Hello. Without being *too* confrontational, I would like to hear some opinions weighed in about the 'scene' of 8-bit, hack-art & machinima art and why it's worthy of so much attention. Honestly, I've tried to wrap my head around it and I'm just not getting it, especially in response to a) the recent front-page post on Rhizome on Paul Davis and b) Cory Arcangel's recent show at Team Gallery. While I won't say that 'most new media art is crap' like the recent post-discussion, my reaction to these works is dismissive at least, negative at worst. I'll ask the worst question one can ask: "Why is this 'Art'?"
These works seem a bit more of an exploitation of an existing technology platform in order to fetishize a certain in-vogue nostalgia about this time period (the 80s) rather than anything about "computer art which is aesthetically aware of both its own identity and the underlying process which supports it." This seems to have a very limited agency. Why the Nintendo in particular, why not, say, the Amiga, which was a platform more widely embraced at the time by videoartist-programmer-demoscene people during the same time period? The urge to "(release) bits from their imprisonment within the restrictive, limiting boundaries of corporate software applications" is amusing but ultimately not very creative, is it; perhaps even reactionary? While these systems may certainly have potential as A/V devices, they *were* designed as video-game platforms; to invest it with liberatory hacker activism (activision?) is to give it more importance than it perhaps deserves, and serves only as a circular, self-legitmizing exercise.
The gimmick, in other words, seems to come before the concept. I feel compelled to compare the silliness of the wholesale sampling and re-presentation in these works with, say, the Japanese group Delaware's highly entertaining, beautiful and original installations and performances that are inspired by the limitations of low-resolution electronic displays. Or on another level, Paul Chan's engaging, poetic and politically conscious animation video works. The difference being, something new is being created, not as nostalgia, not as a prank, but as a creative praxis.
So basically, what do we take away from this work once the nostalgia factor seems too distant or antiquated, or not really that clever to start with? Davis speaks of the "intentionality of artist(s) who seek to engage the computing process at a fundamental level", you mean, like artists who write their own code to create their own electronic spaces without the safety net of pre-digested consumerist codes and signs, or at least is engaged in some type of dialogue with them on a critical or aesthetic level? Sampling/hacking culture and re-presenting it is not the issue here…or not the only issue anyway.
Thanks for letting me rant–hope for productive discussion.
:s
On 8-Bit Aesthetics: Hackers or Hacks?
-
Type: discussion
Comments
Patrick Lichty
- Interactive Arts & Media
Columbia College, Chicago
- Editor-In-Chief
Intelligent Agent Magazine
http://www.intelligentagent.com
225 288 5813
[email protected]
"It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees."
—–Original Message—–
From: patrick lichty [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 9:21 PM
To: 'Sean Capone'; '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: On 8-Bit Aesthetics: Hackers or Hacks?
Hi, Sean…
As someone who's striving to define a broad methodology of "Digital
Minimalism", in context of my own cultural, critical, and aesthetic
research, in context with others' work as a set of trends
(8-bit/neo-retro, Digital NeoPop, DM, and so on,) I'd like to venture a
few comments.
Hello. Without being *too* confrontational, I would like to hear some
opinions weighed in about the 'scene' of 8-bit, hack-art & machinima art
and why it's worthy of so much attention. Honestly, I've tried to wrap
my head around it and I'm just not getting it, especially in response to
a) the recent front-page post on Rhizome on Paul Davis and b) Cory
Arcangel's recent show at Team Gallery. While I won't say that 'most new
media art is crap' like the recent post-discussion, my reaction to these
works is dismissive at least, negative at worst. I'll ask the worst
question one can ask: "Why is this 'Art'?"
**************************************************************
Without sounding flip, I'd say that because a lot of people have said it
is. And mainly because people like Arcangel have taken a quirky,
affable demeanor and overlaid it onto a very smart contextual strategy
that ties in with the emergence of so many aspects of digital culture
that have become widespread. Also because there are systems in place to
make media art objects that are instantly recognizeable and can enter
the gallery system of economic exchange and collections. Also, if you
believe Yoko Ono (from the same issue of Contemporary that Cory's in)
that there are finally digital aesthetics that are stable and don't
change, and can be specialized in for a long time.
Is it ironic that some of the current digital contemporaries are working
in systems that don't change? Not on your life.
I think there's a lot of friction about 'craft', that is, the amount of
work placed in a work. For example, when Cory and I did respective
halves of a semester - long residency at the University of Akron last
year, he had an interesting slogan.
"Do as little as humanly possible", and I think this had to do with
recontextualizing a cultural artifact and making it an art object, which
is exactly what Kac, Debord, and Duchamp did so well. For him, it's a
frustration with media art, and for me, it's been a break with
technological determinism in New Media. That is, feeling that one has
to use the latest and greatest technology because it's also in vogue.
Slocum is a supreme craftsman. He knows the Atari 2600 kernel as well
as anyone. Where Arcangel get in with context and personality, Slocum
does it with virtuosity and referral to the culture of the 2600, retro,
pop, I'd say perhaps even false nostalgia.
Both are really good at what they do, they made the contacts, people
believe in what they're doing, and there you have high art.
******************************************
These works seem a bit more of an exploitation of an existing technology
platform in order to fetishize a certain in-vogue nostalgia about this
time period (the 80s) rather than anything about "computer art which is
aesthetically aware of both its own identity and the underlying process
which supports it."
******************************************
But the contemporary art world doesn't identify with that. Actually,
they don't care that much about it except in that it might have a
somewhat shamanic appeal at times. They want to get something that both
exploits its media and methods deeply and fits lock-step with the
progression of the Western art historical tradition.. For example,
Murakami cites classical Japanese culture, colonized by American pop
culture. We love the manga eye, and it even got on a Vuitton Bag. But
he also takes and makes odd garage kits that he insinuates into pop
culture as well. That's interesting.
Back to the self-referentiality of the computational process, except for
bitforms, who cares about that in an art context, and still Steve
presents very formal pieces from his artists, which gets the collectors.
But what about Warhol? He sold a nostalgia for American Pop & Mass
Culture like there was no tomorrow, and we're still recovering.
But back to your idea here, much of what's on the wall has to do as much
with the title and the colophon as the process, and that's back to
context. Forgive me if I'm not making the connection; but I get the
feeling that you're looking for recognition for works that deeply
explore the computational process as method, and I honestly think that's
outside the context of most of the contemporary art world.
***********************************************
This seems to have a very limited agency.
***********************************************
Sure. It limits your discourse. Reassures people where you're going to
be in ten years, and gives them some reassurance in investing in your
objects.
**************************************************
Why the Nintendo in particular, why not, say, the Amiga, which was a
platform more widely embraced at the time by
videoartist-programmer-demoscene people during the same time period?
**************************************************
Different sectors of culture. Tetris and Super Mario are the two most
widely known games of all time, and were both on Nintendo. Nintendo is
the platform that got the game industry out of the post 2600- crash. It
has nothing to do with the art community, it has to do with the mass
community, because that's what more people are going to identify with.
***************************************************
The urge to "(release) bits from their imprisonment within the
restrictive, limiting boundaries of corporate software applications" is
amusing but ultimately not very creative, is it; perhaps even
reactionary?
***************************************************
Actually, it is. Read some of the interviews with Cory. For him, it's
"Beyond punk"… Part of that is pure rhetoric, too.
***************************************************
While these systems may certainly have potential as A/V devices, they
*were* designed as video-game platforms; to invest it with liberatory
hacker activism (activision?) is to give it more importance than it
perhaps deserves, and serves only as a circular, self-legitmizing
exercise.
***************************************************
Is the platform that important, as long as it communicates message and
intent? For Paul, it's usually the Atari that forms a lot of his
cultural context, and for Cory, it's largely the Nintendo. It's what
shaped them. But, is repurposing a game platform as an art one like
calling a urinal a fountain? I think there's a different gesture here,
but similarities worth watching.
**************************************************
The gimmick, in other words, seems to come before the concept. I feel
compelled to compare the silliness of the wholesale sampling and
re-presentation in these works with, say, the Japanese group Delaware's
highly entertaining, beautiful and original installations and
performances that are inspired by the limitations of low-resolution
electronic displays. Or on another level, Paul Chan's engaging, poetic
and politically conscious animation video works. The difference being,
something new is being created, not as nostalgia, not as a prank, but as
a creative praxis.
