Oh, don't cry FOUL!, "has had" is past tense, and you did, so I can. I didn't mean to imply that you had not resolved these issues to your satisfaction. The point I was making is only that the .gif work was not made to critique a gallery, which, I think, is why you had to go through that process to decide how to display them. If you had solved that before creating the work there might not have been any problem (truth to materials). Transferred to video? Well let's look at video art. I think it took video playing off an object (relating to your comment on media cross-pollination) , as with Oursler or Viola for example, for video to really engage a gallery space (and an audience for that matter), perhaps Net art will find a similar solution to it's inadequacy with documenting itself in a physical space. But that solution should be found first so it resonates fully within the piece, in my opinion. Anyone who isn't familiar should take a good look at Blast Theory to see some creative and logical solutions for illustrating tech-heavy concepts within a physical space. (I think this is being called Navigational art by people like Joselit.)
Tom wrote-
"4. Conceptualism in art also seeks to peel back the control mechanisms, to dismantle or parse the aura of the white cube and the mercantile systems underlying art (and therefore information) exchange."
-Here is where we got started. This comment is only true when it is the artists intention to do so, and not a convienent side-effect when the work is displayed, because at that point it isn't seeking to do anything, it just stumbled into a purpose. (I'll show that Nathaniel Sterne who the bitchiest blogger is)
Tom-
"6. By putting the GIFs in the gallery (as videos), I'm making an immaterial art that is highly context dependent--depending on the shape of the room, lightness or darkness of walls and floor, and acoustics (for pieces with sound). I want the viewer to recognize the almost joke-like simplicity of the imagery (but not "overly simple," that's where the interviewer and I initially disagreed) and reflect on the mechanisms of the GIFs as well as the mechanisms of the white cube."
My response, in part-
- I call this a convienent conclusion because by changing "immaterial" to "ephemeral" and "GIFs" to "paintings" you could be explaining your MSPaintbrush pieces.
"The ideas come from the context (as you illustrated above), something almost always taken into account in the realization of Conceptual works. A small, but noteworthy difference, would you agree?"
- by this I only mean that the context the work would operate in helps to decide how the work will be realized, in good Conceptual practice (something tells me I am going to regret typing that).
So you are saying that by putting the .gif in a gallery you have created an artwork? Or did that artwork already exist on your computer? Does the gallery make the piece complete? Or does it make a new work? If I take your .gif file, say the Opti Disc, and project it onto the side of a building, the tallest in Omaha (which is a bank ha ha), will I have created a new artwork? Would you allow context to be so tyrannical? I may be a young fogey, forgive me, but I think good practice starts with context. This is why I consider your paper work to be so incredibly tight.
Just to clarify, I have not seen your current exhibit and did not intend for my comments to be read as a criticism of that show. I am only discussing the preview notes to the interview and your conclusions regarding hackers, Minimalism, and Conceptual art. You know Tom, I am working to get .gifs into institutions as well (the non-profit kind), and this discussion will help me to shape how I frame that exhibit within a proposal where sales are not necessary, but sound reasons for exhibiting the work over something more traditional most certainly are. I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to hash out my concerns with you and your readers.
|
Tom wrote-
"4. Conceptualism in art also seeks to peel back the control mechanisms, to dismantle or parse the aura of the white cube and the mercantile systems underlying art (and therefore information) exchange."
-Here is where we got started. This comment is only true when it is the artists intention to do so, and not a convienent side-effect when the work is displayed, because at that point it isn't seeking to do anything, it just stumbled into a purpose. (I'll show that Nathaniel Sterne who the bitchiest blogger is)
Tom-
"6. By putting the GIFs in the gallery (as videos), I'm making an immaterial art that is highly context dependent--depending on the shape of the room, lightness or darkness of walls and floor, and acoustics (for pieces with sound). I want the viewer to recognize the almost joke-like simplicity of the imagery (but not "overly simple," that's where the interviewer and I initially disagreed) and reflect on the mechanisms of the GIFs as well as the mechanisms of the white cube."
My response, in part-
- I call this a convienent conclusion because by changing "immaterial" to "ephemeral" and "GIFs" to "paintings" you could be explaining your MSPaintbrush pieces.
"The ideas come from the context (as you illustrated above), something almost always taken into account in the realization of Conceptual works. A small, but noteworthy difference, would you agree?"
- by this I only mean that the context the work would operate in helps to decide how the work will be realized, in good Conceptual practice (something tells me I am going to regret typing that).
So you are saying that by putting the .gif in a gallery you have created an artwork? Or did that artwork already exist on your computer? Does the gallery make the piece complete? Or does it make a new work? If I take your .gif file, say the Opti Disc, and project it onto the side of a building, the tallest in Omaha (which is a bank ha ha), will I have created a new artwork? Would you allow context to be so tyrannical? I may be a young fogey, forgive me, but I think good practice starts with context. This is why I consider your paper work to be so incredibly tight.
Just to clarify, I have not seen your current exhibit and did not intend for my comments to be read as a criticism of that show. I am only discussing the preview notes to the interview and your conclusions regarding hackers, Minimalism, and Conceptual art. You know Tom, I am working to get .gifs into institutions as well (the non-profit kind), and this discussion will help me to shape how I frame that exhibit within a proposal where sales are not necessary, but sound reasons for exhibiting the work over something more traditional most certainly are. I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to hash out my concerns with you and your readers.
- Robert Huffmann 6-13-2006 7:23 am