am concerned how I respond to things....
interestingly, Duchamp had somewhere stated that for him, consciousness
should envelope it's object like the vagina envelopes the penis.
Seems you had a 'moving' experience in that bathroom.
(I'll waste no more time replying to your insipid posts.)
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
.....Whatever.
-N.
Mdeli
Neal Weiss after a lot of profound Artspeak about
Duchamp's pisspot says:
>On the surface, this Fountain may appear trivial: indeed an item as
>trivial as a urinal was needed to surface the discourses into our
>consciousness.
I think this pisspot is on your conscience, not our
collective conscience.
> Before the era of Fountain, "Art" went about it's business,
>unconcerned with the discourses of it's cultural mandate.
What "era of fountain?"
> After Fountain,
>a fissure appears, one that stretches all the way back to the mythic roots
>of art in our culture, and forward into the possible role visual culture
>will play in the coming century.
Actually your cherished pisspot has influenced nothing
more than convoluted Artspeak. Imagine how many artists
besides the Founder of the: L' Ecole De Fromage sit
down before their empty canvas and think of pisspots.
>Plus, if you really needed to once inside the museum, and the pressure was
>really getting to you, you could walk with determination into the Men's
>room, take a piss, and imagine how all of this might have begun.
And this reminds me of something:
After doing my thing in the men's room in an art
department of a large university, I turned and reached
for the paper. Someone had drawn a peculiar arrow
pointing to the roll dispenser hanging on the wall.
Above it was inscribed a penciled note which read, "ART
DEGREE, TAKE ONE."
That pretty well summarizes a particular attitude
toward Modern Art and education. Like much other
graffiti, it says something which remains for the most
part publicly unspoken.
On one hand all this could simply be considered as just
another mundane everyday object or it could be defended
as a genuine artistic artifact, a work of art. It could
even be categorized as Pop or Conceptual art or,
perhaps, a bit of both. It was certainly more amusing
and self explanatory than the usual Artspeak about
Duchamp’s earth-shatteringly important pisspot.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Ehud Tal
Euphemism wrote:
> > 1. are there criteria in deciding what "modern" [let's say post-urinal]
> > art piece is better than another?
> > 2. what are they?
>
> Yes, there are criteria for judgement, although I don't think the vast
> body of art activity since 1917 can usefully be ordered in a hirarchy of
> "best" to "worst," as your question seems to imply.
>
> Many of these "quiz" questions suggest that the questioner longs for a
> culture that is as unambigous as a weight-lifting championship. Can you
> reasonably expect to find an unchanging yardstick which can apply to all
> art works regardless of form, time and place? This would imply that all
> works are better-or-worse approximations of the same ideal--a dubious
> premise.
no. i never said there could be such a "yardstick". i do not think it is
possible to compare or rate renaissance and impressionist paintings on
the same "scale". in case i was not clear enough, i will ask again:
can you honestly say one painting by Pollock is better than another?
can you honestly say the urinal is better than the bicycle wheel?
if you can, i would like to know how.
if, like most people (including me) you can't, could it be because they
are not art at all? **i am not talking about taste here!** i am not
asking "which do you like better?". i am asking which is more successful
in conveying whatever it was the artist wished to convey to us.
> More to the point, it devalues the relationship of the "'modern'
> art piece" to other art works, to the place and time in which the work is
> being exhibited, to other aspects of culture, even to other works by the
> same artist. If you've decided from the outset that these contingincies
> are irrelevant--that the art is the object inside the frame, irrespective
> of context, history and other "intellectual" matters--then Duchamp's
> readymade is indeed the devil, as it opened the door to consideration of
> such things in the context of art.
Duchamp did no such thing, since those are, and always have been part of
art-history research. art historians approach works of art by trying to
find the relation between the subjects, themes, symbols etc. and the
historic or biographic conext.
Duchamp's work is therefore an essay in art history, but not art.
knowing all this stuff should not be a condition for experiencing art
(though it could be quite enriching), yet in the urinal's case, that's
all there is.
> The criteria will shift in relation to the work, the exhibition context,
> and the values of the viewer. This does not mean that "everything's
> relative" or "it's all subjective." Rather, there are several
> sophisticated points of view in the discussion of art, and different
> issues take on urgency at different times, in response to changing
> conditions.
>
i agree.
> The work that is most highly valued is likely to be that
> which seems most provocative or compelling in terms of that ongoing
> discussion. Over time, this regard is manifest in the work's influence on
> other artists.
>
right.
> For example, art might be valued because: it challenges the viewer's
> assumptions about art;
yes, only if it is done artistically!
> it provides an experience of that which cannot be
> expressed in language;
i'll give it a try:
Duchamp: "Do you suppose we could consider mass manufactured products as
art if we signed them and put them in museums?"
Ehud Tal:"no"
WSParker:"yes"
ElisabethII:"maybe"
etc.
see, it works perfect. another proof is this discussion, which i don't
hear about *real* art.
> it provocatively reflects the social conditions of
> production; it vividly describes subjective experience; it displays
> unusual formal invention or astute analysis of form, or it represents
you forgot to add: - in an artistic manner,-
> interests or "voices" that have been omitted or overlooked in the art
> discourse.
>
> These criteria share an understanding that art is not identical to craft.
but requires craftsmenship, professionalism, skill, what-have-you.
> In other words, a display of mastery of some pre-industrial craft, e.g.,
> Italian renaissance-style fresco painting, will be subject to questions
> like "what does it mean to use these antiquated production techniques
> now?" Educated artists are aware of the history and connotations of the
> forms and techniques they use, and they account for those connotations in
> their work.
but what about all other people? those who have no idea of when and
where the renaissance "happened", or even what it was. see the earlier
remark on knowledge not being a condition.
>
> > 3. are any criteria used in deciding what belongs in a museum and what
> > doesn't?
> > 4. if there are, what are they?
>
> See above. Less exalted criteria figure in, of course, as with any social
> activity.
>
sorry, i didn't get that (inglich me bad, me no yankee).
> > 5. if there are not, is there a need for museums?
> > 6. if there is, what is the need?
>
> Good question (and one that I don't think you'd be asking but for
> Duchamp's legacy).
you can say that again, but only if you understand i am not questioning
the entire 'concept' of museums, only their role ***today***.
> Museums have a particular history and set of social
> functions. What are these? Whose interests do they serve? Should
> museums be changed or eliminated? Are there other models for art practice
> that don't rely on museums for their cultural legitimacy?
yes. we could discuss this here, textually.
> Many
> contemporary artists address questions such as these through their work.
i will answer that with something you said here: "[art might be valued
because] it provides an experience of that which cannot be expressed in
language".
> > 7. if there isn't, why is "post-urinal" art put in museums?
>
> Huh?
>
museums have turned into part of "pissing art", a tool used by "artists"
for their "experiments" and urinals, instead of being mere
concentrations of art works, for the public's benefit.
>
> > 9. define "artist"
> > 10. are there any requirements of artists today?
> > 11. if there are, what are they?
> > 12. if there are not, is there a need for the term "artist"?
> > 13. if there is, what is this need?
> > 14. if there isn't, why are people involved in this area still called
> > artists?
> > 15. define "art object"
> > 16. what, if at all, is the difference between "art object" and anything
> > else?
> > 17. what, if at all, is the difference between "artist" and anyone else?
> >
> Artists are people who produce art.
true, though symplistic. anyway, i was looking for a Duchampian
definition.
> Educated artists are expected to
> rigorously account for the choices they make.
true.
BTW, how does (or did...) Pollock account for a certain spill's place
and shape?
and how about John Cage's noises? without control, there can be no
responsibility, for better or worse...-
> In other words, there
> should be a well-founded reason why specific materials, location, imagery,
> style, scale etc. are used in their work.
-...and Duchamp's (???) urinal, what did he choose there (specific
materials, location, imagery, style, scale etc.?)
>
> > 18. what would any "pre-urinal" person probably answer q. 16 and 17?
> >
> "Where's the outhouse?"
exactly.
>
> > 19. what do most "ordinary" people think of Michaelangelo or Da-Vinci?
> > 20. do people doubt their creations are, *and always were*, art?
> > 21. do people doubt their creations are *better* than anything they
> > could attempt doing without any training?
> >
> Who are the "ordinary" people?
anyone but the artists, critics, curators, connoisseurs (and me :).
>
> I guess most Europeans and North Americans learn about Michelangelo and
> Leonardo through primary school, TV, and religious indoctrination.
north americans, si
europeans, no.
ever been to europe? if you have, you know what i mean. americans (north
americans, to be exact and PC), tend to be quite superficial sometimes,
and nouveau-rich most of the time.
> Generally, their names are defined in terms of individual genius and
> timeless masterpieces. I don't know whether children think themselves
> capable of producing timeless masterpieces.
something you can't say about today's "artists", but hear alot from
their friends/"critics"/agents/dealers etc.
> > 22. what is the common opinion (and statement) about the urinal?
>
> I don't know.
> >
it is also what is said about most "(f)art":
"i can do that"
"this ain't art"
(q.v."trailor park Duchamp")
> > 23. could it be that 5000 years of art and most of the world's
> > population are wrong about what is and isn't art, and only a few
> > "artists", "critics", "curators" and "historians" are right?
> > 24. howcome?
>
> Culture changes. Western culture is notable for criticising its own
> assumptions. It never has consisted of a fixed set of eternal standards.
>
> Besides, who says 5000 years, etc. is wrong? Nobody I know.
>
by saying urinals are art, the definition, 5000 years old, was changed,
therefore the previous definition of non-art is retroactively wrong. if
non-art was art, then art was more than people thought, or for short:
they were wrong (according to 20th century "art").
> >
> > 25. could it be that your above definitions are only considered to be
> > right by your fellow "artists" and "intellectuals"?
> > 26. howcome?
>
> You started by asking for the criteria for judging art and selecting art
> for museum display. These criteria are primarily defined by and debated
> among art professionals and intellectuals. Unfortunately, the history of
> twentieth century art is not really part of the common culture, in the US
> at any rate. As a result, people may reasonably be baffled by some of the
> art that is highly regarded within the "art world."
>
couldn't have said it better myself.
> This is a problem worth considering, but I doubt that anti-intellectualism
> is the solution. What's your alternative?
>
will be posted soon (hear that, wsparker?).
> > 27. could it be that patronization and "elitism" have become the
> > cornerstone of anything related to the "art world" today?
> > 28. howcome?
>
> "Patronization"? I don't know what this means.
i meant patronising. when art is only to be enjoyed by the few
"intellectuals" it is saying to all other people they are not good
enough to experience it.
>
> It seems that artists and critics who address the ways class interests
> shape art are exactly the ones that you are attacking.
>
whatever...
> >
> > I think it would be better if everyone would to question
> > the weak aspects of "modern art" argument and then let the silence (or
> > "blah blah ism ism blah blah...") speak for itself!
>
> I get a sinking feeling...have I been wasting my time?
don't take it personally, this was a paraphrase, not part of the "quiz".
Ehud Tal
http://www.geocities.com/~bbbsot
Mdeli
(Neal Weiss) our pisspot guru wrote:
>> >On the surface, this Fountain may appear trivial: indeed an item as
>> >trivial as a urinal was needed to surface the discourses into our
>> >consciousness.
I wrote
>> I think this pisspot is on your conscience, not our
>> collective conscience.
>You are reading about it, writing about it et al. bro,....furthermore,
>doing it responsively to other's similar activities.....seems like a
>textbook example of an object of consciousness, personal, collective.
By this brilliant line of reasoning you must also
believe in Santa Claus.
>> > Before the era of Fountain, "Art" went about it's business,
>> >unconcerned with the discourses of it's cultural mandate.
>>
>> What "era of fountain?"
>Anywhere loosely from earlier in 1917 when Fountain was first exhibited
>and later in that year (May 1917) when Duchamp, Beatrice Wood, and H.P.
>Roché published an article referring to it in the second issue of THE
>BLIND MAN....up to an including 12/27/97 when you contributed your
>(rather unacomplished) commentary on it.
I see. World War One and Two were just part of the
Fountain period. Perhaps you might write a book on
revised world history. The Santa Claus era is even
longer.
>[By the way, you keep referring to modernism this, modernism that: please
>be advised that Modernism roughly ended about a third of a century
>ago...somewhere around ...say, 1962.
From "Art history by Weiss."
>Perhaps more important for artists than classifying, qualifying, or
>quantifying, is registering the inspirational and imaginative impulses
>that are engendered with one's relation to an object, object of art(or
>non-art); conversely....classifying, qualifying, or quantifying can often
>be part of that process.
Nice Artspeak. Very clear.
>(I'll waste no more time replying to your insipid posts.)
---------------------------------------
>Neal Weiss
>Founder: L' Ecole De Fromage.
>Originator of a Greater Shoe of Mud.
>Finder of the Country Blue Squeak-Out.
I’m impressed by your pedigree!
Bye.
wsparker
Ehud Tal wrote:
>
> no. i never said there could be such a "yardstick". i do not think it is
> possible to compare or rate renaissance and impressionist paintings on
> the same "scale". in case i was not clear enough, i will ask again:
>
> can you honestly say one painting by Pollock is better than another?
Yes, depending on your point of view at the time you look, your level of
familiarity. The control of his lines of paint and the color and depth
varies considerably and it is interesting and rewarding to explore that.
But it is not for you! I don't recommend Pollock or the others to YOU!
> can you honestly say the urinal is better than the bicycle wheel?
Yes. depending on your point of view, Fountain has a great deal of
discourse generated by it it becomes among other aesthetic issues a huge
ontological issue throughout time. The bicycle wheel introduced kinetic
sculpture and has a different set of connotations and connections.
But YOU should just walk by it, I don't recommend you giove it another
look!! Please don't!
Can you honestly say that other paintings of the modonna are better/ or
worse than the Mona Lisa? Of course you can.
I don't give much attantion to this "better/worse" thing, too
cut-and-dry. But a whole new thread is necessary in a moderated
newsgroup.
You are trying to prove something is not art by making judgements like
better or worse a requisite, it is a very weak mechanism and fails very
quickly.
>
>
> if, like most people (including me) you can't, could it be because they
> are not art at all? **i am not talking about taste here!** i am not
> asking "which do you like better?". i am asking which is more successful
> in conveying whatever it was the artist wished to convey to us.
That would assume that the meaning of the art exists independently from
the art.
Like only an unenlightened person would ask, "what is the meaning of the
poem?" Well it is unenligtened because their is no meaning separate from
it: the poem IS the meaning!
So which work conveys its meaning better? That's the question and it is
absurd!
> Duchamp did no such thing, since those are, and always have been part of
> art-history research. art historians approach works of art by trying to
> find the relation between the subjects, themes, symbols etc. and the
> historic or biographic conext.
Yet AGAIN you missed the point.
>
> Duchamp's work is therefore an essay in art history, but not art.
> knowing all this stuff should not be a condition for experiencing art
> (though it could be quite enriching), yet in the urinal's case, that's
> all there is.
You are "shoulding" again. I would like to know everything about a
piece. Even the chemical composition of the paint! That certainly
doesn't detract from anything. The discourse generated by any art work
is very important to know about! It is required in many cases and in
those cases you would like to eliminate! Go ahead eliminate them from
*your* life! Though I can't understand why you would go to such an
extreme. Whatever, but: don't "should" everybody else! And to do it,
arrive at conclusions, without doing the research is anathema.
>
> > The criteria will shift in relation to the work, the exhibition context,
> > and the values of the viewer. This does not mean that "everything's
> > relative" or "it's all subjective." Rather, there are several
> > sophisticated points of view in the discussion of art, and different
> > issues take on urgency at different times, in response to changing
> > conditions.
> >
> i agree.
You don't f***ing understand what he's saying here!
>
> > For example, art might be valued because: it challenges the viewer's
> > assumptions about art;
>
> yes, only if it is done artistically!
You got it half right. Your word "artistically" is occult! Kinda blows
the whole thing.
>
> > it provocatively reflects the social conditions of
> > production; it vividly describes subjective experience; it displays
> > unusual formal invention or astute analysis of form, or it represents
>
> you forgot to add: - in an artistic manner,-
"artistic manner:" more use of the occult...that blows it all.
>
> > In other words, a display of mastery of some pre-industrial craft, e.g.,
> > Italian renaissance-style fresco painting, will be subject to questions
> > like "what does it mean to use these antiquated production techniques
> > now?" Educated artists are aware of the history and connotations of the
> > forms and techniques they use, and they account for those connotations in
> > their work.
>
> but what about all other people? those who have no idea of when and
> where the renaissance "happened", or even what it was. see the earlier
> remark on knowledge not being a condition.
Those other people are not part of the equation! Don't you get it?
Knowledge is a condition, alright, it is a condition of knowing!
> sorry, i didn't get that (inglich me bad, me no yankee).
Maybe you should be writing in your own native language! That's
definitely a problem for me: I WISH you would write in your native
language, please!.
> BTW, how does (or did...) Pollock account for a certain spill's place
> and shape?
You haven't ever looked into the question about Pollock, huh? How about
any of the others in the school? Here's evidence that you have never
actually studied what it is you so blatently disregard!
> > > 18. what would any "pre-urinal" person probably answer q. 16 and 17?
> > >
> > "Where's the outhouse?"
>
> exactly.
Good, we got that straight! Though there are only pissPOTS there.
Urinals are modern indoor plumbing, though our resident idiot doesn't
make a distinction. (not you e.t.)
> >
> > > 19. what do most "ordinary" people think of Michaelangelo or Da-Vinci?
> > > 20. do people doubt their creations are, *and always were*, art?
> > > 21. do people doubt their creations are *better* than anything they
> > > could attempt doing without any training?
> > >
> > Who are the "ordinary" people?
>
> anyone but the artists, critics, curators, connoisseurs (and me :).
> >
Oh, as far as ordinary people, then never mind, you are just an ordinary
person, well, then why don't you just forget we ever had this
discussion?
IOW why the hell bother then? Most ordinary people don't even think
about art except when they see something "artistic."
> >
> > You started by asking for the criteria for judging art and selecting art
> > for museum display. These criteria are primarily defined by and debated
> > among art professionals and intellectuals. Unfortunately, the history of
> > twentieth century art is not really part of the common culture, in the US
> > at any rate. As a result, people may reasonably be baffled by some of the
> > art that is highly regarded within the "art world."
> >
> couldn't have said it better myself.
So what is your problem?! Could it be that you would say the same thing
and yet mean something different?
>
> > This is a problem worth considering, but I doubt that anti-intellectualism
> > is the solution. What's your alternative?
> >
> will be posted soon (hear that, wsparker?)
I'm groaning, actually, at this point, I'm starting to realize I might
enjoy more hitting myself on the head with a hammer!
I am starting to lose interest! I mean why bother? I normally don't deal
with students who show no evidence of doing homework!
I think you need spend much more time researching and much, much, LESS
time arriving at conclusions.
.
Euphemism
Ehud Tal <bbb...@geocities.com> wrote:
> can you honestly say one painting by Pollock is better than another?
> can you honestly say the urinal is better than the bicycle wheel?
Yes, these pieces can be critically compared, but my time is limited.
If you aren't satisfied with other responses to these, please say so, and
I'll give it a try. Likewise the other questions I'm skipping here.
> > For example, art might be valued because: it challenges the viewer's
> > assumptions about art;
>
> yes, only if it is done artistically!
In other words, "Go ahead, challenge my assumptions; just don't challenge
any of my assumptions."
(With a tip of the cap to wsparker for identifying your use of "done
artistically" "in an artistic manner" and "*real* art" as "occult." Are
the asterisks magic?)
> but what about all other people? those who have no idea of when and
> where the renaissance "happened", or even what it was. see the earlier
> remark on knowledge not being a condition.
If knowledge isn't a condition, how do you evaluate anything? Are you
saying that your conclusions about art (or craft) are not based on
knowledge? Are you making an argument in favor of ignorance?
> > > 3. are any criteria used in deciding what belongs in a museum and what
> > > doesn't? 4. if there are, what are they?
> >
> > See above. Less exalted criteria figure in, of course, as with any social
> > activity.
> >
> sorry, i didn't get that (inglich me bad, me no yankee).
I mean that friendships, sleeping arrangements, laziness, fear,
you-scratch-my-back, etc. influence what gets shown in museums. Maybe
this is so obvious that it doesn't need to be said; such factors influence
any institution I've ever come across. But some folks--young ones,
mostly--seemed shocked to discover that "connections" are involved.
> museums have turned into part of "pissing art", a tool used by "artists"
> for their "experiments" and urinals, instead of being mere
> concentrations of art works, for the public's benefit.
I'm still confused. Are you saying that museums are good as long as they
only show old (pre-1917?) art?
> > > 9. define "artist"
> > >
> > Artists are people who produce art.
>
> true, though symplistic. anyway, i was looking for a Duchampian
> definition.
No doubt Duchamp would have been wittier (sp?), but I don't think that he
would disagree. I guess you're fishing for something like "an artist
selects or designates."
> > Educated artists are expected to
> > rigorously account for the choices they make.
> true.
> BTW, how does (or did...) Pollock account for a certain spill's place
> and shape?
> and how about John Cage's noises? without control, there can be no
> responsibility, for better or worse...-
Both of these artists pointedly admitted chance effects into their work,
again following your pal Duchamp, as in the "Three Standard Stoppages" of
1913-14. Pollock and Cage did not abandon responsibility for their work:
they structured their work in such a way as to include random forces, or
"chance operations" as Cage called them.
If you'll agree that art has something to do with giving form to
experience, then you might ask whether uncontrollable forces are any part
of experience. One thing that these artists did was question artists'
relationship to "control."
> -...and Duchamp's (???) urinal, what did he choose there (specific
> materials, location, imagery, style, scale etc.?)
Did you really try to answer this? The choice of a mass-produced product
of modern industry (as opposed to unique hand-crafts) made for a
particularly "debased" use (as opposed to the lofty ideals of the
beaux-arts) signed by an unknown (as opposed to established) artist
submitted to an "open" exhibition (where it was refused, underlining the
assumptions of the show's organizers)... Do these choices make sense?
> >
> > I guess most Europeans and North Americans learn about Michelangelo and
> > Leonardo through primary school, TV, and religious indoctrination.
> north americans, si
> europeans, no.
> ever been to europe? if you have, you know what i mean. americans (north
> americans, to be exact and PC), tend to be quite superficial sometimes,
> and nouveau-rich most of the time.
I agree that Europeans are steeped in old European culture, whereas Norte
Americanos tend to have recieved it as "good medicine."
Speaking of "patronizing," look at those remarks about Americans.
> > Generally, their names are defined in terms of individual genius and
> > timeless masterpieces. [ ...]
>
> something you can't say about today's "artists", but hear alot from
> their friends/"critics"/agents/dealers etc.
I think that "timeless masterpiece" is mostly a marketing catagory at this
point. Not many educated artists and critics would believe such a thing
exists except as fiction, but dealers and curators may keep it alive if
their clients enjoy the fantasy.
> > > 22. what is the common opinion (and statement) about the urinal?
>
> it is also what is said about most "(f)art":
> "i can do that"
> "this ain't art"
> (q.v."trailor park Duchamp")
What are you saying here? That if somebody (in a trailer park?) doesn't
"get" it, it is disqualified as art?
I understand if you want to argue against the readymade, but this is a
really weird version of the "argument from authority."
> by saying urinals are art, the definition, 5000 years old, was changed,
> therefore the previous definition of non-art is retroactively wrong. if
> non-art was art, then art was more than people thought, or for short:
> they were wrong (according to 20th century "art").
Please forgive my bluntness: this is very confused thinking.
A. What is this 5,000 year old definition? Where does it come from? Once
again, it seems that you're assuming there's an immortal yardstick (or a
Divine "Word") for judging art.
B. Have all changes in the history of western art meant that the past was
"retroactively wrong"? Did the advent of linear perspective declare
previous artists wrong? Did Cezanne's approach to painting imply that
Leonardo was wrong?
I think you are confusing the idea that "the past is past" with "the past
is wrong."
> > It seems that artists and critics who address the ways class interests
> > shape art are exactly the ones that you are attacking.
> >
> whatever...
> > >
My original response about this wasn't very complete. I'll try to clarify:
I thought it ironic that artists (and writers) who investigate the kind of
things that you seem uncomfortable with--how some art gets valued over
other art, how money and social position influence this, how some claims
for art may not be sustainable--are among those that you want to dismiss
as less than *real*.
Duchamp is an important instigator of this kind of inquiry; Warhol is
another obvious source. There are many artists, both academic (e.g.
Sherrie Levine, Daniel Buren, most of the work discussed in 'October'
magazine), and otherwise (Robert Williams, Jeff Koons, Sue Williams) who,
in very different ways, question or attack "prevailing standards."
As I write this, I realize that I was mistaken: it isn't ironic, because
you don't want to question standards at all, but to affirm them. Right?
Ehud Tal
Euphemism wrote:
> > 1. are there criteria in deciding what "modern" [let's say post-urinal]
> > art piece is better than another?
> > 2. what are they?
>
> Yes, there are criteria for judgement, although I don't think the vast
> body of art activity since 1917 can usefully be ordered in a hirarchy of
> "best" to "worst," as your question seems to imply.
>
> Many of these "quiz" questions suggest that the questioner longs for a
> culture that is as unambigous as a weight-lifting championship. Can you
> reasonably expect to find an unchanging yardstick which can apply to all
> art works regardless of form, time and place? This would imply that all
> works are better-or-worse approximations of the same ideal--a dubious
> premise.
no. i never said there could be such a "yardstick". i do not think it is
possible to compare or rate renaissance and impressionist paintings on
the same "scale". in case i was not clear enough, i will ask again:
can you honestly say one painting by Pollock is better than another?
can you honestly say the urinal is better than the bicycle wheel?
if you can, i would like to know how.
if, like most people (including me) you can't, could it be because they
are not art at all? **i am not talking about taste here!** i am not
asking "which do you like better?". i am asking which is more successful
in conveying whatever it was the artist wished to convey to us.
> More to the point, it devalues the relationship of the "'modern'
> art piece" to other art works, to the place and time in which the work is
> being exhibited, to other aspects of culture, even to other works by the
> same artist. If you've decided from the outset that these contingincies
> are irrelevant--that the art is the object inside the frame, irrespective
> of context, history and other "intellectual" matters--then Duchamp's
> readymade is indeed the devil, as it opened the door to consideration of
> such things in the context of art.
Duchamp did no such thing, since those are, and always have been part of
art-history research. art historians approach works of art by trying to
find the relation between the subjects, themes, symbols etc. and the
historic or biographic conext.
Duchamp's work is therefore an essay in art history, but not art.
knowing all this stuff should not be a condition for experiencing art
(though it could be quite enriching), yet in the urinal's case, that's
all there is.
> The criteria will shift in relation to the work, the exhibition context,
> and the values of the viewer. This does not mean that "everything's
> relative" or "it's all subjective." Rather, there are several
> sophisticated points of view in the discussion of art, and different
> issues take on urgency at different times, in response to changing
> conditions.
>
i agree.
> The work that is most highly valued is likely to be that
> which seems most provocative or compelling in terms of that ongoing
> discussion. Over time, this regard is manifest in the work's influence on
> other artists.
>
right.
> For example, art might be valued because: it challenges the viewer's
> assumptions about art;
yes, only if it is done artistically!
> it provides an experience of that which cannot be
> expressed in language;
i'll give it a try:
Duchamp: "Do you suppose we could consider mass manufactured products as
art if we signed them and put them in museums?"
Ehud Tal:"no"
WSParker:"yes"
ElisabethII:"maybe"
etc.
see, it works perfect. another proof is this discussion, which i don't
hear about *real* art.
> it provocatively reflects the social conditions of
> production; it vividly describes subjective experience; it displays
> unusual formal invention or astute analysis of form, or it represents
you forgot to add: - in an artistic manner,-
> interests or "voices" that have been omitted or overlooked in the art
> discourse.
>
> These criteria share an understanding that art is not identical to craft.
but requires craftsmenship, professionalism, skill, what-have-you.
> In other words, a display of mastery of some pre-industrial craft, e.g.,
> Italian renaissance-style fresco painting, will be subject to questions
> like "what does it mean to use these antiquated production techniques
> now?" Educated artists are aware of the history and connotations of the
> forms and techniques they use, and they account for those connotations in
> their work.
but what about all other people? those who have no idea of when and
where the renaissance "happened", or even what it was. see the earlier
remark on knowledge not being a condition.
>
> > 3. are any criteria used in deciding what belongs in a museum and what
> > doesn't?
> > 4. if there are, what are they?
>
> See above. Less exalted criteria figure in, of course, as with any social
> activity.
>
sorry, i didn't get that (inglich me bad, me no yankee).
> > 5. if there are not, is there a need for museums?
> > 6. if there is, what is the need?
>
> Good question (and one that I don't think you'd be asking but for
> Duchamp's legacy).
you can say that again, but only if you understand i am not questioning
the entire 'concept' of museums, only their role ***today***.
> Museums have a particular history and set of social
> functions. What are these? Whose interests do they serve? Should
> museums be changed or eliminated? Are there other models for art practice
> that don't rely on museums for their cultural legitimacy?
yes. we could discuss this here, textually.
> Many
> contemporary artists address questions such as these through their work.
i will answer that with something you said here: "[art might be valued
because] it provides an experience of that which cannot be expressed in
language".
> > 7. if there isn't, why is "post-urinal" art put in museums?
>
> Huh?
>
museums have turned into part of "pissing art", a tool used by "artists"
for their "experiments" and urinals, instead of being mere
concentrations of art works, for the public's benefit.
>
> > 9. define "artist"
> > 10. are there any requirements of artists today?
> > 11. if there are, what are they?
> > 12. if there are not, is there a need for the term "artist"?
> > 13. if there is, what is this need?
> > 14. if there isn't, why are people involved in this area still called
> > artists?
> > 15. define "art object"
> > 16. what, if at all, is the difference between "art object" and anything
> > else?
> > 17. what, if at all, is the difference between "artist" and anyone else?
> >
> Artists are people who produce art.
true, though symplistic. anyway, i was looking for a Duchampian
definition.
> Educated artists are expected to
> rigorously account for the choices they make.
true.
BTW, how does (or did...) Pollock account for a certain spill's place
and shape?
and how about John Cage's noises? without control, there can be no
responsibility, for better or worse...-
> In other words, there
> should be a well-founded reason why specific materials, location, imagery,
> style, scale etc. are used in their work.
-...and Duchamp's (???) urinal, what did he choose there (specific
materials, location, imagery, style, scale etc.?)
>
> > 18. what would any "pre-urinal" person probably answer q. 16 and 17?
> >
> "Where's the outhouse?"
exactly.
>
> > 19. what do most "ordinary" people think of Michaelangelo or Da-Vinci?
> > 20. do people doubt their creations are, *and always were*, art?
> > 21. do people doubt their creations are *better* than anything they
> > could attempt doing without any training?
> >
> Who are the "ordinary" people?
anyone but the artists, critics, curators, connoisseurs (and me :).
>
> I guess most Europeans and North Americans learn about Michelangelo and
> Leonardo through primary school, TV, and religious indoctrination.
north americans, si
europeans, no.
ever been to europe? if you have, you know what i mean. americans (north
americans, to be exact and PC), tend to be quite superficial sometimes,
and nouveau-rich most of the time.
> Generally, their names are defined in terms of individual genius and
> timeless masterpieces. I don't know whether children think themselves
> capable of producing timeless masterpieces.
something you can't say about today's "artists", but hear alot from
their friends/"critics"/agents/dealers etc.
> > 22. what is the common opinion (and statement) about the urinal?
>
> I don't know.
> >
it is also what is said about most "(f)art":
"i can do that"
"this ain't art"
(q.v."trailor park Duchamp")
> > 23. could it be that 5000 years of art and most of the world's
> > population are wrong about what is and isn't art, and only a few
> > "artists", "critics", "curators" and "historians" are right?
> > 24. howcome?
>
> Culture changes. Western culture is notable for criticising its own
> assumptions. It never has consisted of a fixed set of eternal standards.
>
> Besides, who says 5000 years, etc. is wrong? Nobody I know.
>
by saying urinals are art, the definition, 5000 years old, was changed,
therefore the previous definition of non-art is retroactively wrong. if
non-art was art, then art was more than people thought, or for short:
they were wrong (according to 20th century "art").
> >
> > 25. could it be that your above definitions are only considered to be
> > right by your fellow "artists" and "intellectuals"?
> > 26. howcome?
>
> You started by asking for the criteria for judging art and selecting art
> for museum display. These criteria are primarily defined by and debated
> among art professionals and intellectuals. Unfortunately, the history of
> twentieth century art is not really part of the common culture, in the US
> at any rate. As a result, people may reasonably be baffled by some of the
> art that is highly regarded within the "art world."
>
couldn't have said it better myself.
> This is a problem worth considering, but I doubt that anti-intellectualism
> is the solution. What's your alternative?
>
will be posted soon (hear that, wsparker?).
> > 27. could it be that patronization and "elitism" have become the
> > cornerstone of anything related to the "art world" today?
> > 28. howcome?
>
> "Patronization"? I don't know what this means.
i meant patronising. when art is only to be enjoyed by the few
"intellectuals" it is saying to all other people they are not good
enough to experience it.
>
> It seems that artists and critics who address the ways class interests
> shape art are exactly the ones that you are attacking.
>
whatever...
> >
> > I think it would be better if everyone would to question
> > the weak aspects of "modern art" argument and then let the silence (or
> > "blah blah ism ism blah blah...") speak for itself!
>
> I get a sinking feeling...have I been wasting my time?
don't take it personally, this was a paraphrase, not part of the "quiz".
Ehud Tal
http://www.geocities.com/~bbbsot
Mdeli
(Neal Weiss) our pisspot guru wrote:
>> >trivial as a urinal was needed to surface the discourses into our
>> >consciousness.
I wrote
>> I think this pisspot is on your conscience, not our
>> collective conscience.
>You are reading about it, writing about it et al. bro,....furthermore,
>doing it responsively to other's similar activities.....seems like a
>textbook example of an object of consciousness, personal, collective.
By this brilliant line of reasoning you must also
believe in Santa Claus.
>> > Before the era of Fountain, "Art" went about it's business,
>> >unconcerned with the discourses of it's cultural mandate.
>>
>> What "era of fountain?"
>Anywhere loosely from earlier in 1917 when Fountain was first exhibited
>and later in that year (May 1917) when Duchamp, Beatrice Wood, and H.P.
>Roché published an article referring to it in the second issue of THE
>BLIND MAN....up to an including 12/27/97 when you contributed your
>(rather unacomplished) commentary on it.
I see. World War One and Two were just part of the
Fountain period. Perhaps you might write a book on
revised world history. The Santa Claus era is even
longer.
>[By the way, you keep referring to modernism this, modernism that: please
>be advised that Modernism roughly ended about a third of a century
>ago...somewhere around ...say, 1962.
From "Art history by Weiss."
>Perhaps more important for artists than classifying, qualifying, or
>quantifying, is registering the inspirational and imaginative impulses
>that are engendered with one's relation to an object, object of art(or
>non-art); conversely....classifying, qualifying, or quantifying can often
>be part of that process.
Nice Artspeak. Very clear.
>(I'll waste no more time replying to your insipid posts.)
---------------------------------------
>Neal Weiss
>Founder: L' Ecole De Fromage.
>Originator of a Greater Shoe of Mud.
>Finder of the Country Blue Squeak-Out.
I’m impressed by your pedigree!
Bye.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Satterlee
Euphemism:
As another newby to this group, I'm sorry you will be leaving soon. I
enjoy your reasoned tone.
ET:
I know who and what you don't like. Who or what (contemporary) DO you
like?
Me:
I definitely grew up in the *modern* mold. My parents helped found the
short-lived DC Museum of Modern Art (or whatever it was officially
called) across from the old Henri Gallery on P Street, etc, etc.
For the record, I'm pretty good at drawing, with my technical type of
drawing being better than my gestural drawing.
I find that in the past couple of years I have gone through a
significant change of taste. I used to be in the Minimalist/Cerebral
camp. I now find myself preferring the painterly work of Cezanne and de
Kooning. I used to really like Cindy Sherman's work. I still do, but
not as much. I can't yet point to a current *art star* who's work I
support.
A final comment: discussion about how ordinary people view art is a
canard. The revolutionary work of Giotto, Michelangelo, and da Vinci
was supported by an elite and we have absolutely NO idea how the
ordinary people of the time reacted to it. Using ordinary people as a
gauge means that one is using mediocrity as a standard. This is not
intended to be a slam, it's an attempt to recognize that which is
ordinary or common is not excellent or special. Great art is excellent
and special, in my book.
amos
wsparker
Mdeli wrote:
> This guy thinks that "making judgments for better or
> worse is a very weak mechanism which fails very
> quickly." Then he goes on ad-infinitum suggesting that
> some abstract painting is good art and if you don’t
> agree he tells you that you haven’t done your homework
> and you need to do more research.
Have I even described why it may be a weak mechanism? No, but you go on
as if you know what I meant...blah blah, you make such sense, I'm so
glad you chose to spend some time with me.
>
> These are the sort of noodle-heads that teach in our
> Modern Academic Art institutions and ruin people who
> have some talent by teaching Artspeak, slanted art
> history and a creed instead of a craft.
You are an expert here! I am practicing my ability to listen to mozart
and keypunch very fast without making mistakes. What were you sayng, In
your artspeak who's a douche bag? well said... .
> >You haven't ever looked into the question about Pollock, huh? How about
> >any of the others in the school? Here's evidence that you have never
> >actually studied what it is you so!
>
> Just what is "the question about Pollock"? Does one
> have to take a Pollock course on order to "blatently
> disregard" him?
you don't have to do anything you don't want to do because you know all
about it. Just make it up all along make shit up and be a lonely
Pissyman.
>
> Can you imagine "actually studying" every piece of crap
> Porker likes? Come on, do you study every illustration
> or piece commercial art you consider so much kitsch?
overstated for effect, worn out effect
>
> No one has to study anything when one senses that
> something lacks even a modicum of quality. Most people
> look at the Modern Academic crap you call art and
> dismiss it for what it is. The best your brand of
> snobish apologetics can say is, "those other people are
> not part of the equation."
I don't enjoy being around purposefully ignorant people, why I respond
to you I obniously don't know. Good practice trying to focus on two
thinks at once i switch my hands over and trhy to type with the left on
the rioght set of ketsy. Not so great but very tough. Now what were you
saying you mean spirited guy? Like a bitchy microchip. Or turing test,
you are a bad man!
