This was a really interesting reading to me, for one it focused on the idea of making art that is innovative and revels on defying boundaries, and then the type of art that works on perfecting a type of craft. As an artist this is something that I have been considering a lot lately, maybe not with these terms, but it has been a present question in the ways that I consider my own practice, especially as I start to veer into tech as a subject and medium of exploration. In the few decades, there has been an almost exponential advancement in the way technology is developing, I almost feel like making truly transcendental work in terms of media is almost ephemeral, it’s like we are a point in development where new forms of work and media (and combinations) are incredibly difficult to find. Or rather, making work based on innovation often feels transient.
The article sort of reaches a middle point in the idea of trying to make work that is both First Word and work that is also Last Word, and after all that is the goal? To make art that is subversive and memorable, but also work that challenges the hegemony.
Technology has somewhat distorted our idea of time, new forms of making art are emerging a lot faster, at least what is accepted by the art establishment (and what the definition of art accepts). I saw people argue that the idea of fame and memorability is something that needs to be constantly pushed, as artists we might not often have the opportunity to make a single relevant piece that becomes the talk of centuries, to be remembered there is a push to be constantly relevant as technology develops. I am not sure where I want my art to be, but I do think that I wish that what I make has the ability to be remembered.