[-empyre-] Life imitating art imitating media?

[marc garrett]

Hi Ferry,

I read your post and think that there are some essential arguments which 
need investigating...

 >But I do wonder about the added value of artists when
 >they become just like other journalists or activists
 >or commentators. Art seems to me intrinsically subjective,
 >personal, idiosyncratic. Does it not become just one
 >voice among many if artists insist on participating in
 >other disciplines on the terms of those disciplines?
 >Don't they then run the risk of being absorbed by
 >those disciplines, in the way that let's say in
 >advertising commercial artist is just a fancy term
 >for designer?

What has happened since the Internet and networked technology (and 
actually before), is that many artists have discovered new skills which 
include re-evaluating their own contexts and ideas in 
reflection/relation to and as part of, the medium they practice in. 
Artists have always discussed their medium and how they apply it, look 
at it, think about; through processes of critique, whether it is a 
painting or a networked artwork. The difference now is, that people in 
everyday culture also use the same technological materials in their work 
environments as artists. Because of this a natural crossover occurs.

And even though there is a tradition of artists and thinkers who prefer 
to engage in digital art as a finite, absolute 'object' in its own 
right; there are many others out there who's influences and needs do not 
fit into the same mold of 'given' art histories. So their work is more 
likely to be following, reintroducing and expanding new forms of 
expression beyond traditional (fine art) gallery orientated behaviours 
and demands.

Many artists have not only created work which confuses the role of what 
an artist was once supposed to be, but they are also playing with the 
very infrastructures which once bound them. Post-modernist theories have 
engaged in critiquing social and cultural institutions, yet many artists 
have moved further in order change the very fabric of culture on their 
own terms, whether this be as individuals or collectively. We can see 
this as a reality by observing activism and the different strands of 
media-art that uses technology in order to either comment on politics, 
or intervene in culture on-line and off-line, or change everyday 
situations and its environments local or international.

The idea that there is a particular professional activity which is 
deemed above an artist's consideration or appropriation, is not 
necessarily a contemporary approach. Yet, it is important for all to 
appreciate skills regarding their own merits. But it is not only 
everyday journalism, publishing or politics being appropriated by 
artists happening here. It is also turned other way round; where 
engineers, scientists, writers, curators, architects, bio-technologists, 
gamers etc, have crossed over into the art world to express their own 
creative voices and ideas contextually introducing new exciting genres 
for all to explore.

The blurring of different practices, need not be a negative thing. In 
fact, such crossovers have introduced new ways of seeing our world which 
have introduced and incorporated new meanings and understandings of our 
in many different ways, which can be seen as not only useful but also 
evolutionary. In regards to my own history in the UK, when punk came 
along and caused a storm, cultural crossovers occurred that allowed (so 
called) amateurs to claim their voices and positions as part of 
something than larger than themselves. This was important, not only 
because it challenged the mono-cultural and suffocating hegemony of the 
day, but brought about a more dynamic and inclusive culture where 
artists, film-makers, musicians could take control of the reigns in 
respect of human-contexts. They changed and recreated their culture with 
others from the bottom up, and distributed it to and for others to take 
further.

 >Social media played a huge role in spreading anger
 >about issues such as police brutality. It is no
 >accident that the facebook page that is credited
 >with starting the protests was called we are all
 >Khaled Said, the youth who was allegedly killed by
 >police in Alexandria. But the social media are a
 >tool, a very effective one but therefore not much
 >more than a tool, and not the reason behind what
 >is happening in parts of the Arab world.

Very true, in this context, social media was used as a tool very 
effectively. But tools can be used for many different reasons, processes 
and activities. But we must not forget that traditional journalism and 
corporate media television in the West, has been dragged into accepting 
on-line and networked information as news. It is a relatively new 
inclusion to their field. The worry of losing revenue and influence, due 
of the rise of the Internet has brought about this shift in newspapers 
incorporating news from outside of their own usual circles. Without this 
technology, not only would the voices of the protesters in Egypt not be 
heard, news corporations may not of covered the revolution so 
extensively. This is another example where technology has forced a shift 
in how we all engage with each other, changing the very fabric of how we 
receive information and relate to each other. It can also go in many 
different ways.

If artists, on the whole had decided to ignore connecting with such a 
medium, their work would be in danger of not taking responsibility of a 
cultural expansion, left isolated and lacking credibility in reflecting 
not only contemporary contexts in relation to what is happening in the 
world, but also aesthetically and philosophically. Artists are 
everywhere and they are people experiencing the same problems as anyone 
else. The issue we have here is that these tools are not just enabling 
possibilities of information, knowledge and involvement with political 
situations and revolutions; they are also allowing different forms of 
activity such as art to transcend traditional barriers.

Yet, as you propose, technology itself did not spur on the revolution in 
Egypt. And we do need to be careful in respecting what the context of 
things really are. I would say that we are experiencing a complexity 
where we are being influenced by many different factors and they all 
collide, and how they effect us is in accordance to who we are and where 
we are at that time. Each tool user has their own agenda, the other 
interesting thing here is that there was a clear agenda which got 
through even though the despotic government of Egypt tried its best to 
close down options, and what counts is people's collective desires for 
change on their own terms, not any government's or corporation or even 
newspapers.

Wishing you well.

marc

www.furtherfield.org