Re: The aesthetics of electromechanical failure

[ follow ups ] [ Ken Feingold ]

by Simon Biggs on July 28, 1997 at 14:17:40:

In Reply to: Re: The aesthetics of electromechanical failure posted by Ken Goldberg on May 12, 1997 at 23:18:36:

regarding the Goldberg/Feingold debate,

and Ken Feingold will know this because he was there when I said it
(Helsinki, 1992).

For me one of the most alluring and powerful aspects of technology is that
it can create what appears to be magic. Magic is a wonderful thing...but it
only works if people cannot see how it is done. I can understand the
aesthetic of the loose wire, but fear that this will lead to a fetishising
of the machine, whereas what we should be fetishising is the human. Humans
love magic, the mysterious, the inexpicable and, ultimately, the
transcendental. This is what makes us feel like humans, instead of monkeys
or machines.

My feeling is that this is one of the most important debates in new media
art, but it is rarely engaged. That is; the appearance of technology in art
that uses technology.

follow ups:




[ follow ups ] [ Ken Feingold ]