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 3.
I would like to build upon the statement made by Mindy Linder- a respondent from last year- who stated, “…the participatory nature of transmedia contexts decentralizes the ‘informed’ few that dictate the rules of the game.” The inherent idea of “transmedia” suggests a wider scope of resources and formats to express one or more ideas. In turn, this expands both the number of potential participants as well as the number of viewers, critics, and interpretations that can build on the idea of what “art” is. Becker comments that aesthetic writers seek out defensible ways to omit certain things as art in order to know what can constitute as art. However, the idea of leaving something out seems to be the opposite intention, or result, of transmedia contexts – which opens up platforms of creative expression/involvement.
Conventional ideas of aesthetics have had an influence on the “art world”, as talked about in Becker’s writing, and have seemed to create constraints on elements of possible participation, viewer involvement, evaluation, and influence. In turn, defining how art is justified also creates a controlled experience and influences how an audience receives the art. An example of this can be found in galleries and museums that have a heavy and specific hand in controlling what artwork is exhibited and in what context. Creating a controlled environment to display artwork inevitably influences the way in which artwork is understood and received.
In approaching the idea of what constitutes art one can look to Rob Forbe to provide an entirely different angle. In his Ted Talk he presents his artwork, which is not found in a formalized format but rather by him seeking out art in specifically unintended places. He creates artwork out of elements not even intended for art criticism and consideration. He finds compositions that could be formally described as design but in circumstances not created for that purpose. His found compositions fulfill that agreed upon criteria of what design is – elements of color, line, and composition. I like his approach because, in a way, it kind of puts everything in perspective. What is able to constitute as “art” isn’t something that should be limited because in fact, it is an ever-changing and unpredictable idea.
“[Art] work cannot be made in a vacuum. It has to be shown.” Fletcher challenges his students to step outside of the comfortable conventions of studios, and to consider the vast array of mediums and spaces in which to create. Stepping outside of traditional workspace and into an ‘art space’ community allows for a shift from more traditional spaces to ‘social spaces.’ Fletcher says, “I like galleries. I like art museums. I’m not saying that they are bad. I am just saying that they are dominant and I want to offer another possibility for myself, for audiences, and especially for my students.” Echoing Fletcher, Rob Forbes speaks directly to the idea of social art. In his Ted talk, Forbes says, “The first job of design is to serve a social purpose.” He talks about art that can be found on the streets, art that is available to all people, and art that contains messages: good design adds to culture. He says, “Simple design under our feet has great meaning.” Like Fletcher, Forbes considers the concept of public art and has made it his mission to find art and design in situational specific and social places. As a designer, Forbes provides examples of art requiring participation, such as art in the design of row of red bicycles. Fletcher furthers this act of participatory art practice by conducting fieldwork in a park in France. He engages with the community to ask, ‘What do you think of this sculpture?’ This is a participatory practice: collecting the opinions (data) of those that are experiencing the art. By raising the question of relevance about a particular piece of public art, interaction and dialogue are used to determine public option and to search for solutions. This act of finding a way to establish art by way of community is brilliant. By engaging in a collective art world that is participatory, communication opens between audience and art, and in turn, art becomes engaging, meaningful and relevant.
Harrell Fletcher states that students in fine arts are very unlikely to become practicing artists. His program is teaching students social art by requiring them to work more with (or in) the public. By doing this the students are increasing public interaction and, as Katrina points out, escalating relevance to specific communities. But will this isolate communities from other areas/cultures who have different views on art? In that way is it becoming more exclusive? When does the practice of participatory art become problematic?
Before I listened to his talk I looked at Rob Forbes’ brief bio on Ted.com. He founded Design Within Reach, “the furniture company that brought high design to the general public”. Before his talk on Ted.com he was already an established “artist” which made me wonder if he would have an audience or the recourses to explore this transmedia art outlet if he wasn’t already successful.
Street art invites those in public places to interact with the art they encounter. JR, a French photographer, has taken this concept to another level through his massive cityscape project, Inside Out (http://www.insideoutproject.net/). The project calls on individuals from anywhere in the world to submit photographs of themselves or others. JR blows these photographs up into black and white billboard-sized prints, and returns them to the participant. Individuals are then encouraged to place the photos in any space that matters to them. The Guardian described it as “street art, crowd-sources and super-sized.”
JR’s unique project is evidence of the new ways art endeavors can utilize multimedia to invite global participation. If you examine the steps involved in this project, you can see how transmedia elevates the endeavor’s scope. The Inside Out website is where individuals go to submit their photographs to be blown up. It is also a place where past participants photographs (that are now posted in physical spaces in their own communities) are documented and mapped virtually. Clicking on the images of where the photographs are hung out in the world, you learn about the participants and their location.
This is a clear example of how transmedia has the ability to amplify our artistic expressions in the physical world. The use of virtual mapping and storytelling, via the project’s website is two-fold. First, it points one’s attention to particular people and spaces around the world, documenting art that exists tangibly. Second, one could argue the website itself constitutes art.
Building on Katrina’s discussion of the Forbes video, it seems JR and Forbes have both similarities and differences. Like Forbes, JR also evokes art in cityscapes. However, JR’s work is done through deliberately implanting of art in cities and his transmedia approach is what makes organizing and promoting such large efforts feasible.
Becker (1982) in the chapter “Reputation” found in Art Worlds discusses how art worlds single out “from the mass of more or less similar work done by more or less interchangeable people a few works and a few makers of works of special worth.” From his earlier chapter “Aesthetics, Aestheticians, and Critics” he explains how art worlds use aesthetics as a baseline to determine who and what will be singled out of special worth. I agree with the previous post of Jaime Walsh, when she states this type of hierarchy is found in “galleries and museums, that have a heavy and specific hand in controlling what artwork is exhibited and in what context.” I wonder where else this is found?
Harrel Fletcher (2008) in his interview with Shelly Willis makes the case that for various reasons, an artist needs to consider creating artwork for places outside of the studio/gallery space, specifically in places more easily accessed and open to the public. Although this may seem juxtaposed to the discussion Becker leads, Fletcher does intend for the art to be displayed to be of “good quality.” He is not challenging the hierarchy led by museums and galleries of what is art or not art, he is simply acknowledging the limits of the spaces to serve a large population of artists and “nonarts” people.
Moving art into a more public sphere opens it up to participatory practices and collective intelligences. It expands the art world to include “nonarts” people, and depending on the choices the artist makes, has the potential to be a participatory practice. What then constitutes art becomes more broadly defined, it falls outside the limits of aestheticians and is instead judge by “nonarts” people. Using a transmedia approach, such as publishing work through a public blog, diversifies the audience and therefore expands what may or may not constitute art.
I believe that any type of art is considered to be art when creativity is an objective. Whether it is a variety of participatory practices or collective intelligences, art is culture mixed with creativity. As Harrell Fletcher stated in the interview with Shelly Willis, “I believe a community has something to offer me. I’m not going to teach them—they are going to teach me.” Art has something to offer individuals and communities but it is the communities and individuals who create and define art. Like Katrina stated, participatory practice of asking questions concerning the relevance about art not only allows for communication about art to begin but it also shapes the future art. As a result, inspiring, critiquing, learning, teaching, and sharing become primary practices for collective intelligences to constitute art.
Additionally, the arts have always stemmed from communities and their collective involvement thus making Fletcher’s actions to instigate art by way of community relevant especially in today’s transmedia influenced American society. This society where art is constantly inspired and connected from one art to another with ease, permits an open, never-ending, and accessible dialogue for sharing ideas. The dialogue allows different categories or levels of art to be identified by the collective community. Thus making this dialogue bittersweet by regulating and defining art but also allowing communal discourse occur within American society.
I sometimes like to apply the topic of discussion directly to my favorite genre of art: the performing arts. It often helps me discover a more tangible connection to the concepts being discussed. So when I started reading the Fletcher interview and the idea of social practice or public art I thought of an experience I had several years ago in San Francisco with the SF Trolley Dances. I first discovered the festival (I’ll call it a festival for lack of a better name) because I was following the projects of a particular choreographer who happened to be participating that year. SF Trolley Dances is a display of public art that takes the audience on a trolley ride through San Francisco on the F-line displaying original works at various locations both on and off the trolley along the way. Typically, the choreography will in some way reflect the population or culture of the location reminding me of a comment made by Fletcher in his interview. He states that instead of looking for something to give and something to teach, he looks for something to receive and something to learn. In thinking this way, Fletcher is able to work beyond the limits of the notion that the artist is always the teacher and is instead able to stay inspired by what he is learning from the space around him.
“Forbes says, “The first job of design is to serve a social purpose.” He talks about art that can be found on the streets, art that is available to all people, and art that contains messages: good design adds to culture. ” In the context of transmedia, often art and design become participatory seemingly often without direct knowledge of it. Thinking solely about web-based art and media, people “curate” art and design through sites such as pinterest.com, feedly.com, even facebook. Using various platforms to critique what they are seeing in everyday ordinary real life. Transmitting and transmuting it from one source to the next. Creating art out of the design of the ordinary. Similarly in websites such as learningtoloveyoumore we see curation of the ordinary and taken as a whole it becomes art itself. Ordinary, real objects , music and ephemera move to a virtual world, combine and transmute, then move back to the real world as art collected in a museum. It is participatory in that it is often not directional or intentional just a collective leaning toward a certain aesthetic. And yes, it then becomes engaging and relevant as Katrina has said above.
Katrina discusses both Rob Forbes and Harrell Fletcher as people who are really interested in “art that is available to all people” and what I love about Fletcher is that he wants to go beyond just having art be accessible—he wants people to be invested in it. His 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.” And how better to get people invested than to have them participate. For example, the huge “Learning to Love You More” project he did with Miranda July is a perfect example of participatory practice as well as an investigation into different forms of art. The broad range of projects really stretches the boundaries of what some may deem art. And indeed, who is/are the artist/s for this project? Surely the participants can be considered artists as well since they were largely responsible for the content.
Additionally, can Learning to Love You More be considered a transmedia project in itself? It uses a variety of media to tell a variety of stories of the assignments.
On a slightly different note, but still related to the Fletcher interview and his interest in community engagement and involvement, I loved his “Come Together” program that brought artists and nonarts people together. It actually reminded me a lot of this group in Los Angeles, Machine Project (http://machineproject.com/about/). They bring together people in the community for events, classes, etc on things that do not all lie within the usual boundaries of what many would consider art (though some certainly do). It is just another example of pulling arts out of their usual contexts in museums or well-establisted galleries and showing us that artists can “do anything they want”.
Participatory practices challenge institutional structures and traditional forms of art such as museums, opera, often accessible to a few privileged part of the population. The idea of collective intelligence imply the possibility of cross-cultural not to say universal forms of art. I find this idea very seductive as I believe that art in its broadest terms should be used by all and reflect a more equitable society. As argued by Henry Jenkins and Becker, transmedia arts offer a an opportunity for all individual to share their own story and share their own images. In other words, blogs, cameras, youtube and other transmedia give the tools to people to show the world as they see it, not as big media companies want to show it.
Collective intelligence implies a sense of team work which allows an art work to reflect on the social diversity of its authors. Henry Jenkins talks about the “convergence culture” where one story is showed through multiple types of media. Does each media, however, reflect is the same manner on one story? The rise of technology such as phones and cameras allow individuals to catch images that are sometimes unintended but strong for the public. Rob Forbes’s pictures of “unintended design” is very compelling in that sense. Like Jenkins, Forbes wants to open arts to the public and speaks about the “social purpose” of design. Design and other art worlds should be for all and everywhere. That is the purpose of “improveverywhere” and they show successfully how art should be taken out of traditional places and be more integrated to the streets. The clip called “say something nice” makes an interesting relation between the megaphon and the idea to give tools to individuals to make their voice heard. If anyone asks if improvisation is art, Becker’s argument that “aesthetic values arise from the consensus of the participants in an art world” would be accurate…
Michael Itkoff’s street portraits go along with the idea of participatory practices and how to popularize art.
http://www.michaelitkoff.com/streetportraits.php
I see art as a creative application of skill and/or imagination. Ergo, any of the participatory activities listed in the prompt may or may not be art. However, I think that trying to pin aesthetic labels to transmedia begins to centralize the audience or perhaps even the participants. Transmedia is clearly a form of the people. Who are we, as individuals, to define and label that which has been created by the masses? It’s an interesting question to ponder to be sure, but “with great education comes great responsibility” and I think we should be cognizant of how our critiques may negatively impact the evolution of an art form, especially one that’s still developing. We definitely live in a postmodern world.
But since the assignment is to discuss, I think “collective imagination” might be a better descriptor instead of “collective intelligence” when talking about transmedia as art. While collective intelligence is a huge part of transmedia contexts, I think it’s harder to talk about the collective whole as it pertains to art without the creative element, like Lexi mentioned. For example, I would see the works of Improv Everywhere as a rousing success of collective imagination. The participants envision and create a imaginative world so different from our own that people not involved with the project take notice. And to what end? For no more reason that the winner of the Carousel Horse Race gave on why he picked the bunny— “’Cause I wanted to!” If that isn’t art for art’s sake (a definition I’ve heard many people use for separating fine art from craft), I don’t know what is.
Although Becker does point out that art can be made solely by one person alone, this is not the norm either in Western art worlds and in Indigenous art worlds. Art, from production to performance, is usually a collective endeavor in which people participate. As Becker writes on page 161, “The term art world, remember, is just a way of talking about people who routinely participate in the making of art works.” The nature of the art form directly relates to the number of people involved at various levels.
Shelly Willis brings up an interesting concept in regards to participatory practice. She asks Harrell Fletcher “What comes first—the site, which includes the audience, or the idea? Because in the context of public art practice, it is usually perceived by curators, critics, and administrators, that artists consider the site and audience first before coming up with the idea.” So in the “The Bus Show”, Bill Arnold wanted to “present excellent photographs in a public space” (p.139) and thus 8,500 photographs were shown on 500 public buses and were viewed by bus riders in New York city.
Participation with an art form includes the artist(s)/performers, audience, critics, museum and gallery directors, art reviewers, facility employees, and those who promote and/or distribute the art/performance. A transmedia platform allows the dissemination and distribution of the art to have a reach farther that the gallery, museum, or stage where the action or transmission originally happened and impact a larger audience.
I thought about this today in my work in the Folklore Archives where I am renaming slides from 1979 of Native American material culture from Oregon that have been digitized and will be uploaded onto the UO Special Collections website. This platform will allow many people in Oregon and elsewhere to have access to these beautiful pieces of traditional art that previously have been kept inside boxes in a locked cabinet.
I want to follow up on the idea that “[art] cannot not be made in a vacuum. It has to be shown” just by the mere fact that art works are made by people who belong to a community. I am as intrigued as Jenkins on the position that art works/action “[rely] on local contexts to shape what those [art works] images meant to participants.” This position can challenge what Becker describes that can occur “in complex and highly developed art worlds, [where] specialized professionals –critics and philosophers- create logically organized and philosophically defensible aesthetic systems.” When the art has been taken “out of the studio,” as Fletcher does with his students, the art works are subject to different aesthetic judgments than those developed by the “professionals.” It is here that the collective intelligence creates judgment on the actions and art works. The interpretation of the art works based on the social context and community values creates the “artness” of such creations. An example is the “Andre the Giant has a Posse” stickers becoming a statement of a single artist and a specific community, such as the skateboarding community; the participatory action of placing, duplicating and reproducing the sticker image are probably done under specific values and interests becoming this “fan art” phenomenon in an art world in itself. Thus, I think that the transmedia of art works just opens the conversation to create values and judgments, within the specific context of the medium and the community using it, to create aesthetic systems.
In a transmedia context there seems to be a role for the artist as facilitator. Harrel Fletcher’s socially interactive projects defy the traditional studio practice formula, allowing him to directly cultivate art from non-artists. Early in his career he expressed a desire to involve the non-art community in the creative process: “We invested in the participants. We cared about the audience because we were making the work for them and with them.” By making a community not generally represented by the art world a part of the creative process, they become guerilla art adjudicators, a crowdsource version of Dickie’s “Candidates for Appreciation”. Fletcher’s aspiration “…for the public to become more comfortable and invested in the art space and the artists to become more invested in the outside world” further underscores a movement towards liberating the art world from the confines of traditional aestheticism as described in Becker’s text.
Another transmedia artist, Vik Muniz, featured in the film Wasteland, utilizes a similar socially interactive art platform, but maintains a closer link to the traditional art world. He facilitates an art project wherein he utilizes people in a specific community to address socio-political issues of class and environmental degradation by guiding them in the creation of works of art from trash. He utilizes his artistic reputation to sell the historically inspired images created from time-sensitive, site specific works at an art auction house, thereby embracing the traditional sense of curatorial approval.
Both Fletcher and Muniz can be interpreted as expanding the reach of the art experience to groups that might not have had the chance to experience art in such a proactive and personal way. For both artists this style of creative process seems to be symbiotic and not purely altruistic. Fletcher states, “I just didn’t feel comfortable with the idea of artist as society fixer. Instead of going out and finding something I can offer a community, I search for the things I can get from a community. I believe a community has something to offer me. I’m not going to teach them—they are going to teach me. In that sense, I’ve always thought of my practice as selfish. I’m getting to go out and learn things from people who know things that I don’t know.”
These artists further develop the role of facilitator/artist and non-art world community curators/collectors. The same communities that are now being given the chance to curate are also consuming this art. The relationship between these two artists and the communities they work with is reciprocal.
How do we define art? Are there standards a piece has to acquire before given the title of “art”? In Becker’s writings, he explains that art retains value only when it given aesthetics. So how do we give meaning to new works in the art world, which is in constant flux? Aesthetic is redefined and continually molds itself to these new, innovative works in the modern art world. So at what point do the lines begin to blur? If we are able to recontextualize aesthetic in order to give works the title of “art”, how do we distinguish art from anything else? The more important question I think is, is it essential to make that distinction? As Fletcher states, “My understanding of what an artist is…is someone who gets to do whatever they want”. Therefor, artists can create whatever they want. When we open this possibility up, we inevitably open art to the world in its entirety.
Take a look at P.L.A.C.E. Program at the University of New Mexico – http://place.unm.edu/relational_art.html#link . It details a new art movement happening right now called Relational Art. This movement has been criticized heavily and many arguments over whether or not it is art continue to be discussed. An artist may “kick-start a question, frame a point of consideration, or highlight an everyday moment. And then, they wait. They wait for a response from the random stranger, the passerby, the usual suspect—you and me. We are the missing piece and until we react, respond or relate, the “art” lies in wait to say: “Happy to meet you. I’ve been waiting for you.” Someone creates an environment and a reaction is made by another. Is this art or is this just an everyday interaction that is being acknowledged, recorded, and shared? To bring this full circle, the article states that critics argue over whether relational art can be considered an actual movement but artists still seem to continue making relational art. Will we be seeing a new aesthetic develop in the near future? I hope so!
Historically, participatory practices in the formation of art worlds have been based on the collective intelligences of a few, who then prescribe overarching statements about what does and does not qualify as art based on well known attributes, distinguishing qualities, or appropriate presentation. Those few are likely comprised of the aestheticians and arts professionals studying and distributing works of art and do not necessarily include artists or diverse populations. As Becker indicates based on art world’s distributive capacities, even some art works and movements that merit aesthetic value are not considered by these few.
Thus, the aesthetic value system prescribed by members of the art world, and criteria for inclusion in the allocations that support art making, are naturally flawed. Aestheticians are often separated from those making work by formal education, and, as a result, class (as education and class certainly correlate). Moreover, they have particular tastes in art and classifications that are often biased by gender, race, place, and values. Therefore, a single body of experts cannot possibly dictate aesthetics for an entire art world without including people familiar with the cultural context the work was created in.
As Baker points out, “It is frequently just not clear whether a particular critic’s decision has any consequence, whether others base their own activities on that decision, and very often that depends on a variety of contingencies that arise from political shifts and struggles within the art world.” The NEA’s 2008 survey proves that our art world is shifting, and that age groups are engaging in art forms at different times than they historically have as a result of technology. Aesthetic value is usually based on a consensus of those participants in the art world that the work or movement in question is both significant and valuable. However, if an art work is proposed in a non-traditional setting that is not comprised of formal aestheticians, that work can be recognized as art, and if favored, thrust into consideration by the virtue of its popularity.
Harrell takes full advantage of this phenomenon. Building on his academic understanding of art worlds, he purposefully diverged from them in hopes of beating them at their own game, and creating site and situation specific works that derive their value from those who experience them directly. By so doing, he invites those who may not seek a cultural experience in a gallery to understand his work, or as he says, “enjoy the forest.” The process he encourages for his students typifies a transmedia success: create work that is situation based and thus displayed or interacted with in that situation, then captured with photography or video, relayed via social media and websites, and possibly then talked about in interviews and articles. It is a truly universal style of sharing art that people of all backgrounds may participate in and view, purposefully or accidentally, joyfully or with disdain.
Transmedia storytelling is enabling the average citizen to explore, self instruct, create, share, and promote art that would otherwise not be included in the traditional canon, and likely never be viewed in a public setting, providing a significant upset in the classification of art works. This provides an outstanding opportunity for the arts to gain participants and supporters. As average consumers participate more and more in art making and sharing, they become more invested in the proliferation of the arts. Carlton Turner offers the powerful example of New Orleans post Hurricane Katrina: “What makes the culture of New Orleans so great is that the citizens of New Orleans own it. Their sense of ownership supersedes education or economic background, so when you feel ownership of something it changes you from a consumer to an active participant.” Furthermore, Turner’s speech to the NEA describes the necessity of opening the canon, of considering art forms other than the benchmarks as important in our cultural fabric, and by so doing, realizing the diversity and richness of the state of the arts:
“Critical to the rich ecosystem that has nurtured greatness is a traditional and community based arts sector, it is diverse and large, volunteer and unincorporated… There must be an acknowledgement of how the everyday person encounters and engages with the arts, more than any quantifiable measure of excellence. It is the chance to participate that the public most values. Participation is the recipe for excellence, and excellence is relevant… There is no homogenous America, but there are numerous many Americas, all of them eager to create art that speaks to their existence and helps to define their reality.”
Katrina says, “by raising the question of relevance about a particular piece of public art, interaction and dialogue are used to determine public option and to search for solutions. This act of finding a way to establish art by way of community is brilliant.” Furthering this, Harrel Fletcher discusses how he is not comfortable with the artist as a society fixer and he seeks to learn things from a community. With both these trains of the thought there is a more equal relationship between art and non art worlds. More non art people are influencing the art world and therefore becoming part of the art world. This notion paired with transmedia allows art to be more commonplace and more people are able to participate. This allows for a bigger community and a larger definition of art, which again allows for the art world to grow. So much growth has made for many more avenues of participation. I like this trend simply because it involves more people, possibly everyone and to echo Jamie, “art is an ever-changing and unpredictable idea.” I think it’s important to recognize this on going change because new opportunities can come out of it, like a whole new degree such as the program Art and Social Practice Art.
I was also struck by a Fletcher point that Laura touched on- “that students in fine arts are very unlikely to become practicing artists.” His mention that the studio arts were giving students a false impression of what their futures may hold (by mentioning that flashes of genius followed by notoriety and being rich and famous was going to be extremely improbable) made me wonder if he was commenting on himself or his peers as “frustrated” or “failed” artists. It seems his initial interpretation of studio vs. social practice was that the social extension was secondary. He wanted to “teach artists to be functional in society”. In the end, however, he is trying to elevate the idea of arts as benefitting society and stretching the limitations of what makes something art. Saying “an artist is someone who gets to do whatever they want” and the idea of artforms beyond the context of a gallery seem to be in effort to challenge conventional ideas about what art “should” be.
The Becker reading treated these conventions and aesthetic institutions as a type of “morality” and appropriateness as described by agreed upon artistic theory or history. But the Dickie quote, much like Fletcher, reminded us again that “every person who sees himself as a member of the artworld is thereby a member.” Lots of tension going on within the two camps- “its art because I personally say it is” vs. “its art because we as an art world accept it within our defensible styles or categories.”
The Terry Allen song begs the question- if no one “appropriate” was around to see the fancy art, how much of a loss was it, really? This is what makes Antiques Roadshow so fun for people! (Also, did anyone else notice him quoting the “cattle call” yodel?)
Art can be experienced via transmedia contexts simply by sharing your experiences. Rob Forbes shows us his photograph of a pattern formed from sunlight shining through a perforated screen that could, at first, only be experienced by being present at the restaurant. With the use of a camera, computer generated presentation, story-telling, and ultimately a video posted on TED.com, Forbes shares this art in the “everyday” that may have gone unnoticed. With the use of transmedia, this piece of art can be shared in a manner that begins with a participatory, everyday event.
On a similar note, Harrell Fletcher emphasizes his participatory nature of creating his earlier art processes– going out into the public and seeing what society has to offer him creatively. The “site-specific” or “situation-specific” practices lend one way in which participating in everyday life construes an art world. The art is created with whomever or whatever happens to be in a particular site of focus, and where that site is located. Those participating in this art are the artist, whomever happens to be there at the time, and whomever experiences any documented evidence of art produced or experienced there.
I’m mostly trying to relate the readings to an exhibit I “experienced” at MoMA last March. The well-known artist Marina Abramović was participating in her installation: The Artist is present. She really exhibited a nature of art as participatory experience, and even created a transmedia story and documentation of her work before the digital age. Simple video, photographs, and mixed-media evidence of her performance art was on display to be “experienced.” Even re-creations of her work in which “you had to be there” were installed. The idea of “sharing a moment” with the artist invites the public (although in a highly recognized institution for this particular exhibition) to participate actively with the art being created.
http://moma.org/visit/calendar/exhibitions/965
http://moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2010/marinaabramovic/
In response to Jamie’s comment, I’m not sure that it’s safe to say that Forbe doesn’t “intend his work for art criticism.” Art is created in order to incite criticism, no? Does a given work count as art if the work is not criticized? His point is investment in the art, but investment does not necessitate agreement. For that matter, he pushes investment in a given space by pushing attention upon otherwise overlooked places, spaces, and objects. Criticism is inherent in the art, and, though an audience may not critique Forbe’s art in the same way they may critique a more classically recognized piece of art, they may walk away with a critical eye that is newly focused upon the world around them in a way they had been prior to their interaction with the art.
I agree with Fletcher that multiple people must experience a work in order for it to qualify as art. The more who experience a thing, the more likely it is to be recognized as a part of an artworld—or for an art world to grow around a given work. Transmedia experiences allow for a broader range of people to experience art and encourage discussion (even if that discussion leads to disagreements over the artistic value of a given thing).
One of my favorite examples of participatory practice and collective intelligence in a transmedia context is the Playing for Change Foundation (it’s also the first that comes to mind). Here is their introductory video: http://vimeo.com/4651674
The PCF states on their website, “We are dedicated to creating positive change through music & arts education.” They accomplish this mission by acting on the belief that peace and change are possible through music. This belief is realized by providing instruments and knowledge to those in need of but otherwise unable to afford such items. In doing so, the Foundation has created seven programs, 130 jobs, and involves 600 students.
In relation to our class, the most important element of the PCF is how their mission and accomplishments involve presenting music in both physical and conceptual space through multiple types of media (i.e., spreading their project through the internet). Playing for Change is an excellent example for this discussion because they fulfill their mission by recording amateur and professional musicians in international locations via multitudinous transmedia tools.
Another example of collective intelligence constituting ‘art’ or an ‘art world’ via transmedia contexts is the 2008 Barack Obama political campaign. I’ve recently read some articles discussing precisely why the Obama campaign was ultimately successful. Some scholars [Lieb and Shah 2010, McDonnell 2008] exhibit Shepard Fairey’s iconic “Hope” poster as one of the primary reasons for this success. Lieb and Shah state, “This ‘Hope’ poster image became ubiquitous as media organizations celebrated it, political organizations perpetuated it, and fans created their own art from it. Fairey (2009) encouraged the viral movement by by donating limited edition stickers and posters to pro-Obama organizations and encouraging fans to download the image from his website.” Furthermore, this quote brings up another important aspect in both the success of Obama and Playing for Change: the use of the internet as a primary outlet for dialogue, exchange, participation, and creation.
From a different angle, Rob Forbes showcases many examples of how different forms of art are created through new media. After watching that TED talk I don’t think I’ll walk down the street the same way again. With an amazing perspective on brilliant subtlety in urban design, Forbes captures particularly wonderful frames of reference in common places the public passes through on a daily basis. For me, the best part is being able to capture this creativity via the super-communication-device (really, it’s no longer “my phone”) in my pocket, and then immediately publish it to a reactive audience.
What participatory practices and/or collective intelligences constitute ‘art’ or art worlds via transmedia contexts?
Curating, collecting, critiquing, teaching, doing, etc.?
This question and Becker’s chapter on aesthetics as activity prompt me to consider the extent to which the archives world, and its practices of selection, preservation, and presentation, constitutes an art world in a transmedia context. Increasingly, these practices, which are influenced by aesthetics of historical and cultural value, are manifest in transmedia contexts. Consider, for example, the online publication of digital collection of artists’ letters,
Fantastic comments, conversations, and critical reflection so far…As we move through this week, keep thinking about the issues embedded in this module’s question—especially as related to the Oregon Arts Summit on 10/5. What is the ‘currency of connection’ in a transmediated art world? What can/do/should arts organizations across the state offer to their constituents of artists, audiences, participants, and citizens? For those of you going to the OAS, keep your eyes and ears tuned to such ideas; for those of you not going, follow on Twitter (#oarts2011) or any other channel you can find! Finally, thanks for adding some great examples into our discussions; please post them to the Diigo group so they’ll become more fully part of the “course text”!
This question and Becker’s chapter on aesthetics as activity prompt me to consider the extent to which the archives world, and its practices of selection, preservation, and presentation, constitutes an art world in a transmedia context. Increasingly, these practices, which are influenced by aesthetics of historical and cultural value and aesthetics of professional practice, are manifest in transmedia contexts, like websites, public access catalogs, and digital collections. The archives world is also invoked through the use of archives material, such as sound recordings, photographs, moving images, in contemporary media contexts and often in support of an aesthetic, critical viewpoint, or claim.
Consider, for example, the online publication of a digital collection of artists’ letters and sketches. This archives management practice, which aligns with the professional principal of equal and open access to all, nevertheless correlates with specific art worlds, those that influenced the selection of the collection by the archives, provided the financial and other modes of support for preservation and publication, and formed the primary research audience for the collection. This practice is predicated on shared notions of historical and cultural value, and involves many interdependent practices and often over an extended period of time.
I think there has been increasingly awareness in the archives world of the role of the archives in dynamics of aesthetics. For example, the focus on collecting materials relating to under-documented communities. Also, in small ways, movement toward a participatory model of archives management in which aesthetically fraught archives management practices of selection, retention, and description are centered in communities.
via Richard…initially posted on the Module 1 page:
“Broad question. Becker seems to indicate that almost anyone with even a tangential interest or involvement in a community that produces art is part of the practices/intelligences that create, regulate, assess and consume art. Art does not exist in a vacuum – if a truckload of art runs off the road and bursts into flames, is it still art if no one is there to see it ? (hysterical song).
The practices of the people in the community contribute to its (art’s) success or failure, its brevity or longevity, its stagnation or progression. Ultimately, the community decides ( to some extent ) what is acceptable, and contributes to its lifespan. They will be the ones providing funding, making or contributing the materials from which works will spring up, being involved in the manufacture, and the consumption of said works of art. They will also determine when boundaries may be breached as to the notion of what “art” is, and allow it to expand. These decisions are made in a variety if situations by people in a variety of social/artistic strata – those who are educated in the fundamentals of art, to those who have a knack for the elements of design, to those who just have the ability to perceive art as it exists in the natural and man-made worlds.These “intelligences” and “practices” are a double edged sword – they perpetuate the survival of certain forms of art, but can just as easily (and unjustly) exclude other forms/individuals from support and survival.
