hi all
hope you're surviving the heatwave wherever you are - i am wishing
newcastle had more public art fountains i could sit with my toes in!
i thought i should recap where we have got to thus far, in no
particular order:
= perhaps thinking of strategies for sustainability and an art work's
life span is more useful than thinking about permanence when it comes
to public art projects. this then takes into account platforms for
presentation of work that could change, and artists being able to
upgrade or let degrade their work, as they and the commissioners (and
public?) see fit. comments from you all about the archives/registration
end of things have been very useful
= mark wallinger definitely isn't the first artist to install a
permanent work of art in a public location using new media technology
(and let's not get in to the video is or isn't new media debate here
just now - it's too hot!). thanks all for all the great examples; it's
always nice to feel like the CRUMB list can spontaneously write new art
histories if we put our heads together.
= it seems we still could unpack further discussions around % for art
programmes and the types of work it results in - as far as issues for
curators and for the field of new media are concerned. i particularly
liked jorn's comments about the business/developer side of things and a
wonder as to where the public actually is in the equation.
= tied to this, it seems to me there is a crossover between art and
design here too - as developers look to designers and information
architects (sometimes interaction designers) for technology-driven
displays to flash about their buildings and cities (and again, don't
get me started about what this means for curators - it's just too hot,
my brain might fry).
= as for the nature of public art itself - its history and our
assumptions about how it works - is it the case that there are few new
media driven projects commissioned in proportion to the more static
works we tend to associate with the field, or does it just seem that
way? and if it is true, then why? is it just a question of
sustainability and the equipment that puts people off, or a genuine
lack of opportunities, or is it the limited purview of the commissioner
and the artists' difficulty in convincing them of the feasibilities? as
Matt asked: " Is it possible for time-limited works to be reasonably
commissioned at all in a public art model? How do we change that
public art model (which tends to think very much along the lines of
architecture in terms of permanence)?" (or, what hasn't there been a
work of interactive, technology-driven, variable media for the fourth
plinth in trafalgar square yet?)
and now, back to the ice-cream,
sarah
|