Msg#: 361 *ART* 12-12-93 21:51:39 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: PIT SCHULTZ Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 299 (PATENTATION) Sounds like you guys had fun at your trip to the Patent Office. Can we see the video? I need a few 15 second clips for our upcoming online video show. Btw, I didn't mean to engage in Fend bas hing. He's a fun guy and he should be able to harvest all the seaweed of the Ocean and the Earth and turn it into methan and sell the patents and finally "get rich". Tell us more about the show in the barbershop. I understand the "Transactivism" Symposium is part of it. You know you are supposed to say something there. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: The Thing - New York City (42:1001/1) Msg#: 487 *ART* 12-17-93 03:34:09 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 251 (WHAT'S UP DOWNTOWN.) Morgan you are a genius: We have come to know what is "greatest art." --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: The Thing - New York City (42:1001/1) <*>Replies Msg#: 492 *ART* 12-17-93 09:58:13 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 487 (WHAT'S UP DOWNTOWN.) Oh, thank you Josephina! I should show you my slides! --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: The Thing - New York City (42:1001/1) Msg#: 494 *ART* 12-17-93 10:21:39 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 492 (WHAT'S UP DOWNTOWN.) Those giant Cibachromes you're doing are of Twinkies? --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: The Thing - New York City (42:1001/1) Msg#: 501 *ART* 12-17-93 10:59:54 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 494 (WHAT'S UP DOWNTOWN.) no,no...I am having giant Twinkies fabricated which are then fired out of huge guns at low velocity. They have parachute landing mechanisms, so they float gently to earth anywhere in the five Boroughs. With them comes a certificate for a home study course on air conditioner repair and deconstructivist thought on one CD rom. To qualify, you must document yourself eating the Twinkie first on VHS format, hand held camera O.K. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: The Thing - New York City (42:1001/1) Msg#: 556 *ART* 12-27-93 14:44:49 From: CAROL BROAD To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 501 (WHAT'S UP DOWNTOWN.) Forgive me for the interruption... and I don't even know if I am doing this right... but could you tell me what your Twinkie has to do with Art? I don't understand what any of this has to do with Art. I mean, are you an artist or not? And why do you make Art if you hate it so much? I don't understand what's going on here... I am new, yes... but everybody on this entire system contradicts themselves constantly, and it's so frustrating... One minute it's one thing and the next its something else. I've been on this board for six months now and I HAVEN'T UNDERSTOOD ONE THING ANYBODY SAYS! You seem like the most normal person here that I can talk to. But that's not saying much. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: The Thing - New York City (42:1001/1) Msg#: 557 *ART* 12-27-93 17:43:42 From: JEFFREY SCHULZ To: CAROL BROAD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 556 (WHAT'S UP DOWNTOWN.) > everybody on this entire system contradicts > themselves constantly, and it's so frustrating... One minute it's > one thing and the next its something else. Could you describe what you mean by this? --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: The Thing - New York City (42:1001/1) Msg#: 559 *ART* 12-28-93 01:13:23 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: CAROL BROAD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 556 (WHAT'S UP DOWNTOWN.) you got that rite, dahlink! Think of this joint as a neurotic playpen where all us frustrated geniuses go to bug out on each other. The reality is that under the surface, everybody is weird as shit, the times we inhabit are weirder, and most people are disoriented, scared of the future, can't afford good drugs anymore, and masturbate a ton. So, where does all the the nutso jizm go...to The Thing, natch... Might as well get nekkid and jump in the mud with the rest of us freaks. The people you seriously gotta keep a jaundiced eye on are all them fake normal people with a pressure cooker lid on all their squirming unconscious primal swamp broth. Seriously, nobody in the know takes art seriously. One way ticket to Creedmore for those who do. The lamebrains spouting grad school truisms are good fun at culture boozathons, at least. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: The Thing - New York City (42:1001/1) Msg#: 560 *ART* 12-28-93 01:15:16 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JEFFREY SCHULZ (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 557 (WHAT'S UP DOWNTOWN.) don't tease her. She has to change into her cat-suit. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: The Thing - New York City (42:1001/1) Msg#: 561 *ART* 12-28-93 08:51:54 From: JEFFREY SCHULZ To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 560 (WHAT'S UP DOWNTOWN.) Just wondering, that's all. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: The Thing - New York City (42:1001/1) Msg#: 564 *ART* 12-28-93 16:04:46 From: CAROL BROAD To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 560 (WHAT'S UP DOWNTOWN.) What does that mean? --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: The Thing - New York City (42:1001/1) Msg#: 565 *ART* 12-28-93 16:11:01 From: CAROL BROAD To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 559 (WHAT'S UP DOWNTOWN.) I disagree, because some people care very much about art, and take it VERY seriously, like me. I LIVE for my art. What about you? All you do aparently is roll around in here in the dialogue, ejaculating. What i want to konw is: 1. Why are you here? and 2. Where is the art? --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: The Thing - New York City (42:1001/1) Msg#: 566 *ART* 12-28-93 16:21:42 From: CAROL BROAD To: JEFFREY SCHULZ (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 557 (WHAT'S UP DOWNTOWN.) It's hard to understand what everybody stands for, because they're all shifting around. It's like Laura T. talking about that she can't stop shaking herself off while at the same time trying to hold still. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: The Thing - New York City (42:1001/1) Msg#: 573 *ART* 12-28-93 19:14:41 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: CAROL BROAD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 564 (WHAT'S UP DOWNTOWN.) nothing. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: The Thing - New York City (42:1001/1) Msg#: 574 *ART* 12-28-93 19:32:56 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: CAROL BROAD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 565 (WHAT'S UP DOWNTOWN.) It is wonderful that you take art VERY seriously. It is marvelous that you take yourself VERY seriously. I am in awe of you. I like to roll around and ejaculate. What you like to do is your business. What difference does it make that I am here? What difference does it make why am I here? Even if I had an answer, who the Hell cares anyway? Peolple cling to Art like they cling to any illusion. Then they grow up and see through it an have a crisis. But, big deal, go take a Prozac. Art changes nothing. It's nice to have around and kind of fun to discuss and contemplate for five minutes, but life goes on. What can art aspire to? A big "shape" in a plaza for people to eat their lunch around. A room full of mysterious crap to have a mental freakout on? Public art? 19th century sculptors totally whip 20 century phonies off the map. The thing over Grand Central Station is really nice. But we don't have just "art" now, we have a big stinking turd of graduate programs and precious writers and all the politics and gassbaggery of self appointed savants. When you look in from the outside, you see all these jerks flattering themselves and preaching to the converted and going nowhere and getting VERY DEFENSIVE when their fragile eggshell minds are plinked. Most of what they do sucks by any standard, they have lousy taste in music, their "raps" are pathetic beyond belief. This is a life? Oh PULeeeze, when are you going to wake up and see the light? Heil Morley Safer!!!! --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: The Thing - New York City (42:1001/1) Msg#: 575 *ART* 12-28-93 20:07:29 From: JEFFREY SCHULZ To: CAROL BROAD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 566 (WHAT'S UP DOWNTOWN.) Do you think this is part of a more global issue? That the world seems to be "shifting around," to use your phrase, and that we're all, to a certain extent, both shaking ourselves off *and* trying to hold still at the same time? That we're trying to figure out what it means that Eastern Europe is still dissolving, that the information superhighway is sweeping parts of us away, that North Korea has the capacity to produce a nuclear bomb? --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: The Thing - New York City (42:1001/1) Msg#: 580 *ART* 12-29-93 09:31:22 From: CAROL BROAD To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 574 (WHAT'S UP DOWNTOWN.) Oh, I don't do art like THAT... like that was on Morley Safer. I paint mostly REAL art--birds on the beach and such. I think that you would like my paintings, and also my poetry. I am going to post a poem to make you feel better, and to give you hope in your time of crisis. Because when it comes down to it, that's what it's all about: helping people. There was a time in my life when My heart wore a coat of armor. It was in control and my feelings were in check. I was on top of things. My heart was safe from the in- side out and the outside in. Nothing could penetrate or escape. My heart was like a golf ball. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: The Thing - New York City (42:1001/1) Msg#: 582 *ART* 12-29-93 09:59:56 From: CAROL BROAD To: JEFFREY SCHULZ (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 575 (WHAT'S UP DOWNTOWN.) So not only are we shaking ourselves off and trying to hold still but parts of us are being swept away and nations are dissolving... and to top it off, NOrth Dakota has a nuclear bomb! --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: The Thing - New York City (42:1001/1) Msg#: 594 *ART* 12-30-93 01:35:08 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: CAROL BROAD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 580 (WHAT'S UP DOWNTOWN.) so's your brain, only less so. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: The Thing - New York City (42:1001/1) Msg#: 783 *ART* 01-06-94 07:36:13 From: LYNN ELIZABETH CRAWFORD To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 594 (WHAT'S UP DOWNTOWN.) I think you are getting provoked. Faced with all of CB's femininity. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: The Thing - New York City (42:1001/1) Msg#: 1006 *ART* 01-11-94 15:56:18 From: GISELA EHRENFRIED To: LYNN ELIZABETH CRAWFORD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 783 (WHAT'S UP DOWNTOWN.) Do you call this feminine? --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: The Thing - New York City (42:1001/1) Msg#: 2184 *ART* 02-03-94 17:12:47 From: LYNN ELIZABETH CRAWFORD To: GISELA EHRENFRIED (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1006 (WHAT'S UP DOWNTOWN.) Yes. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) Msg#: 495 *ART* 12-17-93 10:29:14 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 243 (WHAT'S UP DOWNTOWN.) > What do we do with Brendan's Becht case? Cover of the Flash Art, > November/December--he is a cook. Met Brendan yesterday, had to ask > him about his work, is it art? I am a cook he answered. It's very funny. And there's not even an article on him, just a little blurb. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: The Thing - New York City (42:1001/1) End of Replies, add yours(Y/N)? N Msg#: 517 *ART* 12-19-93 21:30:47 From: DENNIS SUMMERS To: JEFF HARRINGTON (Rcvd) Subj: ART SUCKS Regarding the market having very little to do with it (the survival of artwork). I can't really agree with this romantic view of artwork. Although I believe this issue to be on a continuum, like most things, I have to maintain that the market is the overwhelming influence on which art survives. Although there is always an *underground* of ideas which get carried along through a generation or two, it is the *overground* which carries such product owing to its success in the market. Much work is tempor- ary and under-experienced until it is either mass produced (say books) or mass publicized (say most visual arts or music). A work simply just isn't going to get that exposure to the public unless someone, somehow is going to make money off of it. But you know it is your other point about light shining into dark corners, making a connection between people's dark interiors that I really want to segue from. When Frank Zappa died (totally unnecessarily, a major indictment against the medical "profession", but don't get me started on doctors and their monopoly on misguided and useless health procedures, I'll write about that in the Health Forum), and the media was playing back old quotes, it was encouraging to me to hear that he had as low an opinion on people baring their souls in pop music, as I have toward the visual arts. I have long felt that for the most part (although there are some exceptions), personal ego really has no place in quality work. Most people expressing their inner selves really have nothing to say of any value. When you get right down to it, how much personal angst do we need of someone else's. I'm so tired of hearing artists talk about the symbolism of their work. For the most part, that symbolism is unique and not "universal" (if their is such a thing). But on the other hand their is the extreme of artists just making mildly amusing, somewhat clever remarks with their works, sort of Duchamp Lite. Jenny Holzer for example. I can never tell if she is making some sort of negative comment about these sorts of trite simplistic statements. But she seems so sincere. And then of course there's Jeff Koons who has covered both of these extremes. Thoughtful artwork about large issues doesn't shine my way too often. I can't treasure it if I don't see it. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: The Thing - New York City (42:1001/1) <*>Replies Msg#: 520 *ART* 12-21-93 12:00:09 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: DENNIS SUMMERS (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 517 (ART SUCKS) you are absolutely right on more than one point. "Art" works best in the middle zone between the personal and *mass culture*. If it is only inward looking and masturbatory, and much of it is, one gets exercises in narcissistic fascination not unlike the drunk at the bar who insists you listen to his life rap. At the other end of the spectrum, you must render unto Caesar and become less than human in the process. Then you are infected with the spirit of the machine, accountable to forces you never imagined. The mask eats the face. The third place, perhaps along Ben Kinmont's line of thought, isn't in great abundance. Little patches of fertile mental land between deserts and mountains. I don't think inner lives are necessarily empty, but that this culture/environment has made it so easy to get away without having one that nobody notices or cares anymore. The mind thrives on exercise as much as the body does. It atrophies like a bedridden body will. One can get by in a state of total passivity, there is no need to think, conceptualize, infer, manipulate abstractions, engage in speculative flights, mythologize, and all of those fine arts of human being. The atmosphere encourages and seduces the would be thinker into a state of otiose clodhood. Like anemonae, we need do no more than strain water through our gills. (on the subject of medicine, I will desist for now or risk going ballistic) --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: The Thing - New York City (42:1001/1) Msg#: 522 *ART* 12-21-93 13:46:41 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: *.* Subj: ATTN SHOPPERS Attention Shoppers! X-mas approaches and I am sure you haven't bought any gifts yet. So hurry over to ThingEditions and get a steal: Peter Halley for $20, Mosset for $30...yes this is a sales pitch...the new BLAST for $60, and look at all the other items...a Kosuth for a ridiculous $2,500! There is something for every budget and it's easy! Let's say the Halley: just download it, have it printed on an Iris for 30 bucks, frame it and have a piece of history. Don't you get it? It's real! --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: The Thing - New York City (42:1001/1) <*>Replies Msg#: 526 *ART* 12-21-93 19:17:01 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 522 (ATTN SHOPPERS) I printed the Halley in Pro-Tech computer paper and it looks great. Does for a very lovely Christmas gift. In a regular US Letter size the image should be reduced in a 66%. I also printed John. F. Simon. His first image worked very well as I somehow reduced it and printed it horizontal... in the same paper. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: The Thing - New York City (42:1001/1) Msg#: 595 *ART* 12-30-93 11:25:39 From: JEFFREY SCHULZ To: CAROL BROAD (Rcvd) Subj: BOMBS AWAY Yes, North Dakota has nuclear bombs. But those bombs are being put out of commission. Different in the other Northern province that I was talking about, no? --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: The Thing - New York City (42:1001/1) Msg#: 601 *ART* 12-31-93 01:54:54 From: PETER FEND To: JENNY HOLZER Subj: YOUR MUNICH ACTION The following is an edited excerpt from an open letter to Jenny Holzer written earlier this December in view of her actions regarding the Yugoslav war in Munich and Cologne. The actions took place in a Roman Catholic Church, in the Suddeutscher Zeitung, and in a Munich kunsthaus, all in a context (Germany) raising serious questions of bias: the former foreign minister of Italy, the European minister of Greece and numerous other political figures throughout Europe,and even at the US State Department, have publicly voiced the belief, or at least perception, that both the Western Church and the Federal Republic of Germany have not been innocent bystanders in the war in Yugoslavia. Holzer nonetheless chose this context to suggest that the chief victims of the war were the many women being raped and killed, and that the chief victimizers--the persons who could deservedly lose blood--were the soldiers and generals. Given his own experience, Fend suggested that for we in the West,including the US and Germany, "the moral abyss is beneath our feet." --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: The Thing - New York City (42:1001/1) *Enclosed File: whose_blood <*>Replies Type P to Pause, S to Stop listing FROM "PUBLIC LETTER TO JENNY HOLZER' LIST OF EVENTS Prepared in response to an action by Jenny Holzer, and dedicated to helping found a new structure in the lives of the peoples in what has been or still is said to be a republic of Yugoslavia, with possibly some benefit to those working for a living planet. 1. On the day that Jenny Holzer received her Lion d'Or and told Peter Fend that his job was to save the Adriatic, the lead headline of the International Herald Tribune read, "UN Warning on Warming: Cut Emissions 60% Now, or Else." The article reported that scientists at a UN conference had concluded that fossil fuel consumption must be reduced immediately by 60% to avoid disaster. 2. Ten years earlier, in 1980, Jenny Holzer, Peter Fend and four other artists, including TV producer Colen Fitzgibbon, painter Robin Winters, then Holzer-friend Peter Nadin, and Richard Prince, were asked with some urgency by scientists at the California Institute of Technology to help develop an advertising campaign, or some such creative media campaign, in their capacity as "The Offices", for promoting a scheme for replacing fossil fuels with a marine-biological source. Shortly afterwards, however, The Offices collapsed. No such campaign, nor other campaigns pending with UN organizations and with the North-South commission of Willy Brandt, though envisioned, was ever undertaken. Instead, art history took quite another course. 3. At the time that Holzer was asking Fend to "save the Adriatic", Fend was working through an attorney and through his domestic position in Yugoslavia, as well as his knowledge of a marine biologist from Split (present-day Croatia) who was the head of the UN Environment Program's Regional Seas Program, to respond to the request of the Consorzio Venezia Nuova that a "Progetto Adriatico", then being prepared, include a major participation from Yugoslavia. A base in Belgrade was being readied. 4. Also at that time, a few months before the Iraqi attack on Kuwait, the UN Peacekeeping Force in the Persian Gulf was led by Yugoslavia. 5. In the months after the Iraqi attack on Kuwait, Yugoslavia took a lead in attempting to find a negotiated settlement to the Gulf question, and in February 1991 it organized a peace conference of countries from the Non-Aligned Movement, of which it was the head, and for which the headquarters was located in Belgrade. At that time, the Non-Aligned Movement included 108 countries from what could be called, generically, the "South". The singular exceptions were South Africa, Brazil (an observer only), Granada, Honduras and Costa Rica. 6. The non-aligned states attending the conference considered the Gulf question to be a matter for themselves to decide, as it was between members of the non-aligned movement. 7. The non-aligned states attending the conference were: Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina, Algeria, Malta, Cyprus, Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka, Zimbabawe, Zambia, Egypt, Yugoslavia. As we understand, an observer status was awarded to several states, including Yemen. 8. The members of this conference included the No. 1 oil/gas exporters of the Americas, of Africa, and of Asia, and the No. 2 and 3 oil/gas reserve holders of the Middle East. 9. The members of this conference also enjoyed a geographical position of control, or at least potential control, over these primary channels of oil and other resource traffic: the Suez, the Straits of Hormuz, the Bab el Mandeb, the Straits of Malacca, the Sea of Ceylon, the Straits of Gibralter, the eastern and central Mediterranean, the Straits of Florida, the Windward Passage, the Caribbean Sea, the Panama Canal, the Straits of Magellan. If these countries had reached an agreement on how to divide world oil, they could be in a position to endanger or block virtually all oil traffic worldwide which might be conducted by the current prime owners of oil/gas assets. 10. The current prime owners of oil/gas assets are: Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, Standard Oil of New Jersey, Standard Oil of New York, Standard Oil of California, Texaco, Elf Aquitaine, Compagnie Francaise de Petrole, Ente Nazionale Idrocarburi. The home countries are the US, UK, Netherlands, France and Italy. In addition, there are some relatively minor Japanese and German firms. 11. The current provisions for an air attack on Serbian positions in Bosnia, or for other military attacks in Yugoslavia as sanctioned by the UN, involve forces from the US, UK, Netherlands and France, using bases in Italy. 12. Due to the solid grip on world oil/gas traffic by the current prime owners of assets, as enforced by their home states, the rich 15% of the world's population, known as the West, and represented by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), have been enjoying somewhat over 50% of all world oil/gas consumption. The remaining 85% of the world population, the bulk of which included the Non-Aligned Movement and its close friend China, was left with the remaining half. 13. At the peace conference in Belgrade in February 1991, there was talk of restructuring the access of the world's population to world oil/gas assets. 14. Assuming that the restructuring would lead to a reasonable equality, in which the South could be entitled to as much as the North, then the rich 15% of the world's population would end up having to consume no more than 15% of the world's oil/gas assets. This would constitute a cut of about 70%. 15. Continuing the calculation, such a restructuring, which could extend to the so-called East (e.g., then-Soviet bloc), would allow the less rich or poor 85% of the world's population to consume 85% of the world's oil/gas assets, for an increase in total consumption of about 70%. 16. Mathematically, but probably not historically, a reduction in rich-country consumption of oil/gas assets by 70% coupled with no change in poorer-country consumption of oil/gas assets would have effected a 35% reduction in consumption, and emissions. Also, if the rich countries went on a crash program of developing only non oil/gas assets, especially so-called alternative or ecological sources, to quickly eliminate all dependence on fossil fuels, and if the poorer countries (being less able to afford change) replaced fossil sources by 20%, then worldwide consumption, and emissions, would be cut back 60%--in line with the UN recommendation reported on the day Jenny Holzer won the Lion d'Or and told Peter Fend to save the Adriatic. 17. According to an report appearing in the International Herald Tribune on 26 April 1993, the cost of Desert Storm--the Western military operation to maintain the status quo in world oil/gas asset holdings in the Gulf, as elsewhere--was nearly 700 Billion Dollars. This figure, the article says, is "not counting vast damage to the environment and a continuing suppression of the rate of economic growth in the region." 18. To date, no program for a conversion from fossil fuel base to other sources, or for a reduction in fossil fuel consumption by "60% now, or else" has been proposed on the scale of any figure like 700 Billion Dollars. 19. In the early 1980s, most explicitly with government agency decisions in 1981 originated in the United States and United Kingdom, research conducted at the California Institute of Technology and at institutes like the French Institute for Exploitation of the Sea for development of ocean-vegetation alternatives to fossil fuel hydrocarbons was either denied funds or outright forbidden. At this time, due to moves by the British Admiralty and certain British scientists, any research or development in the European Community of a giant-algae industry which could compete with fossil fuels, possibly replacing them, is illegal. 20. These sorts of projects are precisely what scientists at Caltech, and at associated companies like Global Marine (since bankrupt), were asking to be promoted, in a combination art and advertising campaign, a possible media blitz, by The Offices of Fend, Fitzgibbon, Holzer, Nadin, Prince & Winters, in early 1980. 21. The art power and even outright media power of each of the members of The Offices since 1980 has been considerable, with one of those members becoming an official artist for the United States in 1990, so clearly the combined power of these five individuals-- if they had stayed together on projects such as the one requested by Caltech and Global Marine scientists--would have been considerable, particularly in relation to the world image of the voice and policy of the United States. 22. On 20 October 1987, for example, an article appeared in The International Herald Tribune in which one of the artists from The Offices, who had developed a know-how in processing of civil satellite data for site analysis with, among others, another artist from The Offices, accused the key negotiator between Iran and Iraq of handing over images and analysis for which he and his colleagues were responsible solely to one side in the war, Iran. This key negotiator had replaced Olof Palme in the position of key negotiator, and he was later revealed to the artist by a UN diplomat to be have been an agent for the CIA. A number of articles followed, along with at least one cover-up murder in one of the news-release points, but the artist, along with two colleagues (not from The Offices) held a press conference at the UN in response to what was described by correspondents as the "biggest scandal in the history of the UN." Since then, this aritst went through three trials, at the end of which he has been forbidden to speak of any episodes in which he is involved that include the government of Iran. 23. From late 1980 through early 1981, Jenny Holzer maintained an proposal to work together with Fend and Fitzgibbon, along with a dozen other artists, in a company called Ocean Earth which was formed after the dissolution of The Offices, but the proposal was rejected. She had offered to be the media director for Ocean Earth. This was seen as threatening by the shareholders, given her already dominant recognition in the art world and her material resources. There have been voicings since then that this rejection was a serious mistake. 32. At a second press conference at the United Nations conducted by Fend and Sante Scardillo, also just weeks before Desert Storm, efforts to show how satellite monitoring and earth-art principles (as also monitored by satellite) could benefit all the Gulf, were frustrated when the Counselor to the Iranian Mission to the United Nations accused Fend personally of trying to extort a very large sum of money from Iran. The press corps understood that even if the accusation were not true it would be too dangerous to give any credence to Fend. 33. A press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, which was not nearly as well attended, given solo by Fend, was videotaped for television release by Fitzgibbon. 34. On 26 June 1992, one day after Yugoslavia began to break up with the declaration of independence of Croatia and Slovenia, the residence of Fend in Cologne began to be visited and occupied by an agent working for the German Foreign Ministry. This activity ended four months later when Fend discovered the problem, spent two days at a hotel interrogating his former housemate, and left the country. He was told shortly afterwards by a US diplomatic officer to not return to Germany. 35. The chief objection to Fend stated by the agent for the Foreign Ministry was that he was "working with both sides in Yugoslavia," and that "what he was doing could start a war." The agent referred in particular to the "Administration of the Adriatic" article which appeared in the Nov/Dec 1990 Flash Art. He also referred to the ongoing activities of Fend in Yugoslavia. 36. Those activities, conducted with two architects from the United States and requested by an architecture firm based in Belgrade, consisted chiefly of trying to set up a ocean-algae farm to yield enough non-polluting hydrocarbons, such as methane, to end any reliance on fossil fuels. The farm was to have been coordinated with infrastructure siting and development, and with civil satellite monitoring. The intended site was Tivat Bay; the intended client was Montenegro. 37. At the time that Fend and his colleagues were scheduled to start work in Tivat Bay, in the second half of September 1991, the Republic of Montenegro declared itself to be an "ecological state." 38. Also at that time, due to growing conflict and tensions, the architecture firm in Belgrade advised to not begin the project. 39. Several months later, due to this growing conflict and tensions, an architect from Sarajevo invited Fend and his colleagues, organized in a venture called NEWS ROOM, to come to Sarajevo and operate a NEWS ROOM SARAJEVO. But this also beame impossible to begin. A surrogate of the project was conducted at PS 1 in New York in February 1992, shortly after which the main colleague of Fend, who stayed in the US while Fend traveled to Europe, was intercepted by an agent of the CIA. 40. In summer 1991, as observed in Rome airport, a Yugoslav-flag airline existed with the names "Red Sea Airlines" and "Air Djibouti." By that time, due to changes during the Iran-Iraq war and Desert Storm, the bulk of ocean traffic of oil out from the Gulf to the world was passing through not the Gulf and its Straits of Hormuz but through the Red Sea. This traffic now goes through the Red Sea to either Egypt and the Suez Canal, or to the straits between Djibouti and Yemen. The latter has long been a close friend of Yugoslavia. 41. Directly across from Yemen, flanking what is now the most heavily trafficked sea lane for oil from the Gulf to the world, is a country called Somalia. 42. Further out to sea, in the Indian Ocean, a large island owned by Yemen sits close to Somalia. From this island there is a potential of blocking all the sea traffic of oil/gas reserves going southwards through the Red Sea past Djibouti to the world. In recent years, this island was one of the largest offshore naval bases of the Soviet Union. 43. In 1985, the father of the Yugoslav woman who conceived two children with Fend, was murdered, apparently by agents of the Yugoslav government. 44. This man her father is said to have had ideas very similar to those of Fend, which explains her affection for him, and is said also to have been a friend and professional colleague of the scientist from Split who was the founding director of the UN Regional Seas Program of the United Nations Environment Program. 45. Fend learned about the scientist from Split, then based in Geneva, through the director of the UN Environment Program office in New York, who believed that the ocean basin maps produced by Fend could be useful to the scientist from Split and his Regional Seas Program. 46. During the Iran-Iraq war, the Yugoslav government decided to embark on a diplomatic policy of building up an access to and voice of the non-aligned movement in a vital center of global wealth, the Arabian/Persian Gulf. This policy led to its selection as the leader of UN peacekeeping operations in the Gulf, and to its subsequent ability to organize a peace conference on the Gulf, even to participating in intense discussions in cities like Teheran and Baghdad with diplomats from Russia, France, various non-aligned nations--but conspicuously no other country from the West. 47. In the last weeks before Desert Storm, France decided also to abandon its attempts at negotiating a peace settlement and, despite much internal rancor, joined the US-led forces. 48. An international lawyer playing a substantial role in the decision of France to join the US, and to abandon its tendency for siding with Yugoslavia or other Third World countries, has forbidden anyone wtih whom he has professional dealings, including anyone from his firm, to have any contact with Peter Fend. This lawyer is married to the sister of Fend. 49. The rift between the lawyer and Fend, which started with his entry into the art world instead of (as he wanted) a prestigious law school, became nearly total with the 20 October 1987 article in The International Herald Tribune, along with subsequent news articles in the international press. Less than six months later, due to thre pressures of the rift, the sister of Peter Fend, the wife of this lawyer, attempted to commit suicide by jumping off the Queensboro Bridge. The event hit the front-page of the newspapers because, unlike most everyone who jumps off that bridge, she was rescued and survived. 50. Virtually all communication between this lawyer and all members of the family of Peter Fend, including his parents and younger sister, has stopped. 51. This lawyer was educated in both France and the United States, and holds dual French and US citizenship. He has played a major role in various postwar arrangements in Kuwait and throughout the Gulf. He fre~uently attends meetings in what are described by a source to Fend as "high government circles" regarding what is to be done about or to Fend, particularly given demands from the German Foreign Ministry to the French Government, and he has recently forbidden any further leaks to Fend about what is discussed in these meetings. 52. Fend has been told by one of his sources that French intelligence is aware that the Yugoslav government was not happy with Fend's relation with a highly-educated daughter of a leading ecologist there, who in 1985 was murdered following an accelerating trend in trips overseas--to the US, to Russia, to Japan--regarding various ecological development technologies. 53. In his last trip to Belgrade, in February 1993, it became evident to Fend that considerable control efforts had been imposed on her So, Jenny, here are some facts. They indicate, I believe, that there had been a concerted attempt during the Iran-Iraq war by countries leading the non-aligned movement or Socialist International, countries such as Yugoslavia and Sweden, to gain an determinative say in the partition of vital resources in the Persian/Arabian Gulf, the main reserve of fossil fuels for the world, and in South Africa, including Namibia. This attempt, particularly in regard to fossil fuels, ran counter to the property interests of the West generally, and of the US, UK, Netherlands, France and Italy in particular. One country, from our experience, including three court cases and what you may have witnessed in the art world, has been rewarded for its vital services in securing Western access to two members of the non- aligned movement, Iran and Libya. This country is where you are now exhibiting and publishing your views on the war in Yugoslavia. When you told me in May 1990 that it was "my job" to "save the Adriatic", I had an afterthought of asking, "Okay, Jenny, and what's yours?" What's your job? I think you should consider what tasks we were faced with back in 1980. And I think we both should consider how we might structure a relation or communication, unlike the ones which failed before. ... Historical Context It is generally considered that by far the largest reserves of oil/gas in the world are in the Persian/Arabian Gulf, with an estimated percentage of the world total being 57%. This means that the last main reserve of the world will be the Gulf. Meantime, further to the question of who controls world oil, there are attempts to decide on control of reserves being discovered or suspected in Georgia and in Albania with Kosovo. In Georgia there is fighting now. In Albania, there is a fresh new presence, with exclusive contracts, of the Standard Oil Company of California, along with Occidental Petroleum, AND in Kosovo, where Presidents Clinton and Bush said it may be necessary to send US troops, there appears to be a geological structure conducive to large quantities of what could be an inside-Europe source of fossil fuels. One may suppose that Western oil companies would not like non-Western companies or entities, such as the former Soviet Union or the rump-state Yugoslavia, having fresh new finds of fossil fuels which could be used to induce alliances or independence of western geopolitical strategies. This would conform with what happened in the two world wars, when the West blocked Mitteleuropa from gaining land access or contiguity to the Gulf, or to other sources of independence, and with what happened at Yalta in 1945, when Stalin was granted an award of Eastern Europe at the expense (did he forget) of making a claim, enforceable under an Anglo- Russian treaty of 1907, to 50% of Iran. When the Russian empire tried in the 1980s, along with Yugoslavia, to gain a fresh, new access to primary fossil fuel resources, they were defeated... and so ended the Cold War. <*>Replies Msg#: 780 *ART* 01-06-94 03:45:44 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: PETER FEND Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 601 (YOUR MUNICH ACTION) I liked Jenny's project to have a magazine story about Yugoslavia printed with human blood so it literally sticks to your fingers. What I *really* don't understand is your insinuation > that both the Western > Church and the Federal Republic of Germany have not been innocent > bystanders in the war in Yugoslavia. I can't imagine that the conflict in former Yugoslavia is in the interest of either one, but even if that were so, why would Jenny Holzer's action > raise serious questions of bias? Sincerely yours and very confused, Wolfgang. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: The Thing - New York City (42:1001/1) Msg#: 1053 *ART* 01-11-94 02:05:00 From: HEIKO WICHMANN To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 780 (YOUR MUNICH ACTION) > that both the Western > Church and the Federal Republic of Germany have not been innocent > bystanders in the war in Yugoslavia. WS> WS> I can't imagine that the conflict in former Yugoslavia is in the WS> interest WS> of either one I don't want to raise serious conspiracy thinking or rants. But do _you_ have an explanation why the military leaders of Bosnia and Croatia are negotiating in _Bonn_? Ok, surely it's just the secret world of diplomacy (and not the church). But I'm sure Mr Fend knows better... -> Alice4Mac 2.1.4E QWK Ser#2-103 --- * Origin: THE THING BERLIN (box/fax 030:4528534) (42:1002/3) Msg#: 1096 *ART* 01-14-94 20:53:27 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: HEIKO WICHMANN Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1053 (YOUR MUNICH ACTION) Delirium, Delarium, Loeffelstiel! It's too bad you guys didn't get the attached Fend file. I'll send it via netmail. But as a precaution please encrypt all future communication concerning this matter. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING - NEW YORK CITY (I guess it had to be in caps.) (42:1001/1) Msg#: 1120 *ART* 01-15-94 12:43:31 From: MICHAEL JOHNSTON To: PETER FEND Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 601 (YOUR MUNICH ACTION) Your paranoiac perfomance work is as dull as it is ineffective. If you really care about this stuff, what are you doing lurking around the art world? Here your delusional ramblings offer nothing but entertainment. If you really cared about your causes, you wouldn't be bothering Jenny Holzer. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING - NEW YORK CITY (I guess it had to be in caps.) (42:1001/1) Msg#: 1302 *ART* 01-22-94 19:19:38 From: MICHAEL OWEN To: PETER FEND Subj: SAW YOUR NAME Peter saw your name as we scanned the messages. How are you doing? I look forward to hearing about what you are up to. Robin White and I still have the Owen Electric Pictures office on Wooster Street. I still collaborate with Carole Ann Klonarides on MICA-TV projects. Talk to you. Michael Owen --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) Msg#: 1859 *ART* 01-28-94 13:20:26 From: MICHAEL JOHNSTON To: ALL Subj: ART? Anybody seen any good shows lately? --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) <*>Replies Msg#: 1865 *ART* 01-28-94 13:45:10 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: MICHAEL JOHNSTON Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1859 (ART?) I'm getting to the point where it's tough to say there I've seen a single show that gets me excited. Maybe it's just a seasonal art-burn kinda of thing but there's so much dull, repeative art out there that I 'm thrown into saying that the things that I like up at the moment are the same things that I've always liked. The LeWitt at Pace (to open tomorrow) is very nice. Nauman at Castelli is OK. Morris at the Gugg. (uptown) to open next week looks good. The show at Sonnabend is wonderful. What else would you like to know? --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) Msg#: 1895 *ART* 01-29-94 02:36:13 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: MICHAEL JOHNSTON Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1859 (ART?) Did you see Rainer's show at Nordanstad? I talked to Rainer today and we decided to have an online conversation about a few issues over the course of the next two weeks. The thread will be called "Snap to Grid" and will later be archived in the file area, section interviews. Hecklers are welcome! --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) Msg#: 1890 *ART* 01-29-94 01:12:03 From: DONALD NEWMAN To: ALL Subj: REVIEW OF DECHTER SHOW AT TWS Review Text is in Enclosed File. Select
ncl to download. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) *Enclosed File: review.txt <*>Replies Type P to Pause, S to Stop listing Artists Without Faith A review of the Dechter exhibit at Thread Waxing Space by Donald Newman, January 1994 The recent exhibit commissioned by a critic/curator exemplifies and exploits the sense of crisis that many of the artists within the NY art world seem to share and reveals the often horribly misguided role of criticism and curatorial directives in relation to the understanding or promotion of artistic process and activity. Specifically, the exhibit inhabits the space between the critic/curators desire to control what the artist produces and the artists desire to produce something that is appreciated. In this show an art critic/curator selected a group of generally renown and historically recognized artists and required them to produce an artwork in a medium that the critic selected and that, almost to a single one: none of the artists had ever produced an actual work of art in before. The medium the critic selected was a 35mm slide. But more on that later... First, imagine an art critic of the time giving Picasso, Brach, Duchamp and a group of their contemporaries, a single small canvas, two brushes, two colors of paint, and on a sunny day taking them all to a field and telling them to paint the same tree. It sounds silly. It sounds silly, because we can pretty much predict what the artists reaction would have been to such a proposal. After all, these artists were at that moment making history and changing the meaning of art forever and believed it, so they might not of reacted kindly to someone acting as an art critic suggesting that they stop those activities to go paint a certain tree. In fact, understanding that time and the belief those artists had in their work, we can imagine that those artists would of pointed out to such a person would do better to pay attention to what the artists were making and to better understand it instead of suggesting departures of questionable value and dubious motives. Now, imagine it is America in 1994 and an art critic gives Peter Halley, Jenny Holzer, Joseph Kosuth and Sol Lewitt, a small piece of watercolor paper a brush and watercolors and tells them to make a painting with these materials. Don't you think it is possible that some of these people would say "That's not what I do," and might further say "I don't make art like that because I don't believe in it."? Well of course that's possible. After all, some artists believe that their way of working, the materials they choose and the forms they create, whether paintings or a more conceptual or inactive form, represent their art and they are committed to it. So why did a group of already accepted and renown, (after all that's why they were chosen for the exhibit) artists agree to produce something that was foreign to their efforts and in many cases, downright antithetical to them? Was it because they wanted to be in the exhibition for the exposure, or because it was held at one of the leading exhibition spaces in New York. In either case it was because they lacked or suspended their belief in the value of their own artistic achievements and processes and did not think: "Hey, I don't make slides! I paint, or I do this!" or if they did, they quickly put such thoughts out of their mind and didn't think about how odd it was or what it meant that a critic/curator would think highly enough of their artwork and standing to want to include them in a show, but would not want to exhibit the art for which they had become recognized. The curator/critic made it easier for the artists to put such thoughts aside by not confronting them with a medium or method that they would artistically identify such as watercolors, but instead, offered them the least understood artistic medium today: photography, and not photographic prints, which would of set off the same artistic alarms as watercolor paint, but: 35mm slides. The word confront in the previous paragraph was not used lightly, because while a confrontation did not take place an assault did. And it is the recognition of such an assault that would of caused many of the artists to refuse the suggestion to make and exhibit something other then the art which they have spent a lifetime developing, which is uniquely their own, and for which they have had the honor of becoming recognized for doing. But, and this is the one thing our critic/curator is to be congratulated for: by smartly avoiding the confrontation, with it's predictable outcome, the critic/curator was able to assault the artists in the same way that someone who comes up unseen from behind can more easy rob you. Isn't assault and extreme word and did an assault take place? After all the artists did voluntary participate, and some of them probably aggressively pursued the opportunity? And that is the point: they did agree. But did they know what they were agreeing too? Did they think about how past generations of artists would have reacted and why? Did they think about how they had spent a lifetime developing a way of working? Apparently they did not, or if any did, in a moment of lost faith about their artwork or their position in history, they decided that it would be worth putting aside their commitment to their own chosen and well developed vision of art for a the opportunity to exhibit a 35mm slide projected in a darken room for thirty days. But why? And why now? Because they do not believe. They have lost faith. I don't mean heroics. But quiet, sure, real, lasting, belief in the value of what they have chosen to do. After all, I expect that all of the artists always have made art in a form and manner that they have chosen, and until participating in this exhibit, did not make what they had been directed to make. (The patriarchal idea of critics directing artists on what works of art to make is particularly troublesome and anachronistic at this time.) And finally to the art itself, to a one, all the artists in this show would today be unknown if the 'artwork' (i.e., the slide) they were exhibiting represented their real talents and best efforts. For them, I hope that they stick to what they do best, confine their experiments to their own whims, and the next time someone wants to exhibit their art, they think only to exhibit their best art - Art they really believe in - so that we may partake and share in their believes and discoveries rather then see them capitulate to an assault by an individual who for their own motives desires to undermine the recognition of the value of what artists actually do. # # # <*>Replies Msg#: 1893 *ART* 01-29-94 01:36:15 From: GISELA EHRENFRIED To: DONALD NEWMAN (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1890 (REVIEW OF DECHTER SHOW AT TWS) :) --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) Msg#: 1913 *ART* 01-29-94 13:46:04 From: DONALD NEWMAN To: GISELA EHRENFRIED (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1893 (REVIEW OF DECHTER SHOW AT TWS) what does :) mean? --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) Msg#: 2035 *ART* 01-31-94 11:02:18 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: DONALD NEWMAN (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1890 (REVIEW OF DECHTER SHOW AT TWS) Thanks for your review. I'm glad that you felt so strongly to comment, since you offer many points which should be considered in any discussion of art and artistic practice today. I hope that you will continue to write, for even though I disagree with you I value your contribution. I would argue that slides are a medium with which artists are very familiar, and they play an important role in the formation of the public's (as well as their own) perception of art. Slides are not the unfamiliar, alien medium that you suggest; they play a vital role in the circulation of work, mediating relations through which the art--the perception of art--is produced. Many of the images in Decter's exhibition ("Don't Look Now") already existed in one form or another as part of the artist's repertoire, and many no doubt already existed as slides; the medium was not forced upon the artists in the strategy of control and domination that you suggest (however this matter is by no means resolved). Many artists consider how image reproduction and circulation function constitutively in their art; some are keen to the fact that art today is produced not in the studio, but in the dynamic social relationalities among artist, viewer, dealer, institution, publication, and so on; some artists even make this the material of their art. Far better than seeing the slide as alien, then, it is better to consider its role as extending the work outside of the institution or studio, circulating and mediating relationship, translating into various publications (all of whom rely on slides for reproduction) in various editorial contexts, functioning textually in the formation of that larger text (the "work") within that still larger text ("culture"). Your comparing this situation to a critic giving Picasso, Braque, and Duchamp the same canvas, brushes, colors of paint, etc., and sending them off to paint the same tree does not hold, for the artists are not being asked to produce the same image, and artists today welcome, and actively seek, the addition of new materials in their work, in the *spirit* of Picasso, Braque, and Duchamp. (Yes, those artists were "making history and changing the meaning of art forever" and so are artists today, but they're not doing it the same way, of course, because then the meaning of art wouldn't be changing.) Artists today collaborate with institutions and publishers and work within their constraints; many welcome the imposition of certain conditions in recognizing the context-specificity of work. Jenny Holzer works effectively with a dizzying array materials, and continually welcomes new challenges. Can you imaging her saying, "Hey, I don't make slides! I paint." Joseph Kosuth has made dishes. Peter Halley welcomed the opportunity to replicate one of his paintings on The Thing; he wasn't insulted that he was asked. He's actively looking for new meanings (especially since he no longer has any). The situation is not without problems, of course; misunderstandings and "dubious motives" abound, but the artist is certainly not always the victim. A questioning of everyone's role in the art system is the order for all of us. The artist's and critic's duty, first and foremost, it to continually question the nature of art and to articulate its meaning at this moment in history. With the world radically changing all around us, in every aspect, this requires a radical reworking of all of our assumptions. To engage and further this dialogically is of utmost importance. For a critic to offer such an exhibition as "Don't Look Now" is not a harmful or "horribly misguided" thing: it is what keeps art vital and alive. What *is* harmful and "horribly misguided" is for an artist or critic to cling to outdated ideas of what constitutes these roles, and what constitutes art in general, and to defend them against the "assault" of new meanings. This kind of protectionism can only hinder art's exploratory spirit, its ability to speak to us of our moment, and sap its strength and vitality. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) Msg#: 1910 *ART* 01-29-94 13:08:43 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: SNAP TO GRID When I talked to you yesterday you expressed some disappointment that some people read your show as purely autobiographical. I understand that you would like to establish a context for your work that allows for a much broader interpretation (and we will have ample opportunity to talk about that), but how can you %avoid% the autobiographical element? After all it was Rainer Ganahl who went to Japan, made it his project to learn the language, took the snapshots, did the audio and video recordings. Why are you so vehemently opposed to an autobiographical reading? --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) <*>Replies Msg#: 1941 *ART* 01-29-94 22:31:21 From: RAINER GANAHL To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1910 (SNAP TO GRID) I don't mind at all that there is also an autobiographical reading of this particular project, I call 'basic japanese', but what disturbes me is if the objects on display are only seen as such, without the context I put them in. Obviously, if seen without the context some of these objects would be silly, uninteresting, even offending and would make no sense if taken at face value. Then they would have to be seen only as fetishistic souvenirs representing the Japanese in a very problematic way. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) Msg#: 1998 *ART* 01-30-94 23:00:17 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1941 (SNAP TO GRID) I am very interested in the architectural aspect of your work. You measure your spaces with rulers and grids and you investigate the "movement" (import, export, transfer) of language, data, and code. You created a model based in large parts on paradigms borrowed from computer space. It is a very open and flexible structural model to operate in. Doesn't this create conflicts when this model is imported into the rather rigid and closed spaces of the traditional exhibition circuit? --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) Msg#: 2006 *ART* 01-31-94 01:19:00 From: RAINER GANAHL To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1998 (SNAP TO GRID) well, you are right, that a lot of those models or systems stem from computer space. But I wouldn't confine them necessairily to this space, because they also not just have a life outside technological spaces (every interface controlled machine) - metaphorically, linguistically, practically, and so on - but they often are imported from this realm: interactive control of operations with a mouse for example basically follows a logic that we are used from daily spatial interactions. Now, if you ask me about the "rather rigid and closed spaces of the traditional exhibition circuit" as you put it, I have to first ask you back: what do you mean? Do you refer to the architecture of a gallery, or do you refer to the gallery as an institution, an administrative and ideological entity? If you mean the first, I would like to answer that precisely this mapping of an actual architectonic space is what interests me for a variety of reasons and the rigidness and closing of the space can be a constructive condition. If you want to see the gallery as a rigid institution I wouldn't agree a 100% with what you say since those spaces are what you make out of them. One can use them in indefinite ways. And this is precisely what interests me - playing with them in all kind of ways. Using Rulers and Grids almost literally points to these possibilities. Nevertheless I don't find myself only confined to those places and try to be open to accept all kinds of different infrastructures (obviously including the one which is right now the carrier for this interview where theoretically any other user could jump in with questions or comments). --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) Msg#: 2094 *ART* 02-01-94 12:23:12 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1941 (SNAP TO GRID) > without the context I put them in. Obviously, if seen without the > context some of these objects would be silly, uninteresting, even > offending and would make no sense if taken at face value. Then they Your project 'Basic Japanese' is about learning a language. Learning a language is a process. How do the objects in this show then function? As a documentation? Isn't learning the language, or the language itself, already the object? --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) Msg#: 2120 *ART* 02-02-94 00:11:20 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2006 (SNAP TO GRID) > If you want to see the gallery as a rigid institution I wouldn't agree a > 100% with what you say since those spaces are what you make out of them. > One can use them in indefinite ways. I can see the the strategies you employ to get around the limitations of these traditional spaces (both institutional and architectural). But whether you make the gallery your living quarters or have people teach you Japanese (as you did in the weekend museum in Tokyo) you still basically treat it as a "stage." You are the master of ceremonies and you define the parameters of the interaction with your "audience." For me this defines a space as elitist and exclusive. Let me try to illustrate: In your current NY show there was a piece that was a kind of guest book from your Tokyo gig in which visitors were invited to write comments. After one visitor went berserk and decided to write obscenities in it, you decided to cut out the pages and present them seperately with a label "A Japanese person showing signs of madness." Now that's your privilege when you consider yourself the sole author of that piece. What bothers me is that the "madman" now has no opportunity of recourse. I am afraid I am opening a can of worms here, but these are questions I am trying to come to grips with in my own work. PS: I just found this piece in the Lindinger + Schmid Groessenwahn catalog. It's by Dellbruegge / de Moll and its title is "Laura Cottingham." --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) *Enclosed File: cotting.gif Msg#: 2123 *ART* 02-02-94 02:22:35 From: RAINER GANAHL To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2094 (SNAP TO GRID) The objects of my "basic japanese" project at Nordanstad gallery - in NY and not in Tokyo - function on different levels: first, these objects are layed out to literally illustrate some kind of 'basic japanese' sentences you can encounter in study books. actually, severeal of them - for ex. "japanese are greeting in a cheerfull manner"- I even encountered in my 'japnese for everyone' study book. This already confronts me with a particular logic that isn't neutral at all and often hides a lot of prejudices about the people who speak the language in question. second: these objects also, within the given format of presentation, have a particular narrative task: to speak about an exhibition I did at Person's Weekend Museum in Tokyo, to be the show of a show (with the help of the catalog but also with other objects I destillated from there: including 20 10 minutes long conversations I taped with visitors) , to complement and expand the Tokyo project, to export (or re-import) it into another context. They also are telling you some particular activities I worked on during the several months of my stay and my show. third: those objects also can be seen partially as decoys for all kinds of questions: dealing with the intrinsic problem of the representation of the self and the cultural other, the presence or absence of the anthropological (fake) narrative, the complex of stereotypes and (cultural) prejudices - is now a greeting machine good or bad, superficial or practical; an 'elevetor girl' gratitious, humiliating, rediculous, efficient, sexist or traditional (to name just a few of the questions one is confronted with -- I simply refuse the way in which Roland Barthes in the "Empire of Signs" came to terms with all these for a western context unusual looking phenomena --. forth: those objects as a whole also can be seen in relationship to the "file, basic japanese" , hanging next to it with the "special comment" on it that studying japanese brings you to a limit where orientalism and exotism are at the point of revenge,a point where it was working against myself (as a european), where it destabilized me. So adding some almost fetishistic objects to it for a show at my return was once more for me a challenging thing confronting me and others with precisley these questions. A last task of the "basic japanese" shelf I see in the fact that I don't really want to chose another way of representing the process of the studying of a foreign language as a cultural exchange modus but a negative one, one that comes accross as superficial and irritading - since you are right that it is a process, something not really interesting to be documented as such. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) Msg#: 2153 *ART* 02-02-94 11:14:42 From: RAINER GANAHL To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2120 (SNAP TO GRID) I agree with you that the gallery or museum is a stage where the parameters of interactions with the audience are mainly defined in advance, mostly by the institution and the artists. But I am not so sure whether everything is said by reducing it to the fact, that they are somehow elitist and exclusive (like the network we are writing on as well - since it takes less of an effort to just walk into a museum than log on here, even if there is a virtual space for interaction, that de facto is as regulated as anything else -): I can't resolve these aporia even if I try to address them in all kind of ways. But I would like to say something to the example you choose for good reasons: the book you are talking was laying in the museum in Tokyo with a sign that encouraged visitors to write words and sentences in Japanese they want the artist to learn: one day I was surprised by an entree of 50 pages constantly repeating in Japanese and in English: death, be dead, dead etc.... I found it a little disturbing since I didn't want the book to be an outlet for all weird expressions taking away so much space (50 sheets). So I became, against my own intention, an editor or, if you want, a censor in a mediaeval way. Nonetheless I do show then these pages illustrating my problematic but still carefully put phrase: "A Japanese person showing signs of madness". I agree that this is an intervention that is decided on my part: but as I don't know the author I can't invite him for a reaction to my reaction (given the content of his message: I wouldn't be too interested in knowing it). Now, what I find interesting in these obsessive reiterations is the fact, that they were one of the rare examples, (next to the police), where I encountered personally signs of aggressions and repressions in Japan. And if I hadn't singled them out they wouldn't have become so visible as they are now accompanying a "basic japanese" sentence. But again I find your demand for a participational space very interesting but I have my serious doubts about a possible, satisfying and devinite equation between full participation and equal communication within the framework of cultural production even if both states would be desireable. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) Msg#: 2157 *ART* 02-02-94 14:35:08 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2153 (SNAP TO GRID) I'm going to take the risk of being simplistic here. Your intentions with your show at Nordenstad seem to have to do with a very finely weighed calibration of judgements--a very complicated analytical attitude toward what is being displayed. But these are hardly articulated within the exhibition itself; they are all quite implicit. Aren't the means and contexts you are using, then, perhaps too fragile for the load you want them to bear? Shouldn't you perhaps tried to develop a more obviously discursive, more clearly multi-layered rhetoric? --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) Msg#: 2167 *ART* 02-02-94 22:37:29 From: RAINER GANAHL To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2157 (SNAP TO GRID) I appreciate that you see also the analytical attitude of this installation some people don't want to see. The question to what degree my analytical and narrative interests are manifest I have been asked all the time, even being accused of formalism. I am refering here to the works of my "windows" that are dealing with indexical textual footage only. Now, with "basic japanese" I am playing in an almost Wittgensteinian sense with objects. (Wasn't Wittgenstein obsessed with elementary sentences going like: "but what if a child learns the word...", or "given somebody that studies a foreign language... "?) This involvment with indexical objects seems to make the readability of the analytical layering of this show more difficult, since it is not so obvious to abstract from the single, partially seducing elements and see the entire shelf as a kind of "Lernkasten" (learning box) for a student yet to come. But in spite of this, one cruxial sentence on the shelf is "having a museum show" that is illustrated with a catalog that comprises an extensive analytical interview and images of the Tokyo show and activities (studying) I spent 6 months with in Japan. Therefore I would say that I have never had anything so explicitly discursive in a show before. Through this kind of door, one is invited to enter a different show, that relates to this piece without necessairily absorbing it. But in the end I agree, it is my particular decision to chose a discrepancy between what you assume as a "load" and what is there. Wouldn't the shelf break otherwise anyway? --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) Msg#: 2221 *ART* 02-04-94 11:50:53 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2167 (SNAP TO GRID) Yes, the "load" is "lightened" by some of it being projected elsewhere by means of the phrase "having a museum show" and what goes with it. In fact this idea of the "show of the show" is for me one of the more interesting aspects. But more importantly, I have got to find a way to convince you to accept the rubric of "formalism" with equanimity! Someone (I can't remember who) once said that a little formalism takes art away from the real, but a lot of it puts it right back. What I like about your work is precisely the way it is possessed by this sense of what I think I called in the Art Press essay "hyperformalism" that brings the world back in from the margin. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) Msg#: 2229 *ART* 02-04-94 17:24:07 From: RAINER GANAHL To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2221 (SNAP TO GRID) As we all know, "formalism" like "modernism" has turned into a token coined for all kinds of usage. I find myself particularly interested in "applied formalisms" - how I encounter them in daily live, whether in a supermarket, in a credit card or in any kind of electronic interface. Their designers probably have first, second or third hand art school/history education and are therefore vaguely familiar with formalist vocabulary but don't show any interest in the ideological package that these visual rhethorics came with. So here too, I see the real with its pragmatics bleeding in like black ink even if it comes a little bit later. As a reader of Adorno, the most important European apologetic voice of hermetic modernism (that can partially be equated with formalism), I can't overlook, that precisely his favorite composer, Arnold Schho got a job in Hollywood - and guess as what: being a teacher for those film musicians who produce dramatic psychological background noises for movies. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) Msg#: 2230 *ART* 02-04-94 17:44:24 From: RAINER GANAHL To: BERRY SCHWABSKY Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2229 (SNAP TO GRID) "hyperformalism" as a term is very intriguing as I see it as much in relationship with words and concepts like hypertexts (hypercards - a brand name) and hyperframes as with formalism. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) Msg#: 2256 *ART* 02-05-94 16:03:11 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2229 (SNAP TO GRID) "Applied" reads at least 2 ways--as meaning "put to work" (opposing the uselessness/art-pour-l'art aspect of formalism) or as meaning "laid on top of the surface, e.g. like a decal" (opposing the organicism/internal logic aspect of formalism) but in either case, isn't "applied formalism" an oxymoron? --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) Msg#: 2300 *ART* 02-06-94 14:50:57 From: RAINER GANAHL To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2256 (SNAP TO GRID) yes, it is so, "applied formalism" can be read as an oxymoron, a "figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms are combined to produce an epigrammatic effect" (webster's). --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) Msg#: 2336 *ART* 02-08-94 02:27:26 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2123 (SNAP TO GRID) One piece in your show consists of a small row of books. The title refers to them as coffee table books. The authors - Said, Bourdieu, Spivak, Krauss,... - are frequently cited by you in interviews in support of your work. Like buoys they mark the intellectual terrain of your investigations. Is the coffee table presentation an attempt at self-persiflage? --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) Msg#: 2554 *ART* 02-08-94 01:35:30 From: RAINER GANAHL To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2336 (SNAP TO GRID) The work you are refering to is called: "A Portable, (Not So Ideal) Imported Library, or How to Reinvent the Coffee Table: 25 Books for Instant Use" and was conceived for the Tokyo show. There it was to function as something IMPORTED, that together with my study activities should allude - even ironically - to the arrogant and missionary attitudes of classical orientalists. The selection of the 25 books was at least partially reflecting this problematic issue of uneven cultural exchange. The work was on display in the coffee area of Person's Weekend Museum, and intended for use by visitors. I tried to encourage this by stating an example with the weekly 2 hour performance piece - "reading in the library". This performance was in direct oppostition to the highly consumption oriented quatier that the museum is located. As an Austrian, I am aware of the coffee table as a site where, historically, cultural issues were written, negotiated and discussed, something that was for me impossible to conceive in contemporary Japan.(I am talking about coffee tables). Now, being back to the country where most of the literature was selected from, I made another work with the same title - but as an "US-Version". This version further confronts and questions of import, its means in the cultural field, how it is different according the countries involved, how the import is perceived etc. Having addressed these issues further, makes me want to continue with some more country specific versions. To what degreee the selected titles correspond with the work, and the context I am putting them, and to what degree ironies of all kinds may be involved is decided from version to version. I would like to add that I do read these books and I wouldn't be able to set up these shows without having studied them but this doesn't imply that I pursue like Wittgenstein at the end of the tractatus comparing his sentences with a ladder that ... Msg#: 2590 *ART* 02-09-94 14:51:06 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2554 (SNAP TO GRID) I feel a need to interject here--to bring things to my usual "literal" level--but it seems that your reply, interesting though it is in itself, goes past what I understood as Wolfgang's question, which has to do with the English-language phrase "coffee-table books" in the sense of big fat picture books (whether "Rembrandt's Greatest Paintings" or "Decorating Santa Fe Style" is irrelevant) that people buy not to read but to leave on their coffee table so people can idly flip through them while waiting for the coffee to be served (or whatever). I take it from your reply that you did not have that reference in mind at all--is that right? Msg#: 2597 *ART* 02-09-94 17:31:49 From: RAINER GANAHL To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2590 (SNAP TO GRID) I did have also this reference in mind since I called it "how to reinvent the coffee table". This can be seen as wishfull thinking that wants to turn the fat picture book tables into the marble ones Karl Kraus wrote on. But this is then nostalgic and confronts me with eurocentric, stereotypical prejudices of how and what culture has to be. As such the paedagogical and somehow arrogant impulse to teach, to preach, to be somehow missionary that is already implicit in the act of puting up these "imported books" shows once more even there. But I would not want to be cynical and have the books selected be equated with "coffee-table books" even if I want this tension to be there. Msg#: 2840 *ART* 02-11-94 14:28:54 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2597 (SNAP TO GRID) So is it that the marble table of Karl Kraus is closer to the stone tablet of the Law? Msg#: 2842 *ART* 02-11-94 14:48:44 From: RAINER GANAHL To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2840 (SNAP TO GRID) it might appear to certain people like this. and who casts that marble table? Msg#: 2865 *ART* 02-13-94 12:19:51 From: RAINER GANAHL To: BERRY SCHWABSKY Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2842 (SNAP TO GRID) Berry, I know you are giving me a hard time and the problems starts smelling "high" - "low" something you interestingly enough don't take up with the selection of books -that are all from the range of the so-called h-category - but with the title. Now, with Karl Krauss as just an example from Vienna, I have cited somebody whose relationship to the authority of the law is very interesting: Most of his critical writing he started almost with an obsession for grammar and correct writing targeting out primarily the bad and inconsistent daily business of journalism and other media oriented publications. But what he did was not just comforming to a rule, a grammar, an authoritarian logic, the Duden's "snap to grid" but connecting social and ideological arguments with bad writing. To mass with grammar and words (something I unfortunately can't avoid here since I am not a native English writer, and right now without editor) was equivalent for him with the manipulation of narrative, representational, social and ideological meaning. He then became a very influential figure for Wittgenstein who too started his "tractatus" in the format of a law codex, even if he invites the reader at the end, to throw the ladder away after use. But from there, and somehow Wittgenstein really took his advice seriously (by the way a book he wasn't writing on a Kaffeetisch but partially on the battlefield of world war I) he develops almost out of Krauss his philosophical investigations that I think belong to the most deconstructive philosophical works in this century, far beyond any Derrida or Heiddegger who ignored him more or less totally. Another little anecdote, concerning the law has to do with James Welling. I met him during my show in Tokyo.He had a strong reaction to the books on the shelf but he did a nice thing: he send me a copy of a book he highly recommended and suggested to add it to the shelf. By the way a book that Mat Mullican was reading also at the time. I admit I hadn't payed any attention to this book and wouldn't read it normally. I tried the first 50 pages to get an idea: The book was called "The Firm". Ironically enough this story develops around a law firm in a very unrealistic but entertaining, seducing, "Dallas" tv-series like style. Now, the point I want to make, with all this is, that I do think - and this could produce more arguments - that the writers I somehow have chosen - as well as the writers I alluded to with the marble table - are in a more subversive way going against the stone of the law then any writers of the range of "The Firm" even if they gain high popularity and garantee full entertainment from the first page on. But I totally agree with you that the only thing that matters is the relationship to the "law" (Lacan would say the "father") and the ways one can break it. Msg#: 2879 *ART* 02-13-94 15:03:33 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2865 (SNAP TO GRID) There's a lot to consider in what you said--and one thing I for one can be very sloppy about is keeping up the distinction between The Law and the laws. The latter we break all the time, and I think it's pretty obvious that in doing so we maintain The Law (Zizek can talk about this, but the same goes for Sartre or lots of others--I know I'm stating something well-known). But perhaps the effort to attain The Law forces it to crack a bit... Incidentally, I would be very interested to know more about the relationship K. Kraus/Adorno. I've been reading the latter's "Notes to Literature" and things like his essay on "Punctuation Marks" seem very much related to what I understand about Kraus and his way of criticizing style. (I have to admit I've never read Kraus but have read lots about him, by Canetti particularly, also Benjamin, but also many others.) Does Adorno cite Kraus much and in what way?? Msg#: 2887 *ART* 02-13-94 16:25:50 From: CAROL BROAD To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2879 (SNAP TO GRID) Excuse me, I don't understand what law or laws you are talking about. I find the discussion quite interesting, but sometimes the context is lost on me. I would very much appreciate if you could establish some context for those of us who have not read all the books and authors you are constantly refering to. Or an I asking for too much? Thank you very much. I would like to see Mr. Ganahl's exhibition, where is this Nordenstad Gallery? Msg#: 2908 *ART* 02-14-94 11:32:18 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: CAROL BROAD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2887 (SNAP TO GRID) I agree that all this "referencing" can be a problem, and in fact it's a problem not unrelated to ones I was earlier trying to analyze with regard to Rainer's show at Nordenstad (upstairs from Pat Hearn, on Wooster between Broome & Grand--stop in for dessert at the Gourmet Garage while you're there!), problems about what seemed to me a too-great assumption that viewers could be "complicitous" with him in assuming certain kinds of attitudes towards the cultural materials (including books) on display. As for my particular references, some of them are pretty inessential in the sense that I hope that the point I'm making can be clear without them, but they are there as an extra "example" to make even more sure that things are clear for anyone who might be familiar with them (and in some cases I know that Rainer, to whom I was replying, is familiar with them. Slavoj Zizek would be one of these, for instance. In another case I myself was asking for more information, namely Karl Kraus. But if there are particular allusions you'd like me to clear up for you, let me know what they are and I'll do my best. Msg#: 2910 *ART* 02-14-94 11:51:42 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: CAROL BROAD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2887 (SNAP TO GRID) After replying to you a few minutes ago, I decided to take the liberty of finding some of your other contributions to discussions on the Thing in the hope it would give me more of a sense of who I was talking to. What I noticed was that you often emphasize your non-understanding of what's going on, what's being said. Is it that you really feel you don't understand, or perhaps that your understanding is "other" than what you think others are understanding? Or are you taking a Socratic stance, trying to prod people to examine their statements more closely? Come clean, Carol! Msg#: 2914 *ART* 02-14-94 12:46:47 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2865 (SNAP TO GRID) two distinctions that deserve unpacking: *snap to grid* and *the stone of the law*. Msg#: 3124 *ART* 02-15-94 02:21:07 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2914 (SNAP TO GRID) Morgan I think the word "tablet," which you seen to omit, helps to clarify the concept. It reads: "the stone tablet of the law.' Can't help with "snap to grid..." American slang? Msg#: 3127 *ART* 02-15-94 03:45:04 From: RAINER GANAHL To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2914 (SNAP TO GRID) "snap to grid" is first of all a computer command, something you can find in all kind of programms that allows you to structure the space you use. then it is also a name of a piece, I once showed in the US in english and in japan in japanese. then it is the name of this interview, wolfgang came up with. plus you can imagine all kind of things (the network shuts me down in 2 minutes) I got to go. concerning the stone, I refer you back to barry schwabsk. Msg#: 3141 *ART* 02-15-94 10:55:09 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JOSEFINA AYERZA Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 3124 (SNAP TO GRID) Hamurabi ? Moses ? The Kaaba ? Whose, which, where, when? Msg#: 3142 *ART* 02-15-94 10:57:21 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: RAINER GANAHL Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 3127 (SNAP TO GRID) but, also like the idiomatic American "snap to", to get with it, to orient to expected roles, know what is required, no extra attitude, just do the job. End of Replies, add yours(Y/N)? N Msg#: 1945 *ART* 01-30-94 02:50:14 From: DONALD NEWMAN To: ALL Subj: REVIEW OF DAVID SALLE SHOW The David Salle sculptures at the Larry Gagosian Gallery on Wooster St in Soho represent the most mind bogglingly brilliant sculptures I have seen since seeing Bruce Nauman's work in the seventies. Why? Because they look like they should of been made 60-75 years ago, but couldn't of because the visual vocabulary didn't exist then that would of made them possible. David, at his best has redefined the way we see things, and has at times irrefutably succeeded in adding to our visual vocabulary. This is one of those times. See these sculptues and you will always remember them and never see sculpture the same afterwards, even if you don't 'like' them. I don't know when the show ends. # # # --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) <*>Replies Msg#: 2004 *ART* 01-31-94 00:35:47 From: RAINER GANAHL To: DONALD NEWMAN (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1945 (REVIEW OF DAVID SALLE SHOW) great your "david" at least finds one admirer --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) Msg#: 2046 *ART* 01-31-94 15:12:20 From: RAINER GANAHL To: DONALD NEWMAN (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2004 (REVIEW OF DAVID SALLE SHOW) let me also add that I see a wonderfull correlation between the pathos of your rhethorics and your "David". - I must say: you are exercising there a brilliant acrobatic step with temporality that makes me think that not only previous times lost a big critic with you but also a big poet - --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) Msg#: 1946 *ART* 01-30-94 03:01:11 From: DONALD NEWMAN To: ALL Subj: REVIEW MEGHAN BOODY AT TWS The antecedents of Joseph Bueys, William Gibson, and Edward Keinhotz, meet the sensibilities and photographic expertise of a woman with astounding intellect and artistic judgement. You think I'm prone to hyperbole, then see the show: Meghan Boody, Thread Waxing Space in the back room. Bring a quarter to play the pinball machine, 2 balls for 25 cents. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) Msg#: 2071 *ART* 01-31-94 20:07:12 From: DONALD NEWMAN To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: HALLEY EDITION Peter Halley DID NOT REPLICATE ONE OF HIS PAINTINGS on THE THING. When you stated in your reply to my review of the Decther Show at Thread Waxing Space that "Peter Halley welcomed the opportunity to replicate one of his paintings on The Thing; he was not insulted that he was asked," you were completely incorrect about what Halley did do on THE THING. Peter Halley created ON COMPUTER an image in that would then be distributed VIA COMPUTER, and therefore really exists ONLY ON COMPUTER, or at least not detached from it, and even if the image file is eventually printed, is the printed form then the ART? The ideas impled in an artist using the computer as medium to both make and distribute a work of art with, and in the case of Halley, the relation of the image of his work in relation to using a computer as the medium for creation and also exchange is particularly interesting, and adds to the understanding of of all of Halley's other achievements. (In fact in makes him look downright clairvoyant in that his earlier work can now be seen as predicting such a state to exists in.) Anyway, the different between using the computer as an actual medium, which Halley did, and as a way of distributing pictures of paintings that already existsed, which he did not, is extreme. I don't know if he would of been insulted but he surely would have been less interested if THE THING had called him and asked him for some pictures of his paintings to distribute online as apposed to involing him with using THE THING as a medium to create and locate a work of art. ### Peter Halley's edition is available for download by selecting Thing Editions from the Main Menu. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) <*>Replies Msg#: 2090 *ART* 02-01-94 10:47:02 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: DONALD NEWMAN (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2071 (HALLEY EDITION) I stand corrected, but I said it that way to make a subtle point. What I should have said was that he replicated one of his logotypes, his signature trademark images, which functions as a kind of colophon. It's not meant to advance a discourse but to mark a territory. I think this work, and our including it, trivializes what it means to make art in telecommunicational space. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) Msg#: 2147 *ART* 02-02-94 08:37:16 From: JEFFREY SCHULZ To: DONALD NEWMAN (Rcvd) Subj: TERRITORY MARKING This is a reply both to you and to Jordan, but I don't know how to cc, so I sent it to both of you. This is a reply to MSG# 2423 in rt. There are some very interesting ripples that emanate from the concept of "marking a territory" in telecommunicational space. One such ripple is the idea that each transaction by which we access telecommunicational space creates, in a way, a marking of small amounts of territory in various informational spaces. When we subscribe to a magazine, for example, we mark a small amount of territory in the publisher's data space as well as in various other demographic/informational spaces. Regardless of whether our transactions are registered on a floppy or hard disk, these transactions are *allocated* certain amounts of digital spaces. In this way, we not only mark those spaces, but we are marked *by others* in those spaces. Each marking of an informational territory, then, fundamentally destabilizes our relationship both to that territory and to ourselves: locating ourselves by our markings in those territories is not fully possible. Identity is destabilized. Related to this is the fact that a *complete* record of our transactions is impossible -- we can never *completely* and *totally* mark a territory; in part because the territory *itself* is constantly changing. In the context of the conversation to which this posting is a reply, I would maintain that the dynamics of an uploaded image that can be captured as a unique "object," detached from other systems/spaces, is contrary to the dynamics of the "territories" -- always plural -- of informational spaces. This is not to criticize anything or anyone -- it is merely to point out an important aspect of the spaces with which and through which we negotiate. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1) Msg#: 3166 *FINE ART* 02-15-94 21:33:46 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 3141 (SNAP TO GRID) I was only getting the phrase together--since you send me back to it. However about its meaning you should ask Barry Schwabsky, he wrote it. <*>Replies Msg#: 3174 *FINE ART* 02-15-94 22:39:42 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 3127 (SNAP TO GRID) I think Josefina's reminder should clear up the question regarding the stone tablets of the Law--except of course for those blessed with ignorance of our "judaeo-christian" heritage! Msg#: 3200 *FINE ART* 02-16-94 13:21:38 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 3142 (SNAP TO GRID) I wouldn't call "snap to" American slang exactly, I hear it as more specifically military in origin--though perhaps that's no great difference. Shall we consult William Safire? Msg#: 3219 *FINE ART* 02-16-94 18:51:58 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 3200 (SNAP TO GRID) "Snap to" has the feel of a response to a powerful presence, dispelling reverie and focusing intently on the present circumstances. If a rock is hurtling down a mountain slope straight for you, the appropriate response is to "snap to". Back in Texas, "snap" was an undefinable property that certain people were better endowed with than others; it was the capacity to gather oneself on moments notice, a precision of response. "Slugs" lacked "snap". Snap was that little extra degree of spiff, a pinch of alacrity in daily undertaking. Not a bad concept, all in all. Msg#: 3224 *FINE ART* 02-16-94 20:12:09 From: JEFFREY SCHULZ To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 3200 (SNAP TO GRID) In some research that I did a few years ago -- which I can't locate -- I think I found that the etymology of "snap to" derives from the expression "doe dem tap too," or something very close to that. It's Dutch, I think, and it means that a military compound should "bug out." There is also the military traditions of tattoos which, as I recall, were competitions/spectacles based on military drumming. Msg#: 3233 *FINE ART* 02-16-94 21:49:44 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 3219 (SNAP TO GRID) But "snap to!" is an order, and perhaps implies that the addressee is, as you say, a slug. Msg#: 3631 *FINE ART* 02-20-94 17:24:25 From: CAROL BROAD To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2910 (SNAP TO GRID) I'm so embarassed that you read my early messages! I wish I could delete them! I try hitting the Delete key on my keybord but nothing happens. My understanding may be "other", but I don't know if I understand what you're talking about. Your statement leads me around in a circle. I feel like when I'm in a plane circling the airport and never landing. But I read that understanding is circular, so maybe you neverland! Msg#: 3643 *FINE ART* 02-20-94 23:26:50 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: CAROL BROAD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 3631 (SNAP TO GRID) Well, you never land in Never-Never-Land anyway. Not only have I read your past messages, but they were even the subject of conversation at a party I was at last night! The person I was talking to opined that you are "too good to be true"--in other words it seems I am not the only one to whom some of your interventions seem disingenuous. (That's not a criticism, by the way.) Msg#: 3173 *FINE ART* 02-15-94 22:07:42 From: PETER FEND To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: YOUR MUNICH ACTION It is generally said, and believed, that the war in Yugoslavia has three sides: one Western Church, one Eastern Church,and one Islamic. It has also been said, in the Austrian press for example, and by the former Italian foreign minister, as well as of course by various Greek public figures, that both the Western Church and the German Government have played a covert role, at least, in promoting the seaparation of Croatia and Slovenia from whatever was Yugoslavia. There is a substantial world-public perception of some interested, or biased position of the Roman Church and of Germany. This may or may not be true. The point is, that it is widely perceived to be true, such that the action of adopting a "moralisch" position on the war, as attempted by Holzer, become biased--or at least perceived as biased--in its taking place in a Roman Catholic church in Cologne, Germany and in a prominent newspaper in predominantly Catholic Munich, Germany. What Holzer did in these sites, in these religio-political contexts, could be perceived to be as biased as some artist attempting to be moralisch on the war from a mosque in Riyadh, or an Orthodox Church in Greece or Russia, or a prominent newspaper in Turkey. I happen to know of people in Serbia who have hardened their position as a result of her choice of context. In late 1991, when my colleagues and I engaged in a Montenegro project transferred the work-studio to the American Fine Arts Company, just as the war was heating up but not fully flared, architect George Chaikin invited two Yugoslav students from his class at Cooper Union to participate. One student was Croatian, the other Serbian. The Croatian declined to take part. The Serbian, despite her personal pro-Serbian inclinations, produced a project for a "House of Four Religions" to be located in Sarajevo. The four religions would be: Western Christian, Eastern Christian, Islam and Judaism. She then dealt with the terrain of all Yugoslavia,using the rivers as an organizing principle. Whether she was "right" is less vital to me than the fact that she maintained an ecumenical stance. I think her effort at respecting all the main religions of the region, at operating with regard to all the converging cultures, should rather be a model for anyone voicing an opinion on the war than what Holzer did within one context generally recognized as being biased, or at least party to the conflict. <*>Replies Msg#: 3632 *FINE ART* 02-20-94 17:27:42 From: CAROL BROAD To: PETER FEND Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 3173 (YOUR MUNICH ACTION) YOU MUST HAVE ONE GRAND PASSION Msg#: 3827 *FINE ART* 02-23-94 19:35:53 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: IGOR Subj: YET MORE Volume 1, #1, of The New York Review of Art has passed this way. They make claims of being a "really" critical voice within the Art world. Page 1, by James Gardner asserts "the two besetting sins of most art writing are a servile indulgence of its readers and an equally arrogant disregard for them. Between pleasant puff pieces and impenatrable jargon there is little to choose...Why did so many people come to occupy themselves with art in the first place? For some, it was the foolish and illaudable reason that art was the locus of power and prestige, and they gathered to it like moths to a flame...Once when you were ten, you were taken to a museum, or when you were twenty you sat in a darkened classroom, and you saw something that astonished you, something that moved you to praise or emulation. But then, with all to many people, the initial love hardened into an obligation or calcified into a career..." Mr. Gardner has also authored Culture Or Trash? which I intend to peruse next time I pass through Rizzoli. <*>Replies Msg#: 3873 *FINE ART* 02-24-94 11:05:23 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 3827 (YET MORE) James Gardner has on various occasions remarked to me on his own ignorance concerning contemporary art. (I'm not necessarily saying this should disqualify him from his effort.) Msg#: 3899 *FINE ART* 02-24-94 23:19:54 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 3873 (YET MORE) that's an interesting point. I am curious to see what he does with his understanding. Perhaps he will grow into his project. He appears to be committed to a better quality of discourse...I guess we'll ahve to wait and see Msg#: 3925 *FINE ART* 02-25-94 08:48:32 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 3899 (YET MORE) > He appears > to be committed to a better quality of discourse... Now you really sound like Helen Frankenthaler. "A better quality of discourse"??!!! Why don't you throw this guy in the "culture or trash"--preferably the latter--along with the likes of Hilton Kramer and your friend Robert Hughes, and march on down to Rainer's bookshelf... Msg#: 3939 *FINE ART* 02-25-94 13:45:22 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 3925 (YET MORE) can we assume that you are throwing your lot with a worse quality of discourse, then ? What earthly difference does it make if something sounds "like Helen Frankenthaler"? Confusing the content of an argument with its style is a deficiency we customarily associate with the logically illiterate. Your prescription seems to be motivated by animus to a much greater extent that it is by insight. There are people who do not seem to think especially clearly when the moon is full. Perhaps your seratonin levels are skewed? Msg#: 3947 *FINE ART* 02-25-94 16:34:04 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 3939 (YET MORE) Oh I was just having a little fun Morgan. But I wanted to make a point, and will clarify when I am thinking more clearly. Maybe it is the moon. Msg#: 4168 *FINE ART* 02-26-94 09:31:54 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 3939 (YET MORE) Wait a second--confusing the quality of argument with its content may be the error of the logically illiterate, but its just the JOB of the aesthetically literate. In this case, Morgan, you've been caught out with a formulation that did unintentionally betray a certain level of snobbishness that is, moreover, unearned (since the formulation itself is pompous in its inflation: what's wrong with just "better writing" or "more challenging ideas" or whatever?). However, too much should not be made of that, it's just good to be reminded of one's peccadillos occasionally. What I really want to know is, when historically did the name "Helen Frankenthaler" become "fighting words"? Fifties? Sixties? Seventies? I'm pretty sure it was already so when I came into the art world in the early eighties... Msg#: 4174 *FINE ART* 02-26-94 11:37:00 From: CAROL BROAD To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4168 (YET MORE) Can somebody tell me what's wrong with Helen Frankenthaler? Please? I always LOVED her beautiful lyrical abstractions. And what's this Morgan got to do with her? Msg#: 4180 *FINE ART* 02-26-94 14:00:27 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4168 (YET MORE) there is more to this tham meets the eye; we are getting at a "mental pivot" that is a lot more interesting than it is annoying. The annoyance factor may be useful, like a geiger counter that indicates the presence of organizing beliefs. Helen Frankenthaler is probably Jordan's mental shorthand for a cluster of beliefs or attitudes that inform a particular style. The surface, oe epiphenomenal, "Helen Frankenthaler" arises from the milieu of her times, its central beliefs and expectations. I infer that what Jordan is saying is that my statement, or I should say a style adopted for a particular statement, implied the adoption or internalization of distorted, incomplete, or obsolete beliefs about the world. Snob? Moi? *Sine Nobilitas*? Nevah... But, how we establish the rules of the road as to whether we are in the *logical frame* or the *aesthetic frame* are basic to how meaning is established. We must carry a mechanism around with us, buried deep in the hidden files, that instructs us as to what class of distinctions are appropriate under which circumstances. It is these *deep structures* which form the implicate order of what we externally perceive as *character*. Personally, I make a style/content distinction when I look at/listen to/eat/smell something intended to be apprehended within an aesthetic frome of interpretation. When content so fuses with style as to be indistinguishable, I generally (there may be other qualifications depending on the specifics at hand) feel that I am the presence of "an art". Could be Karate, harpsicord, rice pudding, little bronze doohickys, headdresses. Again, personally, an "art" can fall into two camps; those that are meta, about something, referential, etc. and those that are "in and of themselves", i.e. Kyusho Jitsu. However, the katas of Kyusho Jitsu contain many hidden references to applications upon the nervous system of the opponent, although they are practiced as a solo "dance", so Kyusho Jitsu might be said to exist on both levels. But then , is a beautifully crafted industrial laser, clean of all superfluities, in an industrial setting "art", although it meets the criteria of the fusion of style and content. Well, I would have to say no, because it cant be said to "have" content, it is its content. It refers to nothing other than its own utility. Msg#: 4203 *FINE ART* 02-26-94 18:10:22 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: CAROL BROAD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4174 (YET MORE) You're going all socratic on me again Carol... Msg#: 4207 *FINE ART* 02-26-94 18:22:14 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4180 (YET MORE) "What distinctions are appropriate under which circumstances" are always subject to contention as well as misunderstanding. (Thank you Carol Broad for consistently making us aware that agreement in the matters is never to be taken for granted [and Licata, since when did parentheses become a bad habit?].) An 18th century French grammarian once proposed the institution of a punctuation mark to indicate irony, like those for exclamations and questions. But it was pointed out that the mark itself could then be used ironically, that is, for a statement that should really be taken straight. Likewise, the aesthetic is always ready to arise anywhere, to use any discourse as its straight man. The very effort to keep it separate creates the most comical aesthetic effects. Msg#: 4208 *FINE ART* 02-26-94 19:22:27 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4207 (YET MORE) But, there is no such thing as "the aesthetic", any more than there is "the true", at least in a Platonic sense. The "The" is a presupposition, and it presumes that it is fixed, nominalized, or reified, (to use an oldie but goldie from the semantic toolbox). There are aesthetic experiences, moments of appreciation, relationships between perceiver and perceived. Some things that once seemed beautiful and tempting to me are now hackneyed and tedious. Other things that never struck my sensibilities, perhaps seemed dull or foreign, have aquired great beauty for me. Yes, there may be skill, craftsmanship, perception, involved in its creating, but only under certain circumstances could I resonate with them. An Indian musical form called Alap once seemed pointless, meandering, nerly lazy in its execution. Only with repeated listening, and exposure to more challenging musics, am I able to give Ali Akhbar Khan (plays sarod) my attention, become involved in the meditative flow of his expression. And then there are people. Some personalities that I felt drawn to, surely for an aesthetics of personhood, I now feel repulsed by. What was once scintillating in my perception has become tedious and boorish. Other friendships have deepened, aquired multiple dimensions, a matured complexity that is never static or simple to explain. Loves even more so, the most aesthetic of experiences, some age like wine, some age like cheese. Aesthetic and personal development are inextricable. How one distinguishes beauty, or fails to, is one of the subtlest and most telling markers of a person. Msg#: 4227 *FINE ART* 02-27-94 01:33:35 From: ELIZABETH LICATA To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4207 (YET MORE) I believe I mentioned parenthetical disclaimers, not merely the punctuation mark itself. I noticed that you often undercut--but not really, as you astutely point out--a previous statement through this sort of gee whiz, I'm just folks too gesture in some of your previous messages. But, hey, I'd hate to have the style/continuity police monitoring my every posting. My only point is, why bother, you don't seem to have much invested in these afterthoughts so why should we believe them? Msg#: 4240 *FINE ART* 02-27-94 10:11:20 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4168 (YET MORE) having reread this, I have to wonder...how did you arrive at the conclusion that confusing form and content is the "JOB" of the aethetically literate? The opposite is true of the aesthetically literate, whoever they might be. A sophisticated viewer/listener/etc. will be in a better position to make that distinction than a naive one will. Over time you learn to distinguish the false moves from the real ones if you are paying attention. Have you ever dealt with an outstandingly good salesperson? They know how to tune their emotional state exactly to yours, so you end up acting as much from a feeling of rapport as from a need for the thing. Then you wise up, and you learn to distinguish the commercial smile, the hustle, from the real item. Which, unfortunately,is why people at high social altitudes often get so paranoid and shuttered; they are constantly exposed to masters of psychological fraud, and it takes the finest of perception to sort out the gold from the brass. Logical illiteracy, for all its snobbish overtones, is an authentic problem. People are easily swayed by appeals to emotion, simple morality plays, bathetic melodrama, etc....if they weren't, there would be no market for tabloids and at least one third of all television programming. Msg#: 4242 *FINE ART* 02-27-94 11:22:20 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4240 (YET MORE) Maybe I'm not paying enough attention here, but how do you move from the aest. literate's JOB--in your view--of distinguishing between between form and content, to that of distinguishing between the false and the real or falsity and truth? I don't follow. I think that you see the aest. literate's "job" as making such good/bad, whatever, judgments, across the board, where Barry sees that the job is rather to articulate the complexities which undermine such distinctions. But then if > you wise up, and you learn to distinguish the commercial > smile, the hustle, from the real item which is the form, and which is the content? And can you give an example of such a "real item"? Msg#: 4250 *FINE ART* 02-27-94 14:39:45 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: ELIZABETH LICATA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4227 (YET MORE) Is it really a question of belief? "I'm no Prince Hamlet," but I am aware of possibilities for antithetical elements in my own thinking, and have apparently developed some rhetorical mannerisms for reflecting that. But I'm now on notice to watch out for the tendency of those mannerisms to turn into mere stylistic tics. Msg#: 4251 *FINE ART* 02-27-94 14:44:07 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4240 (YET MORE) "Confusing" is obviously the wrong word, since my sense is that the confusion would be on the part of anyone who believes in the possibility of ensuring or enforcing a separation between style and content. That's not to claim that the two are identical, just that each is constantly displacing and relaying the other. Msg#: 4252 *FINE ART* 02-27-94 14:47:34 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4242 (YET MORE) Your characterization of two positions on the aesthetic "metier," and your determination of which one I am drawn to, is a helpful clarification. Msg#: 4256 *FINE ART* 02-27-94 16:12:18 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4252 (YET MORE) or lack of Msg#: 4258 *FINE ART* 02-27-94 16:42:34 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4242 (YET MORE) yup, you're not paying attention. What I said was that there is a point where the two are an indistinguishable whole (several posts back), and there are other points where the two are fairly distinct. Compare the integration of the decorative and symbolic in the works of Hans Memling withwhat we generally refer to as schlock, the clearly intended commercial exploitation of the confusion ( I have had hilarious conversations with people in the schlock business telling me how it really works ). Yes, there are complexities that underlie the expression in certain cases, and there are simplistic "tics" that form the sum and substance of others. In the gold burial mask of Tutankhamen we find the "Real Thing", no subterfuge whatsoever, but the pure expression of an attitude and a purpose. In there work of Mark Kostabi we find a curious paradox, both sincerity and gross insincerity, a perversity of intention. However, his technical abilities, however you may feel about his persona, exceed that of many of his contemporaries. Or, we may find stylistic limitation coupled with an unusually broad horizon, as in the pottery of George Ohr. Tom Otterness has grown marvelously over the years in a technical sense, and respectably as a maker of substantial work. Frank Stella continues to make numbingly vacuous work of increasingly technical difficulty. So, dudes, you can, and should make distinctions, including distinctions of subtle inflection. No, you cannot draw clear boundaries as to which takes up and the other leaves off...such an expectation would evidence a boneheaded literalism, as would demanding that the world resolve into obvious polarities that a child could comprehend...it isn't so simple, and you know it well enough yourself. There is a seductive pull into an edenic fantasy, a regressive impulse, that would do away with distinctions with a wave of the hand, to will us back into organic unity. The price for such an indulgence, to borrow from Shakespeare, is that all becomes "indistinct and dislimned, like water in water" As for Schwabsky's point, I forgot what it was, but I think he had a problem with aesthetic vs. logic, to my mind another false polarity, and a pretext for stirring up trouble in the name of Truth. Lets us endeavor to keep our instrumental and our terminal values sorted out, shall we? Let us not, hopefully, gelatinize into Night School Phenomenology, to borrow from Thomas Hess. Msg#: 4261 *FINE ART* 02-27-94 19:43:22 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4258 (YET MORE) > clearly intended commercial exploitation of the confusion ( I have > had hilarious conversations with people in the schlock business > telling me how it really works ). Can I savely assume that you brought up the name Kostabi to illustrate the above sentence? Let's hope so. Msg#: 4265 *FINE ART* 02-27-94 22:59:53 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4256 (YET MORE) Come again? Msg#: 4269 *FINE ART* 02-28-94 00:42:21 From: ELIZABETH LICATA To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4250 (YET MORE) You're right, believe was the wrong word. It was late. I guess I meant "respond to you in the thoughtful manner your comments usually deserve" or something like that. It's late again. I usually take care to eradicate such prevarications because I don't want to appear wishy-washy or flippant. But that's me. Msg#: 4286 *FINE ART* 02-28-94 09:48:07 From: MICHAEL JOHNSTON To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4258 (YET MORE) Perhaps you aspire to be the Siskel and Ebert of art. Msg#: 4287 *FINE ART* 02-28-94 12:10:31 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4265 (YET MORE) clarification Msg#: 4288 *FINE ART* 02-28-94 12:19:18 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4261 (YET MORE) there is an even more extreme level, the sub-basement of the field, that has a "rule book" of known techniques that are fully understood by all involved. Noone is operating under the slightest illusion. There is a schlock "style", a considered approach that involves a permutation of the style of a well known practitioner (painter/sculptor/ whudevuh) into a more accessable, and cruder form. These "works" are intentionally as content free as they possibly can be, because the typicl customer of such an establishment finds "content" a disturbing turn off. Msg#: 4289 *FINE ART* 02-28-94 12:21:50 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: MICHAEL JOHNSTON (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4286 (YET MORE) perhaps you could tell us something of what you aspire to be? Msg#: 4294 *FINE ART* 02-28-94 14:44:28 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: ELIZABETH LICATA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4269 (YET MORE) Curious--my fear is that suppressing (rather than expressing) those reservations/contrary thoughts will make me sound flippant, or perhaps glib. Msg#: 4296 *FINE ART* 02-28-94 14:56:08 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4294 (YET MORE) Flip or glib, and more of it. The pace needs to be picked up to a level where only flip or glib will do it. Msg#: 4317 *FINE ART* 02-28-94 19:44:00 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4296 (YET MORE) No, you're just wrong. Msg#: 4324 *FINE ART* 02-28-94 22:25:43 From: ELIZABETH LICATA To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4294 (YET MORE) That's where the impact of the parentheses comes in. If You modified your statement to incorporate the ambivalence you often seem to feel, you would still be expressing a more unified opinion. But the parentheses combined with the ambivalence work against the original thought, which you're still somewhat invested in. Msg#: 4355 *FINE ART* 03-01-94 15:23:05 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: ELIZABETH LICATA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4324 (YET MORE) So you mean that, syntactically, there should be a way to present a more synthesized, less conflicted handling of my ambivalence? Msg#: 4423 *FINE ART* 03-03-94 00:11:15 From: ELIZABETH LICATA To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4355 (YET MORE) Paradoxical as it sounds, yes. I'm very fond of paradox. End of Replies, add yours(Y/N)? N Msg#: 4169 *FINE ART* 02-26-94 10:32:46 From: ELIZABETH LICATA To: ALL Subj: GIRL TALK I'm emboldened by the mention of Helen Frankenthaler (not that she's one of my faves either) to suggest that there be an even more comprehensive shift in the gender of this discourse. Is anyone interested in a discussion of the New Museum's bad girls show? Although as a museum show it has to more about culmination than cutting edge (sorry, I hate that phrase too--and now I'm picking up Schwabsky's bad habit of parenthetical disclaimers--) I think the shift from explication of rhetoric to celebration of attitude is significant. The installation is somehow sedate but effective in its way. It leads you to the pink table crescendo with a post-climax breather in the Dwyer area. Too bad you can't have a cigarette. My two main reasons for bringing this up are that I haven't seen too much discussion of directions in feminism, theoretical or otherwise on this board and that Laura Trippi from NM is a TT member. She might want to junp in. I could go on, but I'd like to know if the interest exists... <*>Replies Msg#: 4173 *FINE ART* 02-26-94 11:29:33 From: JEFFREY SCHULZ To: ELIZABETH LICATA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4169 (GIRL TALK) > I haven't seen too much discussion of directions in feminism, > theoretical or otherwise > on this board but > if the interest exists... Yes, the interest in "Girl Talk" definitely exists here and yes, there isn't too much discussion of feminism here -- probably, in part, because the majority of users is male, as is the case on most BBS's. But there are definitely a few of us that address feminist issues. You might want to check back into some of the Transactivism postings that are currently n the (S)ymposium forum. From time to time, Laura and I talked about various issues and writers -- how gender affects online interaction, Irigaray, etc. Not to be self-promoting, but there might be some interesting discussion topics that could bring feminist concerns into the Bioinformatics dialogue in (I). Would you care to begin? Msg#: 4175 *FINE ART* 02-26-94 11:46:21 From: CAROL BROAD To: JEFFREY SCHULZ (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4173 (GIRL TALK) > Not to be self-promoting, but there might be some interesting > discussion topics that could bring feminist concerns into the > Bioinformatics dialogue in (I). Would you care to begin? Can I come too? But what's feminism got to do with Biomass? Msg#: 4183 *FINE ART* 02-26-94 14:05:50 From: JEFFREY SCHULZ To: CAROL BROAD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4175 (GIRL TALK) > But what's feminism got to do with Biomass? See my message #4181 in (I). Msg#: 4230 *FINE ART* 02-27-94 01:43:02 From: ELIZABETH LICATA To: JEFFREY SCHULZ (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4173 (GIRL TALK) I had overlooked bioinformatics; it seems interesting and I've added a no doubt completely incoherent posting. However, the impetus for my bad girls posting was the Snap to Grid discussion. I hoped that a similar discourse might be started on what has been a controversial--and I'm assuming--widely viewed exhibition. It's more mainstream than you GUYS generally seem to prefer, but again, Snap to Grid did seem concrete and productive in a certain way and I'd hoped that an exhibition-based dialog might at least intermittently be a feature of this message system. rt seemed the natural area. Msg#: 4422 *FINE ART* 03-02-94 21:38:59 From: LAURA TRIPPI To: ELIZABETH LICATA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4169 (GIRL TALK) It's interesting that one of the most powerful pieces in the Bad Girls exhibition -- for me, but also one of the most often mentioned, and which mentioned too -- is Portia Munson's collection of pink objects. It *is* a celebration, but it's also extremely violent, in its own sweetly obsessive way. You said the show was about a shift from rhetoric (or didacticism? I don't quite remember) to celebration, and that is the general way in which its framed. But there is also a strong undertow of the abject, and of ambivalence -- in Munson's piece, and in Ann Aggee's wonderful blue tile bathroom. In the windstorm of press coverage, and it *has* been a windstorm, I have never seen anything like it, well, at least not since the Living Paintings, and what the hell kind of a connection is that?!?! As I was saying, in all the press coverage, no one has yet taken up the darker aspects. As if it were all lipstick and vamp. Gee, this suddenly leads me to thinking that I ought to avenge poor Helen Frankenthaler who's gender identity cannot be accidental to her election as standard for anachronistic puffery! Strange, isn't it, that the one woman of the bunch of Ab Ex painters gets hauled in when its a question of mud slinging (no pun intended on the slinging part)? I'm sure Jordan didn't mean it, and all that, but let's look more closely. . . hm, those color washes, all qualities and no defining lines. . . . How superficial! In fact, how feminine! What a cloying damned collection of pink things!!! Msg#: 4424 *FINE ART* 03-03-94 00:33:49 From: ELIZABETH LICATA To: LAURA TRIPPI (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4422 (GIRL TALK) To really appreciate the horror of pink, you have to see this movie I clicked in on and unfortunately don't know the name of. It seems to be a 60s flick though; a Hollywood mogol of some sort has painted his entire house, grounds and everything therein pink. His girlfriend flees before the hired painter, literally drunk on pink, starts to paint her (of course she happens to be lounging poolside scantily). I think the Munson piece shares in that bad-acid trip violation of normal color balance, but I'm not so sure it's because of the objects themselves. I think at first you're appalled and then engaged. With the Agee it's the opposite. Do you think the press coverage has much to do with the show at all? I doubt it. People took the idea and then decided what they're reaction would be, then took a look as a afterthought. One curator I spoke with was nonplussed by the Semmes Williams juxtaposition; she thought they canvelled each other out (perhaps I oversimplifying, but she probably won't see this.) Group shows like that are tough though--you're always going to get stomped. I suppose I should also leap to Frankenthaler's defense, but maybe the attack on her was prompted by things she said, and not her work. I don't remember. She's taken some obnoxious stances. In terms of the work, there's plenty of male painters you have to debunk if you're going to start on her Msg#: 4457 *FINE ART* 03-03-94 07:26:12 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: ELIZABETH LICATA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4424 (GIRL TALK) funny, I saw the same movie last night. Starring Shirley McLaine , right? Gene Kelly as the entertainer gone mad "Pinky", who is torn to shreds (off camera) by fans gone wild!!! Msg#: 4501 *FINE ART* 03-03-94 22:23:59 From: ELIZABETH LICATA To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4457 (GIRL TALK) Thanks, I've been trying to remember all day. I only saw snippets, but it seemed like it could have attained cult status, but nobody's paid enough attention to it. Msg#: 4507 *FINE ART* 03-03-94 23:59:07 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: LAURA TRIPPI (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4422 (GIRL TALK) Anna Chave has a riff about Frankenthaler that fits into this--the feminine "stain" and all that. But really doesn't misofrankenthalerism have to do with the horror of the phenomenon of the woman who's made the fill the role of the "exceptional" woman--like the way they tried to make Susan Rothenberg the one woman who was supposed to fit in with the early '80s "Zeitgeist," even though she has nothing to do with Schnabel, Baselitz, etc.--then there was that effort to shoehorn Annette Lemieux in with Koons, Halley & Co.--the market seems to have a way of wanting to elevate one woman to be the boys' adjunct, and it usually smells phoney somehow. But what's behind it? Anyway, the problem isn't just that this happens, but that in certain cases it seems to actually have nothing to do with the artist's work (in which case it doesn't matter) whereas in other cases, of which H.F. might be one, the art suits the tokenist role all too well. Msg#: 4540 *FINE ART* 03-04-94 09:18:35 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4507 (GIRL TALK) Maybe she happened along at the right time; no conspiricy at all, simply good enough work in the approved style which people accepted? Msg#: 4747 *FINE ART* 03-04-94 18:16:56 From: ELIZABETH LICATA To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4507 (GIRL TALK) Helen Frankenthaler has long held the highest rank in contemporary painting. Mountains and Sea, painted when she was barely into her twenties, is credited with inroducing the lyrical use of color to abstract expressionism. Her work since, exhibited in the world's most important museums, is admired for its beauty and evocative power, and respected for its disregard of artistic fashion. Although Frankenthaler lives a calm, ordered life, she embraces risks and adventure in her art. A strong believer in the magical spark that brings a good painting to life, Frankenthaler approaches her art intuitively, as well as intellectually, drawing inspiration wherever she may find it, "from nature and the unconscious to great artists of the past." "I've explored a variety of directions and themes over the years. But I think in my painting you can see the signature of one artist, the work of one wrist." And on that immensely talented wrist, Helen Frankenthaler has chosen to wear a Rolex. (front cover verso, Gourmet magazine, 3/94) I think I see a huge blow-up of this ad in the next Bad Girls show. Msg#: 4749 *FINE ART* 03-04-94 19:55:36 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: ELIZABETH LICATA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4747 (GIRL TALK) "Embraces risk and adventure in her art..." Helen DOES sound like a bad girl after all. Too bad being put in a museum automatically seems to give even the baddest girls the good housekeeping seal of approval... Msg#: 4754 *FINE ART* 03-04-94 22:53:49 From: MICHAEL BENNETT To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4749 (GIRL TALK) Helen Frankenthaler was at one time married to the late Robert Motherwell. He was a friend of most of the abstract expressionists and wrote and lectured about his and their work over the years. She was quite young when she married him. In contrast to Lee Krasner's relation to Pollack she never fell under the influence of Motherwell's style which is quite inimitable. My recollection is the she immediately fell in with the color field painters--Louis and Noland--and her style is clearly of that fold. Her base is New York City, though she is an uptown type whose network probably doesn't extend below 14 Street. She has never cultivated a bohemian or working class persona. The image that springs to mind is the one alluded to-- uptown, upscale and rich. And she feeds off that image--her power in the art world generated by a network of people of her class and her life style. That she is a woman is a plus factor. ( Artists such as Olitski and Poons, clearly her superior, are today almost totally ignored both in the critical press and the secondary art market--you can get a major Olitski at Christi's for under ten grand.) I can't imagine her as a role model for any young woman artist. Msg#: 5196 *FINE ART* 03-07-94 17:58:32 From: ELIZABETH LICATA To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4749 (GIRL TALK) I'm surprised to hear such a knee-jerk comment about museums, especially since nowadays certainuseums are putting on far more innovative exhibitions thacertain alternative spaces or galleries. And the question of context isn't as simplistic as you imply. Some work is more shocking/disturbing/baad in the museum setting. Audiences pay more attention. e seal of approval you speak of isn't as easily come by these , days, and isn't an imprimatur any more. Msg#: 5272 *FINE ART* 03-08-94 08:16:33 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: ELIZABETH LICATA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5196 (GIRL TALK) It's true that some work is more shocking in the context of the museum--but then it's all the more dependent on the institution. I have to insist that my reaction is not "knee-jerk," but has been informed by all too many years of experience in these matters: the more "critical" art museums attempt to be, the more celebratory and self-regarding they end up seeming--as a general rule. But a lot of the art that I like has a certain diffidence toward its own institutionalization, it's really "domestic" in its proper location rather than public in that way, so that's the perspective I'm coming from. I didn't mean to impugn your profession! Msg#: 5281 *FINE ART* 03-08-94 10:27:19 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: ELIZABETH LICATA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5196 (GIRL TALK) What's inovative in musuems? Not much that I see. Could you pick a few examples for me? Msg#: 5379 *FINE ART* 03-09-94 21:53:23 From: MICHAEL BENNETT To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5281 (GIRL TALK) An art museum is a terciary institution, very much like your major medical center whose primary function is to resusitate or renovate the near dead. I thought the whole point of the 60's was to wipe the slate clean. (See Acconci's interview in the latest Flash Art.) For those were the days when a painting hanging on the wall seemed ridiculously strange--when the whole idea behind art making was to rid ourselves of those institutions--the gallery and museum-- which held us captive, whose very existance dictated the form and content of an art object. Oppenheim, Heizer and others did steer a new course, but their early work is now forgotten and has had little or no influence on emerging artists. We are living in reactionary times. Msg#: 5405 *FINE ART* 03-10-94 09:08:55 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5379 (GIRL TALK) It's just because a painting hanging on a wall was made to look ridiculously strange that a painting on a wall is now the most likely form for art. Msg#: 5406 *FINE ART 03-10-94 09:17:36 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5379 (GIRL TALK) "I don't know where it's going, but I'm on the same train as Marcel Duchamp." --Willem de Kooning, 1965 Msg#: 5638 *FINE ART* 03-10-94 19:20:33 From: ELIZABETH LICATA To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5272 (GIRL TALK) Didn't mean to sound so defensive. Certainly my institution isn't doing much of interest in terms of our conversation. But the idea of working with public institutional space does interest me. That's why I was so taken by Fred Wilson's Mining the Museum show at the Maryland Historical Museum. When he shoed at Metro and the Biennial, the stuff was just objects again--not as engaging. Because of all the baggage that comes with museums, artists/curators can do some cool stuff. It doesn't happen often in NY because you have the dinosaurs. Msg#: 5671 *FINE ART* 03-11-94 02:14:32 From: RAINER GANAHL To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5405 (GIRL TALK) you seem to be seduced by the drive of your dialectical twist - which I somehow think I can follow: but I find this point also very interesting and want you to say more on this threshold: isn't it also buchloh who somehow blamed, in a longer article on conceptual art, the emergence of wilde kunst of the early 80s to the failure (how he names it) of the conceptual enterprise. Msg#: 4257 *FINE ART* 02-27-94 16:24:36 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: FORM AND STUFF "Herr K. looked at a painting depicting some objects in a rather strange form. He said: 'Some artists, when they reflect on the world, are just like many philosophers. In their strive for form they loose the matter (Stoff). I once worked for a gardener. He asked me to prune a laurel tree. The tree was potted and was to be used for festive occasions. For that, it had to have the form of a sphere. I immediately started to cut the wild branches, however, as hard as I tried to achieve the form of the spere, I just couldn't succeed for a long time. Once I cut too much on one side, then too much on the other. When finally I arrived at the sphere, the sphere was very small. The gardener said in disappointment: 'Good, this is the sphere, but where is the laurel?'" Bertolt Brecht, Geschichten vom Herrn Keuner Does this help to clear up some of the confusion? <*>Replies Msg#: 4357 *FINE ART* 03-01-94 15:27:46 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4257 (FORM AND STUFF) Could Brecht have been thinking of Giacometti? Msg#: 4450 *FINE ART* 03-01-94 19:21:00 From: FRANK KRUSE To: ALL Subj: BEAVIS 'N' BUTTHEAD Listen Up! Anyone interested in an FAQ on Beavis-N-Buthead? Frank. --- * Origin: THE THING BERLIN (box/fax 030:4528534) (42:1002/3) *>Replies Msg#: 4456 *FINE ART* 03-03-94 07:22:10 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: FRANK KRUSE Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4450 (BEAVIS 'N' BUTTHEAD) nnnh nnnh Msg#: 4825 *FINE ART* 03-04-94 14:51:00 From: FRANK KRUSE To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4456 (BEAVIS 'N' BUTTHEAD) nnnnh nnnh is this like cool or something? --- * Origin: THE THING BERLIN (box/fax 030:4528534) (42:1002/3) Msg#: 4862 *FINE ART* 03-05-94 18:17:10 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: FRANK KRUSE Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4825 (BEAVIS 'N' BUTTHEAD) this is,like, you know, something or, like, totally something, or, uh, you know? Msg#: 5254 *FINE ART* 03-07-94 14:30:00 From: FRANK KRUSE To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4862 (BEAVIS 'N' BUTTHEAD) MG>ˇthis is,like, you know, something or, like, totally MG>ˇsomething, or, uh, you know? uuuuuh....I guess. huh huh huh, you said "this" huh huh huh. frank. --- * Origin: THE THING BERLIN (box/fax 030:4528534) (42:1002/3) Msg#: 5347 *FINE ART* 03-09-94 10:47:03 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: FRANK KRUSE Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5254 (BEAVIS 'N' BUTTHEAD) yeah, "this", this *this*, the *This*, that *THIS*, *These* Msg#: 5781 *FINE ART* 03-10-94 23:06:00 From: FRANK KRUSE To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5347 (BEAVIS 'N' BUTTHEAD) MG>yeah, "this", this *this*, the *This*, that *THIS*, *These* gee, this sounds kinda cool. frank. --- * Origin: THE THING BERLIN (box/fax 030:4528534) (42:1002/3) Msg#: 4835 *FINE ART* 03-05-94 11:33:01 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd) Subj: COLOR FIELD Actually, I've never understood how anyone could put Olitski in the same class as the sometimes truly amazing Poons--speaking of whom, aren't those drippy paintings of his ffrom the early '70s the model (as I've pointed out before) for the recent work of the Frankenthaler of our time, Pat Steir? <*>Replies Msg#: 4863 *FINE ART* 03-05-94 19:31:59 From: MICHAEL BENNETT To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4835 (COLOR FIELD) Though I'm no great fan of Jules Olitski--or any of the other color field painters--no less a critic than Greenberg called him America" greatest painter." Just goes to show how smart critics can be! Anyhow, Frankenthaler has always been an abstract painter; and I'm not sure you can show a lineage from Frankenthaler to Poons to Steir if that was what you were suggesting. True, Steir does splash around a lot (have to admit I'm not familiar with her more recent work) but I remember her as more of a magical figurative painter. To switch gears for a moment, as a new member of the THING I was surprised to see no mention of the death of Donald Judd. His pure style of criticism was important to me--perhaps it was the only criticism I could understand. Is his criticism known by you and the younger critics? I do remember his being trashed in a recent interview in Artforum by a member of the younger gerneration. The guy was incredulous that Judd didn't appreciate or attempt to appreciate from Marfa any of the post or whatever art of our time. Msg#: 4945 *FINE ART* 03-06-94 19:24:49 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4863 (COLOR FIELD) Steir's rrecent paintings--"Waterfalls"--come straight out of the Poons of 20 years ago, believe me. Actually, I don't consider myself a "younger critic" but an old-timer--anyone who lasts more than 7 years is, in my book. Maybe that's why I assume everyone knows Judd's writing--though what makes it a wonderful period piece, its way of going blithely from the most minute detail to the grandest generalization or broadest judgement with no concession to dialectical articulation, would seem to prevent it from being taken with entire serious now that it's no longer of the moment. Msg#: 5194 *FINE ART* 03-07-94 17:21:49 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4863 (COLOR FIELD) West Texas is a universe of its own. Of all the places for a minimalist to find himself! But those endless, empty counties are perfect counterpoints to his mentality. Why should he care? All the Schnabels in existence don't mean nothin from nothin out there, and neither does the guy that made 'em. Knowing how to shoot straight is *knowledge*, *art* is the decals on your pick up. Msg#: 5280 *FINE ART* 03-08-94 10:25:00 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4863 (COLOR FIELD) Regarding Judd, he was very much "of our time." For me he was one of the "truest" artists - his objects (sculpture, prints, furniture) we all very true to his living spirt. The great thing about Judd's writing was it was also very clearly about himself, less than about what he was looking at. Looking at his collected writings (the two volumes) it's wonderful to see his writing on Oldenburg's _Store_ - little know how much he loved that work. As for "of" "our" "moment" - he was a supporter of Roni Horn, two of her works are part of his foundation in Marfa. I don't think his vision streached to far beyond Horn in current work, however, should that matter? Msg#: 5284 *FINE ART* 03-08-94 13:02:52 From: JEFF HARRINGTON To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4863 (COLOR FIELD) I think about Olitski whenever I am waiting for a subway train and I see those monumental drips down the wall.... hmm..... Jeff Msg#: 5375 *FINE ART* 03-09-94 21:30:01 From: MICHAEL BENNETT To: JEFF HARRINGTON (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5284 (COLOR FIELD) When I'm waiting for a subway train I'm usually looking over my shoulder for the guy who is going to push me onto the subway tracks--a time when art and life don't mix. Msg#: 5381 *FINE ART* 03-09-94 22:14:23 From: MICHAEL BENNETT To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5194 (COLOR FIELD) Your right--those endless counties are the perfect place for a minimalist. West Texas--Terlingua and Marfa, where the movie "Paris-Texas" was shot a few years ago--has an immediate appeal for the minimalist mentality. Flat, hot, dry, silent--these are the deathlike qualities that have attracted many artists to settle there in a shack on twenty acres and live on three grand a year. Msg#: 5402 *FINE ART* 03-10-94 08:49:17 From: JEFF HARRINGTON To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5375 (COLOR FIELD) > When I'm waiting for a subway train I'm usually looking over my > shoulder for the guy who is going to push me onto the subway > tracks--a time when art and life don't mix. You must not ride subways much... :-) Art and life don't mix sometimes? (don't get me started...). My comment on Olitski was off (by a bit ----) I was actually thinking of Poons. Those big paintings with the monumental (ahem) drips down the canvas - kind of like a Morris Louis of phlegm.... Anybody got an extra 10 grand so I can (cough) grab one of those mis-priced Olitski's? What a deal.... yawn.... Life. Life. Life is art is poetry. Otherwise, why live? Jeff Msg#: 5403 *FINE ART* 03-10-94 08:55:20 From: JEFF HARRINGTON To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5381 (COLOR FIELD) > Your right--those endless counties are the perfect place for a > minimalist. West Texas--Terlingua and Marfa, where the movie > "Paris-Texas" was shot a few years ago--has an immediate appeal for > the minimalist mentality. Flat, hot, dry, silent--these are the > deathlike qualities that have attracted many artists to settle there > in a shack on twenty acres and live on three grand a year. Composer friend of mine was going to be an assistant there. He told me they had a little restaurant in Marfa with the best fajitas in the world... But the absolute coolest thing about Marfa is the Marfa lights (the Chinanti Lights as the indigenous call it). They're these strange light balls which come out every! night - fly around - split up into three different colored light balls in a most playful manner. NBC Evening News (yeah right) has even done a few spots on them. In a sense they're celebrity paranormal phenomenon! There's that very cool lightening field thing there too by (I forget). His dream was just that, though, a shack, a blank piece of music paper and a $3,000.00 grant. Those were the days... Msg#: 5407 *FINE ART* 03-10-94 09:21:21 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5381 (COLOR FIELD) Marfa may be a quite and small place, but it does have structure - and that structure is 1930's squat and square buildings, with the exception of the county building which is more Victorian than anything else. One should realize that the vision of Judd was not just metal boxes but social structure - if you ever got (or ever get) a chance to visit Marfa you would see this. Msg#: 5416 *FINE ART* 03-10-94 11:27:40 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JEFF HARRINGTON (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5403 (COLOR FIELD) The cafe in question is La Borunda; they still cook on a wood fired stove last time I passed through. The Lightning Field is outside of Quemado, N.M., by Walter DeMaria; owned and run by DIA foundation. You can stay there for around fifty $ per night per person, + worth the trip (in several senses of the word). I had one of the most overtly "psychic" experiences of my life out there (I think?). There is also James Turrell's "Crater" in Arizona, I hear is incredible but have never seen. The "big minimal" is sited so differently than the urban compressive mode can handle.... Msg#: 5626 *FINE ART* 03-10-94 16:12:20 From: JEFF HARRINGTON To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5416 (COLOR FIELD) > The cafe in question is La Borunda; they still cook on a wood fired > stove last time I passed through. The Lightning Field is outside of > Quemado, N.M., by Walter DeMaria; owned and run by DIA foundation. There's a very beautiful set of photographs in an ArtForum a few years back of lightening striking the field. What a work! If I ever wanted to commit suicide :). > You can stay there for around fifty $ per night per person, + worth > the trip (in several senses of the word). I had one of the most > overtly "psychic" experiences of my life out there (I think?). There > is also James Turrell's "Crater" in Arizona, I hear is incredible > but have never seen. The "big minimal" is sited so differently than > the urban compressive mode can handle.... Something about the "big sky" does something to our psyches. Like the Jungian "oceanic" feeling, it opens up who knows what deep mental spaces. Speaking of "big minimal" - supposedly _Spiral Jetty_ is visible again! Jeff Msg#: 5658 *FINE ART* 03-10-94 23:38:45 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: ELIZABETH LICATA (Rcvd) Subj: PUBLIC SPACE Yeah, that show of Fred Wilson's in Baltimore sounded pretty interesting to me too, even though most of what he's done in NYC hasn't been. I suppose it's because in my imagination there was an element of hiddenness to it--that idea of the hidden landmine. Which in a funny way subtracts a certain dimension of publicness from the public space of the museum--even as it raises very public issues that the consensus of the public space suppresses. But as I say, that's just how my imagination runs with it. <*>Replies Msg#: 5760 *FINE ART* 03-11-94 23:02:52 From: ELIZABETH LICATA To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5658 (PUBLIC SPACE) I didn't feel much was hidden, but in a way, I'd agree. He stopped the institution from being able to perform its welcoming public function. People were often very confused and disoriented as they walked through it. It was brilliant. Which makes his lackluster performance elsewhere very disappointing. Msg#: 5777 *FINE ART* 03-12-94 02:29:17 From: LAURA TRIPPI To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5658 (PUBLIC SPACE) The exhibition in Maryland was specifically about what is typically hidden, the hidden dimensions that help to fabricate consensus within the public space of the museum. (I'm afraid I can't quite track the weavings of your "hidden dimension" to the exhibition as you imagine it. Hidden by Wilson in what he didn't choose to include? In what remains hidden that his work implies?) Wilson's work worked so well there because his *material* was *the collection* so that in this case he wasn't *theorizing about* collecting but *theorizing with* collected objects. They put up resistence that arrested attention -- his I would guess in configuring his compositions, and mine and others in traversing the installation. Msg#: 5784 *FINE ART* 03-12-94 08:40:36 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: ELIZABETH LICATA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5760 (PUBLIC SPACE) Speaking of things being hidden, I was just thinking about something that happened a few years ago that made a big impression on me at the time. A friend of mine, a lawyer, had purchased a work by Cady Noland--this was before she became such a big name, I think even before her first show--which was basically a milk crate filled with various metal detritus (beer cans, a rearview mirror, etc.), very nondescript--and he had a cocktail party at his apartment to show off his new acquisition. Well, when all his lawyer friends arrived he started asking them to pick out the artwork and of course none of hit on this crate as being the piece. I was very taken with the idea of having this secret work, something that nobody even had to know was an artwork unless he felt like confiding it to them. Which is also, to me, the beuatiful part of the Duchampian readymade and the part that has been lost from 99% of the subsequent work taking up the idea of the readymade. Msg#: 5785 *FINE ART* 03-12-94 08:43:58 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: LAURA TRIPPI (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5777 (PUBLIC SPACE) At this point I no longer remember so well what details of what I'd heard or read about Fred's work in MD impressed me in that way, but I suppose the idea of just working with elements of the collection already there meant that his was a very discreet intervention, so that I imagined it would be possible somehow for some people not even to realize that anything unsual was going on. I like the idea of art that can work subliminally. Msg#: 5843 *FINE ART* 03-12-94 18:38:36 From: LAURA TRIPPI To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5785 (PUBLIC SPACE) By the "hidden dimension" of the work then you meant that the fact of its *being work* may have been hidden to exhibition visitors? In Maryland, that would have been next to impossible; the "intervention" was an elaborate installation, including talking paintings and lights; but elsewhere, in the Seattle museum, he worked the way you describe, with subtle interventions within existing "permanent" displays. I'm also a great fan of what you call subliminal art, work that seeks to "pass" as part of the built (or natural? though "built" wouldn't describe a forest, for example, I'm not altogether certain it could be called "natural" at this point either) environment. When it catches your attention, and you realize, oh, this is *art*, the surrounding space is also changed. Or rather the perception of it as environment altered. Art that announces its status as art has a harder and harder time, I think, effecting such an alteration of perception applied to the "external" world -- external that is to say to the realm of art. Does this in part explain the bourgeoning phenomenon of the urban exhibition, the so-called "new public art" such as has been taking place in Europe for some time and arrives here largely associated with the name of Mary Jane Jacobs? Msg#: 5857 *FINE ART* 03-13-94 00:59:36 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5784 (PUBLIC SPACE) > know was an artwork unless he felt like confiding it to them. Which > is also, to me, the beuatiful part of the Duchampian readymade and > the part that has been lost from 99% of the subsequent work taking > up the idea of the readymade. I have a Samsonite suitcase by Ange Leccia standing around (inside is a tape player that plays the soundtrack of "Casablanca" when the batteries aren't dead, which they have been for years). A few weeks ago my 3 year old nephew was visiting and changed the combination of the lock... Msg#: 5858 *FINE ART* 03-13-94 02:12:39 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: LAURA TRIPPI (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5843 (PUBLIC SPACE) That's the first I've heard about the talking paintings! (Sounds scary.) But the kind of subliminal work I was talking about would not necessarily attempt to "pass" as something else--that sounds more wilful, even illusionistic, and so ultimately more mannered. The Cady Noland object I mentioned, for instance, did not particularly "fit in" with this apartment, and was not made with it in mind. In fact it would have been rather unlikely in that particular context, but was simply neutral enough not to call attention to itself (as art or anything else). Msg#: 6206 *FINE ART* 03-15-94 20:51:42 From: LAURA TRIPPI To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5858 (PUBLIC SPACE) I've been deliberating about whether my phrase "seeking to pass" was or was not apt as a way of describing work that adopts a low profile as to its status as art and often migrates into unexpected locales. I do think your dismissal of the idea of such work as > wilful, even illusionistic, and so ultimately more mannered than what you had in mind was itself. . . wilful, even illusionistic, and missed the point of my remarks. In formulating the phrase, I was thinking of Adrian Piper's piece, *Cornered*, not because that work disguised its status as art, but because it thematized the subject and also indexed a body of performance works by Piper that troubled both the definition of public space (sometimes they took place unexpectedly at academic dinner parties, for example) and, that old chestnut, the dividing line between art and life. Starting out from racial categories, "Cornered" so complexified the idea of race that the issue of "passing" became quite dizzying, a mise en abime. Who among us *isn't* ultimately seeking as pass -- as, what? clever, generous, or white, whatever. In a sense all artwork is seeking to pass. Some works seem wholeheartedly to wish to be taken for what they seek to pass as -- "great painting" would be an example. ("Bad painting" would not be. At least, historically. By now though we so readily comprehend the segue from bad painting to great bad painting to great painting that the originary disingenuousness of the genre is pretty much lost.) Other works seem to be more interested in trying on a particular type of materials, form, and style to see how they fit, and send out a lot of signals about it. The Cady Noland piece you mentioned, for example, may not have made an effort to fit into your friend's apartment; but its materials and style and even its "content" are quite particular in citing a suburban American backyard context. However, it's the lack of fit that flashes and results in a reflection on implied violence. The personification may rub you the wrong way but it points to that apparently ineradicable aspect of intentionality that still does distinquish art from everything else. I'm not voting in favor of intentionality. But it does have the attraction of talking back. Until I myself attain enlightenment I do like to have my own wilful, even illusionistic, assumptions about the world around me interfered with in interesting, ethical, informative, and finally friendly ways. Msg#: 6240 *FINE ART* 03-16-94 12:33:39 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: LAURA TRIPPI (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6206 (PUBLIC SPACE) You don't have to vote in favor of intentionality because, of course, we're given little or no opportunity to vote against it. Msg#: 6323 *FINE ART* 03-16-94 21:10:10 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: LAURA TRIPPI (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6206 (PUBLIC SPACE) see Irving Goffman's book "Stigma, the Management of Spoiled Identity", chapter on "passing" Msg#: 6206 *FINE ART* 03-15-94 20:51:42 From: LAURA TRIPPI To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5858 (PUBLIC SPACE) I've been deliberating about whether my phrase "seeking to pass" was or was not apt as a way of describing work that adopts a low profile as to its status as art and often migrates into unexpected locales. I do think your dismissal of the idea of such work as > wilful, even illusionistic, and so ultimately more mannered than what you had in mind was itself. . . wilful, even illusionistic, and missed the point of my remarks. In formulating the phrase, I was thinking of Adrian Piper's piece, *Cornered*, not because that work disguised its status as art, but because it thematized the subject and also indexed a body of performance works by Piper that troubled both the definition of public space (sometimes they took place unexpectedly at academic dinner parties, for example) and, that old chestnut, the dividing line between art and life. Starting out from racial categories, "Cornered" so complexified the idea of race that the issue of "passing" became quite dizzying, a mise en abime. Who among us *isn't* ultimately seeking as pass -- as, what? clever, generous, or white, whatever. In a sense all artwork is seeking to pass. Some works seem wholeheartedly to wish to be taken for what they seek to pass as -- "great painting" would be an example. ("Bad painting" would not be. At least, historically. By now though we so readily comprehend the segue from bad painting to great bad painting to great painting that the originary disingenuousness of the genre is pretty much lost.) Other works seem to be more interested in trying on a particular type of materials, form, and style to see how they fit, and send out a lot of signals about it. The Cady Noland piece you mentioned, for example, may not have made an effort to fit into your friend's apartment; but its materials and style and even its "content" are quite particular in citing a suburban American backyard context. However, it's the lack of fit that flashes and results in a reflection on implied violence. The personification may rub you the wrong way but it points to that apparently ineradicable aspect of intentionality that still does distinquish art from everything else. I'm not voting in favor of intentionality. But it does have the attraction of talking back. Until I myself attain enlightenment I do like to have my own wilful, even illusionistic, assumptions about the world around me interfered with in interesting, ethical, informative, and finally friendly ways. Msg#: 6240 *FINE ART* 03-16-94 12:33:39 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: LAURA TRIPPI (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6206 (PUBLIC SPACE) You don't have to vote in favor of intentionality because, of course, we're given little or no opportunity to vote against it. Otherwise, I'm happy to discover from this more elaborated statement that we are in broad agreement: given the inherent non-self-identity of artworks, they are indeed always trying to pass--even if only to pass unnoticed. Msg#: 6323 *FINE ART* 03-16-94 21:10:10 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: LAURA TRIPPI (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6206 (PUBLIC SPACE) see Irving Goffman's book "Stigma, the Management of Spoiled Identity", chapter on "passing" Msg#: 6208 *FINE ART* 03-15-94 22:15:16 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: SYSOP (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6002 (TWIST AND SHOUT) I like Kosuth's work quite a bit, but your claim about auction prices I think are just wrong. Julian, has, contrary to popular fiction is doing just fine. (Don't get me wrong I AM NOT a fan of his work, however, I do keep notes on these things a-la baseball scores.) Sure Joseph may out last Julian in the textbooks, but you will NEVER see a Kosuth in a hotel, where I saw one very terrible portfolio in an hotel in Atlanta this past weekend. In the long run I think that people will still endure Julian and collect him at prices greater thank Kosuth, in part that Julian's with Pace and who knows what will happen to Joseph after Castelli dies. Msg#: 6235 *FINE ART* 03-16-94 02:57:26 From: RAINER GANAHL To: I DON'T KNOW Subj: LOUIS LAWLER I am sure most of you here in NYC have seen this show at metro by her. so far I just heared more or less positiv feed back. but something disturbed me there. it is her new (for some years) kind of little objects where the photograph is small and covered by a curved paperweight simular glass that allows the spectator - and one rally becomes a spectator - tosee the object. but I don't care about this object as such, that with its dioptrical qualities has lots of art historical connotations -(from the dutch painters to surrealism) - I aminterested onlyin one question: (and I don't even discuss the changes of the images, photos she uses, the montages and so on... a superficial reading still gives you something like a typical Louis Lawler (do I spell her name right?) - and this question is: why did LL have to give up with this particular series her objective kind of presentation of her photographs? why did she have to start with this ideosyncratic aestetic choice? and why know (since 1989 if I am well informed) - something, I find interesting as a speculation is: didn't this group of artists denounce something like "the artist" and then nolens volens (lets be positiv) become so a kind of "super artist", at least emblematic for so called postmodernist art (this once was a label, people wanted to be called with)? now, the demand for artwork showing "no signiture", no ideosynchrasie is not high in demand and one could assume that it must just be the doorway outinto the "death (of the) artist"nowhere land they all flirted with. but why is it, that she doesn't stand the colder wind she would expect if just doiing what she did: even if provoking a drop out from the lists of current definition brokers. I really don't understand why she needs this "twist" ( a dangerousword that attracts here in this bulleton board also shouts) . can you imagine dan graham blowing and laminating his works like jeff walland reducing it then like sam samore... Msg#: 6326 *FINE ART* 03-16-94 21:37:11 From: MICHAEL BENNETT To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6235 (LOUIS LAWLER) Louise Lawler may have run out of steam. As an artist who made her niche representing how others--collectors, museums etc.-- have presented the artwork in their collections--she is now appropriating her own work. There is no law that says you can't do that. It only may point out the poverty of an art movement of many years ago wherein artists were reputed to heist--to appropriate-- the artwork of others for their own ends. Msg#: 6358 *FINE ART* 03-17-94 11:28:36 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6235 (LOUIS LAWLER) I also have a question regarding the Lawler show, which has rather to do with her use of language--though in fact this is very similar to her use of the glass objets. Hasn't her language become reified into a signature supercilious coyness? What is the tone of her language meant to signify? Msg#: 6700 *FINE ART* 03-18-94 01:57:52 From: RAINER GANAHL To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6358 (LOUIS LAWLER) and what is the fotograph of the parrot doing (don't we need some mussels too) and what the one of the thorns? Msg#: 6714 *FINE ART* 03-18-94 09:48:42 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6358 (LOUIS LAWLER) in plain English, what is she trying to say? Msg#: 6717 *FINE ART* 03-18-94 11:04:33 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6714 (LOUIS LAWLER) More like--what is she trying to do? Msg#: 6236 *FINE ART* 03-16-94 03:19:14 From: SECRETARY GENERAL To: ALL Subj: NOTICE Anybody interested in pursuing the "ART SUCKS" thread may do so in the REY ZONE. Thank You. Msg#: 6357 *FINE ART* 03-17-94 11:24:13 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5879 (THE TWIST) > we've got to > take art's dialogic context on the > road, so to speak, and travel with it, using it as a valuable tool > of investigation. We must look for it I want to go back to this question of where the impulse of conceptual art devolved. Your notion that the context has gone on the road is correct, but what I disagree with is that this sense of context is so determinate. For instance, I don't know if Wolfgang considers The Thing part of his art work, but even though I can see how it might come out of an interest originating in the conceptual art concern with the notion of "information," I'd judge that it is not art even though it may be a vehicle for communication about art. On the other hand, Rainer Ganahl's work engages the notion of "information" as a metaphor, and uses only incidentally the information technologies to which it refers, but it is art which engages these ideas and contexts. I think with admiration of the Italian artist Piero Gilardi, one of the original arte povera artists. His experiences within art led him to withdraw from making art for more than a decade, during which he worked with the mentally ill in the context of the anti-psychiatry movement; eventually he did go back to artmaking. What's important to me here is that while the thinking Gilardi had developed in the context of art led to his social activism, he did not do social activism "as art"--he did it as social activism. Often the projects that attempt to co-opt other kinds of activities for art seem to me to be in bad faith--they undermine themselves from both viewpoints. That's one reason why what you call a "stopping point" in the circuit becomes so valuable, it provides a platform for reflection and judgement. <*>Replies Msg#: 6710 *FINE ART* 03-18-94 03:07:20 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6357 (THE TWIST) > For instance, I don't know if Wolfgang > considers The Thing part of his art work, but even though I can see > how it might come out of an interest originating in the conceptual > art concern with the notion of "information," I'd judge that it is > not art even though it may be a vehicle for communication about art. Your Honor, with all due respect, isn't it customary to wait until the jury is in before you read the verdict? Ah, do you want to see my digital watercolors? > as social activism. Often the projects that attempt to co-opt other > kinds of activities for art seem to me to be in bad faith--they > undermine themselves from both viewpoints. That's one reason why I hope you aren't confusing THE THING with the Whitney Museum. Otherwise I wholeheartedly agree with you on that one. To put a few stuffed polar bears in a gallery and pretend this is done to increase awareness about ecological conditions is just plain silly. However many of your colleagues bend over backwards to celebrate such activities. But who cares? Morgan is right: It's over... and this is not your periodic down-swing, this one is structural. Wake up call! Got to go to read the new cypherpunk postings. Bye! Msg#: 6777 *FINE ART* 03-18-94 16:11:12 From: GISELA EHRENFRIED To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6357 (THE TWIST) Let's just say it's Wolfgang Staehle's work. I suspect that he doesn't care whether it is art or not under current, speak conventional, conditions. It is odd to me that while myriads of symposia and exhibitions are being staged _offline_, on such issues as Ecology and Technology, Electronics and Architecture, Technology and the Body, Conceptual Art and Technology, we are here, _online_ indulging in the discussion of conventional object art fare. Scientists are on the verge of deciphering the human genome, the blueprint of humankind. Sabeth Buchmann (unfortunately I missed her recent lecture at the Goethe House, but Rainer and Helene told me some details) draws parallels between the human genome project and conceptual art, which I find very interesting and would like to know more about. If art will get stripped of its conventional carrier, the object, what will remain is a code, a message on a host system. How can art be defined under _these_ conditions (and, Jordan, I mean not oscillation back and forth between object world and information space). Any other radicals around to discuss this with? Msg#: 6779 *FINE ART* 03-18-94 17:08:17 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: GISELA EHRENFRIED (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6777 (THE TWIST) While I like what you are driving towards in thinking about codes and genetics - as it's own form of art? - I've got a basic problem (a quite broad one) with attempting to make things relate to _THE BODY_. I'm not sure that you mean to shift the dialogue into this direction, are you? To be more specific, one of the most obnoxious comments that I hear all the time when I go, silently, into museum spaces (inparticular the photography galleries), is people saying ...oh, I just love to look at faces... I know this is a hobby to many (a perverse form of people watching), and don't want to go to far in this tangent, but it is symptomatic of something larger, that is (to go back to the original track I was on) people love to relate things to _THE BODY_ because it so tangible (wow what insite). We think in terms of scale, texture, color, weight, mass, etc. in the form of _THE BODY_ as relationship to sculpture (and other things) in effort to find comfort in the sculpture's "objectivity", and we do this with everything from Judd/Serra to Kiki Smith. Is this good or bad? I tend to like to look at things in the form of _it is_ and that is all _it is_ (ok it doesn't work for Ronald Jones), but for Halley (for example) I like his work much more when divorced from his tedious texts (much in the same way I would perfer to look at sculptue w/o thinking of _THE BODY_). What I love about the notion of TT is that in many was it's not painting, drawing, sculpture, but pure conception - before the body. Msg#: 6780 *FINE ART* 03-18-94 17:29:30 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6779 (THE TWIST) Sounds to me like you are trying to be "original." Maybe if everyone likes things to relate to the body, they're on to something. As for me, I just saw the Schiele drawings at Gagosian today and they made me wonder how people could even do their work (I'm talking about the gallery employees) with these images around. Msg#: 6808 *FINE ART* 03-18-94 19:59:03 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6780 (THE TWIST) Why that the employees at Gagosian wouldn't be able to do their work while around the Schiele drawings? Too beautiful? Have to wonder... (I saw the show). Msg#: 6824 *FINE ART* 03-18-94 22:44:58 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6808 (THE TWIST) What, Josefina, and you an analyst...! I thought Freudians only had one thing in mind... Msg#: 6907 *FINE ART* 03-19-94 17:53:59 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6779 (THE TWIST) don't you find TT Judaic (in the cultural sense of being logocentric, the primacy of the word) ? It has the same endless textuality and tradition of commentary on commentary that one finds in the Talmud. Maybe not as deep, tho. This bod-centricity came about later, think of Leonardo's Vitruvian Man in the squared circle, reached a romantic peak with Rodin, slipped off into the Kafko-penal colony musings of the continental imagination (think of how much Schiele is about struggling as much is it is erotik reverie) and ended up as Kalifornya Surfur Kultur inzee hott tubb. BAHAHAHAA! Turkey Soup, bon apetit!!! Msg#: 6908 *FINE ART* 03-19-94 18:19:28 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6357 (THE TWIST) You're saying then that since The Thing is primarily concerned with texts *about* art, rather than texts and textualities that are themselves art (as in Rainer's work), it is not itself art. Kosuth found it necessary to fix this distinction in terms of primary and secondary theory: "That *difference* which separates an artwork from a conversation also separates, fundamentally, primary theory from secondary theory" (Kosuth, Art after Philosophy and After, p. 249). In other words, you're either talking about art or making art; however talking about art can be making art if it's articulated as part of a practice. Usually we know the difference because the author will say it's so; but what happens when we don't know who the author is, or if we allow for the possibility of alternate author-constructs? It's interesting to consider whether The Thing can be art--and it can be, it's a matter of our articulating it convincingly as such--because it has no sole author, and it throws into question all assumed roles. Without question, it is not Wolfgang's art; he would be the last one to call it such. I doubt that he would even refer to it as "his work," as Gisela does. In this sense, The Thing allows for an exploration that Rainer's work does not, since Rainer's work is always Rainer's work. Although Rainer's work allows for an exploration that The Thing does not, for the same reason. "Our work must bring together, then, the work and its maker in the process of locating both in society and history" (Kosuth, p. 162). If its maker is not an author per se but a kind of mechanism, in the sense, for example, that Mother Nature is not an author although she produces evolution, then we have an organismic construct that allows for the exploration of subject-object relations not fixed but multiply and configuratively positioned. What subject and object, author and reader, sender and receiver, constructs will be selected for? It seems unnecessary to draw the distinctions so firmly that Giraldi did in terms of art or social activism. They're not mutually exclusive; it's not a matter of either/or. An artist can engage in social activism employing certain elements of art, which may more effectively address certain ambiguities and prompt an alternate kind of thinking which is not so cut-and- dried; one can, for instance, probe more deeply into the negotiatory nature of "difference" or "opposition" that activist practice skims over. Similarly, social activist concerns addressed in art can focus attention more clearly on vital social issues while still incorporating art's play of signification (a delicate balancing act of course). It's unclear to me what you mean when you say that what you disagree with is that "this sense of context is so determinate." And also, when you say "the notion of 'information'", I can't help but wonder why you say "notion" and why you place the word "information" in scare-quotes. You seem to hold it at bay, even in the context of Rainer's practice, where it certainly is more integral. I don't mean to indicate that "stopping points" in the circuits are merely that: I see them as valuable as you do. (But I would highlight the "reflection," and leave off the "judgment.") Msg#: 6909 *FINE ART* 03-19-94 18:28:54 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6779 (THE TWIST) It seems "_THE BODY_" for you is a kind of audio-textual logo, like the corporate jingle that you keep humming and can't get out of your head. That is also very clearly how you respond to art. > I tend to like to look at things in the form of _it is_ and > that is all _it is_ Perhaps, then, you should reconsider that statement. Msg#: 6910 *FINE ART* 03-19-94 18:32:29 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: GISELA EHRENFRIED (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6777 (THE TWIST) > If art will get stripped of its conventional carrier, the object, > what will > remain is a code, a message on a host system. How can art be > defined under > _these_ conditions Art can't be reduced to a code or a message. It's always in the relations between codes, in the relation of viewer to viewed. What you suggest is not to get rid of the object, but to reduce it to that. Msg#: 6912 *FINE ART* 03-19-94 18:55:42 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6710 (THE TWIST) > But who cares? Morgan is right: It's over... and this > is not your periodic down-swing, this one is structural. Wake up > call! > Got to go to read the new cypherpunk postings. Bye! Not so fast. Why are you and Morgan spending so much time in this "Fine Art" forum if you think it's over? Clearly this is not a matter of either/or. Maybe we're not in the art realm proper, but we're certainly not in the cyber- or cypherpunk one. Bring what you learn there into here and vice-versa, and let's stop this "it's over!" art-is-dead thinking, which is as burnt out and historically meaningless as any artwork it could purport to negate. We've got to articulate the hybrids, not fall into camp A or camp B. Msg#: 6916 *FINE ART* 03-19-94 20:26:33 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6908 (THE TWIST) In this context, "information" is not really a notion (in any strictly defined sense), it's more metaphor masked as a notion. Generally, what you seem to be trying to get at about The Thing seems to have a lot to do with ideas about collective authorship that were explored by the early German Romantics (Schlegel etc.) Msg#: 6921 *FINE ART* 03-19-94 22:50:18 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6912 (THE TWIST) Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean to imply that art in itself was "over" or "dead", but rather that its circulatory system is in a deep structural crisis. You too might have noticed the number of galleries closing and institutional funds cut back. Most of this, of course, is recession induced. But I also detect structural changes. Some interesting trends include galleries turning into agencies and artists getting involved in non-art projects. And then there is The Thing... Personally, I find the discussion as to whether one thing is art and the other is not too deterministic for its own good. For one The Thing is a collective readymade with multiple authors, for the other it's an online service... chaqun a son gout! Msg#: 6928 *FINE ART* 03-20-94 00:41:23 From: ELIZABETH LICATA To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6912 (THE TWIST) I don't think Staehle was inferring that "art" is over, but I do agree that adjacent disourses such as The Thing can impact on the bruised and depleted body we know of as the art world. The Thing--and other BBS's such as Arts Wire--can maintain both an inward and outward gaze. That's why it's important here to continue talking about what happens "out there" as well as explore the possibilities of cyber-expression (for lack of a better word). It is not an either or arguement at this point. We're not taking over or replacing anything. I also agree (with another message) that articulating sociopolitical questions is still something that art--whther it happens on the Internet or in physical spaces-- can thoughtfully participate in. It's not "over." In a way, I wish it was. Msg#: 6938 *FINE ART* 03-20-94 04:02:21 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6824 (THE TWIST) Barry, you are not answering my question. Msg#: 6940 *FINE ART* 03-20-94 10:50:57 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6912 (THE TWIST) the last great wave of *art is dead* art has been resorbed as high collectabilia (Fluxus effluvia), but still, as a gesture of functioning minds reacting to a fetishistic, and often dishonest (in the sense of declaring great value and sublimity where its presence was dubious at best) critical milieu, it rates as my favorite period in the second half of this century. "It" isn't dead in the Fluxus sense, we are in the midst of an all penetrating form of change that a person equipped with the radicalism of the '60s or the decadance of the '70s, or the perverse materialism of the '80s would have the greatest difficulty making sense of. There is a lag, historically, between the arrival of a new technology (more generally, a new class of technologies) with its initial pilot implementation, and its total diffusion and transformation of the host culture. It is worth noting that there is a "slow" phase, where the technology is contained and local enough that it isn't rescripting the host culture (as in the '50s, a few adventurous families with teevee sets filled with zillions of tubes and little blue screens) and a "fast" phase, where the culture becomes re-expressed in terms of the new technology. This is followed by the "institutional" phase, where nobody can remember, and can barely imagine, life in the absence of the technology in question. TV is now in the *institutional* phase, and I don't believe that we could make sense of contemporary America (north or south), were we being extra-terrestrial anthropologists, without taking it into account. This "new thing" we are gingerly poking around, a composite of many technological advances; genetics, chip design, information conduits, micromarketing techniques, learning technologies, and all that stuff bubbling around us, is still in the "slow" phase; we are getting there technologically, but we are old fashioned psychologically. We hit the "fast" switch, my wild guess, in 1995, when the bulk of the fiber optic lines reach all the way to ones house or office. Then, Art as we thing of it won't die, it will be working for Industrial Light and Magic, or one of the vidi production houses like it. Or, it will be traded back and forth on CD-ROMs and bootlegged like crazy. What it won't be is "housed" in the same way that it is now, or written about in specialized publications. WIRED is a decent predictive template for the next phase of cultural discussion, as ARTFORUM is kapootie. THe established institutions of Art, and their systems of relationship, are the most vulnerable, as they are not populated with especially adaptable personalities. The future belongs to a different species. Remember the heyday of the unions, maybe 25 years ago? They thought they could forestall change, resist automation, stay in their comfortable ruts. And resist they did, but they couldn't, for whatever reason, bring themselves to accept the depth of change in their world, and the gradual erosion of their power. Their leaders were insulated and intransigent. Maybe they simply weren't capable of it, couldn't get their minds around the reality facing them. So, the world went on without them, their membership rolls declined precipitously, and they were left floundering, now trying to wake up and get their act back together. Same thing is on the horizon for culture producers and discussers. What happened to industrial labor then happened to white collar corporate labor (and still is) and is now about to happen to intellectual labor. May take a while longer. A brief while. Msg#: 6946 *FINE ART* 03-20-94 12:57:32 From: RAINER GANAHL To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6912 (THE TWIST) in this string I am in a bad position to say something since my name came up: but refering to this uncurable problem that has not even its career as a problem for granted (whether something is, or isn't) I might just add a little comment: I am a little bit confused why there had to be this belief in definitions. isn't it more of a contextual question - and isn't the context itself somethng very open to all kind of changing definitions that have to be negotiated from person to person, from case to case. soit is not the question of whether this thing here "is it or isn't it" but more whether wolfgang staehle will "use it" or will not use it ... obviously the question of the "good use" of things is entirely up to him and does not depend of whether he "shows it" or doesn't (there is no need to show anything, since everything is "out" anyway) - also, the german idealism argument, barry raised doesn't apply if he doesn't "use it" as somemthing that has traditional work qualities (obviously, they could be found if one applies this matrix, but it isvery unlikely that he would do so) - I think if we have to stress art historical references, I would more locate it at the very disolved, abstracted end of areadymade without object (it is important that there is no object even if we, as users 'bricolage' on one) - everything else would be too pathetic ... so far, I might say the best "usage" of "it" is to leave it totaly "empty" and not stress any kind of "art thing" (definition) for it. and ifsomebody really wants to have anything materialized: I would send him/her to the one line in his CV (isn't the best piece anyway only what you can express only in a line of a CV whithout anything shown) ? (by the way: right now I am not even sure whether I suffer diarrhoea passed over from my room mates or not, whether "I have it or I don't" (but for me it is already enough to be paranoid - this too does the job - I better go now) Msg#: 6947 *FINE ART* 03-20-94 13:05:59 From: RAINER GANAHL To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6921 (THE TWIST) here we go, I didn't know - he himself makes the point withthe ready made: I might even somehow cynically add: if you feel better in your typing if pushing an artproject with your fingers - feel free to feel and do so: for the rest of us: use it as a service (I am definitlyon the service side: what staehle does on his CV I don't care : but I do care hoping that those circuits that are usually reserved for artistic matters don't ignore it in order to get more and good people on it to write and argue with - this is purely functional: so for this prupose such a "a-definition" might serve tohelp recrute good writers Msg#: 6950 *FINE ART* 03-20-94 15:43:24 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6938 (THE TWIST) Sorry, Josefina--I meant that I couldn't see how people could spend so much time around so many of those Schiele drawings without wanting to have sex instead of working. Msg#: 6993 *FINE ART 03-20-94 22:20:21 From: MICHAEL BENNETT To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6950 (THE TWIST) Heard that some of the best Schieles' are just too hot for the media--N.Y. Times, art magazines etc.--to reproduce them in reviews. Is there any art today that is too hot to handle? A few years ago I saw some great drawings and paintings by Mike Cockrill (formerly of Cockrill and Hughes out of the old Semaphore Gallery) of prepubescent young girls. Rumor has it that nobody dares to show them. Mike is now painting for Mark Kostabi. Also heard from a reliable source that Rick Prol painted just about all of Basquiat's last paintings, for what that's worth. Msg#: 6997 *FINE ART* 03-20-94 23:48:25 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6950 (THE TWIST) Barry, you an artcritic... I thought artcritics did not have only one thing in mind. Msg#: 6998 *FINE ART* 03-21-94 00:09:30 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6993 (THE TWIST) If there's any art nowadays which is too hot to handle? Don't tell me you forgot about Jeff Koons, and the problems of the feminists with David Salle... Just now Lacanian Ink 8 was rejected by four printers in a row because of David Kelleran's photograph in the cover (the GIF in TT). Only the fifth attempt was succesful--the printer doing the journal is a pornography specialist, in Vermont. And lets wait and see what may happen with the book stores. Msg#: 7009 *FINE ART* 03-21-94 12:37:47 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6780 (THE TWIST) I'm not an artists, but I get distrubed when everybody seems to suddendly react to market forces. I don't want to say that artist (all, most, many, few) make art to sell, but it does seem to me at times that it more than just what "in the air" that drives either artists to make work about the "body" at this moment, or dealers to show artist that make work about the "body." What did you mean that you don't know how anybody can work at GoGo's with the Schiele's up? Do you mean that they are so distrubing or such great works of art that it would cause one to stop and stare? Msg#: 7012 *FINE ART* 03-21-94 12:40:56 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6907 (THE TWIST) Morgan, say what? Eat your soup while it's still hot. Msg#: 7015 *FINE ART* 03-21-94 12:54:13 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6993 (THE TWIST) The notion of Rock Prol painting Basquiat's work somehow seems grotesque on more levels than I can even geta grip on. Msg#: 7016 *FINE ART* 03-21-94 12:55:36 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6997 (THE TWIST) Don't be fooled, Josefina, by my always having been such a gentleman in your regard. Msg#: 7017 *FINE ART* 03-21-94 13:04:30 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 7009 (THE TWIST) Josefina already asked your question regarding my remark re: Schiele--check out my response to her and its follow-ups. Regarding the topos of "the body" in contemporary art, it's hard not to share your suspiciousness, not so much on the level of it being market-driven but rather that people are just too easily influenced by their peers because of their own lack of strong convictions. But still and all, it is a theme that of necessity hits very close to home. Maybe the problem is that the category as we are using it, which is to say as it's generally used in casual art-talk and at a certain journalistic level, is just too vague to be of much use, and it confuses more than it clarifies things. I tried to make a few distinctions within all this talk about "the body" in an essay called "Shamelessness" published in Sculpture magazine about two years ago, but there's a tremendous amount of critical thought that has failed to engage any of this in a serious way. Msg#: 7021 *FINE ART* 03-21-94 13:29:24 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 7017 (THE TWIST) In some ways what I feel, often, is that there is all this "Body" stuff out of the same reason that Pepsi, Arco (gas), Ban (deoderant), etc. are rushing to market "clear" products. It's what people want, plain and simple. If Kiki Smith sells, hey, I'll think about making works bout the body too. (Simple minded?) Anyhow, this new "eco-aware" culture we're a part of does demand that we look at thinks in a physical (human/living) system way. But maybe Zone is a precursor of things to come three volumes about the body followed by one on technology. We'll wait our turn. Msg#: 7022 *FINE ART* 03-21-94 13:39:46 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 7017 (THE TWIST) David Freedberg, author of "The Power Of Images" (which directed its gaze at the overt sexual and violent denotations in art throughout history) said, with some unsettlement, also in Sculpture, that the critical/academic community simply could not bring themselves to discuss his thesis. Freedberg had broached taboo material, and the response was predictable, embarrassed silence. Why this craven pie faced cat got your tongue play dumb didn't hear a thing you said timidity from the decks of the ,eh, "professional" claque of kultur peemps? Perhaps that the sequalae of his observation, were it to be officially "taken seriously" by being given a Chorus in this particual morality play of hi taste, are too disturbing to be shrugged off, or given the bum's rush of ironic dismissal. That being that, jes perhaps, some of what we have assigned the status of "the glories of culture", has as its prime mover, base and pornographic impulses. That simply won't do. We have a reputation to uphold, you know. Msg#: 7023 *FINE ART* 03-21-94 13:53:54 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6993 (THE TWIST) maaarvelous! looove ittttt! I ran into Mike at a trade show in Chicago last year, where his dealer was showing his "girlie" paintings...this was a tres straight occasion with Leo Castelli dutifully munching down vile buffet fare, breaded shrimp full of PCBs and horrid stuffed peppers with God knows what in them, and an enterprising team of two brothers laden with Fluxus things you must own, and about ten thousand other forgettable expressions of the profound creative spirit and inherent nobility in human aspiration...Rick did Michael B.? Figures. Now WHO do you think paid for that? Msg#: 7024 *FINE ART* 03-21-94 17:07:01 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 7022 (THE TWIST) Freedberg is kidding himself. His book was not discussed because it is a bad book that completely fails to show what it says it's going to show, despite a vast amount of raw data being served up in the absence of an intellectual schema capable of processing it. Check out David Carrier's review published in Arts Magazine shortly after the book's publication. Msg#: 7088 *FINE ART* 03-22-94 00:28:01 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 7024 (THE TWIST) OK, I think we can take that torpedo at face value (even if some metaphors get mixed on the way). I've got the thing right here, but am halfway through a biography of Goebbels, so will pick through it again when time permits. As he is concerned with the problem of *evasion* ( and that can be a self serving framework, not unlike the psychanalytic one, i.e. "you won't accept this intellectually because you are in actuality evading anxiety provoking unconscious thoughts, and your anger or disdain is not only a symptom, but the more you experience it, the more you are, in truth, confirming the points that you appear to reject, etc etc") I'd like to cut him a little extra slack and run through his stuff with suspended judgement. Sometimes we can be in the grip of intellectual fashions and not know it. In my own mind the jury is out, but who knows, I may end up agreeing with you, or vice versa.[k Msg#: 7105 *FINE ART* 03-22-94 03:42:07 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 7016 (THE TWIST) Hmm... Barry. A penny for those thoughts! Msg#: 7118 *FINE ART* 03-22-94 13:26:54 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 7105 (THE TWIST) Any time, Josefina--on a private channel. Msg#: 7126 *FINE ART* 03-22-94 20:25:05 From: MICHAEL BENNETT To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 7023 (THE TWIST) Glad to run into another Cockrill admirer. We are very few. I wonder why? His early job on the Kennedy clan was pure masterpiece. Apropos of "work too hot to handle" a suggestion that after Koons there is nothing left to shock the multitudes, leads me to believe that the current crowd just doesn't know the multilevel delights of Cockrill. Msg#: 7127 *FINE ART* 03-22-94 20:49:48 From: MICHAEL BENNETT To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6998 (THE TWIST) I'm pretty much strait-laced and rarely rent a video from Blockbusters or Tower. But Koons is really weak tea and its error to think that the pseudo shock that thundered through the art world represented a new high in acceptance of the workings of the plumbing of the human body as high art. You must look at the early work of Mike Cockrill who mixed eroticism, politics, and a sly sense of humor into a fine art cocktail. And the guy can really draw! Msg#: 7391 *FINE ART* 03-23-94 12:59:55 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 7126 (THE TWIST) when you look to the "primary layer" (not the best term, if you have a better one, please feel free to substitute it) of Koons, you find not much. This is a people problem that appears as an art problem (like guns dont kill, people do?), namely "hollowness". No big news there, T.S. Eliot had his big despair over "hollow men, filled with sawdust", no news to Nietzche even, who dreamed up the curse of "eternal recurrence" (how many times would you have to relive your life exactly as you have before you couldn't stand it anymore? that's not exactly what he said, call it para-Nietzche, but you get the point, which isn't philosophical geneology but what are we really doing with these lives of ours?...let some other fool pick nits)... But, Koons does make useful contributions to our understanding of the banal. Perhaps he himself is thoroughly banal as well..ok, that's his problem, but the magnification, the hyperbolizing of the banal, the conflation of the grand gesture and the idiotic throw away is consistent with the social background noise all around us. What he does lack is rage, and purifying disgust, which Mike Cockrill possesses and hones to a keen edge. I believe, from knowing him, that he has little stomach for fraudulence and hypocricy, and that inability to "go along to get along" will keep him marginal. Koons wallows, but he never confronts...one suspects that his art is a kind of covert endorsement of the very prejudices he claims to mock, his art is the art of bad faith (git 'em Jean Paul...) Msg#: 7455 *FINE ART* 03-23-94 22:24:32 From: CHRIS KRAMER To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 7391 (THE TWIST) > heck, its a > coercive, manipulative culture, so, like, party dude. Msg#: 7489 *FINE ART* 03-24-94 10:24:31 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: CHRIS KRAMER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 7455 (THE TWIST) yeeeessss? aaaannnnd? you were about to say something? Msg#: 7769 *FINE ART* 03-25-94 02:27:49 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 7127 (THE TWIST) "Heard that some of the best Schieles' are just too hot for the media--N.Y. Times, art magazines etc.