***  Haus der Kulturen der Welt: Forum1 Archive  ***
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   [Date]: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:19:22 +0100
   [From]: Dianne d'Alpoim Guedes <guedes@thehub.com.au>
     [To]: Cultural Exchange via Internet <forum1@hkw.kbx.de>
[Subject]: Re: [forum1] Cafe Voltaire c.late,late 1999

Juan
Regarding your message Thu, 16 Dec 1999 19:57

You wrote:

> Your commentary seemed to me more a criticism of how
> I said something than what I said.
Yes, a commentary. You can take it as criticism if you like.

What you say is often (but not always) so wrapped in obfuscatory cafe
intellectualizing that you probably lose much of your audience halfway
through your pronouncement. I personally find most of it redundant and
more to do with showing off than real communication.

> toros, que quien sabe si ser‡ lo mismo..." (I will post 
> the full lecture in a couple of days and I will also 
> commentabout this Sunday«s bullfight)

Please don't bother sending the full transcript of Lorca's or details of
the bullfight: I read Lorca in the 60's with great interest as he made
some worthy contributions and have seen enough bullfights in my life to
know them for the splendid bloodlettings that they are. Bread and
circuses....

> > "artspeak", that thick cardboard stuff curators and
> > 'art theorists' love to chew.
I said this. To which you replied:

> on the other hand I have never met
> a cardboard curator, most of them are sort of "waxi".
You ask me to point out your mistakes. Well, I was referring to
"artspeak" not to curators in my statement above.


> The Church and Money. We inherited the structure 
> of the church that later the modern corporation 
> adopted. Some historians refer this insane transition
> to Amsterdam in the XVI Century where the windows
> of the church were replaced by the images of 
> the important bankers.

Your "insane transition" here is indeed insane. The structures of the
modern corporation (if we have the same concept of structures), are
based on systems of barter and trade that have nothing to do with
Christianity.
The images of the bankers you mention in Amsterdam are those of donors
(you can also call them benefactors or patrons in the case of
specifically non-religious artistic work), just as there were images of
important donors in Renaissance art, in Roman art and also in African
art.

>> 'the action is art'....you say and never clarify what you mean.  
I said this.

You replied:
> If action is not art, theater or dance or music would not be art..
> To clarify myself on the usage if the form:
> When the symbol becomes more of what it represents, that is idolatry.
> Budha tried to reform Hinduism and got into the same trouble, he became the image.

You misinterpreted what I said, I did not say action is not art, I asked
for your clarification. Your "clarify myself on the usage of the form"
etc is not at all clear. I assume you mean "When the symbol becomes more
than what it represents, that is idolatry".
Yes, and idolatry has given us some rather fine examples of art.
And "Buddha tried to reform"..etc.     So ooooo? Christ also became the
image.

This is all what I mean by obfuscatory intellectualising. I am not
interested in an intricate diatribe on the Carmelites. But I am
interested in Bill Viola as an artist trying to make a complex fusion of
feelings into an artwork that speaks to people today. Perhaps his piece,
"The Messenger" is more successful than "Saint John of the Cross", I'd
be interested to know why and discuss that in the context of the
present.
Must go. Dianne.