Essay 2
--------------------------------------
Alexandra P. Spaulding
Internal Essay
23 July 2007
Whilst the previous essay argued against utilising the internal space, the primary aim of this essay is to argue for the internal space.
The focal point of this research is the ineffable, that which can’t be uttered or spoken about, and in a fitting sort of fashion it makes sense to create work where the context is for the ‘internal space’ one which is hard to both see but define.
To better enable my argument, it’s useful to identify what the fuck I am talk about in the first place. When I spoke of external space(s) in the previous essay, I was very much talking about physical spaces-either ones that exist already or one I create, but more or less four walls, a ceiling and a floor. My argument was such: that external space gave me greater control of context, and that the internal space was a direct relationship to headphones. Problematically I never really defined ‘internal space’. I sort of think of it as being potentially two different things, the actually physical space of the inside of your head (the bit where the brain is), and the space that exists inside of your brain-lets call that mental headspace.
Now that we’re all caught up and I have to live within slightly daft parameters from previous arguments, I’ll continue. When I was asked to write these two essays-the argument was clear, one on why you wouldn’t use headphones, one why you would (internal/external—duh). But to prematurely argue the validity of modes of delivery is like saying this is my cart and this is my horse, and cart shall pull horse. At this stage I can only say it depends on the work. I am not sure what the physical context of things are at this stage, but instinctually I feel more inclined to say the work is more successful in the building of ineffable experiences as speakers in a space.
Blah, we’ll come back to it as there is something important to the argument, but what is more interesting is to think of the nature of the experience and where it’s supposed to happen. Am I aiming to create experiences which talk to the brain, or the space inside the brain-the mental headspace which is more than softy grey matter?
It’s complicated because the dilemma is more than just a simple ‘four speakers and a subwoofer playing this vs. a set of headphones and an iPod’, it sort of asks: where does the ineffable happen, where am I dealing with it? The answer, well the glib response is in my head. At the end of the day James’ Turrell’s Meeting at Ps1 is just a very well cut hole in the ceiling of a former school building in Long Island City, it becomes ineffable when I am there, I am the catalyst to the ineffable, my mental headspace is the fabric that allows me to either get it (the ineffable) or not. The way it’s delivered to me is highly important but at the end of the day merely another factor, not a contributing element.
To argue for headphones, it has nothing to do with internal or external, the use of headphones has more to do with feelings of safety and isolation, to understand the mechanism ensures the creation of work that plays to all aspects of it’s (the work’s) context. If I am choosing to use headphones as a way to ‘exhibit’ the work, I am doing so because in some way I believe that the experience I want to create is indelibly tied to the way I feel about my headphones. I can’t speak for anyone but myself but the whole iPod/Walkman thing is integral to who I am, since I was a child I have been choosing to engage with that which exists outside of myself through a lens, by lens I mean filtering out the world with music and using headphones as a security blanket of sorts. Yes, of course part it has to do with wanting to hear my favourite song or artist whenever I want, but more importantly when I have them on I feel safe, almost as if I was one step removed from what is happening in front of me, I can see things unfold because whilst being involved in them, I am not present in my involvement.
Some aspect of me believes that on a fundamental level even if it’s unconscious most people feel this way about putting on headphones, and work can be created specifically with this relationship in mind, the engagement of a certain kind of secrecy and isolation as a concept has enormous potential when creating the work.
What has been most important about the writing of these essays is the way in which context has been called into question, whilst it’s not a factor to be casual about, the mode of delivery is almost secondary to the inherent specificity that must be put into the context of the creation both conceptually and creatively. I mean all the same stuff applies regardless of the speakers vs. headphones debate; you still need to catch yourself perceiving in order to realize that perception took place (Merleau-Ponty).
--------------------------------------
Alexandra P. Spaulding
Internal Essay
23 July 2007
Whilst the previous essay argued against utilising the internal space, the primary aim of this essay is to argue for the internal space.
The focal point of this research is the ineffable, that which can’t be uttered or spoken about, and in a fitting sort of fashion it makes sense to create work where the context is for the ‘internal space’ one which is hard to both see but define.
To better enable my argument, it’s useful to identify what the fuck I am talk about in the first place. When I spoke of external space(s) in the previous essay, I was very much talking about physical spaces-either ones that exist already or one I create, but more or less four walls, a ceiling and a floor. My argument was such: that external space gave me greater control of context, and that the internal space was a direct relationship to headphones. Problematically I never really defined ‘internal space’. I sort of think of it as being potentially two different things, the actually physical space of the inside of your head (the bit where the brain is), and the space that exists inside of your brain-lets call that mental headspace.
Now that we’re all caught up and I have to live within slightly daft parameters from previous arguments, I’ll continue. When I was asked to write these two essays-the argument was clear, one on why you wouldn’t use headphones, one why you would (internal/external—duh). But to prematurely argue the validity of modes of delivery is like saying this is my cart and this is my horse, and cart shall pull horse. At this stage I can only say it depends on the work. I am not sure what the physical context of things are at this stage, but instinctually I feel more inclined to say the work is more successful in the building of ineffable experiences as speakers in a space.
Blah, we’ll come back to it as there is something important to the argument, but what is more interesting is to think of the nature of the experience and where it’s supposed to happen. Am I aiming to create experiences which talk to the brain, or the space inside the brain-the mental headspace which is more than softy grey matter?
It’s complicated because the dilemma is more than just a simple ‘four speakers and a subwoofer playing this vs. a set of headphones and an iPod’, it sort of asks: where does the ineffable happen, where am I dealing with it? The answer, well the glib response is in my head. At the end of the day James’ Turrell’s Meeting at Ps1 is just a very well cut hole in the ceiling of a former school building in Long Island City, it becomes ineffable when I am there, I am the catalyst to the ineffable, my mental headspace is the fabric that allows me to either get it (the ineffable) or not. The way it’s delivered to me is highly important but at the end of the day merely another factor, not a contributing element.
To argue for headphones, it has nothing to do with internal or external, the use of headphones has more to do with feelings of safety and isolation, to understand the mechanism ensures the creation of work that plays to all aspects of it’s (the work’s) context. If I am choosing to use headphones as a way to ‘exhibit’ the work, I am doing so because in some way I believe that the experience I want to create is indelibly tied to the way I feel about my headphones. I can’t speak for anyone but myself but the whole iPod/Walkman thing is integral to who I am, since I was a child I have been choosing to engage with that which exists outside of myself through a lens, by lens I mean filtering out the world with music and using headphones as a security blanket of sorts. Yes, of course part it has to do with wanting to hear my favourite song or artist whenever I want, but more importantly when I have them on I feel safe, almost as if I was one step removed from what is happening in front of me, I can see things unfold because whilst being involved in them, I am not present in my involvement.
Some aspect of me believes that on a fundamental level even if it’s unconscious most people feel this way about putting on headphones, and work can be created specifically with this relationship in mind, the engagement of a certain kind of secrecy and isolation as a concept has enormous potential when creating the work.
What has been most important about the writing of these essays is the way in which context has been called into question, whilst it’s not a factor to be casual about, the mode of delivery is almost secondary to the inherent specificity that must be put into the context of the creation both conceptually and creatively. I mean all the same stuff applies regardless of the speakers vs. headphones debate; you still need to catch yourself perceiving in order to realize that perception took place (Merleau-Ponty).
posted by Alexandra P. Spaulding at 10:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home