February 2003, 93 posts, 3562 lines
Greetings,
In lieu of all the email petitions that have been circulating, the effectiveness of which I really don't understand, I am forwarding this description of a grassroots campaign underway to protest war in Iraq (see below). I like it because it's simple, but potentially quite powerful. I encourage you to join me in doing it...
Regards, Barbara Koenen
RICE PROTEST:
Place 1/2 cup uncooked rice in a small plastic bag (a snack-size bag or sandwich bag work fine). Squeeze out excess air and seal the bag. Wrap it in a piece of paper on which you have written:
(Or whatever like sentiment you prefer.)
Place the paper and bag of rice in an envelope (either a letter-sized or padded mailing envelope--both are the same cost to mail) and address them to:
President George Bush White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20500
Attach $1.06 in postage. (Three 37-cent stamps equal $1.11.) Drop this in the mail TODAY. It is important to act NOW so that President Bush gets the letters ASAP. In order for this protest to be effective, there must be hundreds of thousands of such rice deliveries to the White House. We can do this if you each forward this message to your friends and family.
There is a positive history of this protest! In the 1950s, Fellowship of Reconciliation began a similar protest, which is credited with influencing President Eisenhower against attacking China. Read on:
Source: "People Power: Applying Nonviolence Theory" by David H. Albert, p. 43, New Society, 19. Thank you for being people of hope, people of faith. Pastor Susan Ortman Goering, Boulder Mennonite
Sorry about that. I just reposted Koenen's post to Topica Rice here at othergroup.net, cause it seems that Topica changes their email headers every month, and it fell through the filters.
Don't use polished rice -- it contains talcum, looks like small white particles.. you know what that will get you.
/jno
I think it is tempting to view art as a language system; a way of looking at art that may prove useful as a loose metaphor in order to stress the primarily communicative function of artmaking. Upon close examination however, to call art a sort of "visual language" would be an oversimplification.
It seems to me that art is a realm of cultural production that is theoretical, that has the freedom to create meaning, while at the same time questioning the way in which this meaning is constructed. In doing so, the discourse of art employs many and diverse language systems, and as no language is ever really a passive and neutral carrier of meaning, good art is often concerned with questioning the nature of the very language systems of which it is constructed.
Might I suggest, Mr. Anderson, that your definitions of "language" and "art" might be refined by reading "Mythologies" by Roland Barthes, or "Art After Philosophy an After" by Joseph Kosuth.
As for the question of political activism, neither the fact that activism has been accepted as art in the past (as Anthony suggests), nor that non-artists (such as Greenpeace) have used visual media for political ends, is a good argument that sincere political propaganda should have any place in art now. This is not, of course, to say that art should have nothing to do with political issues. The point is that artistic production of any sort always has a political dimension, as does any form of production.
Often, artwork that has an explicitly political message as its content becomes "tedious" (as Ben puts it) for several reasons beyond its generally tired and trite predictability.
Any art that we might consider to fall under the rubric of "activism" is usually doomed to impotence at best, and at worst, hypocrisy. To be an "activist" implies anything but neutrality. It is to be "pro" or "anti". When present in art, it does an injustice to the real complexity of both the political situation at hand, as well as the discourse of art. If activism can work subtly enough within an art context to be artistically and politically effective, we should of course be mindful of the scope of our audience. At best, it would seem that overtly political art succeeds at "preaching to the choir", and a relatively small choir at that.
When "activist" art seeks to critique a real world political situation, what is generally most problematic is the real political and economic position that the artist occupies and in which she produces the work. To "expose" a political injustice in the larger world usually requires concealment of one's own relationship to the system, which is almost always one of direct or indirect complicity, and never in any case one of true objectivity.
This is not to say that the rhetoric, aesthetic, or tone of political activism cannot be incorporated into a work successfully. It is possible to use the "language" of activism parenthetically within a work in order to explore these very problems that I have enumerated. Locally, the work of Chuck Jones comes to mind as someone who appropriates political rhetoric in order to examine the contradictions inherent to any sort of partisan message.
I personally am sympathetic to a somewhat "leftist" political viewpoint, but I am aware that my position as an artist is one of privelege. The artworld is in many ways an elitist institution. It is a realm of educational, economic and social privilege; membership constitutes a kind of cultural capital. At the end of the day, art is ultimately a luxury: the luxury of self-reflexive, philosophical play for the well-educated, or the luxury of pricey fetish objects for the well-to-do collector. This view may seem sad or cynical to the altruist, but for my money, its still the best game in town. To make art accessible to everyone would be to do it an injustice, to turn it into an episode of "Friends" or a Greenpeace ad.
If the political and economic realities of participation in the dialogue of contemporary art doom us to a position of moral ambiguity, then so be it. If you think you can find some simpler position in the world, free from complicity and contradiction, then you may be deceiving yourself.
Dennis Hodges
Well lucky for Ben I deleted his email. On top of which i am too lazy to wade through the ether of the internet to find his text. I'll just end with: I still believe you are making too much of the: 1. supposed conflict between corporate methods, and recycling "lefty" concerns. 2. desire to think that political activism is PP's goal. The work is quite obviously NOT political activism.
on to new fish:
It is awfully hard for something to be theoretical and create meaning without being a language. A language is defined by a dictionary, in part as: "2. Any differentiated system as used by a section of the human race for communication among themselves...5. A manner of expressing oneself. 6. Any other organized system of communication. 7. any apparently organized system of communication."
Now despite my distaste for viewing art as any form of communication. I think, given these definitions, visual art definitely can look like a visual language. Mind you, a visual languiage does not have to, nor does it, exclude written language. which is visual. I also find that where people insert theory into art troubling. Art is not theoretical. But the object, and their manner of construction do imply a theory of how (art, the world, hot dogs, whatever) items/thought function. Art is theory in practice, but not the theory, and certainly not theoretical (it does exist after all.)
Steve, I say this as a friend. having read Kosuth's Art After Philosophy and After three times, and despite being a guy who gets goosebumps at the sight of conceptual art and french theory....Stay away from the Kosuth book. His attempts to make a case for his way of working as a primary form of communication above and beyond any other methodology is a slow poison at best. (in this manner, it is a lot like kosuth is in person.) It's attractive in the beginning, but falls apart the more you try to move Kosuth's methods of thinking beyond 1967.
...Now perhaps is also the time to mention Kosuth's many politically activist works....
No? well then what is? heartfield? golub? guerilla girls? Holzer? kruger? Hirschhorn? Burden? Haacke?
True or not, this has become the most overused, empty phrase in art criticism and dialogue. It is usually used as a way to sweep aside politics with a capital p being used in art, and to dismiss social discussions of the function of art. It has become the new version of the word "interesting" used to such banality in studio critiques.
Arguments like this are also false arguments. Often used in dismissing statements "all rap is crap" etc.
How many of the monochromes (don't start on me ben foch) you saw last year were good. versus how many were trite. How many of the large format cibachromes you say last year were trite. I would guess no more than 1 to 3 percent of any art form is really great, and everything under that various levels of banality and predictability.
using the above statement would be laughable if we replaced the word "blue" for the phrase "political message." Damning a whole methodology based on some bad practioners is questionable. It also disregards those that have made great statementswith the form.
The recognized pantheon of great experimental american dance, performance, theater, video and film would not exist without politically activist works. If that is not your taste, so be it..but don't write away a whole method of working. (gee, remember not too long ago when all those people complained that painting had been unfairly written off as old tired, tedious and predic table? remember how it was decided, maybe the blanket condemnations were just a touch shortsighted?)
I would really like to see this statment defended by examples. In a way that applies to all the manifestations that fall under the term "activism."
Check out books on the aesthetics of Act Up. they were more formally, theoretically, and linguistically inventive than all the David Salles, Julian Schnabels, and their half-baked followers combined.
Ok. What does this mean? I am not an activist. My art has no politically activist bent. But it is difinitevly "pro" many things, and "anti" a great deal of other things. Every statement is. Every artwork is.
I also always adore this comment. First, as seen in many comments in the artworld, sometimes you need to preach to the choir. because sometimes they are not all that informed. (most my artist friends do not read the paper, or listen to the news, or watch the news...some don't even vote.) Secondly, because the artworld has problems with exclusivity and elitism, we should all give up the real world, retire in our smoking jackets to the large overstuffed leather chairs with snifter of cognac so we can worry ourselves with more 'theoretical" manners?
So this statemnt argues against any form of oppositional argument against a system, because it is impossible to get out of any and all systems. Activism does not aim for objectivity. But passion. None of us are saints, and only some of us are truly devils. Also, hypocricy is a hard thing to level against someone. Is a millionare a hypocrite if they speak out in favor of fiscal help for the poor? Is a minority the only one who can work to improve the situation for minorities? We live in a world where no one is just one thing. We all have items that make us passionate, even if it is only formal aesthetics. The fact that onjectivity cannot be reached does not exclude the need, nor desire, for bringing a fact to a public arena.
maybe it should be pointed out Chuck is a friend of mine, who sees himself as making decidedly partisan work. "npr leftist."
He is not "examining the contradictions." They are political, the message is meant to be taken politically. He decided, it was time for someone to make unabashedly leftwing art. he is not appropriating the forms, he is using the forms. he is not criticising political language. he is criticising the political language of the conservative right. They are meant to be wholly a product of liberal thought critical of the republicans in the government. How many of his buttons/sculptures feature any politicians of the left coupled with a negative message?
I'm sorry, but this is the singular dumbest phrase I have read in a long time. It deserves no rebuttal.
I don't mean to plug,
but you guys threw me a softball. Please check out Greg Purcell's
interview with Chuck Jones in the new issue of Cakewalk magazine, on sale
at Bridge/Apt 1R, Quimby's and at Gallery 312 starting this weekend!
-Steve
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Please join Bridge magazine and the Digital Genres Initiative this Saturday, February 8 for "Thinking Critically About Video Games," A Round Table on Video Games and Video Game Criticism. Gaming at 6pm, Roundtable at 8pm; 119 North Peoria, #3D, $5 Suggested Donation.
Call 312-421-2227 For more information
What would it mean to think critically about video games? That is to say, what would it mean for us to understand them in a rich, detailed, explicit, and not necessarily academic way? What is 'video game criticism'? What can gamers, academics, game designers, artists, and performers tell us about video games?
Video games are an ever-more popular and pervasive part of our culture today. They are technically complex, driving technical innovation in both the console and PC platforms. They demand virtuostic technical skills similar to those found in professional musicians or athletes. They create fantastic virtual worlds which millions of people inhabit.
Most thinking about video games has been total shit. Mostly it has been written done by Cultural Studies types who don't actually play video games. This is the equivalent of an Art History professor publishing articles on art without ever having stepped inside a museum. Much of what has been published has been concerned about the 'increasing level of violence' in our society - particularly among children. Attempts to understand what video games are have been replaced with a superficial understanding oriented towards the creation of badly-made public policy. Finally and most importantly, thinking about video games has been guided by analogies to written texts - so that people talk about 'textuality' or 'readings'.
Grand Theft Auto III: Vice City and Counter-Strike will both be available for play, projected onto the walls of the event space using space-aged LCD projectors. Come think, talk, drink, and game with us.
Participants include:
Talmadge Wright and Paul Breidenbach are researchers from Loyola University Chicago. They have recently published his first paper from an ongoing project investigating digital play, shooter games and masculinity and recently delivered a paper at the "Challenge of Computer Games" conference in Lodz, Poland discussing observations from Counter-Strike player interviews and player observations.
Alex Golub is a graduate student in the anthropology department of the University of Chicago, where he studies gold mining and indigenous people in Papua New Guinea. He has written two books: Gold Positive: A Brief History of Porgera 1930-1994, which was published in Papua New Guinea, and an unpublished novel entitled Small Ensembles. He is a contributor to Bridge Magazine, and thinks Baldur's Gate II was almost as swell as Half-Life. His blog is at alex.golub.name.
Seth Killian manages shoryuken.com, a web site dedicated to the competitive Street Fighter II community, and which is largest of its kind in the world. Seth is the winner of national Street Fighter champions in the US, is nationally ranked in Germany, and has recently returned from competition at Super Battle Opera in Tokyo. He is also a graduate student at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, where he studies philosophy and, specifically, 'something like bioethics'.
Kind Regards,
Michael Workman Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. USA
First of all, I will admit that I am new to posting on othergroup, and I must say that I am impressed to get such a quick and thorough response to my thoughts and opinions. I appreciate your criticisms Anthony, some of which compel me to reexamine and restate my position more carefully.
First of all, I would like to concede a couple of points:
Anthony quoted an admittedly opinionated portion of my rant, and made the following response:
Alright, I'll bite. So I made the recommended substitution, which yielded:
Okay. I admit it. That is laughable. The logic of my statement is utterly destroyed by the insertion of the word "blue". But I sincerely fail to understand what kind of statement wouldn't fall apart were we to randomly exchange one of its phrases for "blue". I fear that all of my arguments might be vulnerable to this powerful new brand of logic.
Second, in my statements regarding "political activism" and art, I made an example of local artist Chuck Jones as someone whose work seemed to me to be successfully appropriating the aesthetic of "activist" propaganda in order to make a more complex proposition regarding partisan posturing. I apologize if I have misinterpreted his intentions, and admit that I have never spoken with him. Nor have I met, as Anthony suggests that he has, Joseph Kosuth, and while I stand by my recommendation of his writings, I cannot vouch for his character.
