 |
 |
Crumbs: This is becoming a bit of a private discussion maybe, which is not my intention. Please feel free to chime in! How I interpret time based art in relation to the works you mention, but also to net artworks, software art, etc, is that it is not so much *limited* in time, as *rooted* in time. Hence the running time. The relationship to life is one on one, which explains the experience of loss after one's encounter with it, even if one can run the experience in some form (not exactly the same) again. Visual representations can only be stills, reviews are even more subjective than they already are in art objects. Time based art can only be monumental, just as a side thought, as mass experience/event. I am not sure if works that are repetitive are always time based. It would depend on how strict a definition you use. If the definition would be about unique experiences and events, repetitive works would need a certain openness in their structure I suppose. A musical score made up of repetitions would create a sense of timelessness, which would be repeated every time it were performed, but it would not feel like one had lost something: it could be played exactly the same again. On the other hand video art and film have also been called time based art. I am not sure they should always be filed there, but maybe they can be in some way. In them, life is trapped. I will take this opportunity to display a bit of nostalgia... :-) I don't see much theatre, but my favorite play actually deals with the issue of film/media and life/death: Deep Sleep by John Jesurun. I saw it in 1990 I believe. In a birthday issue of Mute I also used an excerpt of its scenario. In it, a boy (Sparky) gets trapped in the film world, after first being on stage. He tries to escape by breaking through the movie screen. After he fails to return to the stage he has a discussion with his friend (Whitey) who stayed on stage, through the screen. Reality, life and film get completely confused. Here is another excerpt: Sparky: "Don't let me run off the reel" Whitey: "I won't" Sparky: "Please don't. If I go off then you won't have anything" Whitey: "I can always put you on again" Sparky: "maybe not" Whitey: "maybe yes" Sparky: "what was happy about it? what could I celebrate that was shining?" Whitey: "nothing was shining" Sparky: "And I will always trust you because you will never disintegrate and I will never disintegrate or grate on my nerves or get on my nerves or make me nervous because I can always shut you up or turn you off" Have a lively weekend, J * ps: thanks Simon! just saw your post. On 4 Sep 2009, at 14:20, Gere, Charlie wrote: > Yes, yes, I entirely agree - a distinct running time too, finite, > limited, that also involves change and ending, not just the time of > viewing or spectatorship, but what about looping?! Repetition as death > drive or as eternal recurrence? And what about works that involve some > kind of feedback? Or works that can or do keep going such as Jem > Finer's > Longplayer, the clock of the long now, Lamonte Young's never-ending > (or > beginning) musical works? Is the potentially infinite time-based art > work as much of a means of denying death as an object > > > > > > > > Charlie Gere > Head of Department > Institute for Cultural Research > Lancaster University Lancaster LA1 4YL UK > Tel: +44 (0) 1524 594446 > E-mail: [log in to unmask] > http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/cultres/staff/gere.php > > From: Josephine Bosma [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: 04 September 2009 13:09 > To: Gere, Charlie > Cc: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: September 2009: update and "Real-Time: Showing Art in the > Age of New Media" > > > > 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 > > * >