Bilyana - Art-as-content: Difference between revisions

This page was last edited on 7 February 2024, at 11:20.
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(35 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="metadata">
<div class="metadata">
== Content as self-archiving: value shifts between the feed and the institution ==
<span id="Bilyana - Art-as-content"></span>
== Art-as-content: a proposition for value shifts between the feed and the institution ==
'''Bilyana Palankasova'''
'''Bilyana Palankasova'''
</div>Digital curation, post-internet practices and the circulation of images online have often been read through a networked (and sometimes socio-material) lens and referred to as nodes (Graham and Cook 2010, 158; Steyerl 2017, 144; Ghidini 2019). This attention to network curation and co-curation (Dekker and Tedone 2019) takes particular interest into the potential of digital curation to re-arrange digital spaces and also on the curatorial limits and lack of control which comes with the form of the feed (Wallerstein 2018). With its restrictive form, social media feeds allow for certain prescribed movements and ways of engagement. The interface has its own lexicon driven by verbs (likes, loves, shares) which relate to interaction design, as much as to traditional institutional needs of preserving, organising, categorising and archiving – and in this sense the experience of the feed draws on the vernacular of big tech as much as of cultural institutions (Hromack 2015).
</div>


Тhis text looks at the Instagram feed as a dominant form of artistic self-curation online and considers the role it has in value shifts in contemporary artistic practices and institutional contexts. How does content, limited by the form of the feed, perform documentation, and serve as historicizing tool of artistic practice? And could we consider this self-curation as also a practice of self-archiving and if so, what is its relationship with institutional discourse and thresholds of valuation and validation?
The smart phone with its convergence of phone, camera, screen, and network fundamentally changed the landscape of media circulation and distribution and expanded art documentation beyond the realm of traditional cultural institutions (Sluis 2022, 27). Subsequently, social media and the proliferation of visual content came with curatorial limits and lack of control associated with the form of the feed (Wallerstein 2018). With its restrictive form, social media feeds allow for certain prescribed movements and ways of engagement. 


Dena Yago talks about “a widespread shift in art towards the exhibition as content farm” referring to Yayoi Kusama’s ''Infinity Mirrored Room'' at the Broad Museum in LA and other examples of artworks which were widely documented online (Yago 2018). She suggests that this digital quality of often feed spam and demanding attention outside the white cube (or any institutional context) “proves its very status as art” (2018). I’m interested in exploring this extra- or para-institutional context as a value-generating mechanism. Instagram’s system of values is metric driven and centered around engagement, visibility, and virality. These metrics translate to social and cultural capital and speak to the demands of the attention economy. Contra-institutionally, one’s own content feed also allows for agency in constructing a self-narrative, artistic “brand” and potentially non-linear presentation and historicization (as opposed to traditional archives or collections).
The interface has its own lexicon driven by verbs (likes, loves, shares) which relate to interaction design, as much as to traditional institutional needs of preserving, organising, categorising and archiving – and in this sense the experience of the feed draws on the vernacular of big tech as much as of cultural institutions (Hromack 2015). At the same time, there is a widespread tendency within art towards “the exhibition as a content farm” to describe the proliferation of artworks widely documented online – and often that digital quality of feed spam and the demand for attention outside of the institutional context “proves its very status as art” (Yago 2018).


I’d like to consider these dichotomies through Boris Groys’ framework of “the new” to articulate the role of art documentation as content in cultural innovation. Groys reinforces a similar dichotomy by suggesting that there is a shifting value threshold which separates the archives from the “profane realm” – perceived as vulgar, valueless, extra-cultural things; and things become “new” when they travel from this profane sphere - “a reservoir for potentially new cultural values” - to institutional archives (Groys 2014, 64). Therefore, the new emerges in a process of intra-cultural “revaluation of values” (Groys 2014, 43). In that sense, the new is always already a re-value, a re-interpretation, “contextualisation or decontextualisation of a cultural attitude or act conforming to culture’s hidden economic laws” (Groys 2014, 57). If we consider the widespread perception of content as profane, how could these value shift and interactions between the feed and the archive represent cultural or artistic innovation through self-documentation and historicisation?
In this context, rather than thinking about crisis in political imagination, this proposition stands against the impossibility of new narratives within techno-capitalist content platforms. It proposes a reading of the relationship between form and artistic content production on social media as a performance of shifting values. Specifically, I position ''art-as-content'' on Instagram as a mechanisms of cultural innovation through Boris Groys’ theoretical lens.


