МедиаАртЛаб +

ENG

RUS

Kathy Rae Huffmann
Technology-Art-Telecommunications (1993)
Тематика: Медиа-технологии
Язык оригинала: русский

A Western View, and Personal Reflection on Russian New Media Art

The short history of Russian New Media Art has been well documented for this publication. And many ideas and precedents were presented at the “NewMediaLogia” symposium. From these reports, a Western observer could start to understand how recent the developments in Russian contemporary art practices during the past five years have also influenced new media and technology attempts by the artistic community. We also learned that the Russians are approaching complex ideas not only with practice, but also with theory. As articulated by Anatoly Prokhorov, Russian media art history has been (until very recently) a story of theory without practice - having nothing to do with the Western media art practice in the 80s. His concern for the next stages of development for Russian media artists queries whether or not this will be practice without theory - and what will that mean.

The coming together of these polar interests - theory and practice - are symptomatic of the difficult role of media art, internationally. But in Moscow, this problem is specifically related to the underdevelopment of a media art community and support system. In Moscow, the relationships created for the creation of works are imposed as a result of the lack of equipment, resources and knowledge. The relationship of Russian new media artists to their international counterparts is another challenging aspect of the development of a Russian media art community. It is an aspect that frustrates foreign researchers, and visitors to Russia. The basic differences in communication styles and language far outweigh the differences in taste and style. The “Russian Situation” can be rationalized, and explained in part, but nevertheless an information gap will exist for years to come without a practical Russian access/media center, and distribution policy.Informed heavily by literature and conceptual art, and stimulated by regional politics and local economic conditions, the outside world seems very far away to Moscow artists. Survival during difficult times takes priority, and establishing some base of operation —connections— is necessary in order to work. But, evidence for these observations are often beyond the scope of the outsiders reference. As Prokhorov explained, the “new” industry of theory made some practical steps to understand what theory is, somewhere around the end of the 80s - and by the early 1990s there was a move to combine the fields of art and aesthetics with culture and humanitarianism. This practice is very much in line with Western media art concerns. But these steps are, in reality (and unfortunately), far from the practice of either art making or scientific research in Russia. It is also very much adrift from priorities in Russian business and profiteering. But, artists and their local liaisons persevere, and in Russia, the study of theory has the potential to link the concerns of the various new media art players into an international community better than anywhere else in the world, due in-part to Russia’s isolation and intense history of theoretical work.

In Russia, everything is possible - yet nothing is possible: everything if you are willing to talk, nothing when quick, professional results are demanded. It seems - to outsiders - to be the land of the Jungian “tension of opposites” or of Freudian “bifurcation” which combines two worlds: physical and spiritual. It would be rewarding if these two polarities would eventually equal new ground: solutions to the incongruous demands, and isolated efforts of artists working in a medium that requires collaboration and consensus. From such dispirited paths, new media art has emerged as an important aspect of the Russian artistic life. But, in a country where powerful friends are more important than understanding, intuition or vision - how can artistic traits or artistic achievement (not to mention ambitions) be held at high esteem? Artistic insight is insight into the soul - it is the pulse of society, the premonition of cultural motivation. In Russia, rarely the credit is given to new ideas (even when it is due). Therefore, it’s quite understandable that the youngest generation is more likely to be attracted to the new technology. This is a fresh direction, without the hierarchy of established contemporary art: it is a field full of hope and expectations.

There are many similarities in the beginnings of media art in Russia in the 1990s and in the West from the 1960 & 1970s. Here are just a few of the main parallels:
1. Expanded personal freedoms.
In the 1960s, new personal extremes were widely introduced. Personal freedoms and identities were basic to the sexual revolution: drugs, sex, and rock-n-roll. This permissiveness, in which youth demanded personal rights, was a threat to the family and to traditional values, and resulted in a loss of faith in the government and society. In Russia today these extreme ideas are also prevalent, especially among youth culture and artistic society. Society is shifting radically, and former rules have been abandoned with no replacement laws. Life is a free-for-all, the future is uncertain, the focus is “now” rather than to plan ahead.
2. New technology introduced to the consumer market.
In the USA and Europe, the transistor and other developments in technology revolutionized the consumer market. It was suddenly possible for individuals to purchase what was alway considered to be business technology: computers, video equipment, radio transmitters, etc. At this time, the contemporary arts expanded into the field of TV/video, radio and other communication activities, although it remained outside the general art interest it played an important role in the аvant-garde and Fluxus activity.
3. Expectations for new technology transcend its initial capabilities.
As a cultural curative and a consciousness-expanding practice, new video technology was elevated to an extremely high plateau - one which could not be fully realized in the 1970s, especially with regard to creating a “Global Village” of like minded citizens. In Russia today, the commercial investment in equipment and software is far greater than what can actually be delivered to recoup costs. In the early 1970s, in the West, corporate contributions to artists productions, and corporate private gifts to Art were rare, and sponsorship existed mainly from charitable foundations and the newly created National Endowment for the Arts media arts program, under which artists were given the impetus to explore new technology (namely experimental film, video, audio work) with grants of cash, and by institutional sponsorship of exhibition and catalogues. This money was allocated by a system of applications, deadlines and grantees were selected by a panel of artists and art experts who reviewed proposals.
Because the exploration of “new technology” by Russian artists has up to now mostly been in the area of video, audio, performance and experimental film, there is —in reality— very little work to observe. Therefore, the theoretical position of the artists working in Russia today is necessary to understand - as their ideas are rapidly becoming transformed into visual forms. Correspondingly, the ideas and hopes for the future of the youngest generation, are cultural markers which must be understood from another position. Like their counterparts in the west, the X generation is not interested in theory but rather, in practice. It will take several years to reconcile the Russian positions with respect to theory and practice, but there can be no “New Media Art” art without practice. The conceptual concentration of art making in Russia was partly out of necessity - not choice - and times are certainly different today.

Several generations of artists have entered the domain of “new technology” simultaneously in Russia, and they begin at the same level technically. But the level of integration into “art culture” and society seems to determine access and fame in Russia, where it is not what one knows, but whom one knows, that enables movement within the closely defined scene. The illusion that commercial and private resources will sponsor art should be cautiously hoped for, as does the long-standing belief (popular in the West at the turn of the century) in the romantic idea of the artist: that real artists are dissidents. The popular idea in Russia today is that art must be the underground (political and social) and the idea that “real artists” are those who suffer and starve is a disturbing hangover from former times, especially when considering the new technologies which require expensive, alert minds, sophisticated equipment and clean studio facilities.
Access to information about the historical events in the development of contemporary art and technology is taken for granted in Western culture, and many references are widely available in media art centers, public libraries, universities and art academies. In Russia, this basic information is not controlled - it is absent. In one of the important political and cultural capitals of the world, where new media art is exploding on both artistic and commercial fronts, it is vital to have access to this important information in order to understand the precedents, elementary facts and basic information about media art, to enable artists to work with integrity and knowledge. This information includes the historic and theoretical reference texts, the educational literature, and journals that offer the current dialogue between artists and technological researchers concerning contemporary media art. Access is an important strategy for artists to consider, as it is for any commercial entrepreneur who is building and developing communications technology.

As soon as Russian media artists make connections with their peers in other countries, they will understand that there are INHERENT problems for ALL artists working with technology. This begins with the strong opinion — shared by the many international art professionals — that Art made with technology is a lesser form — some stubborn curators and critics do not even consider it Art. Video (during its short 30 year history) was treated with low regard until very recently. For years, when video was included in an exhibition, it was usually placed in a back gallery out-of-sight, and the catalogue listed the work in an index rather than in the body of the book. These conditions have begun to change, and now, one rarely considers that video is even “new” technology anymore - it is now so familiar as a medium. Video has gained tremendous prestige as Art because of the depth of exploration made by many artists who did not stop working because of initial negative critical response. A turn around video was its presence at the Documenta 9, and in many of the 1990s European Bienniales. Many critics say that video work is among the most interesting work premiered in recent times.

Video of the many recognized “MEDIA ARTS” has endured many trials-by-fire as an art form. VIDEO has made the impact it has because of the VISION that the artists who make it have. Video has also had to fight an enormous battle - the battle against the television audience. The audience is an expert “television” viewer - not for art but for TV. Now, artists working with telecommunications, or telepresence, face challenging combinations of the public’s experience (or lack of it). Technology in general is out of control - it is without personal vision. Television is not what David Antin told us in l974 - simply a neutral technology whose use depended on its impact. Television has changed language - the meaning of words. Americans now realize that consumerism - promoted by television - is also OUT OF CONTROL. This is becoming a world wide problem, not just one that expresses American greed. TV sustains the status quo, and becomes a surrogate for finding any true value in life.

Is television a “harmful” technology? Is it a more “dangerous” medium for artists to confront than the computer? In this day, most people agree that the computer is a good tool. It saves time. It does not make mistakes, you can probably think of more reasons. But, the computer is a technology, one that was developed for military use in both the East and West and controlled by military interests for many years. Computers have also changed society and culture, just as much as television has. In the last ten years in the West, the computer has radically changed how people learn, and how information is treated. Instead of the oral tradition that humankind has nurtured for thousands of years, the computer encourages “private” learning and “individual” problem solving. The question has been well framed by Neil Postman, a scholar and theoretician at New York University, and author of TECHNOPOLY: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, asks “Will the computer raise ego-centrism to the status of a virtue?” He points out:”INFORMATION is dangerous when it has no place to go, when there is no theory to which it applies, no pattern in which it fits, when there is no higher purpose that it serves.”

Media art cannot be neutral: using video as their main public expression, many Western artists take the position of activists, and in doing so have re-defined what it means to be an artist in the 1990s. By attacking the status quo, fascist attitudes, and new-right-orientated censorship, media art is a powerful weapon. Information networks exist side-by-side with economics and politics, and art is certain to overlap, eventually! But, network art will be a medium in which artists “who reflect individuality” will be out of place. In fact, its basic principle — to link-up — operates from the position of an educational support structure. The commercial framework for networking (Internet, WWW) is much more extensive than any of the previous media arts. However, networking has the potential to become the most democratic of all art structures.

If we agree that new technologies alter the structure of our interests, the things we think about (like television, which has changed how we perceive the reality, happiness, and even God) we really must contend with another invisible technology, the vast worldwide network of unlimited information. So much of this new information will be pure junk (written texts which for the most part are not literary or poetic but just raw information that will remain unused). This is an entirely new use of language. And, if we believe Wittgenstein, that language (which is also our fundamental technology) is not merely a vehicle for expressing thought, but is the driver of thought then we had better take the new information technologies serious. We must know and judge how they affect our culture, our lives, and most of all our art. Network communication - the next step - will expand all aspects of new technology exploration in Russia as it will elsewhere. The early examples, computer games, CD ROM’s, electronic networking, and all facets of computer culture (cines, music, fashion, language) are somehow only the tip of the iceberg. International computer culture breaks down the nationalistic borders and ideals, and reveals positive systems for the communication and organization of information. Russian artists are well suited to lead the development of computer culture. The strong literary and theoretical foundation, network ideology, and practical knowledge will bring Russian contributions to the forefront, with a position to change worldwide opinion and attitudes: New Media Art’s valuable potential contribution to society.

In Russian: Технология- Искусство- Телекоммуникации