<br />RHIZOME DIGEST: December 17, 2004<br /><br />Content:<br /><br />+announcement+<br />1. Jo-Anne Green: Upgrade! Boston<br />2. ryan griffis: Red States Journals<br /><br />+opportunity+<br />3. Jehanne-Marie Gavarini: Job announcements<br />4. Faculty Recruiting Committee: UC Davis Faculty Position<br />5. Ken Strickland: Faculty Position<br />6. Brooke Singer: Adjunct Needed for Web Class at Purchase College<br />7. Lisa: Sonic Supper | 718/303-9553 | Open Call for Music/Sound<br /><br />+work+<br />8. abe linkoln: new work: my boyfriend came back from the war (abe linkoln's<br />2004 blog mix)<br />9. Rhizome.org: Just added to the Rhizome ArtBase: Floating Point by Tiff<br />Holmes<br /><br />+thread+<br />10. Dominique Fontaine <dfontaine@fondation-lang, Pall Thayer, Jason Van<br />Anden, Rob Myers, Joy Garnett, ryan griffis, curt cloninger: Questioning the<br />Frame<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br />1.<br /><br />Date: 12.13.04<br />From: Jo-Anne Green <jo@turbulence.org><br />Subject: Upgrade! Boston<br /><br />December 10, 2004<br />Upgrade! Boston<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://turbulence.org/upgrade">http://turbulence.org/upgrade</a><br /><br />Turbulence.org and Art Interactive are pleased to announce "Upgrade!<br />Boston," a monthly gathering of new media artists and curators founded<br />by Turbulence.org and co-organized with Art Interactive. The Upgrade!<br />will foster dialogue and create opportunities for collaboration within<br />the media art community. At each meeting one or two artists/curators<br />will present work in progress and participate in a discussion.<br /><br />Our spring lineup is as follows:<br />January 25, 2005–Yael Kanarek<br />February–Teri Rueb<br />March–Larissa Harris<br />April–kanarinka<br /><br />Beginning in May, artists/curators who have attended two or more<br />meetings will be eligible to present.<br /><br />Upgrade! New York was started in 1999 by Yael Kanarek. Since March 2000,<br />numerous new media artists and curators have gathered monthly at Eyebeam<br />Atelier in New York City, including Cary Peppermint, Robbin Murphy,<br />Golan Levin, Mary Flanagan, Marie Sester, Martin Wattenberg & Marek<br />Walczak, Christiane Paul, Jon Ippolito & Keith Frank, Margot Lovejoy and<br />John Klima.<br /><br />In September 2003, Kate Armstrong began Upgrade! Vancouver, and on<br />October 1, 2004 Upgrade! Montreal was launched at the Society for Arts<br />and Technology, Montreal by Tobias van Veen. Eyebeam is "very happy with<br />the other locations that are emerging and see them as an informal<br />network with future potential for collaboration and exchange" (Kanarek).<br /><br />The first meeting is on Tuesday, January 25, 7:00 p.m. at Art<br />Interactive, 130 Bishop Allen Drive, at the corner of Prospect Street,<br />Cambridge.<br /><br />Please RSVP turbulence@turbulence.org<br /><br />URLS:<br />Upgrade! Boston: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://turbulence.org/upgrade">http://turbulence.org/upgrade</a><br />Art Interactive: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://artinteractive.org">http://artinteractive.org</a><br />Upgrade! New York: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.treasurecrumbs.com/theupgrade/">http://www.treasurecrumbs.com/theupgrade/</a><br />Eyebeam: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.eyebeam.org/">http://www.eyebeam.org/</a><br />Upgrade! Vancouver:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.katearmstrong.com/upgrade/vancouver/index.html">http://www.katearmstrong.com/upgrade/vancouver/index.html</a><br />Upgrade! Montreal: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://theupgrade.sat.qc.ca/">http://theupgrade.sat.qc.ca/</a><br />Yael Kanarek: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://turbulence.org/upgrade/archives/01_05YK.html">http://turbulence.org/upgrade/archives/01_05YK.html</a><br />Teri Rueb: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://turbulence.org/upgrade/archives/02_05TR.html">http://turbulence.org/upgrade/archives/02_05TR.html</a><br />Larissa Harris: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://turbulence.org/upgrade/archives/03_05LH.html">http://turbulence.org/upgrade/archives/03_05LH.html</a><br />Kanarinka: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://turbulence.org/upgrade/archives/04_05kanarinka.html">http://turbulence.org/upgrade/archives/04_05kanarinka.html</a><br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br />2.<br /><br />Date: 12.13.04<br />From: ryan griffis <grifray@yahoo.com><br />Subject: Red States Journal<br /><br />The Journal of Aesthetics & Protest is looking for some US-based<br />participants in a short, mail-based project. Below is the description.<br />If you're currently in a "red state" and want to participate, reply to<br />me off list and we can arrange to send you a journal.<br />Thanks,<br />ryan<br /><br />The Los Angeles California based Journal of Aesthetics and Protest<br />would like to hear your thoughts, ideas, reflections<br />about the notion of living on the conservative side of the "Divided<br />States of America."<br /><br />What is the truth about your daily life? What's it like for a someone<br />like you to be living in your town? Describe your local scene, where<br />you find community, what sort of interactions you have. What are the<br />local political and cultural institutions that you find meaningful?<br />Which ones do you distrust? Why? What are the social and political<br />conflicts that are happening around you and why? Where do you find<br />common ground with your greater community?<br /><br />Do you think its really all that different from our communities here in<br />Blue California? Do you feel the "redness" when you walk down the<br />street? Who are your neighbors? What is your community like? What's<br />going on that you think those of us in the blue should know about? Are<br />there other color schemes you imagine besides the red and the blue?<br /><br />In this diary please contribute, however you find appropriate, your<br />thoughts and feelings about what it means to be in your "Red State".<br /><br />Contribution ideas: narrative and/or critical writing, drawing,<br />psychogeographic maps, collages, song lyrics and whatever you think is<br />appropriate. Please be aware that others will be writing in this<br />journal after you.<br /><br />This Red State Journal, one of 10 sent to contacts in the Red States,<br />is part of a dispersed project initiated by the Journal of Aesthetics &<br />Protest. You have been specially chosen to contribute either by member<br />of the Journal of Aesthetics and Protest collective member or another<br />participant in the project. When you are done writing within 1-7 days,<br />please pass it on to a person you trust.<br /><br />We hope that when returned to Los Angeles, the Red State Journals will<br />serve as a small window into the life in your town.<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.journalofaestheticsandprotest.org">http://www.journalofaestheticsandprotest.org</a><br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />3.<br /><br />Date: 12.12.04<br />From: Jehanne-Marie Gavarini <artfutur@aol.com><br />Subject: Job announcements<br /><br />UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL<br />The Art Department<br /><br />3D Animation/Digital Interactive Media<br /><br />The Art Department at the University of Massachusetts Lowell seeks qualified<br />applicants for a full-time, tenure-track position to teach undergraduate<br />courses in 3D digital animation, interactive digital media and immersive VR<br />photography. The MFA is required as well as an active and growing record of<br />creative and scholarly research, exhibitions and publications. The position<br />appointment is effective September 1, 2005. An interdisciplinary approach to<br />the teaching of 3D animation and interactive media emphasizing conceptually<br />mature sequential narratives is desirable. Applicants must show proficiency<br />in Lightwave, Maya, digital media authoring, video editing and audio, and<br />demonstrate an interest in and an understanding of new media theory and<br />contemporary art and culture. Applicants must also show some experience in<br />Web design and Macintosh lab management. Salary and benefi ts are<br />commensurate with the rank of Assistant or Associate Professor.<br />Responsibilities will include teaching three undergraduate courses per<br />semester, student advising and participation in senior reviews, as well as<br />committee participation at the Department, College and University level. A<br />minimum of three years' teaching in higher education is required and<br />industry experience is preferred. To apply, send a letter of application,<br />resume and portfolio. Please include examples of animation and digital<br />interactive media, examples of student work, teaching philosophy, syllabi,<br />three letters of reference and a SASE and send to: Animation Search<br />Committee, Art Department/UMass Lowell, 71 Wilder Street, Suite 8, Lowell,<br />MA 01854.<br /><br />Web Artist<br /><br />The Art Department at the University of Massachusetts Lowell seeks qualified<br />applicants for a full-time, tenure-track position to teach undergraduate<br />courses in Web-based art and design. The MFA is required as well as an<br />active and growing record of creative and scholarly research, exhibitions<br />and publications. The position appointment is effective September 1, 2005.<br />An interdisciplinary approach to the teaching of Web-based media is<br />desirable. Applicants must show a demonstrated proficiency in JTML, CSS,<br />DHTML, JavaScript and Flash, with ActionScript preferred. A thorough<br />understanding of typography, color theory, interactive design principles,<br />and Web strategy experience is required. Applicants must also demonstrate an<br />interest in and an understanding of new media theory and contemporary art<br />and culture. Salary and benefits are commensurate with the rank of<br />Assistant/Associate Professor. Responsibilities will include teaching three<br />undergraduate courses per semester, participation in Macintosh lab<br />management, overseeing the art department Web site with student assistance,<br />student advising and participation in senior reviews, as well as committee<br />participation at the Department, College and University level. A minimum of<br />three years' teaching in higher education is required and<br />industry experience is preferred. To apply, send a letter of application,<br />resume, online portfolio link, other examples of Web-based media, and<br />examples of student work. Also include teaching philosophy, syllabi, three<br />letters of reference and a SASE, and send to: Web Design Search Committee,<br />Art Department/UMass Lowell, 71 Wilder Street, Suite 8, Lowell, MA 01854.<br /><br />UMASS<br />University of Massachusetts<br />Lowell<br /><br />The University of Massachusetts is an Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action<br />Title IX, H/V, ADA 1990 Employer and Executive Order 11246, 41 CFR60-741 4,<br />41 CRF60-250 4, 41CRF60-1 40 and 41 CFR60-1,4 are hereby incorporated.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />Rhizome is now offering organizational subscriptions, memberships<br />purchased at the institutional level. These subscriptions allow<br />participants of an institution to access Rhizome's services without<br />having to purchase individual memberships. (Rhizome is also offering<br />subsidized memberships to qualifying institutions in poor or excluded<br />communities.) Please visit <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/info/org.php">http://rhizome.org/info/org.php</a> for more<br />information or contact Kevin McGarry at Kevin@Rhizome.org or Rachel Greene<br />at Rachel@Rhizome.org.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />4.<br /><br />Date: 12.13.04<br />From: Faculty Recruiting Committee <apply@cs.ucdavis.edu><br />Subject: UC Davis Faculty Position<br /><br />The Department of Computer Science and the Program in Technocultural Studies<br />at the University of California, Davis, invite applications for a joint<br />tenure-track faculty position at the level of Assistant Professor. We are<br />interested in the areas of either computer animation or humanâ??computer<br />interaction as they apply to an intersection of computer science and media<br />arts production. We welcome applications from candidates that emphasize<br />innovative and emerging applications that bridge the creative and critical<br />sophistication of Technocultural Studies and the technical expertise of<br />Computer Science.<br /><br />We invite applications at the Assistant level from candidates with<br />demonstrated research excellence or professional creative activity and a<br />commitment to excellence in teaching. The appointee will teach courses in<br />both Computer Science and Technocultural Studies and, thus, must be capable<br />of creatively engaging a wide range of artistic, technical, mathematical and<br />programming proficiencies and interests, including fluency with relevant<br />standard applications for creative production.<br /><br />This position requires a Ph.D. or equivalent. The position is open until<br />filled, but for full consideration materials should be received by February<br />15, 2005. For complete job posting and application instructions, please<br />consult our webpage at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/department/employ">http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/department/employ</a>.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />5.<br /><br />Date: 12.15.04<br />From: Ken Strickland <kstrickland@mca.edu><br />Subject: Faculty Position<br /><br />Memphis College of Art<br /> Faculty Vacancy<br /><br />Position:<br />Artist working in Time-Based or Interactive media<br />Full-time, Assistant Professor beginning August 2005. We seek an artist<br />interested in exploring the creative application of digital technologies<br />informed by contemporary practice and theory. A terrific opportunity for an<br />artist actively working in any time-based or interactive practice to be a<br />part of a developing new program. The position is a two-year (renewable)<br />academic year (nine month) appointment.<br /><br />Responsibilities: <br />Teach courses in Time-based and/or interactive media in BFA & MFA programs<br />and collaborate in on-going curriculum development. All f-t faculty are<br />expected to participate in student advising and college community service in<br />addition to active creative research and exhibition, consistent with the<br />mission of a professional school.<br /><br />Qualifications: <br />MFA, or equivalent professional experience. Specialization in any<br />Time-based, Interactive or Digital studio practice. Teaching experience at<br />college level preferred. Evidence of recent professional studio activity<br />and strong communication skills.<br /><br />Application Procedure:<br />Send letter of application, curriculum vitae, statement of teaching<br />philosophy, samples of professional work, and 3 letters of reference (sent<br />directly from referees) to:<br />Digital Media Search Committee<br />Memphis College of Art<br />1930 Poplar Avenue<br />Memphis, TN 38104. <br /><br />Digital applications are acceptable. Send information as PDF or Word<br />attachments: to kstrickland@mca.edu<br /><br />Deadline:<br />Position will remain open until position is filled. AA/EOE<br /><br />The College:<br />Memphis College of Art, an independent professional art college founded in<br />1936, is accredited by both the National Association of Schools of Art &<br />Design and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. The school is<br />located within a 342 acre wooded park in Midtown Memphis and is adjacent to<br />the Brooks Museum of Art and the Memphis Zoo.<br /><br />MCA offers BFA degree programs in Fine Arts (digital media, drawing, fibers,<br />painting, papermaking/bookarts, photography, printmaking, and sculpture) and<br />Design Arts (digital media, graphic design, illustration, and photography).<br />An MFA program provides study opportunities in traditional studio practice<br />(painting/drawing, photography, printmaking/bookarts, and/or sculpture),<br />digital media (animation, interactive, and multi-media) or an individually<br />tailored interdisciplinary emphasis.<br /><br />New faculty will join a distinguished body of artists, designers, scholars,<br />and educators who are committed to shepherding and mentoring the next<br />generation of artists who will be shaping the course of artmaking in the<br />21st century.<br /><br />Memphis College of Art is an equal opportunity institution and will not<br />discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin,<br />age, handicap/disability, or other unlawful factors in employment practices.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />For $65 annually, Rhizome members can put their sites on a Linux<br />server, with a whopping 350MB disk storage space, 1GB data transfer per<br />month, catch-all email forwarding, daily web traffic stats, 1 FTP<br />account, and the capability to host your own domain name (or use<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.net/your_account_name">http://rhizome.net/your_account_name</a>). Details at:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/services/1.php">http://rhizome.org/services/1.php</a><br /><br />++ Through December 31: a free domain with each hosting plan purchased! ++<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />6.<br /><br />Date: 12.16.04<br />From: Brooke Singer <brooke@bsing.net><br />Subject: Adjunct Needed for Web Class at Purchase College<br /><br />An adjunct is needed to teach Creating Web Documents, a required course for<br />New Media majors and an elective for others at Purchase College. This class<br />is an introduction to web production. Students learn how to handcode HTML,<br />CSS and javascript. The course also covers how the web works, digital<br />imaging for web pages and the legal issues related to online publishing.<br /><br />The course meets 1 evening a week, Tuesdays, 7 to 10:20, starting Jan. 25.<br />Assignments include class exercises, homework, quizzes and 2-3 projects.<br />Students can choose the topic of the projects with the approval of the<br />teacher. <br /><br />To apply, please submit a resume and cover letter to Jeanine Meyer at<br />Jeanine.Meyer@purchase.edu<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />NEW: Rhizome Member-curated Exhibits<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/art/member-curated/">http://rhizome.org/art/member-curated/</a><br /><br />View online exhibits Rhizome members have curated from works in the ArtBase,<br />or learn how to create your own exhibit.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />7.<br /><br />Date: 12.17.04<br />From: Lisa <mcpurrypants@yahoo.com><br />Subject: Sonic Supper | 718/303-9553 | Open Call for Music/Sound<br /><br />Sonic Supper seeks sound artists and musicians interested in creating work<br />for our new telephone music project. To be considered just call 718/303-9553<br />and leave a message with some of your music after the beep. Your message<br />doesn't have to be perfect, the general idea will do. Also, please send an<br />email to ghtkf@yahoo.com so we can contact you with the dirty details. If<br />selected your sounds will reach over 3000 listeners. There are absolutely no<br />style or genre limitations.<br /><br />Visit <a rel="nofollow" href="http://sonicsupper.org">http://sonicsupper.org</a> to learn more. Or call 718/303-9553 every week<br />for a friendly new dose of curious music.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />8. <br /><br />Date: 12.11.04<br />From: abe linkoln <abe@linkoln.net><br />Subject: new work: my boyfriend came back from the war (abe linkoln's 2004<br />blog mix)<br /><br />my boyfriend came back from the war (abe linkoln's 2004 blog mix)<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://myboyfriendcamebackfromthewar.blogspot.com/">http://myboyfriendcamebackfromthewar.blogspot.com/</a><br /> <br /><br />the original <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.teleportacia.org/war/war.html">http://www.teleportacia.org/war/war.html</a><br />the remixes <a rel="nofollow" href="http://myboyfriendcamebackfromth.ewar.ru/">http://myboyfriendcamebackfromth.ewar.ru/</a><br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br />9.<br /><br />Date: 12.16.04<br />From: Rhizome.org <artbase@rhizome.org><br />Subject: Just added to the Rhizome ArtBase: Floating Point by Tiff Holmes<br /><br />Just added to the Rhizome ArtBase …<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?29889">http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?29889</a><br />+ Floating Point +<br />+ Tiff Holmes +<br /><br />I created the set of 20 online sketches in the process of creating a large<br />scale audiovisual installation that uses real time water quality data, a<br />single pixel, and one tone to conceptually visualize the quality of lake,<br />river, or drinking water. This work was produced at the ETHZ's Colab in<br />Switzerland as part of the Artist-In-Labs residency.<br /><br />WHY WATER? The future of the world population depends on the availability<br />of a safe drinking water supply. In some countries, drinking water is a<br />scarce resource, while in others vast reserves exist. Freshwater resources<br />are susceptible to a variety of chemical contaminants. Common pollutants<br />include pesticides, fertilizers, petroleum products, and industrial<br />solvents. As global citizens we must become more concerned about potential<br />health risks associated with our drinking water.<br /><br />Water quality tests are conducted by scientists who graph data over time<br />to monitor shifts in concentrations of dissolved solids and chemical<br />pollutants. Such specialists identify changes in our freshwater resources<br />by building visual models that process enormous amounts of data. Familiar<br />techniques include bar graphs and x-y scatter plots. Holmes uses the same<br />water quality data to create conceptual forms of data visualization to<br />communicate vital environmental information to a non-scientific audience.<br />The broader goal of the proposed research is to promote sustainable and<br />ecologically responsible modes of living, and a general awareness of both<br />local and global water quality issues.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Biography<br /><br />Tiffany Holmes, 2004<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.tiffanyholmes.com">http://www.tiffanyholmes.com</a><br /><br />Tiffany Holmes is an artist and Assistant Professor of Art and Technology at<br />the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. Her new media installation work<br />explores the movement of human and animal bodies and creates a visual<br />language to represent that motion. In Follow the Mouse (2001), a real<br />rodent controls the output from the computer while in Fishbowl (2003), a<br />goldfish monitors feed from underwater surveillance cameras. Holmes<br />lectures and exhibits worldwide: J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles, Viper<br />in Switzerland, Siggraph 2000, World@rt in Denmark, Interaction â??01 in<br />Japan, and ISEA Nagoya â??02. With a BA in art history from Williams<br />College, Holmes received a MFA in painting from the Maryland Institute<br />College of Art and a MFA in digital arts from the University of Maryland.<br />Awards include: Michigan Society of Fellows member, Illinois Arts Council<br />grant, and a Swiss Artists In Labs award.<br /><br />Assistant Professor, School of the Art Institute of Chicago, 112 S.<br />Michigan, Chicago, IL 60603<br /><br />Email: tholme@artic.edu<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />10.<br /><br />Date: 12.16.04-12.20.04<br />From: Dominique Fontaine <dfontaine@fondation-langlois.org>, Pall Thayer<br /><palli@pallit.lhi.is>, Jason Van Anden <jason@smileproject.com>, Rob Myers<br /><robmyers@mac.com>, Joy Garnett <joyeria@walrus.com>, ryan griffis<br /><grifray@yahoo.com>, curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com><br />Subject: Questioning the Frame<br /><br />Dominique Fontaine <dfontaine@fondation-langlois.org> posted:<br /><br />—–Original Message—–<br />From: On Behalf Of coco fusco : animas999@yahoo.com<br /><br />IN THESE TIMES<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1750/">http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1750/</a><br />Questioning the Frame<br />Thoughts about maps and spatial logic in the global<br />present<br />By Coco Fusco December 16, 2004<br /><br />Terms such as " mapping," "borders," "hacking,"<br />"trans-nationalism," "identity as spatial," and so on<br />have been popularized in recent years by new media<br />theories' celebration of "the networks"-a catch-all<br />phrase for the modes of communication and exchange<br />facilitated by the Internet.<br /><br />We should proceed with caution in using this<br />terminology because it accords strategic primacy to<br />space and simultaneously downplays time-i.e., history.<br />It also evades categories of embodied difference such<br />as race, gender and class, and in doing so prevents us<br />from understanding how the historical development of<br />those differences has shaped our contemporary<br />worldview.<br /><br />Technocentric fantasy<br /><br />The rhetoric of mapping and networks conflates the way<br />technological systems operate with modern human<br />communication. According to this mode of thought we<br />are to believe that we live inside the world of<br />William Gibson's Neuromancer and that salvation is<br />only attainable via very specific technological<br />expertise unleashed against the system-i.e., hacking.<br />Consider the heroes of Hollywood sci-fi blockbusters<br />such as The Matrix whose power lies in their knowledge<br />of "the code." It is implied that we operate in<br />networks because computers and the Internet have<br />restructured "our" lives and because global economic<br />systems have turned us into global citizens. Hacking<br />then comes to stand for all forms of critical<br />engagement with preexistent power structures.<br /><br />I'm just a little too old to believe these new media<br />mantras unquestioningly. This rhetoric implies two<br />possible explanations for the difference between the<br />networked present and the non-networked past.<br /><br />The first explanation suggests that no one on the left<br />before the age of the Internet practiced subversive<br />manipulation of existent media, tactical intervention,<br />investigative reporting and infiltration of power<br />structures. It also would seem that before the dawning<br />of the networks, no one knew what being an organic<br />intellectual was about, no one elaborated alternative<br />communication systems and no one was aware of or<br />sensed a connection to geographic regions other than<br />Europe.<br /><br />The second explanation would be that electronic<br />communication has produced a form of networking that<br />is so radically different as to imply a neat break<br />with the past. In either case, these arguments<br />conveniently situate their advocates outside history,<br />since either way tactical media practitioners have<br />nothing of value to inherit from the past.<br /><br />While I can understand that there might be a dearth of<br />knowledge about tactical interventions of previous<br />centuries, I am perplexed by the apparent loss of<br />short-term memory of many cultural theorists now in<br />vogue, who were alive and active in the '70s.<br /><br />Can we forget Daniel Ellsberg's publishing of the<br />Pentagon Papers, the uncovering of the Watergate<br />scandal, the break-in to an FBI office by an anonymous<br />group that led to revelations of COINTELPRO and the<br />Freedom of Information Act, the many Senate<br />investigations of FBI corruption, the widespread<br />solidarity with Third World independence movements,<br />the plethora of underground and alternative presses<br />and global mail art networks-all operated by radical<br />activists, artists and intellectuals? Those of us who<br />can at least recall the ways that these strategic<br />interventions transformed political and cultural life<br />in that decade necessarily cast a skeptical glance at<br />the messianic claims of technocentrists.<br /><br />The shift from Eurocentric internationalism to a more<br />globally inclusive worldview came long before the age<br />of the Internet. It was launched outside Europe and<br />America, and emanated from the geopolitical margins.<br />The process took place across a range of fields of<br />knowledge, culture and politics. This revision of the<br />world picture was catalyzed by postwar decolonization;<br />the Non-Aligned Movement launched in 1961; and civil<br />rights struggles in the developed world, including the<br />Black Power and Chicano movements-all of which<br />invariably affirmed their alliances with Third World<br />revolutions. This political process was expanded upon<br />by a postcolonial understanding that various diasporas<br />shared transnational connections and that these<br />diasporas were produced by the economics and politics<br />of colonialism and imperialism. The historical bases<br />of these movements are consistently obfuscated by the<br />technocentric rhetoric of networks and mapping that<br />emanate from Europe, North America and Australia.<br /><br />Instead of dealing with these histories, contemporary<br />discourses on globalism and new technology tend to<br />dismiss postcolonial discourse as "mere identity<br />politics." They tend to confuse bureaucratic efforts<br />to institutionally separate the concerns of ethnic<br />minorities with what always have been the much broader<br />agendas of anti-racist political struggles and<br />postcolonial cultural endeavors.<br /><br />I am a great admirer of the practice of electronic<br />civil disobedience and have used "hacktivist" software<br />such as Floodnet to engage in online protest actions<br />myself. But I find the willed historical amnesia of<br />new media theory to be quite suspect, and even<br />dangerous. One of the reasons I chose to make a/k/a<br />Mrs. George Gilbert, a video art piece about the<br />Angela Davis case, was because I wanted to reexamine<br />crucial histories that are now being forgotten within<br />the contemporary conversations on globalization. The<br />alienation caused by multinational corporate<br />domination (otherwise known as Empire) that many<br />middle-class young adults in the Global North feel is<br />just the last chapter in a long history of reactions<br />against imperial projects.<br /><br />Mapping mistakes<br /><br />Another issue of concern is the new media culture's<br />fascination with mapping-a fascination that it shares<br />with the military strategists. The news of the Iraq<br />war frequently involves men in uniform pointing to or<br />better yet walking across maps of various Middle<br />Eastern countries-so when I then walk into galleries<br />and cultural conferences in Europe and find more men<br />(without uniforms) playing with maps, I start to<br />wonder about the politics of those representations.<br /><br />In the American media, maps dominate representations<br />of warfare. While realistic depictions of the violence<br />of war via photographs and film have been banned from<br />American television news, maps are acceptable to those<br />in power because they dehumanize the targets.<br />Similarly, in the context of the art world, maps have<br />come to abstract and thereby silence individual and<br />group testimony.<br /><br />New media culture uses maps to read the world in terms<br />of extremes. Contemporary cultural theory is rife with<br />renderings that celebrate macro views and micro views<br />of the workings of the world, both social and<br />biological-which is to say, maps of vast spaces and<br />physical phenomena and maps of the most minuscule<br />thing. We hear over and over again about global<br />systems and panoptic vision on the one hand and genome<br />chains and nano-entities on the other. When I first<br />noticed this phenomenon I was struck by how it<br />complements the resurgence of formalist art<br />criticism's love affair with the grid. By this I am<br />referring to the return in the '90s to the definition<br />of art as a search for "perfect forms," and a<br />celebration of the formal characteristics of objects<br />and surfaces. What I have become more concerned about<br />as time goes on, however, is how this fetishizing of<br />spatial extremes enables the resurgence of Descartes'<br />idea that humans are rational, autonomous individuals<br />and that the human mind and mathematical principles<br />are the source for all real knowledge.<br /><br />However objective they may appear, maps do have a<br />point of view, and that is one of privileged<br />super-human sight, of safe distance and of<br />omniscience. The mapmaker charts an entire field of<br />vision, an entire world, and in doing so he (yes he)<br />plays God. Whether you are beholding the map as a<br />viewer or charting it as the cartographer, you rule<br />the world before you, you control it, and, in putting<br />everything in its place, you substitute a global whole<br />established through pictorial arrangement for an<br />actual dynamic engagement with individual elements and<br />entities. The psychological motive behind assuming<br />that position of power is not questioned, nor is the<br />predominance of white male techno-elites in that<br />discourse seen as anything more than incidental.<br /><br />It is as if more than four decades of postmodern<br />critique of the Cartesian subject had suddenly<br />evaporated. Those critical discourses that unmasked<br />the way universals suppress difference, which gave<br />voice to the personal experience of women, the poor<br />and disenfranchised minorities, are treated as<br />inherently flawed by both the progressive and<br />conservative discourses of globalism. Progressive<br />media advocates dismiss these discourses of difference<br />as "essentialist" while Republicans decry them as "the<br />tyranny of special interests." But both provide<br />ideological justification for the dismantling of<br />legislation protecting civil rights.<br /><br />Viewing the world as a map eliminates time, focuses<br />disproportionately on space and dehumanizes life. In<br />the name of a politics of global connectedness,<br />artists and activists too often substitute an abstract<br />"connectedness" for any real engagement with people in<br />other places or even in their own locale.<br /><br />What gets lost in this focus on mapping is the view of<br />the world from the ground: lived experience. What is<br />ignored is the pervasiveness of the well-orchestrated<br />and highly selective visual culture that the majority<br />of Americans consume during most of their waking<br />hours. Most people are not looking through microscopes<br />and telescopes and digital mapping systems to find<br />truth about the world. They are watching reality TV,<br />sitcoms, the Super Bowl, MTV and Fox News, all of<br />which also offer maps of a completely different kind:<br />conspiracy theories that pit innocent Americans<br />against the Axis of Evil, embedded journalists'<br />hallucinatory misreadings of foreign conflicts,<br />allegories of empowerment through consumption and<br />endlessly recycled, biblically inspired narratives of<br />sin and redemption.<br /><br />Going off-grid<br /><br />Finally we should consider what is being left off the<br />maps and why? What has happened, for example, to<br />institutional self-critique in the art world? Why has<br />such examination become taboo in exhibitions or<br />unpopular with artists who gravitate to political<br />subjects? Why in the midst of myriad investigations of<br />corporate control of politics and culture is there<br />little or no attention paid to corporate control of<br />the museums and of corporate influence in art<br />collecting? Why is it acceptable to the art world for<br />an artist to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,<br />but not to address the pressure put on the organizers<br />of global art exhibitions to showcase a<br />disproportionate number of Israeli artists? Why is it<br />fine for black artists to celebrate the construction<br />of black style but not to make visible the virtual<br />absence of black people as arbiters in the power<br />structures of the art institutions, galleries,<br />magazines and auction houses where black art is given<br />economic and aesthetic value?<br /><br />We live in a very dangerous time in which the right to<br />express dissent and to raise questions about the<br />workings of power is seriously imperiled by<br />fundamentalisms of many kinds. Now more than ever we<br />need to keep the lessons of history foremost in our<br />minds and to defend the critical discourses and<br />practices that enable differing experiences and<br />perspectives to be heard and understood.<br /><br />There are just too many important parallels to be<br />drawn between COINTELPRO and the excesses of law<br />enforcement brought about by the Patriot Act to be<br />dismissive of history. Socially conscious artists and<br />activists, rather than embracing tactics that rely on<br />dreams of omniscience, would do well to examine the<br />history of globalism, networks, dissent and collective<br />actions in order to understand that they are rooted in<br />the geopolitical and cultural margins.<br /><br />Coco Fusco is an interdisciplinary artist and an<br />associate professor at Columbia University's School of<br />the Arts. Her most recent publication is Only Skin<br />Deep: Changing Visions of the American Self (Abrams,<br />2003).<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Pall Thayer <palli@pallit.lhi.is> replied:<br /><br />This is a really strange article. It would be interesting to know what<br />mapping works she's talking about and how much research she did into<br />this type of work in general before writing the article. And what's up<br />with the hacker-bashing?<br /><br />> the messianic claims of technocentrists.<br /><br />What claims might those be? I don't think any of todays "net-savvy"<br />activists think that they *invented* activism aside from the point that<br />she starts out talking about maps and then all of the sudden, without<br />any warning, she's talking about activists as if they're one and the same.