It’s been same years since art began. Thousands even. Time flies by so fast. One day you have those awsome cave-wall paintings, next day someone writes about Ulysses who’s lost in Dublin. Also, every now and then there is someone talking about the end of art, claiming that nothing new is possible and that all our creative possibilties are exhausted. Supposedly all is said and done we can go home. Right? Only, there are a few artists lingering on, lonely and jobless. Sitting hopelessly for our viewing instead of their art.
#Marina Abramovic: The Artist Is Present
read on ->
Of course, Marina did a sublime work there but still we can ask if there is anything comming to us when we think about the art works by themselves. Not the ‘ok’ ones, as there are always plenty, but some groundbreaking pieces. Any chance to come up with something guys? Danto says that, nah, not really, it is the end of art, which means no new major, dominant movements are around the corner, only pluralistic, devided individuals who try too hard to get our attention. How can he know that? Of course he can’t. All in all he might have a point though, namely that works of art are not the primal sphere of innovation anymore. We might want to look elsewhere.
Objects of every sort are materials for the new art: paint, chairs, food, electric and neon light, smoke, water, old socks, a dog, movies, a thousand other things that will be discovered by the present generation of artists.
A. Kaprow – The Legacy of Jackson Pollock
Over 50 years ago Kaprow was so excited to find out that we can use our brillo boxes and soups to put them into the right context, thus create unexpected works of art and drive older generation mad. Of course it worked for some time but as I want to argue this was the previous era, the era of art works as such. The final product of the creation was still the main interest.
What I actually have in mind was already exampled 5 years earlier (and even earlier by Duchamp with Mona Lisa but he predicted just everything) with Rauschenberg presenting this:
*R. Rauschenberg- Erased de Kooning drawing
Yes, it is in fact an erased de Kooning drawing. How to deal with that? I’d say we already know we got art, generally speaking, humanity has produced a lot of art works and is conscious of it. But what do we do now? We can, for example, experiment with what we got in our hands. So here Rauschenberg doesn’t draw, he doesn’t paint or at least write some letters like Duchamp did. He touched the thing, attacked it with an eraser. He did something with it. It’s the balance between the original drawing that is not gone completely and all the outside action, that was stamped onto it.
By the way, it’s the Internet age in a capsule. Whatever you do, there are always traces left on the servers and hard drives, at the same time all technically able people can disfigure, manipulate or photoshop any content that you’d uploaded. Everyone can rauschenberg you holiday photo. Let me explain this fastforward transition to the topic of the Interent. There is a thing or two to say about this blog here. Why do we mix up arts like this:
After the art is digitalised it is bascially in one place. On a computer. So with no trouble we got acess to all the movies, paintings, quotes, all things conceivable. The only problem and the only artistic question now is what to do with it? That’s what we are actually looking for. Should we match the quotes with the paintings? Or write them onto movie frames. What can be mixed together, what are the proportions of text and visuals that bring most interesting effects? This is our little place in the art world. The new field of operating on the art already done, always in search for something new. Just after Pollock was done with his intensely physical art, we come into the picture.
We operate hidden, far away, in a distance. We plot the mechanisms that process art in it’s digital form. The avangarde is not focused on the art works any more. See Mike Bidlo and his findings that the final effects of work don’t matter. He copies the well-known paintings. Like the ‘erased de kooning drawing’ . His moves are thought to show us the experience of creating brilliant works of art as separated from the works themelves. He tries to feel how it’s like, without creating something new. He neglects the artworks totally. That’s one way to show it. We prefer the new technologies though. But we also neglect creating the art works, as we don’t ask how to do one, but what to do with them.
* M. Bidlo – Not Pollock
It is not possible to run out of meaning to be discovered. In fact, the task of creating is easy, all you need to do is live in the world, keep up with the current problems. Then everything comes into place. My generation, born with keyboard and a mouse is fascinated by typewriters and turntables as the old instruments. It was harder, so much harder to cut out the fragments you like and put them into a new thing. Everyone expeced more from you, a whole new body of work, a complete, new art work each time. Now we don’t need that. Now we look at what we can do with art that was left in our hands, for copying and pasting, remixing and sampling. We can be little Basquiats with good, ol’ MSPaint. And still, like everyone in the history, all the same we try to figure out the mechnics of meaning to use them purposefully. This riddle remains unsolved, derrided, dereaded.
“Every sign, linguistic or nonlinguistic, spoken or written (in the usual sense of this opposition), as a small or large unity, can be cited, put between quotation marks; thereby it can break with every given context, and engender infinitely new contexts in an absolutely nonsaturable fashion”.
J. Derrida – Margins of Philosophy