Perhaps because I am not as worldly, well-read, or well-connected as Mr. Elms, I am a little disturbed by the idea that one needs to be personally acquainted with an artist in order to be qualified to talk about or interpret his work. If I can formulate a reasonable (not to say brilliant, or even correct) interpretation of some possible meanings conveyed by a piece, and they bear absolutely no relevance to the artist's actual intentions, then perhaps the artist has failed to reconcile some undesired contradictions within the work. I do not suggest that this is the case with Chuck Jones, but it might be the failure at the heart of the People Powered debate.
It is also puzzling that an artist's intentions can be so easily misread if art is in fact a language, as Anthony proposes. Perhaps some artists just do not "speak" their favorite "language" very well.
I did not mean to imply that art is not like language, cannot consist of language, or be about language. I said that to call it a language is an oversimplification. The same sort of oversimplification that we get when we try to consult a common dictionary for the meanings of complex and frequently contested concepts like "art" or "language". If selective quoting of dictionary entries could really resolve the big questions that easily, our jobs as artists would be much simpler (and dreadfully boring). Let's look up "art" in a dictionary...
art n. 1. human creativity 2. skill 3. any specific skill or its application 4. any craft or its principles 5. a making of things that have form or beauty....&c
Are we really satisfied with any of these definitions?
Regardless, in my opinion, art is not language because it does not have the transparency, stability of denotative communication, or one-to-one relationship of signifier to signified that we commonly expect of language. Art might, however, constitute a sort of semiological system, but one of a higher order than a first order system like the English language. When we encounter the word "tree" in a newspaper article, it is for all practical purposes transparent. Most likely, we do not think about the marks that compose "tree", the sound of the word "tree" or the reason that the signifier "tree" has been attached to the idea or image or whatever that it seems to communicate to us. The signifier seems (although somewhat deceptively) to be somehow equivalent with the signified, and to communicate meaning in a direct and impartial way. This "tree" is different from the word "tree" if written in paint on a canvas. In the painting the sign "tree" is borrowed by the semiological system of painting, and what is a sign in the first order system, becomes a signifier in the second order system. Some of the ramifications of this are that "tree" on the canvas can now refer to multiple signifieds. It can still act in its original function, but it can also for example, become a stand-in, within the painting, for written language in general.
All right, enough of that. I don't claim to be an expert or even an accomplished student of linguistic theory, but I hope that you get my point (and I'm sure Anthony will be more than happy to point out any errors). I think that viewing art as something more complex than "merely" a language opens exciting possibilities to the artist or viewer. We can ask better questions than "what does this artwork mean", and instead ask "what does it mean to propose this work as art?". And it is in this sense that I labeled art a "theoretical" endeavor, because every work contains some tentative (although often implicit) attempt to define what art is, and what purposes it can serve.
Dennis Hodges
thanks for coming. Well they aren't. The point wasn't:
"wow, blue sure makes sentences funny!" But rather, a favorite topic of
mine. One that I spent this summer yelling with Marc Fischer about, and
occassionaly jump on with others as well. That is: Blanket condemnations
don't work. And often, speaking about art, people change their preferences
into sweeping rules that aren't worth their weight in cow patties. We all
do this (I'm particularly good at dismissing large swaths of art.) This
particularly happens in reference to the every tricky "realworld."
So I was trying to point out, that a statement like: "Often,
artwork that has an explicitly political message as its content becomes
"tedious" (as Ben puts it) for several reasons beyond its generally tired
and trite predictability." gets accepted in the artworld despite the
fallacy, when a statement with an analagous sweeping demand on art: that
blue makes art tedious, would never pass the lips of anyone but the
foolhardy. Becaue that statement is equally true and false. Political art,
and portraiture, and basketweaving are all often tedious. It's not the
subject or techniques fault. But the combination of everything that makes
the work failing to rise to a level, for which there are no rules and game
plans. It all gets further complicated by personal taste. The type of
reasoning that excludes political content tends to single out the function
of political activity in a way that is perceived as unique to the subject
matter. And the claims can usually be disproved by looking at all the
politically activist works in the art historical cannon, on collector's,
and museums', and gallery walls, and in artist studios. If you don't like
it, that's one thing. But it cannot be written away. There's the
old phrase: facts don't lie, accountants do. Again, you do not have to be aquanted with the artist. but you
mentioned Chuck, and I know, from many discussions that he sees the work
as political, and in support of the left. "npr leftist" was his phrase. I
mentioned it because I know this. And maybe I'm blinded by knowing him,
but having seen his work several times, I do think you'd be hardpressed to
not recognize the political bent of many of the works. Particularly the
PSAs he made. As to Kosuth, never met him, just a dismissive fax
(from him) back and forth, having seen his behavior on panel discussions,
talking to many friends and associates who have worked for him, and
noticed his whole backdating of his work so he can appear first in the
history books. he still has made some good works. And I read the book 3
times right? obviously I didn't do it out of torture. But I wouldn't turn
around and recommend the book to others either. Being well
traveled doesn't count for much, but helps. Yes, being well read does help
considerably. Well connected only counts if you want to be invited to
parties. I'm sorry, but I never find
anything oversimplifing about dictionary definitions. I refuse to believe
"art" or "language" are some form of special words who cannot be
explained, like all the other pedestrian terms. And I think the
definitions I quoted, pointed in some way, to the complexity of a
language. That a language is not necessarily universally interpretted in a
1=1 manner. Look at the missed interpretations we have made of each
other's comments. Language is not simple. Two other points:
1. people tend to oppse the complexity of "visual" language, to
the simple "written" or spoken" language. Then how come poetry has the
ability to be remarkably abstract and complex? How come we can spend hours
trying to discover what a novelist meant? A language is not an even
playing field to all. Many artists' works (Charles Ray, Richard Serra, Sol
Lewitt, Cindy Sherman) would be meaningless if there were not a language
to visual form. 2. Roland Barthes, who you mentioned in your
first message, is one of a handful of writers generally responsible for
the concept of vsual forms being a language. Almost all the tracks lead to
his interpretations of signs, advertisements and the like. A
misinterpretation or not, he gets namechecked alot. he used terms like
signifier, sign, etc. to bring a semiology to visual forms. While
we are at it, my favorite dictionary definition: Painter: A rope attached
to the bow of a boat and used to tie it up to a stake or ring on shore or
to a towing vessel. I can honestly say yes. What would you rather it
say? maybe, Art: Something that hovers in the background while you look
for the Old Style. I try always to be happy.
a Just one last thing on the art and language question...
While I have my own theories (some of which I've shared here) on this
topic, I thought that I might try to get an opinion from someone who
actually knows what he is talking about with regards to language, i.e. a
linguistics professor. So I emailed MIT Professor Noam Chomsky, noted
linguistics expert (and "NPR liberal"), telling him about our debate on
othergroup and asking, "whether art can properly be considered a
language." He responded: In my
opinion, it's the kind of question that cannot have an answer -- like "do
airplanes fly" (yes, in some languages, no in others) or "do submarines
swim" (not in English, maybe in some languages). It's a question of which
metaphors one chooses to adopt. Noam Chomsky" I suppose
I should have expected that sort of answer. I just thought I should share
that answer with the group since he was kind enough to reply. Another opinion on the art/language question, this one from James
Elkins... Dennis, Hi, I'm in Ireland... I have a minute
now. The strictest senses of "language" mean that it is something
systematic, with rules, etc.... and although that isn't strictly true of
language, it has been tried as a definition for artistic "languages." The
book is Nelson Goodman, "Languages of Art." He tries hard to define some
elements of languages, and to show how they apply, with varying results,
to different visual systems from thermometers to music. Painting doesn't
even qualify. From there, things get very loose. Another major
source is Louis Marin; his books are all about the *feeling* you get
sometimes, looking at paintings, that you're really reading. then there
are semioticians, who sometimes use parallels to language. A good example
is Hubert Damisch's "Origin of Perspective" or his book on "/Cloud/."
Basically, art cannot be "properly" considered a language unless
you loosen the concept of language; but it can be considered to be *like*
a language, or *like* writing, in various ways. My book "Domain of Images"
is all about that. The bottom line is that for psychological reasons it
often makes sense to want to say that painting, for example, is a
language. Hope the helps. Feel free to post it. Best,
Jim Professor James Elkins Department of Art History, Theory, and
Criticism School of the Art Institute of Chicago 112 S. Michigan Avenue,
room 605 Chicago IL 60603 USA actually, he's a lot more
liberal than NPR has ever attempted to be. Critics, whippersnappers and ye of journalistic
disposition In a rage or filled with delight Set things right. A
call to art critics of Chicago: I write to summon your propensity
to criticize, ponder and enlighten the masses and to propel the
composition of a specific art review. This weekend is the fourth annual
Around the Coyote Winter Arts Festival and it is time to get those
censorious wheels turning. While Around the Coyote is pivotal to the
Wicker Park art scene, crucial to the success of many Chicago emerging
artists and instrumental in a variety of art-related community enrichment
programs, I am baffled by the shortage of writers, critics and city
leaders that are interested in their projects and art festivals and
willing to offer the organization feedback and criticism. In general, the
community supports Around the Coyote and turn-out is always strong at
their festivals. Yet, for such strong crowds, I am shocked at the
shortage of retrospective analysis of these events and festivals. This
year I hope to alter this trend and inspire dialogue and published reviews
about the Winter Arts Festival. I want vocal members of the artistic and
journalistic community to shift their gaze and wield their swords and
deliver the sort of criticism that is fundamental to the continued growth
of Around the Coyote as well as these emerging artists. The
festival runs today through Sunday with a slew of film, dance and poetry
events sprinkled throughout the festival. More than 100 artists will be
on display in the two locations: Flat Iron Arts Building (1579 N
Milwaukee) and the Northwest Tower (1608 N Milwaukee). Full
festival information can be seen at www.aroundthecoyote.org
Exhibition Hours: Friday 2.7.03 6pm-10pm Saturday 2.8.03 11am-10pm Sunday
2.9.03 11am-6pm With a Curator's Choice and Silent Auction in the
ATC Space (Flat Iron Arts Building Ste 352) Art shows,
exhibitions and openings are breeding like varmints this month, but it is
time the community expressed their opinions of Around the Coyote.
I am sure many of you are affiliated with specific literary publications,
journals and magazines. I would like to see a review in Bridge online and
any other Chicago-based publication. As vocal members of the art
community, more than anything I hope to read some discussion of this
weekend's festival through othergroup. actually, he's a lot more
liberal than NPR has ever attempted to be." Chomsky is more
"'This is Hell' Liberal" - the very fine show on WNUR that I can never
tune in. And Chuck Jones' nice buttons are also too liberal for NPR for
that matter - though it could be fun if the guys on "Car Talk" would
occasionally throw in little asides about taking up guns and shooting the
president. As for Chuck Jones' buttons about teaching your children about
sodomy, I suppose after last night's extraordinary trash on ABC, those can
now be called "Michael Jackson Liberal" Marc I
have been busy working on my Micheal Jackson essay, which has since grown
from the MJ/ Orlan comparison to a more comprehensive question of
intentionality concerning our recently revamped in interest pop star. It
takes into consideration the production of Warhol,Barney, and Sherman as
well. In the mean time, here is my report from last nights events.
Minus Around the Coyote. I thought about going, as I wanted to offer my
true opinions on the exhibition, and want to be informed. However, in the
heirarchy of priorities... well, you understand. I have always
had a weak spot for Jeff McMahon’s work. His second solo show at
Bodybuilder and Sportsman again had a few hits for me. The photographs
proposed some problems because the white border does not function as an
active agent out of context, same with the drawings. It is a device that
only really makes sense in paintings. This criticism aside, when it works
in the paintings, it really hits hard. His border baffles the viewer,
between the simplicity of merely putting a white border around everything
and the complexity of putting a white border around everything. It is
this initial conflict that keeps us engaged long enough to not walk away.
It both reduces the painting to an insignificant object and allows the
artist to paint whatever he wants within this frame, not too much
different then the experience a painter may have had pre-frame
acknowledgement. He’s developed a conceptual practice that allows for
the formal investigation of paint. Some images remain more
critical of this investigation, such as the Richteresque squeegee
paintings or other appropriated mark making practices, while others are
more indulgent, such as the muscle car paintings, which I do not think we
saw any of last night I’m sorry to say. It is this contrast of
intentions within his frame that makes his work the most troubling and
interesting, problemitizing the painter’s confrontation with his
individual practice to investigate its possibilities to retain relevance
and meaning. The other edifying moment in last nights itinerary
was Marc Leblanc’s work at Open End Arts new space at 2000 W. Fulton,
which, let me add, is unbelievable. It has been a long time since I have
seen a body of work that feels exciting and fresh, opening up new channels
of thought and perception. His voice remains clear and consistent from
one proposition to the next. His work rides that fine line between
conceptual rigor and poetic personal interpretation in the spirit of a
Felix Gonzales-Torres. The works include an appropriated
presentational voice, whether it is a plexi-glass vitrine, pedestals, or
framed objects. In this case, framed objects are on display. Two pieces
rang out as the most potent works. The first, a wood frame that houses a
baby picture of the artist juxtaposed by a 1981 issue of Artforum,
assumingly from the month he was born. This contrast speaks volumes.
