[-empyre-] For whom is art "made"?

Wed May 14 13:31:09 EST 2008

Dear Eduardo,

Me too, I believe "art's potence is alive".

Attempts to neutralize works by reducing them to the condition of
entertainment have been so frequent.

> but is possible to do this in a total way?

Control -- even corporate -- certainly also has its blind spots. We'll
work on them, probably.

Thank for your kind words.

very best vibes from Brazil

s

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Eduardo Molinari
<archivocaminante at yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
> Thank you very much for your words dear Sergio!
> is a pleasure to read your ideas.
>
> hard work to make art today.
> "under control" art,
> but... still art.
>
> I mean, art's potence is alive.
>
> like you said, more corporate money (not state money)
> is trying to "normalize" art,
> but is possible to do this in a total way?
> I don't think so.
>
> you put very intensive examples of art history.
>
> thank you!
> all the best,
> eduardo
>
>
>
>
> Eduardo Molinari / Archivo Caminante
> Aramburu 880, Dto.1 (1640) Martínez
> Provincia de Buenos Aires – Argentina
> 0541 1 47 98 48 35
>
>
> --- El lun 12-may-08, sergio basbaum <sbasbaum at gmail.com> escribió:
>
>> De: sergio basbaum <sbasbaum at gmail.com>
>> Asunto: Re: [-empyre-] For whom is art "made"?
>> Para: archivocaminante at yahoo.com.ar, "soft_skinned_space" <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>> Fecha: lunes, 12 de mayo de 2008, 7:13 pm
>> Dear all empyreans,
>>
>> It's a lot of time since my last contribuition to this
>> community. I
>> just would like to make a few remarks on this problem of
>> "who is art
>> for".  I'd like to suggest some ideas that I
>> believe should be
>> considered:
>>
>> 1) art is made for those who have need of it; it's
>> always been a
>> paradox that many art works commited with different kinds
>> of freedom
>> operations have been understood just by a minority of
>> people. However,
>> art is not supposed to be entertainment, a Bienal is not a
>> Disneyland;
>>
>> 2) art is adressed to different audiences, it depends on
>> who the
>> artist wants to talk to, and this kind of consideration may
>> interfere
>> in the decisions concerning creative choices: although it
>> may sound
>> weird for some, it is possible to be an artist in large
>> massive
>> difusion sistems, just like in pop or rock music circuits,
>> or comecial
>> cinema -- although there's a price to pay when you
>> decide to address
>> such large audiences and to inhabit such production
>> circuits -- it is
>> an entirely different game to play. Madonna plays it very
>> well, be her
>> a good artist or not. On the other hand, if you consider
>> Lygia Clark
>> in Brazil, bringing schizophrenic people inside her home to
>> experiment
>> her "therapy"devices, it is an absolutely
>> different choice; or Helio
>> Oiticica, bringing a Samba School into de Museum of Modern
>> Art in the
>> 1960s; or Ricardo Basbaum with his object which travels
>> world wide to
>> be signified by one person or one group at a time; or Joao
>> Modé with
>> his "Rede" crafted with the collective
>> contribuitions of a whole
>> community, with different genders, ethnics or social
>> classes engaged
>> in weaving a collective net. So, in this sense, art is made
>> for whom
>> the artist wants to speak to;
>>
>> 3) if we believe in art works, one must consider what did
>> they mean as
>> a symbol of the supposed "individual freedom" in
>> capitalism during
>> Cold War: to have worderfull and highly sponsored Biennals
>> and
>> exhibitions, showing all kinds of poetic decisions and
>> creative
>> strategies has indeed been a way to show such an image of
>> this side of
>> the wall -- for the other side of the wall and for
>> ourselves. So, it
>> doesn't matter how much we believe that artists have
>> been autonomous,
>> they have been appropriated by power structures and used to
>> promote a
>> system of power. It is easy to notice how fast public
>> sponsoring
>> growingly disappears from all important exhibitions
>> starting from the
>> early 1990s on, when art has lost this kind of role in the
>> global
>> political arena. It will thus be more and more dependent on
>> corporate
>> money. However, the fact that they have been used in such
>> disturbing
>> opperations of ideological propaganda does not diminish art
>> works' and
>> gestures' strenghth in making experience and thinking
>> radically
>> different possibilities and landscapes of the present, thus
>> creating a
>> singular field of knowledge which is perpassed by all other
>> fields but
>> cannot be determined by none. By inhabiting this space
>> oppened by
>> Cold-War struggles, art has enlarged our landscape of
>> reality with all
>> kinds of clandestin discourses, different subjectivities,
>> thus forcing
