Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap

Subject: Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap
From: Michael Gogins (
Date: Thu Jul 01 2004 - 20:23:59 EDT

The object in this case is the found picture -- in the frame. Not just the
found picture. The frame plus picture is art just like Duchamp's urinal. The
picture in a book or album somewhere, without the addition of the frame, is
not art until you change the object to make it art.

I'm not saying all these cases are completely clear cut -- far from it -- I
am simply insisting on the absolute becessity of art being objects that, to
some considerable extent, stand on their own and compel attention and evoke
interpretation(s) without much dependence on context.

Think of the Lescaux pictures.

Or, in other words, I deny the thesis of cultural relativity or (insofar as
I understand them) some post-structuralist notions of art having meaning
only within certain contexts.

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Nowak" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap

> On Jul 1, 2004, at 4:12 PM, John Nowak wrote:
> >
> > On Jul 1, 2004, at 12:44 PM, wrote:
> >
> >> I'm afraid I don't agree that intention counts for much. A TOTALLY
> >> deaf
> >> person (no bone conduction or vibration senses, even) could intend to
> >> create music -- whatever it was, it would be essentially random. Not
> >> noise,
> >> but random. No connection to the intention. Is that music? I don't
> >> think so.
> >
> > I disagree. Anything someone puts in an artistic context must be
> > examined as art... even if it is not the creator who puts it in that
> > context.
> Perhaps I should elaborate. I recently saw at the Guggenheim in NYC an
> exhibit focused around art involving hands. Once of the pieces was just
> dozens of frames, each with a hand holding a pen on them. While it
> certainly appeared as art, the work was actually created originally as
> a means of showing proper drawing technique. It was not intended as art
> even, but someone else intended to show it as art. Therefore, I had to
> view it as such.
> - John

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:02 EST