Narrative and Anti-narrative; linear and non-linear; author and audience--all these dualities seem to clearly define positions in advance of our consideration, and the questions these positions all appear to raise about audience and artwork and interaction have already been asked and various answers have been found--all of which are readily available as the "common knowledge" of so many of our collective assumptions about media and how media do/should act.
The underlying problem we have is that these models and the questions they generate are all already old, heavily discussed and well-known. There is little challenge made to the idea that "aura" is diminished by "reproduction." It is an established fact, to question it is to suggest a heresy. That this situation obtains means that these models are thoroughly academic in nature, and the history they support (or supports them) is no longer open to question.
Simply put, then, is the problem: we need new models that are independent of these assumptions, and specifically question the established frameworks themselves, rejecting them as appropriate.
Why does "participation" really matter--and how is it different from "interaction"? My feeling is that this may be the site where things can begin, but only if we start by rejecting the intellectual-ideological baggage of established theories and be willing to question (if not entirely reject) what has been previously accepted. To participate is very different than to interact. Participation implies a high degree of equal, peer to peer engagement where all the agents are involved in the creation of the parameters (constraints) of the work.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
do you really think that what we do (vjing, digital art, you name it) is so entirely different from all previous artistic manifestations (audiovisual or not), that we need to completely reject what has been said and done?
many things have been said before, but they are not closed truths; they are rather ongoing conversations.
these quotes are from an article by j.m. coetzee about walter benjamin's "arcades project", and i believe that what was at stake then is still at stake now:
"'I needn't say anything. Merely show,' says Benjamin; and elsewhere: 'Ideas are to objects as constellations are to stars.' If the mosaic of quotations is built up correctly, a pattern should emerge, a pattern that is more than the sum of its parts but cannot exist independently of them"
coetzee goes on, telling about adorno's reactions to this form of fragmented writing:
"What dismayed Adorno about the project in 1935 was Benjamin's faith that a mere assemblage of objects (in this case, decontextualized quotations) could speak for itself."
and then, benjamin tries to argue in favor of his project:
"The objects and figures that inhabit the arcades—gamblers, whores, mirrors, dust, wax figures, mechanical dolls—are emblems, and their interactions generate meanings, allegorical meanings that do not need the intrusion of theory."
...couldn't we continue from where they left off this conversation (of course, it has been picked up by many before us), and try to think about these ideas in our own, contemporary terms?
for example, do the images played by the vj interact in a way that eliminates the need for narrative?
the article by coetzee:
"The Marvels of Walter Benjamin"
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/13960
The nature of this problem is that these conversations, as you call them, do not apply now. It isn't that the digital realm is necessarily different than other media, but that the context has shifted to incorporate the previous criticisms into the current status quo, thus making any repeat of previous questions already a sign of co-option and assimilation to the status quo. Thus the problem is that the established set of criticisms--Benjamin prominently among them--are no longer critical, merely sock puppets for what was once critical 70+ years ago. No other field except the "arts" would willingly accept the proposition that what was established as "true" that long ago can still be unquestionably applied and accepted today. The situation has changed, but the critical-theoretical accounts remain stuck in the past. This is a major problem when confronted by new developments, new technology and new cultural situations.
VJing is not different at all from other art forms in that sense. It is broad enough to collect from here and there what it needs and use these collected bits to put them into another context. One that may last a few minutes or hours. VJing is so broad, both theoretical and practical that also can be related to other non artistic practices.
why not repeat a question if it is still unanswered?
and what does "true" or "false" have to do with a conversation?
the problem, i believe, arises when we regard past ideas as something more than ongoing conversations: if we start marking them as "established criticisms", then they become monumental and thus quite vulnerable to demolition. this is why i use the word "conversation". because to me, whatever bejamin or adorno or anyone else has said is nothing more than a thread of thought that has not reached (and probably will never reach) a petrified state. it is entirely up to us to follow the thread or not.
personally, i find it valuable to start thinking from the point where others left off, since nothing is ever created from scratch.
ahhh...underlying assumptions!!
new frameworks are vital and how to the point
cinegraphics comments.maybe one of my favorite quotes from Goethe applys,
"Grey my friend are all theories,
and green only lifes golden baum."
my belief is that any valid theory from
this point of history must of necessity
have a practical application.
perhaps a good place to start would be a
clean up job on all the useless detritus
and false myths we labor under.
In a perfect world i would heartily agree with cubo.
unfortunately though, many theories are fixed ; many conversations are closed.
or rather the underlying assumptions on
which they are based.
As for unanswered questions , firstly : a
question has to be formulated correctly
in the first place.
secondly : I believe some questions will in
any case never be answered; some things
simply dont need an answer.
thirdly:
why the fuck do we need an answer
for everything ?
Yes the difference between interaction and
participation ! Could there be any coincidence
to the fact that interactive art which generally
means expensive material and expensive infra-
structure has become the currently stylish term
as opposed to participatory art which has as its
primary definition ... to have a share in...??
It is valuable to pick up conversation where
it left off. But it is clear fact that there are true and false in those threads, and for the most part occidental cultural and theoretical musings have been based on half truths , plagarisations. or outright lies. this of course means that what follows usually has been distorted even further than reality . Sometimes this has been deliberate,
but often has been done simply by well meaning
scholars picking up the threads without really verifying whether they were true or false.
So i belive that this work is of vital necessity.
even it might be interesting to ask where has this position of privilege come from that allows us to
even have this forum ? When most of the worlds population works for about 1 dollar a day! Oh
yes so sorry , how unobjective of me ...objectivity of course being the new pet horse of both the art and science world.
Acerbicity aside...i think that these discourses are
moving in a good way now. I just feel that its not that we reject what comes before. But we must at least accurately research and incude what has
been excoriated fro the "Official Canons". If not
our own research will be
lacking and incomplete
including perhaps especially our cultural theories.
My feeling is that we need to start from a position that what has been accepted as dogma is potentially already incorporated into the framework it once criticized, and that to proceed from "where it left off" is to make the mistake of thinking these criticisms are still critical. In actuality, my feeling is that they are ritualized "critical" statements and positions which are not critical any longer. The questions about who pays, who's included and who isn't are very important, especially with digital works of all types. Instead of asking how is it "objective" perhaps we should be asking why aren't the other groups able to participate--and what that implies. A critical practice necessarily needs to begin with the premise that anything which has been accepted to the point of canonization may no longer provide anything more than a superficially satisfying "aura" of critical thought, while actually occluding the realities of the present. Nevermind that it assumes these "critical" theories of the past were actually critical in the first place.
Underlying assumptions and entrenched dogma are the fundamental problems facing people working today. (Perhaps always)
Post a Comment