What to do with Art

"My interest is drawn towards artists who do not use art to merely advance political ideology, but who instead utilise all available institutional resources to articulate new ideas and create new spheres of possibility"

Here we are looking at the journey and transformation of art both within a cultural and spatial environment. We are looking at 'cultural identity' and the 'place' of art within a contemporary culture. How the art machine participates in the broader field of power and knowledge how it compares to that of the war and political machines. Nikos suggests that the emergence of 'spatial aesthetics' demands that artists and writers employ new sets of critical tools to interrogate complex forms of relations with others in the everyday. The idea that we must forward our thinking and combine those other contemporary cultural identity's of war and politics to progress and continue a successful transformation in the art world. These 'new spheres of possibility' and progressions must begin within the art institution before they can be successful within the everyday.

Below is the core outline of 3 of Nikos Papastergiadis, Scott McQuire and Peter Weibel social projects:

Public screens and the transformation of public space - "The core aim of this project is to provide a critical analysis of the impact of large electronic screens on contemporary forms of social agency in public space. Its key hypothesis is that the emergent creative practices associated with the new generation of public screens offer distinctive opportunities for public interaction and civic revitalization. Realization of this potential demands the development of new models for utilizing media technologies, negotiating the competing interests of the public and private sectors, and addressing increasingly diverse and mobile urban populations. The project is designed around two related strands: the sociological analysis of public interactions with large public screens, and the contextualization of artistic interventions in city life."

The spatial impact of digital technology on contemporary art and new art institutions - "The core aim of this project was to provide a critical analysis of the major changes currently occurring to the production of art and its modes of display and consumption. Our approach was predicated on the identification of an important historical shift, in which digital technologies are promoting a move away from traditional visual art collections based around material objects such as paintings and sculpture. Our hypothesis was that the new modes of aesthetic production, display and consumption provide both a vital index of the cultural dynamics of globalization, and a critical example of the profound redefinition of the social role of art."

Large screens and the transnational public sphere - "This project aims to test the use of large video screens as a communication platform for an experimental transnational public sphere. The project involves linking major public screens located in Melbourne and Seoul for three ‘urban media events’ involving specifically commissioned content. Because these cities share a near synchronous time zone, the events will utilise live and interactive components to engage publics in both places simultaneously. Initiation of original content will be complemented by longitudinal analysis of both the process of artistic production and the effects of public dissemination. The five-year time frame facilitates a research methodology based on a series of feedback loops allowing insights from different strands of research to inform the development of future phases. By drawing upon the specific expertise and resources of the research partners, and enabling leading academics to work collaboratively with key large screen operators in Australia (Fed Square P/L, Melbourne) and Korea (Art Center Nabi, Seoul), and peak cultural institutions (Australia Council for the Arts), the project will be uniquely placed to offer critical insights into the process of cultural exchange, the impact of media technologies on public space and the transformation of the ‘public sphere’ in the global era."

Laibach - Life is Life

Right so this is one of Laibach's music video's, he has a few im not sure if he writes the music or just takes splices from samples either way i think the music is crap but their still effective in their own way. Visually they come across as sought of generic i think they show a lot of shots of men standing on mountain tops overlooking vast wilderness it kind of reminds me of those old mountaineering films like the Leni Riefenstahl ones from school. I say generic because they don't wow me but i think im not supposed to be wowed, i think it's the lyrics that grab my attention and i think that was what Laibach was trying to do, with a repetitive chorus and simple lyrics he is able to sought of pass a very political revolutionary message on through to a certain audience by certain means i.e music. By creating art through music he has crossed that imaginary line, but in a good way i always relate art to music, if it sounds good people will listen to it just like if it is visually attractive we will want to look at it, although i still believe that beauty is in the eye of the beholder just like music, hence why different people like different things, anyway so what i mean by crossed that line that he has finally brought the big 3 together - music, art and film. They did it with music videos but only combined music and film, Laibach has realised that it wasn't the visual side of the video clips that were missing because that's already there with film its the meaning behind it, the artistic meaning, like that question i hate "what is art". Laibach manages to send a simple artistic message through to an otherwise unreachable audience with the use of music and film. Anyway wether im way off or spot on thats my interpretation of Laibach's films.

