Art Remediated...

According to Bolter and Grusin, digital arts is defined as graphic, static images made of pixels rather than oils or watercolors. That is, computer programs and the algorithms which support them are the tools that the digital artist uses and the computer screen is their canvas. Content varies from immersive illustration to highly mediated multimedia imagery.

The goal of the digital artist, with respect to immediacy, tends to vary depending on the composition and the elements used within the imagery. For example, Bolter and Grusin note that fantasy illustration is a popular theme among digital artists. In this genre, the digital artists attempts to achieve immediacy by creating a space in which they imagine to be real. On the other hand, digital artists who use a variety of elements that are clearly derived from different forms of media, seek to enhance the experience in a way that the viewer is well aware of the use of multimedia objects.

What differentiates the digital artist from the analog artists of the past? Some might claim the computer aids in the creation of a piece of digital art, thus discarding the artist's claim that what they have created is indeed art. The critic asserts that the digital artist has many menu options at hand in order to determine the most appealing look; a "happy accident" it is sometimes called. In comparison, the artists from the past spent hours painting and repainting over areas they were not happy with and only stopped when they were. A true artist is not satisfied until what they envisioned in their mind is executed properly, be it paint on canvas proper or pixels on a computer screen.

The masters of the past were experts at manipulating their tools, their canvases, and their palettes to achieve their vision. So too are digital artists. They achieve their visions with different tools, different palettes, and a different canvas. And like the artists of the past, they too react and contribute to the culture in which they live in.

The difference between the artists of the past, particularly pre-Impressionism, and the artists since, is their focus on immediacy. Prior to Impressionism the objective for the artist was to remove his presence from his work. Techniques these artists worked slavishly to master were proper perspective and proportion, realistic execution, and erasure of their brushstroke. Once photography claimed a more immediate reflection of nature, artists abandoned their attempts of immediacy for a much more hypermediated experience. Impressionistic techniques created only implications of form. Picasso, inspired by the invention of film, attempted to create multiple views of the person in a single form. Pollack, among others, had no problem leaving his paint on the surface of the canvas which created a three dimensional texture, wholly contradicting the erasure processes of the past. And Dadaism removed any effort at immediacy that might have remained. All of these styles were indeed meant to be abosrbed, but by no means intended to be realistic.

Two centuries after the evolution away from immediacy in art, the digital artist relishes in hypermediacy in its purist definition. The more the visibility of mediation, the better. As mentioned above, some digital artists do still attempt immediacy by attending to proper perspective and proportion, however, it is more common to witness the hypermediated alternative.

As Bolter and Grusin note, everything has been remediated since the beginning of writing. On a larger scale, and with centuries of impressions burned in our minds, as artists, it is difficult not to remediate. We often create with styles and images from the past in our minds. A type of Creative Commons if you will. We borrow from the past to create the cultures of today. Our tools and canvases have changed, as too have our intentions. The culture of today is one deeply ceded in technology, specifically digital apparatuses that we must master in order to stay employed. But even as we use our remediated tools and canvases, we are only responding to the generations of remediation that have come before.

Is progress such a bad thing........?

...and so the debate rages on. Something I find interesting in all the readings I do in EMAC is a consistent reaction to the introduction of new forms of technology. Throughout history cultures have gotten so stuck in their ways that when someone suggests something new, they tend to resist it.

For example, Benjamin spoke about the "aura" that once existed in art prior to mechanical reproduction. (I actually had another reading this semester on this very subject, but understand it better after reading Benjamin's article.) And, I must admit, that "aura" of process, place, time, and experience, or, "authenticity" intrigues me. I have an appreciation for the authentic so it also saddens me that this element in art no longer exists, at least in the form Benjamin spoke of.

However, if there were never any change, there would never be any progress. Yes, I agree with both Benjamin and Nichols that changes in technology create social and political shifts in society. But I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing. In fact, to the contrary. Most technological advancements throughout history have been for the good of society. Just because something changes the way people interact, accomplish tasks, or even approach art doesn't mean society is in a state of decay. Attitudes cause societal decay...but that's a topic for an entirely different discussion.

I think the underlying issue driving these continued debate(s) regarding advancements of any kind is the loss of control people feel when they are confronted with something they are unfamiliar with. Nichols talked about control in his article, but in a different way. Perhaps he skipped over the initial lack of control that I mentioned above, and got straight to the heart of the matter. Historically control has driven change. Nichols mentions the Great Exhibition of 1851 in which two permanent exhibitions, the zoo and the botanical gardens were unveiled and celebrated. In his perception, this event is an example of the human desire to control all things. In this instance, nature was taken out of it's natural condition so that the powers-that-be could make sense of it, or control it.

