Re: [-empyre-] Re: empyre Moore N = c (G.H. Hovagimyan)
On 14/03/06 13:10, "iarvers@free.fr" <iarvers@free.fr> probably wrote:
> Re: Moore N = c (G.H. Hovagimyan)
> i think that we touch thepoint, what is funny is that at the same time on the
> list spectre, an artists decided to quit the list because of some too
> theoritical posts, and he said i quit : it is too much theory fro me!
Oh oh ! You are not so informed that you would not know that he has come
back right now in Spectre. More we have change personal emails;)
Please to correct it...
>
> why can't we think from zero? is it really impossible? every mode of thinking
> is
> a reaction to another, isn't it possible to think from the ground, without
> quoting any ancestors or precient thinker? it seems that it is not possible.
> At
> school, our brains are transformed into computational machines, you are never
> asked to say what you are thinking about a particular point, the only think
> you
> have to do is to compute and repeat the informations given by somebody who
> knows!!!
>
> "Nobody is interested in what you think, beginn first by learning the
> classics!"
>
> In the art world, that's the same, right now in France, there is a debate
> about
> critics who don't want to use philosophy or theory to write, it is denounced
> by
> all the critic world. "It is impossible to have a critical discourse without
> having the theorical tools!!"
>
> And if you try, good luck! that's possible but, still difficult
> and you fall in an other problem you were mentioning before, you quote without
> knowing it other artworks, because what you did was already done before. It
> also happened in the Palais de Tokyo at the exhibition "Notre Histoire" sic!!
> with a big skelett sculpture that is a replic of another sculpture presented
> 15
> years before somewhere else in France.
>
> So it seems that even without knowing what happends before that we repeat it?
> Would it depends on our way of thinking, is it natural or cultural? i am still
> hoping that it is possible remembering an idea i really loved in philosophy
> with aristote, saying that in each operson, there is a capacity to produce
> knowledge,
>
> isabelle arvers
> www;isabelle-arvers.com
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Saul Ostrow <sostrow@gate.cia.edu>
>>> Sent: Mar 12, 2006 3:29 PM
>>> To: "Christiane Robbins @ Jetztzeit" <cpr@mindspring.com>,
>> soft_skinned_space
>> <empyre@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au>, soft_skinned_space
>> <empyre@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>>> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Moore N = c
>>>
>>> part of the problem is that students are learning ( an therefore artist/
>> teachers
>> are
>>> teaching) the algorithm as written by those who were/ are engaged in
>> institutional
>>> critique -- now, we all know the institutions 9museums, galleries,
>> curators,
>> critics,
>>> theorists, historians) loved this critique because it gave all power to
>> them.
>> this
>>> approach whcih places blame and there fore volition with the system actually
>> empowers
>>> those institutions to appropriate and define cultural production - rather
>> than
>> merely be
>>> a condition of such production - This took the burden off the artist/
>> audience,
>> who in
>>> turn were happy to be relieved of all obligations to engage in the
>> construction/
>>> maintance of the cultural subject -- Modernism/ post-Modernism dis-struction
>> of the
>>> cultural subject emposwered them to be passively and knowingly passive -- as
>> a probe: it
>>> might now be time to re-read Marx's thesis on Feurbach - and
>> re-contextualism
>> them in
>>> terms of culture rather than history --
>>>
>>> ---------- Original Message -----------
>>> From: "Christiane Robbins @ Jetztzeit" <cpr@mindspring.com>
>>> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>>> Sent: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 13:49:08 -0800 (GMT-08:00)
>>> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Moore N = c
>>>
>>>> Wow .... the narrative for this algorithm is so ... cute ... its almost
>>>> endearing.
>>>>
>>>> However, we are just skimming here and I find when this surface slide
>> remains
>>>> unexamined, it becomes somewhat problematic. This penchant for glibness
>> may
>>>> well be informing the dialectics of this conversation ... and/or it may
>> simply
>>>> be adding to the paradox.
>>>>
>>>> Further thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>
>> JETZTZEIT
>> " ... the space between zero and one ... "
>> Walter Benjamin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Los Angeles _ San Francisco
>> California
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 01:59:13 -0500
>> From: "Saul Ostrow" <sostrow@gate.cia.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Moore N = c
>> To: "Christiane Robbins @ Jetztzeit" <cpr@mindspring.com>,
>> soft_skinned_space <empyre@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au>,
>> soft_skinned_space <empyre@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>> Message-ID: <20060313065502.M4988@gate.cia.edu>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>>
>> I'll only respond to this point -- the institutional critique assumed that
>> one could
>> creat political change via cultural means -- which was a reiteration of an
>> enlightenment
>> principle which pre supposes consciousness leads to action -- my point is
>> that we have
>> confused consciousness with action in that the critique replicates the
>> instituional bias
>> it is meant to expose - transparency is meant to define the target - now that
>> we know
>> what thispart of the dynamicis how have we changed our practice substantially
>> - rather
>> than merely reactively
>>
>>>
>>> Marx on Feuerbach - ?the philosophers have only interpreted the world, the
>> point
>>> is to change it.¹ Isn't that one of the trajectories of the institutional
>> critique?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 4
>> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 09:16:22 -0500
>> From: "G.H. Hovagimyan" <ghh@thing.net>
>> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Moore N = c
>> To: "Christiane Robbins @ Jetztzeit" <cpr@mindspring.com>,
>> soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>> Message-ID: <8A6DE1DF-FE30-4EEC-9649-1776CE4A4AA5@thing.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes;
>> format=flowed
>>
>> gh comments:
>>
>> I think the question is who defines what art is? And also who defines
>> what an artist is? Antonin Artaud talks about that is his essay, No
>> More Masterpieces from the book Theatre and its' Double. Maybe
>> someone on the list has the exact quote but I'll paraphrase,...."each
>> generation has the right to define in their own terms in their own
>> way what is means to love, hate, feel loss and so on. Let the plays
>> of the past dwell in the past. No more masterpieces." There is
>> another dynamic at work in the topic for the Documenta proposed by
>> Beurgel, that is the learnedness and the weight of history that
>> people in the art world work with.
>> I went to the DIVA (NYC) this weekend and saw a lot of video art.
>> One piece that struck me was a video of a young Chinese man's face.
>> The video was him doing a series of video-performance works. On piece
>> was of him putting elastic bands all over his head to distort the
>> skin. He then slowly cut them off. The elastic bands left the
>> inevitable crisscross trails on his face. This piece was exactly
>> like the work of a 1970's Austrian artist whose name escapes me. He
>> used to do the same thing and photograph the results. He called them
>> Farce Faces. The work of course come from what children do when they
>> are playing with elastic (rubber) bands and their parents aren't
>> looking. I've encountered this with Mainland Chinese Contemporary
>> Art. They are doing work that is 1970's process/ body/ conceptual
>> art. So my question is, is this a cultural colonialism? Is this the
>> Chinese playing catch-up with Western Modernism? Does Artaud's
>> dictum apply here?
>> What I suspect is that the art world would rather deal with an art
>> form that is familiar such as video or conceptual art than try to
>> seriously integrate digital art forms into the discourse. Simply put
>> most curators are not trained to deal with computers.
>> In any case I said in my first post that performance art was perhaps
>> the most promising thread of discourse to come out of modernism.
>> Perhaps that is what is happening with the Chinese. It is interesting
>> to come back around to the initial question "Is Modernity our
>> Antiquity?" and wonder what the "our" means.
>> My original art algorithm is an art work made specifically for this
>> venue (on line discussion). It has no value in the greater art
>> world. It has no use value. It doesn't exist for any other than the
>> few people that read about it here. It is, however, art.
>>
>> http://nujus.net/gh/
>> http://post.thing.net/gh/
>> http://spaghetti.nujus.net/rantapod
>> http://spaghetti.nujus.net/artDirt
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 12, 2006, at 9:01 PM, Christiane Robbins @ Jetztzeit wrote:
>>
>>> We may well be dealing here with merely one interpretation of the
>>> "institutional
>>> critique" of the late 80's and a rather overarching one at that.
>>> Your email
>>> draws your assumption as fact when you state that "we all know the
>>> institutions
>>> ... loved this critique because it gave all the power to them." I
>>> don't know
>>> this to be the case. Point in fact, I doubt that it carried that
>>> much weight when
>>> it was first introduced - and that being in the USA. The resistance
>>> to this critique
>>> that I witnessed when its tenets were introduced was memorable ....
>>> and this email
>>> speaks to its staying power.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, if you are implying that the proponents of the
>>> institutional
>>> critique have now been incubated and absorbed by "the Borg", and that
>>> we are now witnessing a incestous, mannered, iteration of that
>>> critique ( ie. Andrea
>>> Fraser's lastest work ), then you may have a point. Then again, it
>>> becomes necessary
>>> to offer an analysis of the cultural machinations of the past 15 -
>>> 20 years which
>>> have led us to this point and, again, it is not an a facile
>>> summation of modernism
>>> or post-modernism ( please note that this is not at all the same as
>>> notions of modernity.)
>>>
>>> Of course, my own POV is within the USA, but given the cultural
>>> tremors ( especially
>>> in the art world/s) of this centrifugal force, I believe that its
>>> influence has
>>> been far reaching and contributed a viable sense of agency to
>>> numerous cultural
>>> producers. Larger political, economic and nationalistic forces have
>>> been introduced
>>> during the past 15 years which have undermined individual agency
>>> and subjectivities
>>> - and this has not at all been limited to visual art practices, not
>>> to producers
>>> nor to various cultural institutions. We have not been operating in
>>> a vacuum, that
>>> is without question.
>>>
>>> Trans-medial and trans-cultural perceptions of artistic practices
>>> produce imaginary
>>> patterns which overlap but are not identical to our own
>>> individuated, inhabited,
>>> material realities. It is this interaction of the material, the
>>> cultural and the
>>> imaginary that offers an infusion of richness to the topos of this
>>> conversation
>>> - especially relative to the socio-economic impact of globalism,
>>> capitalism, consuming,
>>> notions of modernity and yes, passivity. Passivity is an
>>> increasing ( and, yes,
>>> alarming ) mode of being in the world - especially in the USA.
>>> This is due to so
>>> to so much more than the hubris implied in thinking that this was
>>> due to modernism
>>> and/or post-modernism as it played out in the visual arts.
>>>
>>>
>>> Marx on Feuerbach - ?the philosophers have only interpreted the
>>> world, the point
>>> is to change it.¹ Isn't that one of the trajectories of the
>>> institutional critique?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the discussion -
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Saul Ostrow <sostrow@gate.cia.edu>
>>>> Sent: Mar 12, 2006 3:29 PM
>>>> To: "Christiane Robbins @ Jetztzeit" <cpr@mindspring.com>,
>>>> soft_skinned_space
>>> <empyre@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au>, soft_skinned_space
>>> <empyre@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>>>> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Moore N = c
>>>>
>>>> part of the problem is that students are learning ( an therefore
>>>> artist/ teachers
>>> are
>>>> teaching) the algorithm as written by those who were/ are engaged
>>>> in institutional
>>>> critique -- now, we all know the institutions 9museums,
>>>> galleries, curators,
>>> critics,
>>>> theorists, historians) loved this critique because it gave all
>>>> power to them.
>>> this
>>>> approach whcih places blame and there fore volition with the
>>>> system actually
>>> empowers
>>>> those institutions to appropriate and define cultural production -
>>>> rather than
>>> merely be
>>>> a condition of such production - This took the burden off the
>>>> artist/ audience,
>>> who in
>>>> turn were happy to be relieved of all obligations to engage in the
>>>> construction/
>>>> maintance of the cultural subject -- Modernism/ post-Modernism dis-
>>>> struction
>>> of the
>>>> cultural subject emposwered them to be passively and knowingly
>>>> passive -- as
>>> a probe: it
>>>> might now be time to re-read Marx's thesis on Feurbach - and re-
>>>> contextualism
>>> them in
>>>> terms of culture rather than history --
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Original Message -----------
>>>> From: "Christiane Robbins @ Jetztzeit" <cpr@mindspring.com>
>>>> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>>>> Sent: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 13:49:08 -0800 (GMT-08:00)
>>>> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Moore N = c
>>>>
>>>>> Wow .... the narrative for this algorithm is so ... cute ... its
>>>>> almost
>>>>> endearing.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, we are just skimming here and I find when this surface
>>>>> slide remains
>>>>> unexamined, it becomes somewhat problematic. This penchant for
>>>>> glibness
>>> may
>>>>> well be informing the dialectics of this conversation ... and/or
>>>>> it may
>>> simply
>>>>> be adding to the paradox.
>>>>>
>>>>> Further thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris
>>>>>
>>>
>>> JETZTZEIT
>>> " ... the space between zero and one ... "
>>> Walter Benjamin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Los Angeles _ San Francisco
>>> California
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> empyre forum
>>> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> empyre mailing list
>> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>>
>> End of empyre Digest, Vol 16, Issue 15
>> **************************************
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and
MHonArc 2.6.8.