dear ann
thank you
there is a small poem by william carlos williams in which he
states that he is driving in his car,thinking of cave paintings in the
pyrenees, "Les Trois Freres"--
that is the movement of art--poetry--
my own little dictum of hilarity re movements etc
is
onwo/ards!
which cd mean--in any direction!
God knows--even off a cliff--!--
or "the sky's the limit"
or "off to jail--"
you never can tell
but the movement in itself--is "telling" in the sense Emily
Dickinson has of it
"to close the eyes is travel"
"If one does not hope, one will not find the unhoped for, since
there is no trail leading to it and no path"
--Heraclitus
I think that many of the principles and actions of a resistance to
the art world ideas is found, that is to capitalist ideas and their
interrelations with the art world--is found in Mail
Art. Of course, this may be a difficult terrain--for one to argue over,
say--
however, as Filliou envisioned the Eternal Network,I think it
offers hope and the unhoped for
for a very broad and vibrant and thought provoking
presentations of issues current in Mail Art by over fifty practising
artists--see
Open Debate Mail Art
http://www.fut.es/~boek861
onwo/ards!
david baptiste chirot
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, .pavu.com wrote:
> yes ann
>
> the function of an avant-garde, or of a rear-guard, is neither to advance
> nor retreat, but rather to maneuver
>
> check pavu.com at http://pavu.com
>
> best regards
> --
> jean-philippe halgand - Executive Directeur of pavu.com
> http://pavu.com
> -/ don't miss the next train, train with pavu.com ! /-
>
>
> > De�: ann klefstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Soci�t�: klefstad / kalstrom sculpture
> > R�pondre �: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Date�: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:51:48 -0800
> > ��: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Objet�: Re: FLUXLIST: avantgarde?
> >
> > I myself would hope that the notion of "progress" in art, an imagining of
> > arthistory to parallel, say, the development of material technologies, could
> > be discarded. Thus the notion of the avantgarde--that is, those out in front,
> > those "most progressive"--could also be discarded. I don't think that an
> > "avantgarde" today is anything but a competitive positivist impulse that
> > unconsciously models itself on technological development, you know, "The Rise
> > of Man" kind of thing.
> > The thing I always liked about Fluxus was its refusal of narratives of
> > prowess, its ability to mock such narratives (say, the "Twelve Big Names"
> > thing) and its choice of, instead of the slogan "forward!", the slogan
> > "sideways!" Many Fluxus practitioners used the "stupid" relation of the body
> > as animal body to the physical world, and their work (such as Ken's salt
> > projects) used the elemental physical attributes of things. This does not
> > make for forward motion, it makes
> > instead for a recursion to simple perception, an invoking of thoughtfulness
> > about what conditions the perception, an invoking of memory--in other words,
> > movement back, sideways, in circles, not the forward rush of the avantgarde
> > and its oppositional tactics. Fluxus didn't so much oppose, beat back, fight,
> > as, say, unravel, comb out, or knit up.
> >
> > Can we speak in terms of what things do rather than what they oppose?
> >
> > AK
> >
> > Josh Ronsen wrote:
> >
> >> Heiko Recktenwald writes:
> >>
> >>> When fluxus began in the Cage class, they were some of the
> >>> most avantgarde people of its time. Those who call themself
> >>> "fluxus" today are not.
> >>
> >> What does avantgarde mean, today? Who is avantgarde today? These are
> >> interesting questions and I do not know how to approach them.
> >>
> >> Don't hate me, but I have been reading an article about Online (Internet)
> >> Education in a recent issue of the New York Times Sunday Magazine. There is
> >> quote from a professor (my copy is at home) who is trying to get "top-notch"
> >> universities to let their faculty lecture for his online ed company: to
> >> paraphrase-- the avant-garde (in art) and capitalism as similar because they
> >> are both concerned with the "new."
> >>
> >> I disagree with this statement, or at least with the superficial aspects of
> >> it. My conception of the avant-garde is one of overturning established orders
> >> and ideologies, which I guess could be considered "new," but it is a new
> >> mentality. Capitalism is ALWAYS concerned with producing goods or services at
> >> a profit, and hasn't changed at all. There is a drive for new goods and
> >> markets and a silly marketing spin on Internet Business as "the New Economy"
> >> (tm), but it isn't.
> >>
> >> Now the relation between art and capitalism can be scary: is the avant-garde
> >> in art just the capitalist quest for new markets? Ack! I hope not. Maybe it
> >> has become that.
> >>
> >> For me, if the avant-garde is "overturning established orders and
> >> ideologies," the one it should be directed against is capitalism.
> >>
> >> I'd be interested in thoughts/reactions on this topic.
> >>
> >> -Josh Ronsen
> >> http://www.nd.org/jronsen
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
> >> Before you buy.
> >
>
>
