I thought that malte's contribution deserved a bigger audience so I translated it and he asked me to post it for him:
translation of Malte Reimold’s contribution to a discussion on ‘dx and new media’, (July 9, 1997)
But the term art cannot be simply traced back to the concept of an ‘idea’. art is interaction and therefor it is not so much a question of the medium but of the method of how the idea is transmitted.
Can one evaluate art?
How do you determine a superior quality in ‘art’?
Wouldn’t that have to be in the method of transmission, considering that if you eliminate the outdated evaluating characteristics like technique and medium, all that’s left is not the idea --- which is a thing of speculation and inconsistency --- but what remains is the interaction between the art piece and the viewer, and this is what gives the art its actual meaning.
In stating this, I will not even assume that the intended effect is the same as the one felt by the viewer or that it is even remotely similar; the question is whether there was a reaction achieved at all.
This however is a question about the artwork itself, the environment and last not least about the viewer him/herself, because in the end, no piece of art is actually just a material creation; not the thing is the piece of art and not the phenomenon but it is the image created by the viewer based on the phenomenon; and in this respect most art is in fact conservative because the expectations of the viewer are met - but it is also a fact that without this interaction, without this move toward the viewer we could not be able to create any art at all.
Shock value in itself does not create art.
In fact the general practice of adding gimmicks has nothing to do with art.
it may certainly be a way to interact with the viewer without however giving him/her the opportunity to reflect upon their own interpretation; shock value might in itself be an irresistible asset, but it can never live up to the demand of the most minimal of expectations, namely live up to a meaningful interaction between the artwork and the viewer.
this is certainly not a call for a return of/to the oil painting - but it is a request to return --- in spite of all the theoretical talk --- to the actual meaning of the art and the underlying structure of how art is achieved.
In the case of art that has actually completed its mission, and that now has conquered all its variations of freedom, and that now stands in front of a wall of its own completion, i.e.: death and rigor mortis --- in such a case this line of thinking might be valuable in order to develop ideas for a new beginning rather than to dwell on elitist polemics.