hello domenico!
i saw the softwareartspace online gallery quite a while ago and, while
appreciating Steven Sacks' effort to find new business models for new media
art, i just can't help but think that the shown artists are just mediocre
programmers desining stuff that resemble interactive screen savers (which is
not something nice to say to a software artist: my sincere apologies, but
that's what i think).
if you look at the production of the kiddies shown (and it's just one example
among thousands) on http://www.scene.org you will see (and you probabily have,
already) productions that are much nicer. Presented with a bragging/showoff
attitude that is typical of kids, but way better in aesthetics and quality.
Just look at what they managed to stuff in 64kb of code in the "chaos theory"
64kb intro.
now: these kiddies don't call themselves artists, they would love to get a
regular 9to5 job at a software house, they don't put their screensavers into
fancy boxes or sell only 5000 of them for 125$. Yet they produce stuff that is
*way* better than the ones that proclaim themselves artists and that end up in
a gallery maybe just because they met its owner at a party in new york. They
don't have the fancy descriptions for their software, nor the elegant boxes,
nor the support of a famous art gallery in new york, but i'd rather have *them*
on my living room monitor anytime.
don't you think that all of this is a bit outdated to be called innovation?
"new media art"?
by the way: isn't the "limited edition" of the software products a mind
masturbation? a middle-aged mind masturbation, as a matter of fact? what about
all the era of reproducibility of art? what about the new paradigms? isn't that
sticking new media art into a conceptual jail?
are 01.org making art when they sell SL screenshots? it's full of examples!
will we end up selling digitally artistic ashtrays in portobello road, London?
as an experiment i sent an email to mr. Sacks presenting him some of my
software works. they took a long time to design the algorithms on which they
are based, a long time to think and write out the theorical texts, and about 3
minutes of aesthetics work. I didn't mention that. let's see what happens. :)
bye!
s
>—-Messaggio originale—-
>Dal: [email protected]
>Data: 28/06/2007 9.40
>A: <[email protected]>
>Ogg: RHIZOME\_RAW: “We are all ready for a change”. Interview with Steven
Sacks
>
>“WE ARE ALL READY FOR A CHANGE”. INTERVIEW WITH STEVEN SACKS
>by Domenico Quaranta
>
>Wired called him “the king of Digital Art”. Maybe this headline is a
>little bit exaggerated, but what's true is that Steven Sacks is one of
>the few people in the world who are able to make New Media Art
>digestible for collectors. Steven is the founder of the well known
>bitforms gallery in New York, but what tickled my attention, and gave
>rise to this little interview, is another - maybe less significant, but
>more visionary - initiative: softwareARTspace
>(http://www.softwareartspace.com/). He writes on the website:
>“softwareARTspace was started to distribute unframed software art pieces
>- art that is delivered on a CD and is viewed with a computer and screen
>of choice… Although you can use software art on existing systems, it
>is my belief and conviction that software art should and will become a
>dedicated experience, just as you hang a painting or a photo. Once you
>have a software art station in place, you can easily switch amongst your
>collection.”
>In my opinion, this idea of a “software art station” is 50\% naive, 50\%
>ingenious. So, I drop a line to the naive genius who conceived it…
>This interview was conducted via email in May, 2007 for an article
>published in Flash Art, June 2007.
>
>Domenico Quaranta. As a gallery owner, you are already dealing with
>Software Art, and with New Media Art in general. How do you sell digital
>works through the gallery? Video recordings? Prints? Installations?
>
>Steven Sacks. I do not like the term “digital”. It's too narrow and
>typically defined too commercially. I deal with New Media Art which many
>times integrates new technologies or the influence of media on society.
>Software-based works have been a major focus of the gallery and I
>believe is the most significant “art practice” change of my generation.
>We offer all types of media from video to sculpture, but the works must
>have a connection to new media. Much of what we offer is sold just as
>they have been for many years. Software Art works tend to be more
>challenging to sell, but offer the collector an artistic experience
>unlike any other. These works are driven by a computer and are either
>generative or interactive or both. The software is typically offered on
>a CD and/or embedded in a computer that the artist has specified.
>Depending on what the work is, there are a number of back-up and
>conservation methods that need to be addressed.
>
>DQ. Why did you decide to open softwareARTspace? What's the difference
>with bitforms gallery, concerning the way you sell Software Art?
>
>SS. softwareARTspace was started to introduce and educate the main
>stream and to some extent the art world about Software Art and some of
>the artists engaged in the practice. These works were offered in very
>large editions at affordable prices so more people could experience and
>collect New Media Art from a range of well known software-based artists.
>The work is only available through online purchase and is packaged very
>nicely. Some of the softwareARTspace artists also show at bitforms gallery.
>
>DQ. About experiencing the work, you talk about a dedicated machine, "a
>software art station". It seems to me weird and provocative at the same
>time. At the beginning, Net Art and Software Art tried to introduce new,
>democratic ways to experience art: but, entering the art market, they
>usually lost this visionary approach, looking for more traditional,
>“materialized” interfaces (prints, videos, sculptures and so on).
>softwareARTspace seems to look for a viable way to re-propose that
>visionary approach. Do you think that we are now ready for totally new
>ways to experience art?
>
>SS. There are some very simple reasons why we are all ready for a
>change. Access and price. It is now very easy to access computers and
>screens and the prices have dropped dramatically. The thought of having
>2-3 screens devoted to software or video art is not unreasonable and in
>fact will broaden and diversify most people's collection. Also, for some
>works of art it is ok to rotate between pieces on one screen which also
>offers collectors a nice option for easily and quickly changing their
>surroundings.
>
>DQ. What I buy when I buy one of your multiples? Is it like buying video
>art? Or more likely buying a software or a game? Why do you make
>editions of 5000 instead of 50? Is it still art, when it costs 125 $?
>
>SS. It is not video. It is code - Software Art. The work is on a CD and
>must be viewed on a computer with a decent graphics card.
>This is not about “collecting” and value. It's about experiencing a
>sample of work from important software artists. When these artists
>produce more “fine artworks” they will have the attention of a wider
>audience who may be interested in smaller editions or unique objects.
>
>
>–
>
>Domenico Quaranta
>
>mob. +39 340 2392478
>email. [email protected]
>home. vicolo San Giorgio 18 - 25122 brescia (BS)
>web. http://www.domenicoquaranta.net/
>
>
>+
>-> 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
>
R:_RHIZOME_RAW:_“We_are_all_ready_for_ a_change”._Interview_with_Steven_Sacks
-
Type: discussion