The Radicant Response 1.

1. I'd like to respond to Bourriaud's reference to Google Earth. I've recently used this internet program and was incredibly surprised to see how much we can actually see (I'm referring to its recent update of satellite images of Haiti). I think that Bourriaud responded to this phenomenon as a reference to the world as being available.

"...Thus, satellite images have made it possible to fill in the last empty spaces on the map of the world; there are no longer any unknown lands. We are living in the era of Google Earth, which allows us to zoom in on any point of the on the planet from our computers. Across this divided-up planet, a globalized cultural stratum is developing with stunning rapidity, nourished by the Internet and the networking of major media outlets..."

I think he is slightly touching upon the idea of publicity and privacy within our planet, but I don't think he reaches this side of the argument thoroughly. I think there is more to say about the idea of intrusiveness and privacy that is at stake with this program and the internet in general.

2. Bourriaud raises the question...

"... Can we achieve a position in which we would no longer be dependent on the cultural determinisms, the visual and mental reflexes of the social group in which we were born, the forms and ways of life that are etched in our memories?.."

I think that as much as the internet has given us the ability to delete items, move them, link them, hyperlink them, save them in files far far away never to be seen again, there is no way to remove items from the history book of reality. In reality, there will always be the existence of our culture, our origins and our beginnings. As much as someone would like to delete them and act like they do not exist and do not connect to their current reality; there will always be a presence of the past. It is up to the individual to filter out its presence in the future.

I think that there is something to say about 'Cultural determinisms'. Their existence are flexible as long as the viewer is flexible. It is in the eyes of the viewer to make these determinisms.

3. I'm trying to grasp the idea of a monoculture: the what, when, where, why and how?

I can see this happening through the broadness of the internet world, travel and nomadic lifestyles that Bourriaud touches upon. However; there will always be the historical origins of place. Each place in the world is different. It is the differences that makes life interesting and it is the differences that keep cultures distinguished from one another.

4. I think that the point Bourriaud makes on page 74 about creolization in the work of Mike Kelley is a strong one. He defines the experience of multiple cultures, objects, and traditions as combining into an "urban archipelago". This place is communication of a journey that does not define its parts as being major or minor or at all in comparison to the "classical Western culture". There is no dominating factor; rather a globalization and creolization of different islands, all equal in production.

5. If you break down creolization into very simple terms, it can be as easy to understand as basic arithmetic.

x+y=z

Two separate parts with totally different meanings, combining together, and forming a new whole. The formation of an original part (x) was created by two or more other parts combining to create it. This is the same for cultures. There are many factors that make up a culture and many cultures that make up areas of "creolization" or what Mark Auge calls "non-places". I disagree; these are places. They are just new places made from hybridization of other places.

No matter how many combinations of cultures there are, always there will be the original part that make them up.

I've previously posted a piece created by David Adjaye for the 2008 Manifesta 7 at the European Biennial called "Europolis" in which artist and architect, Adjaye gathered information from history regarding the planning of the major cities in Europe. He combined all of these parts into one enormous whole and created a new city: Europolis. This is a clear example of multiple parts combining to create a new whole; however, those separate parts still exist on their own.