Secrets of the City

Doy. Here’s the link to Chuck’s interview:
http://www.mnstories.com/archives/2006/03/bruce_sterling.html

Sterling is so curious and imaginative- this short interview is packed with ideas, I loved it.

I never really thought about wear shoe rubber goes once my Keds get ground down. Ish!

I hate the term spimes – Bruce really needs to think of somthing else to describe his trackable objects.

How exactly does that work – naming something that doesnt exist yet? Can anyone do it? I would like to call a telivison that is made out of a flexible fabric that you can wear as cloths a “skart”. They may not ever be invented but if they are that is the name. Any objections? Can I give a talk about it at the Walker now? I think I will go listen to this guy.

I’ll be there, but mostly to hassle Chuck.

Ontome

Notthatmatt: hell, yeah, anyone can do it. Language creates reality, man. And it helps if you write a book about it, rather than just release it all quietlike in the comments of a local blog! If you want to see Notthatmatt ask these very questions to Bruce Sterling, but can’t make it to the talk tonight, it’ll be streaming live at the Walker Channel.

I asked Bruce about “ontome” or “onto” last night. He agrees with Greenfield that “spime” is an ugly word, but he says the concept has some pretty ugly potential, so he feels the word is fitting. The problem with “onto,” he says, is that it’s not Googlable. For a meme to catch on, it has to be distinct. Which is why Flickr isn’t spelled Flicker.

Well….just got back from the Walker, and I must say I was sorely disappointed. Perhaps it was my fault for having the wrong expectations, but I went to see (and hopefully hear) Bruce talk about his his work too. Unfortunately, the night centered around Rirkrit – who happens to have a dull lackluster personality and is about as non-engaging as a human can possibly be. He never once opened his shoulder to the audience to address a question or make a statement. Regardless, maybe it was my bad for expecting more Bruce, but all-in-all I thought it was a sub-par performance due to Rirkrit’s lack of public speaking abilities. What did everyone else think of the talk?

I forgot to mention – for those of you that weren’t in attendence – the format of the talk was basically an interview; with Bruce being the host and Rirkrit being the guest. The whole thing was like watching a talk show (pick one: letterman/conan/daily show/etc) when a dull guest comes on and the host tries to carry the whole interview.

my favorite question was when Bruce asked Rirkrit about the year he spent resident in MPLS. In short, here is how it went:
Bruce: “You lived here for about a year. Do you have anything to say about the time you spent here?”
Rirkrit: No. Nothing.

Classic!

I was also rather disappointed by the “conversation.” I had hoped to hear a discussion of topics from both, since on paper both seem to have very interesting points of view about the ideas of objects & their roles. It seemed to me that Sterling was trying to make it a conversation but Tiravanija seemed unengaged & rather disinterested in talking about much of anything.

It makes me wonder if all of the high concept and ‘meaningfulness’ of Tiravanija’s work is merely projected upon it by curators & writers (& influential friends).

I had hoped to hear more from Sterling than the valiant efforts to try to pry something of substance from Tiravanija. Though his thoughts on the Biennale were quite well put.

I was disappointed too, but for the totally opposite reason: Bruce was brought in to talk with Rirkrit, on the occasion of an exhibtion Rirkrit was in, but he never let the guy talk! I mean, he asked about Rirkrit’s socks and what he owns but never really engaged him about his art: relational aesthetics, social sculpture, how Thai-ness or spatial relations or Buddhism inform his work. Bruce was pretty funny, but I don’t think he was a good discussion partner for Rirkrit, who’s work is a bit difficult to discuss.

I must admit I know Tiravanija’s work much more than Sterlings (only his new book), but I’d caution against kneejerk reactions to what Rirkrit does. If you’re looking for a charismatic, dog-and-pony-show guy, you’re not going to get if from a quiet, Buddhist, Thai artist whose work isn’t shaped by DRM, Skype, or anything remotely cyberpunk. But art isn’t about entertaining crowds in an auditorium. Go see stand-up for that.

I agree with P.Andrew. Bruce rattled on about his feelings about Paris, namedropping his friends and recounting his travels and enumerating his possessions, but he didn’t really lead the discussion in a direction that Tiravanija could or wanted to take. I would’ve had the same response if I had been in Tiravanija’s place, honestly. Wigwam socks? Please.

And what was up with the jackass in the front row? Anyone know who that was?

And what was up with the jackass in the front row? Anyone know who that was?

He was annoying. I got the feeling he was “somebody” or thought he was. Somebody who thought that he should be on stage too.

I enjoyed the talk. First time to the Walker for me so that might have had something to do with it. What a fantastic place, and the speakers were way more interesting than working on a Thursday night.

I got the feeling that I got to know the actual personalities of both speakers a little – which for me provides an important context to understanding thier ideas which are presented elsewhere.

That’s how bruce is if you haven’t seen or talked to him before. He’s like watching a bad LSD trip and there wasn’t enough to go around for you to share.

Sometimes it’s good sometimes it’s just off, but he’s always good at igniting some smoldering creative ember at least for me.

When that crewcut doofus asked about “negotiation” I was tempted to start laughing. He’s asking a conceptual artist and an anti-establishment cyberpunk theorist and science fiction writer about tips on how to succeed in business? lolz

Said doofus/jackass was Matt Bakkom. A seemingly wasted one, at that.

Bakkom saved the show for me. Rirkrit was unable/unwilling to even attempt to talk about his work, Sterling couldn’t get off his favorite topic, (Sterling) the discussion was an unmitigated disaster. If ever a speaker deserved heckling it was Bruce “I’m too cool and jaded to shut my fat yap for five seconds” Sterling. I wish Bakkom had brought tomatoes.

uhh.. then Matt Bakkom has really put on some weight. I didn’t get that close a look I guess. You guys would know better than me.

I’d kind of assume someone whose work is as thoroughly ego-centric and ethos-driven would know better than to run off his mouth like that at someone else’s party.

And I believe Sterling was Rirkrit’s choice, so don’t go bashing on Bruce. The point of the whole thing was not some structured lecture or discussion but an interdisciplinary mash-up and like alot of mash-ups, sometimes the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.

I love this thread: the quiet, unassuming Rirkrit is the bad guy and the boorish soak is the hero (at least to BakkomForPres).

Boorish soaks are a largely undrappreciated segment of society. Comdemned to the realm of villain roles in “great man/woman” biopics, (his father was a drinker/ his mother cried in vain etc.) the soak catches heat for blurting out what the rest of us secretly wanted to hear, the less intelligebly the better. (To be fair, “negotiation” wasn’t real high on the list of things I wanted to hear shouted -though I suggest to Not2Sure that the question was about the integrity of creation vs marketing of artistic output, and not just a request for business tips.)

Rirkrit is the bad guy in that if he had nothing to say, about his work, or anything else, he should have begged off. Being quiet and unassuming aint a crime, taking an honorarium to be that way on stage starts to seem like one.

Sterling only commited one real sin. It wasn’t being rude to his host and audience, (though he was) It wasn’t urinating on the topic, his cospeaker, and almighty art in general, (did that too) it wasn’t even vapid self-aggrandizement (”I love hanging out in Eastern European war zones.. it’s really the only place I can learn anything anymore”) No, Sterling’s only real sin was being irritating. Between finishing every one of Rirkrit’s sentances for him, and maintaining a rambling commentary track right over the top of anything Rirkrit was allowed to say, his ratio of words to times-he-didn’t-put-his-foot-in-his-mouth was not a good one. When he publishes, I imagine an editor helps him with this. On the Walker stage, he brought enough of his own verbal rope to hang himself several times over.

As a final note on Sterling, I’ve read a fair amount of his stuff over the years, and not hated it… I was curious to hear what he would have to say. By the end of the evening, the only question I wanted answered was “Bruce, regarding the scope and content of your career: what’s Gibson really like?”

…And then the Boorish Soak. He and his buddy Johnny Walker offered delight on an evening otherwise devoid of it. The fact that neither speaker immediately offered to fist-fight him shows that deep down, they knew his cause was just. They took money to bore and insult us, whereas Bokkam gave us pure entertainment for no greater reward than the hazy sense of accomplishment offered by a drunken job well done.

Bakkom v McCain ‘08

Well, ok. You’ve got a few good points there. Except one: it should be Bakkom-McCain instead of Bakkom v. McCain