Romancing the rock-hard

Romanticism came on the scene in the late 18th century. In the beginning of the nineteenth century Romance novels were birthing their own genre. Novels like Pride_and_prejudice were popularized by the woman of that century. Housewives or..ehem "domestic engineers" were the ones who were buying and reading the tales and poetry of romance that led to the romantic kitch that sells in grocery stores now. These types of "trashy novels"(according to Wikipedia)are most popular in the United States and Canada, where it is the best-selling genre. In North America in 2002, sales of romance novels generated US$1.63 billion and comprised 34.6% of all popular fiction sold - by comparison, general fiction comprised 24.1% and mystery, detective and suspense fiction comprised 23.1%. Over 2000 romance novels were published, and there were 51.1 million romance novel readers. Scary, but beside the point. What I'm interested in is the progression of the novels from the period of Romanticism to today. Basically they haven't transgressed in audience, only in media. The Romances that people, probably still mostly women, take in today are still experienced at home with the auspice of day-time television(soap operas etc.). The longest running soap opera started as a radio program in 1937. As of Feb 23rd 2007, Guiding Light aired its 15,115th episode; it premiered as a television show June 30th, 1952. I consider workout videos to be day-time television. They have a strange permissible sexuality about them. One of my earliest sexual feelings was directed toward Jane Fonda in a leotard from her 1982 video Workout. I didn't feel guilty about it at all, and I was raised Catholic! Literally, these videos are intended to get you worked up, flushed; and with the long term intention of making one more sexually attractive(good health=stability/virility= sexy). Which brings me to the presentation of the body at such a state. In body building one's body is representative of their ultimate physical power, beauty, and strength. These final products are presented in an often fantastical way. Hardbodies take on the persona of characters from Norse or Medieval tales or imagery when posing for pictures, an imagery littered with romantic signifiers of the individual and the sublime, adventure, mythical presence, etc . The most interesting aspect of body building is in its psychology. It is quite the opposite of aerobics which is meant to keep one slim and trim. The super-human levels to which body builders take their physical appearance is mind-boggling to most people. It seems that this is simply the point: to be super human(body building isn't about how strong you are, but how much control you have over your ridiculously sculpted vehicle, including...your mind); that and being addicted to the endorphin rush you get from such activities may help too.
Art practices are similar. These days artists who seem to have
"complete control"(again, Matthew Barney, a body builder in his own right, or Matthew Ritchie , or Danica Phelps)over their work do quite well. The work is self contained and although referential to much "outside" information, still very much insular with an explanation for every movement made. This doesn't mean the work isn't interesting, just limited. Aerobics must be a routine practice in order to be effective. Artists who have identifiable work due to a regular practice also do very well. The monetary success of art these days means that comodification can equal success. If you make work that's identifiable then you can act as a brand. I assume it must be an especially nice feeling to have paid thousands of dollars for a work of art that you can display and have people say "oh, you've got a so and so". So and So, I'm not one of these artists. My work varies, sometimes drastically. More often than not I hear about obsession being a criteria for quality art to be made. A person can be obsessed with many things; one of which is a rapacity for knowledge which inevitably leads to different ways of thinking which leads to different work. Some of my favorite artists, and the most important artists, have had a history of making dissimilar objects. Picasso, Picabia, Kipenburger, Polke, Duchamp, the list goes on and on. The act of experimentation, wandering, testing oneself, surprising oneself, to me is the practice of a true artist. An artist who isn't concerned with control, but contribution.

twist and flex

In the previous post I mentioned Relational Aesthetics. This is a term associated with the artist Rirkrit Teravanija. Rirkrit associates his work to the term social sculpture. The process of fitness and sport is social sculpture as well. In simple terms people are sculpting their bodies towards an ideal that is very much based in art history a la Classical sculpture. There is also a psychological sculpture taking place within these social contexts of sport. Hierarchies are constructed(leaders, captains), there is a constant state of comparison amongst the participants, the body is often forced into uncommon positions
or process', etc. A kind of Classicism through Hellenism.






