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#: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. 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 --- * Origin: THE THING COLOGNE (42:1002/1) 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#: 5853 *FINE ART* 03-13-94 00:18:49 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: TWIST AND SHOUT > ... 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. Don't tell me Mr. Buchloh is privy to information as to what would constitute a "success" of the "conceptual enterprise." Total nonsense. Msg#: 5860 *FINE ART* 03-13-94 02:19:00 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5853 (TWIST AND SHOUT) What would a "successful enterprise" be in such a case? Aren't all significant cultural enterprises "failed", "tragic", etc.? Msg#: 5865 *FINE ART* 03-13-94 12:01:04 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5860 (TWIST AND SHOUT) Exactly what I mean. If it can't be a success, then how could it be a failure? The perception that the emergence of neo-expressionism (or Wilde Kunst) in the early Eighties was the result of the "failure" of Conceptual Art (and I believe such a category is still in use in today's language) is revealing to the extend that it takes as its exclusive yardstick only the _commercial success_ of a given genre. That a Schnabel would fetch more than a Kosuth in the decade of the Milkens and Trumps is not the least bit surprising to me. Msg#: 5868 *FINE ART* 03-13-94 14:06:00 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5860 (TWIST AND SHOUT) the most significant *cultural* enterprises are extremely successful, it is simply that cultural academia cannot stomach the conflation of Spielberg or Lucas, or Joe the Camel for that matter, with pursuits that are self consciously *higher plane* jobs. *Tragic* and *Failure* are self indulgent sentimentalities, the notion of *seeing through* to the domain of the Angels in a perfervid consumptive apprehension. Therein lies the sheer flatulence, the gross bad faith of Art qua Art in an environment so intermediated and constructed, directed to spectacular (yet pious) ends, instrumental gesticulations of stillborn profundification. The plain truth is that *culture* that counts, that defines us through and through, x rays our pitiful innerds, is everywhere and in everything, it covers every square inch, it has saturated the air with its electromagnetic emissions, it is *Stamped* upon us, it is us, we are bereft of existence without it. It has not the slightest interest with the pathos of Failure, the melancholy of *Tragedy*; look around, the modes du jour are comedy and irony. Good God (whoever that is anymore) potato chips have a thousand times the impact of any contemporary *artist* even at their apogee of coverage in a bought and paid for media campaign. Warhol knew that...he wanted to become a machine for that very reason. Art is dead, burned to a cinder, it is Hiroshima the morning after, there is nothing left to be said...a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Zero, zilch. Its over...wake up...move on...new day Msg#: 5869 *FINE ART* 03-13-94 14:08:51 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5868 (TWIST AND SHOUT) Well, Morgan, I guess that outpouring proves that you are an expert in sefl-indulgence. Msg#: 5870 *FINE ART* 03-13-94 14:10:47 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5869 (TWIST AND SHOUT) so Fuck You and the horse you rode in on you precious dink jackass company boy Msg#: 5871 *FINE ART* 03-13-94 14:15:37 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5865 (TWIST AND SHOUT) But with all due respect, I have to wonder why the work of a Schnabel should be any more or less suitable to the Age of Milken than a Kosuth or anything else. Actually, it seems to me that a good deal of what their work represents runs surprisingly parallel in the '80s. Although one may define the ego as emotional and the other as intellectual, there are similarities in the way each contrived to successfully package his own sense of self as decor for other people's lives. Msg#: 5925 *FINE ART* 03-13-94 20:49:50 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5870 (TWIST AND SHOUT) I hope you're proud of yourself, Morgan. Msg#: 5998 *FINE ART* 03-14-94 11:17:32 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5868 (TWIST AND SHOUT) > Art is dead, burned to a cinder, it is Hiroshima the morning > after, there is nothing left to be said...a tale told by an idiot, > full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Zero, zilch. Its > over...wake up...move on...new day Does this mean that you're not going to publish that book of your own artworks? Msg#: 5999 *FINE ART* 03-14-94 11:27:02 From: SYSOP To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5870 (TWIST AND SHOUT) Yellow card. *Enclosed File: Yellow.gif Msg#: 6002 *FINE ART* 03-14-94 11:44:03 From: SYSOP To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5871 (TWIST AND SHOUT) > But with all due respect, I have to wonder why the work of a > Schnabel should be any more or less suitable to the Age of Milken > than a Kosuth or anything else. Well I wonder too. Fact remains Schnabel beats Kosuth at auction 10:1! Guess it tells you something about our collecting class. Smear on a bagel is still considered the better investment. All I wanted to point out is that the Eighties painting fad was largely an effect of the bubble economy and not the result of any perceived or alleged failure of Conceptual Art. Still curious to learn more about the "new condition." I am happy to hear the patient is still alive. Msg#: 6006 *FINE ART* 03-14-94 13:31:35 From: MICHAEL BENNETT To: SYSOP (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6002 (TWIST AND SHOUT) I think it is fatal to consider any artwork as totally an aesthetic object-- something to dilate over with the right emotion. It is a given that art as an object in the world performs many functions--as an object of aesthetic delight, as an investment, and oftentimes as interior decoration. No doubt a Schnabel is far superior to a Kossuth as interior decoration, certaintly far superior as an investment, though lately his work and that of some of his peers seems to be in financial free fall, and as as an aesthetic object, well, the jury is still out. Msg#: 6007 *FINE ART* 03-14-94 13:34:47 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5925 (TWIST AND SHOUT) no, actually I am ashamed of myself for losing my temper with you, however I am also glad that I lost my temper with you. I am ashamed because I feel that I disrespected your humanity, which is a terrible mistake on my part, and I am glad bacause there was a glimmer of hope that the inauthenticity of your identity construct, as well as the inauthenticity of mine, may have been exposed to sufficient fissile energy to allow some core ontic energy to escape. Far, far too much stuff between people is weak and trivial, no doubt because we inhabit a society that has a fear of real emotion. We cling, consequently to the banal, or make every effort to reduce what goes on aound us to the banal, the *consumable*. The passions fly in the face of all this, as well they should; they may be our only antidote to the equivocal and mealymouthed, our lives of quiet desperation and all that. So, yes, I am proud of myself, as you have hoped. But, you must understand that I value your humanity too much to be taken in by your pose of *injury*, your *offence*, your *indignation*. You are infinitely larger than that. Msg#: 6008 *FINE ART* 03-14-94 13:40:01 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5998 (TWIST AND SHOUT) yes, I am going to publish it, in a limited run, and you are welcome to a copy or two when they come out. I just don't consider it *art*. It is nothing more than a diary, a record of my passing. I may need it to refer to to have an inkling of who I was at a certain point in time, a mirror into my psychological narrative. But, *Art* ?, no, it cannot be believed in, place it in its sarcophagus where it will rest for the ages. Msg#: 6009 *FINE ART* 03-14-94 13:52:20 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: SYSOP (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5999 (TWIST AND SHOUT) HAHAHA! very good! Msg#: 6075 *FINE ART* 03-14-94 16:41:56 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: SYSOP (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6002 (TWIST AND SHOUT) My point was that the bubble economy, by its very nature, could have accepted almost anything as material for massive speculation. (Remember that Renoir outsells Cezanne at auction too.) Why neo-expressionist painting--and then neo-geo/commodity art--happened to come along at the right time to benefit (if that's the right word), though, probably does have a lot to do with a dialectic internal to art. Keeping in mind was Jordan has contributed to this discussion, I could argue that neo-expressionism was in its own way an attempt to crack open the hermetic space of the gallery. Msg#: 6076 *FINE ART* 03-14-94 16:57:10 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6007 (TWIST AND SHOUT) Actually, my pose was supposed to be one of superiority, not injury. Guess I'd better work on my pose projection. But I'm still puzzling over how that exchange took the form it eventually did, because your resentment and frustration seemed to be venting themselves on something that is irrelevant to their cause, whatever that is, which is why I accused you of self-indulgence. If you don't mind my saying so, though, your present expression of humility and humanism seems as coercive in its way as the macho wailing I detected before, because in both cases there is an attempt to whip up an emotional atmosphere that commands pre-reflective consent. Msg#: 6077 *FINE ART* 03-14-94 17:02:48 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6006 (TWIST AND SHOUT) > art as an object in the world performs many functions--as > an object of aesthetic delight, as an investment, and oftentimes as > interior decoration. Of the three functions you mention, do you consider one more important? Or is there some other function that you would maintain is more fundamental to the artwork? Msg#: 6078 *FINE ART* 03-14-94 17:31:24 From: JORDAN CRANDALL To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6008 (TWIST AND SHOUT) Yes I would certainly like a copy, thank you! But why do you do a print run if it's just a diary? And who is going to by this record of your passing, this mirror into your psychological states, if it's just that? Since on more than one occasion you've called the stuff you make "art," does this mean that you will simply employ the term as needed? Msg#: 6092 *FINE ART* 03-14-94 22:45:11 From: CHRIS KRAMER To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6076 (TWIST AND SHOUT) > 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 > I like the idea of art that can work subliminally. ......................... ... ...-.... Msg#: 6094 *FINE ART* 03-14-94 22:54:23 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6075 (TWIST AND SHOUT) > discussion, I could argue that neo-expressionism was in its own way > an attempt to crack open the hermetic space of the gallery. How so if you don't mind me asking? Msg#: 6098 *FINE ART* 03-14-94 23:11:13 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6094 (TWIST AND SHOUT) Part of the self-knowledge that was lacking in conceptual art and much of what came in its wake was its refusal to recognize itself as a form of taste (which is why the problem of the appearance of such art always tends to fall back on the stereotypes of graphic design). Neo-expressionist brought back the question of taste with a vengeance by embodying the worst taste--and therefore a whole world of experiences and images that had been ruled out on behalf of a taste that refused to acknowledge itself as such. One can say of this art what Adorno said of the Sturm und Drang: that it represents "a revolt of the subject and its deluded hope of breathing into the work of art the meaningfulness it had forfeited with the irrevocable loss of ontology; and of doing so through the pure display of its original force." As jejeune as it was, neo-expressionism was a protest on behalf of something that won't disappear just because it's called regressive. It reminds us that everything regressive still needs to be encompassed by art as well through its self-questioning. Msg#: 6100 *FINE ART* 03-14-94 23:26:12 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6076 (TWIST AND SHOUT) oh, its very self consciously coercive! I have no problem with that. Personally (as if anybody gives a shit), mach wailing is a very healthy thing to to and I highly reccommend it. As for my *humanism*, it is altogether bogus, you may rest assured. But, this is TT, where anything not prohibited is mandatory, to steal someone elses line (I'll just pretend that I made it up)...but heck, its a coercive, manipulative culture, so, like, party dude. By the way, this is Art. Speaking of Art...a morsel from February 21 New Republic (article by Axel Heard)..."Last fall the state of Illinois filed suit against convicted serial killer John Wayne Gacy, alleging that the torturer and murderer of thirty-three young men and boys is "reasonably able to pay" for his jail costs because he's been making money through sales of his primitive renderings of clowns and Disney characters (mainly from mail order sales managed by outside companies, but he's also had agents and gallery showings)" Now that, Barry ol' buddy, is my idea of culture. Not that it automatically has to be yours, you know. Cripes, where is Blackhawk when we need him? this is just his kind of tarpit! Msg#: 6101 *FINE ART* 03-14-94 23:40:22 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6078 (TWIST AND SHOUT) well, "macho wailing" aside (give the man his due, its a neat summary!), I am leaning toward a semantic diet, on my way through a transition phase where some usages are more accentuated or intensified and others fall away. I am making just enough to cover the bases of people I know, some for keepers, a few for family, teachers, etc. What could I call it? Places My Head Was At, perhaps. It's just that it describes certain, but not all, of essentialities that are both extremely difficult to package in language, and maybe at the base or origin of some more abstract positions I have taken, or experimented with. Already, looking back at some doings, I can see trains of thought followed up on, fleshed out, others sitting dormant, maybe others set aside as not pertinent or useful or not an enticing life path. Maybe that sounds like the "A" word, but I gag on it mentally. Being-doings maybe I can live with, and that's clumsy ans smells like philosophers, so, go figure... 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#: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?)? --- Blue Wave/RA v2.12 [NR] * Origin: ARTS / THE THING DUESSELDORF (42:1002/2.0) 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#: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. --- Blue Wave/RA v2.12 [NR] nnnnnnnnn: ARTS / THE THING DUESSELDORF (42:1002/2.0) 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. --- Blue Wave/RA v2.12 [NR] * Origin: ARTS / THE THING DUESSELDORF (42:1002/2.0) 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. --- Blue Wave/RA v2.12 [NR] * Origin: ARTS / THE THING DUESSELDORF (42:1002/2.0) 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 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.