Posted 6. April 2009, 08:53 by Jade Devlin
Category : Home   Academic developments

Is new media the death of art? The sequel!!

(I thought people might be interested in seeing my submitted essay style blog work as it concludes the comments presented about earlier in the term whilst introducing new themes to a relitavely untouched area)… Cemp lives on remember!!

A few months ago I wrote an article claiming that the new digital age provoked the death of tangible art, with particular regards to the play of children and their creativity.

You can see this here:

http://www.cemp.ac.uk/communities/interactivemedia/interactivemedia/art-attacked

I followed it up with a forum debate which you can find here:

http://www.cemp.ac.uk/communities/interactivemedia/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1020

The following blog is a conclusion of the summaries contributed by the community and therefore this is what WE concluded (with my own ideas thrown in of course).

Firstly, let me demonstrate the importance of this evaluation:

‘Image is the medium of presence and nature, sometimes cozening us with illusion, with powerful recollection and sensory immediacy… We must consider pictures to be living things’ Mitchell (1994)

Images have long been the record of our very existence (in a crude sense, think of facebook photographs). Art has detailed our history since the ice age yet the introduction of a world wide web of ‘second by second’ documentation and explanation arguably threatens the subsistence of new art.

I say arguably as imagery is ultimately at the fundamental core of the way we understand and decode online practice – without this truth you wouldn’t be able to ‘see’ the internet. What I wanted to understand however is the ways in which the development of online practice is challenging the medium or imagery of art.

At its core, the following collects and develops responses from my previous posts exploring underlying perceptions and implications of online art vs. physical art – however the majority of points made echoed themes applicable to the wider context, and so logically ‘art’ seemed apt as a starting point for presenting complex issues in the broader context of understanding online culture.
The article also analyses the behaviour in the article/forum responses on CEMP, therefore lending itself as an aid to the understanding of broader online community culture.

Perhaps my most interesting observation is that contributors were in fact inadvertently describing their take on web culture as a whole without even realising – ‘it’s always been respective’, ‘it’s just a new way of expressing’, ‘I can’t think of any reason why the two (real vs. online) can’t co-exist’. For this reason it serves to prove that our understandings of the web are intrinsic, but often need un-tapping with familiar, unambiguous examples as a point of reference for comprehension and reflection.

Upon reading, the points raised should therefore be applied not in isolation to the practice of art but to aspects of overall behavioural processes in online culture.

Also to bear in mind with regards to behavioural analysis of responses within the community, opinions were generally a protest of new media leading to the ‘death’ of traditional practice, contributory of:

• The heavy pro-online discussion environment and therefore pre–supposed values/knowledge of CEMP contributors, causal of response bias.
• The nature of the topic itself being relatively untouched – entirely untouched with regards to CEMP whereby art is not a region of expertise (pretended or otherwise) and so sense of freedom to question and deliberate is higher juxtaposed with ignorance of ‘artists’ POV.
• The biased and poorly argued nature of the initial argument eliciting human nature to disprove/retaliate.
• The fact that they simply didn’t agree with the statement.

The first issue presented in light of the topic, was defining what art in itself is, which after study of the comments seemed to fundamentally stem from thought processes of ‘why a person might practice’ art. The most apparent distinguisher in the type of response was whether the individual took the question in context of child art or adult art, and therefore as experiential play, and learning as opposed to an expression of emotion, culture and meaning or even simply work.

An interesting point regarding the direction of the responses is that although ultimately laced with personal opinion, the situation in which the article was read, guided the interpretation. In other words the blog article with visuals of LEGO and infantile/nostalgic anecdote induced responses from the art as play/experiential standpoint yet referring to both child and adult behaviour. This may seem an obvious consequence to mention, particularly as the blog itself was vague and eliciting an online type of ‘interviewer bias’ in trying to work out where I wanted the issue to go (itself repercussion of the nature of CEMP as a learning portal) however, the forum responses were quite different.

My forum question was simply of the ‘any ideas’ type and therefore themes tended not to juxtapose or mirror those earlier but were entirely distinct, causing problems in ‘concluding’ ideas but on the other hand bringing new direction to the table. Although responses were richer in number, they content tended to be less rich and diversified, but clear cut opinion and example led, referring mainly to the opportunities brought by digital media programs. The above points highlight the importance of understanding how situational aspects influence opinion and discussion but also the type of lexicon and semantics paradigms – raising important implications for the treatment of information, particularly with regards to politics (and propaganda).

I should also note that I provided a poorly incentivised link to the initial blog, and so the contrast in responses also contributes to theory which teams conjuring of desire and a lack of personal intention with regards to the psychology of the (lack of) click through (Smith 2008).

Although not replicated by the comments, I believe that the context fits with the Sutton-Smith viewpoint that the concept of play should be elevated above frivolous ‘childlike’ perceptions (1997). The comments demonstrated an either/or mentality of play vs. skill/work (possibly due to contributor majority lack of artistic engagement) whereas in reality, artistic adult play is readily executed. This also introduces the need to acknowledge differences of opinion relative to participation aspects, representative by 3 of Sutton-Smiths paradigms of solitary play in creation, of performance play in showcasing the creation, and vicarious audience play in viewing.

Solitary play/Creation:

I created the above ‘artworks’ using easy online ‘Scribbler’ software available from:

Performance Play/Showcase:

Vicarious Audience Play/viewing: (Or in this case viewing people viewing)

In view of Holt (1995) who considers play as a consumption practice focusing on socialisation (in child context but which I believe transfers to adult as before), Web 2.0 brings huge opportunity for the widespread sharing of art. ‘Creative Exhibitionism’ is a good example whereby an artist can publish the development of their work in progress in a virtual space, passing ownership and creating the ultimate engaging experience for admirers in witnessing and involving themselves in creation.

I think that this links with several loosely linked theories under the subheading of appealing to un-actionable (or perceived so) fantasies. With regards to playing games, Schechner (1988) highlights the desire of fulfilling in ‘drama’ fantasies which cannot be actualised in actual behaviour due to taboo and behavioural convention. This might serve to shed light in the context of art when juxtaposed with the comments of contributors that perceived lack of skill is a hinderer to engagement for fear of fail. This can be applied to online engagement in general with regards to online communities but also shows where digital art can contribute most – appealing to fantasy. This might be in the form of ‘jumping on the bandwagon’, involving ones self in the type of work we wish we could perform ourselves – but also linking to the cult of the amateur in harnessing the ability to become skilled online. The web can therefore been seen to empower those who fantasise of being able to physically draw, by enabling them to do so digitally.

Many points argued the strengths for the exchange of art brought as a direct result of the internet, for example with regards to an increase in craft communities. Globalisation means that art previously difficult to access is now readily available, with important implications for not only online but worldly cultural change, knowledge, and destruction of ignorance. With the example of Banksy the improved avenue of communication expands art to an entirely new audience. This ‘access for all’ could be argued a ground breaking step forward, but on the flipside using McLuhans ‘Medium as the Message’ theory (1967), a devaluation of the experience of art and under appreciation of the context in which it should be. Author Amerika argues, that the art world requires re-evaluation of itself in order to remain socially relevant.

I decided to test this ‘medium as message’ theory and asked a talented friend to paint any picture on canvas for me but which could be mistook for digital manipulation, and so she painted the two of us based on a photograph.

The term ‘level of intruige; referred to my coding of perceived interest in or around the art after exposure. Results as below were probably as would be expected however the sheer amount of factors to discriminate against the findings (the fact that it is of me, with a friend, painted by a friend, exampined using a small sample, (of only students), with most genunely not caring for art otherwise) made them unreliable. It will be interesting to see what the ‘real’ painting, presented in a digital format, upon a digitally minded CEMP community will make of the art, if anything – yet I beleive the activity nevertheless helps to illustrate to the community the importance of the viewing medium.

There seems to be a loss of sentiment and significance in virtual re-publishing. Amerika suggests that the initial concepts of the artist are lost in translation where it becomes ‘network narrative’ art between multiple hosts and collaborators and interpreters. This highlights my above point regarding situational context and decoding, but also the controversial argument of Keen (2007) with ‘The cult of the amateur’ in that Web 2.0 is destroying our culture. He argues that the theory of higher intelligence in mass is myth, and that thanks to Web 2.0 truth is being governed no longer by experts but ‘idiots’ (also linking with the theories that information quantity has compromised quality).

Though his points raise issues in the context of possible skewed meaning of art (and indeed the web in general) it must also be noted, as highlighted by the comments of those in CEMP – that art interpretation is ultimately respective to the individual in the first place and we shouldn’t suppose that users passively absorb information presented but will challenge it. Besides, art by its very nature surely encourages discussion and expression of opinion which online allows.

Technological progress has always been intrinsic to the art ‘movement’ (war paint, kilns, architecture) Some of the most iconic interactive virtual spaces have been created as the sole direct effect of technological progress.

Dr Hugo’s Fuzzy Dreams:

Face Value:

These examples are typical of the presented forecast for the re-evaluation of art in interactivity by Ascott. He argues that interactive art makes demands on the viewer uncharacteristic of other forms of experiencing art – since without interaction between the viewer and the piece, the piece cannot be said to exist. Interactive art being not an object containing meaning, but a system generating meaning through the observer’s interaction.

Perhaps this online development suggests a need for an additional Sutton-Smith paradigm of ‘interactive play’ emergent from vicarious audience play (which supposes a passive, pre-determined outcome and meaning).

I think that it’s important to see the parallels here with this concept generalised to the reading of the web as we ultimately create our own individual meaning through the sites we visit and the paths we take from one to another. I suppose this could be linked to the theory of the society of individuals (Elias 2001) – we enjoy a shared web experience of our individual journey, again fragmented into further sub societies (such as CEMP) with shared, individual experiences.

The general consensus became that new media is challenging the way in which we perceive art, rather than eradicating traditional art. I believe that the topic is a brilliant reflection upon the way that online culture is challenging the way in which we perceive the world in general and by placing the discussion in the context of art it visualises concepts which are usually barely tangible.

Finally, for a laugh, you might like to see my submitted reflective video – now officially made a highly embarrassing vodcast.

References

Ascott, R, (Date Unknown) The Shamantic Web: Art and mind in emergence, Digital Studies: Being in Cyberspace

Amerika, M, (Date Unknown) Network Installations, Creative Exhibitionism and Virtual Republishing: An attempt at contexualizing the ongoing ungoing story of being in cyberspace, Digital Studies: Being in Cyberspace, Available from: http://www.altx.com/ds/amerika.html

Elias (2001), The Society of Individuals, Continuum: United States

Federman, R (1973) Surfiction, Fiction Now and Tomorrow, US : Ohio University Press

Holt, D (1995) How consumers consume: a typology of consumption practices, Journal of Consumer Research, (June), pg. 1 – 16

Keen, A (2007) The Cult of the Amateur, Broadway Business : USA

Nielsen, J (2006) Participation Inequality in Social Design

McLuhan (1967) in Genosko, G, (2005) McLuhan and Spatial Communication

Mitchell, W. J. T. (1994) Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation, Chicago

Smith, J (2008) The Psychology of a Click-Through – Understanding Intention, Fulfillment and Desire, SEO Design,
Available from: http://www.seodesignsolutions.com/blog/seo-marketing/the-psychology-of-a-click-through-understanding-intention-fulfillment-and-desire/

Schechner, R (1988) Performance theory, London : Routledge