 |
 |
I find the remarks made by Gregory to be very relevant. I am involved here in Montreal with a University institute that promotes artist's research as R&D, with the hope that these research could lead to technological innovations in the cultural industries. Unfortunately, very often these research are not really at the forefront because artists are not always the most advance technological specialist, and, really, why should they be ? And from my position here at the Daniel Langlois foundation I very often see that independent artists, those not teaching or not in any institutional settings, are those proposing the most interesting research projects. This would confirm in some ways what Gregory was expressing through C.P. Snow's analysis. Anyhow, as far as curating new media is concerned I also have to agree with what has been said by Caroline. I have been involved here in Canada as Media Arts curator with the National Gallery of Canada which abolished the position after I left, and I am now involved with the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts in preparing a large exhibition of new media arts, a first in a Canadian Museum. Concerning the National Gallery, I can only say that when I left the Gallery in 1998, video art had already made its way in the major league of the art market and museum's exhibitions. And it seems that this created a confusion where video art or video projections and video installations, ironically, began to "symbolized" "advanced technologies", so that museum would feel they already are open to what we call new media. It means that Contemporary arts curators are then justified and almost obliged to curate and show "media arts". Being in the midst of organizing a large exhibition as I said above, I have to say that part of the problem is often the costs involved in showing new media works. Sometimes also, artists have a strange way to approach their works exhibition. When the museum not only have to provide for equipment and construction but also in certain cases to contract external firms, fly in an engineer from half way around the globe, I am also tempted to ask artists to be more pragmatic and more aware of the economics surrounding them. Of course, one could say that museums spend fortunes on video installations by great artists such as Nauman and others, so why not on new media arts ? Well, I guess the art market would need to be addressed here. I am glad that Bourdieu was brought in and I could bring another sociologist Nathalie Heinich (I am not sure her books are translated into English) who talks about what she calls the "régime de singularité" through which art is appreciated and the concomitent migration of values from the work to the person of the artist. In any case, that would be a long and interresting discussion but I have to stop here. Hope this is useful. Regards everybody Jean Gagnon Directeur général/Executive director Fondation Daniel Langlois -----Original Message----- From: Curating digital art - www.crumbweb.org [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gregory Sporton Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:34 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: value for money? The levels of technological resistance in artistic circles irritated C.P. Snow fifty years ago. His 'The Two Cultures' argued that artists were not the radical creatives they liked to see themselves as, but conservative Luddites that resisted technological development in favour of craft practices that positioned themselves as culturally superior to applied art. This explains the unease with which creativity by new means fails to interest a large swathe of the art world, and seems more true now that science has products for creative artists to exploit (though as Snow also points out, the academies and universities very rarely contribute to technological development per se. His examples from the Industrial Revolution show how most innovation happens away from formal structures precisely because they prefer to deal with what they already know). Gregory -----Original Message----- From: Curating digital art - www.crumbweb.org on behalf of Caroline LANGILL Sent: Fri 26/01/2007 14:45 To: [log in to unmask] Cc: Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] value for money? Chris, You bring up some interesting points with regards to the arts, wealth and privilege. In fact, recently a friend of mine, a well respected and nationally known Canadian artist suggested that someone should devote a thesis to international art success and independent wealth. I suggested that while everyone knows this to be the case, it is unmentionable. But I think the case of new media curators is somewhat different as they are doubly marginalized. I suggest that the low salaries are symptomatic of the marginalization of new media that continues, regardless of the emergence of more and more works that employ new media strategies in the museums (there is also the irony of the plethora of new media technologies used as didactic tools). People involved in contemporary art practice are disinclined to engage with new media at any level in spite of the fact that they all, I assume, own pcs that they are totally dependent on. I have sat on arts councils juries here in Canada (one quite recently) where I am the only person in the room who can define what an algorithm is when it comes up in an application. It is surprising how quickly my colleagues become illiterate when confronted with new media texts. I find this particularly to be the case when an artist works from the bottom-up. It seems to be more acceptable to hire engineers than to do your own physical computing, which perhaps brings us back to Bourdieu and the problem of the taint of the working class. Is this because the new media community is too insular, too exclusive? What is it about electronic media that continues makes it so untouchable for those in traditional art practices? As long as the work itself is ghettoized so will the curators be. Caroline