Technology and ‘the death of Art History’
CHArt ANNUAL CONFERENCE
|
|
Technology and ‘the death of Art History’
|
Tracy Piper-Wright
Life after Death – the relevance of digital technologies for entry into the ‘canon’ of temporary, ephemeral and non-gallery sited art works
In this paper I propose to explore the propensity for digital technologies to become a valuable method by which a precarious and difficult to retain art form can have a continuing existence. The importance of documentation for the archival preservation of temporary, ephemeral and non-gallery sited works of art is one that is recognised as being tantamount to maintaining the presence of these works within the critical canon. The inability of these works to be represented fully means that they consequently cease to exist in terms of creating histories of practice. Furthermore, this paper will argue that the quality of efforts to record and preserve such works often falls far short of an ideal or true representation.
Recent research carried out by this researcher examines the occurrence of other mechanisms of documentation emerging in relation to ephemeral, non-gallery sited works. Examination of a selection of art works occurring in these environments shows a varying level of complexity in the residual documentation. What has been shown is that within the less restricted, open environments in which these works are situated the audience are increasingly engaged in the creation of high quality and aesthetically relevant documentation of the work, which is communicated through the use of digital cameras and photo-sharing sites. It is proposed that the combination of unrestricted access and the wide spread use of web 2.0 technologies creates the phenomenon of ‘democratic documentation’ occurring in response to these types of work.
This paper will seek to argue that it is the combination of a range of readily accessible digital technologies that permits the audience to create and disseminate a level of documentary response that is previously unprecedented, and which often surpasses that provided by the artists themselves. The value of the documentation produced by the audience will be discussed as one that presents a convincing and accurate picture of the aesthetic experience of the work – representing not simply the appearance of the work but capable of transporting latter, secondary audiences toward a richer and more fulfilling experience of the ephemeral art work.
The paper will conclude with some observations on how ‘democratic documentation’ might be both a response and a challenge to established methods of creating art histories and whether the opportunity to create such forms of documentation might present themselves within other forms of practice.