Towards a new media art ecosystem model

Share Embed


Descrição do Produto

Towards a new media art ecosystem model Pedro Alves da Veiga PhD Student in New Media Art Universidade Aberta / Universidade do Algarve Portugal

ABSTRACT Inspired by the similarities between biologic ecosystems, where several living entities interact among themselves as well as with the inorganic environment in order to achieve a certain balance, the goal of this article is to analyse the several agents and their relationships within the new media art world, ranging from the creation to the exhibition, enjoyment, participation, education, curation, social and economic processes, including their organizational and cooperation aspects, in order to clearly identify both agents and their relationships. This article is the first part of a broader project, that aims at proposing a new media art ecosystem framework, by analysing and engaging in fruitful dialogue with a number of selected institutions to extrapolate best practices, norms and facilitation procedures in creating such ecosystems. Keywords Ecosystem, new media, art, technology, society I. INTRODUCTION Why are there successful projects like Ars Electronica in Linz, Austria? And why so many other projects fail, even when they apparently have all the necessary conditions to succeed (funding, community, public awareness)? Art and Culture are part of the social phenomenon, a consequence of the social interaction, the individual and collective manifestation through which a communicational and informational space is established that encompasses the so-called cultural and artistic artefacts [1]. Artistic activity is a game, whose forms, patterns and functions develop and evolve according to periods and social contexts; it is not an immutable essence. [2]

The many processes triggered from artistic activity (including artistic creation itself) are nowadays considered by many authors as complex, often inseparable from interactions with other processes and agents, and their complete study turns out to actually be the study of their balance, the balance of the ecosystem in which they operate. The main issues that arise when analysing these ecosystems will then be: ·

who are the agents involved and what are their relationships with each other?

·

what are the benefits and challenges posed to the ecosystem?

·

what norms can be proposed in order to enable and facilitate the long term balance of such systems?

This article focuses mainly on the first question, leaving the remaining topics for future developments. II. THE END OF IMPERVIOUSNESS? Let's examine some of the potential agents involved in these processes and systems, and the reasons for casting them as agents in the ecosystem, starting with the creative act. If once the artist and his work defined an almost watertight process, nowadays the act of creation increasingly involves the public / audience, and establishes an inseparable relationship between the two. After the area of relations between Humankind and deity, and then between Humankind and the object, artistic practice is now focused upon the sphere of inter-human relations, so the artist sets his sights more and more clearly on the relations that his work will create among his public, and on the invention of models of sociability [2]. John Dewey [3] distinguishes between artefact (the developed object) and work (the experience / enjoyment resulting from contact with the artefact). For him, to focus on the artefact leads us in the wrong direction. The real work of art is the experience, "the artefact is not perceived as a work of art without a re-creation act", thus assuming an inseparable connection between the artist, the work and the audience. Hans-Georg Gadamer [4] also sustains that a work of art (Werk) acquires its existence from the experience / enjoyment it produces: "each work of art belongs - and speaks - to a human universe to such an extent that their truth can not be experienced when abstracted from their context and treated as a separate subject." Considering that the work of art is not an autonomous object, then

we necessarily need to relate it to its environment - the environment in which it was created, its assumptions, the education and training of those who created it, its purpose, the environment in which it is exhibited - and if it is changed by a changing environment, and many other aspects that interact with the perception of the work. The enjoyment / perception of a work is then influenced by multiple factors, all of them external to the creation act, which can be social, cultural, historical, environmental or economic - and certainly also closely linked to both creators' and audience's artistic educations. The artistic creation process - or, if you will, the artefact as the height of the creative process occupies the central place of academic research in art, and this type of research now "invades" scientific research, via methodologies such as scholARTistry, a/r/tography, ABR - Art-Based Research or ABER - Art-Based Educational Research. Art does not only question philosophy but more than that: it creates philosophy. The artworks question subject's place, his humanity or his freedom, the place of the body in the machine-like devices, or even the ethics of copyright, property and sharing. RoyAscott [5] speaks of tecnoetics (tec + noetics) due to the differentiating value that the alliance of technology and mind holds in the exploration of consciousness and its new forms, the new qualities of the mind, the new forms of cognition and perception/cyberperception. Ascott also refers the desire to transcend the linearity of thought through the use of interactive, pseudo-random, virtual systems, as a way of expanding consciousness and the individual mind, embracing a free flow of associative structures that define a new collective consciousness. It is thus an artistic imperative to explore all the new aspects of technology that may involve creator and observer in physical or virtual interaction, collaborating in the production of meaning and the creation of authentic artistic experiences. When talking about collective consciousness, implicitly we are defining a community, a collective involved in some way, with common interests. But this can also be a limiting path. Lev Manovich states that "the cultural technologies of an industrial society - cinema and fashion - asked us to identify with somebody's bodily image. The interactive media asks us to identify with somebody else's mental structure. If cinema viewers, either male or female were lusting after and trying to emulate the body of movie stars, a computer user is asked to follow the mental trajectory of a new media designer." [6]

