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 Monday, Oct 4.
One of the most efficient participatory practices that constitute Art via transmedia is teaching. Teaching involves two types of human cognitive conditions: Natural and learned. In the first, art is transmited throughout “primitve” methods, such as oral tradion; in the second, art is the result of a knowledge’s acquisition process which at the end may be transmited, such as playing piano or painting.
The Art world depends on the fact of teaching. All the collective activities that transmedia implements to spread Art extent the opportunities for people to learn and consume Culture. In my perspective, Art has been suffering a positive transformation, but the way that the global market and the media in general give to Art it is still narrow. As Jenkins says in the video, the media needs a change to benefit Art. This change cosists in the appereance of a new paradigm that proclaim the justice for everyone to express their feelings in the “screen”. This chance can be possible if artists are willing to teach and if the media let Art to take more place in humans’ minds.
To conclude, I want you to know that in my country (Colombia) there are not a positive transformation of Art. It is sad to see how Art has the last place in all: Economics, politics and society. This is because there are not a strong sense of belonging and people do not realize that Art and culture are the best ways to reach peace. I hope to contribute to this change and transmit what I can learn here to those few people that have the artistic spirit to serve.
Becker mentions that art doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Another way to think about this is that nothing happens outside of contexts. There are multilayered visible and invisible contexts to the creation and experience of everything that comes out of art worlds, changing and shifting meaning, impact, and consequence constantly. We can only think about and discuss art as it is contextualized by its surroundings and their unique convergences (space, time, identities, communities, bodies).
Art worlds are alive and dynamic and should be understood and engaged with as such. They are always becoming. Transmedia privileges art as a becoming entity that cannot be owned or commodified, queering the elitist power structures and static tendencies of the mainstream art world. Aesthetics is rooted in the fictitious idea that things and ideas (and their meanings) are fixed. As the New York Times article illustrates, things can be imbued with specific meanings that resonate differently depending on context. Traditional methods of capturing, displaying, and organizing art must perpetuate a grandiose myth of higher meaning (beauty and profundity, as Becker states) in order to ensure that value is derived from them, contingent upon imposed contexts and curatorial agendas. In turn, the experience of that meaning, staged or designed or manufactured or marketed for particular audiences, is reliant on convincing publics that the experience holds weight, value, revealing that accepted (officially sanctioned?) art might be irrevocably tied to reverence, sublimity, and permanence to a limiting, if not destructive, extent.
Transmedia art worlds and their curatorial strategies–telling infinitely co-authored stories across media–can rise above limits of ownership (Jenkins) and reality to enter the shared (Learning to Love You More) realms of the imaginary. The way in which participatory practices and collective intelligences occur, take shape, come alive, mutate, expand, connect (Just Three Things) and reach out are being generated and connected with via modes and mediums that not long ago existed only in imaginations. The possibilities for transmedia can be endless, irreverent, and open, appealing to all of our senses. Though not unproblematic, transmedia enables us to blur if not eradicate arbitrary borders and boundaries responsible for grave social, political, economic, environmental, and human injustices. The need for artists and art worlds to be named, aestheticized, and expertly certified is no longer necessary, nor even possible, if we cannot comfortably say that art is anything specific at all. If we can stop seeking answers to such questions (“What is art? Is it art?”) and focus instead on simply asking more questions, we might notice the innovation unfolding before us.
A link to one of my favorite transmedia projects that reveals the power of anonymity, imagination, and storytelling across mediums to reveal ugly truths: http://theyesmen.org/
I would be interested to hear what others think about the possibilities of producing art anonymously, and whether this can be a useful tool for resisting mainstream art and media production and embracing social practice (Fletcher).
Starting with the Willis/Fletcher interview, I had known of the Art and Social practices program at PSU … but the interview really informed me on the great potential this program has. Its model, I am certain, will soon start replacing the singular studio-based model that I experienced as an undergraduate earning my degree in painting. Through the use of bogs and websites, the program encourages experimentation, collaboration, and ephemera—reflecting much of what is already happening today within online communities and art worlds (as seen in the blogs, websites, and diigo examples). Bringing artistic practice and discussion out of studios/classrooms/galleries and into the realms of real social and digital worlds is an important tool for emerging artists.
On a side note, the point made by Fletcher, “Maybe cities will create different models so that artists can work more usefully within the system. But, I’m cynical”, is a concern that ties into my research… and hopefully the field guide project. I, too, believe there must be more policies made on a municipal level that are designed to strengthen an artists’ infrastructure and solidify their important role within a community.
The Becker reading for me, personally, was stale—almost disheartening in how he speaks of the selection process. I believe in aesthetics and the notion of “good” and “bad” art, but hearing it through the lens of “institutional” theorists, such as Danto and Dickie, it completely counters my definition of what constitutes “art”. Art, to me, is the process… not the product, and especially not how that product fits into a time or place. But, if one takes into consideration the idea of “art worlds”, we can see how and why art has evolved into the forms we see it as today. One example was given, the Mp3 experiments, which are performance/improvisational based, and demonstrate participatory experiences through the use of technology. Is it art? I believe in its process, so yes.
I think the lines of what constitutes “art” or art worlds are changing rapidly, and that blurring between the critic, dealer, curator, artist, patron, etc. is partially due to new technologies and attitudes.
Within a transmedia context, art worlds are more complex than ever. I would argue that this complexity makes teaching and critiquing practices more important than ever because as media grows more complex, there will be more opportunities for people to become experts on different art worlds and impart their knowledge on others. Within a transmedia context, no piece of art contains the whole story. On his transmedia storytelling blog post, Henry Jenkins uses The Matrix as an example where different information about the Matrix universe is dispersed throughout the films, animated shorts, comic books, and video games. An average consumer would not possess all of the bits of information because he probably would not seek all of them out. However, an avid fan would, and within this context an avid fan now has the opportunity to become part of that art world by imparting that knowledge he has on the rest of the more casual fans.
