From: Cari Machet (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Mar 12 2006 - 09:36:55 PST
On 3/12/06, Marilyn Brakhage <email suppressed> wrote:
> On Saturday, March 11, 2006, at 10:44 PM, David Tetzlaff wrote:
> >
>
> > For most people, hobbies are more than a diversion, they're a form of
> > deeply elaborated cultural practice,
>
> Well sure -- LIFE is a form of deeply elaborated cultural practice.
> But surely some distinctions can be made between different orders of
> activity.
distinctions yes but judgements based in ego inflating purposes mostly
isn't about being distinctive or catagorizing for understanding purposes
> >
> > It's clear to me that for a lot of the people I've met with serious
> > hobbies - record collecting, for examples - is a kind of artform
>
> Words can become meaningless. All is art/nothing is.
hmmmn?
at first iwas like NOOOO
all is art
all is art
but hmnn
maybe this is true
i geuss it depends on ur veiw of what art is
i am aligned w/ robert smithson and fluxus and david hammon
who's greatest work to my mind
was his stand set up on the street where he sold snowballs
so yes i would have to say i disagree
all is art.
> >
> > And, and I mistaken or aren't we arguing over semantics,
> > and everyone here thinks filmamking is a worthwile activity whether
> > one gets paid for it or
> > not - given that we can control our art, but not control the market
> > for it
> > (and yes, in strict eonomic terms, there is no income without a
> > market).
> > Ctreative work does 'profit' us in non-economic ways, no?
>
> Semantics, of course, can be very revealing, just as there are
> subtextual meanings suggested by the words, "everyone here thinks
> filmmaking is a worthwhile activity . . . " Again, the artists I know
> don't make films "because they think it's a worthwhile activity." That
> doesn't sound like the motivation of an artist. I mean, I help my kids
> with their homework because I think it's a worthwhile activity. I read
> because I think it's a worthwhile activity. Or whatever. But there is
> a kind of artist -- filmmaker or otherwise -- that is not an artist by
> choice, but of necessity. (Some would argue for that as necessary to
> the definition of "artist," in fact.) And I think that the original
> point of this discussion was that a lot of people benefit financially
> from organizations and activities that depend upon art works, without
> there being any compensation to the artists -- and whether or not that
> is ethically supportable.
>
> Presumably, teaching people profits one in non-economic ways too. Or
> performing life-saving surgeries. Or building good houses for people
> to live in. Or any number of other worthwhile and rewarding
> occupations. But if the work of an artist is wanted, why should it not
> be paid for by those who want it? After all, that artist also has to
> live and eat -- just like the teacher, and the surgeon, and the house
> builder. When you are ready to do all your teaching for free, then you
> might be in a position to suggest that artists should do the same. . .
> . Of course, whether they get paid or not, artists WILL go on being
> artists. That is their fate.
hmmn (again)
i would say "will"
"fate" seems so out of body
bcause it is an interaction i would say "will"
>But the question is whether or not other
> people taking financial advantage of that is acceptable. . . . If your
> university stopped paying you, would you go on teaching there?
> Probably not, unless you are totally obsessed with teaching and
> couldn't live without it. But if that were so, would I then call your
> teaching an "artwork"? No. It may be a deeply elaborated cultural
> practice. It could even be an obsession. Or perhaps if you were
> financially independent and could afford to do so, you might even do it
> as a "hobby." And it might be extremely worthwhile. But it still
> wouldn't be an "artwork." -- And that need not be interpreted as a
> value judgment. It is simply a distinction -- which I believe is one
> of the inherent purposes of words. . . . I mean, one could talk about
> the art of teaching, the art of fishing, the art of record-collecting,
> the art of cooking, the art of war, or what have you. But surely,
> then, there is also that something that artists make.
>
> For some people on this list filmmaking may be a hobby. For some it is
> not. (Professional craftspeople aside), there are Sunday afternoon
> painters, and then there are artists. Surely we know the difference.
>
> MB
>
hmnn
hard stuff
cause who decides and when
particularly cause i know (and love)
what is catagorized by the artworld as naive artists
as u are on the west coast of the continent
have you seen 'watts towers' in cali?
often these people are catagorized as hobbiests
who have just sort of vacant minds
- may even have mental or intellectual problems -
(who is that filmmaker - a woman - who makes super 8 films
w/ intermitten sound ((as super 8 is so good at))
that are so much like diaries?)
anyway
'vacant minds' cause they are uneducated and can't verbally
go on and on about whatever
(as if famous artist always 'say' things that actually mean anything
re: explainations of their work)
here is a great book on the subject
"art brut - the origins of outsider art" by lucienne peiry
it is alot about dubuffet and his huge amount of respect/love
for the art and artist that are considered naive and what he did about it
i think the big problem i have with 'difference'
is that inequality can seep in and
making artists cultural 'gods'
and naive artists 'peons' is not evolved in anyway
nor is it something that is in the best interest of art
the purpose of art and artwork is at question here
i am aligned w/ lewis hyde in his writing of "the gift"
in which he concludes that if the overiding aspect of the art is as commerce
then it is lost in it's purpose - not only in that it has lost it's
holistic purpose
but that it is commodified souly for commodifacations end
as david hammon has work that is baught and sold at high cost
(moma has one of his works)
this all of course has exceptions
he is rare in that he has been able to side step or walk through
with his art (his self) intact
however he doesn't have a ginormous studio (mansion)
and tons of little minion assistants making little marks for him
but lives humbly in a loft in harlem working solely (souly)
c
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.