Or maybe not. On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Pall Thayer <[email protected]> wrote: > Here's my knee-jerk reaction to a possible knee-jerk reaction. I think > we have this tendency to dislike the word "new" in any label (that's > the other knee-jerk reaction). Having only skimmed Bruce Sterling's > essays as well, I'm always skeptical when it comes to the term "new". > Especially when combined with a term that I personally think is often > misunderstood, like "aesthetic". If you look up "aesthetic" in the > dictionary, it will probably tell you that it has something to do with > "beauty". But in a philosophical context, it really has very little to > do with beauty. It has more to do with tastes and interest. Being > drawn to something regardless of whether a person is drawn due to a > sense of beauty, revulsion or something in-between. > > So, let's think about this. "Aesthetic" refers to a "sensibility", so > "New Aesthetic" would mean that we've developed a new sensibility(?). > Is that really the case? Let's take the "glitch". When things don't > perform as they should, is the notion that we might be aesthetically > drawn to that really something new? I don't know about others but I > always find it very curious when something "glitches". It peaks my > curiosity. So, is the "New Aesthetic", as it pertains to the "glitch", > really a "new" aesthetic or does it simply exploit an existing > aesthetic? Art is not something that re-invents itself periodically. > It's more like an evolving being. Nothing is "new" but rather a > progression of the things that came before it. How about "Next > Aesthetic"? > > Keep in mind that I'm just entertaining a brain-drain here. Maybe I > should read the Bruce Sterling essays. > > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 7:28 PM, mez breeze <[email protected]> wrote: >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Find below a modded version of part of the discussion raging on an alternate >> list regarding the "New Aesthetic". Enjoy [or don't]. >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> In an effort to keep this manageable [lump me into one of your keeerazzzy >> glitch/net.art/web-point- >> infinity/relational & new aesthetically-defined "artistic" categories if you >> will] here's some [non-random + IMO relevant but not necessarily cohesive] >> points: >> >> 1. I've only skimmed the Bruce Sterling essays [both of them] and don't have >> an in-depth overview of the term "New Aesthetic" [henceforth now to be known >> as "Phrase That Will Not Be Named" in an effort to reduce the ridiculous >> amount of verification we are bubble-developing around it]. So there. >> >> 2. My flickering attention-focus [hullo, continuous partial attn syndrome] >> has honed in on this particular attempt at avant-garde labelling because of >> how it perpetuates the tradition of "name the new art phase in order to >> perform/get x" [whether x = ego aggrandisement/monetary wealth/extend an >> individuals prosperity>cred value]. To employ a relevant phrase: it just >> smells wrong. And by smelling wrong I'm in no way referring to Bridle or his >> content [I have been rss_internalising his tumblr for some time now = it >> rawks: though I had no idea of his name until this whole labelling >> blerghness blew up] or any other glitch-luvin' practitioners or creative >> types. After all, I'm one of them. >> >> 3. My seeming lack of attention to research regarding the "Phrase That Will >> Not Be Named", or lack of "deep (articulated) thought" regarding the issue >> isn't indicative of a negative outlook on "the glitch". Nor is it due to >> lack of engagement with the actual material/pulsing creative output that's >> [possibly, hopefully] superseding many flattened contemporary "art scenes" >> [read: institutions as opposed to practices]. My lack of focused attention >> is due to the fact that *i'm_actually_living_the_aesthetic_in_question* + >> have been for years [New? bah!]. The life of a "Phrase That Will Not Be >> Named" advocate *requires* continuous partial attention: it *requires* a >> profound adherence to deriving substantiated [yet seemingly ephemeral] >> meaning from "the now" [ie connective novelty formation, expressive + >> anonymous appropriation devoid of ego/exclusive monetisation, the continuous >> fact of networked/communication immediacy/recursion, a burgeoning >> maker/hacktivist practice-aesthetic, the growing irrelevancy of standardised >> content/institutionalised values + associated comprehension loadings]. >> Dragging an antiquated, faux-trendoid label and slapping it over set of >> practices that have been in operation for as long as directed digital >> communication/tech platforms have coalesced = bad whiff, not to mention >> downright offensive. It's the problem of seeking to stuff uncategorised, >> non-art-defined forms into format [+ vice versa], of assigning crusty >> paradigms/terms to output [like Bridle + his tumblr] that's being subsumed >> into a discourse designed to pinpoint/catalogue/perpetuate. Drawing a >> [restrictive labelling] box around a set of expression[s] that exist as >> working practices seems like inverse encouragement: this disappointing need >> to contextualise>label>scene-create>institutionalise>monetise = sad[panda >> making. Google "sad panda" if you don't get the reference]. >> >> 4. Content curation isn't art. The urge to perform it may be similar to what >> drives artists to produce: in many cases, content curation is a ceaseless >> search for connection through firehosed content streams/"novelty" >> verification that may just ellipse the need for art/culture classifications. >> Is it possible to conceptualise a world where the need to frame >> practice/process/product through cultural or artistic filters is largely >> obsolete? [reddit.com + 4chan.org + 9gag.com + tumblr.com = giving it a >> decent go.] >> >> 5. Appropriating + remixing graphic markers/standards from marginalised or >> "other-fied" disciplines/decades does not a new genre/paradigm make, >> especially when begging to be [or deliberately engineered to be] monetised >> by a system and/or individuals determined to emergent-capture [yes, this >> includes institutionally sanctioned galleries + alternative galleries + >> oldschool curators + newskool aggregators + conference-merry-go-rounders + >> theorists + panels + karma-seeking discourse boffins]. Codify, hipsterise + >> aggrandise at your leisure, but be prepared for watered-down, digestible, >> bastardised versions of worthwhile social + expressive currencies. >> >> 6. And so it goes. >> >> 7. This too will pass. >> >> >> [Mostly-too-large-2-chew]Chunks, >> Mez/@netwurker >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > > -- > ***************************** > Pall Thayer > artist > http://pallthayer.dyndns.org > *****************************
-- ***************************** Pall Thayer artist http://pallthayer.dyndns.org ***************************** _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
