Thursday, June 24, 2004

A sense of rockism we can all get behind: Killing rent collectors. (See seventh paragraph.)

I'll be in Seattle and vicinity from tomorrow evening until Wed. 6/30. I don't know if Bree's aunt out on Puget Sound is connected, so there may or may not be blogging in that period. (Seattle correspondents, you'll be hearing from me presently; my dancecard is empty M-W.) Upside: Mecca Normal at Left Bank Books, Sun. 6/27, 7:30 p.m. Downside: Missing ever-lovin' Bid of The Monochrome Set at Zen Sushi in Silver Lake on Friday. What, can some one tell me, is he even doing in Los Angeles? Looking for a deal? This is up there with the times I had to miss Ed Kuepper on what must have been his only visits to the U.S. in the mid-'90s (and the strange fact that I've never actually seen The Cannanes).

Just Saying It's Art, Round II: This project of Andrea Fraser's. I think this requires sign-in by now, so: Fraser's videotape "Untitled" documents, explicitly but anonymously w/r/t the other party, the sexual act as engaged in by the artist and a patron, the latter paying $20,000 for the privlege/work. [From the article: "All of my work is about what we want from art, what collectors want, what artists want from collectors, what museum audiences want,'' Fraser explained. ''By that, I mean what we want not only economically, but in more personal, psychological and affective terms.'']

Not clear to me who else gets to watch the tape, and in what circumstances. I'm about as epatered by this as by prep-school girls backing it up on prom night, but if I were a working girl, I imagine I'd be peeved at the pay rate. Who doesn't love art that is simply premised on everyone involved having the least defensible possible motivations? Actually, I kind of like it, conceptually -- eliminating that pesky middle part where you have to make the thing that leads to the desired economic/(im)personal relation. But you can't really call it 'conceptual,' as the article does; if it were, Fraser wouldn't have to 'do the deed' to make the point. Still, it beats naked chess.

Sam Frank helps out re my post here of Mar. 17, re Macgregor Card's Hat poems. (Thought I had permalink going, something's wrong):

Came across your blog post on The Hat, and found a copy. Looks like both Card poems are actually palindromes, though a few typos confuse things. The first poem has two palindromes: the first running across columns from I to II ("Tacit" to "at"); the second being the title. The second poem, if you start reading at the title, is one long 'drome. However, I think the last "no" is actually supposed to be set at the poem's end, to mirror "On." And "Mr./Mrs. Ed" should be "Mr./Ms. Ed." The first "Q." of the second stanza is the hinge letter. You mentioned that other things are going on in the poems as well? Amazing. Demetri Martin's 220-plus-word palindrome was posted in his recent Slate diary, but Card shoots him to hell.

I was told that there were further constraints involved by Andrew Maxwell, but I don't recall that he said what they were.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?