"content":"\nDearList,\n\nI'm pleased to announce this month'stheme:\n\n\nCollectingNewMediaArt:JulyThemeoftheMonth\n\nAcommonly-statedreasonfornottakingnewmediaartseriouslyisthatit'can'tbecollected' because of its reproducibility, difficulties in conservation, etc. However, as explored in Rethinking Curating, it CAN be, and is collected, even by commercial collectors, as found by Caitlin Jones at Bryce Wolkowitz Gallery in New York, and Carroll Fletcher Gallery in London. As the Variable Media project found, conservation can also be handled. As Steve Dietz outlines, tactics for collecting in museums might include archives and libraries as well as actual collections. Tate Modern and V&A are also accessioning new media works. CRUMB'sBerylGrahamisworkingonaeditedbookforAshgatepublishersconcerningjustthissubject,withcontributionsfromsomeoftherespondentslistedhere.\n\nSo,howareindividuals,galleriesandmuseumsgettingonwithcollectingnewmediaart?Arethetacticsnew?Whoisbuyingwhat?\n\nReference:\n\nDietz,Steve.2005.“CollectingNewMediaArt:JustLikeAnythingElse,OnlyDifferent.”InBruceAltshuler,ed.,CollectingtheNew:MuseumsandContemporaryArt,85–101.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress.Alsoavailableathttp://www.yproductions.com/writing/archives/collecting_new_media_art.html\n\n--\n\nInvited respondents are:\n\nSteve Fletcher, Carroll Fletcher Gallery, London. Carroll/Fletcher is a contemporary art gallery exhibiting existing and new forms of artistic production across a diverse range of media to explore contemporary socio-political, cultural, scientific and technological themes. http://www.carrollfletcher.com\n\nCatharina Hendrick is a second year PhD student researcher investigating the affect collecting new media art has on contemporary art museums, at University of Leicester. http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/museumstudies/research/phd-student-research/CatharinaHendrick \n\nCaitlin Jones is Executive Director of the Western Front Society in Vancouver, BC. Previously she had a combined curatorial and conservation position at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, and was the Director of Programming at the Bryce Wolkowitz Gallery in New York. A key member of the Variable Media Network, her writings have appeared in a wide range of exhibition catalogues, periodicals and other international publications. http://front.bc.ca/about\n\nWolf Lieser, founder in 1998 of the Digital Art Museum [DAM] - project, and director of Gallery [DAM], Berlin. Author of the book Digital Art http://www.dam.org\n\nLizzie Muller is a curator, writer and researcher specialising in interaction, audience experience and interdisciplinary collaboration. She is Senior Lecturer in the School of Design at the University of Technology, Sydney. http://www.lizziemuller.com/\n\nDomenico Quaranta is an art critic, curator and lecturer. A regular contributor to Flash Art, he is the author of Media, New Media, Postmedia (2010) and the curator of Collect the WWWorld (2011 – 2012). http://domenicoquaranta.com\n\nLouise Shannon is Curator and Deputy Head of the Contemporary Programmes at the Victoria and Albert Museum. She has developed a series of digital commissions for the Garden, and was co-curator of Decode, the first exhibition devoted to digital technologies at the V&A. http://www.vam.ac.uk/microsites/decode/\n\nMike Stubbs is CEO/Director at FACT Foundation for Art and Creative Technology, Liverpool, which has projects including Opencuratit http://www.opencurateit.org/\n\nLindsay Taylor is Exhibitions Officer at Harris Museum and Art Gallery in Preston, and chair of North By NorthWest Contemporary Visual Arts Network. She led the exhibition and collection project: Current: an experiment in collecting digital art. http://www.harrismuseum.org.uk/exhibitions-2011/420-current-an-experiment-in-collecting-digitalart.html\n\n---\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------\n\nBeryl Graham, Professor of New Media Art\nResearch S
"content":"\nDear List,\n\nPerhaps I should kick off with a timely question which has occurred to me as I look at the new Tanks programme at Tate Modern, phase one of the new buildings there. It has a stated remit of exhibiting from the collection, and the programme \"Art in Action\" has been chosen by curators from Live Art, Film, and Education. There is new commissioned work, but also exhibits such as Suzanne Lacey's Crystal Quilt project which is displayed as documentation. Tate also has a day-conference on \"Materialising the Social\" http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern-tanks/conference/insideoutside-materialising-social\n\nSo, is this a good example of certain artforms living in the archives and library as well as the collection, as Steve Dietz says? Does Live Art offer useful examples of how new media can be materialised and live on in exhibitions? Is new commissioning a way to make up for the fact that exhibiting from an archive is \"onlydocumentation'? There must be good new media examples out there of solutions to these problems? Bring these examples to the list! \n\nYours,\n\nBeryl\n\n\nP.S. I'mhappytosaythatAnnetDekkerandPerlaInnocentiwillalsobejoiningusforthedebate,sotheinvitedrespondentslistnowreads:\n\n--\n\nInvitedrespondentsare:\n\nAnnetDekkerisanindependentcuratorandresearcher.Currentlysheisinvolvedinorganisinganinternationalconference“Collectingandpresentingborn-digitalart”forBaltanLaboratoriesandVanAbbemuseuminEindhoven.Since2008sheiswritingaPhDonstrategiesfordocumentingnetartattheCentreforCulturalStudies,Goldsmiths,undersupervisionofMatthewFuller.http://aaaan.net\n\nSteve Fletcher, Carroll Fletcher Gallery, London. Carroll/Fletcher is a contemporary art gallery exhibiting existing and new forms of artistic production across a diverse range of media to explore contemporary socio-political, cultural, scientific and technological themes. http://www.carrollfletcher.com\n\nCatharina Hendrick is a second year PhD student researcher investigating the affect collecting new media art has on contemporary art museums, at University of Leicester. http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/museumstudies/research/phd-student-research/CatharinaHendrick \n\nPerla Innocenti is Research Fellow on cultural informatics and digital preservation, and PI of EU-funded MeLa project at University of Glasgow.http://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/cca/staff/perlainnocenti/\n\nCaitlin Jones is Executive Director of the Western Front Society in Vancouver, BC. Previously she had a combined curatorial and conservation position at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, and was the Director of Programming at the Bryce Wolkowitz Gallery in New York. A key member of the Variable Media Network, her writings have appeared in a wide range of exhibition catalogues, periodicals and other international publications. http://front.bc.ca/about\n\nWolf Lieser, founder in 1998 of the Digital Art Museum [DAM] - project, and director of Gallery [DAM], Berlin. Author of the book Digital Art http://www.dam.org\n\nLizzie Muller is a curator, writer and researcher specialising in interaction, audience experience and interdisciplinary collaboration. She is Senior Lecturer in the School of Design at the University of Technology, Sydney. http://www.lizziemuller.com/\n\nDomenico Quaranta is an art critic, curator and lecturer. A regular contributor to Flash Art, he is the author of Media, New Media, Postmedia (2010) and the curator of Collect the WWWorld (2011 – 2012). http://domenicoquaranta.com\n\nLouise Shannon is Curator and Deputy Head of the Contemporary Programmes at the Victoria and Albert Museum. She has developed a series of digital commissions for the Garden, and was co-curator of Decode, the first exhibition devoted to digital technologies at the V&A. http://www.vam.ac.uk/microsites/decode/\n\nMike Stubbs is CEO/Director at FACT Foundation for Art and Creative Technology, Liverpool, which has projects including Opencuratit http://www.opencur
"content":"\nDear List,\n\nit's a great opportunity for me to be invited to participate in this \ndiscussion. The issue of collecting has obsessed me for a long time, \nand still does. At the same time, I'm a little bit overwhelmed by the \nneed to reduce my ideas about this issue, which are very layered, to \nthe form of a short statement, in a language that is not my native \none. Hope it will work....\n\nFor the sake of clarity, I will try to divide the topic in three \ndifferent areas:\n\n1. collecting new media art;\n2. collecting unstable media;\n3. collecting the digital.\n\n1. Collecting new media art. New media art IS collected, by private \ncollections and institutions, as long as its cultural relevance is \naccepted in the art market field. That is, not so much, because \ngalleries, art critics and curators didn't do a great job so far in \nmaking this cultural relevance a widespread truth in the field of \ncontemporary art; and yet, enough to allow anybody to make a nice \"new \nmedia art show\" with collected or collectable works provided \nexclusively by private and institutional collectors or commercial \ngalleries. That's what I - together with Yves Bernard - tried to do in \n2008, with the show Holy Fire. Art of the Digital Age (iMAL, \nBruxelles, <http://www.imal.org/HolyFire/>). Budget limitations didn't \nallow us to provide a veritable snapshot of new media art collecting \nall around the world at the time, but I still believe that the \nexhibition was quite well representative of the forms in which new \nmedia art entered art collections: mostly in traditional, accepted, \nstable forms, such as digital prints, editioned videos, byproducts, \nand sometimes well crafted, artist's designed, plug-and-play \"digital \nobjects\": from John Simon's art appliances to Boredomresearch screens, \nfrom Electroboutique's self-ironic works to Lialina & Espenschied's \ntouch screen version of the web piece Midnight (2006). This is no \nsurprise. Like it or not, digital media - like all unstable, variable \nmedia - challenge collecting in many ways. And along the XXth century, \nradical forms of art had always to face this conundrum: either accept \ncompromise or stay out of the market. Performance art entered the \nmarket through documentation; video entered the market through video \ninstallations and editioned VHSs or DVDs; conceptual art entered the \nmarket through objectification and autenticity certificates.\n\nMany of my friends think that compromise is a bad thing, and they \ndismiss these \"products\" as just a bad way to make money. If this \nargument was true, it would only mean that 99% of new media / \nperformance / video / conceptual artists are just idiots, because they \nsold their soul to the Devil without actually changing their financial \nsituation at all. The truth is that traditional artifacts often work \nas a preservation strategy for the artist himself, who doesn't know \nany other way to ensure his own (digital) artwork to the future. They \nare also means of dialogue and mediation, that help artists \napproaching audiences and collectors that may be unfamiliar with \ndigital technologies, but also different spaces and different \ncontexts: a clever choice, when technology is not the core topic but \njust a tool, or a display, or one of the many possible interfaces to a \ncontent.\nIn terms of quantity, when (in 2009 and 2010) I was curating the \nExpanded Box section for the Arco Art Fair in Madrid, I counted around \n50 commercial galleries all around the world working with at least one \nout of 136 artists that could be connventionally described as \"new \nmedia artists\",fromVeraMolnartoRaphaelLozano-Hemmer.Either\nthesedealersarebadbusinessmenwhofindaperversepleasurein\nfailure,ortheyhaveasmallbutbravenetworkofcollectors\ninterestedinnewmediaart.So,again:newmediaartiscollected.\n\n2.Collectingunstablemedia.NewmediaartCANALSOBEcollectedin\nitsunstable,c
"content":"\nThe focus of Remediating the Social is in accord with what Christiane calls \"the digital as a medium for art that addresses social relations\". It focuses on the generative nature of creative wotk with digital media and networks (as language systems) within social relations. We are using the term remediation in the sense that Bolter and Grusin intended but applying it not only to media systems as forms of agency but also to social processes, considering these as media as well (language, social institutions, the performative, etc). In a post-convergence technological social environment all these factors get blurred but also amplified. I am looking forward to seeing how this month's CRUMB theme might offer us some insights as we prepare for our event. To keep up with developments keep an eye on our website, www.elmcip.net.\n\nbest\n\nSimon\n\n\nOn 4 Jul 2012, at 16:36, <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n\n> Thanks! I think the Remediating the Social conference and exhibition might be a much needed counterpoint or complement to Tate's Materialising the Social conference (http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern-tanks/conference/insideoutside-materialising-social). I am sure the latter will be a great conference and glad Tate addresses the issues, but it once again seems to be an event that does not pay much attention to the digital as a medium for art that addresses social relations (or \"work that takes social relations as its basic medium\" and is produced, stored, distributed by means of digital technologies).\n> \n> [I do not want to start the same old discussion which we had in so many venues; the papers delivered at Ed Shanken's 2011 CAA panel on the subject and published in issue 11 of artnodes -- http://artnodes.uoc.edu/ojs/index.php/artnodes/article/view/artnodes-n11/artnodes-n11-eng | http://artnodes.uoc.edu/ojs/index.php/artnodes/article/view/artnodes-n11-paul/artnodes-n11-paul-eng -- are a good starting point.]\n> \n> As Beryl points out, artwork materializing the social raises questions regarding documenting / archiving / collecting it.\n> C.\n> \n> ________________________________________\n> From: Curating digital art - www.crumbweb.org [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Simon Biggs [[log in to unmask]]\n> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 10:53 AM\n> To: [log in to unmask]\n> Subject: Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art\n> \n> We will be announcing the programme for the Remediating the Social conference and exhibition here in Edinburgh later this month. It consists of some 40 or so conference presenters (a mixture of papers and other forms of presentation) and 16 commissions of new work by artists working with new media and networks, engaging language and the social. The event involves both new media and live forms and will undoubtedly engage issues of relevance to this month's theme on CRUMB. We will make sure CRUMB members are amongst the first know the details.\n> \n> best\n> \n> Simon\n> \n> \n> On 4 Jul 2012, at 09:59, Beryl Graham wrote:\n> \n>> Dear List,\n>> \n>> Perhaps I should kick off with a timely question which has occurred to me as I look at the new Tanks programme at Tate Modern, phase one of the new buildings there. It has a stated remit of exhibiting from the collection, and the programme \"Art in Action\" has been chosen by curators from Live Art, Film, and Education. There is new commissioned work, but also exhibits such as Suzanne Lacey's Crystal Quilt project which is displayed as documentation. Tate also has a day-conference on \"Materialising the Social\" http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern-tanks/conference/insideoutside-materialising-social\n>> \n>> So, is this a good example of certain artforms living in the archives and library as well as the collection, as Steve Dietz says? Does Live Art offer useful examples of how new media can be materialised and live on in exhibitions? Is new commissioning a way to make up for the fact that exhibiting from an archive is \"onlydocumentation'?Theremustbegoodnewmediaexamplesoutthereofsol
