Essentially, this is a defining article, a brief essay that sets out to reify some definition to my art, and its relationship to my self; and some definition of this self as espoused through the ensuing relationships.  This is essential in coming to any consequential understanding or meaningful perspective and experience of my existence as an artist, or at least current discourse on the topic might have us consider.

As I consider my artistic practice as a means of generating, developing, and exploring my self, it quickly becomes clear to me that this is a process that could stand to be mapped out and reconsidered within this context.

Thinking back through my past practice of art, I begin to see the patterns emerge from these works. Many of the projects involved producing a representation of myself, a part of myself, an image of myself within a specific context, which I became at once subjectified/objectified.  These works seem to place myself in such a manner that I could actually watch myself perform some strange activity within an equally bizarre context, i.e. pretending to bark like a Döberman pinscher on a television chained to a small doghouse in the basement of a popular contemporary art gallery.  This is diametrically opposed to, say, a version of this situation in a virtual dream state.

At the time of creation of such projects, I was simply using myself as an actor, or model, or participant, as I was really the only volunteer that I knew that was available 24/7, and for free (how much better can it get?). I suppose in some small, yet unrealised manner, I was very much aware that this was a possibility of the events that were unfolding.  As the work evolved intuitively from feeling, as opposed to a calculated and constructed action through thought and from concept, I might have known in the back of my mind that what I was doing was, in some context, very much introspective as it was an externalisation and expression of certain feelings towards situational circumstances of the (cultural) time, in this instance perhaps it was an expression of feelings of subordination to the media constrcuts through which we can be limited in our abilities to effectively communicate.

In other words, I knew that this was an exploration of the self, the concerns, attitudes, feelings, thoughts and beliefs I held at that point in time. Looking back upon this practice as a whole practice comprised a series of similar works, I see that in my volunteerism I was in another sense exploring myself as a subject, or an individual subject to cultural conditions, ideologies, and environmental circumstances.  Considering the ontology of my existence, within the microcosm of the sculpture studio, I was an adept supernummery, a qualified extra available for free.  However, within the macrocosm of my cultural circumstance (Western contemporary art culture in the early 21st century), I was an individual installation and media artist.

From this scaled perspective, at once being very different within in varied contexts; from a physical, animate body/entity to act on the camera, to an independent individual amidst a cultural field and all the levels in between, this practice which I regularly engaged with was a phenomenon of my being, my self, how I felt, what I thought, and the agency of this being to produce an expression of this consciousness.  Art was a means of both advancing and developing of my self as well as moving away from this self in order to generate an understand and gain knowledge of this (my) self. In fact, this specific body of work embodied this duality of 1st and 3rd person, the subject-object situation. As a means of objectifying myself within a video object, I was able to examine my self from an alter perspective.  Simultaneously acting as the subject and object of scrutiny, when in the presence of these works, I had the experience of being in the work and outside of the work at once. A personal impersonality. Similar to watch home movies of ourselves, or looking at photographs of ourselves, these types of observation are necessary for objectification of our life-world and our relationships to these phenomena.

These specific projects were more like real-time snapshots of dream sequences in their ethereal, outré characteristics. The gave me multiple perspectives as they traverse the void between the actual, the virtual, and the real.  Moreover, they operated as almost a form of metacommunication, or portals into an introspection of the role that my self plays through the cultural consctructs that afford this self the possibility to become, to develop language, meaning, and communicative practices; artistic practices.

Here is a good place to contextualise my current ontological stance in regards to the orientation and situation of existence. These writings are presupposed by a philosophy that the ‘world’, its being, knowledge and experience of this existence are existent as multiplicities, all co-habiting a simultaneous existence. In short, everything conceived exists, right now! This is sort of a phenomenological theory of relativity of self reification. It is the movement of perception and of the phenomena of these states of existence that, in part, determine the emplacement of its being and our epistemological, ontological, and phenomenological relationship to this phase/form/version of being.  Furthermore, existence is existent in terms of an experience or lack of experience of the possibility that a thing may or may not exist within any context, state, or representation of its existence.

Art allows one to experiment with one’s position within the fields in which they awaken. We awaken in different fields continuously, throughout our being. The activity involved with the creation and realisation of art, the processes of art, is our means or technique of engaging with our self within these fields.

This is a technique of self, or a technical knowledge of the self which is adjacent to a relational model of work (technical) knowledge, practical knowledge, and emancipatory knowledge as suggested by Jürgen Habermas (Foucault, 1993).  Foucault (1993) describes this concept of the technology of self as an additional technique of the individual within society:
“…in all societies whatever they are, another type of techniques [exist]: techniques which permit individuals to effect, by their own means, a certain number of operations on their own bodies, on their own souls, on their own thoughts, on their own conduct, and this in a manner so as to transform themselves, modify themselves, and to attain a certain state of perfection, of happiness, of purity, of supernatural power, and so on. Let’s call this kind of techniques a techniques or technology of the self? “

Art, in this context, is an agency of self, or a method of this technology of self, made possible by the cultural conditions that foster the possibility of an individual within a society.  The concept of society is founded on the basis of the existence of selves, or individuals acting (working) independently and democratically within a structure that incurs interaction and counteraction,  interdependence and counterdependence.  This is evidenced in the relationship between self and other, as demonstrated through society.

My practice as an artist has allowed my to come to an understanding of my existence, the existence of my practice as an artist, and the relationship between my self and this practice through the emplacement of my self and this practice within various frameworks, one being my practice as an artist amongst other artists within a field of art, another being my practice as an individual amongst others within a social framework or field, such as art or the academy.

Furthermore, as this practice, and the reflection of this practice are not separate but co-exist in an evolving relationship my practice is reflexively shaped by my exploration of it, and extensions that develop through presentation and representation of this practice, .ie. media.  This is a type of emancipatory knowledge production that exists (Habermas).

Because the concept of self is a reality within a broader social reality, or at least conferred by this social state, and art too is a specific form or field within this broader field of social reality, art can exist as a means of constructing the self in relation to the social reality that constitutes and contextualises the existence of the other (in this case me and the things that I do and make within this context).

Because I exist in relation to others, I perceive and experience my self as a self amongst other  selves, and ‘theirfore’ constituted by this relationship.  I often think that if no other existed, or was experienced in any possibility of the definition, would I exist (in the epistemological and phenomenological sense of the concept)?  If the only entity in existence was my self, I would have no frame, no point of reference, no horizon to measure up against, I would correspond to nothing, relational to only a singular dimension of my self (perhaps not even ‘my’ could exist, but rather a self, which would yield to the oblivion of being or the creation of an other).  I envision this as the point where either a singularity (white hole) or a black hole becomes.

Coming back down to Earth, where I exist with my practice, my peers, and all my art surrounding me in boxes it is here within these relationships that my self develops. Self projects acquire meaning through their situation in relation to other self projects within an approximate cultural correspondence.

Unpacking these boxes in a specific place, with specific conditions (physical, cultural, environmental, etc.) avails certain relations. If I unpack the art in one time and place, I might see it as valuable to a specific project, at another time and place it may remain undiscovered, unrelated and too distanced to promote capital; dependent on the strength and value of the relationships that are produced through a relational presence. However, art as capital seems to operate under different circumstances than other types of capital.

Art carries a surplus value, as Diederichsen (2008) puts it. The surplus value of art is the added bonus that releases art from the subordination to any globally dominant law, such as economic value, or meaning.  Art is an interstice, a space that can exist outside of normal relations (Bourriaud, 1998).  Artistic Mehrwert, according to Diederichsen,  “...refers to the fact that art is ‘good for something’ and therefore has a use; it is legitimate and must exist, despite the fact that its meaning lies precisely in not being useful. “(1)

It is precisely here, that art as a field, yet a field with no edges, it is a desert of a field, slowly expanding and consuming its periphery as it gains relational ground through the multiple practices occurring within its margins.

References

Bourriaud, N. (1998). Relational Aesthetics. Paris: Les presses du réel.

