Monday, September 7, 2009
New Media Art and the 1960s
New media of the 1960s was often controversial and challenged not only social norms, but also the art world. Since then, there have been developments in the realm of new media that force us to consider redefining what it is. In what ways have perceptions of new media changed, if at all? Is the "new" media of today more controversial that that of the 1960s? If so, how?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While I was reading, I was noticing that many of Licklider's statements were very dated. For instance, he suggests that encoding the contents of a book into a computer would be beyond the realm of possibility, or that computers would have to be shared between large groups of people to be cost-effective (although this is still true of supercomputers, which is, in all fairness, what he was really referring to). One of the funniest of his outdated statements was his reference to the "new" method of programing known as Fortran. It makes me wonder what he would have thought about modern programming with C#/C++, Perl, Lisp, Python, Java, Xml, and the rest.
ReplyDeleteThe most intriguing of the readings, for me, was the one on the Brown University Wiki. That seemed to spell out “New Media Art” a lot better than Murray did in his introduction. The main thing that caught my attention was his culture and technology outlook. “An accessible artistic tool that enabled them to explore the changing relationship between tech and culture,” he says. Things such as photo montages, collages, and video art (as mentioned in the Paik reading) all help merge technology and culture in more interactive ways. The Web 2.0 video we saw in class the other day illustrates that point very well. Since 1960, I think our perception has changed quite a bit; however, what would be coined controversial would be up for debate. For people from 1960, I don’t think they would see it as much because they have been able to see the evolution of technology. Everything since 1960 has been “new media” for them. Our generation though, is only used to our forms of media, and that may put certain things in the 60’s up for debate.
ReplyDelete-Nathan C
I feel today's media is no more controversial than any in the past. Rock and roll was met with vehement opposition, comic books were believed to corrupt children, and now video games are the latest pariah to blame society's ills on. I feel new media is more readily accepted today than in the 1960's, but there is still opposition met by anything that challenges the status quo or takes people out of their comfort zones. Whenever a new medium is found, people will explore it, take it to its limits and find out what it's capable of. That's when new media gets exciting and controversial, not when it merely falls in line with the media before it.
ReplyDelete“New” media has always been accepted with time and a little apprehension. It seems as though our society is not used to change yet it changes so often. Whenever there is a new discovery or a new light shed on something old, at first, people are not sure how to accept it, or if to accept it at all. One of the best examples of this would have to be the turning point in art, which was when the impressionist artists emerged. They broke the world’s definition of “art” which up until that point was realism. They only painted things that they saw in the world, never anything abstract, never anything unheard of or seen. The impressionists made art out of how they perceived the world. People rejected the impressionist movement only because it was different from what they were accustomed to. Ever since that era, once new art or a new form of media was born; it has almost always been rejected and then accepted. Everything new is considered controversial, yet I believe now we are able to accept things better than the 1960’s era only because our generation has experienced nothing but rapid change and technological advances.
