A work of art in the space of network culture: creativity as bricolage

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2020.12264

Abstract

The development of modern informational-communication technologies has led to the occurrence of the new unique sociocultural phenomenon – a network culture, with irony as the dominating rhetoric. In the space of network culture, under digital technologies, the forms, types, and functions of art, and creativity in general, change. The paper states that communication becomes the main function of art, while a work of art more and more becomes an object of communication. The authors propose to broaden the volume of creativity conception, going beyond the classical interpretation towards a broader understanding of this phenomenon, namely, creativity as bricolage. The methodological basis of the bricolage model of creativity, relevant for the new media art, is the concept of “bricolage” developed by Claude Lévi-Strauss.

Article in English.

Meno kūrinys tinklo kultūros erdvėje: kūrybiškumas kaip brikoliažas
Santrauka
Tobulėjant moderniosioms informacijos ir komunikacijos technologijoms, atsirado naujas unikalus sociokultūrinis reiškinys – tinklo kultūra, kur vyraujanti retorika yra ironija. Tinklo kultūros erdvėje skaitmeninių technologijų sąlygomis keičiasi meno formos, rūšys ir funkcijos bei kūrybiškumas apskritai. Straipsnyje teigiama, kad komunikacija tampa pagrindine meno funkcija, o meno kūrinys – kuo toliau, tuo labiau virsta komunikacijos objektu. Autoriai siūlo išplėsti kūrybiškumo koncepcijos apimtį, peržengiant klasikinę interpretaciją, siekiant platesnio šio reiškinio supratimo, o būtent kūrybiškumo kaip brikoliažo. Kūrybiškumo brikoliažo modelio metodologinis pagrindas, aktualus naujųjų medijų menui, tai „brikoliažo“ koncepcija, išplėtota Claude’o Lévi-Strausso.

Reikšminiai žodžiai: brikoliažas, komunikacija, kūryba, ironija, tinkle kultūra, naujųjų medijų menas.

Keywords:

bricolage, communication, creation, irony, network culture, new media art

How to Cite

Safina, A. ., Gaynullina, L. ., & Cherepanova, E. . (2020). A work of art in the space of network culture: creativity as bricolage. Creativity Studies, 13(2), 257-269. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2020.12264

Share

Published in Issue
May 4, 2020
Abstract Views
2112
PDF Downloads
1408

License

Copyright (c) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

References

Barbrook, R., & Cameron, A. (1996). The Californian ideology. Science as Culture, 6(1), 44–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505439609526455

Barthes, R. (1967). The death of the author, Aspen 5–6. http://www.ubu.com/aspen/aspen5and6/three-Essays.html#barthes

Baudrillard, J. (2007). In the shadow of the silent majorities. Series: Semiotext(e) Foreign Agents Series. Semiotext(e).

Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society: A venture in social forecasting. Basic Books.

Benjamin, W. (1936). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm

Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x

Campanelli, V. (2010). Web aesthetics: How digital media affect culture and society. NAI Publishers.

Carr, N. G. (2004). Does IT matter? Information technology and the corrosion of competitive advantage. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. https://doi.org/10.1145/1022348.1022349

Castells, M. (2000). The information age: Economy, society, and culture. Vol. III: End of Millennium. Blackwell Publishers.

Castells, M. (2001). The internet galaxy: Reflections on the internet, business, and society. Oxford University Press.

Coeckelbergh, M. (2018). The art, poetics, and grammar of technological innovation as practice, process, and performance. AI and Society: Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Communication, 33, 501–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-017-0714-7

Eisenman, P. (1995). Aura und Exzeß: Zur Überwindung der Metaphysik der Architektur. Passagen Verlag.

Erofeeva, M. A., & Fiodorov, A. A. (2014). Proizvodstvo i potreblenie izobrazhenij v cifrovuju epohu. Labirint: Zhurnal social’no-gumanitarnyh issledovanij, 2, 147–157.

Florida, R. (2002). The rise of creative class, and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community, and everyday life. Basic Books.

Fürst, G., Ghisletta, P., & Lubart, T. (2012). The creative process in visual art: A longitudinal multivariate study. Creativity Research Journal, 24(4), 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.729999

Garber, M. (2013). How to tell a joke on the internet: The new typography of irony. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/how-to-tell-a-joke-on-the-internet/309293/

Howkins, J. (2007). The creative economy: How people make money from ideas. Penguin.