***************************************************
Exactly, context and intent go hand in hand and each of the artists has
them. Cory, Paperrad, Paul, and that clade just clothe their work in a
poppy irony and slacker package that fits with the current obsession of
youth and the crossing of nostalgia for the early gen-x'ers youth. It's
all pretty tight.
**************************************************
So basically, what do we take away from this work once the nostalgia
factor seems too distant or antiquated, or not really that clever to
start with?
***************************************************
There's a lot that's tying in with history here, and think of it like
performance and entertainment as well, and less as comp sci. It's fun,
and there is a real cultural undertone in the gallery at times that is a
backlash from the uber-dry 80's and 90's. I think that there are people
who actually want to have fun in the gallery; to be amused and then
appreciate a sense of formalism, which Cory has in his pixelated stuff.
It's a pixilated landscape you can put on your wall made by a sl/h/acker
kid who wants to mess around with the stuff he grew up with while being
cognizant of contemporary art politics. Whenever I was in New York,
Cory was always asking me how to get that break, as I'm sure he was
asking everyone. He was busting tail.
***************************************************
Davis speaks of the "intentionality of artist(s) who seek to engage the
computing process at a fundamental level", you mean, like artists who
write their own code to create their own electronic spaces without the
safety net of pre-digested consumerist codes and signs, or at least is
engaged in some type of dialogue with them on a critical or aesthetic
level?
***************************************************
But this isn't what they're doing. They're playing with art history and
cultural effects/affects and weaving it into a contextual praxis. In
many ways, it goes back to Duchamp, Nauman and high modernism, which
secretly, a lot of contemporary at has not let go of, and probably won't
for a good while, at least until the collectors die…
In my opinion, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you're looking for
an art that operates under a different operational framework than what
you're looking for, and that puzzles you. I think that what you're
looking for is something that's more likely in an ISEA or SIGGRAPH,
which are niche cultures.
In response to Paul Chan, who is also in the current Contemporary, it's
intent, context, and lineage again, as Obrist asked if he had taken a
nod from Brackhage (historical grounding - right there.).
My read is that all of the artists (and I love Delaware, by the way,
need to remember them in the DM revisions) are operating in their own
spheres, aligning themselves with certain currents (I seem to have
fallen in with much of what remains of Fluxus from time to time), and
doing it pretty well.
What do you think?
Patrick Lichty
- Interactive Arts & Media
Columbia College, Chicago
- Editor-In-Chief
Intelligent Agent Magazine
http://www.intelligentagent.com
225 288 5813
[email protected]
> "It is better to die on your feet
> than to live on your knees."
what do 30% dead on feet novi sad 8-Bit aestetic pixed children think
ov this gnagna walt disney formula a la con ?
__
OG
hack el son jolies les filles de mon pii …
laylaylaylay …
I'd love to think that 8-bit retro art is the digital equivalent of
Expressionism's interest in woodcut, or possibly an electronic
Pre-Raphaelitism.
But I have the nagging feeling that it's actually Thomas Kinkade for geeks.
- Rob.
Kinkaide, probably not. Peter Max, maybe.
Patrick Lichty
- Interactive Arts & Media
Columbia College, Chicago
- Editor-In-Chief
Intelligent Agent Magazine
http://www.intelligentagent.com
225 288 5813
[email protected]
"It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees."
—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Rob Myers
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 11:31 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: On 8-Bit Aesthetics: Hackers or Hacks?
I'd love to think that 8-bit retro art is the digital equivalent of
Expressionism's interest in woodcut, or possibly an electronic
Pre-Raphaelitism.
But I have the nagging feeling that it's actually Thomas Kinkade for
geeks.
- Rob.
+
-> 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
> I think there's a lot of friction about 'craft', that is, the amount of
> work placed in a work. For example, when Cory and I did respective
> halves of a semester - long residency at the University of Akron last
> year, he had an interesting slogan.
>
> "Do as little as humanly possible", and I think this had to do with
> recontextualizing a cultural artifact and making it an art object, which
> is exactly what Kac, Debord, and Duchamp did so well. For him, it's a
> frustration with media art, and for me, it's been a break with
> technological determinism in New Media. That is, feeling that one has
> to use the latest and greatest technology because it's also in vogue.
>
> Slocum is a supreme craftsman. He knows the Atari 2600 kernel as well
> as anyone. Where Arcangel get in with context and personality, Slocum
> does it with virtuosity and referral to the culture of the 2600, retro,
> pop, I'd say perhaps even false nostalgia.
>
> Both are really good at what they do, they made the contacts, people
> believe in what they're doing, and there you have high art.
Hi Patrick,
That's a really interesting post. Thanks.
I'm curious about your def of "technological determinism" as the "feeling
that one has to use the latest and greatest technology because it's also in
vogue."
How does that sort of def relate to the sort of def by daniel chandler we
see at http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/tecdet/tdet01.html of
"technological determinism"? i also wrote a little bit about it at
http://vispo.com/writings/essays/mcluhana.htm .
ja
ps: i feel i use the greatest if not the latest web-based technology, ie
Director, but it is not in vogue. the latest, which is widely assumed to be
the greatest–Flash–is not the greatest but it seems to be what the market
will bear, currently.
by the way, the most recent chapter in the odd history of director–always
assumed to be the last chapter–has begun recently. adobe has changed the
director dev team/process rather radically. they are now in bangalore india.
most of them are from india. looking at the cv's of some of the main people,
they're awesome. doctorated and edued in usamerica in big computer
scischools. which is different from it seems what has been working on it
lately. but whether they'll be in the loop, dunno, guess we'll see. neither
macromedia nor adobe really has known what to do with director since flash.
now macrobe farms it out to india. is this sending it out to pasture? that's
an odd pasture, if so. they're better trained than most of the usamerican
developers. they might do something interesting with it. director has always
been more for artist-programmers than for the market. should i move to
india?
read a funny article about call centers in bangalore. pparently bangalore is
a call center center. the people who work in em oft make more dough than
doctors and lawyers in india. the article says the call centers are becoming
known as "dens of iniquity" in india. sex in the cubicles. the center of
westernization in india. parents fear for their children who work there.
it's a funny world, eh?
How does that sort of def relate to the sort of def by daniel chandler
we
see at http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/tecdet/tdet01.html of
"technological determinism"? i also wrote a little bit about it at
http://vispo.com/writings/essays/mcluhana.htm .
Good point - my def isn't exactly 'correct' in that in addition to
Chandler's more traditional definition, I often mix in a bit of the
'panic' stance that the perceived relevance of tech art is often defined
by the currentness of the technology. In many ways, I've heard people
(almost) sneer at the idea of static or obsolete technology platforms.
It's basic technofetishism for novel devices, that's all. Consumption,
fear of obsolescence driven by the tech consumer sector, and desire of
the new and shiny (why the hell else am I trying to hack one of those
new Optimus OLED keyboards?).
If you might have a better term, I'm all ears, no sarcasm intended.
But I'm tired of it being assumed that I'm supposed to get the new
machine every 18 months, and get the $1500 (or so) software upgrade so
that I'm somehow 'current' in terms of techne. That's just one concept,
but I think that in the long term, it's just unsustainable on so many
levels. And, there is all this amazing techno-detritus (physical and
cultural) which we can collage, montage, pastiche, and recontextualize.
And, when I realized in 2000 or so that it isn't about the latest tech
UNLESS that's the context you're critiquing, and I understood the
cultural frame from the onset, I've felt this urge to inform my work
historically, pare down the systems, look at how media and object can
converge without sacrificing either.
So from that, I've really gotten into simpler works with tighter
contexts and very clear intentions and likewise clear historical
references (many works; some I'm just going off, but you have to do that
as a palate cleanser).
ja
ps: i feel i use the greatest if not the latest web-based technology, ie
Director, but it is not in vogue. the latest, which is widely assumed to
be
the greatest–Flash–is not the greatest but it seems to be what the
market
will bear, currently.