<br /><br />Also, she criticizes maps for "…having a point of view"? Well, what<br />work of art doesn't have a particular "point of view"? To suggest that<br />this is a fault of the medium or the artists is ludicrous.<br /><br />I don't think she did a whole lot of research into map based or social<br />artworks for this article. It almost sounds like she's basing this<br />critique on one, maybe two, projects.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Jason Van Anden <jason@smileproject.com> replied:<br /><br />Wow. Thank you Coco (c/o Dominique).<br /><br />I think that everyone in this forum ought to read this article. It is<br />incredibly insightful and very well stated (I wish I could write like her).<br />This kind of introspection is required no matter what the discourse. The<br />title brings the article perfectly into focus.<br /><br />History is given the license to repeat itself because of "revolutions" that<br />blindly seek to one-up the knowledge that preceeded it. Whether this is<br />motivated by arrogance or ignorance… I suppose does not really matter.<br /><br />Oil paint was "new-media" at some point.<br /><br />Careful: what's old is new.<br />+ + +<br /><br />Pall Thayer replied:<br /><br />I agree, everyone here should read this article. But I wouldn't say it's<br />insightful. It's both arrogant and ignorant. I don't think anyone<br />thinks that social networks came into existence via the internet.<br />Hackers are not what she seems to think they are. You don't have to have<br />any special knowledge to be part of an internet-based social network<br />beyond knowing how to use a browser. She criticizes entire movements<br />within the digital arts without mentioning a single piece. How can we<br />take her seriously? Reminding us of some historical facts and issues is<br />fine but to do it in a way that is demeaning to the work that's being<br />done today is wrong. I think she should've done some more research<br />before writing this.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Rob Myers <robmyers@mac.com> replied:<br /><br /> On Thursday, December 16, 2004, at 09:56PM, Dominique Fontaine<br /><dfontaine@fondation-langlois.org> wrote:<br /><br /> >—–Original Message—–<br /> >From: On Behalf Of coco fusco : animas999@yahoo.com<br /> > […]<br /> >Terms such as " mapping," "borders," "hacking,"<br /> >"trans-nationalism," "identity as spatial," and so on<br /> >have been popularized in recent years by new media<br /> >theories' celebration of "the networks"-a catch-all<br /> >phrase for the modes of communication and exchange<br /> >facilitated by the Internet.<br /><br />Sweep that generalization!<br /><br />Which New Media Theories? What is a New Media Theory anyway? Exclusively by<br />New Media Theories? Or have NMT simply soaked up more general humanities<br />buzzwords and themes. Are all New Media Theories the same? Are there any<br />examples or exemplars? Why doesn't the author give any?<br /><br /> >We should proceed with caution in using this<br /> >terminology because it accords strategic primacy to<br /><br />Notice the primacy given to language, intentions, appearances. This is a<br />critique of form, not content. Of style, not substance.<br /><br /> >space and simultaneously downplays time-i.e., history.<br /> >It also evades categories of embodied difference such<br /> >as race, gender and class, and in doing so prevents us<br /> >from understanding how the historical development of<br /> >those differences has shaped our contemporary<br /> >worldview.<br /><br />Ignoring Einstein's spacetime for a moment, "categories of embodied<br />difference" are themselves atemporal and ahistorical academic fantasies. If<br />you want to actually achieve anything by historical materialist criticism,<br />breaking class relations down into packets of "difference" only gets in the<br />way.<br /><br /> >Technocentric fantasy<br /><br />Yes, this is a critique of a technocentric fantasy, but a fantasy on the<br />part of the author, not their imagined subject.<br /><br /> >The rhetoric of mapping and networks conflates the way<br /> >technological systems operate with modern human<br /> >communication.<br /><br />Huh?<br /><br /> >According to this mode of thought we<br /> >are to believe that we live inside the world of<br /> >William Gibson's Neuromancer<br /><br />This would be a polluted, brand-obsessed, corporate-dominated dystopia?<br /><br /> >and that salvation is<br /> >only attainable via very specific technological<br /> >expertise unleashed against the system-i.e., hacking.<br /><br />"Hacking" is an ethic, a mode of activity. Not "skript kiddies" breaking<br />into your PC. Neuromancer is twenty years old, wannabe cultural studies<br />lecturers really should let it go and try some Neal Stevenson instead.<br /><br /> >Consider the heroes of Hollywood sci-fi blockbusters<br /> >such as The Matrix whose power lies in their knowledge<br /> >of "the code." It is implied that we operate in<br /> >networks because computers and the Internet have<br /> >restructured "our" lives and because global economic<br /> >systems have turned us into global citizens. Hacking<br /> >then comes to stand for all forms of critical<br /> >engagement with preexistent power structures.<br /><br />In fact this is a more criticism of deconstruction and text-based retreat<br />from real work in general. Actual hacking (not in the sense the author<br />obviously misunderstands it) is the *creation* of something, the solving of<br />a problem, a shamanic exercise of personal creative skill to answer a need,<br />*not* just breaking something down.<br /><br /> >I'm just a little too old to believe these new media<br /> >mantras unquestioningly.<br /><br />Except to criticise them<br /><br /> >This rhetoric implies two<br /> >possible explanations for the difference between the<br /> >networked present and the non-networked past.<br /><br />== The misunderstanding of a misrepresented and generalised "rhetoric" can<br />be distilled into two straw men.<br /><br /> >The first explanation suggests that no one on the left<br /><br />Wtf has this to do with the "left"? Is technoutopianism leftist? Wired-ism<br />tends to be "libertarian" (right-wing anarchistic).<br /><br /> >before the age of the Internet practiced subversive<br /> >manipulation of existent media, tactical intervention,<br /> >investigative reporting and infiltration of power<br /> >structures. It also would seem that before the dawning<br /> >of the networks, no one knew what being an organic<br /> >intellectual was about, no one elaborated alternative<br /> >communication systems and no one was aware of or<br /> >sensed a connection to geographic regions other than<br /> >Europe.<br /><br />Where this judgement on the part of… who exactly? …has been extracted<br />from I don't know.<br />Who does the author speak for in offering this description of …someone…<br />'s failings? <br /><br /> >The second explanation would be that electronic<br /> >communication has produced a form of networking that<br /> >is so radically different as to imply a neat break<br /> >with the past.<br /><br />As opposed to an explanation that nothing has changed?<br /><br />These are both straw man arguments, ventriloquism without even a dummy.<br /><br /> >In either case, these arguments<br /> >conveniently situate their advocates outside history,<br /><br />As they are designed to by the author. (That is, it's not that anyone holds<br />these extra-historical postions, it's that the author can neatly isolate<br />these straw men in this way).<br /><br /> >since either way tactical media practitioners have<br /> >nothing of value to inherit from the past.<br /><br /> >While I can understand that there might be a dearth of<br /> >knowledge about tactical interventions of previous<br /> >centuries, I am perplexed by the apparent loss of<br /> >short-term memory of many cultural theorists now in<br /> >vogue, who were alive and active in the '70s.<br /><br />Such as the author.<br /><br /> >Can we forget Daniel Ellsberg's publishing of the<br /> >Pentagon Papers, the uncovering of the Watergate<br /> >scandal, the break-in to an FBI office by an anonymous<br /> >group that led to revelations of COINTELPRO and the<br /> >Freedom of Information Act, the many Senate<br /> >investigations of FBI corruption, the widespread<br /> >solidarity with Third World independence movements,<br /><br />Sounds like "cracking" (what the author would misunderstand as "hacking") to<br />me! Why would the existence of historical successes undermine or invalidate<br />contemporary efforts?<br /><br /> >the plethora of underground and alternative presses<br /> >and global mail art networks-all operated by radical<br /> >activists, artists and intellectuals?<br /><br />Are these examples of technological or sociological action? If the former,<br />they are weak. If the latter, are these meant to be new? Look at C19th use<br />of (and legislation regarding!) telecommunications networks. Whilst there is<br />nothing new under the sun, the sun didn't first rise in the 1970s.<br /><br /> >Those of us who<br /> >can at least recall the ways that these strategic<br /> >interventions transformed political and cultural life<br /> >in that decade necessarily cast a skeptical glance at<br /> >the messianic claims of technocentrists.<br /><br />And those with an interest in technology who have done their research cast a<br />skeptical glance over "been there, done that" claims that don't mention<br />precedents older than half a century.<br /><br /> >The shift from Eurocentric internationalism to a more<br /> >globally inclusive worldview came long before the age<br /> >of the Internet. It was launched outside Europe and<br /> >America, and emanated from the geopolitical margins.<br /><br />How did we hear of this, then?<br /><br /> >The process took place across a range of fields of<br /> >knowledge, culture and politics. This revision of the<br /> >world picture was catalyzed by postwar decolonization;<br /> >the Non-Aligned Movement launched in 1961; and civil<br /> >rights struggles in the developed world, including the<br /> >Black Power and Chicano movements-all of which<br /> >invariably affirmed their alliances with Third World<br /> >revolutions. This political process was expanded upon<br /> >by a postcolonial understanding that various diasporas<br /> >shared transnational connections and that these<br /> >diasporas were produced by the economics and politics<br /> >of colonialism and imperialism. The historical bases<br /> >of these movements are consistently obfuscated by the<br /> >technocentric rhetoric of networks and mapping that<br /> >emanate from Europe, North America and Australia.<br /><br />So the technology isn't inherently good, it's inherently evil? (Yes, that's<br />a deliberate straw man. It is designed to reveal the flaw in the argument.)<br />This is the very technological fixation the author claims to be criticising.<br /><br /> >Instead of dealing with these histories, contemporary<br /> >discourses on globalism and new technology tend to<br /> >dismiss postcolonial discourse as "mere identity<br /> >politics." They tend to confuse bureaucratic efforts<br /> >to institutionally separate the concerns of ethnic<br /> >minorities with what always have been the much broader<br /> >agendas of anti-racist political struggles and<br /> >postcolonial cultural endeavors.<br /><br />Instead of dealing with technological change and inequality, of placing it<br />in broader economic or even (gasp) historical context, we should try to<br />return to the safe havens of "difference"?<br /><br />I'm loathe to recommend "No Logo" to anyone, but in this case I'll make an<br />exception.<br /><br /> >I am a great admirer of the practice of electronic<br /> >civil disobedience and have used "hacktivist" software<br /> >such as Floodnet to engage in online protest actions<br /> >myself. <br /><br />Never heard of that package. No real hacker would use an off-the-shelf<br />package to achieve their own ends, and none would disrupt anyone else's work<br />using it. "Hacktivism" is embarrasing, a cultural-studies-created misuse of<br />a misunderstood word.<br /><br /> >But I find the willed historical amnesia of<br /> >new media theory to be quite suspect, and even<br /> >dangerous. <br /><br />Try deconstructing it socially or historically rather than technologically<br />and it makes a lot more sense.<br /><br /> >One of the reasons I chose to make a/k/a<br /> >Mrs. George Gilbert, a video art piece about the<br /> >Angela Davis case, was because I wanted to reexamine<br /> >crucial histories that are now being forgotten within<br /> >the contemporary conversations on globalization. The<br /> >alienation caused by multinational corporate<br /> >domination (otherwise known as Empire) that many<br /> >middle-class young adults in the Global North feel is<br /> >just the last chapter in a long history of reactions<br /> >against imperial projects.