Skip to content

Dot_JPG

In response to Wendy’s great presentation on Hito Steyerl’s “In Defense of the Poor Image” I thought I would post a public art project that I worked on in 2014 in collaboration with Studio F Minus. The piece was to be installed on the new sound barriers slated for the Queen West and Liberty Village neighbourhoods, but was been put on hold indefinitely in late 2015. So goes public art.
The project was called “Dot_JPG” and consisted of three massive vitreous glass tile mosaic murals that explored the intersection of, and incongruity between, real and digital experiences. The project was a comment on the contemporary methods used to document the world around us, and an attempt to translate of some of those ephemeral techniques into a physical art object. The concept was based on an essay entitled “Glitch Studies Manifesto” published by theorist and artist Rosa Menkman in 2011. Her paper examines the use of errors occurring in digital and analog technology – glitches, skips, interference – to create a visual aesthetic.
Through a trompe l’oeil effect, the mosaics would appear, from privileged perspectives, as rectangular “screens” on the noise walls, each depicting a pixelated image of the landscape directly beyond the wall. As the viewer moves away from these privileged points, or as the real-life backdrop changes over time, the view slides out of phase with the perspective of the image. The lived experience of the space and the digital record of it become incongruent. A “glitch” is therefore created; encouraging viewers to consider how digital representation mediates their experience in the world.
Here is a concept/process image produced for the competition stage of the proposal.

dot_jpg

Thanks,

Michael

Friends in Unoriginality

When I have an idea I’m interested in developing, one of the things I usually do early in the process is an online search to see if anyone else is doing something similar.  For one of the projects I am currently working on in Directed Studio, I typed in searches like:  “clay squeezed between surfaces,” “ceramic squished,” “flopped ceramic,” and more.  I found results that were interesting and/or helpful but I didn’t come up with anything particularly close.  However just the other day, Dasha sent me a link to artist Stef Halmos’ website that made me laugh out loud because her work truly couldn’t be closer to mine.  Take a look at the following comparative sample:

copy

You can see the rest of her work here: www.stefhalmos.com

The issue/question that arises is:  Is it copying if I didn’t know about it ahead of time? I would argue ‘no’, but whether you call the work I’m producing a copy or not, the idea is obviously not original.   It was original for me, but not original in the universe of ideas.  I  could be wrong, but I think for most creatives, it’s painful, frightening and depressing to consider the probability that all ideas have already been conceived of and that there are no truly original ideas to be had.  It reminds me of when, as a child on a nature walk with my dad, awestruck by the beauty and the quietness of the woods, I secretly wondered if we were the first to walk there.  Of course that’s silly; many had walked there before. Originality becomes a relative term in that a new idea is really a twist on a previously explored idea.  But maybe that’s ok. If you think about it, being original might be rather lonely. Maybe acceptance of this reality – the impossibility of true originality – is not only a relief, it’s like finding others with whom to walk.

Reality Bottleneck

rock

I’m working on a project where I’ve encountered the issue of the futility of accuracy and fidelity when every step in the output chain is not equally accurate.  In other words, the possibility for accuracy and fidelity is only as strong as the weakest link.  I had a smallish rock 3D scanned into a digital file.  My project is pretty simple:  enlarge this digital (rock) file by around 7 times its original size and then output the object via cnc router into solid material.  In theory this is all doable. But such real-world constraints as the quality of equipment I have access to, the material it can mill, as well as the cost of said material and the run-time on the machine, not to mention the human error during assembly, all conspire to create an inaccurate output.  When it comes to working with real-world materials, accuracy and fidelity to a specific original are ultimately relative concepts rather than attainable possibilities since we are perpetually burdened with the bottleneck of reality.

A Look at another one of Hito Steyerl’s writings: “In Free Fall: A Thought Experiment on Vertical Perspective”

This piece takes us on a journey through advancements in our use of perspective from classic linear perspective through to the common areal perspectives of today’s drones and satellite imagery. Hito suggests that William Turner broke us out of our traditional linear perspective by taking into account the perspectives relevant to his works (climbing the mast of a ship to get the feel and tilted angle of viewing things from above while at sea for the slave ship, or hanging his head out of a moving train for Rain, Steam and Speed – The Great Western Railway).

