—– 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.
Reality, Mediation, Net.Art
-
Type: discussion
Comments
> 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.
According to your definition, feeling is secondary mediation.
joseph & donna
www.electrichands.com
joseph franklyn mcelroy
corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
[email protected]
Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:
> —– 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ——————————————————————–
> t h i n g i s t
> message by "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>
> archive at http://bbs.thing.net
> info: send email to [email protected]
> and write "info thingist" in the message body
> ——————————————————————–
> According to your definition, feeling is secondary mediation.
>
Yes, that is correct.
-e.