Bill Sharpe [7] also states that the arts find themselves perpetually torn between the tension to exist for themselves and to exist for other purposes, as well as the constant struggle to find the right relationship with the economy or environment in which they dwell - ultimately, the right relationship within an ecosystem. This inquiring tension goes beyond the "traditional limits of art" involving (itself in) society, encompassing new media, shows for the masses, political and economic performance scenarios, art, architecture and urban development institutions. The new media artists dissects all this with the accuracy of a surgeon, the scope of a philosopher, but above all with the sensitivity of a craftsman able to experience the most acute contradictions of our time and express them in the most appropriate language [8]. New media art is not just the coding for this language, it is the epicenter of a relationships system, of agents establishing multiple relationships between one another, challenging established balances, and constantly seeking and creating new connections. III. NEW MEDIA ART ECOSYSTEMS NATIONAL CENTER FOR ARTS RESEARCH, EUA

Figure 1 & 2 - Arts ecosystem models

The arts ecosystem metaphor is not unique to this article or author, and we can easily find references in various institutions and documents, even though they address different agents and relationships. As a first attempt in finding a definition, let's consider a new media art ecosystem as a physical system, with virtual ramifications, allocated to one or more geographic locations, consisting of agents involved in relationships with one another, seeking out balance, selfsustainability, longevity, ensuring the prosperity and development of all parts. Since the emergence of Silicon Valley in the 80s and the birth of the digital age, there is a fascination with the characteristics of highly creative and innovative regions. This idea helped change the traditional approaches to innovation policies in the industry, now focusing on creating the conditions that allow the flourishing of innovation in places, spaces, hotspots, clusters, cities,

regions. In fact it is all about creating ecosystems - allocating an infrastructure with a particular management model, which seeks to involve individuals with a certain type of profile. The main feature of these spaces is that they induce innovation - have the ability not only to generate new ideas, but also to put them into practice. These are spaces where "anything can happen" [9]. They are "the complex set of relationships between organizations, their communities - including people who live there, artists, other art, culture and entertainment institutions, companies, agents, and cultural policies that influence the production and consumption of the arts and culture." [10] Why study these (eco)systems and not just their most meaningful constituent parts? Because we choose to consider the creative processes as open interactive communication systems that include elements of various natures, with dynamic features, articulating relationships and powers: sociocultural context, media, values, individuals, groups, narratives, memories, dialogues, meetings, places and temporality [11]. The study of creative processes assumes that these systems are not simply the sum of their parts and that those parts establish a complex set of mutual implications, in which actions and reactions feedback into one another. The creative processes are constantly changing networks, which implies renouncing to concepts such as source and/or completion, hierarchy and linear organization methods of work. The creative processes are thus sets of moments with generative potential, pathways / versions of the development of a creative thought. Those who make art today with the means of today are constantly and necessarily facing the question of the media and its context, with its constraints of institutional and economic order, with its imperatives of dispersion and anonymity as well as with its attributes of reach and influence [6], and therefore to only consider one part outside of this complex context would not only be reducing, but also potentially error-inducing. Lev Manovich [5] stresses the interconnectedness between interface and artwork, which is the same as to say, between technology and art: "There is another way to think about the difference between new media design and new media art in relation to the content — interface dichotomy. In contrast to design, in art the connection between content and form (or, in the case of new media, content and interface) is motivated. That is, the choice of a particular interface is motivated by work’s content to such degree that it can no longer be thought of as a separate level. Content and interface merge into one entity, and no longer can be taken apart." And to further stress-out this interconnectedness he points out that "finally, the idea of content pre-existing the interface is challenged in yet another way by new media artworks which dynamically generate their data in

