[-empyre-] empyre Digest, Vol 50, Issue 15

[G.H. Hovagimyan]

The bigger reality of the Art World is about a market system that is  
tied to the circulation of objects.  I know that Simon works in a  
variety of forms that use projection, interactive video, sound and  
live performers.  In new media and digital art the network is the  
conveyor of the Art Experience. This is pretty hard for the art market  
to incorporate. There's no way to monetize the art.  One of the things  
that happened in the 1980's return to objects was that the market  
demanded objects to collect and circulate. It's the question of  
patronage.
I also like Simon's comment about art and fashion cycles. Fashion and  
money is cyclical. I think it's more interesting to make art that uses  
the global information networks and bends them to arts purpose.
Recently my art group Artists Meeting  did a collaboration/performance  
where we curated found videos from youTube. We did two events at  
Postmasters Gallery.  It was a question of pushing the idea of Objet- 
Trouve  to include Web 2.0 applications.
The second time we collaborated with Steve Crouse, an eyebeam resident  
who had developed a youTube triptych app.
you3b.com. The art world showed up (MoMA video curators, NY Times  
writers etc..)  Their comments was how fresh the event was. Of course  
there's no way to collect the work which means that the art world  
can't deal with it other than as a cocktail party diversion.

On Jan 17, 2009, at 4:40 AM, Simon Biggs wrote:

>  The art-world being the art-world (more concerned with money and  
> fashion than epistemology or ontology) jumped on the band wagon and,  
> lo and behold, post-object art was dead.

G.H. Hovagimyan
http://nujus.net/~gh
http://artistsmeeting.org




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20090117/d7664629/attachment.html