I volunteered at Transmediale the other week and one of my responsibilities was guiding participants on and off the stage during The Long Conversation. It was a cruisy job and so in-between reminding the conversationalists to look at the camera (but just be natural) I listened to the talks and took notes.
The broad theme of the conversation was “futurity” and some people responded to that topic better than others. It was set up as a chain conversation and also a little like Chinese Whispers – how would Richard Barbrook’s keynote influence the final conversation and would Drew Hemment (first and last speaker) be able to draw all of the ideas together?
Ken Rinaldo pretty much jumped on stage for his first conversation in order to respond to Alan N. Shapiro’s musings on “the car of the future”:
“I’ve got one thing to say – The car of the future? That’s called a bike.”
Inevitably there was a lot of talk of the future regarding technology, but the conversation immediately switched to people and futures once Maja Kuzmanovic came on stage. When Joy Tang started talking with her there was even more discussion about people. I really appreciated Maja and Joy’s conversations, though I’m not sure if it was a conscious programming decision, for it seemed that binary oppositions of men / women and technology / humanity were somewhat exaggerated.
I came back about 8 hours after everything started and by that stage it seemed that people had forgotten to talk about the future, but they did seem to be talking vaguely about time. The one thing that really stuck in my mind was Andy Cameron asking Julian Oliver whether he could name a piece of media art that was timeless.
And Julian was unable to name a single piece. And quite reasonably so. It’s a really tricky question to ask anyone, let alone a media artist, particularly when he’s sitting on stage in the middle of an increasingly vague conversation, under lights and with the responsibility of looking at the camera (but to just be natural). Julian did frame his lack of specific response far better than just anyone would – how has it (piece of art) been mediated, what is the context of its presentation and what is the viewer’s relationship to the artwork.
Of course, I’d be challenged to name any piece of art that is timeless and universally acknowledged to be so, for example Picasso’s Guernica is very specific to a certain time and place and the Mona Lisa (for me) no longer seems to be an artwork, it is a highly mediated, replicated and scrutinised image.
However, the question made me think and without the pressure of looking at a camera (but remaining natural), I could name two new media / non traditional art pieces which, if not timeless and significant to humanity, ARE incredibly important to me
Jesper Just's "No Man Is An Island II" (film stills)
Jesper Just’s No Man Is An Island (really poor quality video over at )
and
Evelina Domnitch and Dmitry Gelfand’s Camera Lucida
Evelina Domnitch and Dmitry Gelfand’s Camera Lucida (project description)
One of the challenges when talking about new media / time based / art-science-technology art works is that they can’t be [re]presented with any great ease. There is no way that poor quality YouTube videos and flat stills of quasi-scientific apparatus can replicate the experience of watching a video art piece in a dark, quiet room on a big screen or in any way convey the feeling that some amazing scientific performance was happening right under in front of your eyes. So you’ll have to trust my judgement when recommending these pieces to you.
see also:
Ken Rinaldo’s Farm Fountain
FLOSS manual’s Collaborative Futures book
The Puma Hardchorus sing ““