and another rant...
The below is obvious but is not the whole picture. It is true as long as
the word only is not being implied.
When dawkins says that we are ONLY a sort of by-product of our genes which
he repeats ad nauseum he is reducing agency, love etc to a bio-chemical
phenomenon. This reductionism has been debunked by recent work on emergence
and holism in the cognitive and biological sciences, (Capra, varela,
kaufmann, margulis et al). Art and all other products of human creativity
have always been instruments but also so much more. If I was producing art
only for instrumental puposes I would have died of boredom by now. A plea
for the ineffable here!
art is not and never has been non-utilitarian ...
art doesnt operate independently or objectively
it is an indentured service provider which has always functioned to:
- storytell for the victors,
- religiously indoctrinate,
- relay status and power,
- earn investors squillions of $'s,
- dispel fear in times of crisis
science is constrained in the same way.
------
on 4/11/09 5:15 AM, Melinda Rackham <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> dear oron, et al
>
> return rant -- deviating slightly
>
> On 04/11/2009, at 2:24 PM, Oron Catts wrote:
>>
>> Let me pose it quite
>> bluntly; in the service of WHAT art operates? I am always
>> suspicious of art in
>> the service on anything beyond story telling.
>> ...
>> I am concern that art would lose one of the last
>> remaining privileges of being human – that of non-utilitarian
>> explorations, many
>> sciences are loosing it already. Do we want to make art totally
>> applied? In
>> particular when art deals with new knowledge, it should strive to be
>> a non-
>> applied questioning force, not resolve anything, be in the service
>> of none, be
>> ambiguous, Problematise.
>
> art is not and never has been non-utilitarian ...
> art doesnt operate independently or objectively
> it is an indentured service provider which has always functioned to:
>
> - storytell for the victors,
> - religiously indoctrinate,
> - relay status and power,
> - earn investors squillions of $'s,
> - dispel fear in times of crisis
>
> science is constrained in the same way.
>
>> It would
>> have been the same to me if some net artist would seek my advice
>> concerning
>> the best software to use for some type of self obsessed exploration
>
> im so glad you like net art!
> in its origins net art is next of kin to citizen science - a diy
> routing around the functionalities and limitations of
> institutionalized practices - maybe the only niches available for
> 'independent" exploration, crazy ideas and ambiguity.
>
> and as self obsession has been a highly regarded genre of our times it
> works to the advantage of artists making, scientists exploring,
> curators showing and writers critiquing that which directly affects
> peoples sense of personal safety, financial security and species
> survival.
>
> best wishes
>
> Melinda
>
> Melinda Rackham
> [log in to unmask]
>
>>
>
>
>
|