Hovagimyan documents the evolution
of mechanical recording and reproduction media to what he terms our current
“Post Media” information environment. What I noticed in his analysis of art was
a focus on form rather than content. For example, when he discusses the change
in painting with the invention of photography he states, “The symbolic language
of representational painting just doesn’t compare with the information of a
photograph.” He seems to say the medium of painting can’t send as great an
emotional message as a photograph because it is more limited, less realistic. I
think this focus on form, or the idea that “the medium is the message” means
that the form through which an idea is expressed can alter the perception of that
idea. Video may be a better medium for expressing something than a sound
recording; maybe the visual accompaniment is needed to effectively communicate
the idea. But sound alone may be better in circumstances in which the artist wants
to engage only one sense and keep the focus solely on what is heard. Hovagimyan
places art in the category of language. Just as there are many different ways
to say something that affect how the message is received, each medium portrays
an idea through a different form, affecting how an audience perceives it.
Hovagimyan explains that we are now
moving away from “Playback Culture” into a new age of generative art, referring
to computer-made art that is algorithmically determined. If this is true, I
think this is a dangerous transformation because it eliminates the artist’s
role. In some cases, the artists create their own algorithms, so they still
maintain some artistic command. However, other artists are using computers to
generate “original” art independent of much human creative input. Harold Cohen is one example: he is inventing a
software program called AARON that creates original artistic images on its own.
This is a video that elaborates on generative art:
This video is about Harold Cohen's software program:
No comments:
Post a Comment