[iDC] shelf death

[Luis Camnitzer]

Patrick: Fluxus artists, like everybody else, go through an aging process
and long for immortality, so yes, I think narcissism is a big part of it. I
too would accept a urinal any time, but mostly for its monetary value. It
probably was the only real unadulterated prank Duchamp made. As a creative
device I prefer Michael Dibdin's version in his Eco spoof, where the urinal
is set so that whatever vandal uses it has his output drip back on his
pants. As an artist I am not against selling the physical shell of my work,
but consider that the transaction satisfies the buyer's problems, not my
own.

On Nov 19, 2007 8:00 PM, Patrick Lichty <voyd at voyd.com> wrote:

> Actually, although we can say that the material discourse is a reiteration
> of Adorno's "Valery Proust Museum", and its cathedrals of (unrealized)
> capital. While I think that this can be construed as a Marxist/Capitalist
> agenda, but I also think that this may be equally romantic/antiquarian,
> i.e. the desire for immortality through the durable. Yes, I think that the
> ancient fetish discourse is there, but there are many other movements that
> in a way, are actually interested in historical endurance, as I know a
> number of Fluxus artists are assembling their archives. What is obvious to
> me is that it isn't just about object/money, that's My favorite example of a
> non-material engagement with posterity is Marina Abramovic' "Seven Easy
> Pieces" at the Guggenheim in 2005. In conversation, she was stating her
> interest in questioning the "Record/Record of the Time" (Anderson) in which
> historical pieces are preserved by re-performance; again returning to a
> strange position between fetish and orality. However, to just decide that
> interest in durability is merely a function of material fetish is not as
> useful to me as other topics, like human narcissism & art,
> historical/generational refresh, intergenerational dialogue, cutlural
> propagation, etc. There was one point where Lynn and I were having a public
> conversation about the creation of physical objects in context with virtual
> production, where it was asked why I was interested in such things; were
> they for sales? Anyone who knows me well enough knows that if I make any
> object, it is often a problematic that serves as a Duchampian question,
> although it may be one that is primarily of interest to me. Are Lynn's any
> my avatar sculptures (although they have very different contexts) fetishes
> of desire? I like the disclaimer of the experiment and the more or less
> successful result. Is a rapid prototype archival, or can it be a fetish, and
> is it desirable? These aren't questions that I particularly like, as I think
> that the creation of artworks, and especially evergent ones like RP work,
> highly problematic, as their subjects are often alien, the process is
> extremely durable (plastics) and also open to decay (the starches).
> technolgoical objects, even ones from tech processes, are problematic.
> That's why I love them. Give me a urinal any day.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/attachments/20071120/37505ce9/attachment.htm