framed again
Michael Gerard Maranda
Or, maybe, just quote.
Peter Burger sez (in _Theory of the Avant-guarde_)
"To it (hermeneutics) we owe the insight that teh work of art as the object
of possible cognition is not merely given to us tel quel. To identify a text
as a poem (or a painted cow as art . . . ) we must fall back on a knowledge
we already possess and thus is handed down by tradition. Scientific analysis
of literature begins the moment one recognizes that teh immediacy wiht which
we perceive a poem (cow) as a poem (art) is illusary. Mental
objectifications do not have the status of facts; they are mediated by
traditions. Hence cognition of literature can only be achived by dealing
critically with tradition."
(is it necessary to add that I added the parts about the cows?)
Which is just a german's way of saying, the frame makes the art. The frame
is the most traditional and conservative aspect pertaining to art, and as
long as it is there (and it _is_ there, especially with the painted
cows)then the content is sealed off from any meaningful exchange, and
communication that might have been possible.
So, to the question about whether one has to stand in front of a Rothko
for hours or just read about it for hours to get anything in it, I reply,
you've already gotten anything from it that you can by understanding that it
is there as _art_!!!
Further, an anecdote. A collector recently sponsored a show in Montreal of
early soviet art - the vast majority of it being painting. Intersting to
note that, as the vast majority of the artists represented gave up painting
in the early '20's and did their most important work after this denial of
painting.
The collector spoke of going ot the Soviet Union to buy work --
this must have been in the thirties -- and couldn't find any _art_ by these
artists. That is until he noticed in one of the studios an abstract painting
in a window frame twas missing a pane of glass. Ahh, he exclaimed, "that is
what I am looking for." The artist replied "Oh, that. You can have it if oyu
come up withs to take its place." Needless to say, when they (the artists)
figured out that the crazy canadian wanted old paintings, they came up with
piles of them for him. The problem was they thought he was interested in
art.
The question raised being, which was more of use? I side with the artist
(especially having lived in very cold lofts in Montreal winters). Kant can
exclaim about the power of the sublime all he wants, he probably had a fire
place.
Michael
mm0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
(Did I mention I don't really like art ... cause I really think I don't.
Before getting nicked as a philistine, however, I should state that I am a
practicing artist astudying art historian. If indeed I do hate art, it is an
informed disclaimer.)
to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu
|> So, to the question about whether one has to stand in front of a Rothko
|> for hours or just read about it for hours to get anything in it, I reply,
|> you've already gotten anything from it that you can by understanding that it
|> is there as _art_!!!
A fine thing. I now have every possible answer to this question except that
it is necessary to do *both*, (any takers?) and that in only three responses!
In any case, this seems to correspond well to Malgosia's, Andy's, etc.
understanding of the definition of "art", and it appears to correspond to
what the academies like to teach. That is, art is that which claims to be
art. (Have I got it right yet?) You may understand that such a definition is
less than appealing to a scientist, who needs a finer sort of discrimination
between science and non-science. However, I will bow to the general usage
and accept that anything that claims to be "art" is art.
Unfortunately, many practical problems remain. I still have no satisfactory
definition for what I am interested in, which I used to call, in my
benighted way, "art", and which I would like to support vigorously. (Pretty
much to the exclusion of the sort of "art" that unhesitatingly includes cow
painting, entirely because the cow painter has been to art school or knows
a few eccentric rich people who wear berets and drink too much coffee...)
Does anyone have a proposal for a name for artifacts which move the soul
in the absence of abstruse theory or Pavlovian reinforcement from art school
teachers?
|> The question raised being, which was more of use? I side with the artist
|> (especially having lived in very cold lofts in Montreal winters). Kant can
|> exclaim about the power of the sublime all he wants, he probably had a fire
|> place.
Do you then, deny the possibility of the "sublime" in a mundane era? Nice
word, I think I'll use it. I am interested in "sublime artifacts".
|> (Did I mention I don't really like art ... cause I really think I don't.
|> Before getting nicked as a philistine, however, I should state that I am a
|> practicing artist astudying art historian. If indeed I do hate art, it is an
|> informed disclaimer.)
Tell us, if you dislike art, why do you do it and study it, then?
This discussion seems pretty thick with Montrealers of one sort or another,
by the way. I suspect this is not pure coincidence. I myself am an escapee
from Cote St. Luc.
mt
Michael Gerard Maranda
>understanding of the definition of "art", and it appears to correspond to
>what the academies like to teach. That is, art is that which claims to be
>art. (Have I got it right yet?)
Not quite right, in my opinion, but awfully close. I'm not going to pretend
to answer that, though, as this is all just opinion. Something to always
keep in mind. Let's just say that the academies are more often than not
following, something else is leading the definitions.
>Do you then, deny the possibility of the "sublime" in a mundane era? Nice
>word, I think I'll use it. I am interested in "sublime artifacts".
Ah, the sublime. Knew I shouldn't bring this one up, but here it is.
Traditionally (e.g. Kant) the sublime always had a touch of terror to it, of a great big
immensity that scared the shit out of the viewer. (Sort of like a rollercoaster
for the ego.) But not quite because it was in a painting (usually) and thus
contained by the frame - something that couldn't quite be contained,
actually, so it was only hinted at. I am not being completely clear, but alas
that happens.
The sublime scares me, but not for the reasons that it should.
It scares me because it is this overarching concpet that has led to a lot of
misunderstanding of what art should or could be.
Sorry, I am a littel fuzzy from a day of avoiding reading. I can't elaborate
much coherently right now. So, I'll just leave it at that for now and return
in a while with something a little more, uh, profound. I promise.
>Tell us, if you dislike art, why do you do it and study it, then?
Because it really does scare me. I was sucked into this big bad vacuum
called the Canadian art scene for several years and I don't know how it
happened. I want to know why it did, why it seduced me so easily, and why I
became so terrified of what it is all about. Of ocurse if any of my canadian
art friends saw this I would probably not have a place to stay when I
returned to visit, but alas this is what I will eventually reveal to the
world (or at least my thesis advisors) in a couple years.
Till I become profound or coherent once again (or at least entertainingly
incoherent)
Until then, I wouldn't mind if you elaborated on what sublime artifacts you
are interested in. It would help me to respond.
MM
Malgosia Askanas
Michael Maranda wrote:
> Peter Burger sez (in _Theory of the Avant-guarde_)
> "To it (hermeneutics) we owe the insight that teh work of art as the object
> of possible cognition is not merely given to us tel quel. To identify a text
> as a poem (or a painted cow as art . . . ) we must fall back on a knowledge
> we already possess and thus is handed down by tradition. Scientific analysis
> of literature begins the moment one recognizes that teh immediacy wiht which
> we perceive a poem (cow) as a poem (art) is illusary. Mental
> objectifications do not have the status of facts; they are mediated by
> traditions. Hence cognition of literature can only be achived by dealing
> critically with tradition."
> Which is just a german's way of saying, the frame makes the art. The frame
> is the most traditional and conservative aspect pertaining to art, and as
> long as it is there (and it _is_ there, especially with the painted
> cows)then the content is sealed off from any meaningful exchange, and
> communication that might have been possible.
> So, to the question about whether one has to stand in front of a Rothko
> for hours or just read about it for hours to get anything in it, I reply,
> you've already gotten anything from it that you can by understanding that it
> is there as _art_!!!
I don't read the Burger paragraph quite the way you do. Burger says
that cognition of art is never immediate, but always mediated by
knowledge of tradition. You draw from this a conclusion which, in
my opinion, is more radical than the text warrants: that the content
of the work is therefore "sealed off from any meaningful exchange".
All Burger seems to say is that the exchange is never immediate,
but always heavily "framed". I don't think this implies that once you
understand the frame there is nothing more to understand.
My model, in crude form, is something like this. A work is displayed
in public as art. This signals that the work has to be evaluated
in the context of the entire tradition of art: it declares itself as
having entered a dialogue with this tradition, and with the viewer
equipped with a knowledge of this tradition. But its specific
contribution to these dialogues, what the work "has to say",
has very much to do with what the work actually *is*;
to understand *those* one has to contemplate the work itself.
There is a very complex interaction between frame and content, both
"communicate" in some sense and both must be understood.
Malgosia Askanas
> In any case, this seems to correspond well to Malgosia's, Andy's, etc.
> understanding of the definition of "art", and it appears to correspond to
> what the academies like to teach. That is, art is that which claims to be
> art. (Have I got it right yet?) You may understand that such a definition is
> less than appealing to a scientist, who needs a finer sort of discrimination
> between science and non-science. However, I will bow to the general usage
> and accept that anything that claims to be "art" is art.
You're being silly. You know very well that art is not like science in this
respect. Why pick science as a paradigm? I will pick out of my hat
an alternative arbitrary paradigm. A guy goes on national TV and
announces that he is going to make a presidential campaign speech.
You probably wouldn't say "Well, that remains to be seen. Let's see
what he has to say and THEN we will evaluate it by the inviolable
criteria Campaign-Speechness." His announcement would cause you to
interpret everything that follows AS A CAMPAIGN SPEECH, bringing into
play all your relevant knowledge. If the guy now begins to make
absurd sounds, you'd say "Given that he is making a campaign speech,
what in the world is going on? Is he insane? Is he mocking the
system? Is he making a commentary about the political process?"
I see the categorization "art" much more like "campaign speech" than
like "science". You want a definition of art such that the "artness"
of an object can unmistakably be determined by examining the object
itself. Why? For what purpose do you need this?
> Unfortunately, many practical problems remain. I still have no satisfactory
> definition for what I am interested in, which I used to call, in my
> benighted way, "art", and which I would like to support vigorously. (Pretty
> much to the exclusion of the sort of "art" that unhesitatingly includes cow
> painting, entirely because the cow painter has been to art school or knows
> a few eccentric rich people who wear berets and drink too much coffee...)
Only YOU can supply a definition of what YOU are interested in. And
what do you mean by "definition"? I would like to take it to mean
that you simply have a desire to try to articulate what you are
interested in, but I have a strong feeling that this is NOT what you mean.
> Does anyone have a proposal for a name for artifacts which move the soul
> in the absence of abstruse theory or Pavlovian reinforcement from art school
> teachers?
We live in an age of acronyms, so how about AWMTSITAOATOPRFAST?
> Do you then, deny the possibility of the "sublime" in a mundane era? Nice
> word, I think I'll use it. I am interested in "sublime artifacts".
On the subject of the sublime, permit me to quote Breton:
Don't shout that from the roof tops
It's not fitting to leave the doors open
Or go around calling for witnesses.
The act of love and the act of poetry
Are incompatible
With reading newspapers at the top of one's voice.
The sublime is present in all human beings. It may manifest itself at
any time and often does so in silent and subtle ways. In a mundane era,
finding it requires great attentiveness.
Andy Pearlman
>Does anyone have a proposal for a name for artifacts which move the soul
>in the absence of abstruse theory or Pavlovian reinforcement from art school
>teachers?
Good art?
Once you hang up a painting on the wall of a museum, context says it is art.
This doesn't make it good, just makes it art.
Andy Pearlman
Michael Gerard Maranda
>I don't read the Burger paragraph quite the way you do. Burger says
>that cognition of art is never immediate, but always mediated by
>knowledge of tradition. You draw from this a conclusion which, in
>my opinion, is more radical than the text warrants: that the content
>of the work is therefore "sealed off from any meaningful exchange".
>All Burger seems to say is that the exchange is never immediate,
>but always heavily "framed". I don't think this implies that once you
>understand the frame there is nothing more to understand.
You are right, I did take a much more radical reading of the paragraph in
question, but perhaps this is because I read the reat of the book. Said
quotation comes from somewhere around the second page.
He does say that this is the way that all modern art has to be read, it is
the frame and the frame only. The development of autonomous art is
synonymous with the shift of meaning in the work of art from content to
frame. Art starts to speak only about itself, and is removed from any social
relevancy. SOme would say this is good (e.g. Greenberg, Adorno, even
somewhat Habermas) and some would say that this is bad (e.g. Berger,
Derrida, me).
There is a practice that develops in the early 20th century that deals with
this hermetically sealed scope of what art can speak on, specifically the
avante-guarde. Not ot be confused with mainstream modernism, as mainstream
modernism (e.g. Picasso, Rothko, Barney (newman, not newt)).
Where Berger trips is when he claims that this practice of working against
the frame has failed completely -- and he says this because he believes in a
totality of art, which is the same argument that talks about the collapse of
the USSR as an example of the worldwide failure of marxist critiques ... but
lets leave immediate politics out of this for now.
So, in the context of modernist work, I interpreted the paragraph adequately
(for such a short analysis). In the context of avant-guarde work, then I
misrepresented his argument.
However (and this is a different point) I don't think that there is any
future in talking what has been published on paper as the sum truth and thus
considering any stretching of a quotation to a more (or less) radical reading
as being inapplicable. I used the quotation only because he wrote what I
weanted to say in amuch more succinct and lucid manner than I could have on
the fly.
I'm probably not being too clear here, but then again, this has always been
my own favorite approach.
MMaranda
p.s. if you disapprove of my stretching berger a little, you should hear
what I do to Gadamer some time.
Malgosia Askanas
Michael Maranda writes:
> He does say that this is the way that all modern art has to be read, it is
> the frame and the frame only. The development of autonomous art is
> synonymous with the shift of meaning in the work of art from content to
> frame. Art starts to speak only about itself, and is removed from any social
> relevancy. SOme would say this is good (e.g. Greenberg, Adorno, even
> somewhat Habermas) and some would say that this is bad (e.g. Berger,
> Derrida, me).
Wait. What exactly do you mean when you say "it is the frame and
the frame only"? Is this equivalent to "art starts to speak only
about itself" or different?
You said before: "you've already gotten anything from a Rothko piece
that you can by understanding that it is there as _art_". Now if
one takes that literally, then it would be hard to understand how
one Rothko piece, as a piece of art, differs from another, and how
any of them differ from any piece by Rauschenberg (assuming you'd
say the same about Rauschenberg).
