Print

Print


It might be worth thinking about how the situation of reception impacts the
production of new media artworks in a few ways. One is on the type of work
that is often shown as new media art. The desire to have new media artists
present to explain their work, is probably first motivated by operational
concerns.  Works need to be operated, and each is done in different ways.
The works can't be viewed if they aren't doing their thing.  However, the
"operational" aspects of work might be (should be) one of the key sites of
engagement for many of these works. Problemitizing operation can be one of
the critical functions of a work - just as problemitizing representation or
perception may be for painting, photography, etc..
The other dilemma that this explanatory anxiety can provoke is the
encouragement of reductive, simplistic works. The explanation crutch is
effective for work that is confined to the explanation. The presence of the
explainer has tremendous impact on the reception of the work - and if the
work isn't well encapsulated by the 20 seconds of explanation, then the work
may seem deficient. It is less likely that the audience is there to hear a
long drawn out discourse on complex concerns that evade rhetorical
encapsulation (which is why a work of art was produced rather then a text).
I find that the situation of having an explainer guide me through a work as
a primary way of encountering it is different then hearing a docent at a
museum talk about more traditional artforms.  The ability to discuss
contradictory ideas about more historical works is often used as a type of
validation for a work. It implies to the audience that artworks are complex
entities which are continuously re-read, generating open ended readings,
rather then single illustrations of concise concepts, such as a technology
demonstration.

Sheldon Brown
http://crca.ucsd.edu/sheldon
Professor of Visual Arts
Director - Center for Research in Computing and the Arts - 0037
Director, UCSD Experimental Game Lab
University of California at San Diego
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla, CA 92093-0037
[log in to unmask]
http://crca.ucsd.edu/sheldon
voice (858)534-2423
fax (858)534-7944
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:20 AM, Josephine Bosma <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I think those criteria could offer much more interesting points of entry to
> a discussion then just a simple self-beating. I would just like to make a
> quick point, after reading some of the responses:
>
> The self-critical criterium which points at the artists having to stand
> next to the work to 'explain' it seems a bit amateurish to me. Only an
> amateur would think all art can be understood at first glance. In
> 'traditional' art circles art works were explained and contextualized by
> critics and curators, in catalogues, exhibition papers and in newspapers.
> The tendency in new media art to involve the artist in this process should
> maybe be seen in the light of an increasing importance of the artist
> audience relationship. If the artists prefer critics to be the sole
> opinion-makers of their works, then by all means:  make the installation and
> then go home to read the newspaper.
>
>
> ;-p
>
>
> regards,
>
>
> J
> *
>
>
> On 8 Sep 2008, at 17:48, Sarah Cook wrote:
>
> the criteria to define interactive new media art:
>>
>> http://www.nearfuturelaboratory.com/2008/09/05/top-15-criteria-
>> define-interactive-or-new-media-art/
>>
>>


--