What is Retro? (for the Crit. Theory geeks)

alphacat · Post by **alphacat** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:16 pm

Found this over on IDMf. Really good read.

☆☆☆☆

http://www.tinymixtapes.com/features/th ... ?page=show

Reese_Liar · Post by **Reese_Liar** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:47 pm

Read this last week, really interesting piece.

Laurent Fintoni wrote a comment over on Fact: http://www.factmag.com/2014/02/09/i-cri ... hemselves/

I still need to read Retromania at some point.

nowaysj · Post by **nowaysj** » Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:23 am

And he can be just like the artists he reviews, being completely uncompensated and doing his work on nights and weekends after his 10 hours of employment, 2 hours of commuting, other life essentials like eating and cleaning, and other family responsibilities.

Future is awesome

wub · Post by **wub** » Fri Feb 14, 2014 7:00 am

That the second article was published on FACT makes it doubly amusing - when have they ever given a shit about proper writing ahead of spreading articles across 20+ pages to increase their ad revenue?

Reese_Liar · Post by **Reese_Liar** » Fri Feb 14, 2014 11:53 am

To be fair, Laurent Fintoni writes for RBMA and lots of other outfits as well, he's actually written some good stuff.
But yeah I agree FACT maybe isn't the best platform to support his points

hubb · Post by **hubb** » Fri Feb 14, 2014 2:33 pm

alphacat wrote:Found this over on IDMf. Really good read.

☆☆☆☆

http://www.tinymixtapes.com/features/th ... ?page=show

I liked reading it, until the Duchamp bit because the article reduced what that was about to an extent where it's misunderstood. Not only was it more provocative to do what Duchamp did, but the exhibition didn't shine it's light on the institutional authority as much as it shone it's light on the fact that the art institutions now was forced to hand it over to the artist(s).

Judging by the first few tracks, I'm surprised by how bad that Muziq record appears to be. Is tone deaf and new agey to harsh?

As Groys notes, for the general public today, avant-garde art (from Malevich to Cage) is seen as non-democratic and elitist: we’ve all heard ourselves, our parents, or our friends stand in front of an allegedly important work of modern art and cry disdainfully, “I could do that!”

For Groys, however, this is precisely the point. Because avant-garde art is comprised of weak gestures , anyone can do it, which makes it fundamentally democratic. Popular art today is made for a population consisting of spectators, whereas avant-garde art is made for a population consisting of artists , who could be anyone.

This is just misinformed. Avant garde means frontline - and some guy has to dip his penis in the volcano to find out how hot it is. Kind of a strong gesture I would say.

Also the latter bit, there's an individualisation going on in society that suggests exactly the opposite, that everybody has to express that same individualism.

lovelydivot · Post by **lovelydivot** » Sat Feb 15, 2014 3:25 am

lovelydivot · Post by **lovelydivot** » Sat Feb 15, 2014 4:51 am

I've read the two articles and I'm going to tell you guys how I feel...
In my sloppy unprofessional thread style as usual because IDGAF.
I care about what I'm about to say - not about professional writing styles
-not in this thread.

The first article mentions "The Fountain" by Marcel Duchamp..
and I have a very personal relationship with that piece
and others by Duchamp - so I find it interesting that people still don't get it.

Duchamps "Bride Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors Even" was about voyeurism.
"The Chocolate Grinder" was about voyeurism
"Dada" was about Voyeurism
"Why Not Sneeze, Rose Sélavy?" was about voyeurism with an Olfactory component
"With Hidden Noise" is pervy...
this one is pervy...

So why does it matter if the man created the urinal from scratch or not-
If the object relates directly to the personal dialogue between artist and viewer?

It has nothing to do with it's "weakness" forcing us to examine what it should be...

although emptyness as an invitation to search your own reality - is a valid concept...
I just don't think that applies here - to Duchamp...
(he was charging reality with the the object, not blanking it)
- maybe it does apply to Eno and Cage and Satie
and whoever else is in that list of silence purveyors...

There is an aesthetic component to Duchamps work - he was a painter and actually made stuff
and that is all very attractive to look at as well - he was good.

well - If you like to look at extra large jars full of eggs - half submerged in a bucket of milk...

"Believe it or not, I can actually draw" - Basquiat

So - In the second article - who was it? Fitoni?...
Was questioning all the name dropping going on in music criticism...

That I think - has three parts...
first - they are supplying their credentials as experienced listeners - at least.

second - they may be placing stuff catagorically on a complex identification web
- which can be really helpful to people who want to dig deeper on a sound - historically

third - to the issue at hand...
They are actively questioning the honesty of music these days.

Are musicains choosing retro sounds
because it relates directly to their own personal artistic dialogue...
or is it just an instagram thing where we like to add sepia tones or 70's blue tones
to our shitty kit photos because they just immediatly sound better...deeper, more interesting.
- feigning a history.

..so that would be more of a tribute to the instrument designers/makers.

I'm totally convinced that you can take an old
played out sample and make it do something new
If your doing it honestly...

- but if you're just flashing cash or flashing for cash - we can see that too.

boring Sidney - boring boring boring

lovelydivot · Post by **lovelydivot** » Sat Feb 15, 2014 3:58 pm

I can't stand those people who sit around for days trying to come up with a gimmick...

and I don't think you should fail to do work because someone else has already done it...

I had this girl in a print making class - who was a great technichian...
but her subject matter was just sooo bad - and she knew this and expressed it to all of us
she was re-doing other artists work...like practce

But I think it's ok to do that -
so that when her original idea comes - she will be prepared to do it...

Is her copy work worth buying? I can't say that I would...

Would my Mom buy it - sure she would...and it wouldn't make the house look ugly...
but an art person might be mortified to find it.

hubb · Post by **hubb** » Sat Feb 15, 2014 4:37 pm

So why does it matter if the man created the urinal from scratch/or by hand -
If the object relates directly to the personal dialogue between artist and viewer?

You mean something other than that.. You mean created or re-appropriated/picked up right?

lovelydivot · Post by **lovelydivot** » Sat Feb 15, 2014 4:45 pm

hubb wrote:
So why does it matter if the man created the urinal from scratch/or by hand -
If the object relates directly to the personal dialogue between artist and viewer?
You mean something other than that.. You mean created or re-appropriated/picked up right?

Does an artist have to make everything for it to be a valid piece in their repertoire
Because in this case - It makes more sense to use the actual object
-that we all absolutely recognize as a urinal-

a paper mache urinal would not be as effective because we would think of like - pinatas.

although -

I think I should do that - make a pinata urinal and put it next to his piece in the museum...

with a baseball bat nearby - now that's even more dark and weird...

....catchers mitt....

<iframe src="/forum/video.php?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU5fJf3UOxE" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; height:auto; max-width:540px"></iframe>

hubb · Post by **hubb** » Sat Feb 15, 2014 5:00 pm

I get that. You said :created from scratch or by hand, which is the same

.

Agree with what you said about Duchamp aswell. Just saying.

lovelydivot · Post by **lovelydivot** » Sat Feb 15, 2014 5:17 pm

linguistic clarity...

When I was working at Amazon.com - In the beginning - when it was all punk rock kids....
There were a number of "cultural" things that we would go around about...

and one of them was "create your own job, and then do it"

and they didn't mean - fake some shit up so you could be the captain...

They mean't - If there is a more structured way to do something more effectively...
Then start doing it and mind it...
ie - get the tools in place, teach your people, make sure it happens properly

awewwe...now what the fuck was my point....

oh faking shit up is different than creation with a purpose.

and - I think there is a broader point about life and work but I'm failing to grasp it...

someone help me here...what am I saying

lovelydivot · Post by **lovelydivot** » Sat Feb 15, 2014 5:20 pm

...something about power and hating people...

hubb · Post by **hubb** » Sat Feb 15, 2014 5:24 pm

I had this girl in a print making class - who was a great technichian...
but her subject matter was just sooo bad - and she knew this and expressed it to all of us
she was re-doing other artists work...like practce

But I think it's ok to do that -
so that when her original idea comes - she will be prepared to do it...

Let's try to have this discussion instead.

I would say, you'd have to believe that ideas were a form of divine inspiration if you believe you can just wait for them. Or ofcourse if you thought that, everybody just has ideas once in a while, and that you can just nurture some of them to become 'that level'.

Personally I feel there's little art in craftmanship and that great ideas or conjured or imagined concepts within art that are interesting, tend to be the ones that
doesn't adhere to a logic that all craft consists of.

Art can only succeed craft or incorporate it by reappropriating it, because the purpose of art is to have a discussion about it, not what it does.
Which is what I think Duchamp for example, does in the painting where you look through the keyhole or Leonardo does with Mona Lisa. It's utilizing expectancies in other peoples work or in the history of painting. The sly smile does become more apparent to everybody via how realistic it's painted, but the idea didn't just appear from all the hours it took painting the light and shadows and 'bowing down' to a tradition of what is considered realistic in painting. So in that respect the craft is extra and the idea is still central. The question is wether Leonardo would be able to come at you from that 'sly' position, if he hadn't taken on the craft.

hubb · Post by **hubb** » Sat Feb 15, 2014 5:30 pm

They mean't - If there is a more structured way to do something more effectively...
Then start doing it and mind it...
ie - get the tools in place, teach your people, make sure it happens properly

I get what you mean, but that's more about noting an inability to communicate in the workplace than it is 'inviting' a bit of employee magic, but ofcourse whatever it takes to run smoothly. Then again work benefits from being easy achievable because of all the discrepancies there are between different people, whereas art really never benefits from being easily achieved or by having a process that runs smoothly.

lovelydivot · Post by **lovelydivot** » Sat Feb 15, 2014 5:49 pm

My brain has just dissolved into a selfish sea of caustic misanthropy.

lovelydivot · Post by **lovelydivot** » Sat Feb 15, 2014 6:24 pm

seriously - In this instant...right now
Where I'm trying to conversate here with you guys on the net....

I thinking that the only thing worth doing - is having a chicken house...
Because I can eat omlettes.

That is fucking pathetic for a person like myself-
who in the past - has always been ambitious and capable.

It's like a shitty - jesus christ - the flock hearder syndrome.

I wish I could get past this and back to liking stuff.

I just do not care.

I wish the world works like that movie Office Space...
The minute dude decides his job can fuck off completely to hell
- he starts getting promoted...

<iframe src="/forum/video.php?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IwzZYRejZQ" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; height:auto; max-width:540px"></iframe>

lovelydivot · Post by **lovelydivot** » Sat Feb 15, 2014 8:21 pm

Americans are notorious for exhibiting Flatten Affective Disorders....

When times are bad - We indulge in shiny happy stuff...

So if you want to know why Donald Byrd is on heavy rotation in my metal studio...
It's because my hands hurt...

If I were to put on Rage Against the Machine...
I might snap under the stress and set my entire shit on fire...

So I need that pastel yellow and soft - positive feminine upbeat...
for my own sanity.

ya know - This is hard to beat....

<iframe src="/forum/video.php?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNCyfFFBILw" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; height:auto; max-width:540px"></iframe>

hubb · Post by **hubb** » Sat Feb 15, 2014 9:55 pm

Fair enough!

What is Retro? (for the Crit. Theory geeks)

What is Retro? (for the Crit. Theory geeks)

Re: What is Retro? (for the Crit. Theory geeks)

Re: What is Retro? (for the Crit. Theory geeks)

Re: What is Retro? (for the Crit. Theory geeks)

Re: What is Retro? (for the Crit. Theory geeks)

Re: What is Retro? (for the Crit. Theory geeks)

Re: What is Retro? (for the Crit. Theory geeks)

Re: What is Retro? (for the Crit. Theory geeks)

Re: What is Retro? (for the Crit. Theory geeks)

Re: What is Retro? (for the Crit. Theory geeks)

Re: What is Retro? (for the Crit. Theory geeks)

Re: What is Retro? (for the Crit. Theory geeks)

Re: What is Retro? (for the Crit. Theory geeks)

Re: What is Retro? (for the Crit. Theory geeks)

Re: What is Retro? (for the Crit. Theory geeks)

Re: What is Retro? (for the Crit. Theory geeks)

Re: What is Retro? (for the Crit. Theory geeks)

Re: What is Retro? (for the Crit. Theory geeks)

Re: What is Retro? (for the Crit. Theory geeks)

Re: What is Retro? (for the Crit. Theory geeks)

Who is online