> curt writes:
> Let's just take Beuys and
> compare him to Hirst. Beuys was definitely conceptual, but many of
> his installations/sculptures/objects still embody craft and sensory
> aesthetics which (surprise, surprise) substantiate and embody his
> concepts. Fast forward to Hirst, and he's not even building his own
> objects. The crafting of his objects has become much more
> incidental.
I note that, while you say of Beuys that 'his installations ... still embody
craft and sensory aesthetics' you say of Hirst 'he's not even building his
own objects'. This is not comparing like with like.
Apart from that, I very much doubt that Beuys built his own objects. I
remember seeing a piece (called something like Rock Plug) which consisted of
a large number of huge slabs of rock with plugs drilled into then and plugs
set into them. I very much doubt that Beuys quarried the rock or transported
it without help. Further, I doubt that he manually built his large felt room
pieces without assistants. Etc. I just think your distinction is cheap and
inaccurate. I am sure that youd find Beuys and Hirst had about the same
amount of input into getting their work sorted out.
That is not to say that the work is equal in value, I will not go there.
But then you dont go on to say what I thought you would say: that hands on
crafting of network art is more valid than getting third parties to
construct it.
Cheers,
Ivan
> Now fast forward to the net in 2003. You have all these media
> converging, and all these different artists from all these different
> perspectives and backgrounds converging. But it's all happening at
> low res. So the visual artist (read "realistic landscape painter")
> must now necessarily be more conceptual (or at least more iconic and
> symbolic). On the other end of the spectrum, now that sensory
> aesthetic impact is possible via the web (thanks to advancements in
> bandwidth, tools, and developmental practices since 1996), the
> concept-centric artist at least has the option (if not exactly the
> onus) to ramp his work up visually. Which is not to say that
> Mouchette now becomes praystation. It's just a chance/challenge for
> the "object-incidental conceptual artist" to begin to re-integrate
> sensory aesthetics into the vocabulary of his work.
>
> Why would a "visual artist" select the web as his medium of choice in
> the first place? A million reasons. He doesn't live in a big city
> with a bunch of galleries, but the net gives him a worldwide
> audience. He wants to hybridize his visuals with other media
> strengths that the web offers -- non-linearity, multi-user
> environments, "unfinished-ness," randomness, auto-generativeness,
> many-to-many network-ness. The list goes on and on.
>
> It is always interesting and instructive TO ME when we get into
> discussions on raw about how specifically the design and visuals and
> pacing of a particular net art piece advance its impact and meaning.
> David Crawford's "Stop Motion Studies" is ripe for just such a
> discussion. Boring to me is merely talking denotatively about "what
> a piece of art means" (like the artist is some kind of riddler and
> it's our job to guess the right answer). Boring to me is allusive,
> decoder-ring art that leads to such "guess-the-righ-answer" dialogue.
>
> _
> _
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post:
list@rhizome.org> -> questions:
info@rhizome.org> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz> -> give:
http://rhizome.org/support> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php>