Hito moves on to speak of Theodor Adorno scoffing at “philosophy’s obsession with earth as origin” (Steyerl, 2011) and sums the whole thought experiment up in the following 3 paragraphs. First:

A fall toward objects without reservation, embracing a world of forces and matter, which lacks any original stability and sparks the sudden shock of the open: a freedom that is terrifying, utterly deterritorializing, and always already unknown. Falling means ruin and demise as well as love and abandon, passion and surrender, decline and catastrophe. Falling is corruption as well as liberation, a condition that turns people into things and vice versa.

At the core of this sentiment I feel as though a good way to visualize this is to think of how aerial and space photography separates us from the earth which we have been attached to for most of our lives and so it is a kind of leaving the womb, so we could either feel excited to get out and explore or afraid to leave our safe home with nothing to hold on to. The final statement makes us pause to contemplate “Falling is corruption as well as liberation, a condition that turns people into things and vice versa”. This makes me think of the film Falling Down with Michael Douglas (Joel Schumacher,1993). Michael Douglas’s character is fired but he doesn’t tell his family, this begins both his liberation and his decent into madness.  With injustices as targets and himself labeled as a terrorist, both he and his targets become things from his perspective but people from the publics perspective.

She continues with one sentence that stands alone as an entire paragraph:

It takes place in an opening we could endure or enjoy, embrace or suffer, or simply accept as reality.

Here she is saying that your mental perspective is the lens with which you choose to see anything and everything.

Finally, the perspective of free fall teaches us to consider a social and political dreamscape of radicalized class war from above, one that throws jaw-dropping social inequalities into sharp focus. But falling does not only mean falling apart, it can also mean a new certainty falling into place. Grappling with crumbling futures that propel us backwards onto an agonizing present, we may realize that the place we are falling toward is no longer grounded, nor is it stable. It promises no community, but a shifting formation.

Reading this really gives wonderful perspective to life in general and reinforces the need to embrace a path of excitement toward movement and change. True happiness lies in the ability to adapt. Here I will quote one of my favorite tunes (Eric Idle, 1983)

Whenever life gets you down, Mrs. Brown,
And things seem hard or tough,
And people are stupid, obnoxious or daft,

And you feel that you’ve had quite eno-o-o-o-o-ough,

Just remember that you’re standing on a planet that’s evolving
And revolving at 900 miles an hour.
It’s orbiting at 19 miles a second, so it’s reckoned,
The sun that is the source of all our power.
Now the sun, and you and me, and all the stars that we can see,
Are moving at a million miles a day,
In the outer spiral arm, at 40,000 miles an hour,
Of a galaxy we call the Milky Way.

Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars;
It’s a hundred thousand light-years side to side;
It bulges in the middle sixteen thousand light-years thick,
But out by us it’s just three thousand light-years wide.
We’re thirty thousand light-years from Galactic Central Point,
We go ’round every two hundred million years;
And our galaxy itself is one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.

Consciousness as Holographic Drawing Device

The author is never wholly dead as suggested by Roland Barthes (“The Death of the Author”1977). The author’s consciousness is fixed in position – time being a component of position, and words and perspective being components of consciousness – to be encountered from other positions following the birth of the work. If consciousness is a person’s awareness or perception of something (Oxford English Dictionary,1933) and perception is a kind of additive accumulation of all of inputs and thoughts derived from those inputs, then a holographic snapshot of the author’s consciousness becomes part of the reader’s consciousness and symbolically creates new perspectives for each moment that the work is considered, thus drawing consciousness through space and time.

At its basest level, consciousness is made up of the fundamental constituents of matter and the forces acting between them, our minds are grown from this and store our memories, our experiences in an intricate network of what Max Tegmark would call the 5th state of matter. As liquid, gas, solid and plasma are states of matter, so too could consciousness be.  But is it something physical and tangible or might it be purely an invisible force? There are various schools of thought on what exactly consciousness is?  Many people in the arts and sciences, have cited an ethereal consciousness plane that they tap in to, a place where they go and are fed ideas. Prince, Einstein, David Lynch, Floria Sismondi, are but a handful at this party.  Daniel Dennett is a neuroscientist who suggests that consciousness is only the physical matter in our brains and nothing more. There are neurological structures thought to house memories and cognitive functions, but as much as Dennett would like it to be true, consciousness has not been proven as solely a combination of these things. The other school of thought is in dualism, believing that consciousness is a two-part system, in which the body has a physical consciousness that works with an invisible consciousness (often called a spirit).  Some people in this camp believe that the pineal gland, a small gland at the base of our skulls that floods the body with DMT (Dimethyltryptamine, a chemical known to cause massive hallucinations) at the moment of death, is the “seat of the soul”.  Philosopher Nick Bostrom has suggested that we live in a simulation which if true suggests that we are some form of Artificial Intelligence, programed and run as a simulation, so then are we conscious?  Should we subject ourselves to, the Turing test (a test designed to determine if AI is self-aware) or perhaps a real version of the fictional Voight-Kampff empathy test (Phillip K. Dick, 1968) in which humans ask a series of questions to determine the subject’s empathy level to distinguish whether they are human or robot?  I guess that’s just a silly question considering these tests would be obsolete at the level of detail the simulation has obtained, and that if this is a simulation it appears to be convincingly organic.  The question of whether AI can develop consciousness, brings us back to the substrate, the physical structure which houses consciousness. Whether the substrate must be biological or if consciousness can be contained in a non-biological substrate. In the film Bladerunner, adapted from Do Andriods Dream of Electric Sheep, they evade the substrate question by suggesting that the androids are a hybrid technology that incorporates both electronics, and genetically engineered grown organs.

I personally believe that consciousness is wrapped up in our ego and individuality combined with our symbiotic connection to the whole of reality.  Allan Watts says that “we are the aperture by which the universe looks back at itself”, this brings us around to one of the greatest thinkers of our time, the scientific guru of the Dali Lama, David Bohm.  Bohm helps us to see consciousness as universal, as each of us being similar to a grain of silver halide crystal on a holographic plane.  Consciousness then, is perspective of thought.

 

 

Room 237 – Shine on you crazy Theorists – by m. sea

Room 237 is a documentary about Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, and the endless fan theories on what the movie is about. I’ve seen the movie like 5 times. Not the Shining, I’ve seen that movie probably 10-15 times… and the TV movie, and listened to the audio book too. But I can’t get enough of this wacky Room 237 movie. It’s a hypnotic blend of super enthusiastic commentary, new retro-wave music and found footage visuals.

jackclown

 It has 5 or 6 commentators working through their theories and how they came to discover them. Theories (ranked from most plausible to least) that the shining is really about:  (SPOILERS?)

  • The genocide of the american indian (sic)
  • The holocaust
  • Child molestastion
  • Subliminal messages and secret boners
  • Ghosts that want to have sex with the living
  • The minotaur and the labyrinth, impossible architecture
  • Stanley Kubrick faking the moon landing footage for the us government
  • Stanley Kubrick is bored and uses his super smart brain* to fuck with us

I think it’s really neat to hear all the different interpretation of one film. To hear people find so much to obsess over. To cling to small moments of references and build these gigantic theories on top of them. I find it fascinating.

Here’s a clip, but honestly i don’t think seeing one isolated clip does it justice cause without fully immersing yourself in the insanity of the film, it just comes off as kinda silly sounding. So check out the movie ROOM 237  on canadian Netflix and/or elsewhere.

Comedic Adaptation

Adaptation serves many purposes.

To name a few: It exists in one’s attempt to take something old, and profit by making it new. It lurks in the audacity of stolen creative content. It can also be an homage – A reverent refernce to something nostalgic.

Throughout this course, the concept of comedy as adaption has repeatedly crossed my mind. Some of the best jokes are successful in part by their creator’s assumption of a shared cultural lexicon between the performer and their audience.  Popular culture is both created, and then celebrated through its shareability. The more frequently a classic trope is referenced, the more we build our familiarity to it, and the funnier (and then more tiresome – and then funny again) they become. A trope depends on us to re-visit it time and again to build our familiarity of it. That sense of recognition is what makes the trope so funny, when it is then referenced on a comedic platform. There’s a sense of validation when we, the audience feel as though we’re “in on” the joke – a meaningfulness in that we’ve just shared something with other people who also get it. These references are the life force of popular culture. As we increasingly familiarize ourselves with them, the more we are able to play around with them.

