Hello everyone,
My name is Elisabeth and I’m a student at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, in Belgium. These past three years I have been following Rhizome (especially the Artbase) from the sidelines, but today I want to step up and share my thoughts in this forum.
I am currently writing a paper on interactive net art and how it has changed (or not changed) the existing relationships between the artist, the audience and the cultural institution. My knowledge about this subject mainly comes from reading numerous books and articles but also from experiencing net art. Therefore I would like to address two statements on which you all can give your opinion. I hope that by doing this you will assist me in lifting a little piece of the veil covering interactive net art.
Topic 1: freedom to the artist
Art can be an alarm system for the effects of new media. Artists were amongst the first who saw creative potential in the internet. The internet offers freedom. The artist can produce art, display it online and connect with an international public, without any intervenience from a cultural institution. Net art and the artists have challenged the existing cultural structures.
Topic 2: freedom to the people
Not only the artist can pluck the benefits of the internet, but so can the public. The internet is a new virtual world where the public can browse for net art on their own terms. Not only can the public decide for themselves, they also have an opportunity to participate or interact. Interactive net art breaks with a silent reflection. The interpassive art comsumption is replaced by an active and creative participation. Artists display net art and then offer the means to others to contribute or recreate.
These are the two statements I would like to discuss. I will analyse this discussion in my paper, respecting the privacy of every participant. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me: edevlees@vub.ac.be .
I would like to thank you all in advance for your active participation and interesting contributions.
Elisabeth
required fields are really dumb.
I have thought about the battle between what you call techno-idealists and techno-pessimists, a discussion I think you mean goes way back to the coming of photography, film, video, etc?
In many ways I don't agree with McLuhan's theories, but I do like that he used the kubists to develop his thoughts. For Mcluhan, to be modern was to use new technologies, and he saw the kubists doing exactly this. Arjan Mulder, a dutch author, said that artists are amongst the first to realise the potential of new technologies and new media. The exact thing happened with the internet. Artists started using their creativity on the new technology, creating interactive net art. Next in line, the cultural institutions had to pick up the pace and react to the new art forms. Which of course they did, Rhizome is one of the best examples there is. But of course reactions weren't always this positive.
I for one do believe that the internet can be a democratising and decentralising medium, but it depends on how the user actually uses it. By this I mean the user should break with a silent and interpassive art consumption. I like interactive net art that pulls the user out of this little box and lures him or her into participating, and even partly creating.
So…yes I could be seen as a techno-idealist. But this doesn't mean I'm not open to understand the techno-pessimists.
I wonder, is there a techno-pessimist on the forum? I can't really imagine this…but you can always prove me wrong ;).