Context of Practice - At the Edge of Art Text

Blais, J. And Ippolito, J. (2006), At the Edge of Art, London, Thames and Hudson, Introduction, pages 7-13

The work of Joe Davies is this case is far from alone, other known artists have began to replicate his experiment once they witnessed it. Finding out if art has art has started to become ‘embedded in a bacterial genome’ (1) Davies specifically wanted to run with experiments that would uncover differences and similarities in other works and how they could be applied to an advantage also. It quotes ‘one reason is a shift interest from traditional forms to new-media tools and technologies’ (2). This gives us the impressions that poets and of course artists have been moulded this way because of the ever constant progress of technology and innovations.

As we continue, advancements in technology have allowed the art world become viral and an increasing number of websites directly display and access art, this is saying that ‘who would never set foot in a gallery stumble across works of art’ (3) by chance. This could be seen as an end to the like of galleries and museums as a result of these certain websites but it could still be noted that we don’t really appreciate that type of art any longer. Artwork is tremendously more easier to access because of the web, and with that ease we take it for granted and lose the connection that the artist intended. Ultimately quality is decreased and we do not see the piece for what its’ true value is.

Within ‘Art as Antibody’ it’s speculated how much we really do need art in our day to day lives. It states ‘Art may be temporarily out of place, but society needs to make place for it because society needs art to survive’ (4). This is a very bold statement claiming that we as humans just could not function without the creativeness of art, however it is question as our society is in constant motion and at times we don’t have space for art. Technology regularly takes its place, but does this mean art should be labeled an antibody? This statement could be seen as a little far fetched ‘portraying art as a virus may describe some of it proclivities but is misleading.’ (5).

Alternatively, ‘a better example of a cultural phenomenon that acts like a virus might be technology.’ (6). Technology has been given a new light in the text as a ‘Virus’. Quoted ‘No artwork has ever brought us to the brink of extinction’ (7) this again is an extremely bold statement, suggesting technology is a killer whereas art can spark debate and question between the general public and others. It will never possess the power to eliminate the human race. Basically it’s telling us that with the technology we have at our disposal, the simple push of a button and a few commands could destroy a huge amount of people with in seconds.

With this question ‘So, what makes an antibody different from a virus – and art different from mere technological innovation?’ (8). It could be said that there isn't really that big a difference. The arguments are clear and concise explaining that the antibody will do everything it can to shield the body from infection, even to the point of replicating some of an disease to be able to beat it. The same could be argued with art and technology, to preserve art it has had to mould with technology and use it against itself to continue existing.

Reference Points

1. Page 7, Line 3
2. Page 7, Line 27
3. Page 8, Line 26
4. Page 8, Line 4
5. Page 9, Line 27
6. Page 9, Line 30
7. Page 9, Line 37
8. Page 10, Line 40