Hi Johannes,

I will respond, but can't yet,

I was reading Self's introduction to the Kafka's Wound project...

"I am guilty of an association of ideas; or rather: I am guilty – that’s
a given, and in casting about for the source of my guilt I find I cannot
prevent myself from linking one idea with another purely on the basis of
their contiguity, in time, in place, in my own mind. It’s not only ideas
I connect like this, I do it with images, sensory impressions and the
most epiphenomenal of mental glitches. Hume writes in his An Enquiry
Concerning Human Understanding that the imagination is best conceived of
as a combinatorial faculty: there is nothing intrinsically imaginative
about the idea of ‘gold’, nor the idea of ‘mountain’, but join them
together and you have a fantastically gleaming ‘gold mountain’"...

And I like it. A very interesting venture.

Will get back soon.

wishing you well.

marc


 > thanks for your reply, Marc, and I may have mistaken you to think of
the "new" now and
 > implying a shift, as you said (you called it a natural shift that you
observed, changes from then
 > to the new now) towards interface situations and interface behaviors,
but I was interested
 > in this shift precisely and tried to make some observations from my
experience, and since you
 > didn't comment on them, i assume you did not have such experiences
within/without the space
 > of the [exhibition-] interfaces.
 >
 > Interesting here, Mark's reponse to me and the use of the term
"farcical", which i like a lot
 > (and it resonates perhaps to some extent with the satirical/ironic
curating tactics we have heard about.
 >
 > In my observations, Marc, I was of course also addressing largely
more performance oriented
 > exhibitions or interfaces, and notably, a shift to performance and
installation is certainly
 > something we can ascertain, and I was wondering how the switching is
perceived (between
 > physical and networked space, between online platforms and re-mixed
hybrid sites on the ground
 > or dispersed on grounds) by others here who curate live art/media
arts, bio art, AI and robotics
 > and the like, process art & generative stuff.
 >
 > This shift has however not been natural, but as Mark says was
overdetermined and calculated by museums
 > for sure, and it will be interesting to see how the drained live art
scenes and independent/autonomous
 > organizations and arrangeurs will remix work with the digital and
networked channels, and also how
 > they and writers/poets will jostle with the corporate giant
publishers and their grasp/impact on the onlines...
 > and how diversifed and fragmented/fractured the online self
publishing world will become and who will
 > archive, preserve, care for, move, relocate all the data that are
being published at any given minute and hour..
 >
 > i had spoken (in earlier months here, though not getting any
feedback) on the "Kafka's Wound project" [http://thespace.lrb.co.uk/] –
 > the literary essay by Will Self collided with collaborative audio-visual
 > creative and documentary film, photography, animation, radio/audio,
archival, medical and performance responses to Kafka and to the trope of
the wound, this online publication
 > is curated, or was curated, and i think was to have a 3 month life,
now extended to a 6 month and maybe 9 month pregancy,
 > migration to an archive or survival not yet being discussed (from
above), but hybrid remixes on the ground may happen (unrest in the ranks),
 > and some of the collaborators and I have talked about such a dance
and how one would seriously, rather than
 > satirically, treat the "navigation" that the designers had come up
with for the current real-existing Kafka's Wound.
 >
 > This navigational farce I am currently worrying about, Mark, and will
look to your talking about remixthebook.
 >
 > There is one anecdote also (from a book store discussion the London
Review of Books, the commissioning entity behind "Kafka's Wound,"
arranged with Will Self and
 > some digital publishers), which humored me, namely regarding costs of
such a larger collaborative online curatorial and design production.
 >
 > Most of the collaborators, after being invited by Will, worked for
free or got production costs recompensated (say, £ 250), maybe the composer
 > got £ 400, to pay the musicians when they recorded the music; but the
chief LRB publisher had the nerve to say in the lovely bookstore that at
the end of the day,
 > making this project a reality on the BBC Space website, totalled
overall costs of about £ 100.000 (of course he assumed much of that
 > would have been in-kind). The in-kindness here is interesting.
 >
 > What do others here think of the kindnesses?
 >
 > best wishes
 >
 >
 > Johannes Birringer
 > dap-lab
 > http://www.brunel.ac.uk/dap
 >
 >
 >>>
 >
 > I am hesitant to use the word 'new', it has lost its value and has been
 > hijacked by organizations and governments who loosely use it as a
 > branding sticker, whilst shoveling out their latest diversions.
 >
 > The essence of what I was trying to communicate was that exhibitions and
 > projects relating to media art are 'interfaces'. In another sense it is
 > ecological, a dynamic set of things, non singular and all connecting
 > 'within the space and outside' at the same time, and more. And it's
 > definitely not only due to technology, but it is included, and is part
 > of the mix of what is 'now' - not 'new', a cultural 'now'. And yes,
 > blurring boundaries is a regular and common theme of our age; replacing
 > a word such as 'exhibition' with 'interface' helps me define the
 > function, social context and otherness of what the art is I'm dealing
with.
 >
 > I am really aware this conversation may be distracting others from the
 > main item on the agenda here. So, I will hold back for now. I am very
 > interested in reading about other people's ideas and subjects.
 >
 > wishing you well.
 >
 > marc
 >> Dear Mark, Marc and all:
 >>
 >> the question just posed by Marc is a good one, and yet I would like
to modify it a little by including a critical
 >> look at the "natural shift" to interface behavior here posited by
Marc's observations on how exhibitions (of hybrid works
 >> in real spaces) curate/arrange experience of work "beyond" the work.
 >>
 >> First I would query the question, and wonder whether this is indeed
a new shift or has not always been the case
 >> (in the "1990s" and earlier): >A representation of current thought
and experiments which communicate or relate beyond the object itself.
 >> We witness the continuation of an artist's or an art group's
