AESTHETIC NUMBNESS IN AN ELECTRONIC AGE
What can we conclude about the absence of beauty in contemporary art? And by contemporary art I mean art that's made today, in our lifetime? On the outset, it doesn't lack beauty, it has some form of beauty, The blind can tell you that culture today has aesthetics, my argument is not that culture today has no aestheticas but that the aesthetics irt does have are found to be qualitatively in need of integrity. Much art that's made is beginning to borrow aesthetics from electronic stye qualities of mark-making and aesthetic characteristics intrinsic to that medium's technical paramaters. While I don't see this as problematic, it's only one-sided- but not one-ended. Computer- generated art, art made with computer-aided tools have characteristic qualities, all of which are objective and neutral as tools, none of which are flawed. Art today and commercial art have slipped into the comfotable groove of computer-aided production and design, all of which is valid and real art at the same time. The only danger is that we can become too comfortable with the limited range of aesthetics it has to offer, ignoring the wider spectrum of possibilities. I guess I'm not a purist or valiant canvaser of `traditional', `organic' art making processors but I'm serious about the archival registration that popular fashional processes have on our time in history. Not all fashion has been memorable, even if important. Most of my work comes from the old-school method of art-making, but most of that training hasn't been by choice, just by circumstance. I don't consider this school of thought as being the more valid place to learn. I know it's not ultimately. Art-making is art-making, who am I to say what is art and what isn't. It doesn't matter how you get there. What matters is where you get to in the end, not the mode of transport. (Zen philosophy can't be ruled out either). We have to be careful not to get lost on the way.
How effective the work is can be determined on what effect it has on your behaviour... what does it make you do? Good art should move the earth for you, not just tickle you or suggest a couple of things conceptually. It should instigate some sort of change in the way you feel, make you react somehow and thus change your behabviour. The aesthetics is the vehicle for this action. electronic art is not the blame for our numbness of stimulated response to passionless art. How can a tool be blamed for bad art? It's like an artist blaming his tools for his poor effort. Ourt numbness is two-fold. Our qulaity of work is reflective of a mass-numbness of productive efforts. Our reliance on technology comes into play in our present lack of creativity. Like a kid who watches too much television and doesn't get out much. As a species, we like to be inspired by popular culture, the Arts. What happens when that source of insipration dries up?
How effective the work is can be determined on what effect it has on your behaviour... what does it make you do? Good art should move the earth for you, not just tickle you or suggest a couple of things conceptually. It should instigate some sort of change in the way you feel, make you react somehow and thus change your behabviour. The aesthetics is the vehicle for this action. electronic art is not the blame for our numbness of stimulated response to passionless art. How can a tool be blamed for bad art? It's like an artist blaming his tools for his poor effort. Ourt numbness is two-fold. Our qulaity of work is reflective of a mass-numbness of productive efforts. Our reliance on technology comes into play in our present lack of creativity. Like a kid who watches too much television and doesn't get out much. As a species, we like to be inspired by popular culture, the Arts. What happens when that source of insipration dries up?
