A Non-Manifesto for the Summer of 2008
Posted by curt cloninger on April 25, 2008 8:21 pm
In the summer of 2008, I want to see more...
Art not about the intersection of technology and culture.
Art not about physical bodies in virtual space, virtual bodies in physical space, virtual space in physical bodies, or physical space in virtual bodies.
Art not trans-gendered, trans-disciplinary, or trans-local.
Art not about the art market of Chelsea, the gentrification of Brooklyn, or the suburbanization of New Jersey.
Art not immersive, multi-disciplinary, multi-modal, or multi-cultural.
Art that does not make use of youTube, mySpace, or secondLife.
Art that is not a critique of consumerism.
Art that is neither neo-dada, neo-fluxus, neo-situationist, or neo-arte povera.
Art that does not seek to be inclusive of the difference of the other via collaborative cell phone video podcast collage.
Art not about viral memes, online marketing, the noosphere, media saturation, or MK-ULTRA mind-control experiments.
Art that does not incorporate the Wii remote.
Art not seeking to dismantle the artificial dichotomy between nature and culture.
Art not seeking to dismantle the artificial dichotomy between science and art.
Ubiquitous computing, global positioning systems, surveillance cameras, animal architecture, and anything having to do with the human genome project are right out.
Art not green, sustainable, or post-human.
Art that does not celebrate Darwinian evolution as the cosmology of our times.
Art not using generative software algorithms to re-examine the tradition of American landscape photography.
Art that does not attempt to create an abstract cartographic mythology by synthesizing theoretical physics and Tibetan Buddhism.
Art not about moving through urban space.
Art not exploring artificial life, artificial intelligence, artificial insemination, artificial sweetener, or anything else artificial.
Art that is not a simulacrum of a palimpsest of an artifice of the spectacle.
Art that embodies neither emergent systems nor dystopian futures.
Art that is not a Deleuzean mash-up of Cagean algorithms.
Art that does not allude to Sol Lewitt, Josephy Beuys, Bucky Fuller, Johnny Depp, or John Ashcroft.
Art not about the U.S. homeland security advisory system.
Art that does not attempt to vectorize the trajectory of desire.
Art not conceived in response to a call for proposals.
Art not conceived in response to this list.
Art not about the intersection of technology and culture.
Art not about physical bodies in virtual space, virtual bodies in physical space, virtual space in physical bodies, or physical space in virtual bodies.
Art not trans-gendered, trans-disciplinary, or trans-local.
Art not about the art market of Chelsea, the gentrification of Brooklyn, or the suburbanization of New Jersey.
Art not immersive, multi-disciplinary, multi-modal, or multi-cultural.
Art that does not make use of youTube, mySpace, or secondLife.
Art that is not a critique of consumerism.
Art that is neither neo-dada, neo-fluxus, neo-situationist, or neo-arte povera.
Art that does not seek to be inclusive of the difference of the other via collaborative cell phone video podcast collage.
Art not about viral memes, online marketing, the noosphere, media saturation, or MK-ULTRA mind-control experiments.
Art that does not incorporate the Wii remote.
Art not seeking to dismantle the artificial dichotomy between nature and culture.
Art not seeking to dismantle the artificial dichotomy between science and art.
Ubiquitous computing, global positioning systems, surveillance cameras, animal architecture, and anything having to do with the human genome project are right out.
Art not green, sustainable, or post-human.
Art that does not celebrate Darwinian evolution as the cosmology of our times.
Art not using generative software algorithms to re-examine the tradition of American landscape photography.
Art that does not attempt to create an abstract cartographic mythology by synthesizing theoretical physics and Tibetan Buddhism.
Art not about moving through urban space.
Art not exploring artificial life, artificial intelligence, artificial insemination, artificial sweetener, or anything else artificial.
Art that is not a simulacrum of a palimpsest of an artifice of the spectacle.
Art that embodies neither emergent systems nor dystopian futures.
Art that is not a Deleuzean mash-up of Cagean algorithms.
Art that does not allude to Sol Lewitt, Josephy Beuys, Bucky Fuller, Johnny Depp, or John Ashcroft.
Art not about the U.S. homeland security advisory system.
Art that does not attempt to vectorize the trajectory of desire.
Art not conceived in response to a call for proposals.
Art not conceived in response to this list.
NO,SHE CAN'T.SHE HAS TO GET UP EARLY.
MANIK,APRIL,2008.
again
http://lincolnlab.net/images/smacko.jpg
again again
What irritates me way more is being told in advance & in mind numbing detail what a work ( or *worse*, a *proposed* work ) is about, then being instructed as to how I will react to it, which seems pretty much SOP...
michael
Of course you are right -- good work can be made on any topic, and avoiding a trendy topic does not necessarily guarantee good work. I'm just being curmudgeonly and polemical. With all of the topics in the world to explore, and with all of the people making work, it amazes me how many people fall into the same topical ruts. One might argue that this is because these are the issues that are truly important, the issues that matter to all of us; but I'm not so sure. Maybe these are just the issues that matter to a 28 year old art school graduate living in Brooklyn. And maybe these issues don't even matter to her, it's just that they seem to matter to the curators and critics she reads and so these topics get incestuously self-reinforced until they rise to the top of some arbitrary pile that represents the hermetic nature of the new media community more than it represents anything that actually matters.
I think if someone's research and studio practice lead them to explore these topics, well and good. Because by the time they arrive at these topics they will understand why they have, and their work will be there. The problem is when people's curiosity and inquiry is driven by the desire to come up with a project that seems 'culturally relevant' (whose culture [or humanstic meta-culture]? relevant to whom? as determined by whom?). It is a very over-determined way of making work that leads to work I want to see less of this summer (in my culture from my perspective as determined by me).
Curt
Right there with you on that point, Michael.
If you can't say it in a single paragraph or, better yet, a single sentence, then you might just be better off not saying it at all. 500 word explanatory texts for a single work of art are for professors and grant applications, not anyone else.
Pall
I'm not sure there's an 'it' to say in anything that's worth a second look
Actually decent work always has lots of "its" ( and hopefully they'll involve lots of contradictions, in the conventional, not the Marxist, sense) but that the artist is the last person who should be attempting to say them...
<grant applications>
I have to hold my nose quite a lot to write these - what I really want to say is - "Give me some money & I will try my best to make something mysterious, rich and interesting. I don't really know what it will be - I have some technical ideas, which I can share with you, but once I start working on those they'll probably change completely. The truth is chance plays an enormous part in me making stuff. Here's some stuff I did before -anything I make in the future might be a bit like that, but then again it might not. Oh..and it might fail completely."
I'm worldly enough not to do this of course, which makes me sad.
I've now read 300+ of the Rhizome commission proposals & every time someone tells me what their work will be "about", or will "address", or will "investigate" I feel the urge to sob helplessly coming over me.
michael
Hi Pall
I'm not sure there's an 'it' to say in anything that's worth a second look
Actually decent work always has lots of "its" ( and hopefully they'll involve lots of contradictions, in the conventional, not the Marxist, sense) but that the artist is the last person who should be attempting to say them...
Grant Applications
I have to hold my nose quite a lot to write these - what I really want to say is - "Give me some money & I will try my best to make something mysterious, rich and interesting. I don't really know what it will be - I have some technical ideas, which I can share with you, but once I start working on those they'll probably change completely. The truth is chance plays an enormous part in me making stuff. Here's some stuff I did before -anything I make in the future might be a bit like that, but then again it might not. Oh..and it might fail completely."
I'm worldly enough not to do this of course, which makes me sad.
I've now read 300+ of the Rhizome commission proposals & every time someone tells me what their work will be "about", or will "address", or will "investigate" I feel the urge to sob helplessly coming over me.
michael
http://www.laboratoire-aleatoire.com/lab/InfoScape
http://www.laboratoire-aleatoire.com/lab/IpLog20080428
--