re: and's
>if these [bergson's criteria for the recollection image] were to be =
projected as poles about
>which an inquiry into
>contemporary conditions of the urb anim age circulated, where within this
>space would the advertising-image reside? what durational limits would it
>be required to adhere to? what velocity would it aspire to?
residence, durational adherence, and velocity of the advertising =
image within the field of human recognition; cynically or =
optimistically (depending on the side of advertising production one =
is one), these should be wrapped entirely around the person, such =
that their parameters are exactly the same as those of the subject, =
that their most prominent characteristic is their adhesiveness. the =
advertising image is to remain with us, last as long as we do, and =
travel at our speeds. we can't really out-pace them nor can they =
out-pace us; to avoid them we must increase our slipperiness and/or =
decrease their adhesiveness.
the problem is, of course, that increasing one's slipperiness or =
decreasing the adhesiveness of the constructed image is really not =
that productive an act. at best we may be collectively (perhaps only =
temporarily) immune to it, but the impact on its production or =
reception outside of our small collectivity is nill. maybe this is =
enough; I'm not sure. in essence, I'm taking about the 'productive' =
values of art (or architecture, etc.) the complexities of cultural =
image production have reduced the activity of opposition to a =
self-referential practice. what, for example, is the fundamental =
difference (in terms of the production of an urban image) among the =
staged incidents of Jeff Wall, the real ones of Camilo Jose Vergara, =
and the constructed ones of "Cops?" personally interested in all of =
these from aesthetic, cultural, and philosophical angles, I must =
nonetheless say "nothing."
>what other image-strategies, outside those pertaining to the
>commodity-image, might this spatial alignment provoke?
my interests have tended to focus on the infrastructural rather than =
the structural. as an architectural designer, this has allowed me to =
focus on the mechanisms of making, designing, etc. rather than on the =
thing (building, system, etc.) that is being made or designed. for =
me, this focus has seemed to offer me the potential (within my work =
itself, rather than it in the context of its exhibition, display and =
communication) to counteract the strategies of the image. if I can =
build a system with behaviors that counteracts its environment by =
learning, self-modification, and (if necessary) self-destruction or =
breeding, I feel content that the system will come to embed itself in =
a productive way into its environment. within the context of =
advertising image production, I have not merely made myself slippery =
and the image less adhesive, but I have altered the molecular, =
morphological condition which allows adhesion to take place.
the problem with this in my work is that it is entirely =
context-specific but I've not yet been able to determine the context. =
it makes no sense for me to exhibit this work in a gallery or to =
have it built on a site in urbia (sub or otherwise). it's context, =
really, is context itself. this is why I am so critical of =
strategies (tactics) which feel the need to embed themselves in the =
existing contex of the production they are critiquing. this is a =
surefire way of self-destruction.
jordan g. wrote on 09.02:
>Strategies that are not just
>critical but
>confontational of their milieu require greater independance. Be they of
>an avant- or arriere-garde variety, they suggest militant or guerrilla
>action but only rarely effect it. The pieces by Hans Haacke on the
>parcours, for example, are inflammatory to Philip de Montebello and
>funny to a leftwards-leaning art public and ultimately still submissive
>to funding from someone. I have always enjoyed his work so much, but
>wondered what happens when he has no more feeding hands to bite,
>theoretically or practically.
I'm currently working on a project with Antonio Muntadas via a =
residency at RPI's iEAR program, and the main question which has been =
posed is: "what should the subject be of the continuation of an =
artists work [we are adding a major component to a multimedia project =
of his] whose focus has traditionally been 'being about'?" Trained =
by Haacke, Muntadas reamins in the tradition of politicized =
aboutness. The subject of Haacke's "mus=E9e de l'aigle" or Muntadas' =
"On Translation" (as examples) is not that which is presented as its =
subject. In other words, the work IS context. Disappointingly =
however the work, situated in the normative contexts of galleries, =
art shows, art web sites, etc, cannot exceed its context. It is =
still art, it is complete (and discreet) in its installation or =
programming, it is taken down and moved elsewhere when the show is =
over or the web server bills get too expensive.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
in sum, it is important that the creation of image strategies we are =
discussing exist
-outside of the conceptual limitations of "context"
-INSIDE the context rather than WITHIN the context of image =
production
-as an infrastructural mechanism rather than a structural =
artifact
-as a self-malleable system
where am I going with this?
brian lonsway
......................................................................
j erik jonsson distinguished visiting assistant professor.
rensselaer architecture.
lonsway@rpi.edu.
-------------------------------------------------------------
a forum on spatial articulations, perspectives, and procedures
texts are the property of individual authors
for information, email majordomo@forum.documenta.de with
the following line in the message body: info blast
archive at http://www.documenta.de/english/blasta.htm
or http://www.documenta.de/deutsch/blasta.htm
documenta X Kassel and http://www.documenta.de 1997
-------------------------------------------------------------