> otherwise we put
> ourselves in a blind alley or we become programmers/scientists.
ouch?
I too have been following this discussion and for me personally with
interested bemusement. Yes its Art, I call myself an 'artist' but the
craft of my art is very firmly technological, whether this is in c,
c++, digital electronics or flash. I am for wont of a better word, and
amongst other things, a programmer and the intrinsic properties held by
the materials of my craft bear impact on the artwork I produce. Of
course my artistic vision (which incidentally does come first) is
mediated and effected by the technological structures that I carefully
select to maximise my intent. Would the concern exist If I said the
same thing as a user of paint or glass, I wonder?
Yes lets separate between Art and the Craft of its production, but the
two are symbiotic are they not. Especially in some forms of technology
based art.
Maybe a more eloquent member of this list can guide me out of my fuddle.
Steve
On Thursday, September 9, 2004, at 05:27 AM, Ivan Pope wrote:
> Lars Gustav Midboe said:
>> When people are starting to
>> talk about Derrida and others it seems like a desperate
>> attempt to "hook up" with the things that are already
>> accepted. If you follow this process you will end up in a
>> dusty and boring place. Please dare to have your own thoughts
>> and opinions. Go and see new art instead of dissecting "old-
>> new media art". Put together some new exhibitions and meet
>> and discuss.
>>
>> In the end it all
>> boils down to a three letter word that don't spell money - ART.
>>
>
> Michael Day said:
>> 'New media art' creates new meanings, contexts and modes of
>> delivery, and whether we choose to define this stuff as
>> 'interactive art' or just plain 'art', it's still just that-art.
>
> If it is art, then it has a history and a place in the scheme of
> things that
> we can examine and build on.
> If we make art with technology, we should focus on the ART side of the
> equation more than on the Technology side of the equation, otherwise
> we put
> ourselves in a blind alley or we become programmers/scientists.
> However, there are some specific issues that need to be dealt with
> when we
> discuss and think about ART with TECHNOLOGY. We don't have to define
> what
> this art is, but we know it is separate from, say, painting.
> It would be interesting to, say, find a painting and a piece of 'new
> media'
> art that addressed the same issue, and show them in the same space.
> Maybe a
> painting that addresses painting and a new media work that addresses
> painting. Or a painting that addresses technology and a new media work
> that
> addresses technology. Or a painting that addresses love and a new
> media work
> that addresses love. (This is rhetorical, I'm not really suggesting
> it).
> Then we might see how to separate the art and the media/technology.
> Then we
> might see that sometimes we want to talk about art and sometimes we
> want to
> talk about how technology enables us to make art and sometimes we
> might even
> want to talk about technology. (I use the word technology to encompass
> a
> whole host of things, obviously).
> Cheers,
> Ivan
>
|