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
|