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  2006

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING 2006

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Permanence and public art - recap and then...

From:

"Goldstein, Barbara" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Goldstein, Barbara

Date:

Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:40:34 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (183 lines)

Re:  new technology in public art, I think it's really a matter of the field
catching up with artists.  More established programs are more likely to
commission new media art than newer programs that are still simply
advocating for why a public investment in visual art is a good thing.  Newer
programs tend to commission timid work.

 

There were quite a few new media art projects showcased at the Americans for
the Arts Public Art Network conference this year and I hear about new media
projects from most of my colleagues in more established programs.  I think
that there's a real desire in the field to work with new media artists and
that the biggest obstacles out there are the perceived & sometimes real
technical challenges of installing new media work and its maintenance.  (As
an aside, when I was in Seattle we commissioned one of Sheldon Brown's early
large scale new media works.  It was simple to install and very low
maintenance. The biggest challenge was the client who did not recognize why
it was considered art)  The enticing element of new media work is that it
can be mutable, interactive, commissioned as temporary and/or programmable,
e.g. it's rarely going to be invisible or boring.

 

 

Regarding Jorn's comments about art in private development, it's a thorny
issue but perhaps more nuanced for us as a publicly-funded agency.  We
manage 'public' art in some private development here and have noticed two
trends -- either the developers are very conservative & want to play it very
safe because they're second-guessing their market (this applies mainly to
speculative development) OR they want to 'brand' themselves as hot and
adventurous and therefore are willing to take risks.  The way we're hoping
to tackle the challenge of working with private developers is that we're
formulating public art plans in areas where private development is taking
place.  We will be encouraging private developers to place their art funds
into a pool that supports these plans, at least in part.  By using that
strategy we are establishing urban design/community goals for public art and
setting a standard for developers to meet.

 

However, without such goals, when working with developers we consider them
to be our primary clients and our intersection with community members is
secondary, being mainly a part of the development approval process rather
than being the more intrinsic part of the projects that it is if the City
itself is commissioning something.

 

Lastly, regarding Jorn's remarks about professional "public artists" and
also the question about design-as-art:  yes, there are a lot of cynical
'artists' out there who have figured out that there is a formula they can
follow to produce acceptable public art.  Depending on the experience of the
public art administrator/curator a program can fall prey to this kind of
safe work or aspire to create real, groud-breaking art.  My feeling about
this is that a) it's important to encourage talented curators to wade into
the public sector so that intelligence and talent win out and, b) those of
us who have been in the field for a while have a responsibility to challenge
others in the field to take risks.

 

TTFN.

 

bg

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Sarah Cook [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 11:59 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Permanence and public art - recap and
then...

 

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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
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

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

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