diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index 6b0334c..fff94a1 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
.DS_Store
archives/
-export/
+out/
config/__init.py
diff --git a/selection/sel.py b/selection/sel.py
index 1149f74..5b22a53 100644
--- a/selection/sel.py
+++ b/selection/sel.py
@@ -3,8 +3,8 @@ from selection import strutil
from threading import Lock
import config
-sel = os.path.join(config.selection, "tm-selection.js")
-sel_dump = os.path.join(config.selection, "tm-selection-dump.js")
+sel = os.path.join(config.selection['path'], config.selection['sel'])
+sel_dump = os.path.join(config.selection['path'], config.selection['sel_dump'])
LL = Lock()
diff --git a/selection/tm-selection-dump.js b/selection/tm-selection-dump.js
index 26e0324..d82c050 100644
--- a/selection/tm-selection-dump.js
+++ b/selection/tm-selection-dump.js
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
{
"subject": "July Theme: Collecting New Media Art",
"id": 0,
- "content": "\nDear List,\n\nI'm pleased to announce this month's theme:\n\n\nCollecting New Media Art: July Theme of the Month\n\nA commonly-stated reason for not taking new media art seriously is that it 'can't be collected' 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's Beryl Graham is working on a edited book for Ashgate publishers concerning just this subject, with contributions from some of the respondents listed here.\n\nSo, how are individuals, galleries and museums getting on with collecting new media art? Are the tactics new? Who is buying what?\n\nReference:\n\nDietz, Steve. 2005. \u201cCollecting New Media Art: Just Like Anything Else, Only Different.\u201d In Bruce Altshuler, ed., Collecting the New: Museums and Contemporary Art, 85\u2013101. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Also available at http://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 \u2013 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 Student Manager, Art and Design\nMA Curating Course Leader\n\nFaculty of Arts, Design, and Media, University of Sunderland\nAshburne House, Ryhope Road\nSunderland\nSR2 7EE\nTel: +44 191 515 2896 Fax: +44 191 515 2132\nEmail: [log in to unmask]\n\nCRUMB web resource for new media art curators\nhttp://www.crumbweb.org\n\nCRUMB's new books:\nRethinking Curating: Art After New Media from MIT Press\nhttp://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=12071\nA Brief History of Curating New Media Art, and A Brief History of Working with New Media Art from The Green Box\nhttp://www.thegreenbox.net",
+ "content": "\nDear List,\n\nI'm pleased to announce this month's theme:\n\n\nCollecting New Media Art: July Theme of the Month\n\nA commonly-stated reason for not taking new media art seriously is that it 'can't be collected' 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's Beryl Graham is working on a edited book for Ashgate publishers concerning just this subject, with contributions from some of the respondents listed here.\n\nSo, how are individuals, galleries and museums getting on with collecting new media art? Are the tactics new? Who is buying what?\n\nReference:\n\nDietz, Steve. 2005. “Collecting New Media Art: Just Like Anything Else, Only Different.” In Bruce Altshuler, ed., Collecting the New: Museums and Contemporary Art, 85–101. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Also available at http://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 Student Manager, Art and Design\nMA Curating Course Leader\n\nFaculty of Arts, Design, and Media, University of Sunderland\nAshburne House, Ryhope Road\nSunderland\nSR2 7EE\nTel: +44 191 515 2896 Fax: +44 191 515 2132\nEmail: [log in to unmask]\n\nCRUMB web resource for new media art curators\nhttp://www.crumbweb.org\n\nCRUMB's new books:\nRethinking Curating: Art After New Media from MIT Press\nhttp://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=12071\nA Brief History of Curating New Media Art, and A Brief History of Working with New Media Art from The Green Box\nhttp://www.thegreenbox.net",
"date": "Mon, 2 Jul 2012 08:33:45 +0000",
"content-type": "text/plain",
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=1002",
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
"list": "crumb",
"subject": "July Theme: Collecting New Media Art",
"id": 0,
- "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 \"only documentation'? 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'm happy to say that Annet Dekker and Perla Innocenti will also be joining us for the debate, so the invited respondents list now reads:\n\n--\n\nInvited respondents are:\n\nAnnet Dekker is an independent curator and researcher. Currently she is involved in organising an international conference \u201cCollecting and presenting born-digital art\u201d for Baltan Laboratories and Van Abbemuseum in Eindhoven. Since 2008 she is writing a PhD on strategies for documenting net art at the Centre for Cultural Studies, Goldsmiths, under supervision of Matthew Fuller.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 \u2013 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 Student Manager, Art and Design\nMA Curating Course Leader\n\nFaculty of Arts, Design, and Media, University of Sunderland\nAshburne House, Ryhope Road\nSunderland\nSR2 7EE\nTel: +44 191 515 2896 Fax: +44 191 515 2132\nEmail: [log in to unmask]\n\nCRUMB web resource for new media art curators\nhttp://www.crumbweb.org\n\nCRUMB's new books:\nRethinking Curating: Art After New Media from MIT Press\nhttp://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=12071\nA Brief History of Curating New Media Art, and A Brief History of Working with New Media Art from The Green Box\nhttp://www.thegreenbox.net",
+ "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 \"only documentation'? 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'm happy to say that Annet Dekker and Perla Innocenti will also be joining us for the debate, so the invited respondents list now reads:\n\n--\n\nInvited respondents are:\n\nAnnet Dekker is an independent curator and researcher. Currently she is involved in organising an international conference “Collecting and presenting born-digital art” for Baltan Laboratories and Van Abbemuseum in Eindhoven. Since 2008 she is writing a PhD on strategies for documenting net art at the Centre for Cultural Studies, Goldsmiths, under supervision of Matthew Fuller.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.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 Student Manager, Art and Design\nMA Curating Course Leader\n\nFaculty of Arts, Design, and Media, University of Sunderland\nAshburne House, Ryhope Road\nSunderland\nSR2 7EE\nTel: +44 191 515 2896 Fax: +44 191 515 2132\nEmail: [log in to unmask]\n\nCRUMB web resource for new media art curators\nhttp://www.crumbweb.org\n\nCRUMB's new books:\nRethinking Curating: Art After New Media from MIT Press\nhttp://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=12071\nA Brief History of Curating New Media Art, and A Brief History of Working with New Media Art from The Green Box\nhttp://www.thegreenbox.net",
"date": "Wed, 4 Jul 2012 08:59:33 +0000",
"content-type": "text/plain",
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=1869",
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@
{
"subject": "Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art",
"id": 0,
- "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, ). 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\", from Vera Molnar to Raphael Lozano-Hemmer. Either \nthese dealers are bad businessmen who find a perverse pleasure in \nfailure, or they have a small but brave network of collectors \ninterested in new media art. So, again: new media art is collected.\n\n2. Collecting unstable media. New media art CAN ALSO BE collected in \nits unstable, computer based, digital form. This is difficult, but not \nimpossible. And it already happened, quite a few times. Why not? In \nthe past, collectors bought conversations, candies, fresh fruit, \nliving and dead flies, dead and badly preserved sharks, performances: \nwhy should they be afraid of old computers, interactive installations, \nwebsites, softwares, etc.? Also, collectors (expecially private \ncollectors) are the kind of people who love challanges and risky \nbusinesses. Paradoxically, in the art world it seems to be easier to \nsell challanges than compromises. What they want in return is cultural \nand economic value. Collectors can buy almost anything, if it is \ninteresting, highly desiderable, and if it can be sold back to \nsomebody else at an higher price tag (not necessarily in this order). \nIn collecting, the preservation issue always comes later. But both \ncultural and economic value are not a given. They have to be created, \nin a convincing way. That's why collecting new media in its unstable \nforms is going to be just a funny experiment, and an innocent game, \nuntil artists won't start talking to the right people, and until \ngalleries, museums, curators and critics won't be able top persuade \nthe art world about its cultural relevance.\n\n3. Collecting the digital. The digital is challenging collecting in \nmany ways, but the biggest challenge is probably connected to its \nreproducible, sharable nature. This turns scarcity into something \ncompletely artificial, and abstract. You can keep making limited \neditions, but you can't lie to yourself: there is no difference \nbetween the five certified copies of that video and the sixth one, \nthat somebody uploads to YouTube and that hundreds of people all \naround the world download on their desktop. No difference except an \nabstract, ritual act of transferral of ownership. And there is no \ndifference between the 5 collectors who bought the video and the 500 \nones who downloaded it for free: the latter don't own a bootleg, a bad \ncopy, but the same file; they just don't own a certificate.\n\nThe other problem is sharing. A collector can accept almost \neverything, if he is rewarded with cultural and economic value. Yet, \nwhat most collectors can't still accept is to be the owners of \nsomething that is available for anybody else for free. Why should I \nbuy a website and leave it publicly accessible to anybody, as Rafael \nRozendaal suggests in his beautiful contract ? Why should I have no privileges and no rights, only duties? Why \nshould I buy an animated gif (or a video, or a sound file) and allow \nit to circulate freely on the internet in the very same form?\n\nIt would be easy to conclude that, because of this, traditional forms \nof collecting won't never apply successfully to digital art forms. \nBrad Troemel recently wrote: \u201cThe commodification of internet art is \nnot going to happen in the way the art market has traditionally \noperated or in any way currently being attempted. This all comes down \nto a simple square-peg-in-a-circular-hole economic dilemma, which is \nthat digital content is infinitely reproducible and free while \nphysical commodities are scarce and expensive.\u201d .\n\nWhat's true in this is that the digital allows another form of \ncollecting, free of any money investment and available to anybody: \ndownloading. This form of collecting has been widely practiced for any \nkind of digital content: from animated gifs to amateur photographs, \nfrom videogames to pornographic pictures. For example, a collection \nthat is highly valuable to me is Travis Hallenbeck's Windows Meta File \nCollection, that can be downloaded from here: . Hallenbeck collected more than 3,000 cliparts in an obsolete file \nformat, that doesn't work properly on most modern computers. Most of \nthese images \u2013 designed by amateur and professional designers along \nthe 90s \u2013 are now rare, so Hallembeck's collection has an high \ncultural value. But any time anybody downloads his collection, he \nbecomes the owner of a perfect copy of it \u2013 thus making these images \nless rare. Furthermore, since Hallenbeck is an artist, we should \nconsider his collection a work of art: a work of art we can \u201ccollect\u201d \njust clicking on the zipped folder. Is my act of collecting less \nlegitimate because I didn't pay, and I didn't get a certificate in \nreturn? Hallenbeck is not selling his work of art on dvd, and he is \nnot writing certificates of authenticity for those who buy it. There \nis no other way to collect this work of art: you can just download it \nfor free.\n\nSuppose that, in 50 years, Hallenbeck website won't be online anymore. \nNet art will be an highly respected form of art. And you, who \ndownloaded this file and made your best to preserve it, will be the \nunique owner of a great net art masterpiece. Will museums consider you \na legitimate collector?\n\nWhat I mean here is that, even if a digital file can be reproduced \ninfinite times with no loss of quality, scarcity is always around the \ncorner. With the digital for the first time, art preservation can \nbecome a social, distributed thing, not something regulated only by \nthose in power, such as institutions and economic elites. And thus do \ncollecting.\nAnd yet, this doesn't mean that traditional forms of collecting won't \nnever apply successfully to digital art forms. Art collectors should \nbe brave enough to confront the challenge, and accept the idea of a \nshareable property. When they will, they'll realize that becoming the \nlegal, unique owner of something that can still be enjoyed, played, \nstolen, remixed by hundreds of people every day is an immense \npleasure. Owning and sharing: isn't it what God is doing with his own \nproperty, after all?\n\nThank you for your patience,\n\nMy best,\n\nDomenico\n\n---\n\nDomenico Quaranta\n\nweb. http://domenicoquaranta.com/\nemail. [log in to unmask]\nmob. +39 340 2392478\nskype. dom_40",
+ "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, ). 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\", from Vera Molnar to Raphael Lozano-Hemmer. Either \nthese dealers are bad businessmen who find a perverse pleasure in \nfailure, or they have a small but brave network of collectors \ninterested in new media art. So, again: new media art is collected.\n\n2. Collecting unstable media. New media art CAN ALSO BE collected in \nits unstable, computer based, digital form. This is difficult, but not \nimpossible. And it already happened, quite a few times. Why not? In \nthe past, collectors bought conversations, candies, fresh fruit, \nliving and dead flies, dead and badly preserved sharks, performances: \nwhy should they be afraid of old computers, interactive installations, \nwebsites, softwares, etc.? Also, collectors (expecially private \ncollectors) are the kind of people who love challanges and risky \nbusinesses. Paradoxically, in the art world it seems to be easier to \nsell challanges than compromises. What they want in return is cultural \nand economic value. Collectors can buy almost anything, if it is \ninteresting, highly desiderable, and if it can be sold back to \nsomebody else at an higher price tag (not necessarily in this order). \nIn collecting, the preservation issue always comes later. But both \ncultural and economic value are not a given. They have to be created, \nin a convincing way. That's why collecting new media in its unstable \nforms is going to be just a funny experiment, and an innocent game, \nuntil artists won't start talking to the right people, and until \ngalleries, museums, curators and critics won't be able top persuade \nthe art world about its cultural relevance.\n\n3. Collecting the digital. The digital is challenging collecting in \nmany ways, but the biggest challenge is probably connected to its \nreproducible, sharable nature. This turns scarcity into something \ncompletely artificial, and abstract. You can keep making limited \neditions, but you can't lie to yourself: there is no difference \nbetween the five certified copies of that video and the sixth one, \nthat somebody uploads to YouTube and that hundreds of people all \naround the world download on their desktop. No difference except an \nabstract, ritual act of transferral of ownership. And there is no \ndifference between the 5 collectors who bought the video and the 500 \nones who downloaded it for free: the latter don't own a bootleg, a bad \ncopy, but the same file; they just don't own a certificate.\n\nThe other problem is sharing. A collector can accept almost \neverything, if he is rewarded with cultural and economic value. Yet, \nwhat most collectors can't still accept is to be the owners of \nsomething that is available for anybody else for free. Why should I \nbuy a website and leave it publicly accessible to anybody, as Rafael \nRozendaal suggests in his beautiful contract ? Why should I have no privileges and no rights, only duties? Why \nshould I buy an animated gif (or a video, or a sound file) and allow \nit to circulate freely on the internet in the very same form?\n\nIt would be easy to conclude that, because of this, traditional forms \nof collecting won't never apply successfully to digital art forms. \nBrad Troemel recently wrote: “The commodification of internet art is \nnot going to happen in the way the art market has traditionally \noperated or in any way currently being attempted. This all comes down \nto a simple square-peg-in-a-circular-hole economic dilemma, which is \nthat digital content is infinitely reproducible and free while \nphysical commodities are scarce and expensive.” .\n\nWhat's true in this is that the digital allows another form of \ncollecting, free of any money investment and available to anybody: \ndownloading. This form of collecting has been widely practiced for any \nkind of digital content: from animated gifs to amateur photographs, \nfrom videogames to pornographic pictures. For example, a collection \nthat is highly valuable to me is Travis Hallenbeck's Windows Meta File \nCollection, that can be downloaded from here: . Hallenbeck collected more than 3,000 cliparts in an obsolete file \nformat, that doesn't work properly on most modern computers. Most of \nthese images – designed by amateur and professional designers along \nthe 90s – are now rare, so Hallembeck's collection has an high \ncultural value. But any time anybody downloads his collection, he \nbecomes the owner of a perfect copy of it – thus making these images \nless rare. Furthermore, since Hallenbeck is an artist, we should \nconsider his collection a work of art: a work of art we can “collect” \njust clicking on the zipped folder. Is my act of collecting less \nlegitimate because I didn't pay, and I didn't get a certificate in \nreturn? Hallenbeck is not selling his work of art on dvd, and he is \nnot writing certificates of authenticity for those who buy it. There \nis no other way to collect this work of art: you can just download it \nfor free.\n\nSuppose that, in 50 years, Hallenbeck website won't be online anymore. \nNet art will be an highly respected form of art. And you, who \ndownloaded this file and made your best to preserve it, will be the \nunique owner of a great net art masterpiece. Will museums consider you \na legitimate collector?\n\nWhat I mean here is that, even if a digital file can be reproduced \ninfinite times with no loss of quality, scarcity is always around the \ncorner. With the digital for the first time, art preservation can \nbecome a social, distributed thing, not something regulated only by \nthose in power, such as institutions and economic elites. And thus do \ncollecting.\nAnd yet, this doesn't mean that traditional forms of collecting won't \nnever apply successfully to digital art forms. Art collectors should \nbe brave enough to confront the challenge, and accept the idea of a \nshareable property. When they will, they'll realize that becoming the \nlegal, unique owner of something that can still be enjoyed, played, \nstolen, remixed by hundreds of people every day is an immense \npleasure. Owning and sharing: isn't it what God is doing with his own \nproperty, after all?\n\nThank you for your patience,\n\nMy best,\n\nDomenico\n\n---\n\nDomenico Quaranta\n\nweb. http://domenicoquaranta.com/\nemail. [log in to unmask]\nmob. +39 340 2392478\nskype. dom_40",
"date": "Wed, 4 Jul 2012 16:43:17 +0200",
"content-type": "text/plain",
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=2728",
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@
{
"subject": "Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art",
"id": 0,
- "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 \"only documentation'? There must be good new media examples out there of solutions to these problems? Bring these examples to the list!\n>> \n>> Yours,\n>> \n>> Beryl\n>> \n>> \n>> P.S. I'm happy to say that Annet Dekker and Perla Innocenti will also be joining us for the debate, so the invited respondents list now reads:\n>> \n>> --\n>> \n>> Invited respondents are:\n>> \n>> Annet Dekker is an independent curator and researcher. Currently she is involved in organising an international conference \u201cCollecting and presenting born-digital art\u201d for Baltan Laboratories and Van Abbemuseum in Eindhoven. Since 2008 she is writing a PhD on strategies for documenting net art at the Centre for Cultural Studies, Goldsmiths, under supervision of Matthew Fuller.http://aaaan.net\n>> \n>> Steve 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>> \n>> Catharina 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>> \n>> Perla 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>> \n>> Caitlin 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>> \n>> Wolf 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>> \n>> Lizzie 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>> \n>> Domenico 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 \u2013 2012). http://domenicoquaranta.com\n>> \n>> Louise 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>> \n>> Mike Stubbs is CEO/Director at FACT Foundation for Art and Creative Technology, Liverpool, which has projects including Opencuratit http://www.opencurateit.org/\n>> \n>> Lindsay 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>> \n>> Beryl Graham, Professor of New Media Art\n>> Research Student Manager, Art and Design\n>> MA Curating Course Leader\n>> \n>> Faculty of Arts, Design, and Media, University of Sunderland\n>> Ashburne House, Ryhope Road\n>> Sunderland\n>> SR2 7EE\n>> Tel: +44 191 515 2896 Fax: +44 191 515 2132\n>> Email: [log in to unmask]\n>> \n>> CRUMB web resource for new media art curators\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&tid=12071\n>> A Brief History of Curating New Media Art, and A Brief History of Working with New Media Art from The Green Box\n>> http://www.thegreenbox.net\n>> \n> \n> \n> Simon 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\n> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/\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/",
+ "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 \"only documentation'? There must be good new media examples out there of solutions to these problems? Bring these examples to the list!\n>> \n>> Yours,\n>> \n>> Beryl\n>> \n>> \n>> P.S. I'm happy to say that Annet Dekker and Perla Innocenti will also be joining us for the debate, so the invited respondents list now reads:\n>> \n>> --\n>> \n>> Invited respondents are:\n>> \n>> Annet Dekker is an independent curator and researcher. Currently she is involved in organising an international conference “Collecting and presenting born-digital art” for Baltan Laboratories and Van Abbemuseum in Eindhoven. Since 2008 she is writing a PhD on strategies for documenting net art at the Centre for Cultural Studies, Goldsmiths, under supervision of Matthew Fuller.http://aaaan.net\n>> \n>> Steve 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>> \n>> Catharina 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>> \n>> Perla 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>> \n>> Caitlin 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>> \n>> Wolf 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>> \n>> Lizzie 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>> \n>> Domenico 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>> \n>> Louise 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>> \n>> Mike Stubbs is CEO/Director at FACT Foundation for Art and Creative Technology, Liverpool, which has projects including Opencuratit http://www.opencurateit.org/\n>> \n>> Lindsay 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>> \n>> Beryl Graham, Professor of New Media Art\n>> Research Student Manager, Art and Design\n>> MA Curating Course Leader\n>> \n>> Faculty of Arts, Design, and Media, University of Sunderland\n>> Ashburne House, Ryhope Road\n>> Sunderland\n>> SR2 7EE\n>> Tel: +44 191 515 2896 Fax: +44 191 515 2132\n>> Email: [log in to unmask]\n>> \n>> CRUMB web resource for new media art curators\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&tid=12071\n>> A Brief History of Curating New Media Art, and A Brief History of Working with New Media Art from The Green Box\n>> http://www.thegreenbox.net\n>> \n> \n> \n> Simon 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\n> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/\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/",
"date": "Wed, 4 Jul 2012 17:02:19 +0100",
"content-type": "text/plain",
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=4990",
@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@
{
"subject": "July Theme: Collecting New Media Art",
"id": 0,
- "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 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\u20ac. 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 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 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",
"date": "Tue, 10 Jul 2012 18:35:50 +0200",
"content-type": "text/plain",
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=9034",
@@ -79,12 +79,12 @@
{
"subject": "Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art",
"id": 0,
- "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____________________\nS\u00f3nia 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 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\" and making it accessible to your iPhone, iPad or\n> TV, they control the number of copies and even give you a certificate.\n>\n> I think this could be a good platform for new media art, but it has been\n> applied to good old contemporary art, which is quite understandable,\n> because it seems reasonable to try such a risky business model with\n> something as attractive as selling Damien Hirst for 9\u20ac. So I think that, as\n> Wolf suggests, we are already living in a nomad culture and we are working\n> in more flexible ways, ready to buy online and own digital content that\n> only appears on our screens. But most people still do not understand new\n> media art as art in the same terms of mainstream contemporary art, as\n> Christiane has pointed out, so the main issue might be to get collectors to\n> understand the art, and then think about how it will be stored, maintained\n> or eventually migrated.\n>\n> In a conversation some time ago, Wolf mentioned Tino Seghal, whose work\n> exists only through oral transmission, and I think that this is a very good\n> example. Seghal's work exists because there is a whole system supporting\n> it, based on the fact that performance and conceptual art have been\n> sanctioned by the art world. And this is precisely what new media art\n> hasn't yet achieved.\n>\n> Thanks for reading this far!\n>\n> Best,\n>\n> Pau\n>\n> -----------------------------------------\n>\n> Pau Waelder Laso\n> Email: [log in to unmask]\n> Site: www.pauwaelder.com\n> skype: pauwaelder\n>\n\n\n\n-- \nS\u00f3nia Pina",
+ "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 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\" and making it accessible to your iPhone, iPad or\n> TV, they control the number of copies and even give you a certificate.\n>\n> I think this could be a good platform for new media art, but it has been\n> applied to good old contemporary art, which is quite understandable,\n> because it seems reasonable to try such a risky business model with\n> something as attractive as selling Damien Hirst for 9€. So I think that, as\n> Wolf suggests, we are already living in a nomad culture and we are working\n> in more flexible ways, ready to buy online and own digital content that\n> only appears on our screens. But most people still do not understand new\n> media art as art in the same terms of mainstream contemporary art, as\n> Christiane has pointed out, so the main issue might be to get collectors to\n> understand the art, and then think about how it will be stored, maintained\n> or eventually migrated.\n>\n> In a conversation some time ago, Wolf mentioned Tino Seghal, whose work\n> exists only through oral transmission, and I think that this is a very good\n> example. Seghal's work exists because there is a whole system supporting\n> it, based on the fact that performance and conceptual art have been\n> sanctioned by the art world. And this is precisely what new media art\n> hasn't yet achieved.\n>\n> Thanks for reading this far!\n>\n> Best,\n>\n> Pau\n>\n> -----------------------------------------\n>\n> Pau Waelder Laso\n> Email: [log in to unmask]\n> Site: www.pauwaelder.com\n> skype: pauwaelder\n>\n\n\n\n-- \nSónia Pina",
"date": "Tue, 10 Jul 2012 18:08:36 +0100",
"content-type": "text/plain",
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=9587",
- "author_name": "S\u00f3nia Pina",
- "from": "S\u00f3nia Pina"
+ "author_name": "Sónia Pina",
+ "from": "Sónia Pina"
},
{
"subject": "July Theme: Collecting New Media Art",
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@
{
"subject": "Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art",
"id": 0,
- "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 \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\" and making it accessible to your iPhone, \n> iPad or TV, they control the number of copies and even give you a \n> certificate.\n\nI think [S]editions is a very interesting initiative, but also a very \nproblematic one. Its strong point is that it familiarizes collectors \nwith the idea of buying the digital. Its weak point is that it \nfamiliarizes collectors with the idea that the digital is cheap, and \nthat it provides no originals, just copies. Which of course is true, \nbut should be corrected by creating different conventions, as Seghal \nsuccessfully did with performance. Selling a jpg by Damien Hirst for \n9\u20ac levels digital collecting to buying a Damien Hirst umbrella in the \nTate Store. It's no more a work of art: it's merchandising for your \niPhone / iPad.\n\nThat's why I was so upset when I bought a Rafael Rozendaal piece on \n[S]editions. Upset with Rafael, because with his \nartwebsitesalescontract , \nwhere the website is sold as unique and the collector is forced to \nkeep it public, he made a masterpiece comparable with Seth Siegelaub's \nsales agreement and Tino Seghal's rules. You have the chance to create \na new convention, and you go back to the old art market rules, further \ndowngraded to adapt to the digital. And upset with [S]editions, who \nsells me something and dowsn't even allow me full access to it (as I \ndocumented here: ), turning me in the sad owner of a digital certificate - \nforiginals, as once Ubermorgen.com called them.\n\n> I think this could be a good platform for new media art, but it has \n> been applied to good old contemporary art, which is quite \n> understandable, because it seems reasonable to try such a risky \n> business model with something as attractive as selling Damien Hirst \n> for 9\u20ac. So I think that, as Wolf suggests, we are already living in \n> a nomad culture and we are working in more flexible ways, ready to \n> buy online and own digital content that only appears on our screens. \n> But most people still do not understand new media art as art in the \n> same terms of mainstream contemporary art\n\nDo we? Maybe this could be a good starting point...\n\n> In a conversation some time ago, Wolf mentioned Tino Seghal, whose \n> work exists only through oral transmission, and I think that this is \n> a very good example. Seghal's work exists because there is a whole \n> system supporting it, based on the fact that performance and \n> conceptual art have been sanctioned by the art world. And this is \n> precisely what new media art hasn't yet achieved.\n\nWhich is exactly what I meant above, with a difference: I'm pretty \nsure new media art will never achieve it as a whole, and under this \ndefinition.\n\nSorry if I may seem caustic. Maybe it's because it's about 40 degrees \nhere in Italy, while I'm writing. I just want to inflame a discussion \nthat I'm enjoying a lot, and that I'm sure can turn out to be pretty \nuseful.\n\nMy bests,\ndomenico\n\n---\n\nDomenico Quaranta\n\nweb. http://domenicoquaranta.com/\nemail. [log in to unmask]\nmob. +39 340 2392478\nskype. dom_40",
+ "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 \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\" and making it accessible to your iPhone, \n> iPad or TV, they control the number of copies and even give you a \n> certificate.\n\nI think [S]editions is a very interesting initiative, but also a very \nproblematic one. Its strong point is that it familiarizes collectors \nwith the idea of buying the digital. Its weak point is that it \nfamiliarizes collectors with the idea that the digital is cheap, and \nthat it provides no originals, just copies. Which of course is true, \nbut should be corrected by creating different conventions, as Seghal \nsuccessfully did with performance. Selling a jpg by Damien Hirst for \n9€ levels digital collecting to buying a Damien Hirst umbrella in the \nTate Store. It's no more a work of art: it's merchandising for your \niPhone / iPad.\n\nThat's why I was so upset when I bought a Rafael Rozendaal piece on \n[S]editions. Upset with Rafael, because with his \nartwebsitesalescontract , \nwhere the website is sold as unique and the collector is forced to \nkeep it public, he made a masterpiece comparable with Seth Siegelaub's \nsales agreement and Tino Seghal's rules. You have the chance to create \na new convention, and you go back to the old art market rules, further \ndowngraded to adapt to the digital. And upset with [S]editions, who \nsells me something and dowsn't even allow me full access to it (as I \ndocumented here: ), turning me in the sad owner of a digital certificate - \nforiginals, as once Ubermorgen.com called them.\n\n> I think this could be a good platform for new media art, but it has \n> been applied to good old contemporary art, which is quite \n> understandable, because it seems reasonable to try such a risky \n> business model with something as attractive as selling Damien Hirst \n> for 9€. So I think that, as Wolf suggests, we are already living in \n> a nomad culture and we are working in more flexible ways, ready to \n> buy online and own digital content that only appears on our screens. \n> But most people still do not understand new media art as art in the \n> same terms of mainstream contemporary art\n\nDo we? Maybe this could be a good starting point...\n\n> In a conversation some time ago, Wolf mentioned Tino Seghal, whose \n> work exists only through oral transmission, and I think that this is \n> a very good example. Seghal's work exists because there is a whole \n> system supporting it, based on the fact that performance and \n> conceptual art have been sanctioned by the art world. And this is \n> precisely what new media art hasn't yet achieved.\n\nWhich is exactly what I meant above, with a difference: I'm pretty \nsure new media art will never achieve it as a whole, and under this \ndefinition.\n\nSorry if I may seem caustic. Maybe it's because it's about 40 degrees \nhere in Italy, while I'm writing. I just want to inflame a discussion \nthat I'm enjoying a lot, and that I'm sure can turn out to be pretty \nuseful.\n\nMy bests,\ndomenico\n\n---\n\nDomenico Quaranta\n\nweb. http://domenicoquaranta.com/\nemail. [log in to unmask]\nmob. +39 340 2392478\nskype. dom_40",
"date": "Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:44:25 +0200",
"content-type": "text/plain",
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=11766",
@@ -119,7 +119,7 @@
{
"subject": "Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art",
"id": 0,
- "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\u2019s 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 \u201csketch selling\u201d. 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\u00a0",
+ "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 ",
"date": "Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:55:32 +0200",
"content-type": "text/plain",
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=13327",
@@ -129,7 +129,7 @@
{
"subject": "Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art",
"id": 0,
- "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 escribi\u00f3:\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 \"digital art conservation\", to quote the title of the last iteration of this masochistic approach (see http://www02.zkm.de/digitalartconservation/).\n> \n> Luckily, other people started doing this work for us. In 2009, Collezione Maramotti made a show with works by John F. Simon Jr. from the collection: a good selection, from the early CPU (1999) to more recent works. The acquisition was made with the mediation of Paolo Diacono, an old contemporary art critic who was attracted by Simon's ability to reconnect to minimalism and to abstract painting tradition with radically modern means. They didn't buy \"software art\", they bought art that they considered culturally relevant also, but not just, because it was software based.\n> \n> Another kind of understanding of their own work is what many so-called new media artists are pursuing with all their strengths. It takes time and, as Pau noticed about Seghal, it requires a system around the artist. In the case of Simon, it took years, the continuous support of a bunch of galleries, the effort to work out of the usual mind frames and 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 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 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> \n> I think [S]editions is a very interesting initiative, but also a very problematic one. Its strong point is that it familiarizes collectors with the idea of buying the digital. Its weak point is that it familiarizes collectors with the idea that the digital is cheap, and that it provides no originals, just copies. Which of course is true, but should be corrected by creating different conventions, as Seghal successfully did with performance. Selling a jpg by Damien Hirst for 9\u20ac levels digital collecting to buying a Damien Hirst umbrella in the Tate Store. It's no more a work of art: it's merchandising for your iPhone / iPad.\n> \n> That's why I was so upset when I bought a Rafael Rozendaal piece on [S]editions. Upset with Rafael, because with his artwebsitesalescontract , where the website is sold as unique and the collector is forced to keep it public, he made a masterpiece comparable with Seth Siegelaub's sales agreement and Tino Seghal's rules. You have the chance to create a new convention, and you go back to the old art market rules, further downgraded to adapt to the digital. And upset with [S]editions, who sells me something and dowsn't even allow me full access to it (as I documented here: ), turning me in the sad owner of a digital certificate - foriginals, as once Ubermorgen.com called them.\n> \n>> I 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\u20ac. 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\n> \n> Do we? Maybe this could be a good starting point...\n> \n>> In 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> \n> Which is exactly what I meant above, with a difference: I'm pretty sure new media art will never achieve it as a whole, and under this definition.\n> \n> Sorry if I may seem caustic. Maybe it's because it's about 40 degrees here in Italy, while I'm writing. I just want to inflame a discussion that I'm enjoying a lot, and that I'm sure can turn out to be pretty useful.\n> \n> My bests,\n> domenico\n> \n> ---\n> \n> Domenico Quaranta\n> \n> web. http://domenicoquaranta.com/\n> email. [log in to unmask]\n> mob. +39 340 2392478\n> skype. dom_40\n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \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 \"digital art conservation\", to quote the title of the last iteration of this masochistic approach (see http://www02.zkm.de/digitalartconservation/).