I had some trouble with wrapping my head around some of things that Marisa discussed in her article, but I loved how she incorporated communications theory into her argument. While I always have trouble fully digesting it, I think semiotics and the concept of appropriation are really interesting.
I think I might be missing some things here, but what I got out of Marisa’s article was kind of a “no-shit-sherlock” feel — I’m probably being a bit harsh…Granted that there are different theories/approaches to understanding the development of new media, new art forms and symbols and the appropriation of signs, but from the bit of communications that I studied it first seems obvious that there’d be hesitation to consider pro surfer work art work. First, I think in today’s web age, we’re all hesitant to classify many things online as being credible, I mean look at the case of blogs. Anyone, everyone and their mothers write blogs and consider themselves as authorities, but only after time do the true authorities/leaders emerge. Second, like new media, I think art making use of new media require time to establish credibility/receive acknowledgment as an art form but also time to understand the significance of the art form and establish some kind of comfort level with it. When film first came out, certain films with train crashes and such frightened people because they didn’t fully understand that the images they were seeing were not real but simply projections. Before the telephone was used to communicate between individuals across distances, it was used like a radio, broadcasting entertainment. It takes society time to understand how to use the technology it’s developed in a way that society finds useful as well as in a way that is conducive to the medium.
There was one line that Marisa wrote that I thought a bit bold: “These practices resemble the art historical use of found photography, but verge on constituting some other kind of practice – something, dare I say, more original.” And the part that I take issue with, if I am understanding what she is saying and it’s very possible that I am not, is that it’s not fair to say that previous practices are less original, when certain tools that are available now were not before. I suppose in my mind, Marisa is implying that what was innovative at the time wasn’t all that innovative because now we have the internet that can bring things to the next level.
While I’m not denying that net art is an emerging form of art, I don’t think it is necessarily doing anything extraordinary in terms of how new art and new media progress. This might be bold of me, but I think there is always going to be natural progression, in which something new arises and at the moment will be exciting and innovative. As a result, it will change how we understand, utilize and interact with the old. Alright, I think my posting might be turning into a rambling in which I’m throwing out things that don’t necessarily connect, but before I conclude, one piece that I came across which I at first didn’t think much of until I saw the sports sequences is Oliver Laric’s “787 Cliparts.” Also, for an interesting read on appropriation and art, here is a NYT article I came across.
Sorry this is so long!
Jessica
