Where could and should net art be exhibited: In a museum or just on the
net? What are the problems? Should it be collected and/or saved for
posterity? Can there be any criteria set up for these problems?

An interview with Josephine Bosma…

+ + +

Petra Heck: How would you define internet art?

Josephine Bosma: net.art is art using computer networks as a
medium, in the sense that the network itself and/or its content
(technical, cultural and social) serves as a basis for the artwork. I
myself use a broader definition, namely: art that has net.culture as its
basis. (This goes slightly further and also includes work that does
*not* directly use a computernetwork)

PH: What do you think is the best place to present internet art? (in a
[virtual] institution, on the net only, on the site of a museum, in a
museum, etc. or does it not matter where?)

JB: The most obvious answer would be: the best place for net art is the
network. I think however it does not really matter where it is
presented, but there are good and less good ways to present it. The less
good ways are mocked by net.art 'lovers', but: one can still regard them
as some kind of extension of the net.artwork. Yvonne Wilhelm of
Knowbotic Research said it like this: every publication, every letter,
fax or mailing in connection to our work is part of it. What you see in
the exhibition space is just a different part of the work. A lot of net
art works are difficult to grasp in their entirety. The meaning of a
net.artwork can be anchored in (or at least influenced by) the
communication (around the work, but also in general) on mailinglists
etc. Because of this I am a bit reluctant towards galleries, even if
they are online, that want to present net art. I always fear that a
tendency towards more presentations in galleries etc. and less in
'spaces' maintained by the artists themselves will ultimately be a
tendency towards a more 'static' net.art. I would find this a shame.

PH: In which way do you think internet art can be presented best? What
are the criteria, the necessities (theoretically and practically, what
kind of space, optical conditions, etc)?

JB: We are talking Real Space here, right? This depends completely on
the work. One should take time to find out how to best present it. I
will have to do some brainstorming to answer your question, make
presumptions a bit.

I find this a difficult question to answer. The reception of an artwork
depends on so many things, like for instance the mindset of its
audience, its location (country, social environment) etc. I think it is
important to add to the presentation a sense of extra space, the space
of the network. This is my personal thought at this moment in time, for
exhibitions in any artcentre of which the audience is not accustomed to
net.art. These kinds of immersive presentations work well for any
audience in fact, and they do not necessarely have to take up a lot of
actual 'Real Space'.

Not all net.artworks are completely 'inside' the networks though! Some
have an installation or environment to it. And in other cases a
presentation that would most of the times be regarded as silly or boring
(solo computer in a corner or on a pedestal) can maybe emphasize an
intentional sense of simplicity or clumsiness a work has.

When you show several works at once this in general only works well when
you show the connections or the differences between the works, or the
variety in styles, choices. There are in fact almost as many forms of
net.art as there are 'older' art forms. You don't squeeze those in one
room without giving it a good thought either. As a lot of net.art is
conceptual or 'abstract' it asks for background knowledge. The major
part of a museum audience is not familiar with net.culture or computer
technology. This demands a good pre-presentation which leaves the work
as 'intact' as possible, like well wrought catalogues and thorough press
policies. With regards to the presentation, it is at the very least
polite to consult the artist. Net.art is sometimes too easily
'withdrawn' from the artists' influence. "didn't they offer it for
free?"

I think in order to present net.art, one has to somehow give the
'suggestion' of the network to the audience. Again, one has to be
creative, and in touch with the artist. It can be very simple, like the
Swedish gallery owner who presented Olia Lialina's work on the (back
then) recently released I-mac. These machines were so new at that point
in time they could easily function as a symbol of a kind of enchanting
and futuristic landscape of net.art. Just one such machine in the middle
of a white cube ;) you can imagine the impact there.

It has to be stressed though that the problem of how to present net art
is one of curators, not of artists so much. The artist *has* presented
his/her work, has his/her own channels. This of course does not apply to
works made in request or for a specific location.

PH: David Ross of the SFMOMA mentioned the intimacy of net art.
Shouldn't it be shown on a small monitor because of this?

