{ "net.art": { "desc": "...", "lists": [ { "id": 0, "subject": "Net.art.history?", "content": "\nIs this post one of the most iconic pieces of net art history?\nhttp://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00094.html\n\nCertainly Rhizome's Rachel Greene believed the story and made it 'art\nhistory' in an article written for Artforum in 2000 she put: 'The term\nŒnet.art¹ is less a coinage than an accident, the result of a software\nglitch that occurred in December 1995, when Slovenian artist Vuk Cosic\nopened an anonymous e-mail only to find it had been mangled in transmission.\nAmid a morass of alphanumeric gibberish, Cosic could make out just one\nlegible term ­ Œnet.art¹ ­ which he began using to talk about online art and\ncommunications'. Greene, R. (2000) ŒWeb Work: a history of internet art¹,\nArtforum, v.38 (no.9): 162\n\nBut as other writers like Josephine Bosma have argued, the term 'net.art'\nwasn't born this way at allŠ see her book Nettitudes:\nhttp://www.amazon.com/Nettitudes-Lets-Studies-Network-Cultures/dp/9056628003\n\nSo was it a stunt? A work of net.art itself? And if it is a fusion of\nartwork and a tongue-in-cheek jibe at the discipline of art history\n(creating a kind of 'ism' to bait the art historians) what do we describe it\nas? A kind of new media new art history? Perhaps Rachel Greene didn't\nbelieve the story, but was also invested in crafting this red herring of a\nnarrative? And whatever it was, how do we work with a post like this when\nstudying the history of Internet art forms? How easy is it to misinterpret\nan list-based archive (or any social media-based archive)? To what extent do\nwe have the license to interpret a list post or should we hunt down it's\nauthor and verify we've understood?", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1310&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=2942", "from": "Charlotte Frost", "date": "Thu, 3 Oct 2013 15:01:52 +0800", "follow-up": [ { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: Net.art.history?", "content": "\nI can't exactly say anything specifically about the labeling of net.art -\nwhether it was a joke, a tongue-in-cheek gesture/label or not - but I do\nfeel like the \"art historical bait\" that was suggested is very relevant to\ncontemporary so-called netart discussions/curation/classifications. Perhaps\nthis is due in part by the continued problematics that net.art as a\nclassification poses to historians that makes me feel a sense of warm\naffinity when thinking about contemporary netart definitions Although the\nterm was certainly more closely tied to the technical execution of a work\nthen any current netart definite, I think the ambiguity and the playfulness\nof such a term still resonates with myself - a self-identified contemporary\nnetart academic/maker.\n\nThe difficulty of this classification is that it is unclear if the identity\nof this art has to do with material or culture. For instance, Painting is a\nclassification of medium, whereas AbEx is a classification of culture. The\none is based on material plasticity, the other is based on contextual\nanalysis. However, with net.art, historians can approach this work through\nboth methodological avenues. This is even more so with more recent netart -\nparticularly as a newer generation becomes less concerned with technical\nexecution and more preoccupied with social distribution.\n\nSo the ruse seems healthy afoot! Or so I'd argue. The ease of this\nmisinterpretation is perhaps a strength of the medium. I think in being\nable to be fluid and hard to define creates an intrigue both from a\nmaterial and cultural perspective that other mediums rarely approach (or\nonly approach through gimmicky redefinition: \"Painting as memorial,\nphotography as documentary, etc.\")\n\nIn some ways the aftermath of net.art is more interesting to me as a\nmicro-art history then it's own moment. Afterwards artists themselves\nstruggled/strived for new terms and new definitions to distinguish their\nwork as unique or separate from something that might've been considered a\njibe. Terms like \"New Media\" \"Digital Art\" \"Transmedia\" \"post-internet\"\n\"net-based\" \"interactive design\" starting cropping up all over the place -\nalmost as if these classification were apologetically compensating for the\nambiguity and openness of net.art. These efforts could be seen as measure\ntaken by artists to be more easily identifiable within a contemporary\ncanon, but also could be seen as efforts to carve out space/distance from a\nprevious generation/moment.\n\nI want to say more, I guess, but maybe I'll wait for other topics this\nmonth,\nLooking fwd + very best\n\n\nOn Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Charlotte Frost <[log in to unmask]\n> wrote:\n\n> Is this post one of the most iconic pieces of net art history?\n> http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00094.html\n>\n> Certainly Rhizome's Rachel Greene believed the story and made it 'art\n> history' in an article written for Artforum in 2000 she put: 'The term\n> Œnet.art¹ is less a coinage than an accident, the result of a software\n> glitch that occurred in December 1995, when Slovenian artist Vuk Cosic\n> opened an anonymous e-mail only to find it had been mangled in\n> transmission.\n> Amid a morass of alphanumeric gibberish, Cosic could make out just one\n> legible term ­ Œnet.art¹ ­ which he began using to talk about online art\n> and\n> communications'. Greene, R. (2000) ŒWeb Work: a history of internet art¹,\n> Artforum, v.38 (no.9): 162\n>\n> But as other writers like Josephine Bosma have argued, the term 'net.art'\n> wasn't born this way at allŠ see her book Nettitudes:\n>\n> http://www.amazon.com/Nettitudes-Lets-Studies-Network-Cultures/dp/9056628003\n>\n> So was it a stunt? A work of net.art itself? And if it is a fusion of\n> artwork and a tongue-in-cheek jibe at the discipline of art history\n> (creating a kind of 'ism' to bait the art historians) what do we describe\n> it\n> as? A kind of new media new art history? Perhaps Rachel Greene didn't\n> believe the story, but was also invested in crafting this red herring of a\n> narrative? And whatever it was, how do we work with a post like this when\n> studying the history of Internet art forms? How easy is it to misinterpret\n> an list-based archive (or any social media-based archive)? To what extent\n> do\n> we have the license to interpret a list post or should we hunt down it's\n> author and verify we've understood?\n>\n\n\n\n-- \nNicholas O'Brien\n\nVisiting Faculty | Gallery Director\nDepartment of Digital Art, Pratt Institute\ndoubleunderscore.net", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1310&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=12511", "from": "Nicholas O'Brien", "date": "Thu, 3 Oct 2013 22:54:40 -0400", "author_name": "Nicholas O'Brien" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: Net.art.history?", "content": "\nOn Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Charlotte Frost <[log in to unmask]\n> wrote:\n\n> Is this post one of the most iconic pieces of net art history?\n> http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00094.html\n>\n\nHow about:\n\nFrom: \"Vuk Cosic\" <[log in to unmask]>\nOrganization: KUD France Preseren\nTo: [log in to unmask]\nDate: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:12:23 CET\nSubject: Re: [7-11] backbone\nSender: [log in to unmask]\nReply-To: [log in to unmask]\n\nho\n> whats a net.art backbone?\ngood one,\ni suppose it's a providers idea of 7-11\nsorta\n\nv\n\n######################################################\n#1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 071101010 07110101 0711.00100#\n# #\n# _____ _ _ _____ _ _ #\n# __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | #\n# \\ / / /____| | | \\ / / /____| | | #\n# /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | #\n# \\/ /_/ |_|_| \\/ /_/ |_|_| #\n# #\n# #\n#1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 071101010 07110101 0711.00100#\n########### http://www.ljudmila.org/7-11/ ############\n\n\nand:\n\nX-Sender: [log in to unmask]\nDate: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 07:14:01 -0700\nTo: [log in to unmask]\nFrom: nov 97 <[log in to unmask]>\nSubject: [7-11] net art homework\nSender: [log in to unmask]\nReply-To: [log in to unmask]\n\nhttp://jupiter.ucsd.edu/~bookchin/finalProject.html\n\n\n\n_____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n| | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n| | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n| | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n| | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n_____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n_____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n| | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____|\n\\/ /_/ |_|_| \\/ /_/ |_|_| # > # # > # # > #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 > # \\ /\n/ /____| | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # \\ / / /____| | | \\ / / /____| | | # >\n> > Thank you for participating in 7-11 MAILING LIST > SUBSCRIBER\nSATISFACTION SURVEY. > > > > >\n###################################################### >\n#1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 071101010 07110101 0711.00100# > # # > # _____ _ _\n_____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n| | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n\\/ /_/ |_|_| \\/ /_/ |_|_| # > # # > # # > #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00\n071101010 07110101 0711.00100# > ########### http://www.ljudmila.org/7-11/\n_____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ /\n/ /____|##################################################################\n>## ############ ########## # ### ### ## ###### >\n#### ###### #### #### ###### ############## ###### >\n# #### ##### #### ########## ###### ### ####### >\n>\n> -\n\n [that link waybackmachined:\nhttp://web.archive.org/web/20070206180348/http://jupiter.ucsd.edu/~bookchin/finalProject.html\n]\n\nAlso:\n\n\n\nDate: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 20:42:36 +0100\nTo: [log in to unmask]\nFrom: [log in to unmask]\nSubject: [7-11] Majordomo results: A word from the hostess.\nSender: [log in to unmask]\nReply-To: [log in to unmask]\n\n--\n\n>>>> who 7-11 [log in to unmask]\nMembers of list '7-11':\n\n[log in to unmask]\n[log in to unmask]\n[log in to unmask]\n[log in to unmask]\n[log in to unmask]\n[log in to unmask]\n[log in to unmask]\n[log in to unmask]\n[log in to unmask]\n[log in to unmask]\n[log in to unmask]\n[log in to unmask]\n[log in to unmask]\n[log in to unmask]\n[log in to unmask]\n[log in to unmask]\n[log in to unmask]\n[log in to unmask]\n[log in to unmask]\n[log in to unmask]\n[log in to unmask]\n[log in to unmask]\n[log in to unmask]\n[log in to unmask]\n\n24 subscribers\n\n\n_____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n| | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n| | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n| | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n| | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n_____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n_____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n| | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____|\n\\/ /_/ |_|_| \\/ /_/ |_|_| # > # # > # # > #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 > # \\ /\n/ /____| | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # \\ / / /____| | | \\ / / /____| | | # >\n> > Thank you for participating in 7-11 MAILING LIST > SUBSCRIBER\nSATISFACTION SURVEY. > > > > >\n###################################################### >\n#1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 071101010 07110101 0711.00100# > # # > # _____ _ _\n_____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n| | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n\\/ /_/ |_|_| \\/ /_/ |_|_| # > # # > # # > #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00\n071101010 07110101 0711.00100# > ########### http://www.ljudmila.org/7-11/\n_____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ /\n/ /____|##################################################################\n>## ############ ########## # ### ### ## ###### >\n#### ###### #### #### ###### ############## ###### >\n# #### ##### #### ########## ###### ### ####### >\n>\n> -\n\n\nand:\n\nDate: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 10:59:39 -0800 (PST)\nTo: [log in to unmask]\nFrom: [log in to unmask] (Natalie Bookchin)\nSubject: Re: [7-11] A word from the hostess.\nSender: [log in to unmask]\nReply-To: [log in to unmask]\n\nInterview\nNatalie: Do you want to know why there is no net art in california?\n\nNatalie: Um.. there isn't? Yes do tell me why?\n\nNatalie: I think its because we dont have time to waste on things that we\ncant hang in our beach condos.\n\nNatalie And of course we're also buzy walking on the beach, looking at the\nocean, napping under the palm trees, eating the best of pacific rim cooking\n\nNatalie: also we dont have the net yet hooked up in our cars yet\n\nNatalie: thats not true\n\nNatalie: yes it is.\n\n\n_________ _________\n| _____ | | _____ |\n| [_____] | | [_____] |\n| | | |\n| |========================| |\n| | [][][][][]| |\n| __ |_____________ [][][][][]| __ |\n| (__) | FM 7-11 ****| ========| (__) |\n| _____ |_____________| **VOL{} | _____ |\n| / \\ | | / \\ |\n|| ( ) ||________________________|| ( ) ||\n| \\_____/ | CD | TAPE | TAPE | AUX | \\_____/ |\n|_________|____|___1__|___2__|_____|_________|\n\nLET'S CRANK THE SOUND WAY UP\nLET'S DANCE AROUND THE GLOBE\nNO ONE STOP UNTIL WE ALL DROP\n\n[+ Make no mistake, \"net.art\" as a discussion topic has been oscillating\nconstantly since 97]:\n\nFrom: dd <[log in to unmask]>\nTo: \"[log in to unmask]\" <[log in to unmask]>,\n        \"[log in to unmask]\" <[log in to unmask]>\nSubject: RE: [7-11] the meaning of the inner circle\nDate: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 00:51:19 +0200\nX-Ms-Attachment: WINMAIL.DAT 0 00-00-1980 00:00\nSender: [log in to unmask]\nReply-To: [log in to unmask]\n\nEssential to art is the work of art.\nEssential to work of art are the spectators and the artist.\nEssential to both is what could be art produced by works today.\n\nThe form of every artwork could not full of meaning, but full of new\nartistic and dynamic values.\n\nWe can still talk/meet where it is possible to make an effort for another\nwork.\nwhere, spectators and artists are the essential faces who charges a living\nform. The more dispersed of the circle of both, generates the more concrete\nof the form, in its classical fond.\n\nNet by itself is not enough, it needs the art form, generated by what could\nbe the work.\nThe materials for the work could be everything. The form's life between\npeople, generates the materials, not the opposite.\n\n\nthe inner circle is an interesting phenomenon\nI have been contemplating on its meaning\njust today I found in some old nettime posting\na possible insight into what meaning is in general\nwhich seems very useful for the question:\nwhat is the meaning of an inner circle?\n\n\"The line of the argument, as it\nwas developed by Ernesto Laclau, goes as follows: He starts from the\nSaussurian assumption that meaning arises only within a system of\ndifferences. The possibility of a system of differences, however, depends\non the possibility of its limits - and these limits cannot belong to the\nside of the system, since in that case the limit was just another\ndifference and, hence, no limit. It is only as far as we perceive the\noutside of the system as a radical outside (and the limit therefore as an\nexclusionary limit) that we can speak of systematicity or meaning at all.\nAs a consequence the limits cannot be signified themselves, they can only\n'show themselves as the interruption or breakdown of the process of\nsignification' (Laclau 1996:37). The radicality of the radical outside\n(non-meaning) is not only the condition of possibility for the\nestablishment of a structure (meaning) it is at the same time the condition\nof impossibility of the establishment of a structure as closed totality\n(full meaning). The effect of the exclusionary limit, in other words, 'is\nthat it introduces an essential ambivalence within the system of\ndifferences constituted by those limits' (Laclau 1996:38).\"\n\nWhat is essential to net.art?\nWhere can we still talk/meet and where not?\nWho decides on what thinking who to prank?\nAre pranked inner circle?\n\n\nhappy days\n\n\nJ\n*\n\n\n\n\n\n\n-- \n| facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign \n| twitter.com/MezBreezeDesign\n| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mez_Breeze", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1310&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=18121", "from": "mez breeze", "date": "Fri, 4 Oct 2013 20:49:20 +1000", "author_name": "mez breeze" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: Net.art.history?", "content": "\nWow. That is amazing. I hope my English and my work have improved a bit over time.