It is currently 24 Oct 2017, 11:17

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: fart
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2013, 23:49 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 14:21
Posts: 152
excuse the title, had to counter the balance of what is to be a very serious topic here: fashion + art ( = fart)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/01/fashi ... html?_r=1&

Quote:
At Art Basel Miami Beach, Squeezing Art Out of the Picture

By NATE FREEMAN
Published: November 29, 2013

Let’s play a game: Are the following parties taking place during New York Fashion Week or Art Basel Miami Beach?

A brunch to toast a T-shirt designed by Visionaire and Gap. A cocktail party to celebrate a new fashion fair. A dinner hosted by Louis Vuitton for a modernist beachfront house. A Dom Pérignon party hosted by the playboys Alex Dellal, Stavros Niarchos and Vito Schnabel?

O.K., O.K., they are all parties from Art Basel, the annual South Florida pilgrimage this week by seemingly every social person in New York. But while fashion parties in the art world are nothing new, the sheer volume of events (dinners, cocktails and blowout parties) not related to art this year is deafening. Sure, the art fairs still display paintings at gobsmacking prices during the day, but the serious art folk are getting sick of the nighttime excess.

“You basically have to treat Art Basel Miami Beach like Vegas,” said Bill Powers, a gallerist and constant fixture at cocktail functions and openings. “You get in, then you get out. Nobody I know is staying the whole weekend.”

Mr. Powers is just dipping his toe in the Miami Beach melee: he’s staying for two days. He forwarded an email with an invitation to a screening of “Her,” the latest film by Spike Jonze. Highly anticipated, sure, but not exactly art-related (even with Jeffrey Deitch moderating a Q-and-A with Mr. Jonze). And it’s slated for Thursday. “I’ll be home already,” Mr. Powers said.

Would he be missing much by skipping out early? Perhaps not.

“So much of the Basel fatigue is that a lot of the events are not that fun,” said Manish Vora, who, along with Kyle DeWoody, is a founder of Grey Area, the art collective and online retailer. “Every conversation is about what parties you’re going to. It’s not about the actual party. No one goes and says, like, ‘Oh, I had the craziest time.’ ”

Granted, last year’s spate of parties had its highlights, and it just so happened that most had little to nothing to do with art. The most-discussed moment wasn’t a bidding war or a Damien Hirst brawl. It was the Chanel dinner where Demi Moore spent the evening petting a stray cat, even during an auction for a Dash Snow charity. Or the Moncler 60th anniversary party, held at the parking lot at 1111 Lincoln Road, which was reimagined as a tropical ski chalet for celebrities like Uma Thurman and Pharrell Williams.

This year’s edition of Art Basel, which officially starts Thursday, is shaping up to be no different. Sure, there are the week’s usual marquee art parties: White Cube’s poolside party at the Soho Beach House, Aby Rosen’s A-list dinner at the Dutch and the opening and V.I.P. dinner for the Museum of Contemporary Art North Miami’s winter exhibition (this time, for Tracy Emin). There are notable newcomers, too. The Pérez Art Museum Miami, a contemporary art museum, is opening this week with a series of private brunches, V.I.P. previews and dinners.

But they pale in comparison this year to the flood of parties not related to art but with tie-ins to luxury brands, alcohol sponsors, fashion labels and boutiques. One public relations firm has compiled a party calendar that runs 14 pages and includes 27 events on Tuesday alone, including a fashion show, a brunch for a pop-up store and a dinner for a new furniture line.

And partygoers are already talking about Wednesday night, with word circulating online that Kanye West is to participate with the artist Vanessa Beecroft in a performance art piece at Mana Wynwood, a sprawling production village in the Miami Art District.

The art fairs themselves are not immune to the hubbub. NADA Miami Beach, a satellite fair that showcases emerging contemporary artists, has partnered this year with American Apparel on a line of artist-designed T-shirts. And SCOPE Miami Beach, another satellite fair, is showcasing an art project curated by Red Bull.

