Keylines
A platform for open, collaborative conversation about contemporary issues relevant to the new media community. Each thread below was initiated by a "seed post" author and anyone can contribute to the discussion.
Art, Science, Technology: Towards Forging a Method and Firing a Canon
From the invention of one-point perspective and the creation of oil paint to the development of photography and interactive virtual reality environments, technical innovation and the use of emerging scientific ideas and technologies as themes and media have substantial continuity throughout the history of western art. Similarly, various aspects of sociology, economics, psychology, and philosophy have been employed in artistic practice for many years. Yet, while the discipline of art history has embraced the integration of insights from the humanities and social sciences in works of art and developed its own interpretive methods based on them, it neither has recognized the centrality of science and technology to artistic practice nor developed methods for interpreting the integration of art, science, and technology. This leads me to ask:
How can art history develop a more comprehensive understanding of AST without appropriate methods designed to bring this subject into relief? What would such methods consist of? What insights might emerge into the interrelatedness of art, science, and technology, particularly with respect to contemporary practice?
In the absence of established methods to interpret the history, theoretical content, and practical applications of science and technology, the canon of art history exhibits an impoverished understanding of both the role of science and technology in the history of art-making and the contributions of artists who have been important innovators in that regard. This is a slippery slope. On the one hand, if one takes post-structuralism seriously, the reconstruction of a master narrative is theoretically problematic, if not ethically corrupt. Moreover, many of the distinguishing characteristics of contemporary AST projects, such as decentralization, non-linearity, collaboration, self-organization, and hybridity, would seem to challenge the epistemological foundations that legitimate grand narratives. In this respect, the canonization of AST is arguably tantamount to ensuring its failure by its own criteria.
At the same time, canonical revision that reflects the importance of technology throughout the history of art implies a critical reconsideration and recontextualization of artists, artworks, art-making practices, and historical narratives that previously have been excluded, marginalized, or not understood to their fullest potential. Indeed, this double-edged sword is not unique to AST but characterizes the conflicts inherent in the struggle for legitimacy of any subaltern position.
Although theoretical challenges to master-narratives and grand schemes constitute a valuable corrective to naturalized discursive strategies and methodological models, the problem of defining a data-set remains. Discourse depends on and necessitates that participants in it agree that they have a more or less coherent subject to respond to or talk about. Canons provide that common ground, a shared database of generally accepted objects, actors, and moments that are held together by virtue of their participation in the construction of an evolving discourse. Practically speaking, a canon can be only so large. It must have sufficient critical mass to demonstrate its authority, yet its significance is predicated on a certain exclusivity. So, for each work newly admitted to it, another must be removed. The sorts of judgments that administer this gatekeeping function cannot be separated from ideological agendas, personal and professional ambitions, and financial interests. The elevation of a work as a canonical monument requires strenuous and ongoing negotiation to compel and sustain inclusion.
Critics and historians working in the field must not only exhume monuments of AST from the rubbish-heap of history and develop appropriate methods for justifying their historical import, but they must become involved in the process of negotiation and gatekeeping that will enable AST to gain canonical status (or to enter into the discursive domain of whatever will replace traditional canonical structures). Such involvement includes attaining positions of authority in professional organizations, funding and exhibition institutions, the academy, publishing, and so forth. In many respects, the AST clan, such as it is, has already begun to infiltrate these ranks but has a long way to go to achieve a leveling of the playing field.
|
