have you read the Liturgy manifesto? This is in response to Kell but I know Hunter is ontop of the simultaneous opposites - point of tension...

To categorize and make the division "art" means that you are creating a language right there. You've set up a schema that can then have it's own rule set and it's logic. Now, anyone can interpret the stimulus however they want - regardless of the predominant means that the "art world" is interested in, but if you are actually interested in communicating everything - you have to go be using the widely accepted de-coding methods being used by the general art crowd, otherwise what are you doing and why even bother calling something art or not in the first place, you know? This doesn't mean that the art has some predetermined meaning to be unlocked once you crack some code - but it does mean that there are cues to clue you into the what the art is. I get that Pollack isn't a symbolic guy but his work can be interpreted as a record of gestures, spread of a new western mind frame which was dispersed by those art dealers keeping him "wet," or as aesthetically pleasing splotches for your wall. In this way I don't think that art is a first experience, it is a referent. Be it symbolic or not, it's existence suggests more than the object itself, necessarily, in order for it to be art. in that way is is a referent even if the art isn't a 1:1 symbolic relationship with an underlying idea, does that make sense? Art can be a primary experience but it can never be the thing itself - it is a referent.

I'm definitely not talking about relativism, I am talking about a system of simultaneous opposites. I say that because that is the part that does help me/people live their lives. If art, the kind that I'm talking about which can take any and all forms, the ways that I think Bruce High Quality and my early videos/thesis work are successful is because I think that they overlay different perspectives simultaneously - not undermining any perspective, but rather embodying more than one perspective at a time so that the viewer is not placed, by "de-coding" the object/piece/performance/etc, in a clear spot with a particular idea - instead it's a sort of detached acknowledgement of a situation - you don't have to feel so married to any conviction, therefore you are less slighted when your belief is undermined. I think that is a helpful everyday idea. I haven't figured out how to make that work yet, but if I can, and I think art can, than that's an awesome end and it doesn't mean relativism. I will give you that even if this is my aim my subject matter has been frivolous but I'll say this - I don't think I am stupid and I find this to be a complex way to build and present ideas, maybe starting off presenting more frivolous ideas this way is the way to go - going back to what you said two of your e-mails ago, do this play with something simple and then apply it to ideas with more weight - to do everything at once would be impossible - I started out with technicolor cartoon collages trying to emulate 50's masters - this idea was a seed... it takes time. The art dealers also have nothing to so with this idea - it's a language structure more than a product that in no way prohibits the existence of a product - I'm not interested in that part of art at all. That's the shit everyone has been talking about forever and it bores me whether I understand it or not - makes me want to sleep thinking about that stuff.