Re: [-empyre-] galleries & ........

[Reiner Strasser <reiner.s@netartefact.de>]

Hello Christiane,

> True but in new media it really becomes the standard question (it is not
> automatically asked about work that presents itself as an "object" -- even
> if that object happens to be a urinal). What many people see in new media is
> technology as a gadget and gizmo with surprising effects. They focus on
> technology rather than the mediated content while for people familiar with
> the tech, it becomes transparent.
Hmmm - might be also because "big" exhibitions focus on "art and technology"
when exhibiting "new media" art. Sometimes I get the feeling it is
interpretated as art in technology - high tech works are prefered -
fulfilling the need for sensation. (having some works some times at the AJAC
show in the MetropolitanArtMuseum Tokyo - it was the only "digital work"
implemented in the show - no one I think would think it is pure tech.)
Nevertheless - computer based works are looked at in another way - in cause
of user habits ......... the overall experience with tech.
As long as I do not want to sell in my sight the "object" character is
secundar. When a viewer will get "something" (emotionally, mindy) - it will
be no problem whether it is an object or not. (as long as it is not veiled
in technical cloud)
[in opposite to some other - I see it as a problem of the art/artist, too -
not only of the curator]
> 
>> Back to "new media". Well the "kinds" of art realized under >this
> "headline" are very different in themselves - nevertheless it might >be of
> interest to look at "What", "In Which Way" and "Why" is "readable" >or not
> (for the art world and public at large).
> 
> I very much agree and this is what I find most interesting. These are just
> some of the observations I made on this (very general and unspecific; and
> I'm not talking about the people who are familiar with the medium):
> 
> *again, "what" many people are seeing is first and foremost technology. In
> the context of museums in general, this is what many people associate with a
> natural history museum (planetarium etc.) or a scientific tradeshow. Thus
> the reaction "This belongs into a science fair."
When looking at modern art museums - visitors are generally tolerant (I
wish;) ) - maybe not only a problem of the tech itself but the kind of art
presented?

> On the other hand, there
> are the people who are engaged with computers and technology in their job;
> they may have never heard about the existence of net art but they are
> immediately engaged, with a focus on content rather than technology
Sounds nice.
Could be go in the opposite direction, too. "Click and rush" like on the Net
- (browsing, zapping).
While recipients with less/some experience take the time to explore the
"interface" (surface) only - and will get fun ..... Only ((that maybe also a
general problem with "new" interfaces))
> 
> *The way in which many pieces are read is often in connection to traditional
> art forms. If the audience can apply parameters and aesthetic languages of
> media such as painting, photography, video, the work becomes more readable.
Where it might become problematic when the new media work goes beyong. The
viewer still "reading" only the known aesthetic --- but (in my sight) a good
way to go (from common to uncommon) - (I like multi layer works with
multiple readability)
> 
> *Very readable seem to be works that are "painterly" and rely on beautiful
> graphics with a limited interaction. Problematic are pieces that rely on the
> audience for input (such as pieces that set parameters for interaction but
> ultimately need the audience to "create" the piece). Most common reaction,
> "Why would anybody let the public mess with their artwork?" (I have a
> feeling that the people asking this question seldom think of themselves as
> part of "the public.") The fact that many net art / new media pieces are
> process-oriented is often interpreted by the audience as randomness (without
> realizing in how far this randomness is controlled by the artist).
Not really media specific in my sight. Works which have been changed,
influenced by the viewer have/had the same effect .....
(when the position of creator-creation-recipient blurs)
What might be different is the loss of transparence .......... (thru veiled
programming)