Wednesday, December 20, 2006


Loose notes from the Integrated Arts seminar (with marginal comments added in italics).

  • VJ as writer [the phrase I've been throwing around is image √©criture, a kind of ideogrammic-experiential expression of creative potential that wreaks havoc on the complacent art-going mind]
  • VJ as performer [live cinema remix vehicle for impromptu creative writing (image √©criture) event / mediumistic filter for time-based video art installation / affective art-apparatus that processes meta/data in asynchronous realtime]
  • VJ as generative maker [human touch - machinic vision?]
  • VJ as affective remixologist [see "art-apparatus" above ... make sense? non? intuitive? from the gut? the genitals? procreative? proactive? proto-topological? in this regard, what does it mean to be a shape-shifter in the autopoietic world of the artificial intelligentsia?]
  • VJ as nomadic net artist [Given: a) a waterfall; b) a blond muse that takes over the scene]
Decode the above and use it as source material while developing a streaming metafiction based on the following:

Locate the similarities and differences between what we still call "film" and the recent developments in digital cinema, (high-definition) digital video, VJ performance, interactive DVDs, DVD/surround-sound installation, video art, net art, software art, etc., and investigate how contemporary artists are exploiting these convergences and divergences for aesthetic / political / avant-pop effect.

Extra credit: do all of the above by overdubbing the initial five episodes of Battlestar Galactica.

Metadata: , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Seminal / Seminar (II)

More notes:
Net-based experiments in multilinearity, interactivity, hypertext narrative, remixology, and web cinema:

Issues of network distributed [net, Internet, web] art at the interface of writing, storytelling, imagetext, performance, "sketching," new media portraiture, etc.

Expanding the concept of Artist-Medium-Instrument (Sukenick, Acconci, Antin, Spooky, Amerika, etc.) so that it traces a parallel and possibly complementary philosophical lineage through Bergson, Whitehead, Deleuze, Ruyer, Mackay, Massumi, Shaviro, Hansen, and others focusing on the body as the predominant element to affectively filter the Artist-Medium-Instrument experience ("Are you experienced?").

In this scenario, the Artist-Medium-Instrument-Body model looks at the body's central nervous system and its relationship to

  • seeing-form and feeling space via proprioception and/or somaticsensory intuition
  • processing information and applying (customized artist) filters to (un)realtime experience by affectively rendering data into vision
  • manipulating our relationship to (virtual) reality via constructed persona, fictional identity, aesthetically employed signature-style effects, etc.
In other words, test-driving philosophical investigations into the implications of this reconfigured Bergsonist vocation of the artist as well as quick consideration of the convergence of HD with VR and the potential of a "digitally expanded cinematic image." But what about other, more easily accessible works of digitally manipulated art?

In the end, who really cares about this potential HD-VR cinema? I have a "feeling" that the reason we are not "feeling it" is because it lacks narrative sensibility and has hit a creative dead zone that relies too much on the technology but that looks really good on paper and has the capacity to capitalize on its outcomes-dependent research model so that it can self-perpetuate its government/corporate sponsored cash flow pipeline instead of add to the history of life-changing art experience that, to paraphrase Rimbaud, "deranges the senses" ...

For example, what has more cinematic potential: this or this?

I vote for the first one.

Metadata: , , , , , , , ,