Reading Response: Distracted Reception:

This reading discussed the idea of art as a form of distraction, both in a positive way or a negative way. It states that art is not only a distraction but is received in a state of distraction, used to distract ourselves from other distractions in a way that does not create more distraction but rather brings the viewer back to attention because they are distracted from whatever it was that was distracting them before, at least for a moment or two before they are against distracted.

As the above slightly tongue-in-cheek explanation might suggest, this reading seemed a bit repetitive to me, though the idea that it was trying to get across was fairly clear. For hundreds of years, humans have used art as a distraction and created art in search of distraction. Whether 'distraction' is a bad thing or a good thing is open for interpretation on a case-to-case basis, though. On one hand, if art is too distracting without also contributing attention to something constructive, it can take away from tasks that need to get done and more important subjects that need the viewers attention more urgently. On the other hand, every day life is stressful, and constructively distracting art can lower that stress, at least for a little while, before the viewer has to get back to whatever task happens to be at hand. So is distraction by art a problem? In high quantities, it can be, but if it's 'constructive' distraction that in turn brings attention to something worthwhile or simply helps relax the viewer from high stress levels or other unpleasantness I would say it is not a problem.

In the modern era, as interactive art becomes more and more common in the form of video games and other technologically produced work, it is important to keep this idea of distraction in mind. We are often enthralled by interactive art that speaks to us, whatever it may be, and this is a good way to introduce important ideas to the viewer, or in this case the user, as a way to bring attention to them while at the same time acting as a distraction. At the same time, though, we ought to be careful not to make these works too distracting without creating any sort of attention, and if we do, we should not indulge in such works too often.


Reading #2

The author of this reading seems to have a problem with the pretension that seems to surround art in the modern era, stating that

"Next time I see another 16mm film projector rattling away in a gallery I will personally kidnap it and take the poor thing to a pensioners home. There is usually no intrinsic reason whatsoever for the use of 16mm film nowadays except for making moving images look pretentious, expensive and vaguely modernist, all prepackaged with a whiff of WASPish art history" (Rourke 2013).

He also mentions a modern "refusal of class" in the modern digital art world, and in the world in general, artists trying to create without being defined by a class, place, economical standing, etc. To them art is not elevated on a pedestal but is simply another aspect of life, and the subjects of this art reflect this idea. In general, he seems to make a case for "real" art, art that is relevant in some way to real life and real ideas that speak to the everyday man, and not art that puts abstract symbols on a pedestal for high-class citizens to wonder about. It is this sort of art that truly speaks to the masses and is the base for artistic revolution. The idea of the glitch rides on the back of this idea, as being a part of mass-produced digital media which is constantly reproduced and reformatted and redesigned in this sort of mass media sharing.