Just a couple of new things to add to the New Materialism pile:
Firstly, Timothy Morton's blog is worth a visit. An English eccentric let loose in the USA so don't get distracted. Look at his past papers and talks. Morton wrote the absolutely engrossing Ecology without nature and provides great examples of how to discuss an inclusive nature rather than anthropomorphising to bring "nature" into a "human" fold. Check out at http://ecologywithoutnature.blogspot.com.au/
On that New Materialism -- non-humanisation thing, there is a good interview with Jussi Parikka by Michael Dieter (Blowup - Speculative Realities) that opens up more on New Materialism from one of its "founders" and champions (what is it about Finland and New Materialism?): http://v2.nl/archive/articles/new-materialism-and-non-200bhumanisation
Happy reading!
For some reason? I thought of this:
ReplyDeleteWant a sausage?
JULES
Naw, I don't eat pork.
VINCENT
Are you Jewish?
JULES
I ain't Jewish man, I just don't dig
on swine.
VINCENT
Why not?
JULES
They're filthy animals. I don't eat
filthy animals.
VINCENT
Sausages taste good. Pork chops taste
good.
JULES
A sewer rat may taste like pumpkin
pie. I'll never know 'cause even if
it did, I wouldn't eat the filthy
motherfucker. Pigs sleep and root in
shit. That's a filthy animal. I don't
wanna eat nothin' that ain't got
enough sense to disregard its own
feces.
VINCENT
How about dogs? Dogs eat their own
feces.
JULES
I don't eat dog either.
VINCENT
Yes, but do you consider a dog to be
a filthy animal?
JULES
I wouldn't go so far as to call a
dog filthy, but they're definitely
dirty. But a dog's got personality.
And personality goes a long way.
VINCENT
So by that rationale, if a pig had a
better personality, he's cease to be
a filthy animal?
JULES
We'd have to be talkin' 'bout one
motherfuckin' charmin' pig. It'd
have to be the Cary Grant of pigs.
The two men laugh.
Regards Quentin Tarantino & Roger Avery.
My response relies solely on a strange collaboration between Plato and David Bader's 'One hundred great books in haiku' (Penguin, 2005):
DeletePHAEDO
Plato
By Zeus, Socrates!
It seems you're right once again!
Time for your hemlock.
He isn’t the Messiah
ReplyDeleteIt is always a relief when researching topics like New Materialism, Materialism, Realism, Nature/Ecology and the Non-Human that there is a respectable academic who is willing to suggest that there is something Monty Pythonesque about it all – a bit like the ‘confusing quarrels between the Judean Peoples’ Front with the People’s Front of Judea (Parikka 2013)’. This of course, makes me more comfortable about taking the New Materialism journey (so long as I don’t get crucified at the end…).
One thing I have learned is that it is quite difficult to isolate New Materialism solely within the arts and wrap it up with a nice neat bow. Jussi Parikka (the academic quoted above) does however give me some hope when he also says that in relation to New Materialism ‘artistic work is a good vector for thought’ and thankfully he also finds arts practitioners ‘more interesting theorists than the ones who write the books (2013).’ Phew.
Perhaps though, he is right. For me as an arts student, an emerging arts practitioner, a thinker (albeit not a great one) and a wannabe writer someday, to take a look at the New Materialist discourse and start pulling a few threads into my corner, I can see how my work relates to a topic that appears to making quite a few ripples across a myriad of fields and possibly just talk about it. Maybe Ontology is a good topic to explore because it throws open the door to a subject that appears in a great deal of art practice, some of which is currently on display at Sawtooth (I am thinking of Darryl Rogers’ Waterwalkers) in that we could ask what is the nature of being? How does all the matter around us work? What makes an object an object?
I suppose that those are big questions to ask, but for me to start with that kind of foundation I can begin to align aspects of New Materialist thought with my own work and interests. As part of my arts practice I have to produce things. Having to doesn’t necessarily equate to wanting to. There is an aspect of ephemerality to my work but I conduct it in isolation without an audience, so I can’t call it theatre. I use digital technologies to capture and archive my movements and experiences, but I can’t call it new media. Or can I? Arguably no, because wielding a digital camera(s) does not make me a new media artist. All the information that is captured, stored and transferred from that camera is data – could I propose that that data a thing yet also a non-thing and are we willing to accept that? In a conversation with my project Supervisor last year I rattled off a great deal of profound theory about the work I was doing and how I felt about it, where it was going and what I was doing before asking the rather bold question of ‘ do I need to make anything at all?’
The answer was, coldly, ‘yes’.
So there is value in the material. There is accessibility in the material as well as familiarity. Also, there is aesthetics but as an artist am I really responsible for all of that? No, I am not. I am unversed in just about everything to do with my practice other than using what is available, learning to use what is available, and making something that is material in nature for presentation and appreciation (sometimes disapproval).
I am an author, but only because of the pen.
New Materialism, as I relate to it, breaks everything down. It appreciates, possibly questions the mechanics, and the authenticity of objects (in an arts framework) and unravels the object.
New Materialism comes at a new time so it is almost impossible to ignore the advances in technologies and how they relate to contemporary approaches to the environment, materiality and sustainability, not to mention longevity.
‘Blessed are the cheesemakers, what’s so special about them? ‘
They know their cheese I guess…
Michael Dieter’s interview with Jussi Parikka can be found via the link above (Blowup - Speculative Realities).
Below is a link for Barbara Bolt's (art oriented)keynote at the New Materialisms IV conference in Finland a few weeks ago.
ReplyDeletehttp://bambuser.com/v/3592873
Worth checking out ahead of discussions tomorrow!
That's great ... but not sure how much I'll take in before tomorrow!
ReplyDeleteAlas I am caught trying to get a better grasp on this topic before the gathering later today, thus I have a few sleep deprived thoughts to share..
ReplyDeleteIs New Materialism just an appreciation of chaos- an appreciation in linking numerous topics of interest in an attempt to form or create anything from ideas, theories, concepts to even that of beliefs and judgements?
Parrika in his interview with Michael Dieter refers to viruses and technological accidents as a vector that intrigued him while doing his PhD which I found an interesting aside. This is in a way similar to biological viruses; biological viruses although often considered a bad thing are actually an integral part of evolution. It is often through viruses that mutations are made which have the potential to further the evolution of a species- be that in a positive or negative manner.
Strangely I followed this line of thought and that led me to the concept that makes me think new materialism is a model that appreciates chaos. By applying or using other areas of questioning, new discoveries can be made which lead to new possibilities. These new areas of questioning act like a virus in relation to the subject by creating a mutation of sorts. For example taking an artwork and questioning it in relation to gender and feminism? The concept of gender and feminism may act like that of a virus which mutates the original concept, neither detracting nor adding but instead altering. As new questions arise, new thoughts might be generated. A co-production between new ideas and the original, between new technology and old. The artist no longer being the sole agency of the art as Barbara bolt suggests in the link provided above by Patrick. (http://bambuser.com/v/3592873)
Parrika used a word that I found fascinating and possibly of importance, Scale. The comparison of scale that exist within the subject. The importance of ‘a thing’ in relation to ‘the overall thing’ or perhaps the line of questioning in relation to the subject itself. Is this a defining element of New Materialism?
I feel somewhat like Don Quixote trying to get a grasp on this topic- lots of windmills to tilt at and all I show for it is a head ache...