Research Critique 3: Glitch & The Art of Destruction

“For me this approach to noise or noisiness, or dirt, or dirtiness, is a way to foreground as you say, an aberrance or perversion of normative message or what we might perceive to be logical reasoning. Because there is a poetics to that obviously and people who inspired me most directly in that matter would be Netochka Nezvanova, who did this comingling of functional code with highly politicized and poetic language.” – Glitch Expectations: A Conversation with Jon Cates

The idea of noise as aberrance is obvious but at the same time, poetic in a sense. Noise, defined as a disturbance of the norm, can be compared to glitch and destruction. We deconstruct a subject through destruction; and through this abstraction, our minds go through a different thought process to create a whole new meaning to the subject. Rather than seeing destruction as vandalism or something offensive, we see through the eyes of the artist and realise that destruction is a statement.

The iconic Mona Lisa, masterpiece by Da Vinci, was chosen as a symbol of traditional art form, representing not just all the paintings that exists in history, but also and the rules and properties tied to it. We printed an image of it on paper in black-and-white pieces before being assembled together into one image.  Stripped from its colours, texture, and proper medium, this artwork is glitched intentionally. Devoid of its original meaning, the artwork is recreated as a symbol rather than to replicate the original.

In our iconoclastic performance of burning the Mona Lisa, we do not only reject traditional art rules and forms, but also releases “art” from its static medium, freeing itself from its own rigidity into a formless, seamless entity that is ever present. The resulting corpse, its ashes, is now a soulless and empty shell that flakes away. This corpse bears no resemblance to the original at all and is now just a relic of what it used to be.

The entire process of destruction — from the careful handling of the image of the Mona Lisa, to it being engulfed in flames, to the ashes it left behind — is captured in a video. By watching the video, the audience can get the idea that we are trying to convey. The new meaning of art that we have created have left the image that we burnt and enter the medium that we have recorded it in!

Video:

We see a similarity in Ant Farm’s Media Burn (1975), a performance that made an impactful statement against the influence of television and the American lifestyle. By smashing the car and television together, Ant Farm demonstrated, through destruction, the clash of the two core subjects that Americans were obsessed with at that time. The spectacle of the performance, rather than the destroyed meaningless pieces left behind, have caused awe and mass media attention which amplified its intended meaning as it have made use of the very medium that is is trying to address.

“Here noise exists within the void opposite to what (already) has a meaning. Whichever way noise is defined, the negative definition also has a positive consequence: it helps by (re)defining its opposite (the world of meaning, the norm, regulation, goodness, beauty and so on).” – Glitch Studies Manifesto

The idea of what brings meaning and what does not is in the matter of perspective. One can see positive in something negative, and thus, by shifting our perspectives to align to that of the artist, we are able to find a new meaning defined by the artwork. Similarly, the lack of imagery in the new Mona Lisa, although meaningless and ephemeral, is the product of a process that represents the new icon for art. The “corpse’s” lack of meaning is the very definition of its meaning, which is that art is finally freed, and its meaning can be everywhere.

Research Critique II: Third Space is Participation

I find an age old philosophical question relevant to our attempt at trying to understand the third space. “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” Similarly, if a device that can connect people across a distance is active but no one participates, is there a third space?

I would say that the answer to that question is: no. I believe a third space is a non-physical space that forms once people interact with each other between space and time, and its very essence is that its inhabitants are its participants, deliberate actors within the space that keeps it alive.

As what Randall Packer described,

“The laws of the known world have been all but abandoned in the third space: it is a space of invention and possibility, like lucid dreaming, where participants might assume their avatar identities, engage in post-human, cyborgian manifestations, or perhaps reinvent the world in the image of their own making.”

Posted by Bryan Leow on Wednesday, 31 January 2018

In our telematic performance, Samantha and I reached out to each other using our Cup Noodle Telephone. Our telephones are not connected physically, which will be necessary for it to work physically. In this third space, we are not just able to talk to each other in spite of our disconnection from the physical space, but also play our roles to ensure maximum realism in this alternate world, despite being stripped away from realism. In this case, we try to talk into the cup, and listen out from the cup even though we could just talk to each other directly. Our engrossment with this performance detached us from the physical space, and therefore created a sense of intimacy and connection between us. The very act of participating in the third space creates the third space.

Role playing to fit our own reality

 

 

 

We can see our performance as a reflection of Telematic Dreaming by Paul Sermon (1993), where the act of pretending to interact with one another as though the other person is physically there creates an alternate and intimate world that exists only between the two person.

Maria Chatzichristodoulou made a comment about Telematic Dreaming, “The ability to exist outside of the users own space and time is created by an alarmingly real sense of touch that is enhanced by the context of the bed and caused by an acute shift of senses in the telematic space.”

Interrupted space

The intimacy-enhancing bed is an example that physical reality will still affect us and the third space. Unlike what happened in Telematic Dreaming where the physical world enhanced the telematic experience, we were interrupted by a passerby towards the end of our performance which broke our third space. Despite the detachment from reality, our physical reality still shapes our third space. Perhaps the reason for such a phenomenon is due to the physical world altering the way we participate, and therefore altering the third space.

Experimentation & Interaction – DIWO and Micro Project II

For our DIWO assignment, my team: Reuben, Joel, and I have decided to create a whole new instagram account (@reubryjo) as a form of collaborative art platform. The account details are then given out to mostly our friends. The rule for using this account is simple: log in and take a photo of something in the colour you like. With this rule, we intend to collect as many photos as possible contributed by our audience through this account, and compile them into a spectrum of colours.

Our audience will be given complete freedom to the account, as they get to take as many photos as they wish. Our audience becomes the artist, and their photos are not just part of the artwork, but are also by itself, the artwork. The outcome of the artwork will be dependent on the audience’s posts, but we will also be curating it. This makes us, the creators, uncertain of what is going to happen.

As mentioned by Marc Garrett in his article on DIWO:

“the process (of DIWO) is as important as the outcome, forming relationally aware peer enactments. It is a living art, exploiting contemporary forms of digital and physical networks as a mode of open praxis.” 

Embracing the process of DIWO where our audiences continue to add on to the artwork to add complexity to it, our artwork becomes alive.

 

 

 

 

 

We have arranged the photos into a colour spectrum, which is visible from afar; but from up close, we get to see the contents of the photos posted by the audience. The audience’s posts have affected the outcome, and the outcome shows the intentions from both the audience and the creator. The resulting artwork shows the relationship between the creator and audience, its body and its soul. This, I believe, is the very reflection of DIWO.

As much as there are similarities between our artwork and the Humanclock.com by Craig D. Giffen, where everyone can contribute a photo to create an entirely new outcome of an artwork (in this case, a photo of numbers that tells the time to create a database of times), our work is more representative of the audience where the artwork expresses more of what our audiences want to show.

Screenshot taken from https://www.humanclock.com/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The openness and freedom of our rules allowed our audience to do what they want with their posts, rather than making sure that there is a content to it. That is what sets our work different from the Humanclock.com project.

One explicit, yet funny image we received