These are disjointed thoughts I’m just keeping for myself, so I can remember what I’ve been thinking (because I seem to be going round in circles
So, I have this idea that when it comes to new media – not much of it is art. I mean it’s got a commercial basis. Which isn’t to say that art can’t have a commercial basis, but it gives it purity if it’s about conveying the artist’s social/political commentary, or his/her ideals or emotions, or, you know, just pure aestheticism.
There’s a lot more opportunity to give a lot more impact to whatever it is the artist wants to achieve with the new technology we’re starting to see more readily available. There’s more scope to get the audience even more involved.
I think looking at a straight kind of ‘port’ from traditional art to digital art is far too naive a way of looking at this kind of thing. Okay so, it’s a new media and it needs to have a wild kind of approach, but there’s no reason why I can’t take the fundamental principles from a movement of art like say, expressionism (or impressionism, these are the two I think would be really interesting) and look at them in a digital context. In fact, why not both of them?
Impressionism – from what I remember a lot of it’s all about the movement that goes on around us in the world, and the quality of light and so on.
Expressionism is all about manipulating reality to get certain emotional effects.
So, I could look at combining those two schools of thought and creating a digital [b]interactive [/b]piece of art.
Is it a really bad sign that part of me is going : What is the point?