0706725

MA Fine Art FAM3: Audience & Presentation

January 2012

0706725

FAM3 Audience & Presentation

A discussion of some aspects of website based art – and why the gallery is still relevant.
January 2012

1

0706725

MA Fine Art FAM3: Audience & Presentation

January 2012

Audience and presentation: A discussion of some aspects of website based art – and why the gallery is still relevant. Introduction My current area of studio practice is focussed on video art and the use of the website in fine art. My original ideas involved using the website as the sole platform for my work. However, the more that I explored this idea, the more unsatisfactory I felt that it became. I rapidly found myself in a no-man’sland between graphic design, gaming, and the occasional works of a recognised fine artist. Moreover I quickly became aware of the limitations on presentation imposed by the computer screen. The relationship between electronic media and fine art is still evolving, and often uneasy. My ideas about my developing art practice are shaped by the culture of contemporary art, which is broadly the art that has been made since I was born. Those born before the early 1990s are not native in DSL (digital as a second language) and have a different relationship to electronic media (Dudeney, 2011). People born before the mid-1980s are commonly termed ‘digital immigrants’ in comparison with the younger ‘digital natives’. The only research unit in the UK (that I am aware of) dedicated to electronic art is the Slade Centre for Electronic Media in Fine Art which was established in 1995. My interest in using a website as a platform for my work (increasingly for my videos) arose from my belief that art galleries, particularly those not subsidised by the state, are forbiddingly elitist, whereas the majority of the UK population has easy access to the World Wide Web. Thus, theoretically, work exhibited on a website should attract a much greater cross section of society than work exhibited in a gallery. Moreover, exhibiting work on the Web should provide the opportunity for greater comment from, and interaction with, other artists. As my work has developed I have been increasingly aware that my commitment to (presumed) egalitarian web-based work has been challenged by the limitations of exhibition/ presentation in that medium. I have been inspired and overwhelmed by videos exhibited in various gallery spaces, whereas I have found myself interested and sometimes intellectually involved in the work that I have seen on websites. I have used this essay to review two large web-based artists’ organisations; examining their mission statements and how well they achieve them. I have been particularly interested in their success in attracting work and presenting it to their audiences. I have then turned to a selection of well-known artists that use videos in their work and exhibit in galleries.

2

0706725

MA Fine Art FAM3: Audience & Presentation www.rhizome.org

January 2012

The websites www.furtherfield.org

Furtherfield is a British community founded in 1997. Their mission statement is:
to co-create extraordinary art that connects with contemporary audiences providing innovative, engaging and inclusive digital and physical spaces for appreciating and participating in practices in art, technology and social change. (www.furtherfield.org/content/about)

Rhizome is a US community founded in 1996. Their mission statement is rather longer:
Rhizome is dedicated to the creation, presentation, preservation, and critique of emerging artistic practices that engage technology. Through open platforms for exchange and collaboration, our website serves to encourage and expand the communities around these practices. Our programs, many of which happen online, include commissions, exhibitions, events, discussion, archives and portfolios. We support artists working at the furthest reaches of technological experimentation as well as those responding to the broader aesthetic and political implications of new tools and media. Our organizational voice draws attention to artists, their work, their perspectives and the complex interrelationships between technology, art and culture, (www.rhizome.org/about/).

Both organisations have similar concerns, and both started in the second half of the 1990s (3 or 4 years after ready availability of public access to the World Wide Web (http://info.cern.ch/)). Accessibility Both Furtherfield and Rhizome encourage open access for artists to exchange information and ideas, and to collaborate. Indeed Furtherfield wish to engage audiences as co-creators of social change. The first requirement for any artist using a website as the point of engagement with an audience is to make that website accessible. Scanning a number of artists’ websites (both individual and organisational) demonstrates the importance of the first impression of the site. Web design and speed of loading both the website and its pages are increasingly important. I believe that this is another instance of the digital divide; young digital natives are used to immediate gratification with digital technology, and if an item does not catch their attention they will move on. Corporate research suggests that investing in high quality web design and ensuring that web pages load in less than 5 seconds is extremely commercially profitable (Sutton, T, 2011). The most recent data (1 January 2012) suggests that there are 582,716,657 registered websites in the world and that this number is growing by as much as 5% per month (http://news.netcraft.com/). This emphasises the need for professional web designers and search engine optimisation staff.

Definitions 3

0706725

MA Fine Art FAM3: Audience & Presentation

January 2012

In order for a viewer to access websites such as Furtherfield or Rhizome, s/he has to enter a suitable search term into Google (or other search engine). This is not easy, as there is no obvious definition to use. Steve Dietz argues that the term ‘net art’ is broader than ‘new media art’ because it encompasses art work and ideas that predate the World Wide Web (Dietz, S, 2008).
It is debatable when exactly the history of digital art began. Artists have been experimenting with computers at least since the 1970’s…Over the decades, art making use of digital technologies has taken many forms, and even today, the question of how exactly digital or new media art can be defined is still being debated. (Paul, C, 2008)

The term ‘electronic media’ appears to be the most accurate (although finding a reputable source for definition is difficult); ‘Online forms of news publication, including websites, blogs and social networking
sites’ (PC Magazine Encyclopedia).

Using the search terms ‘net art’, ‘digital art’, ‘electronic art’, ‘web art’, ‘video art’, and ‘artist communities’ in Google, neither Rhizome nor Furtherfield were found on the first page of search results, although Rhizome does appear in a search for ‘new media art’. One could argue that as Furtherfield has over 26,000 active members, and Rhizome presumably considerably more (although their website gives no specific details), word of mouth advertisement is satisfactory. I would counter this by suggesting that they are unlikely to be reaching a non-artistic community directly from their websites, although of course many individual artists are committed to community based work. Artist and Audience This vital question of accessibility leads me back to the primary question, ‘who is the website for?’ Here the two organisations differ subtly, with Furtherfield specifically stating that they wish to ‘connect with contemporary audiences’, whereas Rhizome avoid any reference to direct communication with audiences, instead emphasising the roles of support for, and encouraging communication between members of the artistic community.
The Web is faster, more efficient and more accessible than any other means of communication… The Internet brings art to the masses; it is a service everyone can use rather than a form of pleasure reserved for a select few. (Cosic, V, 2005)

The word ‘Web’ conjures a visual image of multiple strands, all connecting to form a spider’s web, and this image has been used by Deleuze, and appropriated by Rhizome in their choice of name:
In terms of rhizome or multiplicity, puppet strings… do not run back to the assumed will of an artist or puppeteer, but to the multiplicity of nerve fibres that form, in their turn, another puppet following other dimensions connected to the first. (Deleuze, G, and Guattari, F, 2005)

4

0706725

MA Fine Art FAM3: Audience & Presentation

January 2012

This egalitarian connectivity is, for me, the fundamental appeal of electronic media. I suggest that the current debate surrounding it is another feature of the digital native/ non-native split. Digitally native artists and audiences have grown up in a world of Wikipedia and social networking, a world in which knowledge is co-created, photograph and video albums are created and shared with hundreds, re-appropriated and re-produced. Ideas of authorship are changing, and this potentially threatens the current system.
Web artists who privilege open-source systems have provided perhaps the greatest historical challenge to the art world’s voracious cultural and commercial impulses – in part because many web artists straddle these systems (one closed, based on ownership, authorship, and monetary value; the other open, based on open-source systems, community, and, if you will, “cultural value”) and are deviously conversant in the language of both. (Jones, C, 2010)

Both organisations that I have chosen to study imply in their mission statements that they are underpinned by a philosophy of working collaboratively, with platforms for free exchange of work and ideas. During my early visits to the websites I was interested to know how this exchange of ideas worked in practice. Was I to expect a social networking type of organisation, such as Facebook or Twitter (I assumed not), and if not, then what? I decided to look at what the home (front) page presented to me, and then to look at the art presented, and the ways in which it had been submitted and selected. Furtherfield Furtherfield’s mission statement includes a pledge to ‘co-create extraordinary art that connects with contemporary audiences’. Arriving at their very busy home page (Rhizome’s home page is equally overcrowded, and neither are models of good web design or aesthetics) the viewer is greeted with large amounts of text and few images. There is a slowly changing slide show beneath the menu bar but sadly only one of the images relates to a video, and the majority of the others link to interviews or book reviews. My initial impression was of a contemporary art magazine rather than a platform for artists to discuss/ debate/ critique oneanother’s work.

