conversation 2 of 3 from "Vaccumming and Digesting," a fall conversation series about interactive design

Nov. 28, 2017, 1:30 pm Yale School of Art 'Reliability' Reading Response A

Reading response A

Nilas: Someone told me that my undergraduate teacher once used one of my projects for her teaching. I actually really didn't like that teacher—we had a bad relationship—so I think that's weird that she's allowed to show my work. I had no control over the work that was made at the school. The school legally owns it.

Matt: That's the case with most universities, right? With most archives, once you give your work to the institution, you've relinquished the ability to sort of go back in and edit or touch.

Ayham: I don't know what it’s like here, but at my undergraduate art school they made it explicit to us that they have the right to keep the work if they want as well as to document it, catalog it, preserve it, and publish it.

Nate Pyper: I think that's a good question, too. What do we give up when we archive or when we compile our archives? We think about the bureaucracy and structures that have come before and are built to carry permission but don’t necessarily have our best interests in mind. When is it appropriate to resist the archive?

RC: It seems that there are different rules at play, especially if we compare this situation to physical archives that exist today. The institution has to care for them and things are sensitive to release to the public, especially if the artist is alive. But also I wonder if the accessibility of the internet is essential to its creation. It was founded under the idea of a shared public space and to increase overall accessibility. Perhaps there is a statue of limitations. This is difficult because technology advances quickly and how do we archive something so it is still relevant in twenty or thirty years?


Laurel: I think Kanye West said something like, “I am going to call myself a creative genius because no one else is going to.”

Bryce: Reminds me of the artist Jeremy Bailey, who started calling himself a “famous new media artist” as an identity exploration.

Nate: I wonder, too, about being artists, designers, cultural producers, people who are putting things out into the world for other people to react to or look at... I was really enjoying the David Bennewith presentation. He does a lot of work that has some sort of historical reference—specifically mining or pulling from this history. Inevitably, when that work is disseminated, that history does not get shipped along with it. But it does gain new meaning, and it’s malleable in that way that it becomes richer for the willingness to put it out there without context.

Ayham: It’s a very optimistic way to look at publishing work. I think there is some value to it, in approaching it that way, if you’re okay with the meaning changing and adjusting.

RC: In art history, the artist's statement and intent are critical, but oftentimes reveal inherent biases or inaccuracies. Art relies on the interpretation of others and new interpretations are constantly being made as history goes forward, in order to properly adapt to its time. I believe that the malleability is what drives people to not only make art but continue looking.