what we call painting
Tuesday, 12 June 2012
“Digital creations contain a strange indifference, one could even say »falseness«, in the way they appear. Where they seem to be is not where they actually »are«. Or not just there. For everything digital is genuinely both polymorphic and multi-locational. It can be present simultaneously at very different locations. It has multiple addresses and multiple architectures for its appearance. It does not recognise the distinction between copy and original and it refuses to be defined by hardware for its own existence. Digital works go either to where a particular infra-structure enables their appearance or where they can be temporarily and metaphorically fixed in the form of a concrete object. Programs determine a visualisation and materialisation of data that is generated by yet more programs and make it clear that everything that we see could also be different.
However, this realisation presupposes a different understanding of the »white cube«. For digital artefacts, the neutralised exhibition space takes on the role less of a facilitator for an idealised viewing of the work, and much more that of a reflection on the media processes constituting these »works«. For what is to be done, if what is presented on the wall, in the room or on our screens conceals its origins ? If it dedicates itself to running the gamut of a multiplicity of interpretations that ultimately reject all interpretations celebrating generative programs. For this reason Cermâ aims to always do both. Here, laying out a trail through the secular origins of digital processes and making the simulations »real« and then, within the sacred walls of modernism, converting these traces into a well-tuned appreciation and analysis of their conditions.” – Marc Ries for CERMÂ