<nettime> some scattered thoughts on *the warhol hijack : day 1

[mint77 <mint77@restlessculture.net>]

some scattered thoughts on *the warhol hijack : day 1

*11 artists responding to 72 hours in the online/physical spaces of
weliveinpublic.com

-------------------------
although the space is quite large it "feels" much smaller.  I perceive each
of the 32 real-time cameras as regulators of sorts...  instead of a
deconstruction or the staging an interruption/exposure or stark
consideration of "life/being" on behalf of the participants, the real-time
cameras render a sort of hyper-construction which i feel results in an even
further mediated exchange limiting concepts or ideas to narrow binaristic
choices or user preferences i.e., yes/no.  this is interesting to me because
one might pre-suppose the more cameras employed then the more participants
will experience "real-life" and increased possibility for concept-flow and
idea exchange... 

some of my early works with real-time internet performances suggested to me
that chat rooms, real-time video or otherwise moments experienced at such
tele-distance result in an immediacy of specter or image and also an
immediacy of judgment on behalf of viewers/participants to the work.  this
immediacy of judgment combined with the accelerated dissemination of
information (internet) results in increased response times for the viewers
and an environment of instant non-consideration or the  THE DEATH OF THE
IDEA.  AS PARTICIPANTS TO THE REAL-TIME GAZE ANY METHOD OF WORK/LIFE/ART IS
REDUCED NARROWLY AND INESCAPABLY BY WAY OF THE OVERCONSTRUCTION/OVEREXPOSURE
AND HAS IN EFFECT FAILED ALREADY.  i maintain my point of view that ART IN
SUCH A SPACE IS NOT POSSIBLE BECAUSE LIFE IS NOT POSSIBLE AT SUCH A
REDUCTION OF CONCEPTS AND TERMS.

i think one aspect of andy warhol's "genius" was his hype-machine devoid of
content or purpose; opportunistic works in testament to the cult of
personality and increasingly vacuous commodity centered artworld of the late
70s and early 80s. simply stated we could say "warhol was killing art".  if
we are to take that statement as a sort of approximation of a truth then we
could follow this thread to a conclusion that "warhol already killed art
therefore weliveinpublic.com is killing something that is dead already".
weliveinpublic.com is warhol's thesis regurgitated via increased new media
technologies.  weliveinpublic.com is warhol without the historical relevancy
or timeliness of that gesture.

-cary peppermint

-------------------------
-------------------------
-------------------------

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net