This is a sentence taken from Holland Carter's column in today's NY Times. Normally I like his columns but this one is wildly erratic. Here and there his sensible comments are surrounded by "winging it" speculations that go from the old "analog" art to new....new what? He offers "crazy" as the best choice, meaning, really, a kind of virtual discovery voyage with emphasis more on the artist as social activist who makes nothing but meddles in every field...somehow earning a living, too.
Nowhere does Carter respond to the current collapsing of the official art world (NY gallery scene) with advice to get back to art as an intellectual activity, a way to examine human spirit, consciousness, feeling, and all the other expressive modes. No, he just wants to continue the game of superficial novelty by taking art into the society, making artists into some sort of wandering entertainer, a new Don Quixote. Most of all, he wants to take the analog product out of art despite the fact that we live in a material world and objects are essential to civilization. I'm too distracted now to continue this but read his article and tell us if you think it is coherent. WC --- On Sun, 2/15/09, armando baeza <[email protected]> wrote: > From: armando baeza <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: "But if there is a crisis, it is not a crisis of power; itbs a crisis of knowledge. Simply put, we donbt know enough, about the past or about any cultures other than our own." > To: [email protected] > Cc: "armando baeza" <[email protected]> > Date: Sunday, February 15, 2009, 1:29 AM > When you say,"our own culture", i hope you mean > our own individual personal culture, fuzziness aside. > > mando > > On Feb 14, 2009, at 7:03 PM, joseph berg wrote: > > >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/arts/design/15cott.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
