Saturday 21 May 2011

What Makes it Art?

I should probably preface this post with an admission. I really have no idea what actually constitutes a ‘new media’ artwork. At what point does a piece of art cross over into this realm of ‘new media’? What are the defining qualities of ‘new media’ artworks? Are there even any? To be quite honest, this whole concept of ‘New Media Art’ just seems so subjective to me. The very notion of what constitutes a work of art is very much a subjective concept in itself, and coupled with the inherently indistinct, fluid notion of ‘new media’, I can’t help but think that any attempt to form some sort of conclusive definition is futile.

Art & Perception

Of course if I can’t seem to decide exactly what constitutes a ‘new media’ artwork it makes it rather difficult to come to any conclusions. But nevertheless, the one thing that caught my attention more than anything else this week is art’s apparent capacity to alter our perception of the world. The notions of time, space and reality itself become subjects of interpretation and manipulation in virtually every example I have come across this week.

When I came across Nick Veasey’s X-ray art (1) in particular, it seemed to epitomize this reinterpretation or manipulation of reality. The entire premise of his art is an attempt to reveal to the world what is beneath the surface of the things we encounter everyday. He is literally making visible the invisible in everyday life.

Veasey with one of his X-ray artworks (3)
“We live in a world obsessed with image. What we look like, what our clothes look like, house, cars… I like to counter this obsession with superficial appearance by using X-rays to strip back the layers and show what it is like under the surface” reads Veasey’s artist statement. (2)

At its most fundamental level, Veasey’s artwork is a unique representation of reality, but is it really Veasey's use of new media techniques which facilitate this?

An image I produced in a basic darkroom
While it is certainly an innovative method of creating art, Veasey’s work still seems to be a new take on existing photographic techniques. On the one hand the technologies he uses are certainly ‘new’. High powered x-ray machines in specially built facilities with high resolution scanners and digital retouchers are at the center of Veasey’s process. (4) But at the same time you can produce essentially the same aesthetic with basic darkroom techniques.

The clarity of the image may not be the same, but the basic concept of revealing what is beneath the surface is still feasible with analogue technologies. As impressive as Veasey’s work is, it is still essentially a photogram. New media may have a capacity to alter our perception of the world. But when I really think about it, this is not a characteristic of ‘new media’ art exclusively, but rather a potential that exists in virtually all art forms.

But is it New Media Art?

‘New Media Art’ seems to me to be an umbrella term applied far too liberally and I really don’t see the significance behind the label itself. I guess the point I’ve been stuck on all week is that to me this notion of ‘new media art’ seems to draw a line between the then and now of creative techniques rather than recognizing the evolutionary progression of artistic forms.

For the first time in this course I've found myself wondering if perhaps we are overstating the implications of ‘new media’. In the case of art, I can’t help but think that while the techniques may be new, their fundamental implications are not necessarily so.

References:
  1. Nick Veasey 2011, Nick Veasey X-ray, <http://www.nickveasey.com/>
  2. Nick Veasey 2011, About: Artist Statement, Nick Veasey X-ray, <http://www.nickveasey.com/>
  3. Nick Veasey 2010, Victoria and Albert Museum, Camera-less Photography, Radar Ramblings, 2 November 2010, <http://nickveasey.blogspot.com/2010/11/victoria-and-albert-museum-cameraless.html>
  4. Nick Veasey 2011, About: Process, Nick Veasey X-ray, <http://www.nickveasey.com/>

Sunday 15 May 2011

And the Award Goes To…

Once again we seem to be looking at how we can define media and its role in society and culture, and to be quite honest, I don’t think I am any closer to an articulate response to the question. But that isn’t to say that I’ve learnt nothing over the past 10 weeks. I may not be able to articulate exactly what media is, or exactly how media fits in to wider social ecologies, but what is apparent is that the relationship between the two is increasingly co-dependent.

While I would not presume to try and predict where the future may actually take us, I am confident in saying that an ever greater recognition of the significance media holds in the wider social and cultural arena is sure to be a defining characteristic of that future. In fact, in a lot of ways it is already happening. Just look at Obama’s 2008 Campaign. Social networking platforms and online games were at the forefront of his political campaign and were considered instrumental in his election. But that is just the tipping point.

Jane McGonigal’s (1) take on the future seems to epitomize this shift in the perception of what media actually is and what role it can play. While her focus is on gaming specifically, McGonigal’s stance is indicative of an entirely new approach to the field. That is, an approach which recognizes the inherent potential of media to actively shape the world in which we live, in and of themselves.

The question is; in the grand scheme of things, just how significant can a game really be? Could a game designer really win a Nobel Peace Prize? McGonigal seems to think so (and in the not to distant future I might add). She is predicting that in just over 10 years (by 2023 to be exact) the first game designer will win the coveted prize. (2) When I first came across the statement I thought it was naive at best, if not down right ludicrous.

“Gaming can make a better world” according to McGonigal. (3)

But to be quite honest my first thoughts upon reading this statement were ones of skepticism. The phrase ‘make a better world’ just seems so utopian and games by their very nature are just frivolous entertainment right?

Clearly my own knowledge of game design is very much stuck back in the early 90s (which was probably a contributing factor to my initial skepticism), but after spending some time actually looking around McGonigal’s site I’m starting to think that she may actually have a point. These so called 'games' are not just mindless entertainment. For one thing, their capacity for social organization has already been clearly established and from what McGonigal is proposing, it seems that their potential in medicine and psychology is just beginning to be seen. Perhaps a Nobel Peace Prize isn't out of the question after all.

References:
  1. McGonigal, J 2011, You Found Me, http://janemcgonigal.com/ 
  2. ibid                                      
  3. ibid

Sunday 8 May 2011

Changing the World

Sharing is going to change the world, or at the very least, transform it. That seems to be the central point to all of the arguments I have read this week and I’d have to say that whether you’d like to admit it or not, they do make a very convincing argument.

The scientific field, as with virtually any other industry, has been completely uprooted by the development of new media and the new ecologies which have emerged as a result. In particular, the flow of information, both within the scientific field and in the wider environment is evolving. At the heart of this shift is the opening up of access to data. Instead of working against each other in a race to make the discovery that will change the world and thus ensure their infamy, scientist are increasingly pooling their collective data in the interests of furthering the scientific field, albeit at the expense of their individual recognition in many cases.

I can’t say that I really know all that much about science beyond the High School basics, but nevertheless, to me at least the field of genetics in particular seems to be tentatively embracing this more open and collaborative approach to scientific work. Just look at the Human Genome Project. The difference between independent competition and open collaboration seems clear in this instance. By opening the venture up to an international network of collaborating scientists, all of whom made their data instantly available, the progression of the project and the scientific process was streamlined. Moreover, the freely available data collected from the project has in turn fostered invaluable developments in the medical field.

“In the early 1980s, geneticists worked away in their different labs, racing to sequence genes and patent them before the neighbouring lab could. The result: duplication, very slow progress and a huge bill… So in 1986 they knocked some heads together, and decided they'd only fund geneticists who were willing to make their data available immediately. Nowadays, gene sequences get posted on the web daily and scientists build on one another's work. The pace of discovery has increased exponentially and, as a result, so have diagnostics and cures” writes Elizabeth Pisani. (1)

You cannot deny that by opening up scientific research data, the progress of discovery and innovation is streamlined, so you would think that what is undeniably a more efficient and productive approach to research would be welcomed. But of course this ‘sharing’ goes against the very premise on which the scientific field has been built. A strict hierarchical structure of recognition and acknowledgement, of discovery and reward has dictated the progression of scientific discovery; that is up until now. With the possibilities enabled by new media comes a new approach to the scientific field which seems to remove many of the rewards or incentives inbuilt into the preexisting system and those with a vested interest in the existing structure of the field are of course hesitant to embrace these new approaches.

For instance, while the Human Genome itself cannot be patented (2), removing much of the financial incentives for privatizing scientific work and enabling the apparent acceptance of this collaborative, networked approach to research in the field, resistance to these shifts are still very much apparent. It was Craig Venter who led the privatized effort to sequence the Human Genome (3) before it was declared that patents could not be applied, and now, rather than embracing this culture of ‘sharing’, Venter seems to be firmly invested in the preexisting structure of the scientific field. Last year he developed the first synthetic genome (4), seemingly bypassing the political imperatives to share his research. While sequencing the Human Genome may have lost its financial incentives, there is nothing to say that you can’t patent an artificial one (5) and I think it’s fair to assume that Venter patented his work.

The prospect of sharing may be a promising one, but we shouldn’t get too carried away. Clearly everyone isn’t embracing this collaborative approach with open arms and it would be naive to expect them to change their position without offering some sort of incentive to replace what they are losing.

References:
  1.   Pisani, Elizabeth (2011) ‘Medical science will benefit from the research of crowds’, The Guardian, January 11, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/11/medical-research-data-sharing>
  2. Wikipedia 2011, The Human Genome Project, Wikipedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Project> 
  3. Ibid 
  4. Sample, Ian (2010) ‘Craig Venter Creates Synthetic Life Form’, The Guardian May 2, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form> 
  5.  Wikipedia 2011, Gene Patent, Wikipedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_patent>