Re: [-empyre-] Re: showing 3d art from Melentie Pandilovski

["roya.jakoby" <roya@girlfish.net>]

Hi Simon (and Melinda),

Simon wrote:

On 6/18/03 5:54 AM, "Simon Biggs" <simon@littlepig.org.uk> wrote:

>> 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"

The following part has been written by Melinda:

>> 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.

Which is true. It's also sad. There's is no real new school of curatorial
strategies here yet, really. There are attempts. Usually outside big
museums. Kathy must be one of the very few who is dealing with art
(online/offline) in a fresh and culturally progressive way.

Okay, here is about aura.

(The struggle with aura - and why value is not aura.)

The tradition of museum's and gallery culture as we know it today is founded
in the exhibition of objects which were taken away from the various imperial
colonies. Most of these objects had originally spiritual (cultural) meaning
-  I like to call this cultural meaning aura, because it is far more
meaningful than 'value' in this particular context. The objects usually lost
their 'aura' when they were exhibited outside the culture that originally
produced it (they lost their meaning when taken out of their cultural
context), the only thing that was left of it was some abstract notion of
value for the exhibiters and those who viewed it. Museums try to restore the
original aura of objects constantly, they do this by various means, one of
the methods is to add subjective and monetary value to the objects (and the
artists, though that's a saga in itself).

I think it's worth being aware of this dialectic.

/roya.



> -----
> 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
> in place.
> 
> 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.
> 
> best
> 
> Simon
> 
> 
> Simon Biggs
> simon@littlepig.org.uk
> http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
> 
> http://www.greatwall.org.uk/
> http://www.babel.uk.net/
> 
> Research Professor
> Art and Design Research Centre
> Sheffield Hallam University, UK
> s.biggs@shu.ac.uk
> http://www.shu.ac.uk/schools/cs/cri/adrc/research2/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> 
>