1993. Alan Kaprow publishes his own theories on the objectivity of artlike art and calls for an understanding where it is just as easy for the artist to create art as the non-artist would. This was during a time (the 90s) when art was removed from its even slight romantic senses and needed to be economically viable in order for it to exist in the mainstream society. Thus, when art become at its most sellable, I believe Kaprow designed for this book to be an anti-thesis of it. While at the same time, of course, this anti-form referenced the form itself, that is what a heavy element of the book is about. There cannot be anti-form without representing what it rebels against, there cannot be true reality as it exists in a sea of spectacle and representative society (Debord), and at the same instance an artist who is a life-like artist will be parallel creating art and 'not' creating art.
Pollack uncovered the sense of the post-modern. Art is redefined as the escapism from the auteur and the realization of the community/non-dictated. Everything is appropriated and up for grabs now. The community emphasis and ability to leap into information is a precursor to availability and cyclical birth of/rise out of a spectacle. This is the birth of life imitating art, because in essence, all of life is recorded into some form of media or pamphlet already. Our society is asked to fill in the gaps of content for our art. With more wild knowledge and differing subgroups of audience, the auteur is at a disadvantage of being right.
This is art. This isn't art. This is life. There is no argument that it isn't physical life.
An artist shall begin to create a myth of themselves and fall into near inescapable holes of 'success'. When he or she believes an unfathomable goal is captured, the aftermath of being an artist is unfulfilled. There is no environment. Just the artist. They effectively die, because in that instant, they become history. Their mark is already made. There is no other reason to live. Destruction is a natural habit, of art and humanity. Our boundaries naturally exist as an aura, so it must be inhibiting to often resort to containing artwork (as a happening or other) within that box. In its most formal aspect, art is addition and subtraction of material to create the end product. This applies to art itself as a definition as well.
The subtraction of the senses, the addition of the participation from the crowd.
The Happenings are at once already 'dead' (apart from media attention, barely noticeable), yet undead/breathing as a myth that remains unconfirmed if it ever happened in time. It alters the very form of life, but in a very undefined canvas. The removal of static life, yet, adhering to the rules of life at the same instance.
To harness the entity of nostalgia and romanticism of creating 'on the canvas' is a possible precariousness unto itself. It constantly puts the artist in danger and at unease, when in whim, they may draw from the formalities of life.
The Happenings, simplistically put, narrow down choice from the possible destruction of aimless wander.
I am drawn to the writing on a personal level of my own art for it references the idea of game making, adulthood, nostalgia, and this sense that "art-like art" is pushing in a direction away from a childlike imagination. A quote : "
As direct play is denied to adults and gradually discouraged in children, the impulse to play emerges not in true games alone, but in unstated ones of power and deception; people find themselves playing less with each other than on or off other." Makes me fear.
Is the natural sense of adulthood a lie, in a sense that if we don't nurture the adults need to escapism/play, we allow them to take it out in violence on society?
Though there is a contradiction, and it leads to the life-like artist creating simultaneously art and non art. This was discovered during the video-art chapter; The more people become aware of art about life/life about art, the more anti-aura it becomes. One must resist the urge to be extraordinary when being documented.
No matter how struggling anti-formalism/reality is to escape from the sense of impurity or fantasy, it will always reference the legislation or proscenium arch in charge. Like, if the police walked up to me doing a non-permit performance, I am most certainly under their legislation as the baton smacks me in the face. There is a glass ceiling which dictates what "is" art and what "isn't" art in both respective categories.
Supermarket Flashmob. A "Happening". Its art. It modifies material.
But it could just as easily be a bunch of people loitering for their kicks.