From: Cari Machet (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Mar 14 2006 - 10:30:43 PST
On 3/12/06, Marilyn Brakhage <email suppressed> wrote:
> On Sunday, March 12, 2006, at 09:36 AM, Cari Machet wrote:
> > so yes i would have to say i disagree
> > all is art.
> I was making a play here on the Charles Olson line that Stan would
> frequently quote: "All IS interesting/ nothing is."
>However, I guess
> you're right, in a sense, if you mean to say that everything IS
> interesting, because in some ways, of course, everything -- or anything
> -- is. But if everything is light, what is "dark"? If everything is
> large, what is "small"? If everything is happy, what is "sad"? In
> other words, we define things, in part, by what they are not. And my
> point, I guess, was just that if the word "art" is too broadly applied
> it tends to lose meaning. Likewise, if the word "hobby" is too widely
> applied, or if the two words are conflated into a single meaning, then
> there will be a loss of understanding.
the issues that fluxus was dealing with (and dada, futurists... b4 )
were attempts to free art fr: not only commodification
but a certain death of the mind - the mind of art
for them to say "art is life"
breathed life into art (the 'artworld' as it were)
where a deadness was lying
meaning - limits were placed upon - coffins made - cages built
to open the space of art like duchamp in his praise of the urinal
(which was not considered art at all)
structures our hearts and minds (and universe) into praise of life
structures and alignes moreover
thru praise/homage of everyday (object)
"art is not a mirror but a hammer"
- i heard recently - i think on the oscars - an exception speech -
we're not just doodlers o' perty pictures so's tu make everbody happy
were dealing with everything
science...(what was ur list)
dark light large small happy sad...
the consistent 'problem'
is that words define but are not (this is not a pipe)
so to expect them to say with absolute understanding what is
is well not gonna happen
but moreover the problem is that every moment is different
at the same time that it is of same or has sameness
and our understanding though large is also small
...so i am not sure there is absolute darkness - maybe but...
language is alive so yes we could use a new word
wanna make one up for us marilyn?
the etymology will not be that easy it is fr: ars (roman i think)
maybe the new word could b "post-art" or
"super-art" [a super best friends reference fr: southpark]
or we could be linear and go to "aru"
> In my experience it is often people who want to call whatever they do
> "art" -- whether it be fishing, cooking, therapy, (or, for that matter,
> filmmaking) -- who are trying to inflate their egos, because they seem
> to feel that the word "art" validates what they do in some way. They
> think of it as a value judgment and don't want anyone valued higher
> than anyone else. Or perhaps they think that "art" simply means
> "personal expression," and therefore, because they are just as valid or
> valuable a person as anyone else, what they do should be called their
> "art." That's all okay, if that's what the word has come to mean. But
> then, in that case, we're needing another word. (But I do not consider
> myself an artist, and don't think I am trying to inflate my ego simply
> by trying to distinguish what art might actually be.)
funny that it is used as such an inflator
whereby so much deflation is placed on the artist
(of course u are not ego inflating marilyn - i don't think anyone thinks that)
> Of course, you are also right to suggest that the lines are not clear
> and absolute. Just like happy and sad are not truly distinct . . .
> These are the limitations of words. But as I began my participation in
> this discussion by saying, I don't know artists who make art simply
> "because they enjoy it." I do know people who pursue hobbies "because
> they enjoy it." I think it's a different type of engagement, and
> probably generally brings about different results.
yes there is a different mechanism at work w/ artists
you are very right
an x-boyfriends therapist met with me - to feel me out
and told him afterwords
"she's a real artist - she only cares about art - she will/can never love you"
i am not adhering to - artists cannot love people - by quoting him
just that art is chunky
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.