I always felt that there were 3 things in this world that are impossible to accurately define or explain. One is the AFTERLIFE; which, with an exception or two, not many people have come back from and those who did (Jesus, Lazarus and Jason from the Friday the 13th movies come to mind), didn't really say much about it. The second is LOVE, whose true nature has finally been revealed to me in the form of my wife, Maria Venus, but since she leaves me speechless (probably because I haven't gotten a word in since I said "I do") I am still at a loss for words to provide an accurate definition or explanation. The thrid is ART. What is Art? What is not Art? What makes a good artist or a bad artist or do such things even exist. 'The Creative Act' by Marcel Duchamp comes closest to me to a true definition. It is from a talk given by Duchamp in Houston at the meeting of the American Federation of the Arts, April 1957. Duchamp, who labeled himself a "mere artist," participated in a roundtable with William C. Seitz of Princeton University, Rudolf Arnheim of Sarah Lawrence College, and Gregory Bateson. Pablo Picasso said "Good artists copy, great artists steal" thus I 'stole' the term mere artist from Duchamp.


THE CREATIVE ACT by Marcel Duchamp (Reprinted from Art-news, Vol. 56, no. 4 - Summer 1957)

Let us consider two important factors, the two poles of the creation of art: the artist on one hand, and on the other the spectator who later becomes the posterity.

To all appearances, the artist acts like a mediumistic being who, from the labyrinth beyond time and space, seeks his way out to a clearing.

If we give the attributes of a medium to the artist, we must then deny him the state of consciousness on the esthetic plane about what he is doing or why he is doing it. All his decisions in the artistic execution of the work rest with pure intuition and cannot be translated into a selfanalysis, spoken or written, or even thought out.

T. S. Eliot, in his essay on "Tradition and the Individual Talent," writes: "The more perfect the artist, the more completely separate in him will be the man who suffers and the mind which creates; the more perfectly will the mind digest and transmute the passions which are its material."

Millions of artists create; only a few thousands are discussed or accepted by the spectator and many less again are consecrated by posterity.

In the last analysis, the artist may shout from all the rooftops that he is a genius; be will have to wait for the verdict of the spectator in order that his declarations take a social value and that, finally, posterity includes him in the primers of Art History.

I know that this statement will not meet with the approval of many artists who refuse this mediumistic role and insist on the validity of their awareness in the creative act-yet, art history has consistently decided upon the virtues of a work of art through considerations completely divorced from the rationalized explanations of the artist.

If the artist, as a human being, full of the best intentions toward himself and the whole world, plays no role at all in the judgment of his own work, bow can one describe the phenomenon which prompts the spectator to react critically to the work of art? In other words bow does this reaction come about?

This phenomenon is comparable to a transference from the artist to the spectator in the forrn of an esthetic osmosis taking place through the inert matter, such as pigment, piano or marble.

But before we go further, I want to clarify our understanding of the word "art"-to be sure, without an attempt to a definition.

What I have in mind is that art may be bad, good or indifferent, but, whatever adjective is used, we must call it art, and bad art is still art in the same way as a bad emotion is still an emotion.

Therefore, when I refer to "art coefficient," it will be understood that I refer not only to great art, but I am trying to describe the subjective mechanism which produces art in a raw state-a l'etat brut-bad, good or indifferent.

In the creative act, the artist goes from intention to realization through a chain of totally subjective reactions. His struggle toward the realization is a series of efforts, pains, satisfactions, refusals, decisions, which also cannot and must not be fully self-conscious, at least on the esthetic plane.

The result of this struggle is a difference between the intention and its realization, a difference which the artist is not aware of.

Consequently, in the chain of reactions accompanying the creative act, a link is missing. This gap which represents the inability of the artist to express fully his intention; this difference between what he intended to realize and did realize, is the personal "art coefficient" contained in the work.

In other words, the personal "art coefficient" is like an arithmetical relation between the unexpressed but intended and the unintentionally expressed.

To avoid a misunderstanding, we must remember that this "art coefficient" is a personal expression of art "a l'etat brut," that is, still in a raw state, which must be "refined" as pure sugar from molasses, by the spectator; the digit of this coefficient has no bearing whatsoever on his verdict. The creative act takes another aspect when the spectator experiences the phenomenon of transmutation; through the change from inert matter into a work of art, an actual transubstantiation has taken place, and the role of the spectator is to determine the weight of the work on the esthetic scale.

All in all, the creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualiflcations and thus adds his contribution to the creative act. This becomes even more obvious when posterity gives its final verdict and sometimes rehabilitates forgotten artists.

Whoa...mine's not that deep....not nearly. Um, my name is Tiffany, and way back in the day it seemed strange (I guess) to some of my friends that a white girl would like rap music. This was in good old East Lansing, Michigan, one of the whitest places on the planet. Some wisenheimer started calling me Queen La Tiff, and it kind of stuck. Ironic fact: I do not enjoy the rap music of my (almost) namesake. I find it flat and not very smart...

Although I have been toying with the idea of using this as my signature tag line: "QLT=QUALITY"

Nah, that sounds kind of stupid.

TheShaman is something my friends gave me as a nickname..
Mostly because I am part Cherokee, very spiritual, and was always the one who would console people and settle differences between friends.
Plus I smoked a lot of 'peace pipes' back in the day


my other nickname, which also had to do with being a doctor of sorts was 'Doogie'. That one is obvious to those who know me

mikey" is nickname for Michael Joseph Deal ~ otherwise known as Majik Mike" Rock guitarist/ Free lance artist/ writer of songs; secular and Christian/ poetry" and "Prophecy" ~ Did I mention unofficial psychotherapist of peoples baggage" including bipolar friends and poor homeless strangers

mason=nickname I have had since grade school, and is the name I use on all internet activities.

43=lucky number; I added the "00" at the beginning of the new millenium, and also because it looks better than just plain ol' 'mason43'

biggest pet peeve with my name is when people call me manson. Can't you people see there is no 'n' in the middle there?!

Sorry Manson
Lurker cause I do
Blue because I can be
(Yeah that sounds good...I know I put another one here some time ago)

One does not require to explain thine name. I am a Lord, and a Lord named David. Lord + David = Lord David. Dammit, I just explained didn't I?

My name is sage. You do the math.

ok i'll give it a try
My name is kooi <-it's an i <-
the name is a lot mistaken so i thought i will explain:
KOOI, Kooi, kOOI is a name for a guy on my brothers school his real name was lars kooistra and they called him kooi ... he was a farmer kid and not very smart so the other schoolmates including my brother called everyone kooi when someone did stupid things!
UNDERSTAND? NO? not my problem
---
btw - my real name is Lasse

"Goat" was my nickname during high school. It was an odd nickname; some people said that I "laughed like a goat." This confused me, as I was unaware that goats "laughed." Maybe it's that I just never heard them laugh, or goats just think I'm lame in the joke-area...

I guess what my friends meant was I laughed like a goat sounds.... you know, that me-eh-eh-eh-eh-eh sound... very "sticatto" (to put things in musical terms) and tinny.

ma-a-a-a-a-a-a... Maybe that's a better way of putting it....

ba-a-a-a-a-a

ba-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah, maybe??

Anyway, I don't believe my laugh resembles that sound at all. I can make sound clips to proove this, if need be.

"1981" = the year I was born.

EXCITING, EH?!

Ok I cant believe I actually read all 8 pages and I will probably refer back to see if anyone behind me responded....why because I am a big freaking loser!
I am going to change my name to big freaking loser and some day some other loser will
start a string asking why we named ourselves what we did ....I will have to say "beacuse I am a big freaken loser"!!!
Btw mere-artist I think you can safely add novalist to your nomenclature.
Oh by the way I was the fuckin new guy!!!!!!! But now i am pissed so Maybe I'll change it to the new pissed off asshole or even better the asshole who likes to read!!!
or maybe the unemployed guy because he reads stupid shit when he should be working!!!
hey lets talk about why its always your left shoe that needs to be retied???
I am jumping off a bridge now


aaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Leif is my name... sorry that's so boring

i just dont know...

Freakboy, it was my nickname when i bleached and spiked my hair a few years back..thats all, good bye

you're a "looser," nubie? what exactly is that, like, you are really loose?

Or are you trying to say that you are a "loser" ?