1. Claire Bishop, in her essay, criticizes digital art that doesn't "speak overtly about the conditions living in and through the new media." She states that unlike digital media, photography and film were strictly image-based and their "relevance and challenge to visual art were self-evident." Digital art on the other hand is "alien to human perception." Bishop seems to argue that because digital art is simply code, and that it can be circulated so easily through digital media that it is not as valuable as contemporary art. Is it such a bad thing to have the ability to display one's work to a much larger audience? To adjust a picture or photo to the way we want it to look? To have the ability to add effects to film/video so the scene comes to life? Do you see digital art as merely "a garbled recipe of numbers and letters"?
2. In Bishop's last statement, she claims that "at its most utopian, the digital revolution opens up a new dematerialized, deauthored, and unmarketable reality of collective culture; at its worst, it signals the impending obsolescence of visual art itself." Do you agree with this bold statement? Do you think Bishop provided enough evidence in her essay to show that digital media is such an insult to visual art?
No comments:
Post a Comment