***  Haus der Kulturen der Welt: Forum1 Archive  ***
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   [Date]: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 15:36:28 +1100
   [From]: "Dianne d'Alpoim Guedes" <guedes@thehub.com.au>
     [To]: Cultural Exchange via Internet <forum1@herz.kbx.de>
[Subject]: Re: Pre- Saint John/ Saint Bill

Juan (and Tom in reference):

There seems to be an intellectual's delight in the little itemised sections
of 'conversation' you engage in below and although they are eloquent and
informative, you are in danger of sounding as though you like to pontificate
on these matters.

We could choose to take up, discuss and refine these ideas further to see
how many will dance on the head of a pin. As an anthropologist turned artist
I would be happy to take up half a dozen at least. Lorca and de Chardin
spent entire, difficult lives in search of their metaphors. How much time do
we have here? Unfortunately I also have to go to work.

There are too many dancing shadows on the walls of this Altamira cave.
Shamans and emperors wearing new clothes like to use these strategies and I
am afraid that many will follow in your footsteps with bells and whistles. I
particularly fear the boring hermeneuticians, epistemologists and those who
indulge endlessly in "artspeak", that thick cardboard stuff curators and
'art theorists' love to chew.

Respectfully, Snr. Diaz Infante, I think it would help to take one issue at
a time .... after all "Simplicity and Beauty, is not that art"...(you forgot
the question mark there, but then it seems to have been used as a dogmatic
statement).

If we discuss only your first para (12/15 to Tom)  :

'The final product is not art, the action is art'.......
Which makes the final product what?  A side-effect of the action? which then
becomes a sophisticated fetish?.  Subsequently bought and sold and collected
by a manipulative mafiosi of gallery owners, curators, museums and a few
idiosyncratic individuals who can afford to be 30cms off the floor in their
own little ecstasies?  They have acquired the symbol of something they
vaguely recognize and desire.....so, the baseball is the symbol of Reggie's
potency. D'accord.

Now we come to the interesting part.....for me as an artist, anyway.
'the action is art'....you say and never clarify what you mean.
You later make oblique references to Poiesis, conversations with artist
friends and drop all possibly relevant names, Beuys, Barthes,etc.from a
great height into your own "bowl of misticism" (positively swirling with
mist and fogs, not to mention smoke and mirrors). Two paragraphs ending with
the pronouncements: "Some of it is Art". (as if you know) and "Very clear to
the real artist". (and how would you know that) ?

Nothing here is very clear to this artist.
Tom's comment "the act of art cannot be understood, even by the artist
himself" carries the truth of an artist speaking. "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", also , but I would humbly add that
motivation comes not from the repetitive act alone but from the faith or
hope that moves us to act.

Dianne

P.S.: perhaps Bill Viola's interpretation of St John of the Cross comes from
a different religious and cultural matrix than that of a Spanish
Catholic's?? Christianity seems to have many shades and colours.
Also as someone born and brought up in Japan and China, I would like to
suggest that the use of the terms 'oriental' and 'asian' are very
Eurocentric and are rather antiquarian and  obfuscatory in our times. Could
we be more specific, culture-specific that is.? Thank you.




> 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 g=
ood
> 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 Gest=
alt
> equals same price...
>
>
>
> Art as communication (a partial denomination for argument=B4s 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 "designe=
d"
> to be understood by everybody.
>
> When you are planning a campaign your way of speech should be as if you w=
ere
> 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 Ministr=
y 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 t=
hat
>> one part of that 'essence' is an urge to make itself concrete. I think m=
ost
>> artists _need_ to make things. It's an in-the-gut thing. (Even those
>> conceptual artists who don't actually produce anything tangible are stil=
l
>> satisfying that need by the very decision to work. ) Making an artwork i=
s a
>> way of handling that 'essence' - of coping with it, clarifying it, focus=
ing
>> 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 "Theo=
ry
> 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 referen=
ce
> 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 o=
f
> quality) Oriental cultures are a definite different game (Roland Barthes =
in
> his writings creates only more confusion). Connotation and Denotation bec=
ome
> 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 b=
owl
> 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 i=
n
> 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 someo=
ne
> else. The acknowledgment of advertising is what separates a marketing man
> from a salesman. The faith that separates the mystic. In the (Teilhard=B4s)
> Omega point, everything becomes the same. A complex theoretical hypothesi=
s
> in mathematics today requires two things to be above any other that compe=
tes
> with it: Simplicity and Beauty, is not that art. There is also a very
> interesting point that Garcia Lorca touches in his lecture, something wit=
h
> 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 tho=
se
>> who cannot understand - in other words those who have no direct contact =
with
>> that 'essence'. (The word 'fetish' has negative connotations for me, whi=
ch
>> 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 fe=
tish
>> 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 a=
nd
> 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 i=
s a
> vehicle for good level of conversation, good friends and the posibility o=
f 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 sou=
nd
>> 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 talk=
ing
> 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 coll=
ect
>> for financial reasons, or fashion etc - but maybe many also _do_ underst=
and.
>> 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 t=
he
> same. The gratification of beauty not necessarily is to own it. The
> collector belongs to a society of excesses. We have to understand that th=
e
> value of the object has its own engineering Gunter Gerzo sold a few month=
s
> ago in Christie=B4s one painting for 150,000 dollars. He personally gets 6,=
000
> dollars today for one painting. As always there are exceptions, the Maegh=
t
> 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
>