Monday, November 24, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Response # The Shock of The New
The Shock of The New was not particularly shocking. This is most likely because it's from about 30 years ago. It seems a good rule of thumb that after 30 years anything shocking becomes mundane. Or pointless.
I did like it, and not just because there were pictures. This presents a problem for me. How am I going to write about something I like? Difficult. Difficult. Difficult.
I could just agree that the art movement has gone the way of something... old. Just as easily I could agree that the very notion of Avante Guarde is extinct. Or at least should be. Burden had himself shot, and masturbated under a gallery floor, which didn’t leave a whole lot left to do. No more shocking, SHOCKING I should say, progression.
But, what I really got a kick from was Robert Hughes acknowledging that art movements in general have very little effect on the mass of people. This of course makes sense. A very small percentage of people give a damn. And of that small percentage the majority either is practicing art in some way, or at the very least writing about it. So, as I seem to be doing a lot as of late... I’m going to focus on the internet.
Because before the internet, if I am to believe what Hughes has to say, in many cases art was being made for the masses. Sure they didn’t care, but it would be hard to say that they were not being taken into account. The internet though, has created a whole different beast. Or a hose of a different color. Or something.
Resulting from limited communication and transportation artists were previously forced to create work that engaged their locality and community. There was a desire to address this. That is if we are to look at the Constructivists, BauHaus, DaDa, they were looking towards social issues and not glancing at their twitter feed. With the arrival of the internet we can all now participate in an unpleasant array of insular systems. There are so many artists tooting each others cyber horns that not much else gets taken into account.
I am a big internet supporter. Do not get me wrong. But, when I think of all the artists making work over the internet, I have to consider that maybe something a little more genuine might get made if they stopped posting pictures of spiderman and went outside for just a second.
The Shock of The New was not particularly shocking. This is most likely because it's from about 30 years ago. It seems a good rule of thumb that after 30 years anything shocking becomes mundane. Or pointless.
I did like it, and not just because there were pictures. This presents a problem for me. How am I going to write about something I like? Difficult. Difficult. Difficult.
I could just agree that the art movement has gone the way of something... old. Just as easily I could agree that the very notion of Avante Guarde is extinct. Or at least should be. Burden had himself shot, and masturbated under a gallery floor, which didn’t leave a whole lot left to do. No more shocking, SHOCKING I should say, progression.
But, what I really got a kick from was Robert Hughes acknowledging that art movements in general have very little effect on the mass of people. This of course makes sense. A very small percentage of people give a damn. And of that small percentage the majority either is practicing art in some way, or at the very least writing about it. So, as I seem to be doing a lot as of late... I’m going to focus on the internet.
Because before the internet, if I am to believe what Hughes has to say, in many cases art was being made for the masses. Sure they didn’t care, but it would be hard to say that they were not being taken into account. The internet though, has created a whole different beast. Or a hose of a different color. Or something.
Resulting from limited communication and transportation artists were previously forced to create work that engaged their locality and community. There was a desire to address this. That is if we are to look at the Constructivists, BauHaus, DaDa, they were looking towards social issues and not glancing at their twitter feed. With the arrival of the internet we can all now participate in an unpleasant array of insular systems. There are so many artists tooting each others cyber horns that not much else gets taken into account.
I am a big internet supporter. Do not get me wrong. But, when I think of all the artists making work over the internet, I have to consider that maybe something a little more genuine might get made if they stopped posting pictures of spiderman and went outside for just a second.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Response # Scott McLoud
I have discovered that there are two problems that come with writing things down on paper. The first is that I inevitably end up writing on top of something that I would have preferred not too have writing on it. Luckily enough I have managed, mostly by accident, not to write on top of any impending bills. The second however, and apologies to Zara for this one, is that I never get around to typing anything up on my computer. Logically I have a much harder time posting anything here. Whoever invented paper seems to have forgotten a copy and paste function. I am going to turn the page on this habit. Or more appropriately, perhaps, I will not be turning any more pages. Print is dead and all that, etc. I cannot dismiss the Scott McCloud reading that were, in fact, printed.
As of late I have become increasingly interested in models. The kind you would snap together with small colored bricks, not the ones with the arms, legs, torso and other human accouterments.
Here’s where my year log western lit class did me well. Because, Descartes was concerned with this as well. He used it to prove the existence of god if I remember correctly. We as a species are unable to draw a perfect circle, unable to experience one in nature, and yet we can superimpose the idea of the PERFECT circle onto that which we can create. Descartes called this God. Clearly he was something of a romantic. What he says in less than two pages illuminates to a frightening degree. I do not take this to be God, but it does lend itself to a kind of faith.
I may have just had a religious moment here. Thinking about the Cartesian proof of God. No booming voice, but i have become and am right now, as I am typing, enamored with this idea. Like I was clipped by a bicycle messenger. I cannot and do not agree with Descartes, but in his indoctrinating way he may have actually stumbled on something larger than himself. We don’t need to create perfection because we have evolved to see it. We as a species, on the whole, everyone, is capable of imposing perfection over each and every object, situation, they see. Intuition allows us to make a jump that is incalculably farther than achievement.
I think at their worst artists desire to function as some sort of creator. A roll which has already been taken by the participant. Art in its best, most whole hearted functioning allows for this. The gap between artist and viewer is, in the end, never bridged by artist. Look at that giant bean Anish Kapoor made. It literally superimposes the viewer over the top of its self. It is invisible. I believe he got a holiday for it.
I need to go to Chicago.
----------
Scott McCloud is a more practical Descartes, I think he’s got the idea right. Certainly he elaborates in a less abrasive way. Abstraction, inaccuracy, allows for “closure”. We fill in what the briefest of hints allude to. The human head we see in the smily face is the same as the circle Descartes saw in the wagon wheel. Where McCloud goes that Descartes does not is inconsistency. Humans lack a steadiness in this skill. Hand in hand with the uncanny valley, the more realistic something becomes the less universal it becomes. Until, I guess, it becomes perfect. Descartes might disagree here. Whatever. The point is abstraction lends itself to universality. This is where I get really interested.
Because McCloud covers comics, which is essentially a two-dimensional, rigid, medium, and Descartes covers God, which is the exact opposite, their ideas tend to cling to the polar ends of representations range. McCloud works within sequential narration and Descartes trying to work almost entirely in theory. Myself, I am interested in scale. You abstact far enough, you scale far enough, you do not need sequencing for narration. We should be looking to create experiences that self narrate. The viewer should be imposing themselves over the work. Kapoor let Chicago narrate through reflection. Cool.
I have discovered that there are two problems that come with writing things down on paper. The first is that I inevitably end up writing on top of something that I would have preferred not too have writing on it. Luckily enough I have managed, mostly by accident, not to write on top of any impending bills. The second however, and apologies to Zara for this one, is that I never get around to typing anything up on my computer. Logically I have a much harder time posting anything here. Whoever invented paper seems to have forgotten a copy and paste function. I am going to turn the page on this habit. Or more appropriately, perhaps, I will not be turning any more pages. Print is dead and all that, etc. I cannot dismiss the Scott McCloud reading that were, in fact, printed.
As of late I have become increasingly interested in models. The kind you would snap together with small colored bricks, not the ones with the arms, legs, torso and other human accouterments.
Here’s where my year log western lit class did me well. Because, Descartes was concerned with this as well. He used it to prove the existence of god if I remember correctly. We as a species are unable to draw a perfect circle, unable to experience one in nature, and yet we can superimpose the idea of the PERFECT circle onto that which we can create. Descartes called this God. Clearly he was something of a romantic. What he says in less than two pages illuminates to a frightening degree. I do not take this to be God, but it does lend itself to a kind of faith.
I may have just had a religious moment here. Thinking about the Cartesian proof of God. No booming voice, but i have become and am right now, as I am typing, enamored with this idea. Like I was clipped by a bicycle messenger. I cannot and do not agree with Descartes, but in his indoctrinating way he may have actually stumbled on something larger than himself. We don’t need to create perfection because we have evolved to see it. We as a species, on the whole, everyone, is capable of imposing perfection over each and every object, situation, they see. Intuition allows us to make a jump that is incalculably farther than achievement.
I think at their worst artists desire to function as some sort of creator. A roll which has already been taken by the participant. Art in its best, most whole hearted functioning allows for this. The gap between artist and viewer is, in the end, never bridged by artist. Look at that giant bean Anish Kapoor made. It literally superimposes the viewer over the top of its self. It is invisible. I believe he got a holiday for it.
I need to go to Chicago.
----------
Scott McCloud is a more practical Descartes, I think he’s got the idea right. Certainly he elaborates in a less abrasive way. Abstraction, inaccuracy, allows for “closure”. We fill in what the briefest of hints allude to. The human head we see in the smily face is the same as the circle Descartes saw in the wagon wheel. Where McCloud goes that Descartes does not is inconsistency. Humans lack a steadiness in this skill. Hand in hand with the uncanny valley, the more realistic something becomes the less universal it becomes. Until, I guess, it becomes perfect. Descartes might disagree here. Whatever. The point is abstraction lends itself to universality. This is where I get really interested.
Because McCloud covers comics, which is essentially a two-dimensional, rigid, medium, and Descartes covers God, which is the exact opposite, their ideas tend to cling to the polar ends of representations range. McCloud works within sequential narration and Descartes trying to work almost entirely in theory. Myself, I am interested in scale. You abstact far enough, you scale far enough, you do not need sequencing for narration. We should be looking to create experiences that self narrate. The viewer should be imposing themselves over the work. Kapoor let Chicago narrate through reflection. Cool.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
Divorce? An Efficient Removal of an Ex-Loved One's Image
I don't have any sort of Vendetta against Baudrillard, even though my previous post concerning him may have seemed that way. And this one might as well...
After having read System of Collecting, I think I've put my finger on what bothers me. Baudrillard is writing for the time. His essays simultaneously date themselves and declare their universal truth.
I find this problematic.
System of Collecting tells us that the majority of collectors are pre-pubescent or are in the throws of mid-life crises. Either way they're sex-deprived. Fifteen years after the essay is written this is false. Those small children he was writing about at the time who were collecting are still collecting. What's more is they're collecting in a much different way than he would have had us believe. Curatorial rather than set building. No one builds an entire set anymore, but instead goes for the objects that they find attractive. Collections are meant to be seen, not completed.
As always I find Baudrillard interesting to read, but a little out of tune with the present. It seems philosophizing is a little sloppy if it dates so quickly.
After having read System of Collecting, I think I've put my finger on what bothers me. Baudrillard is writing for the time. His essays simultaneously date themselves and declare their universal truth.
I find this problematic.
System of Collecting tells us that the majority of collectors are pre-pubescent or are in the throws of mid-life crises. Either way they're sex-deprived. Fifteen years after the essay is written this is false. Those small children he was writing about at the time who were collecting are still collecting. What's more is they're collecting in a much different way than he would have had us believe. Curatorial rather than set building. No one builds an entire set anymore, but instead goes for the objects that they find attractive. Collections are meant to be seen, not completed.
As always I find Baudrillard interesting to read, but a little out of tune with the present. It seems philosophizing is a little sloppy if it dates so quickly.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)