Art (and design) occurs all around us, as Rob Forbes talked about in the TED video. He talks about “the silent hand of design” that he sees wherever he goes. Art will happen, and the decision to accept it or not depends on who is involved in the process – that of making, funding, and appreciating art. It is up to the communities that art exists in to accept or reject concepts of what art is; ultimately, its up to us.”
I just noticed there are two comment threads for Module 1. One comment thread is when you actually click on ‘Module 1 readings/materials’ and the other exists on the main blog stream.
Should this be regarded as something to be fixed? It seems more organized if all responses to this question are in one place.
@jlederma I’ve “fixed” it for the next three modules by turning comments off on those reading/resources pages; only a few comments made it to Module 1’s static readings page, and I will redirect them manually so all can find them. To everyone else, if this is confusing, don’t worry! I’ll address it once we are back in the classroom together…
via Karen…initially posted on the Module 1 “readings/resources” page:
“In response to Richard’s question, which I feel is rhetorical, “If a bus full of artwork ran off the road and burst into flames, and nobody was there to see it, would it still be art?” honestly there cannot be a correct answer unless we are speaking to dictators. They seem to know the right way to do everything, so lets ask them how to make art. What I wonder is how would folks at Burning Man respond to a bus full burning art? Is this game or socially accepted in the art world of Burning Man? It might be a big hit, especially if it holds masterpieces; after all, it could represent burning the bar or parameters of creating fine art. It definitely would get the ringleaders of cliques, aka “Art worlds” up in a hissy.
I really enjoyed learning about he Bus Show. It expands boarders of exposure to art by widening the best of what’s accepted in the show. If there are 500 buses, that is a plethora of space to fill. Value is relative to what is already out there, and in this case, submitted. With so much submission, the level of judgment and then censorship to what will be displayed is diffused. Besides, judging the value of art is based on personal appreciation, or lack of, and in a group setting/art world, that to me simulates a clique. If you don’t like one clique’s style of aesthetics, then float on to another, or create your own- or even a sub-clique. Careful when creating something new though, because as Beckner says, “When new styles of art emerge they compete for available space, in part by proposing new aesthetic standards according to which their work merits display in existing facilities”. This even applies when putting artwork on a bus. Value is always in flux, even in art; it’s like a fad, but upheld by a fussier crowd.
A random thought, Beckner says that “the Bus Show had great disadvantage because it could hardly help build any one’s reputation… critics could not review them.” I do not think that this was the point of the show. It would have been interesting to open the show with all the buses in a parking lot with open doors for the public to view, then cut the ribbon and let them loose.”
And her follow up:
“I am just getting a hang of the website and now just found the prompt, so lets add onto what I posted earlier- I was just going out on a whim. In Beckner’s concluding paragraphs of his Aesthetics, Aesthticians, and Critics chapter, it can be concluded that society creates our own rationale for each of our art worlds. This is based upon what we perceive as aesthetic. Artists, also referred to as philosophers, are influenced by what others have said to be valued and aesthetic, and are creating after being influenced, whether this is intended or not. Once we are exposed to something we cannot take that experience back and revert to the ways we were before, unless we were hit in the head, real hard, with a soccer ball. We participate in collective intelligences just by entering a museum or gallery. We do not realize that we are entering a censored exhibit, on the contrary we feel that we are being exposed. Both parts could be argued, but the curators ween out submissions or choose what is appropriate for each show. Everything cannot possibly be displayed, so judging, weighing, categorizing and labeling helps us sort out information and decide how to display art. Humans naturally organize things into drawers. When this is already done for us it is easily accessible and often transferred into transmedia.”
I know I’m late, but I still wanted to chime in… After reading everyone’s comments, the idea that most resonates with me is the shared belief that art can and should engage the community (i.e. people, objects, space) in which it is set. I was particularly intrigued by the theory of “Relational Art” that Sarah introduced, which views the artist as the catalyst instead of the soul creator. The many collaborative and participatory art projects that have been mentioned above are proof that this type of collaborative and shared artistic exploration is alive and growing. One project by that I find inspiring is “Before I Die”, which transformed the side of an, otherwise unassuming, abandoned New Orleans house into a giant chalkboard that incited passersby to finish the sentence: “Before I die…” As the artist, Candy Chang, states: “Before I Die is an interactive public art project that transforms neglected spaces into constructive places where we can discover the hopes and aspirations of the people around us.” By recording and documenting her story and process on her website (http://beforeidie.cc/), what started as I one-time art project on the streets of her own neighborhood has now become a perfect illustration of transmedia storytelling on global scale. The website now offers a “Before I Die Toolkit”, which includes stencils and a how-to guide that helps anyone set up a Before I Die wall in their own community. These toolkits have been implemented all over the world, including Kazakhstan, The Netherlands, and Portugal. The website also offers a “virtual wall”, where visitors can post their “Before I Die “ statements to a running list of contributions made by other participants. Candy Chang sells one of kind art pieces inspired by the chalkboard project and is working on a book to catalogue and document the project’s journey. I am really excited about the idea of expanding the definition of interactive public art in a variety of settings, including on the streets and on the web, and I think that Candy Chang’s project illustrates the dynamic way in which those two platforms can work together.
Extremely late, but here I am.
