ARTBASE (4)
BIO
glorious ninth (http://www.gloriousninth.net) is a collaboration between artists Kate Southworth and Patrick Simons. They make artworks and DIY installations for galleries, online and other places. Recent works have started to explore the use of protocol as a medium. Kate Southworth is research leader of the iRes research cluster in Network Art at University College Falmouth (http://www.ires.org.uk).
Re: what if and tid bits i cry to much
Liza Sabater-Napier6/10/02 14:29liza@potatoland.org wrote:
>--the radical philosophy is not that radical nor
> new. It has been around for a while (at least 50 years). It was first
> promulgated in Latin America, although Wallace Setevens dabbled in it
> through a friendship.
> It is an aesthetics that was first applied to poetics but could
> easily be extended to any art form: Think Frank Ghery. Deleuze wrote
> a fabulous book about it but in reference to Leibniz's philosophy.
>
Liza, I would be really interested to know more about this when you've got
time.
best wishes,
Kate
>--the radical philosophy is not that radical nor
> new. It has been around for a while (at least 50 years). It was first
> promulgated in Latin America, although Wallace Setevens dabbled in it
> through a friendship.
> It is an aesthetics that was first applied to poetics but could
> easily be extended to any art form: Think Frank Ghery. Deleuze wrote
> a fabulous book about it but in reference to Leibniz's philosophy.
>
Liza, I would be really interested to know more about this when you've got
time.
best wishes,
Kate
extra bit to last post
Hi Judson and List
Sorry. On my last post 6/8/02 13.05 I omitted my greeting. I also forgot
to say that I was responding to what Judson had written on 6/8/02 1:26.
best,
Kate
Sorry. On my last post 6/8/02 13.05 I omitted my greeting. I also forgot
to say that I was responding to what Judson had written on 6/8/02 1:26.
best,
Kate
Re: what if and tid bits i cry to much
>
> The idea that the tools have absolutely no bearing on the
> effectiveness of communication. Seems absurd to even consider there
> is a time when painting has more or less to say than at other times,
> as if painting (a tool) had anything at all to do with the delivery.
> Artist use tools to "talk". The tools don't talk.
I have to disagree here. The tools (or the technology) speak volumes.
Whilst not advocating technological determinism at all, I would argue that
contained within any technology, is the logic, language, structure, etc. of
the society/system within which it was produced. A vast amount of art is
produced through/with technology, and has been since the caves. Because
technology isn't neutral in the sense that it isn't developed in isolation
from the world, from markets, military, etc. the use of technologies in the
production of art is one of the factors which artists address and argue
about.
Painting isn't pure. It isn't produced through/with technology that is
devoid of ideology.
What I think, perhaps is more relevant to this discussion are the competing
arguments (politically motivated, of course) regarding the nature of the
so-called 'information society'. This debate, for me, contains a number of
issues around which this list has been hovering for some time.
> Could just as well be a chunk of wood someone found after a storm, or
> a computer program. Whatever inspired the artist to lend form to
> some message. All artist are inspired by different tools at
> different times. There is no rule about better or worse tools that
> applies to all.
I completely agree that different tools suit the artist at different times.
And as I was being purposefully provocative in my previous mail, I should
just like to make it absolutely clear here, that I would really never
advocate rules for art at all. ever.
What I'm trying to get at by saying painting as an art form is obsolete is
this:
There is an undoubted relationship between art and the system within which
it is produced.
To be ignorant of that system, and the ways in which we interact with it (as
people, as people who make art, etc.) is lazy.
The system isn't separate from us. We are part of it, and can affect it
(not so much as individuals, but collectively) as much as we are affected by
it.
The perception of ourselves as artists inspired to create beautiful objects
without consciously knowing how we make work (for fear that knowing might
spoil the magic) has to be rejected. Completely rejected.
I believe we need to re frame our experiences of producing art so that we
can hold on to what is valuable to us, without having to buy into the whole
creative genius package.
In the west, painting and sculpture, more than any other art forms,
culturally (not literally) contain within them those notions of genius and
creativity, of individual artist inspired by god, by life, to create works
of art, masterpieces. This is my main reason for claiming painting as an
art form to be obsolete. It is these notions that are obsolete. I am not
sure if they can be separated from painting, hence the leap to painting as
obsolete art form.
>
> Modern art is so bad, we need help anywhere we can get it. Why
> eliminate the artists who just like to paint and don't want
> computers. To many, a computer = boring job. Some would rather
> paint.
This raises a really interesting point, I feel. I get truly sick of
working on my computer, inside, not using my body very much. I yearn to be
a carpenter or a gardener. I think many people feel the same. Painting
seems the equivalent of being a gardener. Physicality, smells, dirt etc.
Is it just a hobby then?
very best wishes,
Kate
> The idea that the tools have absolutely no bearing on the
> effectiveness of communication. Seems absurd to even consider there
> is a time when painting has more or less to say than at other times,
> as if painting (a tool) had anything at all to do with the delivery.
> Artist use tools to "talk". The tools don't talk.
I have to disagree here. The tools (or the technology) speak volumes.
Whilst not advocating technological determinism at all, I would argue that
contained within any technology, is the logic, language, structure, etc. of
the society/system within which it was produced. A vast amount of art is
produced through/with technology, and has been since the caves. Because
technology isn't neutral in the sense that it isn't developed in isolation
from the world, from markets, military, etc. the use of technologies in the
production of art is one of the factors which artists address and argue
about.
Painting isn't pure. It isn't produced through/with technology that is
devoid of ideology.
What I think, perhaps is more relevant to this discussion are the competing
arguments (politically motivated, of course) regarding the nature of the
so-called 'information society'. This debate, for me, contains a number of
issues around which this list has been hovering for some time.
> Could just as well be a chunk of wood someone found after a storm, or
> a computer program. Whatever inspired the artist to lend form to
> some message. All artist are inspired by different tools at
> different times. There is no rule about better or worse tools that
> applies to all.
I completely agree that different tools suit the artist at different times.
And as I was being purposefully provocative in my previous mail, I should
just like to make it absolutely clear here, that I would really never
advocate rules for art at all. ever.
What I'm trying to get at by saying painting as an art form is obsolete is
this:
There is an undoubted relationship between art and the system within which
it is produced.
To be ignorant of that system, and the ways in which we interact with it (as
people, as people who make art, etc.) is lazy.
The system isn't separate from us. We are part of it, and can affect it
(not so much as individuals, but collectively) as much as we are affected by
it.
The perception of ourselves as artists inspired to create beautiful objects
without consciously knowing how we make work (for fear that knowing might
spoil the magic) has to be rejected. Completely rejected.
I believe we need to re frame our experiences of producing art so that we
can hold on to what is valuable to us, without having to buy into the whole
creative genius package.
In the west, painting and sculpture, more than any other art forms,
culturally (not literally) contain within them those notions of genius and
creativity, of individual artist inspired by god, by life, to create works
of art, masterpieces. This is my main reason for claiming painting as an
art form to be obsolete. It is these notions that are obsolete. I am not
sure if they can be separated from painting, hence the leap to painting as
obsolete art form.
>
> Modern art is so bad, we need help anywhere we can get it. Why
> eliminate the artists who just like to paint and don't want
> computers. To many, a computer = boring job. Some would rather
> paint.
This raises a really interesting point, I feel. I get truly sick of
working on my computer, inside, not using my body very much. I yearn to be
a carpenter or a gardener. I think many people feel the same. Painting
seems the equivalent of being a gardener. Physicality, smells, dirt etc.
Is it just a hobby then?
very best wishes,
Kate
Re: what if and tid bits i cry to much
>
>
>> I believe painting to be an obsolete art form.
>
> Aww, sorry that was the buzzer.
>>>Awww, come on. Take it in the spirit its intended, and within the context it
was written.
>
> Saw a (play? dance?) at a pretty hip theater (La Mama) a while ago
> In it, one character was not made from technologically relevant
> materials. In point of fact, it was a stick.
>>> so are you reading something significant into this?
>> main frames of reference are informed by residual ideologies
>
> Being "informed" can be a real bargain and a time-saver to boot!
> Being informed actually depends entirely on who you are informed by,
> but we generally mean buying prepackaged sets of ideas in bulk
> (generally available from schools, major galleries and other fine
> institutions). Buying ideas in bulk sets, rather than having to hunt
> them down, one at a time for yourself save both time and money!
>>>The emphasis in my sentence is on 'residual' not 'informed'. Residual as in
from another epoch - namely pre-capitalist.
>
>> The contemporary world seems to make sense when we relinquish the solid.
>
> She's absolutely right and I feel exactly the same way, every time I
> take a dump.
>>>asking for that one, I suppose!
>
>
>>>best, Kate
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> PLASMA STUDII
> http://plasmastudii.org
> 223 E 10th Street
> PMB 130
> New York, NY 10003
>
>> I believe painting to be an obsolete art form.
>
> Aww, sorry that was the buzzer.
>>>Awww, come on. Take it in the spirit its intended, and within the context it
was written.
>
> Saw a (play? dance?) at a pretty hip theater (La Mama) a while ago
> In it, one character was not made from technologically relevant
> materials. In point of fact, it was a stick.
>>> so are you reading something significant into this?
>> main frames of reference are informed by residual ideologies
>
> Being "informed" can be a real bargain and a time-saver to boot!
> Being informed actually depends entirely on who you are informed by,
> but we generally mean buying prepackaged sets of ideas in bulk
> (generally available from schools, major galleries and other fine
> institutions). Buying ideas in bulk sets, rather than having to hunt
> them down, one at a time for yourself save both time and money!
>>>The emphasis in my sentence is on 'residual' not 'informed'. Residual as in
from another epoch - namely pre-capitalist.
>
>> The contemporary world seems to make sense when we relinquish the solid.
>
> She's absolutely right and I feel exactly the same way, every time I
> take a dump.
>>>asking for that one, I suppose!
>
>
>>>best, Kate
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> PLASMA STUDII
> http://plasmastudii.org
> 223 E 10th Street
> PMB 130
> New York, NY 10003
Re: what if and tid bits i cry to much
From: Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>
Reply-To: Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 09:45:48 -0700
To: Kate Southworth <katesouthworth@gloriousninth.com>, list@rhizome.org
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: what if and tid bits i cry to much
Hi Eryk, and List
Kate Southworth wrote:
Re: RHIZOME_RAW: what if and tid bits i cry to much
I believe painting to be an obsolete art form. Not merely because of its
inability to enable artists to adequately investigate the contemporary
world, but because there are too many residual notions of creativity
contained within the very concept 'painting'.
Your emphasis on beauty and aesthetics, not to mention the emphasis on
inhibited creative energy is, in my opinion, an obsolete perspective. It
produces artefacts as redundant to the contemporary world as any painting.
I don't know what you've been reading, but we agree. But let's put it this
way: Does that mean that anyone who wants to
paint should not be allowed to?
I think we do.
OF COURSE people should be allowed to do what they want.
Your Art 1 - artifacts created by anyone who aims for any external
expression of an idea or emotion or concept - is very very loose. By
itself it could be applied to almost anything art or not.
My point exactly. Except I don't think there is an "art or not" equation.
"Is it art?" is as obsolete as painting is. Have you been to the
salvaggio museum? http://www.salvaggio-museum.org . Maybe it's not art, but
if not, what is it?
Well I think there is definitely an 'art or not' equation. BUT before anyone
goes all precious on me, please let me qualify that statement. Mixed up in
the art or not question is the categorisation of some cultural forms as
'high art' and others as 'popular art' (please note I'm not talking about
Mass art). In my opinion, this distinction is almost purely class based,
with some examples of 'high art' being decidedly about maintaining the
status quo, and not at all about investigating the contemporary world (at
the time they were made).
However, work that is difficult or inaccessible (aesthetically, conceptually
or theoretically) to a wider public isn't, in my opinion, to be deemed
elitist on the grounds of class. If some art is about investigating the
world, then the artefacts produced as a result of this investigation might
well be understood by only a few people who are familiar with the domain (as
in science). I really don't think that all art is concerned primarily with
communication.
I think that art, like science, is a way through which we can understand the
contemporary world, and to an extent the historical world. I think that it
is different to other forms of activity, other forms of creativity, other
forms of production. If we follow the end result of the premise that there
is no 'art or not' equation, it means a world devoid of art. I believe art
to be a most precious tool with which we can understand ourselves and our
world. It is because it is so precious that we all argue about it so much.
I hope we never resolve the conflicts, because that means its alive, and
worth arguing about. Also things are contradictory. I think that one of
the most vital approaches to contemporary life is to accept that
contradiction is inherent in everything, is part of everything.
Art 2 - is the academic side of art, fuelled by innovative ideas fused with
innovative techniques - seems to me, a very bare essential for art.
That's because you are calling a poodle a chihuahua. It's an essential for a
kind of art form, not "art" in general. For example, if we took you
literally,
the Mona Lisa would not be "art" because it is not an innovative idea or an
innovative technique. Maybe it was at some point [I can't see anyone
calling it revolutionary, at any point, however] but even if it was, it is
no longer- and so you may say it is relevant as a historical artifact-
but of course it was revolutionary at the time it was made. If it is
understood in the context of the time and place it was produced, with
reference to the shifting relationship between artist and market then its
full significance becomes clearer.
When I'm talking about what is relevant or not in art, I mean it in the
sense of contemporary production.
Historically or nowadays, the ways that certain works and artists (also
scientists, inventors etc.) get noticed and promoted is as a result of a
number of factors - to isolate one or two of them and give them priority
over the others is, in my opinion, fatal.
I say this is
also true about abandoned mittens, photographs of gnomes put on ebay, etc.
The point no one seems to get is that documentation and documentaries
are a kind of art. It's a western concept to say that the object painted is
not art. In the east, the essence of the object documented is what is
important.
I like to take this one step further and just present the object.
but in your museum you don't just present the object. You present it
beautifully - in a serene environment. You make aesthetic, conceptual, etc.
etc. decisions regarding that object. If you were to present the object in
the sense I think you mean, wouldn't you leave it were it was? (I know its
a photographic representation, and so the object is were it was found it in
a geographic sense).
This is as much "art" as anything else. So if I believe discarded mittens
are art, I'm going
to have to believe paintings are. Otherwise we are refusing to acknowledge
the ideas set forth by most contemporary art.
Its almost the wrong argument. We were arguing whether or not painting is
an obsolete art form, not whether paintings are art or not. there is a
huge difference.
Surely, art is, and always has been, about understanding our contemporary
world. That world changes, and art investigates. It needs new ways to
describe that world. Hence, my feelings regarding the redundancy of
painting to do the job adequately. Hence, my feelings about the position of
artists whose main frames of reference are informed by residual ideologies.
>From an Art2 perspective, this is completely valid, but are you denying that
there are other perspectives on art?
I'd like to get much more specific. To argue it through more.
I think there are a million plus perspectives on art. I just don't hear
many. let alone many that are interesting.
And are you willing
to say that they are not also valid perspectives? The major issue with the
brand of academia usually put forth on this list is that it subscribes
to the singular, technology-driven american fetishist view of art, that is,
"new is better than intelligent, thought provoking or emotional."
I agree and disagree. Without making the same mistake regarding
relinquishing the solid, with which Judson Plasma so kindly played the
advantage, I really believe that we need to get in between these
'either/or' positions, to see the spaces between pre-defined categories.
Art, creativity, aesthetics all change their meaning through history. They
are all intrinsically linked with capitalism, with its changing demands.
For example, nowadays creativity is defined as the production of innovative,
useful, flexible artefacts or services. Capitalism needs these qualities
right now, so it promotes them in art and science.
I
should say that "new" is more likely to be confused with "intelligent and
thought provoking." I just think there is space for art to not have
to be about technology. There is also space for art to be specifically about
technology, but that's just geeky, it's the dot com bubble set
into higher modes of abstraction.
I agree with you about art not being 'about' technology in the sense I think
you mean it. But art has to engage with technology - whatever form -
because even if we made art with and through no technology, we are still
living in a world dominated by technology, so we are formed and shaped (and
also form and shape) by that world.
Very best wishes
Kate
Reply-To: Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 09:45:48 -0700
To: Kate Southworth <katesouthworth@gloriousninth.com>, list@rhizome.org
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: what if and tid bits i cry to much
Hi Eryk, and List
Kate Southworth wrote:
Re: RHIZOME_RAW: what if and tid bits i cry to much
I believe painting to be an obsolete art form. Not merely because of its
inability to enable artists to adequately investigate the contemporary
world, but because there are too many residual notions of creativity
contained within the very concept 'painting'.
Your emphasis on beauty and aesthetics, not to mention the emphasis on
inhibited creative energy is, in my opinion, an obsolete perspective. It
produces artefacts as redundant to the contemporary world as any painting.
I don't know what you've been reading, but we agree. But let's put it this
way: Does that mean that anyone who wants to
paint should not be allowed to?
I think we do.
OF COURSE people should be allowed to do what they want.
Your Art 1 - artifacts created by anyone who aims for any external
expression of an idea or emotion or concept - is very very loose. By
itself it could be applied to almost anything art or not.
My point exactly. Except I don't think there is an "art or not" equation.
"Is it art?" is as obsolete as painting is. Have you been to the
salvaggio museum? http://www.salvaggio-museum.org . Maybe it's not art, but
if not, what is it?
Well I think there is definitely an 'art or not' equation. BUT before anyone
goes all precious on me, please let me qualify that statement. Mixed up in
the art or not question is the categorisation of some cultural forms as
'high art' and others as 'popular art' (please note I'm not talking about
Mass art). In my opinion, this distinction is almost purely class based,
with some examples of 'high art' being decidedly about maintaining the
status quo, and not at all about investigating the contemporary world (at
the time they were made).
