Re: [-empyre-] always negotiating
Le 12/10/2010 14:27, gh hovagimyan a écrit : All art is a negotiation of some sort. Unless the artist is a hermit or an art Naif or Art Brut, art is made with an eye to context. It's also about the patron. For some artists the patron is the university. They make art that reflects the academic environment. For some artists the patron is the non-profit alternative spaces. Of course there is also the gallery/museum/market system which is a big patron. All of these patronage systems are negotiated with during the process of art creation. I had hoped that the internet would present a new system that was not of these existing systems. That was the case with the early internet but now it's been subsumed. Personally I'm always looking for a way around these systems. I know one must negotiate but each system has it's restraints which inhibit the free flowing creative process. One of the principals of creativity is to engage these systems and enlarge their scope to include your own point of view and discourse. That appears to be the negotiation of which you speak. I totally agree with you about this point. And precisely, making art outside of these systems, at one time or another, is the only way to allow their evolution, their transformation. There is a need for every system to transform itself by exchanging some sorts of things through their frontier. Systems are not autonomous, like wrote JB Labrune in another mail in this thread, we know they always exist in an environment. What can be considered at this point is the permeability of the systems frontiers, how frontiers are maintained from within and from outside a given system. Land art remains for me a good example of such an art practice, just like Net art. These practices also have created their own systems, and now we can play in intervals. -- Yann Le Guennec http://www.yannleguennec.com/ ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] always negotiating
All art is a negotiation of some sort. Unless the artist is a hermit or an art Naif or Art Brut, art is made with an eye to context. It's also about the patron. For some artists the patron is the university. They make art that reflects the academic environment. For some artists the patron is the non-profit alternative spaces. Of course there is also the gallery/museum/market system which is a big patron. All of these patronage systems are negotiated with during the process of art creation. I had hoped that the internet would present a new system that was not of these existing systems. That was the case with the early internet but now it's been subsumed. Personally I'm always looking for a way around these systems. I know one must negotiate but each system has it's restraints which inhibit the free flowing creative process. One of the principals of creativity is to engage these systems and enlarge their scope to include your own point of view and discourse. That appears to be the negotiation of which you speak. On Oct 11, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Renate Ferro wrote: Would you agree that there is always a negotiation in the process of art making? ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] always negotiating
My response was to this comment that Lorna made: The problem with Rancière's aesthetics as politics is that he seems to be utterly unaware of the technology that, Stiegler says, defines the human and the present. In a recent conversation with Rancière I asked him where were new media and techné, and the 21st century, in his thinking, and he said to me that he is not Bernard Stiegler and there was a difference of opinion. When I asked Stiegler what his philosophy would say to Rancière's he said that Rancière's 'partage du sensible' had no sense of sharing the distribution of virtual reality or cyberspace, et cetera. Now this is politics... We did not invite Rancière to this year's colloquium, this year the theoretical focus is on Stiegler. But we want to impress the sensuous over the theoretical, the making and doing rather than get involved in French politics... To privilege the sensuous over the theoretical and the making over the doing would be impossible for me. Instead I suggested a negotiation. Renate On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 8:27 AM, gh hovagimyan g...@thing.net wrote: All art is a negotiation of some sort. Unless the artist is a hermit or an art Naif or Art Brut, art is made with an eye to context. It's also about the patron. For some artists the patron is the university. They make art that reflects the academic environment. For some artists the patron is the non-profit alternative spaces. Of course there is also the gallery/museum/market system which is a big patron. All of these patronage systems are negotiated with during the process of art creation. I had hoped that the internet would present a new system that was not of these existing systems. That was the case with the early internet but now it's been subsumed. Personally I'm always looking for a way around these systems. I know one must negotiate but each system has it's restraints which inhibit the free flowing creative process. One of the principals of creativity is to engage these systems and enlarge their scope to include your own point of view and discourse. That appears to be the negotiation of which you speak. On Oct 11, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Renate Ferro wrote: Would you agree that there is always a negotiation in the process of art making? ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
[-empyre-] always negotiating
snip But we want to impress the sensuous over the theoretical, the making and doing rather than get involved in French politics...snip Dear all, As an artist and curator I am not so much interested in isolating out the practical, the theoretical/philosophical, or the the political. I am much more interested in the possibilities that exist in negotiating between those factors and any others that may come up. As an artist I am involved in the negotiating between variations of the material and the immaterial, the visual and the synaesthetic, the private and the public, the cultural and the political, not setting these delineations up as dichotomies but finding the nuanced gestural, performative spaces between them. Recently I have been influenced by our recent guests, Kevin Hamilton https://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/2009-May/001613.html who identifies himself as a researcher and Erin Manning https://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/2009-May/001613.html who characterizes her process as research-creation. These two artists and others while being influenced by models in Science and Technology also are influenced by philosophy and language based models. Additionally the work of (also guests on empyre) Millie Chen https://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/2009-May/001613.html, Ricardo Dominguez, and Teddy Cruz whose practices integrate social responsibility, culture, and politics into the core of their practice/production. I am troubled at this time that we attempt to separate out these paradigms by privileging one over the rest. Would you agree that there is always a negotiation in the process of art making? More a little later. Renate ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
