Working Digits is a collaboration made with fellow [UNDISCLOSED]collective member Gigi Lage. It was made for and exhibited in the Ringling Museum of Art courtyard, the installation piece is a series of videos displayed on CR TVs covered in pantyhose and placed on the grass outside of classical male nude sculptures. The legs of the pantyhose sprout from the top of the TV and flop to either side, as if they are flaccid antennas. The videos themselves are monochromatic nudes and reds, layered imagery and given a slight glitch-effect, but that depict one of two things: a young woman making out with herself or appropriated porn imagery cut off at the legs. This dissection of form relates to the mediation of specific bodies and the crash point of identity in digital space.
Daniela Mora, Micaela Lydon, and Gigi Lage as The Kevins, satellite, perform in my place, ex[UNDISCLOSED]c beebs, at VIP tampa for rebound book release party, +on gamutspace +curated by Christina Humphreys.
Some work, Magazine: Court Room Dramarama, circa Mombutt
But performance is my heart. Away in grad school, we have love, tytyty!
Interactive Rocky Horror fan fic and a love narrative between me and my mannequin of 3 years, Katie. Hold me gendered. We complete We. People like to say disembodied touch, but we body to body, either way. Katie a container for gender-concept. Touchscreen a container for information. Me: both. Proscription bound. What is human, but information embodied? We want your emotional information, social intelligence. Neural networking moves to progress, how some social acuity differ from neanderthals.
at multiple place. at multiple time. in multiple. for us. 2017.
We found Amy Winehouse in a state of disuse in a second-hand store in Central Florida, handcrafted by an unknown artist with the most precise detail. Every tattoo, piercing, and bra strap. Amy moves with us. Amy travels. The sculpture is a permanent fixture in the artist's car. Amy leaves little pieces wherever we go. We are all consumed by It, Amy.
We would never quote Heidegger, here is an excerpt from a recent Boris Groys article in eflux:
"[Heidegger] believes this because, as he explains in his earlier text “The Origin of the Work of Art,” art is nothing other than the revelation of the way we use things—and, if one wants, of the way we are used by things.
...The reason for Heidegger’s aversion to the transformation of man into a thing is clear: in both of the texts cited above, Heidegger asserts that in our world, things exist as tools. For Heidegger, becoming objectified, commodified, etc., means becoming used. But is this equation between a thing and a tool actually valid?
I would argue that in the case of artworks, it is not. Of course, it is true that an artwork can function as a commodity and a tool. But as a commodity, an artwork is different from other types of commodities. The basic difference is this: as a rule, when we consume commodities, we destroy them through the act of consumption. If bread is consumed—i.e., eaten—it disappears, ceases to exist. If water is drunk, it also disappears (consumption is destruction—hence the phrase “the house was consumed by fire”). Clothes, cars, etc., get worn out and finally destroyed in the process of their use. However, artworks do not get consumed in this way: they are not used and destroyed, but merely exhibited or looked at. And they are kept in good condition, restored, etc. So our behavior towards artworks is different from the normal practice of consumption/destruction. The consumption of artworks is just the contemplation of them—and contemplation leaves the artworks undamaged."
sometimes the space between us is too sure, Skype
you have held us in friendships across space + time
emoting to screen, and, now we are an enemy-mine
+your sweater, next to me+
kevin is just another word for katie