I had discussion with my friend recently about action-based art (I have no idea if this is right term to describe).
My friend and I agreed that those forms of art lacks certain quality that traditional form of art has; especially, in-between space for viewers to get in. This sort of lackness(?) often happens with technology-based or interactive art as well. If we think about Superflex’s work, for example. I wonder if people see this kind of aspect as lacks or different.
If we make argument more specific to the Superflex’s works, especially on those of FREE BEER or COPYSHOP for example, then it seems that what they try to talk is so clear and so obvious and that makes clear difference with other art which usually have ambiguous quality. It looks like Free Beer/Copy Shop want us to think more about what they’re addressing through the work rather than think about work itself.
It is good that it makes real action to reality and it allows people to think about more concrete issue but in a sense, isn’t this more like Journalism or Design? If we look at our history, It seems when art has expanded through this challenge.
Rather than the question of whether this is art or not, what is nature of in-between space in art for viewer to get in; a space that gives free interpretation/imagination for viewer?
Hi Taeung,
i’m glad You posted on the board.
I think Your post touches a critical point.
When we see a modern installation and we compared it to works such as those of Michelangelo or other “traditional” works, seems we can easily loose our creeds and start thinking about what art is, what art means.
I think we should be aware that can be more logical to watch those forms of expression with different lenses and not the same one.
If we analize traditional and modern works putting them on different levels maybe we can get some interesting information.
I think one difference is in the medium.
Probably sculpture or painting has reached a mature stage while modern technology-based form of expression are all still in an embryonic stage.
I think that artists, designer, architechts, etc… are all trying to inquiries about the power and possibilites of technology, they are testing the tools, the media, to achieve the result of building a new language.
We can see there is a strong tendence to mix the media and the hard part is to assign centrality to one of them.
I didn’t know Superflex, but i think his works are good examples for the era we are living in.
I believe that our art, i mean the one that should represent the period we are living in, is not like the art we find in books. It’s something different, is the attempt of reaching a new point in art history, but i’m not so expert to know more about the result.
About the viewer role: viewers are becoming users.
With W. Benjamin, we learned how things started to change with the introduction of photography. I learned that the art works is changing, as well as the artists role, as well as the users one.
We should reflect about the change of the role of the viewers-users.
Viewers were kinda passive.
In the past only few learned or expert people could live the experience of understanding artwork. Now the space between the artefact and the users is filled. Users get in and become part of the art work.
We could say we have less imagination, more action in motion.
But i think this is just a transitional stage.
Who knows – in the next stage users will not just phisycally interact with art-interfaces, but they will start again using imagination, i mean using imagination to interact and increase the meaning of the works…. maybe artists will let users to visualize their visions inside an empty canvas.
This is what painters tried to do with their own visions using colours.
I think art defines a free experimental field between humans activities.
Maybe galleriest are not on the same wavelenght?
Sorry if i didn’t get any clear point – wait for Your answer.
Hello Renato
What did you exactly mean by “I think art defines a free experimental field between humans activities.” ?
hmm.. I don’t know because it seems those “more action in motion” looks more of physical labour, rather than some kind of exciting process. I welcome the fact it promotes action of the viewer in creative process but It does seem purely labour.
actually I’m trying to make some sort of game for my artwork. and this argument makes me think of that work as the reason why I’m interested in that game is because game has interesting point in terms of this. In the game, there’s no viewer and maker; they both are maker and viewer. and they both create things together with imagination. I just think it’s fascinating.
anyway, I don’t know. I agree with your view that we need to discover new language through using technology, but so far, to me It seems using technology doesn’t make much difference..
Hi Taeung,
my definition is an attempt of finding a fixed point in actual art practice.
We are sorrounded by several wonderful artworks, from the past and present ones, made using all kind of techniques and instruments.
But i think that, because of technological every-day discovery, there are new oppurtunities to inquire about what art is.
So the experimental side of art practice is now more relevant, because people (or artists) can do the same things of the past with new languages, or can do things that only technology can help to do.
Tech stuff is just a medium, but the knowledge of thieese instruments applied to arts is still at the beginning: so i think experimental activity could bring to new stage of practice. I agree that we are not obliged to use computers to do things: but as artists works are an expression of the era they live in, even a painter should in some way think about technology and its effect on society.
I just make an example of my turkish friend, who is a very good painter. His paintings looks like photograph.
He used to paint still life: fruits, other similar subjects.
Once i spoke with him and asked if he could work on a paint where the subject was a laptop.
He made this very realistic painting with a laptop on a table, just like old painters made with fruits.
In some way that was made because of an “experiment”, with no intention or project.
But i think the result is in some way interesting: because that painting is witness of the obiquity (presence) of technology in our every day life.
Hope to see from You soon.
Renato
ps
if You log in (in Your blog account) before commenting, the comment will be immediately visible, else i will have to approve it later, since the system put in moderation state the comment from people who are not subscribed to the blog.
I’m sorry.. but I can’t find where I can login…
can you please tell me where I can login into my account?
It’s interesting that you stated that “but as artists works are an expression of the era they live in, even a painter should in some way think about technology and its effect on society.” in your comment because I discussed my friend today about this issue. It’s not completely relevant idea but basically, what I was arguing was “It is good to” make self up to dated but I don’t think “one must”. I mean, you didn’t say any obligation on this issue but my friend was saying like he thinks that as an artist, we all need to make ourselves up to date and also we need to produce works that is able to communicate with people; convincing. My point against this view was It doesn’t have to. because I believe the fundamental value of art is in promoting individual creativity and freedom.
I don’t know it seems story is going really round because we started dialogue from action based art and we now end up with role of art/artist, lol
anyway. I can see you’re busy as well.
I’ve got the presentation the day after tomorrow in seminar and I’m going Turner prize exhibition tomorrow
have you come across with Turner prize??
Hi Taeung,
since many segments of society seems to increansengly loose freedom, i agree with You, about the fundamental value of art.
There are still many works made by students and artists who use traditional techniques without reference to technology and theese works are completely legitimate from my point of view.
Actually i am more into digital and post-digital culture, so more inclined to learn how to work with thech-stuff.
Another point of view could be about the potential of different techniques.
In traditional art practice, many directions were still experienced by great artists, if we think about Caravaggio for example, so i think it would be harder for a painter who lives in our time to do lot more of what he did with that language.
But with technology there are still many open fielda and things to experience.
Sometime i say: “if Leonardo had lived in our time, he would have been very technological, maybe a webdesinger?
Ok, this is just a joke, but what i mean is that (respecting the work of everyone and the freedom of expression) we should be aware that the use of techonology in every field of knowledge becomes more and more pervasive: it is now part of our everyday life.
Maybe the target could be the integration of different language: a very simple example could be drawing a shape on a paper and then using it inside a software, to generate new shapes.
Maybe working with technology it’s just a celebration of its importance, when it makes things simple for humans.
But we can even criticize it when it makes things hard or dangerous.
Maybe we have to choose. I think the good is in the middle, “in media stat virtus!”
… Yes our classes are going to be more busy, but i will often come on the board and hope to find time for discussions.
We studied the Turner Prize, but i think i will soon give a look to the news on the website.
It could be interesting to see the works presented to the prize, considering our discussion and trying to find a link between what we are writing and where is going the actual practice (or market) in international art system.
Hope to hear from You soon,
renato
Hello Renato!!!
It’s been so long, isn’t it?
I’m sorry but the holiday now started!!!!
I see your point in your last comment.
It seems you’re trying to develop new language by using new medium which is electronic software.
Now I’m wondering reason why you’re developing that new language.
I guess it might be because you enjoy using software or because some sort of historical responsibility; sort of duty that we as artist, to transform or reflect/evaluate our time.
but that’s only my guess. What is the reason for it?
or more broadly, can I ask you why you make art?
and why do you think art should exist? what’s value of art to the human being?
