One additional little fact: The Guardian's daily circulation (for print
version) during April 2016 was just above 160,000. If you consider how
many of those readers might actually read an art review the number
decreases significantly. Moreoever, the Guardian's readership is likely
to be over 25 (perhaps even over 35) so middle-aged or above, or working
in institutions which would buy the paper for records - so a further
gap opens up between the mainstream journalists trying to do their job
by being a bit provocative and sceptical for their middleaged audiences
(who will remember C.P. Snow) and the increasingly younger audiences who
most probably will not. But they will know about CERN and particle
accelerators and even, if they get fully into Ikeda's work, feel it
phenomenologically!
B
On 2016-05-31 00:37, bronac@boundaryobject.org wrote:
> Dear Yasminers & Liliane
>
> Thanks very much for this response. I do agree with you about the regular entwining of visual art criticism in major newspapers with the gallery museum network. It is more likely that reasonably informed reviews about work such as Ikeda's would be found in magazines such as The Wire - not that I am complaining about The Guardian deciding to cover this particular work in the car park! I think there is another broader issue underlying this dialogue which is about evaluation and where in hybrid fields one should look for it and find it. Double blind peer review doesn't just apply to science of course but applies also throughout humanities research and practice-led arts research. It would falsify the whole situation of making and receiving art if somehow the value of the experience was measured by its repeatability. But a certain level of cohesive critical acceptance is often one way of assessing whether or not an artwork matters (in the long-term). That criticism is no longer
confined to journalistic gatekeepers but can spread virally through social media, word of mouth and niche commentary is a very good thing for activities that weren't designed to fit within established categories or indeed markets.
>
> B
>
> On 2016-05-30 16:00, Liliane Lijn wrote: Hi Roger, Bronac and all
>
> I have been reading your reactions to Jonathan Jones' negative review of Ryogi Ikeda's installation. I tried to see it in the Brewer street Carpark but it was very soon closed down due to overcrowding. I have been to CERN on a fascinating albeit brief visit and came away with more of an understanding of the hugeness of the endeavour. One of the great differences between science and art is that science, despite the usual individual striving for success, is on the whole a collaborative discipline. It is collaborative on an international scale, while art is on the whole rooted in the individual and up until very recently, a way of seeing the world through another's eyes.Proust described it as being similar to seeing the then unknown dark side of the moon. We have now seen that dark side and his metaphor may no longer be valid, in that art practice is slowly moving towards a more collaborative methodology, particularly in the field of art and science.
>
> I also came away from CERN feeling that cosmology and particle physics, now so entwined, is also deeply connected to ancient creation myths.
>
> I concur with Bronac's query regarding the absence of serious critical attention from major art journals and newspapers but wouldn't that also be because they are tied to the entire gallery museum network? That and an unwillingness to embark on research of their own sets the reviewers back in the comfortable past of art devoted to formal aesthetic pursuits or ironic commentaries on society. As Bronac writes, there is a whole world of younger more energetic minds who find this work of interest, who can and do interact with it. So many of them that the carpark had to be closed and I couldn't see the installation.
>
> Even more interesting is the possibility that scientists and artists may be able to feed each other, that collaborations between artists and scientists can become a meaningful two way process where both discover something new from their communication.
>
> all best
>
> Liliane
>
> Liliane Lijn
>
> 07770350633
> 02088095636 www.lilianelijn.com [1]
>
> On 29 May 2016, at 20:15, bronac@boundaryobject.org wrote:
> Hi Roger and all
>
> I missed it unfortunately - but I did hear great things about this event
> from curator/producers who understand this kind of work and there was a
> real buzz about the project in London when it was taking place.
>
> You can sample a bit of it and read other perspectices from more
> informed voices here:
>
> http://www.thevinylfactory.com/vinyl-factory-films/watch-a-trailer-for-ryoji-ikedas-supersymmetry-installation-open-now-at-brewer-street-car-park/
>
> http://www.timeout.com/london/art/ryoji-ikeda-supersymmetry
>
> https://iloveqc.org/ryoji-ikeda-supersymmetry-at-brewer-street-carpark-london-review/
>
> I think broader questions are 'why do even high profile big budget
> art-science related works rarely get reviewed in mainstream press' or
> 'why do they receive such poor (as in poorly researched) reviews when
> this does happen'....which are difficult questions to
> answer------suspect Joost is right. One wouldn't look to The Guardian or
> its reviewers for an informed perspective on Ikeda and this kind of
> practice which comes from a root that would not be familiar to them. It
> is like they are being sent off to review a work without having any
> knowledge of the artist's professional trajectory up to this point so
> this doesn't get mentioned nor does any reference get made to the
> context within which the CERN residency took place (ie a whole history
> of such encounters). So the old chestnut of art and science and their
> mutual mis/understanding becomes the focus of this tired and trite
> commentary. Sadly while reviewers such as Jones might think they are
> being provocative in fact fewer and fewer people are listening
> ....certainly the audiences for this kind of work (which are enormous
> and increasingly youthful) have slipped well beyond the orbit of the
> newspaper's sphere of influence.
> Bronaċ
> _______________________________________________
> Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
>
> Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
>
> SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
> HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
> TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
> If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
Links:
------
[1] http://www.lilianelijn.com/
_______________________________________________
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
