instituted vision-strangely-de Marcel Duchamp hegemonic invites hate each other until the end and to mythologize as a hero in continuous struggle. The two positions, the Luciferian destroyer of art on the one hand, and the savior through things on the other, represent a shutter, a basic inability to establish a genuine dialogue with the subject Marcel Duchamp. On one side are buckled like Donald Kuspit Marc Fumarolli or who consider the same destructive that called art. At the other extreme are people like Nicolas Bourriaud (a guy who seems to have much prestige in the cool world of philosophy and aesthetics but their texts, read in depth, without much sense and are full of inconsistencies of argument). To Bourriaud, the father of ready-made is everything, and even worse, take the ready-made as a form of expression . In short, there must be to force a mid Duchamp. And this is the Duchamp writes. The Duchamp speaks of art and is almost always ignored by both factions. This year has produced a "very short" summary of his letters on the Letters art. 1916-1956 (Elba editorial). They discovered the Duchamp concerned about the development of art and Duchamp directing their attacks not against the art itself, or against the bourgeoisie, but against the artists. In a letter to Katherine Dreier writes: "The longer I live among artists, the more I am convinced they are impostors as have the least success. This means also that all dogs are around artist about scammers. If you see the association between fraudsters and scammers, how can you be able to retain some kind of faith (and why)? ". This brief shows of his letters gives us a Duchamp concerned about art and the fact that they are the artists, the painters themselves "cool" with their fantasies of success and money that are destroying this thing called art, not him with ready-made . No wonder who coined the famous phrase "dumb as a painter." The book includes as an appendix to a text entitled "The creative act, where Duchamp pinpoints what he calls" art coefficient ", a key element there is a work of art. This ratio is calculated, he says, as follows: what he meant by the artist and said + he said finally, and not meant. To this we must add two factors: the viewer of the work and history to the work. is, in short, a very short but full text of findings.
Another text on art published in 2010 is that of Victor River: factography. Vanguard and mass communication (Abada). This text provides an interesting double reading ranging from historical revision of many of the elements of the vanguard to its link to a topic such as strategies for mass communication. The issue, as a heading, contains the following question: how to tell the reality? The factography born in the Soviet context the curious to narrate the facts as aseptic as possible, the least intrusive manner possible, but finally, the Stalinist regime as instrumentalized, eclipsing its full meaning. Rosa Beneitez in Afterpost , described it perfectly: "The route traced by Victor Rio begins with the historical context, social policy and artistic and cultural framework in which the factography was formulated as a rejection of art bourgeois as the different movements were developing avant-garde and intervention strategy in the prevailing aesthetic of the Stalin regime. The transition from the politics of permanent revolution of Trotsky to the "socialism of a single country" set up by Stalin marked the development of the LEF (Left Front of the Arts, bonded by Mayakovsky in 1922) and its attempt to position itself as counterpart tote program advocated by the new leader. This group of artists represented the ideological reorientation and formal constructivist movements present in the fabric art of the moment, with a shift to a clear p ositioning direct action on social life defended by the productivist and recovered somewhat this policy of "permanent revolution" alluded to above. "In short, a book indispensable as a tool for historical revision of the mechanisms through which" we have the movie. "
crap ( The seaman ) of Raúl Quinto. Vale. A chemical I did the prologue, but that has nothing to sustain it is one of the best in 2010. I mean, of the ones I liked 2010. Where to begin? This is an amazing book and amazed, but in the sense that he liked to José Hierro, ie as interference of opposing elements in a recognized university. What universe can share Sonic Youth and Francisco de Goya? That takes the ghostly museum offers Raúl Quinto. Leave a fragment of the prologue: "ONCE. enter this crap, the reader now has in his hands, is like stepping into a hallucinatory journey in a fascinating combination of stroke, in a museum without walls, in a van full of past and present, in a Coyote cinema where the movie stars with Brueghel gore, where someone sends a message in a bottle, where Newton and William Blake are perfectly braided appearance on a football stadium, where Nick Cave waiting in a border, where his nightmare Fuseli drawing on the table in which a woman tries to sleep surrounded by electrodes, where ... I could read in many ways this book, and returned again and again to him as he returns to a museum to see the same picture again, one who has seen so many times, and realize it is never the same, or like seeing an old movie again-that he has seen several times, but before which always has the feeling of being otherwise. And yet, which mutates the object is not-always the same: the picture, the film, the image-but the story that we create and in which we look. This is the crap : a story seen as a way of looking and living pictures. "A book that will not leave indifferent.
0 comments:
Post a Comment