(Mediated) Reality, for the "Unmediated", Net.Artist (genius)

http://elandar.com/toxics/stories/window1.html



> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Lewis LaCook" <[email protected]>
>
> > –where are you finding an unmediated reality, eryk? even your
> opinions
> are a form of mediated reality—as are mine…..
>
>
>
> There is an unmediated reality which goes on exterior to any human
> involvement and which our internal thought-assesments have nothing to
> do
> with. Any period spent occupying a space without an awareness of the
> self is
> a step towards realizing it, although in general I think I am
> impressed when
> I can be within a situation on anything even resembling a pre-verbal
> level.
>
> If we relate to our own reaction to stimuli as if it was "reality" we
> are
> saying that the entire universe is dependant on what we "process" in
> it. By
> this logic, because I can't see you I could very well state that you
> don't
> exist. Of course, you do- or you don't- regardless of whether I
> *think* you
> do or don't, and how I *feel* about your existence [not to imply
> anything
> here :) ] is secondary mediation- you exist, whether I "like you" or
> not,
> and whether you are doing what I think you "should do" or not. You
> exist, I
> acknowledge you exist, and everything else is cherries.
>
> In a lot of how I have engaged with the world, I was operating on the
> idea
> that my analysis of reality was what needed to be "exhibited" or what
> "needed to come through" in my work. I have decided that it is a far
> better
> avenue for me to try to make work that cuts through any second hand
> interpretation of the world- and I consider emotional assesments to be
> "second hand." I have done this in a lot of my ascii based work,
> starting
> with the 9/11 piece- the 9/11 piece is essentially the first piece I
> made
> that dealt, on some level, with deconstructing "mediated" visions of
> reality
> [in this case, media, my own desire to connect to emotional events,
> and the
> connection of my internal events with external reality- and trying to
> sort
> all of that out] and it was designed to deliberately cut that frame of
> thinking down. I don't know if it is possible to succeed in this
> obviously-
> but part of what I want to create in my work is the feeling I get from
> some
> pieces of art that open up a range of possibility by simply exposing
> the
> nature of our own internal mediations from reality. Fluxus, Dada,
> Sufism,
> Zen, Haiku poets, Warhol, etc have been what have done it for me, have
> been
> responsible for insights that make me say "aha" as opposed to "I
> agree" or
> "I disagree" or whatever other reaction a person has. Of course a lot
> of the
> other works I have done are still exploring the idea of what is and
> what is
> not mediation, in particular the ascii nudes. I don't know if this
> "comes
> through" in my work- probably not, I am still relatively new at all of
> this-
> but it is a contributing element.
>
> Something that really captures the disappointment I feel within
> net.art is
> the closing of possibility, and this I feel is part of what Marc was
> writing
> about when he criticizes the declaration of a "heroic" period of
> net.art,
> and what people seem to talk about when they complain about the
> structuring
> and institutionalization of any type of art. I mean all in all, we had
> a
> "new media," something that could have been used to open up
> possibilities
> for quite some time, but then you have it start to get smaller and
> smaller
> and more into emulation instead of genesis. To me, 97 is to net.art
> was 77
> is to most punks- precisely, with all the "positive" and "negative"
> baggage.
> The fact that the window opened up for a while and then closed again
> is just
> the way it goes- something can only be new for so long, can only open
> up so
> many new avenues, before people start coming in and running emulation
> routines and the original potential is not so *easy* to hop in with.
> Net.Art
> was an easy art form to invent. It was probably the easiest "movement"
> there
> ever was. And the museums/gallerists/flood of critics- who are the
> first
> spoilers [in the sense of "giving away the ending"], the folks who
> come in,
> see a possibility and interpret it, and make these standards for what
> it
> should be- they're the ones responsible for establishing a "mediation"
> of
> the original concepts. However, a very important element of this, is
> that
> it's the fault of artists if they choose to look at those mediated
> opinions
> of what "is" instead of creating something on thier own, and many
> people do
> this unintentionally simply because they love the ideas but can't come
> up
> with something that new on thier own. I consider myself in that
> category-
> you can call me an evolutionist rather than a creationist, and I think
> this
> is unfortunate for me obviously- "I may not be remembered by history
> as a
> net.art pioneer, boo hoo." And this is true regardless of how long I
> have
> been making this stuff. The window for total e-z-bake revolution has
> closed,
> though I don't think that means the death of net.art, it's just a lot
> harder
> for me to make something "amazing."
>
> Obviously "opinions" are a mediated reality, which is why I recently
> apologized to the list for having them and then denounced my right to
> have
> them. Opinions are not a "right" really so much as a dangerous
> addiction, of
> course people will always have them, I will always have them, but I
> need to
> keep a more careful eye on my constant tendency towards analysis and
> evaluation, no different from anyone else you might say.
>
> Or not.
>
> Cheers,
> -e.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Comments

, Eryk Salvaggio

I don't really get what you mean with the title you sent this under, but
it's interesting. If anything I would say this gets closer to "unmediated"
in that it does to some degree help "pull the wool" out from peoples eyes-
and also because it has no sense of "opinion" about the events.

I think someone could take this idea and do something further with it that
took it outside of the documentary sphere.

-e.




—– Original Message —–
From: "mark" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 2:37 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: (Mediated) Reality, for the "Unmediated", Net.Artist
(genius)


> http://elandar.com/toxics/stories/window1.html
>
>
>
> > —– Original Message —–
> > From: "Lewis LaCook" <[email protected]>
> >
> > > –where are you finding an unmediated reality, eryk? even your
> > opinions
> > are a form of mediated reality—as are mine…..
> >
> >
> >
> > There is an unmediated reality which goes on exterior to any human
> > involvement and which our internal thought-assesments have nothing to
> > do
> > with. Any period spent occupying a space without an awareness of the
> > self is
> > a step towards realizing it, although in general I think I am
> > impressed when
> > I can be within a situation on anything even resembling a pre-verbal
> > level.
> >
> > If we relate to our own reaction to stimuli as if it was "reality" we
> > are
> > saying that the entire universe is dependant on what we "process" in
> > it. By
> > this logic, because I can't see you I could very well state that you
> > don't
> > exist. Of course, you do- or you don't- regardless of whether I
> > *think* you
> > do or don't, and how I *feel* about your existence [not to imply
> > anything
> > here :) ] is secondary mediation- you exist, whether I "like you" or
> > not,
> > and whether you are doing what I think you "should do" or not. You
> > exist, I
> > acknowledge you exist, and everything else is cherries.
> >
> > In a lot of how I have engaged with the world, I was operating on the
> > idea
> > that my analysis of reality was what needed to be "exhibited" or what
> > "needed to come through" in my work. I have decided that it is a far
> > better
> > avenue for me to try to make work that cuts through any second hand
> > interpretation of the world- and I consider emotional assesments to be
> > "second hand." I have done this in a lot of my ascii based work,
> > starting
> > with the 9/11 piece- the 9/11 piece is essentially the first piece I
> > made
> > that dealt, on some level, with deconstructing "mediated" visions of
> > reality
> > [in this case, media, my own desire to connect to emotional events,
> > and the
> > connection of my internal events with external reality- and trying to
> > sort
> > all of that out] and it was designed to deliberately cut that frame of
> > thinking down. I don't know if it is possible to succeed in this
> > obviously-
> > but part of what I want to create in my work is the feeling I get from
> > some
> > pieces of art that open up a range of possibility by simply exposing
> > the
> > nature of our own internal mediations from reality. Fluxus, Dada,
> > Sufism,
> > Zen, Haiku poets, Warhol, etc have been what have done it for me, have
> > been
> > responsible for insights that make me say "aha" as opposed to "I
> > agree" or
> > "I disagree" or whatever other reaction a person has. Of course a lot
> > of the
> > other works I have done are still exploring the idea of what is and
> > what is
> > not mediation, in particular the ascii nudes. I don't know if this
> > "comes
> > through" in my work- probably not, I am still relatively new at all of
> > this-
> > but it is a contributing element.
> >
> > Something that really captures the disappointment I feel within
> > net.art is
> > the closing of possibility, and this I feel is part of what Marc was
> > writing
> > about when he criticizes the declaration of a "heroic" period of
> > net.art,
> > and what people seem to talk about when they complain about the
> > structuring
> > and institutionalization of any type of art. I mean all in all, we had
> > a
> > "new media," something that could have been used to open up
> > possibilities
> > for quite some time, but then you have it start to get smaller and
> > smaller
> > and more into emulation instead of genesis. To me, 97 is to net.art
> > was 77
> > is to most punks- precisely, with all the "positive" and "negative"
> > baggage.
> > The fact that the window opened up for a while and then closed again
> > is just
> > the way it goes- something can only be new for so long, can only open
> > up so
> > many new avenues, before people start coming in and running emulation
> > routines and the original potential is not so *easy* to hop in with.
> > Net.Art
> > was an easy art form to invent. It was probably the easiest "movement"
> > there
> > ever was. And the museums/gallerists/flood of critics- who are the
> > first
> > spoilers [in the sense of "giving away the ending"], the folks who
> > come in,
> > see a possibility and interpret it, and make these standards for what
> > it
> > should be- they're the ones responsible for establishing a "mediation"
> > of
> > the original concepts. However, a very important element of this, is
> > that
> > it's the fault of artists if they choose to look at those mediated
> > opinions
> > of what "is" instead of creating something on thier own, and many
> > people do
> > this unintentionally simply because they love the ideas but can't come
> > up
> > with something that new on thier own. I consider myself in that
> > category-
> > you can call me an evolutionist rather than a creationist, and I think
> > this
> > is unfortunate for me obviously- "I may not be remembered by history
> > as a
> > net.art pioneer, boo hoo." And this is true regardless of how long I
> > have
> > been making this stuff. The window for total e-z-bake revolution has
> > closed,
> > though I don't think that means the death of net.art, it's just a lot
> > harder
> > for me to make something "amazing."
> >
> > Obviously "opinions" are a mediated reality, which is why I recently
> > apologized to the list for having them and then denounced my right to
> > have
> > them. Opinions are not a "right" really so much as a dangerous
> > addiction, of
> > course people will always have them, I will always have them, but I
> > need to
> > keep a more careful eye on my constant tendency towards analysis and
> > evaluation, no different from anyone else you might say.
> >
> > Or not.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -e.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> 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
>