Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
631
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
51
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. CYBORGS &THE FUTURE OF ART Sarah Baker
  • 2. Lascaux, France15,000 - 10,000 B.C.E
  • 3. “ Until 1910, the machine was the enemy of all thatmodernist artists held dear: handcraft, creativity, individuality, and the marks of original expression. It bore the taint of mass- produced polish, an uncreative ‘perfection’ that reduced the worker to a mere robot, and was also tainted by association with the money-grubbing bourgeoisie. ” –– Robert Herbert (1997:1275)
  • 4. Early camera –– 1820’s
  • 5. “View from the Window at Le Gras”Nicéphore Niépce, 1826
  • 6. Paul StrandAlfred Stieglitz1919
  • 7. Wall Street1915 Porch Shadows 1916
  • 8. “ Photography as an art was ridiculed, attacked –– especially by the academic painters, who thought that the camera might take their livelihood away. The acknowledgement of the validity of photography as a new material, as a new way of seeing life through a machine, was questioned and fundamentally denied. ” –– Paul Strand (Cooper 1992:15)
  • 9. What changed?
  • 10. • As technology made the reproduction of art easier, artists realized machines could be the “servant of creativity”. (Herbert 1997:1276)
  • 11. • As technology made the reproduction of art easier, artists realized machines could be the “servant of creativity”. (Herbert 1997:1276) • The rapid increase of technology in everyday life. Cars, sewing machines, electric lighting, subways, the cinema... (Herbert 1997)
  • 12. 1968, Jasia ReichardtLondon; DC; San Francisco
  • 13. 1970, Jack Burnham New York
  • 14. 1968, Pontus Hultén New York
  • 15. So what makes something “cyborg” art?
  • 16. A merging of man and machine (or woman)Hommage à Chrysler Corp. $he Richard Hamilton, 1957 Richard Hamilton, 1958
  • 17. Artificial life First Tighten Up on the Drums Norman White, 1969
  • 18. Intelligent art Voice Sadashi Inuzuka, 2006
  • 19. “ Today digital art –– actually all art –– has awareness. This has always been true, but we have now becomeaware of art’s awareness. Pieces listen to us, they seeus, they sense our presence and wait for us to inspire them, and not the other way around . . . Pieces of art are in a constant state of becoming. ” –– Rafael Lozano-Gemmer (McQuire and Radywyl 2010:18)
  • 20. How has technology changed our attitude toward art?
  • 21. Participation and collaboration Vectorial Elevation Rafael Lozano-Hemmer, 1999
  • 22. Art as an experience, not a product Mapping the studio! (Fat chance John Cage) Bruce Nauman, 2001
  • 23. De-emphasis of the individualA. Rejecting the commodification of art Banksy
  • 24. De-emphasis of the individual B. Loss of physical form http://www.osculator.net/doc/_media/manual:wacom_ptz0806.jpg
  • 25. “What is at stake in becoming digital for many of the artists isthe autonomous self. The autonomous self is grounded inthe physical world, with the hand acting as an extension of the self, leaving the embodied trace of the maker.” –– Tracey Bowen (Bowen 2003:227)
  • 26. De-emphasis of the individual C. Copies, copies, copies... (c) Marco Taiana Campbell’s Soup Cans Andy Warhol,1962
  • 27. How is this affecting us?
  • 28. “Seven decades later, this shift remains uneven andambiguous. The concept of authenticity remains alive and marketable, not least in the realm of photography where limited editions, signed copies, and ‘original’ prints abound with a vigour.” –– McQuire and Radywyl (2010:11)
  • 29. What I find most interesting about cyborg art is the way it seems to mimic our changing definition of information.
  • 30. It’s easily copied, we’re having a hard time determining who “owns” it . . .
  • 31. And, like information ––it has become transient and immaterial
  • 32. End
  • 33. References CitedBowen, Tracey. 2003 Making art in a digital/cyber culture: exploring the dialectic between the manual creator and the digital self. Digital Creativity 14(4): 219-229. Electronic document, http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=11693537&site=ehost-live, accessed February 24, 2011.Cheng, Scarlet 2010 Art, Technology and the Human Imperative. Ceramics: Art & Perception 79: 64-67. Electronic document, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=48444665&site=ehost- live, accessed February 5, 2011.Cooper, Thomas Joshua 1992 Dialogue With Photography. Manchester: Cornerhouse Publications.Gablik, Suzi 1995 Conversations Before the End of Time. New York: Thames and Hudson Inc.Gehl, John and Douglas, Suzanne 1999 Review of Understanding Media. In World & I 14(1). Electronic document, http:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=1460672&site=ehost-live, accessed February 5, 2011.Herbert, Robert 1997 The Arrival of the Machine: Modernist Art in, Europe, 1910-25. Social Research 64 (3): 1273-1305. Electronic document, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9710256744&site=ehost-live, accessed February 10, 2011.
  • 34. Kimmelman, Michael 2002 ART IN REVIEW; Bruce Nauman -- Mapping the Studio I (Fat Chance John Cage)’. New York Times, July 5. Electronic document, http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/05/arts/art- in-review-bruce-nauman-mapping-the-studio-i-fat-chance-john-cage.html, accessed February 28, 2011.Lozano-Hemmer, Rafael 2010 Vectorial Elevation. Electronic document, http://www.vectorialvancouver.net/, accessed February 28, 2011.McQuire, Scott and Radywyl, Natalia 2010 From Object to Platform: Art, digital technology and time. Time & Society 19(1): 5-27. Electronic document, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=a9h&AN=48616040&site=ehost-live, accessed February 10, 2011.Reid, John 1998 Photography & the Camera. Monkeyshines on Health & Science 4(1): 4-43. Electronic document, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=12907960&site=ehost- live, accessed January 25, 2011.Shanken, Edward 2005 Hot to bot: Pygmalion’s lust, the Maharal’s fear, and the cyborg future of art. Technoetic Arts: A journal of Speculative Research 3(1): 43-55. Electronic document, http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=17287387&site=ehost-live, accessed January 25, 2011.