Showing posts with label theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theory. Show all posts

23.5.10

listening and silence in the built environment

LTC_01_080609

if you're in melbourne on thursday night, and feel like participating in some discussion about sound, listening, silence, contemplation, architecture, the built environment, philosophy and quietitude, you're in luck.

i'll be giving a lecture as part of the architecture + philosophy series,

covering ideas about listening/silence and the forms of acoustic spaces which facilitate them, i'll focus on the grotto, the cloister, the autobahn and the headphone as a bit of a progression of those spaces.

i may also quote some adorno, some john cage and even wikipedia. just to keep it real.

and i'll also be speaking about some of the work that i've done which relates to a lot of these ideas.

starting at 6:30 pm, it is held at RMIT and will be an interesting night with some thought-provoking discussion. which usually comes from the audience :D

deets:
Thursday May 27, 2010
18:30
RMIT Building 8, Level 11, Room 68 (8.11.68).
Entrances are on Swanston and Bowen Sts, between Franklin and La Trobe Sts.

No need to RSVP, just turn up.

25.9.09

site-writing

i'm a whole week behind on posting about this, but it's always better late than never, right?*



last friday, as part of the architecture + philosophy series, design research institute and the urban interior research group from RMIT, jane rendell - writer, architectural designer, art critic and historian from the bartlett (ucl) in london- gave a presentation: to and fro: site writing.

she spoke about the role of writing in terms of art/architecture, the role of critique, the influence of ego and the id on critical architecture and the inevitable interstitial space between public and private.

i left the lecture almost bursting with ideas. in fact, i almost left myself a voicemail message as a reminder of all the cool stuff i had heard. i kind of wish i did because, 7 days later, all i can remember is the feeling and a faint connection to the notes i took.

she does have a new book coming out soon - site-writing, in which the process of critique and writing has been developed into a more formal process-based work, in which the various forms of language about site and experience are interspersed, a collage of sorts, even.

and as interesting as that is, a point of discussion which we had included the importance of purely functional writing and/or critique. where the traditional roles of object and outcome remain separated and the writer takes on the role of designer - responding to a brief: to articulate the nuance and visual code of an artist/architect/performer's work

there were a couple of key points, which i thought were particularly interesting.

1. immersive critique - whereby the writer responds to the work, not as a detached observer, or dissociated object, but from within the space. it reminded me about andrea fraser's 'little frank and his carp' - the video work she did where she responded to the guggenheim by literally following the directives of the audio guide - rubbing herself on the smooth walls, etc.

2. repression presents itself through repetition. i thought this was a particularly interesting concept. coming from a 'history never repeats' aspect, but i guess from an aesthetic position, it's something i'd be interested in researching some more.

3. the relationship of feminist theory and psychoanalysis to architecture. luce irigray is prime example, but i love being part of a discussion where the concept of design acknowledges gender politics and sexual identity. goodness abound.


i'm hoping that her presentation/paper will be uploaded to the arch+phil site soon, because i need a refresher course, but in the mean time, here is link to her presentation for one day sculpture in nz.

and some pics of my notes. you know, writing as image and back again [click to enlarge].














*except having your period. then it's always better never.

6.9.09

the doors.

a.structure b.destruction c.an illusion d.all above

“But is he who opens a door and he who closes it the same being? The gestures that make us conscious of security, of freedom are rooted in a profound depth of being. Indeed, it is because of this ‘depth’ that they become so normally symbolical.”

gaston bachelard, poetics of space.

swoon! coming back to this book is like slipping on an old pair of tracky dacks: cliched, a little daggy, but oh-so-comforting.

24.8.09

listening to the city, part II.

Dunja_TramStopWeb


following on from the not-listening project i posted about last week, saturday saw the extended remix of the listening to the city work that i've been undertaking. it's a process work on the act of listening and the role of headphones in urban life, where sound is a public environment.

in the first part, i was a participant. this time, i mostly delegated. i had 9 other fabulous listeners with me to record and absorb the soundscape of the city, making freeform notes along the way.

4 curators
4 artists (1 of whom is also an artist)
a DJ
a stylish go-getter
a writer of sorts
and a slightly extravagant interpreter/member of the polis

each person listened for 1 hour, most in the same spot. each had over-ear headphones as a prop - metaphorically connected to a social code and literally plugged into parts of the city: stairs, handrails, garden beds, public sculptures, bike rails, bus stops, stone columns.

plus, we had the occasional person wondering what we were plugged into, what was going on. as ben said, he could hear 'the sound of people's necks turning to stare and wonder'.

i haven't had a lot of time to distill the experience yet, but in the brief poring over some of the notebooks, it's interesting to see the same sound events happening and the different ways in which people noted it, experienced it, recorded it. some sounds were noticed, others were not.

most of us went to my local, brother, for a much-need coffee and sweet treat afterwards. it was there that a fantastic round-table discussion happened about the nature of listening in public, the effect of the headphones - both aesthetically and accoustically, and the experience of public sound emersion. i recorded a chunk of it with my dodgy phone voice recorder and am hoping that it captured enough of the dialogue to be useful.

interestingly, everyone's experience confirmed and related to the research/theory i've been poring over, and extended the nature of the previous projects. although it wasn't quite as big as i imagined it to be, it was still a success, in terms of what i'm interested in engaging with.

thanks to anthea, ben, dunja, eddy, jaymie, kim, kira, nella, simon and uncle george from greece.

5.6.09

'&': collaboration as contemporary arts practice.

