yes agreed Josephine that "if it were just about viewing time, all art would be time based" - insofar as all art deals with time in some way or another. Possibly indeed to dispel/ allay/ play with our apprehension of mortality as both you and Charlie point out. Agreed also that a description of time based art has to be something other than a description of theatre (Kantor is interesting as a performance/ installation artist, as well as a painter, as well as a theatre director, because he plays with these issues).
The UNITEC definition (yes for NZ!) this exclusively denotes visual arts ("viewing" reference - good old oculocentrism). Isn't there something odd about the way one area of arts activity can jump on a term without thinking about its implications for others - e.g. music, sound art, radio art, which would seem to be time-based par excellence (cf. Suzanne Langer et al). TBA though comes strongly through another avenue - at least in the history books.
Kia ora, Amsterdammers and others
sjn
________________________________________
From: Curating digital art - www.crumbweb.org [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Josephine Bosma [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 04 September 2009 13:09
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] September 2009: update and "Real-Time: Showing Art in the Age of New Media"
Charlie Gere wrote:
>
> Thus perhaps being 'time-based' is not a question of movement of
> time or duration within the work itself, but of the time of
> spectatorship. This would also seem to relate nicely to Sally
> Jane's examples from actual theatre. I think this makes net art,
> software art and other new media arts time-based for what its worth
This is the only clear definition I found online that comes close to
how I always interpreted the term:
time based art : art works that are sequenced through time, that
change as we view them, and that may be ephemeral (e.g. video,
kinetic sculpture, performance works).
http://arts.unitec.ac.nz/engageinarts/visarts/glossary.php
I was just wondering if it is correct, how it is generally used. It
is one of those terms that, like for instance unstable art, seems
created for very specific, often electronic art. Even if performance
works also fit in there, it would be wrong to limit a description of
the experience of time based art to that of theatre for example.
The difference between art objects and time based art would be for
me, that the latter asks for a very specific time experience of the
artwork. It is an almost parallel development of the 'being' or
'becoming' of the artwork and the experience of the audience
(Spectator seems to limited, and the audience can also be
participants or collaborators). This means that it is not just about
viewing time, but also very much about running time. In that respect
it also reminds of life and death. If it were just about viewing
time, every artwork would be time based.
What I find very interesting is the psychological difference between
the experience of a static art object, and that of a time based
artwork. I too wonder if the general preference for art objects and
for collections of art objects is simply based on a very deep,
instinctive fear of death. I think we should challenge this basic
fear in the arts as much as in life itself, in order to fully
understand what art really is.
warmest greetings from Amsterdam,
J
*
|