"piracy/appropriation as hypermediacy or activated spectatorship
the culture (consumer, ad-based culture) is the installation/plane of immanence
Pirates are no longer passive viewers"
In my installation art class we are reading Installation Art by Claire Bishop. In this text she outlines four categories of installation art, describing one type as "activated spectatorship," or the kind that require/ask to viewer to participate in some sort of action to complete the artwork. In our discussion of this particular category, the idea of Immediacy vs. Hypermediacy (according to Jay David Bolter) was brought up. If installation art's aim was to shake the viewer out of their complacency or passivity as a spectator of art then the question was asked, "Can installation art that causes us to perceive ourselves perceiving be considered hypermediacy (an experience that is opaque and/or self-referrential)?"
My question is, "Can appropriative creation be considered hypermediacy?" If piracy/appropriation is a form of activated spectatorship in the installation that is our current media-based culture (our plane of immanence - I think I'm using that right), then I would venture to say yes. We watch a YouTube video mashup, or listen to a song with samples, and realize that the components have been appropriated from other sources. In those special moments when these acts subvert the media structure we're used to then we are no longer hypnotized by it, or passive. The experience can become opaque.
Just a thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment