new media art should/can/should entertain...the charlie thread

Alexis and others,

I entirely agree. New Media art has the ability and technique to
be both highly entertaining and hard and conceptually thick.

But….that might explain why so many once net artists are becoming
video artists or digital still artists or on interactive installation artists.

Interactivity and all the entry points and multiple levels of net art almost
always bring some entertainment onto the screen. So to be accepted by
small circles, one must eliminate the fun, the interactive.

hmmmmm…….kill entertainment equals video art…..

hows this for entertainiing:

http://www.secrettechnology.com/evilmascot/mascotmascot.html

Jason




Alexis Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
::Quoting "T.Whid" :
::
::> I'm not arguing that NMA shouldn't be more engaging or, on a whole,
::> doesn't need improvement. I want it out of the ghetto as much as
::> anybody, but criticising it because it's not entertainment isn't the
::> strategy to get us there.

Let me get one thing straight:
I'm not criticizing new media art because it's not entertainment. I'm
criticizing it because it's the antithesis of entertainment.

There's a very entrenched belief
that something has to be one or the other, and that mere "entertainment" is a
plebian bauble that must be avoided at all costs. The reality, though, is that
thoughtful, critical, engaging, cerebral Art can be neither entertaining nor
painful, or it can be both. There are many places in the middle.

When I suggest that art look to the entertainment sectors for inspiration, I
refer only to the responses that are illicited from the viewer, not the content.
Most entertainment is utter crap in terms of its content, but it DOES offer an
intangible "thing" to the viewer - a chance to be happy, a chance to fulfill
some desire, a chance to be amazed or surprised or shocked, a chance to think,
or be moved, or escape. Successful entertainment does many of these things.
What does NMA do?

So, again, why are we so shocked that non-artists don't view art?
Because, honestly, what sick fuck is going to willfully go to partake of
something, again and again, that is painful but doesn't offer something "more"
each time? (I mean, besides an academic or an ascetic. They find "more" in the
strangest places.)

Google Earth offers an entire world to explore. It takes a long time to make
one's way through an entire world, and there is always an intangible, unknkown
thing waiting around the corner. It excites us because it promises us something new
if we do it long enough. Maybe we will see an airplane captured in mid-flight!
Hey, I've never seen Borneo before! OMG, there's an island in the middle of
nowhere - I wasn't expecting that! I bet I'm the only one to have
seen this! It's the same reason people play the lottery, or go to the circus,
or watch a train wreck. *Because maybe this time….* It's even the same
reason that art museums work - because in a still, contemplative space, the
viewer is given a chance to realize that they missed something the first time
around. It's the reason a great novel works (would you argue that novels are
only art or only entertainment, but not both? Personally, I can't think of
anything more entertaining than a damn good book - visual or no - and I would
never in a million years say that books are not art. Perhaps we differ on this
point.)

Entertainment works because it sets up expectation and gives something,
ANYTHING to the viewer. Good art works for the same reason. The two are not
mortal enemies, locked in an eternal death match for the hearts and minds of the
people.
-Alexis
+
-> 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



———————————
Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.

Comments

, Eric Dymond

Don't we call that edutainment?
I honestly don't care if the user is happy, sad, entertained, or whatever state they end up in emotionally.
I am not responsible for their happiness, and I hope I never am.
We make work that fits our artistic sensibilities, and if viewer likes it or not matters not one iota at any point in time.
If you start making work that is aimed at entertaining then you are screwed.
As for conceptually thick…, I don't have a clue what "thick conceptual work" could be.
Forget about conceptual concerns (as Robbin pointed out in his follow up on Lewiitt) and worry about expressing something that somehow fits into your need to put something down/on/out there.
Be expressive/impressive/contradictory/geometric/fluid/ whatever, just don't be conceptual ( at least not in a systemic way, see Chronophobia).
Eric
also see Alex's post re: the first net art work.

Eric





Jason Nelson wrote:

> Alexis and others,
>
> I entirely agree. New Media art has the ability and technique to
> be both highly entertaining and hard and conceptually thick.
>
> But….that might explain why so many once net artists are becoming
> video artists or digital still artists or on interactive
> installation artists.
>
> Interactivity and all the entry points and multiple levels of net
> art almost
> always bring some entertainment onto the screen. So to be accepted
> by
> small circles, one must eliminate the fun, the interactive.
>
> hmmmmm…….kill entertainment equals video art…..
>
> hows this for entertainiing:
>
> http://www.secrettechnology.com/evilmascot/mascotmascot.html
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>
> Alexis Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
> ::Quoting "T.Whid" :
> ::
> ::> I'm not arguing that NMA shouldn't be more engaging or, on a
> whole,
> ::> doesn't need improvement. I want it out of the ghetto as much as
> ::> anybody, but criticising it because it's not entertainment isn't
> the
> ::> strategy to get us there.
>
> Let me get one thing straight:
> I'm not criticizing new media art because it's not entertainment. I'm
> criticizing it because it's the antithesis of entertainment.
>
> There's a very entrenched belief
> that something has to be one or the other, and that mere
> "entertainment" is a
> plebian bauble that must be avoided at all costs. The reality, though,
> is that
> thoughtful, critical, engaging, cerebral Art can be neither
> entertaining nor
> painful, or it can be both. There are many places in the middle.
>
> When I suggest that art look to the entertainment sectors for
> inspiration, I
> refer only to the responses that are illicited from the viewer, not
> the content.
> Most entertainment is utter crap in terms of its content, but it DOES
> offer an
> intangible "thing" to the viewer - a chance to be happy, a chance to
> fulfill
> some desire, a chance to be amazed or surprised or shocked, a chance
> to think,
> or be moved, or escape. Successful entertainment does many of these
> things.
> What does NMA do?
>
> So, again, why are we so shocked that non-artists don't view art?
> Because, honestly, what sick fuck is going to willfully go to partake
> of
> something, again and again, that is painful but doesn't offer
> something "more"
> each time? (I mean, besides an academic or an ascetic. They find
> "more" in the
> strangest places.)
>
> Google Earth offers an entire world to explore. It takes a long time
> to make
> one's way through an entire world, and there is always an intangible,
> unknkown
> thing waiting around the corner. It excites us because it promises us
> something new
> if we do it long enough. Maybe we will see an airplane captured in
> mid-flight!
> Hey, I've never seen Borneo before! OMG, there's an island in the
> middle of
> nowhere - I wasn't expecting that! I bet I'm the only one to have
> seen this! It's the same reason people play the lottery, or go to the
> circus,
> or watch a train wreck. *Because maybe this time….* It's even the
> same
> reason that art museums work - because in a still, contemplative
> space, the
> viewer is given a chance to realize that they missed something the
> first time
> around. It's the reason a great novel works (would you argue that
> novels are
> only art or only entertainment, but not both? Personally, I can't
> think of
> anything more entertaining than a damn good book - visual or no - and
> I would
> never in a million years say that books are not art. Perhaps we differ
> on this
> point.)
>
> Entertainment works because it sets up expectation and gives
> something,
> ANYTHING to the viewer. Good art works for the same reason. The two
> are not
> mortal enemies, locked in an eternal death match for the hearts and
> minds of the
> people.
> -Alexis
> +
> -> 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
>
>
>
> ———————————
> Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.

, Jason Nelson

I suppose I didnt explain myself clearly

I agree with you Eric, almost entirely……my point has always been
that those small circles, that academic and world of "critical engagement"
(we all of course engage critically), once it has accepted an art form into
its fold, tends to demand certain types of work, work that is easily slotted
into their framework……and while this type of artwork might get the write
ups and all that, the artist tends to get lost in the mix….

so hell yes….artists should create for whatever the hell they want….that is
the reason most of us started creating within new media or net art or e-lit…that
freedom of no certain framework.