Ampersand/Needle


i'm sure there's been loads of stuff written about collaborative art practice as a focus of contemporary art, but i just wanted to write a little about my experience of it as an important aspect of my practice and something i'm really excited about lately.


on monday, i'm going to be doing a sound/public work with 2 other artists, which is going to be a blast. we're going to be listening and dancing to the sounds of the city, as part of my research on sound in the public space. i'm also pretty excited about having the loculocu boys involved in the project too. collaborative team raphael ruz and jolyon james produce amazingly luscious, sensual and expansive works. i know that their practice is just as much about the images as the process of working with each other, which is an aspect of collaboration i find amazing. like something along the lines of best friend and spouse.*

obviously, the candystripers is a big part of what i do, and my feeling about that relationship is on a similar plane. i was telling someone the other day that i couldn't imagine my art practice without gemma. [cue: awww.....]**

and when i look at people whose work i love, there's always a huge chunk of 'teams' there:
gilbert & george
jake & dinos chapman
george & ron adams
christo & jean-claude
soda_jerk
kingpins

for me, collaborating with another person to create work, has enabled me to work in a way that i cannot ordinarily:

when i'm working on my own work, it takes a whole lot more effort to have the balanced perspective and the counterpoint during stress. whereas if either gemma or i are getting caught up in stress, anxiety or outright panic, the other automatically assumes the role of the sensible, reasonable type.

similarly, i'm not as particular or careful as i'd like to be, when it comes to my artwork, but when i'm working on candystripers stuff, i'm able to step up enough so that we're both on that level. and working with someone else, i can work within my limitations and strengths, leaving space for gemma to do what she does best, and vice versa.

financially it's also a whole lot easier collaborating. you get to split the cost of invitations, gallery space, catalogues and materials. given that the financial climate for the arts is always pretty grim here, it's unsurprising that collaborating has become a way to benefit more artists for less. 2-for-1!


and then, on a conceptual level, my collaboration with nella themelios provides an opportunity to work from a much more theoretical base. it's also a chance to challenge the cliche of what the working relationship between a curator and artist is like, and to push that a little. deleuze & guattari, anyone - just for something new?


as an installation artist, from a photographic background who works increasingly in the public sphere, it's just not possible to work solo. it's probably painters and crafties that can most easily do that, and while i love that stuff, i'm just not that kind of girl.

of course, given that i'm sharing the process, producing an array of experiences and not-quite-commodity-pieces, it does mean that i'm kind of subscribing to the school of 'the idea as art', but in light of digital comms throwing the whole territorialism of art and mark-making open, i'm ok with that.





*given the amount of ace collaborative partners in australia who are also romantic partners, this is unsurprising. see under:
dell stewart and adam cruickshank,
claire healy and sean cordeiro,
jaki middleton and david lawrey,
charles green and lyndell brown,

** don't forget - our project at bus gallery opens on tuesday night, 9th june, 6-8pm.

image credit: Ampersand/Needle by edgeplot from flickr

12.3.09

unexpected gems of insight and eloquence.

"It is nostalgia repurposed as originality under guise of danger, yet it is none of the three.
Attempts to use a humor framework to justify the "game" is simply another game, and is to be denounced as such."


From DB1.

9.3.09

public societies

my public life is sometimes fun

After I slovenly put together that last post about secret societies, i found myself divvying up (with my stepdad) this week's Australian Literary Review, which seemed to have rather a lot of articles relating to the business of being a citizen - politically engaged and discussing issues pertaining to the broader notion of the public sphere.

I thought it was kind of a nice pendulum swing from the interstitial space of being in a secret society: neither public nor private.

Firstly I was excited to see that Jock Given wrote about the notion of privacy, using the ALRC's recent review of Australia's Privacy Act, For Your Information, as a prompt to review three publications which address the notion of privacy and 'the public sphere' - specifically in the media/comms realm, but still relevant to this little bunny (who, in case you hadn't picked it up, is interested in art that addresses the line between public and private spheres).

Given reviewed The Spy in the Coffee Machine by Kieron O'Hara and Nigel Shadbolt; Blown to Bits by Hal Abelson, Ken Ledeen and Harry Lewis and Privacy: A Manifesto by Wolfgang Sofsky (one which I own). He broke the reactions to contemporary issues of privacy within the books into three 'camps': the 'get-on-with-its', the 'get-over-its' and the 'get-out-of-its': those that accept the changing nature of privacy, those who advocate it and those who rebel against it.

Some of the gems from the articles include:

...public melieux where one would not ordinarily expect to indulge in hightly private or intimate behaviour... (as a definition of the public sphere, in relation to surveillance)

or

"...Privacy to them (authors of Blown to Bits) is not a right to be separated from society, but one that makes society work. People need room to experiment, to deviate from accepted social norms, because there are no universally and permanently satisfactory one. They also need to develop and rehearse independent thought before its public exposure..."

Then, after a great article by Robert Dessaix on the Archbishop of Canterbury's book on Fyodor Dostoevsky (one of my literary lushes), I read what was left of an article by Mr Kathy Lette - Geoffrey Robertson, about suggested format for our bill of rights. An excerpt from his upcoming book, Statute of Liberty: How Australians Can Take Back Their Rights, it was surprisingly rousing for me. I had tears in my eyes reading some of the statements to which Australians would pledge (according to Robertson's proposal).

Most of them were fantastic, in tone, intention and content. I only had two minor issues with them:
Article 9, The Right to a Fair Trial is obviously taken straight from current statutes and not edited, as it all says "he" this and "to him" that. All the other rights are gender-equal and I would like to think that at the end of the first decade in the 21millenium, Australian's first bill of rights would be one that addresses the rights of all citizens - in content and language.

And then Item iii of Article 15, Right to Own Property, states that "there shall be no confiscation of private property by the state other than when it is in satisfaction of a judgment deb or if it is reasonably suspected to be the proceeds of crime". Whilst technically not confiscated, there is no mention of the fact that land which is being repatriated to Indigenous communities will be done so according to the Native Title act. Technically this contravenes the idea of all 'owning' land. I would like to think that Australia's first bill of rights would acknowledge this important process of our national identity.


In fact, between those two rather chunky articles, it felt like I had read the kinds of things that should be discussed in mass media publications: the business of being a citizen: the politics of public life, rather than the private lives of people who have a higher paid stylist than me.

Wouldn't that be something!

