***  Haus der Kulturen der Welt: Forum1 Archive  ***
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   [Date]: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 20:38:29 +0900
   [From]: t o m v i n c e n t <tomv@crisscross.com>
     [To]: Cultural Exchange via Internet <forum1@hkw.kbx.de>
[Subject]: Re: [forum1] Re: the art of (limited electronic) conversation



> Complementing the answer to Francois
>
>
> Art is ONLY action, the work of art is what it is: An object, a painting, a
> sculpture, a video. Art is a process of attitude. The thing/object that
> remains is the object of fetish for the people that can not understand the
> other part of art.
> The collector is unable to have what the artist has, so he buys what he can.




There is so much in this short paragraph that it's hard to know where to
begin, Juan.

If I understand you correctly, I think I mainly agree with Francois and you,
that the action part of art is as much 'art' as the final product.

I think we can agree that there are many objects and videos that are not
art. And the argument might be a bit more difficult, but perhaps we can also
agree that there are also paintings and sculptures that are not art.

What I think we have then is that there is some kind of 'essence' - your
"process of attitude" - that the artist injects into the things s/he
produces which makes them part of the thing called 'art', and which sets
them apart. (This video by Bill Viola _is art, this video by the Ministry of
Transport _isn't art. (yet) )

If I am on the right track so far, then this 'essence' is something very
precious to the artist. In fact it is what makes that person an 'artist' in
the first place. Artists 'carry' it around with them. But I also think that
one part of that 'essence' is an urge to make itself concrete. I think most
artists _need_ to make things. It's an in-the-gut thing. (Even those
conceptual artists who don't actually produce anything tangible are still
satisfying that need by the very decision to work. ) Making an artwork is a
way of handling that 'essence' - of coping with it, clarifying it, focusing
it for an instant into an artwork.

If that is so, then the product is much more than just a video, painting, or
sculpture. It is that, PLUS an embodiment of the 'essence', which is the
thing that seperates the artist out.

And so, as you say, the artwork then becomes an object of fetish for those
who cannot understand - in other words those who have no direct contact with
that 'essence'. (The word 'fetish' has negative connotations for me, which
I'm not happy with, but certainly an artwork is seen as being an object that
has some kind of 'extra' power or property, which is what a fetish is.)

My main question is, though, if the resulting artwork is an object of fetish
to those who cannot understand, what is it to the artist, or to other
'artists', who _do_ understand?

And is it REALLY only the artists who can understand? If so, artists sound
more and more like Francois's mystics - certainly a very pretty simile, but
are artists really such an exclusive, unreachable group?

Is the collector really unable to understand? Sure, many collectors collect
for financial reasons, or fashion etc - but maybe many also _do_ understand.
And that is why they wish to collect the artwork, precisely because they are
able to understand the 'essence' within it.

Maybe the problem here is with the word 'understand'? Perhaps the collector
may be able to 'understand', but is unable to 'do'.

But my question remains. If the artwork, the product, is an object of fetish
to those distanced somehow from the art-making process, what is it to the
artist?

Many artists like to own artworks too......





> (Art hanging is a didactic process).

Yes, art hanging is a didactic process. To make a mark and declare to the
world that it has some importance, which is perhaps all the artist does, is
didactic. (Maybe that is what you mean? To be honest, I'm not quite sure
whether you are simply stating a fact, or suggesting that the collector is
wrong to be didactic, or something else?)

But either way, depending on who hangs the art, the message can vary - as
was obvious from the Sensation show, for example, which emphasised the
'sensational' side of those works so much that any other sides to the works
were overpowered.

But I think your comment brings us back very neatly to the use of the
internet by artists. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with being
didactic -it is very human to wish to impart information, to teach and
inform, and indeed that is part of what an artist is. The problem is WHO
imparts WHAT, isn't it? The internet gives a far greater proportion of
people the ability to impart their information than has been possible
before. We will have to sift and sort to find what we believe to be
valuable, and yes, there is the problem of credibility and false
information, as was mentioned in an earlier post. But I think that is part
of the new soup we are brewing and we just have to learn to swallow it along
with the good broth. Witness RTMark.com for one example of how to deal with
that one. (Susan mentioned them, I think)

Somebody also mentioned the lowest possible denominator problem with TV -
things are always brought down to a low, plebian level. I think that's very
exciting. I think that's exactly where the internet could, theoretically be
so _good_ for the art world and artists (not to mention the world at large)
because it reduces things to an everyday, no-nonsense level, and the
much-maligned, snobby side to the critic, curator and collector's world
(apologies to all critics, curators and collectors on this list  :-))
becomes more transparent, and more difficult to uphold, as does sweeping
power-abuse by large corporations.

(Maybe that is all just romantic, wishful thinking? We will have to see what
happens in the aftermath of the etoy.com/eToys.com case to see if I'm
anywhere near right on the power-abuse point. Here's an article, for those
who don't know that story
http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/5562/1.html )

First though, artists -and those who understand the 'essence' -  have got to
get on-line and get didactic!

"Access" -  that was the thread before, yes?


Tom