[-empyre-] Re: empyre Moore N = c (G.H. Hovagimyan)

[G.H.Hovagimyan <ghh@thing.net>]

gh responds:

I remember that when I was a young artist, everyone was trying to  
find something original to make or do that would distinguish them.
This was a signature style or material that people would recognize as  
the work of "such and such."
The trouble was that we (younger artists) couldn't think our way out  
of the end game/philosophical dilemma.
The solution way not to be original. This was in the 1980's when  
people decided that appropriation and simulation were a proper way to  
deal with this dilemma.
In the 1993 I did a web art piece called "Faux Conceptual Art"  
<http://www.artnetweb.com/projects/fauxcon/home.html> It pushed this  
idea further.
The idea was that part of the new corporate art system was the idea  
of project proposals.
I decided to put up a project proposal online. Obviously, 13 years  
later everyone does this.
The process of proposing an art work is the same as the art work.

If an art critic, does not want to use philosophy or theory to write  
about art that is pretty terrific I'd say.
It means that he/she is not satisfied with the methods that have been  
used in the past. I think that is brilliant.
The questions you need to ask when you look at an art work are; "why  
is  this here, what does this mean, how does this make me feel?"

On Mar 14, 2006, at 7:10 AM, iarvers@free.fr 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!

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