Hi G.H.
Thanks for your comments on the project to preserve digital and
variable media art. I'm cc'ing the Rhizome list in my reply because I
found your comments interesting and the whole topic might be of
interest to the larger group for discussion (actually; it has been
before, so perhaps we're just reviving the topic).
Your last comment (below) was that you believe it important for us to
put our resources toward presenting new media art rather than
preserving it for the time being. My question would be; then when is
is appropriate to start putting resources toward preserving such
work? The work has already entered the collections of public museums
and private collectors. The problem of preservation already exists.
My feeling is that the longer we ignore the problem the harder it
will be to fix with regard to currently collected works. The rate of
deteriorization on new media works is incredibly compressed compared
to painting or even works on paper.
Your other point about preservation of new media art being expensive
is well-taken; but preservation of art in any media is expensive;
painting included. The fact that it's a huge and difficult problem
should not deter us from facing it. Of course museums don't have
limitless resources to bring to bear on the problem; but on the other
hand, this is one of the reasons why museums have developed as social
institutions in the first place, and taken together instead of
separately, and when brought together with the rest of the art world
of artists, scholars, galleries, etc., museums do indeed have
significant resources to bear on the problem. But that's why no one
museum can solve this one alone.
There is a point underlying your argument that is especially
well-taken; and that is 'preservation' in the traditional sense is
perhaps antithetic to these new media/experimental works in the first
place. The spirit of such work is to be alive and to emphasize the
process not the product. As another artist; I agree completely. So,
maybe it's not the artists' job to preserve such work - but instead
to create new works? Museums on the other hand are in part by
definition charged with such preservation as well as presentation.
Museums (along with Libraries and Archives) often called "Memory
institutions" act to do just that - remember what society did way
back when. Aside from our cultural obsession with classifying, and
censoring (all freely admitted problems with the current art/museum
world), I feel it a worthwhile mission - in fact; one essential to a
democracy (that we're aiming for, if not enjoying currently) in that
an accurate historical record is always one form of protection
against historical revisionism as a tool of tyranny. Having said that
- the approach to preserving new media works cannot be a traditional
museum conservation approach. That would tip the balance between
preservation and presentation too far in the former direction. This
prospect prompted me to ask Jon Ippolito in one of our email
conversations whether we propose to act as "museums of art" or
"museums of art history". I think everyone involved in this project
and others like it would agree with you that it's very difficult
because of the needed resources, and the need to emphasize process
over product even in preservation, but they might disagree on the one
point of whether it's worth it or not.
What do others think?
-
Richard Rinehart
—————
Digital Media Director, Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
www.bampfa.berkeley.edu
—————
Instructor, Department of Art Practice
art.berkeley.edu
—————
University of California, Berkeley
>GH Replies:
>
>Your proposal is a laudable idea but I assume that it will not do
>what it intends to do. Variable media, cross media , new media
>etc.. Takes quite a bit of money to preserve. Its not the same as
>taking a bunch of paintings and storing them someplace for 50 years.
>Since that is the case the most experimental works will not be
>preserved because they are not as well funded as works being backed
>by one institution or another. One of the interesting things about
>the internet and digital art is that the production, distribution,
>and discourse can occur quite inexpensively as opposed to standard
>art world mechanisms. This engenders freedom and experimentation.
>The preservation part is another matter. There are quite a number of
>discussions by curators about the fact that digital works use
>equipments and technologies that often become obsolete or outmoded.
>This means you have to maintain the equipment as well as the "code".
>It's a quandry.
>As an artist working in digital media I believe that there must be a
>shift away from the notion of object preservation albeit virtual
>objects. Most digital artists work in ongoing themes and build on
>their own code structures. There are spikes or points of resolve
>when the research may be presented to the public. What form this
>takes depends on the research, the moment. the funds available etc..
>The residue of such a presentation should not in my opinion be
>reified. If that occurs then you are simply reproducing the art
>world system that already exists. What is important about making
>art is the creative process not the presentation vehicle. There is
>not enough funding for the development and research of variable
>media here in the US. This is because there is a basic disregard
>for any artistic practice and in particular anything experimental
>works. I truly believe that it is more important to focus on
>enlarging the funding and presenting of new works by digital artists
>in an ongoing manner in front of the public's eye. This can occur
>in a workshop media lab, digital festival type environment.
>Presentation is more important than presevation at this juncture.
>iCheers,
>gh
>
>
>>From: Richard Rinehart <rinehart@uclink.berkeley.edu>
>>Reply-To: Richard Rinehart <rinehart@uclink.berkeley.edu>
>>To: Rare_Info@rhizome.org
>>Subject: RHIZOME_RARE announcing digital art preservation project
>>Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 10:37:11 -0700
>>
>>Hello fellow Rhizomatics,
>>
>>I'm writing to announce a new consortium project aimed at the
>>problems of collecting, documenting, and preserving digital art,
>>net.art, and other variable media art forms. Details on this project,
>>"Archiving the Avant Garde: Documenting and Preserving Variable Media
>>Art" can be found at:
>>http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/ciao/avant_garde.html
>>
>>A general summary of the project is included below. I'm writing in
>>particular because this project is consortial in nature; and thus
>>includes mechanisms for broad input from artists and other
>>professionals (those on this list for instance). I would also be very
>>curious to hear of other current efforts relating to these same
>>problems that anyone on this list may be engaged in or know about.
>>Thanks for sharing any feedback or information you may have to share;
>>and we hope to engage this community further with this project as it
>>unfolds.
>>
>>———
>>ARCHIVING THE AVANT GARDE: DOCUMENTING AND PRESERVING VARIABLE MEDIA ART
>>
>>Works of variable media art, such as performance, installation,
>>conceptual, and digital art, represent some of the most compelling
>>and significant artistic creation of our time. These works are key to
>>understanding contemporary art practice and scholarship, but because
>>of their ephemeral, technical, multimedia, or otherwise variable
>>natures, they also present significant obstacles to accurate
>>documentation, access, and preservation. The works were in many cases
>>created to challenge traditional methods of art description and
>>preservation, but now, lacking such description, they often comprise
>>the more obscure aspects of institutional collections, virtually
>>inaccessible to present day researchers. Without strategies for
>>cataloging and preservation, many of these vital works will
>>eventually be lost to art history. Description of and access to art
>>collections promote new scholarship and artistic production. By
>>developing ways to catalog and preserve these collections, we will
>>both provide current and future generations the opportunity to learn
>>from and be inspired by the works and ensure the perpetuation and
>>accuracy of art historical records. It is to achieve these goals that
>>we are initiating the consortium project Archiving the Avant Garde:
>>Documenting and Preserving Variable Media Art. The collaboration
>>includes of the Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive
>>(BAM/PFA), the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, the Walker Art Center,
>>Rhizome.org, the Franklin Furnace Archive, and the Cleveland
>>Performance Art Festival and Archive.
>>–
>>-
>>
>>Richard Rinehart
>>—————
>>Digital Media Director, Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
>>www.bampfa.berkeley.edu
>>—————
>>Instructor, Department of Art Practice
>>art.berkeley.edu
>>—————
>>University of California, Berkeley
>>+ between the woods and frozen lake / the darkest evening…
>>-> Rhizome.org
>>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/subscribe.rhiz
>>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>+
>>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php3
>>
>
>
>
>
>G.H. Hovagimyan
>Experimental Digital Art
>http://artnetweb.com/gh
>http://www.biddingtons.com/content/creativehovagimyan.html
>http://artnetweb.com/gh/heartbreak.html
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
>http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>Hi Richard,
Rhizome is off line and I will be in Paris for a week so I wanted to rspond
& clarify what I was saying.
This is an excerpt from a piece that I wrote called "Art in the age of
Spiritual Machines".
It was published in Leonardo Volume 34, number 5, 2001
"As an artist working in digital media and network culture, I believe that
the crucial issue of the time is to clear the path for networked art and to
create the foundations for a new aesthetic discourse that issues from
networked culture. In order to do this, one has to be willing to create art
that may not be readily recognized as art work. It may be helpful to view
art-making as an ongoing process or as aesthetic research. Artists' works
are now frequently discussed as their "projects," recognizing the open-ended
nature of the artist's aesthetic investigations. When an artist creates a
non-traditional work, it is often referred to as an "intervention." These
two terms represent an intellectual shift away from simple object production
and recognize the investigatory nature of creating artwork. The artists may
choose to present results of their research to the public at various times
when there appears to be a benchmark. The mode of presentation should be
appropriate to networked culture. Furthermore, one could speculate that the
presentation may become simply a courtesy to the public, similar to the
nature of the Graphical User Interface; the computer does not need a GUI to
function and an artist might not need to present work to the public in order
to continue research. "
Anyone working with computers knows that every two years the hardware
becomes outdated and software is constantly being improved. Trying to
preserve a coded object in its original state seems to be one of the more
absurb ideas. John Klima , a new media artist has suggested that he will
work on and improve his code for anyone who purchases a work. This is one
position. It is akin to upgrading software version v\_1.0 , v\_1.1 , v\_1.2
etc.. This position keeps the artist in the production loop but somehow
isn't quite right.
In my own work I have several paths of investigation. I keep open notebooks
that are research dossiers on various subjects such as techno\_objects,
sound art, networked performance, synthetic voice , handheld , video. I
use these to develop and propose projects. If there is no venue for
presentation, I simply continue my research. In some manner this is a
continuation of conceptual art practices updated to the 21st century. Indeed
if I may quote Lawrence Weiner , I feel his original dictum is valid for
todays digital art.
1. The artists may build the work
2. The work may be constructed by others
3. The work need not be built
all these being equal and consistent with the wishes of the artist.
But the subject for today is preservation of new media, cross media, digital
media, multi media etc.. .
Recently I did a residency in France at the CICV (int'l center creation
video) The center was set up in the 1970's to fund artists making
alternative videos that weren't TV. The center funds both the creation and
preservation of the work. Now it has added New Media to it's mission.
This model is more appropriate for new media art. That is to fund the
experimental development, presentation and preservation of new media art.
I've also recently completed a residency here at Eyebeam to create an
immersive sound piece called Shooter. The work will be exhibited in the
Fall at Eyebeam along with other works created by AIR's. The model that
Eyebeam is developing is the proper approach. Other institutions in the US
might do well to take pointers from Eyebeam and CICV.
Back to Preservation. For digital work I believe the model might be closer
to the manner of a classical music composer. The work is performed a number
of times and then the work is "preserved" if you will with the score. For
digital work this would be two fold, 1) the code and 2) a proposal or
description of the intention of the piece and the general parameters of how
the artist wishes it to be presented. This would allow future presenters to
assemble the work with up to date equipment and code improvements. It would
also be inexpensive to store. This notion points back to Lawrence Weiners
original musings on the structure of art. The problem of course would be
that commodity collectors would not necessarily have a physical trophy to
display. It does however address the mechanisms of museum craft and indeed
creates a new genre of expertise, the new media Conservateur. The outmoded
art world idea of discreet objects in circulation need not be ported to the
digital domain. If you would like another metaphor think of a blueprint for
a home. All it needs is a bulder to realize the form. Does this make the
architect any less creative if they don't build the house themselves? I
think not.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com