[Realism Now!]  [Perf Art MAIN page]
The Performed Art Act
See also:  [(art) concepts]
                  [Art Movements]
                  [Coerced performance]

                  [Performed Art]
                  [The Performed Danse]
                  [Performed Art: Filmed]
                  [The Performed Performance]
                  [The Performed Score]
                  [Performed Text]
                  [The Performed UFO's] (and esp, etc)

           [Dada]
               [Dadaism]  (an art "ism")
               [Performance frank:  Realism Now!]
                  [Fluxus]
                  [Street Art]
                  [Interventionist Art]
                  [T.A.Z.] (Association for Ontological Anarchy)
                                                    (Hakim Bey, chief janitor)               
           [Frank's stuff]

The Performed Art Act

On this page:  {Intro}
               {Stuff}
               {Perf art vs Theatre}
               {Danse}
               {Artist} 
               {Art Act as Thought/Research}

  

Intro
  

  

Stuff
  
             
  

Perf art vs Theatre

See also:  -[Performance Art as Art]- (irreproducible)
 
So, what are the aesthetics of peformance art as opposed
to theatre? Do we need restrict our definition/usage of
theatre to "traditional theatre" -- whatever that is; ie,
elisabethian, classical greece, Mollier vs the 1800c ??

More directly:

   What are the particular aesthetics that 
   select/differentiate between 
 
            performed text 
   and
            performance;per se
?
 (it is recommended to listen to the 1st movemetn of
  Prokofiev's Symp #2 (yes; number 2, and NOT the classical)

(an old beige rain coat might help as well)

We take as read text as text as text as text
read as simple recitation and/or discussion, etc.

Even if i speak as non chalantly as possible the words

  To be or not to be 

  (or their equivalents in Klingon)

there is almsot no way that i can do so without destroying
context at that moment.  

Or, as certainly one of the most feared (or one assume so)
poets of Plato, has sed:

   >>In ancient times, paintings we-
     re given their finishing touches
     in stages. Each day brought so-
     mething new. A painting used
     to be sume of actions. In my 
     case, a painting is the sum of
     destructions. I paint a work, and
     then I destroy it.<<
            -- Pablo Ruiz Picasso

Thus, in the case of Hamlet's words (arguably the most famous words
in the Language English!), we can not escape their weight of 
destruction. Imagine a clown of most comic proportions, who 
suddenly "strikes a pose" and utters them, or a dictator
(eg, Hitler, Nero, Cardinal Jimenez, etc) - that is, the two
anti-podes of human existence (nilhilism vs obliteration).
In either case, their preceding remarks/actions/etc are 
struck into another unvierse this sort of *ultimate* dividing
mark: "To be or not to be".

Of course, we cheat here, since the words would have little
meaning prior to the widespread knowledge of Hamlet, it's
performances, and the "soaking in" of the work as pure text.

Note that only the the case of Hitler and his time (the 1900c),
would his audience be aware of what the words meant - whether
spoken in English or not. We might well ask if there have
"always" been such words?

Thus, we might have found some equivalent in the time of
the the Roman or Catholic scourages of equal maginitude in
the denigration and derrogation of the human spirit. But,
we would find such words useful in any event.

In the modern context, uttering "Fire" in a theatre, or
the word "gun" in the presence of secret service agents
protecting a president, king, or other official would be
the only equivalent in destructive power. Here, quite
literally so. 

And what of the words of a doctor concerning some critical
results of a test? For example, an "HIV" test? In my own 
case, i had determined if indeed i was still "hiv free"
i would say a certain thing from a certain play - sort
of thanks to the mues for sparing my life (at least for
a little while, and in this major way). The lab tech
got my file, went back to the back of the office - 
through which i could see him looking at my file. The
passage from the reception room, led past the desk that
served as the reception, down a darkish hall, and into
THE ROOM (that is, the room where people were counciled
when the news was not good). And the ages clicked by,
the tech (way "back there") continued, looking at the
sheets stapled to my file. 

An infinity of time passed as inifnity does (as it does 
at about 3 minutes into Satie's "Ballet Realiste"). 
Finally (as it turned out, i had had a liver cancer
test done as well, and of course, that was a bit 
unusual).... oh, you're all right..... (sed he')

so out sprang these works,

  Very well, then we shall have a new opera.   
  And Herr Mozart shall write it. And it shall
  be in German; there 'tis, then.

Odd, how performance just "happens".

START AGAIN



Interactions/Themes

I want to again return to the I/A (inter/action) of the performers
and the audience. At the lowest level is the stage itself and any
props in it. We as observers see (or hear if the "prop" is an SFX)
etc "from the space". Anyway....

We take as read (for this part of the discussion) that t
the observor/observed extends to not only the actors on
the stage (custome, their physical appearance, etc) but
to the stage (theatre, where they are sitting in the
theatre - ?shakespeare in the park?, etc), and then the
props, lighting, and of course music, Snd F/X, etc. 

In various plays, signs or set props can be "dropped in" to the
set; eg, via the so-called "fly system" of counter weights. And
of course a sign which is in darkness can be lit up at a certain
point of the performance. And of course, with the advent of
projectors and such, these things can be quite intrusive (either
in a good or a bad way - but mostly in varying degrees of 
"much-ness").  [Note 1] (Jacques Lassaigne's ideas on L/D)

Note that this is different with the way that signs (to confine
ourselves) for the moment manifest themselves in film. The film
is much more directed and forced in its presentation - and of 
course editing has much to do with that. For example, in the
film "2001", a sign lights up (with attendant sound) saying:

    LIFE SIGNS CRITICAL

Of course for film this sort of "mise en scene" (shouldn't
that be mise dans scene ???) is part and parcel to not only
the economies of making a movie, but the look and feel.

[Note that in the case of V/R the mise en scene is actually
the actors themselves and the "scene" (being V/R) is the
main prop - as is all scene work (even the "void" or even
"the road, mound, and tree" in Beckett's "Waiting for Godot", etc.]

   -[Performed Art: Filmed]-


That effect can of course be simulated in a live performance
with either the fly system or lighting effects. And of course
a similar effect can be achieved by actors speaking certain
words at certain times; eg, the "stage manager" in "Our Town".

So, somewhere in there is the nature of what we might use in
a performance work. We might hae prepared cards with words or
phrases on them - and in interactive (I/A) performance we might
allow the participants to write phrases (or at the very least
choose cards, etc). 

In one limit of this is of course traditional theatre where the
audience are essentially bumps on a log and only view but do
not inter-act (or ostensibly so) with the performance. Somewhere
in the middle of the range is the game show - where the 
players direct the action of the game; subject to varying 
degrees of rules and/or other attributes of the game.

At the other limit is of course totally free-form interaction
that we find if people are given a space in which to do pretty
much anything. But, again the things that are available (either
by accident or intent of the artist/designer) set up parameters
of the game. Consider the absurdist conditions created by 
Monty Python's "World Hide and Seek" contest - the players can
range all over the world, and involve years of play. 

But, these variants on the "observed play" that are presented 
as entertainments have some purpose - we presume. 

One aspect of art is to either deny/negate/amplify the contexts
of normal behaviour. For example, a game show could be constructed
where the "pay off" is knowledge itself - thus attempting to 
negate the under-laying consumer-based materialism of such shows in
general. Of course, then we have the advent of "survior" or "real tv"
shows. Which are both fictions - but the audience is supposed
to not know that - which i'd assume that only a dolt would not
know the ficticious b/g of the shows. I mean how many people
actually THINK (?!) that a company would put someone on TV
and actually put them in harm's way??? Especially on the celeb
survivor things. It might actually be interesting to "stage"
the death (even murder???) of someone (eg, Agatha Christie's
"And then there were none" - aka "Ten Little Indians") and then
of course have it turn out to be real. This of course (now that
i think of it) //'s (parallel's) Neil Simon's "Murder by Death".
And of course tha would lead to theatre of the absurd, python, etc.

Thus, tv seems to be the dominant measure of "success" of art and
such - which of course is antithetical to art, poetry, story telling,
and other authentic experiences. But of course, along that line
goes the old debate of whether or not the "on-line" life is worth
living. The answer (as with other such aesthetic questions) goes 
back to the nature of the "game". 

