This is a really interesting thread for me. It's made me think about:
1. What's the point of transgression when the transgressor (artist?) is so
impotent heshe can only act it out on against other artists on an artist
list. Isn't that like the "cannilbalism of the left" that went on the the
sixties?
2. What counts as transgression? A lot of what I see and hear that presents
itself as transgression is based in sexuality, and a lot of it is very
anti-female in nature. And yes, I am a fan of sex -- some of my best friends
have sex -- but in this day and age I don't find the description and
iteration of sexual experience trangressive, unless it's done in a really
interesting way that offers something new. What would be transgressive about
sex art is making sex erotic, sensual, delicious to the entire organism again
instead of small locus shock sex. Making sex beautiful, that's trangressive.
3. Maybe the act of ousting the person from the list was a good act of
transgression of that person's "right" to be an asshole. Why does only the
actor get to be the transgressor? Why not the acted upon? Being a flaming
asshole is like being a bad child and daring mommy to discipline. Perhaps the
flamer secretly craves discipline, and acts out to receive hisher deep-seated
need.
4.
<<then how can those who wish to be 'truly' transgressive (within the sign/
language of 'art') act out anything more than a grotesque caricature of
culturally reproduced expectations about their role (as artists)?>>
A really good transgressive artist would be able to manipulate a common
sign/language so smoothly and with such artistic stealth, that, instead of an
affront or useless charicature, the transgression would appear to be gift.
But of course, that's much more difficult to accomplish.
In a message dated 06/25/2000 11:19:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< >How do
ideas of free communication, liberty, responsibility, play out in an
examination of art practices meant to be transgressive? Is the
importance of the ends what decides the ethicality of a practice? Or is
transgressiveness the end in itself, justified by the degree of
stultification it fractures?
...AK
If manditory transgression is written into the job description of a
particular group of individuals (artists), and if this is depended upon
by another group(s) of people (art enthusiasts) for amusement and/ or
reassurance, then how can those who wish to be 'truly' transgressive
(within the sign/ language of 'art') act out anything more than a
grotesque caricature of culturally reproduced expectations about their
role (as artists)?
Or, doesn't the act of satisfying social expectations (culturally
encouraged and so easily accepted) of the 'transgressive artist'
stereotype through artist's "transgressive" behavior itself cancel out
the criteria for those same acts to be considered 'transgressive' at
all?
I know this is not exactly the issue at hand, but nevertheless, it does
relate on some level..
The cultural absorbtion and conscious or unconscious perpetuation of
this model (the artist as neccessarily subversive/ transgressive) by
artists and 'non-artists' alike, severly limits the freedom of artists
to participate in the transgression of rigid cultural norms, procedures,
notions/ ideas, power structures, etc. in any meaningful way. It seems
that the only available options for artists in this predicament (who are
concerned with art's transgressive potential) are either:
1.to accept the inefficacy of artistic transgressive pretenses and
resolve to become as overly accomodating, celebratory, and gratuitous as
possible, or
2.to persevere in endless re-enactments of an evermore impotent
vocational stereotype that generally serves to satisfy and amuse when it
is predictably fulfilled (when artists shock, provoke, critique, expose,
or otherwise commit acts of intended transgression), or
3.find other reasons for making art than attempts to unwittingly live
out simulacra of early modernist socio-political vanguard fantasies...
or
4.other
something AJ wrote a little while ago:
To the several MASTERS
who acknowledged
his sovereignty while he was king
UBU ENCHAINED
offers the homage of
his shackles
PA UBU.- Hornstrumpot! we shall not have succeeded in demolishing
everything until we have demolished the ruins as well. But the only way
I can see of doing that is to use them to put up a lot of fine,
well-designed buildings.
>>
