[-empyre-] Julian Oliver: Resolution for Digital Futures

[Simon Biggs]

> Pall Thayer wrote:
> 
>> > I have never had a problem with using the word digital to describe
>> > what I, and others, do. However, I have often had a problem with
>> > the word art. Too much baggage. I prefer to concern myself with
>> > epistemology and ontology rather than money and fashion.
> 
> I don't know if you're being sardonic but I think rejecting the term
> art is a bit extreme. If you really prefer epistemology and ontology
> OVER art, then wouldn't it make more sense to completely disregard
> the often cryptic method of presenting ideas in an artistic,
> audiovisual manner? The inclusion of the term "art" provides context
> that may suggest meanings that go beyond merely what is presented at
> the surface. It invites personal interpretation that perhaps warrants
> a more aesthetic attitude than other types of material. Art is often
> composed of fragments of ideas whereas theoretical/philosophical
> essays take a more complete and concrete approach. The way I see it,
> there's a huge divide between the two. One conveys ideas, the other
> suggests ideas.

I am not rejecting the term art ­ just problematising it. I would argue that
ontology and epistemology are traditional and compelling subjects for
artists and that artists are well placed (as you observe) to engage such
subjects in fresh and challenging ways (not being encumbered with the
requirement to be right). Mind you, philosophers are not required to be
right and one could argue that since at least Hegel (and perhaps Hume) the
role of the philosopher has moved from that of determiner of what things are
to that of poet. As such, philosophy has become an artistic activity.

I agree that Oart¹ offers a context for practices that would otherwise be
difficult to maintain. It allows an engagement with things that can be
personal, even whimsical and contrary, that is almost impossible by other
means. I agree that art does not need to be coherent ­ that it can be
fragmentary and inconclusive, as artists are not required to reach
conclusions or produce explanations.

I just dispute that art need be about making things for other people to
value and exchange.

Regards

Simon


Simon Biggs
Research Professor
edinburgh college of art
s.biggs at eca.ac.uk
www.eca.ac.uk
www.eca.ac.uk/circle/

simon at littlepig.org.uk
www.littlepig.org.uk
AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk


Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20090119/428a0ed5/attachment.html