M.A. Digital Arts Forum
M.A. Digital Arts Forum;
There was a special invitation to the M.A. Drawing students.
The forum took the form of several presentations by the M.A. Students including the Online Group who participated through the device of web cams. This required quite a bit of ‘setting up’ electronically but allowed for a number of members present to contribute to the online chat which was projected onto the front screen along with the projection of another computer where various CDs and web pages were accessed during the presentation.
The mechanics did not always proceed smoothly?
The debate as established by the Face to Face Student proceeded along specific lines with contributions inserted into a wiki page: http://madigitalarts.wikispaces.com
1. Digital and analog transition/concepts [Paul Sewter]
2. Product, process [Jem Mackay]
3. Authorship, collaboration, licensing.[Peter Forde]
There will be a short introduction under the heading 'Digital Culture' at the start of the presentation, and time at the end for discussion.
One topic that elicited heated and compulsive debate seemed to be centred around the problem of the intention of the artist as perceived by the viewer/consumer of the piece.
In consideration of the question of the role of process… this can be the work as opposed to product [what is produced at the end of the process… e.g. Robert Morris in the 1960;s and Jonathan Monk at the ICA currently].
Phoebe explained that the work [commercially] was difficult to market as it was not only the presentation/representation, but also the experience of the piece as it was received. Otherwise, the work would be ‘one hand clapping in a forest’. In other words it was a reciprocal event, rather than just an object. She referenced an exhibition by Isaac Julien at the Victoria Miro Gallery. Although the exhibition was video on three screens with sound, there were only stills on sale. How to market this work?
Chirstina also showed work that has been published on the web. This work invites the viewer to participate by drawing on her images with a computer mouse thus ‘completing’ the work. She is addressing notions of family violence.
Luisa is also producing work that is completed by the ‘viewer’. But her work is executed in the ‘real’ world as opposed to a computer generated virtual world. This work is then recorded and ‘documented’ using digital media [web cams and digital photos and video footage.]
The drawing students voiced a concern that drawing in digital media deprived them as artists of the ‘experience’ of interacting with the materiality of the work. They descried the absence of paper and pencils citing the texture and dimensionality of work in the real world…. [the haptic quality of art]… although this was countered by both Paul Sewter and James who got a B.A. in Drawing.
Paul claimed that current technological advances have made it possible to reproduce work that is practically impossible to differentiate from work executed manually without the aid of C.A.D.
James asserted that he found it quicker, easier and more inspirational to do his work on a computer in a drawing package than with paper and coloured pencils/paint.
Is this a question of interdisciplinarity? The drawing students were wondering if a degree in drawing executed on a computer should rightly be called a degree in Digital Art or Drawing?
The discussion was lively and exciting, informative and stimulating.
Neal, a rep. from the Online Students spent some time explaining the mechanics of the structure of the course via his web cam, but no work was shown.
The online ‘chat’ was projected on the screen at the front of the room while the discussion was going on. I have to say, the comparison merely confirmed my opinion regarding these two procedures. The ensuing discussion was cogent, considered and thoughtful. The opinions were not overly punctuated with like, you know, I mean, kind of etc.
The interjections were not quick, one-line ‘fixes’ that didn’t ‘cut the mustard’ like those in the online chat e.g. cool, yup, [and emoticons such as ;-) :--( etc.] or idiosyncratic text abbreviations.
The discussion affords the participants time to think and expand their thoughts and ideas. They can consider the ramifications of their contributions, expand them, fill them out and explain them.
It isn’t enough just to label something as ‘interesting’… one must always ask IN WHAT WAY. justify, illustrate, and tease out meanings and significances.
Is debate dead?
It is also imperative to give references and attributions where relevant…quote sources. You don’t get something from nothing?
There was some concern voiced regarding hijacking, or ‘stealing’ ideas. The problem of copyright does loom large and some reference was made to Benjamin’s article ‘Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’.
There was a special invitation to the M.A. Drawing students.
The forum took the form of several presentations by the M.A. Students including the Online Group who participated through the device of web cams. This required quite a bit of ‘setting up’ electronically but allowed for a number of members present to contribute to the online chat which was projected onto the front screen along with the projection of another computer where various CDs and web pages were accessed during the presentation.
The mechanics did not always proceed smoothly?
The debate as established by the Face to Face Student proceeded along specific lines with contributions inserted into a wiki page: http://madigitalarts.wikispaces.com
1. Digital and analog transition/concepts [Paul Sewter]
2. Product, process [Jem Mackay]
3. Authorship, collaboration, licensing.[Peter Forde]
There will be a short introduction under the heading 'Digital Culture' at the start of the presentation, and time at the end for discussion.
One topic that elicited heated and compulsive debate seemed to be centred around the problem of the intention of the artist as perceived by the viewer/consumer of the piece.
In consideration of the question of the role of process… this can be the work as opposed to product [what is produced at the end of the process… e.g. Robert Morris in the 1960;s and Jonathan Monk at the ICA currently].
Phoebe explained that the work [commercially] was difficult to market as it was not only the presentation/representation, but also the experience of the piece as it was received. Otherwise, the work would be ‘one hand clapping in a forest’. In other words it was a reciprocal event, rather than just an object. She referenced an exhibition by Isaac Julien at the Victoria Miro Gallery. Although the exhibition was video on three screens with sound, there were only stills on sale. How to market this work?
Chirstina also showed work that has been published on the web. This work invites the viewer to participate by drawing on her images with a computer mouse thus ‘completing’ the work. She is addressing notions of family violence.
Luisa is also producing work that is completed by the ‘viewer’. But her work is executed in the ‘real’ world as opposed to a computer generated virtual world. This work is then recorded and ‘documented’ using digital media [web cams and digital photos and video footage.]
The drawing students voiced a concern that drawing in digital media deprived them as artists of the ‘experience’ of interacting with the materiality of the work. They descried the absence of paper and pencils citing the texture and dimensionality of work in the real world…. [the haptic quality of art]… although this was countered by both Paul Sewter and James who got a B.A. in Drawing.
Paul claimed that current technological advances have made it possible to reproduce work that is practically impossible to differentiate from work executed manually without the aid of C.A.D.
James asserted that he found it quicker, easier and more inspirational to do his work on a computer in a drawing package than with paper and coloured pencils/paint.
Is this a question of interdisciplinarity? The drawing students were wondering if a degree in drawing executed on a computer should rightly be called a degree in Digital Art or Drawing?
The discussion was lively and exciting, informative and stimulating.
Neal, a rep. from the Online Students spent some time explaining the mechanics of the structure of the course via his web cam, but no work was shown.
The online ‘chat’ was projected on the screen at the front of the room while the discussion was going on. I have to say, the comparison merely confirmed my opinion regarding these two procedures. The ensuing discussion was cogent, considered and thoughtful. The opinions were not overly punctuated with like, you know, I mean, kind of etc.
The interjections were not quick, one-line ‘fixes’ that didn’t ‘cut the mustard’ like those in the online chat e.g. cool, yup, [and emoticons such as ;-) :--( etc.] or idiosyncratic text abbreviations.
The discussion affords the participants time to think and expand their thoughts and ideas. They can consider the ramifications of their contributions, expand them, fill them out and explain them.
It isn’t enough just to label something as ‘interesting’… one must always ask IN WHAT WAY. justify, illustrate, and tease out meanings and significances.
Is debate dead?
It is also imperative to give references and attributions where relevant…quote sources. You don’t get something from nothing?
There was some concern voiced regarding hijacking, or ‘stealing’ ideas. The problem of copyright does loom large and some reference was made to Benjamin’s article ‘Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’.
posted by jnabney at 3:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home