Re: nature of collaboration (was live performance)

[Richard Zvonar <zvonar@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 2:34 AM -0500 12/12/02, ndk wrote:

>You are incorporating your personal environment into your personal art
>world. Once you present this to others and its no longer a personal
>experience then you take some responsibility for its meaning or lack of
>as art.

It's still a personal experience, but it also becomes a shared 
experience. Similarly its effectiveness as art is a shared 
responsibility. If (to borrow a term from Vito Acconci) the "art 
receivers" have no responsibility for their art experience, then the 
work is probably functioning just as entertainment.

>It's like Duchamp enables you to make an argument in favor of something
>being art. Calling him into play usually assures that something lacks a
>great deal of what rewards us in art, but that is speaking for myself.

I was doing what I do long before I'd heard of Duchamp, but when I 
became acquainted with him it helped focus my understanding of what I 
was already doing and thinking about. I make reference to him not 
only for his own work and ideas, but also for his effect on the 
culture at large. My more direct influences were probably McLuhan, 
Cage, Joyce, Burroughs, Zappa.

>I question the strength of most art that wouldn't function without 
>the incorporation (not mere refrencing) of third party art.

"Most" is the operant term. Most art is insignificant. I'm personally 
concerned mainly with the good stuff, and there are a number of 
artists using appropriation in interesting (and even significant) 
ways. John Oswald is a particular favorite of mine, as are 
Negativland.

>if one decides any or all experience is art then whats the point of 
>calling anything art if there is no separation.

This brings up the oft-cited remark about the Balinese having no word 
for art because they do everything as well as they can.

>if its good enough why not leave it alone

What does "good enough" mean?

>if one has a great idea why do you need all this other artwork in it.

Maybe because the "great" idea is about direct quotation and incorporation.

>They "did it too" is IMHO an incredibly weak arguement unless your
>artistic statement is about merely getting even somehow, because here
>you are refrencing something that is a proven work.

That's a deflection. When I incorporate the work of someone who is 
known for "plunderphonic" practice it is frequently done as an homage 
to a friend and colleague. I'll put in a little of John Oswald's 
"DAB" because I admire his work and because of that piece's important 
role in the legal history of Plunderphonic, or I'll put in a bit 
Pauline Oliveros's "Bye, Bye Butterfly" because she was one of the 
earliest practitioners of what I do in live performance. I also like 
to incorporate music by people I know, and in fact almost everything 
I use is by someone I've at least spent some time with.

>Just my opinion but what it often really says is "I know I can't 
>obtain that kind of quality without incorporating some of it, but 
>hey my work rocks"

That's not really a concern. As I've said before, I use many sources 
for their iconic value, not because of any perceived great "quality."

>One has to believe that its not a given that its art because it exists

I becomes art because an artist makes the selection. As you point out 
this is a curatorial process, but I believe that curation CAN be a 
legitimate art form.

>When numerous things are made up of the same pieces then the real 
>value is more than that of the pieces.

In my own work I am not merely sampling bits of this and that; I'm 
using these as source materials that function in a variety of ways. 
Juxtaposition, transformation, crossmodulation, fragmentation, and 
other processes bring the elements in and out of focus. Some sources 
might not be overtly audible but may serve as a private guide track. 
Other sources might play unaltered as a comment on the performance 
situation, as when I ended my set with Johnny Thunder's "Loop de 
Loop" at the Santa Cruz Loop Fest.

>When something understood to be valid is substantially incorporated in
>something then then how much of it is improved on, how much is just not
>spoiling the original?

That's for the listener to decide.

>But I'd rather further the art rather than quote other art if my 
>goal is to create.

That's for you to decide.

>One may very well have other goals

That's for me to decide.
-- 

______________________________________________________________
Richard Zvonar, PhD
(818) 788-2202
http://www.zvonar.com
http://RZCybernetics.com

------------------------------