Bibliography
Groys believes that value is attached to cultural objects through “cultural archives” – public institutions such as museums, universities, libraries, archives etc. which structure and store cultural works in a particular value hierarchies. At the same time, cultural innovation is always achieved via a rational and “strategic” synthesis of “positive” and “negative adaptation” to the valorised cultural tradition (Groys 2014, 108) – the new is still defined in its position against the old. Groys suggest that there is a shifting value line separating the archives from the “profane realm” – what is thought to be vulgar, valueless, or extra-cultural (Groys 2014, 64).


* Dekker, Annet, and Gaia Tedone. 2019. “Networked Co-Curation: An Exploration of the Socio-Technical Specificities of Online Curation.” ''Arts'' 8 (3): 86. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.3390/arts8030086</nowiki>.
In this conceptual framework, the process of cultural innovation as the production of the new (not as the new per se) is realised by movement from the profane space (“a reservoir for potential new cultural values”) to the archives themselves. In a sense, a process of institutionalisation through the mobility of values. Groys exemplifies this with the ready-made and its historical revaluation to become a dominant aesthetic (Groys 2014, 95). He observes that this process changes and modifies value hierarchies in the archives through the valorisation of the profane (Groys 2014, 147).  
* Ghidini, Marialaura. 2019. “Curating on the Web: The Evolution of Platforms as Spaces for Producing and Disseminating Web-Based Art.” ''Arts'' 8 (3): 78. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.3390/arts8030078</nowiki>.
* Graham, Beryl, and Sarah Cook. 2010. ''Rethinking Curating: Art after New Media''. Leonardo Books. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
* Groys, Boris. 2014. ''On The New''. London: Verso.
* Hromack, Sarah. 2015. “Another ‘C’ Word: On Content and the (Techno) Curatorial.” ''Red Hook Journal, CCS Bard'', Art Publishing & The Web, , March. <nowiki>https://ccs.bard.edu/redhook/another-c-word-on-content-and-the-techno-curatorial/index.html</nowiki>.
* Steyerl, Hito. 2017. ''Duty Free Art: Art in the Age of Planetary Civil War''. London: Verso.
* Wallerstein, Wade. 2018. “Circumventing the White Cube: Digital Curatorial Practices in Contemporary Media Landscapes.” Anti-Materia. 2018. <nowiki>https://anti-materia.org/circumventing-the-white-cube</nowiki>.
* Yago, Dena. 2018. “Content Industrial Complex - Journal #89.” ''E-Flux'', no. 89 (March). <nowiki>https://www.e-flux.com/journal/89/181611/content-industrial-complex/</nowiki>.


Following this conceptual framework, "art-as-content" represents a shifting value line between "content" (as the profane and vulgar feed) and the institutional cultural archive (or institutionalised practices) and therefore engages a process of re-valuation of content. This could be exemplified in two ways: 


Firstly, "art-as-content" by the feed being incorporated in artistic production. By its integration into artistic performances the feed becomes a meaningful cultural objects, a sort of ready-made, a form for the presentation of artistic work. A key work to illustrate this would be Amalia Ulman's ''Excellences & Perfections -'' a performance of consumerist lifestyle on Instagram and Facebook.   
[[File:Excellences & Perfections.jpg|thumb|773x773px|Amalia Ulman, ''Excellences & Perfections'', 2014. Screenshot of [https://webenact.rhizome.org/excellences-and-perfections/20141014150552/http://instagram.com/amaliaulman Rhizome webenact].]]                       
Secondly, "art-as-content" by the feed becoming an archive in itself through the use of the profile page by artists as a self-curated archive and a grid for documenting work. On Instagram in particular, the profile feed has become a publishing space for sharing art documentation. From an artist's perspective, this allows for agency in constructing one's narrative as an archive of curated documents, which exists outside of traditional cultural institutions and challenges traditional thresholds of valuation.<ref>An earlier version of this text focused solely on "art-as-content" in the form of art documentation published by artists on Instagram as a form of record keeping and public archive. While acknowledging the history and significance of performance art on social media and its relationship to discourses around documentation of performance more widely, I wanted to discuss a single instance of art documentation online as a self-archive and didn't plan on including social media performance as an instance illustrating my argument. Subsequently, after comments from peers, I decided to widen the scope of the discussion by differentiating between two kinds of "art-as-content".</ref>
<div id="bilyana-images"><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block; vertical-align: top;"> [[File:SofiaCrespo1.jpg|thumb|Sofia Crespo, s''elf-contained 003,'' Screenshot of an Instagram reel published on 7 Oct 2023.]] </li>
<li style="display: inline-block; vertical-align: top;"> [[File:SofiaCrespo caption.jpg|thumb|Sofia Crespo, ''self-contained 003,'' 2023. Screenshot of caption for Instagram reel.]] </li>
</ul></div>
Thinking through these two re-evaluations of content within cultural production proposes a shift in the relationship between content production and artistic representation and through the lens of cultural innovation suggests potential for content as both a tool and object of research in the historicisation of creative practices.
<references/>
<noinclude>
[[Category:Content form]]
[[Category:Content form]]
</noinclude>

Latest revision as of 11:20, 7 February 2024

The smart phone with its convergence of phone, camera, screen, and network fundamentally changed the landscape of media circulation and distribution and expanded art documentation beyond the realm of traditional cultural institutions (Sluis 2022, 27). Subsequently, social media and the proliferation of visual content came with curatorial limits and lack of control associated with the form of the feed (Wallerstein 2018). With its restrictive form, social media feeds allow for certain prescribed movements and ways of engagement.

The interface has its own lexicon driven by verbs (likes, loves, shares) which relate to interaction design, as much as to traditional institutional needs of preserving, organising, categorising and archiving – and in this sense the experience of the feed draws on the vernacular of big tech as much as of cultural institutions (Hromack 2015). At the same time, there is a widespread tendency within art towards “the exhibition as a content farm” to describe the proliferation of artworks widely documented online – and often that digital quality of feed spam and the demand for attention outside of the institutional context “proves its very status as art” (Yago 2018).

In this context, rather than thinking about crisis in political imagination, this proposition stands against the impossibility of new narratives within techno-capitalist content platforms. It proposes a reading of the relationship between form and artistic content production on social media as a performance of shifting values. Specifically, I position art-as-content on Instagram as a mechanisms of cultural innovation through Boris Groys’ theoretical lens.

Groys believes that value is attached to cultural objects through “cultural archives” – public institutions such as museums, universities, libraries, archives etc. which structure and store cultural works in a particular value hierarchies. At the same time, cultural innovation is always achieved via a rational and “strategic” synthesis of “positive” and “negative adaptation” to the valorised cultural tradition (Groys 2014, 108) – the new is still defined in its position against the old. Groys suggest that there is a shifting value line separating the archives from the “profane realm” – what is thought to be vulgar, valueless, or extra-cultural (Groys 2014, 64).

In this conceptual framework, the process of cultural innovation as the production of the new (not as the new per se) is realised by movement from the profane space (“a reservoir for potential new cultural values”) to the archives themselves. In a sense, a process of institutionalisation through the mobility of values. Groys exemplifies this with the ready-made and its historical revaluation to become a dominant aesthetic (Groys 2014, 95). He observes that this process changes and modifies value hierarchies in the archives through the valorisation of the profane (Groys 2014, 147).

Following this conceptual framework, "art-as-content" represents a shifting value line between "content" (as the profane and vulgar feed) and the institutional cultural archive (or institutionalised practices) and therefore engages a process of re-valuation of content. This could be exemplified in two ways:

Firstly, "art-as-content" by the feed being incorporated in artistic production. By its integration into artistic performances the feed becomes a meaningful cultural objects, a sort of ready-made, a form for the presentation of artistic work. A key work to illustrate this would be Amalia Ulman's Excellences & Perfections - a performance of consumerist lifestyle on Instagram and Facebook.

Amalia Ulman, Excellences & Perfections, 2014. Screenshot of Rhizome webenact.

Secondly, "art-as-content" by the feed becoming an archive in itself through the use of the profile page by artists as a self-curated archive and a grid for documenting work. On Instagram in particular, the profile feed has become a publishing space for sharing art documentation. From an artist's perspective, this allows for agency in constructing one's narrative as an archive of curated documents, which exists outside of traditional cultural institutions and challenges traditional thresholds of valuation.[1]

  • Sofia Crespo, self-contained 003, Screenshot of an Instagram reel published on 7 Oct 2023.
  • Sofia Crespo, self-contained 003, 2023. Screenshot of caption for Instagram reel.

Thinking through these two re-evaluations of content within cultural production proposes a shift in the relationship between content production and artistic representation and through the lens of cultural innovation suggests potential for content as both a tool and object of research in the historicisation of creative practices.

  1. An earlier version of this text focused solely on "art-as-content" in the form of art documentation published by artists on Instagram as a form of record keeping and public archive. While acknowledging the history and significance of performance art on social media and its relationship to discourses around documentation of performance more widely, I wanted to discuss a single instance of art documentation online as a self-archive and didn't plan on including social media performance as an instance illustrating my argument. Subsequently, after comments from peers, I decided to widen the scope of the discussion by differentiating between two kinds of "art-as-content".