_The Death of the Interview: a Meta:X.amination of Stelarc as EgoFried_N.tity_

About 20-odd years ago I visited a prominent contemporary Sydney Art Gallery in which was exhibited an installation of the techno_performance artists Stelarc. One of the x.hibits was a video looping of a “medical” n.tervention progressively showing the inside of Stelarc’s digestive
sys.t[ract]em. The screen had been turned off with only the audio partially working. In a defiantly sacrosanct gesture i braved the haloed-artwork-as-exhibited barrier, reached 2 turn the screen back on + attempted 2 adjust the volume. Suddenly the gallery director n.tervened + frostily conveyed her displeasure @ my attempt 2 make the installation functional, as well as suggesting i leave the gallery. Since then, my sense of Stelarc, techne_dysfunction + ego has been somewot
[Cronenbergianly] unfortunately fused 2gether.

Watching the Stelarc interview [conducted via vidcam] by CTHEORY Live [ie Arthur + Marilouise Kroker] I had strong associations with this initial introduction 2 Stelarc’s work ie art_scene panderings 2 the figure of artist-as-ego + media-perpetuated artist-as conveyor of jargonistic/post-biological/hierarchical figure. This progression of the concept of a media-squeezed Stelarc illustrates:

– how a commercial artscene is nowadays governed by a constant new-ism-seeking rhetoric of relational aesthetics.

– regulation scenic_elitism via knowledge exclusion + (subconscious or deliberate) conceptual obscurification.

– various satellite virtual n.teraction_prickings [ie working vicariously via a project associated with Stelarc] pointing 2wards the agendaised notions b.hind several of his works, eg an alleged Stelarc
theory that wot is hindering the evolution of the human species is s.sentially the size of a woman’s womb.

The interview b.tween Stelarc + CTHEORY demonstrates a certain hairiness with[in] the use of a traditional format [ie talking_head dialogue] 2 capture the s.sence of Stelarc’s works:

1) a type of problematic subliminal gender pottage in terms of a conceptual reduction of biology + interviewer presence/tandem breakdown of interviewer as injector-of-high-end theoretical concepts designed 2 faux-challenge thru pretend bristling questions [ie woman interviewer supplanted via the “real” interviewer – aping discourses governed by traditional power positionings].

2) the interviewing beginning with a Stelarc reference 2 t.h[is]e body being unavoidably directed by biological directives (ie he’s not the best in the morning) indicating projected/neglected references 2 body replacements/post-biology. This downplaying of the very mechanics that allow for the manipulation of the concepts Stelarc uses as his artistic currency hi-lites the gap b.tween the artist’s projection and physical_x.istance/actualities.

3) the layering of flesh/tech idealisation + constant references to dialogue rather than multilogue/social.networking_type jigsaw.possibilities + theoreticians mired/housed within
print_[quasi-digerati]literary traditions; consistent references 2 Stelarc as being the primary c[reator]urator of his works [besides an attempt by Marilouise 2 n.courage future collaborative attempts] + with [only] a cursory mention of those technical ppl responsible for the execution of his idea/project fruition. This, in particular, echos the ego m.phasis/underpinning of this mono-directive interview process; an old_skool attempt @ documentation stripped of the equations necessary 2
allow Stelarc to perform/justify/reflect his artistic responses.

The next interview in the series is an interview with Katherine Hayles, during which a person from UCLA’s end attempted to dial-up into the video link – a wonderful fracture of the linear, dried-end of the outmoded dialogue format CTHEORY Live is current perpetuating.