ARTBASE (1)
PORTFOLIO (3)
BIO
Marc Garrett is co-director and co-founder, with artist Ruth Catlow of the Internet arts collectives and communities – Furtherfield.org, Furthernoise.org, Netbehaviour.org, also co-founder and co-curator/director of the gallery space formerly known as 'HTTP Gallery' now called the Furtherfield Gallery in London (Finsbury Park), UK. Co-curating various contemporary Media Arts exhibitions, projects nationally and internationally. Co-editor of 'Artists Re:Thinking Games' with Ruth Catlow and Corrado Morgana 2010. Hosted Furtherfield's critically acclaimed weekly broadcast on UK's Resonance FM Radio, a series of hour long live interviews with people working at the edge of contemporary practices in art, technology & social change. Currently doing an Art history Phd at the University of London, Birkbeck College.
Net artist, media artist, curator, writer, street artist, activist, educationalist and musician. Emerging in the late 80′s from the streets exploring creativity via agit-art tactics. Using unofficial, experimental platforms such as the streets, pirate radio such as the locally popular ‘Savage Yet Tender’ alternative broadcasting 1980′s group, net broadcasts, BBS systems, performance, intervention, events, pamphlets, warehouses and gallery spaces. In the early nineties, was co-sysop (systems operator) with Heath Bunting on Cybercafe BBS with Irational.org.
Our mission is to co-create extraordinary art that connects with contemporary audiences providing innovative, engaging and inclusive digital and physical spaces for appreciating and participating in practices in art, technology and social change. As well as finding alternative ways around already dominating hegemonies, thus claiming for ourselves and our peer networks a culturally aware and critical dialogue beyond traditional hierarchical behaviours. Influenced by situationist theory, fluxus, free and open source culture, and processes of self-education and peer learning, in an art, activist and community context.
Net artist, media artist, curator, writer, street artist, activist, educationalist and musician. Emerging in the late 80′s from the streets exploring creativity via agit-art tactics. Using unofficial, experimental platforms such as the streets, pirate radio such as the locally popular ‘Savage Yet Tender’ alternative broadcasting 1980′s group, net broadcasts, BBS systems, performance, intervention, events, pamphlets, warehouses and gallery spaces. In the early nineties, was co-sysop (systems operator) with Heath Bunting on Cybercafe BBS with Irational.org.
Our mission is to co-create extraordinary art that connects with contemporary audiences providing innovative, engaging and inclusive digital and physical spaces for appreciating and participating in practices in art, technology and social change. As well as finding alternative ways around already dominating hegemonies, thus claiming for ourselves and our peer networks a culturally aware and critical dialogue beyond traditional hierarchical behaviours. Influenced by situationist theory, fluxus, free and open source culture, and processes of self-education and peer learning, in an art, activist and community context.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: notes for a hypothetical essay on relocating the aura
Hi Curt,
>Doh! Hazan actually uses the word "wonder," takes Benjamin to task for
>celebrating the loss of something that we now miss, and speculates about
>ways to relocate the aura in non-object art -- and all this in 2001!
>It makes me feel two things: 1. I'm not so crazy or off-center for
>re-reading Benjamin this way and trying to explore all this. 2. I'm not
>as original a thinker as I thought. 3. There's never enough time for
reading!
>I need to read Hazan's entire essay, but already I take issue with the
>phrasing of the term "virtual aura." I know she means "an aura which
>surrounds a 'virtual' non-object space," but the phrase "virtual aura"
>reads as if she's describing the aura itself as being virtual. Which
>is a big "duh." It was already "virtual" pre-Benjamin in the era of the
>art object. Plus I hate the word "virtual." It's so 1989 Jaron Lanier
>VR goggles techgnosis. I would at least rephrase it as "aura of the
virtual."
I think that the intention of the writing offers an interesting
perspective, especially about the subject of the 'aura' which is, or was
being discussed here 'contextually' with others, as well. Her use of the
word 'virtual', I feel is probably old-hat now, and is one of those more
commercially orientated terms, a buzz word that seemed attractive at
that time. It sold films ;-)
I think that 'virtual' probably means something a little more
dysfunctional now, and less positive - in reference to us all being
displaced in many ways culturally and emotionally. It may connect more
to the circumstance of us being caught up in Hyper Reality.
"Today's avalanche of powerful new representational electronic tools has
created a dramatic change in the premises for art, calling into question
the way we see, the way we acquire knowledge, and the way we understand
it. Contemporary artists face a dilemma unimaginable even at the
beginning of the twentieth century when photography and cinematography
created a crisis in existing traditions of representation. Electronic
tools and media have shattered the very paradigm of cognition and
representation we have been operating under since the Renaissance."
(Lovejoy 13) Digital Currents: Art in the Electronic Age.
In regard to many of us dealing with expanding our way of working when
using technology, and contemporary thought and practises - we have
become controllers of our own creative noise, via a pact of being what
we desired to be. Perhaps we are now too self aware, and need to loosen
our presumptive mind maps so to enable a more 'inner' subjectivity, that
transgresses, expectations of the medium that we are all so well
connected with.
One of the interesting things about Net Art, (not net.art) was that many
people were discovering not only their own limitations in respect of
capabilities with the use of the technological, medium itself but, also
the 'self limitations' of the content, and what it was to be in its own
right. The wonder of coming to terms with a fresh way of working, and a
more fluid, networked sensibility offered a spurious and strange space
for a less critical nuance, and potentially more playful reflections and
experience about one's own creative involvement with such a new medium.
I'm not trying to suggest that we have lost our innocence, but in
biblical terms - we have happily chewed on the apple, and perhaps some
people might be coming to terms with this technological apple, as being
rotten to the core. I don't mean us - I mean, the whole world, and the
Internet rolled in with it. Various utopian connected scenarios have not
come to be, and have got lost on the way-side, in which those who have
been in control of our nations - have paid no mind to the real potential
of transforming our world for something more progressive (don't mention
the war).
And surely, with many of us being so readily connected to 24 hour
information via satellite and the Internet, it has given us a more
'aware' (relatively) and 'sceptical' view of the world, in which we are
part of. Perhaps, we have not lost our innocence in the biblical sense
but, more in a humanist sense. Us human - have grown up, and this sense
of awe, our once interpreted notion of what was once perceived to an
'aura', is now more hidden, within our selves, and is not necessarily
just about looking outside, as in the 'other' or the 'sublime', but it
is closer than we originally imagined.
Perhaps, this 'aura' has changed shape - it no longer fits into the
older container of what we once (as humans) required it to conform to.
That we no longer need what was traditionally acquainted, and created by
geniuses, and because we are literally reshaping paradigms without even
being conscious of us doing it sometimes, due to the hybrid nature of
our practises - that, we need to adapt in a way that is not more
informed intuitively. Actively making re-connections to certain parts of
our lives that we swapped, for what we are now.
So what I mean in respect of the aura not being the same shape that we
originally thought (hoped) it to be is, that we have grown and mutated
in so many different ways, and due to this, perhaps certain aspects of
our inner selves have not grown accordingly, at the same rate. This want
of an 'aura', is very much to do with a non material sensibility, and
art is not really a problem here - I think that it is a bigger thing, or
things, strongly linked to ourselves and how we wish to recognise what
really matters in, the greater scheme of things. And I am not just
talking politics here, I mean social things, people stuff.
>As an aside, I think one of the reasons politically-motivated activist
>art is so appealing to materialists is that the "accuracy" of its
>underlying rhetoric is at least (ostensibly) objectively quantifiable
>in terms of the social impact the art has. Of course, in "reality," its
>impact is largely unquantifiable, since "social science" is the
>quintessential oxymoron of our era. But at least you can quantify how
>many people signed your online petition or voted for your candidate of
>choice -- similar to counting how many people came to your gallery
opening.
Well, may be 'politically-motivated activist art', especially in respect
of media art, actually has stronger links to a more immediate,
contemporary form of symbolism. What I mean by this, is that we are now
in a culture when words and terms and events can mean many things at
once, and less about a singular, mono-cultural, or mono-theist notion,
or state of belief. Things are more tightly connected and related,
bleeding over the 'supposed source' or intended meaning of things - thus
creating 'tagged', meanings by associations. We are semiotic without
even knowing that we are. We are so closely connected to events and
issues happening around the world, not usually in a aphysical way but,
in a distant way - we have become tourists and part of an
overly-mediated, set of networks. Everything is second-hand, not quite
solid, not quite where we think it should be, everything is shifting all
of the time. Our perceptions are no longer reliable signifiers of the
real, we have only personal assumptions as guides out of the darkness,
our own notions of what is real - comforts us. Whether they be authentic
or not...
>Yet we artists (especially those who don't believe in a spiritual
>realm) have an almost impossible time discussing the nuances of something
>like "aura," presumably because it's not "real." Which only means it's
>not physically verifiable. For example, if my paradigm of the aura is
>more accurate than another artist's paradigm of the aura, and I build an
>art bomb based on my paradigm, and she builds an art bomb based on her
>paradigm, there's no "real" way to judge the effectiveness of either
>art bomb, because neither "really" blows up any physical stuff.
[note to MTAA: build a conceptual art project that really blows up physical
>stuff.]
May be it could have something to do with the context of so many
contemporary artists growing up in a world that does not value the inner
depths of life, in art, or anywhere in fact. And organized religion has
not really done a good job at promoting that they know anything of
worth. Of course the same goes for most things really, I think
contemporary culture is a bit shitty all round really - and material
sensation at least creates a sense of attachment in some way - that
other things have failed to do. I'm referring to physical sensations
here, like sex, drugs and flower arranging (joke).
If I was to be asked, what I consider one type of 'aura' may be, and
presuming that there is a possibiltiy that it is not a singular or
mono-essence - I would choose the 'imagination' as an 'aura', that is
also my freedom, and when I am confronted or introduced to other
people's creative imaginations, in their various forms, expounded or
released via their imagination - the experience it can, give me, a sense
of wonder- we cannot touch it but, it can touch us :-)
marc
>Doh! Hazan actually uses the word "wonder," takes Benjamin to task for
>celebrating the loss of something that we now miss, and speculates about
>ways to relocate the aura in non-object art -- and all this in 2001!
>It makes me feel two things: 1. I'm not so crazy or off-center for
>re-reading Benjamin this way and trying to explore all this. 2. I'm not
>as original a thinker as I thought. 3. There's never enough time for
reading!
>I need to read Hazan's entire essay, but already I take issue with the
>phrasing of the term "virtual aura." I know she means "an aura which
>surrounds a 'virtual' non-object space," but the phrase "virtual aura"
>reads as if she's describing the aura itself as being virtual. Which
>is a big "duh." It was already "virtual" pre-Benjamin in the era of the
>art object. Plus I hate the word "virtual." It's so 1989 Jaron Lanier
>VR goggles techgnosis. I would at least rephrase it as "aura of the
virtual."
I think that the intention of the writing offers an interesting
perspective, especially about the subject of the 'aura' which is, or was
being discussed here 'contextually' with others, as well. Her use of the
word 'virtual', I feel is probably old-hat now, and is one of those more
commercially orientated terms, a buzz word that seemed attractive at
that time. It sold films ;-)
I think that 'virtual' probably means something a little more
dysfunctional now, and less positive - in reference to us all being
displaced in many ways culturally and emotionally. It may connect more
to the circumstance of us being caught up in Hyper Reality.
"Today's avalanche of powerful new representational electronic tools has
created a dramatic change in the premises for art, calling into question
the way we see, the way we acquire knowledge, and the way we understand
it. Contemporary artists face a dilemma unimaginable even at the
beginning of the twentieth century when photography and cinematography
created a crisis in existing traditions of representation. Electronic
tools and media have shattered the very paradigm of cognition and
representation we have been operating under since the Renaissance."
(Lovejoy 13) Digital Currents: Art in the Electronic Age.
In regard to many of us dealing with expanding our way of working when
using technology, and contemporary thought and practises - we have
become controllers of our own creative noise, via a pact of being what
we desired to be. Perhaps we are now too self aware, and need to loosen
our presumptive mind maps so to enable a more 'inner' subjectivity, that
transgresses, expectations of the medium that we are all so well
connected with.
One of the interesting things about Net Art, (not net.art) was that many
people were discovering not only their own limitations in respect of
capabilities with the use of the technological, medium itself but, also
the 'self limitations' of the content, and what it was to be in its own
right. The wonder of coming to terms with a fresh way of working, and a
more fluid, networked sensibility offered a spurious and strange space
for a less critical nuance, and potentially more playful reflections and
experience about one's own creative involvement with such a new medium.
I'm not trying to suggest that we have lost our innocence, but in
biblical terms - we have happily chewed on the apple, and perhaps some
people might be coming to terms with this technological apple, as being
rotten to the core. I don't mean us - I mean, the whole world, and the
Internet rolled in with it. Various utopian connected scenarios have not
come to be, and have got lost on the way-side, in which those who have
been in control of our nations - have paid no mind to the real potential
of transforming our world for something more progressive (don't mention
the war).
And surely, with many of us being so readily connected to 24 hour
information via satellite and the Internet, it has given us a more
'aware' (relatively) and 'sceptical' view of the world, in which we are
part of. Perhaps, we have not lost our innocence in the biblical sense
but, more in a humanist sense. Us human - have grown up, and this sense
of awe, our once interpreted notion of what was once perceived to an
'aura', is now more hidden, within our selves, and is not necessarily
just about looking outside, as in the 'other' or the 'sublime', but it
is closer than we originally imagined.
Perhaps, this 'aura' has changed shape - it no longer fits into the
older container of what we once (as humans) required it to conform to.
That we no longer need what was traditionally acquainted, and created by
geniuses, and because we are literally reshaping paradigms without even
being conscious of us doing it sometimes, due to the hybrid nature of
our practises - that, we need to adapt in a way that is not more
informed intuitively. Actively making re-connections to certain parts of
our lives that we swapped, for what we are now.
So what I mean in respect of the aura not being the same shape that we
originally thought (hoped) it to be is, that we have grown and mutated
in so many different ways, and due to this, perhaps certain aspects of
our inner selves have not grown accordingly, at the same rate. This want
of an 'aura', is very much to do with a non material sensibility, and
art is not really a problem here - I think that it is a bigger thing, or
things, strongly linked to ourselves and how we wish to recognise what
really matters in, the greater scheme of things. And I am not just
talking politics here, I mean social things, people stuff.
>As an aside, I think one of the reasons politically-motivated activist
>art is so appealing to materialists is that the "accuracy" of its
>underlying rhetoric is at least (ostensibly) objectively quantifiable
>in terms of the social impact the art has. Of course, in "reality," its
>impact is largely unquantifiable, since "social science" is the
>quintessential oxymoron of our era. But at least you can quantify how
>many people signed your online petition or voted for your candidate of
>choice -- similar to counting how many people came to your gallery
opening.
Well, may be 'politically-motivated activist art', especially in respect
of media art, actually has stronger links to a more immediate,
contemporary form of symbolism. What I mean by this, is that we are now
in a culture when words and terms and events can mean many things at
once, and less about a singular, mono-cultural, or mono-theist notion,
or state of belief. Things are more tightly connected and related,
bleeding over the 'supposed source' or intended meaning of things - thus
creating 'tagged', meanings by associations. We are semiotic without
even knowing that we are. We are so closely connected to events and
issues happening around the world, not usually in a aphysical way but,
in a distant way - we have become tourists and part of an
overly-mediated, set of networks. Everything is second-hand, not quite
solid, not quite where we think it should be, everything is shifting all
of the time. Our perceptions are no longer reliable signifiers of the
real, we have only personal assumptions as guides out of the darkness,
our own notions of what is real - comforts us. Whether they be authentic
or not...
>Yet we artists (especially those who don't believe in a spiritual
>realm) have an almost impossible time discussing the nuances of something
>like "aura," presumably because it's not "real." Which only means it's
>not physically verifiable. For example, if my paradigm of the aura is
>more accurate than another artist's paradigm of the aura, and I build an
>art bomb based on my paradigm, and she builds an art bomb based on her
>paradigm, there's no "real" way to judge the effectiveness of either
>art bomb, because neither "really" blows up any physical stuff.
[note to MTAA: build a conceptual art project that really blows up physical
>stuff.]
May be it could have something to do with the context of so many
contemporary artists growing up in a world that does not value the inner
depths of life, in art, or anywhere in fact. And organized religion has
not really done a good job at promoting that they know anything of
worth. Of course the same goes for most things really, I think
contemporary culture is a bit shitty all round really - and material
sensation at least creates a sense of attachment in some way - that
other things have failed to do. I'm referring to physical sensations
here, like sex, drugs and flower arranging (joke).
If I was to be asked, what I consider one type of 'aura' may be, and
presuming that there is a possibiltiy that it is not a singular or
mono-essence - I would choose the 'imagination' as an 'aura', that is
also my freedom, and when I am confronted or introduced to other
people's creative imaginations, in their various forms, expounded or
released via their imagination - the experience it can, give me, a sense
of wonder- we cannot touch it but, it can touch us :-)
marc
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: notes for a hypothetical essay on relocating the aura
Hi curt and all,
>I agree that the aura is ultimately nebulous.
"What had been forfeited in this process, were the 'aura' and the
authority of the object, scarred, yet also embellished with the patina
of time and prismatic with the marks of human endeavour. It was the aura
that contained within it the values of cultural heritage and tradition.