<br /> >Mapping mistakes<br /><br />Ah. A *video piece*. Not "New Media", video. Much better. Analogue or<br />digital video? Analogue? Much better.<br /><br /> >Another issue of concern is the new media culture's<br /> >fascination with mapping-a fascination that it shares<br /> >with the military strategists. The news of the Iraq<br /> >war frequently involves men in uniform pointing to or<br /> >better yet walking across maps of various Middle<br /> >Eastern countries-so when I then walk into galleries<br /> >and cultural conferences in Europe and find more men<br /> >(without uniforms) playing with maps, I start to<br /> >wonder about the politics of those representations.<br /><br />Video is also used in war, and still video cameras recently recorded<br />torture. Clearly we should think of Abu Ghiraib when we see the author's<br />work.<br /><br /> >In the American media, maps dominate representations<br /> >of warfare. While realistic depictions of the violence<br /> >of war via photographs and film have been banned from<br /> >American television news, maps are acceptable to those<br /> >in power because they dehumanize the targets.<br /> >Similarly, in the context of the art world, maps have<br /> >come to abstract and thereby silence individual and<br /> >group testimony.<br /><br />This is fetishism, this is poetics. This is the author mapping their head.<br /><br /> >New media culture uses maps to read the world in terms<br /> >of extremes. Contemporary cultural theory is rife with<br /> >renderings that celebrate macro views and micro views<br /> >of the workings of the world, both social and<br /> >biological-which is to say, maps of vast spaces and<br /> >physical phenomena and maps of the most minuscule<br /> >thing. We hear over and over again about global<br /> >systems and panoptic vision on the one hand and genome<br /> >chains and nano-entities on the other. When I first<br /> >noticed this phenomenon I was struck by how it<br /> >complements the resurgence of formalist art<br /> >criticism's love affair with the grid. By this I am<br /> >referring to the return in the '90s to the definition<br /> >of art as a search for "perfect forms," and a<br /> >celebration of the formal characteristics of objects<br /> >and surfaces. What I have become more concerned about<br /> >as time goes on, however, is how this fetishizing of<br /> >spatial extremes enables the resurgence of Descartes'<br /> >idea that humans are rational, autonomous individuals<br /> >and that the human mind and mathematical principles<br /> >are the source for all real knowledge.<br /><br />This is a chronic failure to consider the social context of the work. Why<br />these interests? Why now?<br /><br /> >However objective they may appear, maps do have a<br /> >point of view, and that is one of privileged<br /> >super-human sight, of safe distance and of<br /> >omniscience. <br /><br />Rosalind, is that you?<br /><br /> >The mapmaker charts an entire field of<br /> >vision, an entire world, and in doing so he (yes he)<br /> >plays God. Whether you are beholding the map as a<br /> >viewer or charting it as the cartographer, you rule<br /> >the world before you, you control it, and, in putting<br /> >everything in its place, you substitute a global whole<br /> >established through pictorial arrangement for an<br /> >actual dynamic engagement with individual elements and<br /> >entities. The psychological motive behind assuming<br /> >that position of power is not questioned, nor is the<br /> >predominance of white male techno-elites in that<br /> >discourse seen as anything more than incidental.<br /><br />Whingeing incoherently won't change the author's local situation. It's more<br />balanced elsewhere at grass roots level.<br /><br /> >It is as if more than four decades of postmodern<br /> >critique of the Cartesian subject had suddenly<br /> >evaporated. <br /><br />We can but hope.<br /><br /> >Those critical discourses that unmasked<br /> >the way universals suppress difference, which gave<br /> >voice to the personal experience of women, the poor<br /> >and disenfranchised minorities, are treated as<br /> >inherently flawed by both the progressive and<br /> >conservative discourses of globalism.<br /><br />They also work against any shared struggle. Funny that.<br /><br /> >Progressive<br /> >media advocates dismiss these discourses of difference<br /> >as "essentialist" while Republicans decry them as "the<br /> >tyranny of special interests." But both provide<br /> >ideological justification for the dismantling of<br /> >legislation protecting civil rights.<br /><br />Civil rights woiuld be easier to protect if we all acted together, rather<br />than reducing society to dozens of conflicting and romanticized special<br />interest groups as the author does.<br /><br /> >Viewing the world as a map eliminates time, focuses<br /> >disproportionately on space and dehumanizes life. In<br /> >the name of a politics of global connectedness,<br /> >artists and activists too often substitute an abstract<br /> >"connectedness" for any real engagement with people in<br /> >other places or even in their own locale.<br /><br />Hang on.<br /><br />All the successful examples of media intervention given earlier were<br />political acts. It is frankly insulting to refer to them as art.<br /><br />Yet from "New Media Theory", to direct political action, we now turn to the<br />practice of art…<br /><br /> >What gets lost in this focus on mapping is the view of<br /> >the world from the ground: lived experience. What is<br /> >ignored is the pervasiveness of the well-orchestrated<br /> >and highly selective visual culture that the majority<br /> >of Americans consume during most of their waking<br /> >hours. Most people are not looking through microscopes<br /> >and telescopes and digital mapping systems to find<br /> >truth about the world. They are watching reality TV,<br /> >sitcoms, the Super Bowl, MTV and Fox News, all of<br /> >which also offer maps of a completely different kind:<br /> >conspiracy theories that pit innocent Americans<br /> >against the Axis of Evil, embedded journalists'<br /> >hallucinatory misreadings of foreign conflicts,<br /> >allegories of empowerment through consumption and<br /> >endlessly recycled, biblically inspired narratives of<br /> >sin and redemption.<br /><br />Most people looking at church art didn't work in heaven. Most people looking<br />at modernist grids didn't live in art galleries. And most would-be critics<br />who compare the aesthetic concerns of art with patronising fantasies of base<br />proletarian interests don't live anywhere near their adopted flock.<br /><br /> >Going off-grid<br /><br /> >Finally we should consider what is being left off the<br /> >maps and why? What has happened, for example, to<br /> >institutional self-critique in the art world?<br /> <br />It has been very successful commercially and textually but new fads have<br />come along.<br /><br /> >Why has<br /> >such examination become taboo in exhibitions or<br /> >unpopular with artists who gravitate to political<br /> >subjects? <br /> <br />Because it has no transformative critical power. Because it is complicit<br />with the financial and critical interests that demand it. Because it<br />reflacts the managerial ego rather than questioning it.<br /><br />Because it is a set question with set answers that changes nothing.<br /><br />It is critical form, not critical content. Appearance, not action.<br /><br /> >Why in the midst of myriad investigations of<br /> >corporate control of politics and culture is there<br /> >little or no attention paid to corporate control of<br /> >the museums and of corporate influence in art<br /> >collecting? <br /><br />Because it was established long ago and everyone knows it. So what do we do<br />next?<br /><br />This is the problem. You can study something until the end of time, but<br />above quantum level obsevation doesn't change things.<br /><br />You need to do something. Actually do something. Not write; do.<br /><br /> >Why is it acceptable to the art world for<br /> >an artist to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,<br /> >but not to address the pressure put on the organizers<br /> >of global art exhibitions to showcase a<br /> >disproportionate number of Israeli artists?<br /><br />Good question. I think some sort of action would be better here as well.<br /><br /> >Why is it<br /> >fine for black artists to celebrate the construction<br /> >of black style but not to make visible the virtual<br /> >absence of black people as arbiters in the power<br /> >structures of the art institutions, galleries,<br /> >magazines and auction houses where black art is given<br /> >economic and aesthetic value?<br /><br />" " "<br /><br /> >We live in a very dangerous time in which the right to<br /> >express dissent and to raise questions about the<br /> >workings of power is seriously imperiled by<br /> >fundamentalisms of many kinds.<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lessig.org/blog">http://www.lessig.org/blog</a><br /><br />is currently talking about previous reductions in rights. You ain't seen<br />nothing yet compared to World War One.<br /><br /> >Now more than ever we<br /> >need to keep the lessons of history foremost in our<br /> >minds and to defend the critical discourses and<br /> >practices that enable differing experiences and<br /> >perspectives to be heard and understood.<br /><br /> >There are just too many important parallels to be<br /> >drawn between COINTELPRO and the excesses of law<br /> >enforcement brought about by the Patriot Act to be<br /> >dismissive of history. Socially conscious artists and<br /> >activists, rather than embracing tactics that rely on<br /> >dreams of omniscience, would do well to examine the<br /> >history of globalism, networks, dissent and collective<br /> >actions in order to understand that they are rooted in<br /> >the geopolitical and cultural margins.<br /><br />This essay is confused, poorly argued, and unreflectively polemical. The<br />author is clearly angry about something, although quite what I couldn't say.<br /><br />The techno-utopianism of Wired, currently best represented by the<br />"emergence" craze, is indeed bogus.<br /><br />But demanding that artists reveal Watergates or that we ignore all the women<br />who produce and organise technologically-based art so we can cling to a<br />comforting fantasy of repressions is counter-productive. Worse, demanding an<br />illustratively political art is the kind of failure to differentiate between<br />form and content (and art and life) that means I still think Flash Formalism<br />says more politically than net.art .<br /><br />Wan hem fullap mekem nois, saenem natin.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Jason Van Anden replied:<br /><br />Perhaps the communication breakdown here stems from the term "new" attached<br />to "media" and "art".<br /><br />New is the new contemporary is the new modern…<br /><br />We ought to be more careful about what we attach the word "new" to. Often,<br />"new" asserts that a revolution has taken place - that the rules have<br />completely changed in such a way that what occurred before no longer<br />matters. This is the main concern that I responded to, regardless of the<br />hard evidence presented.<br /><br />I would like to propose that we use the word "unfamilar" instead to refer to<br />artistic expressions that implement recently available technologies.<br />"Unfamiliar" is a lot more humble, and takes into account that its existence<br />is simply different from what came before.<br /><br />I actually have the same problem with the word "media" - which seems<br />redundant attached to "art", but I have to get to work on my next unfamilar<br />work of art.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Pall Thayer added:<br /><br />Actually, in the context of art there really isn't much new to what's<br />going on and I agree, media along with art is redundant. So it's all<br />just "art" and we are just "artists". Also, not many people in todays<br />world are "unfamiliar" with computers and the internet.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Joy Garnett <joyeria@walrus.com> replied:<br /><br />I think I have to agree with Pall – and with "MrTeacup" who left an<br />insightful crit. in the comments:<br /><br />>quote<<br />What is this heretofore unknown non-networked past? The very first<br />paragraph of this essay betrays ignorance of what network means. Network<br />theory and in fact, the majority of computer science has very little to do<br />with computers or computer networks. Its true that the Internet is an<br />implementation of these ideas, but it is notable not because it is the<br />first, but because it is extremely fast. As for denial of history,<br />communications networks predate human civilization.