6 A new relation to timeġ0However, the ephemeral taking hold of contemporary creation hints at another relation to time, other than this eternal present of the digital. It would be in contradiction with the very notion of cultural heritage -which would suppose the existence of monumentality or at least traces of this monumentality. What it would gain in width, diversity and speed, it would lose in retrospective depth and above all, in authenticity, for want of remaining rooted in a material genealogy. Its memory capacity, albeit exponentially increasing, would in reality serve an eternal, inconsistent present. The digital activity seems to generate oblivion as quickly as it multiplies texts or other cultural objects and saturates their networks. 6 Patrick Bazin, “La mémoire reconfigurée,” Les Cahiers de médiologie. Digital art conveys an ideal of sharing, collaboration and collective experimentation. On the contrary, they make temporary artistic proposals that are prone to be constantly transformed, propose collaborative programs whose value is proportional to its appeal to the audience that will appropriate the work through its modifications. 3ĦAs we are tending to digitize and archive almost everything -the issue of the preservation of these archives, or technical vulnerability of the format, is something we will not tackle in this paper-, artists no longer seek fulfillment. This does not mean that this is the end of art: this is the end of art as an object. Intentions, attitudes and concepts become substitutes for works. Objects, installations and performances become works of art. The creator of works gradually becomes an experience provider, an illusionist, a magician or an effects engineer, objects lose their determined artistic characteristics. 3 Yves Michaud, L’Art à l’état gazeux, Paris, Stock, 2003.The work in progress becomes a magic formula, temporary installations are topical everywhere, the creation process is favored over the production of works. Indeed, what shall we think of this transformation of the notion of heritage, which now makes it encompass the ephemeral? Passing onĤIf heritage consists of what we wish to pass on, how and why should we make this requirement coincide with a work initially designed to be ephemeral? How to transform what is momentary into heritage, how to make durable what is fleeting, and most importantly, should we do it? Do artists want this transformation? What to think about these fragile works, deliberately exhibited in the public space and doomed to be destroyed? What to think about digital art, whose constantly evolving, circulating, collaborative and interactive works, remain utterly unstable and prone to endless transformations?ĥThe digital society archives memorizes everything and yet, artistically speaking, produces but very few stabilized works in a state that we would like to preserve, and whose value is determined by the perfection of their result, as has been the case for centuries. “Ephemeral heritages”: that is an unsettling oxymoron. The advantage of this broad definition is that it applies to both material goods and moral values and is exact in terms of financial, genetic and cultural heritage.” 2ģThe issue of transmission, which is at the heart of the notion of “heritage,” is currently confronted with the proliferation of ephemeral works since the sixties, which further increased with the digital era. “By consensus, heritage covers everything that we have inherited from past generations and/or want to -or must- pass on to future generations. Une anthologie (“Le monument (.)ĢHowever, despite its considerable extension, the notion of heritage remains clear, as Michel Melot points out.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |