have to go back a bit to consider
RNO
First mention; I think, was this ere fragment (KMD 2004)
Heinrich Obst takes D.M.Mangelware on an ice-fishing trip... or the other way 'round...
The constructive winter-hibernation pause was filled in by none other than the editor-in-chief of factor's fan-rag... he proceeded to get himself utterly lost in the boonies of his own mind and laid waste to whatever credentials he might have had... the whole expedition was doomed to failure due to the lack of convicive identity, and so a row ensued which will manifest repercussions into the next year...
especially the reputation of the Royal Navel Observatory is at stake here... did they or did they not see the icecaps melting before the fishing trip was embarked upon???
oi! Brian Dewan opts out (Feb 15th) on a short stop along Factor's way...
A remake of the ‘puffin island relay station’ from years earlier... (?)
Later we find this: (a page on the activities of D.M.Mangelware)
Although not really taking part in this caper, allowing Obst to take the limelight, is still the conceptual brainchild (even though still-born) of DMM: 'kunst macht dick..' part of his ongoing relationship with the Royal Navel Observatory and his tenure as chair for transversal art history at the University of Borgerhout.
Such said, the preambles for a summer-long investigation have been set: the major points or reference will be the next 3 Jours Fixes at Factor 44 ( every last Wednesday of the month)
Around the same time?
... we tried to objectify our intellectual capacity by registering at the wicket for the illustrious "Battle of Trafatgar" proposed by Andrew Webb... each and everyone had to fill in a form and make three crosses on the schematic scene of the navel battle... the result of which will be divulged at the next meeting, Jour-Fix 28 july....
part of the three-part series...
Other intellectually challenging and expansive proposals were by Frederic Tolmatcheff, Fixit:
-
Daniele Montedivino, Marc Van Tichel and the illustrious Ruufuuz, who promise to augment their work with further clues during the proceedings in the future tense and in their own way... when exactly, we don't know, but will keep you abreast....
--
Guy Rombouts applied a reflective duo of comments on the window in his alphabet, and late-entry Andy Harpin began building a pyramid of empties which will be continued in the future, a sort of babel-tower-project...
-
Jörgen Voordeckers left us with an open question on how to identify the Royal Navel Observatory ( sponsor of this project ) with a meaningful identikit... proposing as point of departure a reversed flag of a major shipping-line... hmmm...
So quite a bit to go on but no real specific origin... planetary soup, perhaps...
--
... there were also continuations such as the announcement of the winner of Andrew Webb's 'Navel Battle of Trafatgar' competition...
- -...and it was RIIIIAAA Pacquee...
and then there was an aborted text (originally for FM16)
Ruthless Joy
(für Forcemental-16)
Rather hyphen-mental, having been a low-level exhibitionist myself for a number of years, I was interested in an article ( by the former curator of the ‘Stedelijke’ in the Groene Amsterdammer’ recently- I think it was mid-October...) in which the exponential expansion of ‘tentonstellingnitis’ or exhibitionitis was scientifically and subjectively bemoaned. Reading the subtitle before the subtext, I was initially enthusiastic until I realized that it was about certain types of people and perpetrators of the cultural elite which have sway and say over what this might be… culture that is… Hmmm… I could agree with the premise that exhibitions have become a general gap-filler in the various vacuums left by a materially overfed society, with every Tom, Dick & Harry-corporation lending it’s logo to some dead artist or other, pulling in crowds, feel-good-PR, more millions and a tax-rebate to boot… and the kind of academically-trained nincompoops who parade as curators and specialist-researchers and clog the seminar-circuit with their half-witted theories on the life and times of any given twat with a paintbrush or video-camera.
Well, we knew that already, I thought to myself, and re-read some passages to see if I could glean some hidden subversion from this article. Aside from the ‘animal-farm’ allusions to the various types of exhibitionists, there seemed to be no further cause than to vent some frustration at least by a former demigod left out to dry. The article did not get my blood up as it should have, but left me with a feeling sympathetic sorrow,- the kind that wants to make you send money to some charity fighting poverty in some exotic place somewhere far from one’s own shed.
Once being in a sort of literate mind-set, I juxtaposed (ahem) my own experience with what I had read and came to the conclusion that it was familiar, but miles away from my own concerns… Though I could grasp the necessity of permanent and temporary exhibitions of historic and contemporary art-practice, the manner in which the problem was approached disturbed me. Somewhere in the whole discourse (or diatribe, if you will) there was an essential element missing: the executioner of the practice. Just as with charity, the form and manner of badly-needed aid was more important than the effect of it’s magnitude… the proverbial shell providing sanctuary for nothing more than a grain of sand,- in the hope that it will become a pearl of immense value. (even synthetic)
With this syntho-sympathetic idea I proceeded to weigh the importance of analysis versus praxis on a scale of 2:1 and came up with an imbalance of 3. There was no way to find a common denominator without an exuberant formula that no normal mortal could grasp without a good dose of the mystical. Physically, a quantum leap would be needed to re-marry the original partners in this endeavor, and no amount of compromise and/or scientific deliberation would tear them asunder.
Surveying the contemporary landscape, a façade of a house in order appears apparent. Modern technology and the creative mind seem partners in theme-park contexts and the public loves it all,- good for business, government and speculation all in one. Sharp edges and dissonant squeaks are incorporated into a soft bed of socio-cultural amorphism and given playroom for further consideration, later, when the children have gone to bed.
For the sake of clarity we might split the term ‘exhibitionists’ into two categories: those that organize and facilitate exhibitions, and those that are the object/subject of said exhibitions, often referred to as ‘artists’. Both have a stake in letting be seen what is in their cabinet of curiosities, both adhere to certain rules to further their cause. They are linked but not one, apart but not separate. The dividing-line has become more diffuse in recent years and that is a good reflection on its origin in the first place. The latter attempts to re-integrate science, technology and the creative muse have been supported by both sides after a long war of attrition. Here have been far-reaching congruencies on the formal front, but in essence they are still as estranged from each other as on the first night of their divorce.
In the same vein, but in another publication, I came across a re-vamped version of the medium/message-discourse, presented as a question: is it so? When one sees apparently free persons utilizing the products of a military-industrial complexity to rail against the same in order to be appropriated and refurbished as a market-commodity when the time is ripe, - one has no other recourse than to hark back to the validity of the notion that a system can/can’t be changed from the inside. (is it so?) Keeping the fundi-realo-split of the early eighties in mind, and the historic divergence of modernism (and it’s consequences in a mechano-industrial world of which we see glimpses even now) it is hard to see where another path might lead. Po-Mo realists emerged to take over from the Provo’s and the bra-burning babes of the late 60’s find themselves (now in power) restraining the rights of their brethren* to subjugate their lives to a religious lie in the form of their husbands. So much for liberty…(liberalism & libertarianism)
So, what better way than to escape into the wonderful world of endless discussions over the specific weight/mass-relationship of a bubble in water/glue/oil or saliva as portrayed on stage during a première in Avignon? The Royal Navel Observatory would gladly spend more money and time over this question than half of it’s budget on poverty in Calcutta or central London, but it has moored it’s bearings on the local habitat and it’s interests. Where has the reason for all this gone? Out of which pool do we all, exhibitionists and exhibitioners alike, scoop the candy that makes our day?
Regular people on a regular run, going about their business and minding their own… nothing more or less and without all the hype might even feel for each other without entertaining suspicions of a double or triple-take on what might have been an original idea. The bane of the artist is to become a ‘something’ rather than just a member of the general public with something to say while not becoming a politician. Remaining covert does not mean complete isolation, nor does it empower discoverers to disenfranchise individuals from their entire being and turn them into clowns. They are the main ingredient of a successful menu and should be treated as such, rather than just an additive to a bombastic meal of hot air enveloped in dubious flake.
(denoted here as ‘the brotherhood of sistership’)
additional footnotes to be added, specifics about mentioned article and references (allusions) in point-form.
Re-read for impossible omissions /website ETO
Part 2
The various life-forms of exhibitionists is neither here nor there… they already enjoy most of the attention when referring to “art”, due to the fact that one can no longer ‘read’ an artist’s work without either a weighty manual or a professional historian/critic guiding the gullible through their exhibitions. So, what of the artist then?
Having been bitten by the academic bug and feeling necessitated by the seemingly high level of critical mass, the artists themselves begin interpreting their work, subjectively proposing in an apparently objective manner the reasons for their being and the process which precedes their final products. As with curators and critics, decades of relative peace, a stable economy and a consumptive boom have produced a steady flow of ‘artists’ from countless academies and art-schools. The machinations of the market haven’t really changed save for the pace of turnover,- No longer able to set a career by waiting until some lost critic happens upon their piece, artists have now to promote their work in a most professional manner, editing their own press-blurbs, accompanying texts and providing their potential viewers insight through seminars, guided tours and the proverbial tête-à-tête on occasions such as vernissages, finissages and performative moments.
If they don’t they might as well give up: Long past is the notion of considering work through the passage of time and building an oeuvre ,- the market demands quick fillers better known to burger-kings and a constant barrage of shows to stay in the floodlight of the assembled press-corps. Better yet, artists have to run their own organizations, either collectively or as multi-facetted individuals, just in order to survive the constant barrage of newcomers and fluctuating interests. Even so, ultimate powers of decision lie with individuals who have nothing else to do, who do not have to produce the work they criticize or update a constant flux of changing ideas. They have the time to work for official bodies, commercial bodies, the press and the exhibitionistic executive at the same time, while artists have to split their energies between promotional and creative activities. Even so the depth and quality of an artist’s analysis is far better than that of the well-educated professional, if only the public would know… But that means making an effort to understand and follow through on the presented themes rather than be thrown prefabricated morsels and clapping their flippers at set moments.
As with the aforementioned exhibitionists, artists can also be broken down in categories of ‘commercial’, ‘reflective’, ‘socio-political’, ‘communal’ and ‘individualistic’ as well as be used for different purposes… The most difficult is a combination of the two latter premises: the ‘independent’… a collection of self-serving attitudes producing work which does not fit in any given category or formal delineation. An offshoot of the art-for-art’s sake notion without calling it a school. Yes, one might suspect it to be a self-serving entity and one of the Royal Navel Observatory’s capital concerns, but it seems to be the only manner to be truly independent in these times of concurrent competition.
Next…
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten