Hi Bob It looks as though their talent is in performance - so their last 40 years of work has been one continuous performance, where they portray themselves as english gents, rather comical, very thomas like, hinge & bracket, and at the same time make pictures that look like their making political statement. But they're not making political statements I think because the political aspect for them is merely part of the game they are playing - are they fascists or socialists - based on their lifestyle, their pictures and their interviews to the press. In that way their work , though it may look as though it's making some sort of social comment, is really more about aesthetics, and so though it looks political, it's not - it's fake. There's no feeling there - nothing to say. Social comment aesthetics without the comment.
dave On 16 March 2012 23:43, bob catchpole <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 concerns the 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 _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
