That's one (rather romantic) model for making art. The use of the word "we" here is problematic. Many do not make art for these kinds of reasons (to express themselves and/or be novel).
I agree with you about "timelessness" though. Everything is in "time", just as it is of "stuff". best Simon On 17 Dec 2011, at 08:42, Pall Thayer wrote: > When we create “art”, we strive to do something new. We put all our > energy into compiling our emotions, our feelings, our experiences into > a comprehensive whole. However, that comprehension is always personal. > We can not separate our creative expression from our creative > compulsions or energies. The outcome is what it is. It is a personal > reflection of our personal interpretation of our time. > The notion of “timeless art” is a myth, perpetuated by who knows what > (or who)... how can a work of art be timeless? It is always a product > of its time. To perceive it otherwise would be absurd. If Les > Demoiselles d'Avignon had never previously been produced, would we > accept it today as a remarkable work of art? I don't think so. Its > production was very much tied to its time. Its importance is equally > tied to its time of production. It represents a break from its own > contemporary tradition - but not even a drastic break. It falls within > its own contemporary explorations into african art (which had already > been pursued by Ingres, in his own manner and had also influenced the > likes of Manet.... but we could go on forever). Picasso was not the > only one exploring these avenues. But that is beyond my point. We live > in a time. Yes, the period is supposed to be there. We live in a time. > It is our time. As Lilly Allen stated, “No, you can't have my number > 'cause I lost my phone.” Lost my phone? When I was her age, my phone > never left my home! But times change. We live in an age where you may > “lose your phone”. And what goes with losing your phone? You lose > your identity! No... you don't. Your identity is as secure as you made > it... what?... your username was the same as your password? You > idio.... you dear, dear child. > I reviewed the work of an “internet artist” recently. Oh... here we > go... someone addressing his time, his culture! He uses the fact that > contemporary culture has provided us a plethora of personal imagery. > This is good. His website contains compelling images of his own > manipulations of images. His own manipulations of images.... his own > man... Excuse me, what are you doing to these images? How are you > choosing these images. Yes, your end results are compelling but what > is your process? That would be far more compelling. Please don't tell > me that you lost your phone. The only thing that truly speakes to your > time, is your method. And you choose to veil that behind the eye-candy > of your output? Um... ok. > As I drunkenly leave my seat to explore the opportunities provided me > by a destructive cannon of highly inflammabale tobacco, I deplore you > to consider the issues; what exactly defines our time? Our culture? I > think Lily Allen hit the nail on the head for her target group. As you > consider where we might be, I'll be out on the stoop, smoking a > cigarette. I expect a coherent answer when I get back. > -- > ***************************** > Pall Thayer > artist > http://pallthayer.dyndns.org > ***************************** > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > Simon Biggs [email protected] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk [email protected] Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/ _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
