[syndicate] bweep bweep I'm an artist

[john.m.kuykendall at mail.sprint.com]

Hi Marc,

I appreciate your honest reply. It was well thought out and made a lot
of good points. I agree with you that ascii art can be a legitimate form
of self-expression. I too recall the days of BBSs, before the internet
came along, and I truly enjoy ascii art. I was in no way trying to say
that ascii art is not "legitimate" or to narrowly define the realm of
art. I myself have used ascii to express points. It's just another color
in the palette, says me. Honestly, mine was more a criticism of the news
group as it pertains to disseminating news, information, discussion,
etc... While I would never say that for one to add illustrative elements
to a piece of written work is wrong, I do wonder if it isn't often being
used as a means of distracting someone from the fact that in the actual
payload of the text, there is often very little expressed. I may be
misleading myself, perhaps when those people create these little web
messages they are not trying to inform or create discussion but are
rather making some other sort of statement. I haven't got that
completely sorted out. Most of what I'm seeing looks to be of the "It's
confusing, it must be deep and artistic" variety, like this:

????<<<.o 0 0spiral.ling=double!helix mother//

hold(POOP)my(POOP)bunion(POOP)ac0rn<>without<bweep>scorn)

Which to me is just goofy. But, to those who are soft minded, this sort
of thing is just intimidating enough to SEEM artsy. Enough.

Also, when I said that I struggle to define art daily, I was speaking
about defining what it is to me, in my art, what it means, etc. I am
happy that art itself is so hard to define, but for me the act of
defining is an end in itself in my own work... I tend to like to boil
things down, to limit the amount of uneccessary or extraneous elements
that would otherwise confuse whatever it is I'm trying to get at. I'm
aware that that is a far cry from the prevalent scattershot approach.
And of course, if art were truly untouchable, why bother? I contend that
it is touchable, but that it cannot be held.

On the subject of looking for "something new", I suppose my own view is
defined somewhat by the expressionists, in that for something to be
real, it must be experiential, conscious, deliberate, and that doing
something automatic is the opposite. That which is automatic does not
exist within "lived time". So I personally argue to continually reinvent
ones views, methods, etc. because in that way, they can exist in real
"lived time". That probably sounded pretentious, I hope you get where I
was coming from. I have no problem revisiting old methods, or even doing
things the way they have traditionally been done. It is when one does
something by wrote that I start raising my eyebrows.

Now this is hot potato, mainly because amny ascii artists are from
outside
the so called western world catchment of what is considered art worth
looking at. Which is of course very shameful and too typical of western
art
default situations. Many ascii artists were actively creating art which
promoted a clear message in the past with other mediums for creativity
but
it was ignored because they were not in the right country. So many have
moved out of being ignored by creating their own arena - a type
autononous
zone, where they create their own rules, diverting, instigating
confusion
via the shifting principle of agit-art. Art is no longer their goal, for
the
art arena institutionally has ignored too many creative individuals who
were
(brilliant), forward thinking, yet did not fit the criteria which is too
singular, too narrow with its definition.

I'm also of the school of thought that art is a justification in it's
own right, and to make it subject to market forces is counter-intuitive
to that end. This is what I meant about "the work". I mean the physical,
mental, psychological process of creation. The "work". Look at Lucian
Freud, that man _works_. I think in this culture of ease, people would
like to "do art" but find that it is difficult. People want short-cuts.
There are none, fortunately. Nature does not give anything away.

Also, by "deliberation" I mean that we look for a sign that a decision
was made; "Oh, I wonder why she used that color? Do you think he
intended THAT?"... We look for evidence of human deliberation in art. As
we do in nature. We look for the WHY just as surely as we acknowledge
the IS. Form follows function.

This letter probably seems overly defensive, but if you note the number
of points you made to which I did not respond, you will be looking at
the number of things that you said that I either agree to, or have
stored away to revisit later, for further consideration. I only made
metion of those things which I may not have made clear in my first post.

     Thanks for listening,

     J. Kuykendall

-----Original Message-----
From: info [mailto:info at furtherfield.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 12:03 PM
To: john.m.kuykendall; syndicate
Cc: info
Subject: Re: [syndicate] bweep bweep I'm an artist


Hi there john,

I read your e-mail & thought there were definately some good points but
I do
not agree with all of what you have said and I do believe that your
intentions are honourable, I believe that the function of generative
ascii
is, at its best playful, insightful, communicative, explorative,
challenging
and hopefully radical wihtout being too self-conscious about it. At its
worst, it is self-conscious, denies creative ideas of other people's,
and
can kill progressive communication via one massive spam.

I used to use it a lot in the early nineties on bulletin boards before
the
Internet had happened. On Fastbreeder & Cybercafe with Heath Bunting (of
which I was co-sysop). I tend to view ascii as a different way of
communicating, a type of function, some of it has no purpose other than
filling up virtual space. Imagine a landscape image - the different
tones,
colours make up that landscape, they are essential to make up the whole
but
are not immediately recognised as the main subject matter. Ascii art I
feel
is a wonderful freedom at the same time from content, I find the most
interesting ascii, declares something that cannot be seen in any other
way
than its own medium. The Internet is the perfect arena for such things -
ascii art does not need to belong to anyone and comes from a place of
mischief, sometimes anoying but it offers a chance for people to stop
taking
themselves and art, life to seriously generally. It is a clause, a
loop-hole, and usually egoless.


> I did not assert that I could define art. But I do know the difference
> between a hawk and a handsaw. I struggle every day trying to define
art
> for myself, and I cannot say that I have gotten any better at it.

I question why you are trying to define art, why bother, its too big and
changes everyday. It has no centre, why try to pin down a spirit if it
is
untouchable?

I believe the best thing is to define your own creative and informed
journey
and express it as free and honestly as one can, don't expect what you
are in
others it wil not happen. It's our differences that create an amazing
world,
that I believe should be valued, as long as it is not killing anyone, or
bombing like so many of the backward idiots are around the world,
there's
progress.

> however, tell when I am being sold a bill of goods.  I suppose what I
> was getting at there is that what I have noticed going on with the
ascii
> characters and the little cyber scrawls has become uninspired,
co-opted
> nonsense. It was a stylistic choice, ONCE. After that, it was
> immitation. It is like those who would like to be percieved as artists
> dressing in the black clothes and behaving broodingly. It is a show.

I can understand your thoughts here - what you are saying is that a lot
of
these people have succumbed to a a pseudo style stance. Offering nothing
but
repeated nonsense moving no further than their own masks, of which they
are
hiding behind. Yep this true, but not in all cases, some of these people
are
doong some good stuff. If anything, like all of us, its all bout
exploration
not about the end product so some things work and some things don't. One
sight I reaaly like but do not trust it, yet enjoy its presence at the
same
time, which is more to do with me probably. have a look at this site
below... a lot it is like theatre, performance, via technology.

I've had a couple of run-in's with net.wurker][mez][ but really
she/he/it -
is alright, explore the sight, let it be what it wants to be...


http://netwurkerz.de/mez/dielation/dilation1.htm


> When you actually look at the SUBSTANCE of what is being communicated
> there is nothing new.

I question this desire for something new, I do not believe that there is
anything new if one actually looks at the function of what it is - for
instance - insitutions function for money yet there directives/mission
are
its tools to collect that money. Yes Cyber art is no longer new, yet as
medium it has not been accepted whole-heartedly by art insitutions,
amainly
because it does not collect money, as a product it is not seen as a
potential returnable asset of worth - which is a good and a bad thing.
Although many educative institutions latch on to cyber art to make
themselves feel younger and it attracts funding and students who think
that
they are jumping on a kool bandwagon, which of course damages the soul
it
all anyway...

The addition of ascii characters, intentional
> mis-spellings, "boop boop" whatever, is just pop pablum,
> self-promotional drivel. Whatever happened to simplicity,
transparency,
> simply saying what you mean?

Now this is hot potato, mainly because amny ascii artists are from
outside
the so called western world catchment of what is considered art worth
looking at. Which is of course very shameful and too typical of western
art
default situations. Many ascii artists were actively creating art which
promoted a clear message in the past with other mediums for creativity
but
it was ignored because they were not in the right country. So many have
moved out of being ignored by creating their own arena - a type
autononous
zone, where they create their own rules, diverting, instigating
confusion
via the shifting principle of agit-art. Art is no longer their goal, for
the
art arena institutionally has ignored too many creative individuals who
were
(brilliant), forward thinking, yet did not fit the criteria which is too
singular, too narrow with its definition.

There is a way to be both an artist, and
> comprehensible, particularly when one means to be undertood. If what
you
> mean is "Ok, Mr. Smarty-pants, you define art!", why not just say
that?
> Speak plainly if you mean to be understood. And then there are those
who
> somehow feel that by joining this little club they are somehow
promoting
> themselves, by association. While it is unfortunate that these days it
> has become increasingly harder and harder for one to succeed as an
> artist simply by virtue of doing good work, it is still a fact that it
> is still  the work that defines ones art.

It is not the art work that defines art, for art is no longer definable.
What has always defined art is the market, critics, and the powers that
want
it to be seen, so there is a culturalization taking place that usually
ignoresd the artists needs or their intentions/context of what they are
really up to in any meanimgful way. So many artist have created their
own
world like myself, on our terms.
http://www.furtherfield.org

This gives the artist more power to be who they want to be beyond the
remits
of institutional limitations. Creating alternative projects that have
meaning rather than just another child being led into the cynical realm
of
curatorial dictatorship, via competitive scenarios imposed on the
artist/creative thinker.

Although I cannot define the
> totality of what art is, I can say that we tend to look for
deliberation
> within it. Art is an act of deliberation, right?

I tend to think that traditionally deliberation means that there is a
discussion and consideration of all sides of an issue - yet a lot of art
very much driven by action these days rather debate around a work or
ideas
of art, especially in relation to ascii art. The other thing is, I
personally see art as a liberation from whatever one chooses it to
be...that
could be deliberation. Not my choice but I can understand why..

So, an artist who
> deliberates daily with his craft, his subject matter, his materials,
to
> me that's where the integrity is... Not in the promotion of a
perception
> of potential artisticness. I'd love to believe that there are others
> like me who see where I'm coming from here and who  lend clarity to
what
> I feel is a valid point, but I admit is a real bitch to break down
> properly. Now, one who criticizes invites criticism. I epect you will
> find grammatical errors and spelling mistakes in this little thing.
> Fine. But please, consider the substance of what I've said. I invite
> debate, so long as the goal is to refine communication and
> understanding, and not sophomoric one-upsmanship.

I am tired like you with the posturing that many backward small minded
little men seem to get distracted with - this again relates to men being
emotionally autistic and unable to develop further than fighting,
whether it
be with a gun or with their art, or with power. In fact I did not see
your
post as a criticism, I feel that it was geuine and came from a place of
inquisitiveness..this I appreciate.

much respect

marc garret