Comments on this post should address the initial/primary questions for Module 1:
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
What participatory practices and/or collective intelligences constitute ‘art’ or art worlds via transmedia contexts?
Curating, collecting, critiquing, teaching, doing, etc.?
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
In your comment, include any subquestions/extensions/responses that the above questions push you toward. Address Module 1 reading/viewing assignments as relevant, and point us toward any other resources or examples that you may find (be sure to add these to the Diigo group as well!). Comments should be posted by midnight on Sunday, April 4.
Other announcements:
For class on Tuesday (April 6), please bring in any examples of “field guides” that you are familiar with or run across between now and then. We’ll spend some time discussing the field guide assignment and will use these examples to illustrate the many shapes a field guide may take.
During class we will also spend some time clearing up any questions about the group/Module assignments, as well as addressing any technical inquiries about the course site. On a related note, we neglected to discuss the many methods available for “following” this course site so that you are aware when new material appears. We will set aside a bit of time to outline these and answer any questions for those of you not already familiar with RSS feeds and such.
The way we define “art” is central to this discussion and the participatory practices that contribute to it. While reading, I was really struck by the concept of who decides art is “art”, and what standards we have to create in order qualify particular works. These evaluative processes are usually collaborative, or at least influenced by others, directly or indirectly. In Becker’s Chapter 5, he writes: “…In principle any object or action can be legitimated as art, but that in practice every art world has procedures and rules governing legitimation…”. These rules can be created cooperatively or independently, but persist only when generally accepted/utilized by others – in that way, collective intelligences are continuously influencing standards of art. I was also drawn to the “situational” aspects of both the Harry Fletcher interview and the Rob Forbes talk. Both men are incredibly observant of various contextual situations as opportunities to view/capture “art”, especially the most transient ones. People are constantly changing – and perhaps contributing to – the environmental context in which we notice, appreciate, and define art.
This discussion of what we consider art reminds me of the conversation we had in class about cooking as art. To some people, combining butter and sugar as the basis of a cookie recipe is an art form that takes skill and creates something beautiful, but to other people, slicing some veggies and putting them in a pan with chicken is nothing more than nourishment. I was struck by the same comment in chapter 5 as Allison and agree that one person cannot decide what constitutes art for everyone, but I do not necessarily agree that the idea of something being art diminishes if it is not widely accepted. Take, for example, Duchamp’s Fountain; at the time, no one but him considered a urinal a piece of art, but now it is a staple case study in every survey art history course. Perhaps this is due to our transmedia world where we are inundated with the same images over and over again, but because one person constituted something as art, all people now have to at least question if it is, in fact, art.
All of the words you mentioned are actions that can help constitute what is art, but I would not forget “observing.” Anyone who interacts with an object/place/etc. on the most rudimentary level and has an opinion can, him or herself, define art.
Coming from the Folklore program, this is a question I’m fairly familiar with. While the program has been open-minded for the most part about folklore in transmedia contexts, I have also met some resistance to classifying creative expression online as folklore. This is complicated by the numerous debates in the field of folklore about the meaning of terms like ‘folk art’ and ‘material culture’.
I really appreciated Shelly Willis’ interview with Harrel Fletcher, since the idea of art as a “social practice” is aligned with my personal ideas about art as a participatory practice. The “Learning to Love you More” website seemed like a perfect example of what Fletcher was advocating. It seems to me that if ‘orchestrating’ a recipe can be considered an art, then orchestrating a creative group expression must also constitute art, even if the person doing the orchestrating is not contributing to the act of production.
An example that comes to mind is lolcats (or ‘cat macros’). They certainly aren’t treated as art by most art worlds, but the process in which they are made is identical to Becker’s description of how art is created; “Many other people, especially but not only those whose job is editing, help the artist make the innumerable choices that shape the work, and make some of them whether the artist wants their help or not” (361). In the lolcat world, the “artist” is not always a single entity. Frequently multiple people will caption the same image, and there is always the possibility that an original macro will be used in ways that the maker had not intended. I think this kind of participatory art constitutes its own art world.
The ongoing discussion: “What is art?” Its one of those never ending, meaning of life type questions. Reading the different arguments and opinions is always fascinating to me though. I was especially drawn to the Q&A with Harrell Fletcher. I found myself chuckling when reading some of his responses. I myself am representational of the 95% of art students that are not earning a living wage from their work. I had never thought of art school in the way he described it and it was very eye opening. His social art practice program sounds interesting and could (in my opinion) be a model to go off of.
In reading about the differing ways in which people define art, I found myself wondering how art finds relevance with these different groups of people. How can I, as a future arts and cultural sector advocate, make the arts and cultural sector relevant? I think many times it is ability to be relatable to an audience. That to me will be the challenge in the future. In an ever changing socio-economic climate in which the ways of consuming knowledge and culture comes at a person from a zillion different angles how can we as arts advocates make it relevant? This of course leads into another discussion on the commodification of art. That will have to wait for another time.
