Thoughts in a text box

Think Outside the Box!

Think Inside the Box!

Think Without the Box--Who needs a box to think?

Think Beside the Box

Think On Top of the Box!

Talk from your soapbox

Thought in a Box (Schroedinger's cat-->Robert Morris' "Box with Sound of its own Making")

Boxes for Thinking

Socks for Drinking

Boxes: Box set, analog TV set, cardboard box, rooms, houses, brains, minds

The Thinker (on the shitter, shit for brains) vs Atlas

Looking thoughtful, looking bored. Apprx same position.

THESE COLORS DON'T RUN

DO THESE COLORS RUN?

RUN THESE COLORS!

Read-->red, dear

White--we hit, withe, with E

Blue--glue, cue, clue

"Aesthetics is something you can't recreate/reproduce in under 30 Minutes," thus aesthetics CAN be PROduced or CREated with in or over 30 minutes, and aesthetics CAN be REcreated or REproduced OVER 30 minutes.  This is to also then acknowledge that aesthetics CAN be reproduced/recreated, which then also necessitates that aesthetics is NOT a byproduct of originality or creativity.  Mass production can therefore be aesthetic.

Feed Me, Fuck me

DUCK DUCK DUCK GOOSE

JACK SACK MCQUACK HONK

"rearrange your face" -Devo

Avocado Land

by Thomas

Damien Hirst has another auction coming up September 15 and 16 in London. This time he is working directly with Sotheby's auction house rather than through his usual dealer, Jay Jopling, and his long term gallery, the Gagosian. Cheyenne Westphal, chairman of contemporary art for Sotheby’s Europe, says Mr Hirst will "often break the boundaries of how things can be done. This show will open up all kinds of questions. Are other artists going to take notice? I would think so.” He is expected to raise over 65 million pounds, benefiting charities of his choice.

Tight, together. Yay, auctions. As Damien Hirst put it, this is a “very democratic way to sell art." Just wonderful. Most of his pieces are in formaldehyde. He likes this medium. One of his pieces called "Bill and Shark," is based on a picture of Bill Gates with one of his shark pieces. It will benefit the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.


I realize that I have a little trouble rejecting Hollywood movies. However, I am seeing the trouble and the limitations of some genres, and in ways, Hollywood itself. The golden section is an excellent dramatic tool in many art forms, especially in something that takes hours to experience, as does a feature-length film. I enjoyed the cartoons you sent me, but I guess I get a little caught up in the fact that everyone is broad shouldered and very muscular. It looks funky when every grown man looks like he weighs between 200 and 330 pounds and can bench about 400. But I get what you are saying about the characterization of Joker. Why stop at Jack and Heath? The most recent film gets so caught up in the battle for Gotham's soul, that I lose track of it in the recapitulation and denouement.

I still want to shoot the scene with the dimly lit grocery store. I still want the kid with the tighter clothing and the potato chips to look innocent.

I have pieces in my mind that are not supposed to fit together. Maybe things shouldn't fit together so well as they do. Maybe things should make you uneasy without asking questions, without pressuring you to make a choice, to take a side. Maybe we reach a little more interesting note by getting rid of the choice, by taking away the options.

Maybe D.H. stops with the animals in formaldehyde stuff. Maybe he doesn't, and continues to push his boundaries about as far as I have been from Athens. Maybe he doesn't care that he's aggravating me.

I listened to a guy play clarinet the other day. He was really good. He's really talented for anyone, especially someone his age. Wow. Then I started noticing, that hey, there wasn't much to his playing. Yeah, he messed a few notes (though, his mess-ups sounded really nice for most player's on passages), but I don't think it was because he was taking chances on stuff. That's fine, though. You don't need to take chances.

Honestly, Damien Hirst is probably contributing economically to his world the most he possibly can. But is that the only responsibility of an artist? Is he challenging his audience. Forget about the status quo, forget about picking sides or offering options. Is he communicating something? Does it matter if an artist communicates?

Untitled by Thomas

For however legitimate, together, forthright and special a person is, it is all too possible that person is just as fake, discombobulated, withdrawn and ordinary.

For years I used the spoken model of living, reaction, and good will my mother imparted on an hourly basis to us as my creed for human interaction. I gradually realized that entire chapters of my mother's treatise on life were inconsistent, biased and illogical. I began to reject them, generating my own tools, my own methods, but I continued to defend her ideologies. Eventually, I could not do that anymore. I had to break away entirely. I could not continue with this. There was not anything I could do. It did not work anymore.

Similarly, I looked up to my father as a role model. That continued until I was approximately 8 or 9. I rejected his manners, his disregard, his violence. He became sick beyond my own comprehension. Following his death, I began to respect him once more, looking to things he had discussed with me when I was a boy of 5 or 6 as wisdom I could apply to my burgeoning twenties, looking to him as a father figure of sorts. Now, I do not know how to take things.

As I once told a person I used to know, "What has happened, or the fact that it is gone, or that past versions of ourselves did not interact as they could have, does not matter; we are all much cooler than we used to be. Every one of us, you, me, that guy sitting over there, we're all a lot cooler than we used to be. This is our time. The past is silly in comparison."

