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.