D: Just imagine a food vender in the street knowing this. Once I met a security guard who was guarding airplanes but could not understand why they fly. As it came out later, I did not know it either. The difference between the two of us was that I actually thought I do know it, while he knew that he doesn’t know.

R: Have you been at the steering wheel of an airplane?

D:  That’s a tricky question. Can you really consider a steering wheel a part of the airplane when the airplane is still on the ground?
As a teenager, I once took the seat of a Mi 4 plane skipper, but my first acquaintance with a real steering wheel happened in 1995 with a little help from the Silicon Graphics INDY mouse and what was perhaps the only flight stimulator in the world of those times.

R: Yesterday I intentionally chose a flight to La Guardia instead of JFK airport, because upon landing, we could fly over the whole Brooklyn and Queens along Manhattan.

D:  I would choose the „Last Hindenburg flight“ because it comes down slowly over Manhattan and Brooklyn, so that you have time to see all of it.

R:  What would you like to see?

D: I’d like to take a closer look at the spire of the Empire State Building that was designed for airships to moor. Since the plan failed due to high turbulence, the spire remained there as an Art Deco element. If we could come close to it, I guess we would also approach a quite different history.

R: Approach the Art Deco?

D: It’s hard to tell what we would call it. Perhaps at this point, the concept of art would lose its meanings.

R: As I can see, you’re fond of art?

D: Well, I don’t really like it alone, rather when it’s inside, say, people, humus or even another art.

R: Ten years ago you used to say that for you, art is a tool for self-perfection. Has the tool, or you, or the relation, moved towards perfection?

D:  I have certainly moved closer, but the tool has blunted, while the relation has diminished. Ten years ago, by defining art as a means of education, I meant both art and the industry of art, as they both were relatively new phenomena for me – especially after my studying art for so many years.
If we take Web 2.0 – a neologism created by O’Reilly Media 2004 that defines the internet service of the next generation, allowing the users to create information – and move it to World 2.0 or Art 2.0, we would get a situation where I actually found myself ten years ago, by starting my active practice of exhibition-making.

Those were the times when, by using the brand of art, you could work more perfectly and effectively both at the artistic and non-artistic scene by mixing those scenes substantially. Here, we could remember the double-utilized object: party advertising movies, or the Technomama company operating in two spheres.

Today, in our postglobal world we create all thing as if they were art. The creative technologies are the same, or similar – which was influenced by 20th century conceptualism – no matter if we call it politics, terrorism, journalism, enterpreneurism, science, etc., so art has grown very complicated as a brand. In other cases, Art is just a prefix that changes nothing if you use it to define the things you do, but it still reveals you as a representative of the epoque when all the works were divided into „appealing“ and „non-appealing“ ones.

So, even if on the one hand Art is just a relic of particular times, on the other hand, it still remains a nice classic educative device for schools. I wonder what Art 3.0 would look like? Perhaps its contents would be shifted like the Starbucks from Mike Judge’s Idiocracy, or changed like the contents of this text whose first version failed yesterday, since I enjoy writing on-line.

R: What about humus?

D: The cultivated chickpeas that were first used in Mesopotamia were four times richer in folic acid than their wild predecessors. The food cooked from exactly the new sort of chickpeas is thought to have influenced the process of building empires, as well as the development of our culture as a whole. It provides intricate or non-intricate detail, although nothing is known for sure. Perhaps we could get more information by doing reverse engineering to schizophrenia – considering schizophrenia as one of the by-products of gene mutation – see shizophrenia.com – and make our brain clock in a risky manner, for creating a meta-ecological or meta-physiological culture.

R: I have just received an sms from our friend Inga:
Tonight I had a dream where you, me and Miksys were celebrating my birthday at a school canteen. Miksys was the one who found the place. In my handbag, I had two unpacked slices of cake. I open my handbag, replace one slice with another and we go on celebrating.
What was the school where it happened?

D: A secondary school in Marijampole, South West Lithuania, where an old-fashioned hand-dryer caught fire in the canteen, which scared the cleaner stiff. The explosion was really huge, leaving the wall covered with char plastic up to the ceiling. Fortunately, no one was injured.

Pascal Rousseau: Kaleidoscope is more related to movement, energy and change rather than radical reform. Kaleidoscope is a an entropic metaphor rather than an instrument of revolution even if it introduces a radical system of permutation: the impossibility of reproducing the same exact pattern that authorizes the idea of a permanent open system of morphogenesis and representation.

Raimundas: What’s the history of kaleidoscope?

Pascal Rousseau: Kaleidoscope is a child of Enlightenment. Richard Bradley in 1724 constructed a tool with two mirrors in order to rationalize the process of developing ornaments of gardens. He wanted to publish a book about all kinds of possibilities of garden decoration. The mirrors would help him to multiply the ornament patterns. So the first emergence of kaleidoscope is based on the idea of multiplication, rationalization and territorialisation of work. But the first appearance of the actual word and the tool is one century later.  It was invented by David Brewster, a scientific involved in optics, who was a friend of the romantic painter Turner but also of Charles Babbage, the developer of the “Analytical Engine” the history of technology records as the very  “first computer”. So, Kaleidoscope is both contemporary to dissolution of forms in systems of representation (Turner) and rationalized calculation in systems of economy (Babbage); it is not a coincidence. It’s made as a magical tool, but it is thought out as a model to economise energy: How you can create infinity of possibilities using only a few triangular mirrors? Then there’s a more metaphysical idea in it that is an idea of Infinity. In the same year when Richard Bradley had discovered a system of multiplying ornament Louis-Bertrand Castel, a Jesuit who was influenced by Newton published a very important text on optics. In this Traité d’Optique, he claimed that due to its static nature painting is not a good medium to capture Infinity. So he presented a new instrument, the “Ocular Harpsichord”for what he names poetically “music for the eyes”, an instrument which was designated to produce abstract patterns of various colors in movement. According to him, Humans had to develop a special sentiment and need for Infinity. So his “clavecin oculaire” (“Ocular Harpsichord”) which to me functions as another kind of kaleidoscope was thought out as a tool to maintain a closer relationship with God. In that sense our kaleidoscope is a hybrid of more rational approach with its imperative to reduce, economise, control and produce as well as a more mystic quest for cosmogonic infinity. So in a way it’s a revolutionary ideology – on one hand you have to reorganize your reality according to the laws of rationality and at the same time to produce ecstasy of being in communion with God, Infinity or…

Raimundas: … future

Pascal: One of the most pertinent people who conceptualized the idea of optical change as well as Revolution was Charles Fourier, a mystic and illuminist pioneer of socialism. He was obsessed with a paradigm of change, he even “patented” a philosophic and political concept called “La Papillone”, the butterfly system. This system for him meant a “distributed passion” that would produce a better community of people. According to him change was a basic (the more natural) element in the production of this community which could be preserved only by a permanent change. In terms of social relationships and contracts, that’s his idea of polygamy for example. But also, you have to change your environment, chairs you are sitting on, etc.

Raimundas: So the change is infinite?

Pascal: Yes, you have always in background the idea of extatic demultiplication. For example, Father Castel wanted to produce more 200 000 harpsichords, one for each house. He wanted every person of Paris to have an instrument at home.

Raimundas: And to become better through exploring their creativity? I can see that Infinity and Utopia are very closely related. In this sense kaleidoscope functions as a miniature of Infinity, isn’t it?

Pascal: Yes, Kaleidoscope is a miniature of Cosmos. So that, it’s the perfect visual metaphor of the classic Harmony of the Spheres, where micro and macro-cosmos are intimately closed, ordered by the same laws. Kaleidoscope is a child of the Pythagorean tradition : figures are creating poetics and mystic analogy. In that sense, there’s definitely a link between revolution and kaleidoscope that is supposed to produce a sensual ecstasy permeating a social community. For Fourier it was a Social Revolution; for Castel, a more Religious Experience of Sociality. We observe this same and mixed utopia in the avant-garde spirit, especially in the first steps of abstraction where chromatic laws are obviously symbols of social unity. All of the pioneers of color abstraction (Kandinsky, Mondrian, Kupka, etc..), obsessed by a model of universal vibration, thought that Humans have to develop their sense of colors in order to discover the original language, the adamique idioms of the perfect community. It’s an Esperanto Project, where the new vocabulary would be colors and not letters, erasing the convention of alphabet with its culture of racial and national differences that produce misunderstandings, conflicts and wars. In that sense, kaleidoscope would have been a tool of a new common sense, the sensus communis creating a new mankind. The New Age counterculture would remind this during the 60’s, in the kaleidoscopic Domes of the Trip Festivals.

CLIFFORD IRVING SHOW

ONE-NIGHT-ONLY

Thursday, June 18, 2009
7:30pm at Ciné 13
1 ave Junot – 75018 Paris

Attended by Ayreen Anastas, Rachelle Bonders, Goda Budvytytè, Geoffrey Carey, Alex Cecchetti, Audrey Cottin, Gintaras Didziapetris, Mai Abu Eldahab, Aurélien Froment, Rene Gabri, Dora Garcia, Mark Geffriaud, Morten Norbye Halvorsen, William Holden, Will Holder, Byung Chul Kim, Gabriel Lester, Kobe Matthys, Nicholas Matranga & Francesca Bennett, Olga, Alain Rondest, Benoit Rosemont, Ellen LeBlond Schrader, Benjamin Seror,
Snowden Snowden, Lee Welch

Curated by Raimundas Malasauskas

Reservations:
cine13theatre@wanadoo.fr
01 42 54 15 12
Price: 7 Euros
www.cine13-theatre.com

“Where do authors go when characters interrupt the story?” is the inscription at the heart of the Clifford Irving Show taking place at Cine 13, the renowned Paris theater in Montmartre, on the occasion of the second edition of Irving’s autobiography. The one-night-only live variety show is dedicated to the arts’ involvement in life-writing at large and will star a variety of stories, performances, characters and audiences. Conceived as a space of shaken expectations and dramatically-treated expertise, it will be an adventure for both characters and authors. Rather than focusing on a singular figure of the eponymous writer, Clifford Irving Show will illuminate possibilities of collective subjectivity lying in The Autobiography of Any One Being Including Every One Before, a new story that has recently written itself.

Since the publication of his Autobiography of Howard Hughes in 1972, Clifford Irving’s life has been nothing but adventure. That book was an unauthorized biography of the eccentric aviator and film director Howard Hughes (1905-1976), an American tycoon billionaire who died in 1976, after living in reclusion the last years of his life. The autobiography, a creative concoction of Clifford Irving and his conspirator Dick Suskind, caused a scandal when the reclusive Hughes declared it a hoax, leading to the imprisonment of the authors. The magic of ghost-writing was interrupted, but nevertheless kept life-writing intact: Clifford Irving has written several books since and was played by Richard Gere in The Hoax (2007). According to Gere, what Clifford Irving did to Hughes was an artwork.

“Not every part of an adventure is fun, but on the whole it’s a lot more life-affirming than sitting on your ass at a desk stringing words together,” admitted Clifford Irving in a recent interview to Paul Maliszewski. When asked about motives to “fake” the autobiography of Hughes the writer responded somewhat agnostically, “You may look for motive in an act, but only after the act has been committed. Any further answer concerning motive would be faked by me.”

Fakes. Impostures. Hoaxes. Illusion of expertise. Magic. Value of art. Doubles. Re-makings. Multiple narratives. These are also the subjects of Orson Welles‘ 1974 film F for Fake, partially based on the footage by French documentary filmmaker Francois Reichenbach, which is accompanied by Michel Legrand’s tune. Whether Clifford Irving plays himself in the film or not remains a question. Last year it was partially answered during in the launch of Phantom Rosebuds, a new Clifford Irving autobiography, published by Dexter Sinister. Titled Clifford Irving Show the event took place on the roof of the Museum of Jurassic Technology in L.A and New Langtons art space
in San Francisco.

When suddenly and unexpectedly clouds of hellium baloons, carried by two San Francisco architects, arrived on stage at New Langtons—leaving the audience, MC Gabriel Lester and magician Michael Stroud dazzled—the story got interrupted, but certainly precluded the upcoming one in Paris. Starring the same MC, yet drawing on the stage acts of new guests, it will inevitably entertain further questions like “Does it necessarily mean that when characters interrupt the story they start playing themselves? ” Or “Do we always arrive at Clifford Irving Show when we leap beyond the dichotomy of fake
and authentic?”

Like the inscription of the new autobiography (published by Dexter Sinister again) coming true: “Dedicated to everyone from whom I have learned.”

Organised by Kadist Art Foundation, Paris and Objectif Exhibitions, Antwerp

Supported by Culture Ireland

ONE-NIGHT-ONLY IN FRENCH AND ENGLISH

Phantom Rosebuds
by Clifford Irving

A Book Launch and Cocktail Party
Featuring art/stage acts by Mario Garcia Torres, Kevin Killian, Amy Robinson, Nicholas Matranga, Morten Norbye Halvorsen and more

May 10, 2008, 7-10pm

The Prince
3198 W. 7th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90005

‘Phantom Rosebuds’ is a brand new autobiography of Clifford Irving, a controversial writer, lover, prisoner and film character. His ‘signature’ book* chronicles a subjective trawl through a notorious history – from his early years as a creative writing teacher, through the Howard Hughes scandal, right up to the moment of the author’s appearance in his own narrative. A considerable section of the story is dedicated to Clifford Irving’s role in ‘F for Fake,’ the 1972 film by Orson Welles about illusion, techniques of conviction and speculative value of art.

‘Why is Clifford Irving smiling?’ asks Orson Welles – rhetorically – in ‘F for Fake’?

‘I must believe that art itself is real,’ comes his answer.

Mario Garcia Torres, Kevin Killian, Amy Robinson, Nicholas Matranga and Morten Norbye Halvorsen will join the night of reading of ‘Phantom Rosebuds’ with highly engineered and dispersed artistic responses to the autobiography of Clifford Irving and, inevitably, ‘F for Fake.’ Their gestures will be directed towards fast and untranslatable connections between the event, the book and the story that may shift or evaporate at any given moment. The audience is invited to join a volatile mixture of sounds, colors and ideas that will create the cocktail of the night including questions asked before. Has our relationship to subjectivity, identity and self changed since 1972? Are we authoring our life collectively now? Is there more freedom to be someone else than a mere reason for it? Do memories always get created backwards? Will something incredible happen when everything is credible?

Neither a straightforward performance nor an adaptation of the book, the launch of ‘Phantom Rosebuds’ takes place in the cinematic Windsorian restaurant The Prince, one of the most highly acclaimed time-machines of LA – it can teleport no more than 50 people at a time, so early arrival is recommended. The Prince will play a perfect backdrop for the event, yet will be be replayed online www.rye.tw as its active character before the event has even finished.

A Q & A session and book signing will follow. A sound of ‘Orson’s theme’ by Michel Legrand may be audible in the background. Prince Cast Generator may alter it irreversibly together with extracts of the remains ‘1999’ song by Prince.

A conversation on the rooftop of Museum of Jurassic Technology will preceed the event on May 9, 2008 at 7pm.
Museum of Jurassic Technology, 9341 Venice Boulevard, Culver City, CA  90232

‘Phantom Rosebuds’ is produced under the auspices of Dexter Sinister and published in conjunction with ART2102 in Los Angeles and New Langton Arts in San Francisco as as part of ‘F for Park’, a project in search of a parallel science of beats and concepts. Two weeks ago ‘Phantom Rosebuds’ was presented in ‘Clifford Irving Show’ in New Langton Arts in San Francisco where it was described as a ‘variety show of conceptual origin.’ The dynamic Q & A session that followed left many questions intricately dissected.

* In the book trade, a ‘signature’ is the name of a single folded-down sheet of printed paper usually bound with other signatures and cut to form pages, usually in denominations of 8. The version of ‘Phantom Rosebuds’ being launched in Los Angeles will take the form of ‘advance signatures’: the autobiography will be produced in an edition of 500 on a Dutch stencil printing machine. Then, a couple of months later the same piece will form the heart of the 16th issue of Dot Dot Dot, the biannual journal also published by Dexter Sinister and guest-co-edited by Raimundas Malasauskas. The rest of the issue will follow the themes which dominate both ‘Phantom Rosebuds’ and Orson Welles’ ‘F for Fake’: mirroring, shadowing, gaps, parallels, and practical time travel. Together with ‘Phantom Rosebuds’ it will return to Los Angeles as a different version of itself.

This event is made possible in part by the generous support of the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Office for Contemporary Art Norway, the Department of Cultural Affairs Los Angeles and in conjunction with New Langton Arts San Francisco.

For more information, please visit www.art2102.org.

Download PDF