journey, displaying their discoveries and where they are at various
moments....>
 >>
 >> In terms of reception of art works or performances, or music, say,
the idea of the remix if an ancient one, it seems to me, if you
 >> look at the history of productions of theatre and music, and of
course in the last 60 or more years, with the rise of recording technologies
 >> in music in particular, the idea of platform switch and experience
the work beyond stage and record is common place, no? The radio
 >> is indeed also a richly historical medium (closely allied to music,
sonic art, and the literary and the Hörspiel) for listeners.
 >>
 >> Mark's examples offer a very rich ground to explore, of course,
regarding the (satiric, ironic) subversion of mainstream museum practices
 >> as well as net.art practices...
 >>
 >> In this way, Museum of Glitch Aesthetics goes mano y mano with the
by now
 >> predictable narrative trajectories of museological discourse. Yes,
the work
 >> was first intentionally constructed as a playful, online
intervention into
 >> the challenges of not only curating web-based art but of resisting (or
 >> strategically embracing) the potential canonization,
historicization, and
 >> mythologization of a pseudonymous (fictionalized) net art presence (The
 >> Artist 2.0).>>
 >>
 >> So the transmediated art, MOGA/The Artist 2.0, goes to Abandon
Normal Devices and Lionel Dobie Project,
 >> then on to the Harris Museum and Gallery in Preston, and so on, and
now we come to the tone
 >> Marc is asking about.
 >>
 >> I imagine that the tone you surmise has to do with the recent
apparent pressure on exhibitions
 >> to no longer merely exhibit (or, in the case of radio, transmit),
but create interactive scenarios for the viewers, interfaces that
 >> induce the kind of interface behavior we also see in many other
sectors of the "digitally
 >> transformed" culture.
 >>
 >> The pressure to participate, or the presumption to involve the
audience or the visitor
 >> as a co-producer and co-choreographer is, I find on occasion, a
preposterous attempt
 >> of museums or theatres, not to emancipate the spectator, but to
satirize the role
 >> of reception that had been aesthetic and active (thus politically /
ethically conscious)
 >> in the first place, and not necessarily consumptive or culinary (as
Brecht feared).
 >>
 >> The tendency to animate the viewer is not peculiar or new either, it
existed
 >> in entertainment culture and (my niece tells me, after having been
employed) is common staple on cruise ships
 >> where the guests are animated to participate every day. I don't know
cruise ships, but often
 >> when go to see an exhibition (e.g. Choreographing You) I find msyelf
on a cruise ship, I am asked to crawl in the floor through hoops,
 >> build something, play with something, dance, read long texts and
watch the "making of", wear headphones, and subject myself
 >> to other endurance tests in the collective social space of the
interfaces that are pushed upon everyone,
 >> and I'd venture to say, not always naturally nor always wanted. Or
you go to MoMA and are invited
 >> to stare at the artist who is present (Marina Abramovic), having
seen the movie perhaps and
 >> already feeling pulled over the table. Someone or other will cry,
and emotions spill on the floor.
 >>
 >> There are other examples of installations I recently visited
(Goebbels' "Stifters Dinge" curated by
 >> Artangel in London at Ambika P3 warehouse) that structured the
display of work in two halves,
 >> first a free "Unguided Tour", in the first week, then the (paid)
performances, and interestingly the performance
 >> also allowed us, after the huge hybrid machine had performed itself,
to take an unguided tour
 >> and exchange our experience with others, look for details, and
ponder the behaviors of the
 >> machining architecture and how the human visitors engaged with the
experience, how it affected
 >> me and others, the sounds and languages of the machine and all the
many layers of its objects,
 >> ecologies, resonances, vibrations and composition (we were not asked
 >> to perform, thanks).
 >>
 >> When you speak of how exhausting it is to continue "performing this
elaborate artwork (MOGA),"
 >> Mark, in what sense did you mean that, and how do you perceive the
pressure towards
 >> inter-action in contemporary curating policies?
 >>
 >>
 >> best wishes
 >> Johannes Birringer
 >>
 >>
 >>>> {Marc schreibt]
 >> resonates within me, as I look deeper
 >> into the tone of how it all presents itself. But, also I'm very aware of
 >> the fact that the contemporary artist, thinker, curator - all face the
 >> challenge in dealing with hybrid forms of creative endeavors. Not only
 >> in relation to the practicality of showing work but also its 'outer'
 >> dialogues which are connected, happening elsewhere at the same time.
 >> ...
 >>
 >> From experience of my own works, and co-curating other people's art
 >> works, projects, and collaborations through the years; I have witnessed
 >> what I consider as important changes. A natural shift has evolved
 >> redefining how we experience art now, and it has pushed the traditional
 >> concept of exhibiting 'art' off its axis. When viewing an exhibition
 >> (especially when involving media art), the experience and meaning of an
 >> exhibition is different now. It's no longer an exhibition that we are
 >> asked to view or be part of, but an 'interface'. This interface, even if
 >> it is within an exhibiting framework can still possesses the behaviours
 >> and qualities of an interface. A representation of current thought and
 >> experiments which communicate or relate beyond the object itself. We
 >> witness the continuation of an artist's or an art group's journey,
 >> displaying their discoveries and where they are at various moments. This
 >> has much to do with technology never standing still. And, moving on from
 >> the argument (for now), that capitalism never stands still, and neither
 >> does technology, we can also include other factors into the mix, such as
 >> time, nature, emotions and knowledge.
 >

--
--
Other Info:

Furtherfield - A living, breathing, thriving network
http://www.furtherfield.org - for art, technology and social change since 1997

Also - Furtherfield Gallery& Social Space:
http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery

About Furtherfield:
http://www.furtherfield.org/content/about

Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.
http://www.netbehaviour.org

http://identi.ca/furtherfield
http://twitter.com/furtherfield