From c14e19c8343f3f00944b9d50840501906c4ae2d7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: grr Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 18:17:14 -0400 Subject: breaking more things into files --- essays/art_or_brend.tex | 141 +++++++++++++++++++++ essays/down_with_art.tex | 5 + essays/letters.tex | 313 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 459 insertions(+) create mode 100644 essays/art_or_brend.tex create mode 100644 essays/down_with_art.tex create mode 100644 essays/letters.tex diff --git a/essays/art_or_brend.tex b/essays/art_or_brend.tex new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ef758d7 --- /dev/null +++ b/essays/art_or_brend.tex @@ -0,0 +1,141 @@ +\chapter{\textsc{Art} or \textsc{Brend}?} + +\begin{enumerate} +\item Perhaps the most diseased justification the artist can give of his profession +is to say that it is somehow scientific. LaMonte Young, Milton Babbitt, and +Stockhausen are exponents of this sort of justification. + +The law which relates the mass of a body to its velocity has predictive value +and is an outstanding scientific law. Is the work of art such a law? The +experiment which shows that the speed of light is independent of the motion +of its source is a measurement of a phenomenon crucial to the confirmation of +a scientific hypothesis; it is an outstanding scientific experiment. Is the work +of art such a measurement? The invention of the vacuum tube was an +outstanding technological advance. Is the work of art such a technological +advance? Differential geometry is a deductive analysis of abstract relations +and an outstanding mathematical theory. ts the work of art such an +analysis? + +The motives behind the "scientific" justification of art are utterly sinister. +Perhaps LaMonte Young is merely rationalizing because he wants an +academic job. But Babbitt is out to reduce music to a pedantic +pseudo-science. And Stockhausen, with his "scientific music", intends +nothing less than the suppression of the culture of "lower classes" and +"ower races." + +It is the creative personality himself who has the most reason to object to +the "scientific" justification of art. Again and again, the decisive step in +artistic development has come when an artist produces a work that shatters +all existing 'scientific' laws of art, and yet is more important to the +audience than all the works that "obey" the laws. + +\item The artist or entertainer cannot exist without urging his product on other +people. In fact, after developing his product, the artist goes out and tries to +win public acceptance for it, to advertise and promote it, to sell it, to force it +on people. If the public doesn't accept it at first, he is disappointed. He +doesn't drop it, but repeatedly urges the product on them. + +People have every reason, then, to ask the artist: Is your product good for +me even if I don't like or enjoy it? This question really lays art open. One of +the distinguishing features of art has always been that it is very difficult to +defend art without referring to people's liking or enjoying it. (Functions of +art such as making money or glorifying the social order are real enough, but +they are rarely cited in defense of art. Let us put them aside.) When one +artist shows his latest production to another, all he can usually ask is "Do +you like it?" Once the "scientific" justification of art is discredited, the +artist usually has to admit: If you don't like or enjoy my product, there's no +reason why you should "consume" it. + +There are exceptions. Art sometimes becomes the sole channel for political +dissent, the sole arena in which oppressive social relations can be +transcended. Even so, subjectivity of value remains a feature which +distinguishes art and entertainment from other activities. Thus art is +historically a leisure activity. + +\item But there is a fundamental contradiction here. Consider the object which +one person produces for the liking, the enjoyment of another. The value of +the object is supposed to be that you just like it. It supposedly has a value +which is entirely subjective and entirely within you, is a part of you. Yet---the +object can exist without you, is completely outside you, is not you or your +valuing, and has no inherent connection with you or your valuing. The +product is not personal to you. + +Such is the contradiction in much art and entertainment. it is unfortunate +that it has to be stated so abstractly, but the discussion is about something +so personal that there can be no interpersonal examples of it. Perhaps it will +help to say that in appreciating or consuming art, you are always aware that +it is not you, your valuing---yet your liking it, your valuing it is usually the +only thing that can justify it. + +In art and entertainment, objects are produced having no inherent +connection with people's liking, yet the artist expects the objects to find +their value in people's liking them. To be totally successful, the object would +have to give you an experience in which the object is as personal to you as +your valuing of it. Yet you remain aware that the object is another's +product, separable from your liking of it. The artist tries to "be oneself" for +other people, to "express oneself" for them. + +\item There are experiences for each person which accomplish what art and +entertainment fail to. The purpose of this essay is to make you aware of +these experiences, by comparing and contrasting them with art. I have +coined the term \term{brend} for these experiences. + +Consider all of your doings, what you already do. Exclude the gratifying of +physiological needs, physically harmful activities, and competitive activites. +Concentrate on spontaneous self-amusement or play. That is, concentrate on +everything you do just because you like it, because you just like it as you do +it. + +Actually, these doings should be referred to as your just-likings. In saying +that somebody likes an art exhibit, it is appropriate to distinguish the art +exhibit from his liking of it. But in the case of your just-likings, it is not +appropriate to distinguish the objects valued from your valuings, and the +single term that covers both should be used. When you write with a pencil, +you are rarely attentive to the fact that the pencil was produced by +somebody other than yourself. You can use something produced by +somebody else without thinking about it. In your just-likings, you never +notice that things are not produced by you. The essence of a just-liking is +that in it, you are not aware that the object you value is less personal to you +than your very valuing. + +These just-likings are your \term{brend.} Some of your dreams are brend; and +some children's play is brend (but formal children's games aren't). In a sense, +though, the attempt to give interpersonal examples of brend is futile, +because the end result is neutral things or actions, cut off from the valuing +which gives them their only significance; and because the end result suggests +that brend is a deliberate activity like carrying out orders. The only examples +for you are your just-likings, and you have to guess them by directly +applying the abstract definition. + +Even though brend is defined exclusively in terms of what you like, it is not +necessarily solitary. The definition simply recognizes that valuing is an act of +individuals; that to counterpose the likes of the community to the likes of +the individuals who make it up is an ideological deception. + +\item It is now possible to say that much art and entertainment are +pseudo-brend; that your brend is the total originality beyond art; that your +brend is the absolute self-expression and the absolute enjoyment beyond art. +Can brend, then, replace art, can it expand to fill the space now occupied by +art and entertainment? To ask this question is to ask when utopia will +arrive, when the barrier between work and leisure will be broken down, +when work will be abolished. Rather than holding out utopian promises, it is +better to give whoever can grasp it the realization that the experience +beyond art already occurs in his life---but is totally suppressed by the general +repressiveness of society. +\end{enumerate} + + +Note: The avant-garde artist may raise a final question. Can't art or +entertainment compensate for its impersonality by having sheer newness as a +value? Can't the very foreignness of the impersonal object be entertaining? +Doesn't this happen with Mock Risk Games, for example? The answer is +that entertainmental newness is also subjective. What is entertainingly +strange to one person is incomprehensible, annoying, or irrelevant to +another. The only difference between foreignness and other entertainment +values is that brend does not have more foreignness than conventional +entertainment does. + +As for objective newness, or the objective value of Mock Risk Games, these +issues are so difficult that I have been unable to reach final conclusions +about them. + diff --git a/essays/down_with_art.tex b/essays/down_with_art.tex new file mode 100644 index 0000000..176b9ff --- /dev/null +++ b/essays/down_with_art.tex @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +{ +\centering\specialheadersfont\Large +Down With Art \\ +\par +} diff --git a/essays/letters.tex b/essays/letters.tex new file mode 100644 index 0000000..455a41b --- /dev/null +++ b/essays/letters.tex @@ -0,0 +1,313 @@ +\chapter{Letters} + +\section{Letter from Terry Riley, Paris, to Henry Flynt, Cambridge, +Mass., dated 11/8/62} + +One day a little boy got up and looked at his toys, appraised them and +decided they were of no value to him so he did them in. Seeing that others +were blindly and blissfully enjoying theirs he offered them a long and +"radical new theory" of "pure recreation" for their enjoyment but before he +let them in for this highly secret and "revolutionary theory" they should +follow his example and partake of a little 20th C. iconoclasm. From those +that balked he removed the label "avant-garde" and attached the label +"traditionalist" or if they were already labeled "traditionalist" he added one +more star. If they accepted they got a "hip" rating with gold cluster and if +they comprehended the worth of his theory well enough to destroy their +own art they would be awarded assignments to destroy those works whose +designers were no longer around to speak out in their behalf. + +Now about this hip radical new theory of pure recreation.---Well---alor! its +simply what people do anyway but don't realize it but it seems that what +people "do anyway and don't realize it" will not be fully appreciated until +"what people do in the name of art" is eliminated. If art can be relegated to +obscurity, if some one can get John Coltrane to stop blowing, if someone +can smash up all the old Art tatum records as well as all the existing pianos, +if someone can get all that stuff out of those museums, If someone can only +burn down all those concert halls, movie houses, small galleries as well as +rooms in private houses that contain signs of art, If someone can do in all the +cathedrals and monuments bridges etc, If someone can get rid of the sun, +moon, stars, ocean, desert trees birds, bushes mountains, rivers, joy, sadness +inspiration or any other natural phenomenon that reminds us of the ugly +scourge art that has preoccupied and plagued man since he can remember +then yes then at last Henry Flynt, sorry! + +\img{terry_flynt_name} + +will show us how to really enjoy ourselves. Whooopeeee + +\signoffnote{[Terry Riley's spelling etc. carefully preserved]} + +\clearpage + +\section{letter from Bob Morris to Henry Flynt, dated 8/13/62} + +Dear Henry, + +\gap + +perhaps the desirability of certain kinds of experience in art is not +important. The problem has been for some time one of ideas---those most +admired are the ones with the biggest, most incisive ideas (e.g. Cage \& +Duchamp). The mere exertion in the direction of finding "new" ideas has +not shown too much more than that it has become established as a +traditional method; not much fruit has appeared on this vine. Also it can't be +avoided that this is an academic approach which presupposes a history to +react against---what I mean here is the kind of continuity one is aware of +when involved in this activity: it just seems academic (if the term can +somehow be used without so much emotion attached to it). The difficulty +with new ideas is that they are too hard to manufacture. Even the best have +only had a few good ones. (I suppose none of this is very clear and I can't +seem to get in the mood to do any more than put it down in an off-hand +way---but what I mean by "new ideas" is not only what you might call +"Concept Art" but rather effecting changes in the structures of art forms +more than any specific content or forms) Once one is committed to attempt +these efforts---and tries it for a while---one becomes aware that if one wants +"experience" one must repeat himself until other new things occur: a +position difficult if not impossible to accept with large "idea" ambitions. So +one remains idle, repeats things, or finds some form of concentration and +duration outside the art---jazz, chess, whatever. I think that today art is a +form of art history. + +I don't think entertainment solves the problem presented by avant gard art +since entertainment has mostly to do with replacing that part of art which is +now hard to get---i.e. experience. It seems to me that to be concerned with +"just liked" things as you present it is to avoid such things as tradition in art +(some body of stuff to react against---to be thought of as opponent or +memory or however). As I said before, I for one am not so self-sufficient and +when avoiding "given" structures, e.g. art, or even the most tedious and +decorous forms of social intercourse, I am bored. If I need concentration, +which I do, I can't think of anything on my own as good as chess. + +One accepts language, one accepts logic. + +\signoff{Best regards,} +\signoff{Bob Morris} + +\section{} + +{ +\raggedleft +\textsc{From "Culture" to Veramusement} \\ +Boston--New York \\ +\textsc{Press Release:} for March--April, 1963 \par +} + + +Henry Flynt, Tony Conrad, and Jack Smith braved the cold to demonstrate +against Serious Culture (and art) on Wednesday, February 27. They began at +the Museum of Modern Art at 1:30 p.m., picketing with signs bearing the +slogans +\textsc{Demolish serious culture! / Destroy art!} ; +\textsc{Demolish art museums! / No more art!} ; +\textsc{Demolish concert halls! / Demolish Lincoln Center!} ; +and handing out announcements of +Flynt's lecture the next evening. Benjamin Patterson came up to give +encouragement. There was much spontaneous interest among people around +and in the Museum. At about 1:50, a corpulent, richly dressed Museum +official came out and imperiously told the pickets that he was going to +straighten them out, that the Museum had never been picketed, that it could +not be picketed without its permission, that it owned the sidewalk, and that +the pickets would have to go elsewhere. The picket who had obtained police +permission for the demonstration was immediately dispatched to call the +police about the matter, while the other two stood aside. It was found that +the Museum official had not told the truth; and the picketing was resumed. +People who care about the rights of pickets generally should recognize the +viciousness of, and oppose, the notion that picketing can only be at the +permission of the establishment being picketed. (As for previous picketing of +the Museum, it is a matter of record.) Interest in the demonstration +increased; people stopped to ask questions and talk. There was a much +greater demand for announcements than could be supplied. Some people +indicated their sympathy with the demonstrators. The demonstrators then +went on to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Because of the unexpected +requirement of a permit to picket on a park street, they had to picket on +Lexington Avenue, crossing 82nd Street. As a result they were far from the +fools lined up to worship the Mona Lisa, but there was still interest. Finally, +they went to Philharmonic Hall. Because of the time, not many people were +there, but still there was interest; people stopped to talk and wanted more +announcements than were available. The demonstrations ended at 3:45 p.m. +Photos of the pickets were taken at all three places. + +On Thursday evening, February 28, at Walter DeMaria's loft, Henry Flynt +gave a long lecture expositing the doctrine the Wednesday demonstrations +were based on. On entering the lecture room, the visitor found himself +stepping in the face of a Mona Lisa print placed as the doormat. To one side +was an exhibition of demonstration photos and so forth. Behind the lecturer +was a large picture of Viadimir Mayakovsky, while on either side were the +signs used in the demonstrations, together with one saying +\textsc{Veramusement---Not culture}. About 20 people came to the lecture. +The lecturer showed first the suffering caused by Serious-Cultural snobbery, +by its attempts to force individuals in line with things supposed to have +objective validity, but actually representing only alien subjective tastes +sanctioned by tradition. He then showed that artistic categories have +disintegrated, and that their retention has become obscurantist. (He showed +that the purpose of didactic art is better served by documentaries.) Finally, +in the most intellectually sophisticated part of the lecture, he showed the +superiority of each individual's veramusement (partially defined on the +lecture announcement) to institutionalized amusement activities (which +impose foreign tastes on the individual) and indeed to all "culture" the +lecture was concerned with. After the lecture, Flynt told how his doctrine +was anticipated by little known ideas of Mayakovsky, Dziga Vertov, and +their group, as related in Ilya Ehrenburg's memoirs and elsewhere. He +touched on the Wednesday demonstrations. He spoke of George Maciunas' +\textsc{Fluxus}, with which all this is connected. Several people at the lecture +congratulated Flynt on the clarity of the presentation and logicality of the +arguments. Photos were taken. + +\section{Statement of November 1963} + + +Back in March 1963, I sent the first \textsc{FCTB Press Release}, about FCTB's +February picketing and lecture, to all the communications media, including +the New Yorker. It is so good that the New Yorker wanted to use it, but +they didn't want to give FCTB any free publicity; so they finally published +an inept parody of it, in the October 12, 1963 issue, pp. 49--51. They +changed my last name to Mackie, changed February 27 to September 25, the +Museum of Modern Art to a church, changed our slogans to particularly +idiotic ones (although they got in '\textsc{No More Art/Culture?}', later on), +and added incidents; but the general outlines, and the phrases lifted verbatim +from the FCTB RELEASE, make the relationship clear.---Henry Fiynt + +\section{} + +{ \raggedleft 3/6/63 \par } + +Henry, + + +Received your note this morning. I had written down a few things about the +lecture the very night I got home but decided they were not very clear so I +didn't send them. Don't know if I can make it any clearer\ldots actually I keep +thinking that I must have overlooked something because the objection I have +to make seems too obvious. You spend much time and effort locating +Veramusement, stating clearly wnat it is not, and stating that it is, if I get it, +of the essence of an awareness, rather memory, of an experience which +cannot be predicted and therefore cannot be located or focused by external +activities. And, in fact, as you said, may cut across, or "intersect" one or +another or several activities. You have discredited activities---like art, +competitive games---as pseudo work or unsatisfactory recreation by employing +arguments which are external to "experiencing" these activities (e.g. chess is +bad because why agree to some arbitrary standard of performance which +doesn't fit you)\ldots well it seems to me that Veramusement could never replace +any cultural form because it has no external "edges" but rather by definition +can occur anywhere anytime anyplace (By the way I want to say here that +its existence as a past tense or memory I find objectionable---but I can't at the +moment really say why.) It seems that you have these two things going: +Veramusement, that has to do with experience, and art, work, +entertainment, that have to do with society and I don't think that the +exposition of how the two things are related has been very clear. George +Herbert Mead, an early Pragmatist (don't shudder at that word, but I can see +you throwing up your hands in despair) talked about this relation as a kind +of double aspect of the personality (which he called the "me" and the "I" +\ldots can't remember his book, something like \booktitle{Mind, Self, and Society}). + +I thought you presented the lecture very weil, but towards the end I was +getting too tired to listen very carefully and I am sorry because this was the +newest writing. I would like very much to read this part, i.e. that which dealt +with the evolution of work, automation and the liberation from +drudgery---send me a copy if you can. + +\signoff{Best regards,} +\signoff{Bob Morris} + +\section{} + +{ \raggedleft 3/12/1963 \par } +Henry + +\begin{tabular}{ c c c c c } + \redact{Jazz} & + \redact{Cage} & + \redact{"Folk Music"} & + \redact{Communism} & + \begin{tabular}{ c } + (anti-art?) \\ + ------ \\ + (communism) \\ + \end{tabular} \\ +\end{tabular} + +I've been along this road too. +Yes I certainly do see the harmfullness of serious culture. My favorite movies are plain documentaries. + +\gap + + +"Veramusement" +questions: the way you set it up it sound like veramusement is \textsc{It}. Some +kind of Absolute good state or activity. ---ie) \textsc{Athletics} are out. \\ +---now my brother is a healthy athelete---he enjoys nothing so much as +swimming or playing tennis all day (he likes to use his body---and he likes the +form---competition) + +{ \centering +Is this "wrong" \\ +Should he stop.--- \par +} + +or wouldn't your "creep theory" which lets each person be himself and +relish in himself---by extention from this---shouldn't the atheletic person be +alowed to be himself? ---too. \\ +I think you were opening up the world to the people at the lecture--- + + +{ +making them move free-- +" " ready to be themselves \par +} + + +I think you were right in not giving examples! + + +however \\ +your absolute---statements and "come on"---and blend with the communist +ideas---(My mind was pretty tired by then and I didn't follow how the +veramusement---was tied to communism)---this \textsc{It} kind of talk.---can only shoo +people off-and let them wait for the next revision or explication. \\ +people off---and let them wait for the next revision or explication. + +\signoff{Walter DeMaria} + +\section{} + +Dear Henry, March 18, 1963 + + +As I said before, my main reactions to yr lecture \& ideas is that I'm for +Henry Flynt but not for his ideas. I think the spirit you show in carrying on +yr crusade is admirable and exciting. However, I am not against art and think +that any artist who would say that he is or think that he is would be +masochistic enough to need psychiatric care. Since you make no claims to +being an artist this does not refer to you. However, I do call myself a poet +and do think of myself as one. I like art, culture, etc. and do not yet feel +that I am being screwed by it. Until I do, I will not need to turn to anti-art +movements. + +All best wishes. + +Yours, + +Diane Wakoski + +\section{} + +"Dear Mr. Flynt...Since I may be depending on o-ganized culture for my +loot \& livelihood I can wish you only a limited success in your movement... +Cornelius Cardew" [froma postcard of June 7, 1963] + + +\clearpage + +{ +2/22/1963 + + +Jack Smith and Henry Flynt demonstrate against the +February 22, 1963 + + +(photo by Tony Conrad) + +Museum of Modern Art, +} +\clearpage -- cgit v1.2.3