On his weblog, Jenkins describes transmedia storytelling as as “represent[ing] a process where integral elements of a fiction get dispersed systematically across multiple delivery channels for the purpose of creating a unified and coordinated entertainment experience” (Jenkins). His take on the economy of transmedia storytelling is incredibly illuminating in terms of Western media, and even the pervasive tendencies of that media in less developed countries. GI Joe action figures and cartoon shows dubbed into Polish make their way into the path of people living in Central Europe, as a means to support that GI Joe film that came out recently. It’s interesting to watch transmedia “art” in the form of commercial products breakdown into pieces. I can picture a child I saw in Marrakesh wearing a Spongebob Squarepants t-shirt. Whether the art is purely a vehicle for capital gain or is also representative of an aesthetic, what happens when a piece of art that is made of many different media doesn’t reach the audience in the package intended. Jenkins answer is that each piece should stand on its own: “Ideally, each individual episode must be accessible on its own terms even as it makes a unique contribution to the narrative system as a whole.” Neil Young’s term, additive comprehension, essentially identifies the additional knowledge and understanding a consumer of that particular art stream will gain from each separate piece of work.
I’m not wholly sure that I agree with Jenkins when he argues that “transmedia storytelling is the ideal aesthetic form for an era of collective intelligence.” He points to Pierre Levy’s explanation of new social structures that focus on community engagement and interconnectedness that allow for stories to be built and morphed based on an artists connections in a community. I think that this assertion can hold true for networked, on-the-grid people who seek out those “knowledge communities” by self-selecting like-minded people; this does seem to be a recent attribute for this most latest generation of media users: they are just that, users rather than just consumers like the generations before. But, what about societies that have used communal knowledge without accessing the internet? Does Jenkins argument hold true for them as well? I believe that in a society with little technological infrastructure, the members of those communities may still be in an era of collective intelligence (they may have never left it) where everyone in the community knows who specializes in what, but transmedia storytelling may not be the ideal aesthetic form for them to express themselves. Therein may lie the disconnect between artistic communities in developing countries and the audience in the West that may be able to patronize their work.
Yes, I am terribly late to this discussion, but I have been having difficulties wrapping my mind around the idea of transmedia. I understand what it is, and I understand its uses, but my mind just won’t sit still on the idea. When I think of transmedia, what immediately comes to mind is the Performance Art fad that took place in the `60s and `70s, and still continues on today. Not “Performing Arts” but “Performance Arts,” where an event is staged by an artist that may or may not be scripted, and is performed in front of an audience. If you google Yoko Ono Performance Art, you will get several hits, including a film of her performance of “Cut Piece.” This level of performance art carries on today. For instance, a ceramics student in University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Master’s program, had an interesting piece. He constructed a man-sized vessel made of clay, in which he sealed himself, and then emerged in a primordial fashion in front of a group of unsuspecting first-Friday attenders, and another graduate student with a camera, filming the piece. He did not script the event, and later expressed to the class the emotions he felt while in the clay vessel, and how the presence of an audience determined his actions, and how it felt to view the event occurring on the video documentation. I think that transmedia is just another level of performance art, and if artists of the 60s had had access to the internet, these events would have just been on a more ‘global’ community level. An interesting quote I found on a performance art website: In reference to Presence and Resistance by Philip Auslander, a performance art critic, Sally Banes writes:
“… by the end of the 1980s, performance art had become so widely known that it no longer needed to be defined; mass culture, especially television, had come to supply both structure and subject matter for much performance art; and several performance artists, including Laurie Anderson, Spalding Gray, Eric Bogosian,Willem Dafoe, and Ann Magnuson, had indeed become crossover artists in mainstream entertainment.” http://mashrabiyya.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/art-101-performance-art/
Perhaps, to me, transmedia has already surpassed the need to be defined, and already so entwined with everyday life, that I take it as a “fact of art” rather than question its existence… but like I say, my brain just isn’t cooperating with me on this topic. I look forward to group A’s presentation.
Transmedia, since it does not appear in any dictionaries, I have some difficulties to understand the exact meaning of this word in the beginning. After reading some materials and watching videos, I had some slight understanding. Trans-, means building connections between different things; Media is all the methods and materials we could use to express our thoughts and ideas in visual. So, I think when we use transmedia in arts worlds means we use different appropriate materials and ways in order to achieve one goal.
Some concerts are a good example for participatory practices and collective intelligences constitute‘art’or art worlds via transmedia contexts. Recently, more and more concerts use digital effect to help audience to understand and enjoy the music. Beijing Concert Hall hold several Joe Hisaishi / Hayao Miyazaki’s Animation Symphony concerts every year in summer and winter breaks for young people, especially for kids and teenagers. In these concerts, audience could enjoy the music while watching animation clips through LED screen hang behind the orchestra. That could be a feast for both eyes and ears. However, as arts administrators, it is important to figure out what is a suitable occasion using transmedia. Concerts, for example, need us to judge wether the concert needs videos, and wether the video matches the concert. I watched one weird performance on Arts Northwest Conference several days ago. It was a band performed Flamenco (actually, not orthodox ) while playing a tango video through LED which totally confused the audience. The Video seems like the shadows of two dancers hiding behind the screen and made audience think the dancers would came out to the stage at the end of the show, but it didn’t happen. It was just a video you can’t figure out who is dancing. However, the musicians began to dance one by one after playing the video, which makes the audience wondered what is the purpose of that video.
My point is using transmedia contexts in art world could make thing more accessible and fancier just when we acquaint ourselves with both art and medias.