We are merely slaves to the art, artists as creators- mothers if you will to a child born into a world of waiting arms, outstretched willing (and unwilling in some cases) to nurture this child and judge him or her on a basis of looks. The aesthetic child, slave to the man, slave to the world we have created for ourselves in an effort to sell products, sell celebrities, to sell an image. You, you are a slave to this, you are a slave to this child, whether you like it or not, an abortion was not passed and you are here to view this child. As said in Bourriaud's 'Relational Aesthetics' a quote from Jean-Luc Godard 'It takes two to make an image' (Bourriaud 26). Subject and Object, Schopenhauer describes us in his World of Will, to perceive and be perceived- we are the perceivers each taking in objects around us, blurred lines as we (our bodies) become objects. Objects that (in our minds) should fit to the realization of an aesthetic world, as should art generally be perceived.
Each to their own do we come across 'art', it's expectations have changed, the move from sub culture and genres of art have clashed, defining one's practice is no longer 'one's' practice but rather a combined effort of "individuals and groups, between the artist and the world.. Between the beholder and the world" (Bourriaud 26). In such a world where one is no longer ones own, where an object does not exist without a subject (that is, if there is an object to be perceived but no subject to perceive it- how does it exist). Unnoticed. May we have lagged behind in the booming age of technology, we are now amongst it as the ability to communicate across seas, countries and even to beyond earth, there is a universal awareness we must take in to account. Awareness of art in its current state, which is constantly moving and adapting as technology changes itself. As for the change in state, slaves to the art, we may simply not need to be a creator for it, but merely just spectators as looking towards art may possibly just be enough.
..If that is not enough, then this program 'E-Icon' (http://www.numeral.com/eicon.html) brings some valid points to mind- if there was a super computer that created images based on combinations of pixels all moving through 256 colours and the infinite number of combinations then there could be images of you, me and everyone and everything in this world. If everything has been seen, and everything that has not is there anything left to do?
Nicolas Bourriaud, "Art of the 1990s", from Relational Aesthetics, Paris: les presses de reel, 2002, pp.25-40.
Mirapaul, Matthew. "In John Simon's Art, Everything Is Possible" 1997. The New York Times Company, 18 Sep 2009
There IS actually nothing left to do. There are already so many people in the world, and just about everybody nowadays wants to be famous or rich or successful. And they are all thinking things and doing things all day. With this much competition in the world, doing something new or amazing is alot harder, than in decades past. Or at least that is how it feels. Why bother? Maybe the new thing is to not achieve high, but achieve averageness, perhaps as a banker or an accountant.
ReplyDeleteIf doing something new is only deemed successful when others validate it, technically it does become much harder when everyone is trying to achieve it. That being said I think too often the experiences of the individual are forgotten amidst this whitewash global culture. With all this shit floating around, every avenue explored, there is so much more to choose from and enjoy. Services like the internet allow us to pick and choose what bits of culture to experience from selections all across the globe. It may be intense and overwhelming at points but I think its pretty damn cool. I think James may be talking about a similar thing but doing it far more elegantly:
ReplyDelete"...we are the perceivers each taking in objects around us, blurred lines as we (our bodies) become object."
"As for the change in state, slaves to the art, we may simply not need to be a creator for it, but merely just spectators as looking towards art may possibly just be enough."
There is much more to choose from, but I find that overwhelming.
ReplyDeleteBeing merely a spectator may be a solution to art, but somebody has to make the art, for us to be the spectator of it. And I don't know if it is a confused ambition in life, or feeling one can or must do better, but most people, especially nowadays, are less content to be mere spectators and want to be the creator, as James calls it, the person that makes a difference, but statistically, we can't all be creators, we need audiences.
And that's why I feel so nihilistically depressed about the world. That there's such an increased amount of "cool-arty" types doing things that there is less room. Although this could also turn into a hot pot of artistic awesomeness that we all feed and take over the world with, the alternative is what I fear; that with more artists, there are more artists who are better than me.
James says "In such a world where one is no longer ones own, where an object does not exist without a subject (that is, if there is an object to be perceived but no subject to perceive it- how does it exist). Unnoticed.".
THAT is what I fear. Going unnoticed because there are an excessive amount of objects out there, with a decreased ratio of subjects to perceive them.