ReplyDeleteBased on the readings, I feel that previously the idea of new media was very much linked with the idea of risk and chance. Many of the authors thought that with the development of more advanced technology there would be a greater possibility for risk taking and thus a greater chance of discovering something truly ingenious. Kaprow touches on the fact that when art takes it upon itself to create the illusion of chance it opens up the possibility of failure, this creates a possible argument as to why technology is not considered to be more artistic. Ascott also touches on this same theme by saying that the artist’s duty is to “set before his fellow men the symbolic pattern of an existence in which, given absolute choice and responsibility and the power to take incalculable risks, the world and his own identity are shaped to his will.” In today’s world the idea of “incalculable risks” has been thoroughly integrated into our society and the concept has been almost detached from new media. As for the subject of being controversial, I would say that the 1960’s were more focused on the concept of shock value. Today’s new media, while controversial at times, is less in society’s face about it. Unlike the Happenings, advances in technology are meant to better society rather than challenge it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Natasha and Dustin – new forms of media have always been and still are controversial. It seems to me that this is so merely because they’re “new.” The culture that New Media is brought into has to take the time to absorb it, to become accustomed to it. Culture, as defined by Roy Ascott, is “the sum of all the learned behaviours that exist in a given locality” (129). Once the “controversial” media has had time to diffuse into the culture, then it is generally accepted, because it has become a part of the ‘sum of learned behaviours.’ However, this again leads us to the question of whether or not it is new media once it has been widely accepted.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, today’s new media isn’t any more controversial than it was in the 1960s. In fact, if anything, it’s almost less controversial, in that controversial material seems to be the new norm. That is to say, it’s become cool to be controversial. Not a day goes by that I don’t see someone sporting an outrageous hairstyle, displaying several sharp metal objects inserted into their face, or wearing practically nothing in the means of clothing. It’s a way to get noticed, to show your opinions. Similarly, “Independent,” i.e. “Indie” style media is where it’s at. Breaking away from the confines of the norm and making your own style, as opposed to going along with the major corporations, is now a commonly accepted form of media.
The emergence of new media during the 1960s definitely brought its share of skepticism and panic. Taken from the readings of Murray from the other week, new media during the '60s challenged "the great pillars of knowledge and social coherence" and exposed such as "tyrannical at worst, delusional at best." Murray even asserts that during the era "we no longer could believe in anything that we asserted." So, I think it's safe to say that the general perception of new media during the 1960s was skeptical at best. Now, in more modern times, the introduction of new media and new gadgets is met with excited anticipation and open minds. Unlike the technophobic attitude of the '60s, today's society trusts the direction in which the advancement of technology is headed. The essential, personal role that technology fulfills in our lives has established this trust, and will continue to do so as new media is now celebrated, not feared.
ReplyDeleteAs for being controversial, the current situation over new media is not any more relaxed than in the 1960's. Whether or not there is anything to worry about, people will FIND something to create hysteria over. Controversy is something natural and intrinsic to larger, more complex societies. However, I can say that in this age, people are not as radical in their reactions towards objectionable subjects as they used to be in past eras, well at least here in the United States.
ReplyDeleteAs stated by Ascott, there is nothing more paintings and other traditional styles of art can do to surprise the public. However, advancing technology is allowing artists to reach new levels of creativity in their options, still keeping the public on their toes over what to panic about. And thus the controversy and debate over what is considered acceptable continues.
I think that it's important to realize how different the attitudes toward new media in the 1960s and the attitudes toward new media today are because we live in a completely different world. The people in the 60s were suspicious of everything because of the Cold War and the technology race between the countries, and anything new was considered suspicious. Now, like David W. said, anything new is met with excitement and the desire to learn more about it.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there is another side to that: new media could be considered more controversial today because of various privacy issues that often times goes a lot with forms of new media. I was actually thinking of Google Street View, which we were talking about the other day; sure, it's an exciting new program, but it has caused issues, as exhibited by the law suits pertaining to the program.
I agree with what others have said about new media and how controversial it can be. The whole aspect of being new and different creates skepticism and therefore evokes fear within people. During the 1960's, technology was not as prevalent as it is today so it was much more threatening to the people. As for nowadays, technology is always advancing and there is always some sort of "new" media. People have become more accustomed to this, however people are still often skeptical about the future machinery. New media and advancements in technology continue to become more and more accepted within society and I think it will continue to do so for future generations.
ReplyDeleteAs for new media and art, I think many of the readings showed the significant connection between the two. Ascott made an interesting comment that it is "a matter of freely developing ideas and creating forms and structures which embody them." (128) By saying this, he shows a connection between being an artist and being an inventor of a form of new media because inventors of technology take ideas and experiement with them to create some sort of object. Artists follow the same concept. By relating artistery to new media, I think it makes it more acceptable to society because art has always been a welcomed subejct.
Allison R.
Personally, this discussion reminded me of our class disscussion on electronic books and the kindle. Some of us would rather read a physical book instead of a book online simply because its what we've grown up with and what we're used to. But what will our children tend to favor? The next generation could grow up in a world where everything is online and where reading from hardback copies is no longer the norm. Similarly, some people, especially different generations of people, favor old media art instead of new media art. I personally find that virtual art is much more enjoyable and thought provoking than paintings from hundreds of years ago. My grandmother, however, would most certainly disagree.
ReplyDeleteBecause of this comparison, I can conclude that today's media is just as controversial as media in the 1960's. Not more or less. Change is something our culture is not exactly fond of right away. It takes time for changes to be accepted.
I agree with Hannah in that as the authors described new media of the 60s, they described it in the context of uncertainty, surrealism, and somewhat negatively. New media in the 60s was based on rapid change and therefore was seen as controversial because it was the unknown. Ascott talks about how new media greatly impacted art and how technology became more linked to society (129). Kaprow discusses how new media is based on chance, which can be threatening because it is out of control (86).I think that the impact of new media on society was much more controversial than the the impact of new media today. Perceptions of new media have changed because we almost come to expect it these days, whereas in the 60s it was shocking because it was so different from previous forms of media. Although today's new media may seem more invading or intricate, it is so widespread that it may loose controversy simply by the fact that it is diffused among similar forms of previous media.
ReplyDeleteSarah K.
Like many have previously stated, I believe that "new media" will always be met with criticism from the general public. We are a people that crave ingenuity, but are scared of its products. However, on the flipside of the same coin, we also fall in love with said products, and get bored and restless when its "upgrade" isn't introduced in a timely manner.
ReplyDeleteI do believe however, that the acceptance of new media depends on which generation we belong to. As Lena stated, depending on when one grew up, reading a book in its physical nature versus an electronic one is preferrable or vice versa. With that same idea, we can assume that the generation after ours will prefer certain aspects of life that we will hate. For instance, nearly all of my friends own iPhones and iPods, adapting to new applications and updates set forth by Apple each month. However, give the same technology to a parent or grandparent, and they immediately hate it, become confused and frustrated, and reject it. This idea applies to new media art as well, just as Lena stated. I believe that generations become accustomed to a way in which media is presented, and anything contrary to that is met with apprehension. Therefore, new media art in the 1960's was met with the same amount of apprehension that new media is faced with today. When introduced, new media pushes the limits of a society's norms and is at first scary, but after a society has had time to become accustomed to it, that new media becomes absorbed as part of that culture's norms. Time is the key player in the relationship between society and it's acceptance of new media.
I agree that new forms of media will always seem radical and be met with controversy at first, no matter which era they are introduced into. The very first article by Kaprow in our textbook really stuck out to me when reading this prompt because I found Happenings to be very intriguing. Although Happenings are not new to the art world, I had never heard of one, so the concept was new to me. I looked up some Happenings on Youtube and they were hard for me to appreciate because of their confusing, unorganized, hectic nature. I can see why different art forms that sprung up in the 1960's were controversial. New Media art in the 60's seemed to focus on being very free spirited and aimed to break away from rules and "the norm". When people start to experiment, it will always cause some people to feel uneasy. Today, I think people are so used to rules being broken and limits being pushed that we have learned to expect the unexpected and deal with offensive material. It is now "the norm" for the envelope to be pushed and for new ideas and modes of expression to be displayed.
ReplyDelete-Kelly
After reading the articles from the 1950's and reading the new articles, it is possible to tell that even in this short of time people's opinions had changed. They feared cybernetics and were afraid of whether or not machines could take over the world in to the 60's where they focused more on the art aspect of what new could come about from this new media. The new media of today continues to be controversial just like the population thought in this time. They were unsure about this new type of media that was emerging and the art it was bringing. People are always afraid of the unknown. New types of technology come out today that may scare people and make them uneasy but it might not be to the extent as in previous decades. Because we have all this new technology constantly emerging and being developed we might be more used to the idea... more so than they were in the 1960's. The articles were focused on art. Because this came through a new medium, people were probably more skeptical to accept this as art because it is not a traditional form. There are some things today that people do not accept in new media but not like before.
ReplyDeleteHailey R
Like Allison just stated, I believe that things that are foreign and unknown can instill fear within the public. Therefore, new media in the 1960's would be just as new to media is to us today. Just as the computer still seems intimidating to my grandparents, there will be new advances in our time that will take some getting used to. In regards to art, I never really considered it new media until this question was brought up. I think that it is a form of communication and expression, and each time a new work is created, a new form of communication is created. I feel like art is less controversial simply because art has always pushed the envelope of many people's minds, forcing them to think outside the box to uncover the true meaning.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the comments of most everyone else, stating that "new" media will always be met with a certain amount of apprehension at first, which will lessen as time goes on and even newer media is introduced. I think that new media is more readily accepted today than it was in the 1960s simply because previous forms of new media have made us more open-minded and welcoming of newer media.
ReplyDeleteI think that the new media of the 1960s was so controversial because it was very new to everyone, although, things today aren’t that much different. The new media we face today is always changing and it can be incredibly different from what was held as the norm not that long ago. The difference is that today, we seem to be expecting, if not demanding, changes in technology. It seems that everyone always wants something newer or faster or better. And because of this demand, new technologies are being introduced on a very regular basis. Thus the “new media” of today isn’t quite as drastically different as its predecessor, whereas in the 1960s there were large gaps in between the introductions of new media and technologies.
ReplyDeleteAllan Kaprow said that “nearly all artists, working in any medium…, who have made their mark as innovators, as radicals in the best sense of the word, have, once they have been recognized and paid handsomely, capitulated to the interests of good taste.” I think this applies to technologies as well as art, and artists. As such, what happens in today’s day and age is that this process takes a very small amount of time so people hardly even recognize the period where a new media is seen as radical, they don’t even notice it until its ‘popular’. And so although there is nearly as much surprise and controversy about today’s new media, it is far less noticeable and thus less substantial.
As stated by many people before, I believe that every new invention or new way of thinking will create a controversy. New ideas, such as new media art, are not always accepted with open arms, but with doubt, caution, and controversy. Change is not easily accepted and this is this is the same for new media art.
ReplyDeleteI like the definition that Brown gives to new media, as a way to "describe projects that make use of emerging media technologies and are concerned with the cultural, political, and aesthetic possibilities of these tools." Technology has created a world focused on the advancement of science, math, and other so called analytical fields of study. New media art has given us a more created approach to these new technologies. Like 'regular' art, new media are is creative and makes society think in a new way. Art is what we make of what we see. New media art is no different.
The entire time I read Kaprow's and Burroughs' articles I was reminded of the Hirshhorn in Washington DC. Most of the art there was new age, abstract, and gave me the heebie jeebies. I'm not exactly sure why [I was reminded of this]; perhaps it was just that the authors continued to mention doing things which were new and strange (often leading to strong reactions from the public).
ReplyDeleteAnd then I went and saw Taking Woodstock today (explicit & bizarre material; not exactly recommended) and was reminded yet again of these articles. A set of actors put on a "play" where they dress up as animals, yell at the audience, and then get naked, yelling "Now WE are Christ!" One of the audience members liked it so much he too undressed. VERY strange.. I'm sure Kaprow would've had much to say about this performance.
(What would you say about it?)
If we consider Ascott's argument that "all art is, in some sense, didactic" (128) it means that the performance meant something. Or did it? And if it didn't, does that mean it isn't art?
The same sort of debate could be made about the movie itself. It was sort of a 'happening.' It resulted in both good and bad reactions, and arguments about what the 'point' of the movie was. Is it didactic? (Therefore) is it art?
