Honor, Crumbs
A humorous and not quite irrelevant letter from Art Forum in 1967:
http://www.brown-and-son.com/post/30726913255/artforum-letter-1967-http-artforum-com
This letter appeared in PAGE 62 - the bulletin of the Computer Arts Society, Autumn 2005 -- which can be downloaded in full from
http://computer-arts-society.com/uploads/46_4f4b4a1a687a8339106939.pdf
Best
Paul
On 02/09/2012, at 2:09 PM, Honor Harger wrote:
> It's a beautifully written article, but rather flawed, I feel. Bishop
> begins by rightly saying that "contemporary art [has] been curiously
> unresponsive to the total upheaval in our labor and leisure
> inaugurated by the digital revolution".
>
> But then completely inexplicably states that she will not be
> addressing contemporary art that could be considered "new media".
> She writes, "there is, of course, an entire sphere of 'new media'
> art, but this is a specialized field of its own" ...
> and presumably therefore unworthy of her consideration?
>
> This becomes problematic later in the article, where she makes
> awkward statements like this: "the digital, by contrast, is code,
> inherently alien to human perception".
>
> Something that is created by humans can not surely be "inherently
> alien to human perception". At least not to the humans that wrote the
> code. Or are we to view them as aliens?
>
> In Bishop's analysis of contemporary research driven art, she
> concludes that there's a turn away from examining "the social,
> political, and economic conditions of the present".
>
> Where does that leave the work of Trevor Paglen, for example, or
> Marko Peljhan, or many others we might cite. But thereby resurfaces
> the problematic point of the article. I guess those artists are too
> close to the "sphere of new media art", which Bishop is explicitly
> ignoring in this piece, to be considered relevant refutations of this
> argument.
>
> She asks, "is there a sense of fear underlying visual art's disavowal
> of new media?". A somewhat ironic, or perhaps obsolete question,
> given that she has disavowed it right from the beginning of the
> article.
>
> She does then perhaps provides a reason for both the fear and the
> disavowal at the conclusion of the: "at its worst [ the digital
> revolution] signals the impending obsolescence of visual art itself".
>
> I greatly enjoyed reading the article, and respect Claire Bishop
> enormously, and am grateful for these issues being raised in a
> mainstream contemporary art journal like Art Forum. But I think it's
> highly problematic to dismiss the practice of many visual artists who
> do address the "total upheaval in our labor and leisure inaugurated
> by the digital revolution" with rigour and intelligence.
>
> Honor
>
>
>
> From: Martin John Callanan <[log in to unmask]>
>
>> so many words to say nothing.
>>
>>
>> On 2 September 2012 13:49, Honor Harger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I am guessing you've all probably read Claire Bishop's fascinating essay in
>>> Art Forum, the "Digital Divide"?
>>> http://artforum.com/inprint/issue=201207&id=31944
>>>
>>> "So why do I have a sense that the appearance and content of contemporary
>>> art have been curiously unresponsive to the total upheaval in our labor and
>>> leisure inaugurated by the digital revolution? While many artists use
>>> digital technology, how many really confront the question of what it means
>>> to think, see, and filter affect through the digital? How many thematize
>>> this, or reflect deeply on how we experience, and are altered by, the
>>> digitization of our existence? I find it strange that I can count on one
>>> hand the works of art that do seem to undertake this task
>>> [....]
>>> There is, of course, an entire sphere of "new media" art, but this is a
>>> specialized field of its own: It rarely overlaps with the mainstream art
>>> world (commercial galleries, the Turner Prize, national pavilions at
>>> Venice). While this split is itself undoubtedly symptomatic, the mainstream
>>> art world and its response to the digital are the focus of this essay."
>>>
>>> I'd be interested in your eruditions on this.
>>>
>>> best,
>>>
>>> Honor
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> honor harger
>
> present location: brighton, .uk
>
> email: [log in to unmask]
> sms: +44 7765834272
>
> -> w e b
> bio: http://about.me/honor
>
> -> b l o g
> particle decelerator: http://decelerator.blogspot.com/
>
> - > b l a g
> twitter: http://twitter.com/honorharger
>
> -> l i s t e n
> radio astronomy: http://www.radio-astronomy.net
>
> -> w o r k
> director of lighthouse: http://www.lighthouse.org.uk
====
Paul Brown - based in the UK May to November 2012
http://www.paul-brown.com == http://www.brown-and-son.com
UK Mobile +44 (0)794 104 8228 == USA fax +1 309 216 9900
Skype paul-g-brown
====
Synapse Artist-in-Residence - Deakin University
http://www.deakin.edu.au/itri/cisr/projects/hear.php
Honorary Visiting Professor - Sussex University
http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/ccnr/research/creativity.html
====
====
Paul Brown - based in the UK May to November 2012
http://www.paul-brown.com == http://www.brown-and-son.com
UK Mobile +44 (0)794 104 8228 == USA fax +1 309 216 9900
Skype paul-g-brown
====
Synapse Artist-in-Residence - Deakin University
http://www.deakin.edu.au/itri/cisr/projects/hear.php
Honorary Visiting Professor - Sussex University
http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/ccnr/research/creativity.html
====
|