Hi all,
It seems that the primary concern of many net/digital artists is for their
work to have a social meaning. This is understandable given the nature of
the medium which was invented as a social communication tool, however, there
seems to be a tendency in the digital artists' community that perceives art
work that is not social in nature to be less meaningful. I personally see no
reason to establish such a standard. This type of normative critique of art
has been going on for a long time, and I feel that it is the main culprit of
the institutionalization and the commercialization of art.
Please note that I do not mean to state that Jess is against non-social art
work, nor that PDPal is non-social. My observation here was triggered by
their discussion, but is independent of their positions.
I found PDPal to be interesting for the following reasons:
1. It does not ostensively claim or feel like "art" in the traditional sense
of the term. The PDPal team seems to be less concerned about its status as
art than they are about their own fascination with the concept and the
possibilities of the medium. This is an interesting aspect of digital art
where the definition of art becomes secondary to the sheer fascination and
curiosity with the new medium. A variety of people from different fields
tend to get together and collaborate on a project. It often involves people
who would not otherwise have been called "artists." This blurring of artist
and non-artist is an interesting and, I feel, healthy phenomenon.
2. The postmodernism with its over-use of critical theories has stripped
elements of adventure, fun, and innocent curiosity from the process of art
making. It expects art to have specific objectives. Artists tend also to
work with specific objectives in mind. I do not necessarily find this
meaningful. In their effort to be meaningful, everything becomes reducible
to its final objectives, and in that process, it loses much of the
meaningfulness that it would have had naturally.
Digital art is inherently continual. As with the difference between the web
and print, a digital form of expression is temporally intangible and
ephemeral. In many cases, there are no clear ending or finishing of a
project. That is, the notion of "finished" art work does not necessarily
apply to digital art. If it is not finished, then is it unfinished? I would
say no. We need to shift our thinking in terms of art being "finished" or
"unfinished." Digital works of art can be neither finished nor unfinished.
The notion of "finished" is not relevant here. Digital art can organically
grow, evolve, transform, and change, just as we can as humans. To live life
strictly to achieve specific objectives is boring, lifeless, and I would
even say misguided. To live a full life, we must be open-minded and let our
environments and circumstances influence the course of our lives. Digital
art has a potential to reflect this aspect of life, and I believe PDPal team
is doing exactly this. They don't want their work to simply fulfill their
specific objectives; they want to let their art work evolve by accepting
unforeseen influences. Personally I find their lack of clear objectives to
be refreshing. Even if it were not "social", what is wrong with it? It is
like raising a child; let the child take its own natural course, rather than
dictating its life. This is an exciting possibility of digital art.
Dyske
–
Dyske Suematsu
http://www.dyske.com
Where Nothing Is Everything
PDPal and the continual nature of digital art
-
Type: discussion
Comments
Hi Dyske, and everyone else reading…
Is there a form of criticism that is not normative, not based on some form of rationalized set of desires? Is the problem making the desires conscious, on the "surface" that is problematic? Is it the stripping of "mystery," the "evocative," (at least on a surface level) that is bothersome?
Is it because "socially engaged" art has become institutionalized, or at least more visible, especially in an arena as tight knit as "new media"? Does this make it seem more conventional, expected? Is it the search for the new, the "art thing" that doesn't look like art that creates the dissappointment with "socially engaged" new media art.
Isn't this just old-fashioned avant garde-ism? Once an aesthetic becomes "conventional" (even though it all must be in some respect to be recognized - if it gets called "Art" in the first place) it's no longer self-critical, expansive, progressive, pioneering (take your pick)?
but i don't get the pomo argument. despite douglas crimp's assertion that institutional critique represents the apex of pomo rationality, i would say the evidence points the other way. institutional critique (and most "socially engaged" art), seems to engage some pretty modernist ideals (even if it tries to be cynical about it). This is not a negative criticism of the practice, which i find extremely useful and needed. but i would root the debate in "committment" (adorno/brecht/lukacs) rather than mod/pomo. the postmodern turn, in my opinion is better represented in the anti-social, or superficially social, surface orientation of a lot of new design and 'old school' art (painting and scultpture), not the theories of social construction (as laid-on as they often are) in new media. socially concerned art seems more akin to what adorno called "committed" art, relegating it's autonomy to a particular ideology, even though he knew all art represented an ideology. but i do see some cause for concern in the fetishization of "service" being (unfortunately) played out by many on the work of artists like Tiravanija. and the old arguments of "community" exploitation are still valid, but these are socially concerned aesthetics questions.
while i agree with the assertion that too well defined objectives leads to stale expressions, what does it mean to desire something that's not social? (i find ambivalence works its way in no matter the intention anyway.) this seems more a symptom of pomo (as a cultural-economic condition) than "committed" art. it's also highly utopic - what's not social? raising a child? surely you didn't mean to define that as asocial. I know Lacan is dead, but Mary Kelly did have a point (as well as some interesting ambiguity).
anyway, i liked PDPAl too.
sorry for all the stupid parenthetical remarks.
ryan
Hi Ryan,
You raised some interesting questions that I don't have good answers to, but
I'll try my best here.
Q: "Is there a form of criticism that is not normative, not based on some
form of rationalized set of desires?"
I would say yes. When a critic can think and see things from the perspective
of the artist, setting aside his/her own slant on things, it is possible for
the critic to make helpful comments for the artist and the audience. This
type of criticism is often expressed in a form of: If A is what the artist
is trying to convey, then B is not effective because of C. So, you use the
logic and the language of the artist to see what is effectively being
achieved and what is not. In this sense, it is more like advice than
criticism. And, it is very different from the form of: A is more significant
because of B, or any other forms of normative criticism that try to measure
art work against a standard.
Q: "Is the problem making the desires conscious, on the "surface" that is
problematic?"
Q: "Is it the stripping of "mystery," the "evocative," (at least on a
surface level) that is bothersome?"
It doesn't bother me. There are certain things that go beyond our logic. You
can try to explain, but it is often futile and uninteresting.
Q: "Is it because 'socially engaged' art has become institutionalized, or at
least more visible, especially in an arena as tight knit as 'new media'?
Does this make it seem more conventional, expected?"
I'm not so concerned about specific styles of art becoming
institutionalized. Rather, I'm more concerned about what institutionalizes
them. Social, abstract, emotional, political, conceptual, etc. in themselves
do not have anything inherently prone to institutionalization. The main
culprit of institutionalization, I feel, is the over-use of normative
critical theories.
Q: "Is it the search for the new, the 'art thing' that doesn't look like art
that creates the dissappointment with 'socially engaged' new media art."
Q: "Isn't this just old-fashioned avant garde-ism? Once an aesthetic becomes
"conventional" (even though it all must be in some respect to be
recognized - if it gets called "Art" in the first place) it's no longer
self-critical, expansive, progressive, pioneering (take your pick)?"
I would say: Don't expect anything. Appreciate what you appreciate.
Expectation is what sets the standard and promote the normative thinking.
Don't create some sort of idealized vision of what art is. I stated my
reasons for liking PDPal, but the reasons came after the fact, not before. I
wasn't looking for art work that fits those particular reasons. I wasn't
expecting anything. Art criticism should not judge any art work in advance.
No art work is a priori good or bad. All theories come after the fact.
Regarding "pomo" points:
Unfortunately I've never read Brecht, Lukacs, nor Douglas Crimp, so I cannot
respond with any credential on this matter, but my use of the term
"postmodern" was not in a strict sense of the term (as per Lyotard), but as
a roundabout point in time. I meant the critical practices since Clement
Greenberg (I guess he is considered a modernist critic). Many writings of
conceptual artists from the 60's and 70's were normative in their
perspective. In many ways, they used writing to rationalize the value of
their work.
<quote>
socially concerned art seems more akin to what adorno called "committed"
art, relegating it's autonomy to a particular ideology, even though he knew
all art represented an ideology. but i do see some cause for concern in the
fetishization of "service" being (unfortunately) played out by many on the
work of artists like Tiravanija. and the old arguments of "community"
exploitation are still valid, but these are socially concerned aesthetics
questions.
</quote>
Or rather that, in the West, something is called "art" because it represents
ideology. It is not what art is, but how it is defined. This is where the
trouble comes in with works like PDPal which is more of a product of
innocent curiosity than that of an ideology (I may be wrong here.). If any
work is a product of curiosity, passion, or sheer fun, we tend not to call
it art. If you build a sand castle because you are curious or simply amused,
you probably would not call it art. But if someone else sees it as art, then
why not? Especially in our postmodern era, this type of purity of passion is
often dismissed and ignored. All artists must begin their work with the
premise that they are making art. This is what I feel is alienating.
<quote>
while i agree with the assertion that too well defined objectives leads to
stale expressions, what does it mean to desire something that's not social?
(i find ambivalence works its way in no matter the intention anyway.) this
seems more a symptom of pomo (as a cultural-economic condition) than
"committed" art. it's also highly utopic - what's not social? raising a
child? surely you didn't mean to define that as asocial. I know Lacan is
dead, but Mary Kelly did have a point (as well as some interesting
ambiguity).
</quote>
I didn't meant to say that non-social art is better. I did not mean to say
that any type of art is better. I would not "desire" something social or
asocial. If it is social then fine, if not, that's fine too. I'm rather
troubled with the perspective that one is better than the other; it does not
matter which one you favor.
Regards,
Dyske
Hi
I don't mean to come on as cantankerous-:)
At 4:44 PM -0500 3/5/03, ryan griffis wrote:
>Hi Dyske, and everyone else reading…
>
>Is there a form of criticism that is not normative, not based on
>some form of rationalized set of desires? Is the problem making the
>desires conscious, on the "surface" that is problematic? Is it the
>stripping of "mystery," the "evocative," (at least on a surface
>level) that is bothersome?
I would say that the value of art to me is in "mystery," the "evocative,"
>Is it because "socially engaged" art has become institutionalized,
>or at least more visible, especially in an arena as tight knit as
>"new media"? Does this make it seem more conventional, expected? Is
>it the search for the new, the "art thing" that doesn't look like
>art that creates the dissappointment with "socially engaged" new
>media art.
Its the absence of the mystery and the evocative that creates my
personal disappointment with most "socially engaged" art in all media.
>Isn't this just old-fashioned avant garde-ism? Once an aesthetic
>becomes "conventional" (even though it all must be in some respect
>to be recognized - if it gets called "Art" in the first place) it's
>no longer self-critical, expansive, progressive, pioneering (take
>your pick)?
"It don't mean a thing, if it ain't got that swing" – Duke Ellington
– replace 'swing' with ; mystery or evocative
>but i don't get the pomo argument. despite douglas crimp's assertion
>that institutional critique represents the apex of pomo rationality,
>i would say the evidence points the other way. institutional
>critique (and most "socially engaged" art), seems to engage some
>pretty modernist ideals (even if it tries to be cynical about it).
>This is not a negative criticism of the practice, which i find
>extremely useful and needed. but i would root the debate in
>"committment" (adorno/brecht/lukacs) rather than mod/pomo. the
>postmodern turn, in my opinion is better represented in the
>anti-social, or superficially social, surface orientation of a lot
>of new design and 'old school' art (painting and scultpture), not
>the theories of social construction (as laid-on as they often are)
>in new media. socially concerned art seems more akin to what adorno
>called "committed" art, relegating it's autonomy to a particular
>ideology, even though he knew all art represented an ideology.
What ideology would you say an Ansel Adams photograph of Yosemite represents?
For an example of socially engaged art that does (IMO) "swing", I'd
recommend Michael Moore's film "Bowling for Columbine". Between the
use visuals and sound, the cutting between multiple threads of the
story, and Moore's sheer chutzpah, the movie definitely "swings", at
the same time it made me more aware of the details of some important
social problems.
–
"Freedom is a scary thing — Not many people really want it"
– Laurie Anderson – pre 9.11
"Freedom is a scary thing — So precious, so easy to lose".
– Laurie Anderson – post 9.11
Visit "Before the Fall – Images of the World Trade Center" at
http://www.foryourhead.com
Emile Tobenfeld, Ph. D.
Video ProducerImage Processing Specialist
Video for your HEAD!Boris FX
http://www.foryourhead.comhttp://www.borisfx.com
Keep swinging Emile,
You got it!
And it takes more than education and words to get that swing…
marc
> Hi
>
> I don't mean to come on as cantankerous-:)
>
>
> At 4:44 PM -0500 3/5/03, ryan griffis wrote:
> >Hi Dyske, and everyone else reading…
> >
> >Is there a form of criticism that is not normative, not based on
> >some form of rationalized set of desires? Is the problem making the
> >desires conscious, on the "surface" that is problematic? Is it the
> >stripping of "mystery," the "evocative," (at least on a surface
> >level) that is bothersome?
