Re: [-empyre-] thoughts on the gallery space

["Melinda Rackham" <melinda@unsw.edu.au>]

re taylors manifesto for galleries..:
1) It legitimises the work in an arts context with reference to other works
both in the space and over a period of time
2) It ensures that access to the work is generally a good experience, with
say supporting information, possibly technical support, talks /
presentations / workshops surrounding the works to give an extended
experience.
3) It broadens the gallery visitors appreciation of what a work of art can
be, who otherwise may not think of looking at online projects.
4) Dialogue between viewers experiencing the work extends, knowledge /
appreciation / level of enjoyment.
5) It may inspire future development.
6) It raises the potential for other finance / sponsorship to be obtained.
7) And artistically a different frame of reference is obtained for the work,
maybe by a change of scale or user interface etc.

 the issue of legitimacy is interretsing... (sorry to say this agin )3d work
isnt letigimate becasue it happens in this wierd onlien place,  it hard to
use and you need to actaully  download soemething or play with some settings
so its not a seamless experience.. and in the gallery it can be seamess and
umproblematic so that makes it ok..? are these the expectations of
audiences, curators, or funding bodies?
 do audiences want to experiment a little?..surely after years of being told
they cant touch anything one would think they would jump at the chance to
play around a bit.. or do they have to be protected from feeling like they
may not understand or may "break" something?  ie form ever feeling
unconfortable.. because i think one of the many functions of art is to
challenge what an audience already thinks or feels, that is to make people
uncomfortable.. as well as entertaining them for few seconds....

lloyd said:
>Its also interesting that it seems there is not a lot of talk in
>current theory about the failure of technology and how that can be as
>exciting as the successful use of it.
>[personally I love those errant pixels, the little tears in 3D space
>and inversed normals]

yes absolutely.. brings me back to my point earlier about experiencing  work
for the medium it is in rather than trying to fit it into oterh parameters
of what is good or worthy art..

 lloyds very poetic take  reminded me of  his 3d work from a few years ago..
http://www.chickenfish.cc/nano/ which i though was an interretsing strategy
where he showed 3d modelled nano objects  rendered into solid objects  thru
Stereolithography  and Selective Laser Sintering in art craft and design
spaces as purelty art forms rather than theorteicaly referenced or something
practicall.. 3d computer and industrial process produced art.. it was
seamless an umproblematic in its presentation as it fitted into the gallery
paramenters of art..

 i was wondering lloyd about peoples reactions to the work in that context ,
and im wondering why didnt you make more..i recall seeing them and thinking
how fabulously delicate they were installed in a huge gallery space, whiel
and the oterh work in the show was of  a massive scale and very heavily
constructed.. so it made the nano creatures, which were abstractly and
virtually constructed.. more alive..

melinda