Richard Curtis and Chris Mansel

What follows is a conversation between Richard Curtis and Chris Mansel inspired by the e-mail and manifesto that appeared at 9th St. Labs earlier this month. For reference I am including the original pieces before the conversation. Here as well are websites of Chris Mansel's writing:
http://chrismansel.blogspot.com
http://themanselreport.blogspot.com

(Editor's note: The following is excerpted from an e-mail from Richard Curtis. I sent him the link to David Byrne's online journal. I was interested in how Richard felt about some things that Byrne had to say about performance art, particularly regarding Marina Abramovic and Miranda July. We discussed Abramovic in person, but Richard covers some of the things we discussed in his e-mail below and adds a manifesto.)

Richard Curtis's website: failureoflanguage.com

David Byrne's online journal: journal.davidbyrne.com

Miranda July's website: mirandajuly.com




I would imagine it's pretty hard to actually get David Byrne
to respond "in person" to an email or other form of
communication. Not that he wouldn't want to engage
each of his readers like that... About like trying to
get five minutes with Barrack Obama.

Miranda July is an interesting artist. I really loved
Me and You and Everyone We Know, the feature length
film she did. She's pretty great. Although it's
sometimes disheartening to see she and I are the same
age. When I see that I just think to myself, " I need
to go to California or New York, damnit!!!!!! I am
just spinning my wheels here!"

She does have interactive components to her work.
Web-based mostly... which is something Byrne hasn't
even begun to touch on. The democratizing of
information and image, and thus the dissemination of
power and exchange, (which he is participating in thru
blog and webradio) through the internet is really
being capitalized by many artists. I don't like this
form of interconnectivity as much. The human element
is too important to me.

Cyber networks of collected autonomous subjects,
extensions of our presence as "cyborg" bodies... This
is a kind of performance. (One that I think is
replacing our analog performing bodies) Performance
exists without its definition in art context. We are
constantly performing a shifting multitude of
subjectivities. Performance only exists
co-extensively, as a collective enterprise. Even
private or solitary activities have implications in
the realm of inter-relation.

The point I was trying to make about 'performance art
proper' is that it is an extension of the
specialization of art constructed by the capitalist
drive to segment and package cultural production. That
is why, as much as people like Allen Kaprow were/are
pushing for a re-unification of art practice into a
post-media practice, art cannot transcend media in
capitalist frameworks. The cultures they cite as
examples are of "primitive" or indigenous groups of
people. But, these peoples were not creating rituals
for the same reasons we do. We are inherently secular.
The "whole art" experience of those peoples who did
not distinguish among media were/are not creating art
as we know of it. Interaction and participation are
not negotiated by these people, it is understood as
imperatives, like eating. It is a form of collectively
worshiping the moment. No money is exchange for the
services of one person's specialized painting and
another's specialized costume design. It is a
collective enterprise...

Whether Western contemporary performance art
incorporates public interaction, participation, or
other ways of restructuring the art/viewer
relationship, it is still called "performance art".

To my earlier exclamation that I should run off to LA
or NYC... I am admittedly longing to fit into the
capitalist framework I am trying to critique. There is
a strong push-pull to want to change the structure and
understanding of others in the structure, and the
drive to measure my "success" as an artist by how well
I "perform" as an agent of it.

My interest to create that moment of "art as lived
experience" dabbles in many forms, from interactive,
to installation, to sound work, to painting, etc. But,
again, they are feeble attempts. They are
automatically a failure of language. Because it is an
impossible task.

So, where does that leave anyone? Or, cultural
production? Arthur Danto proclaimed (20 years ago) the
"end of art"... and yet it is still being produced.
That's because, beyond the politics of art there is
still the overriding need for expression,
self-as-collective, collective-as-self,
autonomy-in-unity. Coextension.


I have a manifesto I have been
meaning to share with you. I intentionally wrote it as
a kind of Dada throw-back with a post modern twist.


The Art of Coextension

I hereby declare a moratorium on all art that is bound
by object, confined to space, stagnant and left to
collect the ancient dust of museums and little white
boxes. I announce the death of art that piddles in the
strictly aesthetic world of space, trapped by concerns
over materiality. I stand firmly against preciousness
and craftiness. Materiality is unsatisfying!

I hereby declare art is but the theater of
relationships, of connectivity, of the conversation or
argument between two people. It is multiplicitous and
ever expanding. It is the experiment of life enacted
with precision and intension. There is purposefulness
in the actions and breadth of concept. The time for
tinkering unmindfully has past.

