Hi,
I'd like to respond to a number of points that have been raised
regarding the rise of the artist-curator, the artist in relation to the
programmer, and the challenge of 'data art'.
Robert Labossiere's suggests that one of the reasons 'why
programmers might be priviledged over artists [...] is [...] nostalgia for
the idea of a connection between artist and medium ...pushing pixels
the way artists used to push paint'.
I think this is a really interesting point. And perhaps its not only a
nostalgia for a connection between artist and medium, but nostalgia
for notions of creativity that promote the myth of individual (usually)
male genius.
Jon Thomson suggested in response to the another part of Robert's
post that perhaps
> >'the rise of the Artist-Curator is in part a consequence of (in this
>>instance) [Robert's] suggestion >that, "'the programmer,' compared
>>to 'the artist,' is a kind of anti >hero.." and that artists, "perform more
>>and more like designers and project managers."
So, if artists are 'performing more like designers and project
managers, and programmers are fulfilling our dreams of what it
means to be creative, where is our understanding of 'art' in all this?
Are 'artists' producing 'artworks' any more? Are curators curating
artworks anymore? Does it matter anymore?
To me, it matters enormously - but what I value in (some)'artwork' isn't
really its use of technology, or demonstration of programming
prowess (interesting as these undoubtedly are). What I value in
(some)'artwork' is its potential to inspire intimate connections of raw
humanness between people: its potential to exist in spaces and time
supplementary to the dominant logic.
I think that the rise of the Artist-Curator is , in part, an attempt to craft
such spaces, frameworks, communities or networks.
Myron Turner's suggests that:
> For me, the real challenge of data art is not about how to map
>some abstract and impersonal data into something meaningful and
>beautiful--economists, graphic designers, and scientists are already
>doing this quite well. The more interesting and at the end maybe
>more important challenge is how to represent the personal
>subjective experience of a person living in a data society".
In many ways I agree. I think we all have a very strong sense of the
extent to which processes of colonisation and commodification are
intensifying in everyday life, and we recognise that technologies are
making these processes more effective and efficient. I think we
recognise the significance that protocols and procedures have at a
technological level, socio-political level and of course, at a cultural
level, in maintaining control within an increasingly decentralised or
distributed system.
I think that perhaps there is a sense that artists and curators and
artists/curators are responding to these conditions by creating
'spaces' , ‘frameworks’ – protocols and procedures - within which
other people (visitors, participants, students) are seemingly free to
‘create’ or carry out other activities – say within an interactive art work,
or an online community, or a education programme.
If when we are making artwork, writing code, curating exhibitions, we
are, in part, creating participatory spaces, then isn’t it critical that we
ask ourselves, and expect others to ask whether our outputs are
reflective of dominant, colonising protocols and procedures, or
whether they are attempting to re-frame colonising protocols in a
supplementary logic?
best wishes
Kate
http://www.gloriousninth.com
|