Sunday, 29 July 2007
on Contemporay Directions in Creativity
Wondering about the possibility of exploring emerging but not mainstreamed notions/directions for art. I feel that the cult of the celebrity, started as a kind of seriously serious joke by Warhol in the 70s, and now taken, without any irony or self reflection, to be Reality like Pimp my Ridable Video Projection, and I'm just wondering if the importance of being earnest is too ironic or grandly illustrated or meta-narrational or if, with a constant and healthy dose of reflectivity, it is possible to address the meaning of meaning. Well, that's a little sarcastic but I want to know what is on the minds and hearts of my fellow creatrices. I'm not so interested in the purely sentimental or merely decorative or the doe-eyed earnestness that embarrasses me when I confront it. Or am I??
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
Sorry, I should have said 60's when discussing Warhol's beginnings.
i have more to say about this posting since it's right up my ally with science and 'spirituality', but for now...love the bottle sculpture! now i'm thinking about doing something more with my 'water and glass beehive.' it's on our multipoint website. any thought on that? interesting, boring? who cares?
and then after warhol it was that artist who made the sculpture of michael jackson and his monkey...then he designed a HUGE plant sculpture of his dog...then did a porno video with his bride. what was his name? prior to becoming an 'artist' he worked on wall. eli broad foundation owns 'michael jackson and the monkey.'
wall street
That's Jeff Koons who did those sculptures and the work with his wife the porn star.
I love the beehive sculpture and think it has a lot of potential. It could go in a lot of different directions because it is not only formal.
I'm curious about what contemporary spirituality is... universalist? Who makes the structure for apprehending the experience? If we each do it, is it completely private and therefore outside language? But if that is the case, how do we discuss it with each other? I suppose it's an age-old question???
I wrote in my journal "I crave an art that passionately transcends the mundane instead of being a device for self deception." Does anyone have any idea what that means?
I think that 'art' (whatever that process is for you) is 'lacking', and that the act of 'making' 'something' is being examined as artificial, or deceptive.
The over examination of anything always leaves me feeling like mush. I get no joy out of posting narratives or gestures to the granduer of art making. I think of 'talk' just as pretentious as Andy Warhol initiating the cult the celebrity. It's blah, blah, blah, after a 100 years of asking the same questions.
I don't even know what self-deception is... Is it a toy?
Because I think 'that' would be fun to play with.
I think I need some sleep...
It is not the artist's job to drive a shuttle bus to the Known.1 we are on the rickety dirt road that others are afraid to travel if we want to contribute to the cultural consortia. If we don't want to walk, run, skip, and crawl on that sometimes impassable road/pit/crevass to the unknown, we are something besides artists.
Paradox is essential because "a perspective that sees problems only in terms of solutions instead of interesting complexities,...is an attitude that requires all difficulties to be reduced to single, answers, solutions, or clichés."2 The point of view that is "unable to withstand and endure complicated human...motivations, [is] impatient with reflection and serious thought, and [is] harshly judgmental about all those creative intrusions"3 is one that misses out on the chance for imaginative, eccentric, complex, open-ended possibilities. It turns everyone's brain and heart to mush most of the time. But if we don't do it, who will?
1. Christopher Rauschenburg in film: "Robert Rauschenburg: Inventive Genius."
2/3. Lyn Cowan. Tracking the White Rabbit: a subversive view of modern culture. p.6.
wow, april, that was well said, so true. thanks.
there are a lot of deep things to ponder in this posting. i've been wondering about contemporary spiritual experience? maybe it's like our culture, an eclectic mix of thoughts, ideas, beliefs? maybe we've figured out that all "religions" are basically saying the same things...love love love and treat others like you want to be treated, do no harm. yes, maybe the word would be a universalist? all of us seem to be responding to the transcendent mythics of all religions. i sure do. and i also like taking myself out of the whole religion, spirituality thing and just say i'm a pantheist. it feels right and good.
