....A few notes/thoughts/mumblings/paraphrasingsTHE NEW NEGLIGENT ART
>
>[1] The NEW NEGLIGENT ART is neither New, nor Negligent,
>nor Art. It is none of these because it has no history and
>acknowledges no past.

in this way, new negligent art will always be new, and there can never
be a section in art history class on new negligent art since it will
always be what it is at the time of its creation... If anything art
class would spend a single period on the topic one day a year,
confusing students by telling them that if they drop out of school
RIGHT NOW they could be part of an art movement, but without ever
explaining what that movement might be.

>There is no Art History. There is no
>History of Negligent Art. There is nothing New in Art nor
>Art History. And because of this we have the NEW NEGLIGENT
>ART.

would this make us the neo-neglegentia?

>
>[2] We will have to say it again. The NEW NEGLIGENT ART is
>not DADA.

nor is it MOMA: It has no parents, having left home at an early age
before learning anything about the world


>The NEW NEGLIGENT ART is not Surrealism. The NEW
>NEGLIGENT ART is not Fluxus. Neither is it Conceptualism,
>Post-Conceptualism, Performance Art, Minimalism, Neo(any of
>the above) or Post(any of the above). The NEW NEGLIGENT
>ART has no history.

However using the term "the" in front of New Negligent Art conveys that
there is a single instance, therefore allowing it temporal existence.
Unless you objectify it and _the_ New Negligent Art is always whatever
negligent art is at hand at the moment the phrase is spoken.

>

>[3] We have forgotten Art History.

or just didn't bother finding out much about it in the first place

>Art History is a dead weight. It is sometimes nice to look at pretty pictures in
>the Louvre and funny films of people nailing themselves to
>VW Bugs.

all of past creativity a multi-form clip-art fiesta for New Negligence

>But we have forgotten all about it. None of it
>matters. We're negligent of it all.

unless we find out about some of it, but even then we are being
negligent of the New Negligent Art movement, thus inadvertently
creating new negligence.

> And we're negligent
>even of our own Negligence. Which is not to say that we
>simply don't care. DADA was about dissing Art. Surrealism
>was all about attacking Bourgeois Life in the Name of the
>Unconscious. That's nice. Fluxus was the last one to try
>and pull it all together. We've forgotten what it even was
>these people were trying to pull. We weren't even born then.
>
>[4] We don't feel Guilty about the Past. We're
>irresponsible to the Past because we've forgotten it
>existed.

or are so overwhelmed by the volume of history we are incapacitated by
it's context. We can only see the past as useful in a present
detachment from its original meaning.

>We steal from it, but it's not the past, it's now
>the Present, the Here and Now.

high concept lowbrow sampling from all mediums, re-contextualized to
the moment.

>We're not responsible to the
>Past and its correct Art History, its canon, its stuffy
>associations, and so on. We're only responsible to the Here
>and Now. This isn't an abdication of responsibility: it's a
>call to a responsibility of what we're doing.

sincerity is the purest form of flattery. I have no idea what i mean
by that in this context... NEGLIGENCE!

>
>[5] Forgetfulness is a Virtue. Stealing from the Vaults is
>a Virtue.

But only if you're unaware that you are stealing in the first place.
Awareness of the original meaning informs your product no matter how
much you try to ignore it (the measurement affecting the equation), so
it's not so much stealing from the vault as it is thinking the vault is
a junkyard with no dog. In this way someone with extensive schooling
may find it very hard to be a New Negligent artist... DROP OUT NOW FOR

BETTER ART TOMORROW!

>These Virtues have no Histories. They only echo
>in the Here and Now. There's nothing wrong about yesterday.
>There is no lack: only desire.

getting chubbed up at the venus de milo without having any idea how it
was carved, when it was made, who made it.... you just wanna poke that
broad!

>
>[6] The NEW NEGLIGENT ART has stolen everything it stands
>for. It even stole the title. But it's all new. The Theft
>is not from the Past: it comes from the Future.

New Negligent Art: Appropriating the future for a better today without
getting stuck in the past

>
>PART II
>
>Why new? Because it's not old. It's always new. Everything
>excites us because we've never seen, heard, felt, tasted it
>before, because we don't live our lives through the rotten
>corpses of the old, because for us it's new, really new,
>and it makes us live new because everything is NEW.

and, importantly, NEW on an individual level. New Negligent Artwork is
discovered one artist at a time, though many may work through the same
realizations. Nonetheless, it is still NEW to them when they discover
it and produce.

>
>Why negligent? Because we've forgotten not only what art
>means, but what it means to be NEGLIGENT.

ignorance is creativity, knowledge a cage.