21.2.09

empathy and pathos




I've written about empathy a few times on this blog. There's something about it that seems to be crucial to being a human being, an artist and a citizen. On friday night, the conversation turned to empathy and it's relationship with being able to learn languages. A friend was noticing the link between his partner's inability to pick up languages and her lack of understanding about the more pathetic aspects of his personality. i use the word pathetic here intentionally, as it highlights the link i'm interested between empathy and pathos and that etymological goodness in between. The polyannas of this world, who prefer to only laugh and dance and skip, not to stir in the muck of difficult feelings like sadness and despair, miss out on the depth of subtleties of the human condition.
oh, "the human condition", hey. romanticism is sooo 19th century..-ed

I guess when it comes to understanding and having a compassion for the way another person is - to walk a mile in their mocassins, to be able to talk their language - pathos is crucial. You need to know what it feels to hurt, as pain is universal. In fact, i think pain traverses cultural and linguistic barriers more so than happiness, love, freedom. We all have slightly different definitions, needs and expectations of love, joy and other lovely feelings. However, i think grief, anger, pain - all those wonderful experiences - resemble each other across the divide. The way we deal with them, mind, is so different that it's ridiculous. But if you say to me ' i'm sad', i know that i have felt sadness too and can relate to how you feel, whether i enjoy it or not. but i don't need to wonder about translating that into something i can define. Whereas, if you tell me you're in love, i think that i have been in love too, but there is always a sense of difference, perhaps an insecurity of whether i have really felt what you feel and whether we speak of the same experience.

I believe that it's the pathetic, uncomfortable elements of us that are interesting. I see them as points of intersection between one language and another (empathy) and perhaps between the public and private self (identity).

image credit: mazoons

9.2.09

home





"the sign of being at home is the ability to make oneself understood wihout too much difficulty, and to follow the reasoning of others without any need for long explanations"

marc, augé; non-places; verso, london 1995. [my current read and new bible]

i love this definition of home. it certainly pertains to several places in which i call home - melbourne, hamburg, paris and turin. london is a great place to work and it's certainly more homely than before, but it's not really home. i often need long explanations to work out why the fuck some of the londoners do what they do.

paris is certainly a place i feel at home in. even with my totally shit french (which most of them forgive, thankfully) i can be understood. there are a few ways in which my modus operandi is supported here, which makes life just flow, unlike almost any other place:

time: everything is open at sensible hours - late. i can go to a gallery until midnight - or even until 9pm during the week. i can buy cool necklaces until 8pm at night and the supermarket around the corner is open until way late. i don't even know what time it shuts, but it's always open when i walk past, so that's fine :) transport runs until late, bikes are open for hire 24/7, clubs until 6am and people are just about. i don't feel the pressure to subscribe to a 9-5/M-F lifestyle, which makes this very home-like.

art: loads of places to see and experience art. i know that paris hasn't had a crackin' art scene for a while, but it's slowly building again it seems and i'm discovering all kinds of cool places to go. plus, as an artist/student, i get cheap deals all the time - free for some galleries, €1 for others, or just a great price. it feels nice to have my profession 'valued' and that is pretty home-like.

diet: while i certainly miss the abundance of fresh fruit and vegetables from home, they're not completely absent (unlike london - hello? everything wrapped in plastic? blech!). and the whole idea of just ambling through the day with some food here and there is great. baguette and coffee, croissant and coffee, pizza and coffee, everything and coffee - i love it! this time around, i've been staying with germans who know how to dine like europeans, so it's been extra ace. i love that dinner is late here and breakfast is late. and lunch is kind of non-existent. just like at home :)


whilst these habits are not the only things that make up a home, they're ones that certainly support me as myself and i don't have to justify or explain them to others. and, as in the above quote, there is a mutual sense of understanding.

in fact, quite often, paris feels so much like a comfortable pair of shoes that i always forget to take photos here. i end up with no usual 'artifact' of my trip here, just a whole bunch of books, drawings, tickets, feelings, memories and some other intangible stuff.

i like that.

18.1.09

a space is not so big as when you lose something in it.

1300x740x470_WestWallLongWeb

a space is not so big as when you lose something in it.

i decided that this was the case a few months ago, when my favourite jacket fell off the back of my bike in the city somewhere and i trawled the streets of melbourne, looking for it. this idea was confirmed for me the other day when, whilst flicking a cobweb off my hand, my ring flew off my finger into the large expanse that was my parents' country front yard. in searching for it, i tracked the space, searching for this cheap-arse, but meaningful piece of jewellery.

whilst doing so, i realised that a lot of the ideas i've had about knowing a space through measurement and occupation came up again in the search for the lost object.

whilst i didn't take quantitative measurements, i did make calculations of the space in which the object would probably be. which means i determined the space .

then i tracked through the space - measuring it through movement. i tried two types of ways to traverse the space - in a random way, hoping that i would stumble upon my ring. then in a methodical way.

neither worked to find my ring, by the way, but both ways gave me a whole new knowledge of that space. my eyes, scanned back and forth under and across patched of dirt, weeds, sticks, scrub. reducing it down to a smaller and smaller surface area, seeking out the rogue piece of gleaming silver. the level of detail within which i was 'in' was greater and greater. needing to 'zoom in' to the place in order to look carefully

and it is this looking 'carefully' that one only really does when we've lost something. when we're searching for something specific. both physically and phitosophically speaking, i guess.

places change their appearance, and our memory of those spaces becomes infinitely more vivid once we've combed the area, almost hunted for what we've lost. it becomes larger, deeper, more complex. and we take notice of those complexities, out of necessity - as each one could reveal that mising piece. that item of clothing, that person, animal, cheap piece of crap jewellery.
and this is going to sound remarkably patronising and preposterous, but while i was out there, on my folks lawn, keenly straining my eyes and aquainting myself with the bull-ants, i started to understand how indigenous australians (and those to other countries) KNOW their country. they spend/spent is hunting, gathering, searching for food, shelter, water, etc with the same level of analysis that i did looking for my shitty ring. they knew each part of their space, their property' in the same way - feeling it.

i wish i could have felt that land in quite the same way the other day. it would have been much cooler to just flesh out my lost item. instead i had to ask a friend to bring over his dingky metal detector.. how shit is that.

however, the experience gave me a new insidght into that listtle spot underneath the tree in the front, but also solidified this idea about this great relationship to space and loss.



edit: this was written in a haze of jetlag, so apologies for the rambling.

11.11.08

we love the one who responds to our question: who am i?

After this post, where the kids give their take on it. Here's what Jacques-Alain Miller and Lacanian theory tells us about it. Are they really all that different? I do, however, like the idea that finding love resonates with the process of sperm hitting the ova - as close to 'random' as you get without a hadron collider.


Jacques-Alain Miller: On Love

Hanna Waar - Does psychoanalysis teach us something about love?

Jacques-Alain Miller - A great deal, because it’s an experience whose mainspring is love. It’s a question of that automatic and
more often than not unconscious love that the analysand brings to the analyst, and which is called transference. It’s a contrived
love, but made of the same stuff as true love. It sheds light on its mechanism: love is addressed to the one you think knows your true truth. But love allows you to think this truth will be likeable, agreeable, when in fact it’s rather hard to bear.

H. W. - So, what is it to really love?

J.-A. M. - To really love someone is to believe that by loving them you’ll get to a truth about yourself. We love the one that
harbours the response, or a response, to our question: ‘Who am I?’

H. W. - Why do some people know how to love and not others?

J.-A. M. - Some people know how to provoke love in the other person, serial lovers as it were, men and women alike. They know what buttons to push to get loved. But they don’t necessarily love, rather they play cat and mouse with their prey. To love, you have to admit your lack, and recognise that you need the other, that you miss him or her. Those that think they’re complete on their own, or want to be, don’t know how to love. And sometimes, they ascertain this painfully. They manipulate, pull strings, but of love they know neither the risk nor the delights.

H. W. - ‘Complete on their own’: only a man could think that…

J.-A. M. - Well spotted! Lacan used to say, ‘To love is to give what you haven’t got.’ Which means: to love is to recognize your
lack and give it to the other, place it in the other. It’s not giving what you possess, goods and presents, it’s giving something else that you don’t possess, which goes beyond you. To do that you have to assume your lack, your ‘castration’ as Freud used to say. And that is essentially feminine. One only really loves from a feminine position. Loving feminises. That’s why love is always a bit comical in a man. But if he lets himself get intimidated by ridicule, then in actual fact he’s not very sure of his virility.

H. W. - Is loving more difficult for men then?

J.-A. M. - Oh yes! Even a man in love has flashes of pride, bursts of aggressiveness against the object of his love, because
this love puts him in a position of incompleteness, of dependence. That’s why he can desire women he doesn’t love, so
dependence. That’s why he can desire women he doesn’t love, so as to get back to the virile position he suspends when he loves. Freud called this principle the ‘debasement of love life’ in men: the split between love and sexual desire.

H. W. - And in women?

J.-A. M. - It’s less common. In most cases, there’s a doubling-up of the male partner. On one hand, he’s the man that gives them jouissance and whom they desire, but he’s also the man of love, who’s feminised, necessarily castrated. Only it’s not anatomy that’s in the driving seat: there are some women who adopt a male position. There are more and more of them. One man for love, at home; and other men for jouissance, met on the net, in the street, or on a train.

H. W. - Why ‘more and more’?

J.-A. M. - Socio-cultural stereotypes of womanliness and virility are in the process of radical transformation. Men are being
invited to open up to their emotions, to love and feminise themselves; women on the contrary are undergoing a certain
‘push to masculinisation’: in the name of legal equality they’re being driven to keep saying ‘me too.’ At the same time,
homosexuals are claiming the same rights and symbols as heteros, like marriage and filiation. Hence a major instability in
the roles, a widespread fluidity in the theatre of love, that contrasts with the fixity of yesteryear. Love is becoming ‘liquid’,
as noted by the sociologist Zygmunt Bauman. Everyone is being led to invent their own ‘lifestyle’, to assume their mode of
jouissance and mode of loving. Traditional scenarios are slowly becoming obsolete. Social pressure to conform hasn’t
disappeared, but it’s on the wane.

H. W. - ‘Love is always reciprocal’ said Lacan. Is this still true in the current context? What does that mean?

J.-A. M. - This sentence gets repeated over and over without being understood, or it gets understood the wrong way round. It
doesn’t mean that it’s enough to love someone for him to love you back. That would be absurd. It means: ‘If I love you, it’s
because you’re loveable. I’m the one that loves, but you’re also mixed up in this, because there’s something in you that makes
me love you. It’s reciprocal because there’s a to and fro: the love I have for you is the return effect of the cause of love that you are for me. So, you’re implicated. My love for you isn’t just my affair, it’s yours too. My love says something about you that maybe you yourself don’t know.’ This doesn’t guarantee in the least that the love of one will be responded to by the love of the other: when that happens it’s always of the order of a miracle, it’s not calculable in advance.

H. W. - We don’t find him or her by chance. Why that guy? Why that girl?

J.-A. M. - There’s what Freud called Liebesbedingung, the condition for love, the cause of desire. It’s a particular trait – or
a set of traits – that have a decisive function in a person for the choice of the loved one. This totally escapes the neurosciences, because it’s unique to each person, it’s down to their singular, intimate history. Traits which are sometimes minute are at play. For instance, Freud singled out in one of his patients a cause of desire that was a shine on a woman’s nose!

H. W. - It’s hard to believe in a love founded on these trifles!

J.-A. M. - The reality of the unconscious outstrips fiction. You can’t imagine how much in human life is founded, especially
where love is concerned, on little things, on pinheads, on ‘divine details’. It’s true that’s it’s above all in men that you find causes of desire like that, which are like fetishes whose presence is indispensable to spark off the love process. Tiny particularities, reminiscent of the father, the mother, a brother, a sister, someone from childhood, also play their role in women’s choice of love object. But the feminine form of love is more readily erotomaniac than fetishist: they want to be loved, and the interest, the love that’s shown them, or that they suppose in the other person, is often sine qua non for triggering their love, or at least their consent. This phenomenon lies at the base of the practice of men chatting women up.

H. W. - Do you not attribute any role to fantasies?

J.-A. M. - In women, fantasies, whether conscious or unconscious, are decisive for the position of jouissance more
than for the choice of love object. And it’s the opposite for men. For example, it may happen that a woman can only achieve
jouissance – orgasm, let’s say – on condition that she imagines herself, during intercourse itself, being beaten, raped, or
imagines that she’s another woman, or even that she’s elsewhere, absent.

H. W. - And the male fantasy?

J.-A. M. - It’s very much in evidence in love at first sight. The classic example, commented on by Lacan, is in Goethe’s novel,
the sudden passion of young Werther for Charlotte, at the moment he sees her for the first time, feeding the rabble of kids
around her. Here it’s the woman’s maternal quality that sparks off love. Another example, taken from my practice, is the
following: a boss in his fifties is seeing applicants for a secretarial post; a young woman of twenty comes in; straight away he
declares his love. He wonders what got hold of him and goes into analysis. There, he uncovers the trigger: in her he met traits that reminded him of what he had been at the age of twenty, when he went for his first job interview. In a way, he’d fallen in love with himself. In these two examples we see the two sides of love distinguished by Freud: either you love the person who protects, in this case the mother, or you love a narcissistic image of yourself.

H. W. - It sounds like we’re puppets!

J.-A. M. - No, between any man and any woman, nothing is written in advance, there’s no compass, no pre-established relationship. Their encounter isn’t programmed like it is between the spermatozoon and the ovum; it’s got nothing to do with our genes either. Men and women speak, they live in a world of discourse, that’s what’s decisive. The modalities of love are
extremely sensitive to the surrounding culture. Each civilisation stands out for the way it structures the relation between the
sexes. Now, it so happens that in the West, in our societies which are liberal, market and juridical, the ‘multiple’ is well on the way to dethroning the ‘one’. The ideal model of ‘great lifelong love’ is slowly losing ground faced with speed dating, speed loving, and a whole flotilla of alternative, successive, even simultaneous amorous scenarios.

H. W. - And love in the long term? In eternity?

J.-A. M. - Balzac said, ‘Any passion that isn’t eternal is hideous.’ But can the bond hold out for life within the register of passion? The more a man devotes himself to just one woman, the more she tends to take on a maternal signification for him: more sublime and untouchable than loved. Married homosexuals develop this cult of the woman best: Aragon sings his love for Elsa; as soon as she dies, it’s hello boys! And when a woman clings on to one man, she castrates him. So, the path is narrow. The best destiny of conjugal love is friendship, that’s essentially what Aristotle said.

H. W. - The problem is that men say they don’t understand what women want; and women, what men expect of them…

J.-A. M. - Yes. What objects to the Aristotelian solution is the fact that dialogue from one sex to the other is impossible, as
Lacan said with a sigh. People in love are in fact condemned to go on learning the other’s language indefinitely, groping around, seeking out the keys – keys that are always revocable. Love is a labyrinth of misunderstandings whose way out doesn’t exist.

Translated by from the French by Adrian Price for NLS Messager, taken from www.lacan.com

23.10.08

the role of ‘occupation’ in public art practice.



Art in the public realm has gone through a series of concentric cycles over the last 50 years, with changing relationships to the object, commodity and the ‘spectacle’. Artists have had waxing and waning relationships with the politic of working in the public realm and this brief discussion primarily focuses on artists whose works is grounded in the political and experiential act of occupying it.

The practice involves the occupying public space and consciousness is invariably influenced by both situationism and phenomenology. The situationist rejections of spectacle and object-based commodification of art brings an influence of action and process, while the use of ‘artist as body’ and ‘body as harbinger of spiritual, spatial and political power’ has its root in the theories of Merleau-Ponty and phenomenology.

The definition of ‘occupation’.
The definition of ‘occupation’ referred to here is largely focused on the derivative of the verb, to occupy1 , based on taking up space, settlement, presence and with slightly tactical, or event military overtones 2 - as opposed that related to labour, although obviously the entendre is not entirely unwelcome.
Similarly, this analysis of artist establishing occupation in a public place is also distinct from performance, focusing on the artists’ presence or evidence of presence in the space as a key element to the work: “working in a public, rather than in front of a public”3 , dropping in on daily life, rather than a prescribed or prepared action 4.
This kind of action and concept has its beginnings in conceptual art from the 1960-70s and, it is helpful to track the range of artists ‘occupying space’ since then, through the 1980-90s object-based movements, to contemporary artists, and to place its use and popularity within the aesthetic and public/political contexts over time.

Early occupations, actions, performances and conceptual practice
Art practice where artists’ presence is the work is firmly routed in the beginning of conceptual art in the 1960s, whereby process and action are impressed as vital artistic requirements. Obviously the gallery works and happenings of the fluxus movement at the time are influential on the development of ‘occupations’; however, there is a distinctly different purpose, method and outcome when occupying the public realm. It is in this instance that the relationship with political occupations and strategic warfare begins.

UK artist Richard Long’s A Line Made By Walking, England from 1967 is a major work utilising the public/accessible environment and rooted in concept of process and action. He repeatedly walked a path across a field, tracking his movement and his presence in the space, ‘drawing’ with his walk. This work set up the importance of the artists role as an occupier of space, within which artistic work is conducted, and also looked at the political effects of the work – enabling the work to be created by ‘anyone’ thereafter and encouraging experiential and spatial action as a way to effect ones environment. These considerations, based in the politic, have since influenced a range of artists in varying degrees, across a range of concepts.
Work like Long’s helped shape the tide of conceptual works created at the time, and with most artists were challenging the role of the institution, the gallery and the keepers of art. Joseph Beuys’ theory about the political nature of art, whereby each person is an artist, therefore all action is artistic continued to provoke the public and political actions of artists.
Similarly, Bruce Nauman and his coffee/studio works focused on this process of presence, action and occupation. Whilst initially in the private space of his studio, Nauman often referred to the political or public application and theory behind these conceptual works, which went on to influence his later Art & Language works.

Collaborative team ASCO, working in East LA and raising the awareness of the ‘Chicano’ community, operated specifically in this conceptual realm – working only in public and creating works that sought to reclaim public parts of LA. Their motives were simultaneously aesthetic and political, rooted firmly in the poor conditions and discrimination of displaced Latin American and Mexican people of East LA.

Working during the times of the East LA riots, the ASCO group would commandeer traffic islands, declaring them for art5 , or blocking off the centre lanes of bridge for two hours with a performance and only a series of spray cans left behind as a ‘mark’6. Unlike the gallery-based installations from the time, these ‘actions’ and pieces were scarcely documented, reflecting the intention of creating an experiential work in order to change the perspective of the viewer, rather than an image for posterity or commodity.

These artists were forerunners for a lot of the occupying, active work to come. However, their greater influence and place in public aesthetic would have to wait a generation.

In the face of objectivism and the spectacle

During the 1980-1990s, the primary context for art in the public place was postmodernism and the general feeling of big is better. The Americans - Andy Warhol, Julian Schnabel, Keith Harring, Jeff Koons and Claes Oldenberg’s influence on art – both private and that in the public sphere was exciting and challenged other preconceived notions about art and celebrity. But it left little room for non-objective, action-based work of a grass-roots, political or public nature to really take hold. In fact, in her survey of art in the 1980s, Alison Pearlman refers to “neo-expressionism as a rejection of conceptual art."

Interestingly, while the cult-of-personality was taking the western art world by storm, smaller occupation works were being lead by artists from emerging political environments: after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Eastern Block at the end of the 1908s, a group of Russians and East Germans, Collective Actions began creating works in Germany and Russia: their Field, which saw a field of artists, drawing with red thread served to highlight the new open spaces, reflect on the role of labour (note the third definition of occupation) and to, in a way, create works of beauty for the sake of it.

In Europe and the UK, aspects of artists 'occupations' began to emerge from the body/gender-based performance work and the feminist art movement: Cosy Fanni Tutti's Prostitution performance at the ICA, in which they inhabited the gallery. The political furore about the public nature of the funding and institutional support certainly brought those works into the realm of the public. Whilst that work didn’t present the other hallmarks of occupation – its strategic/warfare-like action - Katherine Hammnet's guerrilla fashion works certainly did. Her oversized 58%-Don't-want Pershing-wear whilst meeting prime minister Thatcher made front-page news and reflected the Punk/Vivienne Westwood-inspired design trend for clothing and fashion – the public personal façade - to be political, anti-establishment and certainly military in its influence.

During the boom of the YBA period of the 1990s, process, presence and occupation began to creep back into the discourse around art, even if the works being produced were still largely objective. The concept of ‘taking up space’ was a hallmark of many YBA artists and perhaps the reason for their sensation. Whilst still primarily for the purpose of commerce and private output (supported by media aristocrat Charles Saatchi), Emin’s Bed, and her collaboration with Sarah Lucas, Shop, Rachel Whiteread's concrete Untitled (House), Anya Gallacio's room-sized ice block (Intensities and Surfaces) and Martin Creed's crumpled paper/tiles/lights/doors in rooms and galleries all looked to occupy space, establish art as a force and a presence. Only Gillian Wearing's Dancing in Peckham really established art in a place amongst the people, in a ‘political’ setting. Yet this work marked a gradual return to artists occupying public space, as a political and aesthetic statement.

Renewed political statements and reclamations of territory
Perhaps as a result of global concerns about territory, a rise in general political engagement within the arts and a general return to more conceptual works, the last decade has seen a return to artists occupying public space, in various ways, as an artistic process and political discussion.

Global arts practice and the political context of operating in a global community has become a feature of contemporary practice, and as such, is reflected in the public and political nature of works by artists like Francis Alÿs and Santiago Sierra – both of whom have worked within Occupied Territories7. Alÿs’ Walk With a Paint Can through Jerusalem, reconfigures the concept of border/territory/geography as he walks the streets of Jerusalem, tracking his process with a dripping, painted line reminiscent of Richard Long’s Walk in a Field. Sierra’s work in Korea’s Demilitarized Zone [DMZ]8 similarly works with occupying borders, and in his 2005 work, transferred a set section of soil from each territory to the other, only witnessed by those part of the project.

In less politically charged environments, other artists working with the presence of people in public space for the purpose of playful, yet meaningful occupation of space include the Austrians Guerrilla Disco 9 and Cie Willi Dorner, who create public urban ‘sculptures’ from intimate piles and configurations of people, often spilling into the street, or wrapping around public infrastructure 10 . And of course the rise of the absurdist and subversive Flash Mob around the world reflects a common need for people to take up public space in an aesthetic, yet politically meaningful way, disrupting public mindlessness by a large-scale game of ‘Freeze’ in places like Grand Central station 11 .

Occupation of public institutional space, as continuation of works from the early conceptual artists like Yoko Ono and Beuys continues, mostly in the UK and its large public art funding. Ironically, works like Antony Gormley’s Fourth Plinth project 12, in which the ordinary person becomes the public monument, or even Martin Creed’s Turner Prize-winning Work No.85013 in which runners sprint through the hallowed halls of the Tate Britain Gallery are at once focusing on the importance of the politic/person within the public institution, and supporting the spectacle of production, not necessarily process artistic. However, the general acceptance of works like these indicate a change in acceptable public art practice.

Contemporary Australian occupations.
While the practice of aesthetic-political occupying space has largely been driven with European and UK artists, Australian arts practice has a growing number of artists utilising this process as a reclamation or political statement.
Mike Parr, as Australia’s foremost conceptual artist, traverses presence and politics, largely within a gallery setting, but increasingly within the public institution. And, whilst still mostly focused within the interiors of public institutions or facilities, works such as Ross Gibson's Conversations, seen in the Sydney Biennale, the RMIT UI research group’s recent Occupation at Craft Victoria, and even my own occupation of public toilets in shopping centres show a continuing trajectory of consideration of this area.

In Australia’s greater public realm, work that seeks to occupy space as a process is still largely ground in a combination of performance and relational aesthetic works, however Perth’s PVI Collective TTS bus, Zanny Begg’s politically-loaded Checkpoint ‘soldiers’ occupying the streets of Blacktown and Lucas Ihlein/Squatspace’s projects traversing of Sydney streets and suburbs in the name of ‘ownership’ are all works which have a common need for the presence of people to form and inform the public realm. The role of occupation of land within Australian cultural and political context has been an uncomfortable one, only recently discussed with a level of openness seen in other countries. With subversive indigenous occupation of land being largely based at the Tent Embassy in Canberra, the effect of changing perspectives on land, territory and ownership on contemporary public art practice is unknown, as yet, but will be an important one.

Most of the works and art practices mentioned above are largely temporary/transient works, with reference to Aristotelian peripatetic practice14. However, with associations to shifting politics and possibly the overkill of 'stuff' - the object has ceased to be political, just consumptive and part of the spectacle. And whilst aspects of performance are obviously part of the spectacle, the person - citizen, in action has the power to reclaim the political, civic and public space and it is this lean towards action, towards collectivism, to the true meaning of the politic which is gaining momentum, in collaboration with contemporary conceptual art.

