Brian Fuata's keynote apparition for anti art festival was a live streamed visceral experience
Brian Fuata's keynote apparition for anti art festival was a live streamed visceral experience . . . . The light-skinned, blond-haired male artist, who has exhibited extensively in Europe and the United States, was flanked by a woman, who danced with him and, through a video projection, performed a number of activities. The two were joined by a woman in a wheelchair, who played the role of the viewer. From the wheelchair she could watch a videotape of the artists movements and reactions, which she then translated into a series of actions. The videotape was accompanied by a string of digital photos, showing the two in various states of undress. The figures of the artists, who had been inserted into the nude models bodies, were also drawn in a series of acrylics on canvas. The figures, who wore the same clothes as the artists, were shown to have different sexual orientations. As in the video, the images were presented as a series of paintings, which the artist had used as a series of mirrors to reflect the three-dimensional figure of the female artist in her own studio. The artists themselves were seen as projection screens of the projection of the image of the artist in the studio.The exhibition was divided into three groups of works, each with a single, almost unpronounceable title: The Slit, The Closed, and The Closed (all works 2005). The Slit, for example, was a series of two-inch slits in which the white light of the studio was visible. The works were hung on the walls, one facing the gallery entrance, the other on the back wall of the gallery. The two halves of the slit were closed, and the slits were open, allowing the viewer to see the white light. The Slit was a moving image, and it was accompanied by a sound track of the artists movements. The closed slits were also on display, and their backs were covered by a white cloth.
Brian Fuata's keynote apparition for anti art festival was a live streamed visceral experience . . . and the artist himself, who gave the show its title, was a kind of ghost, a ghost of a body. . . . A strange and no doubt very seductive presence, a man with a human body, Fuata's body, which is actually a reflection of the artist's own body. The work's title, Uomo molti e/o uno di cose (I am as light as a candle), is a reference to a poem by Federico Lopez that reads, o uomo molti eo uno di cose: o cosa per una mia volta (I am as light as a candle). In the poem, the words are rendered as a candle; the artist's body is a candle, and he is a candle. In this performance, Fuata's body, a candle, became the body of a candle. The candle's light shone through the skin of the body and lit up the face. In this way, Fuata's body became a candle, a candle, a light that invited us to recognize ourselves as the candle's bearer.This performance was reminiscent of an ancient Greek myth in which a soul was separated from the body by a membrane separating the two. The body was separated from the body by a membrane, a gap between the two, which Fuata's body entered. This is what happened in the film's finale, where the body's skin became a skin, a skin that was very beautiful. It was beautiful in the way that it was a skin. In the final scene of the film, the body's skin was gone, leaving only a shadow that hung on the wall. The body was dead, a corpse, and the moon reflected on the body's skin. The moon was a dark shadow, and it seemed to hover in the darkness, like a ghost. The body's corpse, like a corpse, was an object of desire.
. . . a virtual filmic climax, as well as a literal one, in which an eroticized and sexually gendered victim of male aggression came alive as a social-media avatar. But the concept of virtual being was also a means of subverting the assumptions and expectations of the participants in the virtual world of the art world. The artists' statement accompanying the performance called for the shedding of the veil of the self, for the disclosure of the secret of who we really are, and the artists themselves shed the veil, revealing the identities of the people who inhabit the fictive space of the virtual world.The last piece, a video installation in the gallerys back room, was a kind of final farewell to the artists. The exhibition was an immense, empty memorial to the artists, who had made an unforeseeable commitment to the idea of virtual intimacy. The final work is a tribute to the artists as individuals, who have lost the power to change the world. The video, however, is a tribute to an anonymous group of people whose identities remain hidden and whose actions remain not traceable. They are the anonymous victims of male aggression. They live in a virtual world where they can be reduced to the status of victims of aggression. They are an endangered species. The video ends with the artists' statement, The artist is the one who has the power to change the world, and thus to make the world change for the better.
Brian Fuata's keynote apparition for anti art festival was a live streamed visceral experience . . . in which the artist/institute was able to interact with a real-life, body-part-like, living-room-size creature. He was a cyborg, a soldier, a monster, a rat, a rat, a space traveler, and a cannibal, and the whole of this information was transmitted via an interactive voice-over to a computer-generated image of a living-room wall that ran through the gallery. The voice-over read in part: This is the world as it is and as you like it. You like it, you are part of it, and you are part of it. It is a world that has lost its power and meaning. It is a world that is a world of symbols and has lost its identity. We are living in a world where symbols no longer communicate and where nothing is really known, where everything is a mystery. This is a world where the past is dead, and where, like the body in the flesh, it is a living corpse.Taken as a whole, the experience was like a live-streaming session with a robot. The human body, in the process of being evolved into a cybernetic appendage, became a virtual screen on which the artist was able to display his own body parts, and where he could talk about his work, as well as live the death of his father. The resulting emotional distance between the artist and the audience was enhanced by the fact that the body itself, which is a purely digital composite, has been rendered invisible.The exhibition thus became a microcosm of the human condition, a space of communication and confrontation between the artist and the viewer. This was a work of art, but not a message. This is the first time that the work has been performed live. This is also the first time that art has been used as a vehicle for an end of life message.
Brian Fuata's keynote apparition for anti art festival was a live streamed visceral experience , 2007, a virtual reality video installation of images, sounds, and voices that simultaneously evoke the real and the virtual. This work is a commentary on the history of art and technology, and on the current state of communication and information production in the digital age.Fuata has previously performed live in the gallery. His 2008 installation at the British Museum of Contemporary Art in London was a video projection that analyzed the relationship between human and machine, using the motion of a hand moving from left to right to right to left to right, as a metaphor for human thought. The work was seen on a monitor placed on the floor, where it appeared to float in the air. A number of small monitors, arranged in a gridlike pattern, were arranged on the floor. Each monitor showed a different image of a hand, as if captured by a camera. The images, taken from digital sources, were then projected onto the floor. These images were then rephotographed. The final result, as the video instructions indicated, was a digital reconstruction of a hand. The video project, which was composed of two parts, was thus a study in the relationship between technology and the human body.The video installation in the gallery, titled Hand, 2008, was a fragment of a series of the same hand projections. The hand was a thin, pale, transparent line that formed a line between the fingers of a hand puppet that was made in collaboration with the artist. The line was projected onto a screen of a chair, with a sheet of glass behind it. The puppet was moving its head back and forth, its hand moving up and down, its fingers tapping on the glass. In the video, the puppets movements were captured on video, as it were. The projection of the projection onto the glass also explained the absence of the projection of the puppets hand.