OK, but if art can also have a real impact in the world, why deny that
possibility from happening? If one defers the possibility of effecting
practical change to others, in the future, one runs the risk of seeing
that change forever postponed... The proponents of the counterculture
of the 1960s thought that they could change history by changing human
consciousness. I don't think anyone would argue that the results were
particularly inspiring or effective.
A beautifully crafted concept / work of art can in fact be
communicated in a yes, performative manner - ie doing something at the
same time as saying something. To take an obvious example, the free
software movement may not be perfect (IBM would love to have its code
hacked for free) but it provides an interesting direction for
culture-makers to explore. It is important, I think, to not lose sight
that what you say is just as relevant as how you say it, what avenues
are used, what institutions are supported by speaking in a particular
context.
Best,
mathieu
On 13/10/2004, at 12:23 PM, Randall Packer wrote:
The notion of whether or not art should or can affect real change in
the world has been a motivating idea behind the US DAT project. I
believe that artists can bring about change but it may not
necessarily be through direct action. I believe that artists can
mediate change, be a medium for change, by introducing new models,
new ways of seeing the world. The artist awakens us to new
possibilities, proposes new ideas, turns us around to what "could
be," rather than simply "what is." This change may not be immediate,
but it might permeate our collective consciousness and gradually
emerge as a transformative force over time. That is what art can do,
that is what makes art unique. If US DAT were to be a real entity, an
object or a thing or a place, it would cease to be an artwork and it
would immediately lose its effectiveness, in my opinion. US DAT is
virtual and must remain that way. The definition of virtual according
to the media theorist Pierre Lévy, is that which has the potential of
coming into being. The potentiality of an idea is, for me, more
powerful than an action that causes an immediate result. An idea can
percolate over time, it can gain momentum and depth and perhaps
eventually really change the way we view the world, perhaps even end
wars. As Williams Burroughs said, "Weapons that change consciousness
can call the war game in question."
Randall
Beyond the traditional interventionist strategy of EPDC -- what is
its
politics -- does it seek to empower its audience or does it merely
inform -- does it organize or merely leave people as they were before
having been informed
As you might suspect from these questions my I view politics as
constituting the performative rather than the informational -- Its
all
fine and well to believe one is engaged -- yet that engagement must
extend beyond the relative freedom of the cultural sphere
Saul
>
> I wish you could have seen our recent installation, the
Experimental
> Party DisInformation Center, installed at LUXE gallery right in
the
> heart of the 57th St. gallery district in NYC during the
Republican
> Convention. Also the heart of the NYC Gucci neighborhood. Not a
> typical place for political art.
>
> In any case, we had everyone from students to activists to red
meat
> Republicans, etc. going through the gallery. Around 5,000 people
in
> two weeks. There was one group of students from a New School
> sociology class that had been given the assignment to view the
show
> and interview me. The Professor said the show had "opened the
eyes"
> of her students to the current political climate and the use of
> propaganda by the Republicans. These were kids not at all
experienced
> with contemporary new media art, so this struck me as
particularly
> compelling.
>
> To get to the point, US DAT is a form of "performance art" that
> dissolves the border between the virtual and physical realms of
> galleries, Web sites, press releases, live performance, etc. It
is
> intended to reach people viscerally in its use of fantasy and
satire,
> which I believe, has been effective in drawing a large audience
into
> thinking about complex issues that might otherwise be
inaccessible.
>
> I believe that if art has a political message, it needs to touch
> people, it needs to connect with people and the world they live
in.
> Otherwise, you are right, it comes off being not only humorless,
but
> colorless and ineffectual.
>
> Randall
>
>
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
--
Dr Mathieu O'Neil
Visiting Fellow
Centre for New Media Arts (CNMA)
Peter Karmel Building
Childers St
The Australian National University
Canberra ACT 0200 Australia
T: +61 02 6260 6124
F: +61 02 6247 0229
E: oneil@homemail.com.au
ANU new media group weblog:
http://underthesun.anu.edu.au/weblogs/underthesun/
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre