Re: Virtual Concerto

Subject: Re: Virtual Concerto
From: Michael Gogins (
Date: Thu May 20 2004 - 19:45:47 EDT

Thanks for your wonderful examples. However, I only intended say that for
art to be good it must compel attention, not that all events compelling
attention are art.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Rempel" <Michael@VIDIR.COM>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 2:23 PM
Subject: RE: Virtual Concerto

> > Identifying art in an essentialist manner is fraught with
> > consequences.
> So is exploring art without pushing its definitive boundaries. Merely
> pushing an audience to exceed the mean attention span of a twelve year old
> can be dangerous. Yet onward and upward. (or is that momentum acceptance
> with non-specific direction ward) :-)
> > Duchamp's urinal... is definitely art.
> >
> > I think however, that for art to be good, it must compel the
> > attention of
> > the audience and take their imaginations places that they would not
> > otherwise go.
> >
> > In the case of the urinal, by itself it obviously has no such
> > power; part of
> > the work therefore, is the context and presuppositions that
> > Duchamp and what
> > the audience already knew about him brought along with the
> > porcelain object
> > into its presentation.
> >
> The particular satisfaction of this illustration is that what ever you
> of it, the correct object to dispense with the results are easily at hand.
> Hence Duchmp's genius.
> > Framing is art. A photograph is a frame on a natural process.
> > A recording of
> > a natural sound, a cough, a sexual outcry, leaves blowing in
> > the wind, could
> > be art merely by virtue of being framed in a recording.
> >
> > If as Aristotle said art is the imitation of nature, then
> > framing nature is
> > the simplest and most direct form of art.
> >
> The term frame as used here is an analogy. The analogy presents intent.
> intention may only be to say 'look at this', or it may imply more, as the
> peculiar porcelain does.
> The part of this argument I am wanting to flush is that compelling the
> attention of an audience can be abused. A recording of a police camera in
> high school locker room showing the gang rape of a teenage girl is not
> Yet it is compelling in a grotesque way. I saw an exhibition once, that
> showed a collection of these images, with faces blurred out. I was
> and did not consider the experience to be art. Yet it was the intent of
> exhibit(or)(ionist) to test boundaries of the audiences' artistic
> sensibilities.
> Another boundary testing installation that I recall was quite a success
> happened a long time ago at the University of Manitoba. A dilapidated
> of a building like structure was erected in a scenic part of the banks of
> the Red River. It had new unpainted wood framing and clear plastic walls
> that were shredded to billow in the wind. There was a public outcry over
> waste of money, and exclamations that such a construction could not
> be art. The radio talk shows (a mainstay of life in Winnipeg) were abuzz
> with it. It was wonderful.
> Michael

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:01 EST