LeBlanc locates himself historically and forms a dialogue with a period
outside of his literal grasp. He reflects on a system he is now involved,
but exists without his participation. It was here before him, and will
continue after him. An effort to achieve balance in this ever-growing
complex system is apparent. The piece strives to find a structure upon
which to build, asking fundamental questions concerning the nature of self
and other and its relative meanings. It is trying to formulate a template
from which to view, understand, and then respond to, the world. This
process is then literally displayed through physical remnants of his
history. The second piece is the display of similar artifacts,
representing a day trip to the art museum. I suspect that this trip to
witness history is metaphorically intentional. We have a photographic
document of the artist and his girlfriend, no doubt included to discuss
and comment on the common tourism of such an adventure, standing in front
of the museum, receipts from lunch for two, and the tags given out as
token memorabilia. Again, the artist attempts to locate self, but opposed
to the past, he is historicizing his present. Reducing himself, as is the
potential fate of the work, to a document or artifact within an
institution. This self-reflexive performative maneuver mutates artistic
production constructively. Ben Foch Hi Ali, You wrote: You
can start by telling me: why should I care about this event? What's it
trying to do? What's different and notable about it? What am I gonna get
there that is better than what I'm getting elsewhere? How is it vital and
necessary--ie why should I pay attention? So is there anything to these murmurings? Do you have
any idea why people might be disappointed by the actual festival?
I've never attended the festival, and
nobody's ever said to me, "oh you gotta see (blank) at Around the Coyote!
It's amazing (intense, frightening, incredibly thought-provoking,
hilarious, etc.)! I've been thinking about it over and over ever since I
saw it." Either nobody I know is going, or the displayed work is bland.
And to be perfectly honest, the little I do know about ATC hasn't moved me
to get involved; it just doesn't seem all that relevant to the ways in
which I deal with art. You haven't thrown the stone yet, just asked for a
stone to be thrown. Why don't you start the discussion instead of
"calling" on listmembers to provide it? If you offer your informed
analyses and opinions first, then we'll have something to which we can
respond. Dan w. well Dan...thanks for making us at the Other Group sound
like real elitist assholes. Speak for youself not for "the group".
Why should you care? Well, because art is what you make, because
you should be responsible, because we all eat from the same cake, because
is art, because you want other people to look at your art ...and
somehow...treat it with respect. Pedro w
Pedro, If that's
how you took it, then you're welcome. Just because it's been made and just because it's there doesn't
mean anyone has a responsibility to see it, much less write a considered
opinion about it. If that were the case, then we are all responsible for
seeing all the work that is out there, whether we know anything about it
or not. An impossible task, and probably not an enjoyable one. I
think it's totally fair to ask somebody who's already seen the work to
give some well-considered and specific reasons for going to see a show,
especially if that person is asking listmembers to discuss that show.
If a person can't give me a few sentences about why this show or
this work is worth seeing beyond the usual cliches (you provided a very
tidy list of those) and guilt-tripping (we have to support Chicago
artists!), then forget it. There are more than enough people around who
have no problem telling me a little something about a show they'd
recommend and/or want feedback on--a few words about what they thought was
notable, what to look for, how something worked or didn't work, etc.
And yes, before you accuse me of being totally unadventurous, I
do go see stuff without having prior knowledge or descriptions of it. Just
not in response to somebody asking me to see a show with which they are
involved, discuss and possibly write about it, and for publication no
less. Maybe Ali didn't realize this, but she (he?) asked for a lot.
Dan I'm sorry but this sentence is really
funny. Marc Ben Foch wrote: (that funny sentence among other
things that I also couldn't make much sense of) I have not commented on the show Really Real at Gallery
312 yet because I need to go back and absorb all that there was to see.
The opening was very crowded and I didn’t have the time I would have
liked to dedicate to all that was going on. With such an extensive list
of artists, I am sure at least a handful of you pay attention and/or
participate in othergroup. It would be helpful to me if any of you would
write in your comments concerning your involvement in the show, how such a
show was organized, the curatorial process, etc. It seemed to be a very
unique event and I would like to know more about its inception and its
components, such as the gift shop. If anyone has anything to say on these
matters, it would be greatly appreciated and informative when I go back
for my thorough analysis. Thanks! Ben Foch
The "Really Real" show is "Really" incoherently
organized and unfocused. I thought it felt extremely confused about what
it wanted to do and how it wanted to expose a broad range of
ideas/objects. The amount of critical distance that went into the
structuring of this endeavor appears to have been almost nonexistent. But
having said all of that, there are some very exciting moments within the
show that make it well worth seeing - and perhaps revisiting if you went
to the crowded opening (which I did - not a very good way to experience
some of this stuff). There are things in the show which - if explored more
thoroughly and thoughtfully - would be interesting shows in and of
themselves. There are also things in the show that are vague in their
presentation, but became much more interesting after speaking with some of
the people that were responsible for those objects'/ideas' inclusion in
the show. An essay or series of explanations and some accountability for
how this show came together would have made its ideas a lot stronger. The
booklet of glib acknowledgments and insider compliments does little to
sort out the mess that is on view. The desire to let chaos reign feels -
at least in this show - like it was a cop out. But again, there's
some compelling stuff on view. One thing I thought was particularly great
was an archive of a couple hundred Ham Radio contact postcards from around
the world. This collection represents a really wonderful survey of
something one rarely gets to see (unless you are entrenched in Ham Radio
culture - which not a lot of people are). The cards themselves feature
some stellar graphic design covering the broadest range of approaches
-from pseudo and perhaps legit Russian Constructivism to 1970's Hawaiian
kitsch. Marc BenFoch at aol.com wrote:
she asked for a lot? she asked for the ususal...she asked
for the same things we all ask for....come see it and talk about it?
That's why people put up shows...get it... No, you don't
get it...you are too busy with your water cooler art theory...so many
rules with you... enough with the attacking, pedro. don't you
think it contradicts your argument for consideration and engagement?
Lorelei Stewart Director, Gallery 400, UIC 1240 West
Harrison Street (MC 034) Chicago, IL 60607 312 996 6114 T 312 355
3444 F [http://gallery400.aa.uic.edu]
OK other group...I'm out...this has become so academic...so elitist...so
artsy fartsy...can't take it anymore. Can't take the Dan Wangs of the
world. People love to write and express their own "reviews" here but
nothing happens in the real world. It feels like window dressing...artists
should approach art like sports...you go out, play hard, try your best in
the field. If you win you are happy, if you don't you take responsibility
for messing up. So just fucking do it! Stop being scared Chicago, stop
being defeated, stop being LAZY Chicago writers/critics. and
please, stop the rumors: I do like Loreli....we disagree
in many things but she is cool, smart and she is doing a good thing.
If there was anyone I hated in Chicago that is Fred Camper, but
that is public knowledge and he is also very vocal about our hate for each
other. He is an ignorant asshole that shouldn't have the Reader gig.
good luck, Pedro Velez
Okay Pedro, I'm completely confused. For a while it seemed that you wanted
art to be like heavy metal. Heavy metal isn't usually all that smart, but
it's passionate, aggressive, sincere, honest, and lacks irony. I could
more or less get with that. It seemed right for our post-ironic post 9/11
times. But now you want art to be more like sports? Have you lost your
mind?! Sports are all obsessed with competition, corporate sponsorship,
advertising, consumerism, and steroid abuse. And you are quoting Nike in
your directive to just [fucking] do it? Brother, you have really gone
astray. Stompin' in my Air Force Ones, Marc P.S. A
personal aside: I saw that Stephen Pearcy from Ratt had a solo show
somewhere in the suburbs of Chicago recently - I thought of you and hoped
that maybe the tour would reach PR so that you would get to see it.
Naturally I did not go because - as you well know - Ratt aren't nearly
hard enough for me. But I've been listening to that Sodom album I taped
from you a lot lately. Pedro Velez wrote: Well, I think I would be very suspicious of a show
that had designs on defining or dealing with the notion of Real or Reality
that was NOT relatively unfocused and all over the place. I have to say
that that kind of pell-mell experience is usually a mixed feeling for me,
because I usually like concision and focus along with my wild
proliferation. But, I found it pretty easy and interesting to look through
all the stuff piece by piece or section by section at first; assuming I
would have to go back and look again. Those ham radio cards though, ah. If
only I saw things everyday that had that kind of stripped down focused
design. But the wall of quartz (?) pieces pegged into the wall
was something great, I think. They were the height measurements of
celebrities, I think, and the field of them on the black wall sort of
pointing up to space and the stars, the form echoing an asteroid belt, I
thought was an approach to fame that was poetic and interesting to look
through with the binder list. And the fact that anything could make it
through to my brain with those superb pop songs by Rodney Graham rolling
through my head all week is a miracle. If anyone knows how to get copies
of his songs, let me know, I'll shine your shoes for a decade and make you
the best pasta sauce you'll ever have. ....but maybe I'll keep
the "it's music why does it have to be impossible to get even if it is
art, why can't you just make a book and cd to sell at the show for a
rational price" argument for another email Brian
I eventually found the binder but
it was on the other side of the gallery on a book shelf with a zillion
other objects and books. It's a really nice list. I like the list much
better than the rocks and I was glad to know that I'm one inch taller than
John Lennon (probably a few inches taller than him now). But putting that
binder a half mile away from the rest of the piece is "really" bad
exhibition design. There's a lot of that in that show - this kind of
treasure hunt to figure out just what the fuck you are looking at and how
it all fits (or in many cases, doesn't seem to fit) together.
Marc About the "Really Real" show, I'm in agreement with Marc that it
would nice if there was a little more transparency er, like, explanation
about how it was organized, an essay or statement. The chaos of it is
very appealing to me. I've been dreaming of a show like this for a while,
a little bit of a train wreck. It happily employs art products
such as the People Powered paint on the book shelves, happily sells art,
mostly cheaply, at the gift shop. Which opens the commercial side of art
up to a much broader group of people. That's a way I can deal with
commercial art. Then I'm left wondering what the commercial arrangement
is, how is that money spent at the gift shop cut up. This becomes a part
of the curatorial concerns, for me. I might sholda asked the person I was
paying for the stuff I bought about that. That transaction that we are all
very familiar with, of buying something, then becomes an opportunity to
talk about art, another way to enter the work and the dialog around it.
(It might seem like I'm grasping at straws here, but straws are sometimes
my only means of drinking art, with my jaw wired shut as it is...so to
speak.) As we are aware, curration, more and more seems to become
a big part of the "text" of a show, so it becomes a central concern for
the viewer. In Really Real there is this chaos, that Marc mentions in the
curation, a confusion between collectors (people with collections, not art
collectors), artists, curators, preparators. So I can see how in working
to put a show like this together that things could get really flippant, a
lot of, "hey what the hell, we've done everything else in here, why don't
we do that too?" And I'm guessing that's where it falls appart for Marc,
or someone. It reminds me of something Gregg Bordowitz says he's
interested in (it's in a book I bought at Really Real, the Catalog for his
MCA show, Drive) the idea of burdening a form 'til it reaches a point of
structural collapse. Not sure if this show achieves that, but I am just
reminded of it. If the chaos is a cop out, I read it as a response to the
copping out of much local art. But maybe that's an overly generous
reading. Copping out is it's own form, a genre of work it seems. As much
as I like Marc LeBlanc, his work at Open End, and much of his other work
that I've seen, seems to be in that vein. I know I'm in danger of sounding
puritanical here, but there rarely seems to be any work in his work. It
reminds me of some of Oli Watt's work, putting in it in an Ikea/Target
frame isn't enough for me--which is not to mention my personal distaste
for these products. Though I will say that some of that very convincing
mumbo jumbo that Ben was writing about it is a very nice compliment to the
work. Maybe you guys should do a project together. Some of my
favorite moments in Really Real: the time machine portion of the show,
with Ben Stone's jumble of crappy alarm clocks (are there any alarm clocks
that are not crappy? Okay, sure, they are useful) right there by Cindy
Loehr's Grandfather Clock. And I love that they are showing the entire
Beaver Trilogy in that screening room (I have to that I'm looking forward
to the day when 312 can get a better video projector though), and I
literally gasped when we turned off all the lights in that back room to
get a better view of the Accidental Camera Obscura and saw the reflection
of someone walk through a door outside. I'm trying to figure out
how to say what I think the title is about, "Really Real." A lot of the
stuff in the show is just that, stuff, real stuff. It seems to lie on the
same plane as the viewer more so than, say, Sarah Conaway's work at Julia
Friedman (which I also happen to be very excited about. But maybe only
because I get the impression she's not sorry to be invoking dense theory,
another way to cop out, or withdraw). The Beaver Trilogy are just movies,
Cindy's clock is just a clock. The stuff in the gift shop is stuff I buy
all the time, CD's, books, stupid trinkets. There is nothing "hyper-real"
in this show, like, um, giant c-prints with blown-out color, the stuff at
Monique's (can't 'member who's work). It's very familiar feeling, even
though it is full of weird stuff, like a mom and pop store, one of those
places that doesn't know if it's a thrift-store or an antique store. Parts
of it also reminds me of the Truman Minnesota Historical Society (a small
town in Southern Minnesota with a decimated economy, like so many of those
towns that were once inhabited by farmers working the family plot), the
collection is very apparently a cobble of objects and texts arranged by
the last person in town that had two months worth of time and energy to
volunteer and try to organize them, but could never quite get it together
all the way. I should have been writing to my congress person
about the war. I guess I'll have to do that off of company time.
