Hi Nick,
Finally replying - sorry for the delay. Warning, there may be some
contradictions and confusions in my responses. We're just chatting, right.
>There are two issues here. The first is that the current cultural
>climate (the publicity, marketing and press machines in particular,
>and the funding bodies) are technology-obsessed. I'm coming across a
>huge number of commission calls for technology-related projects, and
>it seems that all one needs to succeed in this scene is to have a
>group name containing colons or square brackets. (To be a really
>adventurous electronic musician, claim to do something algorithmic in
>Perl.) All the project proposals I've worked on in the last year have
>been highly technology-biased, since that's where the support is. None
>of this is related to artistic content.
Yeah. But I know this can't last. We as artists make what we make and will
continue to make it thoughout all the shifts in fads or trends. So we best
be true to our visions. As artists we don't give in to the "cultural
climate". We aren't concerned with that. I think there used to be a
perception that artists were anti-cultural climate. So the funding bodies
are technology-obsessed now but three years ago (and really still) they
were community service-obsessed. I don't do community service, so I don't
apply for those grants. For a long time I was racking my brain about how I
could use the fact that I am a woman (you know, the minority card) to get
some grant money. Gross. I think the problem is that artists in our
generation are faced with consumerism of a magnitude that can overwhem our
artist-hood. We are always thinking about marketing and filling seats, and
getting the review almost more that we are thinking about the impact of the
statements that we are making. I do. It frustrates me and I know I am being
nostalgic for a time when that wasn't the case. It's interesting to read
about art that was being made in this country before the NEA or corporate
support. Our generation is now living with the feeling of being deprived.
We have the memory (from our teachers) of a time when there was support for
art but now it's gone. Which means we have to support ourselves, which
means we have to think about supply and demand and how we market ourselves
which is why I am neurotic about press releases! because I wish I didn't
have to think about that.
>Secondly, attention is becoming more and more of a scarce commodity,
>and it's important to have a hook that people will remember. I'll
>sometimes do stuff with the Buchla not because it makes my music or
>performances better, but because it sticks in people's
>minds. Technology is currently an easy thing to latch onto and use as
>a powerful meme in today's cultural environment, and for some people
>it's much easier to make a quick artistic judgement based on the tools
>rather than the art, which always requires more effort. (To be fair,
>it's often difficult to come up with a good meme for the artistic
>content of a project - or even impossible for something as abstract as
>contemporary music - so the technology has to serve this purpose.)
Yeah but don't lots of people write Thesis papers in order to graduate with
BFA's from various art departments? I'm just saying that if you struggle
just that much harder you can write about content. Sometimes it's just as
much bullshit I know, but don't give up on it. We HAVE to be able to write
about our content. Maybe this relates to what Johannes was saying about
knowing why we use technology in our works. If we know why we are using it
then we can write about the way we use it in a particular work and to what
end, for what reason, conceptually. If we are using it to get attention
then that's how the PR whould be written.
Hey, what is a meme? I'm sure I am supposed to be hip to it and I've heard
it before but I don't have a clue as to what it means. Please enlighten me:)
>Maybe things will get better, as the public at large loses interest in
>technology for its own sake, and as the current crop of young
>art-school technologists grows up enough to realise that tools don't
>make art, and (perhaps) as we get better at describing what we do and
>what makes it unique and worthwhile. But it's going to take a while.
The probelm for me is that the public at large is loosing interest in art.
Those art-school technologists will make their livings as web designers for
the mega corporations selling us all of the stuff that we must to have to
survive. They will work 80 hour weeks and will have to make enough money to
pay back their gigantic student loans and buy a monolithic, gas guzzling
range rover. They will have no time to make art. And eventually they will
forget that they were even interested in it. The demand outside of
advertising is barely there so who needs to supply it. Sigh. I know this
sounds bitter...I guess it is. But it's my deep dark fear. But, the bright
side could be that advertising will (is?) begin to resemble art and we will
(do?) enjoy it.
Don't swallow my bitter pill. It's just venting. Anyone wanna join in the rant?
Cheers to you,
Dawn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dawn Stoppiello / Artistic Co-Director / Troika Ranch / troika@artswire.org
http://www.troikaranch.org
321 Graham Avenue #4R Brooklyn, NY 11211 +1.718.218.6775
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/28/01 CST