[syndicate] bweep bweep I'm an artist

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

-----Original Message-----
From: John M. Kuykendall 
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 1:54 PM
To: 'info'
Subject: RE: [syndicate] bweep bweep I'm an artist


>So do you means newsgroups generally, or do you mean syndicate? The
list,
>again I might of missed earlier discussions on this point.

I guess I meant newsgroups generally, syndicate specifically, and by
extension, other areas where substantive discussion or information
dissemination take place.

>I think the diversions themselves are coming from various intentions,
some
>well informed, some playful with a touch of quirkness, others just
automatic
>noise on the airwaves. I do not see that there are many deep and
artistic
>adventures happening in the ascii world, but one could same the same in
art
>generally, mainly due to many artists eager to explode their load
rather
>than learn  about life first.

Agreed. I suppose I voiced my opinion to let those people who are either
actively posing or considering joining the poseur bandwagon that at
least someone sees what they are doing, and that perhaps the act of true
expression via written language is not completely powerless against
techno-artistic intimidation.

>nothing less nothing more. And when one compares it a serious art work,
a
>creative individual exploring larger issues, I can see that it shrivels
into
>pale insignificance, may be that's what it wants...so it tells me that
just
>like our text it is just here, our discussion of course is actively
founded
>on trying to relate and it itself is about defying communication for
whoever
>did this did not fancy it at the time and put in those terms. It's just
fun
>which of course I can presede you in saying that I know that you knew
this
>already...

True, thanks for noticing.

>To the ignorant, less aware it could seem artsy but the one's created
it
>know it isn't & we know, it's just a text based gesture..

God, I hope you're right.

>Art is untoachable - it us who are touchable, that's the whole point.
That
>it touches us, not us touch it - it abstract, fluid, an energy beyond
>containment.

Hmm... I see it sort of like that story with the blind men describing
the elephant, sort of. Except a REALLY big elephant. So, I'm touching it
without defining it. But, it's semantics, really. I know what you meant.

>This is obviously a few ways - and some among many. For me I come from
a
>place of viewing myself as the medium rather than the medium as a
medium, I
>am the communicator not the medium. This gives me the choice to explore
my
>work in different mediums which suit the idea on a lateral level. This
>process is in no way from an intellectual stand point, it is more
intuitive.
>This offers a freedom for me, opening up different ways of seeing
beyond the
>idea itself, which does get exciting. So if I can explore an idea via a
poem
>i'll try that way, then i'll try it on music, then as a drawing, then
as web
>site, then as film, whatever works. In regard to your
>philosophical/psychological directives which seem to be the foundation
of
>where your work comes from, I agree on this, yet I am very much a
>Post-Jungian type. With the likes of James Hillman and Thomas Moore -
who I
>believe have moved psychology into the realm of real life, more social
-
>than doctorial. Therefore the work's heart is about liberation all the
way,
>that is its reason for existence, that's why I am here, to liberate
myself
>from social construction, as well others on the way, in whatever way. I
am
>keen to let people shine on their own terms for what they really are...

I agree in the value of the sort of un-self-conscious creation it seems
you are trying to promote... I'm personally glad Jack Kerouac never
tried to edit himself... However, he did display discipline and
deliberation in his work... Alternately, he might've written "FaRT" on a
big piece of cardboard and called it done. I prefer the former, and I
believe it has to do with struggling with coherence.


>I think I get the gist here, you are saying that automation does not
leave
>space for learned re-evaluation. So when it is time to change, or to
move on
>them/it/he/her won't because they cannot by default. So subconsciously
or
>deliberately they rely on such methods as a place to hide away from
external
>questioning within their own field, or art...if this is true. Then they
are
>very human, scared like the next person about death, life and all that
stuff
>even though they do not agree to declare it because the scheme or theme
of
>their invented identities do not make room for such things.....mmm

Precisely. Re-evaluation (or constant evaluation performed as though it
were the first) is what I think keeps one in the loop. Otherwise, one
seems to allow ones self to be pulled through time- on instinct, and one
often cannot remember what one ate for breakfast, for example. When one
is actively participating in the moment, makind decisions, things are
real. Life is happening.

