human? You know, those little things that we all wrestle with to one degree or another while we wait for a bus or clip our nails. I don’t think art can answer these questions the same way that science can, but I believe that art can open intellectual doors to ways of thinking that no other method can. It’s a wildly liberated space if you let it be. I always tell my students to not be held down by the history of a medium. When you respect where you came from, but not allow it to completely rule you, then you can make work that really asks something of its viewer. The impetuous way modern technology has nowadays came out on the top has dramatically revolutionized the idea of Art itself: in a certain sense, we are forced to rethink about the intimate aspect of the materiality of an artwork itself, since just few years ago it was a tactile materialization of an idea. I'm sort of convinced that new media will definitely fill the apparent dichotomy between art and technology and I will dare to say that Art and Technology are going to assimilate one to each other... what's your point about this?
I totally agree. I don’t think a barrier needs to exist between the two. I worry when people say ridiculous things like “technology is making people stupid!” or “In my day we didn’t have all this stuff and we were fine!”. That is daft. Everything is a technology. The shirt on your back, the table you write on, the pen that allows you to scribble notes and make your memory permanent. One of the most important things I learned from Paul Vanouse is that all technology is evolutionary. Rarely, if ever is there a revolutionary technology. That doesn’t mean that the way in which one uses technology can’t be revolutionary, however. And I think that is where art comes into play. Like I’ve mentioned before, artists can come at a technology unburdened by its history and development cycle, and can envision ways to utilize it outside of what its designers might have intended. That can be revolutionary.
TWEET_SHOT v2.0 (in collaboration with John Wenskovitch)
different than technology needs to be put to pasture. Art making in whatever form, is another technology. To think that there needs to be a distinction is archaic and not representative of our world, where for the first time we need to grapple with a material and immaterial existence. That struggle is only going to become more complex. I’m not advocating that we forget time-honored traditions in making, such as painting (I teach painting!), just the opposite in fact. We need to recognize that painting is a technology, as is drawing, sculpture, whatever, and reconcile
I hope that the distinction between the two disappears. The old cliché that art is something
4 23 0 5