Comments on: The Artistic and the Digital http://www.dancohen.org/2007/08/07/the-artistic-and-the-digital/ Covering the intersection of digital technology and research, teaching, and learning in the humanities, including search, data mining, website development and design, and programming. Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:05:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Alexis http://www.dancohen.org/2007/08/07/the-artistic-and-the-digital/#comment-62 Alexis Wed, 08 Aug 2007 20:09:33 +0000 http://www.dancohen.org/2007/08/07/the-artistic-and-the-digital/#comment-62 A few random thoughts: 1 ------ Check the following for some digital artists: Rhizome.org - their mailing list archives are useful and you can read the artists having this very discussion, should you be so inclined natalie jeremijenko christopherbaker.net www.datadreamer.com gallery9.walkerart.org the yes men second life - yes, some artists have created digital paintings that people actually purchase to hang in their homes inside of 2nd life mark amerika www.isea-web.org shelley jackson 2 ------ There <i>is</i> digital art out there, but some of your points - payment, presentation of work, and strictures of the medium (difficulty with incarnation and especially uniqueness) - are ones that the digital art community is actively and vocally struggling with, in addition to a few you didn't mention. Take persistence of work - how do you ensure that the work will "stay?" How do you display it in your home or in a gallery? Will it still work in 10 years, or should ephemerality be part of the medium's appeal? 3 ------ Art as business Ah, now to get to the crux of the matter. On your very last point you say there may be a few artists willing to give their work away for free.....but why on earth would they do that? Art is not free - everything you see hanging in a museum was purchased at some point in the past and everything you see hanging in a gallery is meant to be purchased in the future. Your book isn't free. Should it be? After all, you have the luxury of being a prof and are earning money through that, so why wouldn't you just give all your hard work researching and writing away for nothing...you know, for the public good? Ultimately, the problems with digital art come from Art's business model. How do you eat when no one wants to pay for your work? If the traditional model of earning requires a gallery to show and sell your work, and the gallery doesn't know how to or doesn't get it, what do you do? If your object blurs the line between art, work, and commerce (as computers are wont to do) - in other words, if your work isn't obviously "just art" - how can you convince an art collector to buy it? Let's face it, the types of people who buy art are doing so as much for the credibility that having art imbues as for any actual love of art - and a painting clearly has no other purpose than to be art. But what purpose does a computer have? Is it art? Is it work? These are certainly valid concerns and many of these questions have not been suitably answered. A few random thoughts:

1
——
Check the following for some digital artists:

Rhizome.org - their mailing list archives are useful and you can read the artists having this very discussion, should you be so inclined
natalie jeremijenko
christopherbaker.net
http://www.datadreamer.com
gallery9.walkerart.org
the yes men
second life - yes, some artists have created digital paintings that people actually purchase to hang in their homes inside of 2nd life
mark amerika
http://www.isea-web.org
shelley jackson

2
——
There is digital art out there, but some of your points - payment, presentation of work, and strictures of the medium (difficulty with incarnation and especially uniqueness) - are ones that the digital art community is actively and vocally struggling with, in addition to a few you didn’t mention. Take persistence of work - how do you ensure that the work will “stay?” How do you display it in your home or in a gallery? Will it still work in 10 years, or should ephemerality be part of the medium’s appeal?

3
——
Art as business

Ah, now to get to the crux of the matter.

On your very last point you say there may be a few artists willing to give their work away for free…..but why on earth would they do that? Art is not free - everything you see hanging in a museum was purchased at some point in the past and everything you see hanging in a gallery is meant to be purchased in the future. Your book isn’t free. Should it be? After all, you have the luxury of being a prof and are earning money through that, so why wouldn’t you just give all your hard work researching and writing away for nothing…you know, for the public good?

Ultimately, the problems with digital art come from Art’s business model. How do you eat when no one wants to pay for your work? If the traditional model of earning requires a gallery to show and sell your work, and the gallery doesn’t know how to or doesn’t get it, what do you do? If your object blurs the line between art, work, and commerce (as computers are wont to do) - in other words, if your work isn’t obviously “just art” - how can you convince an art collector to buy it? Let’s face it, the types of people who buy art are doing so as much for the credibility that having art imbues as for any actual love of art - and a painting clearly has no other purpose than to be art. But what purpose does a computer have? Is it art? Is it work? These are certainly valid concerns and many of these questions have not been suitably answered.

]]> By: Sheila http://www.dancohen.org/2007/08/07/the-artistic-and-the-digital/#comment-59 Sheila Wed, 08 Aug 2007 02:02:36 +0000 http://www.dancohen.org/2007/08/07/the-artistic-and-the-digital/#comment-59 Well another interesting piece is that some of the bigger exhibitions this year have emphasized the physicality of art and objects, such as Richard Serra and King Tut. One other piece is that while museums are using the digital to attract physical visitors, the museums are emphasizing the experience with the physical as different than the experience with a digitized art object. So, while there is some interesting digital artwork being created, it isn't quite in the mainstream and doesn't seem to be endorsed by the traditional art world. Great postings from vacationland, Dan! Well another interesting piece is that some of the bigger exhibitions this year have emphasized the physicality of art and objects, such as Richard Serra and King Tut.

One other piece is that while museums are using the digital to attract physical visitors, the museums are emphasizing the experience with the physical as different than the experience with a digitized art object. So, while there is some interesting digital artwork being created, it isn’t quite in the mainstream and doesn’t seem to be endorsed by the traditional art world.

Great postings from vacationland, Dan!

]]> By: Karin Dalziel http://www.dancohen.org/2007/08/07/the-artistic-and-the-digital/#comment-56 Karin Dalziel Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:51:02 +0000 http://www.dancohen.org/2007/08/07/the-artistic-and-the-digital/#comment-56 I wonder if it is really the artists that have trouble embracing the digital age- as you say, "Undoubtedly there are contemporary artists putting their work online, or giving copies away for free in a digital format, but my sense is that these artists are unlikely to show up in the Whitney Biennial." Curators don't know what to do with the "remixing/reusing/giving away for free" artists on the web any more than publishers and libraries know what to do with bloggers. Instead, most ignore the crop of artists working wholly online. It doesn't help that many of the MFA programs actively discourage grads from using digital means for their art. Even if digital projects are encouraged, a physical aspect to the work is also encouraged. The reasoning is pretty simple- imagine an MFA show or gallery that looked like a computer lab. The new kinds of art and artists that take advantage of the web will show up in museums from time to time, but their domain may stay mostly on the internet- on sites like DeviantArt and Vimeo, where their work can spread to everyone with an internet connection. Artists I have talked to seem to see themselves as web based or "traditional" - either the web is a big part of what they do and is considered first and foremost (an artwork isn't done until it's posted and commented on) or they see the web as only a place to place a small picture of their work to interest galleries and potential dealers (sort of a necessary evil). Thanks for the post, and great examples! I wonder if it is really the artists that have trouble embracing the digital age- as you say, “Undoubtedly there are contemporary artists putting their work online, or giving copies away for free in a digital format, but my sense is that these artists are unlikely to show up in the Whitney Biennial.”

Curators don’t know what to do with the “remixing/reusing/giving away for free” artists on the web any more than publishers and libraries know what to do with bloggers. Instead, most ignore the crop of artists working wholly online. It doesn’t help that many of the MFA programs actively discourage grads from using digital means for their art. Even if digital projects are encouraged, a physical aspect to the work is also encouraged. The reasoning is pretty simple- imagine an MFA show or gallery that looked like a computer lab.

The new kinds of art and artists that take advantage of the web will show up in museums from time to time, but their domain may stay mostly on the internet- on sites like DeviantArt and Vimeo, where their work can spread to everyone with an internet connection.

Artists I have talked to seem to see themselves as web based or “traditional” - either the web is a big part of what they do and is considered first and foremost (an artwork isn’t done until it’s posted and commented on) or they see the web as only a place to place a small picture of their work to interest galleries and potential dealers (sort of a necessary evil).

Thanks for the post, and great examples!

]]>