"subject":"Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art",
"id":0,
"content":"\nThe concept of the \"The Do-it-Yourself Artwork\" is very interesting but in terms of participatory artworks the concept of \"Do it With Others\" (DIWO) is possibly more powerful, as practiced so well at Furtherfield. This is an arts initiative that exists with relations to both the new media and traditional art worlds but, being more concerned with the particularities of social context, works beyond the confines of either. This seems a more profound instance of relational creative practice than anything ever made under the rubric of relational aesthetics, which seems an internally conflicted, if not incoherent, concept anyway. I'm quite happy to see relational aesthetics fade from the fashion magazines (oops, I mean art magazines). The only problem is, given recent art fads, what it might be replaced with.\n\nbest\n\nSimon\n\n\nOn 6 Jul 2012, at 14:15, Beryl Graham wrote:\n\n> Dear List,\n> \n> Thanks Domenico, Christiane and Simon. \n> \n> So, in addition to Domenico's useful 3 categories below, we have a couple of 'behaviours' which relate to issues for collecting, and cross over categories of media:\n> \n> Collecting participatory art.\n> Collecting (documents of) 'live art'.\n> \n> And as Christiane point out in her excellent artnodes article, \"Relational Aesthetics Syndrome\" is an unfortunate condition wherein although those aware of new media can see clear crossovers between inherently participatory new media structures and non-new-media, those in the mainstream of contemporary art appear to be wearing one-way mirror sunglasses and can't see the crossovers. This is very visible in exclusions and exclusions from books and conferences, but I should say that some books do include both, such as \"The Do-it-Yourself Artwork\" edited by Anna Dezeuze, which include chapters from Tate's Catherine Wood about Robert Morris, and from yours truly.\n> \n> Which leaves us with the more specific question of collecting participatory art - what examples are there from collecting participatory new media art that might help those wearing mirror shades? And, vice versa, re Robert Morris' Bodyspacemotionthings, the Tate did not collect his chipboard sculptures but did manage to reconstruct the whole exhibition anew (with less splinters) from information in the archives - might this be a way of sidestepping the red herring of broken websites - i.e. it might not matter if every bit of code is dead, as long as an artwork such as Learning To Love You More could be reconstructed anew to retain the participative intent of the artists??\n> \n> Yours,\n> \n> beryl\n> \n> \n> \n> On 4 Jul 2012, at 15:43, Domenico Quaranta wrote:\n> \n>> For the sake of clarity, I will try to divide the topic in three\n>> different areas:\n>> \n>> 1. collecting new media art;\n>> 2. collecting unstable media;\n>> 3. collecting the digital.\n>> \n>> 1. Collecting new media art. New media art IS collected, by private\n>> collections and institutions, as long as its cultural relevance is\n>> accepted in the art market field. That is, not so much, because\n>> galleries, art critics and curators didn't do a great job so far in\n>> making this cultural relevance a widespread truth in the field of\n>> contemporary art; and yet, enough to allow anybody to make a nice \"new\n>> media art show\"withcollectedorcollectableworksprovided\n>>exclusivelybyprivateandinstitutionalcollectorsorcommercial\n>>galleries.\n>\n>------------------------------------------------------------\n>\n>BerylGraham,ProfessorofNewMediaArt\n>ResearchStudentManager,ArtandDesign\n>MACuratingCourseLeader\n>\n>FacultyofArts,Design,andMedia,UniversityofSunderland\n>AshburneHouse,RyhopeRoad\n>Sunderland\n>SR27EE\n>Tel:+441915152896Fax:+441915152132\n>Email:[logintounmask]\n>\n>CRUMBwebresourcefornewmediaartcurators\n>http://www.crumbweb.org\n> \n> CRUMB's new books:\n> Rethinking Curating: Art After New Media from MIT Press\n> http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&
"subject":"Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art",
"id":0,
"content":"\nDear List,\n\nI'm happy to say we have one more invited respondent, so carry on!\n\n\nPau Waelder is an independent art critic and curator, researcher in new media art. PhD Candidate in Information and Knowledge Society and consulting lecturer in Art and Digital Culture at the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC). Editor of the Media Art section in art.es magazine (Spain) and contributing writer for ETC magazine (Canada). www.pauwaelder.com",
"content":"\nDear List,\n\nFirst of all, thanks for inviting me to this discussion, I consider that this is a very interesting topic, although it is usually overlooked as new media art keeps being identified as the perpetual new and evolving art form which is more about research than producing artworks (in fact we usually call these \"projects\").\n\nVery interesting things have been already said, so I'd like to start by agreeing with Domenico's statements about the fact that new media art is collected and that there are also many examples of unstable art being collected. To mention one example I saw recently, the Maramotti Collection in Reggio Emilia (Italy) owns a sculpture by Mario Merz (La frutta siamo noi, 1988) partly made of fresh fruit which has to be replaced every week. The instability of this work is not a problem for the owners of a large collection of paintings, some sculptures and just one video (if I am not mistaken), so I wonder if the problem is not that the art is unstable but that it is digital. \n\nThe reproducible nature of digital files, as Domenico states, may also be a problem if we follow the usual scarcity=value model that is usually applied in the art market. But there are ways to create this scarcity. Among the different ways in which the mainstream art world is looking for new models of selling art using technology, an interesting example is [s]edition <http://www.seditionart.com/> which, as you know, sells digital copies of artworks by blue-chip artists to the masses (we may call that high art for the Long Tail). In some way, sedition achieves what Wolf states as a possibility, to have one's art collection at the tip of one's fingers, on any screen. Yet instead of distributing digital art, they create digital versions of sculptures, installations, paintings, videos, etc. and sell them at a (relatively) low price. By keeping these \"artworks\" in a centralized \"vault\" and making it accessible to your iPhone, iPad or TV, they control the number of copies and even give you a certificate.\n\nI think this could be a good platform for new media art, but it has been applied to good old contemporary art, which is quite understandable, because it seems reasonable to try such a risky business model with something as attractive as selling Damien Hirst for 9€. So I think that, as Wolf suggests, we are already living in a nomad culture and we are working in more flexible ways, ready to buy online and own digital content that only appears on our screens. But most people still do not understand new media art as art in the same terms of mainstream contemporary art, as Christiane has pointed out, so the main issue might be to get collectors to understand the art, and then think about how it will be stored, maintained or eventually migrated.\n\nIn a conversation some time ago, Wolf mentioned Tino Seghal, whose work exists only through oral transmission, and I think that this is a very good example. Seghal's work exists because there is a whole system supporting it, based on the fact that performance and conceptual art have been sanctioned by the art world. And this is precisely what new media art hasn't yet achieved.\n\nThanks for reading this far!\n\nBest,\n\nPau\n\n-----------------------------------------\n\nPau Waelder Laso\nEmail: [log in to unmask]\nSite: www.pauwaelder.com\nskype: pauwaelder",
"content":"\nDear Pau Waelder,\n\nYour inputs are very interesting to think about. In my perspective, as\ndigital curator researcher, I think the usually called digital art isn't\nreally digital, but is digitally archived. Perhaps, it will be interesting\ndefining what can be called Digital art, ou New media art. The concepts, in\nmy opinion of course, aren't quit clear. In fact, to create a digital\n\"outdoor\" for art seems to me a great idea, otherwise, why buying digital\nformats of art, also, what would be the questions arise around its\nreproduction and copyright?\n\nThank you all for your outputs here.\n\nIn advance, excuse my english.\nBest,\nS.P.\n\n____________________\nSónia da Silva Pina\nsoniaspina.wordpress.com\n\nOn 10 July 2012 17:35, Pau Waelder Laso <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n\n> Dear List,\n>\n> First of all, thanks for inviting me to this discussion, I consider that\n> this is a very interesting topic, although it is usually overlooked as new\n> media art keeps being identified as the perpetual new and evolving art form\n> which is more about research than producing artworks (in fact we usually\n> call these \"projects\").\n>\n> Very interesting things have been already said, so I'd like to start by\n> agreeing with Domenico's statements about the fact that new media art is\n> collected and that there are also many examples of unstable art being\n> collected. To mention one example I saw recently, the Maramotti Collection\n> in Reggio Emilia (Italy) owns a sculpture by Mario Merz (La frutta siamo\n> noi, 1988) partly made of fresh fruit which has to be replaced every week.\n> The instability of this work is not a problem for the owners of a large\n> collection of paintings, some sculptures and just one video (if I am not\n> mistaken), so I wonder if the problem is not that the art is unstable but\n> that it is digital.\n>\n> The reproducible nature of digital files, as Domenico states, may also be\n> a problem if we follow the usual scarcity=value model that is usually\n> applied in the art market. But there are ways to create this scarcity.\n> Among the different ways in which the mainstream art world is looking for\n> new models of selling art using technology, an interesting example is\n> [s]edition <http://www.seditionart.com/> which, as you know, sells\n> digital copies of artworks by blue-chip artists to the masses (we may call\n> that high art for the Long Tail). In some way, sedition achieves what Wolf\n> states as a possibility, to have one's art collection at the tip of one's\n> fingers, on any screen. Yet instead of distributing digital art, they\n> create digital versions of sculptures, installations, paintings, videos,\n> etc. and sell them at a (relatively) low price. By keeping these \"artworks\"\n> in a centralized \"vault\"andmakingitaccessibletoyouriPhone,iPador\n>TV,theycontrolthenumberofcopiesandevengiveyouacertificate.\n>\n>Ithinkthiscouldbeagoodplatformfornewmediaart,butithasbeen\n>appliedtogoodoldcontemporaryart,whichisquiteunderstandable,\n>becauseitseemsreasonabletotrysuchariskybusinessmodelwith\n>somethingasattractiveassellingDamienHirstfor9€.SoIthinkthat,as\n>Wolfsuggests,wearealreadylivinginanomadcultureandweareworking\n>inmoreflexibleways,readytobuyonlineandowndigitalcontentthat\n>onlyappearsonourscreens.Butmostpeoplestilldonotunderstandnew\n>mediaartasartinthesametermsofmainstreamcontemporaryart,as\n>Christianehaspointedout,sothemainissuemightbetogetcollectorsto\n>understandtheart,andthenthinkabouthowitwillbestored,maintained\n>oreventuallymigrated.\n>\n>Inaconversationsometimeago,WolfmentionedTinoSeghal,whosework\n>existsonlythroughoraltransmission,andIthinkthatthisisaverygood\n>example.Seghal'sworkexistsbecausethereisawholesystemsupporting\n>it,basedonthefactthatperformanceandconceptualarthavebeen\n>sanctionedbytheartworld.Andthis
"content":"\nThe Tate have a section titled \"Net Art\" in the acquisitions policy (at\nleast since November 2011)\n\n3.8 Net Art\nTate commissions Net Art for its website and also seeks to acquire works of\nart\nthat use networked or non-networked digital technologies for creation,\npresentation and distribution, or that critique or comment on the same\ndigital\ntechnologies\nhttp://www.tate.org.uk/download/file/fid/11111",
