RE: [-empyre-] Re: Moore N=C

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

Wouldn't know whether that's too simplistic. Any other time i'd gladly take
the opportunity to expand on Deleuze's positive reworking of Nietzsche's
idea, but.

 What i noticed is that if you look a bit close to the last threads here,
you might notice our discussion going through some of the motions we're
attempting to comment, including Christina's wonderful new grounding of it
to why we are doing this.

Sorry for spoiling gh's announcement, i'll tell my boss to check in on me
more often, but i did think the cycling upward of theory called for some
crude dadaistic irony. Oh well, it kinda furthers the effect of C's
re-grounding, anyway and that's good, by all means...

dv
 
 

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: empyre-bounces@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au 
> [mailto:empyre-bounces@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au] Namens 
> sean@flatlife.net
> Verzonden: dinsdag 14 maart 2006 20:09
> Aan: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> Onderwerp: [-empyre-] Re: Moore N=C
> 
> Nietzsche's idea of an Eternal Recurrence comes to mind in 
> relation to GH's comments about the Chinese contemporary video artist.
> 
> The thought as I understand it is that all has happened in an 
> eternity past...given this notion I rest in the idea that 
> everything is antiquity or "familiar"...how liberating really...
> 
> I think the notion of modern or new or fresh or unknown comes 
> from a desire to represent a distinguishing characteristic 
> within the totality of existence...to achieve the intended 
> result (becoming distinguished), much negativity needs to 
> occur...the subjugation of those who conduct similar 
> practices for starters...a claiming of expressive 
> characteristics as support...
> 
> I do not feel that particular forms are what give an 
> expression it's vitality or edge...to me, it is the life 
> within the form to which I respond...
> 
> Maybe this too simplistic, but I do see it...
> 
> Best, 
> 
> Ripple, Sean
> 
> www.FlatLife.net
> www.myspace.com/flalife
> www.Incurve.blogspot.com  
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>