<br />RHIZOME DIGEST: September 8, 2006<br /><br />Content:<br /><br />+opportunity+<br />1. Kathleen Quillian: call for submissions: Leonardo Abstracts Service<br />(LABS)<br />2. andrea@mur.at: call for submissions net_sight 2006<br />3. jnuwame@cdnfilmcentre.com: Call for Applicants<br />4. Joseph DeLappe: Call For Proposals: First Reno Interdisciplinary<br />Festival of New Media<br />5. irix@kk.iij4u.or.jp: "Project netarts.org 2006" - 2nd announcement<br />6. curt cloninger: Assistant Professor 3D Design/Graphics : UNC Asheville<br /><br />+announcement+<br />7. Jim Andrews: Links to Argentine net art<br />8. marcin ramocki: Anti-Pharmakon @ Artmoving Projects<br /><br />+thread+<br />9. Charlie Gere, T.Whid, Lee Wells, marc, Alexis Turner, rob@robmyers.org,<br />Patrick Lichty, Michael Betancourt, Pall Thayer, André SC, Jim Andrews,<br />Jason Van Anden, Eduardo Navas, Don Relyea, Christina McPhee, <br />salvatore.iaconesi@fastwebnet.it, Jason Nelson: Re: Charlie puts NMA\'s<br />down…<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />Rhizome is now offering Organizational Subscriptions, group memberships<br />that can be purchased at the institutional level. These subscriptions<br />allow participants at institutions to access Rhizome's services without<br />having to purchase individual memberships. For a discounted rate, students<br />or faculty at universities or visitors to art centers can have access to<br />Rhizome?s archives of art and text as well as guides and educational tools<br />to make navigation of this content easy. Rhizome is also offering<br />subsidized Organizational Subscriptions to qualifying institutions in poor<br />or excluded communities. Please visit <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/info/org.php">http://rhizome.org/info/org.php</a> for<br />more information or contact Lauren Cornell at LaurenCornell@Rhizome.org<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />1.<br /><br />From: Kathleen Quillian <isast@leonardo.info><br />Date: Sep 1, 2006<br />Subject: call for submissions: Leonardo Abstracts Service (LABS)<br /><br />Leonardo Abstracts Service (LABS)<br />Next submission deadline: 30 September 2006<br /><br />Leonardo Abstracts Service (LABS), consisting of the English LABS database<br />and Spanish LABS database, is a comprehensive collection of Ph.D., Masters<br />and MFA thesis abstracts on topics in the emerging intersection between<br />art, science and technology. Individuals receiving advanced degrees in the<br />arts (visual, sound, performance, text), computer sciences, the sciences<br />and/or technology that in some way investigate philosophical, historical<br />or critical applications of science or technology to the arts are invited<br />to submit abstracts of their theses for consideration.<br /><br />The English LABS and Spanish LABS international peer review panels review<br />abstracts for inclusion in their respective databases. The databases<br />include only approved and filed thesis abstracts. Abstracts of theses<br />filed in prior years may also be submitted for inclusion.<br /><br />In addition to publication in the databases, a selection of abstracts<br />chosen by the panels for their special relevance will be published<br />quarterly in Leonardo Electronic Almanac (LEA), and authors of abstracts<br />most highly ranked by the panel will also be invited to submit an article<br />for publication consideration in the journal Leonardo.<br /><br />Thesis Abstract submittal forms for English language abstracts can be<br />found at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://leonardolabs.pomona.edu">http://leonardolabs.pomona.edu</a><br /><br />Thesis Abstract submittal forms for Spanish language abstracts can be<br />found at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.uoc.edu/artnodes/leonardolabs">http://www.uoc.edu/artnodes/leonardolabs</a><br /><br />The LABS project is part of the Leonardo Educators and Students program.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />2.<br /><br />From: andrea@mur.at<br />Date: Sep 5, 2006<br />Subject: call for submissions net_sight 2006<br /><br />mur.at NetWorkArt Contest ?net_sight? 2006<br /><br />Idea<br /><br />Since 1998 mur.at has been working on a virtual NetSculpture which is<br />constantly growing and branching out. This widely ramified Net ? the<br />leased line net ? offers a democratic and unbureaucratic access to new<br />communication and information technologies to people engaged in the<br />artistic and cultural sector in the area of Graz apart from e-business and<br />e-commerce. The NetNodeSculpture includes an infrastructure which allows<br />continuous work of art organisations and people engaged in the cultural<br />sector.<br /><br />In order to be able to experience the virtual space in real public space,<br />mur.at initiates a contest for making this virtual sculpture - which is<br />spread over Graz like a network - visible for all.<br /><br />Target of the contest<br /><br />For the promotion of NetArt and NetCulture mur.at offers the possibility<br />to deal with the community in an artistic way and to implement the winning<br />project.<br />The virtual sculpture will be transferred to a tangible space in order to<br />be visible also as real locality. Therewith the virtual sculpture becomes<br />a sculpture that can be conceived with all senses in the public space of<br />Graz. The sculpture shall be developed and implemented in various media.<br /><br />Desired form of submitted projects<br /><br />desired are…<br /><br />.artistic projects, which refer and use the contents and infrastructure of<br />mur.at, the nodes and/or the mur.at-community.<br /><br />.artistic projects which excel at using unconventional ideas of<br />?Visualization?.<br /><br />.unrealised projects from the various areas of art; projects which deal<br />with the subject of a NetSculpture. This can be projected in form of<br />media- and space- installations, sound projects, memorial tablets, photo<br />or video projects, as long as it appears meaningful with regard to the<br />subject.<br />The expression ?Visualization? shall be considered a metaphor and the type<br />of realisation shall not be limited to a specific medium.<br /><br />Prize money / Implementation<br /><br />First prize<br />The project which is ranked first by the jury will be implemented from<br />December 2006 to end of May 2007. The budget for the implementation (incl.<br />remuneration) is ? 10.000,-.<br />The project will be showcased during a ceremony.<br /><br />Appreciation prize<br />The most innovative, but not realizable project will be awarded with an<br />appreciation prize amounting to ? 300,-.<br /><br />Exposition<br />During an exposition opening on December 1, 2006, the 10 best projects<br />will be presented to the public. The budget for the presentation of the<br />concepts is<br />? 200,- each, whereas the form of presentation (choice of media, etc.) is<br />up to the presenters.<br /><br />There is no splitting of the prizes.<br /><br />Jury<br /><br />Members of the Jury:<br /><br />1 representative of the mur.at team: Johannes Zmölnig: financial treasurer<br />of the mur.at executive committee; artistic-scientific assistant at IEM<br />(Institute for Electronic Music) (Graz, A).<br /><br />1 representative of the nodes: Reni Hofmüller: media artist and artistic<br />director of ESC im labor (Graz, A).<br /><br />1 vote of the mur.at-community: every mur.at member has the right to <br />vote. The resulting ranking counts as the community-vote.<br /><br />Ushi Reiter: Artist and cultural producer (servus.at, faces) (Linz, A).<br /><br />One international representative of the NetArt Community<br />Rena Tangens: Media artist (Bielefeld, Dt.) (to be confirmed).<br />The meeting of the jury is open to the public.<br /><br />When: Friday, November 3, 2006 at 10:00 hrs<br />Where: mur.at, Leitnergasse 7, A-8010 Graz<br />Submission<br /><br />The Call for submissions is open to the general public. The target group<br />consists of people engaged in the artistic and cultural sector with the<br />focus on the community of mur.at. There are no limits of age, education or<br />nationality of the submitting persons.<br /><br />Please note<br /><br />Final date for submission is October 15, 2006.<br />The submission may only be made online by filling out the submission form.<br /><br />All informations for the submission at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://mur.at/verein/net_sight">http://mur.at/verein/net_sight</a><br /><br />In addition to the personal data (not visible for the jury), please upload<br />(in pdf format) an abstract (max. 3000 characters) as well as a detailed<br />project description incl. a rough estimate of cost and a time scedule<br />(Attention: only one pdf-file can be uploaded).