The statement "art speaks only of itself" seems to me less extreme,
since it permits different pieces to "say" different things (which
I believe is very much the case). Perhaps the "frame only" view
also permits differentiation, but I will let YOU wiggle out of this
one.
to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu
|> > That is, art is that which claims to be
|> > art. (Have I got it right yet?) You may understand that such a definition is
|> > less than appealing to a scientist, who needs a finer sort of discrimination
|> > between science and non-science. However, I will bow to the general usage
|> > and accept that anything that claims to be "art" is art.
|>
|> You're being silly. You know very well that art is not like science in this
|> respect. Why pick science as a paradigm?
Science is not a very good paradigm for art, of course. There is a similarity
in this context, though. Defining what is and what isn't a member of the
class has consequences for further progress within that discipline, precisely
because, as you keep emphasizing, art, like science, is to a large extent a
conversation among its participants. Accepting as science anything that
claims to be science would destroy science in astonishingly short order. It
seems to me that art is more robust to this sort of degradation, but that
taking anything that claims to be art as art nevertheless has actually done
enormous damage.
|> I see the categorization "art" much more like "campaign speech" than
|> like "science".
Whether an oration is taken as a "campaign speech" is not of practical
importance, since we don't spend much effort deciding whether fringe
candidates are serious. The analogy would be stronger if there were some
need to distinguish which candidates were serious enough to appear on a
ballot.
|>You want a definition of art such that the "artness"
|> of an object can unmistakably be determined by examining the object
|> itself. Why? For what purpose do you need this?
So that I may encourage public policy and institutional decision-making to
consistently support sublime artifacts to the exclusion of cow painting and
its ilk, and thereby have more access to beauty and less to absurdity, of
which modern life has a surfeit without the assistance of professional
nonsense-mongers, thanks.
|> Only YOU can supply a definition of what YOU are interested in. And
|> what do you mean by "definition"? I would like to take it to mean
|> that you simply have a desire to try to articulate what you are
|> interested in, but I have a strong feeling that this is NOT what you mean.
You are quite right. Unfortunately what I do mean is predicated on an
unfashionable belief: that there is a meaning to "beauty" independent of
cultural context (even though individual artifacts of course cannot be
created in a cultural void). I am after a definition of what WE are
interested in as homo sapiens. I think you will respond that such a
program is both impossible and undesireable. If so, this may be the root
of our disagreement. (On the other hand, you did at one point say that there
was something "universal" about art, though you never clarified what you
meant by that.)
|> The sublime is present in all human beings. It may manifest itself at
|> any time and often does so in silent and subtle ways. In a mundane era,
|> finding it requires great attentiveness.
A lovely statement, which I unfortunately need to qualify thus: some things
are sublime in themselves, while others call on their audience to project
sublimeness onto them. The placing of a frame around a mundane object
invites the viewer to think of the object as sublime, because of the artistic
context. This in no way makes the object particularly sublime, though as
MGM points out, it does say a great deal about the power of a frame.
It is spectacularly easy to put frames around mundane objects and call
oneself an artist, even easier than to measure a few things, add a few
footnotes, and call oneself a scientist. Many of you seem to argue that the
mere act of assertion is sufficient, in the case of the self-procalimed
artist at least. My point is that such a definition of "art" is an
unfortunate appropriation of a word that once had a much more interesting
meaning than that, albeit one not easily defined.
Like distinguishing science from empty words with a formal resemblance to
science, distinguishing art from (say, in the case of painting) random
brushstrokes on a framed canvas is neither a trivial nor an easily defined
task. However, shying away from this sort of distinction in a gesture of
inclusiveness is, in my view, to abandon the enterprise completely.
It is not surprising that, having reduced the definition of art to something
so trivial as whether (in some metaphorical sense) it has a frame, we end up
with museums which contain, and monuments which are, trivial objects. To
turn around and celebrate this unwillingness to try to distinguish between
meaning and nonsense as a liberation from mean classical constraints is
adding insult to injury.
Please don't take this as a plea to bring back classical constraints. That
is a severe misreading of my purpose, which is simply to cut the crap and
get back to supporting what I used to call "art" and now call "sublime
artifacts" or AWMTSITAOATOPRFAST. Your intellectual position may require you
to claim that such a thing is not merely difficult but impossible. You must
then be prepared for the consequence that public support for art will be
withdrawn in consequence, and nothing that doesn't go with this year's
upholstery colors will be produced. I think this would be an unfortunate
outcome, but if the discussion as it has appeared here is representative, it
is a likely outcome nonetheless.
mt
Michael Gerard Maranda
>Wait. What exactly do you mean when you say "it is the frame and
>the frame only"? Is this equivalent to "art starts to speak only
>about itself" or different?
The same and ultimately different. I guess all I have allowed *modernist*
work is that ability to converse about the frame, maybe even it can start
talking to itself about where the frame starts and where it stops.
Back to Kant, the frame is necessary because of the lacunae, the central
lack in the work-of-art. Thus all that ultimately can be stated is the
frame. Perhaps in his time this wasn't completely true, merely him wishing
it were soon. However I remember reading somewhere once, adn I think it was
DH Lawrence talking about sex, the dreams of the grandparents are lived by
the grandchildren. In this case it couldn't be truer, although maybe an
extra generation was thrown in for good measure. I also remember hearing
somewhere the sdmonishing phrase, "Be careful what you ask for for you shall
surely get it ..." and come to think of it I think that was in The Big Chill
and was also referring to sex. The deep psychoanalytical implications of
this are beyond me but I dare anyone to tease something out of that ... but
this is a mere diversion. Back to the frame.
The difference between the two phrases is a matter of viewpoint. Mine is
looking at art as a social occurence, what it implies, what it can and more
importantly can *not* speak on. To say art is only the frame is to say,
these are its limits. Here and here. No more.
To say art begins to speak only about itself is to comment on what it is
that art can and will say, to speak from within the framework itself. I am
not attempting to objectify my own viewpoint here, hardly. I am aware that
there is a certain position that I am speaking from, one that is heavily
influenced by cultural studies. I would think that someone who says that art
begins to speak about itself would be of a more art historical bent. This is
only a supposition. Correct me if I am wrong.
>You said before: "you've already gotten anything from a Rothko piece
>that you can by understanding that it is there as _art_". Now if
>one takes that literally, then it would be hard to understand how
>one Rothko piece, as a piece of art, differs from another, and how
>any of them differ from any piece by Rauschenberg (assuming you'd
>say the same about Rauschenberg).
>The statement "art speaks only of itself" seems to me less extreme,
>since it permits different pieces to "say" different things (which
>I believe is very much the case). Perhaps the "frame only" view
>also permits differentiation, but I will let YOU wiggle out of this
>one.
*wiggle* *wiggle*.
WEll, it seems to fit me so well. I wouldn't ever pretend to want to allow
that sort of differentiation -- the model of difference that masquerades as
like. Sure a Rothko and a Rauschenberg differ in what they say, but they say
it in the same way. Or, alternately, they say the exact same thing differing
in the way they say it. These two options coexist, depending upon where one
stands. I tend to stand off to the side a little, and see that the only
depth in a painting is in the frame, and this Greenberg would agree with me
whole heartedly. Unfortunately we wouldn't be agreeing on the same point.
