{"id":55033,"date":"2025-01-29T07:50:29","date_gmt":"2025-01-29T07:50:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/peraltafinancing.com\/entertainment\/art\/digital-art-1960s-to-now-we-make-money-not-art\/"},"modified":"2025-01-29T07:50:29","modified_gmt":"2025-01-29T07:50:29","slug":"digital-art-1960s-to-now-we-make-money-not-art","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=55033","title":{"rendered":"Digital Art. 1960s to Now \u2013 We Make Money Not Art"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n

Digital Art. 1960s to Now<\/a>. Edited by digital art curator at the Victoria and Albert Museum Pita Arreola<\/a>, senior curator of design and digital at the V&A Corinna Gardner<\/a> and digital art curator at the V&A Melanie Lenz<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

A new history of digital art from the 1960s to the present day, with decade-by-decade essays exploring evolving digital art practices, alongside interviews with artists, gallerists, museum curators and collectors.<\/em><\/p>\n

Another book about digital art!? Yes, but this one stands out from the sea of similar publications. It is straightforward enough to interest the neophyte but brisk and bold enough to offer new perspectives to readers who have read their fair share of publications about digital art. It covers history through a series of surprisingly concise but efficient essays that condense the digital art milestones and situate them within evolving social, cultural and technological contexts.<\/p>\n

The highlight of the book (for me) is all the content that accompany the essays. In particular the series of interviews and discussions with artists, gallerists, museum curators and collectors offering insights into the challenges, interrogations and joys of their practice.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Julieta Gil, Nuestra victoria<\/a>, 2019-20<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"
Charles Csuri, Random War <\/a>(detail), 1967\/2006<\/em><\/p>\n

The section dedicated to the 1960s-1970s reflects on the role of scientific and military technology in shaping the works of early computer artists. The anecdote that surprised me the most in the essay regards the fact that in the 1960s already, people were asked to choose between work by a machine and a similar work by an artist. A. Michael Noll\u2019s 1964 work Computer Composition with Lines<\/a>, for example, emulated the painting \u201cComposition With Lines\u201d by Piet Mondrian. When reproductions of both works were shown to 100 people, the majority preferred the computer version and believed it was done by Mondrian. <\/p>\n

\"\"
Lawrence Lek, FTSE (Farsight Stock Exchange)<\/a>, 2019<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"
Nancy Burson, Big Brother<\/a>, 1983. A composite of photos of some of 20th Century dictators: Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, Hitler and Khomeini<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"
Analisai Cordeiro<\/a>, M 3X3, 1973. Photo<\/a>: Silvio M. Zancheti<\/em><\/p>\n

The essay about digital art in the 1970s-1980s explores the influence that easier access to computer graphic, 3D modelling and other computing technology had on artistic production. The text is followed by a conversation between Lawrence Lek <\/a>and David Em<\/a>. I loved how Lek, born in 91, set aside his own achievements in the field of films, gaming and AI and showed genuine curiosity towards Em, an artist who started working with digital media before there were personal computers and became the first artist to produce navigable virtual worlds in 1977 at NASA\u2019s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, where he was Artist in Residence from 1976 to 1988. Together, they exchange about automation, control, AI, what 3D navigable environments looked like in the 70s and 80s. Their conversation did a great job at recreating the experimental atmosphere of the time and made it clear how much today\u2019s artists owe to the art pioneers of the 70s and 80s.<\/p>\n