Hello  Andreas, Eric and list:

I wrote this last night before Johannes posted (sorry Johannes, no reaction
here to your thoughtful piece) and in my proof-reading see that this text is
all over the place, but I have to run out the door. Please accept the
rawness of this writing:

We will never agree on a definition or set boundaries, but the discussion
can help indicate what direction Media Art can take and how it contributes
to or fits into contemporary art without being consumed by it. Although, I
must admit, if Media Art were to dissolve into contemporary art in general I
would see no need to shed tears. This is upon the condition that media
theory also took on a greater role in contemporary art instead of being
largely ignored by it.

The fact that media (any media) propels a large part of the human experience
must play a central role in any discussion that circles around defining,
producing and exhibiting contemporary art – and we live in a technology
driven, digital age. This is exactly what typically comes up short in the
discussion of contemporary art in general, which is thought to have its
finger on the pulse of society. There is a “blind spot” where Media Art
resides. 

At the moment, technology’s impact on daily life is all about networking and
integration, and most of what is seen at contemporary art venues only
acknowledges the surface of this development. 
Much of contemporary art and its venues gives viewers what they know or
desire - a dream of the home theater they can’t afford. It is an
incorporation of new media into the artwork that is like home entertainment,
only better:
The laptop on your countertop for looking up recipes and getting the news,
the flatscreen TV that is flush with or integrated into the wall (or a
projector), a beanbag video chair for your playstation (available at
Walmart, but more expensive ones can be found) is all part of the furniture
in the modern household as well as the contemporary exhibition space. This
is part of a strategy to make Media Art more inviting to the public and it
is probably even be necessary to some degree. But if it glosses over the
media-theoretical content, the point has been lost.

And, yes, I would like to wholeheartedly second Andreas’ suggestion that
contemporary art has long incorporated Weibel’s notions of simulation,
signs, media, etc. as aesthetic categories, but without the technology bent.
Yet they have by no means replaced issues of truth, authorship, or
originality as aesthetic categories. They all co-exist and that works just
fine. I have no problems with Olafur Eliasson’s Tate Modern piece, for
instance, which involves all of the above categories.

But media theory is too often left out of the equation when a work of art is
assessed. This is where the media art institution – whether the permanent
Media Art center or the festival – steps in. It is a place where we can put
on media-colored glasses (which look very much like X-ray glasses) and view
art in terms of its “mediality”. This also means exhibiting and examining an
artwork from a media-theoretical standpoint even if it is pure painting or
straight-up performance/dance.  

The psychological and sociological implications of a society being driven by
the shifting experience caused by technological advance (from weaponry to
cell phones and the mentality that goes along with its/their use) is hardly
addressed by contemporary art in general.

I would generally agree with Andreas’ words, “Art has to be a form of
resistance, a motor of contradiction, not of therapy.” But art can also be a
whole lot more than that (and you can use it as therapy, too). Media Art
gets stuck in an “anti” attitude only too often. There has just got to be
more to it than “protest this” and “protest that” – especially because work
in this thread is often lecturing, repetitive, wearing, and one-sided (most
of the work on genetic engineering, for instance). I often ask myself,
“Where is the smart art part?”
 
Let’s move closer to that saying, “Media Art is about knowing the codes and
breaking them.” This is definitely no all-encompassing definition but it is
helpful and it is something that can be found in work by the artists Andreas
cited (Export, JODI, Peljan, Weiser, etc.). There is plenty of room here for
technology or protest and “anti” as well as the breaking of aesthetic codes,
social codes, or breaking open the codes of commercial art. 
But please, artists, don’t just leave them broken. I request you pick up the
pieces, don’t be afraid to incorporate them if you want to (they can be very
useful) and take (media) art to another level. And if I might make another
request: Please don’t be over-concerned with visions of the future. There is
plenty of media theory to be applied to the present culture and aesthetic
language. Constantly directing to technology’s potential diverts away from
the very pressing questions of today. It's kind of escapism.

At the same time, while I write this I try to keep in mind that, as a
curator, I can really only direct the exhibition and analysis of art, not
much of the production. 

There is a good essay by Sigrid Schade in the book “Konfigurationen” (sorry,
only in German, Wilhelm Fink Verlag) about how mediality – or art’s “media”
aspects – has  been suppressed/denied in modern and contemporary art. It is
up to us to change this. When it does change, the term “media art” may very
well become obsolete. Somehow, I’m not too worried about that.

Rosanne Altstatt

-- 
+++ GMX - Die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++

1 GB Mailbox bereits in GMX FreeMail http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail