FUTURE BLINDNESS

I saw Jessica Rylan’s talk at the MIT Center for Advanced Visual Studies a few months ago, and it was an interesting experience. It’s been awhile since I went to one of these things, and I think my break has given me a bit of healthy perspective. Here are some things I wrote down or thought about during the talk—per usual, my mind wanders during events of this nature.

Jessica’s talk had some very interesting AV components. At one point, she played a great series of audio samples with accompanying waveplots. I was a little underwhelmed by her engagement with the technical side of her work—maybe she was nervous, but it seemed at times as though she was deliberately trying to sound “technical,” something that makes me immediately suspicious.

Much of Jessica’s talk was about the change in technology from the 1960’s to the present: transistors are smaller, memory is bigger, and the like. It didn’t relate much to anything else, except that it was an interest of hers, which I suppose we did all show up to listen to…at a couple points she used the strange example of cars to compare to the progress that computers have made: cars still do the same thing, cost about the same, run on gas, etc. More than a few people in the (mostly MIT-student) audience looked as confused as I that we were making this comparison.

I’m aware that I’m not saying much that’s positive about Jessica, even though I admire what she’s doing and how she got here. I’m a little puzzled myself as to why I’m dwelling on the negative aspects, and I think the distinction is dawning on me: Jessica Rylan is a good maker of things, and is firmly interested in the dialog surrounding her work. She has a rich relationship to the equipment she uses and the sound she makes (her website is very well-spoken), and is admirably open and involved in helping others have the same experience. Of course, the other side of all of this is that I really don’t care for her actual music—it appears as though she has taken to describing herself as a “noise band” because of the current cachet surrounding this genre, since her music rarely shares the qualities of other groups in that genre.

Altogether, the presentation didn’t go very well. Ms. Rylan’s prepared notes weren’t thorough or focused, and her remarks didn’t really get at the ideas behind her process and her music. Perhaps the entire audience would have been better served if he had made a clear decision either to discuss her artistic intent and motivation or to delve into the technical aspects of her hardware fabrication and setup, rather than paying lip-service to both. I’ve seen from this talk how someone who is otherwise in control of her direction and practice can make the mistake of showing work that is either poorly contextualized or, worse, attempting to capitalize on an audience’s lack of understanding rather than add to such an understanding.

I’ve held off on releasing this post for several months for a couple of reasons, and I’m glad to revisit it, especially since the project I’m working on now has put me in much the same situation: several times in the recent past, I’ve been compelled to “tech it up” when discussing my project with sponsors, press, or visitors. It’s amazing the kind of hyperbolic bullshit one can concoct when watching a sponsor’s interest in your professor’s opera flag before your eyes.

However, these experiences have only strengthened my resolve to be more open when discussing my own work, which hopefully will be soon (Sponsor Week is at the end of October, and I expect to have one or two projects of my own ready to show by then).