Mike Well I hope you have a lot of
black shoe polish. And I make a damn good pasta sauce myself, so I've got
expectations. Rodney graham has 4 albums out, and one in the
works. Two are easily obtained, one is included with a book of his, one
can only be found, to my knowledge, in europe. I have seen the albums on
occasion at donald young. but your best bet is the online bookstore of the
diacenter (diacenter.org) or printed matter (printedmatter.org) There is
one cd available by itself. the other cd is included in his catalog from
the kunsthall Wien (vienna). For my tastes, his ten inch lp (yep, actual
vinyl) is the best. It has more acoustic, rather than pop, songs.The third
cd I've never seen, but you could probably call or write the lisson
gallery in england to get it. But I think it covers most the same material
as the cd and the lp. You could ask the gallery. Oh, and the cd with the
book has most of the same material as the individual cd, but earlier, less
polished, versions. The new cd, I'm not sure when it will be finished.
...oh but there is also the cd of his deconstruction of Wagner's
music, but that is a whole other thing... anthony
ok…… I should know better by now than to make smart-ass queries
with long-term manual labor as compensation, but I'll start stockpiling
the polish now. thanks very much, mr. elms. brian
Is that Pedro fellow actually leaving? I thought Diego
Bobby said that he was dead or something. I'm sure he was a great guy and
all, but all that angry cursing seemed a bit unnecessary to me. I hope he
can find a nice hobby to reduce his stress level a bit. I'll admit that
the conversation gets a little "artsy" and "academic" here, but isn't this
listserve supposed to be about art? Is this all because of that
nice lady that wanted us to visit her craft show? If it makes you so mad
Pedro, that no one wants to go to the Coyote thing, I'll go see it, just
to make you feel better. I could use some new baskets and knick-knacks
for the house.
On Mon, 10
Feb 2003, Dennis Hodges wrote: Pedro will, like taxes, always be with us.
We could institute a 'bad word filter' which would write (bleep)
for common words like (bleep), (bleep), and (bleep). In response to my own frenetic posting, and more to Ben F's ideas
about LeBlanc, there are a lot of things I should say. Mostly though I
want to call myself on dismissing what Ben wrote about Marc LeBlanc's work
as entirely consisting of "mumbo jumbo." It's not, it actually helps me
to appreciate what Marc is doing more. Still, there are parts that are
mumbo jumbo, as Marc Fischer pointed out. And I don't mean that in an all
derisive way. It's speaking in tongues, it's kind of untamed, and it might
be apparent that I participate in that most essential activity myself,
having that puritanical background. The descriptive bits are helpful, you
provide me with some useful terms to pick at his work. The idea that his
work is an effort to locate himself in relation to institutions and
history is useful to me. Then there is the other aspect of the work at
Open-End, the fraudulent, pseudo-scientific aspect. The one piece, the
silvery box that one looks at with the cobalt-blue goggles, where the text
claims that you will see the aura of the box through these goggles, that's
poking fun at minimalist and conceptual art, which makes me think it's
like early Tony Tasset work. I'm sure there are better comparisons. But
I think that Tony Tasset is a better comparison than Felix
Gonzales-Torres, given the light-hearted content of Marc's work.
I think that Open-End's new space, while lovely in the sense that it
amazingly huge and tall, seems like a pretty bad place to hang art, at
least in it's current configuration, which didn't help Marc or Esther
Stocker, the other artist in the show. Since it appears that Open-End is
in the process of building that space out it seems appropriate to offer
some suggestions as to how to arrange it, but maybe it's not. I like how
things work at Suburban and to some extent, Suitable, where the
social/party space, due to the existing architecture, is separate from the
art space, the art gets it's own space-time continuum. But then if there
is some huge project that requires a lot of space it can spill over into
the the party space/sports arena. Not that art and parties can't work
together, but it's nice to have the option of giving the art a little room
to grow outside of music and drunken conversation. Back to Marc
and Esther, I think that their work had potential for a real good looking
and rich show, but it would have worked much better in a smaller white
cube type of space, or even a basement recroom-turned-gallery, with fake
pine paneling. Marc's work is lost in the space, might have looked better
to me if it were concentrated in one area. It is museological in the way
it presents itself, those lousy frames and clean mattes with didactic
texts. I would have liked his pieces closer together so they could work
visually with each other, and maybe take on an even more museological
guise, making that "appropriated presentational voice" more insistent,
desperate, and funnier. It is humorous work. Which relates to something
that Fred Camper wrote in relation to John Wanzel's work that was at
Dogmatic recently (Reader review in section one a couple of weeks ago).
I know that at least Pedro hates Fred, but I think it behooves some poeple
to listen to him when he wrote that many young artists' suffer from a kind
of conceited smugness. With Marc, I think that that smugness is evident
right there in the work, I tried to tell him that on Friday. I don't think
that was in so evident in John's work at Dogmatic, Fred probably got that
impression from his telephone interview with John. Anybody who talks to
John will note some smugness (for me it just makes him more adorable, but
I can see how it might be off-putting). I think that Marc has a robust
conceptual vocabulary. I'm looking forward to when he brings that to
something that takes more than a few hours to put together. No,
everything doesn't have to take a lot of time and work to do to be
interesting. I'm not talking about art, I'm talking about Marc's art.
Esther's work, big grid-based op-art paintings that seem use a
lot of masking tape in the making, I would like to trip out on those for a
while and see what happens. I couldn't do that while I was there, these
paintings need gallery benches or Imax theatre seats and not to be at
parties. I like the radical scale difference between their two bodies of
work, I'm a fan of strange bed-fellow arrangements, with a little work
they always turn out not to be so strange. Brian, if you need
help with Anthony's shoes you know where to find me. Leave me outa that
whole pasta sauce mess though...suckah. Mike Can we write a bleep filter that replaces all
instances of the word "bleep" with a random curse? Or perhaps one that
replaces all gallery names with "The big fat mean jerks who just do stupid
stuff at the expense of the artists they exploit". Thus making
this question: How were the artists chosen for the Gallery 312 show? to
read as: How were the artists chosen for the "The big fat mean jerks who
just do stupid stuff at the expense of the artists they exploit" show?
Or This: I missed Suitable's opening. What is the word on the
Web? I heard it was cold and crowded but nothing about the work. To this:
I missed "The big fat mean jerks who just do stupid stuff at the expense
of the artists they exploit" opening. What is the word on the Web? I heard
it was cold and crowded but nothing about the work.* I am trying
to compile a list of alternative spaces in Chicago. I know most of whats
happened in the last 5 or six years that "The big fat mean jerks who just
do stupid stuff at the expense of the artists they exploit" has been
around. I have some patchy memories of the mid and early ninties. I was
wondering if anyone might be willing to throw together a short list of
what they recall. I want to get back to the seventies and the hey day of
not for profits. It might be interesting to trace how these spaces have
functioned here in the past. It might be interesting to see how long they
tend to last. It might be interesting to look at how they relate directly
or indirectly to the culture of Artists. Do they contibute to the dialogue
in any way other then providing wall space? Have they helped Chicago's
artists. Have they had any far reaching impact on the community. Do they
tend to be gathered in one nieghborhood or district, Like west loop,
river-north, old town, Wicker park or Pilsen. Or do they start at diverse
points and then move as they mature like "The big fat mean jerks who just
do stupid stuff at the expense of the artists they exploit" and "The big
fat mean jerks who just do stupid stuff at the expense of the artists they
exploit" did? Anyway its just a list. If anyone can help feel free to
email me at www.diegobobby at canada.com or just post it.* Thanks
DB *I really would like a response to these questions. The spaces
exploited in this post were not chosen because of any animosity intended
or implied. They were merely handy as my legitimate questions involved
them. My apologies to Gallery 312, Suitable, Dogmatic, NFA and Bodybuilder
and Sportsman if anyone felt I was being in anyway slanderous.
On
Tue, 11 Feb 2003, diego bobby wrote: Sure, why the (bleep) not. Sorry. Error. Sure,
why the (by the beards of the war mongering republicans) not.
You need to talk to old folks, but not me. Try
Jeff Huebner, for one. See also [http://spaces.org/archive/index.htm]
Mainly the Uncomfortable Spaces, but if you recognize names of artists,
you might ask them. RSG, NAME - and
some still dolvent: ARC, Artemisia. The "Art in Chicago 45-95" catalog of
the MCA covered some of these -- but left huge gaps, for there was
considerable dispute about what constituted a 'legit' albeit 'alternative'
gallery. HTH /jno
mwolf writes: And I agree. There is a light heartedness to
Marc's work that weakens the comparison. I tried to speak less about
those works only because I was less interested in them. I do believe that
the two pieces I discuss strike a similar chord of seriousness, that the
other pieces do not. There was something very confrontational in the
artforum/ baby picture piece that dove right into the heart of the matter,
cultural immortality. And the museum visit piece came close to remnants
of On Kawara's process of living, such as the postcards and telegrams.
Yes, Marc's proposition was more lighthearted in this case as well,
however, something about that seemed more honest, and all the more
apathetic. In my opinion, this is his lead to follow to further develop
his practice. Admittedly, I did want to shape a discussion in this
direction merely as a personal exercise in manipulation/interpretation.
Conscious editing can be fun! But don't quote me on that! Ben
Foch Diego, I think this is something different than
what Jno is talking about with "The "Art in Chicago 45-95" catalog of the
MCA ," I have a photo copy of a book in my stacks at home (where I am not
right now) that, if my vague recollections are at all accurate, was
published by the MCA, perhaps in the 80's, called "Alternative Spaces." I
get the feeling that it is out of print. This book leaves off right
before the rise of the uncomfortable spaces, and has this really great bar
graph showing when various non-profit and artist run spaces started and
ended. It shows the existence of a space in the late sixties/early
seventies (?) called "Bugs Bunny Space"! It also indicates that The
Contemporary Art Workshop is the longest running non-profit gallery in
Chicago, started in the late 50's and still puttering along today. If
this is the sort of thing you are interested in I can lend it to you.
Also, I would love to look at or buy a regular copy of this book
(not photocopied). Does anybody else know anything about this book? Is it
still available? My secret friend who gave me the copy might be
reading this. Hi secret friend, thanks. Later, Mike
This is exactly what I'm looking for. Thank you Mr.
Wolf. Now I just have to fill in all of those years I spent hung over. DB
Linda Dorman and Tom T are having another arts thing -
in the building which houses Uncle Freddy in 'downtown' Hammond. Two
floors of stuff, 50 people, in an abondened office space (most furniture
still in place - worth seeing for that). painting, installations, music,
performance, $5. But the tolls will cost that much. If you never had
to work in an office -- where "office" means 100 people on one floor
spread over private and public spaces according to their status in the
company -- this is worth a look just to get the feel for the condition
which dominates the lives of most people. I had to endure those
cubicles and small rooms filled with desks, file cabinets, supply
cabinets, etc, every now and then, and for stretches up to 6 years. I'd
rather camp out in the snow with the cub scouts, then have to that again.
OK, try this: 94 to
skyway, to IN tollway. Second exit (Calumet), left at the light, right at
the light, left at the light (now yr headed So on Holman) - over the
bridge. Mike the book you are looking for is :
You might be able to order a copy from
the MCA bookstore. I bought mine from the bookstore back in 1995 before
they moved to the new location and expanded their selection. So it is
possible they are stocking it now. Hope this helps Iain
Muirhead In a message dated 2/11/2003 7:02:52 PM Central
Standard Time, diegobobby at canada.com writes: DB Iam tempted
to answer your questions and I like the idea of amending Lynne Warren's
"Alternative Spaces" book to include 1984 to present - but i am more
interested in the responses from artists that exhibited in those spaces to
get a real measurement of their personal value / community impact or lack
of ? Iain Muirhead For anybody interested in a different approach to the
recent other group debates about political art, come see this--
Questioning Bush's War on Iraq Panelists: That's right. I'll be giving a brief account of the
sponsoring group, Hyde Park Committee Against War & Racism, and then
saying a little something about how I see the War On Terror and the
anti-war movement as one who works with issues of visual culture, and how
I've tried to bring some of that thinking into the HPCAWR. Unlike
the way the debate usually goes on this list, wherein somebody dismisses
"political art" and somebody else then exposes the dismissal as
irrationally argued, or something like that, with "art" in general never
being challenged as irrelevant....For this panel I will have about a whole
5 minutes to justify or at least call attention to the tools that an
art-informed, art-educated, and art-concerned (not even to speak of an
art-making) citizen can bring to an activist outfit. The politics will be
foregrounded this time around, and the art concerns will just be making an
appearance. This should be a good reminder to those who get sick of all
the political art and artists they encounter, and feel like there are too
many of them: well, in fact the vast majority of activists, just like the
vast majority of the population in general, are not artists and know very
little about art. Dan w. 7 pm, Tuesday, Feb 25th
University Church at 57th and University Avenue So I went back to see the "Really Real" show again
last weekend. I still found lots of dubious inclusions and vague
curatorial thinking, but I also found more to recommend. The accidental
camera obscura, which Paul from G312 explained was found when they did a
bunch of cleaning while working on the show, is very very nice. And at the
urging of my viewing companion who really wanted to see it, I watched the
entire Beaver Trilogy video (it should absolutely be seen from the
beginning - kindly ask Paul to rewind it). This video trilogy is truly
astounding and one of the most rich and rewarding things I've seen in
quire some time. And Gabe Fowler should be thanked for putting together
the helpful little brochure which reprints an interview with the
film-maker. And how often can you say that one of the best works in an
exhibit also includes the best uses of a young Sean Penn and even younger
Crispin Glover? Marc Mikey Wolf said " And I love that
they are showing the entire Beaver Trilogy in that screening room (I have
to that I'm looking forward to the day when 312 can get a better video
projector though)," Yeah, the pixels are so big on that projector
that it kinds of seems like you are watching TV on a Lightbrite - though I
doubt the tape itself is all that sharp. From Stephen Crane in response to recent postings to
other group: Re: "Really Real," Gallery 312, Feb. 2003 I
understand that some folks who attended the opening of "Really Real"
complained that the show is incoherent. This strikes me as a curious-and
acutely symptomatic-response in several different registers. To begin
with, I'm not sure I understand the longing for coherence (let us call it
the desire named "coherence") in the art world of our time. Surely, what
one longs for in an exhibit of new art is not coherence so much as a new
set of questions. We should be asking "what do these objects and images,
arranged in this manner, ask?" "What do they ask of me?" "What do they
want from me?" The desire named "coherence" is the desire satisfied by
the familiar, the already known. The productive exhibit commits itself
instead to a striving to provoke new knowledge. How does the
desire named "coherence" exist in the everyday? The great semiotician, C.
