Very useful advice contained in every point. Thank you.
I would also add: if organizations are planning to acquire the installations
they are commissioning, producing or presenting, I recommend--while they
have got the attention and direct involvement of the artist and his or her
technical assistants/collaborators--that they obtain and document as much
information as possible about things like the parameters for the work's
reconfiguration; what does or does not constitute the actual work (how much
of the technology can be variable and how much is required to be maintained
indefinitely, etc.); what kind of maintenance is required to preserve the
finest quality of presentation; what ideas the artist has for storage and
up-grading their work in the future; what is or is not reproducible within
the work (and any other restrictions protecting the content or artistic
parameters the work); spelling out the intended life span of the work (some
projects are meant to have a more temporal life span); defining who else
holds rights to some aspect of the work; and budgeting in advance (or
establishing a perpetual maintainence endowment) for upgrading the
technological components of the work in order to meet new standards,
formats, etc. Apologies these comments repeat what others have said here
previously.
Julie Lazar
-----Original Message-----
From: Curating digital art - www.newmedia.sunderland.ac.uk/crumb/
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Hannah Redler
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 1:38 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Installing It. June Theme of the Month
Hello list
I'd say probably the most helpful technical tip I can offer is to treat each
project/installation on a case-by-case basis. Obviously it is useful and
desirable for a curator commissioning technological works to have an
understanding of the fundamental characteristics of whatever media the
artists they are working with are using - this is particularly important if
the artists are experimenting with technologies they are not themselves
familiar with, or if there needs to be a very complex installation. If the
curator is unsure or working with inexperienced artists, as Clive says, get
someone from somewhere like MITES on board from the outset.
If I have to be general, the key points I would encourage people to bear in
mind are:
* The technology is always changing - this affects budget and conceptual
issues - a show planned a long time in advance of its delivery dates may
need constant revisions of technical solutions, but it is important to be
clear where the 'art' lies and not compromise this - for example, is it in
the use of a particular lens/video playback system/computer, or is that
unimportant to the resultant content?
* Artists uses of technology are very likely to extend or subvert intended
functions - so no institution/organisation can presume even if it has stock
equipment this will be sufficient for every work.
* Putting on an exhibition of new media works is a team effort (I couldn't
agree more with Clive).
* A clear brief needs to provide the artist with the context their work will
be seen in, as well as details of the physical space and the duration the
work will need to run for.(some more radical or unstable projects can be
more viable in temporary circumstances where they can be manned by humans.
Where a piece has to last for a long time on its own, robustness is more of
an issue.)
* Artist's proposals which provide drawings of proposed technical setup and
list of proposed equipment are really helpful. This is particularly the
case with artists who are experienced in working with technology, artists
new to it will need more support from the organisation/institution.
* For more complex projects, the artist, curator and technical team, whether
in-house or hired should discuss the brief and the artists' proposal and
installation issues in detail before committing to contract.
* Preparation during the development path of the work is as important as
final installation. With digital projects bug-test, bug-test, bug-test. Then
don't get upset if they still develop glitches once they're running, they
will.
* Which brings me to my final point, never presume that once it's installed
and turned on that's it. New media works in galleries need daily checking
and plenty of TLC. Even when the software/content is completely flawless,
you can pretty much depend on a projector that's up for a long time to slip
inconveniently, or a child to access the system software on a the kiosk (ok,
this is avoidable, but you need to take measures!)
So I don't know how much help I've been about the nitty-gritty of
installation. For the Science Museum's Wellcome Wing, which I commissioned
4 large-scale multiuser interactive installations for from Christian Moeller
('Particles', 'Insound Out'), David Rokeby (' Watch and Measured') and Tessa
Elliott and Jonathan Jones Morris ('Machination'), the successful delivery
depended on the artists, all of whom are exceptional technicians in their
own right and provided many of the final solutions, the museum's technical
group under Dave Patten, the exhibition designers (Casson Mann), and through
them the fit-out contractors, and also Mark Haig, a MITES technician for
actaul installation. I played chief coordinator/nag in the middle. And,yes,
it did involve a lot of nagging ;-) although I guess brokering is the more
politic way to describe it!
I'm quite happy to describe the installations in detail but am not sure that
it would be much help. The situation was an unusual, because it was
permanent works commissioned for a brand new building in a national Museum.
Production values and health and safety issues were therefore about as
demanding as it gets. The works needed to be able to support the use of up
to 1.8 million visitors per annum in terms of artistic concept
(reception/interpretation/accessibility etc) and robustness.
A further 'complication' was that the money for the commissions became
available after the exhibition design structure had already been fixed.
This meant that the artists had to configure their ideas to work within a
very prescriptive structure. They were aware of this from the start, as the
invitation to propose included drawings of the building plans and the
exhibition design as well as details of the surrounding content within the
context of which their works would be received. Indeed, some artist I
approached to propose did not think they could show their works in this
context, and Christian made the very interesting point that once the project
was completed and installed in the structure he knew it could not only be
his work. i.e. it is his work, but within the Casson Mann designed
structure, within the context of the 'uber-brand' of Science Museum. This is
an interesting thought in relation to the amount of corporates that are
taking an interest in media work.
If anyone has questions, or indeed comments if they have seen the work, I'd
be very happy to respond.
Bye for now
Hannah
############################################################################
#########
This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared
by MailMarshal
For more information please visit www.marshalsoftware.com
############################################################################
#########
############################################################################
#########
This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared
by MailMarshal
For more information please visit www.marshalsoftware.com
############################################################################
#########