The idea of defining “art” takes me back to my Art History days, where the debate often revolved around the concepts of “ready-mades” and the emergence of Abstract Expressionism. These memories were sparked by Becker’s discussion of the role of reputation and its (potential) influence on the definitions of art. To me, one of the most poignant points made was the idea that the “greatness” of an artist/and or work is always evolving- dependent on time and place. Taking Abstract Expressionism, for example, the voice and (arguably) the reputation of Clement Greenberg launched the legitimacy of the movement- whereas the voice of an early adopter in later movements proved to have less of an impact. If one looks back on art, the Renaissance artists were praised for their individual accomplishments whereas currently, a movement of recognizing the cooperative process behind a finished product is gaining momentum (case in point- this class).
Furthermore, the ideas of Rob Forbes perpetuate this continuum. His view on design in urban settings is seen through a sociological lens. I found his description of the bike/pedestrian pathways in Amsterdam quite insightful. Although, the idea of finding beauty in modest spots is not a novel concept–the notion of looking at the patterns on sidewalks and the colors of parked motorcycles, and combining the urban environment into a cohesive narrative truly underpins the transmedia aspect of what he called design within reach.
When I first read this question, I thought about it in terms of artfully creating transmedia information. There is an art to that act- curating each medium to provide appropriate and useful information. When this is done, we can use transmedia contexts to fulfill all of those other action words: collecting, teaching, critiquing, doing…
The question of what constitutes art, to me, always comes down to intention. I think that both the creator and the receiver need to be informed of the process or potential success in order to fully understand the creation. Going back to Arielle’s food analogy, any person can eat a decidedly masterful culinary creation, but if they are not informed of the ways in which the flavors may be explored, together and separately, with drink and without, the consumer will not fully appreciate that bit of art.
Of course, like with food, we are all have some base knowledge of art, because we have, at some point come across it, and probably even tried to create it ourselves. Art is appreciated and acknowledged on a spectrum.
When trying to identify the participatory practice of art I first thought of our discussion and readings last week that dealt with the system/connection of art/things and how art does not take place in a vacuum (i.e. an artist depends on many other people in order to create a piece). This is a clear example of how art is participation, and I found similar ideas in the readings for this week. Becker’s chapter “Aesthetics, Aestheticians, and Critics” touched on the ability that analysis can have in establishing/authenticating art and how that process is participatory. While reading it I began to wonder how many artists working today are creating art that starts from a place based purely in aesthetic standards. The quote from Arthur Danto in this chapter also explores this idea, “The moment something is considered an artwork, it becomes subject to an interpretation. It owes its existence as an artwork to this, and when its claim to art is defeated, it loses its interpretation and becomes a mere thing. … Art exists in an atmosphere of interpretation and an artwork is thus a vehicle of interpretation.” Here art is defined by the act of interpretation, and the moment an artist creates their work they are participating in this cycle.
The Willis interview with Fletcher also dealt with participation. As previous responses have mentioned Fletcher’s idea of “social practice” captures the essence of participatory art. Having the community involved in art projects seems to rise about this aesthetic interpretation of Becker and takes participation in a different direction. The “Learning to Love You More” website takes a transmedia approach to art incorporating prompts for “ordinary” people to produce art in various forms and documenting it in a public space. I am not sure if there is a better example of participatory art in a transmedia context than that. I find myself thinking about the ways that I can take my art (deejaying, sharing music) in a more participatory direction as I feel when I find ways to make it relevant to people’s lives my art become more significant than art for art’s sake.
What participatory practices and/or collective intelligences constitute ‘art’ or art worlds via transmedia contexts?
Going through the links and sources for this module I found the “Improv Everywhere” and “Most and Least Wanted Paintings” websites an embodiment of this weeks question. Both of these projects involve/d collective intelligence and a great deal of participation to implement. Improv Everywhere produces what could be considered “entertainment” but also art for the people who happen upon a “performance.” These performances require a large number of people to work together through different media to produce. First you have to hear about the mission via website, a friend, etc. Then once you meet you are part of a media event that will be documented for everyone. The Most and Least Wanted Paintings projects use of a survey to create participation in the painting process made me think about the emphasis on singular creation of a work of art than community creation. Is it “art” if it is created by a collective intelligence taking all ideas into play? Or is it just a social project?
Touching on my previous question. Becker stated “aesthetic value arises from the consensus of the participants in an art world” (Ch. 5, pp. 134). The idea that what people see as art comes from a collective idea makes me think that collaboration is also important in the production of art.
Rethinking Module 1’s question: I want to know is collective intelligence a necessary idea in making and experiencing “art”? And how does participation translate across medias?
It seems that with music, like the visual arts, intent, communicating that intent to an audience, and making the intent relevant to an audience are all key elements of defining it. While formalism or absolute music might be able to be enjoyed for pure sound and form or on reputation, not all compositions are accepted on reputation or fit old definitions of art. The music of John Cage might have been laughed at when he was composing it, but with time to educate audiences on his intent and approach, he has become one of the most programed composers of his generation. I certainly laughed out loud the first time I head “4’33″” performed, and continued to do so until I tried listening to the sound environment as it was performed, rather than counting a duration of time. However, I can’t seem to come up with many compositions that exist in a transmedia context. Many have incorporated audience participation (Wagner’s Gesamtkunstwerk comes to mind) and are beginning to use social media and technology (iphones, Wii controllers) to enhance the audience experience, but the idea of participation and involvement creating (atleast mainstream) music has not been truly reached.
What participatory practices and/or collective intelligences constitute ‘art’ or art worlds via transmedia contexts?
Based on assigned readings, postings by classmates and other supplemental material under module one, it seems to me that there is no real way to confidently say that there are a set group of participatory practices which constitute art as they seem to be boundless. Of all examples mentioned throughout the reviewed material, it appeared that one of the common denominator in discerning what “art” is are the people involved either in the creation, promotion, consumption and/or appreciate of an “art” work. Various levels of participation can be involved in order to decide whether a piece of work is art or if it is not. As Stephanie Moore mentioned in her post, Improv Everywhere is most definitely an art form that involved high levels of participation in order to reach the desired aesthetic outcome (I watched all of the videos on the sight by the way and thus have not slept), however that is not to say that a piece say by Claus Oldenberg’s “Clothespin” placed in Philadelphia did not have just as many people involved in the manufacturing of and placement of his piece.
Becker goes through great pains to assert the role of the Aestheticians in the first reading which left me with the idea that although there are aestheticians who clearly influence the value/importance of a work, there are aestheticians in every and any level of art production, participation and consumption, they just may not have a fancy title. What I found to hold more weight in defining what “art” is (either good or bad) was the role of reputation. While thinking of reputation and how it has such a strong role in the definition of art, I immediately thought of Andy Warhol and the factory but even more so, Warhol when he began working with Jean-Michel Basquiat.
Through working with Warhol, Basquiat was thrust into the limelight. I found this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foerFJqupYM) which I think shows briefly how transmedia has affected the level of participation in the arts with the mention of newspapers, and the photo session at the end of the clip. Note that Basquiat mentions that the art world is not really so focused on art and his example is that page six is reporting on where he had lunch. Does this make the reporter of page six involved in the art world as they have raised the status of an artist by reporting on his lunch date in a column where people who are “important” are reported on? I also noted how in this clip, Warhol and Basquiat are posing for photos that would most likely be used to perpetuate the message of their relationship of Warhol as mentor to this young artist thereby solidifying Basquiats connection to Warhol and his reputation.
One point that I found missing in these articles was the idea of economy as a participatory factor. Consumption of work, I assume would increase the value of a work of of an artist. I would have liked to have had this idea explored further.
Some problems faced by orchestras nowadays refer to decline of audience. Greg Sandow, former music critic, shows his vision of this matter and depicts some aspects that almost never are considered in this collective activity. He thinks that many art administrators fail considering audience as granted consumers. As a result, audience feels that they do not belong to that art. My point is who should do bigger effort to keep the music alive and a captive audience? In my experience of collective art, I have discover that it doesn´t matter how well you prepare your part and how well you play your music if other parties of this collective art does not do a good job. For example my orchestra, Philharmonic of Santiago of Chile used to offer three concertos performances and because of lack of audience since 2000 it offer just two. Are we facing that some expression of arts will die? There is something to do to defend some arts? Which is the role of governments about cultural politics? Do we have to wait for new arts, let say, less expensive as a truly device of affection, emotions and expression? I may be wrong but I think that the electronic media has blinded our cultural environment and it has put behind centuries of cultural affairs. Today our society mostly observes culture in different expressions from different countries. We do not cultivate the culture since we are so busy watching other´s culture.
I agree with Henry Jenkins when he says that an old media is dying and a new media is been born. The question is, Where are we to decide what kind of art we want?
What participatory practices and/or collective intelligences constitute ‘art’ or art worlds via transmedia contexts?
I like one of the examples that Henry Jenkins gave in his video on transmedia about The Matrix. The process of telling this story in a quintessential transmedia way is an art in itself. Hundreds of writers and creators made dozens of movies, animations, books, comics, and games that expanded and enhanced the story of The Matrix. The act of coordinating all of these elements and the way that the connections and roles are filled no doubt is in art.
