As a seemingly limitless and comprehensive resource, UbuWeb (http://www.ubu.com) has put together a map of the past hundred or so years of ‘experimental’ writing, film, video, and sound art. It resembles the archive in its breadth and depth, in its relentless collecting, in its inherent totalizing tendencies. My argument is that UbuWeb, while not an ‘archive’ per se, does have a cataloging logic, though it is not apparent, and that its specific logic is based on the commodification of the artwork and the effects of that commodification on its exhibition. To understand that logic, I want to situate UbuWeb at the latest point in a series of discontinuous institutions and discourses that have all taken the ‘artwork’ as their object. By understanding the how artwork’s relationship to power is mediated by a historically developing series of institutions (royal art collection, national patrimony, public museum, commodified gallery), we can understand how these institutions function based on a legitimating logic that is shifting from sovereign power to disciplinary power to securitizing power and how each institution deploys a certain concept of the artwork specific to each regime of power. By contextualizing UbuWeb in the genealogy of the exhibition of artworks, it will be possible to reconceptualize the ‘experimental’ and ‘avant-garde’ works of the last century (those represented by UbuWeb) beyond the inside/outside binary that justifies the current discourse surrounding them. The archive, while undergoing many crises not unrelated to the conceptualist crises of the postmodern gallery, can provide an interesting alternative to the aesthetic-driven, galley-like organization principle that keeps UbuWeb from making good on its promise to be a space for utopian politics free from market constraints.
UbuWeb
A conversational interview between the with poet Kenneth Goldsmith and the literary critic Marcus Boon.
I mean, Duchamp is visionary but in a way, it is very useful; it’s a way to understand how to proceed. I think at some point, in Wittgensteinian terms, we’ll have to “drop the ladder.”
It’s amazing how adaptable we are to a brand new environment, however, we adapt to it better, I think, than we can theorize it or understand it. I just think that it’s so profoundly changing on so many levels that art remains a theoretical device for understanding some aspect of what we’re going through today.
In a way, if you have a movement or type of writing that’s predicated upon not reading you actually set up a way around the problem of primary, secondary, and tertiary languages.
So conceptual writing has actually got a huge international writership and anti-readership simply, based on the idea that nobody has to read this stuff.
I think that the thing that’s happened is a paradigm shift that’s called . . . that is the digital...We have the technology that does it so much better than what we were trying to do or actually distributes it, that which has already been written, so much of what has already been written much better than we’re able to do. Writing has to then reimagine what it can be in the digital age.
Yeah writing—the smallest morpheme (tk) of language, that’s what modernism taught us—is deeply associative,
We actually say that expression and content and meaning is all part and parcel of the information that we’re moving. It’s encoded. It’s DNA. You can’t get away with it! So why try so hard to express yourself when the content that you’re working with is full of expression anyway.
I always say, if I raised my kids the way I wrote my books I would’ve been thrown in jail a long time ago.