 |
 |
Charlie Gere wrote: > > Thus perhaps being 'time-based' is not a question of movement of > time or duration within the work itself, but of the time of > spectatorship. This would also seem to relate nicely to Sally > Jane's examples from actual theatre. I think this makes net art, > software art and other new media arts time-based for what its worth This is the only clear definition I found online that comes close to how I always interpreted the term: time based art : art works that are sequenced through time, that change as we view them, and that may be ephemeral (e.g. video, kinetic sculpture, performance works). http://arts.unitec.ac.nz/engageinarts/visarts/glossary.php I was just wondering if it is correct, how it is generally used. It is one of those terms that, like for instance unstable art, seems created for very specific, often electronic art. Even if performance works also fit in there, it would be wrong to limit a description of the experience of time based art to that of theatre for example. The difference between art objects and time based art would be for me, that the latter asks for a very specific time experience of the artwork. It is an almost parallel development of the 'being' or 'becoming' of the artwork and the experience of the audience (Spectator seems to limited, and the audience can also be participants or collaborators). This means that it is not just about viewing time, but also very much about running time. In that respect it also reminds of life and death. If it were just about viewing time, every artwork would be time based. What I find very interesting is the psychological difference between the experience of a static art object, and that of a time based artwork. I too wonder if the general preference for art objects and for collections of art objects is simply based on a very deep, instinctive fear of death. I think we should challenge this basic fear in the arts as much as in life itself, in order to fully understand what art really is. warmest greetings from Amsterdam, J *