Topic: state of the art - answers to answers IV

I will only reply very briefly to some qaspects of your last post.


I like the idea you give about sharp abyss. We often speak of longing when we speak about landscape. We want to be part of what we are looking at when we are for example in a beautiful nature. We want time to stop. We want to dissolve into the landscape we are mentally building. You are very true that thinking of nature as picturesque or as a landscape is already making what you call a cut in space. Be it a mental one. What then if we are there watching the abyss on a steep cliff? Everybody knows that feeling that comes sometimes for a fraction of a second. We are there and we actually want to jump. For a fraction of a second. We are not doing it. Jumping would be making this longing true. We would become the landscape. But we are not doing it. D.

This could also be an indea for Black Cube text. Can we find or write something about standing at the abyss? about making that step into another reality? You describe it very nicely

The question of autonomy in art is maybe really a misunderstanding. What I mean is that the art piece is autonomous in the sense that it is useless, or rather not justified by some external necessity, other than to be an art piece. That would be the difference between art and propaganda, art and journalism, art and interior design... You are of course right, that some art pieces need the viewer to become complete, include certain actions and behaviors, thereby becoming OPEN as opposed to HERMETIC, and I would say, in many cases transgressive.

Isn't that the main argument of Greenberg? That the Tafelbild is the highest form or art because it is always the same, no matter how and where it is displayed? Total autonomy, from representation as well as from physical and spatial limitations. We of course know, that this is a chimare! wishful thinking.