{
    "net.art": [
        {
            "id": 0,
            "subject": "article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
            "content": "\nHi CRUMBs\nthought you might be interested to read this article about internet art, which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil et al, Black Dog Publishing.\n\nhttp://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n\nIt suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is provincial.\nUse it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this field of practice.\n\nSarah\n\n\n===\n\nDr. Sarah Cook\nReader / Dundee Fellow\nDuncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\nUniversity of Dundee\n13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n\nphone: 01382 385247\nemail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n\n\n\n\n\nThe University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096",
            "content-type": "text/plain",
            "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=15160",
            "from": "Sarah Cook",
            "date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 13:25:58 +0000",
            "follow-up": [
                {
                    "id": 0,
                    "subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
                    "content": "\nHi Sarah\nCan I add to that comments from The Space director Ruth Mackenzie:\n\n\"The devices we use everyday, she said, haven’t yet changed art. While we\nconsume some art forms with them, she said, “the art itself hasn’t changed\nas a result of this extraordinary invention of the internet and the way we\nuse the internet, through tablets and phones and computers, so you’d think\nsomething as major and as innovative as cinema might emerge as a form of\nart that really embraces and uses the digital platforms.”\nfrom here:\nhttp://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-art-world-is-starting-to-get-digital-art\n\n\n\n--\nNora O' Murchú\n\n///////////////// //////  //////////  ////// //////// //  /\nCurator / Designer / Researcher\nwww.noraomurchu.com <http://www.runcomputerrun.com>\n\n\n\n\n\nOn 18 June 2014 14:25, Sarah Cook <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n\n> Hi CRUMBs\n> thought you might be interested to read this article about internet art,\n> which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil et\n> al, Black Dog Publishing.\n>\n> http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n>\n> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is\n> provincial.\n> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this\n> field of practice.\n>\n> Sarah\n>\n>\n> ===\n>\n> Dr. Sarah Cook\n> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n> University of Dundee\n> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n>\n> phone: 01382 385247\n> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096\n>",
                    "content-type": "text/plain",
                    "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=15817",
                    "from": "nora o murchú",
                    "date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:30:18 +0100",
                    "author_name": "nora o murchú"
                },
                {
                    "id": 0,
                    "subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
                    "content": "\nWow!\n\nWhere do they find these people?\n\nmarc\n\n> Hi CRUMBs\n> thought you might be interested to read this article about internet art, which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil et al, Black Dog Publishing.\n>\n> http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n>\n> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is provincial.\n> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this field of practice.\n>\n> Sarah\n>\n>\n> ===\n>\n> Dr. Sarah Cook\n> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n> University of Dundee\n> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n>\n> phone: 01382 385247\n> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096\n> .\n>\n\n\n-- \n--->\n\nA living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\nproud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n\nOther reviews,articles,interviews\nhttp://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n\nFurtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\ndiscussing and learning about experimental practices at the\nintersections of art, technology and social change.\nhttp://www.furtherfield.org\n\nFurtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\nhttp://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n\nNetbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\nhttp://www.netbehaviour.org\n\nhttp://identi.ca/furtherfield\nhttp://twitter.com/furtherfield",
                    "content-type": "text/plain",
                    "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=16698",
                    "from": "marc garrett",
                    "date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:49:50 +0100",
                    "author_name": "marc garrett"
                },
                {
                    "id": 0,
                    "subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
                    "content": "\nHe is based in Brooklyn, no worries tho y'all I already invited him to our\nnext opening at TRANSFER – Claudia Maté on July 12 :D\n\n\nBests,\nKelani Nichole\n\nCuratorial Director, TRANSFER\nhttp://transfer.gallery\n\n\n\nOn Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, marc garrett <[log in to unmask]\n> wrote:\n\n> Wow!\n>\n> Where do they find these people?\n>\n> marc\n>\n>  Hi CRUMBs\n>> thought you might be interested to read this article about internet art,\n>> which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil et\n>> al, Black Dog Publishing.\n>>\n>> http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n>>\n>> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is\n>> provincial.\n>> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this\n>> field of practice.\n>>\n>> Sarah\n>>\n>>\n>> ===\n>>\n>> Dr. Sarah Cook\n>> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n>> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n>> University of Dundee\n>> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n>>\n>> phone: 01382 385247\n>> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096\n>> .\n>>\n>>\n>\n> --\n> --->\n>\n> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n>\n> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n>\n> Furtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n> http://www.furtherfield.org\n>\n> Furtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\n> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n>\n> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n>\n> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n>",
                    "content-type": "text/plain",
                    "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=17577",
                    "from": "Kelani Nichole",
                    "date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:53:43 -0400",
                    "author_name": "Kelani Nichole"
                },
                {
                    "id": 0,
                    "subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
                    "content": "\nHi all,\n\nIt Look's like this magazine needs someone who is actually interested in \nor at least knows about the subject.\n\nThe writer says \"provincial' however, if you can bare to look at the \ncontent of this magazine it's like an advert for the Daily Mail or the \nConservative party from the 1950's. Nuff said ;-)\n\nwishing you well.\n\nmarc\n> Hi CRUMBs\n> thought you might be interested to read this article about internet art, which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil et al, Black Dog Publishing.\n>\n> http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n>\n> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is provincial.\n> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this field of practice.\n>\n> Sarah\n>\n>\n> ===\n>\n> Dr. Sarah Cook\n> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n> University of Dundee\n> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n>\n> phone: 01382 385247\n> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096\n> .\n>",
                    "content-type": "text/plain",
                    "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=19142",
                    "from": "marc garrett",
                    "date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 15:27:32 +0100",
                    "author_name": "marc garrett"
                },
                {
                    "id": 0,
                    "subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
                    "content": "\nSarah + all:\n\nI actually think that there's some stuff worth engaging in this...\n\nI haven't read Joanne's book, so I can't speak to the ways in which this\npiece fails as a review, but this closing statement definitely sent a\nshiver down my browser:\n\n\"The problem with the book, as with internet art, is that no one has\nrecognised the aesthetic problems of provincial conversation. Work by\nartists who turn inward to have hushed talks with a small coterie about\nlocal problems will have little effect on culture at large. McLuhan’s\nglobal village may have its merits, but the cultural celebration of\nmarginalism in art is not one of them.\"\n\nThe reactionary in me would outright disagree with this, but I did have a\nmoment of thinking bout who does address the aesthetic problems of the\n\"provincial conversation\" of internet art. So maybe as a way of thinking\nabout outright disagreeing with Pac Pobric, the list might suggest some\ncompelling counters?\n\nTo that end, the metric of cultural relevance as proposed in this article\nis squarely situated in archaic models of art presentation/distribution (I\nthink that a lot of us can agree on that). So instead of operating in the\nsuburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the art world that\nis suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket fences,\nand McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n\nvery best\n\n\n\nOn Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Kelani Nichole <[log in to unmask]>\nwrote:\n\n> He is based in Brooklyn, no worries tho y'all I already invited him to our\n> next opening at TRANSFER – Claudia Maté on July 12 :D\n>\n>\n> Bests,\n> Kelani Nichole\n>\n> Curatorial Director, TRANSFER\n> http://transfer.gallery\n>\n>\n>\n> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, marc garrett <\n> [log in to unmask]\n> > wrote:\n>\n> > Wow!\n> >\n> > Where do they find these people?\n> >\n> > marc\n> >\n> >  Hi CRUMBs\n> >> thought you might be interested to read this article about internet art,\n> >> which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil\n> et\n> >> al, Black Dog Publishing.\n> >>\n> >>\n> http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n> >>\n> >> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is\n> >> provincial.\n> >> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this\n> >> field of practice.\n> >>\n> >> Sarah\n> >>\n> >>\n> >> ===\n> >>\n> >> Dr. Sarah Cook\n> >> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n> >> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n> >> University of Dundee\n> >> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n> >>\n> >> phone: 01382 385247\n> >> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n> >>\n> >>\n> >>\n> >>\n> >>\n> >> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096\n> >> .\n> >>\n> >>\n> >\n> > --\n> > --->\n> >\n> > A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n> > proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n> >\n> > Other reviews,articles,interviews\n> > http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n> >\n> > Furtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n> > discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n> > intersections of art, technology and social change.\n> > http://www.furtherfield.org\n> >\n> > Furtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\n> > http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n> >\n> > Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n> > http://www.netbehaviour.org\n> >\n> > http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n> > http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n> >\n>\n\n\n\n-- \nNicholas O'Brien\n\nVisiting Faculty | Gallery Director\nDepartment of Digital Art, Pratt Institute\ndoubleunderscore.net",
                    "content-type": "text/plain",
                    "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=19686",
                    "from": "Nicholas O'Brien",
                    "date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:27:46 -0400",
                    "author_name": "Nicholas O'Brien"
                },
                {
                    "id": 0,
                    "subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
                    "content": "\nHi all\n\nCombined with the blurb from the article that Nora posted, this has indeed brought a chill to an otherwise sunny afternoon. I am finding the amnesia in the art world about recent (last 20 years?) net-inflected art practices increasingly difficult to put up with, particularly when even those who are openly supportive of media practices don't remember an art work made a decade ago because it was only shown once, in a show they didn't see, or it was not well documented. Surely our role as curators is also to continue to research, and talk and write about recent histories and not just the new thing. As for writing about 'the provincial' - it has always been a question of translating the discourse from one of the many art worlds over to another one, as many on this list continue to try to do. I've always been happy to work on the edges of places, as they are generally more interesting.\n\nwishing I were in Dublin for the opening of Glitch,\nSarah\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOn 18 Jun 2014, at 15:27, Nicholas O'Brien <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:\n\nSarah + all:\n\nI actually think that there's some stuff worth engaging in this...\n\nI haven't read Joanne's book, so I can't speak to the ways in which this\npiece fails as a review, but this closing statement definitely sent a\nshiver down my browser:\n\n\"The problem with the book, as with internet art, is that no one has\nrecognised the aesthetic problems of provincial conversation. Work by\nartists who turn inward to have hushed talks with a small coterie about\nlocal problems will have little effect on culture at large. McLuhan’s\nglobal village may have its merits, but the cultural celebration of\nmarginalism in art is not one of them.\"\n\nThe reactionary in me would outright disagree with this, but I did have a\nmoment of thinking bout who does address the aesthetic problems of the\n\"provincial conversation\" of internet art. So maybe as a way of thinking\nabout outright disagreeing with Pac Pobric, the list might suggest some\ncompelling counters?\n\nTo that end, the metric of cultural relevance as proposed in this article\nis squarely situated in archaic models of art presentation/distribution (I\nthink that a lot of us can agree on that). So instead of operating in the\nsuburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the art world that\nis suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket fences,\nand McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n\nvery best\n\n\n\nOn Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Kelani Nichole <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>\nwrote:\n\nHe is based in Brooklyn, no worries tho y'all I already invited him to our\nnext opening at TRANSFER – Claudia Maté on July 12 :D\n\n\nBests,\nKelani Nichole\n\nCuratorial Director, TRANSFER\nhttp://transfer.gallery\n\n\n\nOn Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, marc garrett <\n[log in to unmask]\nwrote:\n\nWow!\n\nWhere do they find these people?\n\nmarc\n\nHi CRUMBs\nthought you might be interested to read this article about internet art,\nwhich is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil\net\nal, Black Dog Publishing.\n\n\nhttp://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n\nIt suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is\nprovincial.\nUse it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this\nfield of practice.\n\nSarah\n\n\n===\n\nDr. Sarah Cook\nReader / Dundee Fellow\nDuncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\nUniversity of Dundee\n13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n\nphone: 01382 385247\nemail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n\n\n\n\n\nThe University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096\n.\n\n\n\n--\n--->\n\nA living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\nproud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n\nOther reviews,articles,interviews\nhttp://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n\nFurtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\ndiscussing and learning about experimental practices at the\nintersections of art, technology and social change.\nhttp://www.furtherfield.org\n\nFurtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\nhttp://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n\nNetbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\nhttp://www.netbehaviour.org\n\nhttp://identi.ca/furtherfield\nhttp://twitter.com/furtherfield\n\n\n\n\n\n--\nNicholas O'Brien\n\nVisiting Faculty | Gallery Director\nDepartment of Digital Art, Pratt Institute\ndoubleunderscore.net<http://doubleunderscore.net>\n\n===\n\nDr. Sarah Cook\nReader / Dundee Fellow\nDuncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\nUniversity of Dundee\n13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n\nphone: 01382 385247\nemail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n\n\n\n\n\nThe University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096",
                    "content-type": "text/plain",
                    "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=20538",
                    "from": "Sarah Cook",
                    "date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 15:19:46 +0000",
                    "author_name": "Sarah Cook"
                },
                {
                    "id": 0,
                    "subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
                    "content": "\nHi Nicholas & all,\n\n >So instead of operating in the suburbs, how could the list propose \nthat it is in fact the\n >art world that is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, \nwhitecube picket fences,\n >and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n\nI agree with the above & Sarah’s post on the matter works for me.\n\nAnyway — I’m too busy at the moment with our ‘provincial’ exhibition. A \ncollaboration with The Arts Catalyst “SEFT-1 Abandoned Railways \nExploration Probe: Modern Ruins 1:220 — Ivan Puig and Andrés Padilla \nDomene” http://go.shr.lc/1jy7AJo\n\nIt was featured in the Guardian last week by Jonathan jones ‘The \nruin-hunters who drove a car down Mexico's forgotten railways’ \nhttp://go.shr.lc/1qwbV4K\n\nAnd will be featured on the BBC news on Friday…\n\nOh wait! I get it, it’s seen as ‘provincial’ because the work \nsuccessfully reaches people, beyond their art establishment silos. Of \ncourse ;-)\n\nbye for now.\n\nmarc\n\n\n > Sarah + all:\n >\n > I actually think that there's some stuff worth engaging in this...\n >\n > I haven't read Joanne's book, so I can't speak to the ways in which this\n > piece fails as a review, but this closing statement definitely sent a\n > shiver down my browser:\n >\n > \"The problem with the book, as with internet art, is that no one has\n > recognised the aesthetic problems of provincial conversation. Work by\n > artists who turn inward to have hushed talks with a small coterie about\n > local problems will have little effect on culture at large. McLuhan’s\n > global village may have its merits, but the cultural celebration of\n > marginalism in art is not one of them.\"\n >\n > The reactionary in me would outright disagree with this, but I did have a\n > moment of thinking bout who does address the aesthetic problems of the\n > \"provincial conversation\" of internet art. So maybe as a way of thinking\n > about outright disagreeing with Pac Pobric, the list might suggest some\n > compelling counters?\n >\n > To that end, the metric of cultural relevance as proposed in this article\n > is squarely situated in archaic models of art \npresentation/distribution (I\n > think that a lot of us can agree on that). So instead of operating in the\n > suburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the art world that\n > is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket fences,\n > and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n >\n > very best\n >\n >\n >\n > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Kelani Nichole <[log in to unmask]>\n > wrote:\n >\n >> He is based in Brooklyn, no worries tho y'all I already invited him \nto our\n >> next opening at TRANSFER – Claudia Maté on July 12 :D\n >>\n >>\n >> Bests,\n >> Kelani Nichole\n >>\n >> Curatorial Director, TRANSFER\n >> http://transfer.gallery\n >>\n >>\n >>\n >> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, marc garrett <\n >> [log in to unmask]\n >>> wrote:\n >>\n >>> Wow!\n >>>\n >>> Where do they find these people?\n >>>\n >>> marc\n >>>\n >>>  Hi CRUMBs\n >>>> thought you might be interested to read this article about \ninternet art,\n >>>> which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil\n >> et\n >>>> al, Black Dog Publishing.\n >>>>\n >>>>\n >> \nhttp://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n >>>>\n >>>> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is\n >>>> provincial.\n >>>> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this\n >>>> field of practice.\n >>>>\n >>>> Sarah\n >>>>\n >>>>\n >>>> ===\n >>>>\n >>>> Dr. Sarah Cook\n >>>> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n >>>> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n >>>> University of Dundee\n >>>> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n >>>>\n >>>> phone: 01382 385247\n >>>> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n >>>>\n >>>>\n >>>>\n >>>>\n >>>>\n >>>> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: \nSC015096\n >>>> .\n >>>>\n >>>>\n >>>\n >>> --\n >>> --->\n >>>\n >>> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n >>> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n >>>\n >>> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n >>> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n >>>\n >>> Furtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n >>> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n >>> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n >>> http://www.furtherfield.org\n >>>\n >>> Furtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\n >>> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n >>>\n >>> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n >>> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n >>>\n >>> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n >>> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n >>>\n >>\n >\n >\n >\n\n\n-- \n--->\n\nA living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\nproud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n\nOther reviews,articles,interviews\nhttp://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n\nFurtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\ndiscussing and learning about experimental practices at the\nintersections of art, technology and social change.\nhttp://www.furtherfield.org\n\nFurtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\nhttp://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n\nNetbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\nhttp://www.netbehaviour.org\n\nhttp://identi.ca/furtherfield\nhttp://twitter.com/furtherfield",
                    "content-type": "text/plain",
                    "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=22080",
                    "from": "marc garrett",
                    "date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:41:57 +0100",
                    "author_name": "marc garrett"
                },
                {
                    "id": 0,
                    "subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
                    "content": "\nHi everyone,\n\nI've been mulling a direct response to Pobric but will let things simmer\nwhile I try and finish a project. One could  ask why Pobric even bothered\nreviewing the book at all, if he felt it wasn't worth his time? (I must\nadmit an interest here, as I had an essay in *Art and the Internet*). It's\ninstructive to look at his website http://www.pacpobric.com/ and read his\nscribblings on the weighty issues of the Art World. Draw your own\nconclusions!\n\nI agree with Sarah that the amnesia relating to internet art - and digital\nart in the broad sense - is more than irritating. How many times will it be\n\"discovered\" by the \"mainstream\", and how often is Hockney the example they\nuse? Nicholas is right to ask for a conversation about the aesthetic\naspects of this area. The Art Newspaper has its own provincialism and I\nthink of it as a trade mag for Cork Street and Chelsea (NYC) - and Dubai\ntoo, no doubt. That's not to understate its importance in certain places,\nbut we should ask ourselves why Pobric felt motivated to write a hit piece\nlike this.\n\nI would venture that it's because he and his peers fear losing control of\nthe \"art conversation\". The Internet has already forced open the boundaries\nof their world and they hate being disrupted by people they've never even\nheard of, from parts of the globe where their holy writ doesn't run.\nPobric's association of the Net with the great unwashed - the contempt that\nhe, a denizen of the rarefied heights of the New York art scene, feels for\nthe mass who discuss cookery or cars on the Intraweb - speaks volumes.\n\nThe obvious fulcrum to turn Pobric's argument on its head (as suggested by\nNicholas and Marc) is the term \"insularity\". They hate the effrontery of\noutsiders entering the art world with new ideas, more diverse faces and a\ntechnology that (as is evident from the article) they barely comprehend.\n\nAs Marc notes, the broader demographies of the internet are precisely what\nPobric and his fellow art provincials fear the most, since their economy is\npredicated on the penthouse and the boardroom.\n\nMore to come!\n\nNick\n\nAll best,\n\nNick\n\n\n\n\nOn Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 4:41 PM, marc garrett <[log in to unmask]\n> wrote:\n\n> Hi Nicholas & all,\n>\n>\n> >So instead of operating in the suburbs, how could the list propose that\n> it is in fact the\n> >art world that is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube\n> picket fences,\n> >and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n>\n> I agree with the above & Sarah's post on the matter works for me.\n>\n> Anyway -- I'm too busy at the moment with our 'provincial' exhibition. A\n> collaboration with The Arts Catalyst \"SEFT-1 Abandoned Railways Exploration\n> Probe: Modern Ruins 1:220 -- Ivan Puig and Andrés Padilla Domene\"\n> http://go.shr.lc/1jy7AJo\n>\n> It was featured in the Guardian last week by Jonathan jones 'The\n> ruin-hunters who drove a car down Mexico's forgotten railways'\n> http://go.shr.lc/1qwbV4K\n>\n> And will be featured on the BBC news on Friday...\n>\n> Oh wait! I get it, it's seen as 'provincial' because the work successfully\n> reaches people, beyond their art establishment silos. Of course ;-)\n>\n> bye for now.\n>\n> marc\n>\n>\n>\n> > Sarah + all:\n> >\n> > I actually think that there's some stuff worth engaging in this...\n> >\n> > I haven't read Joanne's book, so I can't speak to the ways in which this\n> > piece fails as a review, but this closing statement definitely sent a\n> > shiver down my browser:\n> >\n> > \"The problem with the book, as with internet art, is that no one has\n> > recognised the aesthetic problems of provincial conversation. Work by\n> > artists who turn inward to have hushed talks with a small coterie about\n> > local problems will have little effect on culture at large. McLuhan's\n> > global village may have its merits, but the cultural celebration of\n> > marginalism in art is not one of them.\"\n> >\n> > The reactionary in me would outright disagree with this, but I did have a\n> > moment of thinking bout who does address the aesthetic problems of the\n> > \"provincial conversation\" of internet art. So maybe as a way of thinking\n> > about outright disagreeing with Pac Pobric, the list might suggest some\n> > compelling counters?\n> >\n> > To that end, the metric of cultural relevance as proposed in this article\n> > is squarely situated in archaic models of art presentation/distribution\n> (I\n> > think that a lot of us can agree on that). So instead of operating in the\n> > suburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the art world that\n> > is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket fences,\n> > and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n> >\n> > very best\n> >\n> >\n> >\n> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Kelani Nichole <[log in to unmask]>\n> > wrote:\n> >\n> >> He is based in Brooklyn, no worries tho y'all I already invited him to\n> our\n> >> next opening at TRANSFER - Claudia Maté on July 12 :D\n> >>\n> >>\n> >> Bests,\n> >> Kelani Nichole\n> >>\n> >> Curatorial Director, TRANSFER\n> >> http://transfer.gallery\n> >>\n> >>\n> >>\n> >> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, marc garrett <\n> >> [log in to unmask]\n> >>> wrote:\n> >>\n> >>> Wow!\n> >>>\n> >>> Where do they find these people?\n> >>>\n> >>> marc\n> >>>\n> >>>  Hi CRUMBs\n> >>>> thought you might be interested to read this article about internet\n> art,\n> >>>> which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil\n> >> et\n> >>>> al, Black Dog Publishing.\n> >>>>\n> >>>>\n> >> http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-\n> fails-to-click/32983\n> >>>>\n> >>>> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is\n> >>>> provincial.\n> >>>> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this\n> >>>> field of practice.\n> >>>>\n> >>>> Sarah\n> >>>>\n> >>>>\n> >>>> ===\n> >>>>\n> >>>> Dr. Sarah Cook\n> >>>> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n> >>>> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n> >>>> University of Dundee\n> >>>> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n> >>>>\n> >>>> phone: 01382 385247\n> >>>> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n> >>>>\n> >>>>\n> >>>>\n> >>>>\n> >>>>\n> >>>> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No:\n> SC015096\n> >>>> .\n> >>>>\n> >>>>\n> >>>\n> >>> --\n> >>> --->\n> >>>\n> >>> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n> >>> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n> >>>\n> >>> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n> >>> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n> >>>\n> >>> Furtherfield - online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n> >>> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n> >>> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n> >>> http://www.furtherfield.org\n> >>>\n> >>> Furtherfield Gallery - Finsbury Park (London).\n> >>> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n> >>>\n> >>> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n> >>> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n> >>>\n> >>> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n> >>> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n> >>>\n> >>\n> >\n> >\n> >\n>\n>\n> --\n> --->\n>\n> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n>\n> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n>\n> Furtherfield - online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n> http://www.furtherfield.org\n>\n> Furtherfield Gallery - Finsbury Park (London).\n> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n>\n> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n>\n> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n>\n\n\n\n-- \n=================\nDr Nick Lambert (DPhil Oxon)\nLecturer in Digital Art and Culture\nDepartment of History of Art & Screen Media\nBirkbeck, University of London\n43 Gordon Square,\nLondon, WC1H 0PD\nwww.technocultures.org.uk\nMobile: 0781 0381 458",
                    "content-type": "text/plain",
                    "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=22658",
                    "from": "Nick Lambert",
                    "date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:27:22 +0100",
                    "author_name": "Nick Lambert"
                },
                {
                    "id": 0,
                    "subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
                    "content": "\nI have already discussed this in part with Nick so am hopefully not\nspringing anything new here, or rattling the cage any further.  But a point\nworth making I think is that the particular book being reviewed miscasts\nitself in my view as a much needed survey of an overlooked field. See its\nown promotional material to verify this. The challenge is heightened with\nthe book lacking a specific editorial or preface to adequately clarify its\ncontext, in my view. So criticism of the book as a survey publication 'may'\nbe justified. Without a well worked editorial there is a gap which can be\nexploited and indeed exposed.\n\nbest\nB\n\nOn Wednesday, 18 June 2014, Nick Lambert <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n\n> Hi everyone,\n>\n> I've been mulling a direct response to Pobric but will let things simmer\n> while I try and finish a project. One could  ask why Pobric even bothered\n> reviewing the book at all, if he felt it wasn't worth his time? (I must\n> admit an interest here, as I had an essay in *Art and the Internet*). It's\n> instructive to look at his website http://www.pacpobric.com/ and read his\n> scribblings on the weighty issues of the Art World. Draw your own\n> conclusions!\n>\n> I agree with Sarah that the amnesia relating to internet art - and digital\n> art in the broad sense - is more than irritating. How many times will it be\n> \"discovered\" by the \"mainstream\", and how often is Hockney the example they\n> use? Nicholas is right to ask for a conversation about the aesthetic\n> aspects of this area. The Art Newspaper has its own provincialism and I\n> think of it as a trade mag for Cork Street and Chelsea (NYC) - and Dubai\n> too, no doubt. That's not to understate its importance in certain places,\n> but we should ask ourselves why Pobric felt motivated to write a hit piece\n> like this.\n>\n> I would venture that it's because he and his peers fear losing control of\n> the \"art conversation\". The Internet has already forced open the boundaries\n> of their world and they hate being disrupted by people they've never even\n> heard of, from parts of the globe where their holy writ doesn't run.\n> Pobric's association of the Net with the great unwashed - the contempt that\n> he, a denizen of the rarefied heights of the New York art scene, feels for\n> the mass who discuss cookery or cars on the Intraweb - speaks volumes.\n>\n> The obvious fulcrum to turn Pobric's argument on its head (as suggested by\n> Nicholas and Marc) is the term \"insularity\". They hate the effrontery of\n> outsiders entering the art world with new ideas, more diverse faces and a\n> technology that (as is evident from the article) they barely comprehend.\n>\n> As Marc notes, the broader demographies of the internet are precisely what\n> Pobric and his fellow art provincials fear the most, since their economy is\n> predicated on the penthouse and the boardroom.\n>\n> More to come!\n>\n> Nick\n>\n> All best,\n>\n> Nick\n>\n>\n>\n>\n> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 4:41 PM, marc garrett <\n> [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>\n> > wrote:\n>\n> > Hi Nicholas & all,\n> >\n> >\n> > >So instead of operating in the suburbs, how could the list propose that\n> > it is in fact the\n> > >art world that is suburban - with its gated community paywalls,\n> whitecube\n> > picket fences,\n> > >and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n> >\n> > I agree with the above & Sarah's post on the matter works for me.\n> >\n> > Anyway -- I'm too busy at the moment with our 'provincial' exhibition. A\n> > collaboration with The Arts Catalyst \"SEFT-1 Abandoned Railways\n> Exploration\n> > Probe: Modern Ruins 1:220 -- Ivan Puig and Andrés Padilla Domene\"\n> > http://go.shr.lc/1jy7AJo\n> >\n> > It was featured in the Guardian last week by Jonathan jones 'The\n> > ruin-hunters who drove a car down Mexico's forgotten railways'\n> > http://go.shr.lc/1qwbV4K\n> >\n> > And will be featured on the BBC news on Friday...\n> >\n> > Oh wait! I get it, it's seen as 'provincial' because the work\n> successfully\n> > reaches people, beyond their art establishment silos. Of course ;-)\n> >\n> > bye for now.\n> >\n> > marc\n> >\n> >\n> >\n> > > Sarah + all:\n> > >\n> > > I actually think that there's some stuff worth engaging in this...\n> > >\n> > > I haven't read Joanne's book, so I can't speak to the ways in which\n> this\n> > > piece fails as a review, but this closing statement definitely sent a\n> > > shiver down my browser:\n> > >\n> > > \"The problem with the book, as with internet art, is that no one has\n> > > recognised the aesthetic problems of provincial conversation. Work by\n> > > artists who turn inward to have hushed talks with a small coterie about\n> > > local problems will have little effect on culture at large. McLuhan's\n> > > global village may have its merits, but the cultural celebration of\n> > > marginalism in art is not one of them.\"\n> > >\n> > > The reactionary in me would outright disagree with this, but I did\n> have a\n> > > moment of thinking bout who does address the aesthetic problems of the\n> > > \"provincial conversation\" of internet art. So maybe as a way of\n> thinking\n> > > about outright disagreeing with Pac Pobric, the list might suggest some\n> > > compelling counters?\n> > >\n> > > To that end, the metric of cultural relevance as proposed in this\n> article\n> > > is squarely situated in archaic models of art presentation/distribution\n> > (I\n> > > think that a lot of us can agree on that). So instead of operating in\n> the\n> > > suburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the art world\n> that\n> > > is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket\n> fences,\n> > > and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n> > >\n> > > very best\n> > >\n> > >\n> > >\n> > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Kelani Nichole <\n> [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>>\n> > > wrote:\n> > >\n> > >> He is based in Brooklyn, no worries tho y'all I already invited him to\n> > our\n> > >> next opening at TRANSFER - Claudia Maté on July 12 :D\n> > >>\n> > >>\n> > >> Bests,\n> > >> Kelani Nichole\n> > >>\n> > >> Curatorial Director, TRANSFER\n> > >> http://transfer.gallery\n> > >>\n> > >>\n> > >>\n> > >> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, marc garrett <\n> > >> [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>\n> > >>> wrote:\n> > >>\n> > >>> Wow!\n> > >>>\n> > >>> Where do they find these people?\n> > >>>\n> > >>> marc\n> > >>>\n> > >>>  Hi CRUMBs\n> > >>>> thought you might be interested to read this article about internet\n> > art,\n> > >>>> which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne\n> McNeil\n> > >> et\n> > >>>> al, Black Dog Publishing.\n> > >>>>\n> > >>>>\n> > >> http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-\n> > fails-to-click/32983\n> > >>>>\n> > >>>> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is\n> > >>>> provincial.\n> > >>>> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of\n> this\n> > >>>> field of practice.\n> > >>>>\n> > >>>> Sarah\n> > >>>>\n> > >>>>\n> > >>>> ===\n> > >>>>\n> > >>>> Dr. Sarah Cook\n> > >>>> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n> > >>>> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n> > >>>> University of Dundee\n> > >>>> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n> > >>>>\n> > >>>> phone: 01382 385247\n> > >>>> email: [log in to unmask] <javascript:;><mailto:\n> [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>>\n> > >>>>\n> > >>>>\n> > >>>>\n> > >>>>\n> > >>>>\n> > >>>> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No:\n> > SC015096\n> > >>>> .\n> > >>>>\n> > >>>>\n> > >>>\n> > >>> --\n> > >>> --->\n> > >>>\n> > >>> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n> > >>> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n> > >>>\n> > >>> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n> > >>> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n> > >>>\n> > >>> Furtherfield - online arts community, platforms for creating,\n> viewing,\n> > >>> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n> > >>> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n> > >>> http://www.furtherfield.org\n> > >>>\n> > >>> Furtherfield Gallery - Finsbury Park (London).\n> > >>> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n> > >>>\n> > >>> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n> > >>> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n> > >>>\n> > >>> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n> > >>> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n> > >>>\n> > >>\n> > >\n> > >\n> > >\n> >\n> >\n> > --\n> > --->\n> >\n> > A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n> > proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n> >\n> > Other reviews,articles,interviews\n> > http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n> >\n> > Furtherfield - online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n> > discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n> > intersections of art, technology and social change.\n> > http://www.furtherfield.org\n> >\n> > Furtherfield Gallery - Finsbury Park (London).\n> > http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n> >\n> > Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n> > http://www.netbehaviour.org\n> >\n> > http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n> > http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n> >\n>\n>\n>\n> --\n> =================\n> Dr Nick Lambert (DPhil Oxon)\n> Lecturer in Digital Art and Culture\n> Department of History of Art & Screen Media\n> Birkbeck, University of London\n> 43 Gordon Square,\n> London, WC1H 0PD\n> www.technocultures.org.uk\n> Mobile: 0781 0381 458\n>\n\n\n-- \nBronaċ",
                    "content-type": "text/plain",
                    "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=23377",
                    "from": "bronac ferran",
                    "date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 19:04:18 +0100",
                    "author_name": "bronac ferran"
                },
                {
                    "id": 0,
                    "subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
                    "content": "\n A fair point Bronac and we did indeed discuss this, though I should make\nclear to everyone that I wasn't involved in the editorial side of the book.\n\nHowever the majority of Pobric's \"review\" isn't so much about the book but\nwhat he considers to be internet art in general, and is (I think)\nunderpinned by a fear of the Internet itself as a medium for both art and\ncommunication. An informed critique of the book would be welcome, but I\ndon't see this in Pobric's writing.\n\nBest,\n\nNick\n\n\n\n\nOn Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:04 PM, bronac ferran <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n\n> I have already discussed this in part with Nick so am hopefully not\n> springing anything new here, or rattling the cage any further.  But a point\n> worth making I think is that the particular book being reviewed miscasts\n> itself in my view as a much needed survey of an overlooked field. See its\n> own promotional material to verify this. The challenge is heightened with\n> the book lacking a specific editorial or preface to adequately clarify its\n> context, in my view. So criticism of the book as a survey publication 'may'\n> be justified. Without a well worked editorial there is a gap which can be\n> exploited and indeed exposed.\n>\n> best\n> B\n>\n> On Wednesday, 18 June 2014, Nick Lambert <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n>\n> > Hi everyone,\n> >\n> > I've been mulling a direct response to Pobric but will let things simmer\n> > while I try and finish a project. One could  ask why Pobric even bothered\n> > reviewing the book at all, if he felt it wasn't worth his time? (I must\n> > admit an interest here, as I had an essay in *Art and the Internet*).\n> It's\n> > instructive to look at his website http://www.pacpobric.com/ and read\n> his\n> > scribblings on the weighty issues of the Art World. Draw your own\n> > conclusions!\n> >\n> > I agree with Sarah that the amnesia relating to internet art - and\n> digital\n> > art in the broad sense - is more than irritating. How many times will it\n> be\n> > \"discovered\" by the \"mainstream\", and how often is Hockney the example\n> they\n> > use? Nicholas is right to ask for a conversation about the aesthetic\n> > aspects of this area. The Art Newspaper has its own provincialism and I\n> > think of it as a trade mag for Cork Street and Chelsea (NYC) - and Dubai\n> > too, no doubt. That's not to understate its importance in certain places,\n> > but we should ask ourselves why Pobric felt motivated to write a hit\n> piece\n> > like this.\n> >\n> > I would venture that it's because he and his peers fear losing control of\n> > the \"art conversation\". The Internet has already forced open the\n> boundaries\n> > of their world and they hate being disrupted by people they've never even\n> > heard of, from parts of the globe where their holy writ doesn't run.\n> > Pobric's association of the Net with the great unwashed - the contempt\n> that\n> > he, a denizen of the rarefied heights of the New York art scene, feels\n> for\n> > the mass who discuss cookery or cars on the Intraweb - speaks volumes.\n> >\n> > The obvious fulcrum to turn Pobric's argument on its head (as suggested\n> by\n> > Nicholas and Marc) is the term \"insularity\". They hate the effrontery of\n> > outsiders entering the art world with new ideas, more diverse faces and a\n> > technology that (as is evident from the article) they barely comprehend.\n> >\n> > As Marc notes, the broader demographies of the internet are precisely\n> what\n> > Pobric and his fellow art provincials fear the most, since their economy\n> is\n> > predicated on the penthouse and the boardroom.\n> >\n> > More to come!\n> >\n> > Nick\n> >\n> > All best,\n> >\n> > Nick\n> >\n> >\n> >\n> >\n> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 4:41 PM, marc garrett <\n> > [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>\n> > > wrote:\n> >\n> > > Hi Nicholas & all,\n> > >\n> > >\n> > > >So instead of operating in the suburbs, how could the list propose\n> that\n> > > it is in fact the\n> > > >art world that is suburban - with its gated community paywalls,\n> > whitecube\n> > > picket fences,\n> > > >and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n> > >\n> > > I agree with the above & Sarah's post on the matter works for me.\n> > >\n> > > Anyway -- I'm too busy at the moment with our 'provincial' exhibition.\n> A\n> > > collaboration with The Arts Catalyst \"SEFT-1 Abandoned Railways\n> > Exploration\n> > > Probe: Modern Ruins 1:220 -- Ivan Puig and Andrés Padilla Domene\"\n> > > http://go.shr.lc/1jy7AJo\n> > >\n> > > It was featured in the Guardian last week by Jonathan jones 'The\n> > > ruin-hunters who drove a car down Mexico's forgotten railways'\n> > > http://go.shr.lc/1qwbV4K\n> > >\n> > > And will be featured on the BBC news on Friday...\n> > >\n> > > Oh wait! I get it, it's seen as 'provincial' because the work\n> > successfully\n> > > reaches people, beyond their art establishment silos. Of course ;-)\n> > >\n> > > bye for now.\n> > >\n> > > marc\n> > >\n> > >\n> > >\n> > > > Sarah + all:\n> > > >\n> > > > I actually think that there's some stuff worth engaging in this...\n> > > >\n> > > > I haven't read Joanne's book, so I can't speak to the ways in which\n> > this\n> > > > piece fails as a review, but this closing statement definitely sent a\n> > > > shiver down my browser:\n> > > >\n> > > > \"The problem with the book, as with internet art, is that no one has\n> > > > recognised the aesthetic problems of provincial conversation. Work by\n> > > > artists who turn inward to have hushed talks with a small coterie\n> about\n> > > > local problems will have little effect on culture at large. McLuhan's\n> > > > global village may have its merits, but the cultural celebration of\n> > > > marginalism in art is not one of them.\"\n> > > >\n> > > > The reactionary in me would outright disagree with this, but I did\n> > have a\n> > > > moment of thinking bout who does address the aesthetic problems of\n> the\n> > > > \"provincial conversation\" of internet art. So maybe as a way of\n> > thinking\n> > > > about outright disagreeing with Pac Pobric, the list might suggest\n> some\n> > > > compelling counters?\n> > > >\n> > > > To that end, the metric of cultural relevance as proposed in this\n> > article\n> > > > is squarely situated in archaic models of art\n> presentation/distribution\n> > > (I\n> > > > think that a lot of us can agree on that). So instead of operating in\n> > the\n> > > > suburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the art world\n> > that\n> > > > is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket\n> > fences,\n> > > > and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n> > > >\n> > > > very best\n> > > >\n> > > >\n> > > >\n> > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Kelani Nichole <\n> > [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>>\n> > > > wrote:\n> > > >\n> > > >> He is based in Brooklyn, no worries tho y'all I already invited him\n> to\n> > > our\n> > > >> next opening at TRANSFER - Claudia Maté on July 12 :D\n> > > >>\n> > > >>\n> > > >> Bests,\n> > > >> Kelani Nichole\n> > > >>\n> > > >> Curatorial Director, TRANSFER\n> > > >> http://transfer.gallery\n> > > >>\n> > > >>\n> > > >>\n> > > >> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, marc garrett <\n> > > >> [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>\n> > > >>> wrote:\n> > > >>\n> > > >>> Wow!\n> > > >>>\n> > > >>> Where do they find these people?\n> > > >>>\n> > > >>> marc\n> > > >>>\n> > > >>>  Hi CRUMBs\n> > > >>>> thought you might be interested to read this article about\n> internet\n> > > art,\n> > > >>>> which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne\n> > McNeil\n> > > >> et\n> > > >>>> al, Black Dog Publishing.\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >> http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-\n> > > fails-to-click/32983\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >>>> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it\n> is\n> > > >>>> provincial.\n> > > >>>> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of\n> > this\n> > > >>>> field of practice.\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >>>> Sarah\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >>>> ===\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >>>> Dr. Sarah Cook\n> > > >>>> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n> > > >>>> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n> > > >>>> University of Dundee\n> > > >>>> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >>>> phone: 01382 385247\n> > > >>>> email: [log in to unmask] <javascript:;><mailto:\n> > [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>>\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >>>> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No:\n> > > SC015096\n> > > >>>> .\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >>>\n> > > >>> --\n> > > >>> --->\n> > > >>>\n> > > >>> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n> > > >>> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n> > > >>>\n> > > >>> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n> > > >>> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n> > > >>>\n> > > >>> Furtherfield - online arts community, platforms for creating,\n> > viewing,\n> > > >>> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n> > > >>> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n> > > >>> http://www.furtherfield.org\n> > > >>>\n> > > >>> Furtherfield Gallery - Finsbury Park (London).\n> > > >>> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n> > > >>>\n> > > >>> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n> > > >>> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n> > > >>>\n> > > >>> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n> > > >>> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n> > > >>>\n> > > >>\n> > > >\n> > > >\n> > > >\n> > >\n> > >\n> > > --\n> > > --->\n> > >\n> > > A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n> > > proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n> > >\n> > > Other reviews,articles,interviews\n> > > http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n> > >\n> > > Furtherfield - online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n> > > discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n> > > intersections of art, technology and social change.\n> > > http://www.furtherfield.org\n> > >\n> > > Furtherfield Gallery - Finsbury Park (London).\n> > > http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n> > >\n> > > Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n> > > http://www.netbehaviour.org\n> > >\n> > > http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n> > > http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n> > >\n> >\n> >\n> >\n> > --\n> > =================\n> > Dr Nick Lambert (DPhil Oxon)\n> > Lecturer in Digital Art and Culture\n> > Department of History of Art & Screen Media\n> > Birkbeck, University of London\n> > 43 Gordon Square,\n> > London, WC1H 0PD\n> > www.technocultures.org.uk\n> > Mobile: 0781 0381 458\n> >\n>\n>\n> --\n> Bronaċ\n>\n\n\n\n-- \n=================\nDr Nick Lambert (DPhil Oxon)\nLecturer in Digital Art and Culture\nDepartment of History of Art & Screen Media\nBirkbeck, University of London\n43 Gordon Square,\nLondon, WC1H 0PD\nwww.technocultures.org.uk\nMobile: 0781 0381 458",
                    "content-type": "text/plain",
                    "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=24196",
                    "from": "Nick Lambert",
                    "date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 19:56:11 +0100",
                    "author_name": "Nick Lambert"
                },
                {
                    "id": 0,
                    "subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
                    "content": "\n\n\nI'd just like to say,\n\nI like this, a lot:\n\n\n>So instead of operating in the suburbs, how could the list propose \nthat it is in fact the\n>art world that is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, \nwhitecube picket fences,\n>and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n\n!\n\nAmi \n \nBanner Repeater\nPlatform 1\nHackney Downs Railway Station\nDalston Lane\nHackney\nE8 1LA\n\nwww.bannerrepeater.org\n\n\n>________________________________\n> From: marc garrett <[log in to unmask]>\n>To: [log in to unmask] \n>Sent: Wednesday, 18 June 2014, 16:41\n>Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] article which mis-understands internet art, again?\n> \n>\n>Hi Nicholas & all,\n>\n>>So instead of operating in the suburbs, how could the list propose \n>that it is in fact the\n>>art world that is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, \n>whitecube picket fences,\n>>and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n>\n>I agree with the above & Sarah’s post on the matter works for me.\n>\n>Anyway — I’m too busy at the moment with our ‘provincial’ exhibition. A \n>collaboration with The Arts Catalyst “SEFT-1 Abandoned Railways \n>Exploration Probe: Modern Ruins 1:220 — Ivan Puig and Andrés Padilla \n>Domene” http://go.shr.lc/1jy7AJo\n>\n>It was featured in the Guardian last week by Jonathan jones ‘The \n>ruin-hunters who drove a car down Mexico's forgotten railways’ \n>http://go.shr.lc/1qwbV4K\n>\n>And will be featured on the BBC news on Friday…\n>\n>Oh wait! I get it, it’s seen as ‘provincial’ because the work \n>successfully reaches people, beyond their art establishment silos. Of \n>course ;-)\n>\n>bye for now.\n>\n>marc\n>\n>\n>> Sarah + all:\n>>\n>> I actually think that there's some stuff worth engaging in this...\n>>\n>> I haven't read Joanne's book, so I can't speak to the ways in which this\n>> piece fails as a review, but this closing statement definitely sent a\n>> shiver down my browser:\n>>\n>> \"The problem with the book, as with internet art, is that no one has\n>> recognised the aesthetic problems of provincial conversation. Work by\n>> artists who turn inward to have hushed talks with a small coterie about\n>> local problems will have little effect on culture at large. McLuhan’s\n>> global village may have its merits, but the cultural celebration of\n>> marginalism in art is not one of them.\"\n>>\n>> The reactionary in me would outright disagree with this, but I did have a\n>> moment of thinking bout who does address the aesthetic problems of the\n>> \"provincial conversation\" of internet art. So maybe as a way of thinking\n>> about outright disagreeing with Pac Pobric, the list might suggest some\n>> compelling counters?\n>>\n>> To that end, the metric of cultural relevance as proposed in this article\n>> is squarely situated in archaic models of art \n>presentation/distribution (I\n>> think that a lot of us can agree on that). So instead of operating in the\n>> suburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the art world that\n>> is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket fences,\n>> and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n>>\n>> very best\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Kelani Nichole <[log in to unmask]>\n>> wrote:\n>>\n>>> He is based in Brooklyn, no worries tho y'all I already invited him \n>to our\n>>> next opening at TRANSFER – Claudia Maté on July 12 :D\n>>>\n>>>\n>>> Bests,\n>>> Kelani Nichole\n>>>\n>>> Curatorial Director, TRANSFER\n>>> http://transfer.gallery\n>>>\n>>>\n>>>\n>>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, marc garrett <\n>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>>> wrote:\n>>>\n>>>> Wow!\n>>>>\n>>>> Where do they find these people?\n>>>>\n>>>> marc\n>>>>\n>>>>  Hi CRUMBs\n>>>>> thought you might be interested to read this article about \n>internet art,\n>>>>> which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil\n>>> et\n>>>>> al, Black Dog Publishing.\n>>>>>\n>>>>>\n>>> \n>http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n>>>>>\n>>>>> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is\n>>>>> provincial.\n>>>>> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this\n>>>>> field of practice.\n>>>>>\n>>>>> Sarah\n>>>>>\n>>>>>\n>>>>> ===\n>>>>>\n>>>>> Dr. Sarah Cook\n>>>>> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n>>>>> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n>>>>> University of Dundee\n>>>>> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n>>>>>\n>>>>> phone: 01382 385247\n>>>>> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n>>>>>\n>>>>>\n>>>>>\n>>>>>\n>>>>>\n>>>>> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: \n>SC015096\n>>>>> .\n>>>>>\n>>>>>\n>>>>\n>>>> --\n>>>> --->\n>>>>\n>>>> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n>>>> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n>>>>\n>>>> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n>>>> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n>>>>\n>>>> Furtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n>>>> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n>>>> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n>>>> http://www.furtherfield.org\n>>>>\n>>>> Furtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\n>>>> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n>>>>\n>>>> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n>>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n>>>>\n>>>> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n>>>> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n>\n>>>>\n>>>\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>\n>\n>-- \n>--->\n>\n>A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n>proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n>\n>Other reviews,articles,interviews\n>http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n>\n>Furtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n>discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n>intersections of art, technology and social change.\n>http://www.furtherfield.org\n>\n>Furtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\n>http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n>\n>Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n>http://www.netbehaviour.org\n>\n>http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n>http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n>\n>",
                    "content-type": "text/plain",
                    "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=24930",
                    "from": "Ami Clarke",
                    "date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 20:02:33 +0100",
                    "author_name": "Ami Clarke"
                },
                {
                    "id": 0,
                    "subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
                    "content": "\nHi all\n\nI was at The Space launch because I'm working with Julie Freeman and the Open Data Institute on her new commission for The Space, in collaboration with ODI. I heard Ruth McKenzie speaking. The Motherboard quote isn't 100% accurate and is taken out of context in a way which makes her comments which I heard as aiming to champion artists using code and other unstable media sound like she was dismissive in a way she really wasn't. I understood her point to be that there hasn't been a space that welcomed all practitioners, inclusive of artists who work with new technologies. Granted the language used, and you could say the overall ambition of The Space is other, perhaps less precise, perhaps more widely embracing, than committed Media art curators would be. But it's interesting I think and timely. I'm interested to see how it works because of the fact it's hoping to be such a broad church.\n\nAs to that review, I just felt tired. It veered towards raising good points but shot itself in the foot by being a bit too snide. Shame. Looking forward to reading the book though...\n\nHannah\n\nSent from my iPad\n\n> On 18 Jun 2014, at 16:19, Sarah Cook <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n> \n> Hi all\n> \n> Combined with the blurb from the article that Nora posted, this has indeed brought a chill to an otherwise sunny afternoon. I am finding the amnesia in the art world about recent (last 20 years?) net-inflected art practices increasingly difficult to put up with, particularly when even those who are openly supportive of media practices don't remember an art work made a decade ago because it was only shown once, in a show they didn't see, or it was not well documented. Surely our role as curators is also to continue to research, and talk and write about recent histories and not just the new thing. As for writing about 'the provincial' - it has always been a question of translating the discourse from one of the many art worlds over to another one, as many on this list continue to try to do. I've always been happy to work on the edges of places, as they are generally more interesting.\n> \n> wishing I were in Dublin for the opening of Glitch,\n> Sarah\n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> On 18 Jun 2014, at 15:27, Nicholas O'Brien <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:\n> \n> Sarah + all:\n> \n> I actually think that there's some stuff worth engaging in this...\n> \n> I haven't read Joanne's book, so I can't speak to the ways in which this\n> piece fails as a review, but this closing statement definitely sent a\n> shiver down my browser:\n> \n> \"The problem with the book, as with internet art, is that no one has\n> recognised the aesthetic problems of provincial conversation. Work by\n> artists who turn inward to have hushed talks with a small coterie about\n> local problems will have little effect on culture at large. McLuhan’s\n> global village may have its merits, but the cultural celebration of\n> marginalism in art is not one of them.\"\n> \n> The reactionary in me would outright disagree with this, but I did have a\n> moment of thinking bout who does address the aesthetic problems of the\n> \"provincial conversation\" of internet art. So maybe as a way of thinking\n> about outright disagreeing with Pac Pobric, the list might suggest some\n> compelling counters?\n> \n> To that end, the metric of cultural relevance as proposed in this article\n> is squarely situated in archaic models of art presentation/distribution (I\n> think that a lot of us can agree on that). So instead of operating in the\n> suburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the art world that\n> is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket fences,\n> and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n> \n> very best\n> \n> \n> \n> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Kelani Nichole <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>\n> wrote:\n> \n> He is based in Brooklyn, no worries tho y'all I already invited him to our\n> next opening at TRANSFER – Claudia Maté on July 12 :D\n> \n> \n> Bests,\n> Kelani Nichole\n> \n> Curatorial Director, TRANSFER\n> http://transfer.gallery\n> \n> \n> \n> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, marc garrett <\n> [log in to unmask]\n> wrote:\n> \n> Wow!\n> \n> Where do they find these people?\n> \n> marc\n> \n> Hi CRUMBs\n> thought you might be interested to read this article about internet art,\n> which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil\n> et\n> al, Black Dog Publishing.\n> \n> \n> http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n> \n> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is\n> provincial.\n> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this\n> field of practice.\n> \n> Sarah\n> \n> \n> ===\n> \n> Dr. Sarah Cook\n> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n> University of Dundee\n> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n> \n> phone: 01382 385247\n> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096\n> .\n> \n> \n> \n> --\n> --->\n> \n> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n> \n> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n> \n> Furtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n> http://www.furtherfield.org\n> \n> Furtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\n> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n> \n> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n> \n> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> --\n> Nicholas O'Brien\n> \n> Visiting Faculty | Gallery Director\n> Department of Digital Art, Pratt Institute\n> doubleunderscore.net<http://doubleunderscore.net>\n> \n> ===\n> \n> Dr. Sarah Cook\n> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n> University of Dundee\n> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n> \n> phone: 01382 385247\n> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096",
                    "content-type": "text/plain",
                    "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=25829",
                    "from": "Hannah Redler",
                    "date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 20:56:28 +0100",
                    "author_name": "Hannah Redler"
                },
                {
                    "id": 0,
                    "subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
                    "content": "\nWell said Nic.\n\nIt's a pity the reviewer didn't even bother to adequately research the fact\nthat net.art was founded precisely to push past such myopic\n(geophysically/regionally-defined) framings (ref: the \"net.art Painters and\nPoets\" <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt3y6xR0L-A>exhibition that opens\ntoday and features <http://net.art.mgml.si/>: \"!MEDIENGRUPPE BITNIK,\n0100101110101101.org, Cory Arcangel, Kim Asendorf, Mez Breeze, Cristophe\nBruno, Heath Bunting, Shu Lea Cheang, Paolo Cirio, Vuk Ćosić, Constant\nDullaart, Lisa Jevbratt, JODI, Justin Kemp, Olia Lialina, Alessandro\nLudovico, Mouchette, Mark Napier, Evan Roth, ®™ark, Eryk Salvaggio, Alexei\nShulgin, Teo Spiller, Igor Štromajer, Thomson & Craighead, Ubermorgen,\nYoung-Hae Chang Heavy Industries, Jaka Železnikar.\").\n\nPeace,\nMez\n\n-- \n| facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign <http://www.facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign>\n| twitter.com/MezBreezeDesign\n| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mez_Breeze\n\n\n\nOn Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Nicholas O'Brien <[log in to unmask]>\nwrote:\n\n> Sarah + all:\n>\n> I actually think that there's some stuff worth engaging in this...\n>\n> I haven't read Joanne's book, so I can't speak to the ways in which this\n> piece fails as a review, but this closing statement definitely sent a\n> shiver down my browser:\n>\n> \"The problem with the book, as with internet art, is that no one has\n> recognised the aesthetic problems of provincial conversation. Work by\n> artists who turn inward to have hushed talks with a small coterie about\n> local problems will have little effect on culture at large. McLuhan’s\n> global village may have its merits, but the cultural celebration of\n> marginalism in art is not one of them.\"\n>\n> The reactionary in me would outright disagree with this, but I did have a\n> moment of thinking bout who does address the aesthetic problems of the\n> \"provincial conversation\" of internet art. So maybe as a way of thinking\n> about outright disagreeing with Pac Pobric, the list might suggest some\n> compelling counters?\n>\n> To that end, the metric of cultural relevance as proposed in this article\n> is squarely situated in archaic models of art presentation/distribution (I\n> think that a lot of us can agree on that). So instead of operating in the\n> suburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the art world that\n> is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket fences,\n> and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n>\n> very best\n>\n>",
                    "content-type": "text/plain",
                    "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=26618",
                    "from": "mez breeze",
                    "date": "Thu, 19 Jun 2014 08:09:39 +1000",
                    "author_name": "mez breeze"
                },
                {
                    "id": 0,
                    "subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
                    "content": "\nI suppose we will soon, here in the UK anyway, be awash with reviews about the forthcoming exhibition at the Barbican which thanks to its digital archaeology section _might_ be a useful counterpoint ?\nHere's the first of the more considered articles....\n\nhttp://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/jun/18/-sp-why-digital-art-matters\n\nSent from my pocket.\n\nOn 18 Jun 2014, at 23:10, \"mez breeze\" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:\n\nWell said Nic.\n\nIt's a pity the reviewer didn't even bother to adequately research the fact\nthat net.art was founded precisely to push past such myopic\n(geophysically/regionally-defined) framings (ref: the \"net.art Painters and\nPoets\" <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt3y6xR0L-A>exhibition that opens\ntoday and features <http://net.art.mgml.si/>: \"!MEDIENGRUPPE BITNIK,\n0100101110101101.org<http://0100101110101101.org>, Cory Arcangel, Kim Asendorf, Mez Breeze, Cristophe\nBruno, Heath Bunting, Shu Lea Cheang, Paolo Cirio, Vuk ?osi?, Constant\nDullaart, Lisa Jevbratt, JODI, Justin Kemp, Olia Lialina, Alessandro\nLudovico, Mouchette, Mark Napier, Evan Roth, (r)(tm)ark, Eryk Salvaggio, Alexei\nShulgin, Teo Spiller, Igor ?tromajer, Thomson & Craighead, Ubermorgen,\nYoung-Hae Chang Heavy Industries, Jaka ?eleznikar.\").\n\nPeace,\nMez\n\n--\n| facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign<http://facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign> <http://www.facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign>\n| twitter.com/MezBreezeDesign<http://twitter.com/MezBreezeDesign>\n| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mez_Breeze<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mez_Breeze>\n\n\n\nOn Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Nicholas O'Brien <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>\nwrote:\n\nSarah + all:\n\nI actually think that there's some stuff worth engaging in this...\n\nI haven't read Joanne's book, so I can't speak to the ways in which this\npiece fails as a review, but this closing statement definitely sent a\nshiver down my browser:\n\n\"The problem with the book, as with internet art, is that no one has\nrecognised the aesthetic problems of provincial conversation. Work by\nartists who turn inward to have hushed talks with a small coterie about\nlocal problems will have little effect on culture at large. McLuhan's\nglobal village may have its merits, but the cultural celebration of\nmarginalism in art is not one of them.\"\n\nThe reactionary in me would outright disagree with this, but I did have a\nmoment of thinking bout who does address the aesthetic problems of the\n\"provincial conversation\" of internet art. So maybe as a way of thinking\nabout outright disagreeing with Pac Pobric, the list might suggest some\ncompelling counters?\n\nTo that end, the metric of cultural relevance as proposed in this article\nis squarely situated in archaic models of art presentation/distribution (I\nthink that a lot of us can agree on that). So instead of operating in the\nsuburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the art world that\nis suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket fences,\nand McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n\nvery best\n\n\n\nThe University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096",
                    "content-type": "text/plain",
                    "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=27705",
                    "from": "Sarah Cook",
                    "date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 23:02:38 +0000",
                    "author_name": "Sarah Cook"
                },
                {
                    "id": 0,
                    "subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
                    "content": "\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA512\n\nSarah Cook:\n> \n> http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n\nI\n> \nlike the book. The essays cover some good territory and some of my\nfavourite artists have images in there, although occasionally more\nthan once (which doesn't really make sense for a survey). The\ninclusion of the manifestos works really well.\n\nAs for the review:\n\nhttp://i.imgur.com/iWKad22.jpg\n\n- - Rob.\n\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\n\niQEbBAEBCgAGBQJToiWYAAoJECciMUAZd2dZ1S4H91wHAnklPlnO1yh2g4cBwopy\nKynm4L35/UGjvXcTB4WlrUMaOSS4hcSTUdkE+vnhZyP1DNnXvDeySs3GMPfXcBK/\nrFSnOgOYzjVhFgQRMF+wOgVdHmt+mSsZ6ESfJgnbMHvtG8yn1TrxTDYaz8DcBJZP\nRFsWVmaGQt1ZdxTv/sXAzh6W15jBItHp6MF9xgCT2R7ebYq/rcP2PnB9PxOJ0awC\nWCZXSguHvlKPk7m29NwS/tzGiMKDaOCAx/0tQCIrh/YKT77jUTkGimuuO6YqHS5J\n27/5JT5g/c2o+EofMg3AvNu5a5bsBp48dO0W34U4CB4CQl7hlPYiGlK03DxnfA==\n=fVPF\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----",
                    "content-type": "text/plain",
                    "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=28416",
                    "from": "Rob Myers",
                    "date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 23:49:44 +0000",
                    "author_name": "Rob Myers"
                },
                {
                    "id": 0,
                    "subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
                    "content": "\non the ongoing question of digital arts coverage in the media, and the earlier thread about the digital art hack at the Tate, here's another article for consideration, in which Ruth MacKenzie is quoted rather more favourably (as Hannah was good to point out)...\n\nhttp://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/jun/16/hack-the-space-tate-modern\n\nCRUMB's PhD student, Victoria Bradbury, who is quoted in the article, will no doubt have some interesting findings to report on her participation in due course,\n\nSarah\n\n\n\nOn 18 Jun 2014, at 16:41, marc garrett <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:\n\nHi Nicholas & all,\n\n>So instead of operating in the suburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the\n>art world that is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket fences,\n>and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n\nI agree with the above & Sarah’s post on the matter works for me.\n\nAnyway — I’m too busy at the moment with our ‘provincial’ exhibition. A collaboration with The Arts Catalyst “SEFT-1 Abandoned Railways Exploration Probe: Modern Ruins 1:220 — Ivan Puig and Andrés Padilla Domene” http://go.shr.lc/1jy7AJo\n\nIt was featured in the Guardian last week by Jonathan jones ‘The ruin-hunters who drove a car down Mexico's forgotten railways’ http://go.shr.lc/1qwbV4K\n\nAnd will be featured on the BBC news on Friday…\n\nOh wait! I get it, it’s seen as ‘provincial’ because the work successfully reaches people, beyond their art establishment silos. Of course ;-)\n\nbye for now.\n\nmarc\n\n\n> Sarah + all:\n>\n> I actually think that there's some stuff worth engaging in this...\n>\n> I haven't read Joanne's book, so I can't speak to the ways in which this\n> piece fails as a review, but this closing statement definitely sent a\n> shiver down my browser:\n>\n> \"The problem with the book, as with internet art, is that no one has\n> recognised the aesthetic problems of provincial conversation. Work by\n> artists who turn inward to have hushed talks with a small coterie about\n> local problems will have little effect on culture at large. McLuhan’s\n> global village may have its merits, but the cultural celebration of\n> marginalism in art is not one of them.\"\n>\n> The reactionary in me would outright disagree with this, but I did have a\n> moment of thinking bout who does address the aesthetic problems of the\n> \"provincial conversation\" of internet art. So maybe as a way of thinking\n> about outright disagreeing with Pac Pobric, the list might suggest some\n> compelling counters?\n>\n> To that end, the metric of cultural relevance as proposed in this article\n> is squarely situated in archaic models of art presentation/distribution (I\n> think that a lot of us can agree on that). So instead of operating in the\n> suburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the art world that\n> is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket fences,\n> and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n>\n> very best\n>\n>\n>\n> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Kelani Nichole <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>\n> wrote:\n>\n>> He is based in Brooklyn, no worries tho y'all I already invited him to our\n>> next opening at TRANSFER – Claudia Maté on July 12 :D\n>>\n>>\n>> Bests,\n>> Kelani Nichole\n>>\n>> Curatorial Director, TRANSFER\n>> http://transfer.gallery\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, marc garrett <\n>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n>>> wrote:\n>>\n>>> Wow!\n>>>\n>>> Where do they find these people?\n>>>\n>>> marc\n>>>\n>>>  Hi CRUMBs\n>>>> thought you might be interested to read this article about internet art,\n>>>> which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil\n>> et\n>>>> al, Black Dog Publishing.\n>>>>\n>>>>\n>> http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n>>>>\n>>>> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is\n>>>> provincial.\n>>>> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this\n>>>> field of practice.\n>>>>\n>>>> Sarah\n>>>>\n>>>>\n>>>> ===\n>>>>\n>>>> Dr. Sarah Cook\n>>>> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n>>>> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n>>>> University of Dundee\n>>>> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n>>>>\n>>>> phone: 01382 385247\n>>>> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n>>>>\n>>>>\n>>>>\n>>>>\n>>>>\n>>>> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096\n>>>> .\n>>>>\n>>>>\n>>>\n>>> --\n>>> --->\n>>>\n>>> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n>>> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n>>>\n>>> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n>>> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n>>>\n>>> Furtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n>>> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n>>> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n>>> http://www.furtherfield.org\n>>>\n>>> Furtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\n>>> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n>>>\n>>> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n>>>\n>>> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n>>> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n>>>\n>>\n>\n>\n>\n\n\n--\n--->\n\nA living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\nproud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n\nOther reviews,articles,interviews\nhttp://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n\nFurtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\ndiscussing and learning about experimental practices at the\nintersections of art, technology and social change.\nhttp://www.furtherfield.org\n\nFurtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\nhttp://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n\nNetbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\nhttp://www.netbehaviour.org\n\nhttp://identi.ca/furtherfield\nhttp://twitter.com/furtherfield\n\n===\n\nDr. Sarah Cook\nReader / Dundee Fellow\nDuncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\nUniversity of Dundee\n13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n\nphone: 01382 385247\nemail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n\n\n\n\n\nThe University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096",
                    "content-type": "text/plain",
                    "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=29152",
                    "from": "Sarah Cook",
                    "date": "Thu, 19 Jun 2014 11:36:33 +0000",
                    "author_name": "Sarah Cook"
                },
                {
                    "id": 0,
                    "subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
                    "content": "\nHi Sarah and All,\n\n#HacktheSpace was an \"intense\" event, I would say.  It was exciting to be\ninvolved in, particularly because of meeting new people, sleeping in the\nturbine hall (ever-so-briefly), working on a new project, and\nwatching/being a part of the spectacle.\n\nThe thing that hangs with me, though, is this perspective that gets sent to\nthe world that \"art\" can or should be made in a quick, competitive fashion.\n Or perhaps that digital art is something that happens quickly and easily.\nThe process of art-making is different for everyone, but in my practice, I\nmake hand-make objects that work in tandem with custom code.  Both of these\ntake time.  It would probably be seen as very strange for a turbine hall of\npainters to be asked to make paintings in 20 hours or less with little to\nno sleep.\n\nIn addition to the spectators on the balcony, there were many people\nmilling about the hall during the making day/night, talking to the groups.\n The time to conceive of and implement the project was short, and during\nthe process, we were constantly being asked what we were doing, what was\nthe concept, etc..  So after 20 hours, you have collaboratively created\nsomething in haste and are then asked to stand by it and attach your\nname/identity to it.  I am pleased with what the prototype our group\nproduced, but had I not been, it was a very public setting in which to be\nlinked with a project and a concept.\n\nThe event was well run by 3 Beards and The Space and overall it ran\nsmoothly.  We were well-fed and generally looked after.  I was pleased to\nparticipate and am watching to see where Art Hacks go from here.\n\nVictoria\n\n-- \n// Victoria Bradbury\n<PROJECTS> www.victoriabradbury.com\nResearcher @ www.crumbweb.org\nNew Media Caucus <http://www.newmediacaucus.org/> <CommComm>\nAttaya Projects <http://attayaprojects.com/> // Collaborator\n\n\nOn Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Sarah Cook <[log in to unmask]>\nwrote:\n\n> on the ongoing question of digital arts coverage in the media, and the\n> earlier thread about the digital art hack at the Tate, here's another\n> article for consideration, in which Ruth MacKenzie is quoted rather more\n> favourably (as Hannah was good to point out)...\n>\n>\n> http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/jun/16/hack-the-space-tate-modern\n>\n> CRUMB's PhD student, Victoria Bradbury, who is quoted in the article, will\n> no doubt have some interesting findings to report on her participation in\n> due course,\n>\n> Sarah\n>\n>\n>\n> On 18 Jun 2014, at 16:41, marc garrett <[log in to unmask]\n> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:\n>\n> Hi Nicholas & all,\n>\n> >So instead of operating in the suburbs, how could the list propose that\n> it is in fact the\n> >art world that is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube\n> picket fences,\n> >and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n>\n> I agree with the above & Sarah’s post on the matter works for me.\n>\n> Anyway — I’m too busy at the moment with our ‘provincial’ exhibition. A\n> collaboration with The Arts Catalyst “SEFT-1 Abandoned Railways Exploration\n> Probe: Modern Ruins 1:220 — Ivan Puig and Andrés Padilla Domene”\n> http://go.shr.lc/1jy7AJo\n>\n> It was featured in the Guardian last week by Jonathan jones ‘The\n> ruin-hunters who drove a car down Mexico's forgotten railways’\n> http://go.shr.lc/1qwbV4K\n>\n> And will be featured on the BBC news on Friday…\n>\n> Oh wait! I get it, it’s seen as ‘provincial’ because the work successfully\n> reaches people, beyond their art establishment silos. Of course ;-)\n>\n> bye for now.\n>\n> marc\n>\n>\n> > Sarah + all:\n> >\n> > I actually think that there's some stuff worth engaging in this...\n> >\n> > I haven't read Joanne's book, so I can't speak to the ways in which this\n> > piece fails as a review, but this closing statement definitely sent a\n> > shiver down my browser:\n> >\n> > \"The problem with the book, as with internet art, is that no one has\n> > recognised the aesthetic problems of provincial conversation. Work by\n> > artists who turn inward to have hushed talks with a small coterie about\n> > local problems will have little effect on culture at large. McLuhan’s\n> > global village may have its merits, but the cultural celebration of\n> > marginalism in art is not one of them.\"\n> >\n> > The reactionary in me would outright disagree with this, but I did have a\n> > moment of thinking bout who does address the aesthetic problems of the\n> > \"provincial conversation\" of internet art. So maybe as a way of thinking\n> > about outright disagreeing with Pac Pobric, the list might suggest some\n> > compelling counters?\n> >\n> > To that end, the metric of cultural relevance as proposed in this article\n> > is squarely situated in archaic models of art presentation/distribution\n> (I\n> > think that a lot of us can agree on that). So instead of operating in the\n> > suburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the art world that\n> > is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket fences,\n> > and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n> >\n> > very best\n> >\n> >\n> >\n> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Kelani Nichole <[log in to unmask]\n> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>\n> > wrote:\n> >\n> >> He is based in Brooklyn, no worries tho y'all I already invited him to\n> our\n> >> next opening at TRANSFER – Claudia Maté on July 12 :D\n> >>\n> >>\n> >> Bests,\n> >> Kelani Nichole\n> >>\n> >> Curatorial Director, TRANSFER\n> >> http://transfer.gallery\n> >>\n> >>\n> >>\n> >> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, marc garrett <\n> >> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n> >>> wrote:\n> >>\n> >>> Wow!\n> >>>\n> >>> Where do they find these people?\n> >>>\n> >>> marc\n> >>>\n> >>>  Hi CRUMBs\n> >>>> thought you might be interested to read this article about internet\n> art,\n> >>>> which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil\n> >> et\n> >>>> al, Black Dog Publishing.\n> >>>>\n> >>>>\n> >>\n> http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n> >>>>\n> >>>> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is\n> >>>> provincial.\n> >>>> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this\n> >>>> field of practice.\n> >>>>\n> >>>> Sarah\n> >>>>\n> >>>>\n> >>>> ===\n> >>>>\n> >>>> Dr. Sarah Cook\n> >>>> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n> >>>> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n> >>>> University of Dundee\n> >>>> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n> >>>>\n> >>>> phone: 01382 385247\n> >>>> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]\n> ><mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n> >>>>\n> >>>>\n> >>>>\n> >>>>\n> >>>>\n> >>>> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No:\n> SC015096\n> >>>> .\n> >>>>\n> >>>>\n> >>>\n> >>> --\n> >>> --->\n> >>>\n> >>> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n> >>> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n> >>>\n> >>> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n> >>> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n> >>>\n> >>> Furtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n> >>> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n> >>> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n> >>> http://www.furtherfield.org\n> >>>\n> >>> Furtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\n> >>> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n> >>>\n> >>> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n> >>> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n> >>>\n> >>> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n> >>> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n> >>>\n> >>\n> >\n> >\n> >\n>\n>\n> --\n> --->\n>\n> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n>\n> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n>\n> Furtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n> http://www.furtherfield.org\n>\n> Furtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\n> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n>\n> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n>\n> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n>\n> ===\n>\n> Dr. Sarah Cook\n> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n> University of Dundee\n> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n>\n> phone: 01382 385247\n> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096\n>",
                    "content-type": "text/plain",
                    "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=30625",
                    "from": "Victoria Bradbury",
                    "date": "Thu, 19 Jun 2014 15:12:20 +0100",
                    "author_name": "Victoria Bradbury"
                },
                {
                    "id": 0,
                    "subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
                    "content": "\nDear Sarah and everyone,\n\nI am following this conversation with great interest and it reminds of a similar controversy that arose in Sept 2012 with Claire Bishop’s infamous article in Artforum. I think that at that time this list had an important role in opening up a debate, although to my knowledge it all ended in several messages written in the comments section of Artforum’s website and a letter published in the next issue, alongside a reply from Bishop.\n\nAt this point I ask myself: Should we really care that much? Is it so important what a journalist who doesn’t know about digital art writes in an article? \n\nI am doing some research on these controversies and “blind spots” and I would really like to know your opinion. Why be upset/worried/concerned by these articles and how does it make you feel? \n\nI know the answer may seem obvious, but it would be interesting to give it some thought.\n\nI thank you in advance for any kind of feedback!\n\nBest,\n\nPau\n\n\n\nPau Waelder Laso\nArt critic, curator and researcher\n\nemail: [log in to unmask]\nsite: www.pauwaelder.com\nskype: pauwaelder\n\n\n\n\nEl 19/06/2014, a las 13:36, Sarah Cook <[log in to unmask]> escribió:\n\n> on the ongoing question of digital arts coverage in the media, and the earlier thread about the digital art hack at the Tate, here's another article for consideration, in which Ruth MacKenzie is quoted rather more favourably (as Hannah was good to point out)...\n> \n> http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/jun/16/hack-the-space-tate-modern\n> \n> CRUMB's PhD student, Victoria Bradbury, who is quoted in the article, will no doubt have some interesting findings to report on her participation in due course,\n> \n> Sarah\n> \n> \n> \n> On 18 Jun 2014, at 16:41, marc garrett <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:\n> \n> Hi Nicholas & all,\n> \n>> So instead of operating in the suburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the\n>> art world that is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket fences,\n>> and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n> \n> I agree with the above & Sarah’s post on the matter works for me.\n> \n> Anyway — I’m too busy at the moment with our ‘provincial’ exhibition. A collaboration with The Arts Catalyst “SEFT-1 Abandoned Railways Exploration Probe: Modern Ruins 1:220 — Ivan Puig and Andrés Padilla Domene” http://go.shr.lc/1jy7AJo\n> \n> It was featured in the Guardian last week by Jonathan jones ‘The ruin-hunters who drove a car down Mexico's forgotten railways’ http://go.shr.lc/1qwbV4K\n> \n> And will be featured on the BBC news on Friday…\n> \n> Oh wait! I get it, it’s seen as ‘provincial’ because the work successfully reaches people, beyond their art establishment silos. Of course ;-)\n> \n> bye for now.\n> \n> marc\n> \n> \n>> Sarah + all:\n>> \n>> I actually think that there's some stuff worth engaging in this...\n>> \n>> I haven't read Joanne's book, so I can't speak to the ways in which this\n>> piece fails as a review, but this closing statement definitely sent a\n>> shiver down my browser:\n>> \n>> \"The problem with the book, as with internet art, is that no one has\n>> recognised the aesthetic problems of provincial conversation. Work by\n>> artists who turn inward to have hushed talks with a small coterie about\n>> local problems will have little effect on culture at large. McLuhan’s\n>> global village may have its merits, but the cultural celebration of\n>> marginalism in art is not one of them.\"\n>> \n>> The reactionary in me would outright disagree with this, but I did have a\n>> moment of thinking bout who does address the aesthetic problems of the\n>> \"provincial conversation\" of internet art. So maybe as a way of thinking\n>> about outright disagreeing with Pac Pobric, the list might suggest some\n>> compelling counters?\n>> \n>> To that end, the metric of cultural relevance as proposed in this article\n>> is squarely situated in archaic models of art presentation/distribution (I\n>> think that a lot of us can agree on that). So instead of operating in the\n>> suburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the art world that\n>> is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket fences,\n>> and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n>> \n>> very best\n>> \n>> \n>> \n>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Kelani Nichole <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>\n>> wrote:\n>> \n>>> He is based in Brooklyn, no worries tho y'all I already invited him to our\n>>> next opening at TRANSFER – Claudia Maté on July 12 :D\n>>> \n>>> \n>>> Bests,\n>>> Kelani Nichole\n>>> \n>>> Curatorial Director, TRANSFER\n>>> http://transfer.gallery\n>>> \n>>> \n>>> \n>>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, marc garrett <\n>>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n>>>> wrote:\n>>> \n>>>> Wow!\n>>>> \n>>>> Where do they find these people?\n>>>> \n>>>> marc\n>>>> \n>>>> Hi CRUMBs\n>>>>> thought you might be interested to read this article about internet art,\n>>>>> which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil\n>>> et\n>>>>> al, Black Dog Publishing.\n>>>>> \n>>>>> \n>>> http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n>>>>> \n>>>>> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is\n>>>>> provincial.\n>>>>> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this\n>>>>> field of practice.\n>>>>> \n>>>>> Sarah\n>>>>> \n>>>>> \n>>>>> ===\n>>>>> \n>>>>> Dr. Sarah Cook\n>>>>> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n>>>>> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n>>>>> University of Dundee\n>>>>> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n>>>>> \n>>>>> phone: 01382 385247\n>>>>> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n>>>>> \n>>>>> \n>>>>> \n>>>>> \n>>>>> \n>>>>> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096\n>>>>> .\n>>>>> \n>>>>> \n>>>> \n>>>> --\n>>>> --->\n>>>> \n>>>> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n>>>> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n>>>> \n>>>> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n>>>> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n>>>> \n>>>> Furtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n>>>> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n>>>> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n>>>> http://www.furtherfield.org\n>>>> \n>>>> Furtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\n>>>> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n>>>> \n>>>> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n>>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n>>>> \n>>>> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n>>>> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n>>>> \n>>> \n>> \n>> \n>> \n> \n> \n> --\n> --->\n> \n> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n> \n> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n> \n> Furtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n> http://www.furtherfield.org\n> \n> Furtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\n> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n> \n> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n> \n> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n> \n> ===\n> \n> Dr. Sarah Cook\n> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n> University of Dundee\n> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n> \n> phone: 01382 385247\n> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096",
                    "content-type": "text/plain",
                    "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=31508",
                    "from": "Pau Waelder Laso",
                    "date": "Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:45:25 +0200",
                    "author_name": "Pau Waelder Laso"
                },
                {
                    "id": 0,
                    "subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
                    "content": "\nHello All,\n\nIt strikes me that The Space, Arts Catalyst, and the upcoming Barbican exhibition are encouraging main stream press and media coverage for digital art (define as you will, I was referred to as a 'multimedia artist' in the press yesterday and felt like rolling out my CD-ROMs). This is very positive! One patchy book review probably doesn't deserve such oxygen.\n\nAs Victoria mentioned Hack the Space was intense. Most hackathon events are mainly because they are a competition. Curiously, this hack had the biggest prizes (£4000 to the winners, unexpectedly) that I've ever come across, and no-one paid to go, no-one set an API biased agenda (hello Dev Art), and no-one was wearing a tie or a Google Glass. It was a genuinely enjoyable event. They even had soya milk.\n\nIn response to Victoria's comment about setting a precedent: I think there isn't much illusion that an artwork can be made in such a short period of time, but an arthack can - a quick and dirty prototype of a concept. In a tech hack the works that come out are generally suggestions or wireframes not full products, there is always more work to be done.\n\nIn contrast there are many artists who work very quickly in paint or pencil, so much that in a 20 hour hack they could probably produce a whole body of work (albeit sitting on the shoulders of 20 years practise).\n\nJulie\n\n\n---\nJulie Freeman\n[log in to unmask]\nt: 078 6660 9912\n(Pausing) PhD Student\nMedia & Arts Technology\nSchool of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science\nQueen Mary University of London\ntranslatingnature.org\n---\n\n\n\nOn 19 Jun 2014, at 15:12, Victoria Bradbury <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n\n> Hi Sarah and All,\n> \n> #HacktheSpace was an \"intense\" event, I would say.  It was exciting to be\n> involved in, particularly because of meeting new people, sleeping in the\n> turbine hall (ever-so-briefly), working on a new project, and\n> watching/being a part of the spectacle.\n> \n> The thing that hangs with me, though, is this perspective that gets sent to\n> the world that \"art\" can or should be made in a quick, competitive fashion.\n> Or perhaps that digital art is something that happens quickly and easily.\n> The process of art-making is different for everyone, but in my practice, I\n> make hand-make objects that work in tandem with custom code.  Both of these\n> take time.  It would probably be seen as very strange for a turbine hall of\n> painters to be asked to make paintings in 20 hours or less with little to\n> no sleep.\n> \n> In addition to the spectators on the balcony, there were many people\n> milling about the hall during the making day/night, talking to the groups.\n> The time to conceive of and implement the project was short, and during\n> the process, we were constantly being asked what we were doing, what was\n> the concept, etc..  So after 20 hours, you have collaboratively created\n> something in haste and are then asked to stand by it and attach your\n> name/identity to it.  I am pleased with what the prototype our group\n> produced, but had I not been, it was a very public setting in which to be\n> linked with a project and a concept.\n> \n> The event was well run by 3 Beards and The Space and overall it ran\n> smoothly.  We were well-fed and generally looked after.  I was pleased to\n> participate and am watching to see where Art Hacks go from here.\n> \n> Victoria\n> \n> -- \n> // Victoria Bradbury\n> <PROJECTS> www.victoriabradbury.com\n> Researcher @ www.crumbweb.org\n> New Media Caucus <http://www.newmediacaucus.org/> <CommComm>\n> Attaya Projects <http://attayaprojects.com/> // Collaborator\n> \n> \n> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Sarah Cook <[log in to unmask]>\n> wrote:\n> \n>> on the ongoing question of digital arts coverage in the media, and the\n>> earlier thread about the digital art hack at the Tate, here's another\n>> article for consideration, in which Ruth MacKenzie is quoted rather more\n>> favourably (as Hannah was good to point out)...\n>> \n>> \n>> http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/jun/16/hack-the-space-tate-modern\n>> \n>> CRUMB's PhD student, Victoria Bradbury, who is quoted in the article, will\n>> no doubt have some interesting findings to report on her participation in\n>> due course,\n>> \n>> Sarah\n>> \n>> \n>> \n>> On 18 Jun 2014, at 16:41, marc garrett <[log in to unmask]\n>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:\n>> \n>> Hi Nicholas & all,\n>> \n>>> So instead of operating in the suburbs, how could the list propose that\n>> it is in fact the\n>>> art world that is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube\n>> picket fences,\n>>> and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n>> \n>> I agree with the above & Sarah’s post on the matter works for me.\n>> \n>> Anyway — I’m too busy at the moment with our ‘provincial’ exhibition. A\n>> collaboration with The Arts Catalyst “SEFT-1 Abandoned Railways Exploration\n>> Probe: Modern Ruins 1:220 — Ivan Puig and Andrés Padilla Domene”\n>> http://go.shr.lc/1jy7AJo\n>> \n>> It was featured in the Guardian last week by Jonathan jones ‘The\n>> ruin-hunters who drove a car down Mexico's forgotten railways’\n>> http://go.shr.lc/1qwbV4K\n>> \n>> And will be featured on the BBC news on Friday…\n>> \n>> Oh wait! I get it, it’s seen as ‘provincial’ because the work successfully\n>> reaches people, beyond their art establishment silos. Of course ;-)\n>> \n>> bye for now.\n>> \n>> marc\n>> \n>> \n>>> Sarah + all:\n>>> \n>>> I actually think that there's some stuff worth engaging in this...\n>>> \n>>> I haven't read Joanne's book, so I can't speak to the ways in which this\n>>> piece fails as a review, but this closing statement definitely sent a\n>>> shiver down my browser:\n>>> \n>>> \"The problem with the book, as with internet art, is that no one has\n>>> recognised the aesthetic problems of provincial conversation. Work by\n>>> artists who turn inward to have hushed talks with a small coterie about\n>>> local problems will have little effect on culture at large. McLuhan’s\n>>> global village may have its merits, but the cultural celebration of\n>>> marginalism in art is not one of them.\"\n>>> \n>>> The reactionary in me would outright disagree with this, but I did have a\n>>> moment of thinking bout who does address the aesthetic problems of the\n>>> \"provincial conversation\" of internet art. So maybe as a way of thinking\n>>> about outright disagreeing with Pac Pobric, the list might suggest some\n>>> compelling counters?\n>>> \n>>> To that end, the metric of cultural relevance as proposed in this article\n>>> is squarely situated in archaic models of art presentation/distribution\n>> (I\n>>> think that a lot of us can agree on that). So instead of operating in the\n>>> suburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the art world that\n>>> is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket fences,\n>>> and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n>>> \n>>> very best\n>>> \n>>> \n>>> \n>>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Kelani Nichole <[log in to unmask]\n>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>\n>>> wrote:\n>>> \n>>>> He is based in Brooklyn, no worries tho y'all I already invited him to\n>> our\n>>>> next opening at TRANSFER – Claudia Maté on July 12 :D\n>>>> \n>>>> \n>>>> Bests,\n>>>> Kelani Nichole\n>>>> \n>>>> Curatorial Director, TRANSFER\n>>>> http://transfer.gallery\n>>>> \n>>>> \n>>>> \n>>>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, marc garrett <\n>>>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n>>>>> wrote:\n>>>> \n>>>>> Wow!\n>>>>> \n>>>>> Where do they find these people?\n>>>>> \n>>>>> marc\n>>>>> \n>>>>> Hi CRUMBs\n>>>>>> thought you might be interested to read this article about internet\n>> art,\n>>>>>> which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil\n>>>> et\n>>>>>> al, Black Dog Publishing.\n>>>>>> \n>>>>>> \n>>>> \n>> http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n>>>>>> \n>>>>>> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is\n>>>>>> provincial.\n>>>>>> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this\n>>>>>> field of practice.\n>>>>>> \n>>>>>> Sarah\n>>>>>> \n>>>>>> \n>>>>>> ===\n>>>>>> \n>>>>>> Dr. Sarah Cook\n>>>>>> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n>>>>>> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n>>>>>> University of Dundee\n>>>>>> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n>>>>>> \n>>>>>> phone: 01382 385247\n>>>>>> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]\n>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n>>>>>> \n>>>>>> \n>>>>>> \n>>>>>> \n>>>>>> \n>>>>>> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No:\n>> SC015096\n>>>>>> .\n>>>>>> \n>>>>>> \n>>>>> \n>>>>> --\n>>>>> --->\n>>>>> \n>>>>> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n>>>>> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n>>>>> \n>>>>> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n>>>>> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n>>>>> \n>>>>> Furtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n>>>>> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n>>>>> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n>>>>> http://www.furtherfield.org\n>>>>> \n>>>>> Furtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\n>>>>> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n>>>>> \n>>>>> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n>>>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n>>>>> \n>>>>> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n>>>>> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n>>>>> \n>>>> \n>>> \n>>> \n>>> \n>> \n>> \n>> --\n>> --->\n>> \n>> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n>> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n>> \n>> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n>> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n>> \n>> Furtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n>> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n>> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n>> http://www.furtherfield.org\n>> \n>> Furtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\n>> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n>> \n>> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n>> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n>> \n>> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n>> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n>> \n>> ===\n>> \n>> Dr. Sarah Cook\n>> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n>> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n>> University of Dundee\n>> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n>> \n>> phone: 01382 385247\n>> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n>> \n>> \n>> \n>> \n>> \n>> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096\n>> ",
                    "content-type": "text/plain",
                    "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=32198",
                    "from": "Julie Freeman",
                    "date": "Thu, 19 Jun 2014 19:10:18 +0000",
                    "author_name": "Julie Freeman"
                },
                {
                    "id": 0,
                    "subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
                    "content": "\ngood question. generally i don't care, because i think that mainstream \nmedia is always going to be like this & i'm busy enough already without \nworrying about that kind of thing; but i do get pissed off at how it \ninvisibilises so much excellent work  - whether through deliberate \ngatekeeping or sheer laziness; it is not that difficult to find out \nabout digital art.\n\nh : )\n\nOn 19/06/14 6:45 PM, Pau Waelder Laso wrote:\n> Dear Sarah and everyone,\n>\n> I am following this conversation with great interest and it reminds of a similar controversy that arose in Sept 2012 with Claire Bishop's infamous article in Artforum. I think that at that time this list had an important role in opening up a debate, although to my knowledge it all ended in several messages written in the comments section of Artforum's website and a letter published in the next issue, alongside a reply from Bishop.\n>\n> At this point I ask myself: Should we really care that much? Is it so important what a journalist who doesn't know about digital art writes in an article?\n>\n> I am doing some research on these controversies and \"blind spots\" and I would really like to know your opinion. Why be upset/worried/concerned by these articles and how does it make you feel?\n>\n> I know the answer may seem obvious, but it would be interesting to give it some thought.\n>\n> I thank you in advance for any kind of feedback!\n>\n> Best,\n>\n> Pau\n>\n>\n>\n> Pau Waelder Laso\n> Art critic, curator and researcher\n>\n> email: [log in to unmask]\n> site: www.pauwaelder.com\n> skype: pauwaelder\n>\n>\n\n-- \nhelen varley jamieson\n[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>\nhttp://www.creative-catalyst.com\nhttp://www.wehaveasituation.net\nhttp://www.upstage.org.nz",
                    "content-type": "text/plain",
                    "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=32794",
                    "from": "helen varley jamieson",
                    "date": "Thu, 19 Jun 2014 21:10:58 +0200",
                    "author_name": "helen varley jamieson"
                },
                {
                    "id": 0,
                    "subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
                    "content": "\nCRUMBers:\n\nWhat kind of mainstream media are we talking about. actually? Because while\nwe have been commenting (dare I say harping?) on this, no one has mentioned:\nhttp://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/jun/18/-sp-why-digital-art-matters\n\nSo while attention is being paid to both author and article for this\nnegative representation, we're drawing attention away from something that\ncould actually present more engaging questions/concerns within mainstream\nmedia published on the same day (I think...).\n\nas ever\nvery best\n\n\nOn Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:10 PM, helen varley jamieson <\n[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n\n> good question. generally i don't care, because i think that mainstream\n> media is always going to be like this & i'm busy enough already without\n> worrying about that kind of thing; but i do get pissed off at how it\n> invisibilises so much excellent work  - whether through deliberate\n> gatekeeping or sheer laziness; it is not that difficult to find out about\n> digital art.\n>\n> h : )\n>\n>\n> On 19/06/14 6:45 PM, Pau Waelder Laso wrote:\n>\n>> Dear Sarah and everyone,\n>>\n>> I am following this conversation with great interest and it reminds of a\n>> similar controversy that arose in Sept 2012 with Claire Bishop's infamous\n>> article in Artforum. I think that at that time this list had an important\n>> role in opening up a debate, although to my knowledge it all ended in\n>> several messages written in the comments section of Artforum's website and\n>> a letter published in the next issue, alongside a reply from Bishop.\n>>\n>> At this point I ask myself: Should we really care that much? Is it so\n>> important what a journalist who doesn't know about digital art writes in an\n>> article?\n>>\n>> I am doing some research on these controversies and \"blind spots\" and I\n>> would really like to know your opinion. Why be upset/worried/concerned by\n>> these articles and how does it make you feel?\n>>\n>> I know the answer may seem obvious, but it would be interesting to give\n>> it some thought.\n>>\n>> I thank you in advance for any kind of feedback!\n>>\n>> Best,\n>>\n>> Pau\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> Pau Waelder Laso\n>> Art critic, curator and researcher\n>>\n>> email: [log in to unmask]\n>> site: www.pauwaelder.com\n>> skype: pauwaelder\n>>\n>>\n>>\n> --\n> helen varley jamieson\n> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n> http://www.creative-catalyst.com\n> http://www.wehaveasituation.net\n> http://www.upstage.org.nz\n>\n\n\n\n-- \nNicholas O'Brien\n\nVisiting Faculty | Gallery Director\nDepartment of Digital Art, Pratt Institute\ndoubleunderscore.net",
                    "content-type": "text/plain",
                    "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=34420",
                    "from": "Nicholas O'Brien",
                    "date": "Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:18:35 -0400",
                    "author_name": "Nicholas O'Brien"
                },
                {
                    "id": 0,
                    "subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
                    "content": "\nHi All,\n\nO'Brian, \nWhat are mainstream media?I don't know, information channels that are seen as more authoritative because widespread and reaching general people and are not specifically targeted to a type of specialism..you tell me what we are talking about here. ;-)\n\nI like James Bridle article. It gives a broad and picture of the filed, with interesting examples, for all. Perhaps reinstating what has already been written over and over, but it's good that someone keeps on banging on things.\nThe conclusive sentence:\n\"It also points towards the fact that \"the digital\" is not a medium, but a context, in which new social, political and artistic forms arise. After 50 years, at least, of digital practice, institutions are still trying to work out its relevance, and how to display and communicate it – a marker, perhaps, that it is indeed a form of art.\"\nResonates with the position of Charlie Gere in Digital Culture (2002, expanded in 2008) where he raises similar concerns, the relationship of digital technology to 2nd World War technological inventions, the raise of \"informational needs of capitalism and its drive to abstraction\" as well the problems of the rate of which changes – which always occur in history - take place.\nIt's an important book I think, especially in relation to the show that will soon open at Barbican, and all of the 'literature' that will be written about it.\n\nAs for the rest:\nHelen, \nI am concerned too with \"invisibility\" of excellent work, mainly, in my case, of curatorial work online for example. I think we should care about what's been written and where because that is, very often, how history is written out. \n\nMarc, \nI think you have been writing tenaciously the history of Furtherfield, practically with your projects and in actual writing, so I'd say that you have been bringing 'localism' to the limelight, somehow.\n\nMez,\nI am very interested in the \"net.art Painters and Poets\" exhibition you mentions. Have you visited it? Do you have more information? There's not much I can find out on the website..\n\nLastly,\nI am writing up my PhD (so I should not even write in here!) but I just wanted to say, going back to this idea of \" internet art takes place in the suburb\", that I am interviewing curators that have devised new exhibition structures, encompassing online and offline sites and modes of production. Some projects are not even browsable anymore even if done less than 10 years ago. And I feel that this is bringing out so many interesting positions that would not necessarily come to light if these people were not practitioners. Each of them has developed a language to deal with online, digital, offline, and the tautologies and unnecessary distinctions that might exist in there.\nSo, I would be interested in interviewing some of you too - when writing up is over - thus: hit me if you're interested and your work applies to this field.\n\nAll the best,\nMarialaura\n\n\n\n////\nMarialaura Ghidini\nPhD Reseacher at CRUMB\nUniversity of Sunderland \nm. +44(0)7816 483221\nskype: mlghidini\nhttp://www.crumbweb.org\n\n\n\n\nOn 20 Jun 2014, at 05:18, Nicholas O'Brien wrote:\n\n> CRUMBers:\n> \n> What kind of mainstream media are we talking about. actually? Because while\n> we have been commenting (dare I say harping?) on this, no one has mentioned:\n> http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/jun/18/-sp-why-digital-art-matters\n> \n> So while attention is being paid to both author and article for this\n> negative representation, we're drawing attention away from something that\n> could actually present more engaging questions/concerns within mainstream\n> media published on the same day (I think...).\n> \n> as ever\n> very best\n> \n> \n> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:10 PM, helen varley jamieson <\n> [log in to unmask]> wrote:\n> \n>> good question. generally i don't care, because i think that mainstream\n>> media is always going to be like this & i'm busy enough already without\n>> worrying about that kind of thing; but i do get pissed off at how it\n>> invisibilises so much excellent work  - whether through deliberate\n>> gatekeeping or sheer laziness; it is not that difficult to find out about\n>> digital art.\n>> \n>> h : )\n>> \n>> \n>> On 19/06/14 6:45 PM, Pau Waelder Laso wrote:\n>> \n>>> Dear Sarah and everyone,\n>>> \n>>> I am following this conversation with great interest and it reminds of a\n>>> similar controversy that arose in Sept 2012 with Claire Bishop's infamous\n>>> article in Artforum. I think that at that time this list had an important\n>>> role in opening up a debate, although to my knowledge it all ended in\n>>> several messages written in the comments section of Artforum's website and\n>>> a letter published in the next issue, alongside a reply from Bishop.\n>>> \n>>> At this point I ask myself: Should we really care that much? Is it so\n>>> important what a journalist who doesn't know about digital art writes in an\n>>> article?\n>>> \n>>> I am doing some research on these controversies and \"blind spots\" and I\n>>> would really like to know your opinion. Why be upset/worried/concerned by\n>>> these articles and how does it make you feel?\n>>> \n>>> I know the answer may seem obvious, but it would be interesting to give\n>>> it some thought.\n>>> \n>>> I thank you in advance for any kind of feedback!\n>>> \n>>> Best,\n>>> \n>>> Pau\n>>> \n>>> \n>>> \n>>> Pau Waelder Laso\n>>> Art critic, curator and researcher\n>>> \n>>> email: [log in to unmask]\n>>> site: www.pauwaelder.com\n>>> skype: pauwaelder\n>>> \n>>> \n>>> \n>> --\n>> helen varley jamieson\n>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n>> http://www.creative-catalyst.com\n>> http://www.wehaveasituation.net\n>> http://www.upstage.org.nz\n>> \n> \n> \n> \n> -- \n> Nicholas O'Brien\n> \n> Visiting Faculty | Gallery Director\n> Department of Digital Art, Pratt Institute\n> doubleunderscore.net",
                    "content-type": "text/plain",
                    "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=35188",
                    "from": "Marialaura Ghidini",
                    "date": "Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:59:25 +0100",
                    "author_name": "Marialaura Ghidini"
                },
                {
                    "id": 0,
                    "subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
                    "content": "\nHi Nic, I did mention the article, but perhaps you're reading the messages to the list out of order, or am I?\n\nMy quick thoughts this morning is that articles in the mainstream media or the contemporary art press - often lead to those writers being asked to write chapters for books, which then become part of the literature of the field, and of art history. One hopes that the discussion which goes in to the comment thread after an article when it appears online or in a magazine (or both), might then influence that writer to reconsider when they get asked to contribute to a book down the road (or when their article gets invited to be reprinted in a book or exhibition catalogue). It is worth acknowledging the larger landscape of literature which supports this field (from which PhD students draw too!).\n\ncheers\nSarah\n\n\nOn 20 Jun 2014, at 05:18, Nicholas O'Brien <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:\n\nCRUMBers:\n\nWhat kind of mainstream media are we talking about. actually? Because while\nwe have been commenting (dare I say harping?) on this, no one has mentioned:\nhttp://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/jun/18/-sp-why-digital-art-matters\n\nSo while attention is being paid to both author and article for this\nnegative representation, we're drawing attention away from something that\ncould actually present more engaging questions/concerns within mainstream\nmedia published on the same day (I think...).\n\nas ever\nvery best\n\n\nOn Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:10 PM, helen varley jamieson <\n[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n\ngood question. generally i don't care, because i think that mainstream\nmedia is always going to be like this & i'm busy enough already without\nworrying about that kind of thing; but i do get pissed off at how it\ninvisibilises so much excellent work  - whether through deliberate\ngatekeeping or sheer laziness; it is not that difficult to find out about\ndigital art.\n\nh : )\n\n\nOn 19/06/14 6:45 PM, Pau Waelder Laso wrote:\n\nDear Sarah and everyone,\n\nI am following this conversation with great interest and it reminds of a\nsimilar controversy that arose in Sept 2012 with Claire Bishop's infamous\narticle in Artforum. I think that at that time this list had an important\nrole in opening up a debate, although to my knowledge it all ended in\nseveral messages written in the comments section of Artforum's website and\na letter published in the next issue, alongside a reply from Bishop.\n\nAt this point I ask myself: Should we really care that much? Is it so\nimportant what a journalist who doesn't know about digital art writes in an\narticle?\n\nI am doing some research on these controversies and \"blind spots\" and I\nwould really like to know your opinion. Why be upset/worried/concerned by\nthese articles and how does it make you feel?\n\nI know the answer may seem obvious, but it would be interesting to give\nit some thought.\n\nI thank you in advance for any kind of feedback!\n\nBest,\n\nPau\n\n\n\nPau Waelder Laso\nArt critic, curator and researcher\n\nemail: [log in to unmask]\nsite: www.pauwaelder.com\nskype: pauwaelder\n\n\n\n--\nhelen varley jamieson\n[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>\nhttp://www.creative-catalyst.com\nhttp://www.wehaveasituation.net\nhttp://www.upstage.org.nz\n\n\n\n\n--\nNicholas O'Brien\n\nVisiting Faculty | Gallery Director\nDepartment of Digital Art, Pratt Institute\ndoubleunderscore.net\n\n===\n\nDr. Sarah Cook\nReader / Dundee Fellow\nDuncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\nUniversity of Dundee\n13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n\nphone: 01382 385247\nemail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n\n\n\n\n\nThe University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096",
                    "content-type": "text/plain",
                    "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=36077",
                    "from": "Sarah Cook",
                    "date": "Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:51:04 +0000",
                    "author_name": "Sarah Cook"
                },
                {
                    "id": 0,
                    "subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
                    "content": "\nSarah:\n\nAh, sorry I missed or got shuffled. The question regarding the inclusion of\ncomments is quite interesting, especially (for me at least) when it comes\nto thinking about the ownership of that content (do the comments belong to\nthe article author, the publication, the comment author, the social media\nplug-in...?). Acknowledging the larger landscape is definitely important,\nbut I suppose I was responding to the idea that there is little \"good\"\nrepresentation in mainstream media - thus my pointing to Bridle's article\nreleased the same day.\n\nMarialuara:\nMy question regarding mainstream media was mostly rhetorical since I think\nthat The Guardian is much more mainstream than The Art Newspaper. Again,\ntrying to respond to the notion that reporting of this\nmedia/discipline/field within said channels is inherently misrepresented\n(or used as a punching bag). Though my question also implies - as maybe you\nunintentionally point out - that seeking approval or faithful\nrepresentation within \"authoritative press\" is inherently a red herring. In\nmy mind the work should come first, and then press/circulation of that work\ncan follow. Why bemoan misrepresentation in public media of work that can't\ncontend with a larger cultural conversation that is making pointed\ncritical, aesthetic, and engaging statements? Thus my suggestion to the\nlist to offer up some pointed rebukes of the original article with a\ncurated/considered list of art works that fly in the face of its sweeping\ngeneralizations.\n\nvery best\n\n\n\n\nOn Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Sarah Cook <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n\n>  Hi Nic, I did mention the article, but perhaps you're reading the\n> messages to the list out of order, or am I?\n>\n> My quick thoughts this morning is that articles in the mainstream media or\n> the contemporary art press - often lead to those writers being asked to\n> write chapters for books, which then become part of the literature of the\n> field, and of art history. One hopes that the discussion which goes in to\n> the comment thread after an article when it appears online or in a magazine\n> (or both), might then influence that writer to reconsider when they get\n> asked to contribute to a book down the road (or when their article gets\n> invited to be reprinted in a book or exhibition catalogue). It is worth\n> acknowledging the larger landscape of literature which supports this field\n> (from which PhD students draw too!).\n>\n>  cheers\n> Sarah\n>\n>\n>  On 20 Jun 2014, at 05:18, Nicholas O'Brien <[log in to unmask]>\n> wrote:\n>\n> CRUMBers:\n>\n> What kind of mainstream media are we talking about. actually? Because while\n> we have been commenting (dare I say harping?) on this, no one has\n> mentioned:\n>\n> http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/jun/18/-sp-why-digital-art-matters\n>\n> So while attention is being paid to both author and article for this\n> negative representation, we're drawing attention away from something that\n> could actually present more engaging questions/concerns within mainstream\n> media published on the same day (I think...).\n>\n> as ever\n> very best\n>\n>\n> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:10 PM, helen varley jamieson <\n> [log in to unmask]> wrote:\n>\n> good question. generally i don't care, because i think that mainstream\n> media is always going to be like this & i'm busy enough already without\n> worrying about that kind of thing; but i do get pissed off at how it\n> invisibilises so much excellent work  - whether through deliberate\n> gatekeeping or sheer laziness; it is not that difficult to find out about\n> digital art.\n>\n> h : )\n>\n>\n> On 19/06/14 6:45 PM, Pau Waelder Laso wrote:\n>\n> Dear Sarah and everyone,\n>\n> I am following this conversation with great interest and it reminds of a\n> similar controversy that arose in Sept 2012 with Claire Bishop's infamous\n> article in Artforum. I think that at that time this list had an important\n> role in opening up a debate, although to my knowledge it all ended in\n> several messages written in the comments section of Artforum's website and\n> a letter published in the next issue, alongside a reply from Bishop.\n>\n> At this point I ask myself: Should we really care that much? Is it so\n> important what a journalist who doesn't know about digital art writes in an\n> article?\n>\n> I am doing some research on these controversies and \"blind spots\" and I\n> would really like to know your opinion. Why be upset/worried/concerned by\n> these articles and how does it make you feel?\n>\n> I know the answer may seem obvious, but it would be interesting to give\n> it some thought.\n>\n> I thank you in advance for any kind of feedback!\n>\n> Best,\n>\n> Pau\n>\n>\n>\n> Pau Waelder Laso\n> Art critic, curator and researcher\n>\n> email: [log in to unmask]\n> site: www.pauwaelder.com\n> skype: pauwaelder\n>\n>\n>\n>  --\n> helen varley jamieson\n> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n> http://www.creative-catalyst.com\n> http://www.wehaveasituation.net\n> http://www.upstage.org.nz\n>\n>\n>\n>\n> --\n> Nicholas O'Brien\n>\n> Visiting Faculty | Gallery Director\n> Department of Digital Art, Pratt Institute\n> doubleunderscore.net\n>\n>\n>   ===\n>\n>  Dr. Sarah Cook\n> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n> University of Dundee\n> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n>\n>  phone: 01382 385247\n> email: [log in to unmask]\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096\n>\n\n\n\n-- \nNicholas O'Brien\n\nVisiting Faculty | Gallery Director\nDepartment of Digital Art, Pratt Institute\ndoubleunderscore.net",
                    "content-type": "text/plain",
                    "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=36848",
                    "from": "Nicholas O'Brien",
                    "date": "Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:34:35 -0400",
                    "author_name": "Nicholas O'Brien"
                },
                {
                    "id": 0,
                    "subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
