Re: [-empyre-] PATINAGE and TURNBABY by Babel

An extremely simplistic analysis. There is always a danger in trying to keep
things simple as you end up falling foul of a reductivist ethic. Things are
not simple, they are complex. Analysis involves tracing the nebulous and
complex intertextualities in detail. Anything less is loose talk.

To even suggest that one can experience the real, just like that, is to
ignore the complexities involved. Who is the subject here and what are the
defining factors in its (their) consitution? What is the object, the thing
experienced? How is this consituted? What is the mediality of what you call
"experience"? How is that mediality constituted? Can any of these factors
exist outside culture(s)? Perhaps, if you are a 19th C romantic, you might
think this possible. I find that possibility unbelievable as it is an act of



On 07.03.05 22:21, "Edward Swick" <> wrote:

> --- Simon Biggs <> wrote:
>> I questioned whether there is a viable thing called
>> the "virtual" in the
>> sense that the notion of the "virtual" belongs to
>> that set of ideas
>> associated with "realism" in representation (eg:
>> virtual reality).
> To keep it simple one might consider virtual to mean
> that a person gets enough information from the virtual
> object to be able to experience as real.  That is It
> can be felt as real- seen as real and perhaps heard as
> real at the same time. Jargon can confuse reason so it
> is best to keep it simple, which may or may not be
> what artists do.  I prefer simplifying not
> complicating. Said with no intent to insult or harm. Ed
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum

Simon Biggs

Professor, Fine Art, Art and Design Research Centre
Sheffield Hallam University, UK

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