Hi all

Like Hannah I find the theme of “truth to technology” provocative. On 
one hand it suggests a constricting concept of an essential nature, with 
an implied authentic response (which is probably the least useful 
interpretation), on the other it opens up a consideration of the 
specific qualities of computer-based art, and asks how these qualities 
require, and make possible, a transformation in museum and curatorial 
practice.

The starting point for me is the liminal existence of computer-based 
artworks somewhere between object and experience. Their technological 
basis leads to time-based and process oriented characteristics which 
often make audience experience the content, location and driving force 
of the work. As such “truth” to these artefacts implies a commitment to 
what they do “with and in experience” (in the words of John Dewey). The 
question of how museums and galleries can respond to lived-human 
experience, rather than acting as storehouses for objects, pervades 
discussion about the role of cultural institutions. I would argue that 
in computer-based art we have a form that can act as a test-bed and 
model for how this question could play itself out.

So it’s interesting to note, as Beryl has, that rather than opening up 
to the challenges and opportunities of this art-form, most museums and 
galleries have continued to resist it. We discussed this resistance at 
the Engage symposium two weeks ago in Sydney ( 
<http://www.creativityandcognition.com/engage06>), where the central 
topic was interaction and audience experience. Maybe some of the people 
who were at Engage, and others on the list, would like to pick up this 
particular point of why museums and galleries resist computer-based art, 
before we get on to the next questions of whether science museums, 
libraries or public spaces make better homes for it. Theories amongst 
Engage delegates ranged from the cartesian preference within museum 
culture for minds over bodies, which sees interactive physical 
experiences as chaotic and unsophisticated, to the possibility that 
there just isn’t enough good interactive artwork out there deserving 
exhibition.

For the past two years I’ve been developing an experimental approach to 
working with audience experience in a museum context through a public 
prototyping environment called Beta_space at the Powerhouse Museum in 
Sydney. Perhaps the key point of this initiative from the perspective of 
this discussion topic is that it draws on tools and techniques from the 
field of Interaction Design – i.e. methodologies of making which 
particularly relate to human-computer interaction. Maybe we can pick up 
on this, and other curatorial strategies for capitalising on the 
qualities of computer-based art as the discussion progresses. In the 
meantime – there’s more info here: <http://www.betaspace.net.au/>, and 
an article on public prototyping of interactive art in this month’s 
issue of RealTime magazine: http://www.realtimearts.net

Thanks,
Lizzie