\n> \n> Luckily, other people started doing this work for us. In 2009, Collezione Maramotti made a show with works by John F. Simon Jr. from the collection: a good selection, from the early CPU (1999) to more recent works. The acquisition was made with the mediation of Paolo Diacono, an old contemporary art critic who was attracted by Simon's ability to reconnect to minimalism and to abstract painting tradition with radically modern means. They didn't buy \"software art\", they bought art that they considered culturally relevant also, but not just, because it was software based.\n> \n> Another kind of understanding of their own work is what many so-called new media artists are pursuing with all their strengths. It takes time and, as Pau noticed about Seghal, it requires a system around the artist. In the case of Simon, it took years, the continuous support of a bunch of galleries, the effort to work out of the usual mind frames and 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 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 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> \n> I think [S]editions is a very interesting initiative, but also a very problematic one. Its strong point is that it familiarizes collectors with the idea of buying the digital. Its weak point is that it familiarizes collectors with the idea that the digital is cheap, and that it provides no originals, just copies. Which of course is true, but should be corrected by creating different conventions, as Seghal successfully did with performance. Selling a jpg by Damien Hirst for 9€ levels digital collecting to buying a Damien Hirst umbrella in the Tate Store. It's no more a work of art: it's merchandising for your iPhone / iPad.\n> \n> That's why I was so upset when I bought a Rafael Rozendaal piece on [S]editions. Upset with Rafael, because with his artwebsitesalescontract , where the website is sold as unique and the collector is forced to keep it public, he made a masterpiece comparable with Seth Siegelaub's sales agreement and Tino Seghal's rules. You have the chance to create a new convention, and you go back to the old art market rules, further downgraded to adapt to the digital. And upset with [S]editions, who sells me something and dowsn't even allow me full access to it (as I documented here: ), turning me in the sad owner of a digital certificate - foriginals, as once Ubermorgen.com called them.\n> \n>> I 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\n> \n> Do we? Maybe this could be a good starting point...\n> \n>> In 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> \n> Which is exactly what I meant above, with a difference: I'm pretty sure new media art will never achieve it as a whole, and under this definition.\n> \n> Sorry if I may seem caustic. Maybe it's because it's about 40 degrees here in Italy, while I'm writing. I just want to inflame a discussion that I'm enjoying a lot, and that I'm sure can turn out to be pretty useful.\n> \n> My bests,\n> domenico\n> \n> ---\n> \n> Domenico Quaranta\n> \n> web. http://domenicoquaranta.com/\n> email. [log in to unmask]\n> mob. +39 340 2392478\n> skype. dom_40\n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> ",
"date": "Sat, 14 Jul 2012 13:04:56 +0200",
"content-type": "text/plain",
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=14710",
@@ -207,8 +207,254 @@
"from": "Simon Biggs"
}
]
+ },
+ {
+ "from": "Bruce Sterling ",
+ "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00034.html",
+ "author_name": "Bruce Sterling",
+ "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\nBruce Sterling bruces {AT} well.com\n\n(text follows) \n\nTopic 200 [wired]: Goofy Leftists Sniping at WIRED\n#759 of 796: Bruce Sterling (bruces) Fri Mar 7 '97 (06:28) \n125 lines\n\n\n This is a good topic. It's forcing me to wax all magisterial and \npolitico-philosophical. That's a dire occupational hazard for \nscience fiction writers, but even if you're of the stature of HG \nWells (probably the only science fiction writer with serious \npretensions of being a Great Man), you're still not gonna get many \npeople willing to page through all of it.\n\n Except for newmedium himself, clearly a guy of rockbound \npersonal self-esteem whom no mere argument will ever sway, it \nlooks like we're approaching a general consensus that his \"English \nideology\" is silly. It is, and it always was. It scarcely seems \npossible to demonstrate this any better than ludlow demonstrated \nit. Certainly newmedium isn't the only guy in the world whose \nweltanschauung is dependent on gaseous, self-marginalizing verbal \nsleight-of-hand, and since I'm an SF writer by trade my tolerance \nfor this kind of activity is extremely high, but it's not the same \nthing as a reasoned argument with historical awareness and proper \ncitation. If one is really trying to live and make political, \ntechnical and economic decisions through this kind of empty, \nglittering rant, one is just plain being goofy.\n\n I have kindly and indulgent feelings towards cats like \nStahlman and Rushkoff, as opposed to my thorny relationship with a \nguy like Mark Dery, someone I can recognize as an actual, \nauthentic cultural critic. Dery is probably wrong about a lot of \nstuff and may even be kind of dangerous, but compared to him \nStahlman and Rushkoff are like a couple of aluminized balloons in \nthe same corral with a cactus. Life is funny that way. It seems \nto me you could make much the same assessment about HG Wells or CS \nLewis and their roles in a thorny world of twentieth-century \nrealpolitik. You might even make a similar assessment about the \nonly 20th century science fiction writer who has actually seized \npower in a major government -- Newt Gingrich.\n\n I don't think Wells and Lewis were particularly influential \npeople, even though this would be very flattering to me and mine \nwere such to be the case. But I do want to discuss why it is \nthat I do prefer HG Wells to CS Lewis, and what relevance this \nmight have to the current, uhm, cyberculture situation.\n\n First, this is not a literary judgement on my part. I \nwould not make the category error of saying that CS Lewis was a \nbad writer merely because I don't like his theology. I think \nWells was a very good writer, better than Lewis, especially when \nWells wasn't doing propaganda, but Lewis was also clearly a major \nwriter of fantastic fiction. His fantasies are very engaging and \nhave many stellar moments of high imaginative concentration. Lewis \nclearly had a gift -- that's not under contention here.\n\n The I Ching is great literature too, but if you start \ntossing hexagrams to govern your life-decisions because the \ndescriptions are so charmingly evocative, well, you've got a non-\nliterary problem.\n\n When I wonder why it is that I prefer Wells to Lewis -- two \nminor-league combatants in what seems to me a very old struggle -- \nI think fondly of one memorable battle in this culture war. It \nwas Wells's teacher, Thomas Henry Huxley, in public debate with a \nguy whom I take to be one of CS Lewis's spiritual ancestors, \nBishop \"Soapy Sam\" Wilberforce.\n\n What Huxley had on his side was a boatload of objective \nevidence that Charles Darwin had painstakingly scraped up and \ncataloged over twenty years or so of obscure but dedicated \nresearch. What Wilberforce had on his side was a glib tongue and \na deep, instinctive, passionate moral revulsion at the thought \nthat human beings were apes.\n\n Huxley won the debate through an exchange of insults. \nWilberforce snidely inquired whether Huxley felt that it was his \ngrandmother or grandfather who had been the ape. Huxley riposted \n(I'm paraphrasing from memory here, being several hundred miles \naway from my references) that he felt no shame in having an ape \nfor an ancestor, and would prefer that to being the descendant of \na man who would deliberately obscure the truth.\n\n Huxley put his finger on it there. There is something \ndeeply shameful about obscurantist mysticism. Mysticism conjures \nup wonderful feelings within us that make us purportedly aware of \nthe full, marvelous, flattering scope of our numinous humanity, \nbut it's intellectually fraudulent. Mysticism is a retreat, a \ncop-out, whether it's a retreat into the gospels, the noosphere, \nastrology, the Tarot, the Bhagavad Gita, Aum Shinri Kyo armed \nyoga, Illuminatist conspiracy theory, or even some brand-new \namalgam of 'shrooms and cyberspace. It's a cheat, like rising \nwith a flourish to write your proof on the blackboard, getting off \nto a cracking good start, and then drawing us a large cloudy area \nlabelled \"miracles happen here.\"\n\n I'm not under the illusion that scientists, psychologists \nor any other biped in a labcoat really understands deep \nontological reality or the true nature of the universe. What \nbugs me is the social practice of deliberately enshrining our \nignorance, anthropomorphizing it as a living divine being, and \ngiving it moral and ethical dominion over our lives and \nimaginations.\n\n In practice, obscurantist mysticism is like the practice of\nembezzlement. You can't get your budget to add up. The \nbookkeeping rules are too hard and pernickety, and they probably \ndon't fit your personal situation anyway. You're too weak and \nanxious to directly face the paralysing prospect of genuine \nintellectual bankruptcy. So, to keep the business going, you just \nborrow a few life-giving dollars out of the secret stack of the \nGreat Unknown. You can always put it back later, right? Pascal's \nWager will win it back for you, maybe you can win it back at the \ntrack... But embezzlers always say this. They don't really \nreason, they rationalize. And the convenience of free money rots \naway their integrity and destroys their judgement. They almost \nalways take more and more.\n\n Unfortunately, the \"miracles\" gambit also expands in just \nthis way. Mystic revelation will grow to cover everything that is \nemotionally, politically or socially repugnant to the believer. \nThere are always excellent reasons to declare certain things \nunholy, unthinkable and not subject to question. You mustn't look \nat this, you mustn't think that; such and such a thing is \nunnatural, it's blasphemous, it is the sin against the holy \nspirit, it what we were Not Meant to Know. And why make painful \ndecisions about what to eat, how to dress, who to tug your \nforelock to? It's all divinely ordained.\n\n For all I know, there may indeed be aspects of human behavior \nwhich are so unspeakably blasphemous and horrible that, like a \nLovecraft character, my mind might shatter into bicameral \nfragments from the awful impact of glimpsing them. But I haven't \nseen any yet, and not from lack of looking around. In practice, \nthis sort of blanket mental prohibition has generally turned out \nto be about harmless oddities such as worshipping idols, eating \npigs, anal sex, and speaking politely to black people.\n\n So I think that what newmedium was demanding earlier is the \n1990s version of Soapy Sam's old question: \"So: is it your \ngrandson, or your granddaughter who's the hideous, shambling \nposthuman? 'Fess up!\" And my Huxleyan response would be that my \nshameless posthuman grandchildren might have a chance to do okay, \nif we can honestly examine the possibilities without his eerie \nbrand of obscurantist paranoia.\n\n\nTopic 200 [wired]: Goofy Leftists Sniping at WIRED\n#760 of 796: Bruce Sterling (bruces) Fri Mar 7 '97 (06:33) \n122 lines\n\n\n We now (I hope you didn't think I was finished) examine \nthe pressing topic of what kind of ideology might be suited to \nposthumans.\n\n I see little promise in mysticism. However. While I'm not \nreligious, I can only concur with neal's earlier cogent remarks on \natheists having no better record. Guys who get all hot and \nbothered about Christianity rarely fail to bring out its dismal \nrecord of antisemitism, Biblical justifications for slavery, and \ninquisitorial practices of the seventeenth century. But let's \nface it: if you're looking for the big-time practice of those \nevils in our own century, you can't find better candidates than \nrevolutionary leftist atheists.\n\n The worst thing that could happen to you in the twentieth \ncentury was to have your society taken over in a leftist atheist \ncoup. The Nazis, no great believers themselves, were more \nvirulent maybe, but the Nazis were so frankly megalomaniacal that \nthey could barely manage a dozen years in power.\n\n But Marxist-Leninist Stalinist Mao Zedong thought... \nLet the record speak. The movement's roots were in scientific \nsocialism and the rational investigation of economics and history. \nMarx was the kind of roly-poly bearded swot that any of us would \ninstantly recognize at a UNIX programmer's convention. Wells was \njust one among legions of period radicals with scientific utopias \nin their back pocket. He believed that rational political science \nwould simply sweep away the ills and unseemly quirks of human \nculture, in much the way that germ theory superceded pre-\nscientific notions like malaria, in the brisk and proper way that \nsanitation eliminates cholera. But Wells was no democrat. He \nwas too full of himself. He cherished a deep, heartfelt contempt \nfor the feudal creeps, class snobs and rich bullies standing in \nthe manifest road of History. Like most pre-WW1 zealot reformers, \nWells had no idea of the havoc that totalizing one-size-fits-all \ndoctrines would create when their arrogant dictates contacted \nhuman political reality.\n\n Consider the Russian Revolution. Okay? It's gone now, we \ncan talk about it honestly. Atheist intellectuals with \nimpeccable backgrounds in the European radical press. Started \noff in a horrible world war. Lights go out all over Europe. \nFratricidal civil wars follow. Class liquidations. Mass \nstarvation. Nutty doomed efforts at collective agriculture -- \nit's the 'scientific' way to feed the masses, it makes great sense \non paper. Mass deportations, genocide of minorities (hopelessly \nbackward, stupid, and in the way). Abandonment of all pretense of \nrepresentative government (why listen to backsliders?). \nAbandonment of the rule of law, even their own laws and their own \nConstitution (too much trouble following tedious rules which will \nonly be exploited by bourgeois parasites and \"cosmopolitan\" \nlawyers). Suspension, and then abolition of civil liberties. \nArmies of secret police. Pogroms against secret police by other \nfactions of secret police. One of the most dangerous positions \nyou could possibly have in such societies was a loyal servant of \nthe state.\n\n And I was waxing indignant about Soapy Sam's rhetorical \nhijinks, so then let's talk about the intellectual crimes of \nRussian, atheist Marxism. Rampant forgery of historical documents. \nCensorship on unheard-of scales. Celebrities rendered non-persons, \nfamous events rendered non-events. The Lysenko fraud against \nbiological science (Huxley's favorite field). Scientists put into \nlabor camps and still forced to do technological work behind \nbarbed wire. A mania for classifying anything considered of any \nconceivable benefit to any imagined enemy, leading to \nstrangulation of the scientific process. Writers and thinkers of \nall sorts and varieties browbeaten, silenced, purged. Cultural \nand intellectual life reduced to totalitarian parody. Party \nlines and personality cults exalted to unquestionable status.... \nit really goes on and on.\n\n That's why I really don't fancy myself a prophet of \nhistorical destiny. Yes, I'd feel really great, cocaine-high \ngreat, if I had a sudden ideological Answer to History. History, \nthat chaotic, fractal, deeply irrational, painfully human, tragic, \nunpredictable-even-in-principle process. A nightmare from which \nthe human mind loves to struggle to escape. But I *don't* have \nany such answer, and the penalties of believing that I have one \nare just too high.\n\n I'd be wrong. And I'd end up having to defend my \nideology, and if I didn't, others more ruthless would. And I \nmight be brilliant, and glib, and deeply convincing, but I'd still \nbe wrong, because predicting history is probably eighty orders of \nmagnitude harder than predicting the weather, a thing itself \nimpossible, no matter what Laplace thought back in the \nEnlightenment.\n\n So, I'd be forced to disguise my intellectual failings with \nslippery rhetoric, appeals to faith, high-sounding catchphrases, \nand intimidation. I'd have to school myself so that appeals to \nobjective reality no longer made a dent. Skeptics and scoffers \nwould have to be discredited somehow -- as organized conspirators, \npresumably, bribed and corrupted to defy the truth. Probably \nthey're all witting or unwitting disciples of some Satanic figure \n-- some Rosicrucian Machiavelli, a really obscure but nevertheless \nvaguely plausible guy, for instance, a bio-school dropout and \ntubercular journalist who became the greatest trend-spotter of his \nera.\n\n So what's my idea of a worldview fit for posthumans? It's \nnot religion and it's not a modernist master-plan. I'm a \npostmodernist and a skeptic. These are issues too complex to \nregulate which cannot be planned from a flat-footed start.\n\n I kind of favor the Internet \"answer\" -- \"run code and rough \nconsensus.\" You debug it as you go along. You assume there \nwill be bugs, and you try not to call them \"features.\" You let \nthe devil's advocates speak up, all of them, even the crazy ones, \neven the opinions you detest. You don't create systems with single \npoints of failure. You allow diversity -- firewalls, different \nspeeds, differences of scale, you don't bet the farm on one super-\nmono-culture. You never change the operating system before you \nback up the contents. You *make* backups. You check for \nviruses. You assume the system is insecure. You assume some \npeople mean the system harm, and can never be won over, and will \nnever, ever go away.\n\n But wait -- I seem to have more principles than I thought I \ndid. You don't attempt to change a complex distributed system \nall at once. You don't trust complicated systems unless they've \ngrown from tested simple systems. You distrust theory, you don't \ninvest your ego in ideological declarations. You distrust \nresults, too -- you replicate results and claims in other labs \nbefore you start howling with joy and passing out cigars. You \nbeta-test all the vaporware, and the shinier it is, the *more* you \ntest it. You check out what's gone before (Aryan breeding \nexperiments, excellent case in point) lest someone justly flame \nyou as a clueless newbie. And you never let authorities soft-soap \nyou into deploying sanctified encryption devices too wondrous and \nspecial for mere people to understand -- no matter what kind of \nhats they're wearing, how eloquent they are, or what kind of brass \nthey have.\n\n Okay, I guess I'm done now. *8-)\n\nBruce Sterling bruces {AT} well.com\n\n--\n* distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n* 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",
+ "to": "nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl",
+ "follow-up": [
+ {
+ "from": "McKenzie Wark ",
+ "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00035.html",
+ "author_name": "McKenzie Wark",
+ "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* 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",
+ "to": "nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl",
+ "date": "Sat, 8 Mar 1997 05:31:43 -0500 (EST)",
+ "message-id": "Pine.OSF.3.95.970308051018.29067A-100000 {AT} is6.NYU.EDU",
+ "content-type": "text/plai",
+ "id": "00035",
+ "subject": "nettime: nettme: the tide pool with the toll booth"
+ },
+ {
+ "from": "Gordon Cook ",
+ "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00036.html",
+ "author_name": "Gordon Cook",
+ "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* 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",
+ "to": "Bruce Sterling ",
+ "follow-up": [
+ {
+ "from": "alexei shulgin ",
+ "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00094.html",
+ "author_name": "alexei shulgin",
+ "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* 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",
+ "to": "nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl",
+ "date": "Tue, 18 Mar 1997 01:05:08 +0300",
+ "message-id": "332DC013.5BD1 {AT} pop.glas.apc.or",
+ "content-type": "text/plai",
+ "id": "00094",
+ "subject": "nettime: Net.Art - the origin",
+ "list": "nettime_l"
+ }
+ ],
+ "date": "Sat, 8 Mar 1997 10:54:23 -0500 (EST)",
+ "message-id": "Pine.SUN.3.95.970308103406.11504C-100000 {AT} unix1.netaxs.com",
+ "content-type": "text/plai",
+ "id": "00036",
+ "subject": "Re: nettime: submission to nettime lis"
+ },
+ {
+ "from": "alexei shulgin ",
+ "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00094.html",
+ "author_name": "alexei shulgin",
+ "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* 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",
+ "to": "nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl",
+ "date": "Tue, 18 Mar 1997 01:05:08 +0300",
+ "message-id": "332DC013.5BD1 {AT} pop.glas.apc.or",
+ "content-type": "text/plai",
+ "id": "00094",
+ "subject": "nettime: Net.Art - the origin"
+ }
+ ],
+ "date": "Sat, 8 Mar 1997 01:58:16 -0800 (PST)",
+ "message-id": "199703080958.BAA15504 {AT} well.com",
+ "content-type": "text/plai",
+ "id": "00034",
+ "subject": "nettime: submission to nettime lis"
+ },
+ {
+ "from": "\"davidg.\" ",
+ "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00060.html",
+ "author_name": "davidg.",
+ "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* 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",
+ "to": "nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl",
+ "follow-up": [
+ {
+ "from": "Alexei Shulgin ",
+ "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00066.html",
+ "author_name": "Alexei Shulgin",
+ "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* 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",
+ "to": "davidg {AT} xs4all.nl",
+ "date": "Thu, 13 Mar 1997 13:47:53 +0300",
+ "message-id": "3327DB26.7321 {AT} glas.apc.or",
+ "content-type": "text/plai",
+ "id": "00066",
+ "subject": "Re: nettime: Art on N"
+ },
+ {
+ "from": "c.young {AT} rca.ac.uk (carey young)",
+ "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00063.html",
+ "author_name": "carey young",
+ "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 \"there are grounds for saying\nthat installation is the current condition of art... (the term's)\nwidespread use demonstrates... the widespread assumption of a certain\nspatial sensibility. It is an index of how we might inhabit a space which\nis always multiple -always spaces - and of how we interact with the bodies\nand objects, both near and far, around us.\" (2) Give or take a few word\nchanges, this could be seen to describe Net art works which inhabit the Net\nin a provocative way. Perhaps Net art as a 'genre' could operate on one\nlevel as an index of how we might inhabit and interact with electronic\nspace. And for this to work, I believe Net artworks must first have a\nstrong sense of their own electronic identity.\n\nAlthough some sites do work well as homes for an artist's non-digital work,\nwe are perhaps talking more of a Net art which explores the potential of\nthe medium in terms of of defining and then utilising a language in a\nsophisticated way. Georgina Starr, for example, as Garcia states, is\nmaking compelling video work. But if her work appears \"natural,\" it is\nsurely because she is employing the specific 'language' of the camcorder.\nIt implies a rejection of aesthetics which may be seen as 'traditional' to\nboth video art and to television production, to name but two. A\nsophisticated strategy, which works so well precisely because it seems so\nnatural. It is like this, too, with the most resonant Net artworks. They\noften make use of strategies inherent to the Net's fabric, hyperlinks,\nweb-cams etc, and do so effectively because they understand that particular\nlanguage. Understanding (and perhaps defining) does not necessarily mean a\ncrass and closed statement of technological and technical possibilities. I\ndoubt many people would be interested in sites which do no more than\nannounce their own web-location. Rigor Mortis would soon set in to both\nbrain and modem.\n\nArt which 'happens to appear on the net,' as Garcia wants it, is not the\nonly way art should appear on the Net. We can keep the freshness and\napparent accessibility of Georgina Starr's work, to continue with this\nexample. It just takes sensitive, and dare I say it, intelligent use of Net\n'language' to make work which has the depth to operate illuminatingly in\nits own space. A sense of the Net's own fabric may perhaps not, in this\nlight, be Garcia's \"wrong direction.\" It may in fact be an essential tool\nfor the artist to deploy: we are talking about effective commnunication,\nand for that, one must learn the lingo.\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n(1) An interesting and related essay, for example, is 'Sculpture in the\nExpanded Field,' Rosalind Krauss (in Hal Foster, ed., 'The Anti-Aesthetic,'\nBay Press, Seattle 1983.) Krauss' writes on the changes which sculpture, as\na genre, has undergone in the transition from pre-modernity through to\npostmodernity. Her comments on the spatial placement of an artwork\n(sculpture in this case) in relation to its immediate surroundings can\neasily be related to Net artworks if they are seen as art 'objects' with a\nhypertxtual or spatial placement.\n\n(2) M. Archer, 'Accomodating Art,' in Art Monthly, Sept 96\n\nc.young {AT} rca.ac.uk\n\n\n\n\n\n--\n* distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n* 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",
+ "to": "nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl",
+ "date": "Thu, 13 Mar 1997 03:47:49 +0000",
+ "message-id": "v01550102af4d25c27373 {AT} [194.159.194.33]",
+ "content-type": "text/plai",
+ "id": "00063",
+ "subject": "Re: nettime: Art on N"
+ },
+ {
+ "from": "Olia Lialina ",
+ "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00067.html",
+ "author_name": "Olia Lialina",
+ "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* 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",
+ "to": "\"nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl\" ",
+ "date": "Thu, 13 Mar 1997 16:25:39 +-300",
+ "message-id": "01BC2FCB.336A43C0 {AT} ppp63.cityline.ru",
+ "content-type": "text/plai",
+ "id": "00067",
+ "subject": "RE: nettime: Art on N"
+ },
+ {
+ "from": "ax {AT} pop.thing.at (Robert Adrian)",
+ "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00082.html",
+ "author_name": "Robert Adrian",
+ "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\"\nof dreaming of becoming (as General Idea put it in File Magazine 20\nyears ago) \"Rich, Famous, Glamourous Artists\" on the pattern of the art\ntradition of industrial (W)Europe and (N)America, has it just about\nright. If there is going to be something like \"Art-In-The-Net\" then\nit should be about connections and communication and not about objects\nand products - or art museums and galleries (and especially not\nvirtual art museums and galleries).\n\nWhy should we, as artists struggling to find ways to survive on the\ntricky edge of a new digital communications environment, be trying to\nbreath new life into the corpse of the traditional art institutions?\nFor the money, fame and glamour?\n\n\n-----\n(1) There was also the phenomenon of the \"video performance\" or\n\"video-installation\" in which live images from a video camera were\nincluded (recycled) in a kind of feedback loop into the piece via a monitor.\n(Jochen Gertz, Richard Kriesche, Dan Graham, Keith Sonnier etc.) -\nvery \"q & d\".\n\n====================================================================\n*Art should concern itself as much with behavior as it does with\nappearance* - Norman T. White\n====================================================================\nRobert Adrian\n\n\n\n--\n* distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n* 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",
