Date: 8 Jul 1996 16:33:47 +0200
From: "lcshezen"
Subject: Cognition , EMOTION AND THE BRAIN A DIFFERENT VIEW
Cognition , EMOTION AND THE BRAIN A DIFFERENT VIEW- ALEXANDER SAVITZKY
This article argues that knowledge about objects and events is not received
by sense organs, but is experienced by means of the effector systems of our
organism. The brain is considered as a physiological intensity-processing,
modulating and relaying mechanism and not as a psychological-information
processor. Experience is regarded as an effect of the integration of
cognition with feelings. The cognitive and the affective processes are
distorted or abolished, if deprived of this integration. This is proved by
experiments, although the common interpretation of them has been varied.
INTRODUCTION.
Neither the ancient dualistic soul-body philosophy, nor Kant's escapism to
transcendental metaphysics, or the countless theories of mind-brain
interaction do explain psychophysio- logical phenomena. Encouraged by modern
technology, contemporary scientists developed a neuropsychological dualism
instead.The new mysterious entity, by account of which scientists hope to
explain psychophysiological processes (some time in the future) is the
brain.
The current conjectures are based on the correlation between instances of
brain damage, of stimuli, and electrical or chemical neurophysiological
processes on the one hand, and psychological or behavioral events on the
other. Most work on the cognitive and the psychophysiological sciences is
grounded on the notion that we receive information about objects and events
by sense organs. The information is coded and transmitted by neurons to the
brain, where it is processed, represented and stored. Hence psychological
operations, such as perception, thoughts, emotion etc. are, according to this
suggestion, performed by the brain. But no code or process has been found, by
the means of which information about any object is passed on to the brain or
by which it is processed, represented or stored there. The reason for this
failure does not derive from the lack of technological means, but, in the
view of this article, from a misleading conception of the psychophysiological
process.
This work will be based on the following assumptions:
Objects or the properties of them cannot be absorbed and transmitted by sense
organs or by neurons, but are experienced by our organism. Hence
environmental phenomena cannot be received, processed, represented and stored
in the brain. Objects are cognized by learning the sequences and
combinations of proprioceptive sensations, which may, but must not be
extended by additional sensory modalities. Affective events are expressed by
certain autonomic system's activities. According to this postulate any model
of the psycho-physiological system must discriminate five categories of
logical combinations: Stimulating agents, trigger mechanisms, activating
agents, effectors and behavioral psychological effects.
The physical environmental factors are the stimulating agents. The sense
organs are triggers. The neuronal and the hormonal systems are the modulating
and activating agent. The motor and some of the autonomic system's organs are
the effectors. Some of the arousals of effectors are considered by us as
psychological, meaning cognitive and affective effects.
Please ask for the whole article from Alexander Savitzky, email:
lcshezen@wiccmail weizmann.ac.il
SENSATIONS, PERCEPTION AND FEELINGS.
Let us examine the validity of some of the conjectures mentioned above. A
slight pressure on the trigger of a rifle causes an explosion in the
cartridge and the ejection of the bullet. Can we regard the pressure of the
finger on the trigger as the input of information about the finger? Is this
information transferred to, processed by, or represented in the mechanism of
the rifle? Do the various stages of the process belong to the same category?
Is every stage a coded version, or the representation of the previous stage?
These questions are odd. But aren't they similar to those asked and
considered as appropriate in the description of psycho-physiological
processes?
The conventional postulate that information is received by sense-organs and
passed by neurons to the brain disregards the possibility of a simpler
account: that (as with the rifle),each stage is only triggered by the
previous activity and triggeres the following one. In this account stimulated
sensory cells trigger neurons which in turn induce motor and autonomic
effectors, which stimulate afferent neurons and vice versa in feedback loops.
In this case the terms receptor and neurotransmitter are misleading.
Receptors do not receive and transmitters do not transmit any physical or
psychological knowledge about phenomena. Sense organs are triggers and not
receivers of environmental information. The "information" received by
sense-organs and passed by neurons may be reduced to two physical factors:
frequency and intensity; and as revealed by Plank's equation, frequency is
virtually a function of intensity. Neurons fire at a greater frequency if
activated by a greater frequency or a greater intensity. Due to their
physiological properties sense organs and neurons may sum up or moderate
these intensities. In spite of the specificity of "receptors" of all kinds,
they may be stimulated by different stimulants. Neither the physical
stimulants, such as photons, vibrating particles or air waves, nor
psychological phenomena, such as sensations of light, smell, taste or voices
are received by sense-organs and transferred by neurons to the brain.
The survival value of sense-organs can be understood by their contact (via
neurons) with reacting effectors. Piaget regarded sensory-motor operations as
the basis of perception, the creation of cognitive schemata (Piaget and al.
1969). Perception is the cognition and recognition of objects and object
relationships. It is learned by means of reafferent palpation and locomotion
evoking combinations and sequences of proprioceptive, meaning tactile,
vestibular and kinesthetic sensations. Touching the surface of an object is
not sufficient to recognize a table and to distinguish it from a piece of
wood, a chair or another phenomenon. To cognize a table we must palpate it.
The combinations and sequences of muscle stretch, and of other proprioceptive
sensations are learned as the hight, length, weight, hardness, thickness etc.
of the various objects and may create in us facilitated feedback loops, which
include the relevant effectors. If induced, the activation of the latter
evokes the cognitive schemata, regarded by us as the perception of phenomena.
In other words, the arousal of combinations and sequences of sensations
deriving from motor activities is the process of cognizing, of creating new
perceptions, or of "retrieving" them by evoking learned cognitive schemata.
By learning, these processes may be facilitated to such an extent, that the
motor activities will be evoked to a minimal intensity. But they must exist,
because disconnection of sensory-motor effectors from effectors of other
modalities causes a distortion or even loss of cognitive abilities, as will
be described in the next lines.
Hubel and Wiesel detected, cells which are excited when we see a bar at a
specific orientation (Hubel and Wiesel 1962). But , according to the theory
presented in these pages, what they virtually found are some flip-flop cells
relaying arousals to the relevant motor-vestibular effectors and not
"orientation sensitive cells". Searching for features or other properties of
objects in the central neuronal system or in some codes of its activity seems
strange, if inferred by scientists who know the properties of neurons. The
mechanism of cognizing objects is not the brain, but the proprioceptive
system.
Such psychological operations cannot be considered as the derivatives of
retinal stimuli, or of the appearence of retinal images, or retinotopic
correlations in the lateral geniculate nucleus of
-3-
the thalamus, or in "visual" cortices. For we cannot by optic means learn the
meaning of high, deep, orientation, or hard, soft, smooth, long, thick, cold,
hot and other properties of phenomena.
Proprioceptive senstions may, but need not be enriched by optic and other
sensations. The optic ability is an extention of the proprioceptive basis of
cognition. A blind born child may learn to cognize objects by palpation only.
A human with distorted vision may adapt to the environment by reafferent
sensory-motor activity (eg.Stratton 1896). But neonates deprived of
proprioceptive sensations cannot cognize phenomena (eg.Held and Hein 1963).
It is not important that something stimulates the lower or any other part of
the retina. If we have learned that we must raise our hand to touch it , we
will see it above and not below.
And as to "abstract" psychological conceptions, let us consider some
examples. Striatum neurons' discharge normally precedes the onset of specific
movements. Lesions of basal ganglia may be accompanied by akinesia, by
disorders of movements initiation. The conjecture that voluntary movements
are induced and performed by psychological energies, such as our will or
initiative does not contribute to an explanation of these phenomena.
Lesions of basal ganglia also cause disorders of automatic movements
including maladaption to certain vestibular stimuli, to changes in the
human's orientation and posture toward objects. Hence, in order to remain in
the realistic domain of psychophysiology we might rather infer, that
activities of the sensory-motor feedback loops (which include neuronal
junctions, such as the basal ganglia and many others) are induced by the
feedback loops of neuronal activators and by motor-vestibular effectors and
by the effects of their arousals.
Various experiments do indeed indicate, that initiative, as also thoughts
expectations and other psychological processes are characterized by motor
activities. For example, some specific minor changes in muscular activities
characterize particular psychological processes, such as imagining, "silent
language processing" and others (Cacioppo and al. 1981). And Pavlov's
experiments leave no doubt, that the dog's expectation for food is expressed
by salivation and other physiological activities characterizing the contact
with food, or the imagination or expectation of such an event.
"Emotions" have been identified by James with certain activities of the
autonomic system. James claimed, that "we feel sorry because we cry, angry
because we strike, afraid because we tremble, and not that we cry, strike or
tremble because we are sorry, angry or fearful..." (James 1890). In other
words, contrary to Cannon (1927) James considered emotions as effects of
physiological processes. This view must be accomplished, explained, but also
partly challenged by introducing the task of learning and memory in
psychophysiological processes. Since such an explanation is beyond the scope
of this epitomized article, it will be presented in my next work:"Learning,
Memory, Cognition and the Brain" (Savitzky 1996, in preparation). What we
may remark at this stage is, that many physiological processes are performed
without our knowledge of their mental effects. But no mental operation can be
performed without the physiological basis of it. We may dissociate
physiological processes from mental effects, but we cannot dissociate mental
experiences from their physiological basis, since the psychophysiological
mechanism functions as a feedback system. Each psychological and behavioral
effect may influence or even determine the involvement of the other
categories of processes, even of its physiological effectors.
THE NEXT ALD LAST PART WILL COME SOON
Since the autonomic system is involved in the metabolism, the conversion,
accumulation and use of energy and in maintaining homeostasis, every
stimulus, if strong enough, must induce the autonomic system (via the limbic
system and the hypothalamus). And since some of the autonomic system's
activities evoke in us feelings, we may infer that every stimulus, if strong
enough, may evoke feelings, which are considered in this article as good or
bad, pleasant or unpleasant. So, when Olds and Millner discovered groups of
cells, the arousal of which seemed to cause pleasure to the mouse while
pressing a pedal (Olds and Millner
-4-
1954), they actually must have found neuronal relay junctions interconnected
to some autonomic system's effectors, such as neurons and hormone glands, the
activation of which may induce muscle constriction which evokes pleasure in
the mouse. The inference that pleasure-centres have been discovered sounds
extremely strange.
Feelings become psychologically meaningful only when integrated with
cognitive processes. The integration of the affective and the cognitive
dimensions is necessary for our awareness of phenomena. This effect is
considered in this work as experience (Savitzky 1989,1991).
So, unlike feelings, emotions, such as envy, hatred, grief, love etc. are
experiences, since they contain not only the affective, but also the
cognitive dimension. On the other hand we cannot cognize phenomena if the
perception of them is not integrated with feelings, which award cognition
with vital qualities. This attitude is supported by countless experiments and
observations, which are ascribed by this article mainly to disconnections of
effector systems from each other.
A few of many examples: Superfluous quantities of dopamine (an inhibitory
"neuro- transmitter")in the nigrostriatic pathway may result in delirium in
schizophrenic patients. By a decreased activity of GABA and cholinergic
striatal neurons in Huntington's disease some patients become euphoric,
others are irascible and violent. Damage to the cingula of the limbic system,
inferotemporal loss (Wilson 1957), removal of both temporal lobes (Kluver and
al.1937) or any other kind of disconnection of the optic system from the
proprioceptive or from the autonomic system may cause "psychic
blindness"(Kluver and al,1937) or "visual agnosia"(Kolb and al.1985). The
distruction of particular areas or even particular cells in the inferior or
the superior temporal cortex, the striate, or the associative cortices may
also cause various specific visual deficiencies (Desimone and al.1979;
Kendrick and al.1987; Livingstone and al.1988;Phillips and al.1984).
So surplus of inhibitory "neurotransmitters" or neurohormones, atrophy of
nerve-cells in the brain, tumors and other kinds of damage or the
pharmacological intervention of anesthetists or scientists in certain brain
areas disonnecting or distorting the connections between the physiological
systems may create anesthesia, analgesia, anamnesia, the various agnosias and
other psychological distortions and insufficiencies.
All these and many other correlations tempt us to regard defined brain areas
as centres that are responsible for specific psychological functions and the
motor, the autonomic and other organic systems as mere peripheral
physiological agents. This assumption derives from considering the brain as
the "core" of the organism and all the rest as the periphery of it , which is
in the view of this article a mistaken and misleading conception.The brain
does not feel, perceive, think, represent or perform any other psychological
or behavioral process. The brain is a physiological intensity modulating and
relaying unit and not a psychological-information processor (Savitzky 1993).
The so called "brain centres" are groups of neuronal relay junctions. Hence
my conclusion from the above mentioned instances is, that the psychological
process may become distorted or abolished, because the relevant physiological
effector systems are damaged or disconnected from each other and not because
functionally specific mental and affective brain centres are damaged.
I believe that the views expounded in this theory, which is based on a
realistic consideration of the brain's function in the organic feedback
system, will provide a better explanation of the cognitive and the affective
processes.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my dear friends Dr. Eli
Shezen, Dr.Eli Daryn, Prof. Josef Tagelicht and Prof. Dov Zipori for their
generosity in supporting and encouraging me along the "Via Dolorosa" of
accomplishing and publishing this work.