<br />The submitted projects may not exceed a cost frame of ? 10.000,-. Any<br />maintenance activities of the projects must be included in the cost<br />estimate.<br /><br />Due to the fact that the submitted projects will be handled anonymously,<br />please do not mention names nor logos in the project descriptions.<br />We can only accept submissions which are complete and made anonymous.<br /><br />We do not assume any liability for the submitted concepts.<br />In case of a refusal of a project, its authors are not entitled to raise<br />any claims upon mur.at or persons acting on behalf of mur.at.<br />mur.at reserves the right to use the submitted material for the purpose of<br />documentation.<br /><br />Notification<br /><br />The winners (first prize, appreciation prize, the 10 best projects) will<br />be informed about the results by e-mail until November 10, 2006. In their<br />own interest, the participants in the contest shall strive to be reachable<br />at the e-mail address contained in the submission form during the whole<br />period of notification.<br /><br />Awards Ceremony / Presentation<br /><br />When: December 1, 2006 at 19:00 hrs<br />Where: to be defined<br /><br />The awards ceremony of the contest will be held on December 1, 2006 during<br />the exposition of the 10 best project concepts. The artists are not<br />obliged to present their concepts.<br />The winners (first prize, appreciation prize) commit to personally receive<br />the prizes and present their projects during the exposition.<br />Groups and institutions are requested to nominate one or max. two<br />representatives. Any travel expenses of the winners for the journey to the<br />exposition / presentation will be compensated by mur.at (train: 2nd class;<br />plane: economy class).<br /><br />The implementation budget and the remuneration for the best project are<br />dedicated to its implementation. mur.at assists in the whole period of<br />implementation and reserves the right to ask for a proof of the adequate<br />utilization of the prize money.<br /><br />Documentation<br /><br />It is the intention of mur.at to document the entire contest (incl. all<br />submitted concepts and the finally implemented project) in an online<br />archive.<br /><br />Contact<br /><br />For general questions please contact:<br />Andrea Schlemmer (Project Coordinator)<br />mur.at, Verein zur Förderung von Netzwerkkunst<br />Leitnergasse 7, A-8010 Graz<br />tel: ++43/316/82 14 51 ext. 26<br />cell: ++43/699/126 05 795<br />fax: ++43/316/82 14 51 ext. 26<br />e-mail: andrea_at_mur.at (Subject: ?net_sight?)<br /><br />For technical questions please contact the noc-team:<br />Monday to Friday from 10:00 to 16:00 hrs.<br />tel: ++43/316/82 14 51 ext. 55<br />e-mail: noc_at_mur.at (Subject: ?net_sight?)<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />3.<br /><br />From: jnuwame@cdnfilmcentre.com <jnuwame@cdnfilmcentre.com><br />Date: Sep 5, 2006<br />Subject: Call for Applicants<br /><br />Unconventional Combinations, Inconceivable Creations<br />Be part of the future of entertainment!<br /><br />(September 4, 2006) – The Canadian Film Centre?s Habitat New Media Lab<br />recognizes that as technologies revolutionize our lives, new opportunities<br />for writers, designers, producers, programmers, filmmakers, visual artists<br />and creative thinkers are emerging. As a resident in the New Media Lab,<br />you?ll push the boundaries of learning and imagination to create product<br />prototypes that are at the intersection of art and technology. Be part of<br />the future of entertainment.<br /><br />The Canadian Film Centre?s Habitat New Media Lab is currently accepting<br />applications for the Spring 2007 session of the TELUS Interactive Art &<br />Entertainment Programme (IAEP), a five-month, post-graduate residency<br />focused on creating inventive interactive narrative projects for the<br />Canadian and international marketplace.<br /><br />The TELUS Interactive Arts & Entertainment Programme (IAEP) is Canada's<br />first post-graduate programme for new media training and production, based<br />on a philosophy that compelling new media content is created through a<br />collaborative process harnessing a wide range of creative skills,<br />knowledge and talent. An internationally acclaimed facility, the Habitat<br />New Media lab has produced award-winning new media prototypes ranging from<br />simulation-based interactive documentaries, to wireless storytelling<br />networks, to interactive short films and narrative-driven media<br />installations.<br />Apply Now - Application Deadline is October 31, 2006<br />For more information or to request an application please contact:<br />habitat@cdnfilmcentre.com<br />www.cdnfilmcentre.com<br />HABITAT New Media Exclusive- By answering our survey you will be one of<br />the first to own a GelaSkin. GelaSkins are the best iPod skins on the<br />planet. GelaSkins are made from premium vinyl with photo quality graphics<br />featuring designs by artists from around the world. When you make an<br />inquiry about the program by phone, fax or email we will send you a<br />survey. Send the survey back and you will get a voucher for a Gelaskin. Go<br />to www.gelaskins.com to check them out.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />Support Rhizome: buy a hosting plan from BroadSpire<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/hosting/">http://rhizome.org/hosting/</a><br /><br />Reliable, robust hosting plans from $65 per year.<br /><br />Purchasing hosting from BroadSpire contributes directly to Rhizome's<br />fiscal well-being, so think about about the new Bundle pack, or any other<br />plan, today!<br /><br />About BroadSpire<br /><br />BroadSpire is a mid-size commercial web hosting provider. After conducting<br />a thorough review of the web hosting industry, we selected BroadSpire as<br />our partner because they offer the right combination of affordable plans<br />(prices start at $14.95 per month), dependable customer support, and a<br />full range of services. We have been working with BroadSpire since June<br />2002, and have been very impressed with the quality of their service.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />4.<br /><br />From: Joseph DeLappe <delappe@unr.nevada.edu><br />Date: Sep 6, 2006<br />Subject: Call For Proposals: First Reno Interdisciplinary Festival of New<br />Media<br /><br />Announcement:<br /><br />The First Reno Interdisciplinary Festival of New Media<br /><br />Attention Graduate Students!<br /><br />Call For Proposals: Exhibit, Netart, Present, Perform, Project(full dome)<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.unr.edu/art/RIFNM.html">http://www.unr.edu/art/RIFNM.html</a><br /><br />The 1st Reno Interdisciplinary Festival of New Media will highlight the<br />work of currently enrolled graduate and phd candidates working in<br />experimental digital media at Universities throughout the United States<br />and abroad. Graduate students working in and across disciplines are<br />encouraged to submit works to be considered for this unique opportunity. <br />The event breaks down into five interrelated events/venues: exhibit,<br />netart, perform, project and present.<br /><br />We invite proposals from currently enrolled graduate and phd students to<br />submit work for consideration. Artists working in all visual and<br />performative media incorporating digital systems, including but not<br />limited to: interactive art, robotics, slash artists, movement/dance,<br />gaming, net art, full-dome video/animation, generative systems, sculpture,<br />locative media, electronic music, sound art, experimental theater,<br />performance art, etc. are invited to apply. Collaborations and works in<br />progress are welcome and encouraged.<br /><br />A limited number of travel/accommodation grants are available and will be<br />awarded by the festival jurors.<br /><br />Festival jurors: Joseph DeLappe, Chair, Department of Art/UNR, Marji<br />Vecchio, Director, Sheppard Fine Arts Gallery/UNR, Dan Ruby, Associate<br />Director, Fleischman Planetarium/UNR<br /><br />Deadline for submissions: Must arrive by September 29th, 2006<br /><br />Entry Information:<br />Please send:<br />- 200 word maximum description of your work/proposal, specify the<br />event/venue to which you are applying<br />- current resume<br />- name and contact info of graduate committee chair/advisor<br />- appropriate documentation of your work product (DVD, CDrom, URL).<br />- please inform us of any technical requirements and/or equipment<br />necessary to show your work.<br /><br />Email applications, where appropriate, are welcome - send these to<br />delappe@unr.nevada.edu .<br />If you wish the return of your material, please include a SASE. Our<br />mailing address:<br /><br />The 1st Reno Interdisciplinary Festival of New Media<br />Digital Media Studio<br />Department of Art/224<br />University of Nevada, Reno<br />Reno, Nevada 89557 USA<br /><br />This event is sponsored by the Benna Foundation for Excellence in the Fine<br />Arts, The University of Nevada, Reno, Department of Art, The Sheppard Fine<br />Arts Gallery, the Fleischman Planetarium and Science Center, and the<br />Nevada Museum of Art.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />5.<br /><br />From: irix@kk.iij4u.or.jp <irix@kk.iij4u.or.jp><br />Date: Sep 8, 2006<br />Subject: "Project netarts.org 2006" - 2nd announcement<br /><br />————————————————————-<br /><br />"Project netarts.org 2006" - 2nd announcement<br /><br />1. The "Project netarts.org 2006"<br /><br />2. Call for the nomination<br /><br />3. Nomination Form<br /><br />4. The schedule<br /><br />————————————————————-<br /><br />1. The "Project netarts.org 2006"<br /><br />>From 1995 to 2003, The Machida City Museum of Graphic Arts hosted the "Art<br />on the Net" project promoting the Internet as a space for artistic<br />expression. After the nine years of "Art on the Net," we launched a new<br />event called the "Project Netarts.org" 2004. The "Project netarts.org" has<br />been calling on artists around the world to investigate together the<br />relationship between Art, the Internet and the Society.<br /><br />The Exhibition section of the project will feature recent developments in<br />Internet Art and is open to all forms of creative expression that use the<br />Internet as their primary medium.<br /><br />Although this project is focused on the latest developments in the field<br />of Internet Art, we are also very interested in considering contributions<br />that reflect the influence of Internet Art production on the wider fields<br />of Media-Art, Digital Art, curatorial practice, digital pedagogy, and<br />online publishing.<br />2. Call for the nomination.<br /><br />This year, the artworks for the exhibition and the "netarts.org 2006<br />prize" will be chosen by our Selection Committee. The members of our<br />committee are;<br /><br />Mark Amerika, Susan Hazen, Agnese Trocchi, Marco Deseriis, Zeljko Blace<br />and You Minowa.<br /><br />The theme this year is "Tagging the Present."<br /><br />The members will make their own nominations, but we will accept<br />nominations from the web also. Please send your nomination to us directly<br />to irix@kk.iij4u.or.jp .<br /><br />The prize fee for the top selection will be 200,000 yen.<br />3. Nomination Form<br /><br />To nominate, please e-mail the following information to us directly:<br /><br />1. The URL address of your nomination<br /><br />2. If you are the copyright holder of the nomination, your name, physical<br />Address, phone number/fax. number, e-mail address are required.<br />4. The schedule<br /><br />We will accept nominations by mail from 15th, July 2006 to 15th, Sept.<br />2006 (your time).<br /><br />The award-winning artwork will be selected by 30th Sept. The exhibition<br />will be launched 15th, Nov. 2006. We will soon announce some physical<br />events to take place in Nov. at the Machida City Museum of Graphic Arts,<br />Tokyo.<br />For more information, please visit at our website, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.netarts.org">http://www.netarts.org</a><br /><br />We are waiting for your nomination.<br /><br />–<br />You Minowa<br />Curator<br />Machida City Museum of Graphic Arts<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.netarts.org/">http://www.netarts.org/</a><br />irix@kk.iij4u.or.jp<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />6.<br /><br />From: curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com><br />Date: Sep 8, 2006<br />Subject: Assistant Professor 3D Design/Graphics : UNC Asheville<br /><br />POSITION DESCRIPTION<br />Assistant Professor ? 3D Design/Graphics<br /><br />The Multimedia Arts and Sciences (MMAS) Program at the University of North<br />Carolina at Asheville is seeking a full-time tenure-track Assistant<br />Professor beginning in August, 2007. UNC Asheville, the designated public<br />liberal arts university in the UNC system, emphasizes academic excellence.<br />Asheville is a creative and active city located in the scenic Blue Ridge<br />Mountains of Western North Carolina. Qualified candidates will have a<br />M.F.A. or related terminal degree. Ability to teach core courses in 3D<br />animation, 3D modeling, and digital print design at the undergraduate<br />level is required. Knowledge of new media theory and application, and 2D<br />digital design is expected. Candidates will possess expert skills and<br />technical knowledge in related software. The nominal teaching load is 24<br />credit hours per year. Participation in departmental and university<br />activities, as well as advising, is expected of all faculty. Preference<br />will be given to individuals with professional exhibition record and<br />demonstrable teaching effectiveness. Industry experience is beneficial.<br /><br />Please send letter of application, curriculum vitae, teaching philosophy,<br />samples of student work, documentation of creative work, and three letters<br />of recommendation to: Chair of Search Committee, Multimedia Arts and<br />Sciences Program, UNC Asheville, One University Heights, CPO 2115,<br />Asheville, NC 28804-8509. Deadline January 15, 2007. UNC Asheville is an<br />EEO/AA employer. Women, minorities, and people with disabilities are<br />encouraged to apply.<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://mmas.unca.edu">http://mmas.unca.edu</a><br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />7.<br /><br />From: Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com><br />Date: Sep 5, 2006<br />Subject: Links to Argentine net art<br /><br />Here is a page of links to Argentine net art:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.martagonzalezobras.com.ar/pagweb.htm">http://www.martagonzalezobras.com.ar/pagweb.htm</a> . The page is put together<br />by Marta Gonzales. It contains links to work from 1995 to the present. A<br />lot of compelling work here I have not seen before.<br /><br />Also, here is a site of visual and other experimental poetry by the late<br />Argentine poet Edgardo Antonio Vigo (1927 - 1997):<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.eavigo.com.ar">http://www.eavigo.com.ar</a> . There is an essay by the Uruguayan poet<br />Clemente Padin about Vigo at<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.thing.net/~grist/l&d/vigo/vigocp.htm">http://www.thing.net/~grist/l&d/vigo/vigocp.htm</a><br /><br />The eavigo.com.ar site was put together by the people at<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.vorticeargentina.com.ar">http://www.vorticeargentina.com.ar</a> . This is an organization in Argentina<br />that deals with visual poetry of all types.<br /><br />ja<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://vispo.com">http://vispo.com</a><br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br />Rhizome.org 2005-2006 Net Art Commissions<br /><br />The Rhizome Commissioning Program makes financial support available to<br />artists for the creation of innovative new media art work via<br />panel-awarded commissions.<br /><br />For the 2005-2006 Rhizome Commissions, eleven artists/groups were selected<br />to create original works of net art.<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/commissions/">http://rhizome.org/commissions/</a><br /><br />The Rhizome Commissions Program is made possible by support from the<br />Jerome Foundation in celebration of the Jerome Hill Centennial, the<br />Greenwall Foundation, the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, and<br />the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs. Additional support has<br />been provided by members of the Rhizome community.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />8.<br /><br />From: marcin ramocki <mramocki@earthlink.net><br />Date: Sep 6, 2006<br />Subject: Anti-Pharmakon @ Artmoving Projects<br /><br />Marcin Ramocki, Anti-Pharmakon<br /><br />artMoving<br />Williamsburg<br />166 North 12th Street (corner of 12th and Bedford)<br /><br />917-301-6680<br /><br />September 8 - September 15, 2006<br /><br />Opening: Friday, September 8, 7:00PM - 9:00PM<br /><br />Anti-pharmakon is an attempt of sabotaging and displacing the familiar<br />context of software/interface. "Torcito Portraits" are digital animations<br />based on re-purposing an old Macintosh musical software Virtual Drummer.<br />"Anti-pharmakon" is a simple, interactive installation composed of a<br />treated computer keyboard, CPU and a wall projection. The third piece is a<br />laser cut metal rendering of recognizable software interface elements.<br />www.ramocki.net<br /><br />Also on display (project room) : "Horror Make-up" by Jillian Mcdonald,<br />www.jillianmcdonald.net<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />9.<br /><br />+ Editor's Note: The following thread follows a conversation threaded in<br />the 08.18.06 issue of the Rhizome Digest, regarding the following<br />article: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,585-2303889.html">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,585-2303889.html</a> +<br /><br />From: Gere, Charlie <c.gere@lancaster.ac.uk>, T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com>,<br />Lee Wells <lee@leewells.org>, marc <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>, Alexis<br />Turner <subbies@redheadedstepchild.org>, rob@robmyers.org, Patrick Lichty<br /><voyd@voyd.com>, Michael Betancourt <michael.betancourt@gmail.com>, Pall<br />Thayer <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca>, André SC <andre@pixelplexus.co.za>,<br />Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com>, Jason Van Anden <jason@smileproject.com>,<br />Eduardo Navas <eduardo@navasse.net>, Don Relyea <don@donrelyea.com>,<br />Christina McPhee <christina112@earthlink.net>, <br />salvatore.iaconesi@fastwebnet.it, Jason Nelson <newmediapoet@yahoo.com><br />Date: Sep 5-8, 2006<br />Subject: Re: Charlie puts NMA\'s down…<br /><br />+Gere, Charlie posted:+<br /><br />I've just stumbled across the debate about Grayson Perry's article on new<br />media art, in which I am heavily quoted, and I am sad and slightly<br />dismayed at the hostility it seems to have engendered. My first reaction<br />is that some of the responses seem extremely defensive. Also almost<br />everybody seems to lack the will to deal with the fact that a lot of new<br />media art is not that great or that interesting and that some other stuff<br />involving new media that isn't *art* is, frankly, more interesting. I<br />strongly believe that until new media art or whatever it's called is<br />prepared to face up to the need to engage in proper critical discussion<br />about what it actually is or could be, it is doomed to be a ghettoised<br />activity which enjoys its marginalised status, because, frankly, it's<br />warmer snuggling together making snide comments about people being in<br />Murdoch newspapers, than dealing with engaging with such discussion. In<br />case this sounds overly irritated just to point out that I have been<br />working in, thinking about and supporting this area of practice for nearly<br />two decades, and have also been involved in a number of historical and<br />other projects which have allowed me to see exactly how the same syndromes<br />repeat themselves (including the defensive refusal to be properly critical<br />about uninteresting or pointless work, and the failure to engage in the<br />greater speed of technological over cultural development). If this makes<br />me the Brian Sewell of New Media Art, so be it.<br /><br />Three more points:<br /><br />Yes, I have very strong ideas about what art is or should be.<br /><br />Yes (thank god) they are not 'constructive'<br /><br />Yes, of course they are my opinions. Unless I have suddenly assumed<br />complete omniscience I am not quite sure what else they could be<br /><br />Charlie (or one of the Charlies, apparently)<br /><br />PS I love you too, Marc<br />+T.Whid replied:+<br /><br />Hi,<br /><br />I'm replying offlist as well as on as I'm not sure you read RHIZ_RAW often.<br /><br />>From the article in question:<br /><br />+++So are artists at the cutting edge of new-media technology? No, says<br />Charlie. One of the problems is that other stuff on the net is so much<br />more mind-blowing. A site such as Google Earth is so much more awesome and<br />thought-provoking than something an arty hacktivist can knock up on her<br />PC.+++<br /><br />I agree with this comment for the most part (see this:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.mtaa.net/mtaaRR/news/twhid/google_netartmasterpiece.html">http://www.mtaa.net/mtaaRR/news/twhid/google_netartmasterpiece.html</a>)<br /><br />But what I don't agree with is the 'thought-provoking' part of the<br />comment. You seem to make the same mistake that many NM artists do:<br />conflate technological gee-gaws (or wizardry or whatever you want to call<br />it) with artistic achievement. I'm not familiar with your other writing,<br />and this was a short interview question so perhaps I'm reading it wrong. I<br />would be very pleased to hear a clarification or an expansion.<br /><br />Someone simply hacking around with HTML and Javascript (not cutting-edge<br />tech to be sure) could be considered a NM artist, but the work could be<br />much more mind-blowing than Google Earth. I'll give JODI as an example,<br />but I've never used Google Earth so…<br /><br />PS: I'm ready and willing to engage in some proper critical discussion :-)<br />+Lee Wells replied:+<br /><br />In the big picture if its art it doesn't matter what the technique may be.<br />God, Bad and Ugly is all the same. Flavor of the week or aged in a long<br />historic tradition. I personally would rather see more people trying to<br />save the world for the better than another dumb spoiled MFA being churned<br />out of the manure spreader of art academia.<br />+Gere, Charlie replied:+<br /><br />Dear T Whid and other Rhizomers<br /><br />I feel I must clarify one or two points about the Times piece and my own<br />thoughts about new media art, which seem to me to have been misunderstood<br /><br />I do not 'put down' NMA, but I am interested in finding out what it offers<br />that is distinct from other uses of new media. I am afraid that the fact<br />that what I said was described as 'putting down' does rather confirm my<br />sense that many people involved in this area are simply not prepared or<br />interested in discussing the work, other than in a very<br />self-congratulatory or interior way that serves the work ill, and which<br />does not bode well for its development. I must reiterate that I think (and<br />have often proclaimed, at recent conferences at Banff and Liverpool for<br />example) that NMA is deeply compromised by its failure to develop a proper<br />critical apparatus, and, even more to the point, a stronger sense of what<br />such work is actually intending to achieve.<br /><br />My point about Google Earth is not that it is better as art than, say,<br />Jodi, but that it is considerably more technologically sophisticated, as<br />one would expect of a piece of software developed by a powerful media<br />company. This certainly does not make it more worthy, worthwhile or<br />intellectually engaging than a piece of NMA, but it does make it a lot<br />more fun to look at. To be honest, given a choice between having my<br />browser get fucked up by jodi.org and zooming around the world on google<br />earth I would almost always choose the latter. The former is interesting<br />once, but rather dull the next few times, while the latter may be devoid<br />of intellectual depth, but is incredibly engaging and rich as an<br />experience. Don't, please, get me wrong. I admire the work of Jodi and use<br />it in my teaching as an exemplary body of work deconstructing the internet<br />etc… But let's be honest, it's pretty interior stuff. This is similar to<br />how I greatly admire and gain from looking at the paintings of Robert<br />Ryman for example, but get far more pleasure from watching Shrek or Heat<br /><br />My point about the technology is that, in the 1960s, artist really were<br />among those at the forefront of imagining what new technologies might do,<br />with (expanded) cinema, video and computing. This was all part of a<br />techno-utopianism that animated art in the late 60s in particular (and<br />then got written out of the art history books). But in the 70s and beyond<br />much of what had been the preserve of art, with concepts such as<br />multi/intermedia and so on, got coopted by the media industries. What EAT,<br />CAS etc… were trying to do in the 60s in interactivity, networking,<br />etc… became part of mainstream new media by the 80s, with the expansion<br />of the internet, the PC and, of course Apple and multimedia. In the<br />meanwhile art in the main took a more critical/ironic stance with<br />conceptual art or retreating back to painting, with a few stalwarts<br />working at the edges with new technologies, but perhaps with less of a<br />strong collective sense of what they were doing it for. Video art, having<br />been a fascinating aspect of a broader interrogation of media and<br />broadcast, by the 90s had retreated to the gallery to become just another<br />art-world object, albeit in a black rather than a white cube (exemplified<br />by the horrendous work of Bill Viola)<br /><br />OK, so new media art has reemerged, and is supposedly thriving at ISEA,<br />and elsewhere, but I am sure that many reading this on Rhizome will have<br />had the same experiences I have, of going to conferences and new media<br />events and seeing exactly the same faces there. This is pleasant as one<br />can catch up with friends (if I still have any in the new media art world<br />after this exchange), but also somewhat depressing. Among other things I<br />think it means a lack of critical debate and engagement, and a sense of<br />being an embattled minority, who daren't engage in criticism of any of the<br />work as that would play into the hands of those who would dismiss NMA.