Of course you're right, and of course video is time-based. I was just trying to think through a more interesting idea of what is interesting about work that isn't linear and repeating. Maybe 'event-based'...?
From: Curating digital art - www.crumbweb.org on behalf of Michael Connor
Sent: Fri 04/09/2009 5:48 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] September 2009: update and "Real-Time: Showing Art in the Age of New Media"
Charlie, I think I understand you and I think we still have semantic
differences, sorry to be boring. Just to be clear are you arguing that
a linear, repeating video (for example) should not be considered
time-based? I would argue that they should be labeled as such and
usually are. It seems like your definition is much more applicable to
the term 'open artwork.'
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Gere, Charlie<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> When Christiane Paul, Jemima Rellie and I curated the FEEDBACK show at Laboral in Gijon a couple of years ago we focussed 'on art responsive to instructions, input, or its environment'. This was partly to be able to exclude video etc... from our considerations without getting bogged down in medium-based definitions of the work we wanted to represent, such as 'digital' work
> On the model of Gregory Bateson's definition of information as 'the difference that makes a difference' we can think of truly time-based work as involving a temporal difference or deferral that makes a difference (I keep trying to write the derridean neologism, difference with a final 'a' rather than 'e', for difference/deferral, but it keeps getting changed back to difference).
> In other words, unless there is some kind of event, something that happens, that arrives, that is open to the future, rather than mere repetition, it is not time-based
> Hope this makes sense etc...
> Charlie Gere
> Head of Department
> Department of Media, Film and Cultural Studies
> Lancaster University Lancaster LA1 4YL UK
> Tel: +44 (0) 1524 594446
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Curating digital art - www.crumbweb.org [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Connor
> Sent: 04 September 2009 16:00
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] September 2009: update and "Real-Time: Showing Art in the Age of New Media"
> Greetings from Eastern Standard time. I like your point about the work
> of art as ontological mirror:
> "In the gallery it presents a kind of ontological mirror reflecting
> back and stabilising our own sense of self in its apparent stability
> and autonomy... By contrast time-based art, interactive art, and all
> art involving some form of interaction over time tend to do the
> opposite. Perhaps this may be a partial explanation of the continued
> resistance to such work in mainstream institutions."
> But with regard to the idea of 'continued resistance', I think it's
> fair to say that time-based art is extremely successful in mainstream
> institutions. I'm not sure you're drawing the line in the right place;
> perhaps the real binary is not between object and non-object but
> between open and closed, or object and system.
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Johannes
> Birringer<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> yes, "Niech zdechna artysci" indeed, in '85 at La Mama, very nice powdered make up on faces to make the actors look deadly ghostly. no smoking in theatres then.
>> Kantor??? make-up like Kabuki??? Oh my god! What did you smoke to see
>> this? He is crying from his tomb: "Qu'ils crčvent, les artistes"!!