[-empyre-] Re: Is it Digital Art?

["Lachlan Brown" <lachlan@london.com>]

>   I'm envolved on a new art project. Briefing: cut and paste on a 
>paper various and
>different green images (ex: green apple pictures, clover images, cell 
>phone green display
>pictures etc). After fill the paper with this images, we will 
>scan/digitalize this, apply
>some digital effects and print/produce a painting. Visually it will 
>become beautyfull.


What a great question. Simple questions often lead to the 
greatest insight into the nature of the digitisation of culture. Immediately I came up with the following, but I am sure that this question raises more intriguing problems and further productive questions than these:

If the intention of the artist was always to scan and digitise
the collage, then one could argue that the project is always 
already digital art.

If the measure is empirical then the project becomes digital only
when scanned, when subject to a technology.

However, if the work of art only becomes realised by the act of
showing and only becomes real by the act of viewing, or reading,
then the audience of the digital work makes the work 'art'.

The place of 'conventional galleries' and art institutions in 
digital art and aesthetics becomes more clearly defined. In the 
gallery the collage elements may be shown beside the digital 
artefact hence the process of making art as well as making digital 
are realised. Additionally, critics may gather around the work to 
discuss the process and its implications for their respective 
fields of criticism.

The place of online galleries, exhibition and discussion becomes 
more clearly defined too, since the possibility of audiences and readings who may bring different readings to the digital work of 
art, possibly beyond those the artists intended also becomes 
realised.

 I think Empyre shows that it is perfectly possible to form
aucdiences and criticism around an online work of art.

The additional question of what becomes of the work of digital art
if a member of the audience chooses to copy it, re-render it, place
it in a different context adds a complexity of potentiality that
not only has the character of aesthetics but can't help raising questions about the idea of art, policies governing what art may be,
and a range of legal questions that, as one might expect, merely
questions some of the bases of legal judgement. Tremendously
productive stuff.

What a pity there is not an 'expert' in the field of Digital 
Aesthetics to more clearly explain the aesthetic translations 
involved in the analogue->digital transformation.

What a shame there is not an expert in the field of Digital 
Culture to articulate these insights within their broader, social geographical contexts... .

Great question. I am sure that it will produce more questions and 
highlight the inadequacy of both conventional ideas about art and
about art institutions, as well as many of the assumptions people
have about a digital, virtual or 'cyber' cultural understanding of
these processes.

As such it is a question very much in keeping with the nature of
our - remarkably productive - digital culture.



Lachlan




    But my question is: can this process or any part of this process be called Digital
Art? If can't, what kind of art is this?

    Best,

==========================================
>Mario Lima Cavalcanti


Lachlan Brown
T(416) 826 6937
VM (416) 822 1123

                                       

-- 
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Get 4 DVDs for $.49 cents! plus shipping & processing. Click to join. 
http://oas-central.realmedia.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/mail.com/columbiahouse/1112745096/x09/ExactAdv/ColumbiaHouse_IO473_7.19_8.19/blank.gif/636632633232383133383736634333430