Re: <eyebeam><blast> Imposibility of not sharing

[bracha@easynet.fr (Bracha Lichtenberg - Ettinger)]

Carlos Basualdo wrote
"It occurred to me that some of the political aspects of the net
practice are being articulated now (HERE) in the context of this forum:
specifically, this 'impossibility of not sharing' that Bracha mentions
and a particular way of self-organizing that seems to be proper to the
medium" etc.

and Gilane Tawadros wrote
"Nobody is really talking about art. I'm personally not very interested
in the technology"

Margaret Morse wrote on the "distinction between this intersubjectivity
and
interactivity"

Maybe, Gilane, what is "really" talked about depends on the specificity
of "listening" in the net, and more generally - how to isolate in this
context different offers of listenings. I, for the moment, hear almost
nothing else but a talking about art, for that same reason that you
don't: because I am not tuned into technology. So I filter technological
consideration out, and let them developpe 'without' me - or rather, as
long as I am by choice in a space of an impossibility of not sharing -
'without' me means 'beside' me, or rather, with-out. Why to embrace what
I am not opened for? And why invest in  rejecting it? taking all in
would be disturbing, but actively rejecting would also engage me in what
I don't desire to be engaged. If for Carlos what I have said about the
"impossibility of not sharing" clarified some political aspects of what
we are engaged in here and now, and if someone else would profit from
this for thinking technics, I am more then delighted, but, to take this
as an example, if I will personally take it further on, it will be for
discussing art. This expression was developped very far from the net, in
my very autistic experience of painting in the studio, as one aspect of
what I have called "the matrixial gaze". It germinated in painting and
was translated into thinking-art, in terms very close to the work of
painting first, and immediately also in relations to the question of
'woman', and then it became more theoretical, in terms of relations
between aesthetics and ethics. Art as I see it is symbologenic; it
doesn't result from concepts, but it bring forth new concepts. If these
concepts will do a double-turn so we would want to discuss 'art' with
them - great. But if they take off from art and on to different
directions, it's still what art is about, independently of the artist's
intentions. It's a kind of giving with no strings attached, other then
the invisible erotic aerials you find yourself turning into it and from
it onto the world, when and if you are strongly affected by it. To take
the 'matrixial gaze' a bit further, it is also about contacting without
fusion and without rejection: separating-in-jointness and
joining-in-separation. This idea too, first came to me in painting and
intended art in my early articles, but it also has strong ethical
implications when we move the idea from artwork onto relations with the
unknown other, or if we consider artwork as already a  relation with the
unknown other. Contrary to first appearance, I think that
separating-in-jointness and joining-in-separation in the relations with
the unknown other, here and now, and more generally in art on the Net,
are not "automatically" achieved - even if it looks that art on the net
is "perfectly" suitable for  adopting these terms. Margaret's
distinction between this intersubjectivity and interactivity is
important to clarify a potential confusion. Co/in-habit(u)ating is a
painful process.
Bracha







-
-------------------------------------------------------------
a critical forum for artistic practice in the network
texts are the property of individual authors
to unsubscribe, send email to eyebeam@list.thing.net
with the following single line in the message body:
unsubscribe eyebeam-list
information and archive at http://www.eyebeam.org
Eyebeam Atelier/X Art Foundation http://www.blast.org
-------------------------------------------------------------