Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 02:59:40 -0400 (EDT) From: malgosia askanas <ma-AT-panix.com> Subject: Re: appropriation/self expression Brent wrote: > Well why _shouldn't_ we use this quality as an indicator of success? I feel > that art should act on some level as a transmitter of ideas and if an idea is > appropriated by a next generation of artists then there must be something of > relevance to it felt by those actually producing art. Successful movements > are, i feel, movements that generate discussion and reaction and whose > components either inspire or create a tension in the work of subsequent > generations of artists. I guess my doubts about this have several reasons. One is the fact that some of the things that affect me most deeply may not externalize their influence in any traceable way. In some sense, the more profound the influence, the harder it is to talk about, and the less likely it is that it will be recognizably externalized. Then, I tend to be have a great affinity for art that puts itself on the side of the ephemeral. If one takes such art seriously -- i.e. if one is influenced by it -- perpetuating it would be a kind of anti-tribute (I know this is pretty self-contradictory, but there it is). Then, we just spent some time complaining about appropriation, and now we are positing it as a sign of success. Then, I have doubts about the whole notion of "success". What is it good for? Why bother with it? -malgosia --- from list avant-garde-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005