Alise on Thu, 19 Feb 1998 00:56:17 +0100 (MET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> "communication art" |
Here i offer "an angry point of view" - however i wrote this piece, i am not quite sure about my deeper opinion. But i would like to hear any comments about this! Communication art - the end of humanism or the beginning of anti-humanism? Or not yet? "Technology is so pure that it's only function is to exist." /Critical Art Ensemble/ One can dare to declare that the advanced possibilities of today's technology have destroyed some kind of essential border, a barrier which previously seemingly separated "art" (I suppose everybody understands something different with this word because unfinished discussions about question "what is art" have proven to be unsuccessful - no all-round, all-wise definition of the art is found) from other forms of human activities. Starting even from the very beginning of XX century this border has been gradually destroyed with countless new "art tendencies" and names worth mentioning - Malevich's "Black square", Marcel Duchamp and his "Readymades" and Rrose Selavy, Andy Warhol and his Campbell's soup, Jackson Pollock and his big brushes, Lichtenstein's comics esthetics, opart, the golden age of installation and environment art, then videoart and, at last, interactive and net.art in the age of computers. At first the concepts about the esthetical conditions of art were exterminated (the artwork does not have to be something original - colored portraits of Marilyn Monroe or Yoko Ono's actions with urine jars can be called "art", and so forth, not talking about the artists' fascination with everything ugly, creepy, dirty, perverted, "prohibited", cheap and shocking, together with the sex revolution of 60ies the previously so cherished border between the private and the public was swept away). Then also concept of the ethic essence of the art disappeared - the meaning of the artwork is the cult of violence, wish to shock with something unpleasant (I can relate to Dali/Bunuel film "Un Chien Andalou" in the era of surrealism as one of the first examples), showing the mean, the negative, the repugnant with only one goal - to fill a viewer with disgust, differently from, for example, Renaissance when the visions of hell and nightmare had ethical role. Also a border between the pop-culture and concept of the art as a "higher sphere" disappears, pop-music and mass fashion also is considered as a form of art, which consists of everything colorful, tasteless, simplicity and cheapness offered by the street - for example, some smart guys notice the dirty and always hopelessly stoned punks and Sex Pistols in the music industry are born, and Vivienne Westwood repeats the same trick on the catwalk, etc. In the information age it seems rather hard to talk about the presence of "art" at all. Of course, there are people calling themselves artists, internationally known term net.art exists, massive discussions about it take place. All previously used media are dead for the art - does that mean the end of humanism? Human-friendly forms, sizes, materials and media are replaced by only one thing - the computer which "can do anything". Digitally process an image, making it into rows of symbols recognizable by other computers. Isn't it the same as to kill a soul and to exhibit made-up, well-dressed but dead body? Of course, technology only proves the power of human brain, talent, possibilities and undoubted superiority comparing to all other live beings. But at the same time it subordinates us, makes us adapt ourselves to it. Technology provides (relatively) equal chances to publish every kind of "art" in WWW. "No stars", says the technology age. DJ's are as anonymous as their audience. Street fashion is face-less, cheap and bitchy - let's take a look at all this sportswear on the streets which is a nasty kick in the ass of "a good taste" and sense of style. The "cult movies" of our time - Tarantino, Arachi, Lynch and others - only repeat the classics, laughing about the viewer. In the virtual world there are no more differences of sex, race, nationality, age and others. Everybody can become anybody. Net.art in the most cases plays with these possibilities and uses every new technological trick. Radio and TV via the net, video, music, pictures, animation, porn and shopping, cat-rooms and mailing-lists. Sometimes it feels like the human being as a measure of values is lost in this process. The goal is communication process - anonymous, global, face-less, delusive and seemingly safe. The cyberspace becomes a great place to be in the age when one of the most popular sentences is "your body is your enemy", our bodies are threatened by drugs and lethal diseases. The possibilities to communicate now are unique - communication is the only goal, the cult with its decadent temple called WWW. At the same time - it has never been so easy to lose yourself, there are no values out in the information highway, no speed limits, age limits, no taste, no style and no rules. "Disneyworld is the perfect microcosm of the pancapitalist vision for the world. At Disneyworld, participants are locked into a state of permanent consumption, market image envelopment, passive participation, and perfect order. (Disneyworld is the architectural model on which the unidirectional home entertainment system is based. Through the seduction of entertainment value, domestic space will also be fully colonized)./Critical Art Ensemble/ Alise Tifentale journalist /art magazine FF, Latvia/ --- # distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@icf.de and "info nettime" in the msg body # URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner@icf.de