AnthonySEaston (9:44:45 PM): and also, how is the poetics of coterie
AnthonySEaston (9:45:03 PM): im thinking about this painting he did of liz taylor in national velvet
AnthonySEaston (9:45:10 PM): that i saw at the sf moma
AnthonySEaston (9:45:18 PM): and its big, maybe 20 by 5
AnthonySEaston (9:45:22 PM): oriented vertically
AnthonySEaston (9:45:43 PM): and the ground is silver, and then there are partial strips of repeating images, in black
AnthonySEaston (9:46:08 PM): so its cinematic, in almost the least ifguritive way possible
AnthonySEaston (9:46:52 PM): it resembles themechanics of cinema, the silver celluoid, and the black films, and it came from cinema, most likely, so the transference loses all figuritive nature
AnthonySEaston (9:47:08 PM): it seems really brutal and so unsubtle
AnthonySEaston (9:47:18 PM): and i wonder, is that brutality a good thing
theminorthirds (9:47:43 PM): oh. i don't know.
theminorthirds (9:47:51 PM): for some.
AnthonySEaston (9:48:53 PM): its in the same room as one of rbergs combines, and an early 70s mirror by lichenstein, and rberg is totally brutal, slathering and obstructing the base coat of this painting, its a suprisingly gestural and violent work, and the mirror by lichenstein, was lovely, a shimmering, barely visbile fantasia of white space, blue lines and black ben day dots, decoratiev in the best way
AnthonySEaston (9:49:24 PM): so it was weird, like warhol was in the middle of these two approaches to pop, and he lost, i think
AnthonySEaston (9:49:32 PM): and im trying to figure out how he lost
AnthonySEaston (9:49:41 PM): why i am thinking of it in terms of losing
theminorthirds (9:49:43 PM): so i am reading this book by o'hara
theminorthirds (9:49:51 PM): not by
theminorthirds (9:49:52 PM): about
theminorthirds (9:49:55 PM): the lytle shaw book
theminorthirds (9:49:57 PM): which is very good
AnthonySEaston (9:50:03 PM): the poetics of coterie (which i mean to pick up)
theminorthirds (9:50:06 PM): oui
theminorthirds (9:50:11 PM): yeah get it from the library
theminorthirds (9:50:13 PM): it's good
AnthonySEaston (9:50:16 PM): dont buy it?
theminorthirds (9:50:20 PM): well, or buy it
theminorthirds (9:50:22 PM): it's still in HC
AnthonySEaston (9:50:41 PM): how much was it
theminorthirds (9:50:50 PM): i dunno, i got it from the library. like $40?
theminorthirds (9:50:55 PM): so but
theminorthirds (9:51:03 PM): so the last few chapters are more about art criticism
theminorthirds (9:51:13 PM): and this one part, which i was mostly skimming
theminorthirds (9:51:20 PM): he's talking about r'berg
AnthonySEaston (9:51:28 PM): hmm mm
theminorthirds (9:51:37 PM): and how this early critic (greenberg?) found some collage poem to "avoid" meaning
AnthonySEaston (9:51:55 PM): explain more about collaege poem
theminorthirds (9:51:55 PM): but shaw sees this avoidance of meaning as creating meaning, he goes meta.
theminorthirds (9:51:59 PM): sigh.
theminorthirds (9:52:00 PM): not poem
theminorthirds (9:52:05 PM): collage painting. of r'berg's
theminorthirds (9:52:08 PM): my language is all tire.d
AnthonySEaston (9:52:11 PM): a combine?
theminorthirds (9:52:28 PM): well something. it had images and paint.
theminorthirds (9:52:51 PM): anyhoo
theminorthirds (9:52:56 PM): so i got to thinking
theminorthirds (9:53:06 PM): that perhaps the critic's job is the find meaning in art?
theminorthirds (9:53:16 PM): or perhaps that is what the critic thinks their job is?
theminorthirds (9:53:26 PM): or perhaps that is what we do when we act as a critic?
theminorthirds (9:54:02 PM): and yet if an artist is trying to avoid meaning, as both the older critic and, to a lesser extent, shaw agree
theminorthirds (9:54:11 PM): perhaps it is best just to let them avoid it
theminorthirds (9:54:12 PM): ?
theminorthirds (9:54:29 PM): perhaps we are addicted to meaning.
theminorthirds (9:54:34 PM): perhaps we feel *entitled*
theminorthirds (9:54:36 PM): to it
theminorthirds (9:55:02 PM): and perhaps we don't need it.
AnthonySEaston (9:55:03 PM): warhol isnt avoiding meaning, by any stretch of the immigantion, and i mean lichenstein is, except formal elements are meanings, the colour, line, arangement, and the like
theminorthirds (9:55:05 PM): all the time.
AnthonySEaston (9:55:11 PM): but i feel that way about r'berg and johns
theminorthirds (9:55:34 PM): surely warhol is *sometimes* avoiding meaning
AnthonySEaston (9:55:47 PM): the absensce, the erasure, the lacunae, the absences are a way of tryign to escape the texts we use the words we use to talk about these things
AnthonySEaston (9:55:56 PM): v. rarely, he has that aspie questioning thing
theminorthirds (9:56:04 PM): surely empire.
theminorthirds (9:56:32 PM): it seems like warhol is less interested in meaning and more interested in staring?
theminorthirds (9:56:40 PM): and he likes staring at clebs
AnthonySEaston (9:56:47 PM): empire is totally about meaning, its that satie qoute made v. v. literal, its the translation of that satie qoute
AnthonySEaston (9:57:02 PM): and the staring is all about finding meaning in things that the culture considers meaningless
theminorthirds (9:57:36 PM): what satie quote?
theminorthirds (9:57:46 PM): is it?
theminorthirds (9:57:55 PM): is it about finding meaning or beauty?
AnthonySEaston (9:58:39 PM): for warhol the cosmetic is the meaningful
AnthonySEaston (9:59:22 PM): its cages aphormism about satie
AnthonySEaston (10:00:03 PM): f you find something boring for 2 mins, you should it for 4 mins. If you still find boring, you should do it for 8 mins, etc
theminorthirds (10:00:10 PM): oh. that's not about satie
theminorthirds (10:00:16 PM): that's cage quoting suzuki on zen.
theminorthirds (10:00:56 PM): but *boring* is not the opposite of *meaningful*, and i'm using "meaning" here as an intellectual "feeling of understanding", rather than as "important"
AnthonySEaston (10:01:15 PM): its also written in reaction to SAties Vexations, a performeance in nyc that acge and warhol both partipaied in
theminorthirds (10:01:34 PM): sure, but he was said it in a zillion other contexts.
theminorthirds (10:01:52 PM): but he also wouldn't say it became "meaningful"
theminorthirds (10:02:22 PM): cage seems to have been pretty much against "meaning" in music
AnthonySEaston (10:02:41 PM): how do we define meaning then
theminorthirds (10:02:56 PM): a coherent narrative, an "explanation"
AnthonySEaston (10:02:59 PM): because warhol didnt, that might be the big diffence b.w warhol and lichenstein at least
theminorthirds (10:03:13 PM): "what W. is doing in this piece is..."
theminorthirds (10:03:21 PM): "the colors are *angry*"
theminorthirds (10:03:37 PM): "R'berg is trying to do this or that to comment on this or that"
AnthonySEaston (10:04:06 PM): trying isnt succeding, and trying once isnt making a narrative for the long haul
AnthonySEaston (10:07:43 PM): its the mirror peice that really did me in
AnthonySEaston (10:08:11 PM): because it seemed to totally play with those assumptions, with the issues of narrative force, meaning, abstraction, formalism, self relfexisive historicism
AnthonySEaston (10:10:09 PM): http://collections.sfmoma.org/OBJ383.htm
AnthonySEaston (10:10:22 PM): its igger and smoother, and more white/less silver irl
theminorthirds (10:10:38 PM): ok, but so.
theminorthirds (10:10:49 PM): you're putting a narrative, a meaning, onto this piece.
theminorthirds (10:10:52 PM): why?
AnthonySEaston (10:11:22 PM): .its evading a narrative
theminorthirds (10:11:37 PM): "because it seemed to totally play with those assumptions, with the issues of narrative force, meaning, abstraction, formalism, self relfexisive historicism" is a narrative.
AnthonySEaston (10:11:44 PM): but he put the ben day dots there, and he used ben day dots before, right
AnthonySEaston (10:11:51 PM): and its a mirror that you cannot see into
AnthonySEaston (10:12:02 PM): and its only barely a mirror
AnthonySEaston (10:12:07 PM): i mean its w/i the text
theminorthirds (10:12:21 PM): ok, let me try this again.
theminorthirds (10:13:03 PM): why are you compelled, when you see a painting such as this, to ask questions like "what is this saying about narrative force? what is this saying about historicism?"?
AnthonySEaston (10:13:52 PM): im compelled about the historicism because it is in a room of other pop artists, it was done at the same time as work that riffs on monet, that it formally attaches to his other work
theminorthirds (10:14:31 PM): so you think that the work is inviting this
AnthonySEaston (10:15:12 PM): i think it is
theminorthirds (10:15:36 PM): well, it might be!
theminorthirds (10:15:56 PM): i mean, clearly this is
theminorthirds (10:16:30 PM): it's less clear if this is
theminorthirds (10:16:51 PM): and even less clear if this is
AnthonySEaston (10:20:11 PM): but that erased drawing is rberg trying to destroy historical mark making and failing
theminorthirds (10:20:34 PM): that's what i'm saying, it's clearly creating a "meaning" in that sense.
AnthonySEaston (10:21:09 PM): nodding
theminorthirds (10:21:53 PM): the middle work, less so, but it's still maybe of the historical moment, commenting on action painting?
theminorthirds (10:21:56 PM): but maybe not
theminorthirds (10:22:00 PM): because it isn't saying much if it is
AnthonySEaston (10:23:23 PM): it is about the crazy car culture
theminorthirds (10:23:33 PM): no it is not
theminorthirds (10:23:42 PM): i mean you can talk about it that way if you want, but no.
AnthonySEaston (10:23:44 PM): i meant is it
theminorthirds (10:24:03 PM): no, it's just a nice painting. or whatever. a nice visual.
theminorthirds (10:24:16 PM): i don't know if it's worth investing with more than that
theminorthirds (10:24:32 PM): the third one is the sort of thing that Shaw and the other guy are talking about
theminorthirds (10:24:42 PM): something that seems overloaded with meanings to disallow any coherent meaning
theminorthirds (10:24:57 PM): which Shaw sees as a sort of metameaning, or he constructs meaning out of it by going a level meta
theminorthirds (10:25:08 PM): which is a trick that critics have learned in order to stay in business, maybe?
AnthonySEaston (10:25:20 PM): but i am not sure that the late work is any good, though
AnthonySEaston (10:25:27 PM): which trick again
theminorthirds (10:25:52 PM): well if X doesn't provide meaning, then its refusal to provide meaning provides a meaning.
AnthonySEaston (10:26:19 PM): true that



its big, maybe 20 by 5 oriented vertically and the ground is silver, and then there are partial strips of repeating images, in black so its cinematic, in almost the least ifguritive way possible
it resembles themechanics of cinema, the silver celluoid, and the black films, and it came from cinema, most likely, so the transference loses all figuritive nature
it seems really brutal and so unsubtle
and i wonder, is that brutality a good thing
AnthonySEaston (9:53:39 PM): ts in the same room as one of rbergs combines, and an early 70s mirror by lichenstein, and rberg is totally brutal, slathering and obstructing the base coat of this painting, its a suprisingly gestural and violent work, and the mirror by lichenstein, was lovely, a shimmering, barely visbile fantasia of white space, blue lines and black ben day dots, decoratiev in the best way
AnthonySEaston (9:53:51 PM): so it was weird, like warhol was in the middle of these two approaches to pop, and he lost, i think
AnthonySEaston (9:54:00 PM): and im trying to figure out how he lost
SvnRgdTgr (9:54:58 PM): Aw hon, it's probably just about the commodification of the art of cinema, hon. And I don't think Warhol "lost" anything. I think he's so much a part of our consciousness that he could never be considered a "loser".
SvnRgdTgr (9:55:06 PM): Says the Warhol fangirl. ;-)
AnthonySEaston (9:56:15 PM): i like warhol too, but its obvious what its about
SvnRgdTgr (10:02:32 PM): Well, I think because it has something to say, it's a worthy piece. Also, I think it's good that we can tell what Warhol's message is. Too much art is about clever obfuscation to the point where very few people get what the art is even supposed to be, so it's good that even when Warhol was at his most abstract a good number of people knew what he was trying to convey.
AnthonySEaston (10:03:29 PM): i think that looking for consistent narratives is problematic thopugh
SvnRgdTgr (10:04:12 PM): Why?
AnthonySEaston (10:06:04 PM): i think that life isnt that way, and i think that formal questions often are lost looking for narratiev questions, and i tihnk that we assume too much one way or the other
SvnRgdTgr (10:08:56 PM): But, you know, why must we demand that art and entertainment provide for us an exact mirror of real life? Sure life provides us with tons of questions and mysteries, but you know what? That's a part of life's misery, and I don't think it's healthy to wallow in life's misery.
AnthonySEaston (10:09:37 PM): im not thinking any of the work was miserable
SvnRgdTgr (10:11:31 PM): It might be, to someone who's looking to understand it. And no, I don't believe all art must be photo-realistic, but look at how easy it is to understand everything Picasso did. You can even draw some probable conclusions about Mondrian's work.
AnthonySEaston (10:13:07 PM): http://www.artbrokerage.com/art/lichtenstein/_images/lichtenstein_1108_1.jpg
SvnRgdTgr (10:24:30 PM): I'll admit, it's aesthetically pleasing, but -- I don't really get anything out of it aside from a "that's nice". There's nothing visceral there.
AnthonySEaston (10:27:13 PM): i think thats why i like it , the lack of viscera
SvnRgdTgr (10:28:14 PM): Really?