I'm a little concerned that we are working with a large number of
under-rationalised assumptions here. If museums and other art
institutions are to have any role in the future, they must get beyond
the limited scope of their role as genealogists and cultural
taxidermists. There must be a dialogue between the past and the
present which acknowledges that the present is the more important
space, but that the present requires the past in order to locate
itself. It seems to me that we are guilty of making the assumption
here that the past is the more important space and that the creation
of the 'current past' (i.e works which are too much a product of
their conscious history) is a significant role for artists and
curators.
But beyond the polemic, I do feel that this is a debate that needs to
happen, but in the space between museums and artists. I'm
disappointed that artists and champions of this form of practice
might regard this as a valid debate to have on a list such as this.
Surely the issue is how we work with museums to support them to in
recognising where the significance of this work lies, not how we make
work which satisfies their unmodified criteria.
Patrick is very right to ask the question "Do interactive artworks
really offer richer forms of interaction between audiences and
artworks, or just different ones?", not because this is a new
question, but because unless we are constantly checking we are in
danger of believing our own hype. If we acknowledge a difference and
can perceive some significance in that difference then we need to be
able to express that, either in the work, or through the various
contexts that we place around the work.
--
|