Re: [-empyre-] 3D in Gallery Space from Kathy Rae Huffman

just wanted to agreed with Kathy 
and add few suggestions for folks here.
(some are pretty basic)

<snip> Special centres dedicated to New Media are
starting to develop, and are important focal points
for presenting works.  But, like the Media Art Centres
of the 80s, they will attact an audience of the
already initiated </snip>

Many galleries have added DSL lines and really want to
be considered new media savvy, but don't have the
resources/skill for a full show. 

As an individual you can offer to give a talk or even
presentation on your work and new media in general.
Folks around me typically jump at the chance.
(Actually, because galleries shedule so far in
advance, they jump and pencil you in for following

Colleges and universities are interested, I'm getting
great feedback from english, communication,
architecture, modern language, traditional art &
design departments. Presenting is a snap and these
folks typically aren't as jaded or snobbish as the new
media folks.(the new media hot topic is all game

Lastly your local internet cafe might be interested.
Find out what nights they do the least business and
offer to do an event. Promise free advertising
newspaper/flyer/word of mouth. Also note that you are
directly targeting their core customer demographics.

If you do want to do a show, make it short. Places
that rent computer equipment "might" help. Requires a
secure gallery and other mainstream sponsors or a
friend in the rental store. They typically rent to
businesses and therefore have extra equipment in stock
over the weekend. At the very least, I've rented video
projectors an artist's discount rate.

<snip> I am only very sad that the critics have not
come forward to challenge </snip>

Not going to happen, the last local art critic I spoke
with dismissed my work because she could see the
pixels. In general I doubt the art gallery scene will
support us anytime soon. Flat digital prints, video
art and 2D multimedia (Flash) are at best represent
small niches in the art world. 

In fine art terms (buying and investing), color
photography is considered a bold choice. 

Lastly on this part, critics seem to rave only about
brand name people and are unable to tell good work
from bad. Mark Amerika's Holo-X project was one of the
absolutely lamest uses of VRML I'd ever seen yet the
NY Times and others wrote glowingly about it.

<snip> books now out are basically about the theory of
the online experience, but not on the work </snip>

yep, I entered this list with a rant on this. Though
I'm apologetic about the tone, this really is
something that we on this list ought to do more of. 


Actual Hype for Holo-X

"Holo-X offers a fascinating glimpse at the future of
hypertext. At its best, fiction creates a world of its
own. Here, it is embodied by one, as well."
Matthew Mirapaul, New York Times, 12/10/98.

"Move over, Lara Croft and KyokoDate, a new virtual
vixen is in town. She's the Sorceress of Language in
Uncharted Technologies, aka S.L.U.T., the saucy,
green-haired star of Holo-X."
Reena Jana, Wired News, 12/19/98.

"Il manque en effet à ces univers virtuels une touche
de poésie et une fluidité qui pourraient les rendre
beaucoup plus attractifs pour le grand public.
L?amélioration des techniques de réalité virtuelle et
l?imagination des artistes devraient pouvoir remédier
à ces inconvénients dans les prochains mois."
Guillaume Fraissard, Le Monde, 12/16/98

