[Realism Now!]  [Perf Art MAIN page]
So, why bother?
{START}
See also:  [(art) concepts]
                  [Art MovementsPerformed Score]
                [Performed Text]
                [Perf Art/Technology]
                [Performed Why Bother?]

          -[post post-modernism]-

           [Dada]
               [Dadaism]  (an art "ism")
               [Performance frank:  Realism Now!]
                  [Perf-Frank:  Why Bother?]
               [Fluxus]
               [Street Art]
               [T.A.Z.] (Association for Ontological Anarchy)
                                                    (Hakim Bey, chief janitor)               
           [Frank's stuff]
               ["Art Criticism"]
               []
               ["How Kafkaesque!"] (aka "the coin")




START

Being a series of responses to the "ad hominum" (Latin: To the man;
in LOGIC: Attacking the person rather than their arguments; to
impune the reputation of an "opponent").

Anyway...

On this page:


 title? 

The problem is that we have this problem of INTEGRITY.

After all, when all is said and done, that's all that we have:

        Our integrity as an artist.

So, what does THAT mean?

If we copy something and pass it off as our own work (that is,
without annotating it, etc - if we *really* need to - yes, because not
everyone has studied art history).

There is one copy of "The Fountain" done in gold.


So, 90% of all artists know what i'm talking about, right?

No: What about ceramics people?  Or architects?

WHICH fountain?

See, i'm not trying to be snobbish about it, it's
just that we often assume a context.

If we're in a SURREALIST WORKSHOP (say pretty intense
and advanced and such), we *could* presume the context.

But, as with all such things we NEED TO INTRODUCE THE SUBJECT.

Part of this goes back to:

    WOW!! What i have to say is really nice and great!

    And so, i'm just going to pour it out. Might be some
    gaps.

    Then comes discussion:

       So, what did you mean about "Jazz and Bach" ?? 

    Then i'd explain what i meant,
    and then others would add to it - cf/qv (compare/contrast
                           although it might contrast/compare ???)

    And *hopefully* the following would occur:

    a) It would occupy our minds in some sort of really cool
       discussion of the arts, the aesthetics of stuff, etc.

    b) Illuminate, intrigue, stimulate, etc more study.

    c) Be interesting, Be enlightening or be confusing -
       but hopefully not to the extent to be frurstratingly 
       down-taking.

    etc....

Perf - Frank: Why Bother?
Argggh!!!!!

So, what is the point of what might laughingly be called my "art"?

Does it have any purpose other than Jim-1's statement that:

   "I find art to be the most self-indulgent
    form of narcism that there is. It's odd
    that i choose art to express that."

So, is it such an ego trip? Why do we go through this to begin with.

Obviously there is the out-side view of it all:


   We just pick up a canvas or marble block (anything
   less wouldn't be REAL art) and then we put some
   squiggles on it that don't mean anything.

   And when questioned about what we are trying to say, we
   mumble some well-memorised words like "negative space" or
   "juxtaposition" or such. And then when backed into a corner,
   we throw out things like, "Well, it's like Frank Stella's
   geometrics as opposed to Helen Frankenthaller flowing style"
   All of which is of course to continue the great fraud that is
   art. And then of course we keep insisting that our our art
   is worth a lot of money -- and that our art is GREAT like
   Picasso's or of course Thomas Kincaid's, etc.

Well, that's it. Never mind the torture that we put ourselves 
through searching for the "something" (or the "there there", or
the "whatness", etc)....

But, to generally respond (and believe me this isn't out of
anger -- but out of abject depression) - i mean if i can't
*communicate* with someone in the same program, then what;s
the point of even *trying* to whip my "Artist as Shaman" into
something resembling an APA-style (not even settling for AP or
MLA - they're FORMATING GUIDELINES for formal papers).

SO, here it is: "behind the scenes".... (and yes, i'm *still* not gay)
 
>communicate instead of taking your audience for granted.
>communicate means to bring togeher.
... [ later on ]...
>Do not take it for granted that we all share in your
>ever expanding database of information (which
>is different thatn knowledge).

First off, i don't *ever* take anyone for granted - you go 
through a flood and see how it changes your view of "just 
some person" - giving you a cup of hot cocoa (not just 
water!) makes you look at every single person just a tad
bit differently. 

i would like to think that my "musings" which i gladly share
with others and sometimes get responses to. I guess it goes
back to not really anyone (other than a few close froodz) 
taking me seriously in the first place - you can't attend a
wake for a cranky old fellow artist and not be changed a bit.
Yep: A *lot* of my art (if i can at lease call it that myself
-- whether that's justifed in the "world at large" or not) and
life revolves around death. Friends killed in war (or just died
under the knife later as a result of war), suicides, jail time,
or other shit -- not that my life has had into it intruded much
of death: But hey, i'm an empath and *can* read the news paper.
It's all just garbage on TV - but it's high quality garbage.

There may appear to be an ego at work here, but a lot of it
is just a lonely voice in a wilderness hopeing to have somethng
like an intellegent conversation about MAP (Music, Art, Philosophy,
etc) in a world that never ceases to be obsesssed with the latest
turn of events of Paris Hilton, etc.   So sue me. One of my 
birth dates is supposedly on Socrates' birthday; whether treu or
not things do affect the computer that is me. I mainly view myself
as a sort of emotional robot that has no real choice but to continue
to exist.

And i'd be the first to say that what passes for being smart 
(i have a *board certified* IQ of 142 (which pleases me numerically,
but just makes it frustrating to be able to ALMOST understand so
many things, but not being smart enough to get to the bottom of
stuff without a lot of help (take that as reading stuff - as i
often sed: "If you read a book, you will almost certainly learn
something". Couple this with the fact that i was dropped on my head
way too many times over the years (bicycle-car encounters not 
with standing) and of course the ADD/ADAH or what-ever it's called.
And of course my continual insomnia - TV gets REAL old, real fast.
And of course almost perfect recall of infomration (once i learn
it -- until then, i always confuse things poetically: I blame phonics
for it; but go figure).

>frenzy of the discourse

I'm sorry, but that's all i know. If you want to you can ask
Thomas Riccio what he thought of my "evolution" as a "scholarly
writer" in his Rituals Class. Who knows - to me everything has
an immediacy of "now-ness"; i *really* don't get time, but then
that's because it's a fiction (well at least to me). And causality
is the biggest hoax of all - and please don't start on about 
dropping a hammer on my gout-ridden foot!

>1. Define your goal.

My "goal" (if i have what might pass for one) is
this:

  1) Keep creating.
  2) Keep surviving,
  3) Don't die.
  4) - try not to think about option 4 too much; you know: SUICIDE
     
Other than that, i live by the simple credo:
 
   Enjoy life; do the least harm.
   Help if you can; but don't get to 
   upset it all gets screweed up worse than before.

>2. Identify your method. 

Pretty much it's based on thinking about stuff,
learning more stuff, and then using a RANDOMISER process
try to make up new stuff that is also true.

Of course in the case of fiction, the same except try to
write stuff that is NOT boring, repetitive, copied, dull, etc.

>3. Build your argument.

I find this to really be a waste of time. First off to assume
that *anyone* (yes, even *your god*) has this absolute knowledge
and thus can construct an absolute argument is just famous last
words waiting for a clown to throw a pie in the metapphorical face.

Also, i find all of the "death dealing ego trips" to be most of
the problem. So, i'd say "try to get as much of it right as
possible", and then come up with rules of thumb to handle the
exceptions.

Say, i did actually come up with some sort of "Unified Art Theory"
(like the "Unified Field Theory" that Einstein spent the last 
several decades of his life working on - and note that this 
didn't keep him from working on peace and writing essays on
philosophy - to help people to understand/change the world 
around us; ie, he wasn't "just an arm-chair philosopher").
Anyway, today i do the UAT thing, and tomoorow some new artist
comes up with a counter-example (as they say in maths; ie, an
example which proves the theorem wrong). Me: I'd asy good!
Change is good: It isn't boring; same with differences in general.

>4. Conclude.

Again, i don't believe in such things -- all efforts are part of
the on-going conversation about science, art, maths, or even the
nature of ducks.  Ducks are my "random element" - refer to GOOGLE
on 'pataphysics, Monty Python, etc -- ie, absurdist things in their
current usage/context/etc.

