JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING  June 2015

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING June 2015

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

May panel on Curating Process - Responding to Bruce, Ashok, Clive, Ursula, Hans and Marisa on the definition of "Object" with the

From:

Xiaoying YUAN <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Xiaoying YUAN <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 3 Jun 2015 18:00:46 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (112 lines)

Dear Curating Process panel contributors,

May panel's deadline has just passed. Due to the extremely stressful
working schedule, many of our contributors could only follow the discussion
and contribute their ideas during the last week of May. However, the
intensity of the posts in the past few days created such an unexpected
dynamism on our panel. I enjoyed following everyone's thinking on the
topic, and your opinions on all broader issues you raised here.

I’m very grateful to all contributors who have shared their work,
knowledge, experience and research resource on the May panel generously.
What I’m reading here is way beyond my expectations as a panel host,
curator, and Ph.D. candidate. I felt overwhelmed by the information,
thoughts and analysis on the everyday post. It takes in fact much longer
time for me – the host of the panel – to digest your assignments, and
research the content you had mentioned.

In my latest email exchange with Beryl, I had the permission to postpone
the closure deadline of my panel to a random day in June. Considering that
we - including myself - all have other tasks in our work and life, I'd like
to propose to close my panel on June 5th, this Friday. With the starting
day May 5th, we will make exactly one month in our online discussion to
that day.

Today, I would like to respond to one of the most interesting discussion we
shared so far on the panel: the definition of “Object” in the blurring
field of art and technology.

To answer to Ashok’s term “residue,” Bruce Wands, as one of the most
contributive writers on our panel, made a precise point on its eventually
limited usage describing the emergent outcomes of artists’ creative process
in fine art field. “… we call them creative accidents. In fine art, the
creative process is not always linear, as it is in animation and motion
graphics.”

I agree with Bruce's statement, meanwhile,  “residue” remains attractive to
me as a term to explore in the blurring field of fine art and computer
science. In fact, it might even become one of the favorite terms – exactly
because of its ambiguity in between the two fields - for artists working
with animation and motion graphics to explore. In Clive Robertson’s post
responding to Bruce’s comment on data/object/residue, Clive took Yoko Ono’s
work as case study to point out the specific context of museum collection
that transforms a living, evolutive and open process to a “dead” object.

Here, I’d like to mention Ursula Endlicher’s way to define the artist
creative process in her post: “Framework.” “... flexible, alive, animated
through (a) real-time input,” so was her way to define “object” in art and
technology. No matter physical or virtual, “live” is the key character that
makes the “object” contemporary - means, art-technological - “one, that
only completely exists when some sort of ‘life-line’ is hooked up to it.”

I found Ursula’s criteria for the definition of the art technological
object and her description of the definition VERY interesting, especially
for works relating to real-time data analysis.

While Hans Tammen was responding to my invitation to talk about his opinion
on sound/music process and curating, he posted a short text that covered
some key topics in the field including the definition of “object,” the
understanding of “residue,” the documentation and preservation, especially
the transfer of the listening experience. “CD or other media may be the
object and the actual listening experience the ‘residue.'”

If the above description by Hans is valuable, I have to say that I have
doubt of his feeling of discussing the process curating in the visual art
wouldn’t be much different from in music and sound. The difficulties that
we encounter in sound/music field in the file (or data) digitalization,
transfer, collection, and conservation might be identical to those in the
visual art, but we do not treat the same data in visual art as in sound
art, and we do confront very different technical issues working in the two
fields. Additional to this, Hans also raised the point that “music/sound is
ephemeral anyway,” which I agree with but have to argue that this is not
always the case for visual art works. And here, we haven’t started talking
about the presentation of visual artworks and sound/music projects, nor
involving the online sound live performance as part of the discussion.

So far, it seems that we need to track back to the beginning of our
discussion, to one of Bruce’s early posts on “object.” In that post dated
May 20, he pointed out that the problem was how we defined the object if it
was an interactive work or was a site-specific installation.

Bruce asked at the end of his post: “Would the site-specific installation
and documentation now be defined as the object?”

Bruce seems to raise my question for the panel in a different way: “How
to/Can we curate the artist’s creative process as an object?” The question
made me think about Marisa Jahn’s post on the same day, her Nanny Van
project, and the case study she mentioned in her post, Kristin Sue Lucas’
name change project. Both Marisa and Kristin Sue Lucas’ works are based on
social practice. Can we consider these projects as site-specific projects?
And, Bruce has previously stated, “Most of these works need to be
documented in order to understand the concepts behind them and how they
work,” both works have been exhibited under the form of documentary movie.
But, we have to remember that both projects were produced and managed (or
curated) by the artists themselves. Neither of them required a curator’s
intervention to work out the best strategy to exhibit or to promote.

The question then becomes: what can curator do in such a process-based
project?

I would like to continue tomorrow, with Millie Chen, LoVid, Ursula, Marisa,
and Laura (bitforms)'s posts that responded to this topic with intriguing
thoughts.


Xiaoying Juliette Yuan 袁晓萦
Media Arts Curator
Visiting Scholar NYU Steinhardt
Department of Music and Performing Arts Professions
35 West 4th Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10012
http://julietteyuan.net

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager