2750 lines
1.3 MiB
2750 lines
1.3 MiB
{
|
||
"cyber": [
|
||
{
|
||
"list": "nettime-l",
|
||
"subject": "<nettime> Translation: The vagina is the boss on intern",
|
||
"content": "\nThe vagina is the boss on internet\n\nNew media female artists inspired by erotics, identity and social interaction\n\nSurfing on the internet I find the Virtual Themepark from the most\ninteresting cyberfeminist artist group VNS Matrix. It all sounds very\npromising and as a hetero woman I click on the Viral Pleasureworld. I am\ndissappointed, because I do not find any beautiful naked men on the screen,\nbut a universe with purple planets and the text Viral Pleasure World. As\nsoon as I want to continue I always come back on the first page. Only at\n\"The end of the World\" I finally get to the \"Filthy Genderworld\" where I\nsee a group of tiny little people who are licking eachother. Furtheron I\nstep on Gashgirls homepage, whos real name is Francesca da Rimini. This is\none of the ladies from VNS Matrix. On this page I finally find some more\ninformation about their work: wordmixture of textfragments from\nSM-stories, filmtitles and computerterminology that are connected to\neachother. The title above this page says enough: \"GenderFuckMebacys palace\nof Unparalleled Cynicism\", oldfashioned artistic enigmas that are larded\nwith sensual quotes, to whichs meaning you can quest for hours and hours\nbeing an outsider.\n\nCyberslut\n\nVNS (VeNuS) Matrix wants to create confusion. The four Australian ladies\nwant to make chaos in the standards and values from todays society, because\nthey do not agree with the womans status within. They make electronic art\nthat questions the computer mass culture and her products in a playfull but\nbrutal feministic way. VNS matrix acts on a humorous way against mens\nwomen-unfriendly and sexistic outbursts on the internet. These\ncyberfeminists are not afraid to use any means to achieve their aim. So they\nare not agianst sex, porno or even against men. They think that it is only\njust about time that women take control on the internet from men, because\nmen behave badly. Still too many women suffer from obscene remarks. \n\nThe Corpus FantasticaMOO, an internet game, illustrates clearly how obscene\ncreeps should be punished. VNS Matrix, virtually pierced, masked, harnesed\nand weaponed with the most horrible torturestuff, enters dark\ninternetsurroundings by psuedonyms like Psybapussy and Cyberslut. There they\nterrorize everything male as soon as it logs in in this Tartaros-like\ndomain. Someone who entered as Quentin Tarrantino, for example, was almost\nsent to the virtual heaven by Psybapussys dangerous C46-weapon. The girls\nare the boss and their feminity is sacred. The core of their realm, the\nMatrix, can only be reached by the virtual clitoris. The vagina is the\nsymbol of the female power. In their \"Bitch Mo Manifesto\" the ladies swank\nabout making art with their cunt. Their pussy is also capable of fighting\nagainst \"Big daddy mainframe\". \"Big Daddy Mainframe\" is the symbol of the\nmale society, that is still dominating both the real and the virtual world.\nThe \"Mainframe\" is also a widespread product of computertycoon IBM.\n\nThe art of these cybervamps is at its most beautiful in their fantastic\nprojects, that are based on internet- and CD-rom games like Quest and Doom.\nIn 1995 they made in cooperation with the artist Leon Cmielewski an project\nnamed \"The user unfriendly interface\", where as many as possible people\nshould be insulted. On these beautiful pages it was not allowed to click\nanything. When someone was naughty and clicked anyway, the computer yelled\nangry at this person and the buttons changed into insects that walked away\nfrom the screen. People also had to fill in their dreams and desires, so\nthat the program could curse and jeer at them. This program was not meant to\nbe an attack to the male society, but to the dominating commercials and the\nstandard mass products, that always have to be userfriendly.\n\nThe game of communication\n\nVNS Matrix is also trying to investigate in what way the game is a symbol of\nsocial interaction in cultural life. Is pleasure an important condition to\nexperience art? Interactivity gives one the power to interfere in a work of\nart. The non feminist artist Agnes Hegedüs sees the new media as an\ninteresting territorium for investigation in the field of social\ninteraction. In the new media raises a new culture of games, that is both\ninteractive and telematic. She thinks it is special that everyone can pick a\ndifferent identity. The result is that communication via internet is more\nplayful than in real life. The internet is a game of seduction. Not the\nseduction of being connected on a distance is addicting, but the mysterious\nrendez-vouses of people gives a sexy kick. On internet people can meet\neachoter without being seen, they can pretend to be anyone in any way.\n\nHegedüs \"Televirtual Fruitmachine\" from 1994 is based on this playful\ninteractive aspect. De instalation is a big screen on which three puzzle\npieces of a fruit machine are projected. In front of the screen are three\ntables with a joystick. Three different people can join into this game at\nthe same time. The fruit is refering to the forbidden fruit from Paradise\nand seduction. In contrast with VNS Matrix, who wants to see the new digital\nworld dominated by women, Hegedüs does not think that is necessary. When the\nman and woman identity can be swapped in the virtual space, the\ngenderidentity will be less important. The idea of genderswap with the help\nof the media was allready being issued by Marcel Duchamp, who let himself\nbeen photographed as Rrose Selavy (Eros cest la vie): travesty as sexual\npleasure.\n\nMetamorphosis\n\nThe body will be less relevant accoring to the Australian artist Jill Scott:\nby means of technique we will be nomads in both the body and the soul. She\nthinks technique is very fascinating and she illustrates that very\nbrilliantly in her gorgeous interactive film-installation \"Frontiers of\nUtopia\" from 1995. The ill Zira does not live in the real world: everything\nshe does is via the computer: working communicating and living, for this is\nthe only way to forget that her body is soon going to die. In this\ninstallation the visitors can \"setup a dialogue\" with women who are in this\nfilm. These women come from different areas of the 20th century and tell\nthings about their ideal society. Emma from 1900 hopes for freedom for\npublic opinion, Pearl from 1930 is dreaming of equality of race, Gillian\nfrom 1960 thinks of technical advance in socialist society and Zira from the\n90ties believes that the technique can solve all problems. \n\nThanks to technique the body can be improved. This theme is very popular\namong feminist artists. Even when a woman is not ill, her body needs to be\nimproved by technique. The dutch artist Inez van Lamsweerde is hackling\nartificial bodily changes from healthy females, by making beautiful\nridiculous computerpictures on which she used photomodels and\nwindow-figures. The female figures on her photos have something unreal: in\nthe series \"Thank you Tighmaster\" from the early nineties Van Lamsweerde\nstuck dolls eyes on a womans face. She thinks too many woman cannot be\nthemselves anymore, but have to look like Barbie. \n\nBitter Herb Menu/Brutal Myths\n\nThe cosmedical industry is a form of keeping women surpressed\" claim the\namerican artists Sonya Rapoport and Marie José Sat. The reason why men\ndominate women is because they are scared of them. That is why women were\ncalled witch. \"The firsts woman Eve was allready called bad and even the\nmost evil woman that has ever lived\" is one of the ancient myths that was\ngoing around in the middle ages according to Sat and Rapoport. They say,\nthat this myth is still going on in the arabic countries and thats why the\nwomen do not get any political chance over there, and that is why woman in\nsome countries are being circumcised. This is a primitive form of cosmedical\nsurgery. In the western world women are forced upon strict diets and\ncosmedical surgery. \nThe Bitter Herb Menu is a metapher for the so called badness of women. In\nGenesis, Sat and Rapoport continue, God condemned mankind to work at the\nfields and to eat the harvest. That iss why these artists choose for the\nherbal witchcraft as a symbol for the wholesome harvest of women, because in\nearly times women were seen as spiritual curers in ancient times. This has\nchanged later in the middle ages, when spiritual curers were seen as\ndangerous witches. The first part of the website \"Brutal Myths\" describes\nwhich bitter herb poisons the mind of the man, so he will believe that women\nare bad. In the second part of the digital work of art is the healthy herbal\ngarden with wholesome herbs.\n\nVagina Dentata\n\nOn the Bitter Herb Menu one can find the bitter herb \"cleavers\", which lets\na vagina eat a penis. The principle of the Vagina Dentata, the mighty and\nmale-swallowing vagina is to be found in different cultures. Because men are\nafraid of this Vagina Dentata, women are being circumcised, so that they\ncannot urinate in a normal way or enjoy sex. The liberation of women is to\ntake revenge of them by castration, says the Bitter Herb website. The herb\nthat is punishing men so severely is called Heartsease. The Vagina Dentata\nis a beloved subject among cyberfeminist artist, because it is the ultimate\nsymbol of destroying male power. Women can be in charge then. The Bitter\nHerb menu sees the Vagina Dentata in a mystique and occult context. But VNS\nMatrix sees the vagina Dentata in a playful way as a vampire like tart, who\nis called Dentata. Dentata has to shoot men in the Cybersquat, a virtual\ngame surroundings from VNS Matrix.\n\n\tInteractive rituals in the Bitter herb Menu, that are made by the visitors,\ncontribute to the destruction of the myth of women being evil and calm the\nphobias of men. Sat and Rapoport think that in this way they are\ncontributing to the development of the World Wide Web as a new artistic\ntechnological medium, that is free from sexual prejudices and differences,\nso that the reputation of women can be purified.\n\nCommon Ground\n\nThe internet is a free space and that is why women can take advantage of\nthat. Sonya Rapoport sees the web as free and easy to give a presentation\nfrom feministic art. She hopes to reach also people who would otherwise\nnever go to an exhibition. She is striving to a kind of common ground: a\nvirtual space linked to different female artists. The dutch artist Mathilde\nMupé has allready made links on her homepage to different feminists in\ncyberspace. The german video artist Ulrike Rosenbach and the american art\ncritic Lucy Lippard have allready set up feministic art institutes in the\nseventies where female artists could cooperate. \n\nMuch female artists see the internet as a possibility to communicate in a\nrole playing game, where people can change their gender. Some feminist\nartists want to gain power over men on the inernet. For them the game of\nsexuality is a form of power instead of romance. The sexual organ is not\nonly capable of enjoying sex, but also of urinating, multiplying and\ndividing the human race into the suppressed and the dominating species.\nThese feminist artists see the internet as an opportunity to be the boss on\ninternet. They do not want to lose their gender, but they want to gain\ndominance over the male in their female glory. The gender identity should\ntherefore be emphasized according to them. The question is whether this is\nstill relevant in an age of androgyny and transsexuality, because the body\ncan also be changed in todays society. \n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nCheck mijn nieuwe artikel over \"De Vagina is de baas op internet\"\n\nhttp://utopia.knoware.nl/users/sigorney/vagi.htm\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Anne de Haan <sigorney {AT} knoware.nl>",
|
||
"author_name": "Anne de Haan",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9706/msg00111.html",
|
||
"id": "00111",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 16 Jun 1997 00:59:00 +0200",
|
||
"message-id": "199706152259.AAA09609 {AT} utrecht.knoware.nl",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nAt 16:06 16-06-97 +0200, you wrote:\n>Aloha!\n>\n>Good explanation of the thing I'm more and more calling sick. More of it\n>I don't understand, but usually feminists are transplanting their personal\n>accidents, their personal experiences, i.e. misunderstandings with their\n>partners into common market. So their goal is make war not love (I'm not\n>hippy, so don't worry), if it's not another woman, of course. So is this a\n>form of solidarity or just a way of expressing their sexual behavior.\n>Plain gender, pure sex and nothing else. I don't think relationships\n>should be built or focused on that. It's very animalic. And even less, I\n>don't think excusses on political or social engagements should be raised\n>from plain personal - intimate thing. It takes (at least) two for any kind\n>of relation, communication. And here goes Internet, interactivity, etc.\n>There's never just one who takes the blame, even when it's man.\n>And I'm ignorant to all 'women only' projects. It sounds like 'white\n>only'. Sometimes I'm mad, sometimes I'm laughing at it. When women are\n>pointing out just their vagina (like feminists do) they make a very bad\n>reputation of themselves, and all women of course. This is plain racism\n>and pure agression. Make them read Camille Paglia.\n>Where are there heads, their brains, their feelings, their emotions, if\n>just vagina or penis is all that matters? So feminists are making animals\n>out of women, even if I think that animals are more intelligent than some\n>of them. Yes, I like Duchamp, I like Gertrude Stein, I like Orlan, \n>I like Stelarc, I like Beatles, I like Spice Girls, I like ninties, the\n>age of transsexuality and androginity and nature, that made genders. I'm\n>heterosexual and I'm not pointing it out whenever I'm talking to audience\n>I'm not making my political state out of it. It's ridiculous to be based\n>just on sexual orientation or even sexual needs, on something between our\n>legs. There are many 'hot lines' for that. Let's be civilised and maybe\n>intelectual. \n>\n>Best,\n>Peter\n> \n>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\n>Multimedia center KiberSRCeLab - KIBLA\n>Kneza Koclja 9\n>2000 Maribor\n>Slovenia\n>tel: +386 62 2294012, 2294013\n>fax: +386 62 225376\n>http://www.kibla.org\n>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\n>\n>On Mon, 16 Jun 1997, Anne de Haan wrote:\n>\n>> The vagina is the boss on internet\n>> \n>> New media female artists inspired by erotics, identity and social interaction\n>> \n>> Surfing on the internet I find the Virtual Themepark from the most\n>> interesting cyberfeminist artist group VNS Matrix. It all sounds very\n>> promising and as a hetero woman I click on the Viral Pleasureworld. I am\n>> dissappointed, because I do not find any beautiful naked men on the screen,\n>> but a universe with purple planets and the text Viral Pleasure World. As\n>> soon as I want to continue I always come back on the first page. Only at\n>> \"The end of the World\" I finally get to the \"Filthy Genderworld\" where I\n>> see a group of tiny little people who are licking eachother. Furtheron I\n>> step on Gashgirls homepage, whos real name is Francesca da Rimini. This is\n>> one of the ladies from VNS Matrix. On this page I finally find some more\n>> information about their work: wordmixture of textfragments from\n>> SM-stories, filmtitles and computerterminology that are connected to\n>> eachother. The title above this page says enough: \"GenderFuckMebacys palace\n>> of Unparalleled Cynicism\", oldfashioned artistic enigmas that are larded\n>> with sensual quotes, to whichs meaning you can quest for hours and hours\n>> being an outsider.\n>> \n>> Cyberslut\n>> \n>> VNS (VeNuS) Matrix wants to create confusion. The four Australian ladies\n>> want to make chaos in the standards and values from todays society, because\n>> they do not agree with the womans status within. They make electronic art\n>> that questions the computer mass culture and her products in a playfull but\n>> brutal feministic way. VNS matrix acts on a humorous way against mens\n>> women-unfriendly and sexistic outbursts on the internet. These\n>> cyberfeminists are not afraid to use any means to achieve their aim. So they\n>> are not agianst sex, porno or even against men. They think that it is only\n>> just about time that women take control on the internet from men, because\n>> men behave badly. Still too many women suffer from obscene remarks. \n>> \n>> The Corpus FantasticaMOO, an internet game, illustrates clearly how obscene\n>> creeps should be punished. VNS Matrix, virtually pierced, masked, harnesed\n>> and weaponed with the most horrible torturestuff, enters dark\n>> internetsurroundings by psuedonyms like Psybapussy and Cyberslut. There they\n>> terrorize everything male as soon as it logs in in this Tartaros-like\n>> domain. Someone who entered as Quentin Tarrantino, for example, was almost\n>> sent to the virtual heaven by Psybapussys dangerous C46-weapon. The girls\n>> are the boss and their feminity is sacred. The core of their realm, the\n>> Matrix, can only be reached by the virtual clitoris. The vagina is the\n>> symbol of the female power. In their \"Bitch Mo Manifesto\" the ladies swank\n>> about making art with their cunt. Their pussy is also capable of fighting\n>> against \"Big daddy mainframe\". \"Big Daddy Mainframe\" is the symbol of the\n>> male society, that is still dominating both the real and the virtual world.\n>> The \"Mainframe\" is also a widespread product of computertycoon IBM.\n>> \n>> The art of these cybervamps is at its most beautiful in their fantastic\n>> projects, that are based on internet- and CD-rom games like Quest and Doom.\n>> In 1995 they made in cooperation with the artist Leon Cmielewski an project\n>> named \"The user unfriendly interface\", where as many as possible people\n>> should be insulted. On these beautiful pages it was not allowed to click\n>> anything. When someone was naughty and clicked anyway, the computer yelled\n>> angry at this person and the buttons changed into insects that walked away\n>> from the screen. People also had to fill in their dreams and desires, so\n>> that the program could curse and jeer at them. This program was not meant to\n>> be an attack to the male society, but to the dominating commercials and the\n>> standard mass products, that always have to be userfriendly.\n>> \n>> The game of communication\n>> \n>> VNS Matrix is also trying to investigate in what way the game is a symbol of\n>> social interaction in cultural life. Is pleasure an important condition to\n>> experience art? Interactivity gives one the power to interfere in a work of\n>> art. The non feminist artist Agnes Hegedüs sees the new media as an\n>> interesting territorium for investigation in the field of social\n>> interaction. In the new media raises a new culture of games, that is both\n>> interactive and telematic. She thinks it is special that everyone can pick a\n>> different identity. The result is that communication via internet is more\n>> playful than in real life. The internet is a game of seduction. Not the\n>> seduction of being connected on a distance is addicting, but the mysterious\n>> rendez-vouses of people gives a sexy kick. On internet people can meet\n>> eachoter without being seen, they can pretend to be anyone in any way.\n>> \n>> Hegedüs \"Televirtual Fruitmachine\" from 1994 is based on this playful\n>> interactive aspect. De instalation is a big screen on which three puzzle\n>> pieces of a fruit machine are projected. In front of the screen are three\n>> tables with a joystick. Three different people can join into this game at\n>> the same time. The fruit is refering to the forbidden fruit from Paradise\n>> and seduction. In contrast with VNS Matrix, who wants to see the new digital\n>> world dominated by women, Hegedüs does not think that is necessary. When the\n>> man and woman identity can be swapped in the virtual space, the\n>> genderidentity will be less important. The idea of genderswap with the help\n>> of the media was allready being issued by Marcel Duchamp, who let himself\n>> been photographed as Rrose Selavy (Eros cest la vie): travesty as sexual\n>> pleasure.\n>> \n>> Metamorphosis\n>> \n>> The body will be less relevant accoring to the Australian artist Jill Scott:\n>> by means of technique we will be nomads in both the body and the soul. She\n>> thinks technique is very fascinating and she illustrates that very\n>> brilliantly in her gorgeous interactive film-installation \"Frontiers of\n>> Utopia\" from 1995. The ill Zira does not live in the real world: everything\n>> she does is via the computer: working communicating and living, for this is\n>> the only way to forget that her body is soon going to die. In this\n>> installation the visitors can \"setup a dialogue\" with women who are in this\n>> film. These women come from different areas of the 20th century and tell\n>> things about their ideal society. Emma from 1900 hopes for freedom for\n>> public opinion, Pearl from 1930 is dreaming of equality of race, Gillian\n>> from 1960 thinks of technical advance in socialist society and Zira from the\n>> 90ties believes that the technique can solve all problems. \n>> \n>> Thanks to technique the body can be improved. This theme is very popular\n>> among feminist artists. Even when a woman is not ill, her body needs to be\n>> improved by technique. The dutch artist Inez van Lamsweerde is hackling\n>> artificial bodily changes from healthy females, by making beautiful\n>> ridiculous computerpictures on which she used photomodels and\n>> window-figures. The female figures on her photos have something unreal: in\n>> the series \"Thank you Tighmaster\" from the early nineties Van Lamsweerde\n>> stuck dolls eyes on a womans face. She thinks too many woman cannot be\n>> themselves anymore, but have to look like Barbie. \n>> \n>> Bitter Herb Menu/Brutal Myths\n>> \n>> The cosmedical industry is a form of keeping women surpressed\" claim the\n>> american artists Sonya Rapoport and Marie José Sat. The reason why men\n>> dominate women is because they are scared of them. That is why women were\n>> called witch. \"The firsts woman Eve was allready called bad and even the\n>> most evil woman that has ever lived\" is one of the ancient myths that was\n>> going around in the middle ages according to Sat and Rapoport. They say,\n>> that this myth is still going on in the arabic countries and thats why the\n>> women do not get any political chance over there, and that is why woman in\n>> some countries are being circumcised. This is a primitive form of cosmedical\n>> surgery. In the western world women are forced upon strict diets and\n>> cosmedical surgery. \n>> The Bitter Herb Menu is a metapher for the so called badness of women. In\n>> Genesis, Sat and Rapoport continue, God condemned mankind to work at the\n>> fields and to eat the harvest. That iss why these artists choose for the\n>> herbal witchcraft as a symbol for the wholesome harvest of women, because in\n>> early times women were seen as spiritual curers in ancient times. This has\n>> changed later in the middle ages, when spiritual curers were seen as\n>> dangerous witches. The first part of the website \"Brutal Myths\" describes\n>> which bitter herb poisons the mind of the man, so he will believe that women\n>> are bad. In the second part of the digital work of art is the healthy herbal\n>> garden with wholesome herbs.\n>> \n>> Vagina Dentata\n>> \n>> On the Bitter Herb Menu one can find the bitter herb \"cleavers\", which lets\n>> a vagina eat a penis. The principle of the Vagina Dentata, the mighty and\n>> male-swallowing vagina is to be found in different cultures. Because men are\n>> afraid of this Vagina Dentata, women are being circumcised, so that they\n>> cannot urinate in a normal way or enjoy sex. The liberation of women is to\n>> take revenge of them by castration, says the Bitter Herb website. The herb\n>> that is punishing men so severely is called Heartsease. The Vagina Dentata\n>> is a beloved subject among cyberfeminist artist, because it is the ultimate\n>> symbol of destroying male power. Women can be in charge then. The Bitter\n>> Herb menu sees the Vagina Dentata in a mystique and occult context. But VNS\n>> Matrix sees the vagina Dentata in a playful way as a vampire like tart, who\n>> is called Dentata. Dentata has to shoot men in the Cybersquat, a virtual\n>> game surroundings from VNS Matrix.\n>> \n>> \tInteractive rituals in the Bitter herb Menu, that are made by the visitors,\n>> contribute to the destruction of the myth of women being evil and calm the\n>> phobias of men. Sat and Rapoport think that in this way they are\n>> contributing to the development of the World Wide Web as a new artistic\n>> technological medium, that is free from sexual prejudices and differences,\n>> so that the reputation of women can be purified.\n>> \n>> Common Ground\n>> \n>> The internet is a free space and that is why women can take advantage of\n>> that. Sonya Rapoport sees the web as free and easy to give a presentation\n>> from feministic art. She hopes to reach also people who would otherwise\n>> never go to an exhibition.. She is striving to a kind of common ground: a\n>> virtual space linked to different female artists. The dutch artist Mathilde\n>> Mupé has allready made links on her homepage to different feminists in\n>> cyberspace. The german video artist Ulrike Rosenbach and the american art\n>> critic Lucy Lippard have allready set up feministic art institutes in the\n>> seventies where female artists could cooperate. \n>> \n>> Much female artists see the internet as a possibility to communicate in a\n>> role playing game, where people can change their gender. Some feminist\n>> artists want to gain power over men on the inernet. For them the game of\n>> sexuality is a form of power instead of romance. The sexual organ is not\n>> only capable of enjoying sex, but also of urinating, multiplying and\n>> dividing the human race into the suppressed and the dominating species.\n>> These feminist artists see the internet as an opportunity to be the boss on\n>> internet. They do not want to lose their gender, but they want to gain\n>> dominance over the male in their female glory. The gender identity should\n>> therefore be emphasized according to them. The question is whether this is\n>> still relevant in an age of androgyny and transsexuality, because the body\n>> can also be changed in todays society. \n\n\nPeter,\n\nI think you are very right about this and I think that other people should\nknow this too. That's why I am sending this to the nettime list.\n\nI wrote this article because I wanted to write something about feministic\nart on the internet and not because I am an feminist. Althought I think that\nthe ideas behind the feminist arts are very interesting, I do not agree with\nthem. I also think that men and women should be equal.\nI left my opinion out of the article, because I wanted to give a kind of\nobjective prescription, maybe I should have given more of my own opinion in it.\n\nKind regards,\n\nAnne\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nCheck mijn nieuwe artikel over \"De Vagina is de baas op internet\"\n\nhttp://utopia.knoware.nl/users/sigorney/vagi.htm\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Anne de Haan <sigorney {AT} knoware.nl>",
|
||
"author_name": "Anne de Haan",
|
||
"message-id": "199706170711.JAA02749 {AT} utrecht.knoware.nl",
|
||
"id": "00119",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\n\nhysteriu: jennifer's wundering wumb\n\n\nmurky slugged-vine hungs duwn truiling frum durk-wull, skein-cutchers uf\njennifer's wumb un the muve thruugh julu; jewel-julu mirrurs bluud-durk\nspheres with perfect ruy-trucing us distunce turns buck un itself; birth\nis grunted ucruss the gruin uf prutuculs; yuu're never ulluwed tu furget\nthut there is nu distunce between neurest puints in these enfulding tis-\nuses, clused dumuins sputtering in the heuted symphuny uf bluud-red night,\nin the bluud-durk night\n\nit's time tu stup the breuth uf gud, thin gluss needle between my heuted\nlips, julu slushing nuw in jennifer-visiuns cuming us pitch-durk bluud\nrises cluse tu temperuture-thermumeter\n\nthe wumb presses uut thruugh the breusts, distends the nipples, wun't plu-\ncute until bluud is druwn drinking ut the muuth uf gud, the budy un im-\nmense und bluud-night cuvern, eyes teuring, surgery uf jennifer-julu in u\nsphere uf thin gluss electrude firing perfect bruin in this durk-red night\nuf reign uf bluud und heuted thin gluss needles\n\n\nO Julu suys Jennifer yuu ulwuys luuk unly ut the piece, nut ut the hule.\nO Jennifer suys Julu everything is bruken und the suuner yuu reulize this.\nO Julu suys Jennifer dun't yuu ever huve u bruin.\nO Jennifer suys Julu unly when I huve u mind tu.\n\n- - - \n\n\n\"She will dreum ulung with the cut, guudnight Jennifer, suys Julu.\n\n\"Guudnight Julu, huve u luvely dreum.\n\n\"(I wish there were mure uf us, thinks Julu.)\n\n\"Jennifer heurd thut!\"\n\n\n______________________________________________________________________\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Alan Julu Sondheim <sondheim {AT} panix.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "Alan Julu Sondheim",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.SUN.3.95.970617032409.21107A-100000 {AT} panix3.panix.com",
|
||
"id": "00120",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9706/msg00120.html",
|
||
"subject": "<nettime> hysteri",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 17 Jun 1997 03:24:55 -0400 (EDT)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nGive it back...\n\n> Peter,\n> \n> I think you are very right about this and I think that other people should\n> know this too. That's why I am sending this to the nettime list.\nI agree, but on the other hand may mail box is quite full with all nettime\ndiscusions, so how can the others cope with that. It's imposible to read\nall the things, while some mails are very (too) long. The thing about new\nmedia is that text informations should be short and precise, the long\nstories should be printed. I just can't use computer as a book, my eyes\nget sore. It's a multimedia machine. \n\n> I wrote this article because I wanted to write something about feministic\n> art on the internet and not because I am an feminist. Althought I think that\n> the ideas behind the feminist arts are very interesting, I do not agree with\n> them. I also think that men and women should be equal.\nWhat is feminist art? It's a kind of statement. But on the other hand, if\nyou look global, there are about 51% of women and 49% of men on the world.\nSo women are majority (tipical in racism is dictatorship of majority on\nminority). I'm O.K. with that, but I think a lot of feminist artist don't\nget it. It was funny when a guy on the LEAF meeting in Liverpool this year\npointed out, when there was 'women-only' meeting, that it would be maybe\nmore relevant to have 'shy-only' meeting, because somebody said that one\nof the women attributes is shyness. Are men not shy? Don't you think I can\nmake feminist art as you can do the macho one? Specialy on the net. Art\nis trans-... Everything else is and excuse and pure activism. Sexism is\nfar out. And the worst is that personal shit is then abstracted to whole\npopulation. Aren't we individuals? There are differences between people,\neveryone is different person. And of course there are shitty women and\nshitty men. \n \n> I left my opinion out of the article, because I wanted to give a kind of\n> objective prescription, maybe I should have given more of my own opinion\nBut I got your opinion and I'm supporting it. \n\nBest,\nPeter\n\n \n \n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Peter Tomaz Dobrila <peco {AT} kibla.org>",
|
||
"author_name": "Peter Tomaz Dobrila",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.LNX.3.95.970617103828.858A-100000 {AT} server.nd-mb.si",
|
||
"id": "00122",
|
||
"to": "Anne de Haan <sigorney {AT} knoware.nl>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9706/msg00122.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Translation: The vagina is the boss on intern",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 17 Jun 1997 11:09:17 +0200 (MET DST)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nI just wanted to note briefly, that there is hardly any statement that I\nfind more insidious and offensive, when not outright simplistic and\napologist, to insist that \"usually feminists are transplanting their\npersonal\n>>accidents, their personal experiences, i.e. misunderstandings with their\n>>partners into common market.\"\n\nFeminists are reponding to *institutional* sexism, and fighting against\nsexism constitutes neither the airing of dirty laundry nor the promotion of\nsexism itself. Many people are feminist before they even have any\n\"partners\" to be \"angry\" about -- for example, my first feminist awakening\ninvolved the way that *teachers* treated me in math and science classes in\nmy pre-teen years. There's no bitterness over boyfriends there; rather, it\nis justified anger at a world that assigns females a presumption of\nincompetence while assigning males, at the same time, a presumption of\ncompetence. The goal is to break down barriers and promote equality, and\nI think that you badly misrepresent feminism as it is known to the great\nmajority of people, both male and female, who identify as feminist, by\ninsisting otherwise.\n\nThat said, I did actually have an objection to the circulated \"Vagina\"\npost. In my opinion, as well as my best understanding of the nature of\nbiology and human sexuality, the female body part that is most analagous to\nthe penis is the *clitoris* rather than the vagina. It is a fairly common\ncomplaint among feminist scholars (and has been for a while, in particular\nin reaction to Freud's terrifyingly absurd assumptions about female\nsexuality) that a focus on the vagina, rather than on the clitoris or the\nvulva in general, looks at female sexuality from the point of view of a\npenis in search of a hole. This is not to insist that the vagina is\nirrelevant to sexuality for all women, but rather, it is to make the\nargument that, if you are going to reclaim space for women, and then\nidentify women with the sexual organ where their sexual response is\ngenerally considered to be located, the clear choice would have been\nclitoris rather than vagina.\n\nregards,\nrebecca\n\nAt 9:11 AM +0200 6/17/97, Anne de Haan wrote:\n>At 16:06 16-06-97 +0200, you wrote:\n>>Aloha!\n>>\n>>Good explanation of the thing I'm more and more calling sick. More of it\n>>I don't understand, but usually feminists are transplanting their personal\n>>accidents, their personal experiences, i.e. misunderstandings with their\n>>partners into common market. So their goal is make war not love (I'm not\n>>hippy, so don't worry), if it's not another woman, of course. So is this a\n>>form of solidarity or just a way of expressing their sexual behavior.\n>>Plain gender, pure sex and nothing else. I don't think relationships\n>>should be built or focused on that. It's very animalic. And even less, I\n>>don't think excusses on political or social engagements should be raised\n>>from plain personal - intimate thing. It takes (at least) two for any kind\n>>of relation, communication. And here goes Internet, interactivity, etc.\n>>There's never just one who takes the blame, even when it's man.\n>>And I'm ignorant to all 'women only' projects. It sounds like 'white\n>>only'. Sometimes I'm mad, sometimes I'm laughing at it. When women are\n>>pointing out just their vagina (like feminists do) they make a very bad\n>>reputation of themselves, and all women of course. This is plain racism\n>>and pure agression. Make them read Camille Paglia.\n>>Where are there heads, their brains, their feelings, their emotions, if\n>>just vagina or penis is all that matters? So feminists are making animals\n>>out of women, even if I think that animals are more intelligent than some\n>>of them. Yes, I like Duchamp, I like Gertrude Stein, I like Orlan,\n>>I like Stelarc, I like Beatles, I like Spice Girls, I like ninties, the\n>>age of transsexuality and androginity and nature, that made genders. I'm\n>>heterosexual and I'm not pointing it out whenever I'm talking to audience\n>>I'm not making my political state out of it. It's ridiculous to be based\n>>just on sexual orientation or even sexual needs, on something between our\n>>legs. There are many 'hot lines' for that. Let's be civilised and maybe\n>>intelectual.\n>>\n>>Best,\n>>Peter\n\nrebecca.lynn.eisenberg\nmars {AT} bossanova.com, mars {AT} well.com\nhttp://www.bossanova.com/rebeca/\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "\"rebecca l. eisenberg\" <mars {AT} bossanova.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "rebecca l. eisenberg",
|
||
"message-id": "v03007809afcc05c63050 {AT} [206.80.15.235]",
|
||
"id": "00124",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nHi there!\n\n> I just wanted to note briefly, that there is hardly any statement that I\n> find more insidious and offensive, when not outright simplistic and\nAt the end I wrote i.e. - in example. So I didn't mean just that, there\nis others personal shit as well. But you can't blame it on the whole world\npopulations. \n\n> Feminists are reponding to *institutional* sexism, and fighting against\n> sexism constitutes neither the airing of dirty laundry nor the promotion of\n> sexism itself. Many people are feminist before they even have any\n> \"partners\" to be \"angry\" about -- for example, my first feminist awakening\n> involved the way that *teachers* treated me in math and science classes in\n> my pre-teen years. There's no bitterness over boyfriends there; rather, it\n> is justified anger at a world that assigns females a presumption of\n> incompetence while assigning males, at the same time, a presumption of\n> competence. The goal is to break down barriers and promote equality, and\n> I think that you badly misrepresent feminism as it is known to the great\n> majority of people, both male and female, who identify as feminist, by\n> insisting otherwise.\nAlright. You don't like *teachers*. I don't like some of them either. You\ncan identify as you like. Feminist is O.K. I'm Marsian, two heads and\nwings, little green creature. But on the other hand I'm Peter Tomaz\nDobrila and nothing else. Please to meet you Rebecca. Give those teachers\nnames. Some car drivers are even worse. So what to do?\n \n> That said, I did actually have an objection to the circulated \"Vagina\"\n> post. In my opinion, as well as my best understanding of the nature of\n> biology and human sexuality, the female body part that is most analagous to\n> the penis is the *clitoris* rather than the vagina. It is a fairly common\n> complaint among feminist scholars (and has been for a while, in particular\n> in reaction to Freud's terrifyingly absurd assumptions about female\n> sexuality) that a focus on the vagina, rather than on the clitoris or the\n> vulva in general, looks at female sexuality from the point of view of a\n> penis in search of a hole. This is not to insist that the vagina is\n> irrelevant to sexuality for all women, but rather, it is to make the\n> argument that, if you are going to reclaim space for women, and then\n> identify women with the sexual organ where their sexual response is\n> generally considered to be located, the clear choice would have been\n> clitoris rather than vagina.\nGreat! Sigmund Freud was a wanker. But debate about penis, vagina and\nclito is unfamiliar to me. Don't we have more in our bodies? Toes, liver,\nheart, brain, arms, legs, feet, head, kindeys, eyes, ears, smell,\nvoice, touch, etc. Isn't it all involved in our whole behaviour, work,\nsex, etc.? \n\nBest,\nPeter\n\n \n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Peter Tomaz Dobrila <peco {AT} kibla.org>",
|
||
"author_name": "Peter Tomaz Dobrila",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.LNX.3.95.970617113922.858H-100000 {AT} server.nd-mb.si",
|
||
"id": "00125",
|
||
"to": "\"rebecca l. eisenberg\" <mars {AT} bossanova.com>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9706/msg00125.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Translation: The vagina is the boss on intern",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 17 Jun 1997 12:00:02 +0200 (MET DST)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nAt 12:00 PM +0200 6/17/97, Peter Tomaz Dobrila wrote:\n>Hi there!\n>\n>> I just wanted to note briefly, that there is hardly any statement that I\n>> find more insidious and offensive, when not outright simplistic and\n>At the end I wrote i.e. - in example. So I didn't mean just that, there\n>is others personal shit as well. But you can't blame it on the whole world\n>populations.\n\n\nIn the United States, the accepted meaning of i.e. is \"that is.\" This is\nvery different from \"for example,\" which is signified by \"e.g.\".\n\nRegardless, the point stands that feminism is not about revenge against bad\nmen. It is about a social movement that promotes equality of the sexes,\nand that actively fights against sexist stereotyping. Period. If I read\ncorrectly, you yourself insisted that you were \"not a feminist\" (a\nconclusion that could have been inferred from context had it not been\nstated explicitly). Given that, how can you justify trying to define my\nsocial movement? It is offensive.\n\nWho is blaming sexism on \"the thole world populations <sic>\"? What I\nstated clearly, and what I repeat again, is that feminism is about\npromoting equality of the sexes, and striving to acheive a world where\nopportunity is not restricted on the basis of sex and/or gender. The fact\nthat the majority of the people who live in this world take part in a\nsexist culture of some sort does not change the goals of the movement,\nwhich are to enact change and promote equality.\n\n\n\n>\n>> Feminists are reponding to *institutional* sexism, and fighting against\n>> sexism constitutes neither the airing of dirty laundry nor the promotion of\n>> sexism itself. Many people are feminist before they even have any\n>> \"partners\" to be \"angry\" about -- for example, my first feminist awakening\n>> involved the way that *teachers* treated me in math and science classes in\n>> my pre-teen years. There's no bitterness over boyfriends there; rather, it\n>> is justified anger at a world that assigns females a presumption of\n>> incompetence while assigning males, at the same time, a presumption of\n>> competence. The goal is to break down barriers and promote equality, and\n>> I think that you badly misrepresent feminism as it is known to the great\n>> majority of people, both male and female, who identify as feminist, by\n>> insisting otherwise.\n>Alright. You don't like *teachers*. I don't like some of them either. You\n>can identify as you like. Feminist is O.K. I'm Marsian, two heads and\n>wings, little green creature. But on the other hand I'm Peter Tomaz\n>Dobrila and nothing else. Please to meet you Rebecca. Give those teachers\n>names. Some car drivers are even worse. So what to do?\n\nThat is patently absurd. Feminism is not a fight against \"teachers.\" Many\nteachers were *not* that way. Feminism is a battle to break down sexist\nstereotyping, and what I gave an example of was the stereotype that insists\nthat women are not competent in math and science, and that succeeds, to\nthis day, to keep unjustly many highly qualified women out of lucrative\nand challenging occupations. To the extent that individuals are hired\nand/or promoted based on their sex rather than based on the quality of\ntheir work (and to deny that this happens is to look blindly upon the\nworld) helps no one because it promotes an inefficient marketplace and\ninhibits the full range of human and technological progress.\n\nYou are Peter, but you are also male, and you have benefitted from being a\nmale, in some way or other in your life, whether you admit that or not.\nPerhaps you have benefitted only from the fact that you need not actively\nfear rape as you walk down a city street at night; or perhaps you have\nbenefitted from that fact because you have a much better real opportunity\nto become an elected member of the government (at least if you were a US\ncitizen) than your female colleagues. But you have benefitted.\nPersonally, I strive for a world where gender, the social contruct, does\nnot exist at all, and in which we can all be viewed as individuals first,\nand male or female (or hermaphrodite) as one of our many other individual\ntraits. But we are not there yet, Peter, and denying the existence of\ninstitutionalized sexism brings us no closer to that final goal.\n\n\n\n>\n>> That said, I did actually have an objection to the circulated \"Vagina\"\n>> post. In my opinion, as well as my best understanding of the nature of\n>> biology and human sexuality, the female body part that is most analagous to\n>> the penis is the *clitoris* rather than the vagina. It is a fairly common\n>> complaint among feminist scholars (and has been for a while, in particular\n>> in reaction to Freud's terrifyingly absurd assumptions about female\n>> sexuality) that a focus on the vagina, rather than on the clitoris or the\n>> vulva in general, looks at female sexuality from the point of view of a\n>> penis in search of a hole. This is not to insist that the vagina is\n>> irrelevant to sexuality for all women, but rather, it is to make the\n>> argument that, if you are going to reclaim space for women, and then\n>> identify women with the sexual organ where their sexual response is\n>> generally considered to be located, the clear choice would have been\n>> clitoris rather than vagina.\n>Great! Sigmund Freud was a wanker. But debate about penis, vagina and\n>clito is unfamiliar to me. Don't we have more in our bodies? Toes, liver,\n>heart, brain, arms, legs, feet, head, kindeys, eyes, ears, smell,\n>voice, touch, etc. Isn't it all involved in our whole behaviour, work,\n>sex, etc.?\n>\n\n\nThere are many errogenous zones in the human body, both male and female,\nand NOTHING I wrote suggested otherwise. But a focus on the vagina is\nclearly phallocentric, and a decision not to even mention the clitoris --\nwhich, I repeat, is where female sexuality is said to be \"centered\" in a\nway analogous to the male centering of sexuality on the penis -- is not\ntrivial. No act of sexism is trivial, and I must repeat that I find\nhardly any action more pernicious than the denial that sexism exists.\nSexism exists. The fact that you, personally, have perhaps never felt\nthe direct harms of sexism only provides evidence of the fact that sexism\ndivides the world by gender, and assigns the burdens and benefits\ninequally. The fact that many women (most of them much younger than I am)\nand perhaps most men may disagree with this perspective does not mean that\nsexism does not exist.\n\nI believe that your intentions are genuine. So if you want truly to create\nthe egalitarian world that you would like to think exists today, do\nsomething about it. Join the movement. Read the literature. Talk about\nit. Get involved. Don't just sit there.\n\nrle\n\nrebecca.lynn.eisenberg\nmars {AT} bossanova.com, mars {AT} well.com\nhttp://www.bossanova.com/rebeca/\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "\"rebecca l. eisenberg\" <mars {AT} bossanova.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "rebecca l. eisenberg",
|
||
"message-id": "v0300780dafcc13d17e3f {AT} [206.80.15.235]",
|
||
"id": "00126",
|
||
"to": "Peter Tomaz Dobrila <peco {AT} kibla.org>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9706/msg00126.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Translation: The vagina is the boss on intern",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 17 Jun 1997 03:38:06 -0700"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nHi again dear...\n \n> In the United States, the accepted meaning of i.e. is \"that is.\" This is\n> very different from \"for example,\" which is signified by \"e.g.\".\nSorry. So e.g. But maybe is English i.e.? I'm not sure. It is not my\nfirst language.\n \n> Regardless, the point stands that feminism is not about revenge against bad\n> men. It is about a social movement that promotes equality of the sexes,\n> and that actively fights against sexist stereotyping. Period. If I read\n> correctly, you yourself insisted that you were \"not a feminist\" (a\n> conclusion that could have been inferred from context had it not been\n> stated explicitly). Given that, how can you justify trying to define my\n> social movement? It is offensive.\nWhat equality, if there are 'women only' things? Don't you think this is\nxenophobic, chovinistic and even rasistic? Isn't it just stereotyping?\nIt's is the same as with your *teachers*. Most of my teachers were women,\nso I should go macho, while I didn't like all of them... I'm not a\nfeminist and I'm not macho. I'm human, I suppose I'm not a dog. Social or\nsex movement? Be precise. Society involves ALL (human) beings. And no, I'm\nnot offensive. I like you and it's O.K., if you are feminist. Just I don't\nagree with it, making social movements with the thing between your legs.\n \n> Who is blaming sexism on \"the thole world populations <sic>\"? What I\n> stated clearly, and what I repeat again, is that feminism is about\n> promoting equality of the sexes, and striving to acheive a world where\n> opportunity is not restricted on the basis of sex and/or gender. The fact\n> that the majority of the people who live in this world take part in a\n> sexist culture of some sort does not change the goals of the movement,\n> which are to enact change and promote equality.\nNo, as long as there are 'women-only' things, you can't talk about \nequality. All different all equal. With other statements I'm supporting\nyou. I have a better word: humanism - it doesn't include gender, while\nfeminism does. \n \n> That is patently absurd. Feminism is not a fight against \"teachers.\" Many\n> teachers were *not* that way. Feminism is a battle to break down sexist\n> stereotyping, and what I gave an example of was the stereotype that insists\n> that women are not competent in math and science, and that succeeds, to\n> this day, to keep unjustly many highly qualified women out of lucrative\n> and challenging occupations. To the extent that individuals are hired\n> and/or promoted based on their sex rather than based on the quality of\n> their work (and to deny that this happens is to look blindly upon the\n> world) helps no one because it promotes an inefficient marketplace and\n> inhibits the full range of human and technological progress.\nSo you're battling one sexist stereotype with another. Not very sensible.\nI agree with other (mostly). You pointed out *teachers*, not me. Isn't\nthat your personal thing? I was prosecuted by communist government and\nwas thrown out of University. So what? Should I fight all communists? No,\nI like them. I like communism.\n \n> You are Peter, but you are also male, and you have benefitted from being a\n> male, in some way or other in your life, whether you admit that or not.\nFor my benefits look above. But it's not my trauma.I just don't have Ph.D.\nI admit everything else. \n\n> Perhaps you have benefitted only from the fact that you need not actively\n> fear rape as you walk down a city street at night; or perhaps you have\n> benefitted from that fact because you have a much better real opportunity\n> to become an elected member of the government (at least if you were a US\n> citizen) than your female colleagues. But you have benefitted.\nO.K. You think not? Why? Fuck the government. I have a much better real\nopportunity to die (better: change my agregate state) earlier than you\nwould. And I have a much better real opportunity to be beaten by a gang.\nAnd I had a much better real opportunity to go to prison. And I've got\na much better real opportunity to be shot. Welcome to my benefits. US is\nnot the whole world. So what do you know about ex-socialism? It was\ngreat.\n\n> Personally, I strive for a world where gender, the social contruct, does\n> not exist at all, and in which we can all be viewed as individuals first,\n> and male or female (or hermaphrodite) as one of our many other individual\n> traits. But we are not there yet, Peter, and denying the existence of\n> institutionalized sexism brings us no closer to that final goal.\nI'm not denying 'institutional sexism'. But it exists for male as well.\nLook for your opportunities and don't believe everything Rosa Luxemburg\nand Klara Zetkin wrote. \n \n> There are many errogenous zones in the human body, both male and female,\n> and NOTHING I wrote suggested otherwise. But a focus on the vagina is\n> clearly phallocentric, and a decision not to even mention the clitoris --\n> which, I repeat, is where female sexuality is said to be \"centered\" in a\n> way analogous to the male centering of sexuality on the penis -- is not\n> trivial. No act of sexism is trivial, and I must repeat that I find\n> hardly any action more pernicious than the denial that sexism exists.\n> Sexism exists. The fact that you, personally, have perhaps never felt\n> the direct harms of sexism only provides evidence of the fact that sexism\n> divides the world by gender, and assigns the burdens and benefits\n> inequally. The fact that many women (most of them much younger than I am)\n> and perhaps most men may disagree with this perspective does not mean that\n> sexism does not exist.\nI see that sexism exists, even through you explanations. But you can't\nfight sexism with other sexism. Is penis vulvacentric? What male? Who?\nI mentioned clitoris. CLITORIS. VAGINA. PENIS. BREAST. I'm proud of\nclitoris, even though I don't have one. This is getting ridiculous. Better\nname all sexists and we can E-mail them. I'll help you with that.\n \n> I believe that your intentions are genuine. So if you want truly to create\n> the egalitarian world that you would like to think exists today, do\n> something about it. Join the movement. Read the literature. Talk about\n> it. Get involved. Don't just sit there.\nJoin the party. Join the army. Your country needs you. I'm sitting here\ntalking to you. Just had a coffee. Have one and be yourself. \n\nLove,\nPeter \n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Peter Tomaz Dobrila <peco {AT} kibla.org>",
|
||
"author_name": "Peter Tomaz Dobrila",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.LNX.3.95.970617130206.858K-100000 {AT} server.nd-mb.si",
|
||
"id": "00127",
|
||
"to": "\"rebecca l. eisenberg\" <mars {AT} bossanova.com>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9706/msg00127.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Translation: The vagina is the boss on intern",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 17 Jun 1997 14:17:29 +0200 (MET DST)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nHi,\n\n> What equality, if there are 'women only' things?\n\nCome on, get real! \n\nmaybe you come from a different planet than me, but i grew up \nsurrounded with *men only* things, and still i am often enough the \n*_one_ woman only* amongst males (whether it's in the rock biz, \n*industrial* art, university...)\n\nso excuse me, if women want to have their own things for a change, \nbad enough if they're having a minority status in society when in \nfact they are the majority in population. (ever heard that woman do \nabout 60 % of all work but possess 3 % of property?)\n\nwould you dare to get mad about if a ethnic minority wants to do \ntheir own thing? i don't think so. so be consistent. it's the right \nof every *minority* to gather and do their *own thing*.\n\nas long as *the thing between your legs* as you call it is considered \nto be an indicator for your abilities and interests - it very well \n_is_ still an issue.\n\nnot to talk about how female sexual body parts got degraded by men in \nthe past, so talking about the CLITORIS and the VAGINA, SLUTS and \nCUNTS is about regaining what belongs to us, giving it new meaning \nand pride.\n\nGOT TO PUT THE CLIT BACK ON THE MAP!\n\n> Better name all sexists and we can E-mail them. I'll help you with that.\nIt's not just people - it's a system that's sexist. _nobody_ can \nreally claim not to be racist or sexist. but we can try.\n\ncheers,\ndozza\n\np.s. for some more provocation: \nthere is the idea, that men alone should carry the burden of paying \ntaxes for all the costs involved with crime that to the highest \ndegree are committed by men! \n.................................................\nDoris Weichselbaumer\nDepartment of Economics\nUniversity of Linz\nAltenberger Str. 69, 4040 Linz, Austria,\nPhone: ++43-732-2468-240, Fax: ++43-732-2468-9679\nhttp://www.economics.uni-linz.ac.at/\nemail: doris.weichselbaumer {AT} jk.uni-linz.ac.at\n................................................\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "\"Doris Weichselbaumer\" <Doris.Weichselbaumer {AT} alijku04.edvz.uni-linz.ac.at>",
|
||
"author_name": "Doris Weichselbaumer",
|
||
"message-id": "199706171341.AA183050 {AT} alijku04.edvz.uni-linz.ac.at",
|
||
"id": "00129",
|
||
"to": "Peter Tomaz Dobrila <peco {AT} kibla.org>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9706/msg00129.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Translation: The vagina is the boss on intern",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 17 Jun 1997 15:42:34 +0000"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"to": "Anne de Haan <sigorney {AT} knoware.nl>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9706/msg00124.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Translation: The vagina is the boss on intern",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 17 Jun 1997 02:27:32 -0700"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nHi there!\n\n> I just wanted to note briefly, that there is hardly any statement that I\n> find more insidious and offensive, when not outright simplistic and\nAt the end I wrote i.e. - in example. So I didn't mean just that, there\nis others personal shit as well. But you can't blame it on the whole world\npopulations. \n\n> Feminists are reponding to *institutional* sexism, and fighting against\n> sexism constitutes neither the airing of dirty laundry nor the promotion of\n> sexism itself. Many people are feminist before they even have any\n> \"partners\" to be \"angry\" about -- for example, my first feminist awakening\n> involved the way that *teachers* treated me in math and science classes in\n> my pre-teen years. There's no bitterness over boyfriends there; rather, it\n> is justified anger at a world that assigns females a presumption of\n> incompetence while assigning males, at the same time, a presumption of\n> competence. The goal is to break down barriers and promote equality, and\n> I think that you badly misrepresent feminism as it is known to the great\n> majority of people, both male and female, who identify as feminist, by\n> insisting otherwise.\nAlright. You don't like *teachers*. I don't like some of them either. You\ncan identify as you like. Feminist is O.K. I'm Marsian, two heads and\nwings, little green creature. But on the other hand I'm Peter Tomaz\nDobrila and nothing else. Please to meet you Rebecca. Give those teachers\nnames. Some car drivers are even worse. So what to do?\n \n> That said, I did actually have an objection to the circulated \"Vagina\"\n> post. In my opinion, as well as my best understanding of the nature of\n> biology and human sexuality, the female body part that is most analagous to\n> the penis is the *clitoris* rather than the vagina. It is a fairly common\n> complaint among feminist scholars (and has been for a while, in particular\n> in reaction to Freud's terrifyingly absurd assumptions about female\n> sexuality) that a focus on the vagina, rather than on the clitoris or the\n> vulva in general, looks at female sexuality from the point of view of a\n> penis in search of a hole. This is not to insist that the vagina is\n> irrelevant to sexuality for all women, but rather, it is to make the\n> argument that, if you are going to reclaim space for women, and then\n> identify women with the sexual organ where their sexual response is\n> generally considered to be located, the clear choice would have been\n> clitoris rather than vagina.\nGreat! Sigmund Freud was a wanker. But debate about penis, vagina and\nclito is unfamiliar to me. Don't we have more in our bodies? Toes, liver,\nheart, brain, arms, legs, feet, head, kindeys, eyes, ears, smell,\nvoice, touch, etc. Isn't it all involved in our whole behaviour, work,\nsex, etc.? \n\nBest,\nPeter\n\n \n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Peter Tomaz Dobrila <peco {AT} kibla.org>",
|
||
"author_name": "Peter Tomaz Dobrila",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.LNX.3.95.970617113922.858H-100000 {AT} server.nd-mb.si",
|
||
"id": "00125",
|
||
"to": "\"rebecca l. eisenberg\" <mars {AT} bossanova.com>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9706/msg00125.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Translation: The vagina is the boss on intern",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 17 Jun 1997 12:00:02 +0200 (MET DST)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nAt 12:00 PM +0200 6/17/97, Peter Tomaz Dobrila wrote:\n>Hi there!\n>\n>> I just wanted to note briefly, that there is hardly any statement that I\n>> find more insidious and offensive, when not outright simplistic and\n>At the end I wrote i.e. - in example. So I didn't mean just that, there\n>is others personal shit as well. But you can't blame it on the whole world\n>populations.\n\n\nIn the United States, the accepted meaning of i.e. is \"that is.\" This is\nvery different from \"for example,\" which is signified by \"e.g.\".\n\nRegardless, the point stands that feminism is not about revenge against bad\nmen. It is about a social movement that promotes equality of the sexes,\nand that actively fights against sexist stereotyping. Period. If I read\ncorrectly, you yourself insisted that you were \"not a feminist\" (a\nconclusion that could have been inferred from context had it not been\nstated explicitly). Given that, how can you justify trying to define my\nsocial movement? It is offensive.\n\nWho is blaming sexism on \"the thole world populations <sic>\"? What I\nstated clearly, and what I repeat again, is that feminism is about\npromoting equality of the sexes, and striving to acheive a world where\nopportunity is not restricted on the basis of sex and/or gender. The fact\nthat the majority of the people who live in this world take part in a\nsexist culture of some sort does not change the goals of the movement,\nwhich are to enact change and promote equality.\n\n\n\n>\n>> Feminists are reponding to *institutional* sexism, and fighting against\n>> sexism constitutes neither the airing of dirty laundry nor the promotion of\n>> sexism itself. Many people are feminist before they even have any\n>> \"partners\" to be \"angry\" about -- for example, my first feminist awakening\n>> involved the way that *teachers* treated me in math and science classes in\n>> my pre-teen years. There's no bitterness over boyfriends there; rather, it\n>> is justified anger at a world that assigns females a presumption of\n>> incompetence while assigning males, at the same time, a presumption of\n>> competence. The goal is to break down barriers and promote equality, and\n>> I think that you badly misrepresent feminism as it is known to the great\n>> majority of people, both male and female, who identify as feminist, by\n>> insisting otherwise.\n>Alright. You don't like *teachers*. I don't like some of them either. You\n>can identify as you like. Feminist is O.K. I'm Marsian, two heads and\n>wings, little green creature. But on the other hand I'm Peter Tomaz\n>Dobrila and nothing else. Please to meet you Rebecca. Give those teachers\n>names. Some car drivers are even worse. So what to do?\n\nThat is patently absurd. Feminism is not a fight against \"teachers.\" Many\nteachers were *not* that way. Feminism is a battle to break down sexist\nstereotyping, and what I gave an example of was the stereotype that insists\nthat women are not competent in math and science, and that succeeds, to\nthis day, to keep unjustly many highly qualified women out of lucrative\nand challenging occupations. To the extent that individuals are hired\nand/or promoted based on their sex rather than based on the quality of\ntheir work (and to deny that this happens is to look blindly upon the\nworld) helps no one because it promotes an inefficient marketplace and\ninhibits the full range of human and technological progress.\n\nYou are Peter, but you are also male, and you have benefitted from being a\nmale, in some way or other in your life, whether you admit that or not.\nPerhaps you have benefitted only from the fact that you need not actively\nfear rape as you walk down a city street at night; or perhaps you have\nbenefitted from that fact because you have a much better real opportunity\nto become an elected member of the government (at least if you were a US\ncitizen) than your female colleagues. But you have benefitted.\nPersonally, I strive for a world where gender, the social contruct, does\nnot exist at all, and in which we can all be viewed as individuals first,\nand male or female (or hermaphrodite) as one of our many other individual\ntraits. But we are not there yet, Peter, and denying the existence of\ninstitutionalized sexism brings us no closer to that final goal.\n\n\n\n>\n>> That said, I did actually have an objection to the circulated \"Vagina\"\n>> post. In my opinion, as well as my best understanding of the nature of\n>> biology and human sexuality, the female body part that is most analagous to\n>> the penis is the *clitoris* rather than the vagina. It is a fairly common\n>> complaint among feminist scholars (and has been for a while, in particular\n>> in reaction to Freud's terrifyingly absurd assumptions about female\n>> sexuality) that a focus on the vagina, rather than on the clitoris or the\n>> vulva in general, looks at female sexuality from the point of view of a\n>> penis in search of a hole. This is not to insist that the vagina is\n>> irrelevant to sexuality for all women, but rather, it is to make the\n>> argument that, if you are going to reclaim space for women, and then\n>> identify women with the sexual organ where their sexual response is\n>> generally considered to be located, the clear choice would have been\n>> clitoris rather than vagina.\n>Great! Sigmund Freud was a wanker. But debate about penis, vagina and\n>clito is unfamiliar to me. Don't we have more in our bodies? Toes, liver,\n>heart, brain, arms, legs, feet, head, kindeys, eyes, ears, smell,\n>voice, touch, etc. Isn't it all involved in our whole behaviour, work,\n>sex, etc.?\n>\n\n\nThere are many errogenous zones in the human body, both male and female,\nand NOTHING I wrote suggested otherwise. But a focus on the vagina is\nclearly phallocentric, and a decision not to even mention the clitoris --\nwhich, I repeat, is where female sexuality is said to be \"centered\" in a\nway analogous to the male centering of sexuality on the penis -- is not\ntrivial. No act of sexism is trivial, and I must repeat that I find\nhardly any action more pernicious than the denial that sexism exists.\nSexism exists. The fact that you, personally, have perhaps never felt\nthe direct harms of sexism only provides evidence of the fact that sexism\ndivides the world by gender, and assigns the burdens and benefits\ninequally. The fact that many women (most of them much younger than I am)\nand perhaps most men may disagree with this perspective does not mean that\nsexism does not exist.\n\nI believe that your intentions are genuine. So if you want truly to create\nthe egalitarian world that you would like to think exists today, do\nsomething about it. Join the movement. Read the literature. Talk about\nit. Get involved. Don't just sit there.\n\nrle\n\nrebecca.lynn.eisenberg\nmars {AT} bossanova.com, mars {AT} well.com\nhttp://www.bossanova.com/rebeca/\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "\"rebecca l. eisenberg\" <mars {AT} bossanova.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "rebecca l. eisenberg",
|
||
"message-id": "v0300780dafcc13d17e3f {AT} [206.80.15.235]",
|
||
"id": "00126",
|
||
"to": "Peter Tomaz Dobrila <peco {AT} kibla.org>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9706/msg00126.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Translation: The vagina is the boss on intern",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 17 Jun 1997 03:38:06 -0700"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nHi again dear...\n \n> In the United States, the accepted meaning of i.e. is \"that is.\" This is\n> very different from \"for example,\" which is signified by \"e.g.\".\nSorry. So e.g. But maybe is English i.e.? I'm not sure. It is not my\nfirst language.\n \n> Regardless, the point stands that feminism is not about revenge against bad\n> men. It is about a social movement that promotes equality of the sexes,\n> and that actively fights against sexist stereotyping. Period. If I read\n> correctly, you yourself insisted that you were \"not a feminist\" (a\n> conclusion that could have been inferred from context had it not been\n> stated explicitly). Given that, how can you justify trying to define my\n> social movement? It is offensive.\nWhat equality, if there are 'women only' things? Don't you think this is\nxenophobic, chovinistic and even rasistic? Isn't it just stereotyping?\nIt's is the same as with your *teachers*. Most of my teachers were women,\nso I should go macho, while I didn't like all of them... I'm not a\nfeminist and I'm not macho. I'm human, I suppose I'm not a dog. Social or\nsex movement? Be precise. Society involves ALL (human) beings. And no, I'm\nnot offensive. I like you and it's O.K., if you are feminist. Just I don't\nagree with it, making social movements with the thing between your legs.\n \n> Who is blaming sexism on \"the thole world populations <sic>\"? What I\n> stated clearly, and what I repeat again, is that feminism is about\n> promoting equality of the sexes, and striving to acheive a world where\n> opportunity is not restricted on the basis of sex and/or gender. The fact\n> that the majority of the people who live in this world take part in a\n> sexist culture of some sort does not change the goals of the movement,\n> which are to enact change and promote equality.\nNo, as long as there are 'women-only' things, you can't talk about \nequality. All different all equal. With other statements I'm supporting\nyou. I have a better word: humanism - it doesn't include gender, while\nfeminism does. \n \n> That is patently absurd. Feminism is not a fight against \"teachers.\" Many\n> teachers were *not* that way. Feminism is a battle to break down sexist\n> stereotyping, and what I gave an example of was the stereotype that insists\n> that women are not competent in math and science, and that succeeds, to\n> this day, to keep unjustly many highly qualified women out of lucrative\n> and challenging occupations. To the extent that individuals are hired\n> and/or promoted based on their sex rather than based on the quality of\n> their work (and to deny that this happens is to look blindly upon the\n> world) helps no one because it promotes an inefficient marketplace and\n> inhibits the full range of human and technological progress.\nSo you're battling one sexist stereotype with another. Not very sensible.\nI agree with other (mostly). You pointed out *teachers*, not me. Isn't\nthat your personal thing? I was prosecuted by communist government and\nwas thrown out of University. So what? Should I fight all communists? No,\nI like them. I like communism.\n \n> You are Peter, but you are also male, and you have benefitted from being a\n> male, in some way or other in your life, whether you admit that or not.\nFor my benefits look above. But it's not my trauma.I just don't have Ph.D.\nI admit everything else. \n\n> Perhaps you have benefitted only from the fact that you need not actively\n> fear rape as you walk down a city street at night; or perhaps you have\n> benefitted from that fact because you have a much better real opportunity\n> to become an elected member of the government (at least if you were a US\n> citizen) than your female colleagues. But you have benefitted.\nO.K. You think not? Why? Fuck the government. I have a much better real\nopportunity to die (better: change my agregate state) earlier than you\nwould. And I have a much better real opportunity to be beaten by a gang.\nAnd I had a much better real opportunity to go to prison. And I've got\na much better real opportunity to be shot. Welcome to my benefits. US is\nnot the whole world. So what do you know about ex-socialism? It was\ngreat.\n\n> Personally, I strive for a world where gender, the social contruct, does\n> not exist at all, and in which we can all be viewed as individuals first,\n> and male or female (or hermaphrodite) as one of our many other individual\n> traits. But we are not there yet, Peter, and denying the existence of\n> institutionalized sexism brings us no closer to that final goal.\nI'm not denying 'institutional sexism'. But it exists for male as well.\nLook for your opportunities and don't believe everything Rosa Luxemburg\nand Klara Zetkin wrote. \n \n> There are many errogenous zones in the human body, both male and female,\n> and NOTHING I wrote suggested otherwise. But a focus on the vagina is\n> clearly phallocentric, and a decision not to even mention the clitoris --\n> which, I repeat, is where female sexuality is said to be \"centered\" in a\n> way analogous to the male centering of sexuality on the penis -- is not\n> trivial. No act of sexism is trivial, and I must repeat that I find\n> hardly any action more pernicious than the denial that sexism exists.\n> Sexism exists. The fact that you, personally, have perhaps never felt\n> the direct harms of sexism only provides evidence of the fact that sexism\n> divides the world by gender, and assigns the burdens and benefits\n> inequally. The fact that many women (most of them much younger than I am)\n> and perhaps most men may disagree with this perspective does not mean that\n> sexism does not exist.\nI see that sexism exists, even through you explanations. But you can't\nfight sexism with other sexism. Is penis vulvacentric? What male? Who?\nI mentioned clitoris. CLITORIS. VAGINA. PENIS. BREAST. I'm proud of\nclitoris, even though I don't have one. This is getting ridiculous. Better\nname all sexists and we can E-mail them. I'll help you with that.\n \n> I believe that your intentions are genuine. So if you want truly to create\n> the egalitarian world that you would like to think exists today, do\n> something about it. Join the movement. Read the literature. Talk about\n> it. Get involved. Don't just sit there.\nJoin the party. Join the army. Your country needs you. I'm sitting here\ntalking to you. Just had a coffee. Have one and be yourself. \n\nLove,\nPeter \n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Peter Tomaz Dobrila <peco {AT} kibla.org>",
|
||
"author_name": "Peter Tomaz Dobrila",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.LNX.3.95.970617130206.858K-100000 {AT} server.nd-mb.si",
|
||
"id": "00127",
|
||
"to": "\"rebecca l. eisenberg\" <mars {AT} bossanova.com>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9706/msg00127.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Translation: The vagina is the boss on intern",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 17 Jun 1997 14:17:29 +0200 (MET DST)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nHi,\n\n> What equality, if there are 'women only' things?\n\nCome on, get real! \n\nmaybe you come from a different planet than me, but i grew up \nsurrounded with *men only* things, and still i am often enough the \n*_one_ woman only* amongst males (whether it's in the rock biz, \n*industrial* art, university...)\n\nso excuse me, if women want to have their own things for a change, \nbad enough if they're having a minority status in society when in \nfact they are the majority in population. (ever heard that woman do \nabout 60 % of all work but possess 3 % of property?)\n\nwould you dare to get mad about if a ethnic minority wants to do \ntheir own thing? i don't think so. so be consistent. it's the right \nof every *minority* to gather and do their *own thing*.\n\nas long as *the thing between your legs* as you call it is considered \nto be an indicator for your abilities and interests - it very well \n_is_ still an issue.\n\nnot to talk about how female sexual body parts got degraded by men in \nthe past, so talking about the CLITORIS and the VAGINA, SLUTS and \nCUNTS is about regaining what belongs to us, giving it new meaning \nand pride.\n\nGOT TO PUT THE CLIT BACK ON THE MAP!\n\n> Better name all sexists and we can E-mail them. I'll help you with that.\nIt's not just people - it's a system that's sexist. _nobody_ can \nreally claim not to be racist or sexist. but we can try.\n\ncheers,\ndozza\n\np.s. for some more provocation: \nthere is the idea, that men alone should carry the burden of paying \ntaxes for all the costs involved with crime that to the highest \ndegree are committed by men! \n.................................................\nDoris Weichselbaumer\nDepartment of Economics\nUniversity of Linz\nAltenberger Str. 69, 4040 Linz, Austria,\nPhone: ++43-732-2468-240, Fax: ++43-732-2468-9679\nhttp://www.economics.uni-linz.ac.at/\nemail: doris.weichselbaumer {AT} jk.uni-linz.ac.at\n................................................\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "\"Doris Weichselbaumer\" <Doris.Weichselbaumer {AT} alijku04.edvz.uni-linz.ac.at>",
|
||
"author_name": "Doris Weichselbaumer",
|
||
"message-id": "199706171341.AA183050 {AT} alijku04.edvz.uni-linz.ac.at",
|
||
"id": "00129",
|
||
"to": "Peter Tomaz Dobrila <peco {AT} kibla.org>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9706/msg00129.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Translation: The vagina is the boss on intern",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 17 Jun 1997 15:42:34 +0000"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"to": "Peter Tomaz Dobrila <peco {AT} kibla.org>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9706/msg00119.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Translation: The vagina is the boss on intern",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 17 Jun 1997 09:11:38 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\n\n please continue this nonsens in private mails\n\n\n\nsome general information about the original mail:\n\nThe User Unfriendly interface was NOT developed by VNS Matrix\nI pointed this out to the writer of this article\nbefore it was translated.\nIt was a seperate art piece by Leon Cmielewski and Josephine Starrs.\n\nanother big point of anatomical difference:\nwomen do not urinate with their sex organs\nthere is another hole, connected to a seperate organ, the bladder\n\n\n\ntake it easy other subscribers\n\nJ\n\n*\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Josephine Bosma <jesis {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"author_name": "Josephine Bosma",
|
||
"message-id": "l03010d06afcc5151a3b5 {AT} [194.109.45.77]",
|
||
"id": "00128",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9706/msg00128.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Translation: The vagina is the boss on intern",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 17 Jun 1997 14:38:30 +0200 (MET DST)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nPeter Tomaz Dobrila wrote:\n\n> The thing about new media is that text informations should\n> be short and precise, the long stories should be printed.\n\n I disagree. I'm a heavy reader, and it costs me much more to\nbuy printed matter than to read stuff on my computer. In any\ncase, you can always print it out yourself, or just skip it.\n\n> I just can't use computer as a book, my eyes get sore. It's\n> a multimedia machine.\n\n This happens to many people, but not everyone! I spend 2-3\nhours a day reading text on my computer, and almost never have\nthat problem. Here are some hints:\n\n Use text (DOS) mode, not graphic (Windows) mode.\n\n Increase the resolution. Most PCs come set for 400 lines in\ntext mode, but they can do much better. 600 lines is about\nright for a 15-inch monitor.\n\n Find a better color combo than black and white. I use\nlemon-yellow text on a dark blue background.\n\n I use a free program called SVGATextMode to accomplish the\nabove adjustments. I run it under the Linux operating system,\nbut a DOS version is available also -- here's the URL:\n\nftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/utils/console/SVGATextMode-1.5-dos.tar.gz\n\n\nWill French <wfrench {AT} interport.net>\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Will French <wfrench {AT} interport.net>",
|
||
"author_name": "Will French",
|
||
"message-id": "199706171418.KAA19774 {AT} interport.net",
|
||
"id": "00130",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl, peco {AT} kibla.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9706/msg00130.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Translation: The vagina is the boss on intern",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 17 Jun 1997 10:18:55 -0400 (EDT)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\n\nhysteriu: jennifer's wundering wumb\n\n\nmurky slugged-vine hungs duwn truiling frum durk-wull, skein-cutchers uf\njennifer's wumb un the muve thruugh julu; jewel-julu mirrurs bluud-durk\nspheres with perfect ruy-trucing us distunce turns buck un itself; birth\nis grunted ucruss the gruin uf prutuculs; yuu're never ulluwed tu furget\nthut there is nu distunce between neurest puints in these enfulding tis-\nuses, clused dumuins sputtering in the heuted symphuny uf bluud-red night,\nin the bluud-durk night\n\nit's time tu stup the breuth uf gud, thin gluss needle between my heuted\nlips, julu slushing nuw in jennifer-visiuns cuming us pitch-durk bluud\nrises cluse tu temperuture-thermumeter\n\nthe wumb presses uut thruugh the breusts, distends the nipples, wun't plu-\ncute until bluud is druwn drinking ut the muuth uf gud, the budy un im-\nmense und bluud-night cuvern, eyes teuring, surgery uf jennifer-julu in u\nsphere uf thin gluss electrude firing perfect bruin in this durk-red night\nuf reign uf bluud und heuted thin gluss needles\n\n\nO Julu suys Jennifer yuu ulwuys luuk unly ut the piece, nut ut the hule.\nO Jennifer suys Julu everything is bruken und the suuner yuu reulize this.\nO Julu suys Jennifer dun't yuu ever huve u bruin.\nO Jennifer suys Julu unly when I huve u mind tu.\n\n- - - \n\n\n\"She will dreum ulung with the cut, guudnight Jennifer, suys Julu.\n\n\"Guudnight Julu, huve u luvely dreum.\n\n\"(I wish there were mure uf us, thinks Julu.)\n\n\"Jennifer heurd thut!\"\n\n\n______________________________________________________________________\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Alan Julu Sondheim <sondheim {AT} panix.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "Alan Julu Sondheim",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.SUN.3.95.970617032409.21107A-100000 {AT} panix3.panix.com",
|
||
"id": "00120",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9706/msg00120.html",
|
||
"subject": "<nettime> hysteri",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 17 Jun 1997 03:24:55 -0400 (EDT)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nGive it back...\n\n> Peter,\n> \n> I think you are very right about this and I think that other people should\n> know this too. That's why I am sending this to the nettime list.\nI agree, but on the other hand may mail box is quite full with all nettime\ndiscusions, so how can the others cope with that. It's imposible to read\nall the things, while some mails are very (too) long. The thing about new\nmedia is that text informations should be short and precise, the long\nstories should be printed. I just can't use computer as a book, my eyes\nget sore. It's a multimedia machine. \n\n> I wrote this article because I wanted to write something about feministic\n> art on the internet and not because I am an feminist. Althought I think that\n> the ideas behind the feminist arts are very interesting, I do not agree with\n> them. I also think that men and women should be equal.\nWhat is feminist art? It's a kind of statement. But on the other hand, if\nyou look global, there are about 51% of women and 49% of men on the world.\nSo women are majority (tipical in racism is dictatorship of majority on\nminority). I'm O.K. with that, but I think a lot of feminist artist don't\nget it. It was funny when a guy on the LEAF meeting in Liverpool this year\npointed out, when there was 'women-only' meeting, that it would be maybe\nmore relevant to have 'shy-only' meeting, because somebody said that one\nof the women attributes is shyness. Are men not shy? Don't you think I can\nmake feminist art as you can do the macho one? Specialy on the net. Art\nis trans-... Everything else is and excuse and pure activism. Sexism is\nfar out. And the worst is that personal shit is then abstracted to whole\npopulation. Aren't we individuals? There are differences between people,\neveryone is different person. And of course there are shitty women and\nshitty men. \n \n> I left my opinion out of the article, because I wanted to give a kind of\n> objective prescription, maybe I should have given more of my own opinion\nBut I got your opinion and I'm supporting it. \n\nBest,\nPeter\n\n \n \n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Peter Tomaz Dobrila <peco {AT} kibla.org>",
|
||
"author_name": "Peter Tomaz Dobrila",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.LNX.3.95.970617103828.858A-100000 {AT} server.nd-mb.si",
|
||
"id": "00122",
|
||
"to": "Anne de Haan <sigorney {AT} knoware.nl>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9706/msg00122.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Translation: The vagina is the boss on intern",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 17 Jun 1997 11:09:17 +0200 (MET DST)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nI just wanted to note briefly, that there is hardly any statement that I\nfind more insidious and offensive, when not outright simplistic and\napologist, to insist that \"usually feminists are transplanting their\npersonal\n>>accidents, their personal experiences, i.e. misunderstandings with their\n>>partners into common market.\"\n\nFeminists are reponding to *institutional* sexism, and fighting against\nsexism constitutes neither the airing of dirty laundry nor the promotion of\nsexism itself. Many people are feminist before they even have any\n\"partners\" to be \"angry\" about -- for example, my first feminist awakening\ninvolved the way that *teachers* treated me in math and science classes in\nmy pre-teen years. There's no bitterness over boyfriends there; rather, it\nis justified anger at a world that assigns females a presumption of\nincompetence while assigning males, at the same time, a presumption of\ncompetence. The goal is to break down barriers and promote equality, and\nI think that you badly misrepresent feminism as it is known to the great\nmajority of people, both male and female, who identify as feminist, by\ninsisting otherwise.\n\nThat said, I did actually have an objection to the circulated \"Vagina\"\npost. In my opinion, as well as my best understanding of the nature of\nbiology and human sexuality, the female body part that is most analagous to\nthe penis is the *clitoris* rather than the vagina. It is a fairly common\ncomplaint among feminist scholars (and has been for a while, in particular\nin reaction to Freud's terrifyingly absurd assumptions about female\nsexuality) that a focus on the vagina, rather than on the clitoris or the\nvulva in general, looks at female sexuality from the point of view of a\npenis in search of a hole. This is not to insist that the vagina is\nirrelevant to sexuality for all women, but rather, it is to make the\nargument that, if you are going to reclaim space for women, and then\nidentify women with the sexual organ where their sexual response is\ngenerally considered to be located, the clear choice would have been\nclitoris rather than vagina.\n\nregards,\nrebecca\n\nAt 9:11 AM +0200 6/17/97, Anne de Haan wrote:\n>At 16:06 16-06-97 +0200, you wrote:\n>>Aloha!\n>>\n>>Good explanation of the thing I'm more and more calling sick. More of it\n>>I don't understand, but usually feminists are transplanting their personal\n>>accidents, their personal experiences, i.e. misunderstandings with their\n>>partners into common market. So their goal is make war not love (I'm not\n>>hippy, so don't worry), if it's not another woman, of course. So is this a\n>>form of solidarity or just a way of expressing their sexual behavior.\n>>Plain gender, pure sex and nothing else. I don't think relationships\n>>should be built or focused on that. It's very animalic. And even less, I\n>>don't think excusses on political or social engagements should be raised\n>>from plain personal - intimate thing. It takes (at least) two for any kind\n>>of relation, communication. And here goes Internet, interactivity, etc.\n>>There's never just one who takes the blame, even when it's man.\n>>And I'm ignorant to all 'women only' projects. It sounds like 'white\n>>only'. Sometimes I'm mad, sometimes I'm laughing at it. When women are\n>>pointing out just their vagina (like feminists do) they make a very bad\n>>reputation of themselves, and all women of course. This is plain racism\n>>and pure agression. Make them read Camille Paglia.\n>>Where are there heads, their brains, their feelings, their emotions, if\n>>just vagina or penis is all that matters? So feminists are making animals\n>>out of women, even if I think that animals are more intelligent than some\n>>of them. Yes, I like Duchamp, I like Gertrude Stein, I like Orlan,\n>>I like Stelarc, I like Beatles, I like Spice Girls, I like ninties, the\n>>age of transsexuality and androginity and nature, that made genders. I'm\n>>heterosexual and I'm not pointing it out whenever I'm talking to audience\n>>I'm not making my political state out of it. It's ridiculous to be based\n>>just on sexual orientation or even sexual needs, on something between our\n>>legs. There are many 'hot lines' for that. Let's be civilised and maybe\n>>intelectual.\n>>\n>>Best,\n>>Peter\n\nrebecca.lynn.eisenberg\nmars {AT} bossanova.com, mars {AT} well.com\nhttp://www.bossanova.com/rebeca/\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "\"rebecca l. eisenberg\" <mars {AT} bossanova.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "rebecca l. eisenberg",
|
||
"message-id": "v03007809afcc05c63050 {AT} [206.80.15.235]",
|
||
"id": "00124",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nHi there!\n\n> I just wanted to note briefly, that there is hardly any statement that I\n> find more insidious and offensive, when not outright simplistic and\nAt the end I wrote i.e. - in example. So I didn't mean just that, there\nis others personal shit as well. But you can't blame it on the whole world\npopulations. \n\n> Feminists are reponding to *institutional* sexism, and fighting against\n> sexism constitutes neither the airing of dirty laundry nor the promotion of\n> sexism itself. Many people are feminist before they even have any\n> \"partners\" to be \"angry\" about -- for example, my first feminist awakening\n> involved the way that *teachers* treated me in math and science classes in\n> my pre-teen years. There's no bitterness over boyfriends there; rather, it\n> is justified anger at a world that assigns females a presumption of\n> incompetence while assigning males, at the same time, a presumption of\n> competence. The goal is to break down barriers and promote equality, and\n> I think that you badly misrepresent feminism as it is known to the great\n> majority of people, both male and female, who identify as feminist, by\n> insisting otherwise.\nAlright. You don't like *teachers*. I don't like some of them either. You\ncan identify as you like. Feminist is O.K. I'm Marsian, two heads and\nwings, little green creature. But on the other hand I'm Peter Tomaz\nDobrila and nothing else. Please to meet you Rebecca. Give those teachers\nnames. Some car drivers are even worse. So what to do?\n \n> That said, I did actually have an objection to the circulated \"Vagina\"\n> post. In my opinion, as well as my best understanding of the nature of\n> biology and human sexuality, the female body part that is most analagous to\n> the penis is the *clitoris* rather than the vagina. It is a fairly common\n> complaint among feminist scholars (and has been for a while, in particular\n> in reaction to Freud's terrifyingly absurd assumptions about female\n> sexuality) that a focus on the vagina, rather than on the clitoris or the\n> vulva in general, looks at female sexuality from the point of view of a\n> penis in search of a hole. This is not to insist that the vagina is\n> irrelevant to sexuality for all women, but rather, it is to make the\n> argument that, if you are going to reclaim space for women, and then\n> identify women with the sexual organ where their sexual response is\n> generally considered to be located, the clear choice would have been\n> clitoris rather than vagina.\nGreat! Sigmund Freud was a wanker. But debate about penis, vagina and\nclito is unfamiliar to me. Don't we have more in our bodies? Toes, liver,\nheart, brain, arms, legs, feet, head, kindeys, eyes, ears, smell,\nvoice, touch, etc. Isn't it all involved in our whole behaviour, work,\nsex, etc.? \n\nBest,\nPeter\n\n \n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Peter Tomaz Dobrila <peco {AT} kibla.org>",
|
||
"author_name": "Peter Tomaz Dobrila",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.LNX.3.95.970617113922.858H-100000 {AT} server.nd-mb.si",
|
||
"id": "00125",
|
||
"to": "\"rebecca l. eisenberg\" <mars {AT} bossanova.com>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9706/msg00125.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Translation: The vagina is the boss on intern",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 17 Jun 1997 12:00:02 +0200 (MET DST)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nAt 12:00 PM +0200 6/17/97, Peter Tomaz Dobrila wrote:\n>Hi there!\n>\n>> I just wanted to note briefly, that there is hardly any statement that I\n>> find more insidious and offensive, when not outright simplistic and\n>At the end I wrote i.e. - in example. So I didn't mean just that, there\n>is others personal shit as well. But you can't blame it on the whole world\n>populations.\n\n\nIn the United States, the accepted meaning of i.e. is \"that is.\" This is\nvery different from \"for example,\" which is signified by \"e.g.\".\n\nRegardless, the point stands that feminism is not about revenge against bad\nmen. It is about a social movement that promotes equality of the sexes,\nand that actively fights against sexist stereotyping. Period. If I read\ncorrectly, you yourself insisted that you were \"not a feminist\" (a\nconclusion that could have been inferred from context had it not been\nstated explicitly). Given that, how can you justify trying to define my\nsocial movement? It is offensive.\n\nWho is blaming sexism on \"the thole world populations <sic>\"? What I\nstated clearly, and what I repeat again, is that feminism is about\npromoting equality of the sexes, and striving to acheive a world where\nopportunity is not restricted on the basis of sex and/or gender. The fact\nthat the majority of the people who live in this world take part in a\nsexist culture of some sort does not change the goals of the movement,\nwhich are to enact change and promote equality.\n\n\n\n>\n>> Feminists are reponding to *institutional* sexism, and fighting against\n>> sexism constitutes neither the airing of dirty laundry nor the promotion of\n>> sexism itself. Many people are feminist before they even have any\n>> \"partners\" to be \"angry\" about -- for example, my first feminist awakening\n>> involved the way that *teachers* treated me in math and science classes in\n>> my pre-teen years. There's no bitterness over boyfriends there; rather, it\n>> is justified anger at a world that assigns females a presumption of\n>> incompetence while assigning males, at the same time, a presumption of\n>> competence. The goal is to break down barriers and promote equality, and\n>> I think that you badly misrepresent feminism as it is known to the great\n>> majority of people, both male and female, who identify as feminist, by\n>> insisting otherwise.\n>Alright. You don't like *teachers*. I don't like some of them either. You\n>can identify as you like. Feminist is O.K. I'm Marsian, two heads and\n>wings, little green creature. But on the other hand I'm Peter Tomaz\n>Dobrila and nothing else. Please to meet you Rebecca. Give those teachers\n>names. Some car drivers are even worse. So what to do?\n\nThat is patently absurd. Feminism is not a fight against \"teachers.\" Many\nteachers were *not* that way. Feminism is a battle to break down sexist\nstereotyping, and what I gave an example of was the stereotype that insists\nthat women are not competent in math and science, and that succeeds, to\nthis day, to keep unjustly many highly qualified women out of lucrative\nand challenging occupations. To the extent that individuals are hired\nand/or promoted based on their sex rather than based on the quality of\ntheir work (and to deny that this happens is to look blindly upon the\nworld) helps no one because it promotes an inefficient marketplace and\ninhibits the full range of human and technological progress.\n\nYou are Peter, but you are also male, and you have benefitted from being a\nmale, in some way or other in your life, whether you admit that or not.\nPerhaps you have benefitted only from the fact that you need not actively\nfear rape as you walk down a city street at night; or perhaps you have\nbenefitted from that fact because you have a much better real opportunity\nto become an elected member of the government (at least if you were a US\ncitizen) than your female colleagues. But you have benefitted.\nPersonally, I strive for a world where gender, the social contruct, does\nnot exist at all, and in which we can all be viewed as individuals first,\nand male or female (or hermaphrodite) as one of our many other individual\ntraits. But we are not there yet, Peter, and denying the existence of\ninstitutionalized sexism brings us no closer to that final goal.\n\n\n\n>\n>> That said, I did actually have an objection to the circulated \"Vagina\"\n>> post. In my opinion, as well as my best understanding of the nature of\n>> biology and human sexuality, the female body part that is most analagous to\n>> the penis is the *clitoris* rather than the vagina. It is a fairly common\n>> complaint among feminist scholars (and has been for a while, in particular\n>> in reaction to Freud's terrifyingly absurd assumptions about female\n>> sexuality) that a focus on the vagina, rather than on the clitoris or the\n>> vulva in general, looks at female sexuality from the point of view of a\n>> penis in search of a hole. This is not to insist that the vagina is\n>> irrelevant to sexuality for all women, but rather, it is to make the\n>> argument that, if you are going to reclaim space for women, and then\n>> identify women with the sexual organ where their sexual response is\n>> generally considered to be located, the clear choice would have been\n>> clitoris rather than vagina.\n>Great! Sigmund Freud was a wanker. But debate about penis, vagina and\n>clito is unfamiliar to me. Don't we have more in our bodies? Toes, liver,\n>heart, brain, arms, legs, feet, head, kindeys, eyes, ears, smell,\n>voice, touch, etc. Isn't it all involved in our whole behaviour, work,\n>sex, etc.?\n>\n\n\nThere are many errogenous zones in the human body, both male and female,\nand NOTHING I wrote suggested otherwise. But a focus on the vagina is\nclearly phallocentric, and a decision not to even mention the clitoris --\nwhich, I repeat, is where female sexuality is said to be \"centered\" in a\nway analogous to the male centering of sexuality on the penis -- is not\ntrivial. No act of sexism is trivial, and I must repeat that I find\nhardly any action more pernicious than the denial that sexism exists.\nSexism exists. The fact that you, personally, have perhaps never felt\nthe direct harms of sexism only provides evidence of the fact that sexism\ndivides the world by gender, and assigns the burdens and benefits\ninequally. The fact that many women (most of them much younger than I am)\nand perhaps most men may disagree with this perspective does not mean that\nsexism does not exist.\n\nI believe that your intentions are genuine. So if you want truly to create\nthe egalitarian world that you would like to think exists today, do\nsomething about it. Join the movement. Read the literature. Talk about\nit. Get involved. Don't just sit there.\n\nrle\n\nrebecca.lynn.eisenberg\nmars {AT} bossanova.com, mars {AT} well.com\nhttp://www.bossanova.com/rebeca/\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "\"rebecca l. eisenberg\" <mars {AT} bossanova.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "rebecca l. eisenberg",
|
||
"message-id": "v0300780dafcc13d17e3f {AT} [206.80.15.235]",
|
||
"id": "00126",
|
||
"to": "Peter Tomaz Dobrila <peco {AT} kibla.org>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9706/msg00126.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Translation: The vagina is the boss on intern",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 17 Jun 1997 03:38:06 -0700"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nHi again dear...\n \n> In the United States, the accepted meaning of i.e. is \"that is.\" This is\n> very different from \"for example,\" which is signified by \"e.g.\".\nSorry. So e.g. But maybe is English i.e.? I'm not sure. It is not my\nfirst language.\n \n> Regardless, the point stands that feminism is not about revenge against bad\n> men. It is about a social movement that promotes equality of the sexes,\n> and that actively fights against sexist stereotyping. Period. If I read\n> correctly, you yourself insisted that you were \"not a feminist\" (a\n> conclusion that could have been inferred from context had it not been\n> stated explicitly). Given that, how can you justify trying to define my\n> social movement? It is offensive.\nWhat equality, if there are 'women only' things? Don't you think this is\nxenophobic, chovinistic and even rasistic? Isn't it just stereotyping?\nIt's is the same as with your *teachers*. Most of my teachers were women,\nso I should go macho, while I didn't like all of them... I'm not a\nfeminist and I'm not macho. I'm human, I suppose I'm not a dog. Social or\nsex movement? Be precise. Society involves ALL (human) beings. And no, I'm\nnot offensive. I like you and it's O.K., if you are feminist. Just I don't\nagree with it, making social movements with the thing between your legs.\n \n> Who is blaming sexism on \"the thole world populations <sic>\"? What I\n> stated clearly, and what I repeat again, is that feminism is about\n> promoting equality of the sexes, and striving to acheive a world where\n> opportunity is not restricted on the basis of sex and/or gender. The fact\n> that the majority of the people who live in this world take part in a\n> sexist culture of some sort does not change the goals of the movement,\n> which are to enact change and promote equality.\nNo, as long as there are 'women-only' things, you can't talk about \nequality. All different all equal. With other statements I'm supporting\nyou. I have a better word: humanism - it doesn't include gender, while\nfeminism does. \n \n> That is patently absurd. Feminism is not a fight against \"teachers.\" Many\n> teachers were *not* that way. Feminism is a battle to break down sexist\n> stereotyping, and what I gave an example of was the stereotype that insists\n> that women are not competent in math and science, and that succeeds, to\n> this day, to keep unjustly many highly qualified women out of lucrative\n> and challenging occupations. To the extent that individuals are hired\n> and/or promoted based on their sex rather than based on the quality of\n> their work (and to deny that this happens is to look blindly upon the\n> world) helps no one because it promotes an inefficient marketplace and\n> inhibits the full range of human and technological progress.\nSo you're battling one sexist stereotype with another. Not very sensible.\nI agree with other (mostly). You pointed out *teachers*, not me. Isn't\nthat your personal thing? I was prosecuted by communist government and\nwas thrown out of University. So what? Should I fight all communists? No,\nI like them. I like communism.\n \n> You are Peter, but you are also male, and you have benefitted from being a\n> male, in some way or other in your life, whether you admit that or not.\nFor my benefits look above. But it's not my trauma.I just don't have Ph.D.\nI admit everything else. \n\n> Perhaps you have benefitted only from the fact that you need not actively\n> fear rape as you walk down a city street at night; or perhaps you have\n> benefitted from that fact because you have a much better real opportunity\n> to become an elected member of the government (at least if you were a US\n> citizen) than your female colleagues. But you have benefitted.\nO.K. You think not? Why? Fuck the government. I have a much better real\nopportunity to die (better: change my agregate state) earlier than you\nwould. And I have a much better real opportunity to be beaten by a gang.\nAnd I had a much better real opportunity to go to prison. And I've got\na much better real opportunity to be shot. Welcome to my benefits. US is\nnot the whole world. So what do you know about ex-socialism? It was\ngreat.\n\n> Personally, I strive for a world where gender, the social contruct, does\n> not exist at all, and in which we can all be viewed as individuals first,\n> and male or female (or hermaphrodite) as one of our many other individual\n> traits. But we are not there yet, Peter, and denying the existence of\n> institutionalized sexism brings us no closer to that final goal.\nI'm not denying 'institutional sexism'. But it exists for male as well.\nLook for your opportunities and don't believe everything Rosa Luxemburg\nand Klara Zetkin wrote. \n \n> There are many errogenous zones in the human body, both male and female,\n> and NOTHING I wrote suggested otherwise. But a focus on the vagina is\n> clearly phallocentric, and a decision not to even mention the clitoris --\n> which, I repeat, is where female sexuality is said to be \"centered\" in a\n> way analogous to the male centering of sexuality on the penis -- is not\n> trivial. No act of sexism is trivial, and I must repeat that I find\n> hardly any action more pernicious than the denial that sexism exists.\n> Sexism exists. The fact that you, personally, have perhaps never felt\n> the direct harms of sexism only provides evidence of the fact that sexism\n> divides the world by gender, and assigns the burdens and benefits\n> inequally. The fact that many women (most of them much younger than I am)\n> and perhaps most men may disagree with this perspective does not mean that\n> sexism does not exist.\nI see that sexism exists, even through you explanations. But you can't\nfight sexism with other sexism. Is penis vulvacentric? What male? Who?\nI mentioned clitoris. CLITORIS. VAGINA. PENIS. BREAST. I'm proud of\nclitoris, even though I don't have one. This is getting ridiculous. Better\nname all sexists and we can E-mail them. I'll help you with that.\n \n> I believe that your intentions are genuine. So if you want truly to create\n> the egalitarian world that you would like to think exists today, do\n> something about it. Join the movement. Read the literature. Talk about\n> it. Get involved. Don't just sit there.\nJoin the party. Join the army. Your country needs you. I'm sitting here\ntalking to you. Just had a coffee. Have one and be yourself. \n\nLove,\nPeter \n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Peter Tomaz Dobrila <peco {AT} kibla.org>",
|
||
"author_name": "Peter Tomaz Dobrila",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.LNX.3.95.970617130206.858K-100000 {AT} server.nd-mb.si",
|
||
"id": "00127",
|
||
"to": "\"rebecca l. eisenberg\" <mars {AT} bossanova.com>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9706/msg00127.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Translation: The vagina is the boss on intern",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 17 Jun 1997 14:17:29 +0200 (MET DST)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nHi,\n\n> What equality, if there are 'women only' things?\n\nCome on, get real! \n\nmaybe you come from a different planet than me, but i grew up \nsurrounded with *men only* things, and still i am often enough the \n*_one_ woman only* amongst males (whether it's in the rock biz, \n*industrial* art, university...)\n\nso excuse me, if women want to have their own things for a change, \nbad enough if they're having a minority status in society when in \nfact they are the majority in population. (ever heard that woman do \nabout 60 % of all work but possess 3 % of property?)\n\nwould you dare to get mad about if a ethnic minority wants to do \ntheir own thing? i don't think so. so be consistent. it's the right \nof every *minority* to gather and do their *own thing*.\n\nas long as *the thing between your legs* as you call it is considered \nto be an indicator for your abilities and interests - it very well \n_is_ still an issue.\n\nnot to talk about how female sexual body parts got degraded by men in \nthe past, so talking about the CLITORIS and the VAGINA, SLUTS and \nCUNTS is about regaining what belongs to us, giving it new meaning \nand pride.\n\nGOT TO PUT THE CLIT BACK ON THE MAP!\n\n> Better name all sexists and we can E-mail them. I'll help you with that.\nIt's not just people - it's a system that's sexist. _nobody_ can \nreally claim not to be racist or sexist. but we can try.\n\ncheers,\ndozza\n\np.s. for some more provocation: \nthere is the idea, that men alone should carry the burden of paying \ntaxes for all the costs involved with crime that to the highest \ndegree are committed by men! \n.................................................\nDoris Weichselbaumer\nDepartment of Economics\nUniversity of Linz\nAltenberger Str. 69, 4040 Linz, Austria,\nPhone: ++43-732-2468-240, Fax: ++43-732-2468-9679\nhttp://www.economics.uni-linz.ac.at/\nemail: doris.weichselbaumer {AT} jk.uni-linz.ac.at\n................................................\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "\"Doris Weichselbaumer\" <Doris.Weichselbaumer {AT} alijku04.edvz.uni-linz.ac.at>",
|
||
"author_name": "Doris Weichselbaumer",
|
||
"message-id": "199706171341.AA183050 {AT} alijku04.edvz.uni-linz.ac.at",
|
||
"id": "00129",
|
||
"to": "Peter Tomaz Dobrila <peco {AT} kibla.org>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9706/msg00129.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Translation: The vagina is the boss on intern",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 17 Jun 1997 15:42:34 +0000"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"to": "Anne de Haan <sigorney {AT} knoware.nl>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9706/msg00124.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Translation: The vagina is the boss on intern",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 17 Jun 1997 02:27:32 -0700"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nHi there!\n\n> I just wanted to note briefly, that there is hardly any statement that I\n> find more insidious and offensive, when not outright simplistic and\nAt the end I wrote i.e. - in example. So I didn't mean just that, there\nis others personal shit as well. But you can't blame it on the whole world\npopulations. \n\n> Feminists are reponding to *institutional* sexism, and fighting against\n> sexism constitutes neither the airing of dirty laundry nor the promotion of\n> sexism itself. Many people are feminist before they even have any\n> \"partners\" to be \"angry\" about -- for example, my first feminist awakening\n> involved the way that *teachers* treated me in math and science classes in\n> my pre-teen years. There's no bitterness over boyfriends there; rather, it\n> is justified anger at a world that assigns females a presumption of\n> incompetence while assigning males, at the same time, a presumption of\n> competence. The goal is to break down barriers and promote equality, and\n> I think that you badly misrepresent feminism as it is known to the great\n> majority of people, both male and female, who identify as feminist, by\n> insisting otherwise.\nAlright. You don't like *teachers*. I don't like some of them either. You\ncan identify as you like. Feminist is O.K. I'm Marsian, two heads and\nwings, little green creature. But on the other hand I'm Peter Tomaz\nDobrila and nothing else. Please to meet you Rebecca. Give those teachers\nnames. Some car drivers are even worse. So what to do?\n \n> That said, I did actually have an objection to the circulated \"Vagina\"\n> post. In my opinion, as well as my best understanding of the nature of\n> biology and human sexuality, the female body part that is most analagous to\n> the penis is the *clitoris* rather than the vagina. It is a fairly common\n> complaint among feminist scholars (and has been for a while, in particular\n> in reaction to Freud's terrifyingly absurd assumptions about female\n> sexuality) that a focus on the vagina, rather than on the clitoris or the\n> vulva in general, looks at female sexuality from the point of view of a\n> penis in search of a hole. This is not to insist that the vagina is\n> irrelevant to sexuality for all women, but rather, it is to make the\n> argument that, if you are going to reclaim space for women, and then\n> identify women with the sexual organ where their sexual response is\n> generally considered to be located, the clear choice would have been\n> clitoris rather than vagina.\nGreat! Sigmund Freud was a wanker. But debate about penis, vagina and\nclito is unfamiliar to me. Don't we have more in our bodies? Toes, liver,\nheart, brain, arms, legs, feet, head, kindeys, eyes, ears, smell,\nvoice, touch, etc. Isn't it all involved in our whole behaviour, work,\nsex, etc.? \n\nBest,\nPeter\n\n \n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Peter Tomaz Dobrila <peco {AT} kibla.org>",
|
||
"author_name": "Peter Tomaz Dobrila",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.LNX.3.95.970617113922.858H-100000 {AT} server.nd-mb.si",
|
||
"id": "00125",
|
||
"to": "\"rebecca l. eisenberg\" <mars {AT} bossanova.com>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9706/msg00125.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Translation: The vagina is the boss on intern",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 17 Jun 1997 12:00:02 +0200 (MET DST)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nAt 12:00 PM +0200 6/17/97, Peter Tomaz Dobrila wrote:\n>Hi there!\n>\n>> I just wanted to note briefly, that there is hardly any statement that I\n>> find more insidious and offensive, when not outright simplistic and\n>At the end I wrote i.e. - in example. So I didn't mean just that, there\n>is others personal shit as well. But you can't blame it on the whole world\n>populations.\n\n\nIn the United States, the accepted meaning of i.e. is \"that is.\" This is\nvery different from \"for example,\" which is signified by \"e.g.\".\n\nRegardless, the point stands that feminism is not about revenge against bad\nmen. It is about a social movement that promotes equality of the sexes,\nand that actively fights against sexist stereotyping. Period. If I read\ncorrectly, you yourself insisted that you were \"not a feminist\" (a\nconclusion that could have been inferred from context had it not been\nstated explicitly). Given that, how can you justify trying to define my\nsocial movement? It is offensive.\n\nWho is blaming sexism on \"the thole world populations <sic>\"? What I\nstated clearly, and what I repeat again, is that feminism is about\npromoting equality of the sexes, and striving to acheive a world where\nopportunity is not restricted on the basis of sex and/or gender. The fact\nthat the majority of the people who live in this world take part in a\nsexist culture of some sort does not change the goals of the movement,\nwhich are to enact change and promote equality.\n\n\n\n>\n>> Feminists are reponding to *institutional* sexism, and fighting against\n>> sexism constitutes neither the airing of dirty laundry nor the promotion of\n>> sexism itself. Many people are feminist before they even have any\n>> \"partners\" to be \"angry\" about -- for example, my first feminist awakening\n>> involved the way that *teachers* treated me in math and science classes in\n>> my pre-teen years. There's no bitterness over boyfriends there; rather, it\n>> is justified anger at a world that assigns females a presumption of\n>> incompetence while assigning males, at the same time, a presumption of\n>> competence. The goal is to break down barriers and promote equality, and\n>> I think that you badly misrepresent feminism as it is known to the great\n>> majority of people, both male and female, who identify as feminist, by\n>> insisting otherwise.\n>Alright. You don't like *teachers*. I don't like some of them either. You\n>can identify as you like. Feminist is O.K. I'm Marsian, two heads and\n>wings, little green creature. But on the other hand I'm Peter Tomaz\n>Dobrila and nothing else. Please to meet you Rebecca. Give those teachers\n>names. Some car drivers are even worse. So what to do?\n\nThat is patently absurd. Feminism is not a fight against \"teachers.\" Many\nteachers were *not* that way. Feminism is a battle to break down sexist\nstereotyping, and what I gave an example of was the stereotype that insists\nthat women are not competent in math and science, and that succeeds, to\nthis day, to keep unjustly many highly qualified women out of lucrative\nand challenging occupations. To the extent that individuals are hired\nand/or promoted based on their sex rather than based on the quality of\ntheir work (and to deny that this happens is to look blindly upon the\nworld) helps no one because it promotes an inefficient marketplace and\ninhibits the full range of human and technological progress.\n\nYou are Peter, but you are also male, and you have benefitted from being a\nmale, in some way or other in your life, whether you admit that or not.\nPerhaps you have benefitted only from the fact that you need not actively\nfear rape as you walk down a city street at night; or perhaps you have\nbenefitted from that fact because you have a much better real opportunity\nto become an elected member of the government (at least if you were a US\ncitizen) than your female colleagues. But you have benefitted.\nPersonally, I strive for a world where gender, the social contruct, does\nnot exist at all, and in which we can all be viewed as individuals first,\nand male or female (or hermaphrodite) as one of our many other individual\ntraits. But we are not there yet, Peter, and denying the existence of\ninstitutionalized sexism brings us no closer to that final goal.\n\n\n\n>\n>> That said, I did actually have an objection to the circulated \"Vagina\"\n>> post. In my opinion, as well as my best understanding of the nature of\n>> biology and human sexuality, the female body part that is most analagous to\n>> the penis is the *clitoris* rather than the vagina. It is a fairly common\n>> complaint among feminist scholars (and has been for a while, in particular\n>> in reaction to Freud's terrifyingly absurd assumptions about female\n>> sexuality) that a focus on the vagina, rather than on the clitoris or the\n>> vulva in general, looks at female sexuality from the point of view of a\n>> penis in search of a hole. This is not to insist that the vagina is\n>> irrelevant to sexuality for all women, but rather, it is to make the\n>> argument that, if you are going to reclaim space for women, and then\n>> identify women with the sexual organ where their sexual response is\n>> generally considered to be located, the clear choice would have been\n>> clitoris rather than vagina.\n>Great! Sigmund Freud was a wanker. But debate about penis, vagina and\n>clito is unfamiliar to me. Don't we have more in our bodies? Toes, liver,\n>heart, brain, arms, legs, feet, head, kindeys, eyes, ears, smell,\n>voice, touch, etc. Isn't it all involved in our whole behaviour, work,\n>sex, etc.?\n>\n\n\nThere are many errogenous zones in the human body, both male and female,\nand NOTHING I wrote suggested otherwise. But a focus on the vagina is\nclearly phallocentric, and a decision not to even mention the clitoris --\nwhich, I repeat, is where female sexuality is said to be \"centered\" in a\nway analogous to the male centering of sexuality on the penis -- is not\ntrivial. No act of sexism is trivial, and I must repeat that I find\nhardly any action more pernicious than the denial that sexism exists.\nSexism exists. The fact that you, personally, have perhaps never felt\nthe direct harms of sexism only provides evidence of the fact that sexism\ndivides the world by gender, and assigns the burdens and benefits\ninequally. The fact that many women (most of them much younger than I am)\nand perhaps most men may disagree with this perspective does not mean that\nsexism does not exist.\n\nI believe that your intentions are genuine. So if you want truly to create\nthe egalitarian world that you would like to think exists today, do\nsomething about it. Join the movement. Read the literature. Talk about\nit. Get involved. Don't just sit there.\n\nrle\n\nrebecca.lynn.eisenberg\nmars {AT} bossanova.com, mars {AT} well.com\nhttp://www.bossanova.com/rebeca/\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "\"rebecca l. eisenberg\" <mars {AT} bossanova.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "rebecca l. eisenberg",
|
||
"message-id": "v0300780dafcc13d17e3f {AT} [206.80.15.235]",
|
||
"id": "00126",
|
||
"to": "Peter Tomaz Dobrila <peco {AT} kibla.org>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9706/msg00126.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Translation: The vagina is the boss on intern",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 17 Jun 1997 03:38:06 -0700"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nHi again dear...\n \n> In the United States, the accepted meaning of i.e. is \"that is.\" This is\n> very different from \"for example,\" which is signified by \"e.g.\".\nSorry. So e.g. But maybe is English i.e.? I'm not sure. It is not my\nfirst language.\n \n> Regardless, the point stands that feminism is not about revenge against bad\n> men. It is about a social movement that promotes equality of the sexes,\n> and that actively fights against sexist stereotyping. Period. If I read\n> correctly, you yourself insisted that you were \"not a feminist\" (a\n> conclusion that could have been inferred from context had it not been\n> stated explicitly). Given that, how can you justify trying to define my\n> social movement? It is offensive.\nWhat equality, if there are 'women only' things? Don't you think this is\nxenophobic, chovinistic and even rasistic? Isn't it just stereotyping?\nIt's is the same as with your *teachers*. Most of my teachers were women,\nso I should go macho, while I didn't like all of them... I'm not a\nfeminist and I'm not macho. I'm human, I suppose I'm not a dog. Social or\nsex movement? Be precise. Society involves ALL (human) beings. And no, I'm\nnot offensive. I like you and it's O.K., if you are feminist. Just I don't\nagree with it, making social movements with the thing between your legs.\n \n> Who is blaming sexism on \"the thole world populations <sic>\"? What I\n> stated clearly, and what I repeat again, is that feminism is about\n> promoting equality of the sexes, and striving to acheive a world where\n> opportunity is not restricted on the basis of sex and/or gender. The fact\n> that the majority of the people who live in this world take part in a\n> sexist culture of some sort does not change the goals of the movement,\n> which are to enact change and promote equality.\nNo, as long as there are 'women-only' things, you can't talk about \nequality. All different all equal. With other statements I'm supporting\nyou. I have a better word: humanism - it doesn't include gender, while\nfeminism does. \n \n> That is patently absurd. Feminism is not a fight against \"teachers.\" Many\n> teachers were *not* that way. Feminism is a battle to break down sexist\n> stereotyping, and what I gave an example of was the stereotype that insists\n> that women are not competent in math and science, and that succeeds, to\n> this day, to keep unjustly many highly qualified women out of lucrative\n> and challenging occupations. To the extent that individuals are hired\n> and/or promoted based on their sex rather than based on the quality of\n> their work (and to deny that this happens is to look blindly upon the\n> world) helps no one because it promotes an inefficient marketplace and\n> inhibits the full range of human and technological progress.\nSo you're battling one sexist stereotype with another. Not very sensible.\nI agree with other (mostly). You pointed out *teachers*, not me. Isn't\nthat your personal thing? I was prosecuted by communist government and\nwas thrown out of University. So what? Should I fight all communists? No,\nI like them. I like communism.\n \n> You are Peter, but you are also male, and you have benefitted from being a\n> male, in some way or other in your life, whether you admit that or not.\nFor my benefits look above. But it's not my trauma.I just don't have Ph.D.\nI admit everything else. \n\n> Perhaps you have benefitted only from the fact that you need not actively\n> fear rape as you walk down a city street at night; or perhaps you have\n> benefitted from that fact because you have a much better real opportunity\n> to become an elected member of the government (at least if you were a US\n> citizen) than your female colleagues. But you have benefitted.\nO.K. You think not? Why? Fuck the government. I have a much better real\nopportunity to die (better: change my agregate state) earlier than you\nwould. And I have a much better real opportunity to be beaten by a gang.\nAnd I had a much better real opportunity to go to prison. And I've got\na much better real opportunity to be shot. Welcome to my benefits. US is\nnot the whole world. So what do you know about ex-socialism? It was\ngreat.\n\n> Personally, I strive for a world where gender, the social contruct, does\n> not exist at all, and in which we can all be viewed as individuals first,\n> and male or female (or hermaphrodite) as one of our many other individual\n> traits. But we are not there yet, Peter, and denying the existence of\n> institutionalized sexism brings us no closer to that final goal.\nI'm not denying 'institutional sexism'. But it exists for male as well.\nLook for your opportunities and don't believe everything Rosa Luxemburg\nand Klara Zetkin wrote. \n \n> There are many errogenous zones in the human body, both male and female,\n> and NOTHING I wrote suggested otherwise. But a focus on the vagina is\n> clearly phallocentric, and a decision not to even mention the clitoris --\n> which, I repeat, is where female sexuality is said to be \"centered\" in a\n> way analogous to the male centering of sexuality on the penis -- is not\n> trivial. No act of sexism is trivial, and I must repeat that I find\n> hardly any action more pernicious than the denial that sexism exists.\n> Sexism exists. The fact that you, personally, have perhaps never felt\n> the direct harms of sexism only provides evidence of the fact that sexism\n> divides the world by gender, and assigns the burdens and benefits\n> inequally. The fact that many women (most of them much younger than I am)\n> and perhaps most men may disagree with this perspective does not mean that\n> sexism does not exist.\nI see that sexism exists, even through you explanations. But you can't\nfight sexism with other sexism. Is penis vulvacentric? What male? Who?\nI mentioned clitoris. CLITORIS. VAGINA. PENIS. BREAST. I'm proud of\nclitoris, even though I don't have one. This is getting ridiculous. Better\nname all sexists and we can E-mail them. I'll help you with that.\n \n> I believe that your intentions are genuine. So if you want truly to create\n> the egalitarian world that you would like to think exists today, do\n> something about it. Join the movement. Read the literature. Talk about\n> it. Get involved. Don't just sit there.\nJoin the party. Join the army. Your country needs you. I'm sitting here\ntalking to you. Just had a coffee. Have one and be yourself. \n\nLove,\nPeter \n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Peter Tomaz Dobrila <peco {AT} kibla.org>",
|
||
"author_name": "Peter Tomaz Dobrila",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.LNX.3.95.970617130206.858K-100000 {AT} server.nd-mb.si",
|
||
"id": "00127",
|
||
"to": "\"rebecca l. eisenberg\" <mars {AT} bossanova.com>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9706/msg00127.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Translation: The vagina is the boss on intern",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 17 Jun 1997 14:17:29 +0200 (MET DST)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nHi,\n\n> What equality, if there are 'women only' things?\n\nCome on, get real! \n\nmaybe you come from a different planet than me, but i grew up \nsurrounded with *men only* things, and still i am often enough the \n*_one_ woman only* amongst males (whether it's in the rock biz, \n*industrial* art, university...)\n\nso excuse me, if women want to have their own things for a change, \nbad enough if they're having a minority status in society when in \nfact they are the majority in population. (ever heard that woman do \nabout 60 % of all work but possess 3 % of property?)\n\nwould you dare to get mad about if a ethnic minority wants to do \ntheir own thing? i don't think so. so be consistent. it's the right \nof every *minority* to gather and do their *own thing*.\n\nas long as *the thing between your legs* as you call it is considered \nto be an indicator for your abilities and interests - it very well \n_is_ still an issue.\n\nnot to talk about how female sexual body parts got degraded by men in \nthe past, so talking about the CLITORIS and the VAGINA, SLUTS and \nCUNTS is about regaining what belongs to us, giving it new meaning \nand pride.\n\nGOT TO PUT THE CLIT BACK ON THE MAP!\n\n> Better name all sexists and we can E-mail them. I'll help you with that.\nIt's not just people - it's a system that's sexist. _nobody_ can \nreally claim not to be racist or sexist. but we can try.\n\ncheers,\ndozza\n\np.s. for some more provocation: \nthere is the idea, that men alone should carry the burden of paying \ntaxes for all the costs involved with crime that to the highest \ndegree are committed by men! \n.................................................\nDoris Weichselbaumer\nDepartment of Economics\nUniversity of Linz\nAltenberger Str. 69, 4040 Linz, Austria,\nPhone: ++43-732-2468-240, Fax: ++43-732-2468-9679\nhttp://www.economics.uni-linz.ac.at/\nemail: doris.weichselbaumer {AT} jk.uni-linz.ac.at\n................................................\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "\"Doris Weichselbaumer\" <Doris.Weichselbaumer {AT} alijku04.edvz.uni-linz.ac.at>",
|
||
"author_name": "Doris Weichselbaumer",
|
||
"message-id": "199706171341.AA183050 {AT} alijku04.edvz.uni-linz.ac.at",
|
||
"id": "00129",
|
||
"to": "Peter Tomaz Dobrila <peco {AT} kibla.org>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9706/msg00129.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Translation: The vagina is the boss on intern",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 17 Jun 1997 15:42:34 +0000"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"end2end": [],
|
||
"net.art": [
|
||
{
|
||
"list": "crumb",
|
||
"subject": "article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\nHi CRUMBs\nthought you might be interested to read this article about internet art, which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil et al, Black Dog Publishing.\n\nhttp://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n\nIt suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is provincial.\nUse it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this field of practice.\n\nSarah\n\n\n===\n\nDr. Sarah Cook\nReader / Dundee Fellow\nDuncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\nUniversity of Dundee\n13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n\nphone: 01382 385247\nemail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n\n\n\n\n\nThe University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096",
|
||
"from": "Sarah Cook",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 13:25:58 +0000",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=15160",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\nHi Sarah\nCan I add to that comments from The Space director Ruth Mackenzie:\n\n\"The devices we use everyday, she said, haven’t yet changed art. While we\nconsume some art forms with them, she said, “the art itself hasn’t changed\nas a result of this extraordinary invention of the internet and the way we\nuse the internet, through tablets and phones and computers, so you’d think\nsomething as major and as innovative as cinema might emerge as a form of\nart that really embraces and uses the digital platforms.”\nfrom here:\nhttp://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-art-world-is-starting-to-get-digital-art\n\n\n\n--\nNora O' Murchú\n\n///////////////// ////// ////////// ////// //////// // /\nCurator / Designer / Researcher\nwww.noraomurchu.com <http://www.runcomputerrun.com>\n\n\n\n\n\nOn 18 June 2014 14:25, Sarah Cook <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n\n> Hi CRUMBs\n> thought you might be interested to read this article about internet art,\n> which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil et\n> al, Black Dog Publishing.\n>\n> http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n>\n> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is\n> provincial.\n> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this\n> field of practice.\n>\n> Sarah\n>\n>\n> ===\n>\n> Dr. Sarah Cook\n> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n> University of Dundee\n> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n>\n> phone: 01382 385247\n> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096\n>",
|
||
"from": "nora o murchú",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:30:18 +0100",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=15817",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "nora o murchú"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\nWow!\n\nWhere do they find these people?\n\nmarc\n\n> Hi CRUMBs\n> thought you might be interested to read this article about internet art, which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil et al, Black Dog Publishing.\n>\n> http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n>\n> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is provincial.\n> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this field of practice.\n>\n> Sarah\n>\n>\n> ===\n>\n> Dr. Sarah Cook\n> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n> University of Dundee\n> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n>\n> phone: 01382 385247\n> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096\n> .\n>\n\n\n-- \n--->\n\nA living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\nproud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n\nOther reviews,articles,interviews\nhttp://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n\nFurtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\ndiscussing and learning about experimental practices at the\nintersections of art, technology and social change.\nhttp://www.furtherfield.org\n\nFurtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\nhttp://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n\nNetbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\nhttp://www.netbehaviour.org\n\nhttp://identi.ca/furtherfield\nhttp://twitter.com/furtherfield",
|
||
"from": "marc garrett",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:49:50 +0100",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=16698",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "marc garrett"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\nHe is based in Brooklyn, no worries tho y'all I already invited him to our\nnext opening at TRANSFER – Claudia Maté on July 12 :D\n\n\nBests,\nKelani Nichole\n\nCuratorial Director, TRANSFER\nhttp://transfer.gallery\n\n\n\nOn Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, marc garrett <[log in to unmask]\n> wrote:\n\n> Wow!\n>\n> Where do they find these people?\n>\n> marc\n>\n> Hi CRUMBs\n>> thought you might be interested to read this article about internet art,\n>> which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil et\n>> al, Black Dog Publishing.\n>>\n>> http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n>>\n>> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is\n>> provincial.\n>> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this\n>> field of practice.\n>>\n>> Sarah\n>>\n>>\n>> ===\n>>\n>> Dr. Sarah Cook\n>> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n>> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n>> University of Dundee\n>> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n>>\n>> phone: 01382 385247\n>> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096\n>> .\n>>\n>>\n>\n> --\n> --->\n>\n> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n>\n> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n>\n> Furtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n> http://www.furtherfield.org\n>\n> Furtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\n> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n>\n> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n>\n> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n>",
|
||
"from": "Kelani Nichole",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:53:43 -0400",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=17577",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Kelani Nichole"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\nHi all,\n\nIt Look's like this magazine needs someone who is actually interested in \nor at least knows about the subject.\n\nThe writer says \"provincial' however, if you can bare to look at the \ncontent of this magazine it's like an advert for the Daily Mail or the \nConservative party from the 1950's. Nuff said ;-)\n\nwishing you well.\n\nmarc\n> Hi CRUMBs\n> thought you might be interested to read this article about internet art, which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil et al, Black Dog Publishing.\n>\n> http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n>\n> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is provincial.\n> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this field of practice.\n>\n> Sarah\n>\n>\n> ===\n>\n> Dr. Sarah Cook\n> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n> University of Dundee\n> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n>\n> phone: 01382 385247\n> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096\n> .\n>",
|
||
"from": "marc garrett",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 15:27:32 +0100",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=19142",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "marc garrett"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\nSarah + all:\n\nI actually think that there's some stuff worth engaging in this...\n\nI haven't read Joanne's book, so I can't speak to the ways in which this\npiece fails as a review, but this closing statement definitely sent a\nshiver down my browser:\n\n\"The problem with the book, as with internet art, is that no one has\nrecognised the aesthetic problems of provincial conversation. Work by\nartists who turn inward to have hushed talks with a small coterie about\nlocal problems will have little effect on culture at large. McLuhan’s\nglobal village may have its merits, but the cultural celebration of\nmarginalism in art is not one of them.\"\n\nThe reactionary in me would outright disagree with this, but I did have a\nmoment of thinking bout who does address the aesthetic problems of the\n\"provincial conversation\" of internet art. So maybe as a way of thinking\nabout outright disagreeing with Pac Pobric, the list might suggest some\ncompelling counters?\n\nTo that end, the metric of cultural relevance as proposed in this article\nis squarely situated in archaic models of art presentation/distribution (I\nthink that a lot of us can agree on that). So instead of operating in the\nsuburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the art world that\nis suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket fences,\nand McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n\nvery best\n\n\n\nOn Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Kelani Nichole <[log in to unmask]>\nwrote:\n\n> He is based in Brooklyn, no worries tho y'all I already invited him to our\n> next opening at TRANSFER – Claudia Maté on July 12 :D\n>\n>\n> Bests,\n> Kelani Nichole\n>\n> Curatorial Director, TRANSFER\n> http://transfer.gallery\n>\n>\n>\n> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, marc garrett <\n> [log in to unmask]\n> > wrote:\n>\n> > Wow!\n> >\n> > Where do they find these people?\n> >\n> > marc\n> >\n> > Hi CRUMBs\n> >> thought you might be interested to read this article about internet art,\n> >> which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil\n> et\n> >> al, Black Dog Publishing.\n> >>\n> >>\n> http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n> >>\n> >> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is\n> >> provincial.\n> >> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this\n> >> field of practice.\n> >>\n> >> Sarah\n> >>\n> >>\n> >> ===\n> >>\n> >> Dr. Sarah Cook\n> >> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n> >> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n> >> University of Dundee\n> >> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n> >>\n> >> phone: 01382 385247\n> >> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n> >>\n> >>\n> >>\n> >>\n> >>\n> >> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096\n> >> .\n> >>\n> >>\n> >\n> > --\n> > --->\n> >\n> > A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n> > proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n> >\n> > Other reviews,articles,interviews\n> > http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n> >\n> > Furtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n> > discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n> > intersections of art, technology and social change.\n> > http://www.furtherfield.org\n> >\n> > Furtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\n> > http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n> >\n> > Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n> > http://www.netbehaviour.org\n> >\n> > http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n> > http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n> >\n>\n\n\n\n-- \nNicholas O'Brien\n\nVisiting Faculty | Gallery Director\nDepartment of Digital Art, Pratt Institute\ndoubleunderscore.net",
|
||
"from": "Nicholas O'Brien",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:27:46 -0400",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=19686",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Nicholas O'Brien"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\nHi all\n\nCombined with the blurb from the article that Nora posted, this has indeed brought a chill to an otherwise sunny afternoon. I am finding the amnesia in the art world about recent (last 20 years?) net-inflected art practices increasingly difficult to put up with, particularly when even those who are openly supportive of media practices don't remember an art work made a decade ago because it was only shown once, in a show they didn't see, or it was not well documented. Surely our role as curators is also to continue to research, and talk and write about recent histories and not just the new thing. As for writing about 'the provincial' - it has always been a question of translating the discourse from one of the many art worlds over to another one, as many on this list continue to try to do. I've always been happy to work on the edges of places, as they are generally more interesting.\n\nwishing I were in Dublin for the opening of Glitch,\nSarah\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOn 18 Jun 2014, at 15:27, Nicholas O'Brien <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:\n\nSarah + all:\n\nI actually think that there's some stuff worth engaging in this...\n\nI haven't read Joanne's book, so I can't speak to the ways in which this\npiece fails as a review, but this closing statement definitely sent a\nshiver down my browser:\n\n\"The problem with the book, as with internet art, is that no one has\nrecognised the aesthetic problems of provincial conversation. Work by\nartists who turn inward to have hushed talks with a small coterie about\nlocal problems will have little effect on culture at large. McLuhan’s\nglobal village may have its merits, but the cultural celebration of\nmarginalism in art is not one of them.\"\n\nThe reactionary in me would outright disagree with this, but I did have a\nmoment of thinking bout who does address the aesthetic problems of the\n\"provincial conversation\" of internet art. So maybe as a way of thinking\nabout outright disagreeing with Pac Pobric, the list might suggest some\ncompelling counters?\n\nTo that end, the metric of cultural relevance as proposed in this article\nis squarely situated in archaic models of art presentation/distribution (I\nthink that a lot of us can agree on that). So instead of operating in the\nsuburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the art world that\nis suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket fences,\nand McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n\nvery best\n\n\n\nOn Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Kelani Nichole <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>\nwrote:\n\nHe is based in Brooklyn, no worries tho y'all I already invited him to our\nnext opening at TRANSFER – Claudia Maté on July 12 :D\n\n\nBests,\nKelani Nichole\n\nCuratorial Director, TRANSFER\nhttp://transfer.gallery\n\n\n\nOn Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, marc garrett <\n[log in to unmask]\nwrote:\n\nWow!\n\nWhere do they find these people?\n\nmarc\n\nHi CRUMBs\nthought you might be interested to read this article about internet art,\nwhich is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil\net\nal, Black Dog Publishing.\n\n\nhttp://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n\nIt suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is\nprovincial.\nUse it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this\nfield of practice.\n\nSarah\n\n\n===\n\nDr. Sarah Cook\nReader / Dundee Fellow\nDuncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\nUniversity of Dundee\n13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n\nphone: 01382 385247\nemail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n\n\n\n\n\nThe University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096\n.\n\n\n\n--\n--->\n\nA living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\nproud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n\nOther reviews,articles,interviews\nhttp://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n\nFurtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\ndiscussing and learning about experimental practices at the\nintersections of art, technology and social change.\nhttp://www.furtherfield.org\n\nFurtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\nhttp://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n\nNetbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\nhttp://www.netbehaviour.org\n\nhttp://identi.ca/furtherfield\nhttp://twitter.com/furtherfield\n\n\n\n\n\n--\nNicholas O'Brien\n\nVisiting Faculty | Gallery Director\nDepartment of Digital Art, Pratt Institute\ndoubleunderscore.net<http://doubleunderscore.net>\n\n===\n\nDr. Sarah Cook\nReader / Dundee Fellow\nDuncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\nUniversity of Dundee\n13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n\nphone: 01382 385247\nemail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n\n\n\n\n\nThe University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096",
|
||