Even though for Benjamin, the loss of the aura meant the loss of the
original, the transformation or liberation of the art object to the
ordinary represented a gain. For Benjamin, what had then replaced the
original at that time was the illusion of the moving image, and the
duplication of the photograph. For post-modern society, it has become
the digital image. While Benjamin celebrated the magical aura that had
been forfeited as a liberating phenomenon, one cannot help but speculate
whether there is still a need for a space of wonder or enchantment in a
technological world. Perhaps society still craves such a space, now more
than ever, and seeks it in extraordinary places, such as in the museum.
If so, then can this lost aura be compensated for or reconstituted in
any way in a virtual environment in a networked society?" The Virtual
Aura - Is There Space for Enchantment in a Technological World? Susan
Hazan. http://www.archimuse.com/mw2001/papers/hazan/hazan.html
In his book Real Presences/ Is There Anything In What We Say? George
Steiner says "The aura is of an otherness, an awe-fullness whose source
is felt as the Maker. And it is a transcendental source not just in
music but in other arts too, although they seem to be less adequately
underwritten by the sacred. Rationality dictates that this is no more
than presupposition. It is clearly a wager; the postulate cannot be proven."
So, in the world that we are all caught up in today, a networked society
and (possibly) networked consciousnesses (not as in telapathically) - to
assume, especially now - or take for granted (which you do not of
course), that art possesses, the presence of aura because it says it
does, or because someone else says it does - does not necessarily make
it true or real in actually possessing it. Which has to be said,
regarding the context and potential of a future representaion of the
aura by artists etc..
>That's what makes it aura instead of "psychic affectivity" or
"relational aesthetic." In a way, this is why I take issue a bit with
Alexis saying that I want to create a "religious object." I think I know
what she means, but that's too confining a definition.
And to propose that a specific genre, style or intention within art,
whatever it may be, is more valid due to a cultural coding of 'given'
spiritually, related 'values' or entwined, (fine art) connected
aesthetic, is much more likely to come down to whatever feels right at
the time. The re-enchantment or exploring, partaking in the process of
re-discovering what some perceive to be lost, as in the 'aura' - is not
a facile or useless adventure, after all, much of art is useless. And
dialogue from these discoverers may offer new interpretations about
ourselves, our cultures and our practises in different ways, and we
could learn from this.
Anyway, I'll stop now - thanks everyone - I have enjoyed this one :-)
marc
>Hi Marc,
>
>I agree that the aura is ultimately nebulous. That's what makes it aura instead of "psychic affectivity" or "relational aesthetic." In a way, this is why I take issue a bit with Alexis saying that I want to create a "religious object." I think I know what she means, but that's too confining a definition. If my didactic agenda is to create a codified "religious" object, then I'll never court the aura.
>
>I don't want to co-opt the aura or limit it (not that I could do that anyway). I just want to figure out ways my own art can better court it. Ultimately, this will be discovered experientially in the making.
>
>I'll leave off Badiou and Benjamin and return to the philosophers of my youth:
>
>"Don't need no woman, I won't take me no wife
>I got the rock and roll and that'll be my life
>No page in history baby -- that, I don't need
>I just want to make some eardrums bleed"
>- Spinal Tap
>
>"This is it / This is mystical shit"
>- King Missile
>
>peace,
>curt
>
>
>marc garrett wrote:
>
>There is no obvious demographic to refer to, in respect of tracing its
>where abouts, especially when we are still not actually sure what an
>aura is, and on who's terms do we appreciate it or see it on? Because,
>you can be sure that once someone or certain people, decide that they
>have, or they know whereit is and who has it, they will pitchup their
>own flag. Put a patent on it and sell it, Just like the (disgusting)
>claiming of 'our', 'humanities' and the world's, genetic code - we will
>be faced with more ugly and (empty) people, trying to make a quick and
>expensive buck by selling us back our own auras. And in a way, this is
>my perspective and argument, in regard to anyone trying to pitch up a
>flag and claiming cultural or spirtual agency over something as
>(presently) untouchable as an 'aura'.
>+
>-> 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
>
>
>
>
>I agree that the aura is ultimately nebulous.
"What had been forfeited in this process, were the 'aura' and the
authority of the object, scarred, yet also embellished with the patina
of time and prismatic with the marks of human endeavour. It was the aura
that contained within it the values of cultural heritage and tradition.
Even though for Benjamin, the loss of the aura meant the loss of the
original, the transformation or liberation of the art object to the
ordinary represented a gain. For Benjamin, what had then replaced the
original at that time was the illusion of the moving image, and the
duplication of the photograph. For post-modern society, it has become
the digital image. While Benjamin celebrated the magical aura that had
been forfeited as a liberating phenomenon, one cannot help but speculate
whether there is still a need for a space of wonder or enchantment in a
technological world. Perhaps society still craves such a space, now more
than ever, and seeks it in extraordinary places, such as in the museum.
If so, then can this lost aura be compensated for or reconstituted in
any way in a virtual environment in a networked society?" The Virtual
Aura - Is There Space for Enchantment in a Technological World? Susan
Hazan. http://www.archimuse.com/mw2001/papers/hazan/hazan.html
In his book Real Presences/ Is There Anything In What We Say? George
Steiner says "The aura is of an otherness, an awe-fullness whose source
is felt as the Maker. And it is a transcendental source not just in
music but in other arts too, although they seem to be less adequately
underwritten by the sacred. Rationality dictates that this is no more
than presupposition. It is clearly a wager; the postulate cannot be proven."
So, in the world that we are all caught up in today, a networked society
and (possibly) networked consciousnesses (not as in telapathically) - to
assume, especially now - or take for granted (which you do not of
course), that art possesses, the presence of aura because it says it
does, or because someone else says it does - does not necessarily make
it true or real in actually possessing it. Which has to be said,
regarding the context and potential of a future representaion of the
aura by artists etc..
>That's what makes it aura instead of "psychic affectivity" or
"relational aesthetic." In a way, this is why I take issue a bit with
Alexis saying that I want to create a "religious object." I think I know
what she means, but that's too confining a definition.
