I hope to show that I am right
trans-institutionality
aesthetic distance in art
real things done in real time
appalling loss of aesthetics
act of judgement
My own short answer is that art makes sayable or doable what previously could not be said or done. It makes available to feeling and to cognition what previously could not be felt or known; it mediates an interrogation of the world that is truly open. Everything else that goes along with art-and a great deal does-must be a more or less commendable exercise of one or another of the countless varieties of human skill and inventiveness that are summoned up to serve a recondite branch of the entertainment industry. [1]
countless interests no limit to our range of interest
escaping the limits of interest
no
that art show us something rather than tells us something
it will show us what expertise is
trans-institutional recognition
I still don't have a sense of patrician power
there is a parity
his discussion excludes
art belongs to the entertainment industry
Everything else that goes along with art-and a great deal does-must be a more or less commendable exercise of one or another of the countless varieties of human skill and inventiveness that are summoned up to serve a recondite branch of the entertainment industry.[2]
it would be a conscience of believing
ever one wants art to be believable and deep
art is anywhere and everywhere
transmission of knowledge
any visible object can be a visual work of art
addicted to everything
to make things sayable
in terms of a response
there is a particular way of arguing of language
obsession of newness
solution is a personal growth rationale
people to solve problems
Briefly to re-state my own position: to take a thing as a work of art is not to take it-to judge it-in a distinctively artistic way, a way that is specifiably different from other ways of taking and judging things. In my view, to take something as art is to be ready to take it morally or scientifically or politically-or aesthetically, for that matter-or in any or all of the modes in which appraisal can be conducted. The distinctiveness of art, I suggest-and in this respect it is distinctive-lies in the fact that art is the one and only possible transinstitution.. That there is only one transinstitution is indisputable, as a matter of logic: the identification of this transinstitution with art is the thesis that I must defend.[4]
you seem to know what art is when you say that
problem finding
we have to resits the disciplines of interdisplinarity
I we want to have a rational
what I am doing is projecting in to the world a trans-institutional appraisal.
just teach me to paint
there are certain assumptions underlying the way you argue
leaping with my baggage
art with boundaries has failed
people who make the stuff are miserably paid
people who are manage this are doing the creative work
how does it sit with you the artist as the maker
in the struggle
there is a particular situated history
meta-aware
we do it by critical inquiry
1. Donald Brook, What Theory? What Pactice? 2. Ibid 3. Ibid
Meeting 27.8.97 / Meeting 9.9.97
|
Terminus = Paul Thomas Mark Cypher David Carson Brian Mckay Jeff Jones Barbara Bolt Theo Koning Jeremy Blank Alex Spremberg
E-Mail: p.thomas@curtin.edu.au
|