HNW question

[banned]

i'm just gonna repeat myself cos no-one replied before.

human intention to construct something meaningless independent of its context may be vanity. but things in context can be meaningless, dependent on that context [curation].
and some natural things really are less meaningful than others -- we don't understand the weather.

[JLIAT]

The form was arbitary

Yet when I see that urinal or one that looks like it I think about its meaning.

it was one of many readymades, their form being unimportant except for humour,. "Duchamp was not interested in what he called "retinal art" " i.e. the look of the thing. Feel free to look, but that is not his intention, and far safer. By analogy HNW is not 'auditory'.

Well if you think so why take part in this exchange,

I dunno.. I do quite literally have more important things to do.. currently waiting for a coffee. This is not say that I think the conversation is pointless

You seem to have a bigger need to establish yourself as being an authority on the subject

You and others seem to often use that, yet right at the start I said I was not, i'm merely a messenger. And the clichxc3xa9 of attacking the messenger for the message rings true. There are plenty of authoritative sources out there, but that involves reading books. You yourself should know of the collapse of the art object, its dematerialization in the 70s. HNW (like conceptual poetry) represents the same thing. Hell! those involved even cite such fine artists as relevant to their practise.

I can see maybe the need to deny this process.

As for my need to establish... its been done. I suppose its wrong of me to share the bad news, but not doing so seems patronising. I'm no overman, just one of the herd. Maybe I should shut up.

>Please point out where he claims to want to make infinite pieces. (not that makes any difference to the non-meaning!) Surely then he could just simply release endless locked groove LPs. Not an LP with one side 45 rpm the other 33 1/3. As for no point, my interpretation? Have you another?

You have your interpretation and I have mine.. that's how that works

I'm afraid that is not how it works. The myth of those who are a creative individuals? I'm afraid we are all products of culture and history, if there is any chance of being free from that one needs to appreciate it. Why we have art and music schools. Even such ideas of equality are products of that process.

You have expressed ideas where equality of interpretation is denied. And probably hold ideas about universal rights, equality etc.

> a wall of noise has not the ability to do this. That is the difference. And HNW is not unique in this. Most objects in the real world are also without meaning. Though you tacitly disagree.

No I've said repeatedly that we are probably meaningless if not insignificant to the vastness of the universe.

Is the vastness of the universe just your opinion, and even so from where did that come?
"You have your interpretation and I have mine.. that's how that works " But you think my opinion wrong and yours right?

You said a red rose has a meaning, but if you've changed your mind, fine. It helps identify the signifier xe2x80x93 signified gap. And that in minimal art, the object is not a signifier, but a signified.

Also you maintain that what humans make always has meaning. To a majority of humans the most important thing they make is other humans. [/quote]

You said as much that the object can be arbitrary and whatever the artist says goes.

No I did not. I said one should take note of what the artist does and says. Often the artist isnt fully aware of the consequences of their act, anymore than anything else. Famously Einstein had no conception of the bomb, a direct result of E = MC 2. Doesn't mean one should ignore the artist, or that their take is final.

I think silence better conveys the concept of meaningless but due to repetition and discussion noise walls have come to convey meaninglessness

I'd agree with silence, I think Cage got there first (Big Time). Though there are much earlier examples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... mpositions , and there are parallels in the fine arts, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphonse_Allais interesting ? Yes?

I think Mckinley maybe wasn't aware of the consequences of HNW, I think Vomir was, in his statements and performance. Notably his reaction is to move 'back' to shit folk. HNW is a limit. Just as silence is, or the blank canvas.

And on this note, years ago on troniks I think someone proposed an exhibition of blank sheets of paper, which was howled down as not being 'original'. (not by me)

>The whole point of minimal abstract art was to demonstrate the things independent thingness, it represents nothing other, it simply is.

Then vomir should have said noise is noise and left it at that

Yes xe2x80x93 good point. But he marketed himself, and has the critic / academic Hegarty for support, with whom he has formed a duo.

>Well he is in the picture not performing HNW, but xe2x80x9cAcoustic & electric shit folkxe2x80x9d But by all means close your case.