<br /><br />The idea that network theorists style themselves as Gibson-esque fantasy<br />characters is laughable considering the rather boring, somber reality of<br />mathematicians in academia who do the heavy lifting and that media<br />depictions of actual hacking dumbed-down for the masses are the object of<br />scorn for real hackers.<br /><br />Ms. Fusco identifies various activities that have occured in the political<br />sphere as evidence of the historical nature of networks. As it is readily<br />acknowledged that social networks are a feature of society itself, this is<br />completely unnecessary. Advances in computing technology have enabled<br />social networks to proliferate across previously established boundaries,<br />and although this is generally the case with all advances from the<br />development of language until now, they all profoundly influence social<br />change, often providing a catalyst.<br /><br />However, there are some things that are unique about our current era. Our<br />understanding of the mathematical principles of networks enables us to be<br />somewhat more prescient about the proliferation of social change. For the<br />first time in history, the theoretical underpinnings of a medium are at<br />least partially understood before its broad implementation. Scientists<br />have been successfully applying this understanding to networking problems<br />that model social problems. While not explicitly network-related, the<br />mathematical principles of Game Theory have been successfully applied to<br />economic problems for decades.<br /><br />As I see it, there are three unique circumstances surrounding digital<br />networks:<br />1. Advanced knowledge of mathematical networking principles.<br />2. Rapid and accurate measurement of the network.<br />3. Widespread deployment of knowledge in the network about the network. In<br />other words, meta-knowledge about the operation of the network that<br />accelerates optimal use.<br />Posted by MrTeacup on December 16, 2004 at 8:45 PM<br />>endquote<<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Joy Garnett added:<br /><br />rob myers wrote:<br /><br /> > This essay is confused, poorly argued, and unreflectively polemical.<br />The<br /> > author is clearly angry about something, although quite what I<br />couldn't <br /> > say.<br /><br />uh-huh.<br /><br />If I was going to get my hackles up I would say this author is trying to<br />insert her own schtick into something she doesn't quite understand and feels<br />somehow excluded by. (the schtick, it seems, is somewhere between<br />unreconstituted stalinist feminism, early 90s multi-culti politically<br />correct-speak, and something like a bee in a bonnet).<br /><br />but… oh yawn.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />ryan griffis <grifray@yahoo.com> replied:<br /><br />Pall's comments are right on here (and most of Rob's). But if anyone<br />has read any of the recent writings by Coco on Nettime or anywhere<br />else, this polemic shouldn't be a surprise. Unfortunately, she has a<br />lot of valid criticism on all kinds of concerns that get lost in the<br />unreflexive ranting. This kind of arch O'Reillyism dilutes any<br />substantial points that could, and need to be, made. The discussion<br />between Coco and Ricardo Dominguez is a much more lucid critique of NM:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.metamute.com/look/article.tpl">http://www.metamute.com/look/article.tpl</a>?<br />IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=1&NrIssue=23&NrSection=10&NrArticle=241&searc<br />h=search&SearchKeywords=fusco&SearchLevel=0<br />(URL will probably be broken)<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />curt cloninger replied:<br /><br />Hi Ryan,<br /><br />I'd like to respond to this excerpt from the metamute "interview" (more like<br />a collaborative essay) that you link:<br /><br />++++++++<br /><br />Ricardo Domingo: A great deal has changed in the net.art world since 1997.<br />Many museums are now deeply involved in framing net.art for public<br />consumption. You can certainly see a difference rt that was presented at the<br />Whitney Biennial in 2000, which presented work by rtmark.com and<br />fakeshop.com that was both political and performative. In 2002, the focus is<br />on techno-formalist net.artists who are working very hard to become an objet<br />d'art – and gain a foothold in the market. It is important for those<br />artists working within a critical performative matrix not to be sidetracked<br />by the latest techno-formalist fetish of museums or the gallery system. In<br />the post 9/11 climate, it is more important than ever to push for aesthetic<br />'voices' that can bear witness to other worlds beyond the ideology of the<br />War on Terrorism. <br /><br />It is not clear whether institutions will take on the task of presenting<br />political net.art beyond simple documentation. This may start to happen if<br />network_art_activism begins to establish stronger ties with the previous<br />generations of artists who have faced the dismantling of the political in<br />art – both in the North and the South – so that this very immature form<br />which is net.art can gain a sense of history about institutional critique,<br />in order to develop both a deeper aesthetic and historical knowledge about<br />what other artists have done before history was erased by the digital hype.<br />I really don't see the possibility of cultural support for political net.art<br />works like EDT's Zapatista FloodNet any time soon. But for projects like<br />'Anchors for Witnessing' – yes, there is interest and support. For<br />political art projects that are about distribution – yes, but for projects<br />that 'disturb' – no.<br /><br />Coco Fusco: So as things now stand institutions want to fund projects that<br />narrow the digital divide, but not ones that subvert the formalist<br />tendencies of net.art from within.<br /><br />Ricardo Domingo: Yes, projects that follow the market drive to plug everyone<br />in, I think, will continue to gain more institutional presence and support.<br />Those works which don't fold into the other end of the market drive for<br />formalist containment, or the pure presentation of code qua code, machines<br />qua machines, like network_art_activism, will be left in the archives, and<br />will never be supported as a live performance.<br /><br />++++++++++<br /><br />Like Rob, I smell a straw-man. There is this false dichotomy implied within<br />net.art of "hacktivism" vs. "techno-formalism," techno-formalism being some<br />vague derogatory term used to stand for any form of non-political net art.<br />EDT thinks they're radical because they are alter-neo-liberal/zapatista, as<br />if there are only two kind of relevant human activities – zapatista style<br />political activities and neo-libaral anti-globalism political activities.<br />Relegated to the artistically and culturally irrelevant are the activities<br />of beauty-making, particularly if such activities result in something<br />resembling an object. The condescending materialist assumption is that any<br />non-political art is part of the spectacle, reinforcing a system the<br />opposition of which is implicitly assumed to be the noble goal of all<br />compassionate sentient individuals.<br /><br />Well what a bunch of crap. Against such assumptions I posit all the<br />projects here:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://deepyoung.org/sister/">http://deepyoung.org/sister/</a><br />but particularly <a rel="nofollow" href="http://mjt.org">http://mjt.org</a><br /><br />The Museum of Jurassic Technology is an across-the-board paradigm hijack.<br />Talk about changing the world one inidividual at a time, not just by<br />reconfiguring their understanding of political activity, but by<br />reconfiguring their understanding of understanding. The MJT to me is as<br />culturally relevant, as ethically laudable, and as spectacle-disrupting as<br />they come. It's so successfully "tactical" it doesn't even read as<br />tactical, political, activist, or even art.<br /><br />Domingo laments the art world's lack of interest in "hacktivism" and its<br />increased interest in "techno-formalism." For one thing, I don't think the<br />art world as a whole has ever been terribly interested in any form of<br />net.art (hacktivism, tecnho-formalism, or otherwise); nor are either forms<br />very salable (so his dis of "code qua code" net.art as intentionally<br />catering to the object market is a lot of wind). For another thing, why<br />does he care? It's like some punk rock band secretly pining to get on a<br />major record label. Whereas the MJT is its own museum. It would never<br />allow itself to be featured in a gallery or biennial, because such a<br />contextualization would undermine the all-encompassing reality that gives<br />the MJT its subversive cognitively leverage, not just in the art world, and<br />not just in the political world, but in the world world – the holistic<br />world of human thought and action.<br /><br />Perhaps alter-neo-liberal hacktivist art is indeed more<br />interesting/disturbing/effective/of-the-people than mere neo-liberal<br />hacktivist art – in the same way that a Toyota is faster than a Yugo. But<br />the MJT is flying a Concord. There are more than two ways to skin a cat.<br />There is often more "disturbance" to "techno-formalism" (read "pretty art<br />that's not overtly performative or political") than meets the<br />materialist-indoctrinated eye.<br /><br />[…]<br /><br />I mean Dominguez.<br /><br />And Fusquez.<br />+ + +<br /><br />Jason Van Anden replied:<br /><br />Pall, <br /><br />"Unfamiliar" is to "New" as "Contemporary" is to "Modern".<br />"Contemporary Art" does not suggest we are unfamiliar with paint.<br /><br /> > Actually, in the context of art there really isn't much new to what's<br /> > going on and I agree, media along with art is redundant. So it's all<br /> > just "art" and we are just "artists". Also, not many people in todays<br /> > world are "unfamiliar" with computers and the internet.<br /> <br /> > Pall<br /><br />Joy,<br /><br />I noticed that you used last names instead of first names. Is this the<br />correct protocol? I wasn't sure - using first names did not feel right<br />though.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Pall Thayer replied:<br /><br />why don't we just call it "Slightly unfamiliar new contemporary (post)<br />modern media art stuff". So that would make me a "Slightly unfamiliar<br />new contemporary (post) modern media art guy".<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Jason Van Anden replied<br /><br />Works for me.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com> added:<br /><br />I'm just here for the rhetorical prose. Some personal favorites so far –<br /><br />+++++<br /><br />rob:<br />Actual hacking… is the *creation* of something, the solving of a problem,<br />a shamanic exercise of personal creative skill to answer a need, *not* just<br />breaking something down.<br /><br />+++++<br /><br />coco:<br />>It is as if more than four decades of postmodern<br />>critique of the Cartesian subject had suddenly<br />>evaporated.<br /><br />rob:<br />We can but hope.<br /><br />+++++<br /> <br />joy:<br />If I was going to get my hackles up I would say this author is trying to<br />insert her own schtick into something she doesn't quite understand and feels<br />somehow excluded by. (the schtick, it seems, is somewhere between<br />unreconstituted stalinist feminism, early 90s multi-culti politically<br />correct-speak, and something like a bee in a bonnet).<br /><br /> but… oh yawn. <br /><br />+++++<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Pall Thayer added:<br /><br />This one made me laugh:<br /><br />rob:<br />Ah. A *video piece*. Not "New Media", video. Much better. Analogue or<br />digital video? Analogue? Much better.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Rob Myers replied:<br /><br /> > Like Rob, I smell a straw-man. There is this false dichotomy implied<br /> > within net.art of "hacktivism" vs. "techno-formalism,"<br /> > techno-formalism being some vague derogatory term used to stand for<br /> > any form of non-political net art. EDT thinks they're radical because<br /> > they are alter-neo-liberal/zapatista, as if there are only two kind of<br /> > relevant human activities – zapatista style political activities and<br /> > neo-libaral anti-globalism political activities. Relegated to the<br /> > artistically and culturally irrelevant are the activities of<br /> > beauty-making, particularly if such activities result in something<br /> > resembling an object. The condescending materialist assumption is<br /> > that any non-political art is part of the spectacle, reinforcing a<br /> > system the opposition of which is implicitly assumed to be the noble<br /> > goal of all compassionate sentient individuals.