[-empyre-] 3D+4D_galleryModels+mediaWorks

[<joncates@criticalartware.net>]

the following may be obvious, but nonetheless...

while gallery exhibition has its strengths which have been
mentioned onList, the issues of gallerySpace as a
traditional, rehearsed, protected, privatized +
cordoned-off zone of commercialized art practice +
socio-economic legitimation are many. the tendencies to
enter those zones/spaces/structures are also multiple,
overlapping + seductive. + the technological apparatus to
host certain works presents another pressing reason why
artists are drawn in these directions. still, we have
opportunities to imagine physical/social structures that
are more fitting. we have previous examples of artists who
have sought out +/or crafted alternative structures. + we
have examples of the now historical attempts by
legitimating/institutional bodies to retrench while
retrofitting + reclaiming any (often technologically +/or
conceptually based [unfixed/difficult/dissident/fluid])
media. 

on Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:55:52 +1000 melinda wrote:
>do audiences want to experiment a little?..

+

on Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:39:01 +0100 Tom wrote:
>Just because digital art can be technically complex
>doesn't mean to say we should provide simplistic work to
>coax in the uninitiated viewer. This is just patronising.

yes. absolutely. i'm always encouraged/inspired by attempts
to challenge, surprise + intrigue
audiences/attendees/participants w/experiments, experiences
+ contexts that are personal, unpredictable +
nontraditional.

these attitudes/activities play out in very
contradictory/complex ways. i personally find that
technologically based work that requires slow/meditative
viewing, can be more rewarding in more intimate settings +
that event based activities that are designed w/a prevelent
social component can work very well in gallerySpaces.   

in terms of personalSpaces, intimacies + histories, Ralph
Hocking, of the Experimental Television Center
(http://experimentaltvcenter.org/), has expressed that the
best conditions for screenings of (@ least some forms of)
video art are for ppl to take the work home. video art has
experienced a contentious history w/the galleries (despite
any percieved successes or failures) + many of the ppl from
the early moment have complex, conflicted + discontinuous
positions about various forms of exhibition + distribution
+ the role of communities + individuals in determining the
most approp. paths. gallerySpaces are capable of creating
very similar conditions to the intimacies that Ralph
Hocking suggests, but it is a very delicate situation which
is easily undermined + always haunted (by commodification +
socio-economic legitimating forces). 

i know that many artists feel that they are presented
w/enough difficulties in making their work + that the
issues of exhibition + distribution may be beyond their
immediate concern or reach, but clearly we all have
responsibilities to find engaging paths for ourselves +
those that are interested in our work while recognizing the
influence that the path itself exserts. +
hopefully/additionally a responsibility to avoid becoming
just another sale @ the counter culture of the
gallery/museum giftShop. 

jonCates
http://www.criticalartware.net