{"id":137,"date":"2011-11-22T13:28:27","date_gmt":"2011-11-22T13:28:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sweet-mcclintock.194-60-87-163.plesk.page\/inmediasres\/2011\/11\/22\/in-medias-res-broj-3\/"},"modified":"2011-11-22T13:28:27","modified_gmt":"2011-11-22T13:28:27","slug":"in-medias-res-broj-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/centar-fm.org\/inmediasres\/index.php\/in-medias-res-broj-3\/","title":{"rendered":"\u010clanci IN MEDIAS RES br. 3"},"content":{"rendered":"

II Uz drugi simpozij Filozofija medija (2012)<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n
\n

\n  2(3)#11 2013<\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n\"Creative<\/a>
\u010casopis je otvorenog pristupa, a ovo djelo je dano na kori\u0161tenje pod licencom Creative Commons Imenovanje-Nekomercijalno 4.0 me\u0111unarodna.<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

UDK 7.01:004.087
Izvorni \u010dlanak
Original scientific paper
\nPrimljeno: 30.6.2013.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sead Ali\u0107<\/span><\/p>\n

Sveu\u010dili\u0161te Sjever – Sveu\u010dili\u0161ni centar Koprivnica
\nsead.alic@centar-fm.org<\/p>\n

The Synergy of Artistic Approaches within the Openness of New Media<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n


\nFulltext: pdf (364 KB), English, Pages 252 – 263
\n<\/span><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

What is the extent to which new (mass) media (aside from the negative role they play in the global colonisation of the world) open the door to new artistic experiences and how important are these experiences when it comes to multiplication and networking through modern technologies in particular?<\/em><\/p>\n

Through the comparison of traditional arts and old media to new arts and new media, this paper searches for the essence of an artwork, the same essence of difference through different times and different technologies, with a different role of media in mediating the artwork.<\/em><\/p>\n

The fate of art is discussed through the fateful influence of mass media on everyday life and even on the forms of artistic practices. The artistic practice is discussed as a form of free human activity that has been expanding on the limits of that which is human since prehistoric times.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Key words:<\/em><\/strong> art, new media, multimedia, video art, installations, digital art.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

1.<\/p>\n

Never before in human history have so many works of art been produced, and never before has the result been so few real experiences of art. Today, a work of art is as all-pervasive as the decisions being made by the government, culture ministries and mayors.  It is out in the streets, in the shape of performance, sculpture, art intervention, music; as part of the spectacle, it is an integral part of the media universe.<\/p>\n

This is often solely to do with beauty as (a not necessarily essential) part of the work of art. “Art has dissolved in the aesthetic ether”, notes Yves Michaud in his work Art in a Gaseous State<\/em>.<\/a>[1<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Amongst others, Boris Groys writes: “In our own era it is the mass media that dictate aesthetic norms… The general public now draws its notion of art from advertising, MTV, videos, video games and Hollywood blockbusters”.<\/a>[2<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The technical reproducibility of works of art (whose effect has been announced by Benjamin) has not only brought on plurality and works with no aura, but also a loss of sensibility and a new kind of primitivism, as highlighted by Arnold Gehlen (in his work with an indicative title: The Soul in the Age of Technology<\/em>).<\/a>[3<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

The internet is brimming with new ideas on new merging and reconstruction of traditional art. The democratisation of owning one’s own portrait, formerly brought about by photography (as compared to painting), is infinitely small compared to the democratisation of the opportunity to make art as brought about by video, multimedia, new media, computer programs and the internet. In the words of Rob Shields, they tear down the boundaries between the real and virtual, body and technology, us and the characters we portray. The Web serves as a true social medium which connects and integrates its users. Like language \u2013 yet another medium \u2013 it “speaks” the speaker himself, even with the speaker speaking the language.<\/a>[4<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Do we recognise the changes in the human being and its relationship towards art produced by the media of multiplication and mass communication? <\/span><\/p>\n

Every age has been dominated by a certain type of art, and everyone can agree about this as a fact relatively easily. But why has a certain type of art dominated a particular age? This is something to be discussed and, by all indications, the answers will depend on the approach.<\/p>\n

Why was Duchamp’s fountain so special and why did it leave such a deep mark in the history of art as well as in everyday life, is a question that art history, according to Danto, will not answer.<\/span><\/a>[5<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The massive scale of mass media multiplication has robbed traditional art of its soul. Has it given it something in return?<\/p>\n

Media philosophy (transcending the level of the theories of individual media) must answer the question of the relationship between the essence of art as such and the contemporary (mass) media mediation, in other words, the question of the fate of art in the age of new media, and the new media and artistic literacy.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

2.<\/p>\n

It was easy for the illiterate to unite faith, hope, ritual, voice, movement, air, sky and earth through dance.<\/p>\n

The dance that dominated the preliterate age has been preserved and continues to develop as an art form even today.<\/p>\n

What is unified through dance today? What did dance become a part of? What do the changes suggest?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

It is virtually impossible to reduce dance to that pertaining to dance anymore. Reducing dance to movements on stage with no influence of performance is akin to an attempt to present a film through narration.<\/p>\n

Dance is but one of the foundations for the play of new media. The body is a participant in the illusion in which the body itself is reduced to an illusion.<\/p>\n

Traditional forms of dance exist to be transcended, built upon, to use their innovation to open up new areas of interest in the defamiliarisation of art by human civilisation.<\/p>\n

Indeed, a portion of artists, technicians, technologists and engineers of the beautiful call it a day with the (artistic, theoretical, practical etc.) analyses of new media possibilities (such analyses being quite similar to the analyses conducted by the avant-garde at the beginning of the 20th century). Still, a portion of artists rise above the borders of traditional auratic art, so as to employ the collaboration of all forms of traditional art and the dimensions of the multimedia approach, and even some new new media<\/em> (to borrow Levinson), in order to build a defamiliarisation of new dimensions.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A man of letters is much more practical than a dancer; he will not only enjoy the diversity of the dance patterns of human bodies, the different combinations of rhythms, melodies, voices, light, darkness and stage design, but he will also sing more and more. Singing will outlast a single string and a monotonous rhythm. As a form of remembering, storing, safekeeping and transmitting cultural patterns, singing will continue to exist even after culture, or rather technology, has found more efficient ways of storing information, educational messages and worldviews. Whilst singing (songing, versing, poemising), man will follow the line suggested to him by art.<\/p>\n

The human misconception, about using the boundaries of grammar and logic to bar the openness of song as the artistic medium of unifying the man in his true being, would last 2500 years.  Giving up the song in the name of mathematic-scientific palpability has given birth to a world we wish to escape from more and more often.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The art of a beautiful poetic word is older than prose. Somewhere in the rhythm, word order, rhymes and metre, the first poets tested the magic of that which was sung, as a type of speech that gave more than speech itself and which contained more than speech alone.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The apple offered to Adam by Eve is the first known (biblical) mediator between two people. The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge is actually language\/script. The apple is a metaphor for the alphabet.<\/p>\n

There is no knowledge without the medium of language. The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge is the awareness and the word which unlocks the man’s mediated relationship towards nature and the universe.<\/p>\n

Divine Unity is replaced by attempts to establish a new experience \u2013 mediated by language.<\/p>\n

Today we plant virtual trees in search of non-linguistic languages and the pathways towards the immediate and non-mediated. The more impossible the task, the more essential the pursuit of such a form of (self-)understanding and (self-)experience of the world.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The art of building houses and squares developed its self-awareness of the intricacies of those initiated in the building techniques to such an extent that the initiated would sometimes organise themselves into special communities with special codes of conduct. The art of building contained within itself not only the art of construction and knowing the rules, but also the art of spatiality, visual artistry and acoustics.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The two-dimensional portraits of kings, their retinue, rich feudal lords and landowners required large empty walls and a need to distance oneself from the rest of the world through the possession of prestigious artefacts, as well as relying on the discovery of the camera obscura<\/em> and D\u00fcrer’s drawing grid, i.e. perspective.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A painting unifies colour, light and darkness. The style of dress, ambience; the dramaturgy is reduced to an arrangement of characters, a movement, a gesture. The music is inaudible \u2013 at least when it comes to traditional paintings.<\/p>\n

The Renaissance\u2019s exploration of colour and light appears as a premonition of the research of playing with the light of a camera. The surrealist games of shaping verses by randomly drawing words written on pieces of paper from a hat are, according to Benjamin, a surrealist foreboding of montage, in other words, the medium of film. Even before photography, theatre used its panoramas to create an illusion that would later be developed by film. After a couple thousand years of waiting, story and storytelling were given a chance to meet a large number of individuals face-to-face, in the same or similar conditions. This sort of situation makes it possible for the novel to exist, since the novel develops on the psychological and social dimensions of such a situation in a significant way.<\/p>\n

The development of hardware and software is parallel. A human being is the option it chooses. Art is a human ability which has found itself in the world of technical multiplication affecting both the art and the human being.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The art of new media questions multiplication (plurality). It plays the game which was brought into the world by photography and which sets new rules for the world of today.<\/p>\n

Dadaist allusions at the game of multiplication now reach a dimension of drawing some serious attention to the phenomenon of multiplying people, goods, photographs, approaches, ideologies, media and forms of manipulation.  Whilst playing at multiplication, the art of new media opens up an opportunity for us to understand the process that defines us in an essential way today. “Ours is a culture of imitation”, Michaud claims, “the medium is the message and the message is the medium.”<\/a>[6<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The power of media has also been confirmed by Sloterdijk through, amongst others, the following stance: “With the media form of hero worship, we step into an affective regime of developed narcissism of the masses”, to which he later added: “Without an insight into these narco-political alliances, the spiritual massacres and media wars of the 20th century forever remain mere traditional turbulences assigned the label of ‘inconceivable’ by the provincial investigation.”<\/a>[7<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Opera, as the supreme form of traditional art, comes at the end of the process of searching for the single art form that can offer the most exhaustive enjoyment to a refined soul: story, acting, music, text, dance, masks, light, set design, colours, fashion, and all in a dramaturgically conceived game and all in one place, all live and without delay. Only a new dimension could offer more art forms in one place. This dimension arrived with electrical and electronic, and later even digital forms of amalgamation within virtual worlds. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

We see the world as mediated by the media. Our eye is the result of the historical progression of viewing methods, influences of various technologies, biological capabilities and the collective human memory.<\/span><\/p>\n

Art sees the way we see the world and the way we flirt through the mediation of machines that fascinate, surprise, accustom and determine. Alongside a presentation of the world, the media also grant us (impose upon us) a framework, free of charge.<\/span><\/p>\n

Is it a process of the dehumanisation of art through the adaptation of new artistic techniques to new media (majorly linked with the masses), to borrow Ortega y Gasset,<\/a>[8<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> or is it to do with setting art free of the materialism so closely linked to the usefulness, pricing and the financial managing of artistic values?<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Words draw us into a simulacrum wherein we can understand ourselves and otherness within the framework of language<\/span>.<\/p>\n

By understanding the linguistic being of what we have been given, what is posited to us, the art of words plays and tries to say (akin to Hamlet\u2019s actors) more than has been written.<\/span><\/p>\n

Words are shadows in the same way colours, tones and 3D interactive bodies, activated by movement or touch, are all shadows.<\/span><\/p>\n

Every language moves between two basic poles: precision and metaphor.<\/span><\/p>\n

Nuances between these two poles tell us of the extent to which a text is a police record, NASA report, literary or poetic text.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Radio quickly offered the unification of story, acting and music. Film added image, and image developed film. Television turned into film and radio without the artistic dimension. Artworks in the media of radio and television, if they even occur, are mere incidents. Social rules dictate that there be talk of the artistic on radio and television, but this also comes under a form of speech with no art itself. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In 1985, Zagreb witnessed the so-called wordless demonstrations. A group of some thirty students walked around the city centre (accompanied by the police) with banners that said nothing. The speakers at the main square simply waved their arms about. Everything went according to the government\u2019s wishes, peacefully and with no incidents.<\/span><\/p>\n

But the provocative, artistic, critical and uncompromising part followed that very evening, when Radio 101 used its show Intervencija 85 to allow its listeners to spend four hours \u2018guessing\u2019 what or whom those people had protested against.<\/span><\/p>\n

Citizens realised they got a chance to speak, so they spoke. The only thing that the authorities could do was to cancel the show, but only the next day.<\/span><\/p>\n

What once were networks of people is nowadays displayed in the forms of technological templates of connecting people. In a similar way, opera’s unification of art is taken over by a different, technical dimension today. The multimedia play with digital shapes has opened up a new field of potential collaboration between certain arts, artistic forms, artists, and more and more amateurs, deeply immersed in new technology. A new synergy was therefore only possible in the dimension of new technology.<\/span><\/p>\n

The reflection of art could manage relatively well as long as the whole thing was ‘live’ and in one place. When the requirements of Aristotle’s Poetics<\/em> were abandoned, the reflection found itself at a crossroads: how would it continue to interpret the authenticity of an artwork, art, audience, communication channels, experience, and reproducibility? The science of beauty and the human experience of beauty all of a sudden found itself facing the issues unimaginable at the time of shaping the aesthetics as a discipline. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

New media have expanded the space for the search for new artistic scripts and the new artistic potentials of human beings. The practice of artistic intentions now enters areas it had not occupied until recently. Artists build unexpected, non-standard and surprising combinations of practices and scripts into their performances.<\/span><\/p>\n

It is as if Plato’s shadow play were experiencing its rebirth, a birth contemplated by Sloterdijk, a birth that will restore us people as the spirit’s medium, in a spiritual, corporeal, artistic and intellectual sense.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Which area is currently attempting to unite all or almost all artistic efforts? Can we observe an increase in interest for particular art forms or a decrease in interest for others to find signs of a rule that would point to a tendency, direction or route? New media are evidently the new easel, the new stage and the new unwritten book. But new media are replaced by even newer ones. We have now entered the area of a multidirectional communication of the plethora of platforms where separate or hybrid artworks, or various combinations, are prepared. Have we found ourselves facing a new dimension in the search for unification: the unification that will result from a confrontation of collective upgrades and supplementing the new kind of art which can only exist on the Web? After the geeks and hackers of the Internet age, are we about to meet the artists of web multimedia, who do not reason within the dimension of the old traditional art, nor in the dimension of the multimedia enabled by technology, but on the horizon of online artism? Their path has been opened by the people who created the World Wide Web. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Man has long since entered his own work, his image. Technology provided him with the image as a process including the artist embedded in the framework of the painting, amongst the shapes and colours. <\/span><\/p>\n

What could be made of different arts assembled into a single artistic act? In the dimension of traditional art, this was supposed to be an act that would simultaneously speak in words, song, painting, acting, set design, sculpture, dramaturgy, the harmonic and melodic line and music.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

It was an act that employed all artistic practices, in other words all media of artistic expression. The limit of such an act was the ability or inability for everything to occur at the same place and at the same time. This limitation spoke of the traditional art’s immersion in life, its reality.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Even the next level, the level of multimedia artistic works, employs secondary orality, pictoriality, plasticity etc. It is only the creative approaches that remain the same whilst attaining new possibilities. The work still has its viewer, which is to say its main agent. The dimension of new media art<\/em>, in large part, abandons the area of connectivity and the identity of the artist and artwork. The accumulation of artistic energies is at work here, in forms that often lead to an unfamiliar dimension. It is an interactive search for\/creation of new artistic worlds with the use of pre-prepared or semi-prepared materials which will always create a new whole anew.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art and technology offer us the God particle in the liberation of the masses \u2013 new media art, which will soon employ a larger number of people than existed on the face of the planet in the times of ancient Greece. <\/span><\/p>\n

At the beginnings of traditional art, there existed the unification of different artistic techniques and different arts, and, as a rule, in the same artistic handwriting. Next, there was a technological unification of multimedia files which often belonged to different artists. Finally, we have reached the stage of different artworks comprised of different segments of work, different artists and different practices dislocated around the virtual worlds on the Web. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Explosions of colour, shapes, effects and tones take place before our eyes; there is a play of light and shadow never before seen, an unimaginable vibrancy and insatiable exploration of the new areas to realise human imagination. <\/span><\/p>\n

That which is in itself the potential \u2013 the power and ability of an artwork, the power of creativity, the emancipatory dimension of art; that artistic portion of human life, which exists as unreleased energy in an artwork \u2013 still cannot compete with the manipulatory dimensions of any of the existing forms of perpetuating the capitalist production of value surplus, which will always keep establishing the kinds of relationships that are the precondition of new divisions, but also the preservation of the existing conditions<\/span>.<\/p>\n

In the same way the European spirit is not only represented by Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Marx, Goethe, Dante, Petrarch, Boccaccio, Michelangelo, da Vinci and other great thinkers, artists and scientists (but also by the ubiquitous banking and corporate spirit of the European empire), that which is beautiful and worthy of artistic practices isn\u2019t fit to hold a candle to the destructive force of the use of beauty and the other dimensions of art by the mass media corporations whose goal is not bringing life closer to the artistic, but concealing the production of value surplus with the use of techniques, works, approaches and images of the art itself.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Photography was the first museum without walls. Today, new media help the artistic act to spread into unexpected places. If the fragile and fleeting snowmen can serve as a backdrop for an artistic play of light, then the fate of the world is to be an artwork. Of course, this fate might not be realised since the global corporation players are hard at work pilfering art and its inclusion in the world of value surplus production.<\/span><\/p>\n

Mass media are the means of production. Mass media are the means of production of false consciousness. Aside from profit, these means of production also produce worldviews and ideologies, and they establish relationships which allow for further creation of profit. Reducing the media to the level of information carriers does an ill service to the mind, reasoning and the position of modern proletarians (every oppressed being).  <\/span><\/p>\n

The question of discourse is one of the key questions of the time ahead of us. We can view the discourse through Foucault’s eyes, as a form of play (writing, reading, exchange)<\/a>[9<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a>, but it is a game of destiny which opens a door for us towards transcending the level of the pragmatic and the utilitarian.<\/span><\/p>\n

Speech identified with negative energy can only cause new whirlpools of negative energy. Being right can often cause more distress than knowing one is in the wrong. The distribution system of negative energy can produce entire galaxies of new misunderstandings with the speed of light. In this sense, that which transcends the negative and the particular is the discourse, and what contains the transcendable is art. <\/span><\/p>\n

Octavio Paz’s insight is seemingly banal: “All arts, especially painting and sculpture, seeing as forms signify things, can be kept, sold and transformed into items of financial speculation.”<\/a>[10<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Art also walks along some other paths.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

What is an ass doing at a supermarket? It stubbornly comes to a place where it cannot realise its basic needs.<\/span><\/p>\n

The ass at the supermarket testifies to man’s role in the world of the modern division of labour: man is either part of a production line destined for the shelves or he is as lost as the artist’s ass. Man is either a compliant conformist or he turns into a metaphor of stubbornness. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

We are all on a road, all of us transient, vulnerable and unique. We have awakened to the fact that ‘being on the road’ is more important than the goal itself. We now know that it is vital to be on the path of art, to be on the artistic path.. <\/span><\/p>\n

What of the relationship between a particular artistic act on one of the billion internet paths in relation to the real relationships of the global colonisation of the world’s human beings with the use of mass media pluralities? <\/span><\/p>\n

Which art managed to put reality into question, when and to what extent? Has the energy of Dadaists, surrealists, futurists, expressionists and others who used to gather in the real spaces of caf\u00e9s, theatres and streets now finally received the channels of communication it had yearned after?<\/span><\/p>\n

To what extent is the programme framework of a work of art defined by the programme (BILWET and Manovich)?<\/span><\/p>\n

How is the avant-garde of new media art different to the art of the early 20th century, in a situation where the pictorial, visual and aural components of an artwork are reduced to computer data, binary operations and bit-codes?<\/a>[11<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Openness towards viewer intervention is a new dimension of art that has caught on with the new media. That which was only suspected and announced by traditional art (e.g. elimination of distance between the performers and viewers at the theatre) is now developed by the new media to the level of particularity and recognition.<\/span><\/p>\n

I want my voice to belong to an interactive artwork to the same extent I want the world to become an interactive artwork.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Traditional arts continue to live in old, valuable and beautiful houses (which are mostly artworks of architecture in themselves). There is mostly no-one in these houses (aside from on the rare occasion of an exhibition opening day). (The Three-year Study)<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Basing art in sensuous cognition is a failure of the 19th century philosophy that remains to this day (especially when it comes to visual arts, dance, and especially the art forms that use new media techniques and technology).<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Beauty, slogan, the golden ratio, static and moving photography, distributivity and networking \u2013 these are the foundations of the new world. They are also contained within the new media and the new forms of media art.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The future of man is to be not only the medium of the spirit, but also the medium of his own personality, worldviews and abilities. Becoming a medium is the fate of man in the age of mass media seduction. The future of art is to awaken the man’s creative dimension throughout each new technology and all forms of interpenetration of the old and the new. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The visitors of galleries, theatres, literary manifestations and so on are mere travellers following the rules of Aristotle’s Poetics<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

The age of new media questions these visitors in the same way it questions traditional art. It freezes the frame around theorists and artists with the viewers in the gallery and makes an object of them.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Today, all traditional arts are mere contents for the new media dimensions of art<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Art is the medium of human creation and, only indirectly and far from being the most important thing, a form of cognition. <\/span><\/p>\n

Traditional art is slowly dying off in galleries and museums, with an occasional attempt at reviving itself. This only proves that life itself should become artistic.<\/span><\/p>\n

New media arts are the seed-plots of creative approaches used in production, entertainment, interior and exterior design, science, and even war.<\/span><\/p>\n

The shift from traditional arts towards video art, installation, digital art and interactive forms of artwork production is art’s answer to the age of plurality.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

If war is ‘the father of all and king of all’, then art is a court jester whose absence makes all that ruling futile.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Painting, tattooing, piercing and modification of one’s own body have always been a form of speech \u2013 communication with the powers of this world or the beyond. Transient artistic interventions on a transient body.<\/span><\/p>\n

Art in passing.<\/span><\/p>\n

An eternity of art which is at its strongest when it is born and disappears like life in its transient forms, when it yearns for the moment.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Paradoxically, to become human, the pretender to the position of a human being must first become open to art, become a person open to anything new, different and creative, to play, dance, research and leave traces. The history of humans rising to stand upright is a history of artistic advancement in man (initially hidden in the mythical, ritual, religious and artisanal).<\/span><\/p>\n

As we began, so we are to go further.<\/span><\/p>\n

To borrow Albert Manuel and his attempt at bringing us closer to Borges’ way of thinking: “He enjoyed imagining a universe where magazines and books weren’t necessary, because a man was as good as any magazine or book, any story or verse. In this universe (eventually described under the title The Utopia of a Tired Man<\/em>), every man was an artist and thus art was no longer necessary: there were no more galleries, libraries, museums; the names of individuals and countries had disappeared, everything was strangely anonymous.”<\/a>[12<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/a>[1<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Yves Michaud, Umjetnost u plinovitom stanju (Zagreb, Naklada Ljevak, 2004), p. 9 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[2<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> In his text The Museum in the Age of Mass Media<\/em>, Groys advocates museums as places of critical discourse suited to “critically analyse and challenge the claims of the media-driven zeitgeist<\/em>“. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[3<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> The author believes that expanding the technical models of thinking necessarily leads towards the primitivisation of the world we live in. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[4<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Rob Shields, Virtualni prostori, stvarne povijesti i \u017eivu\u0107a tijela in Kulture interneta (Zagreb, Naklada Jesenski i Turk i Hrvatsko sociolo\u0161ko dru\u0161tvo, 2001), p. 34 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[5<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Arthur C. Danto, Preobra\u017eaj svakida\u0161njeg, Filozofija umjetnosti (Zagreb, Kruzak, 1997), p. 8 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[6<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Yves Michaud, Umjetnost u plinovitom stanju (Zagreb, Naklada Ljevak, 2004), p. 33 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[7<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Peter Sloterdijk, U istom \u010damcu (Beograd, \u010casopis Beogradski krug, 2001), pp. 144-145 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[8<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Ortega y Gasset, Dehumanizacija umjetnosti (Zagreb, Litteris, 2007), p. 21 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[9<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Michel Foucault, Poredak diskursa (Loznica, Karpos, 1977), p. 37 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[10<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Octavio Paz, Drugi glas, pjesni\u0161tvo i kraj stolje\u0107a (Zagreb, NZMH, 1996), p. 98 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[11<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Stefan Heidenreich, Novi mediji in Znanost o slici (ed: KlausSachs- Hombach) (Zagreb, Antibarbarus, 2006), p. 290 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[12<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Alberto Manguel, S Borgesom (Zagreb, Prometej, 2004), p. 55 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Literatura:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Frank Hartmann: Medienphilosophie<\/em>, Utb Fuer Wissenschaft 2000.<\/p>\n

Frank Hartmann: Medien und Kommunikation<\/em>, Facultas Verlags – und Buchhandels AG
facultas.wuv, Berggasse 5, 1090 Wien, \u00d6sterreich<\/p>\n

Lev Manovich: The Language of New Media<\/em>, The MIT Press, 2002.<\/p>\n

New Media Art<\/em>  (ur. Mark Tribe, Reena Jana, Uta Grosenick,  Taschen Basic Art Series, 2006.<\/p>\n

Yves Michaud: Umjetnost u plinovitom stanju<\/em>, Naklada Ljevak, Zagreb, 2004.<\/p>\n

Rob Shields: Virtualni prostori, stvarne povijesti i \u017eivu\u0107a tijela<\/em> (u Kulture interneta, Naklada Jesenski i Turk i Hrvatsko sociolo\u0161ko dru\u0161tvo, Zagreb, 2001.<\/p>\n

Arthur C Danto: Preobra\u017eaj svakida\u0161njeg<\/em>, Filozofija umjetnosti, Kruzak, Zagreb, 1997.<\/p>\n

Peter Sloterdijk: U istom \u010damcu<\/em>, Beogradski krug, Beograd 2001.<\/p>\n

Ortega yGasset: Dehumanizacija umjetnosti<\/em>, Litteris, Zagreb, 2007.<\/p>\n

Mi\u0161el Fuko, Poredak diskursa<\/em>, Karpos, 1977.<\/p>\n

Octavio Paz: Drugi glas, pjesni\u0161tvo i kraj stolje\u0107a<\/em>, NZMH, Zagreb, 1996.<\/p>\n

Stefan Heidenreich, Novi mediji<\/em> u zborniku Znanost o slici (ur: KlausSachs – Hombach), Antibarbarus, Zagreb, 2006.<\/p>\n

Alberto Manguel: S Borhesom<\/em>, Prometej, Zagreb, 2004.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sinergija umjetni\u010dkih pristupa unutar otvorenosti novih medija<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sa\u017eetak<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Koliko novi (mas)mediji (osim negativne uloge koju imaju u globalnom koloniziranju svijeta) otvaraju vrata novim umjetni\u010dkim iskustvima i koliko su ta iskustva bitna upravo zbog umna\u017eanja i umre\u017eavanja posredstvom suvremenih tehnologija?<\/em><\/p>\n

Usporedbom odnosa tradicionalnih umjetnosti i starih medija s novim umjetnostima i novim medijima, tekst traga za biti umjetni\u010dkoga djela, onim istim razli\u010ditoga kroz razli\u010dita vremena uz razli\u010dite tehnologije i uz razli\u010ditu ulogu medija u posredovanju umjetni\u010dkog djela.<\/em><\/p>\n

O sudbini umjetnosti govori se iz sudbonosnog utjecaja masmedija na svakodnevicu, pa i na oblike umjetni\u010dkih praksi. O umjetni\u010dkoj praksi se govori kao o onom obliku slobodne ljudske djelatnosti koja, od prapovijesti, \u0161iri granice ljudskoga.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Klju\u010dne rije\u010di:<\/em><\/strong> umjetnost, novi mediji, multimedija, video art, instalacija, digitalne umjetnosti.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n
\"inmediasresno3malo\"<\/p>\n

\n  2(3)#12 2013<\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n\"Creative<\/a>
\u010casopis je otvorenog pristupa, a ovo djelo je dano na kori\u0161tenje pod licencom Creative Commons Imenovanje-Nekomercijalno 4.0 me\u0111unarodna.<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

UDK 004.087:7
Izvorni \u010dlanak
Original scientific paper
\nPrimljeno: 28.6.2013.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Divna Vuksanovi\u0107<\/span><\/p>\n

Fakultet dramskih umetnosti, Beograd
\ndivnavuk@eunet.rs<\/p>\n

Mediji kao umjetnost<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n


\nPuni tekst: pdf (362 KB), Hrvatski, Str. 264 – 275
\n<\/span><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sa\u017eetak<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Tekst istra\u017euje status masovnih i novih medija u suvremenom dobu, a u odnosu na domenu djelovanja i relaciju s tzv. svijetom umjetnosti. U fokusu teorijskih preispitivanja su, prije svega, vladaju\u0107i mediji dana\u0161njice \u2013 televizija, radio i internet, odnosno dru\u0161tveni mediji. Gledi\u0161te koje se ovdje problemski tretira jest sljede\u0107e: mogu li se, i na koji na\u010din, suvremena sredstva komuniciranja, poput televizije, radija i interneta, u odre\u0111enom smislu pojma, poistovjetiti s medijem umjetnosti. U tom kontekstu ispitivanja, u \u010dlanku \u0107e biti navo\u0111eni pro et contra argumenti posredstvom kojih se eventualno \u201edokazuje\u201c, odnosno kriti\u010dki preispituje i dijalekti\u010dkim sredstvima opovrgava polazna pretpostavka o tome da se ovi mediji \u2013 dakle, televizija, radio i internet, mogu dovesti u konstitutivni odnos sa svijetom umjetnosti i da, \u0161tovi\u0161e, velikim dijelom preuzimaju njegovu dosada\u0161nju funkciju.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Klju\u010dne rije\u010di:<\/em><\/strong> mediji, umjetnost, televizija, radio, internet, kritika.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Sjenama svog tate Milentija Pura Vuksanovi\u0107a, dugogodi\u0161njeg novinara i urednika lista \u201eKomunist\u201c za Srbiju<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Uvodno preispitivanje odnosa \u0161to se, gledano bilo povijesno ili u aktualnom dru\u0161tvenom trenutku, uspostavljaju izme\u0111u umjetnosti i medija, podrazumijeva prethodnu refleksiju o samim konstituensima relacije, koju \u0107emo, za ovu priliku, nastojati misliti dijalekti\u010dki, odnosno kriti\u010dki. Me\u0111utim, dr\u017eimo da je, makar i nereflektirani, metafizi\u010dki potencijal ovih pojmova, pa tako i njihovih odnosa kontrastiranja i pro\u017eimanja neiscrpan, te da bi, na samom po\u010detku rasprave, valjalo izbje\u0107i uobi\u010dajeno reduciranje na definicije. S druge strane, pri poku\u0161aju upotrebe termin\u00e2 \u2018umjetnost\u2019 i \u2018mediji\u2019, kao i njima odgovaraju\u0107ih konceptualnih rje\u0161enja u predstoje\u0107im analizama, prvobitna neodre\u0111enost mo\u017ee dovesti do mnogih nesporazuma i te\u0161ko\u0107a u interpretiranju pitanja uzajamnog odnosa, te njihovog eventualnog podudaranja, u izvjesnom smislu rije\u010di. Druk\u010dije re\u010deno, u ovom tekstu \u0107emo nastojati nazna\u010diti va\u017ene momente preokreta koji se naziru u odnosu medija (televizija, radio, novi mediji) prema suvremenoj umjetnosti, bez pretenzija da damo kona\u010dni odgovor na polaznu hipotezu, koja je eksplicirana pitanjem: mogu li se suvremeni mediji tretirati kao umjetnost, i koje situacije, zapravo, daju poticaj za takve interpretacije.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

U tuma\u010denjima koja slijede, uzet \u0107emo u obzir konceptualnu nejasnost i nerazgovjetnost termin\u00e2 \u2019umjetnost\u2019 i \u2019mediji\u2019 (\u0161to je u ovakvim situacijama skoro neizbje\u017eno), pri \u010demu \u0107emo pod pojmom umjetnosti uglavnom misliti na tzv. \u201eauratsku umjetnost\u201c, dok \u0107emo pod zajedni\u010dkim nazivnikom medija podrazumijevati prvenstveno masmedije: televiziju i radio, kao i novi medij internet, s naglaskom na dru\u0161tvene mre\u017ee kao \u0161to je Facebook. Ova naizgled nepovoljna po\u010detna situacija u kojoj se reflektiramo na pojmove koji izmi\u010du definiranju, a ulaze u me\u0111usobnu interakciju koju bi trebalo razjasniti kako bi se moglo konstatirati da ovi mediji jesu ili mogu biti umjetnost, ukazuje, po na\u0161em mi\u0161ljenju, na ne\u0161to drugo, tj. upravo na to da je, u na\u0161em vremenu, kako se \u010dini, njihov uzajamni odnos ono \u0161to ih bitno odre\u0111uje, te da u kriti\u010dkim analizama treba po\u0107i prije od njihovih posredovanja, pa ih tek onda odrediti kao identi\u010dne, suprotne (suprotstavljene) ili posve razli\u010dite fenomene.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Po\u0107i \u0107emo, stoga, od nepobitne (materijalisti\u010dke) postavke da je rije\u010d o \u010dinjenicama: mediji postoje, ono \u0161to obi\u010dno nazivamo umjetno\u0161\u0107u, tako\u0111er, i preostaje da se istra\u017ei mo\u017ee li posredovanje ovih pojmova, i njima odgovaraju\u0107ih fenomena, egzistiraju\u0107ih u konkretnoj dru\u0161tveno-povijesnoj stvarnosti, rezultirati, u nekom momentu njihovog kretanja, ishodom koji medije tretira tako \u0161to ih poistovje\u0107uje s umjetno\u0161\u0107u. Ovakvi iskazi, me\u0111utim, nisu nesporni. Jer, problematiziraju\u0107i pretpostavke o kraju umjetnosti, mo\u017ee se, u isto vrijeme, postaviti pitanje nije li, zapravo, rije\u010d o nestajanju auratske umjetnosti i kulturnih fenomena \u0161to se vezuju za epohu modernizma i duh avangarde, odnosno njihove zamjene medijskom stvarno\u0161\u0107u koja, na sebi svojstven na\u010din, reprezentira svijet umjetnosti kao medijski posredovan svijet. Nezavisno od ovih spekulacija, evidentno je da u oblasti masovnih i novih medija djeluje velik broj stvaralaca koji joj, rade\u0107i u ovoj sferi, poku\u0161avaju dati umjetni\u010dki pe\u010dat: bilo kroz estetiziranje pojedinih priloga, emisija, programa koje kreiraju, ili pak tragaju\u0107i za specifi\u010dnim izra\u017eajnim sredstvima samih medija koje koriste, pri poku\u0161ajima formuliranja jezika medija (televizija, radio, Web) kao nove umjetni\u010dke forme\/strukture izra\u017eavanja.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Pozivaju\u0107i se, s tim u vezi, na epohu modernizma i Predavanja o poetici<\/em> Paula Valeryja, ovim se pojmovima mogu, u na\u0161em vremenu, pripisati dva atributa: jedan \u0161to se ti\u010de materijalne \u201eproizvodnje\u201c (po \u010demu nalikuju svakoj robi), i drugi kojeg treba tra\u017eiti u sferi \u201evrednovanja\u201c.<\/a>[13<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Dakle, za svaku stvarala\u010dku djelatnost, \u0161to vrijedi kako za umjetnost tako i za medije, prema Valeryjevu mi\u0161ljenju, neophodna su dva momenta: \u201ematerijalni\u201c tj. proizvodni, i \u201eduhovni\u201c, odnosno vrijednosni. Ono po \u010demu se, me\u0111utim, \u201epoetike\u201c uzajamno razlikuju jest upravo njihova duhovna, odnosno vrijednosna komponenta. No, \u201epoetike\u201c se, po na\u0161em uvjerenju, razlikuju i po \u201ematerijalnom\u201c momentu produkcije: dok je umjetnost uvijek ve\u0107 rad u konkretnom materijalu (klavijature, platno i boje, tijelo glumca, filmska traka, i dr.), \u201ematerijalnu\u201c stranu medija kao \u0161to su televizija, radio i internet, \u010dine slike, simboli i informacije. Njihovim oblikovanjem i preoblikovanjem, na\u010dinom distribuiranja i upotrebe, \u0161to odre\u0111uje tehnologija odre\u0111enog medija, ostvaruje se manipuliranje \u201ematerijalima\u201c karakteristi\u010dnim za medijski tekst.  <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Na ovom tragu, trebalo bi skrenuti pa\u017enju i na sljede\u0107e: Valery je, kada je rije\u010d o vlastitoj poetici, primjenjivao metodu pisanja koju je vezivao za na\u010delo forme i njenog \u201eproizvo\u0111enja\u201c (pisanje poezije kao \u201eproizvo\u0111enje forme\u201c); sli\u010dno njemu, a pod utjecajima Baudelaireova modernizma i Brechtove materijalisti\u010dki zasnovane teatarske dijalektike, Benjamin \u0107e u dva svoja zna\u010dajna eseja: \u201eUmjetni\u010dko djelo u stolje\u0107u svoje tehni\u010dke reprodukcije\u201c i \u201ePisac kao proizvo\u0111a\u010d\u201c<\/a>[14<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> tako\u0111er naglasiti umjetni\u010dku formu, ali preko njenog posredovanja tehnikom, \u0161to kao posljedicu ima procese nestajanja\/gubitka aure umjetni\u010dkog djela. Pojedini komentatori Benjaminovih tekstova, poput Mi-Ae Yun, iznijeli su zapa\u017eanje da su upravo ta dva eseja ugra\u0111ena u na\u010dela Benjaminove \u201ekulturne politike\u201c.<\/a>[15<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Jer, pisac\/autor, shva\u0107en kao proizvo\u0111a\u010d, odnosno \u201eproducent\u201c, prvenstveno se treba obra\u0107ati radni\u010dkoj klasi, \u0161to vrijedi kako za teatar, tako i za fotografiju, film, kao i za sve ostale umjetnosti. Time se, posredstvom tehnike kao produkcijskog aparata umjetnosti, u kona\u010dnici, mo\u017ee utjecati na duh epohe i izgradnju socijalizma, u smislu krajnjeg ishoda povijesno-dijalekti\u010dkog kretanja, k \u010demu bi trebale te\u017eiti sve \u201eprogresivne kulturne politike\u201c.<\/a>[16<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

U ovom smjeru, kre\u0107u se, a na osnovi Benjaminovih refleksija, interpretacije i istra\u017eivanja ostvarena unutar jedne materijalisti\u010dki koncipirane estetike\/teorije umjetnosti (i kulturne politike), \u0161to naposljetku mo\u017ee dovesti do koincidiranja umjetni\u010dke produkcije (biv\u0161a \u201eauratska kultura\u201c) i \u201emedijske utopije\u201c, koju prethodno odlikuje proces gubljenja aure umjetni\u010dkog djela. To istovremeno, kako tvrdi Marcuse, ne zna\u010di da se ono autenti\u010dno, odnosno \u201eauratsko\u201c umjetnosti ne opire ovim procesima. Upravo na temelju Benjaminovih analiza umjetni\u010dkog djela u eri tehni\u010dke reproduktivnosti \u2013 uz opasku da je komercijaliziranje umjetnosti pojava tipi\u010dna za gra\u0111ansko dru\u0161tvo, \u0161to, izme\u0111u ostalog, kao posljedicu ima postupno gubljenje aure umjetni\u010dkog djela, i to u \u201evremenu instrumentaliziranja\u201c, odnosno \u2018prevo\u0111enja\u2019 umjetnosti, zahvaljuju\u0107i upotrebi novih sredstava i tehnika, u druge medije koji je redefiniraju, \u010dine\u0107i je time jo\u0161 slo\u017eenijom nego \u0161to je bila u ranijim razdobljima \u2013 Marcuse je izveo takav zaklju\u010dak. Summa summarum<\/em>, prema Marcuseovu mi\u0161ljenju, umjetni\u010dko djelo se danas nalazi u posve druk\u010dijoj povijesnoj situaciji.<\/a>[17<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Naime, razvojne tendencije suvremene umjetnosti, koja je podlo\u017ena ne samo mehani\u010dkoj\/tehni\u010dkoj, ve\u0107 sada i digitalnoj reprodukciji, kre\u0107u se, prema shva\u0107anjima Mi-Ae Yun, unutar perspektiva koje iz domena suvremene kulturne politike \u201eprelaze\u201c u polje medijskih politika, odnosno utopija, i to pri poku\u0161aju realiziranja punog demokratskog kapaciteta umjetnosti, tj. njene masovne produkcije, s jedne, i maksimalno (tehni\u010dki) demokratizirane recepcije umjetni\u010dkih djela, odnosno medijskih ostvarenja, s druge strane.<\/a>[18<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Sa\u017eeto re\u010deno, tehni\u010dke pretpostavke za transmisiju umjetni\u010dkog kulturnog stvarala\u0161tva u medijski korpus kulture, pra\u0107ene gubitkom aure, prepoznate su jo\u0161 u pro\u0161lom stolje\u0107u, zahvaljuju\u0107i inspirativnim esejima Waltera Benjamina, kao i refleksivnom anga\u017emanu ostalih pripadnika tzv. Frankfurtske filozofske \u0161kole, koji su, prema na\u0161im shva\u0107anjima, dali poticaje za utemeljenje jedne kriti\u010dki orijentirane filozofije medija. Uz to, njihove opservacije o fotografiji, filmu, teatru, poeziji, pa i medijima masovnog komuniciranja, kao \u0161to su radio i televizija, na primjer, pru\u017eili su dovoljno materijala za izvo\u0111enje dokaza o bitnim doga\u0111ajima u kulturi na\u0161eg doba. No, sam pojam umjetnosti u na\u0161em vremenu, zahvaljuju\u0107i, prije svega, tehnolo\u0161koj revoluciji, pretrpio je, pod utjecajem razvoja medijske, odnosno informati\u010dke kulture, one izmjene, koje su nastale kao posljedica pribli\u017eavanja i uzajamnog posredovanja pojmova medija i umjetnosti. Procesi medijatizacije koji su zahvatili svijet aktualne kulture doveli su, nadalje, do transformiranja kako ovih pojmova, tako i \u201erealnosti\u201c koju oni opisuju. Ekspanzija masmedijske kulture doprinijela je u\u010dvr\u0161\u0107ivanju uvjerenja da pojedini mediji danas preuzimaju na sebe ulogu koja je nekada bila dodjeljivana umjetnosti.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Rasprave u vezi s pitanjem je li televizija umjetnost, odnosno posebna umjetni\u010dka disciplina\/forma\/vrsta, posljedica su preispitivanja koja su uslijedila nakon \u0161to je televizija, iz prvobitne razvojne faze \u201etehni\u010dke atrakcije\u201c pre\u0161la u eru potrage za vlastitim (autenti\u010dnim) izra\u017eajnim sredstvima koja bi je izdvojila iz svijeta pukih tehni\u010dkih izuma i dodijelila joj presti\u017eno mjesto nove umjetnosti.<\/a>[19<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Ono \u0161to je televiziju kao medij izdvojilo u odnosu na razli\u010dite umjetni\u010dke discipline jest vizualnost ovdje<\/em> i sada<\/em>, njena neposrednost, spontanost i aktualnost. Otuda je, kao njen poseban izraz, koji dotada \u2013 osim radija \u2013 nije imala ni jedna oblast stvarala\u010dke djelatnosti, ozna\u010den direktan prijenos (film nije imao takvu izra\u017eajnu mogu\u0107nost, dok su potencijali radija, u ovom pogledu, bili ograni\u010deni njegovim koncentriranjem isklju\u010divo na audioprijenose).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Kao razvijenija forma direktnog prijenosa, a ne\u0161to kasnije i kao poseban televizijski \u017eanr, emancipirao se kontroverzni format \u201erealitija\u201c (Reality Show<\/em>), koji predstavlja kombinaciju direktnog prijenosa s jedne, i strukture koja je nalik igranim programima, s druge strane. S ovim u vezi, pojedini kriti\u010dari televizije su prvo desetlje\u0107e XXI. stolje\u0107a ozna\u010dili kao klju\u010dno za odre\u0111enje \u201eprirode\u201c televizije, oslanjaju\u0107i se upravo na fenomen \u201erealitija\u201c, nazvav\u0161i ovaj period \u201edekadom realiti-televizije\u201c (Decade of<\/em> Reality TV<\/em>),<\/a>[20<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> \u0161to predstavlja neku vrstu \u201eorgijasti\u010dkog\u201c ukr\u0161tanja mnogobrojnih televizijskih izraza koji su mu prethodili, kao \u0161to su sapunice, dokumentarni filmovi ili kvizovi, na primjer. Prema na\u0161em mi\u0161ljenju, iako eklekti\u010dan, ovaj format je istinski novum<\/em> televizije, ali je pitanje je li ta \u010dinjenica dovoljna da televizijski medij kvalificira kao umjetni\u010dki.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

U isto vrijeme, me\u0111utim, u potrazi za svojim autenti\u010dnim izrazom (koji obi\u010dno definiramo kao \u201ejezik televizije\u201c), ovaj medij je \u2013 osim financijskih pogodnosti koje sa sobom donosi \u201erealiti model\u201c, a \u0161to se pokazalo kao vrlo profitabilno \u2013 predstavljao i polje eksperimentalnog izraza; \u0161to ga je, nadalje, potencijalno preporu\u010divalo kao umjetni\u010dku formu<\/a>[21<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> shva\u0107enu u tom smislu, \u0161to bi po njoj suvremena televizija bila prepoznatljiva sa stanovi\u0161ta ostvarenja dugoro\u010dnih \u017eivotnih promjena.<\/a>[22<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Rije\u010dju, kako bi televizija bila odre\u0111ena kao umjetnost, bilo je neophodno da izgradi, kako formalno, tako i u pogledu mogu\u0107ih utjecaja na stvarnost, svoj vlastiti jezik, a da u isto vrijeme, ta struktura bude definirana, u prvom redu kao umjetni\u010dka. Iz svega re\u010denog, proistje\u010de pitanje \u2013 \u0161to je uistinu televizija, kao i dilema je li ona umjetnost ili ne. U dana\u0161njem vremenu, ona je tretirana bilo kao tehni\u010dka i umjetni\u010dka utopija projektirana u budu\u0107nost, bilo kao organ pro\u0161losti, ili kao nekakva postutopijska strategija analiti\u010dke dekonstrukcije masmedija putem kori\u0161tenja umjetni\u010dkih resursa, subverzivnih strategija okupiranja masovnih medija kroz nove umjetni\u010dke forme djelovanja, suradnje televizije s drugim medijima (i umjetnostima) u svrhu razvoja inovativnosti, i dr.<\/a>[23<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Vratimo se, povodom poku\u0161aja definiranja suvremene televizije, na pitanje odre\u0111enja statusa umjetnosti danas, a nakon iskustva \u010ditanja mnogobrojnih interpretacija Benjaminova eseja o gubitku aure i reproducibilnosti umjetni\u010dkog djela, a potom i Adornovih teza preuzetih iz Esteti\u010dke teorije<\/em><\/a>[24<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a>o Entkunstungu<\/em> kulturne industrije, te o dvostrukom karakteru umjetni\u010dkog djela koje je zasigurno autonomno od dru\u0161tva, ali istovremeno predstavlja i prvorazrednu socijalnu \u010dinjenicu. Naime, materijalisti\u010dko-dijalekti\u010dkom tuma\u010denju suvremene umjetnosti ide u prilog teza o tome da je aktualna umjetnost, zapravo, \u010dinjeni\u010dna po svom karakteru, uz istovremeno medijsko posredovanje, odnosno vizualiziranje te njene \u201e\u010dinjeni\u010dnosti\u201c, po\u0161to sve \u201edate\u201c, kako one dru\u0161tveno-povijesne, tako i artefakti kulture, mogu postati materijal za umjetni\u010dko stvaranje, odnosno medijsko transponiranje u modalitet vizualnosti. Tako dolazimo do jedne od prijelomnih to\u010daka u tuma\u010denju kako \u010dinjenica, tako i njihove vizualizacije, kao i onih stvarala\u010dkih postupaka koji te \u010dinjenice \u201eprevode u umjetnost\u201c.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

U videospotu, postavljenom na YouTubeu pod nazivom: \u201eData as Art\u201c, Toothman sugerira kori\u0161tenje \u010dinjenica i umjetni\u010dke vizualizacije kako bi bile prezentirane \u201epri\u010de\u201c (Stories<\/em>) na temelju informacija koje su prethodno bile sintetizirane, kreirane ili kompilirane.<\/a>[25<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Dakle, rije\u010d je o jednoj novoj vrsti reprezentiranja \u010dinjenica \u201ena druk\u010diji na\u010din\u201c (in a<\/em> different way<\/em>), koje kod recipijenata treba provocirati emocionalne reakcije, \u0161to je, prema shva\u0107anjima ovog autora, od esencijalne va\u017enosti kako za poslovanje, tako i za suvremenu umjetnost. Stoga svojevrsna Ars Combinatoria <\/em>na\u0161eg doba upotrebljava \u201e\u010dinjenice\u201c kao svoju materijalnu osnovu za rad, odnosno \u201epri\u010danje pri\u010da\u201c, koriste\u0107i, pri tom, suvremene softverske tehnologije; \u0161tovi\u0161e, okru\u017eeni svijetom \u201e\u010dinjenica\u201c, tj. medijski posredovanih informacija, te manipuliraju\u0107i njima, u mogu\u0107nosti smo kreirati raznovrsne univerzume, pa tako i nove svjetove umjetnosti, \u0161to su ih u pro\u0161lom stolje\u0107u anticipirale, recimo, reklamna industrija i pop-art.<\/a>[26<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Otuda proistje\u010de i praksa generiranja novih umjetni\u010dkih profesija \u2013 kao \u0161to je, na primjer, kod-artist (code artist<\/em>), \u0161to se na mre\u017ei bave istra\u017eivanjem i vizualiziranjem \u201e\u010dinjenica\u201c u interaktivnom klju\u010du.<\/a>[27<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Teodor Adorno, govore\u0107i u Esteti\u010dkoj teoriji<\/em> o modernoj umetnosti i industrijskoj proizvodnji, nagla\u0161ava dijalekti\u010dki odnos izme\u0111u njih, zagovaraju\u0107i ideju kako apsorpcije novih tehnologija od strane umjetnosti, tako i uspostavljanje negativnog tj. kriti\u010dkog stava prema ovoj \u010dinjenici. Razumijevanje Adornovih intencija, sagledano u kontekstu na\u0161ih istra\u017eivanja, odre\u0111uje umjetnost, u tehnolo\u0161kom (produkcionom) pogledu, tako \u0161to ona, koriste\u0107i tehnolo\u0161ke mogu\u0107nosti svog doba, treba, u isto vreme, da sintetizira ali i radikalno dovede u pitanje onaj dru\u0161tveno-ekonomski fakticitet koji podupire upravo suvremena tehnologija. \u201eModerna je ona umjetnost koja, prema svom na\u010dinu iskustva i kao izraz kritike iskustva, apsorbira ono \u0161to je industrijalizacija proizvela kao vladaju\u0107e odnose proizvodnje. To podrazumijeva negativni kanon, zabranu onog \u0161to takva moderna umjetnost negira u iskustvu i tehnici; takva odre\u0111ena negacija je skoro ve\u0107 pravilo onoga \u0161to treba \u010diniti. Da takva moderna umjetnost bude vi\u0161e nego neodre\u0111eni duh vremena ili savr\u0161eno Bi\u0107e up to date<\/em> zavisi od oslobo\u0111enih proizvodnih snaga. Ona je dru\u0161tveno odre\u0111ena konfliktom s proizvodnim odnosima, a unutarestetski kao isklju\u010divanje upotrebljavanog i prevladanih tehni\u010dkih postupaka. Modernost \u0107e se bilo kad suprotstaviti vladaju\u0107em duhu vremena, pa \u0107e to morati i danas. U o\u010dima uvjerenih potro\u0161a\u010da kulture radikalni umjetni\u010dki modernizam pojavljuje se kao ne\u0161to demodirano ozbiljno i iz tog istog razloga kao ekstravagantno.\u201c<\/a>[28<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Konciznije re\u010deno, modernost umjetnosti ovdje stoji u kontrastu i negaciji u odnosu na suvremenost. Umjetnost se, u stvari, emancipira kako od aktualne tehnologije koju je u sebe apsorbirala \u2013 i ideologije up tu date<\/em>, tako i od kapitalisti\u010dkih (eksploatatorskih) proizvodnih odnosa, postaju\u0107i, u svom \u201ekrhkom balansu\u201c \u2013 emancipatorski moment suvremenosti. Kao svojevrsni \u201ekulturni interfejs\u201c (Manovich)<\/a>[29<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a>, ona, dakle, mo\u017ee i treba koristiti tehnolo\u0161ke prednosti svog doba \u2013 \u010dime se uskla\u0111uje s duhom vremena \u2013 ali tako, \u0161to \u0107e to \u010diniti u stavu kritike sustava proizvodnih odnosa koji stoje u osnovi tzv. \u201ekulturnih \u010dinjenica\u201c (Cultural Data<\/em>), kao \u0161to su tekstovi, fotografije, filmovi, muzika, virtualno okru\u017eenje.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Debate o radiju kao umjetnosti, u aktualnoj literaturi studija medija i kulture, rje\u0111e se mogu sresti nego \u0161to je to slu\u010daj kada je rije\u010d o televiziji. Iako se u posljednje vrijeme sve \u010de\u0161\u0107e mogu \u010duti opaske o tome kako radio (posebno u Americi) postaje medij komuniciranja intelektualnih i sveu\u010dili\u0161nih elita, \u0161to isklju\u010duje masovnost u pogledu konzumiranja njegovih programskih sadr\u017eaja, relativno mali broj autora preispituje pretpostavku o radiju kao umjetnosti. No, ameri\u010dka performerica i multimedijalna umjetnica Jecky Apple uhvatila se analize Novog ameri\u010dkog radija, koji je u domeni izvo\u0111a\u010dkih umjetnosti, aktivno djelovao tijekom 80-ih i 90-ih godina pro\u0161log stolje\u0107a. Za potrebe na\u0161ih istra\u017eivanja, bitno je upravo ovo razdoblje, jer je u kasnijem periodu rada javnih radio-stanica, naro\u010dito krajem pro\u0161log i po\u010detkom ovog stolje\u0107a, kako tvrdi ova umjetnica, do\u0161lo do izra\u017eavanja restriktivnih mjera kulturne politike \u2013 sna\u017ene medijske kontrole, cenzuriranja, i sl., pa su gotovo svi sadr\u017eaji i forme djelovanja koji su bili dru\u0161tveno-politi\u010dki \u201eneprihvatljivi\u201c svrstavani u \u201eanarhisti\u010dke\u201c, dok se financiranje ovakvih programa, s nedovoljno razvijenom i \u201efluidnom\u201c publikom, naglo smanjivalo, te su na taj na\u010din tiho ga\u0161eni, ili su transformirani u tzv. \u201epiratske\u201c radioprograme i stanice. To je, istovremeno, zna\u010dilo pobjedu komercijalnih radiostanica nad onim alternativnim, koje su nastojale posredstvom umjetni\u010dkog anga\u017emana mijenjati zate\u010deno dru\u0161tveno i kulturno okru\u017eenje.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

U \u010dlanku pod naslovom \u201eNew American Radio and Radio Art\u201c (\u201eNovi ameri\u010dki radio i radioumjetnost\u201c), autorica tvrdi kako je ovaj radio, u svom inovativnom periodu djelovanja, proizvodio i distribuirao suvremenu ameri\u010dku umjetnost, njeguju\u0107i najrazli\u010ditije art-forme izra\u017eavanja, odnosno uvode\u0107i \u201enekonvencionalne strukture u tradicionalne formate emitiranja\u201c.<\/a>[30<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Novi ameri\u010dki radio je, prema rije\u010dima Jacky Apple \u2013 a to se prvenstveno odnosi na razdoblje produkcije i distribuiranja programa izme\u0111u 80-ih i 90-ih godina XX. stolje\u0107a \u2013 utjecao ne samo na ru\u0161enje dotada\u0161njih medijskih konvencija, ve\u0107 je doprinio i dovo\u0111enju u pitanje suvremene umjetnosti, preciznije re\u010deno \u2013 europske avangarde. Suprotstavljaju\u0107i se, u isto vrijeme, vladaju\u0107oj (ameri\u010dkoj) kulturnoj politici, ali i standardiziranoj percepciji masovnih medija i svijeta zabave kao takve, Novi ameri\u010dki radio je, po mi\u0161ljenju ove autorice, dao velik doprinos razvoju radiofonije, te hibridiziranju medijske kulture posredstvom emitiranja razli\u010ditih audioeksperimenata, \u201ezvu\u010dnih geografija\u201c, pseudodokumentarnih programa, radiokina, kao i konceptualnih i multimedijalno definiranih programskih sadr\u017eaja. Krajnji ishod njegovog djelovanja bio je konstituiranje \u201enovih narativnih strategija\u201c kroz inter\u017eanrovsko montiranje, kontrastiranje i ukr\u0161tanje umjetnosti performansa, poezije, politike, urbane buke, popularne zabave, kolokvijalnog govora i kulturnih razlika definiranih u \u0161irokom spektru djelovanja: od marginalnih potkultura, sve do mainstreama.<\/a>[31<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Novi ameri\u010dki radio je bio namijenjen, prije svega, mladoj publici, i bitno je doprinio, kako tvrdi Apple, populariziranju suvremene umjetnosti i kulture u Americi krajem pro\u0161log stolje\u0107a.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I na kraju, dilema mogu li internet i popularne dru\u0161tvene mre\u017ee biti, i u kojem smislu rije\u010di, tretirani kao umjetnost, tako\u0111er je relevantna za na\u0161u raspravu. S obzirom na \u010dinjenicu velikog opsega utjecaja socijalnih mre\u017ea na na\u0161u svakodnevnu \u017eivotnu praksu \u2013 pitanje je na koji na\u010din i u kojoj mjeri ovi mediji utje\u010du na umjetnost, i je li mogu\u0107e \u010ditavu domenu djelovanja dru\u0161tvenih mre\u017ea okarakterizirati kao oblast umjetni\u010dkog stvarala\u0161tva, recepcije, teoretizacije, kritike? U tekstu Bena Davisa upravo se na kriti\u010dki na\u010din razmatraju ove pretpostavke, a s obzirom na uvodno, operativno definiranje osnovnih pojmova.<\/a>[32<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> ————-Naime, autor smatra da su danas polja umjetnosti i dru\u0161tvenih medija u suprotstavljenom odnosu, jer podrazumijevaju, svako za sebe, dvije razli\u010dite \u201elogike\u201c: relativno isklju\u010div, zatvoren tip umjetni\u010dke ekspresivnosti, na jednoj, nasuprot bitno otvorenijem, i na relaciji zasnovanom modusu operandi<\/em> socijalnih mre\u017ea, na drugoj strani.<\/a>[33<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Iako se, generalno uzev\u0161i, servisi dru\u0161tvenih medija mogu tretirati kao jedan velik \u201eart projekt\u201c, ipak izme\u0111u njih i umjetnosti, shva\u0107ene u tradicionalnom smislu rije\u010di, postoji velika napetost, \u0161to upravo omogu\u0107ava postavljanje mnogobrojnih pitanja o njihovoj relaciji.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Najkra\u0107e re\u010deno, razlika izme\u0111u umjetnosti, shva\u0107ene u tradicionalisti\u010dkom kontekstu odre\u0111enja, i dru\u0161tvenih mre\u017ea, po\u010diva na tome \u0161to se prva koncentrira \u201ena objekt\u201c, a druga se temelji na relaciji \u2013 mada Davis primje\u0107uje kako su dru\u0161tvene mre\u017ee, upravo u ovom pogledu, kritizirane od strane pripadnika \u201erelacione estetike\u201c, kao, rekli bismo, vladaju\u0107e orijentacije u aktualnom poimanju subjekt \u2013objekt odnosa u estetici.<\/a>[34<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> I dalje, ova dva pojma se mogu diferencirati i po tome \u0161to se, u prvom slu\u010daju, stvaraoci tretiraju kao profesionalci, dok u drugom to nije od presudnog zna\u010daja za djelovanje na mre\u017ei. Ali, fenomeni poput umjetnosti i dru\u0161tvenih medija \u2013 iako su suprotstavljeni, nisu kontrarni, tj. u polo\u017eaju uzajamnog isklju\u010divanja (sude\u0107i po analogiji s tzv. \u201elogi\u010dkim kvadratom\u201c, niti su dru\u0161tveni mediji aumjetni\u010dki, niti je, pak, umjetnost asocijalna), tako da je suradnja me\u0111u njima mogu\u0107a.<\/a>[35<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Ostaje, me\u0111utim, pitanje mogu li svi ili samo pojedini \u201eradovi\u201c, nastali i objavljeni na mre\u017ei, biti nazvani umjetno\u0161\u0107u. Jer, ono \u0161to teoreti\u010dari medija i umjetnici naj\u010de\u0161\u0107e nazivaju novom medijskom umjetno\u0161\u0107u svakako podrazumijeva posredovanje pojmova umjetnosti i medija, ali ni\u0161ta ne govori o tome kako se oni me\u0111usobno odnose u spomenutoj sintezi.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Je li, naime, ovdje posrijedi kreiranje jedne sasvim nove umjetni\u010dke vrste ili je samo rije\u010d o novom (umjetni\u010dkom) mediju djelovanja (New Media Art<\/em>) i njegovim podvrstama (digitalna umjetnost, kompjuterska grafika i animacija, virtualna umjetnost, videoigre, interaktivna umjetnost, i sl.), krajnje je diskutabilno. Domenico Quaranta, u tekstu \u201eWhat\u2019s (Really) Specific about New Media Art? Curating in the Information Age\u201c, dana\u0161nju situaciju u svijetu suvremene umjetnosti, a s obzirom na razli\u010dite oblike aktivnosti i veliki utjecaj novih medijskih tehnologija na art produkciju, kao i na pitanje vrednovanja umjetnosti u tom polju njene realizacije konstatira da, kada je rije\u010d o umjetnosti novih medija, tu vrijede i djeluju posebna pravila, institucije, profesionalci, platforme za diskusiju, publika je bitno razli\u010dita, ekonomski model, tako\u0111er, dok je, u stvari, sama ideja \u0161to je umjetnost i \u0161to bi ona trebalo biti ne\u0161to \u0161to daje poseban impuls novim debatama o svijetu umjetnosti.<\/a>[36<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Dakle, ovdje se nalazimo u svojevrsnom krugu zaklju\u010divanja: suvremena umjetnost se, jednim dijelom, definira kao ona pojava \u0161to je pod utjecajem novih medija, dok u isto vrijeme, njena relacija prema medijskom svijetu u kojem djeluje ovdje<\/em> i sada<\/em>, mijenja \u201eauratski\u201c definiran pojam. U svijetu novih medija, ona i jest i nije umjetnost \u2013 zapravo je i umjetnost i ne\u0161to drugo, te izme\u0111u nje i tog drugog postoji napetost, ali i uzajamno posredovanje. Verificiranje polazne hipoteze o tome da su mediji umjetnost fakti\u010dki zavisi od toga kako definiramo medije i kako odre\u0111ujemo \u0161to je umjetnost danas, bilo pogledom na tradiciju ili njenim situiranjem u epohu ekspanzije novih komunikacijskih tehnologija. Ako bismo, recimo, umjetnost shvatili kao techne<\/em>, onda bi etimologija \u0161to je odre\u0111uju\u0107a kako za umjetnost, tako i za vje\u0161tinu, zanat i tehnologiju, manifestiraju\u0107i time zajedni\u010dko podrijetlo termina i njemu odgovaraju\u0107eg pojma, ukazivala na mogu\u0107nost koincidiranja pojavnih svjetova medijske kulture i suvremene umjetnosti. No, ovo bi, svakako, dovelo do pojednostavljenja i ukidanja mogu\u0107nosti za njihov samosvojni razvoj, nezavisno od apstraktnog po\u010detka \u0161to ih definira kao jedno. S druge strane, mogu\u0107e je pretpostaviti njihovo diferenciranje i oponiranje, u razvojnoj perspektivi koja ih reflektira kao posve razli\u010dite fenomene, tj. tako da umjetnost zadobiva auru, dok mediji prelaze put od zanatskog do industrijskog na\u010dina proizvodnje svojih derivata, sve dok pripadnici Frankfurtske filozofske \u0161kole nisu uo\u010dili da njihovo najnovije povezivanje i uzajamno djelovanje zna\u010di bilo gubljenje umjetni\u010dkog karaktera umjetnosti (Entkuntung<\/em> kulturne industrije) bilo nestajanje aure (\u201eUmjetni\u010dko djelo u stolje\u0107u svoje tehni\u010dke reprodukcije\u201c), a suvremeni umjetnici po\u010deli djelovati neposredno unutar medijske kulture, interveniraju\u0107i u njenom prostoru kao da je rije\u010d o kontinuiranom umjetni\u010dkom stvarala\u0161tvu, i nezavisno od \u201eprirode\u201c medija u kojem se ono realizira.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Naj\u010de\u0161\u0107e neupitno, a pokatkad i stihijsko djelovanje stvaralaca najrazli\u010ditijih profila i profesija, kako u medijima masovnih komunikacija, tako i u novim medijima, dovelo je, kako se \u010dini, ne samo do hiperprodukcije pojedinih \u017eanrova (kao \u0161to je, recimo, televizijski \u201erealiti\u201c), ve\u0107 i platformi za \u201eumjetni\u010dke\u201c aktivnosti na internetu (na primjer: Instagram, YouTube, i dr.). Polemike o tome kako je mogu\u0107a umjetnost koja koristi nove tehnologije za vlastiti napredak, kao (autonomna) umjetnost, s jedne, i postavljanje radikalnih teorijskih pretpostavki da mediji po sebi, ili makar u jednom periodu svog stvarala\u0161tva, jesu umjetnost, ili mo\u017eda preuzimaju njenu nekada\u0161nju ulogu (mimeti\u010dku ili kriti\u010dku, na primjer) u odnosu na konkretne dru\u0161tveno-ekonomske odnose, \u010dime kao artefakti potvr\u0111uju svoju egzistenciju, s druge strane, veoma su aktualne u teorijskim korpusima znanja o umjetnosti, kulturi i medijima na\u0161eg doba.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Po\u0161to, me\u0111utim, nemamo precizne i sveobuhvatne uvide u to \u0161to je umjetnost danas i mo\u017ee li ona koincidirati sa svijetom medija masovnih i novih komunikacija, kao i obratno, onda se \u2013 podrazumijevaju\u0107i, pri tom, povijest razvoja kako umjetnosti tako i medija (terminolo\u0161ki, konceptualno, fenomenalisti\u010dki) \u2013 uvjetno mo\u017ee zaklju\u010diti da se sve \u0161to o tome mo\u017eemo znati zasniva na ispitivanju njihovih relacija. \u0160tovi\u0161e, isprva je bitno problemski ih postaviti u uzajamni odnos i promatrati ih kao jedan fenomen, koji se, potom, refleksivno odre\u0111uje kako prema (kriti\u010dkim) interpretacijama svijeta umjetnosti, tako i u odnosu na aktualna tuma\u010denja medijske kulture. Rije\u010dju, suvremena umjetnost, kre\u0107u\u0107i se u pravcu svojih dijalekti\u010dko-materijalisti\u010dkih te\u017enji u pogledu o\u010duvanja autonomije, ali i dru\u0161tvenog anga\u017emana, trebalo bi se subverzivno-kriti\u010dki djelovati unutar \u010ditavog podru\u010dja medijske kulture. Tako\u0111er, svijet masovnih i novih medija, sa svoje bi strane, trebao vizionarski postavljati izazove za nove stvarala\u010dke strategije, ciljeve i postupke svijetu umjetnosti. Time bi se ova dva pojma, u svojoj dijalektici kretanja, kriti\u010dki susrela i djelovala poticajno u smjeru obostranog razvoja jedne plodotvorne dinami\u010dke sinteze svojih ukupnih htijenja, napora i mogu\u0107nosti.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/a>[13<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cUpravo sam izgovorio rije\u010d \u2018vrijednost\u2019 i \u2018proizvodnja\u2019.
Zadr\u017eat \u0107u se na tome koji trenutak. Ako \u017eelimo poduzeti ispitivanje oblasti stvarala\u010dkog duha, ne trebamo se pla\u0161iti \u0161to se najprije zadr\u017eavamo na najop\u0107enitijim poromatranjima jer \u0107e nam upravo ona omogu\u0107iti da napredujemo, bez obaveze da se vra\u0107amo na pre\u0111ene korake, i pru\u017eiti najve\u0107i broj analogija, to jest najve\u0107i broj izraza pribli\u017eenih u svrhu opisivanja \u010dinjenica i ideja koje naj\u010de\u0161\u0107e zbog svoje prirode izmi\u010du neposrednom odre\u0111ivanju. To je jedan od razloga za\u0161to podsje\u0107am na tih nekoliko rije\u010di posu\u0111enih iz ekonomije: bit \u0107e mi mo\u017eda pogodno da pod samo ova dva naziva proizvodnja i proizvo\u0111a\u010d objedinim raznovrsne djelatnosti i razne li\u010dnosti kojima se trebamo pozabaviti, ukoliko \u017eelimo razmatrati ono \u0161to je u njima zajedni\u010dko, ne vr\u0161e\u0107i podvajanje izme\u0111u njihovih razli\u010ditih vrsti. Ni\u0161ta manje ne\u0107e biti pogodno, prije nego \u0161to po\u010dnemo govoriti o \u010ditatelju, slu\u0161atelju ili promatra\u010du, da sve te podr\u017eavatelje djela bilo koje vrste podvedemo pod jedan ekonomski naziv: potro\u0161a\u010d.
\u0160to se ti\u010de pojma vrijednost, dobro se zna da ona u svijetu duha igra prvorazrednu ulogu, usporedivu s onom koju igra u ekonomskom svijetu, iako je duhovna vrijednost suptilnija od ekonomske, po\u0161to je vezana za daleko raznovrsnije i neprebrojive potrebe nego \u0161to su potrebe fiziolo\u0161kog \u017eivota.\u201d Paul Valery, Predavanja o poetici<\/em>, Eseji, na stranici:<d3231456.u24.c13.ixinstant.com\/pdfs\/Predavanja_o_poetici_Pol_Valeri-33.pdf., str. 11. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[14<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Walter Benjamin, Eseji<\/em>, Nolit, Beograd, 1974. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[15<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Vidi potpoglavlje \u201cReproduktionthesen unter kulturpolitischer Perspektive\u201c, u:  Mi-Ae Yun, Walter Benjamin als Zeitgenosse<\/em> Bertold Brechts: eine Paradoxe Beziehung zwischen N\u00e4he und Ferne<\/em> (Verantw. Hrsg. dieses Bd.: Horst Turk), Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, G\u00f6ttingen, 2000. (Palestra; Bd. 309), str. 37, 38. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[16<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Usp. Gerald Raunig, \u201eDen Produktionsapparat ver\u00e4ndern Anti-universalistische Intellektuellen-Konzepte in der fr\u00fchen Sowjetunion\u201c, vidjeti na stranici Europskog instituta za progresivnu kulturnu politiku (EIPCP): www.eipcp.net.\/transversal\/0910\/raunig\/de. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[17<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Herbert Marcuse, \u201eArt as Form of Reality\u201c, preuzeto iz \u010dasopisa New Left Review<\/em>, no. 74, 1972, na stranici: www. libcom.org\/library\/art-form-reality-herbert-marcuse. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[18<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Vidi poglavlje: \u201eKulturpolitik oder Medienutopie? (Benjamin)\u201c, str. 37-46.; i posebno potpoglavlje \u201eReproduktionsthesen unter kulturpolitischer Perspektive\u201c, Mi-Ae Yun, Op. cit<\/em>., str. 37, 38. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[19<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a>  \u201cIs TELEVISION really a new art? Do is peculiar characteristics quolify the medium as a new art form, or is it just a medium for the transmission and distribution of other arts?\u201c. Rudy Bretz, \u201eTV as an Art Form\u201c, na stranici: www.jstor.org\/discover\/10.2307\/1209446?uid=3738928&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=2110218406603. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[20<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Vidi \u010dlanak Emily Nussbaum, \u201eWhen TV Became Art\u201c, na stranici: www. nymag.com\/arts\/all\/aughts\/62513\/. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[21<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> O povijesti sporova u vezi pitanja je li televizija umjetnosti ili ne detaljnije vidi u \u010dlanku: Dieter Daniels, \u201eTelevision-Art or Anti-art? Conflict and cooperation between the avant-garde and the mass media in the 1960s and 1970s\u201c, na stranici: www.medienkunstnetz.de\/themes\/overview_of_media_art\/massmedia\/1\/. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[22<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Usp. Isto. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[23<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Usp. Isto. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[24<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Teodor V. Adorno, Esteti\u010dka teorija<\/em>, Nolit, Beograd, 1970. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[25<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> J.J. Toothman, \u201eData as Art\u201c, videospot sa STRATA konferencije, mart 2011., na stranici: www. shop.oreily.com\/06-36920019152.do <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[26<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Vid. Peter Hirshberg, \u201eThe Art of Data\u201c, na stranici: www. huffingtonpost.com\/peter-hirshberg\/the-art-of-data_b_3529519.html. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[27<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Vidi intervju En Spenser (Spencer) sa Scottom Murrayem od 16. svibnja 2013. godine: \u201cOn becoming a code artist: An interview with Scott Murray, author of Interactive Data Visualization for the Web\u201c, na stranici: www.strata.oreily.com\/2013\/05\/becoming-a-code-artist.html. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[28<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Teodor V. Adorno, Op. cit., <\/em>str. 77. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[29<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Lev Manovich, \u201eCultural Interfaces\u201c, u: The Language of New Media<\/em>, str. 80-83, na stranici: www.manovich.net\/LNM\/Manovich.pdf. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[30<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Vidi Jacky Apple, \u201cNew American Radio and Radio Art\u201c, na stranici: www.somwhere.org\/NAR\/writings\/apple.htm. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[31<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Isto. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[32<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Vidi Ben Davis, \u201c\u2019Social Media Art\u2019 in the expanded Field\u201c, na stranici: www.artnet.com\/magazineus\/reviews\/da. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[33<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Isto. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[34<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Isto. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[35<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Isto. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[36<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Domenico Quaranta, \u201cWhat\u2019s (Really) Specific about New Media Art? Curating in the Information Age\u201c, 6. decembra 2012., na stranici: www.rhizome.org\/editorial\/2012\/dec.\/6\/whats-rea. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

