<x-flowed>Dawn wrote:
There are two issues here.
Divizio wrote:
Only two?
OK. I sense that you are a little frustrated by being somewhere lower than
at the pinnacle of the pyramid.
Consider that the funding bodies fund according to a program...ie, the
Top-Down one.
Artist? at the pinnacle?
Those using cool technologies in challenging ways are less likely to be
recognized by such funders.
I won't even attempt a swing at your devious attempt to move yourself to
the margin by raising the gender split thing.
Are we talking "dance" here, or "art"? Not necessarily the same. If your
interest is art I suggest the problem is falling into a satisfactory
definition by people who possibly don't know the difference.
Dance is much easier to "streamline" into "acceptability".... and hence
recognition ..... in the guise of funding.
But don't get to thinking so easily that art is what streams from the
possibilities of using "their" systems to create something "different" just
because it hasn't been done before.
Here is an interesting opening on "Content".
CONTENT: There is no clear consensus on what the content of a work of art
<http://www.arts.ouc.bc.ca/fiar/glossary/a_list.html> is. Some would
distinguish subject matter from content -- i.e., denotations vs.
connotations, more or less -- while others would prefer terms like meaning
<http://www.arts.ouc.bc.ca/fiar/glossary/m_list.html> and significance
<http://www.arts.ouc.bc.ca/fiar/glossary/s_list.html>. What follows is a
provisional record which tries to take into account most of the available
possibilities. For the sake of categorical clarity, we can arbitrarily
differentiate content from form
<http://www.arts.ouc.bc.ca/fiar/glossary/f_list.html> and context, although
there are clear points of interchange or mutual inflection
<http://www.arts.ouc.bc.ca/fiar/glossary/i_list.html>. Simply put, content
is "what" the work is (about), while form and context are "how" the work is
and "in what circumstances" the work is, respectively. Within the category
of content we can further distinguish three levels of complexity. Although
they are arranged numerically here, there is no intrinsic
<http://www.arts.ouc.bc.ca/fiar/glossary/i_list.html> hierarchy that holds
true for all audiences
<http://www.arts.ouc.bc.ca/fiar/glossary/a_list.html>. The primary content
includes literal <http://www.arts.ouc.bc.ca/fiar/glossary/l_list.html>
iconography; straightforward subjects and imagery; and describable facts,
actions, and/or poses. The secondary content includes the basic genres
<http://www.arts.ouc.bc.ca/fiar/glossary/g_list.html> (history,
megalography, mythology, religion, portraiture, landscape, still-life,
genre, rhopography); figurative
<http://www.arts.ouc.bc.ca/fiar/glossary/f_list.html> meanings like those
afforded by conventional signs and symbols (including allegories,
attributes, personifications, and traditional connotations); basic tropes
<http://www.arts.ouc.bc.ca/fiar/glossary/t_list.html> (metaphor, metonymy,
synecdoche, irony, parody, etc.); and/or performative effects
(paralinguistic <http://www.arts.ouc.bc.ca/fiar/glossary/p_list.html> formal
inflection of content). The tertiary content represents the convergence and
mutual inflection of form, content, and context. The primary content of
Ingres's Napoleon Enthroned, for example, would simply be a richly dressed
individual sitting on a throne, etc. The secondary content would become a
megalographic portrait of a particular political figure, identifiable as
Emperor by the various attributes, and given extra dignity by stylistic
treatment, not to mention compositional allusion
<http://www.arts.ouc.bc.ca/fiar/glossary/a_list.html> to Phidias's Olympian
Zeus. The tertiary level can be understood either as simple one-way
determinacy <http://www.arts.ouc.bc.ca/fiar/glossary/d_list.html> or as a
two-way chiasmus. I.e., Ingres's painting glorifies Napoleon in apparent
imagery and style, as well as in context -- which is to say not only that
Napoleon is idealized for obvious contextual reasons, but that obvious (and
sometimes not so obvious) contextual factors are also idealized by Napoleon
(or at least by his representation
<http://www.arts.ouc.bc.ca/fiar/glossary/r_list.html>). In theory, failure
to perform an exhaustive analysis of the interrelations of these levels
opens the artwriter <http://www.arts.ouc.bc.ca/fiar/glossary/a_list.html> to
charges of interpretive agnosia
<http://www.arts.ouc.bc.ca/fiar/glossary/i_list.html>.
Robert Belton
Divizio:
Finding a new way of working with the technology itself puts us very far
towards the margin...and hence funding possibilities....BUT, closer to the
thing called art....
MUCH better if we give up all ideas of communicating the art....ie...the
delivery of the "Art" and try something "other" like refining our art of
Communicating.....WHICH, I might add, dancers are in a rather fine position
to assist in the ensuing "adjustment".....historically ...or herstorically,
if you must ...though I prefer An-storically..... in the wake of the Post
Modern upheaval.
Dawn continues:
Sigh. I know this sounds bitter...I guess it is. But it's my deep dark fear.
But, the bright side could be that advertising will (is?) begin to resemble
art and we will (do?) enjoy it. Don't swallow my bitter pill. It's just
venting.
Dawn
Divizio:
sympathetic venting,
0!Z!^!P Z P!^VP
@
d^vid 2 diviZi0
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
</x-flowed>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/28/01 CST