> ...... in a final parentheses:
> (there have to be found/realized ways to present these different aspects
> by
> showing 'net-art', i prefer to say i-art, in public places -
> environments
> where the visitor is stimulated (or at least gets the chance) to
> experience
> the quality of the pieces).
>
> and I ask in response, how is the museum different from a public place
> in the sense meant here?
do you really ask this? ;)
i prefer to look at museums as public places.
(most appreciated when there is no entry fee)
but there is still a difference.
museums are in some kind secure places for art
in the meaning that visitors does focus on art (want to look at art).
i remember a comment of Bill Viola, who was happy to exhibit beside the
Museum of Modern Art in Frankfurt in the stock exchange and in a church in
the city (but esp. the church was presented as part of the museum - not used
in a common way before and during the exhibition).
(you can reach (or reach not) other people than art enthusiasts outside the
museum.)
> Does the museum prohibit stimulated
> interaction, and if so, why?
i am looking at net-art.
here the museum does not prohibit stimuli by itself/a priori (as an
institution or place to present art).
and i think (i havn't seen it until now) that 'other' ways have to be found
to 'show' - something like this lind of art.
the habit of seeing/perceiving is different in net-art
than in recepting ie a painting or a video or even an interactive (video)
installation. you know the comparison of net-art(poetry/lit) to a book.
net-art(......) is not a book but the kind of perception has simularities.
i remember an installation (by Goertz) where the visitor has to sit down
an read in papers - noone has done it beside me in the time i rested there.
active handling with an art piece is not a common habit (sometimes
installation - and here museums do prohibit art reception - are only
viewable behind a border - ie some Rauschenberg and Kienholz installations,
i have seen --- but i understand the argument that you have to take care
of your 100.000$ investation:).
as i mentioned in my former posting there is not only a lack in handling
net-art by the visitor but also net-art does loose some of his impact -
i.e. its intimacy (because many pieces are created for a 'private'
experience.
you have to credit these points when presenting such kind of art in a museum
- ie by creating intimate places beside big presentation. - might be for a
museum there has to created i-art of his own or combinational works
which stimulate the visitor to experience the pieces - and they will get
another piece, too.
> does the i in "i-art" stand for intimacy
> rather than internet or interactive??
i prefer 'open' notions.
i-art at first appeared at internet-art.
yes, than inter_active art [all art has to be inter_active to communicate
with the recipient).
(i like this because you can leave the net without the fear to loose the
art:)
i - for me is even more
it's the 'i' - "be personal become global - be global become personal"
i - is intimacy
i - intriguing (intri_di_guance)
i - irritating
i - ....
i
i
i
i
i
best
Reiner
:::::::::::::::::
|