Comments for rchoetzlein - Theory

Comment on What is New Media Art? by Aya

Aya — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:34:37 +0000

This is great! Very informative. Thanks for taking the time to post this in details. People should know about this. Keep it up.

Comment on What is New Media Art? by admin

admin — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 14:56:37 +0000

In general, I feel there are two types of meaning. First is the individual, or personal meaning, which is brought into a work of art. Even in structuralist, or scientific art, there is still an individual meaning because all works of art are a choice. Why does one make a choice to apply science to art instead of more traditional materials? So even though an artwork may claim to supercede meaning, there are still choices made by the artist. Second is the social, or cultural meaning, which is the effect the artwork has on culture. In general, I agree with media theorists that this has been greatly influenced by media, so that we live in a society where it is very difficult for the individual artist to have any effect on culture. However, I would first question the goals of the artist who seeks to have an “effect” on the world, since it is impossible to separate the artist’s desire for social change from their desire for success in art. If you ’seek’ meaning, you will have a hard time finding it. In addition, if one wishes to change culture, there are many other disciplines which have greater direct impact, such as law or politics. The cultural meaning of art, in my view, should not be explicitly sought after, but implicit in the process of making art. If making art does not inherently have meaning for the artist, it is unlikely that the artist could create meaning for others.

I prefer Picasso’s view of meaning: “In my opinion to search [for meaning] means nothing in painting. To find, is the thing. Nobody is interested in following a man who, with his eyes fixed on the ground, spends his life looking for the pocketbook that fortune should put in his path. The one who finds something no matter what it might be, even if his intention were not to search for it, at least arouses our curiosity.”

Returning to your question, technological art is certainly growing recently, yet this could not last indefinitely. There is no movement in art which has not come and gone. You might say technology in art is not a movement, but a new method of making art. I would say it is both a technique and a movement, because artists now are not just using technology to make art, they are claiming that the technology gives it meaning - bio art, organic art, algorithmic art, etc. Science is viewed now by artists as a source of meaning. Its interesting, like all movements are interesting, but could not last indefinitely. It is very similar to the Constructivist movement in Russian art, which explored a rationalization of the image through abstract shape. Meaning will change over time.

Comment on Timeline of 20th c. Art and New Media by Amrit Narkar

Amrit Narkar — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:50:00 +0000

thank you very much i will use your timeline for my thesis work its is really amazing n nicely presented and also very rhetorical really nice work thank u again

Comment on What is New Media Art? by Alfredo

Alfredo — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:21:25 +0000

Thanks for your clarify, I agree with your analysis very much but there are still some aspects I would like to know your point (hopefully in real), especially about the process of creating meanings in the new art practice since a lot of these experiences dialog within technological based events/abstractions not directly or symbolically related to human habits. The risk is less artistic meanings in terms of more functional design.

Comment on What is New Media Art? by admin

admin — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 20:35:59 +0000

Thanks for your reply.. My response would be that the goal is not to “extract” meaning from the technological platform, but that the meaning created remains somewhat distinctly created from the technique, which is itself only used as a means of organization. A painter, for example, does not necessarily create meaning exclusive to the technique of painting, but may create meaning from any source - which may or may not include the technique itself. The language developed by the artist is, in my view, not rigidly defined by the technique but only loosely informed by it. The space of possible expressions using a particular technique is still open to many kinds of meaning. When I say that the theory is “based on technique”, I mean only that it is a convenience from an archeological/historical view, since meaning is so open in art… just as the academics of fine arts is conveniently divided into drawing, painting, and sculpture, but meaning is not defined according to these.

Comment on What is New Media Art? by Alfredo

Alfredo — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:00:20 +0000

Very deep and problematic questions/answers about theorizing a future for an Art based on techniques.
This difficulty of extracting meanings out of a technological platform, it becomes a problem of language. The new artist has to be able to structure an understandable syntax merging the principles involved in the system developed, related to the historical and technological necessities he is living. This is the core effecting the new media experience in a process of social sharing. But is this always happening?

Comment on The Hidden Costs of Health Care by Alex Kotlar

Alex Kotlar — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 08:37:14 +0000

This is an interesting post. Speaking to the difference in the cost of medicine between the U.S and other economies, legally mandating that the covered cost of care (and medicine) be price matched to the lowest cost for comparable care would go a long way in letting the free market decide the fair cost, and I imagine would lower the cost both to insurers and consumers. It would also be in line with economic trends, and congruous with free market principles. In the U.S, care facilities can charge whatever price they wish, but your insurer will cover only the fair market value of that care , taking into account that region\’s average for comparable procedures. This puts pressure on the care provider to keep their costs down, both because this market assessment is legally defensible and because chasing patients down for dubious charges can be cost inefficient. Expanding this value assessment even to a national level would suppress costs, and at a global level, matching cost to comparable facilities could prove to be advantageous both for the insurer and the consumer. Obviously to do something similar for medicine, the minimum assessment area would have to be supra-national, as U.S medicine prices are generally homogeneous. I’m not sure how much of a price difference there is across all medicines globally, but it would be a good first step.

Comment on Timeline of 20th c. Art and New Media by lynn hurst

lynn hurst — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:15:42 +0000

I just saw your thesis page. Very interesting work! (forget my Tufte comment, you are obviously familiar.) I completed my last year of Masters study in fine arts at UCSB back in the 80’s. Currently in New Zealand.

Comment on Timeline of 20th c. Art and New Media by lynn hurst

lynn hurst — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:05:09 +0000

I’m happy to find this! You have undertaken an excellent endeavor! I agree with someone up there who said to look at Edward Tufte, just in case you haven’t already. He has written several books on information graphics.

What I was looking for when I found this was a quick view of the historical relationship of linguistics, semiotics, structuralism, deconstructivism etc. and to find out if there really was something called “post-mediumism”.

Keep up the good work.

Lynn

Comment on Problems with Capitalism by admin

admin — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:04:44 +0000

“You say that capitalism does not require democracy. While I disagree with that, it’s not the argument I’m going to make here. The argument I will make is this: socialism absolutely cannot work within a democratic framework, they are mutually exclusive.”

These “arguments” are what I hope to hear, as they are the basis for your larger claims that you “will take capitalism and all its flaws over socialism and all its evils”. None of these arguments are actually made, only hinted at. I look forward to them, as a starting point for discussion.