kritika savremene umetnosti

[roksi]

Nije sve od "onoga sto cini umetnicki izraz danas" zavisno od referenci. Sve ono sto je prezivelo vekove prezivelo je takodje i smrt svojih tadasnjih referenci i kulturnog konteksta i dobijalo zivot u drugim kulturnim kontekstima.

 

Ja samo kazem da dosta stvari koje se danas nekim cudom nazivaju "umetnoscu" nece preziveti smrt svojih referenci pa ni smrt kulturnog konteksta u kojem su nastale. Zato sto, prosto, nisu umetnicke forme. Simple as that. 

 

Licno nemam zamjerke na to sto si napisao. Apsolutno se slazem da only time will tell apropo’ pravih vrednosti.

Sto vazi bukvalno za sve. Zar ne? I nije nista novo. Uvek bilo.

Zato sam i napomenula da ima svega i svacega out there.

 

Ali ni teoretski se ne moze dovesti u pitanje da postoji kvalitet. Slozices se, valjda?

 

Jasno. Uvek imas vernike i ateiste.

 

Vera radi samo ako se bespogovorno veruje u dogmu odnosno ako se ni jedan stih iz Knjige ne dovodi u pitanje. Ali onoga trenutka kada posumnjas u jednu ciglu, srusice se citava gradjevina.

 

Uh, bre. Pre fatalisticki;)

Iskreno, ne, ne slazem se s tom metaforom.

 

Kao i uvek, tako i danas, postoji sustinska, iskrena umetnost, koliko i hrpa bezveznog. E sad, mozda treba nesto malo radoznalosti pa da se nabasa i na nesto vredno. 

 

Pa upravo je to Duchamp i radio: postavio sve naglavacke, doveo sve u pitanje.

Kako je to bespogovorno verovanje u dogmu? Upravno suprotno.

[roksi]

tek sad videh video (link) koji si postavio.

hehe, Warhol ko Tarabic… sve je ukapirao, jos onda;)

 

[Caligula]

Ali ni teoretski se ne moze dovesti u pitanje da postoji kvalitet. Slozices se, valjda?

 

To ako se govori o kvalitetu. Ako se pak govori o prirodi dela, koncepta koji stoji iza, onda se jasno moze povuci linija izmedju onoga sto ce preziveti i onoga sto nece.

 

 

Pa upravo je to Duchamp i radio: postavio sve naglavacke, doveo sve u pitanje.

Kako je to bespogovorno verovanje u dogmu? Upravno suprotno.

 

 

 

:D hvala ti za ovo.

 

Hrist je takodje obrnuo sve naglavacke, a onda su ga opkolili dogmom i sada imamo ovo

 

Edited October 14, 2014 by Caligula

[Caligula]

Warhol

 

 

... da se razumemo, meni je on jako interesantna pojava. 

[roksi]

To ako se govori o kvalitetu. Ako se pak govori o prirodi dela, koncepta koji stoji iza, onda se jasno moze povuci linija izmedju onoga sto ce preziveti i onoga sto nece

 

Caligula, cekaj, o cemu govorimo? Pa valjda kvalitetno delo proizilazi iz sadrzajnog koncepta.

Kako je uopste moguce to razdvojiti? 

 

 

 

ajme... lavli. ostadoh bez teksta.

Edited October 14, 2014 by roksi

[Caligula]

Caligula, cekaj, o cemu govorimo? Pa valjda kvalitetno delo proizilazi iz sadrzajnog koncepta.

Kako je uopste moguce to razdvojiti? 

 

Ako je delo krenulo od koncepta pa je kroz artikulaciju nastalo u materijalu ili na sceni, onda moze da ima zivot. Hamleta mozes da gledas i danas van referenci Sekspirovog vremena, obuces mu drugo odelo, stavis scenografiju iz XXI veka. On ce ostati Hamlet.

 

 

Ako se delo sastoji samo od koncepta (i referenci vezanih za), nece preziveti. Kako ce kroz dvesta godina ziveti suvi cetvorosatni snimak ESBildinga? Kao relikvija, neki fetis? 

Edited October 14, 2014 by Caligula

[roksi]

Ako se delo sastoji samo od koncepta (i referenci vezanih za), nece preziveti. Kako ce kroz dvesta godina ziveti suvi cetvorosatni snimak ESBildinga? Kao relikvija, neki fetis? 

 

Izvini, ali ne znam na sta mislis kad kazes 'ako se delo sastoji samo od koncepta'.

Trebalo bi valjda da postoji artikulacija na neki nacin da bi postalo delo, a da ne ostane samo u sferi ideje. 

 

 

No dobro, preterasmo vec u jednom cugu.

Pozdrav, Caligula (have to sign off, za danas).

 

 

 

Edited October 14, 2014 by roksi

[Caligula]

Izvini, ali ne znam na sta mislis kad kazes 'ako se delo sastoji samo od koncepta'.

Trebalo bi valjda da postoji artikulacija na neki nacin da bi postalo delo, a da ne ostane samo u sferi ideje. 

 

Pa ako ti je artikulacija da kameru usmeris na ESB i ukljucis REC dugme i tako cetiri sata, onda ok, necemo se sloziti.

 

Inace ovaj snimak ESB je tek kap u moru neartikulisanih koncepata, navodim ga samo kao primer jelte

 

 

postujem pauzu, mnogo je jeresi za samo par sati

 

Edited October 14, 2014 by Caligula

[Hella]

The White Cube's new show is by Tracey Emin, chief priestess of the tradition-trashing Britart movement, which since the Nineties has ruled the London art scene and hypnotised our society's cultural gatekeepers.

 

Miss Emin was once best known for swearing on television, getting drunk, boasting about her sexual conquests and making a fortune from her 'artwork' of an unmade bed soiled by used condoms.

 

In recent months the 51-year-old has revealed a more conservative side to her personality. She is keen on the Tory Party and has become Professor of Drawing at the Royal Academy.

 

She even travelled to New York for a course of drawing lessons. It should be explained that she took the lessons as a pupil rather than as a teacher. Oddly for a Professor of Drawing, she felt she needed to be told how to draw.

 

Her sexually charged show at the White Cube, which includes numerous paintings, sculptures and a few large items of embroidery, has prices ranging from £17,000 to £220,000.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2796506/tracey-emin-s-vulgar-proves-art-luvvies-dragging-civilisation-backwards-quentin-letts-finds-artist-s-latest-exhibition-embarrassing-infuriating.html#ixzz3GOySJFOQ

 

[Utvara]

Ovo ko da je Kaligula pisao za Marinu Abramovič. Skoro sve je isto. Ekipica™.

 

Nume™, nezna™, nema talenta. Bavi se jeftinim provokacijama i sablažnjavanjem javnosti. Ekspert je samo da utržuje svoje radove pa je čak i neonski znak na ulazu stavljen u katalog i prodaje se po basnosnovnim cenama. "One man cottage industry", ona je mala umetnička industrija za sebe, slično kao i Marina sa njenom "školom performansa".

 

Drugi joj rade vez, ona samo komanduje i posle prodaje to za 200.000 funti.

 

Ne zna da crta, pa se pod stare dane podučava u Njujorku, iako je profesor crtanja na Kraljevskoj akademiji. Na slikama nema lica iz prozaičnog razloga - jer ona nije dovoljno dobra, nema tu veštinu pa su onda lica, šake i ruke stilizovani. Anatomija ne postoji, jer se ona u realistično crtanje ne razume.

 

"To može desi samo u umetičnom krugu u kome nema kritičkog mišljenja, koji toleriše loše poznavanje tehnike, u kome uspeh dolazi samo preko veza, poznanstava i niskog senzacionalizma a ne zasluga."

[Caligula]

Ne vidim problem. Zena koristi opste licemerje i metastazirani idiotluk te ovci prodaje razne mosti za paprenu lovu. To je jebeni trend i dopada mi se, u svakom slucaju lova se seli u dzep pametnijeg.

 

Bolje da njoj daju za koriscene kurtone nego da darivaju crkvi nedajboze ili placaju plasticnim hirurzima

 

Edit: samo da primetim da sam ovakve ekspresivne krokije pravio na tone na vecermjem aktu, moji su bolji, kao i vecine mojih kolega.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Caligula

[eumeswil]

Jbt, pa ti ne umeš da čitaš.

E, nemoj ovako odgovarati. Ili napiši konkretno šta ne valja sa argumentima ili nemoj replicirati na post.

[eumeswil]

"To može desi samo u umetičnom krugu u kome nema kritičkog mišljenja, koji toleriše loše poznavanje tehnike, u kome uspeh dolazi samo preko veza, poznanstava i niskog senzacionalizma a ne zasluga."

Naša mila demokratija omogućila pre svega.