5

0706725

MA Fine Art FAM3: Audience & Presentation

January 2012

Whitehot Magazine of Contemporary Art

6

0706725

MA Fine Art FAM3: Audience & Presentation

January 2012

frieze magazine (online edition)

7

0706725

MA Fine Art FAM3: Audience & Presentation

January 2012

Screen shot of part of Furtherfield front page

There is no obvious facility for submitting electronic work, and the only ‘gallery’ works available to the audience are the Flickr thumbnails near the bottom of the home page. On the menu bar ‘Get Involved’ offers me the opportunity to try my hand at reviewing work, or to donate money to the organisation (which is not-for-profit and dependent on charitable funding). I am told that I can get involved by ‘swapping and sharing code, music, images, video and ideas’ but the way to this is unclear. I have to visit ‘NetBehaviour’ (a subpage of Get Involved) to find a way to share my own work. I can join the blog and promote links to my work (on my website, on YouTube, vimeo etc.)

8

0706725

MA Fine Art FAM3: Audience & Presentation

January 2012

Screen shot of NetBehaviour page, Furtherfield.org

The claim that ‘debates and controversies are played out by all subscribers in text, image and code in a public forum’ is theoretically true, but far from a practical reality. This portion of the website is for subscribers only, and as such I had hoped for a facility to submit work and receive constructive peer response. The website offers two blogging facilities that seem more appropriate for writers than visual artists. The ‘Outreach’ section of the website looks promising; I presume that everyone can access this, including the participants in the projects described. Sadly this is not the case. The promise of the 20 minute film ‘Helgi and Hroar’ remains a tantalising promise.

9

0706725

MA Fine Art FAM3: Audience & Presentation

January 2012

Screen shot of Outreach page, Furtherfield.org

The link to bfi (where it was screened) works but no longer takes the viewer to the film, and participants (and others) are unable to leave any feedback without registering and logging in. The same frustrations arise when visiting the ‘Projects’ page; moving further into the detail of each project rewards one with text about the project, and more links to external websites, but no moving or interactive images.

10

0706725

MA Fine Art FAM3: Audience & Presentation

January 2012

The only page on the menu that invites artists to submit work is ‘Residencies’; artists undertaking a residency are invited to present their work through online platforms and physically in the Furtherfield gallery.

Screen shot of Residencies page, Furtherfield.org

11

0706725

MA Fine Art FAM3: Audience & Presentation

January 2012

Rhizome Rhizome’s busy front page has more images than Furtherfield’s, and although it is not particularly easy to read I find it more user friendly.

12

0706725

MA Fine Art FAM3: Audience & Presentation

January 2012

Screen shot of upper part of Rhizome.org home page

13

0706725

MA Fine Art FAM3: Audience & Presentation

January 2012

The home page is extremely long, and it is unlikely that a casual viewer will scroll to the bottom. The first screen view of the Rhizome home page offers me a video (with links to further information), a contemporary blog, an image of a new piece submitted by an artist, with a single click link to an engaging piece of interactive art.

Screen shot of interactive art work from home page of Rhizome.org

There is a prominent call for submissions, and a series of images linking to different artist’s blogs. Navigating the menu bar in Rhizome appears straightforward, with just four pages (artbase, community, programs, and join) to choose from. The ‘about us’ page that one might expect on an organisation’s home page is hidden under ‘join’. Rhizome states that their website serves to encourage artistic practices that engage technology, by offering an open platform for exchange and collaboration. However there is no indication for a new artist about how to submit work for display on the website, other than an advertisement for submissions (for grants) to the annual Rhizome commissions programme. Like Furtherfield, Rhizome has a page encouraging viewers to subscribe and/ or donate, and (reflecting their larger remit) they also offer organisational subscriptions to schools, colleges, universities and museums.

