Hi Marc (and all), I would say something like "art that matters" (rather than "authentic" or "real"). "Art that matters" is a really obvious and banal way of putting things that tries not to presume or cloak any specifc ethical angle or cosmological presumptions. Then you get to have a subsequent discussion about what does matter, to whom, what criteria do you use to determine what matters, at what scales, in what time frames, or whatever other "contemporary critical" qualifiers you want to add.
When you say "authentic," I read something like "earnest." Which doesn't necessarily mean un-funny, but it does exclude a kind of opportunistic/easy cynicism or careerism. Maybe it even means sappy and epic. I'm OK with that (but then I fantasize about singing karaoke to AC/DC's "For Those About to Rock [We Salute You]," so I am unable to cast the first stone). As Spinal Tap observe, "there's a fine line between stupid and clever." When I teach, I don't teach my own personal ethics (per se). But I do encourage my students to figure out what might matter to them. I admit to pushing a kind of experimental practice of emergence -- following Massumi following Deleuze following Bergson -- a kind of making the virtual actual. According to Bergson, there are two kinds of real -- the actual (which has already become history) and the virtual (not "VR," but rather a kind of real that at any moment could happen, but just hasn't yet, and may never). Bergson's virtual is still contingent on historical conditions (not simply anything could emerge at any time whatsoever). If you begin with "actual" ethical criteria for what should happen, then you may well wind up with simply a reshuffling of actual things that have already happened. But if you risk experimenting in rigorous ways that don't evaluate "success" too soon according to previously available criteria, then maybe you are able to trick the virtual into actualization. It's a risky kind of art practice. As Ren says to Stimpy, "That's just it. We don't know. Maybe something good will happen, and maybe something bad will happen." A marxist like Zizek would ridicule this kind of proto-ethics of emergence as fanciful, unpragmatic, spectaular, etc. But that's what makes it a risk. And artists aren't like bridge engineers or anything. Most of us are doing something that we hope matters or will eventually matter, but we can't guarantee at all that it will. To me, such risk taking is one of the things art is particularly good for. Also, making art can be exciting, which is probably an indicator that you're onto something that might matter. Best, Curt >Hi Alan & all, > >These questions are pretty decent starters, warranting some serious and >playful investigation. > >I'm wondering what others may think themselves? > >Not necessarily in terms of my own, perhaps misplaced idea of what is >'authenticity'. But, in whatever words or notions, we consider or feel >fits closest. > >For instance, many individuals engage with Netbehaviour not just because >it is a tool, some motives are contextual; harbouring many different >reasons of why we are here together - now, one obvious activity is that >many on here share a dialogue. > >But, if we could see beyond the daily functions and motives, what would >be left for us to understand between ourselves here and now, and how >could we (possibly) mutually expand on 'whatever these things are'? > >So what's the spirit or kernel linking us, other than the network and >the daily behaviours that we all share? > >Wishing all well. > >marc > _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
