do NOT Accept This New Coin!
Do YOU?
U.S. Government to Release New Dollar Coins
You guessed it 'IN GOD WE TRUST' IS GONE!!!
Who originally put 'In God We Trust' onto our currency?
My bet it was one of the Presidents on these coins.
All our U.S. Government has done is Dishonor them, and disgust me!!!
If ever there was a reason to boycott something, THIS IS IT!!!!
DO NOT ACCEPT THE NEW DOLLAR COINS AS CHANGE
Together we can force them out of circulation.
Please send this to all on your mail list !!!
Would it be art to boycott this?
7 comments:
i think it's sorely misguided.
there are so many other things our government is committing that are problematic and worthy of actionor boycott, things that are done in our name that only bring more hatred, violence, and injustice into the world. why not invest the energy there instead?
oh, wait, i realize i didn't ask the question: would it be art?
as i heard amiri baraka put it, art is the answer to the questions that have no answer. for the answerable questions, there is social activism.
i would put the boycott, regardless of the politics, into the latter category.
what would make it art in your mind?
i'm all for the use of ambiguity, uncertainty and mystery in art. As DJ Martinez refers to it: "to have questions about questions that produce confusion as a precondition to radical thought." he speaks of the potential of art in terms of the possibility of multiplicity to possess a force to achieve complexity in resistance.
but i think that to behave in way that is contrarian just because is unexpected does not make for great art, especially when it joins forces with religious fundamentalism in an arena of public policy.
it needs to go beyond that: where is the subtlety or complexity of meaning with which the viewer is challenged to question her own position and way of looking at things?
this brings up the notion of aesthetic beauty, a beauty that is as much about an aesthetics of ideas as it is about what Duchamp referred to as "retinal art" (that which is about visual pleasure).
therein lies that potential for radicality that Martinez refers to: the capacity of beauty, complexity, the poetic to be transformative.
so i question where is that beauty, on the level of ideas, in a boycott of US-minted coins that finally have removed the word god with a capital G?
So if art is the answer to questions that have no answers, dealing with the subject of religion and the question whether God exists and whether to put God as someone whose existence is uncertain on a nationaql coin would be art?
Also referring to Martinez' quote about raisingf questions about questions that produce confusion to lead to radical thought...sounds like he wants to shape the mystery, the unexpected and the open questions into something concrete? why? shouldn't art just be a mind opening process that doesn't materialize as something so tangible?
also, complexity in resistance seems like something very concentrated to me, concentrated in one direction as if one already knows right from wrong. do you really think that is the role of art? shouldn't the artist be the joker who keeps pointing out more mysteries and questioning the reality we live in and accept as our present dogma?
As I see it, this debate is over whether or not it would be art to boycott the new coins. Duchamp showed us that each of us is free to designate anything art, so it's really a matter of individual prerogative.
My response above is based not only on whether or not I see it as art, but also what are the ingredients that constitute great art, or what defines value in art. In other words, what are the necessary characteristics of meaningful art?
It sounds like we are basically in agreement on this: mystery, the unexpected, the unanswerable, confusion, the value of tricksterism--to me these all refer to basically the same idea, the same thing we tap into in order to get the viewer to question apparent reality and present dogma, as you put it. it's a way to create the possibility for opening up the viewer's mind, which may on the rarest of occasions lead to the kind of radicality of thought that Martinez refers to.
if you believe in the potentiality of art to create transformation in civil society, as martinez and beuys do and did, then that radicality is an ideal goal. the resistance he refers to is no different than the questioning of reality that you desire; it's the same end, to question the status quo in the hopes of envisioning a greater future.
so to me, the questions you are asking are more a matter of semantics. unless it's your opinion that to create art with the intention of transformation is too concrete and concentrated, then maybe we'd have to agree to disagree.
one area of difference between us may be around what constitutes great, valuable, effective. meaningful art. truly great art which lives up to the potential described above only does so when it possesses that complexity of meaning referred to above.
that may be the defining difference in our points of view. because it's the lack of that complexity in the boycott gesture that makes it less than art to me. and similarly, just because something refers to an unanswerable question like "does god exist" does not make it art. there has to be more, if one ever hopes to impact and move the viewer in such a way to question her existing way of looking at the world.
so maybe what's productive about this particular thread is it's moving us toward coming up with a collective definition of "what is art" or "what constitutes value in art, and how can we apply this notion to create those conditions for greatness/meaning in our own praxis?"
in order to move this debate forward, we need to acknowledge what's still missing here. while i have offered my position on the status of the boycott as non-art, you appear to be countering my position and yet you have not answered the original question yourself.
so i ask, once more: what do you think? would it be art to boycott the coins, and why or why not?
if you don't like my language or Martinez's, then throw it out and apply your own here: where are the elements of mystery and the unexpected in this boycott gesture? in what way does it engage the viewer to question reality and present dogma? what evidence is there of the joker/trickster at work? is there anything about the boycott as artistic gesture that sets it apart from knee-jerk fundamentalism, to elevate it to the status of meaningful art?
if art is about the creation of meaning, and at its best, multiplicity of meaning, then what meaning is created by the act of boycott as artistic gesture?
where are the elements of mystery and the unexpected in this boycott gesture? in what way does it engage the viewer to question reality and present dogma? what evidence is there of the joker/trickster at work? is there anything about the boycott as artistic gesture that sets it apart from knee-jerk fundamentalism, to elevate it to the status of meaningful art?
if art is about the creation of meaning, and at its best, multiplicity of meaning, then what meaning is created by the act of boycott as artistic gesture?
In order to answer these questions I'd have to first agree that art is about being a joker/trickster. It seems to be you are trying to hard to define what great art is. I see this definition that you offer as one possible definition of great art and believe thaere are many others. Art can be purely about transformation through resonating with energy in another human being (the viewer). Art does not necessarily have to be intellectual. there might be some aborigines in australia who create the most transformative art without having used their intellect at all. I agree that boycotting a coin is probably not art. it's direct political activism. Art needs to appeal to emotions and the mind in mysterious way and unexplained ways:) that much i agree with:)
Post a Comment