Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 16:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: dns <recombinantone-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: r3: art/capital


I feel the parameters the term .art. are too narrow in this
thread -confined to painting and photography- or perhaps  that
it is being used as a noun, when, when we discuss whether
art might be revolutionary or not, it might be more use-full to
use the term as an adjective (a la situationist et al).
 
Art, i think, is [r]evolut!onary as an outlet and means by
which we may experiment with our p0tent!al!ties, a process of
becoming. This means, of course widening those parameters to
extend to all facets of life, including life itself.

Recuperation: leave it behind...keep moving....
Art as a house of cards,
the writing on the wall, 
the intelligent graffiti,
the icing on the cake.

I've not read deleuzes writings on the simulacrum, but it seems
like this simulacrum might extend to the fartherest regions,
taking it further than plato, by necessity, in order to think
it in possitive terms. 
Are these words simulacra? 
If so, can they mean anything?...yes...no...perhaps.
Can they mean anything to you? maybe, maybe not...next message
please...

Who can say whether a piece of art may be revolutionary or not?
Certainly not an institution like the soviet regime, or any
other group which 'speaks for the people'. The idea is absurd.

'Kafkas extraordinary bureaucratic[art]machine'; 
'Kleists war[art]machine';
machines,machines,machines;
desiring [art] machines,
with effects, like a physics machine.
do they connect with _your_ desiring[art]machines?
yes...no...maybe...maybe not...next message please...

dns.

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free -AT-yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com