>
> I would say that the value of art to me is in "mystery," the "evocative,"
>
>
> >Is it because "socially engaged" art has become institutionalized,
> >or at least more visible, especially in an arena as tight knit as
> >"new media"? Does this make it seem more conventional, expected? Is
> >it the search for the new, the "art thing" that doesn't look like
> >art that creates the dissappointment with "socially engaged" new
> >media art.
>
> Its the absence of the mystery and the evocative that creates my
> personal disappointment with most "socially engaged" art in all media.
>
> >Isn't this just old-fashioned avant garde-ism? Once an aesthetic
> >becomes "conventional" (even though it all must be in some respect
> >to be recognized - if it gets called "Art" in the first place) it's
> >no longer self-critical, expansive, progressive, pioneering (take
> >your pick)?
>
> "It don't mean a thing, if it ain't got that swing" – Duke Ellington
> – replace 'swing' with ; mystery or evocative
>
> >but i don't get the pomo argument. despite douglas crimp's assertion
> >that institutional critique represents the apex of pomo rationality,
> >i would say the evidence points the other way. institutional
> >critique (and most "socially engaged" art), seems to engage some
> >pretty modernist ideals (even if it tries to be cynical about it).
> >This is not a negative criticism of the practice, which i find
> >extremely useful and needed. but i would root the debate in
> >"committment" (adorno/brecht/lukacs) rather than mod/pomo. the
> >postmodern turn, in my opinion is better represented in the
> >anti-social, or superficially social, surface orientation of a lot
> >of new design and 'old school' art (painting and scultpture), not
> >the theories of social construction (as laid-on as they often are)
> >in new media. socially concerned art seems more akin to what adorno
> >called "committed" art, relegating it's autonomy to a particular
> >ideology, even though he knew all art represented an ideology.
>
> What ideology would you say an Ansel Adams photograph of Yosemite
represents?
>
>
> For an example of socially engaged art that does (IMO) "swing", I'd
> recommend Michael Moore's film "Bowling for Columbine". Between the
> use visuals and sound, the cutting between multiple threads of the
> story, and Moore's sheer chutzpah, the movie definitely "swings", at
> the same time it made me more aware of the details of some important
> social problems.
> –
> "Freedom is a scary thing — Not many people really want it"
> – Laurie Anderson – pre 9.11
>
> "Freedom is a scary thing — So precious, so easy to lose".
> – Laurie Anderson – post 9.11
>
> Visit "Before the Fall – Images of the World Trade Center" at
> http://www.foryourhead.com
>
> Emile Tobenfeld, Ph. D.
> Video Producer Image Processing Specialist
> Video for your HEAD! Boris FX
> http://www.foryourhead.com http://www.borisfx.com
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 07:50 PM, Emile Tobenfeld (a.k.a Dr. T)
wrote:
>
>
>> Isn't this just old-fashioned avant garde-ism? Once an aesthetic
>> becomes "conventional" (even though it all must be in some respect to
>> be recognized - if it gets called "Art" in the first place) it's no
>> longer self-critical, expansive, progressive, pioneering (take your
>> pick)?
>
> "It don't mean a thing, if it ain't got that swing" – Duke Ellington
> – replace 'swing' with ; mystery or evocative
so.. what do we replace 'thing' with? ;-)
>
>> but i don't get the pomo argument. despite douglas crimp's assertion
>> that institutional critique represents the apex of pomo rationality,
>> i would say the evidence points the other way. institutional critique
>> (and most "socially engaged" art), seems to engage some pretty
>> modernist ideals (even if it tries to be cynical about it). This is
>> not a negative criticism of the practice, which i find extremely
>> useful and needed. but i would root the debate in "committment"
>> (adorno/brecht/lukacs) rather than mod/pomo. the postmodern turn, in
>> my opinion is better represented in the anti-social, or superficially
>> social, surface orientation of a lot of new design and 'old school'
>> art (painting and scultpture), not the theories of social
>> construction (as laid-on as they often are) in new media. socially
>> concerned art seems more akin to what adorno called "committed" art,
>> relegating it's autonomy to a particular ideology, even though he
>> knew all art represented an ideology.
>
> What ideology would you say an Ansel Adams photograph of Yosemite
> represents?
BAH!!! you can't be serious…? I'm speechless – can't believe
someone just dropped that on Rhizome. We're not in an undergrad class
here. Ya know? Talk about normative (and I don't even know what
normative means really, but as some unwise but powerful american said
long ago, 'I know it when I see it".)
Let's replace 'an Ansel Adams' with 'a Paik' and 'photograph' with
'stack' and 'Yosemite' with 'TVs'
~~and it don't 'swing' it 'bling-bling'~~
:-)
> For an example of socially engaged art that does (IMO) "swing", I'd
> recommend Michael Moore's film "Bowling for Columbine". Between the
> use visuals and sound, the cutting between multiple threads of the
> story, and Moore's sheer chutzpah, the movie definitely "swings", at
> the same time it made me more aware of the details of some important
> social problems.
If the american left has only that mesh-backed oaf speaking for it,
then we are in serious trouble.
–
<t.whid>
www.mteww.com
</t.whid>
hey everybody,
"It don't mean a thing, if it ain't got that swing" –
Duke Ellington
well, i certainly can't argue with the Duke!
and marc's right, i'm all talk, but i try.
i definitely didn't mean those questions to seem
rhetorical, well, not completely anyway. i don't have
any "answers," and give Dyske credit for putting her
attempts at answers up.
but i do value keeping things more arbitrary - in
other words whether you're going to adorno, ellington
or l. anderson as authority, it's still using the
rhetoric of authority and authority as rhetoric. i
could say it's more useful to try to talk about things
without the shield of example and precedence, but i
don't know that i believe it possible. ellington
usually trumps adorno in coolness though.
>>What ideology would you say an Ansel Adams
photograph of Yosemite
represents?
but this is an easy one:). Yosemite and other national
parks benefited from adams and others like watkins.
adams was commissioned after all by preservationists
in Congress, after all, for many of those works. his
compositional choices, high depth of field/focus,
incorporation of monumental geography and man made
structures, lack of figures in the landscape (outside
of pueblo indians who were considered part of the
landscape anyway, just not in the parks), all
represented a certain version of preservationist
ideology/politics and created a legacy of aesthetics
based on the "sublime" as developed in earlier
landscape art, but with a documentary slant. not to
say that the aesthetics communicate that indefinitely,
it is in a context. smithson's version of landscape
obviously carries different implications no less
ideological than aesthetic in his development of the
sublime. anyway, i'm sure i'm showing my ignorance
along with my education (i guess they're not mutually
exclusive). i don't come from a dogmatic critical
theory program, this is just what i'm interested in.
bowling for columbine was great, and the animated
sequences were a nice addition! i still think i liked
roger + me more though.
take care,
ryan
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
Hi Ryan,
I was gonna respond to all with an in depth reply & I thought 'sod it', it's
2.30 a.m in the UK & its my making music night tonight.
But I thought it polite to leave yoou with a pic of the Duke…
http://www.furtherfield.org/mgarrett/reality/documents/mgr/theduke.htm
best wishes - marc
http://www.furtherfield.org
http://www.furthernoise.org
http://www.dido.uk.net
We Can Make Our Own World.
> hey everybody,
>
> "It don't mean a thing, if it ain't got that swing" –
> Duke Ellington
>
> well, i certainly can't argue with the Duke!
> and marc's right, i'm all talk, but i try.
> i definitely didn't mean those questions to seem
> rhetorical, well, not completely anyway. i don't have
> any "answers," and give Dyske credit for putting her
> attempts at answers up.
> but i do value keeping things more arbitrary - in
> other words whether you're going to adorno, ellington
> or l. anderson as authority, it's still using the
> rhetoric of authority and authority as rhetoric. i
> could say it's more useful to try to talk about things
> without the shield of example and precedence, but i
> don't know that i believe it possible. ellington
> usually trumps adorno in coolness though.
>
> >>What ideology would you say an Ansel Adams
> photograph of Yosemite
> represents?
>
> but this is an easy one:). Yosemite and other national
> parks benefited from adams and others like watkins.
> adams was commissioned after all by preservationists
> in Congress, after all, for many of those works. his
> compositional choices, high depth of field/focus,
> incorporation of monumental geography and man made
> structures, lack of figures in the landscape (outside
> of pueblo indians who were considered part of the
> landscape anyway, just not in the parks), all
> represented a certain version of preservationist
> ideology/politics and created a legacy of aesthetics
> based on the "sublime" as developed in earlier
> landscape art, but with a documentary slant. not to
> say that the aesthetics communicate that indefinitely,
> it is in a context. smithson's version of landscape
> obviously carries different implications no less
> ideological than aesthetic in his development of the
> sublime. anyway, i'm sure i'm showing my ignorance
> along with my education (i guess they're not mutually
> exclusive). i don't come from a dogmatic critical
> theory program, this is just what i'm interested in.
> bowling for columbine was great, and the animated
> sequences were a nice addition! i still think i liked
> roger + me more though.
> take care,
> ryan
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
dyske:
Digital works of art can be neither finished nor unfinished. The notion of "finished" is not relevant here.
curt:
this faux dichotomy is nowhere more apparent than in "Teen Grrrl Sqaud!!"
http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs2.html
the author clearly states "its over" [sic] and yet there is the curious (if not downright paradoxical) presence of the "again" button.
>dyske:
>Digital works of art can be neither finished nor unfinished. The
>notion of "finished" is not relevant here.
>
>curt:
>this faux dichotomy is nowhere more apparent than in "Teen Grrrl Sqaud!!"
>http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs2.html
>
>the author clearly states "its over" [sic] and yet there is the
>curious (if not downright paradoxical) presence of the "again"
>button.
++
t:
I need to assert the rights of the artist in this. As the artist
using a medium it is our right to claim a piece's 'finished' or
'un-finished-ness'.
This same problem came up in regards to the abstract expressionist /
action painters and it was generally agreed that the decision was
left to the individual artist and that it could be made on something
as simple as a whim.
here is an article regarding this very thing:
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,57922,00.html
the piece described was conceived to be 'finished' at some point.
it's 'finished-ness' is an integral part of what it is. it has become
finished. it has been disappeared from the Web. it is done.
Once again proving that most rules regarding artistic media and how
artists use these media are made to be broken. (to flog a cliche)
as to curt's example above, I don't see his point. is he agreeing or
disagreeing with dyske?
c-ya
–
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
T: as to curt's example above, I don't see his point. is he agreeing or disagreeing with dyske?
DEREK: Well, it's not a very pleasant story… but, he died… he choked on… the official explanation was he choked on vomit.
DAVID: He passed away.
NIGEL: It was actually someone else's vomit. It's not….
DAVID: It's ugly.
NIGEL: You know. There's no real….
DEREK: You know they can't prove whose vomit it was…they don't have the facilities at Scotland Yard….
DAVID: You can't print, there's no way to print a spectra-photograph…
NIGEL: You can't really dust for vomit.
Hi t.whid,
Having a beginning and an end is different from something being "finished."
This "Don't Go There" piece was a finished piece when it went live. It was
up to the visitors to define when the ending of the piece was to come. This
is somewhat analogous to one concert John Cage had where the musicians were
already playing when the audience walked into the theater, and they did not
stop playing until everyone left. Each person was in charge of when the
piece was to begin and when it was to end. This is a conceptual performance
piece, and as far as its concept was concerned it was a finished piece. That
is, the concept itself did not evolve.
PDPal situation is different from this. What it might end up saying about
our society, psychology, memory, language, technology, etc., is uncertain.
The concept of the piece itself is not fixed. This often happens with many
websites where they turn into something that they didn't plan on becoming.
Their purposes, values, concepts, perspectives, or visions were formed as
they evolved. Some of them could end up saying nothing, serving nothing,
meaning nothing, and becoming worthless, but that is part of the fun.
> I need to assert the rights of the artist in this. As the artist
> using a medium it is our right to claim a piece's 'finished' or
> 'un-finished-ness'.
> Once again proving that most rules regarding artistic media and how
> artists use these media are made to be broken. (to flog a cliche)
I didn't say that it was a rule. I simply said that digital art "can be"
neither finished nor unfinished, where finished-ness is irrelevant. I didn't
mean to imply that this quality is what makes digital art good, either.
Because of the interactive nature of digital art, it has an effective way of
accepting influences from the audience, where the audience can play a
significant role in evolving and developing an artistic concept, where the
authorship of the concept belongs to no one person. This was possible
before, but the digital technology made this much more effective and
efficient, and therefore feasible and practical.
Dyske