Alexis Turner
Since 2005
Works in United States of America

BIO
http://redheadedstepchild.org/

I am not an artist.
Discussions (61) Opportunities (0) Events (0) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

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


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.
::>>
::>

DISCUSSION

Re: MANIK'S AURA


::Thanks!We're not quilt for Marie Antoinette('again'),it's other person thread.
::We've just make weak attempt to pay Rhizomes audience's attention on other idea.
::This is simple idea:we don't give a shit for AURA.What's that mean?
::We want to pay your attention on whole W.Benjamin's life who was dedicated to
::idea of social justice and human(istic) side of exchanging of welfare.
::We are already in irretrievable process of oblivion of same ideas you enthusiastic exchange
::with your friends(aura,different aesthetic...etc.)We believe it's bit humiliate to search in goggle-or-wiki
:: proof for our words.So,Benjamin's devotion and unselfish fight with/for
::Brecht's progressive ideas in life/theatre is invaluable compare with aura.
::(Berthold Brecht is man who was forced to set in front of American Congress to answer on their stupid anti-communist hysteric yelp...) It's much more important
::than bit obscure,blurry,un-actual-in-it's-metaphysic idea of aura.

I know. Which is exactly why I pushed Curt to look at it another way. Aura is
quite simply, retarded, pointless, and otherwise a very good way for smart
people to waste their time when they could be considering meaningful problems.

::stale ideas,instead to answer on clear MANIK's question:are you
::conscious that you support Bush's war policy with your every single act
::who supported your way of life?(To remind you again:American baby
::spend 400 time more material gods compare to African baby,America refuse to
::sign "Kyoto"agreement against global pollute,American soldiers kill civilian in Iraq every day...
::What would you like more?Ice cream?Or gallon of gas?)And,we're not so much
::amazed with your threat(beat to death...MANIK) whether is joke or not.
::We have experience with NATO/American brave soldiers who kill people in Serbia 666I from air,from deepest night,
::-disgrace,meanness,cowardice...We have no doubt you would very gladly bit us to death.
::Considered your pathetic contribution to discussion that's best you could think through.

Is was a joke, and regrettably you are so hell bent on hating all Americans,
that you often fail to miss when someone agrees with you.

Despite your belief to the contrary, not all Americans own cars or lavish
themseleves with gold-leafed ceilings, nor do we all agree with what the
current government does. Some of us even spend time trying to identify ways
to fix the problem at a root level (education), and not merely by making the
occasional ass of ourselves on this list.

In the end, the same condemnation holds for you: is that the best you can do?
Another of your tired, "all Americans are white devils" argument? There are
better ones, not the least of which is "democracy becomes tyranny when citizens
are uneducated." You point only to the symptoms.
-Alexis

DISCUSSION

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


Not to piss off the one person on the list who on occasion actually agrees with
me...but...

Do you find it rather absurd that you are trying to refocus the aura of
MECHANICALLY PRODUCED art? It defies the very, very notion of what Benjamin was
discussing. Digital art is the antithesis of what he was, and so many of his
accolytes continue to, carry on about so doey-eyed. If you are truly committed
to holding on to his idea so dearly, you should really take up oils.

On the other hand, if you truly want to retain the aura in digital art, then
you must give Mr. Walter a kick in the pants and rethink the thing altogether, not
just sort of half-assed moving it around. Until you are willing to do that, I
do not believe you will find the answer to your question. At the very least,
you must decide if you want the aura the thing, or if you would be content to
illicit the effect of the aura, which you did actually seem kind of interested
in, as your first post mentioned some level of desire to create "awe and wonder"
in your viewer.

I have simply posited that a more appropriate locus is in the viewer, as it
allows you to both have your cake and eat it, too (and please, I will personally
beat to death the first person that brings up that damn Marie Antoinette thread
again...MANIK). You get to say there is an aura involved with the piece, as
well as illiciting appropriately giddy responses in the viewer. Not to mention,
as Eric pointed out, that the meaning of an object and the artist's place as
clever educator is just SO much more interesting than the artist as a producer
of things that people want to have sweaty fantasies about. Nonetheless, this
is no doubt hard to swallow, as in order to do this I have just taken all the
magical, fetishistic, cultish power away from non-living art objects and put
them into the human mind. A book is a book whether from the library, the rare
book room, or Amazon, notwithstanding my *personal* preference for the politics
of the first, the feel of the second, and the smell of the third.

