For the section Digital Archiving as an Art Practice by Dew Harrison, I thought the idea of archiving stuff sounded great only because I think it could really showcase an artists work; how they have grown, the different ways their art has been expressed, or just how their work has evolved. Its also possible to show how certain art pieces can reflect on different time periods in the artists lives, or how certain circumstances could affect/influence their art.
Towards the end of this section it discusses personal archiving is so accessible, and closes with "It is open to the common man, as accessible as stamp-collecting and as comfortable as the older technologies of print and photography to the present-day artist" (Harrison 108). So this quote it saying digital archiving is ubiquitous and available to everyone and every genre.
In Preservation of Net Art in Museums by Anna Laforet, it talks about how they are trying to save all this info digitally. In reading this I remembered taking this class with Muhlhauser last semester, and we were talking about print and digital info, and how digital could easily be lost or damaged or whatever because of technical issues, whereas print is a hard physical copy (just have to find room and hope theres not a fire). I appreciated the statement on page 110: "Which elements of Net art works should be emphasised, described, documented and kept?" This makes me wonder how things are decided about what is kept and why. (I also just remembered that supposedly the library of congress is keeping every single tweet ever made. Is this true? And why??)
I can understand that it can be interesting, or maybe even useful to keep things from the past. It can be fun or just a great piece of history. But how do we decide whats important enough to keep? Are there regrets over things we have tossed?
No comments:
Post a Comment