+ "to": "nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl",
+ "date": "Fri, 14 Mar 1997 19:29:09 +0200",
+ "message-id": "199703141828.TAA08830 {AT} mail.thing.at",
+ "content-type": "text/plai",
+ "id": "00082",
+ "subject": "Re: nettime: Art on N"
+ },
+ {
+ "from": "achel {AT} irational.org (rachel baker)",
+ "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00087.html",
+ "author_name": "rachel baker",
+ "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.\" So he kept a careful\naccount of all the amounts, and when he died these amounts had been\ndeducted from our inheritance. Not so stupid, actually, that idea: it\nhelped us all manage,\n\n RB Well, there seems to be quite a step between Hot Pictures and the\ngold Medal award site.\n\n AS Yes, Gold Medal was two weeks later, and it was after these that\nI decided to get away from all the influences I had been under before.\nI wanted to live in the present, and the present then was computer\ncommunication. You see, in May 1996 net.art was new: the approach was so\ndifferent from the previous movements that I was very much attracted\ntoward it. I became a Net.artist and gradually came up with Refresh.\n\n RB The Site has plenty of movement in it, net.art seemed to be interested\nin movement.\n\nAS Yes. But don t forget there was also techno culture\nat the same time. Croatian Rave... though I didn't know about it. I was\nin my studio the Moscow wwwarts centre. I didn't even know of the\nravers existence although at exactly the time I was designing this\nSite. Was that a coincidence or was it in the air? I don't know. But I\ndid this site with the idea of using movement as one of the elements in\nit. The next year, I entered the site in an exhibition.\n\n RB That was an event in the history of Net.art?\n\nAS Yes, but we only know it now, 2 months later. At the time it\ncould have been just an explosion in a shingle factory: a successful week\nor two, and then nothing. But that was not enough for me. I went on with\nthe\nidea that, all right, I had done what I could with\nphoto-galleries but now it was time to change. It was always the idea\nof changing, not repeating myself. I could have done ten other Hot\nPictures at that time if I had wanted to. But the fact is I did not\nwant to. But I went on immediately to art formula, the formula of the\nFound Art site. I used to surf around the pages of the World Wide Web\nlooking at the countless homepages people had constructed. They fascinated\nme so much that I took it as a point of departure\n\n RB Well, what was different in your point of view of homepages than in\nany normal view of a homepage? Was it a mechanical interest, is that\nit?\n\nAS Yes. The mechanical aspect of it influenced me then, or at least\nthat was also the point of departure of a new form of technique. I\n couldn't go into the designing of new material I wanted to go back to\na completely dry conception of art. I was beginning to appreciate the\nvalue of accident, the importance of chance. The result was that my work\nwas more popular with amateurs, and among those who liked net. Art.\nThe linking, threading and self-selection was for me the best form for\nthat dry conception of art.\n\n RB And that was the real beginning for the Refresh site. At the time\n you did this, did you have a precise idea of what was coming?\n\nAS I was already beginning to make an indefinite plan, The WWWarts\ngold medal site was one point of departure, and then came the BLa BLA\nsite on the side. All this was conceived, networked, and on screen in\n1996. It was based on a dispersed, multi-dimensional chaotic view,\nmeaning incomplete knowledge of the arrangement of the parts. It could be\nhaphazardly done or changed afterwards. It did not have to go through\naccording to plan, so to speak.\n\n RB Well, l imagine you feel that Refresh heralded some- thing in your\nwork, something of that break you have often told me about.\n\nAS Yes, it\nwas really a very important moment in my life. I had to make big\ndecisions then. The hardest was when I told myself \"Alexei no more\nInternet conferences, go get a job.\"\n\n RB I looked for a job in order to get enough time to make projects for\nmyself. I got a job as a technician in London atthe Institute Of\nElectrical Engineers. It was a wonderful job be- cause I had so many\nhours to myself.\n\nAS You mean to make projects for yourself, not merely to please other\npeople? You know you are either a professional or not. There are two kinds\nof artists: the artist that is integrated into society; and the other\nartist, the completely\nfreelance artist, who has no obligations.\n The artist in society has to make certain compromises to please it;\nis that why you took the job?\n\n RB Exactly, exactly, I didn't want to depend on my art projects for a\nliving. But, Alexei, if you speak of a disregard for the broad public\n and say you are doing art for yourself, wouldn't you accept that as\n making art for an 'ideal' public, for a public which would appreciate you\nif they would only make the effort?\n\n AS Yes, indeed. It is only a way of putting myself in the right\nposition for that ideal public. The challenge is in pleasing an\nimmediate public;You should not wait for fifty years or a hundred years\nfor your true\npublic. The immediately present public is the only public that\ninterests me.\n\n RB That is a rather elitist point of view. I don't think you ever felt\nthat a person was justified in living in an ivory tower and disregarding\nthe intelligent and sympathetic public.\n\n AS No, no, no ivory tower in my idea at all.\n\n RB I remember a line in an interview with Vuk Cosic in which you said\nthat there was more possibility with the Internet to find art that\ndoesn't realise itself as art - non-conceived, intuitive, spontaneous\nand naive.\n\n AS You see the danger is to \"lead yourself' into a form of taste, even\n the taste of the Moscow wwwart site\n\n RB Taste then for you is repetition of anything that has been accepted;\nis that what you mean'?\n\n\n AS Exactly; it is a habit. Repeat the same thing long enough and it be-\ncomes taste. If you interrupt your work, I mean after you have done it,\nthen it becomes, it stays a thing in itself; but if it is repeated a\nnumber of times it becomes taste.\n\nRB And good taste is repetition that is approved by society and bad\ntaste is the same repetition which is not approved; is that what you\nmean?\n\n\n AS Yes, good or bad is of no importance because it is always good for\nsome people and bad for others. Quality is not important, it is al-\nways taste.\n\nRB Well, how did you find the way to get away from good or bad taste\nin your personal expression?\n\nAS By using found art techniques. A found art site has no taste in it\n\nRB Because it is divorced from conventional art institutional expression\nof taste?\n\nAS Exactly, at least I thought so at that time, and I think the same\ntoday.\n\nRB Then does this divorce from conventional art institutions in net.art\nhave a relationship to the interest you had in found art sites?\n\nAS It was naturally, in trying to draw a conclusion or consequence from\n the de-institutionalisation of the work of art, that I came to the\nidea of Gold Medal Award sites which in effect are already\ncompletely made. Let me show you: this is a website with\ninnocent non-art intentions, it is a ready-made. Now it is a Ready-made\nin which shit is\nchanged to gold, metaphorically speaking. It is a sort of a mythological\neffect produced by art awards and art criticism.\n\nRB You didn't know me before you came to Holland\n\n\nAS No. I came to Amsterdam in January. I met you at the Next Five\nMinutes conference it was the beginning of a long email friend- ship.\nWe devised the Gold Medal Award and discussed infiltration of Nettime\n\n\nRB The Nettime group was associated with several other groups, wasn't\nit?\n\nAS Yes, there was Vuk Cosic and Heath Bunting for example, who was also\na patron of net.art, and he started a museum called CERN. And there >was\nV2 whose purpose was to promote net.artists from the east to get\na sort of communication between east and west, and it was quite\nsuccessful then. It was from then on that the West was absolutely\nnet.art conscious, which it had never been before.\n\nRB I see. Well, Vuk Cosic also owned your Refresh page which we were\nlooking at a little while ago.\n\n AS Yes, it was in the Moscow WWWarts collection in 1996, at the time\nof its near-completion-. But no-one could own it because it was too\nfragile to transport, given its size.\n\nRB Alexei, from what you say the Refresh page was never really finished.\n\n AS No. No. The last time somebody worked on it was this morning .\n\n RB So it remains a sort of unfinished epic. And also for me it seems to\nindicate that you were never really dedicated to conventional\ncommunication in the ordinary sense of the word. I imagine that there\nis something broader in your concept of what art is than just\ncommunication.\n\n AS Yes. I considered art as a means of expressing the present, not an\nend in itself. One means of expression among others, and not a complete\nend for life at all; in the same way I consider that color is only a\nmeans of expression in painting and not an end. In other words,\ncommunication should not be exclusively retinal or visual; it should\nhave to do with the concept, with our urge for understanding. This is\ngenerally what I love. I didn't want to pin myself down and I tried at\nleast to be as universal as I could. That is why I took up Internet.\nInternet initself is a hobby, is a game, everybody can play Internet.\nIt's like chess. Actually when you play a game of chess it is like\ndesigning something or constructing a mechanism of some kind by which\nyou win or lose. The competitive side of it has no importance, but the\nthing itself is very, very strategic, and that is probably what\nattracted me to the Internet game.\n\nRB Do you mean by that another form of communication?\n\nAS Yes, at least it was another facet of the same kind of mental\nexpression, intellectual expression, one small facet if you want, but it\ndiffered enough to make it distinct, and it added something to my life.\n\n\nRB Do you regard Moscow WWWarts page as a distinct expression of your\npersonality '?\n\nAS Yes. Absolutely. It was a new form of expression for me. Instead of\nmerely photographing something for gallery exhibition the idea was to\nreproduce the work that l loved so much in miniature. I didn't know how\nto do it. I thought of a book, but I didn't like that idea. Then I\nthought of the idea of the box in which all my works would be mounted\nlike in a small museum, a portable museum, so to speak, and here it is\nin this Internet valise.\n\nRB It is a sort, of ready-made catalogue, isn't it.\n\nAS There was a whole art system, which I thought up to win at roulette at\nMonte Carlo. Of course I never broke the bank with it. But I thought I\nfound a system.\n\n RB Did you win anything?\n\n AS No, I never won anything. But at any rate as you know, I am\ninterested in the intellectual side, although I don't like the word\n\"intellect.\" For me \"intellect\" is too dry a word, too inexpressive. I\nlike the word \"belief.\" I think in general that when people say \"I\nknow,\" they don't know, they believe. I believe that art is the only\nform of activity in which man as man shows himself to be a true\nindividual. Only in art is he capable of going beyond the animal state,\nbecause art is an outlet toward regions which are not ruled by time\nand space. To live is to believe; that's my belief, at any rate.\n\n\n\n\n*\"A Conversation with Marcel Duchamp,\" television ionterview conducted by\nJames Johnson Sweeny, NBC, January 1956, Philadelphia Museum of Art\n...............................\n.....moscow wwwart centre......\nhttp://sunsite.cs.msu.su/wwwart\n...............................\n\n\n\n\nlondon<+>isle of wight<=>liverpoollusanneviennabudapest<&>\n\nljublanabarcelonebahamas\n\n\n--\n* distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n* 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",
+ "to": "nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl",
+ "date": "Sun, 16 Mar 1997 01:34:01 +0100",
+ "message-id": "630c00ee04021004b07a {AT} [194.159.194.33]",
+ "content-type": "text/plai",
+ "id": "00087",
+ "subject": "Re: nettime: Art on N"
+ }
+ ],
+ "date": "Wed, 12 Mar 1997 19:08:17 +0100",
+ "message-id": "3326F111.7D8C {AT} xs4all.nl",
+ "content-type": "text/plai",
+ "id": "00060",
+ "subject": "nettime: Art on N",
+ "list": "nettime_l"
+ },
+ {
+ "from": "jesis {AT} xs4all.nl (j bosma)",
+ "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00088.html",
+ "author_name": "j bosma",
+ "content": "\nDirk Paesmans en Joan Heemskerk work together on the net using the\nname Jodi for two years now. They come from an art background, Joan\ndid photography, Dirk did performances and video amongst other things.\nThey were interviewed at the 'secret' conference on net.art, organised \nby Heath Bunting, in the Backspace gallery, London, last Januari.\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't exactly a salesman that gave obvious cues on when \nsomething was for sale. It was a bit unclear to people when exactly \nthey could jump onto an offer. \n\nD: It wasn'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 'it could never \ncome into to normal art circuit because it would not be possible to \nsell it'..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 \npersonal computer. A lot of these elements are collages of things that \nare found on the net. The natural environment of us, of Jodi, is the \nnet and you can find a certain condensed form of the net in Jodi. \nIt is comparable to the kind of work I used to make for Zap-tv. This \nwas a very one dimensial way of recycling tv into a new channel. So \nin this whole rubbish, Zap-tv I mean, you could find a condensed form \nof television. With Jodi it is not that simple. There are also projects \nin it, that are not so much downloaded from the net as gifs or jpegs, \nbut certain techniques are used that are the order for the day on the \nnet, that are 'hot' so to say. These are technical matters, like how \nfor instance instead of using words as links, like in hypertext, you \ncan use certain kinds of buttons. We have a big problem with hypertext. \nTo us hypertext is of no use at all. There are hardly any words in our \nwebsite, except for the hotlist. Its a battle really. As hypertext is \nuseless to us, we have to find other ways to make people navigate, or \nhave the navigation happen as if by itself. Solutions for this can be \nthings that are new in a Netscape version, or buttons that by clicking \nthere you DO make a link. So you don't have to invent a letter A, B, C\nor whatever, but you simply use what's in the computer or Netscape or \nso. This is Joan's territory a bit, I must say. Joan does a lot of \ninvestigating in how to use Java, new techniques.\nWe have some seperate projects. There is a bit of Zap-tv, a piece of \nDirk project in a Beta-lab part of Jodi. In this Beta-lab there are \nalso Joan Heemskerk projects. A series of photographes of pigeons with \nbuttons over it: thats just Joans. \nSo we don't enter into that big battle with the net, eventhough we see \nit is there, because we get an enormous amount of mail from people that \ncomplain, that send us large questionmarks. They say: what is this crap?\n\nQ: Really? Why is this, because there is no text with it?\n\nJ: This is because we transverse the way to make webpages. People think:\nA virus gets into my computer.. or: Whats happening to my screen! \nThis is because it cannot be grasped. You get these short, direct \nreactions from panicking people.\n\nQ: That is beautiful, a compliment, it means you created something \ncompletely new, doesn't it?\n\nJ: I don't know whether it is completely new, because it always contains \nelements that have been used before. It is collage. It is a new collage \nnaturally.\n\nD: The carrier, the Netscape carrier has of course never been used \nbefore. It is starting to be used now. The technique to create confusion \nand to mix things up has been used often before, but with this specific \nmedium we made an early start. A reason for this is that we left The \nNetherlands on our own for San Jose, California. Silicon Vallye. We \nwent there to see how all this Apple stuff and all software and \napplications, Photoshop, Macromind, Netscape 'lives' there. What kind \nof people make this. This is very interesting to us. In some way we feel \nvery involved, it is a bit of a personal matter to turn Netscape inside \nout for instance. I have a picture in my mind of the people that make it. \nAnd not just how they make it, but also of how they view it themselves \nwithin the States and Canada. How they see their Internet. \n'Their' Internet, you can say that for sure. \n\nQ: Your work is very radical, that we can conclude from the reactions \nyou get. You say it has no content. It is only form, when you judge it \non appearance only. It passes on this radical feeling though and you \njust said: We want to see who makes it, it is an american net, we \noverturn it, we turn Netscape inside out. Aren't you making choices to \ncreate your own space, to get things in your own hands again? This is \nquite unusual in the net, isn't it. People create something small at \nhome, according to certain rules and it quite resembles each other. \nYour work is innovative.\n\nD: One thing we have not done from the beginning is base our work on \nlay out. The page. We are dealing with screens. What we can learn from\nof how to organise a screen is tv, computergames and other software. \nNot from lay out, not from a way of creating an order that puts this fat\ntitle and then a chapter, another gif and two gifs next to that, \netcetera. A magazine on the net. We can do nothing with this. \nThere are choices imbedded in software, that are thought about on\nmailinglists of designers in California, like which features should be\nput in Netscape, how can you make tables. They think it is important to\nbe able to put two columns of text next to eachother and stuff like that.\nSometimes things slip in like in Netscape 2.0 (for the specialists).\nThere you could have this background that would change all the time, \nbackground 1, 2, 3 etc. You could make great movies with that. You could \nlet it run ten times in a row. They took this out in Netscape 3.0.\nIt was used a lot on the net. The first part of our Binhex was based \nquite heavily on it, we used it a lot. They thought it was a bug. \nI can't see the bug here, it was just a free animation effect that was \nin there. It was threatening the stability of a certain type of lay out,\nit was disturbed too easily. So they took it out. We find other things\nto play with then. There are some basics of html that will never change,\nwith which you can still avoid this classic approach.\n\nQ: I heard there is a battle between designers that used to do the\nlay out of magazines and artists about these matters. How software \ndevelops, but also about what is correct and what not. \n\nD: Every now and then there is a big panic about it. Like with these\nnew plug-ins, where you are told: you cannot watch this if you don't \nhave this or that plug-in. We are quite frugal with this. \n\nQ: Of course not the whole world uses the same software or is even\nable to obtain it. Large parts of the world can only receive text.\nThey have only very simple software. Do you think about this?\n\nD: In mosaic you will still see a version of our site, but I don't \nthink there is any reason to say: Lets make a textbased version of this. \nWe can impossibly make a textbased version of Who is afraid of red \nyellow and blue. An ascii version or so. We are no development-aid \nworkers. \n\nQ: I do want to get back to this question what you will do when the\ncommerce, the artworld gets a grip on the net.artists and picks out \nsome of them. It looks like a nice group now, that has a pleasant \ngathering here...\n\nJ: That group has allready split itself up. There are groups in New York,\ngroups in Europe. There are very small groups of two or three people in\ncertain cities, that work together. That division is allready here. Not \nall net.artists are mixing, seeing eachother regularly.\nwe are also seperate from this group here in the sense that a lot of \nthese people we have never seen before or only once. \n\nQ: So you are not concerned with matters like this?\n\nJ: Yes I am. But as I said, I see a kind of sectarianism allready on the \nnet. Not just with net.art, but also in other groups. The viewers have\ntheir own little circuits in which they watch, their hotlists. For me \npersonally I think every group happens naturally, but the idea behind it\nis what counts. Why does the person that looks at something on the net\nchoose that certain part of the net, and maybe has visit one or two\nsites made by people present at this net.art conf? The viewer makes the \nchoice, there is always this filter. It is artificial to keep people in\na certain group, because in reality on the net this is not one group.\nIts different sites. \n\nD: I think it is good we are not in an art.net context. We are not the\nkind of people that adjust. We don't want to be in a new corner. You\nwil not find this in our site either. I will not say it is art. That is\nnot what matters. When we started it was of no use to drag those kind of\nthings with us. That is what we did NOT want. Of course a certain form \nof knowledge and we are occupied with we put forward through Netscape,\nbut we do not want to repeat what we know too well. Its nice to do. \n \n\n\n*\n\n\n--\n* distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n* 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",
+ "to": "nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl",
+ "date": "Sun, 16 Mar 1997 19:17:38 +0100",
+ "message-id": "af500f1200021004feda {AT} [194.109.47.57]",
+ "content-type": "text/plai",
+ "id": "00088",
+ "subject": "nettime: interview with Jodi",
+ "list": "nettime_l"
+ },
+ {
+ "from": "jesis {AT} xs4all.nl (j bosma)",
+ "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00089.html",
+ "author_name": "j bosma",
+ "content": "\nThis is a piece of writing that gives you my personal reflections\non net.art. You could very well have different ideas about it, \nand I try by writing this here right now to avoid the thought in \nyour head that I claim to be an expert on the subject. What I like\nso much about art and new media and net.art is the fact that it\nis not defined yet. I have been a bit annoyed therefore by some \nwritings recently on Nettime. I will try to let my definitions\nbe as open as possible, but in my opinion, more touching as to what \nthe term net.art does to me then that academic lingo, that by no \nmeans has the ability to cover the subject, simply because of the\nslippery nature of net.art. \n\nWhere to start when talking about net.art or art on the net or \nwhatever it is these people make on the net? I will just try to\nwrite some thoughts down I had the last couple of days, and who\nknows it might become a coherent piece. Hard though, with this \nsubject. Undesirable maybe even.\n\nI read a statement in the newspaper the other day, that was part of \nan article about Wim T. Schippers, Hollands most famous Fluxus artist. \nIt said that a good art work is prepared like murder: one has to be\nvery precise and perfectionist and work in utter secrecy. This \nreminded me of net.art very much. It is almost betrayal to write about \nsome aspects of it, because it is probably at this moment one of the \nfew art forms that still have a potential of subverting and surprising\nin the way art has been seen to do in the past. \n\nThe first thing that came to my mind after reading both Davids and \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't find any. Maybe \ntiredness of surfing, I don'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's discriptions get a bit close, but are too \nacademic and in this way they look too much from a perspective of \nthe old art, that was never comfortable with things like performance \nart or mail art, and has developed a manner of discourse about these \nthat is choking and unsuitable mostly.\nThe connection with video art, well, I don'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't know how \nthe Internet will develop from the top down (restructuring I refer to).\nVideo however has never had a real chance to become a medium like the \nnet.\nIt would be much wiser to compare the development of the net to the \nearly days of radio, which is done by some people outside(?) this list,\nSiegfried Zielinski for instance. \n\nThe problem when talking about net.art is always that the people that\ndo so come from two opposite groups, the Artworld and the net.artworld,\nwith exceptions like Robert Adrian, who could tell us much more then \nhe does unfortunately. Last november for instance I was at a conference \ncalled Objects and Pixels, in the Balie, Amsterdam. This was organised \nby a good dutch art magazine called Metropolis M, to investigate and \ndiscuss the problem of the 'vanishing object' of art in new media. The conference was a total embarrasment. The reason for this was the \nincompetence of people in the 'normal' artworld to see certain types \nof art. Conclusions in this conference were for instance that art in \nnew media had not reached beyond advertisement yet really and therefore \ncould not be discussed properly in a high art discussion (can you \nimagine the reactions of for instance Alex Adriaanse of V2 in the \naudience, laughing all the time, perplexity) and that it might be time \nto see art as purely visual (the last remark made by the moderator, \nright before the last performance of the conference by sound artists \nDavid Toop and Scanner).\n\nNow I don't think this was all due to a lack of information that these\npeople obviously also had. It is something much deeper and complex,\nwhich is the lack of understanding, maybe even a lack of will to\nunderstand, a way to deal with art in a non material but conceptually\nstill very 'real' way. Real being that it touches and plays with\nmedia usage as we know it, with the world as it is around us. It makes \nnew couplings, not just of machines, but also of meanings, using\ncommunication tools in any shape as a medium, preferably in unusual\ncombinations or contexts. Its roots seem to lie more in things like \nmail art and performance art then telematic art, which is too easily \nconnected to this artform because of its use of electronic media.\nSomebody told me that Kathy Rae Huffman has tried to bring the term communication art up for this. I like to call it media art, because \nin my eyes it is media art in its purest form. But unfortunately this \nterm has been in use for everything that moves and breaths \nelectronically. \n\nCommunication art (lets adapt this term for now) plays with social \ncontexts. It invents escape routes for ideas and human needs that get\ncrushed in increasingly narrowing discourses of fashion, money and \npolitical correctness of any type. It is one of the types of net.art \nthat is completely ignored in most discussions about new media art.\nIf anybody needs an example I'ld still say Heath Buntings work is a \na good one. He combines the communicative aspects of grafiti and \nsigns in public spaces with the Internet, or plays with the image of\ncorporate identities, leaving them naked and sensitive as the public\nproperty they are but don't admit to be. This description is not\ncovering his work completely though, as it has many invisible layers\nthat make it so interesting. It makes you see the world differently\nand gives ideas and inspiration to do similar things. One could be \nlocked up for that in some countries. That is why that statement \nabout the connection between murder and art made me think of net.art. \nWhenever I come across discussions about new media art or art in the \nnet, I wonder why he or others like him are not mentioned there. \n\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?\nIsn't it like some group would call itself the paint.art group, or the\nvideo.art group? You seem to be claiming this name, as if it were a \nnew brand to merchandise. There are many outside your group that work\nin the net, in similar ways. This leads easily to confusions like we \njust had here on Nettime. I know some of you use this term tongue in \ncheeck, or play with the notion of being a group yes or no, but to the\noutside world you appear to be a group. \nI like the term net.art, especially because of that little dot in it. \nCan't you rename your 'group' and stick to making net.art? \n\n\n\n\n\nbe good\n\n\n\n*\n\n\n--\n* distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n* 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",
+ "to": "nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl",
+ "follow-up": [
+ {
+ "from": "Olia Lialina ",
+ "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00092.html",
+ "author_name": "Olia Lialina",
+ "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* 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",
+ "to": "\"'j bosma'\" ",
+ "date": "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 01:19:27 +-300",
+ "message-id": "01BC3271.4ABFAC60 {AT} ppp66.cityline.ru",
+ "content-type": "text/plai",
+ "id": "00092",
+ "subject": "RE: nettime: net.art and art on the n"
+ }
+ ],
+ "date": "Sun, 16 Mar 1997 19:17:48 +0100",
+ "message-id": "af51a31003021004e148 {AT} [194.109.45.85]",
+ "content-type": "text/plai",
+ "id": "00089",
+ "subject": "nettime: net.art and art on the n",
+ "list": "nettime_l"
+ },
+ {
+ "from": "hopkins {AT} usa.net (John Hopkins)",
+ "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00096.html",
+ "author_name": "John Hopkins",
+ "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...\" or some such argument, but that is simply\nnot so. Is a computer material, is RAM material, are fiber optics\nmaterial, copper wires, generators, monitors? I mean, fundamentally,\nalmost all of what we call TECHNOLOGICAL media are material transformations\nrelying solely on the two most abundant materials in the earth'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't KNOW it\nanyway...\n\nI think questions of quality rather quantity are more important to consider\nhere. (parallel to ideas like a consideration of human obligations vs\nhuman rights) Another words for example, discussions of not whether Paul\nGarrin's efforts with setting up Autono.net will work or not -- but whether\nhe is having a genuine influence on other people's lives and whether that\neffect is positive or negative... Of course, that may seem a question to\nanswer historically, but hey, I can answer it based on some near meetings\nwith him, seeing his words, seeing his trail (etched in silicon) and so\non... for myself, and express that personal understanding to someone else\nwho would care to listen and share their impressions...\n\nSometimes I feel acutely the distance we have from each other in the veils\nof words that swirl around us, that we cloak ourselves in, and I am\ngratified to have spent some concentrated moments with some of you out\nthere, from time-to-time, and place-to-place, physically unmediated,\nlooking into your eyes, and speaking as direct as possible, or, better yet,\nsilently sharing existence in this material incarnation...\n\nI seize whatever physical means I can, based upon the moment, to express my\ndesires, my life-energies, what difference does it make?\n\nI would quote and amplify from my own take Bob Adrian's remark \"Why should\nwe, as artists struggling to find ways to survive on the tricky edge of a\nnew digital communications environment, be trying to breath new life into\nthe corpse of the traditional art institutions? For the money, fame and\nglamour?\"\n\nGiving lip-service to any forms of institutional cultural organization is\nto give it credit, form, substance, and most dangerously, POWER. NAMING a\nthing is to call it into existence and invoking it repeatedly will pump it\nup... Although I would not criticize the actions of those people who seek\nto understand the workings of cultural/social situations, I think that\nunderstanding needs to be weighed -- whether the knowledge is needed even\n-- after all, every thing that can be known, do we need to know it, or\nshould we know it? Eating from the Tree of the Knowledge or Good and Evil\ngot us here possibly, mired in a material world that is possibly only a\nfurnace to test our spirits for other things or simply a place to act out\nour lives here and now... Fame? (I suggest spinning the John Lennon tune\nso artfully interpreted by John and David (Bowie) by the same name...)\nWhat's a name? What's a name? What's a name...\n\nAnd something my father used to ay when we drove around on the interstate\nhighways of 60'ss Amurika, upon seeing grafitti (not the urban stuff of the\n70's and 80's and 90's) -- but the simple tags that adorned bridges, rocks,\nand fences... \"Fools names and not their faces are always seen in public\nplaces...\" Maybe it needs to be changed to \"Fools names AND their faces\nare always seen in public places...\"\n\nCheers\nrant-fully\nJohn\n\n\nJohn Hopkins\nprivate email: \nWEB: < http://www.usa.net/~hopkins>\n----------------------------------\nWebmaster for LANKaster On-Line:\n\n\n--------------------------------\n\n\n--\n* distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n* 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",
+ "to": "nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl",
+ "date": "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 22:19:54 -0700",
+ "message-id": "v01550106af539c2f7784 {AT} [157.151.221.73]",
+ "content-type": "text/plai",
+ "id": "00096",
+ "subject": "nettime: Net.art things?",
+ "list": "nettime_l"
+ },
+ {
+ "from": "ax {AT} pop.thing.at (Robert Adrian)",
+ "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9704/msg00000.html",
+ "author_name": "Robert Adrian",
+ "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\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# 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",
+ "to": "hopkins {AT} usa.net (John Hopkins)",
+ "date": "Tue, 1 Apr 1997 15:26:45 +0200",
+ "message-id": "199704011425.QAA16516 {AT} mail.thing.at",
+ "content-type": "text/plai",
+ "id": "00000",
+ "subject": " Re: nettime: Net.art things?",
+ "list": "nettime_l"
+ },
+ {
+ "from": "\"nettime's_synthetic_system\" ",
+ "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9912/msg00099.html",
+ "author_name": "nettime's_synthetic_system",
+ "content": "\n\"Franz F. Feigl\" \n Re: re: Tilman-RFC #1: net art history 1993 - 1996\n\nTilman Baumgaertel \n Re: Re: Tilman-RFC #1: net art history 1993 - 1996\n\n\"Dr. Future\" \n Re: 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\" \nSubject: Re: 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 \nSubject: Re: 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\" \nSubject: Re: defining net.art (was: Olia Lialina, was: \n something or other...)\n\nmelinda rackham wrote:\n\n> >simon wrote:\n>\n> a lot of what is called Net Art is not actually the Net but the\n> computer. This is true of much work produced for viewing in a browser, or\n> on CD-ROM, or even a lot of installation based work. Often the only\n> differences between these works are the 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\nSo this suggests that the categorization of the (net.)art work is dependent\nupon the intentions of the user, whether they want to exploit the properties\nof the net as a communications system or as a distribution system or whatever.\nBut then their intentions are dependent upon the particular qualities of the\nNet that they perceive as important anyway, so we must conclude that all art\nthat is deliberately put on the net is net.art.\n\nThe challenge is then to find some art on the net which isn't net.art (isn't\nit?). Perhaps this would be art that was just accidentally put on the net, or\njust temporarily while you were thinking of where else it should go (like\nleaving things in a pile on the edge of the sofa because your shelves are full\nup and the tea's ready). Perhaps this would be called default.art.\n\n\n the fun continues...\n\n# distributed via : no commercial use without permission\n# 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",
+ "to": "nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net",
+ "follow-up": [
+ {
+ "from": "Terrence J Kosick ",
+ "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9912/msg00152.html",
+ "author_name": "Terrence J Kosick",
+ "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 : no commercial use without permission\n# 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",
+ "to": "nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net",
+ "date": "Sat, 18 Dec 1999 22:52:34 -0800",
+ "message-id": "199912201215.HAA05693 {AT} bbs.thing.net",
+ "content-type": "text/plai",
+ "id": "00152",
+ "subject": "Re: [net\\.]art(history|definition) [feigl, baumgaertel, future]"
+ }
+ ],
+ "date": "Tue, 14 Dec 1999 00:36:19 -0500 (EST)",
+ "message-id": "199912140539.AAA07361 {AT} bbs.thing.net",
+ "content-type": "text/plai",
+ "id": "00099",
+ "subject": " [net\\.]art(history|definition) [feigl, baumgaertel, future]",
+ "list": "nettime_l"
+ },
+ {
+ "from": "Sean Cubitt ",
+ "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9912/msg00106.html",
+ "author_name": "Sean Cubitt",
+ "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 : no commercial use without permission\n# 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",
+ "to": "nettime ",
+ "date": "Tue, 14 Dec 1999 12:44:07 +0000",
+ "message-id": "199912141719.MAA09878 {AT} bbs.thing.net",
+ "content-type": "text/plai",
+ "id": "00106",
+ "subject": "Re: [net\\.]art(history|definition)",
+ "list": "nettime_l"
}
],
- "desc": "..."
+ "desc": "something"
}
}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/selection/tm-selection.js b/selection/tm-selection.js
index 8855987..bfb480e 100644
--- a/selection/tm-selection.js
+++ b/selection/tm-selection.js
@@ -8,8 +8,40 @@
{
"list": "crumb",
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=1869"
+ },
+ {
+ "list": "nettime_l",
+ "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00094.html"
+ },
+ {
+ "list": "nettime_l",
+ "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00060.html"
+ },
+ {
+ "list": "nettime_l",
+ "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00088.html"
+ },
+ {
+ "list": "nettime_l",
+ "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00089.html"
+ },
+ {
+ "list": "nettime_l",
+ "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00096.html"
+ },
+ {
+ "list": "nettime_l",
+ "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9704/msg00000.html"
+ },
+ {
+ "list": "nettime_l",
+ "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9912/msg00099.html"
+ },
+ {
+ "list": "nettime_l",
+ "url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9912/msg00106.html"
}
],
- "desc": "..."
+ "desc": "something"
}
}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/www/static/tags_w_lists.js b/www/static/tags_w_lists.js
index b567194..f7fefc4 100644
--- a/www/static/tags_w_lists.js
+++ b/www/static/tags_w_lists.js
@@ -26,31 +26,4 @@ $(document).ready(function(){
});
});
- $('#new').click(function(e) {
- var v = $(this).text();
- console.log(v)
- if(v == "NEW") {
- var form = $(this).parent("form");
- form.append('');
- form.append('');
- $(this).text("ADD");
- } else if (v == "ADD") {
- if($("#edit-tag").val() === "..." & $("#edit-desc").text() === "...") {
- $(this).text("NEW");
- $("#edit-tag").remove()
- $("#edit-desc").remove()
- return;
- }
- var form = $(this).parent("form");
- var g = form.serialize() + "&action=new";
- $.post('/tags', g, function(d) {
- if(d === 'ok') {
- location.reload();
- }
- });
- $(this).text("NEW");
- $("#edit-tag").remove()
- $("#edit-desc").remove()
- }
- });
});
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/www/templates/selection_tags.html b/www/templates/selection_tags.html
index c05a6df..3ccbbd3 100644
--- a/www/templates/selection_tags.html
+++ b/www/templates/selection_tags.html
@@ -8,6 +8,8 @@