Α reflection deriving from an artwork: thought based on action and practice–part 2
Dāna Papachristou, Greece
4 September 2023
This is Part 2 of a two-part essay. Read the previous part here.
The way in which contemporary media contain us, as a process of invention and as a reflection of the performative aspect of ourselves, makes us think of a second Lacanian mirror stage[1] in the individual and collective consolidation of the Self. In the same way, the mirroring of the acoustic imprint of our movement through motion sensors, and its description as “musical composition” is one of the key issues of this work. Like Echo and Narcissus (myths not related to Elefsina but to Thebes, the land of Oedipus, on the northern side of Athens), we define default sounds and parameters to listen to our kinesthetic self, not as an interaction of the body with the music, but like an embodied interface functioning as a music generator.
The aquifer is polluted, as the bay is polluted by
all sorts of military, shipbuilding and industrial activities.
And I, in this very bay
[a word that also means vagina in Greek],
having been baptized with the name Demeter myself,
a name I got from my grandmother,
bloated with in vitro fertilization hormones,
I encounter dead birds all over the city
as I walked around it to geolocate its sounds.
“There where the pennyroyal sprouted and wild mint,
and the earth sent forth the first of her cyclamen,
now villagers haggle for cement
and birds fall dead into the kiln.
Sleep in the earth’s embrace, Persephone,
and never retrace your way to the world’s balcony.
There where the initiates joined hands
devoutly before entering the sanctuary
now tourists toss their cigarette ends
and they go to see the brand new refinery[2]”.
New available technologies not only create a condition for processing, recording, producing or enhancing physical techniques, but also assist in transforming physical practices and establishing new human-machine common spheres. Technology, linked to humans from the beginning of their existence, becomes a global medium created by them, which at the same time also radically alters them, making it impossible to distinguish the boundary between “the empire of man and the kingdom of technique[3]“. Thus, the human-technology distinction is unfounded[4], while the position that humans invent while the technological tool is invented has become obsolete[5]. Humans invent tools that also shape them, so humans and their technology have a reciprocal relation: technological tools also shape the way the mind works so in a way it is the existing technology that provides the ideas for the next technology to come, as if tools have their own social agency and a saying into what will be the next invention.
Did we explore our relation to ourselves
or did we instead echo our existence in the technological realm?
Are we the kings of our realm, or
are we constantly echoing our agony as subjects of another king?
The body, the space, the sensors, the satellites and the artistic inspiration,
all work together mirroring themselves in an endless, Sisyphean condition.
But Sisyphus was going up the hill,
while we had to explore going to the underground.
It is not the same to climb and to descend,
chthonic goddesses and gatekeepers give only one chance.
Working on these technological connections of dance and music performances with motion sensors, we are reflecting here on the role of the body and the embodied experience. But, apart from the philosophical questions, what is equally important is to establish a mutual relation of interest, curiosity and trust together with our audience. How are these technological experimental genres received by the visitors when they are performed? Can the audience really identify with the aesthetic issues that concern us within this conceptual framework? There is always a chance that visitors will not understand the technological challenges or the technological inventions used. Or, they may not be interested in the above and may be consumed with a mere aesthetised approach. Or even that they may need to read a few pages of a program in order to fully grasp what is at stake.
But it is up to us to provide the audience with indications of our intentions, and to create an autonomous project that can be understood by its own tools, and not exclusively with the help of the explanatory text. This latter is an issue that has been preoccupied conceptual and technological art from the previous century until today, and it is not something new for our era. But the more our audience uses the same technology in their everyday lives, the more accessible should our explanations be with regards to the technological use in our artistic projects: which technology is being used, why this particular one is chosen and how it works in its artistic context. And most importantly: how this use of technology converses with the struggles of the contemporary individual, acting as a link between mythology and the post-industrial site-specific condition. What are the connections that the audience and ourselves, as creators, are making, and what is ultimately the reason for the use of connectivity, movement, data, people and technologies in this particular project.
Is connectivity enough?
Did we sprinkle the ancient site with technological glitter?
Did we contribute to its transformation into a theme park?
Did we ignore the residents?
Did we exoticize them?
Or were we the exotic birds,
with our big hats, our tweed jackets,
our horn-rimmed glasses, our international partners?
Did we contribute to their economy, did we listen to local problems?
Did we discuss Gaia, death, trauma, lament,
feeling helpless against necropolitics?
Did we produce more concepts that we could consume?
Did we sense the time lapse of the decay?
Did we devour culture and artistic diplomacy?
By attempting to answer these questions, this paper treats the convergence of technology and the human body for artistic purposes combining the fields of Performance Studies, Media Studies and the Arts. We draw upon new media possibilities and artistic practices so as to analyze the relation between the technical and the human in contemporary performance arts: are we able to conceptualize our work efficiently? Are we synchronizing with the actual struggles of our times? Are we offering a service to our societies? Are we creating conditions in which technology can –and must– function as a space for political and social action[6], or are we entering a labyrinthine “realm full of technological mirrors[7]”? Are we relevant to the social and to the everyday? Can we answer our own questions?
I saw dead fish
I saw equatorial insects
attacking, falling on the ground,
not a tree standing.
Never did I hear a bird singing,
earth was a floating stone,
I got this right.
“Behold!” they cried out when they saw the Goddess
Archaeolatry and appropriation on the mirthless stone,
fleeing maidens and lost profits.
You can read the previous part of this essay here.
References for Part 2:
[1] Nusselder, André, Interface Fantasy. A Lacanian Cyborg Ontology. The MIT Press, Cambridge, London 2009.
[2] Gatsos, Nikos. Persephone’s Nightmare. https://gatsosarchive.org/translation/persephones-nightmare/
[3] Latour, Bruno. Morale et technique : la fin des moyens. Réseaux: communication, technologie, société, 2000, 18 (100), pp.39-58.
[4] Simondon, Gilbert. 1989. Du mode d’existence des objets techniques. Paris : Aubier, p. 9.
[5] Stiegler, Bernard. 2009. Technics and Time, 2, Disorientation. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, p. 134.
[6] Galloway, A.R. & Thacker, E. (2007). The Exploit, A theory of networks. Electronic Mediations, Vol. 21, Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press, passim.
[7] Nusselder, A. (2009). Interface Fantasy. A Lacanian Cyborg Ontology. Cambridge, London: The MIT Press, p. 83.