Monday, May 15, 2006

Cast(e) System


This might be a bit of a ramble, but I want to pull together a variety of thoughts I've had swimming around lately that seem entirely separate, but in my mind are fundamentally the same. They relate to the recent NY Times article on "post-conceptual" art , Harper's May 2006 article about Pig Production, Art food chain postings by HighLowBetween (Preserving Our Cultural Heritage) and Art Powerlines (Post-Skill Era), Eye-drops' comments on the shape of a road, my new Coomaraswamy read: Christian and Oriental Philosophy of Art, formerly titled: Why Exhibit Works of Art? (Thanks Ashes!) and the concept of instability (within my artwork.)

The Harper's article talked about selective pig making (ala Monsanto) and stud pigs that can't stand up or survive in the wild anymore due to too many genetic modifications to (ends justifies the means) produce pork that is as uniform and cost effective to package and profit from as possible. I think we are closer to cloning than we think....and it's not just our pigs. The story behind pig farming was terrifying, but not much different than our current social systems of thought (art, politics, consumerism, etc...) which seem just as artificially inseminated.

per ART
In the Beginning....
there was the thought, and what manifested physically.
(Now) In the Middle are all these people, further up on the food chain (supposedly) who are putting their fingers and angled cuts (commissions+hype) into every artistic pie, and artists, in turn....using the same mould, casting their own pattern for a food chain underling (fabricators are the new black in bureaucratic middlemen fashion)

per POLITICS
The public seems blinded by the bling of supposed safety and democracy, via war, torture, lying or by any means possible. Are people finally seeing the pyramid scheme that's been built up? Isn't it about time this illusion collapse and be crushed by its own weight?

In the End...what comes out the play-dough$$ extruder??

People and pigs that can't think or fend for themselves, nodding in sheepish agreement in pig-pen structures that don't support or offer constructive ins-n-outs. In an attempt to keep things predictable (i.e. safe), we've created/imposed upon ourselves a belligerently static dystopia based on fear and greed that seems anti-darwinian, anti-evolution and has made us hyper-vulnerable to ever-changing mutations (i.e. progress) that are beyond our control (try as we may).

I guess what I'm asking about is, ultimately, (the underlying) Structure (of thought - the foundation).
Just thinking about how similar, wonky and unstable the pattern of thought is behind all these seemingly unrelated actions of farming, art, politics (and everything, come to think of it). Wondering how to think not only outside the box, but perhaps re-think a whole new form. (What is the shape of the road?) Bring on the Post-Box Era!

(Artists by virtue of their vocation think they make a career of innovation and thinking out of the box....but is that really true?)

The difference between form and shape.
. . . content and contour.







(Click to enlarge. Refresh page if needed.)


If the way we think about things remains the same, whether it's uniform pig parts, gallerists + artists, Democrats + Republicans, then we're simply spinning our wheels like a hamster. A bit like musical chairs...everyone grabs a similar seat and someone's left out (the artist, the independent, whatever the label). Could it be that the best thing that could have happened to that person was that (s)he was forced out of the game? Maybe this is an opportunity to start a new game, with new rules.

4 Comments:

Blogger Ashes77 said...

I like your close a lot. I think I'm following Coomeraswamy when I suggest that the new game looks a lot like the old, ie; the one before art, when painters made paintings, social critics criticized society and people did what they do, and did it well. The game your driving at is art and marketing and all the other gnarly things balled up in one icky mash. If you're after a form, then formalism is a good one. at least i think...

9:50 PM  
Blogger Reb said...

You and I have the same game in mind. Coomaraswamy says, "It is the business of art to grasp the primordial truth, to make the inaudible audible..." And if it's musical art chairs we've been playing, it's definitely time to change the tune. (We just have to pay closer attention to the frequency) Besides, everything old is new again. Mo' truth and beauty, I say. (read blip above the highlighted bit on this posting's image) I received my "AWordADay" via email just now. Funny, the word is Pulchritude. The powers that be agree.

12:19 AM  
Blogger highlowbetween said...

my creed: paint what you know
...and then you'll be really surprised

11:00 AM  
Blogger Reb said...

Highlow...is integrity what you're talking about? Can you talk a bit more about what/how you define beauty? (big can of worms, I realize)...but I think I agree with Coomaraswamy, in that the purpose of art and its beauty is always about effective communication, beyond personal idiosyncrasy (reminds me of what r+c often say: who are you without your problems?) There's the Painting - then You (in the middle) - then the Archetype. In this way, artists are already sort of middlemen in the art process, but constructively outside the capitalistic vortex.

11:02 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home