>
> However you can’t say that for me Parker as I saw all
> those guys in the round before you were born. I know
> their work very well.
Will you be my mentor? Extend yourself a little so I can reply meanly as
follows:
Oh, like I believe an ass like you! You blew it with me Pissyman!
> So as one "who counts," and has
> done his homework I can say their work is crap even by
> your idiotic standards,.
You don't count for anything! No one likes you and no one pays any
attention to you 4except as a a phenomenon of the internet! You are
thias thinf i s httyannjtk mdh ker s I try to tyopew twith my handdsf
betwem my legs basckwards
Oh, that's a fascinating thought. Another reference to shit.
> Parker can apparently distinguish ordinary
> run-of-the-mill pisspots from the one which is great
> art. I as "resident idiot" apparently can’t make this
> distinction.
There's no pisspot in a modern bathroom, boy could I have fun with
this...! (duh, or haven't you been to a modern bathroom duhhduhh. huh
huh. Hey why don't you go to Alt. life sucks!
You act like an asshole so why should anybody have any respect for what
you say or what diSTINKtions you make?
>
> Please tell us whether you gained this ability by
> doing a lot homework or is this a congenital situation?
(Just pretend there is a biting clever put down here against you, it is
so automatic for everyone why don't you clean your bathroom, do some
real homework)
>
> Mr. Porker is apparently very special!
And so are you poopy pants
> He’s also a patronizing Blow-bag
(just imagine another snotty comment that is funny in a small way but
totally boring overall)
> When you say "something artistic," isn’t that as you
> say, "making judgments for better or worse? "
yeah, right, I am going to respond to your question like this is an
intelligent effort here.
>
> You might also do some homework. Study "The Emperor’s
> New Clothes."
Very scholartly huh? You've been doing a little reading, huh? Thanks for
the reference, sounds fascinating.
>
> Porker concludes telling Mr. Tal:
> >I think you need spend much more time researching and much, much, LESS
> >time arriving at conclusions.
What would you say to someone whose ideas aren't very thought out? Never
mind, why would I ask you? You are a fool.
>
> So remember before you next visit the MOMA do a
> semester of research with Dr. Porker before you brand a
> room full of schmiers as crap.
Why bother doing any work when you can conclude you know it all and then
start talking like a know it all and sound like an asshiole and have
people laugh at you behind your back and reject your negative persona
and then you can stay at home and keywhack all you want on the internet
where everyone still thinks you're an asshole but they can't get rid of
the smell! How happy you must be! Don't you get it?
I enjoy our fascinating conversations when I have the time.
drookes
Neal Weiss wrote:
>
> Question posed:
> > 7. if there isn't, why is "post-urinal" art put in museums?
>
it really is a urinal. I know it's hep to go on about its history and
the great significance it has given the twentieth century. But the time
has finally come after all these decades to call it what it is. I know
it's tough to move the lips and tongue and form the words but here is a
way to say it and still save face: "You're anal" (I hasten to add
that the phrase is not aimed at you.) Helpfully, HB
Mdeli
Wsparker answers:
>You are trying to prove something is not art by like making judgements
>better or worse a requisite, it is a very weak mechanism and fails very
>quickly.
This is a good example of post modern artzy fartzy
reasoning.
This guy thinks that "making judgments for better or
worse is a very weak mechanism which fails very
quickly." Then he goes on ad-infinitum suggesting that
some abstract painting is good art and if you don’t
agree he tells you that you haven’t done your homework
and you need to do more research.
These are the sort of noodle-heads that teach in our
Modern Academic Art institutions and ruin people who
have some talent by teaching Artspeak, slanted art
history and a creed instead of a craft.
Ehud Tal wrote:
>>Educated artists are aware of the history and connotations of the
>>forms and techniques they use, and they account for those connotations in
>> their work. but what about all other people? those who have no idea of when >>and where the renaissance "happened", or even what it was. see the earlier
>> remark on knowledge not being a condition.
>Those other people are not part of the equation! Don't you get it?
>Knowledge is a condition, alright, it is a condition of knowing!
>You haven't ever looked into the question about Pollock, huh? How about
>any of the others in the school? Here's evidence that you have never
>actually studied what it is you so!
Just what is "the question about Pollock"? Does one
have to take a Pollock course on order to "blatently
disregard" him?
Can you imagine "actually studying" every piece of crap
Porker likes? Come on, do you study every illustration
or piece commercial art you consider so much kitsch?
No one has to study anything when one senses that
something lacks even a modicum of quality. Most people
look at the Modern Academic crap you call art and
dismiss it for what it is. The best your brand of
snobish apologetics can say is, "those other people are
not part of the equation."
However you can’t say that for me Parker as I saw all
those guys in the round before you were born. I know
their work very well. So as one "who counts," and has
done his homework I can say their work is crap even by
your idiotic standards,.
>Good, we got that straight! Though there are only pissPOTS there.
>Urinals are modern indoor plumbing, though our resident idiot doesn't
>make a distinction. (not you e.t.)
Parker can apparently distinguish ordinary
run-of-the-mill pisspots from the one which is great
art. I as "resident idiot" apparently can’t make this
distinction.
Please tell us whether you gained this ability by
doing a lot homework or is this a congenital situation?
>> > Who are the "ordinary" people?
> anyone but the artists, critics, curators, connoisseurs (and me :).
Mr. Porker is apparently very special!
>Oh, as far as ordinary people, then never mind, you are just an ordinary
>person, well, then why don't you just forget we ever had this
>discussion?
He’s also a patronizing Blow-bag
>IOW why the hell bother then? Most ordinary people don't even think
>about art except when they see something "artistic."
When you say "something artistic," isn’t that as you
say, "making judgments for better or worse? "
>I am starting to lose interest! I mean why bother? I normally don't deal
>with students who show no evidence of doing homework!
What a pompous academic ass you are. I presume someone
has to do your brand of "homework" on Abstract
Expressionism before he can dismiss a painting as crap.
You might also do some homework. Study "The Emperor’s
New Clothes."
Porker concludes telling Mr. Tal:
>I think you need spend much more time researching and much, much, LESS
>time arriving at conclusions.
So remember before you next visit the MOMA do a
semester of research with Dr. Porker before you brand a
room full of schmiers as crap.
Mani DeLi
...if it needs a long sermon to proclaim its art its
probably Bullshit.
Neal Weiss
Ongoing....
€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
Lets pick it up here......
€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
(Euphemism)
More to the point, it devalues the relationship of the "'modern'
> art piece" to other art works, to the place and time in which the work is
> being exhibited, to other aspects of culture, even to other works by the
> same artist. If you've decided from the outset that these contingencies
> are irrelevant--that the art is the object inside the frame, irrespective
> of context, history and other "intellectual" matters--then Duchamp's
> readymade is indeed the devil, as it opened the door to consideration of
> such things in the context of art.
(Ehud Tal)
Duchamp did no such thing, since those are, and always have been part of
art-history research. art historians approach works of art by trying to
find the relation between the subjects, themes, symbols etc. and the
historic or biographic context.
€(-N)
It would be curious to see just such an example "art-history research"
from 1917. Refer me to one piece an art historical commentary that
researched codes of nominalism, institutional context, ECTECT.
(Ehud Tal continues...)
Duchamp's work is therefore an essay in art history, but not art.
knowing all this stuff should not be a condition for experiencing art
(though it could be quite enriching), yet in the urinal's case, that's
all there is.
€And since , if for sake of argument, we agree for the moment that you are
right in what Duchamp's art was (I will if you will, but only for the
moment, and for sake of argument...your incorrect), present an artwork
(including Duchamp's?) from 1917 that encompassed and included that self
same form of commentary within the object of art. Conversely, present any
standard example of "art-history research" as you are defining it (in your
above post) that was presented as art in a gallery, and existed as an
object. For the sake of chronology, lets limit ourselves to 1917 and
before. In the extensive well defined art historical tradition, this
request shouldn't be too hard; you'll have many "art-history research"
materials to choose from.
Good luck.
To wit:
Duchamp is discussing painting and the change in the arts:
€
"...oil painting, which after four or five hundred years of existence, has
no reason to go on eternally. Consequently, if you can find other methods
of self-expression, you have to profit from them. It's what happens in all
the arts. In music, the new electronic instruments are a sign of the
publics changing attitude towards art. The painting is no longer a
decoration to be hung in the dining room or living room. We have thought
of other things to use as decoration. Art is taking more the form of a
sign, if you wish; it's no longer reduced to a decorative role. This is
the feeling that has directed me all my life."*
*Cabanne, Pierre, Dialogues With Marcel Duchamp, Da Capo Press, NY, 1979, p.93.
€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
A little later, we get a sample of a cat chasing it's own tail (hang on
folks, this ones real good!)
€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
(Euphemism)
> The work that is most highly valued is likely to be that
> which seems most provocative or compelling in terms of that ongoing
> discussion. Over time, this regard is manifest in the work's influence on
> other artists.
>
(Ehud Tal)
right.
(Euphemism)
> For example, art might be valued because: it challenges the viewer's
> assumptions about art;
(Ehud Tal)
yes, only if it is done artistically!
€(-N)
Time for clear reasoning here, on your behalf Ehud Tal. What if anything
is being said here? Time to be less abstract with your language. Be
concrete, provide examples and criteria, please. You sound TERRIBLY
confused.
To wit:
"art might be valued because: it challenges the viewer's assumptions about
art"....(ok, no problemo)
However.....
.If it indeed DID SERIOUSLY AND RADICALLY challenges the viewer's
assumptions about art, then it ASSUREDLY would have to be RADICALLY
DIFFERENT, ARTISTICALLY. But if it was RADICALLY DIFFERENT ARTISTICALLY,
how could it be doing any RADICAL CHALLENGING, by walking in lock step
to the previously ACCEPTED CRITERIA OF "ARTISTICALLY"?
In that case it would be AFFIRMING rather than CHALLENGING!
[note: substitute "standard accepted taste" for "artistically", in Ehud
Tal's comments, and you will understand him much, much better.]
€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
Then we have this follow up....
€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
(Euphemism)
> it provocatively reflects the social conditions of
> production; it vividly describes subjective experience; it displays
> unusual formal invention or astute analysis of form, or it represents
(Ehud Tal)
>you forgot to add: - in an artistic manner,-
€(-N)
Time for some reasoned defining, on your behalf, Ehud Tal. What
constitutes the definition of artistic, in how you are using the word.
I would venture to say that your definition of "artistic", both here and
in the above usage would be a substitute for taste.
Again, to refer to Duchamp:
€
Cabanne: What is taste for you?
Duchamp: A habit. The repetition of something already accepted. If you
start something over several times, it becomes taste, Good or bad, it's
the same thing, it's still taste..
€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
In addition.........
€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
(Euphemism)
> These criteria share an understanding that art is not identical to craft.
(Ehud Tal)
but requires craftsmanship, professionalism, skill, what-have-you.
€(-N)
Again to refer to Duchamp, this time in reference to his Magnum Opus, THE
LARGE GLASS:
€
€Duchamp: Often, yes. Fundamentally there are very few ideas. Mostly, it's
little technical problems with the elements that I use, like glass, etc.
They force me to elaborate.
Cabanna: It's odd that you, who are taken for a purely cerebral painter,
have always been preoccupied with technical problems.
Duchamp: Yes. You know, a painter is a sort of craftsman.
€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
Some more still.........
€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
(Euphemism)
> In other words, a display of mastery of some pre-industrial craft e.g.,
> Italian renaissance-style fresco painting, will be subject to questions
> like "what does it mean to use these antiquated production techniques
> now?" Educated artists are aware of the history and connotations of the
> forms and techniques they use, and they account for those connotations in
> their work.
(Ehud Tal)
but what about all other people? those who have no idea of when and where
the renaissance "happened", or even what it was. see the earlier remark on
knowledge not being a condition.
€Those with "no" idea WILL NOT experience renaissance works as art (i.e.,
pigmy tribesman, not yet exposed to the West, without even a category of
"art" in their culture: Are they going to go to MOMA or the MET. MUSEUM
and have a Western art experience? I think not. I recall certain tribes
receiving cans of food and boxes of cereal, during first contact with the
White Man. Instead of eating the food, they dumped out the food and put
the box of Corn Flakes on their head like a crown, and wore the tin cans
like body decorations, after dumping them out and cutting them into
shapes. They wore responding according to their cultural values. Art is
ENTIRELY culturally determined, and that means MASSIVE amounts of
knowledge. You just happen to be unconscious of all the cultural knowledge
you possess). Those that do have "ideas" about renaissance works (i.e.,
cultural symbolism, iconographic tradition, fame of the author of the
work, historically generated legends surrounding the painting ,ECTECT )
Knowledge is the supreme condition for experiencing art. The fact that 95%
of that knowledge is submerged and you only trade in the other 5% doesn't
reduce it.
Wise move for going into the 21st Century: figure out as much as you can
culturally about what you do and don't know about art and how it functions
in you..
Nobody ever claimed being an artist was easy work. Duchamp himself makes a
comment somewhere about not wanting to hang around artists anymore because
they are stupid like donkeys. DaVinci seemed to have had quite an
impressive head on his shoulders.
€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
Some more still.........
€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
and how about John Cage's noises? without control, there can be no
responsibility, for better or worse...-
About defining readymades heres Duchamp:
"Lets say you use a tube of paint; you didn't make it. You bougfht it and
used it as a ready-made. Even if you mix two vermillions together, its'
still a mixing of teo ready-mades. So man can never expect to start from
scratch; he must start from ready-made things like even his own mother and
father."
Any peice of art can be seen as a series of CHOICES, starting with
ready-mades, with the paints, canvases, whatever, and ending when a
choice is made to no longer continue working...the peice is finished.
Duchamp vey deliberately CHOSE the urinal.
€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
Adolph, bring us on home .........
€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
museums have turned into part of "pissing art", a tool used by "artists"
for their "experiments" and urinals, instead of being mere
concentrations of art works, for the public's benefit.
€Who is the public and what is our benefit? Am I included in the public? I
am thankful you are not on the board of directors.
(last I checked museums collections have quite a range of work, within
individual institutions and among the variety of museums: "Barbi Doll
Museum", et al.)
It's good you are having a hard time, because that's what he's there for
and what makes him so valuable. The world transforms itself through
radical actions. The avant guard likewise transforms our experience of the
world, through radical challenging of our tastes and
perceptions....anything less radical, anything that fit in with our
tastes, would leave us back at square one.: same perceptions, same
reality, same art.
The beauty about Duchamp (and his Fountain) is that he is still capable of
blowing your mind 80 years later. And from the read of your posts, your
mind hasn't really even begun yet to be blown. You have quite a ride ahead
of you....fight it or flow with it, makes no difference: Ducahmp did his
job as an artist exceedingly well (and wasn't a shabby chess player
either) and saw to it that he'd win no matter what way you choose to play
him. He spent his life dedicating to not conforming to his own tastes. And
look how knitted your brow is, and all those posts...what's up with all
that?
-----------------------------------------
Neal Weiss
> Neal, get a grip on yourself. Secretly, you know and I know that yes,
> it really is a urinal. I know it's hep to go on about its history and
> the great significance it has given the twentieth century. But the time
> has finally come after all these decades to call it what it is. I know
> it's tough to move the lips and tongue and form the words but here is a
> way to say it and still save face: "You're anal" (I hasten to add
> that the phrase is not aimed at you.) Helpfully, HB
i don't know WHAT you know, and, from your post, I am certain you do not
know what I know.
In my understanding, nothing has an essence. I wont go into my view of
reality, philosophy, and semiotics. I spent alot of sweat building up my
artistic and intellectual assets, and I am not going to hand em' out in a
few hours.
By your reasoning in your above post, a Ruebens painting is canvas, oil
and colored dirt...in a frame...in a museum.
Without mythology, black paint is merely black paint.
Same goes for colored paint.
Inessentially and indeterminately yours
-N
drookes
Neal,
Am I glad you spared me the Semiotics. Saints be praised!
Why must you say the obvious: of course I don't know what you know.
Ever hear of colloquialisms and off handed phrasiology? Like, you know,
man?
You just go ahead and intellectualize everything that comes down the
pike. To me, it purely takes the fun out of life. For you, it is a way
of life. (mind you, I'm not fussing at you or complaining about your
lifestyle, it's your way and that's that.)
You can get annoyed with me because I don't think in your terms.
Then who does? But do allow that space between us. But then, I almost
forgot, you're way, way above all this mirky drudge that I and others
are throwing around in our playpen.
I say Urinal be damned. And I say Jasper Johns' Flags be damned.
The hours of words that come with them seem to nullify their
significance. Carry on Regardless. HB
wsparker
drookes wrote:
>
> Neal, get a grip on yourself. Secretly, you know and I know that yes,
> it really is a urinal.
Did you read (and perhaps more importantly *understand*) what he wrote,
what it implies, what the consequences were/are?
> I know it's hep to go on about its history and
> the great significance it has given the twentieth century. But the time
> has finally come after all these decades to call it what it is.
Why has this time come? Please inform me of what I missed and you have
apprehended that leads you to casually make the "hep" (yet unknowingly
outrageous?) claim we should forget it all (so eloquently drafted by
Neal above) and revert to calling it a urinal?
What is this concept of time you talk about? Like some statute of
limitations?
The fact is that the work is _still_ "blowing people's minds."
> I know
> it's tough to move the lips and tongue and form the words but here is a
> way to say it and still save face: "You're anal" (I hasten to add
> that the phrase is not aimed at you.) Helpfully, HB
I think it went (you let it go?) so far over your head it is
embarassing!
drookes
Mr. Parker,
As you and Neal and others have demonstrated, there is
magnitudinous grandeur in the DuChamp Urinal. And I know that, yes, I
admit to one and all that I don't get it and it did and has and forever
more will go over my dunderhead. And yes, I'm embarassed to have to
finally admit to all of you out there, Yes, all 300 million of you that
I do not get Duchamps Urinal concept. It is right out of my region;
it's layers are too thick for my even thicker skull.
My only consolation is that there are those within these precincts
that not only have understood the strata of meaningful meanings behind
this object d'art but they understood it with very little difficulty.
Hardly a book was broken to decipher this landmark, this turning point
this icon of the intelligencia.
That I, but for a brief moment, was able to be a part of this
moment in time is forever inprinted in my oh, too lacking mind.
But just one more time for the gipper me lads: It's a F___CKING
urinal. Ahhhhhhhhh! That feels better to this guttersnipe and drooling
old fart! May the Angels continue to be with you, HB
drookes
Neal Weiss wrote:
>
> In article <32C7D5...@direct.ca>, drookes <dro...@direct.ca> wrote:
>
> > You just go ahead and intellectualize everything that comes down the
> > pike. To me, it purely takes the fun out of life. For you, it is a way
> > of life. (mind you, I'm not fussing at you or complaining about your
> > lifestyle, it's your way and that's that.)
>
> thinking, synthesising, and concluding....yourself....perhaps the faults
> you find with me.
> For what it is worth, I'VE never considered myself a thinker. In the
> thinking/feeling opposition, I've always considered myself a feeling type:
> my decisions and directions (and thought) are directed by my feelings (I
> think..... :)
>
> >You can get annoyed with me because I don't think in your terms.
> > Then who does? But do allow that space between us.
>
> Offering opinions, analysis. I hope to become a more potent artist by
> being able to better understand and manipulate the expressive 'landscape'
> before me. Part of the artists toolkit. not to place myslef in their
> company, but it seems DaVinci had a good head upstairs to synthesis and
> incorporate into his art, looking is a thiking process as well...pictorial
> potency in paintings can be analyses and hotrodded....an area painted out,
> remade...a section of drawing erased, redrawn. many of the decisions are
> integral because the thinking is already "won", sometimes one sits and
> stares and reflects, other times, things need to be entirely rethought....
>
> My thinking doesn't invalidate anyone else's thinking. I am not on a
> crusade. I have a mind 'quicker' than some, more 'sluggish' than
> others...I'm simply going at a momentum that feels comfortable.
>
> > But then, I almost
> > forgot, you're way, way above all this mirky drudge that I and others
> > are throwing around in our playpen.
>
> structuring...we are figuring out the nature of this beast...art.
>
> > I say Urinal be damned. And I say Jasper Johns' Flags be damned.
> > The hours of words that come with them seem to nullify their
> > significance.
>
> nuetral...suggesting intrique rather than damnation.
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Neal Weiss
> Founder: L' Ecole De Fromage.
> Originator of a Greater Shoe of Mud.
> Finder of the Country Blue Squeak-Out.
Neal,
The impass continues.
Although your words seem that of sweet reason, they come to me from
another world. One that I left behind many years ago. Words such as
these are of no significance to me at this point. You will hasten to
mention that this is my problem. And if I were sitting where you are
now, I would likely think the same.
My art, and I do consider it art (at least the development thereof),
is not aided by these "weighted" words. My approach is in its way much
simpler: I go out with canvas and easel and paint till the sun goes
down. Often with other artists but mostly solo. To regurgitate these
weighty thoughts would stifle the process. From eye to subconscious to
hand holding brush. Sounds simple but it is the same with a golf swing,
(after ten thousand practice swings), the passage in a work of music,
the simple step of a ballerina. The "practice shots" that are ever
continuing must not clutter the mind at that moment of truth.
The Duchamp thing is important to you. It is not of the slightest
importance to me, other in hopefully friendly discussion. To me, art is
not all theories and endless discussions. It is an ongoing external and
internal progression; the wonderful and capricious happening of the
moment. And learning from that moment.
You have pretty well panned most of my sentences. I fully expected
that. It is what happens when divergent minds meet. There may be right
or wrong in accounting but not in art. What could be more subjective.
The Urinal is a symbol of these contradictions. It has been very
useful in the standard it has set. From your view, volumes could be
written about it. From me, (not completely and anti-intellectual) it is
a object to piss into.
To argue that point will, I'm afraid fall on "deaf" eyes. You would
be better preaching to your choir. And, going after me word by word is
for the most, a total waste of your time. As mentioned way long ago,
you know where I'm coming from. Your parsing my every thought is
probably appealing to the "true believer." Maybe it is they who will
benefit whatever it is you are imparting.
Again, until next time, HB
drookes
Neal Weiss wrote:
>
> In article <32C7E7...@direct.ca>, drookes <dro...@direct.ca> wrote:
>
> > As you and Neal and others have demonstrated, there is
> > magnitudinous grandeur in the DuChamp Urinal. And I know that, yes, I
> > admit to one and all that I don't get it and it did and has and forever
> > more will go over my dunderhead. And yes, I'm embarassed to have to
> > finally admit to all of you out there, Yes, all 300 million of you that
> > I do not get Duchamps Urinal concept. It is right out of my region;
> > it's layers are too thick for my even thicker skull.
>
> struggle towards realization in a work of art, the difference between the
> artist's intention and his realization, the difference between the two
> which is often unconscious. This 'lack', or missing link is the art
> coeficeint. The creative act continues with the spectator during a
> phenomenon of transmutation..inert matter is turned into a work of art.
> The spectator completes his half of the act.
>
> €Duchamp:
> "All in all, the creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the
> spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by
> deciphering and interpreting its inner qualifications and thus adds his
> contribution to the creative act. This becomes even more obvious when
> posterity gives the final verdict and sometimes rehabilitates forgotten
> artists."
>
> This is seen not only in the very category of "Art" existing for
> humankind, but in what our definition of Art is, and wihtin this
> relationship, it spreads further, towards individual works, for
> instance...
> As, when you affirm and interpret the works of the artists you like, or
> dismiss the works of artists you dislike. You personally, 'you' in your
> click of artists who share 'tastes' and aesthetic values, Culture as a
> corpus: beyond your control yet including you, and history as the 'grand
> spectator' with the power to relegate some artists into oblivion and to
> pull others up to fame.
>
> > My only consolation is that there are those within these precincts
> > that not only have understood the strata of meaningful meanings behind
> > this object d'art but they understood it with very little difficulty.
> > Hardly a book was broken to decipher this landmark, this turning point
> > this icon of the intelligencia.
>
> artist I have encounterd. The books have not only become broken they have
> inverted.
> ...Retract consolatory feelngs.
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Neal Weiss
> Founder: L' Ecole De Fromage.
> Originator of a Greater Shoe of Mud.
> Finder of the Country Blue Squeak-Out.
Neal!
You are now refusing to consol me. Have I debased myself that far?
Yet, you take the time and energy to continue to enlighten me. The
memory of these encounters will remain for many years. I'd love to see
you try to convince the aformentioned Gertrude Stein that a rose is
really a tulip. Waite, waite. Before you try on these pages, I'm only
saying it with tongue in cheek.
You have tenacity, I'll say that. Pretty damned impressive. Okay, so
you really are convinced that the Urinal is a Fountain......in MD's
eyes.
(But if I ever get my hands on it I'll show what it really is!) HB
drookes
Hi Neal,
Yes, we can only "perform" words here. Yours come across with grea
sincerity. In fact there have been others witnessing your thoughts who
have great praise for you. I concur. Perhaps you should consider
looking at some of the different media to get your concepts out into the
world.
Now, I'm certainly not thinking that we should set up an apartment
together but there is certainly plenty of room in this expansive world
for us to have differences. The differences are plain and marked. We
do live in separate art worlds with little threads here and there in
common.
From my past posting you will understand mine better. But as you can
understand there is a lifetime of polarities. Only because our lives
were directed in their own happenstance way. The results are what you
and I see upon these pages.
My wife who has been with me for decades is still trying to figure me
out and is still getting bits and pieces that surprise and (as you can
understand) annoy her.