In or Out

"In the seventies the triumph of the new public art was firmly secured.

Almost any new corporate or municipal plaza worthy of

its name deployed an obligatory large-scale sculpture, usually in

a severely geometric, Minimalist style; or where more conservative

tastes prevailed and funds were more generous, one might

find instead a recumbent figure in bronze by Henry Moore or

one of Jacques Lipchitz’s mythological creatures. Today there is

scarcely an American city of significant size boasting an urbanrenewal

program that lacks one or more large, readily identifiable

modern sculptures to relieve the familiar stark vistas of concrete,

steel, and glass."

I find it quite funny that art has to be categorised and split with indoor and outdoor art. A sculpture indoors holds a different title to one outdoors. The work outdoors is considered "public art", yet a work in a gallery space although the gallery entry can still be free has a different title. It just seems to be ridiculous. Another thing that i found interesting the term that "art is made in the gallery" is something that i find completely relates to site specific art works the artwork is created after a specific site is found only after the area is found then does the artist start to work with his or her surroundings then they create a work that relates to that specific site.

"What legitimated them as “public” art was

quite simply their siting outdoors or in locations deemed to be public primarily

because of their “openness” and unrestricted physical access—parks, university

campuses, civic centers, entrance areas to federal buildings, plazas off city

streets, parking lots, airports." So a sites specific location will influence the artists creative side they will maybe subconsciously appropriate the specific site with there artwork. Yet when an artists creates a work in a gallery it is with white walls, ceilings, and floors so the surroundings still may effect the artist subconscious but i wonder if that because of the dull uninteresting surroundings will this effect the creative outpour (i cant think of the right word) positively or negatively.

Al Qaida vs Darth Vader

I don't know why but i keep on relating these readings to movies or plots maybe my way of understanding it. But after reading some of Blake Stimson & Gregory Sholette i sought of had this feeling that it reminded me of star wars

Al Qaida = Jedi - Rogue warriors yet who work collectively for one goal to defeat the imperialist forces who they believe are evil and trying to take over the galaxy.

Imperialist forces = Americans/western forces invading the galaxy lead by a semi psychotic leader.

Anyway im getting off track the point im making is that they talk about history repeating itself.

"in this sense the new e-economy that we are concerned with here is not all that different from the old industrial one, our workers and managers no different from those brought forth by Frederick Winston Taylor or Henry Ford a century ago."

"The newness of the new e-collectivism like the newness of the new Arab street, is only a rebirth of intensity, the welling up of spirits from the past a recall to oppurtunities and battle lines of old"

So in regards to Star Wars again it seems that this is the only thing that we know. If today for example Al Qaida miraculously defeated the western forces and they set up there own form of Government in there elected countries, there anti-imperialist, anti-social ideas and ideology would become the written word, the law and ideas behind the elected countries beliefs. They would become what they set out to defeat in the first place. But it would only be a matter of time before some other anti-socialist collective came along and decided to draw swords with the imperialist Al Qaida Government.

The fetishism of the commodity...

After reading about 5 or 6 of Debord's short thesis relating to mass media and commodity fetishism. Number 36 i felt i understood and related to most of all. 'The fetishism of the commodity - the domination of society by "intangible as well as tangible things" - attains its ultimate fulfillment in the spectacle, where the real world is replaced by a selection of images which are projected above it, yet which at the same time succeed in making themselves regarded as the epitome of reality.' I related this to the matrix, what is real and what is false, we live in a false world, a world of "cultural homogenization and mass media" we are given everything we need to survive, a world based not on living but having, we are taught to want from a young age the boundaries of what is acceptable weren't made by our own morality but by a social relationship with the media. In understanding this Debord is saying that we are essentially blind we make no real decisions that we are mediated with images forcing "reality" upon us already knowing how we will respond, that our rebeliousness and anti-social actions and words are accounted for. In essence we have no real opinion and what ever we think we have its already been said a thousand times before.