I like it --Saul's Dantoesque statement -- but humans love to make things, and to make them as well as they can for no other reason than to do it. How does the new post-art art deal with that? wc
________________________________ From: armando baeza <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 9, 2009 10:31:43 PM Subject: Re: Reading Kivy: Chapter Two - Wittgenstein and Weitz Why even waste time going there , when we have so much to work from, in our life time? I think the "last artist" on earth will be doing cave murals mando On Oct 9, 2009, at 3:14 PM, Saul Ostrow wrote: > For the sake of argument let us say that art as a category of objects, as > concept, or as an institutional form has met its demise . This end of > represents not art's termination, but the conclusion of its historically > defined forms, media, and parameters. What emerges, in its stead is a > critically self-aware mode of production rooted in the relationship between > its internal-"immaterial practices and external -"material practices," which > are arrayed anamorphically, asymmetrically and analogously to one another. > What emerges, is now critically self-aware mode of production whose > catagorical imperatives lie not in the materiality of its forms but in its > ability to self-conscious model information, data, experience, materiality and > knowledge to non-disciplinary ends. > > > > >>> >>> So why not just admit that the art concept is always open? Why not >>> admit that the "family resemblance" is always an evolving one -- >>> like nature, remoter genes are reduced to near zero, if not zero, >>> and newer ones seem all new -- or as with metamorphosis, a real >>> change occurs.