>> a "partage du sensible" to happen in completely
>> unexpected and
>> unplanned and also quite uncontrolled ways -- thus
>> multiplying the
>> ways of making meaning of our world;
>>
>> 4) Given this, and given the political expectations that
>> many hold
>> concerning the immediate impact of artistic propositions,
>> one should
>> not think that art, for itself, will save our world; what
>> is more
>> important is to understand that, without it, there's
>> not much to save,
>> since the world will be turned into an enormous controlled
>> and
>> surveilled productive and funcional "inteligent"
>> anthill.
>>
>> warm whishs from Brazil
>>
>> s
>>
>> --
>>
>> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Eduardo Molinari
>> <archivocaminante at yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
>> > I'm with you GH,
>> > when I talk about "images", I was tryng to
>> > say that we are talking about visual art... today,
>> > and today image-sound-words are visual art.
>> > But, all these tools, also our bodies,
>> > are our competence inside of contemporary visual art
>> sistem.
>> > I mean, is not teather, dance, music field.
>> > I'm not tryng to divide for nothing,
>> > but is hard to think about "art" without
>> > some specifications.
>> > Also, is still no clear if we are talking
>> > about private or public culture, in your words.
>> >
>> > About "manufacturing". Yes, I know that
>> sounds capitalistic,
>> > but is not the sense for me of this expression.
>> > I'm tryng to be incisive with the concept of
>> "cultural industry",
>> > because this is a blanket that covers our work,
>> > specially in the "third world".
>> > An industry without workers? an industry without
>> manufactures?
>> > is a border, I know, but is a tool for our discussion,
>> > because our "manufactures", our
>> "work"
>> > could be defined with another words, but...
>> > how lives an artist?
>> >
>> > is a little funny that we don't like to
>> "manufacture" images,
>> > but we like to "sell" them?
>> >
>> > GH, is really good to think together about this point,
>> > thank you very much.
>> >
>> > eduardo
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Eduardo Molinari / Archivo Caminante
>> > Aramburu 880, Dto.1 (1640) Martínez
>> > Provincia de Buenos Aires – Argentina
>> > 0541 1 47 98 48 35
>> >
>> >
>> > --- El sáb 10-may-08, G.H. Hovagimyan
>> <ghh at thing.net> escribió:
>> >
>> > > De: G.H. Hovagimyan <ghh at thing.net>
>> >
>> > > Asunto: Re: [-empyre-] For whom is art
>> "made"?
>> > > Para: "soft_skinned_space"
>> <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>> > > Fecha: sábado, 10 de mayo de 2008, 10:22 am
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > >  think that is better to define this. My
>> answer is
>> > > trying to think
>> > > > about this: manufacturing images today.
>> > >
>> > > gh comments:
>> > >
>> > >   I  disagree with this idea.  Art can be made
>> from sound
>> > > for example
>> > > or text or interventions that have no images
>> other than an
>> > > incidental
>> > > documentary image.  I even dislike the idea of
>> > > "manufacturing."  It
>> > > represents a capitalist notion of making of
>> objects to be
>> > > used as a
>> > > commodity in the art market.  Indeed, the most
>> advanced art
>> > > ideas try
>> > > to neutralize the market and dispense with a
>> fixed object/
>> > > image. The
>> > > actual process is to enhance the creative
>> experience for
>> > > the artist
>> > > and those who participate in the process.
>> It's a
>> > > misnomer to call this
>> > > interactive art.  It may be more about creative
>> situations.
>> > >  It's not
>> > > about all the world becoming artists.  Thats
>> another market
>> > > ploy. That
>> > > odd notion is what is at the core of web 2.0 .
>> The only
>> > > possible
>> > > position for an artists is to define themselves
>> in
>> > > contradiction to
>> > > these notions.
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > empyre forum
>> > > empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> > > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >      Yahoo! Encuentros.
>> >
>> > Ahora encontrar pareja es mucho más fácil, probá el
>> nuevo Yahoo! Encuentros
>> http://yahoo.cupidovirtual.com/servlet/NewRegistration
>> > _______________________________________________
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > empyre forum
>> > empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -- Prof. Dr. Sérgio Roclaw Basbaum
>> -- Coord. Tecnologia e Mídias Digitais
>> -- Pós-Graduação Tec.da Inteligência e Design Digital -
>> TIDD (PUC-SP)
>
>
>      Yahoo! Deportes Beta
> ¡No te pierdas lo último sobre el torneo clausura 2008! Enterate aquí http://deportes.yahoo.com
>

-- 
-- Prof. Dr. Sérgio Roclaw Basbaum
-- Coord. Tecnologia e Mídias Digitais
-- Pós-Graduação Tec.da Inteligência e Design Digital - TIDD (PUC-SP)