all of us have been chipping at this mountain for quite some time, and i'm
involved with a group of people who may not have come up with 'the' answers
but have a few. theory, especially in a time period of shifted paradigm and
arts/ digital/internet technologies has to address a certain condition: the
condition of 'inhabiting' rather than 'describing' what is going on. this
means there has to be, we think, a flexibilitly in terms of grasping
different senses of time (at the same time), different types of speed (as
forms of time, space, visualities and acoustics), and a wholly different way
of discussing/ producing, and indeed playing (with/against) a completely
different form of 'multiplicity'. the old forms of 'semiotics' (and
representations' don't quite fit -- the usual 'divisions' between us/them;
friend/enemy (or the one usually found in the art world: subject/Other
(zizek, lacan et al) seem always to take as a given what they are tring to
prove. there is little or no room for the senses (tacilities, smells,
sexualities, erotics, etc) with the 'subject/Other' breaks often leaves one
with the view that 'desire' is only that which can be approved: never
inhabited.
so, at the risk of saying either too little or too much: i would
characterise (and have characterised) this 'new media theory/paradigm' (or
whatever description it will be called) as a kind of 'poetics' -- devoid of
aristoleian assumptions, and closer to advancing an intersection of (a)
codings (i have written of the codes of honour, nomadism, a-radical
singularites); (b) a kind of 'economy' (libidinal or otherwise) (no, i'm not
strictlly speaking here of either the move by lyotard in his lib. economy
(though the notion of singularity as a moebius strip/ and the erotics this
speaks to and of, is clearly important; and i'm not speaking strictly of the
deleuzian move -- (signature/ event) though rhizomatic 'fragments' are
crucial); and (c) and what can be called 'installation' (the ability for a
'work of art' to 'work' precisely because it can 'install' a myriad of
multiply-dimensional moments (colour, rhtymn, beat).
anyway: this 'poetics' -- stealing quite a bit from acoustic theories (erring
on the side of mimesis, degree, non-edged 'meanings', more than the
semiotics of representation/language) is very new indeed. well, we've named
it for lack of a better way, perhaps, of calling it: a blood poetics.
not to sound ridiculous here, but we've now set up a new Ma/Ph.d. programme
at greenwich maritime which allows all of us, to investigate and play (the
programme is one of the first to let people do their artworks alongwith
theses and etc.). trinity college of music, school of architecture and
computing mathematics, (along with school of humanities) has all pulled
together to break new ground, linked also to various other institutes and
artists groups in the EU (esp. in graz, berlin, maastricht and amsterdam).
if you're interested, check out the website: www.gre.ac.uk/~gs04
the shorter 'answer' to the question, though, is i think something along
these lines: theory is something sensuous, dirty, but no less 'systematic'
-- the works by certain 'new media theorists' seem to forget this major
point, and run to the old hegelian forms of representation (and the newer
lacanian games of 'language/desire). a bit boring, reallly.
it is a tragedy that the 'walker art center' made the moves it did: steve
dietz was one of the very few who understood this 'blood poetics' at its
core.
well, just a few thoughts
kind regards,
johnny golding
Professor dr. Johnny Golding (Sue Golding/johnny de philo)
Chair/Professor of Philosophy in
the Visual Arts & Communication Technologies
Dept. of Creative, Critical and Communication Studies
School of Humanities, University of Greenwich
Maritime Campus, Greenwich
London SE10 9LS
w: www.gre.ac.uk/~gs04
and Head of Theory Dept. ('core advising researcher' or CAR!]
the Jan van Eyck Academy
Post-academic research institute in Fine Art, Design and Theory
Maastricht 6211km, the Nederlands
w: www.janvaneyck.nl
Following Saul's post of last week,many people are writing that "we need a
new critical paradigm" or something to that effect, and I agree we do, but
no-one seems to have one. I share some reservations about Manovich's central
model, mainly because it takes a transfer model medium and tries to apply it
to an immersive or interactive or generative medium. Theatre makes a better
model perhaps, because there is a fine tradition of interactivity and
participation both on a ritual/ symbolic level, and at a level where content
and meaning can actually change and evolve a living piece ...I think what we
need is an aesthetic of interactivity, and this can be fed from a number of
sources including looking at ritual, gameplay and the emerging discipline of
experience design. But these are all centred in other disciplines, are we
going to adopt and adapt our own or we run the risk of being judged as
"design" whenever we venture into interactive media...
And yes, Walker Art Gallery - wrong!!
Fin
university of Northumbria
|