Hi Alan, I think you’re misunderstanding me and getting bogged down in semantics. I do think that there are lots of people making really excellent art that is relevant to the world as it is today, I never suggested that that wasn’t the case. It’s great that you’ve found some of those people in Atlanta. I would say we can't characterisation the alt-right so easily. Many of them are not about vetting, definitions etc, but purely about self-interest and self-indulgence. It’s a form of instant gratification. There is no environment to be concerned about, there is no war outside of what it costs them, there is no humanity in other populations to fret over - there is just desire and self-interest. How people/artists choose to tackle these issues is not and should not be controlled. Different strategies are needed and will best suit different people, that’s as it should be. But I think for art to be relevant, worthwhile, anything other than a play-thing for the rich in our times, it needs to engage in a meaningful way with reality outside of the art world(s). And, yes, I am prepared to dedicate a lot of resources (time, emotional energy, support, opportunities) to helping the many creatives who are doing this important work right now.
Anyway, that’s my two cents, got to run now, so I’ll bow out at this point. In solidarity, Gretta > On 13 Dec 2016, at 11:31 AM, Alan Sondheim <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Gretta, > > We're a bit in disagreement here, not too much. When you say "I am saying, we > should urge ourselves to look outside of the art worlds, look at our context, > our neighbours, our community, society, world, and try to make work that > engages with that in the most meaningful ways we can." - that's precisely > what seems to be going on in Atlanta for example and elsewhere that I see - > there _is_ this engagement going on, but it's without the "should urge" - > it's happening. The zines for example I saw were relevant, were coming out of > community. But they don't fall into the categories, as far as I can see, that > we discuss here. You say "we also can?t just remove all categorisation and > say "art is art is art" and allow ourselves to just indulge in whatever > creative pursuit is most fun (by that obviously I also mean, potentially, > intellectually stimulating etc) at that particular time in our specific > creative sandbox." - and that still worries me. I remember talking with > Laurie Anderson precisely about this - the idea of "fun" - which see (and I) > saw as subversive itself - the last thing a lot of artists want is that sense > of play - but play also undermines ideology, brings one to think deeper & in > other ways. I've taught at a lot of art schools, and the painters were > usually the most conservative students / teachers - but they also were the > ones who, by virture of the slow image production, different and sometimes > anideological thinking etc., actually were the most radical, just not in the > usual sense. > > You say, "they?ve let themselves drift to far into self-reflexiveness. > Let this be a time where they reassess and redirect." - and perhaps we need > to do that reassessment ourselves; the phrase "drift too far" is already > prejorative, already an exclusion. Here's the problem - "Let this be a time > where they reassess and redirect." - because that's also what the right in > the usa wants, it's what corporate artschools like SCAD (Savannah College of > Art and Design, notorious) also say. For me it's troubling. There should be > room, I think, for everything, everyone; I'm arguing a bit here for > eliminating categorization, yes, but that doesn't create saying "art is art > is" etc. - it means the opposite, seeing what lies behind the definition (who > cares what art is - that can lead to connoisseurship etc etc) - seeing what > the artist is saying, what motivates her etc. > > So I'm torn, I agree with you below and it worries me at the same time. The > work that interests me is embedded, opens up vistas, creates and intensifies > wonder, opens up paths for contemplation as well as action, makes the world a > bit better and seem a bit deeper, encourages, acts, heals, enlarges our view > of things, creates a space for community and individual politics and > education. And what occurs on the right in Amerikka is just the opposite - > closure, boundary, definitions, vetting, etc. - what the Lakoff's, if I > remember correctly, talked about as a regime of the stern father. HE's the > one who knows right from wrong, right action from wrong action etc. (Just > occurred to me, we have here two literary figures in the 19th cent. - Whitman > and Dickinson - the former was engaged in community (see his war writings) > and worked with, dealt with, the larger community in a new way, opening up > vistas, empowering; - and the latter opened up internal territories that > educate, move, inspire, and are solitary and breathtaking. We need both here. > Both refused boundary in different ways... > > Sorry to go on here; you're inspiring and basically I think on one hand > you're right, and on the other, cultural workers of all sorts have a hard > enough time; we need to support each other deeply... > > - Alan > > > > > On Tue, 13 Dec 2016, Gretta Louw wrote: > >> Haha, Alan there is no imperative in what I said, there is a plea, a hope, a >> wish. The imperative comes from outside and above - the imperative to ?make >> a living?, the imperative to pay taxes, the imperative to write reports with >> quantitative analysis of why funding you received was well spent etc. What I >> said is the opposite of all that. And while I agree that categorising >> specific works or sometimes even specific genres is usually a waste of time, >> we also can?t just remove all categorisation and say "art is art is art" and >> allow ourselves to just indulge in whatever creative pursuit is most fun (by >> that obviously I also mean, potentially, intellectually stimulating etc) at >> that particular time in our specific creative sandbox. I am saying, we >> should urge ourselves to look outside of the art worlds, look at our >> context, our neighbours, our community, society, world, and try to make work >> that engages with that in the most meaningful ways we can. I am reading a >> lot of artists online at the moment lamenting that they don?t feel that >> their work is relevant in these Trumpland/Aleppo/Brexit/Refugee Crisis days, >> and I think some of them are right, they?ve let themselves drift to far into >> self-reflexiveness. Let this be a time where they reassess and redirect. >> >> >>> On 13 Dec 2016, at 5:15 AM, Alan Sondheim <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Is there a mainstream art world? "The mainstream art world waited to utter >>> the term "Internet art" until they could safely add the prefix "post-" to >>> it" Jon Ippolito I think these reifications might be too simple, as are >>> internet art, net art, post digital, digital, and so forth. I'm not >>> interested in art about art in any sort of self-reflexive way, but I >>> haven't anything against artists who explore that; for me while I agree >>> completely with " We need to make work about things that matter more and >>> are more grounded in the body, the land, in depth and real experience." - I >>> worry about the underlying imperative here. There's depth in art about art, >>> there's real experience there as well. All of these categories limit and >>> limit ourselves, I think - for me, issues of communality, exploration, >>> philosophy, the commons, diwo, diy, all of these are interrelated. I keep >>> thinking of how Amerikkka at this point is all about drawing boundaries, >>> and art history itself is one of those bo > undaries - canons, genera, media, new media, etc., etc. Just expressing a > worry here, too many categories, maybe too many dismissals by virtue of the > categories - Also, again where Marc says "- as in, take full control of its > once grass roots identity, and own its history and future; and turn it all > into its own pliable set of products." - as it was pointed out to me last > night, a great deal of media-oriented art never was grass-roots for example. > I can use myself here - I began in a terak mini-computer in the 70s creating > drawing program w/ pascal etc. I had help - not course-wise, but academic > help on the side; I used equipment that at that time would have cost tens and > tens of thousands of USD - and a whole world opened up - in dialog with the > institution that gave me freedom to work with the equipment. And I think > there's a problem also with " but only so that all the typical top-down > defaults of the mainstream can take it apart and force it to reflect its own > intentions > and belief systems" - I do understand what is meant by "mainstream," but > after looking again at Atlanta art for example - ranging from the Printed > Matter zinefest to an auction where artist exchange work among themselves to > the current highly charged Atlanta Biennale at the Atlanta Contemporary, to > Agnes Scott showing work dealing with southern identity and narrative, > including an intense piece by Bessie Harvey etc. - I'm not sure where the > "mainstream" actually is, or whether it serves any purpose to personify it. > I'd like to see all these categories exploded so that we might proceed w/ > looking and listening to everyone and anyone, finding our own paths through > the creative debris ranging from monetary systems to zines to vr to the > future of perception itself etc. >>> We just got in to Washington DC, discussing policy with one of the heads of >>> a critical ngo, my head is reeling more than realing here. I bring this up >>> because I feel more than ever the need for concrete politics and a >>> breakdown of any barriers, aesthetic and otherise, at this point. Too many >>> walls... >>> Hope this makes some sense - Alan >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NetBehaviour mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > == > email archive http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/ > web http://www.alansondheim.org / cell 718-813-3285 > music: http://www.espdisk.com/alansondheim/ > current text http://www.alansondheim.org/ui.txt > ==_______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