"from": "Sarah Cook",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 15:19:46 +0000",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=20538",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Sarah Cook"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\nHi Nicholas & all,\n\n >So instead of operating in the suburbs, how could the list propose \nthat it is in fact the\n >art world that is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, \nwhitecube picket fences,\n >and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n\nI agree with the above & Sarah’s post on the matter works for me.\n\nAnyway — I’m too busy at the moment with our ‘provincial’ exhibition. A \ncollaboration with The Arts Catalyst “SEFT-1 Abandoned Railways \nExploration Probe: Modern Ruins 1:220 — Ivan Puig and Andrés Padilla \nDomene” http://go.shr.lc/1jy7AJo\n\nIt was featured in the Guardian last week by Jonathan jones ‘The \nruin-hunters who drove a car down Mexico's forgotten railways’ \nhttp://go.shr.lc/1qwbV4K\n\nAnd will be featured on the BBC news on Friday…\n\nOh wait! I get it, it’s seen as ‘provincial’ because the work \nsuccessfully reaches people, beyond their art establishment silos. Of \ncourse ;-)\n\nbye for now.\n\nmarc\n\n\n > Sarah + all:\n >\n > I actually think that there's some stuff worth engaging in this...\n >\n > I haven't read Joanne's book, so I can't speak to the ways in which this\n > piece fails as a review, but this closing statement definitely sent a\n > shiver down my browser:\n >\n > \"The problem with the book, as with internet art, is that no one has\n > recognised the aesthetic problems of provincial conversation. Work by\n > artists who turn inward to have hushed talks with a small coterie about\n > local problems will have little effect on culture at large. McLuhan’s\n > global village may have its merits, but the cultural celebration of\n > marginalism in art is not one of them.\"\n >\n > The reactionary in me would outright disagree with this, but I did have a\n > moment of thinking bout who does address the aesthetic problems of the\n > \"provincial conversation\" of internet art. So maybe as a way of thinking\n > about outright disagreeing with Pac Pobric, the list might suggest some\n > compelling counters?\n >\n > To that end, the metric of cultural relevance as proposed in this article\n > is squarely situated in archaic models of art \npresentation/distribution (I\n > think that a lot of us can agree on that). So instead of operating in the\n > suburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the art world that\n > is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket fences,\n > and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n >\n > very best\n >\n >\n >\n > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Kelani Nichole <[log in to unmask]>\n > wrote:\n >\n >> He is based in Brooklyn, no worries tho y'all I already invited him \nto our\n >> next opening at TRANSFER – Claudia Maté on July 12 :D\n >>\n >>\n >> Bests,\n >> Kelani Nichole\n >>\n >> Curatorial Director, TRANSFER\n >> http://transfer.gallery\n >>\n >>\n >>\n >> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, marc garrett <\n >> [log in to unmask]\n >>> wrote:\n >>\n >>> Wow!\n >>>\n >>> Where do they find these people?\n >>>\n >>> marc\n >>>\n >>> Hi CRUMBs\n >>>> thought you might be interested to read this article about \ninternet art,\n >>>> which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil\n >> et\n >>>> al, Black Dog Publishing.\n >>>>\n >>>>\n >> \nhttp://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n >>>>\n >>>> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is\n >>>> provincial.\n >>>> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this\n >>>> field of practice.\n >>>>\n >>>> Sarah\n >>>>\n >>>>\n >>>> ===\n >>>>\n >>>> Dr. Sarah Cook\n >>>> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n >>>> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n >>>> University of Dundee\n >>>> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n >>>>\n >>>> phone: 01382 385247\n >>>> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n >>>>\n >>>>\n >>>>\n >>>>\n >>>>\n >>>> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: \nSC015096\n >>>> .\n >>>>\n >>>>\n >>>\n >>> --\n >>> --->\n >>>\n >>> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n >>> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n >>>\n >>> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n >>> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n >>>\n >>> Furtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n >>> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n >>> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n >>> http://www.furtherfield.org\n >>>\n >>> Furtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\n >>> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n >>>\n >>> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n >>> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n >>>\n >>> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n >>> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n >>>\n >>\n >\n >\n >\n\n\n-- \n--->\n\nA living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\nproud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n\nOther reviews,articles,interviews\nhttp://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n\nFurtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\ndiscussing and learning about experimental practices at the\nintersections of art, technology and social change.\nhttp://www.furtherfield.org\n\nFurtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\nhttp://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n\nNetbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\nhttp://www.netbehaviour.org\n\nhttp://identi.ca/furtherfield\nhttp://twitter.com/furtherfield",
|
||
"from": "marc garrett",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:41:57 +0100",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=22080",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "marc garrett"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\nHi everyone,\n\nI've been mulling a direct response to Pobric but will let things simmer\nwhile I try and finish a project. One could ask why Pobric even bothered\nreviewing the book at all, if he felt it wasn't worth his time? (I must\nadmit an interest here, as I had an essay in *Art and the Internet*). It's\ninstructive to look at his website http://www.pacpobric.com/ and read his\nscribblings on the weighty issues of the Art World. Draw your own\nconclusions!\n\nI agree with Sarah that the amnesia relating to internet art - and digital\nart in the broad sense - is more than irritating. How many times will it be\n\"discovered\" by the \"mainstream\", and how often is Hockney the example they\nuse? Nicholas is right to ask for a conversation about the aesthetic\naspects of this area. The Art Newspaper has its own provincialism and I\nthink of it as a trade mag for Cork Street and Chelsea (NYC) - and Dubai\ntoo, no doubt. That's not to understate its importance in certain places,\nbut we should ask ourselves why Pobric felt motivated to write a hit piece\nlike this.\n\nI would venture that it's because he and his peers fear losing control of\nthe \"art conversation\". The Internet has already forced open the boundaries\nof their world and they hate being disrupted by people they've never even\nheard of, from parts of the globe where their holy writ doesn't run.\nPobric's association of the Net with the great unwashed - the contempt that\nhe, a denizen of the rarefied heights of the New York art scene, feels for\nthe mass who discuss cookery or cars on the Intraweb - speaks volumes.\n\nThe obvious fulcrum to turn Pobric's argument on its head (as suggested by\nNicholas and Marc) is the term \"insularity\". They hate the effrontery of\noutsiders entering the art world with new ideas, more diverse faces and a\ntechnology that (as is evident from the article) they barely comprehend.\n\nAs Marc notes, the broader demographies of the internet are precisely what\nPobric and his fellow art provincials fear the most, since their economy is\npredicated on the penthouse and the boardroom.\n\nMore to come!\n\nNick\n\nAll best,\n\nNick\n\n\n\n\nOn Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 4:41 PM, marc garrett <[log in to unmask]\n> wrote:\n\n> Hi Nicholas & all,\n>\n>\n> >So instead of operating in the suburbs, how could the list propose that\n> it is in fact the\n> >art world that is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube\n> picket fences,\n> >and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n>\n> I agree with the above & Sarah's post on the matter works for me.\n>\n> Anyway -- I'm too busy at the moment with our 'provincial' exhibition. A\n> collaboration with The Arts Catalyst \"SEFT-1 Abandoned Railways Exploration\n> Probe: Modern Ruins 1:220 -- Ivan Puig and Andrés Padilla Domene\"\n> http://go.shr.lc/1jy7AJo\n>\n> It was featured in the Guardian last week by Jonathan jones 'The\n> ruin-hunters who drove a car down Mexico's forgotten railways'\n> http://go.shr.lc/1qwbV4K\n>\n> And will be featured on the BBC news on Friday...\n>\n> Oh wait! I get it, it's seen as 'provincial' because the work successfully\n> reaches people, beyond their art establishment silos. Of course ;-)\n>\n> bye for now.\n>\n> marc\n>\n>\n>\n> > Sarah + all:\n> >\n> > I actually think that there's some stuff worth engaging in this...\n> >\n> > I haven't read Joanne's book, so I can't speak to the ways in which this\n> > piece fails as a review, but this closing statement definitely sent a\n> > shiver down my browser:\n> >\n> > \"The problem with the book, as with internet art, is that no one has\n> > recognised the aesthetic problems of provincial conversation. Work by\n> > artists who turn inward to have hushed talks with a small coterie about\n> > local problems will have little effect on culture at large. McLuhan's\n> > global village may have its merits, but the cultural celebration of\n> > marginalism in art is not one of them.\"\n> >\n> > The reactionary in me would outright disagree with this, but I did have a\n> > moment of thinking bout who does address the aesthetic problems of the\n> > \"provincial conversation\" of internet art. So maybe as a way of thinking\n> > about outright disagreeing with Pac Pobric, the list might suggest some\n> > compelling counters?\n> >\n> > To that end, the metric of cultural relevance as proposed in this article\n> > is squarely situated in archaic models of art presentation/distribution\n> (I\n> > think that a lot of us can agree on that). So instead of operating in the\n> > suburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the art world that\n> > is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket fences,\n> > and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n> >\n> > very best\n> >\n> >\n> >\n> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Kelani Nichole <[log in to unmask]>\n> > wrote:\n> >\n> >> He is based in Brooklyn, no worries tho y'all I already invited him to\n> our\n> >> next opening at TRANSFER - Claudia Maté on July 12 :D\n> >>\n> >>\n> >> Bests,\n> >> Kelani Nichole\n> >>\n> >> Curatorial Director, TRANSFER\n> >> http://transfer.gallery\n> >>\n> >>\n> >>\n> >> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, marc garrett <\n> >> [log in to unmask]\n> >>> wrote:\n> >>\n> >>> Wow!\n> >>>\n> >>> Where do they find these people?\n> >>>\n> >>> marc\n> >>>\n> >>> Hi CRUMBs\n> >>>> thought you might be interested to read this article about internet\n> art,\n> >>>> which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil\n> >> et\n> >>>> al, Black Dog Publishing.\n> >>>>\n> >>>>\n> >> http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-\n> fails-to-click/32983\n> >>>>\n> >>>> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is\n> >>>> provincial.\n> >>>> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this\n> >>>> field of practice.\n> >>>>\n> >>>> Sarah\n> >>>>\n> >>>>\n> >>>> ===\n> >>>>\n> >>>> Dr. Sarah Cook\n> >>>> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n> >>>> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n> >>>> University of Dundee\n> >>>> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n> >>>>\n> >>>> phone: 01382 385247\n> >>>> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n> >>>>\n> >>>>\n> >>>>\n> >>>>\n> >>>>\n> >>>> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No:\n> SC015096\n> >>>> .\n> >>>>\n> >>>>\n> >>>\n> >>> --\n> >>> --->\n> >>>\n> >>> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n> >>> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n> >>>\n> >>> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n> >>> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n> >>>\n> >>> Furtherfield - online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n> >>> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n> >>> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n> >>> http://www.furtherfield.org\n> >>>\n> >>> Furtherfield Gallery - Finsbury Park (London).\n> >>> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n> >>>\n> >>> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n> >>> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n> >>>\n> >>> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n> >>> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n> >>>\n> >>\n> >\n> >\n> >\n>\n>\n> --\n> --->\n>\n> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n>\n> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n>\n> Furtherfield - online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n> http://www.furtherfield.org\n>\n> Furtherfield Gallery - Finsbury Park (London).\n> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n>\n> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n>\n> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n>\n\n\n\n-- \n=================\nDr Nick Lambert (DPhil Oxon)\nLecturer in Digital Art and Culture\nDepartment of History of Art & Screen Media\nBirkbeck, University of London\n43 Gordon Square,\nLondon, WC1H 0PD\nwww.technocultures.org.uk\nMobile: 0781 0381 458",
|
||
"from": "Nick Lambert",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:27:22 +0100",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=22658",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Nick Lambert"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\nI have already discussed this in part with Nick so am hopefully not\nspringing anything new here, or rattling the cage any further. But a point\nworth making I think is that the particular book being reviewed miscasts\nitself in my view as a much needed survey of an overlooked field. See its\nown promotional material to verify this. The challenge is heightened with\nthe book lacking a specific editorial or preface to adequately clarify its\ncontext, in my view. So criticism of the book as a survey publication 'may'\nbe justified. Without a well worked editorial there is a gap which can be\nexploited and indeed exposed.\n\nbest\nB\n\nOn Wednesday, 18 June 2014, Nick Lambert <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n\n> Hi everyone,\n>\n> I've been mulling a direct response to Pobric but will let things simmer\n> while I try and finish a project. One could ask why Pobric even bothered\n> reviewing the book at all, if he felt it wasn't worth his time? (I must\n> admit an interest here, as I had an essay in *Art and the Internet*). It's\n> instructive to look at his website http://www.pacpobric.com/ and read his\n> scribblings on the weighty issues of the Art World. Draw your own\n> conclusions!\n>\n> I agree with Sarah that the amnesia relating to internet art - and digital\n> art in the broad sense - is more than irritating. How many times will it be\n> \"discovered\" by the \"mainstream\", and how often is Hockney the example they\n> use? Nicholas is right to ask for a conversation about the aesthetic\n> aspects of this area. The Art Newspaper has its own provincialism and I\n> think of it as a trade mag for Cork Street and Chelsea (NYC) - and Dubai\n> too, no doubt. That's not to understate its importance in certain places,\n> but we should ask ourselves why Pobric felt motivated to write a hit piece\n> like this.\n>\n> I would venture that it's because he and his peers fear losing control of\n> the \"art conversation\". The Internet has already forced open the boundaries\n> of their world and they hate being disrupted by people they've never even\n> heard of, from parts of the globe where their holy writ doesn't run.\n> Pobric's association of the Net with the great unwashed - the contempt that\n> he, a denizen of the rarefied heights of the New York art scene, feels for\n> the mass who discuss cookery or cars on the Intraweb - speaks volumes.\n>\n> The obvious fulcrum to turn Pobric's argument on its head (as suggested by\n> Nicholas and Marc) is the term \"insularity\". They hate the effrontery of\n> outsiders entering the art world with new ideas, more diverse faces and a\n> technology that (as is evident from the article) they barely comprehend.\n>\n> As Marc notes, the broader demographies of the internet are precisely what\n> Pobric and his fellow art provincials fear the most, since their economy is\n> predicated on the penthouse and the boardroom.\n>\n> More to come!\n>\n> Nick\n>\n> All best,\n>\n> Nick\n>\n>\n>\n>\n> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 4:41 PM, marc garrett <\n> [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>\n> > wrote:\n>\n> > Hi Nicholas & all,\n> >\n> >\n> > >So instead of operating in the suburbs, how could the list propose that\n> > it is in fact the\n> > >art world that is suburban - with its gated community paywalls,\n> whitecube\n> > picket fences,\n> > >and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n> >\n> > I agree with the above & Sarah's post on the matter works for me.\n> >\n> > Anyway -- I'm too busy at the moment with our 'provincial' exhibition. A\n> > collaboration with The Arts Catalyst \"SEFT-1 Abandoned Railways\n> Exploration\n> > Probe: Modern Ruins 1:220 -- Ivan Puig and Andrés Padilla Domene\"\n> > http://go.shr.lc/1jy7AJo\n> >\n> > It was featured in the Guardian last week by Jonathan jones 'The\n> > ruin-hunters who drove a car down Mexico's forgotten railways'\n> > http://go.shr.lc/1qwbV4K\n> >\n> > And will be featured on the BBC news on Friday...\n> >\n> > Oh wait! I get it, it's seen as 'provincial' because the work\n> successfully\n> > reaches people, beyond their art establishment silos. Of course ;-)\n> >\n> > bye for now.\n> >\n> > marc\n> >\n> >\n> >\n> > > Sarah + all:\n> > >\n> > > I actually think that there's some stuff worth engaging in this...\n> > >\n> > > I haven't read Joanne's book, so I can't speak to the ways in which\n> this\n> > > piece fails as a review, but this closing statement definitely sent a\n> > > shiver down my browser:\n> > >\n> > > \"The problem with the book, as with internet art, is that no one has\n> > > recognised the aesthetic problems of provincial conversation. Work by\n> > > artists who turn inward to have hushed talks with a small coterie about\n> > > local problems will have little effect on culture at large. McLuhan's\n> > > global village may have its merits, but the cultural celebration of\n> > > marginalism in art is not one of them.\"\n> > >\n> > > The reactionary in me would outright disagree with this, but I did\n> have a\n> > > moment of thinking bout who does address the aesthetic problems of the\n> > > \"provincial conversation\" of internet art. So maybe as a way of\n> thinking\n> > > about outright disagreeing with Pac Pobric, the list might suggest some\n> > > compelling counters?\n> > >\n> > > To that end, the metric of cultural relevance as proposed in this\n> article\n> > > is squarely situated in archaic models of art presentation/distribution\n> > (I\n> > > think that a lot of us can agree on that). So instead of operating in\n> the\n> > > suburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the art world\n> that\n> > > is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket\n> fences,\n> > > and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n> > >\n> > > very best\n> > >\n> > >\n> > >\n> > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Kelani Nichole <\n> [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>>\n> > > wrote:\n> > >\n> > >> He is based in Brooklyn, no worries tho y'all I already invited him to\n> > our\n> > >> next opening at TRANSFER - Claudia Maté on July 12 :D\n> > >>\n> > >>\n> > >> Bests,\n> > >> Kelani Nichole\n> > >>\n> > >> Curatorial Director, TRANSFER\n> > >> http://transfer.gallery\n> > >>\n> > >>\n> > >>\n> > >> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, marc garrett <\n> > >> [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>\n> > >>> wrote:\n> > >>\n> > >>> Wow!\n> > >>>\n> > >>> Where do they find these people?\n> > >>>\n> > >>> marc\n> > >>>\n> > >>> Hi CRUMBs\n> > >>>> thought you might be interested to read this article about internet\n> > art,\n> > >>>> which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne\n> McNeil\n> > >> et\n> > >>>> al, Black Dog Publishing.\n> > >>>>\n> > >>>>\n> > >> http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-\n> > fails-to-click/32983\n> > >>>>\n> > >>>> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is\n> > >>>> provincial.\n> > >>>> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of\n> this\n> > >>>> field of practice.\n> > >>>>\n> > >>>> Sarah\n> > >>>>\n> > >>>>\n> > >>>> ===\n> > >>>>\n> > >>>> Dr. Sarah Cook\n> > >>>> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n> > >>>> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n> > >>>> University of Dundee\n> > >>>> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n> > >>>>\n> > >>>> phone: 01382 385247\n> > >>>> email: [log in to unmask] <javascript:;><mailto:\n> [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>>\n> > >>>>\n> > >>>>\n> > >>>>\n> > >>>>\n> > >>>>\n> > >>>> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No:\n> > SC015096\n> > >>>> .\n> > >>>>\n> > >>>>\n> > >>>\n> > >>> --\n> > >>> --->\n> > >>>\n> > >>> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n> > >>> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n> > >>>\n> > >>> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n> > >>> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n> > >>>\n> > >>> Furtherfield - online arts community, platforms for creating,\n> viewing,\n> > >>> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n> > >>> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n> > >>> http://www.furtherfield.org\n> > >>>\n> > >>> Furtherfield Gallery - Finsbury Park (London).\n> > >>> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n> > >>>\n> > >>> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n> > >>> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n> > >>>\n> > >>> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n> > >>> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n> > >>>\n> > >>\n> > >\n> > >\n> > >\n> >\n> >\n> > --\n> > --->\n> >\n> > A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n> > proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n> >\n> > Other reviews,articles,interviews\n> > http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n> >\n> > Furtherfield - online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n> > discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n> > intersections of art, technology and social change.\n> > http://www.furtherfield.org\n> >\n> > Furtherfield Gallery - Finsbury Park (London).\n> > http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n> >\n> > Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n> > http://www.netbehaviour.org\n> >\n> > http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n> > http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n> >\n>\n>\n>\n> --\n> =================\n> Dr Nick Lambert (DPhil Oxon)\n> Lecturer in Digital Art and Culture\n> Department of History of Art & Screen Media\n> Birkbeck, University of London\n> 43 Gordon Square,\n> London, WC1H 0PD\n> www.technocultures.org.uk\n> Mobile: 0781 0381 458\n>\n\n\n-- \nBronaċ",
|
||
"from": "bronac ferran",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 19:04:18 +0100",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=23377",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "bronac ferran"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\n A fair point Bronac and we did indeed discuss this, though I should make\nclear to everyone that I wasn't involved in the editorial side of the book.\n\nHowever the majority of Pobric's \"review\" isn't so much about the book but\nwhat he considers to be internet art in general, and is (I think)\nunderpinned by a fear of the Internet itself as a medium for both art and\ncommunication. An informed critique of the book would be welcome, but I\ndon't see this in Pobric's writing.\n\nBest,\n\nNick\n\n\n\n\nOn Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:04 PM, bronac ferran <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n\n> I have already discussed this in part with Nick so am hopefully not\n> springing anything new here, or rattling the cage any further. But a point\n> worth making I think is that the particular book being reviewed miscasts\n> itself in my view as a much needed survey of an overlooked field. See its\n> own promotional material to verify this. The challenge is heightened with\n> the book lacking a specific editorial or preface to adequately clarify its\n> context, in my view. So criticism of the book as a survey publication 'may'\n> be justified. Without a well worked editorial there is a gap which can be\n> exploited and indeed exposed.\n>\n> best\n> B\n>\n> On Wednesday, 18 June 2014, Nick Lambert <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n>\n> > Hi everyone,\n> >\n> > I've been mulling a direct response to Pobric but will let things simmer\n> > while I try and finish a project. One could ask why Pobric even bothered\n> > reviewing the book at all, if he felt it wasn't worth his time? (I must\n> > admit an interest here, as I had an essay in *Art and the Internet*).\n> It's\n> > instructive to look at his website http://www.pacpobric.com/ and read\n> his\n> > scribblings on the weighty issues of the Art World. Draw your own\n> > conclusions!\n> >\n> > I agree with Sarah that the amnesia relating to internet art - and\n> digital\n> > art in the broad sense - is more than irritating. How many times will it\n> be\n> > \"discovered\" by the \"mainstream\", and how often is Hockney the example\n> they\n> > use? Nicholas is right to ask for a conversation about the aesthetic\n> > aspects of this area. The Art Newspaper has its own provincialism and I\n> > think of it as a trade mag for Cork Street and Chelsea (NYC) - and Dubai\n> > too, no doubt. That's not to understate its importance in certain places,\n> > but we should ask ourselves why Pobric felt motivated to write a hit\n> piece\n> > like this.\n> >\n> > I would venture that it's because he and his peers fear losing control of\n> > the \"art conversation\". The Internet has already forced open the\n> boundaries\n> > of their world and they hate being disrupted by people they've never even\n> > heard of, from parts of the globe where their holy writ doesn't run.\n> > Pobric's association of the Net with the great unwashed - the contempt\n> that\n> > he, a denizen of the rarefied heights of the New York art scene, feels\n> for\n> > the mass who discuss cookery or cars on the Intraweb - speaks volumes.\n> >\n> > The obvious fulcrum to turn Pobric's argument on its head (as suggested\n> by\n> > Nicholas and Marc) is the term \"insularity\". They hate the effrontery of\n> > outsiders entering the art world with new ideas, more diverse faces and a\n> > technology that (as is evident from the article) they barely comprehend.\n> >\n> > As Marc notes, the broader demographies of the internet are precisely\n> what\n> > Pobric and his fellow art provincials fear the most, since their economy\n> is\n> > predicated on the penthouse and the boardroom.\n> >\n> > More to come!\n> >\n> > Nick\n> >\n> > All best,\n> >\n> > Nick\n> >\n> >\n> >\n> >\n> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 4:41 PM, marc garrett <\n> > [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>\n> > > wrote:\n> >\n> > > Hi Nicholas & all,\n> > >\n> > >\n> > > >So instead of operating in the suburbs, how could the list propose\n> that\n> > > it is in fact the\n> > > >art world that is suburban - with its gated community paywalls,\n> > whitecube\n> > > picket fences,\n> > > >and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n> > >\n> > > I agree with the above & Sarah's post on the matter works for me.\n> > >\n> > > Anyway -- I'm too busy at the moment with our 'provincial' exhibition.\n> A\n> > > collaboration with The Arts Catalyst \"SEFT-1 Abandoned Railways\n> > Exploration\n> > > Probe: Modern Ruins 1:220 -- Ivan Puig and Andrés Padilla Domene\"\n> > > http://go.shr.lc/1jy7AJo\n> > >\n> > > It was featured in the Guardian last week by Jonathan jones 'The\n> > > ruin-hunters who drove a car down Mexico's forgotten railways'\n> > > http://go.shr.lc/1qwbV4K\n> > >\n> > > And will be featured on the BBC news on Friday...\n> > >\n> > > Oh wait! I get it, it's seen as 'provincial' because the work\n> > successfully\n> > > reaches people, beyond their art establishment silos. Of course ;-)\n> > >\n> > > bye for now.\n> > >\n> > > marc\n> > >\n> > >\n> > >\n> > > > Sarah + all:\n> > > >\n> > > > I actually think that there's some stuff worth engaging in this...\n> > > >\n> > > > I haven't read Joanne's book, so I can't speak to the ways in which\n> > this\n> > > > piece fails as a review, but this closing statement definitely sent a\n> > > > shiver down my browser:\n> > > >\n> > > > \"The problem with the book, as with internet art, is that no one has\n> > > > recognised the aesthetic problems of provincial conversation. Work by\n> > > > artists who turn inward to have hushed talks with a small coterie\n> about\n> > > > local problems will have little effect on culture at large. McLuhan's\n> > > > global village may have its merits, but the cultural celebration of\n> > > > marginalism in art is not one of them.\"\n> > > >\n> > > > The reactionary in me would outright disagree with this, but I did\n> > have a\n> > > > moment of thinking bout who does address the aesthetic problems of\n> the\n> > > > \"provincial conversation\" of internet art. So maybe as a way of\n> > thinking\n> > > > about outright disagreeing with Pac Pobric, the list might suggest\n> some\n> > > > compelling counters?\n> > > >\n> > > > To that end, the metric of cultural relevance as proposed in this\n> > article\n> > > > is squarely situated in archaic models of art\n> presentation/distribution\n> > > (I\n> > > > think that a lot of us can agree on that). So instead of operating in\n> > the\n> > > > suburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the art world\n> > that\n> > > > is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket\n> > fences,\n> > > > and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n> > > >\n> > > > very best\n> > > >\n> > > >\n> > > >\n> > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Kelani Nichole <\n> > [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>>\n> > > > wrote:\n> > > >\n> > > >> He is based in Brooklyn, no worries tho y'all I already invited him\n> to\n> > > our\n> > > >> next opening at TRANSFER - Claudia Maté on July 12 :D\n> > > >>\n> > > >>\n> > > >> Bests,\n> > > >> Kelani Nichole\n> > > >>\n> > > >> Curatorial Director, TRANSFER\n> > > >> http://transfer.gallery\n> > > >>\n> > > >>\n> > > >>\n> > > >> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, marc garrett <\n> > > >> [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>\n> > > >>> wrote:\n> > > >>\n> > > >>> Wow!\n> > > >>>\n> > > >>> Where do they find these people?\n> > > >>>\n> > > >>> marc\n> > > >>>\n> > > >>> Hi CRUMBs\n> > > >>>> thought you might be interested to read this article about\n> internet\n> > > art,\n> > > >>>> which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne\n> > McNeil\n> > > >> et\n> > > >>>> al, Black Dog Publishing.\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >> http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-\n> > > fails-to-click/32983\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >>>> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it\n> is\n> > > >>>> provincial.\n> > > >>>> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of\n> > this\n> > > >>>> field of practice.\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >>>> Sarah\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >>>> ===\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >>>> Dr. Sarah Cook\n> > > >>>> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n> > > >>>> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n> > > >>>> University of Dundee\n> > > >>>> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >>>> phone: 01382 385247\n> > > >>>> email: [log in to unmask] <javascript:;><mailto:\n> > [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>>\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >>>> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No:\n> > > SC015096\n> > > >>>> .\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >>>>\n> > > >>>\n> > > >>> --\n> > > >>> --->\n> > > >>>\n> > > >>> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n> > > >>> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n> > > >>>\n> > > >>> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n> > > >>> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n> > > >>>\n> > > >>> Furtherfield - online arts community, platforms for creating,\n> > viewing,\n> > > >>> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n> > > >>> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n> > > >>> http://www.furtherfield.org\n> > > >>>\n> > > >>> Furtherfield Gallery - Finsbury Park (London).\n> > > >>> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n> > > >>>\n> > > >>> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n> > > >>> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n> > > >>>\n> > > >>> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n> > > >>> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n> > > >>>\n> > > >>\n> > > >\n> > > >\n> > > >\n> > >\n> > >\n> > > --\n> > > --->\n> > >\n> > > A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n> > > proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n> > >\n> > > Other reviews,articles,interviews\n> > > http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n> > >\n> > > Furtherfield - online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n> > > discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n> > > intersections of art, technology and social change.\n> > > http://www.furtherfield.org\n> > >\n> > > Furtherfield Gallery - Finsbury Park (London).\n> > > http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n> > >\n> > > Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n> > > http://www.netbehaviour.org\n> > >\n> > > http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n> > > http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n> > >\n> >\n> >\n> >\n> > --\n> > =================\n> > Dr Nick Lambert (DPhil Oxon)\n> > Lecturer in Digital Art and Culture\n> > Department of History of Art & Screen Media\n> > Birkbeck, University of London\n> > 43 Gordon Square,\n> > London, WC1H 0PD\n> > www.technocultures.org.uk\n> > Mobile: 0781 0381 458\n> >\n>\n>\n> --\n> Bronaċ\n>\n\n\n\n-- \n=================\nDr Nick Lambert (DPhil Oxon)\nLecturer in Digital Art and Culture\nDepartment of History of Art & Screen Media\nBirkbeck, University of London\n43 Gordon Square,\nLondon, WC1H 0PD\nwww.technocultures.org.uk\nMobile: 0781 0381 458",
|
||
"from": "Nick Lambert",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 19:56:11 +0100",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=24196",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Nick Lambert"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\n\n\nI'd just like to say,\n\nI like this, a lot:\n\n\n>So instead of operating in the suburbs, how could the list propose \nthat it is in fact the\n>art world that is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, \nwhitecube picket fences,\n>and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n\n!\n\nAmi \n \nBanner Repeater\nPlatform 1\nHackney Downs Railway Station\nDalston Lane\nHackney\nE8 1LA\n\nwww.bannerrepeater.org\n\n\n>________________________________\n> From: marc garrett <[log in to unmask]>\n>To: [log in to unmask] \n>Sent: Wednesday, 18 June 2014, 16:41\n>Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] article which mis-understands internet art, again?\n> \n>\n>Hi Nicholas & all,\n>\n>>So instead of operating in the suburbs, how could the list propose \n>that it is in fact the\n>>art world that is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, \n>whitecube picket fences,\n>>and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n>\n>I agree with the above & Sarah’s post on the matter works for me.\n>\n>Anyway — I’m too busy at the moment with our ‘provincial’ exhibition. A \n>collaboration with The Arts Catalyst “SEFT-1 Abandoned Railways \n>Exploration Probe: Modern Ruins 1:220 — Ivan Puig and Andrés Padilla \n>Domene” http://go.shr.lc/1jy7AJo\n>\n>It was featured in the Guardian last week by Jonathan jones ‘The \n>ruin-hunters who drove a car down Mexico's forgotten railways’ \n>http://go.shr.lc/1qwbV4K\n>\n>And will be featured on the BBC news on Friday…\n>\n>Oh wait! I get it, it’s seen as ‘provincial’ because the work \n>successfully reaches people, beyond their art establishment silos. Of \n>course ;-)\n>\n>bye for now.\n>\n>marc\n>\n>\n>> Sarah + all:\n>>\n>> I actually think that there's some stuff worth engaging in this...\n>>\n>> I haven't read Joanne's book, so I can't speak to the ways in which this\n>> piece fails as a review, but this closing statement definitely sent a\n>> shiver down my browser:\n>>\n>> \"The problem with the book, as with internet art, is that no one has\n>> recognised the aesthetic problems of provincial conversation. Work by\n>> artists who turn inward to have hushed talks with a small coterie about\n>> local problems will have little effect on culture at large. McLuhan’s\n>> global village may have its merits, but the cultural celebration of\n>> marginalism in art is not one of them.\"\n>>\n>> The reactionary in me would outright disagree with this, but I did have a\n>> moment of thinking bout who does address the aesthetic problems of the\n>> \"provincial conversation\" of internet art. So maybe as a way of thinking\n>> about outright disagreeing with Pac Pobric, the list might suggest some\n>> compelling counters?\n>>\n>> To that end, the metric of cultural relevance as proposed in this article\n>> is squarely situated in archaic models of art \n>presentation/distribution (I\n>> think that a lot of us can agree on that). So instead of operating in the\n>> suburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the art world that\n>> is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket fences,\n>> and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n>>\n>> very best\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Kelani Nichole <[log in to unmask]>\n>> wrote:\n>>\n>>> He is based in Brooklyn, no worries tho y'all I already invited him \n>to our\n>>> next opening at TRANSFER – Claudia Maté on July 12 :D\n>>>\n>>>\n>>> Bests,\n>>> Kelani Nichole\n>>>\n>>> Curatorial Director, TRANSFER\n>>> http://transfer.gallery\n>>>\n>>>\n>>>\n>>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, marc garrett <\n>>> [log in to unmask]\n>>>> wrote:\n>>>\n>>>> Wow!\n>>>>\n>>>> Where do they find these people?\n>>>>\n>>>> marc\n>>>>\n>>>> Hi CRUMBs\n>>>>> thought you might be interested to read this article about \n>internet art,\n>>>>> which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil\n>>> et\n>>>>> al, Black Dog Publishing.\n>>>>>\n>>>>>\n>>> \n>http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n>>>>>\n>>>>> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is\n>>>>> provincial.\n>>>>> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this\n>>>>> field of practice.\n>>>>>\n>>>>> Sarah\n>>>>>\n>>>>>\n>>>>> ===\n>>>>>\n>>>>> Dr. Sarah Cook\n>>>>> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n>>>>> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n>>>>> University of Dundee\n>>>>> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n>>>>>\n>>>>> phone: 01382 385247\n>>>>> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n>>>>>\n>>>>>\n>>>>>\n>>>>>\n>>>>>\n>>>>> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: \n>SC015096\n>>>>> .\n>>>>>\n>>>>>\n>>>>\n>>>> --\n>>>> --->\n>>>>\n>>>> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n>>>> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n>>>>\n>>>> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n>>>> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n>>>>\n>>>> Furtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n>>>> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n>>>> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n>>>> http://www.furtherfield.org\n>>>>\n>>>> Furtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\n>>>> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n>>>>\n>>>> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n>>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n>>>>\n>>>> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n>>>> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n>\n>>>>\n>>>\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>\n>\n>-- \n>--->\n>\n>A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n>proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n>\n>Other reviews,articles,interviews\n>http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n>\n>Furtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n>discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n>intersections of art, technology and social change.\n>http://www.furtherfield.org\n>\n>Furtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\n>http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n>\n>Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n>http://www.netbehaviour.org\n>\n>http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n>http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n>\n>",
|
||
"from": "Ami Clarke",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 20:02:33 +0100",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=24930",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Ami Clarke"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\nHi all\n\nI was at The Space launch because I'm working with Julie Freeman and the Open Data Institute on her new commission for The Space, in collaboration with ODI. I heard Ruth McKenzie speaking. The Motherboard quote isn't 100% accurate and is taken out of context in a way which makes her comments which I heard as aiming to champion artists using code and other unstable media sound like she was dismissive in a way she really wasn't. I understood her point to be that there hasn't been a space that welcomed all practitioners, inclusive of artists who work with new technologies. Granted the language used, and you could say the overall ambition of The Space is other, perhaps less precise, perhaps more widely embracing, than committed Media art curators would be. But it's interesting I think and timely. I'm interested to see how it works because of the fact it's hoping to be such a broad church.\n\nAs to that review, I just felt tired. It veered towards raising good points but shot itself in the foot by being a bit too snide. Shame. Looking forward to reading the book though...\n\nHannah\n\nSent from my iPad\n\n> On 18 Jun 2014, at 16:19, Sarah Cook <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n> \n> Hi all\n> \n> Combined with the blurb from the article that Nora posted, this has indeed brought a chill to an otherwise sunny afternoon. I am finding the amnesia in the art world about recent (last 20 years?) net-inflected art practices increasingly difficult to put up with, particularly when even those who are openly supportive of media practices don't remember an art work made a decade ago because it was only shown once, in a show they didn't see, or it was not well documented. Surely our role as curators is also to continue to research, and talk and write about recent histories and not just the new thing. As for writing about 'the provincial' - it has always been a question of translating the discourse from one of the many art worlds over to another one, as many on this list continue to try to do. I've always been happy to work on the edges of places, as they are generally more interesting.\n> \n> wishing I were in Dublin for the opening of Glitch,\n> Sarah\n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> On 18 Jun 2014, at 15:27, Nicholas O'Brien <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:\n> \n> Sarah + all:\n> \n> I actually think that there's some stuff worth engaging in this...\n> \n> I haven't read Joanne's book, so I can't speak to the ways in which this\n> piece fails as a review, but this closing statement definitely sent a\n> shiver down my browser:\n> \n> \"The problem with the book, as with internet art, is that no one has\n> recognised the aesthetic problems of provincial conversation. Work by\n> artists who turn inward to have hushed talks with a small coterie about\n> local problems will have little effect on culture at large. McLuhan’s\n> global village may have its merits, but the cultural celebration of\n> marginalism in art is not one of them.\"\n> \n> The reactionary in me would outright disagree with this, but I did have a\n> moment of thinking bout who does address the aesthetic problems of the\n> \"provincial conversation\" of internet art. So maybe as a way of thinking\n> about outright disagreeing with Pac Pobric, the list might suggest some\n> compelling counters?\n> \n> To that end, the metric of cultural relevance as proposed in this article\n> is squarely situated in archaic models of art presentation/distribution (I\n> think that a lot of us can agree on that). So instead of operating in the\n> suburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the art world that\n> is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket fences,\n> and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n> \n> very best\n> \n> \n> \n> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Kelani Nichole <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>\n> wrote:\n> \n> He is based in Brooklyn, no worries tho y'all I already invited him to our\n> next opening at TRANSFER – Claudia Maté on July 12 :D\n> \n> \n> Bests,\n> Kelani Nichole\n> \n> Curatorial Director, TRANSFER\n> http://transfer.gallery\n> \n> \n> \n> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, marc garrett <\n> [log in to unmask]\n> wrote:\n> \n> Wow!\n> \n> Where do they find these people?\n> \n> marc\n> \n> Hi CRUMBs\n> thought you might be interested to read this article about internet art,\n> which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil\n> et\n> al, Black Dog Publishing.\n> \n> \n> http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n> \n> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is\n> provincial.\n> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this\n> field of practice.\n> \n> Sarah\n> \n> \n> ===\n> \n> Dr. Sarah Cook\n> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n> University of Dundee\n> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n> \n> phone: 01382 385247\n> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096\n> .\n> \n> \n> \n> --\n> --->\n> \n> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n> \n> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n> \n> Furtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n> http://www.furtherfield.org\n> \n> Furtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\n> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n> \n> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n> \n> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> --\n> Nicholas O'Brien\n> \n> Visiting Faculty | Gallery Director\n> Department of Digital Art, Pratt Institute\n> doubleunderscore.net<http://doubleunderscore.net>\n> \n> ===\n> \n> Dr. Sarah Cook\n> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n> University of Dundee\n> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n> \n> phone: 01382 385247\n> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096",
|
||
"from": "Hannah Redler",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 20:56:28 +0100",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=25829",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Hannah Redler"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\nWell said Nic.\n\nIt's a pity the reviewer didn't even bother to adequately research the fact\nthat net.art was founded precisely to push past such myopic\n(geophysically/regionally-defined) framings (ref: the \"net.art Painters and\nPoets\" <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt3y6xR0L-A>exhibition that opens\ntoday and features <http://net.art.mgml.si/>: \"!MEDIENGRUPPE BITNIK,\n0100101110101101.org, Cory Arcangel, Kim Asendorf, Mez Breeze, Cristophe\nBruno, Heath Bunting, Shu Lea Cheang, Paolo Cirio, Vuk Ćosić, Constant\nDullaart, Lisa Jevbratt, JODI, Justin Kemp, Olia Lialina, Alessandro\nLudovico, Mouchette, Mark Napier, Evan Roth, ®™ark, Eryk Salvaggio, Alexei\nShulgin, Teo Spiller, Igor Štromajer, Thomson & Craighead, Ubermorgen,\nYoung-Hae Chang Heavy Industries, Jaka Železnikar.\").\n\nPeace,\nMez\n\n-- \n| facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign <http://www.facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign>\n| twitter.com/MezBreezeDesign\n| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mez_Breeze\n\n\n\nOn Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Nicholas O'Brien <[log in to unmask]>\nwrote:\n\n> Sarah + all:\n>\n> I actually think that there's some stuff worth engaging in this...\n>\n> I haven't read Joanne's book, so I can't speak to the ways in which this\n> piece fails as a review, but this closing statement definitely sent a\n> shiver down my browser:\n>\n> \"The problem with the book, as with internet art, is that no one has\n> recognised the aesthetic problems of provincial conversation. Work by\n> artists who turn inward to have hushed talks with a small coterie about\n> local problems will have little effect on culture at large. McLuhan’s\n> global village may have its merits, but the cultural celebration of\n> marginalism in art is not one of them.\"\n>\n> The reactionary in me would outright disagree with this, but I did have a\n> moment of thinking bout who does address the aesthetic problems of the\n> \"provincial conversation\" of internet art. So maybe as a way of thinking\n> about outright disagreeing with Pac Pobric, the list might suggest some\n> compelling counters?\n>\n> To that end, the metric of cultural relevance as proposed in this article\n> is squarely situated in archaic models of art presentation/distribution (I\n> think that a lot of us can agree on that). So instead of operating in the\n> suburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the art world that\n> is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket fences,\n> and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n>\n> very best\n>\n>",
|
||
"from": "mez breeze",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 19 Jun 2014 08:09:39 +1000",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=26618",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "mez breeze"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\nI suppose we will soon, here in the UK anyway, be awash with reviews about the forthcoming exhibition at the Barbican which thanks to its digital archaeology section _might_ be a useful counterpoint ?\nHere's the first of the more considered articles....\n\nhttp://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/jun/18/-sp-why-digital-art-matters\n\nSent from my pocket.\n\nOn 18 Jun 2014, at 23:10, \"mez breeze\" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:\n\nWell said Nic.\n\nIt's a pity the reviewer didn't even bother to adequately research the fact\nthat net.art was founded precisely to push past such myopic\n(geophysically/regionally-defined) framings (ref: the \"net.art Painters and\nPoets\" <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt3y6xR0L-A>exhibition that opens\ntoday and features <http://net.art.mgml.si/>: \"!MEDIENGRUPPE BITNIK,\n0100101110101101.org<http://0100101110101101.org>, Cory Arcangel, Kim Asendorf, Mez Breeze, Cristophe\nBruno, Heath Bunting, Shu Lea Cheang, Paolo Cirio, Vuk ?osi?, Constant\nDullaart, Lisa Jevbratt, JODI, Justin Kemp, Olia Lialina, Alessandro\nLudovico, Mouchette, Mark Napier, Evan Roth, (r)(tm)ark, Eryk Salvaggio, Alexei\nShulgin, Teo Spiller, Igor ?tromajer, Thomson & Craighead, Ubermorgen,\nYoung-Hae Chang Heavy Industries, Jaka ?eleznikar.\").\n\nPeace,\nMez\n\n--\n| facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign<http://facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign> <http://www.facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign>\n| twitter.com/MezBreezeDesign<http://twitter.com/MezBreezeDesign>\n| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mez_Breeze<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mez_Breeze>\n\n\n\nOn Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Nicholas O'Brien <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>\nwrote:\n\nSarah + all:\n\nI actually think that there's some stuff worth engaging in this...\n\nI haven't read Joanne's book, so I can't speak to the ways in which this\npiece fails as a review, but this closing statement definitely sent a\nshiver down my browser:\n\n\"The problem with the book, as with internet art, is that no one has\nrecognised the aesthetic problems of provincial conversation. Work by\nartists who turn inward to have hushed talks with a small coterie about\nlocal problems will have little effect on culture at large. McLuhan's\nglobal village may have its merits, but the cultural celebration of\nmarginalism in art is not one of them.\"\n\nThe reactionary in me would outright disagree with this, but I did have a\nmoment of thinking bout who does address the aesthetic problems of the\n\"provincial conversation\" of internet art. So maybe as a way of thinking\nabout outright disagreeing with Pac Pobric, the list might suggest some\ncompelling counters?\n\nTo that end, the metric of cultural relevance as proposed in this article\nis squarely situated in archaic models of art presentation/distribution (I\nthink that a lot of us can agree on that). So instead of operating in the\nsuburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the art world that\nis suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket fences,\nand McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n\nvery best\n\n\n\nThe University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096",
|
||
"from": "Sarah Cook",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 23:02:38 +0000",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=27705",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Sarah Cook"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA512\n\nSarah Cook:\n> \n> http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n\nI\n> \nlike the book. The essays cover some good territory and some of my\nfavourite artists have images in there, although occasionally more\nthan once (which doesn't really make sense for a survey). The\ninclusion of the manifestos works really well.\n\nAs for the review:\n\nhttp://i.imgur.com/iWKad22.jpg\n\n- - Rob.\n\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\n\niQEbBAEBCgAGBQJToiWYAAoJECciMUAZd2dZ1S4H91wHAnklPlnO1yh2g4cBwopy\nKynm4L35/UGjvXcTB4WlrUMaOSS4hcSTUdkE+vnhZyP1DNnXvDeySs3GMPfXcBK/\nrFSnOgOYzjVhFgQRMF+wOgVdHmt+mSsZ6ESfJgnbMHvtG8yn1TrxTDYaz8DcBJZP\nRFsWVmaGQt1ZdxTv/sXAzh6W15jBItHp6MF9xgCT2R7ebYq/rcP2PnB9PxOJ0awC\nWCZXSguHvlKPk7m29NwS/tzGiMKDaOCAx/0tQCIrh/YKT77jUTkGimuuO6YqHS5J\n27/5JT5g/c2o+EofMg3AvNu5a5bsBp48dO0W34U4CB4CQl7hlPYiGlK03DxnfA==\n=fVPF\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----",
|
||
"from": "Rob Myers",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 18 Jun 2014 23:49:44 +0000",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=28416",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Rob Myers"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\non the ongoing question of digital arts coverage in the media, and the earlier thread about the digital art hack at the Tate, here's another article for consideration, in which Ruth MacKenzie is quoted rather more favourably (as Hannah was good to point out)...\n\nhttp://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/jun/16/hack-the-space-tate-modern\n\nCRUMB's PhD student, Victoria Bradbury, who is quoted in the article, will no doubt have some interesting findings to report on her participation in due course,\n\nSarah\n\n\n\nOn 18 Jun 2014, at 16:41, marc garrett <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:\n\nHi Nicholas & all,\n\n>So instead of operating in the suburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the\n>art world that is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket fences,\n>and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n\nI agree with the above & Sarah’s post on the matter works for me.\n\nAnyway — I’m too busy at the moment with our ‘provincial’ exhibition. A collaboration with The Arts Catalyst “SEFT-1 Abandoned Railways Exploration Probe: Modern Ruins 1:220 — Ivan Puig and Andrés Padilla Domene” http://go.shr.lc/1jy7AJo\n\nIt was featured in the Guardian last week by Jonathan jones ‘The ruin-hunters who drove a car down Mexico's forgotten railways’ http://go.shr.lc/1qwbV4K\n\nAnd will be featured on the BBC news on Friday…\n\nOh wait! I get it, it’s seen as ‘provincial’ because the work successfully reaches people, beyond their art establishment silos. Of course ;-)\n\nbye for now.\n\nmarc\n\n\n> Sarah + all:\n>\n> I actually think that there's some stuff worth engaging in this...\n>\n> I haven't read Joanne's book, so I can't speak to the ways in which this\n> piece fails as a review, but this closing statement definitely sent a\n> shiver down my browser:\n>\n> \"The problem with the book, as with internet art, is that no one has\n> recognised the aesthetic problems of provincial conversation. Work by\n> artists who turn inward to have hushed talks with a small coterie about\n> local problems will have little effect on culture at large. McLuhan’s\n> global village may have its merits, but the cultural celebration of\n> marginalism in art is not one of them.\"\n>\n> The reactionary in me would outright disagree with this, but I did have a\n> moment of thinking bout who does address the aesthetic problems of the\n> \"provincial conversation\" of internet art. So maybe as a way of thinking\n> about outright disagreeing with Pac Pobric, the list might suggest some\n> compelling counters?\n>\n> To that end, the metric of cultural relevance as proposed in this article\n> is squarely situated in archaic models of art presentation/distribution (I\n> think that a lot of us can agree on that). So instead of operating in the\n> suburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the art world that\n> is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket fences,\n> and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n>\n> very best\n>\n>\n>\n> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Kelani Nichole <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>\n> wrote:\n>\n>> He is based in Brooklyn, no worries tho y'all I already invited him to our\n>> next opening at TRANSFER – Claudia Maté on July 12 :D\n>>\n>>\n>> Bests,\n>> Kelani Nichole\n>>\n>> Curatorial Director, TRANSFER\n>> http://transfer.gallery\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, marc garrett <\n>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n>>> wrote:\n>>\n>>> Wow!\n>>>\n>>> Where do they find these people?\n>>>\n>>> marc\n>>>\n>>> Hi CRUMBs\n>>>> thought you might be interested to read this article about internet art,\n>>>> which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil\n>> et\n>>>> al, Black Dog Publishing.\n>>>>\n>>>>\n>> http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n>>>>\n>>>> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is\n>>>> provincial.\n>>>> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this\n>>>> field of practice.\n>>>>\n>>>> Sarah\n>>>>\n>>>>\n>>>> ===\n>>>>\n>>>> Dr. Sarah Cook\n>>>> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n>>>> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n>>>> University of Dundee\n>>>> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n>>>>\n>>>> phone: 01382 385247\n>>>> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n>>>>\n>>>>\n>>>>\n>>>>\n>>>>\n>>>> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096\n>>>> .\n>>>>\n>>>>\n>>>\n>>> --\n>>> --->\n>>>\n>>> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n>>> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n>>>\n>>> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n>>> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n>>>\n>>> Furtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n>>> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n>>> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n>>> http://www.furtherfield.org\n>>>\n>>> Furtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\n>>> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n>>>\n>>> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n>>>\n>>> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n>>> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n>>>\n>>\n>\n>\n>\n\n\n--\n--->\n\nA living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\nproud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n\nOther reviews,articles,interviews\nhttp://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n\nFurtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\ndiscussing and learning about experimental practices at the\nintersections of art, technology and social change.\nhttp://www.furtherfield.org\n\nFurtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\nhttp://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n\nNetbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\nhttp://www.netbehaviour.org\n\nhttp://identi.ca/furtherfield\nhttp://twitter.com/furtherfield\n\n===\n\nDr. Sarah Cook\nReader / Dundee Fellow\nDuncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\nUniversity of Dundee\n13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n\nphone: 01382 385247\nemail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n\n\n\n\n\nThe University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096",
|
||
"from": "Sarah Cook",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 19 Jun 2014 11:36:33 +0000",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=29152",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Sarah Cook"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\nHi Sarah and All,\n\n#HacktheSpace was an \"intense\" event, I would say. It was exciting to be\ninvolved in, particularly because of meeting new people, sleeping in the\nturbine hall (ever-so-briefly), working on a new project, and\nwatching/being a part of the spectacle.\n\nThe thing that hangs with me, though, is this perspective that gets sent to\nthe world that \"art\" can or should be made in a quick, competitive fashion.\n Or perhaps that digital art is something that happens quickly and easily.\nThe process of art-making is different for everyone, but in my practice, I\nmake hand-make objects that work in tandem with custom code. Both of these\ntake time. It would probably be seen as very strange for a turbine hall of\npainters to be asked to make paintings in 20 hours or less with little to\nno sleep.\n\nIn addition to the spectators on the balcony, there were many people\nmilling about the hall during the making day/night, talking to the groups.\n The time to conceive of and implement the project was short, and during\nthe process, we were constantly being asked what we were doing, what was\nthe concept, etc.. So after 20 hours, you have collaboratively created\nsomething in haste and are then asked to stand by it and attach your\nname/identity to it. I am pleased with what the prototype our group\nproduced, but had I not been, it was a very public setting in which to be\nlinked with a project and a concept.\n\nThe event was well run by 3 Beards and The Space and overall it ran\nsmoothly. We were well-fed and generally looked after. I was pleased to\nparticipate and am watching to see where Art Hacks go from here.\n\nVictoria\n\n-- \n// Victoria Bradbury\n<PROJECTS> www.victoriabradbury.com\nResearcher @ www.crumbweb.org\nNew Media Caucus <http://www.newmediacaucus.org/> <CommComm>\nAttaya Projects <http://attayaprojects.com/> // Collaborator\n\n\nOn Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Sarah Cook <[log in to unmask]>\nwrote:\n\n> on the ongoing question of digital arts coverage in the media, and the\n> earlier thread about the digital art hack at the Tate, here's another\n> article for consideration, in which Ruth MacKenzie is quoted rather more\n> favourably (as Hannah was good to point out)...\n>\n>\n> http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/jun/16/hack-the-space-tate-modern\n>\n> CRUMB's PhD student, Victoria Bradbury, who is quoted in the article, will\n> no doubt have some interesting findings to report on her participation in\n> due course,\n>\n> Sarah\n>\n>\n>\n> On 18 Jun 2014, at 16:41, marc garrett <[log in to unmask]\n> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:\n>\n> Hi Nicholas & all,\n>\n> >So instead of operating in the suburbs, how could the list propose that\n> it is in fact the\n> >art world that is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube\n> picket fences,\n> >and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n>\n> I agree with the above & Sarah’s post on the matter works for me.\n>\n> Anyway — I’m too busy at the moment with our ‘provincial’ exhibition. A\n> collaboration with The Arts Catalyst “SEFT-1 Abandoned Railways Exploration\n> Probe: Modern Ruins 1:220 — Ivan Puig and Andrés Padilla Domene”\n> http://go.shr.lc/1jy7AJo\n>\n> It was featured in the Guardian last week by Jonathan jones ‘The\n> ruin-hunters who drove a car down Mexico's forgotten railways’\n> http://go.shr.lc/1qwbV4K\n>\n> And will be featured on the BBC news on Friday…\n>\n> Oh wait! I get it, it’s seen as ‘provincial’ because the work successfully\n> reaches people, beyond their art establishment silos. Of course ;-)\n>\n> bye for now.\n>\n> marc\n>\n>\n> > Sarah + all:\n> >\n> > I actually think that there's some stuff worth engaging in this...\n> >\n> > I haven't read Joanne's book, so I can't speak to the ways in which this\n> > piece fails as a review, but this closing statement definitely sent a\n> > shiver down my browser:\n> >\n> > \"The problem with the book, as with internet art, is that no one has\n> > recognised the aesthetic problems of provincial conversation. Work by\n> > artists who turn inward to have hushed talks with a small coterie about\n> > local problems will have little effect on culture at large. McLuhan’s\n> > global village may have its merits, but the cultural celebration of\n> > marginalism in art is not one of them.\"\n> >\n> > The reactionary in me would outright disagree with this, but I did have a\n> > moment of thinking bout who does address the aesthetic problems of the\n> > \"provincial conversation\" of internet art. So maybe as a way of thinking\n> > about outright disagreeing with Pac Pobric, the list might suggest some\n> > compelling counters?\n> >\n> > To that end, the metric of cultural relevance as proposed in this article\n> > is squarely situated in archaic models of art presentation/distribution\n> (I\n> > think that a lot of us can agree on that). So instead of operating in the\n> > suburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the art world that\n> > is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket fences,\n> > and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n> >\n> > very best\n> >\n> >\n> >\n> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Kelani Nichole <[log in to unmask]\n> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>\n> > wrote:\n> >\n> >> He is based in Brooklyn, no worries tho y'all I already invited him to\n> our\n> >> next opening at TRANSFER – Claudia Maté on July 12 :D\n> >>\n> >>\n> >> Bests,\n> >> Kelani Nichole\n> >>\n> >> Curatorial Director, TRANSFER\n> >> http://transfer.gallery\n> >>\n> >>\n> >>\n> >> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, marc garrett <\n> >> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n> >>> wrote:\n> >>\n> >>> Wow!\n> >>>\n> >>> Where do they find these people?\n> >>>\n> >>> marc\n> >>>\n> >>> Hi CRUMBs\n> >>>> thought you might be interested to read this article about internet\n> art,\n> >>>> which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil\n> >> et\n> >>>> al, Black Dog Publishing.\n> >>>>\n> >>>>\n> >>\n> http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n> >>>>\n> >>>> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is\n> >>>> provincial.\n> >>>> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this\n> >>>> field of practice.\n> >>>>\n> >>>> Sarah\n> >>>>\n> >>>>\n> >>>> ===\n> >>>>\n> >>>> Dr. Sarah Cook\n> >>>> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n> >>>> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n> >>>> University of Dundee\n> >>>> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n> >>>>\n> >>>> phone: 01382 385247\n> >>>> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]\n> ><mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n> >>>>\n> >>>>\n> >>>>\n> >>>>\n> >>>>\n> >>>> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No:\n> SC015096\n> >>>> .\n> >>>>\n> >>>>\n> >>>\n> >>> --\n> >>> --->\n> >>>\n> >>> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n> >>> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n> >>>\n> >>> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n> >>> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n> >>>\n> >>> Furtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n> >>> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n> >>> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n> >>> http://www.furtherfield.org\n> >>>\n> >>> Furtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\n> >>> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n> >>>\n> >>> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n> >>> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n> >>>\n> >>> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n> >>> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n> >>>\n> >>\n> >\n> >\n> >\n>\n>\n> --\n> --->\n>\n> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n>\n> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n>\n> Furtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n> http://www.furtherfield.org\n>\n> Furtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\n> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n>\n> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n>\n> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n>\n> ===\n>\n> Dr. Sarah Cook\n> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n> University of Dundee\n> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n>\n> phone: 01382 385247\n> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096\n>",
|
||
"from": "Victoria Bradbury",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 19 Jun 2014 15:12:20 +0100",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=30625",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Victoria Bradbury"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\nDear Sarah and everyone,\n\nI am following this conversation with great interest and it reminds of a similar controversy that arose in Sept 2012 with Claire Bishop’s infamous article in Artforum. I think that at that time this list had an important role in opening up a debate, although to my knowledge it all ended in several messages written in the comments section of Artforum’s website and a letter published in the next issue, alongside a reply from Bishop.\n\nAt this point I ask myself: Should we really care that much? Is it so important what a journalist who doesn’t know about digital art writes in an article? \n\nI am doing some research on these controversies and “blind spots” and I would really like to know your opinion. Why be upset/worried/concerned by these articles and how does it make you feel? \n\nI know the answer may seem obvious, but it would be interesting to give it some thought.\n\nI thank you in advance for any kind of feedback!\n\nBest,\n\nPau\n\n\n\nPau Waelder Laso\nArt critic, curator and researcher\n\nemail: [log in to unmask]\nsite: www.pauwaelder.com\nskype: pauwaelder\n\n\n\n\nEl 19/06/2014, a las 13:36, Sarah Cook <[log in to unmask]> escribió:\n\n> on the ongoing question of digital arts coverage in the media, and the earlier thread about the digital art hack at the Tate, here's another article for consideration, in which Ruth MacKenzie is quoted rather more favourably (as Hannah was good to point out)...\n> \n> http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/jun/16/hack-the-space-tate-modern\n> \n> CRUMB's PhD student, Victoria Bradbury, who is quoted in the article, will no doubt have some interesting findings to report on her participation in due course,\n> \n> Sarah\n> \n> \n> \n> On 18 Jun 2014, at 16:41, marc garrett <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:\n> \n> Hi Nicholas & all,\n> \n>> So instead of operating in the suburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the\n>> art world that is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket fences,\n>> and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n> \n> I agree with the above & Sarah’s post on the matter works for me.\n> \n> Anyway — I’m too busy at the moment with our ‘provincial’ exhibition. A collaboration with The Arts Catalyst “SEFT-1 Abandoned Railways Exploration Probe: Modern Ruins 1:220 — Ivan Puig and Andrés Padilla Domene” http://go.shr.lc/1jy7AJo\n> \n> It was featured in the Guardian last week by Jonathan jones ‘The ruin-hunters who drove a car down Mexico's forgotten railways’ http://go.shr.lc/1qwbV4K\n> \n> And will be featured on the BBC news on Friday…\n> \n> Oh wait! I get it, it’s seen as ‘provincial’ because the work successfully reaches people, beyond their art establishment silos. Of course ;-)\n> \n> bye for now.\n> \n> marc\n> \n> \n>> Sarah + all:\n>> \n>> I actually think that there's some stuff worth engaging in this...\n>> \n>> I haven't read Joanne's book, so I can't speak to the ways in which this\n>> piece fails as a review, but this closing statement definitely sent a\n>> shiver down my browser:\n>> \n>> \"The problem with the book, as with internet art, is that no one has\n>> recognised the aesthetic problems of provincial conversation. Work by\n>> artists who turn inward to have hushed talks with a small coterie about\n>> local problems will have little effect on culture at large. McLuhan’s\n>> global village may have its merits, but the cultural celebration of\n>> marginalism in art is not one of them.\"\n>> \n>> The reactionary in me would outright disagree with this, but I did have a\n>> moment of thinking bout who does address the aesthetic problems of the\n>> \"provincial conversation\" of internet art. So maybe as a way of thinking\n>> about outright disagreeing with Pac Pobric, the list might suggest some\n>> compelling counters?\n>> \n>> To that end, the metric of cultural relevance as proposed in this article\n>> is squarely situated in archaic models of art presentation/distribution (I\n>> think that a lot of us can agree on that). So instead of operating in the\n>> suburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the art world that\n>> is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket fences,\n>> and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n>> \n>> very best\n>> \n>> \n>> \n>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Kelani Nichole <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>\n>> wrote:\n>> \n>>> He is based in Brooklyn, no worries tho y'all I already invited him to our\n>>> next opening at TRANSFER – Claudia Maté on July 12 :D\n>>> \n>>> \n>>> Bests,\n>>> Kelani Nichole\n>>> \n>>> Curatorial Director, TRANSFER\n>>> http://transfer.gallery\n>>> \n>>> \n>>> \n>>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, marc garrett <\n>>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n>>>> wrote:\n>>> \n>>>> Wow!\n>>>> \n>>>> Where do they find these people?\n>>>> \n>>>> marc\n>>>> \n>>>> Hi CRUMBs\n>>>>> thought you might be interested to read this article about internet art,\n>>>>> which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil\n>>> et\n>>>>> al, Black Dog Publishing.\n>>>>> \n>>>>> \n>>> http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n>>>>> \n>>>>> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is\n>>>>> provincial.\n>>>>> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this\n>>>>> field of practice.\n>>>>> \n>>>>> Sarah\n>>>>> \n>>>>> \n>>>>> ===\n>>>>> \n>>>>> Dr. Sarah Cook\n>>>>> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n>>>>> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n>>>>> University of Dundee\n>>>>> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n>>>>> \n>>>>> phone: 01382 385247\n>>>>> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n>>>>> \n>>>>> \n>>>>> \n>>>>> \n>>>>> \n>>>>> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096\n>>>>> .\n>>>>> \n>>>>> \n>>>> \n>>>> --\n>>>> --->\n>>>> \n>>>> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n>>>> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n>>>> \n>>>> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n>>>> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n>>>> \n>>>> Furtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n>>>> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n>>>> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n>>>> http://www.furtherfield.org\n>>>> \n>>>> Furtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\n>>>> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n>>>> \n>>>> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n>>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n>>>> \n>>>> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n>>>> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n>>>> \n>>> \n>> \n>> \n>> \n> \n> \n> --\n> --->\n> \n> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n> \n> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n> \n> Furtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n> http://www.furtherfield.org\n> \n> Furtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\n> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n> \n> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n> \n> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n> \n> ===\n> \n> Dr. Sarah Cook\n> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n> University of Dundee\n> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n> \n> phone: 01382 385247\n> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096",
|
||
"from": "Pau Waelder Laso",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:45:25 +0200",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=31508",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Pau Waelder Laso"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\nHello All,\n\nIt strikes me that The Space, Arts Catalyst, and the upcoming Barbican exhibition are encouraging main stream press and media coverage for digital art (define as you will, I was referred to as a 'multimedia artist' in the press yesterday and felt like rolling out my CD-ROMs). This is very positive! One patchy book review probably doesn't deserve such oxygen.\n\nAs Victoria mentioned Hack the Space was intense. Most hackathon events are mainly because they are a competition. Curiously, this hack had the biggest prizes (£4000 to the winners, unexpectedly) that I've ever come across, and no-one paid to go, no-one set an API biased agenda (hello Dev Art), and no-one was wearing a tie or a Google Glass. It was a genuinely enjoyable event. They even had soya milk.\n\nIn response to Victoria's comment about setting a precedent: I think there isn't much illusion that an artwork can be made in such a short period of time, but an arthack can - a quick and dirty prototype of a concept. In a tech hack the works that come out are generally suggestions or wireframes not full products, there is always more work to be done.\n\nIn contrast there are many artists who work very quickly in paint or pencil, so much that in a 20 hour hack they could probably produce a whole body of work (albeit sitting on the shoulders of 20 years practise).\n\nJulie\n\n\n---\nJulie Freeman\n[log in to unmask]\nt: 078 6660 9912\n(Pausing) PhD Student\nMedia & Arts Technology\nSchool of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science\nQueen Mary University of London\ntranslatingnature.org\n---\n\n\n\nOn 19 Jun 2014, at 15:12, Victoria Bradbury <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n\n> Hi Sarah and All,\n> \n> #HacktheSpace was an \"intense\" event, I would say. It was exciting to be\n> involved in, particularly because of meeting new people, sleeping in the\n> turbine hall (ever-so-briefly), working on a new project, and\n> watching/being a part of the spectacle.\n> \n> The thing that hangs with me, though, is this perspective that gets sent to\n> the world that \"art\" can or should be made in a quick, competitive fashion.\n> Or perhaps that digital art is something that happens quickly and easily.\n> The process of art-making is different for everyone, but in my practice, I\n> make hand-make objects that work in tandem with custom code. Both of these\n> take time. It would probably be seen as very strange for a turbine hall of\n> painters to be asked to make paintings in 20 hours or less with little to\n> no sleep.\n> \n> In addition to the spectators on the balcony, there were many people\n> milling about the hall during the making day/night, talking to the groups.\n> The time to conceive of and implement the project was short, and during\n> the process, we were constantly being asked what we were doing, what was\n> the concept, etc.. So after 20 hours, you have collaboratively created\n> something in haste and are then asked to stand by it and attach your\n> name/identity to it. I am pleased with what the prototype our group\n> produced, but had I not been, it was a very public setting in which to be\n> linked with a project and a concept.\n> \n> The event was well run by 3 Beards and The Space and overall it ran\n> smoothly. We were well-fed and generally looked after. I was pleased to\n> participate and am watching to see where Art Hacks go from here.\n> \n> Victoria\n> \n> -- \n> // Victoria Bradbury\n> <PROJECTS> www.victoriabradbury.com\n> Researcher @ www.crumbweb.org\n> New Media Caucus <http://www.newmediacaucus.org/> <CommComm>\n> Attaya Projects <http://attayaprojects.com/> // Collaborator\n> \n> \n> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Sarah Cook <[log in to unmask]>\n> wrote:\n> \n>> on the ongoing question of digital arts coverage in the media, and the\n>> earlier thread about the digital art hack at the Tate, here's another\n>> article for consideration, in which Ruth MacKenzie is quoted rather more\n>> favourably (as Hannah was good to point out)...\n>> \n>> \n>> http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/jun/16/hack-the-space-tate-modern\n>> \n>> CRUMB's PhD student, Victoria Bradbury, who is quoted in the article, will\n>> no doubt have some interesting findings to report on her participation in\n>> due course,\n>> \n>> Sarah\n>> \n>> \n>> \n>> On 18 Jun 2014, at 16:41, marc garrett <[log in to unmask]\n>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:\n>> \n>> Hi Nicholas & all,\n>> \n>>> So instead of operating in the suburbs, how could the list propose that\n>> it is in fact the\n>>> art world that is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube\n>> picket fences,\n>>> and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n>> \n>> I agree with the above & Sarah’s post on the matter works for me.\n>> \n>> Anyway — I’m too busy at the moment with our ‘provincial’ exhibition. A\n>> collaboration with The Arts Catalyst “SEFT-1 Abandoned Railways Exploration\n>> Probe: Modern Ruins 1:220 — Ivan Puig and Andrés Padilla Domene”\n>> http://go.shr.lc/1jy7AJo\n>> \n>> It was featured in the Guardian last week by Jonathan jones ‘The\n>> ruin-hunters who drove a car down Mexico's forgotten railways’\n>> http://go.shr.lc/1qwbV4K\n>> \n>> And will be featured on the BBC news on Friday…\n>> \n>> Oh wait! I get it, it’s seen as ‘provincial’ because the work successfully\n>> reaches people, beyond their art establishment silos. Of course ;-)\n>> \n>> bye for now.\n>> \n>> marc\n>> \n>> \n>>> Sarah + all:\n>>> \n>>> I actually think that there's some stuff worth engaging in this...\n>>> \n>>> I haven't read Joanne's book, so I can't speak to the ways in which this\n>>> piece fails as a review, but this closing statement definitely sent a\n>>> shiver down my browser:\n>>> \n>>> \"The problem with the book, as with internet art, is that no one has\n>>> recognised the aesthetic problems of provincial conversation. Work by\n>>> artists who turn inward to have hushed talks with a small coterie about\n>>> local problems will have little effect on culture at large. McLuhan’s\n>>> global village may have its merits, but the cultural celebration of\n>>> marginalism in art is not one of them.\"\n>>> \n>>> The reactionary in me would outright disagree with this, but I did have a\n>>> moment of thinking bout who does address the aesthetic problems of the\n>>> \"provincial conversation\" of internet art. So maybe as a way of thinking\n>>> about outright disagreeing with Pac Pobric, the list might suggest some\n>>> compelling counters?\n>>> \n>>> To that end, the metric of cultural relevance as proposed in this article\n>>> is squarely situated in archaic models of art presentation/distribution\n>> (I\n>>> think that a lot of us can agree on that). So instead of operating in the\n>>> suburbs, how could the list propose that it is in fact the art world that\n>>> is suburban - with its gated community paywalls, whitecube picket fences,\n>>> and McMansions Art Centers - instead of the other way around.\n>>> \n>>> very best\n>>> \n>>> \n>>> \n>>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Kelani Nichole <[log in to unmask]\n>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>\n>>> wrote:\n>>> \n>>>> He is based in Brooklyn, no worries tho y'all I already invited him to\n>> our\n>>>> next opening at TRANSFER – Claudia Maté on July 12 :D\n>>>> \n>>>> \n>>>> Bests,\n>>>> Kelani Nichole\n>>>> \n>>>> Curatorial Director, TRANSFER\n>>>> http://transfer.gallery\n>>>> \n>>>> \n>>>> \n>>>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, marc garrett <\n>>>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n>>>>> wrote:\n>>>> \n>>>>> Wow!\n>>>>> \n>>>>> Where do they find these people?\n>>>>> \n>>>>> marc\n>>>>> \n>>>>> Hi CRUMBs\n>>>>>> thought you might be interested to read this article about internet\n>> art,\n>>>>>> which is a thin review of the book Art and the Internet, Joanne McNeil\n>>>> et\n>>>>>> al, Black Dog Publishing.\n>>>>>> \n>>>>>> \n>>>> \n>> http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Internet-art-fails-to-click/32983\n>>>>>> \n>>>>>> It suggests that internet art takes place in the suburbs, that it is\n>>>>>> provincial.\n>>>>>> Use it as yet another rallying cry to improve the art history of this\n>>>>>> field of practice.\n>>>>>> \n>>>>>> Sarah\n>>>>>> \n>>>>>> \n>>>>>> ===\n>>>>>> \n>>>>>> Dr. Sarah Cook\n>>>>>> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n>>>>>> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n>>>>>> University of Dundee\n>>>>>> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n>>>>>> \n>>>>>> phone: 01382 385247\n>>>>>> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]\n>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n>>>>>> \n>>>>>> \n>>>>>> \n>>>>>> \n>>>>>> \n>>>>>> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No:\n>> SC015096\n>>>>>> .\n>>>>>> \n>>>>>> \n>>>>> \n>>>>> --\n>>>>> --->\n>>>>> \n>>>>> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n>>>>> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n>>>>> \n>>>>> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n>>>>> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n>>>>> \n>>>>> Furtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n>>>>> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n>>>>> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n>>>>> http://www.furtherfield.org\n>>>>> \n>>>>> Furtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\n>>>>> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n>>>>> \n>>>>> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n>>>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n>>>>> \n>>>>> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n>>>>> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n>>>>> \n>>>> \n>>> \n>>> \n>>> \n>> \n>> \n>> --\n>> --->\n>> \n>> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood -\n>> proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;)\n>> \n>> Other reviews,articles,interviews\n>> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php\n>> \n>> Furtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing,\n>> discussing and learning about experimental practices at the\n>> intersections of art, technology and social change.\n>> http://www.furtherfield.org\n>> \n>> Furtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London).\n>> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery\n>> \n>> Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.\n>> http://www.netbehaviour.org\n>> \n>> http://identi.ca/furtherfield\n>> http://twitter.com/furtherfield\n>> \n>> ===\n>> \n>> Dr. Sarah Cook\n>> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n>> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n>> University of Dundee\n>> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n>> \n>> phone: 01382 385247\n>> email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n>> \n>> \n>> \n>> \n>> \n>> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096\n>> ",
|
||
"from": "Julie Freeman",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 19 Jun 2014 19:10:18 +0000",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=32198",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Julie Freeman"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\ngood question. generally i don't care, because i think that mainstream \nmedia is always going to be like this & i'm busy enough already without \nworrying about that kind of thing; but i do get pissed off at how it \ninvisibilises so much excellent work - whether through deliberate \ngatekeeping or sheer laziness; it is not that difficult to find out \nabout digital art.\n\nh : )\n\nOn 19/06/14 6:45 PM, Pau Waelder Laso wrote:\n> Dear Sarah and everyone,\n>\n> I am following this conversation with great interest and it reminds of a similar controversy that arose in Sept 2012 with Claire Bishop's infamous article in Artforum. I think that at that time this list had an important role in opening up a debate, although to my knowledge it all ended in several messages written in the comments section of Artforum's website and a letter published in the next issue, alongside a reply from Bishop.\n>\n> At this point I ask myself: Should we really care that much? Is it so important what a journalist who doesn't know about digital art writes in an article?\n>\n> I am doing some research on these controversies and \"blind spots\" and I would really like to know your opinion. Why be upset/worried/concerned by these articles and how does it make you feel?\n>\n> I know the answer may seem obvious, but it would be interesting to give it some thought.\n>\n> I thank you in advance for any kind of feedback!\n>\n> Best,\n>\n> Pau\n>\n>\n>\n> Pau Waelder Laso\n> Art critic, curator and researcher\n>\n> email: [log in to unmask]\n> site: www.pauwaelder.com\n> skype: pauwaelder\n>\n>\n\n-- \nhelen varley jamieson\n[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>\nhttp://www.creative-catalyst.com\nhttp://www.wehaveasituation.net\nhttp://www.upstage.org.nz",
|
||
"from": "helen varley jamieson",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 19 Jun 2014 21:10:58 +0200",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=32794",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "helen varley jamieson"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\nCRUMBers:\n\nWhat kind of mainstream media are we talking about. actually? Because while\nwe have been commenting (dare I say harping?) on this, no one has mentioned:\nhttp://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/jun/18/-sp-why-digital-art-matters\n\nSo while attention is being paid to both author and article for this\nnegative representation, we're drawing attention away from something that\ncould actually present more engaging questions/concerns within mainstream\nmedia published on the same day (I think...).\n\nas ever\nvery best\n\n\nOn Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:10 PM, helen varley jamieson <\n[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n\n> good question. generally i don't care, because i think that mainstream\n> media is always going to be like this & i'm busy enough already without\n> worrying about that kind of thing; but i do get pissed off at how it\n> invisibilises so much excellent work - whether through deliberate\n> gatekeeping or sheer laziness; it is not that difficult to find out about\n> digital art.\n>\n> h : )\n>\n>\n> On 19/06/14 6:45 PM, Pau Waelder Laso wrote:\n>\n>> Dear Sarah and everyone,\n>>\n>> I am following this conversation with great interest and it reminds of a\n>> similar controversy that arose in Sept 2012 with Claire Bishop's infamous\n>> article in Artforum. I think that at that time this list had an important\n>> role in opening up a debate, although to my knowledge it all ended in\n>> several messages written in the comments section of Artforum's website and\n>> a letter published in the next issue, alongside a reply from Bishop.\n>>\n>> At this point I ask myself: Should we really care that much? Is it so\n>> important what a journalist who doesn't know about digital art writes in an\n>> article?\n>>\n>> I am doing some research on these controversies and \"blind spots\" and I\n>> would really like to know your opinion. Why be upset/worried/concerned by\n>> these articles and how does it make you feel?\n>>\n>> I know the answer may seem obvious, but it would be interesting to give\n>> it some thought.\n>>\n>> I thank you in advance for any kind of feedback!\n>>\n>> Best,\n>>\n>> Pau\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> Pau Waelder Laso\n>> Art critic, curator and researcher\n>>\n>> email: [log in to unmask]\n>> site: www.pauwaelder.com\n>> skype: pauwaelder\n>>\n>>\n>>\n> --\n> helen varley jamieson\n> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n> http://www.creative-catalyst.com\n> http://www.wehaveasituation.net\n> http://www.upstage.org.nz\n>\n\n\n\n-- \nNicholas O'Brien\n\nVisiting Faculty | Gallery Director\nDepartment of Digital Art, Pratt Institute\ndoubleunderscore.net",
|
||
"from": "Nicholas O'Brien",
|
||
"date": "Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:18:35 -0400",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=34420",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Nicholas O'Brien"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\nHi All,\n\nO'Brian, \nWhat are mainstream media?I don't know, information channels that are seen as more authoritative because widespread and reaching general people and are not specifically targeted to a type of specialism..you tell me what we are talking about here. ;-)\n\nI like James Bridle article. It gives a broad and picture of the filed, with interesting examples, for all. Perhaps reinstating what has already been written over and over, but it's good that someone keeps on banging on things.\nThe conclusive sentence:\n\"It also points towards the fact that \"the digital\" is not a medium, but a context, in which new social, political and artistic forms arise. After 50 years, at least, of digital practice, institutions are still trying to work out its relevance, and how to display and communicate it – a marker, perhaps, that it is indeed a form of art.\"\nResonates with the position of Charlie Gere in Digital Culture (2002, expanded in 2008) where he raises similar concerns, the relationship of digital technology to 2nd World War technological inventions, the raise of \"informational needs of capitalism and its drive to abstraction\" as well the problems of the rate of which changes – which always occur in history - take place.\nIt's an important book I think, especially in relation to the show that will soon open at Barbican, and all of the 'literature' that will be written about it.\n\nAs for the rest:\nHelen, \nI am concerned too with \"invisibility\" of excellent work, mainly, in my case, of curatorial work online for example. I think we should care about what's been written and where because that is, very often, how history is written out. \n\nMarc, \nI think you have been writing tenaciously the history of Furtherfield, practically with your projects and in actual writing, so I'd say that you have been bringing 'localism' to the limelight, somehow.\n\nMez,\nI am very interested in the \"net.art Painters and Poets\" exhibition you mentions. Have you visited it? Do you have more information? There's not much I can find out on the website..\n\nLastly,\nI am writing up my PhD (so I should not even write in here!) but I just wanted to say, going back to this idea of \" internet art takes place in the suburb\", that I am interviewing curators that have devised new exhibition structures, encompassing online and offline sites and modes of production. Some projects are not even browsable anymore even if done less than 10 years ago. And I feel that this is bringing out so many interesting positions that would not necessarily come to light if these people were not practitioners. Each of them has developed a language to deal with online, digital, offline, and the tautologies and unnecessary distinctions that might exist in there.\nSo, I would be interested in interviewing some of you too - when writing up is over - thus: hit me if you're interested and your work applies to this field.\n\nAll the best,\nMarialaura\n\n\n\n////\nMarialaura Ghidini\nPhD Reseacher at CRUMB\nUniversity of Sunderland \nm. +44(0)7816 483221\nskype: mlghidini\nhttp://www.crumbweb.org\n\n\n\n\nOn 20 Jun 2014, at 05:18, Nicholas O'Brien wrote:\n\n> CRUMBers:\n> \n> What kind of mainstream media are we talking about. actually? Because while\n> we have been commenting (dare I say harping?) on this, no one has mentioned:\n> http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/jun/18/-sp-why-digital-art-matters\n> \n> So while attention is being paid to both author and article for this\n> negative representation, we're drawing attention away from something that\n> could actually present more engaging questions/concerns within mainstream\n> media published on the same day (I think...).\n> \n> as ever\n> very best\n> \n> \n> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:10 PM, helen varley jamieson <\n> [log in to unmask]> wrote:\n> \n>> good question. generally i don't care, because i think that mainstream\n>> media is always going to be like this & i'm busy enough already without\n>> worrying about that kind of thing; but i do get pissed off at how it\n>> invisibilises so much excellent work - whether through deliberate\n>> gatekeeping or sheer laziness; it is not that difficult to find out about\n>> digital art.\n>> \n>> h : )\n>> \n>> \n>> On 19/06/14 6:45 PM, Pau Waelder Laso wrote:\n>> \n>>> Dear Sarah and everyone,\n>>> \n>>> I am following this conversation with great interest and it reminds of a\n>>> similar controversy that arose in Sept 2012 with Claire Bishop's infamous\n>>> article in Artforum. I think that at that time this list had an important\n>>> role in opening up a debate, although to my knowledge it all ended in\n>>> several messages written in the comments section of Artforum's website and\n>>> a letter published in the next issue, alongside a reply from Bishop.\n>>> \n>>> At this point I ask myself: Should we really care that much? Is it so\n>>> important what a journalist who doesn't know about digital art writes in an\n>>> article?\n>>> \n>>> I am doing some research on these controversies and \"blind spots\" and I\n>>> would really like to know your opinion. Why be upset/worried/concerned by\n>>> these articles and how does it make you feel?\n>>> \n>>> I know the answer may seem obvious, but it would be interesting to give\n>>> it some thought.\n>>> \n>>> I thank you in advance for any kind of feedback!\n>>> \n>>> Best,\n>>> \n>>> Pau\n>>> \n>>> \n>>> \n>>> Pau Waelder Laso\n>>> Art critic, curator and researcher\n>>> \n>>> email: [log in to unmask]\n>>> site: www.pauwaelder.com\n>>> skype: pauwaelder\n>>> \n>>> \n>>> \n>> --\n>> helen varley jamieson\n>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n>> http://www.creative-catalyst.com\n>> http://www.wehaveasituation.net\n>> http://www.upstage.org.nz\n>> \n> \n> \n> \n> -- \n> Nicholas O'Brien\n> \n> Visiting Faculty | Gallery Director\n> Department of Digital Art, Pratt Institute\n> doubleunderscore.net",
|
||
"from": "Marialaura Ghidini",
|
||
"date": "Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:59:25 +0100",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=35188",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Marialaura Ghidini"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\nHi Nic, I did mention the article, but perhaps you're reading the messages to the list out of order, or am I?\n\nMy quick thoughts this morning is that articles in the mainstream media or the contemporary art press - often lead to those writers being asked to write chapters for books, which then become part of the literature of the field, and of art history. One hopes that the discussion which goes in to the comment thread after an article when it appears online or in a magazine (or both), might then influence that writer to reconsider when they get asked to contribute to a book down the road (or when their article gets invited to be reprinted in a book or exhibition catalogue). It is worth acknowledging the larger landscape of literature which supports this field (from which PhD students draw too!).\n\ncheers\nSarah\n\n\nOn 20 Jun 2014, at 05:18, Nicholas O'Brien <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:\n\nCRUMBers:\n\nWhat kind of mainstream media are we talking about. actually? Because while\nwe have been commenting (dare I say harping?) on this, no one has mentioned:\nhttp://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/jun/18/-sp-why-digital-art-matters\n\nSo while attention is being paid to both author and article for this\nnegative representation, we're drawing attention away from something that\ncould actually present more engaging questions/concerns within mainstream\nmedia published on the same day (I think...).\n\nas ever\nvery best\n\n\nOn Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:10 PM, helen varley jamieson <\n[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n\ngood question. generally i don't care, because i think that mainstream\nmedia is always going to be like this & i'm busy enough already without\nworrying about that kind of thing; but i do get pissed off at how it\ninvisibilises so much excellent work - whether through deliberate\ngatekeeping or sheer laziness; it is not that difficult to find out about\ndigital art.\n\nh : )\n\n\nOn 19/06/14 6:45 PM, Pau Waelder Laso wrote:\n\nDear Sarah and everyone,\n\nI am following this conversation with great interest and it reminds of a\nsimilar controversy that arose in Sept 2012 with Claire Bishop's infamous\narticle in Artforum. I think that at that time this list had an important\nrole in opening up a debate, although to my knowledge it all ended in\nseveral messages written in the comments section of Artforum's website and\na letter published in the next issue, alongside a reply from Bishop.\n\nAt this point I ask myself: Should we really care that much? Is it so\nimportant what a journalist who doesn't know about digital art writes in an\narticle?\n\nI am doing some research on these controversies and \"blind spots\" and I\nwould really like to know your opinion. Why be upset/worried/concerned by\nthese articles and how does it make you feel?\n\nI know the answer may seem obvious, but it would be interesting to give\nit some thought.\n\nI thank you in advance for any kind of feedback!\n\nBest,\n\nPau\n\n\n\nPau Waelder Laso\nArt critic, curator and researcher\n\nemail: [log in to unmask]\nsite: www.pauwaelder.com\nskype: pauwaelder\n\n\n\n--\nhelen varley jamieson\n[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>\nhttp://www.creative-catalyst.com\nhttp://www.wehaveasituation.net\nhttp://www.upstage.org.nz\n\n\n\n\n--\nNicholas O'Brien\n\nVisiting Faculty | Gallery Director\nDepartment of Digital Art, Pratt Institute\ndoubleunderscore.net\n\n===\n\nDr. Sarah Cook\nReader / Dundee Fellow\nDuncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\nUniversity of Dundee\n13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n\nphone: 01382 385247\nemail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n\n\n\n\n\nThe University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096",
|
||
"from": "Sarah Cook",
|
||
"date": "Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:51:04 +0000",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=36077",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Sarah Cook"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\nSarah:\n\nAh, sorry I missed or got shuffled. The question regarding the inclusion of\ncomments is quite interesting, especially (for me at least) when it comes\nto thinking about the ownership of that content (do the comments belong to\nthe article author, the publication, the comment author, the social media\nplug-in...?). Acknowledging the larger landscape is definitely important,\nbut I suppose I was responding to the idea that there is little \"good\"\nrepresentation in mainstream media - thus my pointing to Bridle's article\nreleased the same day.\n\nMarialuara:\nMy question regarding mainstream media was mostly rhetorical since I think\nthat The Guardian is much more mainstream than The Art Newspaper. Again,\ntrying to respond to the notion that reporting of this\nmedia/discipline/field within said channels is inherently misrepresented\n(or used as a punching bag). Though my question also implies - as maybe you\nunintentionally point out - that seeking approval or faithful\nrepresentation within \"authoritative press\" is inherently a red herring. In\nmy mind the work should come first, and then press/circulation of that work\ncan follow. Why bemoan misrepresentation in public media of work that can't\ncontend with a larger cultural conversation that is making pointed\ncritical, aesthetic, and engaging statements? Thus my suggestion to the\nlist to offer up some pointed rebukes of the original article with a\ncurated/considered list of art works that fly in the face of its sweeping\ngeneralizations.\n\nvery best\n\n\n\n\nOn Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Sarah Cook <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n\n> Hi Nic, I did mention the article, but perhaps you're reading the\n> messages to the list out of order, or am I?\n>\n> My quick thoughts this morning is that articles in the mainstream media or\n> the contemporary art press - often lead to those writers being asked to\n> write chapters for books, which then become part of the literature of the\n> field, and of art history. One hopes that the discussion which goes in to\n> the comment thread after an article when it appears online or in a magazine\n> (or both), might then influence that writer to reconsider when they get\n> asked to contribute to a book down the road (or when their article gets\n> invited to be reprinted in a book or exhibition catalogue). It is worth\n> acknowledging the larger landscape of literature which supports this field\n> (from which PhD students draw too!).\n>\n> cheers\n> Sarah\n>\n>\n> On 20 Jun 2014, at 05:18, Nicholas O'Brien <[log in to unmask]>\n> wrote:\n>\n> CRUMBers:\n>\n> What kind of mainstream media are we talking about. actually? Because while\n> we have been commenting (dare I say harping?) on this, no one has\n> mentioned:\n>\n> http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/jun/18/-sp-why-digital-art-matters\n>\n> So while attention is being paid to both author and article for this\n> negative representation, we're drawing attention away from something that\n> could actually present more engaging questions/concerns within mainstream\n> media published on the same day (I think...).\n>\n> as ever\n> very best\n>\n>\n> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:10 PM, helen varley jamieson <\n> [log in to unmask]> wrote:\n>\n> good question. generally i don't care, because i think that mainstream\n> media is always going to be like this & i'm busy enough already without\n> worrying about that kind of thing; but i do get pissed off at how it\n> invisibilises so much excellent work - whether through deliberate\n> gatekeeping or sheer laziness; it is not that difficult to find out about\n> digital art.\n>\n> h : )\n>\n>\n> On 19/06/14 6:45 PM, Pau Waelder Laso wrote:\n>\n> Dear Sarah and everyone,\n>\n> I am following this conversation with great interest and it reminds of a\n> similar controversy that arose in Sept 2012 with Claire Bishop's infamous\n> article in Artforum. I think that at that time this list had an important\n> role in opening up a debate, although to my knowledge it all ended in\n> several messages written in the comments section of Artforum's website and\n> a letter published in the next issue, alongside a reply from Bishop.\n>\n> At this point I ask myself: Should we really care that much? Is it so\n> important what a journalist who doesn't know about digital art writes in an\n> article?\n>\n> I am doing some research on these controversies and \"blind spots\" and I\n> would really like to know your opinion. Why be upset/worried/concerned by\n> these articles and how does it make you feel?\n>\n> I know the answer may seem obvious, but it would be interesting to give\n> it some thought.\n>\n> I thank you in advance for any kind of feedback!\n>\n> Best,\n>\n> Pau\n>\n>\n>\n> Pau Waelder Laso\n> Art critic, curator and researcher\n>\n> email: [log in to unmask]\n> site: www.pauwaelder.com\n> skype: pauwaelder\n>\n>\n>\n> --\n> helen varley jamieson\n> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>\n> http://www.creative-catalyst.com\n> http://www.wehaveasituation.net\n> http://www.upstage.org.nz\n>\n>\n>\n>\n> --\n> Nicholas O'Brien\n>\n> Visiting Faculty | Gallery Director\n> Department of Digital Art, Pratt Institute\n> doubleunderscore.net\n>\n>\n> ===\n>\n> Dr. Sarah Cook\n> Reader / Dundee Fellow\n> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design\n> University of Dundee\n> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT\n>\n> phone: 01382 385247\n> email: [log in to unmask]\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096\n>\n\n\n\n-- \nNicholas O'Brien\n\nVisiting Faculty | Gallery Director\nDepartment of Digital Art, Pratt Institute\ndoubleunderscore.net",
|
||
"from": "Nicholas O'Brien",
|
||
"date": "Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:34:35 -0400",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=36848",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Nicholas O'Brien"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\nHi Marialaura,\n\nMore about the \"net.art Painters and Poets\" Exhibition can be found here:\n\n1. Official Gallery description:\nhttp://www.mgml.si/en/city-art-gallery/future-exhibitions/net-art-painters-and-poets/\n2. Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt3y6xR0L-A\n3. National TV coverage [in Slovenian]:\nhttp://4d.rtvslo.si/arhiv/kultura/17428 +\nhttp://4d.rtvslo.si/arhiv/osmi-dan-prispevki/174282914\n\nCheers,\nMez\n\n\nOn Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Marialaura Ghidini <\n[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n\n>\n> Mez,\n> I am very interested in the \"net.art Painters and Poets\" exhibition you\n> mentions. Have you visited it? Do you have more information? There's not\n> much I can find out on the website..\n>\n>\n-- \n| facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign <http://www.facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign>\n| twitter.com/MezBreezeDesign\n| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mez_Breeze",
|
||
"from": "mez breeze",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 25 Jun 2014 09:42:56 +1000",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=40578",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "mez breeze"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\nThanks Mez and Jon for the links.\nI look forward to reading re-collection too!\n\nTill next time,\nMarialaura\n\nOn 25 Jun 2014, at 00:42, mez breeze wrote:\n\n> Hi Marialaura,\n> \n> More about the \"net.art Painters and Poets\" Exhibition can be found here: \n> \n> 1. Official Gallery description: http://www.mgml.si/en/city-art-gallery/future-exhibitions/net-art-painters-and-poets/\n> 2. Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt3y6xR0L-A\n> 3. National TV coverage [in Slovenian]: http://4d.rtvslo.si/arhiv/kultura/17428 + http://4d.rtvslo.si/arhiv/osmi-dan-prispevki/174282914\n> \n> Cheers,\n> Mez\n> \n> \n> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Marialaura Ghidini <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n> \n> Mez,\n> I am very interested in the \"net.art Painters and Poets\" exhibition you mentions. Have you visited it? Do you have more information? There's not much I can find out on the website..\n> \n> \n> -- \n> | facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign\n> | twitter.com/MezBreezeDesign\n> | en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mez_Breeze \n> \n> ",
|
||
"from": "Marialaura Ghidini",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 26 Jun 2014 22:11:46 +0100",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=46381",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Marialaura Ghidini"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\nHello CRUMBers,\n\nI think the article by Pobric is worth spending a little time on here not because it's an isolated snarky review, but because it represents a view that is (in my experience) fairly common in the mainstream art world. Usually, it's not expressed so bluntly as that comes off as nasty (not to mention ironically attentive to new media art) but rather more subtly as to make it seem just un-cool to \"still\" be talking about new media art. I think the attitudes that happen underneath the surface of the open discourse are fascinating and of course influence important decisions.\n\nChristiane Paul is working on a new book from Blackwell with a chapter on the relationship between digital art and institutions that should further the conversation in this area (Jon already plugged our new book so I thought I'd take the chance to plug a different book in which several CRUMBers will appear :)\n\nI agree with Nick that Pobric was unwise to posit new media art, perhaps inadvertently, within the classic post-colonial framework of center/periphery because those who live in glass houses..... As for Pobric going on about what activist art does/not directly influence other world events, well, even Marx admitted that there exists a differential between society's economic base structures and it's cultural super-structures. It happens.\n\nAnd I share Marialaura's concern about the erasure of new media art's history as a potential by-product of this article/view/attitude. The ongoing mainstreaming of new media art has many benefits, not least of which is to engage a new generation of artists and curators with the intellectual toolkit of art historical methodologies (and vice versa.) But something is being lost when new media art is denied existence as a legitimate or discrete subject; when it is assimilated into the art world only one-by-one as \"contemporary\" artworks and not studied as the collective tangled mix of media/artworks/technology/theory/industry/practice/community that it is.\n\nRichard Rinehart\n---------------------\nDirector\nSamek Art Museum\nBucknell University\n---------------------\nLewisburg, PA, 17837\n570-577-3213\nhttp://galleries.blogs.bucknell.edu\n\n\n\n> \n> \n> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 05:35:13 +0200\n> From: Oliver Grau <[log in to unmask]>\n> Subject: Antw: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] An article that doesn't understand new media art | An Archive that does\n> \n> Dear colleagues,\n> I couldn't agree more with Jon and others: We should not be frustrated\n> by ignorant articles of people writing for the Art Market, which has\n> other interests.\n> Over the last fifty\n> years, media art has evolved\n> into a vivid cultural expression. Although there are well attended\n> festivals\n> worldwide,\n> collaborative projects, discussion forums and databases (Da Costa and\n> Kavita 2010; Dixon 2007; Gardiner 2010; Grau 2003 and\n> 2011; Popper 2007; Shanken 2009;\n> Sommerer and Mignonneau 2007; Vesna 2007; Wilson 2010), media art is\n> still too rarely collected by museums,\n> barely supported within the mainframe of art history and with relatively\n> low accessibility for the public\n> and scholars. As we know, compared to traditional art forms – painting\n> or\n> sculpture – digital media art, has a multifarious potential of\n> expression and\n> visualization; and therefore, although underrepresented at the art\n> market that\n> follows other interests and commercial logics, it became a ‘legitimate\n> art of\n> our time’. Media addresses a variety of complex topics and challenges\n> for our\n> life and societies, like genetic engineering (Anker and Nelkin 2003;\n> Hauser\n> 2008; Kac 2009; Reichle 2005) and the rise of post human bodies\n> (Hershman-Leeson 2007), globalisation and ecological crises (Himmelsbach\n> 2007, Cubitt 2005, Demos 2009, Borries 2011),\n> the explosion of human knowledge, the image and media revolution (Grau\n> 2011;\n> Mitchell 2011), the change towards virtual financial economies, and new\n> extremes of surveillance of all human communication (Ozog 2008).\n> \n> \n> We therefore should not stop communicate, that digital art is able to\n> deal with the big issues of our time, all thematized on festivals and\n> meanwhile 200 biennials all over the world. We should not count on the\n> art market, but we should remind our tax financed museum system (in\n> Europe) that it is their job, by law, to document, collect and preserve\n> the relevant art of the time - as we know, the museum system, founded in\n> the 18th century, ideal to preserve the media of its time (sculpture,\n> painting etc.) is not in the situation to fulfill their job. But many\n> museums are fully aware that this is the case - like TATE - where I\n> could give a lecture on the topic a few weeks ago. The museum system has\n> to reorganize to catch up with the digital age. There are thousands of\n> digital art works, shown around the world, which received an endless\n> number of articles and lectures, who never made it into the collections\n> payed by us. Some you find in the archive of digital art:\n> www.digitalartarchive.at\n> Many regards,\n> Oliver\n> \n> \n> Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr.h.c. habil. Oliver Grau\n> Chair Professor for Image Science\n> DONAU UNIVERSITÄT\n> Dr.-Karl-Dorrek-Strasse 30\n> 3500 Krems, AUSTRIA\n> Tel. +43 (0) 2732 893 2550\n> www.donau-uni.ac.at/bild\n> ****************************\n> Archive of Digital Art www.digitalartarchive.at\n> Graphische Sammlung Goettweig-Online www.gssg.at\n> New Publication: Oliver Grau (Ed.): Imagery in the 21st Century,\n> Cambridge, MIT-Press 2013.\n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 Marialaura Ghidini wrote:\n>> I am concerned too with \"invisibility\" of excellent work....Some\n> projects are not even browsable anymore even if done less than 10 years\n> ago. And I feel that this is bringing out so many interesting positions\n> that would not necessarily come to light if these people were not\n> practitioners.\n> \n> ------------------------------\n> \n> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 08:48:28 +0000\n> From: Beryl Graham <[log in to unmask]>\n> Subject: Re: An article that doesn't understand new media art | A book that does\n> \n> Dear List,\n> \n> In relation to this recurring debate about whether we need curators, critics and journalists who actually have knowledge of new media art, or whether we have achieved the ‘post-media’ condition, I’m not convinced that much has changed since we wrote Rethinking Curating.\n> \n> This was discussed at MuseumNext in Gateshead recently, albeit in relation to whether museums need ‘digital officers’ for their education and marketing any more. Kati Price from V&A has written a nice piece here, which I’m referencing rather proudly because she cites CRUMB researcher, artist Victoria Bradbury.\n> \n> http://www.vam.ac.uk/blog/digital-media/cdos-the-new-chief-electrical-officers\n> \n> I’m becoming very interested in who cites who in publications, because that is the way art history is made. I was rather amused that one of the publisher’s internal reviews for Rethinking Curating criticised the book for citing too many other people rather than having a singular theoretical position! \n> \n> Yours,\n> \n> Beryl\n> \n> \n> On 25 Jun 2014, at 23:55, Jon Ippolito <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n> \n>> Marialaura et al.,\n>> \n>> Because what goes uncontested is often taken for truth, I believe we need to continue to make the case for the relevance of new media art in those places least likely to believe it, namely the hidebound art world.\n>> \n>> I don't think that case is hard to make. Some on this list will be familiar with a little number-crunching from the essay \"Out of the Hothouse and into the World\" that concludes the Met has 2.5 visits per artwork while Rhizome has 7,000.\n>> \n>> http://at-the-edge-of-art.com/out_of_the_hothouse/#autonomyor\n>> \n>> As far as the seemingly unstoppable disintegration of new media art, I invite practitioners everywhere to consider some of the radical strategies proposed in the book Re-Collection: Art, New Media, and Social Memory, which just hit the shelves this week.\n>> \n>> http://re-collection.net\n>> \n>> From emulation to DNA storage to proliferative preservation, co-author Richard Rinehart and I hope the book will open new attitudes and toolkits for amateur and professional preservators alike.\n>> \n>> jon\n>> \n>> ______________________________\n>> Jon Ippolito\n>> Professor of New Media\n>> Co-director, Still Water\n>> Director, Digital Curation graduate program\n>> The University of Maine\n>> 406 Chadbourne\n>> Orono, ME 04469-5713\n>> http://still-water.net\n>> Tel: 207 581-4477\n>> Fax: 207 581-4357\n>> Twitter: @jonippolito\n>> \n>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 Marialaura Ghidini wrote:\n>>> I am concerned too with \"invisibility\" of excellent work....Some projects are not even browsable anymore even if done less than 10 years ago. And I feel that this is bringing out so many interesting positions that would not necessarily come to light if these people were not practitioners. \n> \n> ------------------------------------------------------------\n> \n> Beryl Graham, Professor of New Media Art\n> CRUMB web resource for new media art curators http://www.crumbweb.org\n> Research Student Manager, Art and Design\n> MA Curating Course Leader http://www.macurating.net\n> \n> Faculty of Arts, Design, and Media, University of Sunderland\n> The David Puttnam Media Centre, St Peter's Way, Sunderland, SR6 0DD Tel: +44 191 515 2896 \n> \n> Recent books:\n> New Collecting: Exhibiting and Audiences Ashgate\n> Rethinking Curating: Art After New Media MIT Press \n> A Brief History of Curating New Media Art The Green Box\n> Euphoria & Dystopia: The Banff New Media Institute Dialogues Banff Centre Press and Riverside Architectural Press\n> \n> \n> \n> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 22:11:46 +0100\n> From: Marialaura Ghidini <[log in to unmask]>\n> Subject: Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?\n> \n> Thanks Mez and Jon for the links.\n> I look forward to reading re-collection too!\n> \n> Till next time,\n> Marialaura\n> \n> On 25 Jun 2014, at 00:42, mez breeze wrote:\n> \n>> Hi Marialaura,\n>> \n>> More about the \"net.art Painters and Poets\" Exhibition can be found here: \n>> \n>> 1. Official Gallery description: http://www.mgml.si/en/city-art-gallery/future-exhibitions/net-art-painters-and-poets/\n>> 2. Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt3y6xR0L-A\n>> 3. National TV coverage [in Slovenian]: http://4d.rtvslo.si/arhiv/kultura/17428 + http://4d.rtvslo.si/arhiv/osmi-dan-prispevki/174282914\n>> \n>> Cheers,\n>> Mez\n>> \n>> \n>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Marialaura Ghidini <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n>> \n>> Mez,\n>> I am very interested in the \"net.art Painters and Poets\" exhibition you mentions. Have you visited it? Do you have more information? There's not much I can find out on the website..\n>> \n>> \n>> -- \n>> | facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign\n>> | twitter.com/MezBreezeDesign\n>> | en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mez_Breeze \n>> \n>> \n> \n> ------------------------------\n> \n> End of NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Digest - 25 Jun 2014 to 26 Jun 2014 (#2014-104)\n> *************************************************************************",
|
||
"from": "Richard Rinehart",
|
||
"date": "Fri, 27 Jun 2014 12:17:40 -0400",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=47543",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Richard Rinehart"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"author_name": "Sarah Cook"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"list": "crumb",
|
||
"subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\nHi Marialaura,\n\nMore about the \"net.art Painters and Poets\" Exhibition can be found here:\n\n1. Official Gallery description:\nhttp://www.mgml.si/en/city-art-gallery/future-exhibitions/net-art-painters-and-poets/\n2. Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt3y6xR0L-A\n3. National TV coverage [in Slovenian]:\nhttp://4d.rtvslo.si/arhiv/kultura/17428 +\nhttp://4d.rtvslo.si/arhiv/osmi-dan-prispevki/174282914\n\nCheers,\nMez\n\n\nOn Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Marialaura Ghidini <\n[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n\n>\n> Mez,\n> I am very interested in the \"net.art Painters and Poets\" exhibition you\n> mentions. Have you visited it? Do you have more information? There's not\n> much I can find out on the website..\n>\n>\n-- \n| facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign <http://www.facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign>\n| twitter.com/MezBreezeDesign\n| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mez_Breeze",
|
||
"from": "mez breeze",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 25 Jun 2014 09:42:56 +1000",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=40578",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "mez breeze"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"list": "crumb",
|
||
"subject": "An article that doesn't understand new media art | A book that does",
|
||
"content": "\nMarialaura et al.,\n\nBecause what goes uncontested is often taken for truth, I believe we need to continue to make the case for the relevance of new media art in those places least likely to believe it, namely the hidebound art world.\n\nI don't think that case is hard to make. Some on this list will be familiar with a little number-crunching from the essay \"Out of the Hothouse and into the World\" that concludes the Met has 2.5 visits per artwork while Rhizome has 7,000.\n\nhttp://at-the-edge-of-art.com/out_of_the_hothouse/#autonomyor\n\nAs far as the seemingly unstoppable disintegration of new media art, I invite practitioners everywhere to consider some of the radical strategies proposed in the book Re-Collection: Art, New Media, and Social Memory, which just hit the shelves this week.\n\nhttp://re-collection.net\n\nFrom emulation to DNA storage to proliferative preservation, co-author Richard Rinehart and I hope the book will open new attitudes and toolkits for amateur and professional preservators alike.\n\njon\n\n______________________________\nJon Ippolito\nProfessor of New Media\nCo-director, Still Water\nDirector, Digital Curation graduate program\nThe University of Maine\n406 Chadbourne\nOrono, ME 04469-5713\nhttp://still-water.net\nTel: 207 581-4477\nFax: 207 581-4357\nTwitter: @jonippolito\n\nOn Fri, 20 Jun 2014 Marialaura Ghidini wrote:\n> I am concerned too with \"invisibility\" of excellent work....Some projects are not even browsable anymore even if done less than 10 years ago. And I feel that this is bringing out so many interesting positions that would not necessarily come to light if these people were not practitioners. ",
|
||
"from": "Jon Ippolito",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 25 Jun 2014 18:55:33 -0400",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=41637",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Jon Ippolito"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"list": "crumb",
|
||
"subject": "Antw: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] An article that doesn't understand new media art | An Archive that does",
|
||
"content": "\nDear colleagues,\nI couldn't agree more with Jon and others: We should not be frustrated\nby ignorant articles of people writing for the Art Market, which has\nother interests.\nOver the last fifty\nyears, media art has evolved\ninto a vivid cultural expression. Although there are well attended\nfestivals\nworldwide,\ncollaborative projects, discussion forums and databases (Da Costa and\nKavita 2010; Dixon 2007; Gardiner 2010; Grau 2003 and\n2011; Popper 2007; Shanken 2009;\nSommerer and Mignonneau 2007; Vesna 2007; Wilson 2010), media art is\nstill too rarely collected by museums,\nbarely supported within the mainframe of art history and with relatively\nlow accessibility for the public\nand scholars. As we know, compared to traditional art forms – painting\nor\nsculpture – digital media art, has a multifarious potential of\nexpression and\nvisualization; and therefore, although underrepresented at the art\nmarket that\nfollows other interests and commercial logics, it became a ‘legitimate\nart of\nour time’. Media addresses a variety of complex topics and challenges\nfor our\nlife and societies, like genetic engineering (Anker and Nelkin 2003;\nHauser\n2008; Kac 2009; Reichle 2005) and the rise of post human bodies\n(Hershman-Leeson 2007), globalisation and ecological crises (Himmelsbach\n2007, Cubitt 2005, Demos 2009, Borries 2011),\nthe explosion of human knowledge, the image and media revolution (Grau\n2011;\nMitchell 2011), the change towards virtual financial economies, and new\nextremes of surveillance of all human communication (Ozog 2008). \n\n\nWe therefore should not stop communicate, that digital art is able to\ndeal with the big issues of our time, all thematized on festivals and\nmeanwhile 200 biennials all over the world. We should not count on the\nart market, but we should remind our tax financed museum system (in\nEurope) that it is their job, by law, to document, collect and preserve\nthe relevant art of the time - as we know, the museum system, founded in\nthe 18th century, ideal to preserve the media of its time (sculpture,\npainting etc.) is not in the situation to fulfill their job. But many\nmuseums are fully aware that this is the case - like TATE - where I\ncould give a lecture on the topic a few weeks ago. The museum system has\nto reorganize to catch up with the digital age. There are thousands of\ndigital art works, shown around the world, which received an endless\nnumber of articles and lectures, who never made it into the collections\npayed by us. Some you find in the archive of digital art:\nwww.digitalartarchive.at \nMany regards,\nOliver\n\n\nUniv.-Prof. Dr. Dr.h.c. habil. Oliver Grau \nChair Professor for Image Science\nDONAU UNIVERSITÄT \nDr.-Karl-Dorrek-Strasse 30\n3500 Krems, AUSTRIA\nTel. +43 (0) 2732 893 2550\nwww.donau-uni.ac.at/bild\n****************************\nArchive of Digital Art www.digitalartarchive.at \nGraphische Sammlung Goettweig-Online www.gssg.at \nNew Publication: Oliver Grau (Ed.): Imagery in the 21st Century,\nCambridge, MIT-Press 2013. \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOn Fri, 20 Jun 2014 Marialaura Ghidini wrote:\n> I am concerned too with \"invisibility\" of excellent work....Some\nprojects are not even browsable anymore even if done less than 10 years\nago. And I feel that this is bringing out so many interesting positions\nthat would not necessarily come to light if these people were not\npractitioners. ",
|
||
"from": "Oliver Grau",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 26 Jun 2014 05:35:13 +0200",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=42354",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Oliver Grau"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"list": "crumb",
|
||
"subject": "Re: An article that doesn't understand new media art | A book that does",
|
||
"content": "\nDear List,\n\nIn relation to this recurring debate about whether we need curators, critics and journalists who actually have knowledge of new media art, or whether we have achieved the ‘post-media’ condition, I’m not convinced that much has changed since we wrote Rethinking Curating.\n\nThis was discussed at MuseumNext in Gateshead recently, albeit in relation to whether museums need ‘digital officers’ for their education and marketing any more. Kati Price from V&A has written a nice piece here, which I’m referencing rather proudly because she cites CRUMB researcher, artist Victoria Bradbury.\n\nhttp://www.vam.ac.uk/blog/digital-media/cdos-the-new-chief-electrical-officers\n\nI’m becoming very interested in who cites who in publications, because that is the way art history is made. I was rather amused that one of the publisher’s internal reviews for Rethinking Curating criticised the book for citing too many other people rather than having a singular theoretical position! \n\nYours,\n\nBeryl\n\n\nOn 25 Jun 2014, at 23:55, Jon Ippolito <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n\n> Marialaura et al.,\n> \n> Because what goes uncontested is often taken for truth, I believe we need to continue to make the case for the relevance of new media art in those places least likely to believe it, namely the hidebound art world.\n> \n> I don't think that case is hard to make. Some on this list will be familiar with a little number-crunching from the essay \"Out of the Hothouse and into the World\" that concludes the Met has 2.5 visits per artwork while Rhizome has 7,000.\n> \n> http://at-the-edge-of-art.com/out_of_the_hothouse/#autonomyor\n> \n> As far as the seemingly unstoppable disintegration of new media art, I invite practitioners everywhere to consider some of the radical strategies proposed in the book Re-Collection: Art, New Media, and Social Memory, which just hit the shelves this week.\n> \n> http://re-collection.net\n> \n> From emulation to DNA storage to proliferative preservation, co-author Richard Rinehart and I hope the book will open new attitudes and toolkits for amateur and professional preservators alike.\n> \n> jon\n> \n> ______________________________\n> Jon Ippolito\n> Professor of New Media\n> Co-director, Still Water\n> Director, Digital Curation graduate program\n> The University of Maine\n> 406 Chadbourne\n> Orono, ME 04469-5713\n> http://still-water.net\n> Tel: 207 581-4477\n> Fax: 207 581-4357\n> Twitter: @jonippolito\n> \n> On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 Marialaura Ghidini wrote:\n>> I am concerned too with \"invisibility\" of excellent work....Some projects are not even browsable anymore even if done less than 10 years ago. And I feel that this is bringing out so many interesting positions that would not necessarily come to light if these people were not practitioners. \n\n------------------------------------------------------------\n\nBeryl Graham, Professor of New Media Art\nCRUMB web resource for new media art curators http://www.crumbweb.org\nResearch Student Manager, Art and Design\nMA Curating Course Leader http://www.macurating.net\n\nFaculty of Arts, Design, and Media, University of Sunderland\nThe David Puttnam Media Centre, St Peter's Way, Sunderland, SR6 0DD Tel: +44 191 515 2896 \n\nRecent books:\nNew Collecting: Exhibiting and Audiences Ashgate\nRethinking Curating: Art After New Media MIT Press \nA Brief History of Curating New Media Art The Green Box\nEuphoria & Dystopia: The Banff New Media Institute Dialogues Banff Centre Press and Riverside Architectural Press",
|
||
"from": "Beryl Graham",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 26 Jun 2014 08:48:28 +0000",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=43292",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Beryl Graham"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"list": "crumb",
|
||
"subject": "Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?",
|
||
"content": "\nHello CRUMBers,\n\nI think the article by Pobric is worth spending a little time on here not because it's an isolated snarky review, but because it represents a view that is (in my experience) fairly common in the mainstream art world. Usually, it's not expressed so bluntly as that comes off as nasty (not to mention ironically attentive to new media art) but rather more subtly as to make it seem just un-cool to \"still\" be talking about new media art. I think the attitudes that happen underneath the surface of the open discourse are fascinating and of course influence important decisions.\n\nChristiane Paul is working on a new book from Blackwell with a chapter on the relationship between digital art and institutions that should further the conversation in this area (Jon already plugged our new book so I thought I'd take the chance to plug a different book in which several CRUMBers will appear :)\n\nI agree with Nick that Pobric was unwise to posit new media art, perhaps inadvertently, within the classic post-colonial framework of center/periphery because those who live in glass houses..... As for Pobric going on about what activist art does/not directly influence other world events, well, even Marx admitted that there exists a differential between society's economic base structures and it's cultural super-structures. It happens.\n\nAnd I share Marialaura's concern about the erasure of new media art's history as a potential by-product of this article/view/attitude. The ongoing mainstreaming of new media art has many benefits, not least of which is to engage a new generation of artists and curators with the intellectual toolkit of art historical methodologies (and vice versa.) But something is being lost when new media art is denied existence as a legitimate or discrete subject; when it is assimilated into the art world only one-by-one as \"contemporary\" artworks and not studied as the collective tangled mix of media/artworks/technology/theory/industry/practice/community that it is.\n\nRichard Rinehart\n---------------------\nDirector\nSamek Art Museum\nBucknell University\n---------------------\nLewisburg, PA, 17837\n570-577-3213\nhttp://galleries.blogs.bucknell.edu\n\n\n\n> \n> \n> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 05:35:13 +0200\n> From: Oliver Grau <[log in to unmask]>\n> Subject: Antw: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] An article that doesn't understand new media art | An Archive that does\n> \n> Dear colleagues,\n> I couldn't agree more with Jon and others: We should not be frustrated\n> by ignorant articles of people writing for the Art Market, which has\n> other interests.\n> Over the last fifty\n> years, media art has evolved\n> into a vivid cultural expression. Although there are well attended\n> festivals\n> worldwide,\n> collaborative projects, discussion forums and databases (Da Costa and\n> Kavita 2010; Dixon 2007; Gardiner 2010; Grau 2003 and\n> 2011; Popper 2007; Shanken 2009;\n> Sommerer and Mignonneau 2007; Vesna 2007; Wilson 2010), media art is\n> still too rarely collected by museums,\n> barely supported within the mainframe of art history and with relatively\n> low accessibility for the public\n> and scholars. As we know, compared to traditional art forms – painting\n> or\n> sculpture – digital media art, has a multifarious potential of\n> expression and\n> visualization; and therefore, although underrepresented at the art\n> market that\n> follows other interests and commercial logics, it became a ‘legitimate\n> art of\n> our time’. Media addresses a variety of complex topics and challenges\n> for our\n> life and societies, like genetic engineering (Anker and Nelkin 2003;\n> Hauser\n> 2008; Kac 2009; Reichle 2005) and the rise of post human bodies\n> (Hershman-Leeson 2007), globalisation and ecological crises (Himmelsbach\n> 2007, Cubitt 2005, Demos 2009, Borries 2011),\n> the explosion of human knowledge, the image and media revolution (Grau\n> 2011;\n> Mitchell 2011), the change towards virtual financial economies, and new\n> extremes of surveillance of all human communication (Ozog 2008).\n> \n> \n> We therefore should not stop communicate, that digital art is able to\n> deal with the big issues of our time, all thematized on festivals and\n> meanwhile 200 biennials all over the world. We should not count on the\n> art market, but we should remind our tax financed museum system (in\n> Europe) that it is their job, by law, to document, collect and preserve\n> the relevant art of the time - as we know, the museum system, founded in\n> the 18th century, ideal to preserve the media of its time (sculpture,\n> painting etc.) is not in the situation to fulfill their job. But many\n> museums are fully aware that this is the case - like TATE - where I\n> could give a lecture on the topic a few weeks ago. The museum system has\n> to reorganize to catch up with the digital age. There are thousands of\n> digital art works, shown around the world, which received an endless\n> number of articles and lectures, who never made it into the collections\n> payed by us. Some you find in the archive of digital art:\n> www.digitalartarchive.at\n> Many regards,\n> Oliver\n> \n> \n> Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr.h.c. habil. Oliver Grau\n> Chair Professor for Image Science\n> DONAU UNIVERSITÄT\n> Dr.-Karl-Dorrek-Strasse 30\n> 3500 Krems, AUSTRIA\n> Tel. +43 (0) 2732 893 2550\n> www.donau-uni.ac.at/bild\n> ****************************\n> Archive of Digital Art www.digitalartarchive.at\n> Graphische Sammlung Goettweig-Online www.gssg.at\n> New Publication: Oliver Grau (Ed.): Imagery in the 21st Century,\n> Cambridge, MIT-Press 2013.\n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 Marialaura Ghidini wrote:\n>> I am concerned too with \"invisibility\" of excellent work....Some\n> projects are not even browsable anymore even if done less than 10 years\n> ago. And I feel that this is bringing out so many interesting positions\n> that would not necessarily come to light if these people were not\n> practitioners.\n> \n> ------------------------------\n> \n> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 08:48:28 +0000\n> From: Beryl Graham <[log in to unmask]>\n> Subject: Re: An article that doesn't understand new media art | A book that does\n> \n> Dear List,\n> \n> In relation to this recurring debate about whether we need curators, critics and journalists who actually have knowledge of new media art, or whether we have achieved the ‘post-media’ condition, I’m not convinced that much has changed since we wrote Rethinking Curating.\n> \n> This was discussed at MuseumNext in Gateshead recently, albeit in relation to whether museums need ‘digital officers’ for their education and marketing any more. Kati Price from V&A has written a nice piece here, which I’m referencing rather proudly because she cites CRUMB researcher, artist Victoria Bradbury.\n> \n> http://www.vam.ac.uk/blog/digital-media/cdos-the-new-chief-electrical-officers\n> \n> I’m becoming very interested in who cites who in publications, because that is the way art history is made. I was rather amused that one of the publisher’s internal reviews for Rethinking Curating criticised the book for citing too many other people rather than having a singular theoretical position! \n> \n> Yours,\n> \n> Beryl\n> \n> \n> On 25 Jun 2014, at 23:55, Jon Ippolito <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n> \n>> Marialaura et al.,\n>> \n>> Because what goes uncontested is often taken for truth, I believe we need to continue to make the case for the relevance of new media art in those places least likely to believe it, namely the hidebound art world.\n>> \n>> I don't think that case is hard to make. Some on this list will be familiar with a little number-crunching from the essay \"Out of the Hothouse and into the World\" that concludes the Met has 2.5 visits per artwork while Rhizome has 7,000.\n>> \n>> http://at-the-edge-of-art.com/out_of_the_hothouse/#autonomyor\n>> \n>> As far as the seemingly unstoppable disintegration of new media art, I invite practitioners everywhere to consider some of the radical strategies proposed in the book Re-Collection: Art, New Media, and Social Memory, which just hit the shelves this week.\n>> \n>> http://re-collection.net\n>> \n>> From emulation to DNA storage to proliferative preservation, co-author Richard Rinehart and I hope the book will open new attitudes and toolkits for amateur and professional preservators alike.\n>> \n>> jon\n>> \n>> ______________________________\n>> Jon Ippolito\n>> Professor of New Media\n>> Co-director, Still Water\n>> Director, Digital Curation graduate program\n>> The University of Maine\n>> 406 Chadbourne\n>> Orono, ME 04469-5713\n>> http://still-water.net\n>> Tel: 207 581-4477\n>> Fax: 207 581-4357\n>> Twitter: @jonippolito\n>> \n>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 Marialaura Ghidini wrote:\n>>> I am concerned too with \"invisibility\" of excellent work....Some projects are not even browsable anymore even if done less than 10 years ago. And I feel that this is bringing out so many interesting positions that would not necessarily come to light if these people were not practitioners. \n> \n> ------------------------------------------------------------\n> \n> Beryl Graham, Professor of New Media Art\n> CRUMB web resource for new media art curators http://www.crumbweb.org\n> Research Student Manager, Art and Design\n> MA Curating Course Leader http://www.macurating.net\n> \n> Faculty of Arts, Design, and Media, University of Sunderland\n> The David Puttnam Media Centre, St Peter's Way, Sunderland, SR6 0DD Tel: +44 191 515 2896 \n> \n> Recent books:\n> New Collecting: Exhibiting and Audiences Ashgate\n> Rethinking Curating: Art After New Media MIT Press \n> A Brief History of Curating New Media Art The Green Box\n> Euphoria & Dystopia: The Banff New Media Institute Dialogues Banff Centre Press and Riverside Architectural Press\n> \n> \n> \n> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 22:11:46 +0100\n> From: Marialaura Ghidini <[log in to unmask]>\n> Subject: Re: article which mis-understands internet art, again?\n> \n> Thanks Mez and Jon for the links.\n> I look forward to reading re-collection too!\n> \n> Till next time,\n> Marialaura\n> \n> On 25 Jun 2014, at 00:42, mez breeze wrote:\n> \n>> Hi Marialaura,\n>> \n>> More about the \"net.art Painters and Poets\" Exhibition can be found here: \n>> \n>> 1. Official Gallery description: http://www.mgml.si/en/city-art-gallery/future-exhibitions/net-art-painters-and-poets/\n>> 2. Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt3y6xR0L-A\n>> 3. National TV coverage [in Slovenian]: http://4d.rtvslo.si/arhiv/kultura/17428 + http://4d.rtvslo.si/arhiv/osmi-dan-prispevki/174282914\n>> \n>> Cheers,\n>> Mez\n>> \n>> \n>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Marialaura Ghidini <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n>> \n>> Mez,\n>> I am very interested in the \"net.art Painters and Poets\" exhibition you mentions. Have you visited it? Do you have more information? There's not much I can find out on the website..\n>> \n>> \n>> -- \n>> | facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign\n>> | twitter.com/MezBreezeDesign\n>> | en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mez_Breeze \n>> \n>> \n> \n> ------------------------------\n> \n> End of NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Digest - 25 Jun 2014 to 26 Jun 2014 (#2014-104)\n> *************************************************************************",
|
||
"from": "Richard Rinehart",
|
||
"date": "Fri, 27 Jun 2014 12:17:40 -0400",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=47543",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Richard Rinehart"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"list": "crumb",
|
||
"subject": "Re: Antw: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] An article that doesn't understand new media art | An Archive that does",
|
||
"content": "\nDear Oliver,\n\nI wasn’t able to follow the entire conversation, but I find your “us vs them”, attack-to-defende-your-territory approach, counterproductive at least. We shouldn’t have those little dogs who bark from beyond the garden’s gate (and yelp when you get too close) as our primary model. I'm far from sharing Pac Pobric's idea that internet art is \"provincial conversation\", but I'm afraid to see some traces of this provincialism in this discussion.\nA bad review is just a bad review in an ongoing cultural dialogue. The history of media art is full of them, as well as it is full of equally silly claims that media art is the only thing that counts in art today. This is how the press - some press - goes. \nBut this is only the sea foam over the surface. Deep down - and yeah, even in the evil, rotten art market and the mainstream art world - there are people working hard to generate a broader debate and understanding of art made with digital media, and that do not accept to stay within the borders of the indian reservation, get drunk and keep thinking that the whole country of art is does indeed belong to them. Not recognizing this, you fall in the same mistake that Pobric did - only from a different perspective. \nAlso, I think that art made to feed the institution, and responding to its formats and rules, is no less boring and irrelevant than art made to feed the market. \nForgive me for being so straight, but in every word of your post is somehow implicit the idea that new media art - and its community of supporters - is a minority with a great pedigree that should be protected by law, supported by institutions and discussed only by the happy few. This is not true - and if it was, it would be very boring \n\nMy best regards,\nDomenico\n\n---\n\nDomenico Quaranta\n\nemail: [log in to unmask]\nskype: dom_40\n\nhttp://domenicoquaranta.com\nhttp://www.linkartcenter.eu\n\n\n\nIl giorno 26/giu/2014, alle ore 05:35, Oliver Grau ha scritto:\n\n> Dear colleagues,\n> I couldn't agree more with Jon and others: We should not be frustrated\n> by ignorant articles of people writing for the Art Market, which has\n> other interests.\n> Over the last fifty\n> years, media art has evolved\n> into a vivid cultural expression. Although there are well attended\n> festivals\n> worldwide,\n> collaborative projects, discussion forums and databases (Da Costa and\n> Kavita 2010; Dixon 2007; Gardiner 2010; Grau 2003 and\n> 2011; Popper 2007; Shanken 2009;\n> Sommerer and Mignonneau 2007; Vesna 2007; Wilson 2010), media art is\n> still too rarely collected by museums,\n> barely supported within the mainframe of art history and with relatively\n> low accessibility for the public\n> and scholars. As we know, compared to traditional art forms – painting\n> or\n> sculpture – digital media art, has a multifarious potential of\n> expression and\n> visualization; and therefore, although underrepresented at the art\n> market that\n> follows other interests and commercial logics, it became a ‘legitimate\n> art of\n> our time’. Media addresses a variety of complex topics and challenges\n> for our\n> life and societies, like genetic engineering (Anker and Nelkin 2003;\n> Hauser\n> 2008; Kac 2009; Reichle 2005) and the rise of post human bodies\n> (Hershman-Leeson 2007), globalisation and ecological crises (Himmelsbach\n> 2007, Cubitt 2005, Demos 2009, Borries 2011),\n> the explosion of human knowledge, the image and media revolution (Grau\n> 2011;\n> Mitchell 2011), the change towards virtual financial economies, and new\n> extremes of surveillance of all human communication (Ozog 2008).\n> \n> \n> We therefore should not stop communicate, that digital art is able to\n> deal with the big issues of our time, all thematized on festivals and\n> meanwhile 200 biennials all over the world. We should not count on the\n> art market, but we should remind our tax financed museum system (in\n> Europe) that it is their job, by law, to document, collect and preserve\n> the relevant art of the time - as we know, the museum system, founded in\n> the 18th century, ideal to preserve the media of its time (sculpture,\n> painting etc.) is not in the situation to fulfill their job. But many\n> museums are fully aware that this is the case - like TATE - where I\n> could give a lecture on the topic a few weeks ago. The museum system has\n> to reorganize to catch up with the digital age. There are thousands of\n> digital art works, shown around the world, which received an endless\n> number of articles and lectures, who never made it into the collections\n> payed by us. Some you find in the archive of digital art:\n> www.digitalartarchive.at\n> Many regards,\n> Oliver\n> \n> \n> Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr.h.c. habil. Oliver Grau\n> Chair Professor for Image Science\n> DONAU UNIVERSITÄT\n> Dr.-Karl-Dorrek-Strasse 30\n> 3500 Krems, AUSTRIA\n> Tel. +43 (0) 2732 893 2550\n> www.donau-uni.ac.at/bild\n> ****************************\n> Archive of Digital Art www.digitalartarchive.at\n> Graphische Sammlung Goettweig-Online www.gssg.at\n> New Publication: Oliver Grau (Ed.): Imagery in the 21st Century,\n> Cambridge, MIT-Press 2013.\n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 Marialaura Ghidini wrote:\n>> I am concerned too with \"invisibility\" of excellent work....Some\n> projects are not even browsable anymore even if done less than 10 years\n> ago. And I feel that this is bringing out so many interesting positions\n> that would not necessarily come to light if these people were not\n> practitioners.",
|
||
"from": "Domenico Quaranta",
|
||
"date": "Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:27:45 +0200",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=48346",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Domenico Quaranta"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"list": "crumb",
|
||
"subject": "Re: Antw: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Antw: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] An article that doesn't understand new media art | An Archive that does",
|
||
"content": "\nDom,\nThank you for the articulation above, your words are uplifting!\n\nGrowing so tired of the term 'digital' in this conversation, afterall it is just art (as many smart people have cast a light on, time to pickup this torch IMHO) to be sure, the distinction is useful to an end, but relying on it for decades now to indicate something the artworld (institution as well as market) is not well equipped to parse to begin with has indeed created these suburbs, ghettos, grottos, tech demos and the like we all operate within to some extent (unfortunately) as the distinction collapses entirely in culture at large, it increasingly functions more as a barrier to the accessibility of this artwork.\n\nLooking forward to partying with Pau in two weeks, inside one of our strongest netart shows yet, welcoming him to lively conversation in the hopes he might find the words to begin to see and speak past the 'media' in this work we all care about deeply.\n\nBests,\nKelani\n\n\n\n> On Jun 28, 2014, at 7:28 AM, Oliver Grau <[log in to unmask]> wrote:\n> \n> Dear Domenico,\n> \n> \n> thank you for your friendly words. You might have missed the\n> part of the discussion, where colleagues posted for the 2nd or 3rd time\n> an\n> underqualified article also on digital media art, and started a\n> lamento.. I do\n> not know, where you take your interpretation \"us vs. them\" from,\n> since my point was the opposit, it was on the strength of digital media\n> art and my point was on (museum) infrastructure. \n> \n> \n> Although (digital) media art on more than 200 festivals and\n> biennials is more successful than ever, it is not entering the museum\n> system,\n> due to a system failior. If you can show me the museums, which collected\n> and\n> preserved the main artworks by Eduardo Kac, \n> Myron Krueger, jeffrey Shaw, Maurice Banayoun, Char Davies and many,\n> many others you can make a point and will all help us... Char Davies\n> Osmose\n> alone received more than 100 scientific articles but is shown in no\n> museum on\n> our planet. And a digital culture we live in most parts of the world,\n> which\n> excludes large parts of its contemporary culture is getting into a\n> problematic\n> situation for its democratic dicourse (via) art. \n> \n> \n> In order to fulfil its duty, to collect and preserve the\n> most significant contemporary art the Museum System has to reorganise to\n> become\n> apropriate for the cultures of the digital age, in alliances with\n> science\n> centers, archives and the digital industries. If govenments start\n> conferences\n> with their museums asking, what are you doing precisely to follow the\n> law and\n> protect digital art? The answer would be very poor and could initiate an\n> understanding that individual museums are not sufficiantly equiped to do\n> that\n> job. We might need alliances, where, say the museums in Bavaria are\n> responsible\n> and built up the needs for \"interactive installations\", in Lower\n> Saxony for \"Net Art\", in Berlin for \"Bio Art\" etc.\n> \n> \n> TATE Britain, as leading european Museum, now has again the\n> chance to bring this initiative on a european level (TATE Modern had\n> ironically\n> a conf on the same topic 10 yeras ago..)\n> Also the digital industry, who wants to sell us every year a\n> new laptop, has to help, to protect the cultures created (not born) on\n> their\n> machines, perhaps with a tax: Apple, Microsoft, Google etc. also have to\n> contribute and should not avoid tax by moving to low-tax countries.\n> \n> \n> \n> As all media artworks of the past (Sculpture, Painting) etc.\n> are bound to the condition of their media (Stone, Canvas, Foto, Film)\n> also\n> digital art has its needs, we cannot simply ignore that fact by\n> propagating a\n> \"post medial condition\" ... which leads in the case of digital art to\n> its extinction.\n> \n> \n> \n> I would like to draw your attention also on the LIVERPOOL\n> DECLARATION, signetd meanwhile by more than 400 colleagues, which asks\n> consequently for an \"international\" and \"sustainable\"\n> support of media art research.\n> http://www.mediaarthistory.org/declaration Please feel free to sign. \n> \n> \n> \n> \n> Many regards, Oliver\n> \n> \n> \n> \n> \n>>>> Domenico Quaranta <[log in to unmask]> 28.06.14 11.28 Uhr >>>\n> Dear Oliver,\n> \n> I wasn’t able to follow the entire conversation, but I find your “us vs\n> them”, attack-to-defende-your-territory approach, counterproductive at\n> least. We shouldn’t have those little dogs who bark from beyond the\n> garden’s gate (and yelp when you get too close) as our primary model.\n> I'm far from sharing Pac Pobric's idea that internet art is \"provincial\n> conversation\", but I'm afraid to see some traces of this provincialism\n> in this discussion.\n> A bad review is just a bad review in an ongoing cultural dialogue. The\n> history of media art is full of them, as well as it is full of equally\n> silly claims that media art is the only thing that counts in art today.\n> This is how the press - some press - goes. \n> But this is only the sea foam over the surface. Deep down - and yeah,\n> even in the evil, rotten art market and the mainstream art world - there\n> are people working hard to generate a broader debate and understanding\n> of art made with digital media, and that do notthe whole country of art is does indeed belong to them. Not recognizing\n> this, you fall in the same mistake that Pobric did - only from a\n> different perspective. \n> Also, I think that art made to feed the institution, and responding to\n> its formats and rules, is no less boring and irrelevant than art made to\n> feed the market. \n> Forgive me for being so straight, but in every word of your post is\n> somehow implicit the idea that new media art - and its community of\n> supporters - is a minority with a great pedigree that should be\n> protected by law, supported by institutions and discussed only by the\n> happy few. This is not true - and if it was, it would be very boring \n> \n> My best regards,\n> Domenico\n> \n> ---\n> \n> Domenico Quaranta\n> \n> email: [log in to unmask]\n> skype: dom_40\n> \n> http://domenicoquaranta.com\n> http://www.linkartcenter.eu\n> \n> \n> \n>> Il giorno 26/giu/2014, alle ore 05:35, Oliver Grau ha scritto:\n>> \n>> Dear colleagues,\n>> I couldn't agree more with Jon and others: We should not be frustrated\n>> by ignorant articles of people writing for the Art Market, which has\n>> other interests.\n>> Over the last fifty\n>> years, media art has evolved\n>> into a vivid cultural expression. Although there are well attended\n>> festivals\n>> worldwide,\n>> collaborative projects, discussion forums and databases (Da Costa and\n>> Kavita 2010; Dixon 2007; Gardiner 2010; Grau 2003 and\n>> 2011; Popper 2007; Shanken 2009;\n>> Sommerer and Mignonneau 2007; Vesna 2007; Wilson 2010), media art is\n>> still too rarely collected by museums,\n>> barely supported within the mainframe of art history and with\n> relatively\n>> low accessibility for the public\n>> and scholars. As we know, compared to traditional art forms – painting\n>> or\n>> sculpture – digital media art, has a multifarious potential of\n>> expression and\n>> visualization; and therefore, although underrepresented at the art\n>> market that\n>> follows other interests and commercial logics, it became a ‘legitimate\n>> art of\n>> our time’. Media addresses a variety of complex topics and challenges\n>> for our\n>> life and societies, like genetic engineering (Anker and Nelkin 2003;\n>> Hauser\n>> 2008; Kac 2009; Reichle 2005) and the rise of post human bodies\n>> (Hershman-Leeson 2007), globalisation and ecological crises\n> (Himmelsbach\n>> 2007, Cubitt 2005, Demos 2009, Borries 2011),\n>> the explosion of human knowledge, the image and media revolution (Grau\n>> 2011;\n>> Mitchell 2011), the change towards virtual financial economies, and\n> new\n>> extremes of surveillance of all human communication (Ozog 2008).\n>> \n>> \n>> We therefore should not stop communicate, that digital art is able to\n>> deal with the big issues of our time, all thematized on festivals and\n>> meanwhile 200 biennials all over the world. We should not count on the\n>> art market, but we should remind our tax financed museum system (in\n>> Europe) that it is their job, by law, to document, collect and\n> preserve\n>> the relevant art of the time - as we know, the museum system, founded\n> in\n>> the 18th century, ideal to preserve the media of its time (sculpture,\n>> painting etc.) is not in the situation to fulfill their job. But many\n>> museums are fully aware that this is the case - like TATE - where I\n>> could give a lecture on the topic a few weeks ago. The museum system\n> has\n>> to reorganize to catch up with the digital age. There are thousands of\n>> digital art works, shown around the world, which received an endless\n>> number of articles and lectures, who never made it into the\n> collections\n>> payed by us. Some you find in the archive of digital art:\n>> www.digitalartarchive.at\n>> Many regards,\n>> Oliver\n>> \n>> \n>> Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr.h.c. habil. Oliver Grau\n>> Chair Professor for Image Science\n>> DONAU UNIVERSITÄT\n>> Dr.-Karl-Dorrek-Strasse 30\n>> 3500 Krems, AUSTRIA\n>> Tel. +43 (0) 2732 893 2550\n>> www.donau-uni.ac.at/bild\n>> ****************************\n>> Archive of Digital Art www.digitalartarchive.at\n>> Graphische Sammlung Goettweig-Online www.gssg.at\n>> New Publication: Oliver Grau (Ed.): Imagery in the 21st Century,\n>> Cambr>> I am concerned too with \"invisibility\" of excellent work....Some\n>> projects are not even browsable anymore even if done less than 10\n> years\n>> ago. And I feel that this is bringing out so many interesting\n> positions\n>> that would not necessarily come to light if these people were not\n>> practitioners.",
|
||
"from": "Kelani",
|
||
"date": "Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:42:42 -0400",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1406&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=54012",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Kelani"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"list": "nettime-l",
|
||
"subject": "<nettime> Olia Lialina interview Ljubljana",
|
||
"content": "\nOlia Lialina is a net.artist. She lives and works in Moscow.\nShe is also a filmcritic and filmcurator.\nWe talked in Ljudmila Media Lab in Ljubljana in May '97, on the first\nday of the nettime conference, while the conference was in progress\nwith an American history lesson of the internet in the main room.\nWe were sitting between other escapees that were doing mail\nor surfing and the friendly kitchen crew.\n\n* *\n\n \"They must feel like strangers, those people who make\n their homepages representing their products.\"\n\n* *\n\nOlia Lialina: It is complicated to be a net.artist in Moscow,\nbecause there is no context where you can appear as such. You first must\nexplain what it is for an hour or two hours. I have different\nidentities for different places.\n\nQ: Isn't that normal with 'net.personalities', that you are more of\na personality far away then close by? Being a net.artist you are\nrecognised more by people that are online and often far away and\nnot by your neighbour?\n\nOlia Lialina: Yes, but also it is difficult to understand who is\nthe nearest neighbour, because when you communicate a lot through the\nnet, it seems that your nearest friends and nearest neighbours from\nabroad are much closer. Now I feel since a year of this intensive\nnet.communication that I have more friends which I have never seen.\nOn one side its a problem, on another side its a reality.\n\nQ: A reality can also be a problem. Is it pleasant?\n\nOlia Lialina: Its pleasant. As far as I have different identities I\ndon't feel this problem. If my friends don't know what the internet\nis in Moscow, they do know what film is, what a critic is, what an\nexperimental filmclub is. They know and still love me.\nAlso I don't have so much problems with these different activities\nbecause a year ago I didn't stop this filmcurating in order to make\nnet.projects. I started to make an experimental filmarchive on the\nnet and so it was a very soft transition from one field to another.\nI started to make this archive, so I started to search the net this\nway.\nI started to make net.films. At first I thought how I could represent\nfilm on the net. After some time I understood that its not necesary\nto represent film itself, but if you can put your filmic way of\nthinking in the net, in this environment, it is more useful, more\ninteresting. You can do more with both. So I tried to experiment with\nlanguage, to combine film and net.language, but now I am more concerned\nwith developing net.language itself. I want things to speak their own\nlanguage. For me for example net.reality is not only the cyberideology.\nI think that many things from real life can exist in the net, many\nfeelings, many thoughts. But they should speak the language of where\nthey are. If something is in the net, it should speak in net.language.\n\nQ: I understand you are exploring what net.language is. Is it a\nlanguage that is developing?\n\nOlia Lialina: It seems to me that I am a person who develops this\nlanguage. What I am thinking about, I am trying to defend the internet.\nThat is my attitude. Not by special ideologies, not by proclaiming\nsomething, but by developing its own language. If artists develop and\ngive a life to the language for this environment, it is more difficult\nfor commercial structures, for people who just want to represent their\nworks in the net. It is more difficult for them to feel comfortable in\nthis world after it has its own language. They must feel like strangers,\nthose people who make their homepages representing their products.\n\nQ: How do you work on developing this language?\n\nOlia Lialina: Difficult question. What is the structure of my work,\nthe process? I just think what I want to do in general. If I have\nsomething in mind, the only thing I try to do is doing it in the\nnet. I don't have restrictions. I don't look for a special topic which\nfits the net. Its absolutely intuitive.\nMy english is quite poor. I stay far from discussions and articles from\ntheorists written about net.ideology and economy. Especially when I\nstarted I knew absolutely nothing. When I made \"My boyfriend came back\nfrom the war\", it was a pure experiment with frames and html language.\nI didn't expect it would 'sound' in this context, that there was\nallready this context. After I heard all these theories about\n\"My boyfriend came back from the war\", only after I started to think\nabout myself. I worked out my attitude.\nThe main thing i can say is that the net is a place for self\nexpression and nothing can restrict it. Of course it is not just\nthat, but it could be a place for self expression.\n\nQ: When you talk about developing language I thought you were\ntalking about filmic language in an image kind of way, but you are\ntalking about words, about prose or poetry?\n\nOlia Lialina: You know, this frase netfilm for example appeared\nwhen I thought about films. I can say that I don't make netfilms, but\nmore netstories. Some kind of narrative. Narrative in my works is\neverywhere. It can be with words, with pictures, but its always\ndialogue or monologue. I think because the russian tradition is quite\nliteral in art and mostly in Moscow, I can't stand outside of it.\nIt is somewhere in me, this desire to work with words, with sentences,\nwith paragraphes and so on.\nBut at the same time, which might be interesting for you: I can't do\nanything in russian. \"My Boyfriend\" or \"Anna Karenina\" or other\nprojects I didn't think about in Russian first. Everytime I start to\ndo something in the net, my mind switches to the english language. Its\na very poor language, more poor then net.english, my english. But for\nme it is enough to express in the net. I thought about why this is so.\nI speak very good russian, I make excellent jokes (laughs) in russian,\nI always experiment with words. I have a very rich russian language.\nI think that if I would start to make my projects in russian, it would\nbe another game. It would immediately be a game with the russian\nlanguage, not with net.language. I think these are two very different\nand serious things for me, they can't be together. They start to fight\nwith eachother inside me.\n\nQ: How does your communication with all your friends through the\nnet influence the development of your net.language?\n\nOlia Lialina: I can't say that it works, because this communication\nis more a personal one. I can't remember we discussed problems of\nnet.art in our letters. Speaking about the english language again, you\nmust remember this story when I asked what is the word \"ditched\", when\nDavid Garcia wrote that the term net.art must be ditched. People\nappreciated the irony, but it was a real question, I couldn't find the\nword in any dictionary.\n\nQ: Can you give examples of projects you did on the net?\n\nOlia Lialina: I made \"my boyfriend\"...It was just a desire to tell\nthis story on the net using html language. After I made it, I realised\nthis story can exist on cd-rom or you can make a video out of it and\nshow a video-projection. Its my most succesful work, but it is not a\nreal net project. The fact that it can exist on cd-rom, that you can\nput it on a floppy and go to any computer and show it offline, makes a\ndifference.\nAfter this I decided to make another project that is as close to\nthe internet environment as possible. I made \" Anna Karenina goes to\nparadise \", which can't exist without search engines. Three\nsearchengines simultaneously. This project can't exist either without\none french server, where you find a lot of pictures of trains. So it\nwas not only the story. It was a story again, but a story which\ncontained sentences not written by me, but that existed allready in\nthe net. It's a net.comedy in three acts. Anna looking for love,\nAnna looking for train, Anna looking for paradise and an epilogue.\nAnna is looking for love through Yahoo, for trains through the Magilan\nsearch engine and Anna is looking for paradise through Alta Vista.\nAfter the epilogue there is a conversation between Anna and the three\nsearchengines and two browsers: Netscape and Explorer.\nAlso I spoiled the search engines, I captured and spoiled them.\nThey are all bit maps, black and white. They look absolutely not\ncommercial, but they work as real search engines.\n\nQ: You mean you changed them?\n\nOlia Lialina: (laughs) No, really spoiled, but they still work. I only\nprepared an interface. All links, all cgi script exist on their servers\nand they work in the normal way.\n\nThe project which is in progress now, \"Heaven and Hell\", is a\ndialogue with Michael Samyn, a Belgian artist. For some years he\npretended to be group-Z from Belgium. The famous project of group-Z\nis \"love\". Its on Adaweb.\nAfter our communication through email, we decided not to go to this\nstupid level where men and women who never met eachother start to\nwrite to eachother: \"Why do I never see you in real life, I want you to\nbe here..\" and all those kind of stupid things, we decided to do\nsomething more constructive. So we started to write articles and make\nthis \"Heaven and Hell\" project, which is a dialogue between two servers.\nThe structure is two frames: I am in Heaven, he is in Hell. He makes\nsomething in the lower frame and makes a link to my not existing yet\nsite. I make the answer in the upper frame, and make a link to his now\nnot-yet-existing site. This way it goes on. Its not in realtime. If you\nlook now for this server, you will now see the complete work. All upper\nand lower frame sites are on their places. They appear one after the\nother. Yet now the end is for example his not existing site. After now\nallready 20 pages you will see an empty page. There is written: No such\nfile on this server. I didn't check wether he put up his last\ncontribution yet. This work is more interesting inside maybe, because\nwhen we send the names of the not existing files to eachother, they\nsay maybe even more then the allready made files with this name.\n\nNow the princip of this work is not so simple: I am in Heaven, he is\nin Hell. Now sometimes I go to the lower frame, to Hell, he sometimes\nis in Heaven...Everything already is confused. He used to be a\nprofessional designer. He is very skillful with all this Java, with\napplications like Shockwave. I have a more conceptual tradition.\nThat is why I try to involve sites of other people into my frame. There\nyou can see American Vietnam Veterans warpages and the Chechen\ngovernement page. I try to involve all this into 'Paradise'.\n\nQ: Are you influenced by the work of other net.artists?\n\nOlia Lialina: No, I am not influenced.\n\nQ: Do you feel connected to them?\n\nOlia Lialina: Yes, I feel connected, and I am very happy now that\nmy first meeting with the internet itself was in a situation where\nAlexei Shulgin showed it to me. The first things I saw on the net was\nnot homepages of different companies, but work by Jodi, the nettime\nmailinglist..Thats why I was influenced in a very good way. I am\nvery happy I knew before what were works of not-commercial people. Only\nafter the BMW site and so on. I knew what was net.art before I knew\nwhat was webdesign, that is what I wanted to say. But I can't say that\nin my work I am influenced by other net.artists.\n\nQ: What do you think of the whole discussion about what net.art is?\n\nOlia Lialina: Maybe you allready know that I don't like this\ndiscussion. And I don't like it when Robert Adrian starts to talk\nabout net.art. After the discussion he said: hello Olia, I know\nyour name but never saw your works. Not only mine. It seems he doesn't\nknow many net.artists. Yet he was the main person in the discussion.\nNow the best critique is for example what you do. The best addition\nto recent nettime discussion was your interview with Jodi. It gave much\nmore then all these answers to questions like : What is net.art? I think\nthat the double interview we did with Michael Symon is also not a bad\ncontribution.\n\nI had an idea: to stop with presentations of our works at this\nconference and start to analyse works of other artists. Maybe I am going\nto organise something in Moscow in December. I will try to make not a\nconference but more an educational meeting for Moscow young people. I\nwant net.artists to meet with Russian students for example. I think it\nwill be more interesting when we analyse works of eachother, not show\nour own projects. Its a more creative situation during the presentation. It\nis more creative for yourself. You not just recreate your feelings of\nartists to words of a lecture.\n\n\nhttp://www.design.ru/olialia\n\n\n*\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Josephine Bosma <jesis {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"author_name": "Josephine Bosma",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00009.html",
|
||
"id": "00009",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 5 Aug 1997 11:03:19 +0200 (MET DST)",
|
||
"message-id": "l03010d01b00bc6519b0f {AT} [194.109.45.198]",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\n\nWhat is net.<foo>? Why is it necessary to state net.artist, net.criticism,\nnet.language, etc. without an adequate deconstruction of both net and . in\nthe first place? Why the necessity of reification, which plays into the\nlanguage of the manifesto, always already restructuring an imperative that\nhas all but disappeared elsewhere? A similar question in relation to virt-\nual intellectual; when was an intellectual other than virtual? \n\nThese are not idle questions in spite of the brevity of this note. Beyond,\nsay the com-priv list or RFCs (and where is 675 by the way?), aren't these\nconstructs a problematic they efface by procuring content as-if elsewhere?\n(Perhaps that is the nature of a problematic.) I find these terms suspect;\nI am not sure what a \"net.artist\" is as opposed to an artist or one work-\ning in the media, or working with community. It's the . that raises barr-\niers - as if net.artist were already the reification of a subdomain, a\nscheme of classification somehow legitimated by the substructural period. \n\nThese . raise barriers; they're not connectives, just as virtual intellec-\ntual troubles me in relation to the transgressing political economy of the\nmedia. \n\nBut then it is duly noted that I am from the United States, and there are\nsurely processes of misrecognition, misinterpretation of history, at work.\nBeyond Neoism and occasional zine-ing, I view manifesto-ism itself more\nthan likely a European phenomenon; we tend to inscribe our _disciplines_\ninstead.\n\nOr rather, perhaps, net.criticism, net.<foo> as a movement, in which case\nit is already subtending, sublimating the work of others not necessarily\nascribing.\n\nFor I must say, what attracts me to working on the Net is precisely is\nporosity (in the normative and Hegelian sense), that there is the poten-\ntial for what might be considered an offshoot of Irigarayan fluid mechan-\nics, as opposed to category theory with its objects and nodes. It is the\nlatter, inscribing through functors behind the scenes, that seems on a\ncertain level to be the same old story. I would argue to free language,\nportend what releasement is possible in this medium (I think of jodi.org\nfor example, or some of my own attempts)\n\nIn the meantime I'll strive to remove the dot\n\nAlan\n\nURL: http://jefferson village virginia.edu/~spoons/internet_txt html\nMIRROR with other pages at: http://www anu edu au/english/internet_txt\nIMAGES: http://www cs unca edu/~davidson/pix/ TEL 718-857-3671\nEXPERIMENTAL (on and off): http://166 84 250 149 Editor, BEING ON LINE\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Alan J Sondheim <sondheim {AT} panix.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "Alan J Sondheim",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.SUN.3.95.970805052655.11115A-100000 {AT} panix3.panix.com",
|
||
"id": "00010",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nI had a big fat smile on my face reading Alans mail. It was about to\nhappen, this attack on the .dot, or . or dot. As some of my friends\nknow, I love the dot. I use it a lot. I see no restriction in it\nwhatsoever, no barrier or limits. Quite the opposite.\n\nThe dot represents what words cannot say what is different about\nworking in this new environment, while being connected to the so\ncalled real world and its history. To me the dot is almost poetic\nin its release of energy (in this new age times not a wise word to\nuse, I know) and like the language of poetry and the attempts of\nwriters like Irigaray it adds sounds that are unheard, it does not\nsilence.\n\nDot.fear comes from irritation, and it seems to me the same kind of\nirritation that people have with the word cyber (I collect objects\nwith that word on it, the popular kitsch approach of future visions\non streetwear and such, great stuff), or with all those stupid masses\nentering the net and spamming it. Removing the dot, like some critics\npersistingly do when writing about net.art, is like denying history.\nIt is falsification.\n\n\ncheers\n\n\nJ\n*\nps: one of the best uses of the dot lately is this one: girl.friend\nthis is something completely other then girlfriend, and eventhough\nthe dot in this case does stand for personal restrictions or barriers\nit does widen the meaning of the word to fit what it means in net.relations\nsome of you might get the drift.\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Josephine Bosma <jesis {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"author_name": "Josephine Bosma",
|
||
"message-id": "l03010d01b00d18b63ed2 {AT} [194.109.47.50]",
|
||
"id": "00013",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nJosephine Bosma wrote:\n> \n or with all those stupid masses \n> entering the net and spamming it.\n\n& leaving not enough space any more for the gifted & charismatic \navantgarde who deserves ruling the net, right?\n\nancient Greek anti/democrats such as Plato at least put the same notion \ninto a bit more polite form of expression: \"hoi polloi\" denoting \"the \nmany\".\n(The denunciation is just in the rhyme: Greeks despised rhymes as being \ntasteless & child/like) \n\nPost/scrypt: dots are elitist (top level domain). The age of slashes is \ndawning.\ncu\nErich\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Erich Moechel <erich-moechel {AT} apanet.at>",
|
||
"author_name": "Erich Moechel",
|
||
"message-id": "33E7168C.323A {AT} apanet.at",
|
||
"id": "00014",
|
||
"to": "Josephine Bosma <jesis {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00014.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 05 Aug 1997 12:03:24 +0000"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\n\n\nbut never forget the humble yet hard|cOre square bracket\n\nfor net cred\n\n[DoLL]\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "francesca da rimini <gashgirl {AT} sysx.apana.org.au>",
|
||
"author_name": "francesca da rimini",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.LNX.3.95.970806122845.18109A-100000 {AT} sysx.apana.org.au",
|
||
"id": "00018",
|
||
"to": "Erich Moechel <erich-moechel {AT} apanet.at>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00018.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 6 Aug 1997 12:29:33 +1000 (EST)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\n\nNow, ah, it's dot.fear, not just fear - which reminds me of the psycho-\nanalytical attempts to negotiate addictions (computer addiction disorder,\ngambling disorder, etc.) - all of which effaces the underlying causes in\nthe guise of the surface. \n\nThe point is, that the \"Net\" is _not_ a medium, but as sloppy as tele-\nphony or television (cable, vcr, camcorder, satellite, network, ham, etc.\netc.). And that . simply (simply) reifies / inscribes a confluence of\npractices which can't help but exclude others. \n\nAnd no, I use the word \"cyber\" a lot, and it's not a question of dot.fear\nor any other sort of fear.\n\nIt's the need to _deconstruct_ these stances in the first place.\n\nAlan\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Alan J Sondheim <sondheim {AT} panix.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "Alan J Sondheim",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.SUN.3.95.970805135302.10219T-100000 {AT} panix3.panix.com",
|
||
"id": "00015",
|
||
"to": "Josephine Bosma <jesis {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00015.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 5 Aug 1997 13:55:49 -0400 (EDT)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\njesis {AT} xs4all.nl (Tue 08/05/97 at 06:18 PM +0200):\n\n> Dot.fear \n\nFear? This is a bit presumptuous, yes?\n\nErich's suggestion, IIRC, that dots connote hierarchy was correct, I\nthink--but more than that, they suggest a *path*. This is new in the\nrealm of punctuation: a way to join names that leaves a trace of how \nyou move through them, rather than just stringing them together (the \nhyphen), denoting a range (an endash), interjecting a pause or loose \nconnection (an emdash), or inserting an explanation (()). To dismiss\nthis as \"hierarchical\" misses the point, though, because hierarchies\nare not inherently bad. They *are* necessarily a means or method for\norganization and, as such, a modality of power; but an aspect of pow-\ner is the way it makes priorities manifest, and so we should have or\nfind ways to express this in language. That's why the dot's an excel-\nlent thing--an innovative way, within the limits of ASCII, to convey\na very basic idea, the path--historical, taxonomic, experiential--by\nwhich a complex object was constructed. \n\nI began to think about this some years ago when I was talking with a\nfriend about the history of punctuation. Punctuation is a fairly new\nconcept in the history of human inscription; even if you were to lim-\nit your field to the history of \"writing,\" punctuation has only been\naround for a fairly short time, and yet it has come to play a *huge*\nrole in structuring the way we express ideas. What is interesting is\nthat there have been many, many more innovations in punctuation than\nin phonetic and alphanumeric typography since the advent of moveable \ntype: in fact, the tendency to \"freeze\" language in material forms--\nas transmitted fonts, as standardized spellings--has, I think, shift-\ned the focus of innovation from vocal phenomena to logical relations.\nAnd the codification of a \"standard set\" of linguistic components in\ndigital forms--for example, the ASCII character set--has only frozen\nlanguage that much more; that's why UNICODE, which includes mathemat-\nical notations as well as a number of non-Western notational systems\n--has been developed. But, like ASCII, it too is just a codification\nof what already *is*--and, as such, it will serve to prevent the dev-\nelopment of completely new elements. Under the circumstances, the re-\nappropriation--in function (path.notation) and in name (\"dot\" rather\nthan \"period\" or \"full stop\")--of a \"given\" element is actually very\nimportant. \n \n> or with all those stupid masses entering the net and spamming it. \n\nThis is pretty rude and stupid, imo.\n\nerich-moechel {AT} apanet.at (Tue 08/05/97 at 12:03 PM +0000):\n\n> The age of slashes is dawning.\n\n*Where* were you in the eighties? The $#%&ing slash colonized all of\nacademic thought. As a friend of mine said, it has become \"the whore\nof punctuation.\"\n\nTed\n-- \n\"It was in the nineteenth century that each person began to have the right \n to his little box for his little personal decomposition.\" --M. Foucault\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "t byfield <tbyfield {AT} panix.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "t byfield",
|
||
"message-id": "19970807022747.22827 {AT} panix.com",
|
||
"id": "00031",
|
||
"to": "Nettime <nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00031.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 7 Aug 1997 02:27:47 -0400"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\n\nIf we think of dots as path, there are precedents - think of Celine's\nthree dots, for example - or the sequencing of dashes in Emily Dickin-\nsons' work - or for that matter, the use of the dash in Tristan Shandy.\n\nIn all of these, the dots/dashes relate the text to the body, pause,\nexhaustion, exhale, but like any ellipsis, there is the premise of the\ninterminable path as well.\n\nThis is not an idle comment; it is antithetical, in fact, to the comb/\ntree structure implied by the Net address dot hierarchy. The latter is\nstatus, the former, as in what _might_ be conveyed by dot.fear, is pro-\ncess. Now both, interestingly enough, are performative - the Net path\nshuttles/filters/routes addresses, while the other, literary, forms,\nconstruct phraseology, the breath of the reader. \n\nWhile early punctuation is often absent (although consider the division\nlines in cuneiform, etc.), determinative elements (in Sumerian for ex-\nample) are not, and provide other means of orienting readers.\n\nAlan\n\nURL: http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~spoons/internet_txt.html\nMIRROR with other pages at: http://www.anu.edu.au/english/internet_txt\nIMAGES: http://www.cs.unca.edu/~davidson/pix/ TEL 718-857-3671\nEXPERIMENTAL (on and off): http://166.84.250.149 Editor, BEING ON LINE\n \n\n\n\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Alan J Sondheim <sondheim {AT} panix.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "Alan J Sondheim",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.SUN.3.95.970807024214.18636A-100000 {AT} panix3.panix.com",
|
||
"id": "00032",
|
||
"to": "t byfield <tbyfield {AT} panix.com>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00032.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 7 Aug 1997 02:48:12 -0400 (EDT)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nAlan J Sondheim wrote:\n> \n> This is not an idle comment; it is antithetical, in fact, \n> to the comb/tree structure implied by the Net address \n> dot hierarchy. The latter is status, the former, as in \n> what _might_ be conveyed by dot.fear, is pro-cess. Now \n> both, interestingly enough, are performative - the Net \n> path shuttles/filters/routes addresses, while the other, \n> literary, forms, construct phraseology, the breath of \n> the reader.\n\nThe dearly dreaded dot de-abstracts. In object-oriented programming\n(OOP), for example, the verbalism on the left side of a dot represents\nan \"object\" and that which stands on the right side describes an\n\"attribute\" or \"method.\" In net.lingo, the right side subordinately\nqualifies a general concept on the left side. Left and right serve as\n\"positional qualifiers.\" In either context, the right side\n*particularizes* something about the generalism on the left side.\n\nIn these contexts, the poor dot cannot shed its role as a servant/symbol\nof hierarchy. You evaluate this result as either fortunate or\nunfortunate, depending on what you're trying to accomplish.\n\nWhat about the ordering of your abstraction? Are you feeling dot.fear\nor fear.dot? \n\nThen, again, should you say, \"I am a net.citizen,\" or, \"I am a\ncitizen.net? Neither. The use of any form of the verb, \"to be,\" in\nsuch verbalisms drags you into the well-known and dangerous semantic\nerror of \"identification.\" E-Prime, a variant of English invented by D.\nDavid Bourland, offers good discipline and can raise your resistance to\nthis dis-ease.\n\nKorzybskian general semantics, of course, warns us to retain\nconsciousness of *all* of our abstractions, to maintain awareness of\ntheir \"order,\" and to identify hazardous \"multi-ordinal\" terms. General\nsemantics also provides some \"extensional\" methods to help us avoid such\nsemantic errors in order to maintain some sense of sanity.\n\nWe certainly need global.sanity! Or is that sanity.global?\n\nJohn\n\n-- \n------------------------------------------------------------------------\nPeople | John E. Tobler cyberjet {AT} cheerful.com | Music\nUnology | John Tobler & Assoc. FEF Information Systems | Writing\nSystems | Visit Cyberjet's Hyperport |OOA/OOD/OOP\nC++/Java | http://www.fefis.org/home/johnt/ | Python\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n If there still is such a thing as a zeitgeist, then it definitely\n is the screen based GAME. -- Cãlin Dan\n========================================================================\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "John Tobler <unologist {AT} geocities.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "John Tobler",
|
||
"message-id": "33EA0424.C3470DF2 {AT} geocities.com",
|
||
"id": "00036",
|
||
"to": "Alan J Sondheim <sondheim {AT} panix.com>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00036.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 07 Aug 1997 12:21:40 -0500"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nOn Thu, 7 Aug 1997, t byfield wrote:\n\n> ... Erich's suggestion, IIRC, that dots connote hierarchy was \n> correct, I think--but more than that, they suggest a *path*...\n\nThe 'forward slash' usually indicates a path/\n\nAnd then there is the 'reverse solidus' after which my web-site is named.\n\nI currently reside between the pictorial dots in Wired.\n\nThe lumpen ranks of alienated citizens are swelling.\n\nThe social imperative is to think anew rather than retreat inward. \n\nLike it or not, this will require people to reimagine themselves as social\nbeings on a larger stage, not helpless cogs in an awesome market system,\nand to glimpse the all-encompassing possibilities that the global\nrevolution has put before them. The challenge is not to abandon old\nidentities and deeply held values, but to enlarge them. If capitalism is\nnow truly global, what are the global social obligations that accompany\nit? \n\n--\n\n{ brad brace } <<<< bbrace {AT} netcom.com >>>> ~finger for pgp\n\nThe_12hr-ISBN-JPEG_Project ftp.netcom.com/pub/bb/bbrace\n continuous hypermodern ftp.teleport.com/users/bbrace\n imagery online ftp.rdrop.com/pub/users/bbrace\n all-the-time ftp.pacifier.com/pub/users/bbrace\n--\nUsenet-news: alt.binaries.pictures.12hr/ a.b.p.fine-art.misc\nMailing-list: listserv {AT} netcom.com / subscribe 12hr-isbn-jpeg\nReverse Solidus: http://www.teleport.com/~bbrace/bbrace.html\n\n--\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "{ brad brace } <bbrace {AT} netcom.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "{ brad brace }",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.3.89.9708070843.A24264-0100000 {AT} netcom10",
|
||
"id": "00035",
|
||
"to": "Nettime <nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00035.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 7 Aug 1997 08:26:04 -0700 (PDT)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\nOn Tue, 5 Aug 1997, Josephine Bosma wrote:\n\n> [...] i love the dot. I use it a lot. I see no restriction in it\n> whatsoever, no barrier or limits. Quite the opposite.\n> \n> The dot represents what words cannot say what is different about\n> working in this new environment, while being connected to the so\n> called real world and its history. To me the dot is almost poetic\n> in its release of energy [...]\n\nsorry - i'm still one of the ':'-addicts - this canonical form of\n(political:art)-expression - part of the local austrian culture(-history?)\n(-> \"peresepolis:zelten\", \"hunger:biafra\", berlin:anmaeuerln\"...) - and\nit's '/'-neighbourhood like the \"a/traverso\"-theory+movement from italy.\n\nthis poetic form - the \"Konstellation\" (constellation) - has a long\ntradition and it's development was strong related to other visual-media\n(jap. wood-engrafing, film-editing-technics...) but after it's exploding\napplication beetween the 60s and 80s it's hard to find anymore. \n\nto use the dot this way (that's how i read your: \"net.art\" and\n\"girl.friend\") is IHMO not very usefull. well - in the example \"net.time\",\nit maybe a nice way to emphasisze some difference of it's object to more\nradical but outdated forms of controversion - but in most cases the ':'\nand '/' leads to more tension and dialectic vision... \n\nto see the dot-notation as a construct of hierarchys seems much more\nattractive to me. it doesn't hide the origin of most newer '.'-words and\nopens a new field of tactical operation. thinking about this kind of\ndot-usage, i see the necasserity to escape the simple pseudo-realism of\naddress- and directory-space - searching for some more abstract form like\nin most newer class-naming-conventions. the most significant difference\nbeetwen this two dot-constructs you'll find the order of their elements. \nthe class-form usualy looks somehow mirrored to the suspected\naddress-form. \n\nmash\n\nPS: what to do with this strict \"<CR>.<CR>\"-usage described in RFC821 ;-) \n\n\n==========================================================================\n University of Graz - Computerlab at the Department for Humanities\n Forum Stadtpark Graz - Department for new media and electronic art\n Martin Schitter\n (finger mash {AT} gewi.kfunigraz.ac.at for PGP-key)\n==========================================================================\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Martin Schitter <mash {AT} gewi.kfunigraz.ac.at>",
|
||
"author_name": "Martin Schitter",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.LNX.3.96.970807173351.7271B-100000 {AT} client6.local",
|
||
"id": "00038",
|
||
"to": "Josephine Bosma <jesis {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00038.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> <foo>.n",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 7 Aug 1997 20:26:28 +0200 (MET DST)"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00013.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 5 Aug 1997 18:18:27 +0200 (MET DST)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nJosephine Bosma wrote:\n> \n or with all those stupid masses \n> entering the net and spamming it.\n\n& leaving not enough space any more for the gifted & charismatic \navantgarde who deserves ruling the net, right?\n\nancient Greek anti/democrats such as Plato at least put the same notion \ninto a bit more polite form of expression: \"hoi polloi\" denoting \"the \nmany\".\n(The denunciation is just in the rhyme: Greeks despised rhymes as being \ntasteless & child/like) \n\nPost/scrypt: dots are elitist (top level domain). The age of slashes is \ndawning.\ncu\nErich\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Erich Moechel <erich-moechel {AT} apanet.at>",
|
||
"author_name": "Erich Moechel",
|
||
"message-id": "33E7168C.323A {AT} apanet.at",
|
||
"id": "00014",
|
||
"to": "Josephine Bosma <jesis {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00014.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 05 Aug 1997 12:03:24 +0000"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\n\n\nbut never forget the humble yet hard|cOre square bracket\n\nfor net cred\n\n[DoLL]\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "francesca da rimini <gashgirl {AT} sysx.apana.org.au>",
|
||
"author_name": "francesca da rimini",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.LNX.3.95.970806122845.18109A-100000 {AT} sysx.apana.org.au",
|
||
"id": "00018",
|
||
"to": "Erich Moechel <erich-moechel {AT} apanet.at>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00018.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 6 Aug 1997 12:29:33 +1000 (EST)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\n\nNow, ah, it's dot.fear, not just fear - which reminds me of the psycho-\nanalytical attempts to negotiate addictions (computer addiction disorder,\ngambling disorder, etc.) - all of which effaces the underlying causes in\nthe guise of the surface. \n\nThe point is, that the \"Net\" is _not_ a medium, but as sloppy as tele-\nphony or television (cable, vcr, camcorder, satellite, network, ham, etc.\netc.). And that . simply (simply) reifies / inscribes a confluence of\npractices which can't help but exclude others. \n\nAnd no, I use the word \"cyber\" a lot, and it's not a question of dot.fear\nor any other sort of fear.\n\nIt's the need to _deconstruct_ these stances in the first place.\n\nAlan\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Alan J Sondheim <sondheim {AT} panix.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "Alan J Sondheim",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.SUN.3.95.970805135302.10219T-100000 {AT} panix3.panix.com",
|
||
"id": "00015",
|
||
"to": "Josephine Bosma <jesis {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00015.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 5 Aug 1997 13:55:49 -0400 (EDT)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\njesis {AT} xs4all.nl (Tue 08/05/97 at 06:18 PM +0200):\n\n> Dot.fear \n\nFear? This is a bit presumptuous, yes?\n\nErich's suggestion, IIRC, that dots connote hierarchy was correct, I\nthink--but more than that, they suggest a *path*. This is new in the\nrealm of punctuation: a way to join names that leaves a trace of how \nyou move through them, rather than just stringing them together (the \nhyphen), denoting a range (an endash), interjecting a pause or loose \nconnection (an emdash), or inserting an explanation (()). To dismiss\nthis as \"hierarchical\" misses the point, though, because hierarchies\nare not inherently bad. They *are* necessarily a means or method for\norganization and, as such, a modality of power; but an aspect of pow-\ner is the way it makes priorities manifest, and so we should have or\nfind ways to express this in language. That's why the dot's an excel-\nlent thing--an innovative way, within the limits of ASCII, to convey\na very basic idea, the path--historical, taxonomic, experiential--by\nwhich a complex object was constructed. \n\nI began to think about this some years ago when I was talking with a\nfriend about the history of punctuation. Punctuation is a fairly new\nconcept in the history of human inscription; even if you were to lim-\nit your field to the history of \"writing,\" punctuation has only been\naround for a fairly short time, and yet it has come to play a *huge*\nrole in structuring the way we express ideas. What is interesting is\nthat there have been many, many more innovations in punctuation than\nin phonetic and alphanumeric typography since the advent of moveable \ntype: in fact, the tendency to \"freeze\" language in material forms--\nas transmitted fonts, as standardized spellings--has, I think, shift-\ned the focus of innovation from vocal phenomena to logical relations.\nAnd the codification of a \"standard set\" of linguistic components in\ndigital forms--for example, the ASCII character set--has only frozen\nlanguage that much more; that's why UNICODE, which includes mathemat-\nical notations as well as a number of non-Western notational systems\n--has been developed. But, like ASCII, it too is just a codification\nof what already *is*--and, as such, it will serve to prevent the dev-\nelopment of completely new elements. Under the circumstances, the re-\nappropriation--in function (path.notation) and in name (\"dot\" rather\nthan \"period\" or \"full stop\")--of a \"given\" element is actually very\nimportant. \n \n> or with all those stupid masses entering the net and spamming it. \n\nThis is pretty rude and stupid, imo.\n\nerich-moechel {AT} apanet.at (Tue 08/05/97 at 12:03 PM +0000):\n\n> The age of slashes is dawning.\n\n*Where* were you in the eighties? The $#%&ing slash colonized all of\nacademic thought. As a friend of mine said, it has become \"the whore\nof punctuation.\"\n\nTed\n-- \n\"It was in the nineteenth century that each person began to have the right \n to his little box for his little personal decomposition.\" --M. Foucault\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "t byfield <tbyfield {AT} panix.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "t byfield",
|
||
"message-id": "19970807022747.22827 {AT} panix.com",
|
||
"id": "00031",
|
||
"to": "Nettime <nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00031.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 7 Aug 1997 02:27:47 -0400"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\n\nIf we think of dots as path, there are precedents - think of Celine's\nthree dots, for example - or the sequencing of dashes in Emily Dickin-\nsons' work - or for that matter, the use of the dash in Tristan Shandy.\n\nIn all of these, the dots/dashes relate the text to the body, pause,\nexhaustion, exhale, but like any ellipsis, there is the premise of the\ninterminable path as well.\n\nThis is not an idle comment; it is antithetical, in fact, to the comb/\ntree structure implied by the Net address dot hierarchy. The latter is\nstatus, the former, as in what _might_ be conveyed by dot.fear, is pro-\ncess. Now both, interestingly enough, are performative - the Net path\nshuttles/filters/routes addresses, while the other, literary, forms,\nconstruct phraseology, the breath of the reader. \n\nWhile early punctuation is often absent (although consider the division\nlines in cuneiform, etc.), determinative elements (in Sumerian for ex-\nample) are not, and provide other means of orienting readers.\n\nAlan\n\nURL: http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~spoons/internet_txt.html\nMIRROR with other pages at: http://www.anu.edu.au/english/internet_txt\nIMAGES: http://www.cs.unca.edu/~davidson/pix/ TEL 718-857-3671\nEXPERIMENTAL (on and off): http://166.84.250.149 Editor, BEING ON LINE\n \n\n\n\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Alan J Sondheim <sondheim {AT} panix.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "Alan J Sondheim",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.SUN.3.95.970807024214.18636A-100000 {AT} panix3.panix.com",
|
||
"id": "00032",
|
||
"to": "t byfield <tbyfield {AT} panix.com>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00032.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 7 Aug 1997 02:48:12 -0400 (EDT)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nAlan J Sondheim wrote:\n> \n> This is not an idle comment; it is antithetical, in fact, \n> to the comb/tree structure implied by the Net address \n> dot hierarchy. The latter is status, the former, as in \n> what _might_ be conveyed by dot.fear, is pro-cess. Now \n> both, interestingly enough, are performative - the Net \n> path shuttles/filters/routes addresses, while the other, \n> literary, forms, construct phraseology, the breath of \n> the reader.\n\nThe dearly dreaded dot de-abstracts. In object-oriented programming\n(OOP), for example, the verbalism on the left side of a dot represents\nan \"object\" and that which stands on the right side describes an\n\"attribute\" or \"method.\" In net.lingo, the right side subordinately\nqualifies a general concept on the left side. Left and right serve as\n\"positional qualifiers.\" In either context, the right side\n*particularizes* something about the generalism on the left side.\n\nIn these contexts, the poor dot cannot shed its role as a servant/symbol\nof hierarchy. You evaluate this result as either fortunate or\nunfortunate, depending on what you're trying to accomplish.\n\nWhat about the ordering of your abstraction? Are you feeling dot.fear\nor fear.dot? \n\nThen, again, should you say, \"I am a net.citizen,\" or, \"I am a\ncitizen.net? Neither. The use of any form of the verb, \"to be,\" in\nsuch verbalisms drags you into the well-known and dangerous semantic\nerror of \"identification.\" E-Prime, a variant of English invented by D.\nDavid Bourland, offers good discipline and can raise your resistance to\nthis dis-ease.\n\nKorzybskian general semantics, of course, warns us to retain\nconsciousness of *all* of our abstractions, to maintain awareness of\ntheir \"order,\" and to identify hazardous \"multi-ordinal\" terms. General\nsemantics also provides some \"extensional\" methods to help us avoid such\nsemantic errors in order to maintain some sense of sanity.\n\nWe certainly need global.sanity! Or is that sanity.global?\n\nJohn\n\n-- \n------------------------------------------------------------------------\nPeople | John E. Tobler cyberjet {AT} cheerful.com | Music\nUnology | John Tobler & Assoc. FEF Information Systems | Writing\nSystems | Visit Cyberjet's Hyperport |OOA/OOD/OOP\nC++/Java | http://www.fefis.org/home/johnt/ | Python\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n If there still is such a thing as a zeitgeist, then it definitely\n is the screen based GAME. -- Cãlin Dan\n========================================================================\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "John Tobler <unologist {AT} geocities.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "John Tobler",
|
||
"message-id": "33EA0424.C3470DF2 {AT} geocities.com",
|
||
"id": "00036",
|
||
"to": "Alan J Sondheim <sondheim {AT} panix.com>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00036.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 07 Aug 1997 12:21:40 -0500"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nOn Thu, 7 Aug 1997, t byfield wrote:\n\n> ... Erich's suggestion, IIRC, that dots connote hierarchy was \n> correct, I think--but more than that, they suggest a *path*...\n\nThe 'forward slash' usually indicates a path/\n\nAnd then there is the 'reverse solidus' after which my web-site is named.\n\nI currently reside between the pictorial dots in Wired.\n\nThe lumpen ranks of alienated citizens are swelling.\n\nThe social imperative is to think anew rather than retreat inward. \n\nLike it or not, this will require people to reimagine themselves as social\nbeings on a larger stage, not helpless cogs in an awesome market system,\nand to glimpse the all-encompassing possibilities that the global\nrevolution has put before them. The challenge is not to abandon old\nidentities and deeply held values, but to enlarge them. If capitalism is\nnow truly global, what are the global social obligations that accompany\nit? \n\n--\n\n{ brad brace } <<<< bbrace {AT} netcom.com >>>> ~finger for pgp\n\nThe_12hr-ISBN-JPEG_Project ftp.netcom.com/pub/bb/bbrace\n continuous hypermodern ftp.teleport.com/users/bbrace\n imagery online ftp.rdrop.com/pub/users/bbrace\n all-the-time ftp.pacifier.com/pub/users/bbrace\n--\nUsenet-news: alt.binaries.pictures.12hr/ a.b.p.fine-art.misc\nMailing-list: listserv {AT} netcom.com / subscribe 12hr-isbn-jpeg\nReverse Solidus: http://www.teleport.com/~bbrace/bbrace.html\n\n--\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "{ brad brace } <bbrace {AT} netcom.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "{ brad brace }",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.3.89.9708070843.A24264-0100000 {AT} netcom10",
|
||
"id": "00035",
|
||
"to": "Nettime <nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00035.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 7 Aug 1997 08:26:04 -0700 (PDT)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\nOn Tue, 5 Aug 1997, Josephine Bosma wrote:\n\n> [...] i love the dot. I use it a lot. I see no restriction in it\n> whatsoever, no barrier or limits. Quite the opposite.\n> \n> The dot represents what words cannot say what is different about\n> working in this new environment, while being connected to the so\n> called real world and its history. To me the dot is almost poetic\n> in its release of energy [...]\n\nsorry - i'm still one of the ':'-addicts - this canonical form of\n(political:art)-expression - part of the local austrian culture(-history?)\n(-> \"peresepolis:zelten\", \"hunger:biafra\", berlin:anmaeuerln\"...) - and\nit's '/'-neighbourhood like the \"a/traverso\"-theory+movement from italy.\n\nthis poetic form - the \"Konstellation\" (constellation) - has a long\ntradition and it's development was strong related to other visual-media\n(jap. wood-engrafing, film-editing-technics...) but after it's exploding\napplication beetween the 60s and 80s it's hard to find anymore. \n\nto use the dot this way (that's how i read your: \"net.art\" and\n\"girl.friend\") is IHMO not very usefull. well - in the example \"net.time\",\nit maybe a nice way to emphasisze some difference of it's object to more\nradical but outdated forms of controversion - but in most cases the ':'\nand '/' leads to more tension and dialectic vision... \n\nto see the dot-notation as a construct of hierarchys seems much more\nattractive to me. it doesn't hide the origin of most newer '.'-words and\nopens a new field of tactical operation. thinking about this kind of\ndot-usage, i see the necasserity to escape the simple pseudo-realism of\naddress- and directory-space - searching for some more abstract form like\nin most newer class-naming-conventions. the most significant difference\nbeetwen this two dot-constructs you'll find the order of their elements. \nthe class-form usualy looks somehow mirrored to the suspected\naddress-form. \n\nmash\n\nPS: what to do with this strict \"<CR>.<CR>\"-usage described in RFC821 ;-) \n\n\n==========================================================================\n University of Graz - Computerlab at the Department for Humanities\n Forum Stadtpark Graz - Department for new media and electronic art\n Martin Schitter\n (finger mash {AT} gewi.kfunigraz.ac.at for PGP-key)\n==========================================================================\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Martin Schitter <mash {AT} gewi.kfunigraz.ac.at>",
|
||
"author_name": "Martin Schitter",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.LNX.3.96.970807173351.7271B-100000 {AT} client6.local",
|
||
"id": "00038",
|
||
"to": "Josephine Bosma <jesis {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00038.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> <foo>.n",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 7 Aug 1997 20:26:28 +0200 (MET DST)"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00010.html",
|
||
"subject": "<nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 5 Aug 1997 05:39:38 -0400 (EDT)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nI had a big fat smile on my face reading Alans mail. It was about to\nhappen, this attack on the .dot, or . or dot. As some of my friends\nknow, I love the dot. I use it a lot. I see no restriction in it\nwhatsoever, no barrier or limits. Quite the opposite.\n\nThe dot represents what words cannot say what is different about\nworking in this new environment, while being connected to the so\ncalled real world and its history. To me the dot is almost poetic\nin its release of energy (in this new age times not a wise word to\nuse, I know) and like the language of poetry and the attempts of\nwriters like Irigaray it adds sounds that are unheard, it does not\nsilence.\n\nDot.fear comes from irritation, and it seems to me the same kind of\nirritation that people have with the word cyber (I collect objects\nwith that word on it, the popular kitsch approach of future visions\non streetwear and such, great stuff), or with all those stupid masses\nentering the net and spamming it. Removing the dot, like some critics\npersistingly do when writing about net.art, is like denying history.\nIt is falsification.\n\n\ncheers\n\n\nJ\n*\nps: one of the best uses of the dot lately is this one: girl.friend\nthis is something completely other then girlfriend, and eventhough\nthe dot in this case does stand for personal restrictions or barriers\nit does widen the meaning of the word to fit what it means in net.relations\nsome of you might get the drift.\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Josephine Bosma <jesis {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"author_name": "Josephine Bosma",
|
||
"message-id": "l03010d01b00d18b63ed2 {AT} [194.109.47.50]",
|
||
"id": "00013",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nJosephine Bosma wrote:\n> \n or with all those stupid masses \n> entering the net and spamming it.\n\n& leaving not enough space any more for the gifted & charismatic \navantgarde who deserves ruling the net, right?\n\nancient Greek anti/democrats such as Plato at least put the same notion \ninto a bit more polite form of expression: \"hoi polloi\" denoting \"the \nmany\".\n(The denunciation is just in the rhyme: Greeks despised rhymes as being \ntasteless & child/like) \n\nPost/scrypt: dots are elitist (top level domain). The age of slashes is \ndawning.\ncu\nErich\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Erich Moechel <erich-moechel {AT} apanet.at>",
|
||
"author_name": "Erich Moechel",
|
||
"message-id": "33E7168C.323A {AT} apanet.at",
|
||
"id": "00014",
|
||
"to": "Josephine Bosma <jesis {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00014.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 05 Aug 1997 12:03:24 +0000"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\n\n\nbut never forget the humble yet hard|cOre square bracket\n\nfor net cred\n\n[DoLL]\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "francesca da rimini <gashgirl {AT} sysx.apana.org.au>",
|
||
"author_name": "francesca da rimini",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.LNX.3.95.970806122845.18109A-100000 {AT} sysx.apana.org.au",
|
||
"id": "00018",
|
||
"to": "Erich Moechel <erich-moechel {AT} apanet.at>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00018.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 6 Aug 1997 12:29:33 +1000 (EST)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\n\nNow, ah, it's dot.fear, not just fear - which reminds me of the psycho-\nanalytical attempts to negotiate addictions (computer addiction disorder,\ngambling disorder, etc.) - all of which effaces the underlying causes in\nthe guise of the surface. \n\nThe point is, that the \"Net\" is _not_ a medium, but as sloppy as tele-\nphony or television (cable, vcr, camcorder, satellite, network, ham, etc.\netc.). And that . simply (simply) reifies / inscribes a confluence of\npractices which can't help but exclude others. \n\nAnd no, I use the word \"cyber\" a lot, and it's not a question of dot.fear\nor any other sort of fear.\n\nIt's the need to _deconstruct_ these stances in the first place.\n\nAlan\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Alan J Sondheim <sondheim {AT} panix.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "Alan J Sondheim",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.SUN.3.95.970805135302.10219T-100000 {AT} panix3.panix.com",
|
||
"id": "00015",
|
||
"to": "Josephine Bosma <jesis {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00015.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 5 Aug 1997 13:55:49 -0400 (EDT)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\njesis {AT} xs4all.nl (Tue 08/05/97 at 06:18 PM +0200):\n\n> Dot.fear \n\nFear? This is a bit presumptuous, yes?\n\nErich's suggestion, IIRC, that dots connote hierarchy was correct, I\nthink--but more than that, they suggest a *path*. This is new in the\nrealm of punctuation: a way to join names that leaves a trace of how \nyou move through them, rather than just stringing them together (the \nhyphen), denoting a range (an endash), interjecting a pause or loose \nconnection (an emdash), or inserting an explanation (()). To dismiss\nthis as \"hierarchical\" misses the point, though, because hierarchies\nare not inherently bad. They *are* necessarily a means or method for\norganization and, as such, a modality of power; but an aspect of pow-\ner is the way it makes priorities manifest, and so we should have or\nfind ways to express this in language. That's why the dot's an excel-\nlent thing--an innovative way, within the limits of ASCII, to convey\na very basic idea, the path--historical, taxonomic, experiential--by\nwhich a complex object was constructed. \n\nI began to think about this some years ago when I was talking with a\nfriend about the history of punctuation. Punctuation is a fairly new\nconcept in the history of human inscription; even if you were to lim-\nit your field to the history of \"writing,\" punctuation has only been\naround for a fairly short time, and yet it has come to play a *huge*\nrole in structuring the way we express ideas. What is interesting is\nthat there have been many, many more innovations in punctuation than\nin phonetic and alphanumeric typography since the advent of moveable \ntype: in fact, the tendency to \"freeze\" language in material forms--\nas transmitted fonts, as standardized spellings--has, I think, shift-\ned the focus of innovation from vocal phenomena to logical relations.\nAnd the codification of a \"standard set\" of linguistic components in\ndigital forms--for example, the ASCII character set--has only frozen\nlanguage that much more; that's why UNICODE, which includes mathemat-\nical notations as well as a number of non-Western notational systems\n--has been developed. But, like ASCII, it too is just a codification\nof what already *is*--and, as such, it will serve to prevent the dev-\nelopment of completely new elements. Under the circumstances, the re-\nappropriation--in function (path.notation) and in name (\"dot\" rather\nthan \"period\" or \"full stop\")--of a \"given\" element is actually very\nimportant. \n \n> or with all those stupid masses entering the net and spamming it. \n\nThis is pretty rude and stupid, imo.\n\nerich-moechel {AT} apanet.at (Tue 08/05/97 at 12:03 PM +0000):\n\n> The age of slashes is dawning.\n\n*Where* were you in the eighties? The $#%&ing slash colonized all of\nacademic thought. As a friend of mine said, it has become \"the whore\nof punctuation.\"\n\nTed\n-- \n\"It was in the nineteenth century that each person began to have the right \n to his little box for his little personal decomposition.\" --M. Foucault\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "t byfield <tbyfield {AT} panix.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "t byfield",
|
||
"message-id": "19970807022747.22827 {AT} panix.com",
|
||
"id": "00031",
|
||
"to": "Nettime <nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00031.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 7 Aug 1997 02:27:47 -0400"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\n\nIf we think of dots as path, there are precedents - think of Celine's\nthree dots, for example - or the sequencing of dashes in Emily Dickin-\nsons' work - or for that matter, the use of the dash in Tristan Shandy.\n\nIn all of these, the dots/dashes relate the text to the body, pause,\nexhaustion, exhale, but like any ellipsis, there is the premise of the\ninterminable path as well.\n\nThis is not an idle comment; it is antithetical, in fact, to the comb/\ntree structure implied by the Net address dot hierarchy. The latter is\nstatus, the former, as in what _might_ be conveyed by dot.fear, is pro-\ncess. Now both, interestingly enough, are performative - the Net path\nshuttles/filters/routes addresses, while the other, literary, forms,\nconstruct phraseology, the breath of the reader. \n\nWhile early punctuation is often absent (although consider the division\nlines in cuneiform, etc.), determinative elements (in Sumerian for ex-\nample) are not, and provide other means of orienting readers.\n\nAlan\n\nURL: http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~spoons/internet_txt.html\nMIRROR with other pages at: http://www.anu.edu.au/english/internet_txt\nIMAGES: http://www.cs.unca.edu/~davidson/pix/ TEL 718-857-3671\nEXPERIMENTAL (on and off): http://166.84.250.149 Editor, BEING ON LINE\n \n\n\n\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Alan J Sondheim <sondheim {AT} panix.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "Alan J Sondheim",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.SUN.3.95.970807024214.18636A-100000 {AT} panix3.panix.com",
|
||
"id": "00032",
|
||
"to": "t byfield <tbyfield {AT} panix.com>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00032.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 7 Aug 1997 02:48:12 -0400 (EDT)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nAlan J Sondheim wrote:\n> \n> This is not an idle comment; it is antithetical, in fact, \n> to the comb/tree structure implied by the Net address \n> dot hierarchy. The latter is status, the former, as in \n> what _might_ be conveyed by dot.fear, is pro-cess. Now \n> both, interestingly enough, are performative - the Net \n> path shuttles/filters/routes addresses, while the other, \n> literary, forms, construct phraseology, the breath of \n> the reader.\n\nThe dearly dreaded dot de-abstracts. In object-oriented programming\n(OOP), for example, the verbalism on the left side of a dot represents\nan \"object\" and that which stands on the right side describes an\n\"attribute\" or \"method.\" In net.lingo, the right side subordinately\nqualifies a general concept on the left side. Left and right serve as\n\"positional qualifiers.\" In either context, the right side\n*particularizes* something about the generalism on the left side.\n\nIn these contexts, the poor dot cannot shed its role as a servant/symbol\nof hierarchy. You evaluate this result as either fortunate or\nunfortunate, depending on what you're trying to accomplish.\n\nWhat about the ordering of your abstraction? Are you feeling dot.fear\nor fear.dot? \n\nThen, again, should you say, \"I am a net.citizen,\" or, \"I am a\ncitizen.net? Neither. The use of any form of the verb, \"to be,\" in\nsuch verbalisms drags you into the well-known and dangerous semantic\nerror of \"identification.\" E-Prime, a variant of English invented by D.\nDavid Bourland, offers good discipline and can raise your resistance to\nthis dis-ease.\n\nKorzybskian general semantics, of course, warns us to retain\nconsciousness of *all* of our abstractions, to maintain awareness of\ntheir \"order,\" and to identify hazardous \"multi-ordinal\" terms. General\nsemantics also provides some \"extensional\" methods to help us avoid such\nsemantic errors in order to maintain some sense of sanity.\n\nWe certainly need global.sanity! Or is that sanity.global?\n\nJohn\n\n-- \n------------------------------------------------------------------------\nPeople | John E. Tobler cyberjet {AT} cheerful.com | Music\nUnology | John Tobler & Assoc. FEF Information Systems | Writing\nSystems | Visit Cyberjet's Hyperport |OOA/OOD/OOP\nC++/Java | http://www.fefis.org/home/johnt/ | Python\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n If there still is such a thing as a zeitgeist, then it definitely\n is the screen based GAME. -- Cãlin Dan\n========================================================================\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "John Tobler <unologist {AT} geocities.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "John Tobler",
|
||
"message-id": "33EA0424.C3470DF2 {AT} geocities.com",
|
||
"id": "00036",
|
||
"to": "Alan J Sondheim <sondheim {AT} panix.com>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00036.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 07 Aug 1997 12:21:40 -0500"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nOn Thu, 7 Aug 1997, t byfield wrote:\n\n> ... Erich's suggestion, IIRC, that dots connote hierarchy was \n> correct, I think--but more than that, they suggest a *path*...\n\nThe 'forward slash' usually indicates a path/\n\nAnd then there is the 'reverse solidus' after which my web-site is named.\n\nI currently reside between the pictorial dots in Wired.\n\nThe lumpen ranks of alienated citizens are swelling.\n\nThe social imperative is to think anew rather than retreat inward. \n\nLike it or not, this will require people to reimagine themselves as social\nbeings on a larger stage, not helpless cogs in an awesome market system,\nand to glimpse the all-encompassing possibilities that the global\nrevolution has put before them. The challenge is not to abandon old\nidentities and deeply held values, but to enlarge them. If capitalism is\nnow truly global, what are the global social obligations that accompany\nit? \n\n--\n\n{ brad brace } <<<< bbrace {AT} netcom.com >>>> ~finger for pgp\n\nThe_12hr-ISBN-JPEG_Project ftp.netcom.com/pub/bb/bbrace\n continuous hypermodern ftp.teleport.com/users/bbrace\n imagery online ftp.rdrop.com/pub/users/bbrace\n all-the-time ftp.pacifier.com/pub/users/bbrace\n--\nUsenet-news: alt.binaries.pictures.12hr/ a.b.p.fine-art.misc\nMailing-list: listserv {AT} netcom.com / subscribe 12hr-isbn-jpeg\nReverse Solidus: http://www.teleport.com/~bbrace/bbrace.html\n\n--\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "{ brad brace } <bbrace {AT} netcom.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "{ brad brace }",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.3.89.9708070843.A24264-0100000 {AT} netcom10",
|
||
"id": "00035",
|
||
"to": "Nettime <nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00035.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 7 Aug 1997 08:26:04 -0700 (PDT)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\nOn Tue, 5 Aug 1997, Josephine Bosma wrote:\n\n> [...] i love the dot. I use it a lot. I see no restriction in it\n> whatsoever, no barrier or limits. Quite the opposite.\n> \n> The dot represents what words cannot say what is different about\n> working in this new environment, while being connected to the so\n> called real world and its history. To me the dot is almost poetic\n> in its release of energy [...]\n\nsorry - i'm still one of the ':'-addicts - this canonical form of\n(political:art)-expression - part of the local austrian culture(-history?)\n(-> \"peresepolis:zelten\", \"hunger:biafra\", berlin:anmaeuerln\"...) - and\nit's '/'-neighbourhood like the \"a/traverso\"-theory+movement from italy.\n\nthis poetic form - the \"Konstellation\" (constellation) - has a long\ntradition and it's development was strong related to other visual-media\n(jap. wood-engrafing, film-editing-technics...) but after it's exploding\napplication beetween the 60s and 80s it's hard to find anymore. \n\nto use the dot this way (that's how i read your: \"net.art\" and\n\"girl.friend\") is IHMO not very usefull. well - in the example \"net.time\",\nit maybe a nice way to emphasisze some difference of it's object to more\nradical but outdated forms of controversion - but in most cases the ':'\nand '/' leads to more tension and dialectic vision... \n\nto see the dot-notation as a construct of hierarchys seems much more\nattractive to me. it doesn't hide the origin of most newer '.'-words and\nopens a new field of tactical operation. thinking about this kind of\ndot-usage, i see the necasserity to escape the simple pseudo-realism of\naddress- and directory-space - searching for some more abstract form like\nin most newer class-naming-conventions. the most significant difference\nbeetwen this two dot-constructs you'll find the order of their elements. \nthe class-form usualy looks somehow mirrored to the suspected\naddress-form. \n\nmash\n\nPS: what to do with this strict \"<CR>.<CR>\"-usage described in RFC821 ;-) \n\n\n==========================================================================\n University of Graz - Computerlab at the Department for Humanities\n Forum Stadtpark Graz - Department for new media and electronic art\n Martin Schitter\n (finger mash {AT} gewi.kfunigraz.ac.at for PGP-key)\n==========================================================================\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Martin Schitter <mash {AT} gewi.kfunigraz.ac.at>",
|
||
"author_name": "Martin Schitter",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.LNX.3.96.970807173351.7271B-100000 {AT} client6.local",
|
||
"id": "00038",
|
||
"to": "Josephine Bosma <jesis {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00038.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> <foo>.n",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 7 Aug 1997 20:26:28 +0200 (MET DST)"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00013.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 5 Aug 1997 18:18:27 +0200 (MET DST)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nJosephine Bosma wrote:\n> \n or with all those stupid masses \n> entering the net and spamming it.\n\n& leaving not enough space any more for the gifted & charismatic \navantgarde who deserves ruling the net, right?\n\nancient Greek anti/democrats such as Plato at least put the same notion \ninto a bit more polite form of expression: \"hoi polloi\" denoting \"the \nmany\".\n(The denunciation is just in the rhyme: Greeks despised rhymes as being \ntasteless & child/like) \n\nPost/scrypt: dots are elitist (top level domain). The age of slashes is \ndawning.\ncu\nErich\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Erich Moechel <erich-moechel {AT} apanet.at>",
|
||
"author_name": "Erich Moechel",
|
||
"message-id": "33E7168C.323A {AT} apanet.at",
|
||
"id": "00014",
|
||
"to": "Josephine Bosma <jesis {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00014.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 05 Aug 1997 12:03:24 +0000"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\n\n\nbut never forget the humble yet hard|cOre square bracket\n\nfor net cred\n\n[DoLL]\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "francesca da rimini <gashgirl {AT} sysx.apana.org.au>",
|
||
"author_name": "francesca da rimini",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.LNX.3.95.970806122845.18109A-100000 {AT} sysx.apana.org.au",
|
||
"id": "00018",
|
||
"to": "Erich Moechel <erich-moechel {AT} apanet.at>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00018.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 6 Aug 1997 12:29:33 +1000 (EST)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\n\nNow, ah, it's dot.fear, not just fear - which reminds me of the psycho-\nanalytical attempts to negotiate addictions (computer addiction disorder,\ngambling disorder, etc.) - all of which effaces the underlying causes in\nthe guise of the surface. \n\nThe point is, that the \"Net\" is _not_ a medium, but as sloppy as tele-\nphony or television (cable, vcr, camcorder, satellite, network, ham, etc.\netc.). And that . simply (simply) reifies / inscribes a confluence of\npractices which can't help but exclude others. \n\nAnd no, I use the word \"cyber\" a lot, and it's not a question of dot.fear\nor any other sort of fear.\n\nIt's the need to _deconstruct_ these stances in the first place.\n\nAlan\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Alan J Sondheim <sondheim {AT} panix.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "Alan J Sondheim",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.SUN.3.95.970805135302.10219T-100000 {AT} panix3.panix.com",
|
||
"id": "00015",
|
||
"to": "Josephine Bosma <jesis {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00015.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 5 Aug 1997 13:55:49 -0400 (EDT)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\njesis {AT} xs4all.nl (Tue 08/05/97 at 06:18 PM +0200):\n\n> Dot.fear \n\nFear? This is a bit presumptuous, yes?\n\nErich's suggestion, IIRC, that dots connote hierarchy was correct, I\nthink--but more than that, they suggest a *path*. This is new in the\nrealm of punctuation: a way to join names that leaves a trace of how \nyou move through them, rather than just stringing them together (the \nhyphen), denoting a range (an endash), interjecting a pause or loose \nconnection (an emdash), or inserting an explanation (()). To dismiss\nthis as \"hierarchical\" misses the point, though, because hierarchies\nare not inherently bad. They *are* necessarily a means or method for\norganization and, as such, a modality of power; but an aspect of pow-\ner is the way it makes priorities manifest, and so we should have or\nfind ways to express this in language. That's why the dot's an excel-\nlent thing--an innovative way, within the limits of ASCII, to convey\na very basic idea, the path--historical, taxonomic, experiential--by\nwhich a complex object was constructed. \n\nI began to think about this some years ago when I was talking with a\nfriend about the history of punctuation. Punctuation is a fairly new\nconcept in the history of human inscription; even if you were to lim-\nit your field to the history of \"writing,\" punctuation has only been\naround for a fairly short time, and yet it has come to play a *huge*\nrole in structuring the way we express ideas. What is interesting is\nthat there have been many, many more innovations in punctuation than\nin phonetic and alphanumeric typography since the advent of moveable \ntype: in fact, the tendency to \"freeze\" language in material forms--\nas transmitted fonts, as standardized spellings--has, I think, shift-\ned the focus of innovation from vocal phenomena to logical relations.\nAnd the codification of a \"standard set\" of linguistic components in\ndigital forms--for example, the ASCII character set--has only frozen\nlanguage that much more; that's why UNICODE, which includes mathemat-\nical notations as well as a number of non-Western notational systems\n--has been developed. But, like ASCII, it too is just a codification\nof what already *is*--and, as such, it will serve to prevent the dev-\nelopment of completely new elements. Under the circumstances, the re-\nappropriation--in function (path.notation) and in name (\"dot\" rather\nthan \"period\" or \"full stop\")--of a \"given\" element is actually very\nimportant. \n \n> or with all those stupid masses entering the net and spamming it. \n\nThis is pretty rude and stupid, imo.\n\nerich-moechel {AT} apanet.at (Tue 08/05/97 at 12:03 PM +0000):\n\n> The age of slashes is dawning.\n\n*Where* were you in the eighties? The $#%&ing slash colonized all of\nacademic thought. As a friend of mine said, it has become \"the whore\nof punctuation.\"\n\nTed\n-- \n\"It was in the nineteenth century that each person began to have the right \n to his little box for his little personal decomposition.\" --M. Foucault\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "t byfield <tbyfield {AT} panix.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "t byfield",
|
||
"message-id": "19970807022747.22827 {AT} panix.com",
|
||
"id": "00031",
|
||
"to": "Nettime <nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00031.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 7 Aug 1997 02:27:47 -0400"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\n\nIf we think of dots as path, there are precedents - think of Celine's\nthree dots, for example - or the sequencing of dashes in Emily Dickin-\nsons' work - or for that matter, the use of the dash in Tristan Shandy.\n\nIn all of these, the dots/dashes relate the text to the body, pause,\nexhaustion, exhale, but like any ellipsis, there is the premise of the\ninterminable path as well.\n\nThis is not an idle comment; it is antithetical, in fact, to the comb/\ntree structure implied by the Net address dot hierarchy. The latter is\nstatus, the former, as in what _might_ be conveyed by dot.fear, is pro-\ncess. Now both, interestingly enough, are performative - the Net path\nshuttles/filters/routes addresses, while the other, literary, forms,\nconstruct phraseology, the breath of the reader. \n\nWhile early punctuation is often absent (although consider the division\nlines in cuneiform, etc.), determinative elements (in Sumerian for ex-\nample) are not, and provide other means of orienting readers.\n\nAlan\n\nURL: http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~spoons/internet_txt.html\nMIRROR with other pages at: http://www.anu.edu.au/english/internet_txt\nIMAGES: http://www.cs.unca.edu/~davidson/pix/ TEL 718-857-3671\nEXPERIMENTAL (on and off): http://166.84.250.149 Editor, BEING ON LINE\n \n\n\n\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Alan J Sondheim <sondheim {AT} panix.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "Alan J Sondheim",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.SUN.3.95.970807024214.18636A-100000 {AT} panix3.panix.com",
|
||
"id": "00032",
|
||
"to": "t byfield <tbyfield {AT} panix.com>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00032.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 7 Aug 1997 02:48:12 -0400 (EDT)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nAlan J Sondheim wrote:\n> \n> This is not an idle comment; it is antithetical, in fact, \n> to the comb/tree structure implied by the Net address \n> dot hierarchy. The latter is status, the former, as in \n> what _might_ be conveyed by dot.fear, is pro-cess. Now \n> both, interestingly enough, are performative - the Net \n> path shuttles/filters/routes addresses, while the other, \n> literary, forms, construct phraseology, the breath of \n> the reader.\n\nThe dearly dreaded dot de-abstracts. In object-oriented programming\n(OOP), for example, the verbalism on the left side of a dot represents\nan \"object\" and that which stands on the right side describes an\n\"attribute\" or \"method.\" In net.lingo, the right side subordinately\nqualifies a general concept on the left side. Left and right serve as\n\"positional qualifiers.\" In either context, the right side\n*particularizes* something about the generalism on the left side.\n\nIn these contexts, the poor dot cannot shed its role as a servant/symbol\nof hierarchy. You evaluate this result as either fortunate or\nunfortunate, depending on what you're trying to accomplish.\n\nWhat about the ordering of your abstraction? Are you feeling dot.fear\nor fear.dot? \n\nThen, again, should you say, \"I am a net.citizen,\" or, \"I am a\ncitizen.net? Neither. The use of any form of the verb, \"to be,\" in\nsuch verbalisms drags you into the well-known and dangerous semantic\nerror of \"identification.\" E-Prime, a variant of English invented by D.\nDavid Bourland, offers good discipline and can raise your resistance to\nthis dis-ease.\n\nKorzybskian general semantics, of course, warns us to retain\nconsciousness of *all* of our abstractions, to maintain awareness of\ntheir \"order,\" and to identify hazardous \"multi-ordinal\" terms. General\nsemantics also provides some \"extensional\" methods to help us avoid such\nsemantic errors in order to maintain some sense of sanity.\n\nWe certainly need global.sanity! Or is that sanity.global?\n\nJohn\n\n-- \n------------------------------------------------------------------------\nPeople | John E. Tobler cyberjet {AT} cheerful.com | Music\nUnology | John Tobler & Assoc. FEF Information Systems | Writing\nSystems | Visit Cyberjet's Hyperport |OOA/OOD/OOP\nC++/Java | http://www.fefis.org/home/johnt/ | Python\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n If there still is such a thing as a zeitgeist, then it definitely\n is the screen based GAME. -- Cãlin Dan\n========================================================================\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "John Tobler <unologist {AT} geocities.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "John Tobler",
|
||
"message-id": "33EA0424.C3470DF2 {AT} geocities.com",
|
||
"id": "00036",
|
||
"to": "Alan J Sondheim <sondheim {AT} panix.com>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00036.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 07 Aug 1997 12:21:40 -0500"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nOn Thu, 7 Aug 1997, t byfield wrote:\n\n> ... Erich's suggestion, IIRC, that dots connote hierarchy was \n> correct, I think--but more than that, they suggest a *path*...\n\nThe 'forward slash' usually indicates a path/\n\nAnd then there is the 'reverse solidus' after which my web-site is named.\n\nI currently reside between the pictorial dots in Wired.\n\nThe lumpen ranks of alienated citizens are swelling.\n\nThe social imperative is to think anew rather than retreat inward. \n\nLike it or not, this will require people to reimagine themselves as social\nbeings on a larger stage, not helpless cogs in an awesome market system,\nand to glimpse the all-encompassing possibilities that the global\nrevolution has put before them. The challenge is not to abandon old\nidentities and deeply held values, but to enlarge them. If capitalism is\nnow truly global, what are the global social obligations that accompany\nit? \n\n--\n\n{ brad brace } <<<< bbrace {AT} netcom.com >>>> ~finger for pgp\n\nThe_12hr-ISBN-JPEG_Project ftp.netcom.com/pub/bb/bbrace\n continuous hypermodern ftp.teleport.com/users/bbrace\n imagery online ftp.rdrop.com/pub/users/bbrace\n all-the-time ftp.pacifier.com/pub/users/bbrace\n--\nUsenet-news: alt.binaries.pictures.12hr/ a.b.p.fine-art.misc\nMailing-list: listserv {AT} netcom.com / subscribe 12hr-isbn-jpeg\nReverse Solidus: http://www.teleport.com/~bbrace/bbrace.html\n\n--\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "{ brad brace } <bbrace {AT} netcom.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "{ brad brace }",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.3.89.9708070843.A24264-0100000 {AT} netcom10",
|
||
"id": "00035",
|
||
"to": "Nettime <nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00035.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> net.<foo>",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 7 Aug 1997 08:26:04 -0700 (PDT)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\nOn Tue, 5 Aug 1997, Josephine Bosma wrote:\n\n> [...] i love the dot. I use it a lot. I see no restriction in it\n> whatsoever, no barrier or limits. Quite the opposite.\n> \n> The dot represents what words cannot say what is different about\n> working in this new environment, while being connected to the so\n> called real world and its history. To me the dot is almost poetic\n> in its release of energy [...]\n\nsorry - i'm still one of the ':'-addicts - this canonical form of\n(political:art)-expression - part of the local austrian culture(-history?)\n(-> \"peresepolis:zelten\", \"hunger:biafra\", berlin:anmaeuerln\"...) - and\nit's '/'-neighbourhood like the \"a/traverso\"-theory+movement from italy.\n\nthis poetic form - the \"Konstellation\" (constellation) - has a long\ntradition and it's development was strong related to other visual-media\n(jap. wood-engrafing, film-editing-technics...) but after it's exploding\napplication beetween the 60s and 80s it's hard to find anymore. \n\nto use the dot this way (that's how i read your: \"net.art\" and\n\"girl.friend\") is IHMO not very usefull. well - in the example \"net.time\",\nit maybe a nice way to emphasisze some difference of it's object to more\nradical but outdated forms of controversion - but in most cases the ':'\nand '/' leads to more tension and dialectic vision... \n\nto see the dot-notation as a construct of hierarchys seems much more\nattractive to me. it doesn't hide the origin of most newer '.'-words and\nopens a new field of tactical operation. thinking about this kind of\ndot-usage, i see the necasserity to escape the simple pseudo-realism of\naddress- and directory-space - searching for some more abstract form like\nin most newer class-naming-conventions. the most significant difference\nbeetwen this two dot-constructs you'll find the order of their elements. \nthe class-form usualy looks somehow mirrored to the suspected\naddress-form. \n\nmash\n\nPS: what to do with this strict \"<CR>.<CR>\"-usage described in RFC821 ;-) \n\n\n==========================================================================\n University of Graz - Computerlab at the Department for Humanities\n Forum Stadtpark Graz - Department for new media and electronic art\n Martin Schitter\n (finger mash {AT} gewi.kfunigraz.ac.at for PGP-key)\n==========================================================================\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Martin Schitter <mash {AT} gewi.kfunigraz.ac.at>",
|
||
"author_name": "Martin Schitter",
|
||
"message-id": "Pine.LNX.3.96.970807173351.7271B-100000 {AT} client6.local",
|
||
"id": "00038",
|
||
"to": "Josephine Bosma <jesis {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9708/msg00038.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> <foo>.n",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 7 Aug 1997 20:26:28 +0200 (MET DST)"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"list": "nettime-l",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nNet.Art, Machines, and Parasites\n\nAndreas Broeckmann\n\n\n1. The electronic networks, most notably the Internet, are creating new\nartistic spaces which are currently being explored in a multiplicity of\nways. Alongside industrialists, designers and stock traders, artists are\nfascinated by the possibility of almost instantaneously transmitting and\nreceiving data on a world-wide scale - the 'world' in this case obviously\nbeing those parts of the globe which have an infrastructure of telephone\nlines, personal computers, modems and Internet providers. The World Wide\nWeb (WWW) with its hypertextual structure and multi-media possibilities is\nthe most prominent, though not the only domain of the new network art.\n There are a variety of network-based art practices that have\nalready existed prior to the popularisation of the Internet in the 1990s\nand that have used, for instance, the telephone network for live-audio\nperformances, or fax machines for the instant exchange of written and drawn\nmessages. In a similar way, mail art circles have, for more than 25 years,\nused the postal service which has allowed artists to stay in contact and\ncollaborate in a widely spread network of friends and colleagues.\n Time, space, speed, collective creativity and communication are the\nprimary themes of the projects that were realised in these fields. The use\nof computers in the electronic networks has added independent machine\nagency as an extra dimension of such practices: the communication and data\nexchange among networked computers in processes which are not controlled or\ninitiated by human actors, has taken on an aesthetic quality.[1]\n In the telematic spatial sound installation by the Austrian group\nx-space, 'Ping - Die Metrik der Zeit' (1994), for instance, sounds made in\nfront of a microphone were delayed by digital signal processors before they\nwere played over a set of loudspeakers in the same room. The time-lag\nbetween input and output was determined by the time that it took for a\ncertain data packet to be sent from the installation site in Austria via\nthe Internet to New Zealand and returned from there. This protocol is\ncalled Ping and is used regularly in electronic networks to check whether\nthere actually is a connection between two computers, and how fast this\nconnection is. Its speed depends on the amount of data traffic going on in\nthe network, as well as in the server computers at the nodes that the\nsignal has to pass through. Ping thus becomes a measure of time, distance\nand speed that is relative to the activity and communication on the\nnetwork: the acoustically created spatial dimension which can be\nexperienced in the installation room is dependent on an uncontrollable,\nmachinically induced process.\n Such a use of the technological disposition has become typical of\nsome of the art projects realised with digital media. They do not aim at a\nbeautiful or effective artistic expression, or at a convincing\nrepresentation of an abstract principle, but use the fact of machinic and\ninterpersonal communication across the network, the technological structure\nand functions of the network dispositive, and amplify, mock or playfully\nsubvert them.\n\n2. A number of artists and groups are currently concentrating on the World\nWide Web for this kind of work. The WWW is a protocol on the Internet that\nallows for an integrated transmission and presentation of textual, visual\nand audio material, mainly using graphically designed screen 'pages' as the\ninterface. This multi-medial quality, and the fact that the interactive\nfunctionality of the interfaces is rapidly expanding through the\ndevelopment of plug-ins, has meant that since its launch as a new mass\nmedium in 1993, the WWW has been embraced by media practitioners of every\nsort, artists, activists, companies, advertisers and media conglomerates,\nto communicate with their audience, present their products and entertain\nWWW users. Connectivity and bandwidth are still too small for the Web to be\na serious competitor for television, but there is a possibility that a lot\nof the mass communication that is currently being conducted via TV will, in\nthe future, be transported via the electronic networks.\n Whether this means that the quality of Web content will be as poor\nand as limited as that of television, will largely depend on the way in\nwhich the technological infrastructure of the networks will be developed.\nThe Internet has the potential for being a genuinely open, many-to-many\nmedium where every user can post his or her own contents which can then be\naccessed by all other users of the network. Practically, however, there is\nnow a real danger that this new public communication space gets squeezed by\ncommercial interests on the one hand (advertisers and broadcasters who want\npeople to consume rather than use the medium), and by government censorship\non the other (regulating what content is available to whom). It is\nimportant to understand that the development of the electronic networks as\nmedia for personal and artistic communication and expression is dependent\non the political and technological decisions that are now being taken, and\nthat it is necessary to demand open and flexible infrastructures in which\nprivate and non-commercial initiatives can flourish alongside the\ncommercial usages of the networks.\n\n3. This is the context in which a loose group of artists, almost a\nmovement, is currently realising projects under the name Net.Art. They are\nbased in various European countries, team up in real and virtual\ninstitutions like CERN, Netlab, the WWW Art Centre, etc., working locally\nas well as translocally, sometimes remotely and together on the same\nproject, at other times individually or with local collaborators. An\nimportant feature of projects realised on the WWW is that they can\nconstantly be updated and changed, so that there is never a ready and fixed\ncreation or 'work'. Net.Art works are temporary (though not necessarily\ntime-based) and as unstable as the networks themselves.\n At this moment, Net.Art is certainly in a transitory state, in\npermanent flux, and it will change and develop as its agents and\nenvironment change. The following is therefore a snapshot rather than an\nhistorical analysis.\n The main tool of Net.Art is the hyperlink through which one WWW\ndocument can be linked to another, no matter where on the Internet that\nsecond document is located. This means that (if we disregard the documents\nthat allow only restricted access) all the millions of documents on the WWW\nare potentially linkable, they belong to the same horizontal surface of\nmaterial, a felt of singularised objects, on which artists and designers\ncan draw. The WWW Art Medal project, for instance, consists of links to WWW\npages that are not meant to be 'art', but that have an 'arty' feeling to\nthem. These pages, often accidentally found, are awarded the WWW Art Medal\nand are complemented by pirated art critical quotations which describe what\nmay be seen as artistically valuable in the individual pages. The project\ncreates a distributed artistic space and exhibits 'objets trouvs' from the\nnetworks, diluting the boundary between intention, gesture,\ncollection/presentation, and object. The artistic practice, 'project' in\nthe literal sense of the word, is a sliding across the surface of the\nwebbed documents.\n In another project, Net.Art.Per.Se, the designs and images of\nexisting WWW sites of major media companies, search engines, etc., are used\nto contextualise a series of speculative statements about Net.Art. Net.Art\npresents itself as a hypothetical thread, as a possible trajectory through\nthe mediatic space. It incorporates and structures found material, and it\ninscribes itself into the expanses of the Web, tilting some of its smooth\nsurfaces, creating little channels in which the digital material can change\nthe direction of its flow.\n For the Refresh project, more than twenty WWW pages located on so\nmany different servers all across Europe and the US were linked together in\na loop through which the visitor would be 'zapped' automatically, one page\nfollowing the next after ten seconds. The project made use of the 'Refresh'\nmeta-tag, a command within HTML, the language that is used to design WWW\npages. The command tells the WWW browser software on the personal computer\nof the user to automatically go to a particular page after a certain time.\nBy making sure that all these links created a loop, Refresh would take you\nthrough all the pages over and over again. The project was exciting for\nthose immediately involved as they could experience how the loop grew page\nby page, while they were simultaneously communicating and negotiating via\nan IRC chat channel how to solve certain problems. More generally, the\nRefresh loop was designed to employ the interconnectivity of the computers\nand the software infrastructure to create one project that was\nsimultaneously happening at more than twenty different locations, a\ngenuinely distributed artwork whose experiential effect both depended on\nand transgressed the physical distance between the participants.\n\n4. The aesthetics of such projects is dependent not so much on the\nintention of a single or collective author, but on the process initiated by\nand within the complex machine of people, the network infrastructure,\ndesires, technical hardware, design tools, interfaces, behaviours. Machines\nin the sense in which I am using the word here are not only technical\napparatuses, they are assemblages of heterogeneous parts, aggregations\nwhich transform forces, articulate and propel their elements, and force\nthem into a continuous state of transformation and becoming. Machinic\nassemblages are made up of singularities which dynamically transform the\nenvironment by which they are being transformed and recomposed. And the\nmachinic assemblage as a whole has an aesthetic effect. The artistic\nexplorations of the machinic are attempts at formulating an understanding\nof production, of transformation and of becoming that is no longer\ndependent on a humanist notion of intentional agency. Its place is taken by\nan ethics and an aesthetics of becoming machine.\n\n5. The media theoretician Toshiya Ueno has claimed that the key aspect of\nnetwork art is the creation of a relational field in which people who are\nphysically far apart can collectively maintain a strong ideological,\nethical, or spiritual relationship amongst each other. Interestingly, Ueno\ndirectly relates this to the situation of people living in a diaspora,\nsuggesting a function of network art that aims at recreating broken or\nweakened ties within a particular community. For Ueno, networked\nrelationality is based not only on the technology which makes the contact\nand communication possible, but also on travelling and physical mobility.\nTranslocality means that, in order to create a forceful relational field,\ntechnically supported interconnectivity is not sufficient: network art that\nis based on and aims at translocal communication needs the fluid movement\nof people, objects and ideas. More than anything, Net.Art is a dynamic felt\nof relations constituted by movement.\n Ueno also points out that the social practice associated with\nNet.Art, in which the sharing of food and data is central, resembles the\nprinciples of Immediatism described by Hakim Bey, who writes that the\ngathering and the potlatch are crucial levels of the immediatist\norganisation, where friends meet and exchange gifts and food. Collaborating\non specific projects (the Bee) and the creation of temporary autonomous\nzones (TAZ) are further levels that are deployed to achieve the goals of\nthe Immediatist organisation, i.e. conviviality, creation and destruction.\n\n6. I would like to add some reflections about the parasitic activity, based\non Michel Serres' book Le Parasite (1980), implicitly suggesting that its\nparameters and attitudes might be useful for a description and further\ndevelopment of the economy, ethics and aesthetics of Net.Art. The\nconnection drawn in the following between Net.Art and parasitism is a\nhypothetical one; it attempts to describe an artistic practice that aims\nneither at representation nor at interactivity, but at a tilting of, and\nsliding across, the technological dispositive.\n The relationship between network art and parasitism was earlier\nsuggested by Erik Hobijn who introduced a concept for Techno-Parasites:\n\"Parasites live and feed on other plants and animals. Techno-Parasites use\nwhatever technical systems or apparatuses they can find as hosts, drawing\non their output, their energy supplies and cycles to procreate and grow. A\nTechno-Parasite can be a simple or a complex system which is attentive and\nadapts to its host's structure where its inventive struggle for survival\ncauses technical disruptions. Techno-Parasites suck other machines empty,\ndisrupt their circuits, effect power cuts, disable them, destroy them.\"[2]\n Hobijn insists that the parasite is not alien and exterior to\ntechnological systems, but that each system, whether natural or\ntechnological, brings forth its own counter-forces which will disrupt its\nstability and continuity. The techno-parasite, Hobijn claims, is an\nintegral part of the technological ecology, it helps to make the\ntechnological system viable. (It should be noted that Net.Art, in its\ncurrent form, is much more benign than the TPs.)\n\n7. \"To be a parasite means: to eat at somebody else's table.\" (Serres,\np.17) To be a parasite means to divert food, money, energy, anything\nmaterial, from its destined path. But the parasite is neither thief nor\nvillain: the host creates the conditions for the parasite to come and\nwelcomes it, explicitly or implicitly. The host is not the victim, but the\nhome of the parasite. In its host's house, the parasite must be humble and\nquiet; being too visible can be fatal. Similarly, the parasite must know\nwhen to eat, and it must know when to go.\n\n8. The parasite is not fixed and it is not attached to the source of its\nnourishment directly. It \"has a relation not with a station, but with\nanother relation.\" (55) The mouse eats the bread crumbs that fell to the\nground when its host was eating the bread. The mouse does not go to the\nbread box, which is locked, but to the crumbs that result from an\ninstability in the relation between host and bread. Similarly, the leech\nwill not enter the body where it would drown in the blood, but it makes a\nhole in the skin and consumes the blood that wells from it.\n\"The parasite is 'next to', it is 'with', it is detached from, it is not\nsitting on the thing itself, but on the relation. It has relations, as one\nsays, and turns them into a system. It is always mediate and never\nimmediate. It has a relation to the relation, it is related to the related,\nit sits on the channel.\" (64-5)\n It is important to remember that the parasite is always dependent\non a host. It can leave and search for new hosts, and it can flee from\ndanger, but it will have to return to a host, \"its outside is always the\ninside of something else.\" (300) The pact that the parasite has to make is\nto convince the host, again explicitly or implicitly, that the inequality\nof exchanged goods is for the mutual benefit.\n The parasitological economy and ethics are not based on an exchange\nof equal values, but on presents, offers, and on gratitude. \"The logic of\ndebt and credit is ruled by exchange, it relies on the accounts and\ncalculates the balances; in the logic and the economy of thanking, of\ngratitude, exchange does not exist. One collective is ruled by demands\nwhile in another, gratitude circulates. Two societies which are not\ncomparable. In the second system there is a lot of eating, lots of\ninvitations for festive meals and dinners.\" (51)\n\n9. Just as white noise plays a constitutive role in acoustics, parasitism\nis constitutive for relations. \"The background noise is the basic space,\nand the parasite is the basis of the channel that leads through this space.\nParasitism is nothing but a linear form of white noise.\" (83)\n There is a direct correlation between the intensity of activity on\nthe channel and the communication of the message, between white noise and\ncommunication, between parasitism and functionality. Heating up the cable's\nfibres, for instance, will increase the white noise. \"This agitation\nprevents the message from passing through. However, sometimes it only makes\nthe communication of the message possible, which would not be able to pass\nthrough a channel that is not agitated or energised. The background noise\nis the precondition of transmission (of meaning, of the sound, and even of\nthe noise itself), and the noise is its interruption or disruption. In\nturn, the noise - the parasite in information-theoretical terms - is at all\nthree corners of the triangle simultaneously, it is sender, receiver and\nchannel. Heat it up a little, and I receive, send, I collate; heat it up a\nlittle more and everything breaks down. A minimal increase in one direction\nor the other can transform the communication system as a whole.\" (298-9)\n\n10. The parasite is a strategist and an ecologist, it knows its environment\nand, like a nomad, it is good at 'passing through' and at conquering\nthrough movement, rather than at occupying, settling, and conquering by\nforce. \"The strategist we are looking for is not a dynamicist, he laughs at\nphysical strength, he is a topologist, he knows his ways, the channels, the\nterrain. In short, he is a geographer. May the enemy come with a hundred\ndivisions, heavy tanks and artillery, I will let him walk through the\nswamps and drown in them. The parasite of the networks does not go into\nbattle; no message has any meaning any more, it gets lost in the noise. The\nwhite noise is distributed where meaning is scarce, chaotic long waves from\nwhich the message emerges, short and sharp. Nothing can be produced more\neasily than these little waves, nothing can be maintained more stable.\"\n(301)\n\n11. The irritation caused in the host system comes from the parasite's\nability to swap places, to be channel and disruption, to force the system\ninto oscillation. \"The parasite is an infectant. Far from actually\ntransforming a system's nature, its form, elements, relations and paths,\nthe parasite makes the system change its condition in small steps. It\nintroduces a tilt. It brings the system's balance or the distribution of\nenergy into fluctuation. It irritates it. It infects it. Often this tilt\nhas no effect. It can bring forth effects - even massive ones, through\nchain reactions or reproduction. (...) The parasites brings us close to the\nsimplest and most general agents of change in systems. It causes the\ninfinitesimal diversions to fluctuate. It makes them immune or blocks them,\nit forces them to adapt or kills them, it selects and destroys them. Should\nwe generalise what Claude Bernard said about poisons and call the parasites\n'the real reagents of life'? This is the case because the parasite brings\nus close to the subtle balances of living systems, close to their energetic\nbalances. It is their fluctuation, their concussion, their test, their\nshift.\" (293-4)\n\n12. The hypothesis put forward here is that the parasitological aesthetics\ndescribed by Michel Serres is, at least in part, applicable to the\nnet.artistic practice. The latter's cheerful dependence on and exploitation\nof the technological dispositive, the mild irritation that it causes at the\ncost of the apparent functionality and rationality of the network system,\nand the transgression of its symbolic system of sites and homes, suggest\nthat the parasitic might be a useful metaphor with which to describe the\ngestures and interventions of Net.Art.\n A final example to underpin this hypothesis. As we saw earlier, the\nhost has a home, it is a home. The parasite, on the contrary, has no home\nof its own, it chooses temporary homes, it is always a lodger. If one goes\nto the websites of the WWW Art Centre or of irational.org, the first page\noffers links to a whole list of homepages for these sites, made by\ndifferent net.artists. These websites do not have an individual face, a\nhomepage and logo that would make it possible to identify them, but they\nhave multiple entrances and multiple faces. Deleuze and Guattari, in their\nmonumental study Milles Plateaux (1980), introduce the concept of\n'facialisation' (fr. visagit) to describe the process of subjectification\n'in the image of' a face. In short, the subject emerges from the abstract\nmachine of the facial surface which reterritorialises a multiplicity of\ndiverse forces around a 'facial' pattern and brings forth a recognisable\nand self-recognising individual. The multiplication of entrances, the\nmultiplication of homepages and 'faces' of the Net.Art websites, then,\nproduces a multiplication of selves, an acknowledgement of the multiplicity\nof the technological subject. Like the parasites, net.artists are never\none. The net.artist is a collective that becomes stronger and more\nbeautiful the further distributed and discretely interconnected it is.\n The gesture means neither: this is my home, this is my face, this\nis me, nor: be my Doppelgnger, but it means: be my triplegnger,\nquadruplegnger, my septuplegnger, and then: visitor, guest, parasite, be\nwelcomed, enter the machine through the passages of our multiple selves.\nWhat we witness is not a dissolution of borders, but a distribution and\ninterconnection of potentialities. Friends inviting each other to their\nhomes, getting together in conviviality for festive meals and the\ndistribution of gifts, forgetting who is the host and who is the guest.\n\n\nFootnotes\n\n1. For a more extensive discussion of these aesthetic parameters, cf. my\n'Art in the Electronic Networks', in: SCCA Quarterly, Autumn 1996, and\nNettime ZKP 3.2.1, Ljubljana 1996 (cf. below).\n2. The concept of the Techno-Parasites has been elaborated in a text by\nErik Hobijn and Andreas Broeckmann, 'Techno-Parasites: Bringing the\nMachinic Unconscious to Life', in: BE 4, Berlin, October 1996, p.91-7, and\nhttp://www.telefonica.es/fat/5cyberconf\n\n\nBibliography\n\nHakim Bey: Immediatism. Edinburgh: AK Press, 1994\nGilles Deleuze, Flix Guattari: Milles Plateaux. Paris: Ed. de Minuit, 1980\nMichel Serres: Le Parasit. Paris: Grasset & Fasquelle, 1980 (quoted after\nthe German edition, Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, 1987)\nNettime ZKP 3.2.1. (Ed. by Vuk Cosic & Heath Bunting) Ljubljana: Ljudmila, 1996\nToshiya Ueno: 'A Preliminary Thesis (...).' In: Nettime ZKP 3.2.1, p.21-3\n\n\nHyperlinks\n\nRachel Baker - http://www.irational.org/rachel/\nCybercafe (Heath Bunting a.o.) - http://www.irational.org\nE-L {AT} b (Rasa Smite, Raitis Smits, Jaanis Garanc, a.o.) -\nhttp://www.parks.lv/home/E-Lab/\nJodi (Jodi) - http://www.jodi.org\nOlia Lialina - http://www.cityline.ru/~olialia\nLjudmila (Vuk Cosic, Luka Frelih, a.o.; incl. NAPS) - http://www.ljudmila.org\nMoscow WWWart Centre (Alexei Shulgin, a.o.) - http://sunsite.cs.msu.su/wwwart\nNetLab (Pit Schultz a.o.) - http://cocoa.is.in-berlin.de/~netlab/\nTechno-Parasites (Erik Hobijn) - http://www.kombinat.de/~Parasites\n\nNet.Art conference - http://www.irational.org/cybercafe/backspace/\nNettime - http://www.desk.nl/~nettime\nRefresh - (multiple entrances; a.o.:) http://www.v2.nl/east/fresh.html\n\nRotterdam/Berlin, January 1997\n\n\n--\n* distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n* <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n* collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n* more info: majordomo {AT} is.in-berlin.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n* URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} is.in-berlin.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "abroeck {AT} v2.nl (Andreas Broeckmann)",
|
||
"author_name": "Andreas Broeckmann",
|
||
"message-id": "v01510119af473b56257c {AT} [192.109.39.136]",
|
||
"id": "00038",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00038.html",
|
||
"subject": "nettime: Net.Art, Machines, and Parasites",
|
||
"date": "Sat, 8 Mar 1997 18:01:10 +0100"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"list": "nettime-l",
|
||
"subject": "nettime: Art on N",
|
||
"content": "\nArt on the Net not Net-Art\n\nAfter a long absensence (since the late eighties) it is once again a \nnormal experience to go into galleries and museums and find works in \nwhich exciting artists use video. Significantly what neither the \nartists, nor the critics have reverted to is the term \"video art\". \nArtists such as Georgina Starr or Matthew Barney may be geographically \napart but share a certain sensibility, they are also shrewd enough to \navoid of the trap of being confined within the metaphor of given medium. \nMuch of this new work is in fact revisiting the strategies of a much \nearlier generation Aconci, Abromovich/Uly etc, whose approach to video \nwas also quick and dirty. Unlike those who came next there was no \nmystification of the medium, no \"video art\" as such. It was a tool, not \nan ideology. The same is true for the recent generation who grew up with \nthe camcorder as just another household appliance, part of a continuum \nof media possibilities and almost as easy as picking up a pencil. It \nfeels very natural, and the art is better for it.\n\nThis new generation may not have been around, but they are probably \nprevented from taking the wrong direction by some residual folk memory \nof the theoretical somersaults and tedious technological formalism that \naccompanied debates about what might or might not be *real* \"video art\". \n\nIs there a lesson for us to learn from this history? Yes, I believe that \nthose of us who love the net and love art, and want to work in both \nshould learn from the past and avoid the simplistic device of marrying \nthese two terms. The term net-art (as opposed to art that happens to \nappear on the net) should be quietly ditched.\n\nDavid Garcia\n--\n* distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n* <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n* collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n* more info: majordomo {AT} is.in-berlin.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n* URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} is.in-berlin.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "\"davidg.\" <davidg {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"author_name": "davidg.",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00060.html",
|
||
"id": "00060",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 12 Mar 1997 19:08:17 +0100",
|
||
"message-id": "3326F111.7D8C {AT} xs4all.nl",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n> The term net-art (as opposed to art that happens to \n> appear on the net) should be quietly ditched.\n> \n\nno, david, it's not time yet.\nwe have to wait until:\n\n- big international net art stars (whose works and behaviour meet art\ninstitutions demands) will emerge;\n- living legends of net art will appear (poor, but accepting no\ncompromises);\n- some names will be forgotten (to be discovered in the future by net\nart historians as key figures of the beginning of the movement);\n- net art galleries, magazines, associations and museums will be\nestablished;\n- as well as net art departments at universities;\n- few net art histories (contradictory, each describing completely\ndifferent picture) will be written;\n(i think everyone can easily continue this list)\n\nonly then those few net artists who survive will be able to proudly say:\n\"yes, i am a real artist!\", denying their low roots in sake of\nprosperous present.\n\nalexei shulgin\n--\n* distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n* <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n* collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n* more info: majordomo {AT} is.in-berlin.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n* URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} is.in-berlin.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Alexei Shulgin <easylife {AT} glas.apc.org>",
|
||
"author_name": "Alexei Shulgin",
|
||
"message-id": "3327DB26.7321 {AT} glas.apc.or",
|
||
"id": "00066",
|
||
"to": "davidg {AT} xs4all.nl",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00066.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: nettime: Art on N",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 13 Mar 1997 13:47:53 +0300"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nNet Art is Not Art???\n\nby Carey Young\n\n(A response to 'Art on the Net not Net-Art,' by David Garcia)\n\nDavid Garcia raises some useful and interesting issues in his essay, but\nmay be a little too hasty in damning Net art with an 'ideology.' Of course,\nthe Net offers a \"tool\" for artists, but there is precious little art on\nthe Net which has any sense of the rich context in which it is situated. It\nis too early to see any sort of artistic 'ideology' appearing, let alone\ncongealing around Net artworks. It seems to me that there is at present a\ndistict lack of art activity which actually exposes and explores the\nNet's possibilities, rather than employing it as a glorified catalogue, a\nfunction which may of course be categorised as useful, but hardly\nscintillating.\n\nHere and there (as I said, they are a rare species) can be found the\noccasional project which makes an active use of its location on the Net,\nwithout losing any engagement with contemporary critical debates which this\n'formalist' position might suggest. I am thinking of work which\nspecifically involves and incorporates hypertext, hyperlinks, Web-cams and\nother Web-specific devices. Not that this is overtly formal work, just work\nwhich makes an intelligent commentary on its Web-sitedness, as well as\nhaving its own artistic meanings. After all, each Net artwork is\nconstituted from an electronic and analogue fabric, a spatialised\nhypertextual 'environment,' which will always contextualise the\nviewer's/users experience of it. To ignore this, when making a Net art\npiece, could never be defined as 'wrong', of course. It would just mean a\nlack of possible depth.\n\nThis is not, however, a call for a move back to the formal values of\nmodernism! I agree with Garcia's point that Net art could, at this early\nstage in its development, be dragged down with \" the theoretical\nsomersaults and tedious technological formalism that accompanied debates\nabout what might or might not be *real* \"video art\". \" But what I feel is\nmissing from this argument is the fact that Net art has a very particular\nlocation which, we might say, offers a new location for art experience.\nArtists working with the Net have a vital role to play, in the sense of\noffering interventions into the usual experiences, expectations or\npossibilities afforded by the Net. These are still new experiences for most\npeople, and thus some definition of what 'happens' on or in the Net can be\nan engaging and meaningful aspect of contemporary Net art (and perhaps its\nfuture incarnations: in a medium which develops so fast, who is to say that\nthis condition will diminish?) In this sense, Net artworks which make\nparticular, and perhaps I should say 'conceptual' use of their Net location\nare not merely bogged down in formalist dogma, but may perhaps be\ncommenting on and engaging with their environment in a way we already\nunderstand, primed by more traditional artforms.\n\nThe most resonant Net artworks thus have a sensitivity to space and to\nlocation, albeit its own electronic variety, which is traceable through\nthat grand linear sweep of 'Art History.' While it is not vital to compare\nNet art with other artforms, since it has its own powerful voice (even if\nGarcia is perhaps suggesting we do not concentrate on this) it is\ninteresting to do so in order to speculate upon what its possibilities\nmight be. I personally feel that with many of the most interesting sites\nthere are strong links to sculpture (1), to telematic art of the last\ntwenty years, and to land art. The most useful comparison I have found is,\nhowever, with installation. Michael Archer, in an recent edition of the\nBritish art magazine Art Monthly, states that \"there are grounds for saying\nthat installation is the current condition of art... (the term's)\nwidespread use demonstrates... the widespread assumption of a certain\nspatial sensibility. It is an index of how we might inhabit a space which\nis always multiple -always spaces - and of how we interact with the bodies\nand objects, both near and far, around us.\" (2) Give or take a few word\nchanges, this could be seen to describe Net art works which inhabit the Net\nin a provocative way. Perhaps Net art as a 'genre' could operate on one\nlevel as an index of how we might inhabit and interact with electronic\nspace. And for this to work, I believe Net artworks must first have a\nstrong sense of their own electronic identity.\n\nAlthough some sites do work well as homes for an artist's non-digital work,\nwe are perhaps talking more of a Net art which explores the potential of\nthe medium in terms of of defining and then utilising a language in a\nsophisticated way. Georgina Starr, for example, as Garcia states, is\nmaking compelling video work. But if her work appears \"natural,\" it is\nsurely because she is employing the specific 'language' of the camcorder.\nIt implies a rejection of aesthetics which may be seen as 'traditional' to\nboth video art and to television production, to name but two. A\nsophisticated strategy, which works so well precisely because it seems so\nnatural. It is like this, too, with the most resonant Net artworks. They\noften make use of strategies inherent to the Net's fabric, hyperlinks,\nweb-cams etc, and do so effectively because they understand that particular\nlanguage. Understanding (and perhaps defining) does not necessarily mean a\ncrass and closed statement of technological and technical possibilities. I\ndoubt many people would be interested in sites which do no more than\nannounce their own web-location. Rigor Mortis would soon set in to both\nbrain and modem.\n\nArt which 'happens to appear on the net,' as Garcia wants it, is not the\nonly way art should appear on the Net. We can keep the freshness and\napparent accessibility of Georgina Starr's work, to continue with this\nexample. It just takes sensitive, and dare I say it, intelligent use of Net\n'language' to make work which has the depth to operate illuminatingly in\nits own space. A sense of the Net's own fabric may perhaps not, in this\nlight, be Garcia's \"wrong direction.\" It may in fact be an essential tool\nfor the artist to deploy: we are talking about effective commnunication,\nand for that, one must learn the lingo.\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n(1) An interesting and related essay, for example, is 'Sculpture in the\nExpanded Field,' Rosalind Krauss (in Hal Foster, ed., 'The Anti-Aesthetic,'\nBay Press, Seattle 1983.) Krauss' writes on the changes which sculpture, as\na genre, has undergone in the transition from pre-modernity through to\npostmodernity. Her comments on the spatial placement of an artwork\n(sculpture in this case) in relation to its immediate surroundings can\neasily be related to Net artworks if they are seen as art 'objects' with a\nhypertxtual or spatial placement.\n\n(2) M. Archer, 'Accomodating Art,' in Art Monthly, Sept 96\n\nc.young {AT} rca.ac.uk\n\n\n\n\n\n--\n* distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n* <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n* collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n* more info: majordomo {AT} is.in-berlin.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n* URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} is.in-berlin.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "c.young {AT} rca.ac.uk (carey young)",
|
||
"author_name": "carey young",
|
||
"message-id": "v01550102af4d25c27373 {AT} [194.159.194.33]",
|
||
"id": "00063",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00063.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: nettime: Art on N",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 13 Mar 1997 03:47:49 +0000"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nI.\nDavid,\nWhat means word \"ditched\"? i found several translations in english-russian dictionary, but they all explain nothing to me. i'm not very good in english and since i didnt get all sentences of your statement i'm not ready to answer.\n\nII. \nCarye, Alexey\nI hate it. For how long time we are going to participate in destructive discussions. \n\n\nIII.\nDavid, Alexei\nNo i dont want to know what \"ditched\" means. i dont like to argue with all these \"should -shouldn't\" directives-forecasts.\n\nIV.\nGod, Mammy, Michael ( all not nettime subscribers)\nI'm a net artists. I'm famous net artists. I'm very good net artist. \ni can use the net to express myself, to sell my soul or to save humankind.\nmy works are net art masterpieces\n\n\nV.\nDoes anybody like the level of statement [IV]?\n i'm afraid not, but i'll send this message everytime somebody will write about net art, without analyzing works of mine or my friends, existing net artists (not all nettime subscribers).\nWhat for to offer sense and context to people who have already created it or are in the process of creation?\nIts obvious, if we want to develop the situation and understand smth the best thing we could do is to turn to personalities and their way of using net.\nafter these words i feel responsibility to do it myself first, but i still dont know exact meaning of some english words.\n\n:)\nolia\n--\n* distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n* <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n* collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n* more info: majordomo {AT} is.in-berlin.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n* URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} is.in-berlin.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Olia Lialina <olialia {AT} cityline.ru>",
|
||
"author_name": "Olia Lialina",
|
||
"message-id": "01BC2FCB.336A43C0 {AT} ppp63.cityline.ru",
|
||
"id": "00067",
|
||
"to": "\"nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl\" <nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00067.html",
|
||
"subject": "RE: nettime: Art on N",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 13 Mar 1997 16:25:39 +-300"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nDavid Garcia wrote (in respect to artists' use of Video):\n\n>Much of this new work is in fact revisiting the strategies of a much\n>earlier generation Aconci, Abromovich/Uly etc, whose approach to\n>video was also quick and dirty. Unlike those who came next there was\n>no mystification of the medium, no \"video art\" as such.\n\nWell that's not altogether true ... the earliest work (Acconci, Fox,\nCampus etc.) was shot using a Portapak with limited (zero) editing\ncapability - which made it, a priori, \"quick and dirty\". The \"q & d\"\naesthetic was built right into the technology. When better systems\ncame along they scaled their work up accordingly ... or, more often,\n dropped the video medium altogether.\n\nIt should also be remembered that the introduction of video tape\ncoincided with the beginnings of the movement by artists away from\nobject/product-oriented work in the direction of performance, action\nand installation. Much of the work David is thinking of is actually\ndocumentation of performances - as in the case of Marina Abramovic\nor Gina Pane, although there are some remarkable unedited, \"pure\"\nvideo tapes from the period (providing they have been saved to better\ntape).(1)\n\nIt was only with the introduction of the Umatic system and (relatively)\nlow-priced editing equipment that something called \"Video Art\" could\nbecome possible -- at least in the institutions and \"artist-run centers\"\nthat could afford to buy and maintain the gear.\n\nAnd here is where the \"theoretical/ideological\" problems, that David\nmentions, begin (and also where the problems of so-called \"Video Art\"\ntouch on the problems of so-called \"Net-Art\"). The questions of identity\nand definition - what is \"Video Art\"? Is it like painting and belongs in\na museum ? or like TV and should be broadcast? or like a book and\nshould be viewed privately? all or none or some permuation of these?\nAnd then there is the argument about the actual \"Thing\" video:\nis it an object =\"The Tape\"? or the idea =\"The Content\"? or the\nimage =\"The Screen\"?\n\nThese arguments may sound silly now (except that they are re-\nsurfacing in discussions about \"Net-Art\" -- or \"Art-in-the-Net\" if\nyou prefer) but they were arguments that caused broken marriages\nand the collapse of artists' collectives not so long ago. In the meantime\n\"Video-Art\" has virtually vanished, having found no niche in the \"Art\nMarket\" - and having been overtaken by several waves of newer\n(digital) technology.\n\nArtists now (as David says) simply treat video as just another\nmedium from the palette of available imaging systems. It can be\nmade to represent itself, or the TV screen or be used just as an imaging\n\"tool\" - and can be sneaked into the sacred enclosure of the museum\n(thru the back door so to speak) in the guise of \"installation\".\n\nWhen video-art was young and full of energy there were all kinds of\nstrategies proposed, and tried, to make video artists into \"real artists\"\nand video art into \"real art\". What most of them failed (or refused)\nto take into account was that video did not fit into the art traditions of\nindustrial culture - it is impermanent, has no physical object, no\nhandwork (in the traditional sense), and has more in common with\ndance, literature, theater or music than with traditional painting\nor sculpture.\n\nWhat makes \"Video-Art\" so important (\"mystification of the medium\"\nor not) is its role in the development of the new art tradition growing\nout of the recording technologies. For instance, with video tape,\nanything on a screen can be recorded and recycled (collaged) -\ncopyright on a video tape is as absurd the copyright on a web page.\nThe \"video-artists\" had to struggle with this fact in the same way\nthat \"net-artists\" are doing now - and the \"net\" is actually a just\nhuge dispersed recording machine.\n\nAlexei's ironical polemic, in which he appears to accuse \"net-artists\"\nof dreaming of becoming (as General Idea put it in File Magazine 20\nyears ago) \"Rich, Famous, Glamourous Artists\" on the pattern of the art\ntradition of industrial (W)Europe and (N)America, has it just about\nright. If there is going to be something like \"Art-In-The-Net\" then\nit should be about connections and communication and not about objects\nand products - or art museums and galleries (and especially not\nvirtual art museums and galleries).\n\nWhy should we, as artists struggling to find ways to survive on the\ntricky edge of a new digital communications environment, be trying to\nbreath new life into the corpse of the traditional art institutions?\nFor the money, fame and glamour?\n\n\n-----\n(1) There was also the phenomenon of the \"video performance\" or\n\"video-installation\" in which live images from a video camera were\nincluded (recycled) in a kind of feedback loop into the piece via a monitor.\n(Jochen Gertz, Richard Kriesche, Dan Graham, Keith Sonnier etc.) -\nvery \"q & d\".\n\n====================================================================\n*Art should concern itself as much with behavior as it does with\nappearance* - Norman T. White\n====================================================================\nRobert Adrian\n<http://netbase.t0.or.at/~radrian/>\n\n\n--\n* distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n* <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n* collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n* more info: majordomo {AT} is.in-berlin.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n* URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} is.in-berlin.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "ax {AT} pop.thing.at (Robert Adrian)",
|
||
"author_name": "Robert Adrian",
|
||
"message-id": "199703141828.TAA08830 {AT} mail.thing.at",
|
||
"id": "00082",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00082.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: nettime: Art on N",
|
||
"date": "Fri, 14 Mar 1997 19:29:09 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\n>>The term net-art (as opposed to art that happens to\n>>appear on the net) should be quietly ditched.\n>\n>impossible after the definitive introduction by grandmasters Cosic and\n>Shulgin in Trieste last May\n>\n>this term is a heuristic device used with a lot of irony by the operators\n>\n>the first truly machinic art form\n>\n>-a\n\nSo imagine the grandmaster Shulgin at a retrospective of his net.artworks\nafter the term has been consigned to history (say two months from now),\ntaking us through his career in an interview reminiscent of the precursor\nto truly machinic art forms - grandmaster Duchamp. See the how theissues of\nold modernist grandmasters conflate with the new.\n\n\n\"Regions which are not ruled by time and space....\"*\n\n\nEdited version of \"A Conversation with Alexei Shulgin,\" interview conducted\nby Rachel Baker, Riga, Art + Communication, November\n\n\n\n RB So here you are, Alexei, looking at the Moscow wwwarts gold medal\naward site\n\n AS Yes, and the more I look at it the more I like it. I like the links,\n the way they fall. You remember how it happened in 1996, we put the two\n concepts of found web pages and found criticism together not knowing what they\n were carrying, and bounced suggestions around for suitable sites deserving\nan\n award and that's the result! But the more I look at it the more I like the\n links: They have a shape. There is a symmetry in the linking, there\n is an intention there, a curious intention that I am not responsible\n for, a ready-made intention, in other words, that I respect and love.\n\n RB This was one of your most ambitious undertakings, wasn't it?\n\n AS By far the most ambitious. I worked eight months on it, and it is far\n from finished. I do not even know if it will ever be finished; Moscow\n wwwart site is always unfinished.\n\nRB There are several versions of the Entry Page to Moscow WWWarts, aren't\nthere?\n\nAS Yes, eight; these\nwere shown at the Metaforums 3 Conference in Budapest 1996\n\nRB The critics called us an explosion in a shingle factory\n\nAS Yes. That was really a great line they put out. Now this is the BlaBla\nsite.\n As you see the design is completely arbitrary because that was the period\n when I changed completely from exhibiting art photography to exhibiting\n 'non-art' sites, with no relation to arty handiwork.\n\n\nRB Alexei, these are not the earliest works.\n\n AS No, no, no. The earliest\nis this one here - Hot Pictures, That was done before Moscow wwwarts\ncentre in 1994.\n\nRB It is rather gallery-like, isn't it? That was the vogue.\n\n AS Yes; well, it was not just the vogue, it was the only thing\nwe knew about. It was a little advanced at the time, but when you look\nat these two sites (Bla Bla, Gold Medal) which are later, you can see photo\n- galleries were already a thing of the past.\n\n RB They are less static.\n The Moscow wwwarts Centre was for net.artists. How were you funded?\n\nAS My funder, Ars. E. Lectronica, was very nice about it. In fact, it was\nvery difficult then, as it is now, to become a net.artist on your own. How\ncan you expect to live? He was a good man. He used to give all of us a\nsmall allowance, just enough for us to live on. He was always very\nunderstanding and always helped us out of scrapes, for a long time even\nafter we were established. And he had very odd ideas. He told us \"All\nright, I'm going to give you what you\nwant, but listen: there are 12 of you. Anything I give you while\nI'm alive I will deduct from your inheritance.\" So he kept a careful\naccount of all the amounts, and when he died these amounts had been\ndeducted from our inheritance. Not so stupid, actually, that idea: it\nhelped us all manage,\n\n RB Well, there seems to be quite a step between Hot Pictures and the\ngold Medal award site.\n\n AS Yes, Gold Medal was two weeks later, and it was after these that\nI decided to get away from all the influences I had been under before.\nI wanted to live in the present, and the present then was computer\ncommunication. You see, in May 1996 net.art was new: the approach was so\ndifferent from the previous movements that I was very much attracted\ntoward it. I became a Net.artist and gradually came up with Refresh.\n\n RB The Site has plenty of movement in it, net.art seemed to be interested\nin movement.\n\nAS Yes. But don t forget there was also techno culture\nat the same time. Croatian Rave... though I didn't know about it. I was\nin my studio the Moscow wwwarts centre. I didn't even know of the\nravers existence although at exactly the time I was designing this\nSite. Was that a coincidence or was it in the air? I don't know. But I\ndid this site with the idea of using movement as one of the elements in\nit. The next year, I entered the site in an exhibition.\n\n RB That was an event in the history of Net.art?\n\nAS Yes, but we only know it now, 2 months later. At the time it\ncould have been just an explosion in a shingle factory: a successful week\nor two, and then nothing. But that was not enough for me. I went on with\nthe\nidea that, all right, I had done what I could with\nphoto-galleries but now it was time to change. It was always the idea\nof changing, not repeating myself. I could have done ten other Hot\nPictures at that time if I had wanted to. But the fact is I did not\nwant to. But I went on immediately to art formula, the formula of the\nFound Art site. I used to surf around the pages of the World Wide Web\nlooking at the countless homepages people had constructed. They fascinated\nme so much that I took it as a point of departure\n\n RB Well, what was different in your point of view of homepages than in\nany normal view of a homepage? Was it a mechanical interest, is that\nit?\n\nAS Yes. The mechanical aspect of it influenced me then, or at least\nthat was also the point of departure of a new form of technique. I\n couldn't go into the designing of new material I wanted to go back to\na completely dry conception of art. I was beginning to appreciate the\nvalue of accident, the importance of chance. The result was that my work\nwas more popular with amateurs, and among those who liked net. Art.\nThe linking, threading and self-selection was for me the best form for\nthat dry conception of art.\n\n RB And that was the real beginning for the Refresh site. At the time\n you did this, did you have a precise idea of what was coming?\n\nAS I was already beginning to make an indefinite plan, The WWWarts\ngold medal site was one point of departure, and then came the BLa BLA\nsite on the side. All this was conceived, networked, and on screen in\n1996. It was based on a dispersed, multi-dimensional chaotic view,\nmeaning incomplete knowledge of the arrangement of the parts. It could be\nhaphazardly done or changed afterwards. It did not have to go through\naccording to plan, so to speak.\n\n RB Well, l imagine you feel that Refresh heralded some- thing in your\nwork, something of that break you have often told me about.\n\nAS Yes, it\nwas really a very important moment in my life. I had to make big\ndecisions then. The hardest was when I told myself \"Alexei no more\nInternet conferences, go get a job.\"\n\n RB I looked for a job in order to get enough time to make projects for\nmyself. I got a job as a technician in London atthe Institute Of\nElectrical Engineers. It was a wonderful job be- cause I had so many\nhours to myself.\n\nAS You mean to make projects for yourself, not merely to please other\npeople? You know you are either a professional or not. There are two kinds\nof artists: the artist that is integrated into society; and the other\nartist, the completely\nfreelance artist, who has no obligations.\n The artist in society has to make certain compromises to please it;\nis that why you took the job?\n\n RB Exactly, exactly, I didn't want to depend on my art projects for a\nliving. But, Alexei, if you speak of a disregard for the broad public\n and say you are doing art for yourself, wouldn't you accept that as\n making art for an 'ideal' public, for a public which would appreciate you\nif they would only make the effort?\n\n AS Yes, indeed. It is only a way of putting myself in the right\nposition for that ideal public. The challenge is in pleasing an\nimmediate public;You should not wait for fifty years or a hundred years\nfor your true\npublic. The immediately present public is the only public that\ninterests me.\n\n RB That is a rather elitist point of view. I don't think you ever felt\nthat a person was justified in living in an ivory tower and disregarding\nthe intelligent and sympathetic public.\n\n AS No, no, no ivory tower in my idea at all.\n\n RB I remember a line in an interview with Vuk Cosic in which you said\nthat there was more possibility with the Internet to find art that\ndoesn't realise itself as art - non-conceived, intuitive, spontaneous\nand naive.\n\n AS You see the danger is to \"lead yourself' into a form of taste, even\n the taste of the Moscow wwwart site\n\n RB Taste then for you is repetition of anything that has been accepted;\nis that what you mean'?\n\n\n AS Exactly; it is a habit. Repeat the same thing long enough and it be-\ncomes taste. If you interrupt your work, I mean after you have done it,\nthen it becomes, it stays a thing in itself; but if it is repeated a\nnumber of times it becomes taste.\n\nRB And good taste is repetition that is approved by society and bad\ntaste is the same repetition which is not approved; is that what you\nmean?\n\n\n AS Yes, good or bad is of no importance because it is always good for\nsome people and bad for others. Quality is not important, it is al-\nways taste.\n\nRB Well, how did you find the way to get away from good or bad taste\nin your personal expression?\n\nAS By using found art techniques. A found art site has no taste in it\n\nRB Because it is divorced from conventional art institutional expression\nof taste?\n\nAS Exactly, at least I thought so at that time, and I think the same\ntoday.\n\nRB Then does this divorce from conventional art institutions in net.art\nhave a relationship to the interest you had in found art sites?\n\nAS It was naturally, in trying to draw a conclusion or consequence from\n the de-institutionalisation of the work of art, that I came to the\nidea of Gold Medal Award sites which in effect are already\ncompletely made. Let me show you: this is a website with\ninnocent non-art intentions, it is a ready-made. Now it is a Ready-made\nin which shit is\nchanged to gold, metaphorically speaking. It is a sort of a mythological\neffect produced by art awards and art criticism.\n\nRB You didn't know me before you came to Holland\n\n\nAS No. I came to Amsterdam in January. I met you at the Next Five\nMinutes conference it was the beginning of a long email friend- ship.\nWe devised the Gold Medal Award and discussed infiltration of Nettime\n\n\nRB The Nettime group was associated with several other groups, wasn't\nit?\n\nAS Yes, there was Vuk Cosic and Heath Bunting for example, who was also\na patron of net.art, and he started a museum called CERN. And there >was\nV2 whose purpose was to promote net.artists from the east to get\na sort of communication between east and west, and it was quite\nsuccessful then. It was from then on that the West was absolutely\nnet.art conscious, which it had never been before.\n\nRB I see. Well, Vuk Cosic also owned your Refresh page which we were\nlooking at a little while ago.\n\n AS Yes, it was in the Moscow WWWarts collection in 1996, at the time\nof its near-completion-. But no-one could own it because it was too\nfragile to transport, given its size.\n\nRB Alexei, from what you say the Refresh page was never really finished.\n\n AS No. No. The last time somebody worked on it was this morning .\n\n RB So it remains a sort of unfinished epic. And also for me it seems to\nindicate that you were never really dedicated to conventional\ncommunication in the ordinary sense of the word. I imagine that there\nis something broader in your concept of what art is than just\ncommunication.\n\n AS Yes. I considered art as a means of expressing the present, not an\nend in itself. One means of expression among others, and not a complete\nend for life at all; in the same way I consider that color is only a\nmeans of expression in painting and not an end. In other words,\ncommunication should not be exclusively retinal or visual; it should\nhave to do with the concept, with our urge for understanding. This is\ngenerally what I love. I didn't want to pin myself down and I tried at\nleast to be as universal as I could. That is why I took up Internet.\nInternet initself is a hobby, is a game, everybody can play Internet.\nIt's like chess. Actually when you play a game of chess it is like\ndesigning something or constructing a mechanism of some kind by which\nyou win or lose. The competitive side of it has no importance, but the\nthing itself is very, very strategic, and that is probably what\nattracted me to the Internet game.\n\nRB Do you mean by that another form of communication?\n\nAS Yes, at least it was another facet of the same kind of mental\nexpression, intellectual expression, one small facet if you want, but it\ndiffered enough to make it distinct, and it added something to my life.\n\n\nRB Do you regard Moscow WWWarts page as a distinct expression of your\npersonality '?\n\nAS Yes. Absolutely. It was a new form of expression for me. Instead of\nmerely photographing something for gallery exhibition the idea was to\nreproduce the work that l loved so much in miniature. I didn't know how\nto do it. I thought of a book, but I didn't like that idea. Then I\nthought of the idea of the box in which all my works would be mounted\nlike in a small museum, a portable museum, so to speak, and here it is\nin this Internet valise.\n\nRB It is a sort, of ready-made catalogue, isn't it.\n\nAS There was a whole art system, which I thought up to win at roulette at\nMonte Carlo. Of course I never broke the bank with it. But I thought I\nfound a system.\n\n RB Did you win anything?\n\n AS No, I never won anything. But at any rate as you know, I am\ninterested in the intellectual side, although I don't like the word\n\"intellect.\" For me \"intellect\" is too dry a word, too inexpressive. I\nlike the word \"belief.\" I think in general that when people say \"I\nknow,\" they don't know, they believe. I believe that art is the only\nform of activity in which man as man shows himself to be a true\nindividual. Only in art is he capable of going beyond the animal state,\nbecause art is an outlet toward regions which are not ruled by time\nand space. To live is to believe; that's my belief, at any rate.\n\n\n\n\n*\"A Conversation with Marcel Duchamp,\" television ionterview conducted by\nJames Johnson Sweeny, NBC, January 1956, Philadelphia Museum of Art\n...............................\n.....moscow wwwart centre......\nhttp://sunsite.cs.msu.su/wwwart\n...............................\n\n\n\n\nlondon<+>isle of wight<=>liverpool<if>lusanne<then>vienna<go to>budapest<&>\n\nljublana<re:>barcelone<go to>bahamas\n\n\n--\n* distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n* <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n* collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n* more info: majordomo {AT} is.in-berlin.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n* URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} is.in-berlin.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "achel {AT} irational.org (rachel baker)",
|
||
"author_name": "rachel baker",
|
||
"message-id": "630c00ee04021004b07a {AT} [194.159.194.33]",
|
||
"id": "00087",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00087.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: nettime: Art on N",
|
||
"date": "Sun, 16 Mar 1997 01:34:01 +0100"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"list": "nettime-l",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nHistorians retrospecting on the foggy lines of History are always so\ntempted to label things as Movements and Periods and such. I find this\nrather ridiculous. Consider asking someone who is 40 years old how they\nfelt about a situation that happened to then 25 years previous, what\nimpressions, their emotional and intellectual state at the time and a\ndetailed description of the material event, what REALLY happened... Now,\naside from a handful of \"life-changing\" events that normally occur to\npeople over time, they would have a VERY hard time reconstructing anything\nnear the reality of their own past...\n\nNow, when I see a term like Surrealism and Surrealists, I really have to\nLaugh at the way Art Historians and unfortunately artists too get caught\ninto believeing that this is the way things happened at all! I mean, look,\nare there, out there, to your knowledge, groups of people making Movements\nnow? I would propose that it is not movements but simply the existence of\ndialogues of greater or lesser potency running between individuals who,\ndepending on how much personal risk they are able to take, influence the\nlives of each other directly through this dialogue... (Take Nettime for\nexample -- the perfect example of not a movement, but the accumulation of\nthe various voices who are more or less talking to each other, nothing more\nnothing less. Ask yourself how much Nettime CHANGES your life, and that is\na measure of the dialogue...\n\nI find the discussion about Net.Art to be rather pointless unless one is in\nthe process of copyright protection or the rigor-mortis\ninstitutionalization of a history that is not even history. What about the\nInternational Netowrking Congress -- of mail-artists; I have been part of\nan organic network and using that word for a long time, yet I don't feel\nthe need to claim a word to\n\n1) describe the whole of being which generates the material and actual\nmanifestations of my \"life work\" nor\n\n2) posits some historical claim of legitimacy to what I am doing or how I\nam being...\n\nI am sorry, but it seems a joke! And I just don't see the point in\ndividing things up, what art FORMS are ascendent over another... I believe\nwe all, in every formal sense, face a \"hands-on\" material world with one\nfoot in the spiritual. Anything that we seek to DO faces the brutal\nchallenge of either forcing material things into new configurations or of\nspeaking/paying attention to another human in the hopes of inspiring them\nor being inspired... The material struggle that I think people are\nspeaking of here (in terms of video art, net art, painting and so on) are\nall rather (or totally) similar aspects of that challenge of material\ntransformation... Now, I know the immediate response to this from some is\n\"well, net art isn't material...\" or some such argument, but that is simply\nnot so. Is a computer material, is RAM material, are fiber optics\nmaterial, copper wires, generators, monitors? I mean, fundamentally,\nalmost all of what we call TECHNOLOGICAL media are material transformations\nrelying solely on the two most abundant materials in the earth's crust --\nsilicon and oxygen -- SiO2 -- amorphous silica -- glass -- which covers --\nphotography (camera-based media), all digital media (chips are made\nprimarily of amorphous silica). Differences in all the manifestations are\nillusory and a result of the endless hair-splitting of the reductive system\nof Western science which has lead us only to finer questions of what we\neither never need to KNOW or what is so essential that we can't KNOW it\nanyway...\n\nI think questions of quality rather quantity are more important to consider\nhere. (parallel to ideas like a consideration of human obligations vs\nhuman rights) Another words for example, discussions of not whether Paul\nGarrin's efforts with setting up Autono.net will work or not -- but whether\nhe is having a genuine influence on other people's lives and whether that\neffect is positive or negative... Of course, that may seem a question to\nanswer historically, but hey, I can answer it based on some near meetings\nwith him, seeing his words, seeing his trail (etched in silicon) and so\non... for myself, and express that personal understanding to someone else\nwho would care to listen and share their impressions...\n\nSometimes I feel acutely the distance we have from each other in the veils\nof words that swirl around us, that we cloak ourselves in, and I am\ngratified to have spent some concentrated moments with some of you out\nthere, from time-to-time, and place-to-place, physically unmediated,\nlooking into your eyes, and speaking as direct as possible, or, better yet,\nsilently sharing existence in this material incarnation...\n\nI seize whatever physical means I can, based upon the moment, to express my\ndesires, my life-energies, what difference does it make?\n\nI would quote and amplify from my own take Bob Adrian's remark \"Why should\nwe, as artists struggling to find ways to survive on the tricky edge of a\nnew digital communications environment, be trying to breath new life into\nthe corpse of the traditional art institutions? For the money, fame and\nglamour?\"\n\nGiving lip-service to any forms of institutional cultural organization is\nto give it credit, form, substance, and most dangerously, POWER. NAMING a\nthing is to call it into existence and invoking it repeatedly will pump it\nup... Although I would not criticize the actions of those people who seek\nto understand the workings of cultural/social situations, I think that\nunderstanding needs to be weighed -- whether the knowledge is needed even\n-- after all, every thing that can be known, do we need to know it, or\nshould we know it? Eating from the Tree of the Knowledge or Good and Evil\ngot us here possibly, mired in a material world that is possibly only a\nfurnace to test our spirits for other things or simply a place to act out\nour lives here and now... Fame? (I suggest spinning the John Lennon tune\nso artfully interpreted by John and David (Bowie) by the same name...)\nWhat's a name? What's a name? What's a name...\n\nAnd something my father used to ay when we drove around on the interstate\nhighways of 60'ss Amurika, upon seeing grafitti (not the urban stuff of the\n70's and 80's and 90's) -- but the simple tags that adorned bridges, rocks,\nand fences... \"Fools names and not their faces are always seen in public\nplaces...\" Maybe it needs to be changed to \"Fools names AND their faces\nare always seen in public places...\"\n\nCheers\nrant-fully\nJohn\n\n\nJohn Hopkins\nprivate email: <hopkins {AT} usa.net>\nWEB: < http://www.usa.net/~hopkins>\n----------------------------------\nWebmaster for LANKaster On-Line:\n<webmaster {AT} computerlink.com>\n<http://www.lankaster.com/>\n--------------------------------\n\n\n--\n* distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n* <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n* collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n* more info: majordomo {AT} is.in-berlin.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n* URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} is.in-berlin.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "hopkins {AT} usa.net (John Hopkins)",
|
||
"author_name": "John Hopkins",
|
||
"message-id": "v01550106af539c2f7784 {AT} [157.151.221.73]",
|
||
"id": "00096",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00096.html",
|
||
"subject": "nettime: Net.art things?",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 22:19:54 -0700"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"list": "nettime-l",
|
||
"subject": "nettime: Art, Power, and Communication - Alexei Shulgin",
|
||
"content": "\nAlexei Shulgin\n\nArt, Power, and Communication\n\n(Some simple thoughts without any wish to make them more profound)\n\n\nI intentionally wrote this paper directly in English which I am not good \nin and I know that what I am going to say may sound rather declarative, \ngeneralised and clumsy. But the only alternative to this I see is to say \nnothing. In all other cases multitude of possible interpretations and \nassociations will wash out those grains of sense I am almost hopelessly \ntrying to find and bring out.\n\nHow one can dare to use words trying to explain something?\nIsn't it obvious now as never before that words fail to describe anything? \nLet's be honest - words now are nothing but just another medium for an \nartist. \n\n1. The mechanics of repressive social institutes requires certain level \nof stability. People, that those institutes are basing their power on, \nbrainwashed by them want to have certain past, present and future. They \nhave some possessions to lose. They need stability to keep those values, \nthat in fact are imposed to them. \n\nBut -\n\nPast does not exist, because it can be easily re-written. Describing the \npast, writing history writers are trying to possess it, to obtain power \non it, and through it - power on the present - using people's desire to \nhave some certain (or uncertain) past to identify themselves. Not \neverybody is satisfied with the past, that's why each new past \nmaintained by historians-seducers attracts people's attention: will I \n(my family, my country, my gender, my race) look better in the light of \nthe brand-new past?\n\nSame with future - it does not exist either, every new future proposed \nis just another attempt to take the power. \n\nBut present does not exist for majority of people either. They are \nliving through it basing their movements on false and imposed pictures \nof the past and future they have. They don't communicate.\n\n2. What theory? Yes, you can make a brilliant logical conclusions, but \nwhat about their starting points, what about axioms? Aren't they \ncompletely uncertain and uncompulsory? \n\n3. Talking about art we always imply art forms in which this art exists. \nArt forms that are approved and regulated by rotten art institutions. \nEven underground art always refers itself to established one.\nArt, artistic activity as we know it now, is a result of a will for \ncommunication, suppressed by power social structures. Only art based on \nthe idea of representation has become possible under those \ncircumstances.\n\nComputer brought out some alternative - \"media art\" that has immediately \nbecome a synonym for \"experimental art\" from the point of view of high \nart society. Looking at very popular media art form such as \n\"interactive installation\" I always wonder how people (viewers) are \nexited about this new way of manipulation on them. It seems that \nmanipulation is the only form of communication they know and can \nappreciate. They are happily following very few options given to them by \nartists: press left or right button, jump or sit. Their manipulators \nartists feel that and are using seduces of newest technologies (future \nnow!) to involve people in their pseudo-interactive games obviously \nbased on banal will for power. But what nice words you can hear around \nit: interaction, interface for self-expression, artificial intelligence, \ncommunication even.\nSo, emergence of media art is characterised by transition from \nrepresentation to manipulation.\n\nBut manipulation is more communicative when representation. \nWith the coming of Net something new, shyly calling itself net.art is \nemerging, now trying to define itself and experiencing its difference \nfrom other forms of creative activity. The problems of current period of \nnet.art as I see them are deeply rooted in a social determination of the \nnotions \"art\" and \"artist\".\nWill we be able to overcome our egos and give up obsolete ideas of \nrepresentation and manipulation?\nWill we jump headlong into realm of pure communication?\nWill we call ourselves \"artists\" anymore?\n\nNet.art means communication means present. \n\n4. Artists! Try to forget the very word and notion \"art\". Forget those \nsilly fetishes - artefacts that are imposed to you by suppressive system \nyou were obliged to refer your creative activity to. \n\nTheorists! Stop pretending that you are not artists. Your will to obtain \npower on people seducing them with intellectual speculations is very \nobvious (though understandable). But realm of pure and genuine \ncommunication is much more appealing and is becoming very possible \nnowadays.\n\nMedia artists! Stop manipulate people with your fake \"interactive media \ninstallations\" and \"intelligent interfaces\"! You are very close to the \nidea of communication, closer than artists and theorists! Just get rid \nof your ambitions and don't regard people as idiots, unable for creative \ncommunication. Today you can find those that can affiliate you on equal \nlevel. If you want of course. \n\n5. Question: \nHow to turn very natural will for power into artistic tool instead of \nbanal use of it for obtaining the power itself?\n\nAnswers: \na. Forget about past and future, because they don't exist, concentrate \non present that can't be described and therefore possessed by anybody.\nb. Change your occupation just before you became well-known in your \nsphere, and before the movement you are in starts to create its own \nhistory. Then, when you start something else as a beginner, your will \nfor power and for recognition will give you strong creative impulse.\nc. Don't be dependent on medium you are working with - this will help \nyou to easily give it up. Don't become a Master.\n\n-- \n...............................\n.....moscow wwwart centre......\nhttp://sunsite.cs.msu.su/wwwart\n...............................\n\n\n--\n* distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n* <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n* collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n* more info: majordomo {AT} is.in-berlin.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n* URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} is.in-berlin.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Pit Schultz <pit {AT} contrib.de>",
|
||
"author_name": "Pit Schultz",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9610/msg00029.html",
|
||
"id": "00029",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 07 Oct 1996 03:15:30 +0100",
|
||
"message-id": "1.5.4.32.19961007021530.008f6c88 {AT} pop3.contrib.",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nK:\n\nHere's a recent nettime post, with more info at the bottom.\n\n+ + +\n\nAlexei Shulgin\n\nArt, Power, and Communication\n\n(Some simple thoughts without any wish to make them more profound)\n\n\nI intentionally wrote this paper directly in English which I am not good\nin and I know that what I am going to say may sound rather declarative,\ngeneralised and clumsy. But the only alternative to this I see is to say\nnothing. In all other cases multitude of possible interpretations and\nassociations will wash out those grains of sense I am almost hopelessly\ntrying to find and bring out.\n\nHow one can dare to use words trying to explain something?\nIsn't it obvious now as never before that words fail to describe anything?\nLet's be honest - words now are nothing but just another medium for an\nartist.\n\n1. The mechanics of repressive social institutes requires certain level\nof stability. People, that those institutes are basing their power on,\nbrainwashed by them want to have certain past, present and future. They\nhave some possessions to lose. They need stability to keep those values,\nthat in fact are imposed to them.\n\nBut -\n\nPast does not exist, because it can be easily re-written. Describing the\npast, writing history writers are trying to possess it, to obtain power\non it, and through it - power on the present - using people's desire to\nhave some certain (or uncertain) past to identify themselves. Not\neverybody is satisfied with the past, that's why each new past\nmaintained by historians-seducers attracts people's attention: will I\n(my family, my country, my gender, my race) look better in the light of\nthe brand-new past?\n\nSame with future - it does not exist either, every new future proposed\nis just another attempt to take the power.\n\nBut present does not exist for majority of people either. They are\nliving through it basing their movements on false and imposed pictures\nof the past and future they have. They don't communicate.\n\n2. What theory? Yes, you can make a brilliant logical conclusions, but\nwhat about their starting points, what about axioms? Aren't they\ncompletely uncertain and uncompulsory?\n\n3. Talking about art we always imply art forms in which this art exists.\nArt forms that are approved and regulated by rotten art institutions.\nEven underground art always refers itself to established one.\nArt, artistic activity as we know it now, is a result of a will for\ncommunication, suppressed by power social structures. Only art based on\nthe idea of representation has become possible under those\ncircumstances.\n\nComputer brought out some alternative - \"media art\" that has immediately\nbecome a synonym for \"experimental art\" from the point of view of high\nart society. Looking at very popular media art form such as\n\"interactive installation\" I always wonder how people (viewers) are\nexited about this new way of manipulation on them. It seems that\nmanipulation is the only form of communication they know and can\nappreciate. They are happily following very few options given to them by\nartists: press left or right button, jump or sit. Their manipulators\nartists feel that and are using seduces of newest technologies (future\nnow!) to involve people in their pseudo-interactive games obviously\nbased on banal will for power. But what nice words you can hear around\nit: interaction, interface for self-expression, artificial intelligence,\ncommunication even.\nSo, emergence of media art is characterised by transition from\nrepresentation to manipulation.\n\nBut manipulation is more communicative when representation.\nWith the coming of Net something new, shyly calling itself net.art is\nemerging, now trying to define itself and experiencing its difference\nfrom other forms of creative activity. The problems of current period of\nnet.art as I see them are deeply rooted in a social determination of the\nnotions \"art\" and \"artist\".\nWill we be able to overcome our egos and give up obsolete ideas of\nrepresentation and manipulation?\nWill we jump headlong into realm of pure communication?\nWill we call ourselves \"artists\" anymore?\n\nNet.art means communication means present.\n\n4. Artists! Try to forget the very word and notion \"art\". Forget those\nsilly fetishes - artefacts that are imposed to you by suppressive system\nyou were obliged to refer your creative activity to.\n\nTheorists! Stop pretending that you are not artists. Your will to obtain\npower on people seducing them with intellectual speculations is very\nobvious (though understandable). But realm of pure and genuine\ncommunication is much more appealing and is becoming very possible\nnowadays.\n\nMedia artists! Stop manipulate people with your fake \"interactive media\ninstallations\" and \"intelligent interfaces\"! You are very close to the\nidea of communication, closer than artists and theorists! Just get rid\nof your ambitions and don't regard people as idiots, unable for creative\ncommunication. Today you can find those that can affiliate you on equal\nlevel. If you want of course.\n\n5. Question:\nHow to turn very natural will for power into artistic tool instead of\nbanal use of it for obtaining the power itself?\n\nAnswers:\na. Forget about past and future, because they don't exist, concentrate\non present that can't be described and therefore possessed by anybody.\nb. Change your occupation just before you became well-known in your\nsphere, and before the movement you are in starts to create its own\nhistory. Then, when you start something else as a beginner, your will\nfor power and for recognition will give you strong creative impulse.\nc. Don't be dependent on medium you are working with - this will help\nyou to easily give it up. Don't become a Master.\n\n--\n...............................\n.....moscow wwwart centre......\nhttp://sunsite.cs.msu.su/wwwart\n...............................\n\n\n--\n* distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n* <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n* collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n* more info: majordomo {AT} is.in-berlin.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n* URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} is.in-berlin.de\n\nMark\n\n\n--\n* distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n* <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n* collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n* more info: majordomo {AT} is.in-berlin.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n* URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} is.in-berlin.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "ark {AT} rhizome.com (Mark Tribe)",
|
||
"author_name": "Mark Tribe",
|
||
"message-id": "v02130509ae7e9056072f {AT} [205.198.116.94]",
|
||
"id": "00036",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9610/msg00036.html",
|
||
"subject": "nettime: Art, Power, and Communication - Alexei Shulgin",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 7 Oct 1996 10:46:56 -0400 (EDT)"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} desk.nl"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"list": "nettime-l",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nnet.art on nettime\n\nEverybody seems to agree that there is something happening in the networks\nthat is connected in some way with the art of the 20th Century. Everybody\nalso seems to be in agreement that, whatever it is and whatever its called,\nits pretty exciting. Almost everybody seems to agree that its is not just\nsimulations of things made for virtual versions of white museum walls. The\ndisagreements seem to begin with the question of whether it has a name and\nwhether naming would somehow fix it, like a butterfly pinned on a board, as\njust another \"ism\" in the art historian's catalogue.\n\nThe Nettime discussion about net.art was kicked off by Andreas Broeckmann's\nstrong statement about the precarious future of internet access that he\nidentified as the context:\n\"[...] in which a loose group of artists, almost a movement, is currently\nrealising projects under the name Net.Art. They are based in various\nEuropean countries, team up in real and virtual institutions [...], working\nlocally as well as translocally, sometimes remotely, sometimes together on\nthe same project\" ('Net.Art, Machines, and Parasites', 8.March'97).\nAs Broeckmann uses the term, Net.Art (or net.art) refers exclusively to\nprojects taking place in the WWW:\n\"... an important feature of projects realised on the WWW is that they can\nconstantly be updated and changed, so that there is never a ready and fixed\ncreation or 'work'. Net.Art works are temporary [...] and as unstable as\nthe networks themselves. [...] The main tool of Net.Art is the hyperlink\nthrough which one WWW document can be linked to another, no matter where on\nthe internet that second document is located. This means that [...]\nmillions of WWW documents are potentially linkable [...] on which artists\nand designers can draw.\"\nAndreas Broeckmann's text makes no mention of 'Net.Artists' and no formal\nprescription for 'Net.Art' (or net.art) and, although the examples he uses\nbelong to a particular group of artists, he makes it clear that:\n\"At this moment, Net.Art is certainly in a transitory state, in permanent\nflux, and it will change and develop as its agents and environment change.\"\n\nIn spite of Andreas' effort to avoid suggesting a formula for a possible\n'Net.Art', the history of 20th century art is full of cases of new and open\nmedia and forms being appropriated and closed by becoming named - and\nmarketed - as 'movements' or '-isms'. For example, David Garcia suggests\nthat the identification of a specific 'Net-Art' (as opposed to the more\ngeneral 'Art-in-the-Net') could lead to the destructive effect of internal\nstruggles over dogma, \"[...] theoretical somersaults and tedious\ntechnological formalism that accompanied debates about what might or might\nnot be *real* 'video art'.\", that contributed to the demise of 'video art'.\nWhen David Garcia concluded his reply with the plea: \"The term net-art (as\nopposed to art that happens to appear on the net) should be quietly\nditched\", the framework of the 'Net.Art' vs 'Art-in-the-Net' discussion was\nestablished ...\n\nThe problem with the idea of 'art that happens to appear on the net' is the\nimplication that the electronic networks are merely another venue for\ntraditional art practice and that the differences are more a question of\nstyle than of substance, which opens the door to \"the danger of reducing\nthe idea of the net to a mere means of distribution\" (Benjamin Weil).\nBut whether you call it Net.Art or Art-in-the-Net the operative word is\n'Net' - that is: this art is a part of - and entirely dependent on - the\nnet and that is what makes it different from other art in any medium. In\nJordon Crandall's words: \"Net.art is interesting if you regard its basis in\nnetworking, but not necessarily the internet. [...] It's important to look\nat the internet as imbedded in a net ...\". Art in the communications media\nonly exists when it is shared, when it connects somewhere in the net. Which\nnetworking medium is used is not the important issue since its all really\nonly the old-fashioned telephone anyway. At least for now.\n\nIn looking for reference points to somehow locate 'Net.Art' (as a\nphenomenon of the WWW) within the recent history of art, various\ncontributors to the discussion have proposed most of the movements and\nmedia of the 20th century. David Garcia started the list with video art,\nwhile Carey Young found \"strong links\" to sculpture, telematic art, land\nart and especially to installation. John Hopkins mentions mail art, Walter\nvan der Cruijsen added experimental film, performance, conceptual art,\nelectronic art and media art. Pauline Bosma suggests radio and hints at\nfluxus while Alexei Shulgin and Rachel Baker's references to on-line\nreadymades and 'found elements' points to a dada connection. I can add\nminimal art, computer graphics and Zerography to the list without even\nstopping to think.\n\nThe interesting thing about this list is that, as viable separate art\nforms, most of these \"movements\" and/or media are as defunct as *real*\nvideo art but we find them still alive in the way artists are recovering\nand recombining them as part of the strategy for working in the networks -\nwhich suggests that either 1) the separateness (the 'ism'ness) was an\nart-historical illusion or 2) the new networks, created by the conjunction\nof recording and communication technologies, form a kind of funnel through\nwhich the disparate forms of industrial culture are being squeezed and\nmerged. It is a kind of collaging, not a collaging of images and sounds\nonly but of cultural material, of memories, histories and media.\n\nJeremy Welsh wrote:\n\"The kinds of things that are being done with resampled/recombined data on\nthe web are only a further extension of a process that begins\n(provisionally) with the cubists and gets to be the dominant aesthetic as a\nresult of Scratch Video [...] and its subsequent incorporation in MTV,\nadvertising and mainstream cinema. Now that everything we look at is more\nor less collage it would be ludicrous to contend that collage is in or of\nitself a radical strategy. It's a tool that anyone can use, and precisely\nthis ubiquity makes it viable and interesting.\"\n\nOr a game that anyone can play - as Alexei Shulgin says in an 'interview'\nwith Rachel Baker: \"Internet in itself is a hobby, is a game, everybody can\nplay Internet. It's like chess. [...] The competitive side of it has no\nimportance, but the thing itself is very, very strategic, and that is\nprobably what attracted me to the Internet game.\"\n\nOne interesting (and largely neglected) aspect of the 'Net.Art' phenomenon\nis that of the strong theoretical and practical input from the\npost-socialist countries of East and Central Europe. For artists whose\ntraditions are more about communication in an environment hostile to new\nforms than about the manufacture and marketing of cultural products,\nadaptation to the low market profile of the networks is no special problem.\nIn fact the absence of a market tradition appears to be a positive\nadvantage in operating in the 'gift economy of the networks' (Pit Schultz).\nOn the other hand, there is an almost equally strong input from\npost-Thatcherist Britain - which suggests that there is a lot more to\ndiscuss on the 'Net.Art' channel\n\nI don't really have an opinion about the name game and in the end probably\nagree with Josephine Bosma who wrote: \"I like the term net.art, especially\nbecause of that little dot in it.\"\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "ax {AT} pop.thing.at (Robert Adrian) (by way of Pit Schultz <pit {AT} icf.de>)",
|
||
"author_name": "rax {AT} pop.thing.at (Robert Adrian) (by way of Pit Schultz )",
|
||
"message-id": "3.0.1.16.19970511154347.225f46d8 {AT} pop3.contrib.",
|
||
"id": "00053",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9705/msg00053.html",
|
||
"subject": "<nettime> net.art on nettime by Robert Adrian",
|
||
"date": "Sun, 11 May 1997 15:43:47"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"list": "nettime-l",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nart in the nettimes. some mess-media common places. statement for a flat\ninteractivity\n\n\"Net-art\", a default concept that could be seen coming on the floor since\nthe advent of www, is an indicator for some other, more resistant topics.\n\n1. {The ghetto of appropriation.} In a simplified overview, the art of the\nlast 2 decades spanned from (video-; to video installation-; to computer-;\nto CD ROM-; to internet-) ART. Whatever new media tool gets public is not\nonly immediately assimilated as procedure and path for artistic activities\nbut becomes protocol and compulsory label for the (state of the) art\ndiscourses and the aural events connected to them.\nThis restlessness can be speculated upon as representing either an increase\nof integration dynamic, or a symptom of content neurosis. Anyway, it gives\na sense of isolation that became retrospectively quite obvious. After the\neuphoria of the schism between (old- and new-) media arts, a long process\nof failed integration is consistent with the history of the art events in\nthe last decades. The slow convergence between institutions, initiatives\nand artists coming from both sides of the imagined fall are not\ncompensating for a crisis which is so simple that it can hide under that\nlittle absurd sentence: there is *new* art and there is *old* art. Isn't\nit?\n\n2. {The seek for legitimacy.} a) From the part of the new media themselves,\nin a >natural< translation of the technological experiment towards\nconsumerism. (In that case we approach new media as immanent entities with\na logic of their own; or, more likely, as corporate initiatives highly\ncontrolled in the process of development/dissemination.)\nb) From that segment of the art generators/moderators\n(artists/curators/theoreticians) looking for a promotional niche where\nrules have not been imposed (yet).\nc) From the art system itself, in a period when all systems (politics,\neconomy, communication, social security, job policies, capital,\nenvironment, family, name it) are confronted with the issue of image\nimprovement.\nd) From those entrepreneurs who still believe that business is helped by a\nwell moderated art commitment.\n\n3. {Revitalization through compromise.} The mechanism of historical change,\nlabeled until recently as progress, is assimilating the innovations through\ncompromise, fact which annoys the innovative spirits. For that reason maybe\nevery new item in the stream of modern escalation has, beyond inventors\n(initiators) and developers, its own prophets: for keeping pure the flame\nof the new.\nUnfortunately, as soon as the *new* becomes public property it is used\nprecisely in order to revitalize the *old*, and not necessarily in order to\ndisplace it. A compromise which can bring change if it is negotiated\nproperly. Or bring just some more frustrated prophets pointing at another\nfailure of the pure in front of the rich.\nThis is, I guess, the level on which we can contemplate >net art< at this\nmoment.\n\n4. {Social currency and moral token.} From those who are not satisfied by\nthe assimilation of commodities or by the criticism of commodification, a\nnew type of activism was born, not to be found before the raise of media as\na template of art production.\nMixing media criticism, social skepticism, technological skill and\naesthetic will, this activism is structured on the image of its favorite\ntool - the computer - whose interfaces and connectivity are replicated in a\nmixture of speed, presence, designed language and behavior, in a\nconvergence of entertaining and calculation, in programmed discontinuity,\nand in a pragmatic perception of the modern mythologies. An activism\nconsistent with the idea of aesthetic coherence, which brings back the\ndecadent image of the >dandy<, so well married with the >data<, as we know.\n(Bilwet)\n\n5. *Net is not art.* What could be dangerous in this mixture is precisely\nthe way it addresses both issues of art and social responsibility. When a\ntactical (media) activist says that *net is art*, my memory jumps back to a\nprevious experience we had in the 70s' and 80s' communist Europe.\n>Resistance through art< was then a slogan legitimating a special position\n>of artists who were truly believing that isolation into a specific medium\n>was vouching for political dissidence. The complementary trend was to\n>force the acceptance of active cultural dissidents as artistic authorities\n>(in the \"inner\" circles of the art world). The two situations are\n>interchangeable in the sense that they both consider political engagement\n>and artistic status as bonuses.\nWhen everything has political implications and/or artistic value, the\ninitial sense of both commitments becomes diluted and therefore vulnerable\nto manipulations.\nI am not trying here to level a historical experience that many\ncannot check upon with developments just occurring under our eyes. But the\nrecent past has to be used because it offers ready made commonplaces to\ncontemplate and avoid, if necessary. Or not.\n\nDenying publicly the art >system< in favor of media activism is trendy and\nit confirms the fascination that art keeps radiating in those times of\nmess-media. Otherwise, why make public issues (therefore conceptual\nobjects) from decisions which belong to the private (\"I am no more an\nartist/curator, etc.\"), if not for teasing (via negative\nself-advertisement) the curiosity of a field which seems to have lost any?\n\n6. {Looped rejection.} There is an interesting compression of meanings in\nthe attitudes of those who reject the art >system<, respectively the art\n(\"art is dead\"), and those - quite many - who claim \"artistry\" for other\ndomains, extraneous to the art as sensed historically.\na) Art and art system become one entity, with interchangeable weaknesses.\nPerceiving art's future only within the prospective of its promotional\ninfrastructure is an abuse which speaks about the failure of art to\nredesign its public beyond consumerism and the failure of consumerism to\nsocialize art beyond commercial integration.\nb) The identification between domain and system opens the door for confused\nattitudes of reclamation in the key \"art is (design/media/media design)\",\nwhich prove for the effective contamination of the general mentalities - so\nfar that consumerism is denied from a consumerist point of view. Which\ncould be interesting if not just hypocrite.\n\nThe reason for this loop rejection-lust stays in the schizophrenic relation\nthat society at large (still) seems to have with money. Although belonging\nto a system, art is somehow a gratuitous activity, a noble trade, with no\napparent relation to currency. By claiming artistry, other domains try to\nachieve qualities that art itself is denied lately: responsibility,\ndisinterest, social efficiency. The profit should be there also, for the\ncomplete satisfaction, but coming somehow spontaneously, as a reward for\nthe understanding of what art really means, and for >extending< its\nborders.\n\n7. {Loss of legitimacy.} >Net art< speaks (again) for the expectations\nrisen by the new tools in an era when technology plays the role of\nideology. And of the weakness of ideologies themselves in fulfilling one of\nthe most basic needs - legitimacy.\nAfter religion, art seemed to loose its quality to legitimate human\nactivities beyond the range of the aesthetic. But still, like religion\nitself, art became an instrument for organizing the dynamic of closed\ncommunities who stay as referential for more extended (and therefore more\ndiscrete) games of power.\n>Art is dead< and >net is art< are two symmetric attitudes whose polemic\n>values have to be appreciated \"cum grano salis\". But the development of\n>internet is not a fresh issue, and basically new media are not necessarily\n>new. Therefore maybe the euphoric statements, the holistic visions and the\n>pessimistic evaluations are corners that could be cut more drastically on\n>the base of historic experience, for getting into more matter-of-factly\n>estimates of the usefulness and dangers confronting the art in the\n>nettimes.\n\n8. {The parenthesis of the >new<.} There is a danger shadowing all topics\nstarting with the domain name *new*: If there is any hope for the new media\narts to get long term confirmation, it might come precisely from the fact\nthat new media themselves deal with old issues. The trouble is that since\nnovelty is something that keeps the momentum, there must be something wrong\nwith getting old. At least that is the rule of social contract at the\nmoment.\nIn the mean time, an increasing eagerness to seek for legitimacy in the\nhistory of media, or even further in the history of culture and religions\nis an operation which might help defining some areas of reflection for the\nnewest art - the net one.\n\ni. #From video out.# Compared to recent experiences, net art is less\ninstrumental in displaying big amounts of data and less able to sustain\nvisual environments beyond the user-to-screen relation.\n(Comment: Video art launched the costly adventure of v.-installation\nprecisely - among other reasons - because the user-to-screen paradigm\nseemed to be not enough competitive in the mess-media ambient.)\nIt has potentially higher rates of distribution, on the horizontal vectors\nof the web. It also involves a higher risk of dissipation, due to the\nspecificity of the same medium.\n(Comment: video art aimed to enter the vertical hierarchy of museums, and\nsucceeded; only to realize how meager an audience they bring, despite the\nacquisition of status symbol. Remain the video festivals and distribution\ninitiatives, something of the dimension of a large news group.)\nThe capacity of the machines is paramount in displaying the information,\nand the lack of consistency in their systems, power etc. make the net an\nunpredictable medium, from the hosting server on.\nii. #Learning to be old.# Net art might be a domain assuming as a program\nsome techniques of nomadism. Random appearances, tactical disappearance,\nlow resolution, ubiquity, distrust of historic values (posterity,\nstability, economic growth), data pessimism (bury the information, save\nyour discourse for a rainy day), strategies of destruction (symbolic\nviruses), etc.\nQuestion: If the >web< is a floating graveyard, what is the format of the\nfuneral monuments? ASCII? QTVR?\niii. #Fighting the mess-media.# Net art might put at work the frugal side\nof net tools for countering the excesses of today's visual environment.\nTherefore, to be non-visual (or with a diminished visual emphasize), remote\n(limited audience), private (relying on personal narratives, local\nimperatives, communal mythologies).\n(Comment: The bad news come when we remember the modest impact of\nconceptual art, community TV etc.)\nMainstream media shouldn't be competed on a lesser ground. The problem with\nart (*any* art) is that it has no proper means to define a ground out of\nreach for the mainstream media. The position of media arts (*any*, net art\nincluded, I'm sorry) is worsened in that sense by the vicious shareware\nsituation (same tools, different goals).\nQuestion: How many >surfers< and how many readers are using the www\ninterfaces? This in the prospective of a content based net art.\niiii. #Net quality.# Being able to replace the zapping of the 80s with\nsomething different than the >surfing< of the 90s; maybe with a\nreinstallation of the minimal intensity of contemplation which in lesser\ntimes was named revelation or religious feeling.\n\n9. *Statement for a flat interactivity*. The (new-) screen mentality\ndeveloping in the track of the www adds some extra confirmation to evidence\naccumulated during the short but by now tormented history of the moving\nimage. Precisely to the facts that: a) cinema was not a plug in for the\nRenaissance optical cube; and b) the moving images did not increase the\nmeaning of tri-dimensionality. From film to TV to computer, the visual\nlanguage didn't mark an \"evolution\", but spiraled back towards a\n(meta/pre)historic flatness.\n\nThe shocking window opened by the Lumičre brothers' first movie projection\nin the wall of a cabaret theater was already containing the prophecy of\nflatness: light, movement and prospective cannot change a steaming engine\nor a traveling happy bourgeois family into something different. What\nmaintained active for decades the hypnotic force of cinema is the revival\nof an old theatrical recipe: how to install a ritual atmosphere by working\nthe illusion of depth with the help of controlled light and multi-layered\nflatness. That was actually how the medieval \"misterium mysticum\"\nperformances were staged; that is the way theaters were build from the\nbaroque times until the 19 century - with layers of flat decorum propelled\nwith invisible cranes, wheels and ropes, in a scenario of interactivity\nwhere the button could be a word, a gesture, the sound of an instrument.\nAll under the supreme rule of light control.\n\nWhat ruined the hypnosis and revealed the flatness of the procedure was the\ninterference of uncontrolled light. (Dominant light is actually one of the\nembarrassments of modernism, introduced by Copernicus with his perception\nof the universe. The ecumenism of electricity, defined otherwise as >the\n4th dimension<, is another one.) The installation of more casual moving\nimage devices in our domestic decorum abolished the miracle of light\neffects, but enhanced flatness as an obvious quality of information.\n\nTV broadcast, video games, web pages with hyper-text structures prove\nprecisely the opposite of what is commonly assumed at this moment. We are\ndefinitely not in the way to capture the 3d in the box of our display\nmonitors, or to build an electronic/digital equivalent of the theatrical\nvision (from light cube to light tube, if I may; here has to be mentioned\nanother embarrassing heresy of modernism - the optical prospective as\nsettled in the 15 century by L. B. Alberti). But we might be close to\nachieve the goal underlining the image making process for millennia: a\nsynthesis of the meaningful flatness of representation with the symbolic\ndepth of movement.\nWe might also have an opportunity to finally acknowledge a consistent\nalthough remote fascination for the flatness of the images, even when\nanimated.\nFlatness is a dangerous component of reality, as far as it is not assumed\nas such. Art history can be red as a history of failures due to the\noppression of flatness. Let's say.\n\nThe Magdalenian hunters scribbling the walls of the European caves, or the\nnomads painting the rocks at Tassili have an understanding for the\nemergencies of mental perception and a knowledge of the ways to fulfill\nthem. In times of magic relation with the environment, a flattened\nrepresentation is both an instrument of control and a carrier of superior\npowers. By flattening the essential aspects of his surrounding (animals to\nhunt, enemies to defeat), the \"pre-historic\" painter doesn't operate a\nreduction, since by that way he can capture a spiritual dynamic via a\nfrozen movement.\nThe eye does not perceive the movement of the buffalo. The drawing does.\nAnd by that it makes obvious another level of the real, the hidden faces of\na world otherwise perceived boldly, like a container filled with hostile\nevents. Mapping that container pushes in view the movements and the vectors\nwhich give sense to this world. In other words, the world is eventually\nflat, and dynamic. And therefore meaningful.\n\n3d is predictable, therefore oppressive and limiting. 3d is like\ncensorship. While flatness is comprehensive in a way which gives room to\nthe imagination for building other dimensions too.\n\nLater on in time, the refinement of representation still keeps for a while\nthe dialectic approach to flatness. Where the Egyptian painting gives a\nprospective, it does so precisely in order to capture the movement, to\nsuggest the vibration of the monumental form, and not in order to play with\nillusions of volume and masses. In those times, human and animal are still\nhomologue categories - floating shapes in a shamanic flux which unifies the\nenergies of cosmos.\n\nFlatness was magic - 3d is ideology. When sculpture became a public\nentertainment, allowing the pedestrians to turn around carved figures, the\nbond to the domain of magic understanding was displaced by the veil of\nmisunderstandings, instrumental for the political power to keep a grip on\nreality. This process begun roughly in the Roman times, and it had a simple\nmechanics: making the real look unreal if compared to the powerful illusion\nof prospective. Before that, the sculptures were confined to the\narchitecture of the temple, altar, mountain. Sometimes they were even\nimpossible to be viewed. They were concepts. And concepts move in the thin\nair of flatness.\n\nThe taking off point for any good interactive situation is to assume the\nflatness of the screen as an evidence that cannot be transcended just by\nillusionist procedures; like the flatness of the Earth cannot be denied\njust by satellite photography technologies. As far as our daily trade\nproves, we live on a flat planet and we look at flat surfaces where flat\nshapes happen to move. Interactivity cannot and does not have to go further\nthan the flatness of data which allows information to achieve beyond-the-3d\nperformances. Two dimensions + movement = Multi-dimensional content. The\nformal aspects of such a process are undefinable, but the requirements are\nthere - on the net: the poverty of the tools, the emphasize on\ntransmission, the fluidity of the connections. A return to older visions\nmight be possible via net art. Or not.\n\nThe true virtual reality is the one which goes further than the third\ndimension, keeping at the same time a flat vision, which is the vision of\n(f)light . The VR we know now is just the cyber equivalent of the bourgeois\nrealism, a fascinating kitsch defined by basic similarities, effective and\naddictive because it cuts down any chance for the uncontrolled to burst in\nour hyper controlled environments. VR and 3d are the sedatives who keep the\nundisturbed life consumers from becoming life critics.\n\nTherefore, we must be cautious with a theoretical heritage who states that\n\"escaping [...] flatland is the essential task of envisioning\ninformation\"[1], and look into more obsolete experiences like the history\nof the collage [2], or the stage writings of Schlemmer [3]. Envisioning\ninformation means precisely capturing its essence - which is flat speed.\n\n10. The image of the modern artist was forged during the Italian\nRenaissance through a dispute which engaged for about one hundred years\nsome of the most outstanding personalities of the Quattro- and Cinquecento.\nIt was the dispute between the Liberal Arts (Ars Liberalis) and Mechanic\nArts (Ars Mechanicae).\nThe division, based on statements of the antique philosophy (mainly Plato)\nwas quantified in the Middle Age, when human activities have been\nclassified into superior and inferior \"arts\". The superior arts, emanating\n*only* from the spirit, and therefore \"Liberal\" were: Grammar, Rhetoric,\nLogic (the so called Trivium), respectively Geometry, Arithmetic, Music,\nAstronomy (Quadrivium). The \"inferior\" ones were all activities involving\nthe mechanics of the body or of the machines, no matter what the purpose of\nthe application was. That is how architecture, painting and sculpture, the\nmain domains of the visual creativity were nevertheless - mechanic arts.\nAll this was encoding an old prejudice about the superiority of theory over\npractice, intellectual over physical (work), invention over execution,\nillusion over representation, concepts over objects etc. etc. And mirrors\neventually top to bottom social structures, divided in masters and serfs,\nnoblemen and artisans, gods and mortals.\n\nThe Renaissance succeeded in changing the status quo by including the\nvisual arts among the other \"liberal\" activities, and therefore giving a\nchance to an integrated model of creativity, where the sensorial and\ntheoretical levels could become convergent. [4] The failure of this model\ncame precisely through the institutions meant to promote it, who enhanced\nthe economic aspect of the mutation at the disadvantage of the spiritual\nones. The liberation from the manufacturing circuit of\nproduction-gratification never occurred, in fact. It was just hidden behind\nthe screen of academic institutions who enhanced the gap between manual\nwork and intellectual satisfaction, instead of erasing it. Socially\nspeaking, the artists remained what they were before - artisans, but\nloosing in their new ambition schemes the niche reserved to them\npreviously, for a floating situation where individualism prevailed, without\nbeing necessarily a solution.\n\nWhat we experience in the nettimes is another attempt to integrate visual\nand conceptual (iconic and discursive) models in a unique flow of data.\nAnother attempt to modify the status quo of creativity by going beyond the\n\"mechanics\" of expression. And the danger remains the same - that the\ninstitutions which have to work out this change will fail the expectations\ninvested in them. That the social needs are again to far to be reached via\ntheoretic restlessness. That the digital priests will remain artisans, this\ntime >digital artisans< (the concept of Richard Barbrook).\n\nThe internet is seen now in many ways: as a social model, a\npsycho-metaphor, a religious interface, a cult, a communal tool etc., etc.\nIt is also, more and more, a play field for cloning the real world in a\nflattened un-reality. But this time a *truly flat* one, with no metaphysics\nwhatsoever. Therefore the idea of net art comes on a ground virtually\npolluted by all the failures and prejudices which make\nart-of-the-real-world so outdated. If this can be changed is a suspended\nquestion, but a challenging one, no doubt about it.\nHappy Doomsday!\n Călin Dan\n\nNOTES:\n\n[1] Edward R. Tufte - \"Envisioning Information\", Cheshire, Connecticut,\n1990, p.12; an otherwise excellent book about quantifying information in\nvisual contexts.\n[2] A fresh approach to the subject in Dorothea Dietrich, \"The Collages of\nKurt Schwitters. Tradition and Innovation\", Cambridge University Press,\n1993.\n[3] For instance, Oskar Schlemmer, Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, Farkas Molnar, \"The\nTheater of the Bauhaus\" (editor Walter Gropius), London, 1979.\n[4] More about this anachronistic topic in Anthony Blunt, \"Artistic Theory\nin Italy 1450-1600\", Oxford, 1940.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "calin {AT} euronet.nl (Calin Dan)",
|
||
"author_name": "Calin Dan",
|
||
"message-id": "v02140b00af8c10addc7b {AT} [194.134.8.58]",
|
||
"id": "00003",
|
||
"to": "nettime {AT} is.in-berlin.de",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9705/msg00003.html",
|
||
"subject": "<nettime> art in the nettimes etc.",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 29 Apr 1997 23:31:21 +0200 (MET DST)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"list": "nettime-l",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nHere is part of a discussion held during the nettime meeting\nlast may in Ljubljana. Alexei Shulgin (from the Moscow www artcentre),\nJoan Heemskerk and Dirk Paesmans (Jodi) talk about net.art, criticism or\nthe production of art-history and independence.\n\n\n*\n\nJB: What do you think of other people discussing what you do:\nthe net.art thread on nettime?\n\nAlexei: I don't care basically, I still consider the internet as a\nkind of black hole. You send some data into it and since its big,\nsince its kind of a distribution system, you can be sure that just by\nstatistic law it is going to touch somebody. If I get some respons I\nam happy or unhappy, but it happens just because of the nature of the\ninternet.\n\nJB: Because from the reactions that sometimes occurred during the\nnet.art thread, it seems like you were not at all happy that people\ntook the 'brutality' to comment at all on net.art, or to discuss it. As\nif it is something to be kept secret, to be kept as undefined as\npossible.\n\nAlexei: Here again we come to this point of definition what net.art is.\nYou yourself specified very precisely when you said you love this dot\nin between net and art. For me that dot also is very important because\nit signifies that its not that serious. A movement or a group can't have\na name like some computer file. Thats why net.art itself, because of the\nnature of the internet again, somehow resists to any definition. If you\nwant to define something you have to consider first a context, but what\nis the context of net.art, its everything, because you can find every-\nthing on the net easily. There is no fysical space, but some virtual\nspace. Everything belongs to net.art in a way.\n\nJB: Everything that has to do with the net anyway. Do you agree\nwith Robert Adrian then that all the artforms of the twentieth century\ncome together in net.art?\n\nAlexei: Yes, but I would say not only artforms, but many other\nthings. Like..(looking around) construction of bicycles for example\ncan be also included.\n\nJB: (having fun) I thought you were going to say something like\nsociological issues..\n\nAlexei: Yes, but sociological issues have been included into the\nartrealm before the net.\n\nDirk: We are only really excited when someone actually makes new\nsurprizing work on the net.The definitions and obsessional\nhistory-writing of net.art now, while it happens, is self-aggrandizing\nand manipulative.\nNet.art projects may be better criticized in a wider context, of art\nin general. But to cram it in the category, net.art is uninteresting,\nit's incestuous and limits future developments.\n\nAlexei: I think that with net.art we have sort of a contradiction\nbetween the artistic approach and the critical approach, because\nas I said before it is very difficult for critics to define or\ncontextualize net.art, but on the other hand we see very bright and\nwonderful examples of so-called net.art. Its like with any other\nmedia: you either feel this medium or not (talking about the artistic\napproach). If you feel these digits and networks and how the signal\ncomes and how a modem works. You just have to feel it. And if you do,\nyou are able to do some good work. If you come with some other ideas,\nwith the same approach as gallery art, it doesn't work. I see very\nlittle people who really feel the net and understand how the net\nworks and what its all about.\n\nJoan: Thats about the medium. If you work with the net you have to\nunderstand the net, if you work with the medium radio you have to\nunderstand radio.\n\nJB: Are there any collaborations coming, in future projects?\nI know there are some future exhibitions of the net.art group. When\nyou meet I suppose you talk about that also. What is going to happen?\n\nAlexei: Talking about group activity. We are in a way priviliged unlike\nartists from older generations. With the net we don't have to form\nany specific group to declare some specific manifesto and to do similar\nstuff or colaborative stuff. We all live in different cities in different\ncountries. All we direct communication to each other, because we respect\neach other's work and we have something to discuss there. We'll have some\nshows together, but again I want to say we are priviliged that we can\ngo on with our own work and not be dependent on other people, other\nartists' opinions, ideas or aesthetics. Everybody is going on with their\nown work. There will be situations in the future were we can meet and\ndiscuss things directly. Its nothing about working on joint projects,\nwe don't need that. We are all individuals, we can just remain ourselves.\nNot form some artificial groupings or whatever.\n\nJB: I was not insinuating that you were doing that, I was just\nasking whether there are any future projects, because I know there are\nsome exhibitions coming up were you are maybe not collaborating as you\nsay now, but at least you're exhibiting together.\n\nAlexei: For me it was important to stress this point.\nTalking about the future: I am still working on this form-art project.\nIn a way I sort of invented a new technology based artform. I am going\nto develop this site, to try to propose it as a new tool, a new medium\nfor artists. For that I am going to set up a website, like form.org or\nform.ru. I want to organize an international competition, with a money\nprize for the best work made in this form of art.\nI have some other ideas which deal more with the overload of information\nwe have now in this world.\n\nDirk: We will be participating in a project in Amsterdam, (in Arti et\nAmicae). Six artists are invited to set up a virtual environment for\na 'mu. The smallest unit: mu. The Mathematical Unit and the Multi-User\nenvironment. We like the Multi-User idea a lot, it is a technically\nchallenging thing to explore. We have been making some prototypes and\ntests of how to realize that kind of environment. There are some\ngraphical chat.worlds already, like The Palace, we are working on a\nmore abstract space for that.\n\nI also want to say that I like very much the idea from Vuk Cosic from\nLjudmila.org, that he was thinking about Ljudmila-west. We are very\ninterested in participating in it. We learned a lot from people from\nthe former east, and they could help us a lot. When you are here and\nyou look at the facilities and the enthusiasm and the smartness of\nthe people... I don't see it anywhere else. We would like to come here.\nWe proposed to Vuk to participate in a Ljudmila-west residency.\n\nJB: Its a joke on V2-east right? Instead of us arrogant\nwesterners that think people from the east need our help, it is\nsupposed to help artists from the west.\n\nAlexei: Like all jokes it has two sides. On the one hand its a joke,\nbut on the other hand it can bring some positive result. Like Jodi\ncoming to Slovenia and working here.\n\nDirk: And we would bring some of our Spanish friends. We have friends\nfrom the south, that insist on islamic culture for example. They don't\nlike the west, nor the east.\n\nJoan: So it will be east west north south.\n\nJB: You were talking about you all being individuals and that\nyou don't need to be a group and your all from different countries and\nblablabla...Now of course everybody that has seen the internet and the\nWorldWideWeb knows that you can loose your way quite easily, if you\ndon't know where to look. Artists working there need good infrastructure.\nFor them to get known and communicate their work, they have to use good\ninfrastructures mostly offered by others, right? Or they have to set up\ntheir own spaces, but they still have to announce these spaces in\nRhizome, in nettime, in Telepolis etc. To say that you can actually work\nwithout all this seems a bit untrue.\n\nAlexei: I am not saying that. If you look at the history of all art\nmovements, it was always like this: you had some local initiatives,\nlike Fluxus or NeoGeo or Trans-avandgardia or whatever with one leader,\neverybody would share certain ideas, do similar works, form a movement,\nusually with just one or two ideas behind it. People would join it.\nThen they would become recognisable as a group. It was important to be a\ngroup: to have a name, manifesto and whatever. But in the end, when you\nlook what happened, it very soon becomes routine. Those artists become\nfamous, recognised, but it very soon becomes a very boring routine.\nPeople just do what the system requires from them and it becomes totally\nuninteresting very soon. Artists become obliged to do certain kind of\nworks to proof again and again that they belong to this group. They do\nsomething specific.\nWith the internet its a little bit different. Now we're sort of coming\nthrough the last stage of the early stage of net.art development. When\ninsitutions start to pay attention to artists working on the net.., for\ninstance I am just coming from Budapest where I am doing a residency as\na net.artist. We got to know each other only because of the net. After\nthat we met together and got acquainted. Its theoretically not possible\nfor us to create some kind of movement. Its very different and I have no\nidea what can come out of it.\nBut talking about infrastructures and institutions and whatever.., maybe\nDirk can say some words. If you work on the net, one of the most\nimportant things is your domain name, like some short name in your url,\nthat you type in in Netscape and then you come to the place.\n\nDirk: I think its very important, I think everyone should set up his\nor her own domain. Its not very expensive and its not so difficult.\nIn the beginning of the net it was promoted to do so,\nbecause there were not so many domains, especially concerned with art\nor culture. Now there are, not so much, but 'enough' for every country\nalmost. Its been nationalised a lot. The geographical location in the\nurl, in the adress, is imposed almost. Its much more easy to get your\nnationality, like a sticker on your car, then to get the .com, .org,\n.nom or .art in url names. Its a bit more difficult. Little institutes\nwho are grown on the net, if its galleries or workshops.., of course\nas an artist in America (I shift continents immediately), there are\nmany young artists in America for sure who make HTML and Java, who want\nto do internet projects and they go to an institute nearby. They don't\nbother to set up their own domain. I disagree. The most important for\nme was to go on your own on the net. To get your own little boat, not\njump on the big ferry. Have your little own domain. Its not difficult,\nbut now they hide it more, they make it seem more difficult. There\nare laws that make it a bit more difficult. There are also the servers\nthat are in position, that are in power, who make it seem more difficult.\nThey do this with pricing or with availability of information how to do\nit. Its a do it yourself mentality and it's still easy.\n\nJoan: Its for recognition. Can you say Alexei's worldwide artcentre url?\nNo. So, if he would have had his own domain you would type it in just\nlike that. A lot of people now because of the growth of the net are\nworking this way. If you type in a domain and then you have to search for\nall the rest, you're just not visible anymore. I think its important for\nartists on the net to be visible.\n\nDirk: They should not join ljudmila.org or v2.nl or desk.nl or existing\nurl's. I don't pin it on these examples, but they provide spaces for\nso-called experiments with html, from net.art. But one should neglect\nthese existing institutions and go on one's own. It is also a total\ndifferent approach to what projects you will do, a totally different\nfeeling, its the independent feeling. No gallery, no in-between. The\none level playing ground, John Perry Barlow calls it like that, the\nCalifornian Ideology (laughs), I mean, you can do it.\n\nAlexei: Its true, now you see a lot of institutions that want to have\nartists stuff on their pages and collections of art projects. Since\nthere is practically not any critical context for net.art, we have\nreally a big mess in this kind of approach and selection. Look at\nthe Documenta site. It has a very different quality and trend and\nbase works promoted as art works, its just because of this mess, of the\nimpossibility to contextualise net.art. Thats why I think this kind of\nindependent activity is even more important. I am far from saying that\nif we can all be independent. We can create some independent or paralel\ninfrastructure. What we do is set links from Jodi's site to heath\nbuntings site to mine, thats kind of a paralel hyperlinked infrastructure\nof interesting artprojects. But to tell the truth I am not sure whether\nit is going to work very well, because people who are interested in art\nwill go first to well promoted art institutions, to see their links,\nwhats on their sites. Still the situation is kind of unresolved now.\nThis ambiguous situation will remain for some time.\n\nDirk: There is a battle against virtual institutions from independent\nnet.artists.\n\nAlexei: Now there are a lot of virtual exhibitions curated, but it seems\nthat for net.artists it really becomes not very interesting or important\nto participate in them for many reasons. If you go to Documenta to make\nan installation, its a big deal. You get a lot of money as honorarium,\nyou get a big budget to produce the work, its really something serious.\nIf we're talking about websites, small data, a few files, its very easy\nto get them and put them online and thats it. Artists don't get much from\njoining art institutions. They hope it will bring them something in the\nfuture, but it doesn't work. Institutions don't make real investments\ninto it, because they don't have to.\n\n*\n\n\n---\n# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and \"info nettime\" in the msg body\n# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Josephine Bosma <jesis {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"author_name": "Josephine Bosma",
|
||
"message-id": "l03010d02afe58b47408f {AT} [194.109.47.22]",
|
||
"id": "00014",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} Desk.nl",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9707/msg00014.html",
|
||
"subject": "<nettime> independent net.ar",
|
||
"date": "Sun, 6 Jul 1997 23:01:30 +0200 (MET DST)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"list": "nettime-l",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Re: net art history",
|
||
"content": "\n\nJosephine Berry wrote:\n\n> I could not have expected you to realise this (since I didn't explain), but the subject of my thesis *is* the group of artists that are loosely defined by the term 'net.art', and so the lack of a broader description is, to quite a large extent, intentional. \n\nI am very glad I reacted to it then, because it was totally unclear. I\nthink it is very important you add this piece of knowledge to your\nthesis and every part of it that you publish, as it now looks as if you\nare covering net art history in general. With all the confusion we have\nalready seen around the subject on various lists and considering the\nhunger for these kind of general insights and clarifications it is very\nlikely a text like yours could accidentally be used and spread as study\nmaterial representing the -entire- history of net art. Which it does\nnot. I must say that your clarification has made the text a lot more\nsympathetic to me, even if I have criticism still. It is also quite\nclear we need a lot of more specific or specialised researches of\ndifferent area's of net art. \n\n> which brings me to your criticism which is my tendency to see net.artists as having 'failed' in their own terms. In this chapter my argument is that it is the net.artists insistance on defending their art practice from dissolution in the wider network which collapses it back into the market-institutional framework from which they precisely tried to escape. In this respect it is the fact that they were hostile (in contrast to mail artists) to their work being adopted, manipulated, dissected, plagiarised etc. etc. by the *wider community* that, in my reading, amounts to a failure - and, ironically, in their own terms. \n\nThe 'net.artists' were absolutely not hostile to their work being\nmanipulated, dissected or plagiarised. On the contrary I would say, they\nare rather strongely influenced by the copy left ideas. The only thing\nthey initially found problematic was becoming institutionalised. Each of\nthem has dealt with this in a very different way in the end. As you may\nknow some of them simply proclaim net art is dead, to have some kind of\nexcuse for continuing their work on an institutional level or maybe just\nto have a way out of difficult media political and art institutional\nissues they became entangled in. These are individual strategies of a\nsmall group of artists though and they fit in their work. With all the\npranks and subversion of discourse we have dealt with coming from some\nnet.artists one should be careful with taking their words literally\nsometimes. When for instance Vuk Cosic goes to New York and says to art\nprofessionals that there have really only been five net.artists (to just\ngive an example of something that happened) it is quite ignorant to take\nthat as a fact and not see it in the light of his work. \nWhat I find and have found problematic in your writing about net.art is\nthat you tend to blow up the political aspect out of proportion instead\nof approaching this work mostly as art. This work has not failed as art,\nis what I am saying. I find it highly problematic to attach a label of\npolitical failure on this work in the context of nettime especially,\nwhere there has been so much ideological pressure on and hostility\ntowards net art practice.\n\n>I talk about the 01001etc.etc.org group as a hopeful instance of a practice which attacks intellectual art-property and opens up art to the massive creative potential inherent in the social field. I think this is a far more optimistic reading than any more limited celebration of specific artists.\n\nAgain, this is coming from a purely ideological approach of net art.\nFirst of all, 01001etc.etc.org seem just as much hot air as the\nnet.artists were in the political sense (I would underline 'in the\npolitical sense' if I could), secondly celebrating specific artists is\nnot at all what I am interested in and it should be clear from my work.\n(Maybe I am reading your comment as a criticism when it is not, then\nignore my remark.) It is important to explore and document the variety\nof artworks out there and the context they are made in. \n\n> The final thing to say on the issue of failure is the idea, expressed by the likes of Adorno and Debord, that the history of modern art is the history of its own endlessly deferred end. The autonomy which art gained from older forms of social service confronted it increasingly with the unfreedom of the world - a contradiction which precipitates its continued crisis. The 'failure' of the net artits is, in this sense, entirely in keeping with the wider movement of modern/post-modern art.\n\nWell, there is a lot that can be said about this. It seems to me this\nway of thinking could easily be replaced by another basic view of the\nworld, like any philosophy has its counter philosophy. I personally have\na lot of problems with terms like 'the end of' in relation to an\nabstraction like 'art' or 'modern art'. So even an endlessly deferred\nend is only a strategy to approach something. Not a very interesting one\nimho.\n\n\n\nbest\n\n\n\nJ\n*\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and \"info nettime-l\" in the msg body\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net\n",
|
||
"from": "Josephine Bosma <jesis {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"author_name": "Josephine Bosma",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0102/msg00109.html",
|
||
"id": "00109",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 13 Feb 2001 10:31:37 +0100",
|
||
"message-id": "200102131923.OAA29640 {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n>>>>>ALso, I am sure this has been part of your consideration,,,,\n\nbut as an art exists, so must a viewer... I have not read much myself on \nhow this contemporary net.art viewer is being defined>>> ...but i have \nDefined it myself as the user-viewer.\n\n this user-viewer is the critical observer of the events that occur \nwithin the interface of the technology in question: in our case, the \nincreasingly middle-class technologies of the internet: the Cyborg \nextensions of our bodies that allow us to communicate with each other via \nelectronic machine technology:::::::::::\n\n\n The user-viewer is one who critically observes and participate swithin \nan artwork that requires both technological user interactivity, and viewer \ninterpretation. The typical user is a sender-receiver, but the user-viewer \nis simply the critical, observational, sender-receiver<<<<-----\n\n\nbut maybe I'm just talking bollocks.\n\n}}}}}}}}}Any input?\n{screen.print())()){{{{<<<<\n}\n\n&&&&&&trip\n\n\n\n((&cultural appropriation in sound::: http://www.mp3.com/tripDixon ))\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and \"info nettime-l\" in the msg body\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net\n",
|
||
"from": "trip dixon <trw34x {AT} hotmail.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "trip dixon",
|
||
"message-id": "20010214222617.A18639 {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"id": "00134",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0102/msg00134.html",
|
||
"subject": "<nettime> Re: net art history",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:26:17 -0500"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nanother josephine on the subject to confuse you all\n\nwe in 'vns matrix' (cyberfeminist artist group) were making interactive\nartworks and text based performances on the internet pre web days.... as\nwere others.......so i always thought the term net.art should have been\nweb.art as this genre of art only came about with the introduction of the\nworld wide web to the internet.\n\ni was recently at an event where some of these artists were calling\nthemselves 'the fathers of net.art'\n....i guess the 'father's of web.art' doesn't sound quite as sexy, but i\nthink you art historians should maybe point out the difference in your\ntexts as you assign male authorship in your art discourses as you have\nthroughout history.\n\nj.\n\nhttp://starrs.design.nepean.uws.edu.au/\nhttp://starrs.banff.org\nhttp://www.anat.org.au/resistant-media/Bio-Tek\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and \"info nettime-l\" in the msg body\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net\n",
|
||
"from": "josephine starrs <starrs {AT} autonomous.org>",
|
||
"author_name": "josephine starrs",
|
||
"message-id": "200102160007.TAA05399 {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"id": "00158",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0102/msg00158.html",
|
||
"subject": "<nettime> Re: net art history",
|
||
"date": "Fri, 16 Feb 2001 04:57:13 +1100"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n>\n>\n>we in 'vns matrix' (cyberfeminist artist group) were making interactive\n>artworks and text based performances on the internet pre web days.... as\n>\n>\n>i was recently at an event where some of these artists were calling\n>themselves 'the fathers of net.art'\n>....i guess the 'father's of web.art' doesn't sound quite as sexy, but i\n>think you art historians should maybe point out the difference in your\n>texts as you assign male authorship in your art discourses as you have\n>throughout history.\n>\n>j.\n>\n\nyes, same canon making pattern.\n\nbut vns matrix is a big impressive mama of net.art not soon to be\nforgotten I hope.\n\nand about the offspring of net.artists--the net.art?\n\nwatching this thread it seemed to focus on writing net.art history based\non the authors/artists, their relations to institutions, resistance or\ncompliance, avant-garde maneuvers, individual personalities, interviews...\n\ni would like to see histories of net.art take into consideration the\noppositions within the art itself, differentiations and tendencies within\nwhat is not a unified field, ways that net.art proposed new ways and\nmeans, how it adapted strategies from past offline art (josephine berry\nmade some correlations between mail art and conceptual art, etc.) also i\nwould like to see histories of net.art look at strategies net.art shares\noutside the art world with digital folk art and other forms of networked\nauthorship like software, writing, music making, gaming, online otaku,\netc.\n\nwe made a taxonomy back in 97 (seems long in the web time) when i was a\ngrad student at cadre. we would voluntarilly meet every week as part of\nSwitch http://switch.sjsu.edu and search around. it was a collective\neffort to map tendencies of what was not yet so fixedly labeled net.art.\npeople involved were Lisa Jevbratt,(1:1), Jan Ekenberg, Ben Eakins, Geri\nWittig(C5), Brett Stalbaum, (EDT and other hacktivisms), and others. we\nmade icons for each category and for many later switch issues Brett posted\nnet.art link collections with these icons attached.\n\nour taxonomy catagories back then were:\n\n-Not Web Art (our response to what led to the net.art term)\n\n-Documentational\n\n-Collaborative\n\n-Narrative\n\n-Unintentional\n\n-Contextual\n\n-Poetic\n\n-Formalist\n\n-Participatory\n\n-Telepresence\n\n-Information Mapping\n\n-Web Event\n\n-Contextual\n\nPerhaps this may be useful to someone.\n\nanne-marie\nhttp://opensorcery.net/\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and \"info nettime-l\" in the msg body\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net\n",
|
||
"from": "anne-marie <amschle {AT} cadre.sjsu.edu>",
|
||
"author_name": "anne-marie",
|
||
"message-id": "200102180733.CAA07289 {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"id": "00194",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0102/msg00194.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Re: net art history",
|
||
"date": "Sat, 17 Feb 2001 16:25:47 -0800"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\n>On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, olia lialina wrote:\n>> But don't you see that net art and net artists changed the\n>> landscape of contemporary art? Now, art institutions have to\n>> learn to act as nodes (not as a center). And they do.\nMurph wrote:\n>Can't see that has happened much from my perch here in NYC. Maybe in\n>Europe that's true. Certainly the Guggenheim is becomming more nodal, but\n>that doesn't have much to do with net art. More like global conquest.\n-----\nThe net has certainly changed the world to some degree but I can't see that\nnet artists have changed anything significant (not that museums are\nparticularly significant anyway, when compared to other global institutions\nor issues). I can't think of many artists that have changed things in the\nbigger picture. I was not aware that this was the role of the artist. Even\nif looking at so-called \"revolutionary art\", whether Russian, Mexican or\nwhatever, where the artists have believed that they were a key component in\ncultural change it is retrospectively apparent that they were deluding\nthemselves.\n\nArtists do not transform the world. They transform how they personally see\nthe world and this gradually rubs off little by little on others...but only\nwhen they are ready for it. Art is not politics...although it might be\npolitical.\n\n>There's been interest in the \"archaic days\" lately, the period pre-1994\n>stretching back to the dawn of humankind. Carl Leoffler's death the other\n>day reminded me that his ArtCon newsgroup was one of my first contacts\n>with other artists on the net. I think both Heath Bunting and Brad Brace\n>were there.\n-----\nI wasn't aware of Carl's death. That is a more significant cultural event\nthan the death of Balthus that everyone is talking about...at least for\nme...\n\n>I think John Hopkins teaches at Boulder off and on. Universities are\n>looking for ways to cash in on digital art. Amerika's use of the phrase\n>\"innovative ciriculum\" is a dead giveaway. That's biz talk, not art talk.\n>Art students all want to make Jurrasic Park these days.\n-----\nUniversities want active research profiles. The current interest in all\nthings digital and net-based means that artists working in that area can\nbring to the institution their research points. Ultimately this translates\ninto funding and PR.\n\nSome universities even expect such artists to teach ;)\n\n\n\n\n\nSimon Biggs\nLondon GB\n\nsimon {AT} babar.demon.co.uk\nhttp://hosted.simonbiggs.easynet.co.uk/\n\n\nResearch Professor\nArt and Design Research Centre\nSchool of Cultural Studies\nSheffield Hallam University\nSheffield, UK\nhttp://www.shu.ac.uk/\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and \"info nettime-l\" in the msg body\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net\n",
|
||
"from": "Simon Biggs <simon {AT} babar.demon.co.uk>",
|
||
"author_name": "Simon Biggs",
|
||
"message-id": "200102201815.NAA04900 {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"id": "00212",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0102/msg00212.html",
|
||
"subject": "<nettime> Re: net art history",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:59:40 +0000"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\nA couple of thoughts on this popular net.art.thread:\n\nAs has been already been mentioned a couple times in the thread: focusing\non net.art seems to imply it's *the* history of net art, a seemingly\nunbreakable modernist habit. Though I understand it wasn't Josephine's\nintention to imply this, focus on net.art history over the years causes\nhumans reflexively to have such a reaction. Also, it doesn't help that the\nname of the movement is one punctuation mark away from the name of the\ngeneric form: \"net.art and net art.\" If a movement sprang up called\n\"sculp.ture\" people could probably keep it straight, because the term\n\"sculpture\" has been in active use for quite some time - but \"net.art\"\nsprang up when \"net art\" was fairly new, and so the two have become\nconfused to a large extent. (I'm not sure myself where one ends and the\nother begins; blurring boundaries having been a goal of net.art, perhaps\nthats a good thing.)\n\nSo there are clearly other net art histories than net.art: we have heard\nfrom the mail art mothers of net art, Elisa Rose, and for example, a\nnumber of us in the US were actively doing net art when I started in 1996:\nVictoria Vesna, Shu Lea Chang, Ken Feingold, SITO, Brad Brace, Electronic\nCafe, as a few (but not the only) examples, some of whom go back much\nfarther than 96. Brad Brace, of course was working largely on Usenet,\nElectronic Cafe was working with video/audio networked performance as an\nextension of telecommunication art; most of the rest of us were working on\nthe web. I think, overall, we were more focused here on the idea of\nexploring/exploiting the network and of communal, networked production (of\nintangible objects) than the European net.art folks. (But that's a rough\ngeneralization - for example, projects like \"Refresh\" would have fit right\nin - and in fact I remember that project being very popular here.) On the\nother hand, we found ourselves dealing with some of the same issues as the\nfolks in Europe: museums and galleries wanting to show the work, but\nwanting the file on their system so they could somehow have an \"object\"\nthat the rest of the world on the Internet didn't have.... though somehow,\nwhen I told them this was impossible and defeated the purpose of the\nRecycler, they always seemed to show it anyway, sans file - evidence of\nOlia's node theory. I made the Gallery section of the Multi-Cultural\nRecycler as a joke on gallery net art objects, but this didn't seem to\ndissuade them - they printed out the Recycler Gallery images to hang on\nthe walls for shows. Go figure. Well, enough of the shameless personal\nplugs...\n\nWhat I think we lacked in the US was a \"movement\" the way net.art was a\nmovement. (That doesn't speak for other net art histories, such as mail\nart, only for the particular movement that I was not involved in at the\ntime. :-) Please feel free to correct me if you were, in fact, involved in\na net art movement - would be nice to get all these net art histories\nbetter documented somewhow... ) But anyway, net.art had a movement, at the\nvery least it had coherence, and although it aimed to subvert the art\nworld, eventually its own sort of art world formed around it. It developed\na culture, hype and mystique through lists and texts; it had a center,\ninsiders, outsiders, even nodes. This is of course not a failure; this is\nunavoidable: groups form; even anarchism is an institution. Then\nhistories of the anti-institutional institutions begin to be written, and\nthe fun begins. (Look how long this thread has been going... ) With all\nthat baggage, how can a postmodern modernist institution possibly survive\nthe critical eye of History?\n\nSo, did net.art fail? I don't think so - look at all this extra-galleric\nhistory it's generating... It wanted to divert production/attention from\nthe Art World - here we all are arguing about it, people are writing their\ntheses about it, etc. I'd say it succeeded in its aim pretty well. Did\nthe museums and galleries absorb some of it anyway? Sure, what's to stop\nthem. Is that a failure? No. I think Olia hits it right on the head with\nthe node theory. Whether a museum or gallery acknowledges it or not, it\ncan be no more than a node with regards to net art. But then, this is the\nnature of net art, as well as of net.art. Moreover, the absorption and\ncommodification of both net.art and net art is limited, partial, and\noptional to the artists. Neither has been consumed by galleries, and they\nhave not developed a dependence on them.\n\nIs net.art dead? Where did the net.artists go? They are still making\nnet.art, or at least net art... they are also making political statements,\nmusic, love, babies; this is life, not death. Net.art is not about the Art\nPolice forcing people to do the same thing constantly to prove commitment\nto it; no art really is. The crux is still there. Whether the production\nis the same as it was 5 years ago or not is not really the point: it is\nwhat it is, it left what it left, and the frenzy of discussion about it\nhere is itself evidence of its success in what it set out to do. The\nlayers may peel on and off, but the center is still there - think of it as\ntoilet paper. BTW, don't try to flush the tube; it just keeps bobbing back\nup.\n\n(Note to people who take things literally: toilet paper is a good thing;\njust think of the mess you'd have trying to wipe up with the Art Journal.)\n\n \nciao,\n- {AT} \n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and \"info nettime-l\" in the msg body\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net\n",
|
||
"from": "Amy Alexander <plagiari {AT} plagiarist.org>",
|
||
"author_name": "Amy Alexander",
|
||
"message-id": "200102211844.NAA20046 {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"id": "00223",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0102/msg00223.html",
|
||
"subject": "<nettime> Re: net art history",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 21 Feb 2001 03:28:52 -0800"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\n>>>\n>> the party's nearly over..\nSome think net.art is dead...\nwhether it is or not is of course a question of perception and semantics.\nHowever I feel that there is no doubt that the \"golden age\" of reveling in\nthe creative freedom of a new media is over. No longer can we hold up the\nmedium as the sole validifying factor of an art work. The many modes of\npratice that have been explored since net.art was born will become just part\nof a more general syntax with which we value,critique,record and enjoy. Like\nany new medium it carries its own intrinsic forms and aesthetic, and like\nany medium it is in flux, it's own boundaries redefined with each new\nrefrain or impact.\nHowever too much grey change from one form to the next and too many shouts\nfrom a swelling crowd is not good for history or for theorists.Critique and\ntheory needs reliable subjects and consistency of source material.\nUnfortuanately this need for definable boundaries increases in inverse\nproportion to the knowlege of those documenting them.\n>>\nASCII Paparazzi.\n. Anyway, the biggest problem net art journalists and observers\nhave is that we are too few with too much to do.\n>>\nIn a sense I agree, yet I feel that often the (ASCII Paparazzi as olia puts\nit) are the majority,\nwriters and theorists who are caught up in the tide of\nnet.art/newmedia/convergence\nbecause it is \"new\" ,\"fashionable\",\"looks good\". The newmedia/net world\nimplies progression and forwardthinking intelligence, evolution and\ntransgression even before you begin.\nI have been to countless seminars and conferences where the conversation is\nall too backslapping and uninformed, demystification and real dissection\noften takes a back seat to eulogy.\nInterviewers ask artists about themes or subject matter that the journo has\nwritten about and therefore insists lies within the peice even if the artist\ndenies it outright (yes there is a discussion of author/viewer e.t.c. but it\ndoesn't make a very interesting conversation.)\n\nDon't even get me started about institutions, 2 years at the Tate, managing\na healthy portion of their online arts projects again brought me to many\nunexpected and sad/happy conclusions about the state of play in the\nnet.art.world\n\nso soon it will be time to leaf through the litter\n>> and pick up the bits that are worth keeping for the next party,\n\nI am hoping that the crossover will do the weeding...We can already see how\nsome \"classics\" were never classics an the first place. Perhaps the harsher\nscrutiny of the institutions and of the history makers will, in it's own\nway, refine the qualities that make some net.art real contenders.\nI'm not being negative, I really think that this is a good thing, because\nI've seen too much weak work trophied, work that in any other medium would\nnever have made it out of the box. It will also make greater demmands on the\ndocumenters, the journalists, not to be ASCII paparazzi, but to help form a\nmore thought-out history, from more than emails, screens and macromedia\nfestivals.\n\n________________________________________________________\nC:\\AUTOEXEC.BAT\nC:\\REM [Header]\nC:\\>\nC:\\>PATH=C:\\PERL\\BIN;C:\\WINDOWS\\COMMAND;\\C:jdk1.2.2\\bin\n________________________________________________________\n\nhttp://www.nullpointer.co.uk\n(all suffixes enabled)\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and \"info nettime-l\" in the msg body\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net\n",
|
||
"from": "\"nullpointer\" <nullpointer {AT} odessadesign.co.uk>",
|
||
"author_name": "nullpointer",
|
||
"message-id": "200102212102.QAA21649 {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"id": "00227",
|
||
"to": "<nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0102/msg00227.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Re: net art history",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:48:22 -0000"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"list": "nettime-l",
|
||
"subject": "<nettime> Re: [Nettime-bold] Josephine Berry's net art history",
|
||
"content": "\nEven if I have respect for the amount of work Josephine Berry has put in\nher thesis, I feel like I have to make a comment about what I see as a\nfew basic mistakes in her analyses. The basis of Berry's way of thinking\nseems to be that net art started in 1996 with net.art. There is no or\nhardly any mentioning of network art before that time, and even of net\nart made by others during the time net.art started to be discussed. Then\nthere is the insistent hammering on the alledged political aims of this\nfirst net.art 'group'. Even if the works and attitude of -some- members\nof this group have been very influential in the way net art has been\napproached in especially the nettime community ( and also in the way it\ninspired some artists of a younger generation) it would be wrong to make\nan analyses of net art depend on these few and the spin around them.\nWhat I read (and have read in the past) from Josephine Berry view on net\nart is a strong focus on this political aspect of early net.art which\nthen turns into an analyses of its failure every time she writes about\nit. And of course, what else could it be. The revolutionary potential of\n'political' art (for lack of a better term) has always been very small.\nThis art is always part of a larger cultural change or tendency. I hope\nit is clear in her thesis that this particular analyses concerns a small\nbut influential part of net art and that there will be many more up to\ndate chapters on other artworks and trends in her thesis. \n\n\n\n\n\nbest\n\n\nJ\n*\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and \"info nettime-l\" in the msg body\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net\n",
|
||
"from": "Josephine Bosma <jesis {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"author_name": "Josephine Bosma",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0102/msg00084.html",
|
||
"id": "00084",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"date": "Sat, 10 Feb 2001 10:33:37 +0100",
|
||
"message-id": "200102102123.QAA27954 {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\nDear Josephine,\n\nI could not have expected you to realise this (since I didn't explain), but the subject of my thesis *is* the group of artists that are loosely defined by the term 'net.art', and so the lack of a broader description is, to quite a large extent, intentional. Although it is impossible to discuss any art movement or group in a historical vacuum, it is however equally impossible to include every single related instance of practice. I made the decision to use conceptual art of the 60s and 70s as the main genealogical thread rather than early network artists because I see these conceptual artists as crucial historical precedents to *both* later moments. Having said that I do make mention of mail artists who are a strong precursor to net art not only because of the coincidence of dematerialisation and the network but also because the mail art movement included many non-artists - or at least people who didn't understand themselves precisely in these terms. This leads me to your other !\ncriticism which is my tendency to see net.artists as having 'failed' in their own terms. In this chapter my argument is that it is the net.artists insistance on defending their art practice from dissolution in the wider network which collapses it back into the market-institutional framework from which they precisely tried to escape. In this respect it is the fact that they were hostile (in contrast to mail artists) to their work being adopted, manipulated, dissected, plagiarised etc. etc. by the *wider community* that, in my reading, amounts to a failure - and, ironically, in their own terms. So you are right when you touch on an important lack in the chapter - of a multitude of other network-based creativity - but I think you misunderstand me if you think that this absence relates purely to my own lack of interest. At the end, I talk about the 01001etc.etc.org group as a hopeful instance of a practice which attacks intellectual art-property and opens up art to the massive cre!\native potential inherent in the social field. I think this is a fa\n optimistic reading than any more limited celebration of specific artists.\n\nThe final thing to say on the issue of failure is the idea, expressed by the likes of Adorno and Debord, that the history of modern art is the history of its own endlessly deferred end. The autonomy which art gained from older forms of social service confronted it increasingly with the unfreedom of the world - a contradiction which precipitates its continued crisis. The 'failure' of the net artits is, in this sense, entirely in keeping with the wider movement of modern/post-modern art.\n\n\n->- www.metamute.com -<- coming back soon\n\n* ->- www.ouimadame.org -<- * to follow\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and \"info nettime-l\" in the msg body\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net\n",
|
||
"from": "Josephine Berry <josie {AT} metamute.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "Josephine Berry",
|
||
"message-id": "200102130603.BAA23239 {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"id": "00103",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0102/msg00103.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Re: [Nettime-bold] Josephine Berry's net art history",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:06:24 +0000"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nHello Josephine!\n\nJust some brief remarks on the chapter of your dissertation that you send. \n\nI think it is very good in general, and the theory around net art needed\nsome boost. Too bad that nobody produces any net art anymore... ;-) \n\nTwo things: first of all there are hints throughout the text that net art\nhas become accepted by the so-called art world, is assimilated in the art\nmarket etc. I have heard that claim a couple of times recently, but I don't\nsee much proove for that. There was a handful of sales of net art piece, OK\n- but that was widely acknowledged by everybody, because it was so\nspectacular, that somebody would pay money for some HTML pages. But apart\nfrom that there is no market there - at all! (I am writing that not,\nbecause I care very much if there is a market for net art or not, but to\ncounter these recent claims that net art has been \"established\".) And at\nleast in Germany there is no \"normal\" museum or gallery that pays any\nattention to this stuff; only specialized institutions like the ZKM who\nwere founded for just that purpose. If a show like the Whitney Biennale\nshows net pieces it is still pointed out as unusual, and I don't think any\nnet stuff will be included in the next documenta. So I think in terms of\nrecogniation of the \"real\" art world it is much earlier than we think, and\nmaybe it will never happen.\n\nThe other thing that bothered me as well as Josephine Bosma was the\nlimitation on the artists you discuss extensively, but you explained that.\nI don't know if you point out elsewhere that you are limiting yourself to\nthese people because you can't discuss everything that happens on the net\nin terms of art. I think especially in the context of this chapter it might\nbe interesting to focus on the very strategy they employed to get\nrecognition. You know, form a little group, give yourself some interesting\nname, create a myth around yourself and start to write manifestos. On the\none hand this is a well-known artist's strategy, on the other hand - if you\nlook at it now - it was done kind of sloppy and tongue in cheek (the famous\nstory about the term net.art etc). I mean, only so few manifestos? Maybe\nthis can also be read as an example of the use of an art strategy that\nturns into something else, that you describe in some of the examples...\n\nAs far as the Biopower-stuff is concerned... well, I haven't read \"Empire\",\nbut to me it sounds a little bit like \"bio compost\", for which we have a\nspecial garbage can here in Germany... ;-) I totally agree with you that\nthe net artists used (and still use) well-established art (and\nanti-establishment) attitudes, that somehow transcend the art realm, when\nthey are applied on the net. I have a hard time finding the right\nterminology to describe this, but I am not sure if the \"Empire\"-terminology\nputs it so well, either. \n\nWell, so much for now. There is a lot to be said about this topic, but\nsince this discussion was stifled on nettime at one point, nobody did\ncontinue it. Maybe over some pasta with chicken, again, Josephine? ;-) \n\nYours, \nTilman \n\nPS: Of course I don't agree with you that I. Graw plays such an role in\nyour essay, but never mind. I wrote a furious reply on this piece, when it\ncame out, that Jospehine Bosma was kind enough to translate: \n\n\n\nAt 11:06 12.02.01 +0000, you wrote:\n>\n>Dear Josephine,\n>\n>I could not have expected you to realise this (since I didn't explain),\nbut the subject of my thesis *is* the group of artists that are loosely\ndefined by the term 'net.art', and so the lack of a broader description is,\n <...>\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and \"info nettime-l\" in the msg body\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net\n",
|
||
"from": "Tilman Baumgaertel <tilman_baumgaertel {AT} csi.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "Tilman Baumgaertel",
|
||
"message-id": "200102140505.AAA05257 {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"id": "00117",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0102/msg00117.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Re: [Nettime-bold] Josephine Berry's net art history",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:22:02 +0100"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"list": "nettime-l",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\njosephine starrs wrote:\n\n> we in 'vns matrix' (cyberfeminist artist group) were making interactive\n> artworks and text based performances on the internet pre web days.... as\n> were others.......so i always thought the term net.art should have been\n> web.art as this genre of art only came about with the introduction of the\n> world wide web to the internet.\n\nIt is a common misunderstanding to think net art started when the term\nnet.art was first used. It has been important to emphasize the works\nwithin net.art for a while though, as at that time (1996/1997) art on\nthe net became something art historians and curators started to get\ninterested in (I guess it was maybe at that time that the net and web\nstarted to grow fast/become really crowded), but in the first texts I've\nseen they mentioned works and artists that were very different from what\nfor instance Tilman Baumgaertel and yours truly (and others too!) saw\naround us. It was always Jenny Holzer, Julia Scher at most... A lot of\nnet.art had a very different feel, and it could have very easily missed\nthe boat (of recognition). I would prefer not to get into a discussion\nabout how it might have been better for this art NOT to have been\nrecognised, which is an opinion I find total nonsense and I am fed up\nwith it. \nConfusing net art with web art is a horror in my point of view. But this\nconfusion comes also from the fact that, regardless of how some\nnet.artists or fans of old net.art like to proclaim, the discourse\naround net art is still developing. Don't forget we are mostly\ndeveloping this discourse online (there is very little room for it in\nthe printed and other media, apart from some very badly distributed\nbooks which mostly cover aspects, bits and pieces), within a very broad\n'community', where it is constantly surrounded by a lot of noise (people\nstill claiming net art has no quality, claiming a clear beginning and\nend of it, an older new media generation (by far not all of them thank\ngod) feeling passed by works they cannot appreciate or maybe even\nunderstand etc etc). There have been texts about net art which show,\noften between words, that the term net art really came later then the\n'methods' of working within net art themselves. It would be ever so\npleasant if that fact would be used in a positive sense towards the\nspecific artworks, and would give these practices a chance to connect\nwith art history in their own right: recognition of their specificity\n-and- their relatedness at the same time. \nThe term net art is so confusing that many have tried to find a new\nterm, but I have never really heard one that covered art in a networked\nsociety better then net art. I also feel it is important to keep the\nword 'net' in for reasons of media politics/tactical media use, which\nare of course of great importance to art practice in this context. It\nwould be too easy to ignore the importance of what the net has brought\npeople (which artists still also are) in terms of playfullness, media\naccess and 'media awareness'. This might all sound like a lot of fuss\nover terminology only, but at the moment such a fuss is clearly still\nnecesary.\n \n> i was recently at an event where some of these artists were calling\n> themselves 'the fathers of net.art'\n> ....i guess the 'father's of web.art' doesn't sound quite as sexy, but i\n> think you art historians should maybe point out the difference in your\n> texts as you assign male authorship in your art discourses as you have\n> throughout history.\n\nIt is -very- understandable the words 'the fathers of net.art' make you\neither fall from your chair laughing or crinch with embarrassment. I\nhave never heard anyone use it. The point you make is interesting, but\nyou are not suggesting we point at a female authorship in this case? The\nhistory of net art does not really have a clear starting point to begin\nwith (if we include all kinds of forerunners throughout art history). Is\nthat female enough? (just kidding)\n\n\n\nbest\n\n\nJ\n*\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and \"info nettime-l\" in the msg body\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net\n",
|
||
"from": "Josephine Bosma <jesis {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"author_name": "Josephine Bosma",
|
||
"message-id": "200102160124.UAA07275 {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"id": "00162",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0102/msg00162.html",
|
||
"subject": "<nettime> Re: [Nettime-bold] Re: net art history",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:10:52 +0100"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"list": "nettime-l",
|
||
"subject": "<nettime> Re: Re: net art history",
|
||
"content": "\n\nrobert adrian wrote:\n\n> All of the artists\n> you mention treat the Internet as public space\n> and, no matter what their other agendas may be,\n> an important political element of their work is\n> to claim that space as a place for art.\n\nExactly. And this is the part where politics -do- come into view: with\nthe tools or space for art or culture in general to develop with or in.\nThe fact that politics are undeniably a part of art in media does not\nmean that a potential of an art practice to make a difference in the\npolitics of either the artworld itself or in that of a broader world of\nindustrial and political power struggles mean that such a potential\nshould be judged seperately from the other aspects of such artworks. To\ndo that gives a crooked image of an enterprise that fails at reaching\nsome goal. As Josephine Berry did say, and she uses the example of\n00100etc.org for this, is that the -potential- for political change in\nsome net art obviously has -not- 'failed' or died yet. I think it is\nexactly that which was and is its strength and also its burden. Art in\nmedia are and will be always controversial. The controversy around it is\nnot easy to give words to always though. Sometimes it is just something\nsimple like 'it is useless'.\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and \"info nettime-l\" in the msg body\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net\n",
|
||
"from": "Josephine Bosma <jesis {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"author_name": "Josephine Bosma",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0102/msg00153.html",
|
||
"id": "00153",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:39:30 +0100",
|
||
"message-id": "200102151843.NAA00396 {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\na disclaimer:\ni think of my artwork as research and so when i reference my work please \nconsider it as a textual response or rather my attempt at \"meaningful\" \naddition to this and other threads. probably most people on this list \nrealize this approach and value of an artist's contributions in this way. i \nonly make this disclaimer because so often (possibly via my american status) \ni feel that self-references to work on this and other lists are read as \nself-promotion or spam and while it is true that i do stand to gain from the \nthin thread of \"future monetary capital\" so do all artists, intellectuals \ninvolved in the \"creative process\". those who know my work well know this \n\"future profitability\" is not my motivation behind the work otherwise i \nwould simply become an investment banker and no longer \"enjoy\" living in an \nillegal warehouse space in harlem.\n\na response\nnow may i suggest that yes the simple gesture in the acquisition of \"space\" \nanywhere for the purposes of art is a radical political gesture at this \npoint in time. \"a contemporary american artwork in progress \n(http://www.restlessculture.net/americanart ) as well as most of my current \nwork deals directly with recombinate modes that re-access the concept of \n\"resistance\" and attempt an offset of reactionary politics and the creation \nof mere binaries. these binary situations are the over-simplified reversal \nand as i see it easily located and less than restless simplistic reversal of \nconcepts for the purposes of the now standardized \"political\" criteria well \nadapted and used as latent carriers for our american political/economic \nsystem i.e., political correctness.\n\nto not consider the efforts of many artists performing this simple gesture \nof art-occupation at the fringes of ALL networks and nodes within and off of \nthe obvious and profitably singular tag of \"the internet within itself\" is \nreally disappointing. to berry or anyone attempting an understanding of art \nat this time i would say please consider the \"nternet within itself\" as the \nleast important aspect of this moment and consider instead the metaphoric \nuse of the internet: a model for the acceleration of time and decrease of \nspace that is occurring all around us. true, wolfgang net.art is dead as \nare all texts approached with such a singular in narrow reading.\n\n-cpv59\n\n\n>robert adrian wrote:\n>\n> > All of the artists\n> > you mention treat the Internet as public space\n> > and, no matter what their other agendas may be,\n> > an important political element of their work is\n> > to claim that space as a place for art.\n>\n>\n>Josephine Bosma wrote:\n>\n>Exactly. And this is the part where politics -do- come into view: with\n <...>\n\n_________________________________________________________________\nGet your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and \"info nettime-l\" in the msg body\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net\n",
|
||
"from": "\"OVER EXPOSURE\" <ps1_newart {AT} hotmail.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "OVER EXPOSURE",
|
||
"message-id": "200102160005.TAA05318 {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"id": "00159",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0102/msg00159.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Re: Re: net art history",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:20:04 -0500"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\nOVEREXPOSURE WRITES:\n\n\nnow may i suggest that yes the simple gesture in the acquisition of \"space\"\nanywhere for the purposes of art is a radical political gesture at this\npoint in time.\n\nGH Comments:\n\nFor most net artists/ artists working in digital media, especially in the\nUSA it's all about resisting the push to institutionalize, commodify and\npackage creativity. It's also about the positive notion of creating a free\narea where the artist can make work. Or as Cary says acquisition of space\nfor the purpose of art. I would like to note that this acqusition of space\nfor the purpose of art is radical when it is accomplished by an individual\nor group of artists.\n\n\n______________________________________________\nFREE Personalized Email at Mail.com\nSign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and \"info nettime-l\" in the msg body\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net\n",
|
||
"from": "\"G.H. HOVAGIMYAN\" <gh {AT} popstar.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "G.H. HOVAGIMYAN",
|
||
"message-id": "200102171952.OAA31185 {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"id": "00185",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0102/msg00185.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Re: Re: net art history",
|
||
"date": "Fri, 16 Feb 2001 08:20:19 -0500 (EST)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\nI check my mail, look at my bank balance, I see myself in\nthe mirror - and I still don't know what you mean by\nfailures and deaths?\n\n\nPART I\n\nNet art failed, in some critics and researchers opinion,\nbecause it didn't take over institutions as was expected.\nCurators, museums and magazines didn't disappear (sorry).\nBut don't you see that net art and net artists changed the\nlandscape of contemporary art? Now, art institutions have to\nlearn to act as nodes (not as a center). And they do. Those\nwho are really open become part of complex networking\nprojects. Those who can't get rid of traditional standards\nof beauty and interactivity entertain their audience by\nmaking links to funny web pages.\n\nAnd Art.Teleportacia --my miserable, small, pale\nArt.Teleportacia gallery-- did a great job. It moved\ncurators of big museums to open their eyes and continue\ntheir work on a new level; with understanding and respect\nfor works that are not objects, works that are not completed\nproducts.\n\nInstitutions correct their positions, collecting policies,\nexhibition practices. I would say it's a victory. And a\nfunny process. It's fun to participate. Fun to observe . And\nfun to completely ignore.\n\n\nPART II\n\nLast September I wrote an article, quite a long one, about\nmy experiences with the \"First Real Net Art Gallery\" and the\n\"Last Real Net Art Museum\". About Famous Net Artists, Real\nNet Artists, Conferences, Objects and ZOOs. But it's in\nRussian <http://www.russ.ru/netcult/20001114_olialia.html>\nand German <http://art.teleportacia.org/du.html>. I'd be\nhappy and grateful if someone would translate it into English.\nTitle \"A Link is Enough\"\n\n\nPART III\n\n\"A Link is Enough\" was published last November in DU\nmagazine. On the next page there was another essay on net\nart, written by Boris Groys. He writes about his vision.\nHe's brilliant. His ideas and comparisons are fresh and\nunexpected, but after a few paragraphs you see that he has\nno understanding of net art and networks. He saw the net art\nat ZKM in the autumn of '99 and thought that net art was a\nlot of connected computers, blinking screens and\nprojections. I have a small quotation with me:\n<http://art.teleportacia.org/wvn/gr.jpg>. I can imagine\nthere are a lot of good and influential writers who still\nthink the same.\n\nIt's a pity.\n\nAnd it's a pity that net art critics who have been working\nin the field since the heroic days have reduced their\nactivity to interviews. Or hurrying and competing to be the\nfirst to announce death and failure. ASCII Paparazzi.\n\nBtw, saying that net art is just beginning isn't very\ndifferent from saying it's dead.\n\n\nPART IV\n\nMy students came back from Transmediale in Berlin and said\nthere was a speaker, Mark America, who was announcing that\nnet art is dead.\n\nfrom Mark Amerika's CV:\n\n\"Amerika was recently appointed to the Fine Arts faculty at\nthe University of Colorado in Boulder where he is developing\nan innovative curriculum in Digital Art.\"\n\nI can already see the development, innovation and result.\nWe'll get a bunch of experts from Colorado writing\nnecrologues.\n\n\nPART V \n\nDiscussions about terminology may seem endless and useless.\nBut I like them and find they create perspective; like a\ntool -a magnifying glass- to look at the present and recent\npast. Recently, during WRO KULTURA, I planned to make a\ntremendous contribution; analysing the development of the\nterms web art, net art, net.art - general terminological\nissues. But I failed because the previous speakers'\nstatements made me change the subject of my talk. These\nsketches are all that's left:\n\n<http://art.teleportacia.org/wvn/1.jpg> \n<http://art.teleportacia.org/wvn/2.jpg> \n<http://art.teleportacia.org/wvn/3.jpg> \n<http://art.teleportacia.org/wvn/4.jpg> \n<http://art.teleportacia.org/wvn/5.jpg>\n\n\nforever yours\n\nolia\n\n-- \nWho benefits from the rumour that net art is dead? \nhttp://art.teleportacia.org/\n\nYour 'W' will be the same 'W' as in original\nWill-n-Testament\nhttp://www.totalmuseum.org/webproject8/w/w.html\n\nWe try to teleport people \nhttp://www.teleportacia.org \nBut without success \nhttp://www.teleportacia.org/report.html\n\nLast Real Net Art Museum \nhttp://myboyfriendcamebackfromth.ewar.ru\n\nDo you keep my photos on your server?\nhttp://art.teleportacia.org/olia.html\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and \"info nettime-l\" in the msg body\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net\n",
|
||
"from": "lia lialina <olialia {AT} teleportacia.org>",
|
||
"author_name": "olia lialina",
|
||
"message-id": "200102191935.OAA22235 {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"id": "00200",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0102/msg00200.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Re: Re: net art history",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:35:36 +0300"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\nI think the way to approach net art is very much the way Steve Dietz has\napproached the question (that is one of a number of questions that keep\ncoming up): \"Why have there been no great net artists?\" with an essay by\nthe same title.\nhttp://www.walkerart.org/gallery9/webwalker/ww_042300_main.html So not\napproach it from one particular angle (politics or art history or\ntechnological excellence) but from many angles at once to get a new\npicture of not just net art but of art as a whole. Individual artpieces\ncan be compared to older works of course, but to compare net art as a\nwhole with, say, mail art or performance or whatever will always be\nlacking/failing somewhere. \n\nolia lialina wrote:\n\n> \"A Link is Enough\" was published last November in DU\n> magazine. On the next page there was another essay on net\n> art, written by Boris Groys. He writes about his vision.\n> He's brilliant. His ideas and comparisons are fresh and\n> unexpected, but after a few paragraphs you see that he has\n> no understanding of net art and networks.\n\nSo true. That does not mean his work is not interesting to reflect\ncertain issues. Like for instance there is also a text on interactivity\nin which another theorist, Dieter Daniels, gives a lot of interesting\nthoughts on media art.\nhttp://www.hgb-leipzig.de/~mareio/daniels/daniels_e.html One should\nsimply read between the lines and project a lot of ones own experiences\non it. What is wrong in this Daniels quote?: \"Bill Clinton's\nsuperhighway electoral campaign in 1992, however, already heralded a\nradical turnabout. In a record period of time, the idea of free network\ncommunications hatched somewhere between hackers, ex-hippies, and a\nsmall avant-garde in art and politics, became the central message of the\nmedia industry. This is why, finally, people forgot what media-assisted\ninteraction and communication was supposed to overcome: nothing other\nthan the hegemony of the media industry as the cause of cultural\nconsumerism.\" It seems as if the biggest problem with theorists and\nacademics is that they know a great deal but they work too little from\nthe situation at hand. What central message of the media industry? And\nthen: were 'media-assisted interaction and communication' supposed to\novercome anything of the media industry in the first place? Such a small\ndifference of thought can have great implications, like for instance it\ncould legalise (taking the thought further into media art theory) the\nneglectance of media art which is simply beautiful. I am not saying we\nshould not be media critical anymore, just net art theory should be\nmulti-facetted. Groys seems to be leaning towards beauty in the\ntraditional sense too much (symbolical objects), Daniels leans towards\nmedia art as political tool. \n \n> And it's a pity that net art critics who have been working\n> in the field since the heroic days have reduced their\n> activity to interviews. Or hurrying and competing to be the\n> first to announce death and failure. ASCII Paparazzi.\n\nerr.... ascii paparazzi? Sorry dear Olia, this is too insulting to come\nfrom you. Anyway, the biggest problem net art journalists and observers\nhave is that we are too few with too much to do. Plus not all the work\nthat is done makes it to the 'central online discourse' but remains\nhidden in local paper press or books. As for the interviews that I\npublish: there are two reasons to publish them. First of all one\ninterview often can give a view of a certain area or field at a specific\ntime that is far more precise then I would be able to describe it in a\ngeneral text. Secondly do I think it is more important to show the\nvariety of works and practices out there right now then it is to write\nanalytical texts about them. If you have little time that is, relatively\nlittle time with the speed of developments now, the explosion of calls\nfor net art works, net art exhibitions and conferences worldwide. Get\nstuff out, that matters! Make curators etc see what goes on, who is out\nthere doing what, give ideas, provoke different angles maybe! The\nproblem with interviews is that one has to transcribe them, which is a\nlot of work. Remember this type of work does not get paid for either,\nwhich is the last thing I would want to complain about, but well... A\nproblem connected to this is that e-terviews are not working as good as\nf2f interviews, whereas combinations of the two are great. So one also\nhas to have the opportunity to meet artists in person (which makes some\npeople feel shut out)\n\n> Btw, saying that net art is just beginning isn't very\n> different from saying it's dead.\n\nThat is a very strange thing to say, and I would say highly subjective.\nI remember your words not so long ago, where you said in a conversation\nthat was published online that you were waiting for the next generation,\nfor those that would say your work is old news! We are now at a time\nwhere we are at a crucial point where net art is about to really break\nthrough, and I mean -understanding- net art is about to break through.\nWhen I look around me at conferences and so forth the questions of both\nthe audiences and the moderators of panels have developed greatly. Is it\nwrong to say this will develop further and that we should be ready for\nit, help with it even? Would you prefer institutions to develop the\ntheory around net art themselves, on their terms, from their point of\nview? \n\n> My students came back from Transmediale in Berlin and said\n> there was a speaker, Mark America, who was announcing that\n> net art is dead.\n> \n> from Mark Amerika's CV:\n> \n> \"Amerika was recently appointed to the Fine Arts faculty at\n> the University of Colorado in Boulder where he is developing\n> an innovative curriculum in Digital Art.\"\n\nSometimes one sees great mistakes in who gets appointed to teach or\njudge art. Mark Amerika is first of all a writer, an experimental\nwriter. He should teach hypertext or something, not digital arts in\ngeneral. His presentation at Transmediale should have been\ncontextualised by his hosts. He knows very little really about net art,\nand he will be used by traditional art professionals to justify\nconservatism.\n\n\n\nbest\n\n\n\nJ\n*\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and \"info nettime-l\" in the msg body\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net\n",
|
||
"from": "Josephine Bosma <jesis {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"author_name": "Josephine Bosma",
|
||
"message-id": "200102191942.OAA22277 {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"id": "00201",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0102/msg00201.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: Re: <nettime> Re: Re: net art history",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:24:01 +0100"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nOn Mon, 19 Feb 2001, olia lialina wrote:\n\n> But don't you see that net art and net artists changed the\n> landscape of contemporary art? Now, art institutions have to\n> learn to act as nodes (not as a center). And they do. \n\nCan't see that has happened much from my perch here in NYC. Maybe in\nEurope that's true. Certainly the Guggenheim is becomming more nodal, but\nthat doesn't have much to do with net art. More like global conquest. \n\nFunny, though, just before your message came through on nettime I'd sent a\nproposal off to the director of an art center suggesting he think of his\ninstitution as a node in a global network. I assumed he'd know what I\nmeant so maybe there has been some change.\n\nThe ZKM net_condition catalogue hit all the bookstores here this weekend,\npiles of them at each so MIT Press must expect it to be a big seller. Too\nbad the text is so hard to read. It looks like all the other \"web design\"\nbooks that have come out the past few years. Still, it does make \"art and\nglobal media\" a topic people pay attention to.\n\n \n> And it's a pity that net art critics who have been working\n> in the field since the heroic days have reduced their\n> activity to interviews. Or hurrying and competing to be the\n> first to announce death and failure. ASCII Paparazzi.\n\nThere's been interest in the \"archaic days\" lately, the period pre-1994\nstretching back to the dawn of humankind. Carl Leoffler's death the other\nday reminded me that his ArtCon newsgroup was one of my first contacts\nwith other artists on the net. I think both Heath Bunting and Brad Brace\nwere there.\n \n> I can already see the development, innovation and result.\n> We'll get a bunch of experts from Colorado writing\n> necrologues.\n\nI think John Hopkins teaches at Boulder off and on. Universities are\nlooking for ways to cash in on digital art. Amerika's use of the phrase\n\"innovative ciriculum\" is a dead giveaway. That's biz talk, not art talk.\nArt students all want to make Jurrasic Park these days.\n\nRob\n\nRobbin Murphy\nDevelopment Director\nTHE THING NYC\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and \"info nettime-l\" in the msg body\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net\n",
|
||
"from": "urphy {AT} thing.net",
|
||
"author_name": "murphy",
|
||
"message-id": "200102200951.EAA02193 {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"id": "00208",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0102/msg00208.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Re: Re: net art history",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 19 Feb 2001 20:23:48 -0500 (EST)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n\nFor me, there is a certain connection between net-art-history and cyberspace\ndiscussion.\nIn both cases there are some incompatibility between the description (or\ndefinition), and the visualization of the phenomena. Or maybe we just dont\nhave the answer yet (or we do not need it). As an architect I see the world\nmostly in a visual description of some strategical concept of the spatial\nparameters (real and virtual at the same time). One of the major questions\nis about the media one use (and also understanding) to achieve this.\n\nNet.art: is this art in net, or art about net, or hypertext description of\nart, or rhetorical dilemma what art in general should be presented in net.\nDoes it go beyond ugly designed web pages, pure presentation of the canvases\ndone in atelier, boring pages of ASCII dogmas of something, technological\nexperiments of things never worked and never will (or if working then\nsimple: 2 web cams and a video beam with a load of textual explanations),\nor it has more aesthetical demands than flash opening intro for nike.com\n(although this is a hard topic, therefore I would rather use German word\nkontrolliertes Gestalten)?\n\nCyberspace is term coming for the textual description and therefore it is\nalmost impossible to answer: if there is a space in cyberspace, at least\nfor our brain to translate it to an image so we can really understand it as\nspace (except for spoiled Hollywood audience in digital SFX sequences in\nsome movies). That is also a main difference between audience and public\n(the audience expects a certain image, and for the public image not present\nand so not really relevant). But, 10 years ago, by showing the artists how\nsurf the Internet, the writers how to use Microsoft Word, and explaining the\narchitects the possibilities of the 3d software and the computer technology\nin general, has been produced a perfect confusion. If you read the work\nmanifestos of some high profile architectural offices (especially in USA),\nyou can find them very funny, because they sound like a bad written (or\ntranslated) user manuals of some programs (for example Maya, 3d Studio,\netc.).\n\nRobbin Murphy writes in a previous posting: Art students all want to make\nJurrasic Park these days. Not only art students, but also architectural\nstudents on the first place. Well, the answer is: because it is easy. It is\nnice and sophisticated to swim in a virtuallity (building on the principles\nof old Rome), because of its endless patience. Endless freedom of creativity\nin a known context.\n\nAs for the architecture as so for the art (net art), the time has come, to\nproduce relevant artistic and cultural content for the future environments.\nWith one, and crucial, difference that we relay on media theory (und\nunderstanding), and not theory of the reinforced concrete (I hear my\ncolleges laughing behind my back). This is not a formal issue.\n\n\nbest regards\n\nivan redi\nortlos.\n\n------------------------------------------------\n#\n# --> o r t l o s a r c h i t e c t s - oeg <--\n# experimental architecture & interface design\n# (ivan redi.andrea schroettner.martin fruehwirth)\n#\n# http://www.ortlos.com\n------------------------------------------------\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and \"info nettime-l\" in the msg body\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net\n",
|
||
"from": "\"Ivan Redi\" <office {AT} ortlos.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "Ivan Redi",
|
||
"message-id": "200102201817.NAA04938 {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"id": "00214",
|
||
"to": "<nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0102/msg00214.html",
|
||
"subject": "RE: <nettime> Re: Re: net art history",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:01:44 +0100"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nThis discussion is going on for so long now and is really interesting!\nAlthough I am not as precise with words as I am with visuals, I post here,\ntoo.\nIMHO this is a problem with lists anyway- there are only few postings by\nartists-on their topics.\n\nI am doing netart projects since 92, when we started our first online club\nprojects, in Frankfurt. I remember well that back then there was not one\nart critic who understood what we did there. Dealing with online projects\nbecame a focus much later. So finally when it was a theme for the (net)art\ncritics ca. 95/96, one has to see here clearly that there has been half a\ndecade of net projects already.\n\nNow it is a theme, and I see the next point coming up, which is\nincluding/excluding positions. This not by artists but by critics. It is\nmuch too soon to let something so young die. and who would have the right\nto decide that anyway? Nobody needs an \"inquisition\" here, which decides\nwhat may stay alive and what not. There are enough financial & technical\npoints that have to be solved. An inquisition would kill the new netscene.\nthe capitalistic system comes up with enough obligations, that one can\nfear, sooner or later artists leave the field.\n\nAn example on streaming art in the net: the GEMA (german company who takes\ncare of money musicians get when having air-play on the radio,..) right now\ntries to figure out how much money they can take from webcasters when they\nplay in the net It is not clear if net artists like us have to pay in the\nfuture - not only for computers and streaming software, but also to GEMA.\nit is absurd. I think, one has to look at these developments. If we dont\nwant to have only stupid TVprogramms, talkshows and mainstream stuff in the\nnet in another 5 years.\nIt would be unimaginable, when later on one would have to say - forget the\nnet, nothing is happening there anymore. it became cooperate.\n\nI hope that critics find enough time in the realtime environment called\ncyberspace \"to find more great net artists\", go forward and backwards to\ntry to get an overview of 10years and more of net projects.\nAnd artists find enough time and budget to develop many different projects.\n\nAnd I dont see the point that netart is entering the museums. Where is the\nproblem? if the net scene would be powerful enough to let artists live on\nnetart that would be a point, for sure. As long as it is as it is now,\nmuch critizism and not enough money involved, the museums use the time to\nmake their collections.\n\n\n\nJosefine Bosma:\nI think the way to approach net art is very much the way Steve Dietz has\n>approached the question (that is one of a number of questions that keep\n>coming up): \"Why have there been no great net artists?\n\nolia lialina :\n>> My students came back from Transmediale in Berlin and said\n>> there was a speaker, Mark America, who was announcing that\n>> net art is dead.\n>>\nI was at Transmediale, too. The festival was not always stimulating.\nConferences instead of art installations is often too dry for me. I would\nprefer to see and hear projects, not only get words/descriptions of\nsomething. i hope this will happen more next year. And here again\" net art\nis dead\" as a slogan is problematic.\n\n\nElisa Rose\n\n----------------------------------------------------\nSTATION ROSE hypermedia (Elisa Rose & Gary Danner)\n* LIVE-webcasting at <http://www.stationrose.com>\n tonite TUE 20.2.01, 9pm CET with Force Inc. label\n* \"private://public\"- the new book ISBN : 3-85266-114-5\n STR in conversation with Geert Lovink, Bazon Brock, Birgit Richard,\nStefan Weber,\n Thomas Feuerstein, Josephine Bosma a.o.\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and \"info nettime-l\" in the msg body\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net\n",
|
||
"from": "Station Rose <gunafa {AT} well.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "Station Rose",
|
||
"message-id": "200102202107.QAA07853 {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"id": "00216",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0102/msg00216.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: Re: <nettime> Re: Re: net art history",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:16:10 +0100"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nhi all,\n\nit is interesting to see what issues trigger response and create a\ndiscussion on this mailing list. i have to say that i am very pleased to\nsee that it is art. (that the discussion mainly refers to /net.art resp.\nit's /death is very limited und little productive.) some years ago nettime\nwas accused of being a hostile environment for artists/art discussions.\nthis was the reason why most of them/us left at a certain point and opened\ntheir own list/network/environment. \n\nnow it has become an issue to reflect upon what actually has happenend in\nthis field in the last years. and this discussion takes place on, amongst\nother venues, (verified) nettime, again. obviuosly, this is still/again a\nplatform where enough people gather who did not give up, resign, and stop\nthinking and acting, although we all have learned the lesson meanwhile: the\nnet would not change the world in the way we had wanted to, in the\nopposite! and, of minor relevance, the net would not change the\nfundamentally profit-driven and corrupt art system. \n\ni am not sure if net art(ists) ever had 'promised' such a thing, or if it\nmore had been a wishful projection. anyway, there was/is an enormous\nsubversive potential in the net which untermined/s art-system-parameters as\n(identifieable)(individual) authorship, (finalised) piece of work, white\ncube-ism, purchaseability etc. there are/have been various\n(serious/playful) ways to handle this potential. \n\nbut even these individuals who have connected to the art system with their\nnames, pieces of work, museum/gallery presentations and sales (very few)\nare confronted with the fact that, so far, no adequate ways of presentation\ncould have been developed for the white cube, and that the selling of pure\ndata (what 'net art pieces' mostly are) leaves the art market quite\nhelpless. this gives evidence for the subbornness which lies in the\nartistic use of the medium. the fact that some high-end works have been\ncommissioned by museums, or that serious efforts are being made to collect\nnet based works does not mean at all, that net art per se could have been\nintegerated into the system. \n\nbut this is also the reason why net based art has been developed further,\nin more art system adequate formats, as there are various kinds of\ninstallations, starting with sculptural \"browers\", going to\npleasing/colorful data projections, and a range of re-materialisations of\ndata. this is probably the most promising (and, of course, a very boring)\nway to become a professional 'net artist'.\n\ni also agree with pit's elaborations in many points. i.e that we generally\nunderestimate the value of the net-based works, and that their relevance\nhas to be seen within their historical framework. \n\nnow is now, and not net.art. but even if it has no name what is happening,\nand even if the general implementation of 'a new art form' did not take\nplace, there is endless ways to go on with resistant and subborn, political\nand aestehtic practices. the informational sphere is still quite\nunprotected, and we have powerful tools. ...\"continue working in the\nspirit...\" \n\nbest, c.\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n::::::::::::::\"A smart artist makes the machine do the work\":::::::::::::::::::\n:::::::::::::: _____________________________:::::::::::net.art generator:::::::\n:::::::::::::: http://www.obn.org/generator::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\n Cornelia Sollfrank | Duncan of Jordanstone University | Dundee | Scotland \n\n\n----- End forwarded message -----\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and \"info nettime-l\" in the msg body\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net\n",
