User:Emily/20160310: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!-- | |||
===The changing face of Symbolically Charged Object=== | ===The changing face of Symbolically Charged Object=== | ||
| Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
When the very first Urinal knocked on the door of contemporary art, the once invisible boundary of high art suddenly got revealed. However the structure is changing, even reforming. We have Duchamp’s bike sculpture, and also Rob Myers' Shareable Readymades. Look along with these “reproduction” works, they are in a similar discourse from different times. Through the process of selection, reproduction and circulation, the artists fulfill to alter the value of the thing, and our perception of it. | When the very first Urinal knocked on the door of contemporary art, the once invisible boundary of high art suddenly got revealed. However the structure is changing, even reforming. We have Duchamp’s bike sculpture, and also Rob Myers' Shareable Readymades. Look along with these “reproduction” works, they are in a similar discourse from different times. Through the process of selection, reproduction and circulation, the artists fulfill to alter the value of the thing, and our perception of it. | ||
To select industrially produced readymades (other than handmade) is an important choice for Marcel Duchamp. It indicates that he turned his attention to “the architectural contexts, classificatory systems, institutional protocols and authoritative doxas of the gallery-museum.”<ref>http://www.e-flux.com/journal/a-museum-that-is-not/</ref> Whereas the shareable readymade Rob Myers proposed is “the Open Source and unrestricted dispersal of the idea and ability to create your own version.” <ref>http://www.furtherfield.org/features/reviews/disrupting-continuum</ref> “By choosing to download and print a version for yourself you have the opportunity to own the work and be a part of that disruptive process.” In Art historian Benjamin Buchloh’s essay, he notes the readymade comprise not found objects, but instead “found structures beyond visible reality and its seeming concreteness.”<ref> Neo-avantgarde and Culture Industry: Essays on European and American Art from 1955 to 1975, Benjamin H. D. Buchloh, p.188<ref> What matters beyond the found objects is actually the found structure. Having the notion in mind, the shareable items in my graduation research are also aiming to map the structure that regulates them. | To select industrially produced readymades (other than handmade) is an important choice for Marcel Duchamp. It indicates that he turned his attention to “the architectural contexts, classificatory systems, institutional protocols and authoritative doxas of the gallery-museum.”<ref>http://www.e-flux.com/journal/a-museum-that-is-not/</ref> Whereas the shareable readymade Rob Myers proposed is “the Open Source and unrestricted dispersal of the idea and ability to create your own version.” <ref>http://www.furtherfield.org/features/reviews/disrupting-continuum</ref> “By choosing to download and print a version for yourself you have the opportunity to own the work and be a part of that disruptive process.” In Art historian Benjamin Buchloh’s essay, he notes the readymade comprise not found objects, but instead “found structures beyond visible reality and its seeming concreteness.”<ref> Neo-avantgarde and Culture Industry: Essays on European and American Art from 1955 to 1975, Benjamin H. D. Buchloh, p.188</ref> What matters beyond the found objects is actually the found structure. Having the notion in mind, the shareable items in my graduation research are also aiming to map the structure that regulates them. | ||
“Yochai Benkler describes Open Source as a methodology of ‘commons based peer production’. This means works made collaboratively and shared publicly by a community of equals.” Since “sharing is a social practice shaped by a range of variables, and sharing practices differ from community to community and from technology to technology” (Kennedy 2013). In my graduation work, I take Thingiverse as the main platform for case studies. Thingiverse is the leading website for 3d printing and one of the most popular 3d printing repositories, owned by Makerbots whose own history can be traced back to the RepRap project. RepRap was an initiative to develop a 3D printer that could re-print most of its own components, which shares the same ideology with open software culture. Designs in its repository are free to upload and download. It is branded in their website, “a universe of things”, which, to some extent, implies it absorbs anything and everything uncritically. “Commons–based production as “a socio–economic system of production is emerging in the digitally networked environment”(Benkler and Nissenbaum, 2006, p. 394.). Access to the raw data of the source file might be all that is needed to create them, this is simply the case of sharable 3d design files from online repositories. The scale and means of production, reproduction is changing our relationship and challenging our social norms. “For Duchamp, reproduction was not ever an affair of practical publicity or dissemination and never a mere mechanical process. Neither was it a simple replica of something but, rather, a displacement - a temporal and perceptional shift.” Apart from an object of use, with 3D printing another possibility emerges that 3D printing isn’t the total artifact in itself. In the case of sharable design files on Thigiverse, what enhances the disruptive of 3d printing is not only its physical realization as the printed gun, but also its robust methods of distributions. Thus the reproduction here is closely associated with its circulation. Besides, what is two-folded here, surpassing the informational circuit