« Max patch from 2-19-04 class | Main | Wishlist »

February 24, 2004

stelarc reading

make additional comments here. mine are in the extended extry.

As I first began to read this, I was concerned that it would simply be about this physical connection between body and the machine || body and technology.

"the body is redesigned through technology, as perception adjusts to meet the challenge set out by the stimulus at a neurological level."

in most of Stelarc's art, perception doesn't seem to play much of a role -- at first. However, as I read, I liked the idea of the mind learning through the body's relationship w/ technology. it is about more about this involunary connection ("involuntary muscle spasms) between these two elements. the standard cyborg stuff. At the beginning of the author, Mark Fernandes, talks about the idea that the notion of the body as a discrete elemet is not a modern one, but rather one espoused by Descartes in his Discourse on Method:

"The body and mind were distinctly separate for Descartes, who thought the body a machine, to be informed by the higher order rationality of the mind."

"Thereby, the body is redesigned through technology, as perception adjusts to meet the challenge set out by the stimulus at a neurological level. Now if the spatial distances between form and body collapse, so alters consciousness."

so as the body and technology play off each other, our nuerological state also begins evolving. This is a nice idea. However, I question whether Stelarc's work actually addresses this exact notion, which brings be back to my first concern, that his work comes off as simply another well-worn cyborg dialogue between the physical body, and technology.

In ParaSite for Invaded and Involuntary Body, "the Internet-generated metabody orders the human towards a revelation of its function"

ostensibly, but in reality it seems like more of a simple mirror - the physical human interacting with his virtual counterparts.

His theories are interesting, but I find myself not being that interested in Sterlarc's work -- I feel that there is too large a gap here between the theory and the execution in the art.

convince me otherwise.

Posted by will at February 24, 2004 12:02 PM

Comments

i concur with will, who is obviously much better at articulating then i am.

this reminded me a lot of other 1970s performance art - specifically chris burden, who crucified himself to a volkswagen and also shot himself in the arm.

yeah, its a good statement to explore the cyborgs bits and it seems well suited to performance art (or video installation, though there you miss the relationship with the artist actually experiencing it). but i am left with the impression of it mainly being performed for shock rather than seriously exploring the subject.

its always a danger with performance art (andperhaps one of the main reasons it seems to fall flat). but it is nice to see some overlap/interference from that sector into the things we are talking about.

Posted by: tripp at February 24, 2004 01:57 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?