Monday, August 2, 2010

And episode 2:

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/theatre/geeks-tweets-and-bums-on-seats-20100709-103g8.html
Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. Richard PettiferAugust 2, 2010 at 7:40 PM

    "You can't be boring on Twitter, and it is beneficial not to be too self- absorbed,'' Stephanie Zappala, Carriageworks Marketing Manager

    This quote is oddly remeniscent of the Galier article Toby posted earlier http://smudgedbrisbane.blogspot.com/2010/07/httpwww.html

    "If you put an artist anywhere near technology, they will think of something creative to do with it. You just have to show them how," Fee Plumley, the digital programs officer at the Australia Council for the Arts.

    I don't think this is necessarily true, especially the end statement. I know that I am often hopelessly bored by what technology can do, and am often interested in what it can't do, or what it's not supposed to do (especially when treated 'stupidly'...think Zoolander "It's in the computer" moment).

    Nam June Paik is an artist Bridie introduced me to last year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nam_June_Paik

    He encounters and appropriates technology in a critique, but hand-in-hand with this is a sense of glorification. Intentionally or not, I find his work revealing of a complex relationship of suspicion and subservience. We can also see this played out in flims like Blade Runner or Kubrick's 2001. (Or Terminator 2:Judgement Day if you're feeling lowbrow. James Cameron's films often run some line of technological participation/critique, and his lastest mega-blockbuster offering is certainly no exception to that).

    Perhaps Paik's line of thinking has dated now? But surely it's simply a matter of the frontier shifting from openly Luddite forms of art or "Technological Determinist vs Social/Cultural determinist" dichotomies. Yes art is more open to appropraiting technology nowadays, but I think that fear is still inherent.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)