Re: [-empyre-] Why US DAT is Virtual

[Randall Packer <rpacker@zakros.com>]

Tobias,

Thanks for your comments and questions.

I have always believed that art is about reworking the minds who 
experience it. That is the way art (my work) effects change, as 
William Burroughs said, "Weapons that change consciousness can call 
the war game in question." US DAT is a model, it exists as an idea, 
but an idea that takes root in the mind of the viewer. US DAT is 
theater, it takes form as an action that seeks its catharsis by 
playing out possibilities that may not be, but certainly could be. It 
seeks to fulfill a desire to construct a universe that realizes a 
potential - that being the very definition of virtual - a potential, 
a need to become, to come into existence. To be concerned with "cause 
and effect" in the literal sense, that is not what my work is about, 
that is activism. I don't consider myself an activist, I don't even 
consider myself a "political artist," I consider myself an artist who 
composes situations and places those moments strategically  into time 
and space.

I also believe in the power of illusion, hence, the press releases, 
the remixing of presidential speeches, the pose as a politician. It 
is all illusion, even the real thing! US DAT plays into the illusion 
in order to deconstruct it and strip it down to its real intent. I am 
fascinated by political theater (inside the beltway) and have been 
making an effort to play with its icons, symbols, gestures, 
effects... because, in essence, that's primarily what it is, how it 
achieves its objectives.

The main difference between US DAT and the US Government is that they 
have real bombs while our weapons bring about, as Burroughs 
describes, consciousness explosions.

Randall

>  > Perhaps now is the
> >  time to generate tools for experiencing something other than a message,
> >  an argument, or a conceptual provocation? But what?
>
> Thanks for your words, M.
>
> I keep running into this idea too. Which isn't an idea, I guess, but rather
> a force. Rather than content, it seems the force has to do with extending
> the network itself to all spaces, niches, times.
>
> I tend to think of it in terms of the shift in property battles. Copyright
> issues of the '80s and '90s were very much about the content of a sample.
> The shift today seems to be toward the distribution of the means to sample:
> P2P networks, sample technologies (laptops). The battle is twofold: the
> content and the systems of distribution, with the latter eclipsing the
> former (downloading, sharing -- ie collectivization and the means of
> production in the hands of the 'virtual class'). If the network society
> creates their own content, then it will also redefine (unevenly) its notion
> of property. It is this redefinition which is being actively fought by
> copyright ownerships, for it steals the magic out of their cultural
> possessions.
>
> Focusing on the systems of distribution, however (I am thinking of the
> 'mobile' and 'locative' art that, at points, seems more about making
> something work than the experience of actual work), leads to the quagmire I
> am feeling so acutely: that there is little thought toward the result, the
> start, the idea, the content. None of which have to be message, argument, or
> provocation, but rather just thought-at-all: thought-about-it-all.
>
> What is ironic is the necessity of a content/form distinction when this
> _appears_ to have collapsed in contemporary art. Yet what appears to be
> hiding is a kind of thought-in-action, a desire, even.
>
> What I like about US-DAT is its thought-action. It has energy, life. I look
> forward to seeing where this is going.
>
> Perhaps a question, with due respect, to Randall:
>
> Is US-DAT for use to gain entry to the artworld, or to effect 'political'
> change (taking the 'political' as broadly as you wish)?
>
> Is it attempting to play both?
>
> Do you see the issue above as relevant, and if so, is US-DAT thinking of
> strategies and tactics to affect and effect? To make dents?
>
> The format of the press release, the remix and the mimed website all come to
> mind as tactical media strategies undergone so far: perhaps a speculation on
> what could be next?
>
> Does it mean turning away from representation to intervention, such as the
> work of social mapping and power cartography (TheyRule, Bureau d'Etudes),
> etc?
>
> (Of course, the question is a little sharp, so I will understand if an
> answer evades somewhat; in the artworld, as the academic world, we don't
> want to give away our gem ideas on email lists like these for free, do we?
> -- a comment mentioned to me over the past few days in a collaborative,
> mobile academic project).
>
> best,
>
>     tobias
>
>
>
>
> tobias c. van Veen -----------++++
> http://www.quadrantcrossing.org --
> http://www.thisistheonlyart.com --
> McGill Communication + Philosophy
> --- New School Philosophy --------
> ICQ: 18766209 | AIM: thesaibot +++
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre