Steal This Concept: The Breakaway Mobius Strip Palindrome
Take Bruce Conner's original "Breakaway" film with Toni Basil dancing
in an increasingly naked fashion (for the first half of the film; in
the second half she dances backwards in a decreasingly naked
fashion), and loop it so that it plays forwards and backwards and
forwards and backwards for the entire exhibit. Better yet, just save
it as a quicktime file and set the player on palindrome, so it
doesn't just loop, but it actually plays the backwards part forwards
and the forwards part backwards on its way back to the start.
It won't make a darned bit of difference practically whether you loop
it or do the palindrome thing, but you can include the fact that you
used the palindrome setting in your ARTIST STATEMENT. It will make
it seem all new media and technological. Like, "Techno." From the
Greek – "Technae." From the French – "Technique." And then you
can be all like – "Techtonic plate structures…"
Or set one player on one projector to loop it, and another player on
a second projector to palindrome play it, and then talk about that in
your ARTIST STATEMENT.
The title of the piece is your real "ace in the hole." Mobius strip
like "a continuous one-sided surface that can be formed from a
rectangular strip by rotating one end 180
> Have fun with it. But don't use it unless you have some history with
> this kind of stuff. Fool 'em once, shame on you. Fool 'em as a
> career conceptual artist, and they're much more likely to bend over
> and take it yet again.
funny as usual, curt. but something nags at me when i read this… who
is supposed to be "fooled" exactly?
i'm guessing that it's someone who isn't supposed to like sex, but is
easily tricked into it. maybe they really just like it, even though
they're told they shouldn't.
or is there force involved? have they been drugged? if so, someone
should really do something. that's not really a joking matter.
but if not, maybe everyone is a willing and consenting party. maybe
they're into "that kind of thing." maybe it's not about deception.
maybe that's all part of the act. you know, role play.
so what if they want to document it?
isn't there a v-chip or something that can be used to filter out this
kind of thing for people who aren't into "that kind of thing"? i guess
it could be troubling just knowing that "it's" going on somewhere, even
if you can't actually see "it."
you have to watch out for those "agendas."
ryan griffis wrote:
> maybe everyone is a willing and consenting party. maybe
> they're into "that kind of thing." maybe it's not about deception.
> maybe that's all part of the act. you know, role play.
conceptual artists who hate art patrons and the art patrons who love them.
> it could be troubling just knowing that "it's" going on somewhere,
> even
> if you can't actually see "it."
"Underground gas vein, genius. You guys need to exercise more caution before discharging your firearms."
- agent k
> you have to watch out for those "agendas."
the committee to eradicate all agendas is now in session. the first item on our agenda…
Hi Curt
I'm not clear about this - are you critiquing an
*actual* piece?- I'm assuming not.
There just seems to be a whiff of the straw man about
this. It's as incisive, well written and amusing as
I'd expect from you, but it feels kind of over the top
if it doesn't refer to something that's actually out
there (and I don't mean as a *tendency* but a
concrete work).
As a tiny point in passing I suppose I also have a
personal interest to declare, in that I *love* the
'loop back and forth' feature in Quick Time - and it
seems to me part of knowing ones craft in any context
like this is knowing the idiomatic features of one's
tools and knowing when and when not to emphasise these
-when for example it would be a cliche and when on the
other hand it could still create a little sigh of
appreciation and connection in the viewer…
Lastly I'm assuming the disclaimer #1 is sincere ( ie
you, not the satire).
I'd be very interested to hear you explore at some
length the areas where you think the conceptual can be
interesting and fertile - the grey areas; maybe an
extended critique of an actual piece (and if you've
done this, forgive me -just point me there!)
best wishes
michael
— Curt Cloninger <curt@lab404.com> wrote:
> Steal This Concept: The Breakaway Mobius Strip
> Palindrome
>
> Take Bruce Conner's original "Breakaway" film with
> Toni Basil dancing
> in an increasingly naked fashion (for the first half
> of the film; in
> the second half she dances backwards in a
> decreasingly naked
> fashion), and loop it so that it plays forwards and
> backwards and
> forwards and backwards for the entire exhibit.
> Better yet, just save
> it as a quicktime file and set the player on
> palindrome, so it
> doesn't just loop, but it actually plays the
> backwards part forwards
> and the forwards part backwards on its way back to
> the start.
>
> It won't make a darned bit of difference practically
> whether you loop
> it or do the palindrome thing, but you can include
> the fact that you
> used the palindrome setting in your ARTIST
> STATEMENT. It will make
> it seem all new media and technological. Like,
> "Techno." From the
> Greek – "Technae." From the French – "Technique."
> And then you
> can be all like – "Techtonic plate structures…"
>
> Or set one player on one projector to loop it, and
> another player on
> a second projector to palindrome play it, and then
> talk about that in
> your ARTIST STATEMENT.
>
> The title of the piece is your real "ace in the
> hole." Mobius strip
> like "a continuous one-sided surface that can be
> formed from a
> rectangular strip by rotating one end 180
At 2:40 AM -0700 6/6/05, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
>Hi Curt
>I'm not clear about this - are you critiquing an
>*actual* piece?- I'm assuming not.
>There just seems to be a whiff of the straw man about
>this. It's as incisive, well written and amusing as
>I'd expect from you, but it feels kind of over the top
>if it doesn't refer to something that's actually out
>there (and I don't mean as a *tendency* but a
>concrete work).
Hi Michael,
It's way over the top and reeks of the straw man. maybe it
critiques thin/easy work l ike "the lights going on and off." But
not any one piece specifically. It critiques any work that it is
better than. There's a fine line between minimal conceptualism and
blowhard wankery, and I'm giving away a piece of that action!
>As a tiny point in passing I suppose I also have a
>personal interest to declare, in that I *love* the
>'loop back and forth' feature in Quick Time - and it
>seems to me part of knowing ones craft in any context
>like this is knowing the idiomatic features of one's
>tools and knowing when and when not to emphasise these
>-when for example it would be a cliche and when on the
>other hand it could still create a little sigh of
>appreciation and connection in the viewer…
right, but if that's the only card you're piece is playing, go fish.
>I'd be very interested to hear you explore at some
>length the areas where you think the conceptual can be
>interesting and fertile - the grey areas; maybe an
>extended critique of an actual piece (and if you've
>done this, forgive me -just point me there!)
I like it when the concept is somehow tied to something other than
itself, the art world, the art canon, or political polemics. Andy
Goldsworthy lays on his back in a field of pebbles just prior to a
light rain. He lays there until the pebbled ground around him is
covered in rain enough to darken the pebbles. Then he gets up,
leaving the shape of his absence – light, unrained upon pebbles
outlined by dark ones. Goldsworthy has rain on his face and body.
The exact same amount of rain that has fallen on the surrounding
pebbles. For that brief instant after he stands up, he experiences a
connection with the field of pebbles. He has left himself on the
filed (although he's really left nothing). He has partaken of the
experience of the field (although a field can't really experience
something). He stands in the rain and watches as the shape of his
body on the ground is gradually darkened by rain until it is
indistinguishable from the rest of the field. Then he turns and
walks home.
Simple, easy, ephemeral, performative, immaterial, "conceptual." And
yet so much more than just those things. It's not "real" per se, but
it's about something that is real and true and deep. It's less like
a stunt and more like a sacrament. No artist statement required.
peace,
curt
On Jun 6, 2005, at 9:39 AM, Curt Cloninger wrote:
>It critiques any work that it is better than.
most toys (wins)?
supposed dominance is a hollow standard for meaningful critique.
// jonCates
# http://www.criticalartware.net
# http://www.systemsapproach.net
# http://newmedianowandthen.blogspot.com
# http://www.filmvideoandnewmedia.info
Hi Jon,
Your meaningful critique of my hollow critique dominates. You win.
No wait. If it's all good, then my critique must be good too. It's
a tie. Man, that was a close one. There was almost a winner and a
loser.
The post is satire. Satire by definition assumes superiority (or
"dominance," to allow your postcolonially nuanced term) to the
position it satirizes.
There are lots of rhetorical approaches one can adopt to dismantle my
bombastic position; but the least relevant/potent seems to be the
"you made a value judgment / you have an agenda" relativistic
whistle-blowing approach. Of course I'm making a value judgment.
I'm a critic. I'm criticizing.
medievally yours,
curt
At 3:24 PM -0500 6/8/05, //jonCates wrote:
>On Jun 6, 2005, at 9:39 AM, Curt Cloninger wrote:
>>It critiques any work that it is better than.
>
>most toys (wins)?
>
>supposed dominance is a hollow standard for meaningful critique.
>
>// jonCates
># http://www.criticalartware.net
># http://www.systemsapproach.net
># http://newmedianowandthen.blogspot.com
># http://www.filmvideoandnewmedia.info