Here's yet another example of socially engaged art that, in contrast to the previous two examples which playfully challenge corporate hegemony, engenders empathy and a sense of tragedy with bravery to call attention to the killing that we as Americans are all complicit in. Click on images for story.
3 comments:
Amazing! I applaude artists who are not afraid to use new technology like mobile, computers, gps etc. Those are all media that can be useful for art just as they are for business, communication and education. We are not limited to canvas and paint to bring our messages across.
It's a beautiful piece. Pretty risky as well. I wonder if she only walked around outside with that backpack. Imagine if it went off inside a department store. That would probably set off alarms and security.
:)
I like the idea and concept, but after probing deeper into it, I have a couple of questions about it.
1. Accessibility: it sounds good when we read about it because the description explains a lot that wouldn't be apparent otherwise, but how does it relate to an actual audience? How will they know about the Baghdad map superimposition and the role of GPS? Is art that requires explanation effective?
2. Responsibility: And what about the responsibility of the artist who potentially creates fear or possibly even terror among innocent unsuspecting viewers who already have too much terror to deal with in their daily lives as it is? The viewers in this case are not the typical audience who consents to the sometimes symbolically violent strategies of contemporary art by attending an exhibit or gallery, but just everyday folks who happen to be in the proximity of the performer, who did not choose to be engaged in this process. Is this ethically problematic?
3. Methodology/Authenticity: while conceptually it sounds cool, when I checked her data sources for inputting the locations of actual civilian deaths, I don't see the level of locational specificity that would be needed to make this piece live up to the concept. If I'm correct, that means the inputted GPS coordinates are somewhat arbitrary, so the element of chance and risk in the performance, and an authentic connection to the actual source that is supposed to conceptually drive the work, seem suspect. Does this matter, and do we care? To me it kinda undermines the genuineness or authenticity of the meaning of the piece, and shifts the level of operation to techno-cleverness and concept, and less about what is real.
Good points.
1. Art shouldn't need an explanation or manual. Although I often find art even more interesting when I know more about the artist's mind, process and symbolic language. Maybe some art is really catereing to intellectuals who are open and willing to explore deeper and not for people who don't care about art and therefore don't make the journey into the artist's mind and around the work. Maybe the questiion is if all art is for everybody or if we as artists also choose our demographics.
2. Even though public art can enrich our culture, some pieces like this one might be better performed at a destination for art whether that is at a gallery or a announced area with prepared audience. It could be an art zone with a theme that could be warzone in this case. Several artists could perform and show their work.
The artist could also make their art more transparent and apparent to illustrate the use of technology and relations to real events.
Exploding backpacks alone don't get the specific mission across. A projection screen with maps could accopmany the action.
3. It would make it more authentic and thrilling if it was directly corresponding to real events in real time. Art using new media is still in its infancy...even though it was born decades ago. We are still scared to go for it. We have the ideas and the concepts. We can work with people who know technology.
Post a Comment