Please send commentaries, questions or suggestions to email:
lcshezen@wiccmail.weizmann.ac,il
-5-
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
Cacioppo J.T., Petty R.E. (1981) Electromyograms and measures of extent and
affectivity of information processing.American Psychologist 36.5.441-456
Cannon W.B.(1927) The James-Lange theory of emotion: A critical examination
and an alternative theory. American Journal of Psychology 39.106-124
Desimone R., Gross C.G.(1979) Visual areas in the temporal cortex of the
macaque. Brain Research, 178.363-380
Held R., Hein A. (1963) Movement-produced stimulation in the development of
visually guided behavior.Journal of comparative and physiological psychology.
56.5.872-876
Hubel D.H., Wiesel T.N. (1962) Receptive fields, binocular interaction and
functional architecture in the cat's visual cortex. Journal of Psychology.
160.106-154
James W. (1890) The Principles of Psychology .Dover Publications. New
York.Vol.2
Kendrick K.M., Baldwin B.A.(1987) Cells in the temporal cortex of conscious
sheep can respond preferentially to the sight of faces.Science, 236.448-450
Kluver H.,Bucy P.C.(1937) "Psychic Blindness" and other symptoms following
bilateral temporal lobectomy in Rhesus monkeys. American Journal of
Psychology119.352-353
Kolb B., Whishow I.O.(1985 Fundamentals of human neurophysiology (2nd ed.)New
York:Freeman.
Livingstone M., Hubel D.(1988) Segregation of form, color, movement and
depth: Anatomy, physiology and perception.Science 240.740-749
Olds J.,Milner P. (1954) Positive reinforcement produced by electrical
stimulation of the septal area and other regions of the rat brain.Journal of
comparative and physiological psychology 47.419-427
Phillips C.G., Zeki S., Barlow H.B.(1984) Localization of function in the
cerebral cortex.Brain 107.328-360
Piaget J., Inhelder B.(1969) The psychology of the child.
London:Routledge,Kegan Paul
Savitzky A. (1989).Brain and Psychophysiology of experience. Barakan.Tel Aviv
Savitzky A. Brain and Experience.(1991)Psychologia 2.2.171-185
Savitzky A.(1993) Brain and Experience. The book of abstracts. The 24th
congress of the Israel Psychological Association.327
Straton G.(1896).Some preliminary experiments in vision without inversion of
the retinal image. The psychological review. 3.611-617
Wilson M.(1957). Effects of circumscribed cortical lesions upon somesthetic
and visual discrimination in the monkey.Journal of Comparative and
Physiological Psychology. 50. 630-635
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 03:04:33 -0400
From: Damion001@AOL.COM
Subject: 900-ART-IN-THE-FUTURE
Bob Hobbs wrote:
<<...works that everyone pretty much agrees is classical, timeless, will be
studied and considered great work 200 years from now...2000 years from now.
Somehow (and I may be wrong) I don't see most of what is being produced today
lasting that long. When I went to art school, we studied the work of the
masters from long ago. What will the art students of the year 2096 be
studying? The works of Rembrandt, the Brandywine School, the classics or
Hootie and the Blowfish, Beavis & Butthead and airbrushed t-shirts? >>
I think it's interesting that two people in opposition to the notion that the
contemporary music video is "high calibre" art have called upon some supposed
standards of the future to support their view. Tell me guys, can you predict
if I'm ever gonna get rich and famous too? Why not share your psychic powers
with all of us? (Or are you like a 900-number-psychics, just joshin'?)
Unfortunately, Bob Hobbs has distorted my message, making it seems as if I
was defending "Hootie and the Blowfish, Beavis & Butthead and airbrushed
t-shirts" as "high calibre" art. In fact, I have not. I discussed certain
videos as exceptional works of art, not every video. There are, as there has
been throughout the history of art, some terrible works. We don't condemn
all film because of something that Julia Roberts may have done. We don't
burn Bergman because we hate
Damion
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 08:48:00 DST
From: Will Rice
Bob's statement about the future is of relevance, not because any of us have
crystal balls or care so much about what people think then, or because of
some vague authority of history, but because one of the key elements that
many aestheticians have considered important to "great art" is universality,
i.e. that ability of an art work to resonate with people outside of the
artist's immediate culture, whether the separation is in time, or across
distance.
Consider art works that you don't particularly like, that you're indifferent
to. You might say things like "that doesn't reach me, that doesn't touch
me." It lacks a relation to your condition. If you read poetry and have
ever had a friend or student approach you with their works, you may have had
the awful experience of not having anything nice to say about it because the
work is so personal as to be completely about "them," having nothing to do
with anyone else.
Now think of whatever art work it is that you absolutely HATE. What is it
about the work that annoys you? My personal pet peeve is those bubble headed
figurines called "Precious Moments." It isn't just that they're mass
produced and poorly rendered figures, but that they express a "cutesy"
sentiment which is somewhat alien to me, and worse they pretend to have some
kind of "deep feeling" which is supposed to be profound and universal. We're
all supposed to go "awww, isn't that sweet" when we see those things. All
they do to me is make my colon tight.
When Bob (or anyone else) asks about what people a hundred years from now
think, I think he's asking about what is it that we as artists can say about
our experience that transcends the particulars of our individual lives and
will speak to others across time. What insights do we have to share within
our tribe and to other tribes? "Trivial" art, what ever that is, may be
interesting for historical reasons, or for invoking nostalgia for a
generation or two, but it doesn't reach out much beyond the moment. We can
talk about blending varying techniques by using video/music/setting, or
brush technique, or extensions of 12-tone serial techniques, or whatever the
techniques de jour may be, but technique is not what reaches the audience --
it's what it "means" to them, it's whether it "touches" them or not.
And as for them being under our noses, well, I have to agree --- but with
reservations. Yes they are here. No doubt their are as many Beethovens and
Bachs (and Fanny Mendelsohns, Clara Schumanns, and Hildegard von Bingens) as
ever. But there's so much clutter, so much "stuff" coming at us all the time
in our culture, it's hard to sift through all of it. Perhaps this would be a
good forum for sifting, composers telling visual artists about what they've
found, and vice versa; perhaps not.
I hope Bob will hang in here and keep asking his allegedly "naive"
questions. I've been lurking on this sight for three months and this is the
hottest discussion I've seen here yet.
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 08:03:50 -0400
From: "Mark G. Miller"
Damion wrote:
>I discussed certain
>videos as exceptional works of art, not every video. There are, as there has
>been throughout the history of art, some terrible works.
Damion is right about music videos. As with all art forms, music videos have
their roots in popular culture. Music videos were tacky and silly at first,
and many of them remain so, but some are moving into the realm of high art
now. Anyone who dismisses them as ``just rock 'n' roll'' or pop art doesn't
understand how art evolves. Storytelling, cave painting, ``moving
pictures,'' folk songs -- these and other art forms evolved into what we now
call high art or the fine arts. I suspect that people who contemptuously
dismiss music videos as garbage just hasn't spent much time watching them.
Music videos combine music, moviemaking, costuming and sets in a whole new
art form that will be around for a long time.
Mark
mgm@n-jcenter.com
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 02:53:17 -0400
From: Damion001@AOL.COM
Will Rice WRote:
>> Bob's statement about the future is of relevance, not because any of us
have crystal balls or care so much about what people think then, or because
of some vague authority of history, but because one of the key elements that
many aestheticians have considered important to "great art" is universality,
i.e. that ability of an art work to resonate with people outside of the
artist's immediate culture, whether the separation is in time, or across
distance.>>
Of course I also agree that universality is important, but I really wonder
what exactly "universality" means. I'm a fan of Harold Bloom's, the literary
and religious critic, I'm the listowner of H-Bloom in fact, but I think that
perhaps a weakness in his is that he makes the claim that
canonical authors such as Cervantes are universal while crappy authors like
Alice Walker aren't, because of their contemporary political motives or
whatever. It seems to me that claiming that a work has universal appeal is
simply another way of saying that it's good! But it describes nothing.
Saying "If it's good it's universal, if it's bad it's not," is just another
way of saying "it's good if it's good, it's bad if it's bad." Uh, Yeaah?
>>If you read poetry and have ever had a friend or student approach you with
their works, you may have had the awful experience of not having anything
nice to say about it because the work is so personal as to be completely
about "them," having nothing to do with anyone else.>>
Oh, okay yes I see what you mean. But then is it that you're indiferent or
that you happen to loathe sentimentality? Some writers get very sentimental
about themselves, thinking that because their history is interesting to them
it will interest everyone else. I think it's a difference between good and
bad writing, though. Montaigne's great, one of the greatest authors and
someone whose subject was himself. He wasn't sentimental about himself, but
totally within himself.
>>My personal pet peeve is those bubble headed figurines called "Precious
Moments." It isn't just that they're mass produced and poorly rendered
figures, but that they express a "cutesy" sentiment which is somewhat alien
to me, and worse they pretend to have some kind of "deep feeling" which is
supposed to be profound and universal. We're all supposed to go "awww, isn't
that sweet" when we see those things. All they do to me is make my colon
tight.>>
Hah! Wow, well I was just saying... Yes, I agree. In sentimentality you
have the object interesting for non-aesthetic reasons. A child's mother's
day card is interesting to the mother and no one else; not because mother's
day cards do not have universal importance or relevance, but because the card
simply is not beautiful, which is, I suppose, the opposite of the point you
were making.
>>When Bob (or anyone else) asks about what people a hundred years from now
think, I think he's asking about what is it that we as artists can say about
our experience that transcends the particulars of our individual lives and
will speak to others across time. What insights do we have to share within
our tribe and to other tribes?>>
Mmmm, I hope you don't get angry, but I think that view is sentimental. What
we think about human experience is so special? It's so special that it needs
to be shared? Pretend there's human-like life on Mars, to them wouldn't our
collective sharing of how we feel about our human experiences be as the
sentimental autobiography of a beginner writer is to you or me? Can we leave
the fact that we're human? Can we go beyond experience? Can we go beyond
universality, to the stars, to Mars or even further, to the deepest self?
How about this, great art is reverie.
I like a subjective Paterian or Wildean stance, and I don't think that
universality is necessarily what makes them great. Really I sort of just want
to dump the notion of universality, I mean, who cares, you know? If a
painting or a poem is so beautiful, so magnificent, so tragic, so sublime,
who even cares if anyone else sees it? Aren't aesthetic people sort of
selfish in that regard? Do we care about sharing? I know that many of us
care about showing our work and being highly esteemed and so on, but as you
stand before a beautiful painting, a great image, do you care about
"universality"? Do you worry that a rich heiress or poor imigrant won't "get
it"?
Damion
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 11:41:25 -0400
From: "Bob E. Hobbs"
Subject: An Introduction
Dear Listmembers,
Thank you for welcoming me into your discussion list. To start, I would like
to introduce myself to the listmembers:
My name is Bob, age 40, living in Newport, Rhode Island, USA. I am
African-American/American Indian and make my living as a freelance science
fiction illustrator. I have been a professional artist since 1973 and a
science fiction artist specifically since 1990. My work is published in scifi
magazines, books and card games across the country and in the United Kingdom.
I still consider myself new at the genre and am working my way up the ladder.
I only recently became a totally self-supporting freelance artist when I
resigned from my position as the illustrator for the U.S. Naval War College
where I had been for about 10 years. I have also worked as the illustrator
for a computer systems company, a security guard, and I was in the Navy for 4
years at the tail end of the Vietnam War.
I am interested in discussing the current state of the arts (visual and
otherwise), comic books and how they've changed, professional issues, living
the artist life and how artists deal with family, non-artist friends,
financial institutions, the general public's perception of artists, etc., art
education, the state of African-American and other minority artists in
society, the impact of computers on the arts and a little about art history
(not my best subject, though).
That's the basic into. I look forward to many hours of stimulating
conversation and the exchange of ideas and information. Be forwarned, I am
not the flaming type so you can be honest with me without fear of reprisals.
Thank you,
Bob Hobbs
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 08:54:00 DST
From: Will Rice
Subject: another stab at universality
Damion has raised several good points, I think, that should be addressed.
Not as a rebuttal, but more to build on some of the things he's said.
>> It seems to me that claiming that a work has universal appeal is
simply another way of saying that it's good! But it describes nothing.
Saying "If it's good it's universal, if it's bad it's not," is just another
way of saying "it's good if it's good, it's bad if it's bad." >>
I would reply that saying it is universal may mean that it has
intersubjective importance to many, many people. A work that survives "the
test of time" has something about it, something important, that relates to
many people in different circumstances. by universal I don't mean that this
is an "objective" quality in any epistemelogically verifiable sense, merely
that a collective judgment has been made that this particular object, this
work of art, is worth saving and showing to the next generation.
>>Some writers get very sentimental about themselves, thinking that because
their history is interesting to them it will interest everyone else. I
think it's a difference between good and bad writing, though. Montaigne's
great, one of the greatest authors and
someone whose subject was himself. He wasn't sentimental about himself, but
totally within himself.>>
But there must be something about his inner explorations that is of
importance to those who read him.
>>A child's mother's day card is interesting to the mother and no one else;
not because mother's day cards do not have universal importance or
relevance, but because the card
simply is not beautiful, which is, I suppose, the opposite of the point you
were making.>>
This is an excellent point. The mother's day card may seem trivial, yet
clearly is expresses what must be one of the most universal of sentiments.
