The last part about existential angst you mention, is really significant. To me it seems to be the thread troughout all the kirac movies. Its really what is so touching about their films. When they show people, being so busy in and around art, not making art for arts sake but having a double agenda in some way, it makes people look so Silly in these movies. Because it gets al confused when, on one hand they are seemingly defending some deeper meaning in an artwork whilst actualy being mostly occupied by their own role in that, their status or some other superficial thing (or deeply personal complex) and not being aware of that. I gues its really this, what makes me fully symphatize with KIRAC’s work. Because by showing this, Its a real chance.., a Huge! oppertunity in my opinion for the people in the movies themselves (by stepping over their fear and really honestly commit to the conversation) or for the viewer of the film to actualy get a feel for what all this is really about. Its such a beautifull and generous invitation to step into “the real” this is for me what makes Kirac so amazing and unique. It seems to be so harsh to so many people, but the invitation is a very welcoming one, potentialy life changing, in a very freeing way! Who wants to be stuck in bullshit forever. Altough it seems a lot of people are defending this stands ferociously. Really appreciate your talks! Just ordered your book. Thank you!
Wenn ich den Mann sehe, muss ich immer an Murat Kurnaz, Guantanamo und Herrn Steinmeiers beschämende Rolle dabei denken. Die Würde des Menschen sei unantastbar steht ganz oben im Grundgesetz, davon schien Herr Steinmeier noch nie viel zu halten, wäre umso schöner er täte das bezüglich des Grundgesetzes mit seinem Mund: halten.
I like what he's saying about the film (which I haven't seen), but the second part, where he reveals his undercomplex view on what he calls 'New Art' is just pathetic. The fact that New Art is vulnerable to critique doesn't mean we could just go back to good old representational panel painting - as if the end of art had never taken place. You can indeed built a world on the urinal, if you understand the consequences! You can not only do it once, you have to do it over and over again.
...it was done once... and now its been done again... and again.... and again ... and again. ... and again. The effect? none. its still just reference back to Marcel and co. WHEREAS, in the undercomplex way, Giotto made a panel, then Bellini made one, then Titian, then Poussin, then Fragonard, then Manet, then Jacque-Emile Blanche, then Herbert Katzman... and yet, repeated for 700 years, never the same thing! Better read my book: 'Art in the Age of Anxiety' (available on Amazon, or cheaper on Lulu com).
@@Paul-talk I'm certainly not going to read your book! What is Marcel Duchamp about? He's about demasking the art system. Art is dead! And the only thing left to do is to repeat that insight again and again. What does it mean for art to be dead? Well, you should think abvout that before writing a book!
@@Paul-talk 1st of all MD didn't have any 'disciples' and you're obviously using Kirac as a free ride to promote your book. But the difference between you and them is that their critique of art is legitimate - just as MD's was - because it has a form! They're observers of the art scene, whereas you're just a denier. And that's exactly what reveals in your paintings. You can't just turn back the pages of art history. You have to involve in a contemporary discourse in order to make a stance.
The last part about existential angst you mention, is really significant.
To me it seems to be the thread troughout all the kirac movies.
Its really what is so touching about their films. When they show people, being so busy in and around art, not making art for arts sake but having a double agenda in some way, it makes people look so Silly in these movies. Because it gets al confused when, on one hand they are seemingly defending some deeper meaning in an artwork whilst actualy being mostly occupied by their own role in that, their status or some other superficial thing (or deeply personal complex) and not being aware of that.
I gues its really this, what makes me fully symphatize with KIRAC’s work. Because by showing this, Its a real chance.., a Huge! oppertunity in my opinion for the people in the movies themselves (by stepping over their fear and really honestly commit to the conversation) or for the viewer of the film to actualy get a feel for what all this is really about. Its such a beautifull and generous invitation to step into “the real”
this is for me what makes Kirac so amazing and unique. It seems to be so harsh to so many people, but the invitation is a very welcoming one, potentialy life changing, in a very freeing way! Who wants to be stuck in bullshit forever. Altough it seems a lot of people are defending this stands ferociously.
Really appreciate your talks! Just ordered your book. Thank you!
its not a question of rules, its about what art IS.
I want to show you my drawings
discord.com/invite/ymTEsC37
...well, I am, apparently.
Could i get into this discord??
Wenn ich den Mann sehe, muss ich immer an Murat Kurnaz, Guantanamo und Herrn Steinmeiers beschämende Rolle dabei denken. Die Würde des Menschen sei unantastbar steht ganz oben im Grundgesetz, davon schien Herr Steinmeier noch nie viel zu halten, wäre umso schöner er täte das bezüglich des Grundgesetzes mit seinem Mund: halten.
Aber warum schreibst du auf deutsch? 😂
I like what he's saying about the film (which I haven't seen), but the second part, where he reveals his undercomplex view on what he calls 'New Art' is just pathetic. The fact that New Art is vulnerable to critique doesn't mean we could just go back to good old representational panel painting - as if the end of art had never taken place. You can indeed built a world on the urinal, if you understand the consequences! You can not only do it once, you have to do it over and over again.
...it was done once... and now its been done again... and again.... and again ... and again.
... and again.
The effect? none. its still just reference back to Marcel and co.
WHEREAS, in the undercomplex way, Giotto made a panel, then Bellini made one, then Titian, then Poussin, then Fragonard, then Manet, then Jacque-Emile Blanche, then Herbert Katzman... and yet, repeated for 700 years, never the same thing!
Better read my book: 'Art in the Age of Anxiety' (available on Amazon, or cheaper on Lulu com).
@@Paul-talk I'm certainly not going to read your book! What is Marcel Duchamp about? He's about demasking the art system. Art is dead! And the only thing left to do is to repeat that insight again and again. What does it mean for art to be dead? Well, you should think abvout that before writing a book!
Guess what? I thought about it for a lifetime. I am also the main student of Duchamp's main American diciple. So you had better read my book.
@@Paul-talk 1st of all MD didn't have any 'disciples' and you're obviously using Kirac as a free ride to promote your book. But the difference between you and them is that their critique of art is legitimate - just as MD's was - because it has a form! They're observers of the art scene, whereas you're just a denier. And that's exactly what reveals in your paintings. You can't just turn back the pages of art history. You have to involve in a contemporary discourse in order to make a stance.
yes he did. You just say stuff. Read my book and learn.@@nikolausgerszewski2086
Ew
n'est pas??