I was referring to his earlier work.  I actually worked on his piece  
in 1984-85 " I do not know what it is that I am like,"  which seems  
to be an apt and, rather,  ironic subtext for the role of an artist  
in this discussion !


On Oct 24, 2008, at 11:14 AM, Verina Gfader wrote:

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Christiane Robbins <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Friday, October 24, 2008 6:20 pm
> Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] "the art form lacks ...depth and
> cultural agency"
>
>> Perinola’s notion of “hyper-mystification” strikes me as both a
>> fascinating and curiously absent position, as identified in
>> Verina’s
>> post.  As such, its obvious that I need review this text in its
>> entirety, as I am unfamiliar with it.
>>
>> In the interim, whenever someone mentions an “obligatory holding on
>>
>> to notions of belief” in relation to art practices, I admit that my
>>
>> attention is drawn like a heat seeking missile.
>>
>> So … in an initial read of her post, when Perinola states:  “The
>> hyper- has to do with the treatment of the Artist as being part of
>> the communication market rather than that of Art. This leads to a
>> kind of mystification that transforms the personality of the
>> artist,
>> and consequently, the artwork itself. Perhaps anticipated by Graham
>>
>> in his magazine works, there is now an additional aspect of a
>> ‘hyperbolic economic evaluation of the signature of some artists
>> promoted by strategies that belong to the communication market
>> and not that of art’.
>>
>> His insistence (perhaps refusal) of not using the term “art market”
>>
>> or the “design market” or the now-hybrid “art-design market” as a
>> correlative to the “communication market” simply appears to be
>> misguided.  His (as is seemingly Charlie’s) positioning of a
>> secularized religious dimension of art practice references back,
>> arguably, to medieval Monasticism and the legacy of western art
>> practices throughout the late 20thc.   The dynamic of this co-
>> dependent relationship to capitalism has long been one of contested
>>
>> tensions and reactionary, if not binary, positioning.
>>
>> In tandem with this, I note a few recent list references to Bill
>> Viola’s early work (prior to 1987) which directly speaks to a
>> rather
>> nostalgic, romantic, mystical, and, yes, narcissistic positioning
>> of
>> the artist … or in this case the strategies of “art ”  practices
>> developing out of a distinctly anti-corporate, etc.etc.etc. period
>> in
>> the history of the USA.  Given our current global economic demise
>> ….
>> one could easily assume that this may be a prelude to the
>> resurrection of this perspective.  This is especially relevant
>> since
>> there may well be ( more than likely ) a fall-out in the economic
>> flash points of the art market and its subsequent impact on the
>> various institutions ( and their attendant perspectives) that
>> remain
>> at the heart of this marketplace – and, certainly,  of it’s diverse
>>
>> set of currency exchanges.
>
>
> I think - opposed to Viola's earlier, radical work (such as Space
> between the teeth, http://openvault.wgbh.org/ntw/MLA000127/ 
> index.html) -
> his more recent work is a total fetishisation of technologies and  
> am not
> sure how this aligns with 'mysticism'. I am also not sure if I would
> categorise it as being nostalgic, in the sense of idealising the past,
> but it is certainly narcissistic -- and these are expensive
> installations which in a way seem out of date.
>
>>
>> The post continues with his framing of hyper-mystification and The
>> Shadow
>> “The shadow, i.e. an obscure site, represents the third regime of
>> art
>> and aesthetic experience. It is a discussion on preserving the
>> identity of art in respect to contemporary developments. It is also
>> a
>> solution to the confusion between art and the communication market
>> because in this system ‘so-called “artistic values”’ are
>> reconfigured, not lost, with the world of commerce integral to the
>> reconfiguration. “
>
> Following Perniola's line the question would be around the identity of
> art, if this is still relevant to ask this? Again, am following the
> thoughts Charlie mentioned in previous post about
>
> "Institutions such as the ICA or Tate are absolutely invested in the
> quasi-religious mystagogy of contemporary art (though it could also be
> argued that the real God they serve is money, which as Philip  
> Goodchild
> points out in his recent book The Theology of Money, has taken the  
> place
> of the Judaeo-Christian God as a supreme, transcendent value). This  
> is I
> think the source of their resistance to New Media Art, which for me is
> like Toto in the Wizard of Oz, pulling back the curtain to reveal that
> the great Oz, the big Other, is nothing but a funny little man
> manipulating some levers and shouting into a microphone, or in other
> words art is nothing but a manipulation of material means and
