Search This Blog
Popular Posts
-
Here's the story: an artist is fascinated by falling . He takes pictures of himself falling off different things: ladders, trees, buildi...
-
He's been around for a while. In 2002, for instance, he made the world a better place by putting flags on high-tension electricity lines...
-
The Tea Bag garden is a landscape made of stacked bags of garden soil. The bags, padded like a bench, are essentially soft plant containers...
-
If you want to know what Tim Crouch's An Oak Tree is about, and what it is like, first read his own description . You can also read the...
-
Truly great art has the strange effect of making us, the spectators, feel intelligent. - António Damasio , director of the department of neu...
-
Exactitudes (= exact attitudes), by photographer Ari Versluis and stylist Ellie Uyttenbroek, is an exercise in style (or rather was, from ...
-
This house which is almost gone. Which still has the lines and weight of a house, yet could very well be called landscape. This house which ...
-
Just so you don't think I'm ignoring you - check out some great projects by Marc Kremers : As found , a site with images found on th...
-
In a comment in the Portuguese daily newspaper Público , my colleague Tiago Bartolomeu Costa commented on a controversial artistic residency...
-
Brick of Coke is part of the Experience the Experience project by Monochrom ( from the site : monochrom is an art-technology-philosophy gr...
Tuesday, 27 December 2011
It's Ludwig Van!
Published :
06:23
Author :
ekkii
Tim has proven time and time again that he is a master of the fantastic. But he's also a master of the naturalistic, as anyone who's seen his portraits can attest. One of his portraits, "Ode to Joy" -- his rendering of a laughing Ludwig Van Beethoven -- has been offered as a limited edition, but it is now available in model kit form, and much smaller, to boot. Standing only 5.75 inches tall with its base, this new kit is now available over in the Tim Bruckner Shop (www.timbrucknershop.com), and at $50 is an affordable way to show your love of the composer (or the movie "A Clockwork Orange").
Friday, 23 December 2011
Mr. B's Bookkeeper: Introducing the First Model Kit with Modular Expression
Published :
09:54
Author :
ekkii
In recent months, Tim (Bruckner, Pop Sculpture co-author) has immersed himself in the world of garage kits, a category he's dabbled in in the past, but one he is now exploring fully through his online store, timbrucknershop.com. His latest kit, Mr. B's Bookkeeper, features a new innovation that hasn't been seen in kits before -- ME (modular expression) busts. With six different eye pieces (three left, three right) and six different mouth pieces (three top, three bottom), the bust can be assembled 81 different ways, which has to be some kind of a record. Pick yours up in the shop, and check out all of the different ways it can be assembled below!
Wednesday, 7 December 2011
After Fishing
Published :
06:25
Author :
ekkii
"Last will and Testament" by Mariusz Hermanowicz (with Zygmunt Hermanowicz) was an instant crush for me.
After his father's death, Mariusz Hermanowicz discovers, among the things the father left, boxes filled with fishing lures of his father's own design. Some of the lures are finished, many seem more like prototypes, projects. There are also drawings, parts, materials. A universe of lures.
The father, you see, loved fishing. But he was never satisfied with the lures he had. He kept saying how he would make some of his own, which would allow him to catch many more fish. And kept picking things up from the ground, saying they would be perfect for the lure. "But I had never heard that he ever started doing anything from the things he found".
So what are these objects? Have they ever been used? Were they supposed to be used?
"Did he ever try to catch fish with them? Would any fish get caught on them?"
I am in love with this project.
Need I say more?
Would you like me to rationalize love?
(Of course, if you are reading any of this, it is because, like readers of poetry, you believe words go far beyond any silly logos-stories.)
Here are my quasireasons, then:
I love that violence can turn into passion which can turn into art.
The ideal sublimation.
The utopic idea that someone can move from aggression to beauty.
The uncertain heritage. The ambiguity of what remains.
I guess, it is also the ambiguity of what is already there, of what we do, of our own motivations.
The bait transforms into the fish.
The challenge of seducing the fish becomes the fish's seduction.
The man identifies with the fish to the extent that these little pieces of metal, plastic and wood become a representation of fish, or more, like African masks, they are now a reality of their own, with their peculiar morphology and purposeful abstraction.
Yet there is nothing pragmatic about this purpose. There is madness in this reason.
It is a mad inner dialogue with a fish that will never be caught. The fish that blissfuly remains the being-to-correspond. Transforming these carefuly selected pieces of material into the lure that caught me.
Wednesday, 23 November 2011
Looking at the robots, I think
Published :
18:08
Author :
ekkii
David Lewandowski, going to the store
Robot maker Azusa Amino recently won the Robot Japan 2 Dance competition with his 23-centimeter-high Toko Toko Maru robot.
- they are the un-ego, the dream of letting go of the source. They are a life whose source is the non-live, whose origin is not identical, so a different, non-human causality comes into place. The source, here, is the source-code. And that makes all the difference. Saying it is matter brought to life explains nothing. Think, rather, of metamorphosis, of alchemy, of things becoming not-themselves. (Of us becoming not-ourselves). The robot is not a robot if it remains the sum of its parts. It is a robot when it does something it is not supposed to do - when we see it as inhabiting itself. (It - who?, we ask, excitedly). They are our hope for the unexpected: if we can control everything, and the result is somethig more than what we were making, then there is no everything.
And we can dream on.
Monday, 21 November 2011
The Auction of Athena: Our Pop Sculpture Cover Girl Goes on the Block
Published :
18:37
Author :
ekkii
In the year-plus since "Pop Sculpture" has come out, we have been deluged with words of thanks from folks who find the book to be an indispensable guide to the art of sculpture. And we have nothing but thanks for all of you who have been so supportive of the book -- we hope it will serve you well in the years to come. But now that a year has passed, we're moving on to new projects, and we've got to make room in the studio.
Our cover girl, Athena, is almost two feet tall with her spear, and it's time she moved out on her own, so we're putting her up for auction in Tim's eBay store, at TimBrucknerShop.com. She's a one-of-a-kind piece -- a complete set of molds does NOT exist, so this is the only way to get her. Ever. Look for the auction to post sometime on Sunday, November 27, and expect it to run for ten days; a portion of the proceeds will go to the Arnell Memorial Humane Society of Wisconsin. Keep track of it over at our Facebook page, and enjoy some more photos of Athena below!
Our cover girl, Athena, is almost two feet tall with her spear, and it's time she moved out on her own, so we're putting her up for auction in Tim's eBay store, at TimBrucknerShop.com. She's a one-of-a-kind piece -- a complete set of molds does NOT exist, so this is the only way to get her. Ever. Look for the auction to post sometime on Sunday, November 27, and expect it to run for ten days; a portion of the proceeds will go to the Arnell Memorial Humane Society of Wisconsin. Keep track of it over at our Facebook page, and enjoy some more photos of Athena below!
Friday, 4 November 2011
The House
Published :
19:23
Author :
ekkii
This house which is almost gone. Which still has the lines and weight of a house, yet could very well be called landscape. This house which is a set of floors engraved with memories that no one you know could ever read. Things, as people, come and go, yet we believe them to be different, we invest what is left of our faith in this space or that. It's what you think as you move the objects around, pretty damn self-conscious, pretty certain that this armchair in this place is pure iconoclasm.
You'd rather it were a farm. You would prefer it to be pragmatic, and you would strive for it to be pure function, eliminating any sentiment, oiling the squeaking doors so the sound doesn't leave traces, cleaning the floor so there are no signatures. No time travels.
Then you picture this farm, and somehow it's not so proper, the weather is muddy, or maybe that's the way it always looks, there are traces everywhere, things have a rhythm they will never ever retain, things have a rhythm they will never ever give up. It is your wildest dream, and this land is full of you, it does not allow you to leave. You seem to have been here long before you've ever pictured this place.
You move back, trying not to stare, so as not to keep any of this. Then you see the roof, its perfectly symmetrical form (it is not symmetric, but that is how you see it), its blissful abstraction. The way this alien form remains here. Now, yes, you can leave. You exit the picture, you go back to the house where the armchair is elsewhere, you walk out through the garden, and you take your hard-earned sight to another nest.
Nicholas McLeod, The Farm (2010) |
Monday, 31 October 2011
The Political Sight - Konrad Pustoła's 'Views of Power'
Published :
11:15
Author :
ekkii
What do you see?
This, here, is an image of power.
Pure and simple, it is what a specific person with power sees. Out of the window. Every day.
Some of the Views of Power, a project by Konrad Pustoła, could be postcards. They are annoyingly nice. Others - most of them, actually - seem violent in their chaotic setting.
And so, the game begins - can you match the picture to the person? Does it tell you something more about who the person is? Or is it vice versa - the person informs your view of what this view is?
After taking the pictures, Pustoła posted them on billboards in every possible corner of the city.
No, it's not about the contrasts. It's not about looking for contrast. Rather, it is about asking yourself, what is this power? What does this view have? Do I want something from it? What could I possibly want - and expect - from this? Each context is a confrontation of one view with another. It shows the complex web of relations that go beyond a simple decision-making process. For it is clear, here, that we are part of this world of power to a much greater extent than we might think. We co-define it. Which makes it less surprizing to discover the familiarity of some of these views.
One of the most exciting aspects of this project is perhaps the most obvious one - why this window? What is this person's power? It's like trying to discover what are the superpowers of some superhero - only here, there is no super. The power is quite real. It can be power over the soul, the body, the political body. But we can name it, one way or another. And through this simple choice, of deciding this is a person with power, Pustoła provokes us, saying, look, I've made my choices, those are the views I associate with power, here and now, where are yours?
The accent on our capacity to choose power comes across even in the formal approach: these pictures are not attempting to be particularly nice, or ugly. They aren't shot as panoramas, which could seem an obvious solution. But a wrong one. It would suggest that the picture sees it all - that there is, indeed, a panorama. The "standard" angle is a political choice. It tells us clearly, this is the view. The limits are part of this game. They provoke us, ask for alternatives, answers, consequences other than the ones we already have. The billboards set the record straight: if power is always symbolic, the symbol requires context more than scope. The choice, and hence the power, is sharp as a small and precise frame.
There is one more aspect of this simple and effective work.
It was made locally. I was told the plan is to have the scope broadened. I like it as it is. It was made in one Polish city - Krakow. It is the third largest Polish city. Not the capital. Not the center. Neither the periphery. It is one place in the world. And a few windows. Where's the power? In the view, of course.
Friday, 15 July 2011
Official Tim Bruckner Shop Officially Open!
Published :
00:20
Author :
ekkii
If you've enjoyed reading Pop Sculpture, then you've probably enjoyed seeing the various sculptures of co-author Tim Bruckner. Not only has he been incredibly prolific in his professional career as a sculptor, he's just as productive in his spare time, creating nearly as many personal pieces as he has commercially available products. Now, for the first time, both are available in one place! The official Tim Bruckner Shop carries many of Tim's most popular pieces from DC Direct, Dark Horse and others, but it also offers some of his personal work as both unpainted model kits and painted limited editions. So if you're looking to pick up a garage kit of Tim's take on Frankenstein's monster, or a finished rendering of Cyrano de Bergerac, head on over to eBay and check it out.
Sunday, 19 June 2011
How It Works
Published :
14:02
Author :
ekkii
You do things.
You try it, this way, that way. You stray, you flop and then you flip again, and something, some things come out of it.
You do them and please, please, you think, do not ask me what I'm doing, what my political take on this, for the moment now I just have a political in-take, the out is not political to my best knowledge. Fortunately, your knowledge is not best. You see, you do things.
