On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Owen Smith wrote:
>
> What Fahlstrom gives us as fundamental to his understanding of the
> concrete is also central to many of the radical challenges, by artists
> such as those grouped under the rubric Fluxus, to cultural modes of
> operation in the 1950s and 1960s. T
Indeed, the concept of "concretism" vs "abstractionism" is central to
Maciunas's "Neo-Dada in Music, Theatre, Poetry and Art" essay.
Personally, I'm not so sure what the larger value of this distinction is. What
is concrete? What is abstract? It seems Maciunas uses it to oppose
"artificiality" or, loosely, "formalism" in art in the name of the "real," the
"everyday" and so on.
This polemical opposition has been central to the arts --and to advances in the
arts-- since romanticism. It is all part of a general process that I
would summarise under the heading of "demystification".
Demystification could also be described as de-fetishization as one can see in
the polemical oppositions between object and process, or between artist and
public even. The meaning of the work of art is not in the object, but in the
process of creation. The origin of art is not in the artist as unique creator,
but in the perception of art.
It is demystification and progress in the sense that what it does is help us
realize art is founded in human powers, in our own personal abilities, common
to all people, which can be cultivated and enhanced by engaging with works and
others...
Thank you for your stimulating thoughts, Owen.
cheers,
George
