Re: [-empyre-] Re: showing 3d art from Melentie Pandilovski
> Roya wrote:
>Real time objects have aura. What about virtual objects?
And then also wrote:
> "Maybe big 3D is much more of a thing for real space / gallery / museums
> presentation after all? The situation is comparable with other art
> (traditional/new) genres where equipment and tools become increasingly
> expensive (read exclusive) in order to add 'value' to the final piece (see
> Rauschenberg's Titanium paintings). I personally don't have a lot of trust
> in exclusivity"
> 3d art that is made within the paramenters and soft/hardware restrictions ,
> and designed to be seen in the networked environment, takes on a new
> context and arua perhaps in a gallery because it commands big space for
> video projection.. therefore floorspace = artistic significance and value in
> the real estate/funding criteria of gallery/museum syetem.
Seems to me that you have answered your own question.
Benjamin's notion of the aura was long ago shown to be not a function of the
object but of its cultural relations and how these bear on the expectations
and perceptions of the viewer/reader. Reading Benjamin now you can see that
this was likely what he himself was trying to arrive at; but at that point
the relativist cultural theory required to come to that position was not yet
The aura is projected onto the object by the viewer, not the other way
around; a bit like those early theories which had light and vision emanating
from the eye, contrasting with current theories which have external light
sources emanating light which is reflected off the object of vision to the
eye (I often prefer the vagaries of the early theories).
I would argue that real objects do not have aura's anymore than
representations of objects do (I still do not know what this word "virtual"
means). Thus, in the terms you asked it, the question is answered. However,
the question remains, why is it that certain forms of cultural production
have value ascribed to them, either vox-populi or amongst "experts", and
others not. One could argue that the answer lies in the manner I have
phrased the question, where different people are seen to add value to things
in different ways and for diffeent purposes. In the end it all depends on
how and why something is important to you and whether you, or those
ascribing the value, are in a position to promulgate that system of value.
If "they/you" are, and as in our culture exposure to the public eye is
itself a method of ascribing value to things, then the whole thing enters an
iterative process of amplification (call it "fashion", if you like). This in
turn determines the general conditioning of the viewer and thus the likely
value they will ascribe to the object in the next step of the iteration.
This process seems to function whether you are talking about large scale
collectives, smaller sub-cultural groups or even individuals, who seem adept
at falling in love with things that to others seem awful.
Art and Design Research Centre
Sheffield Hallam University, UK
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and