Chris

Art Which Can’t Be Art (1986)

By: Alan Kaprow

Christopher DeBose

9/3/07

Art 410

The theme of this chapter in Alan Kaprow’s “The Blurring of Art and Life” discusses how unconventional (“nonart” p. 219) is accepted as Art. I think he is explaining how the meaning of Art is being changed. He pointed out how Duchamp and other artist are following this type of Art. Also, how unconventional Art has escaped “sacred assumptions (p. 219),” and judgments. For example, like individuality, creativity, and professional skill. Important questions that would be asked of Art are being ignored because nonart is growing in popularity. His personal stance is that this is “unproductive (p. 219),” and it will not benefit or advance the culture in a positive way. What he discusses is what is needed for something to be considered Art.

What he decided to do was focus on a project where he observed himself brushing his teeth. This allowed him to focus on his actions without worry about being judge that what he was doing is Art. He became aware of the expressions that his face was communicating and other activities that took place (movement of his elbow). This new awareness about himself, lead to him noticing how “ routinized” and “nonconscious” his behaviors were. This made him think of others like himself, and realizing that he was no different than anyone else. He mentions how this experience influenced how he saw others and himself. “An unremarkable picture of myself was beginning to surface, an image I’d created but never examined,” is what he said. What I took from this is that he recognized his image as Art. Even though it was not displayed or judge like a conventional piece of Art. I think this is important because it contradicts what he said Art should not be. This no way abides by the “sacred assumptions” of what Art should have, but he considered it Art. Beside the aesthetics and quality of a piece, Art is a communication of an experience.

Finally, he says Art has “shifted away from the specialized object in the gallery to the real urban environment,” and is considered paradox. I think the toothbrush project is an example of that. Brushing his teeth take place at his home (urban environment) and observing became art even though there was no “Art identifying frame (p. 219)” that publicly made it Art. If Art wasn’t paradox, then it would be simplistic is how he stated it, and Art is not simplistic. This can be taken as showing how Art is not a set idea or category, but rather a constantly changing shape. It changes because there are too many different ways of telling an idea or experience that may not be conventional, but is still Art.

Before:
View image

After:
View image

My Take on "Theory of the Derive"
Christopher DeBose

First off, he encourages that derive a way of lessening boundaries determined by geographical factors or "tags" place on area. Derive is drifting through areas, preferably, not none by the individual, where that person can explore and observe these unknown surroundings. This process is not thought out, but rather spontaneous in it approach. Maybe characteristics or a theme is created about the area that is being drifted. I assumed that this will offer a different fe emotion or way of thinking, that will show up in the photographs being taken.

Debord mentions how individuals set up their own boundaries. For example, the girl in Paris whose activites were recorded, and formed a triangular outline of her daily routines. He consider this as a personal boundary, because of the lack of differentiation in where she went. Even though there is more around her, she doesn't go beyond her usual routine. People being unwilling to allow themselves, Pierre Vendryes used the term "antiderterminist liberation" is part of the reason people are unable to experience a true derive. He relates this to probability experiments. What I took from that is that the chances of anyone experiencing a derive are low if people are influenced by their natural habitual actions. If this is removed, then the chance of a true derive happening is better. I don't think we can strip ourselves of what we know, but we could consciously block it out.

Next, Debord talks about derives being done in groups, with people of the "same level of awareness." Also, some guidelines to doing a derive. Like how long a derive can last. For example, it could last for a few hours to a few months and this can influence change in the derive the person might not be aware of. The mention of how weather greatly affects a derive. As well, how the goal of studying a terrain or becoming "emotionally disoriented" will influence how a derive is done. Lastly, he discusses how doing a derive in your residence is O.K. if it's interesting and not based on not knowing about the city (taking tourist pictures of common attractions).

The idea of derives is to go against what you would behaviorally do. Basically avoiding your usual routine. He talks about how limiting someone to a area they have no familiarity is a good way. He labeled it a "possible rendezvous" where you make a meeting and never show up or force that person to interact with people. This should encourage constant opportunities to experience a derive, but I think this would become annoying if the person has no clue of what is going on. He also compares various activities of expression that are generally the same as derive, but don't encourage independency, and a feeling of distress or observance. Not completely sure about my interpretation of that.

Finally, how derives enable "psychogeographical articulation." This he says go beyond "their main components and their spatial localization." I think he saying that it is not just brick, mortar, and buildings with addresses or a combination of businesses that establish boundaries. Derive should determine boundaries and distance and how an area is viewed.

I really don't have a complete opinion since I have never experience a derive before. If I had to related this to Art, I guess this would influence how someone approach doing Art, or how they see Art. Not sure really.

View Image:

View image

Reading the three pieces by Hakim Bey, I decided to go with Poetic Terrorism (PT). Just for the fact that I feel more comfortable wrapping my head around that concept, then I do the other two. I have two ideas for PT, but am not sure if they are actually correct.

PT #1
Mugging someone for their wallet, at night, in a secluded place with the intention of putting money in it, then returning it.
This will definitely get the individual thinking, because they are completely involve in what is happening. It provides a rush or emotional reaction, which is fear initially. After that, confusion can be the next feeling that person has. Now they wonder if they should call the cops or continue whatever they were going to do. That has to leave some kind of psychological impression on the person. I think that reaction is what makes it Poetic Terrorism. The example I use as a guideline was 9/11 - World Trade Center. It was a world wide event, that grabbed everyones focus and will be a day that no one will forget.

PT #2
Hand anyone on the street wearing blue a letter complimenting their outfit and asking them to e-mail or call you, where they bought it.
I don't think this takes it to the extreme like the first one does, but it may generate an awkward thought or response. That is another point of Poetic Terrorism, which is to create a thought that isn't normal, or common. That is what I think,but I could be wrong. This is not suppose to inspire deep thought, but rather curiosity. The curiosity of why does this person, I don't know, asking me this silly question.

Andy's Instructional Piece - Close your eyes, apply pressure for 1 minute with eyes closed, draw what you see.

View image