ODABRANA BIBLIOGRAFIJA S WEBOGRAFIJOM<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

Adorno, V.T., Esteti\u010dka teorija<\/em>, Nolit, Beograd, 1970.<\/p>\n

Apple, J., \u201cNew American Radio and Radio Art\u201c, na stranici: www.somwhere.org\/NAR\/writings\/apple.htm<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Benjamin, W., Eseji<\/em>, Nolit, Beograd, 1974.<\/p>\n

Bretz, R., \u201eTV as an Art Form\u201c, na stranici: www.jstor.org\/discover\/10.2307\/1209446?uid=3738928&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=2110218406603<\/strong><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

Daniels, D., \u201eTelevision-Art or Anti-art? Conflict and cooperation between the avant-garde and the mass media in the 1960s and 1970s\u201c, na stranici: www.medienkunstnetz.de\/themes\/overview_of_media_art\/massmedia\/1\/<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Davis, B., \u201c\u2019Social Media Art\u2019 in the expanded Field\u201c, na stranici: www.artnet.com\/magazineus\/reviews\/da<\/strong><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

Hirshberg, P., \u201eThe Art of Data\u201c, na stranici: www.huffingtonpost.com\/peter-hirshberg\/the-art-of-data_b_3529519.html<\/strong><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Manovich, L., \u201e Cultural Interfaces\u201c, u: The Language of New Media<\/em>, na stranici: www.manovich.net\/LNM\/Manovich.pdf<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Marcuse, H., \u201eArt as Form of Reality\u201c, preuzeto iz \u010dasopisa New Left Review<\/em>, no. 74, 1972, na stranici: www.libcom.org\/library\/art-form-reality-herbert-marcuse<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Nussbaum, E., \u201eWhen TV Became Art\u201c, na stranici: www.nymag.com\/arts\/all\/aughts\/62513\/<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Quaranta, D., \u201cWhat\u2019s (Really) Specific about New Media Art? Curating in the Information Age\u201c, od 6. XII 2012., na stranici: www.rhizome.org\/editorial\/2012\/dec.\/6\/whats-rea<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Raunig, G., \u201eDen Produktionsapparat ver\u00e4ndern Anti-universalistische Intellektuellen-Konzepte in der fr\u00fchen Sowjetunion\u201c, na stranici: www.eipcp.net.\/transversal\/0910\/raunig\/de<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Spencer, A., \u201cOn becoming a code artist: An interview with Scott Murray, author of Interactive Data Visualization for the Web\u201c, na stranici: www.strata.oreily.com\/2013\/05\/becoming-a-code-artist.html<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Toothman, J.J., \u201eData as Art\u201c, video-klip na stranici: www.shop.oreily.com\/06-36920019152.do<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Valeri, P., Predavanja o poetici<\/em>, Eseji, na stranici: d3231456.u24.c13.ixinstant.com\/pdfs\/Predavanja_o_poetici_Pol_Valeri-33.pdf<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Yun, M.A., Walter Benjamin als Zeitgenosse<\/em> Bertold Brechts: eine paradoxe Beziehung zwischen N\u00e4he und Ferne<\/em> (Verantw. Hrsg. dieses Bd.: Horst Turk), Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, G\u00f6ttingen, 2000 (Palestra; Bd. 309).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Media as Art<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Abstract<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

The text explores the status of mass and new media in contemporary time, and in relation to the realm of action and relation with the so-called. world of art. The theoretical focus of the review are, first of all, the dominant media today \u2013 television, radio and the Internet, e.i. social media. The view that the problem treated here is: can television, radio and the internet be, and how, in a sense of modern communication technologies, identified with the medium of art. In this context the study, the article will be cited pro and contra arguments which may prove or critically examine and refute the assumption that these media can be linked with the world, and partly to take his current position.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Key words:<\/strong><\/em> Media, Art, Television, Radio, Internet, Criticism<\/em><\/span>.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n
\"inmediasresno3malo\"<\/p>\n

\n  2(3)#13 2013<\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n\"Creative<\/a>
\u010casopis je otvorenog pristupa, a ovo djelo je dano na kori\u0161tenje pod licencom Creative Commons Imenovanje-Nekomercijalno 4.0 me\u0111unarodna.<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

UDK 165.023.1-2:316.774
Izvorni \u010dlanak
Original scientific paper
\nPrimljeno: 22.6.2013.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Polona Tratnik<\/span><\/p>\n

Univerza na Primorskem, Slovenija
\npolona.tratnik@fhs.upr.si<\/p>\n

Media and the Technological Turn: Truth, Power and Resistance<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n


\nFulltext: pdf (346 KB), English, Pages 276 – 287
\n<\/span><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Abstract<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

The author focuses on two very topical subjects of contemporary humanistic research: media and technology, and discusses the related turns and their correlations.
\n The widespread debate on media testifies to the complexity of this phenomenon and its related issues. Poststructuralists, as well as scholars in cultural and media studies, have acknowledged that the media are never the transparent and neutral interfaces which represent the reality existing out there. The medium is no mediator, but the locus of truth. Whoever operates the medium operates the truth. The author uses the term media turn to refer to this epistemological turn.
\nWe are currently witnessing an emergence of the debate on technology. Technology intervenes into the \u201cnatural\u201d and develops non-existent systems, thus raising the question of ultimate creativity and divinity, particularly in reference to synthetic biology. The author contemplates the leverage and functioning of contemporary technology and discusses an increasingly influential theory that technology is not subordinated to man, but vice versa: people have become functionaries of technology. The author proposes that this be referred to as the technological turn.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Key words:<\/em><\/strong> media turn, technological turn, synthetic biology, engineering, resistance art, creativity.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

The widespread debate on media testifies to the complexity of this phenomenon and its related issues. Poststructuralists, as well as scholars in cultural and media studies, have acknowledged that the media are never the transparent and neutral interfaces which represent the reality existing out there. The medium is no mediator, but the locus of truth. Whoever operates the medium operates the truth. The author uses the term media turn<\/em> to refer to this epistemological turn. We are currently witnessing an emergence of the debate on technology. The theory stating that technology is not subordinated to man, but rather that people have become functionaries of technology, is becoming increasingly influential. We propose this phenomenon be called the technological turn<\/em>. Technology intervenes into the \u201cnatural\u201d and develops non-existent systems, thus raising the question of ultimate creativity and divinity, particularly in reference to synthetic biology. With regard to the increasing power of technology, the issue of possible resistance to the power of technology is to be questioned also.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Experimental natural philosophy founded in the seventeenth century truly had faith in perspicere<\/em> (Lat. perspicere<\/em> from Lat. perspicio<\/em> \u2013 to see through something, and also to perceive, to distinguish clearly) connoting patient observation of the world and its structure, gazing which gradually confirms the truth. Perspicere<\/em> is to be essentially understood as a visual regime; it necessarily involves the sense of vision. The philosophical antipode to empiricism developed a critique of the sensual experience and replaced it with trust in rationality. The truth is not what I can see, but what I can think and comprehend. But does something change if we claim that the means of deception used in baroque visual arts, architecture, decorative arts, and literature were not truly about a distrust in the senses, but rather quite the opposite, about the power of artists who have become aware of their power to master the means of visual appearance, the means of \u201cvisual writing\u201d and language? Art thus becomes the art of \u201cmaking a sign\u201d \u2013 and this is the mastery of constructing a representation: of bringing meaning into the picture.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

