Hi Eduardo (and all),

This was my first semester to teach Rachel's book in my net art class:
http://lab404.com/373/

Mostly it applies to the initial "network" section of the course, and then another part (her section on "generative software art") applies to the "open interactivity" section of the course.

I can't help but compare Rachel's book to Christiane Paul's "Digital Art" book in the same Thames & Hudson "world of art" series. Paul's book works for me because of her curatorial perspicacity. She splits the book into two main sections – 1.digital tools used to make old media art + 2.art whose media itself is digital. Then she approaches the latter section (the main focus of the book) from two overlapping but usefully distinct perspectives – 1. a formalistic perspective which examines the work per its use of media + 2. a conceptual perspective which examines the work per its conceptual themes. I teach Paul's book in the digital art section of this course ( http://lab404.com/438 ). It's a studio course so students are working on their own digital art projects as they read the text. The structure of Paul's book is perfect in this pedagogical context because it foregrounds the differences between media and concept. Students get it.

My main critique of Greene's book is that her categories are too multiform and not as sensible as they could be. For instance, why are http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com and http://learningtoloveyoumore.com under "low-fi aesthetics"? The former has more to do with identity; the latter has more to do with outsider art and network collaboration. In the chapter "Themes in Internet Art," Greene lists "Turn of the Millennium, War, and the Dotcom Crash" and "The Crash of 2000" as 2 of her 7 themes. Curious.

Greene's book seems to want to approach net art through two grids – a net.art historical one (how many more times can Olia Lialina's work be referenced?) + a "conceptaul" one (as Eduardo points out). The problem is, both grids are applied simultanously. There's nothing wrong with applying two grids (as evidenced by Paul's successful application of media + theme grids), but it is more effective when done systematically rather than simultaneously. Greene's chapter titles suggest an attempted systematic approach (1. early internet art, 2. Isolating the Elements, 3. Themes in Internet Art, 4. Art for networks). The "elements" are supposed to be formalistic approaches, and the "themes" are suppsed to be thematic approaches, but their subsections often overlap and iterate in a way that makes systematic instruction problematic. And why a separate section called "art for networks?" Isn't it all art for networks?

To me, "net.art" (1994-1999?) is the door that all "net art" came through, but those practices and approaches no longer define or even usefully delineate the breadth of "net art." So if you let "net.art" be your rubric for unpacking all of "net art," you're going to run into some taxonomical difficulties.

The thing I find most useful about "Internet Art" is the way Greene traces the historical developments of net art in light of their concurrent political, economic, and cultural climates. And her first hand research into the early net.art scene is invaluable for someone like me who wasn't there.

peace,
curt


Eduardo Navas wrote:

> BOOK.REVIEW: Internet Art by Rachel Greene
> BY: Eduardo Navas
>
> For Net Art Review
> http://netartreview.net
> http://www.netartreview.net/monthly/0205.2.html
>
> The Internet has been around for over ten years and it is already
> developing a detailed history. Or perhaps histories (pluralities)
> might be a better way of contextualizing the legitimating process
> that
> historiography attempts to accomplish. Contributing to this conundrum
> is Internet Art by Rachel Greene.
>
> The book is ambitious as it tackles the complex web of activities in
> internet art from its early days to the beginning of our new century,
> something that is not easy to accomplish in under 225 pages, most of
> which consists of images. Yet, Greene develops a cohesive narrative
> of
> the multifaceted online activities that have come to be labeled as
> �internet art.�
>
> The book is divided into an introduction and four chapters. It begins
> with a brief history of computer technology and its relation to
> preceding art practices, moving through early internet art including
> specific forms such as e-mail art, browser art and hypertext,
> tactical
> media, databases and games, networks, criticism of e-commerce and
> collaborations to name just a few of the many categories.
>
> Greene takes a chronological approach throughout the introduction
> and
> the first chapter, then moves on to focus on specific strategies or
> thematics and writes about works that were made in 1995 in direct
> juxtaposition with others done in later years. Greene contextualizes
> internet art as an extension of art practices that are now part of
> the
> mainstream artworld. Artists like Allan Kaprow, Nam June Paik,
> Rirkrit
> Tiravanija, Tony Oursler, Cindy Sherman, and Valle Export among many
> others are cited as predecessors of internet art, not necessarily in
> technological terms, but rather in ideological explorations of
> communication in art practice. The already well-known early net
> artists like Vuk Cosic Heath Bunting, Olia Lialina, Jodi.org, Alexei
> Shulgin are mentioned along with others like Clover Cleary, Annie
> Abrahams, and Andy Deck who can be considered part of a second
> online
> generation.
>
> Greene is quite aware of the problematics in writing a history book
> and
> is quick to make her disclaimer in the very first pages, when she
> explains that due to limited space, she is not able to include
> several
> of the works she is interested in and that therefore she offers an
> extensive list of resources in the appendix. Greene sees Internet Art
> functioning as "one of those early portals, offering paths for
> readers
> wishing to explore the fields and histories of contemporary art and
> media." (7) And playing the role of a portal the book does very well.
> Those who have already read the book and were part of online
> communities during the early days of the net as well as today would
> agree.
>
> But the book does have a specific position worth deconstructing. To
> begin, it imposes a post-conceptual narrative on many of the works
> discussed, as Greene states, "I relate the ways in which internet art
> is indebted to conceptual art through its emphasis on audience
> interaction, transfer of information and use of networks,
> simultaneously by passing the autonomous status traditionally
> ascribed
> to art objects." (10) This can mean one of two things, either that
> all
> the artists who make internet art have an implicit relation to
> conceptual art or that only those artists who have such connection
> are
> included in the book. The problem behind this statement goes further
> if
> we consider the possibility that some of the artists included in the
> book may not actually have any relation to conceptual art; this would
> mean that an ideological imposition is at work. In any case, Greene
> admits to writing a specific type of history. This maneuver makes the
> assimilation of internet art by the mainstream artworld easier by
> generalizing its complex position (which Greene is careful to
> acknowledge in the introduction) to create a direct connection to the
> art cannon in a way that the rest of the artworld is able to
> understand.
>
> Greene�s approach exposes a particular contention at play in
> historiography today, which is to create a historical narrative
> knowing that it is not expected to be part of a "total history" or a
> "general history" but simply "a history"�her history, her own little
> narrative. And because of this Greene should not be criticized for
> taking license in focusing on her interest. But what her position
> does
> expose is the limitation of what she considers to be the extension of
> a
> conceptual art practice, as she fails to include many artists in
> various parts of the world who were also active online since at least
> the mid-nineties. It seems impossible for many artists across the
> globe to be unaware of conceptual practices; that is if we are
> willing
> to take Greene�s assertion at face value and claim that she is
> focusing
> on those artists who are specifically extending conceptual art
> practice
> on to the net. Artists from Asia, Africa, Australia and Latin America
> who do share a conceptual online art practice are simply excluded;
> organizations such as Sarai and Latin American Net Art are instead
> included as resources in the appendix page. This would not be a
> problem if Greene contextualized her approach more specifically and
> explained that her focus is mainly on those artists who are part of
> the North American and European discourse, in which artists like Yong
> Hae Chang from Korea have been included when they are able to make
> strong enough connections through ongoing exhibitions in the
> Eurocentric network. But instead her failure to do this simple
> clarification turns her history into yet another Western imposition
> on
> the rest of the world.
>
> This ties to the most problematic aspect of the book. While Greene
> connects her history of net art to Dada, Fluxus and happenings, she
> fails to specifically define conceptualism. If she had done this, she
> may have realized that she was referring to a very specific
> narrative,
> and not an art practice that implicitly spans across the globe. For
> Greene to assume that the reader knows what she is referring to when
> she uses the term "conceptual" as the "bypassing [of] the autonomous
> status traditionally ascribed to art objects" is not enough. Just as
> she took the time to briefly explain the history of the computer, so
> she also had to take the time to explain the history of conceptual
> art
> practice so that the reader understands her ideological and
> cartographical position.
>
> Regardless of all this, one could claim that it is impossible to
> cover
> everything is a book that would usually be dismissed as a laundry
> list
> by many critics. Instead, I am amazed by Greene�s ability to cover
> so
> much ground with the strict criteria imposed by Thames and Hudson on
> its writers in a book series that promotes itself for providing lots
> of
> images. The book reads well and does justice to those artists who are
> included in it. And because of this, the reader becomes even more
> aware that the oversight of the ideological subtleties I have
> mentioned cannot be blamed on the limit of space.
>
> Regardless of my criticism, I do think the book is important in the
> necessary historicizing of net art. I admire Rachel Greene for taking
> on the challenging task of writing a version of an extremely complex
> online activity. And I do recommend Internet Art to anyone who is
> unfamiliar with net art history. It is now up to those who follow
> after Greene to look out for ideological problematics and to do
> their
> best to keep them at bay.
>
> —————
> Eduardo Navas. February, 2004.
>