[-empyre-] Re: Method Manifesto

[j.abbate@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au]

> > >Yes of course any forms of art are contaminated by 
> > >other art form.  But there is the will of the creator,
> > >which want to be less or more contaminated.
> > 
> > The will of the creator may be strong but there is
> > also the subconsciousness working against it. Also, 
> 
> My understanding of talking about subconsciousness is the 
> tradition of surrealism.  I began methodicism to deny the
> tradition of surrealism, because I think surrealism is 
> one of the root of every today's "license and indolence" 
> which links the thinking "whatever is OK."
> And I already said as "of course any forms of art are 
> contaminated by other art form," which already included
> your reference to the subconsciousness.
> 
> > you are swamped with external input all the time. 
> 
> What do you mean from this saying?
> Does the "external input" mean the reference to the past art?
> If so, the reason is that the methodicism is like neoclassicism.
> Or, the method art is "art about art."
> Or another saying, the method art is "art for art's sake" which
> denies "art for life's sake."
> 
> 
> > There is no way that can be cleansed. Even the decision 
> > to create "pure art" is already a contamination, as are 
> > the tools used for that.
> 
> This saying sounds like phenomenologists.
> I think phenomenologist saying as a moratorium in a bad sence
> but is persuasive in today's situatiion.
> I know that we cannot extract only one side from dualism,
> but this fact does not excuse being a moratorium which 
> caused today's sensualism and the mob.
> In the first methodicist manifesto I have written as below:
> "Meaninglessness, which is what tautologies mean, does not 
> excuse sensualism nor the mob, and it rather requests stoicism 
> and discipline for its authorization."
> 
> Hideki

Hideki and all,

All of this is very reminiscent of Kosuth and Art&Language, ie. the rhetoric of conceptual art during the late sixties/early seventies. The good thing about conceptual art is that the work succeeded in spite of the rhetoric, not because of it. The idea that art exists as pure disembodied "idea", or "method" in your case, is difficult to maintain when you're producing objects that, of their nature and according to their materiality, signify beyond themselves. Tautology can never be a true model for art, because a tautology is a tautology ;-), not an artwork. As soon as a tautology becomes an artwork, it becomes dependent on context (the discourses of the art-world, gallery, net.art, etc.) which is precisely what a tautology is NOT. 



regards,

john 


    j.
---------- 
  abbate