Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 01:08:47 GMT
From: cornets-AT-2005.bart.nl (cornets de groot)
Subject: Re: autism and (?) art


Malgosia wrote:

>> Malgosia, the fact that you play the piano exclusively for your own sanity
just means that while playing you are not so much the performer, as you are
the listener.

>No, that's not a good analysis.  If the sanity-preserving aspect had to do
with listening, I would put on a record instead of playing.  It most 
emphatically has to do with _production_, with the fact that I myself am 
_making_ of the music from scratch, as it were.  You're attaching the sanity 
to the wrong end of the feedback loop.

Alright, let me first make this lame excuse by confessing that I'm Dutch.
This I hope may for some part account for badly phrased or badly understood
sentences. For instance, I understood your mentioning of your sanity as a
matter of speech only. You didn't want to harm other people I thought.
I don't know if producing music equals performing it. The choice for
producing music on your own instead of listening to it may have a variety of
reasons: it brings you closer to the music; it exercises your hands and
fingers, which you may feel like doing instead of just sitting in a chair;
the sound of a real life piano in your room is different than the sound of a
recorded piano; you are more free to listen to what you want, because you
can play whatever you want and are not limited by your cd-collection or the
order of the music on your cd's, etc. None of these reasons indicate that
while playing you are performing, on the contrary, they serve the listener
in you.

>>The "I" is not, or at least, should not be the
object, but the subject, a function among other functions.

>I am not sure, BTW, what you mean by your use of 
the word "should" above.

This one is easy: in my opinion the "I" is not an object, but there are many
people who think it is. They should not do that.

>> they mean that the stuff they do when concentrating on the matter at hand --
the specific problems raised by the specific painting that they are working on
-- the tekne -- this experience is in some sense _complete in itself_, and 
it has nothing to do with whether anybody else in the world exists or will 
ever see the painting.

Again, I don't believe that for a minute. So these paintings stand on their
own? They just spontaneously are there, and have nothing to do with the
artist, or the world that they're in, or the times in which they are made?
That's inconceivable. There's no such thing as a painting that is "in some
sense _complete in itself_" - quite the contrary, it needs the spectator to
finish it.

As to Vautier and Magritte: well neither do I know what that has to do with
autism, but then I didn't bring it up. :) Btw I said Vautier's performance
was "nothing more than a variety" (on this Magritte theme). That I think
leaves plenty of room for specification. But alright. You posted a seperate
question on this matter, but I'll try to answer it (as in "prove" my point)
here. First though I have to make a second excuse: I misread Vautier's
second sentence (I'm tired, this hasn't been my day obviously). I read "This
is all I need" instead of "This is all is needed". I was appalled at what I
thought I read, thinking this guy was into publicly masturbating or so, and
therefore pronounced it irrelevant - so again, forgive me. However I do
think that his first sentence - "Look at me" - is superfluous, since he's
already carrying a sign, which, on top of that, says that he is art. But
this is literary criticism.
Magritte took his pipe out of context and placed it in an isolated
environment. He was right: it was no longer a pipe, since it was deprived of
everything that would make it a pipe: it's natural surrounding, someone to
smoke it, tobacco, an ashtray, etc. As a pipe it was now quite helpless. But
then it wasn't trash either. It was a work of art. Why art? Why not trash?
Because Magritte loaded it with meaning: a comment on reality - i.e. things
are not always what they seem, art is what you make it, it's not only in
museums, there's no hierarchy, art depends on the spectator, etc. Also by
taking such a common thing as a pipe he made it clear that art is not
something special (although it is), but that it can be accessed by everyone
and is not restricted to connaisseurs.
Vautier in my view really just repeated Magritte. He hang a sign around his
neck, saying - I'm paraphrasing: "This is not Ben Vautier". I think that's
sad (deplorable) because it should be clear from a work of art by itself
that it is art - we shouldn't need to put it in a museum. That is exactly
what Magritte meant. But after him, I think framing things is sort of a
cheap trick - although Christo (the guy that wraps everything up, buildings,
bridges, islands) sure knows how to make things quite expensive. At any
rate, these things have to do with taste, it is a subtle thing. I personally
do not think that Vautier is art, I think he attempted to be art, but he did
not succeed in my eyes. However I like Christo. Essentially though I see no
difference between the two.
Indeed what all this has to do with autism escapes me. But then the whole
issue of autism and art escapes me - there's just no such thing. I think
Vautier wanted attention - the opposite of autism.

Humanity - or maybe I mean mankind? I never know the difference - should
always be included when we speak about art. I think a painting is a medium
between the artist and the world. Therefore the dialogue between the artist
and his painting really is a dialogue between the artist and the world that
he lives in. Art serves to have mankind reflect upon itself and on what's
the matter. In fact that's the only reason I can think of why art is been
made. Without art we wouldn't know what the heck we were doing. After all,
we are the only creatures that have an idea of what's going on. That idea
should be expressed, no? Perhaps that's what Nietzsche (long time no see)
meant when he said (no clue where) that without music life would be a
mistake. Because indeed: why live, if not for "music"?

Rutger Cornets.



	--- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---