| Summary: | We are entering an era where creating the fantastical is possible in the arts. In the areas of mixed reality and biological arts, responsive works are created based on advances in basic science and technology. This is enabling scientists and artists to pose new questions. As the time between discovery and application is so short, artists need imaginative ways of accessing new technology in order to critique and use it.These are the new paints that the majority of artists cannot afford or access, technology to enable cloning of DNA, to print channels on a chip, to access proprietary 3G networks. Currently, partnerships or residencies are used to facilitate artist’s access to these technologies. What would they do if technology was available that enabled them to make any art work they so desire? Are the limitations in current technology an advantage rather than a disadvantage in some of their works? Does interaction with technologists make their work more robust? Are there disadvantages? How do they get access to the technology they require? Open source or proprietary? Or have they encountered the situation where their vision is greater than technology allows. When their work breaks because of this fact, is their art broken? Blast Theory (Brighton,UK), FoAM(Brussels, Belgium and Amsterdam, Netherlands), SymbioticA (Perth, Australia) are organisations pushing technological boundaries in the service of art. This paper addresses some questions of technology transfer in relation to recent artworks, particularly I like Frank in Adelaide (Blast Theory), transient reality generators (trg) (FoAM) and Multi electrode array artist (MeART) (SymbioticA).
|
|---|
