Nathaniel Stern, Wind, 2006, archival lambda print.
I was travelling for most of yesterday so I didn’t have a chance to mention that my two part interview with new media artist Nathaniel Stern went up on the icommons blog yesterday. You can read the full discussion here and here, but I’ve included teasers from both interviews below since each part deals with different subject matter. In the first post Stern and I talk about his art work, and in the second, we touch upon how the concerns of the Creative Commons effect artists. Stern speaks with great eloquence on the subject, so our conversation is not to be missed!
Inspired by pioneering artists in the field of Interactive art such as David Rokeby and Myron Kruger, Nathaniel Stern builds upon their work by reintroducing traditional art- making techniques to reinterpret digital records of movement. In the first half of my interview with the artist we discuss works leading up to, and informing his current body of prints he titles Compressionism.In these images Stern manipulates visual documentation of movement distorting memories or impressions of the body.
Art Fag City: So I wanted to begin by discussing your work, and so I thought we could start with the prints you make. I wonder if you could talk about your process a little bit because you have the Compressionism series that you've been working on, and, you use a lot of 'techy' things, but the actual process is very traditional. You're also making very traditional art historical references and I wondered if you could talk a little bit about that and what your interest is in pairing those things?
Nathaniel Stern: Absolutely. I guess obviously with any series I'm pulling inspiration from various places, but I think when that series started my interests led me to two things: the first was I was working with interactive installation and performativity, trying to get people to move in ways they normally wouldn't, and that was kind of my mantra for a while; rather than trying to think of immersion as a goal, I thought of immersion as a side effect of playing with affect — the involuntary ability to effect, and be effected – and how such art can sort of put the body in quotes. And what I found was that it was a very special kind of person that would actually engage and interact with those pieces; most people would just kind of watch and talk about the work, and it was everyone from, like, my mother, who didn't understand the technology – and just kind of said how proud she was and sat in the corner – but also the writers and critics who really liked my work would kind of stand back, and nod, and talk about how it's interactive, and it's performative, and playful, but they would never actually use it.
To read more of part one click here.
A sampler from second half of the interview below.
I think the discussion right now is in the wrong arena — copyright or CC, Fair Use or piracy, this is what big companies should worry about, not artists. Artists should raise questions around if you release the full high-resolution or lower-resolution under CC, or whether you allow people to exhibit the video or do you sell the exhibition rights separately – I think these are the models that are different for each and every one of us, potentially for each and every art work. – Nathaniel Stern
The following is the second half of a two part interview with the iCommons Artist in Residence coordinator, Nathaniel Stern. In this post we speak specifically about the concerns of professional artists vis a vis copyright or CC.
Art Fag City: So we've talked a little bit about the prints. I should note that you also make videos, which are on your site as well, before we move on so readers will know to check that work out. I wondered if you could talk about your connection with Creative Commons.
Nathaniel Stern: Admittedly, it's by default that I've become a bit of an iCommons activist. I was one of the few people who had a blog in South Africa – now there's many, but I was one of the earliest ones there and certainly the first in the art world – and it was under Creative Commons, so I was contacted by the South African CC team early on. Since then, I've become an impromptu spokesperson for them on some level and I've tried to direct that dialog not only toward my personal interests but also the interests of professional artists more generally. I guess I have two main themes with regards to Creative Commons: the first is that I want to ensure that we make work that's free and available in the public domain for remixing and playing and generating discussion, but that's not exploitative of artists. And so with this, ideally, I guess I'd like to see Fair Use expanded exponentially and I see various CC licenses as doing exactly that. With issues of distribution I guess I like to differentiate between 'art' and the art's 'content' – the former is for collectors and the latter is free: I think it should be available to everyone. I believe, for example, that you should be allowed to download and play with my video art; I give away files for my prints, they are available on my site – not at super high res, but high res enough that you could print them out or re-mix. I think it's important that they are out there. That's the art's content, not the art itself. From my perspective, with Walter Benjamin's “Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” he was right in saying that potentials for easily copying work changed the relationship we have to art objects, but he was wrong in saying that the more copies, the less the authentic original has value: it's exactly the opposite – the more people that have posters of the Mona Lisa, the more collectors will want the original; the more people that watch my videos.
To read the full interview (part two) click here.
{ 18 comments }
It should be noted that Nathaniel Stern doesn’t get Benjamin’s thesis quite right. Stern says Benjamin
“was wrong in saying that the more copies, the less the authentic original has value: it’s exactly the opposite – the more people that have posters of the Mona Lisa, the more collectors will want the original”
But Benjamin is describing the way mechanical reproduction has a withering effect on the “aura” of a work of art; it’s value of a different kind that the Marxist is discussing. Benjamin refers to the very dynamic Stern is relying upon as the “phony spell of a commodity” (page 231 in Illuminations).
At the end of the day, Benjamin’s essay is political, directly addressing Fascism but conditioned by a value system antagonistic to the sort of desire Stern would exploit.
It should be noted that Nathaniel Stern doesn’t get Benjamin’s thesis quite right. Stern says Benjamin
“was wrong in saying that the more copies, the less the authentic original has value: it’s exactly the opposite – the more people that have posters of the Mona Lisa, the more collectors will want the original”
But Benjamin is describing the way mechanical reproduction has a withering effect on the “aura” of a work of art; it’s value of a different kind that the Marxist is discussing. Benjamin refers to the very dynamic Stern is relying upon as the “phony spell of a commodity” (page 231 in Illuminations).
At the end of the day, Benjamin’s essay is political, directly addressing Fascism but conditioned by a value system antagonistic to the sort of desire Stern would exploit.
Hi David – nathaniel here, and thanks for the comment. Admittedly, the word exploit makes me cringe a bit, but I concede your point (as well as its use); if we are to take a Marxist approach to Benjamin’s essay, and it’s fair to say we should, then yes, he’s saying the same thing I am. I guess I should more properly be arguing against some of the readings I’ve heard others impute onto Benjamin with regards to monetary value (which is not his point)….
Hi David – nathaniel here, and thanks for the comment. Admittedly, the word exploit makes me cringe a bit, but I concede your point (as well as its use); if we are to take a Marxist approach to Benjamin’s essay, and it’s fair to say we should, then yes, he’s saying the same thing I am. I guess I should more properly be arguing against some of the readings I’ve heard others impute onto Benjamin with regards to monetary value (which is not his point)….
Hi Nathaniel, glad for the dialogue. Yes, I wasn’t too sure about “exploit”, but careful consideration (honest!) suggested it was the appropriate term. But how is it that you and Benjamin are saying the same thing? You’re saying that the fame of an artwork, fame made possible by mechanical reproduction, increases one’s desire to own the original, and that this phenomenon is “exactly the opposite” of what Benjamin is asserting in his discussion. Right? Such that sophisticated marketing strategies may enable an artist to enjoy higher prices.
That’s difficult to deny, but I don’t think it’s what Benjamin is interested in in his essay. He seems to address that phenomenon (or its potential due to mechanical reproduction) as a negative development (expaned on by John Berger’s Ways of Seeing as a way for institutions to essentially propogandize -is that a word?- and retain their authority).
So how are you saying the same things, or am I misinterpreting you? What readings do you mean? It’s an old essay, and much of the cultural context has changed, but the distinction between celebrity and “aura” in the age of mechanical reproduction seems a fundamental point; and enjoyable to discuss. (AND very salient in the current art world/market)
Hi Nathaniel, glad for the dialogue. Yes, I wasn’t too sure about “exploit”, but careful consideration (honest!) suggested it was the appropriate term. But how is it that you and Benjamin are saying the same thing? You’re saying that the fame of an artwork, fame made possible by mechanical reproduction, increases one’s desire to own the original, and that this phenomenon is “exactly the opposite” of what Benjamin is asserting in his discussion. Right? Such that sophisticated marketing strategies may enable an artist to enjoy higher prices.
That’s difficult to deny, but I don’t think it’s what Benjamin is interested in in his essay. He seems to address that phenomenon (or its potential due to mechanical reproduction) as a negative development (expaned on by John Berger’s Ways of Seeing as a way for institutions to essentially propogandize -is that a word?- and retain their authority).
So how are you saying the same things, or am I misinterpreting you? What readings do you mean? It’s an old essay, and much of the cultural context has changed, but the distinction between celebrity and “aura” in the age of mechanical reproduction seems a fundamental point; and enjoyable to discuss. (AND very salient in the current art world/market)
Incidentally, since icommons.org is the primary place to read the interview, I thought it would be appropriate to post on that site, as well. I did, but I guess it didn’t take.
Incidentally, since icommons.org is the primary place to read the interview, I thought it would be appropriate to post on that site, as well. I did, but I guess it didn’t take.
I think we are on the same page, and perhaps a useful distinction might be between value (“aura”) and value (“monetary”). A little didactic, but the two sometimes go hand in hand, and sometimes do not. I think that what you are saying is that Benjamin sees the these two as opposed? The former is “good,” the latter is “bad”? For me, a bit of a control freak, my intended (or at least an interesting) context and provenance must go with a “meme”d work in order for it to be successful (aura), and if a “money”d work takes away from that, I’d be unhappy — and I’d agree with you / Benjamin here.
I’ve heard this conflated/misused by opponents of and/or newcomers to CC, to say that monetary value decreases as a work of art is distributed (we both agree this is silly – I am not attributing b/c the two that come to mind have since changed their minds and would likely not want to be linked to). This is what I was arguing against, and again, I misspoke (was a phone interview).
But, and maybe this will carry on our discussion, I also disagree that the two are necessarily always opposed (what I think you and Benjamin are saying) — sometimes a meme’d work, even (tho less often) one that is misread (but later studied more b/c of this), can increase in both “forms” of value…
I think we are on the same page, and perhaps a useful distinction might be between value (“aura”) and value (“monetary”). A little didactic, but the two sometimes go hand in hand, and sometimes do not. I think that what you are saying is that Benjamin sees the these two as opposed? The former is “good,” the latter is “bad”? For me, a bit of a control freak, my intended (or at least an interesting) context and provenance must go with a “meme”d work in order for it to be successful (aura), and if a “money”d work takes away from that, I’d be unhappy — and I’d agree with you / Benjamin here.
I’ve heard this conflated/misused by opponents of and/or newcomers to CC, to say that monetary value decreases as a work of art is distributed (we both agree this is silly – I am not attributing b/c the two that come to mind have since changed their minds and would likely not want to be linked to). This is what I was arguing against, and again, I misspoke (was a phone interview).
But, and maybe this will carry on our discussion, I also disagree that the two are necessarily always opposed (what I think you and Benjamin are saying) — sometimes a meme’d work, even (tho less often) one that is misread (but later studied more b/c of this), can increase in both “forms” of value…
Apologies for the delay. Admittedly, I introduced them in my last post; but I’m not sure of the place of value judgements here. Insofar as the essay can be read as a lament for lost aura, then perhaps aura has “value” and things that reduce it are “bad”. But I’m more inclined to think Benjamin is describing a cultural phenomenon, neither “good” nor “bad”, and that the moral side of the essay exists primarily as a warning concerning this phenomenon and its potential for Fascist exploitation. In other words, Benjamin’s aura is not the same thing as “good”, and even bad art has aura when it is original (in the sense of not being a reproduction). In another part of the essay, Benjamin refers to mechanical reproduction as having liberated art from its “parasitical dependence on ritual”.
Also, my stake in this not the same as Benjamin’s; I’m only concerned with a correct interpretation of the essay. (“Aura” is one of the theoretical foundations of the piece, but it’s certainly a debatable one. It seems to exist largely as a matter of faith, and Benjamin’s definition of it is difficult to quantify – though, I admit I do prefer to think it’s for real.) I have a (limited) experience of teaching, and in my classes we read Berger’s Ways of Seeing. It’s always a challenging point to get students to understand that the celebrity status of certain works of art doesn’t amount to a democratization of art, or that this condition adds value in the sense of “aura” to works. Your referencing of Benjamin’s essay, and its apparent miscalculation, tugged at this part of my thinking, and my desire to clear up what I think is a common misinterpretation of the essay is what compelled me to post. (And I recognize it was telephone interview and it’s possible we’re in an echo chamber. I’m not trying to beat a dead horse).
Finally, I’m not familiar with the term meme’d; my brief research leads me to understand it as a work that is copied. Is there more to it? Is a photograph a meme’d work, or does it need to be digital? In any case, from the perspective of the essay I’d say that a meme’d work, and/or a photograph, if they are different, doesn’t have an aura to begin with. Again, I don’t think that’s “good” or “bad”, but it does illustrate the possible limitations of the essay these days.
Apologies for the delay. Admittedly, I introduced them in my last post; but I’m not sure of the place of value judgements here. Insofar as the essay can be read as a lament for lost aura, then perhaps aura has “value” and things that reduce it are “bad”. But I’m more inclined to think Benjamin is describing a cultural phenomenon, neither “good” nor “bad”, and that the moral side of the essay exists primarily as a warning concerning this phenomenon and its potential for Fascist exploitation. In other words, Benjamin’s aura is not the same thing as “good”, and even bad art has aura when it is original (in the sense of not being a reproduction). In another part of the essay, Benjamin refers to mechanical reproduction as having liberated art from its “parasitical dependence on ritual”.
Also, my stake in this not the same as Benjamin’s; I’m only concerned with a correct interpretation of the essay. (“Aura” is one of the theoretical foundations of the piece, but it’s certainly a debatable one. It seems to exist largely as a matter of faith, and Benjamin’s definition of it is difficult to quantify – though, I admit I do prefer to think it’s for real.) I have a (limited) experience of teaching, and in my classes we read Berger’s Ways of Seeing. It’s always a challenging point to get students to understand that the celebrity status of certain works of art doesn’t amount to a democratization of art, or that this condition adds value in the sense of “aura” to works. Your referencing of Benjamin’s essay, and its apparent miscalculation, tugged at this part of my thinking, and my desire to clear up what I think is a common misinterpretation of the essay is what compelled me to post. (And I recognize it was telephone interview and it’s possible we’re in an echo chamber. I’m not trying to beat a dead horse).
Finally, I’m not familiar with the term meme’d; my brief research leads me to understand it as a work that is copied. Is there more to it? Is a photograph a meme’d work, or does it need to be digital? In any case, from the perspective of the essay I’d say that a meme’d work, and/or a photograph, if they are different, doesn’t have an aura to begin with. Again, I don’t think that’s “good” or “bad”, but it does illustrate the possible limitations of the essay these days.
Apologies for the delay. Admittedly, I introduced them in my last post; but I’m not sure of the place of value judgements here. Insofar as the essay can be read as a lament for lost aura, then perhaps aura has “value” and things that reduce it are “bad”. But I’m more inclined to think Benjamin is describing a cultural phenomenon, neither “good” nor “bad”, and that the moral side of the essay exists primarily as a warning concerning this phenomenon and its potential for Fascist exploitation. In other words, Benjamin’s aura is not the same thing as “good”, and even bad art has aura when it is original (in the sense of not being a reproduction). In another part of the essay, Benjamin refers to mechanical reproduction as having liberated art from its “parasitical dependence on ritual”.
Also, my stake in this not the same as Benjamin’s; I’m only concerned with a correct interpretation of the essay. (“Aura” is one of the theoretical foundations of the piece, but it’s certainly a debatable one. It seems to exist largely as a matter of faith, and Benjamin’s definition of it is difficult to quantify – though, I admit I do prefer to think it’s for real.) I have a (limited) experience of teaching, and in my classes we read Berger’s Ways of Seeing. It’s always a challenging point to get students to understand that the celebrity status of certain works of art doesn’t amount to a democratization of art, or that this condition adds value in the sense of “aura” to works. Your referencing of Benjamin’s essay, and its apparent miscalculation, tugged at this part of my thinking, and my desire to clear up what I think is a common misinterpretation of the essay is what compelled me to post. (And I recognize it was telephone interview and it’s possible we’re in an echo chamber. I’m not trying to beat a dead horse).
Finally, I’m not familiar with the term meme’d; my brief research leads me to understand it as a work that is copied. Is there more to it? Is a photograph a meme’d work, or does it need to be digital? In any case, from the perspective of the essay I’d say that a meme’d work, and/or a photograph, if they are different, doesn’t have an aura to begin with. Again, I don’t think that’s “good” or “bad”, but it does illustrate the possible limitations of the essay these days.
Thanks David – I appreciate the feedback, and the tugged teaching issues; I think the use of the word exploitative hit a nerve, given that it’s me trying to gain from my own work, and and not external forces… I appreciate and concede your clarification, and agree I should be more careful in my quick renderings of important historical pieces…
When I say meme’d, I mean the copied buzz of a work which can often happen through re-blogging. And aura, in your/Ben’ sense of the word, is unaffected. Hoep to chat face to face some time….
Thanks David – I appreciate the feedback, and the tugged teaching issues; I think the use of the word exploitative hit a nerve, given that it’s me trying to gain from my own work, and and not external forces… I appreciate and concede your clarification, and agree I should be more careful in my quick renderings of important historical pieces…
When I say meme’d, I mean the copied buzz of a work which can often happen through re-blogging. And aura, in your/Ben’ sense of the word, is unaffected. Hoep to chat face to face some time….
You’re right, since you’re trying to gain from your own work then perhaps “exploit” is not the right word. That seems like an important distinction that I didn’t consider.
Thanks for responding, our little 10-day analysis has been nice. Next time maybe in person. Cheers, Nathaniel
You’re right, since you’re trying to gain from your own work then perhaps “exploit” is not the right word. That seems like an important distinction that I didn’t consider.
Thanks for responding, our little 10-day analysis has been nice. Next time maybe in person. Cheers, Nathaniel
You’re right, since you’re trying to gain from your own work then perhaps “exploit” is not the right word. That seems like an important distinction that I didn’t consider.
Thanks for responding, our little 10-day analysis has been nice. Next time maybe in person. Cheers, Nathaniel
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }