Pt. 3/n...towards and/or away from means of image distribution

 

Two things are interesting about reading Sanchez and Bishop together. Note how Bishop’s preference for mainstream ground-floor-gallery art clashes with Sanchez’s nuanced exploration and acceptance of alternative means of image distribution (Contemporary Art Daily, tumblr., etc..). Both are primarily concerned with reception theory, or art’s place in an attention economy. Referencing Bourriaud’s “disembodiment of the internet”, Bishop leaves us to view contemporary art production moving away from the dominant means of image distribution, which she allies with a refusal to “thematize” the "logic of our dominant social field." (Internet centrism, again). Sanchez argues that software produces a “different kind of image.”

 

 

 

 

 

part 2/n... "analog/digital" 

The duality of digital/analog is itself confused. It is more convenient shorthand than a sound category for what is being talked about. It is referring not to phenomena in themselves—culture, art, emotions—but the network of their distribution. While this is relevant and has implications, we should remember that fundamentally the Internet and cloud computing are just faster networks for exchange. It is very hard, then, to refer to “digitized life” as Bishop does, without conflating the change in network speed with something new about human nature. Constructing this false duality is just one of the manifestations of internet centrism.

 

 

Posted
AuthorMike Pepi

Pt. 1/n... Driven to "old media"   

We all remember the controversy surrounding Bishop's essay last year. Yet upon a second read, many rediscovered a nuanced discussion of critical issues in digital art. Bishop asks why contemporary art has been “unresponsive to the total upheaval in our labor … inaugurated by the digital revolution.” If anything she observes new technology having the opposite effect, driving artists towards fetishizations of "analog" materials. Spoiled by effortless search, research-based artists explore "laborious non-google methodologies" to reflect on shifts in “contemporary perception." A more fundamental shift is the breakdown in the critic’s license to deduce truths from a narrowly-selected group of artists.

 

 

Posted
AuthorMike Pepi