And what are the Seven By Nine Squares? On a bad day I think this is all bullshit, neoism and the like. But then I see this, a proposal to finish stocking the Pierre Menard library and I think, this is sheer fucking genius, perhaps despite itself, but none the less.
March 14, 2006
… is neoism?
5 Comments »
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/03/14/is-neoism/trackback/
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Wow. Newness. Ah da da da. That truly does deserve its “what in the hell.”
Comment by Edie — March 15, 2006 @ 12:10 am
hi Edie,
Fair enough. Like I said, I do sometimes think this stuff is just so much bullshit. On the other hand, sometimes I think it’s like a way to shed some of what happens to us under capitalism, a way to break through (or trick oneself out of the internalized) constant refrain of “shut up, get back to work, that’s what you count for.” It’s the same with punk rock, I think. On the one hand, it’s often ugly juvenile noise. On the other hand, in the right circumstances, it lights people up and they say “I’m not smart or talented or pretty or rich and I’m fucking angry about it and I will have my say!” That was my experience. This may also just be me projecting my own anxieties over writing and so on, maybe you’re right and this stuff is dumb. I’m not sure.
Best,
Nate
Comment by Nate — March 15, 2006 @ 4:02 am
Golly. I’m with Eric on this one being truly deserving of a “what in the hell”. I’ve done quite a bit of art history research, and ‘neoism’ slipped under my radar completely, and with the exception of the Menard bit, for very good reason. Another failed attempt at naming a superfluous art ‘movement’. Other failures: neo-geo and neo-expressionism (neo-expressionism was also named “transavantguardia” by an Italian dealer - Leo Castelli I believe - only to help market really lame art, and it worked too). At least neoism was named by the artists in a Dadaist spirit, and not by the critics, which so often happens. Good thing art movements aren’t in vogue any more.
From the looks of your most recent post it seems you could really use a drink. I know how you feel. I could use a drink or ten myself.
Comment by Keith — March 16, 2006 @ 4:12 am
hi Keith,
Edie, not Eric. I take this stuff to be a play on naming conventions, along the lines of Luther Blissett (though there’s more going on w/ Blissett). I’m trying to convince some folk in the Twin Cities to start a mag called SMILE. We’ll see what come of it. As for the drink, no, I don’t need any, at least not now. I need to drink more often so my tolerance will go back up, I’m out of practice. Some friends came in from out of town and we started really earlier today.
best,
Nate
Comment by Nate — March 16, 2006 @ 5:23 am
Well, I do think there is no reason to say, “This is useless, therefore it is not art.” I mean, how can one form of expression or fancy be condemned and others (doilies, columns, still lifes, etc.) be acceptable? I am not picking a fight here, Nate, just so you know. I do agree with you about punk and other radical art that it can be a powerful vehicle for individual expression.
Surely though, this neoism is a symptom of a cultural void, a turn away from society, from the notion that humanity has a purpose or meaning or ability to progress. A vehicle for individual or ultra-personal or unconscious expression is only a social expression insofar as it reveals the vacuum of a culture which values individualism above all else. It is inadvertant and coincidental if such art speaks an enduring message.
I don’t know much about these art movements. I do have a degree in art, if that counts a strike against me! So when encountering neoism, I am stuck thinking of Dada, which was a reaction against the horrors of WWI. What does such an art do, what does it say? Not that art has to do or say. In periods of such upheaval, however, art that simply refuses to cognize the human experience in whatever form it may, in fact indulges in this refusal… Well, I will be so bold as to judge it as such artists do themselves–it is worthless and meaningless and frivolous. The question then becomes whether anyone ought to care to be even looking at this art? And, what is to fill the void?
Or perhaps this ramble says something more about the type of individual I am… As you like it!
Comment by Edie — March 16, 2006 @ 2:41 pm