There’s so much I want to like
about the 2012 National New Media Art Award. In terms of the brief, each artist
has executed their work in diverse and intriguing ways. The notion of an
exhibition featuring new technologies is appealing to masses; even the complex
reasoning behind each work should be understandable to everybody on some level.
And yet, despite this and despite my intense faith in the Gallery of Modern
Art, the New Media Award simply doesn’t hit the mark.
The unfortunate thing about
technology, no matter how wonderful and exciting, is that it fails – it’s
problematic. Nothing could drive this point home further than Kirsty Boyle’s Tree Ceremony, an apparently profound
and intricate exemplar of robotics and traditional Japanese craftsmanship which
had, quite conveniently, decided to break down. Though it may have only been
nonoperational for the period of my visit, it left me feeling more than a
little disappointed and apprehensive of what was to come. Not even the poignant
explanation of Boyle’s unique training in the Japanese doll-making technique Karakuri
Ningyo could amend the malfunction. Without movement, Boyle’s work lost all
sense of her exploration of the “cultural and societal aspects of robotics” (QAG/GoMA,
2012), becoming little more than a pretty toy next to bonsai. Despite this
initial frustration, I steeled my mind back into an open state, ready for
whatever the Award had to throw at me. George Poonkhin Khut’s winning piece Distillery: Waveforming was
next in line.
Initially created as a tool for
relaxation to help children undergoing intense medical treatment, Poonkhin
Khut’s work certainly represents innovation and ground-breaking technology. Distillery: Waveforming consists
of a custom program designed to read a person’s heart rate and produce a
biofeedback of the information in a visual form. The stools provided for
interaction with the work were all filled, several visitors entranced by the rotating
colours and patterns displayed. I was almost mesmerised myself until my eyes
trailed downwards and met with what was, unmistakably, an iPad. Unfortunately
for Poonkhin Khut, the programming of Distillery: Waveforming into
an iPad application demolished any sense of serenity and appreciation I
originally felt for the piece. There’s something about it that disconcerts me
and leaves a sour taste in my mouth. The inclusion of the iPad serves only to
remind me of the incessant commercialisation and dependency on technology
wreaking havoc on Western society. Distillery: Waveforming is,
ultimately, nothing more than an advertisement serving to further a corporation
already harvesting millions of dollars per year, and a firm encouragement of
the current societal mentality that every menial task in life can be realized
through the use of a digital device, or the statement ‘there’s an app for
that’. The dependency on these products is frightening – and in terms of
Poonkhin Khut’s convenient reasoning behind his winning work – it is my belief
that children should be learning mental relaxation techniques that can be used
anywhere, anytime without any reliance on technology which may or may not
malfunction.
Entering the main exhibition
space I was immediately confronted by an unremitting discordance of music and
sound. A moment of composure later I moved to admire Ian Haig’s Some Thing. The
sculptural representation of internal organs, sinew and tissue – all mingled
together in a familiar yet alien form – is visually interesting, tangible and enticing,
yet, above all, utterly confusing. Why was it in an exhibition regarding New
Media and technology? It was then I realised Some Thing has
an accompanying soundtrack and intermittent robotics which cause the sculpture
to appear alive. Despite my best
attempts I couldn’t hear a single guttural sound of Haig’s audio track due to
unidentifiable noise emanating from other works. Furthermore, I found the
almost non-existent movement of the piece distracting and unnecessary. However,
without the robotics and sound, would Haig’s piece even qualify as a work of
New Media?
Passing by a wall I didn’t
realise was an artwork, containing apparently intelligent robots that appear to
do little more than poke holes through plaster and look at people, I was next apprehended
by Ross Manning’s installation of power cords, plugs and coloured fluorescent
lights. Memories of high school physics lessons came to mind as I read
Manning’s statement. His installation, part of a series titled Spectra, deals
with additive colour mixing – which “is at the centre of digital
image reproduction, employed in all camera, screen and projection based
technologies, as well as film-based colour photography”
(QAG/GoMA, 2012)
(Not exactly new media,
but let’s not digress). I had to squint in order to prevent blindness as
somebody beside me uttered “Ohh, that’s cool!” It was cool, it was sort of pretty, but
it also hurt my eyes so I moved on to the only non-audio/visual piece of the entire
show, Leah Heiss’s Polarity.
I attempted to focus on the
subtlety of Leah Heiss’s Polarity but
was bombarded by competing noises from Karen Casey’s Dream Zone and
Robin Fox’s CRT: h’ommage to Léon
Theremin. Fox’s work – though an impressive display of Theremin technology – is
an audio nightmare for unsuspecting viewers both outside and in. Heiss explores
“the connection between art, design and science” (QAG/GoMA, 2012)
through the use of nanotechnology. Polarity’s
soft undulating movement may very well have been hypnotising in any other
circumstance, examining, as Heiss intended, the “relationship
between person and artefact” (QAG/GoMA, 2012). However, with discordance
assaulting my senses from every direction, I soon lost interest and moved on.
Disappointingly, the exhibition
on a whole is a cacophony of noise, light and sound which only serves to dampen
the effect of individual pieces. In order for a group show exploring new media
technologies to be successful, the curating must be flawless. Unfortunately,
given the space the Award was assigned, this was quite impossible. One wonders whether
or not this was due to a lack of faith in the exhibition. If not, perhaps next
year’s New Media Art Award will answer the problems of this year’s. Somehow, I
doubt it – though I wait in hope that I’ll be proven wrong.
The New Media Art Award runs from
the 3rd August to the 4th November at the Gallery of
Modern Art – admission is free. Visit at your peril.
Lauren Ryan
QAG/GoMA
2012,
Kirsty Boyle, viewed 26 September 2012, <http://qagoma.qld.gov.au/exhibitions/current/national_new_media_art_award_2012/artists/kirsty_boyle>
QAG/GoMA
2012,
Ross Manning, viewed 26 September 2012,
<http://qagoma.qld.gov.au/exhibitions/current/national_new_media_art_award_2012/artists/ross_manning>
QAG/GoMA
2012,
Leah Heiss, viewed 26 September 2012, <http://qagoma.qld.gov.au/exhibitions/current/national_new_media_art_award_2012/artists/leah_heiss>
No comments:
Post a Comment