14

0706725

MA Fine Art FAM3: Audience & Presentation

January 2012

Moving to the community page one finds a jobs board which is a fantastic service for North American viewers; at the time of writing this essay there is a large variety of arts-related jobs, spanning all employment sectors, and all geographical areas of the United States. Further down the list of sub-pages are profile and portfolio pages, and this finally seems to be the mechanism for displaying one’s own work.

Screen shots from the portfolio page on Rhizome.org

The images on the portfolio pages are all ‘clickable’ and take the viewer to a more detailed description of the work. I particularly like the small red link suffix that follows the title and links to the artist’s website and/or videos.

15

0706725

MA Fine Art FAM3: Audience & Presentation

January 2012

Presentation of electronic art There is no obvious selection process involved when publishing work to the Furtherfield website, it appears that anyone can upload details to the NetBehaviour page and offer the viewer access to an external site (although I have not yet tried to do this). Furtherfield has a gallery in north London; the address and directions can be found on the Furtherfield website, but a Google search for the gallery repeatedly returns to the Furtherfield website.

Image, Google Images

Looking through the gallery archive it appears that there are two exhibitions a year, attracting a very interesting international group of contemporary artists – the most recent exhibition ‘Made Real’ was by the founders of Wikipedia Art, Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern. Another recent exhibition was the first solo UK exhibition by Annie Abrahams, ‘If not you not me’. The statement accompanying the exhibition strikes me as central to the work that Furtherfield is interested in nurturing:
Annie Abrahams (b. NL 1954, lives and works FR) is an internationally regarded pioneer of networked performance art. If not you not me at HTTP Gallery in London is the first solo exhibition of her work in the UK. While social networking sites make us think of communication as clean and transparent, Annie Abrahams creates an Internet of feeling - of agitation, collusion, ardour and apprehension. This exhibition presents three new collaborative works alongside documentation of recent networked performances created and curated by the artist. Working with simple interfaces, disruptions in data-flow and carefully crafted instructions, Abrahams sensitises participants and audiences to glitches in communication and invites them to experience and reflect on different ways of being together in a machine-mediated world. This exhibition asks how we deal with the tensions of collaboration and physical separation as we negotiate relationships through video imagery, computer software and digital networks.

16

0706725

MA Fine Art FAM3: Audience & Presentation

January 2012

(http://www.furtherfield.org/exhibitions/if-not-you-not-me)

There are similarly interesting statements, supporting essays, and several links to the artists and other relevant online documents for each exhibition that has been hosted by the Furtherfield gallery since its debut in October 2004. Rhizome is explicit about organising both online and physical gallery exhibitions; presenting new media in innovative and challenging ways is a key part of Rhizome's mission.
Throughout our history, Rhizome has organized exhibitions online and also in the galleries of partner spaces, including our affiliate the New Museum of Contemporary Art. Rhizome also invites our community to organize online exhibitions from our online archive, the ArtBase. (http://rhizome.org/artbase/exhibitions/)

It seems curious that this access to one of the key functions of Rhizome is buried deep in a subpage under the parent page ‘artbase’. There are three interesting member-curated exhibitions available, and the mechanism for submission appears to be as simple as clicking on ‘curate a new artbase exhibition.’ The major exhibition page appears as a subpage of ‘programs’, and as with Furtherfield there are links to all the exhibitions (approximately two a year) that Rhizome has hosted since November 2004. Rhizome is affiliated with the New Museum of Contemporary Art in New York (http://www.newmuseum.org/), and holds its offline exhibitions there. Unlike Furtherfield these appear to be curated by Rhizome members or supporters, and many exhibitions relate directly to material that derives from the Rhizome website. There is considerably less supporting material available than with Furtherfield. Summary of my study of Furtherfield.org and Rhizome.org As previously stated, the egalitarian nature of new electronic media, particularly when websitebased, appeals to me on many theoretical levels, and is directly relevant to my developing studio practice. For the first half of this case study I have looked at two well-established website-based visual arts organisations. My first and most important question concerns egalitarianism. Both sites fail dismally. I suspect that the casual viewer with a passing interest in contemporary art would never find either organisation; even a postgraduate art student will struggle to find the exact terminology to register success with Google. For the enthusiast (who is likely to find both organisations through word of mouth) both sites offer excellent archival resources. Navigation of both sites could be improved despite Rhizome having an 17

