 |
| Ever Forward, 2013 |
Booze Clooze: First interview question: Looking at your recent piece "Ever Forward", I googled the title and the results included some hymn lyrics, a study club for LA high school students, the motto of a military unit and a sorority. To my ear, the title sounds vaguely Marxist, but obviously has more universal appeal. Are you trying to make a comment about teleological thinking, which also has a pretty universal appeal?
 |
| Ever Forward, 2013 |
But more at the root would be the manner in which we as subjects transform reality in order to arrive at a moment (moving) that becomes observed- passive and aggressive- witnessing and acting.
But those moments are not really unique unto themselves, thus the sharing of space-time, light, a Reality, whatever, being more of a base position rather than Nature, some kind of predetermined movement.
To me these are the objective issues.
From there you have the subjective.
Anytime you have signs and symbols linked together, you always end up with this division, rendering place in brain-space for you to make up what it is you want it to be. I seem to be fascinated by the extent that "Ever Forward" has this relationship to Evolution/Progress/Regression/Cavalier-mentality.
Regardless of it's generalized and typical associations, I tend to see movement. Things moving. Things being Things moving about.
 |
| Ever Forward, 2013 |
It's only after this physical movement/engaging the space, do I think about how there isn't much direction anymore. You can have motivation, but i don't see that as transferring into any kind of direction. Direction is Subjective, or at the very least, a value system that becomes shared or rejected. Issues like Right to Bear Arms, What constitutes Marriage, increase in National Debt.
These things: How we're moving and thinking as individuals, as families and friends, and as Societies, these all get interpreted differently depending on the subject, on a case by case basis. Ultimately to be shared or rejected. And that's jumping right into it without even dealing with how one arrived there- dealing with things like Influence, Likeness, Manipulation, Persuasion, like Marketability.
Ultimately I don't think things having action are a means to an end. That's way too simple. You know? This is way more complicated than that. There's this extrinsic form to action- respect, generosity, forgiveness, humility- where you aren't the end recipient of a gesture- you're the giver. And I have to say that none of it is Base Nature. Everything, every object, every movement, is in the end, trying to figure out where to go. So it's a bit of an oxymoron, i guess.
 |
| Glass+Cardboard+PVC, 2013 |
BC: Good answer. In your work that isn't word based, you make a lot things that fall into the Kraussian trifecta of grid, monochrome, and readymade. Are you a Modernist with a capital "M"?
CB: I might be. I'm not sure. I think that depends on whether or not You, or someone else, thinks that Post-Modernism theory is an extension of Late Modernism? That it just keeps going on and on, again and again. You know, all the rejection of histories, playful irony, non-compartmentalising, but still trying to be Radical. I can't stand irony. I always think of irony like sarcasm, which is really just incompetent wit.
I definitely align with Minimalism and Post-Minimalism. I like everyday things, seriality, less is more, atonality, you know? And I like to think that there are objective ways to critique Art, that it's not all reactive subjection.
So yeah, I'm not sure if I'd call myself a Modernist or Post-Modernist. I'm definitely one of 'em.
 |
| Chops, #13 of 37, 2012 |
BC: Good answer. Radical, that's a good word. So, last question: politics. In your work you've hit on themes from pollution of the environment to the 9/11 wars, among others. Do you feel like art has to some kind of political stance to be good? What's the difference between art and propaganda, if there is one?
CB: I think Art is political. I don't think Art has an option not to be political. Beyond Art's primary function to communicate, it has been and continues to be a form that causes the audience to question their experiences with Reality.
And you know, I think it still is a kind of propaganda/public relations. Catholicism may not be commissioning many paintings as of late, but you can visit Chelsea on any given Saturday and see patrons who perpetuate what is supposedly considered beautiful. The message is still the same as it was thousands of years ago. That's a constant. The way Art gets funded has shifted. That's the variable. The fact that there are large amounts of money involved also seems to be a constant, which is again why I start to see things as being more Politically motivated.
No comments:
Post a Comment