whitehot | August 2011, Translife: The International Triennial of New Media Art at the National Art Museum of China, Beijing![]() Wang Yuyang, Artificial Moon, 2011
Maximum Conceptual Overdrive Translife: The International Triennial of New Media Art at the National Art Museum of China, Beijing
Where there is any aesthetic present, then it is inevitably one of maximum conceptual overdrive. Virtually nothing can be understood without reading the accompanying wall text. At times, the apparent lack of criticality within many of the works can be disturbing, as in Marnix de Nijs’s 15 Minutes of Biometric Fame, which, to the joy of the huge crowd gathered in the exhibition hall, features a roaming camera on a dolly that automatically scans the faces of visitors, then links them up with celebrities they resemble by doing a biometric search of images on the Internet, projecting the results on a screen above; or Brain Station, a project by Wu Juehui proposing the manipulation of one’s mood by submitting the brain to artificial sound waves. Given that these works are being shown in a country with a not-so-discreet history of torturing and spying on its own citizens, I have to wonder how many others recognize the sinister possibilities suggested by such technologies. ![]() Wu Juehui, Brain Station, 2011
Such works are inherently evasive, as they focus on the utopian qualities of their projects. Should artists play the role of mad scientist? I would venture to suggest that creativity in scientific speculation doth not good art make. If anything, such work emphasizes the temporary in “contemporary art.” We live in a world in which technology is evolving at a rate we can no longer keep up with, so any work that dabbles with science or technology seals its fate of obsolescence at the hour of its completion. The type of gimmickry it promotes is much loved by institutions, which are the only venue for this kind of work. This points to a further truth of our era, that institutional critique has morphed into institutional fetishization. This is “art” for the masses, which fulfills its task by offering a superficial educational component, one that nevertheless comes stamped with an expiration date. I guess there’s not much left to say, at this point. After all, criticism stops as soon as the only question left to be asked is whether art is fulfilling its social responsibilities. You can’t proclaim, “Long live the temporary!”, without appearing foolish. In the end, all we’re left with is the diversion and the wall text that explains it. The thinking has been done for us, the experience lived, and we can go on with our lives without dwelling too much on it.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Noah Becker: Editor-in-Chief |