st_art here
I love that I can hop over to DigitallyImported.com and plug into some of the most sophisticated contemporary music streams thumping in the world today.
Franci Cronje’s 2004 masters paper explains the importance of William Kentridge’s work particularly for new media. His new book Wiliam Kentridge Prints is beautiful in fact lets put up its cover in high-ish res as a special treat to the bandwidth advantaged. If you appreciate the finer subtleties of obliquity, also have a look at Nathaniel Stern (the other new media artist featured in her paper)’s Compresionism.
Art is a lot of distinctly different things from different perspectives but one thing it is, is a space. Viewed from a anthropological perspective for example art is clearly a kind of phase space, with intermittently indistinct and fuzzy boundaries.
Part of the allure of art, of any kind of contemporary art must be the drama of its assault on those boundaries that define it. The drama of creativity applied very much like a weapon, in order to carve that special little niche in the empirically indifferent wall of real-world value and meaning. And art for art sake? Yea right. In carving its own precious little niche art perhaps necessarily destroys part of the metaphorical wall of consentual consummation and consumptionism. But the niche needs the wall, always has, always will. Does the wall need the niche? Is new media something in art, is art a something in new media? Both and neither?
Working on David’s sites has intensely rekindled my fascination with those un-paint-able, unprintable images you sense behind the pictures, the stuff behind the stuff of art. Those uncontainable un-claimable ideas that dance behind design.
Is there an art 2.0? I bet there is and I bet there isn’t. (I call this opportunistic inclusionism.) Considering the discussion around the definition of what constitutes Web 2.0 on Wikipedia is, case in point, I think, a good point from which to investigate the implication of emerging technical circumstances, the space, we find contemporary art operating within.
If we were in fact navigating a quantum journey of systems and spaces, would it make a buzz?
Is frequency mutable? Of course it is.
New media and art – as (frequency) space
st_art here
I love that I can hop over to DigitallyImported.com and plug into some of the most sophisticated contemporary music streams thumping in the world today.
Franci Cronje’s 2004 masters paper explains the importance of William Kentridge’s work particularly for new media. His new book Wiliam Kentridge Prints is beautiful in fact lets put up its cover in high-ish res as a special treat to the bandwidth advantaged. If you appreciate the finer subtleties of obliquity, also have a look at Nathaniel Stern (the other new media artist featured in her paper)’s Compresionism.
Art is a lot of distinctly different things from different perspectives but one thing it is, is a space. Viewed from a anthropological perspective for example art is clearly a kind of phase space, with intermittently indistinct and fuzzy boundaries.
Part of the allure of art, of any kind of contemporary art must be the drama of its assault on those boundaries that define it. The drama of creativity applied very much like a weapon, in order to carve that special little niche in the empirically indifferent wall of real-world value and meaning. And art for art sake? Yea right. In carving its own precious little niche art perhaps necessarily destroys part of the metaphorical wall of consentual consummation and consumptionism. But the niche needs the wall, always has, always will. Does the wall need the niche? Is new media something in art, is art a something in new media? Both and neither?
Working on David’s sites has intensely rekindled my fascination with those un-paint-able, unprintable images you sense behind the pictures, the stuff behind the stuff of art. Those uncontainable un-claimable ideas that dance behind design.
Is there an art 2.0? I bet there is and I bet there isn’t. (I call this opportunistic inclusionism.) Considering the discussion around the definition of what constitutes Web 2.0 on Wikipedia is, case in point, I think, a good point from which to investigate the implication of emerging technical circumstances, the space, we find contemporary art operating within.
If we were in fact navigating a quantum journey of systems and spaces, would it make a buzz?
Is frequency mutable? Of course it is.