[-empyre-] incompatible research practices - week 03 - feedback & control // language & curating
magnus lawrie
magnus at ditch.org.uk
Wed Feb 22 09:50:40 EST 2012
Hello Ioana and all,
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 01:04:01PM -0800, I. J. wrote:
> Thank you, Gabriel, for inviting me, and to all contributors for still
> having me despite the postponement.
>
> Having just read Lasse and Magda’s posts, I think there might be some
> fruitful intersections (and “in/compatibilities�) between us.
>
> By way of introduction, I will say a few words about the research and
> performance project I am currently working on. This project has grown
> around some issues on which I presented at the reSource
> “in/compatible� workshop in November. In brief, I am interested in
> exploring the human-nature interaction and the relation between nature
> and technology today, as well as the role of reason and affect in the
> negotiation of these relations (I do want to hold on to the notion of
> “reason,� but I recognize that it needs to be reconceptualized for
> me to be able to do work with it). I think that one way to go about
> this (figuring out the role of reason and affect in the negotiation of
> these relations) is to turn to the notion of an experience of thought
> (a sort of embodied understanding; a thought experiment + the body) –
> a concept that I have been thinking about but have yet to develop. (I
> feel that I might be crossing paths with Lasse with my interest in what
> I term “an experience of thought,� particularly as regards his
> question: “How can moving a "mouse" on a table and pressing a finger
> onto that mouse while watching apparent motion on a computer screen be
> experienced as one integrated action: clicking on something?�).
There is a quote I recited in my own presentation for reSource:
“One should not necessarily flee or condemn circularity as one would a
bad repetition, a vicious circle, a regressive or sterile process. One
must, in a certain way of course, inhabit the circle, turn around in
it, live there a feast of thinking, and the gift, the gift of
thinking, would be no stranger there.” [1]
I wonder if this is in any way evocative of the of interfaces and the
intersections and in/compatibilities between this weeks discussants?
>
> Relatedly, I am interested in the question of the radical potential of
> myth and myth-making today, and of the possibility for a certain
> cross-fertilization between the natural and the technological through
> myth. I understand myth along the lines of what Ricardo Dominguez terms
> “the mythopoetic:� the opening of a space that allows one to create
> rituals of understanding around the social space, around pervasive
> epistemological-ontological constructs; a meta-space for transmission
> where conversation and experimentation can happen. One avenue of
> thinking about this network of connections developed around myth is
> that of a conceptualization of nature in terms of transformation, of
> change, of that which is slightly ahead of us, rather than as some kind
> of definite entity to be preserved (at stake here is a coming undone of
> the traditional nature-technology dichotomy to which I referred in my
> contribution to the “in/compatible� workshop). Key to this approach
> is acknowledging that new mechanisms of action-reaction (feedback, if
> you will) have emerged with recent technological developments, as well
> as trying to figure out what these mechanisms could be.
>
>
> As I mentioned earlier, my interests are now taking (artistic) shape in
> my current project, which is called “Techno-Mythologies.� This is a
> collaboration with poet Robert Snyderman
> ([1]http://www.thecorrespondingsociety.com/robertsnyderman). This past
> fall, Robert and I have had a series of theoretical conversations on
> our topic of interest (the relation between nature and technology
> today). In parallel, each of us worked on developing a play
> materializing in artistic form our different positions towards this
> topic (Robert's play is entitled "Voice Graffiti;" mine, "The Deaths of
> Pan"). Robert and I are now staging our plays (separately) and
> presenting them together in a performance-installation (we are working
> with visual artists: our shared set consists of paintings and
> sculptures that, in a way, re-create nature).
> Documentation of the project is available here:
> [2]http://technomyth.wordpress.com/. (* below is a brief description of
> The Deaths of Pan)
>
> Some challenges I am facing in my attempt to move across different
> disciplines (theatre and performance studies; philosophy; media
> studies), and between theory and practice in my academic and artistic
> work are:
> How can I embody and live what I theorize, without letting it close
> down my possibilities of experiencing? How can I make of my
> performance-making practice a learning experience (that materializes in
> some kind of knowledge acquisition or understanding) rather than an
> application of the theoretical outcomes of my research? (How) am I to
> justify my art practice in relation to my theoretical research and
> demonstrate its relevance to the latter? (this question matters because
> mine is a theory-focused PhD; its outcome will be a dissertation)
If I have understood well, Lasse and Magda have both indicated
creative practices which are in some degree exterior to the PhD.
Perhaps you could reflect on this in/compatibility as you experience
it also. There could be an interesting comparison emerging there. I
wonder.
There is so much more to your post - thank you and forgive me if I
don't respond further but instead take time to re-read it.
Best wishes,
Magnus
>
> I would also have some other thoughts about the relations and
> in/compatibilities between research and art practice in my case, but
> I’ll stop for now for fear that this post is already too long.
>
> I hope these thoughts will generate some discussion.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ioana
>
>
> * The Deaths of Pan is a one-hour performance that invites its audience
> to a thought-experiment: what has become of our memory now that we are
> increasingly relying on technological devices to remember for us, and
> what has become of our relationship to nature now that we increasingly
> live our lives in artificial and virtual worlds? Are we beginning to
> experience an acute nostalgia for what we now grow to realize is a life
> to which we no longer have access (a life of simplicity, in so-called
> “harmony� with nature)?
> Built around the myth of the mortal god of nature Pan (whose name is at
> the root of the word “panic�) and the nymph Echo, this
> thought-experiment is presented through the metaphor of a love story
> – “an anxious sudden intimacy worked out as a practical
> relationship – that devolves through jealousy and alienation� (in
> Erik Ehn’s reading of the play). The Deaths of Pan traces Pan and
> Echo’s journey together (or, rather, together apart), in a meditation
> on the human-nature interaction and the relation between nature and
> technology today.
> __________________________________________________________________
>
> From: Gabriel Menotti <gabriel.menotti at gmail.com>
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 2:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] incompatible research practices - week 03 -
> feedback & control // language & curating
> Hello again!
> I'm happy to say that Ioana Jucan, who could not participate last
> week, is also contributing to this one.
> Welcome, Ioana!
> Best!
> Menotti
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> [3]empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
> References
>
> 1. http://www.thecorrespondingsociety.com/robertsnyderman
> 2. http://technomyth.wordpress.com/
> 3. mailto:empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
More information about the empyre
mailing list