UbiComp
Act III Post-Internet Art
Project: Praxis Proposal
- Upcoming: Exercise 3 due S 4/18 (instructions below)
- Project 3 workshops week of 20-Apr
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
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).