I'm interested in the idea of the dual functions of landscape and female (possibly nude) portraiture in this photograph by John McWilliams. The object of desire, the female form, is replaced by a glorious landscape, yet the idea of idealized femininity follows through.
**********************************************************
Afterward, I began to think more critically about the connection between what makes up an interior and exterior landscape. The connecting point for me was the idea of 'litter' and what constitutes 'litter'. To me, it's a very tricky thing to define. Is anything that interferes with the natural landscape 'litter' -- not only a plastic bottle, but a man-made fence? And for that matter, it something like a plastic bottle still 'litter' if it still has use. Is there less stigma attached to placing a brand new bottle of Coke on the sidewalk as opposed to an empty one? So I started to think about placement defining value; which drew a lot of connections with my current thoughts on digital media and its relevance in fine art. These are the questions I asked myself.
How is something on paper valuable? Does replication methods make it less valuable? Placement; whether it is found on the ground or on a post? Whether it is signed and numbered by an artist? Does type of paper make it valuable; (high gloss or regular printer paper)? Does content ever define value? Ultimately, how does the relevance of digital art relate to the relevance of digital technology in modern society? Does “digital” have the same impact in a corporate definition than in an art one? For example- the ability to ease communication, to become more globally based, to increase efficiency, to document, etc.
Digital has implications of artificiality. Just as technology replaces the need for some jobs previously run by humans, in art it has removed the presence of the human touch.
The real problem came with connecting the two ideas of litter and the current confusion over creating a new art market for digital works; both very contemporary issues, both trying to define things that are not very definite. The first ideas that ran through my head primarily involved the role of paper. It rides a very fine line between the definition of 'litter' and the definition of 'art'. I wanted to create "Limited Edition Litter" where I signed all of my garbage, and any other litter I found as a way of taking responsibility of the garbage we create. I would then document this act with a digital camera and then print and sign them only to repost them in a manner that would destine them for either the path of litter or of art, based on any unpredictable series of events. Who knows if someone finds the post interesting and removes it and takes it with them or if the paper comes loose from where it is hung and falls to the ground where -by "definition"- it becomes litter.
Here are my justifications for so easily qualifying digital art prints as litter. It has limited, short term usage before it is discarded. With traditional art, it is often about the money and not the art; and if there's no money in digital media, it must not be art. (This also brings up the question of how to define art-- as something aesthetic, functional, valuable, or conceptual...) Finally, the market for digital art has not grown, but the market in buying the technology to produce one's own digital art has grown exponentially. So, the art lies in the technology, not in the end result. The art is the design of the adobe software, in the circuit board of your computer, in the lasers that scan your images. The energy put into the idea of the coke bottle gives it no added value once it has been removed from its main attraction, the beverage itself.
This is another reason I'm creating an quasi-installation piece that employs the
aid of digital technology rather than displaying it as the centerpiece. If you’re working with digital art, you can’t be successful and confine yourself to one source of technology, you’re forced to be knowledgeable with all. As with
Daniel Rozin and
Maurice Benayoun, finding the right software is just the beginning of their work before they must move on to creating tangible, multi-dimensional pieces.
The flaw of creating solely digital artworks is that one is always forced into referencing some issue pertaining to technology. The oil paint off a painting does not reference anything since we have been conditioned by centuries of art that regards such material as traditional; and sculpture can be made out of so many different materials that it can reference whatever it wants. When using a digital image of any material that you won’t be referencing the meaning that object carries, the audience will still read it as just a digital copy.
Daniel Rozin, Wooden Mirror, 1999
Public Sculptures in Copenhagen to remind people to throw away their trash.
**********************************************************
Some pictures from when I went out today.
And those are just a few. Right now I have 29 total.
**********************************************************
21 more. 50's a nice round number and I feel I've got a good assortment of all kinds of paper found in nature. (Fix contrast)
Donna Conlon's work is very similar in that she uses ordinary objects to comment on the contradictions of contemporary lifestyles. She uses found objects like water bottles, cigarette butts, bandaids, etc.
**********************************************************