 

 

So let's leave for now the practical aspects and get back to the level of the model. The squestion now is to see if there's some kind of relationship between the decline of an artform (stage 2), and its wretchedness (stage 3). We have already established the link between the decline and the emancipation of the masses, i.e. with democracy, but what about the wretchedness? — for this too seems to be somehow connected to it. For a study of the history of art again and again turns up a single fact:artfagotry did not exist before the nineteenth century, and really came into its own in the twentieth. At the same time, large-scale democracy did not exist before the nineteenth century either, and, again, really came into its own in the twentieth (and let no one be childish enough to cite the Greeks here as an earlier example of democracy. It's certainly true that some of their city-states had at times a form of democratic government, but their democracy was a very different affair from our own, above all an extremely limited one, since on the one hand the Greeks owned slaves, and on the other their women were not allowed to vote. The democracy of the Athens of Pericles, for instance, to take the most famous example, consisted in a few thousand slave-owing males making decisions for a population of perhaps ten times as many. We might then call the democracy of the Greeks an extended oligarchy, where the floodgates to mob rule have been slightly opened, and a small quantity of water has seeped in and made a little bit of a mess, but where the great flood is still kept safely at bay (which, incidentally, is why Baudrillard called Athenian democracy "much more advanced than our own", i.e. less democratic — a little joke doubtlessly lost on the majority of his readers)).

 

So again, what is the relationship between modern democracy (and its inherently capitalistic mechanism — the "slave game") and the phenomenon of artfagotry? For it's extremely difficult to believe that their simultaneous appearance on the stage of world history is some kind of a freak coincidence. Art has been evolving for over a hundred millennia (some cave paintings in Africa date from the Middle Paleolithic), why should artfagotry appear at the exact same point with democracy? Why not a couple of millennia earlier? Why not a couple of millennia later?

 

The answer comes from Baudrillard's early sociological analyses: The System of Objects (1968), The Consumer Society (1970), et al. What Baudrillard basically said is that in advanced capitalist societies what people increasingly come to exchange is not so much goods, as previously, but signs. Objects such as clothes, cars, homes, furniture, gadgets, and even wives and children (or even more abstract "objects" such as hobbies, holidays, life-styles, etc.) come to be prized not so much for what they ARE but for what they SIGNIFY; not so much for what they mean to the individual, but for what they appear to be in the eyes of others; in more formal language, that the importance of an object's use-value comes to be increasingly upstaged by that of its sign-value (which as we've already seen is precisely the difference between the genuine connoisseur's approach to art and that of the rich and the arfagots). No object is spared this passage into the dimension of sign-value, with for example university degrees being pursued not because one is interested in the subject, but because of the prestige that such a degree confers on him who has earned it, etc. Even the tiniest object can acquire this aura (in fact even non-objects such as ideas, but that's a subject for another essay): take for example glasses. Because it has been observed that intellectuals tend to wear prescription glasses (all the reading they do generally tends to lead to short-sightedness), we now have entire groups of people who, despite having perfect vision, will buy and wear prescription frames with blank lenses in order to APPEAR to others as intellectuals. The use-value of the glasses, which is to enable people with bad eyesight to see, is upstaged by their sign-value: the appearance of intellectualism. Indeed people will go as far as to tolerate NEGATIVE use-value (carrying around and wearing glasses is annoying and tedious, even dangerous if the glass breaks) in order to boost their level of prestige (in the same manner as the mystified rabble goes to "art" galleries and subjects itself to the dreary ugliness on display there in order to appear "cultured", etc.) These are just a few examples of how in a democratic society sign-value comes to overtake in significance use-value, and here's Baudrillard explaining the logic of the theory underlying this transition in his 1983 essay Simulations:

 

"Counterfeit (and fashion at the same time) is born with the Renaissance, with the destructuring of the feudal order by the bourgeois order and the emergence of open competition on the level of the distinctive signs. There is no such thing as fashion in a society of caste and rank, since one is assigned a place irrevocably, and so class mobility is non-existent. An interdiction protects the signs and assures them a total clarity; each sign then refers unequivocally to a status. Likewise no counterfeit is possible with the ceremony — unless as black magic and sacrilege, and it is thus that any confusion of signs is punished: as grave infraction of the order of things. If we are starting to dream again, today especially, of a world of sure signs, of a strong "symbolic order", make no mistake about it: this order has existed and it was that of a ferocious hierarchy, since transparency and cruelty for signs go together. In caste societies, feudal or archaic, cruel societies, the signs are limited in number, and are not widely diffused, each one functions with its full value as interdiction, each is a reciprocal obligation between castes, clans or persons. The signs therefore are anything but arbitrary. The arbitrary sign begins when, instead of linking two persons in an unbreakable reciprocity, the signifier starts referring back to the disenchanted universe of the signified, common denominator of the real world toward which no one has any obligation. 

 

End of the obliged sign, reign of the emancipated sign, that all classes will partake equally of. Competitive democracy succeeds the endogamy of signs proper to statutory order. At the same time we pass, with the transfer of values/signs of prestige from one class to another, necessarily into counterfeit. For we have passed from a limited order of signs, which prohibits "free production", to a proliferation of signs according to demand. But the sign multiplied no longer resembles in the slightest the obliged sign of limited diffusion: it is its counterfeit, not by corruption of an "original", but by extension of a material whose very clarity depended on the restriction by which it was bound. No longer discriminating (it is no more than competitive), unburdened of all restraint, universally available, the modern sign still simulates necessity in taking itself as tied somehow to the world. The modern sign dreams of the signs of the past and would well appreciate finding again, in its reference to the real, an obligation: but what it finds again is only a reason: this referential reason, this real, this "natural" off which it is going to live. But this bond of designation is only the simulacrum of symbolic obligation: it produces neutral values only, that can be exchanged in an objective world. The sign here suffers the same destiny as work. The "free" worker is free only to produce equivalents — the "free and emancipated" sign is free only to produce the signs of equivalence."

 

In other words, to render all this Baudrillardspeak into English, the reason there's no fashion in a caste society is that a nobleman remains a nobleman even when wearing rags, and a plebeian remains a plebeian even in the best finery. In caste societies, i.e. noble societies, which strictly maintain what Nietzsche called "the pathos of distance", nobility has nothing to do with OBJECTS or APPEARANCES — it is a BIRTHRIGHT, an exclusive privilege established on the basis of power relations between castes and clans that stretch back through generations. This is true nobility, everywhere and always based on the organizing principle of power, a principle which in a democratic society, whose ultimate aim is the abolition of power — the leveling, once and for all, of the playing field; so that no one can fall below it, and consequently no one can rise above it — is simply rendered impossible. It is at that point that pseudo-nobility takes over (in the language of slaves: "social distinction", in plainer terms: celebrity), based not on power but on prestige, itself governed by the principle of rarity, which is to say by fashion. Expressed in a formula one might say that democracy substitutes prestige for power, rarity for pleasure, and fashion for war. For it is the end of war, war for dominance between castes, clans and persons, that finally sets the fashion game in full swing, with the primeval antagonism of physical domination (which has now once and for all been banned from the physical plane—), having simply moved to another level. Thus fashion can only properly begin in a democratic era, an era where privileges are (in theory) abolished and everyone is from the outset deemed equal to everyone else. It is in order to escape from this enforced, anti-natural equality, which is in any case purely theoretical (i.e. imaginary), that democratic man invents by means of fashion a new governing principle (a new fundamental rule, we might say, in the language of game theory) which is at length extended to encompass everything that exists, including, in the case that concerns us here, even the realm of art. And this is the meaning of artfagotry: the introduction of the work of art into the slave game and its accession to the domain of sign-value; or, expressed more formally, the rise of the sign-value of the sign (for art itself is already a sign, "a sign pointing toward absence" as Baudrillard has called it).

 

The products of artfagotry are then precisely the site at which the sign-value of art finally overtakes its use-value; the site at which use-value reaches its minimum (which incidentally is the origin of the notion of the "uselessness of art", a notion that could only have been dreamt up in a democratic age—), and sign-value its maximum, in a kind of freakishly twisted modern version of potlatch. Baudrillard again:

 

"All societies have always wasted, squandered, expended and consumed beyond what is strictly necessary for the simple reason that it is in the consumption of a surplus, of a superfluity that the individual — and society — feel not merely that they exist, but that they are alive. That consumption may go as far as consumation, pure and simple destruction, which then takes on a specific social function. In potlatch, for example, it is the competitive destruction of precious goods which sets the seal on social organization. The Kwakiutl sacrifice blankets, canoes, etched "coppers", which they burn or throw into the sea to "maintain their rank", to assert their value. And, again, it is by "wasteful expenditure" that the aristocratic classes have asserted their pre-eminence down the ages. The notion of utility, which has rationalistic, economistic origins, thus needs to be revised in light of a much more general social logic in which waste, far from being an irrational residue, takes on a positive function, taking over where rational utility leaves off to play its part in a higher social functionality — a social logic in which waste even appears ultimately as the essential function, the extra degree of expenditure, superfluity, the ritual uselessness of "expenditure for nothing" becoming the site of production of values, differences and meanings on both the individual and the social level."

