Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening Standard yesterday
At least I thought G&G part of the corporate artworld back then - Castelli and Sonnabend were the NY powerhouses. - Alan == eyebeam: http://eyebeam.org/blogs/alansondheim/ email archive http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/ web http://www.alansondheim.org / cell 347-383-8552 music: http://www.espdisk.com/alansondheim/ current text http://www.alansondheim.org/ri.txt == ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening Standard yesterday
G&G have been part of the corporate art world since at least the late 70's, even if they didn't know it (I think they did). As that world has become more obscenely commercial those associated with it have acquire the same patina (of shit). Some artists bailed out of that horror as they saw what was happening. Other's chose to remain in the system. The former might have kept some of their dignity whilst some of the latter made a lot of money. What is one's dignity worth? best Simon On 14 Mar 2012, at 23:12, manik wrote: > ...it's not insignificant to tell that 40 years ago G&G weren't part of some > 'corporate art'...world was different and beside CIA art/see M.Andre > memories and interviews/most of artist were naive enough to believe that art > could change The World...but power of spin doctors was faster than huge > and,in hierarchy,conservative 'world of art'...corporatation 'see' faster > and better because they bought best people in that branch...G&G became > symbol of sexual hipper-freedom/in compare with hippie sex. > revolution/...same as Hearst take death and pills,body of death and > 'medicine body'/beside 'body of low-you must identify you self in quart of > low,body of termination/with numbers and lists/...and so on...'corporative > art' make mental simulation of danger,body of animal/ Oleg Kulik- > man-dog/...no matter is he state or corporate artist he have specific rule > in system of power distribution...Ai Wei.. make fake ancient jar with cola > sign on it and with this work he melt West and Chinese art in something > new...beside-that new is more 'Neo-Modern' in 'look' than post-modern...all > those things belong to 'power of corporation/of course you should considered > some state as *corporation*,why not/...idealistic projection about artist in > cave who reach nirvana/art by meditation is really story for kids...like > mine who picking from soil some new and exclusive issue will find reflexion > in some art form...maybe last two genial painters/people who make miracle > with colors and brashes-L.Freud and Basquiat are dead/...theres so many > interesting artists who are very good with what they do/Chinese who have > people who laugh,with same expression on face,Yoyoi, Koons...and many > other...world today is full of good artists and good art...but not more than > that...but that *more* was from Gioto,or Rublev something we looking for in > art...MANIK...MARCH...2012... > - Original Message - > From: "Rob Myers" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 9:02 PM > Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening > Standard yesterday > > > On 14/03/12 12:03, dave miller wrote: >> Here's an article arguing that G&G are not fascists: >> http://www.newmediastudies.com/art/gilbert.htm >> >> and an interview "We are searching for the truth" >> http://www.jca-online.com/gilbertandgeorge.html > > I really, really, really do believe that they are acting, and that they > decided to do so four decades ago. I admire their constancy. And I think > that they are aesthetically interesting because of their social > aesthetics. This is perilously close to them being interesting because > of their politics, but I plead irony in their defence. > > I also believe that this is not in any way above criticism given how the > world has changed in the last four decades. > > - Rob. > ___ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > ___ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > Simon Biggs si...@littlepig.org.uk http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk s.bi...@ed.ac.uk 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 NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening Standard yesterday
...it's not insignificant to tell that 40 years ago G&G weren't part of some 'corporate art'...world was different and beside CIA art/see M.Andre memories and interviews/most of artist were naive enough to believe that art could change The World...but power of spin doctors was faster than huge and,in hierarchy,conservative 'world of art'...corporatation 'see' faster and better because they bought best people in that branch...G&G became symbol of sexual hipper-freedom/in compare with hippie sex. revolution/...same as Hearst take death and pills,body of death and 'medicine body'/beside 'body of low-you must identify you self in quart of low,body of termination/with numbers and lists/...and so on...'corporative art' make mental simulation of danger,body of animal/ Oleg Kulik- man-dog/...no matter is he state or corporate artist he have specific rule in system of power distribution...Ai Wei.. make fake ancient jar with cola sign on it and with this work he melt West and Chinese art in something new...beside-that new is more 'Neo-Modern' in 'look' than post-modern...all those things belong to 'power of corporation/of course you should considered some state as *corporation*,why not/...idealistic projection about artist in cave who reach nirvana/art by meditation is really story for kids...like mine who picking from soil some new and exclusive issue will find reflexion in some art form...maybe last two genial painters/people who make miracle with colors and brashes-L.Freud and Basquiat are dead/...theres so many interesting artists who are very good with what they do/Chinese who have people who laugh,with same expression on face,Yoyoi, Koons...and many other...world today is full of good artists and good art...but not more than that...but that *more* was from Gioto,or Rublev something we looking for in art...MANIK...MARCH...2012... - Original Message - From: "Rob Myers" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 9:02 PM Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening Standard yesterday On 14/03/12 12:03, dave miller wrote: > Here's an article arguing that G&G are not fascists: > http://www.newmediastudies.com/art/gilbert.htm > > and an interview "We are searching for the truth" > http://www.jca-online.com/gilbertandgeorge.html I really, really, really do believe that they are acting, and that they decided to do so four decades ago. I admire their constancy. And I think that they are aesthetically interesting because of their social aesthetics. This is perilously close to them being interesting because of their politics, but I plead irony in their defence. I also believe that this is not in any way above criticism given how the world has changed in the last four decades. - Rob. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening Standard yesterday
On 14/03/12 16:26, Alan Sondheim wrote: > > otoh, Hirst & Co. seem, at least from the US, > to have lost whatever panache they had. The American artworld gossip blogs I read always compare Hirst unfavourably to Koons. I think this is necessary in order to ignore the debt they both owe to German art of the 1970s. I loved Hirst's early art, and I think that his diamond skull will be re-evaluated in the coming decades. His painting won't (and nor will Koons', however much I love most of his sculpture). The irony of the cringeworthy multinational-teasing nationalism of """yBA""" art is that it slipstreams the art of the country of our least favourite national football team in a way that looks better in reproduction than in reality. - Rob. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening Standard yesterday
On 14/03/12 12:03, dave miller wrote: > Here's an article arguing that G&G are not fascists: > http://www.newmediastudies.com/art/gilbert.htm > > and an interview "We are searching for the truth" > http://www.jca-online.com/gilbertandgeorge.html I really, really, really do believe that they are acting, and that they decided to do so four decades ago. I admire their constancy. And I think that they are aesthetically interesting because of their social aesthetics. This is perilously close to them being interesting because of their politics, but I plead irony in their defence. I also believe that this is not in any way above criticism given how the world has changed in the last four decades. - Rob. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening Standard yesterday
they were outdated dandies right from the beginning - it was clear at the
performances. they kept themselves to themselves and at least then it was
also clear that what they were giving out was image. as far as taken
seriously, given the discussion here, they seem to still be capable of
hitting nerves. otoh, Hirst & Co. seem, at least from the US, to have lost
whatever panache they had. but then I was never a fan of theirs.
re: ethics, you're right - the debate is moot; I personally think the
foundations are moot as well. so there's a place for an ideological chora
to repeatedly work itself out, exhaust itself.
- Alan
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012, Paul Hertz wrote:
The review does shed some light on G&G's practice, I think. From the very
beginning they have been playing a role. It's hard to conceive of them as
outright Fascists or even heavy right-wingers. Maybe as outdated dandies
playing outdated dandies, a difficult role to sustain and still be taken
seriously.
The tension between aesthetics and ethics is an old one. In his exclusion of
poets from his his republic, Plato recognized the problematic nature of
aesthetic freedom. Millennia later, Diderot and Baudelaire took opposing
positions on the moral qualities of art. Baudelaire's point of view?there is
no necessary connection?has largely won out, though one might argue it makes
aesthetic freedom an ethical position.
-- Paul
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Michael Szpakowski
wrote:
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
To: bob catchpole ; NetBehaviour for
networked distributed creativity
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
To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
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
To: bob catchpole
Cc: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
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
To: Michael Szpakowski ; NetBehaviour for
networked distributed creativity
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 ther
Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening Standard yesterday
The review does shed some light on G&G's practice, I think. From the very
beginning they have been playing a role. It's hard to conceive of them as
outright Fascists or even heavy right-wingers. Maybe as outdated dandies
playing outdated dandies, a difficult role to sustain and still be taken
seriously.
The tension between aesthetics and ethics is an old one. In his exclusion
of poets from his his republic, Plato recognized the problematic nature of
aesthetic freedom. Millennia later, Diderot and Baudelaire took opposing
positions on the moral qualities of art. Baudelaire's point of view—there
is no necessary connection—has largely won out, though one might argue it
makes aesthetic freedom an ethical position.