\n\nThis gives me an idea though. My own archive of 7-11 has vanished, as do my other mail archives of that time. Mez reminds me however that there are people who still have theirs. \n\nWould it be something to initiate a project, on online archive of mailing list archives? I for one really miss the early years of the Rhizome archives, from before it was called 'raw' (1997-2001). In fact, all of the Rhizome mailing list archives seem to have disappeared from their website. People who have (parts of) these could maybe be persuaded to share them. \n\nIt would be great if this would also include earlier art 'lists' or mailboxes, including those on the early net and in BBS times. In Tilman Baumgärtel's first book on net.art is an interview with Rena Tangens and Padeluun, for example. They ran a 'mailbox' named 'Bionic'. It would also be great to have the Artex 'list' content in there, run by Robert Adrian.\n\nhttp://www.medienkunstnetz.de/works/artex/\n\n\n\nBest wishes,\n\n\nJ\n*\n\n\n\n\nOn 4 okt. 2013, at 12:49, mez breeze wrote:\n\n> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Charlotte Frost <[log in to unmask]\n>> wrote:\n> \n>> Is this post one of the most iconic pieces of net art history?\n>> http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00094.html\n>> \n> \n> How about:\n> \n> From: \"Vuk Cosic\" <[log in to unmask]>\n> Organization: KUD France Preseren\n> To: [log in to unmask]\n> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:12:23 CET\n> Subject: Re: [7-11] backbone\n> Sender: [log in to unmask]\n> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]\n> \n> ho\n>> whats a net.art backbone?\n> good one,\n> i suppose it's a providers idea of 7-11\n> sorta\n> \n> v\n> \n> ######################################################\n> #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 071101010 07110101 0711.00100#\n> # #\n> # _____ _ _ _____ _ _ #\n> # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | #\n> # \\ / / /____| | | \\ / / /____| | | #\n> # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | #\n> # \\/ /_/ |_|_| \\/ /_/ |_|_| #\n> # #\n> # #\n> #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 071101010 07110101 0711.00100#\n> ########### http://www.ljudmila.org/7-11/ ############\n> \n> \n> and:\n> \n> X-Sender: [log in to unmask]\n> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 07:14:01 -0700\n> To: [log in to unmask]\n> From: nov 97 <[log in to unmask]>\n> Subject: [7-11] net art homework\n> Sender: [log in to unmask]\n> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]\n> \n> http://jupiter.ucsd.edu/~bookchin/finalProject.html\n> \n> \n> \n> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____|\n> \\/ /_/ |_|_| \\/ /_/ |_|_| # > # # > # # > #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 > # \\ /\n> / /____| | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # \\ / / /____| | | \\ / / /____| | | # >\n>>> Thank you for participating in 7-11 MAILING LIST > SUBSCRIBER\n> SATISFACTION SURVEY. > > > > >\n> ###################################################### >\n> #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 071101010 07110101 0711.00100# > # # > # _____ _ _\n> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n> \\/ /_/ |_|_| \\/ /_/ |_|_| # > # # > # # > #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00\n> 071101010 07110101 0711.00100# > ########### http://www.ljudmila.org/7-11/\n> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ /\n> / /____|##################################################################\n>> ## ############ ########## # ### ### ## ###### >\n> #### ###### #### #### ###### ############## ###### >\n> # #### ##### #### ########## ###### ### ####### >\n>> \n>> -\n> \n> [that link waybackmachined:\n> http://web.archive.org/web/20070206180348/http://jupiter.ucsd.edu/~bookchin/finalProject.html\n> ]\n> \n> Also:\n> \n> \n> \n> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 20:42:36 +0100\n> To: [log in to unmask]\n> From: [log in to unmask]\n> Subject: [7-11] Majordomo results: A word from the hostess.\n> Sender: [log in to unmask]\n> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]\n> \n> --\n> \n>>>>> who 7-11 [log in to unmask]\n> Members of list '7-11':\n> \n> [log in to unmask]\n> [log in to unmask]\n> [log in to unmask]\n> [log in to unmask]\n> [log in to unmask]\n> [log in to unmask]\n> [log in to unmask]\n> [log in to unmask]\n> [log in to unmask]\n> [log in to unmask]\n> [log in to unmask]\n> [log in to unmask]\n> [log in to unmask]\n> [log in to unmask]\n> [log in to unmask]\n> [log in to unmask]\n> [log in to unmask]\n> [log in to unmask]\n> [log in to unmask]\n> [log in to unmask]\n> [log in to unmask]\n> [log in to unmask]\n> [log in to unmask]\n> [log in to unmask]\n> \n> 24 subscribers\n> \n> \n> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____|\n> \\/ /_/ |_|_| \\/ /_/ |_|_| # > # # > # # > #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 > # \\ /\n> / /____| | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # \\ / / /____| | | \\ / / /____| | | # >\n>>> Thank you for participating in 7-11 MAILING LIST > SUBSCRIBER\n> SATISFACTION SURVEY. > > > > >\n> ###################################################### >\n> #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 071101010 07110101 0711.00100# > # # > # _____ _ _\n> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n> \\/ /_/ |_|_| \\/ /_/ |_|_| # > # # > # # > #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00\n> 071101010 07110101 0711.00100# > ########### http://www.ljudmila.org/7-11/\n> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ /\n> / /____|##################################################################\n>> ## ############ ########## # ### ### ## ###### >\n> #### ###### #### #### ###### ############## ###### >\n> # #### ##### #### ########## ###### ### ####### >\n>> \n>> -\n> \n> \n> and:\n> \n> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 10:59:39 -0800 (PST)\n> To: [log in to unmask]\n> From: [log in to unmask] (Natalie Bookchin)\n> Subject: Re: [7-11] A word from the hostess.\n> Sender: [log in to unmask]\n> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]\n> \n> Interview\n> Natalie: Do you want to know why there is no net art in california?\n> \n> Natalie: Um.. there isn't? Yes do tell me why?\n> \n> Natalie: I think its because we dont have time to waste on things that we\n> cant hang in our beach condos.\n> \n> Natalie And of course we're also buzy walking on the beach, looking at the\n> ocean, napping under the palm trees, eating the best of pacific rim cooking\n> \n> Natalie: also we dont have the net yet hooked up in our cars yet\n> \n> Natalie: thats not true\n> \n> Natalie: yes it is.\n> \n> \n> _________ _________\n> | _____ | | _____ |\n> | [_____] | | [_____] |\n> | | | |\n> | |========================| |\n> | | [][][][][]| |\n> | __ |_____________ [][][][][]| __ |\n> | (__) | FM 7-11 ****| ========| (__) |\n> | _____ |_____________| **VOL{} | _____ |\n> | / \\ | | / \\ |\n> || ( ) ||________________________|| ( ) ||\n> | \\_____/ | CD | TAPE | TAPE | AUX | \\_____/ |\n> |_________|____|___1__|___2__|_____|_________|\n> \n> LET'S CRANK THE SOUND WAY UP\n> LET'S DANCE AROUND THE GLOBE\n> NO ONE STOP UNTIL WE ALL DROP\n> \n> [+ Make no mistake, \"net.art\" as a discussion topic has been oscillating\n> constantly since 97]:\n> \n> From: dd <[log in to unmask]>\n> To: \"[log in to unmask]\" <[log in to unmask]>,\n> \"[log in to unmask]\" <[log in to unmask]>\n> Subject: RE: [7-11] the meaning of the inner circle\n> Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 00:51:19 +0200\n> X-Ms-Attachment: WINMAIL.DAT 0 00-00-1980 00:00\n> Sender: [log in to unmask]\n> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]\n> \n> Essential to art is the work of art.\n> Essential to work of art are the spectators and the artist.\n> Essential to both is what could be art produced by works today.\n> \n> The form of every artwork could not full of meaning, but full of new\n> artistic and dynamic values.\n> \n> We can still talk/meet where it is possible to make an effort for another\n> work.\n> where, spectators and artists are the essential faces who charges a living\n> form. The more dispersed of the circle of both, generates the more concrete\n> of the form, in its classical fond.\n> \n> Net by itself is not enough, it needs the art form, generated by what could\n> be the work.\n> The materials for the work could be everything. The form's life between\n> people, generates the materials, not the opposite.\n> \n> \n> the inner circle is an interesting phenomenon\n> I have been contemplating on its meaning\n> just today I found in some old nettime posting\n> a possible insight into what meaning is in general\n> which seems very useful for the question:\n> what is the meaning of an inner circle?\n> \n> \"The line of the argument, as it\n> was developed by Ernesto Laclau, goes as follows: He starts from the\n> Saussurian assumption that meaning arises only within a system of\n> differences. The possibility of a system of differences, however, depends\n> on the possibility of its limits - and these limits cannot belong to the\n> side of the system, since in that case the limit was just another\n> difference and, hence, no limit. It is only as far as we perceive the\n> outside of the system as a radical outside (and the limit therefore as an\n> exclusionary limit) that we can speak of systematicity or meaning at all.\n> As a consequence the limits cannot be signified themselves, they can only\n> 'show themselves as the interruption or breakdown of the process of\n> signification' (Laclau 1996:37). The radicality of the radical outside\n> (non-meaning) is not only the condition of possibility for the\n> establishment of a structure (meaning) it is at the same time the condition\n> of impossibility of the establishment of a structure as closed totality\n> (full meaning). The effect of the exclusionary limit, in other words, 'is\n> that it introduces an essential ambivalence within the system of\n> differences constituted by those limits' (Laclau 1996:38).\"\n> \n> What is essential to net.art?\n> Where can we still talk/meet and where not?\n> Who decides on what thinking who to prank?\n> Are pranked inner circle?\n> \n> \n> happy days\n> \n> \n> J\n> *\n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> -- \n> | facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign \n> | twitter.com/MezBreezeDesign\n> | en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mez_Breeze", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1310&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=19891", "from": "Josephine Bosma", "date": "Fri, 4 Oct 2013 13:33:17 +0200", "author_name": "Josephine Bosma" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: Net.art.history?", "content": "\nI have Rhizome posts going back to April 6, 1996 and Raw to October 3, 1999. Other lists I have posts for from the 1990's include A-Life, artnetweb, ASCII, Avatars, Consciousness Reframed, CU-SeeMe, DigiDance, DXR, Fine Art Forum, Infowar, ISEA-Forum, NetArtTrade, Nettime, Shock of the View, Thingist, Voti (which has a new book out documenting that discussion) and WebWalker. These are far from complete records, some are quite patchy - most are from extinct mail clients but I have simple text files of the posts. I'm happy to put them into a repository of some kind (doubt I want to go back through them though).\n\nbest\n\nSimon\n\n\nOn 4 Oct 2013, at 12:33, Josephine Bosma <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n\n> Wow. That is amazing. I hope my English and my work have improved a bit over time.\n> \n> This gives me an idea though. My own archive of 7-11 has vanished, as do my other mail archives of that time. Mez reminds me however that there are people who still have theirs. \n> \n> Would it be something to initiate a project, on online archive of mailing list archives? I for one really miss the early years of the Rhizome archives, from before it was called 'raw' (1997-2001). In fact, all of the Rhizome mailing list archives seem to have disappeared from their website. People who have (parts of) these could maybe be persuaded to share them. \n> \n> It would be great if this would also include earlier art 'lists' or mailboxes, including those on the early net and in BBS times. In Tilman Baumgärtel's first book on net.art is an interview with Rena Tangens and Padeluun, for example. They ran a 'mailbox' named 'Bionic'. It would also be great to have the Artex 'list' content in there, run by Robert Adrian.\n> \n> http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/works/artex/\n> \n> \n> \n> Best wishes,\n> \n> \n> J\n> *\n> \n> \n> \n> \n> On 4 okt. 2013, at 12:49, mez breeze wrote:\n> \n>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Charlotte Frost <[log in to unmask]\n>>> wrote:\n>> \n>>> Is this post one of the most iconic pieces of net art history?\n>>> http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00094.html\n>>> \n>> \n>> How about:\n>> \n>> From: \"Vuk Cosic\" <[log in to unmask]>\n>> Organization: KUD France Preseren\n>> To: [log in to unmask]\n>> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:12:23 CET\n>> Subject: Re: [7-11] backbone\n>> Sender: [log in to unmask]\n>> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]\n>> \n>> ho\n>>> whats a net.art backbone?\n>> good one,\n>> i suppose it's a providers idea of 7-11\n>> sorta\n>> \n>> v\n>> \n>> ######################################################\n>> #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 071101010 07110101 0711.00100#\n>> # #\n>> # _____ _ _ _____ _ _ #\n>> # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | #\n>> # \\ / / /____| | | \\ / / /____| | | #\n>> # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | #\n>> # \\/ /_/ |_|_| \\/ /_/ |_|_| #\n>> # #\n>> # #\n>> #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 071101010 07110101 0711.00100#\n>> ########### http://www.ljudmila.org/7-11/ ############\n>> \n>> \n>> and:\n>> \n>> X-Sender: [log in to unmask]\n>> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 07:14:01 -0700\n>> To: [log in to unmask]\n>> From: nov 97 <[log in to unmask]>\n>> Subject: [7-11] net art homework\n>> Sender: [log in to unmask]\n>> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]\n>> \n>> http://jupiter.ucsd.edu/~bookchin/finalProject.html\n>> \n>> \n>> \n>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____|\n>> \\/ /_/ |_|_| \\/ /_/ |_|_| # > # # > # # > #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 > # \\ /\n>> / /____| | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # \\ / / /____| | | \\ / / /____| | | # >\n>>>> Thank you for participating in 7-11 MAILING LIST > SUBSCRIBER\n>> SATISFACTION SURVEY. > > > > >\n>> ###################################################### >\n>> #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 071101010 07110101 0711.00100# > # # > # _____ _ _\n>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>> \\/ /_/ |_|_| \\/ /_/ |_|_| # > # # > # # > #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00\n>> 071101010 07110101 0711.00100# > ########### http://www.ljudmila.org/7-11/\n>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ /\n>> / /____|##################################################################\n>>> ## ############ ########## # ### ### ## ###### >\n>> #### ###### #### #### ###### ############## ###### >\n>> # #### ##### #### ########## ###### ### ####### >\n>>> \n>>> -\n>> \n>> [that link waybackmachined:\n>> http://web.archive.org/web/20070206180348/http://jupiter.ucsd.edu/~bookchin/finalProject.html\n>> ]\n>> \n>> Also:\n>> \n>> \n>> \n>> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 20:42:36 +0100\n>> To: [log in to unmask]\n>> From: [log in to unmask]\n>> Subject: [7-11] Majordomo results: A word from the hostess.\n>> Sender: [log in to unmask]\n>> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]\n>> \n>> --\n>> \n>>>>>> who 7-11 [log in to unmask]\n>> Members of list '7-11':\n>> \n>> [log in to unmask]\n>> [log in to unmask]\n>> [log in to unmask]\n>> [log in to unmask]\n>> [log in to unmask]\n>> [log in to unmask]\n>> [log in to unmask]\n>> [log in to unmask]\n>> [log in to unmask]\n>> [log in to unmask]\n>> [log in to unmask]\n>> [log in to unmask]\n>> [log in to unmask]\n>> [log in to unmask]\n>> [log in to unmask]\n>> [log in to unmask]\n>> [log in to unmask]\n>> [log in to unmask]\n>> [log in to unmask]\n>> [log in to unmask]\n>> [log in to unmask]\n>> [log in to unmask]\n>> [log in to unmask]\n>> [log in to unmask]\n>> \n>> 24 subscribers\n>> \n>> \n>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____|\n>> \\/ /_/ |_|_| \\/ /_/ |_|_| # > # # > # # > #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 > # \\ /\n>> / /____| | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # \\ / / /____| | | \\ / / /____| | | # >\n>>>> Thank you for participating in 7-11 MAILING LIST > SUBSCRIBER\n>> SATISFACTION SURVEY. > > > > >\n>> ###################################################### >\n>> #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 071101010 07110101 0711.00100# > # # > # _____ _ _\n>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>> \\/ /_/ |_|_| \\/ /_/ |_|_| # > # # > # # > #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00\n>> 071101010 07110101 0711.00100# > ########### http://www.ljudmila.org/7-11/\n>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ /\n>> / /____|##################################################################\n>>> ## ############ ########## # ### ### ## ###### >\n>> #### ###### #### #### ###### ############## ###### >\n>> # #### ##### #### ########## ###### ### ####### >\n>>> \n>>> -\n>> \n>> \n>> and:\n>> \n>> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 10:59:39 -0800 (PST)\n>> To: [log in to unmask]\n>> From: [log in to unmask] (Natalie Bookchin)\n>> Subject: Re: [7-11] A word from the hostess.