Re: Re: Questioning the Frame

Rachel Bolen wrote:

I completely agree with Anden when he said that making something "new art" is like completely changing the rules, making up something that no one has ever created. It seems like that these days that new art is anything that if its questionable about it being art, then everyone considers it to be new age art. As far as our society, we have come along way from just putting things on a posterboard to actually making a movie all by computers. It seems that anything is possible when your using a computer.



Jason Van Anden wrote:

> Perhaps the communication breakdown here stems from the term "new"
> attached to "media" and "art".
>
> New is the new contemporary is the new modern…
>
> We ought to be more careful about what we attach the word "new" to.
> Often, "new" asserts that a revolution has taken place - that the
> rules have completely changed in such a way that what occurred before
> no longer matters. This is the main concern that I responded to,
> regardless of the hard evidence presented.
>
> I would like to propose that we use the word "unfamilar" instead to
> refer to artistic expressions that implement recently available
> technologies. "Unfamiliar" is a lot more humble, and takes into
> account that its existence is simply different from what came before.
>
> I actually have the same problem with the word "media" - which seems
> redundant attached to "art", but I have to get to work on my next
> unfamilar work of art.
>
> Jason Van Anden
> Unfamiliar Artist
> www.smileproject.com