Nmherman on Sun, 28 Jul 2002 20:49:02 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
[Nettime-bold] Re: [thingist] desperate rear-guard action |
Dear List,
Bobbi's losing it... big time. re:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/21/arts/design/21SMIT.html?pagewanted=print&position=top
> Painting remains the expression of an exceedingly human need for mark
> making — a basic urge to communicate like speech, writing and song. If
> this weren't the case, the century would not have had so many
> self-taught painters, some of them geniuses. Paintings can have the
> expressive density of written pages, and new ones are being made all
> the time that make exceptionally good reading.
This is complete & total rubbish. Speech is "basic", artifice is
"basic", writing is not, singing is not (tho chanting may be), &
mark-making was a thing given to one in a hundred (even now, despite the
transient ubiquity of Photoshop & al) -- this since neolithic times; the
province of the shaman. The rest of her argument is specious to the
point of teleological absurdity.
& once again, elsewhere in the article, she demonstrates her
pathological inability to perceive work framed by the monitor. Her
catch-all for everything which isn't painting seems to be "video" which
she characterizes as "the successor to installation".
Roberta, please... the rocking chair beckons.
best,
Blackhawk.