Re: [-empyre-] Do You Still Your Own Reality?

Reading Brett's posts I was waiting for some mention of the recent wave of practices... which seem to me to contain the seeds of something like this imaginary practice. Maybe some works in this field - those that avoid abyssal tail-eating reflexivity, and data.sublime aesthetic distraction - are examples of an
analytical practice that produces "reality congruency" tools/experiences that are non-didactic and non-ironic.

Does something like count as cheeky or preachy? Others will have better examples - I'm lagging on such things...


On 04/11/2004, at 11:06 AM, Brett Stalbaum wrote:

The nature of the practice that I am trying to imagine - and by no means have an answer for - would not in any way be anti-intellectual, btw. Just not cheeky or preachy. It should not tickle the anti-elite gene that George Bush has been so successful at hacking. (The "regular guy" member of the elite of the elite of U.S families.) It has to engage people intellectually and positively, or fail. It has to be inclusive, or at a minimum, inviting. It has to find other proteins to attach to, because the pedagogical and satirical vectors through which reason has traditionally spread have become somewhat immune. I'm not sure what to do about this, but what can't work for artists (in the U.S. now) is the status quo.

Mitchell Whitelaw
Program Director, Media / Multimedia Production
School of Creative Communication
University of Canberra

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.