For Michel Foucault, the classical episteme begins with Las Meninas<\/em>, when representation is distinguished from resemblance, i.e. when the painting does not represent that which is simulated or depicted, but that which the whole of the semiological syntagm signifies. In literature, the beginning of the classical episteme is marked by Miguel Cervantes\u2019 novel Don Quixote<\/em> (1605\/15), where the art of literature becomes the art of making a sign. Don Quixote is a sign, \u201ca long, thin graphism; a letter that has just escaped from the open pages of a book.\u201d<\/a>[37<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> He is language, he is composed of words. And he writes himself. He wanders around the world among the resemblances of things. He connects the map he draws with the world. He is an early version of the Pink Panther, the example later made by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, who paints the world his shade of pink. \u201cThe Pink Panther imitates nothing, it reproduces nothing, it paints the world its color, pink on pink.\u201d<\/a>[38<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Foucault\u2019s theory of representation is semiological, thus the classical episteme becomes an era of naming, signifying, building signs and constructing order: \u201cThe art of language was a way of \u2018making a sign\u2019 \u2013 of simultaneously signifying something and arranging signs around that thing.\u201d<\/a>[39<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> We are dealing with the doctrine of quid pro quo<\/em> in the classical episteme. The most significant technique in the visual arts is that of illusion, where the connection between resemblance and illusion is established and fictitious resemblances start to appear everywhere: \u201cGames whose powers of enchantment grow out of the new kinship between resemblance and illusion; the chimeras of similitude loom up on all sides.\u201d<\/a>[40<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> The Baroque is a madness of vision and visibility; innovative uses of visuality are worshipped. The position of the observer becomes important; the visible depends on the observer\u2019s position, as in the form (which is actually the existence) of the cupola depicted by Andrea Pozzo in the Apotheosis of Saint Ignatius<\/em> at the Church of Saint Ignatius in Rome (1685\u20131694). The Baroque is at the same time a critique of vision. Vision and the visual become unreliable. But, again, the perception tricks of visualizations which depended on the act of observation had already appeared in the Renaissance; consider, for example, Hans Holbein\u2019s 1533 painting The Ambassadors<\/em>. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

There is a connection between the baroque games of illusion and Descartes\u2019 critique of the sensual experience beheld by Foucault. Descartes rejects resemblance as an instrument for gaining knowledge; rather it becomes an occasion for mistakes, a danger to which one is exposed if one does not study the vague area of changes. For Descartes, our judgment about the existence of wax is not grounded in the sensual experience, as we do not say that we judge that wax is there on the basis of colors and form; instead, we say that \u201cwe see wax itself if it is there before us.\u201d This demonstrates that wax is not recognized through observation with the eyes, but on the basis of perception of the mind alone. Sensual experience itself is deceptive: \u201cI look out of the window and see men crossing the square, as I just happen to have done; I normally say that I see the men themselves, just as I say that I see the wax. Yet do I see any more than hats and coats which could conceal automatons? I judge that they are men. And so something which I thought I was seeing with my eyes is in fact grasped solely by the faculty of judgment which is in my mind.\u201d<\/a>[41<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Thus Descartes does not trust the senses: \u201cI had many experiences which gradually undermined all the faith I had had in the senses. Sometimes towers which had looked round from a distance appeared square from close up; and enormous statues standing on their pediments did not seem large when observed from the ground. In these and countless other such cases, I found that the judgments of the external senses were mistaken.\u201d<\/a>[42<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Regardless of the method of proof that is used, Descartes is \u201calways brought back to the fact that it is only what I clearly and distinctly perceive that completely convinces me.\u201d<\/a>[43<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> It is the mind which he trusts: \u201cSo long as I perceive something very clearly and distinctly I cannot but believe it to be true\u201d.<\/a>[44<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Representation does not only originate from a visual skill or visual operation, but is basically conceptual. Representation is about the mastery of the construction of semiological networks, among which one can include semantics. It is all about constructing meaning or rather constructing reality<\/em>. For this reason, the relationship with truth changes. In the above case, truth becomes something established by the person in power. Marvelous baroque ceilings, such as those of Pozzo or Pietro da Cortona, thus do not deceive the viewer. Instead, they enrich reality. If one were to claim that these were mere illusions, we would respond using Maurice Merleau-Ponty\u2019s critique of objectivity. In the case of the M\u00fcller-Lyer illusion involving two lines of equal length which we perceive as different in size, psychologists claim that we are wrong because they presume that there exists an objective world, and they thus postulate that our perception is fallible. But how could we know what is real, and who is authorized to tell us what this real is? In his critique of Cartesianism, Merleau-Ponty would say that there are no two lines which are objectively<\/em> the same, though we falsely estimate their lengths because of the directions of their fins, the cause of the \u201coptic deception.\u201d The alternative of equality and inequality is only possible in an objective world, but these lines are neither equal nor unequal. Each is perceived in its own context, as if they did not belong to the same world<\/a>[45<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a>: \u201cWe must not, therefore, wonder whether we really perceive a world, we must instead say: the world is what we perceive. In more general terms we must not wonder whether our self-evident truths are real truths, or whether, through some perversity inherent in our minds, that which is self-evident for us might not be illusory in relation to some truth in itself. For in so far as we talk about illusion, it is because we have identified illusions, and done so solely in the light of some perception which at the same time gave assurance of its own truth. It follows that doubt, or the fear of being mistaken, testifies as soon as it arises to our power of unmasking error, and that it could never finally tear us away from truth. We are in the realm of truth\u201d.<\/a>[46<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

All of this is linked to an acknowledgment that a medium, be it painting or literature, even philosophical writing, later also television news, is not transparent, it is not a window through which we get a look at the truth out there. This actually did not first take place with the linguistic turn in the twentieth century. It was indicated much earlier, through the seventeenth century representation or even with Renaissance\u2019s constructions of landscapes on two-dimensional screens (or even earlier, as this technique was also mastered by the Ancient Romans). What happened with the linguistic turn and with linguistic philosophy in the twentieth century is instead the deepening of this epistemological crisis, this distrust in the mission and operation of searching for objective truth or the proper way to such truth. This was recognized in hermeneutics and phenomenology, in linguistic philosophy, and most notably in structuralism and post-structuralism.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Vil\u00e9m Flusser establishes that technical images are not windows but images.<\/a>[47<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Here he follows from semiology. He summarizes what Roland Barthes claimed about photography. The medium of photography is particularly interesting since it seems to be the last fortress of the myth of media transparency, which was clearly defeated by semiology. Barthes demonstrated that the syntagm of the denoted message<\/em>, which is a message without a code (at least a conventional code), naturalizes the system of the connoted message <\/em>(where there are cultural codes at work).<\/a>[48<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> To make his theory clear, Barthes focuses on the advertising image, \u201cbecause in advertising the signification of the image is undoubtedly intentional; the signifieds of the advertising message are formed into a priori <\/em>by certain attributes of theproduct and these signifieds have to be transmitted as clearly as possible. If the image contains signs, we can be sure that in advertising these signs are full, formed with a view to the optimum reading: the advertising image is frank<\/em>, or at least emphatic.<\/em>\u201d<\/a>[49<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> The issue Barthes deals with is: how does meaning enter an image, if the image is a re-presentation, a repeated presentation, i.e. a copy (because, according to ancient etymology, the word image<\/em> shouldbe linked to the root imitari<\/em>)?His formulation of the question is rhetorical: \u201c<\/em>Can the analogical representation (the \u2018copy\u2019) produce true systems of signs and not merely simple agglutinations of symbols?\u201d<\/a>[50<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> And this is how Flusser comprehends images: \u201cImages are not \u2018denotative\u2019 (unambiguous) complexes of symbols (like numbers, for example) but \u2018connotative\u2019 (ambiguous) complexes of symbols: they provide space for interpretation.\u201d<\/a>[51<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> We can see that technical images are no windows, but images for Flusser, therefore they do not support the regime of perspicere<\/em>. Furthermore, Flusser links the concept of images to that of projections. Images are abstractions of \u201csomething out there,\u201d they make it comprehensible to us \u2013 we could even call this process codification<\/em>. Flusser writes that the \u201cspecific ability to abstract surfaces out of space and time and to project them back into space and time is what is known as \u2018imagination.\u2019\u201d<\/a>[52<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Therefore, \u201c[t]he world is our projection.\u201d<\/a>[53<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Imagination is the precondition for the production and decoding of images or \u201cthe ability to encode phenomena into two-dimensional symbols and to read these symbols.\u201d<\/a>[54<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Production and particularly distribution of images does not mean revealing the truth and opening up surfaces to enable insights into the depth of this truth, but rather projecting the connotations, the complexes of symbols, which are not even decoded any more: \u201cHuman beings cease to decode the images and instead project them, still encoded, into the world \u2018out there\u2019\u2026 Human beings forget they created the images in order to orientate themselves in the world. Since they are no longer able to decode them, their lives become a function of their own images: imagination has turned into hallucination.\u201d<\/a>[55<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> This is how we have come into the service or function of our own products.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

There is a crucial difference between traditional and technical images, according to Flusser: \u201cOntologically, traditional images are abstractions of the first order insofar as they abstract from the concrete world while technical images are abstractions of the third order: they abstract from texts which abstract from traditional images which themselves abstract from the concrete world\u2026 Ontologically, traditional images signify phenomena whereas technical images signify concepts.\u201d<\/a>[56<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> This comprehension could be linked to the epistemes discussed earlier: traditional images were linked to the world out there, they were resemblances; according to Foucault, they belong to the Renaissance episteme. By contrast, technical images are representations; they build upon the project started with the classical episteme. They don\u2019t signify things out there; they are thus not transparent windows, but rather representations of concepts. They build a conventional communication system, as in language. However, there is a difference between language and technical images for Flusser: \u201cTechnical images are difficult to decode\u2026 their significance is reflected on their surface: just like fingerprints, where the significance (the finger) is the cause and the image (copy) is the consequence.\u201d<\/a>[57<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Technical images are tricky because they seem to resemble, they appear to copy the world out there, but they are in fact encoded meanings. Therefore, Flusser notices a magical functioning within the technical images. This was, however, detected earlier by Walter Benjamin in his recognition of photography and film as the loci<\/em> of ideology: \u201cThe function of technical images is to liberate their receivers by magic from the necessity of thinking conceptually, at the same time replacing historical consciousness with a second-order magical consciousness and replacing the ability to think conceptually with a second-order imagination.\u201d<\/a>[58<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Technical images displace texts. The invention of photography is thus a historical event equally decisive as the invention of writing for Flusser. If history has been a struggle against idolatry, then with photography post-history begins as a struggle against textolatry. This is how Flusser speaks about the visual turn.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

With the visual turn, technical images are now projected onto the world out there, although the concepts or ideologies involved are no longer under our control; they are produced and distributed faster than they can be comprehended, but they still function, the ideology still gets to work. Flusser has noticed textolatry in Christianity and Marxism: \u201cTexts are then projected into the world out there, and the world is experienced, known and evaluated as a function of these texts.\u201d<\/a>[59<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> But in worshiping texts, or rather distributing the concepts encoded in texts with the distribution of the text itself, the projection was still rational, intentional, organized, whereas in the case of the new media projection we now become the functions of apparatuses.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

We have exposed photography as the medium seemingly the most transparent to an attack demonstrating how this is actually a deception. However, photography still has a connection to the scene \u201cout there,\u201d just as the television news. What we wish to emphasize is that these are all conventional discourses, ones that are well organized; there are strategies of containment at work (to borrow John Fiske\u2019s term).<\/a>[60<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> We put an accent on the importance of constructiveness. Marshall McLuhan recognized cubism as the art movement that clearly performed the critique of media transparency, demonstrating that the \u201cmedium is the message.\u201d Analytical cubism clearly displayed the process of analyzing a scene that took place during the process of painting, thus the painting was already very much about the painting. But it was synthetic cubism<\/em> which truly ceased to be about the world \u201cout there\u201d and instead became the occasion for mastering the world by mastering painting itself. In terms of what we have discussed so far, we could say that synthetic cubism broke with the idea of the transparency of painting (if it was still alive at that time for any reason) as clearly as possible and manifested the constructive nature of painting. But, in regard to our interest, let\u2019s pay a bit more attention to the concept of synthesis<\/em>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Etymologically, the term originates from Gr. synthesis<\/em> meaning composition, from syntithenai<\/em> meaning put together, combine (syn<\/em>-: together and tithenai<\/em>: put, place). In seventeenth century Lat. synthesis<\/em> meant composition, set, collection, and from nineteenth century synthetic<\/em> refers to products or materials made artificially by chemical synthesis, hence artificial. As demonstrated by the example of synthetic cubism, synthesis is not perspicere<\/em>, looking through, into. It is about dominating the medium and thus the world, with taking particles from the world and constructing a new composition. It is the technique of synthesis which is at work in photo-collage, film montage and in assemblage. And it is the latter that presents the model of the rhizome for Deleuze and Guattari. Synthesis brings together diverse elements; it builds a world of heterogeneity. Baroque and Rococo\u2019s visual and decorative arts operated with synthesis in order to form new realities, worlds, new living beings, chimeras. And it is precisely the technique of synthesis that has become crucial in biology and which transforms biology from science to technology. Biology has become another field of engineering, one that engineers living structures.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Synthetic biology is a recently enthroned field of knowledge-engineering, with the application of computing to biology.<\/a>[61<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> The leading researchers in the field do not necessarily originate from the field of biology, but could also be computer scientists, which testifies to the transdisciplinarity of the field: it joins biology with computer sciences, chemistry and various technologies. For Ron Weiss (MIT), one of the founders of the field, the idea of synthetic biology is to glue together the DNA parts, which you can even get online. The biological parts with DNA sequences of defined structure and function, designed to be composed and incorporated into living cells, are called BioBricks. They are used to assemble bio circuits. The biological circuits program biological machines. They can make programmatic orders, for example: make a protein that creates blue coloring. One of the prospects of synthetic biology in medical application is to repair human tissue using bacteria. In medicine, synthetic biology promises imminent solutions with the technique of disease targeting, which would function in this way: IF cancer cell, THEN make protein that kills cancer cell, ELSE go away. Some fear that the body would recognize the genetically modified cell as a non-self and would react, for example, with a rejection or with forming a new type of cancer. To prevent this from happening, synthetic engineers see two solutions: 1) using the proteins that come from the body \u2013 this could then make an interesting contribution to the paradigm of regenerative medicine \u2013 or 2) building molecular computers, which would be capable of building the function into the RNA, thus the body would recognize it as self. MIT has built targeting technology that works in vitro, but has not yet been applied to a human body. Researchers from Stanford University focus on developing a molecular computer that could control the immune response with molecular controllers enforcing the survival proliferation of T cells (T lymphocytes), which is a process reverse to apoptosis. They believe that the new generation therapies will use this type of strategy. NASA has developed a method of targeting: synthetic organisms are to be put into the body to treat astronauts for radiation. The idea is to use engineered bacteria and combine the technique with nanotechnology: a bio capsule composed of carbon nano tubes responds to radiation and releases the therapeutic molecule. This means we are expecting a new sort of cyborg. A new field is emerging in the intersection with electrical engineering: synthetic neurobiology. The scientists at the MIT electronics laboratories (Ed Boyden) are working on developing new kinds of computers and are attempting to engineer the most complex computer \u2013 the brain. They are trying to control electrical pulses so as to be able to input information in a manner similar to inputting information into computer circuits. In order to achieve this, they use illuminators, i.e. lasers. Using the algae\u2019s ability to photosynthesize, the light pulses are converted into electricity; the proteins hit by light generate electrical pulses to control neurons. This introduction of control of the brain has been tested on mice, but not yet applied to humans. The technology seems promising for treating Alzheimer\u2019s disease.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The field of synthetic biology is actually not much different from genetic engineering \u2013 both are genetic programming, i.e. encoding a function within the DNA. Synthetic biology thus sees a challenge in finding out how to encode a specific function within the DNA. It is no wonder that one of the central figures in the field of synthetic biology was one of the central figures in the human genome sequencing project. Craig Venter has been intensively involved in synthetic genomics since 2005. He has a long-lasting belief that genomics have the power to radically change healthcare (he has recently become aware that genomics also have the power to revolutionize economy: he has worked on applying synthetically modified microorganisms to industry, particularly to the development of the next-generation biofuels). Venter is aiming to create a life form (Mycroplasma laboratorium). In 2010, his team announced (Science<\/em>) that they created \u201cSynthia,\u201d a kind of bacteria that never existed in nature. They successfully synthesized the genome of the bacterium Mycoplasma mycoides<\/em> from a computer record, and the synthesized genome was then transplanted into a cell of Mycoplasma capricolum<\/em> bacterium, from which the DNA was removed. In other words, a long DNA molecule containing an entire bacterium genome was plugged into the computer, where it was manipulated as computer software. The scientists then extracted and discarded the DNA from a similar cell and finally they introduced the created DNA into the emptied cell. The parent of \u201cSynthia\u201d is a computer which came into physical existence as a DNA print. The boundaries between the computed and the biological literally blur. The creation has been referred to as \u201csynthetic life\u201d. However, despite the success in creating heavily customized genomes, Paul Keim notes that \u201c[t]here are great challenges ahead before genetic engineers can mix, match, and fully design an organism\u2019s genome from scratch.\u201d<\/a>[62<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Among the prospects in the field of synthetic biology, perhaps the most radical perspective comes from the so-called re-writers, who believe that the natural biological systems are so complicated that we should better rebuild them from scratch, in a manner providing engineered surrogates which we could better understand and interact with. The idea comes from computer sciences, where code refactoring is a technique used to restructure the code with altering its internal structure without changing its external behavior, in order to improve the code\u2019s readability and reduce its complexity for the improvement of the source code, as well as the improvement of its extensibility.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In the late 1980s Flusser discussed the issue of \u201cbecoming godlike\u201d with regard to biotechnology. According to his theory, if a form that had never existed before were created, this would be a true creation<\/em>. The ambition to \u201ccreate life\u201d is either \u201cplaying God\u201d or mimesis<\/em> in the Aristotelian sense, i.e. the ambition to resemble the performance of Mother Nature, in this case her ultimate performance of the origin of life. The evolution of living creatures after their creation could be interpreted as the realization of God\u2019s wish, thus the living beings have developed according to a program. Since the human species has recently acquired the self-confidence in understanding this program well enough to be able to intervene in it, change it or even apply its own program through the methods of engineering. All sorts of living structures: bodies, cyborgs, microorganisms, cells and tissues, as well as each and every population of species, including humans, have become decisively dependent on the program applied to the whole of this living world by humans. We are witnessing a new chapter of biopower.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

According to Flusser, variational creation is a method of a lot of work being done using computers, but also biotechnology: \u201cBiotechnics is doing the same thing natural evolution does \u2013 variational creativity, the sole difference being that it does its work not by chance but according to a deliberate program.\u201d<\/a>[63<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Variational creation operates within the given possibilities, one could say within the natural apparatus, similar to how Flusser once deliberated on the pictures produced within the apparatus of photography, that every particular realization within this program exists as a potential, even if it will never be actually realized: \u201cEvery shape in which Earth\u2019s living beings could manifest themselves is encoded within the existing genetic information as a potential, a virtuality.\u201d<\/a>[64<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> If Flusser is to introduce the same logic he used in Towards Philosophy of Photography<\/em>, then he must appreciate the resistance to the program, which is to be performed by the creative agent \u2013 the artist.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

If we accept Flusser\u2019s notion of true creation as the creation of living forms that have never existed before, then many products could be regarded as true creations. However, there is an original dimension of his concept, which refers to the concept of resistance to the program of the apparatus. He does not require creation of life from non-living matter, but also accepts the adding of noise<\/em> into the communication of information. The notion of noise comes from information theory, and traditionally noise was considered an unintended and unwanted element in the communication process, which aimed at communicating the signal in its purest sense. Thus, the ordinary aim would be to purify the signal<\/em> of noise<\/em>. But if one is discussing communication critically, recognizing certain forms of communication as intended communication at work in the consolidation of dominant ideologies, then noise in such communication is to be welcomed. Such is the concept of the forces of disruption in the television discourse by John Fiske,<\/a>[65<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> which actually consist of the noise disrupting the communication of the dominant message, the intended message of the television news. In a similar sense, art can be understood as noise in an existing discourse, subverting or revealing the logic of the dominant ideologies present within that discourse. In this context, adding noise would mean making a disturbance in the program, resisting the apparatus of power<\/em>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

According to this conception, art is not so much about creating<\/em> as it is about resisting<\/em>. In Flusser\u2019s case, creation and resistance are intertwined; they are one and the same process. So far so good, but Flusser then takes quite a surprising stance in this regard: it is not necessarily an artist at work creating, it could be a biotechnologist. This is only possible if biotechnology is itself understood as resisting the program, and obviously this is how he understands it. Biotechnology is resisting the \u201cprogram\u201d of the \u201capparatus\u201d of nature. But it itself has a deliberate program, according to which it does its work, thus obviously being an apparatus itself. This takes place precisely because of the theory directing the work, the concept leading to utilization, its applicability, in short: its dimension of engineering is making biotechnology resist the program of nature. But who resists the program of biotechnology? Flusser aims to contribute a defense of creativity whereat true creativity does not take place within the framework of the apparatus or according to the plan, but ensures surprises, it is about intervening into the existing processes taking place according to their program. Creativity is therefore a subversive act. For Flusser, the biotechnologist and the artist seem to become one and the same person. Resistance is directed towards nature. But if biotechnology is itself an apparatus, who resists it? Who is the creator who resists fitting into the machinery producing the variations of the program of biotechnology?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cWho will be the Disney of the future?\u201d Flusser asks and answers: \u201cHe or she might, I suggest, be a molecular biologist.\u201d<\/a>[66<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Disney not only paints the world in his colors, the way Pink Panther does, but he is the one holding the pencil, the one who organizes the whole of the work from the concept to the final realization; Disney is an engineer<\/em>. But what is the role of the engineer within the apparatus of biotechnology? According to Flusser, the engineer has the potential of being the true creator; he might be able to play God, thus being the subversive element in the game of nature. Etymologically, the term engineer appears in the early fourteenth century and means the constructor of military engines, it originates from the Old French engigneor<\/em>, from Latin ingeniare<\/em>; the term ingenium<\/em> meaning the inborn qualities, talent. The term is linked to the term engine, a mechanical device, but also skill, craft, from the Old French term from the twelfth century engin<\/em> meaning skill, cleverness, but also trick, deceit, stratagem; war machine.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/a>[37<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Michel Foucault, The Order of Things<\/em> (London, New York: Routledge, 2005), p. 51. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[38<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Gilles Deleuze, F\u00e9lix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia<\/em> (London, New York: Continuum, 2005), p. 11. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[39<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Michel Foucault, The Order of Things<\/em>, p. 48. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[40<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., p. 57. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[41<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Ren\u00e9 Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy<\/em> (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 21. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[42<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., p. 53. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[43<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., p. 47. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[44<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., p. 48. Descartes, however, admits to the frequency with which his mind is puzzled because he cannot fix his mental vision continually on the same thing so as to keep perceiving it clearly, thus the memory of a judgment made previously may often come back when he is no longer attending to the arguments which led him to make it. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[45<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception<\/em> (London, New York: Routledge, 2005), p. 7. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[46<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., p. xviii. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[47<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Vil\u00e9m Flusser, Towards a Philosophy of Photography<\/em> (London: Reaktion Books, 2000), p. 16. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[48<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Roland Barthes, \u201cRhetoric of the Image,\u201d in: Image-Music-Text<\/em> (New York: Hill & Wang, 1964), p. 51. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[49<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., p. 33. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[50<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., p. 32. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[51<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Vil\u00e9m Flusser, Towards a Philosophy of Photography<\/em>, p. 8. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[52<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[53<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Vil\u00e9m Flusser, Writings <\/em>(Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press, 2002), p. 90. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[54<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Vil\u00e9m Flusser, Towards a Philosophy of Photography<\/em>, p. 8. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[55<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., p. 10. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[56<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., p. 14. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[57<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[58<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., p. 17. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[59<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., p. 12. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[60<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> John Fiske, Television Culture<\/em> (London, New York: Routledge, 1987), chapter 15: \u201cNews Readings, News Readers,\u201d 281\u2013308. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[61<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> The term synthetic biology was actually introduced a century ago (St\u00e9phane Leducs, 1910). The field became promising in the 1970s: Waclaw Szybalski was aware that it had an unlimited expansion potential with the possibility to devise new control elements and add them to the existing genomes or build up entire new genomes. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[62<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Elizabeth Pennisi<\/a>, \u201cSynthetic Genome Brings New Life to Bacterium\u201d, Science<\/em>, 21 May 2010: Vol. 328, No. 5981, pp. 958\u2013959. <http:\/\/www.sciencemag.org\/content\/328\/5981\/958.full> 7-5-2012 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[63<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Vil\u00e9m Flusser, \u201cOn Discovery,\u201d in: Artforum<\/em>, New York, Vol. 27, No. 7 (March 1988), p. 14\u201315. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[64<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Vil\u00e9m Flusser, \u201cOn Discovery,\u201d in: Artforum<\/em>, New York, Vol. 27, No. 10 (Summer 1988), p. 18. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[65<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> John Fiske, Television Culture<\/em>, 281\u2013308. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[66<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> Vil\u00e9m Flusser, \u201cOn Discovery,\u201d in: Artforum<\/em>, New York, Vol. 27, No. 2 (October 1988), p. 9. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Literatura:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Fiske, John:\u00a0 Television Culture<\/em>, Routledge, London, New York,\u00a0 1987.<\/p>\n

Flusser, Vilem:\u00a0 Writings<\/em>, Minneapolis, London,\u00a0 University of Minnesota Press, 2002. <\/p>\n

Flusser, Vilem:\u00a0\u00a0 Towards a Philosophy of Photography,<\/em> Reaktion Books, London, 2002. <\/p>\n

Foucault, Michel:\u00a0 The Order of Things,<\/em> Routledge,<\/em> London, New York, 2005.<\/p>\n

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice:\u00a0 Phenomenology of Perception<\/em>,\u00a0 Routledge, London, New York, 2005.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Medijski in tehnolo\u0161ki obrat: resnica, oblast in odporni\u0161tvo<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sa\u017eetak<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Avtorica posve\u010da pozornost dvema zelo aktualnima predmetoma sodobnega humanisti\u010dnega raziskovanja: medijem in tehnologiji, ter preizpra\u0161uje povezana obrata in njune korelacije.
\u0160iritev debate o medijih pri\u010da o kompleksnosti tega fenomena in povezanih vpra\u0161anjih. Poststrukturalisti, kot tudi avtorji kulturnih in medijskih \u0161tudijev, so pripoznali, da medij ni nikoli transparenten in nevtralen vmesnik, ki re-prezentira realnost, ki bi obstajala tam \u010dez. Medij ni mediator, temve\u010d mesto resnice. Tisti, ki operira z medijem, operira z resnico. S terminom medijski obrat se avtorica nana\u0161a na ta epistemolo\u0161ki obrat.
V sodobnosti smo pri\u010de tudi vzponu debat o tehnologiji. Tehnologija intervenira v \u201cnaravno\u201d in razvija nikoli obstoje\u010de sisteme, s \u010dimer se odpira vpra\u0161anje ultimativne ustvarjalnosti ali bo\u017eanskosti, \u0161e zlasti v navezavi na sintezno biologijo. Avtorica premisli vzvode in funkcioniranje sodobne tehnologije in preizpra\u0161a vse bolj vplivno teorijo, da tehnologija ni podrejena \u010dloveku, temve\u010d obratno, so ljudje postali funkcionarji tehnologije. Predlaga, da to poimenujemo tehnolo\u0161ki obrat.<\/em> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Klju\u010dne rije\u010di:<\/em><\/strong> medijski obrat, tehnolo\u0161ki obrat, sintezna biologija, in\u017eenirstvo, odporni\u0161ka umetnost, kreativnost. <\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n
\"inmediasresno3malo\"<\/p>\n

\n  2(3)#14 2013<\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n\"Creative<\/a>
\u010casopis je otvorenog pristupa, a ovo djelo je dano na kori\u0161tenje pod licencom Creative Commons Imenovanje-Nekomercijalno 4.0 me\u0111unarodna.<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

UDK 398:004.7
Pregledni \u010dlanak
Review article
\nPrimljeno: 12.6.2013.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u017deljko Rutovi\u0107<\/span><\/p>\n

Ministarstvo kulture Crne Gore, Direktorat za medije
\nzeljko.rutovic@mku.gov.me<\/p>\n

Tradicionalna umjetnost u doba multimedije i mre\u017enih komunikacija<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n


\nPuni tekst: pdf (226 KB), Hrvatski, Str. 288 – 295
\n<\/span><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sa\u017eetak<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Digitalno doba otvorilo je neslu\u0107ene mogu\u0107nosti izra\u017eavanja, percepcije i \u010ditanja umjetnosti. Estetski kriterijumi imanentni modelima tradicionalne umjetnosti transformi\u0161u se u novu pojmovnost koja je saobrazna tehnikama brze produkcije i distribucije. Svijet multimre\u017enih komunikacija i velikih tehnolo\u0161kih preokreta rezultira metamorfozom samog koncepta i do\u017eivljaja pojma umjetnosti. Zna\u010di umjetnost sve vi\u0161e izlazi iz standarda i okvira tradicionalnih na\u010dina izra\u017eavanja, tj. estetskih i vrijednosnih pozicija smisla umjetnosti. Van medijske amblematike tradicionalnog linearnog progresa, savremena mre\u017ena znakovnost shodno svojoj ontologiji dekonstrui\u0161e usiljena ustrojstva poetika formalizma, uspostavljuju\u0107i fenomenologiju inovativnog diskursa problemski situiranog u autorefleksiji pluralnosti znaka kao komunikacione monete \u010dovjekovog percipiranja (nad)realnog. Multimedijalna umjetnost neposredna je sa estetskim i komunikacionim konstruktima koji deformuli\u0161u posredni\u010dke uloge , to je dimenzija otvorenosti i pomjeranja granica vi\u0111enih na antipodu predstava o neupitanoj trajnosti.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Klju\u010dne rije\u010di:<\/em><\/strong> digitalno doba, tehnolo\u0161ki egalitarizam, ekonomska globalzacija, novi tip umjetnika.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Uvod<\/strong><\/p>\n

Digitalno doba otvorilo je neslu\u0107ene mogu\u0107nosti izra\u017eavanja, percepcije, \u0161irenja i \u010ditanja umjetnosti, ukupno reorganizacije suvremenog odnosa umjetnik- medij, pa tako posredstvom dru\u0161tvenih mre\u017ea umjetnici promoviraju svoj rad daleko br\u017ee nego ranije u odnosu na period administrativne dominacije institucija kulture. Sve br\u017ea razmjena elemenata informati\u010dke vizualnosti tj. razvoj mre\u017ene medijske prakse utje\u010du na razvoj \u017eanra umjetnosti koji se obilje\u017eava zajedni\u010dkim nazivnikom \u2013 virtualna umjetnost, koja uspostavlja novu estetiku smisla, potpuno otvorenu za sve umjetni\u010dke sadr\u017eaje i postupke. Estetski kriteriji imanentni modelima tradicionalne umjetnosti transformiraju se u novu pojmovnost koja je saobrazna tehnikama brze produkcije i distribucije. Svijet multimre\u017enih komunikacija i velikih tehnolo\u0161kih preokreta rezultira metamorfozom samog koncepta do\u017eivljaja i promi\u0161ljanja pojma umjetnosti. Transformacija tradicionalne umjetnosti pod utjecajem multimedije zanimljiva je zbog varijacija koje nudi, nezavisno jesu li u pitanju varijacije u ideji, konceptu ili na\u010dinu izra\u017eavanja, one su demokratske, otvorene i komunikacijski progresivne.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Zna\u010di, posredovana \u201etehnolo\u0161kim egalitarizmom\u201c umjetnost sve vi\u0161e izlazi iz standarda i okvira tradicionalnih na\u010dina izra\u017eavanja, tj. estetskih i vrijednosnih pozicija smisla umjetnosti, \u0161to nu\u017eno vodi i k promjeni perceptivnog iskustva promatra\u010da na \u0161to utje\u010de preobra\u017eaj umjetni\u010dkog djela u virtualnom prostoru.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Izvan medijske amblematike tradicionalnog linearnog progresa, suvremena mre\u017ena znakovnost  shodno svojoj ontologiji dekonstruira  usiljena    ustrojstva poetike formalizma, uspostavljaju\u0107i fenomenologiju inovativnog diskursa  problemski situiranog u autorefleksiji pluralnosti znaka kao komunikacione monete \u010dovjekovog percipiranja (nad)realnog.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 Multimedijalna umjetnost neposredna je s estetskim i komunikacijskim konstruktima koji deformuliraju posredni\u010dke uloge, to je dimenzija otvorenosti i pomjeranja granica vi\u0111enih na antipodu predstava o neupitanoj trajnosti, te je otuda potreban dijalog o socio-kulturolo\u0161kom karakteru odnosa digitalnih medija i umjetnosti. U tom smislu ne manje, iniciraju se i promjene kulturnih modela i potrage za novim identitetima posve heterogenih platformi. No, u svakom slu\u010daju svjedoci smo razlike izme\u0111u ve\u0107 povijesne estetske paradigme visokog modernizma i aktualne metamoderne predilekcije vizualne postmoderne umjetnosti.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

-II-<\/p>\n

Pojam tradicionalnog i tradicije prolazi kroz period krize, transformacije zna\u010denjskog smisla i vrijednosnog ishodi\u0161ta kulturologije jednog tradicionalnog toposa. \u201eNa\u010deta\u201c arhitektura poretka tradicionalnog lan\u010dano se prenosi na dru\u0161tvene skupove, odnosno, oblike ljudskog izra\u017eavanja. O\u010ditost diskontinuiteta tradicionalnog s posebnim osvrtom na polje izra\u017eajnog ili perceptivno komunikativno-vizualnog uvjetovala je ili rezultirala novim pojmovnim instrumentarijem nu\u017enim za spoznaju kreativnog izraza. Zato, u dokidanju tradicionalnog pisma, umjetnost nije izop\u0107enik, ona je samo ili prije svega refleks ubrzane transformacije samog dru\u0161tva. \u0160to \u010demu prethodi ili \u0161to iz \u010dega nastaje gotovo je periferno pitanje u odnosu na \u010dinjeni\u010dne datosti koje obilje\u017eavaju i prostor i vrijeme. Iako se pojam \u010dinjeni\u010dnog ne inkorporira u svojstvo umjetni\u010dkog, ipak govorimo na i o terenu multimedijalnog mre\u017enog u kojem sve vi\u0161e numeracija nadrasta egzaltaciju. Tako situirana na terenu problemskog redefiniranja tradicionalnog, diskusija o umjetnosti dobiva svoju generalnu postavku \u010diji pravci na kraju jesu polja dijalo\u0161ke posve\u0107enosti i pristupa u analizi ovog fenomena. Predmetni fokus teme nu\u017eno korespondira s kauzalitetom relacionog diskursa \u010dovjek-dru\u0161tvo, te ga otuda treba (i) u tom pravcu koherentnim za analizu pojmiti. Brzi razvoj tehnologije preoblikovao je obrasce tradicionalne umjetnosti, pa su tako ma\u0161ine kao nova reprezentativnost i \u201eumjetna inteligencija\u201c dobile svoje mjesto na sceni, donose\u0107i tako na autenti\u010dan na\u010din neku novu formu umjetni\u010dkog do\u017eivljaja. Primjera radi, dovoljno je vidjeti performans japanske umjetni\u010dke grupe Maywa Denkija. \u010clanovi benda su robot bubnjar, drugi svira gitaru i jo\u0161 poneki tradicionalni japanski instrument. Mogu\u0107e ga je vidjeti i na Youtubeu pod naslovom \u201eTsukuba series\u201c.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Postmoderna svijest izmi\u010de strogom etabliranom odre\u0111enju tradicionalne umjetnosti, iz razloga \u0161to polje vizualne percepcije transponira posve razli\u010dite nazore umjetni\u010dkog. Nezavisno do\u017eivljavaju li se mediji kao \u201ematerijalna dru\u0161tvena praksa\u201c (R. Williams 1977:158-164) ili ih kao sveprisutne otkrivamo u kompjuterizaciji dru\u0161tva (L. Manovich 2001) u oba slu\u010daja kako to isti\u010de W.J.T Mitchell, slike su njihova \u201eprimarna moneta\u201c (2007:179), koja nezavisno od na\u010dina pojavnog umjetni\u010dkog, kanalizira nove oblike komunikacijskog sustava, koje poti\u010du kulturalitet svojih kreativnih formi. Mogu\u0107nost dvozna\u010dnosti \u010ditanja tradicionalnog u svijetu multimedijalnog dodatno je stvarala\u010dko u razlaganju i prevladavanju unutarnjih kontradiktornosti razli\u010ditih izra\u017eajnih poetika. Uostalom, ljudska priroda je satkana od samih proturje\u010dnosti, \u0161to i u filozofskom smislu oboga\u0107uje umjetni\u010dku naraciju.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Ako se ovim tezama pridru\u017ei robni karakter umjetnosti u dobu ekonomske globalizacije, onda se nova pojmovnost mre\u017enih komunikacija situacijski dovodi u dijalo\u0161ko polje tradicionalnog i multimedijalnog postmodernog. Sve ovo su polazi\u0161ta koja problematiziraju predstavljanja umjetni\u010dkih tradicionalnih diskursa, odnosno, definiranja novih umjetni\u010dkih digitalno-reprezentativnih formi potpomognutih ma\u0161inama. Strojevi su uostalom dobili svoje mjesto na sceni i na autenti\u010dan na\u010din unose neku novu formu umjetni\u010dkog do\u017eivljaja. Prapo\u010deci kori\u0161tenja  robota u umjetnosti datiraju iz kineske civilizacije i to jo\u0161 od tre\u0107eg stolje\u0107a prije nove ere, za vrijeme vladavine dinastije Han. Tada su, naime, nastali prvi mehani\u010dki orkestri i igra\u010dke. Leonardo da Vinci je za potrebe jedne predstave kreirao lava robota koji je imao zadatak isporu\u010divati cvije\u0107e iz svojih grudi. Sedma umjetnost svoju opsjednutost \u201eumjetnom inteligencijom\u201c u filmovima po\u010dinje krajem sedamdesetih godina pro\u0161log stolje\u0107a iskorakom u budu\u0107nost pod nazivom \u201eOdiseja u svemiru 2001\u201c<\/em>, redatelja Stanleya Kubricka.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Ovo su samo podsje\u0107anja na \u201edoprinos\u201c kompjuterske imaginacije u umjetnosti koja je danas vi\u0161e nego stvarna. Promi\u0161ljanje i stvaranje umjetni\u010dkog uz pomo\u0107 novih tehnologija problematizira okvire su\u0161tine institucionalnog stvarala\u0161tva, na njemu oblikovanih shema i komunikacijskog diskursa s konzumentima. Robert Moog <\/em>u ovom kontekstu ka\u017ee: \u201eKompjuterska kultura zahtijeva novi tip umjetnika<\/em>\u201c. O tom pogledu Moog dalje razvija svoju misao: \u201eKompjuterski programeri su postali novi tip umjetnika. Njihov potencijal je kreativnost. Njihova umjetnost mo\u017ee biti program. Softver je \u201enajvru\u0107a\u201c roba kompjuterske kulture, proizvod kreativnog procesa. Umjetnici razli\u010ditih umjetni\u010dkih rodova kompjuterom nisu primili samo novo oru\u0111e, nego i \u201enovi na\u010din mi\u0161ljenja\u201c. Moog nagla\u0161ava da, pored onog konceptualnog mi\u0161ljenja, kompjuteriziran umjetni\u010dki proces objedinjuje \u201eisto tako i matemati\u010dko-logi\u010dko mi\u0161ljenje<\/em>\u201c (prema: Z.Raj\u010devi\u0107, Virtuelni umetnik 2011:46<\/em>). Prije pojave op\u0107eelektronskih tehnologija i prije globalnog umre\u017eavanja umjetnost se doga\u0111ala unutar same realnosti. No, uslijed rascjepa izme\u0111u tradicionalne umjetnosti i svijeta multimedija poni\u0161tava se i realnost kao takva, \u0161to dovodi do isku\u0161enja percepcije multimedijske slike umjetnosti od svijeta same izvorne umjetnosti. Ra\u010dunla i razli\u010diti softveri pru\u017eaju privid, bez uvida u iskustvo i mo\u0107 opa\u017eanja umjetni\u010dkog detalja. Otuda ne slu\u010dajno, multimedija ukr\u0161ta ili preple\u0107e razli\u010dite umjetni\u010dke stilske i \u017eanrovske karakteristike. Va\u017ee\u0107e definicije kulture, umjetnosti, publike i autora postaju tako re\u0107i anakrone. Tom anakronizmu doprinosi digitalno mre\u017ena tehnologija koja omogu\u0107uje bilo kome autorstvo, promociju i distribuciju svojih kreacija posredstvom ra\u010dunala. \u201eNovi milenij svjedo\u010di o pove\u0107anju vitalnosti svijeta novomedijske umjetnosti, one umjetnosti, koja je medijatizirana na digitalnim osnovama i to \u010desto s internetom kao svojom platformom. Ova perspektivna umjetnost, koja u velikoj mjeri vu\u010de svoje porijeklo od sve vi\u0161e tehnolo\u0161ki zavisnog dru\u0161tva, ne samo da suo\u010dava tradicionalne kreativne medije i pravce razmi\u0161ljanja, nego isto tako umjetnicima i kulturnim radnicima postavlja nova pitanja, uzimaju\u0107i u obzir \u0161iroke sfere suvremenog \u017eivota<\/em>\u201c. (http:\/\/newmediabeijing.org\/md2006\/index:php:anonim:introductionthenewmillenniumdialogue)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Tehno-umjetnost uspostavlja svoj kanon i svoju estetiku, ujedna\u010davaju\u0107i globalni centar i periferiju, od ravni komentara ona prerasta u stasalost izra\u017eavanja ukr\u0161tavaju\u0107i umjetnost s tehnolo\u0161kim dostignu\u0107ima. Tako, primjera radi, predstave vizualnih umjetnika iz \u201eANTIVJ\u201c grupe, internacionalne umjetni\u010dke dru\u017eine \u010dije je svjetlosne spektakle revolucionarnim proglasila odu\u0161evljena publika od SAD-a do Australije, ne bi bile mogu\u0107e bez slobodnog softvera tj. otvorene softverske zajednice. Virtualno-konvergentni prostor osloba\u0111a umjetnika institucionalne tradicionalnosti upu\u0107uju\u0107i ga na novo promi\u0161ljanje nove konceptualnosti i nove kontekstualnosti jednog novog kreativnog procesa. Tuma\u010denje i oblikovanje umjetni\u010dkog djela dobiva time i novu prostornost i novo promi\u0161ljanje onoga \u0161to se percipira umjetni\u010dkim tekstom. Obja\u0161njavanje djela jest vizura novog gledi\u0161ta, novih instrumenata u kojima se prelamaju i konvergiraju autor, njegovo djelo i konzument djela. U interaktivnosti se transformira i tekst i sam stvarala\u010dki subjekt. Topos umjetni\u010dke multimedije dijalo\u0161ki je konotativan u \u0161irokoj platformi socijalnih paradigmi, izmje\u0161tenih izvan etablirane horizontalne dihotomije statusa poretka i mo\u0107i. Participacija kriti\u010dkog sudjelovanja ide u novim prostorima virtualnog istra\u017eiva\u010dkog tj. digitalnog stvarala\u0161tva koje simbolizira i karakterizira  mnogostrukost izraza. \u201eS nastupom digitalnog doba o\u017eivljavaju prve online zajednice u kojima su svi pisci bili \u010ditatelji i u kojima su svi \u010ditatelji mogli postati potencijalni pisci.<\/em>\u201c (Levinson, P 1998:129)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Zna\u010di, kroz novo oru\u0111e i novu tehniku treba do\u017eivljavati i novu pojmovnost, nove zna\u010denjske oblike i novu kulturologiju umjetni\u010dkog svijeta. Tehnolo\u0161ka utemeljenost umjetnika obara granice konvencionalnog pisma, stvaraju\u0107i novu globalnu fenomenologiju demokrati\u010dnosti transmisije medija. Ovim se \u017eeli re\u0107i da bazi\u010dne poetike i teorijske postavke tra\u017ee nove transmodularnosti u novim specifi\u010dnim prostorima izmje\u0161tenih uloga.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Nova prostornost oboga\u0107uje, implicira, sugerira i propituje. Izmje\u0161tanje lokalnog u globalni determinantni topos sadr\u017eajnog zna\u010denja, postavlja pitanja konkurencije, pokretljivosti i faktora vremena na novim semanti\u010dko-kulturolo\u0161kim zna\u010denjima. Umre\u017eenost komunikacijskih sustava je podjednako ovome i uzrok i posljedica. Emotivna iskustva i nostalgi\u010darske forme postoje onoliko koliko su ohrabruju\u0107a mjesta za novu sintetizaciju virtualnog, umjetni\u010dkog. Dizajniranje umjetni\u010dkog svijeta u krajnjem izrazu je dizajniranje nove hibridne stvarnosti, s prakti\u010dnom vrijedno\u0161\u0107u i bez nje. \u010citanje ovog diskursa mo\u017ee se tuma\u010diti i zamkom kompromisa u koju danas umjetnost u prostoru \u0161ireg dru\u0161tvenog interfejsa nu\u017eno upada.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Mre\u017ena komunikacija u svjetlu umjetni\u010dkog oblikovanja govori o potencijalnosti novog referiranja kroz generiranje simulacije unutar prostora digitalnog sustava. Receptivni sustavi percepcije i recepcije drugog u otvorenom mno\u0161tvu digitalnog iskaza otvaraju mogu\u0107nosti sprege odvojenih, ali mogu\u0107e i usporednih sistema zna\u010denja subjekta. U recepciji kao interpretaciji do\u017eivljaja artikuliranog kroz relacioni diskurs multimedijalnog potvr\u0111uju se principi deteritorijalizacije, demonopolizacije i destrukturizacije etabliranih institucionalnih konvencija. \u201eU novoj komunikacionoj eri, umjetnik nije vi\u0161e dovoljan samom sebi kao nekada, niti zatvoren u vlastiti mikrokozmos, ve\u0107 gra\u0111anin svijeta, otvoren prema razli\u010ditim idejama, tradicijama i kulturama<\/em>\u201c (Kne\u017eevi\u0107, Sofija 2007: 122:123)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Organizacijska i tehnolo\u0161ka izvo\u0111enja gube dominantnost bazi\u010dnih pretpostavki kao funkcionalnih jedinica participativne javnosti tj. uloga u procesima perceptivnog \u010dina. Zna\u010di, kroz jedan posve novi digitalno-tehnolo\u0161ki aspekt pojam umjetni\u010dkog revidira forme izlaza kao prostore umjetni\u010dkog jastva. Doga\u0111aj se proizvodi, dokida i realizira u novoj datosti, gdje se novi medij interaktivno (samo)definira i opredme\u0107uje u brojnim situacijskim relacijama \u010dovjek \u2013 stroj \u2013 okolina – javnost. Razli\u010ditost instrumenata, predvodi do novog iskustva, mogu\u0107nosti i samoreguliraju\u0107e svrhe (su)djelovanja svijeta praksi. Bazi\u010dni modeli tradicionalnog razlikovanja nisu i nu\u017enosti simuliranja \u010dina ili podr\u017eavanja \u010dulnog iskustva. Nova potencijalnost odnosa hardver-softver ozna\u010dava nove funkcionalnosti novih medija kao sustava za razmjenu umjetni\u010dkih poruka neuvjetovane unaprijed konstruiranim jedinstvima realizacije umjetni\u010dkog.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Mre\u017ea izvantradicionalno oficijelnih kanala institucija kulture, poti\u010de otvorenost globalne razmjene gdje je decentraliziranost bitna karakteristika razmjene sadr\u017eaja. Na tim postavkama \u201email art je ra\u0111en kao suprotstavljanje dosadnim umjetni\u010dkim \u0161kolama koje su stvorili trgovci, galeristi i kriti\u010dari koji su umjetnost uvijek gu\u0161ili i gube je; vr\u0161e pritisak svode\u0107i \u201eumjetni\u010dka traganja na puki ekonomski efekt\u201c (Kne\u017eevi\u0107, S. 2007:125)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Su\u0161tinski mre\u017ea transcendira alijenaciju umjetnosti uvode\u0107i je u topos komunikacijske alternative. Protivnici ove ekspresije ukazuju da je na taj na\u010din umjetnost depersonalizirana i li\u0161ena osobne intimnosti i dimenzionalnosti u prostoru. No, odnos  kreativnog i strojnog je vi\u0161eslojan, relaciono uvjetovan civilizacijskim predispozicijama, marketin\u0161kim pristupima i zakonom tr\u017ei\u0161ta. Logocentri\u010dnost ovog pitanja \u010desto izmi\u010de sferi objektivizacije pretvaraju\u0107i ovaj diskurs u dijalo\u0161ko polje, odnos biolo\u0161kog i tehnolo\u0161kog. Ali ovaj odnos decentralizirane i dematerijalizirane umjetnosti posredstvom mre\u017ee, razrje\u0161ava se pitanjem kvalitete samog djela, tj. nivoima komunikacije i reakcije sudionika na mre\u017ei.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Shodno problemskoj otvorenosti odnosa tradicionalne umjetnosti i kulture multimedija nu\u017enim se otvaraju pitanja koja svojom vokacijom, karakterom i predispozicijama zahva\u0107aju \u0161iri dijalo\u0161ki okvir. Neka od njih odnosila bi se na: sferu dominantnosti, sferu konfliktnosti, sferu otvorene perceptivnosti ovog dijalo\u0161kog polja, me\u0111usobnu uvjetovanost pro\u017eimaju\u0107eg u svojstvima i mo\u0107ima. Pitanje je determinira li se opa\u017eaj \u010dulnog, biolo\u0161kog, tehni\u010dkom kibernetskom i linearno korporativnom. Odnosno, da se tradicionalno regresira svojstvima u strojeve ili se pronalazi u novim opredme\u0107enim svojstvima i relacijama \u010dovjek-stroj.<\/p>\n