> techniques. This is perhaps why NMA does not invoke the kind of
> emotional reactions that other Art does. That is perhaps both its
> strength and its weakness. It repudiates the mystagogical claims to
> transcendence that Art still needs to be believed in. No wonder Eshun
> and Bourriaud and all the others don't want to have anything to do  
> with
> it. It is not in their interests to have the curtain drawn back, which
> NMA arguably does by engaging in the fundamental technicity of all art
> through its own practice, which is otherwise disavowed. They'd rather
> have the big green shouty head."
>
>
>>
>> A further delineation of this latter position seems crucial to a
>> needed further understanding.  I refrain from jumping to
>> conclusions
>> and await further explication as complexities abound – thanks so
>> much –
>>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 24, 2008, at 9:08 AM, Verina Gfader wrote:
>>
>>> In respect to ideas about a perhaps obligatory holding on to
>>> notions of
>>> 'belief', there is also a relevant text by Mario Perniola (in:
>> Art and
>>> its Shadow 2004) who highlights a 'hyper-mystification' in
>> relation to
>>> the contemporary artwork. If there was an attempt to demystify the
>>> artwork (as in the late 60ies with work such as Dan Graham's
>> Homes for
>>> America) then Perniola describes further processes of this
>>> demystification and its discourse - explicitly in regard to
>>> contemporary
>>> work informed by new media and ‘cultural mediation’. What is
>>> characteristic for this artwork is not a kind of ‘demystification
>> and> unmasking’ or its denial, but a ‘hyper-mystification’, a
>> mystification> that further mystifies. The hyper- has to do with
>> the treatment of the
>>> artist as being part of the communication market rather than that of
>>> art. This leads to a kind of mystification that transforms the
>>> personality of the artist, and consequently, the artwork itself.
>>> Perhaps
>>> anticipated by Graham in his magazine works, there is now an
>>> additional
>>> aspect of a ‘hyperbolic economic evaluation of the signature of some
>>> artists promoted by strategies that belong to the communication
>> market> and not that of art’. Hyper-mystification is the process
>> whose work
>>> constitutes a space of aesthetic, economic and communicative
>> aspects.> But, Perniola notes, this is a space with very disparate
>> elements. In
>>> practice, it manifests a ‘shady situation’, the obscure site where
>>> artists, critics and the audience partake of a disorientation
>> created> within such space. But described in this way it is also a
>> hybrid space
>>> equating aesthetics with a spatial, and an economic organisation and
>>> arrangement. Important is that from Perniola’s point of view, the
>>> obscure is not a question of the art-object or its perception,
>> but
>>> is a
>>> constituent part of the contemporary artistic. It expresses the very
>>> possibility of operating beside the official mainstream art
>>> production/discourse. The shadow, i.e. an obscure site,
>> represents the
>>> third regime of art and aesthetic experience. It is a discussion on
>>> preserving the identity of art in respect to contemporary
>>> developments.
>>> It is also a solution to the confusion between art and the
>>> communication
>>> market because in this system ‘so-called “artistic values”’ are
>>> reconfigured, not lost, with the world of commerce integral to the
>>> reconfiguration.
>>>
>>> Also interesting, provocative, relevant:
>>> Elisabeth Schweeger's text "Wild Shores - Material for Art, On
>>> Necessary
>>> Anachronisms Against Global Infantilisation" (in: The Discursive
>>> Museum
>>> 2001), which begins with Louise Bourgeois quote: "Art is a
>>> guarantee of
>>> sanity", addresses the asymmetrical relationship between the "great
>>> potential in the form of cultural resources [today's united Europe]
>>> possesses", and the "danger that art will lose all standards,
>> becoming> subordinate to a purely commercial aesthetic". "The
>> question
>>> remains as
>>> to whether we can say that art has won all its battles, as it is now
>>> employed throughout the world as a formula for aesteticization in
>> all> social disciplines; therefore, it can no longer be considered
>>> isolated,
>>> as it is now inherent to the system. Or does its sale, its
>>> disappearance, the general global situation demonstrate a
>> devastating> and final defeat?"
>>>
>>> I wonder how the problem posed at the ICA relates to the issues
>> raised> above, so that the discussion on "live and media arts" is
>> necessarily> subsumed in the 'general global situation' - and what
>> it says about
>>> the
>>> status of art.          .
>>>
>>> Thinking about the 'programming of art' --- actually involves (in a
>>> literal sense) both the 'program' and 'art' -
>>>
>>>
>>> Verina
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Forwarded message from [log in to unmask] -----
>>>>     Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:20:07 +0100
>>>>     From: "Gere, Charlie" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Reply-To: "Gere, Charlie" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>  Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] "the art form lacks ...depth
>>>> and
>>>> cultural agency"
>>>>       To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>> Sorry not to return to the month's official thread, but Josie's
>>>> email
>>>> has engendered some more thoughts about new media art and
>>>> mainstream art
>>>>
>>>> In Human, all too Human Nietzsche writes that
>>>>
>>>> 'Art raises its head where religions relax their hold. It takes
>>>> over
>>>> many feelings and moods engendered by religion, lays them to its
>>>> heart, and itself becomes deeper, more full of soul, so that it is
>>>> capable of transmitting exultation and enthusiasm, which it
>>>> previously
>>>> was not able to do. The abundance of religious feelings which have
>>>> grown into a stream are always breaking forth again and desire to
>>>> conquer new kingdoms, but the growth of the Enlightenment
>>>> undermined
>>>> the dogmas of religion and inspired a fundamental mistrust of
>>>> them?so
>>>> that the feelings, thrust by the Enlightenment out of the religious
>>>>
>>>> sphere, throw themselves into art.'
>>>>
>>>> As I suggested in my last email this religiosity is what I
>>>> perceived
>>>> in Josie's response to Twombly. Nothing wrong with that. In a
>>>> godless
>>>> universe art becomes the last refuge of transcendent feeling, even
>>>> in
>>>> a negative sense (much contemporary art operates as a kind of
>>>> 'negative theology', invoking transcendence through negation). At
>>>> another level our engagement with contemporary art is often a
>>>> matter
>>>> of faith, a need to believe that a pile of bricks, a grey canvas or
>>>>
>>>> some graffiti squiggles are meaningful beyond what they appear to
>>>> be.
>>>> Duchamp knew this well and even described his art in terms of
>>>> transubstantiation. In a brilliant recent essay Bernard Stiegler
>>>> describes what he calls the 'mystagogy' of contemporary art. In
>>>> lacanian terms Art is the locus of the big Other, whether that is
>>>> God
>>>> or History. I think this can be seen very clearly in relational
>>>> aesthetics. In his book The Inoperative Community Jean-Luc Nancy
>>>> remarks that ?? the true consciousness of the loss of community is
>>>> Christian: the community desired or pined for by Rousseau,
>>>> Schlegel,
>>>> Hegel, Bahktin, Marx, Wagner, or Mallarmé [or Bourriaud, Kester,
>>>> and
>>>> all the relational aestheticians: CG]  is understood as communion,
>>>> and
>>>> communion takes place, in its principle as in its ends, at the
>>>> heart
>>>> of the mystical body of Christ?. (This gives me an opportunity to
>>>> slip
>>>> in a plug for a little book by myself and Michael Corris critiquing
>>>>
>>>> relational aesthetics -
>>>> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Non-relational-Aesthetics-Transmission-
>>>> Rules-Engagement/dp/1906441049.)
>>>>
>>>> Institutions such as the ICA or Tate are absolutely invested in the
>>>>
>>>> quasi-religious mystagogy of contemporary art (though it could also
>>>> be
>>>> argued that the real God they serve is money, which as Philip
>>>> Goodchild points out in his recent book The Theology of Money, has
>>>> taken the place of the Judaeo-Christian God as a supreme,
>>>> transcendent
>>>> value). This is I think the source of their resistance to New Media
>>>>
>>>> Art, which for me is like Toto in the Wizard of Oz, pulling back
>>>> the
>>>> curtain to reveal that the great Oz, the big Other, is nothing but
>>>> a
>>>> funny little man manipulating some levers and shouting into a
>>>> microphone, or in other words art is nothing but a manipulation of
>>>> material means and techniques. This is perhaps why NMA does not
>>>> invoke
>>>> the kind of emotional reactions that other Art does. That is
>>>> perhaps
>>>> both its strength and its weakness. It repudiates the mystagogical
>>>> claims to transcendence that Art still needs to be believed in. No
>>>> wonder Eshun and Bourriaud and all the others don't want to have
>>>> anything to do with it. It is not in their interests to have the
>>>> curtain drawn back, which NMA arguably does by engaging in the
>>>> fundamental technicity of all art through its own practice, which
>>>> is
>>>> otherwise disavowed. They'd rather have the big green shouty head.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Bourriaud  took the microphone and said something like: "Well,
>>>> the
>>>>>> problem is there is no good media art. Can you name one good
>>>> media
>>>>>> art work? No? That is the reason."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Christiane Robbins
>>
>>
>> - JETZTZEIT -
>> ... the space between zero and one  ...
>> Walter Benjamin
>>
>>
>> LOS ANGELES    I    SAN FRANCISCO
>>
>>
>>
>> I
>>

Christiane Robbins


- JETZTZEIT -
... the space between zero and one  ...
Walter Benjamin


LOS ANGELES    I    SAN FRANCISCO



I