Hello,

My first tentative step into the mailing list, but this seemed a subject I felt I should pen some thoughts on the subject of time.

In terms of thinking about time-based work, let alone arts or media, I have been using for some time as a tool for my own work John Lathams theory of 'event structures'. Whilst Lathams ideas, particularly Flat Tme Theory are often read as complex and deliberately obtuse, the basic principle of is critique that led to a powerful post studio practice in terms of the Artist Placement Group, is that there are no such things as objects per se. All things, from institutions to artworks are 'event structures', which occupy different time-bases. Whilst the lowest limits of time are quantum, those with time bases such as Smithsons spiral Jetty exist in very long time bases, and even beyond the certain time base we occupy in our lives before we meet death, or the initial condition (returning to matter as an event).

Latham is not an uncontentious figure, and someone who has not been positioned in this specific discourse of new media prominently, as I guess his work can be clearly cited in other conceptual discourses against a tradition grounded in and by a modernist compulsion to the grand narrative. But as a practitioner, he has articulated relationships between considering the score of a work, which includes its end, its materials or media, and the object or artefact, that in the context of museum or gallery does not usually contain its own end intentionally. The use of his ideas has for me unified a whole series of problematic relations between a work and its context, specifically the structure of events as they are made and experienced. Approaching works as event structures creates a new and dynamic potential in the process, outcome and experience which has been utterly compelling to work with.

Regards,

Neal White

Associate Professor
Art and Media Practice
The Media School
Bournemouth University

Associate Research Fellow - Critical Practice
Chelsea College of Art and Design

[log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Curating digital art - www.crumbweb.org [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gere, Charlie [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 1:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] September 2009: update and "Real-Time: Showing Art in the Age of New Media"

Yes, yes, I entirely agree - a distinct running time too, finite,
limited, that also involves change and ending, not just the time of
viewing or spectatorship, but what about looping?! Repetition as death
drive or as eternal recurrence? And what about works that involve some
kind of feedback? Or works that can or do keep going such as Jem Finer's
Longplayer, the clock of the long now, Lamonte Young's never-ending (or
beginning) musical works? Is the potentially infinite time-based art
work as much of a means of denying death as an object







Charlie Gere
Head of Department
Institute for Cultural Research
Lancaster University Lancaster LA1 4YL UK
Tel: +44 (0) 1524 594446
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/cultres/staff/gere.php

From: Josephine Bosma [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 04 September 2009 13:09
To: Gere, Charlie
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 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

*




BU - the UK's Number One New University
The Guardian University Guide 2009 & 2010

This email is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email, which must not be copied, distributed or disclosed to any other person.
Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Bournemouth University or its subsidiary companies. Nor can any contract be formed on behalf of the University or its subsidiary companies via email.