Hi Jeremy, Before we wind this interview down - could you explain to those who were not present at the HTTP Gallery for your performance, what you did and how you feel it went, along with any other observations that you feel worth mentioning?
marc Hey Marc, sorry for taking so long to reply, last minute business in prep for friday, > Much of your work involves a GUI (Graphic User Interface). User > interfaces as we generally experience them, provide components for users > to communicate with a computer. The interface defines the boundary > between software, the hardware device or a user. What is interesting is > that you are actually within the interface as well, performing in these > environments. > > Could you talk about the relationship between you as the software > developer and the software itself, within your performances? It has always been very important for my image or the image of the user to be a part of the interfaces I create. My reason has a lot to do with my historical/theoretical approach. I have been exposed to a lot of 1970s performance video and have developed a very keen interest in the theoretical context of the period. Specifically, for what is termed "Performance for the Camera". A popular term, but for those unfamiliar, it specifically refers to a state as described in Rosalind Krauss' essay, The Aesthetic of Narcissism, in which the artist becomes part of a feedback loop between his or herself and the electronics of the camera. This creates a unique self awareness (reflectivity) that was not present prior to this time. The artist literally watches themselves (on a close circuit monitor) creating the work and responding simultaneously. To put this in perspective, take one step back in time and performances were created for live audiences (less feedback), take one step forward and we land in the digital era and our camera from the 1970s has become a computer (hyper feedback). I like to call what I do Performance for the Computer, and it necessitates a re-evaluation of some of the psychological paramters that artists were working with in the 1970s. There's a lot of shit that happened in between then and now, that's where things get very interesting IMO. ok, so with this in mind I can answer your question regarding my role as a software developer, I'll have to tell a fable. It's going to be long and poorly written and will repeat some of the above in crude language, I'm tired... So, it's 1970, you're a performance artist, you've been doing performances all over the place, in studios, outdoors, in concert halls, the back of police vans... you've got little to no documentation... probably some photos, maybe some writing, maybe you're lucky enough to have some super 8 footage and some halfway decent audio recordings. Consumer video comes along, The Porta Pack, wow, this is great! cheap tape, sync audio, live previewing. But shit, the thing is prone to unspooling when jostled, and to see what things look at you need a hefty monitor. Fuck, maybe it's not so great... but wait, you've got a studio, you could setup there and do all kinds of performances, watch them, adjust, finally get an idea of what/who you're working with. Ok, this is strange, if I turn the monitor toward me I can watch myself as if I were the audience. Hmmm... there's something different about this. I can't go on doing the same kinds of performances. Nope. this is brand new. Yay! Video Art is born!! Ok, so fast forward a decade. It's 1980something, you're an upcoming electronic artist using computers to make amazing things happen in REALTIME! You have one problem, how do you document and show people what you're working on. Oh, of course!!! you record it on a Handycam! You pass the tapes around, copy them, they get copied, you end up representing your country at the Venice Biennial. Happy endings are great! Strange thing is you don't ever notice any of the things your friends noticed in the 70s, nope, you go right on making documentation on video without thinking twice about yourself as a performer. "I'm not a performer, I'm a programmer, my MACHINE is the artist, HE's performing, ask HIM what HE thinks! this shows you what he does, that's all"... Ok... I'll do that, but don't you think your macho friend is making you look a little meek on tape? "nope, that's the way I like it, I've put all of me into that thing, don't pay attention to me". Ok, I'm going to just say it dude, your machine's got a bigger dick than you and you're a bit of a chauvinist for masculinizing it the way you are. I think you're using your machine in all kinds of weird ways and I think you should think about what it means to give yourself over to an object like that. I mean, seriously dude. Ok, let's fast forward 2 more decades. This thing called the internet is popular, everyone has a computer, realtime video processing is on every cpu, we video conference with friends and family, augmented reality is a burgeoning field. Ya, we can do anything with our data selves, artists and non artists alike. Yes! I'm going to share this video of me rotating photos and tossing them around using just my flailing arms to everyone in the entire world!! I look like an idiot? why do you keep looking at me??! Are you gay? yah. that's it, I'm gay. Fuck dude, would you realize what the fuck it means to warp your face with that ichat filter? PLEASE! end of story, guy is increasingly clueless, distractions are increasingly numerous. so, I've used some colloquial language here to try and get a point across in impossibly high contrast. I play the role of the software developer in performances because I insist on forcing the acknowledgment that the computer is a site for performance and reflectivity. I am trying to use a laptop in 1975. I'm trying to understand what that means I guess. I hope this response doesn't offend anyone. I was just trying to have some fun with it, see you all on friday? jeremy I started this trajectory near the end of my undergraduate studies and built my graduate research around this idea. On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 12:26 AM, marc garrett <marc.garrett at furtherfield.org> wrote: > Hi Jeremy, > > Thank you for taking part in the dialogue so far, it has been both > enjoyable and illuminating. > > Much of your work involves a GUI (Graphic User Interface). User > interfaces as we generally experience them, provide components for users > to communicate with a computer. The interface defines the boundary > between software, the hardware device or a user. What is interesting is > that you are actually within the interface as well, performing in these > environments. > > Could you talk about the relationship between you as the software > developer and the software itself, within your performances? > > marc > > > >> marc, >> >> >>> Do you think that going through the re-evaluative process of >>> justification has helped or hindered your practice, in regards to your >>> creative-identity and approach to what your artwork could of been? >>> >> >> I think it's healthy to re-evaluate, at least it's healthy for me. It >> keeps me in check and appreciative of those around me. It has also >> heightened my critical awareness, not just of myself but of everything >> in my vicinity, which I think is what every artist should do. >> Ultimately if you're not critical of yourself, how on earth can you be >> critical of others? >> >> not sure what things could have been, I used to do a lot of >> impressionist landscape paintings in high school. I guess I could be >> in a rocky farmer's field right now, watching the sun set and >> considering the beauty of the amber light catching the silhouette of a >> windswept pine. >> >> jeremy >> >> On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 4:51 PM, marc garrett >> <marc.garrett at furtherfield.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi Jeremy, >>> >>> >kickn' it up a notch with the Freud! great stuff. >>> >>> Yes, I may do this every now and then. Not necessarily with Freud, but >>> with other references, just to open things up but only if it feels relevant. >>> >>> >the truth is, I started art school in the 90s >>> >and all of my profs taught identity politics work. >>> >Actually my first EVER studio class was called >>> >women in art (I was the only man in the course). >>> >>> >So starting out I always felt as though I wasn't >>> >allowed to make art. I wasn't a victim of any >>> >societal prejudices or discrimination, I was a >>> >very happy privileged white man with very few cares. >>> >>> With identity politics being such a primary influence, it sounds like >>> your art education was a complex yet insightful beginning. I can imagine >>> that in order to find a voice for your work, there has been much >>> re-evaluation taking place. >>> >>> >The type of work I make now, the type that casts >>> >me as an ignorant/naive modern artist playing with >>> >technology, was developed to try and create some >>> >justification for myself in an ocean of those more >>> >deserving than I. >>> >>> Do you think that going through the re-evaluative process of >>> justification has helped or hindered your practice, in regards to your >>> creative-identity and approach to what your artwork could of been? >>> >>> marc >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NetBehaviour mailing list >>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org >>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