No wonder that with each passing year, more and more attendees don’t even seem to bother with the art. “I don’t have a relationship with the art world in any profound capacity, so for me it’s just a way for me to unwind,” said Leandra Medine, the fashion blogger known as Man Repeller.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: fart
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2013, 23:50 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 14:21
Posts: 152
http://www.businessoffashion.com/2013/1 ... ffair.html

Quote:
Fashion’s Art Fair Love Affair
BY HETTIE JUDAH 3 DECEMBER, 2013
MIAMI, United States — Heroically poised against the bleached-out blue of a winter sky, feet planted on a bone-white beachfront, surrounded by torqued metal frames and canvases scraped with abstract smears of paint, Dior Homme’s latest campaign depicts Miami man, perfected. Not the bronzed, beefcake Miami man of old, but a new version: the languid aesthete, picking his slim-hipped way around the art circuit to emerge blinking in the sun of its winter highlight.

This week is the eleventh edition of the Art Basel Miami Beach fair. This time last year, Dior Homme’s creative director Kris Van Assche was sweltering his way through events and exhibits at the fair and beyond, questioning the logic of a black tie dress code in 24-degree Celsius heat. His response was spring and summer collections for Dior of cut-about tuxedos — sleeveless jackets, formal shorts — and shirts and ties printed with rough brushstrokes.

Van Assche’s Miami-inspired collections are a neat snapshot of the evolving relationship between the world of art and the world of fashion. The fact that — as a matter of course — a Paris-based menswear designer now attends a Florida fair ostensibly aimed at upper-bracket art collectors from the Americas is itself a testament to a decade-long love affair between the top ends of two globalised industries. The fact that Van Assche has designed collections inspired not by an artist, or by a work, but by the fair itself, is an illustration of quite how self-involved this affair has become.

While fairs for contemporary art have existed since the late 1960s, the debut of the Miami fair in 2002, and the first London edition of Frieze the following year, marked the start of a significant crossover: the art fair not just as a site for art, but as a site for fashion. A decade on, so entrenched are the fairs’ reputation for high style that Frieze is jokingly referred to as the “fifth fashion week” and The New York Times runs grumbling Miami previews about art being upstaged by fashion parties.

Amanda Sharp, co-founder and now co-director of Frieze, remembers her “biggest shock” in 2003 being how the fair “captured the imagination of the creative industry in London and across the world. Right from the start you’d see the most interesting architects, fashion designers and chefs there; it made it very exciting. You’d see most of the leading fashion designers from around the world walking around the fair. At the time I didn’t question it — in retrospect I realise that fashion was having a pretty exciting moment back then.”

This year, for the first time, a fashion house became one of the fair’s sponsors. Sharp recalls Alexander McQueen visiting in 2003, and returning eagerly for subsequent editions; “for years you’d see him lined up at the front of the queue on the first day.” The relationship between the fair and the fashion house continued after the designer’s death in 2010. After the Metropolitan Museum’s Savage Beauty exhibition in 2011 the house of McQueen began to think about partnering with an organisation in the art world and started a conversation with Frieze. Sharp describes McQueen’s sponsorship as a first step in an ongoing relationship; Frieze has art world credibility and contacts, but is interested in opening the field up to a broader audience than pure art world insiders. “There are different communities that overlap between the two parties,” concludes Sharp. “There are a lot of people who are potential clients of McQueen among our collectors. When we co-host a dinner it’s nice to bring these people together.”

A stand at a top art fair such as Frieze represents a major investment for a gallery; space at the New York edition of the fair costs $775 per square metre (£362, or about $600, per square metre at the London edition) and the largest galleries take as much as 120 square metres apiece. One can’t imagine Frieze proceeding with such a deal if they thought for a second that association with a fashion house might dampen their commercial allure to exhibitors.

For the luxury goods houses, the fairs and other major artworld events mark an evident crossover of interest. The market for contemporary art has remained remarkably (some would say obscenely) buoyant — the recent $58.4 million auction sale of Jeff Koons’s Balloon Dog (Orange) bust a record for work created by a living artist set by a Gerhard Richter canvas ($37.1 million for Domplatz, Mailand) at Sotheby’s in May of this year, which in turn broke a record of $33.4 million for another work by the same artist, Abstraktes Bild (809-4), in October of 2012. This is not just really big money; it’s surreally big money.

It doesn’t take a great leap to imagine that an aesthetically literate consumer prepared to spend a seven-figure sum on a contemporary artwork might also spend a five-figure sum on a luxury handbag, or a six-figure sum on couture. Indeed the language of luxury goods over the last decade has increasingly come to resemble the language of the art gallery — terms such as limited edition, investment piece, codes, signatures and provenance are now entrenched fashion terminology. People now “curate” shops. They even — as in the case of the Louis Vuitton stores in London and Paris — curate bookshelves within shops.

Amanda Sharp’s “exciting moment” ten years ago also marked an increasing openness among designers about taking inspiration from the artworld, and it has only grown more explicit. Back in January 2012, Dries Van Noten gave a firm contemporary jolt to his own reputation with a presentation that drew on the work of Gijs Frieling and Job Wouters, shown as the artists themselves painted a mural alongside the catwalk. That same season, Raf Simons created couture dresses at Dior inspired by the spray-painted works of Sterling Ruby. Prada presented their Spring/Summer 2014 collection against vast murals by six invited artists, and the Chanel show took place on a set that resembled an art gallery.

While Miami conservatives may grumble at the Louboutins treading across the territory of serious collectors, they would do well to recall that the fashion world doesn’t just come to the fair loaded down with champagne glasses and Fendi Bag Bugs. It also brings cash, clout and a surprising sense of civic responsibility.

“In Italy in particular, certain fashion foundations have basically had to take on the role of public institutions and museums,” explains Massimiliano Gioni, curator of this year’s Venice Biennale, and director of both the New Museum in New York and the Trussardi Foundation in Milan. According to Gioni, such foundations started stepping up in the 1990s to compensate for a lack of public art institutions. “The Trussadi foundation started in 1996. The Prada Foundation I think started [in 1995]. So for more than a decade a lot of the most ambitious public exhibitions of contemporary art in Milan have been organised and produced by fashion brands.”

Beyond Milan, François Pinault of Kering (who also owns the auction house Christie’s) funnels his redoubtable art collection into the Pinault Foundation, the public faces of which are the Palazzo Grassi and Punta della Dogana in Venice. In 2006 Bernard Arnault of LVMH established the Louis Vuitton Foundation, which will be fronted by a new Frank Gehry-designed space in Paris in 2014.

Gioni’s tenure at the Trussardi Foundation since 2003 has been radical and inventive - the Foundation has become a nomadic institution that creates exhibition in unused, closed-off sections of the city and has not shied away from controversy. Maurizio Cattelan’s Untitled (2004) showed three lifelike sculptures of children hanging from a tree in a prominent city square; Paul McCarthy’s Pig Island, shown in 2010, included (among many grotesque diversions) the mutilated figure of George W. Bush engaged in sexual congress with a pig.

Gioni sees a symbiosis between the two fields that has grown and developed over the course of two decades. “The 1990s were the first decade in which the dialogue between fashion and art became richer and more stimulating for both sides of the conversation,” he explains. “Many artists who grew up in the 1990s — including Wolfgang Tillmans, Maurizio Cattelan and Vanessa Beecroft — learnt new ways to communicate and a new speed of communication from the fashion industry. Maurizio Cattelan’s generation looked at the fashion-art dialogue to learn a new way to seduce and manipulate audiences. On the one hand you have art discovering fashion and on the other hand, fashion being more and more curious about art.”

In 2002 and 2003, the visitor figures for the opening editions of both Art Basel Miami Beach and Frieze London were around the (then astonishing) 30,000 mark. The most recent editions of both fairs pulled in attendance figures of roughly 70,000. Over the same period, Gioni estimates that the audience for Trussardi foundation exhibitions has increased tenfold, from the thousands to the tens of thousands.

While the support of the foundations initiates a virtuous cycle, helping to expand the audience for contemporary art and making the houses hipper by association, beyond big-name collaborations, Gioni does not read commercial motivation into their activities. “Obviously fashion is interested in art because it sees a vehicle to reach a whole sector of intellectuals and figures that are maybe ideal consumers of fashion, but I think the driving force is a genuine commitment to art and a genuine commitment to unusual languages which define contemporary culture.”

But, of course, there is little that epitomises the entwined love-in between fashion and contemporary art better than the on-going string of major product collaborations. Artist-designed products that twenty years ago would have seemed bizarre, and ten years ago looked brave, are now big business.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: fart
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2013, 23:53 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 14:21
Posts: 152
just out of interest, how many of us fashion consumers also consume art? Both in looking and buying??


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: fart
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2013, 01:06 
Offline
engineer
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 08:10
Posts: 775
Location: Germany
just dropping by to say i love the thread name :D will read the articles later on.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: fart
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2013, 06:00 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 23:35
Posts: 266
Location: los angeles
hlee wrote:
just out of interest, how many of us fashion consumers also consume art? Both in looking and buying??


i just had a portrait commissioned; i am paying a high school student seven dollars for it. i will be receiving a digital copy, so if it's a vector, i could blow it up endlessly and frame it above the mantleplace.

_________________
✧・゚:*✧・゚:* \(◕‿◕✿)/ *:・゚✧*:・゚✧


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: fart
PostPosted: 11 Dec 2013, 07:56 
Offline
porter
User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2013, 14:02
Posts: 1169
at a loss to write a proper reply because much of what i think on the matter has been summed up with that vice article on drug dealers supplying art basel. the idea of the place itself, as a symbol for the contemporary art-industrial complex, has always made me a bit nauseous. most of my disposable income goes towards enriching my existence with experiences and objects possessing some resonance, be it clothing or literature or opportunities to share in company and perhaps conversation with folks like yourself, etc - i don't differentiate between these things much, the lot of it makes life worthwhile. and, yeah, some of these things are in the realm of fine art collecting, i guess.. fortunately the stuff i purchase seems to enjoy limited interest at the moment. while i am a bit sad that the things i enjoy are not appreciated more broadly, i'm also glad that this situation affords me the opportunity to brighten my existence a little with them. the same feeling with respect to the clothing, though it seems there are people taking part in this forum who share my enthusiasm towards that.

more thoughts on the second article shortly..

_________________
which pyre shall the moon ignite each hour
which pyre in my library crimson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: fart
PostPosted: 13 Dec 2013, 07:50 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 14:21
Posts: 152
hmm the reason I asked was cause the thing with art- unlike most commodities/objects, doesn't necessarily have to be bought to be experienced (or "consumed"), especially in the hyper age-of-reproduction situation we're in now

these days I can't ever look at art without feeling that its existence isn't justified by however "beautiful" it is, its just too useless (purposeful purposelessness etc.etc.) , let alone its price, totally not justified to pay a week's worth of rent for a painting which might be as beautiful/sublime as a sunset (if that) but like I get sunsets for free everyday I just can't justify the price of art

I sometimes see art and wish it was useful, like a painting that looks pretty could do well as a print on furniture upholstery or those geometric abstract sculptures could live better lives as chairs or something but if its just there in a gallery it just seems like a waste of space


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: fart
PostPosted: 13 Dec 2013, 17:07 
Offline
engineer
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 08:10
Posts: 775
Location: Germany
ohhh i feel a heated discussion upcoming :lol:
i immediately had to think of knowledge "for the sake of itself", that is, without any concrete practical implications, and the funny thing is, whenever i used to have discussions on that topic, i'd usually bring art as an example where this is self-understanding. But you dare question that now! I'll come back to this, great question and a topic! 8-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: fart
PostPosted: 13 Dec 2013, 23:11 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 14:21
Posts: 152
mm actually yeah I guess the sake of itself argument should be reserved for art - but in a time of hyper excesses, is it really necessary anymore to "reserve" space for it? its gotten to the point where there is almost always more excess than necessity (think the waste that supermarkets produce to keep the shelves full, more clothes readily available in a closet than needed in a lifetime)

perhaps this is the post-kantian evolution of art, that we no longer need to define art by a standard of excess and purposelessness (which ultimately points to luxury) - design works are now found in art museums and things like fashion design officially recognised by academia as a serious expressive medium. but to relate it back to the articles- it makes sense that the luxury sector of fashion industries sponsor and promote art because that is by extension justifying its own excesses to an art. but yeah, like merz says it leaves a bad taste in the mouth

well actually it seems where I'm going with this is not that art shouldn't exist, but that it shouldn't exist on terms of excess (sake of itself argument) - but that it should be *for* something or someone external to the artist. I think when it isn't that, it becomes a narcissistic exercise (like: I paint because I'm such a crazy artist and its therapeutic to my traumas, or this work is about how hard it was for *me* to come to terms with my disabled jewish transgender identity, or I paint cause i like it ok?) which is totally ok if in the terms of a personal hobby, but in a professional public space?- errrrgggghhhhh


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: fart
PostPosted: 13 Dec 2013, 23:31 
Offline
porter
User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2013, 14:02
Posts: 1169
I don't think of it being for its own sake though, in that it fulfills a very measurable function in my life through a sense of exposure to it. in some ways through a sense of connection with a person behind it too. i'm lucky in that the work that interests me is something i can readily afford on my very limited budget. when it comes to the mega-baller art scene, i think much of it is driven by investment consulting, which echoes the 'jewish joke' fuuma posted elsewhere, in that the lack of intrinsic value is a work-around to the 'you sold me a truck full of 1-legged pants' issue. art of the sort exists to be bought and re-sold.

but as to what i was saying earlier, being surrounded by tokens of something i have strong affinity/emotional attachment towards tends to generally improve my mood/perceived quality of life. what i meant to say with all of that is that in some contexts integrating something you feel towards strongly into your everyday life is a function fulfilled.

_________________
which pyre shall the moon ignite each hour
which pyre in my library crimson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: fart
PostPosted: 14 Dec 2013, 16:16 
Offline
engineer
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 08:10
Posts: 775
Location: Germany
hlee, I don't see any reason behind the idea that reserving space for art requires some kind of intstrumental justification that would have as goals anything but a simple pleasure in observing that object of art. it is a bit ambiguous to speak of a work of art being "for someone or something" other than the artist... in principle, we could say that every object of art is such as soon as it is an object of art. so that can't be what you had in mind. even with "narcissistic" examples you gave, I actually don't see anything wrong behind those (i find one's psychological motivation for making art irrelevant when it comes to the aesthetic value of that particular work of art). i just don't see the argument here or i don't know what kind of justification you have in mind...

as for the fashion industry and art, the problem is not in the cross-over (where fashion becomes art), but more in the marketing values that motivate these kinds of events, and that don't have much to do with this justification of this "excuse to make art", I think, but with mere promotion. The only symbolic link I see here is the matter of social status where owning works of art stretches from paintings to $$$$ clothes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: fart
PostPosted: 27 Apr 2014, 14:00 
Offline
engineer
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 08:10
Posts: 775
Location: Germany
The ‘artification’ of fashion by Barbara Brownie (http://barbarabrownie.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/the-artification-of-fashion/)

Quote:
Debates about the cultural value of fashion fail to convincingly make the case for or against fashion as at artform. While many notable designers, from Zhandra Rhodes to Hussein Chalayan, present themselves as artists, others scoff at the notion. Karl Lagerfeld rallies against designers who position themselves as ‘artists’. Underlying Lagerfeld’s protest is the notion that, if fashion aspires to be art, it positions itself as ‘second-rate’ – aspiring to be something else rather than celebrating its own merits.

