Re: Conceptual Art
Eryck,
Clearly we disagree, but I appreciate your eloquence and interesting comments.
Joe :)
Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> Joe and Curt,
>
> Might I take a stance in defense of conceptual art?
>
> One of the ways art is most interesting to me is when it exposes a
> new
> possibility, reframes an old problem, or explores limitations of
> current
> ways of thinking. This is why new media is fascinating to me- even if
> it is,
> for example, the concept of blogging, podcasting, etc that excite me
> for the
> sake of its possibilities, these do lead to a tangible reframing of
> ideas
> about access, distribution, and waking up creative potentials in
> people that
> might otherwise rest unstirred. Whether I ever hear a podcast that
> blows me
> away is almost irrelevant to the benefits of the technology simply
> existing.
>
> How we think about the world, and the words and concepts that we use
> to
> describe a world to ourselves, are what define us, probably more than
> the
> world itself manages to define us. Conceptual art is a means of
> breaking out
> of boxes and exploring different ways of doing things (and a lot of it
> is
> deliberately engaged in violating the rules of language itself as a
> means of
> exploring the limitation of language itself. An idea is not always, as
> you
> say, "a collection of words"). Like any other art, some of it will
> resonate
> and some will not. But I have never really been comfortable with the
> segregation of "forms" of creative thought. If a piece of software
> comes
> along that radically changes my way of thinking about the world, it is
> about
> the same to me as if a new piece of art comes along that radically
> changes
> my way of thinking about the world. If that piece of art is, say,
> something
> Jenny Holzer writes with LED lights, I don't believe it is separate
> from if
> she said it to me in person.
>
> Artistry is fast losing its definition as a skill set; technology is
> going
> to make sure of it. As that opens up the creative process, ideas are
> going
> to grow far more important than the technical execution of an idea.
> It's not
> about the quality of the art, it's about the quality of the
> articulation.
> Consider, for example, what spellcheck has done for an entire
> generation of
> grammatically challenged poets. It isn't very difficult to imagine a
> computer program that will automatically replace your word with a word
> that
> helps your stanza fit into the template of a sestina, for example, and
> at
> the click of a button make suggestions for changing it to a ballad. (A
> more
> practical example is the notion of audio tracking software that allows
> for
> an entire genre of popular music to be made by individuals without any
> idea
> of how to play an "actual" instrument). As technology accelerates the
> number
> of radio producers, musicians, film makers, magazine publishers, and
> artists, the tangible output is going to be secondary to the concept
> driving
> it. In other words, if anyone can make anything with the tap of their
> finger, then the idea of what they make, and the fact that they have
> articulated it, will be far more important than the process of how it
> was
> made.
>
> I've read Curt using, specifically, the example of Michael
> Mandiberg's
> "After Sherri Levine": Walker Evans takes photographs of share
> croppers in
> 1936, Sherri Levine, in 79, takes pictures of the pictures and puts
> them on
> line. Mandiberg, in 2001, scans Evans' originals, and puts them on
> line,
> then scans Levine's pictures of those pictures and puts them on line,
> elsewhere. Curt says the work is poor because it couldn't exist
> without an
> artists statement- and that, therefore, the artists statement is the
> piece.
> The artists statement is always an explanation of history and context.
> But
> Mandiberg's artist's statement is a history and a context, of art, and
> how
> we re-evaluate art as technology changes our interactions with the
> world.
> "After Sherri Levine" makes a point that strikes a nerve; but also
> crackles
> the synapses as it makes new connections between ideas.
>
> It is not exactly a moving piece of emotional art, a call to arms, a
> protest
> piece, or anything of the sort. But it does say something interesting
> in an
> interesting way- and saying something interesting is about all any of
> us
> with access to the right technology will need to know how to do.
>
> Two Cents,
> -e.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> To:
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 3:43 PM
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Regarding The "Anti-Nike"
>
>
> >A friend of mine just sent me a link to Charlotte's front page
> rant/spoof
> >regarding flooding the meme-way with concepts alone instead of
> "realized"
> >conceptual art. Although this is obviously a fun/tongue in cheek
> call to
> >arms, in many ways I think this is a fundamental critique of
> "conceptual
> >art" and a pointed observation of it's fundamental flaws.
> >
> > I invite you to continue reading a section of a recent blog from my
> > website (www.joenolan.com) in which I address the same subject more
> > directly.
> >
> > Thanks and enjoy!
> >
> > Joe Nolan
> >
> >
> > I have been finishing up a series of drawings that I hope to include
> in a
> > book of poetry that will be available some time this summer
> (hopefully).
> > They are "self portraits" and also religious iconography. Those of
> you who
> > are familiar with my other my work know that I feel that "All Art
> is
> > Martial Art". Which is to say, the elements that create the
> successful
> > martial moment are the same ones that create successful art.
> >
> > These elements are: 1) confrontation, 2) impact and 3) movement.
> >
> > Anyone who is familiar with the visual work I have done in the past
> knows
> > that it is my contention that "art" is best employed to express that
> which
> > is beyond the bounds of language. In this sense I reject all
> "conceptual
> > art" out of hand as an intellectual conceit and an ignorant
> > miscalculation.
> >
> > A concept is an idea. An idea is a collection of words. A collection
> of
> > words is most simply (i.e. most elegantly and therefore most
> beautifully
> > and therefore most artistically successful)conveyed by...wait for
> > it...more words!
> >
> > Please just write me the essay you are going to have to post in the
> > gallery anyway to explain your faulty efforts.
> >
> > Because of my understanding of "art" as the language that is beyond
> > language, in my opinion it is most effectively applied to those
> concerns
> > that elude our clumsy mouthings: emotions, impulses etc. Being
> somewhat
> > over-the-top as an artist and a person I, naturally, tend to push
> this to
> > it's logical conclusion and concern myself with the ultimate
> > "unspeakable": God and man's impulse toward the transcendent.
> >
> > +
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
Clearly we disagree, but I appreciate your eloquence and interesting comments.
Joe :)
Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> Joe and Curt,
>
> Might I take a stance in defense of conceptual art?
>
> One of the ways art is most interesting to me is when it exposes a
> new
> possibility, reframes an old problem, or explores limitations of
> current
> ways of thinking. This is why new media is fascinating to me- even if
> it is,
> for example, the concept of blogging, podcasting, etc that excite me
> for the
> sake of its possibilities, these do lead to a tangible reframing of
> ideas
> about access, distribution, and waking up creative potentials in
> people that
> might otherwise rest unstirred. Whether I ever hear a podcast that
> blows me
> away is almost irrelevant to the benefits of the technology simply
> existing.
>
> How we think about the world, and the words and concepts that we use
> to
> describe a world to ourselves, are what define us, probably more than
> the
> world itself manages to define us. Conceptual art is a means of
> breaking out
> of boxes and exploring different ways of doing things (and a lot of it
> is
> deliberately engaged in violating the rules of language itself as a
> means of
> exploring the limitation of language itself. An idea is not always, as
> you
> say, "a collection of words"). Like any other art, some of it will
> resonate
> and some will not. But I have never really been comfortable with the
> segregation of "forms" of creative thought. If a piece of software
> comes
> along that radically changes my way of thinking about the world, it is
> about
> the same to me as if a new piece of art comes along that radically
> changes
> my way of thinking about the world. If that piece of art is, say,
> something
> Jenny Holzer writes with LED lights, I don't believe it is separate
> from if
> she said it to me in person.
>
> Artistry is fast losing its definition as a skill set; technology is
> going
> to make sure of it. As that opens up the creative process, ideas are
> going
> to grow far more important than the technical execution of an idea.
> It's not
> about the quality of the art, it's about the quality of the
> articulation.
> Consider, for example, what spellcheck has done for an entire
> generation of
> grammatically challenged poets. It isn't very difficult to imagine a
> computer program that will automatically replace your word with a word
> that
> helps your stanza fit into the template of a sestina, for example, and
> at
> the click of a button make suggestions for changing it to a ballad. (A
> more
> practical example is the notion of audio tracking software that allows
> for
> an entire genre of popular music to be made by individuals without any
> idea
> of how to play an "actual" instrument). As technology accelerates the
> number
> of radio producers, musicians, film makers, magazine publishers, and
> artists, the tangible output is going to be secondary to the concept
> driving
> it. In other words, if anyone can make anything with the tap of their
> finger, then the idea of what they make, and the fact that they have
> articulated it, will be far more important than the process of how it
> was
> made.
>
> I've read Curt using, specifically, the example of Michael
> Mandiberg's
> "After Sherri Levine": Walker Evans takes photographs of share
> croppers in
> 1936, Sherri Levine, in 79, takes pictures of the pictures and puts
> them on
> line. Mandiberg, in 2001, scans Evans' originals, and puts them on
> line,
> then scans Levine's pictures of those pictures and puts them on line,
> elsewhere. Curt says the work is poor because it couldn't exist
> without an
> artists statement- and that, therefore, the artists statement is the
> piece.
> The artists statement is always an explanation of history and context.
> But
> Mandiberg's artist's statement is a history and a context, of art, and
> how
> we re-evaluate art as technology changes our interactions with the
> world.
> "After Sherri Levine" makes a point that strikes a nerve; but also
> crackles
> the synapses as it makes new connections between ideas.
>
> It is not exactly a moving piece of emotional art, a call to arms, a
> protest
> piece, or anything of the sort. But it does say something interesting
> in an
> interesting way- and saying something interesting is about all any of
> us
> with access to the right technology will need to know how to do.
>
> Two Cents,
> -e.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> To:
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 3:43 PM
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Regarding The "Anti-Nike"
>
>
> >A friend of mine just sent me a link to Charlotte's front page
> rant/spoof
> >regarding flooding the meme-way with concepts alone instead of
> "realized"
> >conceptual art. Although this is obviously a fun/tongue in cheek
> call to
> >arms, in many ways I think this is a fundamental critique of
> "conceptual
> >art" and a pointed observation of it's fundamental flaws.
> >
> > I invite you to continue reading a section of a recent blog from my
> > website (www.joenolan.com) in which I address the same subject more
> > directly.
> >
> > Thanks and enjoy!
> >
> > Joe Nolan
> >
> >
> > I have been finishing up a series of drawings that I hope to include
> in a
> > book of poetry that will be available some time this summer
> (hopefully).
> > They are "self portraits" and also religious iconography. Those of
> you who
> > are familiar with my other my work know that I feel that "All Art
> is
> > Martial Art". Which is to say, the elements that create the
> successful
> > martial moment are the same ones that create successful art.
> >
> > These elements are: 1) confrontation, 2) impact and 3) movement.
> >
> > Anyone who is familiar with the visual work I have done in the past
> knows
> > that it is my contention that "art" is best employed to express that
> which
> > is beyond the bounds of language. In this sense I reject all
> "conceptual
> > art" out of hand as an intellectual conceit and an ignorant
> > miscalculation.
> >
> > A concept is an idea. An idea is a collection of words. A collection
> of
> > words is most simply (i.e. most elegantly and therefore most
> beautifully
> > and therefore most artistically successful)conveyed by...wait for
> > it...more words!
> >
> > Please just write me the essay you are going to have to post in the
> > gallery anyway to explain your faulty efforts.
> >
> > Because of my understanding of "art" as the language that is beyond
> > language, in my opinion it is most effectively applied to those
> concerns
> > that elude our clumsy mouthings: emotions, impulses etc. Being
> somewhat
> > over-the-top as an artist and a person I, naturally, tend to push
> this to
> > it's logical conclusion and concern myself with the ultimate
> > "unspeakable": God and man's impulse toward the transcendent.
> >
> > +
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
Re: Re: Regarding The
Dates:
Wed Aug 09, 2006 00:00 - Mon Aug 08, 2005
I just received an email regarding Charlotte's article, my comments and Curt's additional support links.
Please post your comments here as this is what these boards are for and it's more fun when we get to share. :)
To put my comments above more succinctly, ideas are ultimately only capable of being broken down into smaller groups of words. The clearest way to elucidate various word-groups (ideas) is to use more words to attempt a further clarification.
That is why I am not creating an animated gif here to explain this concept. A visual/sculptural/audio etc. "something" happening here would be ridiculous in place of this simple explanation of my "concept".
When it comes to those things we can never clearly communicate (justice, love, the religious impulse etc) we turn to the arts as a higher form of communication than the mundanities of the 1=1 reasoning of facts that and the left brained prejudices that the advent of language (particularly phonetic alphabets and typography) created in our species.
The root of "Philosophy"is "Philos", LOVE!
The Philosophy of an Art that is purely "conceptual" is an intellectual mistake. It says more about onanistic ritual-in which the "realized" object becomes a fetish-than it does about the potency of the artist in his/her ability to move the viewer.
Joe
Please post your comments here as this is what these boards are for and it's more fun when we get to share. :)
To put my comments above more succinctly, ideas are ultimately only capable of being broken down into smaller groups of words. The clearest way to elucidate various word-groups (ideas) is to use more words to attempt a further clarification.
That is why I am not creating an animated gif here to explain this concept. A visual/sculptural/audio etc. "something" happening here would be ridiculous in place of this simple explanation of my "concept".
When it comes to those things we can never clearly communicate (justice, love, the religious impulse etc) we turn to the arts as a higher form of communication than the mundanities of the 1=1 reasoning of facts that and the left brained prejudices that the advent of language (particularly phonetic alphabets and typography) created in our species.
The root of "Philosophy"is "Philos", LOVE!
The Philosophy of an Art that is purely "conceptual" is an intellectual mistake. It says more about onanistic ritual-in which the "realized" object becomes a fetish-than it does about the potency of the artist in his/her ability to move the viewer.
Joe
Re: Re: Regarding The
Dates:
Wed Aug 09, 2006 00:00 - Mon Aug 08, 2005
I just received an email regarding Charlotte's article, my comments and Curt's additional support links.
Please post your comments here as this is what these boards are for and it's more fun when we get to share. :)
To put my comments above more succinctly, ideas are ultimately only capable of being broken down into smaller groups of words. The clearest way to elucidate various word-groups (ideas) is to use more words to attempt a further clarification.
That is why I am not creating an animated gif here to explain this concept. A visual/sculptural/audio etc. "something" happening here would be ridiculous in place of this simple explanation of my "concept".
When it comes to those things we can never clearly communicate (justice, love, the religious impulse etc) we turn to the arts as a higher form of communication than the mundanities of the 1=1 reasoning of facts that and the left brained prejudices that the advent of language (particularly phonetic alphabets and typography) created in our species.
The root of "Philosophy"is "Philos", LOVE!
The Philosophy of an Art that is purely "conceptual" is an intellectual mistake. It says more about onanistic ritual-in which the "realized" object becomes a fetish-than it does about the potency of the artist in his/her ability to move the viewer.
Joe
Please post your comments here as this is what these boards are for and it's more fun when we get to share. :)
To put my comments above more succinctly, ideas are ultimately only capable of being broken down into smaller groups of words. The clearest way to elucidate various word-groups (ideas) is to use more words to attempt a further clarification.
That is why I am not creating an animated gif here to explain this concept. A visual/sculptural/audio etc. "something" happening here would be ridiculous in place of this simple explanation of my "concept".
When it comes to those things we can never clearly communicate (justice, love, the religious impulse etc) we turn to the arts as a higher form of communication than the mundanities of the 1=1 reasoning of facts that and the left brained prejudices that the advent of language (particularly phonetic alphabets and typography) created in our species.
The root of "Philosophy"is "Philos", LOVE!
The Philosophy of an Art that is purely "conceptual" is an intellectual mistake. It says more about onanistic ritual-in which the "realized" object becomes a fetish-than it does about the potency of the artist in his/her ability to move the viewer.
Joe
Regarding The "Anti-Nike"
Dates:
Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:00 - Mon Aug 08, 2005
A friend of mine just sent me a link to Charlotte's front page rant/spoof regarding flooding the meme-way with concepts alone instead of "realized" conceptual art. Although this is obviously a fun/tongue in cheek call to arms, in many ways I think this is a fundamental critique of "conceptual art" and a pointed observation of it's fundamental flaws.
I invite you to continue reading a section of a recent blog from my website (www.joenolan.com) in which I address the same subject more directly.
Thanks and enjoy!
Joe Nolan
I have been finishing up a series of drawings that I hope to include in a book of poetry that will be available some time this summer (hopefully). They are "self portraits" and also religious iconography. Those of you who are familiar with my other my work know that I feel that "All Art is Martial Art". Which is to say, the elements that create the successful martial moment are the same ones that create successful art.
These elements are: 1) confrontation, 2) impact and 3) movement.
Anyone who is familiar with the visual work I have done in the past knows that it is my contention that "art" is best employed to express that which is beyond the bounds of language. In this sense I reject all "conceptual art" out of hand as an intellectual conceit and an ignorant miscalculation.
A concept is an idea. An idea is a collection of words. A collection of words is most simply (i.e. most elegantly and therefore most beautifully and therefore most artistically successful)conveyed by...wait for it...more words!
Please just write me the essay you are going to have to post in the gallery anyway to explain your faulty efforts.
Because of my understanding of "art" as the language that is beyond language, in my opinion it is most effectively applied to those concerns that elude our clumsy mouthings: emotions, impulses etc. Being somewhat over-the-top as an artist and a person I, naturally, tend to push this to it's logical conclusion and concern myself with the ultimate "unspeakable": God and man's impulse toward the transcendent.
I invite you to continue reading a section of a recent blog from my website (www.joenolan.com) in which I address the same subject more directly.
Thanks and enjoy!
Joe Nolan
I have been finishing up a series of drawings that I hope to include in a book of poetry that will be available some time this summer (hopefully). They are "self portraits" and also religious iconography. Those of you who are familiar with my other my work know that I feel that "All Art is Martial Art". Which is to say, the elements that create the successful martial moment are the same ones that create successful art.
These elements are: 1) confrontation, 2) impact and 3) movement.
Anyone who is familiar with the visual work I have done in the past knows that it is my contention that "art" is best employed to express that which is beyond the bounds of language. In this sense I reject all "conceptual art" out of hand as an intellectual conceit and an ignorant miscalculation.
A concept is an idea. An idea is a collection of words. A collection of words is most simply (i.e. most elegantly and therefore most beautifully and therefore most artistically successful)conveyed by...wait for it...more words!
Please just write me the essay you are going to have to post in the gallery anyway to explain your faulty efforts.
Because of my understanding of "art" as the language that is beyond language, in my opinion it is most effectively applied to those concerns that elude our clumsy mouthings: emotions, impulses etc. Being somewhat over-the-top as an artist and a person I, naturally, tend to push this to it's logical conclusion and concern myself with the ultimate "unspeakable": God and man's impulse toward the transcendent.
