RE: [-empyre-] Re: Method Manifesto

["Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>]

> > It seems to me that the status of an object as a work
> > of art in any meaningful sense is dependent on more than the will of an
> > individual. After all, Duchamp's readymades were not immediately accepted as
> > art just because he said they were art. It took some time for his ideas to
> > become institutionalised. The idea that an individual can determine what is art
> > seems reactionary to me, since it constitutes an extravagant claim for dominion
> > over both social and subjective conditions of reception, reflecting a somewhat
> > authoritarian view that disingenuously obscures the power structures that
> > support it.
> >
> > jsa
>
> hi jsa,
> I agree this argument is about reactionary authoritarian view.
> But I do not think to be an authoritarian is always disingenuous.
> I am thinking about the power which appreciate readymade as art.
> This power is deeply linked to authority, I suppose.
> In this meanings, I used the word "authority" in the Methodicism Manifesto.

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.

ja