 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 18:41:23 -0600, Dan P <dan### [at] yahoo com>
wrote:
>Jim Charter wrote:
>
>> IMBJR wrote:
>>
>>> Please understand that I do not care if my work is taken seriously or
>>> not. I am not here to earn trust. The work merely stands as it does -
>>> as an expression of my mind.
>>
>> Then why show it at all?
>>
>> I thought that Shay's point about establishing trust was quite far
>> reaching and filled in piece of the puzzle for me that I couldn't quite
>> get to in my own mind. In short, it helped me further define what the
>> symbiosis is between an expressive act and the community which it must
>> take place within to have any meaning. This given our mutual stance
>> that private assemblies must be free to establish their own standards
>> for individual freedom internally.
>>
>> No I don't think that a 'work' without an audience can stand on its own.
>> And if you don't engage the community that forms your audience in a
>> genuine way, you don't really have an audience.
>
>I'm starting to think IMBJR's communication with the group is actually
>part of the artistic expression itself.
An interesting angle, but as I say, I'm not really here to create a
dialog, but merely express myself. Of course, all this replying I'm
doing seems to contradict that, but I feel that people's comments are
worth adressing in this instance - just so y'all know where I'm coming
from.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMBJR wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 17:09:36 -0500, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom>
> wrote:
>
>
>>IMBJR wrote:
>>
>
> Because it is a manifestation of my mind, an expression of my self. I
> wish to express myself, I do not necessarily expect to explain that
> expression or have it become a dialog, which is merely two subjective
> entities not understanding one another.
>
Yeah, I'm afraid I demand a little more from an expression now. And I don't
think you are being totally honest with yourself.
>
> Now, I know some of you are really struggling with this odd concept
> but it really is that simple.
>
Not a struggle. I'd expected roughly what your answer would be.
I've asked the same question of artists before, and gotten pretty
much that answer before. One well-known Canadian artist did a rhino
charge at me from across the room, shoved his face belligerently in mine
and
shrieked, "I think that's a hostile question" And then at the top of
his lungs, "Because I did it!"
The answer gave me pause back then. Doesn't much anymore.
But again, though I
think your work varies in consistency, it is usually interesting, and I
believe you are very ambitious and inventive. Many of your strategies
are old hat to me though. That nonsense with your nick for instance. Yawn!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 21:08:14 -0500, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom>
wrote:
>IMBJR wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 17:09:36 -0500, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>IMBJR wrote:
>>>
>
>>
>> Because it is a manifestation of my mind, an expression of my self. I
>> wish to express myself, I do not necessarily expect to explain that
>> expression or have it become a dialog, which is merely two subjective
>> entities not understanding one another.
>>
>
>
>Yeah, I'm afraid I demand a little more from an expression now. And I don't
>think you are being totally honest with yourself.
One never can, but I'm trying hard to in this case as it is a very
simple concept that people seem to struggle with.
>
>>
>> Now, I know some of you are really struggling with this odd concept
>> but it really is that simple.
>>
>
>Not a struggle. I'd expected roughly what your answer would be.
Just because you expect it, does not mean it was not a stuggle.
>
>I've asked the same question of artists before, and gotten pretty
>
>much that answer before. One well-known Canadian artist did a rhino
>
>charge at me from across the room, shoved his face belligerently in mine
>and
>
>shrieked, "I think that's a hostile question" And then at the top of
>
>his lungs, "Because I did it!"
Mmm, obviously something up there. After all, I'm not doing any
charging.
>
>The answer gave me pause back then. Doesn't much anymore.
>
>But again, though I
>
>think your work varies in consistency, it is usually interesting, and I
>believe you are very ambitious and inventive. Many of your strategies
>are old hat to me though. That nonsense with your nick for instance. Yawn!
Work does vary. There are off-days. As for the strategies being old
hat, well I'm also not in the business of making new ones. If an old
one fits the bill for my purposes then I shall use it.