\n>> Sender: [log in to unmask]\n>> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]\n>> \n>> Interview\n>> Natalie: Do you want to know why there is no net art in california?\n>> \n>> Natalie: Um.. there isn't? Yes do tell me why?\n>> \n>> Natalie: I think its because we dont have time to waste on things that we\n>> cant hang in our beach condos.\n>> \n>> Natalie And of course we're also buzy walking on the beach, looking at the\n>> ocean, napping under the palm trees, eating the best of pacific rim cooking\n>> \n>> Natalie: also we dont have the net yet hooked up in our cars yet\n>> \n>> Natalie: thats not true\n>> \n>> Natalie: yes it is.\n>> \n>> \n>> _________ _________\n>> | _____ | | _____ |\n>> | [_____] | | [_____] |\n>> | | | |\n>> | |========================| |\n>> | | [][][][][]| |\n>> | __ |_____________ [][][][][]| __ |\n>> | (__) | FM 7-11 ****| ========| (__) |\n>> | _____ |_____________| **VOL{} | _____ |\n>> | / \\ | | / \\ |\n>> || ( ) ||________________________|| ( ) ||\n>> | \\_____/ | CD | TAPE | TAPE | AUX | \\_____/ |\n>> |_________|____|___1__|___2__|_____|_________|\n>> \n>> LET'S CRANK THE SOUND WAY UP\n>> LET'S DANCE AROUND THE GLOBE\n>> NO ONE STOP UNTIL WE ALL DROP\n>> \n>> [+ Make no mistake, \"net.art\" as a discussion topic has been oscillating\n>> constantly since 97]:\n>> \n>> From: dd <[log in to unmask]>\n>> To: \"[log in to unmask]\" <[log in to unmask]>,\n>> \"[log in to unmask]\" <[log in to unmask]>\n>> Subject: RE: [7-11] the meaning of the inner circle\n>> Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 00:51:19 +0200\n>> X-Ms-Attachment: WINMAIL.DAT 0 00-00-1980 00:00\n>> Sender: [log in to unmask]\n>> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]\n>> \n>> Essential to art is the work of art.\n>> Essential to work of art are the spectators and the artist.\n>> Essential to both is what could be art produced by works today.\n>> \n>> The form of every artwork could not full of meaning, but full of new\n>> artistic and dynamic values.\n>> \n>> We can still talk/meet where it is possible to make an effort for another\n>> work.\n>> where, spectators and artists are the essential faces who charges a living\n>> form. The more dispersed of the circle of both, generates the more concrete\n>> of the form, in its classical fond.\n>> \n>> Net by itself is not enough, it needs the art form, generated by what could\n>> be the work.\n>> The materials for the work could be everything. The form's life between\n>> people, generates the materials, not the opposite.\n>> \n>> \n>> the inner circle is an interesting phenomenon\n>> I have been contemplating on its meaning\n>> just today I found in some old nettime posting\n>> a possible insight into what meaning is in general\n>> which seems very useful for the question:\n>> what is the meaning of an inner circle?\n>> \n>> \"The line of the argument, as it\n>> was developed by Ernesto Laclau, goes as follows: He starts from the\n>> Saussurian assumption that meaning arises only within a system of\n>> differences. The possibility of a system of differences, however, depends\n>> on the possibility of its limits - and these limits cannot belong to the\n>> side of the system, since in that case the limit was just another\n>> difference and, hence, no limit. It is only as far as we perceive the\n>> outside of the system as a radical outside (and the limit therefore as an\n>> exclusionary limit) that we can speak of systematicity or meaning at all.\n>> As a consequence the limits cannot be signified themselves, they can only\n>> 'show themselves as the interruption or breakdown of the process of\n>> signification' (Laclau 1996:37). The radicality of the radical outside\n>> (non-meaning) is not only the condition of possibility for the\n>> establishment of a structure (meaning) it is at the same time the condition\n>> of impossibility of the establishment of a structure as closed totality\n>> (full meaning). The effect of the exclusionary limit, in other words, 'is\n>> that it introduces an essential ambivalence within the system of\n>> differences constituted by those limits' (Laclau 1996:38).\"\n>> \n>> What is essential to net.art?\n>> Where can we still talk/meet and where not?\n>> Who decides on what thinking who to prank?\n>> Are pranked inner circle?\n>> \n>> \n>> happy days\n>> \n>> \n>> J\n>> *\n>> \n>> \n>> \n>> \n>> \n>> \n>> -- \n>> | facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign \n>> | twitter.com/MezBreezeDesign\n>> | en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mez_Breeze\n> \n\n\nSimon Biggs\n[log in to unmask]\nhttp://www.littlepig.org.uk @SimonBiggsUK http://amazon.com/author/simonbiggs\n\n[log in to unmask] Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh\nhttp://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/edinburgh-college-art/school-of-art/staff/staff?person_id=182&cw_xml=profile.php\nhttp://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/simon-biggs%285dfcaf34-56b1-4452-9100-aaab96935e31%29.html\n\nhttp://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.org.uk/ http://designinaction.com/\nMSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1310&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=20335", "from": "Simon Biggs", "date": "Fri, 4 Oct 2013 12:58:47 +0100", "author_name": "Simon Biggs" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: Net.art.history?", "content": "\nOn Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Josephine Bosma <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n\n> Wow. That is amazing. I hope my English and my work have improved a bit\n> over time.\n>\n\nI hope mine has as well, J! [Actually reading through the archives is an\nextremely interesting process - like watching the beginnings of the net art\nscene unfurl, close up in small spurts, then unfurl again - almost like a\npulse].\n\n\n>\n> This gives me an idea though. My own archive of 7-11 has vanished, as do\n> my other mail archives of that time. Mez reminds me however that there are\n> people who still have theirs.\n>\n\nI'm actually going through most of the output of early net art history\n[archives, documentation, catalogues] as part of an invitation from Duke\nUniversity to develop a comprehensive career archive of my works,\nassociated documents/referential material, correspondence and papers to be\nhoused there at the David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library.\nMakes for fascinating reading.\n\n\n> Would it be something to initiate a project, on online archive of mailing\n> list archives? I for one really miss the early years of the Rhizome\n> archives, from before it was called 'raw' (1997-2001). In fact, all of the\n> Rhizome mailing list archives seem to have disappeared from their website.\n> People who have (parts of) these could maybe be persuaded to share them.\n>\n\nI'd be more than happy to contribute. I've kept as much archival material\nas possible [even then I realised how crucial our contributions would\nbecome in terms of a historicising process]. I actually intend to collate\nthem all in book form at some stage, perhaps with an accompanying\n\"commentary\" of sorts...\n\n\n> It would be great if this would also include earlier art 'lists' or\n> mailboxes, including those on the early net and in BBS times. In Tilman\n> Baumgärtel's first book on net.art is an interview with Rena Tangens and\n> Padeluun, for example. They ran a 'mailbox' named 'Bionic'. It would also\n> be great to have the Artex 'list' content in there, run by Robert Adrian.\n>\n\nThere's a great set of emails of a Vuk Cosic interview by jodi that I came\nacross when trawling my archives. I'll see if I can ferret it out again and\npost it here.\n\nChunks,\nMez\n\n-- \n| facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign \n| twitter.com/MezBreezeDesign\n| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mez_Breeze", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1310&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=21701", "from": "mez breeze", "date": "Fri, 4 Oct 2013 22:28:54 +1000", "author_name": "mez breeze" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: Net.art.history?", "content": "\nHi Simon and everyone,\n\nThe Rhizome website currently has Rhizome mailing list posts back to\n1996 in digest format (under discuss, go to the last page of threads).\nThe addresses are unfortunately stripped, thanks to a poorly\nthought-out data migration a number of years ago. It's on our\nconservation to-do list to restore this properly, and of course it\nwould be fantastic to see a crowd-sourced version of this, too.\n\nAs part of our conservation program, Rhizome has also preserved a few\nnotable art BBSes, blogs and surf clubs. Several of these will be made\npublic as part of our forthcoming Artbase relaunch. From a technical\nstandpoint, the preservation process of the blogs and surf clubs was\nfairly straightforward (although the discussions with participants\nwere not necessarily so). The real technical problems arose with The\nThing - this article provides a bit of context.\nhttp://www.theverge.com/2013/3/15/4104494/the-thing-reloaded-bringing-bbs-networks-back-from-the-dead\n\nAlso, Charlotte, did you see the Art in America article in Sept about\nRhizome? Apologies if you've already covered that.\n\nOn Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n> I have Rhizome posts going back to April 6, 1996 and Raw to October 3, 1999. Other lists I have posts for from the 1990's include A-Life, artnetweb, ASCII, Avatars, Consciousness Reframed, CU-SeeMe, DigiDance, DXR, Fine Art Forum, Infowar, ISEA-Forum, NetArtTrade, Nettime, Shock of the View, Thingist, Voti (which has a new book out documenting that discussion) and WebWalker. These are far from complete records, some are quite patchy - most are from extinct mail clients but I have simple text files of the posts. I'm happy to put them into a repository of some kind (doubt I want to go back through them though).\n>\n> best\n>\n> Simon\n>\n>\n> On 4 Oct 2013, at 12:33, Josephine Bosma <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n>\n>> Wow. That is amazing. I hope my English and my work have improved a bit over time.\n>>\n>> This gives me an idea though. My own archive of 7-11 has vanished, as do my other mail archives of that time. Mez reminds me however that there are people who still have theirs.\n>>\n>> Would it be something to initiate a project, on online archive of mailing list archives? I for one really miss the early years of the Rhizome archives, from before it was called 'raw' (1997-2001). In fact, all of the Rhizome mailing list archives seem to have disappeared from their website. People who have (parts of) these could maybe be persuaded to share them.\n>>\n>> It would be great if this would also include earlier art 'lists' or mailboxes, including those on the early net and in BBS times. In Tilman Baumgärtel's first book on net.art is an interview with Rena Tangens and Padeluun, for example. They ran a 'mailbox' named 'Bionic'. It would also be great to have the Artex 'list' content in there, run by Robert Adrian.\n>>\n>> http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/works/artex/\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> Best wishes,\n>>\n>>\n>> J\n>> *\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> On 4 okt. 2013, at 12:49, mez breeze wrote:\n>>\n>>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Charlotte Frost <[log in to unmask]\n>>>> wrote:\n>>>\n>>>> Is this post one of the most iconic pieces of net art history?\n>>>> http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00094.html\n>>>>\n>>>\n>>> How about:\n>>>\n>>> From: \"Vuk Cosic\" <[log in to unmask]>\n>>> Organization: KUD France Preseren\n>>> To: [log in to unmask]\n>>> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:12:23 CET\n>>> Subject: Re: [7-11] backbone\n>>> Sender: [log in to unmask]\n>>> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]\n>>>\n>>> ho\n>>>> whats a net.art backbone?\n>>> good one,\n>>> i suppose it's a providers idea of 7-11\n>>> sorta\n>>>\n>>> v\n>>>\n>>> ######################################################\n>>> #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 071101010 07110101 0711.00100#\n>>> # #\n>>> # _____ _ _ _____ _ _ #\n>>> # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | #\n>>> # \\ / / /____| | | \\ / / /____| | | #\n>>> # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | #\n>>> # \\/ /_/ |_|_| \\/ /_/ |_|_| #\n>>> # #\n>>> # #\n>>> #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 071101010 07110101 0711.00100#\n>>> ########### http://www.ljudmila.org/7-11/ ############\n>>>\n>>>\n>>> and:\n>>>\n>>> X-Sender: [log in to unmask]\n>>> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 07:14:01 -0700\n>>> To: [log in to unmask]\n>>> From: nov 97 <[log in to unmask]>\n>>> Subject: [7-11] net art homework\n>>> Sender: [log in to unmask]\n>>> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]\n>>>\n>>> http://jupiter.ucsd.edu/~bookchin/finalProject.html\n>>>\n>>>\n>>>\n>>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n>>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n>>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n>>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____|\n>>> \\/ /_/ |_|_| \\/ /_/ |_|_| # > # # > # # > #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 > # \\ /\n>>> / /____| | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # \\ / / /____| | | \\ / / /____| | | # >\n>>>>> Thank you for participating in 7-11 MAILING LIST > SUBSCRIBER\n>>> SATISFACTION SURVEY. > > > > >\n>>> ###################################################### >\n>>> #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 071101010 07110101 0711.00100# > # # > # _____ _ _\n>>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n>>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>>> \\/ /_/ |_|_| \\/ /_/ |_|_| # > # # > # # > #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00\n>>> 071101010 07110101 0711.00100# > ########### http://www.ljudmila.org/7-11/\n>>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ /\n>>> / /____|##################################################################\n>>>> ## ############ ########## # ### ### ## ###### >\n>>> #### ###### #### #### ###### ############## ###### >\n>>> # #### ##### #### ########## ###### ### ####### >\n>>>>\n>>>> -\n>>>\n>>> [that link waybackmachined:\n>>> http://web.archive.org/web/20070206180348/http://jupiter.ucsd.edu/~bookchin/finalProject.html\n>>> ]\n>>>\n>>> Also:\n>>>\n>>>\n>>>\n>>> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 20:42:36 +0100\n>>> To: [log in to unmask]\n>>> From: [log in to unmask]\n>>> Subject: [7-11] Majordomo results: A word from the hostess.\n>>> Sender: [log in to unmask]\n>>> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]\n>>>\n>>> --\n>>>\n>>>>>>> who 7-11 [log in to unmask]\n>>> Members of list '7-11':\n>>>\n>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>>\n>>> 24 subscribers\n>>>\n>>>\n>>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n>>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n>>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n>>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____|\n>>> \\/ /_/ |_|_| \\/ /_/ |_|_| # > # # > # # > #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 > # \\ /\n>>> / /____| | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # \\ / / /____| | | \\ / / /____| | | # >\n>>>>> Thank you for participating in 7-11 MAILING LIST > SUBSCRIBER\n>>> SATISFACTION SURVEY. > > > > >\n>>> ###################################################### >\n>>> #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 071101010 07110101 0711.00100# > # # > # _____ _ _\n>>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n>>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>>> \\/ /_/ |_|_| \\/ /_/ |_|_| # > # # > # # > #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00\n>>> 071101010 07110101 0711.00100# > ########### http://www.ljudmila.org/7-11/\n>>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ /\n>>> / /____|##################################################################\n>>>> ## ############ ########## # ### ### ## ###### >\n>>> #### ###### #### #### ###### ############## ###### >\n>>> # #### ##### #### ########## ###### ### ####### >\n>>>>\n>>>> -\n>>>\n>>>\n>>> and:\n>>>\n>>> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 10:59:39 -0800 (PST)\n>>> To: [log in to unmask]\n>>> From: [log in to unmask] (Natalie Bookchin)\n>>> Subject: Re: [7-11] A word from the hostess.