Thus, the museum experience is a value-less game.  It's only 
possible reward is personal enlightenment - unless the museum 
becomes a "battle ground" or "playing field" for some "meta game".
But, we need not go that far to see how the "game show" and
"material advantage" motifs have invaded normal experience.
We need only look at "teaching the test" which is now much
the measure of the effectiveness of education. And of course
"making the grade", "honors lists", and such are all in the
competitive model as well. 

Of course, the intrusion of tv life (or at the very least its
commercialist and consumeristic manifestations) into normal life
is just more of "The Matrix". That, is more and more "normal"
behaviour is moulded into the flow and model of the game show,
the action-adventure film, other "warm and fuzzy" versions that
fill the air waves. One problem that i see is the disappearance
of text. Almost every thing on tv/films/etc is presented as 
visual experiences (as well as a very small sub-set of auditory
experiences) - or in the words of John Cage (when talking about
music) - many patterns are possible, few are tried.

*********  BONUS TRACK - this section only ****************

It occurs to me that "lab experiments" are form of theatre in which
the ideas of science (usually) are transmitted by participatory 
involvement. While we could imagine a play being acted out and
the viewers being actors/directors/fx-people/etc that are in the
process of critiquing/re-directing/editing the on-going play - we
usually see the lab as a "hands-on" experience designed to teach
the students things the subject. This is in keeping with the 
Confucian dictim:

    If i hear about somethng, then i know.
    If i see something, then i understand.
    If i do somethng, then i remember. 

Thus, lab experiments are essentially theatre with a very intense
kind of interaction 

      

Danse

So, how do we "deal" with danse? how are its aethetics
reflected in the flat world of 2 diminensional art is:

  (Philip Glass's "itaipu" may be of help here)

So let us start with a "view from a above", We might
imagine the danseurs with arms akimbo - out to the sides
of their bodies.  And yet the bodies are not straight
down poles onto which these angular things are attached.

They are sinuous and sensual - the very body of the body,
and then with amrs and legs the magnetism of action is
thrust out and taken back in to and from the torso and
head. And the head, more massive than the arms or feet 
- and of course carrying with it the mind, face and
senses.

And one person in the danse to the next (in the case of
the 11 dots, perhaps) they fan out and inter-act.

But, in the painting - everything is static. Even Matiss'es
lines lines lines-curving, one picking up where the last one
left off, and in the end the lines ending only when they can
begin again to enclose the "surfaces" round, angualar, sharp,
rounded and rounded - lithe and sensuous again. STATIC, and
yet flowing in the mind's time but not the time of the canvas.

Static, and yet flowing with line texture and qualities of line,
flows of lines separate and grouped, shaded and shadowed the
lines echoing and re-capitulating each other and then cresendoing
into infinite darkness of line OVER line over line on top of line,
adding and adding until the paper nearly tares.  And then line
from line from line FROM line subtracting until a whiteness that
the paper never could have had is revealed. 

Torents of swift lines flowing at infinite speeds, frozen in time
timeless disolving into nothing. and the then contrast having its
final say in both the blinding whiteness of the lightening of the
mind - and an infite abyss of darkness that only a mirror can 
penetrate.

So, finally there is nothing "save empty space and you; and you are
but a fiction, a lie, a truth that has no mirror not even that of
reality" - or so, Twain has told us.  And then the rolls of paper
cascade into our mind's eye and all the colours of black and black
and BLACK cascade into the whiteness of nothing's infinite diversity.

And awakened from this dream of nightmare we enter traipsing about
in shadows of colour -pastells that flake and crumble dustless to
the floor, and liquidituy is no where to be found, and the billowing
of sheets of flaxen linnen escape the drying line and fly out out
out the window into an azure sea that turns that pale blue that
only matisse, picasso and you could have ever imagined. And then
the brownnesses of texture and dark greens of the curtains weigh down
the very wind until the floor becmes covered in grey grayness until
it is folded and built up in textures of cloth of quickly fading
colours. 

And into the middle a slow wave flows outwards like the circles of
a lake - but flattening the canvases into flater and flat flat flat
lime stone textures of the shadow of lizard's dustless foot print,
and the danceurs then again begin to slowly walk to their first
positions. and then frozen, they then merge downward into the floor
into into its top ness never to move again - captured at last in
small lines oddly arranged  - one line leading to the next until
there is only the grey line on the pale pale pale green-gray limestone
with its sublte textures.

(and then silence)




Stuff

So, again we come to what is it that we do?

How does it vary/differ/similar (cf/qv) with other arts and of 
course the age old "Well a child could do that!" comments.

I take it as read that the "they" in this case are people who in
the Sartrean sense come in good faith to try to understand art 
and what it is that we do. But, in reality they just still don't
get it.

The argument goes to the idea that it all is rather simple.
We go back to the ancient Egyptian Hierglypic epigram:

     There is no art that can not be mastered;
     And yet there is no one that is 
         treuly the master of any art.

The mechanics is simply a matter (as Betty Edwards tells us)
"It's easy, once you get beyond the first 5_000 mistakes".

Which i think is a good place to start. We do that don't we? We do
something wrong 3 or 4 hundred times (or at the very least 42, i'd say)
and then we keep on doing it. When we come across some small nuance,
almost a sniggling little jot; a zert if you will - althought it could
well be "just" a zirt instead of a zert. Some small twiddle in the way
that we are doing something. And then we notice it - "Ah!; the art moment!"
we will later say. And like the mathematician (here i draw upon Poincaire's
essay on the creative process of proof and such), it is when we are almost
not paying attention, that it comes to us. But, then in a way we are 
always paying attention, we can't help it. We are taught (and if we be
treuly ready to enter in *every* level of Sartre's "good faith"), we 
willingly go into the mode where ALL we are is to notice. We that which
(in a 'pataphysical sense) notices, that which attends; ie, we become
that which becomes the infinitely reflecting mirror. And as such, since
what we reflect must necessarily "stretch across the curve of the 
universe" and thus, be reflected onto the "back-side" of the mirror
that is - and that bare, raw self that is our mind (or what-ever it is)
becomes the note of the noted. It becomes the footnote that we think
is the distinguishing mark of our seeing of "the thing" (or a thing,
or any thing, etc).

In that moment, everything that we are up to that point is focused in
an almost mindless way (or else in some sort of ultimately mind-full way)
onto that small "jot". And then that jot becomes the starting point, 
the pivot if you will. And here we might think of a Kung Fu movie, in
the present day where the two fighters are frozen in mid stride/leap/etc
-- and then the "camera angle is taken around at all views -- but, of
course NOT all, just the 360 (or 180) staying parallel to the earth,
to the floor, to the room's "down-ward-ness". 

But, when this "jot-noticing" occurs, there is no dimensionality at all.
It is some sort of meta-dimension. The way that the negative space between
two fronds of a leaf, or gap in space between the fore and back ground, or
pattern of light and dark. In that "meta-moment" of creativity, there ceases
to be *any* referenece - the "jot" itself becomes the entire universe.
And yet, we are hyper aware that this jot-lit is still this very small
thing: Atomic, micro-scopic, absolutely non-ness - having NO dimension
what-so-ever. In fact negating dimensionality entirely. 

And going further, that this zotlet is both a similarity and a differentiality
of its own nature. It sets up all that we know and understand NOT in some
sort of classifcation or ranking (that horrible word: ranking), but in 
explosion of thought/idea/concept/consciousness that in that moment (which
of course is time-less and yet time-full at the same "time") everything
is both "tested and found wanting" --and--  "completed" by this new insight.

And the world is never the same again for us having expierienced this latest
of ideas and (if we give it lease) it takes us over and re-capitulates every
thing that we know or have done before or sense that. It becomes in our
consciousness (which is now returnng since the "art moment" has become
achored and weighed/tested/assessed in that moment of the past), and then
following its discovery: It becomes this snick or stub or the errant 
brush hair or the exception to every rule. And at the same time, all of
the similarities and differences flow by the idea in a wordless stream
juxtapositions that are both contrasting and similarities - but so far
beyond "mere contrasts" or "mere likenesses" forming a point in 
our meta-physical space of discovery that is both a nub/seed/jut-out
as well as the universe of all-inclusion, instantly filling all voids
and then becoming all voids in our minds.

(well, it's a start)...


       
  

Artist

Say put on an act where we act as an artist?


  

The "Portrayed Artist"

There are two examples that come to mind:

  The filme ??name?? about the ??artists-name?? where in 
  the *actual* artist Sun Doo Kim (or more properly Kim Sun-Doo)
  artist uses his HANDS for the close-ups of the actor ??actors-name??
  who is portraying the artist.

  And of course "Pollock" where Ed Harris was coached by the art
  director ??art-directors-name?? on how to paint. The idea is
  that (unless he was an artist as were "Captain BeefHeart"
  (Dan Van Vlet) or Fred Gwynne ("Herman Munster) later in life),
  then he is an actor acting as an artist.

Compare and contrast this with Tom Hulce who played "Mozart" in
"Amadeus" (1984) and actually plays the piano. 

Or Clint Eastwood who in "In the Line of Fire" (1993) played 
"Frank Horrigan" who in turn is based (loosely) on the real-life 
Secret Service Agent ??persons-name?? who was on duty when Kennedy 
was assasinated. And if *that* isn't looking glass enough for you,
the part of Eastwood's character was modified/written to feature
him as jazz pianist - which in point of fact Eastwood is in
real life. 

Similarly in the film "HopScotch" (1980) Walter Matthau plays a
cold-war agent and the part is modified/written so that the 
character likes Mozart - which Matthau does in real life. In fact
much of the music in the film is tailored around Mozart's work. 

Or in "The Time Machine (2002 - re-make) where the part of the
libary assistant hologram "Vox" played by Orlando Jones has him
exit the viewing area -- similar to when you close MicroSoft Word
and the paper-clip PDC (Personal Digital Character) turns into
a bicycle and drives off the page. Anyway, the sound or actual director
knew of Jones' love of Star Trek and so added the "swoosh-shhtchump"
sound of the sliding doors on the Enterprise.

Or then at a deeper level where the actors seek out the parts 
because the film says what they feel; eg, Peter Sellers calling
the author Jerzy Kosinski that he wanted to make "Being There" 
and play the part of "Chauncy Gardner". Similarly, when the
film "Gandhi" was being cast, the person ??actors-name?? who
specifically wanted to play the horrible jail master in South
Africa because, "I know what that kind of person is like, and
i wanted to play it as ruthlessly as possible - so that my
daughter would see what can happen in our world" -- by NO MEANS
an exact quote, but i'd say 90-99% on the mark as to the actor's
intent.
(And no, i haven't see it yet - yes, i know; i have a kilo-zillion
things to do, and they're all marked TRIPLE-A-PLUS-HIGHEST-PRIORITY)


START AGAIN

Anyway, this "mixing of modes" (mixed media???) is pretty much 
accepted in real life. And when the viewer sees them incorporated
into film, it adds "just that bit more". 

So, we begin to see the cross currents and bifurcations (branching/mixing)
and such:

    The artist painting (say in a documentary) and then talking
    about their art/ideas/life as they do so.

    The actor's own ideas/preferences worked into the story line.

    etc

Note that for the actor (the actor is "only" human, and indeed 
the actor IS only human), these aspects are equivalent to what 
we do when we paint using symbols or such. I'd say that the 
*strength* of the horse as symbol in Picasso's "Guernica" is the 
same as James Wood's (playing "Senator Kitz") acting intensity 
in cross examining Jody Foster (playing "Dr. Arroway") in the 
film "Contact" (1997). The actor has only their self as art 
element (with perhaps a prop). It would be as if we were a 
canvas and paint, or as if a danseur *was* flow, movement, 
pause, and rhythm. Sort of meta-physical, what?

Thus, as such there is no "pure performance" - anymore than there
is a pure re-creation of the creative act. The actor/danseur/musician
is *in* the moment of performance. And yet as we "perform" we are not
aware of it except on occasion. If we/they (all of us chickens) were
more than marginally aware of what we were doing then we would "fall
out of time/act/creation". Imagine if a pianist was totally aware 
during the 3rd movement of a piano concerto of every note that they
were playing. It is the continued practicing/exercises that makes a
particular chord or transition "automatic" otherwise they would "stutter" 
from one note to the next. An example of this was clearly demonstrated 
in Jonthan Miller's TV series on the human body "The Body in Question"
when he had Dudley Moore (best known as a comedian) play a bit of 
a piano work from memory, and then play it but transforming it into
another key. He was v. much forced to *think* - the performance was
stilted, and then jumping, and then stilted: As his brain had to
de-construct (dis-assemble), transform (translate), and then 
re-construct (play) the piece. 

Thus, this goes back to Betty Edwards (best known as the author of
"Drawing on the Artist Within" and "Drawing on the Right Side of the
Brain") who said it best: "[Art is] easy; once you get past the first
5000 mistakes".

Thus, even though we (at the very least suspending dis-belief/analysis/etc)
"see" a performance of an actor that seems flawless (or even when it is 
flawed), we are seeing the externalisation of how they are as an actor
(sum of all parts/talents/ideas/etc), how the piece uses them to be
performed, and of course WYSIWYG - What you see is what you get: the act
not as act but as authentic expression/experience/existince.

Similarly, when we paint the mental states that make us up when we pick up
the brush (environment/body-feelings/music|sound/lighting/emotional-state/etc)
are all in the mix as well. But, as with the rehearsed musical/act/danse, the
expression just doesn't happen. Our clearest example is of course from Guernica
which because of the intensity of that act of pure creation probably comes 
cloest to "the art act" stripped bare. And that it (like many major works 
that we all work on) roiled on and on in Picasso's mind for days on end
and the fact that his friend photographed it as it went along, and the 
fact that the motivation of the intense emotion that must of continually
possessed and re-possesd him (even almost certainly haunting his dreams)
to finally create the work itself: All of that was the art act performed.

I would go so far as to say that the art act (in such cases as this, and
rarely so intensely in normal practice - we can see where it led van Gogh
when he (as i put it "tried to be colour", "tried to be texture", etc) was
in the creative fughes in which the self does actually disappear: Then he
*was* art; art with out consciousness. I think that this parallels (and
perhaps is even an example of) Sartre's ideas of thinking, thinking about
thinking, and thinking without thinking that he explores so well -- if a
bit difficult to understand (words as gORAN has said are the least efficient
way to describe what art is; like comparing the processing time of a disk-drive
to RAM) -- that WHEN WE ARE (in the act of creation). Then we aren't even
aware of it as "act" (in all of the senses) and in that state where to act,
to create, to draw/paint/make - these states of being come back into us
as we finish or pause. And i would hazard a guess that this is the same
"way of being" (altough prob not exactly the same) for the singer, danseur, etc.

Finally, i just wanted to talk about what are called "Koesler Discoveries"
or "Koesler Acts of Insight". That is, what he described as being things 
that "just happen" but that they can only happen (if i understand it correctly)
*because* we have been prepared, trained, and mostly already thinking about
either the problem at hand, or at the very least problems like that.

thought lost!!!! interruptions!!! drub the world!!!! (no wonder the human 
race finds the only thing that it's good at is war, hatred, predjudice and
raining on someone else's parade and judging the quality of life (ie, it's $$$$ value!!!)
as how much raw hamburger you can shove up you nose (JLO'Trek reference/quote).

arrggggggghhhhhh!  (oh, well. back to the TV - the thought is gone, maybe a crumb from
me will entice it back?)


        

Art Act as Thought/Research

Art Act as Thought/Research.

Of course if the act of painting itself can be a "performance piece", 
then what about the way that we think about art, or the way that we
do research that goes into making art - or at least "informs" our art
work(s)?

I had just started on "Carnap is where you find it" and the idea is 
that it is an installed space that re-creates/depends upon the way
that the light falls in through the array of columns and then of 
course this goes forward (thru the past - which is far in the future
of Carnap) to the way in which light flows through/into/onto an 
object in nature, of course that object can be a painting. And of
course is most commonly (and most importantly) a painting installed
into a space or esp. a statue.

And then, i had begun work on "Towards a phylogeny/history" of the
mark as mark and realised that (as i was preparing the b/g cartoons
for it), that the process of creating the pages (web pages or even
"just" pages for publication, galley sheets, etc) was also an art
work being created/performed.

hmmmm..

v. tired. will rest, and return soonest.

747pm

So, the process of us as we pursue the expression of the 
somethingness of the what that we are (for the moment)
focus-ing on. And then if we are writing about it. Then
we stop one kind of creative process and then open up 
the section of the mind that deals with the text ABOUT
the art. Thus, the meta-art (in this case: the discussion
about the creation/nature/ of the art work itself) becomes
the *distracting* focus. Again this goes back to the idea
that if we are talking about art, then we aren't doing art 
-- or at the very least, we are doing a totally different 
kind of art. Of course if the text and the discussion about
the the text are the art to be produced/examined then at least
they are in the "same way" as each other in terms of the
type of art-thing that they are.

But.

What if they aren't?

As i'm writing "Phylogeny/History of Surealm-ist art" which
must nessarily be minimalist - and therefore close to being
non-art (but prob NOT being near anti-art or pop-art), if i
restrict myself to a minimalist discussion (almost a sort of
baby talk about the art), then i do a dis-service to the work
itself. For example, i can no more ignore the history of art
as a guide to the process of building an hierarchical ladder
of the tree of "minimalist art". Thus, i proceed in and out
of "time" - that is, backward and forward into the history 
of time to find *references* to what i need/want to say about
the marks at a given point on the ladder. (We assume that for
the moment we're simply talking about a linear, non-branching
ladder. But, we know that some things just don't match the
concept of time.  After all, how do we as artists (and for the
moment taking off the art historian's hat - or at least the
baseball cap that we often don) place Malevich's "Black Square"
with the work of (eg) Rhine Adhardt?  They are almost literally
a 100 years apart in terms of time, but on the exact same 
page in terms of design - let alone the moment-just-past of their
own place in their own small puddle of time. 

Thus, we construct these almost fantasies of "simple to complex" 
or "un-textured to sculptural to actual-sculpture", etc - and we
do so, in our constructions of *understanding* which of course,
upon reflection/absorption/expression change the what-ness (and
of course how-ness) of our art works. But, we return to the 
idea that the "conversation" or "textual story" that we are 
constructing as we think about the ark work lead to evolution, 
change, or just cf/qv (contast/compare) of the different aspects 
of the art works. That is, the "art history" or "documentary" is
still removed from the art work - even if we are the artist. This
goes back to being too close to the forest for the trees and of
course the problem that while we are thinking about thinking then
we aren't thinking (well at least normally) - as Sartre reminds us.

Thus, one approach is to simply to create the cascade of art works
one from the next, etc. And then reflect back on them. Of course, 
we do this all the time - but the idea is to begin to build "scripts"
as to how we create art works. And that these scripts should be of
consciously different natures. We do this anyway, for example, when 
we specifically do an art work in the cubist, surrealist, abex, trad,
etc styles. And of course, when we choose the medium (or media/mixed)
to execute either the work, or even one aspect of it. In the same way
if we decide to execute say a painting a day for 356 days during a 
particular year of our life, we decide to execute a series of blind
contour drawings each timed and each 30 seconds long. Thus, we might
use time (planned/directed or sporadic/interrupted) as a differentiating
element of a series of work. Of we, might use the text about it as
we consciously decide to use it as a "program" directing our actions.
 

Phylogeny/History - Deconstruction
(or at least a decomposition)

Let's examine the process that i was undergoing
while working on this project.

Overtly, the project is to take mark (think a dot
or other minimal thing on a canvas) and see how we
can tweek it "upward" from nothingness to create an
ascending ladder/tree of how mark evolves or at the
very least gets more and more complex and at each 
stage seeing how these prototypes have manifested
themselves into various actual art work.   

Of course, the original project was just searching for
those forms and how to create a minimal back-bone/tree
of the various mark additions.

But, then came the idea (synthesis and/or translation) of
each "milestone" into the corresponding art object(s). Of
course, this idea of translating rather long and distinguished
history in terms of art history - but in the reverse direction.
In comparing/contrasting different art works, we pick out
details (brush stroke, use of shading, etc) as the "elemental"
objects of an artwork and use that as the criterium for talking
about a particular aspect of style/content/medium/etc. 

