I certainly think that anti-intellectualism is, by definition, hypocritical.

But I'm not declaring a fatwa or anything, just pushing back.

I kept making replies but they were silly.

What is intellectualism ?

"An intellectual? Yes. And never deny it. An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself. I like this, because I am happy to be both halves, the watcher and the watched. "Can they be brought together?" This is a practical question. We must get down to it. "I despise intelligence" really means: "I cannot bear my doubts."
— Albert Camus

I consider it to mean anyone who naturally engages in philosophical reflection; to doubt what you know, to consider what it means to know, and onwards.

Basically someone that can learn from mistakes through trial and error, no ? Examining situations or patterns and configuring changes ?

Yes, but with a sense of transcendence.

Keep in mind, in most cases music students gravitate towards schooling because they lack creativity and especially individuality to begin with. Of many friends I know who've gone through full courses of music training, I don't know anyone who "really" benefited from it.... and in most cases, they all come out sounding the same.

well... i had the good fortune to share pizza, soda and several hours of conversation with hal foster and six other graduate students last week, and he says "i'm not really sure what's going on in the art world right now... and i'm not sure anyone else is either."

that evening he proceeded to give a lecture on the revival of modernist approaches to architecture (which he calls a Second Modernity) , basically rehashing what terence riley wrote ten years ago in "Light Architecture," when this new modernist stuff started getting built by people like peter zumthor. for q&a he said he'd field questions on any topic - not just the lecture - but it came across like he didn't want to talk about the paper he'd just delivered. i was a little underwhelmed.

That's awesome. He's smart to not comment of the art world as of now as a new "revolution" is occurring in continental philosophy that I am sure every art author is looking at with anticipation. However, architecture is definitely the first thing I would think would return to modernism/structuralism since that was really the first modern thought that was relevant directly to them. Definitely better than postmodern architecture, if it is what I think it is. Good on them to stick with what they are sure looks good despite "historical relevance."

during the round-table, it seemed like foster was there as much to see what "the kids" are thinking nowadays as to share his ideas. he asked more questions than he gave answers, but i enjoyed the back and forth. it was refreshing to hear the co-author of my "art since 1900" textbook admit that he's a bit baffled at the moment.

during the lecture i couldn't help thinking that everything foster was saying about architecture had already been described more eloquently by terence riley. but the truth is that riley simply illustrated his paper better. i'm sure that hal foster, professor at princeton, has no problem obtaining image rights from architects. but when terence riley wrote "light architecture" in 1998, he also happened to be the director of the department of architecture and design at the MoMA. one of the perks of that job is that when you write a paper, instead of asking architects to kindly send you a few choice photos of their work, you get to invite architects to kindly install lifesize representative samples of their work in the spacious galleries a dozen floors below your undoubtedly comfy 53rd st office... it does tend to add a bit of weight to your words.

hal foster: ... i'm not sure what the link currently is between art and architecture ...

looking glass spectacle: what about relational aesthetics? i mean it seems-

foster: [gesturing around the table] explain what you mean by 'relational aesthetics.'

spectacle: well, of course like all categories, it's debatable... but i mean ... a group of artists ... for whom social interaction is their primary medium. for example rirkrit tirrrrr ... ฤกษ์ฤทธิ์ ตีระวนิช ... [turns to art history phd] is that how you pronounce it?

brantley: i think it's rir-KRIT Tira-van-ija...

spectacle: ...who is most famous for serving thai food to gallery goers... and the 'art' is in the mix of social situations that arises from that. but it's almost like they're just doing architecture.

foster: how's that?

spectacle: ... well. first off... the only actual object that results is ... architectural. the whole space is defined by the elements in it... the counter separates the cook from the people eating... and the way the counter... and the fridge, and the stove, and the tables are all layed out organizes the way people interact in the space... it's as if they just brought a program to an architect... and said let's turn this gallery into a kitchen.

matt: the problem is identical to typical reuse projects.

foster: hmmm...

spectacle: and then on the other side you have architects who engage in practices ... where no building is produced. as diller and scofidio often do. as coop himmelblau often do. ... so are these just cases of architects producing art ... or... is there something left of architecture when there is no building?

matt: bernard tschumi describes architecture as "building + supplement," so it would make sense... that you could produce a... supplement.

spectacle: ...and beyond tiravanija... the show at the guggenheim last year entitled anyspacewhatever was composed entirely of architecture... installations... but installations are like... architecture drained of its function.

______


spectacle: thomas mical wrote that the goal of architecture is (and there is an implied 'should be' here, but he writes is...) to give form to our transgressive desires. you wrote some 25 years ago (and i'm paraphrasing here) that to remain vital, any neo-avant garde must make a shift from transgression to resistance. first off, do you think this is any less true today? and secondly, is it even possible for architecture to give form to our transgressive desires?

[discussion in which the question of whether it is even possible to have a contemporary avant-garde is raised and it is mentioned that bataille's thoughts on transgression were that it ultimately reinforces what it seeks cross]

spectacle: i don't think it's possible any longer... to employ strategies that may have worked a hundred years ago... close to a hundred and twenty years ago now... and then again for a few years in the late sixties and early seventies...

foster: why?

spectacle: ... uh ... because of ... the conditions of late capitalist society ... (stares into space like a moron for close to 30 seconds) ... any attempt at either transgression or resistance is repackaged and sold back to us.

foster: that seems like a fatalist attitude.

spectacle: ... maybe... do you think it's possible for architecture to give form to our transgressive desires?

[extended discussion]

foster: ...so, no.

______


spectacle: do you think matthew barney has succeeded in recoding our contemporary myths... ?

foster: i'm not that interested in the results... but i find his approach interesting.

spectacle: ... or has he simply created an art world equivalent to the hollywood blockbuster: very expensive to produce and not very meaningful?

foster: ... he does work... with mythology... he's definitely smarter than a lot of his critics.

fucking students

fucking lazy art critc

we bought him pizza, and he comes up with "i'm not sure what's going on in the art world right now..... "

No one is sure what is going on in the art worls right now. It coud be dying, or it coud be springing forth from the ashes like a mighty Phoenix.

intellectuals are people who prefer to live the life of the mind, analytical, philosophical, ruminative, immersed in the storehouse of knowledge that humanity as built up over these last 20thousand years we have been writing shit down.

it is used as a derogatory term by people who devalue human thought. fuck the aliterate.

Come on. The art world really isn't dying. There's always loads of great art going on. I don't go to galleries as much as I should, but there's always something worth seeing when I do. There's an equal if not greater amount of toss, but that's true of anything.

great art for sure there is. tons of it

the"ART WORLD" however? It could be dying just as easily as the record companies are dying.


it needs to die. it needs to die and be reconstructed, or reanimated.

but then agains, this is the same complaint that all fringe artists have shouted at the "establishment" art world for the past 150 years.

Well. There are those who'd argue that these 'fringe artists' are uninspired twats who take out their lack of inspiration on an art world that doesn't care about them. That's not a dig. I'll provide an example.

I know a guy who's been trying to make it as a musician for 20+ years. He's played in God knows how many bands. He has absurd amount of equipment. He plays blues rock. And, frankly, he really isn't good at that. He talks about his 'art' being 'avant-garde' and 'too extreme' for labels and audiences to get. He gets very angry at how 'the industry' ignores 'real artists' like himself. The truth of the matter, of course, is that he's playing a style of music that's 30 years out of fashion, and playing it badly.

Relevent to this thread, he's also self-taught.

Basically, my point is, there are probably a lot of great 'fringe artists' that don't get noticed along the way; there's a far greater number of people who really need to get real, mercenary though it is to say that. Or, people could just enjoy what they do, which is the easiest thing to do.

I shall weigh in here. I am a classicaly taught musician married to a self taught musician. I bring the fundamentals to the table and he brings in the creativity. I think you really can benefit from a mix of both. For instance no matter how many great ideas you come up with, if you plan on playing with someone else you need to be able to convey to them what you are doing. If you can read sheet music it makes it alot easier and you have so many more opportunities. But one cannot live on knowledge alone. You can learn all the scales you want and still suck. It's how you play not what you play.

As far as art goes, I took every art class offered in highschool. They taught me skills...the correct way to fire clay....painting techniques...shading and rendering skills. I did not learn how to be creative though.

Now I am an Interior Designer. That is my art. I went to school for it, but you can't really learn much about the creative aspect of design there. That's the part you either got or don't. But without schooling I would not know all of the fundamentals of the industry that are neccasary to survive in the field.

THat's it

remember that at one time everyone who is established now used to be fringe. all the impressionists were outsiders once.

the real out there fringe though, I agree with what yr saying glice.

sonic gail, that is the truth that people avoid. there is far more to being an artist than just having great ideas. if anything, art school taught me dedication, how to schedule my time to paint, how to engage my mind when I have no inspiration, etc. those are very important things as well.

i don't keep up with the art world that closely but as far i understand the damien hirst type collector/investor market has kind of bottomed out, it became clear that there were a handful of collectors and dealers doing a lot of price fixing, & auction rigging to boost the value of their investments/assests/whatever, plus dealers were giving out the impression that works by their top artists were far more scarce than they actually were as a means to drive up prices, e.g. people looking to buy Damien Hirst paintings from The White Cube gallery in London had to join a waiting list even though the gallery had a stock of his paintings already finished with more finished work than there were people waiting to buy them.

From what I can see the whole "mainstream" of modern art was driven to cater to the tastes of this handful of rich collectors, and there isn't really much in terms of distribution systems or galleries for artists who don't match the focus of the sort of "mainstream" gallery system, unless you want to make either corny paintings of seaside cottages or shirehorses to sell in high street, or super conservative stuff old fashioned stuff to sell to people who live in Mayfair.

forgetful fear finally finds foothold in the phantom figments of my free speech...