Michael,
My interest in G&G these days is minimal. Their originality was inventing
themselves as a kind of British version of Laurel and Hardy - their droll,
deadpan performances offered welcome amusement and projected them as a new
breed of artists. Unfortunately, the clunky 'gallery art' they've produced
subsequently has revealed their talent was confined to performance.
My interest in this thread concernsthe tension between ethics and aesthetics in
a work of art, maybe a discussion that goes back to the ancient Greeks and
beyond. I believe this relationship is inherent, unavoidable, inseparable and
observable in all art forms. It's also mysterious. It has little to do with
'legitimate topics around which to build art' because it's workings is usually
unconscious even to the creators.
Bob
>________________________________
> From: Michael Szpakowski <[email protected]>
>To: Michael Szpakowski <[email protected]>; NetBehaviour for networked
>distributed creativity <[email protected]>
>Sent: Wednesday, 14 March 2012, 14:28
>Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening
>Standard yesterday
>
>
>I think I should clarify - I'm certainly not saying that politics, ethics,
>morality aren't legitimate topics around which to build art, not indeed that
>all art that contains a sense of position is in some way bad..
>I'm arguing against there being a *necessary* connection between an artist's
>political views, ehtical standards or personal conduct and the artistic
>success or failure of her work...
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Michael Szpakowski <[email protected]>
>To: bob catchpole <[email protected]>; NetBehaviour for networked
>distributed creativity <[email protected]>
>Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 11:06 AM
>Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening
>Standard yesterday
>
>
>There's a very interesting - nearly hidden nowadays - history of discussion,
>debate and more on this.
>
>
>Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot & more all demanded a politico/ethical dimension to art
>(see "socialist realism" which, of course, was neither socialist not realist )
>with horrifying results.
>
>
>In contrast, Trotsky, thoughout his life and Lenin, at the end of his, both
>argued against attempts to embed ethico/political positions in art.
>
>
>Unfortunately even amongst those who abhor the Stalinist tradition in all
>other respects there is still huge confusion on the question.
>I put this down to art, quite understandably, not being seen in the first rank
>of importance when one is engaged in a life and death struggle for the
>survival of an authentic Marxist politics of human liberation as opposed to
>its Stalinist/Maoist negation...
>( although even at "midnight in the century", with the seemingly inexorable
>rise of Hitler and Stalin and the reduction of the voices of authentic Marxism
>to a few hundred, Trostky was involved in discussions and joint writings with
>Breton about art and freedom)
>
>
>
>Any of Trotsky's writings on art repay reading as does the tremendous "Art as
>the Coginiton of Life" by Voronsky...
>
>
>cheers
>michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: bob catchpole <[email protected]>
>To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
><[email protected]>
>Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 7:35 AM
>Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening
>Standard yesterday
>
>
>Michael,
>
>
>
>You make an intriguing and thought-provoking point which I'm going to have
to ponder further. I've always seen values ('ethics') inherent in the
form and sensibility of artistic work. For example, I'm not surprised
that much of the work G&G have produced in the last two decades has
been visually 'fascistic'.
>
>
>Bob
>
>
>
>>________________________________
>> From: Michael Szpakowski <[email protected]>
>>To: bob catchpole <[email protected]>
>>Cc: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
>><[email protected]>
>>Sent: Sunday, 11 March 2012, 18:09
>>Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening
>>Standard yesterday
>>
>>
>>Absolutely - in art that's worth the name, and, of course, there's the rub...
>>
>>Marx's favourite author? Balzac, reactionary monarchist.
>>
>>Why? because his complex, subtle and careful work embodied truths about the
>>world *despite* his politics.
>>cheers
>>michael
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>> From: bob catchpole <[email protected]>
>>To: Michael Szpakowski <[email protected]>; NetBehaviour for networked
>>distributed creativity <[email protected]>
>>Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 5:30 PM
>>Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening
>>Standard yesterday
>>
>>
>>Michael,
>>
>>Are you suggesting that there's no connection between ethics and aesthetics
>>in the work artists produce?
>>
>>
>>Bob
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>________________________________
>>> From: Michael Szpakowski <[email protected]>
>>>To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
>>><[email protected]>
>>>Sent: Saturday, 10 March 2012, 13:57
>>>Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening
>>>Standard yesterday
>>>
>>>
>>>There's no equation, unfortunately, between good (by which I mean left)
>>>politics and good art.
>>>There are some artists with rotten politics who repay repeated, even
>>>lifelong, attention as artists.
>>>Morandi, fascist sympathiser, is one of them.
>>>There are some artists you'd trust with your life, politically, who are
>>>deadly dull as artists.
>>>
>>>I saw the huge Gilbert and George retrospective at the Tate a couple of
>>>years back and it was one of the most excruciatingly dull experiences of my
>>>life, though "excruciatingly" makes it sound several degrees more attention
>>>grabbing than it actually was.
>>>My beef with G & G is they make very dull art on an industrial scale.
>>>It hasn't always been the case - I love their early moving image stuff...
>>>
>>>
>>>For me there's something about good art, whatever the personality or views
>>>of the originator, that is inherently liberating, but that's another and
>>>longer discussion...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>cheers
>>>michael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>________________________________
>>> From: dave miller <[email protected]>
>>>To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
>>><[email protected]>
>>>Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 11:00 AM
>>>Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening
>>>Standard yesterday
>>>
>>>Hi Rob
>>>
>>>This makes sense to me - Gilbert and George have become the Terry
>>>Thomases of the art world.
>>>
>>>dabe
>>>
>>>On 6 March 2012 19:31, Rob Myers <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 06/03/12 17:03, marc garrett wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's obvious that G&G are elitists, and would not wish to lose
>>>>> any income from their bourgeois client base.
>>>>
>>>> Their original artistic gesture was to conflate aesthetic and social
>>>> form. This was interesting but over time it has led to their public
>>>> pronouncements increasingly being bad form, in the Terry-Thomas sense.
>>>>
>>>>> Who gives a shit whether they work from 5. am or not - many work just as
>>>>> hard for much less, and are losing their jobs, communities, and much
>>>>> more - they are not
relevant.
>>>>
>>>> Yes hard work is not
sufficient to explain personal wealth, whatever the
>>>> psychological needs of the rich or indeed the simply not impoverished.
>>>>
>>>> - Rob.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>NetBehaviour mailing list
>>>[email protected]
>>>http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>NetBehaviour mailing list
>>>[email protected]
>>>http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>NetBehaviour mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>NetBehaviour mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>NetBehaviour mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
>_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