When I speak of drawing it is not just getting an HB pencil out and
doodling into a pad of paper. The act of drawing is used with a brush
laden with gobs of paint or it is the thumb that careens into a clay
sculpting. It includes the knowledge of tone, color, weight, thickness,
direction of one stroke. And how that stroke affects others and how
subsequent strokess affect that one. You get the picture. Drawing is
the basis of this thrilling proceedure.
I have done this literally since I was seven (50 yrs ago) and am just
beginning to get the idea. I don't say this flippantly. The "old
tradition" of painting has complexities that would fill limitless
volumes. It is not for the faint hearted. Most artists who get into
this arena fail miserable. For the most part, lousy training. There
are only three or four art colleges that really get down to the
mastering of painting. Also you must never get into it for the money.
That speaks for itself.
Most importantly, one must never give up. But the love of it makes
that a certainty. To see one visceral stroke by Joachim Sorolla (a
great Spanish painter) would convince you if you needed any.
It would honor me to show you some of the great works of the early
Nineteenth century Itinerant Russian artists. The guts and fury and
force of their works makes most others seem anemic.
Well, I could go on about my thoughts on the subject. As you could
from your vantage.
Don't forget that this is the last day of the year. Hope you enter
the new one with great enthusiasm. All the best, H.Brown
Neal Weiss
-----------------------------------------
Neal Weiss
-----------------------------------------
Neal Weiss
> > ...Retract consolatory feelngs.
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Neal Weiss
> > Founder: L' Ecole De Fromage.
> > Originator of a Greater Shoe of Mud.
> > Finder of the Country Blue Squeak-Out.
>
>
> Neal!
> You are now refusing to consol me. Have I debased myself that far?
> Yet, you take the time and energy to continue to enlighten me. The
> memory of these encounters will remain for many years. I'd love to see
> you try to convince the aformentioned Gertrude Stein that a rose is
> really a tulip. Waite, waite. Before you try on these pages, I'm only
> saying it with tongue in cheek.
> You have tenacity, I'll say that. Pretty damned impressive. Okay, so
> you really are convinced that the Urinal is a Fountain......in MD's
> eyes.
> (But if I ever get my hands on it I'll show what it really is!) HB
Retract consolatory feelings, because, speaking for myself, I am unable to
fix Duchamp in that crystaline clear comprehension that you would suggest
I have managed.
Therefore, we are back to square one in essence, unconsoled:; no more, no less
(no personal attack whatsoever was meted out or meant...why is it I am
getting this tough rep. for...for what I do not feel. I simply want to
think, and by the way, I enjoy your participation, but I want to persue
the thinking where my mind may lead me, independent of whatever I may hold
as an allegiance to my work, my own way of thinking, your work, Duchamps
work, etc.. I do not want to intimidate emotionally, but I do want to be
forceful rhetorically...perhaps folks are mixed up the two? Perhaps hair
trigger defensiveness is responsively filling the space, where normally in
a face-to-face,is cultivated by the tone of the voice the expression of
the face, the tilt of the head. My intentions are 'pure', I will continue
to forge ahead regardless, as I have been doing. If and when you discern
narrative license in my posts, savor them...don't fear them. If I get
'pissed' and aggresive, believe me, there will be no mistaking it)(imagine
a smile on my face at all times as I write).
Tenacity? Need our thinking be reduced to sound-bite intervals? Thinking
is like breathing. I have always thought that it benefits artists to
think: by exchanging ideas 1) I get to be critical of my OWN thinking, and
sharpen the greyer zones I have allowed myself to live with, 2)through a
rethinking, I set up certain cerebral dynamics, that perhaps rustle and
synthesize themselves , just by dint of being brought into sharper
conscious focus, so when it come time to make art, the process has become
integrated unconsciously...and then a new appendage and insight into my
looking, into my visual perception is possesed.
All this 'fear of thought' one encounters, it is completely
unfounded....one has to know how to USE thought. At that level, thought is
a deep and rich pleasure. A vital tool for thre artist as well.
Neal Weiss
> Neal,
> The impass continues.
We should be grateful of thid impasset rather than diminish it. It is this
impasse where fertility lie. We should cultivate it as we are doing, as
with a garden.
> Although your words seem that of sweet reason, they come to me from
> another world. One that I left behind many years ago. Words such as
> these are of no significance to me at this point. You will hasten to
> mention that this is my problem. And if I were sitting where you are
> now, I would likely think the same.
I am not convinced, but only becayse of my awareness that I have only
started to lay the foundation of what i might like to say. I jumped into
this newsgroup, and rolled with the posts that were up. Duchamp
pre-existed me here. He is a part of a particular artistic tradition.
Today, there are several artistic traditions. They often wan tnothing to
do with one another. I beleive that touch on important and significant
levels. But perhaps that is for me to realize in my work, in my
generation. I also feel I have no allegiance to any particular tradition.
I would like to think I am open to them all. Wereas you think we pass each
other like ships in the night, I think already, even in this rather
limited exchange we have had and the narrowness of the topics, I beleive
we have been structuring something of more than negligable consequence.
You may disagree, or not feel aware f this, but the pysche integrates
somehow in its own manne, things that the mind absorbs.
In addition, we haven't yet really gotten into "pictorial' art, we have
not really picked up the brush with our thinking yet. We have touched upon
drawing, but I sent out that peice of writing on drawing as a scout,
entirely sincere, but there are ideas surrounding it that have not yet
been breached, that in retrospect will illuminate my position to drawing,
et al. As I stated before, one cannot do this in a few hours. It involves
the building of languages, of bridges, between seemingly unrelated
sensibilities. And in an odd way, that is part of the importance of
Duchamp for me...not his scandalizing effect, but the importace of being
able to make relationships between seemingly unrelated entities. In a way,
all that 'anti-sense' those cats were involved with...Duchamp remained an
enourmously OPEN minded individual, involving himself with a great range
of things in his lifetime. He had the knack of allowing seemingly opposed
elements, and seemingly mutualy exclusive sensibilities to co-exist within
his person. Perhaps that is a skill that would be important for not only
artists to possess, but the culture at large, as we go into the 21st
century, as we enter an age of enormous fragmentation and complexity and
information, that rather becoming sgredded by it all, we manage to swing
with it.
>> Sounds simple but it is the same with a golf swing,
> (after ten thousand practice swings), the passage in a work of music,
> the simple step of a ballerina. The "practice shots" that are ever
> continuing must not clutter the mind at that moment of truth.
We are not painting know. We are typing. And our thought as we type and
reflect is another form of perceptual practice.
> The Duchamp thing is important to you. It is not of the slightest
> importance to me, other in hopefully friendly discussion. To me, art is
> not all theories and endless discussions. It is an ongoing external and
> internal progression; the wonderful and capricious happening of the
> moment. And learning from that moment.
Oddly, that could almost be a sort of definition of Duchamp. Part of his
appeal, is not merely a urinal, but a lifetime of gestures, and how they
relate to each other.
> The Urinal is a symbol of these contradictions. It has been very
> useful in the standard it has set. From your view, volumes could be
> written about it. From me, (not completely and anti-intellectual) it is
> a object to piss into.
My job is to escalate those contradictions, not eliminate them. Without
your stated position, urinal or Fountain or whatever you want to refer to
it as, would not exist. Your pole of the historic discourse is where the
piece gains it's resonance....as it oscilates between two possible
realities, never completely comensurate with itself, even.
The Light Hearted,
-N
Bruce Attah
In article <nweiss-3112...@nweiss.tiac.net>, nwe...@tiac.com
(Neal Weiss) wrote:
> On the contrary. I am bequiled by it.
Is that "beguiled"? Are you admitting that you are BEGUILED by Duchamp's
urinal?
If so, I most heartily agree, since "beguiled" means "misled".
Bruce Attah.
drookes
To knowledge, no one in history has been able to describe: what is art?
Does not being able to define something put it in the catagory of
non-existance. Or is it simply a word like "love" that can be brought
into a conversation for an evenings pleasure.
On the other hand if it does not exist, what are we doing?
But it remains that we are all doing something. Could it be so wide
encompassing, so enormous in scope that a three letter word is
insufficient to include us all? Are we like nuclear physisists talking
with brain surgeons talking with chartered accountants talking with
submarine commanders? All having a bit of an idea of what the other
does but really in the dark about the big picture. And only really into
what WE do as individuals.
So, what IS art?
in expectation, H.B.
wsparker
drookes wrote:
>
There's this great little book _Homo Aestheticus, Where Art Comes From
and Why_, by Ellen Dissanayake.
I think that will make the "art-not-art" question less daunting.
BTW, I know what art is! This book has been helpful in affirming that by
her cross cultural research.
PS. Dr. Ookes, did you get my email?
drookes
Hey W.S. Parker,
Thanks for info. Saw E-mail and replied. More thanks.
The definition I was looking for was more in the form of a few
sentences. Tall order, indeed! Something that would include the whole
gang from Giacometti to Mort Drucker to Norman (yes) Rockwell to Bev
Doolittle to Hans Arp. A definition that would show no fear nor favor.
That would be would be as inclusive as words would permit. A paragraph
that could be from this day forward, used to define what is done with
ART.
The reward: the winner will have her/his place in history as that
one unique individual who was able, in a few cherce words, give us the
nugget that the world has been waiting for.
I am here on the edge of my seat, jaw slackened, eyes aglazed and
mind (hopefully) openned. A cheer for the year, H.B.
Neal Weiss
In article
<Bruce.Attah-31...@support-neptune.isltd.insignia.com>,
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
beguile
1. to mislead by tricking; deceive.
2. to deprive (of or out of) by deceit; cheat[he was beguiled of his money]
3. to pass (time) time pleasantly; while away [he beguiled his days with
reading].
4. to charm or delight.
Syn. see AMUSE, DECEIVE, LURE.
-Websters New World Dictionary, Second College Edition
Definitively,
Neal Weiss
> Hi Neal,
> Yes, we can only "perform" words here. Yours come across with grea
> sincerity. In fact there have been others witnessing your thoughts who
> have great praise for you. I concur. Perhaps you should consider
> looking at some of the different media to get your concepts out into the
> world.
I'm flattered, but more interested in the 'object', but, if the time comes
to communicate with a larger audience about my objects, that is an avenue.
I don't yet feel the need for a 'large' audience. Soon though, when the
marketplace is entered, and I get attacked on all sides abnd criticised,
it may be worth it for me to contribute my 2¢.
> Now, I'm certainly not thinking that we should set up an apartment
> together but there is certainly plenty of room in this expansive world
> for us to have differences. The differences are plain and marked. We
> do live in separate art worlds with little threads here and there in
> common.
One of my roomates is a painter, and he has shared my apartment for about
four years. His work is very different from mine, his thoughts also. We
live in complete peace and compatability with our differences(as with my
other roomates); there is not a militant thrust involved: no 'marshal law'
of ideas. I accept, as does he, that the world will not produce carbon
copyies of ourselves, nor should we desire it...we should soon become
bored.
> From my past posting you will understand mine better. But as you can
> understand there is a lifetime of polarities. Only because our lives
> were directed in their own happenstance way. The results are what you
> and I see upon these pages.
> My wife who has been with me for decades is still trying to figure me
> out and is still getting bits and pieces that surprise and (as you can
> understand) annoy her.
> When I speak of drawing it is not just getting an HB pencil out and
> doodling into a pad of paper. The act of drawing is used with a brush
> laden with gobs of paint or it is the thumb that careens into a clay
> sculpting. It includes the knowledge of tone, color, weight, thickness,
> direction of one stroke. And how that stroke affects others and how
> subsequent strokess affect that one. You get the picture. Drawing is
> the basis of this thrilling proceedure.
Right-on. I am trying simply to stregnthen my understanding of the role
drawing can play, in order to make it stronger: to have it move beyond
technique towards artistic accomplishment...and trying to discern what
this might be.
> I have done this literally since I was seven (50 yrs ago) and am just
> beginning to get the idea. I don't say this flippantly. The "old
> tradition" of painting has complexities that would fill limitless
> volumes. It is not for the faint hearted. Most artists who get into
> this arena fail miserable. For the most part, lousy training. There
> are only three or four art colleges that really get down to the
> mastering of painting. Also you must never get into it for the money.
> That speaks for itself.
> Most importantly, one must never give up. But the love of it makes
> that a certainty. To see one visceral stroke by Joachim Sorolla (a
> great Spanish painter) would convince you if you needed any.
> It would honor me to show you some of the great works of the early
> Nineteenth century Itinerant Russian artists. The guts and fury and
> force of their works makes most others seem anemic.
I do much looking, and don't limit my looking to any one form or stlye of
art. In fact, I have a deep love of figurative art, indeed, and would love
to see a fresh, accomplished vision of figuration, and by that I include
'academic' figuration,,infused with new energies, rethinking and casting a
glance over the history of figurative art.
> Don't forget that this is the last day of the year. Hope you enter
> the new one with great enthusiasm.
Right-on and all around,
ANN JUDKINS
I think that art is nothing more than opinion. Personal opion that is.
