after a heated class today, I asked Vytas about artwork today that does not resort to creating spectacle in seeking innovation. the reason I'm interested is well the exact same thing must happen everywhere. art design media.. music.. . professional sports. science (bio) technology etc. etc.etc. somebody provocative suddenly 'makes it' and eats cake in front of everyone else. its totally exclusive. and it makes you wonder about everything. substitute Terence Koh for Karim Rashid or Marilyn Manson its very beautiful or admirable in one way and YET. it just doesn't sit right. the question came up.. in order to earn kudos or validation amongst the art community, does work have to situate itself within a socio political framework, or better yet does it have to become a spectacle? wandering through the books at InForm, I opened Bruce Mau's and David Rockwell's book "Spectacle". Seems recently the notion of the spectacle is becoming increasingly interesting to designers.. maybe because of its combination of performance / engagement with production for an audience... often at a grand scale.. it's a big loud book. very red and black. I much prefer "World Changing" to look at but even it is much too heavy. I love getting lost and exploring the ideas from les situationiste internationale, society of the spectacle, psychogeography, experimental travel (love it). although I do not know how useful it is, in the context of today.. . the small ones sure can be fun. I am remembering Diana.. . a true artist.
I like what you said about .. not having all the time in the world for everything. meaning and discourse can be attached to anything. and how much time we spend doing this is a choice we get to make, if we're lucky.
the issue, I think, is really about energy and ethics. creative process takes energy. moving things takes energy. choosing takes ethics. where do we choose to put our energy. sorry, but i don't want to market myself to help EA.
tonight, at BuyLow, I saw a photograph of Britney Spears with a shaved head at the grocery store. fascinating. RLC taught me (among many other things in a mere hour) that the word fascinating means to be both interested and repulsed to varying degrees.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
the spectacle
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
as i understand it, innovation in arts is most clearly seen when the boundaries of an art form are exceeded. i've long been drawn to industrial and ambient music because these styles blur the boundaries between music, noise, and silence. over time the innovations of these styles feed into more mainstream genres, become established within the definition of music, and the boundaries shift.
art also reflects in on itself, as Impressionist and Cubist styles do. but these days that kind of self-reflection feels very empty. i find the pace is too hurried, and leaves little opportunity for any attempt to reconnect to the larger idea of an art. so what if the Arcade Fire sound like early Bowie, if no one takes the time to understand what Bowie stood for. there's a greater depth that feels completely ignored, but that is central to the act of self-reflection.
i believe art is communication (and vice versa), so maybe there's something of the medium at work here. i like my vinyl - it's there! the music is captured in the grooves on the disc - i can feel them. where are my mp3s? cyberspace?
..sorry, i've fallen off point..
bye Sarah!
keep em coming franky and i'll do the same. perhaps we have finally found a way to keep in touch.. and share ideas. cyberspace has to be good for something! we spend so much time there. here? in between.
a few things you say resonate. the art of communication and the communication of art. i'm really interested in these little shifts that happen when you reframe something.. like art. shouldn't self reflection be the opposite of emptiness? and maybe that's why we so often avoid it. . . and in seeking innovation, how far should we try to exceed the boundaries.. before we are standing out on a limb all alone. oh so easy to fall off point.
bye Franky!
you're right - how can i bash technology through a blog? doesn't make sense. i'm just preaching caution against the hidden dangers of evolving too quickly. i know you understand that - more so than myself, no doubt.
self-relection.. literally, looking into a mirror. you can simply take in the image before you and appreciate the surface elements. but all those wrinkles, scars, the expression, heritage - there's a history that connects to the greater world, a larger identity. even through self-reflection art speaks of something greater than itself.
all i'm saying is, for the most part artistic self-reflection these days is a superficial image of something that was once inspired. that too, i know you're well aware of. the spectacle.
as for boundary limits - framing art as communication helps answer your question. move too far out of bounds and you could be speaking a language no one quite understands. but unless you move completely outside the artistic medium, there will always be perceptual cues that may provide meaning to the audience. personally i'd rather be out on a limb with my art, then accept the suggestion it's not art at all.
Post a Comment