SL is not a parallel universe without any relation to real life.

One opinion would be that it is an artificially created environment, not so different from, let’s say, the interior of a building or the ensemble of buildings and streets in a big city. To create art in SL would not be much different from placing a sculpture in your living room. The respective question is: so what differentiates the sculpture from the furniture?

Another view is that SL, and any other virtual environment, is a medium in itself. Consequently, the first question then is: what differentiates SL from other media in general? Or from other digital media, e.g., from the WWW?

In my opinion, art in SL exists in our real world just as any other form of art. It is not decoupled from reality or nature, and if an artist in SL wants to make work that is beautiful, she has to ask exactly the same question: why not plant a flower (in reality, of course)?

Left by selavy on May 5th, 2008

The sky and the grass are not real in SL. They are simulations intended to soften the radical departure that synthetic worlds represent. They are a thin coating of the familiar on the unknown.

While the grass and sky are bad imitations of another world, they are obviously intended to be so. Art is a trickier business than things we might well ignore as landscaping. Intent is the key here and I think the standard to differentiate one virtual “thing” from another.

Virtual hair intended to be hair is hair. Art intended to be art is art. And while virtual hair may also be art, it is to a lesser degree art and a greater degree hair as intended (both its form and function demonstrate this). There is also the issue that hair cannot really exist in virtual space (the human body never developed in virtual space) so while hair can be art, hair cannot be real in virtual space, but art can be real in both places.

Why is the distinction of realness important? Because in a world of intent, context is the next more important factor. You intend for such and such a thing, in such and such a context. If real art is displayed in an unreal context, it calls into question the realness of the art since there are simulations of art that are not intended to be art first, but simulations of art. I need to consult Baudrilliard for more information about the difference between art and the simulation of art.

My point is this:

There is no grass in SL or flowers to plant, and the thing you might think is only an object of beauty in SL, might have other qualities that are not possible in another realm and therefore difficult to perceive through that lens. It is exactly these qualities that become important and demand a new critical language be used to understand them. A new lens.

You didn’t want a “dry academic” version and I guess my answer above is exactly that. However I will go further to say that I believe that the most important role of the contemporary artist in any realm is to inspire in the viewer some sense of wonder, not in the cheap disney way, but in a way that promotes the idea that many things are possible. If an artist is lucky, and clear, and focused they MIGHT be able to give that gift to people and to tell you the truth I don’t think that there is anything better than the affirmation that being holds incredible possibilities. With this change of perspective comes hope that life has meaning in the universe, and lacking that at least a little beauty.

So the insistence that art “step up” and mean something, is a frame that doesn’t apply. I know this drives postmodernists nuts but there is plenty of art that does that, and it is more appropriate in the material world, where it is native and the conditions it must “step up” and explain exist.

Left by DC Spensley on May 7th, 2008

Second Life is often more successful conceptually than in (un)reality. What is possible is always limited by current computer power and all the technical issues of the software. Total immersion or disconnection from the real world is made impossible because the unstable nature of the platform always reminds us of our inescapable physicality.

So, for me, real life is still the strongest reference point I have for my art in SL, I think the merging of the two worlds throws up some exciting possibilities and I like to experiment with that. The work I left at Brooklyn is Watching last week was an example of what I mean, although I didn’t explain it very well on the podcast. Basically, I see in the future, an environment much like Second Life where people that have died in the the physical world can have their minds, memories, conciousness, uploaded into a computer and continue to exist in a digital form. If and when we reach the point where we are totally removed from our physical bodies then all references to real life may become redundant. I say “may”, because even in a digital form, our memories, presuming we would keep them intact, might prevent that from happening.

Until then I just don’t see how we can not acknowledge our real lives in digital art but we can do it in clever and stimulating ways. Ichibot Nishi for example, does this with all his work, particularly with his ‘Lambda Mnemonic’, which is highly relevant to this discussion. He created, on the surface, a quite alien environment but nevertheless real life references and associations burst through the barrier between the two worlds and found a powerful resonance.

I am not interested in art made by robots, it’s the person behind a work of art that gives it substance, depth and meaning.

Left by Arahan Claveau on May 7th, 2008

I have been pondering this question ever since it has been asked, and although I have strong feelings about it, I lack the eloquence to verbalize. I’m not a word person; I think more visually.

Then I came across a passage in ‘The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics’ by Gary Zukav that pretty closely captures how I feel about Second Life art, and indeed all art in general.

The passage in question suggests that the act of discovery is very close to the act of creation, and that scientists are, in that sense, similar to artists, poets, painters:

“… people whose gift it is by nature to take those things which we call commonplace and to re-present them for us in such ways that our self-imposed limitations are expanded.”

I think that pretty much nails it. In my opinion, anyway.

Left by nebulosus.severine on May 14th, 2008