On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 03:07:32PM -0400, natashavita@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> The problem as I see it is that Warwick's Performance Art gets
> confused with his job as a professor. It happens when artists are both
> professors and Performance Artists. Laurie Anderson had an easier time
> of it because her intention was to entertain with intelligent sound
> bytes while bringing literature to her themes and the body of her work
> has been to inspire and communicate rather than to disarm. Stelarc is
> another example of a Performance Artist who uses the machine/human
> medium to shock his audience, but his work his art and not a sidebar to
> being something else.
A good point. I agree that Warwick is indeed doing a kind of
performance art. Engineering sometimes makes wonderful performance
art, and robotics is of course especially amenable to it.
But I think Stelarc has created something far more integrated than
Warwick. Stelarc's art is based in a postmodern
deconstruction/reconstruction of the body and its role, which is quite
consistent. The robotic and cyborg performances of Warwick does not
fit well with his views on the future of human and robot interactions
- one one hand slapstik and gadgetry, on the other hand the
terminator. It doesn't fit together artistically in my opinion.
[ The art critic as a science reviewer: "While the logos and technique
of the paper are impeccable, there is a lack of pathos that weakens
the introduction and discussion section. The figures complement the
text, but the strength of the microphotographs overwhelm the quiet
cadence of the prose; especially the intense colors of the
immunological stainings would be more at home in a assertive rather
than exploratory paper." :-) ]
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:03 MDT