And to propose that a specific genre, style or intention within art,
whatever it may be, is more valid due to a cultural coding of 'given'
spiritually, related 'values' or entwined, (fine art) connected
aesthetic, is much more likely to come down to whatever feels right at
the time. The re-enchantment or exploring, partaking in the process of
re-discovering what some perceive to be lost, as in the 'aura' - is not
a facile or useless adventure, after all, much of art is useless. And
dialogue from these discoverers may offer new interpretations about
ourselves, our cultures and our practises in different ways, and we
could learn from this.
Anyway, I'll stop now - thanks everyone - I have enjoyed this one :-)
marc
>Hi Marc,
>
>I agree that the aura is ultimately nebulous. That's what makes it aura instead of "psychic affectivity" or "relational aesthetic." In a way, this is why I take issue a bit with Alexis saying that I want to create a "religious object." I think I know what she means, but that's too confining a definition. If my didactic agenda is to create a codified "religious" object, then I'll never court the aura.
>
>I don't want to co-opt the aura or limit it (not that I could do that anyway). I just want to figure out ways my own art can better court it. Ultimately, this will be discovered experientially in the making.
>
>I'll leave off Badiou and Benjamin and return to the philosophers of my youth:
>
>"Don't need no woman, I won't take me no wife
>I got the rock and roll and that'll be my life
>No page in history baby -- that, I don't need
>I just want to make some eardrums bleed"
>- Spinal Tap
>
>"This is it / This is mystical shit"
>- King Missile
>
>peace,
>curt
>
>
>marc garrett wrote:
>
>There is no obvious demographic to refer to, in respect of tracing its
>where abouts, especially when we are still not actually sure what an
>aura is, and on who's terms do we appreciate it or see it on? Because,
>you can be sure that once someone or certain people, decide that they
>have, or they know whereit is and who has it, they will pitchup their
>own flag. Put a patent on it and sell it, Just like the (disgusting)
>claiming of 'our', 'humanities' and the world's, genetic code - we will
>be faced with more ugly and (empty) people, trying to make a quick and
>expensive buck by selling us back our own auras. And in a way, this is
>my perspective and argument, in regard to anyone trying to pitch up a
>flag and claiming cultural or spirtual agency over something as
>(presently) untouchable as an 'aura'.
>+
>-> 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
>
>
>
>
Re: Re: Re: Re: notes for a hypothetical essay on relocating the aura
Some thoughts on relocating aura.
I have read almost all of the mails and found them interesting, and have
enjoyed much of it - whether I agreed with someof the wordings, concepts
or ideas around it or not.
Getting to the question of whether there is any Da Da? I think that
there could be an argument that there is no way of telling, and probably
just as much Ga Ga, as Da Da.
My first feeling regarding this is, did we ever loose it, and if so, did
we ever have it? The other thing is perhaps if we did have the 'aura',
may be it moves around sometimes like a meme or a virus, appropriating
different countries, peoples, places, kinds of practises, at different
times - or perhaps not.
There is no obvious demographic to refer to, in respect of tracing its
where abouts, especially when we are still not actually sure what an
aura is, and on who's terms do we appreciate it or see it on? Because,
you can be sure that once someone or certain people, decide that they
have, or they know whereit is and who has it, they will pitchup their
own flag. Put a patent on it and sell it, Just like the (disgusting)
claiming of 'our', 'humanities' and the world's, genetic code - we will
be faced with more ugly and (empty) people, trying to make a quick and
expensive buck by selling us back our own auras. And in a way, this is
my perspective and argument, in regard to anyone trying to pitch up a
flag and claiming cultural or spirtual agency over something as
(presently) untouchable as an 'aura'.
In contrast to what many may believe in respect of myself - I do believe
that there is some kind of soul within us all but, not necessarily
implanted by a conscious omnipresent (or omni-non present being). Much
of what many call 'existential angst', is not an emptiness in the
literal sense but, more of a deep refelection (which could contant
self-honsety) of a crisis regarding one's own authentic state of being,
in relation to others, the other, and personal relevance in the greater
and micro scheme of things.
To impliment a a type of art that represents more specifially, a
consciousness towards the 'aura', or conceptions of it, is not a new
concept and does not have to be new, of course. Yet, human behaviour (in
art or outside it) is more expanisve in its spirit, and surely cannot be
limited by the function of closing down (certain) creative avenues, and
tagging it with any (re-modernist or mono-cultural) genre, which may
seem to support its meaning or presence, but only on the surface. This
would act as a kind of containment and political stance, claiming
territory over the artist/individual creative voice, or the creatives',
own inner state of inherited, and discovered consciousness - working at
merely appropriating what signifies, or what is assumed and deemd as
'right' or 'wrong' via 'higher than though' protocols, instigating yet
another excuse for censorship, and controls over what we do as content
and context providers, whatever the work is.
Perhaps part of the 'aura', is not necessarily the outcome but, more the
process of engaging in the making of art, not what it looks like, not
even the message that it gives - and this can go for the experience of
people sharing it via experiencing it, whatever it is. To limit any
creative act or motion, to a specific genre or arena of art is to trap
the voice and resonance of the whole wider thing, culturally, creating a
mono-culture and thought police - that's why many artists (not all) get
bored with references, that are continually regurgitated from history
and implimented canons, because it does not realistically embody, what
they personally believe relates to their own explorative perceptions of
their own work and ideas.
I am happy that the word is not easily definable by words alone, or even
experience alone - measuring things is such facile and male way of
knowing something, sometimes...
A 'sense of wonder' has no patent attached to it, and art is not
(thankfully ) the only dipsensor of it - if there is and was an aura
that is...
Recently, I have been meeting people who work with Amnesty
International, and some of them are religious and some of them are not -
yet they all possess something to what may come close to what may be an
'aura' - and that is beautiful, not because they consciously decide to
have an 'aura'. Many of them have a sense of wonder about them, about
the world around them and what is happening to it and those in it, which
encourages some of them to carry on doing what they are doing, because
they believe in life above the shallowness and easy option of murder and
control over other people's lives. I value this, and believe that art
can sometimes, seem a pretty cheap thing and a selfish activity, when
compared to those who make an effort to actually change things in the
world. As in, engaging in it and bothering to make a positive
difference, in contrast to the (ambigious) urge by those lesser beings,
who prefer to continue to support or fund such senseless killings - who
as far as I am concerned, lack 'soul', within themselves...