|
||
"from": "Cornelia Sollfrank <cornelia {AT} snafu.de>",
|
||
"author_name": "Cornelia Sollfrank",
|
||
"message-id": "200102212203.RAA22681 {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"id": "00229",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0102/msg00229.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: Re: Re: <nettime> Re: Re: net art history",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:25:07 +0000"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"list": "nettime-l",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\njosephine bosma [u!l ador d!sz ja] re: olia lialina kommentari \n\n\n>> And it's a pity that net art critics who have been working\n>> in the field since the heroic days have reduced their\n>> activity to interviews. Or hurrying and competing to be the\n>> first to announce death and failure. ASCII Paparazzi.\n>\n>err.... ascii paparazzi? Sorry dear Olia, this is too insulting to come\n>from you. Anyway, the biggest problem net art journalists and observers\n>have is that we are too few with too much to do. \n\nfirstly - you are all u l t r a u l t r a inkompetent.\nsecondly - you are all merely regurgitating each others ascii paparazzi \nkontaminazie.\n\n\n>> Btw, saying that net art is just beginning isn't very\n>> different from saying it's dead.\n>\n>That is a very strange thing to say,\n\nnn opinie it = the most intelligent + interessant data outputted by olia \nlialina [second being ascii paparazzi]\n\nvr!!endl!.nn\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and \"info nettime-l\" in the msg body\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net\n",
|
||
"from": "integer {AT} www.god-emil.dk",
|
||
"author_name": "integer",
|
||
"message-id": "200102192239.RAA23541 {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"id": "00202",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0102/msg00202.html",
|
||
"subject": "<nettime> Re: art history n",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:43:47 +0100 (CET)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"list": "crumb",
|
||
"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?",
|
||
"from": "Charlotte Frost",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 3 Oct 2013 15:01:52 +0800",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1310&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=2942",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"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",
|
||
"from": "Nicholas O'Brien",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 3 Oct 2013 22:54:40 -0400",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1310&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=12511",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Nicholas O'Brien"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"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 <http://www.facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign>\n| twitter.com/MezBreezeDesign\n| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mez_Breeze",
|
||
"from": "mez breeze",
|
||
"date": "Fri, 4 Oct 2013 20:49:20 +1000",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1310&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=18121",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "mez breeze"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"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 <http://www.facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign>\n> | twitter.com/MezBreezeDesign\n> | en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mez_Breeze",
|
||
"from": "Josephine Bosma",
|
||
"date": "Fri, 4 Oct 2013 13:33:17 +0200",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1310&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=19891",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Josephine Bosma"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"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 <http://www.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",
|
||
"from": "Simon Biggs",
|
||
"date": "Fri, 4 Oct 2013 12:58:47 +0100",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1310&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=20335",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Simon Biggs"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"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 <http://www.facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign>\n| twitter.com/MezBreezeDesign\n| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mez_Breeze",
|
||
"from": "mez breeze",
|
||
"date": "Fri, 4 Oct 2013 22:28:54 +1000",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1310&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=21701",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "mez breeze"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"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 <http://www.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",
|
||
"from": "Michael Connor",
|
||
"date": "Fri, 4 Oct 2013 08:56:40 -0400",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1310&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=22332",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Michael Connor"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"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.]",
|
||
"from": "Rob Myers",
|
||
"date": "Fri, 4 Oct 2013 15:46:49 -0700",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1310&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=31690",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Rob Myers"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"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*",
|
||
"from": "Josephine Bosma",
|
||
"date": "Sat, 5 Oct 2013 11:26:05 +0200",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1310&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=38418",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Josephine Bosma"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"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 <http://www.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",
|
||
"from": "Jan Robert Leegte",
|
||
"date": "Sat, 5 Oct 2013 18:16:15 +0200",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1310&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=41009",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Jan Robert Leegte"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"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",
|
||
"from": "Trond Lossius",
|
||
"date": "Sun, 6 Oct 2013 08:57:16 +0200",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1310&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=45427",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Trond Lossius"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"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",
|
||
"from": "Charlotte Frost",
|
||
"date": "Sun, 6 Oct 2013 19:25:01 +0800",
|
||
"id": 0,
|
||
"url": "https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1310&L=new-media-curating&F=&S=&P=54187",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plain",
|
||
"author_name": "Charlotte Frost"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"author_name": "Charlotte Frost"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"list": "empyre",
|
||
"content-type": "n/a",
|
||
"content": "Welcome back everyone from summer or winter, depending on your location.\nRenate and I have enjoyed the quiet of Cayuga Lake in Ithaca after\nreturning from Shanghai where we opened a new Summer School in Theory\nbetween Cornell University and East China Normal University. Our time off\nin August gave us an opportunity to think about anniversary nodes of the\nnet and net.art, just as I was being challenged in keeping various pieces\nof 1990s net.art online for my exhibition, Signal to Code: 50 Years of\nMedia Art in the Rose Goldsen Archive\n(http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/signaltocode/). So we thought it might be\ninteresting to open September with a discussion of Net Art Then and Now.\n\nThis week, I will look forward to the opportunity to think back on the\nexcitement of curatorial projects in net.art when the community imagined\nthat the challenging artworks of the net might reach a broader audience\nthan now seems to have been the case. I will be joined by Craig Saper, a\nchallenging thinker of the network. Craig Saper (US) is Professor in\nthe Language, Literacy, and Culture Doctoral Program at UMBC in Baltimore,\nMaryland, US. Craig published Networked Art and, as dj Readies, Intimate\nBureaucracies ‹\nboth about net-art then (and now). His work on net-art also appears in the\nWhitechapel Gallery's Networks, in their Documents of Contemporary Art\nseries and forthcoming in Beyond Critique: Contemporary Art in Theory,\nPractice and Instruction. Hisrecently published \"cross between an\nintellectual biography Š and a picaresque novel,² and \"a biography of a\nlost twentieth century,\" The Amazing Adventures of Bob Brown, tells the\ncomic story of a real-life Zelig and the ultimate networker. He has also\nedited or co-edited scholarly volumes including Electracy: Gregory L.\nUlmer Textshop Experiments\n<http://www.thedaviesgrouppublishers.com/ulmer%20electracy.htm> (2015), a\nspecial issue of the scholarly journal Hyperrhiz on mapping culture\n<http://hyperrhiz.io/hyperrhiz12/> (2015), special issues of Rhizomes on\nPosthumography <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue20/saper/index.html>(2010),\nImaging Place <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue18/saper/> (2009), and Drifts\n<http://www.rhizomes.net/issue13/> (2007), and many other volumes since\n1990. Craig¹s curatorial projects include exhibits on ³Assemblings²\n(1997), ³Noigandres: Concrete Poetry in Brazil² (1988) and ³TypeBound\n<http://www.readies.org/typebound/>² (2008), and folkvine.org\n<http://folkvine.umbc.edu/> (2003-6). In addition, he has published two\nother artists¹s books On Being Read (1985) and Raw Material (2008).\n\nOver the weekend, Renate and I enjoyed a lakeside lunch at a casual\nrestaurant on Cayuga Lake, and recalled that our last meal there was in\nthe pleasant company of Craig Saper. So, Craig, we are very happy to be\nback in conversation with you here on the network rather than the lake.\nWe look forward to receiving your opening post.\n\nTim\n\n \n\n\nTimothy Murray\nProfessor of Comparative Literature and English\nTaylor Family Director, Society for the Humanities\nhttp://www.arts.cornell.edu/sochum/\nCurator, Rose Goldsen Archive of New Media Art\nhttp://goldsen.library.cornell.edu\nA D White House\nCornell University,\nIthaca, New York 14853\n\n\n>\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: default[2].xml\nType: application/xml\nSize: 3222 bytes\nDesc: default[2].xml\nURL: <http://lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20160907/ff83baee/attachment.wsdl>\n",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "n/a",
|
||
"content": "Tim, Thanks for the introduction — and although we didn’t get to Ithaca this summer — fond memories. It seems fitting to have the theme this week correspond to the 20th anniversary of Rhizome.org. Congratulations to Mark Tribe and the network of folks who transformed a listserv (like -empyre -- just sayin') into something else for networked art (putting that notion of transformation of a listserv into something else (\"commissions, exhibits, preserves, and creates critical discussion around\" net-art) as the implicit instruction/open-constraint for our discussion) . . . . still having a difficult time defining networks? Ten thousand books with “network” in their title, subtitle, or series title have appeared since my Networked Art appeared in 2001, and reading just a few of these titles begins to sound like a conceptual poem: Networks of Outrage and Hope; Network Forensics; Understanding Social Network; How Networks are Shaping the Modern Metropolis; Virality: Contagion Theory in the Age of Networks; Disrupting Dark Networks; Network Like an Introvert; Network Marketing; Network Management; The Network; Actor-Network Theory and Tourism; Charles Dickens's Networks; Social Network Analysis; Nomads and Networks; Networked: The New Social Operating System; Networks Without a Cause ... (with thanks to K.A. Wisniewski for digging up some of this list). Network is networked in every conceivable publisher's category: Computers & technical manuals. Science. Art. Photography. Biographies & Memoirs. Literature, Graphic novels, and literary criticism. Education. History. Politics. Sociology. Law. Humor. Religion. Philosophy. Self-help. ... Trade publishers. University, or Small presses. Self-published. Television or Internet. ... Networks, Networking, Networked . . . Nouns. Adjectives. Verbs. Or, read as both or neither. Something else? It's a one-word cliché either disliked and pernicious or liberating and utopian; it is a network of control in the \"capitalocene\" (the complex networks that have transformed lives for everybody on this planet whether they like it or not) or the anarchist rhizomatic hacktivists' web. Not in the same ways, but deeply still. Instead of it's meaning, what are it's moods, textures, poetics, amateur-hack-artist function, and visceral affects? That's what I hope we can explore here.\n\n\n\n\nOn Sep 6, 2016, at 10:08 PM, Timothy Conway Murray <tcm1 at cornell.edu> wrote:\n\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------Welcome back everyone from summer or winter, depending on your location.\nRenate and I have enjoyed the quiet of Cayuga Lake in Ithaca after\nreturning from Shanghai where we opened a new Summer School in Theory\nbetween Cornell University and East China Normal University. Our time off\nin August gave us an opportunity to think about anniversary nodes of the\nnet and net.art, just as I was being challenged in keeping various pieces\nof 1990s net.art online for my exhibition, Signal to Code: 50 Years of\nMedia Art in the Rose Goldsen Archive\n(http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/signaltocode/). So we thought it might be\ninteresting to open September with a discussion of Net Art Then and Now.\n\nThis week, I will look forward to the opportunity to think back on the\nexcitement of curatorial projects in net.art when the community imagined\nthat the challenging artworks of the net might reach a broader audience\nthan now seems to have been the case. I will be joined by Craig Saper, a\nchallenging thinker of the network. Craig Saper (US) is Professor in\nthe Language, Literacy, and Culture Doctoral Program at UMBC in Baltimore,\nMaryland, US. Craig published Networked Art and, as dj Readies, Intimate\nBureaucracies ‹\nboth about net-art then (and now). His work on net-art also appears in the\nWhitechapel Gallery's Networks, in their Documents of Contemporary Art\nseries and forthcoming in Beyond Critique: Contemporary Art in Theory,\nPractice and Instruction. Hisrecently published \"cross between an\nintellectual biography Š and a picaresque novel,² and \"a biography of a\nlost twentieth century,\" The Amazing Adventures of Bob Brown, tells the\ncomic story of a real-life Zelig and the ultimate networker. He has also\nedited or co-edited scholarly volumes including Electracy: Gregory L.\nUlmer Textshop Experiments\n<http://www.thedaviesgrouppublishers.com/ulmer%20electracy.htm> (2015), a\nspecial issue of the scholarly journal Hyperrhiz on mapping culture\n<http://hyperrhiz.io/hyperrhiz12/> (2015), special issues of Rhizomes on\nPosthumography <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue20/saper/index.html>(2010),\nImaging Place <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue18/saper/> (2009), and Drifts\n<http://www.rhizomes.net/issue13/> (2007), and many other volumes since\n1990. Craig¹s curatorial projects include exhibits on ³Assemblings²\n(1997), ³Noigandres: Concrete Poetry in Brazil² (1988) and ³TypeBound\n<http://www.readies.org/typebound/>² (2008), and folkvine.org\n<http://folkvine.umbc.edu/> (2003-6). In addition, he has published two\nother artists¹s books On Being Read (1985) and Raw Material (2008).\n\nOver the weekend, Renate and I enjoyed a lakeside lunch at a casual\nrestaurant on Cayuga Lake, and recalled that our last meal there was in\nthe pleasant company of Craig Saper. So, Craig, we are very happy to be\nback in conversation with you here on the network rather than the lake.\nWe look forward to receiving your opening post.\n\nTim\n\n\n\n\nTimothy Murray\nProfessor of Comparative Literature and English\nTaylor Family Director, Society for the Humanities\nhttp://www.arts.cornell.edu/sochum/\nCurator, Rose Goldsen Archive of New Media Art\nhttp://goldsen.library.cornell.edu\nA D White House\nCornell University,\nIthaca, New York 14853\n\n\n> \n\n<default[2].xml>_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu\n\n",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "n/a",
|
||
"content": "Thanks so much, Craig, for this provocative opening. Our hope is to jump\non your question, \"what are it's moods, textures, poetics,\namateur-hack-artist function, and visceral affects,\" to explore the\npromise of net.art, as imagined over the past twenty years, and to discuss\nits morph, migration, and flow into other networked (or not)\narticulations. \n\nOne thing that propelled net.art was the conjunction of densely miniature\nartistic forms made available by digital technology with the expansive\npush out of the web, a medium for localized condensed expression from the\npersonal desktop for, conversely, globalized outreach and conversation.\nAnother of net.art's contributions was to capitalize on the accessibility\nof newly portable and networked archival databases for condensed artistic\nexpression that also lent themselves to the formation of pop-up\ninternational artistic and conceptual communities via the emergent\nlistserves, Rhizome and net time, and the online journal, CTHEORY, which\nwhich I collaborated on the net.art curatorial project, CTHEORY\nMultimedia. Arthur and Marilouise Kroker and I sought out artists and\nworks that seized on the portability of net.art to fashion concise\nconceptual and political statements. Somewhat in the vein of agit-prop,\nwe conceived of net.art as a mobile form whose combination of crude\n(Quicktime) and delicate poetics would summon the international user into\npolitical and conceptual dialogue. We hoped that net.art's visceral\naffect might effect practical reflection on the discourse of the net\nitself, from the digital divide and bio capital to digital terror and its\ninscription in ethnic paranoia.\n\nLooking forward to hearing more about Craig's thinking and hopefully our\nartistic community will reflect more specifically on their own projects.\n\nBest,\n\nTim\n \nTimothy Murray\nProfessor of Comparative Literature and English\nTaylor Family Director, Society for the Humanities\nhttp://www.arts.cornell.edu/sochum/\nCurator, Rose Goldsen Archive of New Media Art\nhttp://goldsen.library.cornell.edu\nA D White House\nCornell University,\nIthaca, New York 14853\n\n\n\n\n\nOn 9/6/16 10:28 PM, \"Craig Saper\" <csaper at umbc.edu> wrote:\n\n>----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\n>Tim, Thanks for the introduction — and although we didn’t get to Ithaca\n>this summer — fond memories. It seems fitting to have the theme this week\n>correspond to the 20th anniversary of Rhizome.org. Congratulations to\n>Mark Tribe and the network of folks who transformed a listserv (like\n>-empyre -- just sayin') into something else for networked art (putting\n>that notion of transformation of a listserv into something else\n>(\"commissions, exhibits, preserves, and creates critical discussion\n>around\" net-art) as the implicit instruction/open-constraint for our\n>discussion) . . . . still having a difficult time defining networks? Ten\n>thousand books with “network” in their title, subtitle, or series title\n>have appeared since my Networked Art appeared in 2001, and reading just a\n>few of these titles begins to sound like a conceptual poem: Networks of\n>Outrage and Hope; Network Forensics; Understanding Social Network; How\n>Networks are Shaping the Modern Metropolis; Virality: Contagion Theory in\n>the Age of Networks; Disrupting Dark Networks; Network Like an Introvert;\n>Network Marketing; Network Management; The Network; Actor-Network Theory\n>and Tourism; Charles Dickens's Networks; Social Network Analysis; Nomads\n>and Networks; Networked: The New Social Operating System; Networks\n>Without a Cause ... (with thanks to K.A. Wisniewski for digging up some\n>of this list). Network is networked in every conceivable publisher's\n>category: Computers & technical manuals. Science. Art. Photography.\n>Biographies & Memoirs. Literature, Graphic novels, and literary\n>criticism. Education. History. Politics. Sociology. Law. Humor.\n>Religion. Philosophy. Self-help. ... Trade publishers. University, or\n>Small presses. Self-published. Television or Internet. ... Networks,\n>Networking, Networked . . . Nouns. Adjectives. Verbs. Or, read as both\n>or neither. Something else? It's a one-word cliché either disliked and\n>pernicious or liberating and utopian; it is a network of control in the\n>\"capitalocene\" (the complex networks that have transformed lives for\n>everybody on this planet whether they like it or not) or the anarchist\n>rhizomatic hacktivists' web. Not in the same ways, but deeply still.\n>Instead of it's meaning, what are it's moods, textures, poetics,\n>amateur-hack-artist function, and visceral affects? That's what I hope we\n>can explore here.\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>On Sep 6, 2016, at 10:08 PM, Timothy Conway Murray <tcm1 at cornell.edu>\n>wrote:\n>\n>----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------Welcome back\n>everyone from summer or winter, depending on your location.\n>Renate and I have enjoyed the quiet of Cayuga Lake in Ithaca after\n>returning from Shanghai where we opened a new Summer School in Theory\n>between Cornell University and East China Normal University. Our time off\n>in August gave us an opportunity to think about anniversary nodes of the\n>net and net.art, just as I was being challenged in keeping various pieces\n>of 1990s net.art online for my exhibition, Signal to Code: 50 Years of\n>Media Art in the Rose Goldsen Archive\n>(http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/signaltocode/). So we thought it might be\n>interesting to open September with a discussion of Net Art Then and Now.\n>\n>This week, I will look forward to the opportunity to think back on the\n>excitement of curatorial projects in net.art when the community imagined\n>that the challenging artworks of the net might reach a broader audience\n>than now seems to have been the case. I will be joined by Craig Saper, a\n>challenging thinker of the network. Craig Saper (US) is Professor in\n>the Language, Literacy, and Culture Doctoral Program at UMBC in Baltimore,\n>Maryland, US. Craig published Networked Art and, as dj Readies, Intimate\n>Bureaucracies ‹\n>both about net-art then (and now). His work on net-art also appears in the\n>Whitechapel Gallery's Networks, in their Documents of Contemporary Art\n>series and forthcoming in Beyond Critique: Contemporary Art in Theory,\n>Practice and Instruction. Hisrecently published \"cross between an\n>intellectual biography Š and a picaresque novel,² and \"a biography of a\n>lost twentieth century,\" The Amazing Adventures of Bob Brown, tells the\n>comic story of a real-life Zelig and the ultimate networker. He has also\n>edited or co-edited scholarly volumes including Electracy: Gregory L.\n>Ulmer Textshop Experiments\n><http://www.thedaviesgrouppublishers.com/ulmer%20electracy.htm> (2015), a\n>special issue of the scholarly journal Hyperrhiz on mapping culture\n><http://hyperrhiz.io/hyperrhiz12/> (2015), special issues of Rhizomes on\n>Posthumography <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue20/saper/index.html>(2010),\n>Imaging Place <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue18/saper/> (2009), and Drifts\n><http://www.rhizomes.net/issue13/> (2007), and many other volumes since\n>1990. Craig¹s curatorial projects include exhibits on ³Assemblings²\n>(1997), ³Noigandres: Concrete Poetry in Brazil² (1988) and ³TypeBound\n><http://www.readies.org/typebound/>² (2008), and folkvine.org\n><http://folkvine.umbc.edu/> (2003-6). In addition, he has published two\n>other artists¹s books On Being Read (1985) and Raw Material (2008).\n>\n>Over the weekend, Renate and I enjoyed a lakeside lunch at a casual\n>restaurant on Cayuga Lake, and recalled that our last meal there was in\n>the pleasant company of Craig Saper. So, Craig, we are very happy to be\n>back in conversation with you here on the network rather than the lake.\n>We look forward to receiving your opening post.\n>\n>Tim\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>Timothy Murray\n>Professor of Comparative Literature and English\n>Taylor Family Director, Society for the Humanities\n>http://www.arts.cornell.edu/sochum/\n>Curator, Rose Goldsen Archive of New Media Art\n>http://goldsen.library.cornell.edu\n>A D White House\n>Cornell University,\n>Ithaca, New York 14853\n>\n>\n>> \n>\n><default[2].xml>_______________________________________________\n>empyre forum\n>empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au\n>http://empyre.library.cornell.edu\n>\n>_______________________________________________\n>empyre forum\n>empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au\n>http://empyre.library.cornell.edu\n\n",
|
||
"from": "tcm1 at cornell.edu",
|
||
"author_name": "Timothy Conway Murray",
|
||
"message-id": "9252",
|
||
"id": "9252",
|
||
"url": "http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/2016-September/009252.html",
|
||
"subject": "[-empyre-] Week One on Through the NET: Net Art Then and Now",
|
||
"date": "Wed Sep 7 23:03:55 AEST 2016"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "n/a",
|
||
"content": "Instructions #2\nZooming in on our opening gambit to turn -empyre- into a net-art experiment (or a set of instructions that could potentially do so in some theoretical future), then we can appreciate the shift from demarcating to listing/using a series of functions and effects.\n\nTwo attributes in art that use the situation of a network as a canvas. The first is to \"write\" the work as an open-constraint set of instructions (either algorithmic or listing). One can send/apply the instructions either to bots, people, or (in the case of listserv) to an unknown identity (let's call ourselves p-bot effects). We see this in Fluxus works (precursors to net-art? or an example of it?) and in the twitter-bot experiments like Helen Burgess' \"Loving-Together with Roland's Bots\" and Anna Coluthon (@annacoluthon), Tully Hansen’s team-powered bot @botALLY retweets and tags bot-generated tweets, “NRA Tally (@NRA_Tally)” or“Save the Humanities (@SaveHumanities)” by Mark Sample, “Pizza Clones (@pizzaclones)” by Allison Parrish. \n\nThe second (closely related to the effect above) is to notice that, unlike other arts, dependence on a singular virtuosity and aesthetic innovation, net-art appears to have another notion of the artwork; the genius is distributed in the system -- throughout the network, and the amateur and hack are nodes in that system. Often, though the artist-function is algorithmic and instructions for an open-system, the artist function is both more controlling (see the definition of a p-bot) -- watch-maker like -- and less (once it is out there among the undefined networks of other p-bots). In celebrating early work on rhizomes.org, there is a discussion of Petra Cortwright's explicitly unintentional artwork on YouTube that emphasized her amateur status. The amateur is not a professional.\n\nWhat are the instructions? \n\n//\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\n\nOn Sep 6, 2016, at 10:28 PM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu> wrote:\n\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\nTim, Thanks for the introduction — and although we didn’t get to Ithaca this summer — fond memories. It seems fitting to have the theme this week correspond to the 20th anniversary of Rhizome.org. Congratulations to Mark Tribe and the network of folks who transformed a listserv (like -empyre -- just sayin') into something else for networked art (putting that notion of transformation of a listserv into something else (\"commissions, exhibits, preserves, and creates critical discussion around\" net-art) as the implicit instruction/open-constraint for our discussion) . . . . still having a difficult time defining networks? Ten thousand books with “network” in their title, subtitle, or series title have appeared since my Networked Art appeared in 2001, and reading just a few of these titles begins to sound like a conceptual poem: Networks of Outrage and Hope; Network Forensics; Understanding Social Network; How Networks are Shaping the Modern Metropolis; Virality: Contagion Theory in the Age of Networks; Disrupting Dark Networks; Network Like an Introvert; Network Marketing; Network Management; The Network; Actor-Network Theory and Tourism; Charles Dickens's Networks; Social Network Analysis; Nomads and Networks; Networked: The New Social Operating System; Networks Without a Cause ... (with thanks to K.A. Wisniewski for digging up some of this list). Network is networked in every conceivable publisher's category: Computers & technical manuals. Science. Art. Photography. Biographies & Memoirs. Literature, Graphic novels, and literary criticism. Education. History. Politics. Sociology. Law. Humor. Religion. Philosophy. Self-help. ... Trade publishers. University, or Small presses. Self-published. Television or Internet. ... Networks, Networking, Networked . . . Nouns. Adjectives. Verbs. Or, read as both or neither. Something else? It's a one-word cliché either disliked and pernicious or liberating and utopian; it is a network of control in the \"capitalocene\" (the complex networks that have transformed lives for everybody on this planet whether they like it or not) or the anarchist rhizomatic hacktivists' web. Not in the same ways, but deeply still. Instead of it's meaning, what are it's moods, textures, poetics, amateur-hack-artist function, and visceral affects? That's what I hope we can explore here.\n\n\n\n\nOn Sep 6, 2016, at 10:08 PM, Timothy Conway Murray <tcm1 at cornell.edu> wrote:\n\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------Welcome back everyone from summer or winter, depending on your location.\nRenate and I have enjoyed the quiet of Cayuga Lake in Ithaca after\nreturning from Shanghai where we opened a new Summer School in Theory\nbetween Cornell University and East China Normal University. Our time off\nin August gave us an opportunity to think about anniversary nodes of the\nnet and net.art, just as I was being challenged in keeping various pieces\nof 1990s net.art online for my exhibition, Signal to Code: 50 Years of\nMedia Art in the Rose Goldsen Archive\n(http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/signaltocode/). So we thought it might be\ninteresting to open September with a discussion of Net Art Then and Now.\n\nThis week, I will look forward to the opportunity to think back on the\nexcitement of curatorial projects in net.art when the community imagined\nthat the challenging artworks of the net might reach a broader audience\nthan now seems to have been the case. I will be joined by Craig Saper, a\nchallenging thinker of the network. Craig Saper (US) is Professor in\nthe Language, Literacy, and Culture Doctoral Program at UMBC in Baltimore,\nMaryland, US. Craig published Networked Art and, as dj Readies, Intimate\nBureaucracies ‹\nboth about net-art then (and now). His work on net-art also appears in the\nWhitechapel Gallery's Networks, in their Documents of Contemporary Art\nseries and forthcoming in Beyond Critique: Contemporary Art in Theory,\nPractice and Instruction. Hisrecently published \"cross between an\nintellectual biography Š and a picaresque novel,² and \"a biography of a\nlost twentieth century,\" The Amazing Adventures of Bob Brown, tells the\ncomic story of a real-life Zelig and the ultimate networker. He has also\nedited or co-edited scholarly volumes including Electracy: Gregory L.\nUlmer Textshop Experiments\n<http://www.thedaviesgrouppublishers.com/ulmer%20electracy.htm> (2015), a\nspecial issue of the scholarly journal Hyperrhiz on mapping culture\n<http://hyperrhiz.io/hyperrhiz12/> (2015), special issues of Rhizomes on\nPosthumography <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue20/saper/index.html>(2010),\nImaging Place <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue18/saper/> (2009), and Drifts\n<http://www.rhizomes.net/issue13/> (2007), and many other volumes since\n1990. Craig¹s curatorial projects include exhibits on ³Assemblings²\n(1997), ³Noigandres: Concrete Poetry in Brazil² (1988) and ³TypeBound\n<http://www.readies.org/typebound/>² (2008), and folkvine.org\n<http://folkvine.umbc.edu/> (2003-6). In addition, he has published two\nother artists¹s books On Being Read (1985) and Raw Material (2008).\n\nOver the weekend, Renate and I enjoyed a lakeside lunch at a casual\nrestaurant on Cayuga Lake, and recalled that our last meal there was in\nthe pleasant company of Craig Saper. So, Craig, we are very happy to be\nback in conversation with you here on the network rather than the lake.\nWe look forward to receiving your opening post.\n\nTim\n\n\n\n\nTimothy Murray\nProfessor of Comparative Literature and English\nTaylor Family Director, Society for the Humanities\nhttp://www.arts.cornell.edu/sochum/\nCurator, Rose Goldsen Archive of New Media Art\nhttp://goldsen.library.cornell.edu\nA D White House\nCornell University,\nIthaca, New York 14853\n\n\n> \n\n<default[2].xml>_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu\n\n_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu\n\n",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "n/a",
|
||
"content": "Craig,\n\nThank you for the clarity and boldness of your first gambit.\n\n\"Often, though the artist-function is algorithmic and instructions for an\nopen-system, the artist function is both more controlling (see the\ndefinition of a p-bot) -- watch-maker like -- and less (once it is out\nthere among the undefined networks of other p-bots). In celebrating early\nwork on rhizomes.org, there is a discussion of Petra Cortwright's\nexplicitly unintentional artwork on YouTube that emphasized her amateur\nstatus. The amateur is not a professional.\"\n\nI like your 18th century reference. Then, the net-artist becomes the\nNewtonian god or, more precisely, the job (that of the clock-maker who then\ndisappears) assigned to god in that universe.\n\nWhat happens to \"the reader\" in that net-universe then. One should not\nforget that in Newtonian metaphysics (science) one can not change anything;\nbut only \"discover\" the laws governing events, fact. If so, there is\nnothing open-ended in net-art. The \"reader\" (any interacter with the work)\ncan only discover the depth (the digital wisdom, you might say) of the\nalgorithm. Making the net-artist through his/her programing basically a\ngod, are you not making him/her infinitely powerful, the very opposiye of\nthe open-endedness you suggest net-art creates? Can we not say the opposite\nis as true? The reader (ultimately I would claim the artist\nhimself/herself) is helpless.\n\nCiao,\nMurat\n\nOn Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu> wrote:\n\n> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\n> Instructions #2\n> Zooming in on our opening gambit to turn -empyre- into a net-art\n> experiment (or a set of instructions that could potentially do so in some\n> theoretical future), then we can appreciate the shift from demarcating to\n> listing/using a series of functions and effects.\n>\n> Two attributes in art that use the situation of a network as a canvas. The\n> first is to \"write\" the work as an open-constraint set of instructions\n> (either algorithmic or listing). One can send/apply the instructions either\n> to bots, people, or (in the case of listserv) to an unknown identity (let's\n> call ourselves p-bot effects). We see this in Fluxus works (precursors to\n> net-art? or an example of it?) and in the twitter-bot experiments like\n> Helen Burgess' \"Loving-Together with Roland's Bots\" and Anna Coluthon\n> (@annacoluthon), Tully Hansen’s team-powered bot @botALLY retweets and tags\n> bot-generated tweets, “NRA Tally (@NRA_Tally)” or“Save the Humanities\n> (@SaveHumanities)” by Mark Sample, “Pizza Clones (@pizzaclones)” by Allison\n> Parrish.\n>\n> The second (closely related to the effect above) is to notice that, unlike\n> other arts, dependence on a singular virtuosity and aesthetic innovation,\n> net-art appears to have another notion of the artwork; the genius is\n> distributed in the system -- throughout the network, and the amateur and\n> hack are nodes in that system. Often, though the artist-function is\n> algorithmic and instructions for an open-system, the artist function is\n> both more controlling (see the definition of a p-bot) -- watch-maker like\n> -- and less (once it is out there among the undefined networks of other\n> p-bots). In celebrating early work on rhizomes.org, there is a discussion\n> of Petra Cortwright's explicitly unintentional artwork on YouTube that\n> emphasized her amateur status. The amateur is not a professional.\n>\n> What are the instructions?\n>\n> //\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\n>\n> On Sep 6, 2016, at 10:28 PM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu> wrote:\n>\n> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\n> Tim, Thanks for the introduction — and although we didn’t get to Ithaca\n> this summer — fond memories. It seems fitting to have the theme this week\n> correspond to the 20th anniversary of Rhizome.org. Congratulations to Mark\n> Tribe and the network of folks who transformed a listserv (like -empyre --\n> just sayin') into something else for networked art (putting that notion of\n> transformation of a listserv into something else (\"commissions, exhibits,\n> preserves, and creates critical discussion around\" net-art) as the implicit\n> instruction/open-constraint for our discussion) . . . . still having a\n> difficult time defining networks? Ten thousand books with “network” in\n> their title, subtitle, or series title have appeared since my Networked Art\n> appeared in 2001, and reading just a few of these titles begins to sound\n> like a conceptual poem: Networks of Outrage and Hope; Network Forensics;\n> Understanding Social Network; How Networks are Shaping the Modern\n> Metropolis; Virality: Contagion Theory in the Age of Networks; Disrupting\n> Dark Networks; Network Like an Introvert; Network Marketing; Network\n> Management; The Network; Actor-Network Theory and Tourism; Charles\n> Dickens's Networks; Social Network Analysis; Nomads and Networks;\n> Networked: The New Social Operating System; Networks Without a Cause ...\n> (with thanks to K.A. Wisniewski for digging up some of this list). Network\n> is networked in every conceivable publisher's category: Computers &\n> technical manuals. Science. Art. Photography. Biographies & Memoirs.\n> Literature, Graphic novels, and literary criticism. Education. History.\n> Politics. Sociology. Law. Humor. Religion. Philosophy. Self-help. ...\n> Trade publishers. University, or Small presses. Self-published. Television\n> or Internet. ... Networks, Networking, Networked . . . Nouns. Adjectives.\n> Verbs. Or, read as both or neither. Something else? It's a one-word\n> cliché either disliked and pernicious or liberating and utopian; it is a\n> network of control in the \"capitalocene\" (the complex networks that have\n> transformed lives for everybody on this planet whether they like it or not)\n> or the anarchist rhizomatic hacktivists' web. Not in the same ways, but\n> deeply still. Instead of it's meaning, what are it's moods, textures,\n> poetics, amateur-hack-artist function, and visceral affects? That's what I\n> hope we can explore here.\n>\n>\n>\n>\n> On Sep 6, 2016, at 10:08 PM, Timothy Conway Murray <tcm1 at cornell.edu>\n> wrote:\n>\n> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------Welcome back\n> everyone from summer or winter, depending on your location.\n> Renate and I have enjoyed the quiet of Cayuga Lake in Ithaca after\n> returning from Shanghai where we opened a new Summer School in Theory\n> between Cornell University and East China Normal University. Our time off\n> in August gave us an opportunity to think about anniversary nodes of the\n> net and net.art, just as I was being challenged in keeping various pieces\n> of 1990s net.art online for my exhibition, Signal to Code: 50 Years of\n> Media Art in the Rose Goldsen Archive\n> (http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/signaltocode/). So we thought it might be\n> interesting to open September with a discussion of Net Art Then and Now.\n>\n> This week, I will look forward to the opportunity to think back on the\n> excitement of curatorial projects in net.art when the community imagined\n> that the challenging artworks of the net might reach a broader audience\n> than now seems to have been the case. I will be joined by Craig Saper, a\n> challenging thinker of the network. Craig Saper (US) is Professor in\n> the Language, Literacy, and Culture Doctoral Program at UMBC in Baltimore,\n> Maryland, US. Craig published Networked Art and, as dj Readies, Intimate\n> Bureaucracies ‹\n> both about net-art then (and now). His work on net-art also appears in the\n> Whitechapel Gallery's Networks, in their Documents of Contemporary Art\n> series and forthcoming in Beyond Critique: Contemporary Art in Theory,\n> Practice and Instruction. Hisrecently published \"cross between an\n> intellectual biography Š and a picaresque novel,² and \"a biography of a\n> lost twentieth century,\" The Amazing Adventures of Bob Brown, tells the\n> comic story of a real-life Zelig and the ultimate networker. He has also\n> edited or co-edited scholarly volumes including Electracy: Gregory L.\n> Ulmer Textshop Experiments\n> <http://www.thedaviesgrouppublishers.com/ulmer%20electracy.htm> (2015), a\n> special issue of the scholarly journal Hyperrhiz on mapping culture\n> <http://hyperrhiz.io/hyperrhiz12/> (2015), special issues of Rhizomes on\n> Posthumography <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue20/saper/index.html>(2010),\n> Imaging Place <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue18/saper/> (2009), and Drifts\n> <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue13/> (2007), and many other volumes since\n> 1990. Craig¹s curatorial projects include exhibits on ³Assemblings²\n> (1997), ³Noigandres: Concrete Poetry in Brazil² (1988) and ³TypeBound\n> <http://www.readies.org/typebound/>² (2008), and folkvine.org\n> <http://folkvine.umbc.edu/> (2003-6). In addition, he has published two\n> other artists¹s books On Being Read (1985) and Raw Material (2008).\n>\n> Over the weekend, Renate and I enjoyed a lakeside lunch at a casual\n> restaurant on Cayuga Lake, and recalled that our last meal there was in\n> the pleasant company of Craig Saper. So, Craig, we are very happy to be\n> back in conversation with you here on the network rather than the lake.\n> We look forward to receiving your opening post.\n>\n> Tim\n>\n>\n>\n>\n> Timothy Murray\n> Professor of Comparative Literature and English\n> Taylor Family Director, Society for the Humanities\n> http://www.arts.cornell.edu/sochum/\n> Curator, Rose Goldsen Archive of New Media Art\n> http://goldsen.library.cornell.edu\n> A D White House\n> Cornell University,\n> Ithaca, New York 14853\n>\n>\n> >\n>\n> <default[2].xml>_______________________________________________\n> empyre forum\n> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au\n> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu\n>\n> _______________________________________________\n> empyre forum\n> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au\n> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu\n>\n> _______________________________________________\n> empyre forum\n> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au\n> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu\n>\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: <http://lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20160907/8ae3f3af/attachment.html>\n",
|
||
"from": "muratnn at gmail.com",
|
||
"author_name": "Murat Nemet-Nejat",
|
||
"message-id": "9254",
|
||
"id": "9254",
|
||
"url": "http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/2016-September/009254.html",
|
||
"subject": "[-empyre-] Week One on Through the NET: Net Art Then and Now",
|
||
"date": "Thu Sep 8 03:31:44 AEST 2016"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "n/a",
|
||
"content": "Hi Murat — \n\nThank you for picking up my winking-nod to the 18th century as my Instructions below will continue (and although beyond the scope of this exchange and series of instructions, the net- and net-art seems like a sub-category of the epistolary and the squib [the squib is given short shrift]. Nevertheless, look at Sheryl Orings’ work, for example, where she types, stamps, and sends letters to presidents and presidential candidates; her work performed and set in Berlin or around the World Trade Center is particularly interesting in this regard of sending letters as part of “Collective Memory.” In any case, I can’t take that up here. Another point that I cannot elaborate on here is the 18th century philosophers (Murat mentions Locke; K.A. Wisniewski examines Hopkinson’s hoaxes and stunts around the time he was signing the Declaration of Independence) as amateurs in a time of upheaval and revolt. The net-art and “conceptual [or medium-less] art” in general suggest where the best “philosophy\" is happening. \n\nInstructions #3\nWhen the artist Ray Johnson produced net-art he sent a half-completed collage, scribble, or his iconic bunny-doddle to a “reader” (to borrow Murat’s term below) he would include a simple instruction to complete (or at least continue) the work and send it on to a name and address. The name was usually a celebrity among the readers — like the librarian at MoMA, Clive Phillpot, or Andy Warhol … and the address accurate. It was known that someone like Phillpot would, against the wishes of his administrators, save and archive all of these “on-sendings.” So, the “reader” would be stuck in a desirous network — send it on and be ensnared in clock-maker’s scheme (Ray Johnson would manipulate you as reader-as-part-of-the-work) — It was like a Lacanian paranoid phantasmagoria where the subject or reader is a part of the poem (not a poet). \n\nSo, become a reader by yielding to the initiative of the network. \n\nThat said, the net-art already discussed often mimics, parodies, or spoofs the pernicious notions of the network as the new locus of surveillance (see Hassan Elahi’s work that surveils himself as if working for the NSA), terror (see Ricardo Dominguez’s work), control of contested spaces and borders (see J. Craig Freeman’s augmented reality interventions), and public interactions (see many of the social action artists — or scholar-artists like Lone Koefoed Hansen or Søren Pold) — I include Pold in this short list because he has put poem-making and reading machines in libraries throughout Denmark. The Pirate Party also Beuys' the many political organizations (and including manifestoes that led to the origins of the Green Party).\n\nSo, instruction #3 is to borrow the network and systems — perhaps with a parodic tone — as an element of net-art. \n\nCiao and thanks, \nMurat! — an important name in the 18th century — especially in Naples.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOn Sep 7, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Murat Nemet-Nejat <muratnn at gmail.com> wrote:\n\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\nCraig,\n\nThank you for the clarity and boldness of your first gambit.\n\n\"Often, though the artist-function is algorithmic and instructions for an open-system, the artist function is both more controlling (see the definition of a p-bot) -- watch-maker like -- and less (once it is out there among the undefined networks of other p-bots). In celebrating early work on rhizomes.org <http://rhizomes.org/>, there is a discussion of Petra Cortwright's explicitly unintentional artwork on YouTube that emphasized her amateur status. The amateur is not a professional.\"\n\nI like your 18th century reference. Then, the net-artist becomes the Newtonian god or, more precisely, the job (that of the clock-maker who then disappears) assigned to god in that universe.\n\nWhat happens to \"the reader\" in that net-universe then. One should not forget that in Newtonian metaphysics (science) one can not change anything; but only \"discover\" the laws governing events, fact. If so, there is nothing open-ended in net-art. The \"reader\" (any interacter with the work) can only discover the depth (the digital wisdom, you might say) of the algorithm. Making the net-artist through his/her programing basically a god, are you not making him/her infinitely powerful, the very opposiye of the open-endedness you suggest net-art creates? Can we not say the opposite is as true? The reader (ultimately I would claim the artist himself/herself) is helpless.\n\nCiao,\nMurat\n\nOn Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu <mailto:csaper at umbc.edu>> wrote:\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\nInstructions #2\nZooming in on our opening gambit to turn -empyre- into a net-art experiment (or a set of instructions that could potentially do so in some theoretical future), then we can appreciate the shift from demarcating to listing/using a series of functions and effects.\n\nTwo attributes in art that use the situation of a network as a canvas. The first is to \"write\" the work as an open-constraint set of instructions (either algorithmic or listing). One can send/apply the instructions either to bots, people, or (in the case of listserv) to an unknown identity (let's call ourselves p-bot effects). We see this in Fluxus works (precursors to net-art? or an example of it?) and in the twitter-bot experiments like Helen Burgess' \"Loving-Together with Roland's Bots\" and Anna Coluthon (@annacoluthon), Tully Hansen’s team-powered bot @botALLY retweets and tags bot-generated tweets, “NRA Tally (@NRA_Tally)” or“Save the Humanities (@SaveHumanities)” by Mark Sample, “Pizza Clones (@pizzaclones)” by Allison Parrish.\n\nThe second (closely related to the effect above) is to notice that, unlike other arts, dependence on a singular virtuosity and aesthetic innovation, net-art appears to have another notion of the artwork; the genius is distributed in the system -- throughout the network, and the amateur and hack are nodes in that system. Often, though the artist-function is algorithmic and instructions for an open-system, the artist function is both more controlling (see the definition of a p-bot) -- watch-maker like -- and less (once it is out there among the undefined networks of other p-bots). In celebrating early work on rhizomes.org <http://rhizomes.org/>, there is a discussion of Petra Cortwright's explicitly unintentional artwork on YouTube that emphasized her amateur status. The amateur is not a professional.\n\nWhat are the instructions?\n\n//\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\n\nOn Sep 6, 2016, at 10:28 PM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu <mailto:csaper at umbc.edu>> wrote:\n\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\nTim, Thanks for the introduction — and although we didn’t get to Ithaca this summer — fond memories. It seems fitting to have the theme this week correspond to the 20th anniversary of Rhizome.org. Congratulations to Mark Tribe and the network of folks who transformed a listserv (like -empyre -- just sayin') into something else for networked art (putting that notion of transformation of a listserv into something else (\"commissions, exhibits, preserves, and creates critical discussion around\" net-art) as the implicit instruction/open-constraint for our discussion) . . . . still having a difficult time defining networks? Ten thousand books with “network” in their title, subtitle, or series title have appeared since my Networked Art appeared in 2001, and reading just a few of these titles begins to sound like a conceptual poem: Networks of Outrage and Hope; Network Forensics; Understanding Social Network; How Networks are Shaping the Modern Metropolis; Virality: Contagion Theory in the Age of Networks; Disrupting Dark Networks; Network Like an Introvert; Network Marketing; Network Management; The Network; Actor-Network Theory and Tourism; Charles Dickens's Networks; Social Network Analysis; Nomads and Networks; Networked: The New Social Operating System; Networks Without a Cause ... (with thanks to K.A. Wisniewski for digging up some of this list). Network is networked in every conceivable publisher's category: Computers & technical manuals. Science. Art. Photography. Biographies & Memoirs. Literature, Graphic novels, and literary criticism. Education. History. Politics. Sociology. Law. Humor. Religion. Philosophy. Self-help. ... Trade publishers. University, or Small presses. Self-published. Television or Internet. ... Networks, Networking, Networked . . . Nouns. Adjectives. Verbs. Or, read as both or neither. Something else? It's a one-word cliché either disliked and pernicious or liberating and utopian; it is a network of control in the \"capitalocene\" (the complex networks that have transformed lives for everybody on this planet whether they like it or not) or the anarchist rhizomatic hacktivists' web. Not in the same ways, but deeply still. Instead of it's meaning, what are it's moods, textures, poetics, amateur-hack-artist function, and visceral affects? That's what I hope we can explore here.\n\n\n\n\nOn Sep 6, 2016, at 10:08 PM, Timothy Conway Murray <tcm1 at cornell.edu <mailto:tcm1 at cornell.edu>> wrote:\n\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------Welcome back everyone from summer or winter, depending on your location.\nRenate and I have enjoyed the quiet of Cayuga Lake in Ithaca after\nreturning from Shanghai where we opened a new Summer School in Theory\nbetween Cornell University and East China Normal University. Our time off\nin August gave us an opportunity to think about anniversary nodes of the\nnet and net.art, just as I was being challenged in keeping various pieces\nof 1990s net.art online for my exhibition, Signal to Code: 50 Years of\nMedia Art in the Rose Goldsen Archive\n(http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/signaltocode/ <http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/signaltocode/>). So we thought it might be\ninteresting to open September with a discussion of Net Art Then and Now.\n\nThis week, I will look forward to the opportunity to think back on the\nexcitement of curatorial projects in net.art when the community imagined\nthat the challenging artworks of the net might reach a broader audience\nthan now seems to have been the case. I will be joined by Craig Saper, a\nchallenging thinker of the network. Craig Saper (US) is Professor in\nthe Language, Literacy, and Culture Doctoral Program at UMBC in Baltimore,\nMaryland, US. Craig published Networked Art and, as dj Readies, Intimate\nBureaucracies ‹\nboth about net-art then (and now). His work on net-art also appears in the\nWhitechapel Gallery's Networks, in their Documents of Contemporary Art\nseries and forthcoming in Beyond Critique: Contemporary Art in Theory,\nPractice and Instruction. Hisrecently published \"cross between an\nintellectual biography Š and a picaresque novel,² and \"a biography of a\nlost twentieth century,\" The Amazing Adventures of Bob Brown, tells the\ncomic story of a real-life Zelig and the ultimate networker. He has also\nedited or co-edited scholarly volumes including Electracy: Gregory L.\nUlmer Textshop Experiments\n<http://www.thedaviesgrouppublishers.com/ulmer%20electracy.htm <http://www.thedaviesgrouppublishers.com/ulmer%20electracy.htm>> (2015), a\nspecial issue of the scholarly journal Hyperrhiz on mapping culture\n<http://hyperrhiz.io/hyperrhiz12/ <http://hyperrhiz.io/hyperrhiz12/>> (2015), special issues of Rhizomes on\nPosthumography <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue20/saper/index.html <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue20/saper/index.html>>(2010),\nImaging Place <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue18/saper/ <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue18/saper/>> (2009), and Drifts\n<http://www.rhizomes.net/issue13/ <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue13/>> (2007), and many other volumes since\n1990. Craig¹s curatorial projects include exhibits on ³Assemblings²\n(1997), ³Noigandres: Concrete Poetry in Brazil² (1988) and ³TypeBound\n<http://www.readies.org/typebound/ <http://www.readies.org/typebound/>>² (2008), and folkvine.org <http://folkvine.org/>\n<http://folkvine.umbc.edu/ <http://folkvine.umbc.edu/>> (2003-6). In addition, he has published two\nother artists¹s books On Being Read (1985) and Raw Material (2008).\n\nOver the weekend, Renate and I enjoyed a lakeside lunch at a casual\nrestaurant on Cayuga Lake, and recalled that our last meal there was in\nthe pleasant company of Craig Saper. So, Craig, we are very happy to be\nback in conversation with you here on the network rather than the lake.\nWe look forward to receiving your opening post.\n\nTim\n\n\n\n\nTimothy Murray\nProfessor of Comparative Literature and English\nTaylor Family Director, Society for the Humanities\nhttp://www.arts.cornell.edu/sochum/ <http://www.arts.cornell.edu/sochum/>\nCurator, Rose Goldsen Archive of New Media Art\nhttp://goldsen.library.cornell.edu <http://goldsen.library.cornell.edu/>\nA D White House\nCornell University,\nIthaca, New York 14853\n\n\n>\n\n<default[2].xml>_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au <mailto:empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au>\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu <http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/>\n\n_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au <mailto:empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au>\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu <http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/>\n\n_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au <mailto:empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au>\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu <http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/>\n\n_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: <http://lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20160907/20600901/attachment.html>\n",
|
||
"from": "csaper at umbc.edu",
|
||
"author_name": "Craig Saper",
|
||
"message-id": "9255",
|
||
"id": "9255",
|
||
"url": "http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/2016-September/009255.html",
|
||
"subject": "[-empyre-] Week One on Through the NET: Net Art Then and Now",
|
||
"date": "Thu Sep 8 06:54:54 AEST 2016"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "n/a",
|
||
"content": "Yes, Craig, I discovered I was the King of Naples once when I read *War and\nPeace*. Until then I was an exile, or a refugee, from Turkey, where also I\nwas a stranger.\n\nTwo of my poet friends in New York had and I think still have residues of\nJohnson's net-art pinned on their bathroom walls.\n\nCraig, I have a question relating to something necessary, but not\nnecessarily possible. How does one parody an algorithm?\n\nCiao,\nMurat\n\nOn Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu> wrote:\n\n> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\n> Hi Murat —\n>\n> Thank you for picking up my winking-nod to the 18th century as my\n> Instructions below will continue (and although beyond the scope of this\n> exchange and series of instructions, the net- and net-art seems like a\n> sub-category of the epistolary and the squib [the squib is given short\n> shrift]. Nevertheless, look at Sheryl Orings’ work, for example, where she\n> types, stamps, and sends letters to presidents and presidential candidates;\n> her work performed and set in Berlin or around the World Trade Center is\n> particularly interesting in this regard of sending letters as part of\n> “Collective Memory.” In any case, I can’t take that up here. Another point\n> that I cannot elaborate on here is the 18th century philosophers (Murat\n> mentions Locke; K.A. Wisniewski examines Hopkinson’s hoaxes and stunts\n> around the time he was signing the Declaration of Independence) as amateurs\n> in a time of upheaval and revolt. The net-art and “conceptual [or\n> medium-less] art” in general suggest where the best “philosophy\" is\n> happening.\n>\n> Instructions #3\n> When the artist Ray Johnson produced net-art he sent a half-completed\n> collage, scribble, or his iconic bunny-doddle to a “reader” (to borrow\n> Murat’s term below) he would include a simple instruction to complete (or\n> at least continue) the work and send it on to a name and address. The name\n> was usually a celebrity among the readers — like the librarian at MoMA,\n> Clive Phillpot, or Andy Warhol … and the address accurate. It was known\n> that someone like Phillpot would, against the wishes of his administrators,\n> save and archive all of these “on-sendings.” So, the “reader” would be\n> stuck in a desirous network — send it on and be ensnared in clock-maker’s\n> scheme (Ray Johnson would manipulate you as reader-as-part-of-the-work) —\n> It was like a Lacanian paranoid phantasmagoria where the subject or reader\n> is a part of the poem (not a poet).\n>\n> So, become a reader by yielding to the initiative of the network.\n>\n> That said, the net-art already discussed often mimics, parodies, or spoofs\n> the pernicious notions of the network as the new locus of surveillance (see\n> Hassan Elahi’s work that surveils himself as if working for the NSA),\n> terror (see Ricardo Dominguez’s work), control of contested spaces and\n> borders (see J. Craig Freeman’s augmented reality interventions), and\n> public interactions (see many of the social action artists — or\n> scholar-artists like Lone Koefoed Hansen or Søren Pold) — I include Pold in\n> this short list because he has put poem-making and reading machines in\n> libraries throughout Denmark. The Pirate Party also Beuys' the many\n> political organizations (and including manifestoes that led to the origins\n> of the Green Party).\n>\n> So, instruction #3 is to borrow the network and systems — perhaps with a\n> parodic tone — as an element of net-art.\n>\n> Ciao and thanks,\n> Murat! — an important name in the 18th century — especially in Naples.\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n> On Sep 7, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Murat Nemet-Nejat <muratnn at gmail.com> wrote:\n>\n> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\n> Craig,\n>\n> Thank you for the clarity and boldness of your first gambit.\n>\n> \"Often, though the artist-function is algorithmic and instructions for an\n> open-system, the artist function is both more controlling (see the\n> definition of a p-bot) -- watch-maker like -- and less (once it is out\n> there among the undefined networks of other p-bots). In celebrating early\n> work on rhizomes.org, there is a discussion of Petra Cortwright's\n> explicitly unintentional artwork on YouTube that emphasized her amateur\n> status. The amateur is not a professional.\"\n>\n> I like your 18th century reference. Then, the net-artist becomes the\n> Newtonian god or, more precisely, the job (that of the clock-maker who then\n> disappears) assigned to god in that universe.\n>\n> What happens to \"the reader\" in that net-universe then. One should not\n> forget that in Newtonian metaphysics (science) one can not change anything;\n> but only \"discover\" the laws governing events, fact. If so, there is\n> nothing open-ended in net-art. The \"reader\" (any interacter with the\n> work) can only discover the depth (the digital wisdom, you might say) of\n> the algorithm. Making the net-artist through his/her programing basically a\n> god, are you not making him/her infinitely powerful, the very opposiye of\n> the open-endedness you suggest net-art creates? Can we not say the opposite\n> is as true? The reader (ultimately I would claim the artist\n> himself/herself) is helpless.\n>\n> Ciao,\n> Murat\n>\n> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu> wrote:\n>\n>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\n>> Instructions #2\n>> Zooming in on our opening gambit to turn -empyre- into a net-art\n>> experiment (or a set of instructions that could potentially do so in some\n>> theoretical future), then we can appreciate the shift from demarcating to\n>> listing/using a series of functions and effects.\n>>\n>> Two attributes in art that use the situation of a network as a canvas.\n>> The first is to \"write\" the work as an open-constraint set of instructions\n>> (either algorithmic or listing). One can send/apply the instructions either\n>> to bots, people, or (in the case of listserv) to an unknown identity (let's\n>> call ourselves p-bot effects). We see this in Fluxus works (precursors to\n>> net-art? or an example of it?) and in the twitter-bot experiments like\n>> Helen Burgess' \"Loving-Together with Roland's Bots\" and Anna Coluthon\n>> (@annacoluthon), Tully Hansen’s team-powered bot @botALLY retweets and tags\n>> bot-generated tweets, “NRA Tally (@NRA_Tally)” or“Save the Humanities\n>> (@SaveHumanities)” by Mark Sample, “Pizza Clones (@pizzaclones)” by Allison\n>> Parrish.\n>>\n>> The second (closely related to the effect above) is to notice that,\n>> unlike other arts, dependence on a singular virtuosity and aesthetic\n>> innovation, net-art appears to have another notion of the artwork; the\n>> genius is distributed in the system -- throughout the network, and the\n>> amateur and hack are nodes in that system. Often, though the\n>> artist-function is algorithmic and instructions for an open-system, the\n>> artist function is both more controlling (see the definition of a p-bot) --\n>> watch-maker like -- and less (once it is out there among the undefined\n>> networks of other p-bots). In celebrating early work on rhizomes.org,\n>> there is a discussion of Petra Cortwright's explicitly unintentional\n>> artwork on YouTube that emphasized her amateur status. The amateur is not a\n>> professional.\n>>\n>> What are the instructions?\n>>\n>> //\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\n>>\n>> On Sep 6, 2016, at 10:28 PM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu> wrote:\n>>\n>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\n>> Tim, Thanks for the introduction — and although we didn’t get to Ithaca\n>> this summer — fond memories. It seems fitting to have the theme this week\n>> correspond to the 20th anniversary of Rhizome.org <http://rhizome.org>.\n>> Congratulations to Mark Tribe and the network of folks who transformed a\n>> listserv (like -empyre -- just sayin') into something else for networked\n>> art (putting that notion of transformation of a listserv into something\n>> else (\"commissions, exhibits, preserves, and creates critical discussion\n>> around\" net-art) as the implicit instruction/open-constraint for our\n>> discussion) . . . . still having a difficult time defining networks? Ten\n>> thousand books with “network” in their title, subtitle, or series title\n>> have appeared since my Networked Art appeared in 2001, and reading just a\n>> few of these titles begins to sound like a conceptual poem: Networks of\n>> Outrage and Hope; Network Forensics; Understanding Social Network; How\n>> Networks are Shaping the Modern Metropolis; Virality: Contagion Theory in\n>> the Age of Networks; Disrupting Dark Networks; Network Like an Introvert;\n>> Network Marketing; Network Management; The Network; Actor-Network Theory\n>> and Tourism; Charles Dickens's Networks; Social Network Analysis; Nomads\n>> and Networks; Networked: The New Social Operating System; Networks Without\n>> a Cause ... (with thanks to K.A. Wisniewski for digging up some of this\n>> list). Network is networked in every conceivable publisher's category:\n>> Computers & technical manuals. Science. Art. Photography. Biographies &\n>> Memoirs. Literature, Graphic novels, and literary criticism. Education.\n>> History. Politics. Sociology. Law. Humor. Religion. Philosophy.\n>> Self-help. ... Trade publishers. University, or Small presses.\n>> Self-published. Television or Internet. ... Networks, Networking, Networked\n>> . . . Nouns. Adjectives. Verbs. Or, read as both or neither. Something\n>> else? It's a one-word cliché either disliked and pernicious or liberating\n>> and utopian; it is a network of control in the \"capitalocene\" (the complex\n>> networks that have transformed lives for everybody on this planet whether\n>> they like it or not) or the anarchist rhizomatic hacktivists' web. Not in\n>> the same ways, but deeply still. Instead of it's meaning, what are it's\n>> moods, textures, poetics, amateur-hack-artist function, and visceral\n>> affects? That's what I hope we can explore here.\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> On Sep 6, 2016, at 10:08 PM, Timothy Conway Murray <tcm1 at cornell.edu>\n>> wrote:\n>>\n>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------Welcome back\n>> everyone from summer or winter, depending on your location.\n>> Renate and I have enjoyed the quiet of Cayuga Lake in Ithaca after\n>> returning from Shanghai where we opened a new Summer School in Theory\n>> between Cornell University and East China Normal University. Our time off\n>> in August gave us an opportunity to think about anniversary nodes of the\n>> net and net.art, just as I was being challenged in keeping various pieces\n>> of 1990s net.art online for my exhibition, Signal to Code: 50 Years of\n>> Media Art in the Rose Goldsen Archive\n>> (http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/signaltocode/). So we thought it might\n>> be\n>> interesting to open September with a discussion of Net Art Then and Now.\n>>\n>> This week, I will look forward to the opportunity to think back on the\n>> excitement of curatorial projects in net.art when the community imagined\n>> that the challenging artworks of the net might reach a broader audience\n>> than now seems to have been the case. I will be joined by Craig Saper, a\n>> challenging thinker of the network. Craig Saper (US) is Professor in\n>> the Language, Literacy, and Culture Doctoral Program at UMBC in Baltimore,\n>> Maryland, US. Craig published Networked Art and, as dj Readies, Intimate\n>> Bureaucracies ‹\n>> both about net-art then (and now). His work on net-art also appears in the\n>> Whitechapel Gallery's Networks, in their Documents of Contemporary Art\n>> series and forthcoming in Beyond Critique: Contemporary Art in Theory,\n>> Practice and Instruction. Hisrecently published \"cross between an\n>> intellectual biography Š and a picaresque novel,² and \"a biography of a\n>> lost twentieth century,\" The Amazing Adventures of Bob Brown, tells the\n>> comic story of a real-life Zelig and the ultimate networker. He has also\n>> edited or co-edited scholarly volumes including Electracy: Gregory L.\n>> Ulmer Textshop Experiments\n>> <http://www.thedaviesgrouppublishers.com/ulmer%20electracy.htm> (2015), a\n>> special issue of the scholarly journal Hyperrhiz on mapping culture\n>> <http://hyperrhiz.io/hyperrhiz12/> (2015), special issues of Rhizomes on\n>> Posthumography <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue20/saper/index.html>(2010),\n>> Imaging Place <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue18/saper/> (2009), and Drifts\n>> <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue13/> (2007), and many other volumes since\n>> 1990. Craig¹s curatorial projects include exhibits on ³Assemblings²\n>> (1997), ³Noigandres: Concrete Poetry in Brazil² (1988) and ³TypeBound\n>> <http://www.readies.org/typebound/>² (2008), and folkvine.org\n>> <http://folkvine.umbc.edu/> (2003-6). In addition, he has published two\n>> other artists¹s books On Being Read (1985) and Raw Material (2008).\n>>\n>> Over the weekend, Renate and I enjoyed a lakeside lunch at a casual\n>> restaurant on Cayuga Lake, and recalled that our last meal there was in\n>> the pleasant company of Craig Saper. So, Craig, we are very happy to be\n>> back in conversation with you here on the network rather than the lake.\n>> We look forward to receiving your opening post.\n>>\n>> Tim\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> Timothy Murray\n>> Professor of Comparative Literature and English\n>> Taylor Family Director, Society for the Humanities\n>> http://www.arts.cornell.edu/sochum/\n>> Curator, Rose Goldsen Archive of New Media Art\n>> http://goldsen.library.cornell.edu\n>> A D White House\n>> Cornell University,\n>> Ithaca, New York 14853\n>>\n>>\n>> >\n>>\n>> <default[2].xml>_______________________________________________\n>> empyre forum\n>> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au\n>> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu\n>>\n>> _______________________________________________\n>> empyre forum\n>> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au\n>> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu\n>>\n>> _______________________________________________\n>> empyre forum\n>> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au\n>> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu\n>>\n>\n> _______________________________________________\n> empyre forum\n> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au\n> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu\n>\n>\n> _______________________________________________\n> empyre forum\n> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au\n> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu\n>\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: <http://lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20160908/fd4524ce/attachment-0001.html>\n",
|
||
"from": "muratnn at gmail.com",
|
||
"author_name": "Murat Nemet-Nejat",
|
||
"message-id": "9258",
|
||
"id": "9258",
|
||
"url": "http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/2016-September/009258.html",
|
||
"subject": "[-empyre-] Week One on Through the NET: Net Art Then and Now",
|
||
"date": "Thu Sep 8 15:48:05 AEST 2016"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "n/a",
|
||
"content": "Instructions #4 \n\nWhisper down the lane. \n\nAlthough the constraints of this discussion include the focus on one particular media technology, \"internet\" art, with \"tools such as email, listservs, web sites, databases, software, and hardware,\" the prefix, net-, may include an \"internet of things,\" art for the bots or non-human persons, and other as of yet un-thought formations beyond one particular technology. More importantly, these sets of instructions suggest that the net- of net-art has to do with a set of effects and functions rather than a specific medium. If you are an administrator, then you might worry to keep net- in a medium specific category so it does not spread with virality into the social sciences, urban planning, or public policy. You, now playing the role of an administrator and manager of a networks, may worry that Bourriaud's \"relational aesthetics\" may escape from the confines of art, gallery-systems, and ... begin to form what Saper has called \"sociopoetics\" (a term he borrows and re-functions).\n\nDuring the 72-day Paris Commune of 1871, the revolutionaries used a communication technology that perhaps prefigured the internet; they used balloons, carrier pigeons, or letters packed in iron balls and floated down the Seine. All three communication-systems had a similar quirk (not calling it a flaw -- although it was a mortal flaw for the \"commune-ists\") that meant that the messages were not guaranteed to reach their intended destinations: drifting. \n\nAn important effect of net-art may involve this productive misunderstanding -- so, works that seek to challenge directly social science and public policy as the dominant and domineering explanations and implementations of networks and net-works. What if the moderators' focus set out at the start of these discussions were misunderstood by the host(s) who took off on a line of flight drifting off the intended course toward a p-bot -empyre- building. What are the works of net-art that use this \"whisper down the lane\" effect? Do any of your works use this effect? Is a listserv a whisper down the lane formation?\n\n \n\n/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\\\\\\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\\\\\\\\\/\\/\\///////\n\nOn Sep 7, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu> wrote:\n\nHi Murat — \n\nThank you for picking up my winking-nod to the 18th century as my Instructions below will continue (and although beyond the scope of this exchange and series of instructions, the net- and net-art seems like a sub-category of the epistolary and the squib [the squib is given short shrift]. Nevertheless, look at Sheryl Orings’ work, for example, where she types, stamps, and sends letters to presidents and presidential candidates; her work performed and set in Berlin or around the World Trade Center is particularly interesting in this regard of sending letters as part of “Collective Memory.” In any case, I can’t take that up here. Another point that I cannot elaborate on here is the 18th century philosophers (Murat mentions Locke; K.A. Wisniewski examines Hopkinson’s hoaxes and stunts around the time he was signing the Declaration of Independence) as amateurs in a time of upheaval and revolt. The net-art and “conceptual [or medium-less] art” in general suggest where the best “philosophy\" is happening. \n\nInstructions #3\nWhen the artist Ray Johnson produced net-art he sent a half-completed collage, scribble, or his iconic bunny-doddle to a “reader” (to borrow Murat’s term below) he would include a simple instruction to complete (or at least continue) the work and send it on to a name and address. The name was usually a celebrity among the readers — like the librarian at MoMA, Clive Phillpot, or Andy Warhol … and the address accurate. It was known that someone like Phillpot would, against the wishes of his administrators, save and archive all of these “on-sendings.” So, the “reader” would be stuck in a desirous network — send it on and be ensnared in clock-maker’s scheme (Ray Johnson would manipulate you as reader-as-part-of-the-work) — It was like a Lacanian paranoid phantasmagoria where the subject or reader is a part of the poem (not a poet). \n\nSo, become a reader by yielding to the initiative of the network. \n\nThat said, the net-art already discussed often mimics, parodies, or spoofs the pernicious notions of the network as the new locus of surveillance (see Hassan Elahi’s work that surveils himself as if working for the NSA), terror (see Ricardo Dominguez’s work), control of contested spaces and borders (see J. Craig Freeman’s augmented reality interventions), and public interactions (see many of the social action artists — or scholar-artists like Lone Koefoed Hansen or Søren Pold) — I include Pold in this short list because he has put poem-making and reading machines in libraries throughout Denmark. The Pirate Party also Beuys' the many political organizations (and including manifestoes that led to the origins of the Green Party).\n\nSo, instruction #3 is to borrow the network and systems — perhaps with a parodic tone — as an element of net-art. \n\nCiao and thanks, \nMurat! — an important name in the 18th century — especially in Naples.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOn Sep 7, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Murat Nemet-Nejat <muratnn at gmail.com <mailto:muratnn at gmail.com>> wrote:\n\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\nCraig,\n\nThank you for the clarity and boldness of your first gambit.\n\n\"Often, though the artist-function is algorithmic and instructions for an open-system, the artist function is both more controlling (see the definition of a p-bot) -- watch-maker like -- and less (once it is out there among the undefined networks of other p-bots). In celebrating early work on rhizomes.org <http://rhizomes.org/>, there is a discussion of Petra Cortwright's explicitly unintentional artwork on YouTube that emphasized her amateur status. The amateur is not a professional.\"\n\nI like your 18th century reference. Then, the net-artist becomes the Newtonian god or, more precisely, the job (that of the clock-maker who then disappears) assigned to god in that universe.\n\nWhat happens to \"the reader\" in that net-universe then. One should not forget that in Newtonian metaphysics (science) one can not change anything; but only \"discover\" the laws governing events, fact. If so, there is nothing open-ended in net-art. The \"reader\" (any interacter with the work) can only discover the depth (the digital wisdom, you might say) of the algorithm. Making the net-artist through his/her programing basically a god, are you not making him/her infinitely powerful, the very opposiye of the open-endedness you suggest net-art creates? Can we not say the opposite is as true? The reader (ultimately I would claim the artist himself/herself) is helpless.\n\nCiao,\nMurat\n\nOn Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu <mailto:csaper at umbc.edu>> wrote:\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\nInstructions #2\nZooming in on our opening gambit to turn -empyre- into a net-art experiment (or a set of instructions that could potentially do so in some theoretical future), then we can appreciate the shift from demarcating to listing/using a series of functions and effects.\n\nTwo attributes in art that use the situation of a network as a canvas. The first is to \"write\" the work as an open-constraint set of instructions (either algorithmic or listing). One can send/apply the instructions either to bots, people, or (in the case of listserv) to an unknown identity (let's call ourselves p-bot effects). We see this in Fluxus works (precursors to net-art? or an example of it?) and in the twitter-bot experiments like Helen Burgess' \"Loving-Together with Roland's Bots\" and Anna Coluthon (@annacoluthon), Tully Hansen’s team-powered bot @botALLY retweets and tags bot-generated tweets, “NRA Tally (@NRA_Tally)” or“Save the Humanities (@SaveHumanities)” by Mark Sample, “Pizza Clones (@pizzaclones)” by Allison Parrish.\n\nThe second (closely related to the effect above) is to notice that, unlike other arts, dependence on a singular virtuosity and aesthetic innovation, net-art appears to have another notion of the artwork; the genius is distributed in the system -- throughout the network, and the amateur and hack are nodes in that system. Often, though the artist-function is algorithmic and instructions for an open-system, the artist function is both more controlling (see the definition of a p-bot) -- watch-maker like -- and less (once it is out there among the undefined networks of other p-bots). In celebrating early work on rhizomes.org <http://rhizomes.org/>, there is a discussion of Petra Cortwright's explicitly unintentional artwork on YouTube that emphasized her amateur status. The amateur is not a professional.\n\nWhat are the instructions?\n\n//\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\n\nOn Sep 6, 2016, at 10:28 PM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu <mailto:csaper at umbc.edu>> wrote:\n\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\nTim, Thanks for the introduction — and although we didn’t get to Ithaca this summer — fond memories. It seems fitting to have the theme this week correspond to the 20th anniversary of Rhizome.org <http://rhizome.org/>. Congratulations to Mark Tribe and the network of folks who transformed a listserv (like -empyre -- just sayin') into something else for networked art (putting that notion of transformation of a listserv into something else (\"commissions, exhibits, preserves, and creates critical discussion around\" net-art) as the implicit instruction/open-constraint for our discussion) . . . . still having a difficult time defining networks? Ten thousand books with “network” in their title, subtitle, or series title have appeared since my Networked Art appeared in 2001, and reading just a few of these titles begins to sound like a conceptual poem: Networks of Outrage and Hope; Network Forensics; Understanding Social Network; How Networks are Shaping the Modern Metropolis; Virality: Contagion Theory in the Age of Networks; Disrupting Dark Networks; Network Like an Introvert; Network Marketing; Network Management; The Network; Actor-Network Theory and Tourism; Charles Dickens's Networks; Social Network Analysis; Nomads and Networks; Networked: The New Social Operating System; Networks Without a Cause ... (with thanks to K.A. Wisniewski for digging up some of this list). Network is networked in every conceivable publisher's category: Computers & technical manuals. Science. Art. Photography. Biographies & Memoirs. Literature, Graphic novels, and literary criticism. Education. History. Politics. Sociology. Law. Humor. Religion. Philosophy. Self-help. ... Trade publishers. University, or Small presses. Self-published. Television or Internet. ... Networks, Networking, Networked . . . Nouns. Adjectives. Verbs. Or, read as both or neither. Something else? It's a one-word cliché either disliked and pernicious or liberating and utopian; it is a network of control in the \"capitalocene\" (the complex networks that have transformed lives for everybody on this planet whether they like it or not) or the anarchist rhizomatic hacktivists' web. Not in the same ways, but deeply still. Instead of it's meaning, what are it's moods, textures, poetics, amateur-hack-artist function, and visceral affects? That's what I hope we can explore here.\n\n\n\n\nOn Sep 6, 2016, at 10:08 PM, Timothy Conway Murray <tcm1 at cornell.edu <mailto:tcm1 at cornell.edu>> wrote:\n\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------Welcome back everyone from summer or winter, depending on your location.\nRenate and I have enjoyed the quiet of Cayuga Lake in Ithaca after\nreturning from Shanghai where we opened a new Summer School in Theory\nbetween Cornell University and East China Normal University. Our time off\nin August gave us an opportunity to think about anniversary nodes of the\nnet and net.art, just as I was being challenged in keeping various pieces\nof 1990s net.art online for my exhibition, Signal to Code: 50 Years of\nMedia Art in the Rose Goldsen Archive\n(http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/signaltocode/ <http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/signaltocode/>). So we thought it might be\ninteresting to open September with a discussion of Net Art Then and Now.\n\nThis week, I will look forward to the opportunity to think back on the\nexcitement of curatorial projects in net.art when the community imagined\nthat the challenging artworks of the net might reach a broader audience\nthan now seems to have been the case. I will be joined by Craig Saper, a\nchallenging thinker of the network. Craig Saper (US) is Professor in\nthe Language, Literacy, and Culture Doctoral Program at UMBC in Baltimore,\nMaryland, US. Craig published Networked Art and, as dj Readies, Intimate\nBureaucracies ‹\nboth about net-art then (and now). His work on net-art also appears in the\nWhitechapel Gallery's Networks, in their Documents of Contemporary Art\nseries and forthcoming in Beyond Critique: Contemporary Art in Theory,\nPractice and Instruction. Hisrecently published \"cross between an\nintellectual biography Š and a picaresque novel,² and \"a biography of a\nlost twentieth century,\" The Amazing Adventures of Bob Brown, tells the\ncomic story of a real-life Zelig and the ultimate networker. He has also\nedited or co-edited scholarly volumes including Electracy: Gregory L.\nUlmer Textshop Experiments\n<http://www.thedaviesgrouppublishers.com/ulmer%20electracy.htm <http://www.thedaviesgrouppublishers.com/ulmer%20electracy.htm>> (2015), a\nspecial issue of the scholarly journal Hyperrhiz on mapping culture\n<http://hyperrhiz.io/hyperrhiz12/ <http://hyperrhiz.io/hyperrhiz12/>> (2015), special issues of Rhizomes on\nPosthumography <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue20/saper/index.html <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue20/saper/index.html>>(2010),\nImaging Place <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue18/saper/ <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue18/saper/>> (2009), and Drifts\n<http://www.rhizomes.net/issue13/ <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue13/>> (2007), and many other volumes since\n1990. Craig¹s curatorial projects include exhibits on ³Assemblings²\n(1997), ³Noigandres: Concrete Poetry in Brazil² (1988) and ³TypeBound\n<http://www.readies.org/typebound/ <http://www.readies.org/typebound/>>² (2008), and folkvine.org <http://folkvine.org/>\n<http://folkvine.umbc.edu/ <http://folkvine.umbc.edu/>> (2003-6). In addition, he has published two\nother artists¹s books On Being Read (1985) and Raw Material (2008).\n\nOver the weekend, Renate and I enjoyed a lakeside lunch at a casual\nrestaurant on Cayuga Lake, and recalled that our last meal there was in\nthe pleasant company of Craig Saper. So, Craig, we are very happy to be\nback in conversation with you here on the network rather than the lake.\nWe look forward to receiving your opening post.\n\nTim\n\n\n\n\nTimothy Murray\nProfessor of Comparative Literature and English\nTaylor Family Director, Society for the Humanities\nhttp://www.arts.cornell.edu/sochum/ <http://www.arts.cornell.edu/sochum/>\nCurator, Rose Goldsen Archive of New Media Art\nhttp://goldsen.library.cornell.edu <http://goldsen.library.cornell.edu/>\nA D White House\nCornell University,\nIthaca, New York 14853\n\n\n>\n\n<default[2].xml>_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au <mailto:empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au>\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu <http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/>\n\n_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au <mailto:empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au>\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu <http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/>\n\n_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au <mailto:empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au>\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu <http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/>\n\n_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au <mailto:empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au>\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu\n\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: <http://lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20160908/7311f980/attachment.html>\n",
|
||
"from": "csaper at umbc.edu",
|
||
"author_name": "Craig Saper",
|
||
"message-id": "9256",
|
||
"id": "9256",
|
||
"url": "http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/2016-September/009256.html",
|
||
"subject": "[-empyre-] Week One on Through the NET: Net Art Then and Now",
|
||
"date": "Thu Sep 8 23:27:42 AEST 2016"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "n/a",
|
||
"content": "Instructions #4 \n\nWhisper down the lane. \n\nAlthough the constraints of this discussion include the focus on one particular media technology, \"internet\" art, with \"tools such as email, listservs, web sites, databases, software, and hardware,\" the prefix, net-, may include an \"internet of things,\" art for the bots or non-human persons, and other as of yet un-thought formations beyond one particular technology. More importantly, these sets of instructions suggest that the net- of net-art has to do with a set of effects and functions rather than a specific medium. If you are an administrator, then you might worry to keep net- in a medium specific category so it does not spread with virality into the social sciences, urban planning, or public policy. You, now playing the role of an administrator and manager of a networks, may worry that Bourriaud's \"relational aesthetics\" may escape from the confines of art, gallery-systems, and ... begin to form what Saper has called \"sociopoetics\" (a term he borrows and re-functions).\n\nDuring the 72-day Paris Commune of 1871, the revolutionaries used a communication technology that perhaps prefigured the internet; they used balloons, carrier pigeons, or letters packed in iron balls and floated down the Seine. All three communication-systems had a similar quirk (not calling it a flaw -- although it was a mortal flaw for the \"commune-ists\") that meant that the messages were not guaranteed to reach their intended destinations: drifting. \n\nAn important effect of net-art may involve this productive misunderstanding -- so, works that seek to challenge directly social science and public policy as the dominant and domineering explanations and implementations of networks and net-works. What if the moderators' focus set out at the start of these discussions were misunderstood by the host(s) who took off on a line of flight drifting off the intended course toward a p-bot -empyre- building. What are the works of net-art that use this \"whisper down the lane\" effect? Do any of your works use this effect? Is a listserv a whisper down the lane formation?\n\n \n\n/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\\\\\\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\\\\\\\\\/\\/\\///////\n\nOn Sep 7, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu <mailto:csaper at umbc.edu>> wrote:\n\nHi Murat — \n\nThank you for picking up my winking-nod to the 18th century as my Instructions below will continue (and although beyond the scope of this exchange and series of instructions, the net- and net-art seems like a sub-category of the epistolary and the squib [the squib is given short shrift]. Nevertheless, look at Sheryl Orings’ work, for example, where she types, stamps, and sends letters to presidents and presidential candidates; her work performed and set in Berlin or around the World Trade Center is particularly interesting in this regard of sending letters as part of “Collective Memory.” In any case, I can’t take that up here. Another point that I cannot elaborate on here is the 18th century philosophers (Murat mentions Locke; K.A. Wisniewski examines Hopkinson’s hoaxes and stunts around the time he was signing the Declaration of Independence) as amateurs in a time of upheaval and revolt. The net-art and “conceptual [or medium-less] art” in general suggest where the best “philosophy\" is happening. \n\nInstructions #3\nWhen the artist Ray Johnson produced net-art he sent a half-completed collage, scribble, or his iconic bunny-doddle to a “reader” (to borrow Murat’s term below) he would include a simple instruction to complete (or at least continue) the work and send it on to a name and address. The name was usually a celebrity among the readers — like the librarian at MoMA, Clive Phillpot, or Andy Warhol … and the address accurate. It was known that someone like Phillpot would, against the wishes of his administrators, save and archive all of these “on-sendings.” So, the “reader” would be stuck in a desirous network — send it on and be ensnared in clock-maker’s scheme (Ray Johnson would manipulate you as reader-as-part-of-the-work) — It was like a Lacanian paranoid phantasmagoria where the subject or reader is a part of the poem (not a poet). \n\nSo, become a reader by yielding to the initiative of the network. \n\nThat said, the net-art already discussed often mimics, parodies, or spoofs the pernicious notions of the network as the new locus of surveillance (see Hassan Elahi’s work that surveils himself as if working for the NSA), terror (see Ricardo Dominguez’s work), control of contested spaces and borders (see J. Craig Freeman’s augmented reality interventions), and public interactions (see many of the social action artists — or scholar-artists like Lone Koefoed Hansen or Søren Pold) — I include Pold in this short list because he has put poem-making and reading machines in libraries throughout Denmark. The Pirate Party also Beuys' the many political organizations (and including manifestoes that led to the origins of the Green Party).\n\nSo, instruction #3 is to borrow the network and systems — perhaps with a parodic tone — as an element of net-art. \n\nCiao and thanks, \nMurat! — an important name in the 18th century — especially in Naples.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOn Sep 7, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Murat Nemet-Nejat <muratnn at gmail.com <mailto:muratnn at gmail.com>> wrote:\n\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\nCraig,\n\nThank you for the clarity and boldness of your first gambit.\n\n\"Often, though the artist-function is algorithmic and instructions for an open-system, the artist function is both more controlling (see the definition of a p-bot) -- watch-maker like -- and less (once it is out there among the undefined networks of other p-bots). In celebrating early work on rhizomes.org <http://rhizomes.org/>, there is a discussion of Petra Cortwright's explicitly unintentional artwork on YouTube that emphasized her amateur status. The amateur is not a professional.\"\n\nI like your 18th century reference. Then, the net-artist becomes the Newtonian god or, more precisely, the job (that of the clock-maker who then disappears) assigned to god in that universe.\n\nWhat happens to \"the reader\" in that net-universe then. One should not forget that in Newtonian metaphysics (science) one can not change anything; but only \"discover\" the laws governing events, fact. If so, there is nothing open-ended in net-art. The \"reader\" (any interacter with the work) can only discover the depth (the digital wisdom, you might say) of the algorithm. Making the net-artist through his/her programing basically a god, are you not making him/her infinitely powerful, the very opposiye of the open-endedness you suggest net-art creates? Can we not say the opposite is as true? The reader (ultimately I would claim the artist himself/herself) is helpless.\n\nCiao,\nMurat\n\nOn Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu <mailto:csaper at umbc.edu>> wrote:\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\nInstructions #2\nZooming in on our opening gambit to turn -empyre- into a net-art experiment (or a set of instructions that could potentially do so in some theoretical future), then we can appreciate the shift from demarcating to listing/using a series of functions and effects.\n\nTwo attributes in art that use the situation of a network as a canvas. The first is to \"write\" the work as an open-constraint set of instructions (either algorithmic or listing). One can send/apply the instructions either to bots, people, or (in the case of listserv) to an unknown identity (let's call ourselves p-bot effects). We see this in Fluxus works (precursors to net-art? or an example of it?) and in the twitter-bot experiments like Helen Burgess' \"Loving-Together with Roland's Bots\" and Anna Coluthon (@annacoluthon), Tully Hansen’s team-powered bot @botALLY retweets and tags bot-generated tweets, “NRA Tally (@NRA_Tally)” or“Save the Humanities (@SaveHumanities)” by Mark Sample, “Pizza Clones (@pizzaclones)” by Allison Parrish.\n\nThe second (closely related to the effect above) is to notice that, unlike other arts, dependence on a singular virtuosity and aesthetic innovation, net-art appears to have another notion of the artwork; the genius is distributed in the system -- throughout the network, and the amateur and hack are nodes in that system. Often, though the artist-function is algorithmic and instructions for an open-system, the artist function is both more controlling (see the definition of a p-bot) -- watch-maker like -- and less (once it is out there among the undefined networks of other p-bots). In celebrating early work on rhizomes.org <http://rhizomes.org/>, there is a discussion of Petra Cortwright's explicitly unintentional artwork on YouTube that emphasized her amateur status. The amateur is not a professional.\n\nWhat are the instructions?\n\n//\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\n\nOn Sep 6, 2016, at 10:28 PM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu <mailto:csaper at umbc.edu>> wrote:\n\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\nTim, Thanks for the introduction — and although we didn’t get to Ithaca this summer — fond memories. It seems fitting to have the theme this week correspond to the 20th anniversary of Rhizome.org <http://rhizome.org/>. Congratulations to Mark Tribe and the network of folks who transformed a listserv (like -empyre -- just sayin') into something else for networked art (putting that notion of transformation of a listserv into something else (\"commissions, exhibits, preserves, and creates critical discussion around\" net-art) as the implicit instruction/open-constraint for our discussion) . . . . still having a difficult time defining networks? Ten thousand books with “network” in their title, subtitle, or series title have appeared since my Networked Art appeared in 2001, and reading just a few of these titles begins to sound like a conceptual poem: Networks of Outrage and Hope; Network Forensics; Understanding Social Network; How Networks are Shaping the Modern Metropolis; Virality: Contagion Theory in the Age of Networks; Disrupting Dark Networks; Network Like an Introvert; Network Marketing; Network Management; The Network; Actor-Network Theory and Tourism; Charles Dickens's Networks; Social Network Analysis; Nomads and Networks; Networked: The New Social Operating System; Networks Without a Cause ... (with thanks to K.A. Wisniewski for digging up some of this list). Network is networked in every conceivable publisher's category: Computers & technical manuals. Science. Art. Photography. Biographies & Memoirs. Literature, Graphic novels, and literary criticism. Education. History. Politics. Sociology. Law. Humor. Religion. Philosophy. Self-help. ... Trade publishers. University, or Small presses. Self-published. Television or Internet. ... Networks, Networking, Networked . . . Nouns. Adjectives. Verbs. Or, read as both or neither. Something else? It's a one-word cliché either disliked and pernicious or liberating and utopian; it is a network of control in the \"capitalocene\" (the complex networks that have transformed lives for everybody on this planet whether they like it or not) or the anarchist rhizomatic hacktivists' web. Not in the same ways, but deeply still. Instead of it's meaning, what are it's moods, textures, poetics, amateur-hack-artist function, and visceral affects? That's what I hope we can explore here.\n\n\n\n\nOn Sep 6, 2016, at 10:08 PM, Timothy Conway Murray <tcm1 at cornell.edu <mailto:tcm1 at cornell.edu>> wrote:\n\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------Welcome back everyone from summer or winter, depending on your location.\nRenate and I have enjoyed the quiet of Cayuga Lake in Ithaca after\nreturning from Shanghai where we opened a new Summer School in Theory\nbetween Cornell University and East China Normal University. Our time off\nin August gave us an opportunity to think about anniversary nodes of the\nnet and net.art, just as I was being challenged in keeping various pieces\nof 1990s net.art online for my exhibition, Signal to Code: 50 Years of\nMedia Art in the Rose Goldsen Archive\n(http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/signaltocode/ <http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/signaltocode/>). So we thought it might be\ninteresting to open September with a discussion of Net Art Then and Now.\n\nThis week, I will look forward to the opportunity to think back on the\nexcitement of curatorial projects in net.art when the community imagined\nthat the challenging artworks of the net might reach a broader audience\nthan now seems to have been the case. I will be joined by Craig Saper, a\nchallenging thinker of the network. Craig Saper (US) is Professor in\nthe Language, Literacy, and Culture Doctoral Program at UMBC in Baltimore,\nMaryland, US. Craig published Networked Art and, as dj Readies, Intimate\nBureaucracies ‹\nboth about net-art then (and now). His work on net-art also appears in the\nWhitechapel Gallery's Networks, in their Documents of Contemporary Art\nseries and forthcoming in Beyond Critique: Contemporary Art in Theory,\nPractice and Instruction. Hisrecently published \"cross between an\nintellectual biography Š and a picaresque novel,² and \"a biography of a\nlost twentieth century,\" The Amazing Adventures of Bob Brown, tells the\ncomic story of a real-life Zelig and the ultimate networker. He has also\nedited or co-edited scholarly volumes including Electracy: Gregory L.\nUlmer Textshop Experiments\n<http://www.thedaviesgrouppublishers.com/ulmer%20electracy.htm <http://www.thedaviesgrouppublishers.com/ulmer%20electracy.htm>> (2015), a\nspecial issue of the scholarly journal Hyperrhiz on mapping culture\n<http://hyperrhiz.io/hyperrhiz12/ <http://hyperrhiz.io/hyperrhiz12/>> (2015), special issues of Rhizomes on\nPosthumography <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue20/saper/index.html <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue20/saper/index.html>>(2010),\nImaging Place <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue18/saper/ <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue18/saper/>> (2009), and Drifts\n<http://www.rhizomes.net/issue13/ <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue13/>> (2007), and many other volumes since\n1990. Craig¹s curatorial projects include exhibits on ³Assemblings²\n(1997), ³Noigandres: Concrete Poetry in Brazil² (1988) and ³TypeBound\n<http://www.readies.org/typebound/ <http://www.readies.org/typebound/>>² (2008), and folkvine.org <http://folkvine.org/>\n<http://folkvine.umbc.edu/ <http://folkvine.umbc.edu/>> (2003-6). In addition, he has published two\nother artists¹s books On Being Read (1985) and Raw Material (2008).\n\nOver the weekend, Renate and I enjoyed a lakeside lunch at a casual\nrestaurant on Cayuga Lake, and recalled that our last meal there was in\nthe pleasant company of Craig Saper. So, Craig, we are very happy to be\nback in conversation with you here on the network rather than the lake.\nWe look forward to receiving your opening post.\n\nTim\n\n\n\n\nTimothy Murray\nProfessor of Comparative Literature and English\nTaylor Family Director, Society for the Humanities\nhttp://www.arts.cornell.edu/sochum/ <http://www.arts.cornell.edu/sochum/>\nCurator, Rose Goldsen Archive of New Media Art\nhttp://goldsen.library.cornell.edu <http://goldsen.library.cornell.edu/>\nA D White House\nCornell University,\nIthaca, New York 14853\n\n\n>\n\n<default[2].xml>_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au <mailto:empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au>\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu <http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/>\n\n_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au <mailto:empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au>\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu <http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/>\n\n_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au <mailto:empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au>\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu <http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/>\n\n_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au <mailto:empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au>\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu <http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/>\nOn Sep 7, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu> wrote:\n\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\nHi Murat — \n\nThank you for picking up my winking-nod to the 18th century as my Instructions below will continue (and although beyond the scope of this exchange and series of instructions, the net- and net-art seems like a sub-category of the epistolary and the squib [the squib is given short shrift]. Nevertheless, look at Sheryl Orings’ work, for example, where she types, stamps, and sends letters to presidents and presidential candidates; her work performed and set in Berlin or around the World Trade Center is particularly interesting in this regard of sending letters as part of “Collective Memory.” In any case, I can’t take that up here. Another point that I cannot elaborate on here is the 18th century philosophers (Murat mentions Locke; K.A. Wisniewski examines Hopkinson’s hoaxes and stunts around the time he was signing the Declaration of Independence) as amateurs in a time of upheaval and revolt. The net-art and “conceptual [or medium-less] art” in general suggest where the best “philosophy\" is happening. \n\nInstructions #3\nWhen the artist Ray Johnson produced net-art he sent a half-completed collage, scribble, or his iconic bunny-doddle to a “reader” (to borrow Murat’s term below) he would include a simple instruction to complete (or at least continue) the work and send it on to a name and address. The name was usually a celebrity among the readers — like the librarian at MoMA, Clive Phillpot, or Andy Warhol … and the address accurate. It was known that someone like Phillpot would, against the wishes of his administrators, save and archive all of these “on-sendings.” So, the “reader” would be stuck in a desirous network — send it on and be ensnared in clock-maker’s scheme (Ray Johnson would manipulate you as reader-as-part-of-the-work) — It was like a Lacanian paranoid phantasmagoria where the subject or reader is a part of the poem (not a poet). \n\nSo, become a reader by yielding to the initiative of the network. \n\nThat said, the net-art already discussed often mimics, parodies, or spoofs the pernicious notions of the network as the new locus of surveillance (see Hassan Elahi’s work that surveils himself as if working for the NSA), terror (see Ricardo Dominguez’s work), control of contested spaces and borders (see J. Craig Freeman’s augmented reality interventions), and public interactions (see many of the social action artists — or scholar-artists like Lone Koefoed Hansen or Søren Pold) — I include Pold in this short list because he has put poem-making and reading machines in libraries throughout Denmark. The Pirate Party also Beuys' the many political organizations (and including manifestoes that led to the origins of the Green Party).\n\nSo, instruction #3 is to borrow the network and systems — perhaps with a parodic tone — as an element of net-art. \n\nCiao and thanks, \nMurat! — an important name in the 18th century — especially in Naples.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOn Sep 7, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Murat Nemet-Nejat <muratnn at gmail.com <mailto:muratnn at gmail.com>> wrote:\n\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\nCraig,\n\nThank you for the clarity and boldness of your first gambit.\n\n\"Often, though the artist-function is algorithmic and instructions for an open-system, the artist function is both more controlling (see the definition of a p-bot) -- watch-maker like -- and less (once it is out there among the undefined networks of other p-bots). In celebrating early work on rhizomes.org <http://rhizomes.org/>, there is a discussion of Petra Cortwright's explicitly unintentional artwork on YouTube that emphasized her amateur status. The amateur is not a professional.\"\n\nI like your 18th century reference. Then, the net-artist becomes the Newtonian god or, more precisely, the job (that of the clock-maker who then disappears) assigned to god in that universe.\n\nWhat happens to \"the reader\" in that net-universe then. One should not forget that in Newtonian metaphysics (science) one can not change anything; but only \"discover\" the laws governing events, fact. If so, there is nothing open-ended in net-art. The \"reader\" (any interacter with the work) can only discover the depth (the digital wisdom, you might say) of the algorithm. Making the net-artist through his/her programing basically a god, are you not making him/her infinitely powerful, the very opposiye of the open-endedness you suggest net-art creates? Can we not say the opposite is as true? The reader (ultimately I would claim the artist himself/herself) is helpless.\n\nCiao,\nMurat\n\nOn Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu <mailto:csaper at umbc.edu>> wrote:\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\nInstructions #2\nZooming in on our opening gambit to turn -empyre- into a net-art experiment (or a set of instructions that could potentially do so in some theoretical future), then we can appreciate the shift from demarcating to listing/using a series of functions and effects.\n\nTwo attributes in art that use the situation of a network as a canvas. The first is to \"write\" the work as an open-constraint set of instructions (either algorithmic or listing). One can send/apply the instructions either to bots, people, or (in the case of listserv) to an unknown identity (let's call ourselves p-bot effects). We see this in Fluxus works (precursors to net-art? or an example of it?) and in the twitter-bot experiments like Helen Burgess' \"Loving-Together with Roland's Bots\" and Anna Coluthon (@annacoluthon), Tully Hansen’s team-powered bot @botALLY retweets and tags bot-generated tweets, “NRA Tally (@NRA_Tally)” or“Save the Humanities (@SaveHumanities)” by Mark Sample, “Pizza Clones (@pizzaclones)” by Allison Parrish.\n\nThe second (closely related to the effect above) is to notice that, unlike other arts, dependence on a singular virtuosity and aesthetic innovation, net-art appears to have another notion of the artwork; the genius is distributed in the system -- throughout the network, and the amateur and hack are nodes in that system. Often, though the artist-function is algorithmic and instructions for an open-system, the artist function is both more controlling (see the definition of a p-bot) -- watch-maker like -- and less (once it is out there among the undefined networks of other p-bots). In celebrating early work on rhizomes.org <http://rhizomes.org/>, there is a discussion of Petra Cortwright's explicitly unintentional artwork on YouTube that emphasized her amateur status. The amateur is not a professional.\n\nWhat are the instructions?\n\n//\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\n\nOn Sep 6, 2016, at 10:28 PM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu <mailto:csaper at umbc.edu>> wrote:\n\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\nTim, Thanks for the introduction — and although we didn’t get to Ithaca this summer — fond memories. It seems fitting to have the theme this week correspond to the 20th anniversary of Rhizome.org <http://rhizome.org/>. Congratulations to Mark Tribe and the network of folks who transformed a listserv (like -empyre -- just sayin') into something else for networked art (putting that notion of transformation of a listserv into something else (\"commissions, exhibits, preserves, and creates critical discussion around\" net-art) as the implicit instruction/open-constraint for our discussion) . . . . still having a difficult time defining networks? Ten thousand books with “network” in their title, subtitle, or series title have appeared since my Networked Art appeared in 2001, and reading just a few of these titles begins to sound like a conceptual poem: Networks of Outrage and Hope; Network Forensics; Understanding Social Network; How Networks are Shaping the Modern Metropolis; Virality: Contagion Theory in the Age of Networks; Disrupting Dark Networks; Network Like an Introvert; Network Marketing; Network Management; The Network; Actor-Network Theory and Tourism; Charles Dickens's Networks; Social Network Analysis; Nomads and Networks; Networked: The New Social Operating System; Networks Without a Cause ... (with thanks to K.A. Wisniewski for digging up some of this list). Network is networked in every conceivable publisher's category: Computers & technical manuals. Science. Art. Photography. Biographies & Memoirs. Literature, Graphic novels, and literary criticism. Education. History. Politics. Sociology. Law. Humor. Religion. Philosophy. Self-help. ... Trade publishers. University, or Small presses. Self-published. Television or Internet. ... Networks, Networking, Networked . . . Nouns. Adjectives. Verbs. Or, read as both or neither. Something else? It's a one-word cliché either disliked and pernicious or liberating and utopian; it is a network of control in the \"capitalocene\" (the complex networks that have transformed lives for everybody on this planet whether they like it or not) or the anarchist rhizomatic hacktivists' web. Not in the same ways, but deeply still. Instead of it's meaning, what are it's moods, textures, poetics, amateur-hack-artist function, and visceral affects? That's what I hope we can explore here.\n\n\n\n\nOn Sep 6, 2016, at 10:08 PM, Timothy Conway Murray <tcm1 at cornell.edu <mailto:tcm1 at cornell.edu>> wrote:\n\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------Welcome back everyone from summer or winter, depending on your location.\nRenate and I have enjoyed the quiet of Cayuga Lake in Ithaca after\nreturning from Shanghai where we opened a new Summer School in Theory\nbetween Cornell University and East China Normal University. Our time off\nin August gave us an opportunity to think about anniversary nodes of the\nnet and net.art, just as I was being challenged in keeping various pieces\nof 1990s net.art online for my exhibition, Signal to Code: 50 Years of\nMedia Art in the Rose Goldsen Archive\n(http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/signaltocode/ <http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/signaltocode/>). So we thought it might be\ninteresting to open September with a discussion of Net Art Then and Now.\n\nThis week, I will look forward to the opportunity to think back on the\nexcitement of curatorial projects in net.art when the community imagined\nthat the challenging artworks of the net might reach a broader audience\nthan now seems to have been the case. I will be joined by Craig Saper, a\nchallenging thinker of the network. Craig Saper (US) is Professor in\nthe Language, Literacy, and Culture Doctoral Program at UMBC in Baltimore,\nMaryland, US. Craig published Networked Art and, as dj Readies, Intimate\nBureaucracies ‹\nboth about net-art then (and now). His work on net-art also appears in the\nWhitechapel Gallery's Networks, in their Documents of Contemporary Art\nseries and forthcoming in Beyond Critique: Contemporary Art in Theory,\nPractice and Instruction. Hisrecently published \"cross between an\nintellectual biography Š and a picaresque novel,² and \"a biography of a\nlost twentieth century,\" The Amazing Adventures of Bob Brown, tells the\ncomic story of a real-life Zelig and the ultimate networker. He has also\nedited or co-edited scholarly volumes including Electracy: Gregory L.\nUlmer Textshop Experiments\n<http://www.thedaviesgrouppublishers.com/ulmer%20electracy.htm <http://www.thedaviesgrouppublishers.com/ulmer%20electracy.htm>> (2015), a\nspecial issue of the scholarly journal Hyperrhiz on mapping culture\n<http://hyperrhiz.io/hyperrhiz12/ <http://hyperrhiz.io/hyperrhiz12/>> (2015), special issues of Rhizomes on\nPosthumography <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue20/saper/index.html <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue20/saper/index.html>>(2010),\nImaging Place <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue18/saper/ <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue18/saper/>> (2009), and Drifts\n<http://www.rhizomes.net/issue13/ <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue13/>> (2007), and many other volumes since\n1990. Craig¹s curatorial projects include exhibits on ³Assemblings²\n(1997), ³Noigandres: Concrete Poetry in Brazil² (1988) and ³TypeBound\n<http://www.readies.org/typebound/ <http://www.readies.org/typebound/>>² (2008), and folkvine.org <http://folkvine.org/>\n<http://folkvine.umbc.edu/ <http://folkvine.umbc.edu/>> (2003-6). In addition, he has published two\nother artists¹s books On Being Read (1985) and Raw Material (2008).\n\nOver the weekend, Renate and I enjoyed a lakeside lunch at a casual\nrestaurant on Cayuga Lake, and recalled that our last meal there was in\nthe pleasant company of Craig Saper. So, Craig, we are very happy to be\nback in conversation with you here on the network rather than the lake.\nWe look forward to receiving your opening post.\n\nTim\n\n\n\n\nTimothy Murray\nProfessor of Comparative Literature and English\nTaylor Family Director, Society for the Humanities\nhttp://www.arts.cornell.edu/sochum/ <http://www.arts.cornell.edu/sochum/>\nCurator, Rose Goldsen Archive of New Media Art\nhttp://goldsen.library.cornell.edu <http://goldsen.library.cornell.edu/>\nA D White House\nCornell University,\nIthaca, New York 14853\n\n\n>\n\n<default[2].xml>_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au <mailto:empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au>\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu <http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/>\n\n_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au <mailto:empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au>\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu <http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/>\n\n_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au <mailto:empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au>\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu <http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/>\n\n_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au <mailto:empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au>\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu\n\n_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: <http://lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20160908/5d40865f/attachment.html>\n",
|
||
"from": "csaper at umbc.edu",
|
||
"author_name": "Craig Saper",
|
||
"message-id": "9257",
|
||
"id": "9257",
|
||
"url": "http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/2016-September/009257.html",
|
||
"subject": "[-empyre-] Week One on Through the NET: Net Art Then and Now",
|
||
"date": "Thu Sep 8 23:57:13 AEST 2016"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "n/a",
|
||
"content": "Craig,\n\nI like the indirect way you respond to my question about parodying an\nalgorithm.\n\n\"An important effect of net-art may involve this productive\nmisunderstanding -- so, works that seek to challenge directly social\nscience and public policy as the dominant and domineering explanations and\nimplementations of networks and net-works. \"\n\nIn the word \"internet-art,\" by shifting the focus from \"inter\" to \"net,\"\nare you net engaging exactly in that kind of \"productive misunderstanding\"?\nYes, kudos to you! Yes, \"misunderstanding\" is exactly the virus, the\nparody, the kick in the balls -- the sand in the well-oiled wheels -- the\ninternet as a super-efficient method of authoritarian control needs.\n\nI think a most radical case of such \"misunderstanding\" would occur\nexploring the network of words; in other words, an exploration of network\nas digital art becomes an exploration of poesies-- a critique of the\ndigital from its antithesis, the verbal. My last two poems *The Spiritual\nLife of Replicants* and *Animals of Dawn* (to come out in a few weeks) deal\nexactly with words as a medium of disruption and revolt. Interesting, an\nessay on translation I wrote in 1991 \"Translation and Style\" asserts that\nevery good translation that affects changes in the language starts with a\nmisreading of the original text, breaking down its autonomy.\n\nCiao,\nMurat\n\n\n\n\n\nOn Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu> wrote:\n\n> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\n>\n> Instructions #4\n>\n> Whisper down the lane.\n>\n> Although the constraints of this discussion include the focus on one\n> particular media technology, \"internet\" art, with \"tools such as email,\n> listservs, web sites, databases, software, and hardware,\" the prefix, net-,\n> may include an \"internet of things,\" art for the bots or non-human persons,\n> and other as of yet un-thought formations beyond one particular technology.\n> More importantly, these sets of instructions suggest that the net- of\n> net-art has to do with a set of effects and functions rather than a\n> specific medium. If you are an administrator, then you might worry to keep\n> net- in a medium specific category so it does not spread with virality into\n> the social sciences, urban planning, or public policy. You, now playing the\n> role of an administrator and manager of a networks, may worry that\n> Bourriaud's \"relational aesthetics\" may escape from the confines of art,\n> gallery-systems, and ... begin to form what Saper has called \"sociopoetics\"\n> (a term he borrows and re-functions).\n>\n> During the 72-day Paris Commune of 1871, the revolutionaries used a\n> communication technology that perhaps prefigured the internet; they used balloons, carrier\n> pigeons, or letters packed in iron balls and floated down the Seine. All\n> three communication-systems had a similar quirk (not calling it a flaw --\n> although it was a mortal flaw for the \"commune-ists\") that meant that the\n> messages were not guaranteed to reach their intended destinations: drifting.\n>\n>\n> An important effect of net-art may involve this productive\n> misunderstanding -- so, works that seek to challenge directly social\n> science and public policy as the dominant and domineering explanations and\n> implementations of networks and net-works. What if the moderators' focus\n> set out at the start of these discussions were misunderstood by the host(s)\n> who took off on a line of flight drifting off the intended course toward a\n> p-bot -empyre- building. What are the works of net-art that use this\n> \"whisper down the lane\" effect? Do any of your works use this effect? Is a\n> listserv a whisper down the lane formation?\n>\n>\n> /\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\\\\\\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\\\\\\\\\/\\/\\///////\n>\n> On Sep 7, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu> wrote:\n>\n> Hi Murat —\n>\n> Thank you for picking up my winking-nod to the 18th century as my\n> Instructions below will continue (and although beyond the scope of this\n> exchange and series of instructions, the net- and net-art seems like a\n> sub-category of the epistolary and the squib [the squib is given short\n> shrift]. Nevertheless, look at Sheryl Orings’ work, for example, where she\n> types, stamps, and sends letters to presidents and presidential candidates;\n> her work performed and set in Berlin or around the World Trade Center is\n> particularly interesting in this regard of sending letters as part of\n> “Collective Memory.” In any case, I can’t take that up here. Another point\n> that I cannot elaborate on here is the 18th century philosophers (Murat\n> mentions Locke; K.A. Wisniewski examines Hopkinson’s hoaxes and stunts\n> around the time he was signing the Declaration of Independence) as amateurs\n> in a time of upheaval and revolt. The net-art and “conceptual [or\n> medium-less] art” in general suggest where the best “philosophy\" is\n> happening.\n>\n> Instructions #3\n> When the artist Ray Johnson produced net-art he sent a half-completed\n> collage, scribble, or his iconic bunny-doddle to a “reader” (to borrow\n> Murat’s term below) he would include a simple instruction to complete (or\n> at least continue) the work and send it on to a name and address. The name\n> was usually a celebrity among the readers — like the librarian at MoMA,\n> Clive Phillpot, or Andy Warhol … and the address accurate. It was known\n> that someone like Phillpot would, against the wishes of his administrators,\n> save and archive all of these “on-sendings.” So, the “reader” would be\n> stuck in a desirous network — send it on and be ensnared in clock-maker’s\n> scheme (Ray Johnson would manipulate you as reader-as-part-of-the-work) —\n> It was like a Lacanian paranoid phantasmagoria where the subject or reader\n> is a part of the poem (not a poet).\n>\n> So, become a reader by yielding to the initiative of the network.\n>\n> That said, the net-art already discussed often mimics, parodies, or spoofs\n> the pernicious notions of the network as the new locus of surveillance (see\n> Hassan Elahi’s work that surveils himself as if working for the NSA),\n> terror (see Ricardo Dominguez’s work), control of contested spaces and\n> borders (see J. Craig Freeman’s augmented reality interventions), and\n> public interactions (see many of the social action artists — or\n> scholar-artists like Lone Koefoed Hansen or Søren Pold) — I include Pold in\n> this short list because he has put poem-making and reading machines in\n> libraries throughout Denmark. The Pirate Party also Beuys' the many\n> political organizations (and including manifestoes that led to the origins\n> of the Green Party).\n>\n> So, instruction #3 is to borrow the network and systems — perhaps with a\n> parodic tone — as an element of net-art.\n>\n> Ciao and thanks,\n> Murat! — an important name in the 18th century — especially in Naples.\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n> On Sep 7, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Murat Nemet-Nejat <muratnn at gmail.com> wrote:\n>\n> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\n> Craig,\n>\n> Thank you for the clarity and boldness of your first gambit.\n>\n> \"Often, though the artist-function is algorithmic and instructions for an\n> open-system, the artist function is both more controlling (see the\n> definition of a p-bot) -- watch-maker like -- and less (once it is out\n> there among the undefined networks of other p-bots). In celebrating early\n> work on rhizomes.org, there is a discussion of Petra Cortwright's explicitly\n> unintentional artwork on YouTube that emphasized her amateur status. The\n> amateur is not a professional.\"\n>\n> I like your 18th century reference. Then, the net-artist becomes the\n> Newtonian god or, more precisely, the job (that of the clock-maker who then\n> disappears) assigned to god in that universe.\n>\n> What happens to \"the reader\" in that net-universe then. One should not\n> forget that in Newtonian metaphysics (science) one can not change anything;\n> but only \"discover\" the laws governing events, fact. If so, there is\n> nothing open-ended in net-art. The \"reader\" (any interacter with the\n> work) can only discover the depth (the digital wisdom, you might say) of\n> the algorithm. Making the net-artist through his/her programing basically a\n> god, are you not making him/her infinitely powerful, the very opposiye of\n> the open-endedness you suggest net-art creates? Can we not say the opposite\n> is as true? The reader (ultimately I would claim the artist\n> himself/herself) is helpless.\n>\n> Ciao,\n> Murat\n>\n> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu> wrote:\n>\n>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\n>> Instructions #2\n>> Zooming in on our opening gambit to turn -empyre- into a net-art\n>> experiment (or a set of instructions that could potentially do so in some\n>> theoretical future), then we can appreciate the shift from demarcating to\n>> listing/using a series of functions and effects.\n>>\n>> Two attributes in art that use the situation of a network as a canvas.\n>> The first is to \"write\" the work as an open-constraint set of instructions\n>> (either algorithmic or listing). One can send/apply the instructions either\n>> to bots, people, or (in the case of listserv) to an unknown identity (let's\n>> call ourselves p-bot effects). We see this in Fluxus works (precursors to\n>> net-art? or an example of it?) and in the twitter-bot experiments like\n>> Helen Burgess' \"Loving-Together with Roland's Bots\" and Anna Coluthon\n>> (@annacoluthon), Tully Hansen’s team-powered bot @botALLY retweets and tags\n>> bot-generated tweets, “NRA Tally (@NRA_Tally)” or“Save the Humanities\n>> (@SaveHumanities)” by Mark Sample, “Pizza Clones (@pizzaclones)” by Allison\n>> Parrish.\n>>\n>> The second (closely related to the effect above) is to notice that,\n>> unlike other arts, dependence on a singular virtuosity and aesthetic\n>> innovation, net-art appears to have another notion of the artwork; the\n>> genius is distributed in the system -- throughout the network, and the\n>> amateur and hack are nodes in that system. Often, though the\n>> artist-function is algorithmic and instructions for an open-system, the\n>> artist function is both more controlling (see the definition of a p-bot) --\n>> watch-maker like -- and less (once it is out there among the undefined\n>> networks of other p-bots). In celebrating early work on rhizomes.org,\n>> there is a discussion of Petra Cortwright's explicitly unintentional\n>> artwork on YouTube that emphasized her amateur status. The amateur is not a\n>> professional.\n>>\n>> What are the instructions?\n>>\n>> //\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\n>>\n>> On Sep 6, 2016, at 10:28 PM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu> wrote:\n>>\n>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\n>> Tim, Thanks for the introduction — and although we didn’t get to Ithaca\n>> this summer — fond memories. It seems fitting to have the theme this week\n>> correspond to the 20th anniversary of Rhizome.org <http://rhizome.org/>.\n>> Congratulations to Mark Tribe and the network of folks who transformed a\n>> listserv (like -empyre -- just sayin') into something else for networked\n>> art (putting that notion of transformation of a listserv into something\n>> else (\"commissions, exhibits, preserves, and creates critical discussion\n>> around\" net-art) as the implicit instruction/open-constraint for our\n>> discussion) . . . . still having a difficult time defining networks? Ten\n>> thousand books with “network” in their title, subtitle, or series title\n>> have appeared since my Networked Art appeared in 2001, and reading just a\n>> few of these titles begins to sound like a conceptual poem: Networks of\n>> Outrage and Hope; Network Forensics; Understanding Social Network; How\n>> Networks are Shaping the Modern Metropolis; Virality: Contagion Theory in\n>> the Age of Networks; Disrupting Dark Networks; Network Like an Introvert;\n>> Network Marketing; Network Management; The Network; Actor-Network Theory\n>> and Tourism; Charles Dickens's Networks; Social Network Analysis; Nomads\n>> and Networks; Networked: The New Social Operating System; Networks Without\n>> a Cause ... (with thanks to K.A. Wisniewski for digging up some of this\n>> list). Network is networked in every conceivable publisher's category:\n>> Computers & technical manuals. Science. Art. Photography. Biographies &\n>> Memoirs. Literature, Graphic novels, and literary criticism. Education.\n>> History. Politics. Sociology. Law. Humor. Religion. Philosophy.\n>> Self-help. ... Trade publishers. University, or Small presses.\n>> Self-published. Television or Internet. ... Networks, Networking, Networked\n>> . . . Nouns. Adjectives. Verbs. Or, read as both or neither. Something\n>> else? It's a one-word cliché either disliked and pernicious or liberating\n>> and utopian; it is a network of control in the \"capitalocene\" (the complex\n>> networks that have transformed lives for everybody on this planet whether\n>> they like it or not) or the anarchist rhizomatic hacktivists' web. Not in\n>> the same ways, but deeply still. Instead of it's meaning, what are it's\n>> moods, textures, poetics, amateur-hack-artist function, and visceral\n>> affects? That's what I hope we can explore here.\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> On Sep 6, 2016, at 10:08 PM, Timothy Conway Murray <tcm1 at cornell.edu>\n>> wrote:\n>>\n>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------Welcome back\n>> everyone from summer or winter, depending on your location.\n>> Renate and I have enjoyed the quiet of Cayuga Lake in Ithaca after\n>> returning from Shanghai where we opened a new Summer School in Theory\n>> between Cornell University and East China Normal University. Our time off\n>> in August gave us an opportunity to think about anniversary nodes of the\n>> net and net.art, just as I was being challenged in keeping various pieces\n>> of 1990s net.art online for my exhibition, Signal to Code: 50 Years of\n>> Media Art in the Rose Goldsen Archive\n>> (http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/signaltocode/). So we thought it might\n>> be\n>> interesting to open September with a discussion of Net Art Then and Now.\n>>\n>> This week, I will look forward to the opportunity to think back on the\n>> excitement of curatorial projects in net.art when the community imagined\n>> that the challenging artworks of the net might reach a broader audience\n>> than now seems to have been the case. I will be joined by Craig Saper, a\n>> challenging thinker of the network. Craig Saper (US) is Professor in\n>> the Language, Literacy, and Culture Doctoral Program at UMBC in Baltimore,\n>> Maryland, US. Craig published Networked Art and, as dj Readies, Intimate\n>> Bureaucracies ‹\n>> both about net-art then (and now). His work on net-art also appears in the\n>> Whitechapel Gallery's Networks, in their Documents of Contemporary Art\n>> series and forthcoming in Beyond Critique: Contemporary Art in Theory,\n>> Practice and Instruction. Hisrecently published \"cross between an\n>> intellectual biography Š and a picaresque novel,² and \"a biography of a\n>> lost twentieth century,\" The Amazing Adventures of Bob Brown, tells the\n>> comic story of a real-life Zelig and the ultimate networker. He has also\n>> edited or co-edited scholarly volumes including Electracy: Gregory L.\n>> Ulmer Textshop Experiments\n>> <http://www.thedaviesgrouppublishers.com/ulmer%20electracy.htm> (2015), a\n>> special issue of the scholarly journal Hyperrhiz on mapping culture\n>> <http://hyperrhiz.io/hyperrhiz12/> (2015), special issues of Rhizomes on\n>> Posthumography <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue20/saper/index.html>(2010),\n>> Imaging Place <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue18/saper/> (2009), and Drifts\n>> <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue13/> (2007), and many other volumes since\n>> 1990. Craig¹s curatorial projects include exhibits on ³Assemblings²\n>> (1997), ³Noigandres: Concrete Poetry in Brazil² (1988) and ³TypeBound\n>> <http://www.readies.org/typebound/>² (2008), and folkvine.org\n>> <http://folkvine.umbc.edu/> (2003-6). In addition, he has published two\n>> other artists¹s books On Being Read (1985) and Raw Material (2008).\n>>\n>> Over the weekend, Renate and I enjoyed a lakeside lunch at a casual\n>> restaurant on Cayuga Lake, and recalled that our last meal there was in\n>> the pleasant company of Craig Saper. So, Craig, we are very happy to be\n>> back in conversation with you here on the network rather than the lake.\n>> We look forward to receiving your opening post.\n>>\n>> Tim\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> Timothy Murray\n>> Professor of Comparative Literature and English\n>> Taylor Family Director, Society for the Humanities\n>> http://www.arts.cornell.edu/sochum/\n>> Curator, Rose Goldsen Archive of New Media Art\n>> http://goldsen.library.cornell.edu\n>> A D White House\n>> Cornell University,\n>> Ithaca, New York 14853\n>>\n>>\n>> >\n>>\n>> <default[2].xml>_______________________________________________\n>> empyre forum\n>> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au\n>> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu\n>>\n>> _______________________________________________\n>> empyre forum\n>> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au\n>> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu\n>>\n>> _______________________________________________\n>> empyre forum\n>> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au\n>> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu\n>>\n>\n> _______________________________________________\n> empyre forum\n> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au\n> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu\n>\n> On Sep 7, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu> wrote:\n>\n> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\n> Hi Murat —\n>\n> Thank you for picking up my winking-nod to the 18th century as my\n> Instructions below will continue (and although beyond the scope of this\n> exchange and series of instructions, the net- and net-art seems like a\n> sub-category of the epistolary and the squib [the squib is given short\n> shrift]. Nevertheless, look at Sheryl Orings’ work, for example, where she\n> types, stamps, and sends letters to presidents and presidential candidates;\n> her work performed and set in Berlin or around the World Trade Center is\n> particularly interesting in this regard of sending letters as part of\n> “Collective Memory.” In any case, I can’t take that up here. Another point\n> that I cannot elaborate on here is the 18th century philosophers (Murat\n> mentions Locke; K.A. Wisniewski examines Hopkinson’s hoaxes and stunts\n> around the time he was signing the Declaration of Independence) as amateurs\n> in a time of upheaval and revolt. The net-art and “conceptual [or\n> medium-less] art” in general suggest where the best “philosophy\" is\n> happening.\n>\n> Instructions #3\n> When the artist Ray Johnson produced net-art he sent a half-completed\n> collage, scribble, or his iconic bunny-doddle to a “reader” (to borrow\n> Murat’s term below) he would include a simple instruction to complete (or\n> at least continue) the work and send it on to a name and address. The name\n> was usually a celebrity among the readers — like the librarian at MoMA,\n> Clive Phillpot, or Andy Warhol … and the address accurate. It was known\n> that someone like Phillpot would, against the wishes of his administrators,\n> save and archive all of these “on-sendings.” So, the “reader” would be\n> stuck in a desirous network — send it on and be ensnared in clock-maker’s\n> scheme (Ray Johnson would manipulate you as reader-as-part-of-the-work) —\n> It was like a Lacanian paranoid phantasmagoria where the subject or reader\n> is a part of the poem (not a poet).\n>\n> So, become a reader by yielding to the initiative of the network.\n>\n> That said, the net-art already discussed often mimics, parodies, or spoofs\n> the pernicious notions of the network as the new locus of surveillance (see\n> Hassan Elahi’s work that surveils himself as if working for the NSA),\n> terror (see Ricardo Dominguez’s work), control of contested spaces and\n> borders (see J. Craig Freeman’s augmented reality interventions), and\n> public interactions (see many of the social action artists — or\n> scholar-artists like Lone Koefoed Hansen or Søren Pold) — I include Pold in\n> this short list because he has put poem-making and reading machines in\n> libraries throughout Denmark. The Pirate Party also Beuys' the many\n> political organizations (and including manifestoes that led to the origins\n> of the Green Party).\n>\n> So, instruction #3 is to borrow the network and systems — perhaps with a\n> parodic tone — as an element of net-art.\n>\n> Ciao and thanks,\n> Murat! — an important name in the 18th century — especially in Naples.\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n> On Sep 7, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Murat Nemet-Nejat <muratnn at gmail.com> wrote:\n>\n> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\n> Craig,\n>\n> Thank you for the clarity and boldness of your first gambit.\n>\n> \"Often, though the artist-function is algorithmic and instructions for an\n> open-system, the artist function is both more controlling (see the\n> definition of a p-bot) -- watch-maker like -- and less (once it is out\n> there among the undefined networks of other p-bots). In celebrating early\n> work on rhizomes.org, there is a discussion of Petra Cortwright's\n> explicitly unintentional artwork on YouTube that emphasized her amateur\n> status. The amateur is not a professional.\"\n>\n> I like your 18th century reference. Then, the net-artist becomes the\n> Newtonian god or, more precisely, the job (that of the clock-maker who then\n> disappears) assigned to god in that universe.\n>\n> What happens to \"the reader\" in that net-universe then. One should not\n> forget that in Newtonian metaphysics (science) one can not change anything;\n> but only \"discover\" the laws governing events, fact. If so, there is\n> nothing open-ended in net-art. The \"reader\" (any interacter with the\n> work) can only discover the depth (the digital wisdom, you might say) of\n> the algorithm. Making the net-artist through his/her programing basically a\n> god, are you not making him/her infinitely powerful, the very opposiye of\n> the open-endedness you suggest net-art creates? Can we not say the opposite\n> is as true? The reader (ultimately I would claim the artist\n> himself/herself) is helpless.\n>\n> Ciao,\n> Murat\n>\n> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu> wrote:\n>\n>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\n>> Instructions #2\n>> Zooming in on our opening gambit to turn -empyre- into a net-art\n>> experiment (or a set of instructions that could potentially do so in some\n>> theoretical future), then we can appreciate the shift from demarcating to\n>> listing/using a series of functions and effects.\n>>\n>> Two attributes in art that use the situation of a network as a canvas.\n>> The first is to \"write\" the work as an open-constraint set of instructions\n>> (either algorithmic or listing). One can send/apply the instructions either\n>> to bots, people, or (in the case of listserv) to an unknown identity (let's\n>> call ourselves p-bot effects). We see this in Fluxus works (precursors to\n>> net-art? or an example of it?) and in the twitter-bot experiments like\n>> Helen Burgess' \"Loving-Together with Roland's Bots\" and Anna Coluthon\n>> (@annacoluthon), Tully Hansen’s team-powered bot @botALLY retweets and tags\n>> bot-generated tweets, “NRA Tally (@NRA_Tally)” or“Save the Humanities\n>> (@SaveHumanities)” by Mark Sample, “Pizza Clones (@pizzaclones)” by Allison\n>> Parrish.\n>>\n>> The second (closely related to the effect above) is to notice that,\n>> unlike other arts, dependence on a singular virtuosity and aesthetic\n>> innovation, net-art appears to have another notion of the artwork; the\n>> genius is distributed in the system -- throughout the network, and the\n>> amateur and hack are nodes in that system. Often, though the\n>> artist-function is algorithmic and instructions for an open-system, the\n>> artist function is both more controlling (see the definition of a p-bot) --\n>> watch-maker like -- and less (once it is out there among the undefined\n>> networks of other p-bots). In celebrating early work on rhizomes.org,\n>> there is a discussion of Petra Cortwright's explicitly unintentional\n>> artwork on YouTube that emphasized her amateur status. The amateur is not a\n>> professional.\n>>\n>> What are the instructions?\n>>\n>> //\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\n>>\n>> On Sep 6, 2016, at 10:28 PM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu> wrote:\n>>\n>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\n>> Tim, Thanks for the introduction — and although we didn’t get to Ithaca\n>> this summer — fond memories. It seems fitting to have the theme this week\n>> correspond to the 20th anniversary of Rhizome.org <http://rhizome.org/>.\n>> Congratulations to Mark Tribe and the network of folks who transformed a\n>> listserv (like -empyre -- just sayin') into something else for networked\n>> art (putting that notion of transformation of a listserv into something\n>> else (\"commissions, exhibits, preserves, and creates critical discussion\n>> around\" net-art) as the implicit instruction/open-constraint for our\n>> discussion) . . . . still having a difficult time defining networks? Ten\n>> thousand books with “network” in their title, subtitle, or series title\n>> have appeared since my Networked Art appeared in 2001, and reading just a\n>> few of these titles begins to sound like a conceptual poem: Networks of\n>> Outrage and Hope; Network Forensics; Understanding Social Network; How\n>> Networks are Shaping the Modern Metropolis; Virality: Contagion Theory in\n>> the Age of Networks; Disrupting Dark Networks; Network Like an Introvert;\n>> Network Marketing; Network Management; The Network; Actor-Network Theory\n>> and Tourism; Charles Dickens's Networks; Social Network Analysis; Nomads\n>> and Networks; Networked: The New Social Operating System; Networks Without\n>> a Cause ... (with thanks to K.A. Wisniewski for digging up some of this\n>> list). Network is networked in every conceivable publisher's category:\n>> Computers & technical manuals. Science. Art. Photography. Biographies &\n>> Memoirs. Literature, Graphic novels, and literary criticism. Education.\n>> History. Politics. Sociology. Law. Humor. Religion. Philosophy.\n>> Self-help. ... Trade publishers. University, or Small presses.\n>> Self-published. Television or Internet. ... Networks, Networking, Networked\n>> . . . Nouns. Adjectives. Verbs. Or, read as both or neither. Something\n>> else? It's a one-word cliché either disliked and pernicious or liberating\n>> and utopian; it is a network of control in the \"capitalocene\" (the complex\n>> networks that have transformed lives for everybody on this planet whether\n>> they like it or not) or the anarchist rhizomatic hacktivists' web. Not in\n>> the same ways, but deeply still. Instead of it's meaning, what are it's\n>> moods, textures, poetics, amateur-hack-artist function, and visceral\n>> affects? That's what I hope we can explore here.\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> On Sep 6, 2016, at 10:08 PM, Timothy Conway Murray <tcm1 at cornell.edu>\n>> wrote:\n>>\n>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------Welcome back\n>> everyone from summer or winter, depending on your location.\n>> Renate and I have enjoyed the quiet of Cayuga Lake in Ithaca after\n>> returning from Shanghai where we opened a new Summer School in Theory\n>> between Cornell University and East China Normal University. Our time off\n>> in August gave us an opportunity to think about anniversary nodes of the\n>> net and net.art, just as I was being challenged in keeping various pieces\n>> of 1990s net.art online for my exhibition, Signal to Code: 50 Years of\n>> Media Art in the Rose Goldsen Archive\n>> (http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/signaltocode/). So we thought it might\n>> be\n>> interesting to open September with a discussion of Net Art Then and Now.\n>>\n>> This week, I will look forward to the opportunity to think back on the\n>> excitement of curatorial projects in net.art when the community imagined\n>> that the challenging artworks of the net might reach a broader audience\n>> than now seems to have been the case. I will be joined by Craig Saper, a\n>> challenging thinker of the network. Craig Saper (US) is Professor in\n>> the Language, Literacy, and Culture Doctoral Program at UMBC in Baltimore,\n>> Maryland, US. Craig published Networked Art and, as dj Readies, Intimate\n>> Bureaucracies ‹\n>> both about net-art then (and now). His work on net-art also appears in the\n>> Whitechapel Gallery's Networks, in their Documents of Contemporary Art\n>> series and forthcoming in Beyond Critique: Contemporary Art in Theory,\n>> Practice and Instruction. Hisrecently published \"cross between an\n>> intellectual biography Š and a picaresque novel,² and \"a biography of a\n>> lost twentieth century,\" The Amazing Adventures of Bob Brown, tells the\n>> comic story of a real-life Zelig and the ultimate networker. He has also\n>> edited or co-edited scholarly volumes including Electracy: Gregory L.\n>> Ulmer Textshop Experiments\n>> <http://www.thedaviesgrouppublishers.com/ulmer%20electracy.htm> (2015), a\n>> special issue of the scholarly journal Hyperrhiz on mapping culture\n>> <http://hyperrhiz.io/hyperrhiz12/> (2015), special issues of Rhizomes on\n>> Posthumography <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue20/saper/index.html>(2010),\n>> Imaging Place <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue18/saper/> (2009), and Drifts\n>> <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue13/> (2007), and many other volumes since\n>> 1990. Craig¹s curatorial projects include exhibits on ³Assemblings²\n>> (1997), ³Noigandres: Concrete Poetry in Brazil² (1988) and ³TypeBound\n>> <http://www.readies.org/typebound/>² (2008), and folkvine.org\n>> <http://folkvine.umbc.edu/> (2003-6). In addition, he has published two\n>> other artists¹s books On Being Read (1985) and Raw Material (2008).\n>>\n>> Over the weekend, Renate and I enjoyed a lakeside lunch at a casual\n>> restaurant on Cayuga Lake, and recalled that our last meal there was in\n>> the pleasant company of Craig Saper. So, Craig, we are very happy to be\n>> back in conversation with you here on the network rather than the lake.\n>> We look forward to receiving your opening post.\n>>\n>> Tim\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> Timothy Murray\n>> Professor of Comparative Literature and English\n>> Taylor Family Director, Society for the Humanities\n>> http://www.arts.cornell.edu/sochum/\n>> Curator, Rose Goldsen Archive of New Media Art\n>> http://goldsen.library.cornell.edu\n>> A D White House\n>> Cornell University,\n>> Ithaca, New York 14853\n>>\n>>\n>> >\n>>\n>> <default[2].xml>_______________________________________________\n>> empyre forum\n>> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au\n>> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu\n>>\n>> _______________________________________________\n>> empyre forum\n>> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au\n>> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu\n>>\n>> _______________________________________________\n>> empyre forum\n>> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au\n>> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu\n>>\n>\n> _______________________________________________\n> empyre forum\n> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au\n> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu\n>\n> _______________________________________________\n> empyre forum\n> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au\n> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu\n>\n>\n> _______________________________________________\n> empyre forum\n> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au\n> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu\n>\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: <http://lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20160908/b43fde86/attachment.html>\n",
|
||
"from": "muratnn at gmail.com",
|
||
"author_name": "Murat Nemet-Nejat",
|
||
"message-id": "9259",
|
||
"id": "9259",
|
||
"url": "http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/2016-September/009259.html",
|
||
"subject": "[-empyre-] Week One on Through the NET: Net Art Then and Now",
|
||
"date": "Fri Sep 9 03:50:09 AEST 2016"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "n/a",
|
||
"content": "Instruction #5 \n\nTranslation.\n\nIbrahim Er is using digital tools to compare the Turkish version of the television program Monk with the American version. Some of you may not know of the TV program in either country. The main character is a private detective who suffers from OCD, which is also his greatest strength as a detective. Mr. Er's analysis is predictable (there are differences), but surprising nonetheless (the small differences and often identical scripts are fascinating).\n\nBuilding on Murat's notes (in his previous responses; which a worth a quick look to follow my transpositions here), one realizes that the net-effects are both distributed and, therefore, always already out of context -- translations without origin. \n\nYet, this translation-effect (reminds me of a story of when my mother first arrived as a refugee in England, she saw a beautiful bowl of dark pitted cherries out for everyone to enjoy; she quickly popped a handful in her mouth -- only to discover that these were not cherries, but olives -- she spit them out discretely) nevertheless has a meticulous -- even obsessive and compulsive -- demand.\n\nYou enter the network (always in need of translations) -- always looking at an \"on-sending\" that you will, in turn, send on in need of further translation, and yet the lack of a singular translation in this serialized process, nevertheless, demands an intense poetic-detection each time, a kind of extreme version of what Barthes called \"Living Together\" (his book about monks as a meditation on work and writing): an extreme carefulness if you want to join the network. If not, then you would not have read this far in these instructions, you would not have taken a chance (mes chance) -- and therefore not in need of a translation; you would be outside the network.\n\n Trans-late.\n\nThanks again, Murat. \n\n/\\\\//\\\\/\\\\//\\\\/\\\\//\\\\/\\\\//\\\\/\\\\//\\\\/\\\\//\\\\/\\\\//\\\\/\\\\//\\\\/\\\\//\\\\/\\\\//\\\\/\\\\//\\\\/\\\\//\\\\/\\\\//\\\\/\\\\//\\\\/\\\\//\\\\/\\\\//\\\\/\\\\//\\\\/\n\n\nOn Sep 8, 2016, at 1:50 PM, Murat Nemet-Nejat <muratnn at gmail.com> wrote:\n\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\nCraig,\n\nI like the indirect way you respond to my question about parodying an algorithm.\n\n\"An important effect of net-art may involve this productive misunderstanding -- so, works that seek to challenge directly social science and public policy as the dominant and domineering explanations and implementations of networks and net-works. \"\n\nIn the word \"internet-art,\" by shifting the focus from \"inter\" to \"net,\" are you net engaging exactly in that kind of \"productive misunderstanding\"? Yes, kudos to you! Yes, \"misunderstanding\" is exactly the virus, the parody, the kick in the balls -- the sand in the well-oiled wheels -- the internet as a super-efficient method of authoritarian control needs. \n\nI think a most radical case of such \"misunderstanding\" would occur exploring the network of words; in other words, an exploration of network as digital art becomes an exploration of poesies-- a critique of the digital from its antithesis, the verbal. My last two poems The Spiritual Life of Replicants and Animals of Dawn (to come out in a few weeks) deal exactly with words as a medium of disruption and revolt. Interesting, an essay on translation I wrote in 1991 \"Translation and Style\" asserts that every good translation that affects changes in the language starts with a misreading of the original text, breaking down its autonomy.\n\nCiao,\nMurat\n\n\n\n\n\nOn Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu <mailto:csaper at umbc.edu>> wrote:\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\nInstructions #4 \n\nWhisper down the lane. \n\nAlthough the constraints of this discussion include the focus on one particular media technology, \"internet\" art, with \"tools such as email, listservs, web sites, databases, software, and hardware,\" the prefix, net-, may include an \"internet of things,\" art for the bots or non-human persons, and other as of yet un-thought formations beyond one particular technology. More importantly, these sets of instructions suggest that the net- of net-art has to do with a set of effects and functions rather than a specific medium. If you are an administrator, then you might worry to keep net- in a medium specific category so it does not spread with virality into the social sciences, urban planning, or public policy. You, now playing the role of an administrator and manager of a networks, may worry that Bourriaud's \"relational aesthetics\" may escape from the confines of art, gallery-systems, and ... begin to form what Saper has called \"sociopoetics\" (a term he borrows and re-functions).\n\nDuring the 72-day Paris Commune of 1871, the revolutionaries used a communication technology that perhaps prefigured the internet; they used balloons, carrier pigeons, or letters packed in iron balls and floated down the Seine. All three communication-systems had a similar quirk (not calling it a flaw -- although it was a mortal flaw for the \"commune-ists\") that meant that the messages were not guaranteed to reach their intended destinations: drifting. \n\nAn important effect of net-art may involve this productive misunderstanding -- so, works that seek to challenge directly social science and public policy as the dominant and domineering explanations and implementations of networks and net-works. What if the moderators' focus set out at the start of these discussions were misunderstood by the host(s) who took off on a line of flight drifting off the intended course toward a p-bot -empyre- building. What are the works of net-art that use this \"whisper down the lane\" effect? Do any of your works use this effect? Is a listserv a whisper down the lane formation?\n\n \n\n/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\\\\\\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\\\\\\\\\/\\/\\///////\n\nOn Sep 7, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu <mailto:csaper at umbc.edu>> wrote:\n\nHi Murat — \n\nThank you for picking up my winking-nod to the 18th century as my Instructions below will continue (and although beyond the scope of this exchange and series of instructions, the net- and net-art seems like a sub-category of the epistolary and the squib [the squib is given short shrift]. Nevertheless, look at Sheryl Orings’ work, for example, where she types, stamps, and sends letters to presidents and presidential candidates; her work performed and set in Berlin or around the World Trade Center is particularly interesting in this regard of sending letters as part of “Collective Memory.” In any case, I can’t take that up here. Another point that I cannot elaborate on here is the 18th century philosophers (Murat mentions Locke; K.A. Wisniewski examines Hopkinson’s hoaxes and stunts around the time he was signing the Declaration of Independence) as amateurs in a time of upheaval and revolt. The net-art and “conceptual [or medium-less] art” in general suggest where the best “philosophy\" is happening. \n\nInstructions #3\nWhen the artist Ray Johnson produced net-art he sent a half-completed collage, scribble, or his iconic bunny-doddle to a “reader” (to borrow Murat’s term below) he would include a simple instruction to complete (or at least continue) the work and send it on to a name and address. The name was usually a celebrity among the readers — like the librarian at MoMA, Clive Phillpot, or Andy Warhol … and the address accurate. It was known that someone like Phillpot would, against the wishes of his administrators, save and archive all of these “on-sendings.” So, the “reader” would be stuck in a desirous network — send it on and be ensnared in clock-maker’s scheme (Ray Johnson would manipulate you as reader-as-part-of-the-work) — It was like a Lacanian paranoid phantasmagoria where the subject or reader is a part of the poem (not a poet). \n\nSo, become a reader by yielding to the initiative of the network. \n\nThat said, the net-art already discussed often mimics, parodies, or spoofs the pernicious notions of the network as the new locus of surveillance (see Hassan Elahi’s work that surveils himself as if working for the NSA), terror (see Ricardo Dominguez’s work), control of contested spaces and borders (see J. Craig Freeman’s augmented reality interventions), and public interactions (see many of the social action artists — or scholar-artists like Lone Koefoed Hansen or Søren Pold) — I include Pold in this short list because he has put poem-making and reading machines in libraries throughout Denmark. The Pirate Party also Beuys' the many political organizations (and including manifestoes that led to the origins of the Green Party).\n\nSo, instruction #3 is to borrow the network and systems — perhaps with a parodic tone — as an element of net-art. \n\nCiao and thanks, \nMurat! — an important name in the 18th century — especially in Naples.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOn Sep 7, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Murat Nemet-Nejat <muratnn at gmail.com <mailto:muratnn at gmail.com>> wrote:\n\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\nCraig,\n\nThank you for the clarity and boldness of your first gambit.\n\n\"Often, though the artist-function is algorithmic and instructions for an open-system, the artist function is both more controlling (see the definition of a p-bot) -- watch-maker like -- and less (once it is out there among the undefined networks of other p-bots). In celebrating early work on rhizomes.org <http://rhizomes.org/>, there is a discussion of Petra Cortwright's explicitly unintentional artwork on YouTube that emphasized her amateur status. The amateur is not a professional.\"\n\nI like your 18th century reference. Then, the net-artist becomes the Newtonian god or, more precisely, the job (that of the clock-maker who then disappears) assigned to god in that universe.\n\nWhat happens to \"the reader\" in that net-universe then. One should not forget that in Newtonian metaphysics (science) one can not change anything; but only \"discover\" the laws governing events, fact. If so, there is nothing open-ended in net-art. The \"reader\" (any interacter with the work) can only discover the depth (the digital wisdom, you might say) of the algorithm. Making the net-artist through his/her programing basically a god, are you not making him/her infinitely powerful, the very opposiye of the open-endedness you suggest net-art creates? Can we not say the opposite is as true? The reader (ultimately I would claim the artist himself/herself) is helpless.\n\nCiao,\nMurat\n\nOn Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu <mailto:csaper at umbc.edu>> wrote:\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\nInstructions #2\nZooming in on our opening gambit to turn -empyre- into a net-art experiment (or a set of instructions that could potentially do so in some theoretical future), then we can appreciate the shift from demarcating to listing/using a series of functions and effects.\n\nTwo attributes in art that use the situation of a network as a canvas. The first is to \"write\" the work as an open-constraint set of instructions (either algorithmic or listing). One can send/apply the instructions either to bots, people, or (in the case of listserv) to an unknown identity (let's call ourselves p-bot effects). We see this in Fluxus works (precursors to net-art? or an example of it?) and in the twitter-bot experiments like Helen Burgess' \"Loving-Together with Roland's Bots\" and Anna Coluthon (@annacoluthon), Tully Hansen’s team-powered bot @botALLY retweets and tags bot-generated tweets, “NRA Tally (@NRA_Tally)” or“Save the Humanities (@SaveHumanities)” by Mark Sample, “Pizza Clones (@pizzaclones)” by Allison Parrish.\n\nThe second (closely related to the effect above) is to notice that, unlike other arts, dependence on a singular virtuosity and aesthetic innovation, net-art appears to have another notion of the artwork; the genius is distributed in the system -- throughout the network, and the amateur and hack are nodes in that system. Often, though the artist-function is algorithmic and instructions for an open-system, the artist function is both more controlling (see the definition of a p-bot) -- watch-maker like -- and less (once it is out there among the undefined networks of other p-bots). In celebrating early work on rhizomes.org <http://rhizomes.org/>, there is a discussion of Petra Cortwright's explicitly unintentional artwork on YouTube that emphasized her amateur status. The amateur is not a professional.\n\nWhat are the instructions?\n\n//\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\n\nOn Sep 6, 2016, at 10:28 PM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu <mailto:csaper at umbc.edu>> wrote:\n\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\nTim, Thanks for the introduction — and although we didn’t get to Ithaca this summer — fond memories. It seems fitting to have the theme this week correspond to the 20th anniversary of Rhizome.org <http://rhizome.org/>. Congratulations to Mark Tribe and the network of folks who transformed a listserv (like -empyre -- just sayin') into something else for networked art (putting that notion of transformation of a listserv into something else (\"commissions, exhibits, preserves, and creates critical discussion around\" net-art) as the implicit instruction/open-constraint for our discussion) . . . . still having a difficult time defining networks? Ten thousand books with “network” in their title, subtitle, or series title have appeared since my Networked Art appeared in 2001, and reading just a few of these titles begins to sound like a conceptual poem: Networks of Outrage and Hope; Network Forensics; Understanding Social Network; How Networks are Shaping the Modern Metropolis; Virality: Contagion Theory in the Age of Networks; Disrupting Dark Networks; Network Like an Introvert; Network Marketing; Network Management; The Network; Actor-Network Theory and Tourism; Charles Dickens's Networks; Social Network Analysis; Nomads and Networks; Networked: The New Social Operating System; Networks Without a Cause ... (with thanks to K.A. Wisniewski for digging up some of this list). Network is networked in every conceivable publisher's category: Computers & technical manuals. Science. Art. Photography. Biographies & Memoirs. Literature, Graphic novels, and literary criticism. Education. History. Politics. Sociology. Law. Humor. Religion. Philosophy. Self-help. ... Trade publishers. University, or Small presses. Self-published. Television or Internet. ... Networks, Networking, Networked . . . Nouns. Adjectives. Verbs. Or, read as both or neither. Something else? It's a one-word cliché either disliked and pernicious or liberating and utopian; it is a network of control in the \"capitalocene\" (the complex networks that have transformed lives for everybody on this planet whether they like it or not) or the anarchist rhizomatic hacktivists' web. Not in the same ways, but deeply still. Instead of it's meaning, what are it's moods, textures, poetics, amateur-hack-artist function, and visceral affects? That's what I hope we can explore here.\n\n\n\n\nOn Sep 6, 2016, at 10:08 PM, Timothy Conway Murray <tcm1 at cornell.edu <mailto:tcm1 at cornell.edu>> wrote:\n\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------Welcome back everyone from summer or winter, depending on your location.\nRenate and I have enjoyed the quiet of Cayuga Lake in Ithaca after\nreturning from Shanghai where we opened a new Summer School in Theory\nbetween Cornell University and East China Normal University. Our time off\nin August gave us an opportunity to think about anniversary nodes of the\nnet and net.art, just as I was being challenged in keeping various pieces\nof 1990s net.art online for my exhibition, Signal to Code: 50 Years of\nMedia Art in the Rose Goldsen Archive\n(http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/signaltocode/ <http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/signaltocode/>). So we thought it might be\ninteresting to open September with a discussion of Net Art Then and Now.\n\nThis week, I will look forward to the opportunity to think back on the\nexcitement of curatorial projects in net.art when the community imagined\nthat the challenging artworks of the net might reach a broader audience\nthan now seems to have been the case. I will be joined by Craig Saper, a\nchallenging thinker of the network. Craig Saper (US) is Professor in\nthe Language, Literacy, and Culture Doctoral Program at UMBC in Baltimore,\nMaryland, US. Craig published Networked Art and, as dj Readies, Intimate\nBureaucracies ‹\nboth about net-art then (and now). His work on net-art also appears in the\nWhitechapel Gallery's Networks, in their Documents of Contemporary Art\nseries and forthcoming in Beyond Critique: Contemporary Art in Theory,\nPractice and Instruction. Hisrecently published \"cross between an\nintellectual biography Š and a picaresque novel,² and \"a biography of a\nlost twentieth century,\" The Amazing Adventures of Bob Brown, tells the\ncomic story of a real-life Zelig and the ultimate networker. He has also\nedited or co-edited scholarly volumes including Electracy: Gregory L.\nUlmer Textshop Experiments\n<http://www.thedaviesgrouppublishers.com/ulmer%20electracy.htm <http://www.thedaviesgrouppublishers.com/ulmer%20electracy.htm>> (2015), a\nspecial issue of the scholarly journal Hyperrhiz on mapping culture\n<http://hyperrhiz.io/hyperrhiz12/ <http://hyperrhiz.io/hyperrhiz12/>> (2015), special issues of Rhizomes on\nPosthumography <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue20/saper/index.html <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue20/saper/index.html>>(2010),\nImaging Place <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue18/saper/ <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue18/saper/>> (2009), and Drifts\n<http://www.rhizomes.net/issue13/ <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue13/>> (2007), and many other volumes since\n1990. Craig¹s curatorial projects include exhibits on ³Assemblings²\n(1997), ³Noigandres: Concrete Poetry in Brazil² (1988) and ³TypeBound\n<http://www.readies.org/typebound/ <http://www.readies.org/typebound/>>² (2008), and folkvine.org <http://folkvine.org/>\n<http://folkvine.umbc.edu/ <http://folkvine.umbc.edu/>> (2003-6). In addition, he has published two\nother artists¹s books On Being Read (1985) and Raw Material (2008).\n\nOver the weekend, Renate and I enjoyed a lakeside lunch at a casual\nrestaurant on Cayuga Lake, and recalled that our last meal there was in\nthe pleasant company of Craig Saper. So, Craig, we are very happy to be\nback in conversation with you here on the network rather than the lake.\nWe look forward to receiving your opening post.\n\nTim\n\n\n\n\nTimothy Murray\nProfessor of Comparative Literature and English\nTaylor Family Director, Society for the Humanities\nhttp://www.arts.cornell.edu/sochum/ <http://www.arts.cornell.edu/sochum/>\nCurator, Rose Goldsen Archive of New Media Art\nhttp://goldsen.library.cornell.edu <http://goldsen.library.cornell.edu/>\nA D White House\nCornell University,\nIthaca, New York 14853\n\n\n>\n\n<default[2].xml>_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au <mailto:empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au>\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu <http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/>\n\n_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au <mailto:empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au>\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu <http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/>\n\n_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au <mailto:empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au>\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu <http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/>\n\n_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au <mailto:empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au>\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu <http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/>\nOn Sep 7, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu <mailto:csaper at umbc.edu>> wrote:\n\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\nHi Murat — \n\nThank you for picking up my winking-nod to the 18th century as my Instructions below will continue (and although beyond the scope of this exchange and series of instructions, the net- and net-art seems like a sub-category of the epistolary and the squib [the squib is given short shrift]. Nevertheless, look at Sheryl Orings’ work, for example, where she types, stamps, and sends letters to presidents and presidential candidates; her work performed and set in Berlin or around the World Trade Center is particularly interesting in this regard of sending letters as part of “Collective Memory.” In any case, I can’t take that up here. Another point that I cannot elaborate on here is the 18th century philosophers (Murat mentions Locke; K.A. Wisniewski examines Hopkinson’s hoaxes and stunts around the time he was signing the Declaration of Independence) as amateurs in a time of upheaval and revolt. The net-art and “conceptual [or medium-less] art” in general suggest where the best “philosophy\" is happening. \n\nInstructions #3\nWhen the artist Ray Johnson produced net-art he sent a half-completed collage, scribble, or his iconic bunny-doddle to a “reader” (to borrow Murat’s term below) he would include a simple instruction to complete (or at least continue) the work and send it on to a name and address. The name was usually a celebrity among the readers — like the librarian at MoMA, Clive Phillpot, or Andy Warhol … and the address accurate. It was known that someone like Phillpot would, against the wishes of his administrators, save and archive all of these “on-sendings.” So, the “reader” would be stuck in a desirous network — send it on and be ensnared in clock-maker’s scheme (Ray Johnson would manipulate you as reader-as-part-of-the-work) — It was like a Lacanian paranoid phantasmagoria where the subject or reader is a part of the poem (not a poet). \n\nSo, become a reader by yielding to the initiative of the network. \n\nThat said, the net-art already discussed often mimics, parodies, or spoofs the pernicious notions of the network as the new locus of surveillance (see Hassan Elahi’s work that surveils himself as if working for the NSA), terror (see Ricardo Dominguez’s work), control of contested spaces and borders (see J. Craig Freeman’s augmented reality interventions), and public interactions (see many of the social action artists — or scholar-artists like Lone Koefoed Hansen or Søren Pold) — I include Pold in this short list because he has put poem-making and reading machines in libraries throughout Denmark. The Pirate Party also Beuys' the many political organizations (and including manifestoes that led to the origins of the Green Party).\n\nSo, instruction #3 is to borrow the network and systems — perhaps with a parodic tone — as an element of net-art. \n\nCiao and thanks, \nMurat! — an important name in the 18th century — especially in Naples.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOn Sep 7, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Murat Nemet-Nejat <muratnn at gmail.com <mailto:muratnn at gmail.com>> wrote:\n\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\nCraig,\n\nThank you for the clarity and boldness of your first gambit.\n\n\"Often, though the artist-function is algorithmic and instructions for an open-system, the artist function is both more controlling (see the definition of a p-bot) -- watch-maker like -- and less (once it is out there among the undefined networks of other p-bots). In celebrating early work on rhizomes.org <http://rhizomes.org/>, there is a discussion of Petra Cortwright's explicitly unintentional artwork on YouTube that emphasized her amateur status. The amateur is not a professional.\"\n\nI like your 18th century reference. Then, the net-artist becomes the Newtonian god or, more precisely, the job (that of the clock-maker who then disappears) assigned to god in that universe.\n\nWhat happens to \"the reader\" in that net-universe then. One should not forget that in Newtonian metaphysics (science) one can not change anything; but only \"discover\" the laws governing events, fact. If so, there is nothing open-ended in net-art. The \"reader\" (any interacter with the work) can only discover the depth (the digital wisdom, you might say) of the algorithm. Making the net-artist through his/her programing basically a god, are you not making him/her infinitely powerful, the very opposiye of the open-endedness you suggest net-art creates? Can we not say the opposite is as true? The reader (ultimately I would claim the artist himself/herself) is helpless.\n\nCiao,\nMurat\n\nOn Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu <mailto:csaper at umbc.edu>> wrote:\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\nInstructions #2\nZooming in on our opening gambit to turn -empyre- into a net-art experiment (or a set of instructions that could potentially do so in some theoretical future), then we can appreciate the shift from demarcating to listing/using a series of functions and effects.\n\nTwo attributes in art that use the situation of a network as a canvas. The first is to \"write\" the work as an open-constraint set of instructions (either algorithmic or listing). One can send/apply the instructions either to bots, people, or (in the case of listserv) to an unknown identity (let's call ourselves p-bot effects). We see this in Fluxus works (precursors to net-art? or an example of it?) and in the twitter-bot experiments like Helen Burgess' \"Loving-Together with Roland's Bots\" and Anna Coluthon (@annacoluthon), Tully Hansen’s team-powered bot @botALLY retweets and tags bot-generated tweets, “NRA Tally (@NRA_Tally)” or“Save the Humanities (@SaveHumanities)” by Mark Sample, “Pizza Clones (@pizzaclones)” by Allison Parrish.\n\nThe second (closely related to the effect above) is to notice that, unlike other arts, dependence on a singular virtuosity and aesthetic innovation, net-art appears to have another notion of the artwork; the genius is distributed in the system -- throughout the network, and the amateur and hack are nodes in that system. Often, though the artist-function is algorithmic and instructions for an open-system, the artist function is both more controlling (see the definition of a p-bot) -- watch-maker like -- and less (once it is out there among the undefined networks of other p-bots). In celebrating early work on rhizomes.org <http://rhizomes.org/>, there is a discussion of Petra Cortwright's explicitly unintentional artwork on YouTube that emphasized her amateur status. The amateur is not a professional.\n\nWhat are the instructions?\n\n//\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\n\nOn Sep 6, 2016, at 10:28 PM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu <mailto:csaper at umbc.edu>> wrote:\n\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------\nTim, Thanks for the introduction — and although we didn’t get to Ithaca this summer — fond memories. It seems fitting to have the theme this week correspond to the 20th anniversary of Rhizome.org <http://rhizome.org/>. Congratulations to Mark Tribe and the network of folks who transformed a listserv (like -empyre -- just sayin') into something else for networked art (putting that notion of transformation of a listserv into something else (\"commissions, exhibits, preserves, and creates critical discussion around\" net-art) as the implicit instruction/open-constraint for our discussion) . . . . still having a difficult time defining networks? Ten thousand books with “network” in their title, subtitle, or series title have appeared since my Networked Art appeared in 2001, and reading just a few of these titles begins to sound like a conceptual poem: Networks of Outrage and Hope; Network Forensics; Understanding Social Network; How Networks are Shaping the Modern Metropolis; Virality: Contagion Theory in the Age of Networks; Disrupting Dark Networks; Network Like an Introvert; Network Marketing; Network Management; The Network; Actor-Network Theory and Tourism; Charles Dickens's Networks; Social Network Analysis; Nomads and Networks; Networked: The New Social Operating System; Networks Without a Cause ... (with thanks to K.A. Wisniewski for digging up some of this list). Network is networked in every conceivable publisher's category: Computers & technical manuals. Science. Art. Photography. Biographies & Memoirs. Literature, Graphic novels, and literary criticism. Education. History. Politics. Sociology. Law. Humor. Religion. Philosophy. Self-help. ... Trade publishers. University, or Small presses. Self-published. Television or Internet. ... Networks, Networking, Networked . . . Nouns. Adjectives. Verbs. Or, read as both or neither. Something else? It's a one-word cliché either disliked and pernicious or liberating and utopian; it is a network of control in the \"capitalocene\" (the complex networks that have transformed lives for everybody on this planet whether they like it or not) or the anarchist rhizomatic hacktivists' web. Not in the same ways, but deeply still. Instead of it's meaning, what are it's moods, textures, poetics, amateur-hack-artist function, and visceral affects? That's what I hope we can explore here.\n\n\n\n\nOn Sep 6, 2016, at 10:08 PM, Timothy Conway Murray <tcm1 at cornell.edu <mailto:tcm1 at cornell.edu>> wrote:\n\n----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------Welcome back everyone from summer or winter, depending on your location.\nRenate and I have enjoyed the quiet of Cayuga Lake in Ithaca after\nreturning from Shanghai where we opened a new Summer School in Theory\nbetween Cornell University and East China Normal University. Our time off\nin August gave us an opportunity to think about anniversary nodes of the\nnet and net.art, just as I was being challenged in keeping various pieces\nof 1990s net.art online for my exhibition, Signal to Code: 50 Years of\nMedia Art in the Rose Goldsen Archive\n(http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/signaltocode/ <http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/signaltocode/>). So we thought it might be\ninteresting to open September with a discussion of Net Art Then and Now.\n\nThis week, I will look forward to the opportunity to think back on the\nexcitement of curatorial projects in net.art when the community imagined\nthat the challenging artworks of the net might reach a broader audience\nthan now seems to have been the case. I will be joined by Craig Saper, a\nchallenging thinker of the network. Craig Saper (US) is Professor in\nthe Language, Literacy, and Culture Doctoral Program at UMBC in Baltimore,\nMaryland, US. Craig published Networked Art and, as dj Readies, Intimate\nBureaucracies ‹\nboth about net-art then (and now). His work on net-art also appears in the\nWhitechapel Gallery's Networks, in their Documents of Contemporary Art\nseries and forthcoming in Beyond Critique: Contemporary Art in Theory,\nPractice and Instruction. Hisrecently published \"cross between an\nintellectual biography Š and a picaresque novel,² and \"a biography of a\nlost twentieth century,\" The Amazing Adventures of Bob Brown, tells the\ncomic story of a real-life Zelig and the ultimate networker. He has also\nedited or co-edited scholarly volumes including Electracy: Gregory L.\nUlmer Textshop Experiments\n<http://www.thedaviesgrouppublishers.com/ulmer%20electracy.htm <http://www.thedaviesgrouppublishers.com/ulmer%20electracy.htm>> (2015), a\nspecial issue of the scholarly journal Hyperrhiz on mapping culture\n<http://hyperrhiz.io/hyperrhiz12/ <http://hyperrhiz.io/hyperrhiz12/>> (2015), special issues of Rhizomes on\nPosthumography <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue20/saper/index.html <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue20/saper/index.html>>(2010),\nImaging Place <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue18/saper/ <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue18/saper/>> (2009), and Drifts\n<http://www.rhizomes.net/issue13/ <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue13/>> (2007), and many other volumes since\n1990. Craig¹s curatorial projects include exhibits on ³Assemblings²\n(1997), ³Noigandres: Concrete Poetry in Brazil² (1988) and ³TypeBound\n<http://www.readies.org/typebound/ <http://www.readies.org/typebound/>>² (2008), and folkvine.org <http://folkvine.org/>\n<http://folkvine.umbc.edu/ <http://folkvine.umbc.edu/>> (2003-6). In addition, he has published two\nother artists¹s books On Being Read (1985) and Raw Material (2008).\n\nOver the weekend, Renate and I enjoyed a lakeside lunch at a casual\nrestaurant on Cayuga Lake, and recalled that our last meal there was in\nthe pleasant company of Craig Saper. So, Craig, we are very happy to be\nback in conversation with you here on the network rather than the lake.\nWe look forward to receiving your opening post.\n\nTim\n\n\n\n\nTimothy Murray\nProfessor of Comparative Literature and English\nTaylor Family Director, Society for the Humanities\nhttp://www.arts.cornell.edu/sochum/ <http://www.arts.cornell.edu/sochum/>\nCurator, Rose Goldsen Archive of New Media Art\nhttp://goldsen.library.cornell.edu <http://goldsen.library.cornell.edu/>\nA D White House\nCornell University,\nIthaca, New York 14853\n\n\n>\n\n<default[2].xml>_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au <mailto:empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au>\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu <http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/>\n\n_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au <mailto:empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au>\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu <http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/>\n\n_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au <mailto:empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au>\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu <http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/>\n\n_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au <mailto:empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au>\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu <http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/>\n_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au <mailto:empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au>\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu <http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/>\n\n_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au <mailto:empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au>\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu <http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/>\n\n_______________________________________________\nempyre forum\nempyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au\nhttp://empyre.library.cornell.edu\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: <http://lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20160908/079ab11c/attachment.html>\n",
|
||
"from": "csaper at umbc.edu",
|
||
"author_name": "Craig Saper",
|
||
"message-id": "9260",
|
||
"id": "9260",
|
||
"url": "http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/2016-September/009260.html",
|
||
"subject": "[-empyre-] Week One on Through the NET: Net Art Then and Now",
|
||
"date": "Fri Sep 9 10:57:24 AEST 2016"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"date": "Thu Sep 8 03:01:32 AEST 2016",
|
||
"message-id": "9253",
|
||
"id": "9253",
|
||
"from": "csaper at umbc.edu",
|
||
"url": "http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/2016-September/009253.html",
|
||
"subject": "[-empyre-] Week One on Through the NET: Net Art Then and Now",
|
||
"author_name": "Craig Saper"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"date": "Wed Sep 7 12:28:41 AEST 2016",
|
||
"message-id": "9251",
|
||
"id": "9251",
|
||
"from": "csaper at umbc.edu",
|
||
"url": "http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/2016-September/009251.html",
|
||
"subject": "[-empyre-] Week One on Through the NET: Net Art Then and Now",
|
||
"author_name": "Craig Saper"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"date": "Wed Sep 7 12:08:42 AEST 2016",
|
||
"message-id": "9250",
|
||
"id": "9250",
|
||
"from": "tcm1 at cornell.edu",
|
||
"url": "http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/2016-September/009250.html",
|
||
"subject": "[-empyre-] Week One on Through the NET: Net Art Then and Now",
|
||
"author_name": "Timothy Conway Murray"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"list": "nettime-l",
|
||
"subject": "<nettime> Josephine Bosma: Between moderation and extremes.",
|
||
"content": "\nText for Moscow: Between moderation and extremes.\nthe tensions between net art theory and popular art discourse. \n\n~ Josephine Bosma\n \n <<back \n \nBetween moderation and extremes\nthe tensions between net art theory and popular art discourse \n\nSociety on the Internet is hardly different from that off-line. The few\ndifferences in cultural, social, and political structures up to now, should\nmostly be credited to the specifics of its technology and to the inexperience\nof people working with it. So far - nothing really new. Because we are\ndealing with a medium that is still under development there is however an ongoing\nfeeling of play and novelty about the net, which evokes and has evoked\nsmaller and larger dreams of a Better World. In the initial excitement about\n(and exploration of) the new medium we witnessed a strong tendency towards\ncross- or multidisciplinary work and collaboration in a still relatively small\ngroup of online cultural 'developers'. With the effects of excitement slowly\nfading away, disciplines and discourses appear to separate from each other\nagain, succumbing largely to age-old off-line structures. Do we need to\ninterfere in this development? To what extent have there ever been alternative\nstructures, and are they necessary at all? Is it possible to move beyond the\nlimitations of both technology and 'traditional' social structures? I want to\nshow firstly in a short analysis of the mailing list nettime, that\nneglecting a critical attitude towards the fundamental structure and outside\nperception (from different viewpoints at the same time) of one's project, produces\nnegative and even destructive effects in the end. Cross-disciplinary\ninvestigations and theory are vital to countering a development of a narrowing down\nof the possibilities to have influence on the continuing construction of a\nmediated society, in which art, in my point of view, still plays a\nsignificant role. When looking more specifically at net art, we can find this\nnarrowing development in the separation of critical media discourse and net art as\nit is strongly represented by nettime. In the much broader field outside\nthis list we see another danger for art on the net in the rather strong\ntendency towards simplification of the net art discourse through a curious focus on\nweb art (as opposed to the broader field of net art). No matter how good\nsome web art is, web art in general should not replace net art through pure\nlack of knowledge and awareness. \n\nThe connection between (net) art and theory is vital. The two should\ndevelop together, in order to make sure the institutional reception and handling\nof this art is as close to the art practice as possible. Art education and\npresentation are basic elements for a flourishing art practice. Even if art\neducation and presentation are now replaced by self education, exploration\nand self representation on the net, institutional practices will still be of\ncrucial importance. \n\n \n\nNettime and Cross Disciplinary Theory \n\nThe development of net art has been under attack from two sides. On the\none hand we see the long predicted institutionalization of art on the net\nthrough existing artworld structures, and on the other hand the net arts are\nbeing cut off from cross-disciplinary discourse and media theory by key figures\nof one of its first influential playgrounds: nettime. Net art was embraced\nas an alternative or radical view of net.culture by nettime from 1995 to\n1997, when list moderation first started invisibly, and later officially.\nNettime was started in 1995 by a group of about ten 'media theorists' and\n'artists'; as an initiative of Pit Schultz and Geert Lovink. Amongst the artists\nwere Paul Garrin and Heath Bunting. Each list member in the early stages of\nnettime seemed equally important, and each member brought along his or her\ncontacts. The problem with nettime was (and is) that there has never been a\nclear explanation or description of its structure, yet it was presented very\nmuch as a community effort. It had live meetings and online discussions where\nthe direction and purpose of the list were discussed and all members were\nasked to perform tasks and develop tools or additions to the list for the\nbenefit of all. The list was supposed to be a radical counter force against a\nso-called 'disneyfication' of the Internet in all its aspects. Critical\napproaches of 'political' mechanisms (and those politics could be within\ngovernments, military, commerce, industry/ technology, media, or art: as they were\nall entwined) were its basic driving force. Being a member of nettime more or\nless equaled joining this battle against commerce, corporate powers,\ntechno-ignorance and cultural deprivation. When the mailing list (and of course the\ngroup of Internet users in general) grew, and more and more subscribers\njoined in order to simply have their daily updates from the by now infamous\nlist (rather than being actively involved) the desire for consensus became\nstrong. The list slowly changed from an exchange forum into a platform (see my\ninterview with Heath Bunting in Telepolis). In this development the balance\nbetween active discourse and individual promotion or presentation of texts\nwas lost. Art discourse (by which I mean not only art theoretical discourse,\nbut also experimental representations and exchanges within net art) in this\nenvironment was soon seen as noise, as it did not follow traditional and\nharmonic (read: academic) modes of communication. What then happened, artists\nwere first approached individually, off-list, in order to change their modes\nof communication (meaning: they should not send experimental texts to the\nlist anymore). This resulted in the first and most important separation of\nartists from the list. After the nettime meeting in Ljubljana in 1997, Jodi,\nHeath Bunting, Alexei Shulgin, Rachel Baker and others left the list. This\nunfortunate development caused quite some debate behind closed doors, and was\nperceived as unnecessary; the attitude of the artists was seen as provocative.\nPaul Garrin, one of the last remaining artists from the foundation of\nnettime, never left the list. His project 'namespace' has a strong political\nbackground, and was initiated at a nettime meeting during the tactical art&media\nfestival n5m2 in Amsterdam. Namespace needs to keep in touch with, and\nneeds to be represented within, the environment it sprouted from. Not even half\na year after the large list meeting in Ljubljana though, Garrin's posts and\ndisputes via the list were the reason for the 'list owners' Pit Schultz and\nGeert Lovink to switch on the moderation button, and to start filtering the\nlist. According to them, they had had complaints. A lot of these complaints\nprobably came from the most dominant moderator of the list today, an enemy\nof Garrin: Ted Byfield. This way, without much open discussion or\nexplanation, there came an end to experimentation and openness on the nettime list.\nNettime has and still does profile itself as being in support of, or in search\nof, new modes of development for the media in society. This aspect of it has\nhowever been completely neglected because of the hidden political and\npersonal agenda of some of its moderators, which does not allow for openness or\nexperiments. Nettime has turned into a watered down online version of n5m,\nwith the difference that at n5m art is still, though highly cornered by\npolitics, part of the discourse. The biggest problem with nettime is 'its'\nunwillingness to reflect on 'its' radical change from exchange forum (with input\nfrom many) to moderated platform (with strong influence of a few members\nmostly) today. Not only does cultural theory suffer from it directly today, also\nthe experiments and thoughts about it from a few years back are made to look\nsuspicious through the consequent denial of their importance and influence.\n\n\nNettime was not simply interesting to net art because it brought together\na group of people from mixed backgrounds and disciplines. The Thing had done\nso also, and so did The Well. The Thing however first of all had a much\nsmaller group of members, plus its scope of topics was narrower. It was and is\nmore an art server, both Thing New York and Thing Europe. The Well was too\nAmerican for the taste of many, and starting a critical discourse around the\ndevelopment of the Internet through a California list probably seemed a\ncontradiction in terms. What was interesting about nettime, next to its\ncross-disciplinary tendencies, was the strong presence of non-American cultural\ninput on the list (or in other words: the diversity of cultures). Now that\nnettime has chosen to mostly close the door to art, the development of net art\nhas lost a central point for critical cross disciplinary thought from a\nmulticultural perspective. The development of net art is now largely in the hands\nof arts organizations, which not only tend to emphasize art practice as one\nseparate from other practices, but which also have strong local ties. The\nconnection to local art environments creates stronger divisions within art\ndiscourse online, resulting unsurprisingly in a dominance of American art\ndiscourse in relation to how net art is being perceived. \n\n \n\nNet Art Discourse and the Artworld \n\nAlthough there are interesting, sometimes rather obscure conferences and\nfestivals on special aspects of net art in Europe and elsewhere, the\nperception of net art both online and in the mainstream media is more and more\ncolored by the state of net art in the United States. The creation of the Webby\nby SFMOMA certainly has caused mainstream media to finally wake up, but the\nWebby seems to be almost the logical consequence of an opening up of the\ntraditional artworld to net art from within an American context. Its mailings\ndon't have the atmosphere of a TV show for no reason. Ironic gestures aside,\nthe Webby looks like an early step in the direction of a Web TV award. The\nloss of a conscious, cross-continent, cross-disciplinary discourse on net art\nhas brought American art discourse into an advantageous position, due to its\ndominance in a few respects. Firstly language (the German speaking\ncountries have a strong art theoretical discourse and a forerunner position in the\nfield of net art theory that is obscured because publications are not being\ntranslated into English), and secondly 'the Americans' have a highly dominant\ninput into the development of the Internet. We now face a net art discourse\nthat is strongly influenced by American economic traditions and mechanisms.\nEspecially as the role of web designers, and their connection to soft- and\nhardware designers, becomes more influential. Rules of web design slowly\ngnaw away at net art practice and theory like acid gnaws at iron. The term net\nart gets confused with or replaced by web art as if the two were\ninterchangeable, without many questions asked. Traditional art practitioners too easily\nturn to the structurally (in terms of basic development of net.technology)\nand economically important 'group' of web designers for what they think is\nthe highest form of knowledge of a medium they know little or nothing about.\nArt historical analysis is barely applied to net art, and if it is, it\nusually happens through the slightly younger tradition of video art. A\nhistorically deeper and therefore more radical analysis of the difference between the\nInternet and mass media, like TV and radio, that includes global economic\nand political developments as well is rare. Replacing the term 'net art' by\n'web art' causes a negligence of art history within a political and economic\nenvironment. The radical implications of net art are replaced by the much\nless threatening aspects of web art. It therefore of course also becomes more\ncompact, easier to grasp and more marketable. \n\nNet art has shown a conceptual overlap between all art forms through the\nvariety of its manifestations and the uneasy definition of it as one artistic\n'style'. In fact it even shows the potential for questioning popular/common\nart history, in which marketability of art has been the primary point of\ndeparture in ranking artworks and artists (and for keeping a stable economic\nenvironment for other art professionals.) One could almost speak of critical\nart history or if that sounds too sharp, specialized art history, as a\n-secret- history that is almost lost for the next generations. Within this secret\nhistory we can find traces of predecessors of what is now called net art.\nWhen we combine these traces with a cross-disciplinary analysis of the\npresent situations that surround net art, we might (it almost sounds like an\nalchemist recipe, but I have to stress I am -not- referring to a so-called\n'spiritual' perception of the arts) arrive at a conceptual, or basic core of, art\npractice within a technological society. It could very well be that it is\nthis mostly unspoken desire to know what the basis of the artistic experience\nis, and the -feeling- that disclosing this knowledge is near (when using the\nInternet as a medium), what excites and drives many net artists. The\nnarrower the definition of net art, the more we lose sight of this almost 'secret'\nart history. With a narrow definition of net art, we stay in the tunnel of\nmass media hyper-reality. \n\n \n\nUnstable 'Objects' \n\nWith the entrance of electricity, of new media in the arts, we entered an\nera of instability. Instability is something western society has fought\ntraditionally. In the arts this tradition (of fighting instability) expressed\nitself in a radical commodification of art. It expressed itself almost totally\nin a market orientation, in which concept was submitted to business. The\nage of new media is the age of the accident, as it was expressed at the Dutch\nElectronic Art Festival in 1998, which had \"the art of the accident\" as its\ntheme. Have we seen this instability reflected in art history though, in its\nfull force? Do we need to acknowledge the virtues of instability, or do we\nat least need to acknowledge its undeniable part in the state of art and\nculture today? \n\nTilman Baumgaertel made an attempt about 3 years ago to sum up the pre-\nnet art history through events and work in 'traditional' art history. You can\nfind this text online in the archives of (again) Telepolis magazine. He goes\nback as far as the early twentieth century. Going back to the beginning of\nmodernity is important for net art criticism. One can not only see the\nstruggles of artists with new technologies, or their fascination with them, one\ncan also see how art develops more and more into the direction of purely\nconceptual. Matter does not matter anymore. The mixture of art with other\ndisciplines, from psychology to science to even war (if one can call that a\ndiscipline), might be represented in all kinds of materials or media; it in the\nend has led to a diversion away from the art totem to the meaning of it. Even\nif the work is purely visual or aesthetic. Meaning is not stable. To\ncriticize the construction of art as object we can also look at a famous and much\nused art analysis by Greenberg, from around 1940, which can serve net art\ntheory or Art Theory Today. First of all Greenberg's development of criteria by\nwhich one can distinguish art from kitsch is of course a protection of the\nart market from being flooded by mass produced or copied works. The age of\nreproduction, the age of new media (in the definition of Lev Manovich) had\nmatured considerably by 1940. Greenberg serves and protects the art market. On\nthe other hand, after he has sealed off the artworld from works made in the\nnew media of his age, he hands us a tool by which we can -now- condemn most\ncontemporary art as kitsch. One definition of kitsch by Greenberg is\nnamely: a work that is made to look like art, a work made to at first glance\neasily fit within the category of art. True art apparently has to be original: an\noriginal. As nobody would like or would dare to see art this way, as kitsch\n(even if a lot of artworks might deserve it), Greenberg's theory can now be\nused to put art history into perspective. It is no longer the art object\nthat has to suffer the most changes, rather it is art -theory- and (popular)\nart history. The dominant art object can be seen as a manipulation, a\ntheoretical construction. \n\nNet art is an involuntary provocation. Art has been declared dead so many\ntimes that art professionals, whether they come from the popular or near\n'secret' approach of the art institutional processes, have come to accept their\nwork field as a stage for representation (of an image of art shaped through\nsome 'traditional' use of matter) almost completely. The focus on the art\nobject seems to only have become stronger throughout the twentieth century,\ninstead of it losing ground as one might have expected when following the\nthoughts or concepts around early modern art. This strange contradiction was of\ncourse often noticed and pointed at, but somehow the victory of the art\nobject through the art market and subsequently also in popular art history was\ntaken for granted quite easily. It nearly arrived at the point where we\nwould have to accept that 'art as object' is 'the way art simply is'. Art forms\nthat contradicted this definition threatened to be seen as forms of radical\nor conceptual performance or theatre, that serve as theoretical experiments\nwhich in the end only inform other artworks, art objects, but are not of the\nsame importance as those objects. Fortunately this last definition is\nsomewhat losing its potential firmness in the presently powerful position of\nvideo art within the artworld, which of course has been due to the development\nof technology throughout the twentieth century. The unstable, intangible\nvalue of the art object in the age of new media could no longer be denied\nimportance when more and more artists started to work in new media and multimedia.\nNet art however takes the instability of the art product one step further,\nnamely a further step away from 'art spaces'. At least temporarily the 'art\nspaces' (galleries, museums, etc.) are in the position of being an\n-addition- to the representation of an artwork, rather then being the most important\nmeans for the presentation of art. This aspect of net art alone is enough\nfor at least a few controversies. Should for instance small parts of or\nadditions to net artworks have any value, both for art history and for the art\nmarket? Some artists fight or resist the art market. When listening to them,\nthe dominant definition of value today might need reevaluation as well. \n\n \n\nThe New Art Elite (sic) \n\nThe basics of art selection are also increasingly unclear. The major\ndifference between 20th and 21st century art could probably be that the\ndefinition of high art is more and more one of 'sampling' individuals or groups which\n'compile' an artwork or art environment, opposed to the 20th century dictum\nof art as cultural selection by institutional processes. The loss of\ntangibility, the loss of the art object, is the aspect of net art that is debated\nmost, but of much more importance to art 'selection' now is the loss of\n-clear boundaries- to an artwork in cyberspace. This results especially in a\nchange within the role of the art audience. The much sought after\n'interactivity' does not reside in well designed interfaces and interesting buttons to\npush (or windows to fill), but lies hidden within the presence of the audience\ninside the network. Collaborations of variable intensity, exploration of\nnetworked art pieces and the discourse around these are causing the audience\nto directly enter the realm of critical and artistic practice simultaneously.\nWe can draw from the early art performance practices on the Internet to\nimagine a 'new' role for art institutions, for galleries and museums. As in the\nearly twentieth century, art spaces could be places for social spectacle\nand events again, in which presentation, selection and exchange of ideas and\nnorms are the central activity, as opposed to the consumption of preselected\nworks, which is the dominant activity in museums now. A space like this can\nserve as an area of accumulation of communication, an addition to the\nindividual experience behind the personal computer, an experience that is still\ngrowing in number and importance. The development of art in computer networks\n(which is of course part of, or in addition to, a larger electronic culture)\nin this sense takes the early 20th century avant-garde idea of art\nuntouched by the sublimation and selection of an authority and realizes it by\ndefault. The audience that enters into an artwork in order to explore it to the\nutmost extreme, or the audience that witnesses an unfolding art project over a\nperiod of time and provides it with some level of 'artistic' value. Whether\nthis audience does or does not enter into the artistic process itself, is\npart of a system of evaluation that informs the new art history. \n\n \n\nArt Before and After 'Going Online' \n\nThe word net art was always problematic. It held the risk for both the\nartists and the art to be too connected to a limited use of a small, specific\nmedia environment, as David Garcia wrote back in 1997 (on the nettime\nmailinglist). Yet artists have mostly tried to escape the word 'art' in it, not the\nword 'net'. Most probably this happened because of problems within the art\nestablishment as I have described earlier. It has been quite clear for many\nfrom the beginning though, that net art was going to be only a -temporary-\n'file' in art discourse for putting certain new practices into while they\nwere developing. Going against the grain, and therefore risking stepping on\nsome toes, I would say the development of art in computer networks forces us to\nditch the general, popular definition of art entirely. We could speak of a\npre- and post- network situation. 'Post-network' in this context points to\nthe by now near total internalization of the internet, or computer networks\nin general, by our environment, our society. I am of course aware this\nprocess is not complete, or may never be completed, in all parts of society (and\nof the world) equally in terms of availability and popular use. What I for\nnow call post-network art is coming forth from a life and culture that is\nsaturated by the new media networks, in which a distinction between online\nculture and off-line culture is very hard to make. \n\nI was talking to a friend of mine, Walter van der Cruijsen, a few days\nago. He is founder of the digital city and other important projects in Holland,\nand he is currently working at the ZKM in Karlsruhe. He was also part of\nnet art projects like Refresh in 1996 and the Ascii Art Ensemble in 1998. We\nagreed entirely on the reevaluation of art in the present setting, a\nreevaluation that has consequences for the popular conception of net art as well as\nfrom the perspective I just described (pre- and post- network art). When I\nspeak of net art, I always have the broadest possible definition of it in\nmind. It does not stand for one specific group of artists, and it is not all\npurely self-referential or criticizing the network medium, as some say. It\ncovers not only browser based art (which should be clear) or the even more\nrestrictive definition of 'site based' art, but also art that happens in any\nother kind of software, any other kind of time frame than the individual\nnow-ness of site based, site anchored art. It also includes live performance like\ndance, music or theatrical enterprises, or performances delayed in time,\nwhich are more like intervention art. What is maybe unexpected though is that\nart that at first glance does NOT use the Internet as a medium at all can\nfall under this definition. I came to this conclusion two years ago, when I saw\nAlexei Shulgin's performance 'Real Cyberknowledge for Real People' in\nVienna. In this piece he handed out newspapers from the mailing list nettime to\nthe Viennese shopping audience. The newspapers were mainly discarded, Shulgin\nwas harassed by an extreme technophobe, and a similar performance had been\ndone before, but that was all unimportant. In his apparent attempt to do the\nultimate lazy act as an artist, in a conscious attempt to do something he\nmaybe thought nobody would consider net art, he created net art. Worse than\nthat, he broadened its definition. Here we see post-network art. It is not a\nnew phase to come; it has been here since artists made work from within a\nnetworked environment. (So not outside of it! The network has to sort of be\n'internalized' or integrated into the life and work of the artist)\nPost-network art is the state-of-the-art in net art today, even if we use both terms,\nthey are one really. Just an anecdote: Walter van der Cruijsen is expressing\nthis phenomenon in an exhibition he will be curating for Mikro in Berlin\nnext year, an exhibition called Radikale System Malerei (Radical System\nPainting). An amazing strategy in a time when painting has approached nearly the\nsame status that playing the violin has in contemporary arts. \n\nThe unstable media V2 in Rotterdam has placed at the center of their work,\nthe variable media that Jon Ippolito proposes as a solution for the\ntransition we experience (from pre- to post- network art); Net artist Cary\nPeppermint calls his work 'restless'; the term 'not.art' that came forth as a\nreaction to net.art; and my term, post-network art, these are all different words\nintended to escape an untenable friction between popular art history and\ncontemporary art practice. The well-known exhibition net_condition at ZKM,\nKarlsruhe, attempted to avoid the problems this friction has been laying in\nfront of the art world (and which it has done for decades already). They did so\nby emphasizing that they were -not- making an art exhibition, but rather\nthat they wanted to give an overview of some aspects of net -culture-. Even\nthough I was quite happy to find so many net art works I like gathered and\npresented in one space, I found this shying away from making the event an -art-\nexhibition somewhat cowardly. Even if the makers were trying to desperately\nescape the problematic situation of art between eras. If they were in other\nwords avoiding dealing with the problematic definition of art, I think it\nwould have been wiser to in fact show the broad overlaps and blurry boundaries\nbetween art and other cultural phenomena from exactly this thing called\n-art- as a central point of departure. I of course say this in the first place\nbecause net art has suffered enough put downs and denials by art\nprofessionals. Secondly a theory from within net art, a discourse from within net art,\nhas started far too late in the development of the net art practice. I had a\nprivate email exchange with Timothy Druckrey in which he stated that net\nart was suffering from too much theoretical discourse. I could not disagree\nmore! If net art is suffering from theoretical discourse, then not from its\nown. Analysis from within the networked field is what we desperately need more\nof. I think we can still quite easily sum up the good texts in this area.\nGood theory is absolutely necessary to help shape the environment into which\nthe art is going to be received and represented. It should be, needless to\nsay, that such a theory has to be in very close communication with the\npractical field. \n\n \n\nEmpowering Art Practice by Emphasizing its Diversity \n\nI would like make two suggestions for empowering the net art field, to\ncreate an empowerment that allows for diversity and experimentation to have\nroom within art education and art discourse in an information society. I would\nlike to plea for an open-minded attitude towards the virtues of\n'negativity', and I would like to propose something I like to call 'net art monuments'.\nNet art practice has been dominated by two main forces, that have always\ncreated a wonderful mix: web design and anarchy. The extremes of net art are\nrepresented by artists that live by the rules (or the possibilities) of the\ntechnology without being bothered much by moral restrictions. It is this wild,\nunpredictable and experimental side of net art that is obscured further by\ndevelopments within former social spaces such as nettime or through new\ninstitutions like the Webby awards. It is not easy to convince people it needs\nsupport when the discussions are always pushed towards the edge by, amongst\nothers, its loudest and probably best known representative: the artist\nformerly known as antiorp. Projects like Heath Bunting's 'donate', in which net\nart works are given to museums for free (and anyone can submit and donate a\nwork), criticize and balance the discourse and the economy of art online.\nThese subversive works and actions are the projects in art practice that are\nclosest to theory, and they provide connections and moments of reflection in\nthe chaotic 'space' between pre- and post- network art environments. The\nnegativity in some works of both Bunting and antiorp lies in their willful\ndestruction of power structures, power structures that do not obey the structural\nanarchy of the Internet. These works are constructive for net art discourse\nthough, in the sense that they deconstruct art institutional habits and show\nthe empowerment of outer institutional forces by the net. \n\nThe way network art is entering education, be it traditional education or\nself study, (so whether there is the opportunity to access knowledge) has\nalways been one of my strongest motives to spread texts and interviews\nbroadly. In order to make sure the diversity of net art remains a given fact and\ndoes not get lost within art education (where in academies etc. making net art\nalas almost equals web design completely), I would like to suggest to\nsimply give certain works the status of monument. A monument is a place for\ncontemplation of events, behavior and situations of the past, these three then\nbeing both negative and positive in nature. These unstable monuments of art on\nthe net have been of great importance for net art in some way. I therefore\nend my talk with a list of possible net art monuments, which for various\nreasons have been influential in the short history of net art. I'm keeping it\nbrief and do not include forerunners of the net. I invite you to come up with\nmore suggestions. \n\nnot in order of importance: \n\nOlia Lialina's My Boyfriend Came Back From the War\n(first net art work to be sold) \n\nCornelia Sollfrancks Female Extension\n(using 288 fake identities to subvert the first institutional net art\ncontest in 1997) \n\nHeath Bunting's old cybercafe site: all projects\n(the Tokyo project is very impressive yet simple net performance) \n\njodi.org\n(depth in view at first glance, poetic sense and playful deconstruction of\ncode) \n\nthe anti NATO protest by 'antiorp' during Kosovo war\n(most compact example of this artist's radicality) \n\nAlexei Shulgin's Viennese performance\n(first clear sign of 'net art beyond the net') \n\nShulgin's Form Art\n(effective simplicity with astounding (unintended?) former eastern block\nfeel) \n\nsuperbad.com\n(the first in a seemingly specific genre in web art) \n\nfakeshop.org\n(for their use of software, their use of the web, and their use of sound,\nall poetically entwined) \n\nFirst page of hell.com\n(shows an attempt to obscure and separate work from general net culture) \n\nRTMark\n(for the strategic and at the same time theatrical use of anonymity,\nexchange and communication\nin the net) \n\n \n\nFinally: \n\nNet art was never depending on representation in institutions, yet it has\nalways needed central points for discussion, social exchange or exchange of\nknowledge (something announcements also do: sharing with an audience the\nwhere, what and how of a work). Early net artists have developed their networks\nin such a way they do not need such central meeting places anymore. Yet\nbecause of the lack of cross-disciplinary discourse platforms (where audience,\n'critics' and artists meet in a more open social space with a broad cultural\nfeel), newcomers in the networked cultural field are caught between\ninstitutional art discourses and obscure lists. \n\nWhat is interesting is that one can find all different views and\nrepresentatives of various positions on the arts meeting within the same medium, yet\nsomehow the communication stays limited. It could be important to look at\nwhere exactly the separate disciplines and social structures have come\ntogether and have produced new approaches, and where they on the contrary clash and\ndivide. The influence of the medium itself in this should not be\nunderestimated either. \n\n\n \n\n-- \nSent through GMX FreeMail - http://www.gmx.net\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and \"info nettime-l\" in the msg body\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net\n",
|
||
"from": "text warez <textz {AT} gmx.net>",
|
||
"author_name": "text warez",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0009/msg00209.html",
|
||
"id": "00209",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"date": "Fri, 22 Sep 2000 13:08:07 +0200 (MEST)",
|
||
"message-id": "200009222115.RAA23799 {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nHiya,\n\n>the anti NATO protest by 'antiorp' during Kosovo war\n>(most compact example of this artist's radicality)\n\nYes, how very radical of them to support the 'ethnic cleansing' of the\nKosovars. I'm sure that Slobo and Mira were very grateful for their\nartistic intervention. What next: a cool 'n' trendy website for the French\nNational Front or the German neo-nazis?!\n\nLater,\n\nRichard\n\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\nDr. Richard Barbrook\nHypermedia Research Centre\nSchool of Communications and Creative Industries\nUniversity of Westminster\nWatford Road\nNorthwick Park\nHARROW HA1 3TP\n\n<www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk>\n\n+44 (0)20 7911 5000 x 4590\n\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n\"While there is irony, we are still living in the prehistoric age. And we\nare not out of it yet...\" - Henri Lefebvre\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIf you would like to keep in touch with what is happening at the HRC, you\ncan subscribe to our Friends mailing list on:\n\nhttp://ma.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/lists.friends.db\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and \"info nettime-l\" in the msg body\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net\n",
|
||
"from": "ichard barbrook <richard {AT} hrc.wmin.ac.uk>",
|
||
"author_name": "richard barbrook",
|
||
"message-id": "200009240315.XAA24903 {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"id": "00223",
|
||
"to": "NETTIME-L {AT} bbs.thing.net",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0009/msg00223.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Josephine Bosma: Between moderation and extremes.",
|
||
"date": "Fri, 22 Sep 2000 19:53:51 -0400"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"new media art": [
|
||
{
|
||
"list": "nettime-l",
|
||
"subject": "<nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"content": "\nOn the event of the Montevideo/Netherlands Media Art Institute 30th \nanniversary, departing curator Susanne Jaschko put together a one day \nsymposium entitled Positions in Flux. Régine Debatty at We Make Money \nNot Art blogged about it. Unfortunately, I was only able to attend the \nmorning session. The event on May 8 2009 took place in Trouw \nAmsterdam, the followup of Club 11. From what I heard, Positions at \nFlux had a critical take towards the common media art discourse and \nasked relevant questions. It was a relief to see that the attention \nwas, for once, not focused on history, preservation and conservation. \nCultural heritage has already taken over way too much attention space– \nin part because this is one of the few areas where there is still \nplenty of funding. Sigh. Just for one day, no celebration of “medium \nreligion” or “art meets science”. Director Heiner Holtappels opened by \nnoticing that new media art is not easily accepted by fine art. \nTraditional art has become eclecticism. According to Heiner, all art \nis technology based. The subject of the symposium was a visible break \nwith the video art heritage that Montevideo has been known for. \nPolitics topics, a courageous step? “Is there a future for us?” is a \nquestion not many institutions dare to ask. In the Dutch daily De \nVolkskrant of that day, ex-Montevideo curator Bart Rutten (now \nStedelijk Museum) took up the role of expressing the ambivalent \nfeelings of the Dutch art establishment towards the new but no longer \nyoung art form. Whereas he praised Montevideo’s work, he himself had \nmoved on. “You can ask yourself if Montevideo should continue to show \nonly media art works. In this way they preserve their specialism. It \nwas my main reason to leave.”\n\nIn Zero Comments I mapped the current challenges for new media arts. \nWhile society at large is inundated with (new) media, the art branch \nthat deals with the digital moved itself in a ghetto. While this \nanalysis still holds up, many in the sector openly admitted the \nshortcomings and are now putting in place strategies to escape the \ndead end street. Technology has lost its original fascination, while \nspreading even faster in society. Is this a reason enough to abandon \nthe field? While experimentation with electronics and the digital \nmight have lost its aura and the spirit of curiosity has somewhat \nfained, the field of new media arts at large is still growing, despite \ninstitutional setbacks here and there. What most participants shared \nwas the feeling that, despite the intimidating institutional violence \nof the large players, museums will die or become a zoo if they do not \ndeal with the Digital. Some say new media arts lacks the timeliness \nand the depth. Whereas ICA London closed its media lab, Laboral in the \nNorth of Spain, which opened in 2007, is now a large exhibition space, \ndevoted to media art. Chairman Chris Keulemans emphasized that new \nmedia arts was always at it best when it criticized the media itself, \nwith its codes and nodes. Each of the three presentations in the \nmorning session gave a different answer to the question how relevant \npolitical work could be produced.\n\nThe Iraqi-American artist Wafaa Bilal is known from his installation \nDomestic Tension, in which the artist lived in a gallery space for a \nmonth, pointed at by paint ball gun operated by web users. Shoot an \nIraqi had 80 million visitors and, according to Bilal, was a “strange \nmix of aesthetic pain and pleasure.” What made the work so popular was \nthe power of viral connections, in particular through chatrooms and \nvideo he put online. What happened here was a confrontation between \nconflict zone and comfort zone, disengagement and engagement, virtual \nversus physical platform — both in the case of the artwork and war in \nIraq itself. Bilal concluded that the body has its own language that \nis not in sync with the electronic reality. Bilal made a distinction \nbetween interactive works, in which the end-states is already \ndetermined, and dynamic pieces that are open ended. A lot of the old \nschool new media art is interactive. Increased user participated was \nillustrated in Bilal’s story of the ‘virtual human shield’, a group of \npeople that gathered to protect the artist from being shot at. Dog or \nIraqi was a month long online debate who gets waterboarded: a dog or \nan Iraqi? Bilal also briefly discussed his modded version of a 2003 US \nshooting game that he renamed into Virtual Jihadi. Instead of killing \nSadam the user can now hunt GW Bush. This and other projects were \ndocumented in Wafaa Bilal, Shoot an Iraqi (City Light Books, San \nFrancisco, 2008).\n\nFormer Etoy Hans Bernard of Uebermorgen.com didn’t show projects but \nread a text concerning the role of “European techno fine art avant \ngarde.” I am great fan of Uebermorgen. It’s in fact becoming \nimpossible to list all their interventions and hacks. Uebermorgen is \nall about “surreal outcomes”, not bound by any medium. “The \ntransformation from digital to physical is important. The work is not \npop art, it is rock art. We are not activists, we are actionists.” For \na while seeking large audiences was a thrill, but that’s no longer the \nmain motivation. There is a new strategy for each new project. Bernard \ndid his best to prove that Uebermorgen’s intentions were neither \npolitical nor ideological. The aim should be Art, not Politics. \nCommunication is the 9-5 job, but that not the passion. Bernard’s \ninsistence on the non-political status didn’t convince. Uebermorgen’s \nclaim, not to have any political agenda, refers to an ancient, rigid \ndefinition that was already problematic in the late seventies when I \nstudied political science. Maybe in Austria politics is still \nassociated with corrupt parties and fat, ugly politicians but \nelsewhere in the world people use a much broader definition of “the \npolitical”. His insistence on artistic freedom is amiable but the idea \nthat once art becomes political it turns into politics and seizes to \nbe art, simply doesn’t hold. His separation between the private \nopinion of the artist as a citizen and the Artist as a public figure \nis problematic for the same reasons. Bernard’s insistence that \n“perception and production need to separated” sounds good–but we all \nknow that visual arts no longer operates outside “perception \nmanagement.” Autonomy, at least in the Dutch context, is the official \nstate religion. We all anticipate aesthetic impact, even if we reject \nthe categories of the day and undermine the dominant visual logic. \nHans, there are no commissars anymore that control the ateliers. If \nthere is any censor it’s probably the Politically Correct Self. So, if \nwe state, “in production we need to be free,” there is no one who will \nstop us — but ourselves.\n\nKnowbotic Research, teaching and working in Zurich, was the third \npresenter. Their translocal distributed temporary works avoid–and seek– \nthe Political in yet another manner. Christian Huebler showcased the \nBlackbenz Race project between Prishtina and Zurich, a city marketing \nproposal that was refused because of its negative image of the proper \nSwiss finance capital. The broader idea was to play with the Kosovo- \nAlbanian-Swiss people that hover in-between places. Code words are \nfog, smoke, blurred spaces and multiple identities. The self-built \nstealth boat project has a similar intention. The micro audiences \nbecome actors here. Activism doesn’t need more exposure and \ntransparency. Art doesn’t need moral outcry. The celebrity industry \ntook over this role. Art questions and creates new spaces for \nreflection. What’s required are slow spaces. All three projects showed \nthat new media art “doesn’t need to be a monade, merely celebrating \nitself.” (Huebler) This is the age of entering other contexts, times \nand spaces–assisted by production houses that have in-house knowledge \nabout the specificity, and the Eigenartigkeit, of digital technologies.\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Geert Lovink <geert {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"author_name": "Geert Lovink",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00038.html",
|
||
"id": "00038",
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 11 May 2009 21:29:14 +0200",
|
||
"message-id": "6759B219-5B42-4ED7-9458-133BB375140C {AT} xs4all.nl",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nOn Monday, May 11 2009, 21:29 (+0200), Geert Lovink wrote:\n\n> While society at large is inundated with (new) media, the art branch \n> that deals with the digital moved itself in a ghetto. \n\nThis is too true, and that branch has to reinvent itself from scratch\nor it will collapse very soon (if it isn't already collapsing). But it\ngoes for the entire \"new media\" field, including academic new media\nstudies which have used up their credit within the humanities. It's\nalready happening in arts education where famous media art schools\nhave been rolled back or integrated into Fine Art courses.\n\nIt's not even a question of too narrow technological focus, but one\nof perceived artistic quality. Historically, \"media art\" has been\na tactical alliance between radical artists from Nam June Paik to\nubermorgen.com and high tech academic research lab art that has no\nwhatsoever contemporary art credits. From the late 60s to today, one\nhand washed the other - the former brought the artistic credibility,\nthe latter the money and infrastructure. Festivals like STRP or ars\nelectronica perfectly illustrate it. However, the research lab art,\nparticularly in the form of \"interactive installations\", has always\ndominated the field in sheer mass, quantity and visibility. A visitor\nwho would visit an arbitrary new media festival with an interest\nin contemporary art would see, first and most of all, preposterous\nmachine parks. Or, in friendlier terms, it's the kind of art that\nrather belonged, as an educational or aesthetic gimmick, into a museum\nof technology than into a contemporary art discourse.\n\nHowever, I find it hard to get past a certain attachment to the\n\"media art\" ghetto because it tends to combine the very worst (even\npainfully, unspeakably stupid and monstrously worst) with - IMO - the\nvery best to be found in contemporary art. Ubermorgen are an excellent\nexample, needless to drop further names here. And I'm afraid that\nabandoning that ghetto, although it's theoretically the right thing to\ndo, will in the end result in even greater collateral damage.\n\nSince the 1990s, the so-called Fine Arts do provide no really\ndesirable environment either, likely they're even worse. It is telling\nenough that the term \"Fine Art\" suddenly has become a universally\naccepted standard while, not a long time ago, any self-respecting\ncontemporary artist would have fiercely rejected if not opposed it. In\nthe past ten years of reading contemporary art magazines or visiting\nart biennales and Documentas, I've been flabbergasted by the lack\nof vision and radicalism in this field. It has morphed, somewhat\ncomparable to New (composed) Music after the 1960s, into an academic\ndiscourse ruled by a neo-bourgeois jet set of hipster curators posing\nas cultural theorists on the basis of a not-even-half-baked knowledge\nand recycling of postmodern philosophy and cultural studies. The\nsystem consists of artists who have been academically trained to\nproduce works - along with non-understood theory lingo - that fit the\nrequired curatorial buzz. Along with this development, the paradigm of\nthe white cube and art works as good-looking exhibition objects has\nbecome stronger than ever before and rules out any art practice not\nfitting this format. All the while, the system thrives on the delusion\nthat it still represents visual art as a whole although, unlike, for\nexample, in film where 'highbrow' and 'lowbrow' still coexist, its\npopular forms like comic books, tattoos, fantasy figurines, t-shirt\nillustrations, wildlife paintings... have long been excluded from its\nsystem.\n\nI dare to claim that under \"saner\" conditions, no Documenta and\nno Biennale curator would get around artists like ubermorgen or\nthe Yes Men, just like no Documenta curator got around Beuys in\nthe 1970s and 80s. Instead, we get artists like Mike Kelley all\nover the art world in whose work I'm either not getting something\nor indeed seeing the Emperor's new clothes. (\"Review\" babble like\nhttp://www.frieze.com/issue/article/tomorrow_never_comes1/ affirms the\nsuspicion that the art world has no clue either.)\n\n\n> Director Heiner Holtappels opened by noticing that new media art \n> is not easily accepted by fine art. Traditional art has become \n> eclecticism. According to Heiner, all art is technology based. \n\nThis is true, yet contemporary art has mostly given up on reflecting\nits media. [I can almost hear an iPhone-wearing curator saying that\nreflecting one's media is outmoded modernism.] It's most obvious in\nthe way video installations have become its mainstream format, in the\nform of video loops shown in booths inside exhibition spaces. Video\nis just taken as a documentary TV or wannabe-cinematic format, as if\nradical video art from Paik to Infermental had never happened. (It\nseems as if most contemporary artists actually don't know it anymore\nwhich is comparable to painters no longer knowing about abstract\npainting.) One should perhaps advise Montevideo just not to leave its\nvideo art roots behind.\n\n-F\n \n\n-- \nblog: http://en.pleintekst.nl\nhomepage: http://cramer.pleintekst.nl:70\n gopher://cramer.pleintekst.nl\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "lorian Cramer <fc-nettime {AT} pleintekst.nl>",
|
||
"author_name": "Florian Cramer",
|
||
"message-id": "20090514202859.GR3919 {AT} hp.localdomain",
|
||
"id": "00044",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nThursday, May 14, 2009, 10:28:59 PM, one wrote:\n> On Monday, May 11 2009, 21:29 (+0200), Geert Lovink wrote:\n\n>> While society at large is inundated with (new) media, the art \n>> branch that deals with the digital moved itself in a ghetto. \n\n> This is too true, and that branch has to reinvent itself from\n> scratch or it will collapse very soon (if it isn't already\n> collapsing).\n\nMh, so let it be killing itself, the Reinvent Yourself-Discourse is a\nline from the Pet Shop Boys from the 90s and says nothing than \"Nobody\nknows the trouble I've seen\" in a 'modern' reinvented (sic!) way. But\nI cannot see the trouble of this hard front line between a Paik and\na Ubermorgen. For example the \"1001 Songs of eBay\" of uebermorgen is\njust a funny funny project I can implement over the weekend dealing\nwith online politics sex. And this confused and disoriented waiting\nfor the new-old avantgarde like \"Let's do many Paiks\" is boring and\ndoes not have anything to do with the real world in which electronics\nare the basis of the doings. What was really radical in a Paik?\nFucking the Porta Pack with Alternative TV-Ideas or the TV-Sets with a\nmagnet? Were the neo-dada fluxus guys radical anyway or just radical?\n\n> as if radical video art from Paik to Infermental had never happened.\n> (It seems as if most contemporary artists actually don't know it\n> anymore which is comparable to painters no longer knowing about\n> abstract painting.) One should perhaps advise Montevideo just not to\n> leave its video art roots behind.\n\nI'd like to point out at this point that institutions like Montevideo\nare revolutionizers of money, e.g. they payed Jaromil for working\non dynebolican stuff and by this means they are able to rescue the\nmiddle-class fantasies of a free arty market of software on the basis\nof electronics, a market without too much money and with lower prices,\nwith all effects of an open source software\"z\" driven by the mediate\nsupport of the state.\n\nBut while talking to them some years ago the Montevideo people turned\nout to be very naive in political questions. They have no idea about\neconomy and no idea of what is going on out of their field. That's\nokay, as long as they incorporate all folklore and avantgarde at the\nsam time, because it is their mandate and mission.\n\nMatze Schmidt\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Matze Schmidt <matze.schmidt {AT} n0name.de>",
|
||
"author_name": "Matze Schmidt",
|
||
"message-id": "9394574.20090515172312 {AT} n0name.",
|
||
"id": "00045",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA1\n\n\nre all,\n\nfirst of all thanks Matze for your consideration of my activity, but\nlet me warn you are overestimating the benefits of my collaboration\nwith Montevideo / Time Based Arts ... which is now called Nederlands\nInstituut voor Mediakunst (NIMK, BTW): it takes more to be \"rescuing\nthe middle-class fantasies of a free arty market of software\" as you\nsay, if we speak of a national institute that started in a squat in\nAmsterdam 30 years ago and has seen a constant flow of contributions\nby various people through all these years, most of them really worth\nconsidering.\n\nOn Fri, May 15, 2009 at 05:23:12PM +0200, Matze Schmidt wrote:\n> I'd like to point out at this point that institutions like\n> Montevideo are revolutionizers of money, e.g. they payed Jaromil for\n> working on dynebolican stuff\n\nif it would be just the action of redistribution of wealth, then it\nwouldn't be revolutionary at all. Some artists produced and\ndistributed by Montevideo did became rich, but for them Montevideo\nmostly contributed to the production quality of their artworks rather\nthan direct funding.\n\njust consider that if my lifestyle would be \"middle-class fantasy\" i\ncould not afford to sustainably live in Amsterdam relying on my\ncurrent employment, but lucky me i'm not a yuppie :) and i'm fine like\nthat. for the minimum support i get, needed as i care to support me\nand my extended family when needed, i have to do much more than just\ndeveloping \"my own projects\", but still all results can be free to the\npublic,: that shouldn't be special for a public institution, right? i\nbelieve this is the good signal NIMK gives - not such a revolutionary\none, but pretty honest: there are often various degrees of corruption\nleading public institutions to play commercially with public\nresources.\n\nother than that, we can call \"progressive attitude\" - rather than\nrevolutionary\" - when institutions are keen to interact with liminal\ncontexts, with dwellers on the dystopian hearth pulsating in every\nmetropolis of our \"Free Western World\". This kind of interaction (and\nthe respect for the uncommon ground in between) is indeed part of the\nheritage of a city like Mokum A - unfortunately decaying rapidly as\nEurope is turning into a Fortress for the privileged and their fears\nof the disinherited children of the welfare mirage.\n\nat last about the interaction i mention here: i'm not sure how to\ndefine it, its likely not a negotiation nor a compromise, i'm just\nsure it is necessary in any case: whether we accept the upcoming\ninstitutionalised \"Reinvent Yourself\" strategy or not. I would\nrecommend a case-by-case analysis in this regards, rather than\nthinking universally... like institutions often do ;^)\n\nregarding your vague critiques let me reply:\n\n> with all effects of an open source software\"z\" driven by the mediate\n> support of the state.\n\ndyne.org development is not driven by any state, corporation or\ninstitution rather than by the many problems these power structures\ngenerate. we dedicate most of our free time to peer reviewed free\nsoftware development in socially relevant contexts (please note\n\"development\", not provision of services) and as hackers we operate\npragmatically, on-line as well in various different on-site contexts.\n\n> But while talking to them some years ago the Montevideo people\n> turned out to be very naive in political questions. They have no\n> idea about economy and no idea of what is going on out of their\n> field. That's okay, as long as they incorporate all folklore and\n> avantgarde at the sam time, because it is their mandate and mission.\n\ni'd be curious to know what you consider \"naive in political\nquestions\": myself i've felt enriched by the past 4 and more years\nspent in Amsterdam, by my colleagues at NIMK (which is not so\nuniformed in its composition BTW) as well by the squatters in A'dam,\nfrom De Bierkoning to the Waag Society.\n\nbacking my objection, i'll point you out some coverage on NIMK's 30\nyears symposium (just happened last week):\n\nhttp://www.we-make-money-not-art.com/archives/2009/05/the-netherlands-media-art-inst.php\n\npasting you here the transcription of my intervention at this\nsymposium, let it be also a contribution to this interesting\ndiscussion thread:\n\n ------------\n\nAt the NIMK's symposium \"Positions in Flux\" I've taken the occasion to\nshare thoughts on the current perception of Free Software and Open\nSource philosophy in art, along with some overdue criticism of the\nCreative Commons hollow hype, as well of the Creative Industries and\ntheir systematised processing of art for the global market. Even if\nnot obvious, I believe the dynamics of these two phenomenons are\nrelated; among the quoted in the intervention are Benjamin Mako Hill's\n\"Towards a Standard of Freedom: CreativeCommons and the Free Software\nMovement\"[1] and Florian Cramer's post on nettime \"The Creative Common\nMisunderstanding\"[2], while the vigorous critique of the Creative\nIndustries stands on Rana Dasgupta's essay \"The Next Idea of the\nArtist (Art, music and the present threat of creativity)\"[3]\n\n\nHere below a short transcript:\n\n\"Open Source\" doesn't mean free access, nor open space or open air; it\npresumes a seamful[4] approach to design as a response to the\nincreasing reliance on technology and its accessibility; it is\ninteractive without prescribed boundaries, following a combinatorial,\ngenerative approachto development; it is peer to peer as no producer\ncan control further interaction patterns; it is grassroot as creations\nare born out of initiative and cohesion based on needs felt and\nunderstood in first person by community members.\n\nAbout Creative Commons, its motto \"Some rights reserved.\" is a\nrelatively hollow call: the slogan factually reverses the Free\nSoftware and Open Source philosophy of reserving rights to users, not\ncopyright owners, in order to allow the former to become producers\nthemselves. The dis/appropriating loop of creativity must be recursive\nto be fruitful: not only productionmeans belong to the people using\nthem, further creations should be free to be recombined. rights must\nbe granted focusing on people interacting, not just those providing\nthe interactive infrastructure.\n\nUnfortunately there is a diffuse lack of perception for alternatives\noffered by the Open Source and Free Software approach over current\nprofit models. As a present problem, also deriving from the lack of\nunderstanding of the importance of grass-root creativity, top-down\ncultural management is patronising art production: massmedia\naesthetics of an entirely sanitised and efficient creativity, of the\nsort that will not rely on unstable people and can therefore be\nglobally rationalised.\n\nThat the great artists of modern Western culture managed to produce\nwhat they did, despitethe danger and intensity of their effort, was\ndue in large part to improvised social forms built around close-knit\nnetworks where thought and affect circulated with high velocity,\nandwhere it was possible to try out forms of non-conventional human\nrelationships that would not destroy, nor be destroyed by, a life of\nart. Seen from an historical perspective, In the second half of the\ntwentieth century many of the functions of creative networks were\nalready taken over in Europe by institutions (government funding\nbodies, universities, museums, etc) and much of their excessive\nfeeling wasneutralised. This was only a small part of a general\nprocess of the time: the absorption of human emotion into bureaucratic\nchannels, and the emergence of a social coolness, anefficiency of\nfeeling.\n\nAt this stage in the twenty-first century, we are in the middle of\nanother large-scale restructuring of ideas of creativity and\nculture. As one of the most significant generators of image and value,\ncreativity now has become a critical resource for the global economic\nengine. What creativity is, and how it can be systematised and\ncirculated, are therefore urgent questions of contemporary capitalist\norganisation. As cultural producers are thrust into the full\nintensity of globally dispersed, just-in-time production, new images\nof creative inspiration and output are required that sit tidily within\nthe systematised processes of the global market. Creativity must be\nrendered comprehensible, transparent and rational: there can be none\nof the destructive excesses evident in the lives of many of the\ngreatest artists of European history. Creativity must circulate\ncleanly and quickly, and it should leave no dirty remainder. For what\ninterests Hollywood, and the market in general, is not creativity as a\ncomplex human process, weighed down in bodies and relationships and\nempty days, but creativity as an abstraction, free of irrationality\nand pain, and light enough to hover like a great logo above the\ncontinents.\n\nPerhaps, as the logic of systematised production occupies the terrain\nof human creativitymore completely, we will reach a stage where we\nsurrender all knowledge about this troubling domain, and it will\nbecome entirely alien to us. Perhaps one day we will be terrified of\nwhat explosive dangers might rise up from the creativity of human\nbeings.\n\n[1] http://mako.cc/writing/toward_a_standard_of_freedom.html\n\n[2] http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0610/msg00025.html\n\n[3] http://ranadasgupta.com/texts.asp?text_id=45\n\n[4] http://www.themobilecity.nl/2008/01/05/designing-for-locative-media-seamless-or-seamful-experiences/\n\n\n- -- \n\njaromil, dyne.org developer, http://jaromil.dyne.org\n\nGPG: 779F E8B5 47C7 3A89 4112 64D0 7B64 3184 B534 0B5E\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)\n\niEYEARECAAYFAkoP/aAACgkQe2QxhLU0C15y4ACeKYaj8pNKu7lS/Z1sIuVUtbfL\nmBUAn2h7gwq7AN0Gsv+lgidMWqZoga1q\n=Skrp\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "jaromil <jaromil {AT} dyne.org>",
|
||
"author_name": "jaromil",
|
||
"message-id": "20090517120554.GA4808 {AT} dyne.or",
|
||
"id": "00047",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00047.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 14:05:54 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "> jaromil said:\n> Montevideo / Time Based Arts ... which is now called Nederlands\n> Instituut voor Mediakunst (NIMK, BTW)\n> if we speak of a national institute that started in a squat in\n> Amsterdam 30 years ago\n\nHello.\n\nI did not remember that the 'Nimk' was started in a squat: isn't this the\nstory of Paradiso and Melkweg?\n\nAs far as I know the 'Netherlands Media Art Institute' was born when\n'Monte Video' and 'Time Based Arts' merged (1993).\n\nMonte Video was founded by René Coelho in 1978, and initially operated\nfrom his house in Amsterdam. (was that squatted? I tend to doubt.)\nMonte Video focused on video art and provided equipment for producing\nworks and space to show them (soon collecting and distributing...\nvideo-tapes!).\n\nTime Based Arts was founded in 1983 by the Association of Video Artists,\nso it was an artists run association creating a network for distribution;\nit was more performance oriented than Monte Video, according to the story\nthat was narrated to me, and which I deduced from the collection. (Can\nanyone confirm this, please?)\nWere they squatting? But they were getting funding...\nI am somewhat curious.\n\nMaybe other people on this list know more.\n\nThere is a page of history on the nimk.nl, but i saw no wikipedia entry on\nthis topic.\nI find the *story of this institute quite beautiful and paradigmatic in\nthe development of the (non-linear) chain of media mutations (which could\noff course be expanded):\n\nhappening/performance (art=life)\nelectronic art\nvideo-art (art=registration)\nmedia-art, software-art (art=simulation)\n\nI paste it below.\n\nBest,\nEleonora\n\n===\n\n**History**\n\n1978\nMonte Video is founded by René Coelho. From his home on the Singel in\nAmsterdam he makes equipment and documentation available, and furnishes\none room as a gallery. The first video artist whose work is shown here on\nthe Singel was Livinus van de Bundt, Coelho's inspiration. Other artists,\nsuch as Bill Viola, Gary Hill, Shelly Silver and Gabor Body, soon make\ncontact. It is not long before Monte Video has a large selection of works\navailable for rental.\n\n1983\nThanks to government funding Monte Video is able to move to Amsterdam\nNorth. There is now sufficient space to offer regular presentations. Not\nonly Dutch artists, but also those from other countries are given a chance\nto show their videos or installations.\n\n1986\nGovernment funding received by Monte Video is cut back to almost nothing.\nMonte Video does receive several small transitional grants from the city\nof Amsterdam.\nTime Based Arts, which had been founded in 1983 by the Association of\nVideo Artists, is fast becoming well-known as a distributor of video art,\nand continues receiving government funding.\n\n1986-1993\nRené Coelho continues on his own. Monte Video moves back to his home on\nthe Singel. The acquisition of production facilities, distribution,\ndocumentation and promotion goes on, financed from his own income and by\norganizing large projects. One of these, as an example, was 'Imago', an\nexhibition of Dutch video installations which toured worldwide for five\nyears beginning in 1990. There were also plans laid for the first\nconservation programs for video art.\nThe chairman of Time Based Arts, Aart van Barneveld, died; his death was\nfollowed by many conflicts within the organization. In the early 1990s\nTime Based Arts also lost its subsidies and threatened to go under. Monte\nVideo and Time Based Arts decide to provide a joint art program for\nAmsterdam cable TV, Channel Zero.\n\n1993\nTime Based Arts merges with Monte Video. Their work is continued under the\nnew name of Netherlands Media Art Institute, Montevideo/Time Based Arts.\nThis fusion does free up national funding. In both 1997 and 2001 the\ngrants are expanded and converted into a structural subsidy for four\nyears.\n\n1993-2002\nThe Netherlands Media Art Institute moves twice, in 1994 to the Spuistraat\nand in 1997 to its present location on the Keizersgracht.\nThe Institute continues to grow through these years, and adopts the\nfollowing mission statement: The Netherlands Media Art Institute supports\nmedia art in three core areas: presentation, research and conservation. At\nthe same time, through its facilities it offers extensive services for\nartists and art institutions. Among these services are educational\nprograms, to be developed to accompany all activities.\n\nand\n\n**History of the Collection**\n\nThe collection of the Netherlands Media Art Institute, Montevideo/Time\nBased Arts reflects the turbulent history of the Institute. In addition to\nthe collection of Monte Video, the predecessor of the Netherlands Media\nArt Institute, the Institute administers the collections of four\ninstitutions: the Lijnbaan Center (1970-1982), Time Based Arts\n(1983-1994), De Appel (1975-1983) and the Institute Collection\nNetherlands. This combination of artists' initiatives (Time Based Arts, De\nAppel and the Lijnbaan Center) and more formal institutions (Institute\nCollection Netherlands and the present Netherlands Media Art Institute)\naffords the collection a surprising diversity. In addition to renowned\nartists like Bill Viola, Nam June Paik and Gary Hill (who were represented\nin the collection as far back as the 1970s), there are internationally\nknown Dutch artists who experimented with the medium for only a short\nperiod in the 1970s, such as Marinus Boezem, Jan van Munster and Pieter\nEngels.\nBefore any institutions at all had yet been created for the purpose of\ncollecting small centers were set up in various parts of The Netherlands\nwhich facilitated and promoted the use of video by and for artists. The\nearliest examples of this were Agora Studios in Maastricht, the Lijnbaan\nCenter in Rotterdam (itself a merger of the studio of Venster in Rotterdam\nand the video studio which was set up for the Sonsbeek exhibition in 1971\nin Arnhem), and a couple of individuals such as the artists Miguel-Ángel\nCárdenas and Jack Moore in Amsterdam, who made their cameras available for\nother artists. Many of the works which were made in this earliest period\nof Dutch video art only surfaced from oblivion in the course of the 1990s.\nSurprising discoveries among them are the works of Dennis Oppenheim, Terry\nFox, Wim Gijzen, Nan Hoover and Tajiri.\n\nWith the arrival of the collection of De Appel an enormously rich\ncollection of video records of performances was added. De Appel flourished\nin the 1970s as one of the most progressive international work sites for\nperformance art. The collection of this institution contained unique works\nby Vito Acconci, Laurie Anderson, Gina Pane, Carolee Schneemann and\nothers. But in addition to records of events in her own gallery, Wies\nSmalls, the founder of De Appel, also built up a collection of\ninternational video art in order to enable the Dutch public to become\nacquainted with what was happening internationally, including work by\nDouglas Davis, Ulrike Rosenbach, Joan Jonas and Alison Knowles.\n\nIn the early 1980s, with De Appel as its base, efforts were begun to\nestablish an association for video artists, which later created the Time\nBased Arts Foundation. The collection of this artists' association, in\naddition to works by artists based in The Netherlands, such as\nAbramovic/Ulay, Hooykaas/Stansfield, Ben d'Armagnac, Christine Chiffrun\nand Lydia Schouten, also included work by international artists like Mona\nHatoum and General Idea.\nTime Based Arts maintained an active collection policy, in which any\nartist who worked with video could try to have his or her work included in\nthe collection. As it grew the collection became enormously diverse and\nafforded a good overview of the various ways that video could be employed\nin the visual arts. Through in to the 1990s Time Based Arts played an\nimportant role in the collection, distribution and support of video art\nuntil, in 1994, under pressure from the municipal authorities of\nAmsterdam, it entered into a merger with Monte Video.\n\nRené Coelho began his video gallery Monte Video in 1978, and in doing so\nlaid the foundation for the present Institute. Monte Video was a gallery\nwhich specialized in electronic art and especially in video art that\nsought out the creative possibilities and qualities of the medium itself.\nAn important impetus for establishing the institution was the work of the\nDutch video pioneer Livinus van de Bundt. He was therefore the first\nartist to be shown in the gallery. Later the Vasulkas, Bert Schutter,\nPeter Bogers, Matthew Schlanger and many others followed. In addition to\nthe works that were to be seen in the gallery, Monte Video began to be\nactive in collecting and distributing work. Bill Viola, Gary Hill, Shelly\nSilver and Gabor Body were for instance artists who 'stabled' their work\nwith Monte Video. The gallery owed its international success chiefly to\nthis. When in the 1990s the conservation of video works became a pressing\nproblem, the then merged Montevideo/Time Based Arts established itself as\nthe goad and later as the center of technical expertise for carrying out\nthe Conservation of Dutch Video Art project. As well as the collections\ndescribed above, there was integral cooperation with museums that over the\ncourse of time had also collected video work. In addition to much\ntechnical research, the conservation efforts also prompted considerable\nrecording work and research into content. Among questions dealt with were\nthe status of the vehicle, the significance of the material chosen and\nestablishing the boundary conditions for proper exhibition. Because of the\ndifferences in approach among the institutions from which they came,\nconsiderable time was spent integrating the collections with one another,\nand getting the possibilities for the use of the works coordinated with\none another. But now, with the end of the conservation project in sight,\nthe gaps between the collections appear to be closing ever more, and we\ncan proudly present our multi-faceted collection to the public, as we do\nhere.\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "\"xname\" <root {AT} xname.cc>",
|
||
"author_name": "xname",
|
||
"message-id": "3266070d80132b99ebf3351b5cb71455.squirrel {AT} tuxic.nl",
|
||
"id": "00050",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00050.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Media Mutations - Life | Registration | Simulation (was: Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis)",
|
||
"date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 15:40:16 +0200 (CEST)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": ">> [...] Arts\n\n> what art\n\n> True, art\n\nIn short: No money (as one of the forms of profit) without art, no art\nwithout politics. This is a simple formula and any Baudrillard would\nhave secretly subcribed this, even in an epoch of ended (Hegel and \nfollowers) or never realized (Debord and followers) art. The fact is,\nwe* don't need art as art, but -- and someone like jaromil shows this\nto us** -- we need other conditions, as painting, code or video or\ndiy-cooking if you like, I don't care -- changing media is always good.\nBut we are not able to produce the conditions 'now' -- like someone like\njaromil is may thinking -- because the conditions produce us, alienate\nus; they will allways produce us (products produce consumption and vice\nversa), but these conditions are (straightforward now) have to be\nuncaged from ruling modes of production, in the meant sector reproduced\nby national institutions (ZKM in Germany, Ex-Montevideo in NL, your\npersonal MTV at home). The New Media Arts Crisis is not my crisis, It's\njust the crisis of the middle-class (Yuppie or not, fallen programmer or\nrising video-installer) in form of some arts with newer or older media,\nmay it a t-shirt or an lcd. So there is no aftermath here but the\neffects of a mixed up (I love this status and condition) highbrow, baby!\nelite meshed with an alternative \"green\" and independent buisness party\nwith no idea of real coding out there (forget networks, they are roped\nparties).\n__________\n* and ** Me, I and you as the readers who follows this text.\n\nM\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Matze Schmidt <matze.schmidt {AT} n0name.de>",
|
||
"author_name": "Matze Schmidt",
|
||
"message-id": "1739011317.20090518112202 {AT} n0name.",
|
||
"id": "00059",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00059.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Media Mutations - Life | Registration | Simulation\t(was: Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis)",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 11:22:02 +0200"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00045.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Fri, 15 May 2009 17:23:12 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nHi Florian,\n\nYou point towards a classic issue, the relevance of context. What do\ndifferent registers (fine art, media art, design, activism, popular\nculture etc.) give to a particular work and what does a categorization\nexclude, meaning what does it make *impossible*. Every register\ninfluences interpretation, (in)visibility, production and funding.\n\n> Since the 1990s, the so-called Fine Arts do provide no really\n> desirable environment either, likely they're even worse. It is\n> telling enough that the term \"Fine Art\" suddenly has become a\n> universally accepted standard while, not a long time ago, any\n> self-respecting contemporary artist would have fiercely rejected\n> if not opposed it. In the past ten years of reading contemporary\n> art magazines or visiting art biennales and Documentas, I've been\n> flabbergasted by the lack of vision and radicalism in this field. It\n> has morphed, somewhat comparable to New (composed) Music after the\n> 1960s, into an academic discourse ruled by a neo-bourgeois jet set\n> of hipster curators posing as cultural theorists on the basis of a\n> not-even-half-baked knowledge and recycling of postmodern philosophy\n> and cultural studies. The system consists of artists who have been\n> academically trained to produce works - along with non-understood\n> theory lingo - that fit the required curatorial buzz.\n\nCan you speak more specifically about which curators, what art\neducational programs, which artists and what practices? For a\nconstructive debate, it's important to avoid caricatures, otherwise\nthere's a risk of creating false enemies, or missing out on how to\nbest counter the real ones.\n\nAnd as an aside, I have to admit when I read \"not-even-half-baked\nknowledge\" and \"non-understood, I caught myself wondering who are\nthe guardians of proper interpretation when it comes to theory. (not\nto mention, which theories) After all, couldn't theory be mutable in\ndifferent contexts or even hackable? In other words, can it too be\npracticed, tested and changed once it hits the ground or encounters a\nspecific situation or discipline?\n\n> Along with this development, the paradigm of the white cube and art\n> works as good-looking exhibition objects has become stronger than\n> ever before and rules out any art practice not fitting this format.\n\nIt's true the white cube is a dominant force to be reckoned\nwith (or not, depending on what art world you dwell in ;-), but\ninterventionists/social/political practices have also continued....\n(both of the digital and analog sort). You mention UBERMORGEN, and I\nwould add The Temporary Travel Office, SubRosa, Mongrel, AUDC, Jorge\nBlasco's Cultures of the Archive, Marcelo Exposito's various projects,\nThe Center for Land Use Interpretation, Beatriz da Costa and others...\nMaybe \"tactical\" is a red thread through these works?\n\n> All the while, the system thrives on the delusion that it still\n> represents visual art as a whole although, unlike, for example, in\n> film where 'highbrow' and 'lowbrow' still coexist, its popular forms\n> like comic books, tattoos, fantasy figurines, t-shirt illustrations,\n> wildlife paintings... have long been excluded from its system.\n>\n\nhmmmm....not sure about this, having worked as a hybrid artist/\ndesigner/curator/media artist/collaborator for some time now, again\nI reiterate that there are many different artworlds (and for that\nmatter artists/inhabitants/vagrants). Sometimes they intersect, rub\nnext to each other, come into agitation or simply run on parallel\ntracks. (Not too disimilar from the so-called new media world.) Think\nof open source practitioners, the Max/Flash folk, and those that poach\nthe web's detritus for their own purposes, they're all a part of new\nmedia arts, but each tend to dwell in different corners of the digital\nuniverse (or maybe not, if you're one of those cross-pollinators :-)\n\n> Instead, we get artists like Mike Kelley all over the art\n> world in whose work I'm either not getting something or indeed\n> seeing the Emperor's new clothes. (\"Review\" babble like\n> http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/tomorrow_never_comes1/ affirms\n> the suspicion that the art world has no clue either.)\n\nI haven't seen this particular work so hesitate to judge. I do however\nfind it a little problematic to make sweeping statements about the\nEmperor's New Clothes and the \"art world's\" cluelessness based on one\nreview and one artist.\n\n\n>> Director Heiner Holtappels opened by noticing that new media art\n>> is not easily accepted by fine art. Traditional art has become\n>> eclecticism. According to Heiner, all art is technology based.\n>\n> This is true, yet contemporary art has mostly given up on reflecting\n> its media. [I can almost hear an iPhone-wearing curator saying that\n> reflecting one's media is outmoded modernism.]\n\nouch, how stereotypes do prevail. I wonder if there would be a\nparadigm shift if he/she had been envisioned with a pre-paid nokia.\n;-)\n\n\nRenee\nhttp://www.geuzen.org/\nhttp://www.fudgethefacts.com/\nhttp://www.geuzen.org/female_icons/\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Renee Turner <geuzen {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"author_name": "Renee Turner",
|
||
"message-id": "5A46D3F4-5F13-4C5B-97B1-5327677F5920 {AT} xs4all.nl",
|
||
"id": "00046",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nHey Renee,\n \n> You point towards a classic issue, the relevance of context. What do\n> different registers (fine art, media art, design, activism, popular\n> culture etc.) give to a particular work and what does a categorization\n> exclude, meaning what does it make *impossible*. Every register\n> influences interpretation, (in)visibility, production and funding.\n\nYeah, and inevitably, these registers are not just different chosen\nperspectives we have on particular works, but also institutional and\ndisciplinary contexts in which workers have to put their work and\nwhose written and unwritten rules they can't avoid abiding.\n\n> Can you speak more specifically about which curators, what art\n> educational programs, which artists and what practices?\n\nI was really thinking of the contemporary art system as it has been\ndescribed by its own protagonists, for example in Isabelle Graw's\n2008 book \"Der grosse Preis\", or has been analyzed, with means that\nreally deserve the term \"artistic research\", by Hans Haacke as early\nas in the 1970s in such pieces as \"The Chocolate Master\". And many\npeople have criticized that system from within, from Henry Flynt in\nthe 1960s to the writer and \"Thing Hamburg\"-blogger Michel Chevalier\ntoday. I think it is legitimate to make a sweepingly general critique\nof the contemporary art system just as it is legitimate to generally\ncriticize and attack the music industry and contemporary popular music\nsystem for example. That doesn't mean that there would be absolutely\nno good music coming out of that system. But unlike other culture\nindustries, the contemporary (Fine) Art system often falsely believes\nin its own autonomy. And it's my general experience and opinion that\nthe art I'm more interested in is more often than not to be found in\nplaces outside that system. In the 1960s, this was true for Fluxus\nand Situationism, in the 1970s and 1980s for the Mail Art Network and\npostpunk, and in the 1990s for Net.art, the Luther Blissett project or\nthe alternative pornography movement. Today, to speak in terms of our\nboth hometown Rotterdam, I'm finding the interesting contemporary arts\nat places like WORM and De Player and only rarely at Witte de With,\nfor example.\n\n> For a constructive debate, it's important to avoid caricatures,\n> otherwise there's a risk of creating false enemies, or missing out\n> on how to best counter the real ones.\n\nWell, this is true, and I admit that my posting was polemical\n- and emotional. My gripes with the contemporary art\nsystem are also based on bad personal experience and\nconfrontations such as the one with the \"Just Do It\" exhibition\n<http://www.mail-archive.com/nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net/msg02876.html>.\n\n> hmmmm....not sure about this, having worked as a hybrid artist/\n> designer/curator/media artist/collaborator for some time now, again\n> I reiterate that there are many different artworlds (and for that\n> matter artists/inhabitants/vagrants).\n\nIndeed. It's just that the particular art world I mentioned above\n- and which can be roughly described as the art world of the many\nbiennials, the Documenta, contemporary art spaces like PS.1 and KW,\ncontemporary art journals like October, Texte zur Kunst, Springerin\nand Metropolis M, too often monopolizes the term \"art\" for the art\nthat it represents. Admittedly, its system can be permissive and\ninclude 'outside' practices, particularly when a curatorial subject\nrequires it. However, it would be possible to map the institutions\nmentioned above just by the overlap of the people they involve,\nand come up with a fairly good representation of what makes up\ncontemporary art.\n\nThey same is true, no doubt, if you take ars electronica, transmediale\nand ISEA, plus Leonardo, Neural, Rhizome and Nettime, ZKM and ICC\nTokyo, and pin down the system \"media art\". But just as that latter\nsystem is now being - deservedly - questioned and undergoing a huge\nif not terminal structural crisis, I think it is as legitimate to\nquestion the contemporary Fine Art system, and the Western concept of\nautonomous art. So, going back to Geert's initial report about the\ndiscussion about the crisis of \"Media Art\" at Montevideo Amsterdam,\nI think that it can't be a solution to integrate a very questionable\n\"media art\" system into an equally questionable contemporary art\nsystem. [As it is now happening, in education, too, for example in the\nZurich art school media department where Felix Stalder teaches, and\nwhere the media programme has been rolled back into Fine Art on the\nMaster level.]\n\n> Sometimes they intersect, rub next to each other, come into\n> agitation or simply run on parallel tracks. (Not too disimilar from\n> the so-called new media world.) Think of open source practitioners,\n> the Max/Flash folk, and those that poach the web's detritus for\n> their own purposes, they're all a part of new media arts, but each\n> tend to dwell in different corners of the digital notion universe\n> (or maybe not, if you're one of those cross-pollinators :-)\n\nYep, only that what you describe above is really declining and may not\nsee much art funding or support in the future. The writing is on the\nwall.\n\n> >> Director Heiner Holtappels opened by noticing that new media art\n> >> is not easily accepted by fine art. Traditional art has become\n> >> eclecticism. According to Heiner, all art is technology based.\n> >\n> > This is true, yet contemporary art has mostly given up on\n> > reflecting its media. [I can almost hear an iPhone-wearing curator\n> > saying that reflecting one's media is outmoded modernism.]\n>\n> ouch, how stereotypes do prevail. I wonder if there would be a\n> paradigm shift if he/she had been envisioned with a pre-paid nokia.\n> ;-)\n\nI should have told that the above example was taken from a real\nlife experience, although it's admittedly a deliberate caricature\nwhen I I blew it out of proportion as above. I agree very much with\nBrian that artistic practices (to put it as broadly) are deeply\nintertwined in culture and communication. There's a good chance,\nand I really mean this, that I am getting old - in punk terms:\na boring old fart - who's insisting on outmoded viewpoints. But\nI think that critiques of modernism, as legitimate as they are,\nbecome problematic when they're used to legitimize and maintain the\nstatus quo. [An extreme example is the contemporary art gallery\nscene and private collections in Berlin and their intrinsic links to\nthe German discourse of \"Neue Bürgerlichkeit\" (\"new bourgeoisie\")\n<http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_Bürgerlichkeit>.] The current\neconomic, political and social developments should render all\nnotions of posthistoire and non-rupture in the fabric of culture and\ncommunication, and hence also in the arts, all the more obsolete.\nThey also question the bourgeois insistence on artistic practice as a\nproduct of individual subjectivity. And finally, the contemporary art\nfield has been much ahead of the media art system in postcolonialism;\nhowever, if this reflection is serious, it should not exclude the\nnotion and system of art itself.\n\nWell, anyway, since the Geuzen collective of which you're a member\noperates in its own carefully chosen grey zone between art, activism,\ndesign, media, research and education, I actually think that our\nstandpoints are quite similar, just that our points of departure\nregarding the usefulness of the contemporary art system might\ndiffer. For me, the projects of De Geuzen are a very good example\nfor a post-autonomous artistic practice. Again, although I'm no\nfriend of the media art system, I'm quite sure that it would be\npractices like those of the Geuzen that would suffer and struggle\nto find institutional support once the \"media art\" system will\nhave vanished and been replaced with the existing contemporary art\nsystem (particularly the more cut-throat kind of the USA, Germany\nand England, with people who are anxious not to pollute Fine Art\nwith applied or sociocultural practices they hate and detest as\nnon-artistic [1].).\n\nFlorian\n\n\n[1] a good example would be Berlin's Künstlerhaus Bethanien, a renown\ncontemporary arts space, whose director Christoph Tannert bitterly\nfights a group of squatters and their sociocultural center in his own\nbuilding. \n\n\n\n-- \nblog: http://en.pleintekst.nl\nhomepage: http://cramer.pleintekst.nl:70\n gopher://cramer.pleintekst.nl\n\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "lorian Cramer <fc-nettime {AT} pleintekst.nl>",
|
||
"author_name": "Florian Cramer",
|
||
"message-id": "20090523000503.GA17293 {AT} hp.localdomain",
|
||
"id": "00068",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00068.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Sat, 23 May 2009 02:05:03 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nHi Florian,\n\nMy apologies for a slightly delayed response. I completely agree that\nthere are aspects within the art world which need critical scrutiny. I\nwas simply asking for specificity, and I appreciate that you've taken\nthe time to clarify.\n\n> But unlike other culture industries, the contemporary (Fine) Art\n> system often falsely believes in its own autonomy.\n\nI wonder if this is true. Feminist/post colonial practices have often\nargued the opposite and with much efficacy. Think of Jean Fisher's\ncritical texts, Adrian Piper's work and Lucy Lippard's writing and\ncuratorial projects and even the recent educational department at\nGoldsmiths of Irit Rogoff; all of these practices seem to point to an\nart world/system which is political, embodied and implicated.\n\n> And it's my general experience and opinion that the art I'm\n> more interested in is more often than not to be found in places\n> outside that system. In the 1960s, this was true for Fluxus and\n> Situationism, in the 1970s and 1980s for the Mail Art Network and\n> postpunk, and in the 1990s for Net.art, the Luther Blissett project\n> or the alternative pornography movement.\n\nI'm also interested these movements, practices, antics/pranktics,\nbut unlike you, I see them as a part of a complex and multifaceted\nart world (not outside of it). I find it problematic to define the\nsystem as only popular art mags, the market and large institutions\nwhen there's so much other interesting work going on. (not to mention,\nhow would you classify those of us involved in art education?)\n\n> Today, to speak in terms of our both hometown Rotterdam, I'm finding\n> the interesting contemporary arts at places like WORM and De Player\n> and only rarely at Witte de With, for example.\n\nYes, here we can look into specific curatorial approaches and talk\nabout who these various institutions and orgs are addressing. (this\ntakes more time than I have now... but I'm nonetheless interested in\nexploring this further at a later juncture) >> > Indeed. It's just\nthat the particular art world I mentioned above > - and which can\nbe roughly described as the art world of the many > biennials, the\nDocumenta, contemporary art spaces like PS.1 and KW, > contemporary\nart journals like October, Texte zur Kunst, Springerin > and\nMetropolis M, too often monopolizes the term \"art\" for the art > that\nit represents. Admittedly, its system can be permissive and > include\n'outside' practices, particularly when a curatorial subject > requires\nit. However, it would be possible to map the institutions > mentioned\nabove just by the overlap of the people they involve, > and come up\nwith a fairly good representation of what makes up > contemporary art.\n\nI agree, this *is* truly the crux. It's crucial to map the overlap of \npeople/institutions and ask ourselves who's setting the agenda, who's \ncontrolling the funding and whose *corner* of art world is being \nrepresented, and moreover, what do these representations make \nimpossible, meaning what do they render invisible.\n\n\n> They same is true, no doubt, if you take ars electronica,\n> transmediale and ISEA, plus Leonardo, Neural, Rhizome and Nettime,\n> ZKM and ICC Tokyo, and pin down the system \"media art\". But just\n> as that latter system is now being - deservedly - questioned and\n> undergoing a huge if not terminal structural crisis, I think it is\n> as legitimate to question the contemporary Fine Art system, and the\n> Western concept of autonomous art.\n\nIt's absolutely legitimate to question art's autonomy, and it's been\nhappening for some time now. Besides the previous examples listed\nabove, recently there has been much debate about the proliferation of\nbiennials how art feeds into a neoliberal agenda.\n\n> So, going back to Geert's initial report about the discussion about\n> the crisis of \"Media Art\" at Montevideo Amsterdam, I think that it\n> can't be a solution to integrate a very questionable \"media art\"\n> system into an equally questionable contemporary art system. [As it\n> is now happening, in education, too, for example in the Zurich art\n> school media department where Felix Stalder teaches, and where the\n> media programme has been rolled back into Fine Art on the Master\n> level.]\n\nIn many respects this cycle has happened to photography (remember\nwhen John Tagg wrote that no history of art photography could be\nwritten without taking into account, pornography, daguerreotypes,\npropaganda and family snapshots.) Or video's roots in activism,\nhome videos, street journalism (Martha Rosler's essay: Shedding the\nUtopian Moment).... there's much to learn from these histories of\nassimilation. It's important to look at how institutionalization\n\"tames\" media...disciplines the discipline. But while questioning the\nsystems of Fine Art, Media Art etc, I think as producers, viewers,\neducators and implicated accomplices, it's imperative to ask what do\nwe want to see happen or change.\n\nAs a graduate student in the eighties, I was taught by Harmony\nHammond, a painter and co-founder of Heresies. In her painting\nclass, she reserved time to present her personal collection of\nartists' works she felt were under-represented by the mainstream art\nworld. It was a small but extremely powerful gesture. Eventually, in\n2000 the collection was published under the title, Lesbian Art in\nAmerica: A Contemporary History. I learned much from Harmony, but\nthe most influential part of her teaching was watching her practice\n*otherwise*.\n\nSo in this context, I'm asking myself how can I/we practice\n*otherwise* and how might that *doing* nudge or broaden the scope of\ndominant discourses and visual regimes.\n\nbest,\n\nRenee\nhttp://www.geuzen.org/\nhttp://www.fudgethefacts.com/\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Renee Turner <geuzen {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"author_name": "Renee Turner",
|
||
"message-id": "20C7E909-1381-4CB2-963B-40479902EC2E {AT} xs4all.nl",
|
||
"id": "00075",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00075.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 25 May 2009 13:37:41 +0200"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00046.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Fri, 15 May 2009 18:07:37 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA1\n\n\nre all,\n\nfirst of all thanks Matze for your consideration of my activity, but\nlet me warn you are overestimating the benefits of my collaboration\nwith Montevideo / Time Based Arts ... which is now called Nederlands\nInstituut voor Mediakunst (NIMK, BTW): it takes more to be \"rescuing\nthe middle-class fantasies of a free arty market of software\" as you\nsay, if we speak of a national institute that started in a squat in\nAmsterdam 30 years ago and has seen a constant flow of contributions\nby various people through all these years, most of them really worth\nconsidering.\n\nOn Fri, May 15, 2009 at 05:23:12PM +0200, Matze Schmidt wrote:\n> I'd like to point out at this point that institutions like\n> Montevideo are revolutionizers of money, e.g. they payed Jaromil for\n> working on dynebolican stuff\n\nif it would be just the action of redistribution of wealth, then it\nwouldn't be revolutionary at all. Some artists produced and\ndistributed by Montevideo did became rich, but for them Montevideo\nmostly contributed to the production quality of their artworks rather\nthan direct funding.\n\njust consider that if my lifestyle would be \"middle-class fantasy\" i\ncould not afford to sustainably live in Amsterdam relying on my\ncurrent employment, but lucky me i'm not a yuppie :) and i'm fine like\nthat. for the minimum support i get, needed as i care to support me\nand my extended family when needed, i have to do much more than just\ndeveloping \"my own projects\", but still all results can be free to the\npublic,: that shouldn't be special for a public institution, right? i\nbelieve this is the good signal NIMK gives - not such a revolutionary\none, but pretty honest: there are often various degrees of corruption\nleading public institutions to play commercially with public\nresources.\n\nother than that, we can call \"progressive attitude\" - rather than\nrevolutionary\" - when institutions are keen to interact with liminal\ncontexts, with dwellers on the dystopian hearth pulsating in every\nmetropolis of our \"Free Western World\". This kind of interaction (and\nthe respect for the uncommon ground in between) is indeed part of the\nheritage of a city like Mokum A - unfortunately decaying rapidly as\nEurope is turning into a Fortress for the privileged and their fears\nof the disinherited children of the welfare mirage.\n\nat last about the interaction i mention here: i'm not sure how to\ndefine it, its likely not a negotiation nor a compromise, i'm just\nsure it is necessary in any case: whether we accept the upcoming\ninstitutionalised \"Reinvent Yourself\" strategy or not. I would\nrecommend a case-by-case analysis in this regards, rather than\nthinking universally... like institutions often do ;^)\n\nregarding your vague critiques let me reply:\n\n> with all effects of an open source software\"z\" driven by the mediate\n> support of the state.\n\ndyne.org development is not driven by any state, corporation or\ninstitution rather than by the many problems these power structures\ngenerate. we dedicate most of our free time to peer reviewed free\nsoftware development in socially relevant contexts (please note\n\"development\", not provision of services) and as hackers we operate\npragmatically, on-line as well in various different on-site contexts.\n\n> But while talking to them some years ago the Montevideo people\n> turned out to be very naive in political questions. They have no\n> idea about economy and no idea of what is going on out of their\n> field. That's okay, as long as they incorporate all folklore and\n> avantgarde at the sam time, because it is their mandate and mission.\n\ni'd be curious to know what you consider \"naive in political\nquestions\": myself i've felt enriched by the past 4 and more years\nspent in Amsterdam, by my colleagues at NIMK (which is not so\nuniformed in its composition BTW) as well by the squatters in A'dam,\nfrom De Bierkoning to the Waag Society.\n\nbacking my objection, i'll point you out some coverage on NIMK's 30\nyears symposium (just happened last week):\n\nhttp://www.we-make-money-not-art.com/archives/2009/05/the-netherlands-media-art-inst.php\n\npasting you here the transcription of my intervention at this\nsymposium, let it be also a contribution to this interesting\ndiscussion thread:\n\n ------------\n\nAt the NIMK's symposium \"Positions in Flux\" I've taken the occasion to\nshare thoughts on the current perception of Free Software and Open\nSource philosophy in art, along with some overdue criticism of the\nCreative Commons hollow hype, as well of the Creative Industries and\ntheir systematised processing of art for the global market. Even if\nnot obvious, I believe the dynamics of these two phenomenons are\nrelated; among the quoted in the intervention are Benjamin Mako Hill's\n\"Towards a Standard of Freedom: CreativeCommons and the Free Software\nMovement\"[1] and Florian Cramer's post on nettime \"The Creative Common\nMisunderstanding\"[2], while the vigorous critique of the Creative\nIndustries stands on Rana Dasgupta's essay \"The Next Idea of the\nArtist (Art, music and the present threat of creativity)\"[3]\n\n\nHere below a short transcript:\n\n\"Open Source\" doesn't mean free access, nor open space or open air; it\npresumes a seamful[4] approach to design as a response to the\nincreasing reliance on technology and its accessibility; it is\ninteractive without prescribed boundaries, following a combinatorial,\ngenerative approachto development; it is peer to peer as no producer\ncan control further interaction patterns; it is grassroot as creations\nare born out of initiative and cohesion based on needs felt and\nunderstood in first person by community members.\n\nAbout Creative Commons, its motto \"Some rights reserved.\" is a\nrelatively hollow call: the slogan factually reverses the Free\nSoftware and Open Source philosophy of reserving rights to users, not\ncopyright owners, in order to allow the former to become producers\nthemselves. The dis/appropriating loop of creativity must be recursive\nto be fruitful: not only productionmeans belong to the people using\nthem, further creations should be free to be recombined. rights must\nbe granted focusing on people interacting, not just those providing\nthe interactive infrastructure.\n\nUnfortunately there is a diffuse lack of perception for alternatives\noffered by the Open Source and Free Software approach over current\nprofit models. As a present problem, also deriving from the lack of\nunderstanding of the importance of grass-root creativity, top-down\ncultural management is patronising art production: massmedia\naesthetics of an entirely sanitised and efficient creativity, of the\nsort that will not rely on unstable people and can therefore be\nglobally rationalised.\n\nThat the great artists of modern Western culture managed to produce\nwhat they did, despitethe danger and intensity of their effort, was\ndue in large part to improvised social forms built around close-knit\nnetworks where thought and affect circulated with high velocity,\nandwhere it was possible to try out forms of non-conventional human\nrelationships that would not destroy, nor be destroyed by, a life of\nart. Seen from an historical perspective, In the second half of the\ntwentieth century many of the functions of creative networks were\nalready taken over in Europe by institutions (government funding\nbodies, universities, museums, etc) and much of their excessive\nfeeling wasneutralised. This was only a small part of a general\nprocess of the time: the absorption of human emotion into bureaucratic\nchannels, and the emergence of a social coolness, anefficiency of\nfeeling.\n\nAt this stage in the twenty-first century, we are in the middle of\nanother large-scale restructuring of ideas of creativity and\nculture. As one of the most significant generators of image and value,\ncreativity now has become a critical resource for the global economic\nengine. What creativity is, and how it can be systematised and\ncirculated, are therefore urgent questions of contemporary capitalist\norganisation. As cultural producers are thrust into the full\nintensity of globally dispersed, just-in-time production, new images\nof creative inspiration and output are required that sit tidily within\nthe systematised processes of the global market. Creativity must be\nrendered comprehensible, transparent and rational: there can be none\nof the destructive excesses evident in the lives of many of the\ngreatest artists of European history. Creativity must circulate\ncleanly and quickly, and it should leave no dirty remainder. For what\ninterests Hollywood, and the market in general, is not creativity as a\ncomplex human process, weighed down in bodies and relationships and\nempty days, but creativity as an abstraction, free of irrationality\nand pain, and light enough to hover like a great logo above the\ncontinents.\n\nPerhaps, as the logic of systematised production occupies the terrain\nof human creativitymore completely, we will reach a stage where we\nsurrender all knowledge about this troubling domain, and it will\nbecome entirely alien to us. Perhaps one day we will be terrified of\nwhat explosive dangers might rise up from the creativity of human\nbeings.\n\n[1] http://mako.cc/writing/toward_a_standard_of_freedom.html\n\n[2] http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0610/msg00025.html\n\n[3] http://ranadasgupta.com/texts.asp?text_id=45\n\n[4] http://www.themobilecity.nl/2008/01/05/designing-for-locative-media-seamless-or-seamful-experiences/\n\n\n- -- \n\njaromil, dyne.org developer, http://jaromil.dyne.org\n\nGPG: 779F E8B5 47C7 3A89 4112 64D0 7B64 3184 B534 0B5E\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)\n\niEYEARECAAYFAkoP/aAACgkQe2QxhLU0C15y4ACeKYaj8pNKu7lS/Z1sIuVUtbfL\nmBUAn2h7gwq7AN0Gsv+lgidMWqZoga1q\n=Skrp\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "jaromil <jaromil {AT} dyne.org>",
|
||
"author_name": "jaromil",
|
||
"message-id": "20090517120554.GA4808 {AT} dyne.or",
|
||
"id": "00047",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00047.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 14:05:54 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "> jaromil said:\n> Montevideo / Time Based Arts ... which is now called Nederlands\n> Instituut voor Mediakunst (NIMK, BTW)\n> if we speak of a national institute that started in a squat in\n> Amsterdam 30 years ago\n\nHello.\n\nI did not remember that the 'Nimk' was started in a squat: isn't this the\nstory of Paradiso and Melkweg?\n\nAs far as I know the 'Netherlands Media Art Institute' was born when\n'Monte Video' and 'Time Based Arts' merged (1993).\n\nMonte Video was founded by René Coelho in 1978, and initially operated\nfrom his house in Amsterdam. (was that squatted? I tend to doubt.)\nMonte Video focused on video art and provided equipment for producing\nworks and space to show them (soon collecting and distributing...\nvideo-tapes!).\n\nTime Based Arts was founded in 1983 by the Association of Video Artists,\nso it was an artists run association creating a network for distribution;\nit was more performance oriented than Monte Video, according to the story\nthat was narrated to me, and which I deduced from the collection. (Can\nanyone confirm this, please?)\nWere they squatting? But they were getting funding...\nI am somewhat curious.\n\nMaybe other people on this list know more.\n\nThere is a page of history on the nimk.nl, but i saw no wikipedia entry on\nthis topic.\nI find the *story of this institute quite beautiful and paradigmatic in\nthe development of the (non-linear) chain of media mutations (which could\noff course be expanded):\n\nhappening/performance (art=life)\nelectronic art\nvideo-art (art=registration)\nmedia-art, software-art (art=simulation)\n\nI paste it below.\n\nBest,\nEleonora\n\n===\n\n**History**\n\n1978\nMonte Video is founded by René Coelho. From his home on the Singel in\nAmsterdam he makes equipment and documentation available, and furnishes\none room as a gallery. The first video artist whose work is shown here on\nthe Singel was Livinus van de Bundt, Coelho's inspiration. Other artists,\nsuch as Bill Viola, Gary Hill, Shelly Silver and Gabor Body, soon make\ncontact. It is not long before Monte Video has a large selection of works\navailable for rental.\n\n1983\nThanks to government funding Monte Video is able to move to Amsterdam\nNorth. There is now sufficient space to offer regular presentations. Not\nonly Dutch artists, but also those from other countries are given a chance\nto show their videos or installations.\n\n1986\nGovernment funding received by Monte Video is cut back to almost nothing.\nMonte Video does receive several small transitional grants from the city\nof Amsterdam.\nTime Based Arts, which had been founded in 1983 by the Association of\nVideo Artists, is fast becoming well-known as a distributor of video art,\nand continues receiving government funding.\n\n1986-1993\nRené Coelho continues on his own. Monte Video moves back to his home on\nthe Singel. The acquisition of production facilities, distribution,\ndocumentation and promotion goes on, financed from his own income and by\norganizing large projects. One of these, as an example, was 'Imago', an\nexhibition of Dutch video installations which toured worldwide for five\nyears beginning in 1990. There were also plans laid for the first\nconservation programs for video art.\nThe chairman of Time Based Arts, Aart van Barneveld, died; his death was\nfollowed by many conflicts within the organization. In the early 1990s\nTime Based Arts also lost its subsidies and threatened to go under. Monte\nVideo and Time Based Arts decide to provide a joint art program for\nAmsterdam cable TV, Channel Zero.\n\n1993\nTime Based Arts merges with Monte Video. Their work is continued under the\nnew name of Netherlands Media Art Institute, Montevideo/Time Based Arts.\nThis fusion does free up national funding. In both 1997 and 2001 the\ngrants are expanded and converted into a structural subsidy for four\nyears.\n\n1993-2002\nThe Netherlands Media Art Institute moves twice, in 1994 to the Spuistraat\nand in 1997 to its present location on the Keizersgracht.\nThe Institute continues to grow through these years, and adopts the\nfollowing mission statement: The Netherlands Media Art Institute supports\nmedia art in three core areas: presentation, research and conservation. At\nthe same time, through its facilities it offers extensive services for\nartists and art institutions. Among these services are educational\nprograms, to be developed to accompany all activities.\n\nand\n\n**History of the Collection**\n\nThe collection of the Netherlands Media Art Institute, Montevideo/Time\nBased Arts reflects the turbulent history of the Institute. In addition to\nthe collection of Monte Video, the predecessor of the Netherlands Media\nArt Institute, the Institute administers the collections of four\ninstitutions: the Lijnbaan Center (1970-1982), Time Based Arts\n(1983-1994), De Appel (1975-1983) and the Institute Collection\nNetherlands. This combination of artists' initiatives (Time Based Arts, De\nAppel and the Lijnbaan Center) and more formal institutions (Institute\nCollection Netherlands and the present Netherlands Media Art Institute)\naffords the collection a surprising diversity. In addition to renowned\nartists like Bill Viola, Nam June Paik and Gary Hill (who were represented\nin the collection as far back as the 1970s), there are internationally\nknown Dutch artists who experimented with the medium for only a short\nperiod in the 1970s, such as Marinus Boezem, Jan van Munster and Pieter\nEngels.\nBefore any institutions at all had yet been created for the purpose of\ncollecting small centers were set up in various parts of The Netherlands\nwhich facilitated and promoted the use of video by and for artists. The\nearliest examples of this were Agora Studios in Maastricht, the Lijnbaan\nCenter in Rotterdam (itself a merger of the studio of Venster in Rotterdam\nand the video studio which was set up for the Sonsbeek exhibition in 1971\nin Arnhem), and a couple of individuals such as the artists Miguel-Ángel\nCárdenas and Jack Moore in Amsterdam, who made their cameras available for\nother artists. Many of the works which were made in this earliest period\nof Dutch video art only surfaced from oblivion in the course of the 1990s.\nSurprising discoveries among them are the works of Dennis Oppenheim, Terry\nFox, Wim Gijzen, Nan Hoover and Tajiri.\n\nWith the arrival of the collection of De Appel an enormously rich\ncollection of video records of performances was added. De Appel flourished\nin the 1970s as one of the most progressive international work sites for\nperformance art. The collection of this institution contained unique works\nby Vito Acconci, Laurie Anderson, Gina Pane, Carolee Schneemann and\nothers. But in addition to records of events in her own gallery, Wies\nSmalls, the founder of De Appel, also built up a collection of\ninternational video art in order to enable the Dutch public to become\nacquainted with what was happening internationally, including work by\nDouglas Davis, Ulrike Rosenbach, Joan Jonas and Alison Knowles.\n\nIn the early 1980s, with De Appel as its base, efforts were begun to\nestablish an association for video artists, which later created the Time\nBased Arts Foundation. The collection of this artists' association, in\naddition to works by artists based in The Netherlands, such as\nAbramovic/Ulay, Hooykaas/Stansfield, Ben d'Armagnac, Christine Chiffrun\nand Lydia Schouten, also included work by international artists like Mona\nHatoum and General Idea.\nTime Based Arts maintained an active collection policy, in which any\nartist who worked with video could try to have his or her work included in\nthe collection. As it grew the collection became enormously diverse and\nafforded a good overview of the various ways that video could be employed\nin the visual arts. Through in to the 1990s Time Based Arts played an\nimportant role in the collection, distribution and support of video art\nuntil, in 1994, under pressure from the municipal authorities of\nAmsterdam, it entered into a merger with Monte Video.\n\nRené Coelho began his video gallery Monte Video in 1978, and in doing so\nlaid the foundation for the present Institute. Monte Video was a gallery\nwhich specialized in electronic art and especially in video art that\nsought out the creative possibilities and qualities of the medium itself.\nAn important impetus for establishing the institution was the work of the\nDutch video pioneer Livinus van de Bundt. He was therefore the first\nartist to be shown in the gallery. Later the Vasulkas, Bert Schutter,\nPeter Bogers, Matthew Schlanger and many others followed. In addition to\nthe works that were to be seen in the gallery, Monte Video began to be\nactive in collecting and distributing work. Bill Viola, Gary Hill, Shelly\nSilver and Gabor Body were for instance artists who 'stabled' their work\nwith Monte Video. The gallery owed its international success chiefly to\nthis. When in the 1990s the conservation of video works became a pressing\nproblem, the then merged Montevideo/Time Based Arts established itself as\nthe goad and later as the center of technical expertise for carrying out\nthe Conservation of Dutch Video Art project. As well as the collections\ndescribed above, there was integral cooperation with museums that over the\ncourse of time had also collected video work. In addition to much\ntechnical research, the conservation efforts also prompted considerable\nrecording work and research into content. Among questions dealt with were\nthe status of the vehicle, the significance of the material chosen and\nestablishing the boundary conditions for proper exhibition. Because of the\ndifferences in approach among the institutions from which they came,\nconsiderable time was spent integrating the collections with one another,\nand getting the possibilities for the use of the works coordinated with\none another. But now, with the end of the conservation project in sight,\nthe gaps between the collections appear to be closing ever more, and we\ncan proudly present our multi-faceted collection to the public, as we do\nhere.\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "\"xname\" <root {AT} xname.cc>",
|
||
"author_name": "xname",
|
||
"message-id": "3266070d80132b99ebf3351b5cb71455.squirrel {AT} tuxic.nl",
|
||
"id": "00050",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00050.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Media Mutations - Life | Registration | Simulation (was: Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis)",
|
||
"date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 15:40:16 +0200 (CEST)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": ">> [...] Arts\n\n> what art\n\n> True, art\n\nIn short: No money (as one of the forms of profit) without art, no art\nwithout politics. This is a simple formula and any Baudrillard would\nhave secretly subcribed this, even in an epoch of ended (Hegel and \nfollowers) or never realized (Debord and followers) art. The fact is,\nwe* don't need art as art, but -- and someone like jaromil shows this\nto us** -- we need other conditions, as painting, code or video or\ndiy-cooking if you like, I don't care -- changing media is always good.\nBut we are not able to produce the conditions 'now' -- like someone like\njaromil is may thinking -- because the conditions produce us, alienate\nus; they will allways produce us (products produce consumption and vice\nversa), but these conditions are (straightforward now) have to be\nuncaged from ruling modes of production, in the meant sector reproduced\nby national institutions (ZKM in Germany, Ex-Montevideo in NL, your\npersonal MTV at home). The New Media Arts Crisis is not my crisis, It's\njust the crisis of the middle-class (Yuppie or not, fallen programmer or\nrising video-installer) in form of some arts with newer or older media,\nmay it a t-shirt or an lcd. So there is no aftermath here but the\neffects of a mixed up (I love this status and condition) highbrow, baby!\nelite meshed with an alternative \"green\" and independent buisness party\nwith no idea of real coding out there (forget networks, they are roped\nparties).\n__________\n* and ** Me, I and you as the readers who follows this text.\n\nM\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Matze Schmidt <matze.schmidt {AT} n0name.de>",
|
||
"author_name": "Matze Schmidt",
|
||
"message-id": "1739011317.20090518112202 {AT} n0name.",
|
||
"id": "00059",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00059.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Media Mutations - Life | Registration | Simulation\t(was: Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis)",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 11:22:02 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nHey Renee,\n \n> You point towards a classic issue, the relevance of context. What do\n> different registers (fine art, media art, design, activism, popular\n> culture etc.) give to a particular work and what does a categorization\n> exclude, meaning what does it make *impossible*. Every register\n> influences interpretation, (in)visibility, production and funding.\n\nYeah, and inevitably, these registers are not just different chosen\nperspectives we have on particular works, but also institutional and\ndisciplinary contexts in which workers have to put their work and\nwhose written and unwritten rules they can't avoid abiding.\n\n> Can you speak more specifically about which curators, what art\n> educational programs, which artists and what practices?\n\nI was really thinking of the contemporary art system as it has been\ndescribed by its own protagonists, for example in Isabelle Graw's\n2008 book \"Der grosse Preis\", or has been analyzed, with means that\nreally deserve the term \"artistic research\", by Hans Haacke as early\nas in the 1970s in such pieces as \"The Chocolate Master\". And many\npeople have criticized that system from within, from Henry Flynt in\nthe 1960s to the writer and \"Thing Hamburg\"-blogger Michel Chevalier\ntoday. I think it is legitimate to make a sweepingly general critique\nof the contemporary art system just as it is legitimate to generally\ncriticize and attack the music industry and contemporary popular music\nsystem for example. That doesn't mean that there would be absolutely\nno good music coming out of that system. But unlike other culture\nindustries, the contemporary (Fine) Art system often falsely believes\nin its own autonomy. And it's my general experience and opinion that\nthe art I'm more interested in is more often than not to be found in\nplaces outside that system. In the 1960s, this was true for Fluxus\nand Situationism, in the 1970s and 1980s for the Mail Art Network and\npostpunk, and in the 1990s for Net.art, the Luther Blissett project or\nthe alternative pornography movement. Today, to speak in terms of our\nboth hometown Rotterdam, I'm finding the interesting contemporary arts\nat places like WORM and De Player and only rarely at Witte de With,\nfor example.\n\n> For a constructive debate, it's important to avoid caricatures,\n> otherwise there's a risk of creating false enemies, or missing out\n> on how to best counter the real ones.\n\nWell, this is true, and I admit that my posting was polemical\n- and emotional. My gripes with the contemporary art\nsystem are also based on bad personal experience and\nconfrontations such as the one with the \"Just Do It\" exhibition\n<http://www.mail-archive.com/nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net/msg02876.html>.\n\n> hmmmm....not sure about this, having worked as a hybrid artist/\n> designer/curator/media artist/collaborator for some time now, again\n> I reiterate that there are many different artworlds (and for that\n> matter artists/inhabitants/vagrants).\n\nIndeed. It's just that the particular art world I mentioned above\n- and which can be roughly described as the art world of the many\nbiennials, the Documenta, contemporary art spaces like PS.1 and KW,\ncontemporary art journals like October, Texte zur Kunst, Springerin\nand Metropolis M, too often monopolizes the term \"art\" for the art\nthat it represents. Admittedly, its system can be permissive and\ninclude 'outside' practices, particularly when a curatorial subject\nrequires it. However, it would be possible to map the institutions\nmentioned above just by the overlap of the people they involve,\nand come up with a fairly good representation of what makes up\ncontemporary art.\n\nThey same is true, no doubt, if you take ars electronica, transmediale\nand ISEA, plus Leonardo, Neural, Rhizome and Nettime, ZKM and ICC\nTokyo, and pin down the system \"media art\". But just as that latter\nsystem is now being - deservedly - questioned and undergoing a huge\nif not terminal structural crisis, I think it is as legitimate to\nquestion the contemporary Fine Art system, and the Western concept of\nautonomous art. So, going back to Geert's initial report about the\ndiscussion about the crisis of \"Media Art\" at Montevideo Amsterdam,\nI think that it can't be a solution to integrate a very questionable\n\"media art\" system into an equally questionable contemporary art\nsystem. [As it is now happening, in education, too, for example in the\nZurich art school media department where Felix Stalder teaches, and\nwhere the media programme has been rolled back into Fine Art on the\nMaster level.]\n\n> Sometimes they intersect, rub next to each other, come into\n> agitation or simply run on parallel tracks. (Not too disimilar from\n> the so-called new media world.) Think of open source practitioners,\n> the Max/Flash folk, and those that poach the web's detritus for\n> their own purposes, they're all a part of new media arts, but each\n> tend to dwell in different corners of the digital notion universe\n> (or maybe not, if you're one of those cross-pollinators :-)\n\nYep, only that what you describe above is really declining and may not\nsee much art funding or support in the future. The writing is on the\nwall.\n\n> >> Director Heiner Holtappels opened by noticing that new media art\n> >> is not easily accepted by fine art. Traditional art has become\n> >> eclecticism. According to Heiner, all art is technology based.\n> >\n> > This is true, yet contemporary art has mostly given up on\n> > reflecting its media. [I can almost hear an iPhone-wearing curator\n> > saying that reflecting one's media is outmoded modernism.]\n>\n> ouch, how stereotypes do prevail. I wonder if there would be a\n> paradigm shift if he/she had been envisioned with a pre-paid nokia.\n> ;-)\n\nI should have told that the above example was taken from a real\nlife experience, although it's admittedly a deliberate caricature\nwhen I I blew it out of proportion as above. I agree very much with\nBrian that artistic practices (to put it as broadly) are deeply\nintertwined in culture and communication. There's a good chance,\nand I really mean this, that I am getting old - in punk terms:\na boring old fart - who's insisting on outmoded viewpoints. But\nI think that critiques of modernism, as legitimate as they are,\nbecome problematic when they're used to legitimize and maintain the\nstatus quo. [An extreme example is the contemporary art gallery\nscene and private collections in Berlin and their intrinsic links to\nthe German discourse of \"Neue Bürgerlichkeit\" (\"new bourgeoisie\")\n<http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_Bürgerlichkeit>.] The current\neconomic, political and social developments should render all\nnotions of posthistoire and non-rupture in the fabric of culture and\ncommunication, and hence also in the arts, all the more obsolete.\nThey also question the bourgeois insistence on artistic practice as a\nproduct of individual subjectivity. And finally, the contemporary art\nfield has been much ahead of the media art system in postcolonialism;\nhowever, if this reflection is serious, it should not exclude the\nnotion and system of art itself.\n\nWell, anyway, since the Geuzen collective of which you're a member\noperates in its own carefully chosen grey zone between art, activism,\ndesign, media, research and education, I actually think that our\nstandpoints are quite similar, just that our points of departure\nregarding the usefulness of the contemporary art system might\ndiffer. For me, the projects of De Geuzen are a very good example\nfor a post-autonomous artistic practice. Again, although I'm no\nfriend of the media art system, I'm quite sure that it would be\npractices like those of the Geuzen that would suffer and struggle\nto find institutional support once the \"media art\" system will\nhave vanished and been replaced with the existing contemporary art\nsystem (particularly the more cut-throat kind of the USA, Germany\nand England, with people who are anxious not to pollute Fine Art\nwith applied or sociocultural practices they hate and detest as\nnon-artistic [1].).\n\nFlorian\n\n\n[1] a good example would be Berlin's Künstlerhaus Bethanien, a renown\ncontemporary arts space, whose director Christoph Tannert bitterly\nfights a group of squatters and their sociocultural center in his own\nbuilding. \n\n\n\n-- \nblog: http://en.pleintekst.nl\nhomepage: http://cramer.pleintekst.nl:70\n gopher://cramer.pleintekst.nl\n\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "lorian Cramer <fc-nettime {AT} pleintekst.nl>",
|
||
"author_name": "Florian Cramer",
|
||
"message-id": "20090523000503.GA17293 {AT} hp.localdomain",
|
||
"id": "00068",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00068.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Sat, 23 May 2009 02:05:03 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nHi Florian,\n\nMy apologies for a slightly delayed response. I completely agree that\nthere are aspects within the art world which need critical scrutiny. I\nwas simply asking for specificity, and I appreciate that you've taken\nthe time to clarify.\n\n> But unlike other culture industries, the contemporary (Fine) Art\n> system often falsely believes in its own autonomy.\n\nI wonder if this is true. Feminist/post colonial practices have often\nargued the opposite and with much efficacy. Think of Jean Fisher's\ncritical texts, Adrian Piper's work and Lucy Lippard's writing and\ncuratorial projects and even the recent educational department at\nGoldsmiths of Irit Rogoff; all of these practices seem to point to an\nart world/system which is political, embodied and implicated.\n\n> And it's my general experience and opinion that the art I'm\n> more interested in is more often than not to be found in places\n> outside that system. In the 1960s, this was true for Fluxus and\n> Situationism, in the 1970s and 1980s for the Mail Art Network and\n> postpunk, and in the 1990s for Net.art, the Luther Blissett project\n> or the alternative pornography movement.\n\nI'm also interested these movements, practices, antics/pranktics,\nbut unlike you, I see them as a part of a complex and multifaceted\nart world (not outside of it). I find it problematic to define the\nsystem as only popular art mags, the market and large institutions\nwhen there's so much other interesting work going on. (not to mention,\nhow would you classify those of us involved in art education?)\n\n> Today, to speak in terms of our both hometown Rotterdam, I'm finding\n> the interesting contemporary arts at places like WORM and De Player\n> and only rarely at Witte de With, for example.\n\nYes, here we can look into specific curatorial approaches and talk\nabout who these various institutions and orgs are addressing. (this\ntakes more time than I have now... but I'm nonetheless interested in\nexploring this further at a later juncture) >> > Indeed. It's just\nthat the particular art world I mentioned above > - and which can\nbe roughly described as the art world of the many > biennials, the\nDocumenta, contemporary art spaces like PS.1 and KW, > contemporary\nart journals like October, Texte zur Kunst, Springerin > and\nMetropolis M, too often monopolizes the term \"art\" for the art > that\nit represents. Admittedly, its system can be permissive and > include\n'outside' practices, particularly when a curatorial subject > requires\nit. However, it would be possible to map the institutions > mentioned\nabove just by the overlap of the people they involve, > and come up\nwith a fairly good representation of what makes up > contemporary art.\n\nI agree, this *is* truly the crux. It's crucial to map the overlap of \npeople/institutions and ask ourselves who's setting the agenda, who's \ncontrolling the funding and whose *corner* of art world is being \nrepresented, and moreover, what do these representations make \nimpossible, meaning what do they render invisible.\n\n\n> They same is true, no doubt, if you take ars electronica,\n> transmediale and ISEA, plus Leonardo, Neural, Rhizome and Nettime,\n> ZKM and ICC Tokyo, and pin down the system \"media art\". But just\n> as that latter system is now being - deservedly - questioned and\n> undergoing a huge if not terminal structural crisis, I think it is\n> as legitimate to question the contemporary Fine Art system, and the\n> Western concept of autonomous art.\n\nIt's absolutely legitimate to question art's autonomy, and it's been\nhappening for some time now. Besides the previous examples listed\nabove, recently there has been much debate about the proliferation of\nbiennials how art feeds into a neoliberal agenda.\n\n> So, going back to Geert's initial report about the discussion about\n> the crisis of \"Media Art\" at Montevideo Amsterdam, I think that it\n> can't be a solution to integrate a very questionable \"media art\"\n> system into an equally questionable contemporary art system. [As it\n> is now happening, in education, too, for example in the Zurich art\n> school media department where Felix Stalder teaches, and where the\n> media programme has been rolled back into Fine Art on the Master\n> level.]\n\nIn many respects this cycle has happened to photography (remember\nwhen John Tagg wrote that no history of art photography could be\nwritten without taking into account, pornography, daguerreotypes,\npropaganda and family snapshots.) Or video's roots in activism,\nhome videos, street journalism (Martha Rosler's essay: Shedding the\nUtopian Moment).... there's much to learn from these histories of\nassimilation. It's important to look at how institutionalization\n\"tames\" media...disciplines the discipline. But while questioning the\nsystems of Fine Art, Media Art etc, I think as producers, viewers,\neducators and implicated accomplices, it's imperative to ask what do\nwe want to see happen or change.\n\nAs a graduate student in the eighties, I was taught by Harmony\nHammond, a painter and co-founder of Heresies. In her painting\nclass, she reserved time to present her personal collection of\nartists' works she felt were under-represented by the mainstream art\nworld. It was a small but extremely powerful gesture. Eventually, in\n2000 the collection was published under the title, Lesbian Art in\nAmerica: A Contemporary History. I learned much from Harmony, but\nthe most influential part of her teaching was watching her practice\n*otherwise*.\n\nSo in this context, I'm asking myself how can I/we practice\n*otherwise* and how might that *doing* nudge or broaden the scope of\ndominant discourses and visual regimes.\n\nbest,\n\nRenee\nhttp://www.geuzen.org/\nhttp://www.fudgethefacts.com/\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Renee Turner <geuzen {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"author_name": "Renee Turner",
|
||
"message-id": "20C7E909-1381-4CB2-963B-40479902EC2E {AT} xs4all.nl",
|
||
"id": "00075",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00075.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 25 May 2009 13:37:41 +0200"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00044.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Thu, 14 May 2009 22:28:59 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "<citaat van=\"Geert Lovink\">\n\n>Activism doesn't need more exposure and transparency.\n\nI agree, the obsession with media by activists is killing activism and\n(re)producing mirrors of narcism, aka transparency....\n\n>Art doesn't need moral outcry.\n\nIt does not NEED it, but some kinda passion is imho an important\ngenerator. This passion can be questioned, exposed or reflected on. That\nis why I agree with you that\n\n> Art questions and creates new spaces for reflection.\n\n> What's required are slow spaces.\nYes, but why not also new confrontations, new dynamics, tactics, etc?\nAnd indeed, why not reflect on morality as well?\n\nJo van der Spek\nm2m.streamtime.org\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "\"jo van der spek\" <jo {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"author_name": "jo van der spek",
|
||
"message-id": "bf52c99418bbb8757768c613a1030548.squirrel {AT} webmail.xs4all.nl",
|
||
"id": "00041",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00041.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 13 May 2009 17:27:22 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nwhat i am always wondering about is why the media arts field is so\nconcerned with its media. is dealing with \"new media\" or \"old media\"\nan excuse for making good or bad art? IMO defining art by its media\nis on the same level as defining art by its subject. not getting over\nthese definitions will result in a ghetto-situation sooner or later.\nthe problem -IMHO- is not that media art is not recognized by the fine\nart world but that the fine art world is dealing with other subjects.\nwhen was the last big exhibition dealing solely with \"painting\" or\n\"sculpture\" you've seen? ars electronica and the others are doing that\nevery year: \"new media art\" with changing subtitles.\n\nthe same problem persists when new media artists and theorists\ninsist on \"politicalness\" and \"radicality\". those terms don't say\nanything about certain works either, no matter which media is used\nin it. they only say that they may be recognised as \"political\" in a\ncertain time in a certain context. but that doesn't say anything about\nit's \"artness\" either. \"art doesn't become art by having specific\ncharacteristics but by a specific kind of processual reference to it.\"\n(J. Rebentisch, Aesthetik der Installation)\n\nand -please hit me hard if i'm wrong- the \"fine art world\" questions\nsuch things. this \"eclecticism\" and \"cluelesness\" some are claiming\nexist, but despite the ugly quest for the next blockbuster there is a\nlively scene developing things further without thinking about making\n\"political art\" or \"painting\". seen from this point of view i think\nthat hans' claim \"The aim should be Art, not Politics.\" is totally\nright, even if it is harshly critisized by geert. to put it bluntly:\nif i want to learn something about politics i would read a book with\nproper information about it and not go to see art that repeats the\ncommon sense that there are bad things existing in our world. i want\nto see art. neither new media nor politics.\n\ncarlos\n\n-- \nhttp://katastrofsky.cont3xt.net\nhttp://cont3xt.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "carlos katastrofsky <carlos.katastrofsky {AT} cont3xt.net>",
|
||
"author_name": "carlos katastrofsky",
|
||
"message-id": "fb9095bf0905170159ldd82c24t9b13cac4653349dd {AT} mail.gmail.com",
|
||
"id": "00049",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "i agree.. i'm new to nettime, but following it silently until now, and \nhave been doing research in this area.\nhere are a few earlier notes i've made on this topic:\n http://www.rchoetzlein.com/theory/\n\nin my view, the problem is that new media theory - the theory side \nanyway (not the art) - is largely defined by what we read from new media \ntheorists, such as lev manovich and baudrillard. yet these philosophers \ndo their primary work in \"media theory\" itself, that is the \nanthropological study of how media influences culture. thus, their \ncentral message is that media has meaning, and meaning changes culture:\n\n\"True, art is on the periphery for me. I don't really identify with it. \nI would even say that I have the same negative prejudice towards art \nthat I do toward culture in general. My point of view is \nanthropological. From this perspective, art no longer seems to have a \nvital function; it is afflicted by the same fate that extinguishes \nvalue, by the same loss of transcendence.\" - Jean Baudrillard\n\ni do not deny their contributions to media theory of course, but despite \nthe fact that they may be open about their field of study (as this quote \nshows), the new media arts has not moved to define itself as an \"art \nform\", but rather defines itself in terms of media. of course, as an \nartist, i disagree about defining media art in such post-modernist terms \n(that is, purely as an outgrowth of culture). contrast the view of art \nabove with this one:\n\n\"The activity of art is based on the fact that one, receiving through \nhis or her sense of hearing or sight another's expression of feeling, is \ncapable of experiencing the emotion which moved the one who expressed \nit.\" - Leo Tolstoy\n\nNew media art should be defined from an art-philosophical perspective. \nIn this view, meaning is present in all works, to varying degrees, \nregardless of how they might be appropriated by culture. At what time is \nhistory was art not appropriated by culture? None the less, people \ncontinued to create art. The process of art-making is one of creating \nmeaning, and this relation between the artist and the work is not \nchanged despite how the object is ultimately appreciated, used, or \nabused by culture.\n\n-rama hoetzlein\n\n\ncarlos katastrofsky wrote:\n \n> what i am always wondering about is why the media arts field is so\n> concerned with its media. is dealing with \"new media\" or \"old media\"\n> an excuse for making good or bad art? IMO defining art by its media\n> is on the same level as defining art by its subject. not getting over\n> these definitions will result in a ghetto-situation sooner or later.\n> the problem -IMHO- is not that media art is not recognized by the fine\n> art world but that the fine art world is dealing with other subjects.\n> when was the last big exhibition dealing solely with \"painting\" or\n> \"sculpture\" you've seen? ars electronica and the others are doing that\n> every year: \"new media art\" with changing subtitles.\n <...>\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Rama Hoetzlein <rch {AT} umail.ucsb.edu>",
|
||
"author_name": "Rama Hoetzlein",
|
||
"message-id": "4A105BE2.9050609 {AT} umail.ucsb.edu",
|
||
"id": "00051",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n> what i am always wondering about is why the media arts field is so\n> concerned with its media. is dealing with \"new media\" or \"old media\"\n> an excuse for making good or bad art? IMO defining art by its media\n> is on the same level as defining art by its subject. not getting\n> over these definitions will result in a ghetto-situation sooner or\n> later. the problem -IMHO- is not that media art is not recognized\n> by the fine art world but that the fine art world is dealing with\n> other subjects. when was the last big exhibition dealing solely\n> with \"painting\" or \"sculpture\" you've seen? ars electronica and the\n> others are doing that every year: \"new media art\" with changing\n> subtitles.\n\n <...>\n\nAn interesting addition to this would be the emergence of 'New, new\nmedia arts'. I am thinking here, of practices in the field currently\ndefining itself as bioart. Here the medium that is being manipulated\nis a form of living or sem-living matter, or tissue. Bioartist,\nEduardo Kac and curator Jens Hauser have sought to specifically\nidentify this new art practice, expressly on the basis of the medium\nitself. Bioarts, they argue, are most definitely are not those works\nthat take bios or a form of life, as a subject, but manipulate it as a\nmedium. That said, the manipulation of living tissue can be executed\nthrough a number of divergent practices, specific technologies, and it\nis these that seem to be defined by some as the media, not the living\ntissue they manipulate. I guess a somewhat simplistic comparison\nwould be between with identification of various 'digital media' in\nabstraction from the advances in computer technology on which they are\nbased.\n\nMy current work in the field of bioart is increasingly\npushing me towards a frustration at the distinction between\nart/science/media/technology/old/new that recurs in the majority of\nliterature, and if I am not wrong seems to predicate this current\ndiscussion. In the light of these new practices I have been working\ntowards re-imagining what art and media are in themselves, as\ntechnologies and processes not as distinct practices - the specific\nmedia or declared purpose seem less relevant from this perspective. So\nI wonder whether 'meaning is present in all works, to varying degrees,\nregardless of how they might be appropriated by culture' could be\nextended beyond a simple valorisation of art.\n\nIt also seems that those new media theorists, such as Manovich and\nBaudrillard are somewhat restricted in their approach in that new\nmedia is perceived in a somewhat teleological sense, newness for\nthe sake of newness, with new theories to match new media - without\nasking what is actually recurring in new media. IMO it seems that\nmost new media, are really just old media anyway, particularly so in\nbioart. Is the creative growth of tissue not what we do continually\nas part of our natural bodily processes? Would it be facetious\nthen to ask whether all media be considered from this originary\nperspective, negating the discussions about relative newness or\ncultural categorization (ie i's art, it's science, it's technology,\nit's media).\n\nBen\n\n\n\n-- ---------\n Ben Craggs\n 07868 273 360\n---------------\n http://www.digitalscribblings.org/forums\n A place for academic discussion, networking and general postgraduate procrastination!\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "ben.craggs {AT} fastmail.f",
|
||
"author_name": "ben . craggs",
|
||
"message-id": "1242632525.29400.1315956661 {AT} webmail.messagingengine.com",
|
||
"id": "00053",
|
||
"to": "\"NetTime Mailing List\" <nettime-l {AT} kein.org>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00053.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 08:42:05 +0100"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nRama Hoetzlein wrote:\n\n> New media art should be defined from an art-philosophical\n> perspective. In this view, meaning is present in all works, to\n> varying degrees, regardless of how they might be appropriated\n> by culture. At what time in history was art not appropriated by\n> culture? None the less, people continued to create art. The process\n> of art-making is one of creating meaning, and this relation between\n> the artist and the work is not changed despite how the object is\n> ultimately appreciated, used, or abused by culture.\n\nIt's great to read such a fundamental comment. I shall add something.\nMy viewpoint includes both Tolstoy's and Baudrillard's. I find that\ninformatic art (my own off-the-cuff term, but surely better than new\nmedia) is compelling precisely when it places subjective expression\nwithin the most strongly coercive social arena of our time, namely\nthe digital networks. Your idea that there is an art-philosophical\nperspective that could exclude or bypass social determinism seems,\nbegging your pardon, somewhat naive. What is more, I think all the\ninterest of art itself disappears when it is shorn from the contexts\nof power and held up as a pure conductor of subjectivity. Approached\nin that way, the art work tends to become no more than a mirror for\nour own emotions and fantasies -- far from any state of empathy,\nEinfuhlung or whatever one chooses to call it. So I am not surprised\nthat you move from Tolstoy's fascinating quote (reproduced below) to\nthe \"relation between the artist and the work.\" I guess I am more\ninterested in, well, media: the way the work relates the artist to\nothers.\n\nHowever, your observation about new media theory (Kittler and McLuhan\nwere recently mentioned here) is spot on. What we are given from\nthe podium, over and over again, are lessons about the power of\ntechnoscientific systems. The predicament of the human singularity,\ncaught within the net of determinisms yet resisting, creating another\nreality and expressing this rather fantastic adventure through\nwhatever kind of material or semiotic medium has been chosen, is left\nout of the story, which thereby becomes a monument to the crushing\nregularity of the status quo. The same thing, of course, happens to\nresistant political action in the hands of the sociologists and the\nHeideggerean philosophers of an essential, \"historial\" alienation.\nBoth ethics and aesthetics take it on the chin.\n\nIn my view, the great inspiration for new media theory has come from\nhackers themselves, who create alternative possibilities for existence\nwithin the overwhelmingly powerful networked environment. This is why,\nin essays which are inseparably about art and technics, I tend to\nuse concepts like \"reverse imagineering\" or \"escaping the overcode.\"\nExpression, for me, is the rupture of code, an excess which does not\nabolish the labyrinth in which we are caught, but at least opens up a\npossible new path through it.\n\nThat's one approach. There could be many others. The problem, as\nyou point out, is that usually there are not, because the theory\nvery rarely meets any actual practice. The necessary discussion of\ntechnological power holds the center stage. Of course that is easier\nfor the whole \"new media\" social circuit, because then you don't have\nto think very much, or feel very much, or try very hard to find out\nwhat might be at stake in a particular work.\n\nThis list, I guess, is about the best place to talk about how to\napproach media art. Thanks to all for starting the conversation. I'm\nready for more. Let the thousand info-aesthetics bloom!\n\nbest, BH\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Brian Holmes <brian.holmes {AT} wanadoo.fr>",
|
||
"author_name": "Brian Holmes",
|
||
"message-id": "4A10825D.6040905 {AT} wanadoo.fr",
|
||
"id": "00054",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00054.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 23:32:13 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nBrian, thanks for your reply. In general, i'm glad to see that\nwe're mostly in agreement. Based on my observations of nettime-l,\ndisagreement is often the norm, so I'm glad to see that there is\nsome consensus between us that the new media theorists are currently\nthe only option we've been given, and that we really need some\nalternatives.. Now, for some responses.\n\n> Your idea that there is an art-philosophical perspective that could \n> exclude or bypass social determinism seems, begging your pardon, \n> somewhat naive. \n\nI'm not suggesting that art-philosophy can bypass social determinism.\nI have no illusions about the difficulty the artist faces in creating\nany real social change, since my view of art does not negate any of\nthe real research done by the media theorists. My own view is that\nthe idea of art-for-social-change is long outdated. You suggest\nthat hackers are the source of real inspiration in new media theory\nbecause they alone are able to transform the media itself, and thus\nundermine the system toward some possible escape path. Yet, there\nis no reason to believe that even if the media itself changes, that\nsociety will too. In my view, the only way we could overcome the\ncurrent technoscientific system would be due to a deep, fundamental\ntransformation in all individuals - and while I believe art is\ncapable of doing this one person at a time, I don't think any one\nartwork, hacker or otherwise, is capable of really altering the\ntechnoscientific system we find ourselves in on a global level. Thus,\nall social change we talk about now is still part of that system. This\nis the media theorist perspective, of course - which i agree with -\nbut as an artist, its incomplete.\n\nThe reason I advocate art-philosophy is for the sake of the\nindividual, and the field of art itself. While i just said the artist\nis powerless to transform culture, perhaps to a degree greater than\nmost would like, the artist is _not_ powerless to transform him or\nherself, and others which that person touches through the art..\nDespite whatever the technoscientific system may do, to create art is\nan intentional act by an individual, and thus has an immutable meaning\njust by virtue of being \"created\". We get to choose what is created\n(this does not make it good art necessarily).\n\nThat meaning is present in all work \"to varying degrees\". By this, i\nmean that we each have a unique relationship to our artwork. For some,\nit is a mirror of personal emotions and fantasies (and probably my\nown work most of the time), while others may be able to communicate\nmore.. So, I'm not evaluating art. Some is good, some is not. However,\nhaving an art-philosophical does not automatically reduce our works to\nemotional fantasies. In fact, it is more likely to result in genuinely\nempathetic works since it creates a solid foundation for art based on\na philosophy in which art is encouraged to be empathetic, rather than\nresponsive to a system.\n\nI'm simply stating -- which I think we perhaps both agree with here --\nthat so far we have not been given any other alternative view of new\nmedia art other than that proposed by the new media theorists. The way\nout of this problem is, I believe, through a philosophy of art whereby\nthe artist has full awareness of the problems of society (hopefully),\nyet continues to create works of art despite this. It is possible to\nhave no illusions about the inability of art to bring about explicit\nsocial change, but understand that it can bring implicit change\nthrough individual communication.\n\n-rama\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Rama Hoetzlein <rch {AT} umail.ucsb.edu>",
|
||
"author_name": "Rama Hoetzlein",
|
||
"message-id": "4A10AAD3.1010309 {AT} umail.ucsb.edu",
|
||
"id": "00052",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00052.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 17:24:51 -0700"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n> The way out of this problem is, I believe, through a philosophy of\n> art whereby the artist has full awareness of the problems of society\n> (hopefully), yet continues to create works of art despite this.\n> It is possible to have no illusions about the inability of art to\n> bring about explicit social change, but understand that it can bring\n> implicit change through individual communication.\n>\n\nbut can \"change\" be a parameter for art? what is to be changed through\nart? i agree that a \"change\" in whatever direction is possible but\nIMHO art mustn't be reduced to it. to me art is also someting i can\nadmire without thinking of having to change something. in fact even\nif i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire\nit (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\nsomething autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\na mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at the\nsame time it can be all of that.\n\nbest,\ncarlos\n\n\n-- \nhttp://katastrofsky.cont3xt.net\nhttp://cont3xt.net\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "carlos katastrofsky <carlos.katastrofsky {AT} gmail.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "carlos katastrofsky",
|
||
"message-id": "fb9095bf0905180711m6cd209adt9b6435753d81770a {AT} mail.gmail.com",
|
||
"id": "00058",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00058.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 16:11:26 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nexactly.. even if we are fully unconcerned with political art, when\nyou say \"wow, great work\", thats just and only what i mean by implicit\nchange (you are changed).. art is autonomous here because, while the\nwork may or may not be political, this implicit change defines only\nthe meaning-relation between the artist, the work, and the viewer.\nAnd that relationship is established independent of the impact of\nmedia on society, i.e. politics. A philosophy of art should provide a\nfoundation for complete autonomy, and this is done by observing that\nthe basis of art is creating and appreciating.. keeping in mind that\ntheory only gets you so far as an artist.\n\nrama\n\ncarlos katastrofsky wrote:\n> but can \"change\" be a parameter for art? what is to be changed through\n> art? i agree that a \"change\" in whatever direction is possible but\n> IMHO art mustn't be reduced to it. to me art is also someting i can\n> admire without thinking of having to change something. in fact even if\n> i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire it\n> (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\n> something autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\n> a mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at the\n> same time it can be all of that.\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Rama Hoetzlein <rch {AT} umail.ucsb.edu>",
|
||
"author_name": "Rama Hoetzlein",
|
||
"message-id": "4A1196BD.3060002 {AT} umail.ucsb.edu",
|
||
"id": "00057",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00057.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 10:11:25 -0700"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "carlos katastrofsky wrote:\n\n > if i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire\n > it (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\n > something autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\n > a mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at the\n > same time it can be all of that.\n\nWhat does one admire a piece of art? What is its autonomy? And what could\nbe its consequences? I have asked myself these questions for years. Like\nmost thinking people, I have come to a few conclusions. And since I like\nthe idea that art can be \"all of that\" - a form of communication, a medium,\nnew media art - I would like to share these conclusions with you.\n\nHumans are excessively complex by nature, and inherently social. We are\ndefined by the surfeit of symbolic activity that goes on in our brains and\nindeed, in our full sensorium, and that comes out not only from our mouths\nbut in all sorts of gestures and postures and practices directed toward the\nsenses and symbolizing activities of others. A long anthropological\ntradition running from Sapir through Levi-Strauss to Sahlins holds that\nso-called \"primitive\" societies are no less complex than modern ones: their\nlanguages show comparable range and variety, but are (according to\nLevi-Strauss) oriented differently, more concrete in one case, more\nabstracted in the other. There is so much going on in any human being and\nbetween any group of human beings that just ordering or harmonizing all\nthis excessive symbolization - I mean, excessive over what the utilitarians\nthink of as the simple quest for satisfaction or corporeal pleasure -\nbecomes a problem in itself. Because madness always lurks on the edges of\nour reeling imaginations, and then there is also depression, or anger, or\njealousy, or prejudice or extreme paranoia, indeed a great number of\nobscure problems that can disrupt the life of the one and of the many.\n\nReligion has been the great social technique for bringing all this roiling\nthought, expression and sensation into some kind of predictable pattern and\nharmony, constituting entire narrative and figural universes, with their\nbuilt environments, rituals, music, poetry, smells, tastes, etc, all\nassociated and carefully correlated with orders of kinship, canons of\nsexuality, responsibilities of care, expressions of tenderness,\ncommandments, prohibitions and the like. What we now call art, as it\ngradually detached itself from religion and became a series of aesthetic\ntraditions interpretable and modifiable by individuals - as it became\nautonomous in other words - seems to have taken on the role of being the\nsensuous and ideational mirror of the individual's proper \"fit\" with\nsociety; it became a way of continuing the vast and mostly imaginary\nconversation about the ways that the one relates to the many, and\nvice-versa. However, this conversation was no longer necessarily about\nharmony: because depending on the very particular context, the proper \"fit\"\ncould have aspects of a \"misfit,\" and the quest for an idealized harmony\ncould involve extreme disruptions of the status quo, disruptions appearing\nboth in art and in life itself. Just think about the Antigone of Sophocles\nand you will see that this kind of problematic was not invented with the\nromantics, it goes back quite a ways. Clearly it gets particularly intense\nin modern democracies, where we are all brought up to conceive ourselves as\nboth legislators and revolutionaries.\n\nNow, amusingly, one of the reasons I ever even bothered to think about such\ncomplex and excessive things, so far from \n\"direct political action\" and what have you, is that for \nmany years I have found myself with a certain nagging problem of getting up\nin the morning. Perhaps others have experienced this? It so happens that on\ncertain mornings I may spend as much as an hour just thinking about a\ncertain constellation of things: a group of people, an artwork, a political\nissue, a line from a song, a concept, a phrase from a book, an image, a\nrhythm. Without showing any particular signs of anxiety, insanity,\ndelirium, fever, swine flu or whatever, I still found it necessary to bring\nsuch constellations of ideas and sensations into some kind of dynamic\npattern that would lend a spring to my step, a direction to my speech, an\neffectiveness to my gestures. Being a bit of a misfit - according to the\naforementioned tradition in the democratic societies - I had to work on\nthis question of how to fit all this in, nonetheless: how to fit into my\nown overflowing symbolic and sensate world, first of all, and how to fit\nthat world into the multitude of others with whom daily activity brings me\ninto contact. Thus I began to think that what is pleasing, satisfying,\nattractive, intriguing, inspiring, shocking, repellent, etc in the formal\nallure of artworks is also somehow the result of other people's struggles\nwith the excess of symbolization in which they are embroiled, and that the\n\"success\" of the artwork (wow, great work) is always some variation on the\n\"infinite theme of the artist(s) trying to break out of one universe and\n\"fit into another - whether we're talking about a purely abstract universe\n\"of chromatism or rhythm, or some Hegelian quandry of historical\n\"dialectics, or the current discussion about cap and trade, or the latest\n\"dispute over the coolest tattoos in the punk or heavy-metal circle that\n\"encloses your secret passion. An aesthetic form doesn't directly solve any\n\"of the weighty social problems - but it helps get a world together, it\n\"helps structure a pattern and a dynamic and an enthusiasm, which is always\n\"a good start.\n\nSo how 'bout the politics then? Well, according to my little theory, the\npersonal is clearly both aesthetic and political, because if you can't get\nout of bed you are definitely not going to make it to the office, the\nmarch, the meeting, the voting booth, the library, or wherever your\nactivity is going to have some consequences in terms of organizing social\nrelations. What is more, this is not just my little theory, because going\nback to Plato's Republic or maybe the Rig Vedas, social thinkers have been\nvery conscious of the influence of things like music on the order and\nharmony of the community, the city, state or whatever. Indeed, not long\nago we saw with dazzled and almost disbelieving eyes that a great\nnation-state like China could put a significant fraction of its resources\ninto organizing an aesthetic display which was not just supposed to knock\neverybody out, American style, with its overwhelming show of wealth, but\nalso and above all to enact and celebrate an ideal of harmony and societal\ncoordination which, from my anarcho-individualist viewpoint, was at once\nvastly impressive and also frankly terrifying, because here I could see an\nintensive use of all the latest, hypercomplex aesthetic techniques to knit\ntogether an order that could power a vast authoritarian economic machine\nand infuse it with the enthusiam and belief of the many - which is a lot,\nwhen we're talking China. So you want new media? Replay your avi file of\nthe opening ceremonies of the 2008 Olympics.\n\nWhat I am trying to get at with all of this is that art is essentially\nmedia, it is not merely but essentially about communication, only what is\ncommunicated is not just a phrase or a slogan or a piece of information,\nbut a problematic attempt to reconfigure a world on every level of sensate\nand imaginary experience. That can be an attempt to fit in or to stick out,\nto harmonize or to disrupt, to smash the current relation of self and\nsociety or to conserve it or to invent another one; but insofar as art is\nexpression, it always projects this struggle over the shape and balance of\na world towards the ears and eyes and excessive imaginations of others.\nWhen we say that art is autonomous, we situate it in the long democratic\ntradition where the self, autos, tries to help establish the law, nomos,\naccordingly which it can freely develop in the company of fellow human\nbeings. Now, the problems of this attempt at autonomy are almost infinite,\nthey are sexual, technical, ecological, emotional, mystical, contractual,\nmaterial, they involve philosophy, science, babies, great art and also the\nplumbing. And they always involve the relations of individuals and groups\nto others whose worlds they do not understand, whose rhythms they do not\nfeel pulsing in their own veins, whose tacit concepts of harmony and\ndisruption are not expressed by the same patterns and shapes and colors and\ncombinations of tones. So when I say, Wow, great art - as I often do, just\nthe way people in the new media arts circles have done for years at\nfestivals sponsored by Philips and Microsoft and Sony and the like - the\nfirst consequence for me is to inquire into the world from which that art\narises and to which it points, and eventually to see how I fit into or\ndesire to break out of that world. This means that a deep and searching\ncriticism can never just be criticism of the work, it always has to look\nfurther back, into the world from which it sprang, and ahead to the\nconsequences of a potential change in the worlds we share, or at least to\nthe consequences of a change in the way that *I* or *we* will relate to\nother worlds in the future.\n\nFinally, it seems to me, in my anarcho-democratic world, that to say Wow,\ngreat art, without inquiring into the consequences, is one of the closest\nthings one can do to never getting out of bed, i.e. it's close to\nsleepwalking. Because at best, you would then be just letting the great\nart fit into your own great dream, or letting it be the colorful and\nstriking tattoo that will fit you into your small chosen circle. That's at\nbest - because in the present world of biopower and noopower, just admiring\na work in itself and for itself can mean accepting without question the\nworld that it mediates, which in the case of the networked technologies\nsold by Sony and Microsoft Philips and abused by a vast array of\ncorporations and governments, can be an extremely predatory world,\nconfigured precisely in order to capture your consciousness and extract\nsome value or utility out of your passions and dreams. Value that can\nultimately be devastating for the collectivity (as in the debt-fueld\nconsumption boom of this decade), utility that can make you into the most\nterrible of instruments (like the voters lured by nationalist rhetoric into\nsupporting our proliferating wars).\n\nIt has been years since I read Lev Manovich, so what follows may be totally\nunjust to his work, but as I recall, what always irritated me in his\nwriting was a kind of smug insistence that the new media were essentially\ndefined by a certain kind of rhythm, a certain multiplication of screens, a\ncertain connection to databases, etc. - in other words, that the new media\nwere essentially defined by the dominant trends of contemporary capitalist\nsociety. For me this seemed like a total abdication of criticism itself,\nand it also seemed to be a sort of cheerful, \"I'm on the winning side\"\nversion of the dark technological determinism and philosophical doomsaying\npromoted by the post-Leftist thinkers in the wake of Baudrillard. What I\nmissed was the very question of autonomy, and some recognition of its\nquasi-infinite complexities as they've been ceaselessly developing from the\nNeolithic to now, in the long and discontinuous series of messages passed\nfrom human world to human world. Imho, the poverty of new media art - its \n\"crisis\" - has intrinsically to do with the poverty of media \ncritique tout court. It is the failure to see how the cultural politics of\nindividuals and groups are mediated in the work, how they are expressed at\nevery level of their ineluctable complexity and excess over the \"mere\ncommunication\" of what already exists.\n\nbest, Brian\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Brian Holmes <brian.holmes {AT} wanadoo.fr>",
|
||
"author_name": "Brian Holmes",
|
||
"message-id": "4A12B7A2.7080003 {AT} wanadoo.fr",
|
||
"id": "00062",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00062.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 19 May 2009 15:44:02 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nThanks for some beautiful and thought-provoking statements, especially \nBrian’s and Carlos’s. I would add that to me the real medium of all \nart is attention, attention the viewer or reader or listener must pay, \nfeels consciously drawn to pay, in a deepening and all encompassing \nway. That attention amounts to a transformation of self — into the \nmind and body of the artist, as it were. The rest of the world falls \naway for that moment, and so does time —the moment might be a long one \n—and,a s Brian suggests will recur later on, in recollection and \nreflection.\n\nIf that is art, it is always political, because it always takes the \nattention payer out of the “system,” whatever it might be and however \nmuch the managers of the system in fact solicited the artist or the \nwork to begin with. The huge abstract paintings of the 1950’s cold \nonly fit on the walls of the rich, but nonetheless, as long as they \nwere there, they took over those walls, and made the space different \nfrom what the collector might have intended, and the same goes for \nRenaissance art and art of other periods.\n\nThe reason different media come in is that the artist has an on-going \nproblem as to how to capture attention as distractions and competition \nmultiply. In some way, to be really focussed on, art must avoid being \ntoo easy to experience, for then it can become just the background, \njust decoration or elevator music, or something that can always be \nattended to “later” — I.e., usually never. This is a serious and \nsignificant problem for new media as well, including much Internet art.\n\nExpressly political art can only succeed, it seems to me, if it comes \nfrom the inner depths. For instance, I just finished reading Istvan \nKertesz’s “Fatelessness;” I don’t think it is intentionally political \nbut it certainly made me boil with anger at the human mistreatment and \nneglect of others. Such art brings what was already there inside us \nand adds to its centrality. But that doesn’t happen often. In my \nexperience most political art is superficial and therefore bad, just \nas likely to turn off sympathetic feelings in the viewer as the \nopposite.\n\nIncidentally, I don’t know that good art necessarily causes us to \nthink “Wow! I admire that.” But it doesn't easily let go of us.\n\n\nBest,\nMichael\n\nOn May 19, 2009, at 6:44 AM, Brian Holmes wrote:\n\n> carlos katastrofsky wrote:\n>\n>> if i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire\n>> it (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\n>> something autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\n>> a mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at \n>> the\n>> same time it can be all of that.\n>\n> What does one admire a piece of art? What is its autonomy? And what \n> could\n> be its consequences? I have asked myself these questions for years. \n> Like\n> most thinking people, I have come to a few conclusions. And since I \n> like\n> the idea that art can be \"all of that\" - a form of communication, a \n> medium,\n> new media art - I would like to share these conclusions with you.\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Michael H Goldhaber <mgoldh {AT} well.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "Michael H Goldhaber",
|
||
"message-id": "F6688CA9-F000-49A8-9176-5F62EC6DF50A {AT} well.com",
|
||
"id": "00064",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00064.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 19 May 2009 12:30:11 -0700"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nOn Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Brian Holmes <brian.holmes {AT} wanadoo.fr> wrote:\n\n> So you want new media? Replay your avi file of the opening\n> ceremonies of the 2008 Olympics.\n>\n> What I am trying to get at with all of this is that art is\n> essentially media, it is not merely but essentially about\n> communication, only what is communicated is not just a phrase or\n> a slogan or a piece of information, but a problematic attempt\n> to reconfigure a world on every level of sensate and imaginary\n> experience.\n\nMuch of media studies is obsessed with witnessing an existence that is\npart of mediality, to borrow a term from the previous discussion, by\nplacing great emphasis on inserting the observer into the equation.\nNevertheless these studies formulate a distinction to preserve some\nauthorship role. What this kind of representational relationship\nignores is that it precludes any kind of intervention in favor of a\nconservation. If the art cannot be conserved because it is conceptual\nor a piece of code, the identity of the author is preserved and\ncelebrated. This is because a piece of media arrives at its monetary\nvalue by being bundled with products that claim to correct the\ninjustices, needs, or ailments being described in that piece of media.\nThe media is monetized either for its value of showing a certain lack\nor showing the idealized completion that a product might fulfill. An\nauthorship identity, it turns out, can fulfill this marketing function\nnicely for the lack of any particular object that might or might not\nexist or lacks monetary value, culminating it seems these days in a\nguarded wikipedia entry.\n\nTurns out, while searching for a word to describe the process of\nentering into communication via media I looked up mediated. There is\nplenty of secondary literature on McLuhan using this word to capture\nthe processes McLuhan describes, but he himself only uses the word\nmediated with the original definition to describe the arbitration\nthat happens in a conflict. Using the term mediated in the sense that\na form of communication is performed via media, still implies that\nthere is an exchange occurring where each party must sacrifice some\nof their preconceptions in a productive process that is manufacturing\nrepresentation. Otherwise this representation veers very quickly\ntowards the ideological.\n\nhTTp://eyescratch.tk\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "eyescratch <eyescratch {AT} gmail.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "eyescratch",
|
||
"message-id": "79976e5a0905230730j58fc5bdes611529b066f69590 {AT} mail.gmail.com",
|
||
"id": "00069",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00069.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Sat, 23 May 2009 10:30:31 -0400"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00051.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis",
|
||
"date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 11:48:02 -0700"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nOn Sunday, May 17 2009, 10:59 (+0200), carlos katastrofsky wrote:\n\n> what i am always wondering about is why the media arts field is so\n> concerned with its media. is dealing with \"new media\" or \"old media\"\n> an excuse for making good or bad art? IMO defining art by its media\n> is on the same level as defining art by its subject. not getting\n> over these definitions will result in a ghetto-situation sooner or\n> later.\n\nI am not so sure whether I agree. It all depends on your definition of\n\"media\". The problem is that the word \"media\" means quite different\nthings in different contexts: In the arts, it traditionally refers\nto the material means of expression from which artworks are created\n[painting, sculpture, photography, video, performance - that were also\nthe media meant with such terms as \"intermedia\", \"mixed media\" and\n\"multimedia\" since the 1960s]. In communication studies, \"media\" is\npractically synonymous with mass media and refers to an apparatus and\nsystem of communication, including newspapers, radio, TV, Internet.\nIn other humanities, there is a notion of media as any symbolic or\nsemiotic carrier.\n\nFor example, in the contemporary art (but not media art) world,\nthere just has been a series of exhibitions on pornography, from\n\"BodyPoliticx\" in Rotterdam to \"The Porn Identity\" in Vienna. One\ncould call pornography a medium and thus say that these exhibitions\nwere curated from a media perspective. After all, the ars electronica\ndid almost the same thing with its \"Next Sex\" theme in 2000. Or, a\nrandom example taken from just having browsed the Tate Modern site\nand its blurb on the current exhibition \"Stutter\": \"The onomatopoeic\nword 'Stutter' refers to an act of speech interrupted by agitated,\nspasmodic, or involuntary repetitions. As the title for this\nexhibition, it suggests a metaphor for questions of disruption and\ndiscontinuity in processes of thought, systems of communications\nor conceptions of knowledge.\" Again, this is pretty close if not\nidentical to curatorship from a media and communications viewpoint.\n\n> the problem -IMHO- is not that media art is not recognized by the\n> fine art world but that the fine art world is dealing with other\n> subjects.\n\nIf I take, for example, the subjects of the last nine transmediale\nfestivals (\"Do It Yourself\", \"Go Public\", \"Play Global\", \"Fly Utopia\",\n\"Basics\", \"Reality Addicts\", \"Unfinish\", \"Conspire\", \"Deep North\"),\nthey could just as well have been the names of contemporary art\nexhibitions at PS.1 in New York, KW in Berlin, Witte de With in\nRotterdam, or any other contemporary art space.\n\n> when was the last big exhibition dealing solely with \"painting\" or\n> \"sculpture\" you've seen? ars electronica and the others are doing\n> that every year: \"new media art\" with changing subtitles.\n\nOne could just as well say that contemporary art deals with \"white\ncube installation art\" with changing subtitles.\n\n> the same problem persists when new media artists and theorists\n> insist on \"politicalness\" and \"radicality\".\n\nThe same terms abound in the contemporary art discourse if you read,\nfor example, \"October\" or \"Texte zur Kunst\".\n\n> those terms don't say anything about certain works either, no matter\n> which media is used in it. they only say that they may be recognised\n> as \"political\" in a certain time in a certain context.\n\nIMO art is, like any public expression, always political. Art that\nclaims not to be political being all the more political as a matter\nof fact (with symbolist l'art-pour-l'art being a prime example). What\nI would describe as the political-artistic quality in the art of,\nfor example, ubermorgen is that unlike 'actual' politics, it can be\nwillfully and even criminally irresponsible. One could admittedly\ndismiss this as a romanticist argument, but it has nevertheless a lot\ngoing for it, not just if we look at gothic aesthetics and Bataille's\naesthetics of evil, but also at more recent artistic practices like\nOtto Muehl's commune and Eastern European art since the 1980s.\n\n> but that doesn't say anything about it's \"artness\" either. \"art\n> doesn't become art by having specific characteristics but by a\n> specific kind of processual reference to it.\" (J. Rebentisch,\n> Aesthetik der Installation)\n\nNot knowing the full context of this quote, I nevertheless find such\nsystemic definitions of art quite risky. If the basic quality of art\n- in the sense of 'Fine Art' - lies in its self-reference to its own\nsystem, then it would be something very narrow and ultimately boring,\nand something already exhausted by Duchamp in the 20th century. It\nwould pay a high price for having, since the 19th century, rid itself\nfrom more popular forms of visual culture. Such a definition does not\neven apply to the arguably most elitist forms of other contemporary\narts such as poetry and contemporary classical music, since poetry can\nstill be defined outside its own system as highly condensed/conjugated\nlanguage and new music as highly organized sound. - On top of that, it\nis an exclusively Western concept of art which blatantly contradicts\nthe post-1990s efforts of integrating postcolonial considerations into\ncontemporary art. Remarkable enough, these integrations never question\nthe concept of \"art\" itself - although the concept of autonomous art\nonly exists in Western cultures or as a Western cultural import in,\nfor example, Asian countries (which traditionally do not separate art\nfrom craft).\n\n> if i want to learn something about politics i would read a book with\n> proper information about it and not go to see art that repeats the\n> common sense that there are bad things existing in our world.\n\nTrue. Only that exhibitions like Documenta XI have been haunted by\nthis concept of art.\n\n-F\n\n-- \nblog: http://en.pleintekst.nl\nhomepage: http://cramer.pleintekst.nl:70\n gopher://cramer.pleintekst.nl\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "lorian Cramer <fc-nettime {AT} pleintekst.nl>",
|
||
"author_name": "Florian Cramer",
|
||
"message-id": "20090518210449.GJ3919 {AT} hp.localdomain",
|
||
"id": "00056",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "> I am not so sure whether I agree. It all depends on your definition of\n> \"media\". The problem is that the word \"media\" means quite different things\n> in different contexts:\n\ni agree. but exactly this is the point: media theory is swallowing\neverything, but where are its boundaries? what i am trying to find as\nartist (neither theorist nor philosopher) is a definition for art that\ngoes beyond a mere definition as \"media\" in whatever sense.\nthat is why i am aiming on the much-maligned term of \"autonomy\" (and\ni'm following here the previous mentioned philosophy of j.\nrebentisch). to me this doesn't mean art is somewhat apolotical or\ndealing solely with itself (l' art pour l'art - i guess you had this\nin mind when stating \"[...] If the basic quality of art - in the sense\nof 'Fine Art' - lies in its self-reference to its own system, then it\nwould be something very narrow and ultimately boring, [...]\"). art is\nmade to be seen/heard/whatever - to be experienced. and this\nexperience is what defines art and not media. it can change in time\n-we quite surely don't experience cave paintings in the same way the\nones did who made them- but i'm not sure if \"the media\" does, no\nmatter if it's read as \"painting/drawing\" or as \"hunting scene\". what\ni am hoping to find by this is a possibility to think about \"art\" and\nneither media nor porn or politics. these are -let's say- \"themes\"\nthat can be interpreted, but i hope that art goes beyond being a good\ndesigned set of political opinions. i mean, what political context is\nreflected in leonardo's \"last supper\"? we surely can speculate but do\nwe know? these are things that are bound to their time and context but\nnevertheless we still percieve it as \"art\".\n\n> If I take, for example, the subjects of the last nine transmediale\n> festivals (\"Do It Yourself\",\n[...]\n> One could just as well say that contemporary art deals with \"white cube\n> installation art\" with changing subtitles.\n[...]\n> The same terms abound in the contemporary art discourse if you read, for\n> example, \"October\" or \"Texte zur Kunst\".\n\nyep, exactly. and this what the \"art world\" makes as boring as \"new\nmedia art\". what i had in mind when saying that the \"fine art world is\ndealing with other subjects\" was not the (i would like to call it\nnonexistent) contemporary discourse. what can be seen in the fine arts\nfield (but not in the big biz -documenta, ps1, kw, ...) is an\ninclusion of possibilities in expression and perception which i never\nsaw in any media-art discourse (though i have to admit i am far from\nfollowing everything in that area).\n\n> Not knowing the full context of this quote, I nevertheless find such\n> systemic definitions of art quite risky. If the basic quality of art\n> - in the sense of 'Fine Art' - lies in its self-reference to its own\n> system,\n\ni'm sorry if this comes through that way, i'm not the best in\nformulating things. i never wanted to present art as solely\nself-referential system. if autonomy is read as autonomy of the object\n(l'art pour l'art) i would agree totally with you. but seen from the\nviewpoint that \"art\" may not lie in an object but somewhere between\nthe object and the observer (experience, perception) an autonomy of\nart is essential.\n\n\nthank you all for your replies :-)\n\nbest,\ncarlos\n-- \nhttp://katastrofsky.cont3xt.net\nhttp://cont3xt.net\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "carlos katastrofsky <carlos.katastrofsky {AT} cont3xt.net>",
|
||
"author_name": "carlos katastrofsky",
|
||
"message-id": "fb9095bf0905190614l39062a34j17867e0d82469c5f {AT} mail.gmail.com",
|
||
"id": "00061",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00061.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 19 May 2009 15:14:35 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nOn Sunday, May 17 2009, 10:59 (+0200), florian cramer wrote:\n\n>If I take, for example, the subjects of the last nine transmediale\n>festivals (\"Do It Yourself\", \"Go Public\", \"Play Global\", \"Fly\n>Utopia\", \"Basics\", \"Reality Addicts\", \"Unfinish\", \"Conspire\", \"Deep\n>North\"), they could just as well have been the names of contemporary\n>art exhibitions at PS.1 in New York, KW in Berlin, Witte de With in\n>Rotterdam, or any other contemporary art space.\n\nbut it wasnt like that cause it was happening ONLY in a festival .\n<ghetto> situation .\n\nas I see it, many art people are not going to events like\ntransmediale, cause its not seen as an important place for art. I dont\ngo, besides when we are actively part of it.\n\nlooks like media art is not sexy enough. the exhibits, as part of\nfestivals, are often too prudish. everything sensual seems forbidden,\n\ntoo often it s needs written explanations to understand the\n(political) work.\n\nI do not believe - and I say that as an artist- that the written word\nis necessary to <understand> a piece of art.it can help and make\ndetails transparent, but its not necessary in advance.\n\n\nmy own experience with Station Rose media art projects-like recently\nLogInCabin in MAK Vienna- is : they are recognized & seen in art\nspaces, museums by the art scene, but not as much in a so called media\nart context as festivals are.\n\nbasically my impression is that as long as a dicussion like that one\ngoes on, it makes clear that the art world is something and the media\nart scene is out of it.\n\n\n-- \n----------------------------------------------------\nStation Rose digital_audio - visual art http://www.stationrose.com\n.................... Gary Danner & Elisa Rose\n\nFrankfurt - Cyberspace - Vienna.\n\n* recent project: 20 Digital Years. \"LogInCabin\" mediascultpure at \nMAK Vienna_sold\n* new: \"Interstellar Overdrive CD\" Japan release (2.09)\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Station Rose <gunafa {AT} well.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "Station Rose",
|
||
"message-id": "a06200701c63ee015f460 {AT} [192.168.1.100]",
|
||
"id": "00072",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00072.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis",
|
||
"date": "Sun, 24 May 2009 13:52:26 +0200"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00056.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 23:04:49 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "carlos katastrofsky wrote:\n\n> what i am always wondering about is why the media arts field is so\n> concerned with its media. is dealing with \"new media\" or \"old media\"\n\nexactly Carlos...\n\nthis revolves around the common (still, ongoing, & perhaps permanent!)\nproblem of identifying creative impulses by their materialized remains\n(media, mediated forms). There are precisely identical histories of the \nrise of\n(materially) specialized festivals, research centers, art school\ndepartments, workshop venues, etc etc -- photography, for example.\nWhere are all the institutions and organizations and events that swirled\naround that particular material result of creative impulse? They are\ngone, gone, gone. Abd the ones who remain -- does anyone think they are\ncenter for radical creative experimentation? Most people don't even\nremember them. the Rencontres Internationale de la Photographie and the\nEcole Nationale de la Photographie in Arles, etc etc, huh, who cares?\n\nwhen there is this material obsession, it is bound to be outmoded simply\nbecause things aren't IT, looking at the world as a bunch of things\ndoesn't reveal the phenomenal nature of life: another words, focusing on\nthe detritus that is left, dead, after the creative forces have altered\nthe local universe -- well it's simply a death cult and is a dead end.\n<<yawn>> why ponder on it? Better to skip the material categorization\nprocess altogether 'cause it IS a dead end...\n\njh\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "John Hopkins <jhopkins {AT} neoscenes.net>",
|
||
"author_name": "John Hopkins",
|
||
"message-id": "4A148BE6.6070209 {AT} neoscenes.net",
|
||
"id": "00065",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00065.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 20 May 2009 17:01:58 -0600"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n> what i am always wondering about is why the media arts field is so\n> concerned with its media. is dealing with \"new media\" or \"old media\"\n> an excuse for making good or bad art? IMO defining art by its media\n> is on the same level as defining art by its subject. not getting\n> over these definitions will result in a ghetto-situation sooner or\n> later. the problem -IMHO- is not that media art is not recognized\n> by the fine art world but that the fine art world is dealing with\n> other subjects. when was the last big exhibition dealing solely\n> with \"painting\" or \"sculpture\" you've seen? ars electronica and the\n> others are doing that every year: \"new media art\" with changing\n> subtitles.\n\n <...>\n\nAn interesting addition to this would be the emergence of 'New, new\nmedia arts'. I am thinking here, of practices in the field currently\ndefining itself as bioart. Here the medium that is being manipulated\nis a form of living or sem-living matter, or tissue. Bioartist,\nEduardo Kac and curator Jens Hauser have sought to specifically\nidentify this new art practice, expressly on the basis of the medium\nitself. Bioarts, they argue, are most definitely are not those works\nthat take bios or a form of life, as a subject, but manipulate it as a\nmedium. That said, the manipulation of living tissue can be executed\nthrough a number of divergent practices, specific technologies, and it\nis these that seem to be defined by some as the media, not the living\ntissue they manipulate. I guess a somewhat simplistic comparison\nwould be between with identification of various 'digital media' in\nabstraction from the advances in computer technology on which they are\nbased.\n\nMy current work in the field of bioart is increasingly\npushing me towards a frustration at the distinction between\nart/science/media/technology/old/new that recurs in the majority of\nliterature, and if I am not wrong seems to predicate this current\ndiscussion. In the light of these new practices I have been working\ntowards re-imagining what art and media are in themselves, as\ntechnologies and processes not as distinct practices - the specific\nmedia or declared purpose seem less relevant from this perspective. So\nI wonder whether 'meaning is present in all works, to varying degrees,\nregardless of how they might be appropriated by culture' could be\nextended beyond a simple valorisation of art.\n\nIt also seems that those new media theorists, such as Manovich and\nBaudrillard are somewhat restricted in their approach in that new\nmedia is perceived in a somewhat teleological sense, newness for\nthe sake of newness, with new theories to match new media - without\nasking what is actually recurring in new media. IMO it seems that\nmost new media, are really just old media anyway, particularly so in\nbioart. Is the creative growth of tissue not what we do continually\nas part of our natural bodily processes? Would it be facetious\nthen to ask whether all media be considered from this originary\nperspective, negating the discussions about relative newness or\ncultural categorization (ie i's art, it's science, it's technology,\nit's media).\n\nBen\n\n\n\n-- ---------\n Ben Craggs\n 07868 273 360\n---------------\n http://www.digitalscribblings.org/forums\n A place for academic discussion, networking and general postgraduate procrastination!\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "ben.craggs {AT} fastmail.f",
|
||
"author_name": "ben . craggs",
|
||
"message-id": "1242632525.29400.1315956661 {AT} webmail.messagingengine.com",
|
||
"id": "00053",
|
||
"to": "\"NetTime Mailing List\" <nettime-l {AT} kein.org>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00053.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 08:42:05 +0100"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nRama Hoetzlein wrote:\n\n> New media art should be defined from an art-philosophical\n> perspective. In this view, meaning is present in all works, to\n> varying degrees, regardless of how they might be appropriated\n> by culture. At what time in history was art not appropriated by\n> culture? None the less, people continued to create art. The process\n> of art-making is one of creating meaning, and this relation between\n> the artist and the work is not changed despite how the object is\n> ultimately appreciated, used, or abused by culture.\n\nIt's great to read such a fundamental comment. I shall add something.\nMy viewpoint includes both Tolstoy's and Baudrillard's. I find that\ninformatic art (my own off-the-cuff term, but surely better than new\nmedia) is compelling precisely when it places subjective expression\nwithin the most strongly coercive social arena of our time, namely\nthe digital networks. Your idea that there is an art-philosophical\nperspective that could exclude or bypass social determinism seems,\nbegging your pardon, somewhat naive. What is more, I think all the\ninterest of art itself disappears when it is shorn from the contexts\nof power and held up as a pure conductor of subjectivity. Approached\nin that way, the art work tends to become no more than a mirror for\nour own emotions and fantasies -- far from any state of empathy,\nEinfuhlung or whatever one chooses to call it. So I am not surprised\nthat you move from Tolstoy's fascinating quote (reproduced below) to\nthe \"relation between the artist and the work.\" I guess I am more\ninterested in, well, media: the way the work relates the artist to\nothers.\n\nHowever, your observation about new media theory (Kittler and McLuhan\nwere recently mentioned here) is spot on. What we are given from\nthe podium, over and over again, are lessons about the power of\ntechnoscientific systems. The predicament of the human singularity,\ncaught within the net of determinisms yet resisting, creating another\nreality and expressing this rather fantastic adventure through\nwhatever kind of material or semiotic medium has been chosen, is left\nout of the story, which thereby becomes a monument to the crushing\nregularity of the status quo. The same thing, of course, happens to\nresistant political action in the hands of the sociologists and the\nHeideggerean philosophers of an essential, \"historial\" alienation.\nBoth ethics and aesthetics take it on the chin.\n\nIn my view, the great inspiration for new media theory has come from\nhackers themselves, who create alternative possibilities for existence\nwithin the overwhelmingly powerful networked environment. This is why,\nin essays which are inseparably about art and technics, I tend to\nuse concepts like \"reverse imagineering\" or \"escaping the overcode.\"\nExpression, for me, is the rupture of code, an excess which does not\nabolish the labyrinth in which we are caught, but at least opens up a\npossible new path through it.\n\nThat's one approach. There could be many others. The problem, as\nyou point out, is that usually there are not, because the theory\nvery rarely meets any actual practice. The necessary discussion of\ntechnological power holds the center stage. Of course that is easier\nfor the whole \"new media\" social circuit, because then you don't have\nto think very much, or feel very much, or try very hard to find out\nwhat might be at stake in a particular work.\n\nThis list, I guess, is about the best place to talk about how to\napproach media art. Thanks to all for starting the conversation. I'm\nready for more. Let the thousand info-aesthetics bloom!\n\nbest, BH\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Brian Holmes <brian.holmes {AT} wanadoo.fr>",
|
||
"author_name": "Brian Holmes",
|
||
"message-id": "4A10825D.6040905 {AT} wanadoo.fr",
|
||
"id": "00054",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00054.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 23:32:13 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nBrian, thanks for your reply. In general, i'm glad to see that\nwe're mostly in agreement. Based on my observations of nettime-l,\ndisagreement is often the norm, so I'm glad to see that there is\nsome consensus between us that the new media theorists are currently\nthe only option we've been given, and that we really need some\nalternatives.. Now, for some responses.\n\n> Your idea that there is an art-philosophical perspective that could \n> exclude or bypass social determinism seems, begging your pardon, \n> somewhat naive. \n\nI'm not suggesting that art-philosophy can bypass social determinism.\nI have no illusions about the difficulty the artist faces in creating\nany real social change, since my view of art does not negate any of\nthe real research done by the media theorists. My own view is that\nthe idea of art-for-social-change is long outdated. You suggest\nthat hackers are the source of real inspiration in new media theory\nbecause they alone are able to transform the media itself, and thus\nundermine the system toward some possible escape path. Yet, there\nis no reason to believe that even if the media itself changes, that\nsociety will too. In my view, the only way we could overcome the\ncurrent technoscientific system would be due to a deep, fundamental\ntransformation in all individuals - and while I believe art is\ncapable of doing this one person at a time, I don't think any one\nartwork, hacker or otherwise, is capable of really altering the\ntechnoscientific system we find ourselves in on a global level. Thus,\nall social change we talk about now is still part of that system. This\nis the media theorist perspective, of course - which i agree with -\nbut as an artist, its incomplete.\n\nThe reason I advocate art-philosophy is for the sake of the\nindividual, and the field of art itself. While i just said the artist\nis powerless to transform culture, perhaps to a degree greater than\nmost would like, the artist is _not_ powerless to transform him or\nherself, and others which that person touches through the art..\nDespite whatever the technoscientific system may do, to create art is\nan intentional act by an individual, and thus has an immutable meaning\njust by virtue of being \"created\". We get to choose what is created\n(this does not make it good art necessarily).\n\nThat meaning is present in all work \"to varying degrees\". By this, i\nmean that we each have a unique relationship to our artwork. For some,\nit is a mirror of personal emotions and fantasies (and probably my\nown work most of the time), while others may be able to communicate\nmore.. So, I'm not evaluating art. Some is good, some is not. However,\nhaving an art-philosophical does not automatically reduce our works to\nemotional fantasies. In fact, it is more likely to result in genuinely\nempathetic works since it creates a solid foundation for art based on\na philosophy in which art is encouraged to be empathetic, rather than\nresponsive to a system.\n\nI'm simply stating -- which I think we perhaps both agree with here --\nthat so far we have not been given any other alternative view of new\nmedia art other than that proposed by the new media theorists. The way\nout of this problem is, I believe, through a philosophy of art whereby\nthe artist has full awareness of the problems of society (hopefully),\nyet continues to create works of art despite this. It is possible to\nhave no illusions about the inability of art to bring about explicit\nsocial change, but understand that it can bring implicit change\nthrough individual communication.\n\n-rama\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Rama Hoetzlein <rch {AT} umail.ucsb.edu>",
|
||
"author_name": "Rama Hoetzlein",
|
||
"message-id": "4A10AAD3.1010309 {AT} umail.ucsb.edu",
|
||
"id": "00052",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00052.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 17:24:51 -0700"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n> The way out of this problem is, I believe, through a philosophy of\n> art whereby the artist has full awareness of the problems of society\n> (hopefully), yet continues to create works of art despite this.\n> It is possible to have no illusions about the inability of art to\n> bring about explicit social change, but understand that it can bring\n> implicit change through individual communication.\n>\n\nbut can \"change\" be a parameter for art? what is to be changed through\nart? i agree that a \"change\" in whatever direction is possible but\nIMHO art mustn't be reduced to it. to me art is also someting i can\nadmire without thinking of having to change something. in fact even\nif i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire\nit (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\nsomething autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\na mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at the\nsame time it can be all of that.\n\nbest,\ncarlos\n\n\n-- \nhttp://katastrofsky.cont3xt.net\nhttp://cont3xt.net\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "carlos katastrofsky <carlos.katastrofsky {AT} gmail.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "carlos katastrofsky",
|
||
"message-id": "fb9095bf0905180711m6cd209adt9b6435753d81770a {AT} mail.gmail.com",
|
||
"id": "00058",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00058.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 16:11:26 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nexactly.. even if we are fully unconcerned with political art, when\nyou say \"wow, great work\", thats just and only what i mean by implicit\nchange (you are changed).. art is autonomous here because, while the\nwork may or may not be political, this implicit change defines only\nthe meaning-relation between the artist, the work, and the viewer.\nAnd that relationship is established independent of the impact of\nmedia on society, i.e. politics. A philosophy of art should provide a\nfoundation for complete autonomy, and this is done by observing that\nthe basis of art is creating and appreciating.. keeping in mind that\ntheory only gets you so far as an artist.\n\nrama\n\ncarlos katastrofsky wrote:\n> but can \"change\" be a parameter for art? what is to be changed through\n> art? i agree that a \"change\" in whatever direction is possible but\n> IMHO art mustn't be reduced to it. to me art is also someting i can\n> admire without thinking of having to change something. in fact even if\n> i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire it\n> (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\n> something autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\n> a mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at the\n> same time it can be all of that.\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Rama Hoetzlein <rch {AT} umail.ucsb.edu>",
|
||
"author_name": "Rama Hoetzlein",
|
||
"message-id": "4A1196BD.3060002 {AT} umail.ucsb.edu",
|
||
"id": "00057",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00057.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 10:11:25 -0700"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "carlos katastrofsky wrote:\n\n > if i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire\n > it (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\n > something autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\n > a mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at the\n > same time it can be all of that.\n\nWhat does one admire a piece of art? What is its autonomy? And what could\nbe its consequences? I have asked myself these questions for years. Like\nmost thinking people, I have come to a few conclusions. And since I like\nthe idea that art can be \"all of that\" - a form of communication, a medium,\nnew media art - I would like to share these conclusions with you.\n\nHumans are excessively complex by nature, and inherently social. We are\ndefined by the surfeit of symbolic activity that goes on in our brains and\nindeed, in our full sensorium, and that comes out not only from our mouths\nbut in all sorts of gestures and postures and practices directed toward the\nsenses and symbolizing activities of others. A long anthropological\ntradition running from Sapir through Levi-Strauss to Sahlins holds that\nso-called \"primitive\" societies are no less complex than modern ones: their\nlanguages show comparable range and variety, but are (according to\nLevi-Strauss) oriented differently, more concrete in one case, more\nabstracted in the other. There is so much going on in any human being and\nbetween any group of human beings that just ordering or harmonizing all\nthis excessive symbolization - I mean, excessive over what the utilitarians\nthink of as the simple quest for satisfaction or corporeal pleasure -\nbecomes a problem in itself. Because madness always lurks on the edges of\nour reeling imaginations, and then there is also depression, or anger, or\njealousy, or prejudice or extreme paranoia, indeed a great number of\nobscure problems that can disrupt the life of the one and of the many.\n\nReligion has been the great social technique for bringing all this roiling\nthought, expression and sensation into some kind of predictable pattern and\nharmony, constituting entire narrative and figural universes, with their\nbuilt environments, rituals, music, poetry, smells, tastes, etc, all\nassociated and carefully correlated with orders of kinship, canons of\nsexuality, responsibilities of care, expressions of tenderness,\ncommandments, prohibitions and the like. What we now call art, as it\ngradually detached itself from religion and became a series of aesthetic\ntraditions interpretable and modifiable by individuals - as it became\nautonomous in other words - seems to have taken on the role of being the\nsensuous and ideational mirror of the individual's proper \"fit\" with\nsociety; it became a way of continuing the vast and mostly imaginary\nconversation about the ways that the one relates to the many, and\nvice-versa. However, this conversation was no longer necessarily about\nharmony: because depending on the very particular context, the proper \"fit\"\ncould have aspects of a \"misfit,\" and the quest for an idealized harmony\ncould involve extreme disruptions of the status quo, disruptions appearing\nboth in art and in life itself. Just think about the Antigone of Sophocles\nand you will see that this kind of problematic was not invented with the\nromantics, it goes back quite a ways. Clearly it gets particularly intense\nin modern democracies, where we are all brought up to conceive ourselves as\nboth legislators and revolutionaries.\n\nNow, amusingly, one of the reasons I ever even bothered to think about such\ncomplex and excessive things, so far from \n\"direct political action\" and what have you, is that for \nmany years I have found myself with a certain nagging problem of getting up\nin the morning. Perhaps others have experienced this? It so happens that on\ncertain mornings I may spend as much as an hour just thinking about a\ncertain constellation of things: a group of people, an artwork, a political\nissue, a line from a song, a concept, a phrase from a book, an image, a\nrhythm. Without showing any particular signs of anxiety, insanity,\ndelirium, fever, swine flu or whatever, I still found it necessary to bring\nsuch constellations of ideas and sensations into some kind of dynamic\npattern that would lend a spring to my step, a direction to my speech, an\neffectiveness to my gestures. Being a bit of a misfit - according to the\naforementioned tradition in the democratic societies - I had to work on\nthis question of how to fit all this in, nonetheless: how to fit into my\nown overflowing symbolic and sensate world, first of all, and how to fit\nthat world into the multitude of others with whom daily activity brings me\ninto contact. Thus I began to think that what is pleasing, satisfying,\nattractive, intriguing, inspiring, shocking, repellent, etc in the formal\nallure of artworks is also somehow the result of other people's struggles\nwith the excess of symbolization in which they are embroiled, and that the\n\"success\" of the artwork (wow, great work) is always some variation on the\n\"infinite theme of the artist(s) trying to break out of one universe and\n\"fit into another - whether we're talking about a purely abstract universe\n\"of chromatism or rhythm, or some Hegelian quandry of historical\n\"dialectics, or the current discussion about cap and trade, or the latest\n\"dispute over the coolest tattoos in the punk or heavy-metal circle that\n\"encloses your secret passion. An aesthetic form doesn't directly solve any\n\"of the weighty social problems - but it helps get a world together, it\n\"helps structure a pattern and a dynamic and an enthusiasm, which is always\n\"a good start.\n\nSo how 'bout the politics then? Well, according to my little theory, the\npersonal is clearly both aesthetic and political, because if you can't get\nout of bed you are definitely not going to make it to the office, the\nmarch, the meeting, the voting booth, the library, or wherever your\nactivity is going to have some consequences in terms of organizing social\nrelations. What is more, this is not just my little theory, because going\nback to Plato's Republic or maybe the Rig Vedas, social thinkers have been\nvery conscious of the influence of things like music on the order and\nharmony of the community, the city, state or whatever. Indeed, not long\nago we saw with dazzled and almost disbelieving eyes that a great\nnation-state like China could put a significant fraction of its resources\ninto organizing an aesthetic display which was not just supposed to knock\neverybody out, American style, with its overwhelming show of wealth, but\nalso and above all to enact and celebrate an ideal of harmony and societal\ncoordination which, from my anarcho-individualist viewpoint, was at once\nvastly impressive and also frankly terrifying, because here I could see an\nintensive use of all the latest, hypercomplex aesthetic techniques to knit\ntogether an order that could power a vast authoritarian economic machine\nand infuse it with the enthusiam and belief of the many - which is a lot,\nwhen we're talking China. So you want new media? Replay your avi file of\nthe opening ceremonies of the 2008 Olympics.\n\nWhat I am trying to get at with all of this is that art is essentially\nmedia, it is not merely but essentially about communication, only what is\ncommunicated is not just a phrase or a slogan or a piece of information,\nbut a problematic attempt to reconfigure a world on every level of sensate\nand imaginary experience. That can be an attempt to fit in or to stick out,\nto harmonize or to disrupt, to smash the current relation of self and\nsociety or to conserve it or to invent another one; but insofar as art is\nexpression, it always projects this struggle over the shape and balance of\na world towards the ears and eyes and excessive imaginations of others.\nWhen we say that art is autonomous, we situate it in the long democratic\ntradition where the self, autos, tries to help establish the law, nomos,\naccordingly which it can freely develop in the company of fellow human\nbeings. Now, the problems of this attempt at autonomy are almost infinite,\nthey are sexual, technical, ecological, emotional, mystical, contractual,\nmaterial, they involve philosophy, science, babies, great art and also the\nplumbing. And they always involve the relations of individuals and groups\nto others whose worlds they do not understand, whose rhythms they do not\nfeel pulsing in their own veins, whose tacit concepts of harmony and\ndisruption are not expressed by the same patterns and shapes and colors and\ncombinations of tones. So when I say, Wow, great art - as I often do, just\nthe way people in the new media arts circles have done for years at\nfestivals sponsored by Philips and Microsoft and Sony and the like - the\nfirst consequence for me is to inquire into the world from which that art\narises and to which it points, and eventually to see how I fit into or\ndesire to break out of that world. This means that a deep and searching\ncriticism can never just be criticism of the work, it always has to look\nfurther back, into the world from which it sprang, and ahead to the\nconsequences of a potential change in the worlds we share, or at least to\nthe consequences of a change in the way that *I* or *we* will relate to\nother worlds in the future.\n\nFinally, it seems to me, in my anarcho-democratic world, that to say Wow,\ngreat art, without inquiring into the consequences, is one of the closest\nthings one can do to never getting out of bed, i.e. it's close to\nsleepwalking. Because at best, you would then be just letting the great\nart fit into your own great dream, or letting it be the colorful and\nstriking tattoo that will fit you into your small chosen circle. That's at\nbest - because in the present world of biopower and noopower, just admiring\na work in itself and for itself can mean accepting without question the\nworld that it mediates, which in the case of the networked technologies\nsold by Sony and Microsoft Philips and abused by a vast array of\ncorporations and governments, can be an extremely predatory world,\nconfigured precisely in order to capture your consciousness and extract\nsome value or utility out of your passions and dreams. Value that can\nultimately be devastating for the collectivity (as in the debt-fueld\nconsumption boom of this decade), utility that can make you into the most\nterrible of instruments (like the voters lured by nationalist rhetoric into\nsupporting our proliferating wars).\n\nIt has been years since I read Lev Manovich, so what follows may be totally\nunjust to his work, but as I recall, what always irritated me in his\nwriting was a kind of smug insistence that the new media were essentially\ndefined by a certain kind of rhythm, a certain multiplication of screens, a\ncertain connection to databases, etc. - in other words, that the new media\nwere essentially defined by the dominant trends of contemporary capitalist\nsociety. For me this seemed like a total abdication of criticism itself,\nand it also seemed to be a sort of cheerful, \"I'm on the winning side\"\nversion of the dark technological determinism and philosophical doomsaying\npromoted by the post-Leftist thinkers in the wake of Baudrillard. What I\nmissed was the very question of autonomy, and some recognition of its\nquasi-infinite complexities as they've been ceaselessly developing from the\nNeolithic to now, in the long and discontinuous series of messages passed\nfrom human world to human world. Imho, the poverty of new media art - its \n\"crisis\" - has intrinsically to do with the poverty of media \ncritique tout court. It is the failure to see how the cultural politics of\nindividuals and groups are mediated in the work, how they are expressed at\nevery level of their ineluctable complexity and excess over the \"mere\ncommunication\" of what already exists.\n\nbest, Brian\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Brian Holmes <brian.holmes {AT} wanadoo.fr>",
|
||
"author_name": "Brian Holmes",
|
||
"message-id": "4A12B7A2.7080003 {AT} wanadoo.fr",
|
||
"id": "00062",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00062.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 19 May 2009 15:44:02 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nThanks for some beautiful and thought-provoking statements, especially \nBrian’s and Carlos’s. I would add that to me the real medium of all \nart is attention, attention the viewer or reader or listener must pay, \nfeels consciously drawn to pay, in a deepening and all encompassing \nway. That attention amounts to a transformation of self — into the \nmind and body of the artist, as it were. The rest of the world falls \naway for that moment, and so does time —the moment might be a long one \n—and,a s Brian suggests will recur later on, in recollection and \nreflection.\n\nIf that is art, it is always political, because it always takes the \nattention payer out of the “system,” whatever it might be and however \nmuch the managers of the system in fact solicited the artist or the \nwork to begin with. The huge abstract paintings of the 1950’s cold \nonly fit on the walls of the rich, but nonetheless, as long as they \nwere there, they took over those walls, and made the space different \nfrom what the collector might have intended, and the same goes for \nRenaissance art and art of other periods.\n\nThe reason different media come in is that the artist has an on-going \nproblem as to how to capture attention as distractions and competition \nmultiply. In some way, to be really focussed on, art must avoid being \ntoo easy to experience, for then it can become just the background, \njust decoration or elevator music, or something that can always be \nattended to “later” — I.e., usually never. This is a serious and \nsignificant problem for new media as well, including much Internet art.\n\nExpressly political art can only succeed, it seems to me, if it comes \nfrom the inner depths. For instance, I just finished reading Istvan \nKertesz’s “Fatelessness;” I don’t think it is intentionally political \nbut it certainly made me boil with anger at the human mistreatment and \nneglect of others. Such art brings what was already there inside us \nand adds to its centrality. But that doesn’t happen often. In my \nexperience most political art is superficial and therefore bad, just \nas likely to turn off sympathetic feelings in the viewer as the \nopposite.\n\nIncidentally, I don’t know that good art necessarily causes us to \nthink “Wow! I admire that.” But it doesn't easily let go of us.\n\n\nBest,\nMichael\n\nOn May 19, 2009, at 6:44 AM, Brian Holmes wrote:\n\n> carlos katastrofsky wrote:\n>\n>> if i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire\n>> it (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\n>> something autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\n>> a mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at \n>> the\n>> same time it can be all of that.\n>\n> What does one admire a piece of art? What is its autonomy? And what \n> could\n> be its consequences? I have asked myself these questions for years. \n> Like\n> most thinking people, I have come to a few conclusions. And since I \n> like\n> the idea that art can be \"all of that\" - a form of communication, a \n> medium,\n> new media art - I would like to share these conclusions with you.\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Michael H Goldhaber <mgoldh {AT} well.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "Michael H Goldhaber",
|
||
"message-id": "F6688CA9-F000-49A8-9176-5F62EC6DF50A {AT} well.com",
|
||
"id": "00064",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00064.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 19 May 2009 12:30:11 -0700"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nOn Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Brian Holmes <brian.holmes {AT} wanadoo.fr> wrote:\n\n> So you want new media? Replay your avi file of the opening\n> ceremonies of the 2008 Olympics.\n>\n> What I am trying to get at with all of this is that art is\n> essentially media, it is not merely but essentially about\n> communication, only what is communicated is not just a phrase or\n> a slogan or a piece of information, but a problematic attempt\n> to reconfigure a world on every level of sensate and imaginary\n> experience.\n\nMuch of media studies is obsessed with witnessing an existence that is\npart of mediality, to borrow a term from the previous discussion, by\nplacing great emphasis on inserting the observer into the equation.\nNevertheless these studies formulate a distinction to preserve some\nauthorship role. What this kind of representational relationship\nignores is that it precludes any kind of intervention in favor of a\nconservation. If the art cannot be conserved because it is conceptual\nor a piece of code, the identity of the author is preserved and\ncelebrated. This is because a piece of media arrives at its monetary\nvalue by being bundled with products that claim to correct the\ninjustices, needs, or ailments being described in that piece of media.\nThe media is monetized either for its value of showing a certain lack\nor showing the idealized completion that a product might fulfill. An\nauthorship identity, it turns out, can fulfill this marketing function\nnicely for the lack of any particular object that might or might not\nexist or lacks monetary value, culminating it seems these days in a\nguarded wikipedia entry.\n\nTurns out, while searching for a word to describe the process of\nentering into communication via media I looked up mediated. There is\nplenty of secondary literature on McLuhan using this word to capture\nthe processes McLuhan describes, but he himself only uses the word\nmediated with the original definition to describe the arbitration\nthat happens in a conflict. Using the term mediated in the sense that\na form of communication is performed via media, still implies that\nthere is an exchange occurring where each party must sacrifice some\nof their preconceptions in a productive process that is manufacturing\nrepresentation. Otherwise this representation veers very quickly\ntowards the ideological.\n\nhTTp://eyescratch.tk\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "eyescratch <eyescratch {AT} gmail.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "eyescratch",
|
||
"message-id": "79976e5a0905230730j58fc5bdes611529b066f69590 {AT} mail.gmail.com",
|
||
"id": "00069",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00069.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Sat, 23 May 2009 10:30:31 -0400"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "> I am not so sure whether I agree. It all depends on your definition of\n> \"media\". The problem is that the word \"media\" means quite different things\n> in different contexts:\n\ni agree. but exactly this is the point: media theory is swallowing\neverything, but where are its boundaries? what i am trying to find as\nartist (neither theorist nor philosopher) is a definition for art that\ngoes beyond a mere definition as \"media\" in whatever sense.\nthat is why i am aiming on the much-maligned term of \"autonomy\" (and\ni'm following here the previous mentioned philosophy of j.\nrebentisch). to me this doesn't mean art is somewhat apolotical or\ndealing solely with itself (l' art pour l'art - i guess you had this\nin mind when stating \"[...] If the basic quality of art - in the sense\nof 'Fine Art' - lies in its self-reference to its own system, then it\nwould be something very narrow and ultimately boring, [...]\"). art is\nmade to be seen/heard/whatever - to be experienced. and this\nexperience is what defines art and not media. it can change in time\n-we quite surely don't experience cave paintings in the same way the\nones did who made them- but i'm not sure if \"the media\" does, no\nmatter if it's read as \"painting/drawing\" or as \"hunting scene\". what\ni am hoping to find by this is a possibility to think about \"art\" and\nneither media nor porn or politics. these are -let's say- \"themes\"\nthat can be interpreted, but i hope that art goes beyond being a good\ndesigned set of political opinions. i mean, what political context is\nreflected in leonardo's \"last supper\"? we surely can speculate but do\nwe know? these are things that are bound to their time and context but\nnevertheless we still percieve it as \"art\".\n\n> If I take, for example, the subjects of the last nine transmediale\n> festivals (\"Do It Yourself\",\n[...]\n> One could just as well say that contemporary art deals with \"white cube\n> installation art\" with changing subtitles.\n[...]\n> The same terms abound in the contemporary art discourse if you read, for\n> example, \"October\" or \"Texte zur Kunst\".\n\nyep, exactly. and this what the \"art world\" makes as boring as \"new\nmedia art\". what i had in mind when saying that the \"fine art world is\ndealing with other subjects\" was not the (i would like to call it\nnonexistent) contemporary discourse. what can be seen in the fine arts\nfield (but not in the big biz -documenta, ps1, kw, ...) is an\ninclusion of possibilities in expression and perception which i never\nsaw in any media-art discourse (though i have to admit i am far from\nfollowing everything in that area).\n\n> Not knowing the full context of this quote, I nevertheless find such\n> systemic definitions of art quite risky. If the basic quality of art\n> - in the sense of 'Fine Art' - lies in its self-reference to its own\n> system,\n\ni'm sorry if this comes through that way, i'm not the best in\nformulating things. i never wanted to present art as solely\nself-referential system. if autonomy is read as autonomy of the object\n(l'art pour l'art) i would agree totally with you. but seen from the\nviewpoint that \"art\" may not lie in an object but somewhere between\nthe object and the observer (experience, perception) an autonomy of\nart is essential.\n\n\nthank you all for your replies :-)\n\nbest,\ncarlos\n-- \nhttp://katastrofsky.cont3xt.net\nhttp://cont3xt.net\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "carlos katastrofsky <carlos.katastrofsky {AT} cont3xt.net>",
|
||
"author_name": "carlos katastrofsky",
|
||
"message-id": "fb9095bf0905190614l39062a34j17867e0d82469c5f {AT} mail.gmail.com",
|
||
"id": "00061",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00061.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 19 May 2009 15:14:35 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nOn Sunday, May 17 2009, 10:59 (+0200), florian cramer wrote:\n\n>If I take, for example, the subjects of the last nine transmediale\n>festivals (\"Do It Yourself\", \"Go Public\", \"Play Global\", \"Fly\n>Utopia\", \"Basics\", \"Reality Addicts\", \"Unfinish\", \"Conspire\", \"Deep\n>North\"), they could just as well have been the names of contemporary\n>art exhibitions at PS.1 in New York, KW in Berlin, Witte de With in\n>Rotterdam, or any other contemporary art space.\n\nbut it wasnt like that cause it was happening ONLY in a festival .\n<ghetto> situation .\n\nas I see it, many art people are not going to events like\ntransmediale, cause its not seen as an important place for art. I dont\ngo, besides when we are actively part of it.\n\nlooks like media art is not sexy enough. the exhibits, as part of\nfestivals, are often too prudish. everything sensual seems forbidden,\n\ntoo often it s needs written explanations to understand the\n(political) work.\n\nI do not believe - and I say that as an artist- that the written word\nis necessary to <understand> a piece of art.it can help and make\ndetails transparent, but its not necessary in advance.\n\n\nmy own experience with Station Rose media art projects-like recently\nLogInCabin in MAK Vienna- is : they are recognized & seen in art\nspaces, museums by the art scene, but not as much in a so called media\nart context as festivals are.\n\nbasically my impression is that as long as a dicussion like that one\ngoes on, it makes clear that the art world is something and the media\nart scene is out of it.\n\n\n-- \n----------------------------------------------------\nStation Rose digital_audio - visual art http://www.stationrose.com\n.................... Gary Danner & Elisa Rose\n\nFrankfurt - Cyberspace - Vienna.\n\n* recent project: 20 Digital Years. \"LogInCabin\" mediascultpure at \nMAK Vienna_sold\n* new: \"Interstellar Overdrive CD\" Japan release (2.09)\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Station Rose <gunafa {AT} well.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "Station Rose",
|
||
"message-id": "a06200701c63ee015f460 {AT} [192.168.1.100]",
|
||
"id": "00072",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00072.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis",
|
||
"date": "Sun, 24 May 2009 13:52:26 +0200"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00049.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 10:59:58 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nThursday, May 14, 2009, 10:28:59 PM, one wrote:\n> On Monday, May 11 2009, 21:29 (+0200), Geert Lovink wrote:\n\n>> While society at large is inundated with (new) media, the art \n>> branch that deals with the digital moved itself in a ghetto. \n\n> This is too true, and that branch has to reinvent itself from\n> scratch or it will collapse very soon (if it isn't already\n> collapsing).\n\nMh, so let it be killing itself, the Reinvent Yourself-Discourse is a\nline from the Pet Shop Boys from the 90s and says nothing than \"Nobody\nknows the trouble I've seen\" in a 'modern' reinvented (sic!) way. But\nI cannot see the trouble of this hard front line between a Paik and\na Ubermorgen. For example the \"1001 Songs of eBay\" of uebermorgen is\njust a funny funny project I can implement over the weekend dealing\nwith online politics sex. And this confused and disoriented waiting\nfor the new-old avantgarde like \"Let's do many Paiks\" is boring and\ndoes not have anything to do with the real world in which electronics\nare the basis of the doings. What was really radical in a Paik?\nFucking the Porta Pack with Alternative TV-Ideas or the TV-Sets with a\nmagnet? Were the neo-dada fluxus guys radical anyway or just radical?\n\n> as if radical video art from Paik to Infermental had never happened.\n> (It seems as if most contemporary artists actually don't know it\n> anymore which is comparable to painters no longer knowing about\n> abstract painting.) One should perhaps advise Montevideo just not to\n> leave its video art roots behind.\n\nI'd like to point out at this point that institutions like Montevideo\nare revolutionizers of money, e.g. they payed Jaromil for working\non dynebolican stuff and by this means they are able to rescue the\nmiddle-class fantasies of a free arty market of software on the basis\nof electronics, a market without too much money and with lower prices,\nwith all effects of an open source software\"z\" driven by the mediate\nsupport of the state.\n\nBut while talking to them some years ago the Montevideo people turned\nout to be very naive in political questions. They have no idea about\neconomy and no idea of what is going on out of their field. That's\nokay, as long as they incorporate all folklore and avantgarde at the\nsam time, because it is their mandate and mission.\n\nMatze Schmidt\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Matze Schmidt <matze.schmidt {AT} n0name.de>",
|
||
"author_name": "Matze Schmidt",
|
||
"message-id": "9394574.20090515172312 {AT} n0name.",
|
||
"id": "00045",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA1\n\n\nre all,\n\nfirst of all thanks Matze for your consideration of my activity, but\nlet me warn you are overestimating the benefits of my collaboration\nwith Montevideo / Time Based Arts ... which is now called Nederlands\nInstituut voor Mediakunst (NIMK, BTW): it takes more to be \"rescuing\nthe middle-class fantasies of a free arty market of software\" as you\nsay, if we speak of a national institute that started in a squat in\nAmsterdam 30 years ago and has seen a constant flow of contributions\nby various people through all these years, most of them really worth\nconsidering.\n\nOn Fri, May 15, 2009 at 05:23:12PM +0200, Matze Schmidt wrote:\n> I'd like to point out at this point that institutions like\n> Montevideo are revolutionizers of money, e.g. they payed Jaromil for\n> working on dynebolican stuff\n\nif it would be just the action of redistribution of wealth, then it\nwouldn't be revolutionary at all. Some artists produced and\ndistributed by Montevideo did became rich, but for them Montevideo\nmostly contributed to the production quality of their artworks rather\nthan direct funding.\n\njust consider that if my lifestyle would be \"middle-class fantasy\" i\ncould not afford to sustainably live in Amsterdam relying on my\ncurrent employment, but lucky me i'm not a yuppie :) and i'm fine like\nthat. for the minimum support i get, needed as i care to support me\nand my extended family when needed, i have to do much more than just\ndeveloping \"my own projects\", but still all results can be free to the\npublic,: that shouldn't be special for a public institution, right? i\nbelieve this is the good signal NIMK gives - not such a revolutionary\none, but pretty honest: there are often various degrees of corruption\nleading public institutions to play commercially with public\nresources.\n\nother than that, we can call \"progressive attitude\" - rather than\nrevolutionary\" - when institutions are keen to interact with liminal\ncontexts, with dwellers on the dystopian hearth pulsating in every\nmetropolis of our \"Free Western World\". This kind of interaction (and\nthe respect for the uncommon ground in between) is indeed part of the\nheritage of a city like Mokum A - unfortunately decaying rapidly as\nEurope is turning into a Fortress for the privileged and their fears\nof the disinherited children of the welfare mirage.\n\nat last about the interaction i mention here: i'm not sure how to\ndefine it, its likely not a negotiation nor a compromise, i'm just\nsure it is necessary in any case: whether we accept the upcoming\ninstitutionalised \"Reinvent Yourself\" strategy or not. I would\nrecommend a case-by-case analysis in this regards, rather than\nthinking universally... like institutions often do ;^)\n\nregarding your vague critiques let me reply:\n\n> with all effects of an open source software\"z\" driven by the mediate\n> support of the state.\n\ndyne.org development is not driven by any state, corporation or\ninstitution rather than by the many problems these power structures\ngenerate. we dedicate most of our free time to peer reviewed free\nsoftware development in socially relevant contexts (please note\n\"development\", not provision of services) and as hackers we operate\npragmatically, on-line as well in various different on-site contexts.\n\n> But while talking to them some years ago the Montevideo people\n> turned out to be very naive in political questions. They have no\n> idea about economy and no idea of what is going on out of their\n> field. That's okay, as long as they incorporate all folklore and\n> avantgarde at the sam time, because it is their mandate and mission.\n\ni'd be curious to know what you consider \"naive in political\nquestions\": myself i've felt enriched by the past 4 and more years\nspent in Amsterdam, by my colleagues at NIMK (which is not so\nuniformed in its composition BTW) as well by the squatters in A'dam,\nfrom De Bierkoning to the Waag Society.\n\nbacking my objection, i'll point you out some coverage on NIMK's 30\nyears symposium (just happened last week):\n\nhttp://www.we-make-money-not-art.com/archives/2009/05/the-netherlands-media-art-inst.php\n\npasting you here the transcription of my intervention at this\nsymposium, let it be also a contribution to this interesting\ndiscussion thread:\n\n ------------\n\nAt the NIMK's symposium \"Positions in Flux\" I've taken the occasion to\nshare thoughts on the current perception of Free Software and Open\nSource philosophy in art, along with some overdue criticism of the\nCreative Commons hollow hype, as well of the Creative Industries and\ntheir systematised processing of art for the global market. Even if\nnot obvious, I believe the dynamics of these two phenomenons are\nrelated; among the quoted in the intervention are Benjamin Mako Hill's\n\"Towards a Standard of Freedom: CreativeCommons and the Free Software\nMovement\"[1] and Florian Cramer's post on nettime \"The Creative Common\nMisunderstanding\"[2], while the vigorous critique of the Creative\nIndustries stands on Rana Dasgupta's essay \"The Next Idea of the\nArtist (Art, music and the present threat of creativity)\"[3]\n\n\nHere below a short transcript:\n\n\"Open Source\" doesn't mean free access, nor open space or open air; it\npresumes a seamful[4] approach to design as a response to the\nincreasing reliance on technology and its accessibility; it is\ninteractive without prescribed boundaries, following a combinatorial,\ngenerative approachto development; it is peer to peer as no producer\ncan control further interaction patterns; it is grassroot as creations\nare born out of initiative and cohesion based on needs felt and\nunderstood in first person by community members.\n\nAbout Creative Commons, its motto \"Some rights reserved.\" is a\nrelatively hollow call: the slogan factually reverses the Free\nSoftware and Open Source philosophy of reserving rights to users, not\ncopyright owners, in order to allow the former to become producers\nthemselves. The dis/appropriating loop of creativity must be recursive\nto be fruitful: not only productionmeans belong to the people using\nthem, further creations should be free to be recombined. rights must\nbe granted focusing on people interacting, not just those providing\nthe interactive infrastructure.\n\nUnfortunately there is a diffuse lack of perception for alternatives\noffered by the Open Source and Free Software approach over current\nprofit models. As a present problem, also deriving from the lack of\nunderstanding of the importance of grass-root creativity, top-down\ncultural management is patronising art production: massmedia\naesthetics of an entirely sanitised and efficient creativity, of the\nsort that will not rely on unstable people and can therefore be\nglobally rationalised.\n\nThat the great artists of modern Western culture managed to produce\nwhat they did, despitethe danger and intensity of their effort, was\ndue in large part to improvised social forms built around close-knit\nnetworks where thought and affect circulated with high velocity,\nandwhere it was possible to try out forms of non-conventional human\nrelationships that would not destroy, nor be destroyed by, a life of\nart. Seen from an historical perspective, In the second half of the\ntwentieth century many of the functions of creative networks were\nalready taken over in Europe by institutions (government funding\nbodies, universities, museums, etc) and much of their excessive\nfeeling wasneutralised. This was only a small part of a general\nprocess of the time: the absorption of human emotion into bureaucratic\nchannels, and the emergence of a social coolness, anefficiency of\nfeeling.\n\nAt this stage in the twenty-first century, we are in the middle of\nanother large-scale restructuring of ideas of creativity and\nculture. As one of the most significant generators of image and value,\ncreativity now has become a critical resource for the global economic\nengine. What creativity is, and how it can be systematised and\ncirculated, are therefore urgent questions of contemporary capitalist\norganisation. As cultural producers are thrust into the full\nintensity of globally dispersed, just-in-time production, new images\nof creative inspiration and output are required that sit tidily within\nthe systematised processes of the global market. Creativity must be\nrendered comprehensible, transparent and rational: there can be none\nof the destructive excesses evident in the lives of many of the\ngreatest artists of European history. Creativity must circulate\ncleanly and quickly, and it should leave no dirty remainder. For what\ninterests Hollywood, and the market in general, is not creativity as a\ncomplex human process, weighed down in bodies and relationships and\nempty days, but creativity as an abstraction, free of irrationality\nand pain, and light enough to hover like a great logo above the\ncontinents.\n\nPerhaps, as the logic of systematised production occupies the terrain\nof human creativitymore completely, we will reach a stage where we\nsurrender all knowledge about this troubling domain, and it will\nbecome entirely alien to us. Perhaps one day we will be terrified of\nwhat explosive dangers might rise up from the creativity of human\nbeings.\n\n[1] http://mako.cc/writing/toward_a_standard_of_freedom.html\n\n[2] http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0610/msg00025.html\n\n[3] http://ranadasgupta.com/texts.asp?text_id=45\n\n[4] http://www.themobilecity.nl/2008/01/05/designing-for-locative-media-seamless-or-seamful-experiences/\n\n\n- -- \n\njaromil, dyne.org developer, http://jaromil.dyne.org\n\nGPG: 779F E8B5 47C7 3A89 4112 64D0 7B64 3184 B534 0B5E\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)\n\niEYEARECAAYFAkoP/aAACgkQe2QxhLU0C15y4ACeKYaj8pNKu7lS/Z1sIuVUtbfL\nmBUAn2h7gwq7AN0Gsv+lgidMWqZoga1q\n=Skrp\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "jaromil <jaromil {AT} dyne.org>",
|
||
"author_name": "jaromil",
|
||
"message-id": "20090517120554.GA4808 {AT} dyne.or",
|
||
"id": "00047",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00047.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 14:05:54 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "> jaromil said:\n> Montevideo / Time Based Arts ... which is now called Nederlands\n> Instituut voor Mediakunst (NIMK, BTW)\n> if we speak of a national institute that started in a squat in\n> Amsterdam 30 years ago\n\nHello.\n\nI did not remember that the 'Nimk' was started in a squat: isn't this the\nstory of Paradiso and Melkweg?\n\nAs far as I know the 'Netherlands Media Art Institute' was born when\n'Monte Video' and 'Time Based Arts' merged (1993).\n\nMonte Video was founded by René Coelho in 1978, and initially operated\nfrom his house in Amsterdam. (was that squatted? I tend to doubt.)\nMonte Video focused on video art and provided equipment for producing\nworks and space to show them (soon collecting and distributing...\nvideo-tapes!).\n\nTime Based Arts was founded in 1983 by the Association of Video Artists,\nso it was an artists run association creating a network for distribution;\nit was more performance oriented than Monte Video, according to the story\nthat was narrated to me, and which I deduced from the collection. (Can\nanyone confirm this, please?)\nWere they squatting? But they were getting funding...\nI am somewhat curious.\n\nMaybe other people on this list know more.\n\nThere is a page of history on the nimk.nl, but i saw no wikipedia entry on\nthis topic.\nI find the *story of this institute quite beautiful and paradigmatic in\nthe development of the (non-linear) chain of media mutations (which could\noff course be expanded):\n\nhappening/performance (art=life)\nelectronic art\nvideo-art (art=registration)\nmedia-art, software-art (art=simulation)\n\nI paste it below.\n\nBest,\nEleonora\n\n===\n\n**History**\n\n1978\nMonte Video is founded by René Coelho. From his home on the Singel in\nAmsterdam he makes equipment and documentation available, and furnishes\none room as a gallery. The first video artist whose work is shown here on\nthe Singel was Livinus van de Bundt, Coelho's inspiration. Other artists,\nsuch as Bill Viola, Gary Hill, Shelly Silver and Gabor Body, soon make\ncontact. It is not long before Monte Video has a large selection of works\navailable for rental.\n\n1983\nThanks to government funding Monte Video is able to move to Amsterdam\nNorth. There is now sufficient space to offer regular presentations. Not\nonly Dutch artists, but also those from other countries are given a chance\nto show their videos or installations.\n\n1986\nGovernment funding received by Monte Video is cut back to almost nothing.\nMonte Video does receive several small transitional grants from the city\nof Amsterdam.\nTime Based Arts, which had been founded in 1983 by the Association of\nVideo Artists, is fast becoming well-known as a distributor of video art,\nand continues receiving government funding.\n\n1986-1993\nRené Coelho continues on his own. Monte Video moves back to his home on\nthe Singel. The acquisition of production facilities, distribution,\ndocumentation and promotion goes on, financed from his own income and by\norganizing large projects. One of these, as an example, was 'Imago', an\nexhibition of Dutch video installations which toured worldwide for five\nyears beginning in 1990. There were also plans laid for the first\nconservation programs for video art.\nThe chairman of Time Based Arts, Aart van Barneveld, died; his death was\nfollowed by many conflicts within the organization. In the early 1990s\nTime Based Arts also lost its subsidies and threatened to go under. Monte\nVideo and Time Based Arts decide to provide a joint art program for\nAmsterdam cable TV, Channel Zero.\n\n1993\nTime Based Arts merges with Monte Video. Their work is continued under the\nnew name of Netherlands Media Art Institute, Montevideo/Time Based Arts.\nThis fusion does free up national funding. In both 1997 and 2001 the\ngrants are expanded and converted into a structural subsidy for four\nyears.\n\n1993-2002\nThe Netherlands Media Art Institute moves twice, in 1994 to the Spuistraat\nand in 1997 to its present location on the Keizersgracht.\nThe Institute continues to grow through these years, and adopts the\nfollowing mission statement: The Netherlands Media Art Institute supports\nmedia art in three core areas: presentation, research and conservation. At\nthe same time, through its facilities it offers extensive services for\nartists and art institutions. Among these services are educational\nprograms, to be developed to accompany all activities.\n\nand\n\n**History of the Collection**\n\nThe collection of the Netherlands Media Art Institute, Montevideo/Time\nBased Arts reflects the turbulent history of the Institute. In addition to\nthe collection of Monte Video, the predecessor of the Netherlands Media\nArt Institute, the Institute administers the collections of four\ninstitutions: the Lijnbaan Center (1970-1982), Time Based Arts\n(1983-1994), De Appel (1975-1983) and the Institute Collection\nNetherlands. This combination of artists' initiatives (Time Based Arts, De\nAppel and the Lijnbaan Center) and more formal institutions (Institute\nCollection Netherlands and the present Netherlands Media Art Institute)\naffords the collection a surprising diversity. In addition to renowned\nartists like Bill Viola, Nam June Paik and Gary Hill (who were represented\nin the collection as far back as the 1970s), there are internationally\nknown Dutch artists who experimented with the medium for only a short\nperiod in the 1970s, such as Marinus Boezem, Jan van Munster and Pieter\nEngels.\nBefore any institutions at all had yet been created for the purpose of\ncollecting small centers were set up in various parts of The Netherlands\nwhich facilitated and promoted the use of video by and for artists. The\nearliest examples of this were Agora Studios in Maastricht, the Lijnbaan\nCenter in Rotterdam (itself a merger of the studio of Venster in Rotterdam\nand the video studio which was set up for the Sonsbeek exhibition in 1971\nin Arnhem), and a couple of individuals such as the artists Miguel-Ángel\nCárdenas and Jack Moore in Amsterdam, who made their cameras available for\nother artists. Many of the works which were made in this earliest period\nof Dutch video art only surfaced from oblivion in the course of the 1990s.\nSurprising discoveries among them are the works of Dennis Oppenheim, Terry\nFox, Wim Gijzen, Nan Hoover and Tajiri.\n\nWith the arrival of the collection of De Appel an enormously rich\ncollection of video records of performances was added. De Appel flourished\nin the 1970s as one of the most progressive international work sites for\nperformance art. The collection of this institution contained unique works\nby Vito Acconci, Laurie Anderson, Gina Pane, Carolee Schneemann and\nothers. But in addition to records of events in her own gallery, Wies\nSmalls, the founder of De Appel, also built up a collection of\ninternational video art in order to enable the Dutch public to become\nacquainted with what was happening internationally, including work by\nDouglas Davis, Ulrike Rosenbach, Joan Jonas and Alison Knowles.\n\nIn the early 1980s, with De Appel as its base, efforts were begun to\nestablish an association for video artists, which later created the Time\nBased Arts Foundation. The collection of this artists' association, in\naddition to works by artists based in The Netherlands, such as\nAbramovic/Ulay, Hooykaas/Stansfield, Ben d'Armagnac, Christine Chiffrun\nand Lydia Schouten, also included work by international artists like Mona\nHatoum and General Idea.\nTime Based Arts maintained an active collection policy, in which any\nartist who worked with video could try to have his or her work included in\nthe collection. As it grew the collection became enormously diverse and\nafforded a good overview of the various ways that video could be employed\nin the visual arts. Through in to the 1990s Time Based Arts played an\nimportant role in the collection, distribution and support of video art\nuntil, in 1994, under pressure from the municipal authorities of\nAmsterdam, it entered into a merger with Monte Video.\n\nRené Coelho began his video gallery Monte Video in 1978, and in doing so\nlaid the foundation for the present Institute. Monte Video was a gallery\nwhich specialized in electronic art and especially in video art that\nsought out the creative possibilities and qualities of the medium itself.\nAn important impetus for establishing the institution was the work of the\nDutch video pioneer Livinus van de Bundt. He was therefore the first\nartist to be shown in the gallery. Later the Vasulkas, Bert Schutter,\nPeter Bogers, Matthew Schlanger and many others followed. In addition to\nthe works that were to be seen in the gallery, Monte Video began to be\nactive in collecting and distributing work. Bill Viola, Gary Hill, Shelly\nSilver and Gabor Body were for instance artists who 'stabled' their work\nwith Monte Video. The gallery owed its international success chiefly to\nthis. When in the 1990s the conservation of video works became a pressing\nproblem, the then merged Montevideo/Time Based Arts established itself as\nthe goad and later as the center of technical expertise for carrying out\nthe Conservation of Dutch Video Art project. As well as the collections\ndescribed above, there was integral cooperation with museums that over the\ncourse of time had also collected video work. In addition to much\ntechnical research, the conservation efforts also prompted considerable\nrecording work and research into content. Among questions dealt with were\nthe status of the vehicle, the significance of the material chosen and\nestablishing the boundary conditions for proper exhibition. Because of the\ndifferences in approach among the institutions from which they came,\nconsiderable time was spent integrating the collections with one another,\nand getting the possibilities for the use of the works coordinated with\none another. But now, with the end of the conservation project in sight,\nthe gaps between the collections appear to be closing ever more, and we\ncan proudly present our multi-faceted collection to the public, as we do\nhere.\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "\"xname\" <root {AT} xname.cc>",
|
||
"author_name": "xname",
|
||
"message-id": "3266070d80132b99ebf3351b5cb71455.squirrel {AT} tuxic.nl",
|
||
"id": "00050",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00050.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Media Mutations - Life | Registration | Simulation (was: Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis)",
|
||
"date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 15:40:16 +0200 (CEST)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": ">> [...] Arts\n\n> what art\n\n> True, art\n\nIn short: No money (as one of the forms of profit) without art, no art\nwithout politics. This is a simple formula and any Baudrillard would\nhave secretly subcribed this, even in an epoch of ended (Hegel and \nfollowers) or never realized (Debord and followers) art. The fact is,\nwe* don't need art as art, but -- and someone like jaromil shows this\nto us** -- we need other conditions, as painting, code or video or\ndiy-cooking if you like, I don't care -- changing media is always good.\nBut we are not able to produce the conditions 'now' -- like someone like\njaromil is may thinking -- because the conditions produce us, alienate\nus; they will allways produce us (products produce consumption and vice\nversa), but these conditions are (straightforward now) have to be\nuncaged from ruling modes of production, in the meant sector reproduced\nby national institutions (ZKM in Germany, Ex-Montevideo in NL, your\npersonal MTV at home). The New Media Arts Crisis is not my crisis, It's\njust the crisis of the middle-class (Yuppie or not, fallen programmer or\nrising video-installer) in form of some arts with newer or older media,\nmay it a t-shirt or an lcd. So there is no aftermath here but the\neffects of a mixed up (I love this status and condition) highbrow, baby!\nelite meshed with an alternative \"green\" and independent buisness party\nwith no idea of real coding out there (forget networks, they are roped\nparties).\n__________\n* and ** Me, I and you as the readers who follows this text.\n\nM\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Matze Schmidt <matze.schmidt {AT} n0name.de>",
|
||
"author_name": "Matze Schmidt",
|
||
"message-id": "1739011317.20090518112202 {AT} n0name.",
|
||
