And so the way that I do it-- that's just another book, sorry, a part of that thing. And we'll come back to this DARPA thing. Maybe I won't come back. Let's do this now. So how many people in here know what DARPA is? What it stands for?
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration. It's an arm of the military industrial complex. And the motto, the principles under which DARPA was organized, their motto is to prevent technological surprise-- to prevent technological surprise-- which means that you set up a structure in which you try to guarantee that no other entity, no other person, no other country is able to develop technological advances that you are not aware of and that you don't have a counter response to. Because being on the short end of that kind of an exchange, the consequences are unacceptable and almost unbearable. And in the same way for me, when I was looking at the way the art history books were written, being on the short end of the art historical exchange was also unacceptable and something that I couldn't leave to just dumb luck or to just chance. There had to be a way in which you could guarantee that you would never be on the outside of this exchange, but it had to be something that you controlled as opposed to something that other people imposed on you. And so I made a decision to take charge of the way I would participate and the way I would operate in whatever arena I was going to be a part of, that there was not going to be areas within the art world or within the art history that I wouldn't be aware of and that I wouldn't have something to say about. So this is the way I started out. So and this is the way you sort of erase the consequences of not knowing or not having abilities and leaving oneself vulnerable to simply being lucky. And so the question ends up, then how do you negotiate the meaning the between the difference between the image on my right, your left, and the image on the right? Those two things made by the same person but at different times. Could those two things have been made for the same reason and to perform the same function? Well, the appearance of them suggests that it could not be. But the difference between those two things, in their differences automatically demonstrate that the person who made those things had choices, and that the choices they made must have some reason and that those reasons have some kind of consequence. And so operating between these two spaces is the space in which the value that we assign to art sort of finds its full measure. And the same is the case with two woodcuts. One on the left, on your left, done before the one on the right. And a person who is making the work that's been done on the left, why would you then make a work that looks like the one that's on the right? What is the purpose of that difference? And it's negotiating the reasons for those differences that have driven almost everything that I do. And when we look through the rest of the works that I show, these kinds of differences become a key part of the reason why all of the things that I do look the way they do. And they have something to do with whether or not I feel like the choices that I'm making are the ones that put me in a place where I can participate more fully in the construction of the narrative of art history or whether I am at the mercy of somebody else's generosity. So the first two pieces and this painting are all sort of-- this is a self-portrait. So there are three self-portraits you've seen in this array of pictures that have come before. Each one of them different than the other. And each one designed because they explored a very different kind of idea in a very different way in which the idea representation can be modulated. So now when I'm going to sort of go through the speed round, because I think I have about 40 minutes to talk.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Friends sitehttps://www.casinoslots.co.nz/ Archives
March 2019
Categories |