Re: LIFESCIENCE: Re: A Reactionary Reaction

[Trevor <tebatt@dds.nl>]

---------------------------------------------------------
ARS ELECTRONICA FESTIVAL 99
LIFESCIENCE
Linz, Austria, September 04 - 09
http://www.aec.at/lifescience
---------------------------------------------------------
On 11-May-99, Prof. Dr. Birgit Richard wrote:

>sorry trevor i did not quite get your point in the following
>would you explain it to me?

>Trevor schrieb:

>>      i.e. Conceptualism        has   destroyed      Aesthetics

>what do you mean with conceptualism

"Conceptualism" concentrates on the "idea/concept" and uses the "Art Market"
as a
propaganda medium for its dispersal -instead of concentrating on the "Art
Process"
as a system which "mediates" the "idea/concept" through a complex dialogue
involving (art) historical, (material) production, (personal) aesthetic and
possibly even (commercial) marketing contexts.


>>
>>           Computerized tools   have  destroyed the  Medium
>>

>i think the kinds of media change but they are still media, they are based on
>mechanical or electronical devices, also these tools are not just harmless
>computerized tools but have implemented media structures.

If the "Media is the Message" (and I certainly believe it plays an
important part) then the precise nature of the medium is important if we
are to understand how it "mediates" in society.

The "Computer" is a materialisation of the "Universal Turing Machine".
In fact we probably NEVER see the computer (unless we program in binary
code).

Users only see the "User Interface" and always operate within the world
which is being simulated for them. It is a "conceptual" world and not a
"material" world.

Because most people do not understand the underlying concepts (and prefer
not to be aware of them) everything gets "de-materialised" but never makes
it as far as being "conceptualised".

So the "physical medium" dissapears -and there is no "conceptual medium"
to replace it (i.e. there is one -but few look for it).


>>           Virtual Reality      has   destroyed the  Metaphor

>but VR is totally metaphorical and based on metaphor and it uses metaphor
like
>that of an interface of a city

>>
>> The term "Virtual Reality" is redundant -because for the human mind ALL
>> reality is "virtual".

> yes d accord

So VR cannot be satisfied with the "mental metaphor" and has to make it
appear "real" -thus destroying the mental image by replacing it with a
sensory one.

As if that is not enough -it also (often) uses an exceptionally boring
(and reactionary) "Rennaisance Picturalism".


>>
>>           Post Modernism       has   destroyed      Value and Meaning

>> this sounds very conservative

I cannot deny it.

Post Modernism may be "morally" correct in equalising all value systems
(relativism) but it is "methodologically" wrong -because it prevents us from
looking to see how "meaning" changes in different contexts (relativity).



>> >of dada-like shocking tactics, but as Friedrich Kittler says art does not
>> >kill,
>> >but media do.
>>
>> Is art then not a medium?

>yes of course but it is not technically produced mechanically or
>electronically by
>a machine or something like that. it in general.  there is the
parallelization
>of
>media and war, after virilio  the movies and war

>> Actually, I heard George Steiner on television once saying that he had
>> concidered the problem of why many violent war criminals appeared also able
>to
>> appreciate sensitive forms of art.
>> He concluded it was not because they were insincere -but because they were
>so
>> involved in the "artistic virtual reality" that the reality of their deeds
>did
>> not occur to them.
>>

>a very thrilling and dangerous at one time. mass murderers and serial killers
>war
>criminals they totally lost the connection to human reality and are let by
>ideological and psychological principles that makes them forget to think
about
>the
>consequences. the same with the geneticist working in his laboratory doing
his
>science job without considering what military or commercial consequences this
>might be producing.

But what is "human reality" if ALL reality(*) is "virtual"?
Is "human reality" different to "non-human reality"?

Clearly, where the computer is used to generate and explore "non-human
reality"
then it is a valuable "exploratory medium" and not a simple "propaganda
tool".

>teenage violence has other implications, they are partly an expression of
>their
>bodily state of transfer between, they do not have a pychological or
>ideological
>master plan to fullfill.


So it looks as if mass murderers and serial killers may cause problems
BECAUSE they have a master plan
AND teenagers cause problems because they do NOT have one!

Perhaps this (often paradoxical) mutability of meaning in different
contexts is the real link to "biological" systems:

I do not believe "intuition" is contrary to "logic", or that "mutation"
must be "random".

How do those little nasties (that "speer" keeps informing us of) keep
managing to mutate and keep one step ahead of us in the game?

All those creative skills, dancing on the end of a flea's nose while it
dances on the bum of a rat.

Makes one feel small, don't it!

greetings,
trevor


(*) ps:

(I admit to using the word "reality" first -which is inconsistant, but it is a
difficult word to avoid. I should have said "consequences" -but this would not
have lead to remarks regarding the different "realities". This also
demonstrates how "path critical" creativity is!) TB.




---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to the English language version of LIFESCIENCE
To unsubscribe the English language version send mail to
lifescience-en-request@aec.at (message text 'unsubscribe')
Send contributions to lifescience@aec.at
--------------------------------------------------------------------------