[artinfo] SERIES: DETAIL - Call for participation
egyarmati at c3.hu
Thu May 18 17:23:53 CEST 2006
Begin forwarded message:
> INCIDENT.NET / SERIES: THE DETAIL
> Call for participation
> -> Until September, the 30th of 2006
> Thank you to send us your netart/videoart projects and your
> biography by email (incident at incident.net).
> Only the works using technologies (interactivity, generativity,
> network, etc.) will be selected.
> incident at incident.net
> Between the subject and the object, between the perceiver and the
> perceived. As we shift from the detail to the entirety, the change
> in scale is ascertained through comparison. Can a detail exist all
> by itself? Would it still be a detail? Do we have to stop once we
> arrive at the detail? Can't we just keep going until the detail
> breaks up into endless fragments of further details?
> We go from a human being to the body to the hand to the skin, the
> material of the skin, to pigments, eventually are we even looking
> at matter at all? The detail is a voyage of perception. What does
> perception see in a detail? Does it reflect? Is one detail ever
> alone? Once we reach the detail through this tortuous path of
> perception, don't we actually find ourselves in an infinite
> multiplicity? If our perception is shifting, doesn't this imply
> heterogeneity? How do we decide what is revealed by the visible,
> and what we see, and how relevant it is to us?
> Today's technologies of memory also propose new ways of navigating,
> travelling through memory, radicalizing the question of the detail
> and of the other to which it necessarily refers. A detail is never
> alone, and when it is, it is testament to its isolation, because it
> is missing something. What is a detail on the Internet? How do we
> define a hierarchy by which we can go from the detail to the whole
> or vice versa? If it is hopeless to attempt to find anything which
> could be called 'the final detail' which would complete our whole,
> how can we even begin to speak of details?
> Yet, we get the sense of never seeing anything more than
> fragmentary details. The whole is a default, as is reason. As we go
> from one detail, one perception to the next, we can stop, we may
> pause, but there is never a good reason to. The world is disconnected.
> The detail concerns aesthetics as much as it does thinking. The
> word itself implies a hierarchy: a detail is something particular,
> an ornament, nothing of importance, something which may even be on
> the edge of nothingness. But it is also precision, sophistication,
> if not subtlety. It is still part of something, a piece, a remnant.
> The detail is not a concept.
> Walter Benjamin described "a thought of detail": Let's remember
> this garden, this grass, these blades of grass, each blade is
> unique and has as much to do with the next blade as with anything
> else. It is through the irremediable vulgarity of thinking that we
> perceive anything that could be described as 'grass' forgetting the
> singularity of each detail.
> How do interactive cross-referencing, database stratification, and
> the capacity for unceasing movement of today's technology account
> for this implied 'other' which is the aesthetic of details? Is it
> possible to elaborate a perception of details which does not refer
> back, through the sign of missing something, to an initial
> totality? A detail, but without nostalgia.
> Gregory Chatonsky
More information about the Artinfo