***  Haus der Kulturen der Welt: Forum1 Archive  ***
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   [Date]: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 13:30:27 +1000
   [From]: "Kim Machan" <kma@b130.aone.net.au>
     [To]: "Cultural Exchange via Internet" <forum1@hkw.kbx.de>
[Subject]: Re: [forum1] Re: Opinions versus Censorship

Picking up on the thread between Tom and Susan


Works of art respond and grow out of the culture they are produced in - the
materials that are available to produce them also reflect the cultural
enviroment. All facets of an art work are valid signals to be considered
when reading the work - all materials valid signals.

If the work elevates discussion and debate then it must be touching on
issues that are relevant and close. Surely this is an important and vital
function that take us out of our saftey zones.
And that is why discussion boils when we get near these topics
Maybe that is why actual Art Works on the internet have not been a pivotal
point on this list?
Maybe the technology has sanitised and distanced us?
Maybe on a list such as this only really large obvious targets are easily
discussed?
Maybe the Art Works on the web have not been digested into the art landcape
and operate differently?
Maybe to make this discussion relevant to internet use we need to find a
radical web work to through up for discussion - I'm going off to think about
some works
Any suggestions?
best
Kim

ps
I had addressed this in a lengthy response about how art functions, how
curators and writers are (now and before) just as valid in formation of our
art landscape as artists and not in isolation or separate, but scratched it,
because again it left the central topic of the technologies we are trying to
address.

When you make a comment of . "I am not willing to see the artistic process
degrade itself. "
it reverts to a very subjective personal moral ground... which is valid too
... but i would disagree.

Kim Machan
Festival Director
MAAP99
Multimedia Art Asia Pacific
www.maap.org.au




 -------------------------------------------------------------
 Your point was not very illustrative, Tom. Many examples of the use of dead
animals can be found in the films of
> Jean Luc Godard as well. How do you know at least part of the action in
the film whose title you can't seem to
> remember wasn't staged?
>
> You miss my point. Duchamp WOULD BE surprised at what has occurred in
Beijing because it is the curators and NOT
> the artists who are controlling the art. He would feel that his readymade
art pieces and the gesture behind them
> have been misunderstood by the Beijing group.
>
> Cultural differences aside, using real humans only nullifies the
avante-garde in art. Lamps made of human skin were
> fashionable in Weimar, too. Art that is mimetic works for me more. Using
"readymade" humans fails to make the point
> for me, human rights violations notwithstanding.
>
> I am all for artists explorating of the difference between theatrical
representation and objective reality. I am
> not willing to see the artistic process degrade itself. Perhaps if you
>
> t o m v i n c e n t wrote:
>
> > > Picasso said, Art is the lie that reveals truth. I tend to agree with
this
> > >assessment. However, the use of real
> > > objects like human and animal remains, consitutes a perplexing turn of
events
> > >in the realm of contemporary art
> > > practice that may have even surprised Marcel Duchamp.
> >
> > I forget now the name of the prewar surrealist movie shot in a Paris
> > abbatoire? The shots of sheep lined up on their backs to have their
throats
> > cut, live calves pumped full of air....the horse and the hammer..It is
one
> > of the most shocking films I have seen. No, I doubt if Duchamp would
have
> > been surprised.