af\planet\iconosphere-zix\zix: z^artist

[^^zix home page] [HYPER-SPACE (mfa)] [Quick Index/Map]
-[Promenade/Galleries]-
ma: z^artist
See also: [L/D] [S/D]
See also: [af/art3/pkda2001 - pizoig gaming projects] [Samplers]

Ab Fr
\ /
+----------------+
/| /|
/ | / |
/ | / |
Fu / | / |
\ / | / |
+----------------+--Hu |
| | "RS-3" | |
[Quick Index] | Jz--+----------|-----+
| / | / \
| / | / Sc
| / | /
| / | /
|/ |/
+----------------+
/ \
Sp Ar

"Reality Structure 3" (mark II)

This iconosphere owes much of its
existence to Phillip Glass:Symp #3 & #2. [Learn more about the Iconosphere]
[Cross Product Space] (entry port ABxAB)
[Semi-linear blog-o-sphere] (and duck crossing)
-^_6
z^artist
(table of contents follows...)

More Triple-Cross Products

NOTE: Recent theoretical work on the possibilities of Quadrupple (4-tupple) Cross Products has been
suspended due to a lack of funding. Data processin continues - un-abated.
AxB (v) :: C -[ SC x SP (Earth) :: (expressed via) ART -> Eco Psychology, etc]-

See also: The name re-makes the thing (HUM x SCI (word) :: EXP as JAZ).

On this page: {A philosophy of Art
{Drawing/painting}
{Sculpture}
{Colour and Texture}
{Assemblage/Collage: Putting it all together}
{Film Content}

NOTE: For avant garde, see: [Futurist entry]

See also: -[mfa (aesthetic)]-

And of course my "magnum opus" (i can just hear Harlan yelling
get on with it - we go to press in 2 weeks!!!) - not that i
ever got anything published (could the "jinx effect" be
affecting me? I'm about to send some stuff off, and the
publiation goes out of biz.... hmm)

-[Thru a Ritual Darkly: Translating Art into Ritual Terms]-

A philosophy of Art

This section is best read while listening to Shostakovich
Symphony #5....

From the primoridal darkness we come. We are dragged onto the
unlit shore. We make our way without thought; for at this point
there is only pure ego and even no realisation of it.

For the moment we are free.

Pure creativity, un-encumbered by critical method other than
direct feedback.

And then this thing called "reason" starts to intrude;
we are inculcated and indoctrinated in the "ways of the world".

And then (if we are lucky - or not), in the sixth grade they
(who are this they? educators? a policy board?) then they
begin to have us learn to sing and to paint.

And yet overhead; all, around; are the weapons of war.
The harsh world stidently shaping our young minds into
what is NEEDED - the leader demands it. We learn the
proper salute, the proper oaths, the proper allegiances.
We learn that THEY might at any time come to our door
and try to get us to become ONE OF THEM.

and for what small purpose.... ?

do we garner the flag and wave it, marching in lockstep with
the COMMON, RIGHT AND PROPER good?

The King demands it; so, thus it is.....

(if you have reached 11;20 minutes into the first movement,
then you may certainly change the music....)

and open your clenched fingers and look towards some hidden
heaven or at least the ceiling....

-^_6
A second philosophy of art

(at this point, switch to Shostakovich Symphony #6, 3rd movement)

By the age of 12 or so, the human brain/mind becomes very self
aware. As such, it tends to view the world around it as a
thing to be understood (analytically) and interacted with
(both physically, and emotionally) in ways that here-to-fore
weren't simply not thought of.

For example, a mind in such a state might well "discover"
(for that is the right word) the number pi. And then
(affraid that it might forget it, concentrate very
consciously on memorising it; a conscious effort here-to-fore
NOT exhibited).

And yet the preconditioning (if it has indeed been present
and more importantly prevalent) will remain. Conflicts
will occur. This is part of the process of becoming an
independent entity. The brain (indeed, the entire body)
begins to not just explore what is possible or what "i"
am able to do - more importantly: "Why do i belive such
and so?", "Why are things the way that they are?", and
so forth. It is at this point that the next stage in the
ontiologoical development of what for the first time
we might refer to as the thing's "mind" begins to
deveolop.

The person (may we use that term for both a human and a robot?)
begins to not just respond to external stimulae, but to create
internal ones as well. In the mental (eg, cerebro-physical)
a "rushing forward" towards some in-definable goal is felt.
Though this is an almost purely mental effect, its manifestation
becomes at the very least psycho-physical.

(this concludes this section)
-^_6

A further philosophy of art
(at this point, use Shostakovich Symphony #9, 2nd movement)

At this point in the development of the subject (unit), certain
thoughts come in which are of a much less lightly lit nature;
we (as artists usually refer to this as "darkness" - since we
associate the absences of light and colour as being dark,
un-lit, without sound, silent (or nearly silent), and for that
reason most probably introspective).

Primary among this affect is the concept of death. A questioning
of the meaning of life, its purpose, and pourhaps even its
meaning-^_6less-^_6ness.

