"Again, let's go over this outdated form/content opposition.
Being in San Francisco, we also get so much of this social morality
within dance and other art work that we ask: where is the aesthetic
component?"
Postmodernism created a context wherin artists, (us) could raise
questions about the cultural practices of our social tableaux within the
work of art. Using the tools of the media in early video practice for
instance, held the possibility of subverting those tools for a greater
purpose, ie social change. At the base of this appropriation was a
distrust of the means of production of new technology itself and a
questioning of the need to participate in a mediatized culture. It
seems that that scepticism has given way to a sort of tacit acceptance
of technology as a win-win situation. I am neither a moralist nor a
luddite, merely interested in looking at the larger issues surrounding
art/technology practice. It is not, as I see it a form/content issue at
all, rather one that questions valorizing technology for its own sake
and placing it above issues of esthetics and content.
Douglas Rosenberg
UW Madison
>
> I don't think the discussions are hilarious at all, in fact very
useful.
> Critical discourse on the work of art is invaluable, however the
> tendency to speak about post modern tools and methodologies in a
> modernist framework negates the context of the work of art in
question.
> If this list server is simply a way to trade anecdotal information
> about each of our discoveries vis. a vis. new technology then perhaps
I
> am writing this for no reason. However as an artist practicing in the
> post modern era, I am very concerned with issues of content and
context
> as well as the political implications of any new or emerging
technology.
> The privliging of technology is at the expense of a wholistic
> discussion of the work of art within the culture it springs from. Any
> response?
>
> Douiglas Rosenberg
> UW Madison
>
>
>
>
>