At best, an eloquent yet naive view of contemporary art by a writter
too arrogant, or rushed, to seek advice before submitting for press.
At worst, an eloquent and purposeful misreading of contemporary art to
support the establsihed market and justifications for the magazine
though advertisers who fill hundreds of glossy pages. 90% who are
happy the way things are...
On 2 September 2012 15:09, Honor Harger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> It's a beautifully written article, but rather flawed, I feel. Bishop begins
> by rightly saying that "contemporary art [has] been curiously unresponsive
> to the total upheaval in our labor and leisure inaugurated by the digital
> revolution".
>
> But then completely inexplicably states that she will not be addressing
> contemporary art that could be considered "new media". She writes, "there
> is, of course, an entire sphere of 'new media' art, but this is a
> specialized field of its own" ...
> and presumably therefore unworthy of her consideration?
>
> This becomes problematic later in the article, where she makes awkward
> statements like this: "the digital, by contrast, is code, inherently alien
> to human perception".
>
> Something that is created by humans can not surely be "inherently alien to
> human perception". At least not to the humans that wrote the code. Or are we
> to view them as aliens?
>
> In Bishop's analysis of contemporary research driven art, she concludes that
> there's a turn away from examining "the social, political, and economic
> conditions of the present".
>
> Where does that leave the work of Trevor Paglen, for example, or Marko
> Peljhan, or many others we might cite. But thereby resurfaces the
> problematic point of the article. I guess those artists are too close to the
> "sphere of new media art", which Bishop is explicitly ignoring in this
> piece, to be considered relevant refutations of this argument.
>
> She asks, "is there a sense of fear underlying visual art's disavowal of new
> media?". A somewhat ironic, or perhaps obsolete question, given that she has
> disavowed it right from the beginning of the article.
>
> She does then perhaps provides a reason for both the fear and the disavowal
> at the conclusion of the: "at its worst [ the digital revolution] signals
> the impending obsolescence of visual art itself".
>
> I greatly enjoyed reading the article, and respect Claire Bishop enormously,
> and am grateful for these issues being raised in a mainstream contemporary
> art journal like Art Forum. But I think it's highly problematic to dismiss
> the practice of many visual artists who do address the "total upheaval in
> our labor and leisure inaugurated by the digital revolution" with rigour and
> intelligence.
>
> Honor
>
>
>
> From: Martin John Callanan <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>> so many words to say nothing.
>>
>>
>> On 2 September 2012 13:49, Honor Harger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I am guessing you've all probably read Claire Bishop's fascinating essay
>>> in
>>> Art Forum, the "Digital Divide"?
>>> http://artforum.com/inprint/issue=201207&id=31944
>>>
>>> "So why do I have a sense that the appearance and content of
>>> contemporary
>>> art have been curiously unresponsive to the total upheaval in our labor
>>> and
>>> leisure inaugurated by the digital revolution? While many artists use
>>> digital technology, how many really confront the question of what it
>>> means
>>> to think, see, and filter affect through the digital? How many thematize
>>> this, or reflect deeply on how we experience, and are altered by, the
>>> digitization of our existence? I find it strange that I can count on one
>>> hand the works of art that do seem to undertake this task
>>> [....]
>>> There is, of course, an entire sphere of "new media" art, but this is a
>>> specialized field of its own: It rarely overlaps with the mainstream art
>>> world (commercial galleries, the Turner Prize, national pavilions at
>>> Venice). While this split is itself undoubtedly symptomatic, the
>>> mainstream
>>> art world and its response to the digital are the focus of this essay."
>>>
>>> I'd be interested in your eruditions on this.
>>>
>>> best,
>>>
>>> Honor
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> honor harger
>
> present location: brighton, .uk
>
> email: [log in to unmask]
> sms: +44 7765834272
>
> -> w e b
> bio: http://about.me/honor
>
> -> b l o g
> particle decelerator: http://decelerator.blogspot.com/
>
> - > b l a g
> twitter: http://twitter.com/honorharger
>
> -> l i s t e n
> radio astronomy: http://www.radio-astronomy.net
>
> -> w o r k
> director of lighthouse: http://www.lighthouse.org.uk
>
|