questionz by barnabas strickland
answerz by corey eiseman
soon to be posted at http://www.artspeak.com/15min/

Q: Is the internet an art medium?

Any medium is potentially an art medium. I think the internet as we know
it today is ideally suited for an extremely wide range of artistic
expression, much more so than any other single medium. I suspect that we
are only barely scratching the surface.

Q: We have come to live with rapid technical change with digital
mediums. With obsolescence breathing down the necks of our hardware,
software, file formats and the internet protocol itself, should artists
working digitally be concerned about the longevity of their work?

I think digital artists should certainly be aware of these issues,
mostly because they are interesting to think about. Not really in the
sense that ultimate longevity is something to strive for. The healthiest
attitude to have with any art, digital or otherwise, is that it will
last as long as it was meant to, and that will most definitely not be
forever. Artists should recognize and respect the ephemeral nature of
art. Our digital media seems so permanent and archivable, we've got cd
burners and hard drives with enormous capacity, networks and servers.
One day it will all be dust. So will every painting and sculpture.

That being said, technological compatibility in the present is a much
more important issue for artists working on the internet. Cross-browser
compatibility can be a nightmare at times, with some of the more complex
things you can do these days. While there's not always a right or wrong
way to do things, compatibility is definitely something that is good to
think about and be aware of. Some parts of my web site are definitely
not very compatible across the board right now. Mostly because I'm too
busy and I have not done a thorough job, it is in a constant state of
flux and I am still learning. I'm certain it would be a horrible thing
to visit in a text only browser, but then that's almost an acceptable
loss, since I am dealing exclusively with imagery. I've played around
with Macromedia Flash quite a bit, which is dependent on a plug-in, so
that is its own compatibility problem right there. But I'm learning that
you can do some cool things with scripting, you can initially "sniff
out" quite a bit of information about the browser and version being
used, and the plug-ins that are installed, and have your web site react
accordingly. That, to me, is pretty cool stuff, and it seems like a very
effective and seamless way to approach compatibility. But then, none of
that would even work in a browser that doesn't support scripting. You do
the best you can, its not always easy.

Q: You mentioned culture jamming once in a reference to ebay. What is
this and how does it relate to art?

I just think it's fun to use ebay for culture jamming purposes. It seems
ideally suited for the insertion of absurdity, because it exists more in
the context of internet commerce rather than internet art. The ebay
system is so huge, it just begs to be used in other, more creative
ways…and then, bingo, stealth bombers and human organs and noah's ark
and someone's virginity all start popping up amidst the tamer items for
sale. Some of the crazier ones are completely legitimate. A group of
engineers really did try to sell their services on ebay. Someone really
did sell a character in an online video game for a lot of money. And
hey, you still pay ebay fifty cents or so to post the auction, so they
really couldn't care less how you use that space, as long as you aren't
visibly breaking any major laws. Ebay also seems suited for this kind of
internet graffiti because it is so dynamic and constantly changing. Any
one auction can only last ten days at the most, then its gone. I am a
mere amateur, I've only worked on two myself. While they were both very
fun, i would like to try and be more subversive in the future. Both were
obviously pranks. A better culture jam is probably much more subtle. How
culture jamming relates to art is an interesting and difficult question.
I see it as a very unique art form, one that serves a very important
role. It's forgery, its vandalism, it's parody, it's anarchy. You know,
all the fun stuff.

Q: The collaborations you do with other artists, the "Collaborative
Digital Image Mutations", are beautiful examples of poetic freedom with
a visual medium. What do you get out of it personally?

The collaborations are for me a very positive experience, for several
reasons. Primarily, I think its good "visual exercise." It forces you to
stretch yourself artistically, because you are constantly getting visual
input from outside sources, and you're taking that foreign input and
diving in and putting your own spin on it, and then you send it on to
the next person. So I think its positive because it forces me to react
to something other than my own artistic routines and processes. Also, I
really like what these mutations suggest about appropriation and the
finality of artwork on a network. Each image represents a finished
product, but even more so they are each a link in a chain, each in some
way derivative of all the previous links. It presents the concept of
finality as an illusion. It really does the same thing for the concept
of authorship. While individual artists can claim credit for specific
images, they are all still very much a product of the group's collective
decision to work together.

Q: On your site there are examples of traditional art work, do you find
the medium you choose to work with informing the product of your work in
a significant manner? Do computers and digital techniques change the
way you approach making art?

The medium I am working with will always have an influence on the work I
come up with. I think that is a certainty because my art is very process
oriented, and the materials and medium used have a definite effect on
that process. The real trick is being aware of that overall process
enough to apply things from one medium to another. Sometimes I apply
things I learned in printmaking to the way I deal with layers in
Photoshop or the GIMP, and vice versa. Computers dramatically change the
way I make art, but at the same time I am bringing a certain amount of
unique art-making experience to the table that is not exclusive to
computer art. The computer opens up many amazing possibilities, it is an
incredibly versatile tool.

Q: What is the BOMB project? What's up with the copyright c ?

The BOMB project is a web based random juxtaposition engine. There are
currently five web pages that serve as layout templates, and the browser
cycles through them automatically or in response to mouse clicks. Each
page uses javascript to select the images it uses randomly from the
overall image pool. At present time, there are an even one hundred
images available in the image pool for the BOMB project to draw from,
although technically it selects from horizontal and vertical subsets
according to a given layout.

One can theoretically cycle through the same five pages and get
different combinations and juxtapositions indefinitely. The image pool
itself has grown and evolved over the past year, I started with only a
dozen or so. More than anything, the BOMB project is meant to be as
dynamic as possible. It will be a different visual experience every time
you visit, and will not stay still even if you like a particular
combination.

Another aspect of the BOMB project is that I've used images from news
web sites, primarily CNN and MSNBC, as source material for digital
manipulation. Originally I only used images relating to the U.S. bombing
of Iraq at the time, which didn't last too long, but that's where the
title comes from. Other countries have been bombed since then, and
eventually I just let myself use pretty much anything and everything
that was from a news source. And yes, these images were all copyright,
mostly by large corporations, and I did not ask permission to use them
at all. I have not been sued yet, but should that happen, I think that I
would be able to argue de minimis, since the images used in the BOMB
project are the result of digital manipulation and are unrecognizable
from the sources used. The BOMB project itself is not copyright, and is
effectively in the public domain for anyone to appropriate, plagiarize
or manipulate. This includes the idea itself, the images, the html and
javascript code, even the title if anyone is so inclined. I do this for
philosophical reasons only, just to make a point, since it is difficult
for me to picture a scenario where anyone could make money off something
like the BOMB project anyway. None of these ideas were ever really my
own, every idea is derivative of other sources. I would rather freely
contribute something to internet culture then protect my financial
interests or protect my ownership over any of these ideas. I don't think
I want to own ideas, it is distasteful to me.

Q: Will there be a need for art made with paper, canvas, bronze, stone
or any other "permanent" medium in the future?

People don't generally make art because there is a need in the outside
world for that art to exist, they make it because there is a need within
themselves to go through the process of making it. So the real question
is, will people always feel the need to make things with real, solid
materials? I tend to think that there will always be artists who are
interested in making physical objects, at least for a very long time.
Its kind of hard to predict very far into the future these days, for all
I know in a hundred years all art will be constructed with psychic
thought patterns. But for the most part, while various new forms of
digital art are being explored, I kind of doubt that it will ever come
down to an either/or situation. The value of physical art objects
depends on rarity, anyway. Digital art is easily reproducible, which
makes a physical art object that much more rare and unique.

Thanks for this opportunity to think about these questions, Lisa and
Barnabas. It was a very good experience.