The Australian new media
arts sector has over the last twenty years evolved into a well-organised
and well-oiled machine. It is a community of connected and networked
individuals, marked by a strong engagement with an international
community and a drive to explore emergent ideas and technologies.
It is supported by a relatively robust educational, organisational
and funding infrastructure and is increasingly finding new outlets
for exhibition and exposure. But in reality, how healthy is the
field and are we beginning to see some terminal cracks in the
machine?
At the recent ISEA04 event [1],
staged across three locations (Helsinki, Tallinn and the Baltic
Sea) it appeared as if the international media art community
was ready to party. From the first moment, as 800 or so electro-savvy
individuals prepared to board the Silja Line ferry, there was
a buzz in the air like a meeting of the clan, a family reunion
or even just a chance to connect physically, in the same space
as one another.
The sense of community is a strong factor
within the international media arts scene, and meetings like
ISEA are important as they bring together practitioners, writers,
curators, producers and networkers in a face-to-face environment.
Increasingly, the make up of the crowd is changing – younger
players are bringing fresh ideas to a 20-year-old scene and the
dominance of the Euro-American nexus seems to be dissipating
(if only slightly).
The position of Australian media artists
and theorists within this international scenario is also undergoing
a significant shift – from its once distinct and visible
presence (both as artists and thinkers), to an arguably much
more low key and ‘quiet’ intervention. Australians
are still there, amongst the great networkers, but the presence
of the practice itself is not making the mark that it has in
the past.
The strongest presence of Australian practitioners
at ISEA was to be found on the ferry itself, with several new
works by artists including Josephine Starrs & Leon Cmielewski,
Symbiotica (with Sarah Jane Pell and Nigel Helyer), ICOLS, Kate
Richards and Sarah Waterson, plus the wonderful Séance by
Norie Neumark and Maria Miranda. All of these artists are significant
practitioners within the Australian new media arts community,
and placed within the context of the party ferry, many of the
works became a sort of colourful backdrop to the carnival.
Perhaps most disappointing was the lack
of Australian representation during the Symposium. Located in
both Tallin and Helsinki, the four days of intensive panel presentations,
keynotes, artist talks and forums included over 200 international
speakers. Out of those, about a dozen hailed from Australia with
none giving keynotes or significant papers.
The shift is perhaps not so much about
a lack of content being generated by Australian artists and theorists,
but rather that we are in fact not keeping up with our international
colleagues and peers. It is evident, especially in Europe and
North America, that new media arts practice is receiving significant
support through the development of media centres, educational
programs, research groups and exhibition centres. Serious resources
are being channelled into new media R&D and project development,
and with that a culture is emerging that is generating an international
output of conferences, events, artworks, publications, online
projects etc. The area could be reaching a saturation point,
but there seems to be no slowing down of new festivals, networked
projects, online resources, mailing lists and so on.
Australian practitioners are of course
part of this culture, and initiatives such as the empyre and fibreculture mailing
lists contribute to an international dialogue. Within Australia
itself, the sector continues to grow with new centres and initiatives
such as BEAP (Biennale of Electronic Art Perth); Experimenta’s
important House of Tomorrow exhibition and the opening
of ACMI (Australian Centre for the Moving Image) in 2002. All
of this activity would indicate a very energetic and healthy
environment. To a certain extent that is the case, but fundamentally
what is lacking in Australia is a sustained research and development
culture coupled with ongoing and significant support for artists.
In a 2001 interview with curator Kathy
Cleland, media theorist Geert Lovink comments on the “poorly
funded condition of new media arts in Australia. It is a country
which had been at the conceptual forefront of cyberculture in
the early and mid nineties and, unfortunately, has so far been
unable to transform its vital creative potential into sustainable
structures.” [2] It
is open to debate whether Australia’s new media arts scene
is under-funded, and what would be an appropriate yardstick to
measure this. However, Lovink is right to comment that the institutional
structures do not yet exist that would develop, support and sustain
that “vital creative potential”. What would these “sustainable
structures” look like? Is he suggesting that Australia
needs to needs to look towards models such as Banff New Media
Institute (Canada), Waag Society for Old and New Media (Netherlands)
or Institute of Advanced Media Arts and Science (Japan)? These
and other institutions have contributed to the exploration of
emerging media but also to a broader understanding of the social
and cultural contexts that art and technology practice works
within.
These types of centres provide an environment
for active research and development, conceptual play and experimentation,
networking and project implementation, and access to significant
production funding. Most importantly, they provide a well-resourced
and supportive space for artists and theorists to work and explore
new ideas. To some extent, Australia has a healthy network of
funded organisations and exhibition infrastructure that does
support an R&D culture. Organisations such as ANAT, dLux
Media Arts and Experimenta are continually developing programs
and initiatives (within their limited resources) that respond
to the requirements of practitioners and the field. Yet each
of these organisations is relatively small, with minimal staff
operating out of somewhat modest office spaces. These organisations
all provide various levels of professional development opportunities
for practitioners, but within their limited capacities it is
difficult for these small- to medium-sized organisations to create
ongoing and sustainable R&D opportunities.
