At 14:23 -0500 11/21/02, Carol Stakenas wrote:
[...]Pixel Press sent [this] link to a
project they are hosting on their site, inviting submissions. Check it out
and send it along to anyone whom you think might be interested.

http://www.pixelpress.org/world_order/intro.html

+++
may be of interest to folks on the list.

--
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>

On Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 05:22 PM, curt cloninger wrote:

> t:
> should philosophers make their texts easy to read so that the general
> public can understand it?
>
> c:
> they should make their texts as easy to read as possible without
> sacrificing the meaning they are trying to convey.
>

hah! can't argue with that. of course a writer should attempt to be
clear. artists have the privilege of being ambiguous tho.

On Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 07:51 PM, Curt Cloninger wrote:

> Actually, I'm not sure if art and philosopy are that akin. So for t.
> to say, "why can't art be boring and tough to crack? philosopy is
> boring and tough to crack, yet people wade through it," I already have
> a problem with that analogy.

hey now, don't be putting yer words in my mouth (with quotes no less).
i never typed that or said that. my point was that sometimes it's hard
to crack a work because what's being expressed needs to be said in a
way that maybe isn't easy for everyone; or expresses new ideas that are
hard to articulate without new definitions. (note: i'm not talking
about MTAA's work which is very simple to understand and doesn't need
new definitions for anything and which many times relies on
entertainment and silliness to actually poke holes in what (when i talk
to curt) i wind up defending ie conceptual art is my dog and i'll kick
it around if i want; you keep your hands to yourself)

my problem with curt's crit of art is simple. it's based only on his
personal taste. 'is it good'... compared to what? David (the
neo-classical painter)?, David (the florentine statue)? David Crosby?
Davey and Goliath (the cheesy 70s religious 3d animated TV show)? David
Bowie? David Letterman? David Lynch? Davie Jones?

oh wait--we just KNOW when it's GOOD. it will 'speak' to us. our
environment and culture will have nothing to do with how we react to
cultural object 'n' which we find before us. is that it? i know you
know it doesn't work that way.

> Because a philosophical essay is an attempted mind transfer. But if
> that's all art is, then I think the art is already failing.
>
> As far as all the "dumbed down" accusations, Michelangelo's David is
> pretty popular and has been for a while, but I don't think you can
> accurately call it dumbed down. Accessible and dumb aren't
> necessarily the same, any more than inaccessable and smart are the
> same.

++
there is no accounting for the classics. and i wouldn't argue that
accessible and dumb are equivalent. beauty isn't the only goal of the
contemporary artist.
++

>> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
>>
>> > <... should make their texts as easy to read as
>> > possible without sacrificing the meaning they are
>> > trying to convey...>
>> > excellent! -it should be a kind of hippocratic oath
>> > for artists , philosophers and politicians.
>> > ..and how easy to encapsulate thusly and how difficult
>> > to do!
>> > Michael

---- Curt Cloninger <curt@lab404.com> wrote:
> > > c:
> > > that response comes across as elitist and
> > > disdainful. popular = dumb = britney
spears. it's
> > > too simple, like a prejudice.
> > >
> >
> >m: Tim an elitist? I think you two need to get
> >together have dinner or something.
>
> c: Tim started his art career by copying Iron
Maiden album covers (by
> his own admission!), so how can he have
legitimate beef with pop
> culture? Maybe since Iron Maiden is British he
thinks this lets him
> off the hook.

t: i love pop culture. but i don't confuse my artwork
with pop culture. i wish i still had those Iron
Maiden drawings tho. and i wish that art with a
capital A, the stuff you find in galleries, was a
bigger component of contemporary american
culture.

>
> m:
> >How long is the
> >drive to get down to you? What are you doing
for
> >Thanksgiving?
>
> c:
> Thanksgiving is not a good time because my
brother and his family are
> coming up. But y'all can come most any other
time. Email me offlist.
> According to mapquest, it takes 12 hours:
> http://www.mapquest.com/directions/
main.adp?go=1&do=nw&ct=NA&1y=US&1a=
> 100+Freeman+Street&1p=&1c=brooklyn&1s=
ny&1z=&2y=US&2a(+etta+drive&2p
> =&2cEnton&2s=nc&2z=&lr=2&x8&y
>
> Here are some pictures taken from my yard:
> http://www.neuralust.com/~curt/fall/
>
> >m: I think my job description is to make art and
hope
> >for the best.
>
> c: Fair enough.
>

<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>

At 12:18 -0500 11/19/02, curt cloninger wrote:
>>side A, "professionalism sucks the life out of art; it >should be
>>done with passion"; side B,
>>"without an audience (aka art world) art is functionally >meaningless."
>>personally i don't see the two as exclusive.
>
>
>So art can both require an audience and still have the life sucked
>out of it. I can't argue with that. Actually, I do agree that the
>"for profit" vs. "for passion" dichotomy is largely a bogey. Is the
>work good? That's the question I can't escape.
>
>Some "for passion" work is bad and some "for profit" work is bad,
>but often for different reasons. The "for passion" work will tend
>to be bad because it's ill-considered, hastily made, and unwittingly
>exploring areas that have already been well-explored. The "for
>profit work" can tend to be bad because it is narrow,
>micro-scene-dependent, contrived to sell, relying on the punch of
>its context rather than the punch of its craft.

