PDA

View Full Version : One of the Potentialities of 'Possibility'



SuuT
Sunday, August 27th, 2006, 02:52 PM
What has happened to the ego of the artist?

That emboldened denial of the idiomatic approach to his age, the spirit of omnae movre lapidem and "on the contrary!" that, in itself, separated him from the majority?

While it, like everything else, would be easy enough to reduce to the death of the will, more generally--all things Aesthetic have always traveled a course only indirectly affected by anything outside of the intensely personal aim of the artist as either conduit, or creator.

The acclimation and accommodation of essentially untraceable stimuli.

The answer is that this spirit, itself, is clichéd; with no new gods and no new moralities to (somnambulantly) deconstruct, the prime stimulous--that of the moral--has been in proto-typical pieces since, at least, Duchamp; perhaps earlier?

Enter the Carl Andres, the Christos, of Aesthetics: the retrogression to mere symbolic geometries--primative and brutish; but often put forth in this age of ultimate ironies with the most intense mind e.g. Kasimir Maleavich and his "Black Square" which requires an entire philosophy ("Suprematism") to apprehend.

Art now floats and flows freely through the mind--it has escaped an essentially visual appearance aside from an impetus e.g. "all the things I know but I am not thinking about at this moment".

Art is now 'inside' and comes out; rather than 'outside' comming in.

Aesthetic appreciation has become not an act--but the result of agency itself: One barely needs to open ones eyes...

In an effort (an 'at all costs' effort) to avoid cliché, the artist, and his ego, has been cancelled-out with the union of the self and popularist possibility: the death of (G)od has left the artist to the caprice of 'the possible.'

The artist 'knows' that his assertions might be impotent; thereby making them so.

Another empire that has fallen to nothingness.

Todays "artist", todays elitist, todays aesthete, (now like everyone else) will say:

"Or has it...?"

Hippy
Monday, August 28th, 2006, 03:30 AM
That emboldened denial of the idiomatic approach to his age, the spirit of omnae movre lapidem and "on the contrary!" that, in itself, separated him from the majority?

Do you mean "omnem movere lapidem" (to move every stone")?

Bridie
Monday, August 28th, 2006, 09:07 AM
Art is now 'inside' and comes out; rather than 'outside' comming in. Art has always been this way... by necessity, as art is the product and the process of creation. Art has always been, and will always be, an interpretation.... even the most quantified, classical of artworks are at the mercy of the artist.

The difference in my mind between modern (and postmodern) art and preceding eras in art is a question of boundaries, nothing more. Intentions haven't so much changed, as the rules of engagement.



Another empire that has fallen to nothingness.
After total de-construction there is only one place left to go.... re-construction. But this process is as old as time itself. There is nothing new in this world.

SuuT
Monday, August 28th, 2006, 10:11 AM
Do you mean "omnem movere lapidem" (to move every stone")?

I did indeed! (Or: "to leave no stone unturned", rather) Thank you. The older I get the worse my spelling gets. Had I known the thing would end up thread of the day, I wouldn't have 'off-the-cuffed' so much of it.

Quote:
Art is now 'inside' and comes out; rather than 'outside' comming in.
What I mean is the remarkable paradigm shift, speed with which it took place, and its reflection of the 'nihilism' of the post-modernism era of Aesthetics: from realism to abstraction in the proverbial blink of eye.

Art has always been this way... by necessity, as art is the product and the process of creation.

For the most; however, dadism, for example, (with its mantra of destruction is creation) still has not reached 'bottom', as it were: as we speak, I've a friend who thinks, and he may be right, that he has found the end to abstract art, in a dadistic fasion, by way of an algorithm he has discovered.

Art has always been, and will always be, an interpretation.... even the most quantified, classical of artworks are at the mercy of the artist.

Unless the artist must be separated from his work to take the work seriously: Picasso was a notorious cad--yet his "Guernica" hangs at the UN.

The difference in my mind between modern (and postmodern) art and preceding eras in art is a question of boundaries, nothing more. Intentions haven't so much changed, as the rules of engagement.

Well, there we would differ considerably!

Boundaries only began to be questioned as abstract art began to come to the fore: this may very well be a symptom of something much larger than art; and yet aesthetic. To the latter portion of your statement, I think both have changed. In fact, I think it beyond question.

(I)ntention (capital "I" Intention: the philosophical (I)ntention) was a notion fathered by abstract artists; and birthed by a philosophy that, necessarily, accompanied this art as it became more and more internalised.




Quote:
Another empire that has fallen to nothingness.

... There is nothing new in this world.

Then there is nothing old, either.

Duchamp:

http://www.understandingduchamp.com/

Carl Andre:

http://users.erols.com/ries/article1991CA.htm

Christo:

http://www.leninimports.com/christo_bio.html

Kasimir Malevich:

http://petersburgcity.com/news/culture/2002/06/21/news2956/print.phtml

"Suprematism"

http://www.rollins.edu/Foreign_Lang/Russian/suprem.html

"Guernica"

http://www.mala.bc.ca/~lanes/english/hemngway/picasso/guernica.htm



When I am in my painting, I'm not aware of what I'm doing. It's only after a sort of "get acquainted" period that I see what I have been about. I have no fears about making changes, destroying the image, etc., because the painting has a life of its own.



Jackson Pollock: quoted in Possibilities I, Winter 1947-48

Moody
Friday, September 1st, 2006, 04:00 PM
What has happened to the ego of the artist?

Before the Renaissance, the [western] artist had little 'ego', as he was a mere artisan, a servant.

His place in the world was hardly elevated; his most common name was anon.

Even then did he reflect the orthodoxy of the age which demanded that mankind be humbled before God.

Only God had an ego.

With the rediscovery of pagan Classicism in the Renaissance, the artist began to see that there was another way - that man was in fact among the gods, and that man's creativity could rival the gods.

From here we have the creation of the notion of the artistic genius and the renaissance man.

This is when the artist discovered his ego.

The ego of human genius was now going to conquer the world.

But, alas, just as he had discovered that man and not God was the measure of all things, he began to suspect that life was without an intrinsic and transcendent purpose.

"Life has no higher meaning and we are mere accidents in a purposeless universe"; - why, even the artist and his work is meaningless!

What could be more comic than 'the Great Artistic Genius' in all his pretentiousness!?!

Now no-one has an ego.

Once more the artist returns to anon; an egoless atom in an egoless world.

This is the world of the Last Man.

Thulean Imperial Inquisitor
Friday, September 1st, 2006, 09:54 PM
What about the artist who expresses his self (not his ego), his racial Subconcious, trough his work: his race-soul through his works: what about him?

Such artists have always been. I'm sure.


http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=72052&stc=1&d=1157143826
Prometheus by Maxfield Parrish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxfield_Parrish)

Moody
Sunday, September 3rd, 2006, 01:24 PM
What about the artist who expresses his self (not his ego), his racial Subconcious, trough his work: his race-soul through his works: what about him?
Such artists have always been. I'm sure.


But when the predominant cultural ethos is anti-racist, or glorifies race-mixing, then the artists working in that milieu will express an anti-racist, or a race-mixing consciousness.

These are forms of egoless art that are common in Modernism.



Kasimir Maleavich and his "Black Square"

Abstract Art is typically Semitic [note the Jewish, Islamist, and Early Christian prohibitions against making images].

Figurative Art is Aryan.

Not only that, but we note the [concommitant] exaltation of ugliness amongst the Semites.
Note how Evil is seen sometimes as beautiful [e.g., Lucifer].

The exultation of a non-moral beauty is Aryan.