 |
| Zen for TV (1963) |
 |
| TV Clock (1963) |
 |
| Magnet TV (1965) |
His is influenced by Zen Buddhism and expressed it through electronic technology devices and performance art. His work reshaped or explained the meaning of Zen through digital devices, especially in the case of the television series. For instance, in the work Zen for TV (1963), he reduced the TV image to the minimum, which turned it into a vertical line. In another work Kuba TV (1963), he compressed and amplified the moving images on the TV according to the sound intensity. In Magnet TV (1965), he placed a large magnet on television to distort and change the image and sound from a television. I consider this is the most influential piece and my favorite piece in the realm of art and modern technology.
The works are the typical examples of human disturbance, and he is also known as the pioneer of Glitch Art. I feel that this kind of work is more effective than the artificial photoshopped images and reproduce the image again then put on the label of glitch art, which has already contradicted the definition of glitch itself. In this case, glitch should be an error generated by the system itself, but I realized many artists (including myself) tries to fake this error, we deliberately imply a filter of glitch effect. Thus, the work has a glitch aesthetic but not glitch art, as there is a repeatable process which could yield the same precise results.
In comparison, Paik did not fake the error, he reduced the artists' individual behaviors and consciousness participates to the minimum, and lets the object itself do the work. He only sets a disturbance, a beginning, and then just let the TV and the magnetic field collide by itself. After that, everything is unpredictable, and it is the interaction of the material itself.
The works are the typical examples of human disturbance, and he is also known as the pioneer of Glitch Art. I feel that this kind of work is more effective than the artificial photoshopped images and reproduce the image again then put on the label of glitch art, which has already contradicted the definition of glitch itself. In this case, glitch should be an error generated by the system itself, but I realized many artists (including myself) tries to fake this error, we deliberately imply a filter of glitch effect. Thus, the work has a glitch aesthetic but not glitch art, as there is a repeatable process which could yield the same precise results.
In comparison, Paik did not fake the error, he reduced the artists' individual behaviors and consciousness participates to the minimum, and lets the object itself do the work. He only sets a disturbance, a beginning, and then just let the TV and the magnetic field collide by itself. After that, everything is unpredictable, and it is the interaction of the material itself.
Hence, I think if I would like to emphasize the technology and digital technology in the new era, I should not just insert the symbol, glitch or pixel. Instead, it is still necessary to return to the image, rethinking the structure and aesthetics, and creating a more profound work.
"Perhaps the digital collage of the old photos of the remake and the Pixel of the PS can be seen in the fusion of old cultural symbols (including private memories and historical emotions) with new media technologies, but the faces of the characters are digital. The destruction of the age can refer to the creation of the sign. The same is the digital ruined, unrecognizable marble portrait, showing the past art form, the current art form is superimposed or destroyed. Old-fashioned computers, although much more amazing than the one hundred years ago, are old-fashioned in the minds of modern people." (from Zhihu)
"或許把翻拍的老照片和 PS 进去的 Pixel 合起来的 Digital collage 作品，可以看出旧的文化符号（含带着私人记忆和历史情感）与新媒体技术的融合，但是人物的面容却被数码时代毁灭，能指产生所指。同样是 digital 毁脸，面目全非的大理石人像，呈现出过去的艺术形式，现在的艺术形式或是叠加或是摧毁。老式的电脑，虽然和一百年前相比已是非常惊人的科技进步，但在现代人的脑海中已是老古董。"（來自知乎）
Comments
Post a Comment