If one was to embark in the (conscious or unconscious) activity of
creating works that are inspired by the belief or passion in engaging
via the process of intuitive reasoning, in connection with the 'aura', I
would of thought that it would be quite essential and productive to, at
the same time question whether what they are creating is a personal
'impression' of the subject or experience. For we all know that a road
to delusion is an easy path, and critical self-evaluation and shared
dialogue with those who do not immediately support such things are
useful, especially for challenging one's possible deceptions.
I do value and feel close to certain writers who touch upon
spiritualness, such as 'James Hillman' and 'Idris Shah'. I remember
once, when I did an interview for an organisation once, about Net Art,
and instead of mentioning some historical group, or movement or an
institionally inserted reference as a cannon, to justify my thoughts and
ideas, I mentioned a poem from a Sufi writer, which I felt encapsulated
where I was really coming from - they just could not cope with it and
never got back to me after the interview. It seemed to confuse them in
some way.
"Idries Shah's writings greatly extended the western knowledge of the
Sufi teachings. He had profound influence on several intellectuals,
notably Doris Lessing. His definition of Sufism was liberal in that he
was of the opinion that it predated Islam and did not depend on the
Qur'an, but was universal in source, scope and relevance. He maintained
that spiritual teachings should be presented in forms and terms that are
familiar in the community where they are to take root. He believed that
students should be given work based on their individual capacities, and
rejected systems that apply the same exercises to all. In his own work
he used teaching stories and humour to great effect."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idris_Shah#Works
I have a few books written by Idris Shah, one of them only had a forward
in it (a few pages), and some didactic and poetic texts - the rest of
the book, up to about 200 pages - were empty. Many followers of idris
Shah, would of expected the content of the book to possess much meaning,
knowledge and 'aura', and complained that he was having a joke on them
them. Perhaps he was, yet I felt that he was questioning our desires, as
insecure humans in, always trying to contain and measure uncontrollable
and matters of the other, in giving them labels or finding reason where
there is no reason, just air and life. I used it as a sketch book in the
end...
respect from marc
>curt cloning wrote:
>
>
>
>>I love the idea of a commitment to ambivalence.
>>
>>
>>
>
>before we let this thread lie to bed, I came across a text from the introductory notes on Virilio's Negative Horizon. Substitute the greater "Sovereign" with art and we have lift-off. I was going back on older networked art and thought, " how dependent these works are on the browser acting as interpreter ". Then I felt humbled, what if all our works are rendered outside of the environment: Netscape 3-7 (which altars my own work in so many ways www.edymond.com/door1.htm), fall apart. The original doorway renders well in most browsers, but fails in Safari. Jodi suffers an ignoble fate during the browser wars. Where then is the aura? I hope it still exists now, whereas I felt ambivalent I am now concerned. Well at least... *I am engaged*. Could i be ceding to the other side , evil though it might be?
>Read the following text from the Translation of Virilo's Negative Horizon, in fact spend the 5 dollars and read the entire text before you respond.
>Eric
>
>
>
>Minute 1
>
>What does one experience when the bell tolls? What is the experience of shock and awe? Certainly the absent-minded haze evaporates, but what replaces it? Is one thrown back into, or upon oneself? Does one take possession of himself in the moment? Or in all fairness, should we not better ask: can one really take possession of oneself, of one's self; Can one take possession of one self? Or does not the Sovereign rather feel himself somehow apart, both from himself and from the others? No longer really among them as before, he sees an other worldly aura about the children.Or is it rather the aura of the inner world?A certain aura, or halo, about each of of the children in the field of his experience as he continue it is there -da - among them.
>But is there any there there, any Da da?
>
>
>Eric
>+
>-> 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
>
>
>
>
I have read almost all of the mails and found them interesting, and have
enjoyed much of it - whether I agreed with someof the wordings, concepts
or ideas around it or not.
Getting to the question of whether there is any Da Da? I think that
there could be an argument that there is no way of telling, and probably
just as much Ga Ga, as Da Da.
My first feeling regarding this is, did we ever loose it, and if so, did
we ever have it? The other thing is perhaps if we did have the 'aura',
may be it moves around sometimes like a meme or a virus, appropriating
different countries, peoples, places, kinds of practises, at different
times - or perhaps not.
There is no obvious demographic to refer to, in respect of tracing its
where abouts, especially when we are still not actually sure what an
aura is, and on who's terms do we appreciate it or see it on? Because,
you can be sure that once someone or certain people, decide that they
have, or they know whereit is and who has it, they will pitchup their
own flag. Put a patent on it and sell it, Just like the (disgusting)
claiming of 'our', 'humanities' and the world's, genetic code - we will
be faced with more ugly and (empty) people, trying to make a quick and
expensive buck by selling us back our own auras. And in a way, this is
my perspective and argument, in regard to anyone trying to pitch up a
flag and claiming cultural or spirtual agency over something as
(presently) untouchable as an 'aura'.
In contrast to what many may believe in respect of myself - I do believe
that there is some kind of soul within us all but, not necessarily
implanted by a conscious omnipresent (or omni-non present being). Much
of what many call 'existential angst', is not an emptiness in the
literal sense but, more of a deep refelection (which could contant
self-honsety) of a crisis regarding one's own authentic state of being,
in relation to others, the other, and personal relevance in the greater
and micro scheme of things.
To impliment a a type of art that represents more specifially, a
consciousness towards the 'aura', or conceptions of it, is not a new
concept and does not have to be new, of course. Yet, human behaviour (in
art or outside it) is more expanisve in its spirit, and surely cannot be
limited by the function of closing down (certain) creative avenues, and
tagging it with any (re-modernist or mono-cultural) genre, which may
seem to support its meaning or presence, but only on the surface. This
would act as a kind of containment and political stance, claiming
territory over the artist/individual creative voice, or the creatives',
own inner state of inherited, and discovered consciousness - working at
merely appropriating what signifies, or what is assumed and deemd as
'right' or 'wrong' via 'higher than though' protocols, instigating yet
another excuse for censorship, and controls over what we do as content
and context providers, whatever the work is.
Perhaps part of the 'aura', is not necessarily the outcome but, more the
process of engaging in the making of art, not what it looks like, not
even the message that it gives - and this can go for the experience of
people sharing it via experiencing it, whatever it is. To limit any
creative act or motion, to a specific genre or arena of art is to trap
the voice and resonance of the whole wider thing, culturally, creating a
mono-culture and thought police - that's why many artists (not all) get
bored with references, that are continually regurgitated from history
and implimented canons, because it does not realistically embody, what
they personally believe relates to their own explorative perceptions of
their own work and ideas.
I am happy that the word is not easily definable by words alone, or even
experience alone - measuring things is such facile and male way of
knowing something, sometimes...
A 'sense of wonder' has no patent attached to it, and art is not
(thankfully ) the only dipsensor of it - if there is and was an aura
that is...
Recently, I have been meeting people who work with Amnesty
International, and some of them are religious and some of them are not -
yet they all possess something to what may come close to what may be an
'aura' - and that is beautiful, not because they consciously decide to
have an 'aura'. Many of them have a sense of wonder about them, about
the world around them and what is happening to it and those in it, which
encourages some of them to carry on doing what they are doing, because
they believe in life above the shallowness and easy option of murder and
control over other people's lives. I value this, and believe that art
can sometimes, seem a pretty cheap thing and a selfish activity, when
compared to those who make an effort to actually change things in the
world. As in, engaging in it and bothering to make a positive
difference, in contrast to the (ambigious) urge by those lesser beings,
who prefer to continue to support or fund such senseless killings - who
as far as I am concerned, lack 'soul', within themselves...
If one was to embark in the (conscious or unconscious) activity of
creating works that are inspired by the belief or passion in engaging
via the process of intuitive reasoning, in connection with the 'aura', I
would of thought that it would be quite essential and productive to, at
the same time question whether what they are creating is a personal
'impression' of the subject or experience. For we all know that a road
to delusion is an easy path, and critical self-evaluation and shared
dialogue with those who do not immediately support such things are
useful, especially for challenging one's possible deceptions.
I do value and feel close to certain writers who touch upon
spiritualness, such as 'James Hillman' and 'Idris Shah'. I remember
once, when I did an interview for an organisation once, about Net Art,
and instead of mentioning some historical group, or movement or an
institionally inserted reference as a cannon, to justify my thoughts and
ideas, I mentioned a poem from a Sufi writer, which I felt encapsulated
where I was really coming from - they just could not cope with it and
never got back to me after the interview. It seemed to confuse them in
some way.
"Idries Shah's writings greatly extended the western knowledge of the
Sufi teachings. He had profound influence on several intellectuals,
notably Doris Lessing. His definition of Sufism was liberal in that he
was of the opinion that it predated Islam and did not depend on the
Qur'an, but was universal in source, scope and relevance. He maintained
that spiritual teachings should be presented in forms and terms that are
familiar in the community where they are to take root. He believed that
students should be given work based on their individual capacities, and
rejected systems that apply the same exercises to all. In his own work
he used teaching stories and humour to great effect."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idris_Shah#Works
I have a few books written by Idris Shah, one of them only had a forward
in it (a few pages), and some didactic and poetic texts - the rest of
the book, up to about 200 pages - were empty. Many followers of idris
Shah, would of expected the content of the book to possess much meaning,
knowledge and 'aura', and complained that he was having a joke on them
them. Perhaps he was, yet I felt that he was questioning our desires, as
insecure humans in, always trying to contain and measure uncontrollable
and matters of the other, in giving them labels or finding reason where
there is no reason, just air and life. I used it as a sketch book in the
end...
respect from marc
>curt cloning wrote:
>
>
>
>>I love the idea of a commitment to ambivalence.
>>
>>
>>
>
>before we let this thread lie to bed, I came across a text from the introductory notes on Virilio's Negative Horizon. Substitute the greater "Sovereign" with art and we have lift-off. I was going back on older networked art and thought, " how dependent these works are on the browser acting as interpreter ". Then I felt humbled, what if all our works are rendered outside of the environment: Netscape 3-7 (which altars my own work in so many ways www.edymond.com/door1.htm), fall apart. The original doorway renders well in most browsers, but fails in Safari. Jodi suffers an ignoble fate during the browser wars. Where then is the aura? I hope it still exists now, whereas I felt ambivalent I am now concerned. Well at least... *I am engaged*. Could i be ceding to the other side , evil though it might be?
>Read the following text from the Translation of Virilo's Negative Horizon, in fact spend the 5 dollars and read the entire text before you respond.
>Eric
>
>
>
>Minute 1
>
>What does one experience when the bell tolls? What is the experience of shock and awe? Certainly the absent-minded haze evaporates, but what replaces it? Is one thrown back into, or upon oneself? Does one take possession of himself in the moment? Or in all fairness, should we not better ask: can one really take possession of oneself, of one's self; Can one take possession of one self? Or does not the Sovereign rather feel himself somehow apart, both from himself and from the others? No longer really among them as before, he sees an other worldly aura about the children.Or is it rather the aura of the inner world?A certain aura, or halo, about each of of the children in the field of his experience as he continue it is there -da - among them.
>But is there any there there, any Da da?
>
>
>Eric
>+
>-> 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
>
>
>
>
Furthernoise.org - Month Of Sunday's Live A/V Net Performances.
Furthernoise.org - Month Of Sunday's Live A/V Net Performances.
TODAY 16.00 - 18.00 hrs BST (GMT+1).
We kick off our series of live A/V net performances with a mix from the
creator & programmer of the file mixing platform Neil Jenkins &
Furthernoise editor and musician Roger Mills. Their performance
juxterposes generative images & textures with manipulated field
recordings, trumpet drones and rhythms taking on an otherworldly,
ethereal quality with underlying melancholy.
16.45 - 18.00 - Open Mix.
Everyone is welcome to join this Open Mix which is an international A/V
collaboration including contributions from viewers online as well as
audiences at the Watershed, Bristol & The Point CDC, New York. For
anyone who wants to contribute to this mix, media files must be a
maximum of 200k and can be mp3, swf, flv & jpg formats.
All mixes will be recorded to be featured in the next issue.
Log into file mixing studio - www.visitorsstudio.org
----------------------------------------------------
Related info:
For more info about VS - http://www.visitorsstudio.org/about_vs.html
Credits - http://www.visitorsstudio.org/about_vs.html#credits
TODAY 16.00 - 18.00 hrs BST (GMT+1).
We kick off our series of live A/V net performances with a mix from the
creator & programmer of the file mixing platform Neil Jenkins &
Furthernoise editor and musician Roger Mills. Their performance
juxterposes generative images & textures with manipulated field
recordings, trumpet drones and rhythms taking on an otherworldly,
ethereal quality with underlying melancholy.
16.45 - 18.00 - Open Mix.
Everyone is welcome to join this Open Mix which is an international A/V
collaboration including contributions from viewers online as well as
audiences at the Watershed, Bristol & The Point CDC, New York. For
anyone who wants to contribute to this mix, media files must be a
maximum of 200k and can be mp3, swf, flv & jpg formats.
All mixes will be recorded to be featured in the next issue.
Log into file mixing studio - www.visitorsstudio.org
----------------------------------------------------
Related info:
For more info about VS - http://www.visitorsstudio.org/about_vs.html
Credits - http://www.visitorsstudio.org/about_vs.html#credits
Urban Eyes at HTTP Gallery.
The opening is tonight - all welcome :-)
HTTP [House of Technologically Termed Praxis] presents
Urban Eyes
by Marcus Kirsch and Jussi Angesleva
Private View: 1st June 2006 7-9pm
Exhibition: 1st June - 9th July 2006
Friday- Sunday: 12noon-5pm
HTTP Gallery is pleased to present Urban Eyes, an intermedia project by
Marcus Kirsch and Jussi Angesleva. Urban Eyes uses wireless technology,
birdseeds and city pigeons to reconnect urban dwellers with their
surroundings.
The Urban Eyes feeding-platform stands in one of London's public spaces.
By landing on the platform, pigeons tagged with RFID chips send aerial
photographs of their locality to surrounding Bluetooth-enabled devices.
In this work pigeons become maverick messengers in the information
super-highway, fusing feral and digital networks. HTTP Gallery provides
an interface to the project, mixing live and documentary footage and
offering visitors an opportunity to experiment with Bluetooth.
Being one of the last remaining signs of nature in a metropolis such as
London, the urban pigeon population represents a network of
ever-changing patterns more complex than anything ever produced by a
machine. However pigeons' movements are based on a one-mile radius
around their nest. Any pigeon you see everyday shares the same turf as
you. Urban Eyes crosses and expands human mobility patterns offering to
reconnect you with your neighbourhood.
In the 1960s, situationists Debord and Jorn composed psycho-geographic
diagrams of Paris, which described navigational systems based on their
drift through the city. For this, they used Blondel la Rougery's Plan de
Paris a vol d'oiseau, a birds-eye map of Paris. Inspired by this
methodology, Urban Eyes enlists our feathered neighbours to establish a
connection between this view of the city as now distributed by Google
Earth and our terrestrial experience.
For more information:
http://www.http.uk.net/docs/exhib10/exhibitions10.htm
HTTP Gallery:
http://www.http.uk.net
Furtherfield:
http://www.Furtherfield.org
This project is supported by Arts Council England (London), V2 lab
(Rotterdam, Netherlands) and Furtherfield.org. Supported by Awards for All.
HTTP [House of Technologically Termed Praxis] presents
Urban Eyes
by Marcus Kirsch and Jussi Angesleva
Private View: 1st June 2006 7-9pm
Exhibition: 1st June - 9th July 2006
Friday- Sunday: 12noon-5pm
HTTP Gallery is pleased to present Urban Eyes, an intermedia project by
Marcus Kirsch and Jussi Angesleva. Urban Eyes uses wireless technology,
birdseeds and city pigeons to reconnect urban dwellers with their
surroundings.
The Urban Eyes feeding-platform stands in one of London's public spaces.
By landing on the platform, pigeons tagged with RFID chips send aerial
photographs of their locality to surrounding Bluetooth-enabled devices.
In this work pigeons become maverick messengers in the information
super-highway, fusing feral and digital networks. HTTP Gallery provides
an interface to the project, mixing live and documentary footage and
offering visitors an opportunity to experiment with Bluetooth.
Being one of the last remaining signs of nature in a metropolis such as
London, the urban pigeon population represents a network of
ever-changing patterns more complex than anything ever produced by a
machine. However pigeons' movements are based on a one-mile radius
around their nest. Any pigeon you see everyday shares the same turf as
you. Urban Eyes crosses and expands human mobility patterns offering to
reconnect you with your neighbourhood.
In the 1960s, situationists Debord and Jorn composed psycho-geographic
diagrams of Paris, which described navigational systems based on their
drift through the city. For this, they used Blondel la Rougery's Plan de
Paris a vol d'oiseau, a birds-eye map of Paris. Inspired by this
methodology, Urban Eyes enlists our feathered neighbours to establish a
connection between this view of the city as now distributed by Google
Earth and our terrestrial experience.
For more information:
http://www.http.uk.net/docs/exhib10/exhibitions10.htm
HTTP Gallery:
http://www.http.uk.net
Furtherfield:
http://www.Furtherfield.org
This project is supported by Arts Council England (London), V2 lab
(Rotterdam, Netherlands) and Furtherfield.org. Supported by Awards for All.