However, I do certainly disagree about not caring about the audience…..I never
create with a specific audience in mind, nor do I change my work or emphasize certain aspects of my work for accolades or hits or whatever…but I do want an audience, and I am immensely pleased if someone enjoys my artwork in some small way…and if they dont, well that is fine as well……


cheers, Jason



Eric Dymond <[email protected]> wrote:
Don't we call that edutainment?
I honestly don't care if the user is happy, sad, entertained, or whatever state they end up in emotionally.
I am not responsible for their happiness, and I hope I never am.
We make work that fits our artistic sensibilities, and if viewer likes it or not matters not one iota at any point in time.
If you start making work that is aimed at entertaining then you are screwed.
As for conceptually thick…, I don't have a clue what "thick conceptual work" could be.
Forget about conceptual concerns (as Robbin pointed out in his follow up on Lewiitt) and worry about expressing something that somehow fits into your need to put something down/on/out there.
Be expressive/impressive/contradictory/geometric/fluid/ whatever, just don't be conceptual ( at least not in a systemic way, see Chronophobia).
Eric
also see Alex's post re: the first net art work.

Eric





Jason Nelson wrote:

> Alexis and others,
>
> I entirely agree. New Media art has the ability and technique to
> be both highly entertaining and hard and conceptually thick.
>
> But….that might explain why so many once net artists are becoming
> video artists or digital still artists or on interactive
> installation artists.
>
> Interactivity and all the entry points and multiple levels of net
> art almost
> always bring some entertainment onto the screen. So to be accepted
> by
> small circles, one must eliminate the fun, the interactive.
>
> hmmmmm…….kill entertainment equals video art…..
>
> hows this for entertainiing:
>
> http://www.secrettechnology.com/evilmascot/mascotmascot.html
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>
> Alexis Turner wrote:
> ::Quoting "T.Whid" :
> ::
> ::> I'm not arguing that NMA shouldn't be more engaging or, on a
> whole,
> ::> doesn't need improvement. I want it out of the ghetto as much as
> ::> anybody, but criticising it because it's not entertainment isn't
> the
> ::> strategy to get us there.
>
> Let me get one thing straight:
> I'm not criticizing new media art because it's not entertainment. I'm
> criticizing it because it's the antithesis of entertainment.
>
> There's a very entrenched belief
> that something has to be one or the other, and that mere
> "entertainment" is a
> plebian bauble that must be avoided at all costs. The reality, though,
> is that
> thoughtful, critical, engaging, cerebral Art can be neither
> entertaining nor
> painful, or it can be both. There are many places in the middle.
>
> When I suggest that art look to the entertainment sectors for
> inspiration, I
> refer only to the responses that are illicited from the viewer, not
> the content.
> Most entertainment is utter crap in terms of its content, but it DOES
> offer an
> intangible "thing" to the viewer - a chance to be happy, a chance to
> fulfill
> some desire, a chance to be amazed or surprised or shocked, a chance
> to think,
> or be moved, or escape. Successful entertainment does many of these
> things.
> What does NMA do?
>
> So, again, why are we so shocked that non-artists don't view art?
> Because, honestly, what sick fuck is going to willfully go to partake
> of
> something, again and again, that is painful but doesn't offer
> something "more"
> each time? (I mean, besides an academic or an ascetic. They find
> "more" in the
> strangest places.)
>
> Google Earth offers an entire world to explore. It takes a long time
> to make
> one's way through an entire world, and there is always an intangible,
> unknkown
> thing waiting around the corner. It excites us because it promises us
> something new
> if we do it long enough. Maybe we will see an airplane captured in
> mid-flight!
> Hey, I've never seen Borneo before! OMG, there's an island in the
> middle of
> nowhere - I wasn't expecting that! I bet I'm the only one to have
> seen this! It's the same reason people play the lottery, or go to the
> circus,
> or watch a train wreck. *Because maybe this time….* It's even the
> same
> reason that art museums work - because in a still, contemplative
> space, the
> viewer is given a chance to realize that they missed something the
> first time
> around. It's the reason a great novel works (would you argue that
> novels are
> only art or only entertainment, but not both? Personally, I can't
> think of
> anything more entertaining than a damn good book - visual or no - and
> I would
> never in a million years say that books are not art. Perhaps we differ
> on this
> point.)
>
> Entertainment works because it sets up expectation and gives
> something,
> ANYTHING to the viewer. Good art works for the same reason. The two
> are not
> mortal enemies, locked in an eternal death match for the hearts and
> minds of the
> people.
> -Alexis
> +
> -> 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
>
>
>
> ———————————
> Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.
+
-> 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



