Hannah, thanks for pulling together several interesting threads and  
themes. Personally I think art has become boring and media is  
becoming much more interesting rather than the other way around. Part  
of this is due to the fractured/distributed nature of our  
relationships to media and I think it revolves around the questions  
you pose. Is it possible to give "meaningful experiences of the  
technology that go beyond the experience they can have at home/ITRW"?

Well, it depends on what you call a meaningful experience and this is  
where I think the art world often misses the central notions of  
emerging technologies and cultures. Meaningful experiences in these  
emerging online cultures (and offline too) tend to be very much niche  
and personal and are reinforced by others connecting to you who share  
the same niche interest. I think we are moving from (or have moved  
from) scenarios where meaningful experiences are 'given' by artists/ 
curators/galleries, etc. to one in which they are found and exposed  
by the participants of a larger scheme. This would reflect the  
similar shifts in other media forms (particularly broadcast media)  
from the top-down hegemony to the more scattered, personal media  
spaces we now see thriving. The 100 million YouTube videos served  
each day are meaningful to someone as is (probably more so) the act  
of uploading them (65,000 of them per day).

To be true to the technology of videogames, for example, you're  
better off watching your kids in the living room (or better,  
observing them when they are alone without any parents there) playing  
than installing them in an exhibition. As you say, it is happening  
out there on the street anyway and that's probably where it should  
remain happening. The danger with curating it in any way is that  
these exciting, living spaces/places/styles/forms become specimens  
under a glass case.

I'm sure others will have many ripostes to this and/or articulate  
these ideas in more sophisticated forms, but those are my tuppences/ 
cents/euros.

Andy (Polaine)



On 6 Dec 2006, at 16:48, Sarah Cook wrote:

> forwarded...
>
> Hello list, Hannah here
>
> I like the phrase - 'truth to technology' it's so slippery!  It
> immediately makes me think of modernist architecture's commitment to
> 'truth to materials'. But digital media are a whole different  
> kettle of
> fish. How can you be true to media whose very nature is fluid
> impermanence, and whose strongest quality is its ability to shift
> between forms, meanings & playback devices? Digital media are  
> fickle and
> promiscuous. If Modernism gave us form following function, digital  
> media
> give us layering, simulation and convergence of forms.  However I'm  
> not
> quite sure if it is truth to technology we're really being asked to
> comment on.
>
> The questions are quite tightly packed.  There are lots of answers to
> "should we be more true to technology, and less concerned with  
> trying to
> shoehorn it into conventional galleries?   and "is 'public art'  
> then the
> way forward?" depending on the ways in which you are working with
> technology, and to what end. It also depends on which era you're  
> working
> with.
>
> Currently, after many years of working on large-scale building  
> projects
> bringing together art, architecture, design and technology for various
> audiences, I'm now involved in developing new projects with artists at
> the Science Museum that review the way the Museum communicates digital
> technology. These will involve moving from previous (science)
> interpretations that privileged informative explanations of
> functionality, to artists' projects concentrating on social  
> applications
> and implications. The questions this raises are really pertinent to  
> the
> 'shoehorning' and 'public art' parts of the question.
>
> I want to find a way of working with the current shift from  
> interactive
> installation to participatory, process-led projects, DIY culture, or
> what have you, which I perceive as being strongly influenced by new
> developments in networking technologies, community arts practice  
> and an
> apparent general cultural obsession with personalised experience and
> personalisation.
>
> Harking back to the question of "is public art the way forward", the
> questions I am currently asking myself include:
>  - is it possible to give people meaningful experiences of the
> technology that go beyond the experience they can have at home/ITRW?
> - is it possible to bring the intimacy of small artist led workshops
> into a major venue?
> - if it is possible to bring artist led workshops into a venue without
> undermining conceptual and intellectual intentions, how on earth would
> like content with the weight of health and safety, public liability,
> public indemnity legislations etc I am bound to work within?
> (I always find a way)
>
> It's easy to just say don't bother.  It's happening out there on the
> street anyway.  But it's either happening as art on quite a small  
> scale
> within quite niche groups, or it's happening as reasonably  
> unchallenged
> (in a critical sense) popular culture. So I see a role for  
> galleries and
> museums in being places where the questions artists are asking, and  
> the
> processes artists are developing, can be disseminated amongst bigger
> groups of people and tested and expanded in the process.
>
> I don't actually see this as a technical problem, or a problem of  
> truth
> to technology.  Yes, there is the irritation of big institutions'
> reticence to allow open networks, but there are ways and means of
> overcoming that including organising a dedicated network.  For me  
> it's a
> facilitating, interfacing and communicating issue. As well as
> interprative. Can the everyday experience people are having with
> distributed and networked technologies be achieved, enhanced,  
> 'elevated'
> even by being presented within gallery environments?  What happens  
> when
> social interplay becomes directed - does it heighten opportunities for
> creative involvement or do we end up over-regulated, over- 
> legislated and
> over-played?  We don't really know.
>
> There will be questions around sharing of technical skills inherent in
> the solution, but really it's a matter of finding the right methods to
> make the right investigations with the right people at the right time.
> My dream would be to have a lab style space, staffed by artists,
> scienctists, science communicators and artist engineers, on a gallery,
> which groups can book slots with but passing visitors can also drop in
> on. That would represent a fundamental change in presentation and
> function of the Museum.  But it is in fact indicative of key  
> directions
> many museums are taking.  And in fact the Science Museum supports the
> principle but doesn't have the resources to support its delivery.
>
> So I'm planning a series of pilot projects with booked groups and  
> artist
> engineers, led by an overseeing community artist.  It will be
> interesting to see how they work out. I've seen some beautiful  
> examples
> of drop-in workshops at festivals, andI'd be really interested to hear
> from anybody who's been involved in these and particularly in  
> upscaling
> their workshops in large or more public environments.
>
> p.s.  Here's a provocation - word on the street seems to be that  
> amongst
> our esteemed colleagues 'media' has been described as boring and we
> should now just be settling in as 'art'. Does this represent the
> ubiquitousness of technology finally bedding in to all art contexts or
> is it a slippery slide away from traditional media art ideologies?
>
> I think the above is probably my most useful offer to be questions,  
> but
> I will add that in relation to early Media Art and Software Art, I  
> think
> there are different more conservation-based responses to Beryl's
> questions, which I'm not sure are as relevant.  Anyway here's my
> tuppence worth if you care to read it:
>
> 'Media art installation' of the 1980s and '90s didn't appear to  
> have any
> problem fitting into galleries, practically speaking. That it never
> found a comfortable place in dedicated art spaces - or mainstream
> discourses - is another matter, which I think is changing slowly (see
> above). But actually it was fairly easy to display. You did need good
> technical support for the practical bits and I think it mattered as a
> curator to have an understanding of the fundamental principles of
> software and hardware in order to interpret a lot of the concepts.  
> This
> was before people started speaking of 'Software Art' as a distinct
> sector of 'media' or 'interactive art' mainly perhaps because  
> people who
> couldn't code or weren't working with coders weren't making work that
> called itself media art??
>
> Paradoxically now that I think early works are slowly becoming
> recognised in wider contexts intellectually, those works, as has been
> extensively discussed, are at risk owing to obsoletions, redundancy  
> and
> upgrading of their technological components. Again as these works come
> round to being exhibited, an understanding of the significance of each
> component, be it software, hardware or playback system/delivery  
> device,
> is important.  But any curator who doesn't have that for herself will
> probably find that knowledge with the artist and/or specialist
> technicians. I am hoping to redisplay works I purchased for the  
> Science
> Museum in 2000 in a series of temporary exhibitions. This is involving
> one-to-one discussions with the artists about what can be upgraded,
> reformatted or  emulated.
>
> I'm afraid I don't have any blanket answers! but Daniel Langlois
> Foundation, John Ippolito and the Variable Media Network as well  
> asTate
> Modern are all doing interesting research. Actually if there's anyone
> involved in the Variable Media Questionnaire reading this, it would be
> great if you could contribute an update of how that project's going?
>
> Thanks very much
>
> Hannah (Redler)