0706725

MA Fine Art FAM3: Audience & Presentation

January 2012

impressive sounding web technology team, and Furtherfield also having an individual responsible for the website. The developing electronic media artist can submit work to both organisations, but the opportunity for peer group and more experienced practitioner feedback appears haphazard. Therefore I conclude that, as a platform to find an egalitarian audience for one’s work, and to obtain feedback, neither Rhizome’s nor Furtherfield’s websites succeed.

Presentation of videos in the gallery There are, of course, a number of public artworks that are neither based on a website nor in a gallery, but space does not permit me to include these in my discussion. As stated, one of my arguments for website based art was its egalitarian nature; potentially I felt that it should be the antithesis of gallery based art, which I perceive to be (in the main) elitist, and also historically unenthusiastic about electronic media (although video work has become accepted over the past two decades.) However, research relating to my own work as well as for the two case studies that I have presented reveals the current situation for disseminating contemporary art via a website to be unsatisfactory. The second issue with website based art relates to the limitations imposed on the viewer by the computer screen, which can be (but are not always) overcome in the gallery. The effect of scale is illustrated by this description of Olafur Eliasson’s The Weather Project, in the Turbine Hall, 2003:
Something unexpected happens to spectators of The Weather Project. We lie down – and lose ourselves, become part of, indeed become, the spectacle before us. … But The Weather Project delivers a mass audience that cannot fail to be overwhelmed by the magnitude of the installation itself: The museum is not so much “revealed” as transformed into a destination, an event. (Meyer, J, 2004)

The aim of making the viewer become totally absorbed in the art that they are seeing is, I would imagine, the elusive goal of many artists, and entering a gallery rather than turning on one’s lap top may increase the likelihood of success. To illustrate this point I have selected four well known artists whose work I have seen; Matthew Barney, Sam Taylor-Wood, Susan Hiller, and Pipilotti Rist. One of my early exposures to contemporary video art in the gallery setting was at the New York Guggenheim in 2003, when I stumbled upon Matthew Barney’s The Cremaster Cycle. It would be difficult to imagine watching these five feature-length films on a computer screen, although interestingly Barney now has website devoted to the work, that enables the viewer to watch a trailer of Cremaster 3. (http://www.cremaster.net/crem3.htm) 18

0706725

MA Fine Art FAM3: Audience & Presentation

January 2012

Images from Cremaster Cycle

Sam Taylor Wood also produces work that would have a very different impact if viewed on a computer screen; several of her well known works are multiscreen video projections:

Sam Taylor-Wood: Sigh, 2008 Duration: 8 minutes 37 seconds, 8 screen projection (http://whitecube.com/artists/sam_taylor-wood/)

19

0706725

MA Fine Art FAM3: Audience & Presentation

January 2012

Screen shot from Google Images (PinchukArtCentre)

Susan Hiller’s video work is often multiscreen and large scale, and having personally experienced her work at the recent Tate retrospective, it is impossible to conceive it having the same effect if seen on computer screens.

20

0706725

MA Fine Art FAM3: Audience & Presentation

January 2012

Susan Hiller: An Entertainment 1990 4 synchronised video projections, quadrophonic sound. "Susan Hiller's An Entertainment, 1990 - four video projectors and sound in a square room - is 26 minutes long, during which huge coloured images... are thrown against the wall; the soundtrack evokes a seaside audience as well as the murderous doings of Mr.Punch with his thrusting nose; entertainment clichés ("Oh yes he is! Oh no he isn't!") are menacingly intoned. Memories of Edward Munch and James Ensor... and the cruel caricatures of Regency London all spring to mind in Hiller's absorbing disquisition on ritual and myth, vicious comedy, violence and death. The brutality of what passes for entertainment still erupts in London life, and Hiller has unnervingly traced one of its histories." Richard Shone, Artforum, 1995 (http://www.susanhiller.org/Info/artworks/artworks-entertain.html)

Pipilotti Rist produces work that ranges from the very small to the very large – much of her work uses multiscreen video projection, but she also produces tiny video projections in unexpected places.

21

0706725

MA Fine Art FAM3: Audience & Presentation

January 2012

Pipilotti Rist: Images from Eyeball Massage at the Hayward Gallery, London, 2011 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/video/2011/oct/05/artist-pipilotti-rist-eyeball-massage-video

Pipilotti Rist: Images from Eyeball Massage at the Hayward Gallery, London, 2011 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/video/2011/oct/05/artist-pipilotti-rist-eyeball-massage-video)

Each of the presentations here challenges one’s notions of reality whilst presenting the viewer with elements of everyday existence. Personally I find that an initial response at a rational and intellectual level is impossible – the works are immersive and response is intuitive, defying logic or rationality. McEvilley, writing in 1986 about white cube galleries, expresses the potential for the gallery to manipulate the viewer’s experience:
It is this other world, or access to it, that the white cube represents. It is like Plato’s vision of a higher metaphysical realm where form, shiningly attenuated and abstract like mathematics, is utterly disconnected from the life of human experience here below. (McEvilley, B, 1986)

Christine Ross writes about augmented reality (AR) art projections in relation to the increased blurring of the real and the virtual, defined in her chapter as systems that:
supplement the real world with virtual (computer-generated) objects that appear to co-exist in the same space as the real world. (Ross,C, 2011)

Although she is not talking about the types of video installations cited above (but I suggest that any result of video editing can legitimately claim to be computer-generated), I think that augmented reality is an appropriate description for the experience that the installations produce I suggest that the use of multiscreen video projection, major alterations in scale (frequently moving towards the massive), and the removal of the viewer from everyday life into the gallery setting all predispose the viewer to a situation where perception of reality is blurred.

22

0706725

MA Fine Art FAM3: Audience & Presentation

January 2012

Susan Hiller uses scale (and in the case of Psi girls, colour editing) to blur the reality of what are essentially ordinary everyday images. She also enlists the gallery setting; I am unable to do the experiment, but I doubt that her work would have the same impact if viewed in, for example, a large school hall or university lecture theatre.

Susan Hiller: Psi Girls 1999

5 screen video installation

Susan Hiller: The J Street Project 2002-5 67 min video of collected static images

Conclusions The impetus for this consideration of ‘Audience and Presentation’ was the dilemma that I confronted in my own work. I have always challenged boundaries, and the medium of website based art is still sufficiently new to challenge to more established art forms. Moreover the apparently egalitarian nature of the World Wide Web (at least in the developed world) appeals to my socio-political beliefs, and confronts the elitist world of the art gallery.

23

0706725

MA Fine Art FAM3: Audience & Presentation

January 2012

The development of my arguments has been limited by word count, but I have presented my disappointment with the websites that I have investigated, at least for the purposes of presenting work to audiences. Equally my enthusiasm for the video based work that I have seen presented in galleries remains undimmed. When watching an art video I wish to have a sense of being removed from the ordinary, the routine, and of becoming more in touch with the ineffable. It may be that the very ubiquity of websites in 21st century Britain – on our computers, tablets, and smartphones, and the saturation of exposure to social networking – renders the medium incapable of facilitating such an effect when used to present a work of art.
It is not healthy for art to be too closely integrated with the society from which it springs or to be totally diluted within it. This would result in its losing its critical function. It is therefore necessary, more than ever before, for artists to maintain a distance between their work and the world in which they live if their art is to be anything more than a simple mirror reflecting changing issues. (de Meredieu, F, 2005)

Some galleries, particularly a space like Tate Modern’s Turbine Hall, have the capacity to create a sense of awe, and certainly help to distance the work from the world from which it comes. If I conclude that the gallery space offers me the potential for a symbiotic relationship when presenting my work, whereas the computer/ tablet/ smartphone diminishes and imprisons it, where does this leave my egalitarian desire concerning my audience? It is ironic that the medium with the potential to transcend boundaries of race, gender, sexuality, class, income, religion, and politics, is delivered to its audience in small rigid rectangular boxes. This single boundary irrevocably alters the ways in which the viewer experiences the work. O’Doherty’s questions about the relationship between the artist and the gallery, and his conclusion of a Faustian compromise, seem to be as relevant now as they were 35 years ago:
During modernism the gallery space was not perceived as much of a problem. … The artist was not aware he was accepting anything except a relationship with a dealer. And if he saw beyond it, accepting a social context you can do nothing about shows a lot of common sense. Most of us do exactly that. Before large moral and cultural issues, the individual is helpless but not mute. His weapons are irony, rage, wit, paradox, satire, detachment, scepticism. A familiar kind of mind comes into focus here – restless, selfdoubting, inventive about diminishing options, conscious of void, and close to silence. It is a mind with no fixed abode, empirical, always testing experience, conscious of itself and thus of history – and ambiguous about both. (O’Doherty, B, 1976)

In summary I discussed the potential for new electronic media (specifically video and website) to provide egalitarian appeal to a wide audience. I have suggested that the elitism of the gallery is

24

0706725

MA Fine Art FAM3: Audience & Presentation

January 2012

better at optimising the presentation of some video art work. As always, I believe that working with the compromise is likely to be creative.

25

0706725 Bibliography

MA Fine Art FAM3: Audience & Presentation

January 2012

Arthur, C. (2010) Augmented reality: it’s like real life, but better. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/mar/21/augmented-reality-iphone-advertising Buzzetto-More, N. (2011) Management in a Web 2.0 World: Risks and Counter-Measures Proceedings of Informing Science & IT Education Conference (InSITE) http://www.informingscience.org/proceedings/InSITE2011/InSITE11p139-151Buzzetto218.pdf De Meredieu, F. (2005) Digital and Video Art. Edinburgh: Chambers Harrap Ltd Dudeney, G. (2011) No place in class for digital illiterates. http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/dec/06/teaching-digital-literacy?INTCMP=SRCH http://www.frieze.com/magazine/ http://www.furtherfield.org/content/about Graham, B & Cook, S. (2010) Rethinking Curating. Art after New Media. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England : MIT Press http://info.cern.ch/ Meyer, J. In: Trodd, T (ed.) (2011) Screen/ Space. The projected image in contemporary art. Manchester: Manchester University Press McEvilley, B. Introduction. In: O’Doherty, B. (1986) Inside the White Cube. The Ideology of the Gallery Space. Berkeley, LA: University of California Press http://news.netcraft.com/ O’Doherty, B. (1986) Inside the White Cube. The Ideology of the Gallery Space. Berkeley, LA: University of California Press Paul, C (ed.) (2008) New Media in the White Cube and Beyond. Berkeley: University of California Press http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=electronic+media&i=60949,00.asp http://pinchukartcentre.org/en/photo_and_video/photo/8011 http://www.rhizome.org/about/ Ross, C. From distantiation to connectivity. In: Trodd, T (ed.) (2011), Screen/ Space. The projected image in contemporary art. Manchester: Manchester University Press

26

0706725

MA Fine Art FAM3: Audience & Presentation

January 2012

Segal, D. (2011) The Dirty Little Secrets of Search. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/business/13search.html?_r=1 http://www.seomoz.org/blog/seo-pricing-costs-of-services http://www.susanhiller.org/Info/artworks/artworks-JStreetVideo.html http://www.susanhiller.org/Info/artworks/artworks-PSIgirls.html Sutton, T. (2011) Personal communication http://www.ucl.ac.uk/slade/scemfa/ http://whitehotmagazine.com/index.php

27

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.