Over the last three to five years we have
seen the emergence of several institutionally-based research
centres in Australia. The iCinema Centre for Interactive Cinema
Research, established in 2001, is a joint venture of the College
of Fine Arts and the School of Computer Science and Engineering
at the University of New South Wales, Sydney. Its aim is to create
an interdisciplinary research hub that focuses on the development
of a digitally expanded cinema. [3] Similarly
the Creativity & Cognition Studio at UTS (University of Technology
Sydney) is an invigorating development that is making its mark
through staging conferences, artist talks and supporting research.
The Australia Council is also taking steps towards developing
a research culture through its partnership with the Australian
Research Council. Indeed, the opening up of the ARC to increased
support for the Humanities has enabled new projects and partnerships
to emerge across the new media arts landscape.
In fact, the artist as researcher is becoming
an increasingly common phenomenon, as new media artists engage
with academic funding structures in order to pursue their practice.
Certainly research plays a significant role in the development
of new media arts practice. It allows a space for artists to
explore new ideas and emerging technologies, and to engage with
a broad cross-section of interdisciplinary practice and thinking.
Indeed, new media arts in Australia has a strong history of engagement
with universities, science and technology organizations. Centres
such as Vislab (University of Sydney) and various divisions of
CSIRO across Australia have been instrumental in supporting the
work of new media artists through access to high-end technologies.
The current Synapse ARC and Australia Council
Linkage initiative is also providing an opportunity for the development
of significant works by new media practitioners. The first round
of Synapse Linkage grants saw Mari Velonaki team with the Australian
Centre for Field Robotics, and Nigel Helyer working in partnership
with the University of NSW. Supported by full-time three-year
grants, Synapse is a unique opportunity to provide a living wage
for artists as well as research and materials resources for the
development of new work.
These sorts of initiatives are becoming
increasingly important for established and senior new media artists.
There is virtually no commercial gallery sector supporting new
media arts practice and significant commissions are relatively
rare. In fact the ‘art world’ has been slow to embrace
new media arts practice and has a seemingly ongoing problematic
relationship with the technological nature of the work. Whereas
a national and international culture of exhibitions and festivals
(ISEA, Ars Electronica, BEAP etc.) has emerged to support new
media arts practice, and the arrival of ACMI has created a vital
space for new media arts to be accessed by a broader audience,
the field of new media arts rarely intersects or converses with
the more established art world.
Prominent media theorist Lev Manovich describes
this division as “the battle between Duchamp-land and Turing-land.” [4] The ‘battle
lines' of this division can generally be defined as two sets
of art practices that have distinct and divergent antecedents.
Whereas contemporary art has its legacy in the work of Marcel
Duchamp (1887-1968), media art is defined by its indebtedness
to the founder of computer science Alan Turing (1912 – 1954).
Manovich makes the claim that the inherent difference between
these two strands prevents them from ever intersecting or converging. “What
we should not expect from Turing-land is art which will be accepted
in Duchamp-land. Duchamp-land wants art, not research into new
aesthetic possibilities of new media. The convergence will not
happen.” [5]
This may be true of a media arts practice
that is destined to sit more comfortably within research structures
and be supported through its own networks. However, it is interesting
to see the practices of Duchamp-land increasingly adopt the languages
and icons of Turing-land. Perhaps the contemporary art cousin
has shown itself to be the savvy one in this relationship, having “discovered
computers and begun to use them with its usual irony and sophistication.” [6] Artists
such as David Rozetsky, Patricia Piccinini, Joyce Hinterding
and David Haines have successfully developed a media arts practice
that straddles both Marcel and the machine. These artists represent
a body of media arts practice that is embraced by the international
Biennales, art press, critics and commercial gallerists.
But perhaps the offspring of Turing do
not even wish to embrace this world. The pulse of new media arts
practice is set off through a whole other set of triggers - the
ability to network, to be enterprising, to be adaptive. Without
the strict rules of an art world parent, new media art is free
to break some rules and offend some relatives.
New media arts in Australia is in fact
very much its own entity, with strong foundations, a community
of engaged and sophisticated practitioners, and a dedicated and
active support infrastructure. But in an increasingly active,
engaged and highly developed international sector, it is vital
for Australian practitioners and theorists to retain a voice
and a presence. The challenge is to identify the next steps,
to realise the full potential of this dynamic creativity, and
think beyond the increasingly conservative and parochial Australian
mindset.
NOTES:
1. International Symposium of Electronic Art, August 15 – 22, 2004. www.isea2004.net
2. Geert Lovink. Interview with Kathy Cleland, Australian New Media Arts Curator.
Nettime mailing list, 15 Jan 2001. http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/
2. http://www.icinema.unsw.edu.au/
4. Lev Manovich, The Death of Computer Art, 1996 [revised 2001]. http://absoluteone.ljudmila.org/lev_manovich.php
5. Lev Manovich, The Death of Computer Art.
6. Lev Manovich, The Death of Computer Art.
Julianne Pierce is
a new media curator and producer. She is currently Executive
Director of ANAT (Australian Network for Art and Technology). |