"id": "00059",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00059.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Media Mutations - Life | Registration | Simulation\t(was: Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis)",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 11:22:02 +0200"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00045.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Fri, 15 May 2009 17:23:12 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nHi Florian,\n\nYou point towards a classic issue, the relevance of context. What do\ndifferent registers (fine art, media art, design, activism, popular\nculture etc.) give to a particular work and what does a categorization\nexclude, meaning what does it make *impossible*. Every register\ninfluences interpretation, (in)visibility, production and funding.\n\n> Since the 1990s, the so-called Fine Arts do provide no really\n> desirable environment either, likely they're even worse. It is\n> telling enough that the term \"Fine Art\" suddenly has become a\n> universally accepted standard while, not a long time ago, any\n> self-respecting contemporary artist would have fiercely rejected\n> if not opposed it. In the past ten years of reading contemporary\n> art magazines or visiting art biennales and Documentas, I've been\n> flabbergasted by the lack of vision and radicalism in this field. It\n> has morphed, somewhat comparable to New (composed) Music after the\n> 1960s, into an academic discourse ruled by a neo-bourgeois jet set\n> of hipster curators posing as cultural theorists on the basis of a\n> not-even-half-baked knowledge and recycling of postmodern philosophy\n> and cultural studies. The system consists of artists who have been\n> academically trained to produce works - along with non-understood\n> theory lingo - that fit the required curatorial buzz.\n\nCan you speak more specifically about which curators, what art\neducational programs, which artists and what practices? For a\nconstructive debate, it's important to avoid caricatures, otherwise\nthere's a risk of creating false enemies, or missing out on how to\nbest counter the real ones.\n\nAnd as an aside, I have to admit when I read \"not-even-half-baked\nknowledge\" and \"non-understood, I caught myself wondering who are\nthe guardians of proper interpretation when it comes to theory. (not\nto mention, which theories) After all, couldn't theory be mutable in\ndifferent contexts or even hackable? In other words, can it too be\npracticed, tested and changed once it hits the ground or encounters a\nspecific situation or discipline?\n\n> Along with this development, the paradigm of the white cube and art\n> works as good-looking exhibition objects has become stronger than\n> ever before and rules out any art practice not fitting this format.\n\nIt's true the white cube is a dominant force to be reckoned\nwith (or not, depending on what art world you dwell in ;-), but\ninterventionists/social/political practices have also continued....\n(both of the digital and analog sort). You mention UBERMORGEN, and I\nwould add The Temporary Travel Office, SubRosa, Mongrel, AUDC, Jorge\nBlasco's Cultures of the Archive, Marcelo Exposito's various projects,\nThe Center for Land Use Interpretation, Beatriz da Costa and others...\nMaybe \"tactical\" is a red thread through these works?\n\n> All the while, the system thrives on the delusion that it still\n> represents visual art as a whole although, unlike, for example, in\n> film where 'highbrow' and 'lowbrow' still coexist, its popular forms\n> like comic books, tattoos, fantasy figurines, t-shirt illustrations,\n> wildlife paintings... have long been excluded from its system.\n>\n\nhmmmm....not sure about this, having worked as a hybrid artist/\ndesigner/curator/media artist/collaborator for some time now, again\nI reiterate that there are many different artworlds (and for that\nmatter artists/inhabitants/vagrants). Sometimes they intersect, rub\nnext to each other, come into agitation or simply run on parallel\ntracks. (Not too disimilar from the so-called new media world.) Think\nof open source practitioners, the Max/Flash folk, and those that poach\nthe web's detritus for their own purposes, they're all a part of new\nmedia arts, but each tend to dwell in different corners of the digital\nuniverse (or maybe not, if you're one of those cross-pollinators :-)\n\n> Instead, we get artists like Mike Kelley all over the art\n> world in whose work I'm either not getting something or indeed\n> seeing the Emperor's new clothes. (\"Review\" babble like\n> http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/tomorrow_never_comes1/ affirms\n> the suspicion that the art world has no clue either.)\n\nI haven't seen this particular work so hesitate to judge. I do however\nfind it a little problematic to make sweeping statements about the\nEmperor's New Clothes and the \"art world's\" cluelessness based on one\nreview and one artist.\n\n\n>> Director Heiner Holtappels opened by noticing that new media art\n>> is not easily accepted by fine art. Traditional art has become\n>> eclecticism. According to Heiner, all art is technology based.\n>\n> This is true, yet contemporary art has mostly given up on reflecting\n> its media. [I can almost hear an iPhone-wearing curator saying that\n> reflecting one's media is outmoded modernism.]\n\nouch, how stereotypes do prevail. I wonder if there would be a\nparadigm shift if he/she had been envisioned with a pre-paid nokia.\n;-)\n\n\nRenee\nhttp://www.geuzen.org/\nhttp://www.fudgethefacts.com/\nhttp://www.geuzen.org/female_icons/\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Renee Turner <geuzen {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"author_name": "Renee Turner",
|
||
"message-id": "5A46D3F4-5F13-4C5B-97B1-5327677F5920 {AT} xs4all.nl",
|
||
"id": "00046",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nHey Renee,\n \n> You point towards a classic issue, the relevance of context. What do\n> different registers (fine art, media art, design, activism, popular\n> culture etc.) give to a particular work and what does a categorization\n> exclude, meaning what does it make *impossible*. Every register\n> influences interpretation, (in)visibility, production and funding.\n\nYeah, and inevitably, these registers are not just different chosen\nperspectives we have on particular works, but also institutional and\ndisciplinary contexts in which workers have to put their work and\nwhose written and unwritten rules they can't avoid abiding.\n\n> Can you speak more specifically about which curators, what art\n> educational programs, which artists and what practices?\n\nI was really thinking of the contemporary art system as it has been\ndescribed by its own protagonists, for example in Isabelle Graw's\n2008 book \"Der grosse Preis\", or has been analyzed, with means that\nreally deserve the term \"artistic research\", by Hans Haacke as early\nas in the 1970s in such pieces as \"The Chocolate Master\". And many\npeople have criticized that system from within, from Henry Flynt in\nthe 1960s to the writer and \"Thing Hamburg\"-blogger Michel Chevalier\ntoday. I think it is legitimate to make a sweepingly general critique\nof the contemporary art system just as it is legitimate to generally\ncriticize and attack the music industry and contemporary popular music\nsystem for example. That doesn't mean that there would be absolutely\nno good music coming out of that system. But unlike other culture\nindustries, the contemporary (Fine) Art system often falsely believes\nin its own autonomy. And it's my general experience and opinion that\nthe art I'm more interested in is more often than not to be found in\nplaces outside that system. In the 1960s, this was true for Fluxus\nand Situationism, in the 1970s and 1980s for the Mail Art Network and\npostpunk, and in the 1990s for Net.art, the Luther Blissett project or\nthe alternative pornography movement. Today, to speak in terms of our\nboth hometown Rotterdam, I'm finding the interesting contemporary arts\nat places like WORM and De Player and only rarely at Witte de With,\nfor example.\n\n> For a constructive debate, it's important to avoid caricatures,\n> otherwise there's a risk of creating false enemies, or missing out\n> on how to best counter the real ones.\n\nWell, this is true, and I admit that my posting was polemical\n- and emotional. My gripes with the contemporary art\nsystem are also based on bad personal experience and\nconfrontations such as the one with the \"Just Do It\" exhibition\n<http://www.mail-archive.com/nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net/msg02876.html>.\n\n> hmmmm....not sure about this, having worked as a hybrid artist/\n> designer/curator/media artist/collaborator for some time now, again\n> I reiterate that there are many different artworlds (and for that\n> matter artists/inhabitants/vagrants).\n\nIndeed. It's just that the particular art world I mentioned above\n- and which can be roughly described as the art world of the many\nbiennials, the Documenta, contemporary art spaces like PS.1 and KW,\ncontemporary art journals like October, Texte zur Kunst, Springerin\nand Metropolis M, too often monopolizes the term \"art\" for the art\nthat it represents. Admittedly, its system can be permissive and\ninclude 'outside' practices, particularly when a curatorial subject\nrequires it. However, it would be possible to map the institutions\nmentioned above just by the overlap of the people they involve,\nand come up with a fairly good representation of what makes up\ncontemporary art.\n\nThey same is true, no doubt, if you take ars electronica, transmediale\nand ISEA, plus Leonardo, Neural, Rhizome and Nettime, ZKM and ICC\nTokyo, and pin down the system \"media art\". But just as that latter\nsystem is now being - deservedly - questioned and undergoing a huge\nif not terminal structural crisis, I think it is as legitimate to\nquestion the contemporary Fine Art system, and the Western concept of\nautonomous art. So, going back to Geert's initial report about the\ndiscussion about the crisis of \"Media Art\" at Montevideo Amsterdam,\nI think that it can't be a solution to integrate a very questionable\n\"media art\" system into an equally questionable contemporary art\nsystem. [As it is now happening, in education, too, for example in the\nZurich art school media department where Felix Stalder teaches, and\nwhere the media programme has been rolled back into Fine Art on the\nMaster level.]\n\n> Sometimes they intersect, rub next to each other, come into\n> agitation or simply run on parallel tracks. (Not too disimilar from\n> the so-called new media world.) Think of open source practitioners,\n> the Max/Flash folk, and those that poach the web's detritus for\n> their own purposes, they're all a part of new media arts, but each\n> tend to dwell in different corners of the digital notion universe\n> (or maybe not, if you're one of those cross-pollinators :-)\n\nYep, only that what you describe above is really declining and may not\nsee much art funding or support in the future. The writing is on the\nwall.\n\n> >> Director Heiner Holtappels opened by noticing that new media art\n> >> is not easily accepted by fine art. Traditional art has become\n> >> eclecticism. According to Heiner, all art is technology based.\n> >\n> > This is true, yet contemporary art has mostly given up on\n> > reflecting its media. [I can almost hear an iPhone-wearing curator\n> > saying that reflecting one's media is outmoded modernism.]\n>\n> ouch, how stereotypes do prevail. I wonder if there would be a\n> paradigm shift if he/she had been envisioned with a pre-paid nokia.\n> ;-)\n\nI should have told that the above example was taken from a real\nlife experience, although it's admittedly a deliberate caricature\nwhen I I blew it out of proportion as above. I agree very much with\nBrian that artistic practices (to put it as broadly) are deeply\nintertwined in culture and communication. There's a good chance,\nand I really mean this, that I am getting old - in punk terms:\na boring old fart - who's insisting on outmoded viewpoints. But\nI think that critiques of modernism, as legitimate as they are,\nbecome problematic when they're used to legitimize and maintain the\nstatus quo. [An extreme example is the contemporary art gallery\nscene and private collections in Berlin and their intrinsic links to\nthe German discourse of \"Neue Bürgerlichkeit\" (\"new bourgeoisie\")\n<http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_Bürgerlichkeit>.] The current\neconomic, political and social developments should render all\nnotions of posthistoire and non-rupture in the fabric of culture and\ncommunication, and hence also in the arts, all the more obsolete.\nThey also question the bourgeois insistence on artistic practice as a\nproduct of individual subjectivity. And finally, the contemporary art\nfield has been much ahead of the media art system in postcolonialism;\nhowever, if this reflection is serious, it should not exclude the\nnotion and system of art itself.\n\nWell, anyway, since the Geuzen collective of which you're a member\noperates in its own carefully chosen grey zone between art, activism,\ndesign, media, research and education, I actually think that our\nstandpoints are quite similar, just that our points of departure\nregarding the usefulness of the contemporary art system might\ndiffer. For me, the projects of De Geuzen are a very good example\nfor a post-autonomous artistic practice. Again, although I'm no\nfriend of the media art system, I'm quite sure that it would be\npractices like those of the Geuzen that would suffer and struggle\nto find institutional support once the \"media art\" system will\nhave vanished and been replaced with the existing contemporary art\nsystem (particularly the more cut-throat kind of the USA, Germany\nand England, with people who are anxious not to pollute Fine Art\nwith applied or sociocultural practices they hate and detest as\nnon-artistic [1].).\n\nFlorian\n\n\n[1] a good example would be Berlin's Künstlerhaus Bethanien, a renown\ncontemporary arts space, whose director Christoph Tannert bitterly\nfights a group of squatters and their sociocultural center in his own\nbuilding. \n\n\n\n-- \nblog: http://en.pleintekst.nl\nhomepage: http://cramer.pleintekst.nl:70\n gopher://cramer.pleintekst.nl\n\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "lorian Cramer <fc-nettime {AT} pleintekst.nl>",
|
||
"author_name": "Florian Cramer",
|
||
"message-id": "20090523000503.GA17293 {AT} hp.localdomain",
|
||
"id": "00068",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00068.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Sat, 23 May 2009 02:05:03 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nHi Florian,\n\nMy apologies for a slightly delayed response. I completely agree that\nthere are aspects within the art world which need critical scrutiny. I\nwas simply asking for specificity, and I appreciate that you've taken\nthe time to clarify.\n\n> But unlike other culture industries, the contemporary (Fine) Art\n> system often falsely believes in its own autonomy.\n\nI wonder if this is true. Feminist/post colonial practices have often\nargued the opposite and with much efficacy. Think of Jean Fisher's\ncritical texts, Adrian Piper's work and Lucy Lippard's writing and\ncuratorial projects and even the recent educational department at\nGoldsmiths of Irit Rogoff; all of these practices seem to point to an\nart world/system which is political, embodied and implicated.\n\n> And it's my general experience and opinion that the art I'm\n> more interested in is more often than not to be found in places\n> outside that system. In the 1960s, this was true for Fluxus and\n> Situationism, in the 1970s and 1980s for the Mail Art Network and\n> postpunk, and in the 1990s for Net.art, the Luther Blissett project\n> or the alternative pornography movement.\n\nI'm also interested these movements, practices, antics/pranktics,\nbut unlike you, I see them as a part of a complex and multifaceted\nart world (not outside of it). I find it problematic to define the\nsystem as only popular art mags, the market and large institutions\nwhen there's so much other interesting work going on. (not to mention,\nhow would you classify those of us involved in art education?)\n\n> Today, to speak in terms of our both hometown Rotterdam, I'm finding\n> the interesting contemporary arts at places like WORM and De Player\n> and only rarely at Witte de With, for example.\n\nYes, here we can look into specific curatorial approaches and talk\nabout who these various institutions and orgs are addressing. (this\ntakes more time than I have now... but I'm nonetheless interested in\nexploring this further at a later juncture) >> > Indeed. It's just\nthat the particular art world I mentioned above > - and which can\nbe roughly described as the art world of the many > biennials, the\nDocumenta, contemporary art spaces like PS.1 and KW, > contemporary\nart journals like October, Texte zur Kunst, Springerin > and\nMetropolis M, too often monopolizes the term \"art\" for the art > that\nit represents. Admittedly, its system can be permissive and > include\n'outside' practices, particularly when a curatorial subject > requires\nit. However, it would be possible to map the institutions > mentioned\nabove just by the overlap of the people they involve, > and come up\nwith a fairly good representation of what makes up > contemporary art.\n\nI agree, this *is* truly the crux. It's crucial to map the overlap of \npeople/institutions and ask ourselves who's setting the agenda, who's \ncontrolling the funding and whose *corner* of art world is being \nrepresented, and moreover, what do these representations make \nimpossible, meaning what do they render invisible.\n\n\n> They same is true, no doubt, if you take ars electronica,\n> transmediale and ISEA, plus Leonardo, Neural, Rhizome and Nettime,\n> ZKM and ICC Tokyo, and pin down the system \"media art\". But just\n> as that latter system is now being - deservedly - questioned and\n> undergoing a huge if not terminal structural crisis, I think it is\n> as legitimate to question the contemporary Fine Art system, and the\n> Western concept of autonomous art.\n\nIt's absolutely legitimate to question art's autonomy, and it's been\nhappening for some time now. Besides the previous examples listed\nabove, recently there has been much debate about the proliferation of\nbiennials how art feeds into a neoliberal agenda.\n\n> So, going back to Geert's initial report about the discussion about\n> the crisis of \"Media Art\" at Montevideo Amsterdam, I think that it\n> can't be a solution to integrate a very questionable \"media art\"\n> system into an equally questionable contemporary art system. [As it\n> is now happening, in education, too, for example in the Zurich art\n> school media department where Felix Stalder teaches, and where the\n> media programme has been rolled back into Fine Art on the Master\n> level.]\n\nIn many respects this cycle has happened to photography (remember\nwhen John Tagg wrote that no history of art photography could be\nwritten without taking into account, pornography, daguerreotypes,\npropaganda and family snapshots.) Or video's roots in activism,\nhome videos, street journalism (Martha Rosler's essay: Shedding the\nUtopian Moment).... there's much to learn from these histories of\nassimilation. It's important to look at how institutionalization\n\"tames\" media...disciplines the discipline. But while questioning the\nsystems of Fine Art, Media Art etc, I think as producers, viewers,\neducators and implicated accomplices, it's imperative to ask what do\nwe want to see happen or change.\n\nAs a graduate student in the eighties, I was taught by Harmony\nHammond, a painter and co-founder of Heresies. In her painting\nclass, she reserved time to present her personal collection of\nartists' works she felt were under-represented by the mainstream art\nworld. It was a small but extremely powerful gesture. Eventually, in\n2000 the collection was published under the title, Lesbian Art in\nAmerica: A Contemporary History. I learned much from Harmony, but\nthe most influential part of her teaching was watching her practice\n*otherwise*.\n\nSo in this context, I'm asking myself how can I/we practice\n*otherwise* and how might that *doing* nudge or broaden the scope of\ndominant discourses and visual regimes.\n\nbest,\n\nRenee\nhttp://www.geuzen.org/\nhttp://www.fudgethefacts.com/\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Renee Turner <geuzen {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"author_name": "Renee Turner",
|
||
"message-id": "20C7E909-1381-4CB2-963B-40479902EC2E {AT} xs4all.nl",
|
||
"id": "00075",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00075.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 25 May 2009 13:37:41 +0200"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00046.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Fri, 15 May 2009 18:07:37 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA1\n\n\nre all,\n\nfirst of all thanks Matze for your consideration of my activity, but\nlet me warn you are overestimating the benefits of my collaboration\nwith Montevideo / Time Based Arts ... which is now called Nederlands\nInstituut voor Mediakunst (NIMK, BTW): it takes more to be \"rescuing\nthe middle-class fantasies of a free arty market of software\" as you\nsay, if we speak of a national institute that started in a squat in\nAmsterdam 30 years ago and has seen a constant flow of contributions\nby various people through all these years, most of them really worth\nconsidering.\n\nOn Fri, May 15, 2009 at 05:23:12PM +0200, Matze Schmidt wrote:\n> I'd like to point out at this point that institutions like\n> Montevideo are revolutionizers of money, e.g. they payed Jaromil for\n> working on dynebolican stuff\n\nif it would be just the action of redistribution of wealth, then it\nwouldn't be revolutionary at all. Some artists produced and\ndistributed by Montevideo did became rich, but for them Montevideo\nmostly contributed to the production quality of their artworks rather\nthan direct funding.\n\njust consider that if my lifestyle would be \"middle-class fantasy\" i\ncould not afford to sustainably live in Amsterdam relying on my\ncurrent employment, but lucky me i'm not a yuppie :) and i'm fine like\nthat. for the minimum support i get, needed as i care to support me\nand my extended family when needed, i have to do much more than just\ndeveloping \"my own projects\", but still all results can be free to the\npublic,: that shouldn't be special for a public institution, right? i\nbelieve this is the good signal NIMK gives - not such a revolutionary\none, but pretty honest: there are often various degrees of corruption\nleading public institutions to play commercially with public\nresources.\n\nother than that, we can call \"progressive attitude\" - rather than\nrevolutionary\" - when institutions are keen to interact with liminal\ncontexts, with dwellers on the dystopian hearth pulsating in every\nmetropolis of our \"Free Western World\". This kind of interaction (and\nthe respect for the uncommon ground in between) is indeed part of the\nheritage of a city like Mokum A - unfortunately decaying rapidly as\nEurope is turning into a Fortress for the privileged and their fears\nof the disinherited children of the welfare mirage.\n\nat last about the interaction i mention here: i'm not sure how to\ndefine it, its likely not a negotiation nor a compromise, i'm just\nsure it is necessary in any case: whether we accept the upcoming\ninstitutionalised \"Reinvent Yourself\" strategy or not. I would\nrecommend a case-by-case analysis in this regards, rather than\nthinking universally... like institutions often do ;^)\n\nregarding your vague critiques let me reply:\n\n> with all effects of an open source software\"z\" driven by the mediate\n> support of the state.\n\ndyne.org development is not driven by any state, corporation or\ninstitution rather than by the many problems these power structures\ngenerate. we dedicate most of our free time to peer reviewed free\nsoftware development in socially relevant contexts (please note\n\"development\", not provision of services) and as hackers we operate\npragmatically, on-line as well in various different on-site contexts.\n\n> But while talking to them some years ago the Montevideo people\n> turned out to be very naive in political questions. They have no\n> idea about economy and no idea of what is going on out of their\n> field. That's okay, as long as they incorporate all folklore and\n> avantgarde at the sam time, because it is their mandate and mission.\n\ni'd be curious to know what you consider \"naive in political\nquestions\": myself i've felt enriched by the past 4 and more years\nspent in Amsterdam, by my colleagues at NIMK (which is not so\nuniformed in its composition BTW) as well by the squatters in A'dam,\nfrom De Bierkoning to the Waag Society.\n\nbacking my objection, i'll point you out some coverage on NIMK's 30\nyears symposium (just happened last week):\n\nhttp://www.we-make-money-not-art.com/archives/2009/05/the-netherlands-media-art-inst.php\n\npasting you here the transcription of my intervention at this\nsymposium, let it be also a contribution to this interesting\ndiscussion thread:\n\n ------------\n\nAt the NIMK's symposium \"Positions in Flux\" I've taken the occasion to\nshare thoughts on the current perception of Free Software and Open\nSource philosophy in art, along with some overdue criticism of the\nCreative Commons hollow hype, as well of the Creative Industries and\ntheir systematised processing of art for the global market. Even if\nnot obvious, I believe the dynamics of these two phenomenons are\nrelated; among the quoted in the intervention are Benjamin Mako Hill's\n\"Towards a Standard of Freedom: CreativeCommons and the Free Software\nMovement\"[1] and Florian Cramer's post on nettime \"The Creative Common\nMisunderstanding\"[2], while the vigorous critique of the Creative\nIndustries stands on Rana Dasgupta's essay \"The Next Idea of the\nArtist (Art, music and the present threat of creativity)\"[3]\n\n\nHere below a short transcript:\n\n\"Open Source\" doesn't mean free access, nor open space or open air; it\npresumes a seamful[4] approach to design as a response to the\nincreasing reliance on technology and its accessibility; it is\ninteractive without prescribed boundaries, following a combinatorial,\ngenerative approachto development; it is peer to peer as no producer\ncan control further interaction patterns; it is grassroot as creations\nare born out of initiative and cohesion based on needs felt and\nunderstood in first person by community members.\n\nAbout Creative Commons, its motto \"Some rights reserved.\" is a\nrelatively hollow call: the slogan factually reverses the Free\nSoftware and Open Source philosophy of reserving rights to users, not\ncopyright owners, in order to allow the former to become producers\nthemselves. The dis/appropriating loop of creativity must be recursive\nto be fruitful: not only productionmeans belong to the people using\nthem, further creations should be free to be recombined. rights must\nbe granted focusing on people interacting, not just those providing\nthe interactive infrastructure.\n\nUnfortunately there is a diffuse lack of perception for alternatives\noffered by the Open Source and Free Software approach over current\nprofit models. As a present problem, also deriving from the lack of\nunderstanding of the importance of grass-root creativity, top-down\ncultural management is patronising art production: massmedia\naesthetics of an entirely sanitised and efficient creativity, of the\nsort that will not rely on unstable people and can therefore be\nglobally rationalised.\n\nThat the great artists of modern Western culture managed to produce\nwhat they did, despitethe danger and intensity of their effort, was\ndue in large part to improvised social forms built around close-knit\nnetworks where thought and affect circulated with high velocity,\nandwhere it was possible to try out forms of non-conventional human\nrelationships that would not destroy, nor be destroyed by, a life of\nart. Seen from an historical perspective, In the second half of the\ntwentieth century many of the functions of creative networks were\nalready taken over in Europe by institutions (government funding\nbodies, universities, museums, etc) and much of their excessive\nfeeling wasneutralised. This was only a small part of a general\nprocess of the time: the absorption of human emotion into bureaucratic\nchannels, and the emergence of a social coolness, anefficiency of\nfeeling.\n\nAt this stage in the twenty-first century, we are in the middle of\nanother large-scale restructuring of ideas of creativity and\nculture. As one of the most significant generators of image and value,\ncreativity now has become a critical resource for the global economic\nengine. What creativity is, and how it can be systematised and\ncirculated, are therefore urgent questions of contemporary capitalist\norganisation. As cultural producers are thrust into the full\nintensity of globally dispersed, just-in-time production, new images\nof creative inspiration and output are required that sit tidily within\nthe systematised processes of the global market. Creativity must be\nrendered comprehensible, transparent and rational: there can be none\nof the destructive excesses evident in the lives of many of the\ngreatest artists of European history. Creativity must circulate\ncleanly and quickly, and it should leave no dirty remainder. For what\ninterests Hollywood, and the market in general, is not creativity as a\ncomplex human process, weighed down in bodies and relationships and\nempty days, but creativity as an abstraction, free of irrationality\nand pain, and light enough to hover like a great logo above the\ncontinents.\n\nPerhaps, as the logic of systematised production occupies the terrain\nof human creativitymore completely, we will reach a stage where we\nsurrender all knowledge about this troubling domain, and it will\nbecome entirely alien to us. Perhaps one day we will be terrified of\nwhat explosive dangers might rise up from the creativity of human\nbeings.\n\n[1] http://mako.cc/writing/toward_a_standard_of_freedom.html\n\n[2] http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0610/msg00025.html\n\n[3] http://ranadasgupta.com/texts.asp?text_id=45\n\n[4] http://www.themobilecity.nl/2008/01/05/designing-for-locative-media-seamless-or-seamful-experiences/\n\n\n- -- \n\njaromil, dyne.org developer, http://jaromil.dyne.org\n\nGPG: 779F E8B5 47C7 3A89 4112 64D0 7B64 3184 B534 0B5E\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)\n\niEYEARECAAYFAkoP/aAACgkQe2QxhLU0C15y4ACeKYaj8pNKu7lS/Z1sIuVUtbfL\nmBUAn2h7gwq7AN0Gsv+lgidMWqZoga1q\n=Skrp\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "jaromil <jaromil {AT} dyne.org>",
|
||
"author_name": "jaromil",
|
||
"message-id": "20090517120554.GA4808 {AT} dyne.or",
|
||
"id": "00047",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00047.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 14:05:54 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "> jaromil said:\n> Montevideo / Time Based Arts ... which is now called Nederlands\n> Instituut voor Mediakunst (NIMK, BTW)\n> if we speak of a national institute that started in a squat in\n> Amsterdam 30 years ago\n\nHello.\n\nI did not remember that the 'Nimk' was started in a squat: isn't this the\nstory of Paradiso and Melkweg?\n\nAs far as I know the 'Netherlands Media Art Institute' was born when\n'Monte Video' and 'Time Based Arts' merged (1993).\n\nMonte Video was founded by René Coelho in 1978, and initially operated\nfrom his house in Amsterdam. (was that squatted? I tend to doubt.)\nMonte Video focused on video art and provided equipment for producing\nworks and space to show them (soon collecting and distributing...\nvideo-tapes!).\n\nTime Based Arts was founded in 1983 by the Association of Video Artists,\nso it was an artists run association creating a network for distribution;\nit was more performance oriented than Monte Video, according to the story\nthat was narrated to me, and which I deduced from the collection. (Can\nanyone confirm this, please?)\nWere they squatting? But they were getting funding...\nI am somewhat curious.\n\nMaybe other people on this list know more.\n\nThere is a page of history on the nimk.nl, but i saw no wikipedia entry on\nthis topic.\nI find the *story of this institute quite beautiful and paradigmatic in\nthe development of the (non-linear) chain of media mutations (which could\noff course be expanded):\n\nhappening/performance (art=life)\nelectronic art\nvideo-art (art=registration)\nmedia-art, software-art (art=simulation)\n\nI paste it below.\n\nBest,\nEleonora\n\n===\n\n**History**\n\n1978\nMonte Video is founded by René Coelho. From his home on the Singel in\nAmsterdam he makes equipment and documentation available, and furnishes\none room as a gallery. The first video artist whose work is shown here on\nthe Singel was Livinus van de Bundt, Coelho's inspiration. Other artists,\nsuch as Bill Viola, Gary Hill, Shelly Silver and Gabor Body, soon make\ncontact. It is not long before Monte Video has a large selection of works\navailable for rental.\n\n1983\nThanks to government funding Monte Video is able to move to Amsterdam\nNorth. There is now sufficient space to offer regular presentations. Not\nonly Dutch artists, but also those from other countries are given a chance\nto show their videos or installations.\n\n1986\nGovernment funding received by Monte Video is cut back to almost nothing.\nMonte Video does receive several small transitional grants from the city\nof Amsterdam.\nTime Based Arts, which had been founded in 1983 by the Association of\nVideo Artists, is fast becoming well-known as a distributor of video art,\nand continues receiving government funding.\n\n1986-1993\nRené Coelho continues on his own. Monte Video moves back to his home on\nthe Singel. The acquisition of production facilities, distribution,\ndocumentation and promotion goes on, financed from his own income and by\norganizing large projects. One of these, as an example, was 'Imago', an\nexhibition of Dutch video installations which toured worldwide for five\nyears beginning in 1990. There were also plans laid for the first\nconservation programs for video art.\nThe chairman of Time Based Arts, Aart van Barneveld, died; his death was\nfollowed by many conflicts within the organization. In the early 1990s\nTime Based Arts also lost its subsidies and threatened to go under. Monte\nVideo and Time Based Arts decide to provide a joint art program for\nAmsterdam cable TV, Channel Zero.\n\n1993\nTime Based Arts merges with Monte Video. Their work is continued under the\nnew name of Netherlands Media Art Institute, Montevideo/Time Based Arts.\nThis fusion does free up national funding. In both 1997 and 2001 the\ngrants are expanded and converted into a structural subsidy for four\nyears.\n\n1993-2002\nThe Netherlands Media Art Institute moves twice, in 1994 to the Spuistraat\nand in 1997 to its present location on the Keizersgracht.\nThe Institute continues to grow through these years, and adopts the\nfollowing mission statement: The Netherlands Media Art Institute supports\nmedia art in three core areas: presentation, research and conservation. At\nthe same time, through its facilities it offers extensive services for\nartists and art institutions. Among these services are educational\nprograms, to be developed to accompany all activities.\n\nand\n\n**History of the Collection**\n\nThe collection of the Netherlands Media Art Institute, Montevideo/Time\nBased Arts reflects the turbulent history of the Institute. In addition to\nthe collection of Monte Video, the predecessor of the Netherlands Media\nArt Institute, the Institute administers the collections of four\ninstitutions: the Lijnbaan Center (1970-1982), Time Based Arts\n(1983-1994), De Appel (1975-1983) and the Institute Collection\nNetherlands. This combination of artists' initiatives (Time Based Arts, De\nAppel and the Lijnbaan Center) and more formal institutions (Institute\nCollection Netherlands and the present Netherlands Media Art Institute)\naffords the collection a surprising diversity. In addition to renowned\nartists like Bill Viola, Nam June Paik and Gary Hill (who were represented\nin the collection as far back as the 1970s), there are internationally\nknown Dutch artists who experimented with the medium for only a short\nperiod in the 1970s, such as Marinus Boezem, Jan van Munster and Pieter\nEngels.\nBefore any institutions at all had yet been created for the purpose of\ncollecting small centers were set up in various parts of The Netherlands\nwhich facilitated and promoted the use of video by and for artists. The\nearliest examples of this were Agora Studios in Maastricht, the Lijnbaan\nCenter in Rotterdam (itself a merger of the studio of Venster in Rotterdam\nand the video studio which was set up for the Sonsbeek exhibition in 1971\nin Arnhem), and a couple of individuals such as the artists Miguel-Ángel\nCárdenas and Jack Moore in Amsterdam, who made their cameras available for\nother artists. Many of the works which were made in this earliest period\nof Dutch video art only surfaced from oblivion in the course of the 1990s.\nSurprising discoveries among them are the works of Dennis Oppenheim, Terry\nFox, Wim Gijzen, Nan Hoover and Tajiri.\n\nWith the arrival of the collection of De Appel an enormously rich\ncollection of video records of performances was added. De Appel flourished\nin the 1970s as one of the most progressive international work sites for\nperformance art. The collection of this institution contained unique works\nby Vito Acconci, Laurie Anderson, Gina Pane, Carolee Schneemann and\nothers. But in addition to records of events in her own gallery, Wies\nSmalls, the founder of De Appel, also built up a collection of\ninternational video art in order to enable the Dutch public to become\nacquainted with what was happening internationally, including work by\nDouglas Davis, Ulrike Rosenbach, Joan Jonas and Alison Knowles.\n\nIn the early 1980s, with De Appel as its base, efforts were begun to\nestablish an association for video artists, which later created the Time\nBased Arts Foundation. The collection of this artists' association, in\naddition to works by artists based in The Netherlands, such as\nAbramovic/Ulay, Hooykaas/Stansfield, Ben d'Armagnac, Christine Chiffrun\nand Lydia Schouten, also included work by international artists like Mona\nHatoum and General Idea.\nTime Based Arts maintained an active collection policy, in which any\nartist who worked with video could try to have his or her work included in\nthe collection. As it grew the collection became enormously diverse and\nafforded a good overview of the various ways that video could be employed\nin the visual arts. Through in to the 1990s Time Based Arts played an\nimportant role in the collection, distribution and support of video art\nuntil, in 1994, under pressure from the municipal authorities of\nAmsterdam, it entered into a merger with Monte Video.\n\nRené Coelho began his video gallery Monte Video in 1978, and in doing so\nlaid the foundation for the present Institute. Monte Video was a gallery\nwhich specialized in electronic art and especially in video art that\nsought out the creative possibilities and qualities of the medium itself.\nAn important impetus for establishing the institution was the work of the\nDutch video pioneer Livinus van de Bundt. He was therefore the first\nartist to be shown in the gallery. Later the Vasulkas, Bert Schutter,\nPeter Bogers, Matthew Schlanger and many others followed. In addition to\nthe works that were to be seen in the gallery, Monte Video began to be\nactive in collecting and distributing work. Bill Viola, Gary Hill, Shelly\nSilver and Gabor Body were for instance artists who 'stabled' their work\nwith Monte Video. The gallery owed its international success chiefly to\nthis. When in the 1990s the conservation of video works became a pressing\nproblem, the then merged Montevideo/Time Based Arts established itself as\nthe goad and later as the center of technical expertise for carrying out\nthe Conservation of Dutch Video Art project. As well as the collections\ndescribed above, there was integral cooperation with museums that over the\ncourse of time had also collected video work. In addition to much\ntechnical research, the conservation efforts also prompted considerable\nrecording work and research into content. Among questions dealt with were\nthe status of the vehicle, the significance of the material chosen and\nestablishing the boundary conditions for proper exhibition. Because of the\ndifferences in approach among the institutions from which they came,\nconsiderable time was spent integrating the collections with one another,\nand getting the possibilities for the use of the works coordinated with\none another. But now, with the end of the conservation project in sight,\nthe gaps between the collections appear to be closing ever more, and we\ncan proudly present our multi-faceted collection to the public, as we do\nhere.\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "\"xname\" <root {AT} xname.cc>",
|
||
"author_name": "xname",
|
||
"message-id": "3266070d80132b99ebf3351b5cb71455.squirrel {AT} tuxic.nl",
|
||
"id": "00050",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00050.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Media Mutations - Life | Registration | Simulation (was: Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis)",
|
||
"date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 15:40:16 +0200 (CEST)"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": ">> [...] Arts\n\n> what art\n\n> True, art\n\nIn short: No money (as one of the forms of profit) without art, no art\nwithout politics. This is a simple formula and any Baudrillard would\nhave secretly subcribed this, even in an epoch of ended (Hegel and \nfollowers) or never realized (Debord and followers) art. The fact is,\nwe* don't need art as art, but -- and someone like jaromil shows this\nto us** -- we need other conditions, as painting, code or video or\ndiy-cooking if you like, I don't care -- changing media is always good.\nBut we are not able to produce the conditions 'now' -- like someone like\njaromil is may thinking -- because the conditions produce us, alienate\nus; they will allways produce us (products produce consumption and vice\nversa), but these conditions are (straightforward now) have to be\nuncaged from ruling modes of production, in the meant sector reproduced\nby national institutions (ZKM in Germany, Ex-Montevideo in NL, your\npersonal MTV at home). The New Media Arts Crisis is not my crisis, It's\njust the crisis of the middle-class (Yuppie or not, fallen programmer or\nrising video-installer) in form of some arts with newer or older media,\nmay it a t-shirt or an lcd. So there is no aftermath here but the\neffects of a mixed up (I love this status and condition) highbrow, baby!\nelite meshed with an alternative \"green\" and independent buisness party\nwith no idea of real coding out there (forget networks, they are roped\nparties).\n__________\n* and ** Me, I and you as the readers who follows this text.\n\nM\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Matze Schmidt <matze.schmidt {AT} n0name.de>",
|
||
"author_name": "Matze Schmidt",
|
||
"message-id": "1739011317.20090518112202 {AT} n0name.",
|
||
"id": "00059",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00059.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Media Mutations - Life | Registration | Simulation\t(was: Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis)",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 11:22:02 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nHey Renee,\n \n> You point towards a classic issue, the relevance of context. What do\n> different registers (fine art, media art, design, activism, popular\n> culture etc.) give to a particular work and what does a categorization\n> exclude, meaning what does it make *impossible*. Every register\n> influences interpretation, (in)visibility, production and funding.\n\nYeah, and inevitably, these registers are not just different chosen\nperspectives we have on particular works, but also institutional and\ndisciplinary contexts in which workers have to put their work and\nwhose written and unwritten rules they can't avoid abiding.\n\n> Can you speak more specifically about which curators, what art\n> educational programs, which artists and what practices?\n\nI was really thinking of the contemporary art system as it has been\ndescribed by its own protagonists, for example in Isabelle Graw's\n2008 book \"Der grosse Preis\", or has been analyzed, with means that\nreally deserve the term \"artistic research\", by Hans Haacke as early\nas in the 1970s in such pieces as \"The Chocolate Master\". And many\npeople have criticized that system from within, from Henry Flynt in\nthe 1960s to the writer and \"Thing Hamburg\"-blogger Michel Chevalier\ntoday. I think it is legitimate to make a sweepingly general critique\nof the contemporary art system just as it is legitimate to generally\ncriticize and attack the music industry and contemporary popular music\nsystem for example. That doesn't mean that there would be absolutely\nno good music coming out of that system. But unlike other culture\nindustries, the contemporary (Fine) Art system often falsely believes\nin its own autonomy. And it's my general experience and opinion that\nthe art I'm more interested in is more often than not to be found in\nplaces outside that system. In the 1960s, this was true for Fluxus\nand Situationism, in the 1970s and 1980s for the Mail Art Network and\npostpunk, and in the 1990s for Net.art, the Luther Blissett project or\nthe alternative pornography movement. Today, to speak in terms of our\nboth hometown Rotterdam, I'm finding the interesting contemporary arts\nat places like WORM and De Player and only rarely at Witte de With,\nfor example.\n\n> For a constructive debate, it's important to avoid caricatures,\n> otherwise there's a risk of creating false enemies, or missing out\n> on how to best counter the real ones.\n\nWell, this is true, and I admit that my posting was polemical\n- and emotional. My gripes with the contemporary art\nsystem are also based on bad personal experience and\nconfrontations such as the one with the \"Just Do It\" exhibition\n<http://www.mail-archive.com/nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net/msg02876.html>.\n\n> hmmmm....not sure about this, having worked as a hybrid artist/\n> designer/curator/media artist/collaborator for some time now, again\n> I reiterate that there are many different artworlds (and for that\n> matter artists/inhabitants/vagrants).\n\nIndeed. It's just that the particular art world I mentioned above\n- and which can be roughly described as the art world of the many\nbiennials, the Documenta, contemporary art spaces like PS.1 and KW,\ncontemporary art journals like October, Texte zur Kunst, Springerin\nand Metropolis M, too often monopolizes the term \"art\" for the art\nthat it represents. Admittedly, its system can be permissive and\ninclude 'outside' practices, particularly when a curatorial subject\nrequires it. However, it would be possible to map the institutions\nmentioned above just by the overlap of the people they involve,\nand come up with a fairly good representation of what makes up\ncontemporary art.\n\nThey same is true, no doubt, if you take ars electronica, transmediale\nand ISEA, plus Leonardo, Neural, Rhizome and Nettime, ZKM and ICC\nTokyo, and pin down the system \"media art\". But just as that latter\nsystem is now being - deservedly - questioned and undergoing a huge\nif not terminal structural crisis, I think it is as legitimate to\nquestion the contemporary Fine Art system, and the Western concept of\nautonomous art. So, going back to Geert's initial report about the\ndiscussion about the crisis of \"Media Art\" at Montevideo Amsterdam,\nI think that it can't be a solution to integrate a very questionable\n\"media art\" system into an equally questionable contemporary art\nsystem. [As it is now happening, in education, too, for example in the\nZurich art school media department where Felix Stalder teaches, and\nwhere the media programme has been rolled back into Fine Art on the\nMaster level.]\n\n> Sometimes they intersect, rub next to each other, come into\n> agitation or simply run on parallel tracks. (Not too disimilar from\n> the so-called new media world.) Think of open source practitioners,\n> the Max/Flash folk, and those that poach the web's detritus for\n> their own purposes, they're all a part of new media arts, but each\n> tend to dwell in different corners of the digital notion universe\n> (or maybe not, if you're one of those cross-pollinators :-)\n\nYep, only that what you describe above is really declining and may not\nsee much art funding or support in the future. The writing is on the\nwall.\n\n> >> Director Heiner Holtappels opened by noticing that new media art\n> >> is not easily accepted by fine art. Traditional art has become\n> >> eclecticism. According to Heiner, all art is technology based.\n> >\n> > This is true, yet contemporary art has mostly given up on\n> > reflecting its media. [I can almost hear an iPhone-wearing curator\n> > saying that reflecting one's media is outmoded modernism.]\n>\n> ouch, how stereotypes do prevail. I wonder if there would be a\n> paradigm shift if he/she had been envisioned with a pre-paid nokia.\n> ;-)\n\nI should have told that the above example was taken from a real\nlife experience, although it's admittedly a deliberate caricature\nwhen I I blew it out of proportion as above. I agree very much with\nBrian that artistic practices (to put it as broadly) are deeply\nintertwined in culture and communication. There's a good chance,\nand I really mean this, that I am getting old - in punk terms:\na boring old fart - who's insisting on outmoded viewpoints. But\nI think that critiques of modernism, as legitimate as they are,\nbecome problematic when they're used to legitimize and maintain the\nstatus quo. [An extreme example is the contemporary art gallery\nscene and private collections in Berlin and their intrinsic links to\nthe German discourse of \"Neue Bürgerlichkeit\" (\"new bourgeoisie\")\n<http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_Bürgerlichkeit>.] The current\neconomic, political and social developments should render all\nnotions of posthistoire and non-rupture in the fabric of culture and\ncommunication, and hence also in the arts, all the more obsolete.\nThey also question the bourgeois insistence on artistic practice as a\nproduct of individual subjectivity. And finally, the contemporary art\nfield has been much ahead of the media art system in postcolonialism;\nhowever, if this reflection is serious, it should not exclude the\nnotion and system of art itself.\n\nWell, anyway, since the Geuzen collective of which you're a member\noperates in its own carefully chosen grey zone between art, activism,\ndesign, media, research and education, I actually think that our\nstandpoints are quite similar, just that our points of departure\nregarding the usefulness of the contemporary art system might\ndiffer. For me, the projects of De Geuzen are a very good example\nfor a post-autonomous artistic practice. Again, although I'm no\nfriend of the media art system, I'm quite sure that it would be\npractices like those of the Geuzen that would suffer and struggle\nto find institutional support once the \"media art\" system will\nhave vanished and been replaced with the existing contemporary art\nsystem (particularly the more cut-throat kind of the USA, Germany\nand England, with people who are anxious not to pollute Fine Art\nwith applied or sociocultural practices they hate and detest as\nnon-artistic [1].).\n\nFlorian\n\n\n[1] a good example would be Berlin's Künstlerhaus Bethanien, a renown\ncontemporary arts space, whose director Christoph Tannert bitterly\nfights a group of squatters and their sociocultural center in his own\nbuilding. \n\n\n\n-- \nblog: http://en.pleintekst.nl\nhomepage: http://cramer.pleintekst.nl:70\n gopher://cramer.pleintekst.nl\n\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "lorian Cramer <fc-nettime {AT} pleintekst.nl>",
|
||
"author_name": "Florian Cramer",
|
||
"message-id": "20090523000503.GA17293 {AT} hp.localdomain",
|
||
"id": "00068",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00068.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Sat, 23 May 2009 02:05:03 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nHi Florian,\n\nMy apologies for a slightly delayed response. I completely agree that\nthere are aspects within the art world which need critical scrutiny. I\nwas simply asking for specificity, and I appreciate that you've taken\nthe time to clarify.\n\n> But unlike other culture industries, the contemporary (Fine) Art\n> system often falsely believes in its own autonomy.\n\nI wonder if this is true. Feminist/post colonial practices have often\nargued the opposite and with much efficacy. Think of Jean Fisher's\ncritical texts, Adrian Piper's work and Lucy Lippard's writing and\ncuratorial projects and even the recent educational department at\nGoldsmiths of Irit Rogoff; all of these practices seem to point to an\nart world/system which is political, embodied and implicated.\n\n> And it's my general experience and opinion that the art I'm\n> more interested in is more often than not to be found in places\n> outside that system. In the 1960s, this was true for Fluxus and\n> Situationism, in the 1970s and 1980s for the Mail Art Network and\n> postpunk, and in the 1990s for Net.art, the Luther Blissett project\n> or the alternative pornography movement.\n\nI'm also interested these movements, practices, antics/pranktics,\nbut unlike you, I see them as a part of a complex and multifaceted\nart world (not outside of it). I find it problematic to define the\nsystem as only popular art mags, the market and large institutions\nwhen there's so much other interesting work going on. (not to mention,\nhow would you classify those of us involved in art education?)\n\n> Today, to speak in terms of our both hometown Rotterdam, I'm finding\n> the interesting contemporary arts at places like WORM and De Player\n> and only rarely at Witte de With, for example.\n\nYes, here we can look into specific curatorial approaches and talk\nabout who these various institutions and orgs are addressing. (this\ntakes more time than I have now... but I'm nonetheless interested in\nexploring this further at a later juncture) >> > Indeed. It's just\nthat the particular art world I mentioned above > - and which can\nbe roughly described as the art world of the many > biennials, the\nDocumenta, contemporary art spaces like PS.1 and KW, > contemporary\nart journals like October, Texte zur Kunst, Springerin > and\nMetropolis M, too often monopolizes the term \"art\" for the art > that\nit represents. Admittedly, its system can be permissive and > include\n'outside' practices, particularly when a curatorial subject > requires\nit. However, it would be possible to map the institutions > mentioned\nabove just by the overlap of the people they involve, > and come up\nwith a fairly good representation of what makes up > contemporary art.\n\nI agree, this *is* truly the crux. It's crucial to map the overlap of \npeople/institutions and ask ourselves who's setting the agenda, who's \ncontrolling the funding and whose *corner* of art world is being \nrepresented, and moreover, what do these representations make \nimpossible, meaning what do they render invisible.\n\n\n> They same is true, no doubt, if you take ars electronica,\n> transmediale and ISEA, plus Leonardo, Neural, Rhizome and Nettime,\n> ZKM and ICC Tokyo, and pin down the system \"media art\". But just\n> as that latter system is now being - deservedly - questioned and\n> undergoing a huge if not terminal structural crisis, I think it is\n> as legitimate to question the contemporary Fine Art system, and the\n> Western concept of autonomous art.\n\nIt's absolutely legitimate to question art's autonomy, and it's been\nhappening for some time now. Besides the previous examples listed\nabove, recently there has been much debate about the proliferation of\nbiennials how art feeds into a neoliberal agenda.\n\n> So, going back to Geert's initial report about the discussion about\n> the crisis of \"Media Art\" at Montevideo Amsterdam, I think that it\n> can't be a solution to integrate a very questionable \"media art\"\n> system into an equally questionable contemporary art system. [As it\n> is now happening, in education, too, for example in the Zurich art\n> school media department where Felix Stalder teaches, and where the\n> media programme has been rolled back into Fine Art on the Master\n> level.]\n\nIn many respects this cycle has happened to photography (remember\nwhen John Tagg wrote that no history of art photography could be\nwritten without taking into account, pornography, daguerreotypes,\npropaganda and family snapshots.) Or video's roots in activism,\nhome videos, street journalism (Martha Rosler's essay: Shedding the\nUtopian Moment).... there's much to learn from these histories of\nassimilation. It's important to look at how institutionalization\n\"tames\" media...disciplines the discipline. But while questioning the\nsystems of Fine Art, Media Art etc, I think as producers, viewers,\neducators and implicated accomplices, it's imperative to ask what do\nwe want to see happen or change.\n\nAs a graduate student in the eighties, I was taught by Harmony\nHammond, a painter and co-founder of Heresies. In her painting\nclass, she reserved time to present her personal collection of\nartists' works she felt were under-represented by the mainstream art\nworld. It was a small but extremely powerful gesture. Eventually, in\n2000 the collection was published under the title, Lesbian Art in\nAmerica: A Contemporary History. I learned much from Harmony, but\nthe most influential part of her teaching was watching her practice\n*otherwise*.\n\nSo in this context, I'm asking myself how can I/we practice\n*otherwise* and how might that *doing* nudge or broaden the scope of\ndominant discourses and visual regimes.\n\nbest,\n\nRenee\nhttp://www.geuzen.org/\nhttp://www.fudgethefacts.com/\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Renee Turner <geuzen {AT} xs4all.nl>",
|
||
"author_name": "Renee Turner",
|
||
"message-id": "20C7E909-1381-4CB2-963B-40479902EC2E {AT} xs4all.nl",
|
||
"id": "00075",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00075.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 25 May 2009 13:37:41 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "i agree.. i'm new to nettime, but following it silently until now, and \nhave been doing research in this area.\nhere are a few earlier notes i've made on this topic:\n http://www.rchoetzlein.com/theory/\n\nin my view, the problem is that new media theory - the theory side \nanyway (not the art) - is largely defined by what we read from new media \ntheorists, such as lev manovich and baudrillard. yet these philosophers \ndo their primary work in \"media theory\" itself, that is the \nanthropological study of how media influences culture. thus, their \ncentral message is that media has meaning, and meaning changes culture:\n\n\"True, art is on the periphery for me. I don't really identify with it. \nI would even say that I have the same negative prejudice towards art \nthat I do toward culture in general. My point of view is \nanthropological. From this perspective, art no longer seems to have a \nvital function; it is afflicted by the same fate that extinguishes \nvalue, by the same loss of transcendence.\" - Jean Baudrillard\n\ni do not deny their contributions to media theory of course, but despite \nthe fact that they may be open about their field of study (as this quote \nshows), the new media arts has not moved to define itself as an \"art \nform\", but rather defines itself in terms of media. of course, as an \nartist, i disagree about defining media art in such post-modernist terms \n(that is, purely as an outgrowth of culture). contrast the view of art \nabove with this one:\n\n\"The activity of art is based on the fact that one, receiving through \nhis or her sense of hearing or sight another's expression of feeling, is \ncapable of experiencing the emotion which moved the one who expressed \nit.\" - Leo Tolstoy\n\nNew media art should be defined from an art-philosophical perspective. \nIn this view, meaning is present in all works, to varying degrees, \nregardless of how they might be appropriated by culture. At what time is \nhistory was art not appropriated by culture? None the less, people \ncontinued to create art. The process of art-making is one of creating \nmeaning, and this relation between the artist and the work is not \nchanged despite how the object is ultimately appreciated, used, or \nabused by culture.\n\n-rama hoetzlein\n\n\ncarlos katastrofsky wrote:\n \n> what i am always wondering about is why the media arts field is so\n> concerned with its media. is dealing with \"new media\" or \"old media\"\n> an excuse for making good or bad art? IMO defining art by its media\n> is on the same level as defining art by its subject. not getting over\n> these definitions will result in a ghetto-situation sooner or later.\n> the problem -IMHO- is not that media art is not recognized by the fine\n> art world but that the fine art world is dealing with other subjects.\n> when was the last big exhibition dealing solely with \"painting\" or\n> \"sculpture\" you've seen? ars electronica and the others are doing that\n> every year: \"new media art\" with changing subtitles.\n <...>\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Rama Hoetzlein <rch {AT} umail.ucsb.edu>",
|
||
"author_name": "Rama Hoetzlein",
|
||
"message-id": "4A105BE2.9050609 {AT} umail.ucsb.edu",
|
||
"id": "00051",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n> what i am always wondering about is why the media arts field is so\n> concerned with its media. is dealing with \"new media\" or \"old media\"\n> an excuse for making good or bad art? IMO defining art by its media\n> is on the same level as defining art by its subject. not getting\n> over these definitions will result in a ghetto-situation sooner or\n> later. the problem -IMHO- is not that media art is not recognized\n> by the fine art world but that the fine art world is dealing with\n> other subjects. when was the last big exhibition dealing solely\n> with \"painting\" or \"sculpture\" you've seen? ars electronica and the\n> others are doing that every year: \"new media art\" with changing\n> subtitles.\n\n <...>\n\nAn interesting addition to this would be the emergence of 'New, new\nmedia arts'. I am thinking here, of practices in the field currently\ndefining itself as bioart. Here the medium that is being manipulated\nis a form of living or sem-living matter, or tissue. Bioartist,\nEduardo Kac and curator Jens Hauser have sought to specifically\nidentify this new art practice, expressly on the basis of the medium\nitself. Bioarts, they argue, are most definitely are not those works\nthat take bios or a form of life, as a subject, but manipulate it as a\nmedium. That said, the manipulation of living tissue can be executed\nthrough a number of divergent practices, specific technologies, and it\nis these that seem to be defined by some as the media, not the living\ntissue they manipulate. I guess a somewhat simplistic comparison\nwould be between with identification of various 'digital media' in\nabstraction from the advances in computer technology on which they are\nbased.\n\nMy current work in the field of bioart is increasingly\npushing me towards a frustration at the distinction between\nart/science/media/technology/old/new that recurs in the majority of\nliterature, and if I am not wrong seems to predicate this current\ndiscussion. In the light of these new practices I have been working\ntowards re-imagining what art and media are in themselves, as\ntechnologies and processes not as distinct practices - the specific\nmedia or declared purpose seem less relevant from this perspective. So\nI wonder whether 'meaning is present in all works, to varying degrees,\nregardless of how they might be appropriated by culture' could be\nextended beyond a simple valorisation of art.\n\nIt also seems that those new media theorists, such as Manovich and\nBaudrillard are somewhat restricted in their approach in that new\nmedia is perceived in a somewhat teleological sense, newness for\nthe sake of newness, with new theories to match new media - without\nasking what is actually recurring in new media. IMO it seems that\nmost new media, are really just old media anyway, particularly so in\nbioart. Is the creative growth of tissue not what we do continually\nas part of our natural bodily processes? Would it be facetious\nthen to ask whether all media be considered from this originary\nperspective, negating the discussions about relative newness or\ncultural categorization (ie i's art, it's science, it's technology,\nit's media).\n\nBen\n\n\n\n-- ---------\n Ben Craggs\n 07868 273 360\n---------------\n http://www.digitalscribblings.org/forums\n A place for academic discussion, networking and general postgraduate procrastination!\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "ben.craggs {AT} fastmail.f",
|
||
"author_name": "ben . craggs",
|
||
"message-id": "1242632525.29400.1315956661 {AT} webmail.messagingengine.com",
|
||
"id": "00053",
|
||
"to": "\"NetTime Mailing List\" <nettime-l {AT} kein.org>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00053.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 08:42:05 +0100"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nRama Hoetzlein wrote:\n\n> New media art should be defined from an art-philosophical\n> perspective. In this view, meaning is present in all works, to\n> varying degrees, regardless of how they might be appropriated\n> by culture. At what time in history was art not appropriated by\n> culture? None the less, people continued to create art. The process\n> of art-making is one of creating meaning, and this relation between\n> the artist and the work is not changed despite how the object is\n> ultimately appreciated, used, or abused by culture.\n\nIt's great to read such a fundamental comment. I shall add something.\nMy viewpoint includes both Tolstoy's and Baudrillard's. I find that\ninformatic art (my own off-the-cuff term, but surely better than new\nmedia) is compelling precisely when it places subjective expression\nwithin the most strongly coercive social arena of our time, namely\nthe digital networks. Your idea that there is an art-philosophical\nperspective that could exclude or bypass social determinism seems,\nbegging your pardon, somewhat naive. What is more, I think all the\ninterest of art itself disappears when it is shorn from the contexts\nof power and held up as a pure conductor of subjectivity. Approached\nin that way, the art work tends to become no more than a mirror for\nour own emotions and fantasies -- far from any state of empathy,\nEinfuhlung or whatever one chooses to call it. So I am not surprised\nthat you move from Tolstoy's fascinating quote (reproduced below) to\nthe \"relation between the artist and the work.\" I guess I am more\ninterested in, well, media: the way the work relates the artist to\nothers.\n\nHowever, your observation about new media theory (Kittler and McLuhan\nwere recently mentioned here) is spot on. What we are given from\nthe podium, over and over again, are lessons about the power of\ntechnoscientific systems. The predicament of the human singularity,\ncaught within the net of determinisms yet resisting, creating another\nreality and expressing this rather fantastic adventure through\nwhatever kind of material or semiotic medium has been chosen, is left\nout of the story, which thereby becomes a monument to the crushing\nregularity of the status quo. The same thing, of course, happens to\nresistant political action in the hands of the sociologists and the\nHeideggerean philosophers of an essential, \"historial\" alienation.\nBoth ethics and aesthetics take it on the chin.\n\nIn my view, the great inspiration for new media theory has come from\nhackers themselves, who create alternative possibilities for existence\nwithin the overwhelmingly powerful networked environment. This is why,\nin essays which are inseparably about art and technics, I tend to\nuse concepts like \"reverse imagineering\" or \"escaping the overcode.\"\nExpression, for me, is the rupture of code, an excess which does not\nabolish the labyrinth in which we are caught, but at least opens up a\npossible new path through it.\n\nThat's one approach. There could be many others. The problem, as\nyou point out, is that usually there are not, because the theory\nvery rarely meets any actual practice. The necessary discussion of\ntechnological power holds the center stage. Of course that is easier\nfor the whole \"new media\" social circuit, because then you don't have\nto think very much, or feel very much, or try very hard to find out\nwhat might be at stake in a particular work.\n\nThis list, I guess, is about the best place to talk about how to\napproach media art. Thanks to all for starting the conversation. I'm\nready for more. Let the thousand info-aesthetics bloom!\n\nbest, BH\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Brian Holmes <brian.holmes {AT} wanadoo.fr>",
|
||
"author_name": "Brian Holmes",
|
||
"message-id": "4A10825D.6040905 {AT} wanadoo.fr",
|
||
"id": "00054",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00054.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 23:32:13 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nBrian, thanks for your reply. In general, i'm glad to see that\nwe're mostly in agreement. Based on my observations of nettime-l,\ndisagreement is often the norm, so I'm glad to see that there is\nsome consensus between us that the new media theorists are currently\nthe only option we've been given, and that we really need some\nalternatives.. Now, for some responses.\n\n> Your idea that there is an art-philosophical perspective that could \n> exclude or bypass social determinism seems, begging your pardon, \n> somewhat naive. \n\nI'm not suggesting that art-philosophy can bypass social determinism.\nI have no illusions about the difficulty the artist faces in creating\nany real social change, since my view of art does not negate any of\nthe real research done by the media theorists. My own view is that\nthe idea of art-for-social-change is long outdated. You suggest\nthat hackers are the source of real inspiration in new media theory\nbecause they alone are able to transform the media itself, and thus\nundermine the system toward some possible escape path. Yet, there\nis no reason to believe that even if the media itself changes, that\nsociety will too. In my view, the only way we could overcome the\ncurrent technoscientific system would be due to a deep, fundamental\ntransformation in all individuals - and while I believe art is\ncapable of doing this one person at a time, I don't think any one\nartwork, hacker or otherwise, is capable of really altering the\ntechnoscientific system we find ourselves in on a global level. Thus,\nall social change we talk about now is still part of that system. This\nis the media theorist perspective, of course - which i agree with -\nbut as an artist, its incomplete.\n\nThe reason I advocate art-philosophy is for the sake of the\nindividual, and the field of art itself. While i just said the artist\nis powerless to transform culture, perhaps to a degree greater than\nmost would like, the artist is _not_ powerless to transform him or\nherself, and others which that person touches through the art..\nDespite whatever the technoscientific system may do, to create art is\nan intentional act by an individual, and thus has an immutable meaning\njust by virtue of being \"created\". We get to choose what is created\n(this does not make it good art necessarily).\n\nThat meaning is present in all work \"to varying degrees\". By this, i\nmean that we each have a unique relationship to our artwork. For some,\nit is a mirror of personal emotions and fantasies (and probably my\nown work most of the time), while others may be able to communicate\nmore.. So, I'm not evaluating art. Some is good, some is not. However,\nhaving an art-philosophical does not automatically reduce our works to\nemotional fantasies. In fact, it is more likely to result in genuinely\nempathetic works since it creates a solid foundation for art based on\na philosophy in which art is encouraged to be empathetic, rather than\nresponsive to a system.\n\nI'm simply stating -- which I think we perhaps both agree with here --\nthat so far we have not been given any other alternative view of new\nmedia art other than that proposed by the new media theorists. The way\nout of this problem is, I believe, through a philosophy of art whereby\nthe artist has full awareness of the problems of society (hopefully),\nyet continues to create works of art despite this. It is possible to\nhave no illusions about the inability of art to bring about explicit\nsocial change, but understand that it can bring implicit change\nthrough individual communication.\n\n-rama\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Rama Hoetzlein <rch {AT} umail.ucsb.edu>",
|
||
"author_name": "Rama Hoetzlein",
|
||
"message-id": "4A10AAD3.1010309 {AT} umail.ucsb.edu",
|
||
"id": "00052",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00052.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 17:24:51 -0700"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n> The way out of this problem is, I believe, through a philosophy of\n> art whereby the artist has full awareness of the problems of society\n> (hopefully), yet continues to create works of art despite this.\n> It is possible to have no illusions about the inability of art to\n> bring about explicit social change, but understand that it can bring\n> implicit change through individual communication.\n>\n\nbut can \"change\" be a parameter for art? what is to be changed through\nart? i agree that a \"change\" in whatever direction is possible but\nIMHO art mustn't be reduced to it. to me art is also someting i can\nadmire without thinking of having to change something. in fact even\nif i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire\nit (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\nsomething autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\na mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at the\nsame time it can be all of that.\n\nbest,\ncarlos\n\n\n-- \nhttp://katastrofsky.cont3xt.net\nhttp://cont3xt.net\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "carlos katastrofsky <carlos.katastrofsky {AT} gmail.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "carlos katastrofsky",
|
||
"message-id": "fb9095bf0905180711m6cd209adt9b6435753d81770a {AT} mail.gmail.com",
|
||
"id": "00058",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00058.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 16:11:26 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nexactly.. even if we are fully unconcerned with political art, when\nyou say \"wow, great work\", thats just and only what i mean by implicit\nchange (you are changed).. art is autonomous here because, while the\nwork may or may not be political, this implicit change defines only\nthe meaning-relation between the artist, the work, and the viewer.\nAnd that relationship is established independent of the impact of\nmedia on society, i.e. politics. A philosophy of art should provide a\nfoundation for complete autonomy, and this is done by observing that\nthe basis of art is creating and appreciating.. keeping in mind that\ntheory only gets you so far as an artist.\n\nrama\n\ncarlos katastrofsky wrote:\n> but can \"change\" be a parameter for art? what is to be changed through\n> art? i agree that a \"change\" in whatever direction is possible but\n> IMHO art mustn't be reduced to it. to me art is also someting i can\n> admire without thinking of having to change something. in fact even if\n> i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire it\n> (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\n> something autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\n> a mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at the\n> same time it can be all of that.\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Rama Hoetzlein <rch {AT} umail.ucsb.edu>",
|
||
"author_name": "Rama Hoetzlein",
|
||
"message-id": "4A1196BD.3060002 {AT} umail.ucsb.edu",
|
||
"id": "00057",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00057.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 10:11:25 -0700"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "carlos katastrofsky wrote:\n\n > if i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire\n > it (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\n > something autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\n > a mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at the\n > same time it can be all of that.\n\nWhat does one admire a piece of art? What is its autonomy? And what could\nbe its consequences? I have asked myself these questions for years. Like\nmost thinking people, I have come to a few conclusions. And since I like\nthe idea that art can be \"all of that\" - a form of communication, a medium,\nnew media art - I would like to share these conclusions with you.\n\nHumans are excessively complex by nature, and inherently social. We are\ndefined by the surfeit of symbolic activity that goes on in our brains and\nindeed, in our full sensorium, and that comes out not only from our mouths\nbut in all sorts of gestures and postures and practices directed toward the\nsenses and symbolizing activities of others. A long anthropological\ntradition running from Sapir through Levi-Strauss to Sahlins holds that\nso-called \"primitive\" societies are no less complex than modern ones: their\nlanguages show comparable range and variety, but are (according to\nLevi-Strauss) oriented differently, more concrete in one case, more\nabstracted in the other. There is so much going on in any human being and\nbetween any group of human beings that just ordering or harmonizing all\nthis excessive symbolization - I mean, excessive over what the utilitarians\nthink of as the simple quest for satisfaction or corporeal pleasure -\nbecomes a problem in itself. Because madness always lurks on the edges of\nour reeling imaginations, and then there is also depression, or anger, or\njealousy, or prejudice or extreme paranoia, indeed a great number of\nobscure problems that can disrupt the life of the one and of the many.\n\nReligion has been the great social technique for bringing all this roiling\nthought, expression and sensation into some kind of predictable pattern and\nharmony, constituting entire narrative and figural universes, with their\nbuilt environments, rituals, music, poetry, smells, tastes, etc, all\nassociated and carefully correlated with orders of kinship, canons of\nsexuality, responsibilities of care, expressions of tenderness,\ncommandments, prohibitions and the like. What we now call art, as it\ngradually detached itself from religion and became a series of aesthetic\ntraditions interpretable and modifiable by individuals - as it became\nautonomous in other words - seems to have taken on the role of being the\nsensuous and ideational mirror of the individual's proper \"fit\" with\nsociety; it became a way of continuing the vast and mostly imaginary\nconversation about the ways that the one relates to the many, and\nvice-versa. However, this conversation was no longer necessarily about\nharmony: because depending on the very particular context, the proper \"fit\"\ncould have aspects of a \"misfit,\" and the quest for an idealized harmony\ncould involve extreme disruptions of the status quo, disruptions appearing\nboth in art and in life itself. Just think about the Antigone of Sophocles\nand you will see that this kind of problematic was not invented with the\nromantics, it goes back quite a ways. Clearly it gets particularly intense\nin modern democracies, where we are all brought up to conceive ourselves as\nboth legislators and revolutionaries.\n\nNow, amusingly, one of the reasons I ever even bothered to think about such\ncomplex and excessive things, so far from \n\"direct political action\" and what have you, is that for \nmany years I have found myself with a certain nagging problem of getting up\nin the morning. Perhaps others have experienced this? It so happens that on\ncertain mornings I may spend as much as an hour just thinking about a\ncertain constellation of things: a group of people, an artwork, a political\nissue, a line from a song, a concept, a phrase from a book, an image, a\nrhythm. Without showing any particular signs of anxiety, insanity,\ndelirium, fever, swine flu or whatever, I still found it necessary to bring\nsuch constellations of ideas and sensations into some kind of dynamic\npattern that would lend a spring to my step, a direction to my speech, an\neffectiveness to my gestures. Being a bit of a misfit - according to the\naforementioned tradition in the democratic societies - I had to work on\nthis question of how to fit all this in, nonetheless: how to fit into my\nown overflowing symbolic and sensate world, first of all, and how to fit\nthat world into the multitude of others with whom daily activity brings me\ninto contact. Thus I began to think that what is pleasing, satisfying,\nattractive, intriguing, inspiring, shocking, repellent, etc in the formal\nallure of artworks is also somehow the result of other people's struggles\nwith the excess of symbolization in which they are embroiled, and that the\n\"success\" of the artwork (wow, great work) is always some variation on the\n\"infinite theme of the artist(s) trying to break out of one universe and\n\"fit into another - whether we're talking about a purely abstract universe\n\"of chromatism or rhythm, or some Hegelian quandry of historical\n\"dialectics, or the current discussion about cap and trade, or the latest\n\"dispute over the coolest tattoos in the punk or heavy-metal circle that\n\"encloses your secret passion. An aesthetic form doesn't directly solve any\n\"of the weighty social problems - but it helps get a world together, it\n\"helps structure a pattern and a dynamic and an enthusiasm, which is always\n\"a good start.\n\nSo how 'bout the politics then? Well, according to my little theory, the\npersonal is clearly both aesthetic and political, because if you can't get\nout of bed you are definitely not going to make it to the office, the\nmarch, the meeting, the voting booth, the library, or wherever your\nactivity is going to have some consequences in terms of organizing social\nrelations. What is more, this is not just my little theory, because going\nback to Plato's Republic or maybe the Rig Vedas, social thinkers have been\nvery conscious of the influence of things like music on the order and\nharmony of the community, the city, state or whatever. Indeed, not long\nago we saw with dazzled and almost disbelieving eyes that a great\nnation-state like China could put a significant fraction of its resources\ninto organizing an aesthetic display which was not just supposed to knock\neverybody out, American style, with its overwhelming show of wealth, but\nalso and above all to enact and celebrate an ideal of harmony and societal\ncoordination which, from my anarcho-individualist viewpoint, was at once\nvastly impressive and also frankly terrifying, because here I could see an\nintensive use of all the latest, hypercomplex aesthetic techniques to knit\ntogether an order that could power a vast authoritarian economic machine\nand infuse it with the enthusiam and belief of the many - which is a lot,\nwhen we're talking China. So you want new media? Replay your avi file of\nthe opening ceremonies of the 2008 Olympics.\n\nWhat I am trying to get at with all of this is that art is essentially\nmedia, it is not merely but essentially about communication, only what is\ncommunicated is not just a phrase or a slogan or a piece of information,\nbut a problematic attempt to reconfigure a world on every level of sensate\nand imaginary experience. That can be an attempt to fit in or to stick out,\nto harmonize or to disrupt, to smash the current relation of self and\nsociety or to conserve it or to invent another one; but insofar as art is\nexpression, it always projects this struggle over the shape and balance of\na world towards the ears and eyes and excessive imaginations of others.\nWhen we say that art is autonomous, we situate it in the long democratic\ntradition where the self, autos, tries to help establish the law, nomos,\naccordingly which it can freely develop in the company of fellow human\nbeings. Now, the problems of this attempt at autonomy are almost infinite,\nthey are sexual, technical, ecological, emotional, mystical, contractual,\nmaterial, they involve philosophy, science, babies, great art and also the\nplumbing. And they always involve the relations of individuals and groups\nto others whose worlds they do not understand, whose rhythms they do not\nfeel pulsing in their own veins, whose tacit concepts of harmony and\ndisruption are not expressed by the same patterns and shapes and colors and\ncombinations of tones. So when I say, Wow, great art - as I often do, just\nthe way people in the new media arts circles have done for years at\nfestivals sponsored by Philips and Microsoft and Sony and the like - the\nfirst consequence for me is to inquire into the world from which that art\narises and to which it points, and eventually to see how I fit into or\ndesire to break out of that world. This means that a deep and searching\ncriticism can never just be criticism of the work, it always has to look\nfurther back, into the world from which it sprang, and ahead to the\nconsequences of a potential change in the worlds we share, or at least to\nthe consequences of a change in the way that *I* or *we* will relate to\nother worlds in the future.\n\nFinally, it seems to me, in my anarcho-democratic world, that to say Wow,\ngreat art, without inquiring into the consequences, is one of the closest\nthings one can do to never getting out of bed, i.e. it's close to\nsleepwalking. Because at best, you would then be just letting the great\nart fit into your own great dream, or letting it be the colorful and\nstriking tattoo that will fit you into your small chosen circle. That's at\nbest - because in the present world of biopower and noopower, just admiring\na work in itself and for itself can mean accepting without question the\nworld that it mediates, which in the case of the networked technologies\nsold by Sony and Microsoft Philips and abused by a vast array of\ncorporations and governments, can be an extremely predatory world,\nconfigured precisely in order to capture your consciousness and extract\nsome value or utility out of your passions and dreams. Value that can\nultimately be devastating for the collectivity (as in the debt-fueld\nconsumption boom of this decade), utility that can make you into the most\nterrible of instruments (like the voters lured by nationalist rhetoric into\nsupporting our proliferating wars).\n\nIt has been years since I read Lev Manovich, so what follows may be totally\nunjust to his work, but as I recall, what always irritated me in his\nwriting was a kind of smug insistence that the new media were essentially\ndefined by a certain kind of rhythm, a certain multiplication of screens, a\ncertain connection to databases, etc. - in other words, that the new media\nwere essentially defined by the dominant trends of contemporary capitalist\nsociety. For me this seemed like a total abdication of criticism itself,\nand it also seemed to be a sort of cheerful, \"I'm on the winning side\"\nversion of the dark technological determinism and philosophical doomsaying\npromoted by the post-Leftist thinkers in the wake of Baudrillard. What I\nmissed was the very question of autonomy, and some recognition of its\nquasi-infinite complexities as they've been ceaselessly developing from the\nNeolithic to now, in the long and discontinuous series of messages passed\nfrom human world to human world. Imho, the poverty of new media art - its \n\"crisis\" - has intrinsically to do with the poverty of media \ncritique tout court. It is the failure to see how the cultural politics of\nindividuals and groups are mediated in the work, how they are expressed at\nevery level of their ineluctable complexity and excess over the \"mere\ncommunication\" of what already exists.\n\nbest, Brian\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Brian Holmes <brian.holmes {AT} wanadoo.fr>",
|
||
"author_name": "Brian Holmes",
|
||
"message-id": "4A12B7A2.7080003 {AT} wanadoo.fr",
|
||
"id": "00062",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00062.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 19 May 2009 15:44:02 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nThanks for some beautiful and thought-provoking statements, especially \nBrian’s and Carlos’s. I would add that to me the real medium of all \nart is attention, attention the viewer or reader or listener must pay, \nfeels consciously drawn to pay, in a deepening and all encompassing \nway. That attention amounts to a transformation of self — into the \nmind and body of the artist, as it were. The rest of the world falls \naway for that moment, and so does time —the moment might be a long one \n—and,a s Brian suggests will recur later on, in recollection and \nreflection.\n\nIf that is art, it is always political, because it always takes the \nattention payer out of the “system,” whatever it might be and however \nmuch the managers of the system in fact solicited the artist or the \nwork to begin with. The huge abstract paintings of the 1950’s cold \nonly fit on the walls of the rich, but nonetheless, as long as they \nwere there, they took over those walls, and made the space different \nfrom what the collector might have intended, and the same goes for \nRenaissance art and art of other periods.\n\nThe reason different media come in is that the artist has an on-going \nproblem as to how to capture attention as distractions and competition \nmultiply. In some way, to be really focussed on, art must avoid being \ntoo easy to experience, for then it can become just the background, \njust decoration or elevator music, or something that can always be \nattended to “later” — I.e., usually never. This is a serious and \nsignificant problem for new media as well, including much Internet art.\n\nExpressly political art can only succeed, it seems to me, if it comes \nfrom the inner depths. For instance, I just finished reading Istvan \nKertesz’s “Fatelessness;” I don’t think it is intentionally political \nbut it certainly made me boil with anger at the human mistreatment and \nneglect of others. Such art brings what was already there inside us \nand adds to its centrality. But that doesn’t happen often. In my \nexperience most political art is superficial and therefore bad, just \nas likely to turn off sympathetic feelings in the viewer as the \nopposite.\n\nIncidentally, I don’t know that good art necessarily causes us to \nthink “Wow! I admire that.” But it doesn't easily let go of us.\n\n\nBest,\nMichael\n\nOn May 19, 2009, at 6:44 AM, Brian Holmes wrote:\n\n> carlos katastrofsky wrote:\n>\n>> if i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire\n>> it (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\n>> something autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\n>> a mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at \n>> the\n>> same time it can be all of that.\n>\n> What does one admire a piece of art? What is its autonomy? And what \n> could\n> be its consequences? I have asked myself these questions for years. \n> Like\n> most thinking people, I have come to a few conclusions. And since I \n> like\n> the idea that art can be \"all of that\" - a form of communication, a \n> medium,\n> new media art - I would like to share these conclusions with you.\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Michael H Goldhaber <mgoldh {AT} well.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "Michael H Goldhaber",
|
||
"message-id": "F6688CA9-F000-49A8-9176-5F62EC6DF50A {AT} well.com",
|
||
"id": "00064",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00064.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 19 May 2009 12:30:11 -0700"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nOn Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Brian Holmes <brian.holmes {AT} wanadoo.fr> wrote:\n\n> So you want new media? Replay your avi file of the opening\n> ceremonies of the 2008 Olympics.\n>\n> What I am trying to get at with all of this is that art is\n> essentially media, it is not merely but essentially about\n> communication, only what is communicated is not just a phrase or\n> a slogan or a piece of information, but a problematic attempt\n> to reconfigure a world on every level of sensate and imaginary\n> experience.\n\nMuch of media studies is obsessed with witnessing an existence that is\npart of mediality, to borrow a term from the previous discussion, by\nplacing great emphasis on inserting the observer into the equation.\nNevertheless these studies formulate a distinction to preserve some\nauthorship role. What this kind of representational relationship\nignores is that it precludes any kind of intervention in favor of a\nconservation. If the art cannot be conserved because it is conceptual\nor a piece of code, the identity of the author is preserved and\ncelebrated. This is because a piece of media arrives at its monetary\nvalue by being bundled with products that claim to correct the\ninjustices, needs, or ailments being described in that piece of media.\nThe media is monetized either for its value of showing a certain lack\nor showing the idealized completion that a product might fulfill. An\nauthorship identity, it turns out, can fulfill this marketing function\nnicely for the lack of any particular object that might or might not\nexist or lacks monetary value, culminating it seems these days in a\nguarded wikipedia entry.\n\nTurns out, while searching for a word to describe the process of\nentering into communication via media I looked up mediated. There is\nplenty of secondary literature on McLuhan using this word to capture\nthe processes McLuhan describes, but he himself only uses the word\nmediated with the original definition to describe the arbitration\nthat happens in a conflict. Using the term mediated in the sense that\na form of communication is performed via media, still implies that\nthere is an exchange occurring where each party must sacrifice some\nof their preconceptions in a productive process that is manufacturing\nrepresentation. Otherwise this representation veers very quickly\ntowards the ideological.\n\nhTTp://eyescratch.tk\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "eyescratch <eyescratch {AT} gmail.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "eyescratch",
|
||
"message-id": "79976e5a0905230730j58fc5bdes611529b066f69590 {AT} mail.gmail.com",
|
||
"id": "00069",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00069.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Sat, 23 May 2009 10:30:31 -0400"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00051.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis",
|
||
"date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 11:48:02 -0700"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nOn Sunday, May 17 2009, 10:59 (+0200), carlos katastrofsky wrote:\n\n> what i am always wondering about is why the media arts field is so\n> concerned with its media. is dealing with \"new media\" or \"old media\"\n> an excuse for making good or bad art? IMO defining art by its media\n> is on the same level as defining art by its subject. not getting\n> over these definitions will result in a ghetto-situation sooner or\n> later.\n\nI am not so sure whether I agree. It all depends on your definition of\n\"media\". The problem is that the word \"media\" means quite different\nthings in different contexts: In the arts, it traditionally refers\nto the material means of expression from which artworks are created\n[painting, sculpture, photography, video, performance - that were also\nthe media meant with such terms as \"intermedia\", \"mixed media\" and\n\"multimedia\" since the 1960s]. In communication studies, \"media\" is\npractically synonymous with mass media and refers to an apparatus and\nsystem of communication, including newspapers, radio, TV, Internet.\nIn other humanities, there is a notion of media as any symbolic or\nsemiotic carrier.\n\nFor example, in the contemporary art (but not media art) world,\nthere just has been a series of exhibitions on pornography, from\n\"BodyPoliticx\" in Rotterdam to \"The Porn Identity\" in Vienna. One\ncould call pornography a medium and thus say that these exhibitions\nwere curated from a media perspective. After all, the ars electronica\ndid almost the same thing with its \"Next Sex\" theme in 2000. Or, a\nrandom example taken from just having browsed the Tate Modern site\nand its blurb on the current exhibition \"Stutter\": \"The onomatopoeic\nword 'Stutter' refers to an act of speech interrupted by agitated,\nspasmodic, or involuntary repetitions. As the title for this\nexhibition, it suggests a metaphor for questions of disruption and\ndiscontinuity in processes of thought, systems of communications\nor conceptions of knowledge.\" Again, this is pretty close if not\nidentical to curatorship from a media and communications viewpoint.\n\n> the problem -IMHO- is not that media art is not recognized by the\n> fine art world but that the fine art world is dealing with other\n> subjects.\n\nIf I take, for example, the subjects of the last nine transmediale\nfestivals (\"Do It Yourself\", \"Go Public\", \"Play Global\", \"Fly Utopia\",\n\"Basics\", \"Reality Addicts\", \"Unfinish\", \"Conspire\", \"Deep North\"),\nthey could just as well have been the names of contemporary art\nexhibitions at PS.1 in New York, KW in Berlin, Witte de With in\nRotterdam, or any other contemporary art space.\n\n> when was the last big exhibition dealing solely with \"painting\" or\n> \"sculpture\" you've seen? ars electronica and the others are doing\n> that every year: \"new media art\" with changing subtitles.\n\nOne could just as well say that contemporary art deals with \"white\ncube installation art\" with changing subtitles.\n\n> the same problem persists when new media artists and theorists\n> insist on \"politicalness\" and \"radicality\".\n\nThe same terms abound in the contemporary art discourse if you read,\nfor example, \"October\" or \"Texte zur Kunst\".\n\n> those terms don't say anything about certain works either, no matter\n> which media is used in it. they only say that they may be recognised\n> as \"political\" in a certain time in a certain context.\n\nIMO art is, like any public expression, always political. Art that\nclaims not to be political being all the more political as a matter\nof fact (with symbolist l'art-pour-l'art being a prime example). What\nI would describe as the political-artistic quality in the art of,\nfor example, ubermorgen is that unlike 'actual' politics, it can be\nwillfully and even criminally irresponsible. One could admittedly\ndismiss this as a romanticist argument, but it has nevertheless a lot\ngoing for it, not just if we look at gothic aesthetics and Bataille's\naesthetics of evil, but also at more recent artistic practices like\nOtto Muehl's commune and Eastern European art since the 1980s.\n\n> but that doesn't say anything about it's \"artness\" either. \"art\n> doesn't become art by having specific characteristics but by a\n> specific kind of processual reference to it.\" (J. Rebentisch,\n> Aesthetik der Installation)\n\nNot knowing the full context of this quote, I nevertheless find such\nsystemic definitions of art quite risky. If the basic quality of art\n- in the sense of 'Fine Art' - lies in its self-reference to its own\nsystem, then it would be something very narrow and ultimately boring,\nand something already exhausted by Duchamp in the 20th century. It\nwould pay a high price for having, since the 19th century, rid itself\nfrom more popular forms of visual culture. Such a definition does not\neven apply to the arguably most elitist forms of other contemporary\narts such as poetry and contemporary classical music, since poetry can\nstill be defined outside its own system as highly condensed/conjugated\nlanguage and new music as highly organized sound. - On top of that, it\nis an exclusively Western concept of art which blatantly contradicts\nthe post-1990s efforts of integrating postcolonial considerations into\ncontemporary art. Remarkable enough, these integrations never question\nthe concept of \"art\" itself - although the concept of autonomous art\nonly exists in Western cultures or as a Western cultural import in,\nfor example, Asian countries (which traditionally do not separate art\nfrom craft).\n\n> if i want to learn something about politics i would read a book with\n> proper information about it and not go to see art that repeats the\n> common sense that there are bad things existing in our world.\n\nTrue. Only that exhibitions like Documenta XI have been haunted by\nthis concept of art.\n\n-F\n\n-- \nblog: http://en.pleintekst.nl\nhomepage: http://cramer.pleintekst.nl:70\n gopher://cramer.pleintekst.nl\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "lorian Cramer <fc-nettime {AT} pleintekst.nl>",
|
||
"author_name": "Florian Cramer",
|
||
"message-id": "20090518210449.GJ3919 {AT} hp.localdomain",
|
||
"id": "00056",
|
||
"follow-up": [
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "> I am not so sure whether I agree. It all depends on your definition of\n> \"media\". The problem is that the word \"media\" means quite different things\n> in different contexts:\n\ni agree. but exactly this is the point: media theory is swallowing\neverything, but where are its boundaries? what i am trying to find as\nartist (neither theorist nor philosopher) is a definition for art that\ngoes beyond a mere definition as \"media\" in whatever sense.\nthat is why i am aiming on the much-maligned term of \"autonomy\" (and\ni'm following here the previous mentioned philosophy of j.\nrebentisch). to me this doesn't mean art is somewhat apolotical or\ndealing solely with itself (l' art pour l'art - i guess you had this\nin mind when stating \"[...] If the basic quality of art - in the sense\nof 'Fine Art' - lies in its self-reference to its own system, then it\nwould be something very narrow and ultimately boring, [...]\"). art is\nmade to be seen/heard/whatever - to be experienced. and this\nexperience is what defines art and not media. it can change in time\n-we quite surely don't experience cave paintings in the same way the\nones did who made them- but i'm not sure if \"the media\" does, no\nmatter if it's read as \"painting/drawing\" or as \"hunting scene\". what\ni am hoping to find by this is a possibility to think about \"art\" and\nneither media nor porn or politics. these are -let's say- \"themes\"\nthat can be interpreted, but i hope that art goes beyond being a good\ndesigned set of political opinions. i mean, what political context is\nreflected in leonardo's \"last supper\"? we surely can speculate but do\nwe know? these are things that are bound to their time and context but\nnevertheless we still percieve it as \"art\".\n\n> If I take, for example, the subjects of the last nine transmediale\n> festivals (\"Do It Yourself\",\n[...]\n> One could just as well say that contemporary art deals with \"white cube\n> installation art\" with changing subtitles.\n[...]\n> The same terms abound in the contemporary art discourse if you read, for\n> example, \"October\" or \"Texte zur Kunst\".\n\nyep, exactly. and this what the \"art world\" makes as boring as \"new\nmedia art\". what i had in mind when saying that the \"fine art world is\ndealing with other subjects\" was not the (i would like to call it\nnonexistent) contemporary discourse. what can be seen in the fine arts\nfield (but not in the big biz -documenta, ps1, kw, ...) is an\ninclusion of possibilities in expression and perception which i never\nsaw in any media-art discourse (though i have to admit i am far from\nfollowing everything in that area).\n\n> Not knowing the full context of this quote, I nevertheless find such\n> systemic definitions of art quite risky. If the basic quality of art\n> - in the sense of 'Fine Art' - lies in its self-reference to its own\n> system,\n\ni'm sorry if this comes through that way, i'm not the best in\nformulating things. i never wanted to present art as solely\nself-referential system. if autonomy is read as autonomy of the object\n(l'art pour l'art) i would agree totally with you. but seen from the\nviewpoint that \"art\" may not lie in an object but somewhere between\nthe object and the observer (experience, perception) an autonomy of\nart is essential.\n\n\nthank you all for your replies :-)\n\nbest,\ncarlos\n-- \nhttp://katastrofsky.cont3xt.net\nhttp://cont3xt.net\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "carlos katastrofsky <carlos.katastrofsky {AT} cont3xt.net>",
|
||
"author_name": "carlos katastrofsky",
|
||
"message-id": "fb9095bf0905190614l39062a34j17867e0d82469c5f {AT} mail.gmail.com",
|
||
"id": "00061",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00061.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 19 May 2009 15:14:35 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nOn Sunday, May 17 2009, 10:59 (+0200), florian cramer wrote:\n\n>If I take, for example, the subjects of the last nine transmediale\n>festivals (\"Do It Yourself\", \"Go Public\", \"Play Global\", \"Fly\n>Utopia\", \"Basics\", \"Reality Addicts\", \"Unfinish\", \"Conspire\", \"Deep\n>North\"), they could just as well have been the names of contemporary\n>art exhibitions at PS.1 in New York, KW in Berlin, Witte de With in\n>Rotterdam, or any other contemporary art space.\n\nbut it wasnt like that cause it was happening ONLY in a festival .\n<ghetto> situation .\n\nas I see it, many art people are not going to events like\ntransmediale, cause its not seen as an important place for art. I dont\ngo, besides when we are actively part of it.\n\nlooks like media art is not sexy enough. the exhibits, as part of\nfestivals, are often too prudish. everything sensual seems forbidden,\n\ntoo often it s needs written explanations to understand the\n(political) work.\n\nI do not believe - and I say that as an artist- that the written word\nis necessary to <understand> a piece of art.it can help and make\ndetails transparent, but its not necessary in advance.\n\n\nmy own experience with Station Rose media art projects-like recently\nLogInCabin in MAK Vienna- is : they are recognized & seen in art\nspaces, museums by the art scene, but not as much in a so called media\nart context as festivals are.\n\nbasically my impression is that as long as a dicussion like that one\ngoes on, it makes clear that the art world is something and the media\nart scene is out of it.\n\n\n-- \n----------------------------------------------------\nStation Rose digital_audio - visual art http://www.stationrose.com\n.................... Gary Danner & Elisa Rose\n\nFrankfurt - Cyberspace - Vienna.\n\n* recent project: 20 Digital Years. \"LogInCabin\" mediascultpure at \nMAK Vienna_sold\n* new: \"Interstellar Overdrive CD\" Japan release (2.09)\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Station Rose <gunafa {AT} well.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "Station Rose",
|
||
"message-id": "a06200701c63ee015f460 {AT} [192.168.1.100]",
|
||
"id": "00072",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00072.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis",
|
||
"date": "Sun, 24 May 2009 13:52:26 +0200"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00056.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 23:04:49 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "carlos katastrofsky wrote:\n\n> what i am always wondering about is why the media arts field is so\n> concerned with its media. is dealing with \"new media\" or \"old media\"\n\nexactly Carlos...\n\nthis revolves around the common (still, ongoing, & perhaps permanent!)\nproblem of identifying creative impulses by their materialized remains\n(media, mediated forms). There are precisely identical histories of the \nrise of\n(materially) specialized festivals, research centers, art school\ndepartments, workshop venues, etc etc -- photography, for example.\nWhere are all the institutions and organizations and events that swirled\naround that particular material result of creative impulse? They are\ngone, gone, gone. Abd the ones who remain -- does anyone think they are\ncenter for radical creative experimentation? Most people don't even\nremember them. the Rencontres Internationale de la Photographie and the\nEcole Nationale de la Photographie in Arles, etc etc, huh, who cares?\n\nwhen there is this material obsession, it is bound to be outmoded simply\nbecause things aren't IT, looking at the world as a bunch of things\ndoesn't reveal the phenomenal nature of life: another words, focusing on\nthe detritus that is left, dead, after the creative forces have altered\nthe local universe -- well it's simply a death cult and is a dead end.\n<<yawn>> why ponder on it? Better to skip the material categorization\nprocess altogether 'cause it IS a dead end...\n\njh\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "John Hopkins <jhopkins {AT} neoscenes.net>",
|
||
"author_name": "John Hopkins",
|
||
"message-id": "4A148BE6.6070209 {AT} neoscenes.net",
|
||
"id": "00065",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00065.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis",
|
||
"date": "Wed, 20 May 2009 17:01:58 -0600"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n> what i am always wondering about is why the media arts field is so\n> concerned with its media. is dealing with \"new media\" or \"old media\"\n> an excuse for making good or bad art? IMO defining art by its media\n> is on the same level as defining art by its subject. not getting\n> over these definitions will result in a ghetto-situation sooner or\n> later. the problem -IMHO- is not that media art is not recognized\n> by the fine art world but that the fine art world is dealing with\n> other subjects. when was the last big exhibition dealing solely\n> with \"painting\" or \"sculpture\" you've seen? ars electronica and the\n> others are doing that every year: \"new media art\" with changing\n> subtitles.\n\n <...>\n\nAn interesting addition to this would be the emergence of 'New, new\nmedia arts'. I am thinking here, of practices in the field currently\ndefining itself as bioart. Here the medium that is being manipulated\nis a form of living or sem-living matter, or tissue. Bioartist,\nEduardo Kac and curator Jens Hauser have sought to specifically\nidentify this new art practice, expressly on the basis of the medium\nitself. Bioarts, they argue, are most definitely are not those works\nthat take bios or a form of life, as a subject, but manipulate it as a\nmedium. That said, the manipulation of living tissue can be executed\nthrough a number of divergent practices, specific technologies, and it\nis these that seem to be defined by some as the media, not the living\ntissue they manipulate. I guess a somewhat simplistic comparison\nwould be between with identification of various 'digital media' in\nabstraction from the advances in computer technology on which they are\nbased.\n\nMy current work in the field of bioart is increasingly\npushing me towards a frustration at the distinction between\nart/science/media/technology/old/new that recurs in the majority of\nliterature, and if I am not wrong seems to predicate this current\ndiscussion. In the light of these new practices I have been working\ntowards re-imagining what art and media are in themselves, as\ntechnologies and processes not as distinct practices - the specific\nmedia or declared purpose seem less relevant from this perspective. So\nI wonder whether 'meaning is present in all works, to varying degrees,\nregardless of how they might be appropriated by culture' could be\nextended beyond a simple valorisation of art.\n\nIt also seems that those new media theorists, such as Manovich and\nBaudrillard are somewhat restricted in their approach in that new\nmedia is perceived in a somewhat teleological sense, newness for\nthe sake of newness, with new theories to match new media - without\nasking what is actually recurring in new media. IMO it seems that\nmost new media, are really just old media anyway, particularly so in\nbioart. Is the creative growth of tissue not what we do continually\nas part of our natural bodily processes? Would it be facetious\nthen to ask whether all media be considered from this originary\nperspective, negating the discussions about relative newness or\ncultural categorization (ie i's art, it's science, it's technology,\nit's media).\n\nBen\n\n\n\n-- ---------\n Ben Craggs\n 07868 273 360\n---------------\n http://www.digitalscribblings.org/forums\n A place for academic discussion, networking and general postgraduate procrastination!\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "ben.craggs {AT} fastmail.f",
|
||
"author_name": "ben . craggs",
|
||
"message-id": "1242632525.29400.1315956661 {AT} webmail.messagingengine.com",
|
||
"id": "00053",
|
||
"to": "\"NetTime Mailing List\" <nettime-l {AT} kein.org>",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00053.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 08:42:05 +0100"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nRama Hoetzlein wrote:\n\n> New media art should be defined from an art-philosophical\n> perspective. In this view, meaning is present in all works, to\n> varying degrees, regardless of how they might be appropriated\n> by culture. At what time in history was art not appropriated by\n> culture? None the less, people continued to create art. The process\n> of art-making is one of creating meaning, and this relation between\n> the artist and the work is not changed despite how the object is\n> ultimately appreciated, used, or abused by culture.\n\nIt's great to read such a fundamental comment. I shall add something.\nMy viewpoint includes both Tolstoy's and Baudrillard's. I find that\ninformatic art (my own off-the-cuff term, but surely better than new\nmedia) is compelling precisely when it places subjective expression\nwithin the most strongly coercive social arena of our time, namely\nthe digital networks. Your idea that there is an art-philosophical\nperspective that could exclude or bypass social determinism seems,\nbegging your pardon, somewhat naive. What is more, I think all the\ninterest of art itself disappears when it is shorn from the contexts\nof power and held up as a pure conductor of subjectivity. Approached\nin that way, the art work tends to become no more than a mirror for\nour own emotions and fantasies -- far from any state of empathy,\nEinfuhlung or whatever one chooses to call it. So I am not surprised\nthat you move from Tolstoy's fascinating quote (reproduced below) to\nthe \"relation between the artist and the work.\" I guess I am more\ninterested in, well, media: the way the work relates the artist to\nothers.\n\nHowever, your observation about new media theory (Kittler and McLuhan\nwere recently mentioned here) is spot on. What we are given from\nthe podium, over and over again, are lessons about the power of\ntechnoscientific systems. The predicament of the human singularity,\ncaught within the net of determinisms yet resisting, creating another\nreality and expressing this rather fantastic adventure through\nwhatever kind of material or semiotic medium has been chosen, is left\nout of the story, which thereby becomes a monument to the crushing\nregularity of the status quo. The same thing, of course, happens to\nresistant political action in the hands of the sociologists and the\nHeideggerean philosophers of an essential, \"historial\" alienation.\nBoth ethics and aesthetics take it on the chin.\n\nIn my view, the great inspiration for new media theory has come from\nhackers themselves, who create alternative possibilities for existence\nwithin the overwhelmingly powerful networked environment. This is why,\nin essays which are inseparably about art and technics, I tend to\nuse concepts like \"reverse imagineering\" or \"escaping the overcode.\"\nExpression, for me, is the rupture of code, an excess which does not\nabolish the labyrinth in which we are caught, but at least opens up a\npossible new path through it.\n\nThat's one approach. There could be many others. The problem, as\nyou point out, is that usually there are not, because the theory\nvery rarely meets any actual practice. The necessary discussion of\ntechnological power holds the center stage. Of course that is easier\nfor the whole \"new media\" social circuit, because then you don't have\nto think very much, or feel very much, or try very hard to find out\nwhat might be at stake in a particular work.\n\nThis list, I guess, is about the best place to talk about how to\napproach media art. Thanks to all for starting the conversation. I'm\nready for more. Let the thousand info-aesthetics bloom!\n\nbest, BH\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Brian Holmes <brian.holmes {AT} wanadoo.fr>",
|
||
"author_name": "Brian Holmes",
|
||
"message-id": "4A10825D.6040905 {AT} wanadoo.fr",
|
||
"id": "00054",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00054.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 23:32:13 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nBrian, thanks for your reply. In general, i'm glad to see that\nwe're mostly in agreement. Based on my observations of nettime-l,\ndisagreement is often the norm, so I'm glad to see that there is\nsome consensus between us that the new media theorists are currently\nthe only option we've been given, and that we really need some\nalternatives.. Now, for some responses.\n\n> Your idea that there is an art-philosophical perspective that could \n> exclude or bypass social determinism seems, begging your pardon, \n> somewhat naive. \n\nI'm not suggesting that art-philosophy can bypass social determinism.\nI have no illusions about the difficulty the artist faces in creating\nany real social change, since my view of art does not negate any of\nthe real research done by the media theorists. My own view is that\nthe idea of art-for-social-change is long outdated. You suggest\nthat hackers are the source of real inspiration in new media theory\nbecause they alone are able to transform the media itself, and thus\nundermine the system toward some possible escape path. Yet, there\nis no reason to believe that even if the media itself changes, that\nsociety will too. In my view, the only way we could overcome the\ncurrent technoscientific system would be due to a deep, fundamental\ntransformation in all individuals - and while I believe art is\ncapable of doing this one person at a time, I don't think any one\nartwork, hacker or otherwise, is capable of really altering the\ntechnoscientific system we find ourselves in on a global level. Thus,\nall social change we talk about now is still part of that system. This\nis the media theorist perspective, of course - which i agree with -\nbut as an artist, its incomplete.\n\nThe reason I advocate art-philosophy is for the sake of the\nindividual, and the field of art itself. While i just said the artist\nis powerless to transform culture, perhaps to a degree greater than\nmost would like, the artist is _not_ powerless to transform him or\nherself, and others which that person touches through the art..\nDespite whatever the technoscientific system may do, to create art is\nan intentional act by an individual, and thus has an immutable meaning\njust by virtue of being \"created\". We get to choose what is created\n(this does not make it good art necessarily).\n\nThat meaning is present in all work \"to varying degrees\". By this, i\nmean that we each have a unique relationship to our artwork. For some,\nit is a mirror of personal emotions and fantasies (and probably my\nown work most of the time), while others may be able to communicate\nmore.. So, I'm not evaluating art. Some is good, some is not. However,\nhaving an art-philosophical does not automatically reduce our works to\nemotional fantasies. In fact, it is more likely to result in genuinely\nempathetic works since it creates a solid foundation for art based on\na philosophy in which art is encouraged to be empathetic, rather than\nresponsive to a system.\n\nI'm simply stating -- which I think we perhaps both agree with here --\nthat so far we have not been given any other alternative view of new\nmedia art other than that proposed by the new media theorists. The way\nout of this problem is, I believe, through a philosophy of art whereby\nthe artist has full awareness of the problems of society (hopefully),\nyet continues to create works of art despite this. It is possible to\nhave no illusions about the inability of art to bring about explicit\nsocial change, but understand that it can bring implicit change\nthrough individual communication.\n\n-rama\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Rama Hoetzlein <rch {AT} umail.ucsb.edu>",
|
||
"author_name": "Rama Hoetzlein",
|
||
"message-id": "4A10AAD3.1010309 {AT} umail.ucsb.edu",
|
||
"id": "00052",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00052.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Sun, 17 May 2009 17:24:51 -0700"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\n> The way out of this problem is, I believe, through a philosophy of\n> art whereby the artist has full awareness of the problems of society\n> (hopefully), yet continues to create works of art despite this.\n> It is possible to have no illusions about the inability of art to\n> bring about explicit social change, but understand that it can bring\n> implicit change through individual communication.\n>\n\nbut can \"change\" be a parameter for art? what is to be changed through\nart? i agree that a \"change\" in whatever direction is possible but\nIMHO art mustn't be reduced to it. to me art is also someting i can\nadmire without thinking of having to change something. in fact even\nif i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire\nit (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\nsomething autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\na mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at the\nsame time it can be all of that.\n\nbest,\ncarlos\n\n\n-- \nhttp://katastrofsky.cont3xt.net\nhttp://cont3xt.net\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "carlos katastrofsky <carlos.katastrofsky {AT} gmail.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "carlos katastrofsky",
|
||
"message-id": "fb9095bf0905180711m6cd209adt9b6435753d81770a {AT} mail.gmail.com",
|
||
"id": "00058",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00058.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 16:11:26 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nexactly.. even if we are fully unconcerned with political art, when\nyou say \"wow, great work\", thats just and only what i mean by implicit\nchange (you are changed).. art is autonomous here because, while the\nwork may or may not be political, this implicit change defines only\nthe meaning-relation between the artist, the work, and the viewer.\nAnd that relationship is established independent of the impact of\nmedia on society, i.e. politics. A philosophy of art should provide a\nfoundation for complete autonomy, and this is done by observing that\nthe basis of art is creating and appreciating.. keeping in mind that\ntheory only gets you so far as an artist.\n\nrama\n\ncarlos katastrofsky wrote:\n> but can \"change\" be a parameter for art? what is to be changed through\n> art? i agree that a \"change\" in whatever direction is possible but\n> IMHO art mustn't be reduced to it. to me art is also someting i can\n> admire without thinking of having to change something. in fact even if\n> i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire it\n> (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\n> something autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\n> a mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at the\n> same time it can be all of that.\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Rama Hoetzlein <rch {AT} umail.ucsb.edu>",
|
||
"author_name": "Rama Hoetzlein",
|
||
"message-id": "4A1196BD.3060002 {AT} umail.ucsb.edu",
|
||
"id": "00057",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00057.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Mon, 18 May 2009 10:11:25 -0700"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "carlos katastrofsky wrote:\n\n > if i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire\n > it (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\n > something autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\n > a mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at the\n > same time it can be all of that.\n\nWhat does one admire a piece of art? What is its autonomy? And what could\nbe its consequences? I have asked myself these questions for years. Like\nmost thinking people, I have come to a few conclusions. And since I like\nthe idea that art can be \"all of that\" - a form of communication, a medium,\nnew media art - I would like to share these conclusions with you.\n\nHumans are excessively complex by nature, and inherently social. We are\ndefined by the surfeit of symbolic activity that goes on in our brains and\nindeed, in our full sensorium, and that comes out not only from our mouths\nbut in all sorts of gestures and postures and practices directed toward the\nsenses and symbolizing activities of others. A long anthropological\ntradition running from Sapir through Levi-Strauss to Sahlins holds that\nso-called \"primitive\" societies are no less complex than modern ones: their\nlanguages show comparable range and variety, but are (according to\nLevi-Strauss) oriented differently, more concrete in one case, more\nabstracted in the other. There is so much going on in any human being and\nbetween any group of human beings that just ordering or harmonizing all\nthis excessive symbolization - I mean, excessive over what the utilitarians\nthink of as the simple quest for satisfaction or corporeal pleasure -\nbecomes a problem in itself. Because madness always lurks on the edges of\nour reeling imaginations, and then there is also depression, or anger, or\njealousy, or prejudice or extreme paranoia, indeed a great number of\nobscure problems that can disrupt the life of the one and of the many.\n\nReligion has been the great social technique for bringing all this roiling\nthought, expression and sensation into some kind of predictable pattern and\nharmony, constituting entire narrative and figural universes, with their\nbuilt environments, rituals, music, poetry, smells, tastes, etc, all\nassociated and carefully correlated with orders of kinship, canons of\nsexuality, responsibilities of care, expressions of tenderness,\ncommandments, prohibitions and the like. What we now call art, as it\ngradually detached itself from religion and became a series of aesthetic\ntraditions interpretable and modifiable by individuals - as it became\nautonomous in other words - seems to have taken on the role of being the\nsensuous and ideational mirror of the individual's proper \"fit\" with\nsociety; it became a way of continuing the vast and mostly imaginary\nconversation about the ways that the one relates to the many, and\nvice-versa. However, this conversation was no longer necessarily about\nharmony: because depending on the very particular context, the proper \"fit\"\ncould have aspects of a \"misfit,\" and the quest for an idealized harmony\ncould involve extreme disruptions of the status quo, disruptions appearing\nboth in art and in life itself. Just think about the Antigone of Sophocles\nand you will see that this kind of problematic was not invented with the\nromantics, it goes back quite a ways. Clearly it gets particularly intense\nin modern democracies, where we are all brought up to conceive ourselves as\nboth legislators and revolutionaries.\n\nNow, amusingly, one of the reasons I ever even bothered to think about such\ncomplex and excessive things, so far from \n\"direct political action\" and what have you, is that for \nmany years I have found myself with a certain nagging problem of getting up\nin the morning. Perhaps others have experienced this? It so happens that on\ncertain mornings I may spend as much as an hour just thinking about a\ncertain constellation of things: a group of people, an artwork, a political\nissue, a line from a song, a concept, a phrase from a book, an image, a\nrhythm. Without showing any particular signs of anxiety, insanity,\ndelirium, fever, swine flu or whatever, I still found it necessary to bring\nsuch constellations of ideas and sensations into some kind of dynamic\npattern that would lend a spring to my step, a direction to my speech, an\neffectiveness to my gestures. Being a bit of a misfit - according to the\naforementioned tradition in the democratic societies - I had to work on\nthis question of how to fit all this in, nonetheless: how to fit into my\nown overflowing symbolic and sensate world, first of all, and how to fit\nthat world into the multitude of others with whom daily activity brings me\ninto contact. Thus I began to think that what is pleasing, satisfying,\nattractive, intriguing, inspiring, shocking, repellent, etc in the formal\nallure of artworks is also somehow the result of other people's struggles\nwith the excess of symbolization in which they are embroiled, and that the\n\"success\" of the artwork (wow, great work) is always some variation on the\n\"infinite theme of the artist(s) trying to break out of one universe and\n\"fit into another - whether we're talking about a purely abstract universe\n\"of chromatism or rhythm, or some Hegelian quandry of historical\n\"dialectics, or the current discussion about cap and trade, or the latest\n\"dispute over the coolest tattoos in the punk or heavy-metal circle that\n\"encloses your secret passion. An aesthetic form doesn't directly solve any\n\"of the weighty social problems - but it helps get a world together, it\n\"helps structure a pattern and a dynamic and an enthusiasm, which is always\n\"a good start.\n\nSo how 'bout the politics then? Well, according to my little theory, the\npersonal is clearly both aesthetic and political, because if you can't get\nout of bed you are definitely not going to make it to the office, the\nmarch, the meeting, the voting booth, the library, or wherever your\nactivity is going to have some consequences in terms of organizing social\nrelations. What is more, this is not just my little theory, because going\nback to Plato's Republic or maybe the Rig Vedas, social thinkers have been\nvery conscious of the influence of things like music on the order and\nharmony of the community, the city, state or whatever. Indeed, not long\nago we saw with dazzled and almost disbelieving eyes that a great\nnation-state like China could put a significant fraction of its resources\ninto organizing an aesthetic display which was not just supposed to knock\neverybody out, American style, with its overwhelming show of wealth, but\nalso and above all to enact and celebrate an ideal of harmony and societal\ncoordination which, from my anarcho-individualist viewpoint, was at once\nvastly impressive and also frankly terrifying, because here I could see an\nintensive use of all the latest, hypercomplex aesthetic techniques to knit\ntogether an order that could power a vast authoritarian economic machine\nand infuse it with the enthusiam and belief of the many - which is a lot,\nwhen we're talking China. So you want new media? Replay your avi file of\nthe opening ceremonies of the 2008 Olympics.\n\nWhat I am trying to get at with all of this is that art is essentially\nmedia, it is not merely but essentially about communication, only what is\ncommunicated is not just a phrase or a slogan or a piece of information,\nbut a problematic attempt to reconfigure a world on every level of sensate\nand imaginary experience. That can be an attempt to fit in or to stick out,\nto harmonize or to disrupt, to smash the current relation of self and\nsociety or to conserve it or to invent another one; but insofar as art is\nexpression, it always projects this struggle over the shape and balance of\na world towards the ears and eyes and excessive imaginations of others.\nWhen we say that art is autonomous, we situate it in the long democratic\ntradition where the self, autos, tries to help establish the law, nomos,\naccordingly which it can freely develop in the company of fellow human\nbeings. Now, the problems of this attempt at autonomy are almost infinite,\nthey are sexual, technical, ecological, emotional, mystical, contractual,\nmaterial, they involve philosophy, science, babies, great art and also the\nplumbing. And they always involve the relations of individuals and groups\nto others whose worlds they do not understand, whose rhythms they do not\nfeel pulsing in their own veins, whose tacit concepts of harmony and\ndisruption are not expressed by the same patterns and shapes and colors and\ncombinations of tones. So when I say, Wow, great art - as I often do, just\nthe way people in the new media arts circles have done for years at\nfestivals sponsored by Philips and Microsoft and Sony and the like - the\nfirst consequence for me is to inquire into the world from which that art\narises and to which it points, and eventually to see how I fit into or\ndesire to break out of that world. This means that a deep and searching\ncriticism can never just be criticism of the work, it always has to look\nfurther back, into the world from which it sprang, and ahead to the\nconsequences of a potential change in the worlds we share, or at least to\nthe consequences of a change in the way that *I* or *we* will relate to\nother worlds in the future.\n\nFinally, it seems to me, in my anarcho-democratic world, that to say Wow,\ngreat art, without inquiring into the consequences, is one of the closest\nthings one can do to never getting out of bed, i.e. it's close to\nsleepwalking. Because at best, you would then be just letting the great\nart fit into your own great dream, or letting it be the colorful and\nstriking tattoo that will fit you into your small chosen circle. That's at\nbest - because in the present world of biopower and noopower, just admiring\na work in itself and for itself can mean accepting without question the\nworld that it mediates, which in the case of the networked technologies\nsold by Sony and Microsoft Philips and abused by a vast array of\ncorporations and governments, can be an extremely predatory world,\nconfigured precisely in order to capture your consciousness and extract\nsome value or utility out of your passions and dreams. Value that can\nultimately be devastating for the collectivity (as in the debt-fueld\nconsumption boom of this decade), utility that can make you into the most\nterrible of instruments (like the voters lured by nationalist rhetoric into\nsupporting our proliferating wars).\n\nIt has been years since I read Lev Manovich, so what follows may be totally\nunjust to his work, but as I recall, what always irritated me in his\nwriting was a kind of smug insistence that the new media were essentially\ndefined by a certain kind of rhythm, a certain multiplication of screens, a\ncertain connection to databases, etc. - in other words, that the new media\nwere essentially defined by the dominant trends of contemporary capitalist\nsociety. For me this seemed like a total abdication of criticism itself,\nand it also seemed to be a sort of cheerful, \"I'm on the winning side\"\nversion of the dark technological determinism and philosophical doomsaying\npromoted by the post-Leftist thinkers in the wake of Baudrillard. What I\nmissed was the very question of autonomy, and some recognition of its\nquasi-infinite complexities as they've been ceaselessly developing from the\nNeolithic to now, in the long and discontinuous series of messages passed\nfrom human world to human world. Imho, the poverty of new media art - its \n\"crisis\" - has intrinsically to do with the poverty of media \ncritique tout court. It is the failure to see how the cultural politics of\nindividuals and groups are mediated in the work, how they are expressed at\nevery level of their ineluctable complexity and excess over the \"mere\ncommunication\" of what already exists.\n\nbest, Brian\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Brian Holmes <brian.holmes {AT} wanadoo.fr>",
|
||
"author_name": "Brian Holmes",
|
||
"message-id": "4A12B7A2.7080003 {AT} wanadoo.fr",
|
||
"id": "00062",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00062.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 19 May 2009 15:44:02 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nThanks for some beautiful and thought-provoking statements, especially \nBrian’s and Carlos’s. I would add that to me the real medium of all \nart is attention, attention the viewer or reader or listener must pay, \nfeels consciously drawn to pay, in a deepening and all encompassing \nway. That attention amounts to a transformation of self — into the \nmind and body of the artist, as it were. The rest of the world falls \naway for that moment, and so does time —the moment might be a long one \n—and,a s Brian suggests will recur later on, in recollection and \nreflection.\n\nIf that is art, it is always political, because it always takes the \nattention payer out of the “system,” whatever it might be and however \nmuch the managers of the system in fact solicited the artist or the \nwork to begin with. The huge abstract paintings of the 1950’s cold \nonly fit on the walls of the rich, but nonetheless, as long as they \nwere there, they took over those walls, and made the space different \nfrom what the collector might have intended, and the same goes for \nRenaissance art and art of other periods.\n\nThe reason different media come in is that the artist has an on-going \nproblem as to how to capture attention as distractions and competition \nmultiply. In some way, to be really focussed on, art must avoid being \ntoo easy to experience, for then it can become just the background, \njust decoration or elevator music, or something that can always be \nattended to “later” — I.e., usually never. This is a serious and \nsignificant problem for new media as well, including much Internet art.\n\nExpressly political art can only succeed, it seems to me, if it comes \nfrom the inner depths. For instance, I just finished reading Istvan \nKertesz’s “Fatelessness;” I don’t think it is intentionally political \nbut it certainly made me boil with anger at the human mistreatment and \nneglect of others. Such art brings what was already there inside us \nand adds to its centrality. But that doesn’t happen often. In my \nexperience most political art is superficial and therefore bad, just \nas likely to turn off sympathetic feelings in the viewer as the \nopposite.\n\nIncidentally, I don’t know that good art necessarily causes us to \nthink “Wow! I admire that.” But it doesn't easily let go of us.\n\n\nBest,\nMichael\n\nOn May 19, 2009, at 6:44 AM, Brian Holmes wrote:\n\n> carlos katastrofsky wrote:\n>\n>> if i see some really good \"political art\" the first step is to admire\n>> it (wow, great work) and then to think about consequences. art is\n>> something autonomous. to me such an approach would free it from being\n>> a mere form of communication, a medium, or \"new media art\". but at \n>> the\n>> same time it can be all of that.\n>\n> What does one admire a piece of art? What is its autonomy? And what \n> could\n> be its consequences? I have asked myself these questions for years. \n> Like\n> most thinking people, I have come to a few conclusions. And since I \n> like\n> the idea that art can be \"all of that\" - a form of communication, a \n> medium,\n> new media art - I would like to share these conclusions with you.\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Michael H Goldhaber <mgoldh {AT} well.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "Michael H Goldhaber",
|
||
"message-id": "F6688CA9-F000-49A8-9176-5F62EC6DF50A {AT} well.com",
|
||
"id": "00064",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00064.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 19 May 2009 12:30:11 -0700"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nOn Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Brian Holmes <brian.holmes {AT} wanadoo.fr> wrote:\n\n> So you want new media? Replay your avi file of the opening\n> ceremonies of the 2008 Olympics.\n>\n> What I am trying to get at with all of this is that art is\n> essentially media, it is not merely but essentially about\n> communication, only what is communicated is not just a phrase or\n> a slogan or a piece of information, but a problematic attempt\n> to reconfigure a world on every level of sensate and imaginary\n> experience.\n\nMuch of media studies is obsessed with witnessing an existence that is\npart of mediality, to borrow a term from the previous discussion, by\nplacing great emphasis on inserting the observer into the equation.\nNevertheless these studies formulate a distinction to preserve some\nauthorship role. What this kind of representational relationship\nignores is that it precludes any kind of intervention in favor of a\nconservation. If the art cannot be conserved because it is conceptual\nor a piece of code, the identity of the author is preserved and\ncelebrated. This is because a piece of media arrives at its monetary\nvalue by being bundled with products that claim to correct the\ninjustices, needs, or ailments being described in that piece of media.\nThe media is monetized either for its value of showing a certain lack\nor showing the idealized completion that a product might fulfill. An\nauthorship identity, it turns out, can fulfill this marketing function\nnicely for the lack of any particular object that might or might not\nexist or lacks monetary value, culminating it seems these days in a\nguarded wikipedia entry.\n\nTurns out, while searching for a word to describe the process of\nentering into communication via media I looked up mediated. There is\nplenty of secondary literature on McLuhan using this word to capture\nthe processes McLuhan describes, but he himself only uses the word\nmediated with the original definition to describe the arbitration\nthat happens in a conflict. Using the term mediated in the sense that\na form of communication is performed via media, still implies that\nthere is an exchange occurring where each party must sacrifice some\nof their preconceptions in a productive process that is manufacturing\nrepresentation. Otherwise this representation veers very quickly\ntowards the ideological.\n\nhTTp://eyescratch.tk\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "eyescratch <eyescratch {AT} gmail.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "eyescratch",
|
||
"message-id": "79976e5a0905230730j58fc5bdes611529b066f69590 {AT} mail.gmail.com",
|
||
"id": "00069",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00069.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Sat, 23 May 2009 10:30:31 -0400"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "> I am not so sure whether I agree. It all depends on your definition of\n> \"media\". The problem is that the word \"media\" means quite different things\n> in different contexts:\n\ni agree. but exactly this is the point: media theory is swallowing\neverything, but where are its boundaries? what i am trying to find as\nartist (neither theorist nor philosopher) is a definition for art that\ngoes beyond a mere definition as \"media\" in whatever sense.\nthat is why i am aiming on the much-maligned term of \"autonomy\" (and\ni'm following here the previous mentioned philosophy of j.\nrebentisch). to me this doesn't mean art is somewhat apolotical or\ndealing solely with itself (l' art pour l'art - i guess you had this\nin mind when stating \"[...] If the basic quality of art - in the sense\nof 'Fine Art' - lies in its self-reference to its own system, then it\nwould be something very narrow and ultimately boring, [...]\"). art is\nmade to be seen/heard/whatever - to be experienced. and this\nexperience is what defines art and not media. it can change in time\n-we quite surely don't experience cave paintings in the same way the\nones did who made them- but i'm not sure if \"the media\" does, no\nmatter if it's read as \"painting/drawing\" or as \"hunting scene\". what\ni am hoping to find by this is a possibility to think about \"art\" and\nneither media nor porn or politics. these are -let's say- \"themes\"\nthat can be interpreted, but i hope that art goes beyond being a good\ndesigned set of political opinions. i mean, what political context is\nreflected in leonardo's \"last supper\"? we surely can speculate but do\nwe know? these are things that are bound to their time and context but\nnevertheless we still percieve it as \"art\".\n\n> If I take, for example, the subjects of the last nine transmediale\n> festivals (\"Do It Yourself\",\n[...]\n> One could just as well say that contemporary art deals with \"white cube\n> installation art\" with changing subtitles.\n[...]\n> The same terms abound in the contemporary art discourse if you read, for\n> example, \"October\" or \"Texte zur Kunst\".\n\nyep, exactly. and this what the \"art world\" makes as boring as \"new\nmedia art\". what i had in mind when saying that the \"fine art world is\ndealing with other subjects\" was not the (i would like to call it\nnonexistent) contemporary discourse. what can be seen in the fine arts\nfield (but not in the big biz -documenta, ps1, kw, ...) is an\ninclusion of possibilities in expression and perception which i never\nsaw in any media-art discourse (though i have to admit i am far from\nfollowing everything in that area).\n\n> Not knowing the full context of this quote, I nevertheless find such\n> systemic definitions of art quite risky. If the basic quality of art\n> - in the sense of 'Fine Art' - lies in its self-reference to its own\n> system,\n\ni'm sorry if this comes through that way, i'm not the best in\nformulating things. i never wanted to present art as solely\nself-referential system. if autonomy is read as autonomy of the object\n(l'art pour l'art) i would agree totally with you. but seen from the\nviewpoint that \"art\" may not lie in an object but somewhere between\nthe object and the observer (experience, perception) an autonomy of\nart is essential.\n\n\nthank you all for your replies :-)\n\nbest,\ncarlos\n-- \nhttp://katastrofsky.cont3xt.net\nhttp://cont3xt.net\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "carlos katastrofsky <carlos.katastrofsky {AT} cont3xt.net>",
|
||
"author_name": "carlos katastrofsky",
|
||
"message-id": "fb9095bf0905190614l39062a34j17867e0d82469c5f {AT} mail.gmail.com",
|
||
"id": "00061",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00061.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts\tCrisis",
|
||
"date": "Tue, 19 May 2009 15:14:35 +0200"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"content-type": "text/plai",
|
||
"content": "\nOn Sunday, May 17 2009, 10:59 (+0200), florian cramer wrote:\n\n>If I take, for example, the subjects of the last nine transmediale\n>festivals (\"Do It Yourself\", \"Go Public\", \"Play Global\", \"Fly\n>Utopia\", \"Basics\", \"Reality Addicts\", \"Unfinish\", \"Conspire\", \"Deep\n>North\"), they could just as well have been the names of contemporary\n>art exhibitions at PS.1 in New York, KW in Berlin, Witte de With in\n>Rotterdam, or any other contemporary art space.\n\nbut it wasnt like that cause it was happening ONLY in a festival .\n<ghetto> situation .\n\nas I see it, many art people are not going to events like\ntransmediale, cause its not seen as an important place for art. I dont\ngo, besides when we are actively part of it.\n\nlooks like media art is not sexy enough. the exhibits, as part of\nfestivals, are often too prudish. everything sensual seems forbidden,\n\ntoo often it s needs written explanations to understand the\n(political) work.\n\nI do not believe - and I say that as an artist- that the written word\nis necessary to <understand> a piece of art.it can help and make\ndetails transparent, but its not necessary in advance.\n\n\nmy own experience with Station Rose media art projects-like recently\nLogInCabin in MAK Vienna- is : they are recognized & seen in art\nspaces, museums by the art scene, but not as much in a so called media\nart context as festivals are.\n\nbasically my impression is that as long as a dicussion like that one\ngoes on, it makes clear that the art world is something and the media\nart scene is out of it.\n\n\n-- \n----------------------------------------------------\nStation Rose digital_audio - visual art http://www.stationrose.com\n.................... Gary Danner & Elisa Rose\n\nFrankfurt - Cyberspace - Vienna.\n\n* recent project: 20 Digital Years. \"LogInCabin\" mediascultpure at \nMAK Vienna_sold\n* new: \"Interstellar Overdrive CD\" Japan release (2.09)\n\n\n\n\n\n# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission\n# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,\n# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets\n# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l\n# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org\n\n",
|
||
"from": "Station Rose <gunafa {AT} well.com>",
|
||
"author_name": "Station Rose",
|
||
"message-id": "a06200701c63ee015f460 {AT} [192.168.1.100]",
|
||
"id": "00072",
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org",
|
||
"url": "https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0905/msg00072.html",
|
||
"subject": "Re: <nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis",
|
||
"date": "Sun, 24 May 2009 13:52:26 +0200"
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"to": "nettime-l {AT} kein.org"
|
||
}
|
||
]
|
||
} |