Josephine Bosma on Wed, 19 Aug 1998 19:16:17 +0200 (MET DST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> re: white cube |
here's a very very late short reaction to something Tina LaPorta wrote in May (!) and has been in my mailbox ever since, me cleaning around it constantly. It is time to get the dust out of that mailbox definetely now though. Tina LaPorta's short remark could use a lengthy reaction, but that will have to be written some other time, by some other person possibly... >My experiences are true to what Ursula has suggested, whether it's cable >channels or the Net, the traditional art world refuses to acknowledge other >media environments as a viable context for art production and distribution. >And, as ArtNews points out, in turning a blind eye to these communication >channels, arts institutions are now paying the price by being so clearly >voiceless and completely absent within the larger cultural debate(s) >outside the white cube of the contemporary art world. I think the artworld has turned its eye and focus away from the most important development in art this century: media/electronic/ technological art, which started in the beginning of this century. What has had most attention in twentieth century art? Paintings. It does not suit the environment artists and everybody lived in, no matter how much these paintings reflected issues like speed or whatever. Of course there have been some analyses or mentionings in artbooks, but the focus of criticism and presentation has been on -objects- of art. The reasons for this neglectence are probably complex, but one annoyingly controversial one (as net art criticism/theory has started to be called too political) is the desire to stick to easily marketable products, or more simple: to stay with the easy cash. This is such a clear fact that it seems critics prefer not to take the consequences of knowing it for real and rewrite arthistory. There are also other elements in play, like a more disputable one in terms of art-valuation, namely the fact that it is very likely that the development of mass media have had quite some influence on the way art is perceived. I put it like this in a text for Ars Electronica: "Computernetworks have moved the approach and direction of art away from the influential centralised and hierarchical character of mass media. One could say mass media are the crude and undeveloped baby fase of electronic media, (the latter) have (helped) create a simplistic perception and approach of art we are now moving away from." The times of pure consumerism are over, for now anyway. The artworld is flexible enough, and will most probably eventually change appearance under the influence of new demands and structures. It is not necesary to wait for the big change to happen for most of us to work pleasantly though. As far as I see it, modern art was just a first step, and no final product of arthistory. * --- # distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@desk.nl and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner@desk.nl