Art and the Real-Time Archive Relocation, Remix, Response
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Art and the Real-time Archive Relocation, Remix, Response Art and the Real-time Archive Relocation, Remix, Response David Crawford School of Photography Faculty of Fine, Applied and Performing Arts University of Gothenburg Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Digital Representation at the School of Photography, Faculty of Fine, Applied and Performing Arts, University of Gothenburg ArtMonitor series of publication from the Board for Artistic Research (NKU), the Faculty of Fine, Applied and Performing Arts, University of Gothenburg Address: ArtMonitor University of Gothenburg Konstnärliga fakultetskansliet Box 141 405 30 Göteborg www.konst.gu.se Cover photo: NASA (Glenn Research Center), 1951 Description: “Di!erential Analyzer built under Mergler in Instrument Research. The technician is preparing a data report.” URL: http://grin.hq.nasa.gov All other images are assumed copyrighted by their respective owners. With the exception of my own work, these were obtained via Google Images and are reproduced in the spirit of fair use and within the context of an academic and non-commercial project. Printed by: Intellecta Infolog 2009 © David Crawford 2009 ISBN: 978-91-977758-1-6 An artist’s book made by the author and referenced in the dissertation can be ordered from Amazon.com (US) under the title: 38 Messages from Space: The Wilbert Smith Archives Remixed. On the computer screen, a time period becomes the “support-surface” of inscription. Literally, or better cine- matically, time surfaces. –Paul Virilio, The Lost Dimension Abstract Title: Art and the Real-time Archive: Relocation, Remix, Response Language: English Keywords: art, aura of information, continuous partial attention, duration, indexicality, inscription technologies, law of relocation, light of speed, material metaphor, net art, real-time archive, remix, simulated materiality, subject-e!ects, technological addiction ISBN: 978-91-977758-1-6 If Internet artists have recently relocated their work to galleries and museums, there has meanwhile been an increasing engagement on the part of gallery artists with the media. While these migrations are o"en discussed in aesthetic if not economic terms, this essay asks what such phenomena can tell us about the changing nature of subjectivity in relation to media and technology. Three main themes are introduced: the aura of information, inscription technologies, and the real-time archive. The themes extend across subsequent chapters addressing: the relocation of net art, the remix as an art method, and the capacity of the subject to respond to technology. The idea that technologies alter subjects (produce subject-e!ects) plays a central role in the arguments advanced. Examples are drawn from both the author’s own art practice as well the practice of others, including Phil Collins and Steve McQueen. Theorists including Lewis Mumford and Bernard Stiegler are used to interpret the questions raised by this practice. It is concluded that relocation and remixing can respectively aid in the apprehension of subject-e!ects and support subjective autonomy. Contents Acknowledgements IX CHAPTER 1 Introduction: Staging the Subject 1 CHAPTER 2 Post-net Art and the Law of Relocation 7 CHAPTER 3 Observing the Light of Speed 35 CHAPTER 4 The Aura of Information: from Space to Time 49 CHAPTER 5 Inscription Technologies: Indexicality and Duration 57 CHAPTER 6 The Real-time Archive: Inscribing Consciousness 65 CHAPTER 7 Relocating Internet Art 85 CHAPTER 8 Remixing “The Wilbert Smith Archives” 93 CHAPTER 9 Responding to the Testimony of Technology 135 CHAPTER 10 We Have Always Been Post-human 151 VII CHAPTER 11 Conclusion: Being Beside Ourselves 159 References 175 List of Figures 185 Index 187 VIII Acknowledgements Tack till: Ian Balch, Henric Benesch, Mike Bode, Claes Brattwall, Jim Brogden, Malin Brännström, Kaja Tooming Buchanan, Magnus Bärtås, Marco Muñoz Campos, Tina Carlsson, Annabel Castro, Magali Ljungar-Chapelon, Martin Dahlström-Heuser, Sven Drobnitza, Hans Ekelund, James Elkins, Kajsa G. Eriksson, Thommy Eriksson, Catharina Fogelström, Cecilia Gelin, Charlie Gere, Cecilia Grönberg, Andreas Gedin, Fredric Gunve, Sonja Gybrant, Anna Viola Hallberg, Thomas Hansson, Jens Holst, Beverly Hynes-Grace, Orakan Jantahom, Jan Kaila, Leif Karlén, Johannes Landgren, Lasse Lindkvist, Mia Lockman-Lundgren, Dag Lövberg, Lev Manovich, Åsa Nord, Mats Nordahl, Tatjana Novak, Roger Palmer, Jussi Parikka, Gustavo Perillo, Annica Karlsson Rixon, Jane Rannegård, Christine Räisänen, Irina Sandomirskaja, Sta!an Schmidt, Thomas Schön, Nina Stuhldreher, Barrie Sutcli!e, Fredrik Svensk, Julia Tedro!, Glyn Thompson, Olof Torgersson, Peter Ullmark, Arne Kjell Vikhagen, Xavier Villafranca, Lars Wallsten, Josef Wideström, Johanna Willenfelt, Katarina Andersson Winberg, Elisabet Yanagisawa, Johan Öberg, and Niclas Östlind. Ett extra stort tack till: Sven Andersson, Anna Frisk, och Mika Hannula. Ett särskilt stort tack till Karin Wagner. IX CHAPTER 1 Introduction: Staging the Subject In the aesthetic regime, artistic phenomena are identi#ed by their adherence to a speci#c regime of the sensible, which is extricated from its ordinary connections and is inhabited by a heterogeneous power, the power of a form of thought that has become foreign to itself: a product identical with something not produced, knowledge transformed into non- knowledge, logos identical with pathos, the intention of the unintentional, etc. The aesthetic state is a pure instance of suspension, a moment when form is experienced for itself. Moreover, it is the moment of the formation and education of a speci#c type of humanity. (Rancière 2004, 22-23) The text that follows re$ects an attempt to identify the language and discourses that I would choose for discussing my art practice. However, as it is the very nature artwork to deny anyone the right to hegemony when it comes to interpretation, there is nothing de#nite to be said. My approach to artistic research is rather one in which a dialectic between two mutually exclusive signifying practices provoke each other. That is to say, creative practice provokes critical re$ection and vice-versa. Thus, the event of artistic research does not occur in the artworks nor the present essay, but somewhere between the two. Just as aesthetic experience enlists subjectivity, the subject of this trans-discipline is also required to stand in a place of uncertainty between the two poles of artistic practice and critical re$ection. Only by doing so, can they reencounter the challenge I have posed for myself and come up with their own responses; other languages, other discourses. 1 CHAPTER 1 Short of this, my approach is intended to protect the autonomy of both the artwork and the arguments. Through this modular approach, artistic research is intended to serve as a trans-discipline capable of producing both its own artifacts as well as those speci#c to disciplines such as Fine Art, Art Criticism, and Cultural Theory. Here my cue is taken from art historian James Elkins who has outlined a typology of basic approaches to artistic research in which varying negotiations between theory and practice are reached. While my approach does not #t neatly within his typology, the sprit of my inquiry derives largely from the following provocation: [T]he dissertation is considered as conceptually equal to the art. The research doesn’t support or inform the art, but compliments it, with each one illuminating the other. (Elkins 2005, 14) If the artworks discussed in the present essay range from those of well-established artists to my own, a common thread among many of them could be said to be the relations between humans and technology. Thus, what is on one level an essay about the rise and fall of an art movement known as “Internet art” or “net art,” this story will come to be superceded by subplots lurking beneath the surface. One of these will be my own creative practice. Shi"ing focus from the content of the forthcoming arguments to their form, the reader will #nd that the voice in the text will oscillate from the third to the #rst person in order for me to discuss this practice subjectively. Seeing as the stakes of the arguments advanced are rooted in questions of subjectivity insofar as the relations between humans and technology are concerned, it would appear to be a missed opportunity to ignore the obvious manifestation of such questions in the construction of the text itself. I sit and write on a word processor that delivers technical advantages that even seasoned machine typists would have found hard to imagine, much less scholars working by candlelight. Nonetheless, the a!ordances of 2 INTRODUCTION this technology will not prevent the $ow of these arguments from moving back in time, to questions as simple as they are old: Who is the I that speaks? Who is the I that writes? Are they one and the same, or is articulation divorced from inscription? This essay was begun with a host of preconceived ideas about humans and technology that have since been cast aside as the arguments have been re#ned. Chief among these ideas was the notion that a clear distinction could be made between the humans and technology, especially one in which something natural is contraposed against something arti#cial. Su%ce it to say, in as much as we can assert that there would be no modern technology without humanity, we must also contend with the notion that we are as much a product of our tools as they are of us. Climbing back towards the surface, I will now outline a series of more subjective interpretations that will hopefully continue to resonate across the more objective arguments that follow. First, net art is of interest to me in that it is a process- oriented form of public art in the lineage of mediums such as cinema and movements such as $uxus and situationism. If the oppositions outlined in chapter 2 suggest a certain neutrality in regard to the institutional domestication of the medium, this is only to the degree that this turn of events has legitimated voices and practices and thus given them wider reach.