Hi Eric,
I know too little about Judd to add much about the particular choice, and
only wished to note that art based on a new definition can arguably prosper
just fine or well without "acting against" art made by a prior definition,
perhaps. It's worth considering anyhow I believe.
Do you think that Judd made art-critics into systems analysts, thus making
them difficult to persuade regarding the value of the individual aesthetic
experience? I'd agree that may be a trend but bigger in sweep than Judd.
Maybe it relates to http://www.geocities.com/genius-2000/Stahlman1.html,
mechanization of value.
Yet the law of diminishing returns states that maybe the value now may be
somewhere else, or the chance to add value. Grow value in the supply chain
to vitalize the brand. Mightn't there be a logical next step, ready to go
from where Judd left off? Building the city, that people may live in it.
That said however the one and the many is the greatest, most difficult issue
that a technological species ever faces. It's "the issue." So, it takes
time to work out good responses. All in all I like Judd however (for
similarities, say) and think he may provide a good starting point for
Networkism, but I have to study him more.
Thanks for bringing up the topic!
Best regards,
Max Herman
The Genius 2000 Network
Conference submissions OK through 9/15/2006
www.geocities.com/genius-2000
+++
Max Herman wrote:
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> I know too little about Judd to add much about the particular choice,
> and
> only wished to note that art based on a new definition can arguably
> prosper
> just fine or well without "acting against" art made by a prior
> definition,
> perhaps. It's worth considering anyhow I believe.
>
> Do you think that Judd made art-critics into systems analysts, thus
> making
> them difficult to persuade regarding the value of the individual
> aesthetic
> experience? I'd agree that may be a trend but bigger in sweep than
> Judd.
> Maybe it relates to
> http://www.geocities.com/genius-2000/Stahlman1.html,
> mechanization of value.
>
> Yet the law of diminishing returns states that maybe the value now may
> be
> somewhere else, or the chance to add value. Grow value in the supply
> chain
> to vitalize the brand. Mightn't there be a logical next step, ready
> to go
> from where Judd left off? Building the city, that people may live in
> it.
>
> That said however the one and the many is the greatest, most difficult
> issue
> that a technological species ever faces. It's "the issue." So, it
> takes
> time to work out good responses. All in all I like Judd however (for
> similarities, say) and think he may provide a good starting point for
> Networkism, but I have to study him more.
>
> Thanks for bringing up the topic!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Max Herman
> The Genius 2000 Network
> Conference submissions OK through 9/15/2006
> www.geocities.com/genius-2000
>
>
> +++
>
>
Actually Max I think you are on to something here. I hadn't thought about Weiner in awhile. I have an original copy of the Cybernetics (1948) book, and a Dell edition of the Human use of Human Beings.
For me the catch is, Weiner somehow managed to embed a visionary quality that the 60's business systems people bypassed.
There is an interesting book which alludes to the early invasion of System Analysis on criticism in the arts by Pamela M. Lee. The book is tited Chronophobia. It is a brilliant work in its own right.
she contends in a number of places that social organization of the group has a counterpart in the invisible( a great example being d Medalla's Signals).
Did Medalla see the organization of criticism as a source of future conflict?
Hard to say really.
But the book contains some wonderful histories,my favorite being John Chamberlan's work with the RAND corporation arranged by Tuchman during the LACMA series in 1971.
So what was achieved?
Apparently on my read through there was a failure of a system to adapt to the arts, and not the contrary.
There was a distrust of the artist by the institution that far outweighed the distrust of the institution by the artist.
Now that may seem obvious on first read, but think about it for a few minutes and it isn't so obvious. Artists aim to communicate…, they're nice people with altruistic agendas for the most part. The rejection of the LACMA project came from the institutions they were dealing with.
Now we fast forward to 2006. Has the institutional perception of artists changed? Of course not, yet artists in New Media require the investment and indulgence of the same institutions they did in 1971.
So we come around again to Judd.
Was the effort to bridge the Gap with *system speak* worth it?
From my hole in the ground the answer is no.
There has to be another way out of here. It has to be intuitive, poetic and subversive.
Eric
Hi Eric,
With regard to subversion, what about the idea of "Co-opetition"? This is a
newish business word that means "co-operating to expand the market, then
competing to divide it up." I know this is grating but please bear with me.
What institutions do is their deal, not the worst thing ever. There's a
Doryphoros here in Mpls. which I definitely like and have benefitted from
seeing, as it is first-century new media network art or whatever.
Institutions are very useful and necessary for that sort of art, or Van
Gogh's self-portrait with a bandaged ear.
If there is a new kind of art that doesn't need or warrant the physical,
intellectual, or financial resources of present institutions it might be
easiest not to wrangle with big universities and museums. They have
problems all their own. I believe it's OK to operate as a small
businessperson in art and sometimes just leave the megaliths to stew in
their own juice.
Yet your point about "the better mousetrap" is well taken, and eventually
big institutions will probably see the advantages of co-opetition or a
"complementary" attitude toward a new definition of art. I don't think this
will occur however until such a state of affairs is viewed as both necessary
and mutually beneficial, for example due to a widespread comprehension of a
new art-historical period's constraints. This is how such changes have
generally occurred, it seems to me.
Best regards,
Max Herman
The Genius 2000 Network
Conference submissions OK through 9/15/2006
www.geocities.com/genius-2000
+++
Hi Eric,
One other factor is the gallery system, also with problems all its own. As
Mark Twain wrote, people tend to have "corn-pone opinions" about art and
most things. Your beliefs often revolve around where you earn your money.
This is another factor pressing toward conformity of ideas, aesthetic
mechanization, in late early-capitalism. In network capitalism however
there are different pressures and these will be coming to the fore.
To me, Artforum represents the gallery system fairly closely and they have a
piece now by Yablonsky stating that the new art season is kind of hum-drum.
Yet I was booted off their list for self-promotion, with good reason.
There's no reason for me to care very much about the gallery system's
business model, as it doesn't have much to offer me. It would have to
change a lot to have anything to offer me, and that's where the corn-pone
opinions stagnate or cloister things.
Which isn't all bad, either; it's just what it is.
Max Herman
The Genius 2000 Network
Conference submissions OK through 9/15/2006
www.geocities.com/genius-2000
+++
Max Herman wrote:
>
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> One other factor is the gallery system, also with problems all its
> own. As
> Mark Twain wrote, people tend to have "corn-pone opinions" about art
> and
> most things. Your beliefs often revolve around where you earn your
> money.
> This is another factor pressing toward conformity of ideas, aesthetic
> mechanization, in late early-capitalism. In network capitalism
> however
> there are different pressures and these will be coming to the fore.
>
> To me, Artforum represents the gallery system fairly closely and they
> have a
> piece now by Yablonsky stating that the new art season is kind of
> hum-drum.
> Yet I was booted off their list for self-promotion, with good reason.
>
> There's no reason for me to care very much about the gallery system's
> business model, as it doesn't have much to offer me. It would have
> to
> change a lot to have anything to offer me, and that's where the
> corn-pone
> opinions stagnate or cloister things.
>
> Which isn't all bad, either; it's just what it is.
>
> Max Herman
> The Genius 2000 Network
> Conference submissions OK through 9/15/2006
> www.geocities.com/genius-2000
>
" on or about December 1910 human character changed."
Virginia Wolf
just because it was.