The death of a pet, relative, friend, or even family member at
this time. Or just possibly even the realisation that there is
indeed no justice in the world - or at least no idylic justice
where all that hear the strum of the world, the beat of the
electrons in their infinite danse - that for many there simply
isn't ANY justice.

Worse yet: That these misseries are completely preventable.
That just a little care or concern or even an occassional
word might prevent the death of a pet turtle in its plastic
island universe.

What is it? Why is there no light? Who can be responsible for
this?

And it is at this point, that dreams become less random and
chaotic and the mind speaks (crys? sings? laughs?) to itself
and the dolls of dreams, the puppets, even a pet dog that
never existed become silent (or not so) partners in a new
thing: Reason.

a partial conclusion/answer
in the philosophy of art

If one thinks about it, the way that we view the world
(even if "blind" - and those that refuse to see are (sadly)
the blindest of all; for indeed we have books).

Helen Keller always said: Libraries are my Utopia. Or as the
Buddhist philosophy puts it: A book is a garden that you can
carry in your pocket.

The crash of the world comes about us, so gently that we often
are scarce able to perceive it. The massive, mostly unfathomable
weight of it, slowly crawl over us to engulf, ensnare, and
corrupt us. To turn us into a part of it.

Slogans of predjudice are sliced out of tasty pies, and plopped
down in front of us like so much gold, dross, power, and comfort.
And slowly, insidiously we are swept out to sea, until we are
so far from shore, that we not only begin to doubt that there
ever WAS a shore of any sort - but, that the morass of hatred
and unifying feelings of being part and partner in the greater
good for the RIGHT AND PROPER PEOPLE / COUNTRY / NATION / RACE...

And yet, some still quiet voice within us, hopes that we can
somehow escape. For we were taught meaningless tales in youth.
Of Hansel and Grettle, and of Big Bad Wolfs.

Meaningless. And yet... Cautionary.
Warnings.
Timeless Safeguards not to trust too deeply.
not to....

(you should be at about 7:00 or 7:30 or so)

A non-sequitur philosophy of art

There is no resolution for the world.
It's arguments of :might makes right:, and
:nlu - Not Like Us:, and :The One, Treu Faith!:
---^_6They are simply too strong. Every reasoned
argument against them will fail.

like oersites, there is NO escape from the furies...

(simply press STOP to halt the 2nd movement;
then move the pointer back to the first
movement of Shosty Symp #9 ... or take a brief break...)

PRESS PAUSE, since, first....

-^_6
A non-sequitur philosophy of art

(for the next sub-segment, i prefer:
"Mystery Men; track 5", but the
1st & 2nd movements of Black Star will work as
well as "Take Five" (jazz greats vers) as
well - party like it's 1999 all over again..

the next segment requires a (a brief) diversion into hyper-space text...
[]

This way to the clown parade; exit?

CUE UP SHOST #9, MOVMEENT 1...

play take five 9create cusp here0

a cat is cool; but a bird is cooler still.

STOP PLAY ON TAKE FIVE

play #9/mvt 1...

somewhere in california a pinhead drawer is contemplating waffles
and tuesday weld.

somewhere in manhattan a earth quake can only happen if a pidgeon
drop isn't taken

from this we derive that two C (or one D) battery and an un-retired
cartoonist best known as the fleas that inhabbit certain owls can
show that evolution is wrog, wrong, frog, frong, flerm and
beflirmishly so.

and then out into the snake's glowing red light danse nikita kruschev
and lyndon johnson but suddenly they are joined by a block mon from
down under protesting that the resident of a sheep paddock didn't
even think to canvas any of the "lowlies" her/his revenge is of
course to wrap books on the southside of dallas and that wasn't
even on a tuesday.

(ms. weld was not available for comment)

and yet in a wax museum, the world pauses for comment that
the hotel is wrapped by two mad artists (one is not jean-claude
and the other is most DEF not christo)

but, just then, a singing bard stombles onto a piece of burlap
and keeps on stombling for some other time it is not to be
tried at home (even if your brother's name IS Buster)

and of all of this comes a final blow which odd for a violin.

9and as the curtain draws to a close,
we see the ushers opening the outer doors,
but it turns out not to be a non otter but
indeed - as we see that it is indeed a
"certain" duck
0

note: in part of the performance, the part of the left and
right parenthesises were played by the numerals 9 and 0.

And an infinite philosophy of art

(Frank Zappa, Pink Album Track 5 - Are we not alone? of! yes/how/cow-limits?)

So, part of what we do as artists is to explain what we do as artists.

Thus, i'm writing this meta section of this paper of the zix42 to try
to explain this. After all, we know that a nice picture of dogs playing
cards is more art than a $32 piece of notebook paper tossed in the dust
bin when there weren't even any pidgeon or pigeons or pigs flying (even
if it wasn't thursday still)....

So, the problem is WHY do we do that?

The materialist (or normal person) - so we are informed - can't tell why we
would do something so many times.

