Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.
Without the unreal the real is unreal.
[…]
Bad innovation serves up ignorant repetition of the past; good innovation is the thumbprint, the genetic code, of the innovator.
Good innovation will pass the same criteria of taste as other writing, while at the same time changing them.
The question is not taste but who has the power to impose it.
Collage and cutup are ways of interrupting the continuity of the controlling discourse – mosaic is a way of renewing discourse.
Mosaic: new tiles, old fragments, odd scraps – remix. Out of remnants new design. Continuous not discontinuous.
The audiences are changing so it’s very tricky to try and anticipate what kind of art experience one can deliver to an imaginary other. For example, some of my live performances are also simultaneously distributed over the net and then archived for future research or remix purposes. One is tempted to say that these changes are almost all technologically induced. But then again, I am the one pulling the trigger. Although once I am performing a live set or enable my online presence to get distributed 24/7 over the matrix, then I start feeling like a network distributed “other” more than I feel like anything I might want to call “me” (“me” who?). This might have something to do with the way we now “play ourselves” as we live out the (re)mixed reality narratives that we call our lives. Perhaps this is what Rimbaud meant when he wrote “I am another.” I too am another. And another, and another, and an/other …
Given the (re)mixed reality narratives that we call our lives, how essential is it for (con)temporary artists to develop a networked practice?
