www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

Re: <nettime> An Infinite Seance
Kimberly De Vries on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 04:18:29 +0100 (CET)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: <nettime> An Infinite Seance


On 1/29/07, Florian Cramer <fc-nettime {AT} plaintext.cc> wrote:
> Am Samstag, 27. Januar 2007 um 20:03:22 Uhr (+0100) schrieb olia lialina:
>
> It is interesting how this form of presentation blurs the boundaries
> between the "theatrical" medium film and the "home" medium video.
> While you explicity speak of "film", it has also become the dominant
> installation form of video-based art work, for example at Documenta
> XI. Perhaps the oldest materialization of this presentation form were
> early 1960s/1970s porn movies, 16mm short films that were screened as
> endless "beaver loops" shops in sex shops, as first prototypes of porn
> video viewing booths.

This form of presentation has also become quite common in actual
homes; I have attended quite a few festive events where some sort of
homemade video was being screened in a repeated loop for the
entertainment of guests.  I think that boundaries are blurring between
audiences and creators as well, at least to the degree that just about
everyone with a computer and a cell phone can make some kind of video,
not to mention re-mixing things they download.  And of course Olia has
mentioned YouTube;  I take a more positive view that now so many
people have at least a rudimentary sense of the work and thought
needed for a video, they may be better prepared to appreciate video
and film art.

> I wish you were right, Olia, but can't see it happening. On
> the contrary, "interactive" installation art seems to thrive,
> dominate "media" festivals and continue to be the canonical form of
> institutional electronic art all the while net art continues to be
> declared "dead". Before it was - temporarily - hacked by net artists,
> the field of "media art" was essentially an outgrowth of 1960s/1970s
> cybernetic audiovisual computer art. This art never had much, if any,
> relevance and credentials in the field of contemporary art. Since
> net artists rather came from "actual" art than institutional media
> research lab practice, they temporarily changed the game, much to the
> frustration of those in electronic art who were more interested in
> high tech "interactivity", "artificial intelligence", photorealistic
> graphic simulations etc. Yet it seems to me as if these old paradigms
> have been restored, and the old cybernetic fallacies, with their
> confusions of interaction with machine feedback and cognition with
> computation, continue to rule at least in European institutional
> electronic arts.

In the US I've noticed strange parallel development to interactive art
in children's and science museums.  Many of the exhibits my children
enjoy might not appear out of place re-labeled in an exhibition space.
 On the one hand I'm inclined to think this similarity is damning for
interactive art, but on the other hand maybe it proves the educational
value.  --Assuming that those going to interact with the art have the
mental capacity of 3-10 year olds.

Kim


#  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: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net