The Radicant: the end, the beginning, or just another root?

Nicolas Bourriaud closes his book with a summation of concepts--being tied together? He addresses issues of appropriation, copy, and decisions. He makes an interesting point in that the fast-paced world of today continues to value time over space so that duplications are no big deal. people are borrowing and using shortcuts to produce, perhaps putting less effort into their own contributions expecting that someone else will borrow from them in turn. Is this the answer to the questions we have about the future of art? Does this provide us with what we came seeking when we picked up the Radicant? While all these concepts may prove thought provoking, I have to wonder if this is what is really happening. Have people really begun to abandon effort and craftsmanship for convenience and ease? I think some have, but I do not think that this is all we have to look forward to. Is Bourriaud guilty of these transgressions (perhaps innovations to him) himself? This book relies heavily on connections by nature, are all these references and thoughts something new, something old re-hashed to appear less lazy, or something different?

Monsieur Bourriaud, have I not been patient with you and your ideas? Why do you leave so many unanswered questions, hasty proclamations, and half-solutions? Why must you leave a bad taste in my mouth? Should a radicant ever really meet itself to become so entangled or neatly wrapped up and controlled by its own roots? Shouldn't it expand on into the infinite without the traditional closure of a book? If the author believes so adamantly in the future of art, the internet, mixed media, etc. and has such a great understanding of the direction in which these things will progress, why does he even bother with the obsolete format of a printed book? Why should he even publish his work? Why wasn't it composed and limited to exist solely on the internet, the vehicle of his radicant? Should I have obtained a Kindle and read this book through that lens to understand what I am missing? Why are he and his writing so obviously French and Franco-minded in a day when the ever-diverse radicant is drawing from whatever sources are of relative convenience, regardless of individual culture or perspective? Could not these views or exercises be demonstrated in a more complete way? How limited is the thought of one who extols limitless possibilities? How does one provide so little when one purports to have so many explanations?

Ok, N.B.
Good talk.



IHRTLUHC
Jordan Severson

p.s. Radicant, Altermodernism, Post-post, etc. would it be too much to ask that some better terminology be developed? Words need not be slaves to the concepts they describe.

Diverging Paths Connect: Nicolas Bourriaud's The Radicant

I don't know where to begin discussing The Radicant because it takes a great deal of time to read, for me. This is not because I find it too difficult to understand or can't relate to it, but quite the opposite. I find it dense and thought-provoking. There are so many concepts contained within that I can only take in bits at a time as my head starts reeling from all the possibilities and thoughts that are relevant to my mind and my situation. I will attempt because of this truth, to limit myself and challenge myself to find and highlight only those things that I find most important and the most recurring concepts in my own mind. To start off, I find the term radicant as defined by Bourriaud to be very well-stated and aptly described. I think that the progression of the internet and technology along the current path is very much like a system of roots that spreads out and connects wherever possible. I will also say that this a very large concept when I think about what that means to the lives of us here, and now experiencing these changes and networks. It can be scary and exciting simultaneously, perhaps with a bit of beauty thrown in. When described in that way, I might start to think that new media and internet possibilities have a achieved a level of sublime, though I am not sure that is accurate to say. I think that Bourriaud's raising of the issue of video is very interesting. He has a good basis for predictions about future trends from the unique kinds of statistics he picks up about particular video content and shifts from completely original concepts to the increasing trend of borrowing, remixing, or creating any type of mash-up that has been becoming increasingly simple and more prevalent. There is a valid point here when he speaks about not a decrease in creativity, rather a different emphasis on speed and a different type of creativity to create new things from preexisting or borrowed elements. From there, the possibilities become more spread out as he discusses how much more video use and uploading exists now because of Youtube and all the similar video platforms. It is exciting, though I think also daunting and a bit frightening to consider that, indeed in a short time there may be little of our lives that goes undocumented by video or does not become digitized, transformed, and edited for display in a variety of possibilities. I have similar mixed feelings about the consideration of measuring greatly different artists and their works in the same place and time regardless of the circumstances of their works' production. The fact that such information as well as cultural, regional, and chronological aspects of oeuvre and identity could be so blurred as to become irrelevant or impossible to ascertain when judging the content of work. Will that eradicate the need for criticism, comparison, and evaluation all together? If there are no differences of creation that can be depended upon, will there be differences in result or will art just become more similar as all the divergent ideas and concepts become melded into the web 2.0 world? It is appealing to think of such freedom from stereotypes and unfair judgement or no judgement at all, but then what becomes of art? Will it continue to have value and purpose or just become a mass of indistinguishable content that is too difficult to measure or understand? If the things that we are experiencing now and witnessing the changes of are all part of the Web 2.0, what will a Web 3.0 do to change the way we disburse and collect information. I don't think art can ever be the same in times that are so quickly changing just like The Radicant explores artists' new approaches to investigating time, history, post colonialism and other themes. Bourriaud's suspicion that the next wave of art after post modernism will not be a group of concepts and trends that spread globally, rather ideas that will start off as global "from scratch." If this is true, where does that leave criticism and the art history that discusses and classifies trends once they have happened? Will it, too, have to speed up and become global to develop simultaneously with such a movement, or would it fall behind and be done away with in the process of streamlining to only necessity and removing anything that seems obsolete? It becomes evermore unreliable and perhaps futile to speculate as technology changes and updates the world so rapidly.