(No, I don't hate sentimentality until it lapses into the maudlin, and yes
that's a subjective call.) I think what this points out is that universality
is a necessary but not sufficient cause for "greatness." Most cards seem
rather trivial, or obvious. One other quality that most great work has is
"originality," at least in its own time and place. (Here's another term to
explore!) A mother's day card that was truly unique might be an aesthetic
object because of its ability to focus attention on a relationship
(mother/child) that is often taken for granted.
>>What we think about human experience is so special? It's so special that
it needs
to be shared? Pretend there's human-like life on Mars, to them wouldn't our
collective sharing of how we feel about our human experiences be as the
sentimental autobiography of a beginner writer is to you or me? Can we
leave
the fact that we're human? Can we go beyond experience? Can we go beyond
universality, to the stars, to Mars or even further, to the deepest self?
How about this, great art is reverie.>>
Maybe not what I think, but yes what Beethoven "thought," what Jackson
Pollock "thought," what Montaigne thought is special, and I do feel a need
to share. Isn't the sharing of art one of the most common experiences? The
painting or CD you just have to turn you friends on to? The great book you
talk to others about that they've just got to read? As for the Martians, you
may very well be right; there may be very little about our experience that
they care about. That's why I used the term "intersubjective" above,
greatness may only be for a particular group. Some of the points raised
recently about the Western canon being nothing but DWEMs seems to indicate
this.
Give me a few days to think about the reverie idea, that's an interesting
possibility.
On another topic: Damion, you seem to know about current music video.
Between my day job and having two very young children, I have few
opportunities to explore that area. The only access I currently have would
be MTV on cable. Any suggestions about where and when to get a look at some
of the videos you've mentioned?
Will
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 01:28:18 -0400
From: Damion001@AOL.COM
Subject: Art
Bob wrote:
>>Why is work of such high calibre not being produced today?>>
I suspect that my position won't be popular, but Bob, "high calibre" art *is*
being produced today. Besides the many excellent photographers currently
working, such as Joel Peter Witkin, Helmut Newton, Richard Avedon, among
others, there are also some interesting things happening in music video. In
recent months I have seen some of the most excellent videos, works at the
highest aesthetic level. Stunning, strange, original work.
One recent video was not only beautiful on a visual level, but a spectacular
new way of presenting movement. I don't remember the name of the video or
director (I'll try to get the information as soon as possible) but I was just
so tense while watching it, just completely frozen because it was all so new.
The bodies would go up, then sort of slow down, float practically, then fall
at normal speed. The director had made use of new technologies involving
computers, etc., and was able to create something so surreal, real yet
bizarre, creating a whole new kind of dance in the process, placing the body
in a warped space, a warped time. Rod Serling, Jean Cocteau and Salvador
Dali would have been proud. Another excellent new video is by Courtney Love,
a remake of a Stevie Nicks song. It's so dark and sophisticated. So elegant
yet raw. Madonna's most recent video is a decadent, mannerist masterpiece,
with her body so beautifully elongated, so sensual. A year ago Trent Reznor
of the Nine Inch Nails created what has to be one of the greatest videos
ever, for his song "hurt" where he appeared lit like a knight in a
Burne-Jones painting, with raw, bloody Darwinian nature being projected
before him on a transparent screen. It was mesmerizing. Trent Reznor had a
few months ago another video that was also fascinating, with it's images very
obviously inspired by Witkin, lots of freaks, mutations, reptiles, a
microphone as a phallic breast, etc..
The best music videos are, I think, like the great films of the '50s and
'60s, in the style of Bergman or Resnais, or like silent film. Of course
there is also a terrific trash element in the music video. Beck's most
recent, "Where it's at," being an example. It's a fascinating video.
Fascinating! I could go on and on discussing music videos, or trying to, I
think that there is always art somewhere... you have to look.
Damion
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 11:36:12 -0500
From: Bill Hooper
Sorry, but I do not think what Damion describes is art of high calibre.
Shocking? Yes. Colorful? Yes. etc., etc., but is it high calibre? What
criteria does Damion use to determine this is high calibre? Or, for that
matter, what criteria does Bob use to define art of high calibre? Should
there not be a sense of timelessness about high calibre art? In 100 years
who is going to care what MTV's were produced today? Who is going to
watch them? What will they "say" to people then?
From ???@??? Thu Jan 01 01:00:01 1970
Received: from ICINECA.CINECA.IT (proveadf0.cineca.it) by ns.numerica.it with SMTP
(1.39.111.2/16.2) id AA009959542; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 19:45:42 +0200
Return-Path: <@ICINECA.CINECA.IT:owner-arco@SJUVM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Received: from VM.CINECA.IT by ICINECA.CINECA.IT (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
with BSMTP id 0433; Wed, 21 Aug 96 19:46:53 SOL
Received: from ICINECA.CINECA.IT (NJE origin LISTSERV@ICINECA) by VM.CINECA.IT
(LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1056; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 19:46:53 +0100
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 13:29:45 -0400
Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication"
Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication"
From: BHobz5968@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Art
To: Multiple recipients of list ARCO
My definition of high calibre art was meant to identify art such as that
which was created by the likes of Da Vinci, Beethoven, VerMeer, Rembrandt,
Shakespeare, Mozart, Dali, Picasso, works that everyone pretty much agrees is
classical, timeless, will be studied and considered great work 200 years from
now...2000 years from now. Somehow (and I may be wrong) I don't see most of
what is being produced today lasting that long. When I went to art school, we
studied the work of the masters from long ago. What will the art students of
the year 2096 be studying? The works of Rembrandt, the Brandywine School, the
classics or Hootie and the Blowfish, Beavis & Butthead and airbrushed
t-shirts?
Bob Hobbs
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 13:08:02 -0500
From: Bill Hooper
Bob,
Right on! We have been so obsessed with defining art as whatever the
artist intends that we have forgotten what makes great art "great."
Bill
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 14:49:02 -0400
From: Jean Hantman
In a message dated 96-08-21 12:41:09 EDT, bhooper@SBUNIV.EDU (Bill Hooper)
writes:
<< Sorry, but I do not think what Damion describes is art of high calibre.
Shocking? Yes. Colorful? Yes. etc., etc., but is it high calibre? What
criteria does Damion use to determine this is high calibre? Or, for that
matter, what criteria does Bob use to define art of high calibre? Should
there not be a sense of timelessness about high calibre art? In 100 years
who is going to care what MTV's were produced today? Who is going to
watch them? What will they "say" to people then? >>
What is the criteria for timeless high caliber? Why do my children love the
Beatles' music but when I was their age, I did not like the music of my
parents' era (Benny Goodman, Rosemary Clooney, etc.)
J. Hantman
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 14:52:17 -0400
From: Jean Hantman
In a message dated 96-08-21 13:32:15 EDT, BHobz5968@AOL.COM writes:
<< studied the work of the masters from long ago. What will the art students
of
the year 2096 be studying? The works of Rembrandt, the Brandywine School,
the
classics or Hootie and the Blowfish, Beavis & Butthead and airbrushed
t-shirts?
>>
I think this depends upon how much American culture penetrates the collective
unconscious of the Western world. By the way, do Buddhists necessarily
appreciate Rembrandt? If not, does that imply they are less cultured?
J. Hantman
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 12:41:30 -0700
From: Terri Kelly
At 01:29 PM 8/21/96 -0400, you wrote:
>My definition of high calibre art was meant to identify art such as that
>which was created by the likes of Da Vinci, Beethoven, VerMeer, Rembrandt,
>Shakespeare, Mozart, Dali, Picasso, works that everyone pretty much agrees is
>classical, timeless [snip]
ah, right. all the dead white guys. wonder why they get lumped into the
"classical, timeless" category while others (non-white, non-dead, non-male)
don't?
Terri Kelly
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 16:55:42 -0500
From: Bill Hooper
Terri,
Good point, but maybe it's because the "non-white, non-male,non-dead"
guys haven't produced anything! Seriously, William Grant Still is
acknowledged as a black composer of merit. Artemesia Gentileschi was a
Renaissance female painter who produced paintings every bit as
outstanding as her male contemporaries. There are those few "islands" out
there.
Biull
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 06:39:41 +0800
From: rene@MS1.HINET.NET
On Wed, 21 Aug 1996 BHobz5968@AOL.COM wrote:
> My definition of high calibre art was meant to identify art such as that
> which was created by the likes of Da Vinci, Beethoven, VerMeer, Rembrandt,
> Shakespeare, Mozart, Dali, Picasso, works that everyone pretty much agrees is
> classical, timeless, will be studied and considered great work 200 years from
> now...2000 years from now. Somehow (and I may be wrong) I don't see most of
> what is being produced today lasting that long. When I went to art school, we
> studied the work of the masters from long ago. What will the art students of
> the year 2096 be studying? The works of Rembrandt, the Brandywine School, the
> classics or Hootie and the Blowfish, Beavis & Butthead and airbrushed
> t-shirts?
>
don't worry about today, the works of today, today is only a day.
Look at the difference of time that lies between the eras of the masters
outlined above.
and until 2096 there are still 100 years, so wait and see.
regards
Rene Charton
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 11:41:22 -0700
From: Kirk Adams
Regarding schoking art vs. high caliber art. Just read an essay by
Wendell Berry where he discusses the difference between an intent to
offend, and the willingness of an artist to tkae the risk of offending.
It has stuck with me.
Bye,
Kirk
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 11:54:03 -0700
From: Kirk Adams
Concerning "great art" I think art's purpose is to sensitize people to
the human condition, as I think that is the purpose of education. I think
"grat art" has an ability to help heighten a person's sensitivity.
HOwever, I think a person needs to be already somewhat sensitive to get
the effect. Therefore,"great ar" is designed for people who already have
some sensitivity conerning the human condition. My nine year old son can
read Sounder, as he did this summer, and become more sensitive about the
human condition, he isn't ready for The Magic Mountain or Tarbaby or The
Invisible Man.
At the same time, I think pop art, for the most part, is designed to help
people deal with the human condition by pointing out certain
universalities of experience, and/or entertaining or providing escape.
Terri Kelly mentioned that not only the DWEM's should be held up as
examples of great artists, and I thank her for doing so.
Bye,
Kirk
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 22:09:42 +0800
From: Maggi
Kirk,
I applaud your last email about the difference between Great and Pop art.
It is an important distinction, and is both true and obvious AFTER you so
clearly pointed it out.
I'm interested to read this essay by Wendell Berry. Could you give more
details about the essay, so that I can find it.
Thanks,
Margaret
At 11:41 AM 8/22/96 -0700, you wrote:
>Regarding schoking art vs. high caliber art. Just read an essay by
>Wendell Berry where he discusses the difference between an intent to
>offend, and the willingness of an artist to tkae the risk of offending.
>It has stuck with me.
>Bye,
>Kirk
>
sauce@pacific.net.sg
Lao Tzu "A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step."
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 11:54:11 -0400
From: Jean Hantman
In a message dated 96-08-23 10:45:24 EDT, you write:
<< I applaud your last email about the difference between Great and Pop art.
It is an important distinction, and is both true and obvious AFTER you so
clearly pointed it out. >>
Yes, I realize that Keith Haring (sp.), e.g., is an embarassment today and
will live timelessly as an embarrasment.
Jean Hantman
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 18:01:29 -0400
From: Aaron Lund
Subject: art about nothing?.
I am new to the list (I've joined just today) and despite a hesitation to
jump into the "does it matter..." discussion midstream, the notion the Ralph
Wanlass presented, that of art as a thought provoking mechanism is an
accurate one- one that I certainly agree with. I find that art (more
appropriately Art -with a capital A) is rarely about nothing- whatever the
artist's or critics' claims. As a viewer, you bring to it a lifetime of
experiences, and even if you are not able to access the original intent of
the piece, what is stopping you from developing your own? Perhaps you choose
not to, and that too is your choice. I look forward to further discussion on
the topic.
To briefly introduce myself- I am a 1995 BFA graduate of the School of the
Art Institute of Chicago. I spent some of my time at SAIC in the painting
department, that is, before I was lured to the Art and Technology department,
where I learned to bend and create Neon lights. This led in part to my
current work, which draws on painting, sculpture, electronics, and elements
of the signmaking industry. I live and work on the north side of Chicago.
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 23:57:35 -0700
From: Benny Shaboy
Subject: ART, etc
Dear Bob, Thanks for you welcome and good post. I haven't been able to
answer until now because I was busy with my publication. I did get to
read the answers of others and I think they handled the subject
admirably.
The magazines you mention *are* "about dollars, commercialism,
big business," just as the slick magazines about cars, movies, and
home decorating, for instance, are; they exist primarily to make a
profit. There is big money in buying and selling art and these
magazines serve that world because that is where the money is. I'm not
saying that everything in those magazines is without merit, simply
pointing out the reason for their existence. Unfortunately, as you
probably know, very little of that money gets to the actual creators of
the art. The vast majority of producing artists today lose money by
doing thier art, but that's another issue.
