Comments on: Touching Art: Video Paintings http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=1407 News for Art Historians Tue, 16 Nov 2010 08:57:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Sarah Beth Wilson http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=1407&cpage=1#comment-138013 Sarah Beth Wilson Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:48:59 +0000 http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=1407#comment-138013 Yeah, I really want to see images. Need to get up there to see it. So by the installation it appears that Jones did not intend for the viewer to alter the projection? I assume this particular piece is what he refers to as his light paintings? It's interesting to consider the artist's background in animation as well, considering that animation involves the combination of a hand-made image with video / light projection. Yeah, I really want to see images. Need to get up there to see it. So by the installation it appears that Jones did not intend for the viewer to alter the projection? I assume this particular piece is what he refers to as his light paintings? It’s interesting to consider the artist’s background in animation as well, considering that animation involves the combination of a hand-made image with video / light projection.

]]> By: Leslie Thompson http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=1407&cpage=1#comment-138010 Leslie Thompson Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:42:34 +0000 http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=1407#comment-138010 The piece you encountered sounds like interactive art, whereas Jones' piece does not intend for viewer interaction. When I question the boundaries in this artwork, what I'm refering to are the boundaries in terms of physical touching vs. virtual(?) touching. A viewer can stand under the projector, lift up their hand and block the light composition, leaving just the physically painted composition. But then the entire piece has changed. The projected light design is part of the artwork. This is definitely a question of "touching" of some sort. I do not feel that the artist intended for the viewer to play with the projection. It works on its own. Hopefully I can post images soon to provide a better picture of the issue. The piece you encountered sounds like interactive art, whereas Jones’ piece does not intend for viewer interaction.

When I question the boundaries in this artwork, what I’m refering to are the boundaries in terms of physical touching vs. virtual(?) touching. A viewer can stand under the projector, lift up their hand and block the light composition, leaving just the physically painted composition. But then the entire piece has changed. The projected light design is part of the artwork. This is definitely a question of “touching” of some sort. I do not feel that the artist intended for the viewer to play with the projection. It works on its own.

Hopefully I can post images soon to provide a better picture of the issue.

]]> By: Sarah Beth Wilson http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=1407&cpage=1#comment-138009 Sarah Beth Wilson Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:32:58 +0000 http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=1407#comment-138009 I really want to see this and will definitely include a stop by the modern next time I'm in DFW. Not sure what I think regarding your question. I guess my first response is to not think of it so much as "touching" the art, or crossing any boundaries, but as more becoming part of the work and activating the space. Once again, I really want to see the piece and installation to fully understand Jones' set up. It makes me think of a work I saw at the Menil here in Houston not long ago, a video installation in one of the contemporary galleries. I can't recall the artist, but basically there was a video projector set up in the middle of the gallery. Everyone kept looking around trying to figure out where the image was being projected or basically what was going on. Then a guard pointed out that you have to stand in this one corner, then the image is projected onto you, in this case it was text I think. So basically, the work of art is not even visible without human interaction, human touching. Just an interesting comparison to your comments regarding touching, boundaries, etc with Jones' work. And I'm curious regarding your use of the term "boundaries" in your post. Do you mean this in reference to the "don't touch art" aspect of museums, or in reference to who / what is the art work and who has control in changing / altering the final product? I really want to see this and will definitely include a stop by the modern next time I’m in DFW. Not sure what I think regarding your question. I guess my first response is to not think of it so much as “touching” the art, or crossing any boundaries, but as more becoming part of the work and activating the space. Once again, I really want to see the piece and installation to fully understand Jones’ set up. It makes me think of a work I saw at the Menil here in Houston not long ago, a video installation in one of the contemporary galleries. I can’t recall the artist, but basically there was a video projector set up in the middle of the gallery. Everyone kept looking around trying to figure out where the image was being projected or basically what was going on. Then a guard pointed out that you have to stand in this one corner, then the image is projected onto you, in this case it was text I think. So basically, the work of art is not even visible without human interaction, human touching. Just an interesting comparison to your comments regarding touching, boundaries, etc with Jones’ work. And I’m curious regarding your use of the term “boundaries” in your post. Do you mean this in reference to the “don’t touch art” aspect of museums, or in reference to who / what is the art work and who has control in changing / altering the final product?

]]>