Yeah, Corporate hegemony…
Director is great, but it seems to have been pigeonholed. Will it
survive, or is there a large enough multimedia authoring base? And if
it did go under, I'd then like to see it go open source.
by the way, the most recent chapter in the odd history of
director–always
assumed to be the last chapter–has begun recently. adobe has changed
the
director dev team/process rather radically. they are now in bangalore
india.
most of them are from india. looking at the cv's of some of the main
people,
they're awesome. doctorated and edued in usamerica in big computer
scischools. which is different from it seems what has been working on it
lately. but whether they'll be in the loop, dunno, guess we'll see.
neither
macromedia nor adobe really has known what to do with director since
flash.
now macrobe farms it out to india. is this sending it out to pasture?
that's
an odd pasture, if so. they're better trained than most of the
usamerican
developers. they might do something interesting with it. director has
always
been more for artist-programmers than for the market. should i move to
india?
Maybe, but Mangalore rather than Mangalore. Closer to the sea…
read a funny article about call centers in bangalore. pparently
bangalore is
a call center center. the people who work in em oft make more dough than
doctors and lawyers in india. the article says the call centers are
becoming
known as "dens of iniquity" in india. sex in the cubicles. the center of
westernization in india. parents fear for their children who work there.
it's a funny world, eh?
Yeah. Hysterical ;)
+
-> 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
> How does that sort of def relate to the sort of def by daniel chandler
> we
> see at http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/tecdet/tdet01.html of
> "technological determinism"? i also wrote a little bit about it at
> http://vispo.com/writings/essays/mcluhana.htm .
>
>
> Good point - my def isn't exactly 'correct' in that in addition to
> Chandler's more traditional definition, I often mix in a bit of the
> 'panic' stance that the perceived relevance of tech art is often defined
> by the currentness of the technology. In many ways, I've heard people
> (almost) sneer at the idea of static or obsolete technology platforms.
> It's basic technofetishism for novel devices, that's all. Consumption,
> fear of obsolescence driven by the tech consumer sector, and desire of
> the new and shiny (why the hell else am I trying to hack one of those
> new Optimus OLED keyboards?).
>
> If you might have a better term, I'm all ears, no sarcasm intended.
I think your link between 'technological determinism' and the "feeling that
one has to use the latest and greatest technology because it's also in
vogue," is interesting. They are linked, it seems to me, though they are not
the same thing. Daniel Chandler says "Just like these other deterministic
theories, technological determinism seeks to explain social and historical
phenomena in terms of one principal or determining factor. It is a doctrine
of historical or causal primacy" (
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/tecdet/tdet01.html ). As Chandler
points out or implies, those who have labelled Marshall McLuhan's work, for
instance, as 'technological determinism' have done so, in part, in a gesture
of critique: the label tacitly critques the work as disproportionately
emphasizing the role of technology concerning "historical or causal
primacy". Was McLuhan a 'technological determinist'? The short answer is
that McLuhan was concerned with exploring the ways in which culture and
history are determined by technology, not the ways in which they aren't; he
may have overstated his case, but has posed interesting questions.
The term 'technological determinism', like other 'determinisms,' is a term
fashioned to reject the work so labelled.
Nonetheless, we do experience pressures to use "the latest and greatest
technology", whether it's getting a new computer or using recent tech in our
art or whatever. For instance, commercial multimedia developers find it very
difficult to pitch Director projects to business clients. The clients want
Flash, not Director. Because of the market penetration of the Flash plugin
versus the Shockwave plugin, primarily. Also because of the uncertainty
concerning the status of Director as a continuing development platform ('is
it dead yet?'). And so on.
As a result of the difficulties commercial multimedia developers experience
pitching Director projects, the pace of development of Director slows, and
Flash begins to catch up with Director concerning many features. And then
even in the art world, the credibility of Director versus Flash projects
comes into question regardless of the quality of the apps.
Flash reaches more computers than does Director. Because, until relatively
recently, the Shockwave installation was around 6 or 7 Mb whereas the Flash
plugin installation required only a, what, 200 to 400 Kb download. The
Shockwave plugin is now only 2 Mb. But it was 6 or 7 at a crucial time when
bandwidth issues were decisive. Also, of course, Flash allows developers to
do more with less programming knowledge. That also has been decisive in
reaching the multimedia developer audience.
Flash's strength compared with Director has been its populist approach.
Populist concerning both the audience and the developer community. Its
weaknesses, relative to Director, concern its slowness, its less featureful
state, and its relative lack of granularity.
Commercial multimedia developers creating web-based content have pretty much
been forced by economic necessity to use Flash rather than Director. They
haven't been in an economic position to be able to choose. This is a type of
'determinism'. The market is determining what tools they have to use to pay
the bills, not their choice as to which tool they would like to use.
So already we have something a little bit different from 'technological
determinism' because we see that the market is very active in determining
the technology, rather than a situation where the technology enjoys "causal
primacy".
There's more to say but this post is already long enough. And, argh, there's
work to do.
Just to add that I continue to use Director not out of brand loyalty but
because there are some projects I'm working on that couldn't be done with
Flash.
ja
Patrick:
Thanks for your considered & frank response. This is the type of answer I was hoping for when I capitalized 'Art'; in other words, "why is this work relevant as objects within the system of production of the art world," quite a distinction from 'art' as a personal creative act..
However I remain unconvinced on several fronts.
*****************************************************************
>…he had an interesting slogan: "Do as little as humanly possible"…
*****************************************************************
Yeah, it shows.
The question is, is this in itself an ironic statement against 'operationality'? Or does it demonstrate that the chosen method of production doesn't have that much to offer in the first place? I do believe that to be a self-styled new media artist or critical practioneer relies on a built-in sense of technological determinism to begin with. I mean, it's just naive not to assume some measure of complicity. By this I mean that, technology is a craft, culture and society is heavily invested in it, these objects are a source of fascination and a means of production and to some extent we acknowledge that we all 'understand' technology and that the genie is not going back into the bottle. While the line from Duchamp to Warhol to Arcangel et. al. is somewhat legitimate, it is not smooth or reliable. To put it bluntly, Duchamp and Warhol were actually doing pretty different things at key moments in art & cultural history. You can't merely replicate their 'automatic' processes at this point. And Warhol was many things, but he was certainly not lazy about his craft. He did cast an unfortunate spell across future schools of art practice, however: by appearing to do nothing (by becoming purely automatic), one can become as big a celebrity as the celebrity culture one's images are about.
**************************************************************
> Both are really good at what they do, they made the contacts, people
> believe in what they're doing, and there you have high art.
**************************************************************
Yup. Until the collectors realize that they aren't *just* purchasing 'affability' or a personality but objects. This seems a good place to insert a discussion on the ephemerality of New Media Art collecting..
*****************************************************************
> They want to get something that both
> exploits its media and methods deeply and fits lock-step with the
> progression of the Western art historical tradition.. For example,
> Murakami cites classical Japanese culture, colonized by American pop
> culture.
*****************************************************************
Yeah, but unless I'm mistaken, Murakami samples it & injects his own exhuberance/cynicism and artistic labor (or that of his 'factory workers')–& does not simply tweak someone else's manga characters? I hate to get into a discussion about Originality vs. Creative Paucity but, well, there it is.
*******************************************************************
> Back to the self-referentiality of the computational process, except
> for bitforms, who cares about that in an art context, and still Steve
> presents very formal pieces from his artists, which gets the
> collectors… Forgive me if I'm not making the connection; but I get the
> feeling that you're looking for recognition for works that deeply
> explore the computational process as method, and I honestly think
> that's
> outside the context of most of the contemporary art world.
******************************************************************
That's actually not what I was suggesting (a la Casey Reas, Bitforms et al). The quote about 'artists involved with computational process' was from the Paul Davis quote on Rhizome's front page. But out of context with the art world? I don't know about that–Arcangel's work is heavily invested in its own process and presence as a (at the time) cutting-edge piece of consumer electronic culture. The art world has accepted this process-oreinted model within Media Arts, I do believe. But the production is a less-than-mordant cut-and-paste approach (slacker postmodernism?)as opposed to the lineage of past practicioneers of hack/electronic/computation art, since the sixties at least: Nam Jun Paik, the Vasulkas, Dan Sandin, etc (or more recent artists & theorists like Alan Rath, George LeGrady, Lynn Hershman & other 'New Image' artists)…this seems like a more relevant pre-to-post digital lineage to me than that of Warhol, Duchamp etc.