The bag hides the smirk of the prankster

Could do, does anyone using a mask do the same? The Haters, et al. Do you know of others xe2x80x93 and are they pranksters? But I think what goes against this idea with Vomir is that 'shit folk' is shit, and no bags are used, as Vomir bags are also on the audience, so they wouldn't see the smirk anyway. And smirking does change the fact, Duchamp used humours titles to his readymades.

But bags are also put over peoples heads when executed, you think its a prank? Given the negatives around Vomir I think the execution metaphor is more likeky...

>Precisely, no trace of Vomir. xe2x80x9cThe artist is still leaving traces of himself in the work.. xe2x80x9c
Nope, not with HNW, its empty of meaning and so empty of trace.

Yet he's made such a mark you assumed they were all his and not somebody else's.. anybody else is just copying

Yes xe2x80x93 he has kind of become the Merzbow of HNW. You have a problem with that?

>But the world of QM is not one I can possibly comprehend.

I can see why

I doubt it but feel free to say why?

[JLIAT]

i'm just gonna repeat myself cos no-one replied before.

OK - so i'll reply, though you seem not to show how this relates to HNW.

human intention to construct something meaningless independent of its context may be vanity.

Might be, but we are talking of objects constructed IN contexts. Art galleries, performances.
To the extent of refusal to construct. The reductive path of modernity.

but things in context can be meaningless, dependent on that context [curation].

I cant follow this. The role of curatorship was not significant back in the days of Duchamp and Cage.

and some natural things really are less meaningful than others -

For any clear understanding any ambiguity in a word must be addressed.

"Red sky at night means good weather and a happy Shepard"

Not it the linguistic sense of signified and signifier. The Red sky does NOT MEAN good weather it is part of that process. Which has no meaning in communication terms, "Communication (from Latin communicare, meaning "to share") is the act of conveying meanings from one entity or group to another through the use of mutually understood signs, symbols, and semiotic rules."

If you conflate the above with phenomena then you as others force meaning on everything. A thing can mean something, but that is not the same as its being. To be is not to mean. (IMO et al)


"Smoke means fire"

Nope - its part of the phenomena of combustion. Again feel free to conflate, then you have "what does all this mean?"

- we don't understand the weather.

I think meteorology is a well understood science. The difficulty is the process "The definition of chaos here does not imply disorganisation (the system follows definite laws). In order to predict the future state of a chaotic system exactly, its current state must be known with zero uncertainty and the model must be perfect."

This is understood.

[banned]

that's just blather, sorry but are you even disagreeing with what i siad?

[qupte]you seem not to show how this relates to HNW.[/quote]
is it not obvious?

[banned]

i find it odd how people on-line will start a post with a statement that they or you don't understand, then take offense when you reply that's blather.
> talk in a long-winded way without making very much sense
give me one post and i could give you subtle insults of your intelligence that swallow you like the ocean does a grain of salt
anyway, are you claiming that we understand all phenomena we encounter? that's obviously nonsense -- i for one don't understand basic quantum physics

[JLIAT]

that's just blather, sorry but are you even disagreeing with what i siad?

[qupte]you seem not to show how this relates to HNW.

is it not obvious?
[/quote]

No its no obvious. I think you want to link HNW to meteorology you need to make a case.

Some of what you said wasn't clear, other was simply wrong.

[JLIAT]

i find it odd how people on-line will start a post with a statement that they or you don't understand, then take offense when you reply that's blather.
> talk in a long-winded way without making very much sense
give me one post and i could give you subtle insults of your intelligence that swallow you like the ocean does a grain of salt
anyway, are you claiming that we understand all phenomena we encounter? that's obviously nonsense -- i for one don't understand basic quantum physics

Off topic!

You said "we" dot understand the weather. You failed to say who this we was, I assumed it was general, so included meteorologists who do.

As for the "could give you subtle insults of your intelligence that swallow you like the ocean does a grain of salt" are you drinking again or what?

Try to get on topic.

[banned]

I cant follow this.

what's like false humility, but not?

anyway, there's no need to actually ARGUE about the weather: nothing you said suggests anything i did was wrong, except

simply wrong

in what say have i failed to link meteorology to hnw? i'm almost intrigued...

[WhiteWarlock]

that animated gif was way too good for you...

[JLIAT]

in what say have i failed to link meteorology to hnw? i'm almost intrigued...

In the same way as you've failed to climb Mount Everest. Its for you to make the link, otherwise there is non.