However, work that is difficult or inaccessible (aesthetically, conceptually
or theoretically) to a wider public isn't, in my opinion, to be deemed
elitist on the grounds of class. If some art is about investigating the
world, then the artefacts produced as a result of this investigation might
well be understood by only a few people who are familiar with the domain (as
in science). I really don't think that all art is concerned primarily with
communication.
I think that art, like science, is a way through which we can understand the
contemporary world, and to an extent the historical world. I think that it
is different to other forms of activity, other forms of creativity, other
forms of production. If we follow the end result of the premise that there
is no 'art or not' equation, it means a world devoid of art. I believe art
to be a most precious tool with which we can understand ourselves and our
world. It is because it is so precious that we all argue about it so much.
I hope we never resolve the conflicts, because that means its alive, and
worth arguing about. Also things are contradictory. I think that one of
the most vital approaches to contemporary life is to accept that
contradiction is inherent in everything, is part of everything.
Art 2 - is the academic side of art, fuelled by innovative ideas fused with
innovative techniques - seems to me, a very bare essential for art.
That's because you are calling a poodle a chihuahua. It's an essential for a
kind of art form, not "art" in general. For example, if we took you
literally,
the Mona Lisa would not be "art" because it is not an innovative idea or an
innovative technique. Maybe it was at some point [I can't see anyone
calling it revolutionary, at any point, however] but even if it was, it is
no longer- and so you may say it is relevant as a historical artifact-
but of course it was revolutionary at the time it was made. If it is
understood in the context of the time and place it was produced, with
reference to the shifting relationship between artist and market then its
full significance becomes clearer.
When I'm talking about what is relevant or not in art, I mean it in the
sense of contemporary production.
Historically or nowadays, the ways that certain works and artists (also
scientists, inventors etc.) get noticed and promoted is as a result of a
number of factors - to isolate one or two of them and give them priority
over the others is, in my opinion, fatal.
I say this is
also true about abandoned mittens, photographs of gnomes put on ebay, etc.
The point no one seems to get is that documentation and documentaries
are a kind of art. It's a western concept to say that the object painted is
not art. In the east, the essence of the object documented is what is
important.
I like to take this one step further and just present the object.
but in your museum you don't just present the object. You present it
beautifully - in a serene environment. You make aesthetic, conceptual, etc.
etc. decisions regarding that object. If you were to present the object in
the sense I think you mean, wouldn't you leave it were it was? (I know its
a photographic representation, and so the object is were it was found it in
a geographic sense).
This is as much "art" as anything else. So if I believe discarded mittens
are art, I'm going
to have to believe paintings are. Otherwise we are refusing to acknowledge
the ideas set forth by most contemporary art.
Its almost the wrong argument. We were arguing whether or not painting is
an obsolete art form, not whether paintings are art or not. there is a
huge difference.
Surely, art is, and always has been, about understanding our contemporary
world. That world changes, and art investigates. It needs new ways to
describe that world. Hence, my feelings regarding the redundancy of
painting to do the job adequately. Hence, my feelings about the position of
artists whose main frames of reference are informed by residual ideologies.
>From an Art2 perspective, this is completely valid, but are you denying that
there are other perspectives on art?
I'd like to get much more specific. To argue it through more.
I think there are a million plus perspectives on art. I just don't hear
many. let alone many that are interesting.
And are you willing
to say that they are not also valid perspectives? The major issue with the
brand of academia usually put forth on this list is that it subscribes
to the singular, technology-driven american fetishist view of art, that is,
"new is better than intelligent, thought provoking or emotional."
I agree and disagree. Without making the same mistake regarding
relinquishing the solid, with which Judson Plasma so kindly played the
advantage, I really believe that we need to get in between these
'either/or' positions, to see the spaces between pre-defined categories.
Art, creativity, aesthetics all change their meaning through history. They
are all intrinsically linked with capitalism, with its changing demands.
For example, nowadays creativity is defined as the production of innovative,
useful, flexible artefacts or services. Capitalism needs these qualities
right now, so it promotes them in art and science.
I
should say that "new" is more likely to be confused with "intelligent and
thought provoking." I just think there is space for art to not have
to be about technology. There is also space for art to be specifically about
technology, but that's just geeky, it's the dot com bubble set
into higher modes of abstraction.
I agree with you about art not being 'about' technology in the sense I think
you mean it. But art has to engage with technology - whatever form -
because even if we made art with and through no technology, we are still
living in a world dominated by technology, so we are formed and shaped (and
also form and shape) by that world.
Very best wishes
Kate