Kačerauskas, T. (2009). Ekran i jekzistencial’noe tvorchestvo. Vestnik Buryatskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Pedagogika. Filologiya. Filosofiya 6, 91–96.

Kačerauskas, T. (2017). Kreativnost’ i koncepciya kreativnogo obshhestva v sociologii. Sotsiologicheskiye issledovaniya, 10, 26–35. https://doi.org/10.7868/S0132162517100038

Kandinsky, W. (1910). Concerning the spiritual in art – Part 1. https://arthistoryproject.com/artists/wassily-kandinsky/concerning-the-spiritual-in-art-part-1/

LaMarre, H. L., Landreville, K., D., & Beam, M. A. (2009). The irony of satire: Political ideology and the motivation to see what you want to see in the Colbert report. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 14(2), 212–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161208330904

Lavrinec, J. (2014). Community art initiatives as a form of participatory research: The case of street mosaic workshop. Creativity Studies, 7(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.3846/20297475.2014.933365

Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. The University of Chicago Press.

Lovink, G. (2009). Dynamics of critical internet culture (1994–2001). Institute of Network Cultures.

Lovink, G. (2013). A world beyond Facebook: Introduction to the Unlike Us Reader. In G. Lovink & M. Rasch (Eds.), Unlike us reader: Social media monopolies and their alternatives (pp. 9–15). Joh. Enschedé.

Manovich, L. (2003). New media from Borges to HTML. In N. Wardrip-Fruin & N. Montfort (Eds.), The new media reader. MIT Press, 13–25.

Manovich, L. (2013). Software takes command. Series: International texts in critical media aesthetics. F. J. Ricardo (Founding Ed.). Vol. 5. Bloomsbury Academic.

Manovich, L. (2017). Teorii soft-kul’tury. Krasnaya lastochka.

Martynov, K. (2015). Vek pisateley: tekst i pis’mo v novykh media. Logos, 25(2), 1–11.

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. McGraw Hill.

McLuhan, M., & Fiore, Q. (1967). The medium is the massage: An inventory of effects. Random House.

Mel’nikov, A. (2017). Doekrannoe kino. Kommersant. https://www.kommersant.ru/amp/3450138

Pryshchenko, S. V. (2019). Creative technologies in advertising design. Creativity Studies, 12(1), 146–165. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2019.8403

Safina, A. M. (2017). Setevaja kul’tura kak produkt i uslovie razvitija setevyh soobshhestv. Vestnik Severnogo (Arkticheskogo) federal’nogo universiteta. Serija Gumanitarnye i social’nye nauki, 5, 87–95.

Safina, A. M., Leontyev, G. D., Gaynullina, L. F., Leontyeva, L. S., & Khalilova, T. V. (2018). Dialectics of freedom and alienation in the space of the internet. Revista ESPACIOS, 39(27). http://www.revistaespacios.com/a18v39n27/a18v39n27p08.pdf

Sanina, A. (2015). Vizual’naja politicheskaja ironija v Runete: kejs soobshhestva “Potsreotizm”, INTER: interakciya, intervyu, interpretaciya, 7(9), 79–95.

Shanken, E. A. (2016). Contemporary art and new media: Digital divide or hybrid discourse? In Ch. Paul (Ed.), A Companion to digital art (pp. 463–481). Series: Wiley Blackwell Companions to Art History. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118475249.ch21

Skidan, A. (2007). Pojezija v epohu total’noj kommunikacii. Vozduh 2. http://www.litkarta.ru/projects/vozdukh/issues/2007-2/skidan/

Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave: The classic study of tomorrow. Bantam Books.

Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. (2019). Poe’s Law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

Zhitkova, D. (2018). Kto otvetit za “Smert’ Stalina”: sbory i ubytki rossiyskogo kinoprokata. https://www.forbes.ru/forbeslife/356237-kto-otvetit-za-smert-stalina-sbory-i-ubytki-rossiyskogo-kinoprokata

View article in other formats

  • PDF

CrossMark check

CrossMark logo

Published

2020-05-04

Issue

Vol 13 No 2 (2020)

Section

Articles

Copyright

Copyright (c) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University.

License

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Safina, A. ., Gaynullina, L. ., & Cherepanova, E. . (2020). A work of art in the space of network culture: creativity as bricolage. Creativity Studies, 13(2), 257-269. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2020.12264

Share