                    "content": "\nHi Marialaura,\n\nMore about the \"net.art Painters and Poets\" Exhibition can be found here:\n\n1. Official Gallery description:\nhttp://www.mgml.si/en/city-art-gallery/future-exhibitions/net-art-painters-and-poets/\n2. Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt3y6xR0L-A\n3. National TV coverage [in Slovenian]:\nhttp://4d.rtvslo.si/arhiv/kultura/17428 +\nhttp://4d.rtvslo.si/arhiv/osmi-dan-prispevki/174282914\n\nCheers,\nMez\n\n\nOn Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Marialaura Ghidini <\n[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n\n>\n> Mez,\n> I am very interested in the \"net.art Painters and Poets\" exhibition you\n> mentions. Have you visited it? Do you have more information? There's not\n> much I can find out on the website..\n>\n>\n-- \n| facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign <http://www.facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign>\n| twitter.com/MezBreezeDesign\n| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mez_Breeze",
                    "content-type": "text/plain",
                    "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=40578",
                    "from": "mez breeze",
                    "date": "Wed, 25 Jun 2014 09:42:56 +1000",
                    "author_name": "mez breeze"
                },
                {
                    "id": 0,
                    "subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
                    "content": "\nThanks Mez and Jon for the links.\nI look forward to reading re-collection too!\n\nTill next time,\nMarialaura\n\nOn 25 Jun 2014, at 00:42, mez breeze wrote:\n\n> Hi Marialaura,\n> \n> More about the \"net.art Painters and Poets\" Exhibition can be found here: \n> \n> 1. Official Gallery description: http://www.mgml.si/en/city-art-gallery/future-exhibitions/net-art-painters-and-poets/\n> 2. Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt3y6xR0L-A\n> 3. National TV coverage [in Slovenian]: http://4d.rtvslo.si/arhiv/kultura/17428 + http://4d.rtvslo.si/arhiv/osmi-dan-prispevki/174282914\n> \n> Cheers,\n> Mez\n> \n> \n> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Marialaura Ghidini <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n> \n> Mez,\n> I am very interested in the \"net.art Painters and Poets\" exhibition you mentions. Have you visited it? Do you have more information? There's not much I can find out on the website..\n> \n> \n> -- \n> | facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign\n> | twitter.com/MezBreezeDesign\n> | en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mez_Breeze \n> \n> ",
                    "content-type": "text/plain",
                    "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=46381",
                    "from": "Marialaura Ghidini",
                    "date": "Thu, 26 Jun 2014 22:11:46 +0100",
                    "author_name": "Marialaura Ghidini"
                },
                {
                    "id": 0,
                    "subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
                    "content": "\nHello CRUMBers,\n\nI think the article by Pobric is worth spending a little time on here not because it's an isolated snarky review, but because it represents a view that is (in my experience) fairly common in the mainstream art world. Usually, it's not expressed so bluntly as that comes off as nasty (not to mention ironically attentive to new media art) but rather more subtly as to make it seem just un-cool to \"still\" be talking about new media art. I think the attitudes that happen underneath the surface of the open discourse are fascinating and of course influence important decisions.\n\nChristiane Paul is working on a new book from Blackwell with a chapter on the relationship between digital art and institutions that should further the conversation in this area (Jon already plugged our new book so I thought I'd take the chance to plug a different book in which several CRUMBers will appear :)\n\nI agree with Nick that Pobric was unwise to posit new media art, perhaps inadvertently, within the classic post-colonial framework of center/periphery because those who live in glass houses..... As for Pobric going on about what activist art does/not directly influence other world events, well, even Marx admitted that there exists a differential between society's economic base structures and it's cultural super-structures. It happens.\n\nAnd I share Marialaura's concern about the erasure of new media art's history as a potential by-product of this article/view/attitude. The ongoing mainstreaming of new media art has many benefits, not least of which is to engage a new generation of artists and curators with the intellectual toolkit of art historical methodologies (and vice versa.) But something is being lost when new media art is denied existence as a legitimate or discrete subject; when it is assimilated into the art world only one-by-one as \"contemporary\" artworks and not studied as the collective tangled mix of media/artworks/technology/theory/industry/practice/community that it is.\n\nRichard Rinehart\n---------------------\nDirector\nSamek Art Museum\nBucknell University\n---------------------\nLewisburg, PA, 17837\n570-577-3213\nhttp://galleries.blogs.bucknell.edu\n\n\n\n> \n> \n> Date:    Thu, 26 Jun 2014 05:35:13 +0200\n> From:    Oliver Grau <[log in to unmask]>\n> Subject: Antw: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] An article that doesn't understand new media art | An Archive that does\n> \n> Dear colleagues,\n> I couldn't agree more with Jon and others: We should not be frustrated\n> by ignorant articles of people writing for the Art Market, which has\n> other interests.\n> Over the last fifty\n> years, media art has evolved\n> into a vivid cultural expression. Although there are well attended\n> festivals\n> worldwide,\n> collaborative projects, discussion forums and databases (Da Costa and\n> Kavita 2010; Dixon 2007; Gardiner 2010; Grau 2003 and\n> 2011; Popper 2007; Shanken 2009;\n> Sommerer and Mignonneau 2007; Vesna 2007; Wilson 2010), media art is\n> still too rarely collected by museums,\n> barely supported within the mainframe of art history and with relatively\n> low accessibility for the public\n> and scholars. As we know, compared to traditional art forms – painting\n> or\n> sculpture – digital media art, has a multifarious potential of\n> expression and\n> visualization; and therefore, although underrepresented at the art\n> market that\n> follows other interests and commercial logics, it became a ‘legitimate\n> art of\n> our time’. Media addresses a variety of complex topics and challenges\n> for our\n> life and societies, like genetic engineering (Anker and Nelkin 2003;\n> Hauser\n> 2008; Kac 2009; Reichle 2005) and the rise of post human bodies\n> (Hershman-Leeson 2007), globalisation and ecological crises (Himmelsbach\n> 2007, Cubitt 2005, Demos 2009, Borries 2011),\n> the explosion of human knowledge, the image and media revolution (Grau\n> 2011;\n> Mitchell 2011), the change towards virtual financial economies, and new\n> extremes of surveillance of all human communication (Ozog 2008).\n> \n> \n> We therefore should not stop communicate, that digital art is able to\n> deal with the big issues of our time, all thematized on festivals and\n> meanwhile 200 biennials all over the world. We should not count on the\n> art market, but we should remind our tax financed museum system (in\n> Europe) that it is their job, by law, to document, collect and preserve\n> the relevant art of the time - as we know, the museum system, founded in\n> the 18th century, ideal to preserve the media of its time (sculpture,\n> painting etc.) is not in the situation to fulfill their job. But many\n> museums are fully aware that this is the case - like TATE - where I\n> could give a lecture on the topic a few weeks ago. The museum system has\n> to reorganize to catch up with the digital age. There are thousands of\n> digital art works, shown around the world, which received an endless\n> number of articles and lectures, who never made it into the collections\n> payed by us. Some you find in the archive of digital art:\n> www.digitalartarchive.at\n> Many regards,\n> Oliver\n> \n> \n> Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr.h.c. habil. Oliver Grau\n> Chair Professor for Image Science\n> DONAU UNIVERSITÄT\n> Dr.-Karl-Dorrek-Strasse 30\n> 3500 Krems, AUSTRIA\n> Tel. +43 (0) 2732 893 2550\n> www.donau-uni.ac.at/bild\n> ****************************\n> Archive of Digital Art www.digitalartarchive.at\n> Graphische Sammlung Goettweig-Online www.gssg.at\n> New Publication: Oliver Grau (Ed.): Imagery in the 21st Century,\n> Cambridge, MIT-Press 2013.\n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 Marialaura Ghidini wrote:\n>> I am concerned too with \"invisibility\" of excellent work....Some\n> projects are not even browsable anymore even if done less than 10 years\n> ago. And I feel that this is bringing out so many interesting positions\n> that would not necessarily come to light if these people were not\n> practitioners.\n> \n> ------------------------------\n> \n> Date:    Thu, 26 Jun 2014 08:48:28 +0000\n> From:    Beryl Graham <[log in to unmask]>\n> Subject: Re: An article that doesn't understand new media art | A book that does\n> \n> Dear List,\n> \n> In relation to this recurring debate about whether we need curators, critics and journalists who actually have knowledge of new media art, or whether we have achieved the ‘post-media’ condition, I’m not convinced that much has changed since we wrote Rethinking Curating.\n> \n> This was discussed at MuseumNext in Gateshead recently, albeit in relation to whether museums need ‘digital officers’ for their education and marketing any more. Kati Price from V&A has written a nice piece here, which I’m referencing rather proudly because she cites CRUMB researcher, artist Victoria Bradbury.\n> \n> http://www.vam.ac.uk/blog/digital-media/cdos-the-new-chief-electrical-officers\n> \n> I’m becoming very interested in who cites who in publications, because that is the way art history is made. I was rather amused that one of the publisher’s internal reviews for Rethinking Curating criticised the book for citing too many other people rather than having a singular theoretical position!  \n> \n> Yours,\n> \n> Beryl\n> \n> \n> On 25 Jun 2014, at 23:55, Jon Ippolito <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n> \n>> Marialaura et al.,\n>> \n>> Because what goes uncontested is often taken for truth, I believe we need to continue to make the case for the relevance of new media art in those places least likely to believe it, namely the hidebound art world.\n>> \n>> I don't think that case is hard to make. Some on this list will be familiar with a little number-crunching from the essay \"Out of the Hothouse and into the World\" that concludes the Met has 2.5 visits per artwork while Rhizome has 7,000.\n>> \n>> http://at-the-edge-of-art.com/out_of_the_hothouse/#autonomyor\n>> \n>> As far as the seemingly unstoppable disintegration of new media art, I invite practitioners everywhere  to consider some of the radical strategies proposed in the book Re-Collection: Art, New Media, and Social Memory, which just hit the shelves this week.\n>> \n>> http://re-collection.net\n>> \n>> From emulation to DNA storage to proliferative preservation, co-author Richard Rinehart and I hope the book will open new attitudes and toolkits for amateur and professional preservators alike.\n>> \n>> jon\n>> \n>> ______________________________\n>> Jon Ippolito\n>> Professor of New Media\n>> Co-director, Still Water\n>> Director, Digital Curation graduate program\n>> The University of Maine\n>> 406 Chadbourne\n>> Orono, ME  04469-5713\n>> http://still-water.net\n>> Tel: 207 581-4477\n>> Fax: 207 581-4357\n>> Twitter: @jonippolito\n>> \n>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 Marialaura Ghidini wrote:\n>>> I am concerned too with \"invisibility\" of excellent work....Some projects are not even browsable anymore even if done less than 10 years ago. And I feel that this is bringing out so many interesting positions that would not necessarily come to light if these people were not practitioners. \n> \n> ------------------------------------------------------------\n> \n> Beryl Graham, Professor of New Media Art\n> CRUMB web resource for new media art curators http://www.crumbweb.org\n> Research Student Manager, Art and Design\n> MA Curating Course Leader http://www.macurating.net\n> \n> Faculty of Arts, Design, and Media, University of Sunderland\n> The David Puttnam Media Centre, St Peter's Way, Sunderland, SR6 0DD  Tel: +44 191 515 2896 \n> \n> Recent books:\n> New Collecting: Exhibiting and Audiences Ashgate\n> Rethinking Curating: Art After New Media MIT Press \n> A Brief History of Curating New Media Art The Green Box\n> Euphoria & Dystopia: The Banff New Media Institute Dialogues Banff Centre Press and Riverside Architectural Press\n> \n> \n> \n> Date:    Thu, 26 Jun 2014 22:11:46 +0100\n> From:    Marialaura Ghidini <[log in to unmask]>\n> Subject: Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?\n> \n> Thanks Mez and Jon for the links.\n> I look forward to reading re-collection too!\n> \n> Till next time,\n> Marialaura\n> \n> On 25 Jun 2014, at 00:42, mez breeze wrote:\n> \n>> Hi Marialaura,\n>> \n>> More about the \"net.art Painters and Poets\" Exhibition can be found here: \n>> \n>> 1. Official Gallery description: http://www.mgml.si/en/city-art-gallery/future-exhibitions/net-art-painters-and-poets/\n>> 2. Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt3y6xR0L-A\n>> 3. National TV coverage [in Slovenian]: http://4d.rtvslo.si/arhiv/kultura/17428 + http://4d.rtvslo.si/arhiv/osmi-dan-prispevki/174282914\n>> \n>> Cheers,\n>> Mez\n>> \n>> \n>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Marialaura Ghidini <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n>> \n>> Mez,\n>> I am very interested in the \"net.art Painters and Poets\" exhibition you mentions. Have you visited it? Do you have more information? There's not much I can find out on the website..\n>> \n>> \n>> -- \n>> | facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign\n>> | twitter.com/MezBreezeDesign\n>> | en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mez_Breeze \n>> \n>> \n> \n> ------------------------------\n> \n> End of NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Digest - 25 Jun 2014 to 26 Jun 2014 (#2014-104)\n> *************************************************************************",
                    "content-type": "text/plain",
                    "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=47543",
                    "from": "Richard Rinehart",
                    "date": "Fri, 27 Jun 2014 12:17:40 -0400",
                    "author_name": "Richard Rinehart"
                }
            ],
            "author_name": "Sarah Cook",
            "list": "crumb"
        }
    ],
    "end2end": [],
    "new media art": [
        {
            "from": "Geert Lovink <geert {AT} xs4all.nl>",
            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00038.html",
            "author_name": "Geert Lovink",
            "content": "\nOn the event of the Montevideo/Netherlands Media Art Institute 30th  \nanniversary, departing curator Susanne Jaschko put together a one day  \nsymposium entitled Positions in Flux. Régine Debatty at We Make Money  \nNot Art blogged about it. Unfortunately, I was only able to attend the  \nmorning session. The event on May 8 2009 took place in Trouw  \nAmsterdam, the followup of Club 11. From what I heard, Positions at  \nFlux had a critical take towards the common media art discourse and  \nasked relevant questions. It was a relief to see that the attention  \nwas, for once, not focused on history, preservation and conservation.  \nCultural heritage has already taken over way too much attention space– \nin part because this is one of the few areas where there is still  \nplenty of funding. Sigh. Just for one day, no celebration of “medium  \nreligion” or “art meets science”. Director Heiner Holtappels opened by  \nnoticing that new media art is not easily accepted by fine art.  \nTraditional art has become eclecticism. According to Heiner, all art  \nis technology based. The subject of the symposium was a visible break  \nwith the video art heritage that Montevideo has been known for.  \nPolitics topics, a courageous step? “Is there a future for us?” is a  \nquestion not many institutions dare to ask. In the Dutch daily De  \nVolkskrant of that day, ex-Montevideo curator Bart Rutten (now  \nStedelijk Museum) took up the role of expressing the ambivalent  \nfeelings of the Dutch art establishment towards the new but no longer  \nyoung art form. Whereas he praised Montevideo’s work, he himself had  \nmoved on. “You can ask yourself if Montevideo should continue to show  \nonly media art works. In this way they preserve their specialism. It  \nwas my main reason to leave.”\n\nIn Zero Comments I mapped the current challenges for new media arts.  \nWhile society at large is inundated with (new) media, the art branch  \nthat deals with the digital moved itself in a ghetto. While this  \nanalysis still holds up, many in the sector openly admitted the  \nshortcomings and are now putting in place strategies to escape the  \ndead end street. Technology has lost its original fascination, while  \nspreading even faster in society. Is this a reason enough to abandon  \nthe field? While experimentation with electronics and the digital  \nmight have lost its aura and the spirit of curiosity has somewhat  \nfained, the field of new media arts at large is still growing, despite  \ninstitutional setbacks here and there. What most participants shared  \nwas the feeling that, despite the intimidating institutional violence  \nof the large players, museums will die or become a zoo if they do not  \ndeal with the Digital. Some say new media arts lacks the timeliness  \nand the depth. Whereas ICA London closed its media lab, Laboral in the  \nNorth of Spain, which opened in 2007, is now a large exhibition space,  \ndevoted to media art. Chairman Chris Keulemans emphasized that new  \nmedia arts was always at it best when it criticized the media itself,  \nwith its codes and nodes. Each of the three presentations in the  \nmorning session gave a different answer to the question how relevant  \npolitical work could be produced.\n\nThe Iraqi-American artist Wafaa Bilal is known from his installation  \nDomestic Tension, in which the artist lived in a gallery space for a  \nmonth, pointed at by paint ball gun operated by web users. Shoot an  \nIraqi had 80 million visitors and, according to Bilal, was a “strange  \nmix of aesthetic pain and pleasure.” What made the work so popular was  \nthe power of viral connections, in particular through chatrooms and  \nvideo he put online. What happened here was a confrontation between  \nconflict zone and comfort zone, disengagement and engagement, virtual  \nversus physical platform — both in the case of the artwork and war in  \nIraq itself. Bilal concluded that the body has its own language that  \nis not in sync with the electronic reality. Bilal made a distinction  \nbetween interactive works, in which the end-states is already  \ndetermined, and dynamic pieces that are open ended. A lot of the old  \nschool new media art is interactive. Increased user participated was  \nillustrated in Bilal’s story of the ‘virtual human shield’, a group of  \npeople that gathered to protect the artist from being shot at. Dog or  \nIraqi was a month long online debate who gets waterboarded: a dog or  \nan Iraqi? Bilal also briefly discussed his modded version of a 2003 US  \nshooting game that he renamed into Virtual Jihadi. Instead of killing  \nSadam the user can now hunt GW Bush. This and other projects were  \ndocumented in Wafaa Bilal, Shoot an Iraqi (City Light Books, San  \nFrancisco, 2008).\n\nFormer Etoy Hans Bernard of Uebermorgen.com didn’t show projects but  \nread a text concerning the role of “European techno fine art avant  \ngarde.” I am great fan of Uebermorgen. It’s in fact becoming  \nimpossible to list all their interventions and hacks. Uebermorgen is  \nall about “surreal outcomes”, not bound by any medium. “The  \ntransformation from digital to physical is important. The work is not  \npop art, it is rock art. We are not activists, we are actionists.” For  \na while seeking large audiences was a thrill, but that’s no longer the  \nmain motivation. There is a new strategy for each new project. Bernard  \ndid his best to prove that Uebermorgen’s intentions were neither  \npolitical nor ideological. The aim should be Art, not Politics.  \nCommunication is the 9-5 job, but that not the passion. Bernard’s  \ninsistence on the non-political status didn’t convince. Uebermorgen’s  \nclaim, not to have any political agenda, refers to an ancient, rigid  \ndefinition that was already problematic in the late seventies when I  \nstudied political science. Maybe in Austria politics is still  \nassociated with corrupt parties and fat, ugly politicians but  \nelsewhere in the world people use a much broader definition of “the  \npolitical”. His insistence on artistic freedom is amiable but the idea  \nthat once art becomes political it turns into politics and seizes to  \nbe art, simply doesn’t hold. His separation between the private  \nopinion of the artist as a citizen and the Artist as a public figure  \nis problematic for the same reasons. Bernard’s insistence  that  \n“perception and production need to separated” sounds good–but we all  \nknow that visual arts no longer operates outside “perception  \nmanagement.” Autonomy, at least in the Dutch context, is the official  \nstate religion. We all anticipate aesthetic impact, even if we reject  \nthe categories of the day and undermine the dominant visual logic.  \nHans, there are no commissars anymore that control the ateliers. If  \nthere is any censor it’s probably the Politically Correct Self. So, if  \nwe state, “in production we need to be free,” there is no one who will  \nstop us — but ourselves.\n\nKnowbotic Research, teaching and working in Zurich, was the third  \npresenter. Their translocal distributed temporary works avoid–and seek– \nthe Political in yet another manner. Christian Huebler showcased the  \nBlackbenz Race project between Prishtina and Zurich, a city marketing  \nproposal that was refused because of its negative image of the proper  \nSwiss finance capital. The broader idea was to play with the Kosovo- \nAlbanian-Swiss people that hover in-between places. Code words are  \nfog, smoke, blurred spaces and multiple identities. The self-built  \nstealth boat project has a similar intention. The micro audiences  \nbecome actors here. Activism doesn’t need more exposure and  \ntransparency. Art doesn’t need moral outcry. The celebrity industry  \ntook over this role. Art questions and creates new spaces for  \nreflection. What’s required are slow spaces. All three projects showed  \nthat new media art “doesn’t need to be a monade, merely celebrating  \nitself.” (Huebler) This is the age of entering other contexts, times  \nand spaces–assisted by production houses that have in-house knowledge  \nabout the specificity, and the Eigenartigkeit, of digital technologies.\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
            "follow-up": [
                {
                    "from": "lorian Cramer <fc-nettime {AT} pleintekst.nl>",
                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00044.html",
                    "author_name": "Florian Cramer",
                    "content": "\nOn Monday, May 11 2009, 21:29 (+0200), Geert Lovink wrote:\n\n> While society at large is inundated with (new) media, the art branch  \n> that deals with the digital moved itself in a ghetto. \n\nThis is too true, and that branch has to reinvent itself from scratch\nor it will collapse very soon (if it isn't already collapsing). But it\ngoes for the entire \"new media\" field, including academic new media\nstudies which have used up their credit within the humanities. It's\nalready happening in arts education where famous media art schools\nhave been rolled back or integrated into Fine Art courses.\n\nIt's not even a question of too narrow technological focus, but one\nof perceived artistic quality. Historically, \"media art\" has been\na tactical alliance between radical artists from Nam June Paik to\nubermorgen.com and high tech academic research lab art that has no\nwhatsoever contemporary art credits. From the late 60s to today, one\nhand washed the other - the former brought the artistic credibility,\nthe latter the money and infrastructure. Festivals like STRP or ars\nelectronica perfectly illustrate it. However, the research lab art,\nparticularly in the form of \"interactive installations\", has always\ndominated the field in sheer mass, quantity and visibility. A visitor\nwho would visit an arbitrary new media festival with an interest\nin contemporary art would see, first and most of all, preposterous\nmachine parks. Or, in friendlier terms, it's the kind of art that\nrather belonged, as an educational or aesthetic gimmick, into a museum\nof technology than into a contemporary art discourse.\n\nHowever, I find it hard to get past a certain attachment to the\n\"media art\" ghetto because it tends to combine the very worst (even\npainfully, unspeakably stupid and monstrously worst) with - IMO - the\nvery best to be found in contemporary art. Ubermorgen are an excellent\nexample, needless to drop further names here. And I'm afraid that\nabandoning that ghetto, although it's theoretically the right thing to\ndo, will in the end result in even greater collateral damage.\n\nSince the 1990s, the so-called Fine Arts do provide no really\ndesirable environment either, likely they're even worse. It is telling\nenough that the term \"Fine Art\" suddenly has become a universally\naccepted standard while, not a long time ago, any self-respecting\ncontemporary artist would have fiercely rejected if not opposed it. In\nthe past ten years of reading contemporary art magazines or visiting\nart biennales and Documentas, I've been flabbergasted by the lack\nof vision and radicalism in this field. It has morphed, somewhat\ncomparable to New (composed) Music after the 1960s, into an academic\ndiscourse ruled by a neo-bourgeois jet set of hipster curators posing\nas cultural theorists on the basis of a not-even-half-baked knowledge\nand recycling of postmodern philosophy and cultural studies. The\nsystem consists of artists who have been academically trained to\nproduce works - along with non-understood theory lingo - that fit the\nrequired curatorial buzz. Along with this development, the paradigm of\nthe white cube and art works as good-looking exhibition objects has\nbecome stronger than ever before and rules out any art practice not\nfitting this format. All the while, the system thrives on the delusion\nthat it still represents visual art as a whole although, unlike, for\nexample, in film where 'highbrow' and 'lowbrow' still coexist, its\npopular forms like comic books, tattoos, fantasy figurines, t-shirt\nillustrations, wildlife paintings... have long been excluded from its\nsystem.\n\nI dare to claim that under \"saner\" conditions, no Documenta and\nno Biennale curator would get around artists like ubermorgen or\nthe Yes Men, just like no Documenta curator got around Beuys in\nthe 1970s and 80s. Instead, we get artists like Mike Kelley all\nover the art world in whose work I'm either not getting something\nor indeed seeing the Emperor's new clothes. (\"Review\" babble like\nhttp://www.frieze.com/issue/article/tomorrow_never_comes1/ affirms the\nsuspicion that the art world has no clue either.)\n\n\n> Director Heiner Holtappels opened by noticing that new media art    \n> is not easily accepted by fine art. Traditional art has become      \n> eclecticism. According to Heiner, all art is technology based.      \n\nThis is true, yet contemporary art has mostly given up on reflecting\nits media. [I can almost hear an iPhone-wearing curator saying that\nreflecting one's media is outmoded modernism.] It's most obvious in\nthe way video installations have become its mainstream format, in the\nform of video loops shown in booths inside exhibition spaces. Video\nis just taken as a documentary TV or wannabe-cinematic format, as if\nradical video art from Paik to Infermental had never happened. (It\nseems as if most contemporary artists actually don't know it anymore\nwhich is comparable to painters no longer knowing about abstract\npainting.) One should perhaps advise Montevideo just not to leave its\nvideo art roots behind.\n\n-F\n \n\n-- \nblog:     http://en.pleintekst.nl\nhomepage: http://cramer.pleintekst.nl:70\n          gopher://cramer.pleintekst.nl\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                    "follow-up": [
                        {
                            "from": "Matze Schmidt <matze.schmidt {AT} n0name.de>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00045.html",
                            "author_name": "Matze Schmidt",
                            "content": "\nThursday, May 14, 2009, 10:28:59 PM, one wrote:\n> On Monday, May 11 2009, 21:29 (+0200), Geert Lovink wrote:\n\n>> While society at large is inundated with (new) media, the art      \n>> branch that deals with the digital moved itself in a ghetto.       \n\n> This is too true, and that branch has to reinvent itself from\n> scratch or it will collapse very soon (if it isn't already\n> collapsing).\n\nMh, so let it be killing itself, the Reinvent Yourself-Discourse is a\nline from the Pet Shop Boys from the 90s and says nothing than \"Nobody\nknows the trouble I've seen\" in a 'modern' reinvented (sic!) way. But\nI cannot see the trouble of this hard front line between a Paik and\na Ubermorgen. For example the \"1001 Songs of eBay\" of uebermorgen is\njust a funny funny project I can implement over the weekend dealing\nwith online politics sex. And this confused and disoriented waiting\nfor the new-old avantgarde like \"Let's do many Paiks\" is boring and\ndoes not have anything to do with the real world in which electronics\nare the basis of the doings. What was really radical in a Paik?\nFucking the Porta Pack with Alternative TV-Ideas or the TV-Sets with a\nmagnet? Were the neo-dada fluxus guys radical anyway or just radical?\n\n> as if radical video art from Paik to Infermental had never happened.\n> (It seems as if most contemporary artists actually don't know it\n> anymore which is comparable to painters no longer knowing about\n> abstract painting.) One should perhaps advise Montevideo just not to\n> leave its video art roots behind.\n\nI'd like to point out at this point that institutions like Montevideo\nare revolutionizers of money, e.g. they payed Jaromil for working\non dynebolican stuff and by this means they are able to rescue the\nmiddle-class fantasies of a free arty market of software on the basis\nof electronics, a market without too much money and with lower prices,\nwith all effects of an open source software\"z\" driven by the mediate\nsupport of the state.\n\nBut while talking to them some years ago the Montevideo people turned\nout to be very naive in political questions. They have no idea about\neconomy and no idea of what is going on out of their field. That's\nokay, as long as they incorporate all folklore and avantgarde at the\nsam time, because it is their mandate and mission.\n\nMatze Schmidt\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "follow-up": [
                                {
                                    "from": "jaromil <jaromil {AT} dyne.org>",
                                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00047.html",
                                    "author_name": "jaromil",
                                    "content": "\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA1\n\n\nre all,\n\nfirst of all  thanks Matze for your consideration  of my activity, but\nlet me  warn you are  overestimating the benefits of  my collaboration\nwith Montevideo / Time Based  Arts ...  which is now called Nederlands\nInstituut voor Mediakunst  (NIMK, BTW): it takes more  to be \"rescuing\nthe middle-class fantasies  of a free arty market  of software\" as you\nsay, if  we speak of a national  institute that started in  a squat in\nAmsterdam 30 years  ago and has seen a  constant flow of contributions\nby various people  through all these years, most  of them really worth\nconsidering.\n\nOn Fri, May 15, 2009 at 05:23:12PM +0200, Matze Schmidt wrote:\n> I'd  like  to  point  out  at  this  point  that  institutions  like\n> Montevideo are revolutionizers of money, e.g. they payed Jaromil for\n> working on dynebolican stuff\n\nif it  would be just the  action of redistribution of  wealth, then it\nwouldn't  be   revolutionary  at  all.   Some   artists  produced  and\ndistributed  by Montevideo did  became rich,  but for  them Montevideo\nmostly contributed to the  production quality of their artworks rather\nthan direct funding.\n\njust consider that  if my lifestyle would be  \"middle-class fantasy\" i\ncould  not afford  to  sustainably  live in  Amsterdam  relying on  my\ncurrent employment, but lucky me i'm not a yuppie :) and i'm fine like\nthat.  for the  minimum support i get, needed as i  care to support me\nand my extended  family when needed, i have to do  much more than just\ndeveloping \"my own projects\", but still all results can be free to the\npublic,: that shouldn't be special for a public institution, right?  i\nbelieve this is the good signal  NIMK gives - not such a revolutionary\none, but pretty honest: there  are often various degrees of corruption\nleading   public  institutions  to   play  commercially   with  public\nresources.\n\nother  than that,  we can  call \"progressive  attitude\" -  rather than\nrevolutionary\" -  when institutions are keen to  interact with liminal\ncontexts,  with dwellers on  the dystopian  hearth pulsating  in every\nmetropolis of our \"Free Western World\".  This kind of interaction (and\nthe respect for the uncommon ground  in between) is indeed part of the\nheritage of  a city like Mokum  A - unfortunately  decaying rapidly as\nEurope is turning  into a Fortress for the  privileged and their fears\nof the disinherited children of the welfare mirage.\n\nat last  about the  interaction i  mention here: i'm  not sure  how to\ndefine it,  its likely  not a negotiation  nor a compromise,  i'm just\nsure  it is  necessary in  any case:  whether we  accept  the upcoming\ninstitutionalised  \"Reinvent  Yourself\"  strategy  or  not.   I  would\nrecommend  a  case-by-case  analysis  in  this  regards,  rather  than\nthinking universally... like institutions often do ;^)\n\nregarding your vague critiques let me reply:\n\n> with all effects of an open source software\"z\" driven by the mediate\n> support of the state.\n\ndyne.org  development  is not  driven  by  any  state, corporation  or\ninstitution rather  than by the  many problems these  power structures\ngenerate.  we  dedicate most  of our free  time to peer  reviewed free\nsoftware  development  in  socially  relevant  contexts  (please  note\n\"development\", not  provision of services)  and as hackers  we operate\npragmatically, on-line as well in various different on-site contexts.\n\n> But  while talking  to them  some  years ago  the Montevideo  people\n> turned out  to be  very naive in  political questions. They  have no\n> idea about  economy and  no idea of  what is  going on out  of their\n> field. That's  okay, as  long as they  incorporate all  folklore and\n> avantgarde at the sam time, because it is their mandate and mission.\n\ni'd  be  curious  to  know  what  you  consider  \"naive  in  political\nquestions\": myself  i've felt  enriched by the  past 4 and  more years\nspent  in  Amsterdam,  by my  colleagues  at  NIMK  (which is  not  so\nuniformed in its  composition BTW) as well by  the squatters in A'dam,\nfrom De Bierkoning to the Waag Society.\n\nbacking my  objection, i'll point you  out some coverage  on NIMK's 30\nyears symposium (just happened last week):\n\nhttp://www.we-make-money-not-art.com/archives/2009/05/the-netherlands-media-art-inst.php\n\npasting  you  here  the  transcription  of  my  intervention  at  this\nsymposium,  let  it  be   also  a  contribution  to  this  interesting\ndiscussion thread:\n\n                            ------------\n\nAt the NIMK's symposium \"Positions in Flux\" I've taken the occasion to\nshare thoughts  on the  current perception of  Free Software  and Open\nSource philosophy  in art,  along with some  overdue criticism  of the\nCreative Commons hollow  hype, as well of the  Creative Industries and\ntheir systematised processing  of art for the global  market.  Even if\nnot  obvious, I  believe the  dynamics  of these  two phenomenons  are\nrelated; among the quoted in the intervention are Benjamin Mako Hill's\n\"Towards a Standard of  Freedom: CreativeCommons and the Free Software\nMovement\"[1] and Florian Cramer's post on nettime \"The Creative Common\nMisunderstanding\"[2],  while  the vigorous  critique  of the  Creative\nIndustries  stands on  Rana Dasgupta's  essay  \"The Next  Idea of  the\nArtist  (Art,   music  and  the  present   threat  of  creativity)\"[3]\n\n\nHere below a short transcript:\n\n\"Open Source\" doesn't mean free access, nor open space or open air; it\npresumes  a  seamful[4]  approach  to  design as  a  response  to  the\nincreasing  reliance  on  technology  and  its  accessibility;  it  is\ninteractive without prescribed  boundaries, following a combinatorial,\ngenerative approachto development;  it is peer to peer  as no producer\ncan control further interaction patterns; it is grassroot as creations\nare  born out  of  initiative and  cohesion  based on  needs felt  and\nunderstood in first person by community members.\n\nAbout  Creative  Commons, its  motto  \"Some  rights  reserved.\"  is  a\nrelatively  hollow  call:  the  slogan  factually  reverses  the  Free\nSoftware and Open Source philosophy  of reserving rights to users, not\ncopyright owners,  in order  to allow the  former to  become producers\nthemselves. The dis/appropriating loop of creativity must be recursive\nto be  fruitful: not only  productionmeans belong to the  people using\nthem, further creations  should be free to be  recombined. rights must\nbe granted  focusing on people  interacting, not just  those providing\nthe interactive infrastructure.\n\nUnfortunately there  is a diffuse lack of  perception for alternatives\noffered by  the Open  Source and Free  Software approach  over current\nprofit models.  As  a present problem, also deriving  from the lack of\nunderstanding  of the  importance of  grass-root  creativity, top-down\ncultural   management  is   patronising   art  production:   massmedia\naesthetics of  an entirely sanitised and efficient  creativity, of the\nsort  that will  not  rely on  unstable  people and  can therefore  be\nglobally rationalised.\n\nThat the  great artists of  modern Western culture managed  to produce\nwhat they  did, despitethe danger  and intensity of their  effort, was\ndue in large  part to improvised social forms  built around close-knit\nnetworks  where  thought and  affect  circulated  with high  velocity,\nandwhere it  was possible to  try out forms of  non-conventional human\nrelationships that would  not destroy, nor be destroyed  by, a life of\nart. Seen  from an historical perspective,  In the second  half of the\ntwentieth  century many  of the  functions of  creative  networks were\nalready  taken  over in  Europe  by  institutions (government  funding\nbodies,  universities,  museums,  etc)  and much  of  their  excessive\nfeeling  wasneutralised. This  was  only  a small  part  of a  general\nprocess of the time: the absorption of human emotion into bureaucratic\nchannels,  and the  emergence of  a social  coolness,  anefficiency of\nfeeling.\n\nAt this  stage in the  twenty-first century, we  are in the  middle of\nanother   large-scale  restructuring  of   ideas  of   creativity  and\nculture. As one of the most significant generators of image and value,\ncreativity now has become a  critical resource for the global economic\nengine.   What creativity  is,  and  how it  can  be systematised  and\ncirculated, are therefore  urgent questions of contemporary capitalist\norganisation.   As  cultural  producers   are  thrust  into  the  full\nintensity of  globally dispersed, just-in-time  production, new images\nof creative inspiration and output are required that sit tidily within\nthe systematised  processes of the  global market. Creativity  must be\nrendered comprehensible,  transparent and rational: there  can be none\nof  the destructive  excesses  evident in  the  lives of  many of  the\ngreatest  artists  of  European  history.  Creativity  must  circulate\ncleanly and quickly, and it  should leave no dirty remainder. For what\ninterests Hollywood, and the market in general, is not creativity as a\ncomplex human  process, weighed down  in bodies and  relationships and\nempty days,  but creativity as  an abstraction, free  of irrationality\nand  pain, and  light enough  to  hover like  a great  logo above  the\ncontinents.\n\nPerhaps, as the logic  of systematised production occupies the terrain\nof human  creativitymore completely,  we will reach  a stage  where we\nsurrender  all knowledge  about  this troubling  domain,  and it  will\nbecome entirely alien  to us. Perhaps one day we  will be terrified of\nwhat  explosive dangers  might rise  up from  the creativity  of human\nbeings.\n\n[1] http://mako.cc/writing/toward_a_standard_of_freedom.html\n\n[2] http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0610/msg00025.html\n\n[3] http://ranadasgupta.com/texts.asp?text_id=45\n\n[4] http://www.themobilecity.nl/2008/01/05/designing-for-locative-media-seamless-or-seamful-experiences/\n\n\n- -- \n\njaromil, dyne.org developer, http://jaromil.dyne.org\n\nGPG: 779F E8B5 47C7 3A89 4112  64D0 7B64 3184 B534 0B5E\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)\n\niEYEARECAAYFAkoP/aAACgkQe2QxhLU0C15y4ACeKYaj8pNKu7lS/Z1sIuVUtbfL\nmBUAn2h7gwq7AN0Gsv+lgidMWqZoga1q\n=Skrp\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                                    "date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 14:05:54 +0200",
                                    "message-id": "20090517120554.GA4808 {AT} dyne.or",
                                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                                    "id": "00047",
                                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                                },
                                {
                                    "from": "\"xname\" <root {AT} xname.cc>",
                                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00050.html",
                                    "author_name": "xname",
                                    "content": "> jaromil said:\n> Montevideo / Time Based  Arts ...  which is now called Nederlands\n> Instituut voor Mediakunst  (NIMK, BTW)\n> if  we speak of a national  institute that started in  a squat in\n> Amsterdam 30 years  ago\n\nHello.\n\nI did not remember that the 'Nimk' was started in a squat: isn't this the\nstory of Paradiso and Melkweg?\n\nAs far as I know the 'Netherlands Media Art Institute' was born when\n'Monte Video' and 'Time Based Arts' merged (1993).\n\nMonte Video was founded by René Coelho in 1978, and initially operated\nfrom his house in Amsterdam. (was that squatted? I tend to doubt.)\nMonte Video focused on video art and provided equipment for producing\nworks and space to show them (soon collecting and distributing...\nvideo-tapes!).\n\nTime Based Arts was founded in 1983 by the Association of Video Artists,\nso it was an artists run association creating a network for distribution;\nit was more performance oriented than Monte Video, according to the story\nthat was narrated to me, and which I deduced from the collection. (Can\nanyone confirm this, please?)\nWere they squatting? But they were getting funding...\nI am somewhat curious.\n\nMaybe other people on this list know more.\n\nThere is a page of history on the nimk.nl, but i saw no wikipedia entry on\nthis topic.\nI find the *story of this institute quite beautiful and paradigmatic in\nthe development of the (non-linear) chain of media mutations (which could\noff course be expanded):\n\nhappening/performance (art=life)\nelectronic art\nvideo-art (art=registration)\nmedia-art, software-art (art=simulation)\n\nI paste it below.\n\nBest,\nEleonora\n\n===\n\n**History**\n\n1978\nMonte Video is founded by René Coelho. From his home on the Singel in\nAmsterdam he makes equipment and documentation available, and furnishes\none room as a gallery. The first video artist whose work is shown here on\nthe Singel was Livinus van de Bundt, Coelho's inspiration. Other artists,\nsuch as Bill Viola, Gary Hill, Shelly Silver and Gabor Body, soon make\ncontact. It is not long before Monte Video has a large selection of works\navailable for rental.\n\n1983\nThanks to government funding Monte Video is able to move to Amsterdam\nNorth. There is now sufficient space to offer regular presentations. Not\nonly Dutch artists, but also those from other countries are given a chance\nto show their videos or installations.\n\n1986\nGovernment funding received by Monte Video is cut back to almost nothing.\nMonte Video does receive several small transitional grants from the city\nof Amsterdam.\nTime Based Arts, which had been founded in 1983 by the Association of\nVideo Artists, is fast becoming well-known as a distributor of video art,\nand continues receiving government funding.\n\n1986-1993\nRené Coelho continues on his own. Monte Video moves back to his home on\nthe Singel. The acquisition of production facilities, distribution,\ndocumentation and promotion goes on, financed from his own income and by\norganizing large projects. One of these, as an example, was 'Imago', an\nexhibition of Dutch video installations which toured worldwide for five\nyears beginning in 1990. There were also plans laid for the first\nconservation programs for video art.\nThe chairman of Time Based Arts, Aart van Barneveld, died; his death was\nfollowed by many conflicts within the organization. In the early 1990s\nTime Based Arts also lost its subsidies and threatened to go under. Monte\nVideo and Time Based Arts decide to provide a joint art program for\nAmsterdam cable TV, Channel Zero.\n\n1993\nTime Based Arts merges with Monte Video. Their work is continued under the\nnew name of Netherlands Media Art Institute, Montevideo/Time Based Arts.\nThis fusion does free up national funding. In both 1997 and 2001 the\ngrants are expanded and converted into a structural subsidy for four\nyears.\n\n1993-2002\nThe Netherlands Media Art Institute moves twice, in 1994 to the Spuistraat\nand in 1997 to its present location on the Keizersgracht.\nThe Institute continues to grow through these years, and adopts the\nfollowing mission statement: The Netherlands Media Art Institute supports\nmedia art in three core areas: presentation, research and conservation. At\nthe same time, through its facilities it offers extensive services for\nartists and art institutions. Among these services are educational\nprograms, to be developed to accompany all activities.\n\nand\n\n**History of the Collection**\n\nThe collection of the Netherlands Media Art Institute, Montevideo/Time\nBased Arts reflects the turbulent history of the Institute. In addition to\nthe collection of Monte Video, the predecessor of the Netherlands Media\nArt Institute, the Institute administers the collections of four\ninstitutions: the Lijnbaan Center (1970-1982), Time Based Arts\n(1983-1994), De Appel (1975-1983) and the Institute Collection\nNetherlands. This combination of artists' initiatives (Time Based Arts, De\nAppel and the Lijnbaan Center) and more formal institutions (Institute\nCollection Netherlands and the present Netherlands Media Art Institute)\naffords the collection a surprising diversity. In addition to renowned\nartists like Bill Viola, Nam June Paik and Gary Hill (who were represented\nin the collection as far back as the 1970s), there are internationally\nknown Dutch artists who experimented with the medium for only a short\nperiod in the 1970s, such as Marinus Boezem, Jan van Munster and Pieter\nEngels.\nBefore any institutions at all had yet been created for the purpose of\ncollecting small centers were set up in various parts of The Netherlands\nwhich facilitated and promoted the use of video by and for artists. The\nearliest examples of this were Agora Studios in Maastricht, the Lijnbaan\nCenter in Rotterdam (itself a merger of the studio of Venster in Rotterdam\nand the video studio which was set up for the Sonsbeek exhibition in 1971\nin Arnhem), and a couple of individuals such as the artists Miguel-Ángel\nCárdenas and Jack Moore in Amsterdam, who made their cameras available for\nother artists. Many of the works which were made in this earliest period\nof Dutch video art only surfaced from oblivion in the course of the 1990s.\nSurprising discoveries among them are the works of Dennis Oppenheim, Terry\nFox, Wim Gijzen, Nan Hoover and Tajiri.\n\nWith the arrival of the collection of De Appel an enormously rich\ncollection of video records of performances was added. De Appel flourished\nin the 1970s as one of the most progressive international work sites for\nperformance art. The collection of this institution contained unique works\nby Vito Acconci, Laurie Anderson, Gina Pane, Carolee Schneemann and\nothers. But in addition to records of events in her own gallery, Wies\nSmalls, the founder of De Appel, also built up a collection of\ninternational video art in order to enable the Dutch public to become\nacquainted with what was happening internationally, including work by\nDouglas Davis, Ulrike Rosenbach, Joan Jonas and Alison Knowles.\n\nIn the early 1980s, with De Appel as its base, efforts were begun to\nestablish an association for video artists, which later created the Time\nBased Arts Foundation. The collection of this artists' association, in\naddition to works by artists based in The Netherlands, such as\nAbramovic/Ulay, Hooykaas/Stansfield, Ben d'Armagnac, Christine Chiffrun\nand Lydia Schouten, also included work by international artists like Mona\nHatoum and General Idea.\nTime Based Arts maintained an active collection policy, in which any\nartist who worked with video could try to have his or her work included in\nthe collection. As it grew the collection became enormously diverse and\nafforded a good overview of the various ways that video could be employed\nin the visual arts. Through in to the 1990s Time Based Arts played an\nimportant role in the collection, distribution and support of video art\nuntil, in 1994, under pressure from the municipal authorities of\nAmsterdam, it entered into a merger with Monte Video.\n\nRené Coelho began his video gallery Monte Video in 1978, and in doing so\nlaid the foundation for the present Institute. Monte Video was a gallery\nwhich specialized in electronic art and especially in video art that\nsought out the creative possibilities and qualities of the medium itself.\nAn important impetus for establishing the institution was the work of the\nDutch video pioneer Livinus van de Bundt. He was therefore the first\nartist to be shown in the gallery. Later the Vasulkas, Bert Schutter,\nPeter Bogers, Matthew Schlanger and many others followed. In addition to\nthe works that were to be seen in the gallery, Monte Video began to be\nactive in collecting and distributing work. Bill Viola, Gary Hill, Shelly\nSilver and Gabor Body were for instance artists who 'stabled' their work\nwith Monte Video. The gallery owed its international success chiefly to\nthis. When in the 1990s the conservation of video works became a pressing\nproblem, the then merged Montevideo/Time Based Arts established itself as\nthe goad and later as the center of technical expertise for carrying out\nthe Conservation of Dutch Video Art project. As well as the collections\ndescribed above, there was integral cooperation with museums that over the\ncourse of time had also collected video work. In addition to much\ntechnical research, the conservation efforts also prompted considerable\nrecording work and research into content. Among questions dealt with were\nthe status of the vehicle, the significance of the material chosen and\nestablishing the boundary conditions for proper exhibition. Because of the\ndifferences in approach among the institutions from which they came,\nconsiderable time was spent integrating the collections with one another,\nand getting the possibilities for the use of the works coordinated with\none another. But now, with the end of the conservation project in sight,\nthe gaps between the collections appear to be closing ever more, and we\ncan proudly present our multi-faceted collection to the public, as we do\nhere.\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                                    "date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 15:40:16 +0200 (CEST)",
                                    "message-id": "3266070d80132b99ebf3351b5cb71455.squirrel {AT} tuxic.nl",
                                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                                    "id": "00050",
                                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Media Mutations - Life | Registration | Simulation (was: Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis)"
                                },
                                {
                                    "from": "Matze Schmidt <matze.schmidt {AT} n0name.de>",
                                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00059.html",
                                    "author_name": "Matze Schmidt",
                                    "content": ">> [...] Arts\n\n> what art\n\n> True, art\n\nIn short: No money (as one of the forms of profit) without art, no art\nwithout politics. This is a simple formula and any Baudrillard would\nhave secretly subcribed this, even in an epoch of ended (Hegel and \nfollowers) or never realized (Debord and followers) art. The fact is,\nwe* don't need art as art, but -- and someone like jaromil shows this\nto us** -- we need other conditions, as painting, code or video or\ndiy-cooking if you like, I don't care -- changing media is always good.\nBut we are not able to produce the conditions 'now' -- like someone like\njaromil is may thinking -- because the conditions produce us, alienate\nus; they will allways produce us (products produce consumption and vice\nversa), but these conditions are (straightforward now) have to be\nuncaged from ruling modes of production, in the meant sector reproduced\nby national institutions (ZKM in Germany, Ex-Montevideo in NL, your\npersonal MTV at home). The New Media Arts Crisis is not my crisis, It's\njust the crisis of the middle-class (Yuppie or not, fallen programmer or\nrising video-installer) in form of some arts with newer or older media,\nmay it a t-shirt or an lcd. So there is no aftermath here but the\neffects of a mixed up (I love this status and condition) highbrow, baby!\nelite meshed with an alternative \"green\" and independent buisness party\nwith no idea of real coding out there (forget networks, they are roped\nparties).\n__________\n* and ** Me, I and you as the readers who follows this text.\n\nM\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                                    "date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 11:22:02 +0200",
                                    "message-id": "1739011317.20090518112202 {AT} n0name.",
                                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                                    "id": "00059",
                                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Media Mutations - Life | Registration | Simulation\t(was: Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis)"
                                }
                            ],
                            "date": "Fri, 15 May 2009 17:23:12 +0200",
                            "message-id": "9394574.20090515172312 {AT} n0name.",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00045",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                        },
                        {
                            "from": "Renee Turner <geuzen {AT} xs4all.nl>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00046.html",
                            "author_name": "Renee Turner",
                            "content": "\nHi Florian,\n\nYou point towards a classic issue, the relevance of context. What do\ndifferent registers (fine art, media art, design, activism, popular\nculture etc.) give to a particular work and what does a categorization\nexclude, meaning what does it make *impossible*. Every register\ninfluences interpretation, (in)visibility, production and funding.\n\n> Since the 1990s, the so-called Fine Arts do provide no really\n> desirable environment either, likely they're even worse. It is\n> telling enough that the term \"Fine Art\" suddenly has become a\n> universally accepted standard while, not a long time ago, any\n> self-respecting contemporary artist would have fiercely rejected\n> if not opposed it. In the past ten years of reading contemporary\n> art magazines or visiting art biennales and Documentas, I've been\n> flabbergasted by the lack of vision and radicalism in this field. It\n> has morphed, somewhat comparable to New (composed) Music after the\n> 1960s, into an academic discourse ruled by a neo-bourgeois jet set\n> of hipster curators posing as cultural theorists on the basis of a\n> not-even-half-baked knowledge and recycling of postmodern philosophy\n> and cultural studies. The system consists of artists who have been\n> academically trained to produce works - along with non-understood\n> theory lingo - that fit the required curatorial buzz.\n\nCan you speak more specifically about which curators, what art\neducational programs, which artists and what practices? For a\nconstructive debate, it's important to avoid caricatures, otherwise\nthere's a risk of creating false enemies, or missing out on how to\nbest counter the real ones.\n\nAnd as an aside, I have to admit when I read \"not-even-half-baked\nknowledge\" and \"non-understood, I caught myself wondering who are\nthe guardians of proper interpretation when it comes to theory. (not\nto mention, which theories) After all, couldn't theory be mutable in\ndifferent contexts or even hackable? In other words, can it too be\npracticed, tested and changed once it hits the ground or encounters a\nspecific situation or discipline?\n\n> Along with this development, the paradigm of the white cube and art\n> works as good-looking exhibition objects has become stronger than\n> ever before and rules out any art practice not fitting this format.\n\nIt's true the white cube is a dominant force to be reckoned\nwith (or not, depending on what art world you dwell in ;-), but\ninterventionists/social/political practices have also continued....\n(both of the digital and analog sort). You mention UBERMORGEN, and I\nwould add The Temporary Travel Office, SubRosa, Mongrel, AUDC, Jorge\nBlasco's Cultures of the Archive, Marcelo Exposito's various projects,\nThe Center for Land Use Interpretation, Beatriz da Costa and others...\nMaybe \"tactical\" is a red thread through these works?\n\n> All the while, the system thrives on the delusion that it still\n> represents visual art as a whole although, unlike, for example, in\n> film where 'highbrow' and 'lowbrow' still coexist, its popular forms\n> like comic books, tattoos, fantasy figurines, t-shirt illustrations,\n> wildlife paintings... have long been excluded from its system.\n>\n\nhmmmm....not sure about this, having worked as a hybrid artist/\ndesigner/curator/media artist/collaborator for some time now, again\nI reiterate that there are many different artworlds (and for that\nmatter artists/inhabitants/vagrants). Sometimes they intersect, rub\nnext to each other, come into agitation or simply run on parallel\ntracks. (Not too disimilar from the so-called new media world.) Think\nof open source practitioners, the Max/Flash folk, and those that poach\nthe web's detritus for their own purposes, they're all a part of new\nmedia arts, but each tend to dwell in different corners of the digital\nuniverse (or maybe not, if you're one of those cross-pollinators :-)\n\n> Instead, we get artists like Mike Kelley all over the art\n> world in whose work I'm either not getting something or indeed\n> seeing the Emperor's new clothes. (\"Review\" babble like\n> http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/tomorrow_never_comes1/ affirms\n> the suspicion that the art world has no clue either.)\n\nI haven't seen this particular work so hesitate to judge. I do however\nfind it a little problematic to make sweeping statements about the\nEmperor's New Clothes and the \"art world's\" cluelessness based on one\nreview and one artist.\n\n\n>> Director Heiner Holtappels opened by noticing that new media art\n>> is not easily accepted by fine art. Traditional art has become\n>> eclecticism. According to Heiner, all art is technology based.\n>\n> This is true, yet contemporary art has mostly given up on reflecting\n> its media. [I can almost hear an iPhone-wearing curator saying that\n> reflecting one's media is outmoded modernism.]\n\nouch, how stereotypes do prevail. I wonder if there would be a\nparadigm shift if he/she had been envisioned with a pre-paid nokia.\n;-)\n\n\nRenee\nhttp://www.geuzen.org/\nhttp://www.fudgethefacts.com/\nhttp://www.geuzen.org/female_icons/\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "follow-up": [
                                {
                                    "from": "lorian Cramer <fc-nettime {AT} pleintekst.nl>",
                                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00068.html",
                                    "author_name": "Florian Cramer",
                                    "content": "\nHey Renee,\n \n> You point towards a classic issue, the relevance of context. What do\n> different registers (fine art, media art, design, activism, popular\n> culture etc.) give to a particular work and what does a categorization\n> exclude, meaning what does it make *impossible*. Every register\n> influences interpretation, (in)visibility, production and funding.\n\nYeah, and inevitably, these registers are not just different chosen\nperspectives we have on particular works, but also institutional and\ndisciplinary contexts in which workers have to put their work and\nwhose written and unwritten rules they can't avoid abiding.\n\n> Can you speak more specifically about which curators, what art\n> educational programs, which artists and what practices?\n\nI was really thinking of the contemporary art system as it has been\ndescribed by its own protagonists, for example in Isabelle Graw's\n2008 book \"Der grosse Preis\", or has been analyzed, with means that\nreally deserve the term \"artistic research\", by Hans Haacke as early\nas in the 1970s in such pieces as \"The Chocolate Master\". And many\npeople have criticized that system from within, from Henry Flynt in\nthe 1960s to the writer and \"Thing Hamburg\"-blogger Michel Chevalier\ntoday. I think it is legitimate to make a sweepingly general critique\nof the contemporary art system just as it is legitimate to generally\ncriticize and attack the music industry and contemporary popular music\nsystem for example. That doesn't mean that there would be absolutely\nno good music coming out of that system. But unlike other culture\nindustries, the contemporary (Fine) Art system often falsely believes\nin its own autonomy. And it's my general experience and opinion that\nthe art I'm more interested in is more often than not to be found in\nplaces outside that system. In the 1960s, this was true for Fluxus\nand Situationism, in the 1970s and 1980s for the Mail Art Network and\npostpunk, and in the 1990s for Net.art, the Luther Blissett project or\nthe alternative pornography movement. Today, to speak in terms of our\nboth hometown Rotterdam, I'm finding the interesting contemporary arts\nat places like WORM and De Player and only rarely at Witte de With,\nfor example.\n\n> For a constructive debate, it's important to avoid caricatures,\n> otherwise there's a risk of creating false enemies, or missing out\n> on how to best counter the real ones.\n\nWell, this is true, and I admit that my posting was polemical\n- and emotional. My gripes with the contemporary art\nsystem are also based on bad personal experience and\nconfrontations such as the one with the \"Just Do It\" exhibition\n<http://www.mail-archive.com/nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net/msg02876.html>.\n\n> hmmmm....not sure about this, having worked as a hybrid artist/\n> designer/curator/media artist/collaborator for some time now, again\n> I reiterate that there are many different artworlds (and for that\n> matter artists/inhabitants/vagrants).\n\nIndeed. It's just that the particular art world I mentioned above\n- and which can be roughly described as the art world of the many\nbiennials, the Documenta, contemporary art spaces like PS.1 and KW,\ncontemporary art journals like October, Texte zur Kunst, Springerin\nand Metropolis M, too often monopolizes the term \"art\" for the art\nthat it represents. Admittedly, its system can be permissive and\ninclude 'outside' practices, particularly when a curatorial subject\nrequires it. However, it would be possible to map the institutions\nmentioned above just by the overlap of the people they involve,\nand come up with a fairly good representation of what makes up\ncontemporary art.\n\nThey same is true, no doubt, if you take ars electronica, transmediale\nand ISEA, plus Leonardo, Neural, Rhizome and Nettime, ZKM and ICC\nTokyo, and pin down the system \"media art\". But just as that latter\nsystem is now being - deservedly - questioned and undergoing a huge\nif not terminal structural crisis, I think it is as legitimate to\nquestion the contemporary Fine Art system, and the Western concept of\nautonomous art. So, going back to Geert's initial report about the\ndiscussion about the crisis of \"Media Art\" at Montevideo Amsterdam,\nI think that it can't be a solution to integrate a very questionable\n\"media art\" system into an equally questionable contemporary art\nsystem. [As it is now happening, in education, too, for example in the\nZurich art school media department where Felix Stalder teaches, and\nwhere the media programme has been rolled back into Fine Art on the\nMaster level.]\n\n> Sometimes they intersect, rub next to each other, come into\n> agitation or simply run on parallel tracks. (Not too disimilar from\n> the so-called new media world.) Think of open source practitioners,\n> the Max/Flash folk, and those that poach the web's detritus for\n> their own purposes, they're all a part of new media arts, but each\n> tend to dwell in different corners of the digital notion universe\n> (or maybe not, if you're one of those cross-pollinators :-)\n\nYep, only that what you describe above is really declining and may not\nsee much art funding or support in the future. The writing is on the\nwall.\n\n> >> Director Heiner Holtappels opened by noticing that new media art\n> >> is not easily accepted by fine art. Traditional art has become\n> >> eclecticism. According to Heiner, all art is technology based.\n> >\n> > This is true, yet contemporary art has mostly given up on\n> > reflecting its media. [I can almost hear an iPhone-wearing curator\n> > saying that reflecting one's media is outmoded modernism.]\n>\n> ouch, how stereotypes do prevail. I wonder if there would be a\n> paradigm shift if he/she had been envisioned with a pre-paid nokia.\n> ;-)\n\nI should have told that the above example was taken from a real\nlife experience, although it's admittedly a deliberate caricature\nwhen I I blew it out of proportion as above. I agree very much with\nBrian that artistic practices (to put it as broadly) are deeply\nintertwined in culture and communication. There's a good chance,\nand I really mean this, that I am getting old - in punk terms:\na boring old fart - who's insisting on outmoded viewpoints. But\nI think that critiques of modernism, as legitimate as they are,\nbecome problematic when they're used to legitimize and maintain the\nstatus quo. [An extreme example is the contemporary art gallery\nscene and private collections in Berlin and their intrinsic links to\nthe German discourse of \"Neue Bürgerlichkeit\" (\"new bourgeoisie\")\n<http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_Bürgerlichkeit>.] The current\neconomic, political and social developments should render all\nnotions of posthistoire and non-rupture in the fabric of culture and\ncommunication, and hence also in the arts, all the more obsolete.\nThey also question the bourgeois insistence on artistic practice as a\nproduct of individual subjectivity. And finally, the contemporary art\nfield has been much ahead of the media art system in postcolonialism;\nhowever, if this reflection is serious, it should not exclude the\nnotion and system of art itself.\n\nWell, anyway, since the Geuzen collective of which you're a member\noperates in its own carefully chosen grey zone between art, activism,\ndesign, media, research and education, I actually think that our\nstandpoints are quite similar, just that our points of departure\nregarding the usefulness of the contemporary art system might\ndiffer. For me, the projects of De Geuzen are a very good example\nfor a post-autonomous artistic practice. Again, although I'm no\nfriend of the media art system, I'm quite sure that it would be\npractices like those of the Geuzen that would suffer and struggle\nto find institutional support once the \"media art\" system will\nhave vanished and been replaced with the existing contemporary art\nsystem (particularly the more cut-throat kind of the USA, Germany\nand England, with people who are anxious not to pollute Fine Art\nwith applied or sociocultural practices they hate and detest as\nnon-artistic [1].).\n\nFlorian\n\n\n[1] a good example would be Berlin's Künstlerhaus Bethanien, a renown\ncontemporary arts space, whose director Christoph Tannert bitterly\nfights a group of squatters and their sociocultural center in his own\nbuilding. \n\n\n\n-- \nblog:     http://en.pleintekst.nl\nhomepage: http://cramer.pleintekst.nl:70\n          gopher://cramer.pleintekst.nl\n\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                                    "date": "Sat, 23 May 2009 02:05:03 +0200",
                                    "message-id": "20090523000503.GA17293 {AT} hp.localdomain",
                                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                                    "id": "00068",
                                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                                },
                                {
                                    "from": "Renee Turner <geuzen {AT} xs4all.nl>",
                                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00075.html",
                                    "author_name": "Renee Turner",
                                    "content": "\nHi Florian,\n\nMy apologies for a slightly delayed response. I completely agree that\nthere are aspects within the art world which need critical scrutiny. I\nwas simply asking for specificity, and I appreciate that you've taken\nthe time to clarify.\n\n> But unlike other culture industries, the contemporary (Fine) Art\n> system often falsely believes in its own autonomy.\n\nI wonder if this is true. Feminist/post colonial practices have often\nargued the opposite and with much efficacy. Think of Jean Fisher's\ncritical texts, Adrian Piper's work and Lucy Lippard's writing and\ncuratorial projects and even the recent educational department at\nGoldsmiths of Irit Rogoff; all of these practices seem to point to an\nart world/system which is political, embodied and implicated.\n\n> And it's my general experience and opinion that the art I'm\n> more interested in is more often than not to be found in places\n> outside that system. In the 1960s, this was true for Fluxus and\n> Situationism, in the 1970s and 1980s for the Mail Art Network and\n> postpunk, and in the 1990s for Net.art, the Luther Blissett project\n> or the alternative pornography movement.\n\nI'm also interested these movements, practices, antics/pranktics,\nbut unlike you, I see them as a part of a complex and multifaceted\nart world (not outside of it). I find it problematic to define the\nsystem as only popular art mags, the market and large institutions\nwhen there's so much other interesting work going on. (not to mention,\nhow would you classify those of us involved in art education?)\n\n> Today, to speak in terms of our both hometown Rotterdam, I'm finding\n> the interesting contemporary arts at places like WORM and De Player\n> and only rarely at Witte de With, for example.\n\nYes, here we can look into specific curatorial approaches and talk\nabout who these various institutions and orgs are addressing. (this\ntakes more time than I have now... but I'm nonetheless interested in\nexploring this further at a later juncture) >> > Indeed. It's just\nthat the particular art world I mentioned above > - and which can\nbe roughly described as the art world of the many > biennials, the\nDocumenta, contemporary art spaces like PS.1 and KW, > contemporary\nart journals like October, Texte zur Kunst, Springerin > and\nMetropolis M, too often monopolizes the term \"art\" for the art > that\nit represents. Admittedly, its system can be permissive and > include\n'outside' practices, particularly when a curatorial subject > requires\nit. However, it would be possible to map the institutions > mentioned\nabove just by the overlap of the people they involve, > and come up\nwith a fairly good representation of what makes up > contemporary art.\n\nI agree, this *is* truly the crux.  It's crucial to map the overlap of  \npeople/institutions and ask ourselves who's setting the agenda, who's  \ncontrolling the funding and whose *corner* of art world is being  \nrepresented, and moreover, what do these representations make  \nimpossible, meaning what do they render invisible.\n\n\n> They same is true, no doubt, if you take ars electronica,\n> transmediale and ISEA, plus Leonardo, Neural, Rhizome and Nettime,\n> ZKM and ICC Tokyo, and pin down the system \"media art\". But just\n> as that latter system is now being - deservedly - questioned and\n> undergoing a huge if not terminal structural crisis, I think it is\n> as legitimate to question the contemporary Fine Art system, and the\n> Western concept of autonomous art.\n\nIt's absolutely legitimate to question art's autonomy, and it's been\nhappening for some time now. Besides the previous examples listed\nabove, recently there has been much debate about the proliferation of\nbiennials how art feeds into a neoliberal agenda.\n\n> So, going back to Geert's initial report about the discussion about\n> the crisis of \"Media Art\" at Montevideo Amsterdam, I think that it\n> can't be a solution to integrate a very questionable \"media art\"\n> system into an equally questionable contemporary art system. [As it\n> is now happening, in education, too, for example in the Zurich art\n> school media department where Felix Stalder teaches, and where the\n> media programme has been rolled back into Fine Art on the Master\n> level.]\n\nIn many respects this cycle has happened to photography (remember\nwhen John Tagg wrote that no history of art photography could be\nwritten without taking into account, pornography, daguerreotypes,\npropaganda and family snapshots.) Or video's roots in activism,\nhome videos, street journalism (Martha Rosler's essay: Shedding the\nUtopian Moment).... there's much to learn from these histories of\nassimilation. It's important to look at how institutionalization\n\"tames\" media...disciplines the discipline. But while questioning the\nsystems of Fine Art, Media Art etc, I think as producers, viewers,\neducators and implicated accomplices, it's imperative to ask what do\nwe want to see happen or change.\n\nAs a graduate student in the eighties, I was taught by Harmony\nHammond, a painter and co-founder of Heresies. In her painting\nclass, she reserved time to present her personal collection of\nartists' works she felt were under-represented by the mainstream art\nworld. It was a small but extremely powerful gesture. Eventually, in\n2000 the collection was published under the title, Lesbian Art in\nAmerica: A Contemporary History. I learned much from Harmony, but\nthe most influential part of her teaching was watching her practice\n*otherwise*.\n\nSo in this context, I'm asking myself how can I/we practice\n*otherwise* and how might that *doing* nudge or broaden the scope of\ndominant discourses and visual regimes.\n\nbest,\n\nRenee\nhttp://www.geuzen.org/\nhttp://www.fudgethefacts.com/\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                                    "date": "Mon, 25 May 2009 13:37:41 +0200",
                                    "message-id": "20C7E909&#45;1381&#45;4CB2&#45;963B&#45;40479902EC2E {AT} xs4all.nl",
                                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                                    "id": "00075",
                                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                                }
                            ],
                            "date": "Fri, 15 May 2009 18:07:37 +0200",
                            "message-id": "5A46D3F4&#45;5F13&#45;4C5B&#45;97B1&#45;5327677F5920 {AT} xs4all.nl",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00046",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                        },
                        {
                            "from": "jaromil <jaromil {AT} dyne.org>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00047.html",
                            "author_name": "jaromil",
                            "content": "\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA1\n\n\nre all,\n\nfirst of all  thanks Matze for your consideration  of my activity, but\nlet me  warn you are  overestimating the benefits of  my collaboration\nwith Montevideo / Time Based  Arts ...  which is now called Nederlands\nInstituut voor Mediakunst  (NIMK, BTW): it takes more  to be \"rescuing\nthe middle-class fantasies  of a free arty market  of software\" as you\nsay, if  we speak of a national  institute that started in  a squat in\nAmsterdam 30 years  ago and has seen a  constant flow of contributions\nby various people  through all these years, most  of them really worth\nconsidering.\n\nOn Fri, May 15, 2009 at 05:23:12PM +0200, Matze Schmidt wrote:\n> I'd  like  to  point  out  at  this  point  that  institutions  like\n> Montevideo are revolutionizers of money, e.g. they payed Jaromil for\n> working on dynebolican stuff\n\nif it  would be just the  action of redistribution of  wealth, then it\nwouldn't  be   revolutionary  at  all.   Some   artists  produced  and\ndistributed  by Montevideo did  became rich,  but for  them Montevideo\nmostly contributed to the  production quality of their artworks rather\nthan direct funding.\n\njust consider that  if my lifestyle would be  \"middle-class fantasy\" i\ncould  not afford  to  sustainably  live in  Amsterdam  relying on  my\ncurrent employment, but lucky me i'm not a yuppie :) and i'm fine like\nthat.  for the  minimum support i get, needed as i  care to support me\nand my extended  family when needed, i have to do  much more than just\ndeveloping \"my own projects\", but still all results can be free to the\npublic,: that shouldn't be special for a public institution, right?  i\nbelieve this is the good signal  NIMK gives - not such a revolutionary\none, but pretty honest: there  are often various degrees of corruption\nleading   public  institutions  to   play  commercially   with  public\nresources.\n\nother  than that,  we can  call \"progressive  attitude\" -  rather than\nrevolutionary\" -  when institutions are keen to  interact with liminal\ncontexts,  with dwellers on  the dystopian  hearth pulsating  in every\nmetropolis of our \"Free Western World\".  This kind of interaction (and\nthe respect for the uncommon ground  in between) is indeed part of the\nheritage of  a city like Mokum  A - unfortunately  decaying rapidly as\nEurope is turning  into a Fortress for the  privileged and their fears\nof the disinherited children of the welfare mirage.\n\nat last  about the  interaction i  mention here: i'm  not sure  how to\ndefine it,  its likely  not a negotiation  nor a compromise,  i'm just\nsure  it is  necessary in  any case:  whether we  accept  the upcoming\ninstitutionalised  \"Reinvent  Yourself\"  strategy  or  not.   I  would\nrecommend  a  case-by-case  analysis  in  this  regards,  rather  than\nthinking universally... like institutions often do ;^)\n\nregarding your vague critiques let me reply:\n\n> with all effects of an open source software\"z\" driven by the mediate\n> support of the state.\n\ndyne.org  development  is not  driven  by  any  state, corporation  or\ninstitution rather  than by the  many problems these  power structures\ngenerate.  we  dedicate most  of our free  time to peer  reviewed free\nsoftware  development  in  socially  relevant  contexts  (please  note\n\"development\", not  provision of services)  and as hackers  we operate\npragmatically, on-line as well in various different on-site contexts.\n\n> But  while talking  to them  some  years ago  the Montevideo  people\n> turned out  to be  very naive in  political questions. They  have no\n> idea about  economy and  no idea of  what is  going on out  of their\n> field. That's  okay, as  long as they  incorporate all  folklore and\n> avantgarde at the sam time, because it is their mandate and mission.\n\ni'd  be  curious  to  know  what  you  consider  \"naive  in  political\nquestions\": myself  i've felt  enriched by the  past 4 and  more years\nspent  in  Amsterdam,  by my  colleagues  at  NIMK  (which is  not  so\nuniformed in its  composition BTW) as well by  the squatters in A'dam,\nfrom De Bierkoning to the Waag Society.\n\nbacking my  objection, i'll point you  out some coverage  on NIMK's 30\nyears symposium (just happened last week):\n\nhttp://www.we-make-money-not-art.com/archives/2009/05/the-netherlands-media-art-inst.php\n\npasting  you  here  the  transcription  of  my  intervention  at  this\nsymposium,  let  it  be   also  a  contribution  to  this  interesting\ndiscussion thread:\n\n                            ------------\n\nAt the NIMK's symposium \"Positions in Flux\" I've taken the occasion to\nshare thoughts  on the  current perception of  Free Software  and Open\nSource philosophy  in art,  along with some  overdue criticism  of the\nCreative Commons hollow  hype, as well of the  Creative Industries and\ntheir systematised processing  of art for the global  market.  Even if\nnot  obvious, I  believe the  dynamics  of these  two phenomenons  are\nrelated; among the quoted in the intervention are Benjamin Mako Hill's\n\"Towards a Standard of  Freedom: CreativeCommons and the Free Software\nMovement\"[1] and Florian Cramer's post on nettime \"The Creative Common\nMisunderstanding\"[2],  while  the vigorous  critique  of the  Creative\nIndustries  stands on  Rana Dasgupta's  essay  \"The Next  Idea of  the\nArtist  (Art,   music  and  the  present   threat  of  creativity)\"[3]\n\n\nHere below a short transcript:\n\n\"Open Source\" doesn't mean free access, nor open space or open air; it\npresumes  a  seamful[4]  approach  to  design as  a  response  to  the\nincreasing  reliance  on  technology  and  its  accessibility;  it  is\ninteractive without prescribed  boundaries, following a combinatorial,\ngenerative approachto development;  it is peer to peer  as no producer\ncan control further interaction patterns; it is grassroot as creations\nare  born out  of  initiative and  cohesion  based on  needs felt  and\nunderstood in first person by community members.\n\nAbout  Creative  Commons, its  motto  \"Some  rights  reserved.\"  is  a\nrelatively  hollow  call:  the  slogan  factually  reverses  the  Free\nSoftware and Open Source philosophy  of reserving rights to users, not\ncopyright owners,  in order  to allow the  former to  become producers\nthemselves. The dis/appropriating loop of creativity must be recursive\nto be  fruitful: not only  productionmeans belong to the  people using\nthem, further creations  should be free to be  recombined. rights must\nbe granted  focusing on people  interacting, not just  those providing\nthe interactive infrastructure.\n\nUnfortunately there  is a diffuse lack of  perception for alternatives\noffered by  the Open  Source and Free  Software approach  over current\nprofit models.  As  a present problem, also deriving  from the lack of\nunderstanding  of the  importance of  grass-root  creativity, top-down\ncultural   management  is   patronising   art  production:   massmedia\naesthetics of  an entirely sanitised and efficient  creativity, of the\nsort  that will  not  rely on  unstable  people and  can therefore  be\nglobally rationalised.\n\nThat the  great artists of  modern Western culture managed  to produce\nwhat they  did, despitethe danger  and intensity of their  effort, was\ndue in large  part to improvised social forms  built around close-knit\nnetworks  where  thought and  affect  circulated  with high  velocity,\nandwhere it  was possible to  try out forms of  non-conventional human\nrelationships that would  not destroy, nor be destroyed  by, a life of\nart. Seen  from an historical perspective,  In the second  half of the\ntwentieth  century many  of the  functions of  creative  networks were\nalready  taken  over in  Europe  by  institutions (government  funding\nbodies,  universities,  museums,  etc)  and much  of  their  excessive\nfeeling  wasneutralised. This  was  only  a small  part  of a  general\nprocess of the time: the absorption of human emotion into bureaucratic\nchannels,  and the  emergence of  a social  coolness,  anefficiency of\nfeeling.\n\nAt this  stage in the  twenty-first century, we  are in the  middle of\nanother   large-scale  restructuring  of   ideas  of   creativity  and\nculture. As one of the most significant generators of image and value,\ncreativity now has become a  critical resource for the global economic\nengine.   What creativity  is,  and  how it  can  be systematised  and\ncirculated, are therefore  urgent questions of contemporary capitalist\norganisation.   As  cultural  producers   are  thrust  into  the  full\nintensity of  globally dispersed, just-in-time  production, new images\nof creative inspiration and output are required that sit tidily within\nthe systematised  processes of the  global market. Creativity  must be\nrendered comprehensible,  transparent and rational: there  can be none\nof  the destructive  excesses  evident in  the  lives of  many of  the\ngreatest  artists  of  European  history.  Creativity  must  circulate\ncleanly and quickly, and it  should leave no dirty remainder. For what\ninterests Hollywood, and the market in general, is not creativity as a\ncomplex human  process, weighed down  in bodies and  relationships and\nempty days,  but creativity as  an abstraction, free  of irrationality\nand  pain, and  light enough  to  hover like  a great  logo above  the\ncontinents.\n\nPerhaps, as the logic  of systematised production occupies the terrain\nof human  creativitymore completely,  we will reach  a stage  where we\nsurrender  all knowledge  about  this troubling  domain,  and it  will\nbecome entirely alien  to us. Perhaps one day we  will be terrified of\nwhat  explosive dangers  might rise  up from  the creativity  of human\nbeings.\n\n[1] http://mako.cc/writing/toward_a_standard_of_freedom.html\n\n[2] http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0610/msg00025.html\n\n[3] http://ranadasgupta.com/texts.asp?text_id=45\n\n[4] http://www.themobilecity.nl/2008/01/05/designing-for-locative-media-seamless-or-seamful-experiences/\n\n\n- -- \n\njaromil, dyne.org developer, http://jaromil.dyne.org\n\nGPG: 779F E8B5 47C7 3A89 4112  64D0 7B64 3184 B534 0B5E\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)\n\niEYEARECAAYFAkoP/aAACgkQe2QxhLU0C15y4ACeKYaj8pNKu7lS/Z1sIuVUtbfL\nmBUAn2h7gwq7AN0Gsv+lgidMWqZoga1q\n=Skrp\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 14:05:54 +0200",
                            "message-id": "20090517120554.GA4808 {AT} dyne.or",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00047",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                        },
                        {
                            "from": "\"xname\" <root {AT} xname.cc>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00050.html",
                            "author_name": "xname",
                            "content": "> jaromil said:\n> Montevideo / Time Based  Arts ...  which is now called Nederlands\n> Instituut voor Mediakunst  (NIMK, BTW)\n> if  we speak of a national  institute that started in  a squat in\n> Amsterdam 30 years  ago\n\nHello.\n\nI did not remember that the 'Nimk' was started in a squat: isn't this the\nstory of Paradiso and Melkweg?\n\nAs far as I know the 'Netherlands Media Art Institute' was born when\n'Monte Video' and 'Time Based Arts' merged (1993).\n\nMonte Video was founded by René Coelho in 1978, and initially operated\nfrom his house in Amsterdam. (was that squatted? I tend to doubt.)\nMonte Video focused on video art and provided equipment for producing\nworks and space to show them (soon collecting and distributing...\nvideo-tapes!).\n\nTime Based Arts was founded in 1983 by the Association of Video Artists,\nso it was an artists run association creating a network for distribution;\nit was more performance oriented than Monte Video, according to the story\nthat was narrated to me, and which I deduced from the collection. (Can\nanyone confirm this, please?)\nWere they squatting? But they were getting funding...\nI am somewhat curious.\n\nMaybe other people on this list know more.\n\nThere is a page of history on the nimk.nl, but i saw no wikipedia entry on\nthis topic.\nI find the *story of this institute quite beautiful and paradigmatic in\nthe development of the (non-linear) chain of media mutations (which could\noff course be expanded):\n\nhappening/performance (art=life)\nelectronic art\nvideo-art (art=registration)\nmedia-art, software-art (art=simulation)\n\nI paste it below.\n\nBest,\nEleonora\n\n===\n\n**History**\n\n1978\nMonte Video is founded by René Coelho. From his home on the Singel in\nAmsterdam he makes equipment and documentation available, and furnishes\none room as a gallery. The first video artist whose work is shown here on\nthe Singel was Livinus van de Bundt, Coelho's inspiration. Other artists,\nsuch as Bill Viola, Gary Hill, Shelly Silver and Gabor Body, soon make\ncontact. It is not long before Monte Video has a large selection of works\navailable for rental.\n\n1983\nThanks to government funding Monte Video is able to move to Amsterdam\nNorth. There is now sufficient space to offer regular presentations. Not\nonly Dutch artists, but also those from other countries are given a chance\nto show their videos or installations.\n\n1986\nGovernment funding received by Monte Video is cut back to almost nothing.\nMonte Video does receive several small transitional grants from the city\nof Amsterdam.\nTime Based Arts, which had been founded in 1983 by the Association of\nVideo Artists, is fast becoming well-known as a distributor of video art,\nand continues receiving government funding.\n\n1986-1993\nRené Coelho continues on his own. Monte Video moves back to his home on\nthe Singel. The acquisition of production facilities, distribution,\ndocumentation and promotion goes on, financed from his own income and by\norganizing large projects. One of these, as an example, was 'Imago', an\nexhibition of Dutch video installations which toured worldwide for five\nyears beginning in 1990. There were also plans laid for the first\nconservation programs for video art.\nThe chairman of Time Based Arts, Aart van Barneveld, died; his death was\nfollowed by many conflicts within the organization. In the early 1990s\nTime Based Arts also lost its subsidies and threatened to go under. Monte\nVideo and Time Based Arts decide to provide a joint art program for\nAmsterdam cable TV, Channel Zero.\n\n1993\nTime Based Arts merges with Monte Video. Their work is continued under the\nnew name of Netherlands Media Art Institute, Montevideo/Time Based Arts.\nThis fusion does free up national funding. In both 1997 and 2001 the\ngrants are expanded and converted into a structural subsidy for four\nyears.\n\n1993-2002\nThe Netherlands Media Art Institute moves twice, in 1994 to the Spuistraat\nand in 1997 to its present location on the Keizersgracht.\nThe Institute continues to grow through these years, and adopts the\nfollowing mission statement: The Netherlands Media Art Institute supports\nmedia art in three core areas: presentation, research and conservation. At\nthe same time, through its facilities it offers extensive services for\nartists and art institutions. Among these services are educational\nprograms, to be developed to accompany all activities.\n\nand\n\n**History of the Collection**\n\nThe collection of the Netherlands Media Art Institute, Montevideo/Time\nBased Arts reflects the turbulent history of the Institute. In addition to\nthe collection of Monte Video, the predecessor of the Netherlands Media\nArt Institute, the Institute administers the collections of four\ninstitutions: the Lijnbaan Center (1970-1982), Time Based Arts\n(1983-1994), De Appel (1975-1983) and the Institute Collection\nNetherlands. This combination of artists' initiatives (Time Based Arts, De\nAppel and the Lijnbaan Center) and more formal institutions (Institute\nCollection Netherlands and the present Netherlands Media Art Institute)\naffords the collection a surprising diversity. In addition to renowned\nartists like Bill Viola, Nam June Paik and Gary Hill (who were represented\nin the collection as far back as the 1970s), there are internationally\nknown Dutch artists who experimented with the medium for only a short\nperiod in the 1970s, such as Marinus Boezem, Jan van Munster and Pieter\nEngels.\nBefore any institutions at all had yet been created for the purpose of\ncollecting small centers were set up in various parts of The Netherlands\nwhich facilitated and promoted the use of video by and for artists. The\nearliest examples of this were Agora Studios in Maastricht, the Lijnbaan\nCenter in Rotterdam (itself a merger of the studio of Venster in Rotterdam\nand the video studio which was set up for the Sonsbeek exhibition in 1971\nin Arnhem), and a couple of individuals such as the artists Miguel-Ángel\nCárdenas and Jack Moore in Amsterdam, who made their cameras available for\nother artists. Many of the works which were made in this earliest period\nof Dutch video art only surfaced from oblivion in the course of the 1990s.\nSurprising discoveries among them are the works of Dennis Oppenheim, Terry\nFox, Wim Gijzen, Nan Hoover and Tajiri.\n\nWith the arrival of the collection of De Appel an enormously rich\ncollection of video records of performances was added. De Appel flourished\nin the 1970s as one of the most progressive international work sites for\nperformance art. The collection of this institution contained unique works\nby Vito Acconci, Laurie Anderson, Gina Pane, Carolee Schneemann and\nothers. But in addition to records of events in her own gallery, Wies\nSmalls, the founder of De Appel, also built up a collection of\ninternational video art in order to enable the Dutch public to become\nacquainted with what was happening internationally, including work by\nDouglas Davis, Ulrike Rosenbach, Joan Jonas and Alison Knowles.\n\nIn the early 1980s, with De Appel as its base, efforts were begun to\nestablish an association for video artists, which later created the Time\nBased Arts Foundation. The collection of this artists' association, in\naddition to works by artists based in The Netherlands, such as\nAbramovic/Ulay, Hooykaas/Stansfield, Ben d'Armagnac, Christine Chiffrun\nand Lydia Schouten, also included work by international artists like Mona\nHatoum and General Idea.\nTime Based Arts maintained an active collection policy, in which any\nartist who worked with video could try to have his or her work included in\nthe collection. As it grew the collection became enormously diverse and\nafforded a good overview of the various ways that video could be employed\nin the visual arts. Through in to the 1990s Time Based Arts played an\nimportant role in the collection, distribution and support of video art\nuntil, in 1994, under pressure from the municipal authorities of\nAmsterdam, it entered into a merger with Monte Video.\n\nRené Coelho began his video gallery Monte Video in 1978, and in doing so\nlaid the foundation for the present Institute. Monte Video was a gallery\nwhich specialized in electronic art and especially in video art that\nsought out the creative possibilities and qualities of the medium itself.\nAn important impetus for establishing the institution was the work of the\nDutch video pioneer Livinus van de Bundt. He was therefore the first\nartist to be shown in the gallery. Later the Vasulkas, Bert Schutter,\nPeter Bogers, Matthew Schlanger and many others followed. In addition to\nthe works that were to be seen in the gallery, Monte Video began to be\nactive in collecting and distributing work. Bill Viola, Gary Hill, Shelly\nSilver and Gabor Body were for instance artists who 'stabled' their work\nwith Monte Video. The gallery owed its international success chiefly to\nthis. When in the 1990s the conservation of video works became a pressing\nproblem, the then merged Montevideo/Time Based Arts established itself as\nthe goad and later as the center of technical expertise for carrying out\nthe Conservation of Dutch Video Art project. As well as the collections\ndescribed above, there was integral cooperation with museums that over the\ncourse of time had also collected video work. In addition to much\ntechnical research, the conservation efforts also prompted considerable\nrecording work and research into content. Among questions dealt with were\nthe status of the vehicle, the significance of the material chosen and\nestablishing the boundary conditions for proper exhibition. Because of the\ndifferences in approach among the institutions from which they came,\nconsiderable time was spent integrating the collections with one another,\nand getting the possibilities for the use of the works coordinated with\none another. But now, with the end of the conservation project in sight,\nthe gaps between the collections appear to be closing ever more, and we\ncan proudly present our multi-faceted collection to the public, as we do\nhere.\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 15:40:16 +0200 (CEST)",
                            "message-id": "3266070d80132b99ebf3351b5cb71455.squirrel {AT} tuxic.nl",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00050",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Media Mutations - Life | Registration | Simulation (was: Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis)"
                        },
                        {
                            "from": "Matze Schmidt <matze.schmidt {AT} n0name.de>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00059.html",
                            "author_name": "Matze Schmidt",
                            "content": ">> [...] Arts\n\n> what art\n\n> True, art\n\nIn short: No money (as one of the forms of profit) without art, no art\nwithout politics. This is a simple formula and any Baudrillard would\nhave secretly subcribed this, even in an epoch of ended (Hegel and \nfollowers) or never realized (Debord and followers) art. The fact is,\nwe* don't need art as art, but -- and someone like jaromil shows this\nto us** -- we need other conditions, as painting, code or video or\ndiy-cooking if you like, I don't care -- changing media is always good.\nBut we are not able to produce the conditions 'now' -- like someone like\njaromil is may thinking -- because the conditions produce us, alienate\nus; they will allways produce us (products produce consumption and vice\nversa), but these conditions are (straightforward now) have to be\nuncaged from ruling modes of production, in the meant sector reproduced\nby national institutions (ZKM in Germany, Ex-Montevideo in NL, your\npersonal MTV at home). The New Media Arts Crisis is not my crisis, It's\njust the crisis of the middle-class (Yuppie or not, fallen programmer or\nrising video-installer) in form of some arts with newer or older media,\nmay it a t-shirt or an lcd. So there is no aftermath here but the\neffects of a mixed up (I love this status and condition) highbrow, baby!\nelite meshed with an alternative \"green\" and independent buisness party\nwith no idea of real coding out there (forget networks, they are roped\nparties).\n__________\n* and ** Me, I and you as the readers who follows this text.\n\nM\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 11:22:02 +0200",
                            "message-id": "1739011317.20090518112202 {AT} n0name.",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00059",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Media Mutations - Life | Registration | Simulation\t(was: Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis)"
                        },
                        {
                            "from": "lorian Cramer <fc-nettime {AT} pleintekst.nl>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00068.html",
                            "author_name": "Florian Cramer",
                            "content": "\nHey Renee,\n \n> You point towards a classic issue, the relevance of context. What do\n> different registers (fine art, media art, design, activism, popular\n> culture etc.) give to a particular work and what does a categorization\n> exclude, meaning what does it make *impossible*. Every register\n> influences interpretation, (in)visibility, production and funding.\n\nYeah, and inevitably, these registers are not just different chosen\nperspectives we have on particular works, but also institutional and\ndisciplinary contexts in which workers have to put their work and\nwhose written and unwritten rules they can't avoid abiding.\n\n> Can you speak more specifically about which curators, what art\n> educational programs, which artists and what practices?\n\nI was really thinking of the contemporary art system as it has been\ndescribed by its own protagonists, for example in Isabelle Graw's\n2008 book \"Der grosse Preis\", or has been analyzed, with means that\nreally deserve the term \"artistic research\", by Hans Haacke as early\nas in the 1970s in such pieces as \"The Chocolate Master\". And many\npeople have criticized that system from within, from Henry Flynt in\nthe 1960s to the writer and \"Thing Hamburg\"-blogger Michel Chevalier\ntoday. I think it is legitimate to make a sweepingly general critique\nof the contemporary art system just as it is legitimate to generally\ncriticize and attack the music industry and contemporary popular music\nsystem for example. That doesn't mean that there would be absolutely\nno good music coming out of that system. But unlike other culture\nindustries, the contemporary (Fine) Art system often falsely believes\nin its own autonomy. And it's my general experience and opinion that\nthe art I'm more interested in is more often than not to be found in\nplaces outside that system. In the 1960s, this was true for Fluxus\nand Situationism, in the 1970s and 1980s for the Mail Art Network and\npostpunk, and in the 1990s for Net.art, the Luther Blissett project or\nthe alternative pornography movement. Today, to speak in terms of our\nboth hometown Rotterdam, I'm finding the interesting contemporary arts\nat places like WORM and De Player and only rarely at Witte de With,\nfor example.\n\n> For a constructive debate, it's important to avoid caricatures,\n> otherwise there's a risk of creating false enemies, or missing out\n> on how to best counter the real ones.\n\nWell, this is true, and I admit that my posting was polemical\n- and emotional. My gripes with the contemporary art\nsystem are also based on bad personal experience and\nconfrontations such as the one with the \"Just Do It\" exhibition\n<http://www.mail-archive.com/nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net/msg02876.html>.\n\n> hmmmm....not sure about this, having worked as a hybrid artist/\n> designer/curator/media artist/collaborator for some time now, again\n> I reiterate that there are many different artworlds (and for that\n> matter artists/inhabitants/vagrants).\n\nIndeed. It's just that the particular art world I mentioned above\n- and which can be roughly described as the art world of the many\nbiennials, the Documenta, contemporary art spaces like PS.1 and KW,\ncontemporary art journals like October, Texte zur Kunst, Springerin\nand Metropolis M, too often monopolizes the term \"art\" for the art\nthat it represents. Admittedly, its system can be permissive and\ninclude 'outside' practices, particularly when a curatorial subject\nrequires it. However, it would be possible to map the institutions\nmentioned above just by the overlap of the people they involve,\nand come up with a fairly good representation of what makes up\ncontemporary art.\n\nThey same is true, no doubt, if you take ars electronica, transmediale\nand ISEA, plus Leonardo, Neural, Rhizome and Nettime, ZKM and ICC\nTokyo, and pin down the system \"media art\". But just as that latter\nsystem is now being - deservedly - questioned and undergoing a huge\nif not terminal structural crisis, I think it is as legitimate to\nquestion the contemporary Fine Art system, and the Western concept of\nautonomous art. So, going back to Geert's initial report about the\ndiscussion about the crisis of \"Media Art\" at Montevideo Amsterdam,\nI think that it can't be a solution to integrate a very questionable\n\"media art\" system into an equally questionable contemporary art\nsystem. [As it is now happening, in education, too, for example in the\nZurich art school media department where Felix Stalder teaches, and\nwhere the media programme has been rolled back into Fine Art on the\nMaster level.]\n\n> Sometimes they intersect, rub next to each other, come into\n> agitation or simply run on parallel tracks. (Not too disimilar from\n> the so-called new media world.) Think of open source practitioners,\n> the Max/Flash folk, and those that poach the web's detritus for\n> their own purposes, they're all a part of new media arts, but each\n> tend to dwell in different corners of the digital notion universe\n> (or maybe not, if you're one of those cross-pollinators :-)\n\nYep, only that what you describe above is really declining and may not\nsee much art funding or support in the future. The writing is on the\nwall.\n\n> >> Director Heiner Holtappels opened by noticing that new media art\n> >> is not easily accepted by fine art. Traditional art has become\n> >> eclecticism. According to Heiner, all art is technology based.\n> >\n> > This is true, yet contemporary art has mostly given up on\n> > reflecting its media. [I can almost hear an iPhone-wearing curator\n> > saying that reflecting one's media is outmoded modernism.]\n>\n> ouch, how stereotypes do prevail. I wonder if there would be a\n> paradigm shift if he/she had been envisioned with a pre-paid nokia.\n> ;-)\n\nI should have told that the above example was taken from a real\nlife experience, although it's admittedly a deliberate caricature\nwhen I I blew it out of proportion as above. I agree very much with\nBrian that artistic practices (to put it as broadly) are deeply\nintertwined in culture and communication. There's a good chance,\nand I really mean this, that I am getting old - in punk terms:\na boring old fart - who's insisting on outmoded viewpoints. But\nI think that critiques of modernism, as legitimate as they are,\nbecome problematic when they're used to legitimize and maintain the\nstatus quo. [An extreme example is the contemporary art gallery\nscene and private collections in Berlin and their intrinsic links to\nthe German discourse of \"Neue Bürgerlichkeit\" (\"new bourgeoisie\")\n<http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_Bürgerlichkeit>.] The current\neconomic, political and social developments should render all\nnotions of posthistoire and non-rupture in the fabric of culture and\ncommunication, and hence also in the arts, all the more obsolete.\nThey also question the bourgeois insistence on artistic practice as a\nproduct of individual subjectivity. And finally, the contemporary art\nfield has been much ahead of the media art system in postcolonialism;\nhowever, if this reflection is serious, it should not exclude the\nnotion and system of art itself.\n\nWell, anyway, since the Geuzen collective of which you're a member\noperates in its own carefully chosen grey zone between art, activism,\ndesign, media, research and education, I actually think that our\nstandpoints are quite similar, just that our points of departure\nregarding the usefulness of the contemporary art system might\ndiffer. For me, the projects of De Geuzen are a very good example\nfor a post-autonomous artistic practice. Again, although I'm no\nfriend of the media art system, I'm quite sure that it would be\npractices like those of the Geuzen that would suffer and struggle\nto find institutional support once the \"media art\" system will\nhave vanished and been replaced with the existing contemporary art\nsystem (particularly the more cut-throat kind of the USA, Germany\nand England, with people who are anxious not to pollute Fine Art\nwith applied or sociocultural practices they hate and detest as\nnon-artistic [1].).\n\nFlorian\n\n\n[1] a good example would be Berlin's Künstlerhaus Bethanien, a renown\ncontemporary arts space, whose director Christoph Tannert bitterly\nfights a group of squatters and their sociocultural center in his own\nbuilding. \n\n\n\n-- \nblog:     http://en.pleintekst.nl\nhomepage: http://cramer.pleintekst.nl:70\n          gopher://cramer.pleintekst.nl\n\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "date": "Sat, 23 May 2009 02:05:03 +0200",
                            "message-id": "20090523000503.GA17293 {AT} hp.localdomain",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00068",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                        },
                        {
                            "from": "Renee Turner <geuzen {AT} xs4all.nl>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00075.html",
                            "author_name": "Renee Turner",
                            "content": "\nHi Florian,\n\nMy apologies for a slightly delayed response. I completely agree that\nthere are aspects within the art world which need critical scrutiny. I\nwas simply asking for specificity, and I appreciate that you've taken\nthe time to clarify.\n\n> But unlike other culture industries, the contemporary (Fine) Art\n> system often falsely believes in its own autonomy.\n\nI wonder if this is true. Feminist/post colonial practices have often\nargued the opposite and with much efficacy. Think of Jean Fisher's\ncritical texts, Adrian Piper's work and Lucy Lippard's writing and\ncuratorial projects and even the recent educational department at\nGoldsmiths of Irit Rogoff; all of these practices seem to point to an\nart world/system which is political, embodied and implicated.\n\n> And it's my general experience and opinion that the art I'm\n> more interested in is more often than not to be found in places\n> outside that system. In the 1960s, this was true for Fluxus and\n> Situationism, in the 1970s and 1980s for the Mail Art Network and\n> postpunk, and in the 1990s for Net.art, the Luther Blissett project\n> or the alternative pornography movement.\n\nI'm also interested these movements, practices, antics/pranktics,\nbut unlike you, I see them as a part of a complex and multifaceted\nart world (not outside of it). I find it problematic to define the\nsystem as only popular art mags, the market and large institutions\nwhen there's so much other interesting work going on. (not to mention,\nhow would you classify those of us involved in art education?)\n\n> Today, to speak in terms of our both hometown Rotterdam, I'm finding\n> the interesting contemporary arts at places like WORM and De Player\n> and only rarely at Witte de With, for example.\n\nYes, here we can look into specific curatorial approaches and talk\nabout who these various institutions and orgs are addressing. (this\ntakes more time than I have now... but I'm nonetheless interested in\nexploring this further at a later juncture) >> > Indeed. It's just\nthat the particular art world I mentioned above > - and which can\nbe roughly described as the art world of the many > biennials, the\nDocumenta, contemporary art spaces like PS.1 and KW, > contemporary\nart journals like October, Texte zur Kunst, Springerin > and\nMetropolis M, too often monopolizes the term \"art\" for the art > that\nit represents. Admittedly, its system can be permissive and > include\n'outside' practices, particularly when a curatorial subject > requires\nit. However, it would be possible to map the institutions > mentioned\nabove just by the overlap of the people they involve, > and come up\nwith a fairly good representation of what makes up > contemporary art.\n\nI agree, this *is* truly the crux.  It's crucial to map the overlap of  \npeople/institutions and ask ourselves who's setting the agenda, who's  \ncontrolling the funding and whose *corner* of art world is being  \nrepresented, and moreover, what do these representations make  \nimpossible, meaning what do they render invisible.\n\n\n> They same is true, no doubt, if you take ars electronica,\n> transmediale and ISEA, plus Leonardo, Neural, Rhizome and Nettime,\n> ZKM and ICC Tokyo, and pin down the system \"media art\". But just\n> as that latter system is now being - deservedly - questioned and\n> undergoing a huge if not terminal structural crisis, I think it is\n> as legitimate to question the contemporary Fine Art system, and the\n> Western concept of autonomous art.\n\nIt's absolutely legitimate to question art's autonomy, and it's been\nhappening for some time now. Besides the previous examples listed\nabove, recently there has been much debate about the proliferation of\nbiennials how art feeds into a neoliberal agenda.\n\n> So, going back to Geert's initial report about the discussion about\n> the crisis of \"Media Art\" at Montevideo Amsterdam, I think that it\n> can't be a solution to integrate a very questionable \"media art\"\n> system into an equally questionable contemporary art system. [As it\n> is now happening, in education, too, for example in the Zurich art\n> school media department where Felix Stalder teaches, and where the\n> media programme has been rolled back into Fine Art on the Master\n> level.]\n\nIn many respects this cycle has happened to photography (remember\nwhen John Tagg wrote that no history of art photography could be\nwritten without taking into account, pornography, daguerreotypes,\npropaganda and family snapshots.) Or video's roots in activism,\nhome videos, street journalism (Martha Rosler's essay: Shedding the\nUtopian Moment).... there's much to learn from these histories of\nassimilation. It's important to look at how institutionalization\n\"tames\" media...disciplines the discipline. But while questioning the\nsystems of Fine Art, Media Art etc, I think as producers, viewers,\neducators and implicated accomplices, it's imperative to ask what do\nwe want to see happen or change.\n\nAs a graduate student in the eighties, I was taught by Harmony\nHammond, a painter and co-founder of Heresies. In her painting\nclass, she reserved time to present her personal collection of\nartists' works she felt were under-represented by the mainstream art\nworld. It was a small but extremely powerful gesture. Eventually, in\n2000 the collection was published under the title, Lesbian Art in\nAmerica: A Contemporary History. I learned much from Harmony, but\nthe most influential part of her teaching was watching her practice\n*otherwise*.\n\nSo in this context, I'm asking myself how can I/we practice\n*otherwise* and how might that *doing* nudge or broaden the scope of\ndominant discourses and visual regimes.\n\nbest,\n\nRenee\nhttp://www.geuzen.org/\nhttp://www.fudgethefacts.com/\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "date": "Mon, 25 May 2009 13:37:41 +0200",
                            "message-id": "20C7E909&#45;1381&#45;4CB2&#45;963B&#45;40479902EC2E {AT} xs4all.nl",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00075",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                        }
                    ],
                    "date": "Thu, 14 May 2009 22:28:59 +0200",
                    "message-id": "20090514202859.GR3919 {AT} hp.localdomain",
                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                    "id": "00044",
                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                },
                {
                    "from": "\"jo van der spek\" <jo {AT} xs4all.nl>",
                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00041.html",
                    "author_name": "jo van der spek",
                    "content": "<citaat van=\"Geert Lovink\">\n\n>Activism doesn't need more exposure and transparency.\n\nI agree, the obsession with media by activists is killing activism and\n(re)producing mirrors of narcism, aka transparency....\n\n>Art doesn't need moral outcry.\n\nIt does not NEED it, but some kinda passion is imho an important\ngenerator. This passion can be questioned, exposed or reflected on. That\nis why I agree with you that\n\n> Art questions and creates new spaces for reflection.\n\n> What's required are slow spaces.\nYes, but why not also new confrontations, new dynamics, tactics, etc?\nAnd indeed, why not reflect on morality as well?\n\nJo van der Spek\nm2m.streamtime.org\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                    "date": "Wed, 13 May 2009 17:27:22 +0200",
                    "message-id": "bf52c99418bbb8757768c613a1030548.squirrel {AT} webmail.xs4all.nl",
                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                    "id": "00041",
                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                },
                {
                    "from": "carlos katastrofsky <carlos.katastrofsky {AT} cont3xt.net>",
                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00049.html",
                    "author_name": "carlos katastrofsky",
                    "content": "\nwhat i am always wondering about is why the media arts field is so\nconcerned with its media. is dealing with \"new media\" or \"old media\"\nan excuse for making good or bad art? IMO defining art by its media\nis on the same level as defining art by its subject. not getting over\nthese definitions will result in a ghetto-situation sooner or later.\nthe problem -IMHO- is not that media art is not recognized by the fine\nart world but that the fine art world is dealing with other subjects.\nwhen was the last big exhibition dealing solely with \"painting\" or\n\"sculpture\" you've seen? ars electronica and the others are doing that\nevery year: \"new media art\" with changing subtitles.\n\nthe same problem persists when new media artists and theorists\ninsist on \"politicalness\" and \"radicality\". those terms don't say\nanything about certain works either, no matter which media is used\nin it. they only say that they may be recognised as \"political\" in a\ncertain time in a certain context. but that doesn't say anything about\nit's \"artness\" either. \"art doesn't become art by having specific\ncharacteristics but by a specific kind of processual reference to it.\"\n(J. Rebentisch, Aesthetik der Installation)\n\nand -please hit me hard if i'm wrong- the \"fine art world\" questions\nsuch things. this \"eclecticism\" and \"cluelesness\" some are claiming\nexist, but despite the ugly quest for the next blockbuster there is a\nlively scene developing things further without thinking about making\n\"political art\" or \"painting\". seen from this point of view i think\nthat hans' claim \"The aim should be Art, not Politics.\" is totally\nright, even if it is harshly critisized by geert. to put it bluntly:\nif i want to learn something about politics i would read a book with\nproper information about it and not go to see art that repeats the\ncommon sense that there are bad things existing in our world. i want\nto see art. neither new media nor politics.\n\ncarlos\n\n-- \nhttp://katastrofsky.cont3xt.net\nhttp://cont3xt.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                    "follow-up": [
                        {
                            "from": "Rama Hoetzlein <rch {AT} umail.ucsb.edu>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00051.html",
                            "author_name": "Rama Hoetzlein",
                            "content": "i agree.. i'm new to nettime, but following it silently until now, and \nhave been doing research in this area.\nhere are a few earlier notes i've made on this topic:\n   http://www.rchoetzlein.com/theory/\n\nin my view, the problem is that new media theory - the theory side \nanyway (not the art) - is largely defined by what we read from new media \ntheorists, such as lev manovich and baudrillard. yet these philosophers \ndo their primary work in \"media theory\" itself, that is the \nanthropological study of how media influences culture. thus, their \ncentral message is that media has meaning, and meaning changes culture:\n\n\"True, art is on the periphery for me. I don't really identify with it. \nI would even say that I have the same negative prejudice towards art \nthat I do toward culture in general. My point of view is \nanthropological. From this perspective, art no longer seems to have a \nvital function; it is afflicted by the same fate that extinguishes \nvalue, by the same loss of transcendence.\"  - Jean Baudrillard\n\ni do not deny their contributions to media theory of course, but despite \nthe fact that they may be open about their field of study (as this quote \nshows), the new media arts has not moved to define itself as an \"art \nform\", but rather defines itself in terms of media. of course, as an \nartist, i disagree about defining media art in such post-modernist terms \n(that is, purely as an outgrowth of culture). contrast the view of art \nabove with this one:\n\n\"The activity of art is based on the fact that one, receiving through \nhis or her sense of hearing or sight another's expression of feeling, is \ncapable of experiencing the emotion which moved the one who expressed \nit.\" - Leo Tolstoy\n\nNew media art should be defined from an art-philosophical perspective. \nIn this view, meaning is present in all works, to varying degrees, \nregardless of how they might be appropriated by culture. At what time is \nhistory was art not appropriated by culture? None the less, people \ncontinued to create art. The process of art-making is one of creating \nmeaning, and this relation between the artist and the work is not \nchanged despite how the object is ultimately appreciated, used, or \nabused by culture.\n\n-rama hoetzlein\n\n\ncarlos katastrofsky wrote:\n \n> what i am always wondering about is why the media arts field is so\n> concerned with its media. is dealing with \"new media\" or \"old media\"\n> an excuse for making good or bad art? IMO defining art by its media\n> is on the same level as defining art by its subject. not getting over\n> these definitions will result in a ghetto-situation sooner or later.\n> the problem -IMHO- is not that media art is not recognized by the fine\n> art world but that the fine art world is dealing with other subjects.\n> when was the last big exhibition dealing solely with \"painting\" or\n> \"sculpture\" you've seen? ars electronica and the others are doing that\n> every year: \"new media art\" with changing subtitles.\n <...>\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "follow-up": [
                                {
                                    "from": "ben.craggs {AT} fastmail.f",
                                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00053.html",
                                    "author_name": "ben . craggs",
                                    "content": "\n> what i am always wondering about is why the media arts field is so\n> concerned with its media. is dealing with \"new media\" or \"old media\"\n> an excuse for making good or bad art? IMO defining art by its media\n> is on the same level as defining art by its subject. not getting\n> over these definitions will result in a ghetto-situation sooner or\n> later. the problem -IMHO- is not that media art is not recognized\n> by the fine art world but that the fine art world is dealing with\n> other subjects. when was the last big exhibition dealing solely\n> with \"painting\" or \"sculpture\" you've seen? ars electronica and the\n> others are doing that every year: \"new media art\" with changing\n> subtitles.\n\n <...>\n\nAn interesting addition to this would be the emergence of 'New, new\nmedia arts'. I am thinking here, of practices in the field currently\ndefining itself as bioart. Here the medium that is being manipulated\nis a form of living or sem-living matter, or tissue. Bioartist,\nEduardo Kac and curator Jens Hauser have sought to specifically\nidentify this new art practice, expressly on the basis of the medium\nitself. Bioarts, they argue, are most definitely are not those works\nthat take bios or a form of life, as a subject, but manipulate it as a\nmedium. That said, the manipulation of living tissue can be executed\nthrough a number of divergent practices, specific technologies, and it\nis these that seem to be defined by some as the media, not the living\ntissue they manipulate. I guess a somewhat simplistic comparison\nwould be between with identification of various 'digital media' in\nabstraction from the advances in computer technology on which they are\nbased.\n\nMy current work in the field of bioart is increasingly\npushing me towards a frustration at the distinction between\nart/science/media/technology/old/new that recurs in the majority of\nliterature, and if I am not wrong seems to predicate this current\ndiscussion. In the light of these new practices I have been working\ntowards re-imagining what art and media are in themselves, as\ntechnologies and processes not as distinct practices - the specific\nmedia or declared purpose seem less relevant from this perspective. So\nI wonder whether 'meaning is present in all works, to varying degrees,\nregardless of how they might be appropriated by culture' could be\nextended beyond a simple valorisation of art.\n\nIt also seems that those new media theorists, such as Manovich and\nBaudrillard are somewhat restricted in their approach in that new\nmedia is perceived in a somewhat teleological sense, newness for\nthe sake of newness, with new theories to match new media - without\nasking what is actually recurring in new media. IMO it seems that\nmost new media, are really just old media anyway, particularly so in\nbioart. Is the creative growth of tissue not what we do continually\nas part of our natural bodily processes? Would it be facetious\nthen to ask whether all media be considered from this originary\nperspective, negating the discussions about relative newness or\ncultural categorization (ie i's art, it's science, it's technology,\nit's media).\n\nBen\n\n\n\n-- ---------\n  Ben Craggs\n  07868 273 360\n---------------\n  http://www.digitalscribblings.org/forums\n  A place for academic discussion, networking and general postgraduate procrastination!\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                                    "to": "\"NetTime Mailing List\" <nettime-l {AT} kein.org>",
                                    "date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 08:42:05 +0100",
                                    "message-id": "1242632525.29400.1315956661 {AT} webmail.messagingengine.com",
                                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                                    "id": "00053",
                                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                                },
                                {
                                    "from": "Brian Holmes <brian.holmes {AT} wanadoo.fr>",
                                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00054.html",
                                    "author_name": "Brian Holmes",
                                    "content": "\nRama Hoetzlein wrote:\n\n> New media art should be defined from an art-philosophical\n> perspective. In this view, meaning is present in all works, to\n> varying degrees, regardless of how they might be appropriated\n> by culture. At what time in history was art not appropriated by\n> culture? None the less, people continued to create art. The process\n> of art-making is one of creating meaning, and this relation between\n> the artist and the work is not changed despite how the object is\n> ultimately appreciated, used, or abused by culture.\n\nIt's great to read such a fundamental comment. I shall add something.\nMy viewpoint includes both Tolstoy's and Baudrillard's. I find that\ninformatic art (my own off-the-cuff term, but surely better than new\nmedia) is compelling precisely when it places subjective expression\nwithin the most strongly coercive social arena of our time, namely\nthe digital networks. Your idea that there is an art-philosophical\nperspective that could exclude or bypass social determinism seems,\nbegging your pardon, somewhat naive. What is more, I think all the\ninterest of art itself disappears when it is shorn from the contexts\nof power and held up as a pure conductor of subjectivity. Approached\nin that way, the art work tends to become no more than a mirror for\nour own emotions and fantasies -- far from any state of empathy,\nEinfuhlung or whatever one chooses to call it. So I am not surprised\nthat you move from Tolstoy's fascinating quote (reproduced below) to\nthe \"relation between the artist and the work.\" I guess I am more\ninterested in, well, media: the way the work relates the artist to\nothers.\n\nHowever, your observation about new media theory (Kittler and McLuhan\nwere recently mentioned here) is spot on. What we are given from\nthe podium, over and over again, are lessons about the power of\ntechnoscientific systems. The predicament of the human singularity,\ncaught within the net of determinisms yet resisting, creating another\nreality and expressing this rather fantastic adventure through\nwhatever kind of material or semiotic medium has been chosen, is left\nout of the story, which thereby becomes a monument to the crushing\nregularity of the status quo. The same thing, of course, happens to\nresistant political action in the hands of the sociologists and the\nHeideggerean philosophers of an essential, \"historial\" alienation.\nBoth ethics and aesthetics take it on the chin.\n\nIn my view, the great inspiration for new media theory has come from\nhackers themselves, who create alternative possibilities for existence\nwithin the overwhelmingly powerful networked environment. This is why,\nin essays which are inseparably about art and technics, I tend to\nuse concepts like \"reverse imagineering\" or \"escaping the overcode.\"\nExpression, for me, is the rupture of code, an excess which does not\nabolish the labyrinth in which we are caught, but at least opens up a\npossible new path through it.\n\nThat's one approach. There could be many others. The problem, as\nyou point out, is that usually there are not, because the theory\nvery rarely meets any actual practice. The necessary discussion of\ntechnological power holds the center stage. Of course that is easier\nfor the whole \"new media\" social circuit, because then you don't have\nto think very much, or feel very much, or try very hard to find out\nwhat might be at stake in a particular work.\n\nThis list, I guess, is about the best place to talk about how to\napproach media art. Thanks to all for starting the conversation. I'm\nready for more. Let the thousand info-aesthetics bloom!\n\nbest, BH\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                                    "date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 23:32:13 +0200",
                                    "message-id": "4A10825D.6040905 {AT} wanadoo.fr",
                                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                                    "id": "00054",
                                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                                },
                                {
                                    "from": "Rama Hoetzlein <rch {AT} umail.ucsb.edu>",
                                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00052.html",
                                    "author_name": "Rama Hoetzlein",
                                    "content": "\nBrian, thanks for your reply. In general, i'm glad to see that\nwe're mostly in agreement. Based on my observations of nettime-l,\ndisagreement is often the norm, so I'm glad to see that there is\nsome consensus between us that the new media theorists are currently\nthe only option we've been given, and that we really need some\nalternatives.. Now, for some responses.\n\n> Your idea that there is an art-philosophical perspective that could \n> exclude or bypass social determinism seems, begging your pardon, \n> somewhat naive. \n\nI'm not suggesting that art-philosophy can bypass social determinism.\nI have no illusions about the difficulty the artist faces in creating\nany real social change, since my view of art does not negate any of\nthe real research done by the media theorists. My own view is that\nthe idea of art-for-social-change is long outdated. You suggest\nthat hackers are the source of real inspiration in new media theory\nbecause they alone are able to transform the media itself, and thus\nundermine the system toward some possible escape path. Yet, there\nis no reason to believe that even if the media itself changes, that\nsociety will too. In my view, the only way we could overcome the\ncurrent technoscientific system would be due to a deep, fundamental\ntransformation in all individuals - and while I believe art is\ncapable of doing this one person at a time, I don't think any one\nartwork, hacker or otherwise, is capable of really altering the\ntechnoscientific system we find ourselves in on a global level. Thus,\nall social change we talk about now is still part of that system. This\nis the media theorist perspective, of course - which i agree with -\nbut as an artist, its incomplete.\n\nThe reason I advocate art-philosophy is for the sake of the\nindividual, and the field of art itself. While i just said the artist\nis powerless to transform culture, perhaps to a degree greater than\nmost would like, the artist is _not_ powerless to transform him or\nherself, and others which that person touches through the art..\nDespite whatever the technoscientific system may do, to create art is\nan intentional act by an individual, and thus has an immutable meaning\njust by virtue of being \"created\". We get to choose what is created\n(this does not make it good art necessarily).\n\nThat meaning is present in all work \"to varying degrees\". By this, i\nmean that we each have a unique relationship to our artwork. For some,\nit is a mirror of personal emotions and fantasies (and probably my\nown work most of the time), while others may be able to communicate\nmore.. So, I'm not evaluating art. Some is good, some is not. However,\nhaving an art-philosophical does not automatically reduce our works to\nemotional fantasies. In fact, it is more likely to result in genuinely\nempathetic works since it creates a solid foundation for art based on\na philosophy in which art is encouraged to be empathetic, rather than\nresponsive to a system.\n\nI'm simply stating -- which I think we perhaps both agree with here --\nthat so far we have not been given any other alternative view of new\nmedia art other than that proposed by the new media theorists. The way\nout of this problem is, I believe, through a philosophy of art whereby\nthe artist has full awareness of the problems of society (hopefully),\nyet continues to create works of art despite this. It is possible to\nhave no illusions about the inability of art to bring about explicit\nsocial change, but understand that it can bring implicit change\nthrough individual communication.\n\n-rama\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                                    "date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 17:24:51 -0700",
                                    "message-id": "4A10AAD3.1010309 {AT} umail.ucsb.edu",
                                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                                    "id": "00052",
                                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                                },
                                {
                                    "from": "carlos katastrofsky <carlos.katastrofsky {AT} gmail.com>",
                                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00058.html",
                                    "author_name": "carlos katastrofsky",
                                    "content": "\n> The way out of this problem is, I believe, through a philosophy of\n> art whereby the artist has full awareness of the problems of society\n> (hopefully), yet continues to create works of art despite this.\n> It is possible to have no illusions about the inability of art to\n> bring about explicit social change, but understand that it can bring\n> implicit change through individual communication.\n>\n\nbut can \"change\" be a parameter for art? what is to be changed through\nart? i agree that a \"change\" in whatever direction is possible but\nIMHO art mustn't be reduced to it. to me art is also someting i can\nadmire without thinking of having to change something. in fact even\nif i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire\nit (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\nsomething autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\na mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at the\nsame time it can be all of that.\n\nbest,\ncarlos\n\n\n-- \nhttp://katastrofsky.cont3xt.net\nhttp://cont3xt.net\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                                    "date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 16:11:26 +0200",
                                    "message-id": "fb9095bf0905180711m6cd209adt9b6435753d81770a {AT} mail.gmail.com",
                                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                                    "id": "00058",
                                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                                },
                                {
                                    "from": "Rama Hoetzlein <rch {AT} umail.ucsb.edu>",
                                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00057.html",
                                    "author_name": "Rama Hoetzlein",
                                    "content": "\nexactly.. even if we are fully unconcerned with political art, when\nyou say \"wow, great work\", thats just and only what i mean by implicit\nchange (you are changed).. art is autonomous here because, while the\nwork may or may not be political, this implicit change defines only\nthe meaning-relation between the artist, the work, and the viewer.\nAnd that relationship is established independent of the impact of\nmedia on society, i.e. politics. A philosophy of art should provide a\nfoundation for complete autonomy, and this is done by observing that\nthe basis of art is creating and appreciating.. keeping in mind that\ntheory only gets you so far as an artist.\n\nrama\n\ncarlos katastrofsky wrote:\n> but can \"change\" be a parameter for art? what is to be changed through\n> art? i agree that a \"change\" in whatever direction is possible but\n> IMHO art mustn't be reduced to it. to me art is also someting i can\n> admire without thinking of having to change something. in fact even if\n> i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire it\n> (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\n> something autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\n> a mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at the\n> same time it can be all of that.\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                                    "date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 10:11:25 -0700",
                                    "message-id": "4A1196BD.3060002 {AT} umail.ucsb.edu",
                                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                                    "id": "00057",
                                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                                },
                                {
                                    "from": "Brian Holmes <brian.holmes {AT} wanadoo.fr>",
                                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00062.html",
                                    "author_name": "Brian Holmes",
                                    "content": "carlos katastrofsky wrote:\n\n > if i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire\n > it (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\n > something autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\n > a mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at the\n > same time it can be all of that.\n\nWhat does one admire a piece of art? What is its autonomy?  And what could\nbe its consequences? I have asked myself these questions for years. Like\nmost thinking people, I have come to a few conclusions. And since I like\nthe idea that art can be \"all of that\" - a form of communication, a medium,\nnew media art - I would like to share these conclusions with you.\n\nHumans are excessively complex by nature, and inherently social. We are\ndefined by the surfeit of symbolic activity that goes on in our brains and\nindeed, in our full sensorium, and that comes out not only from our mouths\nbut in all sorts of gestures and postures and practices directed toward the\nsenses and symbolizing activities of others. A long anthropological\ntradition running from Sapir through Levi-Strauss to Sahlins holds that\nso-called \"primitive\" societies are no less complex than modern ones: their\nlanguages show comparable range and variety, but are (according to\nLevi-Strauss) oriented differently, more concrete in one case, more\nabstracted in the other. There is so much going on in any human being and\nbetween any group of human beings that just ordering or harmonizing all\nthis excessive symbolization - I mean, excessive over what the utilitarians\nthink of as the simple quest for satisfaction or corporeal pleasure -\nbecomes a problem in itself. Because madness always lurks on the edges of\nour reeling imaginations, and then there is also depression, or anger, or\njealousy, or prejudice or extreme paranoia, indeed a great number of\nobscure problems that can disrupt the life of the one and of the many.\n\nReligion has been the great social technique for bringing all this roiling\nthought, expression and sensation into some kind of predictable pattern and\nharmony, constituting entire narrative and figural universes, with their\nbuilt environments, rituals, music, poetry, smells, tastes, etc, all\nassociated and carefully correlated with orders of kinship, canons of\nsexuality, responsibilities of care, expressions of tenderness,\ncommandments, prohibitions and the like. What we now call art, as it\ngradually detached itself from religion and became a series of aesthetic\ntraditions interpretable and modifiable by individuals - as it became\nautonomous in other words - seems to have taken on the role of being the\nsensuous and ideational mirror of the individual's proper \"fit\" with\nsociety; it became a way of continuing the vast and mostly imaginary\nconversation about the ways that the one relates to the many, and\nvice-versa.  However, this conversation was no longer necessarily about\nharmony: because depending on the very particular context, the proper \"fit\"\ncould have aspects of a \"misfit,\" and the quest for an idealized harmony\ncould involve extreme disruptions of the status quo, disruptions appearing\nboth in art and in life itself. Just think about the Antigone of Sophocles\nand you will see that this kind of problematic was not invented with the\nromantics, it goes back quite a ways.  Clearly it gets particularly intense\nin modern democracies, where we are all brought up to conceive ourselves as\nboth legislators and revolutionaries.\n\nNow, amusingly, one of the reasons I ever even bothered to think about such\ncomplex and excessive things, so far from \n\"direct political action\" and what have you, is that for \nmany years I have found myself with a certain nagging problem of getting up\nin the morning. Perhaps others have experienced this? It so happens that on\ncertain mornings I may spend as much as an hour just thinking about a\ncertain constellation of things: a group of people, an artwork, a political\nissue, a line from a song, a concept, a phrase from a book, an image, a\nrhythm. Without showing any particular signs of anxiety, insanity,\ndelirium, fever, swine flu or whatever, I still found it necessary to bring\nsuch constellations of ideas and sensations into some kind of dynamic\npattern that would lend a spring to my step, a direction to my speech, an\neffectiveness to my gestures.  Being a bit of a misfit - according to the\naforementioned tradition in the democratic societies - I had to work on\nthis question of how to fit all this in, nonetheless: how to fit into my\nown overflowing symbolic and sensate world, first of all, and how to fit\nthat world into the multitude of others with whom daily activity brings me\ninto contact.  Thus I began to think that what is pleasing, satisfying,\nattractive, intriguing, inspiring, shocking, repellent, etc in the formal\nallure of artworks is also somehow the result of other people's struggles\nwith the excess of symbolization in which they are embroiled, and that the\n\"success\" of the artwork (wow, great work) is always some variation on the\n\"infinite theme of the artist(s) trying to break out of one universe and\n\"fit into another - whether we're talking about a purely abstract universe\n\"of chromatism or rhythm, or some Hegelian quandry of historical\n\"dialectics, or the current discussion about cap and trade, or the latest\n\"dispute over the coolest tattoos in the punk or heavy-metal circle that\n\"encloses your secret passion. An aesthetic form doesn't directly solve any\n\"of the weighty social problems - but it helps get a world together, it\n\"helps structure a pattern and a dynamic and an enthusiasm, which is always\n\"a good start.\n\nSo how 'bout the politics then? Well, according to my little theory, the\npersonal is clearly both aesthetic and political, because if you can't get\nout of bed you are definitely not going to make it to the office, the\nmarch, the meeting, the voting booth, the library, or wherever your\nactivity is going to have some consequences in terms of organizing social\nrelations. What is more, this is not just my little theory, because going\nback to Plato's Republic or maybe the Rig Vedas, social thinkers have been\nvery conscious of the influence of things like music on the order and\nharmony of the community, the city, state or whatever.  Indeed, not long\nago we saw with dazzled and almost disbelieving eyes that a great\nnation-state like China could put a significant fraction of its resources\ninto organizing an aesthetic display which was not just supposed to knock\neverybody out, American style, with its overwhelming show of wealth, but\nalso and above all to enact and celebrate an ideal of harmony and societal\ncoordination which, from my anarcho-individualist viewpoint, was at once\nvastly impressive and also frankly terrifying, because here I could see an\nintensive use of all the latest, hypercomplex aesthetic techniques to knit\ntogether an order that could power a vast authoritarian economic machine\nand infuse it with the enthusiam and belief of the many - which is a lot,\nwhen we're talking China. So you want new media? Replay your avi file of\nthe opening ceremonies of the 2008 Olympics.\n\nWhat I am trying to get at with all of this is that art is essentially\nmedia, it is not merely but essentially about communication, only what is\ncommunicated is not just a phrase or a slogan or a piece of information,\nbut a problematic attempt to reconfigure a world on every level of sensate\nand imaginary experience. That can be an attempt to fit in or to stick out,\nto harmonize or to disrupt, to smash the current relation of self and\nsociety or to conserve it or to invent another one; but insofar as art is\nexpression, it always projects this struggle over the shape and balance of\na world towards the ears and eyes and excessive imaginations of others.\nWhen we say that art is autonomous, we situate it in the long democratic\ntradition where the self, autos, tries to help establish the law, nomos,\naccordingly which it can freely develop in the company of fellow human\nbeings. Now, the problems of this attempt at autonomy are almost infinite,\nthey are sexual, technical, ecological, emotional, mystical, contractual,\nmaterial, they involve philosophy, science, babies, great art and also the\nplumbing. And they always involve the relations of individuals and groups\nto others whose worlds they do not understand, whose rhythms they do not\nfeel pulsing in their own veins, whose tacit concepts of harmony and\ndisruption are not expressed by the same patterns and shapes and colors and\ncombinations of tones. So when I say, Wow, great art - as I often do, just\nthe way people in the new media arts circles have done for years at\nfestivals sponsored by Philips and Microsoft and Sony and the like - the\nfirst consequence for me is to inquire into the world from which that art\narises and to which it points, and eventually to see how I fit into or\ndesire to break out of that world.  This means that a deep and searching\ncriticism can never just be criticism of the work, it always has to look\nfurther back, into the world from which it sprang, and ahead to the\nconsequences of a potential change in the worlds we share, or at least to\nthe consequences of a change in the way that *I* or *we* will relate to\nother worlds in the future.\n\nFinally, it seems to me, in my anarcho-democratic world, that to say Wow,\ngreat art, without inquiring into the consequences, is one of the closest\nthings one can do to never getting out of bed, i.e. it's close to\nsleepwalking.  Because at best, you would then be just letting the great\nart fit into your own great dream, or letting it be the colorful and\nstriking tattoo that will fit you into your small chosen circle. That's at\nbest - because in the present world of biopower and noopower, just admiring\na work in itself and for itself can mean accepting without question the\nworld that it mediates, which in the case of the networked technologies\nsold by Sony and Microsoft Philips and abused by a vast array of\ncorporations and governments, can be an extremely predatory world,\nconfigured precisely in order to capture your consciousness and extract\nsome value or utility out of your passions and dreams. Value that can\nultimately be devastating for the collectivity (as in the debt-fueld\nconsumption boom of this decade), utility that can make you into the most\nterrible of instruments (like the voters lured by nationalist rhetoric into\nsupporting our proliferating wars).\n\nIt has been years since I read Lev Manovich, so what follows may be totally\nunjust to his work, but as I recall, what always irritated me in his\nwriting was a kind of smug insistence that the new media were essentially\ndefined by a certain kind of rhythm, a certain multiplication of screens, a\ncertain connection to databases, etc. - in other words, that the new media\nwere essentially defined by the dominant trends of contemporary capitalist\nsociety. For me this seemed like a total abdication of criticism itself,\nand it also seemed to be a sort of cheerful, \"I'm on the winning side\"\nversion of the dark technological determinism and philosophical doomsaying\npromoted by the post-Leftist thinkers in the wake of Baudrillard. What I\nmissed was the very question of autonomy, and some recognition of its\nquasi-infinite complexities as they've been ceaselessly developing from the\nNeolithic to now, in the long and discontinuous series of messages passed\nfrom human world to human world. Imho, the poverty of new media art - its \n\"crisis\" - has intrinsically to do with the poverty of media \ncritique tout court. It is the failure to see how the cultural politics of\nindividuals and groups are mediated in the work, how they are expressed at\nevery level of their ineluctable complexity and excess over the \"mere\ncommunication\" of what already exists.\n\nbest, Brian\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                                    "date": "Tue, 19 May 2009 15:44:02 +0200",
                                    "message-id": "4A12B7A2.7080003 {AT} wanadoo.fr",
                                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                                    "id": "00062",
                                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis"
                                },
                                {
                                    "from": "Michael H Goldhaber <mgoldh {AT} well.com>",
                                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00064.html",
                                    "author_name": "Michael H Goldhaber",
                                    "content": "\nThanks for some beautiful and thought-provoking statements, especially  \nBrian’s and Carlos’s. I would add that to me the real medium of all  \nart is attention, attention the viewer or reader or listener must pay,  \nfeels consciously drawn to pay, in a deepening and all encompassing  \nway. That attention amounts to a transformation of self — into the  \nmind and body of the artist, as it were. The rest of the world falls  \naway for that moment, and so does time —the moment might be a long one  \n—and,a s Brian suggests will recur  later on, in recollection and  \nreflection.\n\nIf that is art, it is always political, because it always takes the  \nattention payer out of the “system,” whatever it might be and however  \nmuch the managers of the system in fact solicited the artist  or the  \nwork to begin with. The huge abstract paintings of the 1950’s cold  \nonly fit on the walls of the rich, but nonetheless, as long as they  \nwere there, they took over those walls, and made the space different  \nfrom what the collector might have intended, and the same goes for  \nRenaissance art and art of other periods.\n\nThe reason different media come in is that the artist has an on-going  \nproblem as to how to capture attention as distractions and competition  \nmultiply. In some way, to be really focussed on, art must avoid being  \ntoo easy to experience, for then it can become just the background,  \njust decoration or elevator music, or something that can always be  \nattended to “later” — I.e., usually never. This is  a serious and  \nsignificant problem for new media as well, including much Internet art.\n\nExpressly political art can only succeed, it seems to me, if it comes  \nfrom the inner depths.  For instance, I just finished reading Istvan  \nKertesz’s “Fatelessness;” I don’t think it is intentionally political  \nbut it certainly made me boil with anger at the human mistreatment and  \nneglect of others. Such art brings what was already there inside us  \nand adds to its centrality. But that doesn’t happen often. In my  \nexperience most political art is superficial and therefore bad, just  \nas likely to turn off sympathetic feelings in the viewer as the  \nopposite.\n\nIncidentally,  I don’t know that good art necessarily causes us to  \nthink “Wow! I admire that.” But it doesn't easily let go of us.\n\n\nBest,\nMichael\n\nOn May 19, 2009, at 6:44 AM, Brian Holmes wrote:\n\n> carlos katastrofsky wrote:\n>\n>> if i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire\n>> it (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\n>> something autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\n>> a mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at  \n>> the\n>> same time it can be all of that.\n>\n> What does one admire a piece of art? What is its autonomy?  And what  \n> could\n> be its consequences? I have asked myself these questions for years.  \n> Like\n> most thinking people, I have come to a few conclusions. And since I  \n> like\n> the idea that art can be \"all of that\" - a form of communication, a  \n> medium,\n> new media art - I would like to share these conclusions with you.\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                                    "date": "Tue, 19 May 2009 12:30:11 -0700",
                                    "message-id": "F6688CA9&#45;F000&#45;49A8&#45;9176&#45;5F62EC6DF50A {AT} well.com",
                                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                                    "id": "00064",
                                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                                },
                                {
                                    "from": "eyescratch <eyescratch {AT} gmail.com>",
                                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00069.html",
                                    "author_name": "eyescratch",
                                    "content": "\nOn Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Brian Holmes <brian.holmes {AT} wanadoo.fr> wrote:\n\n> So you want new media? Replay your avi file of the opening\n> ceremonies of the 2008 Olympics.\n>\n> What I am trying to get at with all of this is that art is\n> essentially media, it is not merely but essentially about\n> communication, only what is communicated is not just a phrase or\n> a slogan or a piece of information, but a problematic attempt\n> to reconfigure a world on every level of sensate and imaginary\n> experience.\n\nMuch of media studies is obsessed with witnessing an existence that is\npart of mediality, to borrow a term from the previous discussion, by\nplacing great emphasis on inserting the observer into the equation.\nNevertheless these studies formulate a distinction to preserve some\nauthorship role. What this kind of representational relationship\nignores is that it precludes any kind of intervention in favor of a\nconservation. If the art cannot be conserved because it is conceptual\nor a piece of code, the identity of the author is preserved and\ncelebrated. This is because a piece of media arrives at its monetary\nvalue by being bundled with products that claim to correct the\ninjustices, needs, or ailments being described in that piece of media.\nThe media is monetized either for its value of showing a certain lack\nor showing the idealized completion that a product might fulfill. An\nauthorship identity, it turns out, can fulfill this marketing function\nnicely for the lack of any particular object that might or might not\nexist or lacks monetary value, culminating it seems these days in a\nguarded wikipedia entry.\n\nTurns out, while searching for a word to describe the process of\nentering into communication via media I looked up mediated. There is\nplenty of secondary literature on McLuhan using this word to capture\nthe processes McLuhan describes, but he himself only uses the word\nmediated with the original definition to describe the arbitration\nthat happens in a conflict. Using the term mediated in the sense that\na form of communication is performed via media, still implies that\nthere is an exchange occurring where each party must sacrifice some\nof their preconceptions in a productive process that is manufacturing\nrepresentation. Otherwise this representation veers very quickly\ntowards the ideological.\n\nhTTp://eyescratch.tk\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                                    "date": "Sat, 23 May 2009 10:30:31 -0400",
                                    "message-id": "79976e5a0905230730j58fc5bdes611529b066f69590 {AT} mail.gmail.com",
                                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                                    "id": "00069",
                                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                                }
                            ],
                            "date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 11:48:02 -0700",
                            "message-id": "4A105BE2.9050609 {AT} umail.ucsb.edu",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00051",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis"
                        },
                        {
                            "from": "lorian Cramer <fc-nettime {AT} pleintekst.nl>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00056.html",
                            "author_name": "Florian Cramer",
                            "content": "\nOn Sunday, May 17 2009, 10:59 (+0200), carlos katastrofsky wrote:\n\n> what i am always wondering about is why the media arts field is so\n> concerned with its media. is dealing with \"new media\" or \"old media\"\n> an excuse for making good or bad art? IMO defining art by its media\n> is on the same level as defining art by its subject. not getting\n> over these definitions will result in a ghetto-situation sooner or\n> later.\n\nI am not so sure whether I agree. It all depends on your definition of\n\"media\". The problem is that the word \"media\" means quite different\nthings in different contexts: In the arts, it traditionally refers\nto the material means of expression from which artworks are created\n[painting, sculpture, photography, video, performance - that were also\nthe media meant with such terms as \"intermedia\", \"mixed media\" and\n\"multimedia\" since the 1960s]. In communication studies, \"media\" is\npractically synonymous with mass media and refers to an apparatus and\nsystem of communication, including newspapers, radio, TV, Internet.\nIn other humanities, there is a notion of media as any symbolic or\nsemiotic carrier.\n\nFor example, in the contemporary art (but not media art) world,\nthere just has been a series of exhibitions on pornography, from\n\"BodyPoliticx\" in Rotterdam to \"The Porn Identity\" in Vienna. One\ncould call pornography a medium and thus say that these exhibitions\nwere curated from a media perspective. After all, the ars electronica\ndid almost the same thing with its \"Next Sex\" theme in 2000. Or, a\nrandom example taken from just having browsed the Tate Modern site\nand its blurb on the current exhibition \"Stutter\": \"The onomatopoeic\nword 'Stutter' refers to an act of speech interrupted by agitated,\nspasmodic, or involuntary repetitions. As the title for this\nexhibition, it suggests a metaphor for questions of disruption and\ndiscontinuity in processes of thought, systems of communications\nor conceptions of knowledge.\" Again, this is pretty close if not\nidentical to curatorship from a media and communications viewpoint.\n\n> the problem -IMHO- is not that media art is not recognized by the\n> fine art world but that the fine art world is dealing with other\n> subjects.\n\nIf I take, for example, the subjects of the last nine transmediale\nfestivals (\"Do It Yourself\", \"Go Public\", \"Play Global\", \"Fly Utopia\",\n\"Basics\", \"Reality Addicts\", \"Unfinish\", \"Conspire\", \"Deep North\"),\nthey could just as well have been the names of contemporary art\nexhibitions at PS.1 in New York, KW in Berlin, Witte de With in\nRotterdam, or any other contemporary art space.\n\n> when was the last big exhibition dealing solely with \"painting\" or\n> \"sculpture\" you've seen? ars electronica and the others are doing\n> that every year: \"new media art\" with changing subtitles.\n\nOne could just as well say that contemporary art deals with \"white\ncube installation art\" with changing subtitles.\n\n> the same problem persists when new media artists and theorists\n> insist on \"politicalness\" and \"radicality\".\n\nThe same terms abound in the contemporary art discourse if you read,\nfor example, \"October\" or \"Texte zur Kunst\".\n\n> those terms don't say anything about certain works either, no matter\n> which media is used in it. they only say that they may be recognised\n> as \"political\" in a certain time in a certain context.\n\nIMO art is, like any public expression, always political. Art that\nclaims not to be political being all the more political as a matter\nof fact (with symbolist l'art-pour-l'art being a prime example). What\nI would describe as the political-artistic quality in the art of,\nfor example, ubermorgen is that unlike 'actual' politics, it can be\nwillfully and even criminally irresponsible. One could admittedly\ndismiss this as a romanticist argument, but it has nevertheless a lot\ngoing for it, not just if we look at gothic aesthetics and Bataille's\naesthetics of evil, but also at more recent artistic practices like\nOtto Muehl's commune and Eastern European art since the 1980s.\n\n> but that doesn't say anything about it's \"artness\" either. \"art\n> doesn't become art by having specific characteristics but by a\n> specific kind of processual reference to it.\" (J. Rebentisch,\n> Aesthetik der Installation)\n\nNot knowing the full context of this quote, I nevertheless find such\nsystemic definitions of art quite risky. If the basic quality of art\n- in the sense of 'Fine Art' - lies in its self-reference to its own\nsystem, then it would be something very narrow and ultimately boring,\nand something already exhausted by Duchamp in the 20th century. It\nwould pay a high price for having, since the 19th century, rid itself\nfrom more popular forms of visual culture. Such a definition does not\neven apply to the arguably most elitist forms of other contemporary\narts such as poetry and contemporary classical music, since poetry can\nstill be defined outside its own system as highly condensed/conjugated\nlanguage and new music as highly organized sound. - On top of that, it\nis an exclusively Western concept of art which blatantly contradicts\nthe post-1990s efforts of integrating postcolonial considerations into\ncontemporary art. Remarkable enough, these integrations never question\nthe concept of \"art\" itself - although the concept of autonomous art\nonly exists in Western cultures or as a Western cultural import in,\nfor example, Asian countries (which traditionally do not separate art\nfrom craft).\n\n> if i want to learn something about politics i would read a book with\n> proper information about it and not go to see art that repeats the\n> common sense that there are bad things existing in our world.\n\nTrue. Only that exhibitions like Documenta XI have been haunted by\nthis concept of art.\n\n-F\n\n-- \nblog:     http://en.pleintekst.nl\nhomepage: http://cramer.pleintekst.nl:70\n          gopher://cramer.pleintekst.nl\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "follow-up": [
                                {
                                    "from": "carlos katastrofsky <carlos.katastrofsky {AT} cont3xt.net>",
                                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00061.html",
                                    "author_name": "carlos katastrofsky",
                                    "content": "> I am not so sure whether I agree. It all depends on your definition of\n> \"media\". The problem is that the word \"media\" means quite different things\n> in different contexts:\n\ni agree. but exactly this is the point: media theory is swallowing\neverything, but where are its boundaries? what i am trying to find as\nartist (neither theorist nor philosopher) is a definition for art that\ngoes beyond a mere definition as \"media\" in whatever sense.\nthat is why i am aiming on the much-maligned term of \"autonomy\" (and\ni'm following here the previous mentioned philosophy of j.\nrebentisch). to me this doesn't mean art is somewhat apolotical or\ndealing solely with itself (l' art pour l'art - i guess you had this\nin mind when stating \"[...] If the basic quality of art - in the sense\nof 'Fine Art' - lies in its self-reference to its own system, then it\nwould be something very narrow and ultimately boring, [...]\"). art is\nmade to be seen/heard/whatever - to be experienced. and this\nexperience is what defines art and not media. it can change in time\n-we quite surely don't experience cave paintings in the same way the\nones did who made them- but i'm not sure if \"the media\" does, no\nmatter if it's read as \"painting/drawing\" or as \"hunting scene\". what\ni am hoping to find by this is a possibility to think about \"art\" and\nneither media nor porn or politics. these are -let's say- \"themes\"\nthat can be interpreted, but i hope that art goes beyond being a good\ndesigned set of political opinions. i mean, what political context is\nreflected in leonardo's \"last supper\"? we surely can speculate but do\nwe know? these are things that are bound to their time and context but\nnevertheless we still percieve it as \"art\".\n\n> If I take, for example, the subjects of the last nine transmediale\n> festivals (\"Do It Yourself\",\n[...]\n> One could just as well say that contemporary art deals with \"white cube\n> installation art\" with changing subtitles.\n[...]\n> The same terms abound in the contemporary art discourse if you read, for\n> example, \"October\" or \"Texte zur Kunst\".\n\nyep, exactly. and this what the \"art world\" makes as boring as \"new\nmedia art\". what i had in mind when saying that the \"fine art world is\ndealing with other subjects\" was not the (i would like to call it\nnonexistent) contemporary discourse. what can be seen in the fine arts\nfield (but not in the big biz -documenta, ps1, kw, ...) is an\ninclusion of possibilities in expression and perception which i never\nsaw in any media-art discourse (though i have to admit i am far from\nfollowing everything in that area).\n\n> Not knowing the full context of this quote, I nevertheless find such\n> systemic definitions of art quite risky. If the basic quality of art\n> - in the sense of 'Fine Art' - lies in its self-reference to its own\n> system,\n\ni'm sorry if this comes through that way, i'm not the best in\nformulating things. i never wanted to present art as solely\nself-referential system. if autonomy is read as autonomy of the object\n(l'art pour l'art) i would agree totally with you. but seen from the\nviewpoint that \"art\" may not lie in an object but somewhere between\nthe object and the observer (experience, perception) an autonomy of\nart is essential.\n\n\nthank you all for your replies :-)\n\nbest,\ncarlos\n-- \nhttp://katastrofsky.cont3xt.net\nhttp://cont3xt.net\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                                    "date": "Tue, 19 May 2009 15:14:35 +0200",
                                    "message-id": "fb9095bf0905190614l39062a34j17867e0d82469c5f {AT} mail.gmail.com",
                                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                                    "id": "00061",
                                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                                },
                                {
                                    "from": "Station Rose <gunafa {AT} well.com>",
                                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00072.html",
                                    "author_name": "Station Rose",
                                    "content": "\nOn Sunday, May 17 2009, 10:59 (+0200), florian cramer wrote:\n\n>If I take, for example, the subjects of the last nine transmediale\n>festivals (\"Do It Yourself\", \"Go Public\", \"Play Global\", \"Fly\n>Utopia\", \"Basics\", \"Reality Addicts\", \"Unfinish\", \"Conspire\", \"Deep\n>North\"), they could just as well have been the names of contemporary\n>art exhibitions at PS.1 in New York, KW in Berlin, Witte de With in\n>Rotterdam, or any other contemporary art space.\n\nbut it wasnt like that cause it was happening ONLY in a festival     .\n<ghetto> situation                                                   .\n\nas I see it, many art people are not going to events like\ntransmediale, cause its not seen as an important place for art. I dont\ngo, besides when we are actively part of it.\n\nlooks like media art is not sexy enough. the exhibits, as part of\nfestivals, are often too prudish. everything sensual seems forbidden,\n\ntoo often it s needs written explanations to understand the\n(political) work.\n\nI do not believe - and I say that as an artist- that the written word\nis necessary to <understand> a piece of art.it can help and make\ndetails transparent, but its not necessary in advance.\n\n\nmy own experience with Station Rose media art projects-like recently\nLogInCabin in MAK Vienna- is : they are recognized & seen in art\nspaces, museums by the art scene, but not as much in a so called media\nart context as festivals are.\n\nbasically my impression is that as long as a dicussion like that one\ngoes on, it makes clear that the art world is something and the media\nart scene is out of it.\n\n\n-- \n----------------------------------------------------\nStation Rose     digital_audio  - visual art      http://www.stationrose.com\n....................    Gary Danner & Elisa Rose\n\nFrankfurt   - Cyberspace -  Vienna.\n\n* recent project: 20 Digital Years. \"LogInCabin\" mediascultpure at \nMAK Vienna_sold\n* new: \"Interstellar Overdrive CD\" Japan release (2.09)\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                                    "date": "Sun, 24 May 2009 13:52:26 +0200",
                                    "message-id": "a06200701c63ee015f460 {AT} [192.168.1.100]",
                                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                                    "id": "00072",
                                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis"
                                }
                            ],
                            "date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 23:04:49 +0200",
                            "message-id": "20090518210449.GJ3919 {AT} hp.localdomain",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00056",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                        },
                        {
                            "from": "John Hopkins <jhopkins {AT} neoscenes.net>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00065.html",
                            "author_name": "John Hopkins",
                            "content": "carlos katastrofsky wrote:\n\n> what i am always wondering about is why the media arts field is so\n> concerned with its media. is dealing with \"new media\" or \"old media\"\n\nexactly Carlos...\n\nthis revolves around the common (still, ongoing, & perhaps permanent!)\nproblem of identifying creative impulses by their materialized remains\n(media, mediated forms).  There are precisely identical histories of the \nrise of\n(materially) specialized festivals, research centers, art school\ndepartments, workshop venues, etc etc -- photography, for example.\nWhere are all the institutions and organizations and events that swirled\naround that particular material result of creative impulse?  They are\ngone, gone, gone.  Abd the ones who remain -- does anyone think they are\ncenter for radical creative experimentation?  Most people don't even\nremember them.  the Rencontres Internationale de la Photographie and the\nEcole Nationale de la Photographie in Arles, etc etc, huh, who cares?\n\nwhen there is this material obsession, it is bound to be outmoded simply\nbecause things aren't IT, looking at the world as a bunch of things\ndoesn't reveal the phenomenal nature of life: another words, focusing on\nthe detritus that is left, dead, after the creative forces have altered\nthe local universe -- well it's simply a death cult and is a dead end.\n<<yawn>> why ponder on it?  Better to skip the material categorization\nprocess altogether 'cause it IS a dead end...\n\njh\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "date": "Wed, 20 May 2009 17:01:58 -0600",
                            "message-id": "4A148BE6.6070209 {AT} neoscenes.net",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00065",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis"
                        },
                        {
                            "from": "ben.craggs {AT} fastmail.f",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00053.html",
                            "author_name": "ben . craggs",
                            "content": "\n> what i am always wondering about is why the media arts field is so\n> concerned with its media. is dealing with \"new media\" or \"old media\"\n> an excuse for making good or bad art? IMO defining art by its media\n> is on the same level as defining art by its subject. not getting\n> over these definitions will result in a ghetto-situation sooner or\n> later. the problem -IMHO- is not that media art is not recognized\n> by the fine art world but that the fine art world is dealing with\n> other subjects. when was the last big exhibition dealing solely\n> with \"painting\" or \"sculpture\" you've seen? ars electronica and the\n> others are doing that every year: \"new media art\" with changing\n> subtitles.\n\n <...>\n\nAn interesting addition to this would be the emergence of 'New, new\nmedia arts'. I am thinking here, of practices in the field currently\ndefining itself as bioart. Here the medium that is being manipulated\nis a form of living or sem-living matter, or tissue. Bioartist,\nEduardo Kac and curator Jens Hauser have sought to specifically\nidentify this new art practice, expressly on the basis of the medium\nitself. Bioarts, they argue, are most definitely are not those works\nthat take bios or a form of life, as a subject, but manipulate it as a\nmedium. That said, the manipulation of living tissue can be executed\nthrough a number of divergent practices, specific technologies, and it\nis these that seem to be defined by some as the media, not the living\ntissue they manipulate. I guess a somewhat simplistic comparison\nwould be between with identification of various 'digital media' in\nabstraction from the advances in computer technology on which they are\nbased.\n\nMy current work in the field of bioart is increasingly\npushing me towards a frustration at the distinction between\nart/science/media/technology/old/new that recurs in the majority of\nliterature, and if I am not wrong seems to predicate this current\ndiscussion. In the light of these new practices I have been working\ntowards re-imagining what art and media are in themselves, as\ntechnologies and processes not as distinct practices - the specific\nmedia or declared purpose seem less relevant from this perspective. So\nI wonder whether 'meaning is present in all works, to varying degrees,\nregardless of how they might be appropriated by culture' could be\nextended beyond a simple valorisation of art.\n\nIt also seems that those new media theorists, such as Manovich and\nBaudrillard are somewhat restricted in their approach in that new\nmedia is perceived in a somewhat teleological sense, newness for\nthe sake of newness, with new theories to match new media - without\nasking what is actually recurring in new media. IMO it seems that\nmost new media, are really just old media anyway, particularly so in\nbioart. Is the creative growth of tissue not what we do continually\nas part of our natural bodily processes? Would it be facetious\nthen to ask whether all media be considered from this originary\nperspective, negating the discussions about relative newness or\ncultural categorization (ie i's art, it's science, it's technology,\nit's media).\n\nBen\n\n\n\n-- ---------\n  Ben Craggs\n  07868 273 360\n---------------\n  http://www.digitalscribblings.org/forums\n  A place for academic discussion, networking and general postgraduate procrastination!\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "\"NetTime Mailing List\" <nettime-l {AT} kein.org>",
                            "date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 08:42:05 +0100",
                            "message-id": "1242632525.29400.1315956661 {AT} webmail.messagingengine.com",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00053",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                        },
                        {
                            "from": "Brian Holmes <brian.holmes {AT} wanadoo.fr>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00054.html",
                            "author_name": "Brian Holmes",
                            "content": "\nRama Hoetzlein wrote:\n\n> New media art should be defined from an art-philosophical\n> perspective. In this view, meaning is present in all works, to\n> varying degrees, regardless of how they might be appropriated\n> by culture. At what time in history was art not appropriated by\n> culture? None the less, people continued to create art. The process\n> of art-making is one of creating meaning, and this relation between\n> the artist and the work is not changed despite how the object is\n> ultimately appreciated, used, or abused by culture.\n\nIt's great to read such a fundamental comment. I shall add something.\nMy viewpoint includes both Tolstoy's and Baudrillard's. I find that\ninformatic art (my own off-the-cuff term, but surely better than new\nmedia) is compelling precisely when it places subjective expression\nwithin the most strongly coercive social arena of our time, namely\nthe digital networks. Your idea that there is an art-philosophical\nperspective that could exclude or bypass social determinism seems,\nbegging your pardon, somewhat naive. What is more, I think all the\ninterest of art itself disappears when it is shorn from the contexts\nof power and held up as a pure conductor of subjectivity. Approached\nin that way, the art work tends to become no more than a mirror for\nour own emotions and fantasies -- far from any state of empathy,\nEinfuhlung or whatever one chooses to call it. So I am not surprised\nthat you move from Tolstoy's fascinating quote (reproduced below) to\nthe \"relation between the artist and the work.\" I guess I am more\ninterested in, well, media: the way the work relates the artist to\nothers.\n\nHowever, your observation about new media theory (Kittler and McLuhan\nwere recently mentioned here) is spot on. What we are given from\nthe podium, over and over again, are lessons about the power of\ntechnoscientific systems. The predicament of the human singularity,\ncaught within the net of determinisms yet resisting, creating another\nreality and expressing this rather fantastic adventure through\nwhatever kind of material or semiotic medium has been chosen, is left\nout of the story, which thereby becomes a monument to the crushing\nregularity of the status quo. The same thing, of course, happens to\nresistant political action in the hands of the sociologists and the\nHeideggerean philosophers of an essential, \"historial\" alienation.\nBoth ethics and aesthetics take it on the chin.\n\nIn my view, the great inspiration for new media theory has come from\nhackers themselves, who create alternative possibilities for existence\nwithin the overwhelmingly powerful networked environment. This is why,\nin essays which are inseparably about art and technics, I tend to\nuse concepts like \"reverse imagineering\" or \"escaping the overcode.\"\nExpression, for me, is the rupture of code, an excess which does not\nabolish the labyrinth in which we are caught, but at least opens up a\npossible new path through it.\n\nThat's one approach. There could be many others. The problem, as\nyou point out, is that usually there are not, because the theory\nvery rarely meets any actual practice. The necessary discussion of\ntechnological power holds the center stage. Of course that is easier\nfor the whole \"new media\" social circuit, because then you don't have\nto think very much, or feel very much, or try very hard to find out\nwhat might be at stake in a particular work.\n\nThis list, I guess, is about the best place to talk about how to\napproach media art. Thanks to all for starting the conversation. I'm\nready for more. Let the thousand info-aesthetics bloom!\n\nbest, BH\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 23:32:13 +0200",
                            "message-id": "4A10825D.6040905 {AT} wanadoo.fr",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00054",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                        },
                        {
                            "from": "Rama Hoetzlein <rch {AT} umail.ucsb.edu>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00052.html",
                            "author_name": "Rama Hoetzlein",
                            "content": "\nBrian, thanks for your reply. In general, i'm glad to see that\nwe're mostly in agreement. Based on my observations of nettime-l,\ndisagreement is often the norm, so I'm glad to see that there is\nsome consensus between us that the new media theorists are currently\nthe only option we've been given, and that we really need some\nalternatives.. Now, for some responses.\n\n> Your idea that there is an art-philosophical perspective that could \n> exclude or bypass social determinism seems, begging your pardon, \n> somewhat naive. \n\nI'm not suggesting that art-philosophy can bypass social determinism.\nI have no illusions about the difficulty the artist faces in creating\nany real social change, since my view of art does not negate any of\nthe real research done by the media theorists. My own view is that\nthe idea of art-for-social-change is long outdated. You suggest\nthat hackers are the source of real inspiration in new media theory\nbecause they alone are able to transform the media itself, and thus\nundermine the system toward some possible escape path. Yet, there\nis no reason to believe that even if the media itself changes, that\nsociety will too. In my view, the only way we could overcome the\ncurrent technoscientific system would be due to a deep, fundamental\ntransformation in all individuals - and while I believe art is\ncapable of doing this one person at a time, I don't think any one\nartwork, hacker or otherwise, is capable of really altering the\ntechnoscientific system we find ourselves in on a global level. Thus,\nall social change we talk about now is still part of that system. This\nis the media theorist perspective, of course - which i agree with -\nbut as an artist, its incomplete.\n\nThe reason I advocate art-philosophy is for the sake of the\nindividual, and the field of art itself. While i just said the artist\nis powerless to transform culture, perhaps to a degree greater than\nmost would like, the artist is _not_ powerless to transform him or\nherself, and others which that person touches through the art..\nDespite whatever the technoscientific system may do, to create art is\nan intentional act by an individual, and thus has an immutable meaning\njust by virtue of being \"created\". We get to choose what is created\n(this does not make it good art necessarily).\n\nThat meaning is present in all work \"to varying degrees\". By this, i\nmean that we each have a unique relationship to our artwork. For some,\nit is a mirror of personal emotions and fantasies (and probably my\nown work most of the time), while others may be able to communicate\nmore.. So, I'm not evaluating art. Some is good, some is not. However,\nhaving an art-philosophical does not automatically reduce our works to\nemotional fantasies. In fact, it is more likely to result in genuinely\nempathetic works since it creates a solid foundation for art based on\na philosophy in which art is encouraged to be empathetic, rather than\nresponsive to a system.\n\nI'm simply stating -- which I think we perhaps both agree with here --\nthat so far we have not been given any other alternative view of new\nmedia art other than that proposed by the new media theorists. The way\nout of this problem is, I believe, through a philosophy of art whereby\nthe artist has full awareness of the problems of society (hopefully),\nyet continues to create works of art despite this. It is possible to\nhave no illusions about the inability of art to bring about explicit\nsocial change, but understand that it can bring implicit change\nthrough individual communication.\n\n-rama\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 17:24:51 -0700",
                            "message-id": "4A10AAD3.1010309 {AT} umail.ucsb.edu",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00052",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                        },
                        {
                            "from": "carlos katastrofsky <carlos.katastrofsky {AT} gmail.com>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00058.html",
                            "author_name": "carlos katastrofsky",
                            "content": "\n> The way out of this problem is, I believe, through a philosophy of\n> art whereby the artist has full awareness of the problems of society\n> (hopefully), yet continues to create works of art despite this.\n> It is possible to have no illusions about the inability of art to\n> bring about explicit social change, but understand that it can bring\n> implicit change through individual communication.\n>\n\nbut can \"change\" be a parameter for art? what is to be changed through\nart? i agree that a \"change\" in whatever direction is possible but\nIMHO art mustn't be reduced to it. to me art is also someting i can\nadmire without thinking of having to change something. in fact even\nif i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire\nit (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\nsomething autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\na mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at the\nsame time it can be all of that.\n\nbest,\ncarlos\n\n\n-- \nhttp://katastrofsky.cont3xt.net\nhttp://cont3xt.net\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 16:11:26 +0200",
                            "message-id": "fb9095bf0905180711m6cd209adt9b6435753d81770a {AT} mail.gmail.com",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00058",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                        },
                        {
                            "from": "Rama Hoetzlein <rch {AT} umail.ucsb.edu>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00057.html",
                            "author_name": "Rama Hoetzlein",
                            "content": "\nexactly.. even if we are fully unconcerned with political art, when\nyou say \"wow, great work\", thats just and only what i mean by implicit\nchange (you are changed).. art is autonomous here because, while the\nwork may or may not be political, this implicit change defines only\nthe meaning-relation between the artist, the work, and the viewer.\nAnd that relationship is established independent of the impact of\nmedia on society, i.e. politics. A philosophy of art should provide a\nfoundation for complete autonomy, and this is done by observing that\nthe basis of art is creating and appreciating.. keeping in mind that\ntheory only gets you so far as an artist.\n\nrama\n\ncarlos katastrofsky wrote:\n> but can \"change\" be a parameter for art? what is to be changed through\n> art? i agree that a \"change\" in whatever direction is possible but\n> IMHO art mustn't be reduced to it. to me art is also someting i can\n> admire without thinking of having to change something. in fact even if\n> i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire it\n> (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\n> something autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\n> a mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at the\n> same time it can be all of that.\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 10:11:25 -0700",
                            "message-id": "4A1196BD.3060002 {AT} umail.ucsb.edu",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00057",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                        },
                        {
                            "from": "Brian Holmes <brian.holmes {AT} wanadoo.fr>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00062.html",
                            "author_name": "Brian Holmes",
                            "content": "carlos katastrofsky wrote:\n\n > if i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire\n > it (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\n > something autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\n > a mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at the\n > same time it can be all of that.\n\nWhat does one admire a piece of art? What is its autonomy?  And what could\nbe its consequences? I have asked myself these questions for years. Like\nmost thinking people, I have come to a few conclusions. And since I like\nthe idea that art can be \"all of that\" - a form of communication, a medium,\nnew media art - I would like to share these conclusions with you.\n\nHumans are excessively complex by nature, and inherently social. We are\ndefined by the surfeit of symbolic activity that goes on in our brains and\nindeed, in our full sensorium, and that comes out not only from our mouths\nbut in all sorts of gestures and postures and practices directed toward the\nsenses and symbolizing activities of others. A long anthropological\ntradition running from Sapir through Levi-Strauss to Sahlins holds that\nso-called \"primitive\" societies are no less complex than modern ones: their\nlanguages show comparable range and variety, but are (according to\nLevi-Strauss) oriented differently, more concrete in one case, more\nabstracted in the other. There is so much going on in any human being and\nbetween any group of human beings that just ordering or harmonizing all\nthis excessive symbolization - I mean, excessive over what the utilitarians\nthink of as the simple quest for satisfaction or corporeal pleasure -\nbecomes a problem in itself. Because madness always lurks on the edges of\nour reeling imaginations, and then there is also depression, or anger, or\njealousy, or prejudice or extreme paranoia, indeed a great number of\nobscure problems that can disrupt the life of the one and of the many.\n\nReligion has been the great social technique for bringing all this roiling\nthought, expression and sensation into some kind of predictable pattern and\nharmony, constituting entire narrative and figural universes, with their\nbuilt environments, rituals, music, poetry, smells, tastes, etc, all\nassociated and carefully correlated with orders of kinship, canons of\nsexuality, responsibilities of care, expressions of tenderness,\ncommandments, prohibitions and the like. What we now call art, as it\ngradually detached itself from religion and became a series of aesthetic\ntraditions interpretable and modifiable by individuals - as it became\nautonomous in other words - seems to have taken on the role of being the\nsensuous and ideational mirror of the individual's proper \"fit\" with\nsociety; it became a way of continuing the vast and mostly imaginary\nconversation about the ways that the one relates to the many, and\nvice-versa.  However, this conversation was no longer necessarily about\nharmony: because depending on the very particular context, the proper \"fit\"\ncould have aspects of a \"misfit,\" and the quest for an idealized harmony\ncould involve extreme disruptions of the status quo, disruptions appearing\nboth in art and in life itself. Just think about the Antigone of Sophocles\nand you will see that this kind of problematic was not invented with the\nromantics, it goes back quite a ways.  Clearly it gets particularly intense\nin modern democracies, where we are all brought up to conceive ourselves as\nboth legislators and revolutionaries.\n\nNow, amusingly, one of the reasons I ever even bothered to think about such\ncomplex and excessive things, so far from \n\"direct political action\" and what have you, is that for \nmany years I have found myself with a certain nagging problem of getting up\nin the morning. Perhaps others have experienced this? It so happens that on\ncertain mornings I may spend as much as an hour just thinking about a\ncertain constellation of things: a group of people, an artwork, a political\nissue, a line from a song, a concept, a phrase from a book, an image, a\nrhythm. Without showing any particular signs of anxiety, insanity,\ndelirium, fever, swine flu or whatever, I still found it necessary to bring\nsuch constellations of ideas and sensations into some kind of dynamic\npattern that would lend a spring to my step, a direction to my speech, an\neffectiveness to my gestures.  Being a bit of a misfit - according to the\naforementioned tradition in the democratic societies - I had to work on\nthis question of how to fit all this in, nonetheless: how to fit into my\nown overflowing symbolic and sensate world, first of all, and how to fit\nthat world into the multitude of others with whom daily activity brings me\ninto contact.  Thus I began to think that what is pleasing, satisfying,\nattractive, intriguing, inspiring, shocking, repellent, etc in the formal\nallure of artworks is also somehow the result of other people's struggles\nwith the excess of symbolization in which they are embroiled, and that the\n\"success\" of the artwork (wow, great work) is always some variation on the\n\"infinite theme of the artist(s) trying to break out of one universe and\n\"fit into another - whether we're talking about a purely abstract universe\n\"of chromatism or rhythm, or some Hegelian quandry of historical\n\"dialectics, or the current discussion about cap and trade, or the latest\n\"dispute over the coolest tattoos in the punk or heavy-metal circle that\n\"encloses your secret passion. An aesthetic form doesn't directly solve any\n\"of the weighty social problems - but it helps get a world together, it\n\"helps structure a pattern and a dynamic and an enthusiasm, which is always\n\"a good start.\n\nSo how 'bout the politics then? Well, according to my little theory, the\npersonal is clearly both aesthetic and political, because if you can't get\nout of bed you are definitely not going to make it to the office, the\nmarch, the meeting, the voting booth, the library, or wherever your\nactivity is going to have some consequences in terms of organizing social\nrelations. What is more, this is not just my little theory, because going\nback to Plato's Republic or maybe the Rig Vedas, social thinkers have been\nvery conscious of the influence of things like music on the order and\nharmony of the community, the city, state or whatever.  Indeed, not long\nago we saw with dazzled and almost disbelieving eyes that a great\nnation-state like China could put a significant fraction of its resources\ninto organizing an aesthetic display which was not just supposed to knock\neverybody out, American style, with its overwhelming show of wealth, but\nalso and above all to enact and celebrate an ideal of harmony and societal\ncoordination which, from my anarcho-individualist viewpoint, was at once\nvastly impressive and also frankly terrifying, because here I could see an\nintensive use of all the latest, hypercomplex aesthetic techniques to knit\ntogether an order that could power a vast authoritarian economic machine\nand infuse it with the enthusiam and belief of the many - which is a lot,\nwhen we're talking China. So you want new media? Replay your avi file of\nthe opening ceremonies of the 2008 Olympics.\n\nWhat I am trying to get at with all of this is that art is essentially\nmedia, it is not merely but essentially about communication, only what is\ncommunicated is not just a phrase or a slogan or a piece of information,\nbut a problematic attempt to reconfigure a world on every level of sensate\nand imaginary experience. That can be an attempt to fit in or to stick out,\nto harmonize or to disrupt, to smash the current relation of self and\nsociety or to conserve it or to invent another one; but insofar as art is\nexpression, it always projects this struggle over the shape and balance of\na world towards the ears and eyes and excessive imaginations of others.\nWhen we say that art is autonomous, we situate it in the long democratic\ntradition where the self, autos, tries to help establish the law, nomos,\naccordingly which it can freely develop in the company of fellow human\nbeings. Now, the problems of this attempt at autonomy are almost infinite,\nthey are sexual, technical, ecological, emotional, mystical, contractual,\nmaterial, they involve philosophy, science, babies, great art and also the\nplumbing. And they always involve the relations of individuals and groups\nto others whose worlds they do not understand, whose rhythms they do not\nfeel pulsing in their own veins, whose tacit concepts of harmony and\ndisruption are not expressed by the same patterns and shapes and colors and\ncombinations of tones. So when I say, Wow, great art - as I often do, just\nthe way people in the new media arts circles have done for years at\nfestivals sponsored by Philips and Microsoft and Sony and the like - the\nfirst consequence for me is to inquire into the world from which that art\narises and to which it points, and eventually to see how I fit into or\ndesire to break out of that world.  This means that a deep and searching\ncriticism can never just be criticism of the work, it always has to look\nfurther back, into the world from which it sprang, and ahead to the\nconsequences of a potential change in the worlds we share, or at least to\nthe consequences of a change in the way that *I* or *we* will relate to\nother worlds in the future.\n\nFinally, it seems to me, in my anarcho-democratic world, that to say Wow,\ngreat art, without inquiring into the consequences, is one of the closest\nthings one can do to never getting out of bed, i.e. it's close to\nsleepwalking.  Because at best, you would then be just letting the great\nart fit into your own great dream, or letting it be the colorful and\nstriking tattoo that will fit you into your small chosen circle. That's at\nbest - because in the present world of biopower and noopower, just admiring\na work in itself and for itself can mean accepting without question the\nworld that it mediates, which in the case of the networked technologies\nsold by Sony and Microsoft Philips and abused by a vast array of\ncorporations and governments, can be an extremely predatory world,\nconfigured precisely in order to capture your consciousness and extract\nsome value or utility out of your passions and dreams. Value that can\nultimately be devastating for the collectivity (as in the debt-fueld\nconsumption boom of this decade), utility that can make you into the most\nterrible of instruments (like the voters lured by nationalist rhetoric into\nsupporting our proliferating wars).\n\nIt has been years since I read Lev Manovich, so what follows may be totally\nunjust to his work, but as I recall, what always irritated me in his\nwriting was a kind of smug insistence that the new media were essentially\ndefined by a certain kind of rhythm, a certain multiplication of screens, a\ncertain connection to databases, etc. - in other words, that the new media\nwere essentially defined by the dominant trends of contemporary capitalist\nsociety. For me this seemed like a total abdication of criticism itself,\nand it also seemed to be a sort of cheerful, \"I'm on the winning side\"\nversion of the dark technological determinism and philosophical doomsaying\npromoted by the post-Leftist thinkers in the wake of Baudrillard. What I\nmissed was the very question of autonomy, and some recognition of its\nquasi-infinite complexities as they've been ceaselessly developing from the\nNeolithic to now, in the long and discontinuous series of messages passed\nfrom human world to human world. Imho, the poverty of new media art - its \n\"crisis\" - has intrinsically to do with the poverty of media \ncritique tout court. It is the failure to see how the cultural politics of\nindividuals and groups are mediated in the work, how they are expressed at\nevery level of their ineluctable complexity and excess over the \"mere\ncommunication\" of what already exists.\n\nbest, Brian\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "date": "Tue, 19 May 2009 15:44:02 +0200",
                            "message-id": "4A12B7A2.7080003 {AT} wanadoo.fr",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00062",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis"
                        },
                        {
                            "from": "Michael H Goldhaber <mgoldh {AT} well.com>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00064.html",
                            "author_name": "Michael H Goldhaber",
                            "content": "\nThanks for some beautiful and thought-provoking statements, especially  \nBrian’s and Carlos’s. I would add that to me the real medium of all  \nart is attention, attention the viewer or reader or listener must pay,  \nfeels consciously drawn to pay, in a deepening and all encompassing  \nway. That attention amounts to a transformation of self — into the  \nmind and body of the artist, as it were. The rest of the world falls  \naway for that moment, and so does time —the moment might be a long one  \n—and,a s Brian suggests will recur  later on, in recollection and  \nreflection.\n\nIf that is art, it is always political, because it always takes the  \nattention payer out of the “system,” whatever it might be and however  \nmuch the managers of the system in fact solicited the artist  or the  \nwork to begin with. The huge abstract paintings of the 1950’s cold  \nonly fit on the walls of the rich, but nonetheless, as long as they  \nwere there, they took over those walls, and made the space different  \nfrom what the collector might have intended, and the same goes for  \nRenaissance art and art of other periods.\n\nThe reason different media come in is that the artist has an on-going  \nproblem as to how to capture attention as distractions and competition  \nmultiply. In some way, to be really focussed on, art must avoid being  \ntoo easy to experience, for then it can become just the background,  \njust decoration or elevator music, or something that can always be  \nattended to “later” — I.e., usually never. This is  a serious and  \nsignificant problem for new media as well, including much Internet art.\n\nExpressly political art can only succeed, it seems to me, if it comes  \nfrom the inner depths.  For instance, I just finished reading Istvan  \nKertesz’s “Fatelessness;” I don’t think it is intentionally political  \nbut it certainly made me boil with anger at the human mistreatment and  \nneglect of others. Such art brings what was already there inside us  \nand adds to its centrality. But that doesn’t happen often. In my  \nexperience most political art is superficial and therefore bad, just  \nas likely to turn off sympathetic feelings in the viewer as the  \nopposite.\n\nIncidentally,  I don’t know that good art necessarily causes us to  \nthink “Wow! I admire that.” But it doesn't easily let go of us.\n\n\nBest,\nMichael\n\nOn May 19, 2009, at 6:44 AM, Brian Holmes wrote:\n\n> carlos katastrofsky wrote:\n>\n>> if i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire\n>> it (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\n>> something autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\n>> a mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at  \n>> the\n>> same time it can be all of that.\n>\n> What does one admire a piece of art? What is its autonomy?  And what  \n> could\n> be its consequences? I have asked myself these questions for years.  \n> Like\n> most thinking people, I have come to a few conclusions. And since I  \n> like\n> the idea that art can be \"all of that\" - a form of communication, a  \n> medium,\n> new media art - I would like to share these conclusions with you.\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "date": "Tue, 19 May 2009 12:30:11 -0700",
                            "message-id": "F6688CA9&#45;F000&#45;49A8&#45;9176&#45;5F62EC6DF50A {AT} well.com",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00064",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                        },
                        {
                            "from": "eyescratch <eyescratch {AT} gmail.com>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00069.html",
                            "author_name": "eyescratch",
                            "content": "\nOn Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Brian Holmes <brian.holmes {AT} wanadoo.fr> wrote:\n\n> So you want new media? Replay your avi file of the opening\n> ceremonies of the 2008 Olympics.\n>\n> What I am trying to get at with all of this is that art is\n> essentially media, it is not merely but essentially about\n> communication, only what is communicated is not just a phrase or\n> a slogan or a piece of information, but a problematic attempt\n> to reconfigure a world on every level of sensate and imaginary\n> experience.\n\nMuch of media studies is obsessed with witnessing an existence that is\npart of mediality, to borrow a term from the previous discussion, by\nplacing great emphasis on inserting the observer into the equation.\nNevertheless these studies formulate a distinction to preserve some\nauthorship role. What this kind of representational relationship\nignores is that it precludes any kind of intervention in favor of a\nconservation. If the art cannot be conserved because it is conceptual\nor a piece of code, the identity of the author is preserved and\ncelebrated. This is because a piece of media arrives at its monetary\nvalue by being bundled with products that claim to correct the\ninjustices, needs, or ailments being described in that piece of media.\nThe media is monetized either for its value of showing a certain lack\nor showing the idealized completion that a product might fulfill. An\nauthorship identity, it turns out, can fulfill this marketing function\nnicely for the lack of any particular object that might or might not\nexist or lacks monetary value, culminating it seems these days in a\nguarded wikipedia entry.\n\nTurns out, while searching for a word to describe the process of\nentering into communication via media I looked up mediated. There is\nplenty of secondary literature on McLuhan using this word to capture\nthe processes McLuhan describes, but he himself only uses the word\nmediated with the original definition to describe the arbitration\nthat happens in a conflict. Using the term mediated in the sense that\na form of communication is performed via media, still implies that\nthere is an exchange occurring where each party must sacrifice some\nof their preconceptions in a productive process that is manufacturing\nrepresentation. Otherwise this representation veers very quickly\ntowards the ideological.\n\nhTTp://eyescratch.tk\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "date": "Sat, 23 May 2009 10:30:31 -0400",
                            "message-id": "79976e5a0905230730j58fc5bdes611529b066f69590 {AT} mail.gmail.com",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00069",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                        },
                        {
                            "from": "carlos katastrofsky <carlos.katastrofsky {AT} cont3xt.net>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00061.html",
                            "author_name": "carlos katastrofsky",
                            "content": "> I am not so sure whether I agree. It all depends on your definition of\n> \"media\". The problem is that the word \"media\" means quite different things\n> in different contexts:\n\ni agree. but exactly this is the point: media theory is swallowing\neverything, but where are its boundaries? what i am trying to find as\nartist (neither theorist nor philosopher) is a definition for art that\ngoes beyond a mere definition as \"media\" in whatever sense.\nthat is why i am aiming on the much-maligned term of \"autonomy\" (and\ni'm following here the previous mentioned philosophy of j.\nrebentisch). to me this doesn't mean art is somewhat apolotical or\ndealing solely with itself (l' art pour l'art - i guess you had this\nin mind when stating \"[...] If the basic quality of art - in the sense\nof 'Fine Art' - lies in its self-reference to its own system, then it\nwould be something very narrow and ultimately boring, [...]\"). art is\nmade to be seen/heard/whatever - to be experienced. and this\nexperience is what defines art and not media. it can change in time\n-we quite surely don't experience cave paintings in the same way the\nones did who made them- but i'm not sure if \"the media\" does, no\nmatter if it's read as \"painting/drawing\" or as \"hunting scene\". what\ni am hoping to find by this is a possibility to think about \"art\" and\nneither media nor porn or politics. these are -let's say- \"themes\"\nthat can be interpreted, but i hope that art goes beyond being a good\ndesigned set of political opinions. i mean, what political context is\nreflected in leonardo's \"last supper\"? we surely can speculate but do\nwe know? these are things that are bound to their time and context but\nnevertheless we still percieve it as \"art\".\n\n> If I take, for example, the subjects of the last nine transmediale\n> festivals (\"Do It Yourself\",\n[...]\n> One could just as well say that contemporary art deals with \"white cube\n> installation art\" with changing subtitles.\n[...]\n> The same terms abound in the contemporary art discourse if you read, for\n> example, \"October\" or \"Texte zur Kunst\".\n\nyep, exactly. and this what the \"art world\" makes as boring as \"new\nmedia art\". what i had in mind when saying that the \"fine art world is\ndealing with other subjects\" was not the (i would like to call it\nnonexistent) contemporary discourse. what can be seen in the fine arts\nfield (but not in the big biz -documenta, ps1, kw, ...) is an\ninclusion of possibilities in expression and perception which i never\nsaw in any media-art discourse (though i have to admit i am far from\nfollowing everything in that area).\n\n> Not knowing the full context of this quote, I nevertheless find such\n> systemic definitions of art quite risky. If the basic quality of art\n> - in the sense of 'Fine Art' - lies in its self-reference to its own\n> system,\n\ni'm sorry if this comes through that way, i'm not the best in\nformulating things. i never wanted to present art as solely\nself-referential system. if autonomy is read as autonomy of the object\n(l'art pour l'art) i would agree totally with you. but seen from the\nviewpoint that \"art\" may not lie in an object but somewhere between\nthe object and the observer (experience, perception) an autonomy of\nart is essential.\n\n\nthank you all for your replies :-)\n\nbest,\ncarlos\n-- \nhttp://katastrofsky.cont3xt.net\nhttp://cont3xt.net\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "date": "Tue, 19 May 2009 15:14:35 +0200",
                            "message-id": "fb9095bf0905190614l39062a34j17867e0d82469c5f {AT} mail.gmail.com",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00061",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                        },
                        {
                            "from": "Station Rose <gunafa {AT} well.com>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00072.html",
                            "author_name": "Station Rose",
                            "content": "\nOn Sunday, May 17 2009, 10:59 (+0200), florian cramer wrote:\n\n>If I take, for example, the subjects of the last nine transmediale\n>festivals (\"Do It Yourself\", \"Go Public\", \"Play Global\", \"Fly\n>Utopia\", \"Basics\", \"Reality Addicts\", \"Unfinish\", \"Conspire\", \"Deep\n>North\"), they could just as well have been the names of contemporary\n>art exhibitions at PS.1 in New York, KW in Berlin, Witte de With in\n>Rotterdam, or any other contemporary art space.\n\nbut it wasnt like that cause it was happening ONLY in a festival     .\n<ghetto> situation                                                   .\n\nas I see it, many art people are not going to events like\ntransmediale, cause its not seen as an important place for art. I dont\ngo, besides when we are actively part of it.\n\nlooks like media art is not sexy enough. the exhibits, as part of\nfestivals, are often too prudish. everything sensual seems forbidden,\n\ntoo often it s needs written explanations to understand the\n(political) work.\n\nI do not believe - and I say that as an artist- that the written word\nis necessary to <understand> a piece of art.it can help and make\ndetails transparent, but its not necessary in advance.\n\n\nmy own experience with Station Rose media art projects-like recently\nLogInCabin in MAK Vienna- is : they are recognized & seen in art\nspaces, museums by the art scene, but not as much in a so called media\nart context as festivals are.\n\nbasically my impression is that as long as a dicussion like that one\ngoes on, it makes clear that the art world is something and the media\nart scene is out of it.\n\n\n-- \n----------------------------------------------------\nStation Rose     digital_audio  - visual art      http://www.stationrose.com\n....................    Gary Danner & Elisa Rose\n\nFrankfurt   - Cyberspace -  Vienna.\n\n* recent project: 20 Digital Years. \"LogInCabin\" mediascultpure at \nMAK Vienna_sold\n* new: \"Interstellar Overdrive CD\" Japan release (2.09)\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "date": "Sun, 24 May 2009 13:52:26 +0200",
                            "message-id": "a06200701c63ee015f460 {AT} [192.168.1.100]",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00072",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis"
                        }
                    ],
                    "date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 10:59:58 +0200",
                    "message-id": "fb9095bf0905170159ldd82c24t9b13cac4653349dd {AT} mail.gmail.com",
                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                    "id": "00049",
                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                },
                {
                    "from": "Matze Schmidt <matze.schmidt {AT} n0name.de>",
                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00045.html",
                    "author_name": "Matze Schmidt",
                    "content": "\nThursday, May 14, 2009, 10:28:59 PM, one wrote:\n> On Monday, May 11 2009, 21:29 (+0200), Geert Lovink wrote:\n\n>> While society at large is inundated with (new) media, the art      \n>> branch that deals with the digital moved itself in a ghetto.       \n\n> This is too true, and that branch has to reinvent itself from\n> scratch or it will collapse very soon (if it isn't already\n> collapsing).\n\nMh, so let it be killing itself, the Reinvent Yourself-Discourse is a\nline from the Pet Shop Boys from the 90s and says nothing than \"Nobody\nknows the trouble I've seen\" in a 'modern' reinvented (sic!) way. But\nI cannot see the trouble of this hard front line between a Paik and\na Ubermorgen. For example the \"1001 Songs of eBay\" of uebermorgen is\njust a funny funny project I can implement over the weekend dealing\nwith online politics sex. And this confused and disoriented waiting\nfor the new-old avantgarde like \"Let's do many Paiks\" is boring and\ndoes not have anything to do with the real world in which electronics\nare the basis of the doings. What was really radical in a Paik?\nFucking the Porta Pack with Alternative TV-Ideas or the TV-Sets with a\nmagnet? Were the neo-dada fluxus guys radical anyway or just radical?\n\n> as if radical video art from Paik to Infermental had never happened.\n> (It seems as if most contemporary artists actually don't know it\n> anymore which is comparable to painters no longer knowing about\n> abstract painting.) One should perhaps advise Montevideo just not to\n> leave its video art roots behind.\n\nI'd like to point out at this point that institutions like Montevideo\nare revolutionizers of money, e.g. they payed Jaromil for working\non dynebolican stuff and by this means they are able to rescue the\nmiddle-class fantasies of a free arty market of software on the basis\nof electronics, a market without too much money and with lower prices,\nwith all effects of an open source software\"z\" driven by the mediate\nsupport of the state.\n\nBut while talking to them some years ago the Montevideo people turned\nout to be very naive in political questions. They have no idea about\neconomy and no idea of what is going on out of their field. That's\nokay, as long as they incorporate all folklore and avantgarde at the\nsam time, because it is their mandate and mission.\n\nMatze Schmidt\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                    "follow-up": [
                        {
                            "from": "jaromil <jaromil {AT} dyne.org>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00047.html",
                            "author_name": "jaromil",
                            "content": "\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA1\n\n\nre all,\n\nfirst of all  thanks Matze for your consideration  of my activity, but\nlet me  warn you are  overestimating the benefits of  my collaboration\nwith Montevideo / Time Based  Arts ...  which is now called Nederlands\nInstituut voor Mediakunst  (NIMK, BTW): it takes more  to be \"rescuing\nthe middle-class fantasies  of a free arty market  of software\" as you\nsay, if  we speak of a national  institute that started in  a squat in\nAmsterdam 30 years  ago and has seen a  constant flow of contributions\nby various people  through all these years, most  of them really worth\nconsidering.\n\nOn Fri, May 15, 2009 at 05:23:12PM +0200, Matze Schmidt wrote:\n> I'd  like  to  point  out  at  this  point  that  institutions  like\n> Montevideo are revolutionizers of money, e.g. they payed Jaromil for\n> working on dynebolican stuff\n\nif it  would be just the  action of redistribution of  wealth, then it\nwouldn't  be   revolutionary  at  all.   Some   artists  produced  and\ndistributed  by Montevideo did  became rich,  but for  them Montevideo\nmostly contributed to the  production quality of their artworks rather\nthan direct funding.\n\njust consider that  if my lifestyle would be  \"middle-class fantasy\" i\ncould  not afford  to  sustainably  live in  Amsterdam  relying on  my\ncurrent employment, but lucky me i'm not a yuppie :) and i'm fine like\nthat.  for the  minimum support i get, needed as i  care to support me\nand my extended  family when needed, i have to do  much more than just\ndeveloping \"my own projects\", but still all results can be free to the\npublic,: that shouldn't be special for a public institution, right?  i\nbelieve this is the good signal  NIMK gives - not such a revolutionary\none, but pretty honest: there  are often various degrees of corruption\nleading   public  institutions  to   play  commercially   with  public\nresources.\n\nother  than that,  we can  call \"progressive  attitude\" -  rather than\nrevolutionary\" -  when institutions are keen to  interact with liminal\ncontexts,  with dwellers on  the dystopian  hearth pulsating  in every\nmetropolis of our \"Free Western World\".  This kind of interaction (and\nthe respect for the uncommon ground  in between) is indeed part of the\nheritage of  a city like Mokum  A - unfortunately  decaying rapidly as\nEurope is turning  into a Fortress for the  privileged and their fears\nof the disinherited children of the welfare mirage.\n\nat last  about the  interaction i  mention here: i'm  not sure  how to\ndefine it,  its likely  not a negotiation  nor a compromise,  i'm just\nsure  it is  necessary in  any case:  whether we  accept  the upcoming\ninstitutionalised  \"Reinvent  Yourself\"  strategy  or  not.   I  would\nrecommend  a  case-by-case  analysis  in  this  regards,  rather  than\nthinking universally... like institutions often do ;^)\n\nregarding your vague critiques let me reply:\n\n> with all effects of an open source software\"z\" driven by the mediate\n> support of the state.\n\ndyne.org  development  is not  driven  by  any  state, corporation  or\ninstitution rather  than by the  many problems these  power structures\ngenerate.  we  dedicate most  of our free  time to peer  reviewed free\nsoftware  development  in  socially  relevant  contexts  (please  note\n\"development\", not  provision of services)  and as hackers  we operate\npragmatically, on-line as well in various different on-site contexts.\n\n> But  while talking  to them  some  years ago  the Montevideo  people\n> turned out  to be  very naive in  political questions. They  have no\n> idea about  economy and  no idea of  what is  going on out  of their\n> field. That's  okay, as  long as they  incorporate all  folklore and\n> avantgarde at the sam time, because it is their mandate and mission.\n\ni'd  be  curious  to  know  what  you  consider  \"naive  in  political\nquestions\": myself  i've felt  enriched by the  past 4 and  more years\nspent  in  Amsterdam,  by my  colleagues  at  NIMK  (which is  not  so\nuniformed in its  composition BTW) as well by  the squatters in A'dam,\nfrom De Bierkoning to the Waag Society.\n\nbacking my  objection, i'll point you  out some coverage  on NIMK's 30\nyears symposium (just happened last week):\n\nhttp://www.we-make-money-not-art.com/archives/2009/05/the-netherlands-media-art-inst.php\n\npasting  you  here  the  transcription  of  my  intervention  at  this\nsymposium,  let  it  be   also  a  contribution  to  this  interesting\ndiscussion thread:\n\n                            ------------\n\nAt the NIMK's symposium \"Positions in Flux\" I've taken the occasion to\nshare thoughts  on the  current perception of  Free Software  and Open\nSource philosophy  in art,  along with some  overdue criticism  of the\nCreative Commons hollow  hype, as well of the  Creative Industries and\ntheir systematised processing  of art for the global  market.  Even if\nnot  obvious, I  believe the  dynamics  of these  two phenomenons  are\nrelated; among the quoted in the intervention are Benjamin Mako Hill's\n\"Towards a Standard of  Freedom: CreativeCommons and the Free Software\nMovement\"[1] and Florian Cramer's post on nettime \"The Creative Common\nMisunderstanding\"[2],  while  the vigorous  critique  of the  Creative\nIndustries  stands on  Rana Dasgupta's  essay  \"The Next  Idea of  the\nArtist  (Art,   music  and  the  present   threat  of  creativity)\"[3]\n\n\nHere below a short transcript:\n\n\"Open Source\" doesn't mean free access, nor open space or open air; it\npresumes  a  seamful[4]  approach  to  design as  a  response  to  the\nincreasing  reliance  on  technology  and  its  accessibility;  it  is\ninteractive without prescribed  boundaries, following a combinatorial,\ngenerative approachto development;  it is peer to peer  as no producer\ncan control further interaction patterns; it is grassroot as creations\nare  born out  of  initiative and  cohesion  based on  needs felt  and\nunderstood in first person by community members.\n\nAbout  Creative  Commons, its  motto  \"Some  rights  reserved.\"  is  a\nrelatively  hollow  call:  the  slogan  factually  reverses  the  Free\nSoftware and Open Source philosophy  of reserving rights to users, not\ncopyright owners,  in order  to allow the  former to  become producers\nthemselves. The dis/appropriating loop of creativity must be recursive\nto be  fruitful: not only  productionmeans belong to the  people using\nthem, further creations  should be free to be  recombined. rights must\nbe granted  focusing on people  interacting, not just  those providing\nthe interactive infrastructure.\n\nUnfortunately there  is a diffuse lack of  perception for alternatives\noffered by  the Open  Source and Free  Software approach  over current\nprofit models.  As  a present problem, also deriving  from the lack of\nunderstanding  of the  importance of  grass-root  creativity, top-down\ncultural   management  is   patronising   art  production:   massmedia\naesthetics of  an entirely sanitised and efficient  creativity, of the\nsort  that will  not  rely on  unstable  people and  can therefore  be\nglobally rationalised.\n\nThat the  great artists of  modern Western culture managed  to produce\nwhat they  did, despitethe danger  and intensity of their  effort, was\ndue in large  part to improvised social forms  built around close-knit\nnetworks  where  thought and  affect  circulated  with high  velocity,\nandwhere it  was possible to  try out forms of  non-conventional human\nrelationships that would  not destroy, nor be destroyed  by, a life of\nart. Seen  from an historical perspective,  In the second  half of the\ntwentieth  century many  of the  functions of  creative  networks were\nalready  taken  over in  Europe  by  institutions (government  funding\nbodies,  universities,  museums,  etc)  and much  of  their  excessive\nfeeling  wasneutralised. This  was  only  a small  part  of a  general\nprocess of the time: the absorption of human emotion into bureaucratic\nchannels,  and the  emergence of  a social  coolness,  anefficiency of\nfeeling.\n\nAt this  stage in the  twenty-first century, we  are in the  middle of\nanother   large-scale  restructuring  of   ideas  of   creativity  and\nculture. As one of the most significant generators of image and value,\ncreativity now has become a  critical resource for the global economic\nengine.   What creativity  is,  and  how it  can  be systematised  and\ncirculated, are therefore  urgent questions of contemporary capitalist\norganisation.   As  cultural  producers   are  thrust  into  the  full\nintensity of  globally dispersed, just-in-time  production, new images\nof creative inspiration and output are required that sit tidily within\nthe systematised  processes of the  global market. Creativity  must be\nrendered comprehensible,  transparent and rational: there  can be none\nof  the destructive  excesses  evident in  the  lives of  many of  the\ngreatest  artists  of  European  history.  Creativity  must  circulate\ncleanly and quickly, and it  should leave no dirty remainder. For what\ninterests Hollywood, and the market in general, is not creativity as a\ncomplex human  process, weighed down  in bodies and  relationships and\nempty days,  but creativity as  an abstraction, free  of irrationality\nand  pain, and  light enough  to  hover like  a great  logo above  the\ncontinents.\n\nPerhaps, as the logic  of systematised production occupies the terrain\nof human  creativitymore completely,  we will reach  a stage  where we\nsurrender  all knowledge  about  this troubling  domain,  and it  will\nbecome entirely alien  to us. Perhaps one day we  will be terrified of\nwhat  explosive dangers  might rise  up from  the creativity  of human\nbeings.\n\n[1] http://mako.cc/writing/toward_a_standard_of_freedom.html\n\n[2] http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0610/msg00025.html\n\n[3] http://ranadasgupta.com/texts.asp?text_id=45\n\n[4] http://www.themobilecity.nl/2008/01/05/designing-for-locative-media-seamless-or-seamful-experiences/\n\n\n- -- \n\njaromil, dyne.org developer, http://jaromil.dyne.org\n\nGPG: 779F E8B5 47C7 3A89 4112  64D0 7B64 3184 B534 0B5E\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)\n\niEYEARECAAYFAkoP/aAACgkQe2QxhLU0C15y4ACeKYaj8pNKu7lS/Z1sIuVUtbfL\nmBUAn2h7gwq7AN0Gsv+lgidMWqZoga1q\n=Skrp\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 14:05:54 +0200",
                            "message-id": "20090517120554.GA4808 {AT} dyne.or",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00047",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                        },
                        {
                            "from": "\"xname\" <root {AT} xname.cc>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00050.html",
                            "author_name": "xname",
                            "content": "> jaromil said:\n> Montevideo / Time Based  Arts ...  which is now called Nederlands\n> Instituut voor Mediakunst  (NIMK, BTW)\n> if  we speak of a national  institute that started in  a squat in\n> Amsterdam 30 years  ago\n\nHello.\n\nI did not remember that the 'Nimk' was started in a squat: isn't this the\nstory of Paradiso and Melkweg?\n\nAs far as I know the 'Netherlands Media Art Institute' was born when\n'Monte Video' and 'Time Based Arts' merged (1993).\n\nMonte Video was founded by René Coelho in 1978, and initially operated\nfrom his house in Amsterdam. (was that squatted? I tend to doubt.)\nMonte Video focused on video art and provided equipment for producing\nworks and space to show them (soon collecting and distributing...\nvideo-tapes!).\n\nTime Based Arts was founded in 1983 by the Association of Video Artists,\nso it was an artists run association creating a network for distribution;\nit was more performance oriented than Monte Video, according to the story\nthat was narrated to me, and which I deduced from the collection. (Can\nanyone confirm this, please?)\nWere they squatting? But they were getting funding...\nI am somewhat curious.\n\nMaybe other people on this list know more.\n\nThere is a page of history on the nimk.nl, but i saw no wikipedia entry on\nthis topic.\nI find the *story of this institute quite beautiful and paradigmatic in\nthe development of the (non-linear) chain of media mutations (which could\noff course be expanded):\n\nhappening/performance (art=life)\nelectronic art\nvideo-art (art=registration)\nmedia-art, software-art (art=simulation)\n\nI paste it below.\n\nBest,\nEleonora\n\n===\n\n**History**\n\n1978\nMonte Video is founded by René Coelho. From his home on the Singel in\nAmsterdam he makes equipment and documentation available, and furnishes\none room as a gallery. The first video artist whose work is shown here on\nthe Singel was Livinus van de Bundt, Coelho's inspiration. Other artists,\nsuch as Bill Viola, Gary Hill, Shelly Silver and Gabor Body, soon make\ncontact. It is not long before Monte Video has a large selection of works\navailable for rental.\n\n1983\nThanks to government funding Monte Video is able to move to Amsterdam\nNorth. There is now sufficient space to offer regular presentations. Not\nonly Dutch artists, but also those from other countries are given a chance\nto show their videos or installations.\n\n1986\nGovernment funding received by Monte Video is cut back to almost nothing.\nMonte Video does receive several small transitional grants from the city\nof Amsterdam.\nTime Based Arts, which had been founded in 1983 by the Association of\nVideo Artists, is fast becoming well-known as a distributor of video art,\nand continues receiving government funding.\n\n1986-1993\nRené Coelho continues on his own. Monte Video moves back to his home on\nthe Singel. The acquisition of production facilities, distribution,\ndocumentation and promotion goes on, financed from his own income and by\norganizing large projects. One of these, as an example, was 'Imago', an\nexhibition of Dutch video installations which toured worldwide for five\nyears beginning in 1990. There were also plans laid for the first\nconservation programs for video art.\nThe chairman of Time Based Arts, Aart van Barneveld, died; his death was\nfollowed by many conflicts within the organization. In the early 1990s\nTime Based Arts also lost its subsidies and threatened to go under. Monte\nVideo and Time Based Arts decide to provide a joint art program for\nAmsterdam cable TV, Channel Zero.\n\n1993\nTime Based Arts merges with Monte Video. Their work is continued under the\nnew name of Netherlands Media Art Institute, Montevideo/Time Based Arts.\nThis fusion does free up national funding. In both 1997 and 2001 the\ngrants are expanded and converted into a structural subsidy for four\nyears.\n\n1993-2002\nThe Netherlands Media Art Institute moves twice, in 1994 to the Spuistraat\nand in 1997 to its present location on the Keizersgracht.\nThe Institute continues to grow through these years, and adopts the\nfollowing mission statement: The Netherlands Media Art Institute supports\nmedia art in three core areas: presentation, research and conservation. At\nthe same time, through its facilities it offers extensive services for\nartists and art institutions. Among these services are educational\nprograms, to be developed to accompany all activities.\n\nand\n\n**History of the Collection**\n\nThe collection of the Netherlands Media Art Institute, Montevideo/Time\nBased Arts reflects the turbulent history of the Institute. In addition to\nthe collection of Monte Video, the predecessor of the Netherlands Media\nArt Institute, the Institute administers the collections of four\ninstitutions: the Lijnbaan Center (1970-1982), Time Based Arts\n(1983-1994), De Appel (1975-1983) and the Institute Collection\nNetherlands. This combination of artists' initiatives (Time Based Arts, De\nAppel and the Lijnbaan Center) and more formal institutions (Institute\nCollection Netherlands and the present Netherlands Media Art Institute)\naffords the collection a surprising diversity. In addition to renowned\nartists like Bill Viola, Nam June Paik and Gary Hill (who were represented\nin the collection as far back as the 1970s), there are internationally\nknown Dutch artists who experimented with the medium for only a short\nperiod in the 1970s, such as Marinus Boezem, Jan van Munster and Pieter\nEngels.\nBefore any institutions at all had yet been created for the purpose of\ncollecting small centers were set up in various parts of The Netherlands\nwhich facilitated and promoted the use of video by and for artists. The\nearliest examples of this were Agora Studios in Maastricht, the Lijnbaan\nCenter in Rotterdam (itself a merger of the studio of Venster in Rotterdam\nand the video studio which was set up for the Sonsbeek exhibition in 1971\nin Arnhem), and a couple of individuals such as the artists Miguel-Ángel\nCárdenas and Jack Moore in Amsterdam, who made their cameras available for\nother artists. Many of the works which were made in this earliest period\nof Dutch video art only surfaced from oblivion in the course of the 1990s.\nSurprising discoveries among them are the works of Dennis Oppenheim, Terry\nFox, Wim Gijzen, Nan Hoover and Tajiri.\n\nWith the arrival of the collection of De Appel an enormously rich\ncollection of video records of performances was added. De Appel flourished\nin the 1970s as one of the most progressive international work sites for\nperformance art. The collection of this institution contained unique works\nby Vito Acconci, Laurie Anderson, Gina Pane, Carolee Schneemann and\nothers. But in addition to records of events in her own gallery, Wies\nSmalls, the founder of De Appel, also built up a collection of\ninternational video art in order to enable the Dutch public to become\nacquainted with what was happening internationally, including work by\nDouglas Davis, Ulrike Rosenbach, Joan Jonas and Alison Knowles.\n\nIn the early 1980s, with De Appel as its base, efforts were begun to\nestablish an association for video artists, which later created the Time\nBased Arts Foundation. The collection of this artists' association, in\naddition to works by artists based in The Netherlands, such as\nAbramovic/Ulay, Hooykaas/Stansfield, Ben d'Armagnac, Christine Chiffrun\nand Lydia Schouten, also included work by international artists like Mona\nHatoum and General Idea.\nTime Based Arts maintained an active collection policy, in which any\nartist who worked with video could try to have his or her work included in\nthe collection. As it grew the collection became enormously diverse and\nafforded a good overview of the various ways that video could be employed\nin the visual arts. Through in to the 1990s Time Based Arts played an\nimportant role in the collection, distribution and support of video art\nuntil, in 1994, under pressure from the municipal authorities of\nAmsterdam, it entered into a merger with Monte Video.\n\nRené Coelho began his video gallery Monte Video in 1978, and in doing so\nlaid the foundation for the present Institute. Monte Video was a gallery\nwhich specialized in electronic art and especially in video art that\nsought out the creative possibilities and qualities of the medium itself.\nAn important impetus for establishing the institution was the work of the\nDutch video pioneer Livinus van de Bundt. He was therefore the first\nartist to be shown in the gallery. Later the Vasulkas, Bert Schutter,\nPeter Bogers, Matthew Schlanger and many others followed. In addition to\nthe works that were to be seen in the gallery, Monte Video began to be\nactive in collecting and distributing work. Bill Viola, Gary Hill, Shelly\nSilver and Gabor Body were for instance artists who 'stabled' their work\nwith Monte Video. The gallery owed its international success chiefly to\nthis. When in the 1990s the conservation of video works became a pressing\nproblem, the then merged Montevideo/Time Based Arts established itself as\nthe goad and later as the center of technical expertise for carrying out\nthe Conservation of Dutch Video Art project. As well as the collections\ndescribed above, there was integral cooperation with museums that over the\ncourse of time had also collected video work. In addition to much\ntechnical research, the conservation efforts also prompted considerable\nrecording work and research into content. Among questions dealt with were\nthe status of the vehicle, the significance of the material chosen and\nestablishing the boundary conditions for proper exhibition. Because of the\ndifferences in approach among the institutions from which they came,\nconsiderable time was spent integrating the collections with one another,\nand getting the possibilities for the use of the works coordinated with\none another. But now, with the end of the conservation project in sight,\nthe gaps between the collections appear to be closing ever more, and we\ncan proudly present our multi-faceted collection to the public, as we do\nhere.\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 15:40:16 +0200 (CEST)",
                            "message-id": "3266070d80132b99ebf3351b5cb71455.squirrel {AT} tuxic.nl",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00050",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Media Mutations - Life | Registration | Simulation (was: Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis)"
                        },
                        {
                            "from": "Matze Schmidt <matze.schmidt {AT} n0name.de>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00059.html",
                            "author_name": "Matze Schmidt",
                            "content": ">> [...] Arts\n\n> what art\n\n> True, art\n\nIn short: No money (as one of the forms of profit) without art, no art\nwithout politics. This is a simple formula and any Baudrillard would\nhave secretly subcribed this, even in an epoch of ended (Hegel and \nfollowers) or never realized (Debord and followers) art. The fact is,\nwe* don't need art as art, but -- and someone like jaromil shows this\nto us** -- we need other conditions, as painting, code or video or\ndiy-cooking if you like, I don't care -- changing media is always good.\nBut we are not able to produce the conditions 'now' -- like someone like\njaromil is may thinking -- because the conditions produce us, alienate\nus; they will allways produce us (products produce consumption and vice\nversa), but these conditions are (straightforward now) have to be\nuncaged from ruling modes of production, in the meant sector reproduced\nby national institutions (ZKM in Germany, Ex-Montevideo in NL, your\npersonal MTV at home). The New Media Arts Crisis is not my crisis, It's\njust the crisis of the middle-class (Yuppie or not, fallen programmer or\nrising video-installer) in form of some arts with newer or older media,\nmay it a t-shirt or an lcd. So there is no aftermath here but the\neffects of a mixed up (I love this status and condition) highbrow, baby!\nelite meshed with an alternative \"green\" and independent buisness party\nwith no idea of real coding out there (forget networks, they are roped\nparties).\n__________\n* and ** Me, I and you as the readers who follows this text.\n\nM\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 11:22:02 +0200",
                            "message-id": "1739011317.20090518112202 {AT} n0name.",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00059",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Media Mutations - Life | Registration | Simulation\t(was: Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis)"
                        }
                    ],
                    "date": "Fri, 15 May 2009 17:23:12 +0200",
                    "message-id": "9394574.20090515172312 {AT} n0name.",
                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                    "id": "00045",
                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                },
                {
                    "from": "Renee Turner <geuzen {AT} xs4all.nl>",
                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00046.html",
                    "author_name": "Renee Turner",
                    "content": "\nHi Florian,\n\nYou point towards a classic issue, the relevance of context. What do\ndifferent registers (fine art, media art, design, activism, popular\nculture etc.) give to a particular work and what does a categorization\nexclude, meaning what does it make *impossible*. Every register\ninfluences interpretation, (in)visibility, production and funding.\n\n> Since the 1990s, the so-called Fine Arts do provide no really\n> desirable environment either, likely they're even worse. It is\n> telling enough that the term \"Fine Art\" suddenly has become a\n> universally accepted standard while, not a long time ago, any\n> self-respecting contemporary artist would have fiercely rejected\n> if not opposed it. In the past ten years of reading contemporary\n> art magazines or visiting art biennales and Documentas, I've been\n> flabbergasted by the lack of vision and radicalism in this field. It\n> has morphed, somewhat comparable to New (composed) Music after the\n> 1960s, into an academic discourse ruled by a neo-bourgeois jet set\n> of hipster curators posing as cultural theorists on the basis of a\n> not-even-half-baked knowledge and recycling of postmodern philosophy\n> and cultural studies. The system consists of artists who have been\n> academically trained to produce works - along with non-understood\n> theory lingo - that fit the required curatorial buzz.\n\nCan you speak more specifically about which curators, what art\neducational programs, which artists and what practices? For a\nconstructive debate, it's important to avoid caricatures, otherwise\nthere's a risk of creating false enemies, or missing out on how to\nbest counter the real ones.\n\nAnd as an aside, I have to admit when I read \"not-even-half-baked\nknowledge\" and \"non-understood, I caught myself wondering who are\nthe guardians of proper interpretation when it comes to theory. (not\nto mention, which theories) After all, couldn't theory be mutable in\ndifferent contexts or even hackable? In other words, can it too be\npracticed, tested and changed once it hits the ground or encounters a\nspecific situation or discipline?\n\n> Along with this development, the paradigm of the white cube and art\n> works as good-looking exhibition objects has become stronger than\n> ever before and rules out any art practice not fitting this format.\n\nIt's true the white cube is a dominant force to be reckoned\nwith (or not, depending on what art world you dwell in ;-), but\ninterventionists/social/political practices have also continued....\n(both of the digital and analog sort). You mention UBERMORGEN, and I\nwould add The Temporary Travel Office, SubRosa, Mongrel, AUDC, Jorge\nBlasco's Cultures of the Archive, Marcelo Exposito's various projects,\nThe Center for Land Use Interpretation, Beatriz da Costa and others...\nMaybe \"tactical\" is a red thread through these works?\n\n> All the while, the system thrives on the delusion that it still\n> represents visual art as a whole although, unlike, for example, in\n> film where 'highbrow' and 'lowbrow' still coexist, its popular forms\n> like comic books, tattoos, fantasy figurines, t-shirt illustrations,\n> wildlife paintings... have long been excluded from its system.\n>\n\nhmmmm....not sure about this, having worked as a hybrid artist/\ndesigner/curator/media artist/collaborator for some time now, again\nI reiterate that there are many different artworlds (and for that\nmatter artists/inhabitants/vagrants). Sometimes they intersect, rub\nnext to each other, come into agitation or simply run on parallel\ntracks. (Not too disimilar from the so-called new media world.) Think\nof open source practitioners, the Max/Flash folk, and those that poach\nthe web's detritus for their own purposes, they're all a part of new\nmedia arts, but each tend to dwell in different corners of the digital\nuniverse (or maybe not, if you're one of those cross-pollinators :-)\n\n> Instead, we get artists like Mike Kelley all over the art\n> world in whose work I'm either not getting something or indeed\n> seeing the Emperor's new clothes. (\"Review\" babble like\n> http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/tomorrow_never_comes1/ affirms\n> the suspicion that the art world has no clue either.)\n\nI haven't seen this particular work so hesitate to judge. I do however\nfind it a little problematic to make sweeping statements about the\nEmperor's New Clothes and the \"art world's\" cluelessness based on one\nreview and one artist.\n\n\n>> Director Heiner Holtappels opened by noticing that new media art\n>> is not easily accepted by fine art. Traditional art has become\n>> eclecticism. According to Heiner, all art is technology based.\n>\n> This is true, yet contemporary art has mostly given up on reflecting\n> its media. [I can almost hear an iPhone-wearing curator saying that\n> reflecting one's media is outmoded modernism.]\n\nouch, how stereotypes do prevail. I wonder if there would be a\nparadigm shift if he/she had been envisioned with a pre-paid nokia.\n;-)\n\n\nRenee\nhttp://www.geuzen.org/\nhttp://www.fudgethefacts.com/\nhttp://www.geuzen.org/female_icons/\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                    "follow-up": [
                        {
                            "from": "lorian Cramer <fc-nettime {AT} pleintekst.nl>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00068.html",
                            "author_name": "Florian Cramer",
                            "content": "\nHey Renee,\n \n> You point towards a classic issue, the relevance of context. What do\n> different registers (fine art, media art, design, activism, popular\n> culture etc.) give to a particular work and what does a categorization\n> exclude, meaning what does it make *impossible*. Every register\n> influences interpretation, (in)visibility, production and funding.\n\nYeah, and inevitably, these registers are not just different chosen\nperspectives we have on particular works, but also institutional and\ndisciplinary contexts in which workers have to put their work and\nwhose written and unwritten rules they can't avoid abiding.\n\n> Can you speak more specifically about which curators, what art\n> educational programs, which artists and what practices?\n\nI was really thinking of the contemporary art system as it has been\ndescribed by its own protagonists, for example in Isabelle Graw's\n2008 book \"Der grosse Preis\", or has been analyzed, with means that\nreally deserve the term \"artistic research\", by Hans Haacke as early\nas in the 1970s in such pieces as \"The Chocolate Master\". And many\npeople have criticized that system from within, from Henry Flynt in\nthe 1960s to the writer and \"Thing Hamburg\"-blogger Michel Chevalier\ntoday. I think it is legitimate to make a sweepingly general critique\nof the contemporary art system just as it is legitimate to generally\ncriticize and attack the music industry and contemporary popular music\nsystem for example. That doesn't mean that there would be absolutely\nno good music coming out of that system. But unlike other culture\nindustries, the contemporary (Fine) Art system often falsely believes\nin its own autonomy. And it's my general experience and opinion that\nthe art I'm more interested in is more often than not to be found in\nplaces outside that system. In the 1960s, this was true for Fluxus\nand Situationism, in the 1970s and 1980s for the Mail Art Network and\npostpunk, and in the 1990s for Net.art, the Luther Blissett project or\nthe alternative pornography movement. Today, to speak in terms of our\nboth hometown Rotterdam, I'm finding the interesting contemporary arts\nat places like WORM and De Player and only rarely at Witte de With,\nfor example.\n\n> For a constructive debate, it's important to avoid caricatures,\n> otherwise there's a risk of creating false enemies, or missing out\n> on how to best counter the real ones.\n\nWell, this is true, and I admit that my posting was polemical\n- and emotional. My gripes with the contemporary art\nsystem are also based on bad personal experience and\nconfrontations such as the one with the \"Just Do It\" exhibition\n<http://www.mail-archive.com/nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net/msg02876.html>.\n\n> hmmmm....not sure about this, having worked as a hybrid artist/\n> designer/curator/media artist/collaborator for some time now, again\n> I reiterate that there are many different artworlds (and for that\n> matter artists/inhabitants/vagrants).\n\nIndeed. It's just that the particular art world I mentioned above\n- and which can be roughly described as the art world of the many\nbiennials, the Documenta, contemporary art spaces like PS.1 and KW,\ncontemporary art journals like October, Texte zur Kunst, Springerin\nand Metropolis M, too often monopolizes the term \"art\" for the art\nthat it represents. Admittedly, its system can be permissive and\ninclude 'outside' practices, particularly when a curatorial subject\nrequires it. However, it would be possible to map the institutions\nmentioned above just by the overlap of the people they involve,\nand come up with a fairly good representation of what makes up\ncontemporary art.\n\nThey same is true, no doubt, if you take ars electronica, transmediale\nand ISEA, plus Leonardo, Neural, Rhizome and Nettime, ZKM and ICC\nTokyo, and pin down the system \"media art\". But just as that latter\nsystem is now being - deservedly - questioned and undergoing a huge\nif not terminal structural crisis, I think it is as legitimate to\nquestion the contemporary Fine Art system, and the Western concept of\nautonomous art. So, going back to Geert's initial report about the\ndiscussion about the crisis of \"Media Art\" at Montevideo Amsterdam,\nI think that it can't be a solution to integrate a very questionable\n\"media art\" system into an equally questionable contemporary art\nsystem. [As it is now happening, in education, too, for example in the\nZurich art school media department where Felix Stalder teaches, and\nwhere the media programme has been rolled back into Fine Art on the\nMaster level.]\n\n> Sometimes they intersect, rub next to each other, come into\n> agitation or simply run on parallel tracks. (Not too disimilar from\n> the so-called new media world.) Think of open source practitioners,\n> the Max/Flash folk, and those that poach the web's detritus for\n> their own purposes, they're all a part of new media arts, but each\n> tend to dwell in different corners of the digital notion universe\n> (or maybe not, if you're one of those cross-pollinators :-)\n\nYep, only that what you describe above is really declining and may not\nsee much art funding or support in the future. The writing is on the\nwall.\n\n> >> Director Heiner Holtappels opened by noticing that new media art\n> >> is not easily accepted by fine art. Traditional art has become\n> >> eclecticism. According to Heiner, all art is technology based.\n> >\n> > This is true, yet contemporary art has mostly given up on\n> > reflecting its media. [I can almost hear an iPhone-wearing curator\n> > saying that reflecting one's media is outmoded modernism.]\n>\n> ouch, how stereotypes do prevail. I wonder if there would be a\n> paradigm shift if he/she had been envisioned with a pre-paid nokia.\n> ;-)\n\nI should have told that the above example was taken from a real\nlife experience, although it's admittedly a deliberate caricature\nwhen I I blew it out of proportion as above. I agree very much with\nBrian that artistic practices (to put it as broadly) are deeply\nintertwined in culture and communication. There's a good chance,\nand I really mean this, that I am getting old - in punk terms:\na boring old fart - who's insisting on outmoded viewpoints. But\nI think that critiques of modernism, as legitimate as they are,\nbecome problematic when they're used to legitimize and maintain the\nstatus quo. [An extreme example is the contemporary art gallery\nscene and private collections in Berlin and their intrinsic links to\nthe German discourse of \"Neue Bürgerlichkeit\" (\"new bourgeoisie\")\n<http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_Bürgerlichkeit>.] The current\neconomic, political and social developments should render all\nnotions of posthistoire and non-rupture in the fabric of culture and\ncommunication, and hence also in the arts, all the more obsolete.\nThey also question the bourgeois insistence on artistic practice as a\nproduct of individual subjectivity. And finally, the contemporary art\nfield has been much ahead of the media art system in postcolonialism;\nhowever, if this reflection is serious, it should not exclude the\nnotion and system of art itself.\n\nWell, anyway, since the Geuzen collective of which you're a member\noperates in its own carefully chosen grey zone between art, activism,\ndesign, media, research and education, I actually think that our\nstandpoints are quite similar, just that our points of departure\nregarding the usefulness of the contemporary art system might\ndiffer. For me, the projects of De Geuzen are a very good example\nfor a post-autonomous artistic practice. Again, although I'm no\nfriend of the media art system, I'm quite sure that it would be\npractices like those of the Geuzen that would suffer and struggle\nto find institutional support once the \"media art\" system will\nhave vanished and been replaced with the existing contemporary art\nsystem (particularly the more cut-throat kind of the USA, Germany\nand England, with people who are anxious not to pollute Fine Art\nwith applied or sociocultural practices they hate and detest as\nnon-artistic [1].).\n\nFlorian\n\n\n[1] a good example would be Berlin's Künstlerhaus Bethanien, a renown\ncontemporary arts space, whose director Christoph Tannert bitterly\nfights a group of squatters and their sociocultural center in his own\nbuilding. \n\n\n\n-- \nblog:     http://en.pleintekst.nl\nhomepage: http://cramer.pleintekst.nl:70\n          gopher://cramer.pleintekst.nl\n\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "date": "Sat, 23 May 2009 02:05:03 +0200",
                            "message-id": "20090523000503.GA17293 {AT} hp.localdomain",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00068",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                        },
                        {
                            "from": "Renee Turner <geuzen {AT} xs4all.nl>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00075.html",
                            "author_name": "Renee Turner",
                            "content": "\nHi Florian,\n\nMy apologies for a slightly delayed response. I completely agree that\nthere are aspects within the art world which need critical scrutiny. I\nwas simply asking for specificity, and I appreciate that you've taken\nthe time to clarify.\n\n> But unlike other culture industries, the contemporary (Fine) Art\n> system often falsely believes in its own autonomy.\n\nI wonder if this is true. Feminist/post colonial practices have often\nargued the opposite and with much efficacy. Think of Jean Fisher's\ncritical texts, Adrian Piper's work and Lucy Lippard's writing and\ncuratorial projects and even the recent educational department at\nGoldsmiths of Irit Rogoff; all of these practices seem to point to an\nart world/system which is political, embodied and implicated.\n\n> And it's my general experience and opinion that the art I'm\n> more interested in is more often than not to be found in places\n> outside that system. In the 1960s, this was true for Fluxus and\n> Situationism, in the 1970s and 1980s for the Mail Art Network and\n> postpunk, and in the 1990s for Net.art, the Luther Blissett project\n> or the alternative pornography movement.\n\nI'm also interested these movements, practices, antics/pranktics,\nbut unlike you, I see them as a part of a complex and multifaceted\nart world (not outside of it). I find it problematic to define the\nsystem as only popular art mags, the market and large institutions\nwhen there's so much other interesting work going on. (not to mention,\nhow would you classify those of us involved in art education?)\n\n> Today, to speak in terms of our both hometown Rotterdam, I'm finding\n> the interesting contemporary arts at places like WORM and De Player\n> and only rarely at Witte de With, for example.\n\nYes, here we can look into specific curatorial approaches and talk\nabout who these various institutions and orgs are addressing. (this\ntakes more time than I have now... but I'm nonetheless interested in\nexploring this further at a later juncture) >> > Indeed. It's just\nthat the particular art world I mentioned above > - and which can\nbe roughly described as the art world of the many > biennials, the\nDocumenta, contemporary art spaces like PS.1 and KW, > contemporary\nart journals like October, Texte zur Kunst, Springerin > and\nMetropolis M, too often monopolizes the term \"art\" for the art > that\nit represents. Admittedly, its system can be permissive and > include\n'outside' practices, particularly when a curatorial subject > requires\nit. However, it would be possible to map the institutions > mentioned\nabove just by the overlap of the people they involve, > and come up\nwith a fairly good representation of what makes up > contemporary art.\n\nI agree, this *is* truly the crux.  It's crucial to map the overlap of  \npeople/institutions and ask ourselves who's setting the agenda, who's  \ncontrolling the funding and whose *corner* of art world is being  \nrepresented, and moreover, what do these representations make  \nimpossible, meaning what do they render invisible.\n\n\n> They same is true, no doubt, if you take ars electronica,\n> transmediale and ISEA, plus Leonardo, Neural, Rhizome and Nettime,\n> ZKM and ICC Tokyo, and pin down the system \"media art\". But just\n> as that latter system is now being - deservedly - questioned and\n> undergoing a huge if not terminal structural crisis, I think it is\n> as legitimate to question the contemporary Fine Art system, and the\n> Western concept of autonomous art.\n\nIt's absolutely legitimate to question art's autonomy, and it's been\nhappening for some time now. Besides the previous examples listed\nabove, recently there has been much debate about the proliferation of\nbiennials how art feeds into a neoliberal agenda.\n\n> So, going back to Geert's initial report about the discussion about\n> the crisis of \"Media Art\" at Montevideo Amsterdam, I think that it\n> can't be a solution to integrate a very questionable \"media art\"\n> system into an equally questionable contemporary art system. [As it\n> is now happening, in education, too, for example in the Zurich art\n> school media department where Felix Stalder teaches, and where the\n> media programme has been rolled back into Fine Art on the Master\n> level.]\n\nIn many respects this cycle has happened to photography (remember\nwhen John Tagg wrote that no history of art photography could be\nwritten without taking into account, pornography, daguerreotypes,\npropaganda and family snapshots.) Or video's roots in activism,\nhome videos, street journalism (Martha Rosler's essay: Shedding the\nUtopian Moment).... there's much to learn from these histories of\nassimilation. It's important to look at how institutionalization\n\"tames\" media...disciplines the discipline. But while questioning the\nsystems of Fine Art, Media Art etc, I think as producers, viewers,\neducators and implicated accomplices, it's imperative to ask what do\nwe want to see happen or change.\n\nAs a graduate student in the eighties, I was taught by Harmony\nHammond, a painter and co-founder of Heresies. In her painting\nclass, she reserved time to present her personal collection of\nartists' works she felt were under-represented by the mainstream art\nworld. It was a small but extremely powerful gesture. Eventually, in\n2000 the collection was published under the title, Lesbian Art in\nAmerica: A Contemporary History. I learned much from Harmony, but\nthe most influential part of her teaching was watching her practice\n*otherwise*.\n\nSo in this context, I'm asking myself how can I/we practice\n*otherwise* and how might that *doing* nudge or broaden the scope of\ndominant discourses and visual regimes.\n\nbest,\n\nRenee\nhttp://www.geuzen.org/\nhttp://www.fudgethefacts.com/\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "date": "Mon, 25 May 2009 13:37:41 +0200",
                            "message-id": "20C7E909&#45;1381&#45;4CB2&#45;963B&#45;40479902EC2E {AT} xs4all.nl",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00075",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                        }
                    ],
                    "date": "Fri, 15 May 2009 18:07:37 +0200",
                    "message-id": "5A46D3F4&#45;5F13&#45;4C5B&#45;97B1&#45;5327677F5920 {AT} xs4all.nl",
                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                    "id": "00046",
                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                },
                {
                    "from": "jaromil <jaromil {AT} dyne.org>",
                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00047.html",
                    "author_name": "jaromil",
                    "content": "\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA1\n\n\nre all,\n\nfirst of all  thanks Matze for your consideration  of my activity, but\nlet me  warn you are  overestimating the benefits of  my collaboration\nwith Montevideo / Time Based  Arts ...  which is now called Nederlands\nInstituut voor Mediakunst  (NIMK, BTW): it takes more  to be \"rescuing\nthe middle-class fantasies  of a free arty market  of software\" as you\nsay, if  we speak of a national  institute that started in  a squat in\nAmsterdam 30 years  ago and has seen a  constant flow of contributions\nby various people  through all these years, most  of them really worth\nconsidering.\n\nOn Fri, May 15, 2009 at 05:23:12PM +0200, Matze Schmidt wrote:\n> I'd  like  to  point  out  at  this  point  that  institutions  like\n> Montevideo are revolutionizers of money, e.g. they payed Jaromil for\n> working on dynebolican stuff\n\nif it  would be just the  action of redistribution of  wealth, then it\nwouldn't  be   revolutionary  at  all.   Some   artists  produced  and\ndistributed  by Montevideo did  became rich,  but for  them Montevideo\nmostly contributed to the  production quality of their artworks rather\nthan direct funding.\n\njust consider that  if my lifestyle would be  \"middle-class fantasy\" i\ncould  not afford  to  sustainably  live in  Amsterdam  relying on  my\ncurrent employment, but lucky me i'm not a yuppie :) and i'm fine like\nthat.  for the  minimum support i get, needed as i  care to support me\nand my extended  family when needed, i have to do  much more than just\ndeveloping \"my own projects\", but still all results can be free to the\npublic,: that shouldn't be special for a public institution, right?  i\nbelieve this is the good signal  NIMK gives - not such a revolutionary\none, but pretty honest: there  are often various degrees of corruption\nleading   public  institutions  to   play  commercially   with  public\nresources.\n\nother  than that,  we can  call \"progressive  attitude\" -  rather than\nrevolutionary\" -  when institutions are keen to  interact with liminal\ncontexts,  with dwellers on  the dystopian  hearth pulsating  in every\nmetropolis of our \"Free Western World\".  This kind of interaction (and\nthe respect for the uncommon ground  in between) is indeed part of the\nheritage of  a city like Mokum  A - unfortunately  decaying rapidly as\nEurope is turning  into a Fortress for the  privileged and their fears\nof the disinherited children of the welfare mirage.\n\nat last  about the  interaction i  mention here: i'm  not sure  how to\ndefine it,  its likely  not a negotiation  nor a compromise,  i'm just\nsure  it is  necessary in  any case:  whether we  accept  the upcoming\ninstitutionalised  \"Reinvent  Yourself\"  strategy  or  not.   I  would\nrecommend  a  case-by-case  analysis  in  this  regards,  rather  than\nthinking universally... like institutions often do ;^)\n\nregarding your vague critiques let me reply:\n\n> with all effects of an open source software\"z\" driven by the mediate\n> support of the state.\n\ndyne.org  development  is not  driven  by  any  state, corporation  or\ninstitution rather  than by the  many problems these  power structures\ngenerate.  we  dedicate most  of our free  time to peer  reviewed free\nsoftware  development  in  socially  relevant  contexts  (please  note\n\"development\", not  provision of services)  and as hackers  we operate\npragmatically, on-line as well in various different on-site contexts.\n\n> But  while talking  to them  some  years ago  the Montevideo  people\n> turned out  to be  very naive in  political questions. They  have no\n> idea about  economy and  no idea of  what is  going on out  of their\n> field. That's  okay, as  long as they  incorporate all  folklore and\n> avantgarde at the sam time, because it is their mandate and mission.\n\ni'd  be  curious  to  know  what  you  consider  \"naive  in  political\nquestions\": myself  i've felt  enriched by the  past 4 and  more years\nspent  in  Amsterdam,  by my  colleagues  at  NIMK  (which is  not  so\nuniformed in its  composition BTW) as well by  the squatters in A'dam,\nfrom De Bierkoning to the Waag Society.\n\nbacking my  objection, i'll point you  out some coverage  on NIMK's 30\nyears symposium (just happened last week):\n\nhttp://www.we-make-money-not-art.com/archives/2009/05/the-netherlands-media-art-inst.php\n\npasting  you  here  the  transcription  of  my  intervention  at  this\nsymposium,  let  it  be   also  a  contribution  to  this  interesting\ndiscussion thread:\n\n                            ------------\n\nAt the NIMK's symposium \"Positions in Flux\" I've taken the occasion to\nshare thoughts  on the  current perception of  Free Software  and Open\nSource philosophy  in art,  along with some  overdue criticism  of the\nCreative Commons hollow  hype, as well of the  Creative Industries and\ntheir systematised processing  of art for the global  market.  Even if\nnot  obvious, I  believe the  dynamics  of these  two phenomenons  are\nrelated; among the quoted in the intervention are Benjamin Mako Hill's\n\"Towards a Standard of  Freedom: CreativeCommons and the Free Software\nMovement\"[1] and Florian Cramer's post on nettime \"The Creative Common\nMisunderstanding\"[2],  while  the vigorous  critique  of the  Creative\nIndustries  stands on  Rana Dasgupta's  essay  \"The Next  Idea of  the\nArtist  (Art,   music  and  the  present   threat  of  creativity)\"[3]\n\n\nHere below a short transcript:\n\n\"Open Source\" doesn't mean free access, nor open space or open air; it\npresumes  a  seamful[4]  approach  to  design as  a  response  to  the\nincreasing  reliance  on  technology  and  its  accessibility;  it  is\ninteractive without prescribed  boundaries, following a combinatorial,\ngenerative approachto development;  it is peer to peer  as no producer\ncan control further interaction patterns; it is grassroot as creations\nare  born out  of  initiative and  cohesion  based on  needs felt  and\nunderstood in first person by community members.\n\nAbout  Creative  Commons, its  motto  \"Some  rights  reserved.\"  is  a\nrelatively  hollow  call:  the  slogan  factually  reverses  the  Free\nSoftware and Open Source philosophy  of reserving rights to users, not\ncopyright owners,  in order  to allow the  former to  become producers\nthemselves. The dis/appropriating loop of creativity must be recursive\nto be  fruitful: not only  productionmeans belong to the  people using\nthem, further creations  should be free to be  recombined. rights must\nbe granted  focusing on people  interacting, not just  those providing\nthe interactive infrastructure.\n\nUnfortunately there  is a diffuse lack of  perception for alternatives\noffered by  the Open  Source and Free  Software approach  over current\nprofit models.  As  a present problem, also deriving  from the lack of\nunderstanding  of the  importance of  grass-root  creativity, top-down\ncultural   management  is   patronising   art  production:   massmedia\naesthetics of  an entirely sanitised and efficient  creativity, of the\nsort  that will  not  rely on  unstable  people and  can therefore  be\nglobally rationalised.\n\nThat the  great artists of  modern Western culture managed  to produce\nwhat they  did, despitethe danger  and intensity of their  effort, was\ndue in large  part to improvised social forms  built around close-knit\nnetworks  where  thought and  affect  circulated  with high  velocity,\nandwhere it  was possible to  try out forms of  non-conventional human\nrelationships that would  not destroy, nor be destroyed  by, a life of\nart. Seen  from an historical perspective,  In the second  half of the\ntwentieth  century many  of the  functions of  creative  networks were\nalready  taken  over in  Europe  by  institutions (government  funding\nbodies,  universities,  museums,  etc)  and much  of  their  excessive\nfeeling  wasneutralised. This  was  only  a small  part  of a  general\nprocess of the time: the absorption of human emotion into bureaucratic\nchannels,  and the  emergence of  a social  coolness,  anefficiency of\nfeeling.\n\nAt this  stage in the  twenty-first century, we  are in the  middle of\nanother   large-scale  restructuring  of   ideas  of   creativity  and\nculture. As one of the most significant generators of image and value,\ncreativity now has become a  critical resource for the global economic\nengine.   What creativity  is,  and  how it  can  be systematised  and\ncirculated, are therefore  urgent questions of contemporary capitalist\norganisation.   As  cultural  producers   are  thrust  into  the  full\nintensity of  globally dispersed, just-in-time  production, new images\nof creative inspiration and output are required that sit tidily within\nthe systematised  processes of the  global market. Creativity  must be\nrendered comprehensible,  transparent and rational: there  can be none\nof  the destructive  excesses  evident in  the  lives of  many of  the\ngreatest  artists  of  European  history.  Creativity  must  circulate\ncleanly and quickly, and it  should leave no dirty remainder. For what\ninterests Hollywood, and the market in general, is not creativity as a\ncomplex human  process, weighed down  in bodies and  relationships and\nempty days,  but creativity as  an abstraction, free  of irrationality\nand  pain, and  light enough  to  hover like  a great  logo above  the\ncontinents.\n\nPerhaps, as the logic  of systematised production occupies the terrain\nof human  creativitymore completely,  we will reach  a stage  where we\nsurrender  all knowledge  about  this troubling  domain,  and it  will\nbecome entirely alien  to us. Perhaps one day we  will be terrified of\nwhat  explosive dangers  might rise  up from  the creativity  of human\nbeings.\n\n[1] http://mako.cc/writing/toward_a_standard_of_freedom.html\n\n[2] http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0610/msg00025.html\n\n[3] http://ranadasgupta.com/texts.asp?text_id=45\n\n[4] http://www.themobilecity.nl/2008/01/05/designing-for-locative-media-seamless-or-seamful-experiences/\n\n\n- -- \n\njaromil, dyne.org developer, http://jaromil.dyne.org\n\nGPG: 779F E8B5 47C7 3A89 4112  64D0 7B64 3184 B534 0B5E\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)\n\niEYEARECAAYFAkoP/aAACgkQe2QxhLU0C15y4ACeKYaj8pNKu7lS/Z1sIuVUtbfL\nmBUAn2h7gwq7AN0Gsv+lgidMWqZoga1q\n=Skrp\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                    "date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 14:05:54 +0200",
                    "message-id": "20090517120554.GA4808 {AT} dyne.or",
                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                    "id": "00047",
                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                },
                {
                    "from": "\"xname\" <root {AT} xname.cc>",
                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00050.html",
                    "author_name": "xname",
                    "content": "> jaromil said:\n> Montevideo / Time Based  Arts ...  which is now called Nederlands\n> Instituut voor Mediakunst  (NIMK, BTW)\n> if  we speak of a national  institute that started in  a squat in\n> Amsterdam 30 years  ago\n\nHello.\n\nI did not remember that the 'Nimk' was started in a squat: isn't this the\nstory of Paradiso and Melkweg?\n\nAs far as I know the 'Netherlands Media Art Institute' was born when\n'Monte Video' and 'Time Based Arts' merged (1993).\n\nMonte Video was founded by René Coelho in 1978, and initially operated\nfrom his house in Amsterdam. (was that squatted? I tend to doubt.)\nMonte Video focused on video art and provided equipment for producing\nworks and space to show them (soon collecting and distributing...\nvideo-tapes!).\n\nTime Based Arts was founded in 1983 by the Association of Video Artists,\nso it was an artists run association creating a network for distribution;\nit was more performance oriented than Monte Video, according to the story\nthat was narrated to me, and which I deduced from the collection. (Can\nanyone confirm this, please?)\nWere they squatting? But they were getting funding...\nI am somewhat curious.\n\nMaybe other people on this list know more.\n\nThere is a page of history on the nimk.nl, but i saw no wikipedia entry on\nthis topic.\nI find the *story of this institute quite beautiful and paradigmatic in\nthe development of the (non-linear) chain of media mutations (which could\noff course be expanded):\n\nhappening/performance (art=life)\nelectronic art\nvideo-art (art=registration)\nmedia-art, software-art (art=simulation)\n\nI paste it below.\n\nBest,\nEleonora\n\n===\n\n**History**\n\n1978\nMonte Video is founded by René Coelho. From his home on the Singel in\nAmsterdam he makes equipment and documentation available, and furnishes\none room as a gallery. The first video artist whose work is shown here on\nthe Singel was Livinus van de Bundt, Coelho's inspiration. Other artists,\nsuch as Bill Viola, Gary Hill, Shelly Silver and Gabor Body, soon make\ncontact. It is not long before Monte Video has a large selection of works\navailable for rental.\n\n1983\nThanks to government funding Monte Video is able to move to Amsterdam\nNorth. There is now sufficient space to offer regular presentations. Not\nonly Dutch artists, but also those from other countries are given a chance\nto show their videos or installations.\n\n1986\nGovernment funding received by Monte Video is cut back to almost nothing.\nMonte Video does receive several small transitional grants from the city\nof Amsterdam.\nTime Based Arts, which had been founded in 1983 by the Association of\nVideo Artists, is fast becoming well-known as a distributor of video art,\nand continues receiving government funding.\n\n1986-1993\nRené Coelho continues on his own. Monte Video moves back to his home on\nthe Singel. The acquisition of production facilities, distribution,\ndocumentation and promotion goes on, financed from his own income and by\norganizing large projects. One of these, as an example, was 'Imago', an\nexhibition of Dutch video installations which toured worldwide for five\nyears beginning in 1990. There were also plans laid for the first\nconservation programs for video art.\nThe chairman of Time Based Arts, Aart van Barneveld, died; his death was\nfollowed by many conflicts within the organization. In the early 1990s\nTime Based Arts also lost its subsidies and threatened to go under. Monte\nVideo and Time Based Arts decide to provide a joint art program for\nAmsterdam cable TV, Channel Zero.\n\n1993\nTime Based Arts merges with Monte Video. Their work is continued under the\nnew name of Netherlands Media Art Institute, Montevideo/Time Based Arts.\nThis fusion does free up national funding. In both 1997 and 2001 the\ngrants are expanded and converted into a structural subsidy for four\nyears.\n\n1993-2002\nThe Netherlands Media Art Institute moves twice, in 1994 to the Spuistraat\nand in 1997 to its present location on the Keizersgracht.\nThe Institute continues to grow through these years, and adopts the\nfollowing mission statement: The Netherlands Media Art Institute supports\nmedia art in three core areas: presentation, research and conservation. At\nthe same time, through its facilities it offers extensive services for\nartists and art institutions. Among these services are educational\nprograms, to be developed to accompany all activities.\n\nand\n\n**History of the Collection**\n\nThe collection of the Netherlands Media Art Institute, Montevideo/Time\nBased Arts reflects the turbulent history of the Institute. In addition to\nthe collection of Monte Video, the predecessor of the Netherlands Media\nArt Institute, the Institute administers the collections of four\ninstitutions: the Lijnbaan Center (1970-1982), Time Based Arts\n(1983-1994), De Appel (1975-1983) and the Institute Collection\nNetherlands. This combination of artists' initiatives (Time Based Arts, De\nAppel and the Lijnbaan Center) and more formal institutions (Institute\nCollection Netherlands and the present Netherlands Media Art Institute)\naffords the collection a surprising diversity. In addition to renowned\nartists like Bill Viola, Nam June Paik and Gary Hill (who were represented\nin the collection as far back as the 1970s), there are internationally\nknown Dutch artists who experimented with the medium for only a short\nperiod in the 1970s, such as Marinus Boezem, Jan van Munster and Pieter\nEngels.\nBefore any institutions at all had yet been created for the purpose of\ncollecting small centers were set up in various parts of The Netherlands\nwhich facilitated and promoted the use of video by and for artists. The\nearliest examples of this were Agora Studios in Maastricht, the Lijnbaan\nCenter in Rotterdam (itself a merger of the studio of Venster in Rotterdam\nand the video studio which was set up for the Sonsbeek exhibition in 1971\nin Arnhem), and a couple of individuals such as the artists Miguel-Ángel\nCárdenas and Jack Moore in Amsterdam, who made their cameras available for\nother artists. Many of the works which were made in this earliest period\nof Dutch video art only surfaced from oblivion in the course of the 1990s.\nSurprising discoveries among them are the works of Dennis Oppenheim, Terry\nFox, Wim Gijzen, Nan Hoover and Tajiri.\n\nWith the arrival of the collection of De Appel an enormously rich\ncollection of video records of performances was added. De Appel flourished\nin the 1970s as one of the most progressive international work sites for\nperformance art. The collection of this institution contained unique works\nby Vito Acconci, Laurie Anderson, Gina Pane, Carolee Schneemann and\nothers. But in addition to records of events in her own gallery, Wies\nSmalls, the founder of De Appel, also built up a collection of\ninternational video art in order to enable the Dutch public to become\nacquainted with what was happening internationally, including work by\nDouglas Davis, Ulrike Rosenbach, Joan Jonas and Alison Knowles.\n\nIn the early 1980s, with De Appel as its base, efforts were begun to\nestablish an association for video artists, which later created the Time\nBased Arts Foundation. The collection of this artists' association, in\naddition to works by artists based in The Netherlands, such as\nAbramovic/Ulay, Hooykaas/Stansfield, Ben d'Armagnac, Christine Chiffrun\nand Lydia Schouten, also included work by international artists like Mona\nHatoum and General Idea.\nTime Based Arts maintained an active collection policy, in which any\nartist who worked with video could try to have his or her work included in\nthe collection. As it grew the collection became enormously diverse and\nafforded a good overview of the various ways that video could be employed\nin the visual arts. Through in to the 1990s Time Based Arts played an\nimportant role in the collection, distribution and support of video art\nuntil, in 1994, under pressure from the municipal authorities of\nAmsterdam, it entered into a merger with Monte Video.\n\nRené Coelho began his video gallery Monte Video in 1978, and in doing so\nlaid the foundation for the present Institute. Monte Video was a gallery\nwhich specialized in electronic art and especially in video art that\nsought out the creative possibilities and qualities of the medium itself.\nAn important impetus for establishing the institution was the work of the\nDutch video pioneer Livinus van de Bundt. He was therefore the first\nartist to be shown in the gallery. Later the Vasulkas, Bert Schutter,\nPeter Bogers, Matthew Schlanger and many others followed. In addition to\nthe works that were to be seen in the gallery, Monte Video began to be\nactive in collecting and distributing work. Bill Viola, Gary Hill, Shelly\nSilver and Gabor Body were for instance artists who 'stabled' their work\nwith Monte Video. The gallery owed its international success chiefly to\nthis. When in the 1990s the conservation of video works became a pressing\nproblem, the then merged Montevideo/Time Based Arts established itself as\nthe goad and later as the center of technical expertise for carrying out\nthe Conservation of Dutch Video Art project. As well as the collections\ndescribed above, there was integral cooperation with museums that over the\ncourse of time had also collected video work. In addition to much\ntechnical research, the conservation efforts also prompted considerable\nrecording work and research into content. Among questions dealt with were\nthe status of the vehicle, the significance of the material chosen and\nestablishing the boundary conditions for proper exhibition. Because of the\ndifferences in approach among the institutions from which they came,\nconsiderable time was spent integrating the collections with one another,\nand getting the possibilities for the use of the works coordinated with\none another. But now, with the end of the conservation project in sight,\nthe gaps between the collections appear to be closing ever more, and we\ncan proudly present our multi-faceted collection to the public, as we do\nhere.\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                    "date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 15:40:16 +0200 (CEST)",
                    "message-id": "3266070d80132b99ebf3351b5cb71455.squirrel {AT} tuxic.nl",
                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                    "id": "00050",
                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Media Mutations - Life | Registration | Simulation (was: Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis)"
                },
                {
                    "from": "Matze Schmidt <matze.schmidt {AT} n0name.de>",
                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00059.html",
                    "author_name": "Matze Schmidt",
                    "content": ">> [...] Arts\n\n> what art\n\n> True, art\n\nIn short: No money (as one of the forms of profit) without art, no art\nwithout politics. This is a simple formula and any Baudrillard would\nhave secretly subcribed this, even in an epoch of ended (Hegel and \nfollowers) or never realized (Debord and followers) art. The fact is,\nwe* don't need art as art, but -- and someone like jaromil shows this\nto us** -- we need other conditions, as painting, code or video or\ndiy-cooking if you like, I don't care -- changing media is always good.\nBut we are not able to produce the conditions 'now' -- like someone like\njaromil is may thinking -- because the conditions produce us, alienate\nus; they will allways produce us (products produce consumption and vice\nversa), but these conditions are (straightforward now) have to be\nuncaged from ruling modes of production, in the meant sector reproduced\nby national institutions (ZKM in Germany, Ex-Montevideo in NL, your\npersonal MTV at home). The New Media Arts Crisis is not my crisis, It's\njust the crisis of the middle-class (Yuppie or not, fallen programmer or\nrising video-installer) in form of some arts with newer or older media,\nmay it a t-shirt or an lcd. So there is no aftermath here but the\neffects of a mixed up (I love this status and condition) highbrow, baby!\nelite meshed with an alternative \"green\" and independent buisness party\nwith no idea of real coding out there (forget networks, they are roped\nparties).\n__________\n* and ** Me, I and you as the readers who follows this text.\n\nM\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                    "date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 11:22:02 +0200",
                    "message-id": "1739011317.20090518112202 {AT} n0name.",
                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                    "id": "00059",
                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Media Mutations - Life | Registration | Simulation\t(was: Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis)"
                },
                {
                    "from": "lorian Cramer <fc-nettime {AT} pleintekst.nl>",
                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00068.html",
                    "author_name": "Florian Cramer",
                    "content": "\nHey Renee,\n \n> You point towards a classic issue, the relevance of context. What do\n> different registers (fine art, media art, design, activism, popular\n> culture etc.) give to a particular work and what does a categorization\n> exclude, meaning what does it make *impossible*. Every register\n> influences interpretation, (in)visibility, production and funding.\n\nYeah, and inevitably, these registers are not just different chosen\nperspectives we have on particular works, but also institutional and\ndisciplinary contexts in which workers have to put their work and\nwhose written and unwritten rules they can't avoid abiding.\n\n> Can you speak more specifically about which curators, what art\n> educational programs, which artists and what practices?\n\nI was really thinking of the contemporary art system as it has been\ndescribed by its own protagonists, for example in Isabelle Graw's\n2008 book \"Der grosse Preis\", or has been analyzed, with means that\nreally deserve the term \"artistic research\", by Hans Haacke as early\nas in the 1970s in such pieces as \"The Chocolate Master\". And many\npeople have criticized that system from within, from Henry Flynt in\nthe 1960s to the writer and \"Thing Hamburg\"-blogger Michel Chevalier\ntoday. I think it is legitimate to make a sweepingly general critique\nof the contemporary art system just as it is legitimate to generally\ncriticize and attack the music industry and contemporary popular music\nsystem for example. That doesn't mean that there would be absolutely\nno good music coming out of that system. But unlike other culture\nindustries, the contemporary (Fine) Art system often falsely believes\nin its own autonomy. And it's my general experience and opinion that\nthe art I'm more interested in is more often than not to be found in\nplaces outside that system. In the 1960s, this was true for Fluxus\nand Situationism, in the 1970s and 1980s for the Mail Art Network and\npostpunk, and in the 1990s for Net.art, the Luther Blissett project or\nthe alternative pornography movement. Today, to speak in terms of our\nboth hometown Rotterdam, I'm finding the interesting contemporary arts\nat places like WORM and De Player and only rarely at Witte de With,\nfor example.\n\n> For a constructive debate, it's important to avoid caricatures,\n> otherwise there's a risk of creating false enemies, or missing out\n> on how to best counter the real ones.\n\nWell, this is true, and I admit that my posting was polemical\n- and emotional. My gripes with the contemporary art\nsystem are also based on bad personal experience and\nconfrontations such as the one with the \"Just Do It\" exhibition\n<http://www.mail-archive.com/nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net/msg02876.html>.\n\n> hmmmm....not sure about this, having worked as a hybrid artist/\n> designer/curator/media artist/collaborator for some time now, again\n> I reiterate that there are many different artworlds (and for that\n> matter artists/inhabitants/vagrants).\n\nIndeed. It's just that the particular art world I mentioned above\n- and which can be roughly described as the art world of the many\nbiennials, the Documenta, contemporary art spaces like PS.1 and KW,\ncontemporary art journals like October, Texte zur Kunst, Springerin\nand Metropolis M, too often monopolizes the term \"art\" for the art\nthat it represents. Admittedly, its system can be permissive and\ninclude 'outside' practices, particularly when a curatorial subject\nrequires it. However, it would be possible to map the institutions\nmentioned above just by the overlap of the people they involve,\nand come up with a fairly good representation of what makes up\ncontemporary art.\n\nThey same is true, no doubt, if you take ars electronica, transmediale\nand ISEA, plus Leonardo, Neural, Rhizome and Nettime, ZKM and ICC\nTokyo, and pin down the system \"media art\". But just as that latter\nsystem is now being - deservedly - questioned and undergoing a huge\nif not terminal structural crisis, I think it is as legitimate to\nquestion the contemporary Fine Art system, and the Western concept of\nautonomous art. So, going back to Geert's initial report about the\ndiscussion about the crisis of \"Media Art\" at Montevideo Amsterdam,\nI think that it can't be a solution to integrate a very questionable\n\"media art\" system into an equally questionable contemporary art\nsystem. [As it is now happening, in education, too, for example in the\nZurich art school media department where Felix Stalder teaches, and\nwhere the media programme has been rolled back into Fine Art on the\nMaster level.]\n\n> Sometimes they intersect, rub next to each other, come into\n> agitation or simply run on parallel tracks. (Not too disimilar from\n> the so-called new media world.) Think of open source practitioners,\n> the Max/Flash folk, and those that poach the web's detritus for\n> their own purposes, they're all a part of new media arts, but each\n> tend to dwell in different corners of the digital notion universe\n> (or maybe not, if you're one of those cross-pollinators :-)\n\nYep, only that what you describe above is really declining and may not\nsee much art funding or support in the future. The writing is on the\nwall.\n\n> >> Director Heiner Holtappels opened by noticing that new media art\n> >> is not easily accepted by fine art. Traditional art has become\n> >> eclecticism. According to Heiner, all art is technology based.\n> >\n> > This is true, yet contemporary art has mostly given up on\n> > reflecting its media. [I can almost hear an iPhone-wearing curator\n> > saying that reflecting one's media is outmoded modernism.]\n>\n> ouch, how stereotypes do prevail. I wonder if there would be a\n> paradigm shift if he/she had been envisioned with a pre-paid nokia.\n> ;-)\n\nI should have told that the above example was taken from a real\nlife experience, although it's admittedly a deliberate caricature\nwhen I I blew it out of proportion as above. I agree very much with\nBrian that artistic practices (to put it as broadly) are deeply\nintertwined in culture and communication. There's a good chance,\nand I really mean this, that I am getting old - in punk terms:\na boring old fart - who's insisting on outmoded viewpoints. But\nI think that critiques of modernism, as legitimate as they are,\nbecome problematic when they're used to legitimize and maintain the\nstatus quo. [An extreme example is the contemporary art gallery\nscene and private collections in Berlin and their intrinsic links to\nthe German discourse of \"Neue Bürgerlichkeit\" (\"new bourgeoisie\")\n<http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_Bürgerlichkeit>.] The current\neconomic, political and social developments should render all\nnotions of posthistoire and non-rupture in the fabric of culture and\ncommunication, and hence also in the arts, all the more obsolete.\nThey also question the bourgeois insistence on artistic practice as a\nproduct of individual subjectivity. And finally, the contemporary art\nfield has been much ahead of the media art system in postcolonialism;\nhowever, if this reflection is serious, it should not exclude the\nnotion and system of art itself.\n\nWell, anyway, since the Geuzen collective of which you're a member\noperates in its own carefully chosen grey zone between art, activism,\ndesign, media, research and education, I actually think that our\nstandpoints are quite similar, just that our points of departure\nregarding the usefulness of the contemporary art system might\ndiffer. For me, the projects of De Geuzen are a very good example\nfor a post-autonomous artistic practice. Again, although I'm no\nfriend of the media art system, I'm quite sure that it would be\npractices like those of the Geuzen that would suffer and struggle\nto find institutional support once the \"media art\" system will\nhave vanished and been replaced with the existing contemporary art\nsystem (particularly the more cut-throat kind of the USA, Germany\nand England, with people who are anxious not to pollute Fine Art\nwith applied or sociocultural practices they hate and detest as\nnon-artistic [1].).\n\nFlorian\n\n\n[1] a good example would be Berlin's Künstlerhaus Bethanien, a renown\ncontemporary arts space, whose director Christoph Tannert bitterly\nfights a group of squatters and their sociocultural center in his own\nbuilding. \n\n\n\n-- \nblog:     http://en.pleintekst.nl\nhomepage: http://cramer.pleintekst.nl:70\n          gopher://cramer.pleintekst.nl\n\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                    "date": "Sat, 23 May 2009 02:05:03 +0200",
                    "message-id": "20090523000503.GA17293 {AT} hp.localdomain",
                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                    "id": "00068",
                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                },
                {
                    "from": "Renee Turner <geuzen {AT} xs4all.nl>",
                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00075.html",
                    "author_name": "Renee Turner",
                    "content": "\nHi Florian,\n\nMy apologies for a slightly delayed response. I completely agree that\nthere are aspects within the art world which need critical scrutiny. I\nwas simply asking for specificity, and I appreciate that you've taken\nthe time to clarify.\n\n> But unlike other culture industries, the contemporary (Fine) Art\n> system often falsely believes in its own autonomy.\n\nI wonder if this is true. Feminist/post colonial practices have often\nargued the opposite and with much efficacy. Think of Jean Fisher's\ncritical texts, Adrian Piper's work and Lucy Lippard's writing and\ncuratorial projects and even the recent educational department at\nGoldsmiths of Irit Rogoff; all of these practices seem to point to an\nart world/system which is political, embodied and implicated.\n\n> And it's my general experience and opinion that the art I'm\n> more interested in is more often than not to be found in places\n> outside that system. In the 1960s, this was true for Fluxus and\n> Situationism, in the 1970s and 1980s for the Mail Art Network and\n> postpunk, and in the 1990s for Net.art, the Luther Blissett project\n> or the alternative pornography movement.\n\nI'm also interested these movements, practices, antics/pranktics,\nbut unlike you, I see them as a part of a complex and multifaceted\nart world (not outside of it). I find it problematic to define the\nsystem as only popular art mags, the market and large institutions\nwhen there's so much other interesting work going on. (not to mention,\nhow would you classify those of us involved in art education?)\n\n> Today, to speak in terms of our both hometown Rotterdam, I'm finding\n> the interesting contemporary arts at places like WORM and De Player\n> and only rarely at Witte de With, for example.\n\nYes, here we can look into specific curatorial approaches and talk\nabout who these various institutions and orgs are addressing. (this\ntakes more time than I have now... but I'm nonetheless interested in\nexploring this further at a later juncture) >> > Indeed. It's just\nthat the particular art world I mentioned above > - and which can\nbe roughly described as the art world of the many > biennials, the\nDocumenta, contemporary art spaces like PS.1 and KW, > contemporary\nart journals like October, Texte zur Kunst, Springerin > and\nMetropolis M, too often monopolizes the term \"art\" for the art > that\nit represents. Admittedly, its system can be permissive and > include\n'outside' practices, particularly when a curatorial subject > requires\nit. However, it would be possible to map the institutions > mentioned\nabove just by the overlap of the people they involve, > and come up\nwith a fairly good representation of what makes up > contemporary art.\n\nI agree, this *is* truly the crux.  It's crucial to map the overlap of  \npeople/institutions and ask ourselves who's setting the agenda, who's  \ncontrolling the funding and whose *corner* of art world is being  \nrepresented, and moreover, what do these representations make  \nimpossible, meaning what do they render invisible.\n\n\n> They same is true, no doubt, if you take ars electronica,\n> transmediale and ISEA, plus Leonardo, Neural, Rhizome and Nettime,\n> ZKM and ICC Tokyo, and pin down the system \"media art\". But just\n> as that latter system is now being - deservedly - questioned and\n> undergoing a huge if not terminal structural crisis, I think it is\n> as legitimate to question the contemporary Fine Art system, and the\n> Western concept of autonomous art.\n\nIt's absolutely legitimate to question art's autonomy, and it's been\nhappening for some time now. Besides the previous examples listed\nabove, recently there has been much debate about the proliferation of\nbiennials how art feeds into a neoliberal agenda.\n\n> So, going back to Geert's initial report about the discussion about\n> the crisis of \"Media Art\" at Montevideo Amsterdam, I think that it\n> can't be a solution to integrate a very questionable \"media art\"\n> system into an equally questionable contemporary art system. [As it\n> is now happening, in education, too, for example in the Zurich art\n> school media department where Felix Stalder teaches, and where the\n> media programme has been rolled back into Fine Art on the Master\n> level.]\n\nIn many respects this cycle has happened to photography (remember\nwhen John Tagg wrote that no history of art photography could be\nwritten without taking into account, pornography, daguerreotypes,\npropaganda and family snapshots.) Or video's roots in activism,\nhome videos, street journalism (Martha Rosler's essay: Shedding the\nUtopian Moment).... there's much to learn from these histories of\nassimilation. It's important to look at how institutionalization\n\"tames\" media...disciplines the discipline. But while questioning the\nsystems of Fine Art, Media Art etc, I think as producers, viewers,\neducators and implicated accomplices, it's imperative to ask what do\nwe want to see happen or change.\n\nAs a graduate student in the eighties, I was taught by Harmony\nHammond, a painter and co-founder of Heresies. In her painting\nclass, she reserved time to present her personal collection of\nartists' works she felt were under-represented by the mainstream art\nworld. It was a small but extremely powerful gesture. Eventually, in\n2000 the collection was published under the title, Lesbian Art in\nAmerica: A Contemporary History. I learned much from Harmony, but\nthe most influential part of her teaching was watching her practice\n*otherwise*.\n\nSo in this context, I'm asking myself how can I/we practice\n*otherwise* and how might that *doing* nudge or broaden the scope of\ndominant discourses and visual regimes.\n\nbest,\n\nRenee\nhttp://www.geuzen.org/\nhttp://www.fudgethefacts.com/\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                    "date": "Mon, 25 May 2009 13:37:41 +0200",
                    "message-id": "20C7E909&#45;1381&#45;4CB2&#45;963B&#45;40479902EC2E {AT} xs4all.nl",
                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                    "id": "00075",
                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                },
                {
                    "from": "Rama Hoetzlein <rch {AT} umail.ucsb.edu>",
                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00051.html",
                    "author_name": "Rama Hoetzlein",
                    "content": "i agree.. i'm new to nettime, but following it silently until now, and \nhave been doing research in this area.\nhere are a few earlier notes i've made on this topic:\n   http://www.rchoetzlein.com/theory/\n\nin my view, the problem is that new media theory - the theory side \nanyway (not the art) - is largely defined by what we read from new media \ntheorists, such as lev manovich and baudrillard. yet these philosophers \ndo their primary work in \"media theory\" itself, that is the \nanthropological study of how media influences culture. thus, their \ncentral message is that media has meaning, and meaning changes culture:\n\n\"True, art is on the periphery for me. I don't really identify with it. \nI would even say that I have the same negative prejudice towards art \nthat I do toward culture in general. My point of view is \nanthropological. From this perspective, art no longer seems to have a \nvital function; it is afflicted by the same fate that extinguishes \nvalue, by the same loss of transcendence.\"  - Jean Baudrillard\n\ni do not deny their contributions to media theory of course, but despite \nthe fact that they may be open about their field of study (as this quote \nshows), the new media arts has not moved to define itself as an \"art \nform\", but rather defines itself in terms of media. of course, as an \nartist, i disagree about defining media art in such post-modernist terms \n(that is, purely as an outgrowth of culture). contrast the view of art \nabove with this one:\n\n\"The activity of art is based on the fact that one, receiving through \nhis or her sense of hearing or sight another's expression of feeling, is \ncapable of experiencing the emotion which moved the one who expressed \nit.\" - Leo Tolstoy\n\nNew media art should be defined from an art-philosophical perspective. \nIn this view, meaning is present in all works, to varying degrees, \nregardless of how they might be appropriated by culture. At what time is \nhistory was art not appropriated by culture? None the less, people \ncontinued to create art. The process of art-making is one of creating \nmeaning, and this relation between the artist and the work is not \nchanged despite how the object is ultimately appreciated, used, or \nabused by culture.\n\n-rama hoetzlein\n\n\ncarlos katastrofsky wrote:\n \n> what i am always wondering about is why the media arts field is so\n> concerned with its media. is dealing with \"new media\" or \"old media\"\n> an excuse for making good or bad art? IMO defining art by its media\n> is on the same level as defining art by its subject. not getting over\n> these definitions will result in a ghetto-situation sooner or later.\n> the problem -IMHO- is not that media art is not recognized by the fine\n> art world but that the fine art world is dealing with other subjects.\n> when was the last big exhibition dealing solely with \"painting\" or\n> \"sculpture\" you've seen? ars electronica and the others are doing that\n> every year: \"new media art\" with changing subtitles.\n <...>\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                    "follow-up": [
                        {
                            "from": "ben.craggs {AT} fastmail.f",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00053.html",
                            "author_name": "ben . craggs",
                            "content": "\n> what i am always wondering about is why the media arts field is so\n> concerned with its media. is dealing with \"new media\" or \"old media\"\n> an excuse for making good or bad art? IMO defining art by its media\n> is on the same level as defining art by its subject. not getting\n> over these definitions will result in a ghetto-situation sooner or\n> later. the problem -IMHO- is not that media art is not recognized\n> by the fine art world but that the fine art world is dealing with\n> other subjects. when was the last big exhibition dealing solely\n> with \"painting\" or \"sculpture\" you've seen? ars electronica and the\n> others are doing that every year: \"new media art\" with changing\n> subtitles.\n\n <...>\n\nAn interesting addition to this would be the emergence of 'New, new\nmedia arts'. I am thinking here, of practices in the field currently\ndefining itself as bioart. Here the medium that is being manipulated\nis a form of living or sem-living matter, or tissue. Bioartist,\nEduardo Kac and curator Jens Hauser have sought to specifically\nidentify this new art practice, expressly on the basis of the medium\nitself. Bioarts, they argue, are most definitely are not those works\nthat take bios or a form of life, as a subject, but manipulate it as a\nmedium. That said, the manipulation of living tissue can be executed\nthrough a number of divergent practices, specific technologies, and it\nis these that seem to be defined by some as the media, not the living\ntissue they manipulate. I guess a somewhat simplistic comparison\nwould be between with identification of various 'digital media' in\nabstraction from the advances in computer technology on which they are\nbased.\n\nMy current work in the field of bioart is increasingly\npushing me towards a frustration at the distinction between\nart/science/media/technology/old/new that recurs in the majority of\nliterature, and if I am not wrong seems to predicate this current\ndiscussion. In the light of these new practices I have been working\ntowards re-imagining what art and media are in themselves, as\ntechnologies and processes not as distinct practices - the specific\nmedia or declared purpose seem less relevant from this perspective. So\nI wonder whether 'meaning is present in all works, to varying degrees,\nregardless of how they might be appropriated by culture' could be\nextended beyond a simple valorisation of art.\n\nIt also seems that those new media theorists, such as Manovich and\nBaudrillard are somewhat restricted in their approach in that new\nmedia is perceived in a somewhat teleological sense, newness for\nthe sake of newness, with new theories to match new media - without\nasking what is actually recurring in new media. IMO it seems that\nmost new media, are really just old media anyway, particularly so in\nbioart. Is the creative growth of tissue not what we do continually\nas part of our natural bodily processes? Would it be facetious\nthen to ask whether all media be considered from this originary\nperspective, negating the discussions about relative newness or\ncultural categorization (ie i's art, it's science, it's technology,\nit's media).\n\nBen\n\n\n\n-- ---------\n  Ben Craggs\n  07868 273 360\n---------------\n  http://www.digitalscribblings.org/forums\n  A place for academic discussion, networking and general postgraduate procrastination!\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "\"NetTime Mailing List\" <nettime-l {AT} kein.org>",
                            "date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 08:42:05 +0100",
                            "message-id": "1242632525.29400.1315956661 {AT} webmail.messagingengine.com",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00053",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                        },
                        {
                            "from": "Brian Holmes <brian.holmes {AT} wanadoo.fr>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00054.html",
                            "author_name": "Brian Holmes",
                            "content": "\nRama Hoetzlein wrote:\n\n> New media art should be defined from an art-philosophical\n> perspective. In this view, meaning is present in all works, to\n> varying degrees, regardless of how they might be appropriated\n> by culture. At what time in history was art not appropriated by\n> culture? None the less, people continued to create art. The process\n> of art-making is one of creating meaning, and this relation between\n> the artist and the work is not changed despite how the object is\n> ultimately appreciated, used, or abused by culture.\n\nIt's great to read such a fundamental comment. I shall add something.\nMy viewpoint includes both Tolstoy's and Baudrillard's. I find that\ninformatic art (my own off-the-cuff term, but surely better than new\nmedia) is compelling precisely when it places subjective expression\nwithin the most strongly coercive social arena of our time, namely\nthe digital networks. Your idea that there is an art-philosophical\nperspective that could exclude or bypass social determinism seems,\nbegging your pardon, somewhat naive. What is more, I think all the\ninterest of art itself disappears when it is shorn from the contexts\nof power and held up as a pure conductor of subjectivity. Approached\nin that way, the art work tends to become no more than a mirror for\nour own emotions and fantasies -- far from any state of empathy,\nEinfuhlung or whatever one chooses to call it. So I am not surprised\nthat you move from Tolstoy's fascinating quote (reproduced below) to\nthe \"relation between the artist and the work.\" I guess I am more\ninterested in, well, media: the way the work relates the artist to\nothers.\n\nHowever, your observation about new media theory (Kittler and McLuhan\nwere recently mentioned here) is spot on. What we are given from\nthe podium, over and over again, are lessons about the power of\ntechnoscientific systems. The predicament of the human singularity,\ncaught within the net of determinisms yet resisting, creating another\nreality and expressing this rather fantastic adventure through\nwhatever kind of material or semiotic medium has been chosen, is left\nout of the story, which thereby becomes a monument to the crushing\nregularity of the status quo. The same thing, of course, happens to\nresistant political action in the hands of the sociologists and the\nHeideggerean philosophers of an essential, \"historial\" alienation.\nBoth ethics and aesthetics take it on the chin.\n\nIn my view, the great inspiration for new media theory has come from\nhackers themselves, who create alternative possibilities for existence\nwithin the overwhelmingly powerful networked environment. This is why,\nin essays which are inseparably about art and technics, I tend to\nuse concepts like \"reverse imagineering\" or \"escaping the overcode.\"\nExpression, for me, is the rupture of code, an excess which does not\nabolish the labyrinth in which we are caught, but at least opens up a\npossible new path through it.\n\nThat's one approach. There could be many others. The problem, as\nyou point out, is that usually there are not, because the theory\nvery rarely meets any actual practice. The necessary discussion of\ntechnological power holds the center stage. Of course that is easier\nfor the whole \"new media\" social circuit, because then you don't have\nto think very much, or feel very much, or try very hard to find out\nwhat might be at stake in a particular work.\n\nThis list, I guess, is about the best place to talk about how to\napproach media art. Thanks to all for starting the conversation. I'm\nready for more. Let the thousand info-aesthetics bloom!\n\nbest, BH\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 23:32:13 +0200",
                            "message-id": "4A10825D.6040905 {AT} wanadoo.fr",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00054",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                        },
                        {
                            "from": "Rama Hoetzlein <rch {AT} umail.ucsb.edu>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00052.html",
                            "author_name": "Rama Hoetzlein",
                            "content": "\nBrian, thanks for your reply. In general, i'm glad to see that\nwe're mostly in agreement. Based on my observations of nettime-l,\ndisagreement is often the norm, so I'm glad to see that there is\nsome consensus between us that the new media theorists are currently\nthe only option we've been given, and that we really need some\nalternatives.. Now, for some responses.\n\n> Your idea that there is an art-philosophical perspective that could \n> exclude or bypass social determinism seems, begging your pardon, \n> somewhat naive. \n\nI'm not suggesting that art-philosophy can bypass social determinism.\nI have no illusions about the difficulty the artist faces in creating\nany real social change, since my view of art does not negate any of\nthe real research done by the media theorists. My own view is that\nthe idea of art-for-social-change is long outdated. You suggest\nthat hackers are the source of real inspiration in new media theory\nbecause they alone are able to transform the media itself, and thus\nundermine the system toward some possible escape path. Yet, there\nis no reason to believe that even if the media itself changes, that\nsociety will too. In my view, the only way we could overcome the\ncurrent technoscientific system would be due to a deep, fundamental\ntransformation in all individuals - and while I believe art is\ncapable of doing this one person at a time, I don't think any one\nartwork, hacker or otherwise, is capable of really altering the\ntechnoscientific system we find ourselves in on a global level. Thus,\nall social change we talk about now is still part of that system. This\nis the media theorist perspective, of course - which i agree with -\nbut as an artist, its incomplete.\n\nThe reason I advocate art-philosophy is for the sake of the\nindividual, and the field of art itself. While i just said the artist\nis powerless to transform culture, perhaps to a degree greater than\nmost would like, the artist is _not_ powerless to transform him or\nherself, and others which that person touches through the art..\nDespite whatever the technoscientific system may do, to create art is\nan intentional act by an individual, and thus has an immutable meaning\njust by virtue of being \"created\". We get to choose what is created\n(this does not make it good art necessarily).\n\nThat meaning is present in all work \"to varying degrees\". By this, i\nmean that we each have a unique relationship to our artwork. For some,\nit is a mirror of personal emotions and fantasies (and probably my\nown work most of the time), while others may be able to communicate\nmore.. So, I'm not evaluating art. Some is good, some is not. However,\nhaving an art-philosophical does not automatically reduce our works to\nemotional fantasies. In fact, it is more likely to result in genuinely\nempathetic works since it creates a solid foundation for art based on\na philosophy in which art is encouraged to be empathetic, rather than\nresponsive to a system.\n\nI'm simply stating -- which I think we perhaps both agree with here --\nthat so far we have not been given any other alternative view of new\nmedia art other than that proposed by the new media theorists. The way\nout of this problem is, I believe, through a philosophy of art whereby\nthe artist has full awareness of the problems of society (hopefully),\nyet continues to create works of art despite this. It is possible to\nhave no illusions about the inability of art to bring about explicit\nsocial change, but understand that it can bring implicit change\nthrough individual communication.\n\n-rama\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 17:24:51 -0700",
                            "message-id": "4A10AAD3.1010309 {AT} umail.ucsb.edu",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00052",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                        },
                        {
                            "from": "carlos katastrofsky <carlos.katastrofsky {AT} gmail.com>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00058.html",
                            "author_name": "carlos katastrofsky",
                            "content": "\n> The way out of this problem is, I believe, through a philosophy of\n> art whereby the artist has full awareness of the problems of society\n> (hopefully), yet continues to create works of art despite this.\n> It is possible to have no illusions about the inability of art to\n> bring about explicit social change, but understand that it can bring\n> implicit change through individual communication.\n>\n\nbut can \"change\" be a parameter for art? what is to be changed through\nart? i agree that a \"change\" in whatever direction is possible but\nIMHO art mustn't be reduced to it. to me art is also someting i can\nadmire without thinking of having to change something. in fact even\nif i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire\nit (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\nsomething autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\na mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at the\nsame time it can be all of that.\n\nbest,\ncarlos\n\n\n-- \nhttp://katastrofsky.cont3xt.net\nhttp://cont3xt.net\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 16:11:26 +0200",
                            "message-id": "fb9095bf0905180711m6cd209adt9b6435753d81770a {AT} mail.gmail.com",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00058",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                        },
                        {
                            "from": "Rama Hoetzlein <rch {AT} umail.ucsb.edu>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00057.html",
                            "author_name": "Rama Hoetzlein",
                            "content": "\nexactly.. even if we are fully unconcerned with political art, when\nyou say \"wow, great work\", thats just and only what i mean by implicit\nchange (you are changed).. art is autonomous here because, while the\nwork may or may not be political, this implicit change defines only\nthe meaning-relation between the artist, the work, and the viewer.\nAnd that relationship is established independent of the impact of\nmedia on society, i.e. politics. A philosophy of art should provide a\nfoundation for complete autonomy, and this is done by observing that\nthe basis of art is creating and appreciating.. keeping in mind that\ntheory only gets you so far as an artist.\n\nrama\n\ncarlos katastrofsky wrote:\n> but can \"change\" be a parameter for art? what is to be changed through\n> art? i agree that a \"change\" in whatever direction is possible but\n> IMHO art mustn't be reduced to it. to me art is also someting i can\n> admire without thinking of having to change something. in fact even if\n> i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire it\n> (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\n> something autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\n> a mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at the\n> same time it can be all of that.\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 10:11:25 -0700",
                            "message-id": "4A1196BD.3060002 {AT} umail.ucsb.edu",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00057",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                        },
                        {
                            "from": "Brian Holmes <brian.holmes {AT} wanadoo.fr>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00062.html",
                            "author_name": "Brian Holmes",
                            "content": "carlos katastrofsky wrote:\n\n > if i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire\n > it (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\n > something autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\n > a mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at the\n > same time it can be all of that.\n\nWhat does one admire a piece of art? What is its autonomy?  And what could\nbe its consequences? I have asked myself these questions for years. Like\nmost thinking people, I have come to a few conclusions. And since I like\nthe idea that art can be \"all of that\" - a form of communication, a medium,\nnew media art - I would like to share these conclusions with you.\n\nHumans are excessively complex by nature, and inherently social. We are\ndefined by the surfeit of symbolic activity that goes on in our brains and\nindeed, in our full sensorium, and that comes out not only from our mouths\nbut in all sorts of gestures and postures and practices directed toward the\nsenses and symbolizing activities of others. A long anthropological\ntradition running from Sapir through Levi-Strauss to Sahlins holds that\nso-called \"primitive\" societies are no less complex than modern ones: their\nlanguages show comparable range and variety, but are (according to\nLevi-Strauss) oriented differently, more concrete in one case, more\nabstracted in the other. There is so much going on in any human being and\nbetween any group of human beings that just ordering or harmonizing all\nthis excessive symbolization - I mean, excessive over what the utilitarians\nthink of as the simple quest for satisfaction or corporeal pleasure -\nbecomes a problem in itself. Because madness always lurks on the edges of\nour reeling imaginations, and then there is also depression, or anger, or\njealousy, or prejudice or extreme paranoia, indeed a great number of\nobscure problems that can disrupt the life of the one and of the many.\n\nReligion has been the great social technique for bringing all this roiling\nthought, expression and sensation into some kind of predictable pattern and\nharmony, constituting entire narrative and figural universes, with their\nbuilt environments, rituals, music, poetry, smells, tastes, etc, all\nassociated and carefully correlated with orders of kinship, canons of\nsexuality, responsibilities of care, expressions of tenderness,\ncommandments, prohibitions and the like. What we now call art, as it\ngradually detached itself from religion and became a series of aesthetic\ntraditions interpretable and modifiable by individuals - as it became\nautonomous in other words - seems to have taken on the role of being the\nsensuous and ideational mirror of the individual's proper \"fit\" with\nsociety; it became a way of continuing the vast and mostly imaginary\nconversation about the ways that the one relates to the many, and\nvice-versa.  However, this conversation was no longer necessarily about\nharmony: because depending on the very particular context, the proper \"fit\"\ncould have aspects of a \"misfit,\" and the quest for an idealized harmony\ncould involve extreme disruptions of the status quo, disruptions appearing\nboth in art and in life itself. Just think about the Antigone of Sophocles\nand you will see that this kind of problematic was not invented with the\nromantics, it goes back quite a ways.  Clearly it gets particularly intense\nin modern democracies, where we are all brought up to conceive ourselves as\nboth legislators and revolutionaries.\n\nNow, amusingly, one of the reasons I ever even bothered to think about such\ncomplex and excessive things, so far from \n\"direct political action\" and what have you, is that for \nmany years I have found myself with a certain nagging problem of getting up\nin the morning. Perhaps others have experienced this? It so happens that on\ncertain mornings I may spend as much as an hour just thinking about a\ncertain constellation of things: a group of people, an artwork, a political\nissue, a line from a song, a concept, a phrase from a book, an image, a\nrhythm. Without showing any particular signs of anxiety, insanity,\ndelirium, fever, swine flu or whatever, I still found it necessary to bring\nsuch constellations of ideas and sensations into some kind of dynamic\npattern that would lend a spring to my step, a direction to my speech, an\neffectiveness to my gestures.  Being a bit of a misfit - according to the\naforementioned tradition in the democratic societies - I had to work on\nthis question of how to fit all this in, nonetheless: how to fit into my\nown overflowing symbolic and sensate world, first of all, and how to fit\nthat world into the multitude of others with whom daily activity brings me\ninto contact.  Thus I began to think that what is pleasing, satisfying,\nattractive, intriguing, inspiring, shocking, repellent, etc in the formal\nallure of artworks is also somehow the result of other people's struggles\nwith the excess of symbolization in which they are embroiled, and that the\n\"success\" of the artwork (wow, great work) is always some variation on the\n\"infinite theme of the artist(s) trying to break out of one universe and\n\"fit into another - whether we're talking about a purely abstract universe\n\"of chromatism or rhythm, or some Hegelian quandry of historical\n\"dialectics, or the current discussion about cap and trade, or the latest\n\"dispute over the coolest tattoos in the punk or heavy-metal circle that\n\"encloses your secret passion. An aesthetic form doesn't directly solve any\n\"of the weighty social problems - but it helps get a world together, it\n\"helps structure a pattern and a dynamic and an enthusiasm, which is always\n\"a good start.\n\nSo how 'bout the politics then? Well, according to my little theory, the\npersonal is clearly both aesthetic and political, because if you can't get\nout of bed you are definitely not going to make it to the office, the\nmarch, the meeting, the voting booth, the library, or wherever your\nactivity is going to have some consequences in terms of organizing social\nrelations. What is more, this is not just my little theory, because going\nback to Plato's Republic or maybe the Rig Vedas, social thinkers have been\nvery conscious of the influence of things like music on the order and\nharmony of the community, the city, state or whatever.  Indeed, not long\nago we saw with dazzled and almost disbelieving eyes that a great\nnation-state like China could put a significant fraction of its resources\ninto organizing an aesthetic display which was not just supposed to knock\neverybody out, American style, with its overwhelming show of wealth, but\nalso and above all to enact and celebrate an ideal of harmony and societal\ncoordination which, from my anarcho-individualist viewpoint, was at once\nvastly impressive and also frankly terrifying, because here I could see an\nintensive use of all the latest, hypercomplex aesthetic techniques to knit\ntogether an order that could power a vast authoritarian economic machine\nand infuse it with the enthusiam and belief of the many - which is a lot,\nwhen we're talking China. So you want new media? Replay your avi file of\nthe opening ceremonies of the 2008 Olympics.\n\nWhat I am trying to get at with all of this is that art is essentially\nmedia, it is not merely but essentially about communication, only what is\ncommunicated is not just a phrase or a slogan or a piece of information,\nbut a problematic attempt to reconfigure a world on every level of sensate\nand imaginary experience. That can be an attempt to fit in or to stick out,\nto harmonize or to disrupt, to smash the current relation of self and\nsociety or to conserve it or to invent another one; but insofar as art is\nexpression, it always projects this struggle over the shape and balance of\na world towards the ears and eyes and excessive imaginations of others.\nWhen we say that art is autonomous, we situate it in the long democratic\ntradition where the self, autos, tries to help establish the law, nomos,\naccordingly which it can freely develop in the company of fellow human\nbeings. Now, the problems of this attempt at autonomy are almost infinite,\nthey are sexual, technical, ecological, emotional, mystical, contractual,\nmaterial, they involve philosophy, science, babies, great art and also the\nplumbing. And they always involve the relations of individuals and groups\nto others whose worlds they do not understand, whose rhythms they do not\nfeel pulsing in their own veins, whose tacit concepts of harmony and\ndisruption are not expressed by the same patterns and shapes and colors and\ncombinations of tones. So when I say, Wow, great art - as I often do, just\nthe way people in the new media arts circles have done for years at\nfestivals sponsored by Philips and Microsoft and Sony and the like - the\nfirst consequence for me is to inquire into the world from which that art\narises and to which it points, and eventually to see how I fit into or\ndesire to break out of that world.  This means that a deep and searching\ncriticism can never just be criticism of the work, it always has to look\nfurther back, into the world from which it sprang, and ahead to the\nconsequences of a potential change in the worlds we share, or at least to\nthe consequences of a change in the way that *I* or *we* will relate to\nother worlds in the future.\n\nFinally, it seems to me, in my anarcho-democratic world, that to say Wow,\ngreat art, without inquiring into the consequences, is one of the closest\nthings one can do to never getting out of bed, i.e. it's close to\nsleepwalking.  Because at best, you would then be just letting the great\nart fit into your own great dream, or letting it be the colorful and\nstriking tattoo that will fit you into your small chosen circle. That's at\nbest - because in the present world of biopower and noopower, just admiring\na work in itself and for itself can mean accepting without question the\nworld that it mediates, which in the case of the networked technologies\nsold by Sony and Microsoft Philips and abused by a vast array of\ncorporations and governments, can be an extremely predatory world,\nconfigured precisely in order to capture your consciousness and extract\nsome value or utility out of your passions and dreams. Value that can\nultimately be devastating for the collectivity (as in the debt-fueld\nconsumption boom of this decade), utility that can make you into the most\nterrible of instruments (like the voters lured by nationalist rhetoric into\nsupporting our proliferating wars).\n\nIt has been years since I read Lev Manovich, so what follows may be totally\nunjust to his work, but as I recall, what always irritated me in his\nwriting was a kind of smug insistence that the new media were essentially\ndefined by a certain kind of rhythm, a certain multiplication of screens, a\ncertain connection to databases, etc. - in other words, that the new media\nwere essentially defined by the dominant trends of contemporary capitalist\nsociety. For me this seemed like a total abdication of criticism itself,\nand it also seemed to be a sort of cheerful, \"I'm on the winning side\"\nversion of the dark technological determinism and philosophical doomsaying\npromoted by the post-Leftist thinkers in the wake of Baudrillard. What I\nmissed was the very question of autonomy, and some recognition of its\nquasi-infinite complexities as they've been ceaselessly developing from the\nNeolithic to now, in the long and discontinuous series of messages passed\nfrom human world to human world. Imho, the poverty of new media art - its \n\"crisis\" - has intrinsically to do with the poverty of media \ncritique tout court. It is the failure to see how the cultural politics of\nindividuals and groups are mediated in the work, how they are expressed at\nevery level of their ineluctable complexity and excess over the \"mere\ncommunication\" of what already exists.\n\nbest, Brian\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "date": "Tue, 19 May 2009 15:44:02 +0200",