S. Peirce, thought of habit as "the only bridge that can span the
chance-medley of chaos and the cosmos of order and law." To the degree
that the practice and exhibition of art interrupts habit, it can disclose
something of that chaos (even as it invokes the cosmological enterprise).
The forgotten aesthetician, George Santayana, explained that poetry (by
which he meant art) forces us to "plunge for a moment into that torrent
of sensation and imagery over which the bridge of prosaic association
habitually carries us safe and dry to some conventional act. How slight
that bridge commonly is, how much an affair of trestles and wires, we can
hardly conceive." All of which is to say (again) that the desire named
"coherence" will find its greatest satisfaction in habit, in prose, in
convention. All of which is to say, moreover, that insofar as "Really
Real" means to give access to "reality" it would be compromised by
attaining coherence. Isn't it more likely that "coherence" (and not
"incoherence") would come in the form of an accusation? That
said, I would nonetheless want to pursue the question of the "coherence"
of "Really Real" but to do so through the simple Latin derivation of the
word. That is: how does this exhibit "stick together." The structural
coherence of the exhibit was perhaps invisible during the opening, in the
midst of the very large crowd; it is nonetheless unmistakable when one
wanders through the gallery alone (or almost alone, as I was able to do by
arriving at the opening very early). Structural coherence is a far more
ambitious kind of coherence to strive for (more ambitious say, than
thematic coherence, or topical coherence, or the coherence of media or
mode), but it is the kind of coherence that transforms the exhibit as such
into an experience (in the strong sense-in John Dewey's sense) and into
art (art being that which brings the experience of experience into our
proximity). Moreover and most important, structural coherence is
precisely what holds the phenomenal "real world" together, what makes
reality perceptible as reality. Despite the vicissitudes of the weather,
every day is in fact another day (the sun rises even if we can't see it);
for all the randomness of the everyday there are still unchanging laws
(e.g., physical laws). All told, then, what one unfortunately has to call
the aesthetic principles of the installation (the principles by which the
installation attains the status of art) are also the principles by which
it seems most profoundly to make good on its title. The really real is
the almost imperceptible principles of structuration within which we
experience randomness. But where in the show are those
principles? Where do we begin to find this structural coherence? One
might begin with the exhibit's most dramatic object, its dramatic edifice,
the hollow column of hay. (You will have to forgive me for writing
without titles-I never took the trouble to look at more than a few.)
This hollow column, legible though it is as a kind of temple (one would
hasten to say, following a thematic trajectory, that this is the temple
through which we honor the god of the stars, those stars distributed
across the black night of the far wall, those stars that remain in their
place thanks to the potency of the god), is foremost a hollow column.
Across the room, at the other end of what one experiences as one line of
the exhibition's fundamental axis, hang a pair of boots, which is to say
two hollow columns. (Both the boots-which one presumes to have been
fictitiously "identified" as "Bill Brown's Boots"--and the column can be
read as bisexual symbols, both phallic and vaginal, and one can thus
experience entering the hay column as the act of entering one boot in its
symbolic dimension. But such symbolic coherence, like any kind of
thematic coherence, remains a secondary consideration. Evacuated boots
are hollow columns, and they thus stick to the hay column while being
distant from it, establishing the other point of the axis line through
which nothing in the exhibition intrudes (except the people at a crowded
opening.) The other grand line that forms the fundamental grid of
exhibition is not in fact a line: it is a field, constituted by the rock
wall, on the one hand, and on the other, the simple yet elaborate sequence
of paintings on the facing wall. (Of course the field is constituted by
the many lines one could draw between particular rocks and particular
brush marks.) The white rocks are stuck on a vertical black ground in
clusters generated not formally, but biographically (through the heights
of famous people displayed in alphabetical order), and yet achieving the
form of a line, despite the unevenness. In this case the paper wall on
which a physicist's rendition of the early cosmos is being projected draws
the rock wall into legibility as, say, the milky way. But the sequence of
brownish paintings on the brown wall pull the stars back into their mere
formal coherence as dots that constitute a line, or, better, a bar.
Symbolically: what one has to call the earth tones of these paintings
brings one's vision of the stars back down to earth. But, formally, we
are here confronted with the deviation within repetition exhibited by
these carefully painted marks on square grids, just as we are confronted
by the sameness in color of any two proximate paintings that nonetheless,
in concert with the full line (band) of paintings, adds up to a striking
change from pale green to brown. Magnified, the meticulously repeated
brush strokes would exhibit the same kind of variety in size and shape as
the rocks on the wall; their principle of structuration though, unlike the
rock wall, is fully disclosed. Of course, within the exhibit,
there are many structural autocitations: e.g., the architecture of the hay
column is repeated in the architecture of the stack of soap in the gift
shop, and again in the stack of books in the far corner of the gift shop;
the band of rocks reappears as the band of rubber ducks lined up along the
top of the shelves in the library. Such repeated forms are obviously
meant to work-and to work perhaps subliminally-to remind us how form as
such asserts itself in the midst of apparent disparity. But let
me return to the great exhibitionary grid. The axis is comprised of line
and field. The field, beyond the line, is full. It is full of objects
and images that respond to the generative themes of the show but that
importantly intrude upon-or irrupt within--the magnificent clarity of the
overarching structure. I can hardy begin to attend to these intrusions,
these irruptions, in any satisfactory way, except to say that, like the
projected cosmos (the slide show projected on the paper screen), they each
in their way threaten to collapse the structural clarity of the exhibition
into a thematic reading, and it is this threat-call it now the fragile
bridge between the order of structure and the disorder of theme-that
energizes "Really Real" at every moment. Will you allow yourself to be
assaulted and interpellated by the narrative possibilities of these robots
staring at stars? Will you stare at the curiously confined fish and begin
to ask whether-in the time line painting, as in the haystack, as in the
vials of pituitary gland-this show isn't about the cultural
transformations of nature (perhaps the most trenchant sign of danger to
the environment)? Once one leaves this central field (the dominant
exhibition space), a host of other possibilities assert themselves. The
intensely pink envelope of a room rewrites the show as an exhibition of
spaces habitable and inhabitable (spaces that now include the projection
room, the hay house, the models of cave and house, the library, the
universe, the far recesses of the gallery, the residue from the room with
yellow wallpaper where Charlotte Perkins Gilman's protagonist endured her
confinement, the shallow fish bowl, the set of costumes). Of
course, the children's costumes themselves provoke the inevitable question
about the really real. Real costumes, really worn, and worn as an effort
to disguise the self, an effort which nonetheless expresses the self in
the form of an artistic creation. If there is any thematic coherence
worthy of the structural coherence achieved by this exhibition, it is of
course summoned by the title of the show and the light in which it casts
all the objects and images: real rocks, real hay, real clocks, real fish,
real glands-all of which lose (or do they attain) their realness within
the grid of exhibition? Some of this could be called found art, and the
show certainly insists on the artistic values that inhere within the
everyday. Other contributions-the band of paintings that become a time
line and express a temporality somewhere between that expressed by the
physicist's slides and the stack of clocks, the slow and all but endless
time of the universe, and the conflicting paces of daily postmodern
life-derive their inspiration (and their form and color) from phenomena
(the fading hydrangea flower) that, as a part of nature, might be called
the realm beyond art, or beyond art-as-usual, while at once disintegrating
and temporalizing the flower as object of traditional, fetishizing
still-life. The curatorial achievement should be measured not least by
its insistence on refusing irony, a refusal that allows it to make claim
to a kind of proto-post-postmodernism. Seriality (the band of the rock
wall, the band of the painted time line) has no Warhol-effect; the library
(a kind of period room locatable in time [now] but not in space [the
Midwest?]), functions seriously as a library; the gift shop sells stuff;
the haystack is a legitimate temple, even functioning as a Heideggerian
temple that strives to bring the conflict of the earth and the world into
the Open. There is here nothing of Bataille's informe in its many
contemporary manifestations (most importantly its political
manifestations--Zhu Yu's almost unbearable "Pocket-Size Theology" of 1999,
the severed arm clutching one end of a rope). There are pituitary glands,
but their vialed display is meant to be artistic, if nonetheless
challenging. There are no used condoms. Though the show represents some
nostalgia (the library, the hay understood as the rearranged remnants of
the field through which the peasant woman walked home before Van Gogh
painted her shoes), it is by no means nostalgic. One might say, however,
that it is utopian. Which to register only one complaint-not about what
is in the show, but about what is absent: some German pitcher through
which to re-imagine Bloch's experience of re-imagining the utopian in a
time out of joint. With thanks to the curatorial collective and
to Gallery 312 for producing such a challenging and moving exhibit,
Stephen Crane regarding the recent discussion of "coherence":
I'm happy this discussion came up, because I think it's _always_ important
to be aware of exhibition structures: too often these structures are
completely ignored. Maybe the question of coherence vs.
incoherence is less relevant than evaluating different types of
structures. Some structures are completely rigid, some are completely
fluid. Some structures are simple, some are complex. Most are somewhere
in between. I think the most ambitious exhibitions are the most complex
and the most fluid. of course, ambitious also means: the most difficult
to pull off. cindy Hello, I'm new here, but so what? Regarding the
desire for coherence, I would say it's legitimate. There is nothing wrong
with expecting the artworks in front of us to actually have something to
say, and to say it coherently. I think it's mostly just a cheap excuse to
claim that the function of art is to "challenge and demand of us" that we
perform intellectual gymnastics to justify it's existence. If the artist
has nothing to say, or more likely, has no idea what it is that he thinks
he is feeling compelled to say, perhaps he should shut up until he does.
Let him work and show among his peers until he's ready for the real world.
This goes for curators, too. (Though, if we have to look to the curator
for a show's message or purpose, there is something already dramatically
wrong with the artwork, anyway.) After all, the rest of us out
here are busy people. We work hard and don't have a lot of time and energy
or cash to expend on shows full of adolescents who's parents didn't teach
them the essential rules of living; including that one about being quiet
and listening to the flow of the conversation until one has something of
value to interject. The "art world", being only slightly removed
from the idiotic world of fashion, has fallen in love with the stupid
arrogance of youth. Apparently, in it's endless pursuit of perceived
novelty, it is unaware that there is nothing at all novel about stupidity,
arrogance, or youth. It's just that the young, being young, are too stupid
to know this week's "novelty" has been around the fashion track many times
before. Confusion is just confusion. There is nothing
particularly novel or intellectually challenging about it unless we are
too young to even recognize confusion when we see it. Here's a tip:
whenever you hear someone justifying the existence of an artwork by it's
process or "structure" you're probably talking about a work of art that
either doesn't know, or won't acknowledge the real reason that it was
made. And that's almost always because the artist had no idea him/herself.
I have nothing against youth and foolishness. But I see no need
to pay for it with real time and money. As to curators, they are just
functionaries, like the guys who carry the stuff up the stairs. They
should be invisible. Dave S. whoever you are dude, you speak the word! rock on
brother. At 07:57 AM 2/19/2003 -0600, you wrote:
Scott Speh wrote: really? HA! you've got to be
kidding! it sounds like us artists need a good
spanking to keep us in line! hey cindy nice effort. i'm sure everyone saw my original
text. and yes. you all need spankings. or better yet,
paddlings. At 10:32 PM 2/19/2003 -0600, you wrote:
I'm sure I'm swallowing some very
purposeful bait, but I'd like to object to DS describing the curator as
equally important as the dude screwing eyehooks to painting frames. I
think a is a bit more complicated than that. There are many models for
the role of curator, one of which is certainly seeming invisibility. And
on the other end, there are project shows which are all about who curated
them and how or why. Think of Larry Rinder and the Whitney Biennial as it
has existed lately. It was his show and he got blamed when it sucked (or
so I heard...I never saw it). And now I know he's working on a show of
art about America as made by non-Americans. That's all about the
curator's perspective. Both models are legitimate, and it comes down to
what is appropriate at what time and in what venue. However, as
anyone who has ever heard about the concept of the white cube and its
illusions, or more specifically, apparatus theory, there can be no
objective curatorial mechanism nor neutral space. A curator's
fingerprints can never be completely erased from the look/content of the
show. Even shows without a curator, group shows where everyone chooses
their own stuff to include, have a curatorial agenda. The content of a
show, what is included and what is not, creates a contextual narrative
which like all stories has an author. There is always a voice, whether it
is a solo or chorus or even when anonymous. In spite of the fact
of complete curatorial invisibility being impossible, I have some serious
objections to how certain curatorial thumbprints were overly pressed onto
the Really Real show. I have a great deal of insider knowledge about the
project and a great number of affiliations with the folks involved. My
objections are most likely more inflated than those of the average viewer,
and I will refrain from indiscreet ranting. Leah
Hi
folks I thought Dave Stull made a lot of good points, and my gut
feeling is to agree with him across the board. That said, I think our
chaotic world needs a few chaotic art exhibitions to get us over the
doldrums we're all experiencing. [Well, maybe not all of us. There's
plenty of good work around.] But I, for one, have no idea to accomodate
world affairs with my established working methods, and I want lots of
chaos in my art-life to keep the juices flowing. You?
