11/26/2012

The Cold Coast Archive (2)




Images from the exhibition and discussion in Rom8. The group discussion on 20 November focussed on the historical and contextual background for the exhibition, looking at the development and subsequent decline of the coal mining industry on Svalbard, the presence today of the global seed bank and of international climate researchers, and the ways in which the Cold Coast Archive weaves together diverse narrative strands, combining documentary accounts with personal observations and artistic interventions. In its multi-layered structure as both online archive and scaleable exhibition installation, the Cold Coast Archive addresses the question of place or site from multiple perspectives simultaneously, calling into question assumptions about the ways in which artists might examine, describe, enter into, interact with, represent or conceptually reconfigure a given place or site. As part of the discussion Anne Marthe Dyvi read a specially composed text questioning our conceptions of time and its relationship to space. The text is published below in English and Norwegian.


Photomontages & poster from the Cold Coast Archive. The faceted form of the photomontages is repeated in the arrangement of video monitors suspended on wooden platforms in the installation.

Exhibition opening 16 November


Part of the installation, suspended projectors sending images to all of the gallery walls, combined with surround audio


Exhibition view from the street (above)


































Evigaturen, the eternity recording apparatus relieased its 2nd record.
Evigaturen´s travel up to Svalbard and into the vault is displayed in the photomontage- The audience can listen to the records (1. record: recordings of activity in the vault between Sept 2011 and April 2012, 2. record 2: April-Nov 2012). 


From the artist's talk/group discussion in the exhibition. Signe Lidén, Nora Adwan, Anne Marthe Dyvi, Georgia Rodger


Anne Marthe Dyvi reading a text written for the occasion.



ABOUT TIME / in Room 8 / 20th of Nov 2012 /Anne Marthe Dyvi

Starting point/ a small excerpt from Wikipedia first:

‹‹ Two distinct viewpoints on time divide many prominent philosophers. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[21] An opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of actually existing dimension that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead an intellectual concept (together with space and number) that enables humans to sequence and compare events[43] This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[15] and Immanuel Kant,[22][23] holds that space and time "do not exist in and of themselves, but ... are the product of the way we represent things", because we can know objects only as they appear to us.›› 
(Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time)

My personal view on art, time and artistic research/ a hypothesis

Everything that physically exists is that which highlights time, in the same way that clothes on the clothes line reveal the wind. Time is not observable or existent without this. This is what I can, at this time, say that time is; therefore only able to explain it by its surrounding phenomena.

Our physical decay, our breath, our actions and movements are what make time exist; the surrounding is its level of existence. The artist observes this phenomenon, indirectly and without being conscious of it, then tansforms these observations and time data to be made manifest in art. Like the act of  taking something out of reality, putting it in a Petri dish under a microscope, categorizing it and preserving it.

So for the first time, I have realized the reason for the existence of the term 'artistic research', but it was not what I thought it was: that artistic research is the art that artists make, display and write about. No, artistic research or the making of art is actually research on TIME, artists demonstrating time through research. Artists can depict time, detach it from its original location or logic, and enable an abstract interpretation. You find it in visual art, in literature, in music, theatre and dance.

But all this research, and I naturally want to say, art, prove that time is a personally experienced phenomenon. In two ways: there are many artists who do a lot of work where time is observable. So therefore; many results create a wealth of information, experiences, and expressions, mediated through the artist. There is a huge body of material, and when they relate to the same research field, the results affect each other. The fact that it is a personal or experiential phenomenon, is proved only indirectly by artists: it is the artist's peer review, namely the viewer that interprets research results within him or herself, by experiencing the art. The viewers then get their resonance or dissonance from the artwork, namely the artists evidence / research material on time.

This large group of appraisers and material manufacturers don’t work with the hierarchical structure that the university sector is based within. Sure, there is a hierarchy in the arts as well, but this is around the art work (possibilities, power, money, networks and so on). Art not including the power structures around it cannot build brick by brick, research refers to research, and there are so many voices contributing that they create a cacophony.

The concept cacophony is often used to critique music if it is perceived as complicated and dissonant, or to describe many voices making sound simultaneously, preventing the transmission of messages or sense.

Perhaps he fact that the results are cacophonous can help us to identify and formulate time’s own character. As a Lime tree repeats its own form in the shape of its leaf, tree and leaf are similar. It may be that the methodology of scientific time research, known to us as art or artistic research, can say something about time itself. So if seen as a whole the research results constitute a cacophony.

Time says this to us:

I am in transitions - I am observable, or in a mode of existence when the transition occurs, when a snowflake goes from snow to water on the palm of your hand, I'm there. But like anything emulated, I cannot be without the other, without physics. Maybe I am a by-product of processes, such as friction creates friction, but heat as well. Or maybe I am the motivation of the processes, they happen to generate me, Time.”

Unfortunately, TIME also reminds us that it is our self that hinders our ability to grasp TIME. We resonate time in a physical way, but strive to create a language around our experiences. For we are only mediums with the limitations that this gives. Like a radio is unable to transfer images, we struggle to comprehend time. To be able to experience time at the same time that we view it from a distance. We have such difficulty to be in two times simultaneously. Experiencing and interpreting simultaneously. Ultimately we want to be at ease with time. We know who you are; you cannot make us feel troubled, Mr Time. Therefore, we use art as a research park on time, to cope with this turmoil. Then it will be in art itself that we can hold time down, to study it through a personal microscope. For the benefit of the formation of self and the formation of culture.

But if we look at research as a place for development, or evolution as a refining process, where will this art or time research bring us, when the methodology and the transfer of results are so scattered? Seemingly without a clear goal. Will we succeed in time research within art, to fully grasp time? Or put another way, will we get an answer on what time is through art? If so, will the case of art research change from time to something else? And if so, what?
If we get answers, the methodology of the research is proven to be adequate, and the model might be preserved. The research lifts us to a higher level of enlightenment, the time after the defining or discovery of time. What the next case will be in the arts I am also probably not able to describe, as I have not reached enlightenment enough. If we don’t reach enlightenment through art, we will probably just keep on researching the answer to what TIME is. The answer then is that keeping up this activity is being as close to understanding time as possible. Or that we as mediums are not able to develop our selves to receive time. Experience tells us that we will continue to develop, unless it is the case that to grasp time is contrary to our evolution, but then I can not know that either. Maybe we have a built-in default that prevents us from fully grasping time, since to do so might bring about our end.
Or maybe time is merely a relationship, or a glue. The glue in the collage. Information and time fail to conclude.


Norsk: 


OM TID / i Room 8 / 20th of Nov 2012 /Anne Marthe Dyvi

Utgangspunkt/ med et utdrag fra Wikipedia først:
‹‹ Two distinct viewpoints on time divide many prominent philosophers. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[21] An opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of actually existing dimension that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead an intellectual concept (together with space and number) that enables humans to sequence and compare events[43] This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[15] and Immanuel Kant,[22][23] holds that space and time "do not exist in and of themselves, but ... are the product of the way we represent things", because we can know objects only as they appear to us.››
(Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time)
Min personlige betraktninger rundt kunst, tid og kunstnerisk forskning/ en hypotese.

Alt som fysisk eksisterer er det som synliggjør tid, det er tøyet på tørkesnoren som avslører vinden. Tid er ikke observerbart eller eksisterende uten. Dette er hva jeg på dette tidspunkt kan si at tid er, altså kun forklare den med sine omliggende enheter.

Vårt fysiske forfall, vårt åndedrett, våre handlinger og bevegelser er alt det som får tid til å være- vi er dets eksistensgrunnlag. Det som kunstneren gjør er å observere dette fenomen, indirekte og uten å være det bevisst, så omforme disse observasjoner og tidsdata til å eksistere i kunst. Som å trekke noe ut av virkeligheten, sette det i en petriskål under et mikroskop, kategorisere det og arkivere det.

Så for første gang har jeg erkjent begrunnelsen for eksistensen til begrepet 'kunstnerisk forskning', men det var ikke det jeg trodde det var. At kunstnere forsket i det de produserte kunst. Nei, den kunstneriske forskningen er egentlig tidsforskning, da det kunstnere gjør er å bevise tid. Kunstnere klarer å avbilde tid, løsrive det fra sin opprinnelige plassering/logikk, og muliggjøre en abstrahert tolkning. Det er å finne i billedkunsten, i litteraturen, i musikken, teateret og dansen.

Men all denne forskningen, eller jeg ønsker selvsagt å si, kunsten, beviser at tid er et personlig fenomen. På to måter: det er mange kunstnere, som gjør mange verk der tid er observerbart. Ergo: mange resultater resulterer i et vell av informasjon, opplevelser, uttrykk, mediert gjennom en person. Det eksisterer et stort materiale, og da de relaterer til samme forskningsfelt, påvirker resultatene hverandre. Det at det er et personlig, eller erfaringsbasert fenomen, beviser kun kunstneren indirekte; det er kunstnerens peer review/fagvurdering som beviser dette, nemlig betrakteren som tolker forskningsresultatene inne i seg selv, ved å oppleve kunsten, og få sin ressonnans eller dissonnans i kunstnerens bevis/forskningsmateriale omkring tid.

Denne store gruppen med vurderere og materialeprodusenter umuliggjør den hierarkiske oppbygningen som universitetssektoren bygger på. Javisst, er det et hierarki i kunsten også, men det er der makt og penger er. Kunsten uten å regne med maktstrukturen rundt den klarer ikke bygge sten på sten, forskning som refererer til forskning, da det er så mange stemmer at det utgjør et kakafoni.
(ja, for de av dere som tenker at dette ligner på endringen i mediene og de sosiale mediene, er jeg helt enig, men har ikke anledning til å snakke om nå) Begrepet kakofoni anvendes subjektivt, ofte for å angripe musikk som oppleves som komplisert og dissonant, eller for å beskrive flere stemmer som taler samtidig, og hindrer en overføring av budskap.
Denne kjensgjerning at resultatene er kakofoniske, kan hjelpe oss til å begrepsfeste tid sin karakter kanskje. Som et blad på et lindetre repeterer sin egen form , treet og bladet ligner hverandre, kan det være at metodikken i tidsforskningen og analysen av materialet, samt konsekvensene av å prossessere denne forkningen sier noe om tid selv. Så om forskningsresultatene utgjør en kakofoni-

-sier tid oss dette:
Jeg er i overgangen - jeg er observerbar , eller i eksistensmodus når overgangen skjer; når en snekrystall går fra sne til vann på håndflaten din, er jeg der. Men som noe emulert, jeg kan ikke være uten det andre; uten fysikken. Kanskje er jeg et biproduk av prosessene, som at friksjon gir varme i tillegg til friksjon. Eller kanskje er jeg motivasjonen til prosessene, de skjer for å generere tid.

Desverre minner også tid oss på at for å romme den store tid, er det i oss mangelen ligger. Vi ressonnerer tid fysisk, men strever slik med å språkliggjøre våre fysiske og begrensede erfaringer.. For vi er bare et medium med de begrensninger det er. Som radioen ikke klarer å overføre bilder, vil vi streve med å oppleve tid samtidig som vi distanserer oss fra det, og betrakter tid i hele sin størrelse. Vi har så vanskelig for å være i to tider samtidig. Å erfare og tolke simultant. Vi ønsker vel å sette TID i bero; deg kjenner vi,tid, du kan ikke gjøre oss urolige. Derfor bruker vi kunsten, som forskningspark på tid, for å holde ut i denne uro. Da blir det i kunsten tiden kan spennes fast, så vi kan betrakte den i et personlig mikroskop. For egendannaelsens del, og for kulturdannelsens del.

Men om vi ser på forskning som et sted for utvikling, eller evulusjonen som en raffineringsprosess; hvor vil denne kunst eller tidsforskningen bringe oss når metodikken og overføringen av resultater er så spredt utover? så tilsynelatende målløs? Vil vi i kunsten se at vi erkjenner, eller forstår eller legger vårt behov for å relatere til tid i bero? Vil kunstforskningens case forandre seg fra TID til noe annet, eller sagt på en annen måte: vil vi få svar på hva tid er gjennom kunsten? Hvis ja beviser metodikken at det gir oss de svarene vi behøver, og modellen bevares, en utvikling vil forekomme til å nå en høyere opplysningstid; tiden etter oppdagelsen av TID. Hva neste case for kunsten da vil gå over i er jeg naturlig nok ikke i stand til å beskrive, da jeg ikke har nådd opplysning nok til det. Hvis nei vil trolig også bare forskningen holde på, og svaret på hva TID er være at den er at for å gripe den må man være i aktivitet med den, eller at at vi som medium ikke klarer å utvikle oss til å gjøre det. Erfaring sier at vi vil utvikle oss, med mindre det er evolusjonært nedbrytende å vite hva tid er da, men det vet jeg jo heller ikke ennå. Kanskje det er en default i oss som hindrer oss i å romme tid fullt og helt, for da vil vi gå til grunne. Eller er tid bare en relasjon, eller lim. Limet i collagen. Opplysning og tid mangler til å konkludere.


No comments:

Post a Comment