Digital art in context, 1st Journal
Arts, changes within technological development
Technology has progressively changed our lives. It is not only the culture and art, but also our mind and perspective that changes with technological development. The theme and form of art has changed to handle the changes in our environments and lives. The attitude of the artist and the spectator is changing also. A new criterion of art is being established. Within Marcel Duchamp’s article “The Creative act”, I was able to think about how the perception towards art and the roll of artists have changed these days.
Today, art seems to have no specific standard to follow or obey. Marcel Duchamp has showed that everything can be called art, even a product like a toilet stool. Even a massively produced item by a factory can become a unique artwork. Now the artists do not have to be pure creators, but planners or producers. Anything can be art if the artist finds and reveals its virtue. Even though there is a difference in the qualities of art, I consider every form valuable for appreciation and interpretation. It is because art, compared to a product or machine, contains the artist’s point of view and critical message. For me, art is another language. Throughout the class activities and readings, I focused on how the technical development has changed and enhanced the role of art, especially on a communicative role.
I think that there are two important axes of technical development and innovation which became a massive influence on art. The first is the development of the camera and image reproduction technology, and the second is the invention of computers and image processing tools. While reading the book “Ways of Seeing” by John Berger, I realized how the camera and image reproduction technology have changed our culture of imagery. Until the 17th century, images could only be produced once at a time, by means of painting. That procedure made the image expensive and respected, controlled only by the wealthy people. Compared to the age before the invention of camera, it is hard to discern uniqueness or originality within photographically reproduced images. For example, the same image of Venus can be found, not only in the Museum, but also in underwear advertisements. Our attitude towards these images depends on the context and placement of the images.
Our culture is now affluent with several different images. We can find consumable images like pornography or cartoons in magazines, and we can find persuasive images in advertisements or posters. But one thing has not changed. Every image contains a perspective. I became interested in the usage of photography in the media, which is often used as evidence. While reading “Ways of Seeing”, I understood that photographic images are collections from a real scene, so that it cannot truly show the objective world. But I think photography in news media is powerfully persuasive, along with the power of text. It is important to be aware of the photographic subjectivity so that one does not become a passive receiver.
I could think about the role of photography at the exhibition “Party Headquarters: Voting is just the beginning” held at the Pratt Manhattan Gallery. Images were collaged, taken out of their context by direction of the artist. The artworks criticized the tendency of the media to subjectively represent the news. On television, everything is transformed by a discerning editor’s view. Now the artists is confronting those massively produced image with a critical approach. The image is not anymore to be seen as reality, but with criticism, because it is obvious that it is transformed by someone’s intention. Image is now used as a persuasive language, not an objective language as we have thought at the beginning of the development of photography.
The exhibition “Politics As Usual” by R. Luke Dubois held in the Bitforms Gallery was impressive for me, because I realized that text could be an objective and persuasive way to express the artist’s subjective view. Text could stay neutral. But displayed inside a gallery within the whole frame, it is shown in a different context from the news media, which requires the interpretation of an audience. The audience could read the artist’s intention within the text.
Whereas the camera and image production technology have been the most innovative convention in our ways of seeing since the 17th century, it is the computer and the image processing tools that have shaped the 21st century. Computers are substituting the functions of the real world and human beings in art. The exhibition “Cybernetic Serendipity” held in 1968 is acknowledged as an important milestone in recognizing the computer as a new medium in the art world.
Computers helped to extend man’s creativity and inventiveness in the production of art. As the visitor of the exhibition, Paul Brown has said, “The artworks are now perceived as progressive processes, not just stable objects.” Computers have changed the role of the spectators too. Within interactive art, the audiences are asked to appreciate actively. Sometimes, the artworks cannot be perceived completely without the participation of the audiences. The museum rule “do not touch” has changed to “touch and feel”. In my opinion, technology has enhanced the possibility of interactive communication within the artwork.
The artist Perry Bard owes a lot to technology for her creativity. Her project, “Man with a camera” was possible, by the internet service. It is a project that deconstructs the role of the producer and spectator. Within the project, all of the participating people are active producers. Because Perry Bard created only the structure of the project, I consider her as a creative manager. It does not matter whether she created the whole videos or not, when valuing her project. Her creativity on making up a new structure is enough for me to appreciate her as an artist. I can see how the project induces communication through several different cultures. Especially interesting was that I came to see the life of the people on the other side of the world. I could see how people conceive the same theme differently and how it is reproduced among different cultures.
Throughout the history of digital arts, I found that people take gradual steps when adjusting to a new technical development. First, they admire the innovative structure with awe. Then they find new issues that can be handled within the new structure. Gradually people become accustomed to that structure, and that tends to play an important role in forming and constraining the minds of the people. Critical artists realize that they should extend their minds beyond the structure. When that critical element appears as an issue to the technical developers and the society, they make a change within creating another innovation. The difference between computers and human is that computers only know how to follow the rules and sum up the totals, whereas human beings tend to break the rules and analyze the figure. It is only humans, who can remain critical towards the world and deliver into new issues in society.
The digital image and computation were first invented in a hieratical environment to communicate a purpose of command during arms use. Gradually it has been coordinative with the spectator. It is obvious that art has enhanced its method to communicate with the aid of technological development. I hope digital media will play its role in improving communication. To do so, digital art must be produced actively, and that is the reason we study and make our own dreams in digital arts.
