Hi Sarah,
In response to your homework, it seems that Lev Manovich is keening
for a world which cannot exist. The implication that it is possible
for 'Turing-land' and 'Duchamp-land' to co-exist or converge has got
to be premised by the question of whether it is desirable. At least
whether or not it is any more desirable than the convergence of any
other number of -lands which share our space.
Both represent clubs within the bigger world and people can happily
move between them according to their will. No problem. Where it
becomes problematic is when the clubs have property and status which
is invested in the members. Where this becomes even more problematic
is where the determination of this property and status is part of a
state system (votes/taxes and stuff).
In Levs scenario Duchamp-land holds most of the deeds and Turing-land
is on the streets. This view could be equally be expressed in terms
which favour the alternative ; Duchamp-land is barren, Turing-land is
fertile, but unfulfilled. Why should they want to get together ?
However, the bigger issue is clouded by the notion that artists are
only those who are sanctioned by Duchamp-land. That the inhabitants
of Turing-land are 'computer artists' and the inhabitants of
Duchamp-land are 'artists', whereas they should be 'contemporary art
artists'. I'm sure there's a difference in there.
So the museumification of the inhabitants of Turing-land is about
them emigrating to Duchamp-land in order to share in the lifestyles
of the rich and famous. Good riddance I say. Let's just not make the
mistake of assuming that that is where the meaning lives.
Clive
|