Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:38:30 -0500 (EST)
From: George Free <aw570-AT-freenet.toronto.on.ca>
Subject: Re: ...becoming... 


On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, NECHVATAL Joseph wrote:

> other philosophies. Given I work with the tools of the 'new technology' an
> adaptation of the Cage/neo-dada/Fluxus/happenings/pop formalism of art as
> 'reference to anything other than what it was' materialism does not seem to
> work for me anymore, as it would lead to a technology for technology sake,
> which sounds really banal and inhuman perhaps. Thus for me I prefer a throw
> back to the emphasis on the communications of feelings and don't really see
> that as a reduction George as long as the 'symbols' used are not one to one
> but open and process oriented and interactive. For a few centuries the
> phenomenon called art has passed more or less as follows in the Occident: a
> person (the artist) signs a particular object or message (the work) that
> other persons (the receivers, the public, the critics) then perceive,
> taste, read, interpret, evaluate. Irrespective of the function of the work
> (be it religious, decorative, subversive...) and its capacity to transcend
> each and every function toward the substance of mystery and emotion
> inhabiting us, it is inscribed in the classical scheme of communication.
> The sender and the receiver are clearly separated, and their mutual tasks
> prescribed in advance.
> 
> But interactive artistic experiments have attempted to constitute agencies of
> communication and of production, collective happenings implicating the
> receivers, transforming interpreters into actors, linking interpretation
> with collective action, instead of conforming to the scheme where messages
> are sent toward receivers situated outside of the process of creation and
> invited to make sense of the work after its completion. To be '
> non-expressive or non-referential' would tend to squelch reciprocity I
> should think. Not sure.
> 
	I thought you were thinking of your work in terms of the Cagean,
etc perspective following your experience with Lamont Young's work? In any
case, it seems to me that the use of computer/digital technology fits
in--or can fit in--very well with this aesthetic. In creating computer
generated paintings, for example, you are removing yourself from making
determinate choices based on personal expression and representation of
personal experience and designing the programs to make these choices
independent of your direct or immediate will. Aren't you? This is very
similar to Cage and his use of chance operations and the I Ching, which
for him was just a "computer," though one of a very ancient type!
	Personally, I wonder if the use of the latest computer/digital
technology really introduces *by itself* all that is that new. Cage etc
were already thinking about interactivity--the idea that the
viewer/listener is one who makes choices in relation to the work--before
this technology in its present form came on the scene. Cage readily
incorporated computers into his work in the 60s and on. Certainly the new
technology offers new tools and means of expression--but in contrast to
what has recently been posted on this list--I don't think it is that
revolutionary in itself. After all, for the most part, it is being used to
produce pretty conventional stuff. Call me old fashioned, but lets not
glorify technology and instead examine the ideas and inspiration behind its 
use. 
cheers,
George


     --- from list avant-garde-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---