Globatron’s Art Laws #8 – Every work of art, as designated by its creator, is a proposition of artistic truth.

Posted by on Mar 27, 2009 in Akbar Lightning, Laws

Every work of art, as designated by its creator, is a proposition of artistic truth.

Ok folks, i think i might have one we can all agree on. (yeah, who am i kidding?) this takes the relativistic tendencies into account, while also holding them accountable to the responsibility of expression. yo byron, plug in some wittgenstein here using your Globatronic magic web skills. i think he is applicable here.

akbar

Share

9 Comments

  1. Byron King
    March 28, 2009

    I agree, but i’m like your mirror now Akbar. I might even drop out artistic truth and state a proposition of truth. But we might not all be able to agree if that was the case.

    Reply
  2. Akbar Lightning
    March 28, 2009

    that’s not a bad change actually, but i do think its less likely to create consensus.

    for instance, there might be some who feel that engagement in art is ok as an insular activity.

    perhaps we could make another law addressing this, like, the goal of art approximates the goal of philosophy, that’s vague, but maybe you can find something better.

    just ideas, personally i would go for your change, but i think it is a longer and harder argument. you know that doesn’t bother me. would be good to hear a few other thoughts, in whether we want to have that discussion or the narrower one concerning the position one piece of artwork takes.

    akbar

    Reply
  3. mark creegan
    March 29, 2009

    I am attempting to tackle this in a longer upcoming post but I want to to say there is something closer to feasibility in the “proposition” of truth (artistic or otherwise) suggested here as opposed to the declaration of ”truth”.

    The main thrust of my argument against an effort by artists to get at or present “the truth” is that it contradicts the fact that the process of art is a supposition thru playing with signs and conventions to offer alternative realties. The difference here is between someone asking “suppose it is this way” versus stating, “it is supposed to be this way.”

    Now, within the scope of a single artist’s practice, the focus of their work could be that last declarative position, but in terms of broader artistic activity, the former applies more accurately. The relativism of the “supposing-ness” of art has less to do with the equalization of artistic value across divergent works than it does with recognizing the contradiction of getting at a singular, common truth using a process that is essentially (ha!) a constant search for alternative realities.

    So this “law” gets closer to this more open truth. And now I am starting to see the humor in these art “law” posts, but also the practicality in that they, like art itself, propose a “truth” using artistic means of supposition.

    Reply
  4. Akbar Lightning
    March 29, 2009

    Art is a lie that makes us realize truth. Picasso

    i have always believed this, and in some way i think i have taken it for granted in terms of this conversation.

    let’s not get too far away from the idea that some of those ‘alternatives’ can be preferable. maybe not perfect but preferability is something all of social life and relationships have as part of its dynamic.

    would you agree that all art ought to be engaged in the preferable realm of reality. i don’t know how choices can be made without this relationship. in other words, we look at the world through our values, and so art is a part of that world.

    like in your work Quarrel with the Multiverse, the language is confrontational, and that is what i like about it, but implies a struggle toward meaning.

    just some thoughts,
    akbar

    Reply
  5. mark creegan
    March 29, 2009

    Assuming you mean that there is not one preferable realm of reality, yes, the individual develops preferred forms, experiences, and ideas. But, during the process of paying attention either thru the making or the viewing, the longer one can delay judgment based on pre-conventions the better chance one has at arriving at a preferred state of alternative reality.

    This cuts to simply my “preferred” way of working which requires openness, at least in the beginning. Things can and do distill into an arrived judgment, but I try to delay that judgment as long as possible.

    For example, the title “A Quarrel with the Multiverse” came from, first, a play on words: “Aquarrelle” is French for watercolors, then the fact that I had been listening to Radio lab podcast about the subject of multiverses and reflecting on the multiverse of statements presented in that group show and how my work is perhaps fighting with those (in a friendly way of course). The title also stems from the fact that my original piece involved sound which was rejected because of fear of how the other artists showing around my work might feel it distracted from the experience of their works. My response, indeed the decision to use all of that material, was partially the result of doing visually what was feared would happen audibly. That was certainly not the only reason for using the material but it was a factor. But the title was arrived at via a confluence of thoughts and events and feelings, it does not describe a deep truth or message other than the specific state of being I was at at the time of making .

    Reply
  6. Mr. t
    March 30, 2009

    convention – general agreement on or acceptance of certain practices or attitudes. in other words, things that are already agreed upon.

    pre-convention – ???…no need to pre-agree on what has been agreed upon.

    not trying to be an ass, but if you drag a spook like ‘truth’ into a discussion you’ve got to have the language cops in their riot gear or we will all disappear down the rabbit hole (which is cut into a sheet of damp plywood).

    everything is permissible, nothing is true. context is king (but not truth).

    Reply
  7. Akbar Lightning
    March 30, 2009

    good correction Mr. T, i pity the fool…

    yo mark, yes, there is only one preferred reality, but by that i mean for the one preferring. it is impossible for someone to find something preferable, and at the same time be open to its opposite. although we can question ourselves, and often we do, if we remain fixed on what is preferable to us, it becomes our ideal alternative. it does not mean we believe it to be the ultimate truth, but nonetheless, we are stuck with our ideals, and those ideals are what inspire us to act.

    as far as there being no truth or message in A Quarrel with the Multiverse. I am left with these facts, each choice you made, and how those choices have a logic to them. although you won’t claim there to be a message, there is a psychological component to your choices that suggest perhaps unconscious material.

    this is why i argue for explicit acceptance of one’s ideals, because it leaves us less likely to be disconnected from our unconscious motives. art moves from therapy for the singular to therapy for the group. let’s not get too lost in this therapy idea. but what i am trying to say is that you named it Quarrel, you made choices due to your relationship with the other artists. You chose to refer to multiverses. there is a lot about relationships and compromise in this piece, and those are universal human issues.

    akbar

    Reply
  8. mark creegan
    March 30, 2009

    hmm, i must’ve accidentally conflated convention with preconception…
    anyway, i suppose i meant there is no preconceived meaning, the meaning you or I decode is certainly there after the event of its making. And i also do not want to be fully disconnected from myself, but i still want unconscious forces to be at play to some extent because those are what drive the work forward.

    Reply
  9. Globatron.org
    October 9, 2009

    Globatron’s Art Laws #8 – Every work of art, as designated by its creator, is a proposition of artistic truth. http://bit.ly/4tvGWx

Leave a Reply