>
>Why art? Because art means nothing. It's a word without
>history. Its got an A and an R and a T. They're all strung
>together and it makes a sound like ART.

it's also short for Arthur. Maybe the New Negligent Arthurs!

>
>THE NEW NEGLIGENT ART is tasty. It tastes real good. Super
>good flavours.

in all NEW flavours!

>THE NEW NEGLIGENT ART is healthy. Makes you feel good. And
>your body looks fit!
>THE NEW NEGLIGENT ART costs nothing save what you fail to
>give.

think of the money you will save in tuition alone!

>III.

>
>> negligently. no prescribed/proscribed form: the only
>axiom is that all axioms never hold in all situations. hence, negligent art
>is empiricist from its origins:

huh?

>it procedes by taking nothing for granted
>(there is no history), and therefore everything must be experimented
>anew.

not necessarily everything, but rather the things a negligent artist
stumbles across. There is no agenda to revisit all of art, just
whatever you want to do.
the idea is to

>> stop living through other's rotting corpses.

but Beckett smells so nice!

>the criticism that "so and so already did that" means nothing to me because I am doing
>this art exterior to dead-history: I am doing this for myself and those who
>experience it in its affirmation, because the point is to live life to its
>fullest. brooding over the dead and what they may or may not have done
>should be utterly forgotten.

or perhaps seen as metaphor, like a childrens book which is supposed to
teach a certain axiom, but is very easily misinterpreted by a naive
mind.

---

nope. because that would mean that we've already preconceived writing as a negativity, given it over to archives and a totalised history, when I would argue that it pre-poses and re-poses it(selves). likewise for a couple of the critiques you mention--actually, just the one on the "the." "the" implies an article--not a singular. "the new negligent art" in fact makes it an always-already new proposition, because each time you say it, it is new, for each and every-thing. the "the" is only a mastery-term of a singularity if one gives it a historical domain. the new negligent art sees no paradox: it is an intimately affirmative plane of experimentation (hence why I say it is empiricist to the core: it procedes my experimentation, as one must do when all is uncharted). and like a deep sceptic, each experiment confirms no axiom (the only axiom is that there are no axioms--this is a self-deconstructing statement). there is nothing to build: only limitless experiments of experience.
-- t

> would writing it up be like an "anarchist organization", i.e. an ideological
> paradox?

---

nope. because that would mean that we've already preconceived writing as a negativity, given it over to archives and a totalised history, when I would argue that it pre-poses and re-poses it(selves). so the differentiating factor between "outsider art" and "new negligent art" is that the new negligentia are conciously avoiding understanding what has come before, whereas outsiders just don't have the cash to pony up for art school? likewise for a couple of the critiques you mention--actually, just the one on the "the."

>Hey, i like them, especially when Johnny Marr was playing guitar.

"the" implies an article--not a singular. "the new negligent art" in fact makes it
an always-already new proposition, because each time you say it, it is new,
for each and every-thing. the "the" is only a mastery-term of a singularity
if one gives it a historical domain. the new negligent art sees no paradox:
it is an intimately affirmative plane of experimentation (hence why I say it
is empiricist to the core: it procedes my experimentation, as one must do
when all is uncharted).

>there are lyrics in this whole diatribe somewhere. Sounds like some good fodder for some New Negligent Orchestrations (as soon as I can >get my goddam machine running audio OTSATHPO is going to rise once more). keep the funny brain-talk coming!

and like a deep sceptic, each experiment confirms no
axiom (the only axiom is that there are no axioms
do what thou wilt... you're just inviting trouble with thoat one ;-)
--this is a self-deconstructing statement).

>geez, don't get me in trouble, this is a company LAN.

there is nothing to build: only limitless experiments of experience.

>because you can't step into the same river twice, nor can you eat the same cruller twice as the second time around is significantly more >pungent.

---

>
>> nope. because that would mean that we've already preconceived writing as a
>> negativity, given it over to archives and a totalised history, when I would
>> argue that it pre-poses and re-poses it(selves).
>>
> so the differentiating factor between "outsider art" and "new negligent art"
> is that the new negligentia are conciously avoiding understanding what has
> come before, whereas outsiders just don't have the cash to pony up for art
> school?

--->"outsider art" is outside-of-art and defines itself as such. this is THE NEW NEGLIGENT ART. it has nothing to do with art school or cash, inside or out--although we could do an experiment to see what happens. THE NEW NEGLIGENT ART has nothing to do with consciousness, although it actively produces its own unconscious. and we know it! THE NEW NEGLIGENT ART has everything to do with understanding: that is what experiments are for. but once we understand, we are never sure--we need to test something again, and preferrably, something else! THE NEW NEGLIGENT ART avoids nothing: everything is game!

do you see how that flows?

---

this is better than pet rocks...

so what i gather is that this is production without preconcieved products, indeed even unconcious/accidental/sub-crustation experimentation. NEW NEGLIGENT ART is the bare act of creativity its self, the minimal techno of art, the microhouse of "doing stuff"...

Outsider art may define its self as outside art, though through its existance _is_ art, so the last laugh is on them, despite outsider artists tending to be nutbars with a good sense of humour. Plus the only thing seperating outsider art from insider art is price/perception; Joe Coleman was/is an outsider artist who has been recognized and welcomed into insider art, how would NEW NEGLIGENT ART retain its novelty? Does it need to? Would Adolf Wolfoli be considered an outsider or proto-NEW NEGLIGENTIA?

do NEW NEGLIGENT artists have to explain/justify the experiment/product or are they creative sharks always needing to swim forward into new schools of fish to survive?

--

> Here's a case study to ponder:

>
> A person wraps the statue of George Vancouver in fabric. would they be
> participating in THE NEW NEGLIGENT ART if they knew about Cristeau, but wanted
> to see what they would come up with anyway, or would the person have to be
> ignorant of Cristeau, and just thought it was a good idea at the time. What
> if they knew about Cristeau, but had completely different conceptual ideas
> behind the wrapping with no relation to why Cristeau wraps things, so the end
> product might be mistaken, by those with knowledge, to be influenced by
> Cristeau while really it's NEW NEGLIGENT ART?

-->none of this matters until you wrap the statue. then we must see the statue.


> important question: will there be art groupies for THE NEW NEGLIGENT ART, if
> so would a NEW NEGLIGENT ART practitioner find their company taxing since the
> groupies are not doing anything themselves, or would they welcome the easy sex
> and free dinners?

-->none of this matters until you get groupies. then we must group the groupies.

---

>> -->none of this matters until you wrap the statue. then we must see the
>> statue.

>>

> so THE NEW NEGLIGENT ART depends on an audience. There can be no secret
> NEGLIGENCE, for only when it is measured can it be NEW NEGLIGENT ART. Thus
> THE NEW NEGLIGENT ART is not bound to the act of _doing_ something as much as
> it's tied to the perception of the product. Actually it seems to be something
> requiring two distinct participants; the producer and the consumer, which
> leads me to think that Robson or Water street would be Vancouver's cultural
> hub of NEW NEGLIGENCE.

--> excellent point. we must ask: what is perception? what is representation? and I tentatively want to say that THE NEW NEGLIGENT ART arises, as it does and empirically, always with a relation. It is never alone nor singular. But I cannot say this without TESTING. Now, saying that the "other" to the "doing" is automatically an audience, or probably worse, a consumer, and likening this to Robson St., predicates a number of things that are irrelevant, namely, that the other=consumer in the society of the spectacle, for example, which means that we already presuppose a negative relation to the other. Perhaps this is the way Art is received. I don't know. I forget, even. No matter: this is THE NEW NEGLIGENT ART. So while the basic observation that we need a discourse with the other--at the origin!--to have empirical THE NEW NEGLIGENT ART is a result of a TESTING we have just undergone which has produced a certain NEGLIGENT, we cannot hold that the other=consumer, or indeed, even that the other=other. And although we seem to have TESTED the other, in one basic theoretical experiment of THOUGHT DOING just now, we haven't proven it (nor will we ever, as there are no axioms). So although your experiment has failed in the over-extension of its hypothesis, we can see that it attempts to bring to light a relation that, in fact, was already demonstratable from the beginning of THE NEW NEGLIGENT ART: that we need more than one. THE NEW NEGLIGENT ART DOES MULTIPLICITY.


>>> important question: will there be art groupies for THE NEW NEGLIGENT ART, if
>>> so would a NEW NEGLIGENT ART practitioner find their company taxing since
>>> the
>>> groupies are not doing anything themselves, or would they welcome the easy
>>> sex
>>> and free dinners?
>>
>> -->none of this matters until you get groupies. then we must group the
>> groupies.
>>

> And wrap them, preferably in latex!
>

---

... wait a sec. It's stuff like this that made me want to pimpslap all the resident artists in Banff! It was what drove me to embrace television in rebellion; the overanalysis and hyper-intellectualisation of "doing stuff" to the point where the explanation became seemingly more important than the result. When we destroyed a snow fort on top of the centre's tennis courts there was a week long poster campaign screaming of intellectual art "terrorists" loose on campus, that we had destroyed a "poetics of space" and other more multisyllabic words which we likely misspelled in our postered replies. In the end we had to cool it because the heat was getting close and i think my dad was worried about potential links to him and abuse of the photocopiers, but if you're going to put up a snow fort, you have to accept that someone will eventually bring it down. That's just the nature of snow sculpture. Had the artists spent less time thinking/talking about the snow fort autonomous creativity zone and built it out of AT LEAST some drywall, then maybe they would still have had their little clubhouse... wish i had kept some of those posters though.

