So yesturday was the first offical Big Crit. The first two presentations. I really love hearing people present their work and ideas, plus i throughly enjoy the discussion. One topic came up which i felt had a connection to my own work (and to artists working with technology all over the world).
The use of technology removes the personal touch of the artist. However i always find statements like this odd; afterall isnt the paint brush a physical form that is not part of our person and therefore the mark isnt personal. Mind you, technology digitalises the interaction and categorises it, in order for the programs to understand. Which would mean there is a limitation for the mark to fit into the categories.
The reason this debate arose: The artist had mentioned that the super-natural and the 'aura' were a key element in his work. Then continued to say he wanted to scan images in, print them onto canvas, re-paint, re-scan, and continue the routine.
Lecturer Sue Williams had said that the mark was no longer personal and felt that the 'aura' wouldnt be expressed within art created through technology.
However i disagree, i feel that the struggle between technology and non-technology would be an interesting one. The idea that by scanning you are forcing something organic and personal (your aura) into the 'machine'. For the image to then be manipulated and produced from the 'machine'. For me the 'machine' can have its own aura, the imperfections when printing, low quality files, damaged or 'lost' fragments of files. Something the artist doesnt have control over, as if collaberating with the 'machine' itself. Ive heard of "The ghost in the machine" and theories surrounding it. I feel its definetly something i need to start reading into.
I cant wait to see how his art develops, personally, i feel the use of technology in his work will create a heightened sense of the personal-aura in contrast with the mechanical-aura.