++
we absolutely agree, one needs to judge the work individually. i
won't say anything about craft tho. personally i love great technique
and craft, but i don't think it's necessary to make good art.
++

>
>
>>if one is making work that
>>has it's roots in the history and tradition of the 'art >world'
>>(aka ART, Inc.) then one needs an educated >audience to appreciate
>>the
>>work. the average web surfer (esp an USAian one) >isn't going to
>>have experiences necessary to >understand or appreciate some work;
>>even something >as old hat as abstract expressionism!
>
>This pretty much sticks right in my craw. The roots in art history
>you're talking about go back to Duchamp. Are you in dialogue with
>stuff back to Bosch? It seems you are rooted in a veneer.

++
i was attempting to speak broadly (ie i'm not talking about my own
work in the passage above). by 'roots in the history and tradition of
the 'art world' i was thinking of the entire history of western art.
i believe that MTAA's work is in dialogue with this history.
++

>
>I know plenty of people who are blown away by Arvo Part or Steve
>Reich who grew up on the Beatles and T.Rex. They don't have to read
>the liner notes or take a course in minimalism to be impacted by the
>actual work. Because it's good work. And Charlie Parker dug
>Bartok. If I have to be smart and schooled to be impacted by your
>work, how good is your work?

++
very good.
++

Is the goal of art to speak to humanity, or to speak only to the
relatively few people who have been filtered through the thin pipe of
contemporary art education?

++
that question is answered individually by each artist. should one
dumb-down one's work to appeal to the masses if that's not what one
believes to be the proper course for their work? PLUS, americans are
being schooled everyday in how to respond to the aesthetics and
techniques of pop culture. in the cultural context of contemporary
america, when you say 'speak to humanity' i hear 'britney spears
videos'.
++

>
>>go to the Met and stand next to the huge, awesome >"Autumn Rhythm
>>(Number 30)" and count how many >assholes say, "I could do that."
>>fuck that
>>audience, i don't need 'em.)
>
>so people either like what you like or they are uninformed redneck
>idiots. Might there be a third class of people who get it but still
>don't like it. Or does one's dislike of a piece of work defacto
>prove that they just don't get it?

++
if someone isn't intensely moved by the example i site above then,
yes, imo they just don't know how to look at and openly experience a
painting (you may fill in your own derogatory term for one who's
uncultured; redneck is good, philistine, cretin). perhaps if ART,
Inc. wasn't so derided and dismissed in contemporary american culture
the general public would know how to look at a Pollack painting. they
don't. I'm not an educator so until they learn i don't give a damn
what they think about Pollack's work or mine own.
++

>
>
>Tim, I'm not dissing your personal decision to pursue the sale of
>your art. To do that would be to dis your chosen lifestyle, and
>one's lifestyle is a personal issue. Everybody's different, so the
>way you choose to make your money is up to you.
>
>My take on it is this -- everybody needs a place to fail. My life
>would be poor indeed if there was nothing I did that was just for
>the pure pleasure of it. If when working on one of my sites I was
>always thinking in the back (or front) of my mind, "is this new
>enough? will this get press?" then I would have to find another
>hobby [to me, "hobby" is not a diminutive but rather a sacred term].
>
>http://www.playdamage.org and http://www.neuralust.com/~curt/ are
>ongoing personal public experiments. What I learn there gets
>applied to future work. The advantage is, I can fail in public.
>It's open source. It doesn't matter. if my work isn't in dialogue
>with anything else out there, it doesn't matter. I don't have to
>push my work (or hire someone to push my work). I don't have to fit
>it into anything. There's no temptation for me to make my work
>anything other than what I want it to be.
>
>Another advantage is that, on this list, I can lose face without
>losing financial worth. If someone influential disses you and your
>work, or C.P. and his work, or Valery and his work, y'all stand to
>lose future customers. Your brand value is decreased. If someone
>influential disses me and my work, oh well.

++
i'm not trying to diss anyone's choices either. sometimes i see a
notion on the list that those who do work from 'passion' are somehow
more genuine as opposed to us careerists. i'm just giving the other
side of the argument.
++

>
>on the record, I like your printer tree.

++
so why aren't you on the mailing list :-)
++

>
>peace,
>curt

c-ya
--
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>