Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: notes for a hypothetical essay on relocating

Authentic works of power are capable of directing an energy which make the work desireable to contact (and/or possess, since ownership of an item with that ability is enough to elevate a peasant into the aristocracy, by virtue of recognizing the
power the item has, all Holy Grail like). Maybe it's hocus pocus superstition hyperromantic stuff, but I don't think it is all that ethereal at all. I'm an athiest, +/-, and I still believe in it; it's something innate and beyond mythology but yeah,
something spawns mythology, right? I would hesitate to say there's nothing to it: some art is about play and some art is about power, we all know where play comes from, but conveying true power through a work is not a simple matter and poor attempts
to do it are disasterous, but when it works, it works, and there's no disputing it.

I don't have an answer to the shaman question, but it's one I've been thinking about: can the web disseminate power in the same way that an artifact, or a tangible presence can? Whenever we distribute we run the risk of diluting, this
aura/baraka/good-artness comes from an object but also depends on others to see and percieve it; a good work can change the way one sees but a bad seer can change the way the art is seen. Transmission on the web depends on these bad seers to pass it
along anyway, with their own twists and frames. It is true of a lot of modern art, on and offline.

I'll get in trouble for this: In religious orders, the transmission of data is a sacred act, with high awareness of conveying truth (and a high awareness of generational degradation of transmitted knowledge). IE, instead of simply making photocopies
of sacred information, it actually has to be re-realized by a pupil internally, as well as transmitted to them. You don't just dub the superbowl tape, you play the game yourself.

The web doesn't really inspire this; it is a many to many medium, devoid of the power of the one to one. We are all fancying ourselves as teachers now- I'll go online to "share" what I "know"- and I'll talk until I'm blue in the face, a situation
hostile to learning. I am not this way. The web does not encourage me into solitude and reflection, or careful consideration, it encourages me to convey orders and broadcast statements. It allows anyone to pick up a semblance of understanding (let's
do a wiki search on Baraka!) without doing any of the hard, internal work that makes the understanding true. The thing is, this is not a limitation of the web, it's a limitation of its users, a generation and a half of television addled broadcast
junkies who think blogs are collaborative… :)

Shutting up,
-er.


Eric Dymond <[email protected]> on Saturday, June 03, 2006 at 2:12 AM -0500 wrote:
>curt cloninger wrote:
>
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> I don't mean "magic" as in "sleight of hand." I mean "magic" as in
>> "mystical/spiritual." "Magic" is not a word I would choose (it has
>> pejorative connotations). Simply put, I believe in a real spirit
>> realm. "Real spirit" is not oxymoronic to me. I believe the best art
>> traffics in this realm – not exclusively, but to a substantial
>> degree. Furthermore, it traffics in this realm regardless of whether
>> or not the artist or the audience intellectually believes in this
>> realm.
>>
>
>so do you believe their are Shaman on the internet?
>Eric
>+
>-> post: [email protected]
>-> questions: [email protected]
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

Comments

, Alexis Turner

No, this is not stupid at all, it is precisely the problem Curt and I identified
as our fundamental disagreement. We actually agree on many of the details, but,
ultimately, will never agree on the point.

Curt's question, at heart, is really "how does one create a religious object?"

My question is "how does one create an object that creates a magical
experience?"

I don't believe in either magic or religion as true and tangible forms, but I
believe that one can create an object (event, happening, whathaveyou) that is
*received* as being either magical or religious. I have a rather unhealthy
respect for frauds, teachers, charlatans, carnies, old time movie showmen,
churchmen, and Old Masters because I think they all use the same methods to
create something - a product, a notion, a comfort, a fantasy, a piece of art -
that will speak to people. Whether or not I approve of what they do, their
knowledge of human nature and the cultures in which they live runs deep, and
the differences in their approach are in intent and medium only.

Of course, that attitude is going to be…unfullfilling…to someone who wants
to make something that actually IS religious.
-Alexis

PS: Please let me just clarify this now - I do not believe a work has to have meaning in
the hacktivist/didactic/political-beating-over-the-head sense as has been
attributed to me. Meaning is far, far, far larger than this boring little
nugget. I simply say that, in order for something to "speak" to a person, it
must have meaning to them, and meaning can be found in the smallest of places
[a smell] to the largest. This is what all the professions listed above
understand - not only what is important to people, but also how
to put that into something such that the receiver will recognize it. Meaning.


On Sat, 3 Jun 2006, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

::Authentic works of power are capable of directing an energy which make the work desireable to contact (and/or possess, since ownership of an item with that ability is enough to elevate a peasant into the aristocracy, by virtue of recognizing the
::power the item has, all Holy Grail like). Maybe it's hocus pocus superstition hyperromantic stuff, but I don't think it is all that ethereal at all. I'm an athiest, +/-, and I still believe in it; it's something innate and beyond mythology but yeah,
::something spawns mythology, right? I would hesitate to say there's nothing to it: some art is about play and some art is about power, we all know where play comes from, but conveying true power through a work is not a simple matter and poor attempts
::to do it are disasterous, but when it works, it works, and there's no disputing it.
::
::I don't have an answer to the shaman question, but it's one I've been thinking about: can the web disseminate power in the same way that an artifact, or a tangible presence can? Whenever we distribute we run the risk of diluting, this
::aura/baraka/good-artness comes from an object but also depends on others to see and percieve it; a good work can change the way one sees but a bad seer can change the way the art is seen. Transmission on the web depends on these bad seers to pass it
::along anyway, with their own twists and frames. It is true of a lot of modern art, on and offline.
::
::I'll get in trouble for this: In religious orders, the transmission of data is a sacred act, with high awareness of conveying truth (and a high awareness of generational degradation of transmitted knowledge). IE, instead of simply making photocopies
::of sacred information, it actually has to be re-realized by a pupil internally, as well as transmitted to them. You don't just dub the superbowl tape, you play the game yourself.
::
::The web doesn't really inspire this; it is a many to many medium, devoid of the power of the one to one. We are all fancying ourselves as teachers now- I'll go online to "share" what I "know"- and I'll talk until I'm blue in the face, a situation
::hostile to learning. I am not this way. The web does not encourage me into solitude and reflection, or careful consideration, it encourages me to convey orders and broadcast statements. It allows anyone to pick up a semblance of understanding (let's
::do a wiki search on Baraka!) without doing any of the hard, internal work that makes the understanding true. The thing is, this is not a limitation of the web, it's a limitation of its users, a generation and a half of television addled broadcast
::junkies who think blogs are collaborative… :)
::
::Shutting up,
::-er.
::
::
::Eric Dymond on Saturday, June 03, 2006 at 2:12 AM -0500 wrote:
::>curt cloninger wrote:
::>
::>> Hi Eric,
::>>
::>> I don't mean "magic" as in "sleight of hand." I mean "magic" as in
::>> "mystical/spiritual." "Magic" is not a word I would choose (it has
::>> pejorative connotations). Simply put, I believe in a real spirit
::>> realm. "Real spirit" is not oxymoronic to me. I believe the best art
::>> traffics in this realm – not exclusively, but to a substantial
::>> degree. Furthermore, it traffics in this realm regardless of whether
::>> or not the artist or the audience intellectually believes in this
::>> realm.
::>>
::>