As for the "desire to create great masterpieces," it is still
there--and it is never there. In general, serious, committed artists
(as well as amateurs and beginners, I guess) probably want to do
something that will be recognized as great, a masterpiece, but they
don't set that as their goal any more than did the artists you
mentioned. They simply try to do the best work they can at the time
they are doing it; they try to solve the "artistic problem" that they
see, that intrigues or even compels them. And, after that piece is
done, they try another one because the one that they just did has
changed their vision. And so on. To quite some extent, the objects of
art thus produced are by-products, not products, of the thinking of the
artist. That's somewhat analogous to the researcher who produces a book
or a paper that describes his or her findings. While one may decide to
produce a book or a paper, it's never just any old book or a paper,
it's the by-product of the thought and research in which the person was
engaged.
Damion's point about music videos, etc, is a good one, and I
generally agree. Some of the art done today that is admired in the
future will come from things involving commercial ventures. That
doesn't contradict what I've said above, because the artist can still
be dealing with those issues even when he or she has been commissioned
to do a particular project. Usually commercial work is merely
commercial and will be soon forgotten, but sometimes--rarely--it will
live on.
Art in general--along with everything else--has changed in the
last 100 years. Some of the biggest changes in western art began when
the post-impressionists and later the cubists started looking at
Japanese and African art. It became clear that the traditions of a
particular tribe (Europe from the middle ages on) were not the only
ones of value. And, with the advent of cameras (which influenced the
impressionists) air-travel, television, computers and the internet, to
name a few things, there has been an ever-escalating mix of different
ways of seeing. This is one of the reasons it is hard to decide what is
good and what is not. Or even what is art and what is not. Currently
one of my favorite definitions is from the artist Michael Vitale, who
says: "Art is what is left over after everything else has been
defined."
--Benny S
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 16:37:38 -0700
From: Declan & wenchpoet
At 11:57 PM 8/29/96 -0700, you wrote:
>Currently
>one of my favorite definitions is from the artist Michael Vitale, who
>says: "Art is what is left over after everything else has been
>defined."
>
>--Benny S
That just about says it all. You made my day.
T.L. Kelly
(aka wenchpoet)
http://www.teleport.com/~room101/wench.htm
--
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars
- Oscar Wilde
o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o
Martin Declan Kelly
T.L.Kelly
Our views and opinions are our own; go get your own
http://www.teleport.com/~room101/
o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 11:25:53 -0700
From: Kirk Adams
Thought some of you might be interested in this.
Kirk
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 09:35:40 -0700
From: FRANCES CASTLE
Reply-To: artnews@u.washington.edu
To: Art News
Subject: Catflap Open
My name is Frances Castle, I run the Catflap Gallery at :
http://www.dircon.co.uk/catflap/galintro.htm
At the moment it is displaying the work of three young London based artists.
However we are about to expand and introduce the 'Catflap Open' where we intend
to display some of the best art work on the net. The work must fit in with the
'Catflap' scheme of things ie: Comic Book inspired, Iconic, Trashy, Pop Art,
Grafitti definately figurative, stuff influenced by the modern world. Etc Etc
Etc If you want a good idea what we're on about, visit the whole of our site
at:
http://www.dircon.co.uk/catflap
I want the exhibition to be of a very high stardard, so only the best will be
let in.
We are totally non-profit making and do this only for the love of ART. As a way
of thanks to the artists taking place, we will put up any links or email
addresses the artist require next to their work. If you are interested in
taking part don't email anything to the above address but to:
catflap@dircon.co.uk
Send work attached to an email with some written info about you and your work
(a couple of lines would be fine). Images should not be larger than 300 pixels
in any direction. If you have any questions just email me.
Frances Castle
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 11:25:53 -0700
From: Kirk Adams
Subject: Catflap Open (fwd)
Thought some of you might be interested in this.
Kirk
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 09:35:40 -0700
From: FRANCES CASTLE
Reply-To: artnews@u.washington.edu
To: Art News
Subject: Catflap Open
My name is Frances Castle, I run the Catflap Gallery at :
http://www.dircon.co.uk/catflap/galintro.htm
At the moment it is displaying the work of three young London based artists.
However we are about to expand and introduce the 'Catflap Open' where we intend
to display some of the best art work on the net. The work must fit in with the
'Catflap' scheme of things ie: Comic Book inspired, Iconic, Trashy, Pop Art,
Grafitti definately figurative, stuff influenced by the modern world. Etc Etc
Etc If you want a good idea what we're on about, visit the whole of our site
at:
http://www.dircon.co.uk/catflap
I want the exhibition to be of a very high stardard, so only the best will be
let in.
We are totally non-profit making and do this only for the love of ART. As a way
of thanks to the artists taking place, we will put up any links or email
addresses the artist require next to their work. If you are interested in
taking part don't email anything to the above address but to:
catflap@dircon.co.uk
Send work attached to an email with some written info about you and your work
(a couple of lines would be fine). Images should not be larger than 300 pixels
in any direction. If you have any questions just email me.
Frances Castle
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 10:27:37 -0500
From: Glenn Phillips
Subject: Computer Addiction
I apologize in advance to those who feel this is an inappropriate post.
I am a Clinical Psychology Graduate student who is currently conducting
preliminary research aimed at the growing concerns over internet/computer
addictions. My colleagues and I have posted a survey about computer addictions
on the World Wide Web and need participants to complete this survey. This is a
noncommercial sight, it is for educational research only and the survey is
confidential. The location of the survey is:
http://152.30.11.86/ROFM_CGIv4.1/surveyROFM.html
and can be cut and pasted into the location bar of most browsers. Another way
to access the survey is to go to Western Carolina University's home page at:
http://www.wcu.edu/
and follow the links to the Psychology home page which has a direct link to the
survey.
We would like participants with all levels of computer use.
Thank You
Glenn Phillips
Clinical Psychology Masters Program
Western Carolina University
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 03:04:26 -0400
From: Damion001@AOL.COM
Subject: Do you care?
Bill Hooper wrote:
<< Sorry, but I do not think what Damion describes is art of high calibre.
Shocking? Yes. Colorful? Yes. etc., etc., but is it high calibre? What
criteria does Damion use to determine this is high calibre? Or, for that
matter, what criteria does Bob use to define art of high calibre? Should
there not be a sense of timelessness about high calibre art? In 100 years
who is going to care what MTV's were produced today? Who is going to watch
them? What will they "say" to people then? >>
Claiming to have some insight into what the people of the future will think
really does say nothing about the quality of art *today.* I suspect that
neither of us are psychic, so the future is irrelvant. You ask, "who is
going to care... who will watch" and again, not being psychic, I can only
guess. My guess is that the people who will watch and care are the people
who care about art, as I do.
Damion
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 11:32:23 -0500
From: Bill Hooper
My concern in this current discussion is to point out the fact that we
constantly use evaluative terms and refer to standards without really
having a frame of reference. Are there standards we can apply to visual
art, for example, that are valid for popular and high culture? With the
arts being pushed somewhat to the periphera, I fear that we cannot make a
case to the public (and government) until we can articulate what we are
about. Just to claim that it is art if the intention is for something to
be art doesn't really wash with the general public. Why is one MTV better
than another MTV? What standards apply? Why is the doctoral candidate
composer not equal to Mozart - how can we know? Can Western and Eastern
art both be evaluated on the same basis?
Would it be of value to us to think seriously about some standards that
are not specifically related to culture, style, sex, medium, etc.? As a
teacher of music composition I have to apply standards to student work.
Where do I get those standards? Are they the same, better, different,
etc., than those of another composition teacher? Are there standards we
could all apply?
As a teacher of a general education fine arts course I try to get
students to articulate and justify a personal set of standards for
evaluating works of art. I know the task is difficult.
Without some agreement about what we are looking and listening for, our
debate will always degenerate into one of personal taste and
acculturation to the arts.I think raising some universal issues would be
of value.
Bill
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 19:32:23 -0500
From: Jennifer Ann Lin
Subject: does it matter...
Here's something I came across the other day in my reading on installation art:
"Art which is not about anything can offer no meaning. What it can offer is
information of varying kinds, and it is this information circulating in the
open field of social relations that in its turn generates possible meanings."
How does one deal with contemporary art that is so highly interpretive both
from the artist and the viewer's perspective? If the meaning of such an art
is so different from person to person, how does one know what is successful
art and what is not? Along similar lines think about "high art" vs. "pop
culture." Is it a goal of contemporary art to blur distinctions?
--Jennifer A. Lin
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 22:47:47 -0400
From: "Mark G. Miller"
At 07:32 PM 8/1/96 -0500, Jennifer A. Lin wrote:
>Here's something I came across the other day in my reading on installation art:
>
>"Art which is not about anything can offer no meaning. What it can offer is
>information of varying kinds, and it is this information circulating in the
>open field of social relations that in its turn generates possible meanings."
>
>How does one deal with contemporary art that is so highly interpretive both
>from the artist and the viewer's perspective? If the meaning of such an art
>is so different from person to person, how does one know what is successful
>art and what is not? Along similar lines think about "high art" vs. "pop
>culture." Is it a goal of contemporary art to blur distinctions?
One of the marks of successful art is that the artist enjoys the process of
creating the work and the end result. If the end result has no meaning or
form discernible to someone else's conscious mind, so what? I prefer to draw
my subjects in a realistic or at least a representational manner. It is what
gives me the most pleasure. But if some other artist wants to draw some
vision in their mind that has no meaning to anyone else, that is art, too.
Now, if the artist can get money for it, so much the better.
That said, there is nothing more boring than drab, gray and brown abstract
paintings or some incomprehensible performance.
I once went to a performance that featured the artist sitting in a chair at
an odd angle, grunting and barking and shining a flashlight around. To me,
the performance was stupid, but after the show the artist explained the
meaning behind it. She said she was representing the brilliant physicist
Stephen Hawking. Her performance was meant to convey that as Hawking becomes
progressively more paralyzed, his theories evolve and develop and come
closer and closer to discovering the mind of God. She said when he finally
becomes completely paralyzed, Hawking will have figured out who God is --
but will be unable to communicate his discovery to the rest of the world.
Sort of a neat theory, but I don't see how her performance showed it. And I
didn't get the sense that there was any joy or satisfaction in the creation
process ... but we had the discussion about ``what is art'' on this list
several months ago, and people said they didn't enjoy it.
Mark
mgm@n-jcenter.com
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 06:12:54 -0500
From: Sharon A Farrah
Mark G. Miller wrote:
>
> At 07:32 PM 8/1/96 -0500, Jennifer A. Lin wrote:
> >Here's something I came across the other day in my reading on installation
art:
> >
> >"Art which is not about anything can offer no meaning. What it can offer is
> >information of varying kinds, and it is this information circulating in the
> >open field of social relations that in its turn generates possible meanings."
> >
> >How does one deal with contemporary art that is so highly interpretive both
> >from the artist and the viewer's perspective? If the meaning of such an art
> >is so different from person to person, how does one know what is successful
> >art and what is not? Along similar lines think about "high art" vs. "pop
> >culture." Is it a goal of contemporary art to blur distinctions?
>
> One of the marks of successful art is that the artist enjoys the process of
> creating the work and the end result. If the end result has no meaning or
> form discernible to someone else's conscious mind, so what? Every person is
an individual with their own art created in the way they
prefer, much of it is not seen as something they like art wise by much
of humanity, alot of people don't understand or appreciate abstract
paintings but that does not diminish their effectiveness for a part of
humanity as a way to convey a message, to me art is about growing,
learning, loving, giving, and about getting the pain sometimes buried
inside myself out, if others get something from my art so much the
better, but it is not an ultimate purpose. I prefer to draw
> my subjects in a realistic or at least a representational manner. It is what
> gives me the most pleasure. But if some other artist wants to draw some
> vision in their mind that has no meaning to anyone else, that is art, too.
> Now, if the artist can get money for it, so much the better.
>
> That said, there is nothing more boring than drab, gray and brown abstract
> paintings or some incomprehensible performance.
>
> I once went to a performance that featured the artist sitting in a chair at
> an odd angle, grunting and barking and shining a flashlight around. To me,
> the performance was stupid, but after the show the artist explained the
> meaning behind it. She said she was representing the brilliant physicist
> Stephen Hawking. Her performanDate: 8 Jul 1996 16:33:47 +0200
From: "lcshez
> progressively more paralyzed, his theories evolve and develop and come
> closer and closer to discovering the mind of God. She said when he finally
> becomes completely paralyzed, Hawking will have figured out who God is --
> but will be unable to communicate his discovery to the rest of the world.
> Sort of a neat theory, but I don't see how her performance showed it. And I
> didn't get the sense that there was any joy or satisfaction in the creation
> process ... but we had the discussion about ``what is art'' on this list
> several months ago, and people said they didn't enjoy it.
>
> Mark
> mgm@n-jcenter.com
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 07:50:22 -0400
From: Paula
Jennifer
At 07:32 PM 8/1/96 -0500, you wrote:
[snip]
>"Art which is not about anything can offer no meaning. What it can offer is
>information of varying kinds, and it is this information circulating in the
>open field of social relations that in its turn generates possible meanings."
>
>How does one deal with contemporary art that is so highly interpretive both
>from the artist and the viewer's perspective? If the meaning of such an art
>is so different from person to person, how does one know what is successful
>art and what is not?
I believe that is the point of what would be termed "contemporary art".
*Meaning*, in all forms of artistic expression is, at the very least, highly
subjective. I think as a contemporary artist myself that the viewers
perspective is one side of what one does. How they interpret a piece is out
of my control....therefore, the same holds true for meaning.
> Along similar lines think about "high art" vs. "pop
>culture." Is it a goal of contemporary art to blur distinctions?
I believe your right, Artists now a days have a need to blur past
distinctions. By obscuring old philosphies on art you gradually create a new
set of criteria. We all have a need to be judged by our peers. If the rules
by which your judged where created over 100 years ago...you are left feeling
guided by forces not of your creating. The point being don't judge a piece
based on anothers criteria. All art is somewhat successful in the eye of the
artist, or they wouldn't be displaying it. I think as a viewer of it the
least you can do is recognize this and honour their right to create. Whether
or not you personally "like" a piece is your own opinion. Whether or not a
piece is "good" begs the question "By who's standards?" Answer....don't go
looking for "good". Yes, where not all recognized as Art critics, but, we
have just as much right to our opinions of a piece as anyone else.
Personally, I don't care about the critic's perspective. It might be a
helpful gage on occasion, but often makes it too easier for the viewer to
stop thinking for themselves. We in the past have been trained to think "in
mass". Its not often that we are incouraged to form our own views...but this
is changing. So, it only makes sense that our art forms express this change
of attitude. In essence "Think as thy will, not as others would have you
think".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Paula -- Pbannerm@icis.on.ca
"To be Irish is to know that in the end
the world will break your heart."
---Danial Patrick Moynihan---
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 11:37:03 -0400
From: "Bob E. Hobbs"
In reply to Jennifer Lin..
I don't think art has any other purpose than to bring pleasure. If you look
at it and you like it and want to put it on your wall, then it's served it's
purpose. I don't look for art to inform me, enlighten me, define my world,
educate me, etc. I look at a work and if I am moved, whether positively or
negatively, then that's it. Sure there are pieces I like and don't like, but
I can't say this is good art and that is bad art.
Perhaps I'm being naive and simple. But that's how I choose to view art.
Bob Hobbs
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 11:39:52 -0400
From: "Bob E. Hobbs"
Paula,
I agree with you completely. I myself am mostly a commercial artist doing
work that has to be approved by an art director and an editor, slapped on the
page of a magazine and then judged again by the readers. If it draws rave
reviews by every person in that chain, I might be nominated for an award or
two. Then another group of art critics will judge it yet again to decide if I
should actually get the award. After I get the award, it'll be judged again
by people who will determine if I should or should not have gotten the award.
It never seems to end. On the fine art side of things, I simply do the piece
because I like doing it. If an art critic likes it, or an art show likes it,
or some patron likes it and buys it, all well and good. My main goal is to
get them to just LOOK at it.
I do understand the feelings of the public when it comes to some of the stuff
in the galleries lately. I have a non-artist friend who can't understand most
contemporary art at all. Thinks it's all stupid and pointless. "My kid can do
that" is what he is fond of saying. "$12,000.00 for that piece of junk? That
artist is laughing all the way to the bank!" is another thing he would say. I
really have no answer for him. Some would say he is unsophisticated and
doesn't understand the art world. But then, he is not the type of person most
"high art" is aimed at. He would be more the landscape over the sofa type of
guy. To each his own.
Bob Hobbs
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 18:47:47 -0400
From: Jenny Lowood-Livingston
Mark,
The performance piece that you describe sounds fascinating. It seems to
me to be an example of a piece of art which has some meaning but just about
nothing else to recommend itself. It seems to me that meaningfulness is
simply one criterion for good art (and not an absolutely necessary one, I
would assert). In other words, if a piece has (or the author thinks it has)
some meaning, but it is not aesthetically pleasing, or the meaning is not
successfully conveyed, or it fails as a piece of art because of some other
deficiency, the fact that the author endows it with meaning may not mean that
it "works." Also, a piece of art that has no "meaning" other than its
aesthetic appeal may be very successful for a variety of reasons.
Jenny
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 18:28:56 -0700
From: Declan & wenchpoet
>One of the marks of successful art is that the artist enjoys the process of
>creating the work and the end result....[snip]
I think this is the closest insight to 'what is art' than anything else that
has been mentioned in this thread. That art is a PROCESS. Everything we can
say about the 'end product' is pissing in the wind compared to the
process...and that's why it's a term so difficult to pin down and define as
one thing. Or as a group of many things. Or as anything static. Or as
"truth." What is truth? Philosophers don't debate about truth in order to
come up with one definition, but to carry on the process of definition, to
keep the process alive, as caretakers. Artists do the same with art, they
surrender to the process and promise to keep it alive, vital, necessary.
It's what we do to keep a mythology alive...to tell it and tell it and tell
it again, through time, changing it, adding to it, taking away from it,
defining it, redefining it...so that everything anybody says about it, ever,
forever, is part of the 'truth' of the process that has no definition until
there is no more mystery about it. Which will never happen. Thankfully.
T.L. Kelly
(aka wenchpoet)
--
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars
- Oscar Wilde
o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o
Martin Declan Kelly
T.L.Kelly
Our views and opinions are our own; go get your own
http://www.teleport.com/~room101/
o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 02:25:06 -0400
From: Quyen Nguyen
What exactly is good or bad art? Who decides? Does it matter? I don't think
so.
Everyone decides for themselves whether or not the art being viewed is
successful. I often walk into a gallery opening and ask myself if I can find
any specific meaning in the piece for me. Art is successful for me when it
engages my intellect, makes me think, and or paralyzes me by its
gorgeousness. I hope the piece can do all three for me, but I can't say
that it's bad art even if it doesn't do any of the above. If an artist can
respect the work that he/she has produced, that's usually enough for me to
call it art. After all, artists do a job. We create art, just as a
plumber provides a service. The product may not be pretty or comprehensible
to many, but it exists. We create meaning for art because it is a human
urge to do so. What that meaning is is specific for each individual. To say
that there is A meaning is to negate the artwork. To recognize that there
may be multiple meanings... moreover, to say that there may be a different
meaning for another, or maybe that the meaning isn't fixed, that it can
change with time, is to value art, whether or not there is meaning in it
for you. Then, one can say that every product labelled art by it's creator,
in this context IS successful.
In response to T.L. Kelly's remarks on the meaning of successful art, I
agree.
"Art is idea, is idea." As artists, we react and attempt to define,
upgrade, or restructure ideas already existing, ideas that many other
artists throughout time have dealt with. The parallels between art and
philosphy are real - art attempts to deal with these ideas, concepts more
visually while philosophy deals with these in a more lingual way. Both
attempt to define these issues for our present, to create new meanings for
us NOW.
In response to whether or not the mentally ill can create great art:
Modern artists have a tradition of going to the insane for inspiration. Many
of the most famous works of art have appropriated or at the least, have
roots that derive from art of the insane. So yes, "great" art can come from
the insane. If interested, I can produce some very goos contemporary
writers on the meaning of art, the value of art, etc.
Can we change the subject now?
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 05:46:37 -0500
From: Sharon A Farrah
Quyen Nguyen wrote:
>
> What exactly is good or bad art? Who decides? Does it matter? I don't think
> so.
> Everyone decides for themselves whether or not the art being viewed is
> successful. I often walk into a gallery opening and ask myself if I can find
> any specific meaning in the piece for me. Art is successful for me when it
> engages my intellect, makes me think, and or paralyzes me by its
> gorgeousness. I hope the piece can do all three for me, but I can't say
> that it's bad art even if it doesn't do any of the above. If an artist can
> respect the work that he/she has produced, that's usually enough for me to
> call it art. After all, artists do a job. We create art, just as a
> plumber provides a service. The product may not be pretty or comprehensible
> to many, but it exists. We create meaning for art because it is a human
> urge to do so. What that meaning is is specific for each individual. To say
> that there is A meaning is to negate the artwork. To recognize that there
> may be multiple meanings... moreover, to say that there may be a different
> meaning for another, or maybe that the meaning isn't fixed, that it can
> change with time, is to value art, whether or not there is meaning in it
> for you. Then, one can say that every product labelled art by it's creator,
> in this context IS successful.
> In response to T.L. Kelly's remarks on the meaning of successful art, I
> agree.
> "Art is idea, is idea." As artists, we react and attempt to define,
> upgrade, or restructure ideas already existing, ideas that many other
> artists throughout time have dealt with. The parallels between art and
> philosphy are real - art attempts to deal with these ideas, concepts more
> visually while philosophy deals with these in a more lingual way. Both
> attempt to define these issues for our present, to create new meanings for
> us NOW.
> In response to whether or not the mentally ill can create great art:
> Modern artists have a tradition of going to the insane for inspiration. Many
> of the most famous works of art have appropriated or at the least, have
> roots that derive from art of the insane. So yes, "great" art can come from
> the insane. Just look at the later art of DeKooning, as he was beginning to
be affected by alzihimer's, though I prefer his earlier
work that is not to say that his later work is not art.
Sharon
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 12:44:32 -0400
From: Jarod053@AOL.COM
In a message dated 96-08-02 07:51:57 EDT, you write:
>"Art which is not about anything can offer no meaning. What it can offer is
>information of varying kinds, and it is this information circulating in the
>open field of social relations that in its turn generates possible
meanings."
Information is not artwork, duh!
Art must have meaning to the artist and no other. It is 2 dimensional to
anyone who doesn't understand the meaning. It is then a puzzle for them, not
a doorway. Relying on social relations to generate possible meanings is
rediculous. That's just making something up and then trying to make it real
or true.
Art with meaning is something that is real and true that has been expressed
by art. But the "real thing" or "truth" has to be there to begin with, or it
could be anything (ie, pop art) and the result falls short of the whole
point, which, to me is expression of something "real" or "true" but I never
draw a picture and then try to find "truth" or something "real" in it. I call
it a doodle. I much prefer artWORK to art. Mostly, i render what i find
beautiful, and through the study of rendering, try to get a glimpse of the
soul of the the beauty in what i render. I never make something up and try to
then apply rules of art to defend it. I think people all need to define "art"
for themselves.
For me it is something large, I feel there is a significant difference
between a piece of artwork as i consider it, and an ink blot. Meaning adds a
dimension. It is the difference between 2 and 3 dimensions.
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 19:34:28 -0400
From: Chris Raymond
Subject: intro 1
Which is the main interest that made you subscribe this list ? I am a
visual artist, returning student in graphic design, and have a doctoral
degree in sociology of mass media--so those were my main interest in the
list.
2. Where are you from: country, town, language, culture, experiences... ?
I was born and raised in buffalo ny, went to grad school in Ithaca, NY, and
have lived and worked in Chicago, Washington, DC, San Fran (one summer), and
now am in Richmond VA at VCU to change careers from editorial/journalism to
graphic design. I'm 38, female, speak only English, and am startign to
explore spiritual issues after being raised Catholic but long since left the
church because of an allergy to dogma.
3. Wich topics are you more interested on, among them proposed in the
message ? Or: would you propose one or more new topics?
I guess I am looking for the chance to really connect with other people on an
intellectual/spiritual level on topics of mutual interest. Currently, I live
alone in a strange and not very hospitable city which I plan to leave in less
than a year, so I don't have any real bonds with anyone to whom I can
converse on "real" subjects!
I look forward to learning more about the other list participants.
chris
aka three eyes
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 13:28:09 -0400
From: Chris Raymond
Subject: intro 2
Which is the main interest that made you subscribe this list ? I am a
visual artist, returning student in graphic design, and have a doctoral
degree in sociology of mass media--so those were my main interest in the
list.
2. Where are you from: country, town, language, culture, experiences... ?
I was born and raised in buffalo ny, went to grad school in Ithaca, NY, and
have lived and worked in Chicago, Washington, DC, San Fran (one summer), and
now am in Richmond VA at VCU to change careers from editorial/journalism to
graphic design. I'm 38, female, speak only English, and am startign to
explore spiritual issues after being raised Catholic but long since left the
church because of an allergy to dogma.
3. Wich topics are you more interested on, among them proposed in the
message ? Or: would you propose one or more new topics?
I guess I am looking for the chance to really connect with other people on an
intellectual/spiritual level on topics of mutual interest. Currently, I live
alone in a strange and not very hospitable city which I plan to leave in less
than a year, so I don't have any real bonds with anyone to whom I can
converse on "real" subjects!
I look forward to learning more about the other list participants.
chris
aka three eyes
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 23:41:21 +1000
From: Jocelyn
Subject: introducing jocelyng Part 1
I am a 51 year old mother of six and grandmother of three. I live in SE
Queensland, Australia. I live in a house that I built two years ago here
in the rainforest. From all parts of my house I can look out into the
bush. My bed is surrounded by windows and a skylight. I am able to be
very conscious of what is happening in my environment.
>From a small child I have drawn what I see around me. Throughout my life I
have participated in many forms of art and craft. When my children were
nearly grown I went back to tertiary study and completed an B.Arts Degree
with majors in psychology, community studies and welfare studies. I have
always been interested in writing, particularly diaries and letters and
journal writing. I have been communicating with people on the internet for
the last three months. I am very impressed by this way of becoming
acquainted and even becoming quite intimate with other people. I am
interested in the way people can be connected through the internet - in the
way people can support eachother and the way people can give to eachother
no matter where they are. I would like to give you an example of my
feelings on this from a recent experience.
In February this year I had notice from my ex husband that he was
instigating legal action in regard to the child support arrangement between
us. We have been through this process before and its cost for me was
almost a year's income in legal fees. I decided that I couldn't afford
that again so resolved to represent myself and not have a lawyer and
barrister, as is usual. For such an under-confident, hesitant person as I
am, this seemed like a foolish decision. I was very apprehensive and
nervous.
As I prepared my case I discussed my feelings of fear and inadequacy with
some of the people on the internet that I had been writing to. I received
from them encouragement of the most generous and supportive nature. My
friend in Italy sent me 'a basket of his solidarity' to take with me to the
court. Another friend sent me his team of angels to be with me and another
sent me a wonderful tool/weapon/talisman.
>....so in the spirit of those who have sent you things, i send you this:
>a two meter shaft of polished wood, taken from a lightning-struck
>oldgrowth douglas fir. at one end, as thick as your wrist, the other,
>as thick as your thumb. the grain runs straight and even all through.
>phallic connotations aside, it is a staff to lean on and to fend with.
>it can extend in aid beyond your reach. if you fly on commercial
>aircraft, you will have to check it as a weapon.
>the wood is a mix of water and sunbeams captured two hundred years ago
>on a mountainside thousands of miles from where you are, but just as
>real.
For the court case I had to drive alone to another city 600km away and go
to the court completly alone.
Another friend wrote
>No you won't be by yourself. I am there for you too. Hang in there and
>just remember, I am just behind your right shoulder, but unable to help too
>much, other than be there, for you.
On the day of the court case I prepared myself in plenty of time and went
down to the nearest parking station to the court and went to a coffee shop
and sat quietly there with a cup of coffee till it was time to walk over to
the court.
Jocelyn
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 23:41:27 +1000
From: Jocelyn
Subject: introducing jocelyng Part 2
Something very amazing happened. Normally I am very nervous about speaking
in front of more than three people. I had spent a lot of time preparing
my material and I had nothing to hide. I decided that I was going to dress
nicely, so that I felt confident and looked good. I did look good. Even
though it was a scary situation and I was alone, I felt good. Don't know
why. I do know why. As well as all my files, I was very conscious of
taking in with me the basket of solidarity from Italy, the angels, the
shaft of wood made from 200 hundred year old water and sunbeams, and the
feeling of a friend standing just behind me.
The court atmosphere is very intimidating. The judge in his silly
hair-piece was way above me and protected by his huge bench. My ex husband
was there flanked by his lawyer and barrister, who was dressed up in his
rediculous play-acting costume. I was on the other side all by myself. I
cross-examined my ex husband and was able to demonstrate that some parts of
his affidavits were either false or mistaken. He was covered in confusion
and didn't have adequate explanations.
The judge accepted all my explanations and my little computer printouts and
detailed tables of expenses. He didn't accept some of the proposals from
the other side. The judgement was made on the spot which contained orders
for the support of both children which will just about cover their
educational expenses. I was pleased with the judgement and totally
convinced that if I had a lawyer and barrister the judgement would not have
been better or different. I walked out smiling and feeling very proud of
myself. I had done this terribly difficult thing and it had worked out
well. I jumped in the car and drove back here on an extreme high. I was
feeling so good I could have driven all the way to Sydney.
When I came home there were 'welcome backs' on my computer from so many
friends. It was a huge buzz.
I thanked my friend in Italy for his help and he said
>I'm so happy I could offer my hand to help you a little.
>And peoples keep on saying that a computer is an arid and faceless thing...
I attributed my success in the court to the mental preparation and
visualization I did beforehand with the help of so many friends.
Is this art, literature, psychology or communication? You asked which of
the ARCO disciplines I am interested in.
I don't know if this tells you anything about me. If it does, I would be
interested to hear. I would also be interested to hear what goes on in
this place and who is 'out there'.
PS Sorry this has been so long. I wont do it again. I promise.
Jocelyn
From: "Sharon A. Farrah"
Subject: Introduction 1
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 18:22:32 -0500
>
> 1. ARCO would like to be (or become) a multi and trans-cultural list, to
which
> are invited to participate people that do and/or like arts (in
all its
> expressions), literature, psychology, (science of)
communication.
> Which is the main interest that made you subscribe this list ?
I am a painter. I do abstracts with watercolor and charcoal.
>
> 2. Where are you from: country, town, language, culture, experiences...
? I live in central Minnesota, where I have lived all of my life.
>
> 3. Wich topics are you more interested : Anything to do with the human
experience, creating art, why we create art. Life, the universe, and
everything.
>
> 4. What do you think about communicating between people about topics
> of ARCO list using the medium of Internet and of a mailing-list?
It opens up doors to new and interesting people that you may not
otherwise meet.
>
> 5. Which do you think we should explicitely or implicitely
accept
> to improve the communication avoiding too much flaming ? Just
like in any other group of people situations, be sensetive, and say
something to someone if they are hurting you in any way.
>
>> Sharon A. Farrah
>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 01:23:21 -0700
From: "Lisa B. Callihan"
Subject: Introduction 2
Hello list members,
My name is Lisa Barber Callihan and I have joined the list due to my
interest in meaning, Communication, Psychology, Art and the interplay
between them all. I hold a M.A. Communication Studies from Marshall
University (Huntington WVa.), and a B.A. Communication from the
University of Kentucky (Lexington). I am working on my second M.S. in
Applied Psychology at Jacksonville State University, and presently
research in the area of museum and exhibit - "Visitor Behavior". Most
recently I have gathered data from visitor's at the Birmingham Zoo, The
Red Mountain Museum (Birmingham Al.) and the just opened, "Berman
Museum", in Anniston, Al.
As for teaching work, I presently am at Gadsden State Community
College - Communication Instructor. I have taught Communication at the
University and Community College level for nearly 7 years. I'd like to
find a full-time tenure track position one day soon.
I am always looking for new projects and research/publication partners,
so if your interests are in similar areas, please feel free to e me;
Lisa Barber Callihan
cupojoe@internetpro.net
st0966@student-mail.jsu.edu
Member of;
The Organization for the Study of Communication Language and Gender
and the Women's Freedom Network.
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 13:07:21 -0700
From: Benny Shaboy
Subject: Introduction 3
I had sent this messages several days ago, but just had it returned
by my mail service for some reason. My apologies, if you have already
received it.
My name is Benny Shaboy. I live in a small town about 40 miles
north of San Francisco, California. I am a sculptor and painter who
works with mixed media, sometimes including digital images and sounds.
Ever since I was eight years old and visited the laboratory of a
perceptual psychologist at Ohio State, I have been interested in how
perception conditions and is conditioned by one's "connection" to the
of the world; in a sense, one can never see the same thing as someone
else, nor, for that matter, see the same thing twice. Obviously this
affects communication, to say the least. My artwork probably
acknowledges this, but not in any illustrative way.
I am also the editor of studioNOTES, a 5-times-a-year newsletter
by and for working artists. Its goal is to foster the exchange of
information among artists regardless of their media, styles or
geographic locations. To do this we interview a handful of artists each
issue about what they have been doing and thinking. We also have such
things as readers' recommendations for materials, supplies, books, etc.
Our lead article every issue consists of answers (usually readers,
usually artists, but not always) to a question a reader has asked.
Curiously, for this issue it is "What keeps art alive?" I say
"curiously" because Danilo Curci's first question in his "Welcome" is
"Is Art, now, at the end of this century, alive?"
If any list member has a response to "What keeps art alive?" I'd
be happy to receive it. Because we like to give a sense of geography,
pleas also include your general location (Chicago, Montana, Berlin. .
.) I'll publish what we have time and room for. (We're getting very
close to deadline.) I'll send you a copy of the issue if you'll send
your mailing address. Actually, any ARCO list member who wants a sample
copy can do the same. My email address is: snotes1@ix.netcom.com.
Thanks, Benny Shaboy
snotes1@ix.netcom.com
Box 502 Benicia CA 94510 USA
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 00:19:47 -0400
From: Petrea Hansen
Subject: Re: introduction
At 10:35 PM 8/14/96 -0500, you wrote:
> As a future clinician, I would like to incorporate the use of art and
>literature as tools in therapy. Does anybody out there have any references to
>share on this subject? Thanks in advance!
>
Hello Jill,
Have you heard of Art Therapy. I assume that you are in the U.S.A., if so
there are a number of Art Therapy Associations as well I believe a Poetry
Therapy Association. In terms of references I have a number of references
listed on my WWW page on different areas of Art Therapy ( look under Art
THerapy Literature), as well some links to online abstracts and articles and
other related Art THerapy sites. Fell free to surf on over to my page.
Petrea Hansen B.A. Dipl. A.T.
Art Therapist
phansen@io.org
Visit the Art Therapy in Canada WWW page http://www.io.org/~phansen
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 08:12:53 -0400
From: BHobz5968@AOL.COM
Hello, Benny...
Welcome to the list. I don't really know how to answer the "Is Art Alive"
question. I occassionally read magazines such as ArtNews, American Artist,
The Artist, etc. and I also review the annuals (Graphis, Society of
Illustrators, Spectrum...) and I get a sense that art has become more about
dollars, commercialism, big business and less about creating great works of
art that will stand the test of time. I don't know... maybe some things are
being created that will be considered masterpieces at some point 500 years
from now. Who knows.
When I look at the Mona Lisa, The Last Supper, The Milkmaid, The Sistine
Chapel frescos even The Persistence of Memory, I see work that just takes my
breath away. I am moved almost to tears when I look at some of the great
works of the old masters. Why is work of such high calibre not being produced
today?
Has our world become so highly technological, so fast, so impersonal that the
desire to create such great masterpieces no longer exists? What about music?
Why do orchestras constantly play and replay works that were created
centuries ago? Why aren't there any modern day Mozarts or Beethovens creating
new classical works of similar calibre?
Bob
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 13:56:48 -0500
From: RADER_J@TXLUTHERAN.EDU
Thanks, Petrea, for your web page address on art therapy. It will be fun to
check it out!
Jill
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 18:05:25 +0200
From: lcshezen
Subject: introduction 1
could somebody please help me to receive all the mail presented in the index
by subject: introduction , such as index numberes 581, 582, 584, 588, 634 and
may be others. Thank you very much. alexander savitzky
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 13:48:14 -0700
From: Ken Huey
Subject: introduction 2
Hello. My name is Ken Huey and I'm new to this list. A short introduction
of myself. I am a graduate student in Counseling Psychology and have just
recently moved to Portland, OR from San Francisco, CA.
I have long been interested in the way people interact and communicate with
one another in this seemingly insane society. Psychology is an obvious
interest of mine but so is art, literature, photography, etc. You can
imagine my surprise and delight to discover this list that seeks to combine
all the above.
A short list of what i like to think (& discuss & obsess) about: writing,
reading (everything from existential phenomenology to critical
pedagogical/cultural studies to sf by Ted Sturgeon/Harlan Ellison to
Dostoevesky to Dorothy Allison), art therapy, family systems thinking
(particularly the work of Salvador Minuchin), multiculturalism (I
think it vitally important even if it is a trendy phrase), postmodern
critical/cultural studies (e.g., Henry Giroux, bell hooks, Foucalt, etc.),
feminist studies, film, photography (the work of Robert Frank has
particularly impressed me for years), free jazz (Cecil Taylor fans out
there?), Sonic Youth, coffee, the importance of touching another's soul, of
connecting with someone new for the first time without pre-judgment (take
notice those who advocate the wonderfulness of the DSM-IV), of feeling
excited about oneself and life, insight and love in the therapeutic
situation/relationship, basketball as a metaphor for life, cooking as a way
of sharing yourself with others, and so on.
Forgive the list-like quality of the above but I really am not sure how to
introduce myself briefly in such a general forum--I dont see any faces out
there. (But give me a chance and i will rant and ramble on and on,
especially in writing. That's b/c I've been reading Harlan Ellison again,
a man who is not unknown to the art of producing vast voluminous verbiage
of vociferous vitriolic vituperation. :-), okay, i admit that was a bit
much...) And I am still relatively new to the internet and the world of
email, so please be patient if i make mistakes in netiquette.
I will be starting my internship this year at a clinic working with youth
and families and so expect to meets lots of new people and to experience
much change in my life. Again. Change--isnt that what life as a human is
all about?
I look forward to reading the discussions in this forum. Bye,
K.///
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 12:07:01 -0500
From: RADER_J@TXLUTHERAN.EDU
Subject: Re: Jill introduction
Thanks Danilo!
Jill
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 21:46:07 -0400
From: Dagger123@AOL.COM
Subject: meanings of art-interpretations of another
Audiences are editing and critiquing all the time. Audiences are sifting
through our simple/complex/needy/intelligent minds while viewing art.
Audiences are constantly placing art in time. Audiences are constantly
wondering the relevance of what they are seeing. Constantly judging. It
seems this is inherent in artmaking. Judgement from all sides.
