As an artist who started to work with technology in the 1970ıs I experienced
the criticisms that were directed, at the time, against such work. The
Vietnam war had only just finished and emergent political and social
discourses were having a huge impact on the artists and intellectuals of the
time. To say there was a luddite undercurrent to a lot of this is
understatement. I was thrown out of a commune I was part of because I made a
simple computer and got it to work with our wind driven generator. It was a
paranoid time when association with electricity did you no favours. It was
not until the late 1980ıs that this had turned around sufficiently that you
could ³out² yourself as an artist working with computers.
Regards
Simon
On 23/10/08 16:05, "Caroline LANGILL" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Although there seem to be several threads to this conversation they can be
> connected through broader discussions of exclusion over the course of the
> 20thC. What worked for Twombly may have worked against early new media
> artists. Although curators were willing to accept the monumental and what we
> might perceive as "male" characteristics in his art they were unwilling to
> accept in artists working with technology, which is ironic. The criticism of
> 9 Evenings is a good example of this. The conflation of the machine with the
> "man" in the late 60s did not help artists who were incorporating technology
> into their art.
>
> In my research around early new media in Canada, and in discussions I had
> with curators working in the 70s and 80s, I discovered a perception of new
> media being reduced to "boys with their toys." So, with the rise of feminist
> work this perception was brought into high relief. Thus, the resistance to
> exhibition of the work was doubly manifest. How did women making work with
> technology fare in all this? I would suggest they found themselves caught
> between two opposing forces, which made it difficult for women artists to
> make the decision to enter into the fray. Those who did were rewarded when
> women began to theorize the field and provide some of the most astute
> writing regarding technology and its effects (Haraway, Hayles...). At least
> they found a reflection of themselves in emerging theory.
>
> All this is to say that we need to consider the various actors who were
> involved in exclusions or inclusions, not just the artists but the curators,
> writers, etc. Remember women were working in the museum as curators and
> directors long before they were on the walls (or floors...).
>
> Another quick point - Eric Brown, the first director of the National Gallery
> of Canada (1920s...we are a very young country!), used his Christian
> Scientist beliefs to intentionally exclude any work that related in any way
> to technology - no Futurist or dada work was purchased. This policy was
> upheld by his successor and was more or less the case until the 1960s when
> the policy against buying any American art was also lifted.
>
> Caroline
>
>
>> >From: Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]>
>> >Reply-To: Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]>
>> >To: [log in to unmask]
>> >Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] "the art form lacks ...depth and cultural
>> >agency"
>> >Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:41:05 +0100
>> >
>> >I donıt think Charlie was offering unconditional support for all media art.
>> >I know he has his likes and dislikes, just like anybody. He also has the
>> >right to dish Twombly. Personally I think Twombly is one of the most
>> >compelling of post-war artists but such preferences are a matter of taste
>> >as much as anything else. Some people think Duchamp was just a poseur. I am
>> >not sure what I think of him but he was clearly very clever, whatever he
>> >was. I am in the same quandry about Beuys, even though I know that in the
>> >contemporary neo-conceptual artworld these two guys are held in extremely
>> >high esteem.
>> >
>> >No artist deserves the sort of attention that some artists receive and very
>> >few are so bad they should be treated as poorly as they are. I am acutely
>> >aware of all the young artists I knew when I was young and how few of them
>> >are left standing. I am cogniscant that some of the most talented are no
>> >longer working whilst those who often that had the least talent (but
>> >perhaps
>> >more attitude) are. Some of those that have achieved the greatest fame and
>> >fortune are (in my opinion, but the opinion of somebody who knows the
>> >people
>> >involved) amongst those of the least talent (in fact some know they have no
>> >talent and think itıs a hoot they are now so successful). This isnıt fair
>> >but who expects life to be fair? It is a reflection of how preferences are
>> >a
>> >matter of taste (and therefore fashion) and being in the right place at the
>> >right time (and knowing the right people) is more important than whether
>> >you
>> >are a half decent artist or not.
>> >
>> >Before we note that this is off theme we could turn this line of thinking
>> >to
>> >why men have traditionally had a higher profile in the visual arts than
>> >women? Twombly is a good example here, as his work belongs to the American
>> >heroic tradition that is associated with big things big buildings, big
>> >men, big beards, Hemmingway, big fish and Pollock, etc. However, Twombly is
>> >gay so that sort of throws a spanner in the works. Sexuality and gender are
>> >not so black and white. Nevertheless, amongst many of those young artists I
>> >knew (many years ago) there was roughly a 50/50 male/female gender split.
>> >Amongst those continuing to practise I doubt that would be the case even
>> >though I belong to that generation that saw far more women succeed than was
>> >previously the case. The artworld, the media artworld and the world
>> >generally does have a case to answer on this.
>> >
>> >Regards
>> >
>> >Simon
>> >
>> >
>> >On 23/10/08 14:08, "Josephine Bosma" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >
>>>>> > >> >
>>> > >
>>> > > Talking about perplexing...
>>> > >
>>> > > Are we going to bash each others heads in with artworks we don't
>>> > > like, in order to humiliate this or that art world now? Hope not.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>>>> > >> > of the 'whatever art' and the 'whatever subject'. When I
>>>>> > >> > contemplate this particular piece of new media art - http://
>>>>> > >> > dogsears.ica.org.uk/ - I find your unconditional championing of new
>>>>> > >> > media art even more perplexing, and even begin to sympathise with
>>>>> > >> > Eshun's decision.
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> > J
>>>>> > >> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Simon Biggs
>> >Research Professor
>> >edinburgh college of art
>> >[log in to unmask]
>> >www.eca.ac.uk
>> >www.eca.ac.uk/circle/
>> >
>> >[log in to unmask]
>> >www.littlepig.org.uk
>> >AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk
>> >
>> >
>> >Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number
>> >SC009201
>
>
Simon Biggs
Research Professor
edinburgh college of art
[log in to unmask]
www.eca.ac.uk
www.eca.ac.uk/circle/
[log in to unmask]
www.littlepig.org.uk
AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk
Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201
|