Art is no longer anti-art for, yes, it has enveloped the anti.
Thus genuine anti is nearly impossible to find, and harder
to do.
High art, that is, the excessively luxurious auction house
kind, the high-toned museum intensely-curated kind, the
haute culture kind, is never anti except as a subterfuge
to entice the anti-art culture into the big house.
MoMA, recall, was once anti, and now you see its hulking
vulgarities arrayed along West 53rd and 54th Streets with
not a protest in sight nor allowed, though a film now and
then portrays the acceptable protests in acceptably
comfortable theaters with not a smidgen of discomfort
to body, mind or senses.
Up in the galleries, at MoMA and as elsewhere imitated,
the art works are displayed as icons for obsequy of the
observers, with not a smidgen of chance of the observer
interacting with the holy reliquaries, guards and barriers
and sensors fiercely arrayed to enforce a respectful
back-off.
All the anti-artists on display have been neutered by the
museum-grade rigor mortification. Sure, you imagine
what some of the more confrontational pieces must
have been like when they first breached institutional
crepuscularity, but now the actual and imaginary
cages into which they have been curatorially inserted
and ostentatiously insured against theft, vandalism
and devaluation, have rendered the once provocative
pieces as inoffensive, gilded kitsch.
What this has to do with design-l is that there should
be no need to describe this tumult in hackneyed terms
of art, architecture, design and culture. That gilded
pretense should not be necessary. Instead, consider
describing what can be done to escape those ever
illusory, ever corrupting, comforts, and not least
the undermining falsity of well-mannered protest
and disagreement.
Did not Howard demonstrate the crippling urge to quote
other people, very important people, in lieu of facing the
hardship of speaking for yourself, however haltingly
and crudely.
The verities of art, architecture, design and culture
are their most harmful aspects.
At 01:48 PM 3/29/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>John Young wrote:
>
>
>> It would be a "break-through," heh, to emblazen this list as anti-art,
>> -architecture, -design and -culture if no worse and more
>> offensive contrari-nomics can be anti-ed up.
>
>doesn't 'art' imply/include 'anti-art'?
>
>of the four words, the one i probably like least is 'culture' though
>it's not as forbidding as 'civilization'(and its derivatives: civil,
>civility, civilized).
>
>as i type, i'm listening to an analog 1957 tape of 'peter and the wolf'
>(prokofiev). now there's a piece of cultural art ...
>
>_______________________________________________
>the design-list, version 2.0, online since 1992...
>~ open discussion of art, architecture, design and culture ~
>http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/design-l.v2
>
Thus genuine anti is nearly impossible to find, and harder
to do.
High art, that is, the excessively luxurious auction house
kind, the high-toned museum intensely-curated kind, the
haute culture kind, is never anti except as a subterfuge
to entice the anti-art culture into the big house.
MoMA, recall, was once anti, and now you see its hulking
vulgarities arrayed along West 53rd and 54th Streets with
not a protest in sight nor allowed, though a film now and
then portrays the acceptable protests in acceptably
comfortable theaters with not a smidgen of discomfort
to body, mind or senses.
Up in the galleries, at MoMA and as elsewhere imitated,
the art works are displayed as icons for obsequy of the
observers, with not a smidgen of chance of the observer
interacting with the holy reliquaries, guards and barriers
and sensors fiercely arrayed to enforce a respectful
back-off.
All the anti-artists on display have been neutered by the
museum-grade rigor mortification. Sure, you imagine
what some of the more confrontational pieces must
have been like when they first breached institutional
crepuscularity, but now the actual and imaginary
cages into which they have been curatorially inserted
and ostentatiously insured against theft, vandalism
and devaluation, have rendered the once provocative
pieces as inoffensive, gilded kitsch.
What this has to do with design-l is that there should
be no need to describe this tumult in hackneyed terms
of art, architecture, design and culture. That gilded
pretense should not be necessary. Instead, consider
describing what can be done to escape those ever
illusory, ever corrupting, comforts, and not least
the undermining falsity of well-mannered protest
and disagreement.
Did not Howard demonstrate the crippling urge to quote
other people, very important people, in lieu of facing the
hardship of speaking for yourself, however haltingly
and crudely.
The verities of art, architecture, design and culture
are their most harmful aspects.
At 01:48 PM 3/29/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>John Young wrote:
>
>
>> It would be a "break-through," heh, to emblazen this list as anti-art,
>> -architecture, -design and -culture if no worse and more
>> offensive contrari-nomics can be anti-ed up.
>
>doesn't 'art' imply/include 'anti-art'?
>
>of the four words, the one i probably like least is 'culture' though
>it's not as forbidding as 'civilization'(and its derivatives: civil,
>civility, civilized).
>
>as i type, i'm listening to an analog 1957 tape of 'peter and the wolf'
>(prokofiev). now there's a piece of cultural art ...
>
>_______________________________________________
>the design-list, version 2.0, online since 1992...
>~ open discussion of art, architecture, design and culture ~
>http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/design-l.v2
>