Re: [-empyre-] Re: Method Manifesto

[nakazawa@aloalo.co.jp (Hideki Nakazawa)]

At 1058 20020926, r200@ihug.com.au wrote:
> hi hideki
> 
> process art is a set of instructions which the artist writes down and then the
> art is made by the person carring out the instructions.this could be a bit
> connected to the situationists but really came into it's own in the 70's with
> word art.


hi christopher,
I remembered the Sol Lewitt's attempt and Fluxus artists'.
I suppose this way is persuative again in today's computer age,
because we creat artworks as data which is "a set of instructions," 
which printers carry out.  This way is quite familiar today.


BTW---
In other discussion between ja and jsa, the main matter is that what is 
art especially between material and idea.  I said I am toralate about 
this matter because this matter is new and old.  To be new is the above 
situation of using computers.  To be old is that classical music has been
already concerning this matter.  ...Yes, the question is "where is Mozart's
music?".  In performances which cannot avoid conductor's interpretation?  
In CDs which was recorded at studio or live concert?  Or only the live?
By new instruments or old instruments?  Or in the score which itself has
no sound?  And in the published score or his own writing score? ... I think
Kosuth's attitude is like "published score is only the Mozart's," but I 
think all of above can be called Mozart's. 
This is one of the reason why I am toralate about this matter.
(Like this, computer printings have many problems of "by what machine" or 
"by which size" or "which is original, monitor color or printer color," etc.)


> 
> whilst you may not have encoded any hidden meaning in your work,i am free to
> read as much heading meaning as i like into it. there's a good cnance i'm mad,
> perhaps thats the meaning of art for arts sake.

ohhm, I noticed that there is two types of "art for art's sake."
Yours in this case is for the audience.
Mine is for the creater.
Fundamentalistic talking, I do not creat works for audiences in its essence.
My attitude is that art is not necessary to be communication.
So it is not important for me whether the audience can be mad or not.
(I do not deny that the audience can be mad.)


BTW--
My understanding is that this point is the difference between illustrations
which Nemo suggested me to use the word "magazine art," and pure art which
Nemo suggested me to use the word "gallery art."
Illustrations must be communication to the audiences, while pure art is not 
necessarily.  (In this meanings, the word "gallery art" is not sufficient
to me.  I can imagine a form of art which is never exhibited to anybody.)


Hideki

--
Hideki Nakazawa
nakazawa@aloalo.co.jp
http://aloalo.co.jp/nakazawa/
**
Those who want to subscribe for the email bulletin "Method," 
free bimonthly, contact me at nakazawa@aloalo.co.jp