[-empyre-] Process as paradigm

[Maria Verstappen]

Dear Aymeric,

On May 19, 2010, at 2:18 PM, Aymeric Mansoux wrote:
> 
> The problem is that usually what is emerging is too often perceived as a by-product of the process, which only gives to the audience only two opposite positions in between which they can navigate: On the one hand a passive state of contemplation - and here we could probably, indeed, develop the argument of an artist-god delivering honesis to the masses, or on the other hand, an active position of treasure hunting investigator trying
> to decipher the processed used by the artist.
> Within this limited choice, like Simon mentioned in a previous mail, there is a risk that the work will appear "naïve and simplistic, concerned with formal and abstract detail" because it only refers to itself and does not take into account anything else but its own existence. In this case this would be working against Lucas' interest
> seeing such processes engaging with "serious shit", not to mention missing the opportunity to understand the cultural impact of these processes if we focus too much on their underlying mechanical structure. 

These two positions are not opposite, they go hand in hand since an observer will only be willing to decipher the process if he/she is in some way intrigued by the generated output. A state of contemplation (observation) is needed to trigger analysis. It forms the basis of all natural sciences. Why is it seen as " a limited choice" in case of an artwork?
For me the problem lies more in the difficulty of programming a bottom-up process that is able to generate an output that is intriguing (emergent) enough over a longer time span, that in some ways can compete with Nature, also on a visual level. In an ideal situation, the viewer is confronted with the process for a long time (months) instead of only having a glimpse of it during a gallery visit. This is a difficult and ambitious task and I wouldn't  say that it is "naive and simplistic" to be "concerned with formal and abstract detail". 
For me it is totally okay to make this kind of self-referential works because it doesn't mean that such works can not engage with the world outside. They can trigger deep reflections about life & creation, autonomy & intervention, artificial versus natural etc. Maybe in a more indirect, philosophical way than some artworks that explicitly engage with the "serious shit" . When presented in an institutional context, thése works often appear to me as being naïve, simple and pretentious. Most of the time the artists' intentions are good, but they seem to lack the consciousness that - if art really wants to influence the socio-political field in a more direct way - we first need to reestablish the basic foundations of the relationship between art and politics. After WO2 society decided that it wasn't a good idea that art and politics have a strong interdependency. Since than our governments subsidize art because it represents an important democratic foundation: our "freedom of speech", but they do no longer openly interfere with the subject matter of art or its significance for society. This has its pros and cons but it certainly killed a lot of possibilities for constructive cultural engagement. Maybe this is going to change but at the moment the only possibility is to take the role of the activist, which implies operating against or outside the institutionalized networks.

Maria Verstappen
Driessens & Verstappen