Insanity is not a want of reason. It is reason's overgrowth, a calculating kudzu.
Explaining why, in two-ton manifesti, thinkers sally forth with testaments and pipe bombs. Heaven help us:
spare us all your meaningful designs. Shine down or shower forth, but (for the earthling's sake) ignore all prayers followed by against, or for. Teach us to bear
life's senselessness, our insignificance, and more; let's call that sanity. The terrifying prospect isn't some escapist with a novel, fond of comfort, munching sweets—
it is the busy hermeneut, so serious he's sour, intent on making meaning of us all, and bursting from the towers to the streets.
Insanity is not a want of reason. It is reason's overgrowth, a calculating kudzu.
Explaining why, in two-ton manifesti, thinkers sally forth with testaments and pipe bombs. Heaven help us:
spare us all your meaningful designs. Shine down or shower forth, but (for the earthling's sake) ignore all prayers followed by against, or for. Teach us to bear
life's senselessness, our insignificance, and more; let's call that sanity. The terrifying prospect isn't some escapist with a novel, fond of comfort, munching sweets—
it is the busy hermeneut, so serious he's sour, intent on making meaning of us all, and bursting from the towers to the streets.
Some of my favorites from the Wild Things' Forts contest by Booooom, where you can send in your picture of a fort.... Here's the explanation:
Where The Wild Things Are is filled with references to building a world out of things from your everyday life and that’s exactly what we want you to do!
We want you to create a fort! Use garbage bags, tree branches, tablecloths, prosthetic limbs, wood, gold, whatever you got!
Some of my favorites from the Wild Things' Forts contest by Booooom, where you can send in your picture of a fort.... Here's the explanation:
Where The Wild Things Are is filled with references to building a world out of things from your everyday life and that’s exactly what we want you to do!
We want you to create a fort! Use garbage bags, tree branches, tablecloths, prosthetic limbs, wood, gold, whatever you got!
Apparently the manager of FC Barelona, the young Josep Guardiola, prepared this film for his players before the finale against Manchester United. And before the game, instead of making the classic motivational speech, he showed them the film. And said nothing afterwards. If I'm posting this on the New Art blog, it's because this shows a very powerful turn in the way we see film/media. Although the advent of the "TV era" has been prophetized for a long time, and many declared its beginning many decades ago. However, this event, for me, is a very important sign of a shift of paradigms. And it is not as simple as moving from a deep human experience to a superficial "screen" experience. The presence of the manager, of the person, is still crucial (it would be difficult to imagine - for the moment - that he weren't there), but his action is not. Hence, translating it into performative terms, we can say it is not about the actor-audience connection, as some sort of a mystic communion. And a possible reason so many thinkers complain is because they thought the aesthetic experience of a live event had some "added value" because of it being inter-subjective. Suddenly, it appears the inter-subjectivity is just one possible aspect. One that can be done away with - while maintaining, and that is my argument, the value of the experience. Yes, now it seems more about the show-spectacle, but this is not to say the "spectacle" is, as such, of lesser value (based on what?). For one, it appears as a surprizingly intimate event. And if the film will presumably seem kitsch to most of us, that is clearly because it was tailored for a specific audience, with specific references, under very special circumstances. Could it be that this type of intimate media spectacle is what's in the air?
Apparently the manager of FC Barelona, the young Josep Guardiola, prepared this film for his players before the finale against Manchester United. And before the game, instead of making the classic motivational speech, he showed them the film. And said nothing afterwards. If I'm posting this on the New Art blog, it's because this shows a very powerful turn in the way we see film/media. Although the advent of the "TV era" has been prophetized for a long time, and many declared its beginning many decades ago. However, this event, for me, is a very important sign of a shift of paradigms. And it is not as simple as moving from a deep human experience to a superficial "screen" experience. The presence of the manager, of the person, is still crucial (it would be difficult to imagine - for the moment - that he weren't there), but his action is not. Hence, translating it into performative terms, we can say it is not about the actor-audience connection, as some sort of a mystic communion. And a possible reason so many thinkers complain is because they thought the aesthetic experience of a live event had some "added value" because of it being inter-subjective. Suddenly, it appears the inter-subjectivity is just one possible aspect. One that can be done away with - while maintaining, and that is my argument, the value of the experience. Yes, now it seems more about the show-spectacle, but this is not to say the "spectacle" is, as such, of lesser value (based on what?). For one, it appears as a surprizingly intimate event. And if the film will presumably seem kitsch to most of us, that is clearly because it was tailored for a specific audience, with specific references, under very special circumstances. Could it be that this type of intimate media spectacle is what's in the air?
Here is what I imagine: I invite all of you to my house (Warsaw, Poland), and together we sit and watch I Love Alaska. Maybe it's not because this is the perfect work to be enjoying with a group of people you've only just met. (It probably isn't). Maybe it has more to do with how surprizingly far this blog has led. In many ways. One of them is you. Right now, there are hundreds of you coming to this blog every day. There is over a hundred people following New Art "formally" via blogger.com, plus many many others via feeds and such, plus the hundreds of people who drop by every now and then... I've been receiving your kind e-mails, and enjoy visiting all the blogs, portfolios, sites that you publish or recommend. Some of you have been coming here nearly since the beginning, but it's also very exciting for me to get feedback from newcomers. I've come to know you a little, and, so to speak, enjoy your company on this ride. Many of you are in the arts, others are students, for many of you I suppose this is more of a curious entertainment. All this means not only that you enjoy the art I showcase, but certainly, to some extent we share a common sensibility. Wouldn't it be delicious to have just a part of us meet and enjoy some of this art together? Sit down, have a glass of wine, watch the film, then talk about art and life and simplicity and complexity, and how the mountains are majestic, and America does or doesn't influence the world, and share other references (all the Brokeback Mountains, Into The Wilds, Cremasters that come to mind...), ideas, passions. (You know, meeting in real life someone you've hardly even known online ;)) Not a festival, but a get-together. And then of course we would party all night, and probably go to the shore of the Vistula river, and maybe make a field trip the next day. But the moment of a genuine and common esthetic experience, together, would have been ours. This is what I imagine. And you know what? - we actually could do it. (To be continued)
Here is what I imagine: I invite all of you to my house (Warsaw, Poland), and together we sit and watch I Love Alaska. Maybe it's not because this is the perfect work to be enjoying with a group of people you've only just met. (It probably isn't). Maybe it has more to do with how surprizingly far this blog has led. In many ways. One of them is you. Right now, there are hundreds of you coming to this blog every day. There is over a hundred people following New Art "formally" via blogger.com, plus many many others via feeds and such, plus the hundreds of people who drop by every now and then... I've been receiving your kind e-mails, and enjoy visiting all the blogs, portfolios, sites that you publish or recommend. Some of you have been coming here nearly since the beginning, but it's also very exciting for me to get feedback from newcomers. I've come to know you a little, and, so to speak, enjoy your company on this ride. Many of you are in the arts, others are students, for many of you I suppose this is more of a curious entertainment. All this means not only that you enjoy the art I showcase, but certainly, to some extent we share a common sensibility. Wouldn't it be delicious to have just a part of us meet and enjoy some of this art together? Sit down, have a glass of wine, watch the film, then talk about art and life and simplicity and complexity, and how the mountains are majestic, and America does or doesn't influence the world, and share other references (all the Brokeback Mountains, Into The Wilds, Cremasters that come to mind...), ideas, passions. (You know, meeting in real life someone you've hardly even known online ;)) Not a festival, but a get-together. And then of course we would party all night, and probably go to the shore of the Vistula river, and maybe make a field trip the next day. But the moment of a genuine and common esthetic experience, together, would have been ours. This is what I imagine. And you know what? - we actually could do it. (To be continued)
Apparently Barack Obama has a similar view to mine on what could be developed in the [art] world. He has just created a new post of Chief Performance Officer. From what the papers say, Nancy Killefer, who was assigned this function, will have, among others, the task of helping "set performance standards". The expectations run high, although we have to be prepared for the standard performative desillusion when it comes to watching them do it for real, onstage.
Halima Bashir meeting with George Bush. In some cases, getting to a more aesthetic experience means moving away from the knowledge, choosing to forget the information we might have. Here we have a picture that has a very good, rational explanation: an African political activist fears for her life, so in order to remain entirely anonymous, she drapes herself entirely. The cause, peace in Darfur, is very noble, Halima Bashir's story (you have the link above) is shocking. But this same picture can be seen differently. Here we have the president of the USA in conversation with the Unknown, the absolute Stranger. Here is a confrontation of the American/Western values, aesthetics, mode of functioning (notice the microphones!), attitude (the gesture! the gesture!) with the ghost of another world. It is a beautiful picture, and the most outstanding thing about it is - it's a readymade.
I found this at Happy Famous Artists. It was dated February 14. How come this seems fine on Valentine's Day, but has something offensive about it today? Maybe it's because VD is for the individual, while today is for the group. And so, today it implies that this is the value I find important in a woman. While on February 14, it is about this one individual being gorgeous. Yet, isn't there something disturbing even about this appearing on Valentine's? The fact that what we celebrate is beauty? Beauty. Can't live with it, but would have a hard time ignoring it either.
"To be hopeful in an artistic sense it is not necessary to think that the world is good. It is enough to believe that there is no impossibility of it being made so." - Joseph Conrad
quote taken from the lengthy and uneasy, but interesting Guardian article about Conrad. (found here) I should look better and find material that would do justice both to Joseph Beuys and to Joseph Conrad. However, the video above, although somewhat naive, does present Beuys at least in some respect, and has excellent footage from his I Like America and America Likes Me. For more resources go here, and a great overview of Beuys and his influence on today's art can be found on this Tate page. As for the article about Conrad, its style does actually do justice to the Polish writer. And it is certainly enlightening. However, other suggestions are welcome.
What links those two? What impresses me? Beyond a difficult, though creative, dealing with one's identity - which that doesn't really make them stand out among artists... A sense of a profound and paradoxically bitter optimism. And amazing self-discipline.
Desert:
The Fat is on the Table Maurizio Cattelan on Joseph Beuys
beuys is dead beuys is also uniting love and knowledge beuys is more present in a desert freak beuys is sponsored by museum für moderne kunst beuys is appointed professor of sculpture at the düsseldorf academy of art beuys extends ulysses by two chapters at the request of james joyce beuys is surely not a sartre follower, but of course there are many parallels beuys is mentioned next to steiner beuys is back in town beuys is back in belgium, in berlin, US, active in germany beuys is the contemporary artist responsible for the popular notion that politics is an aesthetic activity that anyone can engage in beuys is inspired by steiner beuys is not so reactionary as to deny the existence of the entire art history repertoire beuys is widely acknowledged as one of the most influential post-war german artists beuys is the identification with everything from mythological 9gures and historical personages to writers and artists beuys is a mythical figure in the art world, however beuys is particularly significant in the light of his introspective research on the possible reuni9cation of human and natural life beuys is in the creation of the social sculpture beuys is either loved or hated beuys is considered one of the most beuys is widely regarded as one of the most important german artists since world war II beuys is demanding sun instead of rain/reagan beuys is more like an evangelist beuys is famous for an extraordinary body of drawings beuys is such an obvious candidate; he started making art following a breakdown that was a result of his experiences in world war II beuys is represented in depth in dia's permanent collection beuys is beuys is among the most famous of today's artists beuys is one of the most famous performance artists beuys is valid because wolfgang laib shares his belief in the transcendent power of art beuys is another sculptor that beuys is one of the major figures in post-war german art beuys is known for his shamanistic artist's persona beuys is among the world's most comprehensive beuys is in these digital photographs represented not by him directly beuys is a real people's artist understood by a professor beuys is megjelent a kövek mellett és hamarosan heves vita bontakozott ki közte és a közönség között beuys is a 1972 lithograph in which the essential feature is that of beuys as everyman beuys is elvesztette beuys is átvett és ami interszubjektiv jellege miatt nem volt beuys is called to account by his presumptive offspring beuys is veel materiaal verdwenen beuys is questioned by the activities of maclennan beuys is instructive beuys is very important in mail art beuys is understandable beuys is known to beuys is not completed by his death beuys is i was never secure and happy in the world of galleries from the very beginning beuys is and how it is pronounced beuys is cleverly recontextualised in beuys is of course enormously interesting beuys is l'eminence grise of community building as an art form beuys is interested in the proportions between crystal and amorphous states beuys is able to evoke the experience of the past beuys is a magnificent beuys is based on three stages beuys is a special case because of the build-up of a curious sense of obligation to respond positively beuys is the generation of my father beuys is talking about the much wider concept of creative potential beuys is regarded as one of the most significant personalities of the past beuys is steeped in the struggle of world war II beuys is a big influence right now beuys is unavoidable beuys is purely a decorative artist beuys is hype beuys is cited as the great collaborator of the twentieth century because beuys believed everybody was a potential artist beuys is on e-bay beuys is a mythical figure in beuys is one artist i wanted to ask you about beuys is one of the biggest art world phonies of recent years beuys is probably unique in the history of art beuys is supposed beuys is a very controversial sculptor beuys is grounded in a tradition of narrative sources that is often absent in american art of the same period beuys is hardly a household name in the history of twentieth-century art beuys is the great shaman of twentieth-century art beuys is represented with his monumental work created shortly before his death, lightning with stag in its glare beuys is best known for declaring "everyone an artist"; koons seems to declare that everyone is a consumer
Just one remark (I can't seem to resist the theoretician's temptations of spoiling any pure, unintellectual fun). Notice the postal stamp on one of the postcards. The pleasure of seeing the "unmediated" pictures (although obviously the print suggests they are vintage publicity postcards for Paris venues) is blocked. There is, at first, a feeling of betrayal of the medium. Ah, this is not an image, it is just a postcard. It was used, handled. We are not in the presence of the original, of the source, but of some specific copy. "Specific" is in italics, because paradoxically the specificity is what, at first, appears to take away the uniqueness (aura) of the work. But then arrives the second movement: the picture has a story. It was someone's. Someone mailed it to someone. There is even a hidden part to it! Also, the painted-on colors seem to gain depth, as they become the ideal mask, the part that doesn't lie, as it does not age, it is not a face, not a breast, it is merely the décor, the play, the mask, it is the surface that remains, it is the stamp, it is the frequency of color, nothing more, and strangely, this surface is what takes these bodies on a long and always illogical journey here.
Not that there aren't plenty. But a few good ones can be found on this Favorite Poem Project site. (As you will notice, the page is an absolute of absolutes of nec plus ultras of political correctness. Does that make the poems - and their readers - any more problematic?)
To all the bloggers, I dedicate the first verse of Block City, by Robert Louis Stevenson:
What are you able to build with your blocks? Castles and palaces, temples and docks. Rain may keep raining, and others go roam, But I can be happy and building at home.
Mind you, Stevenson was a great traveler, author of Treasure Island and many other adventure novels, inspired by his own voyages.
One suggestive bracket for the project and very close ot the idea of the interview which guided Żmijewski in the realisation of this cycle, is Truth Serum. Althamer is asked a series of question while under sodium pentothal. Żmijewski begins with the usual prosaic issues: Where do you live? How many children do you have? (...) And at the end, a question about art: 'What is the significance of the fact that you make sculpture, dolls, films?' 'It gives me joy,' replies Althamer. 'I like when people laugh.'
- in:Artur Żmijewski. If it happened only once it's as if it never happened. (my bold)
Lisbon and Berlin are, currently, comparable places of creation and experimentation: there, artists seem more free to explore the limits of their undertakings [plus libres d'aller jusqu'au bout de leur propos].
And if you really need a connection, here is a quote and a song (uhmmm... press play):
“A new born child has no teeth.”—“A goose has no teeth.”—“A rose has no teeth.”—This last at any rate—one would like to say—is obviously true! It is even surer than that a goose has none.—And yet it is none so clear. For where should a rose’s teeth have been? The goose has none in its jaw. And neither, of course, has it any in its wings; but no one means that when he says it has no teeth.—Why, suppose one were to say: the cow chews its food and then dungs the rose with it, so the rose has teeth in the mouth of a beast. This would not be absurd, because one has no notion in advance where to look for teeth in a rose. ((connexion with ‘pain in someone else’s body’.))
L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations (for a simple analysis followed by a ridiculously complicated statement, see here, and for a note on Bruce Nauman's work inspired by this quote see here)