--- -empyre-owner
<> wrote:
> Hi Empyreans....
> I'm responding to some questions about showing 3D in
> the 'physical'
> Gallery.  From my initial posting about the Lab3D
> show, I briefly mentioned
> the 'problems' in getting funding.  I think it is
> something that is a
> reality, and one that artists know all too well.
> To be even clearer -- I also believe that everyone
> showing work in a
> gallery 'should' be paid, but in order to do this,
> we (institutions) need
> to raise the money.  To do that, the work needs to
> be known (ie: shown) to
> enable funders, other curators, and critics to
> understand what the work is
> (they often can't even imagine it); they need to
> understand the social,
> theoretical and even physical impact of the work;
> and to actually see the
> gallery visitor using the work.   There is a bit of
> difference in the Lab3D
> exhibition artists, who came to install works in the
> gallery, and the Web3D
> Art collection, which was primarily a submission to
> the jury -- and nobody
> was paid (not the organisers, not the jurors, nor
> the artists).  This has
> been an organising job done out of concern that
> there was no real good
> crossover of 3D online work into the art and
> education fields -- especially
> showing the strong content in work being done
> internationally.  There were
> some 3d galleries online, yes.  But, they tended to
> be slanted a bit more
> towards commercial work (in our opinion) or didn't
> profile the works by
> artists we felt should be known.
> As a curator, I spend a lot of my time looking for
> support for exhibitions
> .. money as well as services and resources.  What
> institutions do have (at
> their best) is infrastructure to provide the
> connectivity, security for
> equipment and computers, and assistance in the
> gallery to explain what's
> going on to the audience.  Insitutitions publicise
> the work, and by their
> educational programmes, provide a forum for the
> exchange of ideas.  This is
> what we can offer artists - and these support
> structures -- which are not
> specific to any particular kind of medium -- seem to
> wrok.  At Cornerhouse,
> we don't have a permanent technical team, so we
> needed to find these
> important folks, bring them in to help install and
> maintain the show, and
> we learned a lot from them.
> Why on-line 3D in the gallery -- if it is (after
> all) designed for being
> online!   We all know that often, those who are not
> computer literate
> enough, can't access this work (even those of us who
> have already made the
> leap have times).  To create an
> environment for the work to
> be shown 'properly' -- either on a computer
> workstation, and/or projected,
> and to have educational activities surrounding the
> works is of course among
> the goals of the gallery.  To make a political
> point, a curatorial
> statement, or simply to create a programme of events
> around an idea (or a
> technology) is another reason -- often cited by
> artists in opposition to
> curatorial choices.
> Special centres dedicated to New Media are starting
> to develop, and are
> important focal points for presenting works.  But,
> like the Media Art
> Centres of the 80s, they will attact an audience of
> the already initiated -
> and don't cross over into general art audiences
> enough.  It's a hard call
> -- you have the technical resources and a specific
> audience.  Or, you enter
> a 'normal' contemporary art centre or museum, and
> you deal with the
> problems of not having enough technical support.  We
> at our best have the
> best of intents, but curators are by nature cautious
> individuals, and not
> often interested to dealve into topics they don't
> feel they are experts in
> (curators are all experts in something! ).
> What we need more of is the ability to bring
> fascinating work to a larger
> and broader public.  They are ready for it, I
> believe that sincerely.
> It's going to take a bit longer before on-line work
> and 3D in particular,
> to become as visible as Video or even net art. 
> Although there is a lot in
> common with video -- the projections, the sound, the
> level of light in the
> gallery, etc...internet it is understood as a
> private experience -- sitting
> in front of one's computer and navigating is a one
> person experience (often
> with people in other locations).  There is another
> level / layer of
> technology that scares off most arts organisations
> -- software, computer
> compatibility, ip access at the correct speed,
> hardware/software, all of
> the above!  A bit of ambassaadorial work on the part
> of both artists and
> curators who specialise in media art, to promote the
> idea of 3D and
> interactive wort is due.
> Lab3D has run for six weeks with little problems. 
> We  have had to reboot
> computers (which is no longer seen as a crisis among
> the gallery staff
> members), replace bulbs on data beams, adjust sound
> and wiggle cable
> contacts, but other than that, the exhibition has
> not presented serious
> problems.  The terrible heat wave here meant we
> needed to ventilate the
> computers better (they were all locked into
> pedestals or benches)...but
> that done, all went very well.
> I am only very sad that the critics have not come
> forward to challenge
> themselves -- and to connect to the strong artistic
> concepts being
> presented in this show.  Perhaps as Melentie has
> mentioned, it is because
> we have not published enough on the medium.  The
> books now out are
> basically about the theory of the online experience,
> but not on the work
> itself.   Lab3D  is a show using technology, all the
> works use some kind of
> connectivity, a computer, a digital image.  But it
> is not a show about the
> technology.  Perhaps another plug of funding would
> have allowed this...but,
> we'll have to be happy to have the documentation,
> and the results of this
> mailing list!
> Cheers, Kathy
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum


    The reality of the building does not 
    consist in the four walls and roof but
    in the space within to be lived.

    - Laotzu

      well, Laotzu said it but I did it.

    - Frank Lloyd Wright, after learning
      his philosophy behind the Unity Temple
      had been expressed 5,000 years earlier.

Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.