Re: [-empyre-] the symbolic and the real

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

Hi there, 

Just a few thoughts:

The current discourse and practice of arts and visual culture is generally
speaking still very much stuck in pre-digital, traditional notions. Visual
culture theory and practice (and digital visual culture is included in these
categories) divides the practice, the art history, the documentation,
analysis and evaluation of artistic, visual material roughly into two main
approaches:

The object-based approach:
"The object itself proposes ways in which the object is understood,
independently of, or unmediated by, (the) economic, social and social
structures(...)." It holds up that "by responding to purely visual
characteristics (form, colour, composition, etc.)  we gain access to the
real character' of the object, the artist (...)." (Malcolm Barnard: Art,
Design & Visual Culture, '98). Certain paintings and sculptures, immediate,
shape, colour and form based pieces of art - come to my mind here. Some
people call this 'the real thing'. This approach is surely very limited, but
it speaks volumes of the continues search for the immediate 'real' human art
experience. 

The structure-based approach:
Requires context and mediation. Yet another quite traditional approach to
produce and present art. Think conceptual art, or even simpler than this:
Art that requires commentary and general explaination to be understood as
such. What is intriguing for digital artists about this approach, is that it
requires at least a certain degree of public participation in order to be
understood as such and to become 'real art'. Since we all love the notion of
the interactive as main characteristic of digital art, we are surely drawn
to this approach. Yet, we have to remember, just because something looks
new, doesn't necessariy mean that it really is new. Other people were here
before us. 

What is digital art beyond those parameters? What could it be? Well, it can
be a lot. And it can reach indeed beyond the boundaries and limitations of
these two art historical comparative categories I just described. Because I
personally think that both categories are indeed limited and limiting.

I also think that the discourse on 'the real' and 'the symbolic' in the
digital, can't be only about the actual physicality and practice of things
digital (all art is many ways 'unreal'), but has to be also, and very much
so, about the cultural values and artistic traditions we carry over from
other media and continue to apply to the digital. This makes historically
speaking perfect sense, but leads us also into one-way thinking when it
comes to the production, presentation and valuation of digital art.

Symbolic? Real? Unreal? It's real because you made it reality. Or as Groucho
Marx used to say: 'Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?'

Truly, /roya.


---------------------------------------------
email: roya@girlfish.net             *

** art:  http://www.girlfish.net/
design:  http://www.sweetdesign.net/

theory: http://www.retold.net/

---------------------------------------------