Way back in the 1980s, I remember three of us in our group of friends debating with some fire, whether art generated by a computer constituted art. We were looking at some photos in a book that we had picked up at our college library on "computer generated art." At that time we were students of Computer Aided Design (CAD). That debate is still fresh in my mind, as though it happened just recently, and not thirty years ago. Of the three of us debating the topic, one was a no, one was a yes and a third was contemplative. And I don't think any of us changed our positions. For the record, I was on the yes side, arguing that art generated with the aid of a computer was also art.
That debate came rushing to my mind, when a friend of mine and I visited the Institute of Contemporary Art (ICA) in Boston, which advertised a new exhibit. A virtual reality based experience depicting the effects of climate change and more.
I have been to the virtual reality lab at Stanford University and have experienced it in a studio setting, that I have written about before. I also have seen business presentations given through virtual reality. And of course through the new "viewmaster" reels that makes use of the iPhone or other mobile devices.
I was quite intrigued by an artist sharing their vision through VR, and so my friend and I made it a point to go experience this.
The exhibit was placed against a gigantic glass wall that overlooked the bay. As we wore our VR goggles, the exhibit showed a tsunami sized wave rise up and crash into the museum. A wholly unnerving experience indeed! After that, the artist took us through their vision of the post-apocaplytic world.
The quality of the graphics was not as good as the one I experienced in the studio at Stanford University. The artist's vision, post the tsunami wave was intriguing, but I don't think the whole experience hung together for me either in its coherence or in its execution.
Museum directors are watching this exhibit with interest to see if this experiment is a novelty, or if it is a new door through which art can expand.
My position on this question is the same as it was thirty years ago. This is a door, and artists should / will take it.
This particular artistic effort was middling in my opinion - but the case has been made for better efforts and experiences in the future.
That debate came rushing to my mind, when a friend of mine and I visited the Institute of Contemporary Art (ICA) in Boston, which advertised a new exhibit. A virtual reality based experience depicting the effects of climate change and more.
I have been to the virtual reality lab at Stanford University and have experienced it in a studio setting, that I have written about before. I also have seen business presentations given through virtual reality. And of course through the new "viewmaster" reels that makes use of the iPhone or other mobile devices.
I was quite intrigued by an artist sharing their vision through VR, and so my friend and I made it a point to go experience this.
 |
| Virtual Reality exhibit at the ICA |
The quality of the graphics was not as good as the one I experienced in the studio at Stanford University. The artist's vision, post the tsunami wave was intriguing, but I don't think the whole experience hung together for me either in its coherence or in its execution.
Museum directors are watching this exhibit with interest to see if this experiment is a novelty, or if it is a new door through which art can expand.
My position on this question is the same as it was thirty years ago. This is a door, and artists should / will take it.
This particular artistic effort was middling in my opinion - but the case has been made for better efforts and experiences in the future.
7 comments:
2 cents.
As per my dictionary, “Art” is ": the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form… producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.”
Also, anything produced by a person who calls themselves an “artist” is art. (Side note: Warhol said, “Artists are people who make things nobody needs.”)
And anything displayed under the heading “Art” is, by definition, art.
So, VR certainly can be called “art” when done by an artist and displayed as such. (Add to VR, Augmented Reality like Pokémon Go.)
But the question is not "is it art” but is it “good” art… which is subjective. Back to the dictionary, do you see beauty in it, does it have emotional power, etc. and I’d add, is it original/unique, does it show devotion to the craft, does it create its own universe?
Great rumination and definition. Thank you Michael.
FYI - Michael's gallery of artwork:
https://www.artsy.net/artist/michael-netter
FWIW, I agree with you. What is art? is a still controversial topic. But it seems to me that the question doesn’t hang on the tools used to make it, from hammer and chisel to paint brushes to key boards, but rather hangs on intentionality. And, BTW, that position is also controversial. Some contend that no intentionality is needed to call something a piece of art.
Marcel Duchamp was the ‘artist’ who become quite famous (and controversial) by insisting that intentionality was not needed. For him all that’s needed is the perception of an object as art for it to be art.
As he hoped to explain via his ‘ready-mades’, such as a urinal, a wine rack and a bicycle wheel.
That is, art can be entirely conceptual, no intention is needed.
I’m the sort who thinks that art does require an artist and an intention embodied in the object that’s being called a work of art. Simply perceiving something as beautiful or in some way meaningful beyond its everyday use, is more an example of a spiritual or aesthetic sensibility. That’s something different, but related to creating art.
Of course, even then things gets fuzzy when you get an artist creating a piece of art that consists of figuratively realistic portrayal of an unintentionally artistic object, such as some of the early pop art produced by Andy Warhol:
Image result for Campbell's Soup Cans
I think this is art… but then, what about this installation. It would seem that in this case the only intentionality is in the the stacking of the industrial product:
Image result for andy warhol brillo box
And if you then say, ‘look, since there’s intentionality at least in the stacking, therefore it’s also art.’ Then why wouldn’t you say there’s intentionality in Duchamp’s placing the urinal on the wall… in an art gallery?
As you can see, these are not questions that lend themselves to easy answers… and so the debate goes on.
Excellent extension of the thinking on this theme - Thx Tim!
My guess is that the question of what is “real art” and what isn’t has been going on ever since those first cave drawings and will likely continue long after our time because it is such a fascinating topic and very much impacted by where and when you live. I also saw the ICA’s virtual reality exhibit. What struck me most was that it was immersive. I truly felt overcome by the wave and had to grab the wall to steady myself while I was virtually swirling though turbulent waters. However, I did not come away thinking about the artistry of the experience. My thoughts have been focused on how blurred the lines are becoming between reality and manufactured experiences. I think the ICA’s exhibit was more entertainment than art.
I had not thought of the blurring line between A&E!!
I read this very interesting article. It is indeed a coincidence that yesterday, Krish asked me about using VR for teaching anatomy to medical students. I had sent him several articles on that. With 3D printers and VR, a new revolution is being created. No wonder that it is penetrating the art world as well. I wonder what more is in store if artificial intelligence is also added to this mix!
Post a Comment