So if you are in LA this Thursday, I curated a video screening for Film & Video 825 called “The State of the World – Personal reflections on war, politics, society, race and gender.” It’s at the Echo Park Film Center, check out the Calendar page for details.
TheoreticalSundays.
I was having dinner with e x t r e m e l y slow service at a Thai food place in Silverlake last night, when my neighbor and I got into a debate about the nature of art theory – she held that it is objective and I contended that it is subjective. We soon realized our ideas were pretty much polar opposite. So in the morning I sat down and hacked through some woefully inadequate and contradictory definitions of terms in the OED, then jotted some ideas down. I even titled my thoughts and sent them off memo-style for continuation of the discussion.
Feel free to comment – jquinn at rise dash ind dot com.
The Atomic Weight of Cobalt is 58.933195
How to define theory as it relates to art?
If theory is purely objective, as in Science, then this definition should be used:
A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.
“theory 1, n.4.a” The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. OED Online. Oxford University Press.
The problem I see here is that confirmation of a hypothesis relating to art depends upon the personal and “inward thoughts or feelings” of the author of that theory. Though it may be in agreement with other theorists or critics, this agreement between thinkers does not constitute the existence of observable facts, rather it contributes to a set of questionable ideas. Questioning and discussion of these ideas then forms the basis of Art Theory.
I can understand the application of this definition as it relates to the mere physical state of artworks themselves, as there are facts to point to in this case, but still feel the interpretation of those facts, and of particular artworks, puts the theorist firmly into the realm of the subjective.
The very concept of Art Theory seems, to me, to rely on a basis of discussion and argument (of subjective points of view) rather than an attempt at confirmation of some (objective) facts which then are unquestionable – as would be the case with fact.
Rather than tangle with fact and objectivity, I would promote the use of this definition of theory:
A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.
“theory 1, n.5” The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. OED Online. Oxford University Press.
This clearly relates to the subjective view, and speculation about a possible explanation of phenomena (here, the artwork it describes). This seems to me to jibe with the practice of argument and discussion that is theoretical discourse.
Here’s the headline I have been waiting for. Nice work, voter people.
So, my picture appeared in the LA Times yesterday. Naked. Yep. Well, to be accurate, it was my partial, blurry siloutte. But the photo was taken while I was standing around with nothing at all on.
I was posing for a photo series by Johnny Naked, who has a project called The Ever-Changing Naked Picture Project. The title describes it pretty accurately. Its a conceptual photo (maybe even performance?) project where you can purchase a photograph of someone who previously posed in the nude by posing in the nude for the project. Then your photo goes on display in the gallery (and most of them are also online, with heavy watermarking), and the next person gets to buy your photo by posing. Has to be naked of course. But you can determine how you would like to be presented. Oh, and also the photo has to be taken in the gallery itself, so no getting all comfortable in your home. The project has just about run its course, though Johnny is still taking photos, and all of the images so far are on display at Gallery 825 through November 17.
Stan-Douglas-Gordon-Matta-Clark-Gable
Can anyone add to this? Send to words -at- rise-ind -dot- com
Just so you know, Hollywood is still making giant stupid crap blockbuster movies. I know this because they are shooting scenes for LIVE FREE, DIE HARD in my neighborhood this week. Today they closed down my favorite coffee shop (Groundworks!) to either blow something up or tape some brilliant, insightful dialogue. Yippi-Kai-Ai-Motherfucker!
Can you believe that is really what they are calling this shit film? Does Bruce Willis take on the Old Man on the Mountain from New Hampshire? Or perhaps try to keep terrorists from blowing it up, thereby destroying a natural symbol of our american ruggedness and such? Too bad it fell down a while back, but that will give the graphics department down here in Santa Monica something to render at least.
Disclaimer: I loved Die Hard.
Some not so ordinary people. I’ll just post this without comment. Came up while searching for something else entirely.
Some not so ordinary people. I’ll just post this without comment. Came up while searching for something else entirely.
Here’s looking at you from outerspace, tuesdays.
The Hubble telescope is being saved – NASA has approved a repair mission to keep it running until around 2013, earlier this year it looked like there was no way this would happen.
So now I can continue to enjoy the super-super-super high resolution images of way out in space that my favorite satellite provides. Nice work, space bureaucracy people!
Did we remember to post something about the project Michele and I created together for Phantom Galleries? They are a group that arranges artwork to be placed in empty storefronts around Los Angeles, on a temporary basis. For this show in Pasadena, Phantom Galleries contacted McLean Fine Art, who then curated the show from their stable of artists, including us.
Michele and I worked together to create a site-specific, three channel video installation called Here, together. The installation captures our shadows in various parts of the building as cast by light reflected from passing cars, and also has one channel where we attempt to use our two bodies to create ambiguous shadow-shapes. There are some images up on Phantom Galleries’ web site, and maybe we will get around to putting up a video clip here too.
rss feed