In reply to: Many museums aim to entertain posted by Barbara London on April 02, 1996 at 04:15:52:
It is a matter of principle, of course, for if 'real' life is to be more than banal, to challenge the real, it must become the degree-zero effect which produces an amplified lifestyle which, even in its occasional rhapsodising, doggedly persists in an indicative mode, devoid of open epistemological reflection, and scrupulously lacking the usual distractive apparatus of cross- references to other people's cultural and intellectual sources.
Do you find it objectionalbe, for example, when the the trite and banal are presented on the internet in a manner that suggests it is meant to be provocative, exciting, and moving?
In my mind I am attempting to broach the enigma of the internet perspective, or, perhaps more accurately, the remainder after its truth-content has been abstracted away. The point is not just the volatility of this concept of the internet, which, in the speed with which things come and go, aims to obviate interpretation and the art object by speeding up the pace of the movement. It is also that the meta- framework which determines this volatility, and indeed of the whole web pragmatics of interactive thinking is as mysterious in content as it is elusive in expression.
Without obfuscation then I wish to ask you (all) about the internets anti- subjectivist embrace of American destiny, and its pataphysical play with the 'freedom' metaphor. Can, did, and does the internet open up the kind of intellectual debate in which the very transparency of information transcends itself in the interests of a new metaphysics?