 |
 |
I'm joking around a bit here, but I've heard painters saying the same thing. "we're ignored, no one understands us, etc" "There's all these grants and programs I could do if I just used the internet in my work." They can claim they're more involved in analysis and evaluation. Photographers also are excellent at this - "people think what we do isn't art, but it iiiiiiis." Maybe artists in general are more comfortable feeling marginalized, or identify as an underdog. It's better to feel off on our own, or in a small group, determined to have people understand. There's support and resources for all media, I don't know how one would determine if it was distributed fairly. It's when you compare the support for the arts as a whole against, say, the support for and up and coming or mid-career military contractor that there's an imbalance. Ok, I don't want to side track this... Steve -- Steve Lambert http://visitsteve.com Eyebeam Senior Fellow http://eyebeam.org On Sep 10, 2008, at 5:35 AM, Simon Biggs wrote: > Josephine may be partially right to suggest that artists working > with new > media are more involved in the analysis and evaluation of their > work than > conventional artists because they are engaged in constructing a > different > artist/audience relationship. However, I suspect the main reason > they have > been engaged in critiquing, curating and contextualising their own > work is > because the conventional art world has ignored most of new media arts > practice. As the professional critics, curators and theorists were > not doing > this job then the artists had to do it themselves. > > This has changed somewhat when, from the early 1990’s, a small and > dedicated > group of theorists and curators emerged who could carry this Oburden’. > However, I am sure most people would agree it hasn’t changed enough > (although leafing through current mainstream arts publications like > Flash > Art or Frieze I am happy new media arts is not associated with the > current > Ocapital’ circus that is the mainstream art world). > > There is no harm done to the artists who have had to assume the > responsibility of critiquing and evaluating their own and others > artwork. If > anything it has sharpened their thinking (and improved their > spelling). I > encourage all my students to be active as critical writers and > curators on > arts practice, not only those working with new media but in all > disciplines. > I see that as essential to being an aware artist. > > Regards > > Simon > > > On 10/9/08 10:20, "Josephine Bosma" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> stand next to the work to 'explain' it seems a bit amateurish to me. >> Only an amateur would think all art can be understood at first >> glance. In 'traditional' art circles art works were explained and >> contextualized by critics and curators, in catalogues, exhibition >> papers and in newspapers. The tendency in new media art to involve >> the artist in this process should maybe be seen in the light of an >> increasing importance of the artist audience relationship. If the >> artists prefer critics to be the sole opinion-makers of their works, >> then by all means: make the installation and then go home to read >> the newspaper. > > > > Professor Simon Biggs > edinburgh college of art > [log in to unmask] > www.eca.ac.uk > > [log in to unmask] > www.littlepig.org.uk > AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk > > > Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, > number SC009201