Thursday, October 15, 2009
Question from Reading 2
"The best work in art and technology today continues E.A.T's tradition of innovation and collaboration, while the worst uses gee-whiz technology to prop up art that takes no risks." Noah Wardrip-Fruin New Media Reader (2003) Discuss this statement in relation to contemporary new media artwork.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think this is basically saying that combining the most "innovate" things possible, in both art and in technology, constitute the "best" new media art. The "best" new media art takes risks both from the side of artists and from engineers. Just combining one with the other alone does not make for "art" or "innovation:" A mundane dance with some spectacular technology thrown in is no better than a great dance with some mediocre technology layered on. What concerns me is the idea of "best" and placing values on what is innovative. But, if we are willing to suspend our discomfort with the term "best," I do admit I witness this in contemporary art. It is not enough to create interesting choreography, layer some video, and call it "new media." Or perhaps this is "new media," it's just not innovative. What I take away from this article is the idea that to truly "do" new media one must really push the boundaries of both art and technology. Also worth noting is that the projects discussed in the article had both creator (composer, director, choreographer, etc) and a performance engineer. This make me fear that in my own projects I am falling into the trap of "gee-whiz technology" propping me up, and makes me wonder what possibilities would reveal themselves if I had the opportunity to collaborate with someone who really knows the ins and outs of technology. I think of my friend Jim with his MFA in media studies. I have had the opportunity to work with him on a few projects, and he is probably the person I am closest with who operates in new media (mostly as a sound designer). He's well versed in contemporary art and familiar with dance, but I don't think he'd ever choreograph the live performance/dance to go with his sound. What makes me think I am any more equipped to create the sound and video with my performance? I am certainly learning a lot, but I wonder, if I want to be truly innovative, will future projects need to happen with a highly skilled engineer? Is it ultimately a new awareness I will take away from this CAP experience, more than any concrete abilities to produce new media on my own?
ReplyDeleteI, like Adrienne, am troubled by the notion of giving myself permission to use words like “best” or “worst” in a discussion around innovation. It seems that Wardrip-Fruin is making a giant assumption here that we can come to some sort of agreement about what new media artwork is successful and what isn’t. That being said, I wouldn’t argue his point that the potential for forging new ground through bold unexplored relationships is great, and worth taking risks for—(a concept that is certainly not unique to new media art). Nevertheless, I will set aside my issues with “best/worst” in order to comment.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that in what he refers to as the “worst” in art and technology, fancy technology is used to enhance bland art—(I imagine there is room here for the reverse situation as well)—and in the “best,” neither enhances the other; but rather, the two establish a fruitful collaboration, leading to innovation.
I’m thinking of a metaphor…and eating peanut butter. You know when you have a bland healthy cracker that tastes like cardboard and you think “maybe if I put enough peanut butter on here, I won’t notice how bad this cracker tastes”? But really, who are you kidding? You might as well put the crackers away and just eat the peanut butter with a spoon…like me. Well, this is what I see as his argument: if technology (slash peanut butter) is only there to conceal, enhance, or distract from the art (slash cracker), the opportunity for innovative (slash tasty) collaboration has been lost.
Neither component should be an additive. The art needs to be thinking through the technology, and the technology through the art. It seems that something is amiss if it’s so easy to separate the two elements when experiencing the piece as a whole.
This is the comment when I was reading that made me stop and say "What....?" What a comment to end the article on....
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sarri and Adrienne; best.. worst... What does that mean? In whose opinion is it best and worst? Great, so some artists who are lucky enough to work with an electrician, or whoever, get to create the "best" work and everybody else is second rate? Am i supposed to be inspired by this, because it just makes me angry. A lot of collaborations involve money or having great friends who want to work with you regardless. But if you don't have the money or the friend who is an electrician, musician, projection designer, etc. then you have to figure out how to do it yourself.
I think the idea of working with an engineer is terrific, but not knowing one whom i can collaborate with isn't going to stop me from making whatever ideas i have. so, does this mean i fall into the "gee-whiz" category? I think it does. Yet, i wouldn't call it "gee-whiz." Everyone who has something to say should say it with what means they have to say in.
Technology and fanciness don't necessarily make the "best" art in my opinion.
i agree that the use of the words "best" and "worst" is improper.
ReplyDeletebut what i would like to talk about is the "collaboration". in my opinion, collaboration between artists is extremely difficult. in most case that i have witness, the choreographer tend to take the leading role in every aspect, thought there are costume designer, lighting designer or video artist, etc within the creative term, however, at the end, everyone act as assistance for the choreographer, which make me doubt about collaboration in art making. in the team up of artist and engineer remind me of this, too. who initiate the primative concept? artist make work accroding to the gadget from the engineer? or the engineer build machine for the artist? it seems that, at the end, someone has to be a leader.
some thoughts about the article and your comments.
ReplyDeletei love the first page.
it is hard to stop staring at it.
i a in awe of the 9 evenings.
i want to see those recordings. can we get to them somehow?
i believe in collaboration.
i like the idea of having multiple authors, and i have felt bad when in reviews my collaborators have been spoken about in a way that made it sound like they were working for me, not us working together. i think it is still a difficult idea for press to grasp, especially since the writers tend to specialize in one field and then assume that their field is the most important part of the work.
i like to invite people to work with me, and to be invited to work with people from other disciplines. collaborating with people from other disciplines i have learned so much more about dance, that i would not have learned otherwise. i think there needs to be discussion to be growth in the arts, and in science and engineering too.
i feel allergic to the idea that someone would have the proper right to use a medium just because they are an expert - sometimes people with no expertese, and possibly not even knowledge of what has been done before with the form, can come up with innovative ways of creating work, that never occurred to the experts.
take punk rock for example. the people making the music in garages were not trained in the art, but they changed what we understand as popular music now. the raw energy and rage of punk also found its way to new classical composers - and all this came to wider recognition through people who in the beginning could not even play the instruments in the traditional sense...
i am more inclined towards the fluxus idea that everyone can make art. i would love to let everyone who wants in the dance schools, because great technique doesn't necessarily make a great artist and great artists don't all have great technique - why would it be any different in new media?
why is the writer of the article afraid to open the field of new media to people who come from different disciplines?
i believe that everyone can dance. i believe that by making more dance we can widen the field and all become richer, both in experience and literally be able to get more support. and i believe the same is true for all art forms. being jealous of who gets to do what is going to take us nowhere.
Some thoughts of those words:
ReplyDelete"Gee-whiz"... a new word for me. I guess the word "gee-whiz” can also be applied to costume, set, lighting and even “dance technique”… not only in technology, it depends on how you use the elements in your artwork. If it is not making any sense for the artwork, that can be categorized as “gee-whiz something”.
“Best” and “worst”… there is not guideline to judge an artwork. In my opinion I don’t know why we have to define the work is “good” or “bad”, the idea and the process of revealing the idea is more important. I think there is just how much you like or how does it make sense to you.
“Artist-engineer collaboration”… I agreed with Katie, I like to collaborate with people in other disciplines, but I’m not sure if I have money to make this happen, unless I have an engineer friend who want to play with me.
“Innovation”… money and hi-tech was the words came to me immediately. If your have money, of course it is easier to be innovative in new media. However, I think low-tech creative is more excited for me.
“Contemporary new media artwork”… I have contradictory thinking about it. On one hand, I think it is something which is good to experience as an audience, but I have hasitation to combine new media in my dance work. Because I believe that human body is the most important element in a dance work, if dancing body as a tool is good enough, why I need other element? On the other hand, I do want to see of any other element, such as new media, can help to reveal my idea better.
Wardrip-Fruin’s reference to "gee-whiz" technology in questionable artistic collaboration is a symptom that the art has been presented outside or beyond its context. No one says this about art when they intimately know the artists or share in the community of their process. Postmodernism (perhaps Marxism) 101: sharing in the knowledge of the artists' means of production is far more enriching than making any "knowing" statements on its product. Hmmm, I'm reminded of our “myth of the artist” question...
ReplyDeleteOut of curiosity, I've looked up the origin of the term "gee-wiz."
The most consistent answer I can find is that it is a euphemism for Jesus, so not to take the lord's name in vain. Which reminds me that my grandmother used to always say, "Geemanin knows!" as if saying, "Lord knows!" - which she said a lot of too.
I personally think “gee-wiz” as a qualitative adjective expresses implicit awe and curiosity on the artists’ part (of course, I do not mistake Wardrip-Fruin’s critique to mean this). The only thing that could discredit the artist for curiosity could be his/her own pretension or that of the viewer’s to stop there. Isn’t all art the beginning of a question? Has Wardrip-Fruin cared to find out whether these “gee-wiz” collaborations intend to conclude at the point of his encounter?
Also, I want to kindly inform Wardrip-Fruin that the word “innovation” is passé. Innovation denotes origin and linear history, for which there is neither in an ethics of simultaneity, and only an ethics of simultaneity can foster fruitful collaboration.
The hint that technology can prop up another art form is symptomatic of our culture’s flawed impulse to delineate between the arts, and also between all ways of thinking and doing, i.e. the delineation between the sciences and humanities. All of which has an impact on arts funding -- and often to get a grant you are benefited to have already received a grant, or have a collaborator who has received one, perhaps a collaborator who is in a more lucrative/celebrated field. And, thus, to present something with an impressive production value does often “prop” it. I am discussing awareness of means of production again.
I believe in collaboration. First and foremost, as performing artists we are in collaboration with our audiences. We want our art to do something, yes? Why not extend our ideas in exchange with additional collaborators? And to this I say to my skeptical classmates, money is not everything.
Similar to EAT’s mission statement, I am reminded of Jennifer Monson’s iLAND Interdisciplinary Laboratory for Art, Nature and Dance which funds dance artists who are working with collaborators in the fields of eco-science. This sort of collaboration does more than prop the ‘lil ‘ole dance artist. It confirms that science and technology need art’s doing and meaning making.