[rumori] new thread

Boster, Bob [rumori] new thread
Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:15:09 -0700 (00902981709, c=US%a=_%p=HIII%l=MAIN_SERVER-980812201509Z-5527ATserver2.orban.com)



I guess this wasn't as interesting as I thought since Steev was the only
person who bit...


>----------
>From: Steev[SMTP:steevATdetritus.net]
>
>->I've been thinking a lot about the fundamental differences between the
>->kind of work that comes out of processes involving appropriation and
>->those where a practitioner is attempting to reveal a vision from her/his
>->imagination.
>
>Hmm. Do you really think those 2 things are mutually exclusive?

Yes, I do think there is a qualitative and experiential difference
between trying to make a piece where you are hoping to replicate an
interior concept which is fully formed and a piece where the content of
the piece is revealed through quality of the juxtaposition of previously
extant elements. One of the reasons for this, in my mind, is that it's
very hard to "pre-conceive" what's going to happen when those elements are combined, therefor making it nearly impossible for it to be
"visualized".



>I guess I'd have to read the whole book to get it, to understand this
>"posthuman" idea, but right off the bat i don't think simply extending the
>lifespan to 125 years is going to bringabout the kinds of changes
>described in the quotes you cite. I've thought a lot about what would
>happpen if humans got their lifespans to be really extended, like in the
>1000 year to infinity range; i think in that case everything would truly
>start to get different, culture, psychology, etc. but 125? big deal.

Still changes the scope of daily experience significantly. But your
comment is pretty right on. Book follows that scenario somewhat as
well.

>
>->"The destruction of the human condition offers us an avalanche of novel
>->creative approaches. Those possibilities must be assimilated and
>->systematically deployed by the heirs of humanity. Artifice is not Art.
>->Although it deploys the imagination of the preconscious, it recognizes
>->that the imagination of the unconscious is impoverished. We honor the
>->irrationality of the creative impulse, but we deny the primacy or even
>->the relevancy of hallucination. We harness the full power of conscious
>->rationality and the scientific method in pursuit of the voluntary
>->destruction and supercession of human culture."
>
>I don't get this. this sounds like a cross between Hakim Bey and Hitler.
>
>I suppose the assumption here is that if we live twice as long everyone
>will have this enlightened free time in which to be creative and beautiful
>and smart. but that's not neccesarily true. some other things have gotta
>happen, also. maybe they do, in the book.
>
>(chances are, if we live longer, that will just mean more time for our
>corporate masters to extract use-value from us, i.e. more time to work and
>consume. and just think, with nostalgia stretching back over a century,
>marketeers could *really* start some retro trends!)
>
>->"The human condition is over. Nature is over. Art is over.
>->Consciousness is ductile. Science is an infinite powder keg. We
>
>yuck. i'm just not getting (into?) this. like i said, maybe i should read
>the whole thing.

I'm not going to confuse things further by trying to answer these
individually, but I'll say the thing that interested me about this was
the idea that Artifice would be a creative construction that involved
conceptualizing the audience as it's primary focus and very little
attempt to render an interior constructed concept. Sort of like
Advertising without the product. Maybe discussing that vision makes
more sense without the bombast.

>
>Speaking of cyberpunk novels with a relevance to art and philosophy, i
>just read Gibson's Idoru. Might be his best book yet. Lots of
>interesting stuff about popular culture. Most relevant is the way
>the fans of this pop band appropriate the work they're admiring and build
>virtual worlds out of it, construct whole universes of data that are
>woven from the art and lives of their idols. Pretty cool, as it posits a
>culture where consumers of mass media still have the will and the ability
>to be creative and mix stuff up...

I enjoyed Idoru a lot, but found it more like Gibson does Adbusters, as
opposed to the first trilogy (Neuromancer, et al.) which I found to be
more like Gibson does Burroughs. I like both of those things, but find
the power of obfuscation to be more able to draw out my awe (in other
words, I was more "impressed" by the trilogy). Anyway, if you liked Idoru, I have to urge you to try out the Sterling fiction works (Islands
in the Net, Heavy Weather, Holy Fire) all much more like Idoru than the
previous Gibson stuff. More social theorizing that Idoru even... Maybe
they are less "neat" narratively in terms of forward momentum and closure, but the density of the thought is easily equal...

Bob

>
________________________
http://detritus.net