13 Comments

1. January 7th, 2013 / 2:53 am Brooks Sterritt—

   This was interesting: “I don’t think art is a conversation between the reader and the creator. It’s an intensely selfish obsession and a personal, internal dialogue. Just exactly like experience.”

2. January 7th, 2013 / 2:55 am lorian long—

   does the site link to the film he showed?

3. January 7th, 2013 / 2:56 am lorian long—

   also, ‘i don’t excuse idiots just because their art is as honest as their stupidity’

4. January 7th, 2013 / 6:39 am Freddy Ruppert—

   I think this is an interesting statement as well, but I keep thinking, if art is only an intensely selfish obsession and a personal, internal dialogue, then there would be absolutely no need to ever make what one creates public. One has to ask themselves what is the point of making a work public? Seems to me one would just create things and keep them to themselves if this was 100% true.

5. January 7th, 2013 / 12:05 pm mimi—

   but aren’t you ever interested in hearing/reading the “intensely selfish obsession and… personal, internal dialogue” of someone? not everyone, of course, but of SOME one (artist or not)

6. January 7th, 2013 / 2:58 pm deadgod—

   Can’t answer reliably or courteously as to Guest’s nosiness–I am sometimes a ‘you’ who’s interested in – let me re-phrase – private experiences other people have–, but Guest wasn’t referring to her or his interest.

   She or he was referring to someone who shows other people something — who makes conditions for the possibility of others’ experience..

   That’s the crux of Guest’s crux, right?: how can one disclose in a way that that disclosure remains exclusively “self-ish” and “internal” and not at all “a conversation”?

   Whether the statement Brooks quotes is knowingly (or fructively) paradoxical or not, it sounds self-contradictory.

7. January 7th, 2013 / 3:15 pm mimi—

   i know that Guest wasn’t referring to his or her interest (i asked ‘rhetorically’ and ‘in general’)

   i also know that I, mimi, am OFTEN interested in SOME one’s “intensely selfish obsession and… personal, internal dialogue” – artist or not – depends on WHO’s we’re talking about!

   i think that an obsession can be selfish, and that a personal, internal dialogue can be just that, personal and internal, but either, obsession or dialogue, can be ‘made public’ –

   ‘selfish’ does not preclude ‘public’, nor does ‘personal’ –
   but ‘internal’ does, i think

8. January 8th, 2013 / 3:33 am Brooks Sterritt—

   There seems to be a distinction between what art “is” and what ones does with the art afterwards.

9. January 8th, 2013 / 3:46 am M. Kitchell—

   just, you know, for the record, Sotos has a book called PUBLIC as well as one called SELFISH, LITTLE. Also, his newest, MINE is pretty close to “personal,” no?

10. January 8th, 2013 / 4:42 am lorian long—

    thanx for the vid, bb

11. January 8th, 2013 / 4:51 am lorian long—

    if anyone else is interested: http://www.videodrom.org/article.php?id=26

12. January 8th, 2013 / 12:41 pm mimi—

    good to know, thanks
    interested in exploring further

13. January 9th, 2013 / 8:44 am Brooks Sterritt—

    nice