> Hi folks,
> I just read this interesting article on wired.com about
> digital art... it's call "A Little Respect" and can be
> seen at:
> Would like to hear what you think about it. I liked the
> last paragraph alot.
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
The last paragraph offers some hope to all of us "digital" artists.
the realities pointed out by the article on the state of collectors
on the money.
Collectors do seem to require some tangible form of property to
the efforts of many 60's and 70's based conceptual artists, they all
bled back into the gallery, for the reality of food, bills, and rent are
Even art.net has to pay it's bills!
I agree that some iris prints are stretching the notion of digital
work. Chuck Close's
show of iris prints last fall in uptown Manhattan were beautiful, but
from large format photographs.
I think a more appropriate term is "New Media Artist" as more and more
truely digital and electronic media into thier work. The Whitney
Biennial has a bunch of
interactive pieces incorporating video, sound etc.
My take on New Media Art lies not so much in the tangible aspects but in
the use of digital media to construct an "experience". A good example
that I saw in Feb. was an installation by Catherine Richards? at the
Powerplant in Toronto Canada. She had plasma gizmos that
not only responded to touch but interacted with each other. The
information gathered from the viewers interactions with the piece was
recorded and passed (almost like a parameter)
to a website, thus extending the user/body into the digital ether. The
title of the show was "Charged Hearts" I think...
I liked this work because it extended the concept of what digital art
was. It wasn't just an object (discreet or binary) but a phenomenon.
This is why I really like many of our art.net folks work because many of
our websites ARE the art work. They function to create an experience,
one that lies on the borders of the expected.
blather blather... i guess i'm finished.