Hello, I'm Michael Kiresuk and I was involved in the
show Really Real and presented a digital photo in the Gift Shop.
I consider Really Real to be a cohesive representation of the state of our
institutional structures. The exhibition reveals (in a very condensed
manner) the accepted organizational frameworks and aesthetic that we
experience at museums worldwide. It's my personal view that
Really Real presented me with the reality of my aspirations to participate
in an institutional structure and forced me to question the nature of that
desire. On another level, it was my experience that Really Real
raised many questions about how we arrive at meaning in life and art.
Mike I have to agree (with whoever), a curatorial structure
has to be there. It is like the need for an editor for a film, the
designer for a book, etc, you can probably think of like situations. And I
also agree with (whoever) that it disappears, and need not be obvious to
the viewer. It is an armature, lost to sight. But it holds up the
exhibition. However (in disagreement with whoever else), it was
not a euclidian design which held the Really Real exhibit together.. It
looked to me more like the plan for packing luggage: you make everything
fit. And it didn't bother me. It is obvious that the exhibit
includes some very disparate objects, but that also didn't bother me. What
I experience was a sense of amazing enthusiasm, serendipity, and
playfulness. It was an absolute delight to walk through the gallery space
-- from the initial cyclone projection (with sound) with all the looks of
having been put together in 10 minutes, the house of straw, the rock (?)
stars constellated like so many asteroids, to the final collection (in the
'gift shop') of those weird stumpy concrete telephones (for an "as yet
untitled project"). I think it was all delightfully funny,
playfully intellectual (the medical samples and instruments looked like
they were right out of the Museum of Jurassic Technology in LA), and some
of it put together on the spot as collusions between artists. It was like
a revelation of how artists think all the time -- equivalent to doing a
studio visit, and just skipping the work space, and exploring the artist's
kitchen and livingroom and bedroom to see how her art integrates into her
"real" life. What held all this together seemed to be an index of
'art as a way of living and thinking'. You are allowed to see the strange
obsessions of artists (an artist is allowed to study 'anything'), the
collections of significant objects -- all of which seem to have nothing to
do with the usual presentational art of the gallery. It was even a shock
to find one painting among them (oh, yes, and the 'uncompleted series' by
whoever). That some pieces didn't seem to work or do anything 'aesthetic'
also didn't bother me. I just enjoyed myself immensely. /jno
Hello All, A few hundred years ago, when I was in art school, I
took an aesthetics class. The professor was very popular, because he did
magic tricks throughout his lectures to keep the students from falling
asleep from boredom (nothing was more boring than those art classes where
people just talked about art, I'm sure you remember). He was a bigshot in
the world of eastern art aesthetics, particularly Chinese, but that wasn't
what this class was about, and I think even he was bored with Plato,
Aristotle, and all those other dead western philosophers, and their
respective manifestos on the mechanics and purpose of the art endeavor.
I was fascinated, though. As I'm sure you are all aware,
aesthetics is a branch of philosophy related to how we see and understand
the world visually, and essentially becomes a philosophical
discussion/debate about why human beings make art. It's been far too long
ago for me to remember anymore which old dead philosopher said what about
art, but what did stick in my head was their method of debate and the
soundness of their reasoning. One fellow, for example would state
that art is the pursuit of the ideal of a form within the form itself
(Plato, I think that was). And he would go on in great detail explaining
exactly how and why this statement is the absolute irrefutable truth about
the function of art for all humankind. Then the next generation's
philosopher would come along and state that in fact the first guy was
completely wrong, and that art is not the pursuit of the ideal form that
underpins all individual forms but the pursuit of beauty through the
manipulation of balance, and symmetry, and man's innate desire for
cohesiveness. And he would methodically dismantle the previous man's
argument, then just as methodically establish his own as the absolute
irrefutable truth about the function of art for all humankind. This is how
philosophers discuss and debate stuff. But what impressed me was
that each assertion sounded so reasonable and true when proposed, yet each
man claimed with certainty that the other guy's assertions were wrong. It
was clear to me that they were all right, in some way, and all wrong when
they claimed exclusivity. That is that human beings endeavor to make art
for lots of different reasons, many of them equally viable even if
mutually exclusive, and some people probably do it for multiple reasons.
Here are a few that I remember: art is the pursuit of truth, art is for
teaching truths already known to the wise, art is the pursuit of beauty,
art is the pursuit of immortality, art is communication, art is the
expression of emotion (regardless of communication), art is the pursuit of
the divine nature (God), art is the expression of the divine nature
through us, art is the pursuit of intellectual, emotional and/or spiritual
healing, art is the pursuit of honesty and genuiness in life, art is the
pursuit of fame, glory, money, and respect, art is the expression of man's
profound ignorance... I'm sure there are lots more. So, assuming
that most of the people on this list are artists, or wanna-be's, or
has-beens, or whatever, I wonder where you all would find yourselves in
such an aesthetic discussion? Any thoughts? Dave S.
Hi there group, I want to respond to what Gabe F. posted the
other day. Gabe said: " I thought Dave Stull made a lot of good
points, and my gut feeling is to agree with him across the board."
My gut feeling is not to agree with Dave Stull across the board.
But won't get into the particularities of that. Still mulling it over, so
to speak. Gabe said: "...I, for one, have no idea to accommodate
world affairs with my established working methods, and I want lots of
chaos in my art-life to keep the juices flowing." Chaos is a
highly coded term, and easy to fuse with things like randomness, mayhem,
confusion, incoherence, or even violence. I don't think we're talking
about chaos like "chaos theory." But I suspect that a lot of diluted
ideas about chaos theory have trickled all across various cultural
terrain's, including art. I also think that chaos theory had, or has some
kind of vogue in art circles. How does any of this factor into our work,
and are we beholden to that history? I'm not sure.
Gabe says that chaos keeps the juices of his art-life flowing. I think I
know what he means. Chaos is about flow. When I think about chaos and
the roles that I see it playing in my work (art-life) the question is not
whether it plays a role in my work, but what role it plays. Where I let it
crop up, how I can use it strategically, and how it plays in the rules
established for my work. Chaos relates to the free-associative spirits in
my work, it helps me to relate very disparate ideas and images. It also
seems to relate to the unconsciousness of my work; sometimes the most
chaotic thing about my work is the twisted images and ideas that appear
out of nowhere and that are beyond my control. It is maybe for lack of a
better term that I say that stuff is unconscious. It seems like a good
term as much as it relates to my modernist history. That is, my notion of
unconsciousness comes primarily out of my psychoanalytic ancestry. Of
course it seems prudent not share most of this "twisted" work, so don't
worry about that. Not for a few years anyway. But also Gabe
mentions some strife about accommodating "world affairs" in his work.
Which makes me think he's talking about the chaos of world affairs, global
violence, violent economics, and a general volatility at every turn and on
view from every vista. My response to that, first of all, is that you
don't have deal with it in your art if you don't want to. Sometimes I try
to, but when it comes to presenting that work publicly it usually seems
like a failure. That's no reason to give up though. Also, just because an
artist doesn't want talk about it in h/er work doesn't mean s/he can't,
say, speak out against the possible-war-on-Iraq as a separate pursuit from
h/er art! (that might seem basic to some people, but I tend to forget
that, being so absorbed in this whole art mess). Mike Wolf
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have
not money, I am become as a sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And
though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all
knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains,
and have not money, it profiteth me nothing. Money suffereth long, and is
kind, money envieth not; money vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth
not behave unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh
no evil: rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth; beareth all
things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things...And
now abideth faith, hope, money, these three: but the greatest of these is
money. I Corinthians xiii (adapted) from George Orwell,
Keep the Aspidistra Flying Baby's On Fire (Kendall, Russell, Niven, Lardie, Montana)
Learnt me to rock an' I learnt me t'roll Ya gotta use it baby
t'keep your soul Go down to town, get some reaction Gotta go down cos I
need a distraction I've been tryin' it on with everyone in sight
She's been waitin' so long for me t'come tonight Baby's on fire
and I'm burnin' up Sparks bin flyin' an' she can't get enough Can't get
enough but she's got what it takes Baby's on fire and I got the shakes
There ain't no cure and there ain't no time You gotta have it and
have it fine Don't say a word about her affections I'm gonna come from
another direction She's been tryin' it on with everyone in sight
I've been waitin' so long for her t'come tonight Baby's on fire
and I'm burnin' up Sparks bin flyin' an' I can't get enough Can't get
enough but she's got what it takes Baby's on fire and I got the shakes
And from their hit "Once Bitten Twice Shy": "You didn't know that
rock-n-roll burned" No, they sure didn't. Poor people. They died for that.
These are end times we are living in people. Why was the Orwell quote
posted? I have no idea. But all these fucked up events happening lately
must surely have something to do with aesthetics ... Please forgive this outburst...but..
Now I'm reading proclimations of the end times on othergroup?
Just because some stupid hair band started a fire? Dude... turn off your
television, read some history, or better yet.. go see an art exhibit
T whatever Tim. At 06:50 PM 2/24/03 +0000, you wrote:
Tim, upon further reflection, I'm sorry but I have to have a
little outburst too, especially when a self-important artist tell me to
turn off my TV. Like art is inherently so much better than any other
activity or interest. And the pretentious mocking of other people's
interests really gets old. Why do you think the public hates art? This
ridiculous hectoring doesn't help. I wish I were at home so I could put on
Motley Crue's greatest hits, turn on Jerry Springer and eat cheeseburgers.
It'd be a hell of a lot more interesting than the 4 hours I spent looking
at art on Saturday. You know, Timmy, we can multi-task. We can look at
art, read history (or People magazine), watch Joe Millionaire (or better
yet, "Am I Hot?") and rock to the hair metal and still be productive and
interesting members of society. Why do we all have to think like you?
Turn ON your TV brother. Love, Scott At 06:50 PM 2/24/03
+0000, you wrote: give me a break, scott.... listening to
anybody's outburst is annoying. your's as much as anyone else's.
so there, lorelei Lorelei Stewart Director, Gallery 400,
UIC 1240 West Harrison Street (MC 034) Chicago, IL 60607 312 996
6114 T 312 355 3444 F [http://gallery400.aa.uic.edu]
In response to Dave Stull's call for thoughts on
aesthetics, I posted an Orwell quote for no reason and because I think the
word "I" operates metaphorically as "poetry" and (possibly) as "art",
thus answering someone's question about the location of art.
Marie Tim and Scott, Tim - I was just fucking around
about the apocalypse. But when was the last time a group of artists used a
presentation of their art to kill 97 people including one of their own?
That _is_ a special historical moment. Savor it a little. I hate Great
White's music but they gave us a major tragedy. From a long-term
historical perspective, that's kind of an interesting accomplishment for a
small group of artists (even if it was probably unintentional on their
part). Scott, I can't quite get behind your admonition to turn on
TV - last time I did that I saw live rats and roaches crawling on the bare
legs of Joan Rivers' daughter. Well, actually, that was pretty good.
Please don't take any of this too seriously people.
Misanthropically yours, Marc Timothy Cross wrote: .. Please
forgive this outburst...but... Now I'm reading proclimations of
the end times on othergroup? Just because some stupid hair band started a
fire? Dude... turn off your television, read some history, or better
yet.. go see an art exhibit sure enough! but since pedro is no longer on the
othergroup, i thought i'd revive his spirit. hugs and kisses
scott Quoting Lorelei Stewart The outburster has regrouped and would like to
say that he does not take things too seriously... Just a bit cynical.
It must be my aversion to all the hype and hoopla paced on an
accident. It seems a bit disrespectful to have these people die and for
us to be "entertained" by it, or if not entertained, then just butting our
collective noses (via the camera lens) into their life. Call me cynical
but I'll swear that I'm not alone in thinking that observing others
misfortune is not a healthy past-time (take the show cops for instance).
I guess that I'd rather be the fool on the hill then sitting
around chatting about who will be the next big boobed millionaire... or
whatever... T Scott, You can do what ever you
want... and Of course you would think it's more interesting to do the
things that you mentioned. It's much easier to understand. Love
Tim Hi I hate to get into this, but there is a difference between a
public tragedy and Joe Millionaire. Actually I would almost think it
helpful when a real accident occurs to have the public morn. I'm not
saying that these things are not sometimes over sensationalized, but it's
important to have communal support in times of hardship. I would be
willing to bet that many families appreciate the empathy. Thought I would
just put my two-cents in. m Meg said: "there is a difference between a
public tragedy and Joe Millionaire. Actually I would almost think it
helpful when a real accident occurs to have the public morn. I'm not
saying that these things are not sometimes over sensationalized, but it's
important to have communal support in times of hardship." I'm
down with Meg, in as much as she is arguing for the importance of public
mourning. But I'm not down with her in as much as she might be saying
that the television medium as we know it is able to facilitate that
mourning. I question whether it has any idea how to do that. It's hard
enough to figure out how to mourn for yourself. Which isn't to balk at
any attempt. Is it still mourning when it's co-opted by comercial
intersts? Television is, after all, designed and used in the service of
mobilizing the consumerist desires of the viewer. Which is fine with me.
