UbiComp

Act III   Post-Internet Art
Project: Praxis Proposal

 
 
M 13-Apr Hybrid Activ­ity: Read & dis­cuss Fibrecul­ture issue 19 (2011)

  • choose 1 article (of 8: Thom­sen & Bech through Fritsch)
    — iden­tify selec­tion & post notes in shared doc
     
  • dis­cuss: “ubiq­ui­tous com­put­ing” → impli­ca­tions & prospects for art praxis?

 
 

W 15-Apr               Dis­cuss: Fibrecul­ture arti­cles (con­tin­ued)
+ Amerika, “Post­pro­duc­tion Art and The­ory” from remix­the­book

  • Focus: con­tem­po­rary con­di­tions for art — “Dis­trib­uted Aes­thet­ics” + “Ubi­Comp” → Post-Digital / “Post-Internet” Art?
  • activ­ity: Project ideas (warm-up for Exer­cise 3 and Project 3)
    — from “art schol­ar­ship” (dis­course) to aes­thetic production/innovation (pro­posal for artists)

 
 

Hybrid Activ­ity (Wed-Fri): optional dis­cus­sion thread — Exer­cise 3 & Project ideas

 
Due (S 19-Apr): Exer­cise 3 (Pro­posal: Art­Praxis Update)

    — look­ing ahead: Work­shops led by groups (4/20 & 4/22)
    — brain­storm & communicate/comment (coor­di­nate?) over week­end, using Exer­cise 3 as warm-up

 
 

http://www.mteww.com/nad.html


 

 
 

Pro­posal: Art­Praxis Update (Exer­cise 3)

    Due S 19-Apr
    10 points (see exer­cise guide­lines)
    350–500 words + 1 media ele­ment (min­i­mum): found (image, video) or original/edited (sketch, dia­gram, GIF, etc.)
    — use media element/s to sup­port your pro­posed ideas (prac­tice for Project 3)

 

» Task: Pro­pose update for art praxis in con­tem­po­rary con­di­tions of net­worked media ecol­ogy — “Dis­trib­uted Aes­thet­ics” & Ubi­quitous Com­put­ing — using the event/exhibit (in-person dis­play, per­for­mance) that you reviewed (in Exer­cise 2).
Show dis­ci­pli­nary knowl­edge and apply con­ven­tions — aca­d­e­mic style for critically-informed pro­fes­sion­als and artists — of dis­course com­mu­nity, by pre­sent­ing your hypo­thet­i­cal update from insights, obser­va­tions, and thought­ful con­sid­er­a­tion.
Reflect­ing advanced con­tent knowl­edge, use at least one term/concept from 1–2 recent reading/s (e.g. Fibrecul­ture arti­cles from issue 7 or 19), relat­ing to your art major/field — apply­ing per­spec­tive & spe­cial­ized terms from that dis­ci­pline as well.

  • Note: in terms of style/composition, a help­ful exam­ple to model in this way is Garrett-Petts & Nash, “Re-Visioning the Visual: Mak­ing Artis­tic Inquiry Vis­i­ble” Rhi­zomes 18

 
Unlike the intended read­ers and imag­ined pub­li­ca­tion of the Review, imag­ine and appeal to an audi­ence of artists — per­haps not entirely informed but recep­tive to schol­arly discourse/ideas, con­tem­po­rary trends, new tech­nolo­gies (con­di­tions).
Your chief goal is pre­sent­ing insight/s for aes­thetic appli­ca­tion/creation, regard­less how prac­ti­cal or the­o­ret­i­cal you envi­sion (per­haps both?). Use spe­cific exam­ples to sup­port your ideas, avoid­ing summary/description in favor of propo­si­tions for appli­ca­tion.
For spe­cific details, use the event/exhibit you reviewed to spec­u­late a poten­tial update of aes­thetic pro­duc­tion (per­for­mance, prac­tices, cre­ativ­ity, etc.) in your field.

    » As well, you might also choose to present, with a theory-informed fram­ing, in the style of instruc­tions like the remix­the­book (Amerika) exer­cises for “NetArt 2.0″ and “Post­pro­duc­tion.”
    Feel free to inno­vate the com­po­si­tion as you would like, or to present as straight­for­ward pro­posal, as long as the writ­ing style sup­ports your deliv­ery of thought­ful ideas.

 

In any case, thought­fully con­tem­plate before com­pos­ing both the unique qual­i­ties of the art form exam­ined (in your review) as well as the spe­cific dig­i­tal tech­nol­ogy + net­work media con­di­tions at present — look­ing ahead and envi­sion­ing future devel­op­ments for art in age of Ubi­Comp (“Post-Internet” or “dis­trib­uted” Aes­thet­ics?). Be sure to demon­strate to read­ers, implic­itly and explic­itly, that your pro­posal reflects and rec­og­nizes dis­ci­pli­nary con­ven­tions of art-making (praxis), media theory/scholarship, and cul­tural dis­course (“how we talk about art”).
→ The exer­cise is a direct warm-up to Project 3: your con­clu­sion should address impli­ca­tions or pos­si­bil­i­ties for art praxis per­son­ally, for your major/field, critical-scholarly dis­course (dis­cuss one or a com­bi­na­tion of these areas).