And although most of them, you can honestly say, you know little about, the matter speaks for you. (Which, of course, does not mean you do not try to talk with it, for it, explain it, relate it and convey it, extrapolate it, and prove where it, the matter, stands).
Some of the works you work, frankly, are worthy of the highest criticism. They are, yes it has been said before, the flops. Or worse, they have the wrong ideas, wrong media, wrong impressions and plenty-wrong outcomes.
Yet within these plenty-wrong outcomes, things are born. And these things might just make connections, little roots holding on to little pieces of earth. Not that roots hold on to any particular piece, but this metaphor just decided to go its own way, and we at New Art listen to metaphors, so yes, there might be no palpable piece of anything that the roots hold to, yet the work (by now it is work) is starting to appear as if it were actually something, about something, into something, for something. It gains weight.
And then, at some ungiven points, not necessarily at the end or at any sort of finale, the Holy-Flip happens. It could be a form, it could be filled with air or helium, it could be pretty far away from you, but still yours, still stemming from this surprizing head. You might say "things came into place", but you have no clue what you are saying, you don't have the perspective, you just enjoy it, the fact that now it seems clear, there is a connection, things are being said which you knew you wanted to say or wanted someone to say, some other head maybe.
And you know what? When it works, it's so simple.
* * *
All the works above are by Marina Decaro. The first and last image are from a work called "4 ojos" ("4 Eyes"), 2007.
Disclaimer: Marina De Caro was not consulted before writing the above text, and it is not meant to portray the development of her career. The above text is fiction and any resemblance to real art life stories, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
(via)
You try it, this way, that way. You stray, you flop and then you flip again, and something, some things come out of it.
You do them and please, please, you think, do not ask me what I'm doing, what my political take on this, for the moment now I just have a political in-take, the out is not political to my best knowledge. Fortunately, your knowledge is not best. You see, you do things.
And although most of them, you can honestly say, you know little about, the matter speaks for you. (Which, of course, does not mean you do not try to talk with it, for it, explain it, relate it and convey it, extrapolate it, and prove where it, the matter, stands).
Some of the works you work, frankly, are worthy of the highest criticism. They are, yes it has been said before, the flops. Or worse, they have the wrong ideas, wrong media, wrong impressions and plenty-wrong outcomes.
Yet within these plenty-wrong outcomes, things are born. And these things might just make connections, little roots holding on to little pieces of earth. Not that roots hold on to any particular piece, but this metaphor just decided to go its own way, and we at New Art listen to metaphors, so yes, there might be no palpable piece of anything that the roots hold to, yet the work (by now it is work) is starting to appear as if it were actually something, about something, into something, for something. It gains weight.
And then, at some ungiven points, not necessarily at the end or at any sort of finale, the Holy-Flip happens. It could be a form, it could be filled with air or helium, it could be pretty far away from you, but still yours, still stemming from this surprizing head. You might say "things came into place", but you have no clue what you are saying, you don't have the perspective, you just enjoy it, the fact that now it seems clear, there is a connection, things are being said which you knew you wanted to say or wanted someone to say, some other head maybe.
And you know what? When it works, it's so simple.
* * *
All the works above are by Marina Decaro. The first and last image are from a work called "4 ojos" ("4 Eyes"), 2007.
Disclaimer: Marina De Caro was not consulted before writing the above text, and it is not meant to portray the development of her career. The above text is fiction and any resemblance to real art life stories, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
(via)
Sunday, 5 June 2011
Sharing the Sensible (In a Rich Man's World)
Published :
16:49
Author :
ekkii
The thing is: I'm very excited about performance moving forward. And I love how it invades all sorts of territories. I do it, watch it, write about it. It's my cup of tea. That is precisely why I don't want to leave it with an "interesting experiment" tag. Experiments have their consequences, results, and it seems crucial not to stop at the freshman enthusiasm for everything about everything that is anything new. What I like most about the experiment I will criticize below is that it dared to go far, to talk to people, to uncover hidden layers in unexpected places. And yet, it troubled me.