I hereby declare all ways of working, all forms of
expression, are of an equal footing in the pursuit of
building connections. The object is still reasonable
only when it is merely a rung in the ladder reaching
up to the highest potential of desire, to connect. But
so can gesture be reasonable, a sound, a word, a
moment, a taste, a scent, a found relic. All things
are reduced to the service of finding connections.

I hereby declare curating, educating, protesting,
cooking, and any other form of engagement designed to
foster relationships are the tools most suitable for
art making. Processes that kindle the rhizome of
interconnectivity that exists in human lives are these
(which cause desire).

I hereby declare the purpose for these desires is to
bring awareness to the net of relationships that
characterizes our lives. The human potential for
cross-modal thinking, of drawing ideas from multiple
sources into a cohesive sense of the world, makes this
art the highest potential form of expression.

I hereby declare a new dimension. No longer confined
to the surface of things(2D). No longer satisfied by
the mere arrangement of space(3D). No longer awe
struck by compartmenting time (4D). These are the
dimensions to which art were once relegated. No
longer! The new dimension is COEXTENSION. Coextension
is the space where two bodies overlap. This
overlapping is the basis of connectivity. This
connectivity is the basis of forming relationships (of
desire).

I hereby declare the realization of coextension is the
highest achievement of this new art. It is what I
strive to attain. It is what must ultimately define
the world.

Richard Curtis




A Brief Reaction to Richard Curtis On Performance



I have the highest respect for Richard Curtis and his performance art though I have never seen it. I have however read poetry alongside him. I am only reacting to what he has written here. It is not my intention to be rude or insulting or even complimentary, just to express myself.


"I announce the death of art that piddles in the
strictly aesthetic world of space, trapped by concerns
over materiality. I stand firmly against preciousness
and craftiness. Materiality is unsatisfying!"


The American Heritage Dictionary defines materiality in two ways, one is, "Physical substance; matter." If physical substance is unsatisfying than I assume we are dealing with sound or disposable art. Richard Curtis is well known for his ability in using sound but once it is used and the waves rush over the listener its remains do in some ways have a substance even if it is what they carry with them in their memory and it is debateable whether or not that has preciousness or craftiness. You can't pick your audience.


"I hereby declare all ways of working, all forms of
expression, are of an equal footing in the pursuit of
building connections."


This sounds to me like someone who has never had to work day after day after day. It is important to seperate work from expression unless you are paid to do one or the other or both. Allen Ginsberg asked the question, "When can I go into a supermarket and buy what I need with my good looks?" Every action is a form of expression. I have been paid before to clean out a trash compactor in the same two hour span of time I was also asked to help apprehend a shoplifter from the premises. I don't know about pursuit of connections but they both were means of expressions and in some ways were on equal footing depending on your opinion.


- Chris Mansel


For Chris, with much respect for his work:

1. The language of the "manefesto" was intentionally
over-the-top. In some places it feels even
contradictory and absurdist. It is as much a parody of
manefestos as it is a device to make an over-arching
point. The point I am referring to is the definition
of a new direction that I see in my own work, as well
as the work of others.

2. "Materiality", in the sense I am referring to, is
as co-opted jargon used in art school academia to
refer to the physical sense of an object (of art).
"Dwelling on the mere physical aesthetics of an object
is unsatisfying" it could have read.

3. The "work" I am referring to, which you cite, is
meant to be understood as "art work". All ways of
creating interrelative bonds (the chosen persuit of
art as defined in the manefesto) are equal- meaning
there should be no distinction between higher and
lower forms of art making (an old arguement). But,
extending that old arguement into forms of cultural
production once thought of as seperated from art.
Cooking is a prime example of this. Several artist
have taken the act of cooking and recontextualized it
to become a relational tool within an art setting
(cooking and serving food for a group of people in a
gallery setting).

4. You, perhaps inadvertently, raised an interesting
point regarding the intentionality of art. When you
stated that it sounded like someone who never had to
work day to day (I'm paraphrasing), it seems you took
my use of the word "work" to mean "job". Again, I was
referring initially to artwork. But, your comment
actually is a nice feedback on my idea of art as a
way of being, art as lived experience. In this sense,
your job can be your art if you so deem it and work
with that purposefulness in mind. In fact, if you did
all things throughout your life with equal
intentionality, then the separations between art and
life would desolve. Of course I am speaking in ideals.

And before you critique my use of "intentionality" I
will say that I am referring to yet another bit of art
school speak. I am using it to describe how people
define what is art from what is not. There is a
difference between someone working at a grocery store,
for instance, and an artist who is performing the act
of working in a grocery store. Both have the same job.
But, the degree of intention is what seperates their
"work". Therefore, if you do all things with the same
level of intention, "I am an artist performing the
activity of taking out the trash...brushing my
teeth...bathing my dog..." the mundane activities of
life become your work, your art.

This is a way of beginning. Sure, it is a cumbersome
way forward. Trying to dissolve the distinctions of
cultural production that have been so rigidly
delineated for so long is a laborious task. One that
not everyone agrees, especially the current art
establishment, is even necessary or possitive.

I hope that clarifies some of my points. Again, the
manefesto is not to be taken so seriously. The
implications are sincere but the delivery is meant to
be problematic and over the top.

Much Love,
Rich


Chris responds:

"A man is to be pitied who lacked the courage to accept the challenge of freedom and depart from the cushion of security and see life as it is..."

Hunter S. Thompson, age 16



Richard,

I understand absurdity as I have associated with many intellectuals and artists over the years and I have discovered one thing, they speak in quotations and grand equivalents and wear sports jackets and drive newer cars than most and seem to hold themselves in a light above others but still manage to drive home on the same road I do and read the same books I do. The real absurdity is believing for a second that a college education can guarantee or entitle one to pontificate or elabaorate. Joseph Conrad wrote, "Art is long and life is short and success is very far off." What is success? That college education or the better cut of sport jacket? An audience? Publication? Shall we discuss the highly paid self-trained artisan?
You refer to a definition of a new direction, well by stopping to consider the fork in the road a few cars have passed you by but don't be alarmed because none of those riding in those cars have what you have inside of you Richard, not a damn one. By materiality I understand your meaning I certianly do, but you must understand that most of my life I have had a hard enough time with struggling to obtain food and medicine, especially since I have been married with a child the last twelve years. At one part my wife and I were living on five hundred dollars a month, this was during the time we read together in Nashville at Joe Speer's gathering and the recording of Alabama Dust. So when I read Materiality I think naturally of survival. Call it a knee jerk reaction or not but poverty which knows no color can lend one to violence when confronted with words.
You reference art school academia and I reach for a photograph of cave drawings or the dialects you learned in your travels. Niether one needed the co-opted jargon. A young painter doesn't need a particular professor's opinion of how to paint just to get another opinion from another professor the next semester. I know you are only referring to what you were taught but surely you saw through most of it as you turned the page.
I understand the work as you mean it. The work, the blank page as I have struggled with, the merciless demon that has hounded me to attempt suicide before. As far as cooking and serving food in a gallery setting this is something I have little experience with since I have usually no place in such an event. Either uninvited or unwanted or just no desire to act accordingly. The terms are as described by Wallace Shawn in the film, My Dinner With Andre, as a "New York evening". A soiree I believe they are called. A salon or gathering. Whether in an alley in a town like Tuscumbia or on an island off the coast of America like Manhattan. Celebrated or not with wine and cheese or just a simple turn of the pages or years later on a shelf the work is judged simply by the next.
People define what is art and what is not by their level of understanding or ignorance, or simple avoidance of the subject at all. There is a difference between someone working in a grocery store and someone acting like working in a grocery store if the person acting like it is doing so on a stage or what passes as a stage. If they are acting it in the grocery store they are a nuisance and should be stomped on the way out the door. The work in the grocery store is demeaning and too poorly paid to have someone doing so for any other reason, even art.
I was working at Wal-Mart years ago and a national politican came in and everyone stopped what they were doing, cashiers everyone. This individual walked over to everyone and held out his hand for it to be shook and eventually he held it out to me and I just looked at him. His smiled faded and it quickly went to a grimace as if to say, "People are looking, shake my fucking hand!" He said, "What's wrong buddy? Having a rough day?" I noticed his handler eyeing the crowd. I refused to speak to him and would not shake his hand and he eventually made his way to theirs and I received a bunch of dirty looks for not shaking his hand. Of course he was acting a role and I wanted no part because it offered no part for me. I didn't feel the role pertained to me and I didn't and still wouldn't believe the inclusion of the two belong.
Not once in a day at work have I ever considered one action as a work of art. I understand your point but whether struggling in pain from headaches or the pain my body has endured from epileptic seizures the last thing I feel is a process of artistry at work. I'm proud for you that you have the kind of life that affords you this kind of outlook. I'm thrity-nine years old, I've moved fifty-six times in my life and my body is worn out. I have been writing since I was eight years old and I can say with all honesty that it has been anything but absurdity that has brought me to where I am today.
The most thing out of all of this Richard is to follow your bliss as Joseph Campbell suggested. As Jake suggests read The Heart Sutra. As Ginsberg wrote in his poeersonals Ad, "Going to see lady Psychoatrist who says make time in your life for someone you can call darling." I say just stop and think.

Only you know what you can do,

- Chris