Yes, yes, I entirely agree - a distinct running time too, finite,
limited, that also involves change and ending, not just the time of
viewing or spectatorship, but what about looping?! Repetition as death
drive or as eternal recurrence? And what about works that involve some
kind of feedback? Or works that can or do keep going such as Jem Finer's
Longplayer, the clock of the long now, Lamonte Young's never-ending (or
beginning) musical works? Is the potentially infinite time-based art
work as much of a means of denying death as an object
Charlie Gere
Head of Department
Institute for Cultural Research
Lancaster University Lancaster LA1 4YL UK
Tel: +44 (0) 1524 594446
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/cultres/staff/gere.php
From: Josephine Bosma [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 04 September 2009 13:09
To: Gere, Charlie
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: September 2009: update and "Real-Time: Showing Art in the
Age of New Media"
Charlie Gere wrote:
Thus perhaps being 'time-based' is not a question of movement of time or
duration within the work itself, but of the time of spectatorship. This
would also seem to relate nicely to Sally Jane's examples from actual
theatre. I think this makes net art, software art and other new media
arts time-based for what its worth
This is the only clear definition I found online that comes close to how
I always interpreted the term:
time based art : art works that are sequenced through time, that change
as we view them, and that may be ephemeral (e.g. video, kinetic
sculpture, performance works).
http://arts.unitec.ac.nz/engageinarts/visarts/glossary.php
I was just wondering if it is correct, how it is generally used. It is
one of those terms that, like for instance unstable art, seems created
for very specific, often electronic art. Even if performance works also
fit in there, it would be wrong to limit a description of the experience
of time based art to that of theatre for example.
The difference between art objects and time based art would be for me,
that the latter asks for a very specific time experience of the artwork.
It is an almost parallel development of the 'being' or 'becoming' of the
artwork and the experience of the audience (Spectator seems to limited,
and the audience can also be participants or collaborators). This means
that it is not just about viewing time, but also very much about running
time. In that respect it also reminds of life and death. If it were just
about viewing time, every artwork would be time based.
What I find very interesting is the psychological difference between the
experience of a static art object, and that of a time based artwork. I
too wonder if the general preference for art objects and for collections
of art objects is simply based on a very deep, instinctive fear of
death. I think we should challenge this basic fear in the arts as much
as in life itself, in order to fully understand what art really is.
warmest greetings from Amsterdam,
J
*
|