My main interests in my art are image creation and perception, and viewer participation. Interactive mirrors offer an ideal platform to experiment with both these ideas.
I think that separating the artistic from the technological is not wanted for an artist whose work revolves around technology. I am inspired by technology and science no less than I am inspired by art, not unlike a sculptor who works in, say marble, and lets the material guide and inspire.
Some works are about the material and use the intrinsic qualities of that material such as wood, rust, and fur. In other cases, the material is merely a necessity to fabricate the piece and in those cases the materials are more neutral such as plastic and steel.
In most pieces I hide the digital technology such as computer and wires but expose the mechanics. I find that those relate to people in a more human level. I find that people approach digital technology and computers with a set of assumptions (excitement, fear, familiarity) and these predispose them to view the piece in a way that is irrelevant to the art itself.
For practical and commercial reasons my pieces are always part of limited editions or unique commissions. However the question is valid, I think that with new viewing and distribution abilities such as software art and online art, art can reach many more people including those that are not the traditional art audience. I think this is wonderful and I think nothing is diminished from an art piece by having more of it. I think this mainly concerns collectors who are worried about the monetary value of their collection.
I think interacting with an art piece is in many levels taking ownership of it, which is, I think, the best relationship you can have with art. If the art also changes for your point of view or actions, then it makes you a unique and special viewer and hopefully helps you grasp what the art is about.
Good question. As an artist, one’s first instinct is to control every last detail of the art. Giving people an active role in the creation of the piece means that certain aspects of the piece remain undefined and unfinished until the moment of viewing. That is a great price to pay for an artist, but for me the reward is worth it, as the participation of people is the reason I make the art.
It makes my art more familiar to people, and in a way more integrated into their lives; on the other hand you don’t want the art to be interchangeable with other selfie making devices that perhaps place the viewer in a less contemplative mood. For that reason my art never captures the image of the viewer but rather temporarily presents it, making the point that the art is the moment and not the resulting artifact.
I am very optimistic about the future of technological art. Artists have always embraced new technologies and techniques, and the world of digital technology offers such potent tools that artists will adopt these for sure.
It is always helpful when high profile creators embrace a trend and make it visible to many more people. I think this influences the audience more than the art community, that is perhaps more influenced by less well-known creators.
“Experimenting” is exactly the right word. Approach this with curiosity and make sure that you are using the new tools for a reason and not just because it’s cool. There is craft involved in all art and this includes technological/digital art, so make sure to work on and develop your craft.
Make sure you are making something significant to you and others, this is true not just for art. The tools of digital technology are very easily used to create apps and services and devices that fill no real need other than their coolness and trendiness, it is a tempting trap because of the hype that surrounds some of the more successful ones, whose creators become rich and famous…