Re: FLUXLIST: the creative act
C'est la vie I meant to say, Selavy, as he was in touch with his feminine side... As Rrose Selavy See my rather blurry scan of my little known assemblage/collage, "Marcel Rrose, After Stella Ray" http://www.artden.freeserve.co.uk/izone/fluxuseyezone.html But, I'm not allowed to talk about it. (I finally saw The Fight Club : ) PK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But one time he coulda been DuChampion of the World . . . Oops, sorry that was Hurricane Carter.
Re: FLUXLIST: the creative act
and i finally saw 'high fidelity' c :) carol starr taos, new mexico, usa [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 23 May 2000, Patricia wrote: (I finally saw The Fight Club : ) PK
Re: FLUXLIST: the creative act
In a message dated 05/23/2000 9:12:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I meant to say, Selavy, as he was in touch with his feminine side... would that be on the left or right side?
Re: FLUXLIST: the creative act
As far as I can tell, it was the full frontal side, all dressed up, with plenty of places to go. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 05/23/2000 9:12:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I meant to say, Selavy, as he was in touch with his feminine side... would that be on the left or right side?
Re: FLUXLIST: the creative act
Patricia I AGREE WITH YOU. My family, friends who do not understand art think I can't make money on my art because I don't know how to do that or I'm not good enough. In one way that is true- mentally, plilosophically, intuitively, I CANNOT make what the public seems to want. There is a very small public I work for... myself first and a few enlightened people such as yourself and other "Fluxsters." Don
Re: FLUXLIST: the creative act
Terrence writes; ok ok i am playing devils advocate (and being a bit playful) but really one must go on you have to look at the circumstances of the time. He was way ahead of his time but so were others. People still paint and many more paint and don't know a thing of the 1913 armory show. I think its important to have inconsistancies and not just be a producer or a fame monger for that matter. Patricia wrote; - he was the ultimate in risk-takers because he didn't give a damn. In a way he had nothing to loose other painters were gaining more attention than him. He owes more to them and to Dada and the surrealists. He was intellectually opportunistic. I don't belive he was taking the lead. T. ;-) I see him as an artist who broke the rules, changed the course, and because of his fame, or infamy, was written up in capital letters, thus, got noticed. Speaking of same (fame?), where would the art world be without The Armory Show of 1913? Pulling down a tome and resorting to quotes, and quotes within quotes from the catalogue accompanying "The Spirit of Fluxus" "Especially influential to Fluxus were the ideas of the artist and philosopher Marcl Duchamp (associated both with Dada and Surrealism) and the composer and teacher John Cage (an admirer of Duchamp who maintained an interest both in Dada and in non-Western, nonrationalized thought, and who passed on these interests to a new generation of young, postwar artists). As Ben Vautier wrote: 'Without Cage, Marcel Duchamp, and Dada, Fluxus would not exist...Fluxus exists and creates from the knowledge of this post-Duchamp (the ready-made) and post-Cage (the depersonalization of the artist) situation." PK
Re: FLUXLIST: the creative act
I see (?) hear you, Terrence and certainly agree with your last line. My comment about the Armory Show is ingrained - it sticks with me as a highlight of the art history education part of my life. When I saw a wall of works from the exhibit at the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, it hit me like a blow in the chest and I stood there and cried. It was an example of solidarity of artists outside the mainstream coming together and sticking out their tongues at what was acceptable at the time. That's why I brought it up. http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~slatin/20c_poetry/projects/relatproject/arensbergarmory.html Here's a really great link if anyone cares to give it the time it deserves - it's really well done... http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jestaris/armory/main.html Best, PK Terrence J Kosick wrote: Terrence writes; ok ok i am playing devils advocate (and being a bit playful) but really one must go on you have to look at the circumstances of the time. He was way ahead of his time but so were others. People still paint and many more paint and don't know a thing of the 1913 armory show. I think its important to have inconsistancies and not just be a producer or a fame monger for that matter. Patricia wrote; - he was the ultimate in risk-takers because he didn't give a damn. In a way he had nothing to loose other painters were gaining more attention than him. He owes more to them and to Dada and the surrealists. He was intellectually opportunistic. I don't belive he was taking the lead. T. ;-) I see him as an artist who broke the rules, changed the course, and because of his fame, or infamy, was written up in capital letters, thus, got noticed. Speaking of same (fame?), where would the art world be without The Armory Show of 1913? Pulling down a tome and resorting to quotes, and quotes within quotes from the catalogue accompanying "The Spirit of Fluxus" "Especially influential to Fluxus were the ideas of the artist and philosopher Marcl Duchamp (associated both with Dada and Surrealism) and the composer and teacher John Cage (an admirer of Duchamp who maintained an interest both in Dada and in non-Western, nonrationalized thought, and who passed on these interests to a new generation of young, postwar artists). As Ben Vautier wrote: 'Without Cage, Marcel Duchamp, and Dada, Fluxus would not exist...Fluxus exists and creates from the knowledge of this post-Duchamp (the ready-made) and post-Cage (the depersonalization of the artist) situation." PK
Re: FLUXLIST: the creative act
Terrence writes; Art is commercial the moment you seek to engage it as "culture". ie in the culture industry. Duchamp was revoultutionalry thinker for the arts but not necessrily a revolutionary professional artist. He canged the art making oeuvre but for other artists with their interpretations as "conceptual art" . I find him interesting and somewhat important for this century but i don't feel he is a "hero" but for conceptual artists, whose artwork, by being exhibited in a gallery, is indeed inside a frame none-the-less. Perhaps I am prejudice as a free thinking artist exploring the worlds of creative posibilities with the opinion that art can indeed fall outside the gallery / institutional context with an audience of one other person no less. A single communication with a single response. Maybe that will make me a hero to some d-e-conceptual artists in the future terrence kosick artnatural
Re: FLUXLIST: the creative act
Terrence writes Postitution is an honest exchange at a fair market value or as supply and demand and it never seeks to qualify for grants to support it. I abohore patriarchy as an infantile wish. I see Duchamp as a creator of ideas that some pick up on. It's not a rule, like a lesson from daddy unless you make it so. How dreary to think that you have to seek father's avice everytime you go out to have an adventure. How would anything new be discovered? Might as well hop back in the womb of another man's ideas and play it safe if you won't take risks. terrence kosick artnatural
Re: FLUXLIST: the creative act
At 12:03 pm -0700 20/5/00, Patricia wrote: Yep, he played chess and he played chess because he had achieved his freedom - he only made, as far as I know 30-40 works in 50 or so years - he made art to make art, for himself - he was focused and free and I think it admirable. Of course, he had Arensberg behind him. arturo schwarz count 421 works btw 1902 to 1968 (a whole life in perpetual check) I do commercial artwork, but my real art is for myself and I don't expect to sell it. I just do it for me, and work professionally at something else. one of the must important topics to mduchamp was "human inconsistency" schwarz talking about in XIV PERPETUAL CHECK (p.193) "let us start with inconsistency and observe that it is thanks only to inconsistency that humanity has survived. to be perfectly consistent with oneself, in all circunstances, leads to intolerance and fanaticism. inconsistency is the source of tolerance. it is a tantamount to an awareness of the contradictions of the world. inconsistency as an individual human actitude is simply a sum of uncertainties held in reserve in the counciousness the world of values is not a world of polaristic logic; and the refusal to make a choice once and for all betwen mutually exclusive values, and thus to prejudice the future, is exactly what inconsistency stands for. generally, inconsistency is practiced more than proclaimed. it is a way of life . in fact life continuously places us between alternative situations, between two doors both of which are marked . entry, but neither exit. having once entered we are complelled to go on to the bitter end. but duchamp has invented the door wich is neither open nor closed." ...pez
Re: FLUXLIST: the creative act