In Gerardo Naumann's "Factory" performance during the Warsaw edition of the inspiring Ciudades Paralelas festival - we are taken on a guided tour of a functioning factory (in Warsaw it was an enormous steel factory). However, this is not your average tour. Here, we get the possibility of witnessing private stories of workers, to hear who they are, both within the company context and outside of it. The tour is at times poetic, at times simply human and direct. Every presentation mixes the description of a person's job with more personal matters. Our first guide is the factory's technical director, then we go all the way down the (wage) hierarchy to the gardiner, who also has his stories, telling us of his love for 60's music (Deep Purple et al.) and even making us listen to some of it. A truly human experience in an unexpected context.
So what is it that makes me uncomfortable about it?
It is an unwilling, yet uncritical, PR event for a huge, powerful and hardly uncontroversial business.
The project seems to follow closely the teachings of French philosopher Jacques Rancière - for several years now he has been advocating a change of paradigm in the way we look at others. Teaching something, or learning, should mean, above all, realizing how the way other people see the world is just as valid as ours - it is a structure that is already a "complete" structure, they are also "teachers" and we - students. To put it in other words - everyone is competent. It might just be a question of acquiring the possibility to further develop this competence.
Rancière gives this example: workers in a factory can also be seen as art aficcionados, as they have their (art, or aesthetic) specialities, their passions, their expertise. Tapping into this is, according to Rancière, a crucial step towards going beyond the simplistic emancipatory claim of passing on the "correct" sensibility.
The "Factory" project follows Rancière's ideas closely. And yet, all the while achieving an arguably closer relation with the subjects/performers, and while making us feel a bond with many of them, while amazing us with the aesthetic aspects of a factory, its dynamics and dramaturgy, it fails in an important aspect: it underestimates the power of the structure it works in.
"Just" showing the lives of the workers is never just showing their lives. It necessarily functions within the context. And this context, here, wins. The tour/performance becomes a scarily effective way of implementing propaganda. We are still given stories about how magnificent it is to work here, how everyone is happy, safe, friendly, how everyone who worked in the factory during communist times participated in strikes, and how the only mentioned case of someone getting fired... got immediately offered another job. And because a skillful theater director does it, we hardly feel manipulated. On the contrary, the "genuine" feeling prevails. We leave happy that things are as they are. We love the stories, the people, the parallel city, the way it works, the world it works in. It is difficult to imagine a better publicity.
But wait - could all this be true? Maybe it is a good company? Maybe it is happy and safe and the best of possible industry worlds? Well, it's enough to make a quick news check - there was a fire in the factory just a few months ago, and just recently the company just layed off many of their executive personnel (apparently they were transferred to another company for "effectivity reasons" and were subsequently fired). I dig a little deeper. ArcelorMittal - that is the name of the company, is owned by the 6th richest person in the world (with a personal wealth of $38.1 billion - link). The company made 10 billion dollars profit last year alone. On the other hand, since the company started taking over Polish factories, it diminished its staff by some 3000 workers in Poland (ca. 25%).
This type of criticism could be contested. Should this matter? Should the work of art take this into account?
Can it? How?
Can we play with the system, within the system? Can we work our works so as not to become victims of the same propaganda we would usually receive - or worse, not just victims, but advocates?
Or can we ignore this and consider that not all works of art need to be political, or not necessarily in that sense, that it can also be about the people who work there, that they too have the right to be important subjects, and not just the megarich owner of their company?
But if we just move in and focus on them, while remaining on the factory ground, if we call it a Parallel City (Ciudades Paralelas means Parallel Cities), aren't we playing the status quo game? Aren't we the perfect PR people, giving the company - and the world which it co-creates - our seal of approval, a "positivist" acceptance? (A disturbing trait of the performance is that the workers/performers come and go - without too much of an introduction, and with no goodbye whatsoever, so while we are kept entertained, they have nearly no chance of receiving our recognition, or of establishing a human contact beyond the script. The beginning and the end is clear - it is the Ciudade Parallela, the company, not the people). Doesn't the critical art, so cherished by Rancière, become uncritical because of the very same (human) aproach he proposes?
So how are we to make - and look at - art in all those parallel cities that are more and more often taken over, or at least manipulated by, the powers that be, be they economic, or more directly political?
The fight here is indeed a fight over the sharing of the sensible - how do we value what we see? How can we reevaluate it? What sort of sharing is this? What do we want out of this situation? How can we, as artists, but also as viewers (viewers are artists, but artists are viewers too, to many people's surprize), find a common ground without becoming the agent of some powerful megastructure? Should we worry about it?
Banning the word "Facebook" on TV might seem like a silly idea, but I know some theater companies who do not use any brands in their shows. And for them, it's not about having the power to change the world. It's about enjoying the possibility.
----
Curiously enough, I was told that when Naumann made an analogous performance in Buenos Aires, the factory was a small and badly run one, and some commentators thought he was too rough on it, making it look very bad. One possible answer is: this format simply gives you the possibility to take a peek inside - and whatever you find there has been there already. But another possible explanation is: it may not be enough to implement a "personal guided tour" formula if we want to move beyond the small industry into the big guys' terrain, where they know how to charm us, seduce us, and make it appear like it's all immaculate. Then, it seems, it would need to be a whole new ball game.
---
I have a vague recollection of reading about a performance by the great Brazilian visual artist and performer Hélio Oiticica (I couldn't find the reference now). I believe it took place in the 70's. Oiticica walked around the public space, pointing at different objects. The spectators which followed him understood (were told?) that through the gesture, the objects acquired the status of works of art.
Oiticica's enchantment with the world seems clear. This is what the world is like, he seems to be saying. Look at this piece of art! I couldn't have done this better. The only thing I can do is to point it to you.
What would happen if Oiticica did the same thing in the factory? Would the objects he pointed at stop becoming art? Certainly not. The factory would gain the status of an aesthetic object - it would become the same marvel as any of the trees, benches, stones, clouds. Look at this piece of art! I couldn't have done this better.
Could we not?
In Gerardo Naumann's "Factory" performance during the Warsaw edition of the inspiring Ciudades Paralelas festival - we are taken on a guided tour of a functioning factory (in Warsaw it was an enormous steel factory). However, this is not your average tour. Here, we get the possibility of witnessing private stories of workers, to hear who they are, both within the company context and outside of it. The tour is at times poetic, at times simply human and direct. Every presentation mixes the description of a person's job with more personal matters. Our first guide is the factory's technical director, then we go all the way down the (wage) hierarchy to the gardiner, who also has his stories, telling us of his love for 60's music (Deep Purple et al.) and even making us listen to some of it. A truly human experience in an unexpected context.
So what is it that makes me uncomfortable about it?
It is an unwilling, yet uncritical, PR event for a huge, powerful and hardly uncontroversial business.
The project seems to follow closely the teachings of French philosopher Jacques Rancière - for several years now he has been advocating a change of paradigm in the way we look at others. Teaching something, or learning, should mean, above all, realizing how the way other people see the world is just as valid as ours - it is a structure that is already a "complete" structure, they are also "teachers" and we - students. To put it in other words - everyone is competent. It might just be a question of acquiring the possibility to further develop this competence.
Rancière gives this example: workers in a factory can also be seen as art aficcionados, as they have their (art, or aesthetic) specialities, their passions, their expertise. Tapping into this is, according to Rancière, a crucial step towards going beyond the simplistic emancipatory claim of passing on the "correct" sensibility.
