Disturbing factors as a creative principle
Disturbing factors as a creative principle: José Ortega y Gasset equated authentic life with a shipwreck, stating that through culture mankind tries to keep afloat, resting upon the concept of a heroic spirit of crisis and the intrinsic disturbing factor as the universal creative principle.
‘Ever tried to communicate, ever misunderstood. No matter, try again, misunderstand again, misunderstand better!’ (Samuel Beckett, adapted to the topic of this conference)
Samuel BeckettÂ’s dictum signals the paradigm shift: we show more tolerance towards errors, which become the rule, not the exception and which might act as potential for innovation, as a motor for unplanned success. Misunderstandigs and system errors are no longer a sign of failure, reducing quality and confidence. The rehabilitation of failure leads to a new culture of error, which seeks deviation from norms and propagates that system errors might be utilized as latently productive or even as an evolutionary requirement for a pioneering system. So the antiperfectionist cultivation of misunderstandings points to an apology, even apotheosis, of defectiveness: errare is not only humanum, but even divine, inspiring experimentation and therefore promoting innovation.
Talking about misunderstanding implies a conception of the right and the true. Breaking norms and rules, evading standards has become integral to the arts. The innate creative potential of errors and misunderstandings might lead to their intentional application. We make the mistakes we can.
In the area of media art, highly technological modes of production create new niches of error, following the example of low budget productions shown on small Youtube screens or even mobile phone displays. Sublime impurity, or disorder as artifact, injury or distortion at the intersection of art and technique.
Art and failure maintain an interdependence: Affective strength of deficiency, stuttering of artistic processes and systems, instead of impeccable standards are the topics that concern us. We might invoke Rudolph ArnheimÂ’s formula: deficit, shortcoming or patina in the image makes the difference in art.
This aesthetics of error and certified misunderstandings in art distinguishes its status and consequences from errors in pragmatic acts. The composer Mauricio Kagel used misunderstandings and deficiencies as a formative agent of his creative technique, e.g. false musical scales, a limping motion, decay of the singerÂ’s voice as a basis for the score (Partitur). Thus error is not a troublemaker.
The topic is in the air, as the exposition The Art of Failure at Kunsthaus Basel-Land in spring 2007 has shown. There one could see a video of Berlin artist Asta Gröting showing –from a high angle shot– the comical choreography of the daily Darwinist fight for a parking lot in the city by the trial and error-method of optimisation.
Asta Gröting, Parken [Aparcar], 2004
Ed Young, Dialogue: Bonami and Bourriaud, 2007
A second video art work that suits this meeting excellently is the one of South African artist Ed Young. He has two renowned and highly eloquent art critics, Francesco Bonami and Nicolas Bourriaud, talk in a dialogue of demi-sourds, cutting out of their elaborated discourse and maintaining mere utterings, slips of the tongue, unarticulated stuttering, the “eehh” and “mmm” sounds, verbal fillers of abashment.
With that assembly (or rather disassembly) Young expresses his scepticism towards the means of language. After all, this is not necessarily a matter of misunderstanding, as the dialogue seems to function. Nevertheless scruples about art criticsÂ’ discourse is more than obvious, despite the vigour and energy in this precarious situation of communication and omissions.
In literary texts you might come across manifest errors or inconsistencies in affected, distorted, aberrated rhetorics, which reflect crisis and dissidence of language. The rhetorical figure of the aposiopesis may serve as an example: emphatic interruption, fade out, final mutism, silence or stagnant communication connotes an echo of the ineffable, the failures of language.
But despite of all the power of errors and failures as stimulants of insight, we shouldnÂ’t forget the bitter, ordinary, tiresome and blatant error, the unproductive bad job and factor of annoyance, which can lead to a total system crash.
Carelessness, illusion, delusion, fallacy, neglect, default, confusion or hazard can be the origin of failure and misunderstanding.
On the other hand, disorder, handicaps, deficits, shortcomings and false programming might have paradoxically correcting effects or might camouflage greater errors.
Program or fatum: It is quite delicate to distinguish avoidable from necessary mistakes, intentional from accidental, unrecognized ones, the ones that slip in. We are not talking about the deliberate nonsense, rubbish or humbug (as meant by Karl Valentin).
Sofia Goscinski, Siegespodest [El podio de triunfo], 2006
In general success and failure are a matter of paradox (false correctness) and of contingency, of unpredictable fortuitousness, predictability and probability.
Risk is more plannable with included deficiency, which pays better. A zero-mistake-culture is more risky. Risk corresponds to rationally calculable prognosis of possible system errors and avoidable damages.