The final draft (straw)

In one of my initial posts Stevie attached a question: what do I really like? I will take this entry to explore the subjects of what I like. I like Bruckner's 9th, Nielsen's 5th, Alexander Mainz french horn engineering, loyalty in people, dirt wrecking, Sokolov, Bulgakov, Quine, Marko Lulic, the Adriatic sea, my grandmother's inability to cut trees, Boris, Pelican, Isis, Mastadon, polar wolves, Melvins, Ilya Kabakov, Vuillard, Buren...but most of all I hold dear: precision. I appreciate when people say things they mean in a precise and defined way, honestly, with imagination and skill. I also admire complex expression and I enjoy unfolding it when the content demands it. I will give my time to any art or written work because I hope to encounter corollary practices in all disciplines. It is for these reasons that my final blog will address the listed entry as an antonymic praxis. The entry is red and my comments are yellow.

I love pictures of kids playing.

Someone(Jilian?) posted:

Monday, April 17, 2006

just thinking...

okay, so members of the class seem to think referencing theorists when speaking of their work is what will make them (who: theorists or members of class, anyhow: theorists are relevant and members of class reference them in hope to make points clearer if the points were made less clear by this act you should have asked for analogical clarification) relevant. this to me is nonsense (back at you). What does your work tell about yourself (Does what you write tell about you?)? what makes your work different/unique/revolutionary?(I am not pretentious enough to claim that for any practice today) is your work formally/aesthetically appealing (my work reeeeeeealy pretty)? a couple of class sessions ago a student(name) in the course said something along the lines of, "i just didnt find any of the works within the magazine very interesting or good"(as Mr. Robinson pointed out we never really discussed that and again if you wanted to discuss it you should have done it by speaking up), what does that mean. so aesthetically they were not your type of work( example?)? that means jack shit to the rest of the world - give us something else...why are they uninteresting to you? that very same day (date, or magazine presented) another student(name) in the class mentioned that the artists within the texts didnt seem to have a philosophical or theoretical basis in their ideas and therefore their work (artist or theorist) was garbage - more or less. but the problem is - who said that (what?) was the case. people in this class (who?) read one article (from now on every time you do not specify I am going to write: S?) in one magazine(S?) or one interview(S?) in one magazine and think they (S?) know everything(S?). rooting yourself (S?) in theory adn philosphy is part of higher education reading requirements and discourse for a reason - and to me that reason is to expand your mind, challenge yourself to understand something denser, think about something differently, and hopefully in the process help shape the way you think(I agree ) . not mirror the way you think, not to allow you to survive off anothers words (again who is this: you?), but by taking what you've learned and formulating your own opinions your own theories to live by. so, newsflash everybody: originality is much more interesting than listening to someone play the name game - to the student(who is this directed at?) in class that siad that the artists in teh magazine didnt know shit - that they werent reading the writings of intellectually challengin thinkers (who said that?)- How do you(S?) know that? just because they didnt reference their educational background in an interview asking about a specific exhibition or expanse of work doesnt say that they are unknowledgable. frankly, if i was to read an artists statement or interview that is fully loaded with quotations from what they have read in their past i would be impressed for a moment and then i would laugh...because frankly that doesnt make you or your work important/interesting, ive read those people(S?) too as have many others(S?). sorry, i realize im raving but im just frustrated i guess - sure art criticism (the whole point of the course is great and necessary) but let me hear just once what is enjoyed by the class, who is an 'interesting' artist, what theories you have developed based on your educational background (again you might have provoked this conversation by speaking). and most of all i just wish i could hear someone in the course speak from their heart about what they love in art (this course is not about the love of art-- it is about the lack of criticality within the field of art criticism), in an artist...where's the poetry that should come from living your dream and striving to make it in something that to you(S?) holds all the importance in the world. i guess as an artist im a simpleton and a romantic(def 1:Imaginative but impractical; visionary: romantic notions. def 2: Not based on fact; imaginary or fictitious. Dear poster whoever you are and if you are Jilian as Stevie wrote then this is addressed to you,
I would have to go with def 2 for you. I know the names of everyone in this class because I wrote them down when they were introducing themselves. I do not think that you should write if you do not plan to devote some time to think about it a bit more. This us-and-them-ism is quite boring. Actually your writing is quite boring as well. Maybe you could show some trace of your own original, different, revolutionary thinking since these are the qualifiers of your worldview, or maybe give some, any evidence that you were actually in class when discussion took place by mentioning one name, one title or one date. Specificity is important for both artwork and writing. I do not mean to be ironic, I mean this in the most sincere way possible; maybe you should read up a bit) - shoot me.

---on another note...i couldnt help but watch the 'squid and the whale' and think about the son in reference to this course: a young boy who learns to admire his pretentious, ill-mannered, and actually ill-informed father just to try and sound smart and elitest --- it doesnt work out (who is this pointing at?).

i did not mean to avoid confrontation by not naming names but in all sincerity, i dont know your names. (how about signing your post then?)

I have not heard these (what you listed) concerns in class. Verbalizing them would have alleviated some of your frustration. I am disappointed that you haven't engaged with the rest of the class and now that the class is over, your entry is pointless as well as mine. I just hope that you know that I feel you short changed us by not participating.
Sincerely,

Falcon (IKA)


and done.