In fitness instruction videos there is a more complex social and psycological situation occuring; this is largely due to their direction outward. Fitness videos are meant to be projected outwardly for the purpose of improving an audiences own personal health, not for entertainment as most sport is. The people in aerobics and other fitness videos are usually women. Most people buy videos such as these because they feel they need help, thus a matriarchal construct begins to emerge which raises Feminist issues of control, submission, role reversal, and sex dialectics. Getting in shape has to be an individual choice, not one that someone on television can help you make. This doesn't stop people from looking for mentors or saviors however, and can account for why most of these videos are dust collectors and thrift shop staples. I collect, mostly aerobic, fitness videos as well as pictures of female body builders. I find them to be interesting examples of human conditions of what I'll call requesite desire and essential potential. It's pretty simple: humans need to desire to survive, it's inherent in us, we wouldn't be at the top of the food chain if it weren't. Essential potential refers to the need for imagination and hope in order to maintain a healthy average human psychology. The potential of a thing is the most exciting signal that that thing can emit. The potential of the body and the desire to reach that potential are the driving forces for bodybuilding as well as fitness practices. I relate aerobics videos and female bodybuilding to Romanticism which is what I'll continue with in the next post. For now, please join me in some Social Sculpture.


images on right and video by r.sullivan 2006 digital c-prints 14x11"

Califormal

Tom Wesselman painted LA paintings but lived in NY. Tom Wesselman looks like Larry David. Larry David lives in LA but makes NY comedy in an LA setting (he is from NY). An artist and a comedian, where does one stop and the other begin? Comedy seems to be very comfortable in art these days; not so much in music however. Remember Frank Zappa's "Does Humor Belong in Music" Video? Well, even with someone like Zappa, the comedy was rooted in technical virtuosity. Most of the music that is funny today (mostly rap and country) contains lyrics that may or may not be intentionally funny or is music that is just cute. This is because music that is comical usually relies on lyrics for it's comedy. Funny sounds are hard to make into something someone wants to listen to as "music", although, I still want to make an album composed entirely of animal noises. The advantage that art has is in it's silence. It can act as a sort of text or narrative that the reader connects themselves. I was talking with Gary Stephan about art and humor and he brought up a good point. I was questioning how one can differentiate between variation and flailing in the work of someone who changes styles drastically in their practice. Gary had the opinion of some of his favorite work being like jokes and food. The idea is that you don't pontificate about whether a joke is funny or food tastes good, it just is. We both agreed that we didn't like art that you have to be talked into liking. There should be enough information within the piece visually or otherwise that is attractive. This is one of my real hangups with Relational Aesthetics. When philosophy enters into visual art as the main catalyst for a work the art essentially becomes an illustration for the ideas. I'm more attracted to philosophy as something that broadens a work, gives it the context to help it be understood in addition to it's own attractiveness. I'm simply more interested in people who open doors than those that close them (Carolee Schneemann vs Matthew Barney). When everything is "explainable" in a specific way the work closes in upon itself. One could argue that this is an ouroborosian situation making the work its own sort of universe, feeding off of its own interconnections.

But the point to the symbol of the snake eating its own tail is to be a metaphor of the actual universe, all inclusive. Why simplify something so wonderfully complex by excluding things? What's wrong with a general structure that is open ended? Why not leave something up to the imagination? Like Larry David's meandering comedy or Tom Wesselman's egoless women.

okay ok

Some people are upset about how the English language has been bastardized due to overuse of abreviation and text messaging. But this "bastardization" is nothing new. It seems to me that since language is a human invention and thus changing along with humans that the old trope of the generation gap is the largest reason for such hostility. This all is pretty obvious. I can imagine someone who fancies themself some sort of autodidactical linguist likening misuse of words to grafitti on a masterwork. That's a bad analogy but you get the idea. I would imagine that real linguists would find any kind of transformation of language interesting. Besides, most of the people complaining about it are probably saying "like" every other word, or squeeking out a gee whiz after they're astonied, that's Olde English, for suprized. I find it very interesting to listen to someone, provided they're not a blathering fool, misread my work. Many artists are very protective of their art and insistant upon what it is about. I have witnessed on more than one occasion someone cry or get very defensive/argumentative about what they are "saying" by making the things they make. This is very selfish, naive, and closed minded to me. How can you say you own something just because you made or bought it? Does a parent own their children? That's slavery man! I suppose you have to care enough about the psychology of the person looking to try and see it through their eyes. Does that make me a humanitarian? These are just thoughts prefacing a project that has been soley an idea so far. I plan on using multiple translations to create a sort of entropic poetry based on wartime speaches or recorded conversations. I will translate the original text into the adversary language and back again etc. Google's translation tools can be useful in this way as some are still in beta and translate into strange phrasings. Let's try one:

A line from Churchill's famous speech: "Their Finest Hour" - June 18, 1940

Of this I am quite sure, that if we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future.

trans. to German:

Von diesem, das ich, das, wenn wir einen Streit zwischen der Vergangenheit und dem Geschenk öffnen, wir ganz sicher bin, findet, daß wir die Zukunft verloren haben.

from German to French:

De celui-ci je qui, si nous ouvrons une polémique entre le passé et le cadeau, nous sommes tout à fait sûrs, trouve que que nous avons perdu l'avenir.

from French back to English:

Of this one I which, if we open a polemic between the past and the gift, we are completely sure, finds that that we lost the future.

This practice would be rooted in historical interactions between countries rather than a willy nilly free for all. Ohh time, are you on my side?
And here's a link to being able to understand all these bastardizing bastards:http://ssshotaru.homestead.com/files/aolertranslator.html

how are you? You look nice this morning. Is that your lint roller?

and the translation

HOW R U??!!? WTF LOL U LOK NIEC THES MORNNG!!!!!! OMG LOL SI TAHT UR LINT ROL3R???!!!? WTF

WTF indeed!

Tidbits. Vittles.

is art communication?
and vice verse

curatorial currency

I'm supposed to be posting on here as a part of my thesis project. So starting now I'm going to do a posting every day or try to. Regardless of length or depth I think it will be a good exercise in organizing my thoughts. Something I'm not very skilled at doing. I would also love to hear from anyone their thoughts and comments on what I post.

I was thinking today about books. About those relatively nice books you can order online through apple's iphoto or quoop. I'm thinking of books as a curatorial tool. Why can't a book or a magazine function as a museum or gallery? Essentially they are meant to serve the same function. Of course a museum is more "dead" than a book. Perhaps simply because there is an inherent power structure within the museum/gallery trope; books and magazines give the viewer the power by personal presentation and intimate interaction.

So I am announcing the Little Cities project. Once a month beginning in June '07 I am going to curate a "show" that will be published in book,magazine, or blog form exclusively. The first installment will be about currency art. This is a proposal I am writing for a real show at Apex Art in NYC. I've been collecting monies that I find interesting from my various jobs throughout the years and will use those as well as more sociological and professional artistic examples. Wallpapering with notes, art made from shredded currency, etc. If anyone has interesting info on any of this I'd love to hear from you.

Transformation Design

I stopped into a shop called Waves L.L.C. on W. 30th. The L.L.C. stands for Limited Liability, they were very touchy about me taking pictures. I noticed that most of the older radios were designed to replicate a Cathedral window. Coming from a religious background it is interesting to me when I see ideology in consumer design. In fact the two are seemingly always linked. The products we buy tend to represent what we value in ourselves, or at least aspire to. These radios are designed to be representations of beauty, symetry, solidarity, and righteousness. It seems that media has always been connected to a sense of omnipotence. Voices from afar transmitted to locations around the world into your own living room are wonderous and magical; at least they were when people could first hear and see them. The power of everpresence that the radio and telegraph represented, and what other devices represent now, is the same power that people associate with spirits and gods. People trust these voices because of that power. Only in the past decade or two have Americans, arguably the most "involved" in media culturaly in the world, on a large scale begun to distrust media. And depending on how many more accept the information here, that distrust may grow to unprecedented levels. People identify themselves by their playlists and tv shows encoded on their portable media devices. The ear "buds" alone are a social signifier. Media has replaced religion as the main facet to our belief systems as well as systems of design. There's really no difference between the two in the western world anyway.






Mobil Gods. Such power things that are connected with the "invisible" have.
One of the first purveyors of the portable transistor radio was Zenith. The "The Royalty of"
the Zenith logo is an example of this idea of media as God, brought to you by powers from the heavens riding down upon Zeus' lightning bolt. What better marketing scheme than one that scares you into feeling protected?

amen