Digital Primitivism: Preservation and Distribution of Images in Contemporary Visual Culture | Tomsk State University Journal of Cultural Studies and Art History. 2019. № 36. DOI: 10.17223/22220836/36/3

Digital Primitivism: Preservation and Distribution of Images in Contemporary Visual Culture

Contemporary visual practices аге characterized by rapid democratization of the ways of access and preservation of images. Due to the wide access to data, simplification and individualization of the practice of creating and distributing images, the ways of evaluating, storing and transmitting information change. The habitual legitimizing mechanisms cease to work, both at the institutional and aesthetic level. The democratic public image, called by the media theoretician Hito Steyerl “poor image”, representing the dominant type of image in modern visual culture, re-poses the problem of clarifying the theoretical attitude towards products of amateur art, primitive art, outsider activity and simple “amateurism”. The article is devoted to the study of current practices of digital culture on the basis of digital art. The aim of the article is to study the genealogy and iconography of digital primitivism, mainly in Russian art. Among the research objectives: definition of the concept of “digital primitivism”; identification of its genetic basis; consideration of the main stylistic trends and visual cliches; identification of the impact of digital subcultures on artistic practices; a description of the impact of digital art on contemporary popular culture, the definition of the meaning of digital primitivism in the context of the visual experience of our time. As a result of the study, it was possible to show the main components of digital primitivism, including: digital subcultures, art-game design, naive digital picture, reflective primitivism, eight-bit aesthetics, post-Internet, digital pop culture. The following statements serve as conclusions. Ways of inheriting visual material in the digital world are based on the tendency to hold a nostalgic note, supported by media archeology and longing for the eight-bit era (which has already become widespread in popular culture from video clips to computer games such as Undertale) and at the same time, constant awareness the impending posthuman reality that appears to be a digital apocalypse. In the context of these tendencies, digital primitivism performs the therapeutic function, creating a sense of control over the growing element of the all-powerful digital culture.

Download file
Counter downloads: 233

Keywords

цифровой примитивизм, цифровое искусство, медиаархеология, постгуманизм, визуальная культура, digital primitivism, digital art, media archeology, posthumanism, visual culture

Authors

NameOrganizationE-mail
Venkova Alina V.Russian State Pedagogical University named after A.I. Herzen; Russian Research Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage named after D.S. Likhachevvenkova@mail.ru
Всего: 1

References

Примитив и его место в художественной культуре Нового и Новейшего времени. М. : Наука, 1983. 206 с.
Лебедев А.В. Тщанием и усердием. Примитив в России XVIII-XIX столетий. М. : Традиции, 1998. 248 с.
Богемская К.Г. Понять примитив. Самодеятельное, наивное и аутсайдерское искусство в ХХ веке. СПб. : Алетейя, 2001. 185 с.
Философия наивности / сост. А.С. Мигунов. М. : Изд-во МГУ, 2001. 384 с.
Богемская К.Г. Искусство вне норм. М. : Буксмарт, 2017. 416 с.
Наивное искусство и китч. Основные проблемы и особенности восприятия. СПб. : Але-тейя, 2018. 450 с.
Мусянкова Н.А. Примитив в квадрате. Советская культурная политика и изобразительная самодеятельность в лицах и фактах. М. : Буксмарт, 2019. 368 с.
Поспелов Г.Г. Бубновый валет. Примитив и городской фольклор в московской живописи 1910-х годов. М. : Советский художник, 1990. 272 с.
Тевоз М. Арт-брют. Париж: Booking International, 1995. 228 c.
Steyerl H. In Defense of the Poor Image // The Wretched of the Screen. SternbergPress, 2012. P. 31-45.
Джослит Д. После искусства. М. : V-A-C press, 2017. 144 c.
Гройс Б. В потоке. М. : Ad Marginem, 2018. 208 c.
Портрет художника в юности. Иван Тузов. Текст : Анна Быкова [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://aroundart.org/2013/10/31/portret-hudojnika-tuzov/ (дата обращения: 07.07.2019).
Gene McHugh. Post Internet. Publisher: LINK Editions, Brescia 2011 www. linkartcenter.eu [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.linkartcenter.eu/public/editions/Gene_McHugh_Post_Inter-net_Link_Editions_2011.pdf (дата обращения: 07.07.2019).
Гринберг К. Авангард и китч // Художественный журнал. 2005. № 60 [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://xz.gif.ru/numbers/60/avangard-i-kitch/ (дата обращения: 07.07.2019).
Хоркхаймер М., Адорно Т. Культурная индустрия. Просвещение как способ обмана масс. М.: Ad Marginem, 2016. 104 с.
Тевоз М. Искусство как недоразумение / пер. с фр. И. Оносова. СПб. : Изд-во Ивана Лимбаха, 2018. 152 с.
Джозелит Д. Против репрезентации // Художественный журнал. 2015. № 94: Об образе. С. 46-51.
Степанов М.А. Цифровая эсхатология // Новое литературное обозрение. 2018. № 149. С. 333-352.
 Digital Primitivism: Preservation and Distribution of Images in Contemporary Visual Culture | Tomsk State University Journal of Cultural Studies and Art History. 2019. № 36. DOI: 10.17223/22220836/36/3

Digital Primitivism: Preservation and Distribution of Images in Contemporary Visual Culture | Tomsk State University Journal of Cultural Studies and Art History. 2019. № 36. DOI: 10.17223/22220836/36/3

Download full-text version
Counter downloads: 7717