oh!

‘After reading a book in this series, the reader should not simply have learned something new: the point is, rather, to make him or her aware of another – disturbing – side of something he or she knew all the time.’
- Slavoj Zizek

My God, this is just the sort of thing I love!

I think I am starting to understand – Laibach alters what already exists so that we can see it differently (or perhaps, more clearly).
It is not unlike subversion as a literary technique – changing the context or the rules in order to purport an idea. I particularly like the concept of the ‘Sympathy for the Devil’ cover album – such a loaded grouping of words, interpreting it over and over must have been enthralling…to see where your mind can go.

I realise there is much more to Laibach than this very basic understanding. I am looking forward to class so that I might get a better grasp on the topic.

definition?

Wochen Klausur's approach to what art is likens the definition of art to the definition of words, and how this definition will change according to who is using them. I agree that the idea of what constitutes art can change depending on who is viewing it, and I find it difficult when there are groups that insist of there being only one view of art. I find it possible to believe in art of all types, and I find it fundamentalist to reject a piece from the artworld because it doesn't necessarily within which ever 'art' definition you're subscribing to.

Michael Keighry gave a talk last week and treated us to the entertainment of one his alter egos. I wonder how his behaviour is defined in the art world - some of his works evolve out of boredom (his nine month long conversion of his office into an anachronism) or necessity - the pieces he creates for the purpose of being sold at markets. Are these pieces still considered art? Does he consider them artworks? Would the art world? I feel that these seemingly 'nonesense' pieces work in much the same way his art does - presenting an idea to the viewer in a whimsical (and sometimes comical) way and leaving it up to them to make up their mind about it. His work is fun, weird, irreverant and probably quite offensive to some. I find him incredibly inspiring, because with it he has made a place for himself in both the world and the artworld - two places that are not neccessarily the most welcoming.

inversion of life.

I really respond the idea of life and art being something that are entwined, however, I do agree that it does not mean that anything in life is Art. From what I am managing to understand, it is the representation of life that is important, and how that represention is interpreted. The phrase 'inversion of life' is something I really like aswell - it creates this mental image of 'life' turning in on itself and emerging again and relates to my personal approach to art as a method of retelling a story until I can understand it.

If I ever do.

conviction.

caleb.k said...
there are a few contridictions in here. art is for everyone as long as they understand or appreciate it...
August 10, 2010 8:21 AM

I don't disagree with the statement - obviously it is possible the educated viewer will be able to read art at a deeper level, but I don't believe that you require a BVA in order to have an appreciation or understanding on a particular artwork. It is possible for a person - any person - to be moved by a work of art regardless of their education. I have always believed that though artists make art for so many different reasons, once the art is in the world, it is for the world, the whole world to see, interpret, react to...that is why I have always loved it.

I feel, and this is probably an example of my intellectual lacking, that if art was only for the art world it would be far less meaningful.