Both print and online publications often contain articles where “secrets” of a particular media franchise are revealed. Really, they aren’t secrets. Avid fans and critics who are familiar with an entire franchise, for example the Matrix franchise, will point out and discuss key bits of information that a casual fan wouldn’t know if he is not familiar with all of the pieces of media in the franchise. As most people will be unable to devote their time to becoming experts in any particular media franchise, the opportunity is there for the most devoted of fans to join the art world as a teacher or critic of that particular media.
Within a transmedia context, all traditional forms of art or art worlds stand true, with the addition of unlimited new forms of multidimensional, multimedia, and co-created art forms. With the ever-evolving and growing transmedia world, the way in which art is created, collected, shared, classified, taught, and learned is transforming into a more collaborative and collective process. Historical archives of past works, websites for curated contemporary works ranging from digital artwork and paintings to music, videos, animation, poetry, and impromptu performances caught on video, music, movies, videos, blogs, instructional tutorials, and other multimedia art forms are available to anyone at any time – day or night, making them more accessible to the general public. Appropriation and mix-ups are prevalent. Art Worlds are overlapping. Lines between classifications of art, quality or reputations of artists and art forms (as Becker puts it) are being blurred.
Dickie defines those that can make decisions on the quality of art as active members of that art world, and includes that anyone claiming to be a member of an art world is a member by saying so. Within the transmedia context, more and more individuals are forming and joining communities of online art worlds, each with their own set of aestheic judgements. An increased and diversified number of people with the authority to decide what art or art world is of value, allows for more forms of art to be represented, new populations and interests to be represented, and within each sub-divided art world, certain individual artists or works may gain a greater reputation. How do these individual art worlds compete with the ‘benchmark arts’ to claim a space in the grander distribution system, where it may become profitable, and not just a piece of work appreciated by small groups locally or for free on the internet?
In watching the NEA conversation about the 2008 Survey for Public Participation in the Arts, I was greatly surprised and disappointed at the lack of focus on new media arts, and the role that today’s technologies play in shaping the way people participate in the arts. The survey failed to capture so many levels of participation. The internet allows for artistic participants or consumers, to simultaneously play the role of creators and producers, and even do so collectively with others. Often times, these distinctions are not clear. Would a participant ‘reporter’ for a Learning to Love You More assignment, consider themselves participating in a curated art project? The survey’s language and categories were limiting, not allowing for survey takers to identify with all of the art activities they likely participate in, like genres of music they listen to, for instance. Helen DeMichelle brought up some excellent points on how transmedia practices are shifting social patterns and art participation practices.
Art has always been a collaborative and participatory practice, as our introductory readings and the readings for Module 1 articulated. Every aspect of the artistic process – from the tools and funding needed to create the art to the concept and ultimately to the execution/exhibition of the piece – is collaborative. In this way, the arts are no different than any other field. What’s new is simply the tools or processes through which collaboration happens.
And, transmedia has always existed, even before the term was coined. In his recent New Yorker article on social media activism (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all), Malcolm Gladwell uses the following quote from historian Robert Darnton: “The marvels of communication technology in the present have produced a false consciousness about the past—even a sense that communication has no history, or had nothing of importance to consider before the days of television and the Internet.”
What resonated with me most in this module’s readings was the Willis/Fletcher interview. Fletcher and his new school of teaching studio art were about the artist acknowledging and accepting their role in the overall artistic process, that they could not do their work alone in a studio. For him, art was about bring people together, people participating in these community projects (and, as he said, teaching him and helping him determine the content of his work) and getting artists more involved in the “outside world.”
So, I couldn’t help but wonder if this new method is not only a shift in thinking for economic survival (his method also seems like a logical response to the professional realities for artists, i.e. only 5% of graduates employed as artists 2 years after graduation), but also the result of changing attitudes about visual artists.
In readings for my cultural policy class, there was a discussion about how in the Kennedy Administration, artists were thought to be “critical loners” who were financially supported in order to be free to comment on society through their art. This kind of thinking would obviously lead academic instruction that is exactly opposite of Fletchers’ – in a closed studio, isolated from the subjects of one’s art. By the time of the Clinton Administration, however, there was strong belief that all creative individuals (however that’s defined) can contribute to the community understanding of life and society and that diversity is a source of strength. I think that Fletcher’s “Come Together” project , his own work (think of the turtle project with the young boy) and his overall teaching method get at this shift in public opinion and/or policy. So does the “Improv Everywhere” project.
So, where does this leave my thinking? Have I actually addressed the question? I’m not sure. I guess I’m just trying to say that all elements of the arts world are participatory or collaborative – in the way that almost all activities are – no matter what media/technologies, policies or academic theories exist at the time. Participation will just look different depending on the social context or, perhaps, the public expectations of artists?
There is no doubt in my mind that art is a collaborative process. I first find it necessary to determine what is art. Is it Art or art? In Becker’s article Aesthetics, Aestheticians, and Critics the point was raised discussing what characteristics must an object have to be a work of art. This question really inspired me to think about what is art. From Cohen, The institutional theory suggests that anything may be capable of being appreciated is art. Art is all around us in society and it is through our usage and experience with it that we can form our own definitions.
This summer I studied abroad and travelled throughout Europe. Rob Forbes in his Ted presentation made me think about my experiences in Europe. He gave the example of artistic sidewalks. There were people doing chalk drawings on the sidewalks, mosaics in the ground, and cobblestones beautifully laid out. All architecture had an aesthetic purpose and place in the city. There were newer more modern parts of the city which reminded me more of the United States. These areas did not have a lot of art and seemed to me to lack a sense of culture. The globalization of art throughout the world shows how art has become a collective process. Many of the countries I visited had artwork from other countries. At the Louve there were sections of the museum dedicated to all different countries.
