http://rhizome.org/editorial/2012/jan/26/jim-sanborn/
This article was featured on Rhizome.com and the reason why it caught my eye is because I noticed that the article actually showed the art work, and so far I have mostly seen reviews or interviews with the artist that more often than not avoids showing the piece of work. I guess that as a performing artist, I am comfortable with reviewing any work of art, only AFTER I have experienced the work of art myself. It's hard for me to talk about something when I'm only reading what someone else thinks about it. Does that make sense?
In this case, this article about Jim Sanborn, of which I knew almost nothing except a cameo on Dan Brown's "The Lost Symbol" did not feature any specific work, but it was more like a compilation/interview of his work. Like I said before, the reason why I decided to read the article in the first place was because I saw some photographs, (the one I'm showing is my favorite of the 9 shown on Rhizome)
After reading about Sanborn's work, I imagine that there is a code or secret meaning in this picture, Yet, I'm satisfied with not knowing exactly what it is that I'm looking at. I think that all the sculptures, pictures and installations that Sanborn makes have an aesthetic value on their own, with the extra spice of the mysterious code behind it. The code in itself is not art, because it's just a series of mathematical combinations, but the sculpture is art on it's own. I don't know how to differentiate "clasical" sculpture from "New Media" sculpture which is my understanding is the focus of this class. Or is it only art that is made trough computers and I lost the focus in this assignment?
perhaps someone could clarify this for me? What Sanborn's sculptures new art media? The combination of the codes with the sculpture? the period of time in which he is creating them? The focus of the art which looks to engage people all over the world in the activity of cracking a code?
No comments:
Post a Comment