seems like God is getting popular again?
did any of you read that book by walsh called 'conversations with god?' it's popular so they made it into a movie. i hadn' read it but recently saw it in a used book store. for me it was worse than reality tv. childish. i don't believe he was talking to God. he was just imagining who he thinks God might be, or hoping this is what God might say. i'm not going on the bus with him anywhere. but apparently a lot of peopole are? i wonder who are these people? probably people who care what paris h. has to say? oh dear, i'm getting cynical again. yikes.
everyone is needed. we're all at different stages. and who knows, maybe those paris h. people are the most enlightened? who really knows whats important over there in the other dimension?
and thnking about art...duchamp really said it all. it's difficult to get beyond him, isn't it. and i know some of you might cringe at this, but i do think skip arnold got it right. our lives are our art. we are the art. but then, thats nothing new either and he hasn't gotten past the ego.
hope all this isn't boring you?
yes, getting past the ego seems very important for me.
I read a really disturbing article in this month's Harpers about R. Guliani concerning his political career and bid for the presidency. Aside from inciting me to angry exhortations against the tyranny of corrupt politicians and others running the show, I was provoked by a comment the writer made about the "character" of an individual. He said, "in a post-ideological world, character is what matters." First, I believe the context interpretation of character is more like characture or personality and second, I think that he means it matters to the general population and not that it matters universally.
I just wonder what exactly does post-ideology mean? Is it that people don't believe in ideas or understanding ideas or developing ideas in a rich and meaningful way? I don't think that's universally true but I suppose balancing ideology against the capitalist machine is a tricky proposition. Wondering about art that is made in terms of ideology and not in terms of consumable end-product. Oh pizz I hate reductionist thinking. What about expansionistic redevelopment of the realm of the mind? What about pushing yourself to work beyond the constraints of selling, gallery systems, general applause?
I really have a hard time with books like "conversations with God." I saw that in the bookstore and found it completely trite and sentimental. I don't want a boiled down experience of anything. Even if it means taking a hard road, I want to know a thing for myself and that kind of publication makes everything into a goof game. Some people might find inspiration there and good for them; i dont and really don't want to!
I do think people who want to push possibilities (rather than simply react to what they hate, although there is a really legitimate place for that too) need to look to belief and systems of belief to understand what might be happening today. We are not empty auto-tron living a post-modern glory of unbelief. Otherwise, people wouldn't be so ga ga about aliens and Oprah and the redemption possible through the ownership of a really beautiful pair of boots (not handmade ones, but ones advertised by a boutique-style chain store and manufactured in spain via china).
Interesting,
i think what Gulianai means is a post "one idelology nation" Its like he is saying that we live in a post modern world and all that matters is how you act and what your character is. I would love to know what he means by post idealogical? I think that as many ideas and experiences as possible should be what matters in the world. It is funny that I have been thinking about character latelt- I realize that character does not matter to me much, because I keep thinking about characters- and how the world is filled with characters that dont have much character at all. I thin charater has such a masculine sound to it. I khave know people with ambigious character, but are deeply moral-just-complex and are amazing people. I agree I do not want anyone to live life ffor me- i think we need to live our lives for ourselves because really no one is is going to .
thanks april for all your great thoughts....
pam
The article was about Guliani and by a guy Kevin Baker,called "A Fate Worse than Bush: Giuliani and the politics of personality." Here's a link to it on Harpers' site: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/08/0081631
I am still not sure what post-ideology means. I googled it and got a link to a slavo zizek article with this (partial) quote: "a pseudo Deleuzian celebration of the successful revolt of the multitude." I guess that instead of the ideology (rationalism, fundamentalism, ...) governing the multitude, the multitude (does that read masses) push en mass against the singularity of the ideology and generate a fractured, fragmented, sensibly senseless rendering of some kind of psycho-spirit-politic? Oh, lordy, I'm thinking aloud and not sure if there is any sense-making in that.