Art is global and it is through this globalization that people around the world bounce ideas and styles off of each other. In my field of study in sports marketing, art in the form of promotions are all copied off of each other. This creates a competition and inspires creativity resulting in better and better artwork.
I love the song by Terry Allen – not only is it right up my musical style, but the message is fantastic. I understood it as a comment to the futility of art when nobody sees it. This is a valid idea in relation to the question of this module “what constitutes art”. Well, if nobody is around to appreciate art, then what use is it? It’s like a tree falling in the forest – if nobody is around, does it still make a noise? If nobody went to see the Mona Lisa, would it still be considered a visual masterpiece?
I am also inspired by Becker’s Aesthetics, Aestheticians, and Critics. It made me think a lot about how I view my own principles of aesthetics especially related to art. Coming from an artistic household has always made me aware, at least in contrast to other people I have encountered, that I really do have a high appreciation for aesthetics. But after reading this article, I fall victim to my own philosophy of aesthetics, because, really, how can I interpret anything, calling it good or bad? I am not an aesthetic philosopher, even if I feel that I have a good grasp on the way I interpret the physical and metaphysical world.
I struggle with modern interpretations of art sometimes – for instance, modern jazz kind of drives me nuts. I am a classically trained musician on the flute and a child of classic rock. Jazz to me sounds insane, confusing, and uncomfortable – but that’s the thing – some people find that insane confusing mess a haven for ideas, thoughts, and emotions. Being a person who can respect any form of art, I say enjoy what makes you happy, but please don’t include me in your jazzisms.
But here is a catch – I love modern art. I do think Duchamp’s Fountain is art because it evoked a reaction, and continues to do so. With this theory, art would be anything that causes a reaction – and I like that idea! If in theater, one is supposed to not ‘act’, but ‘react’, this
idea holds true.
Rob Forbe’s talk was great – I do agree that design serves a social purpose. I often reflect on the design of my environment and feel lucky that I go to UO because I find it to be an appealing atmosphere. The buildings aside, the greatest thing for me is nature as art. This might be an inspiration for my field guide….. A quick note on utilitarian form – I lived in Kassel, Germany from 2007-2008 and made a recent visit there this summer. Kassel was the 2nd most destroyed city during the war and the rebuilding efforts were done in a ‘quick as you can’ manner. Kassel doesn’t look like the rest of Germany – it has huge grey ugly buildings that are rigid in design. This was done on purpose – Kassel city planning of the 50’s did not want to forget the past by just putting up classic German Fachwerk. At first this was very awful to me because I found everything so ugly, but as I continued to experience the city I realized that there is a special modern utilitarian aesthetic to Kassel that makes it special. This design aesthetic reflects Kassel’s slogan “Freiwillig Kassel”, meaning “In Kassel of my own free will”. It takes a certain eye to appreciate what the city has to offer….It also is home of Dokumenta, Europe’s largest modern art exhibition that happens every 4 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documenta
Henry Jenkins discusses in several of his blog posts how transmedia storytelling is becoming a vital tool in marketing and development, specifically in the film industry. In a post from April 27, 2010 he provides a description of a newly recognized title of “Transmedia Producer” within the Producers Guild of America which defines a Transmedia Narrative as “a narrative storyline existing within the same fictional universe on any of the following platforms: Film, Television, Short Film, Broadband, Publishing, Comics, Animation, Mobile, Special Venues, DVD/Blu-ray/CD-ROM, Narrative Commercial and Marketing rollouts, and other technologies that may or may not currently exist.” To be considered a Transmedia Narrative by Producers Guild standards, a minimum of three of these platforms must be employed in creating the narrative. While these platforms unarguably require a great deal of skill and expertise in development and execution, it begs the question, is it art? Is there an aesthetic framework in place that integrates these platforms and allows for their presence in an art world or is a new framework necessary to incorporate these media forms?
Becker’s chapter on Aesthetics questions what constitutes art and offers one institutional definition as art being anything that can be appreciated. This definition is widely open to interpretation, and in turn, criticism. Under this definition, not only are marketing tools and devices considered art but so is grandma’s apple pie. Such a broad description of what constitutes art keeps art worlds nonrestrictive and prevents artists from feeling limited when producing work. According to Jenkins, artists are people “who get to do anything they want,” especially in this technological age. Why limit oneself to a studio? Transmedia platforms defy a standard connotation that art can only be viewed in a gallery and expands our notion of art and art practices in a way they have never been viewed before.
Another angle from which to look at this discussion is through the mainstream Art World’s enslavement by and capitulation to the free market and its subsequent tendencies toward profitability and fashion (and thus the privileging of individual artists’ reputations and focus on “studio problems” as opposed to “social problems”). Perhaps Fletcher’s and Rubin’s (and many others’) art of social practice has the potential to free art from capitalism.
As Rebecca mentions in her comment, approximately 5% of MFA graduates are employed as artists two years after graduating. This is just one symptom of a serious problem with the academic system’s treatment of art students that verges on the exploitative. For example, university administrators are aware of the realities of employment and marketability for MFA graduates, and yet in this economy they accept students anyway, using less competitive criteria even though program resources and staff are being cut, so the quality of education is being affected, all while very little financial aid is being provided and students are being left with few opportunities for employment but plenty of debt.
Viewed through a particular political and economic lens, the shift toward social practice and participatory/collaborative art via transmedia is inherently more socialist in nature, and in its way might help detach the many artists, art students, and art worlds from the capitalist system that perpetuates them as elitist fashion, commodity, and profit for the wealthy and powerful.
I’m not entirely sure that it’s possible to define art or artworlds in a transmedia context because of the complexity involved and the many layers associated with its possibilities. I think, for me at least, the main question that was brought up during the readings & other material was how is transmedia positively impacting the level of particpatory practices/art awareness within the general community? Obviously, with sites such as Learning to Love You More, the link I posted in the Diigo group I’m Too Sad to Tell you, and even sites like Flickr, art & art worlds are able to reach a much larger audience and people who may not otherwise have had access to such resources and events are able to actively participate in and appreciate art.