One time while (it's a v. short story) i was minding the Amnesty Internatioal
table (yes, we believe that torture and the death penalty are wrong - wackos that we are)

(small: start again)

anyway, i'd been working on the "next" stage in my pollock series (which
eventually led to "The Spider Web" (as it is lovingly and popularly known)
So, i kept scetching the lines of the cliff. That is a cliff that extended
into the picture space of the paper as a trapazoid at the bottom (large
size to hug the bottom on the canvas/paper and then the smaller edge into
the centre-stage of the canvas. And then i'd make the SAME shape but use
different marks (this was *LONG* before "The Million", btw) into that space.

The textures, densities, lengths, of the PEN marks on the (xerox paper; assumed
acid free (what with all the paranoia these (those) days; 8-1/2" x 11") page
and then working into it with cross hatching or not, or with varied mixtures
of lines, sort of like dashes long with small dash-letts below and then long
dashers again and repeating, and repeating, and ...

Anyway, that's the story, i drew maybe 10 or 20 or somethng like that - and each
one took about 5 or 10 (maybe more?) solid minutes to do and to all extents of
the "normals" they all looke the same.

Why is he doing that? (not even some Amnesty Internatioal froodz weren't asking).

The only think that i can say is:

It's like the film "The Man Facing South West" (or was it Northe East?)
he stares there each nite to send/receive messages and to all appearances
there is no difference.

That's part of the thing that we don't really communicate very well. And
yet, we go back to the question:

So, if what we are doing in our WRITING (texts, critical reviews, artsits's stmts, etc)
doesn't even really say what/why/how/etc we are doing the whatness of what we are
doing - then is it a waste of time?

Or is it just part of the art that seems textual and not art-like at alll?

Drawing/Painting

The mark is made. Whether it's from pen, pencil, oil/water/acrylic paint, or
whatever -- it is the 1-d mark on the 2-d space.

But, then, if i use yarn in space, it's still 1-d but in 3-d.

And if it is put up, and then taken down, it's 1-d in 4-d.

But, what if i make a surface? (and draw upon it - or not)
it's in space, is it sculpture?

What if, i start writing text on one wall of the gallery and
continue around the corner (convex? concave? orthogonal?) is
it now sculpture?

If i use text to "fill in" an outline (very popular in magazines)
to make a "shape", is it now drawing, or is it simply still text
arranged only "slightly" differently than the usual rectangles
in a magazine/newspaper/book article?

Again: What is art? || Art is what?

Is art human? Would the bowerbird say no?

Is art craft? The functional ceramist sez no, yes, ... i don't know?

If i bend a piece of paper to make a tunnel and write on it is it
sculpture or simply the surface for my drawing?

We speak of "sculptural lines" (Franz Kline, Kupka), can we speak
of non-sculptural sculptures? Yes: Wires arranged. Yes, but
what if they are flat: 2-d tracings of a set of hyperbolas?
They are composed of 1-d lines of wire drawn upon the 2-d
surface that "just happens to be" in a space that we can
inhabit and walk around. If i project two images onto
a piece of paper so that from one side you see one thing,
and from the other side, you see something else? (eg, Scott
Trent's "Box") is it drawing (with alterity) or is it decorated
sculpture?

Are the Lascoux caves drawings? The artist(s) used the surface
textures to enhance the drawings' 3-dimensionality.

To be or not to be, that is the question.
The answer is 42, but we don't know what the question is.
(let alone what it means)

At some point if people (even your art friends) aren't attending
a performance piece, then why do it?

Metaphysics: If we introduce the sound of the falling tree into
and empty forest, is there a tree in theory?

Is the documentation of the work (the design of the art work)
"as good" as the actual work "would be" or "might be" or
"should be" or should it all be banned?

Colour and Texture

Have you ever noticed the way that the same tree looks in the morning as
opposed to during the afternoon, or evening or even minute to minute?

If you haven't then you obviously aren't a painter. One of the
earliest "impressionist" painters, Paul Ceszane said, "Until i sit
down to draw or paing something, i find that i haven't really ever
looked at it before."

So profound was this (and a sign of the genius of Ceszane), that it
led him to look at the way light plays around us. If you look at
a leaf (and game progammers familiar with Doom3 know this as well),
it has a variety of "colours". Early in computer graphics, everything
looked like "plastic". It was later discovered that the way that
light hits a surface is different in several ways. First off there
is the colour spectrum of the reflected light. A mirror's reflected
spectrum would *ideally* be exactly equal to the incidnet spectrum.
But, most mirrors are not perfect. As such, they tend to absorb
certain colours. The colours that they reflect are the ones that
we "see" when we look in a mirror. Whatever colours ARE being
reflected, they leave us with the *impression* (there's that
word again), that the mirror is "silver". The mirror ISN'T silver
(it's usually some sort of metal, probably aluminum. But, the
colour spectrum which is reflected "looks silver". A perfect
mirror would be invisible. If we came up on one, we would be
struck by an exact image of ourselves in it. Imagine entering
a room, and coming face to face with an exact replica of yourself;
a robot? an alien able to mimic you perfectly -- and to what end,
what is its "agenda"?

If the mirror's reflective surface was red (eg, look at a red-tinted
piece of acetate like those report folders), then we KNOW that we
will look red as well. Thus, the red mirror is absorbing all colurs
but red, and reflecting only things in the "red" portion of the
spectrum.