\n>>> Sender: [log in to unmask]\n>>> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]\n>>>\n>>> Interview\n>>> Natalie: Do you want to know why there is no net art in california?\n>>>\n>>> Natalie: Um.. there isn't? Yes do tell me why?\n>>>\n>>> Natalie: I think its because we dont have time to waste on things that we\n>>> cant hang in our beach condos.\n>>>\n>>> Natalie And of course we're also buzy walking on the beach, looking at the\n>>> ocean, napping under the palm trees, eating the best of pacific rim cooking\n>>>\n>>> Natalie: also we dont have the net yet hooked up in our cars yet\n>>>\n>>> Natalie: thats not true\n>>>\n>>> Natalie: yes it is.\n>>>\n>>>\n>>> _________ _________\n>>> | _____ | | _____ |\n>>> | [_____] | | [_____] |\n>>> | | | |\n>>> | |========================| |\n>>> | | [][][][][]| |\n>>> | __ |_____________ [][][][][]| __ |\n>>> | (__) | FM 7-11 ****| ========| (__) |\n>>> | _____ |_____________| **VOL{} | _____ |\n>>> | / \\ | | / \\ |\n>>> || ( ) ||________________________|| ( ) ||\n>>> | \\_____/ | CD | TAPE | TAPE | AUX | \\_____/ |\n>>> |_________|____|___1__|___2__|_____|_________|\n>>>\n>>> LET'S CRANK THE SOUND WAY UP\n>>> LET'S DANCE AROUND THE GLOBE\n>>> NO ONE STOP UNTIL WE ALL DROP\n>>>\n>>> [+ Make no mistake, \"net.art\" as a discussion topic has been oscillating\n>>> constantly since 97]:\n>>>\n>>> From: dd <[log in to unmask]>\n>>> To: \"[log in to unmask]\" <[log in to unmask]>,\n>>> \"[log in to unmask]\" <[log in to unmask]>\n>>> Subject: RE: [7-11] the meaning of the inner circle\n>>> Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 00:51:19 +0200\n>>> X-Ms-Attachment: WINMAIL.DAT 0 00-00-1980 00:00\n>>> Sender: [log in to unmask]\n>>> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]\n>>>\n>>> Essential to art is the work of art.\n>>> Essential to work of art are the spectators and the artist.\n>>> Essential to both is what could be art produced by works today.\n>>>\n>>> The form of every artwork could not full of meaning, but full of new\n>>> artistic and dynamic values.\n>>>\n>>> We can still talk/meet where it is possible to make an effort for another\n>>> work.\n>>> where, spectators and artists are the essential faces who charges a living\n>>> form. The more dispersed of the circle of both, generates the more concrete\n>>> of the form, in its classical fond.\n>>>\n>>> Net by itself is not enough, it needs the art form, generated by what could\n>>> be the work.\n>>> The materials for the work could be everything. The form's life between\n>>> people, generates the materials, not the opposite.\n>>>\n>>>\n>>> the inner circle is an interesting phenomenon\n>>> I have been contemplating on its meaning\n>>> just today I found in some old nettime posting\n>>> a possible insight into what meaning is in general\n>>> which seems very useful for the question:\n>>> what is the meaning of an inner circle?\n>>>\n>>> \"The line of the argument, as it\n>>> was developed by Ernesto Laclau, goes as follows: He starts from the\n>>> Saussurian assumption that meaning arises only within a system of\n>>> differences. The possibility of a system of differences, however, depends\n>>> on the possibility of its limits - and these limits cannot belong to the\n>>> side of the system, since in that case the limit was just another\n>>> difference and, hence, no limit. It is only as far as we perceive the\n>>> outside of the system as a radical outside (and the limit therefore as an\n>>> exclusionary limit) that we can speak of systematicity or meaning at all.\n>>> As a consequence the limits cannot be signified themselves, they can only\n>>> 'show themselves as the interruption or breakdown of the process of\n>>> signification' (Laclau 1996:37). The radicality of the radical outside\n>>> (non-meaning) is not only the condition of possibility for the\n>>> establishment of a structure (meaning) it is at the same time the condition\n>>> of impossibility of the establishment of a structure as closed totality\n>>> (full meaning). The effect of the exclusionary limit, in other words, 'is\n>>> that it introduces an essential ambivalence within the system of\n>>> differences constituted by those limits' (Laclau 1996:38).\"\n>>>\n>>> What is essential to net.art?\n>>> Where can we still talk/meet and where not?\n>>> Who decides on what thinking who to prank?\n>>> Are pranked inner circle?\n>>>\n>>>\n>>> happy days\n>>>\n>>>\n>>> J\n>>> *\n>>>\n>>>\n>>>\n>>>\n>>>\n>>>\n>>> --\n>>> | facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign \n>>> | twitter.com/MezBreezeDesign\n>>> | en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mez_Breeze\n>>\n>\n>\n> Simon Biggs\n> [log in to unmask]\n> http://www.littlepig.org.uk @SimonBiggsUK http://amazon.com/author/simonbiggs\n>\n> [log in to unmask] Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh\n> http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/edinburgh-college-art/school-of-art/staff/staff?person_id=182&cw_xml=profile.php\n> http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/simon-biggs%285dfcaf34-56b1-4452-9100-aaab96935e31%29.html\n>\n> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.org.uk/ http://designinaction.com/\n> MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php\n\n\n\n-- \nMichael Connor\n+1 646 620 7758", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1310&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=22332", "from": "Michael Connor", "date": "Fri, 4 Oct 2013 08:56:40 -0400", "author_name": "Michael Connor" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: Net.art.history?", "content": "\nOn 04/10/13 05:56 AM, Michael Connor wrote:\n> \n> As part of our conservation program, Rhizome has also preserved a few\n> notable art BBSes, blogs and surf clubs.\n\nThe inclusion of \"surf clubs\" in that list is another illustration of\nthe contingent and contested nature of much online art history. Their\nbaking in to it through institutional capture is a product of Rhizome's HR.\n\nI can't disagree with Curt, or myself, here, however much I loved the\nother work of some involved:\n\nhttp://rhizome.org/discuss/37549/\n\n[\"pampas grass\" refers to a then-current urgent legend about swingers'\nparties.]", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1310&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=31690", "from": "Rob Myers", "date": "Fri, 4 Oct 2013 15:46:49 -0700", "author_name": "Rob Myers" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: Net.art.history?", "content": "\n> \n> The inclusion of \"surf clubs\" in that list is another illustration of\n> the contingent and contested nature of much online art history. Their\n> baking in to it through institutional capture is a product of Rhizome's HR.\n\nI have looked at your link, and find a discussion in one artist community about whether what happens in another online artist community is interesting or not. To understand how artists have used the Internet, especially for discussion, communication, sharing, and collaboration one should not be picky when collecting data imo. \n\nI think it is especially interesting to include more recent examples in this thread, because they give us an idea of how online artist networks have developed. Besides that, one cannot really understand certain offline art practices (round and about Post-Internet Art) without looking at surf clubs.\n\n\nbest,\n\n\n\nJ\n*", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1310&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=38418", "from": "Josephine Bosma", "date": "Sat, 5 Oct 2013 11:26:05 +0200", "author_name": "Josephine Bosma" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: Net.art.history?", "content": "\nHi Michael and all,\n\nI also was always wondering why the list archives had been pulled. Why is it that the digest is archived, but the RAW isn't? The RAW list contains essential experiments and discussions and is such a miss!\n\nbest,\n\nJan Robert\n\nOn 4 okt. 2013, at 14:56, Michael Connor <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n\n> Hi Simon and everyone,\n> \n> The Rhizome website currently has Rhizome mailing list posts back to\n> 1996 in digest format (under discuss, go to the last page of threads).\n> The addresses are unfortunately stripped, thanks to a poorly\n> thought-out data migration a number of years ago. It's on our\n> conservation to-do list to restore this properly, and of course it\n> would be fantastic to see a crowd-sourced version of this, too.\n> \n> As part of our conservation program, Rhizome has also preserved a few\n> notable art BBSes, blogs and surf clubs. Several of these will be made\n> public as part of our forthcoming Artbase relaunch. From a technical\n> standpoint, the preservation process of the blogs and surf clubs was\n> fairly straightforward (although the discussions with participants\n> were not necessarily so). The real technical problems arose with The\n> Thing - this article provides a bit of context.\n> http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/15/4104494/the-thing-reloaded-bringing-bbs-networks-back-from-the-dead\n> \n> Also, Charlotte, did you see the Art in America article in Sept about\n> Rhizome? Apologies if you've already covered that.\n> \n> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n>> I have Rhizome posts going back to April 6, 1996 and Raw to October 3, 1999. Other lists I have posts for from the 1990's include A-Life, artnetweb, ASCII, Avatars, Consciousness Reframed, CU-SeeMe, DigiDance, DXR, Fine Art Forum, Infowar, ISEA-Forum, NetArtTrade, Nettime, Shock of the View, Thingist, Voti (which has a new book out documenting that discussion) and WebWalker. These are far from complete records, some are quite patchy - most are from extinct mail clients but I have simple text files of the posts. I'm happy to put them into a repository of some kind (doubt I want to go back through them though).\n>> \n>> best\n>> \n>> Simon\n>> \n>> \n>> On 4 Oct 2013, at 12:33, Josephine Bosma <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n>> \n>>> Wow. That is amazing. I hope my English and my work have improved a bit over time.\n>>> \n>>> This gives me an idea though. My own archive of 7-11 has vanished, as do my other mail archives of that time. Mez reminds me however that there are people who still have theirs.\n>>> \n>>> Would it be something to initiate a project, on online archive of mailing list archives? I for one really miss the early years of the Rhizome archives, from before it was called 'raw' (1997-2001). In fact, all of the Rhizome mailing list archives seem to have disappeared from their website. People who have (parts of) these could maybe be persuaded to share them.\n>>> \n>>> It would be great if this would also include earlier art 'lists' or mailboxes, including those on the early net and in BBS times. In Tilman Baumgärtel's first book on net.art is an interview with Rena Tangens and Padeluun, for example. They ran a 'mailbox' named 'Bionic'. It would also be great to have the Artex 'list' content in there, run by Robert Adrian.\n>>> \n>>> http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/works/artex/\n>>> \n>>> \n>>> \n>>> Best wishes,\n>>> \n>>> \n>>> J\n>>> *\n>>> \n>>> \n>>> \n>>> \n>>> On 4 okt. 2013, at 12:49, mez breeze wrote:\n>>> \n>>>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Charlotte Frost <[log in to unmask]\n>>>>> wrote:\n>>>> \n>>>>> Is this post one of the most iconic pieces of net art history?\n>>>>> http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00094.html\n>>>>> \n>>>> \n>>>> How about:\n>>>> \n>>>> From: \"Vuk Cosic\" <[log in to unmask]>\n>>>> Organization: KUD France Preseren\n>>>> To: [log in to unmask]\n>>>> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:12:23 CET\n>>>> Subject: Re: [7-11] backbone\n>>>> Sender: [log in to unmask]\n>>>> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]\n>>>> \n>>>> ho\n>>>>> whats a net.art backbone?\n>>>> good one,\n>>>> i suppose it's a providers idea of 7-11\n>>>> sorta\n>>>> \n>>>> v\n>>>> \n>>>> ######################################################\n>>>> #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 071101010 07110101 0711.00100#\n>>>> # #\n>>>> # _____ _ _ _____ _ _ #\n>>>> # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | #\n>>>> # \\ / / /____| | | \\ / / /____| | | #\n>>>> # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | #\n>>>> # \\/ /_/ |_|_| \\/ /_/ |_|_| #\n>>>> # #\n>>>> # #\n>>>> #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 071101010 07110101 0711.00100#\n>>>> ########### http://www.ljudmila.org/7-11/ ############\n>>>> \n>>>> \n>>>> and:\n>>>> \n>>>> X-Sender: [log in to unmask]\n>>>> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 07:14:01 -0700\n>>>> To: [log in to unmask]\n>>>> From: nov 97 <[log in to unmask]>\n>>>> Subject: [7-11] net art homework\n>>>> Sender: [log in to unmask]\n>>>> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]\n>>>> \n>>>> http://jupiter.ucsd.edu/~bookchin/finalProject.html\n>>>> \n>>>> \n>>>> \n>>>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n>>>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>>>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>>>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>>>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>>>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n>>>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n>>>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____|\n>>>> \\/ /_/ |_|_| \\/ /_/ |_|_| # > # # > # # > #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 > # \\ /\n>>>> / /____| | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # \\ / / /____| | | \\ / / /____| | | # >\n>>>>>> Thank you for participating in 7-11 MAILING LIST > SUBSCRIBER\n>>>> SATISFACTION SURVEY. > > > > >\n>>>> ###################################################### >\n>>>> #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 071101010 07110101 0711.00100# > # # > # _____ _ _\n>>>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n>>>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>>>> \\/ /_/ |_|_| \\/ /_/ |_|_| # > # # > # # > #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00\n>>>> 071101010 07110101 0711.00100# > ########### http://www.ljudmila.org/7-11/\n>>>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ /\n>>>> / /____|##################################################################\n>>>>> ## ############ ########## # ### ### ## ###### >\n>>>> #### ###### #### #### ###### ############## ###### >\n>>>> # #### ##### #### ########## ###### ### ####### >\n>>>>> \n>>>>> -\n>>>> \n>>>> [that link waybackmachined:\n>>>> http://web.archive.org/web/20070206180348/http://jupiter.ucsd.edu/~bookchin/finalProject.html\n>>>> ]\n>>>> \n>>>> Also:\n>>>> \n>>>> \n>>>> \n>>>> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 20:42:36 +0100\n>>>> To: [log in to unmask]\n>>>> From: [log in to unmask]\n>>>> Subject: [7-11] Majordomo results: A word from the hostess.\n>>>> Sender: [log in to unmask]\n>>>> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]\n>>>> \n>>>> --\n>>>> \n>>>>>>>> who 7-11 [log in to unmask]\n>>>> Members of list '7-11':\n>>>> \n>>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>>> \n>>>> 24 subscribers\n>>>> \n>>>> \n>>>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n>>>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>>>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>>>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>>>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>>>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n>>>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n>>>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____|\n>>>> \\/ /_/ |_|_| \\/ /_/ |_|_| # > # # > # # > #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 > # \\ /\n>>>> / /____| | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # \\ / / /____| | | \\ / / /____| | | # >\n>>>>>> Thank you for participating in 7-11 MAILING LIST > SUBSCRIBER\n>>>> SATISFACTION SURVEY. > > > > >\n>>>> ###################################################### >\n>>>> #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00 071101010 07110101 0711.00100# > # # > # _____ _ _\n>>>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ / / /____|\n>>>> | | \\ / / /____| | | # > # /_ _\\ / /_____| | | /_ _\\ / /_____| | | # > #\n>>>> \\/ /_/ |_|_| \\/ /_/ |_|_| # > # # > # # > #1.7.100(today=\"7-11.00\n>>>> 071101010 07110101 0711.00100# > ########### http://www.ljudmila.org/7-11/\n>>>> _____ _ _ # > # __/\\__ |___ | / / | __/\\__ |___ | / / | # > # \\ /\n>>>> / /____|##################################################################\n>>>>> ## ############ ########## # ### ### ## ###### >\n>>>> #### ###### #### #### ###### ############## ###### >\n>>>> # #### ##### #### ########## ###### ### ####### >\n>>>>> \n>>>>> -\n>>>> \n>>>> \n>>>> and:\n>>>> \n>>>> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 10:59:39 -0800 (PST)\n>>>> To: [log in to unmask]\n>>>> From: [log in to unmask] (Natalie Bookchin)\n>>>> Subject: Re: [7-11] A word from the hostess.\n>>>> Sender: [log in to unmask]\n>>>> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]\n>>>> \n>>>> Interview\n>>>> Natalie: Do you want to know why there is no net art in california?\n>>>> \n>>>> Natalie: Um.. there isn't? Yes do tell me why?\n>>>> \n>>>> Natalie: I think its because we dont have time to waste on things that we\n>>>> cant hang in our beach condos.\n>>>> \n>>>> Natalie And of course we're also buzy walking on the beach, looking at the\n>>>> ocean, napping under the palm trees, eating the best of pacific rim cooking\n>>>> \n>>>> Natalie: also we dont have the net yet hooked up in our cars yet\n>>>> \n>>>> Natalie: thats not true\n>>>> \n>>>> Natalie: yes it is.\n>>>> \n>>>> \n>>>> _________ _________\n>>>> | _____ | | _____ |\n>>>> | [_____] | | [_____] |\n>>>> | | | |\n>>>> | |========================| |\n>>>> | | [][][][][]| |\n>>>> | __ |_____________ [][][][][]| __ |\n>>>> | (__) | FM 7-11 ****| ========| (__) |\n>>>> | _____ |_____________| **VOL{} | _____ |\n>>>> | / \\ | | / \\ |\n>>>> || ( ) ||________________________|| ( ) ||\n>>>> | \\_____/ | CD | TAPE | TAPE | AUX | \\_____/ |\n>>>> |_________|____|___1__|___2__|_____|_________|\n>>>> \n>>>> LET'S CRANK THE SOUND WAY UP\n>>>> LET'S DANCE AROUND THE GLOBE\n>>>> NO ONE STOP UNTIL WE ALL DROP\n>>>> \n>>>> [+ Make no mistake, \"net.art\" as a discussion topic has been oscillating\n>>>> constantly since 97]:\n>>>> \n>>>> From: dd <[log in to unmask]>\n>>>> To: \"[log in to unmask]\" <[log in to unmask]>,\n>>>> \"[log in to unmask]\" <[log in to unmask]>\n>>>> Subject: RE: [7-11] the meaning of the inner circle\n>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 00:51:19 +0200\n>>>> X-Ms-Attachment: WINMAIL.DAT 0 00-00-1980 00:00\n>>>> Sender: [log in to unmask]\n>>>> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]\n>>>> \n>>>> Essential to art is the work of art.\n>>>> Essential to work of art are the spectators and the artist.\n>>>> Essential to both is what could be art produced by works today.\n>>>> \n>>>> The form of every artwork could not full of meaning, but full of new\n>>>> artistic and dynamic values.\n>>>> \n>>>> We can still talk/meet where it is possible to make an effort for another\n>>>> work.\n>>>> where, spectators and artists are the essential faces who charges a living\n>>>> form. The more dispersed of the circle of both, generates the more concrete\n>>>> of the form, in its classical fond.\n>>>> \n>>>> Net by itself is not enough, it needs the art form, generated by what could\n>>>> be the work.\n>>>> The materials for the work could be everything. The form's life between\n>>>> people, generates the materials, not the opposite.\n>>>> \n>>>> \n>>>> the inner circle is an interesting phenomenon\n>>>> I have been contemplating on its meaning\n>>>> just today I found in some old nettime posting\n>>>> a possible insight into what meaning is in general\n>>>> which seems very useful for the question:\n>>>> what is the meaning of an inner circle?\n>>>> \n>>>> \"The line of the argument, as it\n>>>> was developed by Ernesto Laclau, goes as follows: He starts from the\n>>>> Saussurian assumption that meaning arises only within a system of\n>>>> differences. The possibility of a system of differences, however, depends\n>>>> on the possibility of its limits - and these limits cannot belong to the\n>>>> side of the system, since in that case the limit was just another\n>>>> difference and, hence, no limit. It is only as far as we perceive the\n>>>> outside of the system as a radical outside (and the limit therefore as an\n>>>> exclusionary limit) that we can speak of systematicity or meaning at all.\n>>>> As a consequence the limits cannot be signified themselves, they can only\n>>>> 'show themselves as the interruption or breakdown of the process of\n>>>> signification' (Laclau 1996:37). The radicality of the radical outside\n>>>> (non-meaning) is not only the condition of possibility for the\n>>>> establishment of a structure (meaning) it is at the same time the condition\n>>>> of impossibility of the establishment of a structure as closed totality\n>>>> (full meaning). The effect of the exclusionary limit, in other words, 'is\n>>>> that it introduces an essential ambivalence within the system of\n>>>> differences constituted by those limits' (Laclau 1996:38).\"\n>>>> \n>>>> What is essential to net.art?\n>>>> Where can we still talk/meet and where not?\n>>>> Who decides on what thinking who to prank?\n>>>> Are pranked inner circle?\n>>>> \n>>>> \n>>>> happy days\n>>>> \n>>>> \n>>>> J\n>>>> *\n>>>> \n>>>> \n>>>> \n>>>> \n>>>> \n>>>> \n>>>> --\n>>>> | facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign \n>>>> | twitter.com/MezBreezeDesign\n>>>> | en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mez_Breeze\n>>> \n>> \n>> \n>> Simon Biggs\n>> [log in to unmask]\n>> http://www.littlepig.org.uk @SimonBiggsUK http://amazon.com/author/simonbiggs\n>> \n>> [log in to unmask] Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh\n>> http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/edinburgh-college-art/school-of-art/staff/staff?person_id=182&cw_xml=profile.php\n>> http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/simon-biggs%285dfcaf34-56b1-4452-9100-aaab96935e31%29.html\n>> \n>> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.org.uk/ http://designinaction.com/\n>> MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php\n> \n> \n> \n> -- \n> Michael Connor\n> +1 646 620 7758", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1310&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=41009", "from": "Jan Robert Leegte", "date": "Sat, 5 Oct 2013 18:16:15 +0200", "author_name": "Jan Robert Leegte" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: Net.art.history?", "content": "\nHi,\n\nOn Oct 4, 2013, at 2:56 PM, Michael Connor <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n\n> Hi Simon and everyone,\n> \n> The Rhizome website currently has Rhizome mailing list posts back to\n> 1996 in digest format (under discuss, go to the last page of threads).\n\nIn a somewhat similar vein, the 55 mailing list, used for exchanges relating to the real-time video software Nato.0+55 for Max/MSP is still online, including it's archive. Looking at it this morning, I see that a few mails seems to have gotten erroneously dated during a migration, as the list was first set up in the summer 2000 for a worksop at BEK, and then repurposed January 2001 when NN was kicked of the mailing list runner by Cycling'74. The archive is available here:\n\nhttps://mail.bek.no/mailman/listinfo/55\n\nCheers,\nTrond", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1310&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=45427", "from": "Trond Lossius", "date": "Sun, 6 Oct 2013 08:57:16 +0200", "author_name": "Trond Lossius" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: Net.art.history?", "content": "\n>\n>So the ruse seems healthy afoot! Or so I'd argue. The ease of this\n>misinterpretation is perhaps a strength of the medium. I think in being\n>able to be fluid and hard to define creates an intrigue both from a\n>material and cultural perspective that other mediums rarely approach (or\n>only approach through gimmicky redefinition: \"Painting as memorial,\n>photography as documentary, etc.\")\n\n>>>Although I agree with Josephine Bosma (on a lot of things actually, but\n>>>here specifically...) on the problem of trying to write a history of\n>>>net.art when the name itself obscures some of the facts, like you, I\n>>>have also always enjoyed the (as Joh Thomson put it of online art\n>>>discussion in general) 'wide recursive loop about what the nature of\n>>>net art was and what its relationship to the art establishment was…'\n>>>That is, I think the obfuscation of facts and the distinctly\n>>>net.art-ish way to appear to name net.art sets up the broader debate\n>>>within which net.art (if I can put it like this) placed itself. Just\n>>>last week I was teaching my students about Duchamp. They are first\n>>>years and the course I am teaching is an elective introduction to\n>>>contemporary art. I can talk about Duchamp until the cows come home,\n>>>but I find the best way to get students to understand the significance\n>>>of his actions is to try to *show* the discussion/debate Fountain (or\n>>>any other 'readymade') generates. Sometimes I try to theatrically\n>>>(cringe) stage the discussion with the help of props but this time I\n>>>did a bit of that (welcoming the class dustbin to centre stage) and\n>>>showing a video from the SmartHistory resource that presents the type\n>>>of conversation a Duchampian artwork might provoke. What I have always\n>>>felt the term 'net.art' did - as it was posted to Nettime in its own\n>>>art historical narrative by Alexei - was sample a little bit of this\n>>>Duchampian technique. It's a little bit of the art history book\n>>>equivalent of a urinal in an art gallery - at least that's how I've\n>>>always read it. On the other hand, it's such an 'inside joke' it\n>>>requires a lot of explaining to the uninitiated and I'm sure Vuk,\n>>>Alexei et al didn't mean to make art history less insular not more...\n\n>\n>In some ways the aftermath of net.art is more interesting to me as a\n>micro-art history then it's own moment. '\n\n>>>Oh yes, me too! \n\n>Afterwards artists themselves\n>struggled/strived for new terms and new definitions to distinguish their\n>work as unique or separate from something that might've been considered a\n>jibe. Terms like \"New Media\" \"Digital Art\" \"Transmedia\" \"post-internet\"\n>\"net-based\" \"interactive design\" starting cropping up all over the place -\n>almost as if these classification were apologetically compensating for the\n>ambiguity and openness of net.art. These efforts could be seen as measure\n>taken by artists to be more easily identifiable within a contemporary\n>canon, but also could be seen as efforts to carve out space/distance from\n>a\n>previous generation/moment.\n>\n>I want to say more, I guess, but maybe I'll wait for other topics this\n>month,\n>Looking fwd + very best\n\n>>>Looking forward to hearing more. Thank you!\n>\n>\n>On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Charlotte Frost\n><[log in to unmask]\n>> wrote:\n>\n>> Is this post one of the most iconic pieces of net art history?\n>> http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00094.html\n>>\n>> Certainly Rhizome's Rachel Greene believed the story and made it 'art\n>> history' in an article written for Artforum in 2000 she put: 'The term\n>> Œnet.art¹ is less a coinage than an accident, the result of a software\n>> glitch that occurred in December 1995, when Slovenian artist Vuk Cosic\n>> opened an anonymous e-mail only to find it had been mangled in\n>> transmission.\n>> Amid a morass of alphanumeric gibberish, Cosic could make out just one\n>> legible term ­ Œnet.art¹ ­ which he began using to talk about online art\n>> and\n>> communications'. Greene, R. (2000) ŒWeb Work: a history of internet\n>>art¹,\n>> Artforum, v.38 (no.9): 162\n>>\n>> But as other writers like Josephine Bosma have argued, the term\n>>'net.art'\n>> wasn't born this way at allŠ see her book Nettitudes:\n>>\n>> \n>>http://www.amazon.com/Nettitudes-Lets-Studies-Network-Cultures/dp/9056628\n>>003\n>>\n>> So was it a stunt? A work of net.art itself? And if it is a fusion of\n>> artwork and a tongue-in-cheek jibe at the discipline of art history\n>> (creating a kind of 'ism' to bait the art historians) what do we\n>>describe\n>> it\n>> as? A kind of new media new art history? Perhaps Rachel Greene didn't\n>> believe the story, but was also invested in crafting this red herring\n>>of a\n>> narrative? And whatever it was, how do we work with a post like this\n>>when\n>> studying the history of Internet art forms? How easy is it to\n>>misinterpret\n>> an list-based archive (or any social media-based archive)? To what\n>>extent\n>> do\n>> we have the license to interpret a list post or should we hunt down it's\n>> author and verify we've understood?\n>>\n>\n>\n>\n>-- \n>Nicholas O'Brien\n>\n>Visiting Faculty | Gallery Director\n>Department of Digital Art, Pratt Institute\n>doubleunderscore.net", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1310&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=54187", "from": "Charlotte Frost", "date": "Sun, 6 Oct 2013 19:25:01 +0800", "author_name": "Charlotte Frost" } ], "author_name": "Charlotte Frost", "list": "crumb" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "July Theme: Collecting New Media Art", "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", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=1002", "from": "Beryl Graham", "date": "Mon, 2 Jul 2012 08:33:45 +0000", "follow-up": [ { "id": 0, "subject": "July Theme: Collecting New Media Art", "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", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=1869", "from": "Beryl Graham", "date": "Wed, 4 Jul 2012 08:59:33 +0000", "author_name": "Beryl Graham", "list": "crumb" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art", "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", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=2728", "from": "Domenico Quaranta", "date": "Wed, 4 Jul 2012 16:43:17 +0200", "author_name": "Domenico Quaranta" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art", "content": "\nWe 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\nbest\n\nSimon\n\n\nOn 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\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-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=3330", "from": "Simon Biggs", "date": "Wed, 4 Jul 2012 15:53:00 +0100", "author_name": "Simon Biggs" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art", "content": "\nThanks! 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\nAs Beryl points out, artwork materializing the social raises questions regarding documenting / archiving / collecting it.\nC.\n\n________________________________________\nFrom: Curating digital art - www.crumbweb.org [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Simon Biggs [[log in to unmask]]\nSent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 10:53 AM\nTo: [log in to unmask]\nSubject: Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art\n\nWe 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\nbest\n\nSimon\n\n\nOn 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\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/\n", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=4085", "from": "Christiane Paul", "date": "Wed, 4 Jul 2012 15:36:57 +0000", "author_name": "Christiane Paul" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art", "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/", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=4990", "from": "Simon Biggs", "date": "Wed, 4 Jul 2012 17:02:19 +0100", "author_name": "Simon Biggs" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art", "content": "\nDear List,\n\nThanks Domenico, Christiane and Simon. \n\nSo, in addition to Domenico's useful 3 categories below, we have a couple of 'behaviours' which relate to issues for collecting, and cross over categories of media:\n\nCollecting participatory art.\nCollecting (documents of) 'live art'.\n\nAnd as Christiane point out in her excellent artnodes article, \"Relational Aesthetics Syndrome\" is an unfortunate condition wherein although those aware of new media can see clear crossovers between inherently participatory new media structures and non-new-media, those in the mainstream of contemporary art appear to be wearing one-way mirror sunglasses and can't see the crossovers. This is very visible in exclusions and exclusions from books and conferences, but I should say that some books do include both, such as \"The Do-it-Yourself Artwork\" edited by Anna Dezeuze, which include chapters from Tate's Catherine Wood about Robert Morris, and from yours truly.\n\nWhich leaves us with the more specific question of collecting participatory art - what examples are there from collecting participatory new media art that might help those wearing mirror shades? And, vice versa, re Robert Morris' Bodyspacemotionthings, the Tate did not collect his chipboard sculptures but did manage to reconstruct the whole exhibition anew (with less splinters) from information in the archives - might this be a way of sidestepping the red herring of broken websites - i.e. it might not matter if every bit of code is dead, as long as an artwork such as Learning To Love You More could be reconstructed anew to retain the participative intent of the artists??