The questions
1. We live in 'remix' culture. Are there limits to remixing? Can anything be
remixed with anything? Shall there be an ethics of remixing?
2. In the last few years information visualization became increasingly
popular and it attracted the energy of some of the most talented new media
artists and designers. Will it ever become as widely used as type or
photography - or will it always remain a tool used by professionals?
3. Today cinema and literature continue the modern project or rendering
human psychology and subjectivity, while fine art seems to be not too
concerned with this project. How can we use new media to represent
contemporary subjectivity in new ways? Do we need to do it?
4. 'Blobs' in architecture and design - is this a new 'international style'
of software society, here to stay, - or only a particular effect of
architects and designers starting to use software?
5. While the tools to produce one own media have been more accessible and
more powerful, people never consumed more commercial media than now. Thus
the essential division between 'media amateurs' and 'media professionals'
which got established in the beginning seems to be as strong as ever. In
short, the 1960s idea that new technologies will turn consumers into
producers failed over and over again. Will this situation ever change? What
will be the next stage in media consumption after MP3 players, DVD
recorders, CD burners, etc, etc, etc.?
The answers
1. We live in a culture. Are their limits to culture? Can anything be
culture next to anything? Shall there be an ethics of culture?
2.In the last few years artists have been using tools. Will tools ever be
used by artists - or will they not?
3. Today cinema and literature continue to be cinema and literature, while
fine art has a tendency to become fine art. Will new media become new media?
Do we need it?
4. Will Manovich become Manovich?
5. While the individuals have never ceased to produce meaning (construction)
, the industry only has an eye for her growing consumer potential
(destruction). Thus the essential division between succesful destruction and
half-hearted destruction established when you come to think of it, seems to
be as strong as ever. In short the 1960's idea that everybody is an artist
has failed to be recognised as such over and over again. Will you ever
change? What will you buy next?
[
Descriptions glide into the normative when they start using their own
descriptive power to establish their fiction as a valid reality, i.e. when
they become recursive. Manovich is Manovich is Manovich is …….is true.
Objects are objects are objects are……are true. Automata are automata are
automata are……are true. Unsoweiter.
Descriptions are useful and potentially powerful tools for the artist
because they offer diachronic maps of the individuals locality ( i usually
think of them allegorically as of the maps of enemy territory printed on
silk and sown into British air pilots' jackets during WWII).
Normative descriptions are defusing tools of oppression that need to be
exposed as such at the precise moment when they (re)enter their subject
field i.c. the semi-industrialised space of 'art production' (cfr. MANIC's
post on modular prison building, well done MANIC).
Exposing them enhances their virtual garbaging in the process towards the
Unreal Soup of Creation (aka Royco minute soup, in LM terminate-ology).
Recommandations for the Strategic Garbaging of Recursive Fictions will later
be derived from de facto standards by the Body of the Cathedral-Mother
(SGRF-recommandation 1.0, due for BCM publication in 2009 by the looks of
it)
"The search for meaning will always be political. "
Louis Bec,
quoted by Raquel Renno in this month's discussion on art and cognition at
empyre
]
dv, temporarily banned from the Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee
4 days left
-
Type: discussion