The same can be expanded in thinking about fan art and how the internet has created avenues for fans to create art responding to and inspired by “officially” sponsored works. The process that happens when unofficial works are created and when networks are made by mutually interested parties is not a moderated process but still carries the feel of unintentional curation. By the non-intentional intelligence of a hive mentality certain themes or interesting aspects rise to the top.
I like the idea of non-intentionally participatory art, where collectively we create a narrative bypassing a centralized authority.
To me, one of the most difficult points for answering this question is fundamentally how to define ‘participatory practices,’ ‘collective intelligences,’ ‘art or art worlds,’ and ‘transmedia’. In detail, how can I make connection between defining ‘art or art worlds’ and adopting the ideas of the rests? I do not deny today’s potentiality of transmedia, enabling the contribution of participatory practices and collective intelligences to a society. In this regard, next two quotes help me grab some clues to understand the relation among them.
“The term art world, is just a way of talking about people who routinely participate in the making of art works. The routine interaction is what constitutes the art world’s existence, so questions of definition can generally be resolved by looking at who actually does what with whom” (Becker 162).
“In a networked society, nobody knows everything, everybody knows something and what any given member of the community knows is available to the group as a whole as needed” (Pierre Levy, Jenkins’ website).
However, these still leave a fundamental question, “How to define ‘art work’ and how to make connection between an ‘art world’ and ‘a networked society’”. In my opinion, Fletcher’s “Learning to love you more” website is one of the perfect examples of participatory practices in a networked society. In web-based society, art-like works actively happen based on the participation of ordinary people. While Fletcher’s website totally can be seen as art, at the same time, it does not necessarily mean being defined as art. While Becker’s book, Jenkins’ website, and Fletcher’s interview are offering powerful insights, which enable me to analyze and observe new phenomena emerging in the today’s art worlds, they lead me to more various standards to define art and art worlds.
As Becker mentions, all participants of art worlds will continuously take diverse collective or collaborative activities, and finally, in my opinion, the consequences of the activities will become another type of conventional perspectives, which is similar to the conventional perspectives Danto and Dickie were taking. However, two most significant differences from the era of them are the changing concepts of time and space surrounding today’s art worlds. As the impact of participatory practices and collective intelligence on a society grows, the conventional standards of artistic activities and practices will be alter and diversified rapidly.
What participatory practices and/or collective intelligences constitute ‘art’ or art worlds via transmedia contexts?
Curating, collecting, critiquing, teaching, doing, etc.?
Coming from a very limited art background I found the Fletcher article to be extremely interesting. I had never thought about the “myth” that all artists work in a studio and produce paintings and sculptures that they hope to put in a gallery one day and hopefully a museum. And then he introduces a thought provoking question, if an artist could do whatever they wanted, and he argues that they can, then would they really just produce paintings and sculptures? I would answer no. I think that social practice art is the answer to that question. Also, I think that the use of transmedia is the answer to this question. The different blogs and the seemingly silly videos are all part of social practice art in a public space– the internet.
I wonder what Picasso and other rouge artists of their own time would say about the emerging and expanding view and definition of art. How much can we expand the definition of art before it looses its meaning?( Not that there is really a universally agreed upon definition to begin with.)
What participatory practices and/or collective intelligences constitute ‘art’ or art worlds via transmedia contexts?
I was really struck, too, by the reading where Becker (quoting Dickie, on p. 150) speaks of the aestheticians as being a “core personnel” whom are responsible for conferring the status of an object as “artwork.” I think that with the new role of technology in our lives that art has definitely made the creation and enjoyment of art to be a much more participatory experience, and that we’ve moved beyond the more elite, establishment-style method for deciding what really constitutes “art” and what does not.
Tying into that, as a musician, were interesting aspects of the Fletcher interview, where he speaks of wanting his students to become functional within society – where he forces his students out into the world and into the public realm to create artwork. I think that, as far as classical music is concerned, that we have neglected to continue to make classical music relevant and functional in the lives of many. It’s become a “highbrow,” elite activity that feels formalized and somewhat intimidating to many. Classical music used to be less formal! More free, with more improvisation, and more audience involvement, and more of a sense that the music was living and breathing, rather than being a fixed museum piece. I think in our society that many have come to feel that it is less relevant in our lives. As I read through the Becker and the Fletcher interview, I wondered how, as artists, we can de-mystify classical music through transmedia methods and bring it back to the public at large. Classical Revolution, a collective of music groups around the country who are loosely organized, bring classical music to informal atmospheres (like bars, sidewalks, cafes, etc) in an attempt at bringing back accessibility and relevance in public life. I’m not sure that it counts as a “transmedia” effort, but it certainly leads me to ask more questions about how transmedia methods of communication could be used to bring about a change in public consciousness where Western “art” music is concerned. Doing so would leave those musicians who graduate from colleges with degrees in performance/composition much more well-suited for the “real world,” a place where their work holds more value for the listener.