 

In more concrete terms, and applied to the present case, I set down here the mechanism of how this "production of values" occurs. The artfags, as we've seen, are sitting right at the bottom of the pile of the social hierarchy — as the most worthless members of society. As such, they are only concerned about use-value (i.e., in this case, about money), since without it they'd be forced to spend their entire lives in their parents' basements. The rich, on the other hand, being at the top of the pile, have all the use-value they could ever use, hence are only interested in sign-value. Thus the two classes become, quite naturally, attracted to each other and enter into exchange, an exchange that takes place at the "point of inversion" we examined earlier, which becomes the site of a modern potlatch — a blind, wanton, delirious even destruction of wealth, of all those millions sitting idly in the world's most bloated bank accounts, which the rich sacrifice (no longer by burning them or throwing them in the sea, as the Kwakiutl, but throwing them at the artfags, which amounts to the same thing) in order to "maintain their rank" — or, ideally, in order to increase it, the sacrifice of all this wealth being merely the most spectacular manifestation of a greater truth, a truth which not even the most authoritarian, most totalitarian, most repressive machine ever invented on this earth (the democratic) can escape: that value in this universe, even the pitiable amount of value that's at stake in the slaves' little orgies of pretentiousness, can only be created through destruction:

 

Baudrillard: "The consumer society needs its objects in order to be. More precisely, it needs to destroy them. The use of objects leads only to their dwindling disappearance. The value created is much more intense in violent loss. This is why destruction remains the fundamental alternative to production: consumption is merely an intermediate term between the two. There is a profound tendency within consumption for it to surpass itself, to transfigure itself in destruction. It is in destruction that it acquires its meaning. Most of the time in daily life today, it remains subordinate — as a managed consumptivity — to the order of productivity. This is why, most of the time, objects are present by their absence and why their very abundance paradoxically signifies penury. Stock is the excessive expression of lack and a mark of anxiety. Only in destruction are objects there in excess and only then, in their disappearance, do they attest to wealth."

 

And what of the fate of art in the process of this ludicrous little herd-animal ritual? It comes to be increasingly received, appraised, judged and ultimately created with a view to this sign-value, this corrosive, malignant force which comes not from within but from the outside, from others, from everyone but the individual, and consequently, inevitably, unfailingly degenerates — just as health degenerates when physical exercise is undertaken not for the sake of strength but for the appearance of strength (body-building); just as education degenerates when it is undertaken not for the sake of learning but for the appearance of learning (degrees for degrees' sake); just as a love-affair degenerates when it is maintained not out of passion but for the appearance of passion (trophy wives); just as life, the vital life-force, degenerates when it is pursued not in the realm of genuine challenge but in that of the appearance of challenge — when it is reduced to a mere exercise in the hyperrealization of all its possibilities...

 

[Caligula]

Jebi ga

 

 

I hate studios. A studio is a black hole. I never use a studio to work. It’s very artificial to go to a studio to get new ideas. You have to get new ideas from life, not from the studio. Then you go to the studio to realize the idea

 

... btw, pre Marine su umetnici odmah po rodjenju, kao bebe zatvarani u "studio" i vezivani za stafelaj, klavir, pero i papir. NIsu provirili napolje, ideje su dobijali direkt iz studija.

 

Meni zaista nije jasno kako ljudi mogu ovu zenu da shvataju ozbiljno.

 

 

Is it only vanity or can fashion have something to do with art?

 

I have the answer to this! (Pulls out her iPad) This is the photo we did with Mario Testino for V Magazine, and then I did one for Pop Magazine… But then the thing I wanted to show you was from Visionaire Magazine. Riccardo Tisci, the designer for Givenchy, was guest-editing it and he asked me for an artistic collaboration. I said, “Okay Riccardo, do you admit that fashion is the popularization of art, that fashion always takes ideas from art?” And he said yes. So I said, “Okay, then we’ll do a collaboration: I’m the art, you’re the fashion, suck my tit.” So that’s what we did. (Flips iPad around and shows an image of Riccardo Tisci sucking her breast)

 

Brilliant. (odgovor novinara)

 

Pa ovakve "ideje" su i kaficki stolovi po savamali savamaloj culi milion puta.

 

btw. neoriginalniji interviju nekog ... hm ... umetnika (prvih nekoliko pasusa, posle sam odustao jer znam sta pise) nisam citao. Sve sama opsta mesta, milion puta prezvakane stvari, nista sto bi te iznenadilo i nateralo na razmisljanje ili ti reklo "ehej, bravo Marina, ova ti je dobra"

Edited October 25, 2014 by Caligula

[eumeswil]

Ljudi koji se ubijaju od posla jedva sastavljaju kraj s krajem, a prevarantkinja kupuje stan od par miliona. Divota od sistema.