I am so curious about how we build up belief and what we make of the most absurd systems for understanding ourselves in relation to everything else. I picked up the book from the library about art and the spiritual from the pdf i sent out to everyone the other day. It has, on the cover, 12th c etchings of the microscopic slime I have been drawing for 5 years. What is that about??
I was thinking of this subject of spirituality today, on my way to work. I like learning about artifacts that place an importance on worship and spirituality. I like finding similarities in their symbols. I am curious about the symbols I make and if they are connected to my personal journey of spiritual quest.
I am interested in writing my own history. I think that that is something that has come from the group that interests me. I'm not referring to writing a journal, or diary, or keeping a sketchbook. I haven't written my philosophies down on paper, and my students have prompted me to many times. There is a place and a time for what we all have to say. Are any of you already doing this?
april,
in reguards to the image that you have been drawing.. i just think archatyple images do float around in the collective unconsciouness and we pick them up. I think what it means is that this is something that you need to follow whatever it means to you. I think your souls connection to this "slime" is deep and it might be intersting to research what other connotations slime has in art- the body- life etc...all very interesting...
I'm coming into this discussion late... In your original posting April you mentioned the cult of celebrity. I think the cult of the celebrity has to do with the viral nature of the time we are in. Like a visual/personality version of gossip. It is an extension of Dawkins notion of the meme. A virus of the mind. I think that the modern media made this trend begin and the internet has exacerbated the trend.
I have mixed feelings about viral information and images.
I don't mind being lightly infected.
I don't mind seeing celebrity gossip as I pass in the checkout or in tiny headlines on my news sites. But I don't want a deep interaction like what would occur if I read the articles.
I don't want to waste my power to infect/inspire others. So I try never to forward on viral email. But I very much would like my work to be viral. To get under someone's skin. To get them to want to talk about it.
In her posting April asked what contemporary spirituality is.
I think it's all or nothing. It is either an extreme, hyper aware, literal adherence to older religions or an unaware worship of capitalism's products.
My own fascination with the iPhone is a perfect example.
If I have it...I will feel...
If I believe in christ/allah/etc...I will feel...
April said, she was trying to "I crave an art that passionately transcends the mundane instead of being a device for self deception."
Interesting. I totally see that. The text in your art has the looseness that comes from writing from the unconscious. Like what people get from automatic writing. Communicating with the unconscious.
I guess I presume that the unconscious won't deceive.
Sharon said, "I don't even know what self-deception is... Is it a toy? Because I think 'that' would be fun to play with."
I know you said it a bit in passing. You mentioned that you were tired.
But I kind of see it in your art too.
You work with ornate frames. I always react to the frames as mirrors that aren't reflecting. Perhaps that is just me. But I go ahead and put myself in the frame. Framing myself in such opulence, so aggrandized seems like toying with self deception.
April quoted, the artist's job to drive a shuttle bus to the Known
I think art is a conversation.
First of all with one's self. Finding out what you have to say.
Then saying it to someone else.
Who that someone else is determines how simple what you are saying needs to be.
THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE GROUP
Who is your intended audience?
Do you have one? A made up mixure of individuals? Or an influential teacher? Or an artist peer?
I kind of think I'm an artist masturbator. I make it to converse with myself.
Linda mentioned the simplisticness of, Conversations with God
I think that the reason people are becoming religious extremists is because it makes their life simple. That is the pull. Do what you are told. Period. Everything is bumper sticker simple. Why? Because god told you so in this book here.
Life is so fucking complicated. The demands are so many faceted.
I think it has never been harder to think for yourself than now.
Time demands, money worries, daily chores, uncertain gender roles, class and race roles and the ever present mass media endlessly trying to lock eyes with you and hypnotize you into buying what you are supposed to, and the ever growing amassing of information on the internet are all trying to tell you what to be and what to do.
If you become a religious extremist it all becomes very simple. All the voices go quiet. Just do what you are told.
Let me be really clear about the shuttle bus thing: Robert Rauschenburg said "it is NOT the artist's job to drive a shuttle bus to the places that are known." The implication is that it is our job to forge into the unknown. I would have thought the rest of the post made that clear and certainly my own way of dealing with the world is not to engage in anyway with shuttlebuses, mobs, or popular culture and in fact even if i love "it", if i think everyone is doing "it", I WON'T.
post-ideology
Wikipedia has an interesting summary on ideology. Nothing on post though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology
Interestingly enough the first entry is
"ideology that forms the basis of the "public opinion" or common sense, a basis that usually remains invisible to most people within the society"
So, maybe Guliani thinks that we are post common sense. He would certainly like it if we were.
So, his statement "in a post-ideological world, character is what matters" could be refrased to
in a post common sense world bumper sticker media bites about candidates is what matters
Again, I would like to clarify, Guiliani didn't say we're post-ideology, Kevin Baker did. It's an article that was in Harper's and I put a link in the post where I discussed it. I don't think G. uses words like post-ideology.
I must need to write more clearly when I quote people. It's not coming across the way it's intended.
Responding to April's responding to my responding to her and the shuttle bus.
Got it. No shuttle bus for you or him. I think that was clear.
Since I'm responding 8 inches lower than the original thought I feel I need to copy a bit of the concept and paste it at the top of my post so you know what I'm referring to. I just didn't copy and paste enough of the reference text.
On post-ideology:
Going back and re-reading your post I think it's clear that it was the author and not G. who said post-ideology.
Both Pam and I responded to your posting as if G. was the one to say it.
I can't speak for Pam, but for myself I was responding to the essence of the concept rather than the specifics of whether G. said it or the author said it in positioning G.
What changes the discussion if post-ideology came from G. rather than the author discussing G?
I have to say that after listening to the last republican debate I think it is exactly the kind of thing he would say. And it would come right out of the side of his mouth.
According to Todd McGowan, Assoc Prof at the university of Vermont in Film Studies, “the greatness of a work of art depends on its ability to transform the audience." He quotes Rilke: “the great work of art tells us that we have to change our lives.”
I feel this sense of deep responsibility to the task of making art...
Can one make work like this with intention or does it just happen? Does the post-ideology, post-meta-narrative world preclude this kind of expression or achievement? i hope not.
i hope great art makes people want to change their lives. that quote makes me think of mccarthy's work which tends to make one want to vomit. yes, things definately need to change. and it feels like mccarthy makes his work with deliberate intention? don't you think?
I wanted to send a public apology for being less than gracious in some of my postings on this string. I was feeling a sense of urgency about correcting some misquotations/ misunderstandings of my comments and I was not particularly thoughtful about the manner in which I responded. I figured since this mistake was made publicly, the apology should also be public. I am striving for a level of professionalism and graciousness that I did not attain here and I hope that you will all excuse this and continue with all this interesting conversation. I appreciate everyone's input and apologize for my lack of tact.
Paul McCarthy. I have met him several times and I find him to be completely thoughtful and shy and intense and full of integrity. I liked him very much. It made me see his work differently and with more heart. I think that one aspect of art since 1975, say, is to focus on upending any stereotypes, any assumptions about relationships, any expectations for heirarchy of ideas and exposing all the inner workings of human interaction. (is this post-ideology??) Mostly this results in something that can be creepy and hard. Sometimes it's glorious but in an unexpected way. I think McCarthy looks at the difficulties of being a sensitive human being in a harsh and demanding world. He shows us the vulnerability of himself and of humanity. It's not easy to look at it. But I think it can change the viewer, if the viewer is willing to get past the immediate response to the horror of it all. Chris Kraus uses some of these same tropes but in a different way and to a different end. Also, before them Georges Battaile, the Marquis de Saad, F. Goya. etc. I guess I don't think of it as a sort of rude joke of which I am the butt (my former reaction); after meeting PM I feel the work is generous and contains everything he has as a human being.
