To the extent that Not Possible in Real Life isn’t possible *without* real life (as the thing to be negated), Not Possible in Real Life will never escape the very thing it finds so repellent, the thing it claims to have overcome. As such, Not Possible in Real Life merely affirms the “things as they are.” If you hold up a mirror to an atrocity, the image may be reversed but the brutality persists.
The title of this post? Art, I’m sad to say.
Second Life, virtuality on the whole, isn’t infinitely malleable. It proposes the possibility of a boundless plasticity but does not and possibly cannot deliver on that promise and any aesthetic movement predicated on this false premise will remain forever *bound* to the realm of spectacle.. There is a kind of awe-struck freshman feel to so much of what has been written on this score and that’s all great and feels wonderful when you can share in it (as newbies are wont to do, as I did!) but there comes a time, seriously, when you have to leave behind the “golly-gee, isn’t it sooo cool” attitude and start to develop a more critical aesthetics. My beef with NPIRL is two-fold. I don’t like the way the “school” insists that theirs is the only valid aesthetic awareness in Second Life (but that’s a power and personality issue and is more or less contingent.) No, my main issue is that, as a theory, it is remarkably thin as all it really says is that art in Second Life is anything that isn’t possible in real life. I know, that sounds so obvious, right? They say so in the name of their group, Not Possible in Real Life. The problem is that when you say their name you have also simultaneously stated, in full, the entirety of their aesthetic programme! At least the word, Dada, made you think!
Anticipating about the only counter argument that can be made, I am sure there are further criteria for what NPIRL judges worthy of the name of Art. I suspect it has something to do with a piece not just being not possible in real life but actually being “good”. Insofar as good means “crafty” or well executed, I am happy to tag along; however, the criteria for “goodness” is never made explicitly clear. Does goodness mean the thing is super-dooper really really not possible in real life or is there another aesthetic category which hasn’t been revealed, is it really nothing more than a matter of personal taste? If it’s the former case then NPIRL as a theory is circular at best and really says nothing at all about what constitutes art. I will be generous and believe that it’s really about trying to make a school out of one’s personal preferences. And that’s all well and good except let’s not presume that one’s aesthetic idiosyncrasies are synonymous with the divine gaze that sustains this crazy little world of ours, yea, even beyond the log off button.
I must add that I have no beef at all with the people involved with NPIRL. I am not motivated by any “drama” in this regard and however critical (or not) I might sound, my criticism isn’t directed at any person or group. My disagreement is purely intellectual (such as it is!)
More due diligence. Not possible in real life is good! Spectacle is good! My “club”, antigrav, is nothing but spectacle and it surely isn’t possible in real life! It isn’t art (though it is good!) It is the negation of the negation that preserves the negative rather than overcoming it because it remains a simulation, a second order thing. The genuine aesthetic object demands to be; it cannot be otherwise than what it is and it’s primary function is to exist in the face of it’s own impossibility. The simulation is merely a shadow, without autonomy, without will, it cannot project itself beyond its own contingency. It is, however, a helluva lot of fun in the meantime!
You are a bad influence. Not Palpable wasn’t even on my radar (I have such a full plate of over educated self-indulgent know it all blogs I can’t take on another), but I went and saw a quote that grabbed me, tossed me face down on a mattress, and forced me to make fun of it.
I love that after part. Adric Antfarm is Good. Hey, that is rather nice actually.
I was talking to Headburro Antfarm and he thinks we should try and do a family reunion. I know it’s been a while (and a long while since we all left home) but it would be cool if we can find more than three of us since 3 is more a number for..well..things 3 people do.
I’ve done some looking and it looks like the surname was sprayed out in 11/2006 mostly so I am not too hopeful we are many by now.
You, I, and Headburro were all born on the same day. I think it was a one day only type thing, a brief shining moment type thing. I doubt the grid could sustain three Antfarms in the same place at the same time, beautiful losers that we are