Second Workshop #4
March 1, 2007
[This week's summary is written by workshop member TJ Norris, because I drank too much and forgot to take notes. It all ended poorly, with me yelling at our guests. But I leave it to workshop members to fill in the missing details. Please: we need your help. Contribute your accounts of the evening in the comments, below. Meanwhile, a hearty "thank you" to TJ. —Matthew Stadler]
The evening kicked off with the celebration of wonderful food, prepared and organized (separately) by Matthew Stadler and Melia Donovan. Matthew re-concocted a hearty Dutch dish called stamppot, which was something of a melting pot of earthy autumn veggies all mashed into one blended and tasty organism. There were potatoes, onions, greens and some mellow spices, alongside some fat, spicy sausages for the carnivores in da haus. This was in keeping with one of the evening's guests, former restaurateur Michael Hebberoy, who's latest Seattle-based project, One Pot, is a true smorgasbord of collaboration. Melia presented an array of Latin delights. She plattered a series of small bowls filled with chipotle, spicy baked seeds, guacamole, salsas, and some very interesting dried mangoes in chili powder. All was in delicately colorful form, as the table was set for an evocative, lively evening of discussion.
Stephanie Snyder brought a bottle of Medoyeff vodka which aligned the table alongside Abi Spring's contribution of Hennessey (a cognac), some bold red wines, and a splash of house champagne. So, in short, the spirits overfloweth. I simply indulged in a very tasty dark porter, myself, something of a rare micro-brew.
The next item passed was Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture & Society (published in 1976) — a book written by the Welsh Marxist academic Raymond Williams. From Wikipedia: "this work examines the history of more than a hundred words that are familiar and yet confusing." Abi recommended further viewing via "News War: What's Happening To The News,” a television special about the future of newspapers (available online). The series directly relates to two of the workshop’s external texts: "History," (from Communications) by Raymond Williams and "From Parchment to Printing Press," from Ronald Deibert’s Parchment, Printing, and Hypermedia (with all its wondrous cross-referencing footnotes).
In true spirit of creative learning, we discussed the origins of the word "technology". Many people 'round the table had a different, but resounding personal or broad meaning for it and its presumed origins and ultimate (mis)interpretations. It comes from the ancient Greek techne (“technicos” — Modern Greek), which roughly translates into "explanation of the craft". Passionate discussion ensued about words that use its root, like “technocrat,” etc. Techne also means “cunning” and/or “deceptive,” which is fashioned from linguistics, rather than in its contemporary purposefulness, but it fed the group aesthetic of mobs, packs, group dynamics, and a sense of collective thought and power.
A book titled The Technological Society (La technique ou l'enjeu du siècle, 1954), by sociologist (and devout Catholic) Jacques Ellul, was mentioned as possible extended reading on such things. He was at once pessimistic and deeply hopeful about the possibility of man’s escape from technological being. Stephanie Snyder eloquently mentioned words about memory being the externalization of technology. This seemed particularly poignant given that we have become somewhat dependent upon the limited and certain mis/use of technology in the everyday. The fact that a more intricate human interface is now being seamlessly embedded into our forms of communication and creative (and mundane) activities, whether domestic or otherwise, seems fluid, albeit long in the making.
Next up Erik Palmer read Frank O'Hara's poem "Interior (with Jane)." Others followed suit by reading it a few more times, each using a different interpretation, whether assumed as cultural, learned, or otherwise. Some individual words read concretely, very physical, and others just rolled and caused for a bit of a "melodramatic" interpretation. Discussed were the parenthetical titling, the relationship between O'Hara and Jane (Freidlicher, a painter), and the emotional qualities behind the use of the word "sob." The conversation then led into a few different areas as our guests (and there were five of them) arrived, all too promptly. We touched on the concepts of deception and "ambivalent space," scratched the surface of appropriation, and opened the floor to further discuss the differences between open source (moving freely among people) and proprietary (negotiation/exchange) economies.
Then it was was time to open the doors to our guests: Sam Gould of Red76 and the aforementioned Michael Hebberoy (plus three of their collaborators, details forthcoming...). Both speakers were dynamic and have really interesting tales about how they operate social practices that are quite different, yet have so many interwoven similarities. Contrasting word-of-mouth publicity with a typical newspaper critic’s account, Michael Hebberoy distinguished "a personalized version of something” from “an editorialized version of it." Stephanie Snyder started to say something about artistry v. destruction and beauty v. destruction, or some-such. But there was a lot of cross-talk and controversy in the air, and I got sidetracked often.
Sam said he is not interested in permanence. I found that striking, given that he works with museums and institutions, and I alluded to it in my brief comments. Also, I didn't find it was necessary to reiterate that Sam is a “reluctant artist.” The funny thing was we never got to the root of the whole flare of the phrase "relational aesthetics.” They discussed their ad-hoc projects and businesses; the mythologies of appropriating spaces to re-channel their original guise; issues surrounding permanent records or documentation; if what they do is art at all; and much more. The discussion was fully interactive, filled with potential questions and problematics, for both the understanding of how to best deem or label what you do by keeping the ends loose and all-encompassing.
Comments (3) | Permalink | << | >>
Matthew Stadler | 03/02/07 @ 4:14 PM
Erik, I think this is an excellent addition. It reminds to add that Leslie's trenchant observation (that a commission to NOT produce art is a very interesting, even attractive commission) illuminated an essential aspect of these "interpersonal media" art practices. (Michael's harangue aside...) both Red76 and, now, One Pot use their own "failure" to produce art as a tool for success. Both projects create the space of artistic production — by calling a gathering "art" (or not calling it anything clear at all); by providing the tools for production; by providing the audience and expectation of production — and then, masterfully, leave that space empty and uncompleted. Thereby, this wanting space of production is made to compel everyone else there, the ones who have come to attend the event, to produce, to provide completion and meaning.
Apropos of our current discussion — the shift from interpersonal media (gathering people together in a place) to material media (producing things/objects that mediate between people and extend our reach to distant others) — Red76 and One Pot are good examples of cultural practices that gain effectiveness by using interpersonal media and, at best, slighting material media.
TJ Norris | 03/04/07 @ 8:34 AM
Yes, Leslie's comments were the catalyst in the snowballing barrage of excitement this past week. Thanks for capturing that - I was too actively interested in being all ears to be 1/2 brain! :)
Post a comment:
ep | 03/02/07 @ 8:42 AM
I think the main philosophical points that I would extract from the conversation included these: I asked Michael whether he conceived of Ripe-GBT-clarklewis as an art practice at the time of his involvement, and he replied with an honest but inconclusive answer. Not that there's anything wrong with inconclusive answers. Also, Leslie made a comment about an art grant/retreat program that did not require the production of a final object or performance, and the notion of that helped to get the shouting started. Probably not said well enough at the time, but I observed that the requirement that art results in something material or inscribed or that leaves trace (in the Derridean sense) might properly be conceived as an ideological notion that might or might not be justifiable; Michael called bullshit on all of that, and demands an art for which we might all witness its consequence. My apologies if I have misrepresented either of his positions in this comment.