The concept of the "The Do-it-Yourself Artwork" is very interesting but in terms of participatory artworks the concept of "Do it With Others" (DIWO) is possibly more powerful, as practiced so well at Furtherfield. This is an arts initiative that exists with relations to both the new media and traditional art worlds but, being more concerned with the particularities of social context, works beyond the confines of either. This seems a more profound instance of relational creative practice than anything ever made under the rubric of relational aesthetics, which seems an internally conflicted, if not incoherent, concept anyway. I'm quite happy to see relational aesthetics fade from the fashion magazines (oops, I mean art magazines). The only problem is, given recent art fads, what it might be replaced with.
On 6 Jul 2012, at 14:15, Beryl Graham wrote:
> Dear List,
> Thanks Domenico, Christiane and Simon.
> So, in addition to Domenico's useful 3 categories below, we have a couple of 'behaviours' which relate to issues for collecting, and cross over categories of media:
> Collecting participatory art.
> Collecting (documents of) 'live art'.
> And as Christiane point out in her excellent artnodes article, "Relational Aesthetics Syndrome" is an unfortunate condition wherein although those aware of new media can see clear crossovers between inherently participatory new media structures and non-new-media, those in the mainstream of contemporary art appear to be wearing one-way mirror sunglasses and can't see the crossovers. This is very visible in exclusions and exclusions from books and conferences, but I should say that some books do include both, such as "The Do-it-Yourself Artwork" edited by Anna Dezeuze, which include chapters from Tate's Catherine Wood about Robert Morris, and from yours truly.
> Which leaves us with the more specific question of collecting participatory art - what examples are there from collecting participatory new media art that might help those wearing mirror shades? And, vice versa, re Robert Morris' Bodyspacemotionthings, the Tate did not collect his chipboard sculptures but did manage to reconstruct the whole exhibition anew (with less splinters) from information in the archives - might this be a way of sidestepping the red herring of broken websites - i.e. it might not matter if every bit of code is dead, as long as an artwork such as Learning To Love You More could be reconstructed anew to retain the participative intent of the artists??
> On 4 Jul 2012, at 15:43, Domenico Quaranta wrote:
>> For the sake of clarity, I will try to divide the topic in three
>> different areas:
>> 1. collecting new media art;
>> 2. collecting unstable media;
>> 3. collecting the digital.
>> 1. Collecting new media art. New media art IS collected, by private
>> collections and institutions, as long as its cultural relevance is
>> accepted in the art market field. That is, not so much, because
>> galleries, art critics and curators didn't do a great job so far in
>> making this cultural relevance a widespread truth in the field of
>> contemporary art; and yet, enough to allow anybody to make a nice "new
>> media art show" with collected or collectable works provided
>> exclusively by private and institutional collectors or commercial
> Beryl Graham, Professor of New Media Art
> Research Student Manager, Art and Design
> MA Curating Course Leader
> Faculty of Arts, Design, and Media, University of Sunderland
> Ashburne House, Ryhope Road
> SR2 7EE
> Tel: +44 191 515 2896 Fax: +44 191 515 2132
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> CRUMB web resource for new media art curators
> CRUMB's new books:
> Rethinking Curating: Art After New Media from MIT Press
> A Brief History of Curating New Media Art, and A Brief History of Working with New Media Art from The Green Box
[log in to unmask] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk
[log in to unmask] Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh
http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/