***  Haus der Kulturen der Welt: Forum1 Archive  ***
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   [Date]: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 15:43:32 +0100
   [From]: Le Vent des Forets <leventdesforets@wanadoo.fr>
     [To]: forum1@hkw.kbx.de
[Subject]: Act of art rather than work of art

I refer to Dianne's reaction to Juan's on Dec 10.
Quoting Juan, Dianne said :

"Secondly: from your most recent message 19/12 (see attached) regarding;
'Art as a myth kept un-understandable'....
It must remain that to be art. It is essential for art to be mysterious.
Only then is it fascinating/compelling and not just entertaining."

I am new in this forum and feel a bit embarassed at this first
intervention, because I do not have the context.

My feeling about the above quote is that it is centered on the "result
of art" generally called "work of art". If I restate your comment,
Dianne, it will then be: "The work of art needs to be un-understandable
to be art. It is essential for a work of art to be mysterious. Only then
is it fascinating/compelling... ".

I have been developing in the last ten years the strong conviction that
the work of art is only a sequel, an unavoidable result of the immensely
important "act of art". Going again and again through the experience of
this act of art is the only valid motivation for us artists to carry on
doing art. And as much as any of the endeavours of mankind (science,
religions, philosophies, magic... and art) to try to understand the Big
Un-understandable (that terrifies us, humans...), the act of art cannot
be understood, even by the artist himself.

But I believe that the work of art can be understood. I mean
understanding a work of art the sensation of taking off 30cm over the
level of the floor when we encounter this work of art that fascinates
us. I hope evry one got this pleasure every now and then...

I am happy to share with the forum this split of art between act and
work, as I found it very practical in many discussions on art.

I would be pleased to have some reaction and also to know if other
people were/are already involved in this way of thinking and may have
gone much further...

and then Dianne said :
"And I agree completely with the last part: 'When an artist or
intellectual grows beyond the game of the lie they become mystics.'" 

I got very excited by this Juan's statement cited by Dianne. This
parallel between the mystic and the artist puts the artist's "act of
art" in close relationship with the mystics "ecstasy", and with the
scientist "speculation", all in my opinion devoted to what you call
going "beyond the game of the lie", and what I call attempting to
understand the un-understandable. I would only tend to change it a
little bit this way: "When a craftsman, an intellectual, or a monk goes
beyond the game of lies, they become respectively, artists,
philosophers, or mystics."

Again, I would be pleased if anyone wanted to help me go further in
these directions.

Francois Davin, (french, male, 3D artist, only on-site, mostly in
nature)