--> excellent point. we must ask: what is perception? what is
representation? and I tentatively want to say that THE NEW NEGLIGENT ART
arises, as it does and empirically, always with a relation. It is never
alone nor singular.

>not true. i neglected some of my best work without anyone ever knowing.

But I cannot say this without TESTING. Now, saying that
the "other" to the "doing" is automatically an audience, or probably worse,
a consumer, and likening this to Robson St., predicates a number of things
that are irrelevant

>and a number of things which are, just like popcorn!

, namely, that the other=consumer in the society of the
spectacle, for example, which means that we already presuppose a negative
relation to the other. Perhaps this is the way Art is received. I don't
know. I forget, even. No matter: this is THE NEW NEGLIGENT ART. So while the
basic observation that we need a discourse with the other--at the
origin!--to have empirical THE NEW NEGLIGENT ART is a result of a TESTING we
have just undergone which has produced a certain NEGLIGENT, we cannot hold
that the other=consumer, or indeed, even that the other=other.

>but a negative times a negative gets you a positive, and if you take butter and stew it like prunes it tastes much more like applesauce than f>ine linnen.

And although we seem to have TESTED the other, in one basic theoretical experiment of
THOUGHT DOING just now, we haven't proven it (nor will we ever, as there are
no axioms).

>so we're going back to the nihilists?!?!

So although your experiment has failed in the over-extension of
its hypothesis,

>i do that well, I chalk it up to a lack of knowing what I'm talking about.

we can see that it attempts to bring to light a relation
that, in fact, was already demonstratable from the beginning of THE NEW
NEGLIGENT ART: that we need more than one. THE NEW NEGLIGENT ART DOES
MULTIPLICITY.

>bring 'em on!

---

--but did the artists play in the snow fort? Is all that matters. They "did" indeed--but did they play? THE NEW NEGLIGENT ART, however, is about doing. Doing can be playing. But we're not sure yet: we need to test. Did YOU PLAY in the fort? Or only destroy? And the posters: were they not the equivalent to your destruction?

You were never alone, dear olo, even by yourself: you were never one-self. You were always multiple. We are always multiple. It never starts from the One: always from the Many.

Some say: 'Talk is talk. Doing is doing.' They divide from the One: theory/praxis, word/world. But I say: Talk AND Doing. Because we are creating NEGLIGENCE.

THE NEW NEGLIGENT ART has nothing to do with Nihilism. But we must test. Nihilism AND Negligence. But if we are always MULTIPLE, what is Nihilism? Nihilism is a One. It means: "There IS NOTHING." But we say: TALK AND DOING. THE NEW NEGLIGENT ART _HAS_ NOTHING to DO with Nihilism.

---

>--but did the artists play in the snow fort? Is all that matters. They "did"
>indeed--but did they play?

no idea if play was involved. from the sounds of it there was more intellectualizing that may have happened in the space, but as far as we were concerned we came across it in the middle of the night and had a snowball fight.

>THE NEW NEGLIGENT ART, however, is about doing. Doing can be playing. But we're not sure yet: we need to test. Did YOU PLAY
>in the fort? Or only destroy?

we played, and through our play wound up destroying. so it was a kind of performance art allegory of north american imperialism i guess.

>And the posters: were they not the equivalent to your destruction?

no, they were just fuel to the fire, and gave us something more to do other than watch more television.

>You were never alone, dear olo, even by yourself: you were never one-self.

oh right; Jesus. I forgot he's always watching. that guy creeps me out.

>You were always multiple. We are always multiple. It never starts from the One: always from the Many.

your (multiple) orgasams much be epic

>Some say: 'Talk is talk. Doing is doing.' They divide from the One: theory/praxis, word/world. But I say: Talk AND Doing. Because we are
>creating NEGLIGENCE.

without even trying!

>THE NEW NEGLIGENT ART has nothing to do with Nihilism. But we must test. Nihilism AND Negligence. But if we are always MULTIPLE, >what is Nihilism? Nihilism is a One. It means: "There IS NOTHING." But we say: TALK AND DOING. THE NEW NEGLIGENT ART >_HAS_NOTHING to DO with Nihilism.

we don't even care that the Nihilist Spasam Band did it all already!
(i think i'm getting this NEW NEGLIGENT ART thing, it all seems to have to do with exclamation points and a heavy use of CAPS)

---

Ok: this experiment is done. Thanks for engaging. I am always open for TESTS.