A. Sell all of one’s possessions purchase one way ticket on British Airways and move to Europe.

B. If option A is not possible and living in America is one’s fate, then cover television with a refridgerator box, read john berger & neil postman daily, and start weekly art conversations at your local coffee houses. (refridgerator box may be taken off on thursdays at nine to watch ‘lost’)

c. Sell all of one’s possessions purchase one way ticket on British airways and move to Europe (option a and c are very similar but quite different - i used a lowercase a in airways)

Conceptual art feels the pain of dealing with this most directly, probably, since the actual moment of enjoyment of the art comes from appreciating the thought behind it, usually the aesthetic is either happenstance or intentionally as neutral as possible.

I’m not really sure what to do about that problem. I hope that this project is a step in the right direction.

2. ‘level of art’ probably should be elaborated on before i comment in depth. One of the difficulties i see in talking about art in america is as i said earlier the way pragmatism has become the ‘law’ of the land in artistic circles.

3. another difficulty within artistic
circles in america is the obvious fact that envelopes most fields in society; anti-intellectualism. Or said in a different way; the entire focus of most american artists is the medium rather than the subject.
Examples; a. the average photographer is more concerned with the type of camera, lens, lighting, etc…then he is about what he is trying to communicate.
b. listen to a lecture about any great painter of the past and you will hear endless details about brush strokes, stype of paints used, who the subject was…and practically no time will be spent on what the artist was trying to say/communicate.
c. go to any american opera and nine times out of ten it will be sung in either italian or another foriegn language. Hear the same opera in london and it will be sung in English.

In america we care more about the ‘medium’ the ’sounds’ the opera singers make, the way the set looks, the clothes the characters wear. Those things aren’t bad…but they convey how we care little about content or the philosphy expressed through the artform

That would suggest that performance isn’t art though, since it can be totally verbal. That can’t be true. I believe that any thing can be brought to the level of art. Certainly some vocal actions by humans must be considered artistic.

Of course, verbal doesn’t necessarily mean language based.

1. I think that art is a form of communication. therefore art which is nothingness can’t communicate somethingness. (nothing is not something)

2. If something can be totally expressed via the verbal…why bother painting it? One can obviously do whatever one wants, but i’ve always taken after Mark Rothko’s idea that art is used to expressed those things that language cannot.

3. selecting great art based on the numbers who endorse it is usually a formula for enshrining the lowest common denominator - rothko

4. i think we can come to conclusions as to what art is and isn’t, but only if pragmatism is tossed out; western society worships capitalistic pragmatic concepts and this blurs the truth within art

“In another act that became known as an Yves Klein artwork, he offered and managed to sell empty spaces in the city in exchange for gold. He wanted his buyers to experience The Void by selling them empty space. In his view this experience could only be paid for in the purest material: gold. In order to restore the “natural order” that he had unbalanced by selling the empty space (that was now not “empty” anymore), Klein threw the gold into the river Seine.” - From wikipedia

Valarie, That’s really interesting. I think an understanding of the meaning technique brings to a piece is important, but that art is the extension and response to philosophy. If philosophy is the thought, the study, art is the creation and the action.