Hi Johannes, Mark and all,
I am hesitant to use the word 'new', it has lost its value and has been
hijacked by organizations and governments who loosely use it as a
branding sticker, whilst shoveling out their latest diversions.
The essence of what I was trying to communicate was that exhibitions and
projects relating to media art are 'interfaces'. In another sense it is
ecological, a dynamic set of things, non singular and all connecting
'within the space and outside' at the same time, and more. And it's
definitely not only due to technology, but it is included, and is part
of the mix of what is 'now' - not 'new', a cultural 'now'. And yes,
blurring boundaries is a regular and common theme of our age; replacing
a word such as 'exhibition' with 'interface' helps me define the
function, social context and otherness of what the art is I'm dealing with.
I am really aware this conversation may be distracting others from the
main item on the agenda here. So, I will hold back for now. I am very
interested in reading about other people's ideas and subjects.
wishing you well.
marc
> Dear Mark, Marc and all:
>
> the question just posed by Marc is a good one, and yet I would like to modify it a little by including a critical
> look at the "natural shift" to interface behavior here posited by Marc's observations on how exhibitions (of hybrid works
> in real spaces) curate/arrange experience of work "beyond" the work.
>
> First I would query the question, and wonder whether this is indeed a new shift or has not always been the case
> (in the "1990s" and earlier): >A representation of current thought and experiments which communicate or relate beyond the object itself.
> We witness the continuation of an artist's or an art group's journey, displaying their discoveries and where they are at various moments....>
>
> In terms of reception of art works or performances, or music, say, the idea of the remix if an ancient one, it seems to me, if you
> look at the history of productions of theatre and music, and of course in the last 60 or more years, with the rise of recording technologies
> in music in particular, the idea of platform switch and experience the work beyond stage and record is common place, no? The radio
> is indeed also a richly historical medium (closely allied to music, sonic art, and the literary and the Hörspiel) for listeners.
>
> Mark's examples offer a very rich ground to explore, of course, regarding the (satiric, ironic) subversion of mainstream museum practices
> as well as net.art practices...
>
> In this way, Museum of Glitch Aesthetics goes mano y mano with the by now
> predictable narrative trajectories of museological discourse. Yes, the work
> was first intentionally constructed as a playful, online intervention into
> the challenges of not only curating web-based art but of resisting (or
> strategically embracing) the potential canonization, historicization, and
> mythologization of a pseudonymous (fictionalized) net art presence (The
> Artist 2.0).>>
>
> So the transmediated art, MOGA/The Artist 2.0, goes to Abandon Normal Devices and Lionel Dobie Project,
> then on to the Harris Museum and Gallery in Preston, and so on, and now we come to the tone
> Marc is asking about.
>
> I imagine that the tone you surmise has to do with the recent apparent pressure on exhibitions
> to no longer merely exhibit (or, in the case of radio, transmit), but create interactive scenarios for the viewers, interfaces that
> induce the kind of interface behavior we also see in many other sectors of the "digitally
> transformed" culture.
>
> The pressure to participate, or the presumption to involve the audience or the visitor
> as a co-producer and co-choreographer is, I find on occasion, a preposterous attempt
> of museums or theatres, not to emancipate the spectator, but to satirize the role
> of reception that had been aesthetic and active (thus politically / ethically conscious)
> in the first place, and not necessarily consumptive or culinary (as Brecht feared).
>
> The tendency to animate the viewer is not peculiar or new either, it existed
> in entertainment culture and (my niece tells me, after having been employed) is common staple on cruise ships
> where the guests are animated to participate every day. I don't know cruise ships, but often
> when go to see an exhibition (e.g. Choreographing You) I find msyelf on a cruise ship, I am asked to crawl in the floor through hoops,
> build something, play with something, dance, read long texts and watch the "making of", wear headphones, and subject myself
> to other endurance tests in the collective social space of the interfaces that are pushed upon everyone,
> and I'd venture to say, not always naturally nor always wanted. Or you go to MoMA and are invited
> to stare at the artist who is present (Marina Abramovic), having seen the movie perhaps and
> already feeling pulled over the table. Someone or other will cry, and emotions spill on the floor.
>
> There are other examples of installations I recently visited (Goebbels' "Stifters Dinge" curated by
> Artangel in London at Ambika P3 warehouse) that structured the display of work in two halves,
> first a free "Unguided Tour", in the first week, then the (paid) performances, and interestingly the performance
> also allowed us, after the huge hybrid machine had performed itself, to take an unguided tour
> and exchange our experience with others, look for details, and ponder the behaviors of the
> machining architecture and how the human visitors engaged with the experience, how it affected
> me and others, the sounds and languages of the machine and all the many layers of its objects,
> ecologies, resonances, vibrations and composition (we were not asked
> to perform, thanks).
>
> When you speak of how exhausting it is to continue "performing this elaborate artwork (MOGA),"
> Mark, in what sense did you mean that, and how do you perceive the pressure towards
> inter-action in contemporary curating policies?
>
>
> best wishes
> Johannes Birringer
>
>
>>> {Marc schreibt]
> resonates within me, as I look deeper
> into the tone of how it all presents itself. But, also I'm very aware of
> the fact that the contemporary artist, thinker, curator - all face the
> challenge in dealing with hybrid forms of creative endeavors. Not only
> in relation to the practicality of showing work but also its 'outer'
> dialogues which are connected, happening elsewhere at the same time.
> ...
>
> From experience of my own works, and co-curating other people's art
> works, projects, and collaborations through the years; I have witnessed
> what I consider as important changes. A natural shift has evolved
> redefining how we experience art now, and it has pushed the traditional
> concept of exhibiting 'art' off its axis. When viewing an exhibition
> (especially when involving media art), the experience and meaning of an
> exhibition is different now. It's no longer an exhibition that we are
> asked to view or be part of, but an 'interface'. This interface, even if
> it is within an exhibiting framework can still possesses the behaviours
> and qualities of an interface. A representation of current thought and
> experiments which communicate or relate beyond the object itself. We
> witness the continuation of an artist's or an art group's journey,
> displaying their discoveries and where they are at various moments. This
> has much to do with technology never standing still. And, moving on from
> the argument (for now), that capitalism never stands still, and neither
> does technology, we can also include other factors into the mix, such as
> time, nature, emotions and knowledge.
--
--
Other Info:
Furtherfield - A living, breathing, thriving network
http://www.furtherfield.org - for art, technology and social change since 1997
Also - Furtherfield Gallery& Social Space:
http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery
About Furtherfield:
http://www.furtherfield.org/content/about
Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.
http://www.netbehaviour.org
http://identi.ca/furtherfield
http://twitter.com/furtherfield
