Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 11:51:40 -0700 (PDT) From: vance <vance-AT-CWU.EDU> Subject: Re: Simon Ford's article On Mon, 29 May 1995, Whit Blauvelt wrote: > Manifesto production is cool; manifesto following is lame. The first is a > creative act, an openning to possibility; the second is anal-retentive. At > the time of manifesto production, things are generally proceding with vigor > and worth; afterwards, in times of reiteration and formulaic following, it's > time for the concensus to be shattered or more gently subverted, either by a > new manifesto, or by new art in some other format. > > Manifesto is just another format for art. It's the relationship of the > individual to the work which becomes problematic, when the manifesto is > taken literally, or as if the best cooking could ever by done by recipe. Whit, that's close to the way I perceive such things as manifesto writing or a futile attempt to defind "what is art." The importance of such attempts is to clarify in the mind of s/he who makes the attempt what they are focused on. I agree that those who follow such definitions are like the drunk who was searching for his keys (which he's lost a block and a half away) under street light because there was better light there. But as I understand you view, this negates the idea of the avant-garde. If there should be no followers, there can be no leaders, no a-g. vance --- from list avant-garde-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005