From: Cari Machet (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Oct 18 2005 - 15:17:42 PDT
--- konrad <email suppressed> wrote:
> 1. The fluff of a non-corrupt institution has a
> symbiotic
> relationship to its reason for existance.
konrad:
please prove/define "non-corrupt" re: the academy
giving elia kazan a lifetime acheivment award
was not non-corupt?
if i am to understand the phrase as not corrupt
anti-corruption even
what/where on the planet is this?
especially re: humans and money
sorry - i don't think it is in tom's "basement"
my prob. w/ the academy has little to do w/ a party
where we would wear great outfits (which i doubt
actaully)
although it is really great that they are restoring
stan's films
i worry that they will screw them up
- thanks for the info
i was unaware -
if they saw the look on his face and heard the tone in
his voice
when he lemented not being able to work on/in 35mm
(especially i think for the paintings)
then perhaps they would have empathy for why i ask:
where were they when he didn't have the cash to do so?
would they have had the courage to look him in the eye
and say
"oh stan don't worry we will restore all your films
when your dead - nevermind the 35"
i know we are supposed to b grateful, i am -
and i am real.
i mean don't get me wrong
i know the massive importance
that extra chrystal candy dish is
for where else can they put their
huge amount of all important
jelly bellies?
meanwhile back at the camp
30,000 CHILDREN die of starvation a year
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp
and it is not a light matter to me that stan couldn't
afford to work in 35mm
see marxist theory - which a whole culture was
re-framed and based on so...
(note: if your going to discuss why/how communism
didn't work re: this i think it is only relevent to
talk about how capitalism doesn't ((present)) as well)
In a message dated 10/16/2005 7:01:16 PM Eastern
Standard Time, email suppressed writes:
>is the
>avant-garde's traditionally oppositional stance
toward >mainstream
>culture still relevant? Does "class" as a cultural
differentiator
>still hold up in the realm of art-making?
i wish that you would rephrase the
"class" - why in quotes -
"hold up"
and "still" -
or tell us whether u are talking about
class of the artist in making work
or (what i think):
do artist recognize class as an integrety that is
relevent
within our theories of art and making our work
or
what?
i will go with what i think
let me know if it was wrong
these questions bring me to the post re: Jacobs and
Gottheim
--- Jeanne LIOTTA <email suppressed> wrote:
> regarding the Gotthiem/Jacobs exchange at Views
> recently:
> Larry Gottheim showed several brand new
> preservation prints
> then a work-in-progress video The
> Opening from
> Chants and Dances, in which we see a ritual ceremony
> in
> motion, indoors, what appears to be a Haitain,
> certainly
> Carribean community,where an animal is sacrificed
> cermoniously, it's throat slit and the blood pours
> from its
> neck into a vessel, presided over by a young girl.
> In the Q and A following, Ken Jacobs objected
> strenuously to
> this work,-- for its portrayl of bloodletting within
> a
> religious setting (superstition he called it, I
> deplore it he
> said) and proceeded to expound upon ideas regarding
> the
> age-old links between religion, bloodshed,
> &politics; indeed
> our present condition, and why make artworks which
> participate
> in this cycle of bloodshed, or how will we ever
> break it?
> All who have heard Ken speak in person know his
> particular
> passionate secular stance.
> They parried, points considered on both sides, (this
> is a
> nutshell only--I wish I had the tape!), and finally
> Larry,
> speaking from what was clearly a deeply considered
> space, was
> roused to a great eloquence and said, 'But Ken,
> there is no
> work of art so distilled, so pure, that can save us
> from the
> horrors of life.' or words to that effect.
>
Jacobs is right to hold the art world to
higher/different standards
but i believe as Beuys art = life
so erasing/not representing sections of life doesn't
work
particularly within the fluxus theory
repressing all pornography would not reduce
the rate of rape - to my estimation
it MAY increase it
the artist Goya revealed the dark parts of
man/life/living
thru alot of his work
he wasn't happy just making beautiful portraits of the
elite
depicting beauty is hollow and limited
but
do snuff films really reduce the murder rate?
it is against the law to commit suicide in this
country
(except in oregon)
but not against the law to film it or show the film
(on tv)
[seen the footage of the guy that shot himself in the
head at a press conference he called?]
do we in fact "participate" when we film/watch
such an act?
and do we "participate" in our cultures murdering in
war - Iraq, Isreali financial/arms support, and
turning our backs on Rwanda and Darfor and watching
the World Banks chess game with cultures lives for
money, as there are so many ways to murder
and types of murder
like paying ur taxes that support such acts and
like spiritual murder which brings us directly to K J
's "participation" and
on to the responsibility of a possible "participation"
within the avant garde
su fredrick said
that she would rather show her films to
ten people that "get it"
than to thousands that don't/can't
it isn't necessarily the mainstream
we traditionally oppose
but what it embodies
namely ignorance and sheep mentality
and holding onto those forms like they are life itself
ie not seeing the whole picture or being willing to
ie FEAR - living completely in fear
this has a 'tradition' in ART
(it's not just an avant garde thing)
the first i remember hearing about it
was regarding michelangelo
being super unhapppy painting the sistine chapel
(being made to)
http://www.michelangelo.com/buon/bio-index2.html
(can you imagine - as the labor was very intensive)
he hated "his art" being subverted and controlled
by the catholic church
(he was a sculptor being made to be a painter of
fresco)
who is all about the reproduction of lotsa sheep
(for religion truely is i believe the opiate of the
people)
that it is questioned whether
subversion, controll, and living in fear only
is no longer possibly relevent to/in the avant garde
is well "wrong"
(Keith Sanborn)
it is not wrong to question but...
it is like asking is the avant garde relevent "now"
(how is "now" different fr: "then" -
i posit that it isn't because of the very nature
of the function of the avant garde
ie "now" is not different than "then")
"is the avant garde dead?"
has come up on the list b4
the inherent function of the avant garde is not
inclusive to it's own death -
it has a built in renewal clause
but as in DADA=DEAD
- proclaimed by the movement when it became KNOWN
by the masses by it's outside -
genres that stem fr: the avant garde die
the avant garde is:
avant-gard·ism /-'gär-"di-z&m/ noun
: an intelligentsia that develops new or experimental
concepts especially (but not limited to) in the arts
further:
in chris markers "le jete"
did the masses see it?
would they sit thru subtitles? (umn no)
but they did see "12 monkeys"
that even acknowledges "le jete" in it's credits
was it a watered down version that
(because of it's form ie straight (color) narritive
compared to the starkness of the B& W stills)
that wasn't such a perfect loop
wasn't as "pure and distilled" ala Gottheim?
yes
but it was the avant garde within it's function
pulling up the new ideas
not just for the sake of pulling + holding onto (dada
again)
but for the dissimination
further the avant garde is like the 100th monkey
theory
http://pure-research.net/healing/light/monkey.html
genevieves' questions are also like asking whether art
is relevent
great question!!!
which brings us to Gottheim
saying (para) not distilled or pure enough to save
us...
--- Jeanne LIOTTA <email suppressed> wrote:
>Larry,speaking from what was clearly a deeply
considered space, >was
>roused to a great eloquence and said, 'But Ken, there
is no
>work of art so distilled, so pure, that can save us
from the
>horrors of life.' or words to that effect.
i disagree because i engage hope
and because i have totally experienced
this act of "saving"
-
i would use the word "transform"
bcause "save" may place me in the position of
non-entity
-
this purity and distillment
within an art work
- david hammons performance of selling snowballs
standing on the street in NYC -
it posits both questions + answers
race questions - he is black - the snowballs are white
ownership/monetary worth
money at all
purpose in the lives of the everyday (wo)man
selling their wears, selling their time, selling their
self
it asks why is our culture set up the way it is
it asks if our system set up is working
it questions the role of the museum hierarchy
-done on the city street-
(he has work at MOMA
he is a legitimate voice in the artworld
though it is sad that i have a need to qualify him/his
work)
it also comments about how the artist feels/thinks
about all of it and more
does it transform or 'save' us?
for one thing
he wasn't living in the oblivion of planning a press
conference
where he would blow his brains out for the camera
and
he wasn't buying into the lie that
there is nothing that can save/transform
and he just needs to keep his mind and trap shut
and take his medicine cause he's crazy
did it change the entire world immediately?
did everyione get food?
did budda, joseph cambell, gandi
irradicate ignorance?
no
but did they make a profound difference
in a distilled, pure, way that 'saved' us fr: the
horror... ???-
yes
if the avant garde in fact went w/ the summation
that art will not 'save' as Gotthiem stated
perhaps it COULD die
because then there would be no purpose
("tuchlus" in yiddish)
in the new, in the experiment, in the reaching
could it die by not having the new ideas - not
functioning basically
and instead excepting old genres
and becoming genres instead of a think tank
(which i hope is the function of this list's forum)
ie having an avant garde that isn't avant garde
what happens when you are not avant garde
but you are IN the avant garde?
which has alot to do with where i am
re: the lincoln center show i saw
i think that Nicole is aligned and more than on it
when she posted
--- Nicole Koschmann <email suppressed>
wrote:
> James,
>
> You wrote about Cari's writing style:
>
> "not everyone has the patience of reading everything
> aloud a few times to get
> the nuances of Joyceian rhythms and wordplays in the
> context of general
> correspondence. "
>
> But isn't this the response that we experimental
> filmmakers get about
> experimental film? Many viewers, who feel film
> should be easy "entertainment"
> (analogy to "general correspondence") don't have the
> patience to do the mental
> work required to appreciate it. Not all experimental
> work asks a lot from the
> viewer, but some does. And I think the same thing
> applies to how Cari writes.
> Yes, I had to read her posts a few times, but I
> enjoyed the process. And since
> this is a forum about experimentation, then why not
> experiment within the forum
> itself?
>
> Nicole
further re: this forum:
> --- Chuck Kleinhans <email suppressed>
> wrote:
>
> > See-saw seems infinitely more cinematic
> > --
> > Chuck Kleinhans
--- Freya <email suppressed> wrote:
> *giggle* I was thinking the same thing, although I
> think it's normally all one word and I don't know
> the
> original origins of it, but I do very much like the
> ideas it brings to my mind. :)
>
> love
>
> Freya
>
thank you chuck and freya
see-saw is beautiful!!!
- so perfect - (pure, distilled)
i love expansive collaborative writing
so avant garde - *giggle*
this is ultimate f'works 2/4 me
c
ps
i post below here the entire Jacobs/Gotthiem post for
easy reference:
and ask if there IS a tape
--- Jeanne LIOTTA <email suppressed> wrote:
> F'workers:
> I just wanted to personally respond to the various
> queries,
> regarding the Gotthiem/Jacobs exchange at Views
> recently:
> Larry Gottheim showed several brand new
> preservation prints
> thanks to Donnell Media Center and teh NFP folks:
> Blues,
> Fogline, BarnRushes, then Your Television Traveler
> (my
> personal fave), then a work-in-progress video The
> Opening from
> Chants and Dances, in which we see a ritual ceremony
> in
> motion, indoors, what appears to be a Haitain,
> certainly
> Carribean community,where an animal is sacrificed
> cermoniously, it's throat slit and the blood pours
> from its
> neck into a vessel, presided over by a young girl.
> In the Q and A following, Ken Jacobs objected
> strenuously to
> this work,-- for its portrayl of bloodletting within
> a
> religious setting (superstition he called it, I
> deplore it he
> said) and proceeded to expound upon ideas regarding
> the
> age-old links between religion, bloodshed,
> &politics; indeed
> our present condition, and why make artworks which
> participate
> in this cycle of bloodshed, or how will we ever
> break it?
> All who have heard Ken speak in person know his
> particular
> passionate secular stance.
> They parried, points considered on both sides, (this
> is a
> nutshell only--I wish I had the tape!), and finally
> Larry,
> speaking from what was clearly a deeply considered
> space, was
> roused to a great eloquence and said, 'But Ken,
> there is no
> work of art so distilled, so pure, that can save us
> from the
> horrors of life.' or words to that effect.
>
> yr film festival traveller,
> J.L.
>
>
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.