But a lot of shitty things are fine with me. Part of the great
thing about mourning is that it is a kind of withdrawal from the speed of
capitalism and consumerism. It's a healing process that takes it's own
time, outside of the strict regimentation of capital. So for capital to
co-opt it is to totally transform its meaning. Mourning becomes panic
purchasing. How dull is that? I'm glad to hear that Marc invokes
his apocalyptic fantasy only jokingly. Indulging in these fantasies is
cynical, defeatist, might tend to debase and discourage efforts to improve
the lousy conditions of a place. It's that kind of cynicism cements
schmuck idols like Daley to their thrones, who I've never heard say
anything that wasn't in defense of his latest act of cronyism. There are
people who say inspiring and effective things, but for some reason they
don't get into politics. Did they used to? I mean, was that stuff that
Lincoln or MLK said really as increadible as it seems today, or is that
some kind of weird nostalgia. Also, there's that great Barbara
Kruger slogan: "We don't need another hero" Marc asked: "did
anyone see Damo Suzuki at the Fireside the other night?" I didn't
go, but my friend who went said the band who played with him was not so
good, Defender. Mike Woof You're right. t In response to Mike - with times being
as stupid and miserable as they are right now - still having the ability
to generate a fantasy about anything is a reason for some degree of
optimism. I'm roaming around aloud here - in part just for kicks - but
what the hell can ya do? Have fantasies. Perhaps even act on them (within
or outside of reasonable legal limits). Be sincere and honest. Create
things that you can control in some small way and put out into the world
where they can be shared and seen by others. Try to take a certain amount
of control over your own ability to produce new things and generate new
possibilities and dialogues. Oh yeah, and of course if you are really in
the minority, you can vote (heh heh). But actually - hooray for a run off
in the first ward Aldermanic race. Holy shit, my vote actually counted
tonight. Anyway, Apocalyptic fantasies can be fun. I'm not
religious; I don't believe in heaven and hell. Of course there will be
lots of time to keep messing things up. We are not at the end of history.
But let's not get completely down on the Apocalyptic. Why do people like
Bosch and Goya? Why do I like Doom Metal? Remember that the best of those
cynics are also creating vital new music/art as a vehicle for those
fantasies - as a way of contending with and maybe even transcending how
shitty things are. To quote the rocket scientists in Electric Wizard from
their unbelievably cynical song "Funeralopolis": "I don't care, this world
means nothing, life has no meaning my feelings are numb... Nuclear
warheads ready to strike. This world is so fucked, let's end it tonight!"
Not exactly my own sentiments but I won't fault them for expressing
themselves with such abject blunt force. Those guys have no power, they're
just pothead musicians. I'm no stoner so I don't even relate on that
level. But they sure can write a killer riff and I think their contempt is
honest and maybe even glorious and, at times, refreshing. And even those
nihilistic stoners had the ambition to publish their nihilistic songs in
spite of their lousy reality. Their catharsis is strangely encouraging. Is
it giving up if you make art about being so hateful that you want to give
up and you do a really sincere and excellent job at it? In shitty times
like this I find their honest utter contempt to be, almost... a source of
optimism and a ray of hope! Digging around in the filth isn't always such
a bad thing. You can come sometimes out the other end with something
positive and life-affirming. It would be a little harsh if this was the
only kind of art though. A little balance is nice too (but that still
doesn't mean that I'm gonna start watching Joe Millionaire - although I
bet that show is more cynical than a million Electric Wizards). Marc
Mikey Woof said: I'm glad to hear that Marc invokes his
apocalyptic fantasy only jokingly. Indulging in these fantasies is
cynical, defeatist, might tend to debase and discourage efforts to improve
the lousy conditions of a place. It's that kind of cynicism cements
schmuck idols like Daley to their thrones, who I've never heard say
anything that wasn't in defense of his latest act of cronyism. There are
people who say inspiring and effective things, but for some reason they
don't get into politics. Did they used to? I mean, was that stuff that
Lincoln or MLK said really as increadible as it seems today, or is that
some kind of weird nostalgia. Also, there's that great Barbara
Kruger slogan: "We don't need another hero" (Émission Internationale, Paris):
In a stunning reversal of policy, French President Jacques Chirac
announced today that the French government will be supporting the War on
Terror after all. Five hundred soldiers from the elite Battalion des
Specialistes d'Abandonnement (Surrender Specialists) of France's vaunted
Armees de la Terre are preparing for movement to Iraq, where they will
advise the Iraqi Republican Guards on the protocol of the upcoming
surrender to the American Armed Forces. President Chirac also announced that his goverment will be
sending 3,000 advisors from the elite Force du Collaborateurs Francaises
to assist the Iraqis in avidly collaborating with the Americans, while
pretending to be part of a non-existent resistence movement. /jno
marc writes: "Anyway,
Apocalyptic fantasies can be fun...." When confronted with some
difficulty, the easiest and cheapest response I can think of is to whine
about it, and do nothing. This is in fact, the response that a lot of
people choose. And the result is that even here in America where people
have the most of everything, they still appreciate it very little, and
whine and cry and wallow in existential dissatisfaction anyway ... because
it's the cheapest and easiest thing to do. Unfortunately, every
decision we make has a cost, and when we choose to whine and cry as a
response to real or imagined difficulties, there is a price. That price is
a loss of empowerment. Whiners deny their own power, and by doing
this in public they tell others to ignore their power as well. Soon one
finds that they have become powerless. No one takes them seriously
anymore, because they did not take themselves seriously. No one respects
their words or deeds because all they did was whine and cry, and people
know that it's a cheap and easy response. Any fool could have done it.
What's to respect? Being an adult is hard work. Everyone's life
brings them many difficulties and learning how best to respond to those
difficulties takes effort. It takes practice. And it takes courage.
Apocalyptic fantasies can be fun. So can whining and crying about
the "horrible state of the world". But it's a fun that needs to be enjoyed
very sparingly, and if you're smart, in private. Accepting life
on life's terms, and doing the best we can with what is available to us
would be a far healthier response to life's difficulties, and will keep us
empowered. Dave S. I truly hope that my last message was
not understood as a call to whine and do nothing. Fuck No, when times feel
bleak I always think the thing to do is to empower yourself by working
harder than ever to develop and put forward ideas that you think have
value and to share those ideas and that work with others. Hell, I'm
working harder than I have in my entire life toward those ends. But I
still would argue that some good art has come from a little wallowing and
misery - and that we need those kinds of expression. Marc
response I the here in appreciate it dissatisfaction to is a
others take all they response. difficulties It enjoyed very difficulties,
"But actually - hooray for a run off in the first ward Aldermanic
race. Holy shit, my vote actually counted tonight." YAAAY for
Manny in the first ward upset! and wasn't Vilma defeated too? I've never
knew aldermanic elections could be so exciting! There's a lesson there-
both for the outsider/underdog and for the voter who thinks a vote doesn't
count. hey: anyone have any thoughts on Sarah Conaway's or Amanda
Ross-Ho's shows that are up now? cindy Reply to Jno's post, (which I won't
repeat): So, that's who we hate now, the French? Then the
Germans, Belgians. Only 150 or so more countries to go!
Seriously, I think we should all re-read Orwell's 1984. On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Marc Fischer wrote: Hey Mark;
Responding in the manner of the American Protestant Ethic? There is hope
in hard work. And, uh, what is that stuff at the end of yr email? A list
maxims to live by, or spelling take-outs? Your emailer does that? Or your
poetic sensibilities? /jno (I'll list) Oh, hating the French is fun. Besides, they like
it. Jno: "Responding in the manner of the
American Protestant Ethic?" Just business as usual really (but
can I hope and dream that at least one of my current projects would annoy
our would-be-assasin/president?) No, things
haven't gotten so bad that I've started writing poetry. I think maybe my
emailer (or your programing?) is doing that. I have no idea. Never seen
this before but I looked at Othergroup on spaces.org and it did a little
of it there too. Weird. Marc On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Curt wrote: How is that go? The French
hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Dutch, the Dutch hate the Belgians,
and I dont like anybody very much. ??/jno On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Steven L. Anderson wrote: (There are 500 countries to go!) It sounded like
a Monty Python skit to me, and I do remember Dien Bien Phu -- and all that
followed. But I think the news flash was just funny. Maybe that's what we
do in times of adversity.. find humor, rather than hard work. I spent my
youth listening to war stories of Nazi occupied Western Europe -- into the
seventies the folks who experienced the last years of occupation were
telling 'funny' stories, rather than recalling the horror stories.
HTH/jno Not to purposefully harsh your mellow, but...
it brings up issues that I got from Roberto Begnini's "Life is
Beautiful" (which I finally saw after all the hype died down): How far can
the clown (or the artist) go in face of the death machine? And,
do they tell Polack jokes in Poland?
Jno wrote: On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Marc Fischer replied:
I'll check the maillogs.... OK, it is quoted email from
Dave Stull's text. His email runs 74 spaces wide (the standard), but you
maybe have yours set at some lesser amount (?) so that the last 15
characters of some sentences folded after email-quoting (near as I can
tell .. who knows what sort of toaster you get with a CoreCommMail MUA).
It is really weird. Just clean up. Two key clicks? Oh- wait you
prolly have one of those one-buttom mice. /jno Dave said:
Talk is cheap, true that. That's why othergroup is possible, because it's
cheap (but not free, thank you Jno, Carrie, and helpers). And to
appropriate a slogan from the AIDS Activists: Silence is death.
While my silence might not result in my own death it does suggest a
complacency with a lot of life and death activity that people are
conducting in my name. I'm trying to bring that activity into my scope of
perception. Wheather it's trying to understand how my credit rating
affects me or who my government is trying to blow up, it's people toying
with my subjectivity without my blessing. I think it's fair to say that
most of us here on the other group are coddled deep in the lap of luxury,
but talking about issues of survival helps us to articulate what we take
for granted. The survival of the people near me is threatened on some
fronts, health and medical security and civil liberties in the U.S. are
becoming more and more contested now. But it is a far cry from, for
example, threats faced by people in Iraq, where survival is threatened on
all fronts. Basic infrastructure like water service is tenuous, a simple
glance at the sky might bring news of invasion by the most deadly military
in the world, and civil liberties (like opportunity to participate in a
discussion like this one) might have the most severe of consequences.
Whining is sure an ugly word, it feels a little demeaning. But
maybe this a is a good time to use the advice that this stuff shouldn't be
taken too seriously. Rather than trying to dismiss these ideas
as whining I like what Marc says about it: I can certainly agree
with this. I've been a fan of the rock band U.S. Maple for a while now and
I've always thought that their music is about wallowing and misery. (I
hope that doesn't sell U.S. Maple short. ) Also I think that wallowing
and misery are part of that mourning that I was trying to talk about
before. Dave said: "Unfortunately, every decision we make has a
cost, and when we choose to whine and cry as a response to real or
imagined difficulties, there is a price. That price is a loss of
empowerment." I guess what get out of this is that when in dialog
you need to be careful about how you talk about things; if what you're
saying gets perceived as empty complaints then of course people will
dismiss it. I need to remember that. On the other hand my tendency is to
try not to perceive what people say as empty, even if I have to spend a
little time trying to figure out how it's full, in other words, how it's
powerful. Every time I do that successfully, I swear, it results in a
better conversation. Dave said: "Being an adult is hard work.
Everyone's life brings them many difficulties and learning how best to
respond to those difficulties takes effort. It takes practice. And it
takes courage." Life lessons. What? We should only talk about our
problems in private? Fuck dat noise! Whining really isn't such a terrible
blight on the world, it doesn't ever last very long, it either gets
dropped or transforms into a useful inquiry. Show a little patience.
Dave Said:
Sorry, what are life's terms, who invents these terms, and what is their
agenda? Marc said: "but what the hell can ya do? Have fantasies.
Perhaps even act on them (within or outside of reasonable legal limits).
Be sincere and honest. Create things that you can control in some small
way and put out into the world where they can be shared and seen by
others. " Word. Marc Said: "But let's not get completely
down on the Apocalyptic. Why do people like Bosch and Goya? Why do I like
Doom Metal? Remember that the best of those cynics are also creating vital
new music/art as a vehicle for those fantasies It's a question of speed and what one is trying to accomplish, I
guess. Taking the example of an effort to build and anti-war movement
(something which is being done quite handily by a lot of incredible
organizers) cynicism and apocalyptic fantasies don't seem to offer much.
But I agree that in a less urgent pursuit, like the art many of us are
working on, these things can be used strategically, er, we can indulge in
them. Marc said: Life lessons.
Next: Cindy said: Yaaay! Cindy Asked: "anyone have any thoughts
on Sarah Conaway's or Amanda Ross-Ho's shows that are up now?"
