Re: Re: Deconstruct the Narrative = Protocolianpositioning

Hi Dyske et al, some feedback to last post

What it is like to think in four dimensions, or even to see the
fourth dimension is not something our language is capable of describing-

Is it actually possible to truly think in four dimensions? As three dimensi=
onal creatures it is pretty difficult. Spent a couple of hours trying the o=
ther night funnily enough, resorted to asking someone else if they could do=
it and that was the answer I got. perhaps Heidegger's putative search for =
the ineffable 'other' is possibly another example of an attempt at fourth d=
imensional thinking?

I am speculating here, but 'Do ' and 'Don't' are examples of the western d=
ifficulty in breaking free of binary thinking - just when you think youve m=
ade it out the black and white trap, there you are thiinking in polarities =
again. maybe why code appeals so much…switch on/switch off, neat and logi=
cal

-Artists should unlearn everything they've learned about art
history and look straight into their hearts-

Going off on a tangent possibly, but I am not sure that I agree with the ab=
ove statement, and it is not what I meant to suggest in my post. An artist =
working purely 'from the heart' is likely to produce work that is sloppy an=
d ill-disciplined and that can only reach a certain point before it fails. =
'Looking to the heart' is the start of a progressive cycle, not the only th=
ing at play :it is important to then filter, examine and analyise what come=
s from the heart, to distill and understand one's gut reactions and thus co=
ntrol them. And for this one must use logic and 'intellectual rigour', to p=
eel away the clouds of association and find the elusive thing that one is a=
ctually trying to express , communicate. The raw out pouring is the easy, b=
ut neccessary start; but the accompanying self critique ( or idea critique)=
is all that stops the work from becoming sentimental, immature and self in=
dulgent. This can be a very painful process, and is where I don't agree wit=
h your suggestion tht art making should be pleasurable above all else. Plea=
sure is but one of the many emotions that go into seeking art - if there is=
not also pain, frustrastion, patience, humour, even boredom and the occasi=
onal moment of ecstasy, then surely it is just a hobby?.

In summary, an artist must challenge himself/the work - and if one is to wo=
rk wholly by instinct the temptation is that to think this analysis will ha=
ppen as part and parcel of the subconscious workings that feed the peice. A=
dangerous place to go.

Perhaps there is a gender issue here, as for women it is easier to think in=
tuitively and more difficult to pin that down into a logical flow of though=
ts, where as for men the opposite may be true. very tentative on this point=
though.

On the art world - The difficulty with institutionalism is holding on to im=
portant gut reactions against the herd instinct to agree with mentors, peer=
s and current theory. Not for the sake of being different, but to avoid bei=
ng brainwashed, or driven mad with internal dichotomies (I do like that wor=
d). partly why I think late adolescence is too young and impressionable an =
age to begin an art school education.

Beyond this, as a fledgingly obscure artist who has really know idea of whe=
re the board is let alone the rules of the game, part of me staying out of =
it is fear. which is why net art appeals ; the possibility for anonymity. H=
owever I want to use net art to do what I want, and not fit into preconceiv=
ed notions. Apart from anything else I agree with Jess Loseby in that so mu=
ch of it is goddam visually unapealling, and it is a truly visual medium. (=
at the moment though I have great hopes for 3d eventually)

Apologies for rambling, personallising, and bad spelling - my spell checker=
is sulking in a cavern of my hard drive.

Regards,
Fee

Hi Fee,

I'm going to skip your first question about four dimensional thinking. I
think Are is the qualified person to answer that one.

I would say that binary thinking is not a specific type of thinking;
binarism is what allows us to think. In my view (deviating from Derrida),
what allows us to see binary oppositions is the distinction of the "I" from
the world, that is, our conceptions of who we are and what the world is.
Once our minds make this split, seeing ourselves to be separate from the
world, everything else starts to split. Without this split of the "I" and
the world, we cannot think. Whatever I think or interpret about the world is
already part of who I am, yet we insist on separating the two. Every binary
opposition has the same dilemma. One side is incapable of establishing its
presence without the other, so it is either that none exists, or as Zen
would put it, that "all is one."

In response to your comments regarding unlearning of history:

What I mean by "unlearning" isn't exactly to escape or go outside of
history. As I stated before, this is impossible. Whatever you do or utter is
built on history. What I mean by "unlearn" applies only to your drive as an
artist. That is, your "heart" should be the drive rather than history. As
you pointed out yourself, in some ways, studying art history and theories at
a young age when you are still impressionable is more likely to damage this
drive than it is to benefit.

Marc wrote in his essay: "So net/web artists will be sculpted to adhere to
certain agendas, just like what was perceived as traditional before the
Internet age."

This is true. In fact, this has been going on for at least a century, but
let's ask: Why would artists be sculpted to adhere just because the
institutions of art have certain agendas? It is because artists want to be
recognized by them. Why would they want to be recognized by them? It is
because these institutions are centers of the structure of the art world by
which something as subjective and elusive as art can be fixed and
stabilized. The result of this stabilization is art history.

The artists are "sculpted" because they are driven by their desire to be
recognized in history. If their drives were their own hearts, then they will
not be sculpted (they could care less what the agendas of these institutions
are.). If this is your drive, then studying art history or theories would
not be harmful; it could only benefit your art.

Because of this drive to be historically recognized, they end up
reverse-engineering history. They try to figure out the methods of these
institutions and apply them to their own work, thereby alienating themselves
from their own work. If the artists are being sculpted, it is just as much
their own fault as it is the insititutions'. One's criticism towards the
institutional agendas will only prove one's own drive to be recognized in
history. As long as we support the institutions of art to be the central
structure to define historical significance, this vicious cycle will keep on
spinning. If we wish to end this cycle, these institutions must abandon
their claim to historical significance, which is to say, "We like this," and
nothing more. This will decenter the structure of the art world, and
everything will be subjective and elusive, as art naturally is. Then the
artists won't be able to reverse-engineer history.

But realistically speaking, this will not happen, especially in the West
where logocentrism is deep-seated. Despite the efforts of
post-structuralists, it would probably take a century or more for the
awareness of logocentrism to permeate through the western culture at large.

"Apart from anything else I agree with Jess Loseby in that so much of it is
goddam visually unapealling"

This is a type of comment that is pervasive in today's art world where
people make an overarching judgment of taste. It does nothing more than to
assert the commentator's superiority. Since this is a matter of taste, there
is nothing constructive that we can do with such statements, yet we hear
this everywhere. The only way such statements can be constructive is if the
taste were a matter of absolutes. Again, this is a manifestation of our
logocentrism at work, our desire to center and fix elusive matters that do
not require such effort.

-Dyske

Re: 2/21/03 18:34, "Dyske Suematsu" <[email protected]>:

> This part, you lost me. Please elaborate.

Below.

> This is a very interesting way of describing it. (It is a good piece of
> bricolage.) What it is like to think in four dimensions, or even to see the
> fourth dimension is not something our language is capable of describing. Yet
> we try.

One elephant, two elephants, three elephants…

> That is the poetic side of our brains speaking. My use of the
> expression "pushing the limit" refers only to this sort of poetic device
> where something is not said, but shown. Derrida's use of language often
> relies on the effect it shows, not what it says. At the same time he wants
> to communicate something specific, he does not want his readers to see it as
> something specific. That is, at the same time he wants to communicate what
> deconstruction is, he doesn't want you to define what it is. Hence, any
> attempt at fixing the meaning of deconstruction is undesired by him. I was
> not aware of the fact that he regretted the idea of "differance", but I can
> see why.

The important thing to realize is that these mental convulsions are not done
for the mere sake of breaking apart and destroying, which has often become
the misunderstood and very literal reading (i.e., in the the same reduction,
meaning) of "deconstruction." The aim is to show, or work through, how the
binary logic both suppresses and inhabits the other term, and that it's pure
identity, the transcendental signified of an untarnished origin, is not an
inherent quality but a discursive field that actually accords this
privilege. For instance, in a monotheistic religion like Christianity, the
binary of man and woman has always put the man on top; discourses about race
have developed sciences that favor white over black; in the battle of good
versus evil Bush now wears the halo but his deputies have been observed
excitedly shaking the devil's hand. Deconstruction thus does not attempt to
exceed the limits of the opposing yet mutually dependent adversaries (there
is no escaping the binary), but attempts to analyze the circumstances of
their appearance and question, if you like, their undivided presence. For
Derrida, much of his work has revolved around the privileging of speech over
writing, which is seen as the bastard child of the spoken word. Speech,
then, is favored because of the self affirming loop of hearing oneself
speak, effectively the immediate enunciation of thought which leads to the
desired metaphysics of presence at the core of white mythology. (I believe
deconstruction has renewed relevance in a climate where good and evil has
basically returned to the level of quasi-religious demagogy.)

> The following is addressed also to Fee:

> <snip>

This is very problematic. The knee jerk following postmodern appropriation
techniques was actually a return to neo-expressionism; like and dislike only
really have a totalitarian use value. And there is no "outside" of
discourse, only east and west and north and south (already a dialectical
compass). Whether it is circular (cyclical) or linear (progress) really does
not matter much. Personally, I have long preferred climbing and bouldering
without a guidebook to anything artsy: there is a sequence that unlocks
pointless fulfillment and you have to ponder it and then execute it with
power (strength x speed) plus technique. The vocabulary is based on
invention and positioning, not repetition and posturing.

-af

Sorry to backtrack, but I wish to briefly comment on these issues in turn


>I would say that binary thinking is not a specific type of thinking;
binarism is what allows us to think. In my view (deviating from Derrida),
what allows us to see binary oppositions is the distinction of the "I" fr=
om
the world, that is, our conceptions of who we are and what the world is.
Once our minds make this split, seeing ourselves to be separate from the
world, everything else starts to split. Without this split of the "I" and
the world, we cannot think. Whatever I think or interpret about the world=
is
already part of who I am, yet we insist on separating the two. Every bina=
ry
opposition has the same dilemma. One side is incapable of establishing its
presence without the other, so it is either that none exists, or as Zen
would put it, that "all is one."<

I have difficulties with this, as most of my academic life has been geare=
d towards undermining the binary which produces for me immense internal con=
flicts. Both you and Are seem to agree it is unavoidable which disheartens =
me somewhat. I am not disputing your arguements here, just maintaining it i=
s a problematic issue for me.

In response to your comments regarding unlearning of history:

What I mean by "unlearning" isn't exactly to escape or go outside of
history. As I stated before, this is impossible. Whatever you do or utter=
is
built on history. What I mean by "unlearn" applies only to your drive as =
an
artist. That is, your "heart" should be the drive rather than history. As
you pointed out yourself, in some ways, studying art history and theories=
at
a young age when you are still impressionable is more likely to damage th=
is
drive than it is to benefit.

Agreed.

Marc wrote in his essay: "So net/web artists will be sculpted to adhere to
certain agendas, just like what was perceived as traditional before the
Internet age."

This is true. In fact, this has been going on for at least a century, but
let's ask: Why would artists be sculpted to adhere just because the
institutions of art have certain agendas? It is because artists want to be
recognized by them. Why would they want to be recognized by them? It is
because these institutions are centers of the structure of the art world =
by
which something as subjective and elusive as art can be fixed and
stabilized. The result of this stabilization is art history.

The artists are "sculpted" because they are driven by their desire to be
recognized in history. If their drives were their own hearts, then they w=
ill
not be sculpted (they could care less what the agendas of these instituti=
ons
are.). If this is your drive, then studying art history or theories would
not be harmful; it could only benefit your art.

Because of this drive to be historically recognized, they end up
reverse-engineering history. They try to figure out the methods of these
institutions and apply them to their own work, thereby alienating themsel=
ves
from their own work. If the artists are being sculpted, it is just as much
their own fault as it is the insititutions'. One's criticism towards the
institutional agendas will only prove one's own drive to be recognized in
history.

I agree very much with your comment about the artists responsibilty in te=
rms of being sculpted by the institutions. If one wishes to work within the=
institutional structure, fine. I f one wishes to work outside it, also fin=
e. But don't work within and then moan about it's deletorious effect on you=
r work…

However much one is driven by the heart and the desire to produce work to=
one's own standard not the institutions, the more one knows of these insti=
tutional dogmas the more difficult they are to avoid. As Mark said we are a=
ll guilty of falling into the trap of justifying our work in context. As yo=
u have said, this leads to reverse engineering. It takes a strong personali=
ty to resist the magnetic pull and try and resist these traditions/institut=
ions. I think I am perhaps still young and impressionable enough that I wou=
ld like to continue without a prevasive undermining of my own direction. Al=
ittle knowledge is a dangerous thing.

As long as we support the institutions of art to be the central
structure to define historical significance, this vicious cycle will keep=
on
spinning. If we wish to end this cycle, these institutions must abandon
their claim to historical significance, which is to say, "We like this," =
and
nothing more. This will decenter the structure of the art world, and
everything will be subjective and elusive, as art naturally is. Then the
artists won't be able to reverse-engineer history.

But realistically speaking, this will not happen, especially in the West
where logocentrism is deep-seated. Despite the efforts of
post-structuralists, it would probably take a century or more for the
awareness of logocentrism to permeate through the western culture at larg=
e.

"Apart from anything else I agree with Jess Loseby in that so much of it =
is
goddam visually unapealling"

This is a type of comment that is pervasive in today's art world where
people make an overarching judgment of taste. It does nothing more than to
assert the commentator's superiority. Since this is a matter of taste, th=
ere
is nothing constructive that we can do with such statements, yet we hear
this everywhere. The only way such statements can be constructive is if t=
he
taste were a matter of absolutes. Again, this is a manifestation of our
logocentrism at work, our desire to center and fix elusive matters that do
not require such effort.

I find the above paragraphs contradictory. On the one hand you are sugge=
sting that to work within the confines of 'I like this' or 'I don't like th=
is' is a positive step to take. then you go on to say such an expression of=
like/dislike does nothing but 'assert the commentators superiority'
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, and I know I have a tendecy to muddle =
subjective and objective viewpoints with alarming haste thus confusing the =
reader. I would also admit to being new to net art and thus ignorant of muc=
h of the subtleties at play

What I would say though is that art undeniably has added value for the sp=
ectator if placed within a tradition that they are conversant with. But if =
that art cannot also stand alone outside its genre, and be enjoyed by the =
layman, then in some essential way it has failed. In My humble opinion of c=
ourse.

Fee

<quote>
"I find the above paragraphs contradictory. On the one hand you are
suggesting that to work within the confines of 'I like this' or 'I don't
like this' is a positive step to take. then you go on to say such an
expression of like/dislike does nothing but 'assert the commentators
superiority'"
<quote>

This is what I wrote to Are regarding this issue:

Are said: "like and dislike only really have a totalitarian use value."

That is, if you use them in a discourse. And, this is why, for me, to state
likes and dislikes in a discussion is useless. The only way to argue in such
a discussion is for me to adapt a totalitarian position. However, to simply
express your likes and dislikes as a curator, without implying any
authority, is not a totalitarian act, rather it is a personal artistic
expression.

To further elaborate:

When you say "I like this," it should be kept within a simple expression of
your own sentiment. The emphasis is on the "I". As soon as you start to
argue about it, substantiate it, rationalize it, or explain it, it becomes
an attempt to fix and stabilize the significance of your statement, which is
"totalitarian" in nature.

I think Marc shares this sentiment, but the issue I had with his original
essay was that he went on to explain what type of art is more deserving of
the institutional attention, ones that is more "radical" in nature that
"questions institutional remits." This ends up doing the same thing he is
criticizing, since you are still giving the institutions the authority to
fix and stabilize the significance of art.

I argued this from Marc's own perspective and logic. Personally, I don't
really have any issues with giving museums or galleries the authority. The
Western art is what it is: a centrally structured discourse. And, both
artists and institutions are complicit in keeping it that way. Any artists
who criticize the institutions without criticizing their own complicity are
hypocritical. I have no vested interest in changing this state of the
western art. There is no need for you to join the discourse. The only
problem is that then whatever you do will not be considered "art" in the
west. More likely, it will be called "hobby", but that really isn't a
problem.

Best Regards,
Dyske

a fragmented tangential reply follows..


<quote>
"I find the above paragraphs contradictory. On the one hand you are
suggesting that to work within the confines of 'I like this' or 'I don't
like this' is a positive step to take. then you go on to say such an
expression of like/dislike does nothing but 'assert the commentators
superiority'"
<quote>

This is what I wrote to Are regarding this issue:

Are said: "like and dislike only really have a totalitarian use value."

That is, if you use them in a discourse. And, this is why, for me, to sta=
te
likes and dislikes in a discussion is useless. The only way to argue in s=
uch
a discussion is for me to adapt a totalitarian position. However, to simp=
ly
express your likes and dislikes as a curator, without implying any
authority, is not a totalitarian act, rather it is a personal artistic
expression.

To further elaborate:

When you say "I like this," it should be kept within a simple expression =
of
your own sentiment. The emphasis is on the "I". As soon as you start to
argue about it, substantiate it, rationalize it, or explain it, it becomes
an attempt to fix and stabilize the significance of your statement, which=
is
"totalitarian" in nature.

Point taken. as i said previously, I am bad at seperating subjective opin=
ion from objective, which is basically what we are discussing here, right? =
if one present a subjective opinion as an objective one i can see that the =
road leads nowhere in terms of discussion. mostly.
I also agree with Curt that the sexier writer may win the battle purely o=
n 'textual charm'. I don't neccessarily agree with this being a good thing,=
as someone who has used that particular trick all their life without ever =
actually learning very much. ( I'm not a great writer so boy there must be =
some pretty bad ones that get through uni etc)


I think Marc shares this sentiment, but the issue I had with his original
essay was that he went on to explain what type of art is more deserving of
the institutional attention, ones that is more "radical" in nature that
"questions institutional remits." This ends up doing the same thing he is
criticizing, since you are still giving the institutions the authority to
fix and stabilize the significance of art.

I argued this from Marc's own perspective and logic. Personally, I don't
really have any issues with giving museums or galleries the authority. The
Western art is what it is: a centrally structured discourse. And, both
artists and institutions are complicit in keeping it that way. Any artists
who criticize the institutions without criticizing their own complicity a=
re
hypocritical.

I very strongly agree with this, which is what bothered me so much in my =
spectator role in art school. ( where incidentally I was the only one actu=
ally making any money out of art. I saw no harm developing skills in draugh=
ting and painting whilst doing commisions of people's favourite views etc. =
This to the art student was selling out - to me it was learning a craft. Bu=
t yeah, I was, I admit somewhat embarrased by it, but at the same time anno=
yed at their compacent hypocrisy which wished death upon the establishment =
without actually ever trying to take their work beyond establishment accept=
ability. conflicting emotions..)

I have no vested interest in changing this state of the
western art. There is no need for you to join the discourse. The only
problem is that then whatever you do will not be considered "art" in the
west. More likely, it will be called "hobby", but that really isn't a
problem.

Hmm.. but somehow that comment stings like hell!
so you 'reverse-engineer' your work, attempt to add a soupcon to the gen=
eral body of work, predict the future directions and stay in the avante gar=
de, and you are a professional. Or ignore whatever the hell is going on in=
the art world, perhaps choosing to focus on the changes you see in the rea=
l world and interpret them (visually, or however) without reference to your=
peers and you are a hobbyist? seems a tad disparaging to me. John Lennon s=
aid the role of an artist was to reflect the world around them. Maybe artis=
ts who are submerged in the art world are doing that, in that the world aro=
und them is that of themselves and their peers, but doesn't that end up bei=
ng a carnival hall of funny mirrors, an essentially solipsist excercise?
Personally speaking, purely subjectively, I have always found it easier t=
o work (whether it be in architecture, literature, painting, photography) b=
y taking souce inspiration from other media than the one I am presently wor=
king on. Otherwise it is far too easy to let yourself be influenced too muc=
h by ones 'favourite' practitioner' and turn out imitative work. This is pr=
obably a personal trait not a univeral one so perhaps not relevant.

Suffice to say that I think we are all in one common agreement on this su=
bject - nobody wants to go tearing down the institutions. they are neccessa=
ry in their way. However I think we would all like individual artists to be=
less awed by the implied power of these institutions, and less influenced =
by them. Ofcourse, everyone has a different take on this and thats where th=
e fum of discussing it comes in.

BTW, this kind of discussion is very topical in Scotland ATM as regards J=
ack Vettriano's offer of a painting woth around

Hi Fee,

<quote>
so you 'reverse-engineer' your work, attempt to add a soupcon to the general
body of work, predict the future directions and stay in the avante garde,
and you are a professional. Or ignore whatever the hell is going on in the
art world, perhaps choosing to focus on the changes you see in the real
world and interpret them (visually, or however) without reference to your
peers and you are a hobbyist? seems a tad disparaging to me.
</quote>

There is no such thing as art that exists independently of how we use the
word "art." So, by "hobby", all I meant to express was my speculation of
what most people would call your work or activity if you ignored the
discourse. In your own mind, it could still be art.

You asked: "Can't it be popular beyond the institutions and be art?"

Part of the reason why we give institutions such authority is because we all
want to define what art is and is not. The word "art" already implies
historical significance in the west. That is, when you are trying to define
what is art, and what is not, you are implicitly trying to define what is
historically significant. So your urge to define "art" is already supporting
the structure of the institutions. If no one minded their work being called
"hobby", then part of the power of the institutions will be undermined.

-Dyske