THE ELECTRONIC AGE AND NEW MEDIA ART
Technology & Contemporary Art
Evolutions in technology and our relationship with mediums in art-making are organizing factors in the formation of culture, cyclically inciting more revolutionary advancements in art making practices. Artists, communities and nations simultaneously contribute to an exponentially incorporative and mutative global culture. Perpetual advancements in technology and the ongoing transformation of material and method are not only driving forward new art forms, they continuously regenerate the conditions by which we define ourselves and each other. It is this identifying process wherein our interpretive reception of content and medium informs the way we re-imagine ourselves. It is the “how” of who we think we are, how we “extend ourselves” into the future. We receive the modern with an increasingly global awareness resulting from the sharing of experience and knowledge. It is our skills in the application of techniques and technologies that determines both our participation in a global culture as well as the development of our personal identities and those of our immediate and extended communities. Our identities are affected by the cycle of creation, interpretation and representation, we are continuously evolving our understanding of ourselves and our roles in our environment.
In short, this essay is an investigation into how the progressively expansive reach of information and the mass production of new technologies effectively broadens the possibilities of art making practices. With reference to the works, writings, sculptures, and video art by Marshall Mcluhan, John Cage, Bill Viola, and Peter Campus, and sociological studies by Hall et al. This paper elaborates upon the cyclic nature of discovering new mediums, the need for a conscious choice in exploring all that results from human development and describes the relationship between the practices of creating art which result in our perceived representation and definitions of culture and art and the ongoing transformation of our shared reality.
Embedded within contemporary art-making practices are the seeds of new mediums and methods by which we create the next art forms; with every iteration of a generation and the introduction of technological advancements, exists the framework for the creative expression and exploration of future generations. In other words, it is an evolutionary process where an amalgamation of form and practice are compounded into the new. This ongoing social mechanism is articulated by Marshall McLuhan (1964) in his book “The Medium Is The Message”, he states: “the personal and social consequences of any medium–that is, of any extension of ourselves–result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by each extension of ourselves, or by any new technology” (McLuhan p.7). In other words, with every new medium comes a new outlet for human interaction, a new platform where we may communicate ideas and in turn, these new mediums can have a transformative effect on culture, their effect can be measured in the amount of socially organizing consequences they generate. As pointed out by McLuhan (1964), he states “it is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action” (McLuhan, p.8). The social behaviour that results from our integration of modern form becomes representations of ourselves, and our communities.
In essence what is articulated is the pattern by which the discovery of new mediums is layered. At the periphery of every medium is found the capacity to move forward and the pressures upon which we act to break through to the next medium as could be inferred by McLuhan’s (1964) mention of the “great pattern of being that reveals new and opposite forms just as the earlier forms reach their peak performance” (p.9). As such, the pattern is the framework for progression which essentially gives motion to the perpetual redefining of culture. McLuhan (1964) discusses the evolutionary pattern of codependence between content and medium where “the “content” of any medium is always another medium” (p.7). The examples he provides where “the content of writing is speech, just as the written word is the content of print” (p.8) is suggestive of the successive yet dependant nature of this evolutionary process. McLuhan further states, with reference to new media studies the importance of considering both “the medium and the cultural matrix within which the particular medium operates”(p.9). In other words, not only is the medium the message but the cultural matrices wherein these mediums are received and integrated have a reciprocal impact on ensuing mediums. Thus, medium is connected to culture as if it were originating from its own womb, or rather, Mcluhan’s unusual analogy of the chicken and the egg (p.9). As such, It is these radical ways of thinking that alter our perception of what is truly meant by McLuhan in his statement “the medium is the message”. He requires us to challenge our perception of the finite and instead perceive the ways that each component of our world interacts. It is not lost on the reader the clever way in which McLuhan employs the example of the light bulb “illuminating a connection”(p. 8). Furthermore, McLuhan challenges his reader to ponder on concepts that have shaped our modern world such as electricity, transportation etc. Mcluhan identifies “for the “message” of any medium or technology is the change of scale or pace or pattern that it introduces into human affairs”(p.9). In turn, with every new technology that we grow accustomed to, our societal behaviours become a renewed modern standard.
In sum, McLuhan’s elucidations of the successive evolution of medium and content have been capitalized upon by artists, they are often responded to in a variety of creative ways as we will explore later. Our response to new mediums is in part what fuels the evolutionary process of expression. As artists, it is our creative contributions that support the framework for the defining of culture, it is the art that we create which identifies us.
New mediums are brought about with the evolution of technology. New ways of making art are found in the exploring of these new technologies. In order to make new art or explore art making differently, artists must participate in an ongoing fusioning of new mediums, and partake in the sharing of their experiences with the growing global culture. The perspicacious writings of John Cage (1961) make allusions to this process, he states “magnetic tape was used not simply to record performances of music but to make a new music that was possible only because of it” (Cage). In other words, we are continually learning how to interact with the mediums of today in order to speak today’s language. The transformative progression of techniques in art making is largely instigated by this constant modernization of society.
Alternatively, should one wish to ride the wave, to partake in the reimagining of culture and identity, they need to be open to alternative receptions of the natural world around them, as expressed in John Cage’s (1961) essay, Silence: Lectures and Writings in the case of the musician, “then, he implies, one can begin to benefit from the appreciation of our integral and inspirational world of nature”. Cage argues the advantages in realizing the interconnectedness of humanity and nature, he states “This psychological turning leads to the world of nature, where, gradually or suddenly, one sees that humanity and nature, not separate, are in this world together; that nothing was lost when everything was given away. In fact, everything was gained” (John Cage). It is explained that one can benefit from an understanding of the intrinsic relationship between nature and human technological development. He highlights the immediacy of the potential in understanding these concepts, Cage imparts that “we are in fact, technically equipped to transform our contemporary awareness of nature’s manner of operation into art” (Cage) and as such, that alternative ideologies will alter ideas. Additionally, the creation of art as a response to an evolving perception of our natural world is intensified by many advancements in technology. Cage’s television appearance in the 1960 TV show, “I’ve Got A Secret”, demonstrating his interpretation of what constitutes music is an exemplary case of the integration of his “response to nature” (Cage). He shares his exploring of the “parting of ways” (Cage). This participatory, performative and publicized impression is, with the advent of television, culturally engaged. Cage communicates to numerous people at the same time, he states “…I consider music the production of sound (…) I produce sound and call it music…” (Water Walk, 1960), his actions here, affected the developing minds in the many viewers of that time. In sum, the process of the recomposing of culture, national identity and communities is enmeshed with the consequences of the popularization of new forms and art practices and the simplification of technique and contemporary movements in art-making. Nature will always be there to enkindle our inspirational feelings, or as Cage (1961) phrased it, “emotions (…) are continually aroused by our encounters with nature” (Cage). As such, we unfailingly find creative inspiration from nature in all aspects of art as well as in human technological development. Cage makes clear that technology is a process of nature and developing increasingly meaningful connections between oneself and the modern is completely “natural”. What is required however, is the “fearlessness” to think differently, to be “woken up” (Cage) to alternative modes of reception. Only then, can we participate in the shifting of paradigms. Moreover, this process, extends our culture into the future. Renouncing the modernized standard and peering into the depths of the unknown with the help of contemporary tools upon which we are continually developing and expanding, we fundamentally change and re-appropriate meaning, recontextualizing our modern reality, forcing on ourselves an adaptive reconstruction of the social organism. Cage puts it well and simply in his stating “one may fly if one is willing to give up walking” (Cage). Put differently, efforts in acting alternatively or divergently from the “norm” could engender revolutions in art making. These changes have a social impact, as Mcluhan (1964) states the “true social and political navigation depend upon anticipating the consequences of innovation” (p.). It is through careful analysis that artists can remain vigilant towards the waves that shape the shores of cultural awareness and knowledge.
As outlined in the previous arguments by McLuhan and Cage, art, technology, and the perpetual cycle of innovation, are symbiotically connected to culture and self expression. This is exemplified in the 1972 video installation by Peter Campus, entitled Interface where the viewer encounters an image of themselves shows how there was, at least by this artist, a turning inward– an inner focus that could only really be examined through these newfound capabilities. In this piece, Campus has employed technology as a lens through which we may examine ourselves. In this piece, the viewer sees themselves from a new and different perspective, the overlapping images of their reflected selves and projected selves fade and shift. These affordances brought about by works like Campus’ Interface are such that we can exercise or practice a mental shift in paradigms, a change in focus of art and culture as perhaps becoming more individualistic. In other words, Peter Campus, in expressing his desire to uncover himself through the practice of creatively exploring the technology of his culture is reciprocally providing the very conditions in which culture evolves. One of Campus’ mentees and renowned video artist as well, Bill Viola, discusses aspects of the matter further, he states “Co-existing with one’s own self-image is an inherently paradoxical, tautological situation. Up to this point it had only been a philosophical conundrum described in literature, but now, with the advent of the live camera, it was given palpable form” (Viola, p.74). Put differently, encountering ourselves or a version of ourselves has always shown to be an enigmatic philosophical dialogue, and because of evolutions in technology, we can uncover or expose and even re-imagine perceptions of ourselves.
Partaking in the ongoing process of modernization, continually adapting our techniques and methods in contemporary ways invites the next generation to examine and develop their interpretation of reality. The masterfully crafted Ocean Without a Shore – Venice Biennale 2007 By Bill Viola, demonstrates this, the video installations seeks to extend the lens and mirror-like qualities of the technology and focuses them onto concepts of mortality and the relationship between reality and signal or image fidelity. The piece consists of Individual plasma screens showing people passing through thresholds of water in super slow motion, as if they were entering into our world from beyond the grave- using monochromatic and low resolution to depict faded memory of long lost loved ones, they come through the water wall into our living world and become a high definition and full color video. In essence, working alongside Peter Campus, Viola was shown the capacity of video art to incite personal reflection and successively creates the opportunity for more cogitation through his own work. Ocean Without a Shore is a prime example of the practical and meaningful execution of a video artwork and yet also indicates an attention to mortality and the desire to extend our sensory limitations. Both Campus and Viola can be seen to be examining the fragility of life with the use of evolving technological prostheses and that this very action constructs the environment for the next generation, the evolutions in culture, the next form of expression.
The complicit shaping of culture transcends works of art and is in essence, a dialogue shaping our identities. The recomposing and re-creation of culture is in itself an instigative interactive exchange between past present and future, as Hall (1996) further explains:“the discourse of national culture (…) constructs identities which are ambiguously placed between past and future. It straddles the temptation to return to former glories and the drive to go deeper into modernity” (Hall et al, p.10). What is defined as culture is “a discourse – a way of constructing meanings which influences and organizes both our actions and our conceptions of ourselves” (Hall et al, p.8). In other words, especially regarding art, meaning itself is constructed out of what, the collective “we” perceive produce and conceive. This is reminiscent of the arguments put forth by Mcluhan outlined above (p.9): whether the egg begot another egg or another chicken is an argument that will never reach a causal explanation but one that requires us to rather, think radically, shifting between thoughts of how two abstract concepts can relate to each other. It is customs and traditions that create significance, we thrive on the message for we relate to the story of its unfolding, as elucidated by Hall et al (1996): “cultures construct identities by producing meanings (…) with which we can identify; these are contained in the stories which are told about it, memories which connect its present with its past, and images which are constructed of it” (Hall et al, p.8). We are invited to see ourselves in the representation of national identity, and our future selves in the re-imagined community in our minds. Our attachment to the continually reconstructed meanings associate our preceding and present realities; and in turn creating coherence, as such: “Invented traditions make the confusions and disasters of history intelligible, converting disarray into “community” and disasters into triumphs”(Hall et al, p.9). This process in essence serves to create order out of chaos, cohesion being at the core of a community identity. Hall (1996) argues that “instead of thinking of (…) cultures as unified we should think of them as constituting a discursive device which represents difference as unity or identity” (p.12). It is the cyclical and symbiotic process that simultaneously connects the culture making process and the art making process which propels us forward.
We seek to immortalize our existence with every new extension of ourselves. Partaking in the ongoing process of modernization, continually adapting our techniques and methods in contemporary ways. We are constantly merging our present realities with our aspirations. This adaptive process is the natural way that society evolves and new art-making practices emerge. Evolutions in technique are guided by our individually developed notions of quality and a mutually shared interest in the perpetuating of our ideas beyond our own lifetimes. It is the ideas that are important. A growing expanse of communication and development in technology changes the methods of our behaviour, our growing connections widen the breadth of the evolving global awareness. For example, consider the limits in pigments of early art practices, while today we have a large selection of pigments, colors and shades to choose from, this was not always the case. Artists and the works they create are subject to the capacity of the technologies at hand. Throughout our lives, as we nurture the intrinsic meaningful reception of truth and beauty in nature, we in turn drive our creativity to new heights. Strongly connected with our search for knowledge is our thirst for creativity, always seeking to find out more about everything; and are therefore, building and creating upon our past experiences.
Artists constantly reorganize culture in relation to the present moment and our ability to focus on the innovative placement of technology demonstrates our capacity to coordinate these practices into coherent bodies of work, with which we can examine our present state of being, revealing in many ways, representations of our present identities. As such, culture is what makes art great and conversely art is what makes culture great. Through the great art we treasure, and the techniques we deem timeless, our art essentially extends our existence, transcending time, space, and most importantly the infinite yet indelible connection between people.
McLuhan, M. – “The Medium Is The Message” Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York, Toronto, London: McGraw Hill, 1964
Cage, John – Experimental Music “Silence: Lectures and Writings”
Middletown CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1961
Cage, John – Water Walk “I’ve Got A Secret”
Something Something broadcasters corp. 1964
Hall, Stuart – Modernity: an introduction to modern societies
Viola, Bill – Peter Campus, Image And Self
Art In America
Viola, Bill – Bill Viola – Ocean Without a Shore – Venice Biennale 2007
Campus, Peter – Interface (Class Slides)
The future of our global social welfare relies in our ability to grow our collaborative and creative capacities to relate to one another, to create and reimagine our world together as a unified organism. Are we continuously honing our collective skills in problem solving and expanding our self awareness through collaborative expression and art making? What is institutional education’s role in the development of today’s artists? This essay examines the emergence of interdisciplinarity in art practice and its effects on social progress and shows that within the process of mixing ideas, essentially bringing different things together, we invariably create something greater than the sum of its individual parts. With this in mind, we will examine the works and writings of Richard Wagner, Walter Gropius, Hannes Meyer, John Cage, Buckminster Fuller, and Joseph Albers in an attempt to identify the growing interest and action toward social equality and cultural progress through collaborative problem solving and educational reform. Additionally, I hope to show how the development of multidisciplinary art making –disregarding archaic models of class structure through a remodelling of institutional education, has enormous impact on the ways we imagine and create our future. Through these findings, we can learn an expanded definition of art and art making, one which allows us the consideration that we as a creative society, are in a constant state of making, both creating and participating in a total world of art.
Richard Wagner’s total artwork, the Gesamtkunstwerk, is described in The Art-Work of the Future by Charles Harrison et al as “a single artistic enterprise to which the different arts were to contribute” (p. 471) In other words, a sole work comprised of many disciplines. Fundamentally, Wagner describes his concept as primarily housed in the theater, his total work of art, containing all art forms is necessarily a Drama and according to him, one which is wholly representative of life and is therefore a “total” or complete work. (p. 471) Additionally, he explored the potential for changing how art is valued through architectural considerations and tried to articulate relationships between the art forms. “The Art-work of the future is an associate work, and only an associate demand can call it forth”. Put differently, the artists making the “Art-work of the future” and according to Wagner, the Artists of the future will be of the folk, (p. 477) those who fight for social progress and equality. The worker-artist, the poet craftsman.
