Some say Twitter is a good place to have discussions and debates. I'm skeptical, but can't afford as much time on listservs as I used to could.
So in the spirit of Bishop's call for more medium-specificity, I will oblige @complexfields and paste over here as well.
Here are my responses to this nuanced debate in 144-characters-speak.
I have less sympathy for complaints about New Media Art's alleged "marginalization" (by Bishop or others) from Contemporary Art discourse.
Bishop & her critics compare the art world's adoption of New Media to adoption of Photo : better to compare it to the adoption of Design.
Designers worry about inferiority to Art only in academic settings where prestige is more at stake than financial stability.
(Recognition by Art Museums boosts their intellectual capital more than their financial capital.)
New Media originated in academic settings and worries about art sometimes for prestige, more often in order to earn tenure.
(Recognition by Art Museums helps validate New Media artists for skeptical tenure review boards.)
Photo worried about inferiority to Art because of the need to make a living selling pictures.
(Not really an option to anyone now, but with that battle over Photo is now firmly in the Art camp.)
What ends up stronger than ever in this network? Divisions between commercial, academic, and museum settings.
What remains less questioned in this discussion? The ways in which subjectivities are shaped by professions as well as media.
This way of speaking carries less potential for grace towards others than most other media. I'm not sure if I'll try this again.
But there you have it. Thanks for the debate, all.
- Kevin Hamilton @complexfields
On Sep 3, 2012, at 5:25 AM, Oliver Grau wrote:
> Re: This discussion.
>
> For all, who did not had a chance to sign the international declaration so far, can do that online under:
> http://www.mediaarthistory.org/
>
> Best, Oliver
>
>
>
>>>> Martin John Callanan <[log in to unmask]> 9/3/2012 12:01 >>>
> 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
>>
|
