From: Cari Machet (email suppressed)
Date: Wed Jun 28 2006 - 21:03:25 PDT
On 6/28/06, Michael Betancourt <email suppressed> wrote:
> I don't think meaning arises from anything except people who make
> > > interpretations.
> > that means you are a phenomenologist
> > and a anthropocentric thinker
> Well, since we are talking about a class of artifact called "art" and
> humans are the only ones I know of who make "art" and assign meaning to it,
> in this instance, yes I am.
other animals that i know of make art
i knew an amazing gorilla named phil
that placed alot of release energy on pissing and throwing his food and shit
at people staring at him in the zoo
he was very famous
and now is stuffed as a zoo display
to me that is high level performance art
beyond that fluxus states that "art = life" so...
guess we need to look up 'meaning' in the dic
But, my views are much more like those of the complex adaptive systems
> theorists who describe all interactions as "interpretations"
i don't think the interaction of oxygen and plant life is an interpretation
transformation yes but...
- how sad -
> > i am more of a rationalist
> > i have respect for all life forms
> I don't see how you got that I am not/do not from what I have said here or
> elsewhere in the past.
well what u are stating here does not express respect in my mind
saying our processies are beyond other processies isn't respect to me
make an argument for how it is
Which returns the question of what makes this "good"
> > > you're talking about, or by implication, what makes a work "bad"?
> > judgements of good and bad
> > prerequisite that good and bad actually exist
> > in an unmutable form
> Now we're getting someplace! So there's no good or bad. :) I like that
> So when screening committees make decisions at experimental festivals
> (several have recently been discussed) what criteria determine who gets
> shown, not shown, who wins money, who doesn't? Even if we don't call these
> criteria good/bad, what should we be calling them?
well in art school it was hammered into my brain that artwork viewing is
but as well it is
i think there is very set criteria
within known comfort levels
(as in psychological models)
basing judgement of good/bad on
what we have experienced - what we know
leads often to an elitist nature
and as we have been posting about
judging whether the art aligns with criteria of
white male identity models
i wonder if any festivals let viewers vote?
(way too democratic i bet)
base thought processies lead to our 'prestigious' judges - we need 'gods'
(on accounta we are schmucks and unbeautiful
just as our own selves)
you would think 'experimental' would make a 'new' model in festival activity
i have been in some that don't have 'winners'
as far as what we call the criteria of judgement
calling things stuff and labeling can b as off
as well the judgement based activity behind
judging others' artwork
i prefer to think of things as 'working' in the activity that it set out to
express and be
(although sometimes art takes on a life of it's own
so the maker may not be at all 'aware' of that activity)
i think phil's shit flinging worked for me
bcause the spectacle was so amazing
- viewers dodging shit, food, and piss -
i felt very honored as a viewer
but it didn't really work so well for phil
not in the aspect of that i think
he just wanted to b left alone to be
however it did 'work' in that he was able to express his frustration with
his very sad situation
cages can b coffins
(so's can labels)
> Des Moines, IA USA
> the avant-garde film & video blog
> __________________________________________________________________ For
> info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.