I’m just curious.
Hello Taeung,
Yes, few weeks are gone, but the good side of such a channel is that we can easily get in touch even after long time.
We have another week of classes before holidays, will You be in Uk on Xmas?
New languages: well i don’t think i am so artistically mature to “discover” a new language in art. I would be really lucky if such a thing could happen.
Maybe while everyone is trying to find his own language, only few experienced (and lucky) persons succeed to discover a universal new language, that innovates the field of art.
Sometime it happens for mistake, sometime it’s a real discovery.
This morning on facebook i went through a sentence by a young designer and artist that made me think:
[ART IS DEAD, SO WHAT IS LEFT IS TO KILL ARTISTS] IOFFE
I selected it as my sentence of the day.
So maybe today i can’t express any other thought because on this wave lenght. Maybe if we think art is dead we can start searching for something really new.
Maybe we went through this point: i’m celebrating technology but this can be also done without technology.
I am now working on “technological-like toys” but i just made my first one with argilla (clay), and as we know “clay tablets were used as the first writing medium, inscribed with cuneiform script through the use of a blunt reed called a stylus”, as an example to say that we are not obliged to use tech-stuff.
A new language could just means a new, easy, modern, actual, way to do, mix or comunicate things about the time we live in.
But in that case too, i don’t think we are obliged to do things in a schematic way.
I agree with You when You write about “some sort of historical responsibility; sort of duty that we as artist, to transform or reflect/evaluate our time”.
As we live the present, we try to imagine the next future. As we feel responsible for our friends, family, we should try to be responsible in our activity.
You know, If we were engineers, we would have been responsible for infrastructures building, environment, etc…
But we are art student, so we should think about where art is going, because probably (whether we like or not) we will find ourself in that place one day.
Why i make art. I’m not sure that what i make can be called art.
What i m sure about now is
- that my hand are aching for having worked hardly with wax, till few days ago
- my eyes are gone almost blind because of computer addiction
Ok this is what we choose.
More interesting is the question about why art should exist and its value to the human being: i don’t have a learned answer.
Just think: if it always existed, why should not?
Human being need it?
What would have been humans without art?
Yea, I’m gonna stay here in holiday, I’ve got a lot of things to do but I’m just so lazy to do that..
I wish I use english like native, then all the research and studying art here will be 10 times easier.. It’s my wish!!!!!
Sometimes, I think of using this English learning thing as my art, because that would be something that makes me beneficial of the fact that
I’m not from english speaking country. but I don’t find interesting point there, I still need to think about it because I really want to make this advantage of myself.
Anyway, Do you think art is dead? why do you think so? and why does that designer and artist think in that way?
because i really don’t agree with that. I’m just curious what is their view point.
yea, I agree with your view point but I have been always little bit sceptical about that historical responsibility because It seems that you put your effort not for you or your time but for historical narrative; narrative such as art history, kind of responsibility that you feel you have to continue instead of starting new historical narrative or breaking down. It may sounds bit stupid but In another sense, it is true. I’m curious what you think about this. Regarding this issue, my position as Non-western might influenced this thinking. As if you look at history of art that we usually learn even in Asian art school, it is western art history. If you ask me or most of asian art student about their own art history, they wouldn’t know about it. But I’m not so concerned and trapped by it. My point is no matter eastern or western, just that idea of historical narrative somehow makes us to be responsible to continue it, and thus legitimate the past.
It is true if we’re engineers, we need to think about how we improve it as it is functional aspect. The direction we should go is very clear, but if we’re artist, the direction is not that clear and there is no guarantee that helping historical evolution is the best direction we could spend our life on.
It’s valid point that you’re asking me back if always been existed, why should art be removed?
but to me, it sounds weired without knowing, doing things.
and it just makes more clear what direction we should go with this thing called art, isn’t it?