At 10:35 am -0400 2/4/00, George Free wrote:
What did Buren say ? In relation to Duchamp.
For myself, they are still unresolved
even if a solution appears from time to time in my work.
"there is no solution because there is no problem"
indeed
duchamp
...pez
ps: i stayed two hours in a line
Terrence writes;
I find it sad how many artits are taught to be so critical. They seem to
create
under such burdons and with theortical restraints. I am anti bordom.
If you aren't critical, though, you will just repeat the past -- and
actually you will only repeat the outward appearance of
hi george,
can you give us the text for the buren/duchamp critisism?
perhaps when we think of criticism we might better say investigations.
alot of study is required if one isn't going to go around thinking one
has invented the wheel.especially early on in one's career.
carol starr
taos, new
Terrence writes;
I find it sad how many artits are taught to be so critical. They seem to create
under such burdons and with theortical restraints. I am anti bordom.
Everyone born a child. I can see more clearly what is ahead as I respond to
what is before me not behind. Why relive what is
Is it possible not to have a context? I don't see how it could be.
"Contextualization" would only be making the context explicit. In this
case,
analyzing and stating motives.
Well, that is what "contextualisation" meens. But I think, we must be
grown up enough, to take things for
This starts to become an interesting discussion:
Does any artist make the context explicit? Well, yes ... Haacke, for one.
Buren has criticized Duchamp precisely on this point.
Could you explain this a little bit more ? Haacke is, IMHO, strong because
he doesnt need a context for his works.
Is it possible not to have a context? I don't see how it could be.
"Contextualization" would only be making the context explicit. In this case,
analyzing and stating motives.
Well, that is what "contextualisation" meens. But I think, we must be
grown up enough, to take things for themselves.
At 10:35 am +0200 31/3/00, Heiko Recktenwald wrote:
Is it possible not to have a context? I don't see how it could be.
"Contextualization" would only be making the context explicit. In this case,
analyzing and stating motives.
Well, that is what "contextualisation" meens. But I think, we must
"Contextualization" would only be making the context explicit. In this case,
analyzing and stating motives.
Well, that is what "contextualisation" meens. But I think, we must be
Lets take a public monument, you cant say it means this and that, first,
its just there, and then public
The nature of e-mail is one of high ambiguity and that is worth remembering
Media in general. But I suspect easter bunnies are less sensitiv. Or what
?
Has Fluxus ever been so harmless ?
No.
Maybe we could try a list, make a game.
I am sensitive for:
The Easter Bunny
R
I think most people here find the posting of such material witout some
contextualising statement somewhat offensive to say the least.
This is a point of view I dont accept. Contextualisation...
Is it possible not to have a context? I don't see how it could be.
"Contextualization" would
12 matches
Mail list logo