What if we took chances when looking at works-even those that can be labelled
"misunderstood", "my kid could do that", "artist laughing to the bank" and
instead just looked. Just supported arts establishments. Just got behind
supporting the role of art in our culture. There are circles to 'bring up
artists' into a kind of successful means. We are a small culture (planet
earth)-we cannot control who gets what in whose lifetimes. Lottery winners
are phenomenas to me. Artmakers (myself included) are more aligned with
electricians. Some are pretty good, or genius. Some get paid a lot of
money if they live in the right situation for themselves. A lot of people
dabble, make some interesting structures and some just burn. But all along
electricians are guarding their trade, inherently protecting the simultaneous
combustibility of such a simple, yet dangerous position. No one necessarily
gets hurt. Harsh reality tells you to stay and to get out, at once. By
staying in there, you find the meaning for oneself. It gets less and less a
'myth' and more a trade, a skill in testing one's own boundaries.
Isn't is sad:
Art in our society is marked successful in various ways:
1. artist sells his work-it is consumed (therefore thought to be understood
and successful because the artist 'succeeded' his and his audiences' goals)
2. an artist is held with acclaim based on his/her "media story'"-this
information somehow breathing life into the work-another form of
understanding from the general public, approval
3. the artist 'starves', lives for, does anything for, can survive in
society while still pursuing the chance to continue his/her work,
explorations
4. an artist dies before his/her work is realized in the public eye
What of the artist who makes small performance works, never performs them in
public? What of the artist's that are exploring lifetime issues, endurance
performance or work that is centered around social issues or themes? What
about artists such as Stellarc or Marina Ambramovich, Ron Athey or Fura del
Baus? These are the performance boundary-pushers in our lifetimes. What are
art students going to see? Why? Can we watch art change, as we change?
The eternal what is art question is brutal, it is ethereal. For me the
definition changes as I watch our society change->technological advancements;
political and religious measures taking grip; class wars enhanced.
Then the questions become:
are we committed to letting people (each other) make art?
can an artist choose art as the forefront of their contribution to society
(even it is not deemed successful by the stingent greedy standards, nor the
critical masses)
if one is not an artist, can one create a place in our society for artists?
and can artists get off their butts too and work for the priviledge of
working?
will we support an art world full of disharmonies on the question: what is
art?
you better believe it.
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 19:51:00 -0400
From: Damion001@AOL.COM
Subject: MTV
Will asks:
<< The only access I currently have would be MTV on cable. Any suggestions
about where and when to get a look at some of the videos you've mentioned?
>>
Yes. On MTV Sunday from midnight until 2:AM (that's early Monday) they show
the more artsy videos, the alternative videos, etc.. Often these videos end
up becoming comercially popular, sometimes the popular groups and the groups
on this show (it's called 120 minutes) overlap. Of course there are other
videos not shown on this show which are also, I think, aesthetically
satisfying; but too often you have to sit through game shows, soap operas,
"news" and a cazillion zit commercials to see them.
And thank you for responding so thoughtfully to my last message.
Damion
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 00:42:03 -0400
From: Orbisid@aol.com
Subject: Re: Farewell Message 1
i've been a subscriber for about 6 mos and have had no time to participate
because of my schedule. The list has and iteresting premise, but I couldn't
be active and rarley read the messages
scott lowden
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 17:43:24 -0400
From: BHobz5968@aol.com
Subject: Re: Farewell Message 2
I was not on the discussion list for very long. Perhaps a month or two.
I no longer wish to be a part of the list due to the rather insulting
responses I have received from one of the list members. I will not tolerate
that.
Thank you.
Good luck with your list.
Bob Hobbs
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 10:54:18 -0400
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 01:37:56 +0100
From: Ib Lenneke
Subject: Presentation
Hi all!
I am new to this list and Danilo Curci thought it was a good idea if I send
this introduction about myself. My name is Ib Lenneke and I work as
ArtDirector/projectleader(accounthandler) at a sort of agency (we call it
marketing station) called LocoMotivo AB. (from portugese/latin(?) "motivos
locos"). My homeground is a town called Malmoe in the southern parts of
Sweden. Close to Copenhagen.
My background.
I started with art when I was 16. When I was 17, my first exhibition gave a
clear signal to "live on my art". It provided me well for some years, but
THEN I started to make a big mistake. I tried to do what everbody else did.
Because I was told "if yo sell your art, then it is not art" . So I "left
the artworld"
at 24 and started to work in an agency. The Macs came and in -85 I became
pioneer in the method that everybody told me "computers will never ever
conquest
our business or skills". In -87 the pioneerism wasabout PaintBoxes
(Quantel) "manipulating
with pictures and changing the working chain in our business will never do".
I worked with the fith delivered machine in the world. I was offered work/
companionship in London, Munich, Wakayama(Japan)and finally, I landed in
Copenhagen.That was 1991. Sweden smashed in to a wall. After three years in
Denmark I took the next step; LocoMotivo.
It was founded because of the essence of my experience in art,media,
"computerology" AND as a direct result of the years in Denmark during
the worst crise in Sweden (Swedish economy) since the 30ies.
I decided that it was the right time and place for a creation (company)
that do not normally exist in Skandinavia (what I now of). When it comes
real creative business, art, sales, communication or directly make people
change their mind, there was a blind spot.
Everbody I met talked about the creative environment the worked in, but
everyone seemed to be stuck in old conventions and in the very special
Swedish prisoners of "what are people going to say? You can do this but you
cant do that". All developement/progress/process needs guts! If you want this
present future with highspeed communications, "selectevism", competetion and
the thing that no old tricks will do this time, then you have to have
guts/courage. Otherwise, you are in deep shit.
We are headed for a future with "abstract production".
This is why I find this list interesting.
Because everything is hooked into/linked with everything today.
Art, literature, psychology/behavior, work, economy bla bla.
I like the future. I am gonna spend the rest of my life there.
Best regards, Ib
--------------------------------------------------------------------
LocoMotivo AB
Amiralsgatan 86 D
S-214 37 Malmoe
Sweden
station@locomotivo.se
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Everybody is a bit strange, except you and me, but you are a bit strange too"
Robert Owen
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 14:42:30 -0400
From: "Ralph B. Wanlass"
Subject: Re: Regarding the "does it matter" debate...
Jennifer A. Lin presented the following quote:
"Art which is not about anything can offer no meaning. What it can offer
is information of varying kinds, and it is this information circulating in
the
open field of social relations that in its turn generates possible
meanings."
It would be helpful to me to know the context of this quote, or the source
from which it was obtained. Doesn't the notion of "Art which is not about
anything" strike anyone else as impossible? How is anything created devoid
of meaning? How can art which is "not about anything," assuming such a thing
could exist, offer any information? To state that something "circulating in
the open field of social relations," is what "generates possible meanings,"
seems to me to be true of just about anything, so what's significant about
pointing out that this applies to art as well?
It seems to me that these issues must be resolved before there can be any
adequate discussion regarding this quote at all. Please clarify.
In the ensuing debate, one remark was made that I simply cannot resists
responding to. BHobz said "I don't think art has any other purpose than to
bring pleasure." With such a narrow view of the possibilities that art has,
one is depriving oneself of a much broader and enriching experience. In my
opinion, at its best, art expands the mind, confronts it with new ideas, and
forces it to think. This process is certainly not always "pleasurable," and
it often requires considerable work on the part of the viewer. The payoff,
however, can be considerable.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Ralph
P.S. I'm not certain if this is necessary protocol, but I just joined, and
I noticed that other new members have sent brief self introductions. So,
here is mine. I am an artist, and art fabricator, currently working in the
Los Angeles area. As you may guess by my intro, my aesthetic is somewhat
minimal.
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 18:25:28 -0500
From: Sharon A Farrah
Subject: Re: Regarding the "does it matter" debate...
BHobz said "I don't think art has any other purpose than to
> bring pleasure." With such a narrow view of the possibilities that art has,
> one is depriving oneself of a much broader and enriching experience. In my
> opinion, at its best, art expands the mind, confronts it with new ideas, and
> forces it to think. This process is certainly not always "pleasurable," and
> it often requires considerable work on the part of the viewer. The payoff,
> however, can be considerable. Art that makes me think, enlarges my world view
and is not necessarily about beauty is what enjoy most when
searching for art to view. I think in the same manner when creating
art. Sharon
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 18:02:54 -0500
From: Jennifer Ann Lin
Subject: source
The quotation was taken from _Installation Art_ by Nicolas de Oliveira,
Nicola Oxley, Michael Petry, in reference to what Germano Celant called
"Arte Povera" (poor art) - post-minimal work consisting of inexpensive
materials and also "empty of specific content."
-Jennifer A. Lin
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 16:36:11 -0400
From: Dagger123@aol.com
Subject: unsubscribe farewell notes re: Arco
Thank you for your list...
Unfortunately, I had expected it to be less conservative and more
contemporary-perhaps involving experimental theater and performance more than
discussing "why art" for weeks on end. It was interesting to 'hear' and
'lurk'--although I was interested in a list that would fully involve lurking
and full force active participation.
It seemed that when I did de-lurk, my comments didn't fit in the realm of the
discussions, or seem even worthwhile for comment. Many references I made to
arts and culture and arts economics were not picked up for
conversation--though it is a worthwhile conversation since there is no art
without active public support and discussions of art and culture. Why art is
a moot question already! And, the classics are not the only forms of fine,
high or culturally descriptive arts. Where does Peter Sellars, Pina Bausch,
Marina Abramovich, Bill T Jones, David Rousseve and Ron Athey fit into ARCO?
What about the NEA 4? What about Annie Sprinkle's Tit Prints? What about
Diamanda Galas? Catherine Opie? Keinholtz? All of these artists rely
heavily on the history and lives of artists (past and present) and the works
are highly indicative of cultural response or history marking....
It seemed I should get involved elsewhere.
What are the general demographics of a list such as ARCO? It seemed very
conservative, North East and very 'pale'....
This is not to inflame in anyway. I just found it very benign, as a
professional dancer and theater performer, involved in arts management and
international booking. I found the list similar to the head of 'subscription
audiences' in city opera houses.
Thanks for the time. J Tolentino
From: "Sharon A. Farrah"
Subject: RE: Usage guidelines for ARCO
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 17:40:22 -0500
> 3. Can people living in an "artistic way", making art and
> literature or other forms of products of their own
> creativity, without suffering? No, for being is to suffer and to
somehow come to grips with the pain, the disapointment, the misery, the
unsolvable questions of life, the universe, and everything. Some do this
my art. Some do this my non-doing or burying the very qustions. There
are many ways people approach life but as for me I need to paint, and
read, and contemplate the answers to the essential questions.
>
> 4. Art is or may be an answer to actual big problems of
> human beings? Yes, the art is actual therapy and answers or even the
posing of questions. Controversy surrounds many works of art because it
is actually asking the big questions sometimes and doing the opposite of
making a pretty picture.
> 5. Or, on the contrary, does actually art just "reflect" the
> human confusion about the future of we all? SOMETIMES YES
>
> 6. Pleasure and/or suffering, are they different in
> "artists" and in people suffering for mental or physical
> pains? Which is the "quality" of this difference ?
Artists are some of the people who can't allow the questions to be hidden
under the day to day grind of living a life, or buried under the many ways
humans have available to temporarily escape from pain.
>
> 7. Can be Art a therapy, or better should therapists become
> in someway artists to really communicate an helpful way to
> "do" an artistic work, or to enjoy artistic products?
Art is a therapy, I know, I've been there. But not in the same sense you
might get from a therapist. Art is often a solitary occupation which
makes it difficult for the artist, as all humans need human
relationships.
>
From: Mandy777@aol.com
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 01:05:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Welcome and something more about ARCO list. 1
Thank you for your interest.
I am a young woman in the US. I am interested in being as cultured as
possible, where art, literiture, and psychology are concerned.
I am intrerested in knowing what other people think about life and its many
treasures.
My interest here is mainly to observe and to understand as much as possible
what I read through you and the many lives we are sharing through this type
of communication.
I am American, a Nursing student, and I want to listen to what you (everyone
I am able to hear) have to say.
Thankyou for welcoming me so warmly,
Amanda
From: "Dreamer, Shaper, Singer, Maker"
Organization: [=^.^=]
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 23:29:00 +0800
Subject: Re: Welcome and something more about ARCO list. 2
On Thu, 01 Aug 1996 11:28:02 -0100 u wrote :
>Dear Adrian Wong,
>I add here something I didn't write in the message.
>If we want that our list live, develop, become more interesting for all of us,
>I think that a good idea is to make what in other mailing lists is the
>normality:
>that is, each new member introduces him/her self, in a free way or answering,
>for example, to the following questions (this is the beguinning to better know
>one each other).
>1. ARCO would like to be (or become) a multi and trans-cultural list, to which
are invited to participate people that do and/or like arts (in all its
expressions), literature, psychology, (science of) communication.
Which is the main interest that made you subscribe this list ?
psychology and science of communication. I was a student of Mass
Communication and i am very fascinated by the workings of
communication especially in this day and age where almost all
barriers are being broken by the speed of technology.
i am going to start a distance course with an american university
soon. i hope to be able to major in mass communications and psycology
>2. Where are you from: country, town, language, culture, experiences... ?
the island nation they call Singapore. i live in a small but growing
suburban neighbourhood they call Teck Whye
i speak primarily english and mandarin together with its dialects
cantonese and hokkien.
from the languages i speak u would be able to deduce that i am a
chinese.
i am currently a relief teacher in a neighbourhood primary school
where i teach 11- year olds english, math and physical education.
>3. Wich topics are you more interested on, among them proposed in the
> message ? Or: would you propose one or more new topics?
they are all interesting to me - i would put my $0.02 worth whenever
i get the chance.
on proposing new topics i would rather let time decide
>4. What do you think about communicating between people about topics
> of ARCO list using the medium of Internet and of a mailing-list?
i have had my internet account for two months now - and i do not
understand how i ever managed to survive without it. i recieve up to
300 e-mails a day and chat on the irc for over 2 hours per night.
i like sharing opinions with all (no matter what the topics - which
is y ichose not to answer the question)
>5. Which do you think we should explicitely or implicitely accept
> to improve the communication avoiding too much flaming ?
self-control, repect of others' opinions perhaps keeping the mail in
your system for a day before hitting the reply key - that way - you
would be less impulsed to flame
would be looking foward to whats going on in the list ...
adrian
>From Adrian's Terminal
***************************************************
"No dictator, no invader, can hold an imprisoned
population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the
need for freedom. Against that power, governments
and tyrants and armies cannot stand."
- Ambassodor G'kar
***************************************************
"Seek, and ye shall find, provided SBA has not reached there first"
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 22:09:44 +0800
From: Maggi
Subject: Welcome Matthew.
Welcome Matthew,
You seem to be an exceptional teenager - confident and mature, and I think
we stand to learn alot from your participation.
Margaret
sauce@pacific.net.sg
Lao Tzu "A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step."
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 22:39:13 -0400
From: ShamGarlan@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Welcome Matthew
Good! A young impressionable mind just showed up. (c:
Matthew, I am glad that you love to draw and paint. Keep doing it. Learn to
draw realistically, and don't be afraid to take criticism from someone who
can draw better than you. Learn about harmony and contrast from Itten and
Albers. For the love of God, concentrate on drawing and painting, and don't
get interested in that sick, twisted animal that we call ART.
Mark Hall
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 09:39:56 -0700
From: Kirk Adams
Subject: Wendell Berry for Margaret
Hi Margaret,
The essay I mentioned is in a book called Sex, Economy, Freedom and
Community: Eight Essays by Wendell Berry, published around 1993.
I have lent {will I ever see it again}? the book to a friend, so can't
tell you the name of the particular essay. It is a very interesting book
if you are of a communitarian bent, although he ruffled my multicultural
feathers a little bit from time to time.
The essay I was thinking of concerned a play that had come to his local
area, Lexington, Kentucky I think, and the playwright was quoted in the
local paper as sayng he intended to shock and offend the audience, for
their own good.
Well worth reading.
And, what is the sg stand for at the end of your address?
Bye for now,
Kirk
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 16:04:00 DST
From: Will Rice
Subject: Where are the Mozarts? (pt1)
I've been lurking on this site for a while, but I suppose that as one of the
few composers on the list (at least none of the others are talking) I feel
obligated to
address the old "where are today's Mozarts?" question. I'll keep my remarks
to the "art" music scene in America, and not even attempt to address
American popular music or the European scene in this note.
The "new music" scene is alive, if not at all well, in America in academia
and in a few of the larger cities. New large works, such as symphonies and
operas, are still being written (I've written a couple myself that sit on
the shelf) but the cost of putting together a risky new piece is so great as
to preclude almost all but the largest orchestras and opera houses from
producing them. Most new large works are premiered by university orchestras,
though some orchestras (St. Louis and Baltimore, for example) and opera
houses (Houston Grand) actively seek new works. Most orchestra halls and
opera houses are museums, though. I'm always sadly amused by those companies
that commission one 5 minute piece every other season and boast about their
support for new music, while playing umpteen "Mostly Mozart" concerts. It's
a safe product.
A big part of the problem is infrastructure. You don't produce a Mozart
without at least two conditions being met:(1) a culture that has enough
understanding and interest in the art form to support an educational system
which includes that art form in order to produce a pool of artists, and
conversely, (2) artists who are responsive to the culture itself, and
therefore produce works which continue public interest.
In Mozart's time, there was a desire on the part of his society for his
style of music. The culture supported the training of musicians for court
positions, and from this pool of trained musicians, truly great ones could
emerge from time to time. Think of "our" opera singers-- they'll all named
Pavarotti or Domingo, etc. and they're all Europeans, who still seem to
think an artist is at least worth as much as a plumber's apprentice. We
simply have too shallow a pool of singers to compete. The pool for trained
composers is smaller still. For every Mozart, there have to be a dozen
Salieris, and a hundred still lesser composers.
Why is the interest not there to produce the infrastructure? There are many
reasons I could site having to do with modern mass culture, but most were
outlined by DeToqueville in the last century, and Marshall McLuhan in this
one. In spite of what our popular mythology says, music is not a natural
language. In order to have any appreciation or understanding of classical
music, you have to have exposure to it on an ongoing basis. Our educational
system fails almost completely here, in spite of the best efforts of many
dedicated primary and secondary music teachers. What do we expect when the
average elementary school student gets half an hour of "music" class each
week? They are exposed to more muzak than that on an average shopping trip,
more top-40 radio on the ride to and from school. People become accustomed
to listening in 2 minute 40 second radio chunks and don't have the
attention span to listen to longer pieces. What is most irritating to music
educators is that the very politicians and "leaders" who decry the
"obscenity" and "vulgarity" of popular music are the same ones who want to
cut music and art education from the schools. What do they expect when they
defund the alternatives to what they attack?
(end pt1)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 16:05:00 DST
From: Will Rice
Subject: Where are the Mozarts? (pt2)
The few composers who survive have mostly been driven into academia. The
effect of this has been to create musical styles which are utterly
inaccessible to anyone who lacks at least an undergraduate degree in music
theory. Since they cannot build an audience on the outside because
orchestras and opera houses rarely perform their music, they have to build a
career in academia -- which means writing more and more obscurely for a
smaller and smaller audience. No one wants to risk sounding too "old
fashioned," or too conservative because that might hurt their tenure
chances.
Some American composers, such as Bernstein, Copland, etc. wrote in a more
accessible style, but their era has passed. A few contemporary composers,
such as Philip Glass, have "made it" on the outside, but Glass is usually
sneered at by academics and his popularity is waning in American mass
culture (Even Madonna knows you can't be the latest fad forever). It's
just too risky for any academic with a mortgage, two kids, and an alimony
payment.
There is some faint hope, though it is born of desperation. As academic jobs
have disappeared, the current crop of 40 and younger composers have come
away from their graduate programs with next to no chance of a job in
academia, and many are reaching out and trying to market more accessible
short works to smaller orchestras. And with the "greying" of the symphony
and opera audience, more and more music organizations are beginning to
realize that they need the vitality of new works to attract an audience
raised on radio and MTV. Many younger composers are also finding
opportunities through electronic music and dance, though few can live off
this (the dancers are as poor as the musicians!). Most of the younger
composers have been heavily influenced by popular culture in a way that the
previous generation was not.
I think "art" music in America is at a real crossroads -- we can either
throw in the towel to rampant commercialism, or try to reach out to a new
audience. That may sound obvious to those outside of the American art music
scene, but you might be amazed at how many academics and music
administrators find this a jarring and disturbing proposition.
Thanks for the opportunity to vent a small diatribe.........
Will Rice
Austin, TX
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 16:57:21 -0500
From: Bill Hooper
Subject: Re: Where are the Mozarts? (pt2)
Will,
Excelllent!
Bill
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 19:51:41 -0400
From: RWanlass@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Where are the Mozarts? (pt2)
Dear All,
As I have been reading the latest in the series of this continuous
discouse, I have grown increasingly more disturbed. I thought maybe if I
ignored Bob's remarks as, in his own words, "naive," they would go away. In
the past Bob has stated, "it never occurred to me that what I was doing [here
we assume he means art] was something that had to be analyzed,
categorized,labelled, dissected and explored in the search for meaning or
revelation." How can anyone say this, and then be so arrogant as to ask
where the "Mozarts" are? A little time spent exploring, analyzing, and
dissecting, will readily reveal to anyone exactly where the "Mozarts" are;
right under out noses, where they have always been. Admittedly, I know
little about the history of music, but even a musical dolt such as myself
knows Mozart died penniless, and largely unappreciated in his time. Such has
been the case with countless great artists throughout history. This has
occured largely because of attitudes like Bob's. If people are unwilling to
open their minds, educate themselves, and pull themselves up to a higher
level, they will never be able to appreciate the vast talents that exist now,
and have always existed. As I have expressed in response to Bob before,
ultimately it is the lazy indivdual who suffers, by denying him or herself
the a much richer and deeper experience with the arts. Bob, if you fail to
recognize the "Mozarts" that exist in our time, maybe this is simply due to
the fact that you haven't been keeping up with your reading. If you really
"tend to bristle when the discussion turns to the purpose or reason for art,"
why are you subscribed to this list?
Now, so everyone won't think all I do is gripe about Bob, I would like to
present a few quotes which will hopefully liven up this discussion a bit. I
know I have previously chastized Jennifer Lin for not giving the context for
a quote but I am afraid I am about to do just that.
"Art should raise questions." -Bruce Nauman
"What is the difference between asking and telling?" -James Lee Byars
"Fine art can only be defined as exclusive, negative, absolute and timeless."
-Ad Reihardt
"'non-art,' 'anti-art,' 'non-art art,' and 'anti-art art' are useless. If
someone says his work is art, it's art." -Don Judd
"As with any art, an interested person reacts in a personal way based on his
own experience and imagination. Obvioulsy, I can't control that." -Robert
Barry
"The artist who wants to develop art beyond its painting possibilities is
forced to theory and logic." -Kasimir Malevich
"Anyone who sees and paints a sky green and pastures blue ought to be
sterilized." -Adolf ce was
Hopefully, at least one of these quotes will spark some discussion, and
exploration among those who are interested in meaning.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Ralph
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 23:34:25 -0400
From: BHobz5968@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Where are the Mozarts? (pt2)
My apologies to Ralph and anyone else who feels that my remarks ought to just
"go away". I was obviously mistaken about this discussion list.
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 09:07:39 -0400
From: Jeannie Dugan
Subject: Re: ARCO Digest - 20 Aug 1996 to 21 Aug 1996
> Where are the Mozarts?
>Will,
>Excelllent!
>Bill
Great food for thought!
Has anyone stopped to consider that we will not know what art survives until
the surviving happens? And, it is possible that some people just aren't
looking hard enough to find new great masters. I live in a city with a
fabulous museum and each year there is a local artists show which previews
MANY profound works.
Our current popular culture is a reflection of who we are just as the past
culture represents who "they" were. Just because we are uncomfortable with
what we see doesn't mean it is no good. Seems to me it is a mandate to
understand our world better, to make the changes we see as necessary, through
art or otherwise. No?
New to list: Hi! I'm a non-traditional student of Art Therapy at Bowling
Green State University. Couldn't resist posting on this topic!
Art is what distinguishes humans from other creatures. It makes sense that
this is the avenue we could continue to respect and study in order to
understand the changes in ourselves and in our culture(s).
jeannie (jeanikemoo@aol.com)
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 12:57:57 -0400
From: Paula
Subject: Re: Where are the Mozarts? (pt2)
Will
In the language of one "pop culture" fad....* Most excellently said*. You've
pin pointed some very key concepts of our era. As you're very well written
'diatribe' has put forth, our artistic media is a product of our era,
culture, and elitist standards.
If I might go a step further...I believe we are governed by unatainable
cultural standards. Where you are, how you live, and what you do, in our
society is exceedingly more important then who you are, and how you came to
be that person. I'm not sure who said this, but I remember some lecture I
saw where the person asked why it is that when you meet someone for the
first time they only ask "So, what do you do"? He went further to say how
refreshing it would be if someone asked something along the lines of "So,
what do you believe"? or "What kind of a person are you"? This statement
made me realize, not for the first time, that we are a culture in the
process of attaining separateness. Individualistism is a key goal in our
society. The "me generation" is not valid just for a generation, but rather
for our whole century. If you look into history you discover that this
concept is a relatively new aspect, unique to our era. So it doesn't
surprise me that our Music and Art has evolved as it has. If "the Medium is
the message" then our new emerging *Mediums* speak volumns.
Think about it. Look at the whole club of "Dead, white, male Artisians"
that have been bandied around within this thread. To access their work one
often had to go out of their abodes and be with other people. Now all we
have to do is turn on a TV or Computer, and their everything is....bigger
then life, and coming at you every second of our lives. This constant
tirade of messages is new to us...all of us, young and old. It therefore
makes sense that there would be such vast differences and opinions towards
art, music and literature.
All I can say is that I would truly love to be here in 100 years. To see
where we go and where all this media will take us... How it will evolve. I'm
not as interested in how they will view us and our culture as I am in the
evolution of our Art, Music and Literature; what it was about *now* that
produced what our future artisians will produce.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Paula -- Pbannerm@icis.on.ca
"To be Irish is to know that in the end
the world will break your heart."
---Danial Patrick Moynihan---
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ARCO Home Page
