Albrecht Durer, Melancholia, 1514. Eugene Delacroix, The Lion Hunt, 1854.
<ul><li> Slide 1 </li> <li> Albrecht Durer, Melancholia, 1514 </li> <li> Slide 2 </li> <li> Eugene Delacroix, The Lion Hunt, 1854 </li> <li> Slide 3 </li> <li> Genius is the talent (natural endowment) that gives the rule to art. Since talent is an innate productive ability of the artist and as such belongs itself to nature, we could put it this way: Genius is the innate mental predisposition through which nature gives the rule to art </li> <li> Slide 4 </li> <li> Kants genius is defined by four criteria 1-a talent for producing that for which no determinate rule can be given, so consequentially originality must be its primary property; 2-since there may also be original nonsense, its products must also be models, that is., exemplary, and must be fit to serve as a rule for the judgment of others even though they themselves cannot be derived from any such rule. In other words, the work is recognizable s a work of genius because it is perceived to be so. 3- genius itself cannot describe or indicate scientifically how it brings about its products, and it is rather as nature that it gives the rule. That is why, if an author owes product to his genius, he himself does not know how he came by the ideas for it 4- Nature, through genius, prescribes the rule not to science but to art, and this is only insofar as the art is to be fine art. you cant deduce how to make a work of genius, it has to come through the making </li> <li> Slide 5 </li> <li> The autonomy of a genius spurs the autonomy and inclination of anothers genius.. In collaboration this process is consolidated into one work! </li> <li> Slide 6 </li> <li> When we look at a work of art, or design, or writing, which has been made through genius we feel it, intuitively to be good, because it gives us a sense of freedom, either in a feeling of it, or in that it instigates thought and free thinking (and our imaginations). And this intuitive feeling, of being in the presence of a work of genius, is said by Kant to help shape our judgments of taste. </li> <li> Slide 7 </li> <li> Jackson Pollock, Barnett Newmann, Tony Smith, Blue Poles </li> <li> Slide 8 </li> <li> The Clayton Brothers, Topsy-Tury Times of Cockamamie Mumbo-Jumbo, 2009 </li> <li> Slide 9 </li> <li> Wishy Washy, 2006 </li> <li> Slide 10 </li> <li> Rob: Its hard to pinpoint what it is that were experiencing as painters, versus a singular painter. As a singular painter you might work from reference points, you might work from a grand idea. In our situation, that grand idea may be just a word, or a phrase, or a conversation that weve had with one another. We cant walk in here and go, This works about this today. It organically changes. Its not an I. Its a we. Its almost like its own third person in a way. And when the paintings leave here they become little statements on their own. </li> <li> Slide 11 </li> <li> Matthew Collins and Emma Biggs, Primitive Methodist, 2008 The work is not a picture of modernism, or a pastiche of it, it is an exploration of local relationships with the aim of creating a synthesis of differences. </li> <li> Slide 12 </li> <li> 2 Genius beyond identity Inclusive systems of collaboration </li> <li> Slide 13 </li> <li> Hyperbolic Crochet Coral Reef Project </li> <li> Slide 14 </li> <li> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ntTdRyYT7o&context=C3735f7eADOEgsToPDskITiuEEbC_QvoxOWEXZEzG7 New New Babylon, Mckenzie Wark and Ali Dur </li> <li> Slide 15 </li> <li> Los Carpenteros, Downtown </li> <li> Slide 16 </li> <li> One of the reasons we stopped painting is because of the question of authorship. The paintings documented how we made our art. There were always two of us in the piece and the third was the viewer who painted. Working as a collective of three was a conceptual declaration. By eliminating painting we stopped being three and became one author </li> <li> Slide 17 </li> </ul>