jscaff@gmail.com wrote:
> How banal to waggle old, established, officially accepted art with
> snobbish disapproval at new, contemporary art.
>
> Why do you assume that we wish to "surprise" people at sci.lang? Is
> this the extent of your limited imagination? Do you only hold opinions
> of art that are sanctioned by authoritative art journals?
>
> Perhaps surprise is not the point. Perhaps there is no point. Perhaps
> there are a infinite number of points. Art is not created by the
> artist alone, nor the art critic. I don't know if this work will be a
> "pubertary" joke or a masterpiece of Dadaism or an epic poem in the
> tradition of Homer. That is partially up to the participating artists
> who send out their works. But it is also up to the readers.
>
> As Duchamp pointed out: "All in all, the creative act is not performed
> by the artist alone...the spectator brings the work in contact with the
> external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualifications
> and thus adds his contribution to the creative act."
>
> I provide only a small set of symbols, a set of parameters. From the
> moment I clicked "post" this work assumed a life of it's own. It is
> now up the artists to do what they will wit it...or perhaps they do
> nothing? And it is up to the spectators to do what they will with
> it...to love it, to hate it, to interpret it, to be befuddled by it, to
> reject it, or ignore it altogether.
>
> To quote another great Dadaist, Andre Breton: "No rules exist, and
> examples are simply life-savers answering the appeals of rules making
> vain attempts to exist."
I just saw the list of words the flash mobbers of sci.lang
should include in their messages, and that list told it all,
a pubertary joke. The difference with Marcel Duchamp
was that he made a _seemingly_ pubertary joke,
L.H.O.O.Q., elle a chaud au qul, but when you read
this sentence in an inspired manner, adding 'air' as
symbol of the spirit (ru-ach, pneuma, spiritus), you
obtain: elle a chaud oculaire, and when you consider
that warmth for Duchamp was a symbol of liveliness,
and when you understand oculaire as having to do with
the eyes, you obtain about this message: Mona Lisa
appears lively, comes to live when you look into her
eyes. LHOOQ - LOOK - look into her eyes, follow
the very fine ends of the moustache that point to her
pupils and look into her eyes, and you will see her
true smile, which, you will observe, will change with
your moods, for you project your own mood into her
smile, as if looking into a mirror, yet when you look
into a mirror, you see your own face, but when you
look into this very special mirror you see the face
of another person, you don't recognize her smile
as your own projection, it rather seems as if
that women recognized you on a deep level,
could see into your soul, and the smile she
produces is her answer to what she sees in us.
Now we react to it, and see a smile that we would
expect from someone who could actually see
deeply into our soul. And thus it comes that
every art historian and every other person who
looks at the Mona Lisa sees a different smile.
Fine visual psychology. Marcel Duchamp's
apparently pubertarian joke is actually the
first true interpretation of the Mona Lisa.
That's the dadaistic joke, seems pubertarian,
is not pubertarian at all. BTW: my interpretation,
not the official one; new insights can't be
published with academe. As I told you before:
if you wish to surprise as (surprises can be of
a negative or of a positive kind, you know),
you must come up with something really good,
just a pubertarian joke won't do.
Franz Gnaedinger www.seshat.ch
|
|