<br /><br />A would-be materialism that sneers at the proles (and "New Media"<br />practitioners are *workers* in the information economy, New Media Art<br />is their folk art in an age of post-mechanical reproduction) is no<br />materialism at all. It is academicism in the worst C19th sense of the<br />word.<br /><br />Privileging the politically illustrative and confirmatory over the<br />culturally expressive and challenging is a failure of imagination and<br />politics.<br /><br />If anyone wants to see the kind of 70s leftist political "engagement"<br />that is at issue here, watch Monty Python's "The Life Of Brian" and<br />keep an eye out for The Judean People's Front. That inter-factional,<br />nonsensical "struggle" against reality is not a productive use of<br />people's time.<br /><br />See the sites criticised from <a rel="nofollow" href="http://marxist-org-uk.blogspot.com/">http://marxist-org-uk.blogspot.com/</a> for<br />the online equivalent of the JPF.<br /><br /> > The Museum of Jurassic Technology is an across-the-board paradigm<br /> > hijack. Talk about changing the world one inidividual at a time, not<br /> > just by reconfiguring their understanding of political activity, but<br /> > by reconfiguring their understanding of understanding. The MJT to me<br /> > is as culturally relevant, as ethically laudable, and as<br /> > spectacle-disrupting as they come. It's so successfully "tactical" it<br /> > doesn't even read as tactical, political, activist, or even art.<br /><br />Absolutely (cool links by the way). Looking political isn't the same as<br />being political, indeed it's usually the opposite.<br /><br /> > Domingo laments the art world's lack of interest in "hacktivism" and<br /> > its increased interest in "techno-formalism." For one thing, I don't<br /> > think the art world as a whole has ever been terribly interested in<br /> > any form of net.art (hacktivism, tecnho-formalism, or otherwise); nor<br /> > are either forms very salable (so his dis of "code qua code" net.art<br /> > as intentionally catering to the object market is a lot of wind). For<br /> > another thing, why does he care? It's like some punk rock band<br /> > secretly pining to get on a major record label.<br /><br />Heh. I love the way that the current generation of injection-molded<br />teenyboppers are described as "punk" on MTV (which, unlike many who<br />criticise it, I actually watch. Far to much of…).<br /><br />I grew up in an age of Goth (second generation, late 80's). The<br />countercultural and critical mainstream hated Goth because of its<br />aestheticism. Goth was more political than punk because it successfully<br />refused "cultural codes" and created a parallel culture unamenable to<br />Thatcherism.<br /><br />Not anger, disdain.<br /><br /> > Whereas the MJT is its own museum. It would never allow itself to be<br /> > featured in a gallery or biennial, because such a contextualization<br /> > would undermine the all-encompassing reality that gives the MJT its<br /> > subversive cognitively leverage, not just in the art world, and not<br /> > just in the political world, but in the world world – the holistic<br /> > world of human thought and action.<br /> <br /> > Perhaps alter-neo-liberal hacktivist art is indeed more<br /> > interesting/disturbing/effective/of-the-people than mere neo-liberal<br /> > hacktivist art – in the same way that a Toyota is faster than a Yugo.<br /> > But the MJT is flying a Concord. There are more than two ways to<br /> > skin a cat. There is often more "disturbance" to "techno-formalism"<br /> > (read "pretty art that's not overtly performative or political") than<br /> > meets the materialist-indoctrinated eye.<br /><br />And it's "disturbance" is of the easily rehearsed uncritical<br />"criticism" of those who would explain it to the proles in as much as<br />anything else (which, as I say, isn't any materialism worthy of the<br />name).<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />curt cloninger replied:<br /><br /> Rob Myers wrote:<br /><br /> > I grew up in an age of Goth (second generation, late 80's). The<br /> > countercultural and critical mainstream hated Goth because of its<br /> > aestheticism. Goth was more political than punk because it<br /> > successfully <br /> > refused "cultural codes" and created a parallel culture unamenable to<br /> > Thatcherism.<br /> <br /> > Not anger, disdain.<br /><br />"withdrawal in disgust is not the same as apathy."<br />- michael stipe quoting richard linklatter quoting brian eno<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />ryan griffis replied:<br /><br />Thanks for the thoughtful response Curt.<br /> > Like Rob, I smell a straw-man. There is this false dichotomy implied<br /> > within net.art of "hacktivism" vs. "techno-formalism,"<br /> > techno-formalism being some vague derogatory term used to stand for<br /> > any form of non-political net art. EDT thinks they're radical because<br /> > they are alter-neo-liberal/zapatista, as if there are only two kind of<br /> > relevant human activities – zapatista style political activities and<br /> > neo-libaral anti-globalism political activities. Relegated to the<br /> > artistically and culturally irrelevant are the activities of<br /> > beauty-making, particularly if such activities result in something<br /> > resembling an object. The condescending materialist assumption is<br /> > that any non-political art is part of the spectacle, reinforcing a<br /> > system the opposition of which is implicitly assumed to be the noble<br /> > goal of all compassionate sentient individuals.<br /><br />Sure, an uncritical attack on "techno-formalism" is, well, uncritical.<br />i don't think "techno-formalism" can, or should be, equated with<br />"beauty making" however. You (curt) have, for example, criticized the<br />fetishization of certain tendencies in digital art - games, etc. while<br />i don't care to speak for the writers of the essay, i take their attack<br />on techno-formalism as an attack on the prioritization of wiz-bang<br />technology that lends itself to consumer product promotion (i.e. the<br />desire to wire the world with store bought CPUs). i don't think this<br />criticism is an attack on aesthetics itself, but an attempt to look at<br />how aesthetics is "used." i realize that we (curt and i) have widely<br />divergent concerns in this arena, but i don't think it's that any art<br />that doesn't look political is de facto just spectacle. art that uses<br />open source tech is practicing politics differently than work dependent<br />on licensed software/hardware. form carries as much weight as subject<br />matter. and, if you believe, as i do, that all work is already<br />political, it's about the politics practiced, not whether it is<br />political at all that is up for criticism.<br /><br /> > The Museum of Jurassic Technology is an across-the-board paradigm<br /> > hijack. Talk about changing the world one inidividual at a time, not<br /> > just by reconfiguring their understanding of political activity, but<br /> > by reconfiguring their understanding of understanding. The MJT to me<br /> > is as culturally relevant, as ethically laudable, and as<br /> > spectacle-disrupting as they come. It's so successfully "tactical" it<br /> > doesn't even read as tactical, political, activist, or even art.<br /><br />the MJT is a rad project, and many self-avowed "political artists"<br />totally embrace it for many of the same reasons you mention. i would<br />say that anyone who has ever visited it would have to recognize just<br />how "tactical" it is. "political work" can be complex and define things<br />in the positive (as opposed to strictly negative critique)<br /><br /> > Domingo laments the art world's lack of interest in "hacktivism" and<br /> > its increased interest in "techno-formalism." For one thing, I don't<br /> > think the art world as a whole has ever been terribly interested in<br /> > any form of net.art (hacktivism, tecnho-formalism, or otherwise); nor<br /> > are either forms very salable (so his dis of "code qua code" net.art<br /> > as intentionally catering to the object market is a lot of wind). For<br /> > another thing, why does he care? It's like some punk rock band<br /> > secretly pining to get on a major record label.<br /><br />i totally agree with your criticism here. But this doesn't negate the<br />need (as i might see it) to critique the support for certain<br />manifestations of digital/networked art by institutions.<br /><br /> > Perhaps alter-neo-liberal hacktivist art is indeed more<br /> > interesting/disturbing/effective/of-the-people than mere neo-liberal<br /> > hacktivist art – in the same way that a Toyota is faster than a Yugo.<br /> > But the MJT is flying a Concord. There are more than two ways to<br /> > skin a cat. There is often more "disturbance" to "techno-formalism"<br /> > (read "pretty art that's not overtly performative or political") than<br /> > meets the materialist-indoctrinated eye.<br /><br />maybe, but i think "materialism" provides some good tools for avoiding<br />the tunnel vision you're pointing out. materialism demands dealing with<br />context and relationships in a way that attempts to avoid speculation<br />(though i'd concede that's next to impossible).<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />curt cloninger replied:<br /><br /> > Sure, an uncritical attack on "techno-formalism" is, well,<br /> > uncritical. <br /> > i don't think "techno-formalism" can, or should be, equated with<br /> > "beauty making" however. You (curt) have, for example, criticized the<br /> > fetishization of certain tendencies in digital art - games, etc.<br /> > while <br /> > i don't care to speak for the writers of the essay, i take their<br /> > attack <br /> > on techno-formalism as an attack on the prioritization of wiz-bang<br /> > technology that lends itself to consumer product promotion (i.e. the<br /> > desire to wire the world with store bought CPUs). i don't think this<br /> > criticism is an attack on aesthetics itself, but an attempt to look<br /> > at <br /> > how aesthetics is "used."<br /><br />It's hard to tell what they mean by "techno-formalism" because the phrase is<br />used so pejoratively and vaguely. But I'm guessing they are dissing a<br />contingent of the bitforms crowd ( <a rel="nofollow" href="http://bitforms.com/artists.html">http://bitforms.com/artists.html</a> )<br />because Dominguez's position includes a critique of artists attempting to<br />make code into salable object. So that would pit them against Casey Reas,<br />Golan Levin, Martin Wattenberg, Mark Napier, and a bunch of people who are<br />using the net in much more culturally-relevant and inventive ways than a<br />denial of service attack on the Mexican government.<br /><br />I think it's a case of folks getting into the nuances of what they are into,<br />and lumping everything else. Code artists are going to get into the<br />distinction between reactive and generative. Political artists will get<br />into the distinction between anarcho-post-marxist communes and neo-liberal<br />event-based sit-ins. Whatever. It's the moral high-ground and the<br />condescenscion I take issue with. If they really give a rip, let 'em move<br />to Chiapas instead of concerning themselves with white-box curatorial<br />critique.<br /><br />I agree with Coco's position (stated in the map article) that art needs to<br />about humans rather than technology. But her critique of new media mapping<br />is overly convenient and facile. To abstract data and display it on a macro<br />or micro level is hardly equivalent to the using a map on CNN or in a<br />pentagon war room. She sees the visual surface of the media and makes a<br />seemingly profound insight (no photographs of people = no interest in<br />idividuals). But she's missing the poetic implications of the procedural<br />nuances of new media mapping. There is a big difference between a real-time<br />generated data map or an interactive/scalable data map vs. a time-shifted<br />video power point map on a newscast. A real-time generated map is all about<br />time. An interactive map is all about giving the power to the people (cf:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://theyrule.org">http://theyrule.org</a> ). In addition, new media mapping allows cross-media<br />transformations that are ripe with political critical implications and<br />tactical potential. But there's this built-in bias against the aesthetic of<br />the object. If the new media map has the appearance of graphic design or<br />something built on a grid-based system, then immediately they all cry foul<br />and trot out the scarlet "M" (modernism) and the scarlet "F" (formalism).<br />But it's a shallow/surface, old-media-based critique, rooted in a kind of<br />"media studies" when "media" meant "television news." It ingnores the<br />importance of how these artworks function and focuses on what they look<br />like.