As such, the dawn of mechanical reproduction, photography, film, and now cybernetic systems (just to mention the one's discussed in the text) are all means to tighten control. In mechanical reproduction, the business owner could control and thus capitalize off the sweat of his workers. In photography, the camera could capture a more realistic representation of nature. In film, the director could create and control an imaginary world. Cybernetics operates in a fashion that can potentially control everything we do; most notably in his article, what type of baby you would like to have...if you don't like it, kill it. (I wonder what the Republicans have to say about that EXTREMELY DISTURBING fact?! Oh, I forgot, it's the rich people who are doing it).

So, progress changes our perceptions, our social interactions, and our overall culture. But isn't that what it's supposed to do? If advancements make the world a better place to live, isn't it all worth the initial uncertainty? The implications of cybernetic systems are far greater than anything that has come before. By sharing ideas, culture, music, even video, with people from all around the world, we can start to build global alliances and perhaps take a small step toward world peace. Will we take advantage of all the opportunities that are literally at our fingertips? Or will regulation take hold before these greater potentials are realized? But if we all got along, the folks who like to "control" things wouldn't have anything to do...perhaps I just answered my own question.

So far.....

OK...I'm going a little off topic on this blog because I want to reflect on this semester in EMAC so far. Hopefully you will find it relevant. As I go through my readings and lectures, I find it amazingly relevant. The thing I find most amazing is the foresight that those who came before us had on emergent media. I sit here without a clue as to what will come next.

Was Shakespeare really referring to TV in Romeo and Juliet, or talking about new media in Othello? With this kind of genius or foresight, why haven't we yet found a cure for cancer? Or, for that matter world peace? These are a serious questions that are a lot more important than new media. But if that's what he was referring to I guess that's where we are.

So back to the topic at hand. How did we end up here? What we study in EMAC makes perfect since on how we ended up here. More and more I feel like a robot, although I know I'm not. The articles I read and the lectures I listen to make me feel that this time is not worthy of the past, however I know it is. Perhaps we do not speak the same language but our expressions are a direct reflection of the culture we live in.

As artists, our thoughts and actions are direct responses to how we feel and the attitudes we hold close. We express ourselves in ways no generation before could imagine. Perhaps it's imitation, but it's an imitation that brings people together. People can see eye-to-eye on a global level before unheard of. Is this the answer to world peace? I doubt it, but I think it could be a start....perhaps, maybe.

I think what amazes me most is that we do have all this global new media/technology, and through it all we still don't see eye to eye. I can dance with someone whose color or religion is not congruent with mine, and we both walk away knowing we will never be friends. And that makes me sad.

New media can bring us together in many, many forms; music, video, ideas, sports, interests, etc. Are the powers that be too wrapped up in the past to allow for a new type of global unity? I know what drives the resistance, but I do not understand it. Why not let the comadre of the internet be the beginning to world peace. Perhaps it is and I just haven't seen it yet.

So, with all the past foresight and the present knowledge, why are we not using technology for more good? I soon foresee many governmental regulations on what we see, post, and send online, but, again, I don't understand. Is it so bad to get along with our global neighbors? Is world peace really that scary? Or is it something that is out of the control of new media that keeps us from getting along?

I found the reading on "From Memory to Written Record" very interesting. It's one of those things we really don't think about now days. When I hear someone say "there is no written record" on this or that, I just think no one bothered recording it. I don't even think about the fact that it was before people kept written records, or, perhaps even before people knew how to read or write!

What I found even more interesting in this reading was the fact that the division of classes was just as prominent in 1066 as they are today. The same "privileged" classes were feeding their own, trying to widen the chasm between themselves and the so-called "illiterate".

What is it about groups or classes of people that give them the desire to prove themselves superior to other groups or classes of people? And who has bestowed upon themselves the authority to define what the words "literate" and "illiterate" mean? Language has always defined literacy, and by that I mean the common language and principles of a society.

Taking that question a step further in reflection of Fusser's article, if we all were to depend solely on electronic memory to perform mechanical calculations such as arithmetic, writing, grammar, spelling, etc. how will the word "illiterate" be defined at that point? And will only those who are skilled with computers be considered literate?

Seemingly, it would no longer be about knowing how to write properly or spell properly because the computer will do all that for you. But the computers of today have already proven they cannot always calculate everything properly. What will happen to language if spelling errors are not caught by this electronic memory. Will it become a muddled mess of illiteracy?

And how will this electronic memory effect education? Will schools stop teaching students how to write and spell words correctly? Will they stop teaching math? Will the necessary foundations of knowledge that Socrates explained to Phaedrus, become obsolete and unimportant?

If this were to happen, the chasm between literacy and illiteracy will surely widen even further and favor only those who can afford these devices with electronic memory...and for those who cannot, I guess they will remain illiterate, at least by someone's definition. A tragic regression in this great time of progress.

(And yes, I did run my electronic spell check on this blog entry).