\n\nYours,\n\nberyl\n\n\n\nOn 4 Jul 2012, at 15:43, Domenico Quaranta wrote:\n\n> For the sake of clarity, I will try to divide the topic in three\n> different areas:\n> \n> 1. collecting new media art;\n> 2. collecting unstable media;\n> 3. collecting the digital.\n> \n> 1. Collecting new media art. New media art IS collected, by private\n> collections and institutions, as long as its cultural relevance is\n> accepted in the art market field. That is, not so much, because\n> galleries, art critics and curators didn't do a great job so far in\n> making this cultural relevance a widespread truth in the field of\n> contemporary art; and yet, enough to allow anybody to make a nice \"new\n> media art show\" with collected or collectable works provided\n> exclusively by private and institutional collectors or commercial\n> galleries. \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-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=5827", "from": "Beryl Graham", "date": "Fri, 6 Jul 2012 13:15:58 +0000", "author_name": "Beryl Graham" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art", "content": "\nThe concept of the \"The Do-it-Yourself Artwork\" is very interesting but in terms of participatory artworks the concept of \"Do it With Others\" (DIWO) is possibly more powerful, as practiced so well at Furtherfield. This is an arts initiative that exists with relations to both the new media and traditional art worlds but, being more concerned with the particularities of social context, works beyond the confines of either. This seems a more profound instance of relational creative practice than anything ever made under the rubric of relational aesthetics, which seems an internally conflicted, if not incoherent, concept anyway. I'm quite happy to see relational aesthetics fade from the fashion magazines (oops, I mean art magazines). The only problem is, given recent art fads, what it might be replaced with.\n\nbest\n\nSimon\n\n\nOn 6 Jul 2012, at 14:15, Beryl Graham wrote:\n\n> Dear List,\n> \n> Thanks Domenico, Christiane and Simon. \n> \n> So, in addition to Domenico's useful 3 categories below, we have a couple of 'behaviours' which relate to issues for collecting, and cross over categories of media:\n> \n> Collecting participatory art.\n> Collecting (documents of) 'live art'.\n> \n> And as Christiane point out in her excellent artnodes article, \"Relational Aesthetics Syndrome\" is an unfortunate condition wherein although those aware of new media can see clear crossovers between inherently participatory new media structures and non-new-media, those in the mainstream of contemporary art appear to be wearing one-way mirror sunglasses and can't see the crossovers. This is very visible in exclusions and exclusions from books and conferences, but I should say that some books do include both, such as \"The Do-it-Yourself Artwork\" edited by Anna Dezeuze, which include chapters from Tate's Catherine Wood about Robert Morris, and from yours truly.\n> \n> Which leaves us with the more specific question of collecting participatory art - what examples are there from collecting participatory new media art that might help those wearing mirror shades? And, vice versa, re Robert Morris' Bodyspacemotionthings, the Tate did not collect his chipboard sculptures but did manage to reconstruct the whole exhibition anew (with less splinters) from information in the archives - might this be a way of sidestepping the red herring of broken websites - i.e. it might not matter if every bit of code is dead, as long as an artwork such as Learning To Love You More could be reconstructed anew to retain the participative intent of the artists??\n> \n> Yours,\n> \n> beryl\n> \n> \n> \n> On 4 Jul 2012, at 15:43, Domenico Quaranta wrote:\n> \n>> For the sake of clarity, I will try to divide the topic in three\n>> different areas:\n>> \n>> 1. collecting new media art;\n>> 2. collecting unstable media;\n>> 3. collecting the digital.\n>> \n>> 1. Collecting new media art. New media art IS collected, by private\n>> collections and institutions, as long as its cultural relevance is\n>> accepted in the art market field. That is, not so much, because\n>> galleries, art critics and curators didn't do a great job so far in\n>> making this cultural relevance a widespread truth in the field of\n>> contemporary art; and yet, enough to allow anybody to make a nice \"new\n>> media art show\" with collected or collectable works provided\n>> exclusively by private and institutional collectors or commercial\n>> galleries. \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\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-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=6754", "from": "Simon Biggs", "date": "Fri, 6 Jul 2012 14:45:25 +0100", "author_name": "Simon Biggs" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art", "content": "\nDear List, \n\nas some of you might know, I don't have an academic background and really \nworked my way to market, promote and create an understanding on digital media. \nThank you for inviting me to the list, as I'm always curious to learn more. \nThe topic is crucial, because from my experience, if artists don't sell their \nfor they often don't do that well in their art either. There are exceptions \nfor that, button the opposite I have very often seen creating much more \nand better art after some decent sales! But this is another story. \n\nWhen I started to get interested and excited about digital art at the end of \nthe 1980s, I was confronted with a lack of understanding in the professional\nfield, which means: no galleries, curators didn't know about the history or the \ncontemporary situation of this artists working with the computer, museum people \nwere not interested and of course it was difficult to find a customer. My first \ngallery in London with a partner for three years from 1999-2002 hardly sold anything. \n\nI was forced to be creative about and decided on one side to take a realistic approach, \nmeaning mostly printed work or plotter drawings, that I offered in the gallery and at the same \ntime to raise the understanding by starting the online museum [DAM] in 2000. \nSince then it has worked continuously better. Since 2003 I make my living only by selling \ndigital art in all it's formats: prints, plotter drawings, software art, 3d prints, animations \netc. If it would have been for the money, it was a mistake, but that was not the prime \nmotivation. \n\nFrom the beginning I have approached my customers on the basis, that first of all: \nthis is the future in art, second, forget about the old concepts of buying a painting \nand taking it home. Instead consider your acquisition a contribution to the artist, \nso he can work better and create better art. This kind of philosophy of marketing \nhas gradually been more fruitful and it changes their views slowly. They still love the \ngreat discovery of an early drawing by Molnar in great condition, but...it is working on\nthem. All my major collectors have started to collect through me, my activities. \nNot that there are many, but it shows as well, that they were not hooked on before. \nThat made it easier. In the meantime bigger collectors are getting interested as well, \nwhere digital media is just a part of their collection. But these are not the hardcore ones. \n\nI'm as well convinced about what Domenico said, that an aspect of the market will change \ntowards that, copying software art is easy and it is available everywhere, where you find a \ncomputer. Our culture might become more nomad and we might work as well in a different \nway in the future, more flexible. For this our digital files will be a perfect companion. \nSwitch on any screen in a place and look at your personal selection of art. \n\nSo, as a conclusion, the art market will not change, as some people will always go for \nthe investment aspect of buying art. But if you start to understand the concept of relational \nart, then you know where it's happening and life will be much richer. \n\nHave a nice weekend and apologies for some lack of precise enough English. \n\nWolf Lieser\n\n\n\n\n\n[DAM]Berlin \"Summer Splash\", Eelco Brand, Vuk Cosic, Gerhard Mantz, Evan Roth, Marius Watz\nPreview: Friday 11th May 7 - 9 PM 12.5. - 14.7.2012\n[DAM]Cologne closed due to relocating. \n\nDAM Projects GmbH\nNeue Location in Berlin: Neue Jakobstr.6/7, D-10179 Berlin, Phone: +49 30 28098135\nGF Wolfgang Lieser HRB 90873 Charlottenburg DE 161744610\nwww.dam.org\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOn Jul 6, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Simon Biggs wrote:\n\n> The concept of the \"The Do-it-Yourself Artwork\" is very interesting but in terms of participatory artworks the concept of \"Do it With Others\" (DIWO) is possibly more powerful, as practiced so well at Furtherfield. This is an arts initiative that exists with relations to both the new media and traditional art worlds but, being more concerned with the particularities of social context, works beyond the confines of either. This seems a more profound instance of relational creative practice than anything ever made under the rubric of relational aesthetics, which seems an internally conflicted, if not incoherent, concept anyway. I'm quite happy to see relational aesthetics fade from the fashion magazines (oops, I mean art magazines). The only problem is, given recent art fads, what it might be replaced with.\n> \n> best\n> \n> Simon\n> \n> \n> On 6 Jul 2012, at 14:15, Beryl Graham wrote:\n> \n>> Dear List,\n>> \n>> Thanks Domenico, Christiane and Simon. \n>> \n>> So, in addition to Domenico's useful 3 categories below, we have a couple of 'behaviours' which relate to issues for collecting, and cross over categories of media:\n>> \n>> Collecting participatory art.\n>> Collecting (documents of) 'live art'.\n>> \n>> And as Christiane point out in her excellent artnodes article, \"Relational Aesthetics Syndrome\" is an unfortunate condition wherein although those aware of new media can see clear crossovers between inherently participatory new media structures and non-new-media, those in the mainstream of contemporary art appear to be wearing one-way mirror sunglasses and can't see the crossovers. This is very visible in exclusions and exclusions from books and conferences, but I should say that some books do include both, such as \"The Do-it-Yourself Artwork\" edited by Anna Dezeuze, which include chapters from Tate's Catherine Wood about Robert Morris, and from yours truly.\n>> \n>> Which leaves us with the more specific question of collecting participatory art - what examples are there from collecting participatory new media art that might help those wearing mirror shades? And, vice versa, re Robert Morris' Bodyspacemotionthings, the Tate did not collect his chipboard sculptures but did manage to reconstruct the whole exhibition anew (with less splinters) from information in the archives - might this be a way of sidestepping the red herring of broken websites - i.e. it might not matter if every bit of code is dead, as long as an artwork such as Learning To Love You More could be reconstructed anew to retain the participative intent of the artists??\n>> \n>> Yours,\n>> \n>> beryl\n>> \n>> \n>> \n>> On 4 Jul 2012, at 15:43, Domenico Quaranta wrote:\n>> \n>>> For the sake of clarity, I will try to divide the topic in three\n>>> different areas:\n>>> \n>>> 1. collecting new media art;\n>>> 2. collecting unstable media;\n>>> 3. collecting the digital.\n>>> \n>>> 1. Collecting new media art. New media art IS collected, by private\n>>> collections and institutions, as long as its cultural relevance is\n>>> accepted in the art market field. That is, not so much, because\n>>> galleries, art critics and curators didn't do a great job so far in\n>>> making this cultural relevance a widespread truth in the field of\n>>> contemporary art; and yet, enough to allow anybody to make a nice \"new\n>>> media art show\" with collected or collectable works provided\n>>> exclusively by private and institutional collectors or commercial\n>>> galleries. \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/", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=7604", "from": "\"W.Lieser [DAM] Berlin|Cologne\"", "date": "Fri, 6 Jul 2012 17:33:41 +0200", "author_name": "\"W.Lieser [DAM] Berlin|Cologne\"" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art", "content": "\nDear List,\n\nI'm happy to say we have one more invited respondent, so carry on!\n\n\nPau Waelder is an independent art critic and curator, researcher in new media art. PhD Candidate in Information and Knowledge Society and consulting lecturer in Art and Digital Culture at the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC). Editor of the Media Art section in art.es magazine (Spain) and contributing writer for ETC magazine (Canada). www.pauwaelder.com", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=8373", "from": "Beryl Graham", "date": "Mon, 9 Jul 2012 19:28:15 +0000", "author_name": "Beryl Graham" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "July Theme: Collecting New Media Art", "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", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=9034", "from": "Pau Waelder Laso", "date": "Tue, 10 Jul 2012 18:35:50 +0200", "author_name": "Pau Waelder Laso" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art", "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", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=9587", "from": "Sónia Pina", "date": "Tue, 10 Jul 2012 18:08:36 +0100", "author_name": "Sónia Pina" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "July Theme: Collecting New Media Art", "content": "\nThe Tate have a section titled \"Net Art\" in the acquisitions policy (at\nleast since November 2011)\n\n3.8 Net Art\nTate commissions Net Art for its website and also seeks to acquire works of\nart\nthat use networked or non-networked digital technologies for creation,\npresentation and distribution, or that critique or comment on the same\ndigital\ntechnologies\nhttp://www.tate.org.uk/download/file/fid/11111", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=10417", "from": "Martin John Callanan", "date": "Tue, 10 Jul 2012 23:05:10 +0100", "author_name": "Martin John Callanan" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art", "content": "\nNeglecting for a moment the information that Martin's email communicates\nand which is valuable for the current discussion - - -\n\nThe quote from the Tate's policy gave rise to certain thoughts - would the\ntwo following statements be comparable to the Tate policy:\n\nI.\nFate commissions Bio Art for its collection in vitro or in vivo and also\nseeks to acquire works that use bio technology for creation,presentation\nand distribution (in vivo), or that critique or comment on the same bio\ntechnology.\n\nII.\nState commissions sculptures that use Kalatschnikows (or AK47) or similar\ntechnology and also seeks to acquire works of art that use mechanical or\nelectronic technology of such weaponry for creation,presentation and\ndistribution or that critique or comment on said technology.\n\n\n(I assume, no comments needed - since the statements may seem absurd, an\ninsult or evoking thoughts - depending on one's position.)\n\n\n\n\nThe real question is:\n\nHow can an institution be so blunt to put a statement like \"that critique\nor comment on the same\ndigital technologies\" in their policy - I read the whole document about\nthe other areas of collections and there was no other such\ncontent-directed statement anywhere.\n\nMost certainly curatorial decisions are indeed always directed by the\ninterest (aesthetic, political etc) of the curator and/or the institution\n- no question at all.\n\nBut is the goal of acceptance to the traditional arts world and their\ninfluence and economic power reached when such a statement is introduced -\na statement which I would see as absurd as the ones I created above.