Acceptance takes time. Realizing a truth or an openness we have not yet adopted can take days of conversation, weeks of contemplation, and years of life. When I think about the amount of time it took me to accept certain aspects of manhood, sexuality, ideas, art, emotion and communication, I am baffled at how people who do not obsess as much as I do (I cycle in my brain almost too much) ever reach such conclusions. It took me 3 years to accept something as trivial as gay marriage, let alone the open-endedness of sex. It took me until I was 16 to realize real beauty in visual arts, and until I was 20 to figure out meaning.

About the situation you and I spoke about, I just have to say that I hate hypocrites, but not as much as I dislike people who just let shit happen.

We are all different now. Your interactions with your mother are never ever going to be the same. You are never going to connect the same way you used to. You aren't as innocent, naive as you may have been and she is certainly less hopeful. But this is not a bad thing. It is, as I constantly put it, a natural progression. You can find a new way to connect, a new way to communicate. Just because she has "chosen her path" does not mean that it is set. It may take time, it may take energy, but some kind of connection is possible. However, the downside is that it may not be worth it to you. In which case you have to be real about your choices. None of the things people say like, "I would spend my entire life with you if it were not for these dirty dishes." That would not be true.

If you are not being proactive, I have no idea what you are doing. You are asking all the right questions. If you think I am being proactive, ehh. . ok. To ask these questions, why not N.O.? Why not here, there, her, him? These are the questions you should be asking. And yeah, you do your work for a reason, and that's what you should do. You should not worry about anything else. If you do what makes you happy, you'll make everyone around you a heck of a lot happier than if you do what you think would make the world better. Work for an artist, shack up at a coop, sell the plastic cups.

Oh, and your compound idea is tremendous. It is worthwhile, noble, beautiful, even fun. However, you can never make everything ok again. You know this, and my typing is probably making things too ridiculous, but that is why I am so happy with the earth. In no way can things be made ok, perfect, etc. We always have an extra step to go, an extra moment to evaluate. Things can always be made better. We are all cooler than we used to be.

Untitled by Walker

I sit in front of my computer at 12:35am today.  I am tired, and I am realizing that I must trust my suspicions more, since my gut instinct has a good track record, as it turns out.

What I must continually remind myself of is that I must accept both sides, both histories of my family.  My grandfather is an emblem of an impossible idea and plateau of existence.  As humble as he can act, he also can act with much severity and misguided emotion.  He holds grudges, though he made a bad decision for an earnest and good reason his behavior in regards to this decision are inappropriate.  Those I saw as weak are strong.  Those in my family that I saw as true and honest and direct are not.  The vices in my family's history are great and what we've done is truly sad.  What is kept from one another.  My grandfather should know about his father.  It will hurt, but it is absolutely necessary.  My mother is losing herself slowly, especially since I left for college and especially since I stopped spending summers here. 

Meanwhile I miss her.  Am I taking on too many of her qualities?  Do I take on too many qualities of too many other people?  How do I connect once more to my mother like I did so many years ago.  I think that is lost and that she has chosen her path.  She has inherited a vice from my grandfather, by my grandfather has the tolerance.  

All this as I look at the fall and debate whether I should sell my untitled flag piece or rather to whom should I sell it?  Can I take a chance and do it, and if it is a mistake, it will just be a hurtle for me to deal with later in life?  Do I try to always maintain my ground in an effort to strive to become the symbol my grandfather has been for me?  Do I work for an artist?  Which one?  Or do I work with an artist who has their feet both in the art world and in reality?  I am referring to Ken, Julianne's husband.  Or perhaps the art world truly isn't so troublesome--I sometimes hope in vain if I were to enter that atmosphere I could change it by example.  And as Thomas says (to paraphrase), "maybe no one gives a shit and it is a status signifier."  I can't help but look at Rodin or Duchamp (not Nauman) and just think it was compulsion alone that drove them.  Why am I making things?  I do it so I can hash out who I want to be.  To demonstrate raw work ethic--that is one without functional value.  Yet, if I have a particular functional skill set, why am I not doing what I love to do: help people.  What am I doing thinking about an MFA?  Why didn't I go to New Orleans years ago?  Then I was insecure.  But why don't I go now?  And what about her.  Or him?  I'd like to be around at least one of them.  I am making my next decision based on the outcome of decisions they are making now.  Which is to say that I am not making any pro-active decisions.  And I hate that.

This all takes me back to Synesthesia and other ideals I've had (I have always wanted to have all those I love and care for live on my property here, with a farm, where we'd all work--both the farm and our individual creative or academic projects.  And when a disaster hit, we'd all travel together in an effort to make it all okay again--whatever that is).  Synesthesia was another manifestation of a similar feeling.  It was a social act, a way to try to better something.  A form of thinking to broaden our senses, thoughts.  And now I am at the point where I could do this, somehow.  But I don't know where to start, logistically.  This is what I would love the most though.  Just decency.

Is All That has Been Done Lost?

by Thomas

I am about to get the second signature on my thesis before I go to turn it in. Walker has finished, and I am about to. As we attempt to foil our own departures to something new, we ask the question, what does this mean?

I should feel completely relieved. I should be satisfied and happy, and I am undoubtedly getting there, but I can't help but imagine that there is no such thing as a break from this. I wrote one paper today, I will write another tomorrow. I am not even good at writing papers.

As for Walker, 2.0 is underway as we speak. He probably paused more than he usually does, but it's not about the singular achievement, it's about what is behind those achievements. The same may go for this project. We may not be able to boil down modern day art into the simple "s'all screwed up" mission statement. We may need to go farther.

We are about finished (by that I mean Walker is done and I have a few days to go), but does it matter? Southwest; Northeast. Are we trapped? Is art going to become a pseudo-modern day Chinaredcapitalist phenomenon? Is Damien Hirst (and by DH, I mean crap) going to become the one and only artist people care about. Do people care about art at all, or do they care about it because it is a status symbol, a thing people can point to and say, "they are wealthy/intellectual/snooty enough to care about art,"? I know people care. Do you?

Do we believe in this? Are things out there? Is all that has been done lost?

Everyone Should Major in Women's Studies

by Thomas

This is something I have been thinking on. I read two chapters from John Wright's book on interest groups, the first on lobbyists and the second on political action committees. I know that in the liberal world, and oftentimes in the conservative one, that the public perception is quite distrusting of the political influence that lobbyists and political action committees may gain for corporate America. Indeed John Wright dispels much of this and describes lobbyists and PAC's rather as information providers and generally expediters of the political process, bringing grass roots movements to the doorstep of the Capitol.

Novelists tell us what is impossible. Theorists tell us what may be possible at a future point. Journalists tell us what is. Historians paraphrase what was. All of this sounds good, right? I doubt too many people would disagree. I do, to an extent. My Principal Investigator once lamented, "why oh why are the theoretical biologists mapping what we already know? They should be describing what is to come!" What art theorists do is describe what happened and why it all fits together so neatly now. Art critics indeed are not practitioners in the same way that artists are. They may have a more objective standpoint (and that is debatable), however it is difficult to ascertain whether or not watching art can produce anything as new as it can describe how it came to be. Art historians describe these events with whatever slant or cued preference they choose to show. It isn't as important that they get the facts, or the ideas, as they tell a narrative that may or may not compartmentalize Duchamp into a 173 page book *with pictures*. I restate: Novelists tell us what is possible. Theorists tell us why everything in the last thirty years occurred. Journalists tell us what they want to. Historians paraphrase what they wish would have been.

This brings us back to the lobbyists. They are information providers. Art historians and art critics help the public see what is going on. Indeed, compartmentalization is a necessary process, or how would we discern what to focus. Are art historians correct? I hope not. Are art critics unbiased, undoubtedly no. However, their contribution is an extension of the artist to the viewer.

Solid points concerning context. I have trouble with some of the placement of art. As an art critic, an art journalist, Linda Weintraub could go farther and enter the artist's studio (or better yet, could view the art in a gallery painted black with all the lights off and blinds turned). That kind of approach would begin to unravel more of the artist's story.

Response to: 60s and 70s: Systems and Experiments, and Questioning Perceptions

by Thomas

This is an important question we can ask. "Which scientific experiment involving rats in mazes and mental cognition do you prefer?" I would immediately say, the experiment that tells us the best story, that explains neuronal synapse uniquely, the experiment that does not lie. Who is going to be the judge of the truth, however. What you may be saying is that we can not simply judge an experiment based on aesthetic results when indeed it is an exploration of artistic limitations. Sol LeWitt's incomplete cubes are a perfect example. Indeed, I was attempting to generate an algebraic explanation for how many incomplete boxes there are, however, it may be a topological problem. The aesthetic that an incomplete box (or a specific incomplete box) creates is what Sol LeWitt may be dealing with.

Art finds the plane of new frontiers that frighten us, bewilder us, and look either too unfitting (ugly) or too in place (pretty) for us to pass by. Here we may misunderstand the incomplete cube, the neon glow. We may not grasp the entire picture. To judge this work differently because it is experimentation is a confounding idea. Ideally, all art is an experiment. All art is a work in progress. Just as neuroscience presses forward, so, we would expect, does art. Yes, acknowledging them as trials is acceptable, but experiment for experiment's sake is not art, it is a cheapening of ideas, an insecurity (I might add) in the message/feeling/result. I do not expect a sure answer, or even an answer, as communication between artist and viewer is an ongoing and sometimes dysfunctional thing. This brings me to a world-renown composer on the faculty of University of Michigan. Apparently his students compulsively change their pieces during rehearsals. This, I found, they learn from their teacher. What are they composing, background music? Oh, yes, I had better dim the oboe here for otherwise we might not be able to enjoy the curve of the man's thigh!

Art is for the artist alone. Art is not for the artist, it is for the viewer. If the art is not for the artist, what is the artist doing? If the art is not for the viewer, what is the artist doing. Again, this expresses the funk that experiments may place on the viewer. If your aim is to lose yourself in the viewer's eye, draw them in and quietly show them everything, but carefully. If you aim to lose your viewer, blast forth everything.

"What is art?" Challenging this is not art. Challenging this is challenging this. Pushing art is art.