"content":"\nNeglecting for a moment the information that Martin's email communicates\nand which is valuable for the current discussion - - -\n\nThe quote from the Tate's policy gave rise to certain thoughts - would the\ntwo following statements be comparable to the Tate policy:\n\nI.\nFate commissions Bio Art for its collection in vitro or in vivo and also\nseeks to acquire works that use bio technology for creation,presentation\nand distribution (in vivo), or that critique or comment on the same bio\ntechnology.\n\nII.\nState commissions sculptures that use Kalatschnikows (or AK47) or similar\ntechnology and also seeks to acquire works of art that use mechanical or\nelectronic technology of such weaponry for creation,presentation and\ndistribution or that critique or comment on said technology.\n\n\n(I assume, no comments needed - since the statements may seem absurd, an\ninsult or evoking thoughts - depending on one's position.)\n\n\n\n\nThe real question is:\n\nHow can an institution be so blunt to put a statement like \"that critique\nor comment on the same\ndigital technologies\" in their policy - I read the whole document about\nthe other areas of collections and there was no other such\ncontent-directed statement anywhere.\n\nMost certainly curatorial decisions are indeed always directed by the\ninterest (aesthetic, political etc) of the curator and/or the institution\n- no question at all.\n\nBut is the goal of acceptance to the traditional arts world and their\ninfluence and economic power reached when such a statement is introduced -\na statement which I would see as absurd as the ones I created above.\n\n\nJohannes (no - not THAT Johannes - the other one)\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOn 7/10/12 6:05 PM, \"Martin John Callanan\" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n\n>The Tate have a section titled \"Net Art\" in the acquisitions policy (at\n>least since November 2011)\n>\n>3.8 Net Art\n>Tate commissions Net Art for its website and also seeks to acquire works\n>of\n>art\n>that use networked or non-networked digital technologies for creation,\n>presentation and distribution, or that critique or comment on the same\n>digital\n>technologies\n>http://www.tate.org.uk/download/file/fid/11111",
"content":"\nDear List,\n\nthanks Pau for your feedback on my first post, but thanks even more \nfor pointing out to two very interesting case studies: Collezione \nMaramotti and [S]editions.\n>\n> Very interesting things have been already said, so I'd like to start \n> by agreeing with Domenico's statements about the fact that new media \n> art is collected and that there are also many examples of unstable \n> art being collected. To mention one example I saw recently, the \n> Maramotti Collection in Reggio Emilia (Italy) owns a sculpture by \n> Mario Merz (La frutta siamo noi, 1988) partly made of fresh fruit \n> which has to be replaced every week. The instability of this work is \n> not a problem for the owners of a large collection of paintings, \n> some sculptures and just one video (if I am not mistaken), so I \n> wonder if the problem is not that the art is unstable but that it is \n> digital.\n\nThe problem is twofold, in my opinion - and, sorry if I insist on this \n- it's mainly \"our\" fault (where \"our\" means all those who create the \ndiscourse around new media art: curators, critics, gallery owners). \nWhen Mario Merz and other artists, back in the Sixties, started \nworking with fresh fruit and vegetables, faggots, organic and \nindustrial materials, etc., the center point of the discussion was not \n\"can we collect and preserve this?\", but \"is it culturally relevant?\". \nA small cultural elite decided it was, started collecting it, created \na system around it, and now museums and collections are taking care of \nall this \"unstable\" art, regardless how much expensive it is. On the \nother side, along the last twenty years, we failed in persuading the \nart world about the cultural relevance of new media art, and we did an \nexcellent job in frightening collectors about \"digital art \nconservation\", to quote the title of the last iteration of this \nmasochistic approach (see http://www02.zkm.de/digitalartconservation/).\n\nLuckily, other people started doing this work for us. In 2009, \nCollezione Maramotti made a show with works by John F. Simon Jr. from \nthe collection: a good selection, from the early CPU (1999) to more \nrecent works. The acquisition was made with the mediation of Paolo \nDiacono, an old contemporary art critic who was attracted by Simon's \nability to reconnect to minimalism and to abstract painting tradition \nwith radically modern means. They didn't buy \"software art\", they \nbought art that they considered culturally relevant also, but not \njust, because it was software based.\n\nAnother kind of understanding of their own work is what many so-called \nnew media artists are pursuing with all their strengths. It takes time \nand, as Pau noticed about Seghal, it requires a system around the \nartist. In the case of Simon, it took years, the continuous support of \na bunch of galleries, the effort to work out of the usual mind frames \nand to present his work out of the usual circles, but it was successful.\n\n> The reproducible nature of digital files, as Domenico states, may \n> also be a problem if we follow the usual scarcity=value model that \n> is usually applied in the art market. But there are ways to create \n> this scarcity. Among the different ways in which the mainstream art \n> world is looking for new models of selling art using technology, an \n> interesting example is [s]edition <http://www.seditionart.com/> \n> which, as you know, sells digital copies of artworks by blue-chip \n> artists to the masses (we may call that high art for the Long Tail). \n> In some way, sedition achieves what Wolf states as a possibility, to \n> have one's art collection at the tip of one's fingers, on any \n> screen. Yet instead of distributing digital art, they create digital \n> versions of sculptures, installations, paintings, videos, etc. and \n> sell them at a (relatively) low price. By keeping these \"artworks\" \n> in a centralized \"vault\"andmakingitaccessibletoyouriPhone,\n>iPad
"content":"\nDear List, \n\nThank you for raising the topic, it has been subject of many talks and discussions in our studio over the last years. \nI was touched by Wolf’s remark: \n\n> The topic is crucial, because from my experience, if artists don't sell their \n> for they often don't do that well in their art either. There are exceptions \n> for that, button the opposite I have very often seen creating much more \n> and better art after some decent sales! \n\n\nFrom my experience this can be really true. At some point we really got the desire to sell our work. Not primarily for the money, but we thought it would be a relevant way to build a relation with our audiences that we started to miss more and more doing. We decided to do some experiments with selling work, mainly to find out what it feels like to sell. This was more or less a form of “sketch selling”. http://souvenirzeeland.wordpress.com/. With our first small successes, we experienced it as being a big motivation and an expression of trust, when somebody decided to buy our work or even considered doing so.\nFrom our artist perspective, especially when working in media arts, thinking about selling our work has become an integrated part of our practice and we feel it to be relevant, regardless if it is successful or not. As part of this we decided to start collecting ourselves, on a small scale, for we realized that it would be difficult to think about selling if we had no clue what it feels like to be a collector. \nAn other remark Wolf made also expresses a relevant angle: \n\n> \n> From the beginning I have approached my customers on the basis, that first of all: \n> this is the future in art, second, forget about the old concepts of buying a painting \n> and taking it home. Instead consider your acquisition a contribution to the artist, \n> so he can work better and create better art. This kind of philosophy of marketing \n> has gradually been more fruitful and it changes their views slowly. \n\n\nBased on likewise thoughts, we made it custom to, whenever an academic PhD student asks if he or she can use images of our work in their thesis, (and they have never any money to pay royalties) we give permission under the condition that they promise us to buy a work of art with the first money they earn, based on the grade involved. The work does not have to be ours, as long as it is from one of the artists that truly inspired them. We don't need to know what work was picked, but at some point we want to receive an email stating that they did pay their debt to us by buying a work of art. The students react often pleased, encouraged, playful..... (but so far we never received the thrilling email stating \"YES WE BOUGHT !!!!\" . )\n\nAnyway, this our contribution to seed the idea of buying media art in general, but also of collecting because the artist is important to the collector as a source of inspiration rather than wanting to posses an object of value and beauty.\n\nBest, \nEsther Polak \n\nwww.polakvanbekkum.com\n",
"content":"\nDear List,\n\nThanks Domenico for pointing out these facts about Maramotti, for the sake of brevity I only mentioned those works that can be seen on the permanent exhibition at the Max Mara factory, but it must be said that they keep collecting art and as you mentioned they acquired works by John F. Simon Jr., hopefully they will collect more works by new media artists in the future. But as you said (and we keep coming to the central issue here), that depends on the works by new media artists being perceived as culturally relevant.\n\nI also share your concerns about [s]edition and its selling of foriginals, merely digital merchandising, and that collectors may identify new media art with these cheap sub-products. But I am also worried that initiatives such as [s]edition, the VIP Art Fair or Art.sy create a perception of new media as only a tool to show \"traditional\" contemporary art and that, as some of the most outstanding features of new media art (interactivity, connectivity, etc.) are integrated into our daily experiences with smartphone apps, advertising and so forth, it becomes harder to explain the cultural relevance of the artworks, particularly those which, as the TATE indicates: \"critique or comment on the same digital technologies\" (this Greenbergian definition could be the subject of another debate).\n\nFinally, and following your statement: \"I'm pretty sure new media art will never achieve it as a whole, and under this definition\", I think that this is quite possible and that we may start to think about getting rid of this label. The question \"why do we call it new media art and not just art?\" has come up frequently in talks with artists and in my opinion we are kind of trapped in this self-made ghetto that is at the same time quite comfortable because it creates a separate art world in which artists, curators, researchers, etc. can gain recognition quicker (within the boundaries of this particular art world).\n\nI may have gone off topic a bit, but this discussion is raising many interesting questions...\n\nBest regards,\n\nPau\n\n-------------------------\nPau Waelder Laso\nEmail: [log in to unmask]\nSite: www.pauwaelder.com\nskype: pauwaelder\n\n\n\nEl 11/07/2012, a las 11:44, Domenico Quaranta escribió:\n\n> Dear List,\n> \n> thanks Pau for your feedback on my first post, but thanks even more for pointing out to two very interesting case studies: Collezione Maramotti and [S]editions.\n>> \n>> Very interesting things have been already said, so I'd like to start by agreeing with Domenico's statements about the fact that new media art is collected and that there are also many examples of unstable art being collected. To mention one example I saw recently, the Maramotti Collection in Reggio Emilia (Italy) owns a sculpture by Mario Merz (La frutta siamo noi, 1988) partly made of fresh fruit which has to be replaced every week. The instability of this work is not a problem for the owners of a large collection of paintings, some sculptures and just one video (if I am not mistaken), so I wonder if the problem is not that the art is unstable but that it is digital.\n> \n> The problem is twofold, in my opinion - and, sorry if I insist on this - it's mainly \"our\" fault (where \"our\" means all those who create the discourse around new media art: curators, critics, gallery owners). When Mario Merz and other artists, back in the Sixties, started working with fresh fruit and vegetables, faggots, organic and industrial materials, etc., the center point of the discussion was not \"can we collect and preserve this?\", but \"is it culturally relevant?\". A small cultural elite decided it was, started collecting it, created a system around it, and now museums and collections are taking care of all this \"unstable\" art, regardless how much expensive it is. On the other side, along the last twenty years, we failed in persuading the art world about the cultural relevance of new media art, and we did an excellent job in frightening collectors about \"digitalartconservation\
"content":"\nThese questions regarding new media vs mainstream art have been rehearsed many times and have a number of answers. The argument for new media practice to be considered as part of mainstream art is compelling as ghettoisation does nobody favours and such reconciliation would help new media practice escapes its own discursive limitations (this assumes the art world is interested - it might not be, due to its own limitations).\n\nHowever, the argument for sustaining difference is also compelling. Many new media artists have chosen to work with new media because of their disaffection or distress with how contemporary art is developed, produced, consumed and commodified. For many the constant reinvention and instability that are the characteristics of new media (where the means of making and dissemination are always under review, shifting with changing technical substrates and socio/conceptual frameworks) is the main attraction - and for these artists the discourses of the mainstream artworld are anathema. For some artists this shifting context is the point of their work, whilst for the artworld such a technical focus is of little interest. So, why bother trying to build bridges? Michael Naimark discusses this in depth in his essay 'First Word Art / Last Word Art' ( http://www.naimark.net/writing/firstword.html ) and I also consider it within the larger context of a discussion about the relationship between creative practice and practice based research in 'New Media: The First Word in Art' ( http://www.littlepig.org.uk/texts/practiceresearch.pdf ).\n\nI've spent my life as an artist working with new media and have oscillated between these two positions. I'm no nearer knowing which is the better strategy but perhaps having the capacity to oscillate is the point - even if such a schizoid approach can be exhausting it can also be strangely liberating.\n\nbest\n\nSimon\n\n\nOn 14 Jul 2012, at 12:04, Pau Waelder Laso wrote:\n\n> Finally, and following your statement: \"I'm pretty sure new media art will never achieve it as a whole, and under this definition\", I think that this is quite possible and that we may start to think about getting rid of this label. The question \"why do we call it new media art and not just art?\" has come up frequently in talks with artists and in my opinion we are kind of trapped in this self-made ghetto that is at the same time quite comfortable because it creates a separate art world in which artists, curators, researchers, etc. can gain recognition quicker (within the boundaries of this particular art world).\n> \n\n\nSimon Biggs\n[log in to unmask] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk\n\n[log in to unmask] Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh\nhttp://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/\nMSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices\nhttp://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php",
"content":"\nComing from the viewpoint of an artist, and teaching Fine Art at\nundergraduate and graduate levels, I use all kinds of tools, and see\nstudents and all the artists around me using a whole range of tools.\nSometimes these are printing presses, sometimes websites, sometimes\nelectronics, sometimes cutting edge science, sometimes obsolete\ntechnologies. We embrace the whole range of tools humankind has\ninvented, or mash together new tools. What these tools have in common\nis relevance to the idea. We use tools to express an idea in the most\nelegant way.\n\nI see art made with tools which the old guard term \"new media\" all\naround: in public galleries, commercial galleries and art fairs,\ninstitutions, art schools, private collections, public collections and\nartists using such tools teach in art schools, and have high profile\nresidencies and public commissions. It may not always be the artworks\nI consider the best or most relevant. But it is there. In plain and\nvisible sight.\n\n\n\n\nMartin John Callanan\nhttp://greyisgood.eu",
"content":"\nHi there,\n\nA very interesting conversation, just wanted to add a thought.\n\n@Paul Waelder, just as I was reading your initial comments about Sedition\nart I discovered today their one of their first real digital artwork, a\ndata visualisation piece by Aaron Koblin\nhttp://www.seditionart.com/aaron_koblin/flight_patterns\nThis opens a whole new world to that platform. A world of \"virtual art\"\nthat has been created using code and is viewed on the screen. I think the\ninteresting point of this piece is the link to the viewer as it represents\nreal world data. I would be interested to know what you think of this piece\nin relation to new media art.\n\nRegards,\n\nEstela\n\n-- \nDirector\n+44 (0) 7717303537\n--\nAlpha-ville\nNetil House, Hackney\n\nInternational Festival of Post-Digital Culture\n*Innovation, Creativity and Forward Thinking*\nhttp://www.alpha-ville.co.uk\n\n\nOn Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]>wrote:\n\n> These questions regarding new media vs mainstream art have been rehearsed\n> many times and have a number of answers. The argument for new media\n> practice to be considered as part of mainstream art is compelling as\n> ghettoisation does nobody favours and such reconciliation would help new\n> media practice escapes its own discursive limitations (this assumes the art\n> world is interested - it might not be, due to its own limitations).\n>\n> However, the argument for sustaining difference is also compelling. Many\n> new media artists have chosen to work with new media because of their\n> disaffection or distress with how contemporary art is developed, produced,\n> consumed and commodified. For many the constant reinvention and instability\n> that are the characteristics of new media (where the means of making and\n> dissemination are always under review, shifting with changing technical\n> substrates and socio/conceptual frameworks) is the main attraction - and\n> for these artists the discourses of the mainstream artworld are anathema.\n> For some artists this shifting context is the point of their work, whilst\n> for the artworld such a technical focus is of little interest. So, why\n> bother trying to build bridges? Michael Naimark discusses this in depth in\n> his essay 'First Word Art / Last Word Art' (\n> http://www.naimark.net/writing/firstword.html ) and I also consider it\n> within the larger context of a discussion about the relationship between\n> creative practice and practice based research in 'New Media: The First Word\n> in Art' ( http://www.littlepig.org.uk/texts/practiceresearch.pdf ).\n>\n> I've spent my life as an artist working with new media and have oscillated\n> between these two positions. I'm no nearer knowing which is the better\n> strategy but perhaps having the capacity to oscillate is the point - even\n> if such a schizoid approach can be exhausting it can also be strangely\n> liberating.\n>\n> best\n>\n> Simon\n>\n>\n> On 14 Jul 2012, at 12:04, Pau Waelder Laso wrote:\n>\n> > Finally, and following your statement: \"I'm pretty sure new media art\n> will never achieve it as a whole, and under this definition\", I think that\n> this is quite possible and that we may start to think about getting rid of\n> this label. The question \"why do we call it new media art and not just\n> art?\"hascomeupfrequentlyintalkswithartistsandinmyopinionweare\n>kindoftrappedinthisself-madeghettothatisatthesametimequite\n>comfortablebecauseitcreatesaseparateartworldinwhichartists,\n>curators,researchers,etc.cangainrecognitionquicker(withinthe\n>boundariesofthisparticularartworld).\n>>\n>\n>\n>SimonBiggs\n>[logintounmask]http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype:\n> simonbiggsuk\n>\n> [log in to unmask] Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh\n> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/\n> http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/\n> MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices\n> http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656
"content":"\nThe Koblin piece is beautiful and reveals something about commercial flight paths that is not ordinarily visible. However, I have some problems with it. Firstly, it reveals little, if anything, about the impact (good, bad or indifferent) commercial flight has on the planet and society. Secondly, it would be more interesting if non-commercial flights were factored in - military traffic, of course, but also under-the-radar flights (rendition flights, for example) - which could open up interesting space for reflection about the political and economic purpose of flight and stand as evidence of power relations that are not visible either in the publicly available flight data or in the sky above our heads. Thirdly, as a piece of 'generative' art it belongs to a well defined domain of practice, initially developed by artists like Vera Molnar and Roman Verotsko in the 1960's and 70's and, more recently, revived by a new generation of procedural formalists like Casey Reas. Whilst it is not a requirement that art is always formally and technically inventive it can be argued that new media art is defined by these characteristics. By these criteria Koblin's work seems less than compelling. On the other hand, the work is lovely to watch, evidences a good sense of colour, shape and line and a brevity of means to be admired. In this last respect it comes across as mature and well considered. However, for me, the former criteria are the more important in evaluating the quality of the work. Somebody else will have different criteria and arrive at a different conclusion about the piece. My evaluation is that it is decorative and, due to its conventional character, fails to \"open up a whole new world\" - it's a world that some are very familiar with.\n\nbest\n\nSimon\n\n\nOn 20 Jul 2012, at 00:40, Estela Oliva wrote:\n\n> Hi there, \n> \n> A very interesting conversation, just wanted to add a thought.\n> \n> @Paul Waelder, just as I was reading your initial comments about Sedition art I discovered today their one of their first real digital artwork, a data visualisation piece by Aaron Koblin http://www.seditionart.com/aaron_koblin/flight_patterns\n> This opens a whole new world to that platform. A world of \"virtual art\"thathasbeencreatedusingcodeandisviewedonthescreen.Ithinktheinterestingpointofthispieceisthelinktotheviewerasitrepresentsrealworlddata.Iwouldbeinterestedtoknowwhatyouthinkofthispieceinrelationtonewmediaart.\n>\n>Regards,\n>\n>Estela\n>\n>--\n>Director\n>+44(0)7717303537\n>--\n>Alpha-ville\n>NetilHouse,Hackney\n>\n>InternationalFestivalofPost-DigitalCulture\n>Innovation,CreativityandForwardThinking\n>http://www.alpha-ville.co.uk\n> \n> \n> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n> These questions regarding new media vs mainstream art have been rehearsed many times and have a number of answers. The argument for new media practice to be considered as part of mainstream art is compelling as ghettoisation does nobody favours and such reconciliation would help new media practice escapes its own discursive limitations (this assumes the art world is interested - it might not be, due to its own limitations).\n> \n> However, the argument for sustaining difference is also compelling. Many new media artists have chosen to work with new media because of their disaffection or distress with how contemporary art is developed, produced, consumed and commodified. For many the constant reinvention and instability that are the characteristics of new media (where the means of making and dissemination are always under review, shifting with changing technical substrates and socio/conceptual frameworks) is the main attraction - and for these artists the discourses of the mainstream artworld are anathema. For some artists this shifting context is the point of their work, whilst for the artworld such a technical focus is of little interest. So, why bother trying to build bridges? Michael Naimark di
"content":"\nEstela, Aaron Koblin flight paths was just shown in London: http://greyisgood.eu/blog/624\n\nSimon, how is the work not about impact on the environment? Just because it's not explicit doesn't mean I don't consider or imagine... I prefer to consider an artwork as presented by the artist, not how I'd like it to be. It is about commercial flight patterns in the USA.",
"subject":"Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art",
"id":0,
"content":"\na laundry list of how you'd make a very different work is far from a\ncritique on the actual artwork.\n\nOn 20 July 2012 21:30, Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n> I think my critique was clear as to why the work seems less than interesting. It visualises something but employs 'codes' that do little to unpack or problematise the subject.\n>\n>\n> Sent from a mobile device, thus the brevity.\n>\n> Simon Biggs\n> [log in to unmask]\n> [log in to unmask]\n> http://www.littlepig.org.uk\n>\n> On 20 Jul 2012, at 20:08, Mj C <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n>\n> Estela, Aaron Koblin flight paths was just shown in London: http://greyisgood.eu/blog/624\n>\n> Simon, how is the work not about impact on the environment? Just because it's not explicit doesn't mean I don't consider or imagine... I prefer to consider an artwork as presented by the artist, not how I'd like it to be. It is about commercial flight patterns in the USA.\n>\n>",
"content":"\nSorry, I don't understand that comment.\n\n\nSent from a mobile device, thus the brevity.\n\nSimon Biggs\n[log in to unmask]\n[log in to unmask]\nhttp://www.littlepig.org.uk\n\nOn 20 Jul 2012, at 20:56, \"Martin John Callanan (UCL)\" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n\na laundry list of how you'd make a very different work is far from a\ncritique on the actual artwork.\n\nOn 20 July 2012 21:30, Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n> I think my critique was clear as to why the work seems less than interesting. It visualises something but employs 'codes' that do little to unpack or problematise the subject.\n> \n> \n> Sent from a mobile device, thus the brevity.\n> \n> Simon Biggs\n> [log in to unmask]\n> [log in to unmask]\n> http://www.littlepig.org.uk\n> \n> On 20 Jul 2012, at 20:08, Mj C <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n> \n> Estela, Aaron Koblin flight paths was just shown in London: http://greyisgood.eu/blog/624\n> \n> Simon, how is the work not about impact on the environment? Just because it's not explicit doesn't mean I don't consider or imagine... I prefer to consider an artwork as presented by the artist, not how I'd like it to be. It is about commercial flight patterns in the USA.\n> \n> ",
