Response to "Transaesthetics" By Margaret Lovejoy

"Art: An Elusive Target"

- A Response -

By Alan Neal

To reading group 3 - "Transaesthetics"

By Margaret Lovejoy

It seems Ms. Lovejoy is trying to analyze the place for art amongst new technologies. Some of what she says seems to be very valid to the present technology we use in art and science. She seems to present both sides, the positive and the negative, of what technology can accomplish or achieve. Although this article is 39 pages long, I will try to keep this response to less than 500 words.


In the first chapter, she references a 1995 performance by Laurie Anderson titled "Stories from the Nerve Bible", who references Walter Benjamin, a German who fled the Nazi regime in 1940, and described it in terms that apply to technology today. This uncanny reference makes use of an analogy out an "angel of history", who witnesses what is perceived by humans as one unfortunate incident after another, but the angel sees it all as one giant tragedy, piling up in a heap at his feet. He wishes to awaken the dead to help makes things right again, but is overwhelmed by a storm blown in from Paradise, which catches his wings and blows him backwards into the future, while the heap at his feet grows larger and larger. This storm is what is referred to as progress.


While this entire episode seems rather pessimistic, it does ring somewhat true about technology. Today, if we buy a new laptop, for instance, the moment we leave the store with it, a new one has come out to replace it. The same can be said for most of our electronic devices: cell phones, video games, vehicles, even residences. Technology, it seems, moves faster than time itself. However, should we be this pessimistic about technology? can't we view these man made devices as tools? And aren't we taught that tools are only useful in the hands of a creator?


Artists in particular seem to straddle the divide between seeing technology as an advantage and as a curse. Further into this article, she writes that art students must learn "the new technologies, debate their roles in society, master their use, and renovate visual languages", and that they must "master the operations of [this new technology, and understand] artistic, scientific, [and] philosophical aspects of twentieth century history", in order, presumably, to allow for new methods of creating art which could have an impact on marketplaces worldwide. Many artists have done just that. However, many artist are somewhat skeptical about using technology in any way, much less to enhance their art. I feel that being afraid of a tool means you just don't understand it. All tools bear inherent dangers, either of being used improperly, and creating disastrous results, or, as in the case of power tools, causing physical harm. But fear must not limit us to using only the "safe" tools in our work. Fear is one thing that can destroy our ability to think, to explore, and to experience new things. I feel that this article contains useful ideas, but we must, absolutely, keep in mind that being pessimistic about the future is not going to be helping anybody’s cause! The glass half full always trumps the glass half empty. Without optimism, our society is doomed. Even though our politics and the pressure from religion can sometimes seem overwhelming, if we don’t keep our hopes alive, what are we here for?

Response By Alan R. Neal to Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics By Claire Bishop

“Audience Requirements: Interelational Art and Audience Participation”

Response By Alan R. Neal

to Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics

By Claire Bishop

Describing the Palais de Tokyo, Ms. Bishop explains that the renovation of the old Worlds Fair Exhibit space designed as the Japanese Pavilion has been reassigned as an “Idealogical Exhibition Space”, something that is becoming a trend in Europe, where they are trying to get away from the traditional “White Cube” exhibitions, revisiting the idea that the art should dictate how space should be used, not the architecture. Since architecture can vary greatly from location to location, this seems to reinforce the ideas set forth by the 1920 International Dada Fair and the 1938 International Surrealist Exhibition. This idea, although not a new one, obviously, has caught on with gallery owners and curators alike, who seem to be trying to set a new standard for hanging art. This approach seems to want to highlight the rebellious nature of contemporary art. Allowing for more interaction with the viewers, more honest dialogue between the viewers as they view the works, and creating a form of art that is more social experiment than a gallery full of paintings, sculptures, or installations. Artist such as Liam Gillick, Rirkrit Tiravanija, Phillippe Parreno, Pierre Huyghe, Carsten Höller, Christine Hill, Vanessa Beecroft, Maurizio Cattelan, and Jorge Pardo, are all seeking to explore ways of displaying new ideas and different ways of thinking about art in the context of social behavior and social interaction. Te space seems to be a integral part of the art installed, and it is designed to present the art in the manner in which the art was created/ Some artists record the reactions of the viewers. Others spend time observing or interacting with the viewers as if they were just another viewer. In such cases, the viewer becomes an integral part of the art. Without them, the art would just be “a bunch of stuff in a room.” Some explore the space between sculpture and functional design. Others are just happy for viewers to “just stand with their backs to the work and talk to each other.” This way of displaying art allows the artist to design for social, rather than aesthetics, and opens a way of interaction that effects both the artist and the viewers. Still others ask “Who is the public? How is a culture made, and who is it for?” Many of these ideas and questions are meant to be open ended, so that the discussion can continue indefinitely, even after the show is over. Bourriaud argues that “encounters are more important than the individuals who compose them,” I sense that this question is (for him) unnecessary; all relations that permit “dialogue” are automatically assumed to be democratic and therefore good. Some of these artists actually compare what people will do for money, as opposed to what people will do for no money, and how that effects the viewers. Of course, something like this has to be documented, which makes one ask “does the documentor experience the art in the same way as the participants? Or as the artist does?” The answer is probably not, since we are all different due to our different experiences. Individuality becomes a factor in art such as this, as well as environment and relationships. In fact, everything becomes a factor, such as the weather on the days the work was being constructed, and the politics at the time, and anything else that may or may not be quantified. When art becomes a part of everyday living, or becomes a reason for exchanging and interacting amongst the viewers, the possibilities are endless as to the results. It brings into play the random, childlike innocence that Dadaism belies, as well as the positive outlook on the future that Futurism belies. It can also be argued that it brings a surreal element to the work, in as much as some interactions may go horribly wrong, since it is, after all, involving the public. And we all know how surreal the public can get sometimes!