———————————
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.

, Alexis Turner

In response to Eric:

(Work that is both conceptually thick and meant to be entertaining is
*potentially* edutainment. Making a user think and actually teaching them
something are different. Edutainment teaches.)

My suggestion about considering the viewer is in response to one very specific
question that keeps cropping up here over (and over and over and…) - why can't
we get an audience?! Waaahhh!

If you care about and want an audience, or if it bothers you that NMA is
in a ghetto, please read my posts. If you just want to make art and don't give
two shits about who/how many see it, what they think of it if they do, and
where you get money from to make it, then continue doing just what you are
doing and feel free to ignore most of what I say - it has no application to you.

===================================================

On a slightly different note,
Can we please move the hell away from the word "entertainment?" So many
artists, critics, and academics immediately have a knee jerk reaction to the
word ("Entertainment is for the filthy unwashed masses, not ME"), that I find it
quite useless on here. I am referring only objects that people respond to
with anything other than disgust, hatred, or boredom. These objects are
created by many entities that understand human nature and
human needs, and manipulate that knowledge to acheive a result (I want bodies
in seats, I want to be considered brilliant, I want some fast cash…whatever).
The actual "entertainment" sector is the most visible and probably largest of
these, but it not even remotely the only one.

Good lord, what on earth are you so afraid of? Can you make unique art? Then I
would hope you could debase yourself long enough to look at a piece of ANYTHING
IN THE OUTSIDE WORLD AT ALL without immediately running out and copying it
verbatim. Other forms are not infectious diseases that will cause you to start
plagiarizing them, in spite of what academic theoreticians would have us
believe. Are our minds so impotent and powerless that, when exposed to a
single commercial, we MUST HAVE JIFFY PEANUTBUTTER RIGHT NOW? (Oh shit, I said
JIFFY PEANUT BUTTER. Whatever you do, do not go and buy JIFFY PEANUT BUTTER
right now. Do not think about JIFFY PEANUT BUTTER for the rest of the day.
Especially do not think about JIFFY PEANUT BUTTER tomorrow. Do not let JIFFY
PEANUT BUTTER insinuate itself into your life. Sweet. Jesus. I can't stop
saying JIFFY PEANUT BUTTER.)
-A.

PS: To quit blabbing and make things concise, I'll just say that my overall
point is simply that the ghetto|bubble is not something others have put NMA
into - it is something NMA keeps itself in by its unwillingness to sully itself
with the <strike>outside world</strike> JIFFY PEANUT BUTTER.


On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, Eric Dymond wrote:

::Don't we call that edutainment?
::I honestly don't care if the user is happy, sad, entertained, or whatever state they end up in emotionally.
::I am not responsible for their happiness, and I hope I never am.
::We make work that fits our artistic sensibilities, and if viewer likes it or not matters not one iota at any point in time.
::If you start making work that is aimed at entertaining then you are screwed.
::As for conceptually thick…, I don't have a clue what "thick conceptual work" could be.
::Forget about conceptual concerns (as Robbin pointed out in his follow up on Lewiitt) and worry about expressing something that somehow fits into your need to put something down/on/out there.
::Be expressive/impressive/contradictory/geometric/fluid/ whatever, just don't be conceptual ( at least not in a systemic way, see Chronophobia).
::Eric
::also see Alex's post re: the first net art work.
::
::Eric