My real question was about value to the (re)creator: If I make a simulacrum
of an existing piece, how can it be of value to me? I don't think you can
say "it's art, period". For me, art has to have a direction and a purpose
beyond its creation.
I can't understand why an artist would make a note-perfect copy of a song
unless there was a larger comment or subtext intended by its creation. Like
Duchamp's ready-mades, which are not about the pieces themselves, they're
about the about.
Of course, you could exploit the commercial potential of a previously
successful artwork, but I don't see any artistic value in that. That's
craft, not art.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: dserklandATnish.org [mailto:dserklandATnish.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 5:43 PM
To: rumoriATdetritus.net
Subject: Re: [rumori] the simple and post-modern
Chris, what is your perspective on remixed/recreated/reconstructed art and
value?
"I don't know if this answers the question completely. I
don't know if that's possible. But it continues the
dialogue, and that's better, i think, than just saying,
"it's art, period."
The problem with portraying things as simple when they're
not simple is that you're just wrong. inaccurate. Chris
asked a very provocative, interesting question about a
complicated issue. But as soon as you invoke that tired
"it's just art" stance, you stunt all further thought or
discussion on the topic."
Steev, would you say then that art is an end in itself? Let's talk about
art until we're blue-in-the-face. We can cite examples that back up our
opinion for as long as we live - there's always something new down the
pipe. I've always felt that art was a means and mechanism by which people
present new ideas. Art can be functional. Art does something. Presentation
we can agree on. Art needs to be presented. I've advocated the
"everything's art/it's all good" idea, because for me it's been very
liberating to think of things in these terms; to think of things being the
same rather than different. I never imagined thinking that it stifled the
dialogue on art. I don't argue about what's art. I experience the art and
take away what I can learn. Would I be oversimplifying by calling "Gone
With the Wind" a story instead of calling it a novel or a book? I don't
deny that "Gone...." is also a book, play, movie, video game, and more, but
it IS just a story.
Well, it's a grey area not worth arguing about. There was a long discussion
about whether the world was round not too long ago and that discussion is
over, but that discussion had a very simple answer... maybe I am
oversimplifying. Maybe I just have a simple answer. Maybe the "discussion"
leads nowhere. It's become difficult for me to distinguish between Art and
non-art, especially when the presentation/context has been altered.
Sometimes context is ALL that makes something art (ie Duchamp's toilet,
found objects...) Context might be the most important element of a work of
Art.
I agree that Chris' question was provocative and well-founded (or I
wouldn't have tried to answer), and I agree that there are no clear cut
answers OTHER THAN "it's all art/ it's all good." I don't deny that this is
a complicated issue (I think the issue has something to do with
"originality"), however, that doesn't mean there cannot be simple answers.
I don't see how I could be wrong about something with no real answer. BTW,
my opinions on art have not discouraged me from developing opinions about
what is bad or good art, regarding craft or concept.
""When you recreate something that closely, in what way is it yours? How
does it have value?""
"It" is mine because I have changed "it" at all. Whether the change is
significant is a matter of opinion.
Anyone can value anything they want, and it's worth what someone will pay.
Have I missed your point? Was the question more simple than you had
thought?
Can anyone reccommend a source that discusses the concept of
"post-modernism?"
haster la vister,
dan
Steev Hise <steevATdetritus.net> on 05/31/2001 04:02:58 PM
Please respond to rumoriATdetritus.net
To: rumoriATdetritus.net
cc: (bcc: Dan Serkland/National/NISH)
Subject: [rumori] the simple and post-modern
ok, let's revisit the original (sub)thread:
first chris said:
"When you recreate something that closely, in what way is it
yours? How does it have value?"
Then Dan said:
It's just art. It's entirely subjective. That's the bottom
line.
I said:
>"that's simplifying and "post-modernizing" the issue a
little bit too much,
>IMHO."
Dan said:
>Why is that "too" much? Too much for what? Why is simple a
problem? And ->what exactly do you mean by "post-modern?"
Anyway, how would you say a work ->has value "when you
recreate something that closely?"
Ok, so, to answer your questions:
I won't go into exactly what i mean by "post-modern". That's
too big a question right now. But, the part of
post-modernism I was referring to is the tendency to
over-simplify and the "it's all good" syndrome.
The problem with portraying things as simple when they're
not simple is that you're just wrong. inaccurate. Chris
asked a very provocative, interesting question about a
complicated issue. But as soon as you invoke that tired
"it's just art" stance, you stunt all further thought or
discussion on the topic. yeah, this is ALL just art. so
let's not talk about it at all. Maybe I should just shut
down this list? It's art. We're done.
No.
Back to the original question. "How does a work
have value when you recreate something that closely?"
Another thing postmodernism does is erase the notion of
value. all works are equal, everything is okay, everyone has
their own personal preference, end of story. I'm not
anti-post-modern, but i think that particular idea is pretty
detrimental. There is good and bad. It's not absolute, but I
think one way a culture grows and thrives is by its
participants communicating with each other about value,
about which cultural artifacts are things they value and why
and how much, collectively developing a set of criteria and
priorities.
So, to really get to the question. I think Vicki had a great
answer -- the idea that cover versions often have the
imprint of the covering artist. I would add that a lot of
the "added value" of the "copy" is in the context or
"frame".
Take Sherrie Levine's work in the 80s - photographs of
famous paintings by famous male art superstars. She placed
these exact copies in the context of a critique of the
male-dominated art world. That had value. (And I'm not just
saying that, she made a very big splash with those pieces).
Or on the pop cultural end, check out the Donnas' recent
cover of Judas Priest's "Living After Midnight". It's a
pretty straight cover. The vocals even sound pretty similar
to Rob Halford's. But somehow I think it's an interesting
thing just for this group of women in the year 2000 to be
doing that early 80s cockrock metal song. Maybe not THAT
interesting, but there's SOMETHING there, and that something
is about context.
Back to the fine art world - look at Elmyr DeHory, he's been
mentioned here before, the most famous art forger in
history. He's so famous that his fakes are sought by
collectors AS FAKES. His Picassos, Chagalls, Matisses sell
for many thousands of dollars. Not as much as if someone
thought they were genuine. But he's created value in his
own work simply by being so good and so famous at simulating
others' work. That's pretty remarkable. And that's about
context too. Someone could show me a deHory and say "this is
a fake Picasso." And if I didnt know it was deHory, i'd
probably say, "ah, looks pretty much like Picasso. but
since it's not, it's worthless, right?" But i'd be wrong!
I don't know if this answers the question completely. I
don't know if that's possible. But it continues the
dialogue, and that's better, i think, than just saying,
"it's art, period."
best,
smh
Steev Hise, Head Chump
steevATdetritus.net http://detritus.net/steev
*Recycled Culture: detritus.net
*Record Store: southtothefuture.com
*Progressive radio sketches: radioluchalibre.com
*Watching power flow: capitalletters.detritus.net
*Democratic sound collage generator: soundbakery.detritus.net
*** sig almost over ***
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Even though it's true, they shouldn't believe it, because when I
wrote it, I thought it was a lie."
-Kenneth J. Schmidt
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori, the Detritus.net Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to majordomoATdetritus.net
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori list archives & other information are at
http://detritus.net/contact/rumori
----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori, the Detritus.net Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to majordomoATdetritus.net
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori list archives & other information are at
http://detritus.net/contact/rumori
----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori, the Detritus.net Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to majordomoATdetritus.net
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori list archives & other information are at
http://detritus.net/contact/rumori
----------------------------------------------------
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
N© Detritus.net. Sharerights extended to all.