And what's wrong with extremism, anyways. SOmetimes it is the only way to
get somewhere.
contradictorily yours,
MMaranda
Malgosia Askanas
Michael Maranda wrote:
> The difference between the two phrases is a matter of viewpoint. Mine is
> looking at art as a social occurence, what it implies, what it can and more
> importantly can *not* speak on. To say art is only the frame is to say,
> these are its limits. Here and here. No more.
Are you investigating only "museum art", or also, say, murals? Graffiti?
Environmental art? Now we are getting out of the realm of painting,
so the next question is: are you restricting yourself to painting?
From your description, this sounds like an art-theoretical analogue of
Wittgenstein's project to confront the limits of language. Naturally,
extremism and contradiction would be indispensible tools in such an
endeavor.
Michael Gerard Maranda
means...) writes;
>Are you investigating only "museum art", or also, say, murals? Graffiti?
>Environmental art? Now we are getting out of the realm of painting,
>so the next question is: are you restricting yourself to painting?
I guess I would have to admit that I am talking about museum art. Once
again, though, clarification, is mural art not museum art. Is environmental
art not museum art. et cetera.
I would contest that just because an art work happens to be found outside of
a *museum* per se does not assure that it is not "museum art". In fact, in
keeping with my definition of art, all Art is *museum art* (italicising the
*is* in my mind). The museum arises simultaneously with the formation of
what we would refer to as art (c.f. early 1800's). So, no, painting is not
my focus. I really prefer to not think about painting all that much for two
reasons.
1) The practice of painting allows one the luxury to relegate it to the
museum and then to think of something like land-art as not defined within a
museological context. All art carries with it the stigma of (in my mind,
although in the interests of not sounding too dogmatic maybe I should just
say signification of) the museum.
2) Same reason, different focus. To look at painting alone is to set up a
straw dummy that is too easy to critique.
This isn't to condemn all "artistic" practice to the confines of the
conservators of museums ... just, if osmething, some practice, manages to
escape the museum (there are some practices that I think do do that,
graphitti unfortunately not always one) then it becomes something els,
something that isn't Art. What that is, I am not willing to define as by
defining it risks recouping it for the museum (the museum, you see, is just
short hand for "the art institution")
>From your description, this sounds like an art-theoretical analogue of
>Wittgenstein's project to confront the limits of language. Naturally,
>extremism and contradiction would be indispensible tools in such an
>endeavor.
Yes, i gues it is looking at the limits of art, and yes I have always been
partial to contradiction and extremism. This doesn't mean that I prefer a
german model, though, as I have to admit (and this is probably obvious) a
much more french influence than teutonic) I wonder often about the limits that
this puts on my own understanding, and I also wonder about the limits of not
thinking in extremes . . .
Perhaps you can point some of these out for me (a sincere request, if I have
ever been sincere.)
Michael
Lee Ballentine
>In article <1993Oct3.0...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, mm0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Michael Gerard Maranda) writes:
>|> So, to the question about whether one has to stand in front of a Rothko
>|> for hours or just read about it for hours to get anything in it, I reply,
>|> you've already gotten anything from it that you can by understanding that it
>|> is there as _art_!!!
The difficulty, I think, with this idea is that it makes the "art"
experience nonspecific--i.e., one goes to a museum not to have a Moholy-Nagy
experience but to have "the" art experience. It seems to me that whatever
I experience in looking at art, I experience it uniquely while looking
at a particular piece or pieces.
>A fine thing. I now have every possible answer to this question except that
>it is necessary to do *both*, (any takers?) and that in only three responses!
In a way--both are necessary. First, one must see art. Whether this
takes hours or seconds, or for some of us, years of owning a piece and
seeing it every day is different for each individual, but the effect
is the same. The art experience always has this component of the
experiencer giving attention to a particular piece or pieces.
Second, since every human being exists in a social context, the
experiencer of art, like it or not, is one of a group of experiencers.
There are many ways in which we can know ourselves to be members
of this group--including reading about art, talking about it,
obtaining college degrees in art, criticizing it, even rejecting it.
However, the fact that we have a concept of "art" at all is proof
that we belong to a group.
>In any case, this seems to correspond well to Malgosia's, Andy's, etc.
>understanding of the definition of "art", and it appears to correspond to
>what the academies like to teach. That is, art is that which claims to be
>art. (Have I got it right yet?) You may understand that such a definition is
>less than appealing to a scientist, who needs a finer sort of discrimination
>between science and non-science. However, I will bow to the general usage
>and accept that anything that claims to be "art" is art.
However, this leaves out the social context within which art, and all
other human activities, take place. A better definition would require
a constituency for art. I.e., art, whatever claims its creators make
for it, becomes art when it is experienced as art. The audience need not
be large, but there must be some audience--otherwise the creator is only
working-out a private conundrum, which is self-analysis--not art.
>Unfortunately, many practical problems remain. I still have no satisfactory
>definition for what I am interested in, which I used to call, in my
>benighted way, "art", and which I would like to support vigorously. (Pretty
>much to the exclusion of the sort of "art" that unhesitatingly includes cow
>painting, entirely because the cow painter has been to art school or knows
>a few eccentric rich people who wear berets and drink too much coffee...)
>Does anyone have a proposal for a name for artifacts which move the soul
>in the absence of abstruse theory or Pavlovian reinforcement from art school
>teachers?
Good art! Or perhaps, successful art.
.
.
.
>|> practicing artist astudying art historian. If indeed I do hate art, it is an
>|> informed disclaimer.)
Note that hating art places this speaker in a perfectly acceptable art
context... hating it is just as good as loving it for purposes of
experiencing it--perhaps better in fact for someone making a living
in the field of art--there's never any shortage of art worth hating!
>This discussion seems pretty thick with Montrealers of one sort or another,
Never been there myself. Is it an exceptional art town?
Lee Ballentine
pro...@csn.org
Malgosia Askanas
Michael M says:
> I guess I would have to admit that I am talking about museum art. Once
> again, though, clarification, is mural art not museum art. Is environmental
> art not museum art. et cetera.
I want to say, first of all, that I agree very much with Lee Ballentine's
post. I think that if you postulate a framework which does not allow for the
specificity of art experience, you will not be able to talk adequately
about art. The frame is immensely important and it structures the
experience in a major way, but I do not believe that you can reduce
the experience to the frame.
Take it even on the most primitive level. If you agree that different
colors evoke (in an individual) different emotional responses (and
everything I say should be understood to be culture-specific), then
looking at a canvas covered with Klein blue will be different then
looking at something all black. The emotional effect will also be
different depending on the size of the painting, the texture of the
paint, etc. If you insist that all monochromatic paintings represent
the same gesture, this reduction may be temporarily useful, but it
will not suffice in the long run. And it would be, in my opinion, definitely
incorrect to use this reduction as a basis for conclusions about
what art _cannot_ say.
The second issue I see has to do with the properties of the frame
itself. The frame constantly expands to swallow up new things.
But it does lag behind. Each "first" thing of its kind manages to
temporarily escape the frame, or at least function for a while outside
the frame's full impact. This phenomenon must be addressed in depth
if one wants to deal with the social context of art.
Obviously things that try to live in the frame's loopholes do so
with full congnizance of the frame, and, you might say, in
collaboration with it -- but they do, at least for a while, have
a different relationship to the frame than the objects that live well
within it.
There are also very different frames, I believe. The frames which
define painting, theater, film, opera, art video, street art, etc.,
are all different, even though they intersect and perhaps cohabit
a larger common frame. This, too, needs to be understood.
> I would contest that just because an art work happens to be found outside of
> a *museum* per se does not assure that it is not "museum art". In fact, in
> keeping with my definition of art, all Art is *museum art* (italicising the
> *is* in my mind). The museum arises simultaneously with the formation of
> what we would refer to as art (c.f. early 1800's). So, no, painting is not
> my focus. I really prefer to not think about painting all that much for two
> reasons.
I agree that a work does not become non-"museum art" just by virtue of
being outside of a museum. I think what you are saying is
that recognizing something as "art" is equivalent to including it
in the frame, and thus recognizing it as "museum art". This is
undoubtedly true, to a large extent. On the other hand, the real
impact of art may well live in the tiny area left over after you take away
this "large extent". If you disregard this area, you may be
disregarding the most important aspect of art. The impact perhaps
lives in the brief moment between encountering the work and classifying
it as "art".
> This isn't to condemn all "artistic" practice to the confines of the
> conservators of museums ... just, if osmething, some practice, manages to
> escape the museum (there are some practices that I think do do that,
> graphitti unfortunately not always one) then it becomes something els,
> something that isn't Art. What that is, I am not willing to define as by
> defining it risks recouping it for the museum (the museum, you see, is just
> short hand for "the art institution")
You are obviously addressing what I was just trying to raise as
an issue. The impression I get from the above paragraph is that
you _define_ "art" as the collection of things to which your reduction
applies. From this, I am tempted to conclude that your project is
to investigate not art in some more general sense -- as, for instance,
something capable of suddenly expressing the sublime -- but
"institutionalized art" only. You want to prove that things that are
well within the frame are, in essence, incapable of expressing anything but
their position within the frame. Compared to that, you perhaps want
to argue, the expressive potential of specificity, which I started out
with, is so slight as to be disregardable.
I wouldn't call Wittgenstein "teutonic", by the way. But he sure
wasn't a spiritual Frenchman either.
malgosia
Malgosia Askanas
d'Artfice", some Fischinger studies, Renoir's "Rules of the Game" and
Vertov's "The Man with the Movie Camera", I am ready to make the
following extravagant claim. In the realm of film, there is
no frame. None. Film is totally, unlimitedly expressive.
Michael Gerard Maranda
> . . . I am ready to make the
>following extravagant claim. In the realm of film, there is
>no frame. None. Film is totally, unlimitedly expressive.
Oh, come now. Don't think that I don't recognize blatant provocation ...
But, I guess by virtue of speaking in the first place I must respond.
Is not the "Suspension of Disbelief" neccessary for participating in viewing
a film frame enough for you ...
You'll have to try harder than this,
Michael
Michael Gerard Maranda
>The difficulty, I think, with this idea is that it makes the "art"
>experience nonspecific--i.e., one goes to a museum not to have a Moholy-Nagy
>experience but to have "the" art experience. It seems to me that whatever
>I experience in looking at art, I experience it uniquely while looking
>at a particular piece or pieces.
Ah, yes, I guess I was not clear enough on a certain point. Never, ever,
EVER, would I want to suggest that there is nothing to be gained from
looking at a particular art piece. This was never my intention. However -
and this is a BIG however - if one does (as one must) gain a specific
experience from a specific art work it is in spite of it being" art".
I would suggest that the vast majority of museum goers, especially those
that attend exclusively *BLOCKBUSTER* spectacles, do go with the express
intent of having "the" art experience, and because this is impossible, are
eventually disappointed with the lack of revelation that they are told "the"
art experience entails, or on second thought (recognize here a rhetorical
device of *pretending* to change my mind as I write this) may actually have it.
The relevation they have, though, is the revelation of the frame. The frame
experience that I started all this out on. Which is nonspecific vis-a-vis an
individual art work, but specific vis-a-vis the frame.
>However, this leaves out the social context within which art, and all
>other human activities, take place.
Exactly, and so does the frame, as it is a decontextualising movement in a
contextualised experience. Art, as a social experience, is and is not any
different form any other activity. Is not precisely because of this movement
away from context that the frame implies. Go back to Kant, what is Art (and
he was there at its invention) but lack, absence, loss. That is why the
frame has to exist in the first place, to haold all this negative space
intact .. otherwise it becomes diffused or filled in by context. To use the
words of Freid, it becomes the theatrical ... which can not by defintion of
art. (Another relevation for my own thought, here I am agreeing with Michael
Fried . . . but then again, he would not agree with me ...)
>Note that hating art places this speaker in a perfectly acceptable art
>context... hating it is just as good as loving it for purposes of
>experiencing it--perhaps better in fact for someone making a living
>in the field of art--there's never any shortage of art worth hating!
Once again, what I hate is not specific art works, but "the" art experience.
(I must thank you for allowing me to clarify this to myself . . . maybe I can
go back in the studio when I log off . . .)
Michael Maranda
mm0...@uhura.cc.cochester.edu
>Never been there myself. Is it [Montreal] an exceptional art town?
Well, seeing there is *no* economy to speak of, adn it is *cosmopolitan*, art
seems to be the only thing to do. That and drink coffee, although some of us
have taken coffee itself to a level of an art form ... an art form that is
sorely in need of development here in Rochester.
Michael Gerard Maranda
Malgosia A., et al.
>I want to say, first of all, that I agree very much with Lee Ballentine's
>post. I think that if you postulate a framework which does not allow for the
^^^^^^^^^ (thank you, that's beautiful)
>specificity of art experience, you will not be able to talk adequately
>about art. The frame is immensely important and it structures the
>experience in a major way, but I do not believe that you can reduce
>the experience to the frame.
I think (hope?) I am doing that, but not reducing "experience" to the
frame, or not to that particular frame.
>Take it even on the most primitive level. If you agree that different
>colors evoke (in an individual) different emotional responses (and
>everything I say should be understood to be culture-specific), then
>looking at a canvas covered with Klein blue will be different then
>looking at something all black. ....
Referring to my reply to the Ballentine post ... certainly true in this
case, and it also is going to be different if you experience the blue when
you have just started a relationship with someone, or if you have just
broken off a long term one ... to specify experience implies that one must
take the full implications.
However Klein Blue (TM) on the side of a house is
going to evoke a different reaction than a Klein painting, because one is
"the" specific art experience which despecifies the actual event of looking
at the blue, and one isn't., and remains a specific experience of looking at
a blue house (which suggests that it is also the non-specific experience of
looking at a house)
>The second issue I see has to do with the properties of the frame
>itself. The frame constantly expands to swallow up new things.
>But it does lag behind.
Yes, indeed, and I hinted at an "artistic" practice that lives in this space
that the frame, being a bureaucratic construction being necessarily slow,
allows. This practice, by its very nature, is one that recognizes where the
frame is, and fights it every step of the way, and what gets framed is the
detritus that it leaves behind .. the objects that it ejects along the way.