                            "message-id": "4A12B7A2.7080003 {AT} wanadoo.fr",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00062",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis"
                        },
                        {
                            "from": "Michael H Goldhaber <mgoldh {AT} well.com>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00064.html",
                            "author_name": "Michael H Goldhaber",
                            "content": "\nThanks for some beautiful and thought-provoking statements, especially  \nBrian’s and Carlos’s. I would add that to me the real medium of all  \nart is attention, attention the viewer or reader or listener must pay,  \nfeels consciously drawn to pay, in a deepening and all encompassing  \nway. That attention amounts to a transformation of self — into the  \nmind and body of the artist, as it were. The rest of the world falls  \naway for that moment, and so does time —the moment might be a long one  \n—and,a s Brian suggests will recur  later on, in recollection and  \nreflection.\n\nIf that is art, it is always political, because it always takes the  \nattention payer out of the “system,” whatever it might be and however  \nmuch the managers of the system in fact solicited the artist  or the  \nwork to begin with. The huge abstract paintings of the 1950’s cold  \nonly fit on the walls of the rich, but nonetheless, as long as they  \nwere there, they took over those walls, and made the space different  \nfrom what the collector might have intended, and the same goes for  \nRenaissance art and art of other periods.\n\nThe reason different media come in is that the artist has an on-going  \nproblem as to how to capture attention as distractions and competition  \nmultiply. In some way, to be really focussed on, art must avoid being  \ntoo easy to experience, for then it can become just the background,  \njust decoration or elevator music, or something that can always be  \nattended to “later” — I.e., usually never. This is  a serious and  \nsignificant problem for new media as well, including much Internet art.\n\nExpressly political art can only succeed, it seems to me, if it comes  \nfrom the inner depths.  For instance, I just finished reading Istvan  \nKertesz’s “Fatelessness;” I don’t think it is intentionally political  \nbut it certainly made me boil with anger at the human mistreatment and  \nneglect of others. Such art brings what was already there inside us  \nand adds to its centrality. But that doesn’t happen often. In my  \nexperience most political art is superficial and therefore bad, just  \nas likely to turn off sympathetic feelings in the viewer as the  \nopposite.\n\nIncidentally,  I don’t know that good art necessarily causes us to  \nthink “Wow! I admire that.” But it doesn't easily let go of us.\n\n\nBest,\nMichael\n\nOn May 19, 2009, at 6:44 AM, Brian Holmes wrote:\n\n> carlos katastrofsky wrote:\n>\n>> if i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire\n>> it (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\n>> something autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\n>> a mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at  \n>> the\n>> same time it can be all of that.\n>\n> What does one admire a piece of art? What is its autonomy?  And what  \n> could\n> be its consequences? I have asked myself these questions for years.  \n> Like\n> most thinking people, I have come to a few conclusions. And since I  \n> like\n> the idea that art can be \"all of that\" - a form of communication, a  \n> medium,\n> new media art - I would like to share these conclusions with you.\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "date": "Tue, 19 May 2009 12:30:11 -0700",
                            "message-id": "F6688CA9&#45;F000&#45;49A8&#45;9176&#45;5F62EC6DF50A {AT} well.com",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00064",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                        },
                        {
                            "from": "eyescratch <eyescratch {AT} gmail.com>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00069.html",
                            "author_name": "eyescratch",
                            "content": "\nOn Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Brian Holmes <brian.holmes {AT} wanadoo.fr> wrote:\n\n> So you want new media? Replay your avi file of the opening\n> ceremonies of the 2008 Olympics.\n>\n> What I am trying to get at with all of this is that art is\n> essentially media, it is not merely but essentially about\n> communication, only what is communicated is not just a phrase or\n> a slogan or a piece of information, but a problematic attempt\n> to reconfigure a world on every level of sensate and imaginary\n> experience.\n\nMuch of media studies is obsessed with witnessing an existence that is\npart of mediality, to borrow a term from the previous discussion, by\nplacing great emphasis on inserting the observer into the equation.\nNevertheless these studies formulate a distinction to preserve some\nauthorship role. What this kind of representational relationship\nignores is that it precludes any kind of intervention in favor of a\nconservation. If the art cannot be conserved because it is conceptual\nor a piece of code, the identity of the author is preserved and\ncelebrated. This is because a piece of media arrives at its monetary\nvalue by being bundled with products that claim to correct the\ninjustices, needs, or ailments being described in that piece of media.\nThe media is monetized either for its value of showing a certain lack\nor showing the idealized completion that a product might fulfill. An\nauthorship identity, it turns out, can fulfill this marketing function\nnicely for the lack of any particular object that might or might not\nexist or lacks monetary value, culminating it seems these days in a\nguarded wikipedia entry.\n\nTurns out, while searching for a word to describe the process of\nentering into communication via media I looked up mediated. There is\nplenty of secondary literature on McLuhan using this word to capture\nthe processes McLuhan describes, but he himself only uses the word\nmediated with the original definition to describe the arbitration\nthat happens in a conflict. Using the term mediated in the sense that\na form of communication is performed via media, still implies that\nthere is an exchange occurring where each party must sacrifice some\nof their preconceptions in a productive process that is manufacturing\nrepresentation. Otherwise this representation veers very quickly\ntowards the ideological.\n\nhTTp://eyescratch.tk\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "date": "Sat, 23 May 2009 10:30:31 -0400",
                            "message-id": "79976e5a0905230730j58fc5bdes611529b066f69590 {AT} mail.gmail.com",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00069",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                        }
                    ],
                    "date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 11:48:02 -0700",
                    "message-id": "4A105BE2.9050609 {AT} umail.ucsb.edu",
                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                    "id": "00051",
                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis"
                },
                {
                    "from": "lorian Cramer <fc-nettime {AT} pleintekst.nl>",
                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00056.html",
                    "author_name": "Florian Cramer",
                    "content": "\nOn Sunday, May 17 2009, 10:59 (+0200), carlos katastrofsky wrote:\n\n> what i am always wondering about is why the media arts field is so\n> concerned with its media. is dealing with \"new media\" or \"old media\"\n> an excuse for making good or bad art? IMO defining art by its media\n> is on the same level as defining art by its subject. not getting\n> over these definitions will result in a ghetto-situation sooner or\n> later.\n\nI am not so sure whether I agree. It all depends on your definition of\n\"media\". The problem is that the word \"media\" means quite different\nthings in different contexts: In the arts, it traditionally refers\nto the material means of expression from which artworks are created\n[painting, sculpture, photography, video, performance - that were also\nthe media meant with such terms as \"intermedia\", \"mixed media\" and\n\"multimedia\" since the 1960s]. In communication studies, \"media\" is\npractically synonymous with mass media and refers to an apparatus and\nsystem of communication, including newspapers, radio, TV, Internet.\nIn other humanities, there is a notion of media as any symbolic or\nsemiotic carrier.\n\nFor example, in the contemporary art (but not media art) world,\nthere just has been a series of exhibitions on pornography, from\n\"BodyPoliticx\" in Rotterdam to \"The Porn Identity\" in Vienna. One\ncould call pornography a medium and thus say that these exhibitions\nwere curated from a media perspective. After all, the ars electronica\ndid almost the same thing with its \"Next Sex\" theme in 2000. Or, a\nrandom example taken from just having browsed the Tate Modern site\nand its blurb on the current exhibition \"Stutter\": \"The onomatopoeic\nword 'Stutter' refers to an act of speech interrupted by agitated,\nspasmodic, or involuntary repetitions. As the title for this\nexhibition, it suggests a metaphor for questions of disruption and\ndiscontinuity in processes of thought, systems of communications\nor conceptions of knowledge.\" Again, this is pretty close if not\nidentical to curatorship from a media and communications viewpoint.\n\n> the problem -IMHO- is not that media art is not recognized by the\n> fine art world but that the fine art world is dealing with other\n> subjects.\n\nIf I take, for example, the subjects of the last nine transmediale\nfestivals (\"Do It Yourself\", \"Go Public\", \"Play Global\", \"Fly Utopia\",\n\"Basics\", \"Reality Addicts\", \"Unfinish\", \"Conspire\", \"Deep North\"),\nthey could just as well have been the names of contemporary art\nexhibitions at PS.1 in New York, KW in Berlin, Witte de With in\nRotterdam, or any other contemporary art space.\n\n> when was the last big exhibition dealing solely with \"painting\" or\n> \"sculpture\" you've seen? ars electronica and the others are doing\n> that every year: \"new media art\" with changing subtitles.\n\nOne could just as well say that contemporary art deals with \"white\ncube installation art\" with changing subtitles.\n\n> the same problem persists when new media artists and theorists\n> insist on \"politicalness\" and \"radicality\".\n\nThe same terms abound in the contemporary art discourse if you read,\nfor example, \"October\" or \"Texte zur Kunst\".\n\n> those terms don't say anything about certain works either, no matter\n> which media is used in it. they only say that they may be recognised\n> as \"political\" in a certain time in a certain context.\n\nIMO art is, like any public expression, always political. Art that\nclaims not to be political being all the more political as a matter\nof fact (with symbolist l'art-pour-l'art being a prime example). What\nI would describe as the political-artistic quality in the art of,\nfor example, ubermorgen is that unlike 'actual' politics, it can be\nwillfully and even criminally irresponsible. One could admittedly\ndismiss this as a romanticist argument, but it has nevertheless a lot\ngoing for it, not just if we look at gothic aesthetics and Bataille's\naesthetics of evil, but also at more recent artistic practices like\nOtto Muehl's commune and Eastern European art since the 1980s.\n\n> but that doesn't say anything about it's \"artness\" either. \"art\n> doesn't become art by having specific characteristics but by a\n> specific kind of processual reference to it.\" (J. Rebentisch,\n> Aesthetik der Installation)\n\nNot knowing the full context of this quote, I nevertheless find such\nsystemic definitions of art quite risky. If the basic quality of art\n- in the sense of 'Fine Art' - lies in its self-reference to its own\nsystem, then it would be something very narrow and ultimately boring,\nand something already exhausted by Duchamp in the 20th century. It\nwould pay a high price for having, since the 19th century, rid itself\nfrom more popular forms of visual culture. Such a definition does not\neven apply to the arguably most elitist forms of other contemporary\narts such as poetry and contemporary classical music, since poetry can\nstill be defined outside its own system as highly condensed/conjugated\nlanguage and new music as highly organized sound. - On top of that, it\nis an exclusively Western concept of art which blatantly contradicts\nthe post-1990s efforts of integrating postcolonial considerations into\ncontemporary art. Remarkable enough, these integrations never question\nthe concept of \"art\" itself - although the concept of autonomous art\nonly exists in Western cultures or as a Western cultural import in,\nfor example, Asian countries (which traditionally do not separate art\nfrom craft).\n\n> if i want to learn something about politics i would read a book with\n> proper information about it and not go to see art that repeats the\n> common sense that there are bad things existing in our world.\n\nTrue. Only that exhibitions like Documenta XI have been haunted by\nthis concept of art.\n\n-F\n\n-- \nblog:     http://en.pleintekst.nl\nhomepage: http://cramer.pleintekst.nl:70\n          gopher://cramer.pleintekst.nl\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                    "follow-up": [
                        {
                            "from": "carlos katastrofsky <carlos.katastrofsky {AT} cont3xt.net>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00061.html",
                            "author_name": "carlos katastrofsky",
                            "content": "> I am not so sure whether I agree. It all depends on your definition of\n> \"media\". The problem is that the word \"media\" means quite different things\n> in different contexts:\n\ni agree. but exactly this is the point: media theory is swallowing\neverything, but where are its boundaries? what i am trying to find as\nartist (neither theorist nor philosopher) is a definition for art that\ngoes beyond a mere definition as \"media\" in whatever sense.\nthat is why i am aiming on the much-maligned term of \"autonomy\" (and\ni'm following here the previous mentioned philosophy of j.\nrebentisch). to me this doesn't mean art is somewhat apolotical or\ndealing solely with itself (l' art pour l'art - i guess you had this\nin mind when stating \"[...] If the basic quality of art - in the sense\nof 'Fine Art' - lies in its self-reference to its own system, then it\nwould be something very narrow and ultimately boring, [...]\"). art is\nmade to be seen/heard/whatever - to be experienced. and this\nexperience is what defines art and not media. it can change in time\n-we quite surely don't experience cave paintings in the same way the\nones did who made them- but i'm not sure if \"the media\" does, no\nmatter if it's read as \"painting/drawing\" or as \"hunting scene\". what\ni am hoping to find by this is a possibility to think about \"art\" and\nneither media nor porn or politics. these are -let's say- \"themes\"\nthat can be interpreted, but i hope that art goes beyond being a good\ndesigned set of political opinions. i mean, what political context is\nreflected in leonardo's \"last supper\"? we surely can speculate but do\nwe know? these are things that are bound to their time and context but\nnevertheless we still percieve it as \"art\".\n\n> If I take, for example, the subjects of the last nine transmediale\n> festivals (\"Do It Yourself\",\n[...]\n> One could just as well say that contemporary art deals with \"white cube\n> installation art\" with changing subtitles.\n[...]\n> The same terms abound in the contemporary art discourse if you read, for\n> example, \"October\" or \"Texte zur Kunst\".\n\nyep, exactly. and this what the \"art world\" makes as boring as \"new\nmedia art\". what i had in mind when saying that the \"fine art world is\ndealing with other subjects\" was not the (i would like to call it\nnonexistent) contemporary discourse. what can be seen in the fine arts\nfield (but not in the big biz -documenta, ps1, kw, ...) is an\ninclusion of possibilities in expression and perception which i never\nsaw in any media-art discourse (though i have to admit i am far from\nfollowing everything in that area).\n\n> Not knowing the full context of this quote, I nevertheless find such\n> systemic definitions of art quite risky. If the basic quality of art\n> - in the sense of 'Fine Art' - lies in its self-reference to its own\n> system,\n\ni'm sorry if this comes through that way, i'm not the best in\nformulating things. i never wanted to present art as solely\nself-referential system. if autonomy is read as autonomy of the object\n(l'art pour l'art) i would agree totally with you. but seen from the\nviewpoint that \"art\" may not lie in an object but somewhere between\nthe object and the observer (experience, perception) an autonomy of\nart is essential.\n\n\nthank you all for your replies :-)\n\nbest,\ncarlos\n-- \nhttp://katastrofsky.cont3xt.net\nhttp://cont3xt.net\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "date": "Tue, 19 May 2009 15:14:35 +0200",
                            "message-id": "fb9095bf0905190614l39062a34j17867e0d82469c5f {AT} mail.gmail.com",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00061",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                        },
                        {
                            "from": "Station Rose <gunafa {AT} well.com>",
                            "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00072.html",
                            "author_name": "Station Rose",
                            "content": "\nOn Sunday, May 17 2009, 10:59 (+0200), florian cramer wrote:\n\n>If I take, for example, the subjects of the last nine transmediale\n>festivals (\"Do It Yourself\", \"Go Public\", \"Play Global\", \"Fly\n>Utopia\", \"Basics\", \"Reality Addicts\", \"Unfinish\", \"Conspire\", \"Deep\n>North\"), they could just as well have been the names of contemporary\n>art exhibitions at PS.1 in New York, KW in Berlin, Witte de With in\n>Rotterdam, or any other contemporary art space.\n\nbut it wasnt like that cause it was happening ONLY in a festival     .\n<ghetto> situation                                                   .\n\nas I see it, many art people are not going to events like\ntransmediale, cause its not seen as an important place for art. I dont\ngo, besides when we are actively part of it.\n\nlooks like media art is not sexy enough. the exhibits, as part of\nfestivals, are often too prudish. everything sensual seems forbidden,\n\ntoo often it s needs written explanations to understand the\n(political) work.\n\nI do not believe - and I say that as an artist- that the written word\nis necessary to <understand> a piece of art.it can help and make\ndetails transparent, but its not necessary in advance.\n\n\nmy own experience with Station Rose media art projects-like recently\nLogInCabin in MAK Vienna- is : they are recognized & seen in art\nspaces, museums by the art scene, but not as much in a so called media\nart context as festivals are.\n\nbasically my impression is that as long as a dicussion like that one\ngoes on, it makes clear that the art world is something and the media\nart scene is out of it.\n\n\n-- \n----------------------------------------------------\nStation Rose     digital_audio  - visual art      http://www.stationrose.com\n....................    Gary Danner & Elisa Rose\n\nFrankfurt   - Cyberspace -  Vienna.\n\n* recent project: 20 Digital Years. \"LogInCabin\" mediascultpure at \nMAK Vienna_sold\n* new: \"Interstellar Overdrive CD\" Japan release (2.09)\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                            "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                            "date": "Sun, 24 May 2009 13:52:26 +0200",
                            "message-id": "a06200701c63ee015f460 {AT} [192.168.1.100]",
                            "content-type": "text/plai",
                            "id": "00072",
                            "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis"
                        }
                    ],
                    "date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 23:04:49 +0200",
                    "message-id": "20090518210449.GJ3919 {AT} hp.localdomain",
                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                    "id": "00056",
                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                },
                {
                    "from": "John Hopkins <jhopkins {AT} neoscenes.net>",
                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00065.html",
                    "author_name": "John Hopkins",
                    "content": "carlos katastrofsky wrote:\n\n> what i am always wondering about is why the media arts field is so\n> concerned with its media. is dealing with \"new media\" or \"old media\"\n\nexactly Carlos...\n\nthis revolves around the common (still, ongoing, & perhaps permanent!)\nproblem of identifying creative impulses by their materialized remains\n(media, mediated forms).  There are precisely identical histories of the \nrise of\n(materially) specialized festivals, research centers, art school\ndepartments, workshop venues, etc etc -- photography, for example.\nWhere are all the institutions and organizations and events that swirled\naround that particular material result of creative impulse?  They are\ngone, gone, gone.  Abd the ones who remain -- does anyone think they are\ncenter for radical creative experimentation?  Most people don't even\nremember them.  the Rencontres Internationale de la Photographie and the\nEcole Nationale de la Photographie in Arles, etc etc, huh, who cares?\n\nwhen there is this material obsession, it is bound to be outmoded simply\nbecause things aren't IT, looking at the world as a bunch of things\ndoesn't reveal the phenomenal nature of life: another words, focusing on\nthe detritus that is left, dead, after the creative forces have altered\nthe local universe -- well it's simply a death cult and is a dead end.\n<<yawn>> why ponder on it?  Better to skip the material categorization\nprocess altogether 'cause it IS a dead end...\n\njh\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                    "date": "Wed, 20 May 2009 17:01:58 -0600",
                    "message-id": "4A148BE6.6070209 {AT} neoscenes.net",
                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                    "id": "00065",
                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis"
                },
                {
                    "from": "ben.craggs {AT} fastmail.f",
                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00053.html",
                    "author_name": "ben . craggs",
                    "content": "\n> what i am always wondering about is why the media arts field is so\n> concerned with its media. is dealing with \"new media\" or \"old media\"\n> an excuse for making good or bad art? IMO defining art by its media\n> is on the same level as defining art by its subject. not getting\n> over these definitions will result in a ghetto-situation sooner or\n> later. the problem -IMHO- is not that media art is not recognized\n> by the fine art world but that the fine art world is dealing with\n> other subjects. when was the last big exhibition dealing solely\n> with \"painting\" or \"sculpture\" you've seen? ars electronica and the\n> others are doing that every year: \"new media art\" with changing\n> subtitles.\n\n <...>\n\nAn interesting addition to this would be the emergence of 'New, new\nmedia arts'. I am thinking here, of practices in the field currently\ndefining itself as bioart. Here the medium that is being manipulated\nis a form of living or sem-living matter, or tissue. Bioartist,\nEduardo Kac and curator Jens Hauser have sought to specifically\nidentify this new art practice, expressly on the basis of the medium\nitself. Bioarts, they argue, are most definitely are not those works\nthat take bios or a form of life, as a subject, but manipulate it as a\nmedium. That said, the manipulation of living tissue can be executed\nthrough a number of divergent practices, specific technologies, and it\nis these that seem to be defined by some as the media, not the living\ntissue they manipulate. I guess a somewhat simplistic comparison\nwould be between with identification of various 'digital media' in\nabstraction from the advances in computer technology on which they are\nbased.\n\nMy current work in the field of bioart is increasingly\npushing me towards a frustration at the distinction between\nart/science/media/technology/old/new that recurs in the majority of\nliterature, and if I am not wrong seems to predicate this current\ndiscussion. In the light of these new practices I have been working\ntowards re-imagining what art and media are in themselves, as\ntechnologies and processes not as distinct practices - the specific\nmedia or declared purpose seem less relevant from this perspective. So\nI wonder whether 'meaning is present in all works, to varying degrees,\nregardless of how they might be appropriated by culture' could be\nextended beyond a simple valorisation of art.\n\nIt also seems that those new media theorists, such as Manovich and\nBaudrillard are somewhat restricted in their approach in that new\nmedia is perceived in a somewhat teleological sense, newness for\nthe sake of newness, with new theories to match new media - without\nasking what is actually recurring in new media. IMO it seems that\nmost new media, are really just old media anyway, particularly so in\nbioart. Is the creative growth of tissue not what we do continually\nas part of our natural bodily processes? Would it be facetious\nthen to ask whether all media be considered from this originary\nperspective, negating the discussions about relative newness or\ncultural categorization (ie i's art, it's science, it's technology,\nit's media).\n\nBen\n\n\n\n-- ---------\n  Ben Craggs\n  07868 273 360\n---------------\n  http://www.digitalscribblings.org/forums\n  A place for academic discussion, networking and general postgraduate procrastination!\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                    "to": "\"NetTime Mailing List\" <nettime-l {AT} kein.org>",
                    "date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 08:42:05 +0100",
                    "message-id": "1242632525.29400.1315956661 {AT} webmail.messagingengine.com",
                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                    "id": "00053",
                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                },
                {
                    "from": "Brian Holmes <brian.holmes {AT} wanadoo.fr>",
                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00054.html",
                    "author_name": "Brian Holmes",
                    "content": "\nRama Hoetzlein wrote:\n\n> New media art should be defined from an art-philosophical\n> perspective. In this view, meaning is present in all works, to\n> varying degrees, regardless of how they might be appropriated\n> by culture. At what time in history was art not appropriated by\n> culture? None the less, people continued to create art. The process\n> of art-making is one of creating meaning, and this relation between\n> the artist and the work is not changed despite how the object is\n> ultimately appreciated, used, or abused by culture.\n\nIt's great to read such a fundamental comment. I shall add something.\nMy viewpoint includes both Tolstoy's and Baudrillard's. I find that\ninformatic art (my own off-the-cuff term, but surely better than new\nmedia) is compelling precisely when it places subjective expression\nwithin the most strongly coercive social arena of our time, namely\nthe digital networks. Your idea that there is an art-philosophical\nperspective that could exclude or bypass social determinism seems,\nbegging your pardon, somewhat naive. What is more, I think all the\ninterest of art itself disappears when it is shorn from the contexts\nof power and held up as a pure conductor of subjectivity. Approached\nin that way, the art work tends to become no more than a mirror for\nour own emotions and fantasies -- far from any state of empathy,\nEinfuhlung or whatever one chooses to call it. So I am not surprised\nthat you move from Tolstoy's fascinating quote (reproduced below) to\nthe \"relation between the artist and the work.\" I guess I am more\ninterested in, well, media: the way the work relates the artist to\nothers.\n\nHowever, your observation about new media theory (Kittler and McLuhan\nwere recently mentioned here) is spot on. What we are given from\nthe podium, over and over again, are lessons about the power of\ntechnoscientific systems. The predicament of the human singularity,\ncaught within the net of determinisms yet resisting, creating another\nreality and expressing this rather fantastic adventure through\nwhatever kind of material or semiotic medium has been chosen, is left\nout of the story, which thereby becomes a monument to the crushing\nregularity of the status quo. The same thing, of course, happens to\nresistant political action in the hands of the sociologists and the\nHeideggerean philosophers of an essential, \"historial\" alienation.\nBoth ethics and aesthetics take it on the chin.\n\nIn my view, the great inspiration for new media theory has come from\nhackers themselves, who create alternative possibilities for existence\nwithin the overwhelmingly powerful networked environment. This is why,\nin essays which are inseparably about art and technics, I tend to\nuse concepts like \"reverse imagineering\" or \"escaping the overcode.\"\nExpression, for me, is the rupture of code, an excess which does not\nabolish the labyrinth in which we are caught, but at least opens up a\npossible new path through it.\n\nThat's one approach. There could be many others. The problem, as\nyou point out, is that usually there are not, because the theory\nvery rarely meets any actual practice. The necessary discussion of\ntechnological power holds the center stage. Of course that is easier\nfor the whole \"new media\" social circuit, because then you don't have\nto think very much, or feel very much, or try very hard to find out\nwhat might be at stake in a particular work.\n\nThis list, I guess, is about the best place to talk about how to\napproach media art. Thanks to all for starting the conversation. I'm\nready for more. Let the thousand info-aesthetics bloom!\n\nbest, BH\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                    "date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 23:32:13 +0200",
                    "message-id": "4A10825D.6040905 {AT} wanadoo.fr",
                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                    "id": "00054",
                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                },
                {
                    "from": "Rama Hoetzlein <rch {AT} umail.ucsb.edu>",
                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00052.html",
                    "author_name": "Rama Hoetzlein",
                    "content": "\nBrian, thanks for your reply. In general, i'm glad to see that\nwe're mostly in agreement. Based on my observations of nettime-l,\ndisagreement is often the norm, so I'm glad to see that there is\nsome consensus between us that the new media theorists are currently\nthe only option we've been given, and that we really need some\nalternatives.. Now, for some responses.\n\n> Your idea that there is an art-philosophical perspective that could \n> exclude or bypass social determinism seems, begging your pardon, \n> somewhat naive. \n\nI'm not suggesting that art-philosophy can bypass social determinism.\nI have no illusions about the difficulty the artist faces in creating\nany real social change, since my view of art does not negate any of\nthe real research done by the media theorists. My own view is that\nthe idea of art-for-social-change is long outdated. You suggest\nthat hackers are the source of real inspiration in new media theory\nbecause they alone are able to transform the media itself, and thus\nundermine the system toward some possible escape path. Yet, there\nis no reason to believe that even if the media itself changes, that\nsociety will too. In my view, the only way we could overcome the\ncurrent technoscientific system would be due to a deep, fundamental\ntransformation in all individuals - and while I believe art is\ncapable of doing this one person at a time, I don't think any one\nartwork, hacker or otherwise, is capable of really altering the\ntechnoscientific system we find ourselves in on a global level. Thus,\nall social change we talk about now is still part of that system. This\nis the media theorist perspective, of course - which i agree with -\nbut as an artist, its incomplete.\n\nThe reason I advocate art-philosophy is for the sake of the\nindividual, and the field of art itself. While i just said the artist\nis powerless to transform culture, perhaps to a degree greater than\nmost would like, the artist is _not_ powerless to transform him or\nherself, and others which that person touches through the art..\nDespite whatever the technoscientific system may do, to create art is\nan intentional act by an individual, and thus has an immutable meaning\njust by virtue of being \"created\". We get to choose what is created\n(this does not make it good art necessarily).\n\nThat meaning is present in all work \"to varying degrees\". By this, i\nmean that we each have a unique relationship to our artwork. For some,\nit is a mirror of personal emotions and fantasies (and probably my\nown work most of the time), while others may be able to communicate\nmore.. So, I'm not evaluating art. Some is good, some is not. However,\nhaving an art-philosophical does not automatically reduce our works to\nemotional fantasies. In fact, it is more likely to result in genuinely\nempathetic works since it creates a solid foundation for art based on\na philosophy in which art is encouraged to be empathetic, rather than\nresponsive to a system.\n\nI'm simply stating -- which I think we perhaps both agree with here --\nthat so far we have not been given any other alternative view of new\nmedia art other than that proposed by the new media theorists. The way\nout of this problem is, I believe, through a philosophy of art whereby\nthe artist has full awareness of the problems of society (hopefully),\nyet continues to create works of art despite this. It is possible to\nhave no illusions about the inability of art to bring about explicit\nsocial change, but understand that it can bring implicit change\nthrough individual communication.\n\n-rama\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                    "date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 17:24:51 -0700",
                    "message-id": "4A10AAD3.1010309 {AT} umail.ucsb.edu",
                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                    "id": "00052",
                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                },
                {
                    "from": "carlos katastrofsky <carlos.katastrofsky {AT} gmail.com>",
                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00058.html",
                    "author_name": "carlos katastrofsky",
                    "content": "\n> The way out of this problem is, I believe, through a philosophy of\n> art whereby the artist has full awareness of the problems of society\n> (hopefully), yet continues to create works of art despite this.\n> It is possible to have no illusions about the inability of art to\n> bring about explicit social change, but understand that it can bring\n> implicit change through individual communication.\n>\n\nbut can \"change\" be a parameter for art? what is to be changed through\nart? i agree that a \"change\" in whatever direction is possible but\nIMHO art mustn't be reduced to it. to me art is also someting i can\nadmire without thinking of having to change something. in fact even\nif i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire\nit (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\nsomething autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\na mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at the\nsame time it can be all of that.\n\nbest,\ncarlos\n\n\n-- \nhttp://katastrofsky.cont3xt.net\nhttp://cont3xt.net\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                    "date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 16:11:26 +0200",
                    "message-id": "fb9095bf0905180711m6cd209adt9b6435753d81770a {AT} mail.gmail.com",
                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                    "id": "00058",
                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                },
                {
                    "from": "Rama Hoetzlein <rch {AT} umail.ucsb.edu>",
                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00057.html",
                    "author_name": "Rama Hoetzlein",
                    "content": "\nexactly.. even if we are fully unconcerned with political art, when\nyou say \"wow, great work\", thats just and only what i mean by implicit\nchange (you are changed).. art is autonomous here because, while the\nwork may or may not be political, this implicit change defines only\nthe meaning-relation between the artist, the work, and the viewer.\nAnd that relationship is established independent of the impact of\nmedia on society, i.e. politics. A philosophy of art should provide a\nfoundation for complete autonomy, and this is done by observing that\nthe basis of art is creating and appreciating.. keeping in mind that\ntheory only gets you so far as an artist.\n\nrama\n\ncarlos katastrofsky wrote:\n> but can \"change\" be a parameter for art? what is to be changed through\n> art? i agree that a \"change\" in whatever direction is possible but\n> IMHO art mustn't be reduced to it. to me art is also someting i can\n> admire without thinking of having to change something. in fact even if\n> i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire it\n> (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\n> something autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\n> a mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at the\n> same time it can be all of that.\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                    "date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 10:11:25 -0700",
                    "message-id": "4A1196BD.3060002 {AT} umail.ucsb.edu",
                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                    "id": "00057",
                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                },
                {
                    "from": "Brian Holmes <brian.holmes {AT} wanadoo.fr>",
                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00062.html",
                    "author_name": "Brian Holmes",
                    "content": "carlos katastrofsky wrote:\n\n > if i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire\n > it (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\n > something autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\n > a mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at the\n > same time it can be all of that.\n\nWhat does one admire a piece of art? What is its autonomy?  And what could\nbe its consequences? I have asked myself these questions for years. Like\nmost thinking people, I have come to a few conclusions. And since I like\nthe idea that art can be \"all of that\" - a form of communication, a medium,\nnew media art - I would like to share these conclusions with you.\n\nHumans are excessively complex by nature, and inherently social. We are\ndefined by the surfeit of symbolic activity that goes on in our brains and\nindeed, in our full sensorium, and that comes out not only from our mouths\nbut in all sorts of gestures and postures and practices directed toward the\nsenses and symbolizing activities of others. A long anthropological\ntradition running from Sapir through Levi-Strauss to Sahlins holds that\nso-called \"primitive\" societies are no less complex than modern ones: their\nlanguages show comparable range and variety, but are (according to\nLevi-Strauss) oriented differently, more concrete in one case, more\nabstracted in the other. There is so much going on in any human being and\nbetween any group of human beings that just ordering or harmonizing all\nthis excessive symbolization - I mean, excessive over what the utilitarians\nthink of as the simple quest for satisfaction or corporeal pleasure -\nbecomes a problem in itself. Because madness always lurks on the edges of\nour reeling imaginations, and then there is also depression, or anger, or\njealousy, or prejudice or extreme paranoia, indeed a great number of\nobscure problems that can disrupt the life of the one and of the many.\n\nReligion has been the great social technique for bringing all this roiling\nthought, expression and sensation into some kind of predictable pattern and\nharmony, constituting entire narrative and figural universes, with their\nbuilt environments, rituals, music, poetry, smells, tastes, etc, all\nassociated and carefully correlated with orders of kinship, canons of\nsexuality, responsibilities of care, expressions of tenderness,\ncommandments, prohibitions and the like. What we now call art, as it\ngradually detached itself from religion and became a series of aesthetic\ntraditions interpretable and modifiable by individuals - as it became\nautonomous in other words - seems to have taken on the role of being the\nsensuous and ideational mirror of the individual's proper \"fit\" with\nsociety; it became a way of continuing the vast and mostly imaginary\nconversation about the ways that the one relates to the many, and\nvice-versa.  However, this conversation was no longer necessarily about\nharmony: because depending on the very particular context, the proper \"fit\"\ncould have aspects of a \"misfit,\" and the quest for an idealized harmony\ncould involve extreme disruptions of the status quo, disruptions appearing\nboth in art and in life itself. Just think about the Antigone of Sophocles\nand you will see that this kind of problematic was not invented with the\nromantics, it goes back quite a ways.  Clearly it gets particularly intense\nin modern democracies, where we are all brought up to conceive ourselves as\nboth legislators and revolutionaries.\n\nNow, amusingly, one of the reasons I ever even bothered to think about such\ncomplex and excessive things, so far from \n\"direct political action\" and what have you, is that for \nmany years I have found myself with a certain nagging problem of getting up\nin the morning. Perhaps others have experienced this? It so happens that on\ncertain mornings I may spend as much as an hour just thinking about a\ncertain constellation of things: a group of people, an artwork, a political\nissue, a line from a song, a concept, a phrase from a book, an image, a\nrhythm. Without showing any particular signs of anxiety, insanity,\ndelirium, fever, swine flu or whatever, I still found it necessary to bring\nsuch constellations of ideas and sensations into some kind of dynamic\npattern that would lend a spring to my step, a direction to my speech, an\neffectiveness to my gestures.  Being a bit of a misfit - according to the\naforementioned tradition in the democratic societies - I had to work on\nthis question of how to fit all this in, nonetheless: how to fit into my\nown overflowing symbolic and sensate world, first of all, and how to fit\nthat world into the multitude of others with whom daily activity brings me\ninto contact.  Thus I began to think that what is pleasing, satisfying,\nattractive, intriguing, inspiring, shocking, repellent, etc in the formal\nallure of artworks is also somehow the result of other people's struggles\nwith the excess of symbolization in which they are embroiled, and that the\n\"success\" of the artwork (wow, great work) is always some variation on the\n\"infinite theme of the artist(s) trying to break out of one universe and\n\"fit into another - whether we're talking about a purely abstract universe\n\"of chromatism or rhythm, or some Hegelian quandry of historical\n\"dialectics, or the current discussion about cap and trade, or the latest\n\"dispute over the coolest tattoos in the punk or heavy-metal circle that\n\"encloses your secret passion. An aesthetic form doesn't directly solve any\n\"of the weighty social problems - but it helps get a world together, it\n\"helps structure a pattern and a dynamic and an enthusiasm, which is always\n\"a good start.\n\nSo how 'bout the politics then? Well, according to my little theory, the\npersonal is clearly both aesthetic and political, because if you can't get\nout of bed you are definitely not going to make it to the office, the\nmarch, the meeting, the voting booth, the library, or wherever your\nactivity is going to have some consequences in terms of organizing social\nrelations. What is more, this is not just my little theory, because going\nback to Plato's Republic or maybe the Rig Vedas, social thinkers have been\nvery conscious of the influence of things like music on the order and\nharmony of the community, the city, state or whatever.  Indeed, not long\nago we saw with dazzled and almost disbelieving eyes that a great\nnation-state like China could put a significant fraction of its resources\ninto organizing an aesthetic display which was not just supposed to knock\neverybody out, American style, with its overwhelming show of wealth, but\nalso and above all to enact and celebrate an ideal of harmony and societal\ncoordination which, from my anarcho-individualist viewpoint, was at once\nvastly impressive and also frankly terrifying, because here I could see an\nintensive use of all the latest, hypercomplex aesthetic techniques to knit\ntogether an order that could power a vast authoritarian economic machine\nand infuse it with the enthusiam and belief of the many - which is a lot,\nwhen we're talking China. So you want new media? Replay your avi file of\nthe opening ceremonies of the 2008 Olympics.\n\nWhat I am trying to get at with all of this is that art is essentially\nmedia, it is not merely but essentially about communication, only what is\ncommunicated is not just a phrase or a slogan or a piece of information,\nbut a problematic attempt to reconfigure a world on every level of sensate\nand imaginary experience. That can be an attempt to fit in or to stick out,\nto harmonize or to disrupt, to smash the current relation of self and\nsociety or to conserve it or to invent another one; but insofar as art is\nexpression, it always projects this struggle over the shape and balance of\na world towards the ears and eyes and excessive imaginations of others.\nWhen we say that art is autonomous, we situate it in the long democratic\ntradition where the self, autos, tries to help establish the law, nomos,\naccordingly which it can freely develop in the company of fellow human\nbeings. Now, the problems of this attempt at autonomy are almost infinite,\nthey are sexual, technical, ecological, emotional, mystical, contractual,\nmaterial, they involve philosophy, science, babies, great art and also the\nplumbing. And they always involve the relations of individuals and groups\nto others whose worlds they do not understand, whose rhythms they do not\nfeel pulsing in their own veins, whose tacit concepts of harmony and\ndisruption are not expressed by the same patterns and shapes and colors and\ncombinations of tones. So when I say, Wow, great art - as I often do, just\nthe way people in the new media arts circles have done for years at\nfestivals sponsored by Philips and Microsoft and Sony and the like - the\nfirst consequence for me is to inquire into the world from which that art\narises and to which it points, and eventually to see how I fit into or\ndesire to break out of that world.  This means that a deep and searching\ncriticism can never just be criticism of the work, it always has to look\nfurther back, into the world from which it sprang, and ahead to the\nconsequences of a potential change in the worlds we share, or at least to\nthe consequences of a change in the way that *I* or *we* will relate to\nother worlds in the future.\n\nFinally, it seems to me, in my anarcho-democratic world, that to say Wow,\ngreat art, without inquiring into the consequences, is one of the closest\nthings one can do to never getting out of bed, i.e. it's close to\nsleepwalking.  Because at best, you would then be just letting the great\nart fit into your own great dream, or letting it be the colorful and\nstriking tattoo that will fit you into your small chosen circle. That's at\nbest - because in the present world of biopower and noopower, just admiring\na work in itself and for itself can mean accepting without question the\nworld that it mediates, which in the case of the networked technologies\nsold by Sony and Microsoft Philips and abused by a vast array of\ncorporations and governments, can be an extremely predatory world,\nconfigured precisely in order to capture your consciousness and extract\nsome value or utility out of your passions and dreams. Value that can\nultimately be devastating for the collectivity (as in the debt-fueld\nconsumption boom of this decade), utility that can make you into the most\nterrible of instruments (like the voters lured by nationalist rhetoric into\nsupporting our proliferating wars).\n\nIt has been years since I read Lev Manovich, so what follows may be totally\nunjust to his work, but as I recall, what always irritated me in his\nwriting was a kind of smug insistence that the new media were essentially\ndefined by a certain kind of rhythm, a certain multiplication of screens, a\ncertain connection to databases, etc. - in other words, that the new media\nwere essentially defined by the dominant trends of contemporary capitalist\nsociety. For me this seemed like a total abdication of criticism itself,\nand it also seemed to be a sort of cheerful, \"I'm on the winning side\"\nversion of the dark technological determinism and philosophical doomsaying\npromoted by the post-Leftist thinkers in the wake of Baudrillard. What I\nmissed was the very question of autonomy, and some recognition of its\nquasi-infinite complexities as they've been ceaselessly developing from the\nNeolithic to now, in the long and discontinuous series of messages passed\nfrom human world to human world. Imho, the poverty of new media art - its \n\"crisis\" - has intrinsically to do with the poverty of media \ncritique tout court. It is the failure to see how the cultural politics of\nindividuals and groups are mediated in the work, how they are expressed at\nevery level of their ineluctable complexity and excess over the \"mere\ncommunication\" of what already exists.\n\nbest, Brian\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                    "date": "Tue, 19 May 2009 15:44:02 +0200",
                    "message-id": "4A12B7A2.7080003 {AT} wanadoo.fr",
                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                    "id": "00062",
                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis"
                },
                {
                    "from": "Michael H Goldhaber <mgoldh {AT} well.com>",
                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00064.html",
                    "author_name": "Michael H Goldhaber",
                    "content": "\nThanks for some beautiful and thought-provoking statements, especially  \nBrian’s and Carlos’s. I would add that to me the real medium of all  \nart is attention, attention the viewer or reader or listener must pay,  \nfeels consciously drawn to pay, in a deepening and all encompassing  \nway. That attention amounts to a transformation of self — into the  \nmind and body of the artist, as it were. The rest of the world falls  \naway for that moment, and so does time —the moment might be a long one  \n—and,a s Brian suggests will recur  later on, in recollection and  \nreflection.\n\nIf that is art, it is always political, because it always takes the  \nattention payer out of the “system,” whatever it might be and however  \nmuch the managers of the system in fact solicited the artist  or the  \nwork to begin with. The huge abstract paintings of the 1950’s cold  \nonly fit on the walls of the rich, but nonetheless, as long as they  \nwere there, they took over those walls, and made the space different  \nfrom what the collector might have intended, and the same goes for  \nRenaissance art and art of other periods.\n\nThe reason different media come in is that the artist has an on-going  \nproblem as to how to capture attention as distractions and competition  \nmultiply. In some way, to be really focussed on, art must avoid being  \ntoo easy to experience, for then it can become just the background,  \njust decoration or elevator music, or something that can always be  \nattended to “later” — I.e., usually never. This is  a serious and  \nsignificant problem for new media as well, including much Internet art.\n\nExpressly political art can only succeed, it seems to me, if it comes  \nfrom the inner depths.  For instance, I just finished reading Istvan  \nKertesz’s “Fatelessness;” I don’t think it is intentionally political  \nbut it certainly made me boil with anger at the human mistreatment and  \nneglect of others. Such art brings what was already there inside us  \nand adds to its centrality. But that doesn’t happen often. In my  \nexperience most political art is superficial and therefore bad, just  \nas likely to turn off sympathetic feelings in the viewer as the  \nopposite.\n\nIncidentally,  I don’t know that good art necessarily causes us to  \nthink “Wow! I admire that.” But it doesn't easily let go of us.\n\n\nBest,\nMichael\n\nOn May 19, 2009, at 6:44 AM, Brian Holmes wrote:\n\n> carlos katastrofsky wrote:\n>\n>> if i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire\n>> it (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\n>> something autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\n>> a mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at  \n>> the\n>> same time it can be all of that.\n>\n> What does one admire a piece of art? What is its autonomy?  And what  \n> could\n> be its consequences? I have asked myself these questions for years.  \n> Like\n> most thinking people, I have come to a few conclusions. And since I  \n> like\n> the idea that art can be \"all of that\" - a form of communication, a  \n> medium,\n> new media art - I would like to share these conclusions with you.\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                    "date": "Tue, 19 May 2009 12:30:11 -0700",
                    "message-id": "F6688CA9&#45;F000&#45;49A8&#45;9176&#45;5F62EC6DF50A {AT} well.com",
                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                    "id": "00064",
                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                },
                {
                    "from": "eyescratch <eyescratch {AT} gmail.com>",
                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00069.html",
                    "author_name": "eyescratch",
                    "content": "\nOn Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Brian Holmes <brian.holmes {AT} wanadoo.fr> wrote:\n\n> So you want new media? Replay your avi file of the opening\n> ceremonies of the 2008 Olympics.\n>\n> What I am trying to get at with all of this is that art is\n> essentially media, it is not merely but essentially about\n> communication, only what is communicated is not just a phrase or\n> a slogan or a piece of information, but a problematic attempt\n> to reconfigure a world on every level of sensate and imaginary\n> experience.\n\nMuch of media studies is obsessed with witnessing an existence that is\npart of mediality, to borrow a term from the previous discussion, by\nplacing great emphasis on inserting the observer into the equation.\nNevertheless these studies formulate a distinction to preserve some\nauthorship role. What this kind of representational relationship\nignores is that it precludes any kind of intervention in favor of a\nconservation. If the art cannot be conserved because it is conceptual\nor a piece of code, the identity of the author is preserved and\ncelebrated. This is because a piece of media arrives at its monetary\nvalue by being bundled with products that claim to correct the\ninjustices, needs, or ailments being described in that piece of media.\nThe media is monetized either for its value of showing a certain lack\nor showing the idealized completion that a product might fulfill. An\nauthorship identity, it turns out, can fulfill this marketing function\nnicely for the lack of any particular object that might or might not\nexist or lacks monetary value, culminating it seems these days in a\nguarded wikipedia entry.\n\nTurns out, while searching for a word to describe the process of\nentering into communication via media I looked up mediated. There is\nplenty of secondary literature on McLuhan using this word to capture\nthe processes McLuhan describes, but he himself only uses the word\nmediated with the original definition to describe the arbitration\nthat happens in a conflict. Using the term mediated in the sense that\na form of communication is performed via media, still implies that\nthere is an exchange occurring where each party must sacrifice some\nof their preconceptions in a productive process that is manufacturing\nrepresentation. Otherwise this representation veers very quickly\ntowards the ideological.\n\nhTTp://eyescratch.tk\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                    "date": "Sat, 23 May 2009 10:30:31 -0400",
                    "message-id": "79976e5a0905230730j58fc5bdes611529b066f69590 {AT} mail.gmail.com",
                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                    "id": "00069",
                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                },
                {
                    "from": "carlos katastrofsky <carlos.katastrofsky {AT} cont3xt.net>",
                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00061.html",
                    "author_name": "carlos katastrofsky",
                    "content": "> I am not so sure whether I agree. It all depends on your definition of\n> \"media\". The problem is that the word \"media\" means quite different things\n> in different contexts:\n\ni agree. but exactly this is the point: media theory is swallowing\neverything, but where are its boundaries? what i am trying to find as\nartist (neither theorist nor philosopher) is a definition for art that\ngoes beyond a mere definition as \"media\" in whatever sense.\nthat is why i am aiming on the much-maligned term of \"autonomy\" (and\ni'm following here the previous mentioned philosophy of j.\nrebentisch). to me this doesn't mean art is somewhat apolotical or\ndealing solely with itself (l' art pour l'art - i guess you had this\nin mind when stating \"[...] If the basic quality of art - in the sense\nof 'Fine Art' - lies in its self-reference to its own system, then it\nwould be something very narrow and ultimately boring, [...]\"). art is\nmade to be seen/heard/whatever - to be experienced. and this\nexperience is what defines art and not media. it can change in time\n-we quite surely don't experience cave paintings in the same way the\nones did who made them- but i'm not sure if \"the media\" does, no\nmatter if it's read as \"painting/drawing\" or as \"hunting scene\". what\ni am hoping to find by this is a possibility to think about \"art\" and\nneither media nor porn or politics. these are -let's say- \"themes\"\nthat can be interpreted, but i hope that art goes beyond being a good\ndesigned set of political opinions. i mean, what political context is\nreflected in leonardo's \"last supper\"? we surely can speculate but do\nwe know? these are things that are bound to their time and context but\nnevertheless we still percieve it as \"art\".\n\n> If I take, for example, the subjects of the last nine transmediale\n> festivals (\"Do It Yourself\",\n[...]\n> One could just as well say that contemporary art deals with \"white cube\n> installation art\" with changing subtitles.\n[...]\n> The same terms abound in the contemporary art discourse if you read, for\n> example, \"October\" or \"Texte zur Kunst\".\n\nyep, exactly. and this what the \"art world\" makes as boring as \"new\nmedia art\". what i had in mind when saying that the \"fine art world is\ndealing with other subjects\" was not the (i would like to call it\nnonexistent) contemporary discourse. what can be seen in the fine arts\nfield (but not in the big biz -documenta, ps1, kw, ...) is an\ninclusion of possibilities in expression and perception which i never\nsaw in any media-art discourse (though i have to admit i am far from\nfollowing everything in that area).\n\n> Not knowing the full context of this quote, I nevertheless find such\n> systemic definitions of art quite risky. If the basic quality of art\n> - in the sense of 'Fine Art' - lies in its self-reference to its own\n> system,\n\ni'm sorry if this comes through that way, i'm not the best in\nformulating things. i never wanted to present art as solely\nself-referential system. if autonomy is read as autonomy of the object\n(l'art pour l'art) i would agree totally with you. but seen from the\nviewpoint that \"art\" may not lie in an object but somewhere between\nthe object and the observer (experience, perception) an autonomy of\nart is essential.\n\n\nthank you all for your replies :-)\n\nbest,\ncarlos\n-- \nhttp://katastrofsky.cont3xt.net\nhttp://cont3xt.net\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                    "date": "Tue, 19 May 2009 15:14:35 +0200",
                    "message-id": "fb9095bf0905190614l39062a34j17867e0d82469c5f {AT} mail.gmail.com",
                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                    "id": "00061",
                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis"
                },
                {
                    "from": "Station Rose <gunafa {AT} well.com>",
                    "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00072.html",
                    "author_name": "Station Rose",
                    "content": "\nOn Sunday, May 17 2009, 10:59 (+0200), florian cramer wrote:\n\n>If I take, for example, the subjects of the last nine transmediale\n>festivals (\"Do It Yourself\", \"Go Public\", \"Play Global\", \"Fly\n>Utopia\", \"Basics\", \"Reality Addicts\", \"Unfinish\", \"Conspire\", \"Deep\n>North\"), they could just as well have been the names of contemporary\n>art exhibitions at PS.1 in New York, KW in Berlin, Witte de With in\n>Rotterdam, or any other contemporary art space.\n\nbut it wasnt like that cause it was happening ONLY in a festival     .\n<ghetto> situation                                                   .\n\nas I see it, many art people are not going to events like\ntransmediale, cause its not seen as an important place for art. I dont\ngo, besides when we are actively part of it.\n\nlooks like media art is not sexy enough. the exhibits, as part of\nfestivals, are often too prudish. everything sensual seems forbidden,\n\ntoo often it s needs written explanations to understand the\n(political) work.\n\nI do not believe - and I say that as an artist- that the written word\nis necessary to <understand> a piece of art.it can help and make\ndetails transparent, but its not necessary in advance.\n\n\nmy own experience with Station Rose media art projects-like recently\nLogInCabin in MAK Vienna- is : they are recognized & seen in art\nspaces, museums by the art scene, but not as much in a so called media\nart context as festivals are.\n\nbasically my impression is that as long as a dicussion like that one\ngoes on, it makes clear that the art world is something and the media\nart scene is out of it.\n\n\n-- \n----------------------------------------------------\nStation Rose     digital_audio  - visual art      http://www.stationrose.com\n....................    Gary Danner & Elisa Rose\n\nFrankfurt   - Cyberspace -  Vienna.\n\n* recent project: 20 Digital Years. \"LogInCabin\" mediascultpure at \nMAK Vienna_sold\n* new: \"Interstellar Overdrive CD\" Japan release (2.09)\n\n\n\n\n\n#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
                    "to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
                    "date": "Sun, 24 May 2009 13:52:26 +0200",
                    "message-id": "a06200701c63ee015f460 {AT} [192.168.1.100]",
                    "content-type": "text/plai",
                    "id": "00072",
                    "subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis"
                }
            ],
            "date": "Mon, 11 May 2009 21:29:14 +0200",
            "message-id": "6759B219&#45;5B42&#45;4ED7&#45;9458&#45;133BB375140C {AT} xs4all.nl",
            "content-type": "text/plai",
            "id": "00038",
            "subject": "<nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
            "list": "nettime-l"
        }
    ]
}