Re: [microsound] droplifting -- words for the digital detritus ..//drop.lifting & dreams

["tobias c. van Veen" <tobias@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

//.. intense thoughts from Trace down South in HST's State of Defence ..
watching THX 1138 again & realising that the Sex Channel has great techno
musik ..=20

The argument against Duchamp is well made here by Trace (not really an
argument "against" Duchamp; but pointing out that Duchamp was not the be al=
l
& end all; that Trace traces the trace of what has elsewhere been called
"trace" .. but not as a proper name, such as in the case of Trace [this is =
a
horrible, horrible academic joke. Move On. Move On. Diversionary Rhetoric.
Unlimited Argument.]). That Duchamp did not trample far enough, in a sense,
beyond the gallery. That the gallery engulfed Duchamp. Occult stretches far
beyond galleries. Occult thinking is magick thinking, and its history is at
the edges of "Art" (witness Genesis P-Orridge, although his work is slowly
being incorporated, although not without revealing the ugly to Art's
romantic Beauty; or we can speak of H.R. Geiger, more well known, but ugly
in a sense, these two, that is Occult insofar as they generate entire
dreamworlds to inhabit in realtime. Fucking Art quite realistically, these
Bastard & Incestual Children). A few of these points can be found in a
wonderful Deleuzian manifesto by La Soci=E9t=E9 Anonyme in Parachute 109
entitled: "Redefinition of Artistic Practices in the Twenty-First Century
(LSA47)."=20

http://www.parachute.ca/109/extraits.htm#societe_ang

"The artist as producer intervenes, more and more, in the real time of the
dominion of experience, not in the deferred time of representation...the
artist is a producer of liveness...."

The hinge of this LSA manifesto is the system of -duction: production. Art
is past Duchamp, it is the "producer of liveness." We are in proximity to
Hakim Bey now, to a sense of a "liveness" not as THE live, but being able
"produce liveness," which would also entail exposing or emerging "liveness"
AS produced, ie not as producing THE NATURAL LIVE but exposing all LIVE as
produced & thus, in the old binary sense, artificial or artifice. At the
very limit of the metaphysical in the production of THE LIVE as
representation we exceed in some weird Deleuzian transcendental maneouvre &
pop out the other side of the binary into the flat space where all
"LIVENESS" is produced, great gobs of it, constantly in formation, not
controlled, not *created*, not under mastery, but simply produced. As
Massumi notes in _Parables for the Virtual_, like Stelarc, exhausting set
after set, no goal, just exhaustion, not for reasons, but to test
potentialities, to give things their emergence, to see, later, what
unexpected arises. But not so simple, either: what is being produced? Yes
"this liveness" but unfortunately the remainder of the manifesto employs
both the remnant terms of ARTIST and ART. ART still remains produced and th=
e
producer remains the ARTIST. LSA take one step sideways to Duchamp to find
themselves treading a circle or horizon, reinvesting ART once again front &
centre (& in the name of Deleuze -- but perhaps we found Deleuze here all
along...).=20

In fact very much like Rousseau, then, attempting to escape representation,
and thus the entire maneouvre is stuck with a grammatology (its own
metaphysical innards, its own deconstruction: & this is not surprising, for
what underpins all this deferral, the representation of writing @ the
origin, is the systematic of -duction: pro-duction, re-pro-duction, etc. &
thus re-presentation).

On the other hand, the whole maneouvre past Duchamp via Deleuze nonetheless
incorporates ART and ARTIST into a horizontal system where these terms no
longer enforce or force the same systematic return to the gallery, the one
space, the space where ART is or sanctioned, blessed, by critics & crowds &
people. Produces NOT "all forms of THE LIVE" but all LIVENESS in all FORMS
(which thus collapses the LIVE as the expression of force known as
"content," medium to message relation, & the crack arises in which to lever
this force--& this is the sudden emergence of dreams).

Been bleeding my head recently as I finish tangling with the next
_immediatism_ column for e|I, a real beast this one, of much blood, sweat &
tears. The original version (which will probably end up somewhere & will
inform) discusses this art-move or move-(out/of)-art in regards to the work
of Nathan Hacktivist of http://www.recode.com, retro-Futurism & DADA
(twisting the whole thing to the present thinking behind microsound & click=
s
and cuts theorisation). It was rather insanely dense for 1000 words,
however, thus the new version focuses upon retro-Futurism (& you'll just
have to wait for issue 3 .. http://www.ei-mag.com ).

Droplifting works: indeed this is the theoretical function of the column,
"immediatism." Something beyond or different than contextual shifting
(meme-dropping) but rather dropping entire contexts... in an entirety that
would entail such trails & traces, snarls and tangles ... thus not an
entirety at all but a stitching operation, a seme.

Lately I've been thinking of this as the "nexus:" the weird convergence of
practices to the digital, as Cascone notes in the rise of the laptop &
Szepanski notes in the digitization of music & [etc] as information. Yet th=
e
nexus is political--not only politics move here, like online-politics, but
the political is digitized. Arthur Kroker is eating his cyberpunk, S&M hear=
t
out. Net.art, digital music, the digital political: this is where we are,
this is sideways to Duchamp, this has nothing to do with dropping object
from context to context, like a sample, like a content swap, but has
everything to do with dropping contexts, not like a sample, but like a
stitch, a distribution or dissemination, and thus a deferral, a spacing, as
it used to be called.

---/ whoa fuck: it goes w/out saying that if I can I'll chat online in some
discussion .. move the debate live, then, produce this live-debate:

tV

> tobias wrote:
>>> Droplifting, then, is not a strict
>>> man