Recently, I’ve been watching an episode or two of Community before I go to sleep (in hopes of erasing all of the horrible things I’ve learned about the world each day). The show adapts themes from popular culture (movie scenes, characters, and classic film tropes), references them in blatant homage, and then usually pushes them to ridiculous conclusions. If you’re a total nerd and pop culture junkie like myself, you’d probably like it, and you’ll more than likely laugh so hard, you’ll explode-laugh whatever late night shame snack you’re eating on to your bed spread.

In the example below, the show’s writers are referencing the classic horror trope of what I’m going to call the “sudden-kitty-jump-n’meow,” where at a tense climactic moment, a cat will unexpectedly jump out and startle the film’s protagonist in the hopes of getting a cheap scare out of viewers. The character onscreen will most likely laugh, say “it’s just a cat” and will either move on to the next scene, or immediately get shredded and/or eaten by something icky.

If we weren’t familiar with this trope, we might still find it funny, but the fact that were in on the deeper layers of the joke (via adaptation) grants us membership to a satisfying, and validating community (see what I did there?).

 

 

-Tara

Body Doubles as Copies

This isn’t particularly related to anything we discussed in class yesterday, it’s just more of what the Marcus Boon book has generated in my brain in relation to the value and function of a copy.

Boon talks early on in the book about copies of Louis Vuitton bags as being in essence, no different than the original. He does this in a few ways. Essentially though his assertion seems, to me at least, to be that as it stands now, the same status can be derived from a copy as from the original. That in terms of what a Louis Vuitton bag ‘signals’, the veracity of it’s authorship or authentication is essentially irrelevant.

I also was thinking about F for Fake, and  Elmyr de Hory claiming that the Modigliani’s and Matisse paintings he made – in light of the public believing them to be real, in light of museums exhibiting and perhaps knowing they are fake but being unable to put themselves at risk by admitting so – essentially function as objects in exactly the same way as an ‘authentic’ Matisse or Modigliani would. Weirdly,I wrote about forgery for a magazine called Editorial a few years ago, and about de Hory’s paintings. This is the last line of the essay –

“In the end all entertainment, (and art, although it fails more than it succeeds, also falls into the category of entertainment), involves the suspension of disbelief. If one were to walk into a museum today and see hanging on the wall a beautiful painting by Helen Frankenthaler or Agnes Martin, there is nothing that would alter the viewer’s experience if in fact the painting had not been made by either of these two brilliant artists. If after leaving the museum someone were to tell them, hey, that Frankenthaler is a forgery, there is a chance of being bothered. Of feeling that the experience was inauthentic. But this is an intellectual reaction, not an emotional one. It’s a reaction to a feeling of being duped. It’s a sleight against the intellect. But the experience of standing in front of that same painting,  no matter who it was made by, and being moved; this is an emotional, or physical reaction. And  entertainment primarily appeals to things more visceral than the intellect. So if forgers are bad people, it’s only because they point out to us; one, how very little we know about certain things, and two; that skill and virtuosity are not the sacred god given gifts we’ve saccharinely allowed ourselves to believe that they are.”

Sorry to quote myself but I was more eloquent then.

So like all the other blog posts I’ve made, this just led me to have questions.

During the last American election certain people thought Hilary Clinton had a body double. It’s easy to dismiss this kind of thing as ludicrous and conspiratorial, but then there IS the reality that Josef Stalin and Sadaam Hussein did both use body doubles, ones that have been verified. Undoubtedly other politicians have used them as well.

I find it extremely interesting to think about the function of a body double. To be a replicant of a fascist or tyrannical leader. These people are essentially actors. It’s possible they’ve had plastic surgery, as was the accusation with Hilary Clinton’s putative double. The woman accused was a woman who had made a career out of impersonating Clinton when her husband was president, bore an uncanny resemblance to her, and could do her voice perfectly. A few stitches and injections and it’s not outside of reason to think she could be made to look sufficiently identical to the woman she’d made a living pretending to be. Staling purportedly had multiple doubles. So if these people are just actors, probably not very well paid, what I find interesting is how they function as signals or symbols. A double of a tyrannical politician can be used when the actual leader is sick to reassure the populace that their ‘brave leader’ is in fact fine. A double of a tyrannical leader can be used to tyrannize, to appear to be in two places as once, something what would be either terrifying or awe-inspiring according to the political bent of the person seeing this illusion. (It could hypothetically also cause one to believe that their leader is some sort of quasi-deity as had been the case for a long time in North Korea).

I don’t have a conclusion or a hypothesis here. I just think it’s interesting to think about the ways in a which counterfeit bag, a forged painting, and a copy of a human being all can serve the same purpose – to send out a signal that’s false, but where the falsity cannot be located.

It reminds me of an episode of the Flintstones where Fred has a double, and he stays home and washes the dishes and plays with the kids while REAL Fred is bowling and drinking beer with three X’s on the bottle.

I imagine there isn’t one of us who wouldn’t at some point really love having a duplicate of ourselves. I’d much prefer to have that than a counterfeit luxury bag.

Stalin’s body double, 1940s

 

5372527568

Adaptations

“The Need For New Models” is firmly asserted at the top of the article by Bortolotti and Hutcheon, of which the criteria for qualification is quickly unraveled – the analytic framework offered in the article (a homology between biology and cultural adaptations) is suggested for all the usual scientifically approved reasons, serving as a basis for comparison in describing similar processes at work in either the biological or cultural realm. One major cultural-adaptation point however is conceded at the end as not equitable with biological processes – namely cultural adaptation’s ability to direct change itself. I interpret feature this as human nature, imagination or whatever you call the quality of influence that is exerted upon a message originating from a human experience or response quite possibly at random.

So much of our studies this year have focused on adaptation, copying, appropriation and the like; as it relates to graduate school, there’s a message in that, which I’m still wrestling with everyday. The suggestion is that it may be harder than ever not to adapt through our work today and that adaptation, mimicry or appropriation, seems to be (according to much of the material we’ve covered) present throughout history as a popular process.

Influence of course, is inescapable as a product of our environment – it takes concerted effort to not be directed in some way by our lived experience no matter how far back the influence originates. So is it safe to say that originality is relegated to only a part of our work and we rely on existing references and comparisons to help define the differences in what we do. Enter Jacques Derrida’s theories of difference and deconstruction which seem to align with this notion generally.

So if we have ever clung to originality as central to our expression, examining adaptations for me requires that we review what we think is original and on a closer investigation, re-evaluate works to determine that which is not an influence, adaptation, appropriation or straight out copy. And yes I am conflating influences with adaptation in the context that we choose to adapt because of the influences the source exerts on us and possibly for its effect on our audience – for the sake of this discussion please indulge this conflation… or feel free to respond.

Perhaps it comes down simply to interpretations of what inspiration we take from the source-materials that we hope will amplify the ideas we are conveying and the way our viewers will interpret the work through their own experiences. Is this any less-original as an exercise, than trying to build without adapting – can creating an original work even be achieved anymore / and what is the criteria for original in the world we now live? It seems – and I think it was said in one of our discussions, that we can’t be wholly original anymore – we can only build on what has been done because everything original has been done by this point. I’m not convinced yet, but the notion holds some water.

Brad Phillips brings up some important questions around when, where and how is it appropriate to directly adapt existing sources and I agree it is a slippery slope, calling into question many issues of the day, yet we all do it to some degree do we not? In any case these are questions that require us to have in place, a solid rationale for doing so and also indicate how we may be evaluated in the end.

I want to share several artists work that notably have moved very directly towards adaptation yet remain distinctive, venerated and considered successful by the critics at large. The commonality of these artists in their approach and the evaluation we make of their work is my main focus in bringing these artists forward. In each case they take the message seriously but bring it to us in a way that first amuses, or finds ways to engage us in a conversation that on the face of the work itself, may not be immediately evident. At the end of the day, each of these artists are thoroughly enjoying what they do and have found a way of perpetuating their work boundlessly within a well-constructed framework that originates from other than their own personal origins – allowing a wide range of commentary, expression or variations on a theme by them.

I think it’s productive to see how those adaptations and (as Bortolotti and Hutcheon frame it) replicators are successful in affecting their ideas across vehicles that have existed throughout time. In the biological view, this might be compared to the moth that takes on such a convincing look of lichen, that it is indiscernible from the surface upon which it rests – as described in the Roger Caillois article – yet when the moth is revealed by it movements, the same stimulation both biological and cultural, in the viewer, seems to take place – as if to say at the moment of realization “ Now I get it!”

It’s no coincidence that these are all Indigenous artists interviews I have made since 2003.

www.kmhunterfoundation.ca/artist_videos/2016/christian-chapman-2016.html

http://www.kmhunterfoundation.ca/artist_videos/2015/barry-ace-2015.html

http://www.kmhunterfoundation.ca/artist_videos/2015/kevin-chief-2015.html

http://www.kmhunterfoundation.ca/artist_videos/2003/greg_a_hill_2003.html

I’ve been a fan of (as the article by Bortolotti and Hutcheon refers to) the replicators –  both in nature and in cultural adaptations – as far back as I can remember. In biological terms they are the high-priority organisms to be perpetuated. I take this to mean (conversely) as a cultural adaptation equivalent, that those who successfully adapt represent the forefront of social or cultural evolution.

Originality as I once knew it, seems more elusive than ever given the texts we have been covering this semester and it seems much of what we are rationalizing is to allow ourselves the license to traverse adaptation, appropriation or mimicry freely with which ever medium we choose – audio, visual or textual, leaving enormous room for expression and suggesting that the term expression is equivalent ( more so than ever ) with originality. At the risk of being facetious, I suppose honesty of expression is as close to originality as it gets now days.

Cultural-adaptation’s potentiality of intertextuality, deconstruction, reception theory, cultural studies or performance (among others – which are only more recently being appreciated factors) leave me with the feeling that clinging to scientific models is not entirely the best or only way to justify/evaluate work. But fortunately even the model of homology (similarity of structure indicative of a common origin) and the emerging specificities of cultural adaptation mentioned above, leave plenty of room for us to maneuver.

BL

 

Flogging for a Vlogging – Mar. 6 – JT

 

A post shared by @realontherise_ on

Again, another interesting class with copious fodder for the Critical Theory blogger. A couple things that stood out in this class were around privacy and Marina Abramović.

It was noted that film productions sometime require approval and/or funding from U.S. agencies. Funding I don’t know about, but approval is an absolute. If you want to produce a major motion picture in the United States about militarized conflict and you want to utilize equipment, e.g. tanks, large armament vehicles, etc., you will have to have approval from either the navy, marines, air force or whichever apparatus of the militarized industrial complex is being used. Otherwise, it will get little to no exposure, buy in and may even be railroaded out of production. They will have sign-off on the script and ensure that the U.S. is framed in just the ‘right light’. Which also raises a question about democracies and how the U.S. is not, but that could be an even longer and separate (bloggin) discussion..

State propaganda is something that the U.S. excels at and has exploited this in a variety of ways for a very long time. Whether it’s allocating part of a federal budget that requires mentioning marines, army or some combat sect at the start of sporting games or through propagandist films like Zero Dark Thirty or American Sniper, the U.S. government and various departments are well versed in this arena. One must ask theirself; if they weren’t experts in producing propaganda- ‘why aren’t there big budget films about the approximately 200,000 dead Iraqi’s since the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003?’ (https://www.iraqbodycount.org/), or ‘why don’t we see television propaganda about the record setting 26,171 aerial drone strikes by the U.S. last year in 2016?’ (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy). I guess there’s more bang for your buck in perpetuating conflict instead of resolving it. On the tv and film propaganda front, according to Vice News reporter, Jason Leopold, who acquired access to a CIA report, “the CIA has had its hand in at least 22 entertainment projects between 2006 and 2011.”

http://www.alternet.org/media/inside-cias-troubling-collaboration-hollywood

The overlap between U.S. government officials and creative endeavors such as film and television doesn’t necessarily stop there. It appears to have extended into the world of ‘fine art’ as well.

Thanks to one of the 30,000+ documents released by Wikileaks prior to the conclusion of the 2017 U.S. election campaign, we can now see into the more nefarious and disgusting practices of top U.S. officials like John Podesta and global “art stars” like Abramović.

As we covered in class, Abramović is well known for her performance pieces and is considered the ‘grandmother of performance art’. What is probably less well known (or was at least until the leak) was her sadistic, occult, cult-like activity not only on the gallery floor, but in private as well.

The leak saw John Podesta (Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chair) being invited to a private dinner party at Abramović’s along with his brother who was also attending. The email clearly stated that the purpose of the gathering was for a “Spirit Cooking” dinner party.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15893

This is interesting because it flies in the face of what she had previously said about the context within which these bizarre occult, blood and semen rituals are practiced or performance pieces as they are known. She made it very clear that in the gallery is one thing, but outside the gallery is very different. In Abramović’s words:

Everything depends on which context you are doing what you are doing. If you are doing the occult magic in the context of art or in a gallery, then it is the art. If you are doing it in different context, in spiritual circles or private house or on TV shows, it is not art. 

http://www.therebel.media/spirit_cooking_email_reveals_clinton_campaign_chair_podesta_s

Those words seem to indicate the little gathering she was having in NYC was less art (or not at all) and more personal bacchanalia. But hey, maybe hanging out with the wealthy elite of the political world or music world and having some good old fashion blending of bodily fluids while praising Moloch or Azazel or whichever anti-Christ is fashionable is just how the high rollers get down.

The faux spirit cooking event below seems like just a normal sampling of semen and blood, sort of like taking a trip to Baskin Robins and asking for the small spoon sample, except this has a living body in it that is actually pretending to be dead. These people sure know how to have fun, if you like your fun f-ed up!

abromov

http://alexanderhiggins.com/spirit-cooking-hillarys-satanic-sex-ritual-describe-pictures-video/

Perplexing the point further is the fact that Abramović’s twitter handle is actually “abramovicm666”, which is an obvious Satanic reference. You could say that subtlety wasn’t her finest quality.

And what’s funny, or not so funny, is that it goes unmentioned by the corporate media and people don’t deny it. Interestingly, Wikileaks has never had to retract a story. That means, you won’t hear John Podesta saying “This is egregious, I’ve never done this!!”. What you’ll see is a tv spot coming from Podesta’s former commander, Hillary Clinton, talking about how fake news is an epidemic growing throughout America.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5241342880001/

It’s funny, it’s an effective way of accomplishing many things in one fail swoop. You 1) disregard the initial story like ‘spirit cooking’ or ‘pizzagate’; 2) throw a blanket around all stories and those that don’t tow the party (U.S. Government or shadow government as the case seems to be..) line; 3) censor people through corporations like Twitter and Facebook where they choose what is publishable or not. Sounds democratic. Effective. And not only that, you get a bonus point and a clear swipe at the U.S. Constitution, goodbye free speech. “We’ll tell you what you can say, not you.” What is this? A democracy? It becomes very Orwellian, very fast.

For the last 100 years, and particularly since the Edward Bernay’s era, controlling the media has been the greatest vehicle for the ruling class to control the message. The internet, although developed for other reasons, has created a small wedge in that level of control, but overall, the large broadcasting corporations and newspaper media outlets tow the corporatocracy -gov line. Peruse any of the 30,000+ pieces of info Wikileaks has revealed in the last few months and it becomes abundantly clear who and what is manipulated and where. Not to mention the massive implications of the recent “Vault 7” release and extreme invasion of privacy and potentially disruption of human life, which would be great to get into, but maybe another time. I think the below image sums up the current state of stately affairs nicely:

A post shared by @realontherise_ on

Use of this service is governed by the IT Acceptable Use and Web Technologies policies.
Privacy Notice: It is possible for your name, e-mail address, and/or student/staff/faculty UserID to be publicly revealed if you choose to use OCAD University Blogs.