Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by yrealydad on October 29, 2009 at 8:43

Since modernity some kind of art has tried to erase borders between high and low, arts and crafts, etc. Meanwhile, even though art has been proclamed dead thousand of times, other kinds of art try to stablish themselves as high, Art, etc...is the web the final process? or just another brick in the wall?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bruce Rimell on November 3, 2009 at 23:07

Human technical and behavourial processes tend to be additive in nature, not exclusive. Despite hearing constantly that X is dead, or Y is the new Z, humans consistently behave in an additive manner: A now accompanies X, and Y and Z are personal choices dependent on personality. Web2.0 collaborations will simply be added to 'traditional' art and in time become part of the domain 'traditional'.

But the nature of Web2.0 actually renders the question a contrtadiction in terms. Web2.0 is collaborative and networked, with no real centre and no clear hierarchy - such a situation can only increase personal choices and options available, and indeed intensify the additive nature of human behaviour and processes. Web2.0 collaborations cannot 'replace' traditional art precisely because they are collaborative.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by yrealydad on November 4, 2009 at 7:12

Unfortunately I´m afraid you are right. I agree with you in the additive posthistoric moment we are just living. It´s true than collaborative ways are still available, but I´m afraid "traditional competitive" ways cannot coexist with collaborative ones. Once they have served to the competitive purposes, collaboration will be extinct, unless we do something. Internet can stop being collaborative due to competitive attacks. In the same way, if colaborative ways of art can exist is only in the margin or meanwhile they are not a thread to traditional-competitive art-market. I hope I might be wrong, but until now it has been prooved that art in the margin can only be considered if it skips into and leave the margin.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MERLIN on November 4, 2009 at 8:14

everlutionary art,causes revalutionary art

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rebecca on November 6, 2009 at 16:29

The media we use to depict/display our art are indeed personal choices and often dependent on the message or theme. Everything that is new will at some point in the future be added to the history books, but no form of art will ever die out completely (unless the traditional supplies are no longer produced, i.e. photo paper or film).

Bruce Rimell said:

Human technical and behavourial processes tend to be additive in nature, not exclusive. Despite hearing constantly that X is dead, or Y is the new Z, humans consistently behave in an additive manner: A now accompanies X, and Y and Z are personal choices dependent on personality. Web2.0 collaborations will simply be added to 'traditional' art and in time become part of the domain 'traditional'.

But the nature of Web2.0 actually renders the question a contrtadiction in terms. Web2.0 is collaborative and networked, with no real centre and no clear hierarchy - such a situation can only increase personal choices and options available, and indeed intensify the additive nature of human behaviour and processes. Web2.0 collaborations cannot 'replace' traditional art precisely because they are collaborative.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bruce Rimell on November 6, 2009 at 17:38

"no form of art will ever die out completely"

This is very true. I do a lot of work with archaeology and palaeoanthropology. Some of the earliest (almost-)universally agreed forms of symbolic and creative expressions we have evidence of are engravings (Blombos Cave Artefact etc), dating to 80,000 years ago. Then, the next we have is painting, on cave walls, starting about 34,000 years ago.

And still today, artists are painting, artists are engraving. In the context of these time periods during which these techniques have continued, it seems crazy to suggest they might die away soon. In fact I can think of no technique humans have invented for creating art these past 80,000 years that are not used by some artists today...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by yrealydad on November 6, 2009 at 18:39

When I said traditional art I didn´t meant traditional media. I meant traditional ways of production, such as art as a sign of status or the artistic way of producing elitist goods.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion