Castells Manuel, “Communication, Power and Counter power in the Network Society”, International Journal of Communication 1 (2007), pp238-266.
Manuel Castells is a sociologist especially associated with information society and communications research. John Conomos is a new media artist and critic who teach at Sydney Collage of the Arts, University of Sydney.
There are interesting ideas about globalization in relation to communication and media in the text by Manuel Castells. He talks about mass-communication and media politics and points out the issues and how media affects Politics and what mass-communication do in the society. John Conomos mentions in his writing ‘New Media, Culture, Identity’ that people and culture is drifting because of the idea of globalisation. “globalisation refers to our turbulent world of withering ‘nation-states’ and new ‘chaotic’ forms of movement of people, capital, culture, ideas, goods, symbols and global media networks set adrift.”1
From development of the mass self- communications like Facebook, youtube and twitter, the ‘many to many’2 communication is much easier and faster. By using these communication methods, public networking is growing- not only because of its quick easy structure but also because of its anonymity. Since anyone can write, comment and make statements anonymously, there are two sides of positive and negative values. The positive side is that the public can be more honest, active and people can make their voices heard without the help of media. On the other hand, there is possible danger of misleading the public or the losing control of the original information. “Yet any post in the internet, regardless of the intention of its author, becomes a bottle drifting in the ocean of global communication, a message susceptible of being received and reprocessed in unexpected ways.”3
The question about the ownership and the control of the information is something that interests me in relation to artists’ practices. I want to state that this issue especially in relation to the notion of ‘Contemporary’ arts which I believe the ‘idea’ becomes most crucial part of the art making and art works. Losing control of the ideas and ownership of any artist’s ideas would be like losing an actual art work.
1. John Conomos, Nikos Papasergiais, ed. ‘Complex Entanglements – Art, Globalisation and cultural Difference’, London: Rivers Oram Press, 2003, pp.127
2. ‘The communication system of the industrial society was centred around the mass media, characterised by the mass distribution of a one-way message from one to many. The communication foundation of the network society is the global web of horizontal communication networks that include the multimodal exchange of interactive messages from many to many both synchronous and asynchronous.’
- Castells Manuel, “Communication, Power and Counter power in the Network Society”, International Journal of Communication 1 (2007), p246
3. Castells Manuel, “Communication, Power and Counter power in the Network Society”, International Journal of Communication 1 (2007), p247
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Saturday, May 8, 2010
What does it mean to have a creative practice here in Aotearoa New Zealand
Catherine David and Irit Rogoff, “In Conversation”, in Claire Doherty ed., From Studio to Situation, London: Black Dog Publishing, 2004, pp.82-89
Catherine David is artist, curator and Professor who has worked as a curator at the National Museum of Modern Art, Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris during 1981-90 and since 2002 work as curator and director of the Witte de With Centre for Contemporary Art in Rotterdam. Irit Rogoff is a theorist and curator who is also a professor at Goldsmiths College, London University, in the department of Visual Cultures. Nikos Papastergiadis is Deputy Director of the Australian Centre, University of Melbourne.
Through the text, I found term ‘un-belonging’ very interesting. Irit Rogoff mentions the idea of un-belonging. “How can we make un-belonging a kind of active realm by which to somehow relate to place and not through the identifications demanded by the nation state? … constantly trying to think of positionality-one’s constantly contingent, constantly shifting positionality towards place.”1
I see a connection between the idea of ‘un-belonging’ and the idea of the local- cultural artwork, which one could read differently when the artwork is placed in another country. I think this applies not only to site-specific artworks but to all cultural artworks. From my point of view the artworks which include culture, history and the story don’t necessarily have to be shown in the country of creation since the world is becoming more and more globalized. International artists and the way viewers interpret artworks are different from past.
Although their culture and the background could affect or change their ways of understanding, people around the world who live in countries which have a multi-cultural society understand artworks as individualistic. For example New Zealand is also a multi-cultural nation which already has 2 cultures forming one country and added to the bi-cultural background there are many people from another countries which makes New Zealand a multi-cultural country. I think the question what does it mean to have a creative practice in Aotearoa New Zealand is answered to a large extent by this idea- and offers an insight into how we should look at artworks in New Zealand and from New Zealand. Nikos Papasergiais says that “...the artist must develop ‘tricky’ strategies for engaging the attention of the viewer away from the spectacle into a new experiential filed where symbolic and material meaning take new twists.”2 However, I believe that even though art works are shown in the country of creation, not necessarily everyone would be from that country and although the work might be more successful, the understanding will still be differ to individual audiences.
1. Catherine David and Irit Rogoff. "In conversation", in Claire Doherty ed., From Studio to Situation, London: Black Dog Publishing, 2004, pp.84
2. Nikos Papasergiais, ed. ‘Complex Entanglements – Art, Globalisation and cultural Difference’, London: Rivers Oram Press, 2003, pp.6
Catherine David is artist, curator and Professor who has worked as a curator at the National Museum of Modern Art, Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris during 1981-90 and since 2002 work as curator and director of the Witte de With Centre for Contemporary Art in Rotterdam. Irit Rogoff is a theorist and curator who is also a professor at Goldsmiths College, London University, in the department of Visual Cultures. Nikos Papastergiadis is Deputy Director of the Australian Centre, University of Melbourne.
Through the text, I found term ‘un-belonging’ very interesting. Irit Rogoff mentions the idea of un-belonging. “How can we make un-belonging a kind of active realm by which to somehow relate to place and not through the identifications demanded by the nation state? … constantly trying to think of positionality-one’s constantly contingent, constantly shifting positionality towards place.”1
I see a connection between the idea of ‘un-belonging’ and the idea of the local- cultural artwork, which one could read differently when the artwork is placed in another country. I think this applies not only to site-specific artworks but to all cultural artworks. From my point of view the artworks which include culture, history and the story don’t necessarily have to be shown in the country of creation since the world is becoming more and more globalized. International artists and the way viewers interpret artworks are different from past.
Although their culture and the background could affect or change their ways of understanding, people around the world who live in countries which have a multi-cultural society understand artworks as individualistic. For example New Zealand is also a multi-cultural nation which already has 2 cultures forming one country and added to the bi-cultural background there are many people from another countries which makes New Zealand a multi-cultural country. I think the question what does it mean to have a creative practice in Aotearoa New Zealand is answered to a large extent by this idea- and offers an insight into how we should look at artworks in New Zealand and from New Zealand. Nikos Papasergiais says that “...the artist must develop ‘tricky’ strategies for engaging the attention of the viewer away from the spectacle into a new experiential filed where symbolic and material meaning take new twists.”2 However, I believe that even though art works are shown in the country of creation, not necessarily everyone would be from that country and although the work might be more successful, the understanding will still be differ to individual audiences.
1. Catherine David and Irit Rogoff. "In conversation", in Claire Doherty ed., From Studio to Situation, London: Black Dog Publishing, 2004, pp.84
2. Nikos Papasergiais, ed. ‘Complex Entanglements – Art, Globalisation and cultural Difference’, London: Rivers Oram Press, 2003, pp.6
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