I've got to get back and see Sarah's show again. I'm basically into it
and excited by what I've gotten out of it so far. It is visually cool
(maybe cold) and sparse, not a ton of color. According to the release,
which frames my look at the show, she's working with ideas of symmetry as
found in philosophical texts. It seems to me like a very subjective survey
of ideas about symmetry. The drawings, if I understand correctly, are
copied out of various philosophical texts. I'm not sure how they compare
to their sources. I'm only familiar with one or maybe two of the texts
she's talking about. There is one video in the show that doesn't do much
alone. Though it might be a diagram from symmetry in two dimensions; it's
a somewhat seamless loop of a pair of hands taking of a pair of gloves and
the footage plays backward so that the gloves go back on the hands. There
is a symmetry in the second dimension, the visual plane of the screen, the
hands of the human body facing each other and there is a temporal symmetry
in the video, going forward and backward. The video is grouped with two
other objects representing fingers, one wax finger and a black and white
photo of a hand. It's a group of three representations and in the context
of the show begs the question, how does a three part symmetry work?
Which is great question for anyone wishing to exscape the dualism that
sometimes seems inherent in notions of symmetry. The photos of dead
trees, while fairly mundane, are rich to me as they relate to the her
invocation of Deleuze and Guattari's A Thousand Plateaus, the introduction
of which, is a critique on arboreal systems. It's all really damn
abstract, this stuff is the intellectual equivalent of a Rothko picture.
It's gorgeous and I don't think it's for everybody. My question
is does the work's reliance on dense philosophical texts turn people off,
and so what if it does? Amanda's show at Dogmatic deserves
another look. Her work, of course, is very humorous. I'm still working on
it. xoxo, Mike Mike said: argghh!!!!! try again: Mike said:
I
think there is nothing inherently good or bad about using "dense
philosophical texts" to make art. I think this should seem obvious, but
it doesn't matter whether it's a lump of clay or a book by Heidegger, it's
what you do with the material that matters. call me a romantic,
but I liked Amanda's gold shoes hanging on the telephone wire outside.
... burned (toasted) sesame seed oil? /jno
Thomas Blackman Associates is looking for
an intern to work part-time at TBA. The intern would assist with various
administrative tasks associated with the production of Art Chicago 2003.
Basic knowledge of Macintosh computers would be helpful. The internship
would start immediately and last until the end of May 2003. Please note
that the internship will be unpaid, however, it could be used for school
credit, great experience, references, etc. If you are interested, please
contact Jenny Knowlton at 312.587.3300 or by email at jennyknowlton at
mindspring.com Thanks. Thomas Blackman Associates 230
West Huron Street, #3E Chicago, IL 60610 t: 312.587.3300 f: 312.587.3304
www.artchicago.com Are you going to this ten by ten thing?
If yes then I'll save my story (having to do with your thoughts in this
thread) for then.... dan Hey Hubbs, While you are looking
for an Intern, Paul Klein is looking for an installer. He asked me if I
had any ideas and then I saw your post. If you should come across any
candidates or have any ideas shoot them to me or Paul. Thanks,
Curt Damn this other group reply to thing.
Well, if anyone is interested, contact me or Paul. Curt
Cindy said: I agree that there is nothing wrong with using these texts to
make art. But I'm interested in the issues of literacy and access when it
comes to presenitng the work. Since many people have no interst in
becoming familiar with these texts, what does that mean for the work? Do
people who don't read this stuff still care about this work? I don't
think Sarah is trying to facilitate access to these texts with her art.
And I don't think she needs to, but I'm trying to figure out what she is
doing with them, because I agree that "it's what you do with the material
that matters." Cindy said:
You romantic, I like those shoes too. I couldn't help thinking about when
they fall, hoping that nobody is riding her big-wheel down the alley when
it happens. Mike
"spam ! spam ! spam ! spam ! On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Heather
Hubbs wrote: Don't spam the listserv. Send spam to the apropriate catagory
for NOTICES (see
[http://othergroup.net/notices.php] and just mention it here.
For Your Information: There are 4 groups: shows, spaces, sales, and jobs.
Just send (for example) an email to jobs at othergroup.net -- with the
'internship at TBA' (or whatever) on the subject line. HTH (hope
this helps) /jno Direct that mouse and move those fingers to the
Othergroup Notices section... Veedon_pop opens Friday March 14th
at JavaCha Café Virginia valley boys Dolan Geiman and Josh Miller
present... //veedon_pop// 5 felonious days of screen
print production in the corridors of Gallery 13 shown exclusively and for
the first time in Chicago Exhibition runs: March 14-April 4
Opening Night Reception Friday March 14 8pm-2am at Javacha Café
3415 N Clark Street 773.325.2421 FULL SHOW INFORMATION AT
OTHERGROUP NOTICES SECTION: [http://othergroup.net/notices.php]
For more info, contact Ali Walsh a-walsh at uchicago.edu
"First of all, I will admit that I am new
to posting on othergroup, and I must say that I am impressed to get such a
quick and thorough response to my thoughts and opinions. "
"Alright, I'll bite. So I made the
recommended substitution, which yielded:
"Often, artwork
that has an explicitly BLUE as its content becomes "tedious" (as Ben puts
it) for several reasons beyond its generally tired and trite
predictability."
"Okay. I admit it. That is laughable.
The logic of my statement is utterly destroyed by the insertion of the
word "blue". But I sincerely fail to understand what kind of statement
wouldn't fall apart were we to randomly exchange one of its phrases for
"blue". I fear that all of my arguments might be vulnerable to this
powerful new brand of logic."
"Perhaps because
I am not as worldly, well-read, or well-connected as Mr. Elms, I am a
little disturbed by the idea that one needs to be personally acquainted
with an artist in order to be qualified to talk about or interpret his
work. If I can formulate a reasonable (not to say brilliant, or even
correct) interpretation of some possible meanings conveyed by a piece, and
they bear absolutely no relevance to the artist's actual intentions, then
perhaps the artist has failed to reconcile some undesired contradictions
within the work. I do not suggest that this is the case with Chuck Jones,
but it might be the failure at the heart of the People Powered debate."
" I did not mean to imply that art is not like
language, cannot consist of language, or be about language. I said that
to call it a language is an oversimplification. The same sort of
oversimplification that we get when we try to consult a common dictionary
for the meanings of complex and frequently contested concepts like "art"
or "language". If selectiv quoting of dictionary entries could really
resolve the big questions that easily, our jobs as artists would be much
simpler (and dreadfully boring)."
"Let's look up "art" in a dictionary...
art n. 1. human creativity 2. skill 3. any specific skill or its
application 4. any craft or its principles 5. a making of things that have
form or beauty....&c Are we really satisfied with any of these
definitions?"
"(and I'm sure Anthony will be more than
happy to point out any errors)."
"Dear Mr. Hodges,
--
Dennis Hodges
"So I emailed MIT Professor Noam Chomsky, noted
linguistics expert (and "NPR liberal")"
--ali walsh--
"So I emailed MIT Professor Noam Chomsky, noted
linguistics expert (and "NPR liberal")"
"As
the more vocal members of othergroup, I call upon you all in particular to
offer your opinions on this weekend's Around the Coyote Winter Arts
Festival. These comments can range from the informal (othergroup
discussion) to the formal (article for an arts periodical)."
"As I become
increasingly involved with this organization, I hear vague murmurings that
seem to suggest that 1) the community is happy that Around the Coyote
exists and support the endeavor 2) but down-right depressed by the actual
festivals."
"I think it is important for Director Olgan Stefan to hear
these comments and take them into consideration for the larger summer
festival. What do people think of the Northwest Tower location? What are
your experiences with ATC?"
"Throwing the stone And looking for
the ripple"
"well Dan...thanks for making us at
the Other Group sound like real elitist assholes...."
"Why should you care?
Well, because art is what you make, because you should be responsible,
because we all eat from the same cake, because is art, because you want
other people to look at your art ...and somehow...treat it with respect."
"This self-reflexive performative maneuver mutates artistic
production constructively."
"But the wall of quartz (?) pieces pegged into
the wall was something great, I think. They were the height measurements
of celebrities, I think, and the field of them on the black wall sort of
pointing up to space and the stars, the form echoing an asteroid belt, I
thought was an approach to fame that was poetic and interesting to look
through with the binder list."
"And the fact that anything could make it through to
my brain with those superb pop songs by Rodney Graham rolling through my
head all week is a miracle. If anyone knows how to get copies of his
songs, let me know, I'll shine your shoes for a decade and make you the
best pasta sauce you'll ever have."
-- Dennis Hodges
"Is that Pedro fellow actually
leaving? I thought Diego Bobby said that he was dead or something. I'm
sure he was a great guy and all, but all that angry cursing seemed a bit
unnecessary to me.
"Can we write a bleep
filter that replaces all instances of the word "bleep" with a random
curse?
"I have some patchy memories of the mid and early ninties. I
was wondering if anyone might be willing to throw together a short list of
what they recall.
"I want to get back to the seventies and
the hey day of not for profits. It might be interesting to trace how
these spaces have functioned here in the past.
"I think that Tony Tasset is a better
comparison than Felix Gonzales-Torres, given the light-hearted content of
Marc's work."
"Friday
2/14 6 - mn
-5265 Hohman
-219 937 6009
- /jno " 94 to Indiana,
- exit Sibley east,
- 3 mi to Hohman so,
- 2 blks
- Title: Alternative Spaces- A History in Chicago
-
Author: Lynne Warren
- Publisher: MCA, Chicago 1984
- . . . in
conjunction with an exhibition under the same title at the MCA, Chicago
June 23 - August 19, 1984
"Do they
contibute to the dialogue in any way other then providing wall space? Have
they helped Chicago's artists. Have they had any far reaching impact on
the community. Do they tend to be gathered in one nieghborhood or
district, Like west loop, river-north, old town, Wicker park or Pilsen. Or
do they start at diverse points and then move as they mature like "The big
fat mean jerks who just do stupid stuff at the expense of the artists they
exploit" and "The big fat mean jerks who just do stupid stuff at the
expense of the artists they exploit" did?
-
Stephanie Schaudel (Voices in the Wilderness)
- Sharon Smith (author
and organizer)
- Quentin D. Young, M.D. (single-payer advocate)
- And.....me!
--
"We work hard and don't have a lot of time and energy
or cash to expend on shows full of adolescents who's parents didn't teach
them the essential rules of living; including that one about being quiet
and listening to the flow of the conversation until one has something of
value to interject."
"it sounds like us artists need a good spanking to keep
us in line!"
- if only that you
shouldn't recreate the aesthetic experience of a huge arena in a small
wooden structure. As the apocalypse approaches (including the inevitable
re-election of our King Mayor), we all better choose our escapism very
carefully - try not to die for washed up art or music. That said, did
anyone see Damo Suzuki at the Fireside the other night? I didn't go and am
curious. Marc
"It is important to be
overbearingly haughty and insufferable when surrendering," said Colonel
Phillippe Marie-Jean Yves-Montand Gaulois du Petit Pomme, commanding
officer of the elite Surrender Specialists, who has personally surrendered
in countless battles dating back to Dien Bien Phu in 1954. "We French are
world masters at surrendering, n'est-ce pas? Not like you arrogant
Americans, who never surrender. Ha! I spit on your American victories!"
--
contribute to: the love letter collection [http://www.collectiveexperience.org]
-Steve
"... empower
yourself by working harder than ever... and
"I'm working
harder than I have in my entire life...
-> response
I
-> the
-> here in
-> appreciate it
->
dissatisfaction
-> to
-> is a
-> others
-> take
-> all they
-> response.
-> difficulties
-> It
->
enjoyed very
-> difficulties,
"And, uh, what is that stuff
at the end of yr email? A list maxims to live by, or spelling take-outs?
Your emailer does that? Or your poetic sensibilities?"
"Oh, hating the
French is fun. Besides, they like it.
"
Reply to Jno's post, (which I won't repeat):
" So, that's who
we hate now, the French? Then the Germans, Belgians. Only 150 or so more
countries to go!
-Steve
"And, uh, what is that stuff at the end of
yr email?
" No, things haven't gotten so bad that I've started writing
poetry. I think maybe my emailer (or your programing?) is doing that.
"When
confronted with some difficulty, the easiest and cheapest response I can
think of is to whine about it, and do nothing. This is in fact, the
response that a lot of people choose. And the result is that even here in
America where people have the most of everything, they still appreciate it
very little, and whine and cry and wallow in existential dissatisfaction
anyway ... because it's the cheapest and easiest thing to do. "
"But I still would
argue that some good art has come from a little wallowing and misery - and
that we need those kinds of expression."
"Apocalyptic fantasies
can be fun. So can whining and crying about the "horrible state of the
world". But it's a fun that needs to be enjoyed very sparingly, and if
you're smart, in private."
"Accepting life on life's terms, and doing
the best we can with what is available to us would be a far healthier
response to life's difficulties, and will keep us empowered. "
- as a way of
contending with and maybe even transcending how shitty things are."
"when times feel bleak I always
think the thing to do is to empower yourself by working harder than ever
to develop and put forward ideas that you think have value and to share
those ideas and that work with others."
"YAAAY for Manny in the first ward
upset!"
"My question is does the work's
reliance on dense philosophical texts turn people off, and so what if it
does?"
"My question is does the work's reliance on dense
philosophical texts turn people off, and so what if it does?"
-c.
--
"I think there is nothing inherently good
or bad about using "dense philosophical texts" to make art. I think this
should seem obvious, but it doesn't matter whether it's a lump of clay or
a book by Heidegger, it's what you do with the material that matters."
"call me a romantic, but I
liked Amanda's gold shoes hanging on the telephone wire outside."
"Thomas Blackman Associates is looking for an
intern to work part-time at etc
"spam ! spam ! spam ! spam
!