RE: [-empyre-] Moore N

["Dirk Vekemans" <dv@vilt.net>]

Well, i think that's exactly the problem with closed systems, resulting from
abstractions that are too easily made. Basicly , and more to the point as
answer perhaps, it boils down to Saul's objection referring to an inherent
stasis in the system you've put forward so adequately.

Take Schwitters: in his time Schwitters wasn't recognised either by art or
anti-art (Dada), but by insisting on 'his' criteria/methods he made them
exceptable for the marklet (that was a typo, the 'l', i'll it leave there
enabling) rapidly growing into a 'real' market, lawsuits over its ownership
and all.

In defining N in terms of Art, you are in fact inviting the Art in,
preparing a (hostile|welcomed) take-over.
Philosophically it is, i think, related to Derrida's avoidance of g*d and
negative theology: once you mention it, there's no more denying it. I 'm far
from denying the validity of abstractions, i would only very much welcome
the inclusion of alternate procedural methods in acquiring them.

Logically, i think you might be troubled by Whitehead's 'fallacy of
misplaced concreteness' in taking mo or pomo to be representable by sets,
but that was exactly the discussion i was trying to avoid because i'm as yet
too ill-equiped to take things there.

In the meantime i think i'd rather welcome being called a crank and free to
continue working than artist and be obliged to defend the jam art is in.
Pointing straight to the fact that it's not a solution there, rather an
attempt at dissolution, which again is much too negative an energy/intensity
in need of repurposing positively.

Finally, those in favor of avoiding stigmatising crankyness might look at
science, or at least technology to save the day.
greetings,
dv


 

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: empyre-bounces@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au 
> [mailto:empyre-bounces@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au] Namens G.H.Hovagimyan
> Verzonden: zondag 12 maart 2006 20:42
> Aan: 'soft_skinned_space'
> Onderwerp: [-empyre-] Moore N
> 
> Here's my algorithm for art.
> 
> Let's say that you've graduated from art school. You decide 
> to make something or do something. Let's call this something 
> S. You use all the techniques (T) that you've learned in art 
> school to make/do S. You then show this to a friend. Your 
> friend doesn't recognize [EQUIV] it as art A even though 
> you've used all the techniques (T) and procedures [FUNC] 
> you've learned in art school. You know that S is art. You now 
> have two choices[SELECT]. You can go back and remake or redo 
> S to make it conform to what your friend thinks is art, this 
> is the way traditional art is made. Or you can insist that S 
> really is art and bring your friend around to your point of 
> view. This is the position of anti-art -A. There is a third 
> way that is to not insist that what you do is art and to 
> ignore your friends puzzlement.  You allow what you have made 
> or do to exist outside of the art/ anti-art dialectic. This 
> is the N-state. Here's a crude algorithm; [SELECT] T[FUNC]S = 
>  A T[FUNC]S = -A
> 
> A [EQUIV] -A :: (T[FUNC]S)-A = A
> 
> if A -([EQUIV] -A) then
> N
> else
> A
> 
> Nicolas Bourriaud in his book relational aesthetics proposes 
> something similar. The issue with Relational aesthetics is 
> that the relationiships are still within a sanctioned art 
> space such as a museum or project room. The mark of an 
> official space makes what is presented into art.  The problem 
> is that if you go outside of the art world you will be called a crank.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>