Art is anything that you concider to be art! If only one prson considers
something a work of art then it is art but only by defenition of that
person. Art is wonderfully pure opinion!!!!!!
Bruce Attah
In article <nweiss-0101...@nweiss.tiac.net>, nwe...@tiac.com
(Neal Weiss) wrote:
> In article
> <Bruce.Attah-31...@support-neptune.isltd.insignia.com>,
> Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
>
> > In article <nweiss-3112...@nweiss.tiac.net>, nwe...@tiac.com
> > (Neal Weiss) wrote:
> >
> > > On the contrary. I am bequiled by it.
> >
> > Is that "beguiled"? Are you admitting that you are BEGUILED by Duchamp's
> > urinal?
> >
> > If so, I most heartily agree, since "beguiled" means "misled".
>
>
>
> beguile
> 1. to mislead by tricking; deceive.
> 2. to deprive (of or out of) by deceit; cheat[he was beguiled of his money]
> 3. to pass (time) time pleasantly; while away [he beguiled his days with
> reading].
> 4. to charm or delight.
> Syn. see AMUSE, DECEIVE, LURE.
> -Websters New World Dictionary, Second College Edition
>
> Definitively,
> -N
Get yourself a better dictionary, if you're going to use it as a guide to
usage. The one you are using is clearly not intended for that purpose.
"Beguile" only means "charm or delight" among the semi-literate. When you
do acquire your new dictionary, you might want to look up the meaning of
"usage", which you use incorrectly, and find out the correct spelling of
"periphrial" and "discource". A grammar would be a wise purchase, too.
In it, you could discover how properly to use apostrophes and possessive
pronouns.
wsparker
Bruce Attah wrote:
>
> Get yourself a better dictionary, if you're going to use it as a guide to
> usage. The one you are using is clearly not intended for that purpose.
> "Beguile" only means "charm or delight" among the semi-literate.
Excuse me, but don't you use the word "charm" to describe the effects
of art which in your mind is "real" art?
> When you
> do acquire your new dictionary, you might want to look up the meaning of
> "usage", which you use incorrectly, and find out the correct spelling of
> "periphrial" and "discource". A grammar would be a wise purchase, too.
> In it, you could discover how properly to use apostrophes and possessive
> pronouns.
Yet another jabbing slight from someone who has been backed into his own
corner.
Ehud Tal
> Neal Weiss wrote:
> >
> > Question posed:
> > > 7. if there isn't, why is "post-urinal" art put in museums?
> >
<...some stuff about the urinal being a historic landmark (i agree)...>
<...and more about the urinal being art (i don't agree)...>
> > each artist to discover. At the least, one is made aware of the pomp and
> > circumstance that keeps paintings as art and in and out of museums, both
> > Rembrant's and Duchamp's,
Duchamp's PAINTINGS are not questioned here! I am talking urilnals here!
more generally: readymades! more generally: "anti-art"! please stick to
the point! I do not doubt for a moment the urinal makes one think and
talk a lot (i am proof of that!), but does that make it art? if it does,
there is a need to find a different word for what i call art, or
substitute "reality" for "art" in the dictionary!
Absurd!
Ehud Tal
http://www.geocities.com/~bbbsot
Ehud Tal
Neal Weiss wrote:
>
> Ongoing....
>
> ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
> Lets pick it up here......
>
> (Euphemism)
> More to the point, it devalues the relationship of the "'modern'
> > art piece" to other art works, to the place and time in which the work is
> > being exhibited, to other aspects of culture, even to other works by the
> > same artist. If you've decided from the outset that these contingencies
> > are irrelevant--that the art is the object inside the frame, irrespective
> > of context, history and other "intellectual" matters--then Duchamp's
> > readymade is indeed the devil, as it opened the door to consideration of
> > such things in the context of art.
>
> (Ehud Tal)
> Duchamp did no such thing, since those are, and always have been part of
> art-history research. art historians approach works of art by trying to
> find the relation between the subjects, themes, symbols etc. and the
> historic or biographic context.
>
> It would be curious to see just such an example "art-history research"
> from 1917. Refer me to one piece an art historical commentary that
> researched codes of nominalism, institutional context, ECTECT.
>
> (Ehud Tal continues...)
> Duchamp's work is therefore an essay in art history, but not art.
> knowing all this stuff should not be a condition for experiencing art
> (though it could be quite enriching), yet in the urinal's case, that's
> all there is.
>
> right in what Duchamp's art was (I will if you will, but only for the
> moment, and for sake of argument...your incorrect), present an artwork
> (including Duchamp's?) from 1917 that encompassed and included that self
> same form of commentary within the object of art. Conversely, present any
> standard example of "art-history research" as you are defining it (in your
> above post) that was presented as art in a gallery, and existed as an
> object. For the sake of chronology, lets limit ourselves to 1917 and
> before. In the extensive well defined art historical tradition, this
> request shouldn't be too hard; you'll have many "art-history research"
> materials to choose from.
> Good luck.
>
dealing with art history etc.. I am saying Marcel Duchampís urinal isnít
an art work at all!
The difference between art and art history is clear enough to me, but
Iím not sure about Marcel Duchamp or yourself.
One of E. Manetís "Olimpia" (pre-1917Ö) themes concerns art historic
reference, in other words: allusion, to the venetian school of Italian
Renaissance. The key words here are "one of [the] themesÖ"
Iím afraid I cannot "present an artwork (including Duchamp's?) from 1917
that encompassed and included that self same form of commentary within
encompass anything...
> To wit:
> Duchamp is discussing painting and the change in the arts:
> Ä
> "...oil painting, which after four or five hundred years of existence, has
> no reason to go on eternally. Consequently, if you can find other methods
> of self-expression, you have to profit from them. It's what happens in all
> the arts. In music, the new electronic instruments are a sign of the
> publics changing attitude towards art. The painting is no longer a
> decoration to be hung in the dining room or living room. We have thought
> of other things to use as decoration. Art is taking more the form of a
> sign, if you wish; it's no longer reduced to a decorative role. This is
> the feeling that has directed me all my life."*
>
I feel odd answering this dead dude, but here goes:
Oil painting will live, just like steel hasnít replaced stone, which
never replaced wood as building material for houses. The choice of
material should be made in relevance to the artistís intentions. Ruling
out oil paint or painting as a whole is ridiculous; The camera does not
make drawing or painting obsolete.
All Marcel Duchampís words on what art was, is and will be were
regretfully taken as a credo by the ëart worldí. I am very sorry Marcel
Duchamp feels all art prior to him is merely decoration, furniture. I am
also sorry Duchampís followers feel the same about all
ëpre-Revolutionaryí or pre-Duchampian art, and justify his words on the
subject. What Duchamp does here, as always, is trying to change the
definition of the word "art", and consequently the concept of art. This
is a nice try, but is bound to fail, since "a urinal is a urinal is a
urinal", and is not art by any definition other than Duchampís and his
followersí.
> *Cabanne, Pierre, Dialogues With Marcel Duchamp, Da Capo Press, NY, 1979, p.93.
>
> ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
> A little later, we get a sample of a cat chasing it's own tail (hang on
> folks, this ones real good!)
> ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
>
> (Euphemism)
> > The work that is most highly valued is likely to be that
> > which seems most provocative or compelling in terms of that ongoing
> > discussion. Over time, this regard is manifest in the work's influence on
> > other artists.
> >
> (Ehud Tal)
> right.
>
> (Euphemism)
> > For example, art might be valued because: it challenges the viewer's
> > assumptions about art;
>
> (Ehud Tal)
> yes, only if it is done artistically!
>
> Ä(-N)
> Time for clear reasoning here, on your behalf Ehud Tal. What if anything
> is being said here? Time to be less abstract with your language. Be
> concrete, provide examples and criteria, please. You sound TERRIBLY
> confused.
>
> To wit:
> "art might be valued because: it challenges the viewer's assumptions about
> art"....(ok, no problemo)
>
> However.....
> .If it indeed DID SERIOUSLY AND RADICALLY challenges the viewer's
> assumptions about art, then it ASSUREDLY would have to be RADICALLY
> DIFFERENT, ARTISTICALLY. But if it was RADICALLY DIFFERENT ARTISTICALLY,
> how could it be doing any RADICAL CHALLENGING, by walking in lock step
> to the previously ACCEPTED CRITERIA OF "ARTISTICALLY"?
> In that case it would be AFFIRMING rather than CHALLENGING!
>
Just take a look at Manetís "Olimpia". It challenges all art before it,
especially Ticianís "Venus of Urbino" and renaissance art. By making
certain choices, in composition, color, tonality, contrast and also in
the symbolic sphere, the images, the subject, Manet did "challenge the
viewer's assumptions about art" etc. This is what I mean by
"artistically". *What* you do with the viewer is not the point, yet
*how* you do it - is. Since you can challenge the viewersí assumptions
about art textually, as we are doing now, it is the *how* that makes the
difference between art and non-art.
> [note: substitute "standard accepted taste" for "artistically", in Ehud
> Tal's comments, and you will understand him much, much better.]
>
Since I probably sound confused and abstract (only because I find these
things so obvious and simple), I will make a partial list:
"Artistically" means: by making certain choices concerning, for
instance, composition, color, tonality, contrast, material, tools,
texture, subject, point of view, style, themes, symbols, size and ALL
other aspects of creation. The more coices made, the more control the
artist has on the effect the work will have on the viewer. The more the
artistís intent is fulfilled, by this control (the above choices), the
better the art, the better the artist.
"Artistically" means the opposite of the likes of this text. Since I do
not concider linguistics or philosophy to be art, I do not concider all
that questions our assumptions about stuff art. I do not doubt the
urinal questions our assumptions about art, I simply do not agree it is
art itself. Moreover, as I said somewhere before, some challenges can be
met, answered, like this challenge is simply answered: "No, Marcel
Duchamp, you may not put this urinal here, this *is* a museum". The
problem was it took some consideration, which took time.
> ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
> Then we have this follow up....
> ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
>
> (Euphemism)
> > it provocatively reflects the social conditions of
> > production; it vividly describes subjective experience; it displays
> > unusual formal invention or astute analysis of form, or it represents
>
> (Ehud Tal)
> >you forgot to add: - in an artistic manner,-
>
> Ä(-N)
> Time for some reasoned defining, on your behalf, Ehud Tal. What
> constitutes the definition of artistic, in how you are using the word.
>
> I would venture to say that your definition of "artistic", both here and
> in the above usage would be a substitute for taste.
>
Would you maybe define "taste" for me? Anyway, it seems to me impossible
to have taste in this region of anti-art as it is in non-edible food -
it simply isnít relevant. The obvious proof of that is that there are no
"bad" opinions around, no "rating" of what is a better work of anti-art.
Or is there? If there is, what is it? (this is the original "pop quiz"
question!).
I admit it is possible to determine a work or "artist" is better, in
terms of compliance between intent (or concept, ëde-juraí) and the
actual effect (ëde-factoí). This is also my criteria in art. This is not
taste, though. I may prefer a less talented artist or hate a very good
artist. I will not, however, say an artist I donít like is not any good!
I truly admire Mozartís genius, but I donít like his style; I also donít
like to listen to noise on the street. The former is a matter of my
personal taste in music; the latter is not a matter of taste or of music
at all (unless youíre John John Cage, Marcel Duchamp or one of their
followers).
> Again, to refer to Duchamp:
> Ä
> Cabanne: What is taste for you?
> Duchamp: A habit. The repetition of something already accepted. If you
> start something over several times, it becomes taste, Good or bad, it's
> the same thing, it's still taste..
>
Yes, Duchamp and John Cage and such were "into" the Zen perspective of
life, where taste is considered an obstacle to life. It is ironic that
these taste-haters happened to *hate* all art. All painting, music etc.
before their "anti-art" redemption of art (anti-art is by definition
non-art), is hated by them ARBITRARILY, as a matter of taste (and hatred
IS a matter of taste, níest pas?). John Cage is known for saying he
detested harmony, and Marcel Duchampís hatred of painting is well known.
> ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
> In addition.........
> ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
> (Euphemism)
> > These criteria share an understanding that art is not identical to craft.
>
> (Ehud Tal)
> but requires craftsmanship, professionalism, skill, what-have-you.
>
> Ä(-N)
> Again to refer to Duchamp, this time in reference to his Magnum Opus, THE
> LARGE GLASS:
> Ä
> ÄDuchamp: Often, yes. Fundamentally there are very few ideas. Mostly, it's
> little technical problems with the elements that I use, like glass, etc.
> They force me to elaborate.
> Cabanna: It's odd that you, who are taken for a purely cerebral painter,
> have always been preoccupied with technical problems.
> Duchamp: Yes. You know, a painter is a sort of craftsman.
>
Very nice, and seemingly he is making some sense. One of the problems I
have with this aspect of Duchampianism is a proclamation he made about
this useless piece of glass. Apparently it broke on the way from one
museum to another (forgive me if I do not have all the details right,
only the relevant ones). Marcel Duchamp decided to keep the cracked
glass, and said it symbolizes something or another. This is but one
example of his view stated above on the relation between "spirit" vs.