If sustained, it will continue on just in front of the leading edge, leaving
traces for the conservator to find and polish, as a sort of offering to the
beast, and a red herring. When the institution begins to realise that it is
being mislead, it gets very angry and lashes back, and it gets messy. So one
has to be very quick, and very sly. Taking the side of the city rat in
Fontaine's parable about the city rat and the country rat here. But the
shortcomings is that the country rat gets scared away, and there goes the
audience . . .
So, there ideally should be an alternative practice, one that doesn't elude
the frame but attempts to take it head on. Derrida, in _Truth in Painting_,
(don't kid yourself, you knew I was going to bring him up soon - but I don't
think he has all the answers, he only opens a path to work through)
refers to the ultimate crime against an art collector . . . steal the nails
from their frames. This is where I hope to situate my own (theoretical)
practice. Iconoclasm in the extreme . . .
>There are also very different frames, I believe. The frames which
>define painting, theater, film, opera, art video, street art, etc.,
>are all different, even though they intersect and perhaps cohabit
>a larger common frame. This, too, needs to be understood.
I am afraid I would have to disagree, as the myth of genre is only a tactic
by the daddy frame to diffuse attack ... a quite successful tactic, one that
has led many a PoMo critique astray . . .
> ... On the other hand, the real
>impact of art may well live in the tiny area left over after you take away
>this "large extent". If you disregard this area, you may be
>disregarding the most important aspect of art. The impact perhaps
>lives in the brief moment between encountering the work and classifying
>it as "art".
Exactly!
> . . . From this, I am tempted to conclude that your project is
>to investigate not art in some more general sense -- as, for instance,
>something capable of suddenly expressing the sublime -- but
>"institutionalized art" only.
> . . . Compared to that, you perhaps want
>to argue, the expressive potential of specificity, which I started out
>with, is so slight as to be disregardable.
I hope I recouped the extremism that you quite rightly point out in this
paragraph in some of the above.
as always;
Michael M
ps Wittgenstein had his teutonic moments, though, would you not agree?
I hope that I have not diffused my replies too much over the three re:posts.
Perhaps there should be a consolidation in the next round?
Malgosia Askanas
Michael, resisting my provocation, says:
> Is not the "Suspension of Disbelief" neccessary for participating in viewing
> a film frame enough for you ...
> You'll have to try harder than this,
I am not being as wantonly provocative as you think, and I WILL try
harder (provided that this topic interests you). I am sure that film
is not totally frameless, but your reply is not good enough either.
The reason I listed the particular films I did is because they span
the range from totally "abstract" (Fischinger) through Soviet
"constructivist" (Vertov) to "narrative" (Renoir). In addition,
yesterday I saw Wiseman's "Basic Training" -- a "straight documentary",
which I will add to the list. My initial claim is that when I view
these films, there is no profound gap between the experience of
viewing an abstract film and a non-abstract film. In other words, I
don't really believe that the notion of "suspension of disbelief"
(SOD) is either useful or central. Is this notion, in your opinion, more
illuminating in the case of film than in the case of, say, Rembrandnt's
"Anatomy Lesson"?
The Vertov film is an excellent case in point, because it shows the
full spectrum of cinematic potential. There are places where we see
a series of still frames, then the same set becomes part of the film
itself and we see the moving, living image. Then the same image may
get manipulated into a more abstract cinematic concoction, or into
a sequence suggesting causality. There is
no doubt that something happens when the image begins to move,
and something happens when we are confronted with the signals of
a causal narrative, but "SOD" does not usefully
describe that something. Most importantly, my point is that one
does not sit down in a movie theater in a special SOD frame of mind,
thus incarcerating the film's expressive potential. I claim that
the frame of mind is, for all useful purposes, one in which one simply
expects to see moving images projected on a screen, come what may.
Anything could happen. It could be a home movie, a porno flick,
"Lawrence of Arabia", a hand-painted Brakhage film. The event might
be taking place in a plush theater or on a home screen: as long as
there is a projector and a screen, one is in business. From then on,
one is thrown to one's own devices.
(If you find this topic interesting, we should probably find some
set of films we have both seen, so we can be discussing the same
things.)
Malgosia Askanas
Michael says, to me et al.:
> However - and this is a BIG however - if one does (as one must) gain a
> specific experience from a specific art work it is in spite of it being" art".
Yes.
> Klein Blue (TM) on the side of a house is
> going to evoke a different reaction than a Klein painting, because one is
> "the" specific art experience which despecifies the actual event of looking
> at the blue, and one isn't., and remains a specific experience of looking at
> a blue house (which suggests that it is also the non-specific experience of
> looking at a house)
Yes.
> I hinted at an "artistic" practice that lives in this space
> that the frame, being a bureaucratic construction being necessarily slow,
> allows. This practice, by its very nature, is one that recognizes where the
> frame is, and fights it every step of the way, and what gets framed is the
> detritus that it leaves behind .. the objects that it ejects along the way.
Yes.
> the myth of genre is only a tactic
> by the daddy frame to diffuse attack ...
Yes; if the context is "genre", I have to agree.
NOW WHAT? We have been afflicted by agreement. A disaster!
> ps Wittgenstein had his teutonic moments, though, would you not agree?
Hmmm. I don't know. He has his own heaviness, but is it of the
Teutonic sort?
malgosia
Michael Gerard Maranda
Definitely a crisis for the dialogue (or am I just inferring a male-model of
dialogue?)
Before considering htat, I am looking carefully at what has been agreed upon
. . . and perhaps this comes into a realm similar to where I sometimes find
myself agreeing with people who want to control funding of the arts more,
such as Tobias recently hinted at. My contradiction is that often I will get
a conservative agreeing with my assertion that funding is in a complete
state of disrepair and that it should be cut back. The difference being that
the conservative wants to re-arrange funding to de-politicize art, and
I would like to see funding disappear to re-politicize art (not that it is
never not political). Which then reveals a simulacrum of agreement that *in
truth* is complete disagreement. He wants to suppress what he calls nonsense
and I want to invigorate it. What is wrong with the cow project, anyway.
This isn't exactly what I would call a sound practice, but I ultimately
would rather that get funding than something that pretends to have no
cultural specificity (to exemplify this, think of the film Fitzcarraldo.
Opera in the Rain Forest????)
I don't think that this is the same impasse of agreement that has been
reached concerning the frame, but maybe it is along the same lines. (i.e.
have I let my extremism lapse?)
Perhps this will help . . .
>> I hinted at an "artistic" practice that lives in this space
>> that the frame, being a bureaucratic construction being necessarily slow,
>> allows. This practice, by its very nature, is one that recognizes where the
>> frame is, and fights it every step of the way, and what gets framed is the
>> detritus that it leaves behind .. the objects that it ejects along the way.
>Yes.
I would be curious as to where you see this space residing, and what sort of
practices occupy it.
AND (and here perhaps will the thread continue?)
>> the myth of genre is only a tactic
>> by the daddy frame to diffuse attack ...
>Yes; if the context is "genre", I have to agree.