>Although I found mez to be very emotional about various things at
times,
>probably the most human of these artists/people/persona and very
>communicative at times as well..I have also enjoyed some of the text
that
>mez has put out into the net as well. There is defiantely a conscious
mind
>working away there that is
>informed/intellegent/political/compassionate...many are not any of
these.

I do not disagree, I have seen some good stuff from <it> but I have also
seen stuff that looks to have been fished out of one of Oprah's book
club books. Truisms and new-agey hocus pocus with a pinch of William
Gibson thrown in. In fact, it occurs to me that <it> must've been a big
fan of the genre and simply wanted to make the romance of the "ghost in
the machine" a reality. Too bad, though, that we see the supporting
wires so easily.

>I have always been keen to exploit the strategies of market forces but
I am
>never keen for it to exploit me.

Sometimes I think, in an attempt to exploit market forces, we tend to
exploit ourselves. Like the Vonnegut character that worked in Nazi radio
as a propagandist while delivering encoded messages to the Allies.
Vonnegut's premise was that you are what you pretend to be. I think
there is validity in that.

>Lucian Freud may work a lot but his work lacks compassion for humanity.
Work
>is no basis to justify quality, he works alright - but he's got loads
of
>money. He has a family that has earned billions via dissecting people's
>minds, he has reaped the benefit of this and decided to pursue his
career as
>an artist without interuption. We, have to work to get money do art/buy
>materials and all that stuff which as you know takes away a lot energy
from
>the creative thinking process. He has total institutional support
becuase
>his family background has geiven him an open gate to be accepted
>immediately. To me - he's like the Queen. An institution..

While I agree with you that Freud got lucky, and he has been allowed to
paint 8+ hours daily without worrying about bills, I would still argue
that there is more to him than technical expertise. There is a clarity
and a love for his subject, I think, in his work... Of course, not
everyone would agree. I can see how his work might be seen as somewhat
impersonal. Being an introvert, and a sceptic myself, I can identify
with a somewhat impersonal, detached view of these funny hairless apes.
And still love them, I should add.

>I dispute that I live in a culture of ease, which culture are your
talking
>about? The Neoliberalist culture, art culture, or country culture,
>democratic culture? Would you prefer of culture dis-ease?

Yes, we don't all have it easy. But if you'll notice, those that claim
to be artists while simultaneously being lazy about what is supposed to
be their central preoccupation tend to have it easy. That is the way I
see it, anyway. We no longer struggle daily against nature. Now the
struggle is against internal entropy. I think that perhaps we could have
it a little tougher, or at least those of us who have waaaay to much
ease could pick up some of the slack for those who have none. I do not
have any answers there. I just think people don't display near the
discipline now as we did historically. You don't think?

>I do understand what you mean, but it does seem to me that a less
formal
>approach is called for in judging what one experiences as creativity
now,
>intention is very much one way of viewing...plus appreciating what it
is in
>its own right first without one's own needs put on it. Art has been
hijacked
>by the culturalizing elite, saying that people should go to college
before
>one can call one's self an artist, within that arena a language imposed
that
>does not give the individual the chance to re-evaluate their own
intentions
>for creating art - so they could think that they making meaningful art,
but
>they going through the process of making meaningful perception - what
they
>think is art, what they have been informed is art.

Absolutely. I agree whole-heartedly. However, we must be careful not to
allow our ability to discriminate to be degraded to the point that we
let indecisiveness to be confused for decisiveness, randomness to be
confused for purposefulness. There is a pattern and a purpose in the
world, after all. When I jump up, chances are, I'm coming back down.
That's because of the rules. If we lose sight of the fact that we are
part of a pattern we lose a part of ourselves... Maybe?

J. Kuykendall