![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
1. Desire. I come from a social and cultural
context which has its language taboos, and
among them a strong one refers to the libido.
Desire is, therefore, something rather
personal, and connecting it to the public
sphere might personalize the approach in a
naive sense I learned to avoid. But since the
same topic has been voiced last year in the
calling papers of the Enschede Photo Biennial,
we might be dealing here with a common place,
therefore with a language defensive reflex, and
this is something useful to talk about.
If I look back to my experiences with language,
the first strong moment of automatic defense I
can remember is the "anti-" frenzy of the 60s.
At that time, at least in Romania, every
concept was refreshed by becoming an "anti"
concept. In a society where Art was seen both
as an instrument of personal salvation and a
resource for political compromise, everybody
was secretly hoping to succeed in experiencing
that ultimate oxymoron - the anti-art
acknowledged as the supreme art form. This is
the target of the defensive language - to keep
its users both beyond and within the power
structures - as accepted outlaws, or as a
neutral accomplices.
A similar experience was the clash with the
media culture, which started for the Romanians
in the spectacular way everybody witnessed by
December '89. What struck me ever since is the
way this specific segment transforms its
reflexive discourse in a surface of common
places.
First, by the stylistic option of the English
language itself, transformed into a somehow
baroque mutant, as if the translations of
Baudrillard and Virillo brought with them a new
kind of infatuation. This way, la France should
be no more paranoiac about losses in the fight
for cultural imperialism since she survives
pretty well as a virus hosted in some
structures of the lingua franca.
Secondly, by the self reproducing metaphors: in
a system of mirroring processes, the living
environment replicates in media symbols, while
the media environment is described as a living
structure. More one tries to cope with the
media meta-discourse, more shis dragged into a
stream of reiterated rhetoric loosing value at
high speed.
The metaphor launched for the purpose of our
gathering - I mean the "wired desire" - is a
bias recognition of the fact that originality
was killed by its underdog - the libido. Being
part of a scene is less a moral emergency than
a normal sexual impulse, like the dream of
having money, fancy cars, trendy clothes, fast
modems, or any other totems. Which is only
moral, anyway.
2. Wired. The phenomena I sketched previously
belong to a level deeper than the elaborated
promotional strategies. They are imprinted at
the instinctual level of behavior as a part of
survival techniques. Therefore, as far as
artists are concerned, they do not want to
change radically the art system (they never
wanted it, over ages), but just to adapt their
specificity to the new masks of power.
The whole trick lies in the ability to cover
your killing instincts (the artist is a
suppressed killer of the "otherness" in the
name of his own "difference") in a new model of
tolerance.
The scary part of this model is that it has no
obvious oppressive sides. That it looks so
rigorously different from our daily top-down
experience. Which brings the defensive response
of metaphors by which the old language doesn't
necessarily deny the new media, but just
diminish it, as people try to do by making
conversation to a mad dog.
After 1989 my writing adopted the modesty of
sampling from a ready made database of
metaphors. And my work got also quite easily
into the common place of modesty by operating
with an archive of photographs, under the cover
of a project called "The Art History Archive"
(A.H.A.).
"Hacking through history", "living in a data
room", "the artist as a virus" are the captions
underlining an image of anonymous activism that
I was integrating full heartily. The new aim
was to recombine the tridimensional oppressive
discourse within the horizontal massification
of a web project.
And since I worked previously with Geert
Lovink, as soon as I moved to Berlin I met Pit
Schulz and the Internationale Stadt people.
They were all happy to help me building and
hosting A.H.A. So, my connectivity was good,
although I never thought if I had or not a
desire to be wired.
Significantly enough for this unclear libido
matter, the A.H.A web site remained
unfulfilled, and it will stay like this, at
least for a while. The web is for the moment a
very demanding site, because it combines the
electronic sophistication with a rudimentary
interface. It reflects actually pretty well the
Jurassic Park atmosphere of the whole media
industry, with generations who replace each
other in a catastrophic rhythm.
This survival effort involves also old media
people, and that makes the web an interesting
critical tool. At the same time, the web is
forcing the artist into a promoter of essential
expression, being therefore an ethnographic
carrier, more than a museum space. More form
you put in your discourse, less communication
you can expect. A synthetic Nigerian sculpture
contains less data than a Bernini and it trades
faster in the net. So, if you want to be cyber-
Bernini, don't go there!
What the web needs at the present stage of its
development is to invent a substitute for the
archetypal village, where cyber-peasants
happily curve ritual sculptures in their spare
time; or it will be forced to adapt the
policies of MTV and other media lobbies who
play cool but stay hot.
3. Datadildo. The A.H.A is a sort of an
ethnographic study on the survival of art as a
document. The first web project related to
A.H.A. was to design an interactive site, with
funny stories about Corneliu & Augustin, two
freaks who travel through art history and have
conflicts with it. But people don't read funny
stories on the web, so why do it? Another
project was to throw photographs on the web, as
a kind of virusing flood, and then watch the
reactions; but photos are sometimes long to
down load, and there is a lot of them out
there.
Having an archive is a dangerous starting point
anyway, for the simple reason that archives are
just another item in the libidinal discourse of
the 90s. They mean "I am in control, but I am
un-oppressive. What oppresses you is the data
which accumulates anyhow, and I just point this
thing out to you. Take it or leave it."
In the old "anti-" times, people were making
anthologies, or were building collections. It
was the period of the post-modern willingness.
In the cyber time artists dig out old archives
- modestly slicing down pieces of passive
history. Or they start new archives, sucking
fresh data provided by others, in a kind of
media-supported vampirism.
There is in Berlin a fellow who calls himself
the Dildo artist. He is a cautious graffitist,
never attacking buildings but only posters,
using a very basic language, adapted to the
context of a town where the street is still
impressive in its visual codes. The Dildo
artist is a user of the city data as a part of
his sexual obsessions, which are very
conceptual, very remote and very strait. As a
failed shrink I can say that he is a solitary
person, with a libido oppressed for aesthetic
reasons; he is a misogyne, a traditionalist, a
nature lover, an ironic spirit, criticizing
star systems, consumerist tourism, Chirac and
his nuclear erection, Christo's Reichstag
paranoia a.s.o. a.s.f.
What he suggests to me is that, less than true
lust, the desire to be wired expresses a
dildoic need. A fetish attitude towards media,
as much as towards sex, is converting the
participation in the data stream into an
excited expectative. What a dildo or a web
artist can hope at the best, is to be
discovered by another artist and used in his
project, as it happens with the Dildo artist
from Berlin.
We - the artists - are having a trip with art,
and we do not want to lose it on the altar of
connectivity. But will it be lost there? It is
an unclear question, therefore it won't get at
this time anything more than another metaphor
for answer.
This is the metaphor of the DJ. We are all
familiar with the culture of techno clubs and
parties. That is the place where people are
completely autonomous and yet still connected
by the flow of sounds. The lights and the other
environmental tricks make everybody look good
ad move well. In this designed technoscape, the
DJ is a remote god of the moment, hidden under
a cryptic name as all of us hide under our e-
mail addresses, sampling metaphors and
manipulating the atmosphere as all good artists
do nowadays, humbly but effectively. All this
lasts for a few hours. Than we go somewhere
else. To another party mainly. To another site.
Calin Dan