Hi Curt,

A late reply. I will say that I agree with your criticism. There are
many aspects of the book to focus on and the way the information was
organized is definitely another issue. I think you covered this aspect
quite well, so I will not elaborate; however, I am including some
replies I sent to Net behaviour where other people replied. They
follow below.

Best,

Eduardo
—————–

Hello Alan, Marc and Brian,

I am responding after a few days, so I will be brief in stating my
replies to your comments.

Alan,
I am glad that you see my point and that you agree in some respects. I
particularly like your term "a collocation of discursive fields." This
one does connote a more critical and open approach for understanding
emerging fields. And as you state, it is impossible to include
everything in a book. So, as writers, we should take the time to
carefully explain our focus, something that I already stated was not
well done by Rachel. This was the main weakness of the book, really,
which unfortunately affects the way the artworks are understood by
those unfamiliar with the history of net art prior to this book.


Marc,
As I stated in the review, I do think that in the end Rachel did a good
job at writing a survey. 225 pages for the amount of artists can turn
into a mess, but she turns it into a very decent narrative, that does
not make sense when browsing over the list of contents, but which is
quite coherent when reading the actual chapters. As to who is
included, it does become tough for surveys. It is much easier when the
writer focuses on a thematic and chooses specific artists that fit the
focus, and this approach was somewhat at play in Rachel's book but not
so clear cut. I think none of us could deny that most of the artists
she covers deserve to be covered–that they have been covered in other
books and plenty of reviews may be an issue of convenience and
marketing, of course, as well as the fact that they have done their
"time" in the field. This is partly how canons are built, something we
all need to keep in mind and, of course, to be critical of when we
participate in art.

Brian,
The reason why I chose to write about Rachel's book is because it is
quite popular in universities at least in the United States right now,
and given that many of NAR's readers consist of University students, I
thought it would be appropriate to review a book they are probably
using. I do plan to review other books and thank you for letting me
know about Tilman's work. I am aware of it, but haven't had a chance
to take a look at it. I think the approach of the interview is
definitely an innovative one, mainly because it turns the book into a
primary resource, something a survey history book can never do–the
most it can be is be a decent "portal," a quick reference to other
primary sources and, of course, the actual work of art. I am not
against survey books as I think they are very necessary to understand
one's history, I do think the approach to such survey needs to be very
clearly explained and most importantly supported throughout the pages.
This is another thing about Rachel's book, that while she make clear
connections between the different online activities, she does not
always make a connection to her undefined idea of conceptual art. As
we know while it may be true that all branches of "conceptual art" may
have some of its roots in Duchamp and other movements like Fluxus,
Conceptual Art with capital letters during the seventies came to
develop very specific and different positions throughout the world,
that makes each area worth considering and not simply crossing over
with a universal idea of "conceptual art," where the object is obsolete
or secondary to the practice, or even the object of critique.

Just because internet art may have a relation to "audience interaction,
transfer of information and use of networks, simultaneously by passing
the autonomous status traditionally ascribed to art objects" (to use
Rachel's own words), it does not automatically make such activities
extensions of conceptual art. To be clear, conceptual art, at least in
the United States, was an ideological strategy that deliberately focused
on the dematerialization of the work of art. Its common use of text,
photo and performative aspects were specific strategies used to
critique the various aspects of the art institution that artists at the
time found problematic. In the past, there have been other creative
media that did not use actual objects and which were not considered
conceptual. For example, Luis Bunuel was considered "surreal" or
Goddard "structural" because of their ideological approaches to film
making. The medium was the same for both of them, it was the interest
with which they used the medium and the group of people they were
involved in that defined them as "surrealist," "structural." That the
medium may have traces of particular tendencies may be true, but this
does not automatically mean that the work that uses such material can
easily be labeled as an extension. I make this example because film
does not leave an actual object behind, yet it is not automatically
considered conceptual. So just because Net Art may share some of the
elements of conceptual practice does not automatically mean that it is
an extension of conceptual art. That it may have traces of it and that
some of the artists, like Vuk Cosic may cite it in their work, is
another matter. But I personally know artists who make net art (as I,
myself, am one, who does have conceptual training) and would not be
happy with it being considered "conceptual" in any form.

Best everyone, write to you soon.

e.
http://navasse.net
http://netartreview.net


—————————

Bri wrote:

hi eduardo, longtimenosee! :-)


> yet another Western imposition on
> the rest of the world.

period

.


> 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.


the problem i see is that there are *already* nice historical books that

treat this topic in the very same way (same names, same everything). as
you
put it, it looks like *before* greene there was no written material to
take
care on reading.

maybe you forgot the link this work has with tilman baumgaertel