The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation
, YouTube and HP have teamed up in search of the world’s most creative online video. In collaboration with Hewlett-Packard and Intel, Google’s YouTube set up a dedicated site section dubbed Play, in an effort to find and showcase the most exceptional talents working in the realm of online video.
In the – international – search for new creative video, everyone is invited to submit their best works, which people can do until July 31st. Anything goes, from straight-up art to animation, music videos, motion graphics, narrative and non-narrative work, or even entirely new art forms (that should be interesting).
A jury of experts comprising people from the worlds of art, design, film, and entertainment will select up to 20 videos to be presented at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum on October 21, 2010, with simultaneous presentations at the Guggenheim museums in Berlin, Bilbao, and Venice. The works will also be available to a worldwide audience on the YouTube Play channel.
Replies
I will certainly submit one of my videos, though not very hopeful as to the sort of things they will be looking for...
I don't think the obsession about "new" is good for art in general. It's certainly very bad for the artist and the creative process, as the fear of doing things that have been done before can lead to paralysis. Following the path of art means doing things that millions of people have been doing for thousands of years. And you can make great art and not do anything really new, just as you can make great art and do something new.
The insistence on technology in art is, in my opinion, mostly cheap sensasionalism. I love technology, and what it lets me do, but it has nothing to do with the quality of art itself. It has to do with me having fun, which I'm sure helps with the quality, but other people have fun with other things and do things just as exciting, or more.
But I guess even the Guggenheim needs some measure of cheap sensationalism to survive in this world of ours...
Sorry, I guess that's a bit off topic :-P
In the plumbers' "art" world, it is ll about control (hence so much "how to").
In the Art world, it is all about becoming a vehicle through which "it" reveals itself.
As far as I am concerned, real work starts when one no longer knows what to do, but persists with all the care one can invest in the experience.
"Plumbing" is about staying short of that, avoiding "losing control" at all cost.
Too much emphasis is placed on "how it's done" and "what it's done with" (think "SIGGRAPH"), while it really is/should be about what "it" is doing.
I fear that is a losing battle though...
I fully agree with that.
In fact, I can now recall that, during my days at the NY Studio School (1978-1984), talks with colleagues (and John Cage) revolved much more around ways to create conditions by which "accidents" could happen, than around specific painting "how to" issues.
It's only since going digital (1997) that I have encountered so much concern about plumbing, and a large number of people who have fallen for the plumbing as it it were all that the work is about.
I understand that, at first, digital workflows were so technical, it took a certain mindset to manage them, but with (especially) the Mac OS and tools like Final Cut Pro and Studio Artist, it is definitely possible to progress "by way of accident" and not be caught in the "obligation" to plot everything beforehand.
But also, and this is not a small insignificant detail, many people have access to the tools without having paid their dues to, for example, their understanding of how their own perception works and/or at least, what painting has accomplished before them.
So, if they have access to powerful means, their work is not driven, informed, by a "vision.
So we see endless "hollow" experimentations, trapped in a world of (often) gratuitous abstract imagery, not grounded in the experience of "the real," or "figurative" images that can"t reach beyond the most trite clichés.
That was already the case prior to the digital "revolution," but that disease sure gained momentum with computers.
I am not at home so I can't post a link to an article written by my old friend Mercedes Matter (she founded the NY Studio School of Painting, Drawing and Sculpture and was my mentor during my NY days), an article that was published in the NY Times years ago and which resulted in the creation of her school. She makes a fabulous case for the "placement" of elements in a painting/drawing, a depth of concern that I seldom see these days.
I'll try to remember to find it when i'll get home later, and post that link then.
But as I said earlier, it is most likely a losing battle...
To give some context to Mercedes' life, she was the daughter of Arthur B. Carles, a pioneer of American Abstract Art, wife of Herbert Matter (photographer and designer), and the close friend of so many major figures like Alberto Giacometti, Alexander Calder (godfather of her only son), she worked with Fernand Léger. Jackson Pollock and Lee Krasner first met at her home, and got married later, she was extremely close to both Bill and Elaine de Kooning, Franz Kline, Philip Guston, Hans Hofman, and many many more.
She was a great painter, and an amazing person, I think the term "pasionaria" fits her to a "T."
I honestly wonder what she would say today when looking at most digital "art."
Once again I have you to thank for your article. I recently finished reading the Giacometti book you had recommended and found it enlightening. I have always been a turtle in both my creative and regular life. Seeing that Giacometti needed to rework his painting over and over again gave me heart and encouragement . My creative process, however slow, tedious and imperfect, is relevant and that despite my feelings of inadequacy and shortcomings with technique, I am very much an artist.
I believe that learning to draw is very much foundational for both painting and the beyond. This process involves the whole being and it demands one be in the present with heart and soul. It is a process that refines ones entire being.
I do not subscribe to Cage and Cunningham's theory, in part because I believe that there are no real "accidents". What happens in life may appear random. However the present moment is what it is and more often than not the result of many life moments and states of consciousness that evolve and manifest in the world. I also believe that what is planned can be of great interest as long as it involves flexibility and the discovery of the "unknown." I do plot and I am also open to discovery as part of my creative process.
As ones consciousness evolves one opens more to the high self, the source of all creativity, the presence and the infinite present. Intent is the beginning of the long road to self discovery.
Art is a primary process of heart ... by this I mean it is an assertive creative process in which love expressed and manifest in this world. To the degree one is open to the ever present source of all and courageous enough to be the vessel for this energy to manifest as art, one increases ones possibility to manifest great art. Whether the world recognizes it as such is irrelevant to the Truth.
This is a very complex topic and is way beyond the realm of the mind.My expression is somewhat awkward, but I do hope it makes sense.
Attached is a pdf of your Times article by Mercedes that I downloaded from their archive. It is easier to read.
Mercedes Matter.pdf