\n\n\nJohannes (no - not THAT Johannes - the other one)\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOn 7/10/12 6:05 PM, \"Martin John Callanan\" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n\n>The Tate have a section titled \"Net Art\" in the acquisitions policy (at\n>least since November 2011)\n>\n>3.8 Net Art\n>Tate commissions Net Art for its website and also seeks to acquire works\n>of\n>art\n>that use networked or non-networked digital technologies for creation,\n>presentation and distribution, or that critique or comment on the same\n>digital\n>technologies\n>http://www.tate.org.uk/download/file/fid/11111", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=11065", "from": "\"Goebel, Johannes\"", "date": "Wed, 11 Jul 2012 01:16:46 +0000", "author_name": "\"Goebel, Johannes\"" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art", "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", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=11766", "from": "Domenico Quaranta", "date": "Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:44:25 +0200", "author_name": "Domenico Quaranta" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art", "content": "\nThe Tate document reveals the ingrained and, quite frankly, ridiculous nature of the museum and the art world. These characteristics have been apparent for a long time and driven many an artist (and others) to do what they have done to try and overturn the apple cart. Sometimes people succeed, but the cart always seems to do a 360 degree roll and come back up on its wheels again. Perhaps the real trick is to remove the wheels - or blow up the cart? I'm not sure of what the solution is. I've probably spent my life more as part of the problem than as contributing to a solution. Probably all of us have...\n\nbest\n\nSimon\n\n\nOn 11 Jul 2012, at 02:16, Goebel, Johannes wrote:\n\n> Neglecting for a moment the information that Martin's email communicates\n> and which is valuable for the current discussion - - -\n> \n> The quote from the Tate's policy gave rise to certain thoughts - would the\n> two following statements be comparable to the Tate policy:\n> \n> I.\n> Fate commissions Bio Art for its collection in vitro or in vivo and also\n> seeks to acquire works that use bio technology for creation,presentation\n> and distribution (in vivo), or that critique or comment on the same bio\n> technology.\n> \n> II.\n> State commissions sculptures that use Kalatschnikows (or AK47) or similar\n> technology and also seeks to acquire works of art that use mechanical or\n> electronic technology of such weaponry for creation,presentation and\n> distribution or that critique or comment on said technology.\n> \n> \n> (I assume, no comments needed - since the statements may seem absurd, an\n> insult or evoking thoughts - depending on one's position.)\n> \n> \n> \n> \n> The real question is:\n> \n> How can an institution be so blunt to put a statement like \"that critique\n> or comment on the same\n> digital technologies\" in their policy - I read the whole document about\n> the other areas of collections and there was no other such\n> content-directed statement anywhere.\n> \n> Most certainly curatorial decisions are indeed always directed by the\n> interest (aesthetic, political etc) of the curator and/or the institution\n> - no question at all.\n> \n> But is the goal of acceptance to the traditional arts world and their\n> influence and economic power reached when such a statement is introduced -\n> a statement which I would see as absurd as the ones I created above.\n> \n> \n> Johannes (no - not THAT Johannes - the other one)\n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> On 7/10/12 6:05 PM, \"Martin John Callanan\" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n> \n>> The Tate have a section titled \"Net Art\" in the acquisitions policy (at\n>> least since November 2011)\n>> \n>> 3.8 Net Art\n>> Tate commissions Net Art for its website and also seeks to acquire works\n>> of\n>> art\n>> that use networked or non-networked digital technologies for creation,\n>> presentation and distribution, or that critique or comment on the same\n>> digital\n>> technologies\n>> http://www.tate.org.uk/download/file/fid/11111\n> \n\n\nSimon Biggs\n[log in to unmask] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk\n\n[log in to unmask] Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh\nhttp://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/\nMSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices\nhttp://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=12590", "from": "Simon Biggs", "date": "Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:15:26 +0100", "author_name": "Simon Biggs" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art", "content": "\nDear List, \n\nThank you for raising the topic, it has been subject of many talks and discussions in our studio over the last years. \nI was touched by Wolf’s remark: \n\n> The topic is crucial, because from my experience, if artists don't sell their \n> for they often don't do that well in their art either. There are exceptions \n> for that, button the opposite I have very often seen creating much more \n> and better art after some decent sales! \n\n\nFrom my experience this can be really true. At some point we really got the desire to sell our work. Not primarily for the money, but we thought it would be a relevant way to build a relation with our audiences that we started to miss more and more doing. We decided to do some experiments with selling work, mainly to find out what it feels like to sell. This was more or less a form of “sketch selling”. http://souvenirzeeland.wordpress.com/. With our first small successes, we experienced it as being a big motivation and an expression of trust, when somebody decided to buy our work or even considered doing so.\nFrom our artist perspective, especially when working in media arts, thinking about selling our work has become an integrated part of our practice and we feel it to be relevant, regardless if it is successful or not. As part of this we decided to start collecting ourselves, on a small scale, for we realized that it would be difficult to think about selling if we had no clue what it feels like to be a collector. \nAn other remark Wolf made also expresses a relevant angle: \n\n> \n> From the beginning I have approached my customers on the basis, that first of all: \n> this is the future in art, second, forget about the old concepts of buying a painting \n> and taking it home. Instead consider your acquisition a contribution to the artist, \n> so he can work better and create better art. This kind of philosophy of marketing \n> has gradually been more fruitful and it changes their views slowly. \n\n\nBased on likewise thoughts, we made it custom to, whenever an academic PhD student asks if he or she can use images of our work in their thesis, (and they have never any money to pay royalties) we give permission under the condition that they promise us to buy a work of art with the first money they earn, based on the grade involved. The work does not have to be ours, as long as it is from one of the artists that truly inspired them. We don't need to know what work was picked, but at some point we want to receive an email stating that they did pay their debt to us by buying a work of art. The students react often pleased, encouraged, playful..... (but so far we never received the thrilling email stating \"YES WE BOUGHT !!!!\" . )\n\nAnyway, this our contribution to seed the idea of buying media art in general, but also of collecting because the artist is important to the collector as a source of inspiration rather than wanting to posses an object of value and beauty.\n\nBest, \nEsther Polak \n\nwww.polakvanbekkum.com\n ", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=13327", "from": "Esther Polak", "date": "Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:55:32 +0200", "author_name": "Esther Polak" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art", "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> ", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=14710", "from": "Pau Waelder Laso", "date": "Sat, 14 Jul 2012 13:04:56 +0200", "author_name": "Pau Waelder Laso" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art", "content": "\nThese questions regarding new media vs mainstream art have been rehearsed many times and have a number of answers. The argument for new media practice to be considered as part of mainstream art is compelling as ghettoisation does nobody favours and such reconciliation would help new media practice escapes its own discursive limitations (this assumes the art world is interested - it might not be, due to its own limitations).\n\nHowever, the argument for sustaining difference is also compelling. Many new media artists have chosen to work with new media because of their disaffection or distress with how contemporary art is developed, produced, consumed and commodified. For many the constant reinvention and instability that are the characteristics of new media (where the means of making and dissemination are always under review, shifting with changing technical substrates and socio/conceptual frameworks) is the main attraction - and for these artists the discourses of the mainstream artworld are anathema. For some artists this shifting context is the point of their work, whilst for the artworld such a technical focus is of little interest. So, why bother trying to build bridges? Michael Naimark discusses this in depth in his essay 'First Word Art / Last Word Art' ( http://www.naimark.net/writing/firstword.html ) and I also consider it within the larger context of a discussion about the relationship between creative practice and practice based research in 'New Media: The First Word in Art' ( http://www.littlepig.org.uk/texts/practiceresearch.pdf ).\n\nI've spent my life as an artist working with new media and have oscillated between these two positions. I'm no nearer knowing which is the better strategy but perhaps having the capacity to oscillate is the point - even if such a schizoid approach can be exhausting it can also be strangely liberating.\n\nbest\n\nSimon\n\n\nOn 14 Jul 2012, at 12:04, Pau Waelder Laso wrote:\n\n> Finally, and following your statement: \"I'm pretty sure new media art will never achieve it as a whole, and under this definition\", I think that this is quite possible and that we may start to think about getting rid of this label. The question \"why do we call it new media art and not just art?\" has come up frequently in talks with artists and in my opinion we are kind of trapped in this self-made ghetto that is at the same time quite comfortable because it creates a separate art world in which artists, curators, researchers, etc. can gain recognition quicker (within the boundaries of this particular art world).\n> \n\n\nSimon Biggs\n[log in to unmask] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk\n\n[log in to unmask] Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh\nhttp://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/\nMSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices\nhttp://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=15461", "from": "Simon Biggs", "date": "Sat, 14 Jul 2012 12:44:44 +0100", "author_name": "Simon Biggs" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "July Theme: Collecting New Media Art", "content": "\nComing from the viewpoint of an artist, and teaching Fine Art at\nundergraduate and graduate levels, I use all kinds of tools, and see\nstudents and all the artists around me using a whole range of tools.\nSometimes these are printing presses, sometimes websites, sometimes\nelectronics, sometimes cutting edge science, sometimes obsolete\ntechnologies. We embrace the whole range of tools humankind has\ninvented, or mash together new tools. What these tools have in common\nis relevance to the idea. We use tools to express an idea in the most\nelegant way.\n\nI see art made with tools which the old guard term \"new media\" all\naround: in public galleries, commercial galleries and art fairs,\ninstitutions, art schools, private collections, public collections and\nartists using such tools teach in art schools, and have high profile\nresidencies and public commissions. It may not always be the artworks\nI consider the best or most relevant. But it is there. In plain and\nvisible sight.\n\n\n\n\nMartin John Callanan\nhttp://greyisgood.eu", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=16097", "from": "Martin John Callanan", "date": "Sun, 15 Jul 2012 22:07:16 +0200", "author_name": "Martin John Callanan" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art", "content": "\nHi there,\n\nA very interesting conversation, just wanted to add a thought.\n\n@Paul Waelder, just as I was reading your initial comments about Sedition\nart I discovered today their one of their first real digital artwork, a\ndata visualisation piece by Aaron Koblin\nhttp://www.seditionart.com/aaron_koblin/flight_patterns\nThis opens a whole new world to that platform. A world of \"virtual art\"\nthat has been created using code and is viewed on the screen. I think the\ninteresting point of this piece is the link to the viewer as it represents\nreal world data. I would be interested to know what you think of this piece\nin relation to new media art.\n\nRegards,\n\nEstela\n\n-- \nDirector\n+44 (0) 7717303537\n--\nAlpha-ville\nNetil House, Hackney\n\nInternational Festival of Post-Digital Culture\n*Innovation, Creativity and Forward Thinking*\nhttp://www.alpha-ville.co.uk\n\n\nOn Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]>wrote:\n\n> These questions regarding new media vs mainstream art have been rehearsed\n> many times and have a number of answers. The argument for new media\n> practice to be considered as part of mainstream art is compelling as\n> ghettoisation does nobody favours and such reconciliation would help new\n> media practice escapes its own discursive limitations (this assumes the art\n> world is interested - it might not be, due to its own limitations).\n>\n> However, the argument for sustaining difference is also compelling. Many\n> new media artists have chosen to work with new media because of their\n> disaffection or distress with how contemporary art is developed, produced,\n> consumed and commodified. For many the constant reinvention and instability\n> that are the characteristics of new media (where the means of making and\n> dissemination are always under review, shifting with changing technical\n> substrates and socio/conceptual frameworks) is the main attraction - and\n> for these artists the discourses of the mainstream artworld are anathema.\n> For some artists this shifting context is the point of their work, whilst\n> for the artworld such a technical focus is of little interest. So, why\n> bother trying to build bridges? Michael Naimark discusses this in depth in\n> his essay 'First Word Art / Last Word Art' (\n> http://www.naimark.net/writing/firstword.html ) and I also consider it\n> within the larger context of a discussion about the relationship between\n> creative practice and practice based research in 'New Media: The First Word\n> in Art' ( http://www.littlepig.org.uk/texts/practiceresearch.pdf ).\n>\n> I've spent my life as an artist working with new media and have oscillated\n> between these two positions. I'm no nearer knowing which is the better\n> strategy but perhaps having the capacity to oscillate is the point - even\n> if such a schizoid approach can be exhausting it can also be strangely\n> liberating.\n>\n> best\n>\n> Simon\n>\n>\n> On 14 Jul 2012, at 12:04, Pau Waelder Laso wrote:\n>\n> > Finally, and following your statement: \"I'm pretty sure new media art\n> will never achieve it as a whole, and under this definition\", I think that\n> this is quite possible and that we may start to think about getting rid of\n> this label. The question \"why do we call it new media art and not just\n> art?\" has come up frequently in talks with artists and in my opinion we are\n> kind of trapped in this self-made ghetto that is at the same time quite\n> comfortable because it creates a separate art world in which artists,\n> curators, researchers, etc. can gain recognition quicker (within the\n> boundaries of this particular art world).\n> >\n>\n>\n> Simon Biggs\n> [log in to unmask] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype:\n> simonbiggsuk\n>\n> [log in to unmask] Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh\n> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/\n> http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/\n> MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices\n> http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php\n>", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=22598", "from": "Estela Oliva", "date": "Fri, 20 Jul 2012 00:40:11 +0100", "author_name": "Estela Oliva" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art", "content": "\nThe Koblin piece is beautiful and reveals something about commercial flight paths that is not ordinarily visible. However, I have some problems with it. Firstly, it reveals little, if anything, about the impact (good, bad or indifferent) commercial flight has on the planet and society. Secondly, it would be more interesting if non-commercial flights were factored in - military traffic, of course, but also under-the-radar flights (rendition flights, for example) - which could open up interesting space for reflection about the political and economic purpose of flight and stand as evidence of power relations that are not visible either in the publicly available flight data or in the sky above our heads. Thirdly, as a piece of 'generative' art it belongs to a well defined domain of practice, initially developed by artists like Vera Molnar and Roman Verotsko in the 1960's and 70's and, more recently, revived by a new generation of procedural formalists like Casey Reas. Whilst it is not a requirement that art is always formally and technically inventive it can be argued that new media art is defined by these characteristics. By these criteria Koblin's work seems less than compelling. On the other hand, the work is lovely to watch, evidences a good sense of colour, shape and line and a brevity of means to be admired. In this last respect it comes across as mature and well considered. However, for me, the former criteria are the more important in evaluating the quality of the work. Somebody else will have different criteria and arrive at a different conclusion about the piece. My evaluation is that it is decorative and, due to its conventional character, fails to \"open up a whole new world\" - it's a world that some are very familiar with.\n\nbest\n\nSimon\n\n\nOn 20 Jul 2012, at 00:40, Estela Oliva wrote:\n\n> Hi there, \n> \n> A very interesting conversation, just wanted to add a thought.\n> \n> @Paul Waelder, just as I was reading your initial comments about Sedition art I discovered today their one of their first real digital artwork, a data visualisation piece by Aaron Koblin http://www.seditionart.com/aaron_koblin/flight_patterns\n> This opens a whole new world to that platform. A world of \"virtual art\" that has been created using code and is viewed on the screen. I think the interesting point of this piece is the link to the viewer as it represents real world data. I would be interested to know what you think of this piece in relation to new media art.\n> \n> Regards, \n> \n> Estela\n> \n> -- \n> Director\n> +44 (0) 7717303537\n> --\n> Alpha-ville\n> Netil House, Hackney\n> \n> International Festival of Post-Digital Culture\n> Innovation, Creativity and Forward Thinking\n> http://www.alpha-ville.co.uk\n> \n> \n> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n> These questions regarding new media vs mainstream art have been rehearsed many times and have a number of answers. The argument for new media practice to be considered as part of mainstream art is compelling as ghettoisation does nobody favours and such reconciliation would help new media practice escapes its own discursive limitations (this assumes the art world is interested - it might not be, due to its own limitations).\n> \n> However, the argument for sustaining difference is also compelling. Many new media artists have chosen to work with new media because of their disaffection or distress with how contemporary art is developed, produced, consumed and commodified. For many the constant reinvention and instability that are the characteristics of new media (where the means of making and dissemination are always under review, shifting with changing technical substrates and socio/conceptual frameworks) is the main attraction - and for these artists the discourses of the mainstream artworld are anathema. For some artists this shifting context is the point of their work, whilst for the artworld such a technical focus is of little interest. So, why bother trying to build bridges? Michael Naimark discusses this in depth in his essay 'First Word Art / Last Word Art' ( http://www.naimark.net/writing/firstword.html ) and I also consider it within the larger context of a discussion about the relationship between creative practice and practice based research in 'New Media: The First Word in Art' ( http://www.littlepig.org.uk/texts/practiceresearch.pdf ).\n> \n> I've spent my life as an artist working with new media and have oscillated between these two positions. I'm no nearer knowing which is the better strategy but perhaps having the capacity to oscillate is the point - even if such a schizoid approach can be exhausting it can also be strangely liberating.\n> \n> best\n> \n> Simon\n> \n> \n> On 14 Jul 2012, at 12:04, Pau Waelder Laso wrote:\n> \n> > Finally, and following your statement: \"I'm pretty sure new media art will never achieve it as a whole, and under this definition\", I think that this is quite possible and that we may start to think about getting rid of this label. The question \"why do we call it new media art and not just art?\" has come up frequently in talks with artists and in my opinion we are kind of trapped in this self-made ghetto that is at the same time quite comfortable because it creates a separate art world in which artists, curators, researchers, etc. can gain recognition quicker (within the boundaries of this particular art world).\n> >\n> \n> \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> MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices\n> http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php\n> \n> \n> \n> \n\n\nSimon Biggs\n[log in to unmask] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk\n\n[log in to unmask] Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh\nhttp://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/\nMSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices\nhttp://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=24273", "from": "Simon Biggs", "date": "Fri, 20 Jul 2012 08:06:03 +0100", "author_name": "Simon Biggs" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art", "content": "\nEstela, Aaron Koblin flight paths was just shown in London: http://greyisgood.eu/blog/624\n\nSimon, how is the work not about impact on the environment? Just because it's not explicit doesn't mean I don't consider or imagine... I prefer to consider an artwork as presented by the artist, not how I'd like it to be. It is about commercial flight patterns in the USA.", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=25124", "from": "Mj C", "date": "Fri, 20 Jul 2012 20:08:25 +0100", "author_name": "Mj C" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art", "content": "\nI think my critique was clear as to why the work seems less than interesting. It visualises something but employs 'codes' that do little to unpack or problematise the subject.\n\n\nSent from a mobile device, thus the brevity.\n\nSimon Biggs\n[log in to unmask]\n[log in to unmask]\nhttp://www.littlepig.org.uk\n\nOn 20 Jul 2012, at 20:08, Mj C <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n\nEstela, Aaron Koblin flight paths was just shown in London: http://greyisgood.eu/blog/624\n\nSimon, how is the work not about impact on the environment? Just because it's not explicit doesn't mean I don't consider or imagine... I prefer to consider an artwork as presented by the artist, not how I'd like it to be. It is about commercial flight patterns in the USA.", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=25684", "from": "Simon Biggs", "date": "Fri, 20 Jul 2012 20:30:36 +0100", "author_name": "Simon Biggs" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art", "content": "\na laundry list of how you'd make a very different work is far from a\ncritique on the actual artwork.\n\nOn 20 July 2012 21:30, Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n> I think my critique was clear as to why the work seems less than interesting. It visualises something but employs 'codes' that do little to unpack or problematise the subject.\n>\n>\n> Sent from a mobile device, thus the brevity.\n>\n> Simon Biggs\n> [log in to unmask]\n> [log in to unmask]\n> http://www.littlepig.org.uk\n>\n> On 20 Jul 2012, at 20:08, Mj C <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n>\n> Estela, Aaron Koblin flight paths was just shown in London: http://greyisgood.eu/blog/624\n>\n> Simon, how is the work not about impact on the environment? Just because it's not explicit doesn't mean I don't consider or imagine... I prefer to consider an artwork as presented by the artist, not how I'd like it to be. It is about commercial flight patterns in the USA.\n>\n>", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=26383", "from": "\"Martin John Callanan (UCL)\"", "date": "Fri, 20 Jul 2012 21:56:36 +0200", "author_name": "\"Martin John Callanan (UCL)\"" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art", "content": "\nSorry, I don't understand that comment.\n\n\nSent from a mobile device, thus the brevity.\n\nSimon Biggs\n[log in to unmask]\n[log in to unmask]\nhttp://www.littlepig.org.uk\n\nOn 20 Jul 2012, at 20:56, \"Martin John Callanan (UCL)\" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n\na laundry list of how you'd make a very different work is far from a\ncritique on the actual artwork.\n\nOn 20 July 2012 21:30, Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n> I think my critique was clear as to why the work seems less than interesting. It visualises something but employs 'codes' that do little to unpack or problematise the subject.\n> \n> \n> Sent from a mobile device, thus the brevity.\n> \n> Simon Biggs\n> [log in to unmask]\n> [log in to unmask]\n> http://www.littlepig.org.uk\n> \n> On 20 Jul 2012, at 20:08, Mj C <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n> \n> Estela, Aaron Koblin flight paths was just shown in London: http://greyisgood.eu/blog/624\n> \n> Simon, how is the work not about impact on the environment? Just because it's not explicit doesn't mean I don't consider or imagine... I prefer to consider an artwork as presented by the artist, not how I'd like it to be. It is about commercial flight patterns in the USA.\n> \n> ", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=27297", "from": "Simon Biggs", "date": "Fri, 20 Jul 2012 21:03:07 +0100", "author_name": "Simon Biggs" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art", "content": "\nDear list, \n\nFirst I want to thank Jon Ippolito for letting me know about this discussion list. I interviewed him about preservation of media art Tecnoartenews, Portuguese website about media art and contemporary culture. Interview link is: http://tecnoartenews.com/news-in-english/preservation-of-media-arts-interview-with-jon-ippolito-by-karina-de-freitas-2/. I’m researcher in media art market and I write articles about this theme. \nI was reading here the interesting discussion about art market. I have my reservations about initiatives such as [s]edition. I believe these initiatives are important because it is a step toward to establish a market for digital art but at the same time they are midway between tradition and what’s new. So selling versions of artworks that takes place in process makes it familiar for the collector used to collect paintings or photographs. \nIn this case, being copies of an original work we can continue saying that the collector is buying a digital artwork? I believe that this is causing misperception of media art when trading takes place especially by intermediates (the galleries), which contributes to create the illusion of being in the digital medium and having a certificate of author is indeed digital art or that this an inexpensive art. \nOn the other side, as remembered by Domenico, the artist Rafael Rozendal found an interesting way to sell his net.art, keeping all its features, without turning them into physical objects or digital versions of a static moment of its process. \nHe sold more than half of his work to known and unknown collectors attracted by its peculiar and particular contract of sale of the artworks on websites. \nAs Rozendal other artists also took the initiative to sell their works without intermediates, offering certificate of copyright and, in most cases, maintenance of the work. \nAlso interesting is SoftwareArt (www.softwareart.com), an online gallery dedicated to sell software art. After the buy, the work arrive at home in the package with the technical instructions for the collector. \nI believe that at present existing initiatives are a starting point but new ways must be found so that media art is not limited to specific formats aimed at validating its entry and acceptance in the art market. \nIn this case, maybe would be important to think in educating the public and specially the collectors to consume the media art as it is and formalize this market, developing strategies for it inclusion in the art market. Would be important that habits of consumption and enjoyment of art could be transformed, bringing the audience to appreciate the art so that in future we can have digital paintings on our walls and also to interact with multi-users works from our homes, helping to its realization. \nI apologize for any error in the text. \n\nGreetings from Brazil/Spain.\n\nKarina\n\n----\n\nKarina de Freitas\nFounder and Creative Director of Tecnoartenews\nwww.tecnoartenews.com\n[log in to unmask]", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=38315", "from": "Karina Freitas", "date": "Sun, 29 Jul 2012 21:45:10 +0100", "author_name": "Karina Freitas" }, { "id": 0, "subject": "Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art", "content": "\nDear all,\n\nI have been away for a couple of days and I see that the discussion has expanded and many interesting things have been said. I'd like to contribute some comments and answer one question I left unanswered before we reach the end of this debate.\n\n@Estela: Aaron Koblin's \"Flight Patterns\" is very interesting, although I prefer his collaborative works (from The Sheep Market to This Exquisite Forest), which go beyond the boundaries of what [s]edition can offer at this point. Although \"Flight Patterns\" was generated by data, the version that you can buy at sedition is not generative, it is just an animation, in the same way that a photo of an installation by Tracey Emin is not the same as the installation itself. If we think of the three main characteristics described by Steve Dietz (interactivity, connectivity, computability), we will realize that none of them is really supported by sedition, which takes us back to being passive viewers of beautiful things. Therefore, as Wolf has mentioned, I consider that including the work of Koblin or Rozendaal within the limitations of sedition just adds confusion to the perception of new media art.\n\nThe discussion about the ghetto has brought many interesting ideas, and in fact it has generated a separate debate. From the many contributions I'd like to comment on Jon's statement about \"finding ourselves within a larger Mainstream Art ghetto\": I agree with the fact that the art world is also a ghetto (so is the science community, the movie industry, etc.) but I am not so sure that it would be better for artists to just focus on the audience they find on the Internet (which is what the art market is doing with sedition or the VIP art fair) or on the App Store. Like it or not, in my opinion there is still a need to relate to the art world, in order to identify the product as an artwork. For instance, Snibbe's Gravilux (as well as other works he has brought to the iPad) is a good example of an artwork that reaches a new audience, but still it is sold as \"a work of interactive art that was only available in galleries and museums.\" This does not mean that artists should either adapt their work to be sold at galleries or completely ignore the mainstream art world, but that a third way must be found that integrates both the specific conditions of new media art and the mainstream art world as a system of validation.\n\nFinally, going back to the subject of the discussion, I think that collecting and preserving art should not be considered as synonyms (at least I got this impression from what has been written): on the one hand, collectors may buy art only to re-sell it later or be incompetent in matters of preservation, and in the case of initiatives such as sedition (sorry to mention it once more), all the collectors have their artworks stored in sedition's \"vault\", which may disappear some day, just as a collector of Snibbe's iPad artworks depends on the device to be still working or the software being updated to the next iOS, and therefore collecting does not ensure preservation. On the other hand, writing about art and documenting it is a way of preserving it (in the sense that Domenico has pointed out), yet those who write about art or teach it to their students are not (necessarily) collectors. What collecting and preserving have in common is that there needs to be a strong motivation to invest money in either activity, and this motivation will come from an understanding and appreciation of new media art. As Domenico said, \"we save what we love\", and as Karina has pointed out, it is necessary to educate the public, collectors, etc. to see this art the way we see it.\n\nBest regards,\n\nPau\n\n\n\nPau Waelder Laso\nEmail: [log in to unmask]\nSite: www.pauwaelder.com\nskype: pauwaelder", "content-type": "text/plain", "url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1207&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=40038", "from": "Pau Waelder Laso", "date": "Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:55:50 +0200", "author_name": "Pau Waelder Laso" } ], "author_name": "Beryl Graham" } ] }, "end2end": { "desc": "...", "lists": [] } }