DACS.Open.

 Last week, on a cold winter’s morning we travelled to Brighton for the third cycle of our experimental workshop programme with artists at digital culture agency Lighthouse.  The five artists participating – Simon Faithfull, Kate Genevieve, Elpida Hadzi-Vasileva, Clare Strand and artist group LuckyPDF joined Lighthouse’s Director Honor Harger to explore the theme of ‘post-digital.’

Housed in a former printworks, Lighthouse is located in the heart of Brighton’s North Laine, the city’s vibrant cultural quarter.  Lighthouse is a leading arts agency supporting, commissioning and showcasing new work by digital artists and filmmakers.  As well as being a vibrant venue for events in Brighton, Lighthouse supports artists and filmmakers by offering opportunities for development through commissions and mentoring programmes.

Once again the technologist Chris Thorpe led the discussion and took us on a journey through the potential of ‘post-digital’ and presented us with various objects manufactured using post-digital tools; a self-published newspaper from Twitter posts, an artwork dissected into multiples, 3D printing and a physical interpretation of data in the form of a snowman.

The conversation on how artists might employ post-digital tools began with some of the artists recalling their experiences and the challenges that face them.  One artist told of their plans for an on-demand printed book of their digital images, whilst another told us of their work being proposed for use as a print on t-shirts but felt that the pricing and distribution model was to their disadvantage.  Some artists questioned if there is a need for objects in a digitally advanced world.  Would people even want objects, especially a generation that has never had them?  “Why have a comforting teddy bear when you can have a mobile phone?”

 Artists expressed concern about the value of a post-digital artwork.  “The problem I have with 3D printing is why are we filling the world with all these multiples?”  Other artists argued that it moves the object away from being a commodity to being meaningful.  The issue of monetary value was also discussed with the artists questioning the perceived value a buyer has of a post-digital artwork.  The experience of buying art changes: does the way people pay relate to the value a buyer attributes to an object?   There is a certain validation when a buyer pays for work from a commercial gallery.  Where is the validation when buying post-digital art objects over the Internet?  The gallery system is about restricting access to art but this is at odds with that.  Does experience, validation and positioning equate with value?

Later the theme of the discussion developed into broader themes around identity and how there is a division between the public and private ‘lives’ of artists.  There was a sense of tension between space to create work, space to make money and space for the public.  One artist told of their relationship with the online world and how it is focussed purely on their work.  Another artist explained how social media is an integral part of their relationship with the public.  “We’re still asking the same questions but with different tools”

 Should we be humanising the online world?  One artist proposed that by humanising the online world, we would make it more meaningful.  “I think the humanising thing is making things more awkward, less easy…it’s using technology but actually doing boring, clunky, human, failing things.  The human becomes the failing, boring ghost in the machine.”