JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING  2004

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING 2004

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: taxonomies

From:

Charlie Gere <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Charlie Gere <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:00:58 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (368 lines)

Hi

Pip's invocation of loss that Josephine mentions below is fascinating.
For a conservator or curator working in a traditional gallery dedicated
to the collection, preservation and display of objects its an obvious
issue. Yet to think in terms of loss is possibly to cleave to a model of
the work of art that is simply inappropriate for the kinds of ephemeral,
fluid and temporal (as well as temporary) practices that characterise a
lot of new media art. The corollary of this is that the gallery/museum
is no longer an appropriate institutional model for thinking about and
dealing with this kind of work.

Charlie

Josephine Bosma wrote:

>hello all,
>
>
>The question Charlie brings up have been adressed at a congress
>organised by Hartware in Dortmund last year called '404 object not
>found'. Some info on this congress can be found at:
>http://www.404project.net/kongress/thema/index_e.html
>Archive:
>http://www.404project.net/datenbank/index_e.html
>There you will also find some texts, one of which is mine. This
>particular text has in the meantime been re-written, re-published and
>now also re-editted (as these things go). The latest short version of
>this text I will paste below. Unfortunetaly all notes have disappeared
>in this most recent edit, as have most of the subtleties. It was edited
>by Andrea Wiarda, to be published in the October issue of the Belgian art magazine A Prior.
>www.aprior.org
>
>I just want to remark that what is quite striking about both the
>definition *and* the preservation of media art is that there are two
>or three strategies that seem to be working alongside eachother and
>which feel quite different. There is the textual or theoretical
>approach in which there is an attempt to contextualize a work in
>history and/or in contemporary culture. Then there are those that seek
>the best possible material preservation by collecting hardware,
>software and/or emulating hardware and software. I guess it is this
>tactic that mostly leads to the kind of problems that Charlie mentions
>(with the lightbulb situation), because it is more obvious a change in
>a work if something material is 're-interpreted' then when a part of a
>work is re-interpreted immaterially.
>At the congress in Dortmund one of the speakers (I think it was Pip
>Laurenson, Sculpture Conservator at the Tate Brittain) had the courage
>to mention that when preserving art one also has to learn to deal with
>loss. This was not at all picked up at the congress, which should not
>be a suprise of course, since we all like to keep our favorite art
>works alive, and preservation of media art works also means
>recognition of this art. It seems to me however that whether or not
>loss is acceptable is one of the key issues in art today. It is
>connected to issues of power, to deep cultural and economical issues.
>It seems as if loss is not acceptable because it means loss of
>presence on almost all levels of cultural influence. We seem trapped
>in having to adjust to standards that do not really apply to many of
>the art works we are dealing with today, trapped by economical issues
>most of all. I do have some ideas as to how to deal with this, but I
>will leave it with this slightly sombre observation.
>
>
>warmest greetings from rainy Amsterdam,
>
>
>J
>*
>
>
>No Ego: preserving the exchange between artist and audience
>Josephine Bosma
>
>translation, art as conceptual space and art as experience
>
>Thinking about the preservation of new media art in relation to
>translating implies thinking about media art, and I would like
>to think art in general, as a language of sorts, thus tempting
>us to take into consideration all aspects of language as well
>as the cultural impact of language issues also in the arts.
>Preservation of art is not just about preserving matter, like
>translation is not just about finding words with the same meaning
>in a different language. It is most of all about preserving and
>conveying that which is intangible in the text itself or in the
>matter of the art work itself, which makes us enter the (mostly
>textual) realms of education and (oral) tradition, of culture as
>an intangible entity. Preserving art always presents us with
>problems, whether it concerns what type of paint to use for
>eventual restorations of paintings (which is in the end also a
>cultural decision too) or whether it concerns the preservation
>of an artistic 'intervention' in public space.
>The Nederlands Media Instituut Montevideo/Time Based Arts in
>Amsterdam has recently started to interview artists about the
>past, present and especially future of their work, a project
>that seems vital for new media art. Yet, what we should keep in
>mind is that talking about any kind of technical solution for
>preserving art does make one tend to get stuck, however slightly,
>in quite rigid ideas about art as a material object of culture,
>even if the artist never intended it to be so - and maybe the
>audience never experienced it in this way either. I have
>therefore decided to talk about how I see art in the age of
>information networks and how art today has, and will, become
>increasingly difficult to preserve in the traditional way of
>storage and restoration, because it is not just leaving the
>traditional art object behind, but also because art is changing
>into an art experience, maybe even a lifestyle.
>
>Art as Cult, Art as Space of Engagement
>
>We are still witnessing the continuation of a change in art
>that started with the development of reproduction technologies
>and which accelerated in the era of industrialization. However,
>this change goes back, not to the invention of photography or
>the jacquard loom weaving machines (just to name two popular
>starting points of new media art history), but to the invention
>of printing. Print, the end of written text as an almost intimate
>connection between writer and reader, and the end of written text
>as being almost purely a conveyer of meaning. This breech in
>inter-human connectivity - the reproduction of texts and
>especially the uncontrollable dissemination and spreading of text
>this in the end produced - created a bigger distance between
>writer and reader. It created an audience, rather then a group
>of individual readers, itself interconnected through printed
>periodicals.
>
>Even if it took a few hundred years before the way in which
>'ordinary' people would experience written text changed, when
>reading in silence to oneself alone became popular amongst the
>working classes as well, printing as a technology is very
>interesting when considering the cultures of estrangement the
>modern and postmodern era have been and continue to be today.
>It offered an empowerment of the individual that was almost
>unprecedented in the history of the arts by enlarging the
>distance between author and reader, between the author's
>intention and the reader's interests, through a manifold of
>layers of production and possible interpretation. This
>interpretation happened inside the reader's head and translated
>itself into visible culture through the development of fashions
>and 'cults' such as for example gothic romanticism or decadence,
>or the cults around the work and personality of Goethe or Oscar
>Wilde.
>
>One could, of course easily jump from the history of text
>printing to the history of translation (the connection seems
>obvious), but what I would like to look at first is the quite
>recent history of popular cultures. I am interested in those
>not as a defamation of the high arts, but I am interested in
>them as a potential zone of transgression between artist and
>audience. It is quite remarkable that there has been such an
>outspoken tension between popular cultures and the high arts
>for most of the 20th century, when both of them originated from
>the same background: the estrangement from the original
>intention of the author through the before mentioned reproduction
>techniques, which allowed large groups of individuals from all
>social classes an unprecedented freedom of and space for interpretation.
>
>This estrangement produced a mainly social phenomenon in which art,
>fashion and popular cultures would meet: the first large
>'interactive' space of the arts. It created an environment in
>which the audience could expand upon a work of art, no matter
>how slightly or subtly, by entering the new world created by the
>artist. It was the beginning of an at times shallow rapprochement,
>a coming together, of audience, including curators and critics,
>and artists; a time of mutual manipulation in which artists
>influenced the audience and vice versa. The audience's association,
>on various levels, with the arts in popular culture was always an
>active, lively environment, and in the 20th century this environment
>developed from being mostly an interpretation space into being a
>production space as well. This communication or exchange between
>artist and audience created a moving away from the singular,
>original art object to a conceptual space. So when we then neglect
>the conceptual meaning of a work of art in favor of its materiality,
>this can eventually create problems when we deal with works of art
>which are location or time specific and process or communication oriented.
>
>Constantly moving between original intent of an art work and the
>freedom of interpretation one could legitimately state that we
>are in a sort of 'perpetuum mobile' situation. These circular
>movements in the arts can roughly be summarized as follows:
>reproduction creates distance from the original which in turn
>creates increasing freedom of interpretation, this freedom of
>interpretation creates a reaction on the part of the arts to
>pre-create interpretation and thus regain an intimacy with the
>audience; the audience is challenged by the individual artist's
>pre-creation of interpretation (and the eventual reproductions
>and documentation of it) to enter into a further expansion of
>interpretation, and all of this is happening in an expanding
>market complemented by personal and mass media.
>After experiments in 20th century art and discourse which tackled
>specific questions concerning originality, authorship and the
>boundaries of the work of art and of art itself, we have now
