I'd like to start a debate here ( I really mean it! )

1 - What are your thoughts on the relation between the avant-garde and technologies/sciences?

2 - What are your thoughts on the relation between the concept and the form today?

3 - Loads of artworks presented in big institutions are defined as "short-lived". How come we still hear curators talking like "time will tell if this is a good work of Art or not" ???

4 - Who do you think is doing crap (people selling their souls/a** to get recognized)?

5 - What is the latest work of Art you know that is actually censured ?

Give examples, mention your work or others. You can answer to any question you want.

Please do not mention anything before the 90's.

The rule for this debate is to not take anything personaly.

Aurélia Djehan Derungs

My dear young lady is this a questionaire for you thesis yes or no before I proceed.

of course no

Avant-garde is healthy to the development of art though majority refuses to accept it ,some quarters look it as junk art or whatever name they call it. The major flaws it posses according to them is, it lacks aesthetics,but change is the only permanent thing, why dont we stop with the cave paintings we have to move on kudos to Warhol.Relating this with technologies and sciences im sorry to say this are still art forms i dont know why we decide to distinguish it differently all are positive movement to advancement of art .
Curators, who is a curator? Expert on artist lives or I hold a marketing degree what justification and authority do I have to critize or complement an art work this are what we have to consider before we can say if they perform their role properly or not.on time will tell Good wine need no bush.Doing crap what does that mean all effort is art forms ,we have to recgonize all effort either it leads to beauty or ugliness with revulsion we can understand beauty so every art has it roles imagine that everything created is beautiful you know world of polarity we have to compare with something. Good and bad if there is no bad how can we qualify good.

1 - Avant-garde is to metaphysic what technology is to physic, would I say.With the aim of morphing a concept into an object, in avant-garde, the latest technology has always been used in all times. So the only idea that a new state of the art media/medium is avant-garde has already passed out, belonging to the passed, it's just a tool like a new brush. Like the only idea according to which a simple science fiction object could be avant-garde is false. Avant-garde is metaphysical.

Here is a link that might be useful: post september 11th avant-garde

The latest work of Art I know which is censured is since a few months is "Tumbling woman" by eric fischl.

2 / What are your thoughts on the relation between the concept and the form today

It's unbelievable how most artists today still create in 2 separate camps, one for the Form (object/thesis), one for the Concept (subject/antithesis)..they can't find the result which is the synthesis as in Art, if there's no synergy....

Here is a link that might be useful: HENDEKA

Technology in art? Go look at this site and tell me what you think. It is a robotic painting knife invented by Dr. John Randall of Texas Instruments to give an artists the ability to perform in a very debilitating art style. Work your way into this section and you will see some short videos of it in action.

Here is a link that might be useful: http://matricism.com

djehan...i think that the reason most people can't find a satisfactory synthesis between the form and the concept is because this idea has been largely taken over by comic-book and science-fiction artists: when they try to express a concept through a form the result is kind of comic-bookish in compostision. either that or it is too much like symbolism, which is much too weak of a style for most, and in itself is sort of comic book/scifi-ish.

the main challenge behind using form is to explore the form itself, without branching off into easy metaphor; the challenge behind conceptualism is to create a metaphor that transcends the ease of the form.

colin mc vay, you're out of the subject, don't take it personnaly, but you have a very reductive point of view on the question. As we say in my country "turn your tongue seven times in your mouth before you say something".

Here is a link that might be useful: post september 11th avant-garde

seidler, I took a look at the .mov and saw the machine making dots, it seems pretty funny to use it.it can be technicaly usefull too..it's a funny tool..Why do you like to use it?

Here is a link that might be useful: ((((((((spreadhead guerilla))))))))

aurelia, the fact that C responds in another way than you would have liked him to, doesn´t mean that he is " out of the subject ".

Just because an artist uses new or unusual technologies in his or hers work, it doesn´t necessarily follow that the works produced will be good, interesting or whatever. There is still the age-old struggle with form vs. content. When I look at the Hendeka-site or the Matricism-site, I´m neither moved or intrigued, just slightly bored.

Oh, and the "turn your tongue seven times in your mouth before you say something" - bit...that´s hysterically funny.

I don't think the explaination of what I ask is as simple as what you both pretend.

Dear Aurelia,
nothing worse than an art savy armed with tons of "smart words" that does not have her own oppinion. Just because someone does not speak in your jargon, does not meant that their opinion doesn't count. Like Alimi perfectly put in his resopnce - all effort counts. And why don't you tell us your opinion about avant garde, technologies and so called "short lived art"?

I like that tool because my hands failed me in my forties. What you see is the dots that mimic my hand. What you don't see is the decision making process and how the technology assist in your art making. The art is still in the mind and you have to make every decision you make if you do it by hand. I can continue to paint with this tool and continue earning ten to fifteen grand each. And it's is a blast to use and design paintings with. Don't like the paintings, you probably can't afford one anyway so who cares? The public does and that is what counts. A story about it all just came out in Artist's Magazine this month and people are coming in form New York to see it all so who knows where it will take me but I'm on top of the world!
Are you? : )

O.K. Aurelia; here goes:

1: I don´t subscribe to the idea that there is an avant-garde; in an attempt to be a bit funny, I rather think it appropriate to use the term derriere-garde to describe the dogmatics and politicos, that sets most of the agenda in The Art World Today ( whatever that may be ). Incidentially, among those, there is a lot of talk about new technologies, but that´s probably because they need a topic for their thesises and a new buzz-word to use on their applications for grants and donations.

2: I´ve answered that already.

3: Well, even curators can´t verbally pin-point qualitative differences between works of art, so they also have to rely on that " time will tell " - cliché...It´s still true, though.

4:Everybody or nobody, depending on your view of the world. You can´t sell your soul, so you sell your ass instead. Funny thing is that you usually lose your soul in the process and don´t even get paid extra for that.

5: Happens all the time. Everytime a work is refused by a jury at an exhibition, it´s an act of censorship.

And what Fania said...

Christian; good that you´re on top of the world. I´m guessing, that by your standards, I´m not.

The french term 'avant-garde' comes from the first world war, at that time the 'avant-garde'was the word for the french guys who used to go on the frontline, the guys who were killed before the others because they were taking more risks.
Those guys were dangerous because they were killers on amphetamins, cleaning a space for the others to arrive and occupy.
In Art, avant-garde has a mission too which is not exactly that of course, but both share some similarities.
It could be inappropriate in my opinion to consider Art without any avant-garde when looking back in the 20th century.

4.I was talking with an old spanish artist the other day and he said that if you do Art in the US, you get paid much but you lose your soul, and if you do Art in France, you don't get paid, but you still lose your soul.haha....

1 - What are your thoughts on the relation between the avant-garde and technologies/sciences?

I think new technics to create should always be welcome, any 'curious enough' mind should take a look at what's new. But you don't necesseraly create avant-garde because you use the latest technologies.Technology is advancing exponentialy and it seems art doesn't advance that fast, the way each advance is quiet different too anyway..
But still, people ask about the relation between the two of them..
Let's take somebody who is said to be an avant-garde artist and who's taking the excuse of technologies : Mariko Mori
At first I have to say that her work freacked me out because it seems that it's very kitsch, and I hate kitsch which is to me one of the opposite of avant-garde. But as she's using some old sequencer for some songs, photoshop and other modern tools, some say she's doing avant-garde, I think they are wrong. Avant-garde, the word, is used by the art market to sell to a certain public some works. They sometimes twist
the relation between avant-garde and technologies like this.
Another example is, the latest equipment for music for example, the Kyma system made by Symbolic Sound corp. which is used by the musician Im working with by the way, offers brand new 'state of the art' sound treatment, so of course, the production of the sound itself sounds new, fuller, more modern (technical detail : 100 Khz, 24 bit), but it's just the production which sounds modern/new, because it doesn't change one's ability to compose, with his mind and deeper feelings.
Technology is to avant-garde, what a new date is to someone, but at some point, it fades out(not all the time but most ;) )..technology can help create Art for sure, but it's not a creative intelligent tool like the artist him/herself.
I think the people saying that something is avant-garde just because they know the material used is very technological are fake.
Ending with this that algorythmes can't work by themselves and create Art, we need the human brain.

2 - What are your thoughts on the relation between the concept and the form today?

It's the same kind of relation as in the avant-garde and technologies, weired..But still very different.
I think today's artists are not taking both (as in using both of them) area as seriously as it should be..
People think that there is a war between concept artists and the others. I think that's pathetic, because anyway, you have to take both concept and form together in synergy to get Art, both extreme opposite are stupid..and what's confusing is that they still create in this sh*t art market the illusion of mystification to sell it..how fake is this..
I hate conceptual Art which is most of the time a reduction of the Art into any stupid idea of the world..anything can be a concept in our mind, but anything can be a form too..I think both are essentials in the creation process of an Art work.

3 - Loads of artworks presented in big institutions are defined as "short-lived". How come we still hear curators talking like "time will tell if this is a good work of Art or not" ???

I think this is one of the crap "mystification" the art market uses in order to sell..I think they don't understand what they are selling..but still they make 15 billions $.

4 - Who do you think is doing crap (people selling their souls/a** to get recognized)?

I can't help but say M.Barney...He autosodomized himself on camera for his first gallery exhibit..I think this is selling yourself the most pathetic way, today.

5 - What is the latest work of Art you know that is actually censured ?

Again, this sculpture by E. Fischl, who was exhibited strangely inside the empire state building, and removed of course..I can understand this anyway