Work may well become inaccessible over time – hardware or software becomes obsolete or hard to source, knowledge to operate either may be lost, storage media degrades.
The work can be (repeatedly) updated to new software, hardware and/or media, but this very updating could violate the work. There may also be privacy issues with documentation and/or storage if the work involves the data of other people. The Rhizome.org project recommends uploading work and/or documentation of the work to the Internet. Maybe other current answers include creating galleries in Second Life or creating universal formats.
An archivist’s main task becomes storing old technology, updating technology, converting formats where applicable. A completely different skill set is required for this. Also requires a new budget and storage space – a second museum. What responsibilities do artists have to update their own work?
There are new ways to display material and generate visitor interaction. What are the correct combinations of venue or occasion and frequency to exhibit digital work? In addition, there are value issues for the museum: what is the original? Adjusting artist and curator and collector ideas of originality and control (work can be altered to pixel level, copied and interactive works have multiple originators). What value is such a work without the right hardware and software to access it?
Maybe we just have to adjust our ideas about permanence? There are strange conflicting forces at work. One circular force tells us that longevity is part of an art work’s value. Conversely, the forces of globalisation and rapid technological developments and their commercialisation work against permanence but for innovation. Maybe we just have to let works pass away?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment