First, thanks for the exchange!
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Rob Myers wrote:
On 26/01/14 06:05 PM, Alan Sondheim wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014, Rob Myers wrote:
Not that different; again I think it's an issue of "families of usages"
re: Wittgenstein, reception theory, and so forth. For a while, Ukiyo-e
was used as wrapping paper in Japan; manuscripts are found in the spines
of 19th-century and earlier books. Audiences - for Mez, my work, leet,
Joyce, etc. etc. are complex and variable; Pound needs decoding
(deliberately so), as does Chaucer (vagaries of changing language).
Skaldic kennings are perhaps the densest linguistic form, and so forth.
Certainly even objects manufactured as art may not be recognised as art
in different contexts and may be later recovered. Ukiyo-e's import and
impact as wrapping paper is interesting IMO because it was recovered.
This recoverability interests me. I like Art & Language's comment about
the "impertinence" of objects that *look* like art.
I have the feeling that A&L _believed_ in _art_ as a category and I think
that the term/domain is increasingly problematic. Aesthetic feeling
doesn't necessarily imply 'art' and art, I think, has moved from a
discursive formation, in many ways, to a system of competitive corporate
structures. Even so, there's no longer an 'art world' - if there ever was
- but 'art worlds' - the family of usages again. So to reify art as a
category seems either a bit senseless, or bound to particular notions of
art history.
I'd love to create a computer simulation of a world in which it was
possible to move a Urinal from the non-art to art contexts and back
again to see how its inhabitants react, but that's both science fiction
and probably slightly cruel. :-)
See above - art/non-art aren't in opposition - only if you insist on a
formal (wester) (urban) (etc.) art-history of a particular sort. One of
the great things happening now is that, other than the blue-chip gallery
enclave, everything is much more open, and we might actually get to the
point where aesthetic feeling doesn't need to be quite so institutional-
ized.
An aesthetic sense or instinct or imperative, then?
It fascinates me that the idea of aesthetic sense has been applied - or
discovered - across organisms, at least fauna; it's been noted that some
insects respond strongly to symmetric mates, and you find aesthetics
playing a large role among birds and mammals for example. We humans just
have a hard time looking -
I've just read "Color, Facture, Art And Design" (highly recommended)
which is largely a history of grounds and pigments and how they relate
to the social content of painting. This kind of technical-conceptual
integration, is what I am arguing for in this discussion.
Again, it depends on audience; the integration may or may not be
necessary; certainly, for example, among Chinese classical painters,
there were wide variations in their and others' writings in relation to
the work - there's no one way at all.
There is inertia and overlap though.
Yes -
If we step back to a realm where there is no art and only audience
capabilities applied to various objects, then those capabilities become
the proper subjects of the study of art history or theory.
I'd argue for a different way of thinking; art history, including A@L etc.
always seemed over-determined. One thing comes to mind - Bourieu's book
Distinction, which deals well with plurality in this regard. -
Despite having read a lot of history of art recently that all but
dissolves the concept in its sociohistorical determinants like a tooth
in cola I'm still interested in A&L's "impertinent" objects.
I do like the idea of code given on request. I've only ever written
occasional code once, and I erased it after using its output.
- This is maybe an important point; I'm not a programmer but a poor
kludger. On the other hand I've found coders incredibly generous and love
the idea of collaboration, which at least among institutions I know such
as Eyebeam or here in Providence, AS220, is becoming more and more
prevalent.
I enjoy rewriting systems in different languages. It's a kind of
platonism, I guess. :-)
At my poor level, I've enjoyed varieties of the "Hello World" type in
different languages - but then I'm also interested in natural languages
the same way.
I'm currently tracking down old interactive multimedia CD-ROMs to run in
my Mac emulator, and I have Anderson's "Puppet Motel" on the list...
k1% date
Sun Jan 26 21:04:19 EST 2014
- look at that! Just typing "date" connects us to the universe in a way
absolutely inconceivable before digital media and code came along. (I
know the roots are far messier than this; this is just my own sense of
wonder.)
I do love that. And a sense of wonder is a big part of what it's all
about, for me.
Our networked computer systems synch their time over the network to
timeservers that synch to atomic clocks, and the concept of time then
gets a bit strange.
But as 'much universal as possible' - and think how amazing that is!
I keep trying to find the source for an old John Carmack quote in which
he describes having the epiphany that "time is just another event" in a
computer game.
Of course it took time to say that - Writing, the thief of time...
- Alan
- Rob.
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