wow so much,
april- i do not think that you have been insensitive- i do think the communications over e-mail/blog can be really difficult for a variety of reasons so be gentle with yourself and - we will all move on.....
in reguards to paul mc carthy's work, it does not make me vomit... ii have such a funny relationship to body people, because i have had my own body so mauled-poked-proded-cut-sewn-needled to death- i have been abject in many ways and sometimes i get frustrated with people who theoretically try to understand what it is to have a body that has been dismembered and defiled. it used to bug me more. I just think that it is hard to re-create abjectness/defiledness- especially in the safety of the institutional walls of a museum.
i do think for our souls to evolve we need to have a vast variety of life experiences. Our culture has purged and sanitized our lives that we try to bring back shock and deep dirtiness- but it is always in places where it is safe- like a sand box. thats why i dot think pauls work makes me vomit- on on level it is for public consumption and there is always a safety net around it. Thats why i also started disliking george battile his relationship to the abject is deeply theoritical....this is another thread i think...
pam
yes, i definately think that mccarthy's work makes one question the horrors of life. his work pushes thoughts of abuse and a myriad of other things one doesn't like to think about; it makes one want to become aware and to be active, not passive. that's why i mentioned his work. how many artists work can make you want to vomit? it's incredible.
can beautiful work make one want to change one's life? or is it like psychology where you don't make changes until you are uncomfortable? is it like that in art?
oh, wow. that just took my breath away. I think that when you are surrounded by excess and glut, beauty becomes relative to and diminished by the other things around it. when the vista is a desert of anhilation, well then the single beautiful act, gesture, etc becomes more visible and impressive. still i think that for something beautiful or grotesque to make us change our minds, it's got to be carefully assessed as to why we think it's beautiful or grotesque and if they are truly different. That assessment, careful and slow, is what changes me every time.
well,
pauls work does not make me uncomfortable- deep kindness makes me want to act.. that will always touch my heart deeply. I have spent a life where people have treated my like crap and horrible things have happened to me. I know abuse like the back of my hand. I am very comfortable if that is what you call it with the deeper- more violent- and abusive alleys of life. when someone is kind I am moved to action.... we live in this culture where most people are very sheltered from the messier/abusive aspects of life and it does make them uncomfortable and want to hide or take action. It goes back to what I think that is people on a soul level need different life experiences.... so some people the messier aspects of life is unknown some of us deep love and kindness is unknown......when i talked about my abusive histories it always inspired people more than when i talked about kindness (in grad school).. I always found that interesting.......
pam
that is such an interesting point because i often wonder why people who seem to have everything are so thoughtlessly cruel, even in the smallest ways. I'm not speaking about the defenses of insecurity or fear but about deliberate cruelty where people act like pirranah after bloody meat when they see a vulnerability. it's harder to be kind in this world that values the cuthroat even when waiting for the elevator. i used to feel like it was a lack of ethics because no one believed in god any more. but fanatical god-devotees are as deliberately cruel as anyone else. maybe worse. high capitalism where we are all encouraged to get ours is maybe more at fault than lack of belief in god, aliens, or the like.
I think espically after dealing with the Bush administration that we take freedom and kindness for granted. We need to fight for and stay vilgant for those qualities that some think of as weak. I think alot about the art world and I adore depth. I really do like Pauls work- but what confuses me is that his work is seen as more edgy or critial or risky than someone making work about joy. I so think this strange diacatomy has been with us for a long time. I dont know how people can think we as a culture somehow value compassion or kindness? It is so obvious that we don't. I relate that to visual consciouness and what we value visually.....On a superfischal level we seem to value beauty and joy, but most of that is just tropes used by capitalism- so sell more stuff. oh so much more to write.....
back again tomorrow...
pam
Post a Comment