Notes
1. Occupy. v. 3. Take control of (a place, esp. a country) by military conquest of settlement. Enter, take control of, and stay in (a building) illegally and often forcibly, esp. as a form of protest. Oxford American Dictionary.
2. Also refers to the “ethics of combat”, which relate to the tactical/strategic concept of space, common in warfare, or combat mindsets, but influenced in artistic ‘commandeering’ of public space. Ref:, The Emergence of Social Space: Rimbaud and the Paris Commune, Kristin Ross, within the essay Internal Exiles , C. Ondine Cavoya, in Space, Site and Intervention, edited by Erika Suderberg. Interestingly, Michel De Certeau also refers to ‘tactics’ of relating to the public realm/everyday life in his Practice of Everyday Life.
3. Credited to Vito Acconci, op.cit, Chavoya.
4. Willie Herron from ASCO, “.. we would just drop in on everything in its normal pattern”. Ref: op cit, Chavoya p193: Brown and Christ, Interview with Willie Herron, 1985
5. First Supper (after a Major Riot), 1974. Ref: op.cit, p195.
6. A performance known as Last Rites in the Left Lane, on the Fourth Street Bridge, in which members of a local Chicano gang discover plutonium in cans of spray paint and so begins a nuclear age of atomic gang warfare. Ref: op cit, p196.
7. “Occupied Territories” being nation states whose political and geographic boundaries are contested through “military conquest or settlement” – Oxford American Dictionary.
8. The patrolled, controlled and technical nation-free space, which signifies the border between the Republic of South Korea and North Korea.
9. A pirate radio event, which broadcasts a DJ set to the public through a series of free headphones – a simultaneous public and private space.
10. http://www.ciewdorner.at/; http://swissmiss.typepad.com/
11. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=t6qWaJ-BG-k
12. Supported by both the National Gallery and the Mayor of London. And although Trafalgar Square is technically a public space, the Fourth Plinth is managed by these public institutions and, as such, has in itself become an art institution.
13. Supported by the Tate Gallery and Turner Foundation.
14. Referring to Aristotle’s practice of walking to and fro whilst teaching, in and of itself about discourse and occupying a space.


Bibliography
Conceptual Art, Tony Godffrey, 1998, Phaidon, London.
Practice of Everyday Life, Michel De Certeau, 1988, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Space, Site, Intervention, ed. Erika Suderburg, 2000, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

20.10.08

free occupied minds

free occupied minds


ok, so i have an essay to write. due on wednesday. and i'm quite interested in the topic - have found a few reasonably interesting examples, have yet to draw a conclusion, but i'm on my way. except for that all-important bit: motivation. holy crap, i haven't procrastinated this much in.. ooh...weeks!

anyway, so i've decided to subject you all to a cruel social experiment, and i'm going to plot out my essay on this blog here. as i said to a friend the other night - 2000 word essay? easy - only about 5 blog posts! yes, that's right kids - you get the plan, each paragraph, conclusion and the intro... heh. so, here goes.


THE ROLE OF PUBLIC 'OCCUPATION' IN ART
the outline
:

intro
incl. definition of occupation (esp: difference from performance - namely gallery vs public context) and relationship to political occupation. aesthetically political/ethic of warfare/colonial history (esp. australia).

incl. relationship to situationism and phenomenology

incl. outline of chronology/trajectory -


body
beginnings
1960s - 1970s
fluxus/richard long's walk:"if an artist traditionally draws with a pencil, ;
bruce nauman studio works
ASCO East LA/Chicano - 'aesthetics of strategic warfare'
beuys (as inspiration, - all art is political when every person is an artist)


in the face of objectivism
1980 - 1990s
hardly any. who's talkin' about sitting in a space in public, when there's multi-million dollar painterly and shiny things to sell. the cult of personality and celebrity. "neo-expressionism as rejection of conceptual art." - alison pearlman.

eastern europeans: collective actions (Monastrysky) - field of artists with red thread.
brazillians - sierra/miereles

western 'occupations' became body/gender-based performance in 1980s: cosy fanni tutti's prostitution, katherine hammnet's 58%-don't-want pershing-vs-thatcher-wear, hannah wilke, vito acconci, mike parr.
...and objective/architectural with YBA in 1990s: whiteread's concrete; gallacio's ice, creed's crumpled paper/tiles/lights/doors; gillian wearing's dancing in peckham a gradual return, although based in photomedia/performance, than 'occupation'


renewed political statements/reclamations of territory
00s
Santiago Sierra - DMZ transferrance of soil, only witnessed by those part of the project - occupied territory;
Francis Alys - Walk with paint can in jerusalem - occupied territory;
Gormley - Fourth Plinth (occupied territory?)
Guerilla Disco - austrian (through fun/music not manifesto)
people in urban environments: slinkachu and cie willi dorner
flash mob (still on the performative side, but using the concept of just dropping in - not prescribed).
Creed's Works No. 850/570 - movement and occupation/public institutions


Contemporary Aussies:
Ross Gibson's Conversations,
UI - Occupations (interior, but based in public institution),
me - in a toilet somewhere.
PVI collective - on the edge of performance
Tony Schwensen's BBQ - same. but still tied in political/occupation of space.
Tent City, Canberra.
zanny begg - soldiers (cardboard people)
online: lucazoid (lucas ihlein) the 'sham


conclusion:
Largely temporary/transient works. Links to Aristotlean peripatetic practice. Links to shifting politics and possibly the overkill of 'stuff' - the object ceases to be political, just consumptive and part of the spectacle. performane is also part of the spectacle. but the person in action reclaims the political, civic and public space.


[actually, if i was going to attempt to make this interesting, i might have made it into a slideshare thing. but i can't be fucked. instead, go and check out marcus' guides to global finance and global financial catastrophe instead - it's much better. next time i have an essay due, i'm going to commission him to do my outline slides.]

13.10.08

enciclopedia ilustrada

As long as Im walking,
Im not:
Choosing
Smoking
Losing
Making
Knowing
Falling
Painting
Hiding
Counting
Adding
Crying
Believing
Fucking
Drinking
Closing
Stealing
Mocking
Facing
Crossing
Cheating
Talking
Reaching
...
...
...
I will not repeat
I will not remember


Francis Alÿs, from The Walker

[thanks to eddy for sending it to me, not once, but twice AND posting it on her blog - just in case]


Here's my list from my occupation at Knox.