"content":"\n\nDear nettimers:\n\n It's been very gratifying to follow the discussions of \nWIRED in the list. While I'm not a WIRED staffer, I\nam on the WIRED masthead, and I am a virtual San Franciscan\nthanks to seven years on the WELL. \n\n Those who aren't familiar with the WELL may find its\ninternal practices odd. WELL was a closed bulletin board system \nlong before it ever became a website, and its social practices \nhave been created over literal years of internal discussion. The \nWELL is something like a tide pool, it's not exactly in the Net \nand not exactly out of it; data flows in, but has a rather hard \ntime flowing out. I didn't make the WELL's rules, but the rules \nhave made the community, and if you want to play, it's de rigeur \nto respect their standards.\n\n Every once in a while I see material on nettime which is of\nparticular relevance to WELLbeings, and since I'm not putting this\nmaterial to commercial use, I crosspost it. I've been cross-\nposting nettime comments on WIRED -- not all of them, just the \nones I found of particular interest -- for almost a year now. \n\n I don't really see anything untoward in this practice. \nAfter all, my \"Master List of Dead Media\" was also posted on \nnettime, and it was swiftly crossposted to other lists, and sites, \nall over the planet. I'm still getting responses to that piece \nmonths later. I was glad to have my nonprofit Dead Media Project \ngetting such gratifying publicity from a core demographic of net \nactivists.\n\n Mark Stahlman's bizarre attacks on WIRED's so-called\n\"English Ideology\" have been so entertaining that it's well-nigh \nimpossible not to quote him. Naturally when he bravely showed up \non the WELL in person, he was immediately subject to rough \nhandling by people who actually know the WIRED milieu at first-\nhand, and found it hard to believe that Mr Stahlman was serious.\n\n For all I know, there may be people on the nettime list who\nseriously believe that a popular American magazine on contemporary \ncomputer culture is a stalking-horse for a European-inspired \ncabal of cyber-illuminati inspired by the sinister doctrines of \nH.G. Wells and bent on global domination. Unfortunately, within \nthe WELL, Mr Stahlman has found little popular support for his \nthesis. I can understand his distress, but I'm not in command of \nthe WELL audience and can't stop them from making up their own \nminds after reading his own words. I rather imagine that people \non nettime who have closely studied Mr Stahlman's assertions have \nhad their own difficulties in this matter.\n\nMr Stahlman's copious remarks have inspired me to write an essay. \nUnfortunately it's not directly relevant to his own statements, \nbut since he's referred in nettime to my essay as \"elegant back-\nto-back rants that have to be read to be believed,\" and has \nexpressed his cordial hope that I will cross-post them to nettime, \nI'm ready to oblige him. \n\nUnfortunately I can't cross-post the comments of other WELLbeings, \nsince this would be a violation of WELL You-Own-Your-Own-Words \nnetiquette. My essay loses some valuable context by being \nseparated from the thread of commentary by other WELLbeings such \nas ludlow, kk, rushkoff, markdery and neal, but I hope it will be \nof some use or amusement anyway.\n\nNote: on the WELL, Mr Stahlman is known as \"newmedium {AT} well.com.\"\n\nBruceSterlingbruces{AT}well.com\n\n(textfollows)\n\nTopic200[wired]:GoofyLeftistsSnipingatWIRED\n#759of796:BruceSterling(bruces)FriMar7'97 (06:28) \n125 lines\n\n\n This is a good topic. It'sforcingmetowaxallmagisterialand\npolitico-philosophical.That's a dire occupational hazard for \nscience fiction writers, but even if you'reofthestatureofHG\nWells(probablytheonlysciencefictionwriterwithserious\npretensionsofbeingaGreatMan),you'restillnotgonnagetmany\npeoplewillingtopagethroughallofit.\n\nExceptfornewmediumhimself,clearly
"content":"\n\nAs a former wellbeing myself, i can only vouch for the accuracy of\nthe way its been portrayed by Mssrs Sterling, Cisler etc. But one\ntiny point i would not like to slip by. The well may be a 'tide\npool' as Bruce says, but different rules apply to the tide flowing\nin and the tide flowing out. The policy on the latter, in many\nrespects a good one, is 'you own your own words'. People can't\ntake your stuff off the well and do just whatever they please with\nit without asking permission, etc. But i just want to pause here\nand consider the implications of this for the information barter\neconomy. And vary the metaphor a bit: the well feeds on things like\nnettime (in those rare moments when not feeding on itself), and\nyet the reciprocal bite is prohibited. Since its the well we're\ntalking about, i feel, well, kinda well disposed towards it. So\nits really neither here nor there. But consider this practice on\na wider scale. What kind of information economy is that? The well\nhas a whole thread in its archive where 'you own your own words'\nwas thrashed out, and it makes interesting reading. There has not\nto my knowledge been an 'other people outside the well own there\nwords too' thread. There is a strong element of me me me me me me \nme me me me me me me me etc in wellspring of the well, so perhaps\nthat's not surprising. But the wider question i want to ask is\nprecisely: what is my responsibility to the other? For Levinas,\nit was to *listen* to the other. But no one listens much on the\nwell, so perhaps one would have to start somewhere else. What do \ni owe to the other when i take her/his words? In what ways do\nacknowledge the other? etc. Behind this other, who in this case\nis the other people who's words i might take, stands the other\nof the net itself, to which perhaps one is ultimately responsible,\nmore than to any particular individual with whom one might have\na transaction. The other of the net itself stands behind the\nother person, but not behind me me me me me me me. Which to me\nis why the well never got very far on this stuff. \n\nAnd yes, of course anyone who wants to may cross-post this to the\nwell, but what if i ask you not to? \n\n\n______________________________________\nMcKenzie Wark http://www.mcs.mq.edu.au/~mwark\nVisiting Professor, American Studies Program, New York University\n\"We no longer have origins we have terminals\"\n\n--\n* distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n* <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n* collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n* more info: majordomo {AT} is.in-berlin.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n* URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} is.in-berlin.de\n\n",
"content":"\nBruce Sterling writes:\n\n For all I know, there may be people on the nettime list who\nseriously believe that a popular American magazine on contemporary\ncomputer culture is a stalking-horse for a European-inspired\ncabal of cyber-illuminati inspired by the sinister doctrines of\nH.G. Wells and bent on global domination.\n\nCook: anyone who has observed Mark stahlman's commentary online over a\nperiod of some months will realize, that the above summary is a gross\nsimplification that is also colored in such a way as to get the reader to\ndismiss the subject with no further thought.\n\nI don't claim to be expert in the history of ideas. however 25 years ago\nin my dissertation, I did explore the origins of P.Ia. Chaadaev's critique\nof Russian culture.\n\nMark is doing something similar but vastly more complex -- namely trying\nto develop a cohesive and rather complete intellectual history of the\nadvocates of technology during the twentieth century....not a small task\nbut one with fascinating relationships, roots and alliances.\n\nWired has never risen above gosh, golly gee wiz snapshots of some of the\nplayers....Big picture views of the \"global economy\" by the likes of\nkorten and greider are terribly important. Big picture overviews of the \nintellectual roots of our current situation are just as important. I am\nfascinated by the tapestry that Mark is weaving. of course I am biased.\nI let my wired subscription lapse a year ago.\n \n***********************************************************************\nThe COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than\n431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material\n(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://pobox.com/cook/\nInternet: cook {AT} cookreport.com For NEW study: EVOLVING INTER-\nNET INFRASTRUCTURE, 222 page Handbook http://pobox.com/cook/evolving.html\n************************************************************************\n\n\n--\n* distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n* <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n* collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n* more info: majordomo {AT} is.in-berlin.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n* URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} is.in-berlin.de\n\n",
"content":"\nI feel it's time now to give a light on the origin of the term -\n\"net.art\".\n\nActually, it's a readymade.\nIn December 1995 Vuk Cosic got a message, sent via anonymous mailer.\nBecause of incompatibility of software, the opened text appeared to be\npractically unreadable ascii abracadabra. The only fragment of it that\nmade any sense looked something like:\n\n[...] J8~g#|\\;Net. Art{-^s1 [...]\n\nVuk was very much amased and exited: the net itself gave him a name for\nactivity he was involved in! He immediately started to use this term.\nAfter few months he forwarded the mysterious message to Igor Markovic,\nwho managed to correctly decode it. The text appeared to be pretty\ncontroversal and vague manifesto in which it's author blamed traditional\nart institutions in all possible sins and declared freedom of\nself-expression and independence for an artist on the Internet.\nThe part of the text with above mentioned fragment so strangely\nconverted by Vuk's software was (quotation by memory):\n\"All this becomes possible only with emergence of the Net. Art as a\nnotion becomes obsolete...\", etc.\nSo, the text was not so much interesting. But the term it undirectly\nbrought to life was already in use by that time .\nSorry about future net.art historians - we don't have the manifesto any\nmore. It was lost with other precious data after tragic crash of Igor's\nhard disk last summer.\n\nI like this weird story very much, because it's a perfect illustration\nto the fact that the world we live in is much richer than all our ideas\nabout it.\n\n\nAlexei\n-- \n...............................\n.....moscow wwwart centre......\nhttp://sunsite.cs.msu.su/wwwart\n...............................\n--\n* distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n* <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n* collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n* more info: majordomo {AT} is.in-berlin.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n* URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} is.in-berlin.de\n\n",
"content":"\nI feel it's time now to give a light on the origin of the term -\n\"net.art\".\n\nActually, it's a readymade.\nIn December 1995 Vuk Cosic got a message, sent via anonymous mailer.\nBecause of incompatibility of software, the opened text appeared to be\npractically unreadable ascii abracadabra. The only fragment of it that\nmade any sense looked something like:\n\n[...] J8~g#|\\;Net. Art{-^s1 [...]\n\nVuk was very much amased and exited: the net itself gave him a name for\nactivity he was involved in! He immediately started to use this term.\nAfter few months he forwarded the mysterious message to Igor Markovic,\nwho managed to correctly decode it. The text appeared to be pretty\ncontroversal and vague manifesto in which it's author blamed traditional\nart institutions in all possible sins and declared freedom of\nself-expression and independence for an artist on the Internet.\nThe part of the text with above mentioned fragment so strangely\nconverted by Vuk's software was (quotation by memory):\n\"All this becomes possible only with emergence of the Net. Art as a\nnotion becomes obsolete...\", etc.\nSo, the text was not so much interesting. But the term it undirectly\nbrought to life was already in use by that time .\nSorry about future net.art historians - we don't have the manifesto any\nmore. It was lost with other precious data after tragic crash of Igor's\nhard disk last summer.\n\nI like this weird story very much, because it's a perfect illustration\nto the fact that the world we live in is much richer than all our ideas\nabout it.\n\n\nAlexei\n-- \n...............................\n.....moscow wwwart centre......\nhttp://sunsite.cs.msu.su/wwwart\n...............................\n--\n* distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n* <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n* collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n* more info: majordomo {AT} is.in-berlin.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n* URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} is.in-berlin.de\n\n",
"content":"\nArt on the Net not Net-Art\n\nAfter a long absensence (since the late eighties) it is once again a \nnormal experience to go into galleries and museums and find works in \nwhich exciting artists use video. Significantly what neither the \nartists, nor the critics have reverted to is the term \"video art\". \nArtists such as Georgina Starr or Matthew Barney may be geographically \napart but share a certain sensibility, they are also shrewd enough to \navoid of the trap of being confined within the metaphor of given medium. \nMuch of this new work is in fact revisiting the strategies of a much \nearlier generation Aconci, Abromovich/Uly etc, whose approach to video \nwas also quick and dirty. Unlike those who came next there was no \nmystification of the medium, no \"video art\" as such. It was a tool, not \nan ideology. The same is true for the recent generation who grew up with \nthe camcorder as just another household appliance, part of a continuum \nof media possibilities and almost as easy as picking up a pencil. It \nfeels very natural, and the art is better for it.\n\nThis new generation may not have been around, but they are probably \nprevented from taking the wrong direction by some residual folk memory \nof the theoretical somersaults and tedious technological formalism that \naccompanied debates about what might or might not be *real* \"video art\". \n\nIs there a lesson for us to learn from this history? Yes, I believe that \nthose of us who love the net and love art, and want to work in both \nshould learn from the past and avoid the simplistic device of marrying \nthese two terms. The term net-art (as opposed to art that happens to \nappear on the net) should be quietly ditched.\n\nDavid Garcia\n--\n* distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n* <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n* collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n* more info: majordomo {AT} is.in-berlin.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n* URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} is.in-berlin.de\n\n",
"content":"\n> The term net-art (as opposed to art that happens to \n> appear on the net) should be quietly ditched.\n> \n\nno, david, it's not time yet.\nwe have to wait until:\n\n- big international net art stars (whose works and behaviour meet art\ninstitutions demands) will emerge;\n- living legends of net art will appear (poor, but accepting no\ncompromises);\n- some names will be forgotten (to be discovered in the future by net\nart historians as key figures of the beginning of the movement);\n- net art galleries, magazines, associations and museums will be\nestablished;\n- as well as net art departments at universities;\n- few net art histories (contradictory, each describing completely\ndifferent picture) will be written;\n(i think everyone can easily continue this list)\n\nonly then those few net artists who survive will be able to proudly say:\n\"yes, i am a real artist!\", denying their low roots in sake of\nprosperous present.\n\nalexei shulgin\n--\n* distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n* <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n* collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n* more info: majordomo {AT} is.in-berlin.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n* URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} is.in-berlin.de\n\n",
"content":"\nNet Art is Not Art???\n\nby Carey Young\n\n(A response to 'Art on the Net not Net-Art,' by David Garcia)\n\nDavid Garcia raises some useful and interesting issues in his essay, but\nmay be a little too hasty in damning Net art with an 'ideology.' Of course,\nthe Net offers a \"tool\" for artists, but there is precious little art on\nthe Net which has any sense of the rich context in which it is situated. It\nis too early to see any sort of artistic 'ideology' appearing, let alone\ncongealing around Net artworks. It seems to me that there is at present a\ndistict lack of art activity which actually exposes and explores the\nNet's possibilities, rather than employing it as a glorified catalogue, a\nfunction which may of course be categorised as useful, but hardly\nscintillating.\n\nHere and there (as I said, they are a rare species) can be found the\noccasional project which makes an active use of its location on the Net,\nwithout losing any engagement with contemporary critical debates which this\n'formalist' position might suggest. I am thinking of work which\nspecifically involves and incorporates hypertext, hyperlinks, Web-cams and\nother Web-specific devices. Not that this is overtly formal work, just work\nwhich makes an intelligent commentary on its Web-sitedness, as well as\nhaving its own artistic meanings. After all, each Net artwork is\nconstituted from an electronic and analogue fabric, a spatialised\nhypertextual 'environment,' which will always contextualise the\nviewer's/users experience of it. To ignore this, when making a Net art\npiece, could never be defined as 'wrong', of course. It would just mean a\nlack of possible depth.\n\nThis is not, however, a call for a move back to the formal values of\nmodernism! I agree with Garcia's point that Net art could, at this early\nstage in its development, be dragged down with \" the theoretical\nsomersaults and tedious technological formalism that accompanied debates\nabout what might or might not be *real* \"video art\". \" But what I feel is\nmissing from this argument is the fact that Net art has a very particular\nlocation which, we might say, offers a new location for art experience.\nArtists working with the Net have a vital role to play, in the sense of\noffering interventions into the usual experiences, expectations or\npossibilities afforded by the Net. These are still new experiences for most\npeople, and thus some definition of what 'happens' on or in the Net can be\nan engaging and meaningful aspect of contemporary Net art (and perhaps its\nfuture incarnations: in a medium which develops so fast, who is to say that\nthis condition will diminish?) In this sense, Net artworks which make\nparticular, and perhaps I should say 'conceptual' use of their Net location\nare not merely bogged down in formalist dogma, but may perhaps be\ncommenting on and engaging with their environment in a way we already\nunderstand, primed by more traditional artforms.\n\nThe most resonant Net artworks thus have a sensitivity to space and to\nlocation, albeit its own electronic variety, which is traceable through\nthat grand linear sweep of 'Art History.' While it is not vital to compare\nNet art with other artforms, since it has its own powerful voice (even if\nGarcia is perhaps suggesting we do not concentrate on this) it is\ninteresting to do so in order to speculate upon what its possibilities\nmight be. I personally feel that with many of the most interesting sites\nthere are strong links to sculpture (1), to telematic art of the last\ntwenty years, and to land art. The most useful comparison I have found is,\nhowever, with installation. Michael Archer, in an recent edition of the\nBritish art magazine Art Monthly, states that \"therearegroundsforsaying\nthatinstallationisthecurrentconditionofart...(theterm's)\nwidespreadusedemonstrates...thewidespreadassumptionofacertain\nspatialsensibility.Itisanindexofhowwemightinhabitaspacewhich\nisalwaysmultiple-alwaysspaces-andofhowwein
"content":"\nI.\nDavid,\nWhat means word \"ditched\"? i found several translations in english-russian dictionary, but they all explain nothing to me. i'm not very good in english and since i didnt get all sentences of your statement i'm not ready to answer.\n\nII. \nCarye, Alexey\nI hate it. For how long time we are going to participate in destructive discussions. \n\n\nIII.\nDavid, Alexei\nNo i dont want to know what \"ditched\" means. i dont like to argue with all these \"should -shouldn't\" directives-forecasts.\n\nIV.\nGod, Mammy, Michael ( all not nettime subscribers)\nI'm a net artists. I'm famous net artists. I'm very good net artist. \ni can use the net to express myself, to sell my soul or to save humankind.\nmy works are net art masterpieces\n\n\nV.\nDoes anybody like the level of statement [IV]?\n i'm afraid not, but i'll send this message everytime somebody will write about net art, without analyzing works of mine or my friends, existing net artists (not all nettime subscribers).\nWhat for to offer sense and context to people who have already created it or are in the process of creation?\nIts obvious, if we want to develop the situation and understand smth the best thing we could do is to turn to personalities and their way of using net.\nafter these words i feel responsibility to do it myself first, but i still dont know exact meaning of some english words.\n\n:)\nolia\n--\n* distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n* <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n* collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n* more info: majordomo {AT} is.in-berlin.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n* URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} is.in-berlin.de\n\n",
"content":"\nDavid Garcia wrote (in respect to artists' use of Video):\n\n>Much of this new work is in fact revisiting the strategies of a much\n>earlier generation Aconci, Abromovich/Uly etc, whose approach to\n>video was also quick and dirty. Unlike those who came next there was\n>no mystification of the medium, no \"video art\" as such.\n\nWell that's not altogether true ... the earliest work (Acconci, Fox,\nCampus etc.) was shot using a Portapak with limited (zero) editing\ncapability - which made it, a priori, \"quick and dirty\". The \"q & d\"\naesthetic was built right into the technology. When better systems\ncame along they scaled their work up accordingly ... or, more often,\n dropped the video medium altogether.\n\nIt should also be remembered that the introduction of video tape\ncoincided with the beginnings of the movement by artists away from\nobject/product-oriented work in the direction of performance, action\nand installation. Much of the work David is thinking of is actually\ndocumentation of performances - as in the case of Marina Abramovic\nor Gina Pane, although there are some remarkable unedited, \"pure\"\nvideo tapes from the period (providing they have been saved to better\ntape).(1)\n\nIt was only with the introduction of the Umatic system and (relatively)\nlow-priced editing equipment that something called \"Video Art\" could\nbecome possible -- at least in the institutions and \"artist-run centers\"\nthat could afford to buy and maintain the gear.\n\nAnd here is where the \"theoretical/ideological\" problems, that David\nmentions, begin (and also where the problems of so-called \"Video Art\"\ntouch on the problems of so-called \"Net-Art\"). The questions of identity\nand definition - what is \"Video Art\"? Is it like painting and belongs in\na museum ? or like TV and should be broadcast? or like a book and\nshould be viewed privately? all or none or some permuation of these?\nAnd then there is the argument about the actual \"Thing\" video:\nis it an object =\"The Tape\"? or the idea =\"The Content\"? or the\nimage =\"The Screen\"?\n\nThese arguments may sound silly now (except that they are re-\nsurfacing in discussions about \"Net-Art\" -- or \"Art-in-the-Net\" if\nyou prefer) but they were arguments that caused broken marriages\nand the collapse of artists' collectives not so long ago. In the meantime\n\"Video-Art\" has virtually vanished, having found no niche in the \"Art\nMarket\" - and having been overtaken by several waves of newer\n(digital) technology.\n\nArtists now (as David says) simply treat video as just another\nmedium from the palette of available imaging systems. It can be\nmade to represent itself, or the TV screen or be used just as an imaging\n\"tool\" - and can be sneaked into the sacred enclosure of the museum\n(thru the back door so to speak) in the guise of \"installation\".\n\nWhen video-art was young and full of energy there were all kinds of\nstrategies proposed, and tried, to make video artists into \"real artists\"\nand video art into \"real art\". What most of them failed (or refused)\nto take into account was that video did not fit into the art traditions of\nindustrial culture - it is impermanent, has no physical object, no\nhandwork (in the traditional sense), and has more in common with\ndance, literature, theater or music than with traditional painting\nor sculpture.\n\nWhat makes \"Video-Art\" so important (\"mystification of the medium\"\nor not) is its role in the development of the new art tradition growing\nout of the recording technologies. For instance, with video tape,\nanything on a screen can be recorded and recycled (collaged) -\ncopyright on a video tape is as absurd the copyright on a web page.\nThe \"video-artists\" had to struggle with this fact in the same way\nthat \"net-artists\" are doing now - and the \"net\" is actually a just\nhuge dispersed recording machine.\n\nAlexei's ironical polemic, in which he appears to accuse \"net-artists\"\nofdreamingofbecoming(asGeneralIdeaputitinFileMagazine20\nyearsa
"content":"\n\n>>The term net-art (as opposed to art that happens to\n>>appear on the net) should be quietly ditched.\n>\n>impossible after the definitive introduction by grandmasters Cosic and\n>Shulgin in Trieste last May\n>\n>this term is a heuristic device used with a lot of irony by the operators\n>\n>the first truly machinic art form\n>\n>-a\n\nSo imagine the grandmaster Shulgin at a retrospective of his net.artworks\nafter the term has been consigned to history (say two months from now),\ntaking us through his career in an interview reminiscent of the precursor\nto truly machinic art forms - grandmaster Duchamp. See the how theissues of\nold modernist grandmasters conflate with the new.\n\n\n\"Regions which are not ruled by time and space....\"*\n\n\nEdited version of \"A Conversation with Alexei Shulgin,\" interview conducted\nby Rachel Baker, Riga, Art + Communication, November\n\n\n\n RB So here you are, Alexei, looking at the Moscow wwwarts gold medal\naward site\n\n AS Yes, and the more I look at it the more I like it. I like the links,\n the way they fall. You remember how it happened in 1996, we put the two\n concepts of found web pages and found criticism together not knowing what they\n were carrying, and bounced suggestions around for suitable sites deserving\nan\n award and that's the result! But the more I look at it the more I like the\n links: They have a shape. There is a symmetry in the linking, there\n is an intention there, a curious intention that I am not responsible\n for, a ready-made intention, in other words, that I respect and love.\n\n RB This was one of your most ambitious undertakings, wasn't it?\n\n AS By far the most ambitious. I worked eight months on it, and it is far\n from finished. I do not even know if it will ever be finished; Moscow\n wwwart site is always unfinished.\n\nRB There are several versions of the Entry Page to Moscow WWWarts, aren't\nthere?\n\nAS Yes, eight; these\nwere shown at the Metaforums 3 Conference in Budapest 1996\n\nRB The critics called us an explosion in a shingle factory\n\nAS Yes. That was really a great line they put out. Now this is the BlaBla\nsite.\n As you see the design is completely arbitrary because that was the period\n when I changed completely from exhibiting art photography to exhibiting\n 'non-art' sites, with no relation to arty handiwork.\n\n\nRB Alexei, these are not the earliest works.\n\n AS No, no, no. The earliest\nis this one here - Hot Pictures, That was done before Moscow wwwarts\ncentre in 1994.\n\nRB It is rather gallery-like, isn't it? That was the vogue.\n\n AS Yes; well, it was not just the vogue, it was the only thing\nwe knew about. It was a little advanced at the time, but when you look\nat these two sites (Bla Bla, Gold Medal) which are later, you can see photo\n- galleries were already a thing of the past.\n\n RB They are less static.\n The Moscow wwwarts Centre was for net.artists. How were you funded?\n\nAS My funder, Ars. E. Lectronica, was very nice about it. In fact, it was\nvery difficult then, as it is now, to become a net.artist on your own. How\ncan you expect to live? He was a good man. He used to give all of us a\nsmall allowance, just enough for us to live on. He was always very\nunderstanding and always helped us out of scrapes, for a long time even\nafter we were established. And he had very odd ideas. He told us \"All\nright, I'm going to give you what you\nwant, but listen: there are 12 of you. Anything I give you while\nI'm alive I will deduct from your inheritance.\"Sohekeptacareful\naccountofalltheamounts,andwhenhediedtheseamountshadbeen\ndeductedfromourinheritance.Notsostupid,actually,thatidea:it\nhelpedusallmanage,\n\nRBWell,thereseemstobequiteastepbetweenHotPicturesandthe\ngoldMedalawardsite.\n\nASYes,GoldMedalwastwoweekslater,anditwasafterthesethat\nIdecidedtogetawayfromalltheinfluencesIhadbeenunderbefore.\nIwantedtoliveinthepresent,andthepresentthenwascomputer
"content":"\nDirkPaesmansenJoanHeemskerkworktogetheronthenetusingthe\nnameJodifortwoyearsnow.Theycomefromanartbackground,Joan\ndidphotography,Dirkdidperformancesandvideoamongstotherthings.\nTheywereinterviewedatthe'secret'conferenceonnet.art,organised\nbyHeathBunting,intheBackspacegallery,London,lastJanuari.\n\nQ:You've tried to auction some webpages at this conference.\nHow was that, what did you think of the respons from the audience?\n\nD: It was allright. One was sold to Kathy Rae Huffman, who is a \nnet.art promoter from the States who lives in Vienna. She is in this \nalternativ net.stuff completely. She bought one screen for ten pounds, \nso, that one will go to the Huffman-collection. \n\nQ: You weren'texactlyasalesmanthatgaveobviouscuesonwhen\nsomethingwasforsale.Itwasabituncleartopeoplewhenexactly\ntheycouldjumpontoanoffer.\n\nD:Itwasn't meant to start a large sale there in fact. What is \nhappening now in art and net.art is people talk about what is \nalternativ and what is normal, mainstream. We see our work in a \nmaterial way. It could simply be sold. There is a lot of nonsens \ntalk around art. There should be no shame when you make something \nthat is good, be it on a computerscreen, videotape, an etching, \nwhatever, to sell it. \n\nJ: There is this discussion in the net.art scene that 'itcouldnever\ncomeintotonormalartcircuitbecauseitwouldnotbepossibleto\nsellit'..probably because of the digital and immaterial side of the \nnet.\n\nQ: That is not the only discussion of course, there is also the fact \nthat some do not want to be institutionalised. You are not afraid of \nthat?\n\nJ: Depends on the institution.\n\nQ: Do you think you will have a choice? Do you think you can manipulate\nthe outcome in this?\n\nD: In itself it would be good when a gallery picks us up and supports \nus in the kind of work we do. Ideally it would be fantastic for us. \nOne should not run after them of course. There are all kinds of \ncommercial art venues on the net. One of the central places now is \nNew York, the Adaweb, where more then ten people work. They have Jenny \nHolzer and Lawrence Weiner as big names in their websites with some \nsmall works, but next to this they start this promotion of young \nweb.artists. We too are going to do a project there soon. It is all \nwithout obligations and there are no deals, nothing is sold really. \nThat is why it is funny for us now to try to sell something ourselves. \nThe work we put on Adaweb we give them for free. We are not in the \nposition to ask for much at this moment. \nExcept maybe sell a screen for ten pounds. \n\nQ: You are not thinking about more sensitive matters, like for \ninstance what to do when the net.art group is picked up by a gallery \nand some of the artists are being hyped up to become famous and others \ndisappear into nothingness? These kind of things happen all the time \nthrough art history. Do you not have any thoughts about this or do you \nnot care? This is the image you give me a bit now. You said in your \npresentation that your web pages are no content pages..Are you no \ncontent too when it comes to these kind of questions? Are you not at \nall busy with more political questions maybe?\n\nJ: The work we make is not politically oriented, except that it stands \nin the net like a brick. The relationship with the net and other works \non the net is a strong one. It is not 'about' something political or \na story.\n\nD: We use certain elements, like a virus, whether a virus is present, \nor whether things go wrong with somebody's'cache',somebody's\npersonalcomputer.Alotoftheseelementsarecollagesofthingsthat\narefoundonthenet.Thenaturalenvironmentofus,ofJodi,isthe\nnetandyoucanfindacertaincondensedformofthenetinJodi.\nItiscomparabletothekindofworkIusedtomakeforZap-tv.This\nwasaveryonedimensialwayofrecyclingtvintoanewchannel.So\ninthiswholerubbish,Zap-tvIm
"content":"\nThisisapieceofwritingthatgivesyoumypersonalreflections\nonnet.art.Youcouldverywellhavedifferentideasaboutit,\nandItrybywritingthishererightnowtoavoidthethoughtin\nyourheadthatIclaimtobeanexpertonthesubject.WhatIlike\nsomuchaboutartandnewmediaandnet.artisthefactthatit\nisnotdefinedyet.Ihavebeenabitannoyedthereforebysome\nwritingsrecentlyonNettime.Iwilltrytoletmydefinitions\nbeasopenaspossible,butinmyopinion,moretouchingastowhat\nthetermnet.artdoestomethenthatacademiclingo,thatbyno\nmeanshastheabilitytocoverthesubject,simplybecauseofthe\nslipperynatureofnet.art.\n\nWheretostartwhentalkingaboutnet.artorartonthenetor\nwhateveritisthesepeoplemakeonthenet?Iwilljusttryto\nwritesomethoughtsdownIhadthelastcoupleofdays,andwho\nknowsitmightbecomeacoherentpiece.Hardthough,withthis\nsubject.Undesirablemaybeeven.\n\nIreadastatementinthenewspapertheotherday,thatwaspartof\nanarticleaboutWimT.Schippers,HollandsmostfamousFluxusartist.\nItsaidthatagoodartworkispreparedlikemurder:onehastobe\nverypreciseandperfectionistandworkinuttersecrecy.This\nremindedmeofnet.artverymuch.Itisalmostbetrayaltowriteabout\nsomeaspectsofit,becauseitisprobablyatthismomentoneofthe\nfewartformsthatstillhaveapotentialofsubvertingandsurprising\ninthewayarthasbeenseentodointhepast.\n\nThefirstthingthatcametomymindafterreadingbothDavidsand\nCarey's mails was: What are they talking about? Which art on the \nnet? What net-art? As most of the Nettimers might know there seems\nto be this group called net.art that operates and organises around\nthe Nettime perifery a lot. I have tried to find proof of this group\nclaiming the name net.art this morning, but didn'tfindany.Maybe\ntirednessofsurfing,Idon't know. I thought it would be easy, but\nforget it. Somehow the term net.art is connected to this group however\nand it is confusing, especially in discussions like the one on Nettime\nrecently about art and the Internet. \nThe reaction of Olia Lialina for instance to this discussion is a \nvery personal one. She is one of the people of this net.art group.\nShe does not understand a discussion about net.art when this \ndiscussion leaves her friends out completely. I have the same feeling, \nfor several reasons. The net.art group has been very active and has \nproduced many works that I cannot place in the discriptions given by \nboth David and Carey about types and possibilities of net.art. Not \nreally anyway. Carey'sdiscriptionsgetabitclose,butaretoo\nacademicandinthiswaytheylooktoomuchfromaperspectiveof\ntheoldart,thatwasnevercomfortablewiththingslikeperformance\nartormailart,andhasdevelopedamannerofdiscourseaboutthese\nthatischokingandunsuitablemostly.\nTheconnectionwithvideoart,well,Idon't really care.\nVideo has never had the potential the net has. It had the illusion \nof that, and still has. With the coming of the camcorder it looked \nto some people as if the world of big media, of tv, could be invaded \njust like that. This turned out to be a Fata Morgana. The kind of \ntechnology required to transmit video in any way has always been and \nwill stay for a while, even with the coming of RealVideo, a matter\nof big money, big machines and bureaucracy because of this. RealVideo\nmight finally put an end to this in the future, but we don'tknowhow\ntheInternetwilldevelopfromthetopdown(restructuringIreferto).\nVideohoweverhasneverhadarealchancetobecomeamediumlikethe\nnet.\nItwouldbemuchwisertocomparethedevelopmentofthenettothe\nearlydaysofradio,whichisdonebysomepeopleoutside(?)thislist,\nSiegfriedZielinskiforinstance.\n\nTheproblemwhentalkingaboutnet.artisalwaysthatthepeoplethat\ndosocomefromtwooppositegroups,theAr
"content":"\n\ndear j.\nthank you for your response and nice interview with jodi.\nYours piece and rachel-n-alexei talk brought a new sense to this discussion.\n\nThe connection with video art, well, I don't really care.\nVideo has never had the potential the net has.\n\n its very fashionable and easy to compare different medias in nets favor. i dont want to defend video and \ndont have enough experience, but, i repeat myself, it depends upon who uses video or net. i think in one's hands video camera can obtain powerful communicative value, in other's - net dies having no chance to overcome home video barrier\n\n\n RealVideo\nmight finally put an end to this in the future, but we don't know how \nthe Internet will develop from the top down (restructuring I refer to).\n\n\nreal video itself and other formats (quick movie, for example) which translate other arts is not a point of discussion for me (but i'll be glad to hear another point of view). they are not real expression, may be could only play a role of words in your net sentence. To take them seriously is the same as to shoot a book page by page, paragraph after paragraph, if book is with pictures, picture after picture, and after offer it as screen version of a novel.\n\nThis is enough about the 'normal' artworld and net.art I think. \nLeaves me with a question towards the net.art group that has been \nbothering me for a while. How can you call your group by this name?\n\n\nbut, its a mistake. where is no such a huge group looking for name and group identification. \nwhere are people who work together as well as separately. its more like community (i know several ones) of artists who support each other or simply communicate.\n i know very well one sad example of misunderstanding. it happened in the end of 80s when russian experimental film community (around ten artists from Moscow and Leningrad) was taken by society (by critics, theoreticians) as an art group. They worked in different aesthetics, they appeal to different traditions but it was more easy and actual (peak of perestroika) to search them as a group of new artists, who all work apart from state, all shoot on 16mm (not 35), all have no cinematography education and publish one zine CINE FANTOM and so on... As the result, all they got was a lot of researches of word CINE FANTOM and long articles about the idea of notion \"russian exp. film\". they became victims of social interest to a group.\ni mean,\n 1.if you have nothing to manifest together on aesthetic level there is no sense and even dangerous to appear as a group.\n 2.great number of definitions to net art reminds me all these unsuccessful attempts to identify a table instead of people speaking around it. \n\nThere are many outside your group that work\nin the net, in similar ways.\n\nsure, fortunately, and not only in similar\n\nolia\n--\n* distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n* <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n* collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n* more info: majordomo {AT} is.in-berlin.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n* URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} is.in-berlin.de\n\n",