I'm not sure that perceptions of new media have changed at all. There are always those who believe anything is art because it is an expression of something, and then there are those who would argue, for example, that art need be didactic, or maybe "symbolize our will to shape and change the world" (130).
I don't believe that 'new' media of today is any more controversial than that of the 1960s. Nor was theirs more controversial. Both eras have political and social issues to make commentary on, and will result in unique controversies.
In each text new media is being described as interactive. If new media is truly interactive then with the change of time comes the change of media. So I would say that new media is different now then back in the 1960s. So with the change of society is a change of views of media. I think media is more embraced than before. Media is more of a norm of society. It's more rare to NOT have a computer than to have one. I think society is more accepting of new media because it's not so off the wall. Back in the sixties media was not such a prevalent part of their everyday lives. Yes there shall always be controversy over things that may be different or stretch our imaginations, but the overall sentiment I feel is less controversial over "new media." I thought it was interesting how cybernetic to Paik on page 229 was an "exploitation." This personifies the strong dislike of the new media of the 1960s and also how far we as a society have come to being more accepting of new forms of art and media.
ReplyDeleteDanica K
All new ideas generate controversy, but as they are experienced and assimilated into our schemas the mere fact that they exist and have become, not even accepted, but acknowledged by our society changes our definition of what is controversial. New forms of media will always be controversial because we can't fully predict what the consequences both bad and good will be on our society. With the expansion of the power of a media form there is the inherent logical concern about the potential abuses that come with that increased power. Whether the new media forms being introduced today are less controversial than those of the 1960s is a conclusion drawn by the most qualitative measures and the safe answer would be to say that they are of equal controversy. I will say however that if one were to attempt to measure this difference in a pseudo-quantitative way, I would suggest that one way is to perhaps measure the magnitude of the changes the new media form has brought about in the way that people think and the way they live their lives.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of the differences pointed out between perspectives of new media and perspectives in the 1960s (specifically Rebecca A.'s--the world in 1960s was a different place, so things were obviously interpreted differently--and Hannah's--risk and chance in the 1960s).
ReplyDeleteHowever, a statement in the reading about the Cut-Up Method (Burroughs) stuck out to me as something that could be specifically related to new media. "Cut-ups are for everyone. Anybody can make cut ups. It is experimental in the sense of being something to do. Right here write now" (p. 90). Does that not describe blogs, and much of the perspective toward them?
Also, I thought it was interesting that with both Happenings and today's new media, there is a "desire to break down distinctions between creator and audience" (p. 83).
I think new media was as controversial in the 1960s as it is now. New media is something that has been constantly evolving. While some changes have been more welcome than others, I don't think we can necessarily quantify how the ideas were accepted. Rather, I think it is quite interesting to notice the similarities between the two periods of time and new media.
The controversy is an inevitable result of the emergence and expansion of new media as society progresses. However, the controversy really depends on the era and the people in that era, which means that people in the 1960s may have a totally different point of view or feeling towards new media with that of people nowadays. For example, today people can identify themselves online by setting up a home page or create a profile including their personal information. They could also lie on their profile. A fifty year old woman can pretend that she’s a twenty year old girl. This seems common today, but it definitely challenges the social norms in 1960s.
ReplyDelete-Duoduo
Of all the readings, Nam June Paik made the biggest impression on me in his first line "Cybernated art is very important, but art for cybernated life is more important, and the latter not need to be cybernated".
ReplyDeleteI thought this was a really fitting quote because life now is so cybernated. We have grown up in a world with electronics, internet, and cell phones. They, along with other new media, have become such a part of our lives, it's almost impossible to see ourselves without them. I think it's for this reason that we are more willing to accept new media than we might have been in the past. The new [old?] media that we have now has become so influential and necessary in our lives.
At the same time, I think that in some ways new media today is more controversial. People across the world have instant access to almost everything now and it makes it harder to protect privacy. For example, the huge problem with file sharing on Napster, Bearshare, etc. a few years back.
Since the 1960s it is only to be expected that some perceptions of new media have changed. For example, as advancements have been made, doors have opened up that were previously unimaginable. However, the same ideas that existed in the 1960s, which suggested that new media developments break some sort of social boundaries, push the limits of society, spark controversy, and guide us to even newer innovations, are still present today, just in regard to modern inventions.
ReplyDeleteAs for whether or not new media is faced with greater opposition today than in the 1960s, I'd like to refer to what Dustin P. said in his post. I agree with Dustin that there will always be controversy where there is something that "challenges the status quo or takes people out of their comfort zones." Additionally, it is hard to compare the negative reaction to new media in the 1960s to the negative reactions it gets today because our culture has changed so drastically. If for example some of the new media of the 1960s were introduced into today's society, it would most likely be accepted much more freely than it was back then. Then again, today's society, which is more accepting of liberal forms of art and media, has only developed as a result of the innovations of the past. There will always be a portion of the population that opposes new advancements, but hopefully, the number of supporters of progress in development will only continue to grow.
In my opinion, new media has always been and will always be controversial, as other students have stated in their posts. I believe that is part of the definition of new media because we are not comfortable with things that are new and unknown. If we don't know everything about something, we are uncomfortable with it, and since new media is being discovered all the time, and because it is only new media until it is known too well, new media is always controversial. I do believe that new media is seen as less controversial today than in the 1960's because at that time they were only beginning to understand what new media was and now we have used technology and grown up with new media, which has become part of our everyday lives. I think the definition of new media is stil similar, but because technology has thrived since then, our new media is incredibly different. The new media of today is nothing like what they thought was possible in that day and age.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the readings, with the theme of connectivity and blurring of the lines between spectator and participant, I couldn't help but think about social networking sites like Facebook, myspace and even blogs. These types of new media that have become so ingrained in our culture have changed the way that we see communication. In a blog or on a Facebook page, friends and followers are able to "comment" on your posts and provide advice or comment on whatever it is that you choose to share with your respective community.
ReplyDeleteIn a sense we are redefining new media in a not so different way than they did in the 60's. In the 60's they defined new media as a change in expression of art form, using new technology. We do something similar today by creating these new ways to express ourselves through social networking, be it posting what is going on in our lives, what our favorite music is, or sending "gifts" to friends.
I think that the new media of then and the new media of now both has controversy. Back then it had to do with doing something novel and unexpected that jarred the values of that time period. Today, we deal with invasion of privacy and where we draw the line between sharing too much and too little. I don't think that new media will ever be rid of controversy because new media is, well, new and there will be people who don't agree or understand that new thing, and will want to resist change.
Like many have mentioned, new media will assuredly always be met with some sort of opposition. Although I believe that we as the millennial generation will obviously welcome more technology than shun because of our background and the fact that technology has expanded by leagues since we were born, there will always be a form of new media that will scare us.
ReplyDeleteFor some, it's the concept of new super intelligent computers. For others, it's the fear that robots will take their jobs. In the end, there is only so far our love for technology will probably go. A tabletop touch screen computer? Count me in! RoboMaid 9000, now with chess playing capabilities and instant curry maker? I'll pass.
As many have already commented, new media is generally surrounded by controversy. I would go so far as to say that any "good" new medium must be controversial. Without the controversy, how could any medium possibly be interesting enough to captivate us?
ReplyDeleteThroughout history, new ideas have been met with fear so often that this has become the rule, rather than the exception. (Galileo, anyone?)
Today's new media, like the Internet and various web applications, are poised to bring both good and evil to the world. Many of us conduct a great deal of our day-to-day routines (like banking) over the Internet. At the same time, less scrupulous individuals are using the Internet to steal identities and scam people out of thousands of dollars. The question has been raised many times in recent years as to whether terrorists could use the Internet to organize.
As controversial and potentially dangerous as new media can be, it is like any other weapon. The danger lies not in the medium itself, but in the people who use it.