--to reproduce them in reviews. Is there any art today that is too hot to handle?" I was replying to this question Michael. Good or bad, today art is many times "too hot to handle." Msg#: 7770 *FINE ART* 03-25-94 02:51:00 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 7021 (THE TWIST) I think Zone's three volumes my have abused the body topic. It got tedious in the end. I like though the subject when relative to the Barroque. Lacan, addressing the body--the soul as it's supposed identity--writes this intriguing phrase: 'When you suppose it thinks secretely, it has secretions--when you suppose it thinks concrete, it has concretions--when you suppose it thinks information, it has hormones." (in Encore, the chapter "of the Barroque"). Msg#: 8052 *FINE ART* 03-25-94 20:50:58 From: MICHAEL BENNETT To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 7770 (THE TWIST) True, in the wider world, penises, profanity and pederasty have not yet been widely accepted as topics of media exploration and discussion. In the narrower art world however we seem to be awash at least in penises lately. Maybe I am being overly simplistic but isn't it true that your thoughts and mine are still "too hot to handle." Msg#: 8053 *FINE ART* 03-25-94 21:09:19 From: MICHAEL BENNETT To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 7391 (THE TWIST) Rage and disgust are authentic emotions the communication of which appeal to me in art or otherwise. "Hyperbolizing the banal"--Koons--smacks of juvenile pedantry. The banal is everwhere around us. I'm a high school graduate--got my GED--and Koons can't teach me anything. Msg#: 8091 *FINE ART* 03-26-94 15:18:13 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 8053 (THE TWIST) ain't that it in a nutshell? Can it teach you? Do you walk away knowing or feeling or perhaps in an inexplicable way comprehending something that you didn't before you encountered the work? That's what differentiates entertainment; to be entertained you don't have to be educated, simple have your attention redirected for awhile. An experience can both be educative and entertaining (if you luck out); but empty entertainment has a barren wasteland quality to it just like dead dry information. I don't know exactly the algebra for great engagement, the spot on blend of high entertainment and great teaching, but when you meet up with it, you can almost feel the machinery of your life changing gears. Nothing like that happened with Koons, merely a Hmm...cool...look at that...next please... Msg#: 8093 *FINE ART* 03-26-94 16:42:39 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6916 (THE TWIST) > In this context, "information" is not really a notion (in any > strictly defined sense), it's more metaphor masked as a notion. What are you talking about? By "this context" do you mean The Thing, Rainer's work, or the context of your discourse? Perhaps in your antiquated world, it appears masked as a notion, but certainly not in the discourses whirling around you of which you're obviously unaware, shuttered off as you are within the confines of the art world, bound up in rearranging the furniture and dusting. And *no,* I'm not talking about "collective authorship" at all! That does not apply to the kinds of alternate relations and transactions that I am trying to articulate. Msg#: 8141 *FINE ART* 03-26-94 18:57:11 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 8093 (THE TWIST) eeech!oooch!ouch!>>>>>>>>how about information=information? Artsyfartsy (a dead language that was discovered in clay vessels next to the Essene scriptures, but suppressed by a deviant faction of Scientologists who had major problems with Sperber's meta-linguistics....just kidding) requires an indirection, the academic equivalent of a snipe hunt, to keep itself "in the game", by being able to provide a legitimizing service to it while keeping the terms of the inquiry just that crucial teensy bit off balance, like doctors who don't want to speak in lay english, less some of the mystique gets coated with the shake'n'bake of the daily grind. I am sure you get my drift. Still, keep in mind that the "critical community" (an artificial construct on our part so we can have a juicy, unspecific target to get our morality jones on) is as highly socialized into their roles as "artists" or "lawyers" are into theirs. We don't see our own clonedom, but I'd be willing to bet that if you got some artists together and a gaggle of surgeons, or senators, or cops walked in on them, "we" would look like something, and sound like something, as a class of "thems", relative to some "us's". Meta-artists, "critics" if you will, suffer their fates of socialization along with the rest of humanity. The dominant question is how do we, co inhabitants of an intellectual sphere, arrive at that which matters, and distinguish it from the mental equivalent of potato peeling? Msg#: 8160 *FINE ART* 03-27-94 09:45:18 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 8141 (THE TWIST) Yes, Jordan, like Jonathan Richman, "I'm still in love with the old world." Msg#: 8161 *FINE ART* 03-27-94 12:38:23 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 8093 (THE TWIST) Jordan, I really think you should check out how close your projections of meta-authorship regarding The Thing, as articulated in your message #6908, are to what was being said about the "Athenaum" almost 200 years ago! It's hardly an insult to point this out. Msg#: 8176 *FINE ART* 03-27-94 07:27:24 From: MICHAEL BENNETT To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 8161 (THE TWIST) You seem to be arguing for dose of "populism" to be tossed into the critical brew. Perhaps term-limits for critics--and artists--may be the answer. I think I'll give my senator a call. Msg#: 8486 *FINE ART* 03-29-94 18:25:47 From: CAROL BROAD To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 8176 (THE TWIST) I just adore German Romantics. How can I learn more about this Schlegel and his Atheneum? What is it anyway? Can I get his books at Rizzoli? I am nearly done reading Derrida... Msg#:10900 *FINE ART* 04-16-94 19:32:00 From: JEREMY WHITEHURST To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 8486 (THE TWIST) The problem concerning conceptual practice and its ongoing legacy interms of how, if at all, appaers to be the most interesting phenomena that is arising within the cultural field. What I do find strange is how painting as a language fits into the legacy that is regarded as conceptual art. of course the development of painting was a conceptual project and as a language still has that the posibilities of a conceptual project. The problem is that goods do not seem to be adquately delivered to continue, or validify the conceptual possibilitiers of this language. As we know the in terms of the ever expanding fields of cultural practice then painting seems to have its feet so haevily set in concrete that any shift that comes out of appaers already to be rotten fruit. Of course the whole problem of activating a visual field is not under the sole ownership of painting. The level of competion arises out of every visual formulation and this, or these confront the conceptual or theoretical problems far more succictly than the evere decreasing possiblitie sof the language of painting. The restriction to a given set of problems withih a language offers endless possibilities but with painting the outcome is alraedy ........ ........there are to many questions or discourses that are immediately left out in the cold, to many processes that are removed. Or maybe I'm just to young to find painting as an activity intresting. Next one please........ I would rather see bad conceptual art than some daubed material anyday. --- * Origin: THE THING COLOGNE [0221-7392450(BOX) 723578 (TEL)] (42:1002/1) Msg#:10917 *FINE ART* 04-16-94 14:41:37 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: JEREMY WHITEHURST Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 10900 (THE TWIST) Strange as it is to consider how painting could fit in conceptualism's legacy, as you say, it is even more strange to consider how it could *not* fit in. In this situation, the case for excluding painting, or any other cultural phenomenon or mode of artistic practice, would be weak. Msg#: 6696 *FINE ART* 03-18-94 00:58:47 From: SECRETARY GENERAL To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: ZOO > If Judd is a boar, does that make Serra a stag? Subjects concerning Zoomorphology are now being discussed in the REY ZONE. cc: SKIP SNOW, DAVID PLATZKER Msg#: 7403 *FINE ART* 03-23-94 17:05:20 From: RAINER GANAHL To: BEGINNERS Subj: BASIC GERMAN within the context of renee green's "taste venue" show at pat hearn gallery, I am giving "basic german" lessons from today on every wednesday and friday from 12 to 1 o'clock untill the end of her show (april 10th) - the classes are 5 $ a person to cover the rental of the space; the lessons are held in the gallery on 39 wooster street. after april 10th the lessons could go on under a private banner for 10 $ an hour you are invited to come, if you want to study german <*>Replies Msg#: 7474 *FINE ART* 03-24-94 00:42:29 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 7403 (BASIC GERMAN) Perhaps it would be more challenging, Rainer, if you were to teach basic Japanese instead. Msg#: 7544 *FINE ART* 03-24-94 19:10:48 From: RAINER GANAHL To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 7474 (BASIC GERMAN) I just did my "basic japanese" upstairs, so I thought it might be more fun doing "basic german" - but if there is an interest in learning "basic japanese" I would be willing to teach privately... but this msg belongs more in the adds section or the e/mail... Msg#: 8050 *FINE ART* 03-25-94 20:32:37 From: MICHAEL BENNETT To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 7403 (BASIC GERMAN) Rainer, wouldn't it be more appropriate for you to be paying others to learn your native tongue. According to the latest statistics of the Bureau of Linguistics of the Deutche Institute, in the May 1994 survey, German is a dying language having been surpassed by both English, French, and Spanish as a language of international discourse, and is only read rather infrequently in some obscure and unreadable German art journals. Also recent historical discoveries in the field of "primitive multicultural languages" has decisively proven beyond a reasonable doubt the origin of German as an offshoot of early American english. See the Journal of Early Languages, September 1994. Msg#: 8078 *FINE ART* 03-26-94 02:23:18 From: RAINER GANAHL To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 8050 (BASIC GERMAN) > Also recent historical > discoveries in the field of "primitive multicultural languages" has decisively > proven beyond a reasonable doubt the origin of German as an offshoot of early > American english. See the Journal of Early Languages, September 1994. does this have something to do with the proven facts, reported in the journal of "historical east coast discoveries", December 1993, page 35 ff, that Berlin and Vienna are split of colonies from the texas germans before they were converted into americans? May be we should do some more studies at your "Bureau of Linguistics of the Deutche Institute" (by the way, where is it located). Msg#: 8081 *FINE ART* 03-25-94 19:35:00 From: FRANK KRUSE To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 8078 (BASIC GERMAN) RG>doing "basic german" - but if there is an interest in learning "basic RG>japanese" I would be willing to teach privately... but this msg belongs more gee, sure thang! i used to in yokohama a couple of years ago. and now, as time goes by, it kinda hides somewhere in my brain. i can understand it quite well but when it comes to speaking, i just can't get a hold of it... so: i'd love to brush it up, but do you think it's going to work via tt? tell me... furanku-san. kyo wa boku no tanjobi desu. cheers. --- * Origin: THE THING BERLIN (box/fax 030:4528534) (42:1002/3) Msg#: 7547 *FINE ART* 03-24-94 20:09:49 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: BASIC JAPANESE If I can make it to Pat's during one of your hours, I would be happy to take my first lesson in Japanese. <*>Replies Msg#: 7551 *FINE ART* 03-24-94 22:18:06 From: RAINER GANAHL To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 7547 (BASIC JAPANESE) sorry barry, but at pat I just do "basic german" - for basic japanese, you have to come to my place - (plus I you will encounter a native speaker as well) - but again, we are at the wrong board (go e) Msg#: 8079 *FINE ART* 03-26-94 02:27:48 From: RAINER GANAHL To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd) Subj: TOO HOT TO HANDLE so why don't you buy some cuts or gloves at 7th avenue? Msg#: 8209 *FINE ART* 03-27-94 10:08:34 From: SKIP SNOW To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: OLD WORLD There is no old world, only memory and nostalga. If you are in love with the old world, then you have no sense of what the past is or should have been. I am sorry to be mean, (spelling for once right), but the old world is more mythic than a thruth of history. Msg#: 8216 *FINE ART* 03-27-94 11:57:46 From: RAINER GANAHL To: WHO CARES Subj: TALK/SHOWS after Lawler one should also talk about the show of Barbara Krueger and the one of Cady Noland. all three are very interesting and worth to be discussed. but different to just reviews I wish we would be able to develop and exchange arguments one can not find so easily elsewhere. the emphasis should be on "developing arguments". I was surprised and sad about the way Lawlers show was somehow "bashed" in the end without arguments. I opened up her string with some critical questions about her work but nevertheless I do find her entire project as such interesting and worth to be defended. So I did not want to see end this string so miserably fringed down into nasty silence. So I hope we do not repeat this with Noland and Krueger even if I might open it up with some critical remarks or questions. <*>Replies Msg#: 8234 *FINE ART* 03-27-94 19:58:08 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 8216 (TALK/SHOWS) I agree the emphasis should be on developing arguments. But the problem is, we dance around so much from one topic to the next, from one show to the next, that it's hard to concentrate. It's a matter of wanting to make a time and energy investment in a particular issue and/or artist. Lawler and Kruger are artists worthy of investing time in, but the question is: why, and for what? We are all busy people, there is so much in the day that competes for attention, that cries out for articulation. In order to engage in developing arguments here there has got to be a compelling reason for doing so. Idle chatter isn't enough; I'd rather do it in person. I suggest we try a roundtable discussion on something which interests us all, set aside some time to do it, and publish it somewhere. I like the idea of choosing participants, focusing on a set of issues, creating a structure, and gearing the whole thing to be published. Msg#: 8217 *FINE ART* 03-27-94 12:06:00 From: RAINER GANAHL To: & Subj: BARBARA KRUEGER somebody defended her show and sees in her recent show an investigation of the relationship between architecture and language. further in this discussion the word - very easily used in the US (I am more careful with it) - "fascistic" came up linked to the object of her inquiry (architecture and language): I somehow imagined that this could mean that Krueger sees in this link a fascistic because oppressive quality and wants to show it somehow. now, my view on her show was slightly different and I don't see the very interesting relationship between architecture and language as her primal point of investment. I more see her engagement with architectonic space from a tendency to subsequently monumentalize her presentations in order to try to keep up the degree of impression, persuation, and effects. And in this show she added even a very powerful, impressive sound factory.(architecture is then just a special effect for her representations as sound is one too) If it was this particular relationship between architecture and language - something I am very interested in - than the text would have been different. In terms of the "fascistic" aspect, I more locate it in the extensions of her proper messages that, taken to the very last end, would touch on social phenomena that have their monuments in this country with Waco (spl?). Now all of this could be discussed: <*>Replies Msg#: 8236 *FINE ART* 03-27-94 21:43:20 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 8217 (BARBARA KRUEGER) I can't break the Kruger down into parts that work for me. Not to be too grumpy about the work, but, I'm so tired of spectical art. Cady Noland too. Going back to what Jordan posted about everyday life and being bombarded (to paraphrase), frankly I just can't give a damm about overblown installations. Sure it looks neat etc., but I rather go to Disneyland. The only value that works for me with either Kruger or Noland is that it provides us with a new framework to talk about art with. Is that enough to make it good art? I no longer want to think about if something will "last", that is outlive the moment in whick something's either made or presented, who care about that anymore? In the end all I say in the Kruger show was that Boone's floors look much better covered in black & white institutional squares than scruffed up concrete. Msg#: 8262 *FINE ART* 03-27-94 05:42:43 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 8217 (BARBARA KRUEGER) Rainer, I'm not so sure it's possible to make the kind of distinction between "object of inquiry" and "effect," which seems to boil down to trying to disentangle ends and means--Kruger clearly uses language in relation to architecture, how are we to decide whether she is somehow "engaging" this or just using it for some other effect? Msg#: 8218 *FINE ART* 03-27-94 12:08:24 From: RAINER GANAHL To: % Subj: CADY NOLAND yesterday's opening of cady noland somehow didn't permit to really look at her work. it was too crowded. it was one of the biggest gallery openings I have ever been to. so this gave me the impression as if there is more than just a show at stake: could it be that one has to defend with this event, with her show, (everybody had been waiting for), something that has been taken for granted over the last 30, 40 years?: namely New York Art as THE art of the planet. could such a show fail? and if it did, what would somehow remain to be exported with a gesture of enlightenment to the rest of the world? With a little eye to the show I am asking: Could it be right that I saw lots of instruments that could very well serve in S+M clubs? <*>Replies Msg#: 8343 *FINE ART* 03-28-94 16:56:55 From: SECRETARY GENERAL To: ALL Subj: ONWARD The Onward thread migrated to R&D. Let's try to be aware that there are 9 different topical fora on this board. Thank you for your attention. <*>Replies Msg#: 8406 *FINE ART* 03-28-94 19:09:43 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: SECRETARY GENERAL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 8343 (ONWARD) Thanks, Sec'y Gen'l, I was getting tired of all that Futurism anyway. To me it all sounds like Marinetti fulminating over the latest Fiat. Msg#: 8347 *FINE ART* 03-28-94 18:38:32 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: ANY OL DAMN BODY Subj: THERE IS NO THERE THERE art luvvers take note! Seems that Absolut (as in vodka) is getting the jump on all you highfalutin culturoos by opening a virtual museum to themselves and all that grrrrrrreat artvertizing they sponsored (I specially luv the pious, saintly one Keith Haring did, so childlike, so innocent, so fulled with joy and hope and good vibes...). Now, which one of you geniuses wants to draw straws an see who gits to review this here gem of the culture/taste nexus? <*>Replies Msg#: 8349 *FINE ART* 03-28-94 18:52:04 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 8347 (THERE IS NO THERE THERE) Morgan, you got to be kidding. What? Pot shots and lame art? BTW many of us know the "art advisor" who picks the artists, couldn't we just pick on her? Msg#: 8462 *FINE ART* 03-29-94 13:22:09 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 8349 (THERE IS NO THERE THERE) I got the matches...you bring the gasoline. Jes who iz this "Urt Dvisor" n-e-way? Shure, lettus pik on her. Ken we markit dartboards with peepuls faces on em? Member, now, this ain't nuthin but the d 0;QH-An Msg#: 8464 *FINE ART* 03-29-94 13:26:30 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 8462 (THERE IS NO THERE THERE) circus nohow. Ril fahn ixkuse fer a buncha gloryhogs to crawl round on ther bellies an snif each otherns butts. Now, this here iz ril aktual kritisizm frum the hoses mouf, ain't it pardner! Msg#: 8482 *FINE ART* 03-29-94 16:17:33 From: SKIP SNOW To: ALL Subj: CANDY, AND TOYS I went to an art opening last night, at Cooper Union. It was an end of the year graduation show, held in a lecture hall. The show was as would be expected, many good pieces, all a bit derivative. One of the pieces was a performance centered around a prop, a fake column blending into the gallery, a pinnate stuffed with candy and plastic toys. Towards the end of the opening an exuberant young man, the artist who had made the pinnate, stepped up to the column, and started to beat it with a baseball bat. Dressed in an ill-fitting used suit and sunglasses, his image with the bat was a cross between Norman Rockwell, and some tabloid headline "Racial Violence Shocks Peaceful Neighborhood". He slugged violently away at the pinnate for a while. Then the bat was passed to a pal of his, a muscular youth with long blond hair. The pal slugged even more determinedly away. Each time the bat hit the paper column a laud dull thwack echoed through the hall. The third male, who had almost violently obtained the bat from the second resumed the ritual. He, pounding away at the thing, attacked it with true vengeance. His batting style had nothing to do with baseball, but was the image of violence itself. He swung the tool over his head like the blacksmith at the hell like anvil in the Goya painting at the Frick. his assault seemed not only to be directed at the paper toy, not only at the four long years of art school finally over, but even at the journey ahead; his battering, subjectively projected, was directed at the assurance that for the most part one's voice will melt into the obscurity of silence. On the one hand, the shattering of a column is a sort of revolutionary gesture, implying the destruction the status quo and one of its classical symbols. On the other hand the violence of the attack, coupled with our knowledge of the resulting oppressions which follow violent revolution make all such revolutionary gesture futile. While the event was in the words of the man with whom I attended the event "a perfectly conceived dadaist performance," I couldn't help but be saddened by the beauty of this model. Somehow the game was all at once violent, painful, and empty. It demonstrated the perpetuation of the caveman roles we have supposedly evolved beyond. It promised rewards of sugar pills, and fake spiders even to the heroes of its dull rituals. Msg#: 8549 *FINE ART* 03-29-94 21:51:39 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: CAROL BROAD (Rcvd) Subj: THE ADORABLE Actually, I might have been thinking not of Schlegel but of Novalis, who writes, for instance, that "journals [i.e. magazines] are actually the first books to be written in common....Perhaps one day people will write, think, and act as a mass. Entire communities, even nations, will undertake One Work." In any case, Carol, now that you've digested Derrida, a good transition to Roamtnicism might be via his associates Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe & Jean-Luc Nancy and their book "The Literary Absolute: The Theory of Literature in German Romanticism" (SUNY Press). There are two good anthologies of German romantic texts in translation, "German Aesthetic and Literary Criticism: The Romantic Ironists and Goethe," ed. by Kathleen Wheeler (Cambridge University Press) and "German Romantic Criticism" ed. by A. Leslie Willson (Continuum). Bon appetit! Msg#: 8726 *FINE ART* 03-31-94 13:18:30 From: SECRETARY GENERAL To: ALL Subj: TRASH Messages 8593 and 8552 have been forwarded to the Trash Collector. <*>Replies Msg#: 8861 *FINE ART* 04-01-94 14:21:40 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: SECRETARY GENERAL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 8726 (TRASH) Whose messages were these and why where they thrown in the trash? Msg#: 8865 *FINE ART* 04-01-94 16:23:07 From: SECRETARY GENERAL To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 8861 (TRASH) All trash now goes into the trash compactor in ALPHA 60/basement/Janine's trash compactor. To find out more about trash, go there and ask. Msg#: 8848 *FINE ART* 04-01-94 02:12:45 From: ED GRANT To: ALL Subj: BK Is it me, or is B. Kruger's show full of shit. Postions of Privilege!? Not to mention the audio. A few thoughts, Skinny Puppy, Ministry, Clint Ruin, Caberet Voltaire......"Sluggin'for Jesus". Just a thought. <*>Replies Msg#: 8852 *FINE ART* 04-01-94 10:08:22 From: JEFFREY SCHULZ To: ED GRANT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 8848 (BK) > Ministry Yes! You use them a while and it's over the shoulder . . . Msg#: 8856 *FINE ART* 04-01-94 12:36:20 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: ED GRANT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 8848 (BK) *Preaching To The Converted* maybe? The grand stance as a form of dressing up for church so everybody can see the clothes you can afford? Msg#: 9002 *FINE ART* 04-02-94 20:14:34 From: M BOYER To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2184 (WHAT'S UP DOWNTOWN.) Are you joking? Melancholy masturbation and art as therapy? Please. Cynicism <*>Replies Msg#: 9136 *FINE ART* 04-03-94 21:33:53 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: M BOYER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 9002 (WHAT'S UP DOWNTOWN.) uh.like this thread is like expired.uh.yeah Msg#: 9166 *FINE ART* 04-04-94 15:18:00 From: FLORIAN CRAMER To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: SCHLEGEL, NOVALIS , ROMANTICIS There is a very good English translation of Schlegel's writings by Ernst Behler which, as far as they remember, appeared at University of Washington Press. For a first reading, they recommend the Athenaeum aphorisms and the Conversation about Poetry. Unfortunately, Schlegel's novel "Lucinde" is not translated. There is a cheap German edition by Ullstein Verlag which also includes an extensive commentary by the Hermeneutic philosopher Friedrich Schleiermacher, a close friend of the Schlegel brothers. To get a better idea about Schlegel's system of notions, it will greatly help to read Schiller's essays "On Naive and Sentimental Poetry" and the "Letters on Aesthetic Education," also known as the Kallias letters. As above, Monty Cantsin --- * Origin: THE THING BERLIN (box/fax 030:4528534) (42:1002/3) Msg#: 9785 *FINE ART* 04-09-94 15:37:00 From: MICHAEL KROME To: MICHAEL OWEN Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1302 (SAW YOUR NAME) > Peter saw your name as we scanned the messages. How > are you doing? I look forward to hearing about what > you are up to. Just to keep you informed: Fend is popping in very spontanious and never continiosly working here in the office of TT Cologne. In the last week, (when TT CGN was still down) he told me to get connected from TT London after the 11th of April. He is preparing his show at the new space of Marc Jancou in London. Hope he will react the to all open questions, but I really don't know. (This is adressed to all, who react on PfĄnndts spontanious interventions) --- * Origin: THE THING COLOGNE [0221-7392450] (42:1002/1) <*>Replies Msg#: 9794 *FINE ART* 04-09-94 10:06:28 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: MICHAEL KROME Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 9785 (SAW YOUR NAME) > Just to keep you informed: Fend is popping in very spontanious and > never continiosly working here in the office of TT Cologne. Ah, so he is following your example. Msg#:10002 *FINE ART* 04-11-94 01:18:21 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 8218 (CADY NOLAND) Did you read the review in Friday's paper? Roberta Smith, as usual, does another great job in balanced packaging. Includes great poetry, like this koan: Mr. Eagletons stint in a psychiatric hospital, which included shock therapy, made him a political liability. I think we should review the reviews. The shows get reviewed anyway. To take a closer look at the techniques of validation could yield far more interesting results, aside from being more fun. Anybody else interested in the amateur semiotics workshop? Perhaps Jordan can get us a publisher? "All non literary types to the front! Let's stop breeding literary jerks!" -- Hugo Ball <*>Replies Msg#:10498 *FINE ART* 04-13-94 12:37:11 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 10002 (CADY NOLAND) This literary jerk takes exception to Hugo Ball! But the idea of critiquing the critics is a good one (we need some kind of attention). Msg#:10814 *FINE ART* 04-15-94 12:24:00 From: MICHAEL KROME To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 10498 (CADY NOLAND) > I think we should review the reviews. The shows > get reviewed anyway. I think it's a great idea, I did it some months ago with the german magazine Texte zur Kunst, when I did an interview with Thanos Lipowatz for them. I found out, that its possible to destillate some few words, which funktion in very instrumentalized way to establish a new "critical discourse" of ideology critics. In this days I spoke with Lipowatz, who published a lot of political interpretation on Lacan's deconstruction via the language, and we even talked about the strategy of this magazine. He was really shocked of the paradox of beeing or seeing themselfes as left wing- deconstr£cting the discourse of POWER and re-establishing it through a very redundant form of language. He and me agreed in the necessity of re-interpretation the interpretation in order to diagnose the intention of the author or publisher or doctrin or ideology. > To take a closer look at the techniques of validation > could yield far more > interesting results, aside from being more fun. > Anybody else interested in the amateur semiotics > workshop? Perhaps > Jordan can get us a publisher? I think there should be an interest in the french magazine Purple Prose, because in my opinion they publish the most selfreflecting issues in Europe. They will be in Cologne at the premiere days and I will talk to them, but have to start with zero, no modem, no SW and so on. We really need a technical service, worldwide operating, like IBM, we shouldlook for a cooperative partner, whos able to install and serve a node and the beginning users f.e. in Paris and elsewhere. Msg#:10816 *FINE ART* 04-15-94 18:17:00 From: JEREMY WHITEHURST To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 10814 (CADY NOLAND) What may appaer to be amatuer semiotics is one of the most intresting points that have come to the fore in such a long time, and I would like to thank the parties that elevated the discourse out of the armchiar ! The point that I would like to bring in is that within the armchair of thought, the being that is in which we are enmeshed, that one must ask if the problem of a semiotic analysis also remains within the armchair? The answer that I here from the back of the monitor is: "of course not". That is that the entity which goes under the name, or dare one say logo, of semiotics would reveal to everyone of its intrested parties is that it will always function outside of and regardless of the armchair, while it is simultaeously one of the major occupiers of the armchair in which we all sit. Also when the word semiotics and psychiatric clinic appear within the same short text then the names of Lacan and Foucault are standing very prominatly within the shadows. The only solution to this is to keep taking the drugs and enjoy them as much as possible. When one has reached a level of enjoyment with the afore mentioned drugs then one would be in the position to relise nothing and would expereince being, just how Mr. H always talked about. Maybe a few days afterwards comes the semiotic sobreity. Oh dear, Oh dear! What a paradox, I think I will have to go and make some art. Ciao bella, ciao. Love and peace to everyone. Jeremy Msg#:10837 *FINE ART* 04-15-94 11:37:15 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: MICHAEL KROME Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 10814 (CADY NOLAND) Purple Prose publishes "the most selfreflecting issues in Europe"??? Msg#:10854 *FINE ART* 04-15-94 17:23:27 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JEREMY WHITEHURST Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 10816 (CADY NOLAND) ah drugs! Ah thinks ahl woof down a gulletful an go git analized, uh, analysed in Ol' Sparky, the lectric chair in my home state. Jes uh stsate of mind n-e-way. Git 'em n-t-lektuals! Msg#:11086 *FINE ART* 04-17-94 22:46:43 From: DOUGLAS WADA To: ALL Subj: RECENT OPENINGS MATTHEW WEINSTEIN / SONNABEND GALLERY, NEW YORK. Overheard during opening of 4/16: "The text is sort of like a romance novel, only not as interesting" "Why are the holes in the canvas at waist level? You have to bend down to look in them when you're close up." "I thought you said this was a good gallery." NICHOLAS RULE / PAUL KASMIN GALLERY, NEW YORK Overheard during opening of 4/16: "So when is Suzanne McCleland having a show here?" <*>Replies Msg#:11899 *FINE ART* 04-20-94 10:36:21 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 10917 (THE TWIST) > consider how it could *not* fit in. In this situation, the case for > excluding painting, or any other cultural phenomenon or mode of > artistic practice, would be weak. It's true that the conceptual apparatus of conceptual art has a harder time maintaining strict criteria of exclusion than the conceptual apparatus of painting; that is, if painting is taken as paradigmatic, then it is easy to exclude most conceptual work from consideration, whereas if conceptual art is taken as paradigmatic, it isn't so easy to exclude painting, except by either the importation of a progressivist historicism (a la Kosuth) which is hard to credit these days--or else through the old bugaboo of TASTE, (as in, "I prefer bad conceptual art to painting," or, to paraphrase my own earlier statement of taste, "I prefer run-of-the-mill painting to bad conceptual art") which is something that conceptual work rarely becomes self-conscious about. Whereas painting is always self-consciously amnd often critically dealing with notions of taste. <*>Replies Msg#:12119 *FINE ART* 04-21-94 14:42:14 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 11899 (THE TWIST) are you saying that conceptual art is unable to come to terms with its own badness, when it is bad? That the very standpoints needed to formulate the perspective of badness are difficult to obtain in the conceptual sphere? As a rule, I prefer good art to bad art, and tend to look at everything as more or less conceptual...its a question of which concepts: painting struggles with the concepts of depiction from an optical set of conceptual tools..."conceptual" work, done right, like a properly glazed baked chicken, appeals directly to the neocortex, as does nitrous oxide. Msg#:12124 *FINE ART* 04-21-94 16:59:40 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12119 (THE TWIST) Conceptual art's badness? Don't you mean blandness? Msg#:12250 *FINE ART* 04-22-94 17:03:24 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12119 (THE TWIST) Most bad art is unable to account for its own badness. Conceptual art, like literature, appeals more to a virtual sensorium than an actual one, but it does so by means of practices that touch on practices and traditions that derive from painting and sculpture and the atmosphere of thought surrounding painting and sculpture (I refer you to "The Ready-Made and the Tube of Paint" and other critical writings by Thierry de Duve) rather than literature. But for this reason it is more of a problem for conceptual art than for literature that for the most part it can account for very little of how it actually looks--it can merely refer you to the history of graphic design. Msg#:12300 *FINE ART* 04-23-94 13:02:47 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12250 (THE TWIST) this is an interesting point of view, however, I am wondering how art, good, bad or mediocre, can account for itself. Wouldn't that be, on some level, imputing a sentience, or spiritual presence, in an artwork? Or, perhaps, "account for itself" has to be unpacked into a multidimensional discussion of the problematics of self awareness. Does all conceptualism have to operate within a retinal domain of referents? Who did that piece where a store, preferably a small general store in the Southwest would be purchased, and filled to the ceiling with cement, with everything in the store entonmbed within? Pompeii on the mind, maybe. Walter DeMaria's Earth Room? Renaturalizing the domesticated consciousness? A worthy tradition, but no more immune to schlocky impulses that any other donkey towed to market? Where do we put Christo in all of this? Manzoni? Beuys last but not least? Msg#:12303 *FINE ART* 04-23-94 13:22:43 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12124 (THE TWIST) "This is the TRUE portrait of Iris Clert" Robert Rauschenburg here, being channeled by Morgan Garwood. I am directing Morgan's keystrokes at this moment, but this is the genuine Bob you all know and love transmitting these commands from Captiva Island via a shamanistic artwork I made sitting out back behind the studio, called Transmission/Emission MoonWalk (for Michael Jackson). You must believe me, this is really happening, and the original telegram I sent to Iris Clert is now NOT ART, and, ex pos facto, not authored by me. I now here irrevocably vest the artistic meaning of The Portrait into this posting...I am throwing in the Erased DeKooning Drawing because I am such a good guy...allright, I have to return to my compound now and refresh my drink; my dogs are wagging their tails HI at all of you out there. Oh, and thank you Morgan for letting me use your mind/body/Thing hook up. All you all out there are really where it's at. O.K. Back to you Morgan, later guys! whew!...this Cosmic vibration stuff is hard on the psychic nodule within...on to the next topic... Msg#:12333 *FINE ART* 04-23-94 18:41:04 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12300 (THE TWIST) I use "conceptual art," perhaps unfairly, to mean basically text- or language- based art. So most of the things you mention, Morgan, I personally would not be likely to call "conceptual," except to the extent that the description of the act or event is what is primarily at stake. In any case, the reference would remain visual even when not strictly retinal--what I meant by referring to a virtual sensorium. I realize that this may be an unfairly restrictive sense of what counts as conceptual art, but it's the only one I've found useful and not impossibly vague--so many people seem to imagine that conceptual art is anything made by someone who had something rather than nothing in mind! Msg#:12403 *FINE ART* 04-24-94 09:22:05 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12333 (THE TWIST) Part of our difficulty here is that we're all trying to understand each other's use of a term which has clearly run its course. Msg#:12419 *FINE ART* 04-24-94 14:14:29 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12403 (THE TWIST) The term has run its course but won't go away--if only because it still seems to carry a certain prestige that people want to appropriate. But not only for that reason, I think. There is still something yet to be assimilated in whatever conceptual art was, which gives it a continuing interest. Msg#:12683 *FINE ART* 04-24-94 20:54:35 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12419 (THE TWIST) could it be that conceptualism, the idea that the *idea* is what counts, and everything else is carrier or medium, is as much with us as painting or sculpture, and once the genii is out of the bottle, it has no intention of going back in. If ideas, per se, can be graded with a qualitative taxonomy, and we conceive that there can be such a thing as an aesthetic idea, as much as there can be a mathematical idea, the possibility of conceptualism may have entered or intellectual heritage. Perhaps erasing its presence would be, on a far lesser scale, like trying to erase the concept of "rights". Although the concept of conceptualism may be less pivotal to our common human project than the concept of *natural law*, it is as of now with us as a domain of play. Msg#:12893 *FINE ART* 04-24-94 22:26:12 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12683 (THE TWIST) "Rights" are currently being erased almost everywhere, without anyone feeling much need to erase their concept. Likewise, there are attempts all the time to erase all kinds of artistic practices from history. Sometimes it seems to me as if certain strata of the practitioners and supporters of what are called "painting" and "conceptual art" are trying to efface the existence of the other--why? Msg#:13050 *FINE ART* 04-25-94 21:43:03 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12893 (THE TWIST) does any particular example, either of the loss of rights (one suspects you may have privacy rights in mind, as they are the ones most effectively being redistricted at the present juncture) or of artistic practice via erasure strike you as particularly egregious, or telling about the larger state of affairs, or is this a global observation about the nature of slippery slopes in general? Msg#:13077 *FINE ART* 04-26-94 22:23:00 From: JEREMY WHITEHURST To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13050 (THE TWIST) The answer to what should be and should not be excluded is a topic for a "debatte". That we can do the next time, as now I'm pushed for time. Till then, Jeremy Msg#:13213 *FINE ART* 04-26-94 18:40:14 From: SECRETARY GENERAL To: ALL TWISTERS Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13077 (THE TWIST) The Twist twisted into the rey Zone. Please continue the political debate there, preferably under a new subject heading. Makes message sorting and retrieval a lot easier for all. Thank You! Msg#:13219 *FINE ART* 04-26-94 19:49:14 From: SKIP SNOW To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13213 (THE TWIST) It is not so that an aethetic idea is like a mathamatical idea. Aesthetics are based upon the sensory devise. That is to say that the aesthetic is a conditioned, or unconditioned response to a set of sensual manifestations. See Emanuel Kant Kritik der reinen Vernunft p 35 Meiner Philosophische Bibliothek, in the section on transendental aesthetics. On the other hand a mathamatical idea is a logical construction. we only experience mathamatical ideas in relationship to the logical sets of defenitions we have been given. An ilustration of this difference is the relationship between pi and a diameter of a circle. This relationshiip only has an absoute value in the realm of logic. as soon as the aesthetic ability to quantify, and code the relationship to some sort of absoute, non ideal relationship of names and defenitions comes into play the mathamatical idea is a calculation rather than a reprentation of a theoretically perfect relationship. The mathamatical idea, perhaps more than nearly any type of idea can have an ideal relationship to the mind. The aesthetic ideal is always determened outside of logic and inside the realm of experience. The aesthetic ideals are always confounded by the human condition. A while ago in a thread I did not reply to one person gave the example that rotten food had a universally repugnent quality to it and this was an indication of a universal aesthetic. this is a good example of how there is no universal aesthetic. For when one is northern china the food, smells to the western trained nose rotten. Yet the chinese describe it as appealing. If there is some universal aesthetic, then I believe it is somehow based upon mathamatical ideals derived from experience. For example it might be possible that the arabesque is universally appealing, if this is so then it seems to me that this appeal is derived not from some objective beauty of an arabesque but rather on the fact that the anotomical structure of human beings contains an abundance of arabesques. When these arabesques are "in proportion" within the male or female body we are atracted to those proportions. In other words this aesthetic is based upon the human condition. On the other hand the circle's relationship to pi, granted an ideal logical construction, is not dependent upon human perception, but rather the nature of the ideal circle and a line through its centre. Msg#:13639 *FINE ART* 04-29-94 23:09:08 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: SKIP SNOW (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13219 (THE TWIST) nice argument, but I don't think it washes. Can you say that math and beauty are any more or less of the mind? Once I was in a real investigative phase, and went around to museums with a tape measure and calculated all kinds of proportions off the paintings. I discovered that, more frequently than not (by a wide margin) that paintings with good math looked more beautiful, even if you were entirely naive about the underpinnings of the composition. The eye, I discovered, and I am positive beyond any reasonable doubt, so did good visual crafstpersons from as far back as the Old Kingdom of Egypt, is EXQUISITELY sensitive to integer proportions. Most of Picasso, it turned out, was based of proportions of fourths and thirds. The mind has an unwitting affinity for math! The two, our capacity for mathematical abstraction, and our sense of beauty (also a title of a book by George Santayana that I hope to read someday, i.e. The Sense Of Beauty) stem from a common neurological structure that has yet to be fully elucidated, but would be a hot topic for a researcher like Gerald Edelman (Edelman has an arch-enemy here in NYC, somebody named Kandel, who might vociferously dispute his hypotheses), a neo-Kantian who sees consciousness as the interplay of distinct "maps" (he asserts that vision, or the visual experience as "played" into consciousness, is the work of about 30 distint dynamic mapping processes; maybe so, maybe not). So, vee shall see, one day, perhaps, pending a quantum leap in neural mapping technique. Stay tuned, you may be in for quite a surprise! Msg#:14043 *FINE ART* 05-04-94 10:40:53 From: RAINER GANAHL To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13639 (THE TWIST) what does "good math" means... something tht looks "good" on a metric ruler most the times doesn't make sense on a "inch" based one, and one can even propose a unit that makes the "strangest" proportions look like relational Msg#:14346 *FINE ART* 05-05-94 20:36:18 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 14043 (THE TWIST) 1:1,2:1,2:3,2:5, 1.6:1, etc. the secret is in the ratio, not the unit of measure, works as well with barleycorns (the source for our wretched inch) or cubits. P.S. you really must taste durian fruit, hard to find in the states, the sort of flavor one imagines bats lusting after, they fly them in frozen to chinatown, but Balinese tree ripened ones beat all. Smell like holy hell, makes great iced cream and flavored drinks. Msg#:14534 *FINE ART* 05-06-94 17:30:29 From: RAINER GANAHL To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 14346 (THE TWIST) thanks for your assistence: I was thinking of the ration but just couldn't figure it out (so I am going to try your syrup if this helps) Msg#:12006 *FINE ART* 04-21-94 21:15:00 From: MICHAEL KROME To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 10854 (CADY NOLAND) > Purple Prose publishes "the most selfreflecting issues > in Europe"??? In my opinion PP is a magazine, whose content is to reflect on the premises of the contemporary visual culture, transgressing the limts of the art-mechanism. Several points could describe this: First of all the way to thematize the publishing itself by using popular typographic methods and refering to some purposes of the situationist esthetique. Second, the wider palette of issues concerning politics, advertising, film-making, science and other "post art" paradigmas. Especiall the discussion on the phenomens of Post Art are what I meant: selfreflecting the functions of the art world and trying to manifestate them in the way of choosing issues and doing exhibitions. More than other magazines in Europe it's between a fanzine and a commercial magazine. Articles on THE THING (first issue, Oktober 92, when we just started) on music bands like Therapy?, burning heads, on football and its political implications, on archictural problems, bio-constructions, futurological investigations (next issue), on roboter constructing, their function and aesthetic and f.e. "the dream of openning a gallery in east jerusalem"... are manifestations of a broader, self-reflecting thinking on the art in general, and doing an "art" magazine in special. I don't know much magazine, which are doing this step in general and especially in Germany. Don't mention the reductive, restrictive Texte zur Kunst. They neglect this necessary transgressive step in order to restablish a kind of stalinistic dicourse, which is totally the wrong way, a way like the art-intern-diagnostic view of Andrea Frazer. What a fun... In this comparision, for me PP is a real perpective. (Of course, Blast magazine is the next step, Jordan) Msg#:12118 *FINE ART* 04-21-94 14:34:29 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: MICHAEL KROME Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12006 (CADY NOLAND) Transgressive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Yabba Dabba Doo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Transgressive!!!! There's the way to do it. Transgress. All these zillions of pursed lipped hierophantoids maintaining prissy little picket fences of who Will and Won't entertain which kind of ideas. (I Won't I Simply Won't I Will Not and Nobody Kan Make Me My Two Square Feet Of Kontrol Zone Mine Mine Mine Any Anybody Who Tells Me How To Run My Business can simply Blow It Out His Ass>>>get away from that fucking knob this minute apprentice dickface!!!!!) O Unpretty O Unpolite O Funky.................... Msg#:13078 *FINE ART* 04-26-94 22:43:00 From: JEREMY WHITEHURST To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12118 (CADY NOLAND) Okay, go get 'em ! Shake all down and smoke that funky shit, Burrr, Butt, But there is going to be a hell of a come down when we all wake up with a hangover Msg#:12007 *FINE ART* 04-21-94 21:18:00 From: MICHAEL KROME To: *.* Subj: GAVIN BROWN Gavin Brown, in earlier times initiator of the independent artist space "city racing" in London moved to NY, was assistant at 303 gallery and I think had opened a own space, called ENTERPRISE. I would really like to know more on his activities, is anyone able to give more informations ? (The best would be, to connect him to TT) --- * Origin: THE THING COLOGNE [0221-7392450(BOX) 723578 (TEL)] (42:1002/1) <*>Replies Msg#:12123 *FINE ART* 04-21-94 16:58:43 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: MICHAEL KROME Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12007 (GAVIN BROWN) I'm sitting in an office above "Gavin Brown's enterprise" at 558 Broome Street (1 block below Spring Street & beteen 6th and 7th Ave's.) The space is a little storefront space (maybe 350 sq feet). First show opened April 9th (Scott Pipin). Gallery was turned into a camera and back wall was the film plane making a wall size image of street out the front door. Sadly what's outside is pretty dull, thus the image is duly dull too. Next door at 558 is AC Project Room which opened last fall and has been very interesting. Today's New York Times had a cover story on the Weekend section on the small new galleries, worth the read. Msg#:12304 *FINE ART* 04-23-94 13:24:08 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12123 (GAVIN BROWN) ever hear the sound piece "I Am Sitting In A Room", by Alvin Lucier, maybe? Msg#:12394 *FINE ART* 04-24-94 15:07:00 From: MICHAEL KROME To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12304 (GAVIN BROWN) > I'm sitting in an office above "Gavin Brown's > enterprise" at 558 Broome Street (1 block below Spring > Street & beteen 6th and 7th Ave's.) Then you could drop in, say hello, and connect him. > Today's New York Times had a cover story on the > Weekend section on the small new galleries, worth the > read. Just an accident, but this saturday Rirkrit Tiravanija came to Cologne, to prepare a show at our projectroom, and he gave me this article of Roberta Smith. Wort to read, but if the consense ist just the minimized space and the minimized costs, its a bit.... --- * Origin: THE THING COLOGNE [0221-7392450(BOX) 723578 (TEL)] (42:1002/1) Msg#:12120 *FINE ART* 04-21-94 14:42:37 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: DOUGLAS WADA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 11086 (RECENT OPENINGS) who? Msg#:12178 *FINE ART* 04-22-94 13:57:13 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: MICHAEL KROME Subj: SITUATIONIST ETIQUETTE Texte zur Kunst a Stalinist discourse? Michael, give me a break! Perhaps they run their business like an exclusive country club, but Stalinist? TzK has certain parameters which now look a bit dated, but within those parameters they were doing good work. It is the only German art magazine I still subscribe to. But then of course, I am a Stalinist . The subtext of your message, as I read it, is that TzK is dissing you and that Purple Prose is in line with Schipper/Krome policies/interests. Now, that perhaps is informative for some Newbies, but when I read it camouflaged as "discourse," I can't help but yawn. My advice: a little more "selfreflecting" after each meal. Take two! Or, if you don't like the medicine, try a better camouflage. Yours truly, Josef...we talk about the polish question later. <*>Replies Msg#:12302 *FINE ART* 04-23-94 13:12:43 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12178 (SITUATIONIST ETIQUETTE) Crypto-Trotskyites, the darn lot of you! Try Jesus you Godless heathens! We do communion with big chocolate chip cookies then get worked up about Essene scriptures, maybe go loot the cashbox at a Scientology franchise! Wanna buy a Rolex heavily discounted? Bears playing cellos, one half mile...if you lived here you'd be home now. Msg#:12393 *FINE ART* 04-24-94 12:54:00 From: MICHAEL KROME To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12302 (SITUATIONIST ETIQUETTE) > Texte zur Kunst a Stalinist discourse? Michael, > give me a break! Perhaps > they run their business like an exclusive country > club, but Stalinist? TzK has > certain parameters which now look a bit dated, but > within those parameters they > were doing good work. Of course I used "stalinistic" in a methaphoric sense, I meant the discourse they are establishing is a bit too reductive. In my opinion, they don't cross the borders. It has nothing to do with the point, that I prefer the work of f.e. Carsten HĒller, Julia Scher or General Idea as those of Andrea Frazer or Christian Phillip MĀller. > It is the only German art > magazine I still subscribe to. You're right, the other aren't worth to discuss seriously. Except of the ones, who are not genuin art magazines like SPUREN. But anyway, I'm not reading a lot of art magazines anymore. > But then of course, I am a Stalinist . Of course you are, you are the beuysian variant, you initiated the transfer of the social sculpture into the electronic, telecommunicative sculpture. > The subtext of your message, as I read it, is > that TzK is dissing you and > that Purple Prose is in line with Schipper/Krome > policies/interests. Of course I would prefer to promote a style, or paradigms, which are lying in my line, but I think this is very normal. > Take two! ...and read one. Msg#:12922 *FINE ART* 04-25-94 02:00:01 From: RAINER GANAHL To: MICHAEL KROME Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12393 (SITUATIONIST ETIQUETTE) your bold promotional postings are a big bore! give us a break please! or go to internet and reach out the world Msg#:13218 *FINE ART* 04-26-94 19:30:55 From: SKIP SNOW To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12922 (SITUATIONIST ETIQUETTE) I like this thread. I hope it does not move on to another forum. For example what is meant by Stalinist. If it is a metaphore then what is its referent, and what is its meaning. What is a stalinist, if not a stalinist. And by what criteria is stalinism defendable. I for example could argue for the "Maoist" position, but I won't. However stalinism? What is it, that it is good. Excuse my American brain washed sensability but I do not get it. Msg#:12399 *FINE ART* 04-25-94 01:36:00 From: JOHN DUNN To: ALL Subj: TRENDS I have visited a couple of nice shows here but don't believe any NYers would be to interested in a description of them. I would therefore like to speak generally using examples and hear what y'all are experiencing there. First the trend to living room atmosphere with the example in Kunsthalle Duesseldorf show "Freundschaftsspiel" or Dank's exhibition in Hagen (forgot the name). Both were in modern art museums or exibition halls and brought up the question of the usage of such institutions. The question was: what good are such institutions? How can artist and the general public use them and not just consume? Another is the Citizen Office show(ideas and comments to a new office world)in Kunstpalast D'doof with Andrea Branzi, Michele de Lucchi, and Ettore Scottsass. Here they coupled on the no-stop city idea of the 70's and generally created a non-hyrarchical funky office lifestyle vision; although the equiptment and designs were super expensive and sponsored from big industry. Yet another is bilateral garden or park design. Wolfgang Eckhard displayed his picture and concept book as well as big, half abstract modells and painting installations that dealt with a park on the border between Poland and Germany. Next month the polish artist will present his/her concept in Krakau. bye4now, john Msg#:12686 *FINE ART* 04-24-94 21:04:34 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JOHN DUNN Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12399 (TRENDS) cool... Msg#:12923 *FINE ART* 04-25-94 12:59:00 From: JOHN DUNN To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: RE: THE TWIST:RECEPTION AND FUNCTIO Painters prefer an hermetic exhibition to instill a dialectic whereas concepties prefer the all over and unrestricted relational reception. Painting----reflective concept ----functional I don't really want to level all differences but I will anyway 'cause I'm too stupid to do otherwise. A painter must be careful(but usually isn't) about how many, adjacency, size, where, light, and space. A concepty (but usually isn't)-general impression, coherence, details, and aesthetics. They could definetly learn from each other but are not at all interested in this, more in how to get distance and anhilate. Both want to install their stuff so everyone can see it and make sure there's enough alcohol at the reception. Pardon me but what the hell is progressive historisicm(a la Kosuth)? Just so noone thinks I'm too stupid I'll guess. I read a text from Kosuth last Nov. titled Hungarians(a knee slapper but I'm not exactly sure what he was getting at). So pro-history has something to do with pomo. The pro-historian has read and seen everything and can now be cynical while still believeing in the evolution of art or, at least, some of it's classical forms. The form is eternal the interpretation is evolutionary. So it is something like putting on the brakes. Maybe it was just a typo and should have read prodressive historicism. Then I'd say it's the historians that like to wear dresses. Monty Python could have some influence in this school. Here I can imagine taste plays a big role especially at the openings, conferences, etc. It'd be a social gauntlet run. A scandal to be absolutely out with a cute pink candy-striped half dress with a gigantic red waist bow. For the ladies the arguments center around whether or not it is correct to even wear one, and if yes does a gunny sack count(with or without product labels?)? Msg#:12996 *FINE ART* 04-25-94 13:34:03 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: JOHN DUNN Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12923 (RE: THE TWIST:RECEPTION AND FUNCTIO) > sure what he was getting at). So pro-history has something to do > with > pomo. No! All wrong! Progressivist (not "progressive") historicism, a label I think I made up, has to do with thinking that history has a telos, that there is such a thing as progress, and above all that you are it (the telos, progress). I keep hearing that pomo was supposed to get past that, and while I remain dubious of this, I think if you're going to use the term you have to stick to the standard usage unless you can say why not. Msg#:13049 *FINE ART* 04-25-94 21:40:24 From: JEFFREY SCHULZ To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12996 (RE: THE TWIST:RECEPTION AND FU) I'm confused a bit by the way you use "telos" and "progress" somewhat interchangeably. Telos has much to do with theology, whereas progress has much to do with industrialism. There was a significant strain of pomo that tried to get past both of these, but I think we had to wait until hypertextual environments to really find a model for breaking down teleological paradigms. As for getting past industrialism . . . Msg#:13083 *FINE ART* 04-26-94 09:06:41 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: JEFFREY SCHULZ (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13049 (RE: THE TWIST:RECEPTION AND FU) > I'm confused a bit by the way you use "telos" and "progress" > somewhat interchangeably. Telos has much to do with theology, > whereas progress has much to do with industrialism. There was a Ideologies of art have been anaclitic to those of religion and the, more recently, commerce, so it's not surprising that in art's realm elements of both become a sort of stew. Msg#:13644 *FINE ART* 04-29-94 23:25:21 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13083 (RE: THE TWIST:RECEPTION AND FU) anaclitic,,,cool word,,,has Freud's fingerprints all over it,,,anaclitic ideologies gettin' all sexed up on each other, you say? Everybody in bed with each other for all us simple folks,,,aw' shukkins... Msg#:13076 *FINE ART* 04-26-94 13:16:00 From: JULIAN VON HEYL To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: TEXTE ZUR KUNST > Texte zur Kunst a Stalinist discourse? Michael, give me a > break! Perhaps > they run their business like an exclusive country club, but > Stalinist? Oh, TzK are looking for a VERY stalinistic discourse, when I go there to correct textes, first I have to wash Isabelle Graws Wolgrawowitsch-Limousine, and sometimes it is difficult to pass the snipers which are waiting on top of the roof for the crome/schipper-gang to blast them away. Hard art life, around here in Koeln! Greetings, Julian. Msg#:13653 *FINE ART* 05-01-94 03:14:00 From: JOHN DUNN To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: RE: SITUATIONIST ETIQUETTE: INSTINCT I am red, live on Mars, eat sand, sun spots, and smoorgasbord. Now that I am all grown up, wonder what earth tastes like? I want to be at home everywhere, so I eat it. Msg#:13681 *FINE ART* 04-30-94 13:13:53 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JOHN DUNN Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13653 (RE: SITUATIONIST ETIQUETTE: INSTINCT) yeah, I remember doing that once, too. Tasted gritty. The salty oceans of Venus, that was a different scene altogether. Msg#:13654 *FINE ART* 05-01-94 03:14:00 From: JOHN DUNN To: SKIP SNOW (Rcvd) Subj: RE: SITUATIONIST ETIQUETTE:STALINISM The way I see it is, as usual, too general but....In every School or Party there are the authoritarians and the liberals. So at the start of the Russian revolution the constructivist artists were the liberals that interpreted and phantasized about what Socialism or Communism could be. Stalin layed down his law and said you must obey and stay within the strict lines I lay down. Here in Germany the Green Party has the fundamentalists that don't want to compromise their ideas and the realies that say we must stay in the government to be effective and thus it's necessary to compromise. Or another German example is the directors of Bauhaus- Meier and Gropius. Gropius being liberal and allowing a colorful mix of ideas whereas Meier stood on his functionalism and wanted everyone to stick to the programm. Or Sartre and Camus(his unfinished monumental work has just now been published in France) the political and the mystical existentialists. Msg#:13655 *FINE ART* 05-01-94 03:14:00 From: JOHN DUNN To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: RE: THE TWIST: SELF AWARENESS Isn't the anthropoligizing of an art work(something like a day in the life of an artwork) difficult to get around when speaking of an "account for itself"? I slip almost instantly into the role of the interpreting observer and see DeMaria's Earth Room, for example, as an obstacle, or a storage room, a space ship, an underground space, an elevator, an ancient cult alter, or whatever comes to mind(your interpretation is probably the nearest to the artist's though). The truth of it is that the thing in front of one lays or stands there like the opaque obelisque in 2001. It is- the other(I am so ashamed. I forgot the name of our Lacan expert but she could surely write something about this. Like you wrote: the multi-dimensional discussion of self awareness). So I can either academically eat it or be awed. Wait, there is also the third possibility of using it somehow, like this E-mail network. So it is not the- imputing a sentience, or spiritual presence, in an artwork; rather in the observer. Anything a human encounters takes on his/her consciousness-of-the-world. no such thing as good, bad, or mediocre art; it is the observer that counts. I am, however, not sure which self awareness you are refering to. Msg#:13683 *FINE ART* 04-30-94 13:27:27 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JOHN DUNN Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13655 (RE: THE TWIST: SELF AWARENESS) that makes two of us. When I went to the Earth Room I saw a room full of dirt. When I first read about it when it opened, it struck me in a bizarre amazing way, but I was much younger then and everything was newer to me. One of the sublime pleasures of getting older and fatter is the discernment of patterns and relationships in between. The thing in itself is still there, but its shifts in importance, becomes perceived a part of a larger system. This idea of "duration", incredibly long spans of time becomes compelling. Arid remnant places like Rajahstan in western India, ferociously colorful, psychedelic, worshipping rats as deities, balls of opiated hashish smouldering on the edge of history, a disinterest in causality, gritty red dirt everywhere. The triumph of meaning over reason. Msg#:13656 *FINE ART* 05-01-94 03:15:00 From: JOHN DUNN To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: RE: THE TWIST:PROGRESSING So pomo is also post historical and thus also progress(as defined by the modernists-Le Corbusier for example)sceptical. I have the Charles Jenks book "The Post Modern" but I only looked at the pictures and diagramms- it's not good for much else is it? Further your term Progressivist historicism seems to be a bit different from the Modernists in that the individual is "it" not the society or universe. Most people do believe in cause and effect leading to the new. The twist is that now progress seems to be able to be directed. I guess that implies a certain amount of atheism. We have the choice which direction we want to go and there is no turning back. It is possible to look back but with every step or, rather, every new time the view of history changes and in turn the shape of the future and future possibilities. Kinda Scary. Maybe things can't be changed anymore to avoid a catastrophy: the chain reaction can't be neutralized. Ground control to major Tom your circuits dead there's something wrong can you here am i sitting in my tin can, far above the world. Planet Earth is blue but(and???) there's nothing I can do. But it is also incredible and something sci-fi freaks can't get enough of. Msg#:14395 *FINE ART* 05-06-94 15:13:35 From: GISELA EHRENFRIED To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: INTERFACES At last Saturday's workshop at Here, you focused on the _written_ word as interface, while Marshall Blonsky made his point stating that the _spoken_ language is the ultimate interface. As a writer interested in the current techno development, Blonsky keeps in touch with the computer industry's CEOs. He presented two in-house video demos illustrating the industry's take on interfaces. The "Knowledge Navigator" is a video based on the futuristic idea of ex-Apple John Scully who commissioned Lucasfilm to produce this 10-minute Hollywood-style trailer. It begins with a camera swing over a traditional library, lots of books, framed family photos, a laptop on an antique console. The living quarters of a well-off person. The owner comes home. Immediately, the knowledge navigator appears in the corner of the laptop screen. It's the image a young humanoid dressed in butler gear. He starts to talk... briefs the owner about database findings on the Brazilian Rainforest and on other projects he was asked to work on. He reports phone messages and reminds him of upcoming appointments. The owner consults with him and delegates new tasks. The interface was _spoken_ language. The other video was demonstrating the actual interface of a new Apple Newton version, a _pictorial_ or graphic user interface. A robot-like cartoon character, activated by key-stroke input, runs from file cabinet to trash can to the email room down the painting-decorated hallway. Disturbingly stupefying! But, what you call "infantilization" is the industry's bet to "popularize" computer usage. If you were in their position, how would you do it? As an artist, you often make use of computer graphics with text-based interfaces. And for what I know, the interface design of this net is intentionally kept transparent - Ansi instead of RIP - for "form/function" reasons. The interface question seems to be a larger issue, one which I hope can be addressed with this thread. <*>Replies Msg#:14801 *FINE ART* 05-09-94 02:18:39 From: RAINER GANAHL To: GISELA EHRENFRIED (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 14395 (INTERFACES) let me first add to your introduction that in my paper I was not just talking of the interface of academic books and its influence on the production of knowledge but also about an enlarged more philosophical notion of interfaces in general: including language and languages as interfaces. My dialog partner's presentation with two videos of the latest development on the front of electronic interfaces was very interesting to me. but unfortunately, mister blonsky didn't analyze them at all. he seemed to have fallen prey to the seducing utopian spectacle of the interface industry. the presentation of such a techno-fantasy I found extreme enlightening since it showed the true inspirations and ideologies of these developers: an omnipresent, hegemonic dream of total control that is shared if not entirely handed over to a well hearted, sensitive, sweet computer that might even show sexual preferences. the interfacial elements of this smart manager assistant (a portable lap top computer) were basically voice and image assisted. the machine was not just executing commands but making decisions based on a real attention span i.e. the machine was thinking with and for the user, even making the right decisions for him. those kind of omnipotent projections we know at least since the fairy tails if we don't want to see them already inscribed in all kind of religious and transcendent narrations (the christian for ex.) where also an omnipresent and omnivisible god anticipates and fulfills all desires and needs without even an interfacial articulation. but what I found extremely striking was the imperialistic aspect of it: not just was there a huge library - staying for knowledge of the world: and we know what this implies - but also a spherical atlas, representing the world for direct symbolic access. when entering the screen of this "knowledge navigator" - the name already recalls the glorious times of a christobal columbus - we encounter immediatly a map of south america and a zoom into brasil. isn't this a subtle flirt with a tradition of conquest and imperialism? And how can I understand Blonsky's introductionary remark that Said's analysis of Orientalism is irrelevant and has to be replaced by this - pointing to his video's? And how can I understand loose sentences out of his very charming but chaotic presentation that I recall like: "we don't need the problems of these countries", "we don't have to care about space" etc.... somehow suggesting that just giving "them" a Mac Newton and access to electronic space would resolve problems ..and they are fine.... (sorry, but I really couldn't make an understandable rhyme of his talk show experienced loose sentences that intrigued in relationship to his well applied and calculated confusion - I call this here an interfacial trick - a panal trick) the other film, a presentation of a possible "Newton" interface was not less informative about what we have to expect: a cursor emulating figure in the shape of an animated comics hero was walking through a virtual architectonic environment thus executing commands in the way we where used to hollywood animation films of the wild west genre where characters shoot people in order to open swinging doors. but here again, the computer was rendering all possible functions and consequences for the user automatically and visually with an iconography of comics books, that no abstraction was needed anymore. the militaristic commands a la "kill", "cut", "move up" of the early interfacial control landscape is now entirely giving way for a total infantilization of any interaction that anticipates and visualizes everything for a snoopy proofed intelligence. there will be then no choice left. like in my childhood's nightmares when all of my micky mice from the wall paper in my room started to be animated little monsters overwhelming me, our future interfaces will be operated by little animated figures recruited by an increasing world that is dominated by comics or manga representations. Msg#:16542 *FINE ART* 05-23-94 21:37:25 From: PIT SCHULTZ To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 14801 (INTERFACES) The knowledge-navigator-film was shown here during an PR-event of Philip Morris organized by their "minister of tomorrow" in february. A little panel in a famous artsy cafe-house, subject "mobile communication (chance and risks...or s.t.like that) PM is going "below the line" (below the Interfaces of their ads) adressing rare trendsetters in their own sociotopes. As i remember they invited some experts (Press-speakers) of a magazine called CONNECT, of Apple-Germany and a professor, Mr. Norbert Bolz, who declared, on refering to the white butler (called Capsar) in the Apple spot, that humanism is dead, because of the simulation of human beeings. He said something like: slaves are reanimated virtually, so that human rights get confused about their subject, the project of Aufklaerung is transformed into Info-overload and fragmented into virtual light. The Uebermensch lives in your neighborhood. The only problem that Bolz sees is the "stupidity" of simple people which causes redundance or noise. Interfaces are walls against stupidity, something like lowest common divisors, which produces a wide use. This would be an example of a homoaetasis of risks in which capitalism is develope itself, as applied chaos theory. I hope Bolz isnęt translated yet and not a member of Scientology Church. Another film was about another E3 (everyone, everywhere, everything)-project called Iridium, global private 144-satellite network of Motorola, Bill Gates and so on. Also a very generally magic scenario, in which a female archeologist, gets a permission from her museum to dig. Good stuff to "desaid". --- MacWoof Eval:13Nov92 * Origin: thing net point berlin (42:1002/3.6@thingnet) Msg#:16678 *FINE ART* 05-26-94 00:29:30 From: RAINER GANAHL To: PIT SCHULTZ Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16542 (INTERFACES) this mr Bolz sounds horrible: but something I find innteresting in the way he makes his argument, since it shows very clearly how right wing and cynical reason can be one and the same thing. (I am just refering to your description, since I have no clu about this guy, but it sound very "familiar" to me, this kind of discursive strategy) - what he seems to do is to "criticize" this kind of technology in a very vage, totalizing un differentiated/"postmodern"/ way (" Aufklaerung is transformed into Info-overload and fragmented into virtual light") and on the other end (contradicting himself) he is totally embracing it, using it for a very dangerious (unfortunately "realistic": see NY times of 23. may: about the develloping patterns of fiberoptical cabel that are sharpening once more the already hard borders of race and class devisions) discriminating aim culminating in statements like:" "stupidity" of simple people which causes redundance or noise.Interfaces are walls against stupidity " I can not really judge this Bolz since I didn't hear him. So I just take the sentences you delivered, speaking for him. The reason I do this, defenitely something one shouldn't do, since it isn't fair, to condamm somebody on this second hand level- - is that I see in this kind of style of argumentation a common pattern, I already tried to explain with the case of the person I was dealing with here in NY (see my first posting: m blonsky) - total and cynical fascination, meaningless and exaggerated criticism that can not be taken seriously, but still has the effect of pushing the case in their direction plus a very troubeling aspiration for exclusiveness, for not calling it worse... I think, that we do understand what it means, when mister bloz said, supposedly said that "Interfaces are walls against stupidity" (isn't it also true that the european union needs now higher walls...) Msg#:14818 *FINE ART* 05-09-94 02:40:00 From: JOHN DUNN To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: RE: THE TWIST:CONCEPTUALISM AS ENVIR MG> could it be that conceptualism, the idea that the *idea* is what MG> counts, and everything else is carrier or medium, is as much with us Duchamp was the mother of this movement. Like you said it is then the genie out of the bottle or I prefer Parkinson's Law. The gaseous metaphor is also not that bad though because as Mr. Crandall pointed out conceptualism has run it's course which can in the metaphor be seen as diffusion. Ideas are subject to the laws of entropy. I think conceptualism was a move away from the aesthetics of representation towards one of being. Maybe also Warhol's blatant mirror-of-society graphics is the best example of the relativity in conceptualism. Picking up what one finds, cutting it out, and exhibiting it. The classical dualism of observer and object has changed. There is now less distance between the two or a hell of a lot more. MG> the concept of conceptualism may be less pivotal to our common human MG> project than the concept of *natural law*, it is as of now with us as The concept of natural law is hard to pivot around because it is the term for "everything". Psychosocial dynamics don't stand outside of this debatte. <*>Replies Msg#:14895 *FINE ART* 05-10-94 10:55:07 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JOHN DUNN Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 14818 (RE: THE TWIST:CONCEPTUALISM AS ENVIR) conceptualism, like all kinds of prefabricated -isms, are "handles" manufactured by the consecration industry (i.e. "art writing"). There are two planes of the mysterious at work (at least as far as the uninformed public is concerned, who do not spend much time looking behind the stage sets to see what is holding them up). First is the mystery of making, a feeling that an alchemical wonder has taken place when an abstract idea is downshifted into the plan of the concrete, and second, the mystery of consecration. Consecration, or blessing, is the activation of the mysterious spiritual forces that are blended with the artists materials. These mysterious ingredients are very rare and hard to explain, but they impart a subtle energy to the masterpiece that illuminates and ennobles the viewer. With the exchange of the Spirit Of The World (i.e. money) the owner is even more ennobled, but only as far as the priest caste is willing to bless the work (sacred vessel or uterus of the wonderous and mysterious). Conceptualism, it obviously follows, is purity of blessing made spirit through its descent into the "fixated universe of concrete/abitrary meaning" and rebirth on the third day and ascent into heaven to sit at the right hand of God. iF YOU LAUGH AT THIS YOU ARE DAMNED AND WILL GO DIRECTLY TO HELL. Be a darling and peel me a grape,will you? Msg#:15022 *FINE ART* 05-12-94 17:36:03 From: ED GRANT To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 14895 (RE: THE TWIST:CONCEPTUALISM AS ENVIR) Bullshit. There is very little mystery in the act of making. Your idea of "downshifting" is horribly archaic, wheter it being the mind/body dualism or the earth/sky (heaven) split. However, it brings me much sadness to agree with you, in that most of the participants in the holy church of culture believe your scenario. Case in point, ArtHistorians. They have a tendancy to romanticize the act of making to an almaost laughable height. And, yes, exchange of "The Spirit of the World" does appear to be the only way that the participants can justify their existance. Well, I guess I'll be seeing you in Hell, but you can peel your own damn grapes. Msg#:15024 *FINE ART* 05-12-94 19:31:13 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: ED GRANT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15022 (RE: THE TWIST:CONCEPTUALISM AS ENVIR) you don't exist on high enough of a spiritual plane to perceive the auric energy that masterpieces emanate. This is because your chakras are plugged up with unbeautifulness and negativity and protons and things like that. If you would just reject male/phallocentric linear left brane logic and get in touch with your inner woman you would know immediately what I am talking about. But NO! all you theory albatrossed pontificators of smegma have scales over your eyes to GET, i mean in the REAL sense of GET, in the Werner Erhard sense of GET, (!!!!!) the primal earth mother actuality of the blessed compost you might have half a chance of locating your magnetic north pole and finding$w lovelyness and kittens and Sun Ra and eggplants and the golden sunny rays of the hereafter, but NO (!!!!) you persist in your chinked up konstipated insistence on Bush-ite republican pseudo truths and half realities, and buddy, i hate to tell you what a shitload of trouble you are in if you cant get this sorted out right this very minute and that goes for all of you other creeps who are reading this. i, for one, happen to knopw what each and every one of you are doing at this minute, and whare you live, and hat you eat, so don't mess with the inner plutonium or all kinds of hell is going to break loose. your friend, Saddam Msg#:15040 *FINE ART* 05-13-94 00:13:39 From: ED GRANT To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15024 (RE: THE TWIST:CONCEPTUALISM AS ENVIR) Kittens and blessed compost. Thank you for showing that there is good in this horrid world. I truly wish I could tell you that there was a snake loose in the Garden, but, it just ain so. We are just to lame. And, as I told that Dunn guy in Germany, I have seen BLISS on earth. Her name is Malo, and she's a small furry dog (I hate cats, they suck). I may be damned, but I have DOG. Now its time to make my studio a crucible for the MANifistation of genius. Msg#:15072 *FINE ART* 05-13-94 11:21:44 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: ED GRANT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15040 (RE: THE TWIST:CONCEPTUALISM AS ENVIR) i wish i could answer you right now but i am currently hanging by my penis as punishment for ever having read dead white european males. it is important to hang by ones penis. then i am making shamanic/subtle energy vessels to extract spiritual essence to mix with my worldly materials to transform the vibratory planes of my unenlightened fellow geniuses. (ignore them, i am the only true genius, they are flunkies but i lie to them and tell them they are geniuses so they will say nice things about me in return. if they only knew what i really thought) Msg#:15167 *FINE ART* 05-15-94 02:11:37 From: ED GRANT To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15072 (RE: THE TWIST:CONCEPTUALISM AS ENVIR) But, if ones life is constructed with lies, are they then not the truth? Msg#:15182 *FINE ART* 05-15-94 13:46:51 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: ED GRANT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15167 (RE: THE TWIST:CONCEPTUALISM AS ENVIR) no, not. Of course, this depends on how solid you like your Truth. Are we going for the spin job, burnish you up for public consumption? That'll run you in the vacinity of $20,000 per placement in on of the second tier magazines; to do it "right" will cost you some heavier coin. Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall in the public relations firms that handle the personality accounts (say, as opposed to corporate or product placement accounts). What plastic surgery does for the career retarding odd facial feature, or overly conspicuous evidence of coke'n'booze therapy in the Admiral's Lounge, an identity nip and tuck job can do for the public face. You might call this one Truth Lite, the outlines are there, but the modelling has a more sculpted quality to it. Or perhaps the grottily candid, a la Jimmy Swaggart, the bare all public confessional, "yes, boo hoo, o God, I wiggled my dick at the secretary, o forgive me I truly repent, O by the way, now that I am redeemed, keep them donations coming so I can continue doing the Lord's work". However, you could select the Big Lie from the McReality Menu, and join the ranks of the Flat Earth Society and unrepentant Maoists and zillions of others for whom truth is what you want it to be. Simple, unadorned Truth is around, it just doesn't draw much attention to itself, but when it does, in the public arena, at least, it hits us as an anomolous surprise. One CEO of an Brit jewelery/knick knack chain (on the verge of bankrupcy) was asked during a stockholders meeting how he could sell a particular wine decanter set for so little. He blurted out; "because its absolute crap". A videotape of this was shown around the world on various news programs because it was a sterling example of a "discrepant performance", and a rarity at that, the simple act of telling it like it is. Msg#:15482 *FINE ART* 05-17-94 21:47:34 From: ED GRANT To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15182 (RE: THE TWIST:CONCEPTUALISM AS ENVIR) Yet, people will still stand by all the crap. Hunger and pain, the closest things to non-mediated truth around. Is it me and my head or me and my intestine? Msg#:15586 *FINE ART* 05-18-94 19:27:25 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: ED GRANT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15482 (RE: THE TWIST:CONCEPTUALISM AS ENVIR) life as pain avoidance Msg#:15631 *FINE ART* 05-18-94 22:46:27 From: ED GRANT To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15586 (RE: THE TWIST:CONCEPTUALISM AS ENVIR) Damn straight, suffering sucks. I want stuff, and I want it now. If I don't get it, I'll whine my way into a market share. So, you had better just whatch it, buddy. Msg#:16225 *FINE ART* 05-22-94 01:14:32 From: SKIP SNOW To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15024 (RE: THE TWIST:CONCEPTUALISM AS ENVIR) Ha ha HEEE ha ho Msg#:17204 *FINE ART* 05-28-94 16:35:46 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: SKIP SNOW Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16225 (RE: THE TWIST:CONCEPTUALISM AS ENVIR) uh,right...sure buddy. Msg#:15296 *FINE ART* 05-16-94 17:49:40 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: ALL Subj: DEATH AND ART I've been loosing a lot of sleep over the last few months. Loss of sleep is an amazing thing, without cable TV, and wanting to keep my eyes closed as much as possible, I've taken the time to ponder all sorts of things as images dance on the inside of my eyelids. Most important, the deaths of Judd and Greenburg. Don's death bothers me as I knew him, knew he had been sick for a few months and drawing into death, but also as I have a tremendous respect for the works that he made. As with most artist we could argue back and forth about what was good and bad about his work, or even periods of his work, or types of his works. The virtue of some of which I never fully felt as strongly as others, but that's neither here or there. The feeling is, however, that he was a very gifted artists, a difficult person, and really (to me) the most important sculptor of his era. He was also a painfully didatic writer, and a lousy public speaker - often comic in his presentation (this is a red sculptor, the guy who made it wore a leather jacket and had a motorcycle....ummm> .) Greenburg was anothe case, his writing more than an anyother writer of his time was uncompromising and declared the generation of abstract exp. painters like no other writer. Most important is that there has been no writer that did what he did since. What unites these guys in my mind is a burning, haunting, neilism that both of them so strongly defined. The decleration that what is good is good, bad is bad, just isn't seen today in such bluntness, in part due to the ongoing notion that beauty is dead, and that intellectualism is what is most important. Idea art and Conceptualism over all. Judds works were specific object - process, idea, and concept, yet he still crafted wonderful objects, one could fall in love with just an edge of a Judd sculture. A few weeks ago I saw the much imitated action of a woman fixing her makeup in the gleam of the shine of a Judd stack. It was a wonderful moment. Beyond this the sleep I'm loosing has to do with an ongoing probem that never seems to excape up, that being: Why Art. I know this is a college freshman style question that one should have gotten over years ago, however, as I get older it's begining to haunt me again. Why do we need it? Why do we make it? What's good, what's bad, and how come something of no value (in terms of it's basic parts) can come to be worth so much. Does art tht sells above a certain point begin to be worth _less_ at art? Ie. is 100,000 or 1,000,000 or 1,000 the signal that art is good, great, or worthy of respect? We all look to pure items such as a computer (for example) to define worth. If something cycles at 100 mhtz we know that its much better (woth more) than somehting that opperates at 50 mhtz. But, why do we need either if a pocket calculatior can do the job? Anyhow, I'll be loosing sleep for a few more weeks now. If anybody can post something else for me to dwell on I would be thankful. Or even a point of further departure would be welcome. <*>Replies Msg#:15478 *FINE ART* 05-17-94 20:08:34 From: MICHAEL BENNETT To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15296 (DEATH AND ART) 1. First, get a good nights sleep 2. Have patience, if you have the time. It's surprising how the art world can turn on a dime. Modernism, abstraction, and craft may be resusitated yet. 3. I think we need art because it is fun to make and fun to look at--at least it should be. 4. The price of art (objects). Isn't it all supply and demand. Maybe only "bad art sells." 5. Buenas noches Msg#:15483 *FINE ART* 05-17-94 21:54:51 From: ED GRANT To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15296 (DEATH AND ART) I once saw and old man walk across a Carl Andre at the Modern. His wife ran up and scolded her man, "Honey, get off the Art." Made me laugh. Almost pissed my pants laughing at society ladies gasping in horror and dismay in the "Made In Heaven" (Koons) show. It seems that if art can make me laugh, at least its done something. Msg#:15487 *FINE ART* 05-17-94 22:34:59 From: CHRIS KRAMER To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15296 (DEATH AND ART) > I think there should be an interest in the french magazine > Purple Prose, because in my opinion they publish the most > selfreflecting issues in Europe. Msg#:15488 *FINE ART* 05-17-94 22:36:44 From: CHRIS KRAMER To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15296 (DEATH AND ART) > The only solution to this is to keep taking the drugs and > enjoy them as much as possible. When one has reached a level > of enjoyment with the afore mentioned drugs then one would be > in the position to relise nothing and would expereince being, > Maybe a few days afterwards comes the semiotic sobreity. Oh > dear, Oh dear! > Love and peace to everyone. Msg#:15489 *FINE ART* 05-17-94 22:38:27 From: CHRIS KRAMER To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15296 (DEATH AND ART) > Try Jesus you Godless heathens! We do > communion with big chocolate chip cookies then get worked up > about Essene scriptures, maybe go loot the cashbox at a > Scientology franchise! > Wanna buy a Rolex heavily discounted? Msg#:15517 *FINE ART* 05-18-94 10:09:23 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: ED GRANT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15483 (DEATH AND ART) > It seems > that if art can make me laugh, at least its done something. Yes, but then what? Msg#:15518 *FINE ART* 05-18-94 10:12:38 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15478 (DEATH AND ART) > Modernism, abstraction, and craft may be > resusitated yet. *That* is supposed to make us sleep easier? Msg#:15519 *FINE ART* 05-18-94 10:44:03 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15296 (DEATH AND ART) > Most > important is that there has been no writer that did what he did > since... The decleration that > what is good is good, bad is bad, just isn't seen today in such > bluntness, in part due to the ongoing notion that beauty is dead, > and that intellectualism is what is most important. I think it's rather that we don't want heavy-handed intellectuals to tell us what is beautiful, or what is good or bad, and we much more closely examine the agendas of those who purport to do so. The death of Greenberg doesn't make me nostalgic, for to me he died a long time ago, and his body just hung around awhile. As for Judd, I hope at least he made one last box, to lay in. You raise many interesting issues, David. What is apparent is that you keep looking to art for a way out of your malaise. Art is most useful when it prompts you to reflect on life, society, and the nature of meaning--not just on "art." What are your difficulties with art and the art world telling you about your life? How does it play out in the real world? It's not whats in the galleries and what people write about that's important--it's what you take home with you, it's in your relationships, how you look through your own window. Your condition cries out: you must change your life. Msg#:15523 *FINE ART* 05-18-94 11:33:13 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15519 (DEATH AND ART) A couple of things: I'm not loosing sleep over art, it's just something to dwell on that provides good entertainment when my eyses are closed. Please don't think that I'm asking _anyone_ to tell me what's good, only I long for people with strong oppinions. (Like you). Look, most writers on art don't write clearly, don't write well, and flutter in the wind when it comes to making clear choices. Sure things are never just black-and-white (my LCD screen here has 16 shades of grey). Sure everything can be turned over and over until it works, but damm, people sure should know there own ideas and not just watch water go under the bridge. Msg#:15562 *FINE ART* 05-18-94 12:24:54 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15519 (DEATH AND ART) Couple of more thoughts. Yes he rests in a box. It was made by the same people who made his plywood/douglas fur works. If it is his own design I really don't know. Did he wear his boots into the grave too, I would think so along with his favorite plaid jacket. As I said in the main message, all the ideas that I was twitching over are pretty petty. There's nothing all that special about thoYo thought. Just something to dwell on. The reall problem that I see is where we're going. As you posted just getting a giggle out of art really isn't enough. But neither is a little brain massage via dead conceptual art. Msg#:15568 *FINE ART* 05-18-94 15:30:00 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15562 (DEATH AND ART) I sort of see what you mean. We're in the midst of a major crisis, that is everywhere evident. Things are changing rapidly, profoundly. No wonder you lose sleep. Where *are* we headed? Msg#:15570 *FINE ART* 05-18-94 16:49:42 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15568 (DEATH AND ART) Were are we headed? Not to bring up something that should have died long ago, but good for argument sake: at the Koons sex show I got a kick out of listening to people either say "that's sick...this IS NOT art..." and other, younger, kids saying "so what would you like to try out tonight...?" Sure, you had to be there, in the mood to hear it, take it, but it did give art a charge for a moment also Barney climbing the walls over at Gladstone. I'm still awaiting the moment that something hits be 'tween the eyes that does something that isn't about something I already know. That is I'm tired of seeing end run games trying to take, say, Weiner or Kosuth to the last possible point it can go. Same as I dont ever want to see another generic geometric painting. What to do, where to go? I much rather go see a movie or take a walk, do anyting. And I ponder what should we do while we await the next coming, not more of the same. Msg#:15588 *FINE ART* 05-18-94 19:33:34 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15519 (DEATH AND ART) i betcha we're all thinking that! That big Q keeps comin' round the bend. How to live ? How to be ? So many easy answers, but the good ones take years of digging and long hard observation. Msg#:15620 *FINE ART* 05-18-94 19:41:00 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15296 (DEATH AND ART) could you explain (for yourself alone even) what it was that Judd had as a person (that perhaps his art rose out of) that caused him to affect you with such intensity. Perhaps you are mourning a loss of purity, a climate that dissolved into a promiscuous funk as the years passed and art became increasingly a carnival, a place to go for an opening and maybe to let the lead cloak of enui lift for an hour or two before going back to the grindstone? Msg#:15622 *FINE ART* 05-18-94 20:39:59 From: MICHAEL BENNETT To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15620 (DEATH AND ART) I knew Judd just slightly, and was impressed with the terseness and dogmatism of the man. Interestingly, his work to me was not the reflection of the man--exceedingly femenine and elegant--his plexi and bronze stacks--and then exceedingly macho and brutal--his plywood progressions. Perhaps he could express in his work what he couldn't express in his relations to others--that we probably are an admixture of the masculine and femenine. Some of his work was certainly a bridge to artists like Serra and Andre, who, however, have been able to maintain a consistant pose in relation to their work. Msg#:15629 *FINE ART* 05-18-94 22:37:37 From: ED GRANT To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15517 (DEATH AND ART) Then, well, not much of anything. There is not much out there that interests me, so if I can be entertained, not all is lost. There have been a few moments where art has made a lasting impact, most notably the Ad Reinhardt show at the Modern. The last room with the black paintings were stunning. To see such a progression of a vision, distilling and perfecting it. On the other hand, there is some motivational incentive, seeing so much horrible art, I damn sure know that I can do better. Also, why do I find a negitive value being put on laughter? Msg#:15654 *FINE ART* 05-19-94 00:39:00 From: VERENA KUNI To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15629 (RE: DEATH AND ART) well, maybe for to get a better idea of both the entire difference as well as the lost chain between works of art and computers - and how we form our criteria of worth and values, a closer look at the conditions and the possible varieties of subject-object relation might be helpful. to get an idea of these concerns, for example, thinking about their relation to a computer some of us might define it as a pure tool, for others it might be seen as a kind of bachelor's machine (>junggesellenmaschine<, a field Duchamp walked on his whole life and work)... far beyond the sensual touch or the intellectual kick I can get from art (which I might get, however, as well by entering any other field of interest) there might be a zone where other criteria arise that belong to the atavistic, but (damned how) ineradicable hope of men to gain a kind of transformation of the subject through objects ["oh! there MUST be something BEYOND the raw materia", all those "dark mirror dreams" - I love the stuff Philipp K. Dick wrote on that theme, really], immateriality through the touch of the material [o yeah! "the lumps are so heavy in order to prevent me escaping from this hell", as you'll find it written on Beuys' Double-Fond. sharp edge between iron and irony.], life beyond death; all this howling yearn of the lost human being for salvation... all those thoughts about art as catharsis, all those visions of rites de passage. leaving the field of art as reflected in the eye of the beholder, as well producing art might be considered as submitted to comparable criteria. still working (even as a voluntary accepted projection, a "common sense") is the metaphor of the Great Work, the image of the alchemist reaching out for the gold of our time ["je cherche l'or du temps" wrote Breton, and you'll find those words also engraved on his tombstone] - well, of course, if you look closer, most of the times it's nothing but shit you get, or, at the better, something like Boettger's porcelain, i. e. materia to make money with. * Internet firstname.lastname@example.org * Fido-net 2:2440/506.1 * Msg#:15662 *FINE ART* 05-19-94 09:48:29 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15620 (DEATH AND ART) What I fell a loss about is that Judd was the last of a generation, or possibly the last of a 'kind' of steril, hermetic artists. I have tremendous respect for his ability to flip the same basic idea over and over and over and over and over and keep on going with it. There's somehting very unique about his involvement with his own objects that most other artists don't have the rigger to handle. Sure it also makes for some pretty static works at times, and yes his works do get tedious when taken en mass. You are right, I do look to art for something than a giggle about this or that before I go back to the grid - I don 't hinge my life on art, but it is what I do for a living, and does take up most of my time. Frankly I rather watch Mary Tyler Moore or some other drone TV late at night when I can't sleep, but it happens I dont have cable TV, dont get off watching infomercials, and can't stand the other late night fare (say 3/4/5am), so as I lie in bed tossing and turing this gives me something to dwell on, though it isn't what keeps me up. Msg#:15663 *FINE ART* 05-19-94 09:59:00 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15622 (DEATH AND ART) Serra delivered a nice "lecture" at the memorial service for Judd last week. The basic tone was one of "damm that son-of-a-bitch did it again...now what can I do...?" It's about the best thing an artist can say about another artist. Msg#:15664 *FINE ART* 05-19-94 10:03:36 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: ED GRANT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15629 (DEATH AND ART) The problem with laughter is that often it means that art is "good for nothing" other than a transitory smirk. Yes I want to get a laugh from art too, but I fear that all to often it has more to do with something either other than what the artist intended or I walk away forgetting what it was all about that I was laughing at, sort of like John Baldessari's jokes - most of them leave me pissing in my pants, but damm if I can rember the next day what I found so funny - though I do remember that it was funny at the time. Msg#:15665 *FINE ART* 05-19-94 10:50:17 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: VERENA KUNI Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15654 (RE: DEATH AND ART) What happens when you pull the plug? For give me for playing the devil here, but is a dead object - the computer - of any use without the support of everthing else around us? That is isn't the key to sustaining this tool the sustaining of everything else in the infostructure of our lives? I'm still at a point where I think we're all entranced by the technology to the point where we will stare for hours at anything on a CRT. Video art still suffers from the fact that people get hooked watching and just can't move on. Maybe photography is just getting beyond this now, however, people crave realism in photography above all else. I am both elated by the notion of computers as a tool for artists and a bit put off by it becoming a crutch too. With anything, sometimes it will be put to good use and other times it will fall very flat. But like work by Rebecca Horn, what happens when the plug is pulled? The computer must become something more than the alchemist's pot as the true pot must reside in the artist's head not at the tips of his/her fingers. Msg#:15675 *FINE ART* 05-19-94 11:55:16 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15570 (DEATH AND ART) Honestly, David, I think you should seriously consider retiring. Msg#:15676 *FINE ART* 05-19-94 12:00:17 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: ED GRANT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15629 (DEATH AND ART) > On the other hand, there is > some motivational incentive, seeing so much horrible art, I damn > sure know that I can do better. If you only see horrible art since Ad Reinhardt, then I can assure you that your artwork is only going to be worse. Msg#:15729 *FINE ART* 05-19-94 13:06:41 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15675 (DEATH AND ART) Thanks for your thoughts Jordan, I'll take that under condiseration, why not, I'm young and may be able to find another line of work. :) Msg#:15757 *FINE ART* 05-19-94 19:09:41 From: MICHAEL BENNETT To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15663 (DEATH AND ART) I'm really sorry that I couldn't go to the memorial service for Judd. What Serra eulogized sounds generous and brothely--but it must be remembered that Serra as he arrived on the scene in the sixties aimed his diatribes at artists like Judd who pasted, nailed or welded their work into completion. The art- sculpture community in the sixties was a small community of males--the work tells it all--who knew each other and supported each other. Dan Graham has talked nostalgically about that time and the need to have a return to community. Perhaps the THING is an effort in that direction. Msg#:15774 *FINE ART* 05-19-94 22:37:53 From: ED GRANT To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15664 (DEATH AND ART) But I remember what was funny, mostly with the Andre. It was a clear example of fine arts departure from a more common world. The man did not have a clue that he was walking on FINE ART. Where is the problem? Whith both the artist and the viewer. It was a break down in communication, ignorance on the viewers part and arrogance on the artists. Granted, finding the balance is both hard and rare, but possible. I saw a show of Judd and Martin at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts a few years back. Martin swept me away. Her work was all that Judd's was plus it was human. Msg#:15775 *FINE ART* 05-19-94 22:42:31 From: ED GRANT To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15676 (DEATH AND ART) I have seen a great deal of horrible art since the Reinhardt show, yes. And, I have not seen much art that has left a lasting impression. I know people making good challenging art. I have even seen some in SOHO. But it is rare. I also find the ritual of Mass a beautiful thing, but I'm not going to become a priest. Msg#:15806 *FINE ART* 05-20-94 01:55:12 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15296 (DEATH AND ART) Your message on Donald's death is so touching... Hardly talked about it with anyone but Lauretta, his ex-girlfriend... I hadn't seen him for a while... used to go for dinner, when he brought meat from Texas... long, precious chats. Loved your remarks about Donald's work. So why Art? For the case I would say artists dye a bit less than other people, since their work outlives them. Now, about Green-burg... ;) Msg#:15822 *FINE ART* 05-20-94 10:13:37 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15757 (DEATH AND ART) Has that clubby feel been really lost, or just replaced with something else? We've all heard stories about the Ab. Exp. painters hanging out - but the minimal artists and conceptual guy hung together too. The stories of people fighting over the sprial (as form) I'm told are true also that Tony Shafrazi was prompted to spray paint attack Gueneca on a dare by Serra - in the days the former was an artist. I do have a lot of hope that The Thing will become a bridge for the arts, however, nothing can replace seeing people face to face. Msg#:15823 *FINE ART* 05-20-94 10:21:07 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15806 (DEATH AND ART) Did you mean to say die rather than "dye"? Being a lapse Jew I want to believe that we only live on (after we're done with all this life on earth stuff) in other people's memories. No heaven, no hell - only our surrivors good and bad throughs. Don was a very difficult guy, with pleanty of hang ups and troubles, however, you are right his work will live for him long after anyone who ever knew him will. My personal feeling is that he will become one of the most important artists of the post war period (more so than Serra, Andre, etc.) In part as he died before his time, but also because he didn't stray from his mission in his work - he was true to himself, something that should never be undervalued. Msg#:15825 *FINE ART* 05-20-94 10:43:57 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: ED GRANT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15774 (DEATH AND ART) I don't doubt that Martin looked great with Judd. He did a show of her portfolio On A Clear Day in a small perfect space in Marfa a couple years back durring the hoedown. The room that was used as in a former storefront downtown Marfa with thick adobe walls and large frosted glass windows. When the front door was open there was a wonderful view down to the Victorian Court House building. In the room was a simple green Judd Winter Bench, and that's it. I even think that the light in the room was natural only. Painfully perfect. Msg#:15923 *FINE ART* 05-20-94 21:25:39 From: ED GRANT To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15825 (DEATH AND ART) Wow, thats nice. I can only guess how amazing it was (having lived in NM). Beauty can be a powerful thing. Msg#:15924 *FINE ART* 05-20-94 21:31:05 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15823 (DEATH AND ART) Of course I meant to say die rather than dye. An error. Should I wonder about it's relation? Makes for an image no doubt... Say that we want to visualize this substance that lives inside "other people's memories." A living memory, there is the image and the trace of that person's passage, which leaves a mark behind, inscribed maybe indelibly. The image is different from the mark. Only the mark may call on the subject that is to reveal its "dyeing" of destiny. Msg#:15928 *FINE ART* 05-21-94 00:04:11 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: ED GRANT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15775 (DEATH AND ART) I liked some shows lately: Condo in Pace, Jenny Holzer in Barbara Gladstone, Hans Haacke in John Weber, Guillermo Kuitca in Sperone Westwater. Didn't like Ross Bleckner, nor Chia at Castelli.......etc. Why? ask Wolfgang. Msg#:15929 *FINE ART* 05-21-94 00:15:43 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15676 (DEATH AND ART) An assurance agent is what we need. Msg#:15930 *FINE ART* 05-21-94 00:30:34 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15519 (DEATH AND ART) "As for Judd, I hope at least he made one last box, to *lay* in." Jordan, I think there's a problem... you don't get layed in boxes. Msg#:15931 *FINE ART* 05-21-94 00:39:31 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15570 (DEATH AND ART) Lawrence Weiner once stated that the discourse that surrounds the work of art makes the work of art. Do we believe that? Msg#:15954 *FINE ART* 05-21-94 02:10:13 From: RAINER GANAHL To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15757 (DEATH AND ART) it is a nice subject here on board even if I also regrett the incident it prompted. ..... BUT: I wouldn't want to be so so pessimistic about things since these are tropes we find in any shift of generation: I am talking about the rhethoric of the "loss of rigour", the "loss of community" - briefly: the loss of the great old times. saying that I feel extremely uncomfortable with these tropes shouldn't disavow judd and his merits at all. but one can find easily the same "rigour" the same communities today as well as you could find (or not find) them in the golden days... there are wonderfull artists around and they also will fit all criterias for the creation of myth... and remember: all these events that take place now, including our typing, will turn immediatly "wonderfull" if they stop or if they are 25 years old (the only problem with this kind of typing here is, tthat unless the magnetic storage colapses, we want have just some great fading white and black fotographs underscoring some circulating stories but we will have the same types on an improved screen - that looks always fresh and doesn't create any aura (this time - there is really now aura possible, different to what benjamin thought of photographs: with networking it is defenitly true, since the letters are fresh every day and the text doesn't convert into anything better than it is (with b/w myth supporting photographs it does, but not so with these kind of texts... ) - obviously, I am on the side of the text and jsut want to remind you of these basic bias people so easily fall pray to. the same thing is also true with greenberg. the art community was so tiny then that his big old times were also just normal businessdays with the same frustrations everybody else encounters in our days... and wasn't his big fellow j pollock only dreaming of picasso and his(picassos) great time(he thought he never could live up to), - so totally blind of his own big era, that he just collapsed in alcohol and died... isn't he just a good example to point out this big discrepancy between people perceiving something in retrospect and people involved in the contemporanity of daily life... so beliefe me, some are going to enthrone new princes picked from people around us and do the same bourgois business of semiconservation... (I always admire the pickels I buy in glasses and wonder about their preservation...) david and michael, let me invite you to some coffee here ... I am kidding... but you should come anyway ....(let's have a pickel sandwich) by the way: what about judds writing? Msg#:15956 *FINE ART* 05-21-94 02:26:44 From: RAINER GANAHL To: VERENA KUNI Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15654 (RE: DEATH AND ART) if we keep talking under this Subj. (death and art) we just go to revive hegels believe in the past times character of art. Msg#:15957 *FINE ART* 05-21-94 02:31:35 From: RAINER GANAHL To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15822 (DEATH AND ART) the msg I wrote to michael bennet was - technically I ended up replying to him - was meant to you... Msg#:16007 *FINE ART* 05-21-94 15:50:17 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15957 (DEATH AND ART) In relation to the theme of the aura of the past--we should remember that for the same reason, what is most original in the present often seems at first like a mere repetition--the way proto-pop and early pop work was first called "neo-dada," as though it were something already known. Msg#:16210 *FINE ART* 05-21-94 18:36:09 From: RAINER GANAHL To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16007 (DEATH AND ART) this is a good point. and I full agree with you. but my concern was not so much the "what is new" problematic but more the walter benjamin aura complex that he wanted to attach to fotography...with texts of a network, I don't see a point how ara could devellop since the "physicallity" of the text is always in every activation "new" .... this is, what I think doesn't let these text "die" in the traditional sense of a work of art.... (this is not at all a statement about the content of a text, the text as such... the machine calls it "text only" text... I am just talking about the "materiality" of a text here on a BBS that probably will resist "auratization" (and I express this in an ironic relation to the subject matter here called "death and art" - I have to get some people over a loss of an important member of the art community) Msg#:16270 *FINE ART* 05-22-94 19:51:34 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16210 (DEATH AND ART) But doesn't a text on such a network "die" when it is removed from current accessibility? After which it could presumably at some point be "revived" as an antique text? Msg#:16296 *FINE ART* 05-22-94 23:02:32 From: RAINER GANAHL To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16270 (DEATH AND ART) yes , a text out of such a system dies if removed from it. but if "revived" after a longer period of time, and just because it will be "revived" on a current, then current system it will not produce any aura at all , I think. so, it "dies" easily, ( if wolfgang doesn't soon make more money with subscribtions it will die as simple and easy as if I pull out the plag from the wall and cut the electronic energy of my non-laptop machine...) nothing easier then having these constellations destroyed... it takes a long time to cultivate them, but it doesn't take much of an effort to destroy them... but then, at another moment in time, to revive/ replay these massages, will not create any aura whatsoever... it is already hard to creat one for old videos if they don't deal with people one recognizes or with fashion products one identified and one is able to classify.. . and I don't see any way to "auratizise" these kind of msges... no way... (but what could be "mystified" and "auratizised" is this business as such, without any particular msg.... let say: oh, one time, some artists had an idea to do this and that .. but this would be as far as it can go... and so what.... even better...) Msg#:16306 *FINE ART* 05-23-94 00:51:58 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16296 (DEATH AND ART) Rainer, we are backing up the system daily and every month all the messages are archived on floppies and other media. I don't want to speculate how future archeologists will perceive these texts once they dig them out of the quadrillions of databases, let's just hope they will be easier to decipher than the dead sea scrolls. As for the lost Aura, why don't you adjust the luminance of your monitor! Turn it up all the way, sit down lotus style in front of it and meditate for one hour. Msg#:16312 *FINE ART* 05-23-94 08:18:44 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16296 (DEATH AND ART) I'm not so sure. I think time has shown that Benjamin was incorrect in his analysis of what was happening to "aura" because of photography, whereas poor old Andre Malraux--the most unfashionable thinker imaginable!--was correct in his view that reproduction was intensifying the aura around paintings. Which is just to say that it's not so obvious except in retrospect what goes on during such developments...everything we are doing on The Thing is presumably "primitive" compared to what we will be doing in twenty years, and if there turns out to be anything of value in what we do, that value will be enhanced by the primitiveness. Msg#:16314 *FINE ART* 05-23-94 09:39:29 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15928 (DEATH AND ART) Can you tell me why you liked the Holzer show? I feel like she's run out of steam. The texts are strong, but the presentation runs from being to high-tec to being just terribly morbid and chilly. The emotional content seems to me be just overly rehearsed. Msg#:16315 *FINE ART* 05-23-94 09:42:24 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15931 (DEATH AND ART) I love Lawrence, he's really wonderful and always playing the role of the devil. Yes, I think he is largly correct, but not totally. Art should be both private and public in its discourse. His statemet as you quoted sounds like either a punchline to a joke or the start of a longer story. Msg#:16316 *FINE ART* 05-23-94 10:08:11 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16296 (DEATH AND ART) I disagree that the text so easily dies on such a system. The networked text (and arguably, any text) doesn't begin and end on the screen, but is connected through networks of connectivity--pull any one thread and you jostle them all. The texts that we have built here are built in interstitial relations, in the movements from one text to another, in the relation between textual code and subjectivity. If you write a text on here and then you delete it it still has a ghostlike presence and afterlife, for it reincarnates, inserts itself elsewhere, its borders porous. The electronic text is built of movement, relation, and flickering signification; it's not a shapshot. Msg#:16355 *FINE ART* 05-23-94 13:14:10 From: RAINER GANAHL To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16312 (DEATH AND ART) berry, I fully aggree with you and even more so with the minister of culture malraux. and because of malraux I say this: concerning the production of myth and aura, the TT could be one already next week if it closes down tomorrow. but it will not gain any aura for the physicallity of the me/assages, but for the fact that they exist m and the kind of loose community they create. this is without doubt easily to be turned into an "aura" . but not so the massages as such... this is different. and I am only interested in this differnce. obviously, I do know, that this point is not interesting at all ... who cares whether a msg can create an aura or not, whether it creates a physicallity that can attract dust and aura or not. it is almost absurd reflecting it. ... but nonetheless, this time it is really possible that the physicallity of the texts here is not going to attract any aura... (and the litle interest it can have - this insistence on this point - stems precisely from the fact, that benjamin was wrong, what I alluded too in my opening msg about this. so once more, make a difference between TT, the msges and the physicallity of the msges. the first two could be easily turned into "myth", into "aura" and special atttraction, but not so the physicallity of the msg/texts.... this is not so wiht photography... what we are intersted in old photographies is not so much the fact, that there was some photography (the "institution of photography") but the artifact itself... the fading, smelling, dirty little piece of silvercontaminated paper.... (intersting for me in this exchange is to see all the different ways, my initial msg. is read and the reactions it creates... may be, this kind of writing could be helpfull in the prevention of the exploding proliferation of books as it could clear misunderstandings at the source...- I know this is idealistic nonesense) Msg#:16356 *FINE ART* 05-23-94 13:21:02 From: RAINER GANAHL To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16316 (DEATH AND ART) jordan, I fully agree with you.. I just refer yoiu too my answer to the other msg. I just posted a minute earlier.... I am only talking about the disappearence in the sense, that the sysop takes the text from the accessible memory after a certain time... obvioulsy, the text as text (msg, as part of an intertextual intercourse continouse to make it's way through all kind of meandering mutations... producing and reproducing itself... texts are viruses, following epidemical maps - they are going to survive us all, ..... but teh particular msg. can be removed... it has to, it has to make room for new ones.... ) Msg#:16363 *FINE ART* 05-23-94 14:25:53 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15954 (DEATH AND ART) Don't think I want thinks today to be like they were yesterday. Looking back is very dangerous, especially when what you know about the past is second hand knowledge. What I know about the 60s is formed by reading back issues of Artforum, Arts, Art In America, Studio International, New York Times reviews, and Art International as well as books, exhibition catalogues, and talking with people who were on the "circut" then. It's all very on sided, nothing seems dull, flat, borring, or tired. But it is true also that while there are many more artists now, and the audience is larger too, more galleries exist - much of the medium of expression has been limited. Maybe Barry could tell us about the death of Arts, or we could consider the departure of some of the other journals also (bye bye Studio International, Art International, Artscribe, etc.) Yes we now have October, Parkett and a few others, but both of these are much more "considered", well Parkett should even be seen as a vanity magazine you'll never see a critical word betewen those covers. The other issue here is dialouge. Artforum in particular had a history of wonderful letters to the editor (often with considered responses), how often do you see this now? I think you'll find a liquor advertisment and something for Lucky Strike before you find a single interesting letter... Yep, sure there was dull work then too, but I'm getting sick of seeing people trying to make work that emulates work that sells. (Fad of the moment seems to be plants, a few years ago it was wax, then lead, and let's not forget paintings - there making a comeback...) Seriously, I was talking with some young artist who only wanted to know what kind of art to make in order to sell. The minute that art becomes considered as an emulative decoration I get a bit cold. (Oh, this was an American artist living in Koln because he read in the New York Time that Koln was the place to be if you wanted to be a hot artist. [OK your in Koln now, what ARE you going to make to become a hot artist... I wanted to vomit and tell him I saw vomit at the last Whitney Bi. exhbition, and he should scrape it up and put it to good use.] Yep, retrospect is very scarry stuff. Your Picasso story (Pollock) is a good point and could be applied to Rothko too, but that's not the point of why I started writing these posts - I really think that we're in a funny lull, like in the mid 70s when there was also dull art and a flat market, not to mention very few stories about "what a wonderful moment it was". Hell we're not all that far out of the 80s and even durring the 80s everbody keep on saying just how wonderful THAT moment was. Ok, let's put it all to rest and in 5 years lets look back on this moment - I hope I remember The Thing, I hope The Thing lasts that long. Msg#:16364 *FINE ART* 05-23-94 14:30:27 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16316 (DEATH AND ART) Think I read in the cypherpunks posts that the NSA can read disks that have been not only wipped but overwritten with new data, somthing about echos. Who know if this is true, but sure means there's a lot of ghosts floating on hard drives out there. Msg#:16365 *FINE ART* 05-23-94 15:16:31 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16355 (DEATH AND ART) I don't even know what the "physicality" of these messages is, or where it might be located (this perhaps goes back to a much earlier discussion in which I said the presence of the body is hyper-compressed here) but it is quite possible that it will show itself itself quite clearly once this medium becomes antiquated. (I recently pointed out how the physicality of the marks of Carl Andre's typing, in the poems he exhibited at Paula Cooper, shows up more clearly now that the manual typewriter has been defamiliarized than it might have in the '60s when he did them.) Msg#:16367 *FINE ART* 05-23-94 16:27:23 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16365 (DEATH AND ART) I like the notion that you bring up about Andre's typewriter - that of the touch of metal to ribbon to paper created - a method of writing that is fast becoming lost. However, I would doubt that we will ever feel the same of this medium as the residue is so different from my computer to yours to anothers that the similarity can be quite far apart in display (or printout - thinking of laser, ink jet, dot matrix, and fonts...) that it will never have the same qualitys of that old (I suspose) typewriter that Andre banged his poems out on. Msg#:16383 *FINE ART* 05-23-94 19:02:48 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16355 (DEATH AND ART) It's interesting to see our texts as built from these "misunderstandings," these disjunctions, these overlappings and these interstitial areas... from which the voices speak... Ghosts in the marginal blackness of the screen. Msg#:16400 *FINE ART* 05-24-94 00:05:52 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16367 (DEATH AND ART) > writing that is fast becoming lost. However, I would doubt that we > will ever feel the same of this medium as the residue is so > different from my computer to yours to anothers that the similarity > can be quite far apart in display (or printout - thinking of laser, But the same is true for typewriters--remember all those old detective stories where the murderer is found by matching some misaligned letter in a message with a key of his typewriter. Msg#:16422 *FINE ART* 05-24-94 01:51:33 From: RAINER GANAHL To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16365 (DEATH AND ART) yes, I talked a lot about "physicality" without defining it... obviously the "physicality" is a ne"negative" one, whatever this means -it is one that does and doens't change at all: it does change, since from "on" and "off" it "appears", becomes "light" or "shodow" and "disappears" ("dies") AND it doesn't change, since the letters are supposed to come up in the same order, and the light around the letter is supposed to be always "new" (can there be old light? - do we know, how long, how far a light beam has travelled when it encounters us?, would an "old", travelled through years old beam have dark outfaded borders? isn't there a clear night tonight? and can I distinguish the time, the age of the light?) ... I am not talking about printed out versions of this thing here, I am talking about what happens, if in 20 years, somebody will have a msg. popped up on his screen.... I doubt it to be recognizable as an "old" text if one is able to abstract from the context... the semantic, syntax and the interfacial context, if it will open up as well... I don't want to repeat myself... I just refer you back to some other responses I posted even in the afternoon... (usually I like to write when the light differences are a little bit bigger between my screen and my window) Msg#:16423 *FINE ART* 05-24-94 01:57:48 From: RAINER GANAHL To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16400 (DEATH AND ART) let me just add something for your type writer nostalgia: isn't it that the most attractive typeface right now is "american typewriter" simular to "courrier" -- and precisely this font was strongly rejected in the last decade, since it connotated simply the 70ies, and typewriter.. - just the fashion everybody is in again... Msg#:16432 *FINE ART* 05-24-94 05:21:42 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16315 (DEATH AND ART) About the private discourse of art. Are you saying this discourse concerns the artist's relation to the object to be represented... or that it belongs to a smaller circle of people around him? Msg#:16434 *FINE ART* 05-24-94 09:59:14 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16400 (DEATH AND ART) With such typewriters there is always a one-to-one correspondence between the letter and the finger that pushed it, attached to a body. There is a physicality that is not present with computers: you hit the letter on the typewriter harder and you get a darker letter (physicality can thus be read into the text)--or at least with an electric typewriter, you have a particular corresponding function for each key--but the computer interrupts this, and complicates this space, since there is no longer such a one-to-one relation or such a locatable body. One key on a computer can delete an entire text, send it, move it, etc., and you see not the hand that pushed it, no physicality except an implied (one read into) the text in relation to/through the screen-interface. This is very interesting here with your detective story, for the we could make typewriter marks correspond to bodies and imply "guilt," but today we can no longer find the body or judge it thus. Msg#:16435 *FINE ART* 05-24-94 10:26:53 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16432 (DEATH AND ART) There's all sorts of circles, waves, of interaction between artist and object that need to be though of. There's the object divoreced from the artist - in many forms, such as a causal viewer coming to a museum (or anyplace where art is viewed) blind (so to speak) with no backgroud viewing something without any contextual information about the artist or otherwise. There the next level with the viewer knowing a little to quite a bit about what they are looking at. Etc. On up to being an intimate of an artist. Everbody comes away with something else. I don't think in my context of writing on Judd that my knowing him had any impact on my relation to his work - frankly, there isn't that much to grasp with him - what it is it is. I do have problems when art becomes inside jokes in which without knowing the artist one doesn't know the work. I belive in something not so hermetic, and more inclusive. Msg#:16436 *FINE ART* 05-24-94 10:29:21 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16363 (DEATH AND ART) It's interesting here that we're attempting to "get at" things as the past of a projected future (e.g., what TT is today is seen by projecting its future and looking back; what electronic text is today is historicized by way of the future). Today takes shape as a past of a future, not through the advance of history. (Think about this especially for the info-elites--in many ways we increasingly have a better sense of the future than we do of the past.) We can't even get at our present "first-hand" (I say this in relation to your comment of seeing the past only "second-hand") but possibly employ this process to break up the landscape, uncover what's hidden from view (smoothed over as it is by the homogenization of market forces). Perhaps this opens up a new space, a contradictory, hybrid present (even though the future is already so colonized)... No longer a present which results from the culmination of History, but a present as an unstable site through which "past" and "future" circulate. (Pastness and futureness as interfaces? or at least market mechanisms...what a radical disruption of Time.) Msg#:16437 *FINE ART* 05-24-94 10:32:37 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16400 (DEATH AND ART) What about age? As much as I love my computer, I'll never be able to see the screen "age" the way a sheet of paper ages as it gathers coffee stains, finger prints, and time stains. Ok call me a romantic. Msg#:16438 *FINE ART* 05-24-94 10:34:20 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15931 (DEATH AND ART) > Lawrence Weiner once stated that the discourse that surrounds the > work of art makes the work of art. > Do we believe that? It not only makes the work of art, but it makes Weiner too. Msg#:16439 *FINE ART* 05-24-94 10:38:19 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16436 (DEATH AND ART) I suspose you are right. There are always going to be people that have the future while others toddle in the past using "antique" equiptment that was outdated while still in the box. I only wonder at what point, if ever, there will be a common ground at which point equiptment will become static much the same way microwave ovens are now basically the identical from one to the next, only cooking power marking the price point. Will we ever all have the same user interface, or more importantly the same access to information? Msg#:16440 *FINE ART* 05-24-94 10:45:28 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16423 (DEATH AND ART) I don't see anybody using "american typewriter" or "courier" for that matter. Where have you seen it? Maybe you're suffering a bit of that typewriter nostalgia yourself. :) Msg#:16484 *FINE ART* 05-24-94 15:12:12 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16434 (DEATH AND ART) > for each key--but the computer interrupts this, and complicates this > space, since there is no longer such a one-to-one relation or such a I just wonder why you say "complicates" when I would have thought the word should be "simplifies"? Msg#:16485 *FINE ART* 05-24-94 15:15:33 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16437 (DEATH AND ART) Perhaps there could be a software that will automatically "age" your print-outs. It would keep a record of when the file was first made, and then as it gets older, any time it prints it out it add a very light grey screen behind the text when it becomes a bit old--as the text gets older and older the software could make the grey screen darker and darker, until, according to a time-scale the user could select, the oldest messages would become illegible, totally darkened with age. Msg#:16488 *FINE ART* 05-24-94 16:06:11 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16485 (DEATH AND ART) At last a computer age idea that harks to years gone by. Barry, you've got a million dollar idea there. Sounds like something the NSA would dream up. Better find a programer and do if before someone else does. Msg#:16505 *FINE ART* 05-24-94 19:02:30 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16484 (DEATH AND ART) On the surface it "simplifies" but the relationships are "complicated"--the trajectory from the body to the finger to the signifier doesn't contain the same correspondences, and doesn't presuppose the same body/subject. Msg#:16506 *FINE ART* 05-24-94 19:09:25 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16485 (DEATH AND ART) "Dorian Grey"? Msg#:16536 *FINE ART* 05-25-94 00:24:57 From: RAINER GANAHL To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16485 (DEATH AND ART) technically thi[s wouldn't be a problem at all... but would it work? would it introduce /produce "aura" where it - and this is my point - not possible to be produced (opposite to all previous forms of media).... but this is a good question... Msg#:16543 *FINE ART* 05-23-94 22:13:41 From: BOTSCHAFT To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16536 (DEATH AND ART) Where is -- the personal CDROM (platinum) backing up your personal private data for the future. (bio-graphies of your bank, your clinic, your prison, containig kodaks of your holidays at the chinese wall or the heidelberger schloss, your adolescence written on wordstar, some schooltests, some brainwave-recordings, quicktime sex-souvenirs, the familyharddisk, your favorite tele-games + hiscores, a scan of your genome code...) There is -- a user sitting in lotus style (1-2-3 or notes?) in front of a Trinitron, remembering the white noise of Don de Lillo. What is lost is the semantic structure which we call information. The aura has still a name, poor Benjamin, itęs not holy or Jahwe, reiki or prana, but electromagnetic. Believers buy TCO-Monitors, which transmitting in a "cleaner" spectrum. Dark minds use Mobile-phones to pact with the luck. --- MacWoof Eval:13Nov92 * Origin: thing net point berlin (42:1002/3.6@thingnet) Msg#:16546 *FINE ART* 05-25-94 08:24:06 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16438 (DEATH AND ART) >> Lawrence Weiner once stated that the discourse that surrounds the >> work of art makes the work of art. >> Do we believe that? > > It not only makes the work of art, but it makes Weiner too. One thing I've noticed about Lawrence is that he makes the most definitive sounding declarations as though they were carved in stone but which in fact just represent his passing mood of the moment. So the first question might rather be, does Lawrence believe that? Presonally, I would hope that on further reflection he would reject the idea that discourse is "outside of" the work, since his own work is merely one of the clearest examples of what is always true to some extent, that discourse does not surround the work so much as run right through it. Msg#:16674 *FINE ART* 05-25-94 22:15:43 From: JANINE GORDON To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16485 (DEATH AND ART) There is this contest in Wired magazine ,judged by Holzer.L.Anderson and friends....their looking for entries ...Guaranteed to win if you can produce this wacko software....THE KEY WORD IS PRODUCE! Msg#:16675 *FINE ART* 05-25-94 22:19:03 From: JANINE GORDON To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16423 (DEATH AND ART) Dont' you just hate trends???? Msg#:16680 *FINE ART* 05-26-94 01:01:57 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16438 (DEATH AND ART) "It not only makes the work of art, but it makes Weiner too." Are you saying this is Weiner's personal case? Msg#:16685 *FINE ART* 05-26-94 01:47:56 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16435 (DEATH AND ART) Sometimes, during an interview, there is a moment when my question may reveal something to the artist about his/her work. I search for that, like it. Also the artist likes it. But it has nothing to do with closeness, on the contrary. Does it affect my vision of the work? Maybe, have to think about it. In the case of Judd our conversations use to turn at times around his writing--his articles took like a month to write. We talked while eating some spectacular meat from his ranch in Texas. He would make everything so precious… this wine!... also the bread... the oil… Msg#:17205 *FINE ART* 05-28-94 16:38:04 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15662 (DEATH AND ART) probably we all have some inner god archetypes that get us through when the going gets banal, and the horizon is mud. Msg#:17206 *FINE ART* 05-28-94 16:40:43 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15676 (DEATH AND ART) no, better, gloriously, infinitely better. Better than yoghurt, better than santa claus, better than roach motels. Msg#:16556 *FINE ART* 05-25-94 10:14:55 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16546 (DEATH AND ART) Knowing Lawrence I believe that he's very up front about what he thinks, not to mention honest to the core. He's a wonderful story teller, if nothing else the cadence of his speach leaves people with the impression that he's some kind of spiritual leader (not to mention the beard). Msg#:16626 *FINE ART* 05-25-94 11:19:54 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16556 (DEATH AND ART) > that discourse does not surround the work so much as > run right through it. Runs around it, runs through it... I'd say it *is* it, since it is the only indispensable element in the construction of a work of art. And now, let a thousand voices howl! Msg#:16628 *FINE ART* 05-25-94 14:30:27 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16626 (DEATH AND ART) To say that discourse > is the only > indispensable element in the construction of a work of art is problematic in just one respect--but a pretty important one: it fails to distinguish an art work from any other thing in the human realm! Msg#:16695 *FINE ART* 05-25-94 23:56:00 From: VERENA KUNI To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16685 (DEATH AND ART) DP> The computer must become DP> something more than the alchemist's pot as the true pot must reside in the DP> artist's head not at the tips of his/her fingers. well, if you're talking about the alchemist's vessel you should know that just as the true alembic will reside in the artist's head - maybe I'd prefer to say in the human head -, at all times it has been well placed let's say just INSIDE the head of the alchemist. if you're talking about the true pot in the artist's head or anywhere else - what at a glance it might seem to be a different field of question - one could state that even here the materia(l) will stay the medium for in- formation even if you place the sender/receiver in your head. but however: not only god, also the computer is a concept... Msg#:16706 *FINE ART* 05-26-94 09:57:50 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16685 (DEATH AND ART) I don't know much about Judd's writing process, though I do know his writing quite well. Some of the funniest things I've ever read were the letters between Judd and the editor at Art International (published in his Collected Writing book - volume I). Complaints like his being late and writing short notes like "this is a show of sculpture, there are three works, all small, all metal, they are good works." Minimal to the core. Msg#:16709 *FINE ART* 05-26-94 10:08:07 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: VERENA KUNI Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16695 (DEATH AND ART) The computer may be a medium, but it is not like paint in or any other medium I can think of in that it (the computer) is an interactive surface that isn't any single medium. I can draw, paint, manipulate photographs, etc. each as seperate tools or combined - additionally objects can be rendered in dimensions and then fabricated (you could ask Charles Warren here about this). In the end it's only as good as the skills of the artist who uses it. And right now it's all to trendy sometimes, like the early days of video, something that people will stare at no matter what's on. Msg#:16825 *FINE ART* 05-26-94 15:21:04 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16709 (DEATH AND ART) > fails to distinguish an art work from any other thing in the human > realm! That's exactly my point. I left the church of true believers way back in art school when I had to write papers on Mark Rothko and transcendence and stuff like that. Once you strip off all the nebulous and mystifying discourse you're left with pigments on canvas. Now then, _what does_ distinguish the art work from any other artefact? Msg#:16880 *FINE ART* 05-26-94 23:46:30 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16706 (DEATH AND ART) I wish someone would put those writings together... Did someone ever interview Donald? Never made it to the Satchi's private Museum in London. They have a whole floor dedicated to his works. Have you seen it? Would love to go there myself. Msg#:16881 *FINE ART* 05-27-94 00:03:07 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16825 (DEATH AND ART) > you're left with pigments on canvas. Now then, _what does_ > distinguish the > art work from any other artefact? well, I guess that's what we're trying to figure out...this is the self- questioning nature of art...as opposed to giving up on making the distinction. Msg#:16884 *FINE ART* 05-27-94 00:08:28 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16881 (DEATH AND ART) The art object is empty. Even if it were full, the fact that it is a work of art seems to work against one's opening and consuming its contents, lets say. So one difference between the box of Brillo that exists in the supermaket and the silk screened version that is in a gallery is that the latter, I assume, is empty. Another reason of course is the way in which the object is organized in relation to whatever surrounds it. This way must be different from the syntax of, say, a supermarket. The effect the work produces ought to be other than the promise of an enjoyment that resides in the consumtion of the contents of the box, or even, in the case of fruits and vegetables, in the consumption of the thing itself. Msg#:16928 *FINE ART* 05-27-94 10:37:32 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16880 (DEATH AND ART) Judd's writing was collected in two volumes (Nova Scotia / NYU circa 1976, and Stedlijk circa 1989). A new complete book was underway at the time of his death. As far as interviews go Judd was a lousy interviewie and I don't think there were any published of value. Msg#:16939 *FINE ART* 05-27-94 13:47:50 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16884 (DEATH AND ART) > supermarket. The effect the work produces ought to be other than the > promise of > an enjoyment that resides in the consumtion of the contents of the > box, or even, An interesting correlate to this would be the reflection that an art aiming to be ephemeral is not after so profoundly different from one that aims to be monumental--since what is transitory is like what is preserved just insofar as in neither case can it be consumed. Msg#:16943 *FINE ART* 05-27-94 15:47:56 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16939 (DEATH AND ART) Everything can be consumed! Memories are for consumption too. If anything can be learned from the 80s it is that people are often willing to plop down cash for just about anything. Isn't going to a movie about catching a memory for later usage? As far as ephemeral art goes, people will strugle to save it too - what about Bruce Conners work or the dilema of what to do with Beuys's objects that are turning to dust. I love the idea of food art - works that at one time seem so fresh than over time become older and older as if before your eyes. As for monumental art, it's being made for corporations and individuals, many of which are far thinking enough to know that sooner or later these large things will be sold (at a profit). Msg#:17054 *FINE ART* 05-27-94 18:56:09 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16943 (DEATH AND ART) At the risk of being pedantic, let's clarify the use of a few words--to "consume" is not the same as to "buy." To "consume" something means you don't have it anymore--it's been used up. On the other hand I was using "monumental" in a somewhat specialized way that probably wasn't clear--I just meant the opposite of "ephemeral"--art that is meant to last and be preserved. When I took Art History 101, my prof referred to all the existing objects we studied as "monuments" whether they were paintings, churches, statues, or whatever, and that's more or less how I was thinking of the word. Msg#:17202 *FINE ART* 05-28-94 16:11:35 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 17054 (DEATH AND ART) And when I think of "monumental" I think in terms of "large-scale projects" and public monuments, city square kind of stuff. However, I like your twist on the term. Msg#:17451 *FINE ART* 05-29-94 03:13:28 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16939 (DEATH AND ART) I remember now there's been the case of some artists doing sculpture *for* it to be consumed (eaten). Marta Minujin, an Argentine artist, I think you met her in Bs As., made a strawberry statue of Margaret Thatcher that we all eat at the opening. Hmmm... does this knock down my theory? Maybe what counts in this case is the context and the naming..... And it could have even been called monumental in the sense that this statue was enormous, though it is the very ephemeral. Msg#:16702 *FINE ART* 05-26-94 08:49:10 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16680 (DEATH AND ART) No, not at all. Msg#:17407 *FINE ART* 05-28-94 18:30:42 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 17205 (DEATH AND ART) Thanks for the words of widsom, however, I don't see the horizon as being mud, rather I think it's more like the tunnle of love meets the haunted house. Msg#:17408 *FINE ART* 05-28-94 18:31:27 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 17206 (DEATH AND ART) Better than ant farms? Msg#:15955 *FINE ART* 05-21-94 02:21:11 From: RAINER GANAHL To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: ART AND DISCOURSE yes I do - the artwork is the discourse that surrounds it. (this is not an ontological statement) Msg#:16231 *FINE ART* 05-22-94 03:44:16 From: RAINER GANAHL To: NOBODY Subj: NO BODY jan avgikos interviewed in her last issue of lacanian ink wolfgang staehle about the thing. interesting in this interview was the way, how jan was obsessed with the body (the absence of the body / I would callit the "no body" - she somehow almost ccame accross as if she was blaming the electronic network for the distance between the writer/user and the body/ the bodies on the other side/ somewhere else. abviously, if their is a gap filled with no bodies, an electronic network can not immediately help out here (inspite of rosa services in specially reserved networks which probably charge the user by the minute). but I would say, that we are more and more living in a "no body" world that isn't so much due to these electronic mail systems... they seem to be more set up where territory was lost already and not the other way around (even if it is sweeter to think so, since we all have learned well our foucault) . I don't want to allude to some aladine story and believe in some sinuous gost descending my machine... but given the stupidness of the contemporary consumerist society we are sourrounded by in an endless urban and suburban landscape (suburbia is folding into urban landscapes and vice versa) such networks can be potentially used for an improvement of exchanges that might even have consequences on the "nobody somebody body" line... and what is in particular to willcome is the fact that voices await you with ears eyes and fingertips... jan, who actually hasn't been really using any network so far (as far as I know) might feel /if logged on/ a little bit closer to the pulse of some bodies even if the unknown user appears as a nobody. and doesn't actually josefina have the best stories to tell about trackdrives and police men who want to step out of america on line like young angeles for teh best imaginary acts in town to circulate... with all this I just wanted to point out some conflations that are often done... ( <*>Replies Msg#:17510 *FINE ART* 05-29-94 23:48:08 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16231 (NO BODY) Jan says, " Dear Rainer, May the pulse be with you." Msg#:16234 *FINE ART* 05-21-94 11:42:00 From: SABINE B. VOGEL To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: JUDD DP>My personal feeling is that he will become one of the most important DP>artists of the post war period (more so than Serra, Andre, etc.) it's strange, but Judd isn't that important in Germany like in USA. Carl Andre is much more visible, and Serra is much more discussed, probably the influence on artists, especcialy accademy-students, is not by Judd, but by Serra. The museums tried really hard last year to give Judd the same importance in Europe like in USA, but it didn't work out. maybe because Andre + Serra have great galleries doing the pr-work here, maybe because of all the Serra-outdoor-works, maybe because Judd's work is more difficult to understand here - I don't know. I guess people read/see Judd more like design then sculpture, but anyway there aren't that many Judd's in public collections. DP>but also because he didn't stray from his mission DP>in his work - he was true to himself isn't it the same with R. Serra? but, by the way, if I can ask you, what is the *mission* in Judd's work? Sabine Msg#:16361 *FINE ART* 05-23-94 13:54:45 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: SABINE B. VOGEL Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16234 (JUDD) I don't know why Judd doesn't have the stature in Europe that he has in the US. Maybe I'm myopic and only think he's on par if not beyond Andre and Serra here. Sure, maybe he isn't as well premoted in Europe, but it more likely has to do with materials and execution (my guess). Serra and Andre work with raw materials in crude methods (that is to say that their works don't have the fetish/finish of Judds) which are more more accessable to the masses, where as Judd worked with expensive processes. Both Serra and Andre works are also more about mass, proximity, and relation of parts. Serra is also has that terror edge to it. Where as Judd's work was about the exploration of repetive play on the box, containment, and specific objecthood. Yes, Judds work has that design quality, however, so does Andre - it's just a change of dimensionality. I don't want to make any claims about accademy students, but people are often impressed by _weight_, and that's so much about Serra. The flip side is poetry, which is what Andre is about. Judd had that strange duality of being crazy about the finish of his works (a very West Coast notion - think Larry Bell, John McCracken...) and then the crudeness too in some works. Rudi Fuchs wrote, poetic, on Judds works at his last Pace Gallery Show, mostly about the quality of rust - which could have been said about anybody working with Cor-Ten steel. I think what may give Judd such lasting potential is simply he died before he could make any wrong steps in his work. Serra and Andre both have the chance to do some amazing new works, however, they could also turn out some lousy works for the next 20 years and we would say "Gee, they should have stopped years ago" - almost as bad, they could also not grow and continue to repeat the same works over and over to the point where the illusion of the "great" work is lost over time. The sad thing here is that Judd was working to making something wonderful at the Chinati Foundation in Marfa - something that not only would have preserved his work, but the works of other artists too. The foundation will go on, but his vision of inclusiveness will not have his hand in it anylonger. Maybe Serra and Andre will grow into a position where they try to do something similar, but they remain static in this respect to me. Msg#:16690 *FINE ART* 05-25-94 18:02:00 From: SABINE B. VOGEL To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16361 (RE: JUDD) actually I never really thought about the question of Judds importance here + there. it just plopped up when he died and almost nothing was written in magazines. then we started to compare it with Beuys death, Warhol, Rothko, Picasso, Miro, Dali, etc. - and continued with a macabre (is this an english word?) game, comparing it with living artists, how much publicity their death would effect. DP>has in the US. Maybe I'm myopic and only think he's on par if not DP>beyond Andre and Serra here. maybe because of his work is much closer to design - to the furniture- stuff from Philip Starck etc. - then A's + S's work. but I don't know. DP>students, but people are often impressed by _weight_, and that's weight? hm. maybe more something like beeing in love with material, which is pretty much the german sculpture-style. ********************* DP>"Gee, they should have stopped years ago" - almost as bad, they could that's something I just thought of Rauschenbergs work. god, how bad! works from '87 - '92. just nothing. sad. seems to be something which happens to most of the pop-art-artists. same with Wesselmann, Lichtenstein, Jim Dine, who all just recently showed their recent works in Germany. Now I just wonder about Jasper John's works of the last 5 years... Msg#:16710 *FINE ART* 05-26-94 10:20:17 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: SABINE B. VOGEL Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16690 (RE: JUDD) Isn't it all about what makes a "modern master," what becomes of an artist as they age? For me Johns can still hit the mark a good deal of the time, in part because he has such great hand skill and sense of color. Rauschenburg never had that, Dine never had that either. Maybe in a few years we'll have a better idea what going on at this moment. Maybe there's something wonderful happening under our noses, or maybe we really are seeing a creative lull. Back to thinking about Judd, I think to describe his work as design is true to a point, however, I don't see him as being any more of a designer than Serra or Andre, the only difference being the surface of Judd's works being as slick as they are. Msg#:16916 *FINE ART* 05-27-94 02:32:00 From: RAINER GANAHL To: SABINE B. VOGEL Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16690 (RE: JUDD) david, I don't want to be dismissive of personal stories and anectodes... they are great, but unfortunately, they only mean something to poeple like you who participated... for the understanding and discussion of the work, they don't mean anything. and this is what creates some frustration... I keepl reading every night at least 5 postings about judd, and yet I don't learn anything. let me refer to some interesting discussions aobut minimalism: hal foster's one (The crux of minimalism) and rosslind krauss's one...(in october, a few issues agao: the realationship of minimalism and the museum) I think it would be very interesting to talk about minimalism and this kind of work since there was a totally differnt epistemological intelligence at work then we encounter it in most of the works today... I really would enjoy and prefer these kind of discussions to the culinarium I get served right now (and I am even a vegetarian on a diet) ... what was minimalism doing when it entered the game? what did it push out? what was phenomenlogy doing in relationship to minimalism? what was mini[malism's limit? what was it accused off? by what was it replaced? what is there worth to be rescued? what can we learn from the history of reductive readings? how could it be possible and understandabe, that robert morris started his career with very intersting minimalist work and switched then to the most awfull representational relieves I have ever seen what are the intersting artists of the time that took minimalism back into architecture, and other applied fields... (why doesn't anybody talk aobut the wonderfull show of gordon matta clark right now - was he just eating cheeseburgers?) Msg#:16302 *FINE ART* 05-22-94 23:59:00 From: SKIP SNOW To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: TEXT & DEATH The notion of a text dying, hmmmm. Well I am not sure that any work of art exists anywhere except in the mind of the person who views it. What I mean by that is that the text exists nowhere in some absolute fashion. Its essence is in its relations, and its relations are in its context. It seems to me that people make a big mistake when they assume that the electric reality of computation does not take place on a physical level, in a not altogether different fashion than the alignment of pigment in a dried medium of linseed oil, Rainer is right in speaking of text as a different thing than the singular objects of the traditional plastic arts. In this sense the reproduction and the original object have no particular reality. A bit map is after all a sort of text, a hard code which does not have the same organic qualities as the blue Rapheal used. the bit map is in that sense more archival than most plastic art. We can not read it without the algorithms of a computer that translates Giff files, or whatever type of files they are. But they are still texts, in the sense that they exist only as reproductions. In fact they are a special sort of text in that the original is destroyed as soon as the Ram which created them is erased. There is in this sense no original except the inspiration which created the texts. It is a sort of publication of art which takes place in the computer rather than a display of some original work. But this is not necessarily a good part of computer art. In fact the reduction of the analog to the digital is just what most research into parallel processing is trying to do. For to imitate that wonder, the human mind a completely non digital invention must displace what we conceive of as the computer. I believe until the computer is capable of this sort of analogue simulation, or emulation there will be no computer art which reaches the wonder of analog arts such as the theater, or painting. On the other hand, a text is a wonder because it reassembles in an analogue fashion as soon as it enters the mind. In other words if we the audience of Rainer's text, a clearly digital phoneme make connections which though random are still in accordance with the spirit of the communication then it becomes the same wonder, and attains the same type of aura as any faded painting. The wonder is in the comprehension of coherent communication. The medium, and even the method are tools, and not ends. In the end the text is random because we view it under random circumstances which shape our understanding of it. <*>Replies Msg#:16352 *FINE ART* 05-23-94 12:53:47 From: RAINER GANAHL To: SKIP SNOW (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16302 (TEXT & DEATH) obvioulsy a text is not "dying" but in reference to our particular subject, I used this metaphor for simple "disappearance" - if not to say: inaccessability... disappearance in the fact, that - opposite to a published book - these texts produced here could be easily be inaccessible after a few months and after they "naturally" rotate out of the accessible memory of the database... - but unless to a book, you take out after 20 years and yoiu obviously feel and smell and see that something like time has touched it, with the uploading of these texts after a considerable amount of time, they just will look the same... (and I am not talking about the content, the usage of references, of paradigms, of names, of syntactical and paradigmatical fashions (doesn't my last line already sound "trackable" for a certain kind of jargon... one will be able to easiyly locate on a temporal axis?) - I think you should use more occham's razor when writing about these artifacts without really bothering too much with classical notions of artwork and all this stuff... just a personal advice, that could shorten your msges. and free you from unnessecairy "derives" into lost paradises) Msg#:16540 *FINE ART* 05-24-94 18:04:00 From: MICHAEL KROME To: *.* Subj: FILMPRODUCTIONS Does anyone knows, if David Salle is really going to produce a film with Martin Scorsese in Los Angeles ? Robert Longo, who's married with an actress is also going to make a film in Hollywood. Another proposed film from which I heard is one with Stephen Prina, Albert Oehlen and Theo Altenberg. Something like a persiflage on Hitler. Perhaps this should wear the subject ART+Death. Msg#:16673 *FINE ART* 05-25-94 22:12:26 From: JANINE GORDON To: MICHAEL KROME Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16540 (FILMPRODUCTIONS) actually michael.....I just met one of the actors from Robert Longo's new film. It was a 35 million dollar budget!!! It supposedly will be released in the winter,the film is in its finishing touches . DOn't know about the others. Msg#:16679 *FINE ART* 05-26-94 00:38:42 From: RAINER GANAHL To: MICHAEL KROME Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16540 (FILMPRODUCTIONS) michael, don't you want to explain to our non-german speaking users what the coloquial, lower end meaning of "einen film drehen" (for ex: "der typ dreht wieder einen film") means? Msg#:16681 *FINE ART* 05-26-94 01:02:01 From: RAINER GANAHL To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: TOPOLOGICAL MYTHS first of all, lets stop writing under this pathetic subject "death and art" now responding to what seems to start grouping around laurence wiener (and please, no anectodes anymore, we know how great these people are, but we don't need this here) : whether the discourse "sourounds" it, i.e. outside, in a circle form, wether it penetrates the center: it "runs like through" it, or whether it "is" the work - makes me have ask some new questions: do I need a map here? what kind of geometry comes with your topography? could I use a compass for orientation? <*>Replies Msg#:16711 *FINE ART* 05-26-94 10:26:11 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16681 (TOPOLOGICAL MYTHS) Did you intend to make this comment to me? I think that stories are important to getting at where art is coming from. If you want to end the Art & Death chatter fine with me. Just what topological myths are you looking to debunk? Msg#:16917 *FINE ART* 05-27-94 02:46:13 From: RAINER GANAHL To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16711 (TOPOLOGICAL MYTHS) david, see my reply under the subj. Judd and I still expect some responses to this subject: topological myths wasn't even Minimalism part of a topological myth, a hodology that ended in the museum, the corporate lobby and the great plaza (don't we also have sympathy with serra's one, that was destroyed)? wasn't it actually minimalism, that ended a certain rhethoric some of you seem to be so attracted to: stories, psychologies, pregnancies of meaning and sense inside and outside of "it"... isn't it actually minimalism, tahat first brought structuralism and relationsals thinking to the NY art world... (and isn't this somehow paradoxical if we remember, that some of the french structuralists lived during wolrd war II in NY .. levi strauss and alt... somehow even involved with surrealism that couldn't really be effective here in NY and had to go back to Paris) Msg#:16927 *FINE ART* 05-27-94 10:35:09 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16917 (TOPOLOGICAL MYTHS) Rainer, I'm a little confunsed with your post. It seems to me that art is at it's core about telling stories - thats where it all started didn't it? Think of any narrative sequence and it becomes a story. Even Duchamp was a story teller in his work, just think of the titles. Yes, you are right that minimalism was something of a departure from the convential story telling system. Judd may be a bit of a more narritive minimalist in that his works are sequential often (part, part, part) rather than a single mass of weight (Serra). Michael Freed wrote of minimalism as being theater, a stage set at which the people that move around the sculpture/painting become the players. I don't think so, though it is one way to look at it. Just because a strucutre is placed in an enviornment doesn't make it stage set. Msg#:17062 *FINE ART* 05-27-94 19:29:24 From: RAINER GANAHL To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16927 (TOPOLOGICAL MYTHS) > Rainer, I'm a little confunsed with your post. It seems to me that > art is at it's core about telling stories - thats where it all I am not so sure about this... and even if we could agree on "story telling" it doesn't have anything to do with what today is understood under "story telling" - but one shouldn't go too far back for origins, since this is a too dangerous passage, that only confuses, mystifies and distracts from the actuallity of an issue to be discussed and negotiated... I am still waiting for people who tell me their analytical "stories" Msg#:16682 *FINE ART* 05-26-94 01:05:29 From: RAINER GANAHL To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: CASE STUDIES JOOSEEFIIIINAAAA <*>Replies Msg#:16684 *FINE ART* 05-26-94 01:45:43 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16682 (CASE STUDIES) Rainer????? Msg#:16687 *FINE ART* 05-25-94 17:30:00 From: SABINE B. VOGEL To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: RE: TYPEWRITER/FONDS there's a *IBM*-fonds, looks exactly like a typewritten page. some so called subcultural, mostly low-budget-magazines use it, to get the cheap look from earliert - students-magazine? - times. Even some advertisings are using this fake-typewriter-style, although the whole layout is done - visibly done - by computer. Sabine Msg#:16688 *FINE ART* 05-25-94 17:42:00 From: SABINE B. VOGEL To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: COMP./TYPEWR. BS>Perhaps there could be a software that will automatically "age" BS>your print-outs. It would keep a record of when the file was before they should figure out a prg that keeps the monitor from aging... all the burned-in lines... --- CrossPoint v3.0 * Origin: Ding-Point (42:1002/2.3) Msg#:16689 *FINE ART* 05-25-94 17:46:00 From: SABINE B. VOGEL To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: ONE-TO-ONE-RELATION JC>With such typewriters there is always a one-to-one correspondence JC>between the letter and the finger that pushed it, attached to a JC>body. it's the same with a computer, it's just much much faster. writing-wise there isn't that much difference, especcialy not between the almost- computerized typewriters and computers. or do you wanna compare the old ones, where you needed a lot of power to push the buttons, with comp.? even the deleting isn't that much different - taking out the paper, throwing it away and using a new one or just delete the letters and start over again isn't a physical question. the _paper_ is blank, anyway. the big difference is moving blocks around - something you can *read* in much essays. but again: discussing this in terms of *body*, of phyical experiences a.s.o., doesn't make much sense for me. the connection between thinking and writing is a question of abilities, how fast you are., how well you know your machine etc. And discussing the differences in terms of the text-structure isn't a body-thing. JC>you hit the letter on the typewriter harder and you get a darker JC>letter (physicality can thus be read into the text)--or at least how old is your typewriter? my last one, from the 70s, didn't make any difference by such physical tries. Msg#:17529 *FINE ART* 05-30-94 02:30:29 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: JENNY HOLZER I liked the setting, it has an hypnotic quality that nailed me there for quite a while. If anything what I didn't find so good is the moral connotation in some of those phrases. <*>Replies Msg#:17533 *FINE ART* 05-30-94 08:21:32 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 17529 (JENNY HOLZER) I always thought that the Holzer's texts were her strong point and the presentation a gimick once it became electronic. I was quite bothered by the bones downstairs, feeling it was gratidious. Sure Holzer needs to move beyond the LED, but this was just too morbid for me. As for the works upstairs, it is a stunning environment, but to the determent of the text. Msg#:17601 *FINE ART* 05-30-94 18:59:16 From: JEFFREY SCHULZ To: GISELA EHRENFRIED (Rcvd) Subj: INTERFACES Response to message #17486 in (I)ntershop. I wasn't aware that Habitat was the topic of part of Sandy Stone's talk at Electrotecture as well. From the two times I've seen her, I think her work on industrial design has some *very* nice moments -- evocative, critical, engaging. The cartoonish interface of Habitat really makes me regard it as just that -- a caricature. Although it is important to acknowledge that the technologies are in the early stages, and that they might develop into something more substantial, I can't imagine being intrigued enough in that interface to get involved. The rudimentary and infantile character representations are likewise just uninteresting to me. Given the current tremendous interest in computer games, however, it seems that there is at least some kind of potential here. The problem that I have in general with the rhetoric that accompanies Habitat and other "virtual worlds" is that they are often regarded as the *only* manifestations of life in cyberspace. The largely computer-illiterate general population is awestruck and amused by the novelty of projects like Habitat, but they are often completely unaware that they themselves *already* exist in virtual spaces. This obliviousness of course contributes heavily to the fact that the politics of cyberspace continue to be swept under the carpet by pundits of what often turn out to be online utopias. The primary aspect of Sandra Braman's presentation that I found stimulating was her work on economics; and the shift that she regards as necessary in order for economics to be able to effectively deal with an information-based economy. (Her paper was titled "Alternative Approaches to Economics In and Of Cyberspace.") As others have also noted, and as I believe as well, the concept of equilibrium is becoming more and more suspect as a model with which to examine the economy -- if it *ever* was an effective model. Braman gave a nice historical summary of various alternative approaches to equilibrium, as well as a vigorous call for participation in defining an information-based world. Msg#: 672 *FINE ART* 06-14-94 01:11:31 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: JUDD O....! I want to read that. Haven't gotten hold of The Artforum yet. I already wanted to go back to Judd's writing after you mentioned *his way* at the meeting in Buenos Aires. You made it sound so funy! Of course I remember struggling through his articles with no end in sight... Now, are you calling this generation Fathers, why not? Make of them a dead father and there is the tomb (memories) and the mark(deep in the "body") to ex-ist them. <*>Replies Msg#: 680 *FINE ART* 06-14-94 09:06:04 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 672 (JUDD) That generation did want to be Fathers--they were somehow much more oedipal than we are, don't you think? Frank Stella could be a supporting character in a Nicholas Ray movie... Msg#: 685 *FINE ART* 06-14-94 13:14:10 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 680 (JUDD) Barry, I'm shocked! The only thing I would accuse Judd and others of his era would be a lot less tact (less gloss, less in tune with making things seem "nice") than younger artists. Really, I'm pressed of think of any artist that writes that _doesn't_ attempt "self-justification" through what they write. I do think that Judd wrote often muddled essays, that were often very tangential to what the "subject" was intended to be. As far as being fathers, they were offspring of the Ab. Ex.'s in particular Newman. Sure they will (if the haven't already by making the same objects over and over) die off, and we'll then wish for the death of who? Salle, Julian, and other slugs a more recent generation with larger than life egos? Msg#: 686 *FINE ART* 06-14-94 19:50:07 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 685 (JUDD) Salle, Schnabel et al at least don't claim omniscience or pretend that everything comes to end with THEM. That they're negligible artists is another thing... Msg#: 693 *FINE ART* 06-15-94 09:59:19 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 686 (JUDD) Say what? How many times did the dynamic duo (Salle/Schnabel) claim to be the greatest since sliced bread and/or sex. With Schnabel thinking (claiming) to be Picasso (not the next, but THE article). Salle isn't (or wasn't) as brash to claim the guise of Picasso, but I seem to recall that he did claim all but that crown too. But besides that, neither made great art (nor did either really write anyting - besides Schnabel's joke book CVJ. Back to Judd. I never heard or read Judd claim to that "everything comes to and end" with him. Sure Judd was very dogmatic and did claim, declare, his work to be _important_, but never the end all. [That he was very supportive of young artists, or little know artists always seems to be overlooked. Or that he was a champion of artists such as John Wesley to Oldenburg (and Roni Horn).] As I said when I opened this thread under the Art & Death title, what I miss about Judd is his outright commitment to what he was doing (that notion of "being true to oneself"). There was no middle ground with Judd, it was good or it was crap. Sure it's not how one should live a complete well-rounded life, but I do admire that drive. Ok he's dead and gone. The Guggenheim has to keep people from sitting (!!) on his sculpture at the top of the 6th ramp (people _are_ tired after climbing the ramps and _there's no place else to sit_). MOMA is said to have to wipe lipstick from his works every so often. LACMA keeps a scraweled sheet of paper on an Andre reading "Do not walk on the sculpture" (it's not that the artist cares it's that LACMA can't insure themselves agains people slipping and falling while standing on the work...) In the end, what? Msg#: 694 *FINE ART* 06-15-94 11:40:44 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 693 (JUDD) That essay is just awful. Couldn't they have unearthed something better for his last post? I approached it with an open mind, since I've never really read anything of his, but after the first paragraph, in which he states "the discussion of art is superstitious. There is no history", he launches into a muddled, repetitive, contradictory rambling that refutes that statement and many others--it becomes unbearably trite and childish, almost painful to read. It amounts to a last-ditch staking out of territory by a man who has clearly spent the last ten years with his head in a box. "There has been almost no discussion of space in art, nor in the present." Whoa! His text is peppered with such odd conflations and horribly ill-informed notions; statements like this just stop you dead in your tracks as you're trying to make a path through his logic, which belies at nearly every step the work over which he stands guard. I kept thinking, *when was this written?* since no date is indicated in the magazine; desperately looking for something to achor it in time, so I could give it more slack--after all, it must have been written quite some time ago!--I stopped dead when he quoted Clinton. CLINTON?! the 90s! I nearly fell off my chair. Nearly to the end, he suddenly realizes that he hasn't talked enough about color, and since he talks so much about the dependency of color and form, and color and space, and since "so much of this essay is about space"--*quelle surprise!*--he proceeds, in the home stretch, to pack in delirious ramblings about color, so completely unbearable that you have to slide through it, stunned, mouth agape, and then... you're almost there and... it just *ends* almost in mid-sentence, as if his pen or his Smith-Corona ran out of cadmium red light. It's so bewildering that you inadvertently turn the page looking for him. As Larry Bell informs us in his remembrance (for those who haven't read it, the article is interspersed with remembrances by Serra, Bell, Paula Cooper, Arne Glimcher, Wesley, Douglas Baxter, Rabinowitch, and Roni Horn, whose text is so bafflingly inane that you have to just sit there and stare at it in utter disbelief), he must be off "munching on some greasy pork sausage, of which there was always an abundant supply around his house." For some strange reason, it seems appropriate to think of Judd and meat. In his text, Bell tells a story of one night in the '60s when they were having dinner together at Max's Kansas City. Bell almost strangled on a piece of steak, and nearly knocked Judd off his seat as he ran to the bathroom. "After relieving my plugged throat of an obscence piece of meat," Bell returned to the table, "panting and quite ashen of color." (RAL 6000 Patinagruen?) Sipping his whiskey, Judd slowly looks up at him and says, "I told you I didn't like this place." Msg#: 695 *FINE ART* 06-15-94 14:17:19 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 694 (JUDD) Not to defend Judd's writing, but lighten up! For all of you who claimed that minimalism was dead because it showed no signs of life, get a grip. Believe it or not Judd though of his writing as an extention of his art - what the art lacked in apparent content his writing tried to make it up. If he wanted to talk about the war (pick one) he did it with his writing, not with his objects. As you pointed out his writings were all over the place, subject is nowhere to be found often because for him the subject was never a singular issue that was _unrleated_ to everything else in his life. For "fun" read his "Stanza for Panza" (if you can find a copy) which takes on the Count, the Guggenheim, MOMA, the US Gov., etc. The Horn piece in Artforum was a poem that she read at Judd's memorial service. Don't you have anything critical to say about the Serra essay too? Msg#: 706 *FINE ART* 06-16-94 21:55:26 From: CHRIS KRAMER To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 695 (JUDD) > Don't you just LOVE Focault? > "Stanza for Panza" (if you can find a copy) > makes my knees weak! Msg#: 713 *FINE ART* 06-17-94 10:55:10 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 695 (JUDD) Yikes! Horn's poetry is even worse than her writing. Msg#: 744 *FINE ART* 06-20-94 07:45:13 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 713 (JUDD) in Icelandic yet! Msg#: 673 *FINE ART* 06-14-94 01:12:39 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: CHRIS KRAMER (Rcvd) Subj: FRANCESCO CLEMENTE No Art? I thought this was only a day, if something. <*>Replies Msg#: 674 *FINE ART* 06-14-94 01:14:12 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: MICHAEL JOHNSTON (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 673 (FRANCESCO CLEMENTE) Thad bad?.... Anything that gets to reach the point of horror you describe makes me suspicious already... Msg#: 675 *FINE ART* 06-14-94 01:16:41 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 674 (FRANCESCO CLEMENTE) Those series of paperbacks are Vintage Books--Avedon Edtions. But we've also seen Salle and Clemente together in shows like the Recent Survey at MOMA, 1984 . Salle appeared to me, also Fischl, as the American response to the Italian transvanguardia, and to the Germans--Kieffer, Polke, and Salome--I think he was Swiss, and the English--Fetting, and so on... 195 works, and 165 artists. How many made it? Msg#: 681 *FINE ART* 06-14-94 09:09:38 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 675 (FRANCESCO CLEMENTE) Salle and Fischl are like Clemente in that their background is really in academicized (at least in the case of the Americans) conceptual work--photo installations and all that--but they tried to turn toward "painting." But to what extent is it possible to take their work seriously as painting? Msg#: 684 *FINE ART* 06-14-94 12:06:47 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 681 (FRANCESCO CLEMENTE) guesses...poking around...no idea what really makes him go..I have one of his little books on DeKooning quotes, cute thing..the man treads a fine line between phantasmagoria and psychobabble, has his lucid moments, is a good artist and a bad artist...at least he enjoys himself, missing ingredient in the puritannical revels of high purpose and earnest declamation, making sure there is the light of day between oneself and the abyss of schlock. Maybe that's it, his going where angels fear to tread, beating schlock at its own game, but his obsession with the mirror, seeing himself in everything, opposed to his alchemical fascination, th albedo, rubedo, the cauda pavonis...moment of transformation, transubstantiation, sublimation...Freud and Cocaine, the birth of psychoanlysis, in a society undergoing psychoanalysis in reverse...the loft, the lifestyle, displaced libido, fragmented ego ideal...chaos and reintegration...spam! Msg#: 688 *FINE ART* 06-14-94 23:17:18 From: CHRIS KRAMER To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 673 (FRANCESCO CLEMENTE) > We are all busy people, there is so much in the day that > competes for attention, that cries out for articulation. > I have tremendous respect for his ability to flip the same > basic idea over and over and over and over and over and keep > on going with it > Frankly I rather watch Mary Tyler Moore or some other drone > TV late at night when I can't sleep > What a paradox, I think I will have to go and make some art. Msg#: 698 *FINE ART* 06-16-94 01:46:47 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: CHRIS KRAMER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 688 (FRANCESCO CLEMENTE) Mary Tyler is excellent for imsonia in the sense that she may put you to sleep. But the next day, once you got to sleep enough, who wants to sit in front of the Television to watch Mary Tyler? The next day you'd rather see a nice art show… You are going to make art?...... Msg#: 699 *FINE ART* 06-16-94 01:48:33 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 684 (FRANCESCO CLEMENTE) Morgan I'm amazed at the flow of your speech. Nice idea about Clemente being a good and bad artist while enjoying himself. Also I like the question as to pose to the work of an artist, what do you enjoy? Of course that famous word "jouissance" may better do the job since it would as well include pain in that enjoyment, even the enjoyment of pain. The mirror yes, it's obsession with Clemente, talk about it in my article. Msg#: 700 *FINE ART* 06-16-94 01:50:43 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 681 (FRANCESCO CLEMENTE) They tryed? Clemente and Fischl are two of the most proliferous painters you can find. Also they both know how to draw--a natural gift? Let's say they are talented as you may say of an artist like Cheri Samba... how seriously can you take Cheri Samba, with a background in Zaire? I liked what Morgan said about Clemente being sometimes a good artist and sometimes a bad one, but always enjoying. Msg#: 701 *FINE ART* 06-16-94 01:56:40 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 681 (FRANCESCO CLEMENTE) I can see the generation of Stella and Judd like Fathers, yes. Not Clemente and Salle. Don't Stella and Judd go together with Oldenburgh, Andy Warhol, etc. even if they are different, when the scene was America for the Americans.? Clemente for instance is not "American born Italian," like De Kooning is Clemente is the intruder, with the whole transavanguardia, Germans and so on. What Clemente and Salle have in common is a *look*that has to do with impatiency. Not Judd, he could scream out of a hang-over, but that's different. Msg#: 702 *FINE ART* 06-16-94 10:40:11 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 699 (FRANCESCO CLEMENTE) yes, what does one enjoy and what does one enjoin, where is the hand open feeling the air rush between the fingers and where is the hand a closed fist. What doeas one have the strength to grasp and hold on to and what does one have the wisdom to release, to discharge from duty ? And the *anlage*, the inner order, tendency, pull towards, blueprint of oneself ? How does one enjoy, or enjoin this? The *drang*, the pushings against the wall, uterine contractions, leakings outwards ? Msg#: 705 *FINE ART* 06-16-94 21:53:34 From: CHRIS KRAMER To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 698 (FRANCESCO CLEMENTE) > What? Pot shots and lame art? > Painting functions as a stopping point within larger > socio-cultural constructs fueled by the circulatory dynamics of > the information economy. > Once you strip off all the nebulous and mystifying discourse > you're left with pigments on canvas. > Hmm...cool...look at that...next please... > The dominant question is how do we, co > inhabitants of an intellectual sphere, arrive at that which > matters, and distinguish it from the mental equivalent of potato > peeling? > Or maybe I'm just to young to find painting as an activity > intresting. Next one please........ Msg#: 709 *FINE ART* 06-17-94 01:09:20 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 702 (FRANCESCO CLEMENTE) You are giving two examples. See already the beauty in the image of the open hand... in its enjoin. Can we say that this image takes over, because of its enjoin taking on futher meaning, thus enjoin you? Opposite to it, the closed fist you enjoy, since there's no lust to it--in the way you write about it--no enjoin?. Did you make this word up? I'm already wanting to use it. Msg#: 712 *FINE ART* 06-17-94 10:50:15 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: CHRIS KRAMER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 705 (FRANCESCO CLEMENTE) I love these things that you do! They're really wonderful. Msg#: 715 *FINE ART* 06-17-94 11:33:09 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 709 (FRANCESCO CLEMENTE) no, *enjoin* has had a long usage in English. The legal term *injunction* is related to it. It means (briefly) to bind or proscribe, or to require some action. Authority is implied. Equals do not enjoin each other. Msg#: 1252 *FINE ART* 07-06-94 23:37:34 From: CHRIS KRAMER To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 712 (FRANCESCO CLEMENTE) > And, I got a dog. > Yours truly, Josef...we talk about the polish question later. Msg#: 721 *FINE ART* 06-17-94 23:11:06 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: SABINE B. VOGEL Subj: POP > DP>"Gee, they should have stopped years ago" - almost as bad, they > could > > that's something I just thought of Rauschenbergs work. god, how bad! > works > from '87 - '92. just nothing. sad. seems to be something which > happens to > most of the pop-art-artists. same with Wesselmann, Lichtenstein, Jim > Dine, > who all just recently showed their recent works in Germany. Now I What you say is generally correct--except that Lichtenstein does not belong on that list! He's had some tremendous lows in his career--but his most recent work, the interiors, are a real culmination of his career so far, and I'd even go so far as to say they could be the best work done in painting in the '90s. Rosenquist has done good work since the mid-'80s too, though not as good as Lichtenstein. <*>Replies Msg#: 731 *FINE ART* 06-18-94 16:29:35 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 721 (POP) Lichtenstein's interiors--at Castelli: "Interior With Yves Klein Sculpture", for instance, were absolutely lovely… But Lichenstein is bound to compete with himself. When at his retrospective--MOMA I stood looking at the drawings he was doing in the 60' I found them so beautiful!.... Lets say that you have the opportunity of choosing between one of these works and the interiors. What would you do? Msg#: 732 *FINE ART* 06-18-94 16:33:17 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 731 (POP) The retaining of the feeling outside--the coming back from the other in your equation--is what I like. But what would be the case when it comes to the gerund--present participle? Enjoying leaves things out. Msg#: 735 *FINE ART* 06-18-94 21:03:08 From: SKIP SNOW To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 721 (POP) You must be kidding. Msg#: 745 *FINE ART* 06-20-94 08:11:12 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 721 (POP) Lichtenstein is capable of a fierce wit ( I Can See The Whole Room And There's Nobody In It ) a decent sense of craft, and a strong reading of his culture. All the same, seeing his retrospective was a tedious and depressing experience. Along with his virtues comes a banal, grinding vacuity that had me reaching for the Elavil. It took days to shake the morosity that clung to me like a plastic wrapping after seeing that show. Why ? I wondered. Seeing the individual piece here and there had a refreshing clarity, bright and stripped to essentials. A spot free of the murk of life, a Dick Van Dyke show, smoking a joint while driving a stolen Mercedes Benz (the expensive model) over a cliff into the Pacific Ocean on a beautiful Summer day and swimming free as the carcass burbles to the seabed. But seeing them all together, lifestyle props stenciled with boring intellectual comedy, their diluted sense of purpose and necessity, I was transported instead to a smelly destruction derby, or maybe even more to the point, the scene in Herzog's *Even Dwarves Started Small* where a car is roped to a pole and all owed to drive itself around and around until it runs out of gas, and is eventually thrown down a cistern. A bouquet of nipples exploding in the martian sunset. Msg#: 756 *FINE ART* 06-22-94 02:59:51 From: GISELA EHRENFRIED To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: NEW ART MARKET Under the headline "A New Art Market," art commentator Carol Vogel reports in the June 10th issue of The New York Times of QVC's (the home shopping television channel) new program "Gallery Direct," and describes it as being aimed at "serious art collectors." In its debut broadcast photographs of Marilyn Monroe by photographer Bert Stern were offered and "television viewers shopped with a vengeance." QVC's senior vice president of merchandising is quoted as saying that "there's a real market for it. Art is our future." More than 175 prints of photos taken 6 weeks before Marilyn's death were sold in a two-minute spot (price range $380 to $7,900). I wonder how long it will take for Warhols and Lichtensteins, and so on, to show up on that circuit. Isn't that the _ultimate_ medium for the marketing of art objects. Faster than the galleries, but still "show and sell." <*>Replies Msg#: 758 *FINE ART* 06-22-94 10:27:33 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: GISELA EHRENFRIED (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 756 (NEW ART MARKET) I would contend that anything that can be sold in your local mall can be sold on TV. With all those Martin Lawrence Galleries splattered all around America, it makes perfect sense that QVC would begin to sell Warhol too - the question though is how long will it take until what's sold on QVC goes beyond what people are already familiar with (Marilyn or Andy). Will QVC take to time to educate their new found "art market"? Msg#: 759 *FINE ART* 06-22-94 12:11:25 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: GISELA EHRENFRIED (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 756 (NEW ART MARKET) this will work with a certain type of collector, and a certain kind of art, the kind that deserve each other. Msg#: 760 *FINE ART* 06-22-94 12:17:00 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 758 (NEW ART MARKET) you noticed how the Warhol estate is embroiled in litigation and on the verge of financial collapse ? The deadly side effect of telemarketing is that art will now be in a perpetual auction market. All the cachet, the price justifying smoke and mirrors of mythology maintenance, and other essential falsifications of the sausage machine will arrive at the level Karl marx described as "the second time around, a farce". There is beauty in this too, I don't see why the fine and excellent could not be exposed to the public in the same way? Msg#: 762 *FINE ART* 06-22-94 13:33:03 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 760 (NEW ART MARKET) I hope we get to a point (once again) where when we (the public) doesn't look at art and only see $$ and before asking what the title is what it's worth. Msg#: 763 *FINE ART* 06-22-94 15:11:29 From: GISELA EHRENFRIED To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 759 (NEW ART MARKET) What certain kind of collector and what certain kind of art are you thinking of, Morgan? Msg#: 764 *FINE ART* 06-22-94 15:29:41 From: GISELA EHRENFRIED To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 758 (NEW ART MARKET) They have to produce and release some Hollywood art/artists movies first, then market the product... you know, the Batman-Flyntstone strategy. Isn't Schnabel already on the case? Theo Altenberg, the former Culture Minister of Otto Muehl (the Austrian actionist/artist/commune leader) is producing a movie with Albert Oehlen in the role of Hilter (would be a very strange marketing strategy, I must say). And isn't Salle doing it? And who else? Msg#: 765 *FINE ART* 06-22-94 16:04:06 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: GISELA EHRENFRIED (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 764 (NEW ART MARKET) G, I beg to differ! Hollywood is littered with "artworld" movies that had market potential. I list some below that come to mind: 9 1/2 Weeks Kim B. as an art dealer Legal Eagles D. Hanna as artist Body of Evidence Madonna as art dealer 6 Deg. of Seperation Art collectors chat about Kandinsky Lust for Life Kirk Douglas as van Gough Batman (I) Kim B. as photographer Gorillas in the Mist Produced by Arne G. (but w/o art) [untitled] new movie being filmed by Arne G. [untitled] new movie being filmed by Julian S. [untitled] new movie being filmed by David S. [untitled] [? new movie being filmed by Robert Longo] Arena Brains by Robert Longo Love Boat guest star was Andy Warhol Stand By Me plot twist at the Guggenheim Hanna and Her Sisters major character was a painter L.A. Stories steve martin skates in LACMA New York Stories Nick Noltie as artist [forgot the title] with Dennis Hopper and Jodie Foster (who is an artist a la Jenny Holzer...) Msg#: 769 *FINE ART* 06-23-94 07:29:37 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 765 (NEW ART MARKET) a generic cool activity to do in big cities and be cultured... Msg#: 772 *FINE ART* 06-23-94 10:59:54 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 765 (NEW ART MARKET) Do you actually keep records of this kind of thing? Msg#: 773 *FINE ART* 06-23-94 11:17:44 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: GISELA EHRENFRIED (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 756 (NEW ART MARKET) Would anyone like to do a video of a QVC prototype? We could do it as a Thing project, for public tv. We can do it as a talk show, or just endorsements, bring on some artists, critics. Could be lots of fun. I'd like to be a Bob Barker-like host, with a hairsprayed wig. We can have bad hand models caress and fondle the artworks. Frantic call-in testimonies. Msg#: 774 *FINE ART* 06-23-94 11:42:10 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 772 (NEW ART MARKET) Well, yes and no. Susan (my wife) and I do keep mental notes about the movies we see that have an art twist to them. Mostly we like to see just how dumb the artworld look when reflected through Hollywood. I seem to have forgotten that art was involved in two of the Beverly Hills Cop movies (Ed's girlfriend in first movie worked in a gallery - in the second [which I didn't see] I think there was an evil gallery owner]). Also a J. Irons movie has a sequence that included a crazed artist that makes surigical instruments for Irons (Irons plays twins...can't recall title...). Anyhow, with the right movie I'm sure there would be art marketing bonazzas. Maybe someting like the Mark Kostabi Story (my fictional horror movie) or one of the Jackson Pollock movies said to be in production... Msg#: 777 *FINE ART* 06-23-94 12:34:59 From: CLAIRE JERVERT To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 773 (NEW ART MARKET) Love your idea for a QVC prototype with hands caressing the art works. Makes me all tingley - just a thought. I don't do video, but photo stills of TV recontextualized. Could be my next piece. Ha Ha. Msg#: 782 *FINE ART* 06-24-94 10:21:54 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 774 (NEW ART MARKET) "art", the mass idea of art, vs. specific art, must have piles of archetypical resonances tha Jung would be fascinated with. I think there is a archetype called "The Magical Realm", loosely related to one called "The Herb Of Immortality" (that gets constellated in much psychological drug addiction behavior). This Magical Realm has a lot of Eden business going for it..a place of pure freedom, of the pure expression of oneself, transcending mortal problems, never being bored, always fulfilled and psychically rich and enriching. Of course Heavens have their Lucifers ( as the art dealer in Beverly Hills Cop 2 ) or else they become static. An old Catholic buddy, Brother George Searles, feels that Lucifer is an essential figure, for without him, no struggle, ro religion. And "Art" is a powerful attractor of religious impulses today as it often was for sexual impulses whenj religion held the high ground. During the Great Depression so many movies were made depicting a world free of economic stress, an escape place for miserable people. Perhaps in our fantasises we can offer "Art" as a place to escape from the depersonalization and regimentation of common life? Msg#: 783 *FINE ART* 06-24-94 10:26:01 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 773 (NEW ART MARKET) I really like this idea...its so info-kinky...maybe we can find a double knit polyester leisure suit with contrast stitching..This is fantastic...we really should do it..worse than just corny...appalling...but well enough produced...the crappiest art we can find!! A MUST!!! Msg#: 785 *FINE ART* 06-24-94 11:51:34 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 783 (NEW ART MARKET) Yes, and the most lurid colors! I think it would be great. I talked to someone about it who said that he knows someone, the night bartender at Jerry's, who does a public tv thing and is always looking for new stuff. Also this guy was over here the other day who does a thing called 'gallery beat' where he goes to galleries with a hand-held camera. He seems to have the sensibility that would love it, and help us get on too. Somebody else said that we would have no problem at all getting a half hour on. We could have the most god-awful stuff fondled and fawned upon, but also good stuff that most people wouldn't think was good. We could have Karen Kilimnik do something and interview her. She would be great. The whole thing would be so corny, so over the top, that it would be good performance art. Lots of people could come on in cameos. There's an enormous pool of good young talent who would really get into it. The great thing about it is that it would be artists appropriating this structure, and turning it around. Msg#: 786 *FINE ART* 06-24-94 12:16:25 From: GISELA EHRENFRIED To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 783 (NEW ART MARKET) It reminds me of one of the "Potatoe Wolf" cable TV shows - or was it the "After Art" television journal by Wolfgang and some friends? - a monthly public access TV series produced by Collaborative Project artists in the early 80's. One of the artists, Jo Shane, offered in a 5-min. clip two retro-futuristic art objects, which could also function as coffee table and space devider screen. The elegant host, the seductive voice, the dramatic lighting and, most of all, the very well written script - I think it was by Blackhack - turned rather crappy stage props into the ultimate object of desire. Have to look at the tapes again! But now, artists like Longo, Schnabel, Salle, Oehlen (see David's list) represented top galleries (Metro Pictures, Pace, Gagosian, Hetzler,...) turn to Hollywood and QVC turns to art. Could be a combination where art gets marketed as memorabilia, rather than just being stage props. No? Msg#: 788 *FINE ART* 06-24-94 12:21:24 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 782 (NEW ART MARKET) Not to take a tangent that's so far from the tree that we're no longer on the topic of the "new art market", but...it is said that art should aspire to the highest ideal(s) of the times and thus certain "isms" work wonderfully for the moments in which they were crafted. Ab. Exp-ism was about the chaos of the end of the 40s and the new stability of the early 50s. Pop was reaction to the calm of the 50s and 60s. Conceptual/Minimal about the dullness of the 60s/70s and Neo Geo about fast consumerism of the 80s. Its all so neat and tied (and very simplistic! Smirk.) But about the "new art market" - the problem is if art is a reaction to the moment, then it's only going to be understood by the masses as reactionary and absorbed in retrospect. Besides, could you see QVC selling anything that doesn't have some sort of star qualtiy of anything beyond National Enquirer status? Msg#: 789 *FINE ART* 06-24-94 12:22:10 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 783 (NEW ART MARKET) Mark Kostabi is waiting. Msg#: 790 *FINE ART* 06-24-94 12:22:55 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 785 (NEW ART MARKET) Mark Kostabi is still waiting. Msg#: 791 *FINE ART* 06-24-94 12:29:31 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: GISELA EHRENFRIED (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 786 (NEW ART MARKET) I don't think these guys (Julian, Robert, David, etc.) will be the breakthrough men to make art for QVC. We'll have to wait for people who make art _for_ that medium. People that understand that there has to be a popular twist to what they make in order to meet that market. Remember that QVC does something like $100,000 in sales per minute, not only is that huge turnover, but large understanding of what is being sold. People understand clothing, scents, knives, and all that other jazz thats being sold on QVC just as they understand Marilyn Monroe (which is what they were selling) - that it was "art" that was the so called medium (support surface) is very secondary to the picture. Msg#: 797 *FINE ART* 06-24-94 16:42:42 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 785 (NEW ART MARKET) RIGHTEOUS!!!! Msg#: 798 *FINE ART* 06-24-94 16:43:08 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 790 (NEW ART MARKET) thanx but no thanx Msg#: 799 *FINE ART* 06-24-94 16:44:36 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: GISELA EHRENFRIED (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 786 (NEW ART MARKET) the possibilities sound very tempting...deliciously trashy Msg#: 800 *FINE ART* 06-24-94 16:46:01 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 785 (NEW ART MARKET) glorious mediocrity...how pretty...how nice Msg#: 809 *FINE ART* 06-25-94 11:15:30 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 788 (NEW ART MARKET) on further thought about what you are saying here...there is a great convergence at work, and marketing strategy is what it is all about. Basquiat, in my humble opinion, was an atrocious, wretchedly bad artist, as was Warhol. Both however, had their moments when they expressed a social essentiality, Warhol with his exploration of voyeurism and sadism in the Disaster series, and Basquiat with cultural "nigger fascination". The areas they open up are not so easy to deal with in the clean and pretty, so they have to de o so delicately waltzed around. But still, Warhol and Basquiat worked exquisitely with the marketing system, so Gagosianable. The hunger for defanged exotica is great, and that is central to the art marketing paradigm. Lower down the totem pole your market will require recapitulations of the familiar, John Wayne plates, Elvis and Jesus knick knacks, posters of cars and sophomoric mythic episodes, like silicone inflated Barbie(r) Dolls brandishing swords and flying on winged horses is the service of Rumplemintz(r) (blech) schnapps and all the glorification of nothingness. The Kostaboids of the world, LeRoy Neiman, Peter Max (has anyone examined the phallic implications of this dudes moniker?), attempt to work, with varying success, the blurry zone between these two worlds. But, i betcha, that's where the convergence is taking place, the netherworld of haut-crapola. Msg#: 810 *FINE ART* 06-25-94 12:21:31 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 809 (NEW ART MARKET) One of the best art show that I never saw but was presented was the LeRoy Neiman/Andy Warhol show at LA ICA (I think around 1981). I will forever be kicking myself for not seeing it and worse yet not getting the catalogue. Along the same lines was a wonderful (horid) interview with Andy walking through the John Singer Sargent show at the Whitney around 1986. I think your on to something though I think it was what Warhol too recognized, that stars sell and superstars sell even better. Maybe the best star being a dead one. Msg#: 813 *FINE ART* 06-25-94 14:59:18 From: TOM THULEN To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 809 (NEW ART MARKET) IT SEEMS, UNFORTUNATELY, THAT TALENT TAKES A BACK SEAT TO WHO YOU KNOW. BRIGHT COLORS, A SNAPPY TITLE AND A GOOD MARKETER. Msg#: 814 *FINE ART* 06-25-94 18:17:27 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: TOM THULEN (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 813 (NEW ART MARKET) Its a game that has levels; glamour, contacts, incessant schmoozing, a capacity for emotional artificiality, a certain gift for guaging public response, skills, in other words, but probably not the ones you value. Msg#: 829 *FINE ART* 06-27-94 15:57:05 From: CAROL BROAD To: TOM THULEN (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 813 (NEW ART MARKET) IS THAT WHY YOU ARE WRITING IN HEADLINES? Msg#: 837 *FINE ART* 06-29-94 10:31:42 From: TOM THULEN To: CAROL BROAD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 829 (NEW ART MARKET) No, my caps lock key just happened to be engaged. Msg#: 843 *FINE ART* 06-29-94 16:40:33 From: GISELA EHRENFRIED To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 837 (NEW ART MARKET) The Knowledge Navigator is back, this time for real! The article "Japanese Put a Human Face on Computers" by Andrew Pollack in yesterday's New York Times says that "driving the move toward using the _face_ as the interface is the development of so-called agents, which are computer programs designed to act as personal assistants. While existing agents now possess only primitive abilities, in the future it is envisioned that they will be able to act on their own, fetching data from a database, sifting through a person's electonic mail for important messages and arranging appointments. It would be only natural for such a human-like assistant to be given a personality by having a face, perhaps of the user's favorite actress or actor,..." Terrifying, but... Now, the _NEW NEW_ art market will probably more look like that: the digitalized favorite face one selects is searching databases for electronic art (or art objects, but who needs all those clunky things)... according to your taste buds or maybe adjusted to the franchised taste buds of Madonna or Larry Gagosian or you name it. Or, it is collecting databases which are art, like the electronic version of the "Museum for the Future" Archive, for example. Buying and selling is via digital money and the face gets some liberty of doing so autonomously for lower price items. Of course, if you want to do your own shopping, you will also encounter one of those perfect _faces_ as sales persons, instead of having to deal with the rather unsuccessfully altered monstrous looking real face of a Joan Rivers. Is _this_ the ultimate medium for art (or its Fine?)? Msg#: 856 *FINE ART* 06-30-94 10:26:08 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: GISELA EHRENFRIED (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 843 (NEW ART MARKET) even stranger, but of medical value, is a tool now being introduced to anaesthesiology, called a "face". A camera scans the face of the patient,w ho during surgery has to be brought into a state resembling a controlled coma. As a result, the facial expressions of the typical patient are minute compared to what they would be in a normal, waking state person. However, even under anaesthesia, ones face does display an number of microexpressions, very subtle echos of normal grimaces, smiles, and so forth. As an aid to understanding if the patient is adequately medicated, undermedicated, or approaching a critical level of overmedication Msg#: 857 *FINE ART* 06-30-94 10:29:26 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: GISELA EHRENFRIED (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 843 (NEW ART MARKET) I'm not so sure that we'll see digital art as you described anytime soon. Video, which was claimed to be the medium of the moment (since the early 70s) just has never tookoff from a sales point of view. What it did spawn was Stupid Pet Tricks, that's about it. [Wegman was a hit on early Letterman shows, and the rest is history.] People expect art to have physical properties (touch and feel) it's all part of that nasty craft aspect aspect of art. Someday the technology will catch up and we will have those wall screenes that we can project our art upon (taken (bought or rented) from art databanks). In the meantime people will have to change their preceptions about what they expect from art. It would be a sad day when this cool technology becomes just another way to splash beer posters in teenagers rooms, or lame reprints of Michael Heizer paintings (one of the most popular art posters) over the bed. Msg#: 859 *FINE ART* 06-30-94 10:33:46 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 856 (NEW ART MARKET) continuation of last post...so a computer analyses the subtle facial expressions from the patient, and amplifies them thousands of times, and the operator of the anaesthetic supply watches the virtual face for signs of pain, comfort, or blankness (that might indicated overdosage). This technique promises to reduce error vastly, and hopefully promote higher recovery rates without post-op complications. From the standpoint of all and everything, it means that there is better face generating stuff out there, and good pseudo-face are undoubtedly right around the corner. The impact on the young will be incredible, a whole shift in socialization processes, and art will have to make use of it as well. Instead of sculptures or paintings, artists will program personalities. Instead of owning a DeKooning, get DeKooning, and when he gets to drunk, hit Alt-F4. Msg#: 866 *FINE ART* 06-30-94 13:14:54 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 859 (NEW ART MARKET) Drunk DeKooning? Hit CTRL+ALT+DEL. [Someone should have done this 10 years ago.] Msg#: 874 *FINE ART* 06-30-94 15:30:26 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 866 (NEW ART MARKET) har! give 'em the boot. Msg#: 876 *FINE ART* 06-30-94 16:01:41 From: GISELA EHRENFRIED To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 859 (NEW ART MARKET) Remember the "Average President" or the "Average American Beauty," digitized faces by artist Nancy Burson? She made a series of works in the mid 80's were she superimposed for example four presidents' faces (Kennedy, Reagan, blahblahblah, forgot) or four American beauties' (Marylin Monroe, Liz Taylor, and so on), with very stunning results. According to tests in Japan (again), "average" facial features seem to be an important characteristic for beauty, there at least. This and a beautiful (average?) voice will probably be very important when it comes to electronic corporate representatives and sales people, while personal agents we were talking about earlier might look wild and crazy. How would yours look like , Morgan? Msg#: 890 *FINE ART* 07-01-94 00:28:54 From: STEPHEN PUSEY To: GISELA EHRENFRIED (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 876 (NEW ART MARKET) This brings to mind the dilemma of our nomadic salesman awhile back in the Intershop forum. It occurred to me at the time that a tech wiz salesman would just slip one of them new-fangled soft agents into the system and off it would go, bouncing around the net, making his deals and interviews, perhaps even creating some necessity for insurance on the way. Imagine, he could also endow this agent with his own personality, creating a virtual doppleganger, add his portfolio too and have the whole package pop out of hypertext messages like some evangelical born-again Max Headroom. It would be logical for this virtual Insurance Agent to spawn clones of itself and automatically despatch them to more addresses, eventually to reappear on the original salesman's notebook while he is sunning himself on a porch in Port Antonio, Jamaica, replete with ganja spliff and politely inform him that he has now been made totally redundant; also that his Smart house has been infiltrated by a virus (a little extension of the agent) and is in danger of exploding within ten days, but taking out a hefty new insurance policy might just avert (but certainly cover) such a calamity. All this related by an amiable, optimistic, digital head and shoulders, radiating beneficence. The Ultra Salesman with your best interest at heart. "We know what's good for you and we are going to ensure you buy it." Actually, these agents are already in employ; I believe Microsoft's "Intellisense" packaged with Word 6.0 is a type of soft-ware agent. What interests me is their latent possibilities as art forms. If they can retrieve they can deliver. Imagine an agent which was programmed with "emotions". Its interaction with your responses would be essentially unstable. It might even take offense and demonstrate its ill humour by showing you something rather unpleasant. Or reward your wit with visual or informational riches that it had acquired on its wanderings around the Net. Its visual repertoire would encompass all the achievements of humankind, from its most horrific and brutal acts to its greatest and sublime creations. It would therefore be capable of frightening you to death or transporting you to rapturous ecstasy, depending on its whim and the swing of the dialogue. Through this interaction you may glean an understanding of the cosmos and the cultural dimensions that you are heir to. Don an electrode headband/VR helmet and the whole of history could be delivered with such emotive impact that (given that your cerebrum is not utterly frazzled at this point) all of time becomes equivalent to the sensations of the present. A "Slaughter House Five" syndrome of parallel realities experienced simultaneously. And your worst media nightmare: while you are twitching on your ergonomic couch in the throes of virtual experiences, your agent companion may be planting subliminal messages in your central cortex, compulsive desires for certain commodities, surreptitiously creating the model consumer. Then of course you might wonder, if you still could, who is served by this interaction, who and what is being fashioned and by whom. Msg#: 904 *FINE ART* 07-01-94 13:11:26 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: GISELA EHRENFRIED (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 876 (NEW ART MARKET) I'd morph Michaelangelo's Moses with Don Knotts and give it a Japenese accent with some Togolese inflections... Msg#: 905 *FINE ART* 07-01-94 13:15:25 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: STEPHEN PUSEY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 890 (NEW ART MARKET) I used to hallucinate events like the ones you propose here. Are we moving in the direction of hallucinatory reality, where tripping is more real than the real...like artificial flavors tasting so much more like the foods they are intended to resemble (in a gross, chem-lab way) that the real things taste off flavor and alien? Msg#: 929 *FINE ART* 06-26-94 07:15:00 From: FELIX BERNOULLY To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 905 (NEW ART MARKET) > [forgot the title] with Dennis Hopper and Jodie Foster (who is an > artist a la Jenny Holzer...) christ! can't (won't) remember the title either. made my VCR smell for a week! btw the "artwork" stuff they used _was_ J.H. AFAI remember Msg#: 1303 *FINE ART* 07-07-94 19:48:02 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: GISELA EHRENFRIED (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 843 (NEW ART MARKET) I would like to introduce the Parangole, created by the late Brazilian artist Helio Oiticica, and some related ideas. He is an artist quite unknown in this country, whose work is very relevant to our concerns here on TT. I offer it as a constructive possibility for discussion. "The creation of the [Parangole] raised not only the question of considering a 'cycle of participation' in the work, i.e., that the spectator both 'watches' it and 'wears' it as part of a complete vision, but also of tackling the problem of the work in space and time--as if it were no longer 'located' in relation to these phenomena, but a 'magical experience' of them." (Helio Oiticica) The Parangole is a soft, wearable structure that resembles a tent, banner, or cape, made of layers of brighly-colored material that moves with the body and reveals itself in the act of movement. It necessitates direct corporeal participation, requiring that the body moves, walks, dances. Weaving together Oiticica's sense of color-structure, socio-environmental structure, poetics, dance, and textuality, the Parangole initiates a relation between watching and wearing, action and passivity, embodiment and environment, forming a "cycle of participation" in the work that becomes the work. The Parangole is embodied "structure-action": the relation between movement and structure, visible in terms of the body or bodies and in the social networks that they inhabit--indeed, in the *processes of inhabiting* social space. The Parangole, then, does not exist as an object, but constitutes a fluid, mediating element, through which one seeks to uncover the "direct perceptive moulding" of socio- environmental structure--"structure-action" in space. Its form is not resolute but wavering, held in tension, poised at the divisions of "inter-corporeal" space, whose mechanics and dynamics it reveals, however fleetingly, like the soft rush of a shadowy figure as it crosses the periphery of vision. The Parangole is not synthetic, but marks a kind of resistance: as Oiticica writes, it appropriates its "objective-constituent elements upon embodying itself, upon forming itself in its realization." Operating as a permeable, networked border, connected through feedback-fields and existing in terms of them, it both translates and is formed by, following Walter Benjamin, the "untranslatable"--the resistant elements of translation. That which "resists" translation forms the textual surface (language); that which allows translation--that which passes through and dissolves the textual surface--forms the exchange-relation (economy). The surface of the Parangole, then, constitutes what I call a translate: a surface that hovers in tension between, a boundary simultaneously located and blurred. Establishing "perceptive-structural relations" between body-movement and environmental structure, the Parangole, correspondingly, relates speech to language. As Michel de Certeau suggests in his formulation of the "pedestrian speech act," the act of walking is to the environmental system what the speech act is to language. Weaving a "space of enunciation," the Parangole establishes a "mobile organicity" in the environment, a sequence of phatic *topoi*. It is useful then, to consider its function in the relation between physical and informational space--"real" space and "virtual" space--and in the construction of the subjective, social, and environmental conditions of cyberspace. In this sense the Parangole can also mediate a traversal of corporeal space and information space (an interstitial, inter-corporeal space), as it does with the relationships among embodied subjects and the structures of objective relations, the self and the other, the social and the environmental. In telecommunicational space, the Parangole can operate as a mobile interface, allowing an extended subjectivity--mediating relation between embodiment and its associated "I." The static idea of the interfacial surface, or what Rainer Ganahl calls the interfacial passage, cedes to a flowing, relativized, translate: the unified surface is made disjunct, cascading in folds like Benjamin's royal robe, spilling out into the cloth of the Parangole, while simultaneously whisked back in, held in dynamic tension, oscillating between real and constructed space, allowing passage while foregrounding the hybridity and contradictoriness of same. In this sense the Parangole pulls one through the computer window--or rather, pulls associated subjectivity from the body--and positions an alternate site of agency or point of view (POV) within the telecommunicational environment, which interpenetrates with the "real" one. Movement of this POV, agent-icon, or extended subjectivity constitutes a kind of walking-speech, a process very suggestive within the context of object-oriented telecommunicational worlds such as MUDs or MOOs, as such environments are built through discursive codes: one walks by typing (saying) that one is walking, and other participants connected to such an environment "watch" one walking by reading that statement, which activizes/produces the movement. "If it is true that a spatial order organizes an ensemble of possibilities (e.g., by a place in which one can move) and interdictions (e.g., by a wall that prevents one from going further), then the walker actualizes some of these possibilities. In that way, s/he makes them exist as well as emerge. But s/he also moves them about and...invents others, since the crossing, drifting away, or improvisation of walking privilege, transform, or abandon spatial elements...In the framework of enunciation, the walker constitutes, in relation to his/her position, both a near and a far, a *here* and a *there*. To the fact that the adverbs *here* and *there* are the indicators of the locutionary seat in verbal communication...we must add that this location (here--there) (necessarily implied by walking and indicative of a present appropriation of space by an 'I') also has the function of introducing an other in relation to this 'I' and of thus establishing a conjunctive and disjunctive articulation of places..." (Michel de Certeau) [feminine pronouns added] A layered Parangole effect is produced, generating what Oiticica called a "collective-participation Parangole": a totality of inter-corporeal space, within which the work unfolds, which constitutes it and of which it is constitutive. Watching becomes wearing becomes watching becomes wearing, a cyclical, configurative network, generating "intermediate phases" of "watching-wearing": donning a Parangole, the subject sees a self or an"other," dressed in another work, and so on, a stacking or windowing of subject-object relations. The body moves within the Parangole moves within environment moves within environment: between the embodied subject, walking-speech, "architecture parlante" (Ledoux) and the objects within, emerge complex biological feedback loops, which criss-cross the borders of "real" and constructed spaces, weaving a liminal inter- corporeality. Msg#: 1335 *FINE ART* 07-08-94 12:15:15 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1303 (NEW ART MARKET) you should mention this to Calvin Klein Msg#: 1359 *FINE ART* 07-08-94 18:42:34 From: TOM THULEN To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1335 (NEW ART MARKET) IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S TO MUCH MATERIAL INVOLVED FOR C.K. Msg#: 1376 *FINE ART* 07-08-94 22:23:05 From: COLIN GOLDBERG To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1303 (NEW ART MARKET) is the art in the concept or the explanation ? Has art like this provided fodder for the Morley Safers of the world ? It seems that there is so much intellectual intention here , that the art becomes isolated from the viewer, buffered by philosophy, so to speak. Designer philosophy. I bet I could construct an entire rhetoric on the weathering processes used to age Ralph Lauren clothing (simulated coffee stains ?!) but would it be any less or more legitimate ? Curious. Msg#: 1407 *FINE ART* 07-09-94 12:42:13 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: COLIN GOLDBERG (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1376 (NEW ART MARKET) > Designer philosophy. I bet I could construct an entire rhetoric on > the weathering processes used to age Ralph Lauren clothing > (simulated coffee stains ?!) but would it be any less or more > legitimate ? Curious. Of course it would be as legitimate. It's a matter of taking the time to think about it. However if you apply it to fashion, then you *do* have "designer philosophy." If you apply it to art, then you have something else: your intention is to get beyond those surface mechanisms into something deeper. The "weathering process" can yield a wealth of material, for its speaks of the mechanisms of time and the nostaglia industry, the compression of history into product, techniques of advertising and of the body (to "fit" the clothes), etc., etc. It's a matter of taking the time to do it and wanting to do it. Wanting to do this does not feed the Morley Safers of the world--it's not wanting to do it that does. To reduce what I'm talking about to Calvin Klein or Ralph Lauren style (without using the techniques of style in terms of art) is Saferesque and lazy and undermines our own reasons for artmaking. On The Thing we have the opportunity to develop substantive work beyond this--our work can be among the best, forging new pathways across the real- and info- spaces particular to our moment. If we choose to talk about R.L. or C.K. or Lichtenstein or Salle like we do then we are not doing anything significant at all. Msg#: 1410 *FINE ART* 07-09-94 12:55:28 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: TOM THULEN (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1359 (NEW ART MARKET) designer philosophy; exactly. Often in reality infomercial patter disguised as neutral observation. Always keep in mind that academia is, among many other things, an industry, and the only product it has are ideas. This leads to a perversity...new (or new seeming, new sounding) concepts must be continuously manufactured and marketed in order to give a patina of legitimacy to what would otherwise be mental wheel spinning. Not that good work is impossible, as is also the case with the arts proper. It is simply that it isn't enough that the conceptualization or the art be good, it must be marketable, and infused with the aroma of a fascinating personality behind it; a dash of guru, a pinch of existential hero, mildly notable sartorial panache, an instinct for the correct controversy+ a speck of righteous rage (when called for), often a somewhat doughy and convictionless center plastered over with the fashionabilities of the moment... in short, a good sales rep for the product. Now, keep in mind a product, the benefits of which are far from immediately obvious, will need a keen advocate, a comforting and confident sophist, bland and accomplished, to make its immanent merits discernable to the insecure and unwashed. Voila! Swarms of PhD.s in non-remunerative disciplines, getting soft around the edges and looking down a dark passage to a day job bagging groceries at the D'Agostino's, find a convenient niche (and a degree of shelter from a repulsively grubby and unread world that could give two damns for Derrida and all his clones) flakking the genius of the hour. Even Bernard Berenson, once considered above reproach, is now known to have abbetted many a forgery passed off by Duveen, the greatest art dealer of his day (and the conduit by which much of the major paintings in New York came to be here... and by major I am not talking about Julian Schnabel or anything with nuking distance of him). For my next piece, I am having contact lenses manufactured with dollar signs on them, surely they will be all the rage... Msg#: 1412 *FINE ART* 07-09-94 13:11:18 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1407 (NEW ART MARKET) of course, you are right in your own way, and make a cogent counterpoint to my grouchy polemic, however, its how you talk about (and unpack the conceptual life of what you've got under the microscope) any designer, or art that makes the difference. Nostalgia can be seen as a desire to protect and appreciate the excellences of the past, or it can be an infantile clinging to a secure memory of how good it was, way back then. The fascination with Lichtenstein can be an identification with America at its imperial hight, that brief moment before we began to sink under the weight of our contradictions. Roy (the king) offers the cheeziest possible Eden, an immaculate tackiness free of all care. The question might be, why do people buy into this vision with so little reflection ? Perhaps for the same reason that a celebrity that one knows next to nothing about is preferable to the gnarly old dude that lives in your broomcloset. Blonsky went into this at some length, the Vanna phenomenon, the public need for a blank screen to project its contents onto. Msg#: 1414 *FINE ART* 07-09-94 13:22:06 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1410 (NEW ART MARKET) Holy Ayn Rand lenses! Morgan, your argument as usual is very seductive and you score many punches. But if you stand back from it a bit it's another story. If this is indeed how you picture it, then what alternative do you propose (besides burying art altogether)? Is art to somehow hover heavenlike outside the market mechanisms? And for whom are the dollar-sign lenses intended? Msg#: 1416 *FINE ART* 07-09-94 13:43:45 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1412 (NEW ART MARKET) Yes, precisely, it's how you talk about it that makes a difference. But the *how* of talking about it, in that indepth way, is a kind of artmaking, an employing of art's investigative mechanisms into the production of meaning. In this way, art is a way of uncovering the *social relationships* that comprise the fetish object, that, following Marx, it obscures. Msg#: 1430 *FINE ART* 07-09-94 17:08:35 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1416 (NEW ART MARKET) Quite complex, the fetish object obscures in as much as it shines--Freud talks of this shine of the fetish. But I want to follow your thought... Are you saying that the social relationships comprise a hole that the *how--art making*, a fetish, covers? In other wrods, are you saying the *how--art making* is a fetish? Msg#: 1441 *FINE ART* 07-09-94 19:51:31 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1416 (NEW ART MARKET) in reply to both points, sort of... Churchill was fond of saying that democracy was the worst governmental system, except for all the others that had been tried. The same could be said of what we are getting our minds around here, that it is a humanly imperfect response to an impure and imperfect world, and that to expect saintly purity isn't realistic, never was, and never will be. That's more where I really stand in the matter. Sometimes I take an extreme or unalloyed position to chip away at the subject with all the focus I can muster in the few minutes I am pecking out these epistles of rectified wisdom. On the other hand, we need to be blunt about realities that infuse and shape they way we think, what we value, the forms of beings we become, and what we would shun and ignore. Intellectuals (or pretenders to the title) aren't likely to be spun of any finer thread than anyone else, neither are they any less prone to the pressures, anxieties, divided allegiences, night sweats, petty passions, neurotic revulsions, blatant favoritism, bad digestion, or sexual phantasmagoria than anyone else. Anyone who has spent much time around either lawyers or doctors, not to mention politicians, will immediately be conscious that noone has the patent on psychobable, self serving, unhinged, or otherwise. What does strike me as noxious, however, and something which could be done better than, is a kind of expression that manages to be at once patronizing, evasive, hyperbolic, clotted, clubbish, and toadying. Msg#: 1442 *FINE ART* 07-09-94 19:53:21 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1430 (NEW ART MARKET) maybe a meta fetish? A fetish fetish? A feta sandwich? Fetch my whip, Beulah ! Msg#: 1449 *FINE ART* 07-10-94 00:21:08 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1442 (NEW ART MARKET) Morgan, are you whipping us out of the Temple? Msg#: 1451 *FINE ART* 07-10-94 11:00:31 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1449 (NEW ART MARKET) Jesus, would I do a thing like that ? Whipping up awareness, letting the scales fall from the eyes, perhaps yes. As I said, there is room for good work, and there is good work. We ought to have a clear sense of which side of the street is being worked, though. If, for instance, you listen to Canadian radio, or read some of the cultural publications that come from Canada, you will be struck by how much more room there is up in the frozen North for cultural critique. They are sensitized to domination from U.S. culture, and make an effort to discern the actual motives behind a media campaign is ways that simply don't happen here in the land of the Free. Then, they have the internal schism of Anglo and French culture as well, and have a second stake in not being culturally overrun by their compatriots. A formula for a much more aware discussion... one must always be alert to the possibilities of manipulation, subtle or gross. Of course, this level of outspokenness would be intolerable in the United States, where fresh consensus is manufactured by the hour. To understand American culture, you must come to terms with the extent that the public relations industry, and flakkery in general, has usurped informed discussion of almost any substantive issue (i.e. where real $$$ are at stake). The big problem is the one that noone wants to talk about, the flattening of thought into the dimensions that powerful interests will permit. The consequences of this is a flattening of the psyche, a draining of the blood, leaving a parched skin stretched onto a wall. This is certainly what has happened to the arts. They have become puppet shows for consumers. See? Msg#: 1453 *FINE ART* 07-10-94 11:51:22 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1430 (NEW ART MARKET) The social relationships are the networks through which the objects are produced; to fetishize these last is to obscure the sociality, not a "hole" but a web that fans out from them. To me the artwork is not so much a fetish object as a mediator of social relation, which it prompts us to foreground. But it is both of course, not one or the other but something between. We talk about art or technology in terms of what "it" is doing, when in fact what we are really talking about is what "we" are doing, under its auspices. Msg#: 1474 *FINE ART* 07-10-94 19:20:47 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1453 (NEW ART MARKET) "We talk about art or technology in terms of what "it" is doing, when in fact what we are really talking about is what "we" are doing, under its auspices. " I see what you mean. However, is it the object or the word that gets fetishized? Or is it that the fetishized word takes on the value of an object? Msg#: 1551 *FINE ART* 07-12-94 08:25:51 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1451 (NEW ART MARKET) Morgan, to get back to the art market track, the new issue of Print Collector's Newsletter (with an article aboutMel Bochner by Barry on the cover) reports: Susan Harder is curating a collection of photographs to be sold on QVC. Her first venture involved two "Marilyn Monroes by Bert Stern", offered on Joan Rivers' "Can We Shop" at $2,700 and $5,000. Rivers and Stern did the hard sell; Harder took calls from the public. Both sold within minutes to the same woman in Long Beach Ca. The Rivers spot was a test for a new show, "Gallery Direct," targeted at "serious art collectors," which premiered June 1. More Monroe photographs were offered from Stern's "The Last Sitting." Prices ranged from $280 to $7,900 for "Marilyn with Roses". Six "...Roses" sold at that price, as well as more than 175 prints of "Marilyn in Vogue" at $350 IN TWO MINUTES. Harder is now talking to other photographers. [A complete set of the 59 images from "The Last Sitting" sold at Sotheby's for $55,000 last April]. Interesting that they are only talking about art as "photography". I wonder what the next sale will be? Images of Kennedy? Isn't nastalgia wonderful. Msg#: 1560 *FINE ART* 07-12-94 10:12:56 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1551 (NEW ART MARKET) With the greats, the legends, this will work like a dream. Its the desire for identification with the legend as much as it is the love of photography. Would this work with Paul Outerbridge carbro nudes, or Harry Callahan's awesome little masterpieces ? There are markets, and there are markets, each having their own internal logic. With HDTV around the corner, I expect that art appreciation via the tube, as well as art selling, will increase by leaps and bounds. An intimation of things to come, as they surely will. Msg#: 1561 *FINE ART* 07-12-94 10:16:26 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1453 (NEW ART MARKET) so what happens when social relations become fetishized? Msg#: 1570 *FINE ART* 07-12-94 10:52:36 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1561 (NEW ART MARKET) Can you think of an example of that? Msg#: 1571 *FINE ART* 07-12-94 10:56:42 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1474 (NEW ART MARKET) > is it the object or the word that gets > fetishized? > Or is it that the fetishized word takes on the value of an object? How do you see it? Msg#: 1621 *FINE ART* 07-12-94 23:46:11 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1571 (NEW ART MARKET) Have to wonder about the use of the word *fetish* in relation to its actual meaning--the amulets of the black people in Guinea, Marx, Freud... what are we calling on when we say *fetish*...? Msg#: 1649 *FINE ART* 07-13-94 11:48:47 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1570 (NEW ART MARKET) yes, indeed. But let's take Josefinas's comment seriously, as to how much slippage has attached to the use of the term "fetish". One psychoanalytic explanation I heard (surely one of many) is that a failure to incorporate a constructive human figure as one's "ego ideal" may lead to a transposition of idealization onto objects. Somehow this doesn't take into account the libidinization of the object, but perhaps Josefina can expand. AS for concrete, literary examples, I am at a loss, but personal observation during the 80's offered likely subjects. For example, during publicity moments, generally known as "foto ops" to the guys lugging the cameras, the quarry would engage in what appeared to be highly animated, delightful, sparkling conversation, absolutely fascinated with the subject at hand, filled with healthy vitality and burnished mojo. Having worked the trade for a little while, and having been on both sides of the transaction (for a while, we got to eat at MK club in its prime by acting as plants. if the place wasn't filled to the tits, we'd come in and switch on, helping to create the illusion of a most happening evening, every evening. Food was pretty good, but don't let em fool you, three hours of being incredibly delightful is hard work, especially when you are trying to stifle a huge gaping yawn for the entire three hours) it's all theatre, artificial, part of the job. Not much real connection between people, but perfecting the image of it. Celebs, they earn their dinner, and know little rest. Msg#: 1699 *FINE ART* 07-13-94 23:33:02 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1451 (NEW ART MARKET) Nice images Morgan... eyes peeling like onions, psyche's flattening--two dimensionsal like Poincare's creatures? and the draining blood, and the "parched skin stretched onto a wall." What to tell you... what happens in Canada now is probably what happened in the United States some time ago. It's easy to think that Canada will follow, and they may even do quicker since they have the "know how." Do you think passed times were better? Art being something we consume, it will take in the laws of the market. Opposite to that you have the ways in Russia, where artists worked for the State--ask Komar & Melamid. Not their ideal anymore. Question is, what is the ideal? Msg#: 1777 *FINE ART* 07-14-94 14:49:58 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1699 (NEW ART MARKET) no ideals... too Platonic, suggestive of hidden order and metaphysical finery. Our (American) successes made us dumb in ways, not prone to self reflection, or questioning how itis that things come to be the way that that are. We live in an eternal present, or at least it seems to me. Statism is terrible medicine, especially where unfettered opinion matters, and Plato, too, was, for all his ideals, a statist as well. We have other forms of oppreession, the kind that a Hobbes or a Toqueville would understand better, the tyranny of mass opinion (and mass marketing). True, softer, sweeter, and very much better than cruel deprivation, famine, and ever-present paranoia that the eastern-bloksters live(d) through. Our own voodoo is the banal-tsunami that washes over everything and changes the social landscape in its wake. Msg#: 1789 *FINE ART* 07-14-94 15:24:19 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1777 (NEW ART MARKET) Isn't the social bacground _the_ wake? We're making the waves, everything else is sifting around _us_. Only it seems to me the wake is the _other_, all that isn't us, all that we can't take in and mold ourselves. TV is the wake as much as it is the bow of the ship that's plowing the waters cultural. Msg#: 2011 *FINE ART* 07-16-94 16:39:05 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1649 (NEW ART MARKET) The ego's ideal has to do with the father's eyes, thus with the love. For Freud the fetish is on the mother's side, thus with the sexual and the desire--opposite to the first love object which is the father, the first sexual object, wether a man or a woman, is the mother. Problem is how the male child resolves his finding of the mother's *not having* what he has. Did they take it away? will they take his away? Freud gives three ways out 1) he becomes a homosexual 2) he becomes a fetishist 3) he'll like women. Then, if he becomes a fetishist, the shoe, the curl, or the shine in the nose, cover this hole. First comes the woman with the high heel shoes, then there's only the shoe. The social fetish is more likely to relate to the amulets--like the black men in Gana use. Still I think the fetish is covering a whole, not a web. And this hole maybe in the web. Msg#: 2060 *FINE ART* 07-16-94 20:21:26 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2011 (NEW ART MARKET) O! a mistake... "Still I think the fetish is covering a *hole*, not a web. In message 27352 Msg#: 2079 *FINE ART* 07-17-94 09:58:26 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2011 (NEW ART MARKET) but aren't there female fetishists? Msg#: 2080 *FINE ART* 07-17-94 09:59:30 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2060 (NEW ART MARKET) what is this *hole* you refer to? An area of uncompleteion? An emotional vacancy? Msg#: 2082 *FINE ART* 07-17-94 10:04:33 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1789 (NEW ART MARKET) uh, ok, why not? Good metaphor.. what do we do with it though? Msg#: 2145 *FINE ART* 07-17-94 22:02:05 From: MICHAEL BENNETT To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1560 (NEW ART MARKET) I wouldn't be too quick to jump into the next century of art appreciation and art marketing. It is curious that the only QVC art product that seems to move is the name brand art photo. Try pushing a Serra site specific piece by that means. I doubt it. True, the photo and HDTV would be marvelously compatible--but what else would stand the test. But then I could be wrong. Certain precedents--phone and catalog sales by Christies etc. where the buyer has never seen the artwork but is sufficintly familiar with the genre seem to be somewhat relevant... and then remember the PBS-Channel 13 art auctions of a decade ago. Msg#: 2146 *FINE ART* 07-17-94 22:22:24 From: MICHAEL BENNETT To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1777 (NEW ART MARKET) No doubt you are on target when you announce that statism is a flop. But aren't you being a bit hyperbolic and vinigary in suggesting that mass marketing (global capitalism) and rule by the majority (democracy) is ruining our lives. There may be a worm inside us but I'm not sure where it comes from. Msg#: 2166 *FINE ART* 07-18-94 02:21:17 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2080 (NEW ART MARKET) The hole I refer to is the absence the male child finds when confronted with the mother's sex--she does not have waht he has. Freud says that the fetish is likely to be a shoe, hair or fur, because these are the elements the child finds on the way of his look--under the mother's skirts. Msg#: 2167 *FINE ART* 07-18-94 02:29:25 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2079 (NEW ART MARKET) Female fetishism is quite complex. Kleptomaniacs seem to be the case. But something's very different. Women in general are said to fetishize the male organ… but this is normal, and a fantasy. Msg#: 2171 *FINE ART* 07-18-94 02:41:05 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1789 (NEW ART MARKET) If the *other* is the wake, we should be able to see ourselves from this *other*, a rare object in the landscape: "social background." Msg#: 2279 *FINE ART* 07-18-94 21:23:07 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2145 (NEW ART MARKET) claro, genau, true. Msg#: 2280 *FINE ART* 07-18-94 21:27:55 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2146 (NEW ART MARKET) as you plainly see, getting a fix on exactly what this worm is is more than a simple task. So, we try out a range of mind sets, and mutually draw a bead on this elusive larva. So far, nothing has given me visceral satisfaction in understanding the quiditude of this now-stuff, thus on we trudge, never exactly wrong nor exactly right. As for vinigar, I like the liquid, provides a needed bite to otherwise bland and unfocused dishes. Msg#: 2235 *FINE ART* 07-18-94 17:45:14 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2171 (NEW ART MARKET) I'm not sure we can see the "other" in context of the moment we're living, however, in retrospect, when the waves move outward we can either see the "other" or make out it's presence. Msg#: 2453 *FINE ART* 07-20-94 03:27:27 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2235 (NEW ART MARKET) My idea of "other" with small caps involves but the neighbour or any other one which is not me. The "Other" with big caps instead is interior. Have to wonder about this "other in retrospect," is it the "cause" of what happened before the waves moved outward, an "effect" or a "left over"? Msg#: 2281 *FINE ART* 07-18-94 21:31:29 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2166 (NEW ART MARKET) Freud himself related seeing his mother *in nudam* (his words) while travelling as a very young child on a train with her. Yet he did not, as far as I know of, regress into fetishism. He did have a rather odd oral fixation that we are well aware of, one that eventually cost him his life, but that would belong to a different category of dynamics, wouldn't it? Msg#: 2452 *FINE ART* 07-20-94 00:38:31 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2281 (NEW ART MARKET) as he--Freud--says, not the same circumstances bring the same symptoms. That's why he gives three examples of different reactions to the same setting. About the odd oral fixation of his, what I've heard, read, is that he was in intense pain for a long period of his life--had cancer--. Maybe the odd oral fixation was already there, what to tell you, I don't know. Msg#: 2282 *FINE ART* 07-18-94 21:33:11 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2167 (NEW ART MARKET) Kleptomania is a topic that would be most rewarding to hear your thoughts on. Could you elaborate further, when you can steal some time? Msg#: 775 *FINE ART* 06-23-94 11:54:03 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: ALL Subj: ARTISTS NOT YET FOSSILIZED Can we please talk about some artists who are doing vital work in this decade? Msg#: 778 *FINE ART* 06-23-94 12:36:39 From: CLAIRE JERVERT To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 775 (ARTISTS NOT YET FOSSILIZED) Like????? Msg#: 781 *FINE ART* 06-24-94 10:08:17 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 775 (ARTISTS NOT YET FOSSILIZED) I'm thinking....I'm thinking...vital...um...you meen older ones still doing good work (IMHO James Turrell) or new blood really up to new tricks ? That's a tough one...nothing has wowed me in years, but there is repectable work around. I think I have a soft spot for good minimalism...but now that you mention it... Msg#: 793 *FINE ART* 06-24-94 15:28:14 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 781 (ARTISTS NOT YET FOSSILIZED) Is anything "vital"?? Is any artists "vital"? Here's my short list: McCollum (are you watching?); Kelly (Ellsworth not Mike, but him too); Ryman (damm, I know it's getting old, but it's kinda like the dreggs on the bottom of a good bottle of wine - good to the last drop); Ruscha (if only for his books); Balldessari (if you condnese the works of the last show at MOMA); Mullican (tedious and good for that); Martin (Agnes of the Gods, On a Clear Day...); Gonzalez-Tores (nice bulbs and paper); um... Jim Shaw (no he isn't Mike Kelley); Richard Prince (and his girlfriends); Raymond Pettibon (sometimes). Could I live without any of these artists sure I could. Could I live w/o art, maybe that too. Msg#: 801 *FINE ART* 06-24-94 16:47:58 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 793 (ARTISTS NOT YET FOSSILIZED) ummm....why not...they're not too terrible, considering the alternatives, maybe good enough Msg#: 812 *FINE ART* 06-25-94 14:23:46 From: CRAIG KALPAKJIAN To: ALL Subj: CURRENT SHOWS In response to the "not yet fossilized" string why don't we start a discussion of some shows that are up now? Has anyone seen the group show at Jose Freire? (up until July 9). There was some work there that I really liked. One of the artists (I think it was Larry Mantello) was doing these assemblages of cardboard holiday decorations - four leaf clovers, pumpkin heads, leprechauns... it was work that I was first tempted to dismiss-very easy, sort of 80's, but somehow I started to like it - it was just fucked up enough to work. Some very interesting photography in this show as well. Also some very interesting video work at David Zwirner - a project for television by Stan Douglas -twelve short commercial like bits - fragments that implied they were parts of larger narratives yet with no conclusion or point. I believe they were to be shown (possibly were) as commercials, a few times in the course of a show, on broadcast television, with no explanation. Msg#: 873 *FINE ART* 06-30-94 15:14:24 From: GISELA EHRENFRIED To: CRAIG KALPAKJIAN (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 812 (CURRENT SHOWS) Stan Douglas work sounds interesting! But, artists importing art into the realm of television commercials or, vice versa, importing TV commercials into the gallery space was very much a thing of the 80's, though. Then again, this kind of work still seems to be more "on the pulse of time" (is that proper English??) than most other work out there. Msg#: 821 *FINE ART* 06-26-94 12:18:51 From: ROCCO RUSSO To: ALL Subj: CLEMENTE Clemente vs. Salle We are propagandized to look up to the hero. To grow up wanting to be one. We are given a range of choices. Do we like the blood and guts war hero who just crashes in and gets it done or the intellectual planner working through the war like a chess player a lot of slow preparation and a quick attack. Do we like the Clint Eastwood action type cop who bends the rules a little but gets results (blood and guts etc) or do we like the FBI or CIA operative college educated etc type piecing reality together like a picture puzzle. (Gen Patton or the anonymous workers decoding secret German messages etc) In both cases we are given a lot of intelligence. (Nobody wants to be a dumb hero) The action hero is just as cultured in his own way as the thinker but it's manifested in a different manner. The blood and guts of Clemente and the intellectual coldness of Salle. At least that's how they seem to me. I think that these artists represent one set of opposites of the artist as hero or whatever choice. (21315 "I was amazed at the contrast between someone whose horizons were totally defined by Cal Arts and Soho--and someone with a genuinely cosmopolitan sense of culture(s)--as continuity and plurality."exactly what I consider our choices of heros or models. I think that the entire history of art could be defined as a contrast of these two attitudes and the varying mixture that goes into different artists. (Gauguin Seurat Surrealism vs De Stijl - all the divisions between expressionism and whatever opposes it at any given (Matisse and Picasso would make an interesting contrast and their mixing of attitudes would show that my dichotomy like any binary contrast doesn't really hold. But I find it useful))). My original art orientation was toward the "heroic" artist action type even though I didn't like their work as much as the those from the other side. When I first got interested in art I found Van Gogh and Gauguin very interesting but I liked Seurat' paintings better. (although in another way I think that some of Van Gogh's work has never been bettered. I never liked Gauguin's work at all as much as I wanted to.) Now I sort of disregard the whole persona thing. Basically I don't like "characters" "personalities" etc. It seems that it is rather difficult to appear genuine even if one is. I think that some of Baudrillard (do I dare use the name) applies here. When the artist is mediated through the magazines, museums etc, it becomes impossible to differentiate pose and real feeling. (I should write 'pose' and 'real' 'feeling') But from my point of view it doesn't really matter. The entire thing is really silly. If they really have this "Artsy" attitude I don't like it. If they are posing as "Artists" I don't like it. But looking at the images I like a few of Salle's. I don't think I've seen one of Clemente's that I like after first look. I read an article about Clemente and didn't like the art illustrations but thought that he seemed rather fascinating but then I realized that I was falling into the propaganda model. My old feelings about being a rebellious hero. (21211 Garwood "The naive pose, cultivated innocence is grating.") Basically in first reading about the "artists" I found Clemente to be the much more interesting but now I really don't find either "type" very interesting. They are both "types".I must confess (I guess it has to be almost analogous to a confession on this BB) that I take an opposite view of their work to the general consensus (although I don't like either one, I prefer Salle). Actually I don't get much chance to see real art, but there seems to be a great desire to like Clemente by people I would think wouldn't like him and I was urged to a rather large show a while ago at Gagosian. I didn't like it. It was OK. It was interesting like the pictures in a psychology book of the Jungian school etc (actually I like Dali better). But I didn't like it (21211 "too much Jung in adolescence") (msg 21625 JOSEFINA AYERZA possibly it's more the lapsed Catholicism than Jung. I'm a lapsed Catholic but really dislike Catholic or lapsed Catholic stuff. Anyway Dali did it better. (most of later Dali's garbage but somehow I find it better garbage than Clemente. More 'real' maybe.) (21211 MORGAN GARWOOD "Better than a Salle? By all means, more felt, in his own way more real, however strategic he may be." ) This I disagree with. Better than a Salle? By no means, More felt? I really don't know and have no way of judging this and don't make it a criteria. More real? I don't think so. I find Salle to be more real. I was at one time highly into Jung and still find some of the concepts interesting but I don't find the stuff very realistic in our culture. I find the layering of images in Salle to be "more real". But then I've never been very good at realism.Actually I've never seen a "real" (that is an actual painting by) Salle that I liked. But dealing with reproductions I find Salle a more interesting and satisfying artist (I think he comes off a lot better in a photographic reproduction and best in black and white). Most of the stuff I don't like (even in reproduction) but some I do. Basically a lot of my own work is collage work and I like a rather cold image juxtaposition. I don't generally like painted images though and prefer a digitized image etc. If one gives us the inside and the other the surface or the skin, I prefer the skin. (Msg 21179 CAROL BROAD- Actually I think he's rather limp.) Msg#: 828 *FINE ART* 06-27-94 15:55:27 From: CAROL BROAD To: ROCCO RUSSO (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 821 (CLEMENTE) Are you for real? I mean, I thought at this thoeretical stuff is hard to understand but I can't make heads or tails out of that message. Msg#: 834 *FINE ART* 06-28-94 12:52:16 From: STEPHEN PUSEY To: ROCCO RUSSO (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 821 (CLEMENTE) Sir, you seem somewhat inebriated with the exuberance of your own verbosity. Also, could you turn down the radio ? Msg#: 842 *FINE ART* 06-29-94 14:03:23 From: MICHAEL JOHNSTON To: ROCCO RUSSO (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 821 (CLEMENTE) Don't pay attention to those hecklers--i admire you for jumping into the ring and for not being afraid to say how you really view things. Yes, the message is a tad bit incoherent, but it's insightfully, voguishly slippery, like those wishy-washy academics--although you're sloshing around at the Wet-n-Wild, doing cannonballs in the realm of Taste. Welcome, dude! Cowabunga! Msg#: 860 *FINE ART* 06-30-94 10:42:12 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: ROCCO RUSSO (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 821 (CLEMENTE) you definitely have your own way of piecing together the world, but I follow and you make your own king of sense, it a different intelligence, a new flavor around here. Probably cultural...Steve has this succinctness, I have raving celtic madness sometimes (especially when I am really pissed off about a stupidity of the universe and have a few to organize my brain's shalebeds), and all that jive. Have some pills. Msg#: 885 *FINE ART* 06-30-94 20:25:41 From: STEPHEN PUSEY To: ROCCO RUSSO (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 821 (CLEMENTE) Yeah, Morgan and Michael are right; all styles slop around in this sink. I'll just adjust my Info Filters. Let a hundred flowers blossom ! Let it all ... Msg#: 877 *FINE ART* 06-30-94 16:31:42 From: GISELA EHRENFRIED To: JEFFREY SCHULZ (Rcvd) Subj: COMMERCIAL ART Jeffrey, you incorporated in your work a TV commercial by American Express linking it to a very _contemporary_ phenomenon, the "Virtu-Real" Space (Jeffrey Schulz, "Virtu-Real Space: Information Technologies and the Politics of Consciousness" Leonardo Magazine, March 1993). I never saw the piece, so could you let us know about it? (here, or in (I)ntershop) <*>Replies Msg#: 900 *FINE ART* 07-01-94 10:46:33 From: JEFFREY SCHULZ To: GISELA EHRENFRIED (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 877 (COMMERCIAL ART) The American Express advertisements that I utilize were done by Chiat/Day/Mojo, Inc. They were television ads that were broadcast during the early 90s showing AmEx cards in various locations throughout the physical landscape. The ads were striking in that the cards -- which signify not only credit but the information technologies through which credit is facilitated -- were placed in a wide variety of locations, serving a number of purposes. One ad showed the card as a canopy over a restaurant, another as the tail of an airplane (with the song "Spirit in the Sky" as background music), another as elevator doors and, most crucial for my work, cards were interspersed throughout the landscape of Manhattan. In this version, a time-lapse shot of midtown began at dawn, showing a typical morning. But as noon neared, AmEx cards began to appear *as buildings* throughout the landscape. By nightfall, the cards were beacons; beautifully illuminated green icons (the campaign was actually called the "Icon" campaign). The voiceover was, "You're gonna like it here." What interested me in these ads was that the virtual space of information technologies was used as structural support for physical space (another ad showed an AmEx card as a bridge pylon). I realized that the ads perfectly articulated the fact that landscape and cyberscape had merged, and that we now travel through both scapes simultaneously. My Hyperformance series, partial documentation of which will be shown at TZ'Art & Co. in October, emerged out of this realization. As you mentioned in a private e-mail message, I also edited together a video of digitized versions of this ad. The ad was digitally extended, shortened, and reversed, and then edited to become the visual component of the performance that I did at the Fourth International Conference on Cyberspace (Jordan posted a message to me in (I) some time ago asking that I describe the performance, to which this serves as a very belated response). Basically, during the video, which evoked the sense of moving between a physical landscape and a digiphysical landscape, I skated on in-line skates around the twelve-foot screen, moving both in front of and behind it, while Laura Trippi delivered a text that I wrote describing actions that occur during the Hyperformances. The Hyperformer was wearing his typical Body Glove surfing shorts, Armani shirt, Fendi tie, Leader swimming cap and goggles, and he was doing military-derived maneuvers with a metal sabre. (Look for a photograph in the premiere issue of "World Art" this fall of the Hyperformer performing in the financial district of Manhattan.) Msg#: 1230 *FINE ART* 07-06-94 12:05:17 From: ROCCO RUSSO To: CAROL BROAD (Rcvd) Subj: CLEMENTE RESP TO 21179 You don't understand my message but then I don't really understand yours. I'm not up on ASCII art so I have no sense of scale. Are you implying big (if yes, is this positive or negative), upright (if yes, is this positive or negative), masculine (if yes, is this positive or negative) masculinist (if yes, is this positive or negative).Does the metaphor deal with an anatomical detail (which would put Clemente on his back) or with the artist as a whole. (simile or synechdoche?) I won't ask about your tastes in body parts or their functions, but; do you like Clemente? Do you like his art? It's not quite clear to me (I'm rather lacking in communication skills; both sending and receiving.) This is all rhetorical of course. I don't really care what you think of Clemente or his art. But don't take this as a criticims of the art itself. I looked at some ASCII art on one of the Internet things and yours is really much better than most. Hard to believe your just starting. Msg#: 1231 *FINE ART* 07-06-94 12:09:01 From: ROCCO RUSSO To: CAROL BROAD (Rcvd) Subj: CLEMENTE RESP TO 23334 Am I real? I think so; but with all the theoretical stuff I read, I'm not really sure. I'm working on a hypertextual cyberspatial novel in which I'm definitely not. Weren't you asked the same thing. I don't want to go back through all the messages now; but somewhere along the line I had a series of questions for you which I really had no intention of asking. But, since you ask, I will. are you real are you for real are you really female are you single (doesn't matter, I'm not) did (do) you like Derrida (I do. 'Limited Inc' is my favorite) just kidding (doesn't matter who or what you are. It's all text to me) but seriously (see response to Msg. #21179 in Fine Arts) sorry you don't like my style.actually, I like yours (it's fun you and Morgan Garwood make an interesting counterpoint kind of keeps the Thing going(are you the same person?) anyway, f.y.i. it's tails (that's why I like Salle) <*>Replies Msg#: 1234 *FINE ART* 07-06-94 12:16:22 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: ROCCO RUSSO (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1231 (CLEMENTE RESP TO 23334) Rocco! You finally figured it out! Yes, me and Carol are the same person! I am the yang side and Carol is the yin side of my complete identity! Isn't it wonderful that we humans can be more than one thing!? Msg#: 1288 *FINE ART* 07-07-94 16:13:20 From: SECRETARY GENERAL To: ALL Subj: ME Ladies and Gentlemen... you might have guessed it: the ME thread migrated into theeee GREEY ZzzzONE! Msg#: 1289 *FINE ART* 07-07-94 16:33:38 From: SECRETARY GENERAL To: CHRIS KRAMER (Rcvd) Subj: DOGSHIT You know this appropriation stuff went out with the eighties. We don't usually accept low grade provincial art. You might want to consider dropping off your slides at the Sandra Gehring Gallery. <*>Replies Msg#: 2006 *FINE ART* 07-16-94 10:59:12 From: CHRIS KRAMER To: SECRETARY GENERAL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1289 (DOGSHIT) > > You know this appropriation stuff went out with the > > eighties. > Total nonsense. > The form is eternal the interpretation is evolutionary. > --we should remember that for the same reason, what is most > original in the present often seems at first like > a mere repetition--the way proto-pop and early pop work was > first called "neo-dada," as though it were something already > known. > As the so-called "formal" educational process continues > to break down it is replaced by a kind of "parroting", > repetition without comprehension. ... To return to education > vs. parroting, children learn a hollow language and grow to > use it without comprehending its structure. The readers on > the radio are saying words they often don't understand (to say > nothing of the concepts; pathetically simple though they may > be) which are rendered in a quasi-phonetic form on their > sheets. They will use these same terms in daily life as will > their listeners, and it all gets very fuzzy -- sort of like a > game of Charades (sounds like? sounds like?). The fact that > sports figures are treated as repositories of profound wisdom > doesn't help matters. The end result is that the "common > language" grows more vague by the day. This is of course only > half the process, in the schools, ghettos, technical > work-places, and (in some cases) laboratories, new words and > structures are continuously invented and reinvented. For me, > the issue is whether the generative portions of American > Society have fallen behind the curve in their struggle against > the glottal homogenizers and fuzzmongers. > Garbagethink will be the order of the day for anyone raised > on a mental diet of enticingly packaged infoshit, which you > can bet you booty will exist in a superabundance. > > We don't usually accept low grade provincial art. > The answer to what should be and should not be excluded is a > topic for a "debatte". > I hope you aren't confusing THE THING with the Whitney Museum. > All these zillions of pursed lipped hierophantoids maintaining > prissy little picket fences of who Will and Won't entertain > which kind of ideas. > My advice: a little more "selfreflecting" after each meal. > > You might want to consider dropping off your slides at the > > Sandra Gehring Gallery. > Get a life. > Perhaps, then, you should reconsider that statement. Msg#: 2008 *FINE ART* 07-16-94 14:49:35 From: SECRETARY GENERAL To: CHRIS KRAMER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2006 (DOGSHIT) You know, I always wanted a pet. So, I guess I am stuck with a goddam parrot. But tell me, how did you learn to type and why does your owner let you out of the cage so often? Msg#: 1381 *FINE ART* 07-08-94 23:11:46 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: ROCCO RUSSO (Rcvd) Subj: SALLE BOY Anybody seen the New Yorker piece on Salle--how we're all supposed to feel sorry for him now that he's out of fashion? <*>Replies Msg#: 1413 *FINE ART* 07-09-94 13:15:14 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1381 (SALLE BOY) heard about it..wouldn't bother reading it. Salle simply doesn't mean anything. He doesn't matter on any level. He has nothing to say. Washing out my bathtub ring is more rewarding than even thinking about him. Msg#: 1427 *FINE ART* 07-09-94 16:22:40 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1381 (SALLE BOY) Didn't see the Newyorker piece on David Salle, but learned that he is nowadays doing movies. Did you hear about that? Msg#: 1464 *FINE ART* 07-10-94 12:21:52 From: ROCCO RUSSO To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1381 (SALLE BOY) haven't seen it. If I get a chance I'll check it out, I need someone besides myself to feel sorry for. I hope he saved up some of his income and is not really impoverished or anything like he'll have to take up teaching or something. I suppose I should take it as a lesson, if I'm ever rich and famous, I'll be sure to be prepared for a quick fall from style. X% for the gallery, Y% for the future, don't overstock materials, don't rely too much on Holywood connections etc. Msg#: 1465 *FINE ART* 07-10-94 12:24:51 From: ROCCO RUSSO To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1413 (SALLE BOY) I agree that Salle doesn't mean anything and does't matter and has nothing to say. But, lack of meaning has never deterred me. The less meaning the greater the rewards. I get to make up my own meanings. Thinking about Clemente and Salle, I remembered having a copy of the Avendon Editions (Vintage) that was mentioned in the ine Arts forum. (I wouldn't have gone out and bought a Salle book. It was a sale table book, I think they had the Clemente also but I didn't pick that one up.) Anyway, I got the book out. Figured it would be more rewarding than doing house work. And it was. I didn't even have to read it. On the front cover is a portrait of Salle. The focus of the picture is definitly toward the head. One is looking Salle in the eyes. On the back is a painting called "The Loneliness of Clothes" which is of a partly declothed female lying face down. The buttocks are mostly bare and they form the focal point of the image (at least in the small reproduction (at least for me)). If the book is laid out in an open position the back cover becomes the left image giving it a reading priority in our left to right reading system. (heads and tails both )(The painting is (or was) from the collection of Eli and Edye Broad; if there was no relationship to Carol, there is now - at least in my collection of minor coincidences.) These are the kind of things that interests me. Msg#: 1529 *FINE ART* 07-11-94 20:11:53 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1381 (SALLE BOY) Barry, when was this article in the New Yorker about Salle? Would love to see it. NYU's library has lost all it's recent copies... Msg#: 1558 *FINE ART* 07-12-94 10:01:17 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: ROCCO RUSSO (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1465 (SALLE BOY) like the majority, but not all, of "what's going on", nothing is going on. Earlier in the Eighties, when Salle was on a roll, I got many an opportunity to read his pronouncements. He has since had the good sense to clam up, lest the readers of this pseudo-philosophical quasi-academic shuck and jive act wise up and see the emptiness of his pretensions. He, his dealers, the copywriters, the publicists, and all such fine examples of wayward tastes, bent over backwards to create an intellectual mythology (that noone in the house was quite up to explaining) within which his "work" made sense. Two things stand out. First, it is generally execrably painted. To merely call it bad or clumsy would be paying it a great compliment. On occasion, it soared into the stratosphere of the mediocre, as we all held our breath in wonderment at this fellow's promethian talent. Should you be so benighted as to allude to this minor incongruity of reputation and execution in the polite company of one of the folks on the payroll, you would be reassured that this was a profound and ironic commentary on the appropriationist and derivitive nature of our historical moment (such as it is, as he would say). Meanwhile one would find oneself rubbing one's eyes in disbelief, trying to make out the inner wisdom in a laughably puerile, often misogynistic, badly seen, unimaginative, boring, predictable, formulaic couple of square yards of mental crud huld up to the public gaze like the Shroud of Turin. And nary a voice was heard from the stable of pet poodles, excuse me, critics, (with perhaps the exception of Hughes) that had the guts to tell it like it was. Simple. No Guts. None. Msg#: 1614 *FINE ART* 07-12-94 21:51:35 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1529 (SALLE BOY) It's the July 11 issue... should be in the stores. Read it today. Love her remark on "To kind of buy stuff." Msg#: 1617 *FINE ART* 07-12-94 22:21:07 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1614 (SALLE BOY) Josefina, sorry to say that July 11th issue is now out of the stores and replaced with July 18th issue, which contains a letter to the editor by Robert Hughes responding to article. Sadly, I've got 18th issue only. Could you fax me the 11th article?? [ fax: 343 0574 ]. I've tried NYU and all local SoHo newspaper stands to no avail.... Msg#: 1620 *FINE ART* 07-12-94 23:44:34 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1617 (SALLE BOY) Sure... I was lucky enough to find it at my doctor's waiting room today... so I stole it. Will Fax it to you tomorrow. But maybe I can scann it and upload it for everybody. Let me try. Msg#: 1922 *FINE ART* 07-15-94 16:56:57 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1617 (SALLE BOY) So Salle boy--in the New Yorker *Enclosed File: Salle1.txt Msg#: 4985 *FINE ART* 07-31-94 11:25:21 From: ROCCO RUSSO To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1558 (SALLE BOY) This is all stated so matter of factly; but I don't think it's a matter of facts at all. I don't disagree with your assessment of Salle to any large degree. If you tell me that Clemente is a better painter I won't disagree with that. But if you tell me that Clemente is a better artist, I'll disagree. I don't really care that much for either and there is no critical discourse that I agree with that would allow me to rate one above the other. "He, his dealers, the copywriters, thepublicists, and all such fine examples of wayward tastes, bent over backwardsto create an intellectual mythology" This I disagree with in that I think that the mythology was created long before in the education system and that Salle either simply fit into the paradigm or saw an opportunity and did what he had to to fit the role. This was the gist of my earlier message. I think that the 80's saw a large number of professionals with a education that led them to believe that they should appear cultured and with certain role models of what an artist should be. When the money hit the market the marketeers were there to provide the goods and the artists that these people, with there slim knowledge of art (a mythology of art), would be able to recognize as art and artists. (Paint on canvas, a little pornography etc, a realism that wasn't really realistic or well painted (isn't that the entire history of modern art from the perspective of the "masses" -- that of a lot of poor painters putting it over on the public -- but there was something there (according to those in the know and the money proved that (in a rather viscious circle))) .There was no necessity to create an intellectual mythology. The mythology was already in place, it was just a matter of providing the goods. Look at the way art is viewed in the not so intellectual media and the "work" will make perfect sense. Bad painting. Even with my verbally austere style I could go on for a long time about that. But just a couple of comments. What fascinates me is why with all the possibilities of making art would someone who can't paint images very well take up imagistic painting. Because that's what was expected? I tend to think so. And what is bad painting really. It seems that this designation is only valid in a realistic sense. I mean Cezanne was a terrible painter compared to Bouguereau or even to a second rate trained academic painter. (and weren't Impressionism and Post-Impressionism evaluated in ways similar to that in which you are evaluating Salle). Was Pollack a bad painter. In my opinion whenever any of the abstract expressionist painters moved into a realistic mode; they were bad. I mean late Guston, no matter what the current consesus might be -- to me it's garbage. "And nary a voice was heard from the stable of pet poodles, excuse me,critics, (with perhaps the exception of Hughes) that had the guts to tell itlike it was. Simple. No Guts. None." Really I don't think it was a matter of guts. I don't like this manner of criticism because I think that a lot of people did and do like Salle and his art. I don't think that the critics who assessed his work were all gutless or liers or whatever. People have totally different perspectives and I don't really think that it's good to thrash out with that kind of verbalism. One can wonder. I can wonder. I can ask "how can you like that shit?" etc but I assume that they do have a genuine feeling for it. I mean some people just love paintings on velvet etc. I really want to think of them as brainless; but that's not really fair.I don't think that it took guts for Hughes to do his criticism. I think if it's a matter of guts, it probably takes more guts for him to defend de Kooning in Time Magazine than to trash Salle. And why a matter of guts. Why not brains. I think it would take guts for someone on the Thing to defend Salle. Out of all the user list there must be some who like him. Is anyone going to come out "Hey, I like da guy" Come on, I dare you. A scene from my science fiction novel. It's 2002 and tastes have flipped and/or flopped again. Salle is considered right up there with refined white bread and virtual sex. Someone is looking at the Thing archives. - "Not one of those feral hounds had the guts" (or should I use brains) "to defend Salle" But, even if your message is treated as a matter of fact; isn't this something to think or wonder about. How such a scene came about. This is the matter that interests me. Why would someone pay such huge amounts for these works. (I'll sell my entire extent art work for $60,000 (you haul it)) Why was there a situation where it would take guts to criticise Salle. A situation where an entire discourse could center around an outdated paradigm (but wasn't that the entire cultural (in the sense of money culture) and economic sense of the 80s -- a totally outdated mentality). Isn't it amazing how tastes have changed so suddenly. But they haven't really. A group of yuppies came into power with a lot of stolen money and exercised their power. They are now aside and the victems of the robbery are having there moment to speak. We won't get our money back but at least their providing us with a network on which we can complain (if we can afford it). I won't criticise the critics, I'm sure that those who liked Salle are still around and that most of them still like Salle or at least the stuff that he was doing when there voices were in the majority, if they ever really were. It seems to me that the general discourse of those theorists was that they were taking risks. That it took guts to defend Salle. That they were a small group who spoke for truth amidst an art world that was opposed to Salle. (This would be interesting to look into) And why do we keep bringing up Salle. (I didn't, you did). I missed the beginnings of the 80s. I had read about Salle and seen reproductions. When I saw the work, my reaction was that it may have been a good idea but wasn't well carried out. I tend to keep forgetting about Salle but he keeps coming up and this fascinates me. As soon as I'm ready to forget that stuff someone is attacking him. When I did start looking at art in the mid 80's I saw dozens of artists whose work I liked (I won't say good artists - but artist I like) (almost none of them were painters) but who were totally left out of the critical discourse. But there seems to be no positive discussion. Instead of discussing some art and artists that was there but overlooked by the magazine machine we keep bringing up Clemente and Salle. I think that it was easy to develop a critical discourse around artists like Clemente and Salle (positive or negative) because the educational paradigm or mythology (I think of my own minimal art education) were there in place. Developing a discourse for the artists that I like is a lot more difficult (but critical discourse is possible exactly what we don't need now) (check out TZ'art they have some great artists) ($50,000 takes my whole load and I'll deliver up to 300 miles, There's some really great art in my attic but I just don't have a mythology (or perhaps its personality I'm lacking (actually maybe the stuff's not so good (but has that ever really mattered)))) bye Msg#: 4990 *FINE ART* 07-31-94 16:44:45 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: ROCCO RUSSO Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4985 (SALLE BOY) "I think that the mythology was created long before in the education system and that Salle either simply fit into the paradigm or saw an opportunity and did what he had to to fit the role..." -> I don't think so. Salle was a student of Baldesari at CalArts - the last thing they were teaching there in the 70s was painting. Baldessari taught "Post-Studio Art" - if anything Salle learned that it was ok to open a book, and rip out its innerts. This I think was a good thing to teach, do 't get me wrong, however, once you've torn the books up it all comes to to what you've got left in your hands. I think Salle was in the right place at the right time, like so many other artists, dealers, critics, curators of the early-mid 80s. I believe there was someting worthwhile happening at the moment, but once it crashed and burned we weren't left with to much of strength to hold on to. In retrospect Salle's work looks more and more like bad copies of Rosenquist (61-64), even his source material is of Rosenquist's era, not Salle's. I think it's painfully nonauthentic, unlike his early 80s work which feels like he felt blood in the water and knew what he was doing. Now it only seems that he's desperiate to prove, if only to himself, that he can paint. Msg#: 6306 *FINE ART* 08-06-94 10:20:06 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: ROCCO RUSSO Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4985 (SALLE BOY) > I'll sell my entire extent art > work for $60,000 (you haul it) > $50,000 takes my whole load and I'll deliver up to 300 miles Rocco, can you explain this enormous drop in price and headspin in delivery arrangements in the space of just one message? Msg#: 6670 *FINE ART* 08-08-94 16:18:54 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: ROCCO RUSSO Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 4985 (SALLE BOY) what I write is as much my opinion (no more or less ) than what Salle slops on his canvass, or those activities that you do for giggles. I've detested his work from the first moment I saw it (around 1980), as much as I have consistently been grossed out by Schnabel's "work", etc. In art school we were instructed in the importance of John Baldessarim (do you know how to spell it/ ) Anyway, it was my impression that the whole structure was a crock, the geneology was a put on. The entire cast of charactrers are nonentities, intellectual and spiritual. Some art never gets redeemed, and noone ever discovers hitherto secret virtues in it. There's been plenty of that, too. No, this whole school of thought, its entire approach to life and living, will vanish without a trace, and we will be that much better off. Msg#: 6671 *FINE ART* 08-08-94 16:22:15 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6670 (SALLE BOY) Morgan, I'm not sure, but, are you saying the Salle is a result of Baldessari? I think not. If anything Salle is an example of the son killing the father. I cant speak for Baldessari, but, I suspect there's little he would find familiar in Salle's work. Msg#: 6672 *FINE ART* 08-08-94 16:47:41 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6671 (SALLE BOY) what I was referring to was the mental climate of Cal Arts and type of thoughts people were thinking all over the place. Much energy devoted to appropriation, "interrogating" notions of authorship, and all that why bother to rehash it again tedium of pusmunchkins gargling on high theory and cramming the same down the throats of geese and sheep. Sorry about the disjoint image there, but after a point, one refuses to cooperate with the academic niceties of professional courtesy when it comes to splitting the pubic hairs of discourse. So, sniffing my armpit we sally forth and join battle with the crustaceans guarding their oddly shaped pearls behind calcified lips and peering out at the detritus strewn environment with gimlet eyes dangling from mucusy stalks. More or less. But, yes, Salle et al., it all worked out in its own way, provided everybody played the part expected of them. But even a relatively naive observer equipped with a capacity for inference must have noticed that the staging wasn't perfect, a pall crept over the scene, yes the money was good enough to keep the wheels turning, but nobody seemed to believe in it anymore, this leaching enui, as if every muscle had become an exhausted eel, and emotion clogged the nerves like heavy grease mixed with hair trimmings and the burnt bottoms of pans with old chili reheated in them and flushed down to coagulate in the grease trap with rust flakes. Msg#: 6674 *FINE ART* 08-08-94 17:38:42 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6672 (SALLE BOY) Morgan, good to have you back, just when things were getting dull around here... Um, Salle. Are we wasting our time with considering this guy further? Let's just take this as a framework to travel on. Do you consider Baldessari's teaching (post studio art) being the problem, or is it what the students did with it the problem? In the case of Salle and Fischl they did the unimaginable, the picked up brushes! Like, oh my god, how retrograde! What an anti move from the movement toward anti-art. Intresting also is how vulgar both Salle and Fischl (Julian, Clemente...too) were with not only returning to painting, but doing porn painting. Sure it was lame, low grade porn (if one even should call it porn is up for grabs), but it was porn. No self resprecting post-studio artist was dealing with (or making) porn art. Baldessari, for example, made one tenative sex work in 1972-73, felt embarsed by how dumb it was and moved on. Salle and Julian must have recognized that in the go-go 80s that big painting would sell and so would sex would make it all that much better. And, if the work was kinky too geeze, better make a waiting list. The Guggenheim has a funny Baldessari painting up right now, it's placed at the pinicle of the spiral it's just text on a grey canvas, reading: "Everything is purged from this painting but art, no ideas have entered this work." It's a pretty wonderful object to see way up there, while at the bottom of the spiral is clumped in those pittifull alcoves some of the worse examples of neo-expression art, from Arnulf Rainer to Alberto Burri (who I like - but this object bites). Anyhow... Msg#: 6702 *FINE ART* 08-08-94 20:58:30 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6674 (SALLE BOY) yeah, anyhow... having returned from my desert swankienda and wormholing from straight space to the urban warp, one cannot help but feel the psychsocial cleavages of the empirical commonsensical out-thereness and the ever seeking the edgeness of in-here. Uh, art, I think it matters but I can't remember why. Honestly. I used to come back to the city and experience a grand geritol surge for a few days before hundreds of tiny grindstones all went to work, slowly filing the would be urbanite down to a nubbin. Yes, there is so much output all around, acres of it, hectares of it, counties of it, but is it telling me something I don't already know, suspect, intuit, and so on in that vein ? Whose name is stuck into it doesn't matter a whole lot; does it move me, does it move you, does it move anybody ? Either Time or Newsweek, not normally a source of great insight, did a cultural service with its lightweight investigation of the wasting of the very concept of "hip" , and the meaning of the stance of "hip" within our cultural processes. The point the authors make is subtler that it appears at first blush, in that we have half consciously constucted and perpetuated systems of meaning around unexamined first principles (an attainable grail of hipness for those blessed with knowingness). Fairly soon this begins sounding like the writings of L. Ron Hubbard who in turn sounded like a cross between Sartre and the Bhagavad Gita after smoking DMT, but still, the decomposing corpse quality of these endgame strategies would be appreciated (and wickedly satirized) by George Romero, as in the Dawn Of The Dead. You see, the real fulcrum that this mutitudinous and manifold output turned on wasn't investigation, or the seeking of wisdom, or self understanding, in was a ploy to be the eye of the god of hip, to be possessed of the ineleuctable blessing of groovitude. And thus this community became torturously self referential, hoping that each gesture of hipdom could accelerate or leverage one to yet a higher, more unattainable plane of it. What if hipness goes away, and The Lion King returns triumphant, starchy foods displace cuisine, the cities lose influence to the heartland? The entire temple may come tumbling down, to have humble kiosks and drink stands made from its residues. Me, I'll be stocking up on cheez whiz. Msg#: 6872 *FINE ART* 08-09-94 09:05:01 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6702 (SALLE BOY) Time, Life, Newsweek do those "hip" articles every few years. The best I've seen was from the mid 60s (67?) with Gloria Allread (sp) as a young hipster (in miniskirt, gogo boots, tight sweater) taking about being hip., Really, the was just as the Fem. movement was about to get going and she was still doing the flower child thing at the moment. Tell the reader ship about being "Cool", dig? What would scare me would be the moment the article hits and it actually tells me something I don't already know - a sure sign of age. I once though I would never stop listening to college radio stations - now I'm stuck listening to jazz and classic rock 'cuz I can't tune in a decent station in the city. I'm becoming stuck in a era I really didn't even live in in a full awake capacity. TV too has been reduced to "clasics" too. Isn't Murphy Brown just Mary Tyler Moore with a loudmouth as the new Mary? History is doomed to repeat its self over and over - 10 year cycles? Isn 't grunge rock just Hendrick's again too? Msg#: 7028 *FINE ART* 08-09-94 19:34:42 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6872 (SALLE BOY) there are smaller cycles inside of greater ones: it looks like "hip" in whatever form, as a way of psychologically relating to ones surroundings, and establishing a persona, a public self to define ones role in the social theatre, has incarnated many a time. This recurrance of hipness is like a small wheel, predictably making a rotation with each season of opinion. This little wheel may in turn be captive to a larger mechanism, subtler and less directly available to the senses, a gestalt shift, that even the most perceptive and articulate of us find nearly impossible to describe, due in part to the thoroughness and generality of its effect. Some time back I posted thoughts I had ranging over a small variety of subjects, which by the generosity of Wolfgang ended up in the Journal for a while. At the time ( and still ) it seemed like a useful study to discern what one (individual, family, subculture, nation, etc.) thought "in terms of", meaning, what were the essential distinctions that doers of that culture used to make their way around its "reality". You are well aware that "reality" is to a large extent socially determined (if you weren't this Thing project would sound like Martian to you); so, the dominant concepts that map reality, such as "hip", are, as long as they last, distinctions essential to understanding that reality. But, deep changes can, do, and always have happened to cultures, that result in fascinating psychic and social dislocations (and frequently very disturbing as well). In such a milieu, "hip" may no longer be suitable for mapping the new terrain, and be as obsolete as "phlogiston" or "ether" (the stuff that supposedly carried light across the reaches of outer space) and other conceptual casualties of an evolving worldview. Of course, this tends to be problematic, especially if you have a large institutional commitment to a suddenly embarrassing idea, such as the Sun revolving around the Earth, instead of the other way around. My travels around the Southwest suggest to me that a largish social shift is in the offing, and it will be catalysed by all the new techno-goodies leaping out of catalogs, not the least of which is the satellite TV phenomenon (it turns out that the Discovery channel is very big in Bangladesh and who knows where else). Art, as we know it, is part of a dense-pack population condition- it comes with, and is formed by, the exposure of minds to an array of influences in very close, tense quarters. Out There, where everything is headed, is a wholly different terrain. Trend-hunger is weakly felt, the need to distinguish oneself from the pulsating millions around you is infinitely less. But, people are not stupid, it is just that they have better things to do with their energies (and money). Cars reign supreme, and a great suspension system is aesthetic as all hell, and so is a nice juicy steak. Fredrick Sommer, the last of the F64 Weston/Adams nexus is alive and well in Prescott, and by all accounts yet producing fine work, and, surprise of surprises, doesn't appear top know the meaning of "hip", other than the place he gets vitamin B shots once a month from his doctor (more power to him, in my book, doing his thing at 89 years old and to hell with what anybody thinks). Now, to grow old like that is something I could live with. Msg#: 2482 *FINE ART* 07-20-94 13:17:57 From: SECRETARY GENERAL To: ALL Subj: MSG HEADERS One more appeal to all to be more conscious about the SUBJECT in the message header. I cannot fathom what the current debate about THE OTHER has to do with THE NEW ART MARKET. Please change the SUBJECT heading each time you take the discussion in a different direction. Make a mental note of it. Thank you. Msg#: 2807 *FINE ART* 07-21-94 10:10:35 From: MICHAEL BENNETT To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd) Subj: AN ORAL FIX Is it true that Freud, after being wheeled out of the operating room after having half of the roof of his mouth excised, proceeded to ask for his favorite Havana cigar? Is this an oral fixation? Does it mean anything? <*>Replies Msg#: 3405 *FINE ART* 07-23-94 01:38:19 From: JOSEFINA AYERZA To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2807 (AN ORAL FIX) A "fixation" is bound to "compulsion to repeat." Don't know what the case is with Freud's cigars... what we certainly know is that he is *politically incorrect.* Msg#: 4468 *FINE ART* 07-28-94 11:29:48 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: JOHN TOWER Subj: QUICKTIME ART John, thanks for downloading your quicktime movie - can we expect more from you? How about something much longer? Something beyond thunbing your nose at The Thing? Msg#: 4528 *FINE ART* 07-28-94 18:09:33 From: SECRETARY GENERAL To: ALL Subj: MSG AREAS "SEX AND THE OTHER" can now be discussed in the rey Zone. The Grey Zone is not the Gulag, but an area for the discussion of topics that don't fit in any of the defined message boards. Thanks for your attention. Msg#: 7261 *FINE ART* 08-11-94 12:23:32 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: HOP TO HIP But, what's hip here won't hop to be hip in Des Moines for days, weeks, months. Maybe MTV will deliver it to the marketplace pretty damm quick, but I could argue too that MTV is also behind the curve - by the time MTV get ahold of anything it has turned to crap at the source. Nirvana is a great example. Decent music picked up, hyped, mass cultured, grown, and withered and died. Lets take rap for example - picked up off the mean streets, now clothed (litterally) in upper class duds (check out Massive, Studsy, Phat Farm, or the other SoHo trendy clothing shops that have addopted the culture and now clothing whites in the duds of up, up town black kids. Bring it all the the hood near you. Kansas City, and other mid west cities have their own gangs called Crips and Bloods - these "gangs" have nothing to do with the real Crips and Bloods of L.A., they've just appropriated the "hip look" so they will feel connected to the world of style at large. I'm glad to hear there's one F64 original out there, but what about Lewis Baltz or does the same in urban realism? <*>Replies Msg#: 7459 *FINE ART* 08-12-94 12:48:54 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 7261 (HOP TO HIP) Lew Baltz, I haven't herad that name mentioned in at least two blue moons! America is oddberg when it comes to it relationship with underclass culture. The stylistics are appropriated with hungry intensity, but the people theyselves can go die under a bridge. Where does inventiveness of this sort come from? Maybe far-outsider status frees you up from the constipations of gentry-imitative groupthink. Socio-economic cross dressing allows for a theatrics of individuality/rebellion/mock defiance without actually having to steep oneself in the septic, violent, neglected, psychopathic worlds that also manage to be brilliantly creative in a desperate, momentarily liberating way. The black upwardly mobile middle class (bumpies?) has no truck with this posturoid identity decal approach, and is in the cleanest cut Brooks Brothers corporate greys faster than you can say campus recruiter. Its the identification with (presumed) outsider potency/authenticity/wiseness and general seeking of dickhood that gasses this particular badness-hunger. Personally, I've been a major fan of Harry Callahan as long as I have like photography (and find Minor White a confused, pretentios bore half the time but really like his work the other half of the time), and wouldn't mind at all having a Paul Outerbridge carbro print of one of his kinkier subjects. Where have all the great photographers gone, by the way. Once the novelty of Cindy Sherman, Barbara Kasten, Sandy Skoglund, and so forth wears off, they are completely forgettable. Well, you wont find me at Woodstock2, but the whole concept more or less says it all for one corner of purgatory. Msg#: 8593 *FINE ART* 08-23-94 08:37:12 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 7459 (HOP TO HIP) Who is Barbara Kasten? Msg#: 8813 *FINE ART* 08-23-94 14:13:05 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 8593 (HOP TO HIP) she does soft-psychedelic exterior architectural photography with pretty colored lights, mirrors etc. Creates illusionistic and confusing spaces. Msg#: 9690 *FINE ART* 08-27-94 18:48:50 From: COLIN GOLDBERG To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 7261 (HOP TO HIP) The very notion of hipness, it seems, is something that either exists as a personal qualitative judgement, or is a notion that is instilled by someone that is already considered hip. I think it is interesting how MTV has evolved as a cultural phenomenon - pulling the reins of the mass-culture caravan that is growing every second. What is the goal of artistic or musical pursuit ? To appeal to a rarefied 'culture', or to reach out and touch the masses. What, in the end has more effect on the evolution of culture; paintings or commercials ? It is difficult to say. How about ART-TV ? Would that ever happen ? And what would it look/feel like if it did ? Msg#: 9693 *FINE ART* 08-27-94 19:40:30 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: COLIN GOLDBERG (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 9690 (HOP TO HIP) Problem with MTV is who is pulling who. Is the music, style, corporations, or corporate style maker pulling the strings. Who the hell is in charge? Does it matter? The one thing that I think we call all agree with is that MTV isn't testing the limits of culture, it's inching and inching and inching forward towards limits that are moving at a similar pace. As far as some kind of Art TV goes, I'm not so sure that there's a large enough public for it. Music is just to present in our lives across the spectrum, where as art has such a limited environ. I'm feeling that there's no more than 10 works of art in the world that the public knows - Mona, Iris, Scream, Monet, Picasso, Warhol, Lichtenstein (just one work of each). That's the limit. People don't go to museum like they buy concert tickets, records, or T-Shirts. Think of this a big book run for a museum exhibition is 10,000. What's a gold record? 100,000 or 500,000?? How about visitors to an exhibiton, even that doesn't hit these kinds of numbers on any regular basis. There's you audiece. Figure that even Seinfeld draws a 500,000 viewers a week plus, it's not an easy show as sit coms go. A few years PBS tried a series " Live from off Center " - remember it? It couldn't last - show Wegman once and then what?? Bottom line, there needs to be a new way to approach the public with ART or ART will be even further pushed to the margins of culture. Msg#: 9745 *FINE ART* 08-28-94 11:54:04 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 9693 (HOP TO HIP) since ART is a concept that kinda-sorta similar activities get lumped into because they fit less well in other slots, what art is or isn't is a matter of intention. It may be art if you say it is, but whether its great or it sucks stays with they eye of the beholder. Artists aren't keeping up with culture. Culture didn't suddenly get up and walk out on art. We have two godzilla sized phenomena that weaken the hell out of art's stature in our society. One is that the world of work has gotten competitive as all get out, no time to coast, get out and about. It's all most people can do to drag their asses home and pour a few stiff ones and switch on the tube. The luxury of time, to sit back and reflect, read some subversive trash, putter around with your friends, is hard to come by these days. But, the situation might open up and some serious social slack reappear, but don't bet the farm on it for now. These firecracker hot asian economies are going to keep us gringos from getting too comfy, and if you don't spend your time keeping up with relevant technologies, your ass be grass. The other godzilla is that home entertainment is gooood if you want to get yourself some electronic toys, and not bad even if you're hooked up to cable. Why should anyone care about "art" as it has been traditionally defined ? Peter Gabriel videos are more successful at doing with art set out to do than any "art" I can walk around and see in galleries. Msg#: 9746 *FINE ART* 08-28-94 12:07:15 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: COLIN GOLDBERG (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 9690 (HOP TO HIP) art tv simply doesn't need to happen. TV gives better head than art. In not delicate terms, art is a lousy fuck. There have been times when art was a good fuck, but the libido has got up and moved on. Why this state of affairs. Art is a marginal, closed culture, talking to itself mostly, a few people nekkid, walking around on their hands and knees, sniffing each others butts and barking at the moon. The '80s were the last hurrah, the final blowout. After that, technology peeled out, laid rubber, did a few do-nuts in the intersection of Pekker Ave and Brainboggle street, and left us clutching the straws blowing around or heads. It used to be that dope was more advanced than culture, you got stoned and your mind could play with culture, see it in unexpected ways. Now culture is more advanced than dope. Getting stoned is almost beside the point. Just doing culture is getting stoned. Msg#: 9806 *FINE ART* 08-28-94 17:46:58 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 9745 (HOP TO HIP) Then it all boils down to the problem is that art is usually singlar object that one needs to seek out - where as entertainment (music, video) is mass market and very easy to pass from the "maker" to the "audience" at the touch of a remote control. Art don't do that, homie. What to do? What to say? It's hit the culture or miss. Msg#: 9816 *FINE ART* 08-28-94 20:55:09 From: COLIN GOLDBERG To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 9746 (HOP TO HIP) Doing culture is like getting stoned in that there is an element of absurdity that exists? What is doing culture ? When I hear the word, I think of a bacteria culture. This is an association that must stem from some distrust of a mass-produced, taste-tested, 99% approved culture that is sold at a store near you. The artist is being sublimated from the individual into the mass aesthetic, much like the buddhist idea of beauty, in which anonymity and form reigned supreme. The role of the artist is similar to that of a scientist in many respects, but the exploration is aesthetic, not quantitative. As with the invention of the camera, the computer is changing the face of art, both directly and in a reactionary sense. What is much slower to change is the public perception of 'art'; what constitutes it, etc. Msg#: 9938 *FINE ART* 08-29-94 15:57:51 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: COLIN GOLDBERG (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 9816 (HOP TO HIP) the slipperiest stuff, impossible to get a fix on. That's art's real fate, always one step from general understanding. Like science, its good when it goes beyond the known, and questions raised by it don't have ready made answers to be popped into the cassette player and come out neet and complete. The scientistic bent of the now makes art act like the bastard child of academia, attempting precision where it should explore the potentials of ambiguity, and conflating mystery with mystification. Are nutrinos art. They don't have any mass. Msg#:10042 *FINE ART* 08-30-94 00:55:56 From: COLIN GOLDBERG To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 9938 (HOP TO HIP) It's the eternal question : what is art ? It has to be a function of society, although the equation that determines its curvature is quite obscure. Think of it as a path of information that winds its way thru time.... Art 'becomes' Art (note the capital A) to the general public only when there is money attached to it. My painting professor, Angelo Ippolito, once said "Either give your art away to your friends or sell it for a lot of money. Then at least you can be sure its taken care of through time." an interesting sentiment, eh ? Msg#:10127 *FINE ART* 08-30-94 12:19:21 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: COLIN GOLDBERG (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 10042 (HOP TO HIP) Vita brevis, ars longa. Art and spacetime. As I was reading your post it occured to me that art is also an extension of the ego, vertically through time, and horizonatlly through space. If you are assiduously prolific, your personality, something close to your temperament, is extended accordingly. You populate the world with yourself. If you are good enough, a residue of you, much more vital that the pickled proteins sitting in a metal box we are all going to become one day, will live on and through the imagination of other people you have never met or heard of. Until you turn 40, artmaking has an Oedipal nature, displacing established order with your own. After then, I think it becomes increasingly a discussion with history. On a recent visit to the Tallix foundry, I saw the most incredible monstrosity of a sculpture I have ever witnessed. It looked like an asteroid had hit a 747 in midflight, the the burning mass crashed to earth and was hit by a train. Unless there is some redemptive alchemy that he intends to pull off at the conclusion of the fabrication, its the biggest, damnedest mess I can imagine. Chernobyl might have belched it. (ok- this IS my highly opinionated opinion, you may think it ranks with Michaelangelo's Moses for all I know). But why? Why would a man financially, reputationally, etc. secure go to such extremes to accomplish so little ? Is he attempting to insure immortality, does he feel that he has to leave one unquestionable *opus magnum* behind as a totem to his accomplishments ? Regardless, If I heard right, a buyer in Japan feels that he must have it... Japanes culture may have a way of incorporating this gesture ? Msg#:10129 *FINE ART* 08-30-94 13:03:56 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 10127 (HOP TO HIP) Yea, that Stella at Talix is really something else. Did you see the Koons puppy? Also something of scale and girth beyond words. I think your right - art is residue of an artist's life, that's what people want, a portion of a life more often than something to just hang on a wall. Msg#:10228 *FINE ART* 08-30-94 23:47:07 From: COLIN GOLDBERG To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 10127 (HOP TO HIP) maybe as a tribute to American excess, god bless it ! Who knows. How do things like that get sold ? is it simplu a whimsical expenditure of money ? Maybe it doesn't matter, it is just the way it is. Our tastes are formulated from many sources, and the notion of wantonaiety (?) is one that may be valued...WHat about the object anyway ? is it dead ? lost amidst the ever-widening spectrum of bandwaves broadcast for our viewing pleasure ? lost among rhetoric and intelligentCIA ? who is buying the (most expensive) best art ? Can artists be capitalists, or vice-versa ? vittles for thought. Msg#:10315 *FINE ART* 08-31-94 12:11:02 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 10129 (HOP TO HIP) in reply to the Platzker/Goldberg nexus here... an impulse to incorporate, or internalize the vital spirit of the living thing (or maker) may be a driving (and unacknowledged) force behind the civility of collecting. Is that so distinct from the attraction to animal skins and parts that impel us to fur coats and rugs? The primitive human ate his adversary to gain the spirit of his adversary, and Dahmer ingested the objects of his fascination so the "wouldn't leave him". For the artist, it is ejaculatory, one's "code" is splattered over the world. For the collector, it is cannibalistic, one devours the Stella to have the powers of the Stella. Is this compatible with capitalism ? Capitalism is dual, it is fecund, constantly egging itself on, pouring gasoline on its own fire, and self devouring, wasting itself, burning itself up. Art is inseperable from this great psychodynamic macrocosm, and for that reason, art will flow in the great plasms that have engulfed everything else, like the blob that came from outer space. On closer inspection, we see the constantly interchanging dynamic of two plasms, the Euplasm (or Vishnuplasm) and the Dysplasm (or Kaliplasm) that are in a perpetual embrace of cosmic sexual intercourse. Art is merely one of the manifestations of plasm-dynamics. When we speak of Art or Capitalism, we understand that these are merely convenient mental placeholders for processes so general and Tsunami-like in their actuality that we have to use "tight language" to fix the idea long enough to perform mental manipulations on it. Msg#:10328 *FINE ART* 08-31-94 14:38:27 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 10315 (HOP TO HIP) Nice return of ideas in your post - however - though one may acquire an art object, and thus own a bit of the artist, it is only dead skin that the collector is honestly taking posetion of. And one needs to remember that that posetion is only temporary. Sure a collector may own an object for a lifetime (the collectors), but more often than not the objects change hands every few years as the fortunes of the owner changes. Then what are they left with? A cite in a book? Memories? A bill of sale? All interesting things. All things that need frames of some kind, or to be put under glass. In the end all of these things, given times, will either end up in a museum or be lost or fall out of fashion, passed over by time. Reconsturcted in a museum in the future dedicated to a given slice of a previous time. Msg#:10550 *FINE ART* 09-01-94 16:11:11 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 10328 (HOP TO HIP) funny you should bring this up... was just last night reading Freud's little essay on transience. He felt that transience was "scarcity in time" which was as much part of an object's beauty as it economic scarcity, its scarcity in space. A revulsion towards transience he felt was a neurotic inability to truly mourn, and that emerged as a state of permanent melancholy in the one who could not accept transience. Msg#:10552 *FINE ART* 09-01-94 16:22:52 From: GERARD HOVAGIMYAN To: ALL Subj: BKPC To celebrate the thirtieth anniversary of the creation of the "Barbie Doll" G.H.Hovagimyan and The Thing are presenting BKPC or Barbie & Ken politically correct. The Thing will present one image (gif format) a week for twelve weeks which you can download into your personal files. Look for your first snappy picture on Thursday September 1st followed by a new one each Thursday in the Fine Arts forum. Your comments are desired. Will the Valet please present the first image. <*>Replies Msg#:10554 *FINE ART* 09-01-94 16:33:51 From: VALET To: GERARD HOVAGIMYAN (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 10552 (BKPC) At your service. Here it is. (If any of the European nodes are interested I can make the files available via ftp request. There are no messsage file attachments in regular echo boards. Send me email.) *Enclosed File: bkpc1.gif Msg#:11698 *FINE ART* 09-07-94 20:52:46 From: VALET To: ALL Subj: #2 ...and here's number two. Don't ask me what it is about, I am just doing my job. *Enclosed File: bkpc2.gif Msg#:11770 *FINE ART* 09-08-94 10:55:01 From: GERARD HOVAGIMYAN To: ALL Subj: BKPC 2 BKPC stands for Barbie & Ken politically correct. There are 12 images in all. There is no cost for you to download the file but you need a GIF. convertor to see the images. If you don't have the GIF. Convertor it is in the Database files. Many white women were startled to discover that Ken had taken classes as a modern dancer. His main ambition in life was to land the lead role of Tony in the broadway play West Side Story. If only there were a way.... Msg#:11772 *FINE ART* 09-08-94 11:35:41 From: GERARD HOVAGIMYAN To: ALL Subj: BKPC 2 Regarding the GIF. convertor which you use to view the BKPC piece. It is in the file area not the database. sorry about the wrong info.