PORTFOLIO (1)
BIO
I think, theorize, and write about highly irrelevant matters.
Re: Deconstruct the Narrative = Protocolian positioning.
Hi Fee,
<quote>
"Showing my ignorance - what is a bricolage? it ain't in the oxford
dictionary and here in France Monsieur Bricolage is our favourite DIY and
art supplies shop ( only the French would combine the two...)"
</quote>
That's interesting that it's not in the Oxford Dictionary, because it is in
my measly Microsoft Encarta Dictionary.
English not being my first language, I have to say that I'm not in a
position to be explaining to you what it means, but:
bri
<quote>
"Showing my ignorance - what is a bricolage? it ain't in the oxford
dictionary and here in France Monsieur Bricolage is our favourite DIY and
art supplies shop ( only the French would combine the two...)"
</quote>
That's interesting that it's not in the Oxford Dictionary, because it is in
my measly Microsoft Encarta Dictionary.
English not being my first language, I have to say that I'm not in a
position to be explaining to you what it means, but:
bri
Re: Deconstruct the Narrative = Protocolian positioning.
> Until then - stay in denial, I hope its warm in there...
Marc,
I'm sorry, but it's not warm here. It's raining, and dirty snow melting. So,
it makes it very difficult to stay in denial.
Regards,
Dyske
Marc,
I'm sorry, but it's not warm here. It's raining, and dirty snow melting. So,
it makes it very difficult to stay in denial.
Regards,
Dyske
Re: Re: Deconstruct the Narrative = Protocolian positioning.
Hi Curt,
> This difference in critical approach (dry vs. fly / allusive vs.
> intuitive) is why I prefer rhizome to thingist.
>
> it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing,
I see what you mean. Sounds like I need to switch to thingist.
Best,
Dyske
> This difference in critical approach (dry vs. fly / allusive vs.
> intuitive) is why I prefer rhizome to thingist.
>
> it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing,
I see what you mean. Sounds like I need to switch to thingist.
Best,
Dyske
Re: Deconstruct the Narrative = Protocolian positioning.
Hi Fee,
<quote>
Jumping in the middle here - is there really such a thing as a logical
decision arrived at without emotional input? is there really such a thing as
an emotional state unaffected by logic? I suspect not, and that you are
polarising each unneccessarily. Marc, your proletisysing of intuition and
emotion is not neccessary - it is everpresent even if not always readily
admitted to. If one can bring oneself to admit that emotion and logic affect
each other endlessly, neither are actually in opposition or bound by the
limits you both seem to have ascribed to them.
Oh, and of course men try to pick up girls in bars using logic - they figure
out the problems involved, try and identify possible solutions and
empirically work through them. very few men I've ever met use an illogical
approach...lol
</quote>
Very nice. You have deconstructed my text, in particular, my rigid fixing of
logic versus emotion, where one cannot be defined without the other. You are
certainly right, so I must leave my previous post as a bricolage; if someone
gets something out of it, then that is fine, if not that is fine too. I'm
not going to argue.
-Dyske
<quote>
Jumping in the middle here - is there really such a thing as a logical
decision arrived at without emotional input? is there really such a thing as
an emotional state unaffected by logic? I suspect not, and that you are
polarising each unneccessarily. Marc, your proletisysing of intuition and
emotion is not neccessary - it is everpresent even if not always readily
admitted to. If one can bring oneself to admit that emotion and logic affect
each other endlessly, neither are actually in opposition or bound by the
limits you both seem to have ascribed to them.
Oh, and of course men try to pick up girls in bars using logic - they figure
out the problems involved, try and identify possible solutions and
empirically work through them. very few men I've ever met use an illogical
approach...lol
</quote>
Very nice. You have deconstructed my text, in particular, my rigid fixing of
logic versus emotion, where one cannot be defined without the other. You are
certainly right, so I must leave my previous post as a bricolage; if someone
gets something out of it, then that is fine, if not that is fine too. I'm
not going to argue.
-Dyske
Re: Re: Deconstruct the Narrative = Protocolianpositioning
<quote>
"I find the above paragraphs contradictory. On the one hand you are
suggesting that to work within the confines of 'I like this' or 'I don't
like this' is a positive step to take. then you go on to say such an
expression of like/dislike does nothing but 'assert the commentators
superiority'"
<quote>
This is what I wrote to Are regarding this issue:
Are said: "like and dislike only really have a totalitarian use value."
That is, if you use them in a discourse. And, this is why, for me, to state
likes and dislikes in a discussion is useless. The only way to argue in such
a discussion is for me to adapt a totalitarian position. However, to simply
express your likes and dislikes as a curator, without implying any
authority, is not a totalitarian act, rather it is a personal artistic
expression.
To further elaborate:
When you say "I like this," it should be kept within a simple expression of
your own sentiment. The emphasis is on the "I". As soon as you start to
argue about it, substantiate it, rationalize it, or explain it, it becomes
an attempt to fix and stabilize the significance of your statement, which is
"totalitarian" in nature.
I think Marc shares this sentiment, but the issue I had with his original
essay was that he went on to explain what type of art is more deserving of
the institutional attention, ones that is more "radical" in nature that
"questions institutional remits." This ends up doing the same thing he is
criticizing, since you are still giving the institutions the authority to
fix and stabilize the significance of art.
I argued this from Marc's own perspective and logic. Personally, I don't
really have any issues with giving museums or galleries the authority. The
Western art is what it is: a centrally structured discourse. And, both
artists and institutions are complicit in keeping it that way. Any artists
who criticize the institutions without criticizing their own complicity are
hypocritical. I have no vested interest in changing this state of the
western art. There is no need for you to join the discourse. The only
problem is that then whatever you do will not be considered "art" in the
west. More likely, it will be called "hobby", but that really isn't a
problem.
Best Regards,
Dyske
"I find the above paragraphs contradictory. On the one hand you are
suggesting that to work within the confines of 'I like this' or 'I don't
like this' is a positive step to take. then you go on to say such an
expression of like/dislike does nothing but 'assert the commentators
superiority'"
<quote>
This is what I wrote to Are regarding this issue:
Are said: "like and dislike only really have a totalitarian use value."
That is, if you use them in a discourse. And, this is why, for me, to state
likes and dislikes in a discussion is useless. The only way to argue in such
a discussion is for me to adapt a totalitarian position. However, to simply
express your likes and dislikes as a curator, without implying any
authority, is not a totalitarian act, rather it is a personal artistic
expression.
To further elaborate:
When you say "I like this," it should be kept within a simple expression of
your own sentiment. The emphasis is on the "I". As soon as you start to
argue about it, substantiate it, rationalize it, or explain it, it becomes
an attempt to fix and stabilize the significance of your statement, which is
"totalitarian" in nature.
I think Marc shares this sentiment, but the issue I had with his original
essay was that he went on to explain what type of art is more deserving of
the institutional attention, ones that is more "radical" in nature that
"questions institutional remits." This ends up doing the same thing he is
criticizing, since you are still giving the institutions the authority to
fix and stabilize the significance of art.
I argued this from Marc's own perspective and logic. Personally, I don't
really have any issues with giving museums or galleries the authority. The
Western art is what it is: a centrally structured discourse. And, both
artists and institutions are complicit in keeping it that way. Any artists
who criticize the institutions without criticizing their own complicity are
hypocritical. I have no vested interest in changing this state of the
western art. There is no need for you to join the discourse. The only
problem is that then whatever you do will not be considered "art" in the
west. More likely, it will be called "hobby", but that really isn't a
problem.
Best Regards,
Dyske