"Creativity isn't the monopoly of artists. This is the crucial fact I've
come to realise, and this broader concept of creativity is my concept of
art. When I say everybody is an artist, I mean everybody can determine the
content of life in his particular sphere, whether in painting, music,
engineering, caring for the sick, the economy or whatever. All around us
the fundamentals of life are crying out to be shaped or created. But our
idea of culture is severely restricted because we've always applied it to
art. The dilemma of museums and other cultural institutions stems from the
fact that culture is such an isolated field, and that art is even more
isolated:
an ivory tower in the field of culture surrounded
-first by the whole complex of culture and education
-and then by the media which are also part of culture
We have a restricted idea of culture which debases everything;
and it is the debased concept of art that has forced museums
into their present weak and isolated position. Our concept of art
must be universal and have the interdisciplinary nature of a university,
and there must be a university department with a new concept of art and
science".
Joseph Beuys
the real dunce
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Max Herman wrote:
> Death, I have studied Beuys,
Studying doesn't imply seeing or understanding.
Don't take this personally, but Beuys actually had some
'contact' with Logos and communication beyond words,
while you shriek at the idea of being 'known better
than you know yourself'.
> and I think my work and ideas and art are better than his are (certainly
> now; and imao even when he first did them).
I can't concede. Better? Why must you compare?
The genuine value of things shines on their own,
not as set against–and putting down another's.
> You should see how easily Beuys is co-opted, bastardized, corrupted, and
> milked (in that order) by USA art schools. It's a fucking atrocity. All
> because instead of studying Beuys, stepping away, and starting afresh, they
> just suck his dead ass and pretend their work is in his spirit.
Probably. But Art schools specialize in killing creative spirits.
And most of modern art is commentary and 'citations' on others.
I quoted Beuys to demonstrate that most have been attempting
to degrade and insult statements that I've made which are in
the line of Beuys work–except for I didn't have a Beuys tag.
If I had 'cited' Beuys, made some silly pretentious online piece
and made copious other know-tows as per their mode of lexical relation
to the world–tey would have nodded.
Also was pointing out that most don't recognize essence and essential
value–without a label : blindness.
> This makes dead Beuys as dangerous and destructive as the new cannibals who copulate
> with his corpse. Even the corpse must be burned.
No, it doesn't. This is idiotic. There is no need to destroy a person's
work because others abuse it. This is another problem with you.
Beuys artwork is the making of his SPIRIT–which is not mortal,
and doesn't decompose with the body. Destruction of it is psychotic,
and only leads to weakening and degeneration of humanity.
What needs to be done is to make it so that people understand that
what they do to his work is harmful.
> Dressing like a popstar and chattering about Beuys will get you a mountain
> of pussy and oral sex, anal sex, rimjobs, even orgies in USA art schools and
> post-artschool professions if you are comfortably idiotic, a bit quirky, and
> have a big dick.
Probably. Burning Beuys' work and damaging everyone is not a solution
though. Beuys left it so that others can benefit from it.
Destruction of it prevents others from development and creates a
hole in the general psychic layer of humanity. It's no better than
the 'consummatory' vampirism going on.
Another good example about populist idiocy: now try to swallow this:
a lot of the pre-Middle Ages and pre-Industrial 'ruler class' only
privileges were exactly in order to prevent such pollution as you see
from the general masses today.
That since power structures have become absolute kaput is
another story: and that one needs to 'win' over oneself
first before attempting to re-dress other imbalances, is what I've
been attempting to communicate to you and Eryk (in part).
But instead you go: raar! ;>
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42