Jenkins points out in the video that now reality can be depicted by ordinary people (I suppose in contrast to the unique artist) who never really had the platform to do so. He further states that because of this (and collectve intelligence) we have the potential to have a much more diverse world than if things were controlled by a small number of elite individuals.
Which is a good transition point into the idea of aesthetics & the role that aestheticians play in art worlds. I was little disheartened while reading Becker’s chapter. While, to a certain extent, I do believe that an artist should be able to defend their work and choices, I don’t necessarily feel that its OK to have some sort of specific criteria for evaluation/judgement, especially in a collective environment (for example, the LTLYM site). It also seems like the Becker reading was aimed at a specific type of artist, someone who is interested in creating works for galleries or performance halls and for an audience that is already well educated in their mediums, the studio practice model as Fletcher describes it. In the more participatory practices, such as Fletcher’s work, the audience becomes an integral element and the work is made for their experience. Fletcher says ” I don’t want to make work so only the expert can understand. I want everyone to be able to walk through that forest and have an interesting experience.” So, it isn’t necessarily about the final product so much as the process and collaboration.
In my opinion, transmedia art is all about doing. As Henry Jenkins puts it “average citizens have the ability to seize control … and tell their own stories”. Though I think there are many layers to transmedia art and the roles it provides individuals to play within the art community, I’m currently interested in the phenomenon it has created that “everyone can be an artist”. A phrase that I’m beginning to become more comfortable with, and can relate why using both the Becker Chap 5 reading and the Fletcher interview.
When the topic of struggling artists in America is discussed I feel that it has a tendency to become a bit whiney. As a graduate with a degree in music performance I agree that the situation can be unfortunate. Why wasn’t I offered a Met Opera contract the day I graduated? I did all my class work, learned all my languages, attended all my lessons, and yet I’m not a famous singer (a thought reminiscent to the points Fletcher discussed regarding studio time). Like Fletcher I learned to accept this and find other ways to be artistic and find different mediums to showcase my talent. Transmedia can give a new voice to “rejected” artists and allow them to possibly reach people that would never experience their work if it was hung on the walls of the SF MOMA. The fact of the matter is, aestheticians and critics will always be a part of the larger art world. Sure flicker allows everyone to post photos, and those people may all call themselves photographers, but every photo on flicker is not going to make its way to the gallery wall. Becker writes, “The heat in discussions of aesthetics usually exists because what is being decided is not only an abstract philosophical question but also some allocation of valuable resources”, and though we can discuss the problems around the lack of resources for days, all the money and art enthusiasts in the world would still not support every person who dreams of being an artist, musician, photographer, novelist, etc…and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I might not be a famous opera singer, but if I want to sing and post it on YouTube for the world to see no one’s going to stop me.
Transmedia, like so many activities in today’s world, is exciting in that it is extremely accessible to make, participate in, share and discuss. As Henry Jenkins says, transmedia allows new perspectives to emerge, new groups to be represented, and the dominant media to be challenged by the average citizen. Because of this, the art world and conceptions about what is “art” are changing much more rapidly than in the past.
As traditional practices and theories are turned upside-down, the definition of “participatory and collective intelligence” is expand, refined, thrown out and rewritten at an incredible pace. For example, the institutional theories spoken of by H.S. Becker, that “aims to solve the problems raised by works that outrage both commonsense and finer sensibilities…” can not keep up with the exorbitant numbers of peoples now participating in transmedia. Therefore, “art” and “art worlds” are much more nebulous terms.
As new technology is discovered/made, and then taken over and remade by the average citizen, tansmedia will continue to evolve. As long as people are willing to embraces these ideas and platforms, and expand upon them, curating, critiquing, teaching, doing, etc. are all within the realm of transmedia. In fact these participants are in their own way redefining it’s purpose and meaning for themselves, for the art and media worlds, and for society as a whole.
As the readings from Becker suggest “all work involves joint activity”, I have always adopted the “it takes a village” mentality when approaching art. The energies, talent, exploration and personal growth that is a part of the creation of an artwork is valuable to all that encounter it (creators and consumers). The concept of art worlds and collective activity are almost synonymous with transmedia. Transmedia has always been a tricky term or concept for me as it seems to instantly conjure up use of new or digital media. As I try to step away from this initial reaction, and reframe my thinking automatically I am drawn to theatre as a transmedia pinnacle. Theatre is not created by an individual but by the efforts of a collective group of artists each contributing their special expertise in their chosen medium. The playwright gives words, the director give focus, the actor give life and humanity, the costumer creates time a place and it goes on. The gathering of artists is unique and can be changed for each production creating a different experience with different artists. The collective nature of theater is why I love it. Witnessing the growth and development of a character or a theme between a director and an actor is a process that can leave both participants changed. The intention being that the experience will then translate into the audience member, but the process is equally as important as the final result. The readings this week inspired some new thought on the role of an art administrator as a piece of this collective intelligence. As art administrators, beacons and instruments of bringing “art” (however we define it) to our community, we create the aesthetic of our community by what we select to perform (or curate, etc). We are place value on certain work, ideas, and themes and present them to the public as representative of the best in the field. With idea of arts administrators as culture curators for the community in mind I really enjoyed the Willis/Fletcher discussion of community responsibility. Fletcher stated that he did want to find something to offer a community, he believed the community had something to offer him. He mentioned having an interest in people. I was intrigued at the idea of the community having a voice in the creative process, which would make us all part of the creator consumer paradigm. What if the artistic director of a theater allowed the community to help pick one of the shows in a season, or theme behind an installation? Instead of creating an aesthetic or conventions allow the communities voice and interests to be reflected in the process of creation. Do online communities make it easier or harder for these collaborations to unfold? I usually come down on the side of in person collaborations (walking in the community to get the feel), but rather than make a value statement on whether I feel that online mediums are helpful or hurtful to this process I will say that it is a new way to approach this collective activities. How could a project/artwork start in an online forum and then be translated into an in person community activity, or vice versa? The possibilities of collaboration, collective activities and transmedia seem endless.
The creation of art within the set parameters of an established art world has always been a collaboration. Setting standards of aesthetics, creation of work, distribution of said work, and the audience who views/experiences the art are all apart of this process. Participation has been a constant throughout this process and by looking at art through a transmedia context we can alter participation within that world.
Becker touches upon the idea that an artworld that is already in existence has a set of “core personnel” that institute the boundaries of aesthetics; they debate what is or is not art. Viewing art within a transmedia context challenges this idea because it gives a greater number of people access to different art forms. While in the past many artists who did not “make it” using the conventional standards faded away but now using different media such as the internet, a wider variety of people can view that work and form their own opinion. Fletcher in his teaching practices and his own artistic work makes use of various media platforms because he believes art must be shown, that it “cannot be made in a vacuum.” If we break down the ideals of aesthetics and stop worrying about reputation of artists we might be able to form fresher experiences and have a more profound emotional response because we will be less concerned with the artist or the established world and more with art itself.
Whenever forced to explore the question of what constitutes art or art worlds, I inevitably find myself at the same quote by Pablo Picasso: “Art is the lie that enables us to realize the truth.” Art and art worlds are ultimately personal relationships between the viewer and what the viewer believes is art, making art everything and nothing at the same time. Because of this, I believe that you can’t pose the question of “what is art?” without asking for a personal and individual answer. For me, art and art worlds are less about the physical materials or resources that created the art and more about the emotional impetus for the artist to create such work and the instinctual reaction of the viewer taking it in. Therefore, I think materials, ideas, movement, and sounds only truly become art when human emotions are mixed with the media. Art is the physical realization of our individual truths and has very little to do with the media in which the artist chooses to render that emotion.
I think the Rob Walker article about tagging the histories of the object onto the merchandise resonated most deeply with me. When I asked some neighbors in passing what art was to them, many said that art is everything. I believe that many people feel this way because we believe that something becomes art when we have a connection to it and that connection is personal and has no limitations. The Walker article speaks to the instantaneous connection we feel towards something when we are personally invested. Knowing the history of an object makes it feel more like an old friend than a stranger. That insertion of human emotion into even the most commercially and mechanically created object, creates a connection that I believe is the essential component of what makes something art.
Because art is a combination of raw materials, resources, and human experiences, art and art worlds can only be created through a collective network of people, objects, and time. The Becker article reiterates this notion that nothing, particularly art, is created in a vacuum. Everyone and the things they create are a sum of many parts coming together. Becker argues that art, in most cases, takes the work of many people and multiple resources to attain the material for the art and distribute it to an audience. In this sense, no artist truly works alone or is fixed to a single medium.
Becker also points out the importance of an audience to art, the need to have someone respond and react to a creation. The transmedia piece by Henry Jenkins expounds on that notion of the audience’s relationship to art. Using a transmedia approach to storytelling can capture a larger audience and keep those people continually interested in what is being portrayed, always giving them a different way to explore the art. Jenkins illustrates transmedia storytelling through the use of films, comic books, action figures, and costume that all link to the same central story. My fear is that by doing this, they are handing over a prepackaged experience for the viewer. Although there is always room to inject personal experiences, I believe that the possibilities for individual connections that aren’t predetermined and specifically intended by the manufacturers are limited.
Ultimately I believe that art is personal and cannot be dictated in any universal way or through any particular media. Because of that, whenever I am asked the question of what is art, I never believe that there is a correct answer. What constitutes art for me is different than what constitutes art for you. And so I end this with some of my favorite answers to the question of “what constitutes art?” from some friends and strangers I ran into today.
“Art is anything. Its what divides us as individuals and is what brings us together.”
“Art is like an someone’s old teddy bear. It may look weird or cute or fuzzy to you,
but you can see that it was loved and because of that, you appreciate it.”
“Art is whatever the creator calls it.”
“Art shows us things we didn’t know about ourselves.”
“We can only define art by what is not art.”
“Art is a bowl of my mother’s chili.”
An art world, if converted into insect form, may be a millipede, with a thousand legs working together to carry one large, alive, productive body of work from conception to fruition.
Transmedia, on the other hand, would show up not only as an entire colony of ants, but also as a flock of seagulls, a swarm of bees, and whatever else hangs out in groups, all under the auspice of having as many perspectives as possible to carry the story through a diverse family of voices. Those perspectives, be it from the ground up, or from a birds-eye view, transmit a multi-lateral and multi-lingual signal to its many audiences, near and far.
Insect transformation theory aside, what’s the point?
For myself, art and the many practices connected to it (as listed in the Module 1 question) is highly participatory. Seeing art in the mundane, for example, when Forbes described the matching sets of red motorcycles neatly lined up in an impromptu “art” display near his city block–this is a participatory practice, albeit accidental. You have the manufacturers of the motorcycles, the motorcycle retailers, and the purchasers, who may also be the primary drivers. All of these relationships made the red motorcycle display possible so that Forbes, the ultimate participant, could take it in, transform it, and see the beauty, and the art, of the design.
Transmedia has hooked on to this method in that it, too, uses relationships and new perspectives to reach audiences in effective and compelling ways. It also parallels Becker’s notion of the art world’s division of labor: one person can’t possibly do everything, though together, many people can accomplish many things with a much greater chance of success.
Art worlds can’t exist without relationships. Without the active participation of the ants, birds, and bees of transmedia, the millipede’s story stands a greater chance of gathering dust on the shelf.