As for the nick name "nonsense" that you yawn at, please give me an
example of where else you have seen that technique used to derive a
word.
>
>
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMBJR wrote:
>
>
> Just because you expect it, does not mean it was not a stuggle.
>
You think you create a struggle for me? Your posture is hardly new,
quite understandable, but no longer very credible to me. Expression,
creative or otherwise, does not exist outside of a discourse to derive
meaning from, and a receiver to be subject to that meaning. If you deny
that necessity then my question to you remains, what are you showing
your work to us for? My own answer is that you do not want to accept
its dependency on an audience and that all audiences are local. And
therefore you are not being totally honest with yourself.
I submit to you that learning to accept this sometimes dreary fact is
what is the struggle.
But you hide behind your passive-aggressive "posting policy" and your
secretly encoded signature.
> Mmm, obviously something up there. After all, I'm not doing any
> charging.
>
I've asked the question before, that's all.
>
> As for the nick name "nonsense" that you yawn at, please give me an
> example of where else you have seen that technique used to derive a
> word.
>
My daughter comes home with various schoolyard games that involve
assigning numbers to letters, applying some calculation then reassigning
letters to the result. Other simple encryption technics might involve
laying out some schema then reparsing it in some other way. But what
makes me yawn is the general posture of secreting away content with a
private method of encoding, hinting at the notion of entropy, and all
with the conceit that no one else gets it. It's neither bad nor good,
valid nor invalid, but you find it often enough in the artworld. Sorry
if I let my scorn show. But you claim not to care how people respond.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter wrote:
> IMBJR wrote:
>
>> Just because you expect it, does not mean it was not a stuggle.
>>
> You think you create a struggle for me? Your posture is hardly new,
> quite understandable, but no longer very credible to me. Expression,
> creative or otherwise, does not exist outside of a discourse to derive
> meaning from, and... <snip />
in*san*i*ty
n. pl. in*san*i*ties
- The act of doing the same thing over and over again
expecting different results.
--
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dan P wrote:
> in*san*i*ty
> n. pl. in*san*i*ties
>
> - The act of doing the same thing over and over again
> expecting different results.
>
>
Alright, alright. I didn't plan to have the last word anyway.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 15:59:41 -0500, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom>
wrote:
>IMBJR wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Just because you expect it, does not mean it was not a stuggle.
>>
>You think you create a struggle for me? Your posture is hardly new,
>quite understandable, but no longer very credible to me. Expression,
>creative or otherwise, does not exist outside of a discourse to derive
>meaning from, and a receiver to be subject to that meaning. If you deny
>that necessity then my question to you remains, what are you showing
>your work to us for? My own answer is that you do not want to accept
>its dependency on an audience and that all audiences are local. And
>therefore you are not being totally honest with yourself.
>
>I submit to you that learning to accept this sometimes dreary fact is
>what is the struggle.
>
>But you hide behind your passive-aggressive "posting policy" and your
>secretly encoded signature.
There's that pass-aggressive double-talk again. tut!
As for secretly-encoded, I reveled the code.
>
>> Mmm, obviously something up there. After all, I'm not doing any
>> charging.
>>
>I've asked the question before, that's all.
>
>>
>> As for the nick name "nonsense" that you yawn at, please give me an
>> example of where else you have seen that technique used to derive a
>> word.
>>
>
>My daughter comes home with various schoolyard games that involve
>assigning numbers to letters, applying some calculation then reassigning
>letters to the result. Other simple encryption technics might involve
>laying out some schema then reparsing it in some other way. But what
>makes me yawn is the general posture of secreting away content with a
>private method of encoding, hinting at the notion of entropy, and all
>with the conceit that no one else gets it. It's neither bad nor good,
>valid nor invalid, but you find it often enough in the artworld. Sorry
>if I let my scorn show. But you claim not to care how people respond.
So what?
I don't care.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
