Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening Standard yesterday
G&G are Anglo-Italian. Laurel and Hardy were Anglo-American.
best
Simon
On 16 Mar 2012, at 23:43, bob catchpole 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
> To: Michael Szpakowski ; NetBehaviour for networked
> distributed creativity
> 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
> 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 i
Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening Standard yesterday
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 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
> To: Michael Szpakowski ; NetBehaviour for networked
> distributed creativity
> 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
> 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
> &
Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening Standard yesterday
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
>To: Michael Szpakowski ; NetBehaviour for networked
>distributed creativity
>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
>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 netwo
Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening Standard yesterday
did someone mention withnail & i? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zjhlZhAov0 ___ 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
40 years of irony. On Mar 15, 2012 8:18 PM, "Fung-Lin Hall" wrote: > Gilbert && George - I saw them perform at Soho Gallery long ago in the > late 80's. > I linked their ten commandments here.. UK funny guys 2006 blog archive. > http://www.mutanteggplant.com/vitro-nasu/2006/11/30/uk-funny-guys/ > UK mountain bikers visiting Arizona, Whitnail and I , Gilbert & George, > David Shrigley etc..( apologies for a few dead links..) > > > Cheers! > Fung Lin Hall > > > > ___ > 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
Gilbert && George - I saw them perform at Soho Gallery long ago in the late 80's. I linked their ten commandments here.. UK funny guys 2006 blog archive. http://www.mutanteggplant.com/vitro-nasu/2006/11/30/uk-funny-guys/ UK mountain bikers visiting Arizona, Whitnail and I , Gilbert & George, David Shrigley etc..( apologies for a few dead links..) Cheers! Fung Lin Hall ___ 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 Thu, 15 Mar 2012, Rob Myers wrote: > Also, I'm sure they're being ironic. I'm just not sure when. > > - Rob. > ___ - which I think is part of their brilliance. ___ 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 15/03/12 12:47, John Wild wrote: > Curiously G&G have attended the London Anarchist Book fair a number of > times and have left small - £20 - tokens of their appreciation for Class > War. > > Maybe it’s a payment for all the stickers and graff they have cooped > into their work. Or maybe they just like young anarco skinheads. Conservatism is more amenable to camp than socialism. Also, I'm sure they're being ironic. I'm just not sure when. - 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
Maybe they're being ironic? dave On 15 March 2012 12:47, John Wild wrote: > Curiously G&G have attended the London Anarchist Book fair a number of times > and have left small - £20 - tokens of their appreciation for Class War. > > > > Maybe it’s a payment for all the stickers and graff they have cooped into > their work. Or maybe they just like young anarco skinheads. > > > > Curious Though. > > > > -- > > > // johnwild.info // > > > ___ > 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
[NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening Standard yesterday
Curiously G&G have attended the London Anarchist Book fair a number of times and have left small - £20 - tokens of their appreciation for Class War. Maybe it’s a payment for all the stickers and graff they have cooped into their work. Or maybe they just like young anarco skinheads. Curious Though. -- // johnwild.info // ___ 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
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
Sen
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 dis
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...
>>
>>
>&g
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
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 b
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 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
>>> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>___
>>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
>>
>>
>
>
>
>___
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
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 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 >> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >___ >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 > >___ 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
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 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 >> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >___ >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 > >___ 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
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 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 > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ 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
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 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 > 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
- Original Message - From: "Rob Myers" To: Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 10:01 PM Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening Standard yesterday On 06/03/12 22:41, manik wrote: > > so...Gilbert & George are Buddhas of ''Corporation Art'' same as I love this description. -Nice gentlemans:) > Damien,Hockney,...name them...of course there's people who still believe > in > art but it's better for them to change name of their work...instead 'art' > they could name that as 'techne'...it's not important to make REVOLUTION > on > the first place...for beginning it's good to make revolution in language > of > revolution/you could replace word 'revolution' with word > 'art'/techne/...MANIK...MARCH...2012... I think it's not so important to name what you are doing as you do it. The name may be a limit. -How can we wrote novel without words?In my new novel all other novels are pure,white paper.But my own novel is full of words!Contradictio in adjecto:) But I dp cling to "art", although I doubt many people would regard much of what I do or like as art. :-) -We find that question is about goes on the other side.Sometime like that,sometime like That.Same as Andy get Nole last time,but next time..hm...life's short and sensless.And tragic ...too... - 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 06/03/12 22:41, manik wrote: > > so...Gilbert & George are Buddhas of ''Corporation Art'' same as I love this description. > Damien,Hockney,...name them...of course there's people who still believe in > art but it's better for them to change name of their work...instead 'art' > they could name that as 'techne'...it's not important to make REVOLUTION on > the first place...for beginning it's good to make revolution in language of > revolution/you could replace word 'revolution' with word > 'art'/techne/...MANIK...MARCH...2012... I think it's not so important to name what you are doing as you do it. The name may be a limit. But I dp cling to "art", although I doubt many people would regard much of what I do or like as art. :-) - 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
...Gilbert & George are artists whose 'golden time' was at the end of 60-ies...and...so on... until recent time...meanwhile art became something meta-aesthetic...one part's ''Foundation art'' who was paid from sponsors who want to see how particular 'art' problem could influence in some specific society/for example in society in transition/...some foundations like 'ProHelvetia' , 'Soros open society fond'...etc...trough form of 'social research','workshops' and similar ideologematic activism try to establish kind of culture close to one which they thing it's proper for that/particular/society...artist as indivudal,Subject of his own art became mouse in one great laboratory caled''Foundation Art''...for they *work*those,so called 'artist' get some $ depend from which country they are/maybe you cold remember few Bulgarian artist who were popular during the 90-ies/at least in Balcan/...now we can't even remember their names...one of them claim that ''he is best artist in Bulgaria because he 'make' more than 100 000$ from different foundation with his participation in some regional exhibitions''/that's also art,oh,yes!/...now he hardly can remember his own name...he do his job,Bulgaria became part of EU and nobody need his art anymore...more interesting's case with ''Corporation Art''...Marina Abramovic was interesting artist who start carrier in Belgrade during late 60-ies...every sense that time she was good performing artist but she/in her word:'spend much more time siting on the phone and collecting money than working art'...all that's chan'ge in one exhibition in Sarajevo in mid 90-ies during the civil war in former Yugoslavia..she give her work and her carrier from one of good/even very good/example of 'Foundation Art' became part of ''Corporation art''...it's not so hard to make that small step...just give up from your people and take another flag...but it wasn't act of leaving her art,or make it better...i find her work in last two decade interesting in one level-it's very fanny...i mean realy funny in sense i laugh when i look at her work...it's still art..of course...why not...but who is going to show pain,solitude,desperate/?/...i'm sure Marina is not the one... so...Gilbert & George are Buddhas of ''Corporation Art'' same as Damien,Hockney,...name them...of course there's people who still believe in art but it's better for them to change name of their work...instead 'art' they could name that as 'techne'...it's not important to make REVOLUTION on the first place...for beginning it's good to make revolution in language of revolution/you could replace word 'revolution' with word 'art'/techne/...MANIK...MARCH...2012... - Original Message - From: "marc garrett" To: "NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity" Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 6:03 PM Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening Standard yesterday Hi Dave, Why anyone would listen to or even give their opinions any weight is beyond me. I think it's obvious that G&G are elitists, and would not wish to lose any income from their bourgeois client base. They are on the side of the exploiters - it's good business sense as far as they are concerned. 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. wishing you well. marc > http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/arts/visual-arts/wed-rather-side-with-the-bankers-than-some-vegan-protester-twit-on-benefits-say-gilbert-and-george-7537242.html > "By the mid-Seventies they were already a fully fledged double-act. > Sexually libertarian, revolutionary even, they have always been > politically conservative and are harsh judges of those who do not > share their work ethic. They both dismiss the St Paul’s protesters as > “hippies” and “idiots” and would rather side with the bankers than > “some vegan twit on benefits”, they think Boris Johnson is “a > wonderful modern person” and believe fiercely in “making money”. > “We make our art, we try to sell it. We are doing it day and night, we > are here at 5am trying to do it every day for the last 40 years. > That’s fantastic, no?” says Gilbert." > > > I think ... If their work is supposed to be some sort of comment on > the world around them, then it's very surface/ un - informed. They > live a stone's throw from The City and yet appear to be completely > oblivious - and disinterested - in
Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening Standard yesterday
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 NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening Standard yesterday
Hi Dave, Why anyone would listen to or even give their opinions any weight is beyond me. I think it's obvious that G&G are elitists, and would not wish to lose any income from their bourgeois client base. They are on the side of the exploiters - it's good business sense as far as they are concerned. 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. wishing you well. marc > http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/arts/visual-arts/wed-rather-side-with-the-bankers-than-some-vegan-protester-twit-on-benefits-say-gilbert-and-george-7537242.html > "By the mid-Seventies they were already a fully fledged double-act. > Sexually libertarian, revolutionary even, they have always been > politically conservative and are harsh judges of those who do not > share their work ethic. They both dismiss the St Paul’s protesters as > “hippies” and “idiots” and would rather side with the bankers than > “some vegan twit on benefits”, they think Boris Johnson is “a > wonderful modern person” and believe fiercely in “making money”. > “We make our art, we try to sell it. We are doing it day and night, we > are here at 5am trying to do it every day for the last 40 years. > That’s fantastic, no?” says Gilbert." > > > I think ... If their work is supposed to be some sort of comment on > the world around them, then it's very surface/ un - informed. They > live a stone's throw from The City and yet appear to be completely > oblivious - and disinterested - in what's going on. > > dave > ___ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > -- Other Info: Furtherfield - A living, breathing, thriving network http://www.furtherfield.org - for art, technology and social change since 1997 Also - Furtherfield Gallery& Social Space: http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery About Furtherfield: http://www.furtherfield.org/content/about Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community. http://www.netbehaviour.org http://identi.ca/furtherfield http://twitter.com/furtherfield ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
[NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening Standard yesterday
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/arts/visual-arts/wed-rather-side-with-the-bankers-than-some-vegan-protester-twit-on-benefits-say-gilbert-and-george-7537242.html "By the mid-Seventies they were already a fully fledged double-act. Sexually libertarian, revolutionary even, they have always been politically conservative and are harsh judges of those who do not share their work ethic. They both dismiss the St Paul’s protesters as “hippies” and “idiots” and would rather side with the bankers than “some vegan twit on benefits”, they think Boris Johnson is “a wonderful modern person” and believe fiercely in “making money”. “We make our art, we try to sell it. We are doing it day and night, we are here at 5am trying to do it every day for the last 40 years. That’s fantastic, no?” says Gilbert." I think ... If their work is supposed to be some sort of comment on the world around them, then it's very surface/ un - informed. They live a stone's throw from The City and yet appear to be completely oblivious - and disinterested - in what's going on. dave ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
