“ 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)
“ 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)
• As technology made the reproduction of art easier, artists realized machines could be the “servant of creativity”. (Herbert 1997:1276)
• 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)
1968, Jasia ReichardtLondon; DC; San Francisco
“ 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)
How has technology changed our attitude toward art?
Participation and collaboration Vectorial Elevation Rafael Lozano-Hemmer, 1999
Art as an experience, not a product Mapping the studio! (Fat chance John Cage) Bruce Nauman, 2001
De-emphasis of the individualA. Rejecting the commodiﬁcation of art Banksy
De-emphasis of the individual B. Loss of physical form http://www.osculator.net/doc/_media/manual:wacom_ptz0806.jpg
“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)
De-emphasis of the individual C. Copies, copies, copies... (c) Marco Taiana Campbell’s Soup Cans Andy Warhol,1962
“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)
What I ﬁnd most interesting about cyborg art is the way it seems to mimic our changing deﬁnition of information.
It’s easily copied, we’re having a hard time determining who “owns” it . . .
And, like information ––it has become transient and immaterial
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.
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.