real time. While in a menu-based interactive multimedia application or a static Web site all data already exists before the user accesses it, in dynamic new media artworks the data is created on the fly, or, to use the new media lingo, at run time." As an art form that is time-based, and thus dynamic, interactive, collaborative, and ever variable, new media presents a unique set of challenges to traditional ideas of collection, presentation, documentation, and preservation. New media art curation has to address this "complex set of mutual implications" covering all sectors where artistic production can occur: academia, government, business and others. But also the exploration of relations existing between, for instance, the artist and his/her gallery owner may determine forms and a project [2], especially since at this time new media art is far from integrated into the art world and exists in multiple contexts. Because new media art is deeply interwoven into our information society - the network structures and collaborative models that are creating new forms of cultural production and autonomy and profoundly shape today's cultural climate - it will always transcend the boundaries of the museum and gallery and create new spaces for art. [12] The new media art curator should thus be involved both in networks and in communities of practice, in workspaces and virtual organizations that cross institutional, national and cultural boundaries. We must assume that many of the communities of practice consist of experts from a variety of disciplines and areas, and therefore a basic requirement is to be able to initiate informed discussions and dialogues with each and every one of them. [13] But if the curator determines the relationship that will be established between audiences and works of art, the direct interaction of the public with the artworks was already an expanding area of interest for artists and theorists in the 60s and 70s. Burnham [14], for example, advocated the importance of understanding the work in their environmental context and that all artwork originated data or information processing is also a component of that very same artwork. Once again, in this light, the public too becomes part of the artwork. Roy Ascott [15] also developed a theory where participation and interaction between the public and the artwork are central. In 1966 he uses the term "behaviourism" to describe a "trend that has mastered the art in every aspect. The artist, the artefact and the viewer, everyone is involved in a more behaviourist context (...) in order to attract the viewer to an active participation in the act of creation, to give it, through the artefact, the opportunity to engage in creative behaviour at all levels of experience - physical, emotional and conceptual". And this involvement is not just an

aesthetic experience, as it also covers entertainment and fun, and, consequently, the infrastructure and events related to them. "The social spaces of fun and display are now so vital to the urban culture as the spaces of residence and work." [16] Much of the new media artefacts current production is aimed at a mass recreational entertainment market (games, film and television special effects, shows, performances, etc.) and it is important to consider it as a living part of this ecosystem rhizome, both in their material and virtual aspects. In a study published in the USA [17], 77% of respondents stated that new media technologies have had a significant role in extending their concept of art, and the same study concluded that 50% of American art related organizations keep an active blog or site. The Metropolitan Museum of Art estimated their physical visitors to be six million a year, and online visitors at 29 million per year, while its Facebook page reaches about 92 million yearly [18]. If the Internet has changed the definition of what the audience of a museum or gallery, medialab is, it also introduced the more complex question of "how to interact with this audience", thus creating fertile ground for the development of online meta-institutions, supported by websites, mobile applications, blogs and other online publications, to engage and retain this new audience. This phenomenon also led to the appearance of many virtual entities, replacing traditional / physical organizations, either because they specialize in the form of dialogue with the online audience, or because they cover innovative areas not touched by more traditional organisations, and enable the marketing and sale of "virtual goods" (art, games, etc.) [19]. The existence of these multiple and complex relationships also affects art itself and the creative process, requiring that new media art should be rethought as a conglomerate of different states / phases of materialization. The exposure of new media art as an emerging phenomenon, gaining visibility in the cultural area, facilitates the perception of virtual aspects that would otherwise be ignored, and without which it can only have a significantly more limited existence. [20] As art migrates from the private and well defined space of the museum, the concert hall or art gallery to the turbulent public space of television, the Internet, the night-club or the urban environment, where it is enjoyed by immense and illusive masses, it changes status and scope, setting up new and exciting possibilities for social inclusion. This movement is complex and contradictory, as it should be, since it implies a positive gesture of appropriation, commitment and insertion in a technology-based society and at the same time, a critical, challenging posture of rejection. When excluded from their traditional ghettos, which legitimized it and established it as

