I was not sure just how much this response should be in length and how well laid out… so I just jotted down a couple of ideas/reaction.
The belated response to the Pick and Mix: What is ‘super-hybridity’? and the discussion on ‘super-hybridity’ with Ronald Jones, Nina Power, Seth Price, Sukhdev Sandhu and Hito Steyerl.
Side comment: the first element that raised my negative response was the immediate implication (in Pick and Mix) that cultural tradition always presents oppression for the creativity – not the idea itself as such but, I suppose, the fact that Haiser takes this idea as an axiom. In this I am still with T. S Eliot: “No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning alone. His significance, his appreciation is the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and artists.”
In the discussion itself I tended to agree with Nina Power and Sukhdev Sandhu – or what I understood as their position. In short: I do not see the need to create yet another term for something that seems a natural process of using all available sources of inspiration and media. I cannot see what is so “gracious” about the “search of the hybrid or superhybrid” (Ronald Jones). Why should this search be the aim and not the means? Seth Price refers to this as “the practice of making use of what is at hand”. Even Jorg Heiser expresses a doubt in the need for the new qualifier: “perhaps a better term is simply ‘conceptual’?”
Another argument : “instant access creates pseudo-proximity” (Sukhev Sandhu) can be used, I think, as a contra-argument to the notion that there is no need to understand the cultural origins of your material (Ronald Jones) – the danger of creating an empty “opportunistic assemblage” is too high (bring to mind work of the Thierry Guetta, aka Mr Brainwash).
When reading the discussion, I almost cheered aloud having reached Nina Powell’s entry (mind you, I think, I did cheer). Her criticism of the finacialization of the art-world propelled by “a theory-babble that keeps the market moving,… and money shuffled around”.
I found the discussion interesting (such an insipid word, but I cannot think of another at the moment), despite the fact that I do not think that there is great need to create yet another term (I can understand the need to describe a new type of activity; however, what is implied – as I understand it – by super-hybridity is hardly new).