<nettime> dunno much about art but i know what i like digest [x3: stewart, de vries, :t i n a]

[nettime's_indigestive_system <nettime@kein.org>]

Re: <nettime> The Next Idea of the Artist - essay
     Damian Stewart <damian@frey.co.nz>
     KMV <cuuixsilver@gmail.com>
     ":T I N A" <intothegloaming@yahoo.com>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:34:40 +0200
From: Damian Stewart <damian@frey.co.nz>
Subject: Re: <nettime> The Next Idea of the Artist - essay

:T I N A wrote:

> You insult Beethoven by calling him and his work "romantic." I have
> never understood the end-sum philosophy of deprecating the past to
> celebrate the future.

err,

why is 'romantic' an insult?

i'm a romantic.

d
-- 
damian stewart | skype: damiansnz | damian@frey.co.nz
frey | live art with machines | http://www.frey.co.nz

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:54:50 -0700
From: KMV <cuuixsilver@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: <nettime> The Next Idea of the Artist - essay

I think factual claims can be made; American literature has a strong
romantic tradition of the noble savage, celebrating native peoples as their
civilization has been wiped out--James Fenimore Cooper's work is a leading
example.

Returning to the earlier point though, I think the sometimes contradictory
relationship between someone's work which we find valuable and their
behavior which we may find questionable, to put it mildly, has concerned
thinkers in many disciplines since Plato at least, and I'm sure earlier if
we were to reference Chinese or Indian philosophy.

Often the good work and bad behavior are represented as a tragic
contradiction, but I think we should not shy away from considering the more
troubling possibility that the former in some way depends on the latter or
is enhanced by the latter.

Very interesting essay!

Thanks,

Kim

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Rana Dasgupta <rana@ranadasgupta.com>wrote:

> I don't know what "tiresome European filling in the blanks" is.
 <...>

-- 
Kim De Vries

http://else-if-then.blogspot.com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:00:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: ":T I N A" <intothegloaming@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: <nettime> The Next Idea of the Artist - essay

Actually, I sent a comment which I think only went to Michael G.
 
Essentially, I am saying Humanities work is invalid by virtue of the
fact that consensus on any one work is widely enforced. The feeling
is: these crimes are solved and there is no reopening the case, so we
will study them to be able to judge cases in the future. But what
about witness tampering? Even disagreements are sheltered by a certain
yin and yang. It offends me that people can assert what Hawthorne or
Kahlo or Beethoven meant or what relevance they had based on hearsay.
Even when the artist can be quoted. People want to eat. People want to
stay alive. Integrity is mutable.
 
Some artists pander to organized thought from the beginning. And so
this is a kind of art.
 
Whether you capitalize romantic or not, someone feeling one way at a
time when others feel similar does not make it an era when there are
only a handful of expressions being discussed in a big world, when
people don't feel the same way all of the time, then drawing
comparisons and believing for some reason a conclusion should follow
that has nothing do with art or artists and it certainly does not
explain or give weight to their expression. Terms like 'romantic' are
placeholders for more in depth thought and reticence. In a minute, I
tell you that you can't "describe" anything.
 
I don't remember all that I said in last night's comment. But there
was this: Take the original essay. Replace the name of Beethoven with
Hirst and 'Ninth' with 'calf.' What I mean is that the basic
commentary can be attached to any important artist. 

Perhaps everywhere, but at least in America, we call it 'shock value.'
Most great art has it. 
 
Yes, in 2008 I think it's criminal to discuss dead artists. If you
are compelled toward commentary, reply to their work in kind. That
would make a more relevant conversation. Cheapening written language
by its overuse, however, is awful. 
 
Moreover, dead people can never tell you that you got it wrong.
 
 :T

As a side note: does anyone know of a recently discovered masterpiece
by a previously unknown artist? Just curious. I'd like to see it.

KMV <cuuixsilver@gmail.com> wrote: I don't know what you mean, :TINA,
mean by "insulting Beethoven."  Even if you disagree about the term
romantic, that's a difference of interpretation, not an insult.  And
if you mean the more negative interpretation of his behavior is
insulting, which seems to me is standard biographical criticism, then
I wonder if by extension you think most humanities scholarship, based
on interpretation rather than of factual proof, is somehow invalid.
--And that's a practice which I would not say is restricted to Europe.

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 9:25 AM, :T I N A <intothegloaming@yahoo.com>
wrote:
 
 
I didn't think it was based on any fact.
 <...>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org