IHRTLUHC
Jordan Severson

Thoughts on Buckminster Fuller

Upon reading articles and watching a documentary on Buckminster Fuller it is apparent how influential his thoughts have been and just how much of a free thinker and bold mind he was. He was a true Jack-of-all-trades type character. He was truly an astoundingly radical thinker and did not limit himself to conventional thought or any single field. It is wonderful that he was able to recognize and overcome common flaws through his non-disciplinary, holistic approach to solving projects. Besides the Geodesic Dome, he thought of other minimalist and environmentally friendly solutions to basic problems that most people fail to solve. His Dymaxion car and transportable, efficient homes were a good deal before their time. His ideas where expressed long before the public minds were ready to accept solutions because they had not yet even perceived the problems that bothered Fuller so. I find his points about flaws with conventional thought and education very interesting, I agree that many of our problems stem from these basic issues, but I did not see how deep they can be prior to studying Fuller's ideas. I think that he is set apart even from other original thinkers because he attempted to show ways to correct the thoughts of others on a basic level and he designed tools like more accurate world map projections to allow others to gain a more accurate view of the Earth. Though some of his stories, word-building, and concepts like "spaceship earth," were perhaps humorous, they also demonstrate how far beyond his contemporaries his thoughts were. I agree that some basic teaching techniques and concepts really hold back education and society. Conditioning ourselves to think of concepts like infinity really does distract us from how much does not belong in that category. Fake jobs, jobs that shouldn't even exist, that are liked by no one and accomplish nothing are all too real. This is another frustration that I have long shared with Mr. Fuller. I find that these concepts fit in with what I am attempting with my project because part of my goals are to disassemble some of the ways most individuals are misinformed about and do not think about in regards to cultures that are not their own. I absolutely believe this is because of that sort of contagious, group mentality, consistent and predictable thought that Fuller rebelled against. This aspect of Buckminster Fuller reminds me of an Australian movie I saw recently called The Rage in Placid Lake. This movie uses stereotypical roles to show how absurd people can be and the situations they can unwittingly produce. The protagonist is a unique and original thinker who is persecuted to the point of a horrible accident at which point he gets back at everyone by becoming more normal and ordinary than the rest of them can do. Eventually they all grow to hate him that way too, so that he can safely be himself once more. So many think what is comfortable or convenient rather than thinking for themselves or pursuing their own hunches and intuitions to investigate how things truly are, rather than how we are told things are. These concepts we are taught are diluted, simplified and corrupted to be fed to the masses who wish not to think or have individual thought. Fuller saw these problems and created solutions for people who did not even realize they had these issues and are still not looking for resolution for most of them. I believe this is why his concepts were not accepted and employed even though they were similar or superior to what has become commonplace like automobiles or homes that are only now starting to be made efficient on a small scale compared to Fuller's models. The problem is that he had no real way to implement or get enough people to buy into things to make them spread and prosper. This is one of the problems that I have been dealing with in my own thoughts on my project. If people get one thing from my video, I want it to be that they should consider or learn more about other cultures and perspectives and to realize that there are places in the world that have different priorities and still function as well, if not better than the USA with their own ideas. I see that the Italian people are relaxed have little stress compared to the US, but the country would not function or be possible to exist in this way if they didn't all adhere to or understand a different outlook on the concept of time as they do. If you have too many Americans thinking time is an all important, money producing deity, then this beautiful Italian way of life is destroyed as our heinous and pervasive American ideals already threaten to do. This is directly related to Fuller's, "think about what you want to and what needs to be done," approach to careers. I agree that everyone should do what they want to do and destroy the rest of the fake jobs, but this does not happen because too many fear, too many are used to accepting a lifestyle that tells them they have to be unhappy to get what they want. If we all disregarded these concepts and decided altogether simultaneously to do what we want for a living, I think it would actually work, but that would take such convincing and simultaneous action that even the internet is not yet up for the task. Buckminster Fuller proved that one individual can realize this sort of ideal for their own life, but for the rest of people to get this message it will take a lot more.
IHRTLUHC
Jordan Severson