<br />Thus the sense of embattled self-congratulation and, in my view, the<br />rather defensive and over-sensitive reactions to the piece in the Times.<br /><br />One of the corollaries of this is that much of the work is extremely<br />obscure for anybody other than those in the know, and sometimes even for<br />them. Recently I saw Alex McLean do one of his improvised programming<br />performances. I thought it was great, but then I am very familiar with the<br />area, and should be one of those who does 'get' such work. Imagine being<br />someone less informed and trying to get what is going on or, perhaps more<br />pertinently, why they should be interested in such an event.<br /><br />Part of the problem is, that apart from being a viable career choice for<br />art students and graduates, is what is NMA for, what do people who engage<br />in it hope to achieve. This is actually a question that I think can and<br />should be asked about art more generally, especially in a<br />post-ideological, post-progressive era. More pertinent to NMA is what<br />might its purpose be in an era where the technologies it uses are widely<br />available and highly sophisticated, and in which every consumer is now, in<br />theory at least, able to be a producer, or in other words the kind of<br />'remix' culture hyperbolised by Lawrence Lessig and Paul Miller among<br />others. This is not, as several astute correspondents have pointed out,<br />what Beuys meant by his famous declaration 'every man an artist'. But such<br />a situation does beg the question of what 'art' can be, if it is not<br />merely to be a synomyn for 'creativity' and subsumed as part of the<br />'creative industries' and 'post-industrial' culture.<br /><br />At the risk of sounding elitist and reactionary I strongly believe in the<br />need for something called art to continue to exist away and apart from the<br />more general world of creative production. In particular I believe that<br />one of the preconditions of art is to be something that is an event, that<br />is unprecedented, and which requires us to revise and expand our capacity<br />to engage with and understand the world. Thus any art that is of interest<br />must, by this definition at least, be difficult, hard to grasp at first.<br />On this count Jodi is most definitely art, whereas Google Earth is nothing<br />more than clever software.<br /><br />But I think that this only takes us half way. New Media Artists such as<br />Jodi, Alex McLean etc… are able to engage in practices that are hard to<br />fully comprehend, and which confront us with difficulty. And yet at the<br />same time I am not convinced that NMA has found the way to engage<br />productively with those outside its stockade, to be both radical enough to<br />confront people with the not-yet-known, but at the same time offer the<br />possibility of being understood.<br /><br />NMA should be monstrous, in the sense that Derrida uses that term, in that<br />it is then able to open out the possibility of the future. But in the end<br />it must also be able to acquiesce to hospitality and be domesticated<br />(those who came to the New Media Curating conference in Liverpool earlier<br />this year, should know of my interest in tropes of hospitality and<br />domestication in relation to NMA)<br /><br />"A future that would not be monstrous would not be a future; it would<br />already be predictable, calculable and programmable tomorrow. All<br />experience open to the future is prepared or prepares itself to welcome<br />the monstrous arrivant, to welcome it, that is, to accord hospitality to<br />that which is absolutely foreign or strange, but also, one must add, to<br />try to domesticate it, that is, to make it part of the household and have<br />it assume the habits, to make us assume new habits. This is the movement<br />of culture. Texts and discourses that provoke at the outset reactions of<br />rejection, that are denounced precisely as anomalies or monstrosities are<br />often texts that, before being in turn appropriated, assimilated,<br />acculturated, transform the nature of the field of reception, transform<br />the nature of social and cultural experience, historical experience. All<br />of history has shown that each time an event has been produced, for<br />example in philosophy or poetry, it took the form of the unacce ptable, or<br />even of the intolerable, of the incomprehensible, that is, of a certain<br />monstrosity." (Derrida, 1992: 387)<br />+marc replied:+<br /><br />Now you've done it…<br /><br />I had a post ready to send, from late last night regarding your last email<br />to the list and now I read this, and end up agreeing on much of what you<br />have said. I do of course have some reservations but on the whole<br />appreciate the context and intention behind this post…<br /><br />Will respond with a reevaluated piece of text, and genuinely feel excited<br />with the dialogue happening on the list :-)<br />+Gere, Charlie replied:+<br /><br />PS: Much of what I have been thinking about art, new media art, art and<br />technology, art and speed, real time technologies etc… can be found in<br />my new book Art, Time and Technology (Berg, 2006)<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.bergpublishers.com/us/book_page.asp?BKTitle=Art,%20Time%20and%20Technology">http://www.bergpublishers.com/us/book_page.asp?BKTitle=Art,%20Time%20and%20Technology</a><br />+Alexis Turner replied:+<br /><br />As always, the people who disagree and think that NMA is just fine the way<br />it is, thank you very much, are the most vocal on the list - they are,<br />after all, in their niche here. But in my regular contrarian rantings<br />within the forum, I have discovered that there are many, many who agree<br />with you, even if they do not generally feel comfortable coming out and<br />saying it publicly.<br /><br />This discussion repeats itself endlessly here, with plenty falling on both<br />sides. Hell, for that matter, I'd argue that every single discussion that<br />has taken place on this list since I've been on it is about this very<br />topic.<br /><br />===Is NMA dead?===<br />(yes *because it is too self-reflexive and arcane* v. shutupshutupshup you<br />haters, what are YOUR credentials, anyway?)<br />===Where has the aura gone/awe and wonder missing?===<br />(*modern art killed it by raping the viewer instead of titillating them*<br />v. can we please have an academic discussion that is decidedly NOT about<br />the viewer - fuck the viewer we're artists and academics and we'll talk<br />about those things not a bunch of goddamn viewers)<br />===why is nma so boring?===<br />(nma that is *not about the technology itself* [uses the technology as a<br />means rather than and end] is lame whaddayou think v. no<br />disagreement/response)<br />===has nma sold out?===<br />(we are trying to legitimze ourselves by doing what other artists do<br />[galleries and approval] and other artists are asshats and sellouts, ergo<br />we have sold out v. *what ever happened to just making art that is<br />actually good?* v. shutup dipshits ALL ART IS GOOD BECAUSE IT IS ART and<br />you must not be a real artist to say that)<br /><br />Jesus people, it's the same fucking discussion. Charlie just summed up<br />every discussion we've ever had on this list in the last year and he did<br />it in one e-mail.<br />+rob@robmyers.org replied:+<br /><br />Yup.<br /><br />And I'd go further and say that Google Earth *is* more aesthetically<br />interesting than most NMA. It changes how you look at the world more.<br />+Patrick Lichty replied:+<br /><br />Something that I find quite funny is that many of us in New Media are<br />really not used to the scrutiny afforded comtemporary artists, and many of<br />us would wither under that gaze. Charlie makes some good points.<br /><br />The IDC discussion about whether NMA talks too specifically about its own<br />culture brings up a really good set of issues, and lays bare why so much<br />NMA is not understood by larger audiences at all.<br />+T.Whid replied:+<br /><br />Hi all,<br /><br />(I know this is fairly obnoxious so I apologize for saying I wish I could<br />post a longer reply now, but I'm busy…)<br /><br />I'll just respond to this one point that keeps coming up as exemplified by<br />Rob's line below…<br /><br />On 9/6/06, rob@robmyers.org <rob@robmyers.org> wrote:<br />> Quoting Alexis Turner <subbies@redheadedstepchild.org>:<br />><br />> > Charlie just summed up every<br />> > discussion we've ever had on this list in the last year and he did it<br />in one<br />> > e-mail.<br />><br />> Yup.<br />><br />> And I'd go further and say that Google Earth *is* more aesthetically<br />> interesting<br />> than most NMA. It changes how you look at the world more.<br />><br /><br />I really don't get this. I've never use the prog, so I'm ignorant of it's<br />charms, but, to put it bluntly, who cares? It's not art. How is it<br />relevant? It's like saying an airplane ride is more aesthetically pleasing<br />than a Donald Judd sculpture. An airplane ride is pretty mind-blowing<br />everytime; Judd sculptures just sort of sit there looking all 90º.<br /><br />I'm not understanding the point of these comparisons.<br /><br />One would argue that the comparison is apt since Google Earth and a NMA<br />work is made of the same material. We can compare paintings afterall.<br />IMHO, this is a misconception about digital 'materials.' You can only<br />paint with paint… you can't build a search engine with it. Working<br />digitally is fundamentally different. The material is transformed<br />conceptually by the creator. So, IMHO, comparing Google Earth to an art<br />work is as flawed as comparing the moon landing to an Andy Warhol print.<br /><br />I think it's more instructive to compare JODI to Judd.<br /><br />Otherwise, I'm in agreement with Charlie… it seems we all are. We want<br />NMA out of the ghetto. For some reason I'm afraid that something essential<br />to NMA may be lost in the process…<br />+Alexis Turner replied:+<br /><br />The 'point' of the comparisons is that non-art has become more interesting<br />that art, and htf did we let that happen? By making NMA self-referential,<br />elitist, confusing, difficult, pretentious, and combative towards the<br />viewer.<br /><br />If you believe that bringing NMA to a larger audience requires taking<br />those negative traits away, but that doing so takes something fundamental<br />away from NMA, then it would seem that being pretentious and bringing<br />misery is fundamental to NMA. In that sense, there IS no way to have an<br />outside audience welcome it with open arms, and we should content<br />ourselves to living in self-imposed exile.<br /><br />If, on the other hand, you do not believe that those things are<br />requirements for an object to be NMA, then there are lessons to be learned<br />from the outside objects that, while not art, are nonetheless interesting,<br />engagaging, and awe-and-wonder insipiring to users/viewers. Quite simply,<br />"what makes them that way?" is the question to ask, and, yes, it does<br />actually require you to go look at them now and then, even if they are not<br />as lofty or important as Art with a capital A.<br />+Michael Betancourt replied:+<br /><br />If you believe that bringing NMA to a larger audience requires taking<br />those negative traits away, but that doing so takes something fundamental<br />away from NMA, then it would seem that being pretentious and bringing<br />misery is fundamental to NMA. In that sense, there IS no way to have an<br />outside audience welcome it with open arms, and we should content<br />ourselves to living in self-imposed exile.<br /><br />I thought the point was airplane rides brought misery. Maybe I'm myopic.<br /><br />Seriously, though, what I think is very interesting about this argument is<br />that both experimental film and video art have had it (some might say are<br />still having it) at a certain point in their history–pretty much at the<br />moment that the first histories were being written and published in book<br />form for outsiders.<br /><br />my 2 cents.<br />+Pall Thayer replied:+<br /><br />I think the key to all this is to replace "New Media Art" and "New Media<br />Artist" with "Art created with new media" and "Artist working with new<br />media". This may sound like nit-picking-semantics but there's a<br />categorical difference. Not only in meaning, but more profoundly, in ways<br />of approaching it. To me, "New Media Art" is guided by the media whereas<br />"Art created with new media" is guided by the art. i.e. "I have this new<br />media, what can I do with it?" as opposed to "I have this art idea, what<br />can new media do to it?"<br /><br />Something to think about.<br />+patrick lichty replied:+<br /><br />Well, this has been my point for a very long time. Most people look at NM<br />as tool as either tool or medium, for me it's a cultural choice, as I also<br />know how to paint, draw, work glass, do ceramics, etc. I was raised in<br />the technoculture by an artist mother and have been using computers to<br />create since 1978, and so there is not distinction for me. I just find it<br />curious that there's the New Media nomenclature now. Back in the early<br />90's, we called it 'Cyberarts'.<br />+André SC replied:+<br /><br />What, there are new media artists who haven't looked at Google earth!? ;-)<br /><br />It's worth checking out, but if you pay for your bandwidth or have caps<br />like we do here in the third world, be carefull, it chows a serious amount<br />of those cute little ones and zeros.<br /><br />Everyone seems to agree that GE isn't art. I want to question that<br />assumption just for a second. Why: because it has a comercial agenda? (and<br />artists don't?) was not created by an individual but a team/company (how<br />much new media art happens in collaborative set ups? - and doesn't the US<br />legal system treat corporate interests as individual persons?)<br />because it is functional? because Google doesn't call it Art?<br /><br />Just for argument sake, lets say some unexpected magic happens between the<br />CYC AI project and it's integration with Wikipedia and something sits up<br />out of the fuzz tomorrow morning that convincingly looks like the AIs in<br />storybooks. And it starts making art of its own accord.<br />+Jim Andrews replied:+<br /><br />> Alexis said:<br />> The 'point' of the comparisons is that non-art has become more<br />> interesting that<br />> art, and htf did we let that happen?<br /><br />Google Earth and many another Web service is more engaging than many new<br />media works, it's true. Keep in mind, though, that these are services. And<br />can be used as components or engines in new media art works in the same<br />way that we are used to seeing Google search being incorporated into new<br />media works. Things like Google Earth are tools that are not in<br />competition with new media art but, rather, are at the disposal of new<br />media art.<br /><br />In the future, net art will use any number of web services to fetch<br />information and provide engines of various types. I think a productive way<br />to look at the situation is that there are simply starting to emerge some<br />terrific tools that are at our disposal, rather than thinking that the<br />tools are more interesting than art itself.<br />+rob@robmyers.org replied:+<br /><br />> I really don't get this. I've never use the prog, so I'm ignorant of<br />> it's charms,<br /><br />Uh…<br /><br />> but, to put it bluntly, who cares?<br /><br />Anyone who is interested in art.<br /><br />> It's not art.<br /><br />Nor is painting. I don't understand why decorators are lauded so much.<br />It's just rollers and emulsion.<br /><br />> How is it relevant?<br /><br />It is a use of new technology that is aesthetically and conceptually<br />engaging and that affects people's worldview. That is a passable<br />definition of new media art. It will be very interesting to explain why<br />Google Earth is not NMA and what NMA can do better.<br /><br />> It's like saying an airplane ride is more aesthetically<br />> pleasing than a Donald Judd sculpture. An airplane ride is pretty<br />> mind-blowing everytime; Judd sculptures just sort of sit there looking<br />> all 90º.<br /><br />An airplane ride is not intended as a presentation of visual information.<br />Google Earth and a Judd both are.<br /><br />> I'm not understanding the point of these comparisons.<br /><br />The point is that NMA may not be as good at what it is meant to do<br />compared to a hack Google have made.<br /><br />> One would argue that the comparison is apt since Google Earth and a<br />> NMA work is made of the same material. We can compare paintings<br />> afterall. IMHO, this is a misconception about digital 'materials.' You<br />> can only paint with paint… you can't build a search engine with it.<br /><br />You can paint a wall or you can paint a picture. Paint has architectural,<br />protective, product design, artistic and other uses. It's a lot more<br />flexible than you give it credit for.<br /><br />> Working digitally is fundamentally different. The material is<br />> transformed conceptually by the creator. So, IMHO, comparing Google<br />> Earth to an art work is as flawed as comparing the moon landing to an<br />> Andy Warhol print.<br /><br />You've seen the Warhol print of the moon landing? It's part of his series<br />of television images.<br /><br />> I think it's more instructive to compare JODI to Judd.<br /><br />An HTML artist not knowing about the <pre> tag is like a painter not<br />knowing how to use masking tape. Don't confuse nostalgia with worth.<br /><br />> Otherwise, I'm in agreement with Charlie… it seems we all are. We<br />> want NMA out of the ghetto. For some reason I'm afraid that something<br />> essential to NMA may be lost in the process…<br /><br />What is this essential property?<br />+salvatore.iaconesi@fastwebnet.it replied:+<br /><br />a romantic idea of "The Artist" is behind some of the thoughts expressed<br />in this thread.<br /><br />for example: is google earth art? yes and no, it depends on what you're<br />looking for.<br /><br />different points of view can have varying metrics in defining what is art<br />and what isn't.<br /><br />one thing looks clear enough: talking about it can be hard if you don't<br />agree on what exactly is your point of view.<br /><br />because many of the thoughts expressed are not even in contrast with each<br />other: they're just talking about diffeent things.<br /><br />apart from these considerations, let me give my 2cents.<br /><br />the focus is still moving. artists (and artworks) are becoming something<br />different. they started changing in other times, at varying speeds.<br /><br />to be sincere, i really appreciate things and people that adapt to the new<br />paradigms: the artist should, really, disappear.<br /><br />and that's why it shouldn't sound strange to hear someone saying "Google<br />earth is art"<br /><br />i really appreciate the attitude because it is the only attitude that is<br />really contemporary, meaning that it is a deep, profund, expression of the<br />time we live in.<br /><br />i really loved william gibson's concept of the artist expressed in "Count<br />Zero". the artist was something supernatural emerging from technology. it<br />isn't a human, it isn't an artificial intelligence, it is nothing that you<br />could connect to an identity: it is something that emerges.<br /><br />In that case it was a "collaboration". of a strange and peculiar kind, but<br />it was a collaboration: Tessier-Ashpool's memories, a cowboy's mystical<br />beliefs, the technological developments in bio-soft, an artificial<br />intelligence that acheived self-consciousness to the point that it<br />recognized parts of itself as being independent, setting them free as<br />separate beings, the instinct of a gallerist, the aims towards immortality<br />of a one-man corporation, a post-human. there are no boundaries:<br />everything is, at the same time, artist and not-artist. the art is in the<br />whole.<br /><br />we start to have the power to step back from our individuality.<br /><br />mass-human, mass-artist. we probabily have no escape. should we want one?<br /><br />new media art vs other art. that is definitely *not* the question.<br />+Jim Andrews replied:+<br /><br />I remember reading a 'new media art thinker' say that programs cannot<br />alter their own code. This of course is false. This sort of thing<br />illustrates how little computers are understood in digital art circles.<br />The critic had in mind, I think, that computers are glorified typewriters,<br />or glorified musical instruments, or picture makers/alterers, etc. If you<br />think a computer is a normal machine, you will think that digital art will<br />be normal art. But computers are radically flexible as machines. To the<br />point that there is no proof, and probably never will be, that there exist<br />thought processes of which humans are capable and computers are not.<br />That's how flexible computers are in their possible functionality,<br />use–and art.<br /><br />People look at Google Earth and compare it to a new media work of art and<br />find new media art lacking in comparison. Part of the problem is our<br />expectations concerning new media art are not well-informed by the breadth<br />and depth of what is possible in digital art via the nature of computers<br />and networks of these absolutely outlandish devices.<br /><br />Google Earth is merely the tip of the Netberg! It is an art and expression<br />tool just as Word is! We see that the tools can be so well-done as to<br />challenge our notions of art–which means two things: our notions of art<br />need to be more ambitious and informed by what is possible with computers;<br />and the distinction between the tool and the work of art is bound to be<br />ever more problematized. The main difference between them being the degree<br />to which the content is supplied by the thing. Word supplies almost none<br />of the content, invites you to create almost all of it on your own, and<br />that is the mark of a good tool, as well as the range, quality and<br />granularity of the features it offers to create that content. You can see<br />the direction of Google Earth is toward making it more amenable to holding<br />content supplied by whomever. You can see it heading in a sort of 'Second<br />Life' direction crossed with realism, journalism and globalism. As a<br />virtual world. A far cry from Word. Google Earth will be more akin to a<br />platform, eventually.<br /><br />Is that the new 'high art'? The platform that can contain a suitably rich<br />range of new art? Well, no, not on its own. The platform and the art<br />created for/with the platform are symbiotic. But artists need to be able<br />to operate, in some sense, at both those levels.<br />+T.Whid replied:+<br /><br />Hi Rob,<br /><br />Let's put it another way. If you find it instructive to compare Google<br />Earth to NMA perhaps it's just as instructive to compare NMA to banner ads<br />of the web. Banner ads use new technology (flash or gifs), they want to<br />change my worldview (buy this product or service) and.. well ok, their not<br />conceptually or aesthetically engaging (most of the time). But if we<br />compare NMA art to banner ads, NMA IS FUCKING BRILLIANT!<br /><br />Google Earth isn't art simply because it makes no claim to be art (tho I'm<br />sure it could be fit into some cartographic craft history). That's my<br />point, one can conceptually drag any technological or other phenomenon<br />into being considered as art (airplane rides, roller coaster rides, Shrek,<br />9/11) to make a point that art isn't working up to it's potential. This<br />can be constructive to an artist. The art can be 'inspired by.' But as a<br />form of criticism I don't think it's instructive.<br /><br />quoting Charlie's original post:<br />+++<br />My point about Google Earth is not that it is better as art than, say,<br />Jodi, but that it is considerably more technologically sophisticated, as<br />one would expect of a piece of software developed by a powerful media<br />company. This certainly does not make it more worthy, worthwhile or<br />intellectually engaging than a piece of NMA, but it does make it a lot<br />more fun to look at. To be honest, given a choice between having my<br />browser get fucked up by jodi.org and zooming around the world on google<br />earth I would almost always choose the latter. The former is interesting<br />once, but rather dull the next few times, while the latter may be devoid<br />of intellectual depth, but is incredibly engaging and rich as an<br />experience. Don't, please, get me wrong. I admire the work of Jodi and use<br />it in my teaching as an exemplary body of work deconstructing the internet<br />etc… But let's be honest, it's pretty interior stuff. This is similar to<br />how I greatly admire and gain from looking at the paintings of Robert<br />Ryman for example, but get far more pleasure from watching Shrek or Heat<br />+++<br /><br />And I see what he's saying. But is he asking us to be more like<br />entertainment? I think it would more useful to compare apples to apples<br />and art to art, not art to entertainment. We'll lose every time.