Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 19:53:13 +0100 From: "steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk> Subject: Re: net art... Heath Bunting in world art magazine... Stuart I didn't mean it to sound and understood as 'taken as read' more that I'm dubious that an artist or theorist's intentions should be taken at face value. In the case you mention where the text supposedly has an unfixed meaning isn't this doubly the case because this is merely a not so knew new intentionality, another version of the intentional fallacy. Bounderies and the resultant seperation between politics and art do and must exist - primarily because at some stage the politics that are understandable in the work will almost certainly become irrelevant or even reactionary - at least from a non-conservative, non-liberal perspective. Perhaps at that moment we can only read them as historical works - carefully avoiding the possibility that we might confuse the text/object as being a positive representation of the human social and politicial condition.... steve stuart tait wrote: >Hmm. Not sure about that "given that art is never readable as the >artist or any >aesthetic theorist intends" bit. I'm sure there's a good argument >somewhere that >supports your case, but I can't say I'm that well read. It sounds a >bit dismissive to me, >like when philosophers say "well, of course we all know there's no >god" before >proceeding as if it's taken as read. Just because there are other, >arguably fuller, ways >of reading the work doesn't mean that it is necessarily impossible to >read it as the >artist intended; what if the artist's intention is that the reading >of the work should be >unfixed and that there is then no one correct reading of the work? > >Just a thought. > >stuart tait >enso-AT-postmark.net > >steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk wrote: >stuart > > >>not sure how this relates to the relations between art (understood in >>the broadest sense) and non-artists.... given that art is never readable >>as the artist or any aesthetic theorist intends. I am thinking >>especially of Adorno on Beckett or perhaps Lyotard on Jacques Monory. >>Both of which I think are cases where we would obviously be incapable >>of reading the objects as any of the philosophers or artists might intend. >> >>hence my doubt over the idea that there are 'no boundaries' - and for >>that matter what's wrong with boundaries and seperation. >> >>steve >> >>stuart tait wrote: >> >> >> >>>There are no boundaries between art politics and everyday life. >>>They're obviously just >>>distinctions that are used to guide attention toward a particular >>>part of experience/ >>>life. Art has always been intimately involved in politics (with a big >>>or small *p*)... the >>>rich always commisioning artists to be their publicists, or >>>governments commisioning >>>paintings and sculptures to commemorate heroic battles won, etc. >>>While the artists >>>often practiced their craft on the everyday as a way of demonstrating >>>their technical >>>prowess and range of ability. Art has more recently been used to >>>publicise or promote >>>other ways of seeing the world, or as a self promotional exercise as >>>an end in itself, >>>but that is still (in a broad sense) political. >>> >>>In the same way that our skin doesn't separate us from the world, but >>>join us to it; >>>there are molecules that are always passing across the 'boundaries' >>>between >>>categories... always will be. >>> >>>stuart tait >>>enso-AT-postmark.net >>> >>>gvcarter-AT-purdue.edu wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Steve, >>>> >>>>Reminds me a little of the flash mob movement wherein organizers tried to >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>get >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>as many people w/ cell phones to gather at a particular site and play a >>>>mini 'concert' w/ their ring tones (w/ those w/o cell phones serving as >>>>conductors). >>>> >>>>Not sure if you caught the movie -Amelie-, but there's a scene in that >>>> >>>> >film > > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>wherein the title character leaves a small box she found hidden behind a >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>tile >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>in her bathroom wall for an elderly gentleman who had hidden it >>>> >>>> >originally > > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>as a >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>small boy. The movie is comprised entirely out of these 'random acts of >>>>kindness,' and while somewhat sentimental --more so than, say, Bunting >>>> >>>> >who > > >>>>prefers chalk over paint-- perhaps shares something of a link. >>>> >>>>Is the "dissolving of boundaries" between of art-politics-everday life "a >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>'good >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>thing' in itself"? >>>> >>>>More so than the question of "'good' in itself," I'm struck by the >>>>word "dissolve"; I wonder if the sense of the question would change it >>>> >>>> >all > > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>if >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>one were to use the word "fold"? >>>> >>>>The folding of boundaries between art-politics-and everyday life. ...? >>>> >>>>geof >>>> >>>> >>>>Quoting "steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>This piece seems to refer to the clash between the quotidean and the >>>>>almost sublime of manufactured events in a radically un-Lyotard >>>>>fashion.... but it is as close to Delany's micro-theater in 'Triton' as >>>>>I've ever some across... But is it possible to regard the Dissolving of >>>>>the boundaries between art, politics and everyday life unquestionaly as >>>>>a 'good thing' in itself ? >>>>> >>>>>http://www.irational.org/irational/media/world_art.html >>>>> >>>>>enjoy... >>>>> >>>>>steve >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > --- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed --- This message may have contained attachments which were removed. Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005