Dear list readers,

Just like you to point to an article about the ongoing friction between
'materiality vs. immateriality' in a - more or less -  art historical
context:

http://nictoglobe.com/new/query2.html?d=home&f=finality

Best

Andreas Maria Jacobs

Editor

Nictoglobe Online Magazine

http://nictoglobe.com
> On Jan 23, 2011, at 7:42 AM, Jon Ippolito wrote:
>
>> Eleanor asks
>> "whether there are those who would place value on the physical object as
>> an
>> 'original', or whether the majority feel that the value of the artwork
>> would
>> be solely in the concept." Are those the only two options?
>>
>> Paik was trained as a composer, and the 1963 exhibition in which both
>> versions of Random Access first appeared was entitled "Exposition of
>> Music."
>> So when Kurt Masur conducts the Eroica symphony for the London
>> Philharmonic,
>> does that mean Masur thinks Beethoven is "conceptual" because he's
>> chosen to
>> focus on the sound instead of displaying period instruments in a
>> vitrine?
>
> Well, yes, there are more than two options, but I don't know that an
> invocation of Beethoven, perhaps the canonical figure of western fine art
> composition, will take us there. Performance of (published, mind you)
> scores is the institutional basis of Classical music, and has been a modus
> in several art forms for centuries. Stefan Morawski posited the notion of
> "design and realization" to express its generality, which is shared by the
> field of architecture and ballet to name two others.
>
> To me, Paik is bound up in the 1960s urge for ephemerality and the desire
> to avoid commodity status in the art object. This is something you see
> even in an artist like Claes Oldenburg, whose choice of subject matter
> always sought the edge of obsolescence as a way to heighten the mystery of
> his work.
>
> Paik did create scores for certain works, and obviously chose not to
> create them for others. Simply, he represents a conservation challenge not
> unlike Jackson Pollock or Dan Flavin. Paik had to confront the fragility
> of his work while he was at the height of his creative powers and
> popularity, and in his actions, we can read his own judgements on
> conservation.
>
> As these decaying artifacts find themselves on exhibition today, in a
> museum context which imposes a certain valuation of materiality, the way
> that Classical composition imposes a certain valuation of performance, I
> think it is important to be clear about what the viewer is actually seeing
> (and interacting with). To do otherwise sets us on the lazy path of
> "conceptualism," and misses raising issues that re-capture the spirit and
> context of the 1960s for today.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Charles
>
>