June 28 2009
RAPIDART
Of all media, the intense revolutions of new technology seem to have spent the least amount of time in the art circuit; which is funny, because art has always been about changing and evolving through experimentation. There are plenty of Artists working with the high-tech, and even more simply patting themselves on the back with the benefits of the Personal Computer, but our fundamental relationship with Art remains the same. Is this a good or bad status quo?
Computers have led to the emergence of design fields alongside Art. In the same way that photography negated the need for news-ready lithographers, the draftsman and painter are currently being eclipsed by Adobe Illustrator and its ilk. But the production of band posters and fashion advertisements is not art. Art – even that involving modern tech – is still a vaguely defined activity mainly taking place in galleries and museums. Again, Art has been escaping those physical constraints for decades, but the average person on the street still thinks of paintings in a white cube when asked about Art. Irregardless of the type, Art still revolves around a singular experience, one which is fundamentally different than that of going to the movies or listening to a new LP. These mass-market art-forms are the ones that are drastically altered by new technologies, specifically: the Internet.
While music and movies can be copied entirely, there is very rarely a work of Art that can be reproduced to its fullest extent. A good exception is the work of Mark Essen, whose video games can be played on the walls of a museum or on one's own computer after downloading software from his website – which form is the truer form of the maker's intent, and which is more effective? Art can be documented and preserved through photographs or video, but these reproductions are not the experience's true essence, they're more like tire tracks. A full length album can be recorded in high quality WAV files, uploaded to the Internet and spread to an infinitely large audience within hours. The end result of the listener's experience is the same whether they pirate the music or get it through direct contact with its creators. Why can't this method be used to spread Art?
Now I would love to get an advance leak of this particular Artwork, but unfortunately it doesn't work like that. The experience of going to Roden Crater cannot be compressed into a 78 MB file. By definition mass media seems to admit certain compromises in order to appeal to a broader range. The unlimited possibilities of Art can be nothing but a blessing, because there is no uniform mode of communication in Art and the experiences it provides exist along an entirely relative scale. A benefit of Art could be precisely that there aren't millions of people clamoring to copy products online, though this view entails the risk of “Fine Art” becoming niche entertainment in the vein of opera. As people come to rely more and more on the Internet to experience the world, I expect our traditional notion of “Fine Art” will disappear in favor of new forms, new ways of communicating – instantly, around the world, and with hopefully with more and more affecting abilities.
The above image is my collection of images from other Artists (scanned from library books, ripped from websites etc...) which I'm not going around uploading to online communities, but... I could.The copyright legaity of my collection is totally dubious. It's entirely possible that covert groups have already formed around the intent of compressing Art into rar files. How about it, anyone know any Art uploading boards or .tif blogs?
Interested in buying or displaying a piece?
Please contact me at beandrew@gmail.com
All work and images © Benjamin Andrew 2009
All images on this site are licensed by Benjamin Andrew under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.