>entered a stage in which artists are moving away from creating
>objects to focus almost solely on creating 'zones of interpretation',
>on creating art processes rather then objects or installations.
>
>Popular culture, once seen as the domain of mainly "fans and bimbo's"
>of all kinds of quality and class, has developed in such a way that
>it is producing its own, autodidact artists (plus art context: artist
>initiatives, journalists, publications). Art has irreversibly become
>part of daily life: the avant-garde can rest in peace. The
>development of a non-institutional art practice has gained momentum
>by the development and availability of personal media, e.g. consumer
>technology. The last few decades in particular a part of the 'former'
>audience has gained access to the higher levels of cultural
>production, through various presentation platforms and media. The
>internet seems to have been of particular importance there. On it
>'grassroots' artist movements and art initiatives with an often
>more profound understanding of media art and its ever changing
>environment then older, more established art institutions have
>developed. Some of these artists and initiatives already collaborate
>with all kinds of art institutions world wide. The now much broader
>(and also deepened) environment of popular culture is actually
>adding to the creation of high culture: it produces high culture.
>
>Media and art experience: "the intelligence sits in front of the computer"
>(Stefen Wernery, founder of the Chaos Computer Club, the German hacker association)
>
>The Canadian art critic Jeanne Randolph, closely involved with the
>new media arts since the early nineties, has developed a criticism
>of what she calls 'the Technological Ethos'. Skillfully avoiding
>the often tedious and rigid Marxist criticisms of capitalism, she
>criticizes our society's obsession with the appearances of our
>alleged progress: virtual reality goggles and gloves, the latest
>mobile phones, personal computers, palmtops, etc. Jeanne Randolph
>reminds us that technology is not that shiny, desirable object, but
>technology is what created it. Technology is an ever developing,
>immaterial process, which we can perceive and be aware of through
>the traces it leaves behind in the form of the products it every
>now and then materializes in. One could even say that these
>products are the temporary physical translations of an immaterial,
>creative process. Randolph's reminder of the basis of our
>technological environment gives us the opportunity to look at
>preserving 'unstable' art works as reconstructing a partly materialized process.
>
>The history of art created with electronic media is often presented
>as a separate entity in the history of art as a whole, just like
>products of technology are often perceived as a breech with the
>environment they sprung from, but the art works we deal with here
>could also be seen as a technologically conceived (art) form, within
>the diversity of all arts, whereby technology is part of a larger
>artistic, cultural context. More deceivingly even, the history of
>media art is often presented as one separate, linear history, based
>on technological developments. Criticism of art in all sorts of
>digital networks is slowly turning into an ever more technology
>centered discourse as well. It should not have to be that way,
>because like earlier media art was closely related to the context
>of 'immaterial' arts such as performance or conceptual art, network
>art discourses have at least as much roots in a conceptual discourse
>as in a materialistic one.
>
>In June 1997 Tilman Baumgaertel wrote an interesting text in which
>he proposed a pre-history of net art that included many 20th century
>approaches to art, from Futurism via Dada to Fluxus and Conceptual
>art and so on. Others have written similar texts in which art on
>the net is compared to earlier developments in art history and/or
>analyzed from a (cyber)feminist or political perspective. The early,
>conceptual approach to network art and maybe even media art as a
>whole offers a great freedom of thought, and therefore also of
>practice. The desire to see network art as either a purely digital
>object or as an entirely separate entity in or even from art is,
>despite these texts, unfortunately still very strong. Yet if one
>looks at the variety within on-line art projects it is hard to
>maintain that network art is really a separate category in art.
>It would be more accurate to say that art, and the art world at
>large, has sort of been extended and also changed by the use of
>computer (related) networks.
>
>The reality of the arts in the age of the internet is that the
>digital networks, like their predecessor the telephone, has become
>a tool that combines (a relative) accessibility and 'sociability'
>with (a relative) effectiveness and productivity. Artists will use
>them as they please and implement them in whatever art practice
>they engage in. Using all kinds of networks has simply become a
>part of an ever growing multidisciplinary art practice. Artists
>do use the digital networks for their specific technological
>possibilities, yet those possibilities are very often subdued to
>the artist's intent. Whether for instance an art work's conceptual
>space is extended through the web, whether the internet is used as
>a musical instrument or simple signal transportation device,
>whether wireless networks make a city a local canvas, whether the
>internet is used for representation only or for multi-user or even
>audience participation projects, the network is in the end most of
>all the vehicle which makes it all possible, its wiring or nodes
>are not all there is to this art. The core is often something
>else: a fascination with or need for communication, the tension
>between closeness and distance, an exploration of new views, a
>media-political statement etc. The apparent material similarities
>of the art works do not automatically imply that they can all be
>fitted under one and the same category.
>
>Preservation of a Process = Going with the Flow or Being the Flow
>
>A few years ago I interviewed conceptual artist Ron Kuivila, who
>had presented a lecture about his idea of notation/realization as
>a tool in media art at the Dutch media art institution V2. He
>says: "I am raising the possibilities to the notation/realization
>almost in self-defense against the boundless energy and invention
>of these technical forms." And: "The acceleration of development
>in digital media has also increased their ephemerality. This
>becomes a fundamental creative problem for artists trying to
>engage in the possibilities of a particular technology as a
>'medium'. (...) What I am interested in is raising the question:
>what if we begin to think of the creation of media work along
>the relationship of notation/realization? What happens if we take
>that observation seriously and imagine all art making with media
>as having the ephemerality of performance?"
>Curators of new media art, in particular of the arts that engage
>digital media, are chasing the impossible. They are trying to
>capture a movement, an event that is time, site and hard or
>software specific. It might be time, as he suggests to "imagine
>the passage between a particular set of technical possibilities
>to a particular piece as a more fluid situation. Or, we can take
>the opposite tack and imagine works as problems of specification..."
>
>Let's now turn back to the development of what I called the
>interactive space of the arts, the circular movement, a dance
>perhaps, of interpretation in which artist and audience each
>take turns. The much hailed interactivity of the new media
>networks is not about clicking buttons, but about engaging in
>a work socially, personally. The internet is an intimate space.
>In it we find the same strange tension between distance and
>intimacy that one could see in early modern art. Maybe this is
>one of the reasons Boris Groys suggested that the internet did
>not, as many have claimed, accelerate reproduction to a
>dazzling high, but it in fact brings back the original in art.
>This sudden implosion of the reproduction space has in fact
>scattered the mass experience of art, and returned interpretation
>to a more local, even personal level. Having left the shared space
>of the museum, we are at home or in our office, or maybe even
>alone at a computer in that same museum, 'reading to ourselves'.
>We are engaging, participating, creating, manipulating, and
>being manipulated. The implosion of the art context to the
>personal level, to a level in which we are inside the art context,
>inside the art process even, is the ultimate experience of art.
>Preserving art in this environment is more then a technical
>challenge, it becomes social and cultural theory, it becomes
>concocting an explosive mixture of individual tastes and personal
>stories. The question will be how to distill grand narratives from that.
>
>Not just the preservation of the art work in a mediated environment
>asks for new strategies, but also the continuation or survival of
>the interpretation space between artist and audience (and of course
>between artist and other artists) is dependent on a conscious
>handling of these art works. Art is now entering a phase in which
>wrongful preservation can not just damage the art process itself,
>but also the interpretation of this art could become almost
>impossible. It is not unthinkable that this happens: the rigid
>copyright legislation applied to music and consumer products
>(software in particular) could easily be copied for art made
>with or from digital components, thus obstructing a lively,
>productive exchange between audience and artist. Only consciously
>keeping channels or rights open (and levels of openness can be
>negotiated from project to project and from layer to layer inside
>a project) can prevent art works and projects to bleed to death,
>can prevent a discourse to be cut off or it can prevent that new
>projects do not or hardly have the ability to connect to already
>existing ones. The interpretation of art is largely happening in
>a mediated environment, in which artists, audience and various
>authorities (from governments to critics and art institutions)
>are active, each in their own way. The meaning and value of art
>lies in the activity, the movement, the process of interactivity
>between audience and art work. For a lasting, living art practice
>it is necessary that the audience in particular has the possibility to move and express itself.
>
>
>-
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager