<<BACK
| Artists Correspondence This is a correspondence for the FGA-Cph edition between so:ren, a Danish artist who studied art at the Rietveld and emmigrated to Zurich, and his friend Christian, also a Danish artist, who lives in Vienna. On 5 March, 2007 at 11:38 Søren wrote: Well Christian, if we want more than the five million Danes to understand our discussion I believe English would be the most appropriate language to use in our correspondence. If you are too busy let me know. The deadline is in April. When I was invited to participate in the second International Dada-Festwochen in Zurich in 2003 I invited you to join me. Let’s say the ‘plan’ was that we would stay for a week or two. But in your case (correct me if I am wrong) you left behind your philosophy studies, your girlfriend and your belongings in Denmark and stayed in Zurich for almost two years. Why did you make that decision? At that time I was studying at the Rietveld art academy in Amsterdam and made everything I did at the Dada-Festwochen (which lasted for five months) a part of my study in Amsterdam but I did not give up Amsterdam like I gave up Denmark. Zurich just became like a second home to me. It was a pain in the ass to go back to Rietveld constantly and spend more time discussing with the teachers. It actually pays off to get out of the school grounds rather than sit on a 4m2 shared space in classical Rietveld grey and make art! I wonder whether schools are geared up for this new generation of global-local artists. Let me know what you think. love so:ren -------------------------------------- On 7 March, 2007 at 13:40 Christian Falsnaes wrote: Dear so:ren, Thank you for your mail, and for choosing me as your corresponding friend. It is completely true that I gave up the life I was living in Copenhagen to stay and live in Zurich after the Dada-Festwochen had ended. The decision to leave behind the things you mention was not as difficult as it may sound. Actually, at that time I was experimenting a lot with my life-form and with breaking certain norms and social patterns etc., so I kinda took the chance to make an actual experiment, that is giving up everything and going somewhere without anything. I would actually advise anyone who likes to investigate his or her own borders to try it. Anyway, in the beginning everything seemed quite exotic in Zurich, living in a squat and everything, but I experienced quite quickly that circumstances were not so different after all. I guess that all cities in Europe are fairly similar, at least in terms of system, norms, culture and people. That is one experience I had with moving abroad, that even though everything seems different at first, you find out that it is actually somehow the same. Humans are humans. I don't know what you think of this assumption, but for me that is approximately how I feel. As for your question as to whether art schools are geared up for the new generation of global-local artists, I think that may be a wrong way of seeing the problems arising from the form and institution of art studies. I suggest the real question is whether tomorrow’s artists need art schools at all? A positive side effect of Web 2.0, MySpace etc. is that artists are now capable of promoting themselves to an unprecedented degree. Musicians don’t need the structure of a record company because they can promote themselves on the net, let people download their music for free and earn money through concerts. The success of visual artists seems very dependent on the ability to work within the structure of the so-called ‘art world’ and adapt to its demands. Traditionally, art schools had been seen as one of the best ways to provide the opportunities for integration and learn the rules of adaption. The question is if future artists, communicating via the internet and having friends in Shanghai as well as in Copenhagen, really need this assimilation and acceptance of the institution, or if they will manage to create new ways of rising up and achieve success? best, Christian -------------------------------------- On 10 Mar, 2007, at 18:09 Søren wrote: hi c, I have had the same experience as you, humans are humans, whether locally or globally. I am still wondering about the consequences for art production, because, while the world has shrunk in the sense of quick international travel, the art works have grown in the sense of more global and social art works. The knowledge construction and production of art is more often in a broader perspective than earlier. You mention MySpace, to which I would add YouTube amongst many other platforms for artists to promote themselves. These platforms provide access for a global audience, which affects the reflecting artist being aware that everyone is able to watch. As I write Turkey has banned YouTube because of movies disrespecting and criticising the ruling government have been published on it. I can imagine a rise in similar incidents like this in Western Europe in future. You ask: will future artists need art schools? I guess it will be up to the art institution or institutions in general to provide an environment where the future artist wants to be. Then it might be the art institution that needs the future artist than vice versa. Do you think more globally now that you are living (as a local) in Vienna? It is inspiring to travel and to meet different people, cultures etc. But we can also meet people in the virtual world in virtual-reality environments such as Second Life, World of Warcraft and Counter-Strike to name just a few. Are we globally virtual and local in reality? I met you last week in Second Life at a support party for the ‘Ungdomshuset’, the Youth House that was cleared by police on 1 March and demolished a few days later. I still haven’t defined this experience of meeting you virtually. Normally we talk A LOT when we meet, so the first barrier was clearly that we could only chat (write). But it is only a matter of time before live talk is possible in Second Life. Although your avatar did not look exactly like you there was no doubt that it was you. Somehow we were acting as we do in real life when visiting a new place, like reflecting on our surroundings, being critical of what we saw etc. How was your experience? Not regarding the status of Second Life (a commercial capitalistic virtual place). Are humans human virtually as well as in reality? Yours, so:ren -------------------------------------- On 12 Mar, 2007, at 11:11 Søren wrote: Hi Christian, Please excuse my writing again before giving you a chance to respond to my last email, but I just read something really interesting in Information (Danish Newspaper) about Baudrillard. According to the journalist, Baudrillard wrote (freely translated from Danish into English by me): “The old bon mot ‘reality is stronger than fiction’, to which the Surrealist aesthetic of reality belonged, has now been overtaken. There is no longer a fiction which life can confront – not even to go beyond fiction. Reality has become a game of reality. The virtual is, in reality, the horizon of the real.” The journalist adds: “The party first starts when it is televised – when it is hyper reality in the media version.” I somehow see a connection to my question: are humans human virtually as well as in reality? so:ren -------------------------------------- On 16 Mar, 2007, at 9:31 Christian Falsnaes wrote: hi so:ren, No I do not feel that I think more ‘globally’ now because I live in Vienna and not in Copenhagen. I still switch between my local environment and global contacts, sometimes several times a day, and I still have an abstract relation to the actual proportions of the planet, even though I travel around and write emails to distant strangers. The fact that I can communicate via a global network and travel by plane makes the actual difference between living in Vienna and living in Copenhagen just a matter of architecture and local climate. My feeling of being a very small piece in a very big construction (the universe) trying to navigate through a weird mixture of atomic as well as universal information is exactly the same. I guess that’s just how it is to be human, which leads me directly to your second question: Are humans human virtually as well as in reality? If I understand your question correctly, you want to know if I believe the interaction I have with others in ‘real life’ is different from the interaction I have with people over the internet. You mention my Second Life avatar – a weird-looking guy with an extremely big nose and long thin legs wearing a t-shirt with a Hawaii beach scene on it – and say that you felt very certain it was me even though the avatar looked different. My question would then be what am ‘I’ supposed to be? Am I the sum of all the information output that I produce or am I my body? I would rather ask whether the body that I, for unknown reasons, was born into could also be seen as an avatar. I mean, I have to invest time and money in the appearance of my ‘real life’ avatar, my body and my clothes, just as I have to in Second Life or any other online world. The feeling of identification with my body is a construction just like my feeling of identification with some digital avatar. I must say though, that I prefer to see you in real life, maybe because the resolution is so much higher. I don’t like Second Life that much. Besides being a cheap copy of the good old capitalist system, the communication appears to be nothing but a complicated chat-room. I am not so interested in visiting the new virtual headquarters of Nike, so communication and interaction are my main concerns. If we could practice our experimental Kung Fu in Second Life, I guess I would find it much more fun. Nevertheless, since we live around 1000 km from each other, I am happy that I can communicate with you at all. I get less information from you if I communicate with you in Second Life (mainly written messages and lame emotes) than if you visit me in Vienna (messages that stimulate all my senses and experimental Kung Fu), but I still get a bit. That ‘bit’ of information is clearly a part of you in my opinion, so yes I am with you when we meet over the internet or speak on the phone. I just receive you in a lower resolution. To return to the main theme of our discussion – the influence of globalisation and all its aspects on individual artistic production – I definitely see possibilities in relation to online worlds of different sorts. I think it is quite realistic to be able to live purely from virtual-art production, but I think the preferable option is an unconventional mixture of all available communication channels. The relationship between the places I exhibit contains so many layers already that a virtual 3D world is just one more layer. I think it is very interesting to consider how this increase in the abstraction of everyday life is going to influence the way we consider our identity when it becomes normal to have two, three or several avatars instead of just one (the body), when you have to move through multiple online worlds with different avatars and contacts in addition to living in one country and working in another. But what is your experience? You live in Switzerland now and might see things differently. Do you feel or think more ‘globally’ now that you have moved abroad? What is your experience with communication and artistic production over the internet? What is global to you? Christian -------------------------------------- On 21 Mar, 2007, at 22:55 Søren wrote: Hi Christian, Elementary, global is global, mother earth, our planet. The internet provides a virtual global contact that has made me think more globally, virtually. But because I live in Switzerland now and I lived in Holland before that, I don’t believe my thoughts would be less global if I still lived in Denmark. Producing art abroad has inspired me to be critical of works directly connected with the country I am living in. So, in that sense one could argue that being abroad has inspired me to, for example, plant a Danish oak tree in Appenzell in Switzerland. So is this a consequence for my art production? In one way yes, but living in Denmark and just visiting my neighbour could create the same kind of art production that would leave one experiencing the art work in the same way as, for example, the Danish oak tree. You ask: can the body I was born into be seen as an avatar? I think the bodies we have been born into are avatars. I think it as almost certain that we in the near future we will all control several avatars. One could argue that we already do this. For example, someone can be a parent at home, a boss at work, and a friend visiting friends: all three avatars controlled by one brain. Now we can add to that the person’s online chat name, in different chat rooms with different chat bodies and probably another avatar or two in Second Life. I would rather ask: what is the minimum number of avatars required in order to live from online art production? Will it be possible to live a (western standard) life at all in the future without online avatars? I really appreciate our experimental Kung Fu too. I am looking forward to continuing where we left off in real life next time we meet, hopefully in the near future. But isn’t it just a question of time before we are able to jump into our virtual suit, look at each other and begin our experimental Kung-Fu online? It seems that the consequences for art production lie much more in the world wide web than in artists travelling from metropolis to metropolis. Yours, So:ren |
 |