"content":"\nHistorians retrospecting on the foggy lines of History are always so\ntempted to label things as Movements and Periods and such. I find this\nrather ridiculous. Consider asking someone who is 40 years old how they\nfelt about a situation that happened to then 25 years previous, what\nimpressions, their emotional and intellectual state at the time and a\ndetailed description of the material event, what REALLY happened... Now,\naside from a handful of \"life-changing\" events that normally occur to\npeople over time, they would have a VERY hard time reconstructing anything\nnear the reality of their own past...\n\nNow, when I see a term like Surrealism and Surrealists, I really have to\nLaugh at the way Art Historians and unfortunately artists too get caught\ninto believeing that this is the way things happened at all! I mean, look,\nare there, out there, to your knowledge, groups of people making Movements\nnow? I would propose that it is not movements but simply the existence of\ndialogues of greater or lesser potency running between individuals who,\ndepending on how much personal risk they are able to take, influence the\nlives of each other directly through this dialogue... (Take Nettime for\nexample -- the perfect example of not a movement, but the accumulation of\nthe various voices who are more or less talking to each other, nothing more\nnothing less. Ask yourself how much Nettime CHANGES your life, and that is\na measure of the dialogue...\n\nI find the discussion about Net.Art to be rather pointless unless one is in\nthe process of copyright protection or the rigor-mortis\ninstitutionalization of a history that is not even history. What about the\nInternational Netowrking Congress -- of mail-artists; I have been part of\nan organic network and using that word for a long time, yet I don't feel\nthe need to claim a word to\n\n1) describe the whole of being which generates the material and actual\nmanifestations of my \"life work\" nor\n\n2) posits some historical claim of legitimacy to what I am doing or how I\nam being...\n\nI am sorry, but it seems a joke! And I just don't see the point in\ndividing things up, what art FORMS are ascendent over another... I believe\nwe all, in every formal sense, face a \"hands-on\" material world with one\nfoot in the spiritual. Anything that we seek to DO faces the brutal\nchallenge of either forcing material things into new configurations or of\nspeaking/paying attention to another human in the hopes of inspiring them\nor being inspired... The material struggle that I think people are\nspeaking of here (in terms of video art, net art, painting and so on) are\nall rather (or totally) similar aspects of that challenge of material\ntransformation... Now, I know the immediate response to this from some is\n\"well, net art isn't material...\"orsomesuchargument,butthatissimply\nnotso.Isacomputermaterial,isRAMmaterial,arefiberoptics\nmaterial,copperwires,generators,monitors?Imean,fundamentally,\nalmostallofwhatwecallTECHNOLOGICALmediaarematerialtransformations\nrelyingsolelyonthetwomostabundantmaterialsintheearth's crust --\nsilicon and oxygen -- SiO2 -- amorphous silica -- glass -- which covers --\nphotography (camera-based media), all digital media (chips are made\nprimarily of amorphous silica). Differences in all the manifestations are\nillusory and a result of the endless hair-splitting of the reductive system\nof Western science which has lead us only to finer questions of what we\neither never need to KNOW or what is so essential that we can'tKNOWit\nanyway...\n\nIthinkquestionsofqualityratherquantityaremoreimportanttoconsider\nhere.(paralleltoideaslikeaconsiderationofhumanobligationsvs\nhumanrights)Anotherwordsforexample,discussionsofnotwhetherPaul\nGarrin's efforts with setting up Autono.net will work or not -- but whether\nhe is having a genuine influence on other people'slivesandwhetherthat\neffectispositiveornegative...Ofcourse,thatm
"content":"\nThe net.art discussion is so interesting that just reading it\ntakes more time than I've got ...\n----------\nCLEARING THE BACKLOG (1)\n\nReply to John Hopkins (Mon, 17 Mar 1997)\n\nWhile agreeing with everything you have written I would like\nto add something about the way new traditions emerge as new\nmedia change the cultural environment or replace older media -\nwhether it be in art, politics or just daily life ... for example:\n\nPerhaps it is true that the discussion of the name *net.art* is\nsilly (although entertaining) but It seems to me that net.art,\nunlike the art-historical constructs known as\"isms\", is more\nimportant than it may seem because of the way it challenges the\nconcept of art-making as a more or less solitary (and product-\nproducing) activity.\n\n>From the very beginning of the use by artists of Telecomm\ntechnology, (about20 years ago) the problem has existed of\nidentifying and defining the \"work\" and the \"artist\" in\ncollaborative network projects. The older traditions of art\nproduction, promotion and marketing did not apply and\nartists (and especially art-historians, curators, and the art\nestablishment), trained to operate with and within these\ntraditions, found it very difficult to recognise these projects\nas being \"ART\" - or as being anything at all!\n\nNet.art seems to attempt to define an art practice in dispersed\nnetworks and as a form of distributed or collective authorship.\nIn this way it is a very different program than the usual work\nby artists on the net which are mainly advertisments for\nthemselves, their projects or their galleries - or images of\ntheir work in some other (traditional) medium.\n\nAs I have understood the net.art concept, there are no single\n\"net.art-ists\" but a general field (called, for no very good reason,\n\"net.art\") in which a collective work is formed by the project\nparticipants/communicators. Net.art can, in this sense, be\nunderstood as an important conceptual formulation in the process\nof identifying traditions appropriate to the new telecomm media.\n(Other parts of the ongoing Nettime discussion appear to be doing\nthe same kind of work for sociology, economics and politics)\n\nThe similarities with \"mail-art\" are obvious - and net.art can\nprobably expect as much feedback from the \"art-establishment\" as\nmail-art got. At least I hope so - it would be terrible if the art\nestablisment wrapped it in its gorilla embrace!\n\nbob\n\nps - Just hit the following unsettling info (via T.Baumgaertl) as I\nploughed further down the backlog:\n\n>Press information\n>documenta X goes Internet\n>documenta X , reknowm(sic) exhibition of contemporary arts, introduces\n>the documenta X website on 21 March 1997.\n>http://www.documenta.de\n\nand that after the news that the Whitney is also webbing ...\n\nIs the gorilla approaching ...?\n\n\n====================================================================\n*Art should concern itself as much with behavior as it does with\nappearance* - Norman T. White\n====================================================================\nRobert Adrian\n<http://netbase.t0.or.at/~radrian/>\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
"content":"\n\"Franz F. Feigl\" <franz {AT} feigl.com>\n Re: <nettime> re: Tilman-RFC #1: net art history 1993 - 1996\n\nTilman Baumgaertel <tilman_baumgaertel {AT} csi.com>\n Re: <nettime> Re: Tilman-RFC #1: net art history 1993 - 1996\n\n\"Dr. Future\" <richard {AT} dig-lgu.demon.co.uk>\n Re: <nettime> defining net.art (was: Olia Lialina, was: \n something or other...)\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - \n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - \n\nDate: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 02:58:31 +0100\nFrom: \"Franz F. Feigl\" <franz {AT} feigl.com>\nSubject: Re: <nettime> re: Tilman-RFC #1: net art history 1993 - 1996\n\nDon't worry: Tilman's job 'net.art.history' won't be the last attempt \nto rewrite the past.\n\nThe first use of the the net (internet - not phones, BBS's, a.s.o) \nfor art's sake I remember was Bill Gibson + ? placing something \nlike a 'self-destructing poem' on the net in summer 1992.\n(the organisation was an art-show in San Francisco, so there might \nbe more to dig up)\n\nLot's of still familiar names are missing, from Artcom to Williams \nand even more not so familiar ones.\n\nFranz F. Feigl\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - \n\nDate: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 01:51:20 +0100\nFrom: Tilman Baumgaertel <tilman_baumgaertel {AT} csi.com>\nSubject: Re: <nettime> Re: Tilman-RFC #1: net art history 1993 - 1996\n\nAt 00:00 14.12.99 +0100, Florian Cramer wrote:\n\n>Am Sat, 11.Dec.1999 um 18:24:31 +0100 schrieb Tilman Baumgaertel:\n>\n>> One month ago I mailed out a proposal to inform me about early net art\n>> projects. It resulted in the following list of projects and art works that\n>> happened between 1993 and 1996. Some of them were suggested to me by email,\n>> other came from my own - not very good - memory. \n>\n>I am quite surprised to see that your timeline starts as late as in 1993.\n>Again, we can argue whether \"net art\" (i.e. net art in a broader sense than\n>the particular school of \"Net.Art\") is identical with \"World Wide Web art\".\n>My opinion obviously differs.\n>\n\nWell, that comes as quite a surprise, doesn't it? \n\nYou will even be more surprised to learn that just putting the overview of\nthese four years together took one month of work. If I would be at an\nuniversity I would take a sabbatical for this kind of effort, but I am not. \n\nAs you of course know, this kind of art is very ephemeral and very\ndistributed, and it takes a long time to get this kind of stuff together.\nFor the present purpose, this list is OK, because it is for the catalog of\nan exhibtion that was triggered by the art that was created in reaction to\nthe web, mainly. But it doesn't pretend to be complete, and I put every\nimaginable effort in getting as much material as possible. And actually,\nthe reason why I make this list available to your kind of criticism, is\nbecause I want as much participation from as many people as possible. \n\nI also don't think that net work art is only on the web, so I have a much\nlonger list of other things, going back to Mail art and the fifties,\nincluding Television, Satellite, BBS, Fax, what have you events, but it is\nyet too incomplete to be published. I will continue to work on this, and\nonce I feel it is appropriate to this big topic, I will put it on the net. \n\nAnyway, thanks for your list, it is of great help. \n\nYours, \nTilman \n...................\nI think, \nand then I sink\ninto the paper \nlike I was ink.\nEric B. & Raakim: Paid in full\n\nDr. Tilman Baumgaertel, email: tilman {AT} thing.de\nMY HOMEPAGE HAS MOVED!!! http://www.thing.de/tilman\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - \n\nDate: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 18:28:37 +0000\nFrom: \"Dr. Future\"<richard{AT}dig-lgu.demon.co.uk>\nSubject:Re:<nettime>definingnet.art(was:OliaLialina,was:\nsomethingorother...)\n\nmelindarackhamwrote:\n\n>>simonwrote:\n>\n>alotofwhatiscalledNetArtis
"content":"\nTerrence writes;\n\nThere seems many more people are involved now. That will make it all the more\nvital by bringing more minds together. How that will change and evolve remains to\nbe seen. It will be intriguing to compare and perhaps see some sort of telos of a\nshifting to a communication perhaps more theatrical and even timeless in form. I\nam looking forward to seeing the links that collapse network time from then to\nhere and now. The separation of time and distance has been too convenient\ncontrolling and thus disconcerting. History never fixed always evolving taking on\nthings from the past not to be forgotten whist they shape the future. Ah network\nbliss.\n\nT.\n\n\n\n\n> he means of distribution...\n>\n> <...>\n>\n> > if work is intended for flexible delivery over a global network with its\n> > unique download rthythm its net.art, anything intended for distribution on\n> > cdrom has a completely different intent, architecture and mode of\n> > production. the definition is in the intention and the expereince. a few\n> > years ago i remember asking Tiia Johansen from Estonia about why she was\n> > putting up huge single images as web works, when all i was interrested in\n> > was making tiny files for fast delivery, and her reply (made even more\n> > dramatic by her fabulous accent) was \" i like to make them wait.\"\n> >\n> > For me it is that wait... the delivery space, - the gap - , the\n> > possibilities contained within the gap, and the expereience of that gap\n> > which are the defining characteristics of net.art.\n>\n> So this suggests that the categorization of the (net.)art work is dependent\n> upon the intentions of the user, whether they want to exploit the properties\n> of the net as a communications system or as a distribution system or whatever.\n> But then their intentions are dependent upon the particular qualities of the\n> Net that they perceive as important anyway, so we must conclude that all art\n> that is deliberately put on the net is net.art.\n>\n> The challenge is then to find some art on the net which isn't net.art (isn't\n> it?). Perhaps this would be art that was just accidentally put on the net, or\n> just temporarily while you were thinking of where else it should go (like\n> leaving things in a pile on the edge of the sofa because your shelves are full\n> up and the tea's ready). Perhaps this would be called default.art.\n>\n> the fun continues...\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: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and \"info nettime-l\" in the msg body\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net\n",
"content":"\nI like Melinda Rackham's quote from Tiia Johnson about 'making them wait'\nfor download. Download, like the crash, the freeze, upload and boot up,\nare temporal modes that are the last vestige of labour time on the web,\ngiving the lie to the mythology of instantaneous transmission. \n\nBut there is another point to add, a small one: what we have by way of\nbrowsers are not interactiv, or at least not interactive enough. We can\nclick, we can to some extent navigate, we can publish, but we can't\nre-edit someone else's work without downloading it and republishing the\nreedited version on a different server. Netscape and IE are both based on\nthe principle of user-friendly admission to a publishing medium, not to\ngenuine interactivity. Perhaps this can't be done on the wide open spaces\nof the net but only on intra/extranets where some degree of responsibility\nand trust can be presumed. Nonetheless, the model of the Amaya browser\nseems to me the kind of tool we will need if we are going to get\ninteractivity of any real sort online. That will mean, as well, some\nradical eductaion in democracy: if the authorship of works moves from\nauthors to users, then the responsibility also shifts in proportion. \n\nSo to add my crumbly bit of old cheese to the definine.net.art flan, a\nthing is net.art if the user takes responsibility for the work\n\nsean\n\n-- \nSean Cubitt\nScreen Studies\nLiverpool John Moores University\nDean Walters Building\nSt James Road\nLiverpool L1 7BR\nEngland\nT: 44 (0)151 231 5030/5007\nF: 44 (0)151 231 5049\n\n***Note new URL for Screen Studies Online courseware***\nU: http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/mccscubi/screen.html\n\nNow Available: Digital Aesthetics, Theory, Culture and Society/Sage London\nand New York http://www.ucl.ac.uk/slade/digita\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: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and \"info nettime-l\" in the msg body\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net\n",