of readymades, is that 3d design files are initiating further processes of development. It contains the potential to upgrade the design file, to remix, to redistribute. That is to say, what is not functional and proliferated may become so instantly; what is still in private imagination may turn to be realistic collaboratively. Thus the work is in an unstable status and on the threshold of symbolic and actual. | “Yochai Benkler describes Open Source as a methodology of ‘commons based peer production’. This means works made collaboratively and shared publicly by a community of equals.” Since “sharing is a social practice shaped by a range of variables, and sharing practices differ from community to community and from technology to technology” (Kennedy 2013). In my graduation work, I take Thingiverse as the main platform for case studies. Thingiverse is the leading website for 3d printing and one of the most popular 3d printing repositories, owned by Makerbots whose own history can be traced back to the RepRap project. RepRap was an initiative to develop a 3D printer that could re-print most of its own components, which shares the same ideology with open software culture. Designs in its repository are free to upload and download. It is branded in their website, “a universe of things”, which, to some extent, implies it absorbs anything and everything uncritically. “Commons–based production as “a socio–economic system of production is emerging in the digitally networked environment”(Benkler and Nissenbaum, 2006, p. 394.). Access to the raw data of the source file might be all that is needed to create them, this is simply the case of sharable 3d design files from online repositories. The scale and means of production, reproduction is changing our relationship and challenging our social norms. “For Duchamp, reproduction was not ever an affair of practical publicity or dissemination and never a mere mechanical process. Neither was it a simple replica of something but, rather, a displacement - a temporal and perceptional shift.” Apart from an object of use, with 3D printing another possibility emerges that 3D printing isn’t the total artifact in itself. In the case of sharable design files on Thigiverse, what enhances the disruptive of 3d printing is not only its physical realization as the printed gun, but also its robust methods of distributions. Thus the reproduction here is closely associated with its circulation. Besides, what is two-folded here, surpassing the informational circuit of readymades, is that 3d design files are initiating further processes of development. It contains the potential to upgrade the design file, to remix, to redistribute. That is to say, what is not functional and proliferated may become so instantly; what is still in private imagination may turn to be realistic collaboratively. Thus the work is in an unstable status and on the threshold of symbolic and actual. | ||
| Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
So the 3d repository Thingiverse as my case study brings a lot of questions in the social activity at large. “It is not only a regulating mechanism but also produces a structure of institutions that mold social life.”<ref>On the Commons: A Public Interview with Massimo De Angelis and Stavros Stavrides</ref> | So the 3d repository Thingiverse as my case study brings a lot of questions in the social activity at large. “It is not only a regulating mechanism but also produces a structure of institutions that mold social life.”<ref>On the Commons: A Public Interview with Massimo De Angelis and Stavros Stavrides</ref> | ||
=====The shape for speculation===== | =====The shape for speculation===== | ||
| Line 137: | Line 136: | ||
The symbolically charged object in my research, be it in cinema, in contemporary art discipline or in maker community, are distillations of the social relationships. Its materiality is shaped by the inter-subjective network, whereas, its value is also altered and constructed by the intersubjective network. Thus no matter in its physical form or its informational representation, online or offline, it is always presented in a societal condition at large. | The symbolically charged object in my research, be it in cinema, in contemporary art discipline or in maker community, are distillations of the social relationships. Its materiality is shaped by the inter-subjective network, whereas, its value is also altered and constructed by the intersubjective network. Thus no matter in its physical form or its informational representation, online or offline, it is always presented in a societal condition at large. | ||
The meaning of the symbolically charged object exists only in so far as it is inter-subjectively recognized. It is not concerned whether it is real and true. For a fact to be operative, it has to be sharable and believable, which ensure the very circulation of it. The symbolic is the way of interacting with other people. The found objects as the readymades toes the board-line of the art in the museum-gallery institution, the sharable 3d printed files follows the same manner testing the symbolic institutional protocols, which are all in a fuzzy region. | The meaning of the symbolically charged object exists only in so far as it is inter-subjectively recognized. It is not concerned whether it is real and true. For a fact to be operative, it has to be sharable and believable, which ensure the very circulation of it. The symbolic is the way of interacting with other people. The found objects as the readymades toes the board-line of the art in the museum-gallery institution, the sharable 3d printed files follows the same manner testing the symbolic institutional protocols, which are all in a fuzzy region. | ||
--> | |||
Latest revision as of 16:30, 9 May 2016