Having considered a number of possible interests for my research paper, and allowed interest alone to take the lead in reading, I’ve decided to focus on video art and certain aspects of it that will relate to my final project, specifically ideas about reception and presentation, and the effect this has on works.
SIDE: When looking for artists to compare and contrast the work of, as in a number of examples seen when first discussing the paper, it would be interesting to consider artists whose work might entirely rely on the internet, but whose work primarily or even entirely shown in gallery – maybe removing the outcome from the context in which it was created?
Video Art by Sylvia Martin (Taschen)
“No Beginning / No End / No Directon / No Duration – Video as Mind” – Bill Viola
Futurist founder Marinetti recognised radio as an organ that could bridge great distances… [and the] combination of theatre and television screens as a practical model for futurism.
A 1991 text by communications scientist Vilém Flusser defines video as “dialogical memory”.
“Video is an explicitly time-based artistic medium, the job of the technical apparatus is to record temporal sequences and produce temporal structures”. p17
We Are Here: Art After the Internet
“I don’t see what I’m doing as new, see the materials as new, and the technologies, virtual communities and subcultures that are emerging a mine of material for artistic practice.” Jon Rafman
The Curators New Medium poses the idea that the connectivity of the internet and social media creates a comparable path of intellectual discovery that a museum curator might, and even so far as implying the algorithms of Amazon, etc. might be able to do so in an equally useful and considered way as a curator.
Makes an important point about the implied difference in accessibility between the exclusive (meaning all that comes with that) institutional context of the gallery or museum and the supposedly democratic arena of the internet – and questions this. [Examples of art.sy, etc. using the online arena but acting in a way that mimics or extends the structure of the institution. Also, the platform s(edition) that sells digital works that exist ‘in real life’ – “How does such a platform, engage with curatorial practice? …does this platform suggest that the virtual is additional to the physical, or are the two entwined? And if so how does this shift the position of artists or curators who choose to work solely or predominantly online, now that ‘real space’ artists are seeking to invade their territory by commoditizing their creative practice?”
SIDE: to be able to appropriately discuss this topic the definitions and their parameters of various terms and phenomena need to be addressed; e.g. what constitutes a work of video art. What constitutes its presentation or showing (works shown in person or via 3rd party sites in press increasingly common)
After Social Media by Bran Troemel – “Art must be placed in a context that declares it to be art. Art exists for discourse and people who recognise it as such… Even artwork not found within institutions carries with it formal and conceptual codes created by institutions.
So by this thinking, the online exists not as a new alternative to the institutional context, but simply a new arena for the existing conversation to play out on.
After Art by David Joselit mentions Benjamin’s Aura
“For the image neoliberal, art is a universal product that should be free to travel… meaning it is created through a work’s ability to reach the widest audience and not through any particular location at which it is viewed.”
On dissemnation: ” The image anarchst reflects a generated indifference toward intellectual property, regarding it as a beucratically regulated construct. This indifference stems from filesharing and extends to de-authored, decontextualised Tumblr posts. Image Anarchism: the path that leads art to exist outside of the traditional context of art.”
Art afer social media is paradoxically the rejection and reflection of the market.”