Quickly now: It turns out that ALL objects don't have just ONE
spectrum.

a "reflected spectrum" (eg, our red mirror),

a "transmitted spectrum" (eg, a pair of sunglasses blocks out
cetain colours)

a "scatterned spectrum" (eg, a brown piece of paper and an exactly
similarlly coloured piece of brown wood,
brown metal, brown skin -- all look different not only because of
their surface textures, but because of how they "scatter" different
colours of light. A perfectly smooth piece of skin does NOT look
like a perfectly smooth piece of wood, metal, etc -- because it's
NOT wood, metal, etc. What it's composed of (chemically, mollecularly,
structurally) determines how it scatters the light. Suface of course
is important, but again a mottled bit of skin does NOT look like an
identically mottled piece of terra-cotta ceramics -- even though both
are slightly dull in appearance, rough, and textured identically.

an "absorbed spectrum" (eg, a green apple is green becasue it's
absorbing all colours of light (mainly
red and blue), EXCEPT for green.

Thus, as it turns out the way that light interracts with everything
determines why it "looks" different.

So, what about sound?

Same thing: reflected, transmitted, scattered, absorbed.

And what about the "texturing" of the light or sound or the "suface"
onto which it is "played" ?

Putting it all together: Assemblage/Collage

In this section: {A bit of Mime Play} (may be skipped)
{Context matters}

A bit of Mime Play

Colnsider two mimes. They come on stage from LEFT and RIGHT,
the bow to each other or shake hands, etc.

One takes out an imaignayr pitcher and pours a glass of water
into an immaginary glass -- apparently using the bit of ALL
of the water in the pitcher. The first mime fills the glass to
the brim, and then after spilling a bit, wipes the rim and
is about to drink. But then noticing her/his/its friend
(the other mime) defers, reaches up and takes another
imaginary glass off an immaginary shelf. And pours half
the water into the glass. The other mime "thanks" the
first one, they "toast" (salute!) each other. As the second
mime starts drinking, the first mime watches (glad that
her/his/its friend is enjoying the water). The first mime
turns their glass upside down "pouring" the water out
onto the floor. The second mime stops drinking and looks
surprised, but before they can gesture "what did you
do that for?", the first mime then puts their lips on the
edge of the BOTTOM of the glass (the open end), and with
their head turned downward (face parallel to the floor),
slowly tilts the glass upward apparently sipping the water.
After a brief taste, pulls back and nodds approval and again
"toasts" the second mime. The second mime pauses, looks at
the floor, looks at the first mime (still holding the INVERTED
glass aloft in the "toast gesture"), shruggs and lifts her/his/its
glass as well and heartily toasts the first mime. They (each in
their own way) "drink" -- exit music. (etc)

It's a cute trick isn't it (i would like to think that it deserves
a place up there with the "killed clown" bit, but it might need
a bit of work)?

Or shouldn't that rather be:

It's a cute trick isn't it? I would like to think that this bit
of mime-play deserves a place in the "Clown Hall of Fame" up there
with the "Killked Clown" bit. But, then maybe it's a bit "too cute"
or at very least might need a bit or work on the bit.

Of course every "bit" needs a "title". How about: "To each his own" ?

Alaas, i digress.

Needless to say, the drama has elements of the so-called "reversal
of fortune" in it. The fact that the glass is turned upside down
bears pondering. Write an essay on it and turn it in at the end
of class.

Unfortately that's LINEAR thinking. The piece ISN'T linear. It's
(only slightly absurd) -- what keeps it from BEING absurd (i would
maintain that it can NOT be absurd) is the way that the second mime
(apparently the reasonable one) "fills in" for us. They don't
understand why their friend is behaving that way. At first they
might consider that it's all a joke. But, then the first mime
DID offer their friend half of the water.

So, why isn't it absurd. First off: IT"S MIMES YOU IDIOT!! (sorry
had the volume a bit high). Almost by defacto WHAT-EVER mimes
do is "ok". Or is it? In this case, the "bit" doesn't *quite*
make sense. Usually what mimes do is to "mime" (mimic -- from
our old Greek word "mimesis") REAL things around us. The props
are almost always imaginary.

The bit doesn't mak sense now does it?

I mean what about the spilled water? And what about the "fact"
that the first mime is apparently able to enjoy the glass of
water when he/she/it has just very purposefully dumped it out
on the floor.

It's like a magic trick. Once you know it, it's boring. I cheated.
I left out KEY directions to give you (the reader of what i'm
writing a false impression of almost everything of importance).
Do you understand what i'm saying ? I hope not. Because i'm
not SAYING anything. I'm at home, late on Saturday night typing
on an old lap top computer the six-key of which doen's work.
So, if you think that i'm SAYING anything to you, you're crazy.
Right? (i want to thank cartoonist/writer Scott McCloud for that one).

Ok, so, anyway. If i tell you the title, then the trick is revealed
(and you'll be able to "fill in the missing pieces of the action).
So, that we can "move along" (and in a total breech of the
magician's code, the bit is called "half empty half full".

But, that's the point: It's supposed to be a minimalist bit;
like the nature of mime itself. In fact when mime is "over the
top" (that is NOT minimialst) is when mime is mediocre. If we begi
to ADD things to the bit, then it brings it back from the edge of
minimalism. Note: we could "merely" photograph a picture of a glass
of water with no title -- that would be even more minimalist.

We ADD textrue to it that might or might NOT change it.

We could add dramatic music (eg, a piano and a stet of cymbals as
asw used in the first performance of Alfred Jarry's play "Ubu Roi"
-- it was touted as having "full orchestral accompaniment".

Wewe could adds ound effects. Except for one KEY point they would
NOT effect the bit. When the first mime turns the glass upside
down -- do we hear water splashing out? For the "integrity of the
bit", we knwo that there should not be any sound. We might try to
cover it up with music as the second mime "reels" at the idea of
pouring out the delicious water.

What about dialog? Spoken we would then be pantomimeing (if i read
the word correctly) or at the very least "regular acting" but
with "pretend" props.

Even in the artistic way, we must be aware of the philosopher/writer
Umberto Ecco's addage:
Context is King.

There are of course several contexts at work at all times; eg:

Context: The artist and art object as participant

The old phrase "art happens" often comes to mind. Part of this is
that we create an expectaion that art is occuring by the simple act
of saying that we are doing art.

Becasue of the pseudo-mythical "powers" bestoyed on us (by the
"art loving public", critics, collectors, news paper reporters,
etc) we can not help but PRODUCE art even if we attempt to
create -[non-art]-, -[anti-art]-, or -[meaningless art]-.

Note that reputaions (and therfore EXPECTATION) come into play, etc.
The fact that a museuem or gallery is involved automatically sets
the stage for "traditional" art to happen in. The reputaion of
even an eccentric (or well known) artist creates that expectation.

Further the art object can become art due to context. If we are
walking along a side walk and we see a child's "hop-scotch"
drawing we usually don't regard it as art. But, if the same
child draws a picture of a stick fiugre, house, and a tree
next to it, we automaticaly put it into the category of "art".
The fact that we "recognise" the artness of one object as
opposed to the other is a very subtle part of context. And is
based on varying degrees of FAMILIARITY.

Context: Environment

For example if we got to a museum and happen to see a bucket
and mop over to the side of one room, we dismiss it as the
indication that a janitor has been temporarily called away
from their cleaing duty. We might even (given that we
are in a museum and our aesthetic senses are "alreted")
notice that the wooden mop handle must have been broken
since it was quite apparently "fixed" with a very adeptly
applied use of duck tape. Later in the muesuem we encounter
the mop and bucket again. Finally, as we progress further
into the museum, we find a person dressed in a grey "jumper"
with a name tag on the breast pocket (say "Joe" or "Sally"
or "Toby") and they are sitting there in a folding chair,
a broom propped up against the wall, and of all things
smoking -- the near-by gallery guard oblivious to this breech
in conduct. How absurd. Then finally someone in another group
decides to do something about it, and goes over to the guard
and says, "Shouldn't you do something about that?". The guard
(who quite apparently has been "dozing") draws themself up and
walks over to the wayward janitor and sternly admonishes,
"What do you think you are doing? You can't smoke in here!"
As the janitor steps on the cigarette, the guard notices that
the broom is right next to a painting and so says to the janitor
and you can't leave that thing there." As the guard goes back
to their post, they tug down on their shirt to straighten it.
The janitor shrugs their shoulders, goes over to the wall and
picks up the painting and totes if off -- leaving the broom.

Another magic trick.

So, would a museum label saying "All Cleaned Up" be "over the top"?

Thus, the "usual art environment" (a museum, gallery, etc) FORCES
the context on us.

The point is, that we "expect" many things. Even our behaviours
are under control -- the dictim "don't touch the art" is exctaly
NOT true in the case of the "floor covered with wrapped lemon drops"
by Torres, where the participants are encouraged to pick one out.

Context: Social Dynamics

Depending upon the culture, somethings are normal and other are
acceptable, while others are taboo or illegal.

If we are in a bank and an elderly man (quite shabbily dressed)
comes in and starts singing quite loudly several things may happen.
The guard may wait for a second and then approach the man asking
if he's ok. Everyone may stop what they are doing and simply
watch. The guard does nothing (other than turn and face the
old man). Some people act nervous and start to leave, others
turn and simply stare, a few make "music motions" -- but do
not join in. Finally the man finishes singing the traditional
Christmas song "Oh Come All Yea Faithful", and everyone applauds,
the door to the bank opens and snow blows in from the sub-zero
weather outside. Or perhaps every looks totally bewildered
because it is July.

If the people in the bank know the man one social dynamic exists,
if not, then it tends toward the "us vs them" mentality in varying
degrees. If they know the man (and it IS July) and they know that
he suffers from Alzheimer's Disease, yet another dynamic plays out.

Now these are "normal" behavious that in turn form a "stage" into
which we can inject art. We can have several approaches.

0. The Observer Affect. In the day of film, news crews, and
cameras. Almost anything can be done if there is a camera
around; alternatively, a sound recroder, or even a "survey
clip board" can be used. A startling example of this was related
by the independent film producer/writer Darren Arronofski ??sp??.
During the shooting of the film "Pi", they used the New York
subway (at about 4am) as a "set" for one of the main character's
, Max (played by Sean Gillette) migrane attacks. The scene was
like something out of "Rosmary's Baby" -- very bizzare. As
they were setting up, one of New York's finest (a woman cop
in this case) walked over to where one of the "props" was
sitting on stairs leading up out of the subway. As she bent
over to look at it, the cammera woman nudged Arronovski and
they were terrified that they might be fined or told to shut
down as they didn't have a license to shoot. Without really
looking at them, the cop just walked away. Later they found
out that directly above (on the street level), Woody Allen
was shooiting a film and the cop had assumed that they were
part of his "second unit". Thus, the *real* power of Andy
Warhol's "fifteen minutes of fame".

Part of the aesthetic of this level of social dynamic IS the
idea that the "camera creates its own reality". We all know
that the way that a film is edited, or the lighting in a play,
or the "mikeing" of a concert can make or break the event.

Thus, while we can *literally* get away with anything, the
TIMING and INTENSITY will affect the BELIEVABILITY.

For example, take a street scene where we are going to stage
a killing. It could be a spy or godfather, sfm or love movie
-- each genre has its own little twists. A legitimate film would start at
5 am -- possibly even before dawn. Police cars would be present
to keep people out. Special effects people are crawiling all
over the place, camera, electrical, prop, and lighting people
everywhere, etc. FInally, the cast is brought out and sign a
few autographs, and then the action begins. Literally, anything
could transpire there. Of course there would be an element of
non-reality about it, since no one would really believe that
this famous actor is really going to shoot down the other
in the first place -- i mean, *really*, not even Hollywood
is THAT catty. Besides, why is this famous actress drressed
as a half human cyborg anyway?

Note that the total NON-reality of the filming (capturing the
art) is contrasted with the need to create TOTAL-reality during
the viewing of the same images/sounds/etc.

At the other end of the spectrum, some one with a camera may be
able to interview people and even have a couple of (unknown)
actors pretending to shoot each other down. But, more likely
than not the police will be called in to investigate the situation
and it unlikely that the artist involve will be lucky enough to
have Woody Allen (or similar) in the next block shooting a
legitmate movie -- transference of authority or "guilt by
association".

Also, not the context of the genre again. If the actors are
dressed in "normal" clothing the event becomes more real, and
thus challenges passerby's (as well as the police) to become
more involved. If we saw two people dressed as "knights of
the realm" and speaking in archaid English, the police might
not even bother to check it out until they heard the director
yell "cut". An investigation might then reveal that the would-be
film makers did NOT have a permit (required by the Mayor's office).
The police might "let it go", or they might have to insist --
those TWO (only two) options are exigiencies of the "normal"
world. Which brings us to...

1. Nomative/Normal. That is, we act or do something slightly
odd but, not too "out of the norm". This might include
standing on the sidewalk playing the violin to get money,
doing chalk drawings on the sidewalk, handing out leaflets,
etc. If we do these in the CONTEXT of art, then we are infact
using the normal patterns of the social dynamic and then adding
by our work something to it that we as artists *call* art. Say
i stand on the corner outside a new restaurant that has just
opened and hand out flyers that have a "15% off" coupon on it.
This is the border line of art/non-art for such an activiy.
If i (as a graphic artist) hand out posters for an up-coming
concert, when in fact the posters are simply art work that
i (or a friend) has done, then this is much more of an "art"
like dynamic. This was the subject of the artist/writer
Winston Smith in his "fake" punk rock concert posters. These
are examples in a nomative space, but imagine similar "almost
normal" art acts in private property cases. Of course in
the context of *these* environments, the "borders" of normality
are much closer in -- the streets *are* dangerous because
anything can happen. This of course is the illusion of control,
since anything can happen anywhere. Take the "Waco Compound"
incident -- because they were in a demense, they could not
immagine being "invaded" by the ATF agents. The illusion of control.

The aesthetic of the normal is of course the degree to which we
want to embrace or defy the norm. What is the art work trying
to say? That is, its howness, aboutness, and whatness? This is
a difficult topic to address, but here we go.

If the point of using "normality" is underscore the mundaneness
of normality, then every attempt must be made to embrace that
normality. We might use absurdity to underscore certain aspects
of "normality", but then we approache pastiche, non-reality,
and of course anti-art, nihilism, etc.

For example, the absurdity in Kafka's "The Metamorphsis" occurs
NOT because Gregor Samsa is transformed a giant cockroach --
indeed that would be basis for an excellent sf comedy/drama),
but that rather after he is so transformed that he still insists
on trying to go to work -- trying to act normally and "as
expected" even though quite clearly (to us, less to him) things
are not normal. The same occurs in the film "Love Story" by ??author??
when ??part-name?? (played by Ali McGraw) is crying and applogising
when she says that she "lost my key" -- when the underlaying
tragedy is that she is dieing of cancer. ??details??

Where we draw the line between "real" reality and "surreality" is
of course difficult as well. From a classical, surrealist POV, we
use "dream-like" or "larger then life" imagery/action/sounds/etc
to dig deep into the human psyche, condition, and to highlight
overlooked events/people/trends/etc in society.

The mere mundannity of things (ie, their "reeking with normality")
can then be used either create tragedy or comedy -- two sides of
a very thin coin. In several of Charles Mingus' works using both
modern Jazz and traditional African (tribal) themes, the music
often devloves from "acceptable" (normal) music into wailing cries
that seem to put-offish as to be offensive. In the middle of such
carrying on, he will often almost silently say the word "freedom".
Thus, very forecfully taking what appears to have wandered far
from acceptable (normal) music and flinging it like a dead albatross
into the listener's metaphorical face: Freedom -- the one thing
the African American didn't have despite all of the lies that s/he
was better off then living among the savages he left behind in
"The Dark Continent"; as if they had a choice in "leaving".

Thus, the "normal" may be stretched without crossing over into
either the absurd or the "out of bounds" -- but the aesthetic is
a delicte and ellusive one.

2. Exceeding the normal threshold. This would include things
that are clearly outside of the norm. With today's streets
crowded, much abberant behaviour actually exists. The streets
are full of derilicts that "society" has simply given up on.
Eventually, the derelicts give up on themselves and they end
up in a body bag labeled "John Doe" or such.

Thus, the attempt by the artist to push the limits has a well established
need. People like Mother Terressa and Albert Schweitzer who were moved by
their faith and compassion are the models that all artists must acckowledge.
Part of the "cannon" of art history (the "language" that artists all over
the world speak) consists of a good deal from the "big three" (Jewish,
Christain, and Islamic) religions, their art, iconograaphy and stories.

Naturally in the context of art "outside the gallery" there is always
going to be a certain amount of personal risk. This artwork include almost
all so-called "guerrilla art". This is of course of several forms:
Documentational, Imitative or Mocking.

The ways that these three forms can be mixed lead to three corresponding
types of what is commonly labeld "pop art".

NOTE: I set asside "popular art", that is art that people buy because
it seems pleasing or decorative. These might include original or
reproduced works of art such as found in the renaisaance, impressionist,
etc period. The designation "pop art" must necessarily exclude religious
works of art since they are not intended purely (or even mainly) for
their aesthetic value, but rather for their spiritual signficance.
also exclude family portraits, the works by members of the family or
friends as well since they have more peronsal meaning than even "signed
Picasso" might. Thus, for example, a traditionally made quilt is popular
art, NOT pop art while the so-called "abolitionist quilts" [sewn by many
white women in the 1800c to show their support for the abolition of
slavery] are pop art -- at least Pop Art Type II, possibly Type III
(see below). An interesting side-light to this is the "poster" art
common to teenager's rooms which are often time anti-thetical to the
aesthetic of their parents. I leave this out for the most part since
it is a form of social protest or identity establishment and therefore
(like family portraits) of a more persona nature than say a billboard.
Thus, the poster that a teenager might have on their wall of say
"Philip Glass" would be personal art -- although the poster is derived
from the same "machine" of mass production as would be a BillBoard
add announcing a Philip Glass concert. Both are examples of Pop Art.

Pop Art Type I -- Ostensibly this is mass-produced art including such
well known examples as Andy Warhol's "25 Marylins",
or even the "Coca Cola" sign, etc. Early "pop artists" identified these
cultural markers and how they permiated the "modern". Even Marcell
Duchamp's well-known "Mona Lisa with the Moustache" ("LHOOQ") brough out
the fact that when the Mona Lisa ("The Lady La Giocanda") appears on
a dress label, then it has certainly taken on "something" that is NOT
art. The film Koyansquatsi ??sp?? is an example of an "art film" that links
many of these well known images together into a visual collage. The
musical aesthetic that Phiilip Glass used in layering his music over
these images is beyond my understanding, although like many things:
"I may not know much about crustaceans; but, i know what i like".
["The Aeesthetic Life", Volume #1, VHS ??refs??]

The riese of pop art to the point of mediocrity was highlighted
by "Mad Magazine" (itself a pop art "factory" -- as much as Warhol's;
positioning as it did it's oppostiion to "Madison Avenue"; that is,
"the modern advertising mania"). In one article, Mad Magazine showed
how to appear "with it" (ie, cool, "in", etc). The poor slob was
admonished to make up a carefully lettered sign saying "Trash"
and put it in fornt of the his trash. Another sign read "Dirty
Laundry". This was supposed to evoke the aesthetics of both the
"Beatniks" as well as "The Avant Garde" moderns including most
notably the "pop artists".

The responses to Part Art I (a thesis if you will in the Hegelian
sense) was of course several fold. A return to "proper art" characterised
most notably by framed copies of the "classics" (the aforementioned
works of the renaisance, impressionists, etc), as well as "acceptable"
works by such artists as Thomas Kincaid, etc. Another response was
by the "minimallists" such as Ad Rhinhardt, Donnald Judd, ??name?? Flavin,
etc. And of course:

Pop Art Type II: Social commentary. This often took the guise of "pop art"
but in reality had an critical edge to it. One notable
example ws the emmergence of "underground art" notably the so-called
underground comics. Of the many notable examples are Robert Crumb
("Zap Comics", "Fritz the Cat", "Mr. Natural", "Fear and Loathing
Comics"), as well as his wife Aline Kominski-Crumb, as well as other
feminist, as well as an emerging group of "minority" artists. These
sprang up all over the world (even behind the "iron curtain" of
Communism). Examples (briefly) include Mexican phographer Ignaacio
"Nacho" Lopez ("On the Poor Go to Hell"), Cuban graffitis Jean
Michelle Basquiat ("Samo"), as well as one of the earliest victims
of Aids, the late, great artist Keith Harring (his style has saddly
been appropriateed by corporations dispensing the same kinds of
mediocrity by which the AIDS epidemic -- even now -- spreads. Most
notable was Harring's "Silence = Death" cartoons. Further feminist
activities include the public works by the so-called Guerrilla
Girls, as well as such notable womyn artists as Judy Chicago ("Tje
Dinner Party"), Barbara Kruger ("I Shop, Therefore I am"), etc.

Pop Art Type III: Where-as pop aret type II might "merely" comment on
social conditions (Barbara Kruger emblazened one of
Malcom X's statements of busses throughout New York: "If you spent
half as much time on your mind as you do on your hair, then your
brain woould be a thousand times better for it.". ??exact quote??
-- "type III" artists attempted to more directly change (not just
criticize) social conditions. These include inverntionist artists,
out-spoken and directly involved members of the various art areas.
Examples include, TV Mogul Ted Turner donating one billion $ US to
the United Nations's Children's fund, actor Dennis Weaver setting
up environmental housing alternatives and actively debating
conservatives on envrionmental issues, singer/song-writer Willie
Nelson getting involved in producing diesal fuels from renewable
sources such as soy beans, environmental artists Jean-Claude and
her husband Christo "wrapping" buidlings and bridges (all of
deep historical importance), islands in Florida (highlighting a
very fragile eccosystem at risk due to development) and opening
larger-than-life umbrellas SIMULTANEOUSLY in Japan and the United
States (at a time when international economic competition was
given rise to almost racist dialog to discourage co-operation
between two the world's leaders in technology and social
developmetn). Gladly, this trend is continuing, for instance
super-star/director Mel Brooks ("Blazing Saddels", "Young
Frankenstein") undertook to create the film "Life Stinks" at the
height of the "Reagan Era" when government policies were turning
out people on the street in "cut back programs". This fact is
underlined by the fact that (now a famous and wealthy man), Brooks
barely survived his early "Student Art" days. After finishing
probably his two best "art works" the films "The Twelve Chairs"
and "The Producers" -- both financial failures. He met one of
the producers of the soon-to be made movie "Texas-X" in the
street who recognised him. When asked what he was doing these
days, Brooks replied, "Actually, i'm walking around the stret
looking for dimes to pay the rent". The film "Texas-X" (a
reference to recently assasinated Malcom-X was directed by
Brooks (with comedian/writer Richard Prior as one of the writers)
and released as the film "Blazing Saddles".

But, alas; i, digress.

3. Direct Social Commentary. This has a long histroy from the critical
lithographs of Honore Daumier ??sp?? to
the incissive eye of Edgar Degas' "dancers" series, Mark Twain's ascerbic
pen, ??name?? Hartman's collages of the fascists carving up the war,
to direct reporting and filming of the War in Viet Nam, etc. Let's face
it, we live in a sick worlod. Part of the *intent* of the inventor of
iconsopher is that it be used to increase Man's understanding of the
world and to slow his pace towards oblivion; is it too much to hope
that it might help to prevent that oblivion? As the Russians say,
"Perhaps. Perhaps.".

There are of course several approaches to commentary. These include
the making of documentaries which can consist of photographics records
and interviews as well as the more "now-generation" accessible mdeium
of videoes, podcasts (audio/video downloadable media), and of course
cartoon books/shows, pop songs, etc.

Film Content
We could start with "the basics" ...

In this section:

Documentary
The Western
Adventure
Romance
Comedy
Backstage & Musical (tips towel in Dr. Dariese's general direction)
Horror/SF

(well, it's a start)

Backstage &Musical (tips towel in Dr. Dariese's general direction)
First there was the musical, but then "with the
maturation of the genre", came the "backstage musical".
{Jump down there now...}

As the late, great mythologist, Joseph Campbell has told us: -[(in humanist)]-

"Every myth is based on some previous event/fact.
It may have mutated over time to be all but
un-recognisable; but that original truth is there."
-- def, not an exact quote.

The Backstage Musical

This section is divided into two sub-sections:

So, queg the phot do you keep saying...
That there IS a diff between horror and sf?

cf/qv "Terminator" & "Cyborg 2087"