There is no difference between the mediums. Art practice is a practice, adn
the means used are secondary. A video, a painting, an installation, a
performance. Each and every instance of a self-defining art practice is not
just primarily Art and secondarily video, painting .... RATHER the secondary
descriptives are a tactic of the frame to delimit the practice to a formal
one. The connoisseurs are the shock troops of the frame. The frame is a
function of the state. The state exists to control the populace, art exists
to make it more palatable, and here I am regressing to brute provocation but
nonetheless will stand by all assertions I make.
Michael
the obligatory Wittgenstein post script ...
Malgosia says;
>Hmmm. I don't know. He [Wittgenstein] has his own heaviness, but is it
>of the Teutonic sort?
I reply;
I guess I think that Teutonic heaviness is a function of the language. Never
could I figure out what to do with the seventy pages of verbs at the end of
the book that the translator didn't knwo what proposition they referred to .
. . thus, he too falls into the trap. No offence intended for any germans,
lurkers or otherwise ...
Michael Gerard Maranda
>set of films we have both seen, so we can be discussing the same
>things.)
Yes, interested as always. My knowledge of film is rather limited, despite
staving off writing a paper on french film theory of the fifties as I write
this post . . . and also despite spending many hours in rep theatres soaking
up SOD like it was a drug . . .
My viewing history is fairly well limited to dramatic films, and so most of
the films you refer to are not familiar to me.
I could start in an attempt to get a linked viewing list by mentioning films
that I have seen (often) or want to see.
Anything done by Greenaway (in some ways, this makes up for not reading the
proper film history texts . . . ) or by Cassavetes. Some Antonioni, and a
big desire to see more. Fellini. ummm can't think of any right now, other
than maybe "Fitzcarraldo".
SUpplant this list, and we'll see where it goes.
In some ways, I think the frame applies to film more strongly than any other
constructed history, because of its relative newbie status and the
incredibly sincere attempts by film criticism to turn it into not only a
canon, but THE canon. But here I might only be being provocative as a reflex
act . . .
Michael
Malgosia Askanas
MM:
> I hinted at an "artistic" practice that lives in this space
> that the frame, being a bureaucratic construction being necessarily slow,
> allows. This practice, by its very nature, is one that recognizes where the
> frame is, and fights it every step of the way, and what gets framed is the
> detritus that it leaves behind .. the objects that it ejects along the way.
MA:
>Yes.
MM:
>I would be curious as to where you see this space residing, and what sort of
>practices occupy it.
Where I see this space residing is difficult. Let me try to give
examples of practices that I think occupy it, and you will see whether
there is or isn't real agreement between us. Now, I am not making
any aesthetic judgement about these practices, I simply see them as
being variously successful in escaping the frame.
- The activities of Boggs, the guy who produces hand-made paper money
and exchanges it for goods.
- Circus acts and their street-performance derivatives.
- "Artistic" endeavors whose essence is that they constitute heroic,
absurd or appalling feats of endurance, toughness, etc. Examples
are the year-long performances of Teching Shieh, Chris Burden's
"Shot".
- Projects in which the audience is made to interact with its environment
in ways which are meaningful outside of the context of the given
"artwork". For example, take a very long and strenuous walk or
clean up a section of a park.
- The totality of Beuys' work. What has been captured by the frame is
so obviously and glaringly detritus that nobody can feel truly
at peace with it.
- All successful parks and botanical gardens.
- This is a highly experimental item: Art whose visceral impact is
so powerful that it dwarfs the frame. I would pick Francis Bacon
as an example. A highly experimental item, this.
> There is no difference between the mediums. Art practice is a practice, adn
> the means used are secondary. A video, a painting, an installation, a
> performance. Each and every instance of a self-defining art practice is not
> just primarily Art and secondarily video, painting .... RATHER the secondary
> descriptives are a tactic of the frame to delimit the practice to a formal
> one. The connoisseurs are the shock troops of the frame. The frame is a
> function of the state. The state exists to control the populace, art exists
> to make it more palatable, and here I am regressing to brute provocation but
> nonetheless will stand by all assertions I make.
OK. The problem with this is that it IS a brute provocation. Projects
which involve the denial of differences have to be handled with great
care. Things can always be intellectually levelled; we are all very good
at that. But one should not deprive oneself of the tools necessary
for doing justice to things.
So on a gross level I can agree with the above. The question is,
where will you go with this, where will you take it? Will you take it
towards greater insight or towards the blocking of insight?
PS. This post refuses to have the obligatory Wittgenstein post script.
Malgosia Askanas
> I could start in an attempt to get a linked viewing list by mentioning films
> that I have seen (often) or want to see.
> Anything done by Greenaway (in some ways, this makes up for not reading the
> proper film history texts . . . ) or by Cassavetes. Some Antonioni, and a
> big desire to see more. Fellini. ummm can't think of any right now, other
> than maybe "Fitzcarraldo".
> In some ways, I think the frame applies to film more strongly than any other
> constructed history, because of its relative newbie status and the
> incredibly sincere attempts by film criticism to turn it into not only a
> canon, but THE canon. But here I might only be being provocative as a reflex
> act . . .
No, I don't think so. What is fascinating is that your list creates
in me a very strong impression of a frame, whereas my own earlier list
seems to imply a lack of frame. It might be that those people --
Antonioni, Fellini, Greenaway (although perhaps not Herzog) (I don't
know Cassavetes at all) -- have, for historical and other reasons,
provided fodder for the canon-building attempt (hah hahaha),
whereas all kinds of other films have remained completely outside
of this effort. Could it be that film is so rich that it cannot
be canonized (that's what I want to believe)? Or is it simply so
new and has developed so fast in so many directions that canonization
has lagged far behind, in spite of the frantic critical activity?
to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu
|> to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu) writes:
|> >This discussion seems pretty thick with Montrealers of one sort or another,
|>
|> Never been there myself. Is it an exceptional art town?
Probably above average but not exceptional as a place for fine art in
general. Where it does shine far above almost any other North American city
is in having a cohesive and elegant architecture. Also the lack of a clear
dominant culture leads people to think about the relationship between
culture and experience. Middle American culture to middle Americans is
so pervasive as to be almost invisible, much as water is to a fish...
mt
Michael Gerard Maranda
>whereas all kinds of other films have remained completely outside
>of this effort. Could it be that film is so rich that it cannot
>be canonized (that's what I want to believe)? Or is it simply so
>new and has developed so fast in so many directions that canonization
>has lagged far behind, in spite of the frantic critical activity?
Well, I am not sure. I do know that the paper I should be working on
(someone, please cut my phone line) re: the Filmography movement in france
in the late fourties and early fifties is considered as the breakthrough of
film criticism into academia. Yes, I know, already framing the context into
academics, but where else does writing about film occur, was extremely
interested in building that canon, and in turning film into (surprise
surprise) a formalist medium. This step is necessary in canon formation.
Interesting enough, they were also a moral lot -- one writer who worked out
214,106 possible narrative lines (literally, no more no less) and created a
seven tiered approach to analyzing differetn cinematic spaces (the first
being "reality" which by implication becomes a subsection of the grander
"film reality") and, well, basically creates a completely formal approach to
film (I'm not going to go into details here. I'm leaving that for the paper)
then has the gall to complain about the immorality of the characters in
Antonioni films!
I think they succeeded. Those that get to define the terms also get to
define the truth, and I would go as far as to say that all writing about
film uses the terms invented by the Filmologists -- until someone like
Teresa deLaurentis or Laura Mulvey comes along and begin to rip the canon
apart from the seams ... but I'll save that for a rainy day.
Cassavetes is an american director (late fifties to mid eighties?) who is
absolutely amazing. He did most of his work self financed, or nearly so,
acting in more commercial flics to get the cash to do his own work. Very
interesting work, and it wasn't until I saw "Woman under the Influence" that
I realised that Peter Faulk is an amazing actor. But this is just a
sideline.
Michael
Malgosia Askanas
> the Filmography movement in france
> interested in building that canon, and in turning film into (surprise
> surprise) a formalist medium. This step is necessary in canon formation.
This may be the crux of the matter. This step is *necessary*, but
it is not *sufficient*. To establish a canon, it is not sufficient to
establish a body of writing. You also need the complicity of the
artists and the audiences. Both of these groups -- usually for different
though related reasons -- have to have an interest in being
institutionalized, otherwise no real canon formation will take place.
(For how long will Vance just eyeball these pronouncements of mine
and not step in?)
I don't think this has happened in the case of film. There is a
certain sub-segment of filmmakers and filmgoers who, I think, formed
themselves into an institution around a certain set of aesthetic
positions. But on the whole, I feel that there is no institution of
"film". Repertory houses play Bruce Lee movies side by side
with Norman MacLaren, Wiseman, and mainstream films from unusual
countries; the only way to describe these policies is to say that
they play anything that does not currently get distributed through
the normal commercial channels. What they cater to, in the most
general sense, is a hunger for sensual and mental variety, not
a hunger for institutional legitimization.
Perhaps all this has to do with the fact that it is, for various
reasons, almost impossible to draw lines around the various functions
which film fulfills. There is something about moving images that is
inherently entertaining. Attempts to do away with filmic movement -- such
as Warhol's -- are also inherently entertaining because of their
filmic absurdity. There is in film an inherent resistance to having
its roots pulled out -- the roots of direct entertainment and of
"speaking" about the "world". That's why, I think, even the most
formalist critics may suddenly launch into harangues about
a director's moral outlook.
Gordon Fitch
| > the Filmography movement in france
| > in the late fourties and early fifties [...] was extremely
| > interested in building that canon, and in turning film into (surprise
| > surprise) a formalist medium. This step is necessary in canon formation.
Malgosia Askanas <m...@dsd.camb.inmet.com> wrote:
| This may be the crux of the matter. This step is *necessary*, but
| it is not *sufficient*. To establish a canon, it is not sufficient to
| establish a body of writing. You also need the complicity of the
| artists and the audiences. Both of these groups -- usually for different
| though related reasons -- have to have an interest in being
| institutionalized, otherwise no real canon formation will take place.
| ...
I would say that the only way you can have a canon is to
exert political force. In the arts, in liberal bourgeois
communities, this is generally the work of academic
institutions; in other polities, e.g. the monarchies of the
past or the great totalitarianisms of the present century,
the exertion of this force is more explicit. Thus, to
construct a canon of film (or video) a coherent bourgeois
society would cause money and fame to flow through academic
and quasi-academic governmental institutions into specific
sets of works and workers, who would then become the
standard. Complicity would simply be bought (or compelled
by limiting access to distribution to uncanonical work).
However, I don't think there is any such coherence in the
United States -- the reigning class seems to concern itself
mostly with older arts. Perhaps in France or Canada the
situation is different.
Thus, I think it is not the richness of the medium, but a
lack of determination by those in power -- or perhaps a
lack of power -- to exert force on what we might call "the
film community" that has prevented the formation of a canon.
Given that the established canonization systems of other
arts are breaking down (for the same reason) it seems
unlikely that anyone will establish one in the future.
--
)*( Gordon Fitch )*( g...@panix.com )*(
Malgosia Askanas
Gordon Fitch wrote:
> I would say that the only way you can have a canon is to
> exert political force. In the arts, in liberal bourgeois
> communities, this is generally the work of academic
> institutions; in other polities, e.g. the monarchies of the
> past or the great totalitarianisms of the present century,
> the exertion of this force is more explicit. Thus, to
> construct a canon of film (or video) a coherent bourgeois
> society would cause money and fame to flow through academic
> and quasi-academic governmental institutions into specific
> sets of works and workers, who would then become the
> standard. Complicity would simply be bought (or compelled
> by limiting access to distribution to uncanonical work).
> However, I don't think there is any such coherence in the
> United States -- the reigning class seems to concern itself
> mostly with older arts. Perhaps in France or Canada the
> situation is different.
I think this is absolutely right. Moreover, it illuminates my
resemblance to a person who, when standing righ in front of an
elephant, sees nothing but a fly on the elephant's back.
I have been extolling the non-canonicity of film as supposedly
evidenced by "films not distributed through normal commercial
channels". There IS, of course, in this country a powerful canon
pertaining to film and video: the canon which regulates precisely the
works excluded by the above phrase. The canon forms itself wherever
the reigning class finds it politically and economically expedient.
Film and video are in the grip of a canon which is perhaps
more far-reaching and powerful than for any other medium, but which,
because of the specific potentials of these media as popular
entertainment, has not been located in academia, but rather in
New York, on Madison Ave, and so on. The rise of "canonical
art-films" in Europe and perhaps Canada has to do with how, by whom
and for what purpose film has been financed and distributed there.
Seen strictly from a US perspective, these films are non-canonical.
In other words each state develops its own filmic canon which
regulates which films will receive financing and distribution.
The products of such regional canons often seem pleasingly
non-canonical to viewers elsewhere.
Gordon Fitch
|
| > I would say that the only way you can have a canon is to
| > exert political force. In the arts, in liberal bourgeois
| > communities, this is generally the work of academic
Malgosia Askanas <m...@dsd.camb.inmet.com> wrote:
| I think this is absolutely right. Moreover, it illuminates my
| resemblance to a person who, when standing righ in front of an
| elephant, sees nothing but a fly on the elephant's back.
| I have been extolling the non-canonicity of film as supposedly
| evidenced by "films not distributed through normal commercial
| channels". There IS, of course, in this country a powerful canon
| pertaining to film and video: the canon which regulates precisely the
| works excluded by the above phrase. ...
I take it by "this country" you mean the United States.
Living in New York City, as I do, I cannot be sure what
goes on in the United States, but it is my impression that
the lords of American film do not have a well-organized,
canonical view of what constitutes worthwhile material.
Hence, non-commercial or marginal films occasionally turn
commercial under their noses, and of course vice versa.
They don't care; what is important is to make a lot of
money, as fast as possible.
The appearance of videotape has further complicated the
issue, according to one authority, the guy I used to rent
videotapes from. Blockbusters do not make as much money
for him as what are called "cult" films, and both are
inferior commercially to grade-B horror and pornography,
and the trade press reports this everywhere. So what we
appear to be seeing is the appearance of an anticanon,
or rather a set of anticanons, running free like bad
dogs. This is the "bad dog" theory of cinema.