Re: [-empyre-] Sense and sensibility

[Christiane Robbins <cpr@mindspring.com>]

Some quick thoughts in tandem with Chris' s post:

or ... one could possibly engage with any 'art practice" or cultural  
product  in such way that may be antithetical or not preconceived  
within the the narrow bandwidth/focus of the varied art market  
systems - including the academy  ( to which I believe Melinda may, in  
part, be referencing )  or the  artist / "author's" intent.

We find ourselves operating within an hierarchical framework  -  
complete with its cultural cliche of an elitist activity of the "arts  
and leisure" class  which is, unfortunately,  more and more an  
accurate representation in the USA these days. As Saul alluded to -  
conceptual thinking and elitism are not bed partners.  If one were to  
simply recall the tenets of conceptual artists working in the '60's  
and 70's, they were simultaneously referred to by the popular media  
as elitists, but their work was also concurrent with and, arguably,  
generated by the more radical political, social-economic imperatives  
of the time.  Further, conceptualism was an incisive and reactive  
stance to the ultra-commodification of the art market.   Without  
question, movements such as Fluxus were instrumental in the  
realization of many art practices which flourished in the latter part  
of the 20th c /early 21st c.

The challenge for those who identify themselves artists, historians,  
critics, educators, etc. is to not only recognize and participate in  
a rather open source and quotidian dynamic with others ( disciplines,  
people, the public, whomever... )  It is also to value this exchange  
and engagement as a critical source of cultural advancement in need  
of sustained and concurrent public and private support, rather than  
to further insulate in a relatively hermetic, insulating and  
exclusionary frame.

To my mind, the salient point rests upon our recognition of the  
complex need to have a core belief instilled - a knowledge, respect  
and curiosity for a myriad of cultural and critical practices  
embedded into our value systems on all levels .  Indeed, education is  
one vehicle.  However, when we look at the stratification of public  
and private education( on all levels) coupled with the recession of  
public funding for the arts in public education here in the USA ( in  
favor of vocational training  directives if any at all ) and the  
relatively entrenched value offered to art/media practices in private  
schools, we witness the 19th c circuitous legacy of class dynamics  
playing out within the fields of visual art and experimental media  
practices.  I may well be incorrect but I believe reform in  
educational practices and funding soon followed .... at least in the  
19th c.

More soon -

All best,

Chris




On Jan 9, 2007, at 12:23 PM, The Art Gallery of Knoxville wrote:
based on concepts accessible only to an elite

I think it is dangerous to assume that concepts are only accessible to
the prepared.  Many people are unable to participate in an active
discussion out of an insecurity, or lack of confidence in their
expressive knowledge.  Many modern artworks that are seen as being
highly "conceptual" were created to include the audience rather than
exclude them -- even the most often stated comment of rejection - "I
could do that!" - is misunderstood:  you can do that!  you should do
that!  we can do it together!
__________________________

On Jan 9, 2007, at 12:23 PM, The Art Gallery of Knoxville wrote:

> I agree very much with the direction that Melinda sent - but not with
> all the points.  Forcing this opposition (between the devil and the
> deep blue sea) - and somehow assuming that education works in the
> middle - is indeed a problem.  (It's also quite an odd association ...
> I would flip the analogy.)
>
> The focus must be on enabling a type of open educational practice that
> is recognized as part of all Art and not a special or separated
> practice.  Any time we talk about ideas ("what do you think?") - or
> promote and distribute objects (with embedded information) we are
> creating an educational system.
>
> If we respect the actions and ability of people - they can have the
> opportunity to respond.  The issue of objects being "boring,
> incomprehensible, unengaging or irrelevant" has to do with degrees of
> personal ownership - In what ways do people feel alienated or excluded
> from cultural conversations?  There is very little that could honestly
> be considered "boring, incomprehensible, unengaging or irrelevant"
> about much so-called minimal or conceptual Art.  So why are they often
> rejected in public discourse - or subjugated to restricted "movements"
> that are often meant as some type of public apology or excuse?
>
> > based on concepts accessible only to an elite
>
> I think it is dangerous to assume that concepts are only accessible to
> the prepared.  Many people are unable to participate in an active
> discussion out of an insecurity, or lack of confidence in their
> expressive knowledge.  Many modern artworks that are seen as being
> highly "conceptual" were created to include the audience rather than
> exclude them -- even the most often stated comment of rejection - "I
> could do that!" - is misunderstood:  you can do that!  you should do
> that!  we can do it together!
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre

Christiane Robbins

J e t z t z e i t
Los Angeles  l  San Francisco
CA  l USA

... the space between zero and one ...
Walter Benjamin





The present age prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to  
the original, fancy to reality, the appearance to the essence for in  
these days ILLUSION only is sacred, truth profane.

Ludwig Feuerbach, 1804-1872,
German Philosopher