To me, the most efficient participatory practices that constitute art through transmedia is both teaching this process and doing this process. As Jenkins stated, we are in a time of great transition in which a new system of media is being born; this new media system needs to be more readily taught in order for it to be an even more efficient participatory practice. A wonderful aspect about transmedia is that it is opening doors for every day people to partake in something once only an entertainment foundation has been producing. As Jenkins pointed out, this is the beauty of transmedia; to be able to reach a diversity of people not by means of an entertainment infrastructure but by and average citizen. Yet, it is indeed complex, which stresses even more reason why it needs to be more readily available through teachings, and then carried out by doing/producing.
There will be shifts and changes in what constitutes art, and although I think the teachings of transmedia needs to be more available (for a wealth of even more will soon be available), I stand firm in believing we must continue to preserve the traditional forms of art and teaching it. My concern is that with the spread and use of art through transmedia, the emotional drive behind the piece has more potential of being lost and or misunderstood.
As Henry Jenkins describes in his blog and videocast, “transmedia” is changing the way the world receives information. Up until recently, the majority of people received their information from a small number of establishments. As far as the art world is concerned, most of this information has been given to us through cultural programming in established art institutions such as museums, galleries, and through critics that have earned a reputation through the caliber of their publications. Transmedia changes all of that. With tools such as Facebook, Youtube and Wikipedia, ordinary people now have the power to create their own context for viewing, sharing, and interpreting art. An artist no longer has to jump through hoops to get their art shown in a gallery. They can easily create a website, or join an online community like Etsy to sell and promote their work. Likewise, anyone can create a blog to critique these works. This provides a number of alternative perspectives on art, and makes it possible to create advanced networks on very specific genres of art that might not garnish much recognition in the established art world.
Even with all of these transmedia innovations there are still hierarchies based on collective intelligences. It takes a large number of people to allow a Youtube video to reach “viral” status. It also takes a large number of links and visits for certain sites and material to reach a high level in search engine ranking. Things that are promoted and recognized in established publications are still more likely to be read and linked to even in a transmedia context. The old hierarchies are still present.
Becker describes the role aestheticians play in classifying things as being “art” or “non-art” as playing a significant role in the competition of resources. While transmedia opens floodgates for the distribution of art and arts discourse, can it foster resources? The majority of resources are still dispensed by institutions and art councils who need some criteria for choosing what projects are worthy of their funds. Without funds some projects will never reach fruition.
Fletcher, expressed distaste for this structure in his interview with Willis; he would apply for requests for qualifications, invest a significant amount of time and money, and then not receive the commission. He had to step outside the traditional way of doing things and create his own way, using money out of his pocket. Much of the power of judgment and creation is in the hands of the people with the money and resources to create and delegate funds. In what ways can transmedia be used to transcend that?
Our more standard art venues (galleries, museums, concert halls), which Fletcher refers to as the dominant ones, have, according to the NEA, mostly suffered from a decline in audience numbers. Many of their audiences are also aging ones. I would say that art, however, is not on the decline. Both online tools and display spaces make it possible for many more people be involved in art creation and certainly art participation. The Internet removes geographical constraints; for those who have it, access is possible to anything anywhere at anytime. Also, if/as the theories of Social Practice Art programs become more practiced, the lines between artists and the public should really become blurred. As Fletcher says, “The goal is for the public to become more comfortable and invested in the art space and the artists to become more invested in the outside world.” In this situation there would no longer be a need to explain and convince communities of the value of art.
Art is the process, yes! I would also tentatively add that this process speaks not to a functional end but to some aspect of the human spirit. As new technologies and combinations are invented or imagined, this process becomes broader.
As one of last year’s students pointed out in reference to YouTube, it becomes sometimes less about the artist and more about the art. Are we so inundated with stimuli from all over that we’re less inclined to take the time to learn about specific artists? Practically, as the creation process loses some of its more traditional constraints, how will individual artists distinguish themselves, and how will the rest of society choose and be able to support them?
What goes into the process behind the creation and distribution of the many art forms which we know today? The art world can be made up of many people or just a few depending on the form which the art is to take. It is also possible for an individual to assume the role of many within an art world. Harrell Fletcher states that he feels like a con man as he works in the traditional studio format at Portland State University and he has been working with students to create a smaller art world. In the traditional model, the art world consists of the “artist” at the center point with those who provide supplies on one side and the intended audience and critics on the other. The point in which most artists become lost is in the distribution phase. The distribution of art is left to a few people who provide a means for the artist to be noticed. These can be people who fund the artist, the people who literally put art up on walls, or the people who play music in clubs. Fletcher removes this middle step and is working to put art directly in front of the audience.
This concept can be practiced through all media formats. A musician can take his music to the street and perform directly for the audience. In one example found at the Washington Post, a world class musician is found performing in a Washington, DC metro station. A theatre troupe can rehearse a play in the private of a personal back yard to be performed in a local common area. Now with the internet and social media, it is easier than ever for musicians, graphic designers (sometimes considered artists), photographers, and many more to directly put art in the hands of their audience.
Sadly, as the Becker article explains, “the art world’s distribution system has a finite capacity, all works and schools cannot be presented by it and thus be eligible for the rewards and advantages of presentation.” As this distribution system continues to fail artists of all types, it will be more and more important, as artists, to find one’s own path to the audience.
What participatory practices and/or collective intelligences constitute ‘art’ or art worlds via transmedia contexts?
Well I think in today’s transmedia contexts, teaching and critiquing are two important aspects that can lead us to have the art or art worlds.
Teaching and learning are always the most important things for people to do. At school, art students can accept professional training. They will be taught about how to recognize music scores, how to use the camera, and how to critique art. Harrell Fletcher’s interview shows a great example about how the teaching leads us to have the art worlds. By attending the Art and Social Practice Art program, student will be taught about how to be an artist. In today’s transmedia sphere, more and more teaching methods can be used. Teacher use media to tell students how to do. Students can use blog or Facebook to discuss their works. The transmedia contexts helped the teacher to teach art more effective in today’s world.
