hi all,
I just visited the superb exhibition at the Stedelijk Museum in Mokum of Nam June Paik, and while some of the work feels a bit dated - most of it felt vibrant, topical, fun, over the top (in a good way), relevant, at times endearing, then again poetic even outrageous, nostalgic in other moments – never sublime (a good thing!), very ‘human’ also, maybe not enough non-humans in their own voice - was the work ‘inclusive’ enough? - how did Paik relate to women? – we can question all that - he’s not a saint, just a strong, vigorous artist of his time..
Since Lev lumped 'media art’ in his 99% of anti-human art I think Paik should be in his 99% (or is his’ part of the 1%??). Actually, if 'digital media art’ (whatever that nay be, I never use such terms) would frame itself as decidedly anti-human art I would welcome it! As long as it is facing Gaia in the right way…
In general, I can make lists of great artists who worked ‘in the digital’, what about George Legrady f.i. if anyone’s work is ‘human’ and at the same time acutely aware of the ’non-human’, or Paul Garrin, or David Rokeby, or Lynn Hershman and what about distinguished artists who operate in the realm of contemporary (fine) arts but utilise almost exclusively digital media - dare I name Trevor Paglen - he’s widely exhibited, collected curated, written about.
And hey since we’re at it, our own Jordan Crandall… – should I really go on? I just jotted this down off the cuff. Upon deliberation the list would grow and grow..
Media art and even digital works are now actively collected - fairs are organised centred on media/digital arts. Works are included in collections around the planet and ’the digital’ has become vernacular and in this ‘hidden existence’ now permeates contemporary art production.
Ask yourself how many people graduate each year from fine arts departments, how many painters, sculptors, draughts-persons - and what percentage ends up being sold, collected, written about, curated, etc… 0,001% or maybe that’s even too optimistic.
The art world is the most darwinian space that ever existed on the planet, no jungle matches it.
In short we get nowhere with such monolithic claims - I understand the exasperation from which Lev writes his comments (dreadful anaemic ‘digital art’), but such comprehensive claims are nonetheless hopelessly inaccurate.
I would actually welcome an anti-digital art movement - that would be great! Get over this mono-technical (Mumford - Technics and Civilization) preoccupation, embrace the multiplicity of the analogue (‘polytechnics’).
My two eurocents… -eric
"Sad by Manovich" or "Sad by Ars Electronica" ;)
Six false statements in four sentences is a lot!
"New media art never deals with human life, and this is why it does not enter museums. It's our fault. Don't blame curators or the "art world." Digital art is "anti-human art," and this is why it does not stay in history. //" ---- Geert Lovink wrote ---- URL or not but this is too good, and too important for nettimers, not to read and discuss. These very personal and relevant observations come from a public Facebook page and have been written by Lev Manovich (who is “feeling thoughtful” as the page indicates).
—
My
anti-digital art manifesto / What do we feel when we look at the
previous generations of electronic and computer technologies? 1940s TV
sets, 1960s mainframes, 1980s PCs, 1990s versions of Windows, or 2000s
mobile phones? I feel "embarrassed. "Awkward." Almost "shameful." "Sad."
And this is exactly the same feelings I have looking at 99% of digital
art/computer art / new media art/media art created in previous decades.
And I will feel the same when looking at the most cutting-edge art done
today ("AI art," etc.) 5 years from now. If consumer products
have "planned obsolescence," digital art created with the "latest"
technology has its own "built-in obsolescence." // These feelings of sadness, disappointment,
remorse, and embarrassment have been provoked especially this week as I
am watching Ars Electronica programs every day. I start wondering - did
I waste my whole life in the wrong field? It is very exciting to be at
the "cutting edge", but the price you pay is heavy. After 30 years in
this field, there are very few artworks I can show to my students
without feeling embarrassed. While I remember why there were so
important to us at the moment they were made, their low-resolution
visuals and broken links can't inspire students. // The same is
often true for the "content" of digital art. It's about "issues,"
"impact of X on Y", "critique of A", "a parody of B", "community of C"
and so on. // It's almost never about our real everyday life and
our humanity. Feelings. Passions. Looking at the world. Looking inside
yourself. Falling in love. Breaking up. Questioning yourself. Searching
for love, meaning, less alienated life.// After I watch Ars
Electronica streams, I go to Netflix or switch on the TV, and it feels
like fresh air. I see very well made films and TV series. Perfectly
lighted, color graded, art directed. I see real people, not
"ideas" and meaningless sounds of yet another "electronic music"
performance, or yet another meaningless outputs of a neural network
invented by brilliant scientists and badly misused by "artists."
New media art never deals with human life, and this is why it does not
enter museums. It's our fault. Don't blame curators or the "art world."
Digital art is "anti-human art," and this is why it does not stay in
history. // P.S. As always, I exaggerated a bit my point to
provoke discussion - but not that much. This post does reflect my real
feelings. Of course, some of these issues are complex - but after 30
years in the field, I really do wonder what it was all about) P.P.S.
The mystery of why some technology (and art made with them) has
obsolescence and others do not - thinking about this for 25 years. We
are fascinated by 19th-century photographs or 1960s ones. They look
beautiful, rich, full of emotions, and meanings. But video art from the
1980s-1990s looks simply terrible, you want to run away and forget that
you ever saw this. Why first Apple computers look cool, cute, engaged?
But art created on them does not? And so on. I still have not solved
this question. Perhaps part of this has to be with the message
that goes along with lots of tech art from the 1960s to today - and
especially today. 19th or 20th-century photographs done by professional
photographs or good amateurs do not come with utopian, pretentious,
exaggerated, unrealistic, and hypocritical statements, the way lots of
"progressive art" does today. Nor do their titles announce all latest
tech processes used to create these photographs. --------------------
Ars Electronica 2020:
https://ars.electronica.art/keplersgardens/en/ --------------------
Video illustration: Japanese robot at Ars Electronica 2010 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmabKC1P51A # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org# @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
|