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/>