TPDR

As adviced by Derrick De Kerckhove

Posted in quotes and advices, Transmedia Research by tpdr on March 28, 2010

At his lecture on Sonic Acts this year in Amsterdam, Derrick De Kerckhove ended his talk with some advice. To be more precise he made a list of subjects he thought artists should focus on. Here’s the list:

– More in multiplicity instead of unity

– Interest in epistemology

– Investigating areas where senses mix/cross

– Also what kind of space does each of the senses create

– The string theory remains a very interesting zone of observation because it says there is an infinite number of dimensions in space that are being created in terms of physics

– BUT perhaps more than anything else in the neutral space of the point of view that we have been accustomed too (that there is nothing there and space is neutral) in which we lost the sense of the interval …

If you have read one of my previous posts, summarizing my subjects of research, you will understand that I felt quiet assured to continue walking the path I seem to have chosen, or seem to be choosing for the moment.

The One and Three Chairs – Joseph Kosuth – 1965 (but still contemporary)

Posted in (non)sense, Society and Technology, Theory, Transmedia Research by tpdr on March 28, 2010

Never thought I would write a post about a conceptual work of art. Then again, only fools never change their mind, right? So what interests me when talking about Joseph Kosuth’s One and Three Chairs?

First of all what doesn’t interest me as much is what he was trying to say about understanding art, the linguistic nature of an artwork etc. What I like about this work is, what makes it contemporary and still valuable to me, is the multiplication of the chair. Being presented as an object, in a photograph and as a word, it made me think about how we are multiplied and distributed throughout dataspace today. The main question is also, what happens to the Self, when undergoing this phenomenon. To me a similar question is triggered here by the title, ‘One and Three Charis’, suggests that there should be 4, while you only see 3 (object, picture, word). So what is this fourth chair? It is the concept of the chair, the mental image of the chair, … .

Thinking about this, and when applying it to the multiplied and distributed Self, I would say it is not the Self that is distributed, but it is just our image that is distributed. All these distributed images together all lead to imagining (part of) the Self. So how much is the Self then affected by the multiplicationand distribution we are confronted with? Are we creating a problem where there is non, misleaded by ‘reason’? Do we just have to focus on that mental image and use that as our reference, our vantage point? … As usual more questions than answers arise (hopefully some (possible) answers, will be posted on this blog in the future).

Another aspect that interests me is, when thinking about having the feeling we are evolving more towards the tactile (as a reaction to too much focus on the visual)(inspired for example by the thinking of Derrick De Kerckhove, a man I do respect), this work by Kosuth also interests me on this level. There is a difference on the level of tangibility here, that’s clear. But instead of going on believing we do need a more tangible world, I started doubting this again. For example one could ask the question if a return to the tangible is really necessary? Or maybe it is necessary, if only to conclude that we were wrong? Hard to answer at this moment, sure. All also depends on how you define ‘tangibility’. So instead of getting lost in this complicated subject, I will go on posting about this (as it is in some sense my main subject anyway) and try to elaborate this theme step by step. So I will end this one with saying sorry to all those of you adjusted to our ‘instant society’.