I found this point very interesting. While reading the text, it made perfect sense. I consider myself to be a relatively creative person -- much more artistically inclined than scientifically. When I hear the words "computer" or "hypertext," I usually automatically assume that I will have difficulty understanding what will come next -- the computer science world is intimidating without even actually knowing what it really means. When I hear art-related words, I feel more at home. I can easily attach meaning to "installation art" or "exhibition."
The idea of these conflicting fields -- the conservative art world vs. the new media art world is something I'm looking forward to continuing to examine.
One of Manovich's other points which I found interesting among the conflicting agenda's of the traditional art world vs. the new media art world is the issue of authorship. My sister, who works in the post-war and contemporary department at Christie's auction house, always talks about the increasing difficulty of selling Warhol's. Many of Warhol's paintings were done by his studio, which means that one is never truly certain whether Warhol himself created the art by hand or whether one of his friends, in his studio, was the person who applied the paint. Because of this, it is extremely difficult to appraise his work. Authorship in the art world is, many times, all that matters. If it has a good name, it will sell for more, whether or not the piece of art is necessarily aesthetically pleasing to the collector.
In the digital age, authorship, as Manovich explains, is relatively non-existent. While working as an intern at Seventeen Magazine, I frequently posted small articles in their "Buzz" section in the website. Never was my name put on the articles I wrote, never was there a way to prove that I wrote it.
No comments:
Post a Comment