Fun Stuff > CHATTER

hey khar,

<< < (4/6) > >>

KharBevNor:
Thus we see that the process of transformation of an object into art is at least two-fold; it is titled and it is given authorship. This relationship is the same if it had been a piece of text rather than a found object I had placed into a gallery, something much more relevant to my personal practice. These are powerful markers. As much as we would like not to admit it, the authorship of a work can be key to our enjoyment and understanding of it, not to mention it’s economic value, which in a capitalist society must unavoidably be an element we consider about a piece of work, a point made with highly political overtones in Chris Thomson’s Stuckist painting ‘Sir Nicholas Serota Makes An Acquisitions Decision’. These metatexts are absolutely crucial. Exactly the same drawing executed by (or even attributed to) two different artists is, in a very fundamental way, not the same work, even if a forensic analysis of materials etc. could not tell them apart; these qualities are entirely extrinsic to the works themselves. The fact that these metatexts can be altered or obfuscated after the fact of the creation of the work, without altering any property of the work itself, is compelling to some artists. The ur-example must be Michael Craig-Martin’s seminal ‘An Oak Tree’. In the gallery space, it is just a glass of water on a high shelf, but it is mystically transformed into an Oak Tree (albeit one indistinguishable from a glass of water) by the title and a piece of text, originally displayed separately in a booklet. Amusingly, Craig-Martin once had to write a declaration, when importing the piece for exhibition in Australia, that the glass was definitely not an oak tree. And he was indeed not being disingenuous. Outside of the gallery and the metatext, the work cannot be read; the transformation into the Oak Tree can only take place when text, work and title come together in the specific, ordered structure of meaning the gallery provides.

Storm Rider:
hey khar is the new agalloch album any good i just learned they put out a new one earlier today

Nodaisho:
Yes. It doesn't sound quite like Agalloch as far as technique, but it is still a good album. It sounds a lot more human. Their new drummer is better than Haughm, but also plays looser. And the guitars sound more organic than the last ones. It's hard to explain.

scarred:
is your name khar?

i didn't think so

Nodaisho:
No, it isn't. Is Storm Rider posting about the youtube thing?

And because if Khar had the wrong opnion I wanted to try to balance it out.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page