Having said all of that, I am perfectly content to have you believe my opinion
is crap, but I really do refuse to enter into a debate about the soul of a
single, perfect, waving blade of grass.
-Alexis

On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, curt cloninger wrote:

::Hi Alexis,
::
::Just because a bunch of sucky contemporary artists waste their time delineating the nuances of a bunch of scatalogical theory that ultimately doesn't amount to a hill of beans or make their art any less sucky, this doesn't prove that all theoretical dialogue is bullshit. Merely asserting that something seems like shit from your perspective doesn't really dismantle that shitty something.
::
::You assert that current art has no aura because it has no meaning. But art can have an aura without having meaning. A rock can have an aura without having artistic meaning. If certain pieces of contemporary art have no meaning, it's simply because they have no meaning. Yet they may still have an aura.
::
::My understanding of humans also assigns thoughts and feelings to the mind. I further understand humans to operate out of a heart/core/will/spirit. Then of course there is the body and the social relations. All of these aspects are integrated into a single being. The integrating aspect is the soul. So goes my understanding of humans.
::
::You assert that successful art must have three things: "all ultimately go back to the mind and how it processes said art: the work must be experienced, must have meaning, and must
::have effect. None of these are magic." I disagree. Successful art need not have "meaning" per se. Furthermore, experience and effect don't solely happen in the mind. There is something "magical" about how we experience art and how it effects us (although magic connotes alchemy and a selfish manipulation of nature. I would say "spiritual.")
::
::Explain instrumental music's effect on a listener in terms of mere psychology. For one thing, instrumental music has no "meaning." Is it effective because the mathematical relationship of the rhythms and melodies produce an ordered and harmonious effect that is interpretable psychologically? I've heard all that argued and don't buy it. Instrumental music has both psychological and spiritual characteristics. Of course, neither of us can prove that it does or doesn't, so we disagree.
::
::Music aside, I definitely agree that good art is going to be about something other than merely its own mechanism of transference. That is hopefully a given. Nevertheless, regardless of genre and subject matter, there is something different about object art and non-object art. I'm not saying that this difference solely constiutes all there is to the art. I'm just saying this difference exists, and I'm thinking about it.
::
::Is there not something different about a book from the library that has been checked out and read by a bunch of people and the exact same book new from Amazon? It's the same content, the same subject matter, but the library book has a kind of history and provenance. Is that provenance psychologically ascribed to the library book by the reader, or does it emanate from the spiritual history of the library book itself? Whichever it is, the library book is somehow different than the new book.
::
::best,
::curt

DISCUSSION

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


Sorry, I still have to say that it is about as useful to describe an object as
having an "aura" as it is to describe it as having honest-to-goodness "magic."

Historically, the art that awed, impressed, and created wonder was the
art that explained something fundamental about human nature or the world. It
showed people something they already knew (but in a new way), it improved upon
their existing body of knowledge, or else it exposed them to something they had
never realized was possible. For art to do this, however, it must have 3
things at a minimum, and all ultimately go back to the mind and how it
processes said art: the work must be experienced, must have meaning, and must
have effect.

None of these are magic.

That said, I suspect the reason current art has no "aura," as Benjamin feared,
is because current art has no meaning, insofar as it seems no longer to be
produced with the idea that it can inform or change the people that make it
or view it. Instead, it is just "stuff" produced by a bunch of post-modern
wankers who like the romantic idea of what it means to be artists, and so sit
around and hope that if they explain what they are doing in pretty enough words
(even if what they are doing is simply pooping for a peephole), that somehow
THAT makes it, not just art, but BETTER art and it will thus awe people in
accordingly bigger and better ways. Fetishizing an object or an act simply
because it exists (a podcast) or because of an intrinsic quality (it takes a
long time) does not imbue it with meaning, and the viewer is certainly adept
enough to understand this at a fundamental level, even if they might not be able
to put their finger on it. In the end, the art fails to spark the mind, or
have "aura."
-Alexis

PS: Your problem with the idea of the viewer engaged with their mind, instead
of their "feelings" (the whole Myers-Briggs diversion) is semantic only.
Feelings and the mind are inseparable. While one may respond more logically or
more emotionally to an object, the response is nonetheless informed by a
person's history and understanding of the world. I use mind loosely to mean
understanding.

On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, curt cloninger wrote:

::The aura in a podcast is in locus #2: In the perpetually enacted and iterated act/stance/position. A perpetual stream from a consistent perspective replaces the object as the locus of aura.
::
::curt
::
::
::
::Eric Dymond wrote:
::
::>
::> No you wouldn't. It might perturbe you, but you would continue. I
::> agree with most of what Alexis stated , and believe that the aura,
::> artistically, has been disconnected from the object, and the space
::> between. Residing wholly and completely in the personal time of the
::> receiver. Bad news for producers and managers, good news for the
::> individual. Think of podcats, vblogs, and the new audience and then
::> explain the role of the classic aura to me or any aura, I don't think
::> it exists, it was a convenience to describe a shared social
::> experience.
::>
::> Great thread. And better threads within threads.
::>
::> Eric

DISCUSSION

Re: notes for a hypothetical essay on relocating the aura


Awe and wonder" are attached to the novel. The curve is an
interesting one - up to a point, the pleasure derived from such an experience
increases with the novelty of the object; however, once that certain point of
novelty is reached, the experience exponentially plummets into an unpleasurable
one. People's minds are tickled by a level of difficulty, but when the object
becomes too foreign, complex, or new, it is met with revulsion and anger.

In other words, Benjamin's "aura" and "awe and wonder" are really just a
metaphor for learning, and the concept can be applied to anything, not just art.
A little bit of a challenge
in an object is pleasurable precisely because it creates this learning
experience and awakens curiosity. If the understanding of an object is too far
out of reach, however, the person cannot "get it" and thus lashes out. It
becomes "stupid" or "boring" or "wrong." How many times have you heard that in
a classroom/gallery/concert/world affairs?

So, in this regard, Benjamin (and your mission) is wrong - the locus of the aura
is not the object, it is the mind of the person experiencing the object, and
aura, as an experience, can never be lost if a person exists who hasn't seen or
learned everything there is to know. One person may fail to express wonder at
an object if it is familiar to them, but to another it represents something
they've never fathomed. Likewise, the person bored by the first object will
find others intriguing.

I use the computer, and I make art, to discover (better?) (new?) ways to teach
and create understanding.
-Alexis

On Sat, 27 May 2006, Curt Cloninger wrote:

::Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 15:43:05 -0400
::From: Curt Cloninger <curt@lab404.com>
::To: list@rhizome.org
::Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: notes for a hypothetical essay on relocating the aura
::
::Walter Benjamin says that people used to attach an "aura" (roughly, sense of
::awe) to the scarce, original unique, physical art object. Benjamin observes
::that since everything is now infinitely reproducible, we've lost this aura.
::
::As an artist not making one-of-a-kind objects, where can I relocate the aura?
::To answer ,"In the network" is like answering "in the air," or "in time," or
::"in existence." I need a more specific, behavioral/tactical description of
::this new locus of awe and aura.
::
::Designer Clement Mok says designers should describe their practice not in
::terms of media deliverables ("I make websites"), but as doctors and lawyers
::do, in terms of services performed and results achieved. A doctor doesn't
::say, "I make incisions." A lawyer doesn't say, "I generate paperwork." This
::seems like a better way for a "new media artist" to describe her art. (Note:
::Even the term "new media artist" describes her in terms of media
::deliverables.) She shouldn't say, "I make net art." Better to say, "I cause x
::to happen. I orchestrate x. I'm investigating x." Thus in describing
::"where" I relocate the aura, I should avoid saying, "It's in the podcast,
::weblog, RSS feed, wearable mobile computing device, etc."
::
::As an artist, my self-imposed mandate is to increase a more lively dialogue
::with the Sundry Essences of Wonder. If wonder is akin to awe is akin to aura,
::I'd better figure out where to relocate the aura.
::
::++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
::
::There are four places I can house the aura that seem interesting:
::
::1.
::In the destabilized/variable event/object. Generative software makes this
::possible. My bubblegum cards are a personal example (
::http://computerfinearts.com/collection/cloninger/bubblegum/ ) Cage and Kaprow
::are precedences. The aura is embedded in the chance and variability that the
::artist invites into the destabilized/variable performance.
::
::2.
::In the perpetually enacted and iterated act/stance/position. My ongoing
::[remix] series of posts to rhizome RAW are a personal example. Ray Johnson's
::life/death and mail art, Joseph Beuys pedagogy, and D.J. Spooky's perpetual
::remix as talisman are precedences. Even Howard Finster, Daniel Johnston, and
::Henry Darger qualify, albeit in a less consciously tactical capacity --
::prodigiously outputting without thought of object
::uniqueness/scarcity/worth/market value. The act of perpetual creation is the
::art, and the output is (to greater or lesser degrees) incidental ephemera.
::William Blake almost qualifies. The stream is perpetual; it becomes the new
::"event object;" and in this stream the aura is embedded. Note: This approach
::takes lots of energy.
::
::3.
::In the boundaries of context. Our Deep/Young Ethereal Archive (
::http://deepyoung.org ) is a personal example. Precedences and co-examples
::are:
::http://www.mjt.org/ ,
::http://www.grographics.com/theysaysmall/small/RotherhitheUniversity/ ,
::http://www.museum-ordure.org.uk/ .
::http://www.thatwordwhichmeanssmugglingacrossbordersincorporated.com/ ,
::http://www.dearauntnettie.com/gallery/ .
::This approach necessarily involves disorientation and re-orientation. The
::contextual frame is soft, and the aura is embedded into this soft frame.
::Keeping this frame soft is a delicate matter. It requires a heightened,
::sometimes schizophrenic sense of performative awareness (cf: Ray Johnson,
::David Wilson). It may require the artist to alienate "real" art institutions
::wishing to fit the art into their frame. As the artist of such work, I can't
::overtly foreground the soft contextual frame as my intended locus of aura. If
::I do, the soft frame I'm working so hard to construct and keep soft
::immediately solidifies and is in turn meta-framed by a much more solid,
::didactic, "artist statement" frame; and the aura flies away. Note: Warhol
::well understood that an object's scarcity was a silly contemporary place for
::the aura to go. Instead, he ingeniously embedded the aura in the foregrounded
::concept of the object's scarcity. His deep awareness of this ironic
::relationship may explain why his art objects now sell for so much. (cf:
::http://www.dream-dollars.com/ ).
::
::4.
::In human relationships. Personal examples might be
::http://www.lab404.com/data/ and http://www.playdamage.org/quilt/ . Co-examples
::might be http://learningtoloveyoumore.com , http://www.foundmagazine.com/ ,
::and some of Jillian McDonald's performance pieces (
::http://www.jillianmcdonald.net/performance.html ). You could describe this as
::"network" art, but compare it to Alex Galloway's Carnivore, which is also
::network art, and you realize "network" is too broad a term. This human
::relationship art is not about the network as an abstract monolithic cultural
::entity. It is about humans who happen to be interacting with each other via
::networks. The aura is embedded not in the network, but in the human
::relationships that the art invites. As with locus #1 (In the
::destabilized/variable event/object), this locus necessarily involves chance,
::because human relationships necessarily involve chance.
::
::These four places for housing the aura are not mutually exclusive.
::Conceivably, a single artwork could house the aura in all four places. This
::warrants further artistic investigation.
::
::curt
::+
::-> post: list@rhizome.org
::-> questions: info@rhizome.org
::-> 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
::