This negativity, this rebellion, was a primary ingredient of the
experimental cinema as practiced by artists such as Paul Sharits, Ken
Jacobs, George Landow, Hollis Frampton, Michael Snow, and others. NOT
entertainment, NOT storytelling, NOT psychological identification, NOT
commercial, NOT meant to please the audience, NOT concerned about being
understood, NOT intended for good reviews by mainstream critics,
Regina Cornwell wrote, in her Discourse magazine article of Spring 1992, "Touching the Body in the Mind, "Efficiency, simplicity, logic, clarity aimed at the end user rule the making of interactive systems in the corporate, military, consumer, and pedagogical sectors. Interactivity has been heralded as the bearer of 'choice'. Such 'choice' is made possible through tailored menus listing sales options for the buyer or a selection of maps for the visitor, or a chart of "how to" for a trainee, where butt on-pushing is the norm, aiming toward the swiftest way to accomplish a required goal. But artists need not answer to these concerns in their work. And it is the hardware and software conceived with these requirements in mind which can create stumbling b locks and limiting factors, which artists seek to bypass."
This is a territory I have explored in my work for a long time - the area where cultural fragments are redirected into collision courses in order to precipitate new meanings, and a foregrounding of the process in which we become aware that we are actively giving meaning to what we see and hear.. Like subatomic particles thrown together in an accelerator, their collisions bring new, multivalent meanings to light, only partially under the control of the author. This excerpt from my 1984 work titled "The Do uble" shows this infra-interactive process in action.