"matter", or "cerebral" vs. "craft" in art. It is time to face the
facts, though. There is a unity of form and content. One of the places
where Duchampian art fails is where it tends to stress form over content
or content over form. This results in Pollock-like AbEx, "action"
painting, or even 80s Superrealism (to name but a few) on the "form"
hand, or Conceptualism, minimalism, etc. on the other, "content", hand.
You either have formless (or nearly so) content, or ëcontentlessí forms.
Before this stupidity began, content had to be delivered to the viewer
by form (what I called here "artistically"), and form had to be created
to serve this purpose in the best way (what I call
talent/skill/whatever).
> ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
> Some more still.........
> ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
> (Euphemism)
> > In other words, a display of mastery of some pre-industrial craft e.g.,
> > Italian renaissance-style fresco painting, will be subject to questions
> > like "what does it mean to use these antiquated production techniques
> > now?" Educated artists are aware of the history and connotations of the
> > forms and techniques they use, and they account for those connotations in
> > their work.
>
> (Ehud Tal)
> but what about all other people? those who have no idea of when and where
> the renaissance "happened", or even what it was. see the earlier remark on
> knowledge not being a condition.
>
> ÄThose with "no" idea WILL NOT experience renaissance works as art (i.e.,
> pigmy tribesman, not yet exposed to the West, without even a category of
> "art" in their culture: Are they going to go to MOMA or the MET. MUSEUM
> and have a Western art experience? I think not. I recall certain tribes
> receiving cans of food and boxes of cereal, during first contact with the
> White Man. Instead of eating the food, they dumped out the food and put
> the box of Corn Flakes on their head like a crown, and wore the tin cans
> like body decorations, after dumping them out and cutting them into
> shapes. They wore responding according to their cultural values. Art is
> ENTIRELY culturally determined, and that means MASSIVE amounts of
> knowledge. You just happen to be unconscious of all the cultural knowledge
> you possess).
I am aware of my cultural knowledge. I am not talking about Shaka and
Sitting-Bull here, and never have. I am referring to what is known in
this newsgroup as trailor-park residents (TPRs from here on), or anyone
without the knowledge of art history. It is possible to enjoy Beethoven
without understanding the historic-cultural-biographic significance. I
do believe even the most ignorant "white trash" or black slums resident
who never heard any European "classical" music and doesnít know his Bach
from his Wagner, will know it is music, and will respond to it as any
westerner to some extent.
> Those that do have "ideas" about renaissance works (i.e.,
> cultural symbolism, iconographic tradition, fame of the author of the
> work, historically generated legends surrounding the painting ,ECTECT )
> Knowledge is the supreme condition for experiencing art. The fact that 95%
> of that knowledge is submerged and you only trade in the other 5% doesn't
> reduce it.
[I just love the way you Americans use percents and figures everywhere.]
The artistís starting point should be the TPR, and only when the artist
is sure his work will work on the TRP, should he add spheres of
interpretation, symbols, allusions, themes etc. to enrich it for the
more sophisticated audience and for the enjoyment and admiration of
their followers, and later of the historians and biographers. Good
examples are all over the place, and a very good one is in the Vanitas
genre of the Flemish school. A masterpiece is a work where you encounter
new things every observation, **if** those things were put there on
purpose. This is what makes a classic...
> Wise move for going into the 21st Century: figure out as much as you can
> culturally about what you do and don't know about art and how it functions
> in you..
>
No problemo, but donít call it art, and donít make it a condition for
experiencing art...
> Nobody ever claimed being an artist was easy work. Duchamp himself makes a
> comment somewhere about not wanting to hang around artists anymore because
> they are stupid like donkeys. DaVinci seemed to have had quite an
> impressive head on his shoulders.
>
I think I lost you here, this looks like something I would sayÖ :)
> ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
> Some more still.........
> ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
>
> and how about John Cage's noises? without control, there can be no
> responsibility, for better or worse...-
>
> About defining readymades heres Duchamp:
> "Lets say you use a tube of paint; you didn't make it. You bougfht it and
> used it as a ready-made. Even if you mix two vermillions together, its'
> still a mixing of teo ready-mades. So man can never expect to start from
> scratch; he must start from ready-made things like even his own mother and
> father."
>
Using (manipulating, utilizing) ready made paint, canvas etc. is one
thing. Calling the ready-made object art (or "abusing" itÖ) is another.
True, a Rubens is only some mud and oil on a framed piece of cloth, but
then again, a cake is but some flour, eggs etc. in a baking pan in an
oven, and a supercomputer is just some silicon, metal and plastic.
***This does not justify calling the ready-made urinal "art", nor does
it justify so-called paintings just because they are made of the same
materials as Rubensí works.***
> Any peice of art can be seen as a series of CHOICES, starting with
> ready-mades, with the paints, canvases, whatever, and ending when a
> choice is made to no longer continue working...the peice is finished.
> Duchamp vey deliberately CHOSE the urinal.
>
Well duh. What else did he choose? The name to sign it? the size of the
pedestal? Duh again!
His control of the work is minimal. It could have been any type, size
and shape of urinal there, so there is no visual significance to it.
Thatís why it is not visual art, not art at all, but text, a statement,
like an advertisement or sign. Art is not a sign. Signs are signs. Art
gets to us through our back door, not by making symbolic statements of
the textual sort (like: "a urinal is art if Marcel Duchamp says so").
Making choices is not all it takes to make art. People make choices all
day long, but this is not art (unless youíre John Cage...)
> ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
> Adolph, bring us on home .........
> ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
[I am truly offended by this remark. You may not know this, but for some
people Hitler is more than a dead general of a rival army. He is more
than a mass murderer, and responsible for the horrible torture and death
of some of my direct relatives, unarmed innocent men and women.
Generally I observed the terms "Nazi" and "Adolph Hitler" used
frequently on sitcoms, stand-up comedy and such, like the "Soup Nazi" in
Synfeld. You could, if you need to, call me authoritarian, nationalist,
racist, even vegetarian, but please refrain from diminishing the
historical meaning of such terms]
> museums have turned into part of "pissing art", a tool used by "artists"
> for their "experiments" and urinals, instead of being mere
> concentrations of art works, for the public's benefit.
>
> ÄWho is the public and what is our benefit? Am I included in the public? I
> am thankful you are not on the board of directors.
>
And I am sorry the likes of you *are* in the board of directors, and for
the sake of putting stuff in the empty museums, nurture the futile works
of shallow wannabe-artists, who happen to be their friends, and often
their bedfellows.
[Yes, homosexuality is a good career move. Not that I have anything
against homosexuality; "Do what you wish with your rectum" is my motto.
I simply dislike the fact all art and artists are judged in this context
over and again: Letís suppose I like oral sex (I will if you will, but
only for the moment, and for sake of argument...I lllove it...), what
does that have to do with my paintings and sculptures? (sure, it may
show, but unless itís an obvious theme why force it?) Forget that, what
the hell does it have to do with other peopleís works??!? Donít bother
answering this remark, I just had to say this.]
> (last I checked museums collections have quite a range of work, within
> individual institutions and among the variety of museums: "Barbi Doll
> Museum", et al.)
>
Double duh. Americans use the term "art & entertainment". Please
understand I am not talking about museums of natural history or barbie
dolls. I am talking about Ms of MA (like Centre G. Pompidou in Paris,
New-York MoMA etc.) and MA sections in other museums (like the New-York
Met M of Art), galleries, art magazines, art-history-of-the-20th-century
books etc. All those tend to glorify the urinal and all consequent "art"
made in its name (which roughly includes everything in the last 80
years).
> It's good you are having a hard time,
I am having a great time. This is like proving to a religious fanatic
there are no such things as miracles and divine intervention. Face it:
in the name of anti-establishment, anti-art art, you are part of an
establishment, which favors anti-art exclusively. The irony is obvious:
you call yourself a rebel, avant-garde, part of the anti-establishment
movement, while your kind is in power, your movement *is* the
establishment! You run the museums and magazines! Yours is the only
opinion heard, and you will not face the fact your revolution is futile,
anachronistic. You remain standing in your stockade, made of theories
and babble, defending a urinal from being kicked out of the museums! I
donít see anyone having to defend all pre-1917 real art from this simple
question: "is this art?"!
> because that's what he's there for
> and what makes him so valuable.
For the (almost) last time: That it's valuable doesnít make it art!
> The world transforms itself through
> radical actions.
Or steady growth and development! [You sound like a Marxist
revolutionary]
> The avant guard likewise transforms our experience of the
> world, through radical challenging of our tastes and
> perceptions....anything less radical, anything that fit in with our
> tastes, would leave us back at square one.
Or will be a development of previous efforts. If you keep radically
changing your direction, you will not go anywhere. This violent approach
of Duchampís is typical of his period, especially the Bolshevik
revolution. This is proven to be wrong by the test of time. Revolutions
may sometimes be usful for stopping "bad" regimes but are not always
good for creating better ones (the Bolshevik revolution is one example,
the fascist another, the Iranian a third etc.)
> same perceptions,
Revolutions do not change perceptions. It is a change of perception that
sometimes results in a revolution.
> same reality,
??????????????????
> same art.
I see, Rafael is the same as Giotto, right?
The change in the impressionists perceptions resulted in a change in
their representation of reality or their impression thereof, and
consequently created a revolution in art. The same thing exactly goes
for the Renaissance. Duchamp, through his urinal, merely forced a
revolution, not in the representation of reality or his impression
thereof, but in the definition of the term "art". Revolutions are an
affect of a change of perception, not a cause of one. This is why
Duchamp challenges, but cannot change the nature of art, or our
perceptions of art, only seemingly, superficially.
> The beauty about Duchamp (and his Fountain) is that he is still capable of
> blowing your mind 80 years later.
So does Napoleon (and his campaign), 200 years later. Is the battle of
Waterloo art? (John Cage, donít answer this one)
> And from the read of your posts, your
> mind hasn't really even begun yet to be blown.
Well, I must say "artistically" I find it sterile and superficial, much
like a graffiti vs. a good novel. Philosophically I find it almost as
shallow, and it blows my mind no more than the question: "assuming God
is omnipotent, could he (/she?) create a rock too heavy for him (/her)
to lift?". This is kindergarten philosophy at best.
> You have quite a ride ahead
> of you....fight it or flow with it, makes no difference:
donít patronize me.
> Ducahmp did his
> job as an artist exceedingly well
"did his job" - maybe
"as an artist" - definitly not! as a philosopher or linguist - maybe.
> (and wasn't a shabby chess player
> either) and saw to it that he'd win no matter what way you choose to play
> him.
Just like the question of Godís omnipotence. Philosophy (which is what
this discussion is) is not a game of chess, and Marcel Duchamp may be a
good philosopher and chess player), but not an artist as far as his
urinal is considered by any definition but his own and his blind
followers'(and that is not enough).
> He spent his life dedicating to not conforming to his own tastes. And
> look how knitted your brow is, and all those posts...what's up with all
> that?
You, on the other hand are open to new ideas, Zen and stuff. A world
without tastes is not what Iíd like to see. Personally I think taste is
a good thing to have, especially about art. Not arbitrary hatred, like
that of your gurus. "Art" today is a reflection of your last remark
here, and there is indeed no place for taste here. I guess this is the
most obvious symptom, since all real art *is* available for people to
develop tastes for, and is more human and sympathetic than your cold
logical philosophic exercises you call art.
> Founder: L' Ecole De Fromage.
> Originator of a Greater Shoe of Mud.
> Finder of the Country Blue Squeak-Out.
Great resume, I hope your not serious.
Ehud Tal
http://www.geocities.com/~bbbsot
jim
> drookes wrote:
> >
> > To knowledge, no one in history has been able to describe: what is art?
> > Does not being able to define something put it in the catagory of
> > non-existance. Or is it simply a word like "love" that can be brought
> > into a conversation for an evenings pleasure.
> > On the other hand if it does not exist, what are we doing?
> > But it remains that we are all doing something. Could it be so wide
> > encompassing, so enormous in scope that a three letter word is
> > insufficient to include us all? Are we like nuclear physisists talking
> > with brain surgeons talking with chartered accountants talking with
> > submarine commanders? All having a bit of an idea of what the other
> > does but really in the dark about the big picture. And only really into
> > what WE do as individuals.
> > So, what IS art?
> > in expectation, H.B.
is look it up in the dictionary. To attempt to define fine art takes an
evolving understanding of the metaphysical, natural and human condition
visualy. May I inform Drookes that even today there are countless
definitions of "metaphysical," in the age old discapline of
philosophy.So we are not alone in the discusion to define human
entities.This is to me what makes discusion of "art" so worthwhile.It
will never affect what I create but it may stimulate me.
May I take your time to thank everybody
worldwide who has the need or desire to create visual phenomenon for
the sake of the need or desire.
for richer for
poorer in
sickness and in health
till death us do part
for ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ (as long as we're around)
~~~~ Aperson
J...@shootnsurf.co.uk