PIPILOTTI RIST

DO YOU THINK THE CONTEMPORARY ART WORL VALUES ART WORK THAT USES NEW MEDIA/TECHNOLOGIES OVER TRADITIONAL MEDIA?

Gee I don't know, that's quite a broad question. I guess both have their place. But I would have to say that when it comes to the practical contemporary art world such as the movies, TV, video games, mucis etc, then definetly yes. In those sort of fields, new medias and technologies have become pretty much the staple, and things almost can't be done without them anymore. And it's not just special effects in movies, or sound mixing on albums and soundtracks and stuff like that. Concept art for example, which is pretty much the foundation of any media enterprise these days, almost has to be done digitally these days in order to meet deadlines. I mean concept designs for characters, costumes, etc, can be and are still being done with pen and paper, but proper production paintings which set mood, tone and lighting, pretty much have to be painted digitally these days, because to paint them by hand would take at least ten times longer, and they have to be churned out a dozen a day almost. And the music industry these days relies almost entirely on computers, even if the music itself is recorded tradionally with instruments. And video games , which I would argue is also definetly art, is pretty much a new technology/media in iotself.

But I guess the question above is probably directed more at the world of contemporary fine arts, which is basically a minefield of grey areas.  I think that as it stands, new medias and technologies, which is really only used in installation kind of art, is despite its popularity, still more of an outside niche in the art world. I mean sure we see a lot of it, but after doing seventeen hours of thorough research on the matter, I'm getting the impression that tradionally crafted paintings and sculptures are still the popular majority in the fine arts world.
In fact, in a recent segment about Manhattan fine art in New York business journal, the numbers would suggest that traditional painters and sculptors are about ten million times more popular than installation artists using new media. Now obviously this is an unfair statistic in terms of artistic 'value' amongst the fine arts community because it springs from the notion that a famous painter in Manhattan can develop a following, and turn his paintings into profitable commodities, selling them for several million dollars apiece, whereas an installation artist can't. That is to say that he can develop a following just the same, and snag fairly decent commissions for an installation or two, but he cannot turn the installation itself into a commodity and sell it (at least not in most cases.).

So the study showed that tradional media is definetly more profitable in the contemporary fine arts world, and according to studies, also more popular and more heavily patronized. So I would have to go out on a limb here and guess that at this stage, traditional painting and sculpture is probably still the king of the fine arts world. And Im basing it on the fact that people simply hear about famous contemporary painters more often than they do about famous installation artists. But that can of course all change, because the whole new media/technology/ installation art thing is still a relatively new category in the fine arts field.

(unfortunately I cannot quote the exact title of that New York Business article because I was reading it in a takeaway shop a few years back, pretty sure it was 'The New Yorker' though.)