HOWEVER back to the discussion, as far as their currency as 'Art' within the system of objects within the art world, these aesthetic experiments seem wholly relevant to the degree that much Art operates with fairly open ends anyway. Installation, conceptualism, Media Art left the question of 'Art' hanging open, dangling, questions asked but unanswered, art as process, flow, social experiment, event…art that moves beyond representation, in other words, into the experiential.
> ***********************************************************
> It limits your discourse. Reassures people where you're going
> to
> be in ten years, and gives them some reassurance in investing in your
> objects.
************************************************************
Would seem to be the opposite to me–a limited discourse seems less reassuring lest it reveal itself as a micro-trend. Ehh, I'll take your word for it.
*****************************************
> It
> has nothing to do with the art community, it has to do with the mass
> community, because that's what more people are going to identify with.
******************************************
Sure. Curators & gallery owners fill their shows with the mass community, but that's not their target audience, is it? It has everything to do with the art community. The art community (purchasers, collectors) seem to rely on that sense of youthful zeitgeist, as distanced from it as they actually are, because that's the narrative of the art world since the 80's (at least definitively).
********************************************************
But, is repurposing a game platform as an art one like
> calling a urinal a fountain? I think there's a different gesture
> here,
> but similarities worth watching.
> **************************************************
Yes, with apprehension.
> ***************************************************
> Exactly, context and intent go hand in hand and each of the artists
> has
> them. Cory, Paperrad, Paul, and that clade just clothe their work in
> a
> poppy irony and slacker package that fits with the current obsession
> of
> youth and the crossing of nostalgia for the early gen-x'ers youth.
> It's
> all pretty tight.
> It's a pixilated landscape you can put on your wall made by a
> sl/h/acker
> kid who wants to mess around with the stuff he grew up with while
> being
> cognizant of contemporary art politics.
> ***************************************************
Yup, it's that great "I can do that too" feeling that engenders a cuddly feeling of tribal belonging…but without actually doing it, or doing it poorly, because the "youth-obsessed" codes are easily recognized and recapitulated without inquiry. (Now I feel like a bit of a reactionary, like one of those critics who didn't get Action Painting or whatever). It's all pretty tight, indeed…to the point where it almost reads as a contrived authenticity, and already seems a bit dusty…or maybe I just wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member. There goes *my* art career…
**************************************************************
> But this isn't what they're doing. They're playing with art history
> and
> cultural effects/affects and weaving it into a contextual praxis. In
> many ways, it goes back to Duchamp, Nauman and high modernism,
**************************************************************
Yah, although I think the lineage starts a bit later, (see above) or at least the line isn't so smooth from Duchamp's act, taking place during manifesto-oriented High Art Culture (Dada, Surrealism etc) during the swing of Modernism from Europe to the States, to those taking place in contemporary culture, adrift on an ocean of techno-consumer waste instead of historical European tradition…
Bla bla bla. In the visual arts, "static art objects are a historical given…Does [interactive art] even have a place within the art world? The grand historical narratives have come to an end, now, 'to be a member of the art world is to have learned what it means to participate in the discourse of reasons of one's culture."–Regina Cornwell.
***************************************************************
> In my opinion, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you're looking for
> an art that operates under a different operational framework than what
> you're looking for, and that puzzles you. I think that what you're
> looking for is something that's more likely in an ISEA or SIGGRAPH,
> which are niche cultures.
***************************************************************
While I *do* work regularly in the field of 'high-tech' graphics, I am less invested in this world than you might think. I haven't attended Siggraph in almost ten years. I *am* looking for an electronic art that, quite the opposite to your suggestion, does not exist solely to pose statements or congratulate itself about its own techn(o)ntology. (How's that for a great artword?). To this degree, making a piece of self-conscious, visibly low-tech Nintendo art has a closer resemblance to a glamorous HDRI rendered Pixar creation than might appear: both are hopelessly enamored with its own reflection, and exist as little more than surface affectation.
I *will* cite one of Cory's pieces that I adore: his Quicktime visualization of the contents of his hard-drive as multi-scalar pattern noise–that piece definitely got to me as a piece which was…well, an Object, conscious of but transcendant of it own Objecthood–you know what I mean?
*******************************
> What do you think?
*******************************
I think you are on the effin' money but could try to place this genre more within a critical context of digital, video & moving image arts, especially within post-80s New Media discourse…it's time to let Warhol & Duchamp off the hook as justifications for torpor and naked theft, or as Dan Clowes satirized it, the old 'tampon-in-a-teacup' trick. Why shouldn't artists have to work?
:sean capone
> >…he had an interesting slogan: "Do as little as humanly possible"…
>
> *****************************************************************
>
> Yeah, it shows.
>
> The question is, is this in itself an ironic statement against
> 'operationality'? Or does it demonstrate that the chosen method
> of production doesn't have that much to offer in the first place?
> I do believe that to be a self-styled new media artist or
> critical practioneer relies on a built-in sense of technological
> determinism to begin with. I mean, it's just naive not to assume
> some measure of complicity. By this I mean that, technology is a
> craft, culture and society is heavily invested in it, these
> objects are a source of fascination and a means of production and
> to some extent we acknowledge that we all 'understand' technology
> and that the genie is not going back into the bottle. While the
> line from Duchamp to Warhol to Arcangel et. al. is somewhat
> legitimate, it is not smooth or reliable. To put it bluntly,
> Duchamp and Warhol were actually doing pretty different things at
> key moments in art & cultural history. You can't merely replicate
> their 'automatic' processes at thi!
> s point. And Warhol was many things, but he was certainly not
> lazy about his craft. He did cast an unfortunate spell across
> future schools of art practice, however: by appearing to do
> nothing (by becoming purely automatic), one can become as big a
> celebrity as the celebrity culture one's images are about.
What do you mean by "technological determinism"? And also what do you mean by "a built-in sense of technological determinism"? Otherwise, your post is very clear and interesting.
ja
http://vispo.com
Just a quick note – and just on the first two sections underneath.
Personally, when considering Cory Archangel, I can only recall two
or three objects I really like, and think are quite important. The
quicktime work "data diaries" is indeed one of them, "Super Mario
Clouds" is another. The link is clear – from 60s/70s minimalism and
straight on from there. The works are produced in context with art
objects already circulating within the art community, as part of an
ongoing dialogue. The examples I mentioned are not only bringing 60s/
70s minimalism aesthetic up to date, but also letting us (well, me
at least) see the 60s/70s minimalism in a new light.
Apart from that, the artist Cory Archangel is important because he
engages in the art community. This is his goal:
> 'My goal was to be considered an artist, not a computer artist, to =
> have the computer considered in a gallery context,
It should also be pointed out that Cory's current show at Team doesn't
have anything to do with 8-bit.
See for yourself here:
<http://www.teamgal.com/arcangel/06show/index.html>
Cory was the poster boy for 8-bit in the art world, but, like any
other decent artist (especially young artist), he's exploring new
ideas.
On 10/25/06, Geert Dekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just a quick note – and just on the first two sections underneath.
>
> Personally, when considering Cory Archangel, I can only recall two or three
> objects I really like, and think are quite important. The quicktime work
> "data diaries" is indeed one of them, "Super Mario Clouds" is another. The
> link is clear – from 60s/70s minimalism and straight on from there. The
> works are produced in context with art objects already circulating within
> the art community, as part of an ongoing dialogue. The examples I mentioned
> are not only bringing 60s/70s minimalism aesthetic up to date, but also
> letting us (well, me at least) see the 60s/70s minimalism in a new light.
>
> Apart from that, the artist Cory Archangel is important because he engages
> in the art community. This is his goal:
>
>
> "My goal was to be considered an artist, not a computer artist, to have the
> computer considered in a gallery context," Arcangel says. "Strip away the
> video game part, strip away the hacking, and essentially what I'm doing is
> minimalist video art."
> http://www.oberlin.edu/alummag/winter2004/feat_newmedia.html
>
> Of course all this doesn't mean I'm "right". In other words, doesn't mean
> that the art community or the society as a whole will share my opinion in
> the long run. We'll just have to wait and see.
>
> And as for the stress on "craft" - there are a great number of art objects
> produced and immersed into the art community (and I dont think that either
> Duchamp or Warhol are good examples) that are low tech and/or require very
> little effort to produce. Its obvious that this is not a criterium for their
> importance. So why should you ever considering entering this into the
> discussion?
