Dear Mark, Marc and all:
the question just posed by Marc is a good one, and yet I would like to modify it a little by including a critical
look at the "natural shift" to interface behavior here posited by Marc's observations on how exhibitions (of hybrid works
in real spaces) curate/arrange experience of work "beyond" the work.
First I would query the question, and wonder whether this is indeed a new shift or has not always been the case
(in the "1990s" and earlier): >A representation of current thought and experiments which communicate or relate beyond the object itself.
We witness the continuation of an artist's or an art group's journey, displaying their discoveries and where they are at various moments....>
In terms of reception of art works or performances, or music, say, the idea of the remix if an ancient one, it seems to me, if you
look at the history of productions of theatre and music, and of course in the last 60 or more years, with the rise of recording technologies
in music in particular, the idea of platform switch and experience the work beyond stage and record is common place, no? The radio
is indeed also a richly historical medium (closely allied to music, sonic art, and the literary and the Hörspiel) for listeners.
Mark's examples offer a very rich ground to explore, of course, regarding the (satiric, ironic) subversion of mainstream museum practices
as well as net.art practices...
>>
In this way, Museum of Glitch Aesthetics goes mano y mano with the by now
predictable narrative trajectories of museological discourse. Yes, the work
was first intentionally constructed as a playful, online intervention into
the challenges of not only curating web-based art but of resisting (or
strategically embracing) the potential canonization, historicization, and
mythologization of a pseudonymous (fictionalized) net art presence (The
Artist 2.0).>>
So the transmediated art, MOGA/The Artist 2.0, goes to Abandon Normal Devices and Lionel Dobie Project,
then on to the Harris Museum and Gallery in Preston, and so on, and now we come to the tone
Marc is asking about.
I imagine that the tone you surmise has to do with the recent apparent pressure on exhibitions
to no longer merely exhibit (or, in the case of radio, transmit), but create interactive scenarios for the viewers, interfaces that
induce the kind of interface behavior we also see in many other sectors of the "digitally
transformed" culture.
The pressure to participate, or the presumption to involve the audience or the visitor
as a co-producer and co-choreographer is, I find on occasion, a preposterous attempt
of museums or theatres, not to emancipate the spectator, but to satirize the role
of reception that had been aesthetic and active (thus politically / ethically conscious)
in the first place, and not necessarily consumptive or culinary (as Brecht feared).
The tendency to animate the viewer is not peculiar or new either, it existed
in entertainment culture and (my niece tells me, after having been employed) is common staple on cruise ships
where the guests are animated to participate every day. I don't know cruise ships, but often
when go to see an exhibition (e.g. Choreographing You) I find msyelf on a cruise ship, I am asked to crawl in the floor through hoops,
build something, play with something, dance, read long texts and watch the "making of", wear headphones, and subject myself
to other endurance tests in the collective social space of the interfaces that are pushed upon everyone,
and I'd venture to say, not always naturally nor always wanted. Or you go to MoMA and are invited
to stare at the artist who is present (Marina Abramovic), having seen the movie perhaps and
already feeling pulled over the table. Someone or other will cry, and emotions spill on the floor.
There are other examples of installations I recently visited (Goebbels' "Stifters Dinge" curated by
Artangel in London at Ambika P3 warehouse) that structured the display of work in two halves,
first a free "Unguided Tour", in the first week, then the (paid) performances, and interestingly the performance
also allowed us, after the huge hybrid machine had performed itself, to take an unguided tour
and exchange our experience with others, look for details, and ponder the behaviors of the
machining architecture and how the human visitors engaged with the experience, how it affected
me and others, the sounds and languages of the machine and all the many layers of its objects,
ecologies, resonances, vibrations and composition (we were not asked
to perform, thanks).
When you speak of how exhausting it is to continue "performing this elaborate artwork (MOGA),"
Mark, in what sense did you mean that, and how do you perceive the pressure towards
inter-action in contemporary curating policies?
best wishes
Johannes Birringer
>>{Marc schreibt]
resonates within me, as I look deeper
into the tone of how it all presents itself. But, also I'm very aware of
the fact that the contemporary artist, thinker, curator - all face the
challenge in dealing with hybrid forms of creative endeavors. Not only
in relation to the practicality of showing work but also its 'outer'
dialogues which are connected, happening elsewhere at the same time.
...
From experience of my own works, and co-curating other people's art
works, projects, and collaborations through the years; I have witnessed
what I consider as important changes. A natural shift has evolved
redefining how we experience art now, and it has pushed the traditional
concept of exhibiting 'art' off its axis. When viewing an exhibition
(especially when involving media art), the experience and meaning of an
exhibition is different now. It's no longer an exhibition that we are
asked to view or be part of, but an 'interface'. This interface, even if
it is within an exhibiting framework can still possesses the behaviours
and qualities of an interface. A representation of current thought and
experiments which communicate or relate beyond the object itself. We
witness the continuation of an artist's or an art group's journey,
displaying their discoveries and where they are at various moments. This
has much to do with technology never standing still. And, moving on from
the argument (for now), that capitalism never stands still, and neither
does technology, we can also include other factors into the mix, such as
time, nature, emotions and knowledge.
>>
|