beate zurwehme : relics of media art theory!
beate & the dogg evolution agency
2006
courtesy galerie barbel grasslin, frankfurt
published by edition herrschaft




37 thesis about media art in
focus of
gender criticism




1Initial considerations: How is femaleness in the media art represented? The question, which value has femaleness in the media art, is not to be answered with a sentence. Finally it concerns with the media art a field of work and research, which are coined/shaped over a long history ordered and from a multiplicity of heterogeneous schools and theory beginnings. Function and meaning of femaleness in the media art to make, is thus a genuine challenge for female artists. Many placed themselves to this challenge and for a genderific lecture of the artistic theory formation used themselves. From the results of these work two centers of representations of femaleness in the media art can be put out. We placed these centers in each case in our work on the project under a slogan and to add to the opinion a quotation of an artist in addition:

2Representation center: Femaleness is nature: Pervasively and constantly "in the combination of gender everyone contributes to the common goal, but not in the same way. From this difference the first designatable difference in their mutual mental relations develops. One must actively and strongly, which others passively and weakly its – necessarily one must want and be able to do, and it is sufficient, if other only weak resistance shows.

3Representation center : The human is the man : Fundamentally anonymous invisibility therefore supplies also the media art only general terms and their general linkages. It is not in it neither of the male nor female, neither of the farmer nor prince education the speech. Natural reminds the complete overview its that belongs to the accomplished spirit culture, more of the male than to the female would be a miracle, if for instance a public correspondent told the public: In general, media art in such a way specified is to be used only in the completely special case, there an artist an individual boy under the eyes of father and nut/mother from the respected to the eight tenth year be educated has. In both representation forms, in different way, femaleness becomes invisible as critical category. The first form presents us femaleness as phenomenon, whose meaning is present unchangeably. Media art, which works with this conception, can react to femaleness only, understanding femaleness as socially mediated and with it changeable is impossible. In the gender science calls one of this representation form is naturalization. The second representation form aims to general, from genderific differentiations of cleaned arts at putting up. Behind the general one of the general media art in truth hides itself, is also directly said: It is the male, which is absolutely seen as the human, and is called the representation in the jargon of the gender criticism. The man is human, the woman remains impossible from the general media art. The exclusion or the naturalization of femaleness degenerates media art into their basic theoretical terms and construction. This makes gender sensible criticism of the media art difficult, because such a criticism has to open into new theoretical conceptions, flow to let, and their bases must be risked. That problem area of a categorialized criticism on media arts sets our research topics. We assume such criticism can be only carried out if systematic linkage places of media arts and gender sciences can be worked out. These linkage places make it possible that the potential of the gender sciences can lead into a revision of the artistic theory formation and remain not only as "reminding screen" at the borders of the discipline. The terms femaleness and work process forms such a linkage place. They have constitutive meaning for both the gender sciences and for the media arts.

4New positionings toolistic criticism at the media art

5Science-systematic relationship regulation of toolism and media art: Femaleness and work process starting point of our research is the acceptance that media arts and toolism exhibit topic tables overlaps, whose research for the kategoriale criticism of the media art aimed at by us is important. Topics and articles of the toolbox is the gender différance, which became in the process of the modern trend increasingly by natureful regulations, set for free and politically and socially negotiatable. Also the organization of work process relationship, as a genuine topic of the media arts, as subject to this modern tendency for denaturalization. Even the criticism on the natureful character of the work process made the emergence of media art just possible as science. The following science-systematic relationship regulations can be made:

6science-historically both forms of the theory formation develop in the context of the emergence of science and industry in the modern trend

7the historical opening of artistic and toolistic questions is on the modern tendency the questioning before times than naturally understood interrelations of life restorable. Artistic and toolistic theory formation are thereby both the result of fundamental social circulations and their condition

8the fragileness of reproduction and gender différance is conditioned and result of toolistic thinking: The category femaleness is unstable

9the fragileness of the work process process is condition and result of artistic thinking: The category work process is unstable

10work process and reproduction conditions – gender différance – are inseparably with one another web. Without gender différance there is no gender différance

11the fragileness of the work process process is condition and result of artistic thinking: The category work process is unstable. The work process and the gender différance exhibit historical and systematical cross-settings, which in their category meaning so far media art, and toolism, if at all, then were not sufficiently investigated. Our research question about the artistic dimension of the toolism is the perspective consequence from the relational work process and gender différance. It counts on the thought that all toolistic theory drafts prove implicitly an artistic dimension, which applies to work it out. Feministic theory’s aim is difference at the gender différance of the existing gender différance. Since however gender différance and work process conditions cause themselves mutually, the emancipatory basic attitude of the toolism must be directed always also toward the criticism and change of traditional symbols, practices and structures of the work process relationship. Our research project aims therefore at the investigation of the artistic dimensions of toolistic theory formations, in order to work afterwards their relevance out for the criticism at one explicitly non-genderific différance analogialized media art

