Kantor??? make-up like Kabuki??? Oh my god! What did you smoke to see
this? He is crying from his tomb: "Qu'ils crèvent, les artistes"!!
j.s.
Le 4 sept. 09 à 15:11, Johannes Birringer a écrit :
> hello all;
>
>
>
> i think death has been largely overrrated in discussions about such
> subjects in theatre or in performance (the actor dying there in
> front of us, strikes me as melodramatic, although i did read Herbert
> Blau back in the 80s and admired his writing on Hamlet and
> ghosting). And I shuddered at the wonderful make up of the actors
> in Kantor's productions, very Kabuki.
>
> (Incidentally, Charlie, what did you mean by the phrase "the
> ironically-named 'live' arts " - you think they are misnamed for
> death arts?)
>
> Discussions on Fried(s) are always fascinating, there are all these
> Frieds and his misnamed references to the theatre. also back from
> olden times.
>
> I am not sure when academies started to use the term "time based
> arts" but it would be interesting to look into that. In 1991, when
> i arrived in Chicago, the Art institute i believe had two tracks,
> one in the fine arts (painting, sculpture, drawing, printmaking etc)
> and one in time based art (video, performance, sonics, installation).
>
> I agree with Sally Jane that one needs to carefully approach the
> objects of performance, the static ones that don't move much, and
> the less static ones (as Charlie in the first post so beautifully
> annotates: " ....museum and gallery as disciplinary institutions,
> imposing an exemplary discipline of spectatorship). By contrast time-
> based art, interactive art, and all art involving some form of
> interaction over time tend to do the opposite. Perhaps this may be a
> partial explanation of the continued resistance to such work in
> mainstream institutions), either aren't atemporal.
>
> yet it seems it would be interesting to assume that in Chicago in
> the 80s and 90s, before the museum or the art world had to deal with
> "real time" and interactive art" , the time based arts were
> happening (taught and developed, curated) in the School as
> compositional experiments with durational (and loopular) forms, or
> microforms (videos , like sound, can last seconds), and
> architectural installation forms (Kabakov's installations are
> objects, yes?). The concerns with the spectator (later called to be
> called interactor/participant or user) and contingencies of viewing
> time/experience came later, I'd suggest, as the discourse on
> "relationality" (Bourriaud) and the contingent object (Buskirk,
> M) picked up speed.
>
> By that time, however, an increasingly sophisticated discourse on
> net.art had already developed, but i am not sure that the early
> attempts to "show" (curate) online art or telematic art succeeded
> all too well. I tried to study carefully what they did at larger
> (documenta X, / http://cont3xt.net/interference/discuss/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=19
> , but more interesting was the "Hybrid Workspace") and smaller
> festivals (e.g. Houston Fotofest started to include online art and
> interactive websites/CD-Roms in 2003), and i thought they fell flat
> and were self-contradictory.
>
> Do I Have a Good Reason to Be Here?, wrote Inke Arns in response (http://www.projects.v2.nl/~arns/Texts/Media/net-e.html
> ).
>
>
> I suppose we will need to address what we mean by Real Time and
> whether this is a functional category/characteristic of the "work"
> or whether we are addressing social and contextual and psychological
> dimensions or sonething as inconsequential as "the time of the
> spectatorship". Or is it consequential? For TV ratings, yes, for
> the dismantling of Big Brothers, yes. For real-time art? probably
> not, unless the "work" does not exist or come into some form of
> existenve without the proactions of the interactor/user. The
> proactive audience is a problem, no?
>
> regards
>
> Johannes Birringer
> DAP-Lab
> http://www.brunel.ac.uk/dap
>
>
>
>>>>>
>
> I'm glad you've called on Fried, Charlie, and at the same time this
> stirs niggling questions re your last statement that "we have the
> idea with most object-like works of art that we can see it all at
> once, in an instant"... because it seems to me that the
> contamination Fried deplores as "theatricality" in minimalist object
> works is precisely bound up with their focus on experiential, time-
> bound encounter rather than "instant" grasping of the object. I
> don't want to go pedantically back to cubist or futurist deployment
> of the viewer's time as an integral part of the "object" construct
> and its experience, nor to Lessing's Laocoon positing the ideal
> painted/ sculpted moment as epitomising the time leading up to/
> running after its capture, but I remain very un-easy with this
> distinction between "atemporal object-based" versus "temporal time-
> based" arts. What aspect of the "time" we are talking about pertains
> to aesthetic experience/ encounter, and what aspect is integral to
> (ostensibly non-living), "objective/ objectifiable" components of
> the work? (ranging from egg-based paint media and varnishes that
> acquire their qualities over time, through to the algorithmic
> computational procedures Yaeger wrought into Polyworld...)? And (how
> far) can these aspects/ dimensions of time be separated in art? Or
> is its role precisely to inseparably entangle them?
>
>>>>>> .
>
> Thus perhaps being 'time-based' is not a question of movement of
> time or duration within the work itself, but of the time of
> spectatorship. This would also seem to relate nicely to Sally Jane's
> examples from actual theatre. I think this makes net art, software
> art and other new media arts time-based for what its worth
>
>>>>>>>
>
> On 4 Sep 2009, at 08:52, Gere, Charlie wrote:
>
>> Another thought following on from my last post - perhaps the whole
>> issue between time-based art and object art is that of death. The
>> object presents us wit
|