We thought reminding on old joke in these circumstances could be useful:
Shrink draw circle and show this drawing to patient:"What's that?
"Pussy!" Answer patient.
After that shrink draw square.than triangle.and patient's answer was =
identical.
=20
Shrink:"I must say you are obsessed with sex!"
Patient:"Oh yea?!But who draw pussy? You or me?"
=20
So, MANIK's main problem's not question about art ontology =
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology. MANIK work with concepts, indexes =
and operationalisation and , possible, re-valorasiaton =
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valorisation )of term techne and its =
implementation techne in 'every-day-life'. *Than* we could talk about =
new approach to aesthetic, ethic, philosophy .etc. =20
, =
http://www.phaenex.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/phaenex/article/viewFi=
le/226/233 .
Our contributions on Rhizome are, actually, prolegomenon for possible =
new and contemporary implementation of term techne =
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techne ). Distinction between art and =
techne could be illustrate trough processes of transubstantiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
=20
MANIK, DECEMBER 2007.
Monday, December 17, 2007 5:45 PM
RHIZOME_RAW: trans=20
That's why we take Handke's text as example ("NEED FOR WARMTH AND =
HOSTILITY TOWARD TOUCH") =
———————————————————-
In one person(Wittgenstein)is illusory contradiction- 'warmth' could =
express need to be connected with other people and implicate inner =
existing of emotion and empathy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy =
),but it's not necessary to be mixed with carne(meat),or =
body.Consequnces-it's not necessary to touch some *body*to feel =
something(if we may take liberty to simplify Handke-Wittgenstein's =
words).Or-it's not obligated to get certificate, or to be in gallery, =
or.to be "artist" . to experience adventure which you could named as =
'artistic'(to fell 'art')or,we suggest,~techne~.
People have computers and,so called New Media Art couldn't be properly =
observe without new grammar. As far as NMA 'artists' use old words(which =
actually mean old syntax, semantics, semiology.) for key area of their =
express they belong to old time, to art in colloquial sense of this term =
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/colloquial ).That's why =
significant intuition, anticipation and apprehension formalized in words =
just like we have in Stockhausen's case we should put in entirely =
different context. Question's is there reason to be expressly against =
his opservation vs.9/11 in customary 'art' context, rather than question =
about consequences which bring accept of this event in 'art' context.In =
other words people who have all possible tools for understanding 'act' =
which belong to history of philosophy,or history of 'art', or aesthetic =
(we mean on Stockhausens words)act like people who eat wrapping instead =
content. And after that they ask them self's why they feel sick.
MANIK
,~,,,~,~,~~,,,,,,~~~~,,,,,~~,,,,,,~,,~,,~~~~~,,,~~~~~~~,~,~~,,,,,,,,,,,,,=
,,,,,~~,,,,,~,,,,,,,,,,~,,,~,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,,,,,,,~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~~~~~=
~~~~~~~~~
=20
=20
=20
=20
I will address the ideas of Philip, Manik, Erika, and Nanny =
individually. First, five prefatory remarks and one question/tangent:=20
i. Let us not conflate "aesthetic" with "artistic." Aesthetic (fr. Gk. =
"aisth/" ("to perceive")) dimensions exist for anything: a dog, Russian =
Constructivism, the weather, my mother's absence, 9/11, a YouTube video =
of 9/11, etc. Conscious beings perceive lots of things in lots of ways, =
i.e., they have aesthetic experiences of them. We are discussing the =
possibility of ARTISTIC dimensions of 9/11. Which unfortunately triggers =
the NP-hard(est) question "What is art?" ;-)=20
ii. Again, colloquially, to say "X is art" is to praise X. We have been =
and will continue to avoid that colloquial usage in this thread. Hence =
as far as I can tell, none of us is praising 9/11 or bin Laden.=20
iii. That said I abhor the 9/11 attacks and do not sympathize with =
al-Qaeda. (This is not to charge any of you of charging me with the =
opposite; it's just that, as a brown man growing up in small Texas =
towns, I am used to being clear about it to an extent that northeastern =
Americans or Europeans may find strange.)=20
iv. Yet there are nontrivial moral implications of asking and answering =
the question "Is 9/11 art?" Thanks to Philip and Manik for bringing this =
up.=20
v. We have not answered the question itself yet. Everyone's arguments so =
far-confirming or denying "Is 9/11 art?"-including my own attempt-remain =
unconvincing. So let us not project positions onto people yet.=20
vi. (Should we avoid the 9/11-was-an-inside-job perspective on this =
question? I don't know anything about those theories, but if someone =
does and could bring them to bear on this question-which, in that case, =
becomes a different question-then I'd be much obliged.)=20
******************************=20
Philip:=20
"This is idiocy on so many levels that it's hard to know where to=20
begin. I'll keep this short.=20
"(1) bin Laden is not an artist. He has no artistic intent. He does=20
not work in an art context. His "creations" cannot be considered art=20
from that point of view. 9/11 is not a work of art if one believes=20
the artist has any say in such things."=20
(2) But I suppose Barthes-on-steroids might argue that it's the reader=20
who determines whether something is art or not. Perhaps that is what=20
you have in mind here. But what kind of person would think such a=20
thing when it comes to 9/11? Only someone who views everything and=20
anything through an aesthetic prism to the exclusion of any other=20
consideration."=20
Let us leave the "Barthes-on-steroids" stuff out of this. It has become =
fashionable in Rhizome to dismiss critical theory qua critical theory. =
That is sloppy. Talk about what ideas DENOTE over what they CONNOTE. =
Discuss the merits and flaws of ideas themselves, no matter where the =
pointy end of the cartoon dialogue bubble points. Anything else is =
either dodging the question or prejudice.=20
"Such a person is a slave to reductionism.=20
"Political pundents tend to reduce everything to politics, and consider=20
little else. Religious zealots tend to reduce everything to an issue=20
of dogma, and consider little else. Such reductionism is a foolish=20
approach to a multidimensional world. Most here understand that."=20
It remains for you to show how an artistic perspective on the world =
excludes other perspectives.=20
Some political acts have religious dimensions (e.g., the fight to ban =
abortion). Some religious acts have political dimensions (e.g., social =
networking in churches).=20
Likewise, just as some artistic acts have political dimensions, some =
political acts have artistic dimensions. The question we are wrestling =
with is whether 9/11 is such a political act.=20
To suggest a dimension for an act is not to reduce said act wholly to =
said dimension.=20
If I assert: "AN APPLE IS RED," does that imply "AN APPLE IS NOT ROUND"? =
Similarly, if I assert: "9/11 IS ART," it does not follow that "9/11 IS =
NOT [everything that we know it to be]." If it does follow, the burden =
of proof is Philip's.=20
"Well, aesthetic reductionism is equally foolish. And in the case of=20
9/11, it is a foolishness that is disgusting in its lack of humanity."=20
It is inappropriate to call into question our humanity for probing a =
question.=20
*****************************=20
Erika:=20
"having watched the live TV feeds of second plane crashing into the =
second tower, then watching the buildings collapse. I have to say that =
the broadcast of the attacks were spectacular in the true sense of what =
the word means. I am separated geographically and maybe/probably =
culturally from the actual event, which means my frame of reference is =
from the transmitted event not the event itself. In describing the =
transmission/broadcast as spectacular or a specticle I think is true. =
Being on the ground in New York or at the Pentagon or in the third plane =
is something completely different. perhaps this is what Vijay is =
referring to in Stockhausen's statement."=20
Yes.=20
But this implies the spectacle can be separated from the act. How and =
why?=20
If the agency behind the spectacle was cable news, why did the =
terrorists choose such an iconic place as the World Trade Center?=20
Terrorism is different from war in that terrorism aims to create, =
alongside violence, terror, spectacle.=20
******************************=20
Manik:=20
"NEED FOR WARMTH AND HOSTILITY TOWARD TOUCH"=20
"Peter Handke wrote that after read Witgenstein.=20
"If that could help to understand all this controversy with K.H =
Stockhausen=20
declaration we'll be satisfied.Why?Because Vijay here start =
with(maybe)key=20
question about relationship between reality/whatever it is, but in this =
case=20
we suggest to take reality in colloquial sense/and culture/in entire=20
appearance covered with this term/.Radical translation of possibly=20
connections and mutual influences between those two totality could be =
useful=20
for radical changing this miserable situation in 'Western World Art'."=20
Handke's statement, modulo your catachresis of it, is a =
compelling/visceral description of 9/11's aesthetic (and maybe artistic) =
effect.=20
Is art's role to provide this "warmth" and "description"? (does art have =
a role?)=20
****************************=20
Nanny:=20
"in this reason, we say cultural studies especially have nothing to do =
with politics or political reductionists…people's lives are not their =
market….we, as a citizens we are not their object of mass media or =
art! we are trying to survive.. we have also lives that we want to keep =
away from market!"=20
Nanny, I'd point you to what I wrote to Philip, above. These things are =
not so exclusive.=20
Of course culture and cultural studies have something to do with =
politics. That's why we're having the discussion that we're having right =
now! :-)=20
Thanks for putting up with such a long post!=20
-Vijay
Reply via:
http://rhizome.org/discuss/view/28008#addcommentanchor=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
I will address the ideas of Philip, Manik, Erika, and Nanny =
individually. First, five prefatory remarks and one question/tangent:=20
i. Let us not conflate "aesthetic" with "artistic." Aesthetic (fr. Gk. =
"aisth/" ("to perceive")) dimensions exist for anything: a dog, Russian =
Constructivism, the weather, my mother's absence, 9/11, a YouTube video =
of 9/11, etc. Conscious beings perceive lots of things in lots of ways, =
i.e., they have aesthetic experiences of them. We are discussing the =
possibility of ARTISTIC dimensions of 9/11. Which unfortunately triggers =
the NP-hard(est) question "What is art?" ;-)=20
ii. Again, colloquially, to say "X is art" is to praise X. We have been =
and will continue to avoid that colloquial usage in this thread. Hence =
as far as I can tell, none of us is praising 9/11 or bin Laden.=20
iii. That said I abhor the 9/11 attacks and do not sympathize with =
al-Qaeda. (This is not to charge any of you of charging me with the =
opposite; it's just that, as a brown man growing up in small Texas =
towns, I am used to being clear about it to an extent that northeastern =
Americans or Europeans may find strange.)=20
iv. Yet there are nontrivial moral implications of asking and answering =
the question "Is 9/11 art?" Thanks to Philip and Manik for bringing this =
up.=20
v. We have not answered the question itself yet. Everyone's arguments so =
far-confirming or denying "Is 9/11 art?"-including my own attempt-remain =
unconvincing. So let us not project positions onto people yet.=20
vi. (Should we avoid the 9/11-was-an-inside-job perspective on this =
question? I don't know anything about those theories, but if someone =
does and could bring them to bear on this question-which, in that case, =
becomes a different question-then I'd be much obliged.)=20
******************************=20
Philip:=20
"This is idiocy on so many levels that it's hard to know where to=20
begin. I'll keep this short.=20
"(1) bin Laden is not an artist. He has no artistic intent. He does=20
not work in an art context. His "creations" cannot be considered art=20
from that point of view. 9/11 is not a work of art if one believes=20
the artist has any say in such things."=20
(2) But I suppose Barthes-on-steroids might argue that it's the reader=20
who determines whether something is art or not. Perhaps that is what=20
you have in mind here. But what kind of person would think such a=20
thing when it comes to 9/11? Only someone who views everything and=20
anything through an aesthetic prism to the exclusion of any other=20
consideration."=20
Let us leave the "Barthes-on-steroids" stuff out of this. It has become =
fashionable in Rhizome to dismiss critical theory qua critical theory. =
That is sloppy. Talk about what ideas DENOTE over what they CONNOTE. =
Discuss the merits and flaws of ideas themselves, no matter where the =
pointy end of the cartoon dialogue bubble points. Anything else is =
either dodging the question or prejudice.=20
"Such a person is a slave to reductionism.=20
"Political pundents tend to reduce everything to politics, and consider=20
little else. Religious zealots tend to reduce everything to an issue=20
of dogma, and consider little else. Such reductionism is a foolish=20
approach to a multidimensional world. Most here understand that."=20
It remains for you to show how an artistic perspective on the world =
excludes other perspectives.=20
Some political acts have religious dimensions (e.g., the fight to ban =
abortion). Some religious acts have political dimensions (e.g., social =
networking in churches).=20
Likewise, just as some artistic acts have political dimensions, some =
political acts have artistic dimensions. The question we are wrestling =
with is whether 9/11 is such a political act.=20
To suggest a dimension for an act is not to reduce said act wholly to =
said dimension.=20
If I assert: "AN APPLE IS RED," does that imply "AN APPLE IS NOT ROUND"? =
Similarly, if I assert: "9/11 IS ART," it does not follow that "9/11 IS =
NOT [everything that we know it to be]." If it does follow, the burden =
of proof is Philip's.=20
"Well, aesthetic reductionism is equally foolish. And in the case of=20
9/11, it is a foolishness that is disgusting in its lack of humanity."=20
It is inappropriate to call into question our humanity for probing a =
question.=20
*****************************=20
Erika:=20
"having watched the live TV feeds of second plane crashing into the =
second tower, then watching the buildings collapse. I have to say that =
the broadcast of the attacks were spectacular in the true sense of what =
the word means. I am separated geographically and maybe/probably =
culturally from the actual event, which means my frame of reference is =
from the transmitted event not the event itself. In describing the =
transmission/broadcast as spectacular or a specticle I think is true. =
Being on the ground in New York or at the Pentagon or in the third plane =
is something completely different. perhaps this is what Vijay is =
referring to in Stockhausen's statement."=20
Yes.=20
But this implies the spectacle can be separated from the act. How and =
why?=20
If the agency behind the spectacle was cable news, why did the =
terrorists choose such an iconic place as the World Trade Center?=20
Terrorism is different from war in that terrorism aims to create, =
alongside violence, terror, spectacle.=20
******************************=20
Manik:=20
"NEED FOR WARMTH AND HOSTILITY TOWARD TOUCH"=20
"Peter Handke wrote that after read Witgenstein.=20
"If that could help to understand all this controversy with K.H =
Stockhausen=20
declaration we'll be satisfied.Why?Because Vijay here start =
with(maybe)key=20
question about relationship between reality/whatever it is, but in this =
case=20
we suggest to take reality in colloquial sense/and culture/in entire=20
appearance covered with this term/.Radical translation of possibly=20
connections and mutual influences between those two totality could be =
useful=20
for radical changing this miserable situation in 'Western World Art'."=20
Handke's statement, modulo your catachresis of it, is a =
compelling/visceral description of 9/11's aesthetic (and maybe artistic) =
effect.=20
Is art's role to provide this "warmth" and "description"? (does art have =
a role?)=20
****************************=20
Nanny:=20
"in this reason, we say cultural studies especially have nothing to do =
with politics or political reductionists…people's lives are not their =
market….we, as a citizens we are not their object of mass media or =
art! we are trying to survive.. we have also lives that we want to keep =
away from market!"=20
Nanny, I'd point you to what I wrote to Philip, above. These things are =
not so exclusive.=20
Of course culture and cultural studies have something to do with =
politics. That's why we're having the discussion that we're having right =
now! :-)=20
Thanks for putting up with such a long post!=20
-Vijay
Reply via:
http://rhizome.org/discuss/view/28008#addcommentanchor=20
=20
