On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Joel Weishaus wrote:
> > Facticity in painting is always problematic; I think of painting as part -
> > as a node or intensification - of a discursive formation, existing only as
> > an object outside the formation (and perhaps not even that). Painting is
> > embedded in language; this is clear for anyone who has ever taught it.
> > There are crits, seminars, theses, artist talks, slide lectures, magazine,
> > artists' statements, etc. etc. - all of which are confluent with the
> > "works themselves."
>
> But artists hate to hear this!
>
Not the artists I know; I think in NY it's pretty much taken for granted.
Years ago there was a kind of muteness about work (infinitely discussed) -
'tough' art that stood on its own, a paean to modernism. But today -
especially after the overly-theoretical work of the 80s and 90s (not to
mention conceptualisms), I think things are different.
Certain in relation to computer/web art - things are very different; the
art itself is a form of discourse - programs speak among themselves; to
machines; to humans; and vice versa...
- Alan
===================================================================
WEB SITE: http://pks.bu.edu/awbim
POST MESSAGE: Send a message to artwithbraininmind-l@pks.bu.edu
(UN)SUBSCRIBE: Send message to majordomo@pks.bu.edu with
'subscribe artwithbraininmind-l' in body to subscribe, or
'unsubscribe artwithbraininmind-l' in body to unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Sep 06 2008 - 04:03:09 EDT