Responses to Reading Group 3

“Mixing it All Up”

Response By Alan R. Neal

to Challenging The Literal

By Daniel Chandler

I find this article extremely fascinating. Explaining Metaphor and Metonyms in such a way explains a lot about language, thought, theory, and practice. It brings into focus the esoteric ideas of reality, which state that nothing is real. Things SEEM to be real because we have been told, all of our lives that, they ARE real because we can feel a thing, or taste a thing, or smell a thing. But in reality, everything we experience is nothing more than vibrations. Many esoteric theorists put forth the idea that our entire universe is nothing more than a collection of vibrations, and that it is nothing more than our interpretation of these vibrations that make them seem real to us. Much of our reality may very well be programming supplied to us very early on by our parents and siblings. One persons reality may be completely different from another persons, and we have no way of understanding their reality because we can’t be them, we can’t get inside of their heads. All we can do is empathize with them, and we can only hope that our feelings are a reasonable facsimile of theirs. It is, of course, true that we are all the sum of our experiences. And that each of us have vastly different experiences. As we live our daily lives, we become accustomed to a certain geographical or spatial area or region, and we accept that our reality is similar to those who experience their lives with us. But how do we really know?

Even identical twins have different experiences, because they do not occupy the same space at the same time in the same way. Rosicrucians teach that a candle, when lit, is not really a candle at all. And if you were to meditate on that candle for an extended period of time, trying to force your mind to believe that it is something other than a candle, then you can convince your brain to believe that it actually is something other than a candle. When I was a kid, I had a friend who was a certified genius, and he used to challenge me by asking what if my parents weren’t really who they appear to be? That maybe they were secretly extremely wealthy, and had paid each and every person I see every day to play a role in my life, even if it is just as a passerby or a face in the crowd. And what if everything that had happened to me had been planned by them, according to some grand design that had been laid out for me before I was born, in order to achieve the results that is me now. How would you know? We see in movies all the time that reality can be something other than what it appears to be. The movie “Inception” is a prime example of it.

This article explains that language is all metaphor, and that even explaining metaphor has to use words that are metaphorical in nature. That there is no absolute way to portray accurately any idea or concept without comparing it to something else; that each sentence is relational to some other sentence or idea. I believe this is true. And applying these ideas to our art is only natural, or even necessary, thanks to the nature of truth in representation. If art is another language, one full of emotion and fear, of desire and repulsion, of every feeling humankind has ever had, then even art is a metaphor, or a metaphor of a metaphor, and can also be described as the “suspension of disbelief”, thereby rendering it only an expression of the artists language, which may not be the same as yours, but is, nonetheless, a language of validity, since all language is actually a lie, an untruth that we create the concept of truth with. 


Existential theories aside, if we touch a table, are we really touching a table? Or are we touching something that we’ve been told is a table our whole lives, and we just THINK we are touching a table? Just because it looks like, or feels like, or taste like a table, doesn’t necessarily mean it IS a table. Essentially, it boils down to energy being transferred via your network of nerves, arriving at your brain, telling you that you are correct to think, with all your knowing, that it is a table. Yet, it is nothing more than a metaphor of a table, as is everything in our present reality. Since nothing is real, what is keeping our imaginations from creating new realities, new existences, and new dimensions that we people with our own creatures and things? Understanding this is actually vital to understanding everything in the universe. We were all made the moment the big bang occurred. We are made up of the stuff that stars are made of. We are our own universe, living inside of a universe, that may or may not be a tiny part of a much larger universe, that may be a part of a much, much larger universe, that is really in the midst of an even larger universe….where nothing is real, and everything is just a vibration of energy!