In accordance with JD, I too enjoy subversive technology, but have a hard time associating it within the art world and find many of these works to be tools created by engineers (though I find most new media artists to be engineers) for other to use for whatever needs they see fit. Though these tools are wonderfully crafted, in the examples within the text, the intention in the making of these tools does not seem to be rooted in fine art. Does this mean that these tools and their byproducts simply become art based on the makers intent? In regards to subversivism and activisivsm being categorized as art forms, I am not sure I could formulate a better argument than JD has below.
As a quick side note, Going back to DARPA and funded projects, I cannot help but think of works such as the BigDog (funded by DARPA) created by Boston Dynamics. Though I find this robot to be very impressive/beautiful and can see hundreds of them as a pack roaming through the woods as some sort of new media autonomous speices installation, I also see them walking the streets with machine guns strapped to their sides as future soldiers. Frankly DARPA’s funding is incredible alluring but their future uses for such inspirational engineering feats is a bit terrifying.


BigDog Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.