[spectre] Duchamp's web.

[Patrick Lichty]

That is the problem.
Art is now intent and context; sometimes form.  The ability to ascribe a 
dictum to the nature of art at the turn of the millennium seems useless. 

Is art form, is it a process, is it a state, is it a big, glazed jelly 
donut?  Absulutely, if you place it in the right context and it communicates 
something about our condition, creates wonder, challenges the mind, inspires 
appreciation - in short creates a desired response.

Absolutes may be destroyed, but parameters are still extant.

---- John Doe <srmi at noos.fr> wrote:
>
> "Yes, to make art, to leave art. Because art is not a profession,
> literature; Musil said, is not an activity, it is a state. Not to want to
> make art, in extreme cases, it is that art. State which was seen at every
> moment, yes.  If not, it is to fall down in the sphere of the separate
> fields. The work of art exceeds the policy, it includes it, as a creation 
of
> a different world. It is a question of leaving the circle, to be it. With
> me you do not appear disillusioned while not believing in the
> "spectacle of the action". The spectacle, also pretty and sizeable is the
> banner under which it prevails, is always spectacle. Not in it to believe,
> it is not to believe in the lures. If art is artifice, it is of a lure 
much
> larger, more vital, about which it all is... " Frédérika
> 
> http://thth.free.fr V2
> THe Cruci-Fiction in Black.
> 
> [the hype doesn't work...]
> 
> ______________________________________________
> SPECTRE list for media culture in Deep Europe
> Info, archive and help:
> http://coredump.buug.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/spectre
> 
> 
>