***  Haus der Kulturen der Welt: Forum1 Archive  ***
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   [Date]: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 11:57:21 -0600
   [From]: Juan JosŽ D’az Infante <jdiazinfante@altamiracave.com>
     [To]: Cultural Exchange via Internet <forum1@hkw.kbx.de>
[Subject]: Saint John Saint Bill


Tom

>wrote
> 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.

The final product is not art, the action is art, but you can not sell the
action.
A base ball signed by Regie Jackson is not base ball and is not Regie. It is
the action that makes it become the object of value, a fetish.
In Art a more sophisticated fetish.

> 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.

There is a great difference between a good painter and a good artist. A good
painter is not necessarily a great artist and, a great artist not
necessarily has to be a good painter.
The object therefore has a relative value, it is very much an accident of
marketing. If the object had a value on itself, then someone that painted
exactly like Murillo o El Greco would have the exact same price. Same Gestalt
equals same price...



Art as communication (a partial denomination for argument's sake)

There are ways in mathematics of finding limits of things. You can use a
system of inequalities

When you work in advertising you are using a lot of the "theories" that
belong to Art, advertising feeds a lot from Surrealism. You sort of bring it
down (Democracy equals vulgarization equals massive) so that everyone
understands "it" and, as a result, will go and buy it. The best result in a
direct mail strategy ranges in percentages between 1 and 4 % response .
Television is such a favorite because that particular 1% is the hell of a
lot of people, nonetheless 1% is still 1%.

Let us talk about art, your succesfull understanding percentage should be
less than 1%. Since art is more definetely complex and it is not "designed"
to be understood by everybody.

When you are planning a campaign your way of speech should be as if you were
talking to a 12 year old. Delivering a message succesfuly is to learn to
understand how basic you have to do it.




> 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) )

There are also videos by Bill Viola that are not art. It comes to mind an
installation of Saint John of the Cross in which Viola completely misses the
point. Nonetheless his attitude is what makes him an artist in a failed
attempt.

Saint John of the Cross, on the other hand was a mystic, it is very hard to
create a metaphor when you are only a good video maker...

>
> 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.

That essence that you speak of is called the Poiesis or the poetics or
poetica. Garcia Lorca defines very well its presence in his lecture "Theory
and Game of the Duende" As a note: The definition of Duende in English as a
literary term could be the soul, in flamenco there is a continous reference
to the pain of the soul. The cultures that Garcia Lorca refers as having
Duende are Spain  and Mexico. The inspiration for Italians instead would be
the Muse and for Germans would be the Angel. (There is a neat book called
"Zen and the Art of Motorcycle maintenance" that deals with the finding of
quality) Oriental cultures are a definite different game (Roland Barthes in
his writings creates only more confusion). Connotation and Denotation become
fields terribly apart and the perception of reality is drastically
different. They are closer to the form than to the concept. (Oriental
perception is always hard to grasp, since everyone always mixes it in a bowl
of misticism, closer to the catholic mysticism of  XVI century). In short if
you want to know about art you only need to know about poiesis (as I have
quoted Joseph Boyeus, Man Ray, Huesselbeck and others, there is poiesis in
everything, but not everything is poiesis). Very clear to the real artist.
>
> 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.

The acknowledgement of the poetics is what separates an artist from someone
else. The acknowledgment of advertising is what separates a marketing man
from a salesman. The faith that separates the mystic. In the (Teilhard's)
Omega point, everything becomes the same. A complex theoretical hypothesis
in mathematics today requires two things to be above any other that competes
with it: Simplicity and Beauty, is not that art. There is also a very
interesting point that Garcia Lorca touches in his lecture, something with
Duende is not perfect and is the only way to perceive the infinite (in
oriental thought it would be the Iki)

>
> 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.)

Perfect work therefore is a fetish, a Museum becomes a collector of
interesting objects, not necessarily art. Some of it is Art.


>
> 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?

First we would have to separate a good painter from an artist. According to
Jaques Maritain there are two types of artists the one that pretends or
imitates art (only in form) and the one who is really sensitive (in order to
actually handle emotional narratives).

I can only talk of my own experience when I have owned work of other
artists. I did not learn art in books, I learned it meeting the artists and
learning their methodologies. In my case I prefer to know the people and
appreciate them for what they are and no of how they sing or dance. Art is a
vehicle for good level of conversation, good friends and the posibility of a
good life project based on the collection of experiences based on
interpersonal relationship.
This world is about people and not about things.
The image, the sounds, the videos always refer me to the experience. The
same way a soundtrack of a movie refers me to the visuals.

>
> 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?

A mystic is not unreachable, it is the acknowledgement of the same what
actually creates consciousness, faith or communion.
It is not the mystic the one that is in the game of greed and fame.

When I wanted to know about art I never had any trouble reaching and talking
to the people that I thought had answers that I was looking for.
As soon as you find people slamming doors (la diva, Octavio Paz) they are
people that can not share anything with you.
Tamayo for example was unable to get excited about other painters, he was
unable to share.

>
> 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.

Once you understand Art loses its value because you are able to produce the
same. The gratification of beauty not necessarily is to own it. The
collector belongs to a society of excesses. We have to understand that the
value of the object has its own engineering Gunter Gerzo sold a few months
ago in Christie's one painting for 150,000 dollars. He personally gets 6,000
dollars today for one painting. As always there are exceptions, the Maeght
collection was formed feeding soup to Giacometti and Braque.


It was 1913, very early this century at Cafe Voltaire when the object in art
became obsolete...this brings us to the study of the handicrafts...will
continue...


Juan