>
>
>
> Geert Dekkers
> http://nznl.com
> http://nznl.net
> http://nznl.org
>
>
>
>
>
> On 24/10/2006, at 8:59 PM, Sean Capone wrote:
>
> Patrick:
> Thanks for your considered & frank response. This is the type of answer I
> was hoping for when I capitalized 'Art'; in other words, "why is this work
> relevant as objects within the system of production of the art world," quite
> a distinction from 'art' as a personal creative act..
>
> However I remain unconvinced on several fronts.
>
> *****************************************************************
>
>
> …he had an interesting slogan: "Do as little as humanly possible"…
>
> *****************************************************************
>
> Yeah, it shows.
>
> The question is, is this in itself an ironic statement against
> 'operationality'? Or does it demonstrate that the chosen method of
> production doesn't have that much to offer in the first place? I do believe
> that to be a self-styled new media artist or critical practioneer relies on
> a built-in sense of technological determinism to begin with. I mean, it's
> just naive not to assume some measure of complicity. By this I mean that,
> technology is a craft, culture and society is heavily invested in it, these
> objects are a source of fascination and a means of production and to some
> extent we acknowledge that we all 'understand' technology and that the genie
> is not going back into the bottle. While the line from Duchamp to Warhol to
> Arcangel et. al. is somewhat legitimate, it is not smooth or reliable. To
> put it bluntly, Duchamp and Warhol were actually doing pretty different
> things at key moments in art & cultural history. You can't merely replicate
> their 'automatic' processes at thi!
> s point. And Warhol was many things, but he was certainly not lazy about
> his craft. He did cast an unfortunate spell across future schools of art
> practice, however: by appearing to do nothing (by becoming purely
> automatic), one can become as big a celebrity as the celebrity culture one's
> images are about.
>
> **************************************************************
>
>
> Both are really good at what they do, they made the contacts, people
> believe in what they're doing, and there you have high art.
>
> **************************************************************
>
> Yup. Until the collectors realize that they aren't *just* purchasing
> 'affability' or a personality but objects. This seems a good place to insert
> a discussion on the ephemerality of New Media Art collecting..
>
>
>
> *****************************************************************
>
>
> They want to get something that both
> exploits its media and methods deeply and fits lock-step with the
> progression of the Western art historical tradition.. For example,
> Murakami cites classical Japanese culture, colonized by American pop
> culture.
>
> *****************************************************************
>
> Yeah, but unless I'm mistaken, Murakami samples it & injects his own
> exhuberance/cynicism and artistic labor (or that of his 'factory
> workers')–& does not simply tweak someone else's manga characters? I hate
> to get into a discussion about Originality vs. Creative Paucity but, well,
> there it is.
>
>
>
> *******************************************************************
>
>
> Back to the self-referentiality of the computational process, except
> for bitforms, who cares about that in an art context, and still Steve
> presents very formal pieces from his artists, which gets the
> collectors… Forgive me if I'm not making the connection; but I get the
> feeling that you're looking for recognition for works that deeply
> explore the computational process as method, and I honestly think
> that's
> outside the context of most of the contemporary art world.
>
> ******************************************************************
>
> That's actually not what I was suggesting (a la Casey Reas, Bitforms et al).
> The quote about 'artists involved with computational process' was from the
> Paul Davis quote on Rhizome's front page. But out of context with the art
> world? I don't know about that–Arcangel's work is heavily invested in its
> own process and presence as a (at the time) cutting-edge piece of consumer
> electronic culture. The art world has accepted this process-oreinted model
> within Media Arts, I do believe. But the production is a less-than-mordant
> cut-and-paste approach (slacker postmodernism?)as opposed to the lineage of
> past practicioneers of hack/electronic/computation art, since the sixties at
> least: Nam Jun Paik, the Vasulkas, Dan Sandin, etc (or more recent artists &
> theorists like Alan Rath, George LeGrady, Lynn Hershman & other 'New Image'
> artists)…this seems like a more relevant pre-to-post digital lineage to me
> than that of Warhol, Duchamp etc.
>
> HOWEVER back to the discussion, as far as their currency as 'Art' within the
> system of objects within the art world, these aesthetic experiments seem
> wholly relevant to the degree that much Art operates with fairly open ends
> anyway. Installation, conceptualism, Media Art left the question of 'Art'
> hanging open, dangling, questions asked but unanswered, art as process,
> flow, social experiment, event…art that moves beyond representation, in
> other words, into the experiential.
>
>
>
>
> ***********************************************************
>
>
> It limits your discourse. Reassures people where you're going
> to
> be in ten years, and gives them some reassurance in investing in your
> objects.
>
> ************************************************************
> Would seem to be the opposite to me–a limited discourse seems less
> reassuring lest it reveal itself as a micro-trend. Ehh, I'll take your word
> for it.
>
>
>
> *****************************************
>
>
> It
> has nothing to do with the art community, it has to do with the mass
> community, because that's what more people are going to identify with.
>
> ******************************************
> Sure. Curators & gallery owners fill their shows with the mass community,
> but that's not their target audience, is it? It has everything to do with
> the art community. The art community (purchasers, collectors) seem to rely
> on that sense of youthful zeitgeist, as distanced from it as they actually
> are, because that's the narrative of the art world since the 80's (at least
> definitively).
>
>
> ********************************************************
>
> But, is repurposing a game platform as an art one like
> calling a urinal a fountain? I think there's a different gesture
> here,
> but similarities worth watching.
>
>
> **************************************************
>
> Yes, with apprehension.
>
>
>
> ***************************************************
>
>
> Exactly, context and intent go hand in hand and each of the artists
> has
> them. Cory, Paperrad, Paul, and that clade just clothe their work in
> a
> poppy irony and slacker package that fits with the current obsession
> of
> youth and the crossing of nostalgia for the early gen-x'ers youth.
> It's
> all pretty tight.
> It's a pixilated landscape you can put on your wall made by a
> sl/h/acker
> kid who wants to mess around with the stuff he grew up with while
> being
> cognizant of contemporary art politics.
>
>
> ***************************************************
>
> Yup, it's that great "I can do that too" feeling that engenders a cuddly
> feeling of tribal belonging…but without actually doing it, or doing it
> poorly, because the "youth-obsessed" codes are easily recognized and
> recapitulated without inquiry. (Now I feel like a bit of a reactionary, like
> one of those critics who didn't get Action Painting or whatever). It's all
> pretty tight, indeed…to the point where it almost reads as a contrived
> authenticity, and already seems a bit dusty…or maybe I just wouldn't want
> to belong to any club that would have me as a member. There goes *my* art
> career…
>
>
>
> **************************************************************
>
>
> But this isn't what they're doing. They're playing with art history
> and
> cultural effects/affects and weaving it into a contextual praxis. In
> many ways, it goes back to Duchamp, Nauman and high modernism,
>
> **************************************************************
> Yah, although I think the lineage starts a bit later, (see above) or at
> least the line isn't so smooth from Duchamp's act, taking place during
> manifesto-oriented High Art Culture (Dada, Surrealism etc) during the swing
> of Modernism from Europe to the States, to those taking place in
> contemporary culture, adrift on an ocean of techno-consumer waste instead of
> historical European tradition…
> Bla bla bla. In the visual arts, "static art objects are a historical
> given…Does [interactive art] even have a place within the art world? The
> grand historical narratives have come to an end, now, 'to be a member of the
> art world is to have learned what it means to participate in the discourse
> of reasons of one's culture."–Regina Cornwell.
>
>
> ***************************************************************
>
>
> In my opinion, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you're looking for
> an art that operates under a different operational framework than what
> you're looking for, and that puzzles you. I think that what you're
> looking for is something that's more likely in an ISEA or SIGGRAPH,
> which are niche cultures.
>
> ***************************************************************
> While I *do* work regularly in the field of 'high-tech' graphics, I am less
> invested in this world than you might think. I haven't attended Siggraph in
> almost ten years. I *am* looking for an electronic art that, quite the
> opposite to your suggestion, does not exist solely to pose statements or
> congratulate itself about its own techn(o)ntology. (How's that for a great
> artword?). To this degree, making a piece of self-conscious, visibly
> low-tech Nintendo art has a closer resemblance to a glamorous HDRI rendered
> Pixar creation than might appear: both are hopelessly enamored with its own
> reflection, and exist as little more than surface affectation.
> I *will* cite one of Cory's pieces that I adore: his Quicktime visualization
> of the contents of his hard-drive as multi-scalar pattern noise–that piece
> definitely got to me as a piece which was…well, an Object, conscious of
> but transcendant of it own Objecthood–you know what I mean?
>
> *******************************
>
>
> What do you think?
>
> *******************************
> I think you are on the effin' money but could try to place this genre more
> within a critical context of digital, video & moving image arts, especially
> within post-80s New Media discourse…it's time to let Warhol & Duchamp off
> the hook as justifications for torpor and naked theft, or as Dan Clowes
> satirized it, the old 'tampon-in-a-teacup' trick. Why shouldn't artists have
> to work?
>
> :sean capone
> +
> -> 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
>
–
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
Yup yup yup.
As it should be.
Patrick Lichty
- Interactive Arts & Media
Columbia College, Chicago
- Editor-In-Chief
Intelligent Agent Magazine
http://www.intelligentagent.com
225 288 5813
[email protected]
"It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees."
—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of T.Whid
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:00 AM
To: Rhizome
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: On 8-Bit Aesthetics: Hackers or Hacks?
It should also be pointed out that Cory's current show at Team doesn't
have anything to do with 8-bit.
See for yourself here:
<http://www.teamgal.com/arcangel/06show/index.html>
Cory was the poster boy for 8-bit in the art world, but, like any
other decent artist (especially young artist), he's exploring new
ideas.
On 10/25/06, Geert Dekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just a quick note – and just on the first two sections underneath.
>
> Personally, when considering Cory Archangel, I can only recall two or
three
> objects I really like, and think are quite important. The quicktime
work
> "data diaries" is indeed one of them, "Super Mario Clouds" is another.
The
> link is clear – from 60s/70s minimalism and straight on from there.
The
> works are produced in context with art objects already circulating
within
> the art community, as part of an ongoing dialogue. The examples I
mentioned
> are not only bringing 60s/70s minimalism aesthetic up to date, but
also
> letting us (well, me at least) see the 60s/70s minimalism in a new
light.
>
> Apart from that, the artist Cory Archangel is important because he
engages
> in the art community. This is his goal:
>
>
> "My goal was to be considered an artist, not a computer artist, to
have the
> computer considered in a gallery context," Arcangel says. "Strip away
the
> video game part, strip away the hacking, and essentially what I'm
doing is
> minimalist video art."
> http://www.oberlin.edu/alummag/winter2004/feat_newmedia.html
>
> Of course all this doesn't mean I'm "right". In other words, doesn't
mean
> that the art community or the society as a whole will share my opinion
in
> the long run. We'll just have to wait and see.
>
> And as for the stress on "craft" - there are a great number of art
objects
> produced and immersed into the art community (and I dont think that
either
> Duchamp or Warhol are good examples) that are low tech and/or require
very
> little effort to produce. Its obvious that this is not a criterium for
their
> importance. So why should you ever considering entering this into the
> discussion?
>
>
>
> Geert Dekkers
> http://nznl.com
> http://nznl.net
> http://nznl.org
>
>
>
>
>
> On 24/10/2006, at 8:59 PM, Sean Capone wrote:
>
> Patrick:
> Thanks for your considered & frank response. This is the type of
answer I
> was hoping for when I capitalized 'Art'; in other words, "why is this
work
> relevant as objects within the system of production of the art world,"
quite
> a distinction from 'art' as a personal creative act..
>
> However I remain unconvinced on several fronts.
>
> *****************************************************************
>
>
> …he had an interesting slogan: "Do as little as humanly possible"…
>
> *****************************************************************
>
> Yeah, it shows.
>
> The question is, is this in itself an ironic statement against
> 'operationality'? Or does it demonstrate that the chosen method of
> production doesn't have that much to offer in the first place? I do
believe
> that to be a self-styled new media artist or critical practioneer
relies on
> a built-in sense of technological determinism to begin with. I mean,
it's
> just naive not to assume some measure of complicity. By this I mean
that,
> technology is a craft, culture and society is heavily invested in it,
these
> objects are a source of fascination and a means of production and to
some
> extent we acknowledge that we all 'understand' technology and that the
genie
> is not going back into the bottle. While the line from Duchamp to
Warhol to
> Arcangel et. al. is somewhat legitimate, it is not smooth or reliable.
To
> put it bluntly, Duchamp and Warhol were actually doing pretty
different
> things at key moments in art & cultural history. You can't merely
replicate
> their 'automatic' processes at thi!
> s point. And Warhol was many things, but he was certainly not lazy
about
> his craft. He did cast an unfortunate spell across future schools of
art
> practice, however: by appearing to do nothing (by becoming purely
> automatic), one can become as big a celebrity as the celebrity culture
one's
> images are about.
>
> **************************************************************
>
>
> Both are really good at what they do, they made the contacts, people
> believe in what they're doing, and there you have high art.
>
> **************************************************************
>
> Yup. Until the collectors realize that they aren't *just* purchasing
> 'affability' or a personality but objects. This seems a good place to
insert
> a discussion on the ephemerality of New Media Art collecting..
>
>
>
> *****************************************************************
>
>
> They want to get something that both
> exploits its media and methods deeply and fits lock-step with the
> progression of the Western art historical tradition.. For example,
> Murakami cites classical Japanese culture, colonized by American pop
> culture.
>
> *****************************************************************
>
> Yeah, but unless I'm mistaken, Murakami samples it & injects his own
> exhuberance/cynicism and artistic labor (or that of his 'factory
> workers')–& does not simply tweak someone else's manga characters? I
hate
> to get into a discussion about Originality vs. Creative Paucity but,
well,
> there it is.
>
>
>
> *******************************************************************
>
>
> Back to the self-referentiality of the computational process, except
> for bitforms, who cares about that in an art context, and still Steve
> presents very formal pieces from his artists, which gets the
> collectors… Forgive me if I'm not making the connection; but I get
the
> feeling that you're looking for recognition for works that deeply
> explore the computational process as method, and I honestly think
> that's
> outside the context of most of the contemporary art world.
>
> ******************************************************************
>
> That's actually not what I was suggesting (a la Casey Reas, Bitforms
et al).
> The quote about 'artists involved with computational process' was from
the
> Paul Davis quote on Rhizome's front page. But out of context with the
art
> world? I don't know about that–Arcangel's work is heavily invested in
its
> own process and presence as a (at the time) cutting-edge piece of
consumer
> electronic culture. The art world has accepted this process-oreinted
model
> within Media Arts, I do believe. But the production is a
less-than-mordant
> cut-and-paste approach (slacker postmodernism?)as opposed to the
lineage of
> past practicioneers of hack/electronic/computation art, since the
sixties at
> least: Nam Jun Paik, the Vasulkas, Dan Sandin, etc (or more recent
artists &
> theorists like Alan Rath, George LeGrady, Lynn Hershman & other 'New
Image'
> artists)…this seems like a more relevant pre-to-post digital lineage
to me
> than that of Warhol, Duchamp etc.
>
> HOWEVER back to the discussion, as far as their currency as 'Art'
within the
> system of objects within the art world, these aesthetic experiments
seem
> wholly relevant to the degree that much Art operates with fairly open
ends
> anyway. Installation, conceptualism, Media Art left the question of
'Art'
> hanging open, dangling, questions asked but unanswered, art as
process,
> flow, social experiment, event…art that moves beyond representation,
in
> other words, into the experiential.
>
>
>
>
> ***********************************************************
>
>
> It limits your discourse. Reassures people where you're going
> to
> be in ten years, and gives them some reassurance in investing in your
> objects.
>
> ************************************************************
> Would seem to be the opposite to me–a limited discourse seems less
> reassuring lest it reveal itself as a micro-trend. Ehh, I'll take your
word
> for it.
>
>
>
> *****************************************
>
>
> It
> has nothing to do with the art community, it has to do with the mass
> community, because that's what more people are going to identify with.
>
> ******************************************
> Sure. Curators & gallery owners fill their shows with the mass
community,
> but that's not their target audience, is it? It has everything to do
with
> the art community. The art community (purchasers, collectors) seem to
rely
> on that sense of youthful zeitgeist, as distanced from it as they
actually
> are, because that's the narrative of the art world since the 80's (at
least
> definitively).
>
>
> ********************************************************
>
> But, is repurposing a game platform as an art one like
> calling a urinal a fountain? I think there's a different gesture
> here,
> but similarities worth watching.
>
>
> **************************************************
>
> Yes, with apprehension.
>
>
>
> ***************************************************
>
>
> Exactly, context and intent go hand in hand and each of the artists
> has
> them. Cory, Paperrad, Paul, and that clade just clothe their work in
> a
> poppy irony and slacker package that fits with the current obsession
> of
> youth and the crossing of nostalgia for the early gen-x'ers youth.
> It's
> all pretty tight.
> It's a pixilated landscape you can put on your wall made by a
> sl/h/acker
> kid who wants to mess around with the stuff he grew up with while
> being
> cognizant of contemporary art politics.
>
>
> ***************************************************
>
> Yup, it's that great "I can do that too" feeling that engenders a
cuddly
> feeling of tribal belonging…but without actually doing it, or doing
it
> poorly, because the "youth-obsessed" codes are easily recognized and
> recapitulated without inquiry. (Now I feel like a bit of a
reactionary, like
> one of those critics who didn't get Action Painting or whatever). It's
all
> pretty tight, indeed…to the point where it almost reads as a
contrived
> authenticity, and already seems a bit dusty…or maybe I just wouldn't
want
> to belong to any club that would have me as a member. There goes *my*
art
> career…
>
>
>
> **************************************************************
>
>
> But this isn't what they're doing. They're playing with art history
> and
> cultural effects/affects and weaving it into a contextual praxis. In
> many ways, it goes back to Duchamp, Nauman and high modernism,
>
> **************************************************************
> Yah, although I think the lineage starts a bit later, (see above) or
at
> least the line isn't so smooth from Duchamp's act, taking place during
> manifesto-oriented High Art Culture (Dada, Surrealism etc) during the
swing
> of Modernism from Europe to the States, to those taking place in
> contemporary culture, adrift on an ocean of techno-consumer waste
instead of
> historical European tradition…
> Bla bla bla. In the visual arts, "static art objects are a historical
> given…Does [interactive art] even have a place within the art world?
The
> grand historical narratives have come to an end, now, 'to be a member
of the
> art world is to have learned what it means to participate in the
discourse
> of reasons of one's culture."–Regina Cornwell.
>
>
> ***************************************************************
>
>
> In my opinion, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you're looking for
> an art that operates under a different operational framework than what
> you're looking for, and that puzzles you. I think that what you're
> looking for is something that's more likely in an ISEA or SIGGRAPH,
> which are niche cultures.
>
> ***************************************************************
> While I *do* work regularly in the field of 'high-tech' graphics, I am
less
> invested in this world than you might think. I haven't attended
Siggraph in
> almost ten years. I *am* looking for an electronic art that, quite the
> opposite to your suggestion, does not exist solely to pose statements
or
> congratulate itself about its own techn(o)ntology. (How's that for a
great
> artword?). To this degree, making a piece of self-conscious, visibly
> low-tech Nintendo art has a closer resemblance to a glamorous HDRI
rendered
> Pixar creation than might appear: both are hopelessly enamored with
its own
> reflection, and exist as little more than surface affectation.
> I *will* cite one of Cory's pieces that I adore: his Quicktime
visualization
> of the contents of his hard-drive as multi-scalar pattern noise–that
piece
> definitely got to me as a piece which was…well, an Object, conscious
of
> but transcendant of it own Objecthood–you know what I mean?
>
> *******************************
>
>
> What do you think?
>
> *******************************
> I think you are on the effin' money but could try to place this genre
more
> within a critical context of digital, video & moving image arts,
especially
> within post-80s New Media discourse…it's time to let Warhol &
Duchamp off
> the hook as justifications for torpor and naked theft, or as Dan
Clowes
> satirized it, the old 'tampon-in-a-teacup' trick. Why shouldn't
artists have
> to work?
>
> :sean capone
> +
> -> 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
>
–
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
+
-> 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
I see I misspelt Corys surname. Probably not the first time someone
did that! Sorry.
Geert
On 25/10/2006, at 3:59 PM, T.Whid wrote:
> It should also be pointed out that Cory's current show at Team doesn't
> have anything to do with 8-bit.
>
> See for yourself here:
> <http://www.teamgal.com/arcangel/06show/index.html>
>
> Cory was the poster boy for 8-bit in the art world, but, like any
> other decent artist (especially young artist), he's exploring new
> ideas.
>
> On 10/25/06, Geert Dekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Just a quick note – and just on the first two sections underneath.
>>
>> Personally, when considering Cory Archangel, I can only recall
>> two or three
>> objects I really like, and think are quite important. The
>> quicktime work
>> "data diaries" is indeed one of them, "Super Mario Clouds" is
>> another. The
>> link is clear – from 60s/70s minimalism and straight on from
>> there. The
>> works are produced in context with art objects already circulating
>> within
>> the art community, as part of an ongoing dialogue. The examples I
>> mentioned
>> are not only bringing 60s/70s minimalism aesthetic up to date, but
>> also
>> letting us (well, me at least) see the 60s/70s minimalism in a new
>> light.
>>
>> Apart from that, the artist Cory Archangel is important because he
>> engages
>> in the art community. This is his goal:
>>
>>
>> "My goal was to be considered an artist, not a computer artist, to
>> have the
>> computer considered in a gallery context," Arcangel says. "Strip
>> away the
>> video game part, strip away the hacking, and essentially what I'm
>> doing is
>> minimalist video art."
>> http://www.oberlin.edu/alummag/winter2004/feat_newmedia.html
>>
>> Of course all this doesn't mean I'm "right". In other words,
>> doesn't mean
>> that the art community or the society as a whole will share my
>> opinion in
>> the long run. We'll just have to wait and see.
>>
>> And as for the stress on "craft" - there are a great number of art
>> objects
>> produced and immersed into the art community (and I dont think
>> that either
>> Duchamp or Warhol are good examples) that are low tech and/or
>> require very
>> little effort to produce. Its obvious that this is not a criterium
>> for their
>> importance. So why should you ever considering entering this into the
>> discussion?
>>
>>
>>
>> Geert Dekkers
>> http://nznl.com
>> http://nznl.net
>> http://nznl.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 24/10/2006, at 8:59 PM, Sean Capone wrote:
>>
>> Patrick:
>> Thanks for your considered & frank response. This is the type of
>> answer I
>> was hoping for when I capitalized 'Art'; in other words, "why is
>> this work
>> relevant as objects within the system of production of the art
>> world," quite
>> a distinction from 'art' as a personal creative act..
>>
>> However I remain unconvinced on several fronts.
>>
>> *****************************************************************
>>
>>
>> …he had an interesting slogan: "Do as little as humanly
>> possible"…
>>
>> *****************************************************************
>>
>> Yeah, it shows.
>>
>> The question is, is this in itself an ironic statement against
>> 'operationality'? Or does it demonstrate that the chosen method of
>> production doesn't have that much to offer in the first place? I
>> do believe
>> that to be a self-styled new media artist or critical practioneer
>> relies on
>> a built-in sense of technological determinism to begin with. I
>> mean, it's
>> just naive not to assume some measure of complicity. By this I
>> mean that,
>> technology is a craft, culture and society is heavily invested in
>> it, these
>> objects are a source of fascination and a means of production and
>> to some
>> extent we acknowledge that we all 'understand' technology and that
>> the genie
>> is not going back into the bottle. While the line from Duchamp to
>> Warhol to
>> Arcangel et. al. is somewhat legitimate, it is not smooth or
>> reliable. To
>> put it bluntly, Duchamp and Warhol were actually doing pretty
>> different
>> things at key moments in art & cultural history. You can't merely
>> replicate
>> their 'automatic' processes at thi!
>> s point. And Warhol was many things, but he was certainly not
>> lazy about
>> his craft. He did cast an unfortunate spell across future schools
>> of art
>> practice, however: by appearing to do nothing (by becoming purely
>> automatic), one can become as big a celebrity as the celebrity
>> culture one's
>> images are about.
>>
>> **************************************************************
>>
>>
>> Both are really good at what they do, they made the contacts, people
>> believe in what they're doing, and there you have high art.
>>
>> **************************************************************
>>
>> Yup. Until the collectors realize that they aren't *just* purchasing
>> 'affability' or a personality but objects. This seems a good place
>> to insert
>> a discussion on the ephemerality of New Media Art collecting..
>>
>>
>>
>> *****************************************************************
>>
>>
>> They want to get something that both
>> exploits its media and methods deeply and fits lock-step with the
>> progression of the Western art historical tradition.. For example,
>> Murakami cites classical Japanese culture, colonized by American pop
>> culture.
>>
>> *****************************************************************
>>
>> Yeah, but unless I'm mistaken, Murakami samples it & injects his own
>> exhuberance/cynicism and artistic labor (or that of his 'factory
>> workers')–& does not simply tweak someone else's manga
>> characters? I hate
>> to get into a discussion about Originality vs. Creative Paucity
>> but, well,
>> there it is.
>>
>>
>>
>> *******************************************************************
>>
>>
>> Back to the self-referentiality of the computational process, except
>> for bitforms, who cares about that in an art context, and still Steve
>> presents very formal pieces from his artists, which gets the
>> collectors… Forgive me if I'm not making the connection; but I
>> get the
>> feeling that you're looking for recognition for works that deeply
>> explore the computational process as method, and I honestly think
>> that's
>> outside the context of most of the contemporary art world.
>>
>> ******************************************************************
>>
>> That's actually not what I was suggesting (a la Casey Reas,
>> Bitforms et al).
>> The quote about 'artists involved with computational process' was
>> from the
>> Paul Davis quote on Rhizome's front page. But out of context with
>> the art
>> world? I don't know about that–Arcangel's work is heavily
>> invested in its
>> own process and presence as a (at the time) cutting-edge piece of
>> consumer
>> electronic culture. The art world has accepted this process-
>> oreinted model
>> within Media Arts, I do believe. But the production is a less-than-
>> mordant
>> cut-and-paste approach (slacker postmodernism?)as opposed to the
>> lineage of
>> past practicioneers of hack/electronic/computation art, since the
>> sixties at
>> least: Nam Jun Paik, the Vasulkas, Dan Sandin, etc (or more recent
>> artists &
>> theorists like Alan Rath, George LeGrady, Lynn Hershman & other
>> 'New Image'
>> artists)…this seems like a more relevant pre-to-post digital
>> lineage to me
>> than that of Warhol, Duchamp etc.
>>
>> HOWEVER back to the discussion, as far as their currency as 'Art'
>> within the
>> system of objects within the art world, these aesthetic
>> experiments seem
>> wholly relevant to the degree that much Art operates with fairly
>> open ends
>> anyway. Installation, conceptualism, Media Art left the question
>> of 'Art'
>> hanging open, dangling, questions asked but unanswered, art as
>> process,
>> flow, social experiment, event…art that moves beyond
>> representation, in
>> other words, into the experiential.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ***********************************************************
>>
>>
>> It limits your discourse. Reassures people where you're going
>> to
>> be in ten years, and gives them some reassurance in investing in your
>> objects.
>>
>> ************************************************************
>> Would seem to be the opposite to me–a limited discourse seems less
>> reassuring lest it reveal itself as a micro-trend. Ehh, I'll take
>> your word
>> for it.
>>
>>
>>
>> *****************************************
>>
>>
>> It
>> has nothing to do with the art community, it has to do with the mass
>> community, because that's what more people are going to identify
>> with.
>>
>> ******************************************
>> Sure. Curators & gallery owners fill their shows with the mass
>> community,
>> but that's not their target audience, is it? It has everything to
>> do with
>> the art community. The art community (purchasers, collectors) seem
>> to rely
>> on that sense of youthful zeitgeist, as distanced from it as they
>> actually
>> are, because that's the narrative of the art world since the 80's
>> (at least
>> definitively).
>>
>>
>> ********************************************************
>>
>> But, is repurposing a game platform as an art one like
>> calling a urinal a fountain? I think there's a different gesture
>> here,
>> but similarities worth watching.
>>
>>
>> **************************************************
>>
>> Yes, with apprehension.
>>
>>
>>
>> ***************************************************
>>
>>
>> Exactly, context and intent go hand in hand and each of the artists
>> has
>> them. Cory, Paperrad, Paul, and that clade just clothe their work in
>> a
>> poppy irony and slacker package that fits with the current obsession
>> of
>> youth and the crossing of nostalgia for the early gen-x'ers youth.
>> It's
>> all pretty tight.
>> It's a pixilated landscape you can put on your wall made by a
>> sl/h/acker
>> kid who wants to mess around with the stuff he grew up with while
>> being
>> cognizant of contemporary art politics.
>>
>>
>> ***************************************************
>>
>> Yup, it's that great "I can do that too" feeling that engenders a
>> cuddly
>> feeling of tribal belonging…but without actually doing it, or
>> doing it
>> poorly, because the "youth-obsessed" codes are easily recognized and
>> recapitulated without inquiry. (Now I feel like a bit of a
>> reactionary, like
>> one of those critics who didn't get Action Painting or whatever).
>> It's all
>> pretty tight, indeed…to the point where it almost reads as a
>> contrived
>> authenticity, and already seems a bit dusty…or maybe I just
>> wouldn't want
>> to belong to any club that would have me as a member. There goes
>> *my* art
>> career…
>>
>>
>>
>> **************************************************************
>>
>>
>> But this isn't what they're doing. They're playing with art history
>> and
>> cultural effects/affects and weaving it into a contextual praxis. In
>> many ways, it goes back to Duchamp, Nauman and high modernism,
>>
>> **************************************************************
>> Yah, although I think the lineage starts a bit later, (see above)
>> or at
>> least the line isn't so smooth from Duchamp's act, taking place
>> during
>> manifesto-oriented High Art Culture (Dada, Surrealism etc) during
>> the swing
>> of Modernism from Europe to the States, to those taking place in
>> contemporary culture, adrift on an ocean of techno-consumer waste
>> instead of
>> historical European tradition…
>> Bla bla bla. In the visual arts, "static art objects are a historical
>> given…Does [interactive art] even have a place within the art
>> world? The
>> grand historical narratives have come to an end, now, 'to be a
>> member of the
>> art world is to have learned what it means to participate in the
>> discourse
>> of reasons of one's culture."–Regina Cornwell.
>>
>>
>> ***************************************************************
>>
>>
>> In my opinion, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you're looking
>> for
>> an art that operates under a different operational framework than
>> what
>> you're looking for, and that puzzles you. I think that what you're
>> looking for is something that's more likely in an ISEA or SIGGRAPH,
>> which are niche cultures.
>>
>> ***************************************************************
>> While I *do* work regularly in the field of 'high-tech' graphics,
>> I am less
>> invested in this world than you might think. I haven't attended
>> Siggraph in
>> almost ten years. I *am* looking for an electronic art that, quite
>> the
>> opposite to your suggestion, does not exist solely to pose
>> statements or
>> congratulate itself about its own techn(o)ntology. (How's that for
>> a great
>> artword?). To this degree, making a piece of self-conscious, visibly
>> low-tech Nintendo art has a closer resemblance to a glamorous HDRI
>> rendered
>> Pixar creation than might appear: both are hopelessly enamored
>> with its own
>> reflection, and exist as little more than surface affectation.
>> I *will* cite one of Cory's pieces that I adore: his Quicktime
>> visualization
>> of the contents of his hard-drive as multi-scalar pattern noise–
>> that piece
>> definitely got to me as a piece which was…well, an Object,
>> conscious of
>> but transcendant of it own Objecthood–you know what I mean?
>>
>> *******************************
>>
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> *******************************
>> I think you are on the effin' money but could try to place this
>> genre more
>> within a critical context of digital, video & moving image arts,
>> especially
>> within post-80s New Media discourse…it's time to let Warhol &
>> Duchamp off
>> the hook as justifications for torpor and naked theft, or as Dan
>> Clowes
>> satirized it, the old 'tampon-in-a-teacup' trick. Why shouldn't
>> artists have
>> to work?
>>
>> :sean capone
>> +
>> -> 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
>>
>
>
> –
> <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
> +
> -> 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