Here are my (mostly undigested) notes based on our discussions throughout the semester:
Art versus tool
Content wedded to medium
Collectability
Pleasing versus provocative art
--- can be both (e.g., Picasso's Guernica)
--- can converge from either direction
Role of context (e.g., 2 black lines on a white canvas as art)
--- how imporant is background and motivations of the artist?
--- how important is historical and cultural moment?
Role of credibility (e.g., Suicide Box)
--- does it matter?
Role of addictiveness (e.g., Tetris and most video games)
--- does addiction "equal" entertainment "not equal" art?
Did artists follow tech development during their day (e.g., Marey and the Post-Impressionists)?
What are implications when technology allows artistic style to eventually become codified (e.g., Cubism becoming a PhotoShop plug-in)?
Art issues about showing or hiding the technology.
"Spirograph art" – art that shows natural phenomena, how do we "see the artist" (and is this important). Like Pollack, must the artist "write his/her own book?"
Sampling versus ripping off
--- way before duschamp, "everyone" sampled (folksongs, painters, etc)
--- isn’t ripping off usually about technique rather than content?
Prior art and knowing whose work is similar to yours
--- whose responsibility is it to know prior art? (the artist?, curator? critic?)
--- how much time should an artist spend seeking prior art?
--- does google totally change things here?
Virtuosity
--- is being the first to explore a new tech a fast track to "virtuosity"
--- (doesn’t true virtuosity require years, and a tech that is very pliable?)
Is art that demos nature lacking "the artist’s voice"?
Context (why was Duschamp so successful?)
--- he was first
--- the time was right
--- he continued to have a long career
Art as revealer of
--- personal imagination (classic view, e.g., Michelangelo "freeing" marble)
--- science (Edgerton, Sand Etching, Protrude Flow)
--- interpersonal relationships (Snibbe’s Boundary Function)
Solo versus collaborations in art+tech work
--- who does programming?
--- painter model versus filmmaking model
More on art in context of artist
--- does performing nonstop have an affect (Orlan)?
--- showing work together (Paik’s magnet with his Bhudda TV?)
--- knowing one work is earlier than the rest (Fiengold’s Head)?
Role of self-promotion/hype
--- more good or harm? (outrageous claims e.g., "cured fear of death")
--- did Picasso hype everyone? only selected few?
VR as expanded painting versus realtime interaction
--- Ephemere and Habitat
Art in earlier contexts
--- difficulty interpreting meaning (e.g., dead man next to bison)
--- did cave paintings look real (like Lumiere’s film of oncoming train)?
“Art & Tech” versus “Art & Science”
--- in 1965, more science-oriented and non-political, because
--- world was less political (pre-vietnam, counterculture, etc.)
--- access to tools required day jobs in big labs
“Op Art” can be “happy art” (usually science-oriented) but also disturbing (bordering on political, e.g. Bridget Riley, Vasulkas)
Issues of “Delivery” (i.e., new medium)
--- Is “Flash art” different from text only or from text on 16mm film?
--- How can a critic review a new medium?
--- How much “personality” can be in it?
--- How reflexive is it?
--- Value of “no frills” but “stylized?
Art and “Value”
--- Issues around permanence (important for collectors only?)
--- What do patrons “buy?” (e.g., supporting perfomance)
--- Collecting artifacts versus collecting art (e.g., Guggenheim collecting Matta-Clark documents)
--- Issues around cost (is it a factor in judging quality? What about judging proposals?)
Anti-art as art (silence, chance, e.g., Cage) (or ready-mades, e.g., Duchamp)
What is value of first-ness? (Vostell “versus” Paik)?
Importance (or not) of “seeding” and determism (cave paintings lead to more cave paintings in same place)
Importance of artists “jumping into the fire” (entering the arena where new things happen, having cultural impact, e.g., transgenic research)
Art as aesthetic versus art as mirror of society (expression versus impact)
Is there a problem simply exploring the artistic potential of a new technology (is it “techno fetishism”?)
Has digital artmaking lost the physicality of traditional craft? (Raymond Scott building Electronium)
Darwinian nature of new art
--- What happened to half the artists in early video art shows?
--- How may pioneering artists died poor (Melies selling chocolates in the Paris Metro)
Does successful public art compromise as art by being so accessible (Christian Moller’s Audio Grove)?
Hacking/Satirizing/Criticizing a new medium versus using it for one’s own (non-mainstream) art
--- Photography and Cinema spawned “indy” movements
--- Indy video (art) went through a brief TV hacking period
--- Most all video game art so far has been hacking/commentary on mainstream video games
--- Why is there no “United Artists” for video games? (UA took 20 years after the birth of cinema)
--- Is Machinima indy?
Some artists backed off from initially exploring high tech (Woody Allen, Peter Campus)
Artists doing tech visualization for commercial apps (Connection Machine)
Cheap tech in expensive venues (Videodrome trailer made on C64)
Popularity clusters at high cost (blockbuster) or low cost (Blair Witch)
Is expensive flash a corporate/western/progress conspiracy? (Lev M’s point about Flash and E Europe)
New media:
--- Emulate past media (cinema after theater, tv after radio)
--- Critique past media (video art after tv, game art after video games)
--- Show off its unique features (depth effects in 3D movies)
Artists exploring new media turned from positive (1950-60s) to negative (1970-80s)
--- “techno fetishism” / “technocentrism” /post-modernism
--- but examples exist of both technocentric and critical
--- (where does spiritualism fit in?)
“In-your-face” personal work
--- Too much = overshadowing beauty or criticism of world?
--- Too little = “lacking voice”
What makes conceptual good art? (must be first?)
“Digital art” with no computer in final work
--- either referential (“about” digital culture, e.g., painting of a Mac)
--- or essential (needed in process, e.g., paper airplane or fabric design)
Art that track/maps/visualizes phenomena (Mori)
Power of place-based work (Janet Cardiff walks)
Hactivism, electronic civil disobedience, illegal robots (IAA Graffiti Writer)
Here is the complete list of art, artists, etc., that came up during class discussions as relevant (* means eventually presented and entered):
--- The File Room, Antoni Muntadas, 1994?, early participatory text-base website
--- Karl Sims*, artificial life guru
--- December 28, 1895, First public exhibition of CINEMA (Paris, Lumiere brothers)
--- Crystal Palace Expo, London, First World's Fair ("Expo"s).
--- Nam June Paik* and Takashi Murakami.
--- Jodi.org.
--- David Rockeby, Canadian digital artist
--- The Internet Archive
--- Oskar Fischinger*, John and James Whitney, Jordan Belson (abstract motion pictures)
--- The Sims and earlier role-playing games.
--- Anamorphic Painting (e.g., Holbein) (Hockney optics controversy)
--- Rotoscope works
--- Duschamp*
--- Lygia Clark
--- no one has done anything by Leonardo yet
--- Gyorgy Kepes (major figure in art+science from Bauhaus to Media Lab)
--- early examples of sampling work (e.g., the Moody Blues use of the Mellotron)
--- Howard Wise gallery, NYC (big player in 70s)
--- Bridget Riley (british op art painter)
--- Robert Smithson* (earth art)
--- Christo (environmental art)
--- Woody and Steina Vasulka (early video art)
--- Cybernetic Serendipity show – London – c1967
--- Art and Technology show – LA museum of Contemporary Art – c 1972
--- 9 evenings show – NYC – c1969
--- art/funding at Burning Man
--- Laterna Magika – live performer synced in front of projected movie
--- Fredereick Church paintings – using viewing tubes
--- Robert Axtell - artificial society work (“sugar and spice” studies)
--- Roy Ascott – “vegetal reality” (god and spiritualism links to new media)
--- Edwardo Kac (“transgenic” art)
--- Stelarc (cyber-body art)
--- Artist-made video synthesizers: Paik-Abe, Rutt-Etra, Sandin (all 1970s)
--- Andy Goldsworthy
--- Peter Campus
--- Alan Rath
--- Rafael Lozano-Hemmer
--- Jim Campbell (Psycho still image)
Notes
What makes conceptual good art? (must be first)
“Digital art” with on computer in final work
either referential (“about” digital culture, e.g., painting of a Mac)
or essential (needed in process, e.g., paper airplane or fabric design)
Art that track/maps/visualizes phenomena (Mori)
Power of place-based work (Janet Cardiff walks)
Hactivism, electronic civil disobedience, illegal robots (IAA Graffiti Writer)
Leads
--- Alan Rath
--- Rafael Lozano-Hemmer
--- Jim Campbell – psycho image
Notes
Artists backing off from high tech (woody allen, peter campus)
Artists doing tech visualization for commercial apps (connection machine)
Cheap tech in expensive environment (videodrome trailer made on C64)
Popularity clusters at high cost (blockbuster) and low cost (blair witch)
Is expensive flash a corporate/western/progress conspiracy? (Lev M’s point about Flash and E Europe)
New media:
Emulate past media (cinema wrt theater, tv wrt radio)
Critique past media (video art wrt tv, game art wrt video games)
Show off its unique features (3D movies)
Artists exploring new media turned from positive (1950-60s) to negative (1970-80s)
“techno fetishism” / “technocentrism” /post-modernism
examples exist of both technocentric and critical
(where does spiritualism fit in?)
In-your-face personal work
Too much = what about beauty or criticism of world?
Too little = lacking voice
Leads
--- peter campus works
--- visualization of internet
Notes
Is there a problem simply exploring the artistic potential of a new technology (much of early art/tech work versus “techno fetishism”)
Hardware-based art making has a physicality to craft that software art does not (Raymond Scott building Electronium)
Darwinian nature of new art (what happened to half the artists in early video art shows?)
Does successful public art compromise as art by being so accessible (Christian Moller’s Audio Grove)?
Hacking/Satirizing/Criticizing a new medium versus using it for one’s own (non-mainstream) art
- Photography and Cinema spawned “indy” movements
- Indy video (art) went through a brief TV hacking period
- Most all video game art is hacking/commentary on mainstream video games
- Why is there no “United Artists” for video games?
(UA took 20 years after the birth of cinema)
- Machinima is indy
Leads
--- Artist-made video synthesizers: Paik-Abe, Rutt-Etra, Sandin (all 1970s)
--- works by Andy Goldsworthy
The plan is:
Apr 19 - lock down design for time line
Apr 26 - lock down time line
May 3 - last class - big picture discussion
And since we have a Monday class, it is suggested we make up a missing day. Am open to ideas.
Notes
Anti-art as art (silence, chance, e.g., Cage) (or ready-mades, e.g., Duchamp)
What is value of first-ness? (Vostell “versus” Paik)?
Importance (or not) of “seeding” and determism (cave paintings lead to more cave paintings)
Importance of artists “jumping into the fire” (entering the arena where new things happen, e.g., transgenic research)
Art as aesthetic versus art as mirror of society (expression versus impact)
Leads
--- Laterna Magika – live perfrmer synced in front of projected movie
--- Fredereick Church paintings – using viewing tubes
--- Robert Axtell - artificial society work (sugar and spice studies)
--- Roy Ascott – “vegetal reality” (god and spiritualism links to new media)
--- Edwardo Kac (“transgenic” art)
--- Stelarc (cyber-body art)