When i'm in the toilet i will not:
Shop
Buy stuff
Think about buying stuff

Worry about money

Worry about whether I’ve bought something I shouldn’t have

Wonder if my husband/mother/friend/child will like what I’ve bought

Feel bad about myself because the jeans I wanted to buy were too small, even though they were a size 12

Support sweatshops and slave labour by getting those Nikes.

Drive around for 30 minutes trying to get a park nearest the door, then forget where I parked my car.

Shoot up smack. I’m not a heroin addict.

Smoke. I gave up smoking years ago.

See sunshine for a couple of hours.

I will:
Read

Draw

Write
Think
Day dream
Make myself comfortable
Have some time to myself



Interestingly, i'm writing about the role of occupation in public art/art in the public space and it seems that in any kind of occupation, what's not being done is just as important as what is being done - that the negative space of action (inaction) supports and equally defines the positive. Who would have thought that such formalist ideals as postive/negative space and form could translate so beautifully to post-modern manifestos about process.

oh, and take this as a warning - there'll probably be a post about occupation soon. tune out either tomorrow or wednesday if you can't be arsed reading more art/political rhetoric.

6.10.08

ceci n'est pas mariage





funny how a prank can become an interesting piece of social insight.

last night, out of a warped sense of humour and blatant cheekiness, i changed my facebook relationship status to married. it's pretty easy to get married on facebook - just a drop-down menu really. nothing to really take all that seriously. in fact, when friends who had been going out for ages went from 'being in a relationship' to 'x is now engaged to y', i doubted it and texted, just to make sure, even though it was the reflection of fact.

i kind of knew a few people would look at it and laugh, but i didn't expect anyone to take it seriously. in fact, i was genuinely surprised at the responses i got! thankfully a couple of friends went along with the gag - congratulating me on my marriage to doddsy - the guy with a great art guide to NYC and a complete lack of tact.

interestingly though, what surprised me the most, was the number of shocked reactions! some people i haven't heard from in a while, some reasonably close friends, some who've become strangers - but still, lots of reactions. like getting married still rates as a vital point in a radar for these (mostly) women (ahem, ben?). i have posted all kinds of weird and wonderful messages on facebook over the year that i've been part of the cool kids, but it weirds me out that the one that gets the most reaction is marriage.

it throws up a couple of questions, doesn't it? like what does that say about us as modern women? what does that say about me, as a person? what does that say about my friends? i'm not going to generalise really, but i will say that getting married is still, far and away, obviously a BFD - big fucking deal for people. even on facebook.

and then, what does it say about reality? and ceremony? and truth? is it enough to change your facebook status to signify marriage - will this be the new marriage rite? is this a sacred status that should only be changed with proof of a marriage certificate (seeing as people treat it as gospel). what does this say about belief? how much are we still willing to believe in what we read on the internet? these friends of mine are not stupid, i'll have you know...

can you imagine if magritte had a facebook profile? i'd be his friend, that's for sure.

15.6.08

toilets: private spaces

SpinachDay3ToiletPipe.jpg


following on from my private in public presentation/investigation, i thought i should let you in on my most recent obsession: toilets. more specifically public toilets.

actually, if i'm confessing, then i've been slightly taken by public loos for quite a while. i love comparing them, seeing the differences and the similarities between them, finding the gems, resigning myself to the awful ones, listening to the conversations, checking out the graffiti on the walls and noticing the cultural signifiers that invariably turn up in the most private of public spaces. and so it seems that public toilets have become the focus of my research.

if you're particularly astute, you'll have noticed the beginning of toilet-based links on my del.icio.us page, plus the previous wishlist of having a studio in a toilet. there are a few areas about public toilets that specifically interest me, which i'll probably keep coming back to over the next little while so be prepared. i'm hoping to avoid the obvious toilet humour, but being that i have such a tacky sense of humour it may be unavoidable. i'll do my best.


social history and theory focused on the toilet



i'm just starting to get into this right now and have discovered henri lefebvre's discussion on the everyday, his relation to the situationists/debord and his criticism of the bourgeouisie denial of the everyday and pushing it to the extreme of architectural space. plus the ol' bachelard's poetics of such a space: hardly a room, but four corners and how we relate to corners as our retreat, our back-up. our protection in times of vulnerability, but also our entrapment.
then of course there's the place of the public toilet in modern dynamics: the place of the public toilet in women's social freedom and the role of the beats in homosexual freedom and teenage rites of passage. (i promise i won't mention teenagers giving blowjobs in the school toilets. that might be pornographic)


archaeology/architecture/design of public toilet.



i'm sure there'll be more in lefebvre's urban criticism about the architectural role of the toilet in there too and i'm also interested in the architectural history of toilets: what they look like, the ones that have disappeared, closed off, enshrined and the weird/wonderful places that they exist.

and of course there's the straight-up design comparisons between them.*

role of the public toilet in the urban rhythm.
8 Red Sticker 2.jpg

this spans across a couple of areas.
of course i'm interested in the way people engage with public toilets [for an hilarious post about this, especially with children, check out this on dooce. it's fantastic] - their idiosyncrasies, neuroses, things they take for granted and obvious cultural differences (like those ladies in london loos selling lollipops).
plus, i'm interested in the role of the toilet in the whole realm of architecture/urban planning - does a dysfunctional toilet signify a dysfunctional society? and how much is a city influenced by its toilets? if we focuses as much attention on designing our loos as we do our bedrooms, would we be happier?


as you can see, this is all a pile of unanswered, loosely sketched, incoherent crap (d'oh! pun!), but i'm kind of excited about answering some of these questions and starting to flesh out what it all means in terms of my work. i've already begun working on the toilet project [mark 1], a public-ish work which simultaneously reconfigures architecture through craft/fashion methodology and also starts to facilitate some interesting reactions, which will hopefully challenge a few of those idiosyncrasies i was talking about before. i'll be posting more here soon, so stay tuned.



*i've always secretly wanted to do a toilet guide to sydney or melbourne. the companion publication to the melbourne/sydney design guides? ha!