<br /><br />As far as their critique of galleries (in the metamute article), it's less a<br />case of curatorial bias against tactical media, and simply a case of<br />inherent media differences. For instance, how far can we really push the<br />network to a state of hypertrophy until it becomes malleable enough for us<br />to make it what we want? To a point, and then simple restrictions of<br />bandwidth and technology (not to mention man-made extra-technical rules and<br />laws) come into play. Perhaps this is too overtly McLuhanesque, but I find<br />that media come with built-in, inherent limitations. These media<br />limitations may have political implications (what doesn't?), but fiber-optic<br />cable in and of itself doesn't have a sinister agenda. A white-box gallery<br />has limits. So why try to fit everything in a gallery? Why even bemoan the<br />fact that it won't fit? A city-wide protest march won't fit in a gallery<br />(except as an archived, media-translated event). And why should it? Why<br />perform theatre in a gallery? Why show a film in a gallery? (There may be<br />legitimate reasons for both.) More to the point, why have a computer in a<br />gallery set up with denial of service attack software connected to a corrput<br />government? If the tactic is to shut down the government's server, then why<br />wait for some gallery patron to walk by, read the artist statement, and<br />decide whether or not to click "send?" That's pretentious and stupid. The<br />click need not come from an elite gallery patron to have its effect. The<br />click just needs to come from a bunch of different online machines<br />(connectivity and ownership are "preferenced." for shame!), and once the<br />software starts running, it's all automated. To try to present such a<br />"hacktivist" event in a gallery setting may even be exploitive. It's using<br />the cause of "disenfranchised" people as conceptual currency for the artist.<br /><br /> > art that uses<br /> > open source tech is practicing politics differently than work<br /> > dependent <br /> > on licensed software/hardware.<br /><br />This is such a bogey I'm amazed it continues to get the mindshare it does.<br />After I showed some of my work at FILE this year I was asked if it was "open<br />source." It's HTML and JavaScript and gifs and jpegs. I used BBEdit to<br />write the code, I used a Fuji camera to take some of the pictures, I used<br />Google to find some of the pictures, I used Adobe Photoshop and ImageReady<br />to prepare the pictures, I used a Macintosh OS to support the software, I<br />used a WebStar modem to upload it all via a Charter Cable ISP, and I hosted<br />it on a Unix box leased by Media Temple. Uh yeah, I guess it's "open<br />source." You want open source art?<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.sculpture.org.uk/image/504816331403">http://www.sculpture.org.uk/image/504816331403</a><br /><br /> > form carries as much weight as subject<br /> > matter. and, if you believe, as i do, that all work is already<br /> > political, it's about the politics practiced, not whether it is<br /> > political at all that is up for criticism.<br /><br />By the same argument, all art is religious. All art is about the senses,<br />all art is conceptual, all art is about marital relationships, all art is<br />about migratory bird patterns. The question is, need all art always be<br />viewed and preferenced and criticized and evaluated through a political<br />grid? It's the very thing that is so annoying about legalistic Christians.<br />Every artwork is initially, primarily, and inordinately evaluated on whether<br />it's "orthodox," regardless of what context the art itself might be trying<br />to establish. It's the exact same thing that's so annoying about Marxists,<br />Materialists, Feminists, Anti-Globalization Activists, etc. Really, who<br />gives a shit whether <a rel="nofollow" href="http://turux.org">http://turux.org</a> was made using open-source Java or<br />proprietary Macromedia Director? Care if you like, but it's almost totally<br />tangential to the purpose of that artwork. You're imposing you're critical<br />agenda on the artwork. Barthes and Derrida say this is<br />OK/inevitable/happening anyway, but they've yet to convince me that such<br />carte blanche agenda-imposition makes for pertinent, insightful art<br />criticism.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />ryan griffis replied:<br /><br /> > It's hard to tell what they mean by "techno-formalism" because the<br /> > phrase is used so pejoratively and vaguely. But I'm guessing they are<br /> > dissing a contingent of the bitforms crowd (<br /> > <a rel="nofollow" href="http://bitforms.com/artists.html">http://bitforms.com/artists.html</a> )<br /><br />i'm not sure they're targeting particular artists (though this<br />probably just reflects my interest in what they have to say). if<br />there's any thing pointed at, i would say it's more systemic in nature.<br />i don't think there's much value in an attack on the artists' works you<br />mention, but there is (for me) in critiquing the valuation by<br />institutions on certain forms of work, and how that work is framed and<br />utilized by such institutions. i'm assuming you disagree pretty much.<br />again, i don't really have any investment in defending that interview's<br />content, i just think some of it's "charges" are more defined that<br />Coco's mapping essay.<br /><br /> > I think it's a case of folks getting into the nuances of what they are<br /> > into, and lumping everything else. Code artists are going to get into<br /> > the distinction between reactive and generative. Political artists<br /> > will get into the distinction between anarcho-post-marxist communes<br /> > and neo-liberal event-based sit-ins. Whatever. It's the moral<br /> > high-ground and the condescenscion I take issue with. If they really<br /> > give a rip, let 'em move to Chiapas instead of concerning themselves<br /> > with white-box curatorial critique.<br /><br />talk about your vague and pejorative criticisms. this sounds an awful<br />lot like "if you really hate this country so much, then why don't you<br />leave it." are you honestly suggesting that people can't care and make<br />statements about things outside of their neighborhood? And to say that<br />artists - whatever their concern - shouldn't feel free to criticize the<br />arena they happen to be a part of, if they don't think it addresses<br />things they find important…<br /><br /> > I agree with Coco's position (stated in the map article) that art<br /> > needs to about humans rather than technology. But her critique of new<br /> > media mapping is overly convenient and facile.<br /><br />no argument here. i haven't talked to one person that has read/heard<br />her speak about this that hasn't said the exact same thing, including<br />me. and btw: most of the people i know involved in "political" mapping<br />projects utilize very "designy" visuals, very effectively (IMHO). but i<br />have read critiques from the establishment art world about the<br />threatening take over of art by design. not something i'm too worried<br />about.<br /><br /> > If the tactic is to shut down the government's server, then why wait<br /> > for some gallery patron to walk by, read the artist statement, and<br /> > decide whether or not to click "send?" That's pretentious and stupid.<br /><br />many people say the same thing about most "web art," not to mention<br />"conceptual art" that seems to be only concerned with moving colors and<br />sampled sounds. but i guess "pretentious and stupid" is a valid<br />criticism…<br /><br /> > The click need not come from an elite gallery patron to have its<br /> > effect. The click just needs to come from a bunch of different online<br /> > machines (connectivity and ownership are "preferenced." for shame!),<br /> > and once the software starts running, it's all automated. To try to<br /> > present such a "hacktivist" event in a gallery setting may even be<br /> > exploitive. It's using the cause of "disenfranchised" people as<br /> > conceptual currency for the artist.<br /><br />the exploitive argument has been used against people working with<br />representation of the "other" forever. that doesn't mean it's not a<br />needed argument, but it doesn't mean much without specificity to me.<br />How does one decide when the benefit of the artist isn't matched by the<br />benefit of a generated discourse for the represented. As for the<br />utilitarian argument, most artists practicing the work in question<br />position it in a symbolic realm, as a form of cultural statement, not<br />legislative or militaristic.<br />>><br /><br /> > This is such a bogey I'm amazed it continues to get the mindshare it<br /> > does.<br /><br />OK - maybe i didn't make my point clearly. i agree with your general<br />sentiment, but i said that work reliant on "open source" tech practiced<br />politics DIFFERENTLY - not necessarily better. and i also meant the<br />generation of "open sourced" work - public domain and all that. i<br />merely meant to suggest that a political position could be taken by the<br />choice of tools used as well as the overt content created. i guess this<br />is another way of saying that materials and processes matter<br />politically. personally, i'm interested in the politics of tools, but<br />am so far invested in commercial technology.<br /><br /> > By the same argument, all art is religious. All art is about the<br /> > senses, all art is conceptual, all art is about marital relationships,<br /> > all art is about migratory bird patterns. The question is, need all<br /> > art always be viewed and preferenced and criticized and evaluated<br /> > through a political grid? It's the very thing that is so annoying<br /> > about legalistic Christians. Every artwork is initially, primarily,<br /> > and inordinately evaluated on whether it's "orthodox," regardless of<br /> > what context the art itself might be trying to establish. It's the<br /> > exact same thing that's so annoying about Marxists, Materialists,<br /> > Feminists, Anti-Globalization Activists, etc. Really, who gives a<br /> > shit whether <a rel="nofollow" href="http://turux.org">http://turux.org</a> was made using open-source Java or<br /> > proprietary Macromedia Director? Care if you like, but it's almost<br /> > totally tangential to the purpose of that artwork. You're imposing<br /> > you're critical agenda on the artwork. Barthes and Derrida say this<br /> > is OK/inevitable/happening anyway, but th!<br /> > ey've yet to convince me that such carte blanche agenda-imposition<br /> > makes for pertinent, insightful art criticism.<br /><br />this reads like so much too-cool-for-school criticism. you can take<br />whatever interests you disagree with, slap a label on it - particularly<br />one that's loaded with the disdain that we seem to have for anything<br />"academic" - and dismiss it as insignificant to art, or culture period.<br />sure there is dogma in just about any ideological position, and some<br />don't get beyond what you have to memorize to be part of the "group."<br />but you seem to be attacking these things (marxism, feminism, etc ) as<br />ideological, as if you're own relationship to art (and whatever else)<br />is somehow outside of ideology! how do you not impose your "critical<br />agenda" on work when you look at/criticize/evaluate a work? and finding<br />tangential relationships in work is, honestly, what makes art<br />interesting for me.<br />obviously, we continue to disagree. interestingly, we have similar<br />tastes in visual aesthetics (and some in music).<br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />Rhizome.org is a 501©(3) nonprofit organization and an affiliate of<br />the New Museum of Contemporary Art.<br /><br />Rhizome Digest is supported by grants from The Charles Engelhard<br />Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, The Andy Warhol Foundation for<br />the Visual Arts, and with public funds from the New York State Council<br />on the Arts, a state agency.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />Rhizome Digest is filtered by Kevin McGarry (kevin@rhizome.org). ISSN:<br />1525-9110. Volume 9, number 50. Article submissions to list@rhizome.org<br />are encouraged. Submissions should relate to the theme of new media art<br />and be less than 1500 words. For information on advertising in Rhizome<br />Digest, please contact info@rhizome.org.<br /><br />To unsubscribe from this list, visit <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/subscribe">http://rhizome.org/subscribe</a>.<br />Subscribers to Rhizome Digest are subject to the terms set out in the<br />Member Agreement available online at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/info/29.php">http://rhizome.org/info/29.php</a>.<br /><br />Please invite your friends to visit Rhizome.org on Fridays, when the<br />site is open to members and non-members alike.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />
