Tuesday, January 10, 2012

In Response to +BILLION's ‘TRUTHs’


In Response to TRUTHs (+BILLION-'s new space for opinionated 'TRUTH')
TRUTH 1. The Critic and/or/vs the Artist
by James Merrigan
6 January 2012
By Darren Caffrey

Access to the work of any art is a means of accessing the stones and balls and bits of everything which go to make it. Flesh included. Flesh and all life. I wonder as to the nature of any man, who when composing his story, precludes the very essence of his principle truth. Primary to the finding of form is the fact of what has been removed. Whether the limits of such making can ever be ultimately bound appears in all cases to enquire as to the nature of hope and action.
Staying in one place rolling a stone wheel might in itself represent a perfectly satisfying expense of time and indeed action, but what about when it comes time to go back home? Providence has sought in us a type of curiosity which replaces fact with much more than a division of what is by what is not, rather it creates a practice of relevance, whereby the fish which may once have been a staple of the Friday supper is replaced with the devil worshippers' alternative, perhaps taking form in the 'now' as a bacon double cheese burger, or some hot and spicy pork balls.
All I'm saying is that if an argument is to be had, it must be responsive to its conditions. If that means what painting is or is not? or what criticism is or is not?, then let us ask instead how it even came to be that way, the way that it seemingly is. Forecast in itself is speculative, not least for the way in which it is never what it is said to be. This is not evidence that a forecast is wrong, but rather that it is not proven correct by the events which follow.
There is something in projection which demands continuity, without it the active force is untrue from the outset. Is this the manner by which (traditional/historical) art criticism functions when it is cast and indeed pre-cast as separate from the work that it is addressing? If truth is defined before action what is the point in the future, how on earth can any such facts be made or even realised?
Can it really be so foul of the line to cross like with like, and as a simple condition of the relevant forces, identify an intentional direction as drawn from the point of the work in full? Within the ocean of effects, It is hardly paint that makes magic the illusion of light. It is hardly pixels which makes magic the lustre of the universe. Equally art is not a routine of adherence to facts by critics or by any one, it is rather an exposure through which the magic of all things becomes more visible; information seeding the imagination rather than the other way around.
Employing a shape from which to divest these very conditions in favour of better, more appropriate forms is a straight forward approach when considering that the last thing which art needs to survive is stability in its relative truth.
I think it unlikely that anyone would see clear reason to identify this truth as any type of fact. It is, I would hope, simply enough to establish language as a derivative of noise, music and or interruptions from within the yawning abyss of limits unlimited. We are in the end always better off to make up our own minds, outside of predetermination and subscription to a form which is alien and as such serves only in alienating both respective sides from the heart of their own perceptions.
What we do with these worked concepts naturally follows a path that is certain to be within its own modest approximation, universally boundless. In short, universal from the core out to the surface that point in the mapping of action where form is most intensely stressed. If it is the shadow of art which criticism must trace, then it is an inaccuracy to deem fact a suitable proponent of either the form or the substance of art… ever.
Ambition for better is the reality.
Editor’s note: This is a response to an article held here.

No comments:

Post a Comment