RE: [-empyre-] Re: Method Manifesto
At 1330 20020926, Jim Andrews wrote:
> I don't understand what is authoritarian or reactionary in saying that an individual can be at
> least as trustworthy as an institution concerning opinions about art. As for who or what
> determines what art is, I would say that as people seriously engaged in art, we try to do as
> much of that for ourselves as we can, but also listen to others. Regardless of insitutions and
> power structures that can 'push' to larger audiences, good ideas and art spread primarily by
> individual consent and acknowledgement, not via institutional push and 'say so'. It is still up
> to individuals to make up their own minds and hopefully that will stay the case.
I suppose maybe this argument is linked to the theory of "art world" by
somebody (just forgot the name) ... maybe jsa knows (because he has already
used the word "art world" before...).
But my attitude is different although I understand the theory of "art world."
I want to creat something which I call art, even if nobody except me appreciate
as art. I called this my attitude "art fundamentalism" before.
(Note again: the nuance of word "fundamentalism" is a little bit different between
in english and in japanese. ...Maybe close to "principalism" though I do not know
whether this word exist in English...)
Those who want to subscribe for the email bulletin "Method,"
free bimonthly, contact me at email@example.com
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and