[NetBehaviour] On art and art-making: I do or do not make pictures.
misnom at spell.blue
Mon Jul 17 11:27:03 CEST 2017
Historiclly, I think yes, art, in particular with a european context in mind - has a link with play or playfullness. However, and here am trying to link the shaman questions in, we get slightly other-than-mere-play focuses that can be linked with art.
Yes, I agree that institutions make something that is beyond play - is it not a bit like a shaman that instils within a community their way of How we, community X, do the culture play?
..and again, with some sort of link with institutions that connect with art, there is the flip-side, the creation of sense of reverence, which tends, i think, to restrict play.
However, I think that perhaps the term "play" is not playful enough since it creates, possibly wrongly in my mind - a sense of dualism.
Do we not get, by imagining art as kind of a play, a sense of that which Is meant and sone as a playful thing, and that which isn't?
Moreover, I keep having questions regarding the history and the practice of playfulness in art. Are we not getting into a history of some mystification of being a child and a practice, that even if we remain within the "play" paradigm, is perceived as art-linked when it's not entirely or at all playful - but when there are evident questions about How we - culture X - might be doing "play"?
Again, perhaps extending the shaman to a druid and a prophet, as art maintaining practices in various cultures at different periods, I think there is the Time element that art institutions function. In this sense, of time and kind of Meta"play" I think the notion you mention it utterly - prophetic.
Prophetic in the sense that a prophesy is to do with perceiving stuff that alters slowly or slightly in time. An institution, as an art archiving species, may live as long as its hosting culture allows, sometimes even beyond.
Adorno, I suspect might have said something regarding play, art and entertainment. Perhaps if we had an adorno-bot, it could make for an interesting discussion? Or would it only be limited to some playful entertaining quality? Maybe not a quality but some value?
..and at what price? ;)
Here, perhaps am being playful with references from adorno, through to memorials, and wilde - however I doubt this are clever enough to infer as to How we might be doing such plays.
I think that if it had that How element, the sequence will - despite a certain resemblance - might be something other than "play" indeed.
In that sense, for example, I perceive the way Alan, the way if i may say You, make stuff as a process, as having that other element, the element that takes the It, that alan-making-species to be in the category - being able to be morphed in and out of that species that we might call art, without losing itself.
(See Category theory Morphism..)
However, going back to the distinction with play and having a similar yet different sequence:
think - art is neither a rat not tar, when meanings come to mind.
think - wind and wind(ow), or how would one's mind go had i typed wild rather than wild(e)..?
Apologies if am repeating myself, but in context of naval gazing thoughts..
There is a term in japanese for stupid - Baka.
Baka, so the story goes, is linked to an emperor that kept calling a horse - a dear, and a dear - a horse..
Have fun and many cheers!
July 17 2017 1:32 AM, "Alan Sondheim" <sondheim at panix.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2017, aharon wrote:
>> Dear Alan, Ruth and all!
>> I think that perhaps online networking alters in way time and timing is > perceived. Through the
>> morphing of utterances in twitter/fb/etc from > stuff said in time to that being recorded and
>> archived. Once archived, > the time and timing of utterances alters. Things can easily come back, >
>> repeat, and so on. This is different to stuff a person might Say and > then, relatively quickly,
>> the content can fade in time and memory. > Indeed, is it not fair to argue that even if we were to
>> Control all our > digitalised and networked expressions, we'd still be dealing with > sensations of
>> time and timing that are very different to how it is when > we network un-digitally?
> Early on, a number of us were interested in what we might call "internet weather," "network
> weather" - you could sense, by the delays involved, how good your connectivity was. Delay operated
> in a number of ways; it even played a role, I think, in (textual) netsex. Things didn't appear
> immediate, imminent; the network was "felt" in relation to delay. The same thing seems to happen on
> Fb messenger now, for that matter.
> In a sense, I think the body is "besides itself" in this regard -
> - Alan
>> Cheers and all the bests!
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
More information about the NetBehaviour