hei folks (a good antipodal morning to you all!)
> "In the gallery it presents a kind of ontological mirror reflecting
> back and stabilising our own sense of self in its apparent stability
> and autonomy... By contrast time-based art, interactive art, and all
> art involving some form of interaction over time tend to do the
> opposite. Perhaps this may be a partial explanation of the continued
> resistance to such work in mainstream institutions."
I'd say this dialectic is a cultural construct relating to the West's inability to philosophically cope with the constancy of change in the universe. So many arbitrary scalar frameworks (and labels, names, abstracted linguistic tags) are put onto (material) stuff to give us a(n artificial) sense of stability. Art in institutional white boxes (whose very institutional-ness is critical to the fostering of that sense of stability); stone sculptures in public spaces; art market metrics. The very object-ness with which we frame the discussion here is embedded in the language of Newtonian fixity and precision of tracking the trajectories of Things. Along with the categorization process which allows a 'safe' social shorthand for circumscribing those things (which, in other world views are merely phenomenal events or flows of potential energy), a circumscribing of which has as primary intent the rendering as safe that phenomenal event to a nervous bystander who wants to believe i
n the monumental fixity of his/her social system.
The (desire for safety)/(fear of the un-named) is a primary reason for the (hopeless and un-reasonable) resistance (to change) which so characterizes our entire social system.
> Or the dialogue could turn philosophical, following Bergson. Josephine,
> I would recommend "Matter & Memory," if you haven't already. Bergson is
I'm curious how is it that a discussion on time/space/materiality would NOT consider aspects/impacts of Relativity, Quantum, and/or Cosmology developed over the last century in the Western (scientific) worldview.
> explores between matter and time. Bergson says that memory isn't
> "stored" in our minds (as if our brains were hardware with a certain
I am unfortunately not very familiar with Bergson, but what I do understand is that he completely missed developments happening in his lifetime in thermodynamics that would have influenced (altered significantly at least from an empirical pov) his "Úlan vital" concept.