The other thing that constitutes “art” or art world is critique. In complex and highly developed art worlds, critique helps us to identify what is art, what is not. From Becker’s book we know that when the participants want their work accepted as art, they should persuade the appropriate people to certify it as art. When we post the photos on the Facebook, people can critique either it is or not art. So the critique is really important for artists to revise their works.
If the definition of ‘art’ and art worlds encompass the world of craft, which I believe it should, an example of an art world that employs collaborative, transmedia communication techniques is the craft of knitting. The world of crafting differs from the traditional art worlds described in the article in that there are many people who consume the raw materials created by a network and infrastructure, not just the ‘artist’ as the pinnacle creator. This type of art world does encompass a complex network of people whose work leads to the construction and consumption of art products, in this case knitted garments.
Knitting is by nature a collaborative craft that relies heavily on a collective intelligence that has historically been shared and perfected through social networks and printed media. The core knowledge of the craft is continual augmented by teaching and publishing new patterns and techniques. The advancement of new technologies has had a profound impact on this art world and art practice. Over the last decade many knitting websites, blogs, youtube.com videos, forums and groups have been created to facilitate the sharing of information and strengthen the collective intelligence surrounding knitting. These online platforms for communication have strengthened what was already an extremely collaborative art practice. In particular the website http://www.ravelry.com has provided a key platform to link and cross reference everything from patterns from a particular designer, to types and brands of yarn. This website and other online platforms have provided the context for many different aspects of the knitting world to come together and literally be catalogued, cross-referenced and reinterpreted. This has changed the entire industry; from the way people have begun to view their own practice of the craft to the businesses involved in sustaining this art world. The transmedia connectivity has been able to give yarn mills, pattern designer and store fronts a way to view reactions to their products, and has created a network for the consumers of these goods to influence what materials are created for them to use in their art practice. This has both created a smarter crafter, or consumer of the materials, and has caused all aspects of the industry behind the craft to try to make more desirable products.
While reading these articles about art worlds and transmedia communication the example of the knitting world kept coming to my mind because I have been involved in that art world both on the business and infrastructure side, and as a crafter. I find it fascinating how transmedia communication itself provides a catalytic for creation, and, in the case of knitting, has reflexively influenced and changed the art world for which and in which it was created.
Twitter, Tumblr and Facebook are good examples of modern formats of transmedia with relation to the arts and art worlds. Each of these transmedia delivery systems exist with mutuality to the communities and individuals who participate. Without participation, the delivery systems wouldn’t function and would be rendered obsolete. Thus, the nature of social media. While mutualistic survival is a good thing for owners of Facebook and the millions of participants that actively utilize its services, questions arise in terms of archival use of collected data and how such a position of power may adversely affect participants, particularly in the sense of privacy.
Cinema might also be perceived as a long-time format of transmedia as each work is the product of thousands of hours of production time by artisans and craftsmen with specialties spanning from storytelling to photography, lighting, theater arts and a multitude of other artistic formats. Yet, the artisans are paid by the project with very few rights to the works that they collectively created, while producers, directors and top list actors receive the brunt of the bounty. Correlating film production to social media, participants in either genre surrender their rights to be a part of then project or temporal art world. Concept artists trade their labor for money, while individuals trade their privacy for the right to participate.
VIDEO: Ralph Bakshi’s solution is to DYI (cover your ears Disney fans)
In a positive light – prolific director, Guillermo del Toro, draws some attention to transmedia and its eventual domination of the entertainment landscape in an interview with the Hollywood Reporter.
Excerpted from The Hollywood Reporter:
In an exclusive interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Del Toro (Hellboy franchise) said animation has caught his eye because he believes that during the next 10 years, the entertainment landscape will shift into a transmedia world — a confluence of movies, TV, books, video and online — and artists will need to be educated in all aspects of media.
“Transmedia,” he said, “will not just be a buzz word.”
VIDEO: Ladies and Gents Installation
On Becker 354, “the definition (of an artist) emphasizes traits of the maker of fine works; it asserts that such words do not get made accidentally, that making great works is not something anyone could do on a good day, that the works get their value from being made by unusual people, of whom there are not many.”
In response, will there be an art world comprised of artisan robots and will they deserve reputation in the world of art? Are robot artists transmedia?
“The moment something is considered an artwork, it becomes subject to interpretation. (Danto, 1973, p.15) These varied interpretations have led to many ideas on what constitutes a piece of art. Aestheticians are necessary to keep the order into what is, or not art, but these “rules” can also be limiting for artists who do not fit the criteria. This is why transmedia is an important tool that shows various methods of media, and art, which appeal to a diverse group of people. There is a need for people to express themselves, rules on what is constituted as art can be limiting for some artists. In using transmedia they (and we) are able to reach out to a variety of people instead of one subset, and are able to send a message (or art piece) to a multitude of people in different ways. Some examples of the expansion of art and media is not only shown through the Matrix, but museums can now create billboards and advertisements to the public, individual art from graffiti to photography appear on buildings. There are also a variety of art works that have been put into the mainstream to decorate phones, computers, walls of homes, clothing, etc. Aestheticians are important to the art world; they keep a balance for artists and viewers. It is also inspiring to see that art has left the museum, and collector’s homes, to expand for public view and interpretation.
The Flectcher interview also hit home for me. His new program with “Social Practice Art” is a great idea. Many students are just thrown into a world that the school system has not prepared them for. With Fletcher’s program he “…designed to teach artists ways to become functional within society and sustain themselves;” (Fletcher, p. 122) is this not what we are supposed to be taught in school to begin with? I was also very excited to read how Fletcher thought outside of the box and brought in an 8yr old boy to help build the statue he was commissioned to create for a park in France. He looked to the community to see what they would want to see. Working with the community for inspiration (instead of just creating what he wanted) was a great way to involve the people who will be looking at the piece on a daily bases. Everyone can then appreciate the arts beauty and value more than if Fletcher had just ignored the people’s opinions, wherein they could have ended up with a sculpture that would not have been enjoyed.
I would like to talk about the subversive nature of the entertainment market and pirate media distribution in Brasil. Through navigating Jenkings Convergence culture blog (http://www.convergenceculture.org/weblog/2010/09/what_prof_jenkins_did_this_sum.php) I was thrilled by the fact that he participated in a congress in Rio talking about transmedia and recognizing the singularities of the Brazilian market toward this decentralized culture of mass media. Analyzing the pirate sector of movies and the income generated to informal and formal distributors and according to statistic data, the pirate distribution of Brazilian movies generates a fortune on sold copies but, in the contrary of what others might think, instead of this fact being negative it creates the opposite effect: The thousands of DVD copies sold even before the movie is launched in the theaters, generates a thrilling movement to consume the product, publicity is made by consumers through many different channels and it allows the films producers to save money with publicity. Data showed that when the movie is launched in the theaters the public who watched the movie in low quality copy is compelled to watch the movie again. This phenomena guaranteed the success of the polemic documentary “Tropa de Elite”, that had a copy stolen before it was launched formally.
The pirate market in Brasil is so strong and has many reasons to be so prolific. The same happens to the music industries that in Brasil generate a huge informal economy.
By the time I participated on a seminar about communication, participatory culture and transmedia (International Seminar: The Constitution of the Common. Vitoria/ES, Brasil). I started to understand about this whole world as a subversive artistic form that starts in the art production level and goes through alternate routes of distributing and commercialization. The informal markets are spreaded around big cities as if they were legally accepted. They generate a huge portion of informal jobs and turn accessible art products that otherwise wouldn’t be consumed by the population at large.
The same is applied to computer softwares that might be acquired for insignificant amounts of money anywhere in downtown Rio or Sao Paulo. This allows people to produce a series of aesthetical values and media that otherwise would have been monopolized only for those who might pay expensive fees for them. The results are a myriad of graphic designs, videos, music, that represent innumerous types of cultures. Even traditional techniques of art forms have been changed through technology in Brasil among a population who does not have many accesses to technology. They always make their way through to continuously create and follow the new trends. But above all generating trends as well. Consequently, more and more peripherical and marginalized groups have being creating their own aesthetical values and influencing middles class groups that before had the ownership and access to media. This represents a huge shift of values and a more diverse and democratic reality than it was decades ago.
IHow do I do to add pictures in this comment?
I will add the links for now:
image from a pirate dealer in one of the many booths in the popular market in Rio. (source: I could not add the links I wanted to)
Graphic design produced by Roberto, Samba producer and musician. 2010, RJ, Brasil.
(Source: http://sambadacasinha.blogspot.com/p/proximo-evento.html)
To check independent music producers check a nice reference here: Muzanba Reggae Shop –CD digitaldubs
http://www.esquemageral.com.br/loja/product_info.php?products_id=95&osCsid=q3ak71mk3unu75tusioqrak256
Curating, collecting, critiquing, teaching, and doing. All of the above could constitute an art world via transmedia contexts. In one-way or another, art has always been a collaborative effort and transmedia allows a form of collaboration to be formed through a new platform.
Transmedia technology allows the physical art world connection to a broader audience. The large majority of non-profits, gallery spaces, arts education programs, museums and so forth are connected through Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Flickr, blogging and beyond. If an organization is using these tools effectively, information on their mission and programming will be “spread across different platforms, each utilized to display the information it handles best.” (Jenkins) By using these methods to spread exhibitions, programming and ideas beyond the doors of the physical facility, the organization gains a wider audience with whom to interact and educate.
Aside from the physical art world infrastructures entering the transmedia environment, art worlds needing no physical place are able to come alive. Art world participants can, and do, create sites dedicated to discussion, online classes and instructional videos, exhibits specifically curated for the online environment, and art marketplaces.
The harder question for me is what constitutes art via transmedia. In the age of the Internet and digital technology, one can feel oversaturated with imagery and opinions. We have more media, more thoughts, and more variations on art in our face every time we turn on our computer. In an oversaturated environment, how do we best move through the mass of material to determine what is art, what is good art and a legitimate critique of it?
I also find it interesting how technology is completely changing the face of certain art forms and adding new ones to the mix. Photography, which has always been based in technology, is a great example of a modern art form being affected by digital technology and how it is transmitted, shared and discussed through many Internet platforms. Multiple devices that many of us carry day to day, including our cell phone and iPods, have the ability to take a photograph and we are getting creative with these devices, using an iPhone application for instance that has earned it’s own term of iphoneography. Everyone starts to feel like a photographer, like an artist. Can this dilute the respect for a medium or wipe out its credibility all together?
The digital age has shifted photography into an arena where some people feel it is a dead medium (SFMOMA has an interesting project addressing this question: http://www.sfmoma.org/pages/research_projects_photography_over). The reality though is it that it has always been a medium based upon technology and we are just entering the next phase of this adaptation. How we use, interpret and critique it through digital and transmedia resources will be an exciting development, I am curious to see how it (and other new media art forms) will be handled through new media systems and the increase of participants.
I think at this point I have gone off on a tangent, but food for thought nonetheless.
I would agree with the majority of my classmates. Art can be participatory by teaching or doing it. One can also be somewhat of a curator. the creator of http://www.learningtoloveyoumore.com is an example of this. His transmedia art has become a huge hit. Through a blog-style website, he is asking viewers to create art. His website aims to bring communities and people together in the name of art. We are most definitely in a transition period of transmedia art. It is becoming a growing trend. However, as Jenkins stated, this new media system needs to be more readily taught in order for it to be an even more efficient participatory practice. I think that transmedia can, and will, be able to reach a very large number of people. It makes sharing art much easier and gives many more people the opportunity to be artists.