The debate often boils down to a question of utility. Art is traditionally distinguished from art because its value is not connected to its function. While utility is ‘an important aspect of the commercial value of fashion. The criterion of nonutility is very important in art’. [1]

Even if we are among those who doubt that fashion is art, we must concede that ‘it is taking the place of art’ [2]. Fashion is increasingly appearing in art galleries. Georgio Armani has had a retrospective at the Guggenheim Museum in New York, Issey Miyake chose to display his garments in ‘installations’ rather than catwalk shows, and the Tate Modern exhibited a collection by Hussein Chalayan. In these locations, fashion is intended to be observed and considered rather than worn.

These designers are engaged in a process of ‘artification’ – that is, employing strategies to erode the boundaries between their own practices and those of fine artists. Fashion designers are very aware that their role may be seen as that of a craftsperson, and therefore less culturally valuable or significant than that of a fine artist. In order to avoid this perception, they distance themselves from other designers and make tactical manoeuvres into the art world.

Diana Crane summarizes the process of artification, and defines it as including one or more of the following:

1.) Use of unconventional materials [...]
2.) Transgression [...]
3.) Subversion [...]
4.) Surrealism [...]
5.) Pastiche [...]


I wonder if these five point capture the whole idea of "fashion as art" and if the discussion would benefit if the notion of fashion and its commercial elements were first analyzed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: fart
PostPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 07:01 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 14:21
Posts: 152
nice one! thanks for adding this!

and yeah I agree, there should be a 6th (most important?) point : "Putting In White Box"
----because she observes that fashion is "taking the place of art" - meaning it is being displayed in galleries and installations and such ---- but this is like what in the article Lagerfeld is quoted , that fashion should rather be an art in its own right, ie. it shouldn't have to be given the white box treatment to pass off as art. If we look to cinema, they've managed artistic or "auteur" distinctions without needing to infiltrate institutional art spaces. I guess some galleries these days do screenings of films in the same way they do fashion exhibits, but you would hardly call that cinema "taking the place of" art, we still distinguish between an art video and a feature film that is commercially distributed (cannes grand prix winner or not, so on)

Maybe there is an exception to the (dirty?) relationship between fashion and art, they can take from each other when it concerns money --- those block buster fashion exhibits seem to be just as much PR for the gallery as the designers. Not to be too cynical, though galleries also seem to be competing to be "fashionable" among themselves (is the gallery tote bag phenomenon happening everywhere else in the world too?)

but of course, fashion has been shown to be art in its own right plenty of times without needed authority from the art crowd , sans gallery, sans white wall, glass box etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: fart
PostPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 23:44 
Offline
engineer
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 08:10
Posts: 775
Location: Germany
Yes, it's interesting to see this requirement for the displacement of fashion from its primary context to the "legitimately artistic" spaces.
What I also wonder if how the commercial aspects of fashion (in contrast to what merz sometimes calls sartorial engineering, as such) influence its reception as art, and whether those designers who stay away from, say, seasonal collections, therefore get a different sort of credibility, similarly to the underground film directors or musicians, or whether we actually have here almost two different art forms...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: fart
PostPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 23:51 
Offline
porter
User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2013, 14:02
Posts: 1169
need to word a proper response to this (how do you like my constant, lazy comments to this effect?) but i like the acknowledgement of departure from that kantian definition of art through non-utility. it seems strange that people are still hung up on this in whatever measure - the fountain happened 97 years ago.

_________________
which pyre shall the moon ignite each hour
which pyre in my library crimson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: fart
PostPosted: 29 Apr 2014, 02:07 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 23:35
Posts: 266
Location: los angeles
^^ just swooped my line

_________________
✧・゚:*✧・゚:* \(◕‿◕✿)/ *:・゚✧*:・゚✧


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: fart
PostPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 09:23 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 14:21
Posts: 152
Quote:
but i like the acknowledgement of departure from that kantian definition of art through non-utility. it seems strange that people are still hung up on this in whatever measure - the fountain happened 97 years ago.


yes but the fountain is not the be all end all of this discussion, its only some illustration of it, a preface at best. (fountains don't talk for god's sake)

people are still "hung up" on kant because kant still matters, and it remains relevant that utility and non utility are useful parameters of "art" and "not-art". What is "art-like" about those hallmark shows by Chayalan, CdG, Margiela, Viktor and Rolf, Mcqueen and such is not the same sort of "art-like" as ann, yohji, dries, Jil Sander, raf simons etc. The objects that are produced "behave" differently depending on their art/non-art, useful/not-useful characteristics. its not to say that some are *less* artistic that others, (measuring art is not the point!) its a matter of understanding it in art discourse, placing it in an art-history, because things change accordingly, namely the audience (and then a ton of other implications surface)

so anyway, yes merz, enough of your lazy comments , deliver what you promise!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: fart
PostPosted: 02 May 2014, 21:18 
Offline
porter
User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2013, 14:02
Posts: 1169
you've rightly called me out on this, and i intend to. the above comment was something of an in-joke with anteros, who has used the precise line on the subject in full understanding of the further ambiguities you've outlined. the long response i've tried to formulate last night in a skype session with anteros & excelsiom went something towards the usual subject(the beauty and internal consistency of self-contained systems vs accurately describing the subject they've been ostensibly created to deal with at one time) and i intend to give you a proper response. lately i feel like my faculties are diminished between waning personal time (and, fair enough, impetus) but you're holding up the end of the bargain that prompted me to get this place going originally, so i'm really glad every time i see your response (even one pointing out my laziness)

_________________
which pyre shall the moon ignite each hour
which pyre in my library crimson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: fart
PostPosted: 02 May 2014, 23:37 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 09 Jun 2013, 07:08
Posts: 163
[poor choice]


Last edited by ternlef on 15 Jan 2015, 00:45, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: fart
PostPosted: 04 May 2014, 05:24 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 14:21
Posts: 152
Quote:
language is stupid and everyone should be symbiotic hermits OR communicate only in the most exquisite and complex forms of grunting


hey man don't tell me what I should do i'll do what I like and that'll be neither of those thanks!

at some point in any vaguely academic discussion, somebody will come in to say "hang on a minute! Words are arbitrary and poor descriptors of their descriptees! People have subjective associations with words, objective definitions don't exist! Academia is a load of " and so on and so forth, today it happens once again!

and yes this could all be perfectly correct and true, but for the purpose of a discussion, which is the assumed motivation for people talking to one another in the first place (here at least), we understand that there are many different understandings of what a word means to many different people, and so we go even further to discuss these differences.

this is why what often comes across as "name dropping" is important. When we talk about the notion of Being , we talk of Heidegger's Being and Satre's Being and Deleuze's Being and everybody else's Being because we reach a common ground in the (historical) discourse of philosophy, and from there we can distinguish, differentiate, discriminate and (if lucky) reach some clarity. OR we could mention no names, forget the rich literature of the past, and attempt to reinvent the wheel. For the time being language is convenient and does the job well enough

Quote:
(the beauty and internal consistency of self-contained systems vs accurately describing the subject they've been ostensibly created to deal with at one time)

right. well you're going to have to elaborate here! enough talking about talking, can we get to the talking?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Forum hosting by ProphpBB | Software by phpBB | Report Abuse | Privacy