Comments on: Episode 170: Mark Staff Brandl

By: Delia

Delia — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:47:01 +0000

So jetzt hab ich endlich mal Zeit gefunden, Mark zu zuhören. Prima! „Wir“ sollen nicht vom gleichzeitigen Versuch verwirrt, die Kunstwelt in das gegenwärtige (politisch-ökonomische) Weltsystem zu integrieren und gleichzeitig auf einem „Wir“ des Kunstfelds selbst zu beharren. Wer ist genau dieses „Wir“? Wenn die Kunstwelt als ein Teil einer generellen Institutionalisierung sozialer Subjekte (die ihrerseits die Institution internalisieren) wahrgenommen wird, was und wo sind dann die Künstler und Künstlerinnen?

By: Samuel

Samuel — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:58:39 +0000

Postmodernism has to be seen as being part of a series of Mannerisms recurring in the history of art. Postmodernism and Mannerism are engaged in the same discourse of doubt, fixed style-as-genre, sharing the same stylistic concepts. Umberto Eco wrote, „in fact, I wonder if Postmodern is not simply the modern name for Manierismus….“ Brandl is correct.

By: Eddie

Eddie — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 14:17:35 +0000

Finally made it thru the Prelude. Love where your going. Very inspiring. I’ve a longer reply, but my email stopped sending to you again. My ISP is putting in a new email system, maybe that will fix it. I’ll get it to you somehow, even if I have to mail it!
JE Hoke

By: Mark Staff Brandl

Mark Staff Brandl — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:46:17 +0000

Thanks “cog” — who are you? You must be working directly in the area of my research.

And thanks Goran. I should have remembered my own list of “what to do” when Duncan and I were talking.

By: cognitive researcher

cognitive researcher — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 19:32:13 +0000

In recent years, there has been an acceleration of research within many fields concerned with the body’s relationship to the ‘mental’ understanding, cognition. A new understanding is developing through the interaction of the fields of philosophy, philosophical anthropology, and others. Here Brandl’s work in aesthetics or so-called theory and art history could be especially important. The newest thought thoroughly challenges Cartesian dualism and the denial and objectification of the body, which is the clear (yet unacknowledged) basis of Neo-Conceptual ‘puritanism’ as Brandl calls it. Additionally, neurophysiologic research and cognitive metaphor theory, (as well as dynamic system theory), presents a change that confronts such dominant yet unproductive theories of mind over body. This is fresh ground for assaulting the tired corporate, hierarchical metaphors operative in Neo-Conceptual art, while reinvigorating theoretical possibilities for the body in painting, in positive application, not just feebleness or the abject.

By: Goran

Goran — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 08:26:36 +0000

What can be done to get art onto a better track? As John Haber has said, “Heck, anyone who keeps going deserves some credit.”

I liked the comments you yourself wrote on the Swiss Art Sharkforum about this after your big controversial article there made so many waves, Mark. Im quoting you.

“Beyond complaint, though — what will be the NEXT steps for Sharks and their allies and kin? In short:

What can we do to improve the situation?

First of all, make extremely high quality art. Particularly with well-honed technical abilities. If you DO NOT now have these skills, this is NO surprise as they are seldom taught in art schools any more. But GET them. That ability can not be denied nor taken away from us and will outlive many an overblown curator justification.

Second, openly criticize the situation. Step on toes. Stop kissing butt.

Third, offer and create constructive alternatives, even perhaps to the point of creating your own artworlds, venues and so on. Attempt to add a positive answer to every correct criticism you level.

Fourth, encourage others who do the same. Help build critics and curators and especially other artists who pay attention to what is around them, who have independent minds, who are more than simply careerist toadies. Even support your “enemies” (to an extent) if they finally seem to see the light. Just don’t trust them behind your back.

Fifth, network in a POSITIVE sense, even internationally. And that’s what we are doing now.

Sixth, leave doors open. Tell the truth, be upset about hypocrisy, but be willing to “let it go” if they improve, if the purveyors of pedantry and their groupies gain consciousness or make overtures toward reparation.”

By: Mark Staff Brandl

Mark Staff Brandl — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 13:15:54 +0000

“Philosophy matters. It matters more than most people realize, because philosophical ideas that have developed over the centuries enter our culture in the form of a world view and affect us in thousands of ways. Philosophy matters in the academic world because the conceptual frameworks upon which entire academic disciplines rest usually have roots in philosophy — roots so deep and invisible that they are usually not even noticed.”
— George Lakoff (From Women, Fire and Dangerous Things)

By: Julia

Julia — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:00:44 +0000

Hey Mark…Schönes Interview!
Draus’ vom Walde komm ich her, lasset euch sagen, es weihnachtet sehr… viel zu sehr wenn man mich fragt. Bin voll im Stress- Ich hoffe du bist es nicht, und wünsche dir Fröhliche Weihnachten und einen guten Rutsch ins 2009, heureka!

By: Mark Staff Brandl

Mark Staff Brandl — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:38:49 +0000

Thanks Anna. I am definitely not just trying to “encourge philistines” as you said it, something I think Perl and Kramer and some others do too often. But I am encouraging analysis and dissent.

And Amy, thanks for your comments. It just struck me that although we did use “trope” (although I use it in its lingusitic sense as “figurative” image or word, not in teh artworld sense of repeating theme), and although I do think we said “notion,” we never once used that trendy artworld habit of using “reference” as a verb, —using the correct form “to refer to.” So we get some browny points.

By: Anna Busch

Anna Busch — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 14:54:15 +0000

One thing more. We must be careful about accidentally encouraging self-proud philistines, but Jed Perl, whose taste I abhor, yet whose analyses are profound, wrote “you cannot possibly understand what a safe haven for frauds and con artists the art world has become.” Likewise in Carlos Basualdo’s essay “The Unstable Institution”, he berates the art press for their “enormous disparity and lack of analytical rigor” in their published reactions to international art exhibitions, Biennales and so on. Both are correct, and yet come from opposite ends of the spectrum. I think Mark does an admirable job of sharing their analytical aggression, while promoting a forward-looking view. He is not encouraging philistines, yet is being critical.