Terrence writes;
I find it sad how many artits are taught to be so critical. They seem to create
under such burdons and with theortical restraints. I am anti bordom.
Everyone born a child. I can see more clearly what is ahead as I respond to
what is before me not behind. Why relive what is done? Art is techne. Humans
are tool makers, use them. Just play. Be observant. Poke fun my mon.
terrence kosick
artnatural
George Free wrote:
> >What did Buren say ? In relation to Duchamp.
> >
>
> from an interview:
>
> B.M. According to you Duchamp's path leads to a cul-de-sac. In a way he
> wanted to be the last artist. Is this what you criticize?
>
> D.B. In its time this position was interesting. But subsequently, Duchamp's
> radical criticism of art has becomes the opposite of what Duchamp himself
> criticized. Duchamp was able to decontextualize an ordinary object -- thanks
> to the gallery, where the context contradicts the object -- but the context
> itself was not thought about in any critical way. It didn't take long for
> the effect; the banal object is fetishized. The context and place exerted
> their influence. The object placed there to destabilize painting became like
> a painting, a work of art with the rest. And, in this case, obsolete.
> Duchamp thereby introduced a form of production which is no more, and no
> less, than the mirror image of what he criticized. For the last twenty years
> I have been against Duchamp in my work, I never took an 'anti-art' position,
> even if some people would have loved to find this so. One of the fundamental
> and serious questions I ask myself is: "What is art?" Of, if you will, what
> are the processes which operate so that a work becomes -- or does not
> become -- a work of art? And if one finds these rules, or, if not, how do
> they fluctuate? And under what pressures? Duchamp gave a deliberately
> comfortable answer to these questions. For myself, they are still unresolved
> even if a solution appears from time to time in my work.
