This story surely has several strands and levels. I do not Ohearı ACE
blaming the interactive art, or even the concept behind it, but the
realisation of the project. However, some media reports are blaming the
artworks.
Having been involved in a number of large scale interactive art projects I
still wear the scars from the cuts and bruises suffered when seeking to get
such work up, running and engaged. Some projects were complete successes,
such as the Videofest/Transmedialeıs of the early 1990ıs, when we first
introduced internet-based and CD-ROM art within an exhibition context.
Hungry audiences queued to get in and excellent dedicated technicians and
other members of the curatorial team ensured things ran smoothly.
Others were rather less than successful. The National Museum of Film and
Televisionıs digital galleries, which cost some millions, were initiated
with a clear curatorial vision of how ambitious and experimental new media
art practices might be presented within a broad socio-economic context. This
vision was, over time, Odumbed downı, with issues such as dwell-time and
demographic analysis (assuming a typical audience member would be a 12 year
old ADHD suffering adolescent) given precedence over artistic, critical and
interpretational concerns. These galleries closed after only a few years.
Between their opening and closing they featured many Otemporarily out of
orderı signs hanging where interactive artworks should have been doing their
thing.
Why do some exhibitions of this kind end up like this? In my experience it
comes down to money. New media artworks demand constant care and attention.
Experienced curators know this and build contingencies into their budgets
(say 30% p.a. capital costs). However, with depressing regularity, museum
and venue management see this as a budget they can cut. Cut that budget and
you lose the skills and facilities such venues need in-house to ensure that
temperamental artworks keep working, day in and day out. Waiting for the
artworks to break and then buying in the fix will not work. Chances are the
budget this will be paid from is not dedicated and thus time is wasted
determining how to pay for it. The agency brought in to fix the work then
has a learning curve as they seek to understand how an artistıs
idiosyncratically conceived and built system actually works. Finally, as we
all know, they face the problem of sourcing obsolete parts. After an
extended period of time the artwork might get fixed or, more likely, it is
mothballed.
In the case of the Public we have seen this scenario played out at a rapid
pace. Everything that could go wrong apparently has. Even before it opened
the Otemporarily out of orderı signs were up (even on the toilets). What is
clear though is that the problems were managerial, not artistic or
curatorial. ACE are probably right to pull the plug on this. Letıs hope the
management that has created such a mess does not now blame the creatives
although that is what appears to be happening. Some sectors of the media
will have some fun with this.
Regards
Simon
On 28/1/09 22:04, "Michelle Kasprzak" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I just picked up on what appears to be today's breaking news, ACE has
> decided not to award additional funding to The Public:
> http://is.gd/hy3X
>
> A bit of early commentary from the Guardian: http://is.gd/hy5m
>
> And if the news was focusing on the "failure" of interactive art
> before, it will be interesting to see if it will get any worse on the
> heels of this quote from Sir Christopher Frayling, the Chair of ACE:
> "But the fact is that, although the building is open, the interactive
> art gallery at the centre of the vision for The Public is not."
> Best regards
> MK
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
|
