#
keep focus
discussions and criticism, inspirations

FAIL and FAKE as AESTHETIC OF NEW MEDIA


I would like to sent a great thaks for Roman Bromboszcz.

In described aesthetic of post-digital music which Roman sent me as reply for my text ART AFTER 2000 where I had described corelations of mediatization of art in the Internet and politic activism in art. Internet as social structure breakes down the C. G. Jungs paradigm in art who was very popular in 90′s. Recent way is political activism in art and has been shared into the queer and hactivistic attitudes. In queer theory and vision of art I had seen the danger of being part of game, used for spectacle of power. Can be used for legitimisation of structural violence in the name of global equality. In hactivistic practice I had seen the way to deconstruction of system of power with his administrative role of new media dependent from global capital and monetary system. Its a little too utopic, to begin open war, where artists becames soldiers. Another way is already known from years, and it is a part of statement of many artists: building the conscience of new media landscape. In process of building this conscience the very important role plays video, as language of new media. Plays means fake. Art means artificial. Video is artificial, cultural text. Pierce and de Saussure: sign and object. Art is sign. You cant buy art, you can buy artifacts. So the next way is Fake as art. Alternative for Fake theory ca be seen the classic new media art paradigm of Failurem, aesthetic described in those text where I had seen the strong faith in the nature of digital medium, and his true errors. We have seen in digital music a kind of structural and analitical tendency previous known from structural film and expanded cinema. It is natural continuation of hard believe in reality with the basic layer of medium, and medium as message, and faith of base matter of reality: hardware honesty funded the higher cultural overbuild world of fantasmatic issues, software as message dominated by hardware. Sounds like dialectic materialism? But this time I think this is the capitalistic consumerism and technocracy way to self-establish in culture through the way of ideology of Marks. We have to remember that System Of Power allways have better software, better solutions and backdoors. For simple example I like Linux but nobody knows how to create working professional software for non linnear editing in similar friendly way to Adobe, Sony, Avid, or even Ulead systems, and many many others based on Windows or Apple.

So now I see the video art or POST-VIDEO ART as conceptual non-material art which is using global capitalistic digital media, which in my eyes doesn’t have any special characteristic accept one: fake. Every video editing system is pure fake. Fake is the nature of digital image. Failure is effect.

So let’s try to discuss specifics of digital image. Pixelisation of image depends on choice of raster or vector format of image as in my work MNEMOSYNE where structural fluid of video-memory was tranformed into vectors and printed as large B2 images on pvc. No pixels. Codec also is something additional and specific for the many formats. But all of them are just optional and they didnt reflect the nature of digital video. Codec is facultative form of video. All of these structural noises based on codec or interlace are creating kind of vocabulary of aesthetic of digital media but all of them are just fake, because we can use non-interlace images, no-half images video with full frame, or we can use vector graphics like in Flash. HD, higher or lower resolution are optional, because you can print it in 35 mm, with many diferrent codecs making many diferrent artefacts on the picture, so many different effects. If they seem to be real artefacts, fail of technology, fail of system in special kind of medium they are in fact just visual effect that can be used by any digital or analog system and re-created in any other editing system. All of them are part of digital aesthetic that is very temporary, significant for our time and contemporary tools, but as optional, as selected tool.

Failure? Video usualy is presented on dvd or DV tapes, or on youtube, vimeo… All of these mediums are kind of vocabulary but digital video is like virus existing in diferrent media. This specific kind of image is connected with device and time of popularity of it. Digital video is something more than that. Digital image is simulating those effects of devices and this simulation is FAKE! As in my work MAGO MVNDIfrom 2002 where i had explored bad half images synchronisation,  and codec errors mixed with small resolution of image. But final video file workes perfectly because I dont want to ave additional palimpsest of noises.

So failure was just part of creative process and all of these errors was my way to find special kind of effects, and finaly it was burned in DVD. Like almost every other glitch video. End of ends is just perfect mov or avi file, with no additional errors. So every DVD player makes fake because it is not creating errors, he is plaing his role in perfect way, because you want to see the failure. Irony? Yes, irony and fake is a way to jump from the faith in true matter of medium into the world of intentional gesture. As many other kinds of ERROR music those video are fake, gesture, meaning. Failure itself is meaningless – its goal is destruction of meanings. It is unusual to see the cellular phone video in cellular phone device on exhibition. Usualy we can see it in the cinema or on the wall of gallery in HD resolution monitors or projected from good beamers. This viral migration of image, triumph of failure of technology is faked by gallery system. All other sampled noices, technics of failure aesthetic, or simulations of 16mm or 8mm films are the same in the digital video world – it is part of vocabulary. Failure in world of fake can get back the meaning of medium – medium as message. Does not matter if you are using old film effect or effect of pixelisation. All of this is in modern vocabulary is vocabulary of fakes. Fake needs failure to extend his vocabulary. But video is Fake like any other kind of language. And it is a good news, because we dont want to have dogmatic, fundamentalistic failure believers in art. Art is artificial.

 

About affective bioart

http://michalbrzezinski.org

Discussion

2 thoughts on “FAIL and FAKE as AESTHETIC OF NEW MEDIA

  1. a place totals up the data the knowledge is a lot of techinque main point data techinque the knowledge is all-round goods is modern

    Posted by vitdoo | June 20, 2009, 4:01 am
  2. hmmm, very interesting take. It’s true that this is all very “temporary” as you put it, as technology changes/evolves so to will it’s “errors” and “artifacts” – they might cease to be so aesthetically interesting (fake or not)… lets keep talking about this:

    Glitch Our GlitchCon!!!iii!!!!
    ******************************
    Call for Entries: http://gli.tc/h
    ******************************

    -Nick-

    Posted by Nick Briz | July 14, 2010, 9:01 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

postvideoart

Top Clicks

  • None

Community

RSS transspecies art

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 116 other followers

%d bloggers like this: