2008 Fall: Theoretical Constructions in Contemporary Art

Bourriaud argues that "our age is nothing if not the age of the screen," and I agree with him, at least insofar as "developed" countries are concerned. "The novel" was popular during my parents' lifetimes, and now more and more people want to be screenwriters and write movies. Animated movies, also, have shifted greatly into the realm of computers: traditional animators used to draw animated children's films like The Lion King on actual paper (and then color them in on transparent sheets called "cels"), with each drawing differing slightly from the one before it, but now such films are -- arguably -- obsolete. For computer animated movies like Toy Story, The Incredibles, and Wall-E, animators no longer are chained to the drawing page, and need nothing but the computer to assist their artwork. Mathematical functions such as gravity, mist, weather, and particle effects can give computer animated films a powerfully convincing sense of realism that could not be achieved with traditional animation. Bourriaud says, "With computer graphics, it is now possible to produce images which are the outcome of calculation, and no longer of human gestures." The idea that mathematical calculations can produce something "beautiful" -- that "beauty" may be linked with mathematics, is becoming increasingly fascinating to me. The theory that beauty is linked with mathematics originated with early Greek philosophers and is the earliest conception of beauty -- beauty as something that has to do with proportionality and symmetry.

Bourriaud identifies a "shift from the exhibition-store (assembling noteworthy objects separately) to the exhibition-set (the unitary mise-en-scene of objects)", and this shift can, perhaps, also be connected with Brenson's concept of the rise of the curator, since the exhibition is in the curator's domain. In other words, curators may be looking at the exhibition in a different way, and their rising influence in the art world may be a reason for the change in the condition of the art exhibition, in addition to the reasons Bourriaud mentions.

However, I find myself somewhat wary of the "world of the screen" simply because it is not real life. As Baudrillard (not Bourriaud) suggested, we are living increasingly in a world consisting of simulated realities and simulated relationships which we cling to instead of real ones. Real flesh-and-blood human exchange is being relentlessly substituted for computerized human exchange. A contemporary example of this change might be "MMORPG's" (massively multiplayer online role-playing games), where players may spend hours on end living in a vast, intricate virtual world which can often entirely replace their actual vast, intricate world. (Several of my friends play World of Warcraft for thirty to forty hours a week, for the last year or so). People may use the screen as an escape, a drug, a method of avoiding real-world problems by creating alternate, simulated "problems," and the lives they see played out on the screen may become more interesting to them than their actual lives.

I don't think that it's necessary for artists to make "technological leaps" in order to be successful at their art, especially if they are already happy with what they are doing, but I think it's become increasingly hard to avoid the reality of the support provided by technology. As Bourriaud said, "technology and artistic practices do not always go hand-in-hand, and...this discrepancy does no harm to either." However, while technology isn't a necessity to happy, productive artists, it may wise to "(work) on the basis of the possibilities offered by new tools."

Bourriard proposes that if social order and aesthetic order go hand in hand to fulfill the requirements of modern art theory, we could look to the invention of photography and its affects on art practices, to inform us about the potential of the screen, found in film, video, and the computer which is the dominate technology today. He shows us that although the camera introduced a photographic way of thinking for painters, allowing them to explore new ways of thinking and thus changing their mentalities, it did not change the fundamental relationship of the artist with his material.
In analysing the path of photography he shows how it as a technology was almost called forth by the industrial processes at the time; documentation of population, workers and remote sites available for mining. The artists in response to this new invention reversed its position as a subjugating tool of authority and used it to create new life possibilities. In our modern technology the lack of a human gesture, demonstrated by the digital image and its ability to be made by calculation or to be programmed, could signal the break in social and aesthetic relations crucial to modern theory but Bourriard sets out to show us that is not the case. Art has a history of being in a non dimensional space, created as a program to be acted out, not necessarily connected to reality, and in that program shows itself to have its own generative power. The exhibition space is like a film set and the camera's natural progression to video (again a democratizer) allows ordinary humans to not only make videos but to be in videos. The generative power can be seen with a new approach to time, giving artists the ability to freeze time and thus reuse it, to recycle, to reinvent its rhythm.
In a world where we are under surveillance as we move about our city and the contemporary artist who uses video is participating in " the great visual census" which all the power agencies are also exploring, Nicholas Bourriard asks artist to question how they deal with this issue. He believes that only through looking at the relationship of technology as a productive tool and thus its relationship to the superstructure and the social behaviors which stem from it will we head into modernity using art as an emancipatory and political tool.

In the chapter “Screen Relations,� Bourriaud is attempting to define a new way of “seeing,� and therefore of experiencing art. In other words, he is attempting to create a body of theory to surround our generation’s fascination with the screen. In a forward-looking and positive manner, the author speaks about the way in which technology, as well as the art it has allowed for, create relationships between people, and therefore establish culture as a whole. “In relation to this phenomenon, art’s function consists in appropriating perceptual and behavioral habits brought on by the technical-industrial complex to turn them into life possibilities, to borrow Nietzche’s term. Otherwise put, reversing the authority of technology in order to make ways of thinking, living and seeing creative.�

While Rowan saw this writing as a commentary on the profusion of screens in our lives, I read it as a declaration of social advancement via the screen. Through the artistic evolution of photography and cinema, Bourriaud talks about the changes technology has caused within artmaking, as well as the manner in which artists create new societal and cultural patterns. “The computer and the camera delimit production possibilities, which themselves depend on general conditions of social production, and tangible relationships existing between people. Based on this state of affairs, artists invent ways of living, or else create an awareness about a moment M in the assembly line of social behavior patterns, making it possible to imagine a further state of our civilization.� Rather than being defined by the traditional viewer-object relationship, the “screen,� as well as the internet, have created a new way for our culture to experience art. Instead of being a private dialog between one piece and one person, the screen allows for mass distribution of ideas and graphic images. This causes the meaning of the particular piece to be defined by all of the viewers collectively, rather than by each person privately.

Perhaps this is the positive form of the democratization of art that Sam spoke of in his reaction to Ali’s links from his talk on art and technology. If the new theoretical “ism� of this century is defined by intersubjective experiences and the establishment of community though the viewing of artwork, then I wonder how more traditional forms of making will remain relevant. For me, experiencing art in a gallery is a relatively private experience, and one that I treasure. Will this manner of experiencing work die? Will the idea of art as an object with which one interacts also expire? As someone who deals with both object and with a medium very directly and purposefully, I remain hopeful for the integration of traditional ways of working with “the great visual census,� rather than the complete extermination of physicality and real world experiences with pieces of art.

Screen Relations.

I had a little bit of a problem with this essay titled Screen Relations. I found a lot of words that didn’t say much to me. I don’t agree that technology has that much to do with art and art making as the author thinks. This is a matter of importance to each of us, so I will read on. Art and technology are considered bedfellows? And then a sentence later about what binds art and technology, “if technology can by definition be improved, the work of art cannot� I’m sorry but I couldn’t rap my head around this. What relationship are we talking about, the screen and the viewer or the impact of technical advances to art making?

Art and Technology for me has a small relationship, I see Mark Dion as a cross breeder of artistic presentation of science issues and Orlan and her numerous plastic surgeries as a sickness but an artistic approach to manipulating the body at ones own will. This is perhaps more science than technology but they are one of the same. What is being presented in this essay is the use of a screen and it’s new way of making us see the world around us? A screen is so taken for granted today it does nothing for the “art work�. I don’t see the need to present this as something of impact. It is simply a tool, like that of a table saw or a potters wheel, a tool that does a specific thing for the artist. Thus technology can help the artist achieve their ideas through it’s toolness.

The author here is talking again about Modernist histories and how photography changed the world. I agree but I find this a weak argument in empowering technology as something art needs. I liked that he mentions impressionist painting as doing a similar thing to the viewers, changing the light and color and gestures to create a new way of seeing, I want this writing to go into what else we are missing from art, that technology seems to be getting in front of. There is still a tint of Modernist angst in this writing that replays the ideas of production relationships. Can there be art that does not rethink the productions of human material culture and simply express human conditions within the body of us, not what and how we control. I may be off the subject completely but this is my reaction. Technology is something I will learn, as I need its advantages, but it has nothing to do with art making.

I would like to say that I’m not disregarding the use of technology. I think about what Yui is doing and I assume he needs knowledge to write a technical language of his own and skill to presents his work on the screen, but it is he who is the thinker and creator not the technology, which is used as a tool. I may be stubborn in the head but this reading just didn’t get in very far.

I found Bourriaud to do a sufficient job of realistically analyzing the complex relationship between technology and art. For me, the essay seems to deal mostly with the idea of operational realism, or considering the tension of art as an object versus its “virtual inclusion in the socio-economic arena,� which he further deals with by breaking down technological art by genre. I disagree with Jennifer (Anable) that technology has nothing to do with art making. I by no means think that all art should move into this direction, but I can appreciate artists who do deal with the issues inherent in our technologically rooted culture and use the screen as their main media.

When Bourriaud discusses how present day art is “being developed in-depth by ways of seeing and thinking which usher in computing…and the video camera,� I immediately think back to Benjamin and The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Bourriaud describes film as a model for exhibition space. He states, “The work does not (offer) itself as a spatial whole that can be scanned by the eye, but as a time span to be crossed, sequence by sequence, similar to a still short-movie in which the viewer has to evolve by himself.� When Benjamin writes about film, he says, “By close-ups of the things around us, by focusing on hidden details of familiar objects, by exploring commonplace milieus under the ingenious guidance of the camera, the film, on the one hand, extends our comprehension of the necessities which rule our lives; on the other hand, it manages to assure us of an immense and unexpected field of action.� Both men seem to consider the beneficial aspects of the cameras ability to create a more complicated relationship between the viewer and the subject.

Although generally optimistic in his views, Bourriaud is sure to include works that critique the ethical issues of video. As a democratizing medium, film allows “anyone to capture pictures of us.� As the public, we are continually reassured by the socially powerful that surveillance is done for our own security. Yet there is no doubt that this surveillance can often be an intrusion on our own privacy. He mentions artists like Julia Sher and Dan Graham, who turn an exhibition space into a place where everyone can see and be seen. Bourriaud is also sure to remind us of the limitations of the subject of the contemporary video, “…because he/she collaborates in the great visual census…in which all forms of power agency in our society are currently indulging.�

I think this essay champions technology as the essential medium for contemporary art. The essay makes the assumption that technology has the capability to become democratic and is the most effective medium for efficient expression.
“You would have to be unbelievably ethnocentric not to see that technological progress is far from being universal, and that the south of the planet, the so-called “developing world�, does not enjoy the same reality as Silicon Valley as far as technical goods are concerned, even though both are part of an ever-narrowing world.� This quotation could also be applied to people living within the industrialized world and are unable to afford a personal computer, people living in rural and inner city areas for example. This is the age of the screen to those who can pay for a screen. I think that placing technocentric work on a pedestal negates the work of many artists from areas of the world that haven’t been as effected by technology’s progression. Also, I really don’t think that technology can turn into a democratic medium either; it costs a lot of money. It snowballs into more money when as soon as it becomes obsolete, which comes quickly for a computer or camera. In the matter of money the world is not “ever-narrowing.�
How about the age of ignoring the screen. I had the unfortunate experience of eating at Buffalo Wild Wings about six months ago; there were about twenty screens in that place. All of the screens play something different. The last thing in the world that I want to see is more screens.
Though I’m sure that some artist’s work is more effective when using technology as a means to an end as described in the essay: “When Alighiero Boetti gets 500 weavers in Peshawar, Pakistan, working for him, he represents the work process of multinational companies much more effectively than if he merely portrayed them and described how they work.� Technology, I’m sure is not the most effective means to express an idea for many artists.

It is arguable in the weight Bourriard puts on effectiveness of technologies as democratic media, but I think it is important that Bourriard has emphasized the existence of technologies in relation to the world of art. Some mentioned that it depends on artists that technologies can be the most effective means of expression or not and I agree with it, but the fact about the technologies is that they have introduced new ways of thinking that is affecting other means of expression. Digital means allow us to visualize an idea without creating a physical unique representation. Birth of such means has made emphasis on the conceptual aspect of the work of art, just like how industrialization lead the idea of modernism. Because the visual representation itself is a duplicate and has no “original� (when monitors display something, each monitor creates a duplicate from the code it receives), what we receive as observers is purely the idea/concept of the work. I liked Bourriard's introduction of technology in contrast with Lev Manovich because Manovich only seemed to have introduced structures and functionalities of these technologies but Bourriard is introducing the ways of thinking about these tools.

Bourriard mentioned photography as another tool that was introduced and affected the world of art. Surely photography did affect and change art, but it did not override other tools and concepts that existed before. Introduction of new means can expand possibilities and not necessarily destroy old means, and I think the rise of digital media is simply another case of the same introduction. And I believe that each time a new mean is introduced, every other means will have more depth in the meaning of their use: If a computer can create a photo-realistic imagery, it only adds another level to the meaning of work of a photo-realistic drawer.

By the nature of art, we are constantly being introduced by new tools and ideas. It is up to the individuals, but I think it is important to at least know what is around. As Bourriard said, “The future of art, as an instrument of emancipation, and as a political tool aimed at the liberation of forms of subjectivity, depends on the way artists deal with this issue. For art, no technique or technology is a subject.�

The part of Bourriaud’s “Screen Relations� that interested me most concerns the use of technology by artists, and how that does or doesn’t affect the products. He says, “The most fruitful thinking, however, came from artists who, far from giving up on their critical consciousness, worked on the basis of the possibilities offered by new tools, but without representing them as techniques.� This and his law of relocation has some truth to it—when looking at certain paintings (he mentions Degas) after the rise of the photograph, you can see the effects of the new technology in the delivery of the old. Perspectives from above, odd angles, and subjects half out of the frame—in a paintings, these echo the mannerisms of photographs. (However, I’m skeptical that this and other arts influenced by technology was always the “most fruitful thinking� as he calls it.)

He describes technology’s affect on exhibitions as a “shift from the exhibition-store… to the exhibition-set.� I do recognize the truth in this statement, that exhibitions are becoming more cohesive sets or experiences, but I wasn’t able to causally connect this back to the rise of screen-based art. Part of my trouble understanding this may be because I secretly don’t like most video art I see in exhibits. When it works, it’s great… but I often find it difficult to invest time and energy into digesting the pieces. (You come upon it in the middle of the piece, then you have to wait for it to run it’s cycle, but it’s anti-climactic because you’ve already seen the end, and it if doesn’t matter when you dive into it then maybe it’s boring….) I’m not saying this about all video art, I really do like it when done well, but I find video art to be the most unapproachable of mediums in an exhibition setting.

Whether or not there are screens in the galleries, it’s hard to deny that we are in the ‘age of the screen’ when it comes to American culture. Computers, TVs, cell phones, ipods… these screens are ubiquitous. I’m staring at one right now. As Rachel says, you can hardly even escape screens when you want to go out for a meal. This has to have effects on the art being made, but maybe it’s affecting it in the negative sense. We need to escape the screens, and art can provide us with some relief.

Rowan, you're right that in the "age of the screen" we often substitute simulated interactions for flesh-and-blood ones. Just look at what we're doing right now!

In Nicholas Bourriad's essay "Screen Relations" he speaks of the positive and negative effects of technology on society and art alike. He states that the "The Technology reigning over the cultures of our day and age is needless to say, computing...". More specifically when talking of computing he refers to both the data processing that computers facilitate and user friendly technology such as the internet. The screen is most definitely one of the most important defining characteristics of a new generation of technology. I can attest to it's impact on my own life. Besides staring at one right now, I spent at least eight hours a day for the last ten years staring at one. As a designer I worked on a computer all day and I would go home and watch a few hours of television. It has become so common that I often overlook it.

In regards to Jennifer A's question about the thought "if technology can by definition be improved, the work of art cannot"; I think this might have to do with the notion that technology itself can't improve the quality of a work of art. I may be misreading it, but I think Bourriad is actually asserting that that advances in technology won't necessarily make the art work, that uses it, better than past works. The quality is fairly constant though the technology that is used to make it may improve. The artwork is linked to the time that it is created in and it is also limited by the technology of that time. I find the phrase "Taking the eternal from the transitory" intriguing. I often wonder how I can do this with my own work. How do you make art that references our current ever changing pop culture in a way that won't be totally outdated in a year.

With the advent of many new technologies there is a gestation period. With photography it took many years for artists to move beyond the initial excitement of the cameras ability to capture situations accurately. But once it did, it moved into it's own and became an important fixture amongst the art discaplines. The medium had to find it's many voices. One of which was presented by Rosalind Krauss when she spoke of photography being the perfect tool for conceptual art, do to it's neutrality. I feel like art generated by computers and the internet is still in it's infancy, much like photography in it's early days. I wonder what it's legacy will be.

I'm impressed with the clarity with which Bourriaud points out the complicated ways that artmaking maintains a dialog with technology, rather than being teleologically bound to its development or existing in an idealized state of independence. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with many of the artists that Bourriaud uses as examples. However, I feel that Bourriaud has efficiently given voice to numerous ideas that lurked as poorly articulated half-thoughts in the back of my head. In fact, Bourriaud has covered his bases so thoroughly, that I'm having trouble responding with original commentary of my own.

I'm very interested in the idea that an artwork's utilization of thinking inspired by a given technology is more important than the actual utilization of the technology itself. The idea that a technological means of dealing with information can unveil new "life possibilities" in realms unrelated to the technology in question is fascinating. The example of the influence of photography on painting techniques is an excellent starting point -- a simple visual metaphor for the more complicated possibilities exposed by interactive and computational media. Nina Katchadourian's mapping work (which Ali discussed in his presentation) seems like a good contemporary example of art which manifests computational ideas within relatively simple handmade work.

I'm also particularly concerned with the instances Bourriaud cites in which art works criticize by simulating the object of their criticism (the Boetti and Haaning pieces.) I feel like this is a common tactic in contemporary art -- a type of satire which to my eye ends up doing more harm than good. Much of the art world operates on a corporate model in which the artist CEO outsources their work to wage labor while calling the shots and raking in the big bucks. Boetti's piece may represent the work process of multinational companies, but it also mimics the actual way that many other artists operate behind the scenes... does this "operational realism" actually accomplish a critique or does it conveniently serve the artist's economic interests while providing an edgy behind-the-scenes narrative for the end products? In the case of Haaning, by making surveillance and entrapment the media of his piece, he fetishizes and aestheticizes one of the more sinister tools of a violent and repressive state. Bourriaud rightly calls this a sado-masochistic relationship between artist and viewer. Having enough privelege to find pleasure in the pain of fascist violence is certainly one of the less pleasant hallmarks of the contemporary art world.

"The future of art, as an instrument of emancipation, and as a political tool aimed at the liberation of forms of subjectivity, depends on the way artists deal with this issue. For art, no technique or technology is a subject." I feel that strong works of art transcend the technology they utilize. Or better put, the emotional impact of the work for me hits me without my attention at all to the means in which it was delivered. When a work is weak, its usually just a quirky gadget from the technology itself.
For example, I can't stop watching this youtube video today of these young Swedish folk singers singing a cover of a "Fleet Foxes" song as a kind of thank you and love letter to the band. Its being watched by me on a computer screen with shitty computer speakers, but I can't stop watching it. I don't know if its the mood I am in today, old man winter punching me in the stomach this week, but its hitting me hard. Cheesy, sure, sincere, yes, and sincerity always trumps cheese. So this is an example of a cold digital screen actually resonating with me and giving me a kind of warmth. There, I said it. An example of a digital screen being used to communicate something that transcends the technology it relies on to manifest itself around the globe. Yes, these girls could have sent the Fleet Foxes a tape or dvd of this performance. But the choice to post it online for the world to see is exciting. Something so intimate shared with all who have an internet connection. This result of the new media technology is the most exciting for me to see. Not to be a broken record, but the printing press allowed the people to communicate to each other in a massive way, the internet continues that revolution with the inclusion of sound, image, video, at the people's disposal.
The links from Ali's technology talk are a prime example of this. They all share this atmosphere of sharing information for the common good. Will the content in the end transcend the technology used? Will the viewer of the piece see beyond the gadgets and ones and zeroes used in the construction?
With the over-saturation of digital pictures in the photography realm, I see many people falling into the trap of
putting more focus on the expensive new camera they bought than what they are actually taking a picture of. Content seems to suffer in the beginning stages of new art and technology pieces.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMrqBldlqzA&feature=related

There is something about beautiful elves singing in harmony inside the natural reverb of a Swedish forest.