[spectre] Re: the media art center of 21C [u]

[John Hopkins]

[Sorry for the lame quoting format!]
****************************************************************
andreas wrote:

- what you call 'the ghetto' is seeing an increasing number of works by former 'media artists' being commissioned and presented by 'regular' art institutions; we can argue whether the rules are changing, or whether there is a higher number of exceptions than there used to be, but on the whole the world beyond the ghetto is becoming much more accepting of 'ghetto-work'.

Geert wrote:
I do see more and more new media artists/workers leaving the ghetto. I also see that the ghetto, worldwide, is still growing, which is perhaps a good sign for those who believe in the Great Case of Electronic Arts, but not for those who have to live inside an overcrowded ghetto (or should we write more properly: a network of ghettos?).

****************************************************************

Geert! I find the thread becoming incredibly cynical -- and it seems that the cynicism is rooted in the following  dynamic:  Lets take the case of a creative person who decides to set up a relation with the social/economic model that the media center is running on.  while this is not necessarily of itself a detriment to the creative process, it does entail some degree of attenuating individual energies so that they are 'acceptable' to that social model (taking time to fill out applications, provide documentation of previous work, etc, etc ad infinitum).  [[This self-attenuation has a cost. and perhaps the cost can be framed as a process that places the creative person in a certain social position -- a position that could be called a "ghetto" -- It could at the same time be called "being a 'famous' artist who is championed by the social/economic model" -- it could also be called "being an artist who spends inordinate amounts preoccupied that his art work becomes popular" (a position often obliquely promoted in art schools!)]]  This self-attenuation may indeed cause an internal struggle between the un-attenuated energies and the attenuated "social benefits" -- when one sees the creative process becoming lessened by participation...  a deep dilemma and a possible source of cynicism.

Another justified source of cynicism is when, after this attenuated creative process proceeds, the net result is that the individual does NOT gain any advantage relative to the social/economic model.

But in the end, ghetto is a choice.  Classic victim status demands that the walls of the ghetto be seen as insurmountable obstacles.  I am curious (and this is a personal question you may not chose to answer), do you feel ghettoized as your position becomes more and more integrated with large(r) social institutions?  I can say for myself that it is much of the time overwhelming when surrounded/submerged by these competing and often heartless institutions.  So much so that I have had to marginalize myself in relation to those structures (or have been marginalized!).  However, I have complete confidence that in every momentary individual human contact, regardless of the surrounding institutional framework, I have the potential of being changed and of changing the Other.  What more is there in life?  Fame?  

Why  is there the schism between personal and professiona anyway?  Shouldn't they be integrated as unitary praxis -- a social model which recognizes this is anarchy.  Where the individual does not have to attenuate their energies in order to fit... 

I relate the following anecdote which may have some wisdom in it.  About a decade ago I was chairing the Fulbright Education Commission in Reykjavik.  This put me in a certain social position which included occasional invites to private dinner with the US Ambassador at the time.  It struck me, as I engaged this gentleman in dialogue that there was a struggle going on with his facial muscles, something that made it appear that he was speaking from the side of his mouth.  After some meetings and musings I came to understand that this was the visceral effect of being a mouthpiece of the Empire.  Another words, as a consequence of the social position that he willingly took on for certain rewards, he was unable to speak directly forward, saying what he felt ("speaking from the heart").  All speech was attenuated by the requirements of the model he had chosen to accept.  He HAD to correlate what he understood to be the voice of that Empire with what he was going to say 'in public.'

cheers
John