On Wednesday November 17 Dillon and I had the opportunity to go downtown to the Museum of Arts and Culture to listen to a lecture series given by the director of Survival Research Laboratories, Mark Pauline. Mark spent his late teen in the work force learning the difficult labor-intensive way that many Americans make a living. After just a few short years he decided he needed to go to college and after graduating college he began SRL in 1978 in San Francisco.
After his short experience in the defense engineering industry, Mark got tired of making things to hurt people and wanted to extract the hidden entertainment from these robotic machines. He felt as though everyone lives with a certain level of fear about the technologies that surround them, so he created SRL to extract the innate fear of technologies from his audience.
SRL’s focus is to create an orchestra of machines that terrify us while at the same time make socio-political, satirical commentary. A typical show put on by SRL spans anywhere between 15 and 45 minutes long and has a budget between $10,000 to $400,000. Mark personally determines the show size by tonnage of the combined robots, which can range anywhere from 10 to 100 tons of equipment. Many of the shows include elements that intentionally overload your senses, for example in many shows he has screeching, smaller jet engines, grinding, banging and my personal favorite the v1 buzz bomber, loud enough to be heard from 21 miles away.
The artist lecture, opened the public's eyes to a new kind of art, an art that attempts to be "the most original kind of art"-- art that is so complicated that it has never been done before, and shows that require so much time that it will never be done again. We feel that we are connected to this type of work because we feel that any artist's main goal is to be "the most original". Mark stated how his work was so far disconnected from reality, that he needed no explanation behind his intentions, other than "that's just the way things are". What determines if a work is original? Is there a point in time that no matter what one does, it was already done before, and we're just trying to make it better? Does a work have to be original to be good, or is the minimum alteration of “10%” going to become standard?
3 comments:
I was here at this lecture as well with Jake and Dillion. I like what Mark Pauline had to say and as his art work. I would have to agree that it is very unique and the only type of work that I have seen, in that style.
What I really appreciate about Marks work is that it bring something new to the art world, it pushes the limitations even further than what they already are.
In answer to Jakes and Dillion's question, I think that artists will always be searching for something unique and different, different ways to push the boundaries of what art is. I dont think that the 10% altercations will become a standard.
This is interesting to me. That Mark has moved from engineering hurtful machines, to creating art that is based off of fear of technology. That from his past work he followed it to new creative heights. Like Jake has stated, Mark attempts to create "the most original kind of art"-- an art that has never been done before. This is all great for me. I applaud all who strive to step outside of the norm. The norm becomes uninteresting and bland with time. However, i always fall into the question: Why should this be considered art? What about this gives it the appeal of beauty and deep content?
So my questions go along with Jakes on what makes art original? I give mark the title of original because his work is not heard of. It is new to me and from the sounds of it to many. However, i find it hard to really see beauty in it. robotics does not strike me as an artist principle. Yet, we are moving into a new time so perhaps Marks work will light the connection of technology with art.
To respond to your last question, I don't believe a work has to be original to be good. Rather, I believe a work needs to be unique in order to be successful. So people today talk about the current era of the "end of art" or "art after the end of art." Many of them believe that that everything that could have ever been deemed "original," or avant-garde, has been thought of. If this is true then that means no art that is made anymore is original. But there is still countless works of art that are still good. However, what makes them good is their uniqueness to everything else that has already been created.
Take Mark Pauline's work for example. There have been art works made before that involve his genre of robotic performances. Despite this, his recent show seems to still have been a success and deemed good. What makes it good is how unique his presentation is. To see a half an hour presentation of jet engines grinding and banging would be awesome. This display is unique to so many other robotic performances, especially because the know-how and expertise he has in the field of machinery and engineering. That is why his work is good.
So no, an art piece doesn't need to be original to be good - it needs to be unique. I only wish you guys would have filmed some of his work and posted a video of it for us to see!
Post a Comment