[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

to be against pure surfaces (in the morning)



At 13:00 2002-01-18 +0000, you wrote:
I actually find this affinity that I see in the "microsound" scene with
concepts of purity and all white surfaces and austerity kind of creepy
actually.

the affinity you mention comes from microsound's grand cousin minimalism, of course. purity & empty surfaces are all over art & design history, from yves klein's empty exhibit _rien_ down to the building of the world trade center. i think it goes without saying that pure surfaces, "spaces without influence" as i call them, are inherently fragile. i'm sure deleuze says something about this but one only needs to read a reporter, james gleick's famous book _chaos_ & figure it out themselves. personally i liken any search for purity to the platonic search for the primordial "idea": a good drive to nowhere (as opposed to a bad drive to somewhere). of course there is more to art than that sort of concern, but as _art_, it doesn't really matter what shape a work takes as creativity comes in all forms, & purity has always been a most fascinating concept to juggle with as it notably impresses girls. now, in terms of functional design, or as a philosophical holy grail, "total purity" is inherently flawed & should be avoided at all costs. (for philosophy, a most striking book against plato's "idea" is of course, karl popper's classic book _open society & its enemies_, which is probably also a timely read in the current political context.)


of course, if you ask for my own opinion, i think most minimalist art is fragile & thus uninteresting, but someone else might just find this very fragility interesting; i think we need to accept that. anyway, your initial point didn't have anything to do with minimalism but posturing. another empty, groundless debate since in the end, most art involves posturing. to take a random example, you saying "art must be free of theoretical chains" is posturing for the art-for-art's-sake school of thought. likewise (an equally random example) when i say that art must be solid, i may be in fact posturing for realist (or ironic) art, & it helps that i'm currently reading northrop frye (_anatomy of criticism_) who's giving me the words to express things i felt for a long time. (wait, so theory would serve a purpose? good golly, what a concept.) now, i wouldn't want people to take it that groundless debate can't be interesting (it sometimes is), i just think they rarely justify an insult or a cheap shot. in the very least make yourself sarcastic.

i realize i'm posting to microsound again & although i have mentioned deleuze, plato, gleick, popper & frye, i still haven't referenced the work of mrs. spears, so allow me to do it now:

"___________________________________________"

have a nice day
~ david