-- Paul
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
> 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
> *To:* bob catchpole ; NetBehaviour for
> networked distributed creativity
> *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
> *To:* NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity <
> netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org>
> *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
> *To:* bob catchpole
> *Cc:* NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity <
> netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org>
> *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
> *To:* Michael Szpakowski ; NetBehaviour for networked
> distributed creativity
> *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
> *To:* NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity <
> netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org>
> *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 a
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
To: bob catchpole ; NetBehaviour for networked
distributed creativity
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
To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
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
>To: bob catchpole
>Cc: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
>
>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
>To: Michael Szpakowski ; NetBehaviour for networked
>distributed creativity
>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
>>To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
>>
>>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
>>To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
>>
>>Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 11:00 AM
>>Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening
>>Standa
[NetBehaviour] Prisonhouse of Age
Prisonhouse of Age Something has to be said about age and ageism, which is so pervasive in our culture, that we're held down, tied up, unable to move. I'm told I look good for my age; that I play like a much younger person. In a performance I hear that a dancer, who died at 68, was in the middle of the end of her life. A friend says that his uncle dying at the age of 72, is quite old. Grandfathers and grandmothers on tv always look to retirement and playing with the kids. Television ads are increasingly aimed towards drugging us, those over 60 say, because of a variety of ailments we don't have. We're frightened of falling and not getting up. We're no longer mid-career artists, but a dying generation. We're waiting for the end. Friends say that now we're waiting for us to die off, that every day brings news of new deaths and again this isn't true. The rhetoric is hurtful and isn't meant to be hurtful. The rhetoric is made out of bits and pieces of the 'natural' progression from birth to death. We're the AARP generation. We're the baby boomers are are demanding to suck social welfare dry. We don't do anything. We're not worth listening to. We're hippies and repeat the 60s. We just love listening to 60s music which formed us. We're part of the social welfare state. Some of us who fought in Vietnam are an embarrassment. Some of us who didn't are an embarrassment. On tv we're told that 'all we have is our stories.' If this happened to anyone at any age, the result would be unbearable. We're not taken seriously. We're all waiting for us to pass away. We have to prove ourselves repeatedly. We're the result of hidden prejudice. We're on the way to dementia. We're on the way to Alzheimer's. We're told our short-term memory isn't what it used to be. In the most well-meaning areas of popular culture, we're forgetful. Our bones are weak and ready to fracture. We have to exercise more. Our family has to be everything. We're not eligible for grants and for jobs. We're eligible to die and the sooner we do that, the less the embarrassment. In fact embarrassment is the key to everything; we embarrass others. If we're sexual it's a joke. If we remarry it's a joke. If we refuse our assigned place in the family it's a joke. I first ran into ageism at the age of 30, applying for a job as editor of an art mag in Los Angeles. I've always been sensitive to it because I've always been told I look and act 'younger than my age.' Now the violence of age, an assigned number, a number we can't do anything about - almost but not quite like the color of our skin - is foregrounded. I get turned down for jobs because of it, illegal but of course there are always ways around it. My own feeling? If I can't do something now, just as if I couldn't do something at 20, then so be it; I don't belong where doing that thing is impossible. But otherwise, leave me alone, judge me on what I make, what I say, and leave goddamn age out of it. Don't call me a generation and don't tell me my best days are behind me. Don't tell me I'm in my golden years. This may all seem minor, idiotic, to you. You have no idea, at least in the US, how pervasive this is. There are pockets of resistance - Eyebeam for example, where I was resident until a week or two ago, is a healthy exception. But almost everywhere, the codes are in place, they're suffocating. I'm offered seats on the subway - because of age, not because I need them. People condescent, smile at me, since apparently I'm no longer sexual, have no desires, know my place. I'm told I'm a child again, that the elderly are child-like. I'm told I'm living on borrowed time. I'm told there's not much time left. I'm told I should be grateful. I'm told I have a loving family. I'm told my grandchildren are my future. I'm told my children are my future. I'm told I have no future. I'm told about generations, that I'm of this or that generation, that it's now the turn of a new generation. I'm told what our generation thinks and I can't recognize that. I'm told repeatedly that we were born before the digital age, that we think differently. The fact this isn't true, none of this is true, with people I know and I'm sure millions of people in this country, is irrelevant. I'm lectured _to._ I'm talked _to._ I'm taken out of the realm of instrumental thinking, consigned to a real which is a total mirage, told to act my age and behave myself. People don't tell me to retire, but they assume I'm headed that way. My theoretical work is assumed dated, somewhere back probably with existentialism or Bateson. My mind is supposedly elderly. Am I repeating myself? Did I forget something here? Should I send a birthday gift? Should I ask a grandson or daughter to drive for me, since I'm constantly running off the road? Should I start preparing for the end? Should I become a consumer of culture, preferably old tv shows and books, instead of a producer? It's remarkable how well I look for my age! It's remarkable I haven't had any m
Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening Standard yesterday
Here's an article arguing that G&G are not fascists:
http://www.newmediastudies.com/art/gilbert.htm
and an interview "We are searching for the truth"
http://www.jca-online.com/gilbertandgeorge.html
dave
On 14 March 2012 11:06, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
> 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
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
>
> 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
> To: bob catchpole
> Cc: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
>
> 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
> To: Michael Szpakowski ; NetBehaviour for networked
> distributed creativity
> 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
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
>
> 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
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
>
> 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 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
>> fo
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
To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
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
>To: bob catchpole
>Cc: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
>
>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
>To: Michael Szpakowski ; NetBehaviour for networked
>distributed creativity
>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
>>To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
>>
>>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
>>To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
>>
>>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 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 mu
