SCHEMA-D

Working intensively on this manifesto for half a year brought up various difficult situations. For example, what is the range of works I am looking at, how to use words like “media art”, or how to deal with the various media that are used in media art opposed to the one medium that the Dogma 95 is referring to – film. I often questioned if this manifesto is even possible in the same manner as the Dogma 95 due to this problem of the medium. Also I do not agree with some of the Dogma 95 rules/ideas and furthermore I’m finding it very hard to actually use technological restrictions to achieve reflection and content.

The bottom line is that this is an experiment. This work is not meant to be functional or provide solutions but to reflect. To make the impossible possible I started the rather cathartic action of nailing pudding to the wall…

When technology is new we feel the urge to jump on it and try it right away. This curiosity is of course commendable however at this stage we do not yet know the technology well enough for artistic use. Instead it is more likely to dominate the artwork then we think: “This is cool. What can I do with it?” when the idea should be “I want to do X. What technology can I use for it?” A waiting period of 3 years should give us a better understanding.

Former wording:

Technology and technical devices must be older than 3 years unless they are not used for their original purpose.

(meaning hacked or re-invented or extended)

Wowed by technology, framed by the industry. The art piece should not be about the newest technology or act as a form of presentation for this technology. Technology and technical devices should be used as tools like a painter uses a brush and paint.

Former wording:

Sounds can be amplified but must be live, computed or generated. Samples and recordings must not be used.

Make it easier! A laptop has already included a lot of things that make it easier: keyboard, mouse, W-Lan, batteries (at least for some time) so it is mobile.

Nowadays laptops are quite powerful, computationally and storage wise. They usually have a wireless connection and the battery can make them operate for at least some time without cable. This gives us mobility and the chance to present the artwork where it is best in context. The presentation space of the artwork is in very important and should be considered part of the work, although this naturally can be slightly different for each presentation.

Former wording:

If a computer is in use it must be a laptop or a mobile device

Is our vision rectangular? Why limit our vision to this format that is given by the technology?

Usually projections are used in the given format by the projection device, but why do we not question these restrictions? It makes a break in the artwork to see rectangular projections that do not consider the content of the artwork itself. The same thing happens when we show documentation of works which need to be experienced.

To prevent exhibiting the documentation instead of the work. Screens should be used in a more clever way then just retell the story of the piece. Interactive art and  most media artworks are really hard to grasp and experience from descriptions, so I think we should’t do it.

Former wording:

Projections must be non rectangular. Screens must be part of the artwork.

Do not blind reality by optical work and filters of digital visual content. Show it in the most real and raw way possible without ‘cosmetics’, shimmer, or shine. This is a call to take a look at surrounding nature and environment.

 Former wording:

Post-production of visual content like photographs and video are forbidden. Generated graphics are forbidden

Most of the interactions we still see or experience in artworks have already been explored in the 90s. Interactions are just being reused with faster and better technologies or smaller and mobile devices. Or we know them from movies and science-fiction, but they are already in our range of understanding, they found their way in our daily life. Often the definition of interaction is re-defined

We still have to give us and the visitor room for interpretation and experiencing the work, not a fixed pattern that is to be followed.

Former wordings:

No predictable interaction techniques (meaning e.g. camera tracking or pressing a button, touchscreen). No instructions; No games.

So what is actually behind ‘the scene’ of an art piece? Are we merely impressed by the technology or is there actually content behind these technical devices? By showing what technology is being used, the focus should be drawn to the actual content through the replacement of the technological ‘wow-effect’, aka the distraction of the use of new and unexpected technology. Even though technology is not always hidden in media artworks I want to call on showing what we are using in order to take away the fascination of the action. Focus should be put on what is happening to differentiate between content and technology. Technology is a tool to create and present the work, not the work itself.

This rule deals with two problems.

The physical object, the screen, the media facade, etc is the medium to transport or create the message but it is not the artwork itself. An art piece with replaceable content is simply a device. The interface and the content are always connected and influence each other. This means the interface can underline the artwork but not be the artwork.

The other is the interface that seems to be added onto the artwork afterwards in order to give the visitor the possibility of interaction. Often this is in form of a touch screen (computer and mouse) or a manufactured interface used in combination with the artwork. The problem is it makes a break between the artwork and the interaction. It is not a fluent connection.

Former wordings of this rule:

The interface must not be the artwork

The Dogma 95 has at this point the rule: “The film format must be Academy 35 mm”. On first look the hardware and format come to mind. The camera itself is very large and heavy and would be difficult to carry for a hand-held use, which rule #3 commands you to do. Also it uses the primal 4:3 film format. Considering the Dogma 95 rules, the reasoning seems to be to use the ‘old’ and ‘original’ so we do not give everything up for the newest technology. Now I believe this is the rule that takes the Dogma 95 movies to the professional level and especially high quality. Even though we have bad lighting because it is dark outside, or filming is taking place inside, or the camera is moving, etc the film itself has the best quality. Of course this is more a technical criteria but it demands professional experience and knowledge. This rule ended up being eased since it is difficult to carry these cameras and filming was often done with Video. Nevertheless it shows the idea and in this sense we have to get rid of complicated routines for awakening our artworks. After set up, a single action, depending of the medium, must be able to turn on or off the artwork. This can be a button, a power plug, or clapping your hands, etc.

Thanks to Onur Sönmez

This is the  modified rule set after the discussion at the Liwoli and the Baustelbar.

Here is a small collections of manifestos in reaction or based on the Dogma 95

The Dogpile 95

BOW-WOW-VOW OF FAST-AND-SHITTY

obvisouly not in favour of the Dogma 95, basically trying to state the oposite.

Dogma 2001: A Challenge to Game Designers

The Dogma 2001 Vow

This is the Dogma 95 equivalent for Game Design. I personally like the rule ’4. There shall be no knights, elves, dwarves or dragons.’

Matthew Herbert’s Manifesto

“This is a guide for my own work and not intended as the correct or only way to write music either for myself or others.”

Personal contract for the composition of music [incorporating the manifesto of mistakes]

This is a super nice example for one of the problems that media art has,
Jim Campbell Formular for Computer Art .

This is a Manifesto for game design by Ernest Adams based on the Dogma 95, addressing the points of technology and the auteur by making the a three-word-manifesto “Technology Stifles Creativity”, the Dogma 2001

The first rule set was presente at the Liwoli (Linux Weeks Linz) in May 2011. This was the first step and the basis for a discussion. Thanks to you all and the talks and discussions about the manifesto at the Liwoli.

I will be at the Linux week in Linz (Austria) to present and discuss my rules for the manifesto. …hope to see you there

This is rule is no longer part of the manifesto. The idea was that you use materials one is familiar with. On the other hand I want encourage a wide range of non technical use in artworks. If one is only able to use materials he/she already has it would be contra productive and decrease experimenting with physical materials.

We need to experience our media and not only follow one striking idea. Art pieces cannot be developed by an idea which is followed by a written concept and then produced. An important part of the art is to research and experiment, fail and learn and finally to see and ‘feel’ the visual output. It is a process and a flow which evolves during the way of creation. It does not have to have a goal or be a solution.

This rule used to be “Experiments are urgently required – No changes due to technology are allowed”