>learn from me.. 

i think that's mostly rubbish. What i understand are little bits
and pieces (which is about all of us can only hope for). Again,
bowing to the fine folks at Monty Python Productions:

   Exercise, don't eat so much and read a book every now and then.

And of course (in the sub-titles) - try to not fight and kill each
other so much. But, hey: If you're reading this, you'll just dismiss
it and turn back to the TUBE to see what Paris Hilton will do next!
(i know i can't wait!)


>being an artist (etc)

Some people are brick layers whether they know it or not.
Others are not, claim to be brick layers or not.

Simple subsitution shows the absurdity of the old saws, that
we (they?) atists all know by heart:

1) I can tell that's good art - it looks like it took a long
   time to do.

2) That must be good art, it's in a museum. Even if i don't
   understand it - in which case it's a waste of the TAX PAYER'S
   money; ie, i wish they'd spend the money on building wider
   high ways for my SUV which is never used for sporting events
   or excursions into the "wild" --- oooh, a wild Shopping Mall
   Adeventure; can't wait for National Geographic to show that 
   one.

(the one Weapon i do profess to have and use is "sarcasm")

3) I don't know much about brick layers (art), but i know
   what i like!

(tips towel PBS tv series "In our Image" (on the arts and sech).

>and the "T" word can't be ignored.

Don't i know that:

  "Well, he's a nice person. But, he has no talent at all"

  "Well, it'd be different if you had any talent"

(multiply x 275) - yep, i can just see myself spending 2 or 3 
solid years (mostly motivated out of anger) just to MASTERING
the graphic design arts rather than abstract art. After all,
everyone knows that a slick ad in a magazine is better than
some blobby picture of some naked peasant hugging a pig -
and i'm sure that that sort of soddomy should be banned.

>That you want to be one [ie, an artist] deserves respect.

No it doesn't. In America if you say you're an artist or a
poet then it's actually worse than to say that you're a
janitor. And of course the "respect" thing is rubbish as
well. Respect doesn't pay the rent, and if we really wanted
to turn out art works that matched people's wall paper, then
people wouldn't buy any more art work than they do now. Oh,
yes, of course: We always have to go back to equating success
and a full life to being economically successful - or at least
having your own tv show and being on THE A LIST (as if there
aren't really a whole slew of "A" lists up and down the
scale).  And the "examined life" that Socrates spoke of?
Well, we all remember what Plato wanted to do to the artists
and poets - kill them. And of course we are STILL bound by
the Aristotilean Unities -- too bad wars aren't bound by 
the Geneva Convention.

And then the #1 worst sling and arrow:

>But, let's not start a discussion on character here 
>and now (as much as I think that many of your 
>friends could profit from it).

I just don't even know where to start on something like that.

If you're saying that i could profit from any sort of
counciling... I'd say: HELL YES! I don't thing that there's
a single man, woman, child, or nether that couldn't benefit
from help. Sign me up. Just don't go trying to give me
drugs (one of my good friends just sort of "folded up" 
when his wife died and with the "help" of Prosac - the
person that i knew is GONE). But, counciling??!! Hell,
how many times have i "been there" for my friends?

And in the same way, I'd say that i have five or ten 
really close friends, numerous acquaintences, and then 
a pretty good handfull (including the ten or so friends) 
with whom i'd entrust my life - or someone else's life.
Let's face it, most people use the "shields" to keep others
at a distance and then run through a set of "algorithms"
to simulate authentic conversations, but of course it's 
mostly just an act since i find that *most* people aren't
even honest with themselves, let alone others.

Or, as the most every-man every-man Havey Pekar (American Splendor
author) put it:  "Until something really bad comes up, you
cant' really tell who you can depend on".

Of course, depending on someone (eg, a doctor, fireman, etc) is
quite a bit different from friendship. But, then on this planet
i don't really expect much - prob why i'm so constantly and
pleasantly surprised: Lower your expectations and in general
you'll be happier. Well, you maybe. Me: I'm just Eyeore. (The
dispondent donkey of "Winnie the Pooh" fame).

As always, all the best.
Try not to fight too much
or there will be no pudding after
nap time.

Peace to all, 

frank (and of course a tip of the old towel as well)

--42--