CYBORGS &

THE FUTURE OF ARTSarah Baker

Lascaux, France15,000 - 10,000 B.C.E

“ Until 1910, the machine was the enemy of all that modernist artists held dear : handcraft, creativity, individuality, and

the marks of original expression. It bore the taint of mass-produced polish, an uncreative ‘perfection’ that reduced the worker to a mere robot, and was also tainted by association

with the money-grubbing bourgeoisie. ”

–– Robert Herbert (1997:1275)

Early camera –– 1820’s

“View from the Window at Le Gras”Nicéphore Niépce, 1826

Paul Strand Alfred Stieglitz

1919

Wall Street1915

Porch Shadows1916

“ Photography as an art was ridiculed, attacked –– especially by the academic painters, who thought that the camera

might take their livelihood away. The acknowledgement of the validity of photography as a new material, as a new

way of seeing life through a machine, was questioned and fundamentally denied. ”

–– Paul Strand (Cooper 1992:15)

What changed?

• As technology made the reproduction of art easier, artists realized machines could be the “servant of creativity”.

(Herbert 1997:1276)

• As technology made the reproduction of art easier, artists realized machines could be the “servant of creativity”.

(Herbert 1997:1276)

• The rapid increase of technology in everyday life. Cars, sewing machines, electric lighting, subways, the cinema... (Herbert 1997)

1968, Jasia Reichardt London; DC; San Francisco

1970, Jack Burnham New York

1968, Pontus Hultén New York

So what makes something “cyborg” art?

A merging of man and machine(or woman)

Hommage à Chrysler Corp. Richard Hamilton, 1957

$he Richard Hamilton, 1958

Artificial life

First Tighten Up on the Drums Norman White, 1969

Intelligent art

VoiceSadashi Inuzuka, 2006

“ Today digital art –– actually all art –– has awareness. This has always been true, but we have now become

aware of art’s awareness. Pieces listen to us, they see us, they sense our presence and wait for us to inspire them,

and not the other way around . . . Pieces of art are in a constant state of becoming. ”

–– Rafael Lozano-Gemmer (McQuire and Radywyl 2010:18)

How has technology changed our attitude toward art?

Participation and collaboration

Vectorial ElevationRafael Lozano-Hemmer, 1999

Art as an experience, not a product

Mapping the studio! (Fat chance John Cage) Bruce Nauman, 2001

De-emphasis of the individualA. Rejecting the commodification of art

Banksy

http://www.osculator.net/doc/_media/manual:wacom_ptz0806.jpg

De-emphasis of the individualB. Loss of physical form

“What is at stake in becoming digital for many of the artists is the autonomous self. The autonomous self is grounded in the physical world, with the hand acting as an extension

of the self, leaving the embodied trace of the maker.”–– Tracey Bowen

(Bowen 2003:227)

(c) Marco Taiana

Campbell’s Soup Cans Andy Warhol,1962

De-emphasis of the individualC. Copies, copies, copies...

How is this affecting us?

“Seven decades later, this shift remains uneven and ambiguous. The concept of authenticity remains

alive and marketable, not least in the realm of photography where limited editions, signed copies, and

‘original’ prints abound with a vigour.”

–– McQuire and Radywyl (2010:11)

What I find most interesting about cyborg art is the way it seems to mimic our changing definition of information.

It’s easily copied, we’re having a hard time determining who “owns” it . . .

And, like information ––it has become transient and immaterial

End

References Cited

Gablik, Suzi1995 Conversations Before the End of Time. New York: Thames and Hudson Inc.

Gehl, John and Douglas, Suzanne1999 Review of Understanding Media. In World & I 14(1). Electronic document, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=1460672&site=ehost-live, accessed February 5, 2011.

Cheng, Scarlet2010 Art, Technology and the Human Imperative. Ceramics: Art & Perception 79: 64-67. Electronic document, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=48444665&site=ehost-live, accessed February 5, 2011.

Cooper, Thomas Joshua1992 Dialogue With Photography. Manchester: Cornerhouse Publications.

Bowen, Tracey.2003 Making art in a digital/cyber culture: exploring the dialectic between the manual creator and the digital self. Digital Creativity 14(4): 219-229. Electronic document, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=11693537&site=ehost-live, accessed February 24, 2011.

Herbert, Robert1997 The Arrival of the Machine: Modernist Art in, Europe, 1910-25. Social Research 64(3): 1273-1305. Electronic document, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9710256744&site=ehost-live, accessed February 10, 2011.

Reid, John1998 Photography & the Camera. Monkeyshines on Health & Science 4(1): 4-43. Electronic document, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=12907960&site=ehost-live, accessed January 25, 2011.

Shanken, Edward2005 Hot to bot: Pygmalion’s lust, the Maharal’s fear, and the cyborg future of art. Technoetic Arts: A journal of Speculative Research 3(1): 43-55. Electronic document, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=17287387&site=ehost-live, accessed January 25, 2011.

McQuire, Scott and Radywyl, Natalia2010 From Object to Platform: Art, digital technology and time. Time & Society 19(1): 5-27. Electronic document, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=48616040&site=ehost-live, accessed February 10, 2011.

Lozano-Hemmer, Rafael 2010 Vectorial Elevation. Electronic document, http://www.vectorialvancouver.net/, accessed February 28, 2011.

Kimmelman, Michael2002 ART IN REVIEW; Bruce Nauman -- 'Mapping the Studio I (Fat Chance John Cage)’. New York Times, July 5. Electronic document, http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/05/arts/art-in-review-bruce-nauman-mapping-the-studio-i-fat-chance-john-cage.html, accessed February 28, 2011.