I ask this because recently a friend of
mine had visited an interesting tourist spot and I asked him what he thought of
it. "Here, I'll show you" he said, and whipped out his smart-phone.
Me, being a smarty-pants said "I don't want you to show me, I want you to tell me what you though of it". For a minute or two all I got was a sort of blank look from him.
Me, being a smarty-pants said "I don't want you to show me, I want you to tell me what you though of it". For a minute or two all I got was a sort of blank look from him.
Perhaps we too have set up a photo opp in a
second or two without really looking at
the subject or content only to move on rapidly. In our instant and
accessible world, that memory has been digitally recorded to be dealt with
later.
Are we really happy enough with remembering
the recorded version rather than living one grounded in observation and
experience, interacting with the real-time event?
Although memory is highly personal,
subjective and in fact very malleable (what we re-member may or may not have been what actually happened) I do
think easy, personal digital storage of this sort has implications for the way
in which we view the world around us. Our unwillingness, or growing inability
to observe and appreciate events "in real-time" may wrongly colour
our understanding of both the present and the past, whether that's our own
memory of events or our perception of history and the lessons to be learned.
Furthermore, failing to realise that past
cultures had, over millennia developed a significant capacity for profound
powers of information recall and therefore memory, could lead us to judge their
story telling traditions as mere folklore rather than dedicated transmission of
important information; information which often had life or death consequences.
We judge other cultures outside of our
experience to be somehow primitive and inferior to our own as viewed from our
21st century, first world perspective without understanding the circumstances
around such traditions as story telling/information recall.
And here perhaps lies a very real and
insidious danger. Relying on Internet algorithms for delivering information
about the world around us increases the chances of our being fed through the
filter bubble of selective news feeds and targeted influence, reinforcing what
could already be our preconceived, misinformed or manipulated opinions. This
will only serve to further diminish the breadth and depth of our understanding
and appreciation of major political, moral or social issues that face us.
What can I do about this? Well, over the
last few years I have been checking myself regarding my response to what I read
and see on-line that might make me annoyed or angry. My first reaction now is
to stop and ask the following simple, but effective question.
"Why is this making me angry or
emotional?"
If I take my time over answering it, looking
out for the subliminal use of suggestive words, terms and photographs, all to
often the answer reveals that it is deliberately aimed at manipulating my emotions
and anxieties on a subconscious level while potentially trying to bias my opinions. Knowing this, I am more
prepared to take a step back, avoid the Internet equivalent of an instant road-rage
response and do a little bit of rational thinking and research.
Try asking yourself the same question next
time it happens to you. Take a few minutes to analyse the less obvious aspects
of the content. You may well be surprised at how considerate your response is.
A few notes about the new work including
.....
Some of what I have written above is
definitely present in the new works. As always with my artworks that have the
word hope in the title, in the one called "A Random Act of Hope" we
read the words "The Reactionary's Palimpsest...contemporary trends for the
waging of war on peace". It's a reference, on one hand to the (deliberate
or otherwise) manipulation of our anxieties, fears and preconceptions through
our own narrow-mindedness. On the other hand, the olive branch, the smile and
the doves sitting on the logos War
and Peace offer an alternative route
to the well-being of our own humanity, individually and collectively.
In the digital triptych titled In Memoriam
- Homo Deus, the center panel has text that proclaims "And Man said "Behold,
let us make god in our own image, so that we can be sure that god hates all the
same people we do"". Visually it has placed "self" at the
very center of the work with all power leading to, and flowing from the self
centered individual. But there is also the suggestion that doing so is
ultimately self destructive as indicated in the left and right panels. Divided
between them, they contain the phrase "In Memoriam, Homo Deus".
In the mezzotint, "Hope in Shifting
Shadows", it is the raven that unexpectedly takes the initiative by offering
the doves an olive branch. Yet this occurs in front of graffiti on the wall that
states "It is forbidden to proceed beyond this point". The initiative
therefore is rendered null and void. As British street artist Banksy recently
stencilled on the Palestine/Israel separation/security wall "PEACE on
EARTH *terms and conditions apply" However negative this seems, there is
always hope as the raven, who has cropped up in other works of mine just keeps
trying.
"To wage war isn't [usually] a purpose,
it's a [defensive, preconditioned and often unconscious] threat reflex. We
should be trying to think our way out
of this mess" 1.
See the full selection of six new works
launched on my website at stuartduffin.com
1. From the novel "Salvation" by
Peter F. Hamilton with my own additions
in parenthesis and italic emphasis
.
.
