In his book We Have Never Been Modern, sociologist Bruno Latour notes how the AIDs virus "Takes you from sex to the unconcious, then to Africa, tissue cultures, DNA and San Francisco" but note how experts from a variety of fields discussion the virus within vary narrow delineated disciplinary categories without acknowledging, indeed explicitly asserting these categories(1). Within these delinations we can see two of Henri Lefebvre's three spatial domains; perceived space, conceived space and a specific type of lived space(2). In this case Latour's experts create a conceived space that derogates the common sense lived space, and ultimately serves to neutralise the imaginery space of of lived(3). Latour argues that "retying the Gordian Knot" severed by expert knowledge restores the complexity hidden by such expert arguments(4). It is here that Bilal's Domestic Tension succeeds. By exploiting the agency of art objects- the robotic paintball gun, the gallery and the artist himself- he creates boundary objects that work together in a particular fashion to cross disciplinary walls that differentiate nations, citizens and disciplines. His use of virtuality within and without a gallery setting allowed his work to engage an audience otherwise unlikely to explore a gallery space or engage in a dialogue with contemporary performance art. If Lefebvre wrote that space was a production of the society, then Latour theoretically breaks down the walls that define that space and leave it open for the particular agency of art works that Gell asserts and describes. Bilal's work embodies that theoretical model as it redefines perceptions of galleries, art objects and performances and the audiences and artists that result in a new possibilities of lived spatiality. By using the perceived space of the FPS digital game and the conceived space of the art gallery and the internet, he has connected people through the agency of the performance as boundary object.
Within the context of modern Geopolitics, Domestic Tension explores a particular response of one artistic to a moment, a tragic moment in a greater conflict. With the death of his brother, and his death leading to his father’s death a few months later, Wafaa Bilal offers a subjective response but it is a response that leads to much broader implications. In one direction, it explores and catalyses a “hi-art” response to a “low-culture” phenomena- performance art and how it deals with digital games, especially as an online social sphere. At the same time, Bilal’s performance allows people from a broad range of social background to experience the possibility of physically harming another via remote control. In this respect, domestic tension begins to offer an experience that is already common for many in the technologically advanced militaries of North America, Europe and Asia– the experience of committing a violent act from a place of comfort.
Some Chatroom messages expressed doubt as to whether the performance was ‘real’ as I noted in the review of video footage in Chapter 3 of this thesis. People in their homes fired the paintball gun, then questioned whether it was loaded, or that Bilal was actually the only person playing Bilal. His response was that it was not important to the success of the performance whether or not the scenario he portrayed was real. His gauge was the responses of those viewing the performance, especially via the internet. Contrast this response, of those questioning the reality of the performance with U.S.A.F drone operators expressing faith in their orders to strike at people 15 000 kilometers away, confident that what they see is what they are told it is.
(1)Latour, Bruno. We Have Never Been Modern, Catherine Porter, trs. Harvard. Cambridge,Mass. 1993. p.2
(2) Lefebvre, Henri. The Production of Space
(3) Latour, Bruno ibid p.3
(4) ibid p.3
No comments:
Post a Comment