Re: <nettime> Artists and Industry, Unite!

[officegallery <office_gallery@yahoo.com>]

--- First, from Artists and Industry announcement:

"We did a lot of focus groups to see what the needs of artists working with new
technology are," said Elise Bernhardt, executive director of the New York art
space The Kitchen, which is sponsoring the event.  "Everyone said, 'What we
want is more access to the equipment, more access to engineers, and more
collaboration.'"

--- then curator@conceptualart.org responded:

Why must artists continually whine about access to equipment at the same time
they are complaining about a need for access to engineers?

If your going to work with technology why not get under the hood yourself and
make it work?  Why on earth would you want access to the newest technology if
you need an engineer to help you with the old technology?

Sounds to us like the only reason some (and we do emphasize the word
some)artists are looking for collaboration is so they don't have to get their
hands dirty.  It is those very artists who seem to be offering their "arse-ends
to commerce".

--- to which I say:

I sympathize with your attitude toward the "newest technology" and the
staggering demand seen for this technology by so-called alternative culture,
i.e. the ART(s).  A different kind of thinking doesn't seem to entail a
different kind of assessment of what causes the big wheel of (ahem) "progress"
to keep on turning.  Instead we shrug our shoulders and give-in to the notion
that we must "need" the newest technology to make work that attracts
attention...  and I would like to add that I am even more disturbed by the
notion that *attracting attention* increasingly becomes the catalyst for making
art.  I'm also impressed that a "focus group" was somehow necessary to reveal
this information in the first place.

That said, I completely disagree with your suggestion that an artist's desire
to work with new technology should require any amount of expertise, or interest
in how that technology works.  It sounds somewhat anti-conceptual art.  I doubt
many conceptual artists are very heavily involved in what makes neurons fire in
the brain from a biological standpoint, either...  but it is definitely part of
the tinkering that goes on "under the hood" of a conceptual artwork.

The IDEA is paramount, and the construction/presentation is formulary, and that
is how it should be.  If the construction/presentation of the work requires
(and I mean requires, not because this is the impetus for conceiving the work,
but because it is necessary to convey the idea) the newest technology and an
engineer to assemble it, then by any means "on earth" or somewhere else get an
engineer and the newest technology.  

I naively believe that this was your point: "Know *why* it requires the newest
technology and an engineer before complaining that there aren't enough of them
around."  Its a point you can make until you're blue and you'll still find a
cattle drove of artists trying to get their hands on the newest version of
Flash... 

Personally, I'm much more concerned with how the "unity" of art and Industry
always does so many positive things for Industry but never a great deal of
anything for artists.

I hope the conference goes well.

'Nuff said!


=====
Sean Fletcher, resident of the office/gallery
resident@officegallery.org
check out our website at:  www.officegallery.org
fax/vmail:  (801) 218-1913     direct:  (415) 733-6574
The office/gallery is a by appointment only location for work by contemporary
artists operated covertly in the San Francisco offices of a National Insurance
and Securities firm.

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net