I certainly agree that there are works that should be ephemeral, and
artists should have the option to choose this for their work if they
like. But surely this can't be a 'given' for the entire genre of media
and technology-based artwork? Or rather, if it is, we must investigate
the practical boundaries of this - where do works that *can* be
preserved diverge from those that cannot? for what kind of work must
technological obsolescence/breakdown be a given?
What if the artist doesn't have that ephemerality as part of their
intent? (are they simply being naive?) And 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)?
My feeling is that the piece's future life should be thought of as much
as part of the piece as are the dimensions, materials, and form - and as
such they should be determined and designed by the artist, subject to
the constraints of the Public Art opportunity. So it is important that
they are able to design a realistic and practical future for their
piece.
I'd also say that interaction offers great opportunities for designing
change into the piece. A great example of a piece that's designed to
change over time in response to the public interacting with it (though
not a media art piece) is Janet Zweig's piece for the water treatment
centre: http://www.janetzweig.com/public/08.html
<M>
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:55:30 +0200, "Andy Polaine" <[log in to unmask]>
said:
> I know it seems a fairly heretical thing to say in this forum, but
> why the obsessiveness about archiving and preserving? Plenty of works
> "pass over" into to the technological/cultural graveyard (almost
> certainly more than manage to be 'archived').
>
> That seems to me to be quite okay and natural that they should have a
> life-span that befits the technological era they were developed in.
> Many interactive works are almost completely about the experience of
> interaction in any case, and you can't archive that (outside of your
> own head). Even writing about the work and documenting it doesn't
> replace the experience, interesting as that documentation may be as
> Rosie mentioned.
>
> It's rather a more Zen and playful point of view I suppose, but I am
> reminded that some of the masters of Haiku let their best verses
> float out to sea rather than let their egos become too attached to
> them. Plenty of wonderful experiences, interactive art-based or
> otherwise, are fleeting and that's part of the joy of them.
>
> I know the riposte to this is most likely all about preserving
> culture and enabling future scholarship, etc. but, really, sometimes
> it's okay to let these things go. Think ice-sculptures instead of stone.
>
> I say this not just to be contrary (okay, that too) but because
> otherwise the debate gets really bogged down in the how instead of
> the why.
>
> Best,
>
> Andy
>
> ----------------------------------
> Andy Polaine
> Senior Lecturer, COFA, UNSW
> Convenor, Omnium Creative Network
> ----------------------------------
|