Diederichsen, D. (2008). On (Surplus) Value in Art. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Witte de With Publishers.

Foucault, M. “About the Beginning of the Hermeneutics of the Self: Two Lectures at Dartmouth”. Political Theory, Vol. 21, No. 2 (May, 1993, 198-227.)

Habermas, J. (1981). The Theory of Communicative Action. Boston: Beacon Press.

Thinking about four recent projects (Other Side, HAL2009, FAIR FM, and Splendid),  I reflect back upon my past works and consider how they functioned, how they were purposeful for me, what they did for me and/or allowed me to do?  Recently, in examining my artistic practice, how it functions and what it does, and more importantly why this is valuable, I have come to some conclusions on the my process of reflection and the value of reflexivity in artistic practice, which I will discuss here.

I have adopted a new framework, or a thought structure, for thinking reflexively about my artworks and looking at my overall artistic practice (and other’s artistic practices for that matter). Setting up a binary structure of opposition, I try to think about each artwork on a descriptive level and on an analytical level.  This can be further reduced to what the work is being, thus framing the work within descriptive questions of how it is and what it is; and what the work is doing, thus considering, or analysing what the work does, how it does it, and why it does it.  The distinction lies within the separation of what something, a form, an action, an object, or a subject does as opposed to what it is.

Scaling out to a macrocosmic level of my overall practice as an artist, I can then consider the gestalt of my art as a relationship amongst a series of individual, microcosmic artworks, how they are, how they be (holistically) in relation to what my practice does, or what each artwork might do in relation to how my practice is and exists. These comparisons can quickly become complex as multiple works, and even multiple practices enter into the equation. This structure becomes necessary as a means of contrasting my processes and methods as an artist, as my works develop intuitively and much so through a felt and visceral knowledge of the world.  This thought structure’s oppostional form, provides me with a very simple way of approaching each work and outlining its conceptual foundations, thus allowing me to create connections between multiple artworks, and thus begin to visualise an overall aesthetic or dynamic to my practice as an artist.

As I read through past descriptions of my practice, or of singular works of art I have produced, I would generalise how each artwork explored concepts of boundaries, disruption, and separation.  These are the conceptual characteristics of the works that I identified with. By describing the work I would arrive at an analysis of how these characteristic functioned within the work, but for some reason I would stop just shy of considering what the purpose of this function of the work was doing for me. I was describing the art and what it might do for others within various cultural contexts, but not what it was doing for me, in a personal context. This prevented me from experiencing my practice on a macro scale, and rather kept me focused on the internal mechanism of the art that I produced. Perhaps, as the artist, as my self making the artwork, as it is felt, and intuited, there was no need to see the work on this scale, no need to think about the work.  From this understanding, the work was for me.

What has changed?  Why do I now feel it is important to think about the work, as it is felt and experienced?  Thinking vs. feeling?

I am at a point of change within my practice as an artist. I have developed a large enough body of work, with multiple bodies within that some contrast begins to emerge, and thus there are immediate aesthetic divergencies and congruencies. It is here that the descriptions of these differences begin to develop into more fully realised analyses. As I begin to analyse my past work in contrast to my recent work, I find the communicative importance, the agency, the power of the artworks, in their abilities to communicate and span the margins within my self and between others. It is here that my practice congeals.

REFRACTORY ANALYSIS

As I begin to look at the work from another angle, or refract upon my work, I begin to see what the work was doing for me (as opposed to how I was doing it, or what the work was being).  As I step out away from the processes involved, I can catch a glimpse different effects the work may have produced.  Moreover, I another step out I could see my relationship to the work, beyond my attachment to it through the processes of conception, development, and creation. What was I actually doing in the process of making the work? This is a separation of being and doing, this is part of praxis and reflexivity. Moving to a place where I can understand this is empowering, as it gives me a broader vision of the multiple plains that this work exists upon.  Taking this step back to look at myself making the work, going through the various processes and actions of collecting, transforming, distributing, disruption, displacement, and facilitating allows me to start to understand and decide how this is important to my self, outside my identity as an artist, how this as an extension of my self can be influential and important in relation to others.

This was a complexity inherent in my practice, as my artistic activities were strongly reflexive in their content.  My work on one level is about looking at oneself suspended through the media that we extend through. I increasingly became the subject of my own practice.  I was researching myself in a way, ever work was very personal, yet starkly impersonal and detached. In these works, mainly video installations, I simultaneously objectified and subjectified my self via media channels.  Works such as PiP (2005), Beware! (2006), It happened like that (2007) all represented this displacement of self, this video objectification/subjectification. It is here that could communicate my self to myself in a way that is very unique, I could channel in on my self.

Coming back to the idea of stepping outside of my practice and witnessing myself in action, making art, it is here that I actually come to know these parts of my self in a ‘knew’ way.  This is through a creative act of reflecting upon myself, through a reflexivity of reflection. As described above, I found mass and new forms of media to be highly versatile and practical medium for these creative communicative acts. The screen, in particular, affords a dimensionality to this form of reflexivity that supports its dynamism, and the ‘degrees of separation’ that a reflexive process and practice espouse.

This is the nature of my self as artist and my practice as me simultaneous being and doing me.  This is me becoming or creating (doing/making) myself through the process of being myself.  This is a form of self-reliance, self-exploration, self-consciousness.  For me, this self-becoming is done intuitively, and it is through the conscious act of thinking, reflexively, that this can then be communicated, a communicative act.  Therefore by describing this to you, I’m at once being and doing, and thus I am conflated once again, ready for the emancipatory process of reflexivity via artistic process.

This is the concept of ‘Dasein’, the concept of ‘presence’ that Heidegger theorizes on our experience of one self in the world.  I, my self, am quite interested in Dasein as impacted by my concept of ‘uniplicity’ (a singleness exhibited amongst multiple subjects), particularly as it is influenced by forms of media, especially new media. Expressed through many past works, I have employed various forms of new media, i.e digital video, physical computing, Internet, etc. into this process of reflexive introspection, as well as traditional media forms, such as radio and printed text.  These are the tools (objects) and processes by which I can transform parts of my self into forms that function within the reflexive situation of my practice.

Thinking about how these works subjectified my self as at once the object and subject of my observation, it becomes apparent that the art that I was concerned with was in my relationship to these works.  I was at once objectified and subjectified through the mediafication of my self within my practice as an artist. From this perspective, the works were activated in my presence, and in effect, types of models waiting to be put into use in my absence.

I believe that all that is art, at times, demonstrates these qualities or a relationship to these reflexive qualities.  This is the surplus value of art as described by Diederichsen (2008), or the interstice value contemplated by Marx via Bourriaud (1998), it is valuable in infinite contexts beyond itself.  These artworks that I describe are not solely one thing.  They do not only represent some thing in the world, they are some thing in the world at once.  Just as we are at once a subject and an object, being and doing (making) our selves as individuals.  This is the parallel dimensions of self, the mulitplicity of self and identity.  So it is not a question of what does it mean, or what is it, or what anything… it is a question of why is it where and when it is and how is it to me, you, or us?

Meaning is meaningful. It’s what we all search for, often relentlessly in all that we do.  Are we looking for value in a valueless world?  Do we want assurance of a purpose as conscious beings?  Do we merely need to experience ourselves as part something, part of a greater significance or symbolism than the economic, political, and social systems that we manufacture and perpetuate in this search?

I was cleaning out my art studio the other day. As I was pulling off sticky-note after sticky-note of unrealised projects and halfed-up ideas, when it dawned on me that all of the sketches and scribblings had something in common.  In all that ‘data’ there was some kind of meaning that could be attached to it. There was meaning in the message, a pattern emerged. (PAUSE). I realised that all of these projects seemed to be centered around or tangent to some form of singularity. Black holes, the ‘ice man’, amoebas, time capsules, chameleons…the list goes on.  These were all images that popped into my head at some point of time while hanging out in the studio brainstorming new installations and art projects.  As I restacked this pile of sticky-notes, it became  increasingly evident.  All of these projects were about something that was  inspiring in its singularity.  These forms, the ice man, a black hole are essentially anomalies, the differences that provide enough contrast or distance from subjective being to offer a glimpse of something sublime and perfect, something truly meaningful.  Additionally, there is also something nearly magical about the these things, at least for me personally.  Something non-descript, something that might be called beauty?

So how do these projects relate to me.  This is the ad-infinitum question of the hour.  Are they metonyms of my conscious existence? Do they signal a quest for absolute greatness, not dissimilar to a Holy Grail of consciousness?

Thinking about reasons for why I have this creative urge that assumes these singular anomalies, I began to think about myself as something singularly unique in my individuality.  Not only in my form as matter, but also in my identity, my conscious being. So what exactly makes these other forms of singularities, and beyond that what gives them reason to be attractive?  Why would I even care about this idea of a black hole?  Well, I suppose behind the facade of its imagery, it reminds me of something, something personal, something inside me that I know.  Perhaps something that I am, something that we all are.

These objects, forms, things are not solely attractive or of interest to me alone.  For this reason alone I can only assume that due to the fact that others hold stock in the idea of a black hole, enough to construct the world’s largest particle accelerator in order to study it, the idea must hold some meaning; it must be important and of special consequence.  So why I am I attracted to them?

Are they symbolic?  I suppose another factor is that many of these singularities I have never actually seen, or witnessed with any acute sensibility.  Therefore I am only aware of the black hole through representation of it in images, words, and stories. The other quality about the black hole is “Despite its invisible interior, a black hole can reveal its presence through interaction with other matter.”

It is here that we can observe something.

How does the concept of a black hole relate to me?  I started to think about myself, if I were a black hole how would I feel? Black holes can never look in the mirror, so reflecting upon ones self isn’t possible.  Black holes become ones self continuously. Black holes are because they are absorbing everything else, and only know to exist through their “interaction with other matter”.

(REWIND)… the amoeba is similar but in an opposite kind of way.

Back to meaning. From these perspectives…Can there be meaning in any one singular thing, if the singular thing is always becoming through everything surrounding it?

Perhaps meaning cannot exist within the singularity.  There is no meaning in one single thing alone, as is matter in a black hole, but rather meaning is constructed by proximities and relationships. Furthermore, it is not simple a spatial or relational matter, but also a matter of agreement, communicated agreement.  As artists we are continuously explore new and changing ways of communicating agreements.

Moving these ideas to the concept of value, this concept suggest that we are not valuable in our selves. As humans, as people, as artists. In fact art may as well have no value. According to Bourriaud (1998), contemporary art and its delivery can operate in many arenas as a “social interstice…a space in human relations which fits more or less harmoniously and openly in to the overall system, but suggests other trading possibilities other than those in effect within this system” (p.16). As Bourriaud describes, “It has been said of art, and Marx was the first, that it represents the ‘absolute merchandise’, because it is the actual image of the value” (p. 42). Art is immediately devoted to, and often created solely, for the worlds of exchange, communication, and commerce.

Just as art acquires an exchange value, people too can embody this value. We, as some-one, are nothing without someone else, or are we?  We are conferred and confirmed through the awareness of another, through our differences and deviations.  It is the through the connections between ‘some-ones’ that anything meaningful can even be considered, yet communicated.

Much of my past work as an artist has been near these ideas.  In many ways I’ve been concerned with singularity. I’ve been concerned with examining myself in relation. Through the use of media as a vehicular mechanism of communication to communicate myself to myself at a singular point in time-space.  In this way, I bend back upon myself.  Like making a media-instant clone of myself that somehow got caught in a feedback loop before I could communicate something to myself.

I think of watching myself watch myself in a hall of mirrors.  I am my audience.

One question that is begging an answer.  Do I have anything meaningful to communicate to myself?

As the roles and responsibilities of those associated with the ‘art world’ are continuously shifting, expanding, and transforming, we see many artists adapting their practices into what can be considered ‘curatorial’ roles.  Works like “The Play of the Unmentionables” (1992), by Joseph Kosuth or the more recent “Fabiola” (2009) by Francis Alÿs are prime examples of how artists, through an appropriation of the work of other artists, act in very much a curatorial mode, selecting and organising art as a means of producing art.  Why?  Is it a reflex of the artist to act out the conditions that we operate within? After century’s of the artist or the art being exposed to the processes of curation in traditional gallery and museum contexts,  are we as artists ready to move on, move past the conventional art world activity of curation.  Art seems to have reached a climactic reflexivity as the conventions of institutional art are replacing themselves by canceling themselves out; when the activity of art references its conventions as a means of progression.  Is it time to consider where curation is headed? Why, as artists do we feel the need to be curatorial in our practices? What is the role of the curator in today’s open-source world?

In May 2009, the Positions in flux: On the changing role of the artist and institution in the networked society took place in Amsterdam, Netherlands at the Netherlands Media Art Institute (NIMK).  This symposium spearheaded much needed discussion on these very questions concerning the transformation of curatorial roles in contemporary arts and media practice. A series of three panels featuring discussion by international artists, academics, theorists, and curators addressed the issues of the media culture and art institutions, contemporary media/art and political action, and art production and curation. According to an overview of the symposium, a major topic was the idea of open source networking in media and information technology and the relationships with curatorial processes. Presented by Joasia Krysa founder of KURATOR, “a cultural organisation operating as a curatorial agency and research platform at the intersection of art and technology. It has a particular interest in an emerging discourse and practice that links curating with software and networks.”

Aligning the processes and responsiblities of art curation with those of the software programmer provides an interesting angle on the placement of the purpose and function of contemporary curation (and conversely programming).  With the potential for closing off cooperative and egalitarianistic development in a closed-sourced system, the necessity of open-source concepts, as demonstrated in Linux operating systems or creative commons licensing increasingly applied to media, are absolutely crucial for the productivity and advancement of the Web or the Net, as well as the practices involved in the critical and conscious development of these media structures.

It is this very concept of an open source, a source of information and its design that is open and accessible for use and more importantly concerted cooperative revision, that in the advent of new technology drives innovation to its fullest potential. Within the institution of artistic practice there is a similar open-source ideal that spurs interactivity, dialogue, collaboration, and other shared forms of cooperative experience. In many ways it is a trans-evolutionary activity, the conversations that take place through artists inspiring each other, or especially artists inspiring non-artists, i.e. curators, viewers, collectors, critics, etc.

Coming back to the process of curation, it becomes important consider how, through this lens of open-source activity, the conversation between the concpets of art curation and of art production. In today’s media saturated atmosphere, the processes of how is art made vs. how these processes are communicated become important in this discussion.

While the idea of curating is in essence a specialisation in the selection, presentation, and composition of cultural collection and exhibition, it can succinctly be summed up as a process of controlling and managing the boundaries of individual and social identifiers, thus communicated through cultural forms.

So how is the act of curation, in institution, in individual practice, in its many cultural forms, moving beyond this at present, how is this evolving? While the NIMK symposium considers art presentation in its proximity to the design, development, and distribution of software and other new media, there is also a more social or even political orientation of curation that is linked to interactive and relational artistic activity. Looking forward to this contemporary concept of ‘open-source’ media, it is the methods by which these relationships can produce new possibilities for the creation and exhibition of art and ideas.

The Netherlands Media Art Institute describing a session at the Positions in Flux conference, questions these relationships between artist and curator, media and art, production and presentation as follows:

“This session deals with the concept of open source for art production and its presentation. The open source movement is driven by the idea of collective, process-based, sustainable production and improvement. In software development this strategy has already proven to be valid; however can this model be applied to other products such as artworks or even exhibitions? In how far does the open source model differ from other forms of artistic collaboration? Is there a new role model for both the artist and the curator in the future? Which (economic) value and impact has expertise in open source production? How could institutions and organisations respond to this trend? How could institutions and organisations respond to this trend and create public domains?”

Responding to ideas about interactivity, selectivity, social modeling, media development, and communicative practices, my artistic practice can be used as a means of focusing some of these questions. Recently, I have moved into this curatorial mode through the development of a community pirate radio station, FAIR FM.  This radio station was set-up in an art gallery and project space in the city. Passerbys, viewers, and gallery-goers were invited develop programming, host a radio show, or volunteer for the station. In many ways, as the artist coordinating the project, I was required to act in a curatorial capacity; acting as a conduit, a mediator, a selector and organiser (at least initially), working with the users, helping them become the artist in a sense, initiating them into their role as producer, radio host, or actor.  In many cases, those interested in working with the project, developing content for broadcast, were artists, musicians, and active creative-types.  My role was really more of an initiator and facilitator, thus adapted roles of the curator.

My initial interest in the project was not so much to define what was exhibited, but rather to allow a space for this collective exhibition, or rather presentation to evolve. The idea of exhibition vs. presentation comes into play.

The FAIR FM project allowed for the development of communication through the opening up of communicative spaces.  In this way the project was an open-source situation in its practical accessibility through artistic interaction, an open-source art event. The outcomes of FAIR FM fostered an adaptation of a certain type of curation of what was to become art within the interactive model provided through the project. In other words, my process of allowing other to be “the DJ selector” on air developed wholly out of a sensitivity of traditional media (and art to a degree) censorship.

Thinking again about the relationships between curation and open-source programming, and the statement that “The open source movement is driven by the idea of collective, process-based, sustainable production and improvement”, the FAIR FM project superimposes this “collective production” over the act of curating content for the radio station and its programming. Curation in this context is altered, under the same conditions that enable open-source in media programming and production. Imagining for a moment that all products of art culture and the ‘art world’ are open-source, the code of the artist-in-culture, that of the curator-in-art or the viewer-in-art culture, we as participants in this world collectively, processually, and sustainably produce and improve these programs.  It is simply a matter of selection, or actually election, picking and choosing.

As the artist, it seems as though we are always enduring processes of selection.  It is our compositional nature that perhaps requires us to select parts of our lives consisting of parts of others lives and compose these, exhibit or present these in a way that allows other others to see them as part of a different collection.  It is the act of continuous collection and the proximity between individuals that is exposed through the components of the collection, as Alÿs is exhibiting, in part, through his curatorialesque project “Fabiola”.  For Kousth, it is the otherness, in its unmentionable form, that is collated through his exhibition-as-art-as-exhibition.

This is a brief description of my practice as an artist.

ME DESCRIBING MY WORK:
My artistic practice explores how media facilitates an actualisation of the virtual; looking at the relationships between the artist and the audience. My practice examines and critiques the use of media to explore the borders between the virtual and the actual. My work exhibits a relational aesthetic. My work explores the relationships between artist and audience.

WHY DO I MAKE THIS ART:
I choose this practice because I see art as mechanism to bring people and/or ideas together, who might otherwise not come together.  In this manner the artist becomes the interface between ideas, people, and stuff/place.  This becomes a focal intention of my practice, to observe and explore these relationships.  While on a personal scale artistic practice has unlimited possibility, when this scale is pushed beyond the limits of an individual, what is possible?

Media is a direct and immediate way that the creative intention, the idea, or the art can break loose of the boundaries of the individual.  Media is a way to immediately network and communicate between one and a whole, affording multiple individuals of different spaces and times access to the creative potential of an individual.

WHAT DOES THE WORK DO?
My work engages the audience in an active manner, offering up an experience.  Generating an intimacy.
I use art to explore my relationship as an individual to the greater social whole that affords the essence of my individuality; or as an artist within an institution of paradigms that afford me the opportunity to be an “artist”
In this manner my work begins to functions as a social experiment, testing specific courses of artistic action.
Working intuitively from my social situations and environments, the projects I engage in peek and poke fun at the impossible and the paradoxical. To what extent does the relationship between the artist and the viewer exist? Do new media change this relationship? How?
Scale? Function? Purpose?
In the unknown power of art, lies a fundamental virtue.  The idea of possibility and potentiality. The virtual. I use media to explore the essence of the virtual and the relationship it has with the artist and audience.