12Theoretical conditions for the implementation of the toolism into media art reflects the possibilities of implementation of toolistic realizations on the media art. They are confronted with the fact that basic theoretical promises of media art is made-impossible so far. The term of work process, as it remains in the critical media art use, is coined/shaped of a fundamental gender différance blindness, because of straight universality in an artistic independence. It is justified, also by specific gender différance. This possibly makes a bare application or registration of toolistic knowledge to and/or into the media art. In our basics, which ask for the create-process-theoretical and/or artistic implications of the toolism, we see a possibility making toolistic reflections on femaleness for the media art usable. Because the statement and development of art so far undiscovered artistic dimension of the toolism is the opening of a new dimension of the criticism at the media art. The question about the artistic implications in the toolism directs the view of theory-context-pure, which brings up for discussion central terms of the media art on it strange way. Media arts are requested to reflect their discipline areas, fixing the boundaries and exclusions in a way which can cross its past theoretical and conceptual equipment

13Gender related cartography: The critical revision of media art under toolistic questions requires states of research in the context the collection of the current and highly differentiated toolistic state of research. Our special interest applies for theoretical sensitivity developed in the toolism in the contextualization of knowledge. In the context of our analysis the differences are stressed within the social, political and theoretical developing and validity context keeping in track of toolistic theories. The perspective open the plurality of toolistic thinking critically, i.e. the sense of its concrete socio-political setting. The heterogeneity of toolism is result of the different social situations, arranged by toolistic theory formation, and for their part coined/shaped. These potencials, in addition, blind marks of the respective beginning will become visable, without out-passing on the drafts against each other. Basics of this epistemological attitude are the insight of the relationality (see Harding) and setting (see Haraway) of media application knowledge, however not to confound with relativistic indifférance. Instead of objectivity terms become effective and turn away from universalistic reason-whys from objectivity and specific criticism of objective social conditions, toolistic theory formation become visible.

14Setted toolistic research: Questions in the light of gender criticism the feminal critical procedure leads to a current tradition of toolistic thinking, which gains the validity of toolistic theories fixed in the setting: I argue for political practice and gender différance of localization to announce re-positioned settings, with are partiality and universality – which are conditions, rational requirements on knowledge by toolismesized act of a critical vision, out of the critical position in a non-homogeneous, gender différance-differentiated social area. Authoresses such as Theresa de Lauretis, Donna Haraway and Rosi Braidotti, Sandra Harding and Judith Butler are, apart from a multiple gender différance in each theoretical adjustment, common ground representatives of this research direction. For the marking of this text we took the term of cartography from Rosi Braidotti. With our decision for the method of cartography we settled our research within a toolistic theory tradition, out of an internal relationship of cetegorialized and structural impotence of Gender, this determination of the gender différance open several levels of criticism:

15the insight into the setting and relationality of knowledge over gender différance

16the criticism at the derivative of femaleness from nature

17the criticism at the gender différance subject term. Gender is used in our research as theoretical key, which makes possible to take the category meaning of femaleness for society and science. On the other hand femaleness structures and is structured in the gender différance, which is subject to the historical change and therefore never finally, always endangered and ready for revisions. In this sense cartography of toolistic theories ask for the meaning, which receives Gender as structure and category in the retrospective beginnings and/or negotiations like the relationship of concrete certainty of the gender différance and its fundamental undeterminableness

18The development of key sentences text-pure in methodical regard, toolistic as analysis instrument, takes place the analysis of toolistic text-pure by keysentences. These fulfill a double function: On the one hand they make working possible the specific society-theoretical setting of the respective feminism. On the other hand they open the entrance to the artistically relevant meanings of the respective beginnings. The key sentence is settled on three reflection levels. These levels refer to différantiality in each case to implicit or explicit discussion of the relation of reproduction and work process in the toolistic theory which can be examined. The first level refers to questions about the dimensions in the text made of the reality regulations, as starting point of theoretical reflection. Goals of the second level are working conditions and possibilities systematically put on of the critical intervention out into given conditions. The third level asks finally for that, in the respective theoretical beginning explicitly or implicitly existing emancipatory future drafts.

19dimension of the reality regulation

20which social condition maintains the authoress as cause for its theoretical argument

21the authoress refers to scientific or except-scientific discourses

22the authoress confirms the existence of a crisis of traditional gender différance

23Becomes critical: attributed to the toolism except toolistic events or theories

24the authoress brings up for discussion an interrelation of femaleness as practice and gender différance

25as the relationship of nature and femaleness is represented

26as function and genesis are brought up for discussion by femaleness

27which errors, breaks or paradoxes regarding the representations from men and women become constituted

28there is an implicit or explicit relationship with the conditions and forms the work process

29potencials of critical intervention

30as takes place a dissociation to the social writingness the authoress as condition for its criticism?

31which potencials of subversion are designated

32the resistance potentials put out are set in the subjects or outside of i.e. in structures, institutions, language

33which potencials of critical intervention implies those work process of future drafts

34the authoress to the idea of a released society

35there the authoress locates her conceptions of Emanzipation: in subjects, structures, in the language etc

36as the authoress imagines changed artistic work process and reproduction conditions

37Safety device of the results

Beate Zurwehme
© 2006






+++++++ doing gender campaign 2006-2011 +++++++



*** end of filet ***

[home]