mnartists.org

Home » Forum Home » mnartists.org Forums » The Plaza

Topic: Feedback on Articles
Replies: 1,148   Pages: 77   Last Post: Dec 6, 2005 8:40 PM by: jaime longoria

Reply to this Topic
Search Forum

Back to Topic List
Replies: 1,148   Pages: 77   [ Previous | 1 ... 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 | Next ]
Gabriel Combs

Posts: 1,497
Registered: Jun 16, 2002
Re: Feedback on Articles
Posted: Jul 26, 2005 2:04 AM
  Reply

The threads discussion was natural, relative, and similar to the derivatory (that is, the valuble conversation has gotten its assets originally from a root article) nature of actual human conversation, as of these last few pages.

I agree, split it up by discipline or what have you. I'd like the individual threads to take off. But it will take actual individual participants to incite any discussion. It's free space.

I probably think its funnier than you do.

Ray Rolfe

Posts: 3,263
From: Northeast Minneapolis
Registered: Sep 5, 2001
Re: Feedback on Articles
Posted: Jul 26, 2005 7:06 AM
  Reply

I would start thread "Artists about the Arts" or "The State of the Arts" but be ignored.

It's easy

Go ahead anyone.

jaime longoria

Posts: 1,161
Registered: Oct 7, 2002
Re: Feedback on Articles
Posted: Jul 26, 2005 9:15 AM
  Reply

> > This discussion
> > clearly is not what it says it is. That certainly
> is
> > cause for complaint.
>
> Yes, now it is a discussion about the discussion.
> But prior to that, a comment on a review of the MCAD
> show led to a discussion on the value of grants led
> to ruminations on the politics of the award process.
> All those issues are related and related to the
> e article in question. Since the articles are
> constantly changing with many different topics
> addressed, this thread is naturally an unruly one.
> If separate threads are begun for each discipline,
> that might lessen. But since most of the articles
> discussed so far are visual arts based, I don't see
> it diminishing dramatically.
>
> One basic problem some may have with the structure of
> this section of the forum is that it is not
> hierarchical. There's nobody here maintaining
> on-topic discussions with a heavy hand. There's no
> requirement for everyone in the class to speak up.
> There's no one to tell the loud kid to shut up and
> let the shy kid in the back contribute.
>
> But there are more moderated, on-topic discussions
> accessible on the front page. Experts in the field
> are invited, the conversation runs for a set time,
> and the record of it is left available and open for
> the conversation to continue. If you have a topic
> you'd like addressed in this way, contact Colin and
> pitch him the idea. There are already a broad
> spectrum of topics there, from politics to words
> themselves. For those who prefer a more structured
> mode of discourse, that may be the place for you.
>
> This has become quite an expansive place, and I do
> think there is something here for most everyone.
> Fundamentally, it's what the participants, whoever
> they are, make of it. And if you don't participate,
> you can't alter it's course.

Good job Sammy!!!

But lets all get real; what is the "Article"? Is it the "style", the "voice", the "development of the writers" skill? Or is it the content of piece.

The Walker and McKnight provide this "venue" to help support the artists of Minnesota. All of us. Not just the 'chosen' ones.

The beauty of this site is that it is truly Democratic. Anyone can come here and tell me that I am full of shit. They can point out that I do not spell well, do not give hoot of exhibiting great "writing style". That I do not have any ambitions to become a fellow of the VACUM. That I do not seek the favor of the "curratorial wizards".

But when they speak here they do need to gather thier wits. In Democracy you must advance your idea in the open forum of public oppinion.

That is what makes Bob's position important as an Artist here. He speaks to the hipocracy of the "Liberal Art Facists". (LAF).

A tip to those "writers" out there knashing thier teeth because I dare to speak out here; come on; do your worst, or your best, but do hide behind this silliness of "being intimidated".

I loved the article in question. It illuminates the "problem" afflicting "Art in Minnesota".

Come on Sweeties( Men included) The Coyote is calling you out! ( A note to the Lurkers: summer is usually the deadest time here on the forums; these "pedos" are a public service on my part to draw more of you in. The Fall promises to be very full of partisipation. { sub note to the Coyote-Haters I paln on not being in the country at that time; Coyote A will be launched: The coyote road show; I will be wearing my mn.artist.org shirt and talking about Chicano Art in Minnesota outside the United States!}

Jimmy Longoria
Chicano Artist de Minnesota

jaime longoria

Posts: 1,161
Registered: Oct 7, 2002
Re: Feedback on Articles
Posted: Jul 26, 2005 10:17 AM
  Reply

> Fine, I'll answer.
>
> I occasionally lurk around this site in the hope that
> I'll get some response to the articles I write
> (mostly dance reviews). However, it never happens. As
> Ann says, this thread does not actually respond to
> articles. Which leaves me wondering--are there people
> out there who might respond to my articles if this
> current discussion were moved elsewhere, thus freeing
> this space for actual discussion of articles on the
> site?


From Risa Cohen's "Two Worlds"
July 24, 2005
Lightsey Darst

Lightsey Darst reviews the second show in the Momentum series: Colin Rusch's "Dearest 3535" and Risa Cohen's "Two Worlds" at the Southern Theater; copresented by the Walker Art Center, July 22-24.

Colin Rusch: “Dearest 3535”

The man in the purple-striped dress shirt—Colin Rusch—crosses the stage, turns, and stands at the back, waiting for something to move him. The shirt shines like a Jermyn Street window; the man slouches. It’s as if something is going to happen between us, and he is the other audience. What happens is that the immense flower-spider of Bach’s famous toccata and fugue in D minor unfolds, and Rusch gesticulates. Is he conducting? His hands move together, then separately. He’s drawing equations for the end of the universe on a tiny blackboard; he’s refereeing a fast-forwarded football game. He stops and walks away, his face affectless, and we’re left with the electric silk of the music.

Rusch reappears; we might as well not be there, for all the attention he bestows. He feeds an imaginary dog, operates the controls of mission central, preaches an elegant sermon—rapid, astonishingly detailed arm movements. Sometimes he moves his feet; often his hips sway and roll. He’s miming soul food, buying doll groceries. Between passages of intricate gesture he leaves the stage or stands still, giving us air, time to hear the legs of the fugue-spider trampling its web. Smoke enters from an upstage corner and the light goes rose; a last flurry and it’s over.

Thank you for the "color commentary" . But what is a "Jermyn Street window"?

Later, Eric Boone crosses and recrosses the stage, dressed in a white suit. He’s not doing much. The music, a beachy mix of light and sand, backs up a gull-like quest for nothing in particular: Boone walks a turned-in tightrope, creeps away from us with his head turning methodically from side to side, or extends one hand above his head, palm toward us as if he’s hoping to announce the birth of god. The announcement never comes. Instead, we’re left with the mood of the message, the vision of the modern-day archangel’s Miami Vice white jacket cowling around his neck as he practices his religion.

Next, Kristin Van Loon and Arwen Wilder inhabit the stage in utter silence. Van Loon gestures and darts while Wilder curves and slinks; they don’t acknowledge each other. Each performs a series of preparations for a greater dance that never happens. Christian Gaylord takes the stage to sing (a capella) part of Mozart’s Requiem; then he wanders around, again with a hand held high, and that’s all.

What’s going on? The Requiem and the fugue are keys. Though the Requiem once carried a religious message, it and the fugue now mean almost nothing, and yet they still fill listeners with intense feeling.

Is this a universal "truth"? It always was about the mysterious feeling that "death" brings onto all of us.

This peculiar two-dimensional intensity, this bypass of the meaningful for the evocative, is mirrored in Rusch’s inscrutable work.

Is this a good thing?

The mood evoked shifts, but between upheld hands, furious yet exact gesture, and several ballet echoes (Rusch’s feet sliding between fourth and fifth positions, his arms in fifth on high, Wilder and Van Loon’s preparations for absent leaps), I felt caught up in old religions (truth? beauty?) that have become mystical to us, their ideals broken, lost, but desired.

Yeah!!!!

That is, I wanted to be caught up. In reality, after the marvelous opening, not quite enough happens to keep the audience’s attention. Rusch doesn’t ask his dancers to copy his idiosyncratic style, in which eccentric movements travel along highly defined pathways, but he doesn’t provide enough motive or motion to fill the resulting void. Rusch’s spare discipline’s admirable, but I wish he would yield a little to the gazer’s desire and give us some big movements, strange props, interaction between dancers, funny faces, small children throwing rose petals, something. All this applies only when Rusch himself is off-stage; when he’s dancing, I don’t want anything else.

Do great Dancers make good directors?

Jeff Bartlett’s inspired lighting aids Rusch’s images and his mood. All the dancers are accomplished, but it’s wonderful to see Arwen Wilder (who says she’s dancing for “one and a half people”) luxuriate in her temporary curves.

Risa Cohen: “Two Worlds”

I’m not sure that work less like Colin Rusch’s exists in the Twin Cities. Where Rusch is restrained, seeking (by the end of “Dearest 3535”) a gestural minimum, Cohen’s work is shameless. What you get in this aerial mélange is soap opera drama, pull-out-all-the-stops showmanship, athleticism run amok, and a shameless lust for the beautiful, all set to music that perfectly matches the sideshow/spirit quest feel—a mix of Loreena McKennitt, techno, and what sounds like a massage soundtrack. Everything is a sprung, flung photo op or an out-of-bounds sudden drop, and the audience can’t help applauding mid-piece at the astonishing tricks. Cohen hangs upside-down in a split from a hoop; William Gladden and Cade Holmseth lift each other while revolving on another hoop; Gladden and Denise Armstead soar around stage on a harness; Cohen unravels in a long fall from the cloud-height of her silks; Holmseth raises Cohen in a series of amazing lifts (“No way!” the woman behind me exclaimed at the latest proof of his superhuman strength); and so on. Want more stunts? Go see the show.

It would be easy to complain that “Two Worlds” is more circus than dance, that it has no artistic value. But I’m sure someone’s already doing that, and I’d like to make some other points. First, Cohen puts on a solid show. It’s rapid and visually gratifying, it moves well between pieces, it’s consistent, and the performers are stunning. You may not think much, but you certainly stay awake. Second, aerial dance has too much potential to be shunted aside as a mere circus trick. Right now, a lot of these slow winding climbs up the silks aren’t very rewarding, but I have seen two pieces in which the silks became more a dance surface than a gimmick. And the harness and hoop—which I’ve seen only a few times outside of “Two Worlds”—open even more possibilities. It won’t be long before college programs teach aerial dance and choreographers use it as naturally as they currently use speech.

Is this not a break of disapline? A breaking down of the Art of Dance into "theater"?

Yes, “Two Worlds” grinds from trick to trick, frequently with awkward set-ups in between, but this is because Cohen’s at the leading edge of a large wave, not yet in the smooth water of taking these stunts for granted. Also, while the stunts themselves definitely take first place—the sheer thrill of fall and flight—a weak but promising current runs through “Two Worlds,” one in which aerial dance is a metaphor for love. In “First Sight,” Gladden glides around Armstead on a low harness. She can touch him, she can push him, she can even ride with him for a while, but his essential otherness remains. No matter how much you love someone, you can never entirely bridge this gap—one remains one, the other the other. Gladden and Armstead capture this beautifully in their duet.

And that’s the other thing: beauty. Cohen chases it like a hungry cheetah. What she brings back isn’t new—the tawdry beauty of a high-flying split-and-a-bit, for example—but, watching Cohen’s work and hearing the reaction from the crowd, I find we’re a little starved for this essential vitamin. Yes, we need truth, but give us beauty too. It’s the only thing that can make us think we’ll live forever.

Is this not what is wrong with all art in Minnesota? The artists have forgotten the need to feed the soul of the audience?

Coyote Infinity
Chicano Artist de Aztlan

Lightsey Darst

Posts: 4
Registered: Jul 12, 2004
Re: Feedback on Articles
Posted: Jul 27, 2005 10:31 AM
  Reply

Jermyn Street is a street in London known for its tailors. I often hesitate over these kinds of references. In this case, I went for it because anyone recognizing the reference would understand the kind of shirt I meant (very distinctive, impossibly luxe, with a sheen like butterfly wings). I figured the risk of this reference was small, because you can tell from context that I'm talking about a clothing store; also, Jermyn Street is in my dictionary, so the information must be easily accessible. Making any kind of reference is always a risk. You don't want to put readers off or make them think they need special knowledge to read your review. On the other hand, references sometimes pay off, and they also serve the important function of connecting the work to a wider world.

Re the emotional resonance of the Requiem, it seems that you've posited a universal truth ("it always was about the mysterious feeling that death brings") in reaction to my less specific universal truth. To me, anyway, the Requiem has about as much sex as death.
Is the two-dimensional/meaningless quality a good thing? Well, it's certainly interesting. Most people put forward meanings, schemes, or scenarios; it's interesting to just get mystic emotion. I don't think it's either good or bad; it's another possibility.

Dancing and directing are two complementary but not necessarily joined qualities (like making art and critiquing art). Many choreographers are their own best dancers, but Colin seems to have a particular divide (so far) between his ability to create fully-realized pieces for himself and his ability to do so for other dancers. I think it has to do with how he initiates movement (or how he motivates himself to move, to put it another way).

A breakdown of dance into theater. . . Well, that divide seems old-fashioned. I often wonder how separate all these genres really are. Many choreographers don't do well with "added" elements (video, speech, etc), but some (Morgan Thorson, Vanessa Voskuil, Hijack) work quite naturally with these other genres. I don't think there's anything wrong with adding aerial dance to the mix (after all, pointe shoes are a sort of circus trick themselves). I get queasy when athleticism takes over from art--and that's a difficult line to navigate.

I don't think there is one "problem" with art in Minnesota. Beauty can break one's heart in the strangest ways; I think a lot of choreographers aren't using this as well as they could. On the other hand, visual artists have plunged into the decorative lately; sometimes I find myself looking for the heart under the embroidery. Overall, my soul is fed (as you put it) by the art I see--a snack here, an appetizer there, a can of diet Coke in another spot, maybe, but then there are some seven course meals to be had as well.

Michael Fallon

Posts: 201
Registered: Jul 3, 2003
Re: Feedback on Articles
Posted: Jul 28, 2005 7:46 PM
  Reply

edit

Gabriel Combs

Posts: 1,497
Registered: Jun 16, 2002
Re: Feedback on Articles
Posted: Jul 29, 2005 1:10 AM
  Reply

Part of the reason is that most artists have an ulterior motive of God knows what. Not the purest metal coming to begin with, so what do you expect for cash back at recycle?

The truth is that if I have eight inches, they only need seven to choke to death.

Gabriel Combs

Posts: 1,497
Registered: Jun 16, 2002
Re: Feedback on Articles
Posted: Jul 29, 2005 1:55 AM
  Reply

or rather, it is too easy to get too much line to hang ones self, so that your toes touch the ground, still...

James Michael Lawrence

Posts: 134
Registered: Jan 3, 2004
Re: Feedback on Articles
Posted: Jul 29, 2005 9:23 AM
  Reply

Edit

Ann Klefstad

Posts: 95
Registered: Nov 29, 2002
Re: Feedback on Articles
Posted: Jul 29, 2005 10:36 AM
  Reply

true, careerist motives make for thin art, dull art. And naive notions of the hipness of self-referentiality tend to proliferate in art schools--what 50 years ago was art that struggled to enlarge the realm of artmaking by pushing the boundaries of what was thought of as art, is now art that continually raises the same artworld (non)problems : Joe Smith's exhaustive and exhausting outdated hammering on the relation of art objects to ordinary objects is a case in point. Such work completely underestimates the sophistication of any ordinary citizen--regular folks think deeply about their relations to the built environment, and any pup who thinks he's gonna teach people about the qualities of ordinary objects had better be pretty hot. Smith's not.

These are no longer questions; the pursuit of such ontological points over the last 50 years through ever-smaller rabbit holes has completely exhausted the interest of art that's about the artworld or artworld "questions and problems." So careerist young artists embark, over and over again, on these same topics, thinking they are new and radical, earning the approval of their teachers for their dutiful arthistorical work.

Has the artworld become the annex of the art school? Is the real show the immense network of art education (the prize that so many strive for, the tenured teaching job, is the real support system for American art) which produces far more art grads than can actually make a life out of the thing? IS the official artworld just the glossy PR that keeps the educational institutions alive? What is the relation between the actual assets, resources, and salaries paid by all art educational establishments, compared to the economic base of art production (galleries, working artists' income from sale of art, etc). What is the relation between all money spent on education of arts professionals compared to all money spent on the work of living artists (let's keep this to primary sales--no secondary market)?

This is something that's been haunting me for years, since reading Hickey's take on the disciplinary institutions and since noting the weird Ponzi scheme that so many art depts are founded on, and noting how few schooled artists spend most of their time on what they were trained to do. If MBAs were screwed like this, it would be a scandal.

To my mind, the work that is interesting now is work that engages some something in the world, the lifeworld, that isn't to do with art at all--that is, art that is used as a tool of perception, analysis, understanding, divination, applied to anything but art: the nature of trees, political struggle, a fascination with sex, the minds of dogs, anything in the world other than art and the artist him/herself. Remember Charles Olson's dictum for young poets: learn, thoroughly, any systematic order of knowledge; it will become a pattern and generator of thoughts about the world; it will lift you from stupid solipsistic thinking about yourself and literature. It gives you somewhere to stand besides your ego and the front lawn of your medium. He liked astronomy, but there's an infinity of others. Big fan of botany, myself.

The artworld today, and not just locally, is full of longeurs, stuff that's got no driving reason to exist, or least no reason I gotta see it. But there's a lot of hope in work that loves the world and doesn't worry about the art world. This site is full of such things, hey?

AK

James Michael Lawrence

Posts: 134
Registered: Jan 3, 2004
Re: Feedback on Articles
Posted: Jul 29, 2005 12:09 PM
  Reply

Edit

jaime longoria

Posts: 1,161
Registered: Oct 7, 2002
Re: Feedback on Articles
Posted: Jul 29, 2005 12:25 PM
  Reply

> Fine, I'll answer.
>
> I occasionally lurk around this site in the hope that
> I'll get some response to the articles I write
> (mostly dance reviews). However, it never happens. As
> Ann says, this thread does not actually respond to
> articles. Which leaves me wondering--are there people
> out there who might respond to my articles if this
> current discussion were moved elsewhere, thus freeing
> this space for actual discussion of articles on the
> site?

My Mom taught me to say thank you to people who answered my call.

You are most welcome!

Josie's Son

Chicano Artist de Minnesota

jaime longoria

Posts: 1,161
Registered: Oct 7, 2002
Re: Feedback on Articles
Posted: Jul 29, 2005 12:31 PM
  Reply

> "To my mind, the work that is interesting now is work
> that engages some something in the world, the
> lifeworld, that isn't to do with art at all--that is,
> art that is used as a tool of perception, analysis,
> understanding, divination, applied to anything but
> art: the nature of trees, political struggle, a
> fascination with sex, the minds of dogs, anything in
> the world other than art and the artist
> him/herself."
>
> This describes my aspiration. If I hang a work on a
> wall now...I would not like the viewer to get
> sidetracked thinking about me/myself/the artist...I
> would like to think it becomes more of an invitation
> for them to ponder and react or perhaps not react to
> things like line, texture, color, shapes, visual
> movements, symbolic triggers that lead
> somewhere/anywhere other than back to me - I know
> that sometimes that may be unavoidable...as I sense
> that some people continue to want that for some
> unlikely reason. But just now...as far as I can
> ascertain through continual investigation of my core
> purpose for making visual images...I believe the time
> will come where viewers of my works will be freed
> from any subliminal enticements on my part - Allowing
> for their experience of the imagery to flow more
> freely and of its own accord.
> Thanks very much, Ann - JML

Odd Linking

jaime longoria

Posts: 1,016
Registered: Oct 7, 2002
Re: Feedback on Articles
Posted: Jul 25, 2005 7:42 PM
Reply

> > What we're not hearing in this
> > discussion, sam, is all the people who scanned
> the
> > discussion and decided that it was an insiders'
> thing
> > and decided not to join in .
>
> If there is a consesus that people would prefer the
> title changed, that's fine. Separate threads for
> each discipline might work, but I forsee them not
> getting much use. Worth a shot. But what I can't
> understand is the view of people on this forum as
> "insiders." By and large, we have not met each other
> and have no relation to each other than what is
> visible for all to see. The conversation is open to
> all and all it takes to become a "regular" is to post
> half a dozen times. I doubt the familiarity of
> posters with each other has ever discouraged someone
> from contributing that wasn't prone to hesitation
> already. Some people just aren't comfortable with
> this setting and that's fine. This issue is joined
> in my head with the first time poster complaining
> about what is discussed here. My response has always
> been, "then contribute, tell a friend to join as
> well, and move the discussion in the way you wish."

That's way to kick the pie!!!!!

That's why I love you.

I think what the "Sweet Thematic Fascistas" have failed to notice is that we "clanish, and unwelcoming regulars" began taking potshots at the "Articles" with the very specific complaint that VACUM style criticsm was not critical at all. I think the ladies do not notice that we have celebrated the start of mild criticism and we look forward to a continued roasting of the truly mediocre art offered to us todate.

Ann; some of my best friends are women. Why I am even related to one. My Mom is one of the most intelegent and repectable people I know. And before anyone deports her they have to deport me too!!!

The "role" of the critic is a serious one. The "office of the critic" is greatly respected by me. But individuals who occupy that role need to live by a code "honor". And that is what we not see. When critics allow themselves to be played in the game of institutional politics; the office is soiled.

I understand your part in it as an Artist/critic/editor/writer. But even you must ask yourself about your conduct. We regulars are all aware of the "spins", "gang rushes", the "reveeeeerse name calling". We do know who the LL was.

Coyote is an "Art Form" that did reveil the dishonesty in the way these forums were used.

Coyote fight for "freedom" in the use of these forums as a place to "Dance with Ideas".

Your attempt to blame the lack of partiscipation here on us is just "Stupid".

All you have to do is ee-mail your army of VACUM members each time you post an Article; they can all come and 'talk' about the article,....but they won't. You see Ann you and your tight inner circle hold the keys to fear.

It is the free of reprisals like Michael's "dagger" review of Dougie's show that gags alot of artist out there. Your control over venues and "friendships" is what keeps the average artist off of this forum.

It take special courage to piss off those in power. It takes an artist who does not strive to be part of the "Mediocre".

But you and your friends can not stop the Coyote. You see even Sam has to reflect on the ideas here. And that is what undo the "power brokers". If Artists all reealise that they have no career then they can get on with the serious business of makeing art that challenges our society.

Careful Ann when you try to spin the Coyote. He dances in "infinity" now. More people who are turly interested in advancing art are reading the words;; alot are laughing; but because they have caught onto the joke.

Shall we mamba "Senor"!!!!

coyote infinity.
chicano Artist de minnesota

What could this mean; when the Coyote Haters are say the very points the coyote made when this site went up?

Is this magic or what?

infante coyote

Bob Schulz

Posts: 416
From: Brooklyn Park, MN
Registered: Aug 15, 2003
Re: Feedback on Articles
Posted: Jul 29, 2005 1:15 PM
  Reply

What is fascinating

jaime longoria

Posts: 1,161
Registered: Oct 7, 2002
Re: Feedback on Articles
Posted: Jul 29, 2005 3:07 PM
  Reply

> Well, I couldn't agree more with Ann's question, is
> the world of art merely a construction of the
> academy? I, too, have long wondered what the hell
> the relationship consisted of. Fifteen years ago,
> Hughes, if I remember correctly, said 9000 (?) BFAs
> are graduated each quarter in this country. What are
> we to do, culturally with the glut?
>
> What is fascinating in this thread is that someone
> and someone else are chasing our Coyote around just
> as Beuys did earlier. I'm gonna get our Coyote a
> flashlight and a staff, and the Wall Street Journal.
> Then maybe Vergne can place him in an alley.
> There's really not much difference between the two
> o performances.

Star light is enough for the wild coyote to navigate the terrain.
But it oft times is more fun to go "blind" and take the occasional pot shot at the silly gooses!!!!

Thanks my brother.

I tragically must admit I am inclined to the "firing squad for captured bombers". I am opposed to the death penalty for petty criminals who are products of the society we have created, but I am of the mind that "terrorists" of this kind are truly "war criminals" who commit atrocities for personal gratification and not as a coherent action of strategy to repell an oppressor nation.

Jaime

Replies: 1,148   Pages: 77   [ Previous | 1 ... 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 | Next ]
Back to Topic List