Terrence J Kosick wrote: Terrence writes Postitution is an honest exchange at a fair market value or as supply and demand and it never seeks to qualify for grants to support it. Really? What about the pimp? : ) I abohore patriarchy as an infantile wish. I see Duchamp as a creator of ideas that some pick up on. It's not a rule, like a lesson from daddy unless you make it so. How dreary to think that you have to seek father's avice everytime you go out to have an adventure. How would anything new be discovered? Might as well hop back in the womb of another man's ideas and play it safe if you won't take risks. I don't see Duchamp as a patriarch, and you're not saying that from my interpretation - he was the ultimate in risk-takers because he didn't give a damn. I see him as an artist who broke the rules, changed the course, and because of his fame, or infamy, was written up in capital letters, thus, got noticed. Speaking of same (fame?), where would the art world be without The Armory Show of 1913? Pulling down a tome and resorting to quotes, and quotes within quotes from the catalogue accompanying "The Spirit of Fluxus" "Especially influential to Fluxus were the ideas of the artist and philosopher Marcl Duchamp (associated both with Dada and Surrealism) and the composer and teacher John Cage (an admirer of Duchamp who maintained an interest both in Dada and in non-Western, nonrationalized thought, and who passed on these interests to a new generation of young, postwar artists). As Ben Vautier wrote: 'Without Cage, Marcel Duchamp, and Dada, Fluxus would not exist...Fluxus exists and creates from the knowledge of this post-Duchamp (the ready-made) and post-Cage (the depersonalization of the artist) situation." As my locally adored, now deceased, lovely artist watercolor friend, Sam Colburn, once wrote in a Christmas card to an art gallery in which I worked, Merry Merry, Happy Happy, What the Hell, Just Send the Check. PK
Re: FLUXLIST: the creative act
Terrence writes; I don't agree with this. Duchamp, in a purely objective practical way, was a sort of a clever aragont lazy artist and he was not a professional painter. He was more of a dabbler and and a chess player and mostly unemployed. He talked more than he produced art. I don't feel he really became a professional artist who could sustain his occupation. He said some interesting things and open the minds of culture thinking of art in a different ways. I think the spectator brings sustainablitity to the atists works by opening their wallets. Something duchamp never realized nor probably could as he was not able to, living up to his name beyond a few shocking works and words, a kind of avoidence, a fear of eventual failure. He realized he could not support himself. A sutuation many artists sadly find themselves in. terrence kosick artnatural "narvis ...pez" wrote: "all in all, the creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualifications and thus adds his contribution to he creative act.* this becomes even more obvious when posterity gives its final veredict and sometimes rehabilites forgotten artists." m.duchamp april 1957 * "duchamp has emphasisez several times the role of the viewer, which he epitomized in the formula 'the viewer are those who make the painting' (bibl. 245, p. 143.) as kris points out , 'psychoanalytic investigation of artistic creation has abundantly demonstrated the importance of the public for the process of creation: wherever artistic creation takes place, the idea of a public exists, though the artist may attribute this role to one real or imaginary person. the artist may express indifference , may elminate the consideration for an audience from his consciousness altogether , or he may minimize its importance. but wherever the unconscious aspect of artistic creation is studied, a public of some kind emerges. this does not mean that striving for success, admiration , and recognition, need be the mayor goal of all artistic creation . on the contrary, artist are more likely than others to renounce public recognition for the sake of their work. this quest need not be for approval of the many but for response by some. the acknowledgement by response, however, is essential to confirm their own belief in their work and to restore the very balance which the creative process may have disturbed. response of others alleviates the artist's guilt." Bibl. 167, p. 60. as
Re: FLUXLIST: the creative act
At 09:42 am + 19/5/00, Terrence J Kosick wrote: Terrence writes; I don't agree with this. Duchamp, in a purely objective practical way, was a sort of a clever aragont lazy artist and he was not a professional painter. He was more of a dabbler and and a chess player and mostly unemployed. He talked more than he produced art. I don't feel he really became a professional artist who could sustain his occupation. He said some interesting things and open the minds of culture thinking of art in a different ways. oh yeah he only was the father of new art languages (including those like fluxus looking for elemental expression) I think the spectator brings sustainablitity to the atists works by opening their wallets. Something duchamp never realized nor probably could as he was not able to, living up to his name beyond a few shocking works and words, a kind of avoidence, a fear of eventual failure. He realized he could not support himself. A sutuation many artists sadly find themselves in. may be some artists (like duchamp) reject to prostitute himself to make a living thanks to him we can desclassify anything to art, (that's it for the production distribution of new knowledge) a situation many artists sadly reject. ...pez
FLUXLIST: the creative act
"the creative act. "let us consider two important factors, the two poles of the creation of art: the artist on the one hand, and on the other the spectator who later becomes the posterity. "to all appearances, the artists acts like a mediumnistic being who, from the labyrinth beyond time ans space, seeks his way out to a clearing. if we give the attributes of a medium to the artist, we must then deny him the state of conciousness on the aesthetic plane about what he is doing or why he is doing it. all his decisions in the artistic execution of the work rest with pure intuition and cannot be translated into a self-analysis, spoken of written, or even thought out. "t. s. eliot, in his essay on 'tradition and individual talent,' writes: 'the more perfect the artist, the more completely separate in him will be the man who suffers and the mind which creates; the more perfectly will the mind digest and transmute the passions wich are its material.' "millions of artists create; only a few thousands are discussed or accepted by the spectator and many less again are consacrated by posterity. in the last analysis, the artist may shout from all the rooftops that he is a genius; he will have to wait for the veredict of the spectator in order that his declarations take a social value and that, finally, posterity includes him in the primers of art history. "i know that this statement will not meet with the approval of many artists who refuse the mediumistic role and insist on the validity of their awareness in the creative act--yet, art history has consistently decided upon the virtues of a work of art through considerations completely divorced from the rationalized explanations of the artist. "if the artist, as a human being, full of the best intentions towards himself and the whole world, plays no role at all in the judgement of his own work, how one can describe the phenomenon which prompts the spectator to react critically to the work of art? in other words, how does this reactions come about? "this phenomenon is comparable to transference from the artist to the spectator in the form of aesthetic osmosis taking place through the inner matter, such as pigment, piano or marble. "but before we go further, i want to clarify our understanding of the word 'art,' to be sure, without any attempt at a definition. what i have in mind is that art may be bad, good, or indifferent, but, whatever adjetive is used, we must call it art, and bad art is still art in the same way as a bad emotion is still an emotion. "therefore, when i refer to 'art coefficient,' it will be understood that i refer not only to great art, but i am trying to describe the subjective mechanism which produces art in a raw state --a l'etat brut--bad, good or indifferent. "in the creative act, the artist goes from intention to realization, through a chain of totally subjective reactions. his strugle toward the realization is a series of efforts, pains, satisfactions, refusals, decisions, which also cannot and must not be fully self-conscious, at least on the aesthetic plane. the result of this struggle is a difference between the intention and its realization, a difference which the artist is not aware of. "consequently, in the chain of reactions, accompanying the creative act, a link is mising. this gap, representing the inability of the artist to express fully his intention , this difference between what he intended to realize and did realize, is the personal 'art coefficient' contained in the work. in other words, the personal 'art coefficient' is like an arithmetical relation between the unexpressed but intended and the unintentional expressed. "to avoid a misunderstanding, we must remember that this 'art coefficient' is a personal expression of art al'etat brut, that is, still in a row state, which must be 'refined,' as pure sugar from molasses, by the spectator; the digit is the coefficient has no bearing whatsoever on his veredict. the creative act takes another aspect when the spectator experiences the phenomenon of transmutation: through the change from inert matter into a work of art, and actual transubstantiation has taken place, and the role of the spectator, is to determine the weight of the work on the aesthetic scale. "all in all, the creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualifications and thus adds his contribution to he creative act.* this becomes even more obvious when posterity gives its final veredict and sometimes rehabilites forgotten artists." m.duchamp april 1957 * "duchamp has emphasisez several times the role of the viewer, which he epitomized in the formula 'the viewer are those who make the painting' (bibl. 245, p. 143.) as kris points out , 'psychoanalytic investigation of artistic creation has abundantly demonstrated the importance of the public for the process of creation: wherever