such, (new media) art must now face the challenge of its dissolution and reinvention as an event for the masses. [21] The current objectives of artistic production should also take into account factors such as the production of information that serves the practice; developing methods, defining criteria for evaluating, modelling and prototyping; increasing the understanding of art links to its social, cultural and educational contexts, including the historical and political development; the interpretation of works of art as cultural, political and educational products; the production of psychological as well as political and pedagogical knowledge about the social meanings of art in order to develop artistic activity that impacts society (eg, education, the environment, quality of life); the critical analysis of art and its current trends, in order to understand the relationship between art and technological, economical and political development; to rethink and question the role of artists in society and the consequences of the significant increase in collaborative artistic efforts. [22] The paradigm of technological integration with the arts has also been changing. Initially technology was seen as an intelligent partner, that quickly changed its role to act as a "prosthesis", an extension of human capabilities, and finally as a catalyst. The creative involvement that new media art demands, supports the emergence of new conditions, interactions and relationships. Thus, new forms of socialization and creativity can develop and boost not just technological innovation, but also social innovation. [23] Many of the most recent artwork demonstrates that it becomes increasingly difficult to make a categorical distinction between objects originating in the artistic imagination, scientific research and techno-industrial invention. Many products are derived, in fact, from the interaction of talents and investments in the three areas. Moreover, experience has shown that artists who have worked best with technology are those people who are able to intervene in the engineering processes, producing the hardware and software needed to shape their aesthetics. [26] But more than just a multimedia experience, as opera was, new media art hybridization extends to its interactivity and virtuality, but also, and just as important as those, its distribution (exhibition, publication, copying, conservation and circulation) [24], which necessarily implies a concern about the financing of all these activities. In the current global picture there is the need to also apply creativity to the financing of an area, in itself already widely and wildly creative, and where the needs range from financial incentive and material artistic production, to the creation

and endowment of infrastructures, equipment, distribution and exhibition opportunities / exposure. Creativity in new media epitomizes not just the intersection of art, science and technology, but also the intersection of profit and non-profit. [25] The Rockefeller Foundation [26] in the USA created the concept of Social Impact Bonds, as an innovative financial tool to help state and local authorities facing budget cuts in various programs with social impact (many of them related to the arts). Through the establishment of new investment flows between public, private and non-profit organizations, this investment will have a compound return with social, ecological, innovation, and financial components. The latter is measured on several fronts, from savings held by public bodies to the integration of innovation (thus funded) in the business and industrial fabric of investors, changing the paradigm of "patronage" to "opportunity", revealing an economic view of Art. On the one hand it is not only desirable, but necessary for the survival of individuals and organizations while on the other it should not prove to be a reductive and castrating force for creativity, innovation, education and social work. As Bourriaud points out, the possibility of a relational art (an art taking as its theoretical horizon the realm of human interactions and its social context, rather than the assertion of an independent and private symbolic space), points to a radical upheaval of the aesthetic, cultural and political goals introduced by modern art, [2] and most certainly by new media art. In fact, art becomes more visible and impactful when acting upon society, assuming an intervention and revitalization role, but also in order to capture marginal audiences. [27] Artistic projects create interdependencies between accomplishing their social role and creating cultural products, based on three pillars: basic values (education, respect and social integration of the individual, concerning the community welfare), high quality standards (organizational, productive, educational, content and communicational) and wider enjoyment of the cultural product (free, supported or paid, but with the awareness of limitation or extension of its impact in each case). Artistic goods and educational services thus merge in a larger product, characterized by tangible and intangible components. The viability and sustainability of the projects are guaranteed by a system that considers paid technical and professional collaborations, voluntary renowned artists and public-private support whilst sustaining the creation of a cultural product and the implementation of socio-educational services that also involve the participation of local and reference communities (e.g. through free passes to events for communities at risk of

exclusion; special events in target communities, inviting financiers, policy makers and artists; involvement of company staff in the distribution and enjoyment of cultural products). [28] IV. AGENTS AND FUNCTIONS After this extended travel through multiple intertwined areas, where everything is seemingly related, it is time to summarize the functions and their key players present in the analysed situations: ·

Creation - Creative arts community, involved in/with society,

·

Participation - participatory, educated and interested audience, both in artistic and technological aspects,

·

Education - basic, specialized and advanced education and training, for the audience and artists,

·

Innovation - research and development, business / industrial integration,

·

Potential maximization - control, management, curation,

·

Enjoyment - supporting infrastructure to all other functions,

·

Action - social environment, contributor or receiver.

These agents are related to each other in multi-linear fashion - comparable to a rhizome:

Coming to the closure of this first stage of defining a new media art ecosystem model, Arlindo Machado's words seem appropriate [29] when he defines the new media artist as the reconciler between technology and creativity, thus embodying a network of connections that puts him at the heart of a relational (eco)system, which also feeds the industry, technological multinationals, media and telecommunications giants, right at the fulcrum of progress and innovation, emphasizing the crucial role that art is gaining in research and development in scientific areas, but also in its capacity for social intervention and change of paradigms. Certain technology and new media enabled processes have repercussions on life and thought, in their imaginative ability and their ways of perceiving the world. It is up to the artist to trigger all these consequences in their large and small, strong and weak points, making explicit what in the hands of engineers would only be closeted, overlooked or masked. This activity is fundamentally contradictory: on the one hand it is revolutionizing the very concept of art, absorbing positively and constructively new constructional processes made possible by technology; on the other it must also show and explain the purposes embedded in technological processes, whether they be warlike, political or ideological in nature. It is quite likely that the two perspectives, with all their intermediate and deviant hues, coexist dialectically within each singular artwork, making it impossible to define the boundaries as to whether the artist helps to legitimize the advanced industrial society, or if he deconstructs it by sabotaging it from within its own models. This view also implies the admission of the existence of reverse flows in the creative process that impact and change the artist, stemming from the surrounding environment, technology, industry, as an integral part the rhizomatic ecosystem model proposed in this article. Reinforcing this idea of feedback, the author further states that the art of each era is done not only with the means, the resources and the demands of that time, but also within the economic and institutional models existing in it, even when - or maybe especially when - that art is openly antiestablishment. Severe as our criticism of the mass entertainment industry might be, we must not forget that this industry is not a monolith. Because it is complex, it is full of internal contradictions and it is through these breaches that the artist can hack it in order to propose qualitative alternatives. There is no reason why within the industry there cannot emerge products - such as television programs, music videos, pop music etc. - which in terms of quality, originality and significant density can rival with the best "real" art of our time. There is also no reason why these quality products of

mass communication cannot be considered true creative works of our time, whether they are considered art or not. [6] If contemporary art is developing a political project when it endeavours to move into the relational realm, by turning it into an issue [2], new media art shatters and expands the possibilities, by "speaking" the very same language that it appears to fight: by using the information super-highways while avoiding the tolls and engaging in picnics outside the designated areas. And to conclude, after identifying the key agents and their relationships, let's provocatively also identify the medium upon which they predominantly establish their relationships - much like the rock and water of the biological ecosystems - by using one of Lev Manovich's coined sentences: "software is the invisible glue that ties it all together" [30]. V. CONCLUSION This study sought to gather some of the approaches to various relevant areas to the study of new media art, and to list them as an organizational, participatory and inclusive model, without defending the relevance one approach or theory regarding others, but rather focusing on their roles in establishing relations between different agents. To precisely identify the agents and the type of relationships that exist and are created between one another is a first stage in the study of an ecosystem. To analyse their balance, what are the types of relationships that can make an ecosystem prosper - or determine its extinction - will be following topics. Further developments will include the study of the implementation of such ecosystems, even if partial, in several institutions to try and find common elements in order to extrapolate sets of best practices, in order to produce a set of standards leading to the creation / maintenance of stable and solid new media art ecosystem. REFERENCES 1 Marcos, Adérito. "Arte digital: fundamentos, artefactos e visões". Universidade Aberta, Lisboa, 25-11-2009. 2 Bourriaud, Nicolas. "Relational Aesthetics". Les Presses du Réel. 2002. p. 11, 14, 17, 28.

3 Dewey, John. (1980). "Art as Experience". GP Putnam’s Sons, New York. 4 Gadamer, Hans-Georg (1989). "Truth and Method". New York: Crossroad. 5 Ascott, Roy (1967). "Telematic Embrace – Visionary Theories of Art, Technology, and Consciousness". University of California Press. 2003. 6 Manovich, Lev. "The Language of New Media". MIT Press. 2001. 7 Sharpe, Bill. "Homo Poeticus & the Art of Culture"; International Futures Forum. 2007. 8 Machado, Arlindo. “Arte e Mídia: Aproximações e Distinções”. Ed. 1, e-compós: http://www.compos.org.br/e-compos. 122004. 9 Sharpe, Bill; Leicester, Graham; (2010); "Producing the Future: Understanding Watershed’s Role in Ecosystems of Cultural Innovation", International Futures Forum. 10 National Center for Arts Research. The Report. http://mcs.smu.edu/artsresearch2014/articles/about/report/1-modeling-artsculture-ecosystem Consultado em 12-6-2015. 11 Leão, Lúcia. "Paradigmas dos processos de criação em mídias digitais: uma cartografia". V!RUS, São Carlos, n. 6. 2011. 12 Paul, Christiane. "New media in the white cube and beyond : curatorial models for digital art". Berkeley : University of California Press. 2008. 13 Thibodeau, Kenneth. "Critical Competencies for Digital Curation: Perspectives from 30 years in the trenches and on the mountain top". DigCCur2007 Conference, University of North Carolina. 20-4-2007. 14 Burnham, J. ‘Real Time Systems.’ Artforum 7. 1969. pp. 49-55. 15 Ascott, Roy. ‘Behaviourist Art and the Cybernetic Vision.’ Cybernetica 9. 1966. pp 247-264. 16 Harvey, David. "Counsciousness and the Urban Experience". Oxford: Blackwell. p. 256. 17 Thomson, Kristin; Purcell, Kriten; Rainie, Lee. "Arts Organizations and Digital Technologies". Pew Research Center. 2013. 18 Giridharadas, Anand . "Museums See Different Virtues in Virtual Worlds," New York Times. 8-8-2014. p. C19. 19 Lehdonvirta,Vili. "Online spaces have material culture: Goodbye to digital postmaterialism and hello to virtual consumption". Media, Culture & Society, vol.32, no.6. 2010. 20 Dziekan, Vince. "Beyond the Museum Walls: Situating Art in Virtual Space (Polemic Overlay and Three Movements)", Paper for FibreCulture Journal – Distributed Aesthetics issue. 2005. 21 Machado, Arlindo. "Arte e mídia: aproximações e distinções". E-Compos, Edição 1. 2004. 22 Hannula, Mika; Suoranta, Juha; Vadén, Tere. "ArtisticResearch - Theories, Methods and Practices". Academy of Fine Anrts, Helsinki, Finland and University of Gothenburg / ArtMonitor, Gothenburg, Sweden. Cosmoprint. 2005. 23 Jennings, Pamela. “Creative Digital Media Research Resources and Models”. Art and Human Computer Interaction, Carnegie Mellon University. 24 Couchot, Edmont. "Media Art: Hybridization and Autonomy". REFRESH! Conference, First International Conference on the Media Arts, Sciences and Technologies. Banff New Media Institute, the Database of Virtual Art and Leonardo/ISAST. 2005. 25 Jennings, Pamela. "New Media Arts | New Funding Models". Creativity & Culture, The Rockefeller Foundation. 2000. 26 Social Impact Bonds Report. http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/report/social-impact-bonds-infographic/ Consultado em 12 de Junho de 2015. 27 Froggett, Lynn; Little, Robert; Roy, Alastair; Whitaker, Leah. “New Model Visual Arts Organisations & Social Engagement”. University of Central Lancashire. 10-2011. 28 Foà, Caterina; Ribeiro, Raquel. "Responsabilidade social e integração através da música. Dois estudos de caso em Itália e Portugal". Sociologia, Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto. Número temático: Lógicas de desenvolvimento social inclusivo e sustentável. 2013. pp.109-132. 29 Machado, Arlindo. "Máquina e Imaginário: O Desafio das Poéticas Tecnológicas". Editora da Universidade de São Paulo. 1993. p. 27. 30 Manovich, Lev. "Software takes command". Software Studies. 11-2008. Retrieved from www.softwarestudies.com/softbook on 15 July 2015.

Lihat lebih banyak...

Comentários

Copyright © 2017 DADOSPDF Inc.