But, then of course this process of "exampling" each mark with
an artwork is in itself a form of translation/commentation - in
short a process of *creativity*. Thus, in a similar way, when 
i bring my analytical skills to go back and forth between art
objects (that i know/have-studied) and this theoretical frame
work that i am wanting to create - then that is this process of 
exampling/reducing:

    exampling: The translation/extraction/etc of the minmal
               node on my hierarchical design tree of the mark
               into a known art object - or what easily described.

    reducing: The decomposition/extraction/etc of the art work
              into a particular element that either fits into my
              hierarchcial design tree - or by the artwork's very
              existence forces me to create a new node and fit it
              "somehow" into my nice, orderly *view* of the universe.

Of course in reality this process *must* (i would nervously maintain)
be at least part of the under-laying narrative/experimentation/thinking
of the minimalists (and other movements) - esp in such direct examples
as "die stehl", "the blue rider", and of course of the minimalists
themselves - so declared after almost an entire century of incubation.

And of course, in reality this process is at least part of what we do
in the normal course of creativity in the production of a new work of
art. 

So, it's all circularity after all - and (some of the harshest words)
of all:  As to what i so brilliantly conceived as a break thru is:

            Nothing new here.

(but, still i pick up the brush (in this case digital) "and go on"...

--42-- 

Notes
(this section only)

[Note 1] (Jacques Lassaigne's ideas on L/D)



[1]  We often (as "moderns") talk about "light is life" or
     "being in the limelight" (ie, the centre of attention).
And i came across this by the artist/historian Jacques Lassaigne:

BEGIN BLOCK QUOTE ================================================

[P. 6]

Degas and the Lighting Effects

Degas was much attracted to the smoke-laden cafe's, 
to the atmosphere of the theatres, stage wings, 
ballet studios, and cabarets. How many lighing 
effects must have been revealed to Degas' eyes
by the briliant gas illuminations and later by the 
ELECTRIC CHANDLIERS THAT WERE INSTALLED IN PLACES 
OF ENTERTAINMENT ABOUT 1900!    - emphasis mine; note the date

Light played a most important role, for without
its vivacity and sparkle the danse halls and 
music halls would have lacked much of their 
mystery and charm. Light was such a strong and
cominating factor, that when the orchestra played
the introduction to the performance, it was 
necessary to banish the light entirely or reduce
it to one fotlight whose intensity was attenuated
for a moment and then slowly increased to support
the singer's entrance.

Under the blaze of the full light, the artist would 
appear all the more radiant and brilliant because
the spectarors were plunged into darkness. The
flickering gas flame would throw its jests of light
onto the crystal pendants of the chandeliers, which
were usually enveloped in a heavy veil of smoke; the
light from the gas flame was fragmented and broken 
by hughe mirros, which were placed along the walls
in order to intensify the ligting effects, to repeat
the images, to create many images of the scene, and 
to create a feeling of enchantment. For the last
quarter of the nineteenth century (1875c) was in 
need of enchantment. [??why????] Then annals of
the Second Empire were over, and the annals of the
future would no longer belong to the aristocracy 
alone.  [hmmmm...]

Crystal chandeliers reflecting gorgeous gowns and
ostrich feathers -- all these luxuries would henceforth
belong to other social classes as well. For it was 
now the turn of the people to seek enjoyment. At the
end of a week of exhausting work, the people wanted
to have their own gala festivals. And that was the
function of th brilliant amusement halls such as the
Moulin de la Galette and, later, the Moulin Rouge.


END BLOCK QUOTE ==================================================

Ref:  Lassaigne, Jacques (1970). Toulouse Latrec and 
                 the Paris of the Cabarets. McCall Publishing, Milan, 
                 SBN 8415.1008.3


See also:  -[Jacques Lassaigne]- (A/H entry on him)

{Back up to the TEXT, above}


[2]

{Back up to the TEXT, above}



[3]

{Back up to the TEXT, above}



[4]

{Back up to the TEXT, above}



[5]

{Back up to the TEXT, above}



[6]

{Back up to the TEXT, above}



[7]

{Back up to the TEXT, above}


[8]

{Back up to the TEXT, above}



[9]

{Back up to the TEXT, above}