JB: I don't know what kind of 'intimacy' is meant here exactly. But in
general not all net art is intimate, far from it I would say, in any
meaning of the word.

Some net.art is produced within a small 'ring' of discourse, namely that
of a few public (read: on the net, in email lists, etc.) publications
and discussions around the topic, on the level of the artists
themselves. Within this discourse the input from the 'artworld' (with
this I mean established artcritics, curators etc) is not taken too
seriously, because this art establishment is not taking net art too
seriously either. So this existing net.art discourse is easily mistaken
for being intimate, because some people are simply outside of it. But
again: not all net art bears on the development of net art itself.

PH: You say the presentation of a net artwork depends on the individual
work. This means though that, if the artist does not care about the
presentation, it does not matter whether the work is presented on a
large screen or a monitor. This is why I mention David Ross. He sees
intimacy as a characteristic. At home you see net art on a small
monitor, maybe up to 17 inch. In the case of an interactive net artwork:
can you blow it up so that many people can see it, when the actual
experience of the work is only obtained when one controls the 'buttons'
individually?

JB: Like I said earlier, it is possible to have different perceptions of
a net artwork. And as net.art usually has its own space where it
presents itself, the presentation in a 'Real Space' is most often an
extension of or addition to the work. This therefore can be different
then the work was originally. One has to be careful of course. One
should try to keep the intention and atmosphere of the work as intact as
possible. Sometimes 'enlarging', 'blowing up' the work is necessary to
maintain the works' characteristics in Real Space, sometimes it needs to
be presented 'intimately'. Intimate would be like maybe in a small space
for only one visitor at the time. The latter creates a rather stuffy and
closed (in many meanings) perception of the work though, so I would not
do it so easily. I think enlarging and/or 'unravelling' the work on many
levels works best for a public Real Space presentation. It seems when
discussing this one always thinks of large museums: I can also imagine
more *really* intimate presentations in small gatherings of interested
people though, which is not uncommon already. This often has the artist
present, and can have a true 'avant-garde' feel ;) of condensed energy.

PH: Should a museum give the work surplus value?

JB: It is more leaving the work in its own value and offering the
possibility to the audience to judge the work on its own merit. This is
hard as a lot of net.art is really a network experience. It is not so
much offering surplus value as it is compensating for the lack of
presence in the network (so not just the lack of the experience of
technically being 'inside' a computer network, but also lack of
knowledge of the social, political and cultural circumstances in this
network).

PH: I am not sure in how far the creative solutions you suggest should
be found. I do think the museum should find its own solution, but
shouldn't these also meet the wishes, the characteristics of the medium?
Or do you simply see it as a different environment, a different context,
a new part of the work, the museums own way of presenting? I can follow
you, though I do want to stick to the context and characteristics of the
medium. Can't musea adapt a bit? I find for instance presenting net art
offline unacceptable.

JB: Presenting net.art offline is absolutely perceived as blasphemous,
and it is not to be prefered. Sometimes though an institution does not
have the possibility to present work online. I remember an exhibition in
Belgrade, at Cyberrex, where they had no choice but presenting net art
offline, and it was done with a very conscious attitude.

There are many possible answers to your question. I would like to keep
it short though, also because what I am going to mention now is not
something I would say I know deeply. I just want to steer you away a bit
from the train of thought you have.

I think you should try to think about the influence of computer/network
structures on other structures. It is a subtle change of standpoint,
point of view, and way of working. This change does not produce
completely new concepts. I am thinking of (just an example) Pierre Levy
who wrote about the history of the virtual. Virtual is not just what
happens inside a computer, or what happens inside a network. Also in
Real Life we deal with virtuality. The 'meaning' of a net artwork is not
just a technological one. I know you are realising this, but it has
deeper implications then just the evolving of two worlds next to each
other, in which one world produces work that only consists of
information and thus is intangible, where this intangibility has all
kinds of consequences. Information is language, is code: it is being
structured and it provokes changes in structure depending on its
environment. The way we are forced to deal with this re-structuring,
this re-thinking of placement, of language, of hierarchies, of value,
ultimately will translate itself into the Real World. The problem with
net.art is that net.art is presented in a world that is barely touched
by or aware of these influences yet. Sometimes these influences are
intentionally kept as small as possible btw, for reasons of tradition or
otherwise. Sometimes the influences are not visible, as you look for the
wrong things maybe.

What I really mean to say is that the characteristics of the medium you
are refering to can be represented or accomplished in other ways then
purely technological. Also I do not feel like loosing my temper or
something over stupidly placed terminals in an exhibition. In the end a
museum remains a good or a bad museum, with the preferences and insight
of its board that decides everything.

PH: Do you think internet art should be collected or saved for
posterity?

JB: I sometimes regret that some net.artworks which impressed me have
changed or have vanished completely. For instance, performance-like
net.art is mostly irretrievable. I think however that through the use of
different techniques one could try to save their essence. So my answer
is yes.

PH: What are the criteria for this, and are they different from other
artforms?

JB: The criteria are comparable to those for the 'preservation' of for
instance fluxus-art, land art, performance art, intervention art and
other (partly or completely) transitory work.

PH: Do you have any idea how this should be done?

JB: There are plans to collect net.art together with computers and
software from the specific 'age' it was created in. A part of the work
would be saved this way. Net.art possibly is best saved in parts or
elements. Just speculating: correspondence in books or on a site;
interviews and documentaries on cd-rom, video, or sound carrier; special
online musea could include entire websites and archives… documenting
it in any manner which is available really.

I would not mind having a nice big portable harddisc or something that
contains net.art and somehow creates the illusion of the original
network. This can only be done with certain kinds of work though, and
one should be very aware of this. It would be just an object, a toy, an
artbook for your salon table. It has many limitations as to what it can
contain: it cannot contain performance, it cannot contain info-guerilla
etc. Plus the works would have to be translated especially for this
purpose. It would just be like a snapshot. This will then produce the
old question again: is this still net.art? In my definition it is.

PH: How do you think institutions (should) deal with internet art in the
future?

JB: Computer networks and everything that comes along with them (so also
the culture within and around them) will most probably get so interwoven
with everyday reality that there will be no more discourse and almost
seperate development of net.art next to those of other artforms, like it
is mostly now. Many disciplines will be 'networked', and discourses,
traditions, styles will get so entangled that in the end we will come
across the situation where a kind of strict nostalgia will be developed
to preserve the term net.art.

Already now some make a distiction between 'pure' net art and net art in
general. Pure net art *only* exists online, has no extensions or
presence outside of it, is what is argued. Often this view of net art is
due to some inexperience with net.culture by some people that recently
discovered the network medium, and are full of it. They are not aware of
the developments and research in net.culture that deal with the body,
with extensions to the real world. Others are cyborg-traditionalists.
They want to be pure data. It is a kind of romantic attitude that I find
quite charming actually. The term net.art at the moment still needs to
be used though. It is very much a different approach to art still, and
we need to be able to discuss it.

Answering your question I would say: in the future net.art is totally
common, whatever it is called by then. People will deal with it
according to their own taste and insight. Institutions will however, as
in the past (and as at present), never be able to completely cover,
steer or enclose artpractice. Art activities outside of institutions on
the other hand will, like now, only grow and become more important. We
are really not at the end of history yet. I really hate it when people
talk like that. Institutions will have to share their power with more
(smaller) institutions, short or longterm projects and individuals. What
is and is not good art is not in the hands of few anymore. This is
important to realise. It sounds like 'old news', but one needs to be
aware of this ongoing development. It has nothing to do with certain
mythical stories about the internet. It is simply caused by the general
development of technologies. Just compare it to the number of channels
available on TV. The way one then in the end, like with TV and slightly
less with radio, accesses ones information in the near future is an
other story. It is in the hands of those who by that time possess the
most important lines or networks. The development of streaming media in
the net produces powerful structures and hierarchies that will control
bandwidth use.