In contrast to Wagner’s Drama, Walter Gropius’ idea of the total work of art is “the complete building” . (Walter Gropius, Programme of the Staatliches Bauhaus in Weimar, 1921). He founded the Bauhaus and set the the tone for its educational model. Gropius’ pragmatic efforts challenged the academic norms of the time which, asserting tradition left little room for innovation. Accordingly he states, of Bauhaus principles that “Art rises above all methods […] a thorough training in the crafts, acquired in workshops and on experimental and practical sites, is required of all students as the indispensable basis for all artistic production”. (p. 50) In other words, Gropius called for a return to the workshop and a recombining of craft into art making. He considered the workshop to be the perfect site from which to fuse form and aesthetics with experience and functionality. Additionally, he wished to dissolve the boundary between traditional art teaching and art crafts, between traditional art education and developing the new and progressive artist-workers of the world whose artworks could actually do things. (p. 49) Respectively, he states “The schools of art were unable to produce this unity: how could they, since art cannot be taught. They must be merged once more with the workshop”. In other words, The current stasis in creative education was such that nothing new could arise from it. In addition, he reflected that art must be applied and made useful. Considering that the traditional education model was incapable of integrating innovation and art education, he sought to find ways to break down those barriers. Essentially, Gropius’ interdisciplinary educational model calls for non-hierarchical and collaborative relationships between artists from all disciplines, “to bring together all creative effort into one whole” (p. 50). Gropius’ Bauhaus had with it a political perspective. Gropius, due to his political standings could only continue his career in the United States.He fled Germany through the 1930s and made his way to the United States where he continued his career in Architecture and teaching.
Many concepts of Gropius’ Bauhaus were brought to the United States through the foundational teachings of Hannes Meyer. His perspective was that a synthesis of all Arts is in essence architectural and naturally extends to social development. Largely scientific, his approach to art education was particularly pragmatic and functionalist. More precisely, he believed that the sharing of ideas and knowledge can be put to use to tackle real social problems. Additionally, that architecture should not be wasteful. (Essentially, Meyer considered the pure use-value of raw materials and simple forms with a preference to functionality over aesthetics.
He taught that for what we create to have meaning it need only to be designed with purpose; stating “All things in this world are a product of the formula: (function times economy)” (p. 117)
In other words, everything we create is a consequence of the relationship between our functional and our social base requirements. As such, new designs especially living spaces are built to meet our human needs. As a result, these new home designs become not only a ‘machine for living’, but also a biological apparatus serving the needs of body and mind”. (p. 117) In other words, the modern home is more than just a place to live, it takes on a more organic and symbiotic relationship to our mode of living. Meyer explained that one must fully comprehend the limits of their materials in order to be innovative with them. He stated, “Only when you understand what is possible can you innovate.” In other words, innovation is always within the constraint of the materials. Meyer also shows us that his teachings in design, fundamental to human needs have no borders, or as he puts is; “This world of constructive form knows no native country. It is the expression of an international attitude” (p. 119). Essentially, his was a call to rekindle and inspire our inner artist and to try and provide a framework through which we might better understand how to access the potential in our many tools of expression. Moreover, favoring functionality and social welfare, Meyer rejected innate genius and conceptual art over functional and useful design. In sum, This ongoing questioning of the general nature of art resulted in a complete overturning of the Bauhaus education. Where once a politicized enculturation of art and craft was taught now thrived a pragmatic approach to design, architecture, and social welfare.
As new perspectives on education and social reform made their play in the media spheres, open and collaborative experiments in thought, play and creativity were beginning to proliferate among academic thinkers, artists, and teachers. Namely, Black Mountain College, home to the teachings of Joseph Albers, John Cage and Buckminster Fuller, was a new open and free space where experimentations in art, design and social progress seemed to take on a life of their own., came a rhetoric which echoed the reform of education depicted by of John Dewey. These newly changed dominant model from Bauhaus Functionality, Form, into primarily social mobilization, group creativity, collaborative decision making.
For Albers, experimentation meant the “rigorous and and rational testing of carefully controlled and evaluated outcomes” (p. 7)
“rather than any definite outcomes […] promoted forms of experimentation and learning in action that could dynamically change routine habits of seeing” (p. 6)
The “arrangement of a work of art could mirror the way one organizes events outside the work of art” (p. 6)
Cage: John Cage Expanded meanings of music. In contrast, Cage simplifies Albers’ teachings to say any “act with unexpected results” is one of experimentation. (p. 6) and further divides his thinking from Albers’ explaining that any “procedural observation” or intention impedes upon the freedom of the art work, that they serve “to control results and impose a restrictive order of calculated effects.”(p. 7) “Cage increasingly views experimentation as a terrain of chance” (p. 7) The unconventional techniques Cage employs in his performance challenge the receiver to think about the notion that all sound in nature can be musical. As such, we unfailingly find creative inspiration from nature in all aspects of art as well as in human technological development. Cage’s work makes clear that technology is a process of nature and developing increasingly meaningful connections between oneself and the modern is completely natural. What is required however, is the fearlessness to think differently, to be woken up to alternative modes of reception. Renouncing the modernized standard and peering into the depths of the unknown with the help of contemporary tools upon which we are continually developing and expanding, we fundamentally change and re-appropriate meaning, recontextualizing our modern reality, forcing on ourselves an adaptive reconstruction of the social organism.
Making art with our bodies, circumstance, performance and chaos.
Compositions made of sets of instructions allowing for interpretive freedom, creating unique experience. For example Cage’s Piano activities performed by Philip Corner 1962
A disruption of established reception of art Anti establishment?
For example, the Total Art Matchbox “Flux Year Box 2.”
Invested in experimenting between poetry theater music and visual arts
Freedom, Hippie movement, War -effort mass productions and industrialization . future design, future material.
Buckminster Fuller’s Design science, most efficient success is found at the limit of failure. Sustainability, Future, the design revolution – upward balancing (not a downward pulling) Comprehensive Design. For Fuller, experimentation is “oriented toward the acceptance of unforeseen tactical failures in the interest of long-term strategic goals” (p. 8)
“Design for these men was not a product, but a social process” (p. 9)
“All attempt to establish experimentation in opposition of self-expression or immediacy” (p. 9)
“The widespread association in postwar society between experimentation and cultural value, following the immense technological advancement of the of the war-driven economy, no doubt influenced the frequency of the term’s invocations” (p.12)
According to Dick Higgins, in his The Something Else NEWSLETTER, “We are approaching the dawn of a classless society, to which separation into rigid categories is absolutely irrelevant” (p. 1)
The “happening” developed as an intermedium, an uncharted land that lies between collage, music, and the theater.” (p. 3)
“The use of intermedia is more or less universal throughout the fine arts”
To summarize, as we progress toward social equality through the rethinking of our cultural mores, collaborative problem solving and educational reform are core elements to revolutions in design. Additionally, I have shown how the development of interdisciplinary has had an enormous effect on our social evolution.
Harrison, Charles, Paul Wood, and Jason Gaiger. Art in Theory, 1815-1900: An Anthology of Changing Ideas. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998.
Conrads, Ulrich. Programs and Manifestoes on 20th-century Architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971, 49-53
Hannes Meyer, “Building” (1928), in Programs and Manifestoes on 20th Century Architecture. Ulrich Conrads, ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1970, 117-20
Díaz, Eva. The Experimenters: Chance and Design at Black Mountain College.
Higgins, Dick. Intermedia. New York: Something Else Press, 1966.
“The Gesamtkunstwerk required an institutional frame (the theatre), whereas the constructed situation existed outside of all institutional confines. Making reference to four or five course Readings and a selection of case studies presented in class, discuss how key thinkers and artists in Unit 1 and Unit 2 valued formal institutions for art or education. -How may their relative commitment to or rejection of formal institutions be explained by the distinct social and political contexts in which they worked? -What may it tell us about their priorities, blind spots, and commitments to art or political change?”
CREATIVE COLLABORATION (WIP)
Today’s technologically mediated, highly networked and real-time interactive modes of creativity hold the potential to organize and facilitate revolutionary thinking and action. Interactive and collaborative art making is becoming more and more instrumental in the development of our socio-cultural perceptions. In addition, evolutions and advancements in our ability to perceive ourselves and our environment play a significant role in the process of self-definition, expression and awareness amongst individuals, communities and even between nations. These advancements in technology are such that the normative social customs which govern our participation in the various modes of expression are constantly forced to evolve. As such, collective art-making and creative practices should reflect this in pressing upon the fore of technological advancement, affording us a greater perceptual capacity to experience our socio-cultural state of being. Essentially, we must exercise our collective creative faculty in order to better analyze our present moment and to envision a better future.
Evolutions in artistic tendencies, particularly a progression from individualistic expression to more collaborative and experiential explorations in collective creative thinking, reflect our interest and desire to act and think together. Not only have we become connected universally- we are now beginning to act as one global body, one creative organism, increasing our capacity to solve problems immensely larger than our own.
Embracing the reciprocal impact of technology to art-making is essential should we wish to unleash the creative potential in communally interactive and collaborative art practices.
Art affects how we think. Revolutions in art making have repeatedly and meaningfully impacted sociocultural progression, they have organized populations, fueled political movements and incited whole revolutions.
Are these not equally revolutions in our perception, extending and expanding our abilities to re-imagine our very existence? New-Media, Interactive Artists, Designers and Programmers! We must embrace, and explore the mediums through which we can express ourselves as a community, a city, or even country . Bringing about positive change will be done through these very same methods, we will strengthen our collective consciousness and bring about positive change.
The adoption of creative practices depend on the affordances their methods provide. Likewise, collaborative and collective creativity is promoted through the design of intuitive and easy to understand objects, interfaces, and environments.
Interactions should incite the development of social values and ethics. Adapting creative practices to new technologies extends the significance of the cultural reference points, images and social symbols.
The conditions that make up our perceptions of the relationship between art and technology are reliant upon the very changes incurred by the binding of developments in technology and the creative interventions which press upon thresholds of possibility. The transformative effect on the way we interpret the world instigated by technology and the reproducibility of art is in itself a cycle where our reactionary behaviours and deliberate decisions conduct and inform prospective modes of being, transforming the very structure of experience.
–the way we interpret the world.
Revolutionary advancements in art making practices contribute to an exponentially inclusive and mutative global culture-making process. In addition, the increasingly creative use of technology and the ongoing transformation of material and method are not only driving forward new art forms, they continuously regenerate the conditions by which we define ourselves and relate to each other. It is this identifying process wherein our interpretive reception of content and medium informs the way we re-imagine ourselves. It is the “how” of who we think we are, how we “extend ourselves” into the future. Put differently, the recomposing and re-creation of culture is in itself an instigative and interactive exchange between past, present and future. From the earliest forms of shadow play and cave drawings, our interactions with image-making or narrative-sharing, our capacity to project ideas and concepts outward into the world and share them with others, amplifies our aptitude for evolution. Clearly, image-making has greatly impacted our evolutionary process, continuously mediating our existence, it has allowed us to develop relationships between each other and helped us form our cultural identities as well as our capacities to perceive and experience life, essentially inciting socially constructive culture-making processes and establishing relationships between whole groups of people, and their environments. Therefore, evolutions in creativity are socially organizing factors in the formation of culture. Fundamentally, technology influences and lends itself to modern art practices which in many ways define the boundary of cognitive potential. Essentially, while advancements in technology will continuously change the way we associate ourselves, only through creative interpretations and meaningful executions of interactive art, especially through collaborative art-making is what pushes the limits of our imaginations.
The conceptual affordances qualified through our sensory interaction with the physical are the sequential physical reception of material and medium, and the comprehension of the forms and symbols they represent, put it in simple terms, is a combining of what we sense mixed together with what we understand. As such, image is a process through which humans understand the world and more importantly each other. Image is not only the synthesis of our tangible world and the perception of concept, it is simultaneously that which allows us the ability to recognize the materiality of the physical itself,
The visual landscape of our modern world has, through the widespread proliferation and manipulation of concept through a playful and sometimes arbitrary mixing of ideas, has become an enormous interactive group project.
Interactive engagement with the physical through which we cognitively process the world and communicate with one another. As I understand it, we are in many ways, throughput devices for an infinitely expansive and developing framework of ideas in our collective minds which in turn help us advance or develop our ability to explore life’s many curiosities. Thus, our contemporary situation has become dependant upon complexified and compounded structures of ideas and knowledge, imbued with a mighty dose of self-awareness and shared experience.
Be it religious, political or economic, our reception of image will always play a key role in the governance of society. The digital image however, has completely transformed how the modern world conditions itself. In providing a framework where ideas are exchanged, manipulated and developed at individual and global scales, we are in turn, rewarded with an exponential rate of discovery and invention propelling ourselves into the future.
A design model for human connection which encourages the reimagining of the world,
We live in a constructed reality through which we understand ourselves and each other as well as our environment our space. To engage with the continual process of re-imagination and collective creativity, artists must create art that pressures the limits of the medium.
Now, more than ever, is the time to produce art socially and collectively!
technology as a lens through which we may examine ourselves.
we unfailingly find creative inspiration from nature in all aspects of art as well as in human technological development.
the process of the recomposing of culture, national identity and communities is enmeshed with the consequences of the popularization of new forms and art practices and the simplification of technique and contemporary movements in art-making.
What is required however, is the fearlessness to think differently, to be woken up to alternative modes of reception. Only then, can we participate in the shifting of paradigms. Renouncing the mundane standard and peering into the depths of the unknown with the help of contemporary tools upon which we are continually developing and expanding, we fundamentally change and re-appropriate meaning, recontextualizing our modern reality, forcing on ourselves an adaptive reconstruction of the social organism. A process which, expands our social awareness. Similarly, efforts in acting alternatively or divergently from the norm will engender revolutions in art making. These changes have a social and political impact. Artists, who can carefully analyze and utilize these tendencies might begin to direct the waves that shape the shores of cultural awareness and knowledge.
The inter-cultural creative exploration of technology is reciprocally providing the very conditions in which those cultures evolve.
encountering ourselves or a version of ourselves has always shown to be an enigmatic philosophical dialogue, and because of evolutions in technology, we can uncover or expose and even re-imagine perceptions of ourselves.
Partaking in the ongoing process of modernization, continually adapting our techniques and methods in contemporary ways invites the next generation to examine and develop their interpretation of reality.
It is the cyclical and symbiotic process that simultaneously connects the culture making process and the art making process which propels us forward.
We seek to immortalize our existence with every new extension of ourselves. Partaking in the ongoing process of modernization, continually adapting our techniques and methods in contemporary ways. We are constantly merging our present realities with our aspirations. This adaptive process is the natural way that society evolves and new art-making practices emerge. Evolutions in technique are guided by our individually developed notions of quality and a mutually shared interest in the perpetuating of our ideas beyond our own lifetimes. It is the ideas that are important. A growing expanse of communication and development in technology changes the methods of our behaviour, our growing connections widen the breadth of the evolving global awareness.