About the common opinion of the rather conflictuous relationship between aesthetics and art, I like to remark that such a relationship does not exists per se. It is a economical attitude and precondition that makes itself manifest in a commodified form of capital accumulation.
I think Kant->Marx->Deleuze are right and art only fitt in the producer-consumer chain by virtue of the cooperated forces of the so called 'artists'. Reclaiming the aesthetical domain will further the liberation of the 'free arts' Andreas Maria Jacobs w: http://www.nictoglobe.com w: http://burgerwaanzin.nl On 14 Oct 2010, at 05:50, Curt Cloninger <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Marc (and all), > > I would say something like "art that matters" (rather than > "authentic" or "real"). "Art that matters" is a really obvious and > banal way of putting things that tries not to presume or cloak any > specifc ethical angle or cosmological presumptions. Then you get to > have a subsequent discussion about what does matter, to whom, what > criteria do you use to determine what matters, at what scales, in > what time frames, or whatever other "contemporary critical" > qualifiers you want to add. > > When you say "authentic," I read something like "earnest." Which > doesn't necessarily mean un-funny, but it does exclude a kind of > opportunistic/easy cynicism or careerism. Maybe it even means sappy > and epic. I'm OK with that (but then I fantasize about singing > karaoke to AC/DC's "For Those About to Rock [We Salute You]," so I am > unable to cast the first stone). As Spinal Tap observe, "there's a > fine line between stupid and clever." > > When I teach, I don't teach my own personal ethics (per se). But I do > encourage my students to figure out what might matter to them. I > admit to pushing a kind of experimental practice of emergence -- > following Massumi following Deleuze following Bergson -- a kind of > making the virtual actual. According to Bergson, there are two kinds > of real -- the actual (which has already become history) and the > virtual (not "VR," but rather a kind of real that at any moment could > happen, but just hasn't yet, and may never). Bergson's virtual is > still contingent on historical conditions (not simply anything could > emerge at any time whatsoever). > > If you begin with "actual" ethical criteria for what should happen, > then you may well wind up with simply a reshuffling of actual things > that have already happened. But if you risk experimenting in rigorous > ways that don't evaluate "success" too soon according to previously > available criteria, then maybe you are able to trick the virtual into > actualization. It's a risky kind of art practice. As Ren says to > Stimpy, "That's just it. We don't know. Maybe something good will > happen, and maybe something bad will happen." > > A marxist like Zizek would ridicule this kind of proto-ethics of > emergence as fanciful, unpragmatic, spectaular, etc. But that's what > makes it a risk. And artists aren't like bridge engineers or > anything. Most of us are doing something that we hope matters or will > eventually matter, but we can't guarantee at all that it will. To me, > such risk taking is one of the things art is particularly good for. > > Also, making art can be exciting, which is probably an indicator that > you're onto something that might matter. > > Best, > Curt > > > >> Hi Alan & all, >> >> These questions are pretty decent starters, warranting some serious >> and >> playful investigation. >> >> I'm wondering what others may think themselves? >> >> Not necessarily in terms of my own, perhaps misplaced idea of what is >> 'authenticity'. But, in whatever words or notions, we consider or >> feel >> fits closest. >> >> For instance, many individuals engage with Netbehaviour not just >> because >> it is a tool, some motives are contextual; harbouring many different >> reasons of why we are here together - now, one obvious activity is >> that >> many on here share a dialogue. >> >> But, if we could see beyond the daily functions and motives, what >> would >> be left for us to understand between ourselves here and now, and how >> could we (possibly) mutually expand on 'whatever these things are'? >> >> So what's the spirit or kernel linking us, other than the network and >> the daily behaviours that we all share? >> >> Wishing all well. >> >> marc >> > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
