#23

“Wanderer” by Antonio Machado, 1912 (translation: Francisco Varela)

3 Likes
#24

First post here, was going to write a pretty long post about my experiences within the avant garde community but deleted it to say this.

Abstract art has become a con, highly profitable for some and easily exploited.

2 Likes
#25

Well. If we’re calling whole swathes of contemporary art “a con”, I guess it’s about time to stop. I don’t see where we can productively go from here. Sheesh.

3 Likes
#26

I’m not sure I can stand by a sweeping statement like this… what do you include in “abstract art”? Do you mean painting? Photography? Installation? Performance? Sound?

I know lots of amazing artists working in “abstraction” that certainly don’t see the financial benefit of it and work very hard to make their works meaningful.

Do you mean in the commercial art world? IMO, that’s a whole different game and not what Greer was talking about in the piece that sparked this conversation.

2 Likes
#27

I suspect that there’s a kernel of truth in this overly sweeping statement. Rather than being immediately dismissive, I’m more interested in digging into it and understanding what was specifically meant.

I can certainly think of instances where I’d tend to agree. Others where I definitely wouldn’t.

1 Like
#28

Not to mention that this entire perspective makes a mockery of representational art, by reducing it to a “function” of likeness or correspondence it more or less never fulfills. [in other words, it’s a classic move of mistaking the picture for the frame]

Also – what exactly is it we are representing or abstracting? Every generation or handful of generations sees things so differently!

5 Likes
#29

I’m down with that though.

Yer gonna have your ‘authenticity’ and ‘artist’s visions’ on one hand,
and yer works that just function in weird ways as they rub against our institutions, on the other hand. (those aren’t the poles really…but we all know that ;)) So why is it ok that art is a con sometimes? 1. Art is amoral (there are no “shoulds”) and 2.It’s because people like money and our society centres itself around it. Artists know this and play with that membrane.

In the book Art, Performance, Media Nam Jun Paik is asked what makes a work good and he answers that it’s because it’s expensive. If you want to make a work better, you make it more expensive. Infallible advice.

Andy Warhol wanted a million dollars so he made a print of a million dollars and exchanged it for a real million…over and over again. (That’s in his autobiography The philosophy of Andy Warhol: A to B and back again)

Both these examples tickle me in a very particular way.

(I just jumped into the conversation here, but if this is in no way relevant I don’t want to derail.)

7 Likes
#30

Happy to see a conversation, yes my statement is provocative and is meant to be, as to which medium I feel is a con, all mediums suffer but as this forum is dedicated to musical expression let us explore that medium, it’s probably far easier to analyse what I mean.

As someone who has enjoyed making music with electronic gadgets for several decades now for no other reason than the self-satisfaction of doing so I have been involved with many projects, every project I have been involved with had an ulterior motive, always ego driven by those involved, mainly exposure for either profit or sex, neither interests me but it does enable those that are and are willing to put themselves in full view of the public, what is abstract when it comes to a musical performance, does it still have to follow rules?

This is what I would like to debate, I’m not trying to tell people to give up making music because I don’t agree with what they are doing but if you feel that other people should understand what you are expressing via your music, I would like to know why.

2 Likes
#31

I don’t know if it’s a necessity, but it is often a personal goal. Music can be a powerful communication medium, and I would love to be able to use it as such. But when I stick to abstractions, I do find the confidence I have about my ability to communicate intention or meaning through those abstractions is negatively impacted. I have more confidence in my ability to communicate when I move to a more explicit, straightforward, and provocatively I’ll suggest “honest” forms.

What do I mean by honest? I mean “it does what it says on the tin”. It’s not engaging in dual meanings, subtext, or esoteric/hidden/secret motives.

I think it’s possible we’ve grown both cynical and fearful about the possibility for such honesty.

And hey, I get it. I’ve spent a fair amount of time in marginalized communities, esoteric communities. Communities intentionally operating in the shadows because the obscurity is a necessary framing, and the knowledge literally wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t protected from the full sun.

But does this describe everything we might ever express? Obviously not.

3 Likes
#32

That is a very good question, especially in non-visual arts. The abstract/representational division (not to mention, realistic representation vs. exaggerated, stylized, symbolic representation) doesn’t really seem to apply in music, and is itself kind of an abstract idea, isn’t it?

3 Likes
#34

217727
HipstamaticPhoto-564972283.217727.jpg3024×3024 910 KB

like a pokémon
saying our own name over and over
here’s a photo I took today
and some tracks we made that I like…

//art is a language

#35

Well, to keep it short – I think there might be some unreflected privilege behind some of these statements. For me it’s not a matter of “spending time” like vacationing, or like it’s a mask I can put on and take off, it’s not a mask period. It’s who I am and honesty is creating out of that.

I know you didn’t exactly mean it like this, but part of recognizing privilege is also recognizing that it’s sometimes those outside the communities who need to share the burdens (and also joys) of interpretation. That there are dual meanings and subtexts for a reason, which is not to hide (since we could just only communicate among ourselves) but in fact to reach out, to start building bridges but in ways that give us at least some protection.

Yes, successful art is forthright. I get that. But sometimes there are necessary failures or partial failures on the way to success. Part of recognizing one’s privilege is to accept this and make the best sense one can of the expression in the meantime.

3 Likes
#36

definitely… the argument was never really non-objective vs. representational; it was cherubs vs. smokestacks… in 2018 one can include both and in a cartoonish style…

which is also really not subject matter so much as different ways of seeing… we do also a great injustice towards European painting of the 18th century and before by focusing on technique and not appreciating their way of seeing which is so different from ours… that’s what’s so frustrating about these arguments, it’s not what they say about modern art, it’s how they undermine appreciation also for the art one is trying to defend…

the modern “way of seeing”… also about much more than smokestacks, obviously… it’s about the entire range of visions that came in through photography… (or through ways of seeing – Turner etc. – which anticipated photography), or simply through modern life…

it’s the way of seeing which motivates the question – not how can we represent but what do we represent? what are we really after in our search for subjects? what really is the inspiration that draws us out of ourselves, that occasions the initial abandon? what is it exactly that plugs us in to the flow? can what flows also take on the apparition of an inner vision? at what point does this vision also abandon the object, and give way to other forms of occasioning?

4 Likes
#37

lol, totally, internet too. sucks so much, don’t bother. :money_with_wings::money_with_wings::money_with_wings::computer::framed_picture:

3 Likes
#38

Is it fair to classify synthesizers as representational instruments? With enough time and attention, a representation of for example a clarinet or a bowed string can exist as an artistic creation.

#39

only if it’s fair to classify paint as a representational instrument as well—so I don’t think so.

3 Likes
#40

I’ve been following this thread for awhile and don’t have much to add, but I saw this screenshot that I think (indirectly) engages with this concept of craftsmanship, talent, and intent…

image
6EC6B15D-7E13-4CDD-9EFF-192CACF44FDB.jpg750×1334 254 KB

7 Likes
#41

Jerry Saltz! this guy totally gets it… in every way. Thank you!

I came across this background to the lesson #34 you shared – usually these “X rules to be Y” are disappointing but this is NOT, it’s “required reading” to be sure, and indeed covers so much of the same ground as the issues we’ve been discussing, but with a much more practical orientation.

8 Likes
#42

image
image.png1129×144 29.6 KB

3 Likes
#46

have seriously read through this thread a handful of times, and i’m still working out where i want to jump in. definitely feeling the need to brush up on latour’s experimental metaphysics (especially by way of adam s miller), as i think there’s further articulation re: dinergy in the concept of resistant availability…and if my memory serves, some more re: the emergence of truth via dialogue/negotiation (or maybe that’s miller riffing on someone else).

i’m still parsing the convo re: intent, and i think i feel the need to posit an additional function, which might help clarify. i’m not sure i equate intent with Will, any more than i equate utopia with the debris that remains when it fails…but i’m thinking that’s more an issue of finding a term that better fits what i’ve been calling intent, or better articulating the felt-sense of intending that acts as the motivation which pours me into dialogue through the creative processes.

there’s the arousal & identification of desire that pulls the attention toward its object, motivates (for me, anyway) the creation of an interstice—be it sigil (or more interesting magical vessel), image/sound/text piece, etc—which holds/channels that germ (that’s usually what i call “intent”). and then there’s “result”. which…magic always yields unexpected additional results, and art tends to, as well (if there’s any vitality therein). the feedback (result), when approached in dialogue, can reveal theme ("oh, that’s what this is really about), which i think also echoes Will. (did i intend to destroy a specific relationship when i performed a rite to “kill what won’t make it through the winter”? no. was it my Will? undoubtedly.) and that/those get/s folded back into the conversation, until the object is formed enough to speak for itself. at which point, it travels into social spheres, and engages others in conversation…

TL;DR: this topic is infinitely more engaging than greer’s original “article” (blogpost?). thanks, all, for extending the conversation so fully. & thanks for your patience, if you made it this far. next time, i should probably map out what i want to say beforehand (& longhand).

1 Like