The "Factory" project follows Rancière's ideas closely. And yet, all the while achieving an arguably closer relation with the subjects/performers, and while making us feel a bond with many of them, while amazing us with the aesthetic aspects of a factory, its dynamics and dramaturgy, it fails in an important aspect: it underestimates the power of the structure it works in.
"Just" showing the lives of the workers is never just showing their lives. It necessarily functions within the context. And this context, here, wins. The tour/performance becomes a scarily effective way of implementing propaganda. We are still given stories about how magnificent it is to work here, how everyone is happy, safe, friendly, how everyone who worked in the factory during communist times participated in strikes, and how the only mentioned case of someone getting fired... got immediately offered another job. And because a skillful theater director does it, we hardly feel manipulated. On the contrary, the "genuine" feeling prevails. We leave happy that things are as they are. We love the stories, the people, the parallel city, the way it works, the world it works in. It is difficult to imagine a better publicity.
But wait - could all this be true? Maybe it is a good company? Maybe it is happy and safe and the best of possible industry worlds? Well, it's enough to make a quick news check - there was a fire in the factory just a few months ago, and just recently the company just layed off many of their executive personnel (apparently they were transferred to another company for "effectivity reasons" and were subsequently fired). I dig a little deeper. ArcelorMittal - that is the name of the company, is owned by the 6th richest person in the world (with a personal wealth of $38.1 billion - link). The company made 10 billion dollars profit last year alone. On the other hand, since the company started taking over Polish factories, it diminished its staff by some 3000 workers in Poland (ca. 25%).
This type of criticism could be contested. Should this matter? Should the work of art take this into account?
Can it? How?
Can we play with the system, within the system? Can we work our works so as not to become victims of the same propaganda we would usually receive - or worse, not just victims, but advocates?
Or can we ignore this and consider that not all works of art need to be political, or not necessarily in that sense, that it can also be about the people who work there, that they too have the right to be important subjects, and not just the megarich owner of their company?
But if we just move in and focus on them, while remaining on the factory ground, if we call it a Parallel City (Ciudades Paralelas means Parallel Cities), aren't we playing the status quo game? Aren't we the perfect PR people, giving the company - and the world which it co-creates - our seal of approval, a "positivist" acceptance? (A disturbing trait of the performance is that the workers/performers come and go - without too much of an introduction, and with no goodbye whatsoever, so while we are kept entertained, they have nearly no chance of receiving our recognition, or of establishing a human contact beyond the script. The beginning and the end is clear - it is the Ciudade Parallela, the company, not the people). Doesn't the critical art, so cherished by Rancière, become uncritical because of the very same (human) aproach he proposes?
So how are we to make - and look at - art in all those parallel cities that are more and more often taken over, or at least manipulated by, the powers that be, be they economic, or more directly political?
The fight here is indeed a fight over the sharing of the sensible - how do we value what we see? How can we reevaluate it? What sort of sharing is this? What do we want out of this situation? How can we, as artists, but also as viewers (viewers are artists, but artists are viewers too, to many people's surprize), find a common ground without becoming the agent of some powerful megastructure? Should we worry about it?
Banning the word "Facebook" on TV might seem like a silly idea, but I know some theater companies who do not use any brands in their shows. And for them, it's not about having the power to change the world. It's about enjoying the possibility.
----
Curiously enough, I was told that when Naumann made an analogous performance in Buenos Aires, the factory was a small and badly run one, and some commentators thought he was too rough on it, making it look very bad. One possible answer is: this format simply gives you the possibility to take a peek inside - and whatever you find there has been there already. But another possible explanation is: it may not be enough to implement a "personal guided tour" formula if we want to move beyond the small industry into the big guys' terrain, where they know how to charm us, seduce us, and make it appear like it's all immaculate. Then, it seems, it would need to be a whole new ball game.
---
I have a vague recollection of reading about a performance by the great Brazilian visual artist and performer Hélio Oiticica (I couldn't find the reference now). I believe it took place in the 70's. Oiticica walked around the public space, pointing at different objects. The spectators which followed him understood (were told?) that through the gesture, the objects acquired the status of works of art.
Oiticica's enchantment with the world seems clear. This is what the world is like, he seems to be saying. Look at this piece of art! I couldn't have done this better. The only thing I can do is to point it to you.
What would happen if Oiticica did the same thing in the factory? Would the objects he pointed at stop becoming art? Certainly not. The factory would gain the status of an aesthetic object - it would become the same marvel as any of the trees, benches, stones, clouds. Look at this piece of art! I couldn't have done this better.
Could we not?
Sunday, 10 April 2011
We're moving
Published :
20:02
Author :
ekkii
The Google AdSense Team has sent me an email warning me that one of my other blogs, Old Paint, has pornography and/or adult content. As an example, they referred me to the 1932 label, in which one may find these two paintings:
I was told that unless I remove those images they can not continue to allow me to display ads on that or indeed on any other of my blogs that also contain images of nudity - which is perfectly possible, seeing as I love art.
I would have liked to contact whoever is the decider in the AdSense team, to inform him/her that neither Tamara de Lempicka nor François-Emile Barrauda were pornographers, nor did they produce anything other than quality content (not to say there is no quality porn) - but the same mind that could not tolerate the sight of these works of art understandably will also not tolerate to be contacted. They appear to be spooked by many things with no rational motive.
In this the AdSense team is not alone. For example, the team in charge of supervising the content of blogs has become sadly known for its tendency to feel upset over gay sites (including those that, like mine, are not pornographic) deleting them without justifying so to their authors - which makes perfect sense for, in truth, how does one justify a morally indefensible aversion? How does one justify a prejudice?
Seeing as it's not possible to talk to these people, nor would they understand me if I did, and they'd just get emotionally stressed for nothing; and seeing as I would not wish to cause any more emotional distress to people who already worry themselves so much over things that don't matter, I thought it best to simply transfer all my blogs to Tumblr, something which was very easy to do and not a bother at all.
The new address is Art Deco and there I will continue to do much the same that I've been doing here. So if you've liked it so far, just follow the link.
I'd like to thank Blogger for having served me so well throughout these years and I hope those responsible for these reprehensible decisions keep taking the pills. See you soon! :)
I was told that unless I remove those images they can not continue to allow me to display ads on that or indeed on any other of my blogs that also contain images of nudity - which is perfectly possible, seeing as I love art.
I would have liked to contact whoever is the decider in the AdSense team, to inform him/her that neither Tamara de Lempicka nor François-Emile Barrauda were pornographers, nor did they produce anything other than quality content (not to say there is no quality porn) - but the same mind that could not tolerate the sight of these works of art understandably will also not tolerate to be contacted. They appear to be spooked by many things with no rational motive.
In this the AdSense team is not alone. For example, the team in charge of supervising the content of blogs has become sadly known for its tendency to feel upset over gay sites (including those that, like mine, are not pornographic) deleting them without justifying so to their authors - which makes perfect sense for, in truth, how does one justify a morally indefensible aversion? How does one justify a prejudice?
Seeing as it's not possible to talk to these people, nor would they understand me if I did, and they'd just get emotionally stressed for nothing; and seeing as I would not wish to cause any more emotional distress to people who already worry themselves so much over things that don't matter, I thought it best to simply transfer all my blogs to Tumblr, something which was very easy to do and not a bother at all.
The new address is Art Deco and there I will continue to do much the same that I've been doing here. So if you've liked it so far, just follow the link.
I'd like to thank Blogger for having served me so well throughout these years and I hope those responsible for these reprehensible decisions keep taking the pills. See you soon! :)
Pauline Johnson, 1930
Published :
06:59
Author :
ekkii
Click image for 820 x 1012 size. Scanned from Portuguese magazine Ilustração, No. 111, August 1 1930.
Saturday, 9 April 2011
Friday, 8 April 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)