<br /><br />I'm not arguing that NMA shouldn't be more engaging or, on a whole,<br />doesn't need improvement. I want it out of the ghetto as much as anybody,<br />but criticising it because it's not entertainment isn't the strategy to<br />get us there.<br />+Patrick Lichty replied:+<br /><br />The difference is that while banner ads, Google Earth, and so on _could be<br />used_ as art, they are not art in themselves. This is an interesting, but<br />really askew conversation.<br />+Gere, Charlie replied:+<br /><br />One of the points that sometimes gets lost in discussions of NMA is<br />context and it maybe worth bringing back into the discussion. Taking my<br />example of comparing Richard Ryman to Shrek or Toy Story I was being a<br />little disengenuous in suggesting I would probably derive more enjoyment<br />from the latter to the former even if I appreciate the former as<br />meaningful art. In fact I greatly enjoy and benefit from looking at art<br />such as that by Robert Ryman (or by Veronese, or by an anonymous artist<br />from the Benin period or whatever). In fact I spend a lot of my spare time<br />in museums and galleries looking at things that could be called art. To do<br />so requires being in a certain mode of attention, a certain way of being<br />able to be in my body, to look in a certain way, in a dedicated context,<br />that the museum or gallery is able, almost uniquely, to supply.<br /><br />There are certainly all sorts of criticisms one can level at museums and<br />galleries, but consider for a moment - we have in our culture the<br />extraordinary privilege of being able to visit spaces dedicated to the<br />display and enjoyment of art, which require nothing of us but the capacity<br />to engage with the work. These are spaces which, however much they may be<br />compromised by commercial demands, still hold to an ideal, however<br />shakily, of being separate from the demands of capitalism that everything<br />should be oriented towards profit. In London I can go, for free (or at<br />least for a minimum and painlessly extracted amount of my income tax) to<br />Tate Modern for example and look at Carl Andre's bricks in a room<br />dedicated to making it possible for me to enjoy and understand it. And<br />yes, I am aware of all the arguments about the art market and its relation<br />to major art institutions. This does not change the fundamental point<br />about the possibility of the experience.<br /><br />I can enjoy these works because I go and see them in a context that<br />enframes them as art. It makes it possible for me to genuinely get to<br />grips with the experience of looking at art. At the moment I am sitting at<br />my PC at work writing this. This is the place where I can most easily look<br />at net art. But why would I want to? It's my work place. It's where I sit<br />in a legally mandated swivel chair in a brick and concrete building<br />organising timetables and so on. That it is possible to look at works of<br />(net) art from my chair may be a marvellous thing, but frankly I don't<br />really want to. I want my experience of art to be different, and to take<br />place in a different kind of space where I am able to adopt the right<br />mental and bodily attitude towards it. Why would I want to look at<br />something which is using a similar technology and coming to me through the<br />same technology as MS Outlook<br /><br />There is a kind of underlying hostility in much of NMA discourse towards<br />museums and galleries, which I think is thoroughly misplaced. This is not<br />to suggest that such institutions are without massive problems, but<br />nevertheless they serve an incredibly important purpose in preserving and<br />making art available for us and for offering a space where it can be<br />properly enjoyed and appreciated. I feel that much of this hostility<br />derives from a rather old-fashioned anti-elitist avant-garde idea about<br />the coming together of art and life or some such shibboleth.<br /><br />But let's be honest: art is always elitist, whether you like it or not.<br />It's privileged because to begin to discuss it such as we are doing now<br />always requires a high level of knowledge, thus almost certainly of<br />expensive education. It's privileged because to be an artist at all<br />usually requires a similar level of education (I bet a lot of you out<br />there have got degrees and MFAs in art, and I bet a lot of them didn't<br />come cheap). Art is elitist because artist have still got to eat, and this<br />means either, perhaps more honestly, engaging with the art market, or<br />being employed by education establishments, or joining the great gravy<br />train of funding, which in this country means being funded by tax payers<br />many of whom are deeply hostile to what they see as its utter<br />self-indulgence and pointlessness. Above all it's privileged because it<br />operates on the expectation that artists need not produce anything useful.<br />If you doubt the last point, try to explain what social use Carl Andre!<br /> 's Bricks or a piece by Jodi actually has, without recourse to appeals to<br />the idea of art as something that must exist outside of the restricted<br />economy of the market.<br /><br />So here's the thing. Art, including NMA, is useless and therefore an<br />elitist phenomenon. If it wasn't useless it would cease to be art and<br />become something else, something useful such an activism, entertainment,<br />software, advertising, and so on. Being useless is art's greatest<br />contribution to a culture almost totally subsumed by the bottom line. To<br />be in a position to be an artist, through whatever means is a privilege.<br />If you want that is what I think is the difference between Google Earth<br />and Jodi. The former is useful and the latter useless. The problem with<br />NMA I suggest is that the context in which it is often encountered, the<br />virtual space we also inhabit in our every day work, is not one conducive<br />to engaging with its uselessness adequately.<br />+salvatore.iaconesi@fastwebnet.it replied:+<br /><br />>Dal: c.gere@lancaster.ac.uk<br />> if you want that is what I think is the difference between Google Earth<br />and Jodi.<br />> The former is useful and the latter useless.<br />> The problem with NMA I suggest is that the context in which it is often<br />encountered,<br />> the virtual space we also inhabit in our every day work, is not one<br />conducive to<br />> engaging with its uselessness adequately.<br /><br />this is just partially true… it's useless if judged in the context of<br />the workplace, because you cannot do a spreadsheet or wordprocessing<br />etcetera on it. but this can't be taken as an explanation of anything.<br /><br />some more truth can be found by looking at stuff without the *need* of<br />categorizing…<br /><br />things break barriers on several subjects: creativity, technique, but also<br />size, complexity, degrees of freedom… you name it, anything goes.<br /><br />and some of them are "interesting" to some people, some aren't. some may<br />be interesting only in specific contexts. some of them generate different<br />kinds of interest in different contexts.<br /><br />take Microsoft Word: i can write a death penalty sentence or a poem with<br />it. and my death penalty could be used as a poem, without changing a<br />single character in it, if i push it in the right direction. that's if i<br />manage to convince people that that thing they're reading is art.<br /><br />where is art if i do that? is it in me? because i was good in convincing?<br />is it on the art critic who bought the theory? is it in the audience<br />staring at it? is it in microsoft word?<br />+rob@robmyers.org replied:+<br /><br />Quoting "T.Whid" <twhid@twhid.com>:<br /><br />> I'm not arguing that NMA shouldn't be more engaging or, on a whole,<br />> doesn't need improvement. I want it out of the ghetto as much as<br />> anybody, but criticising it because it's not entertainment isn't the<br />> strategy to get us there.<br /><br />Oh yes I don't want NMA to be mere entertainment. And Shreck sucks. ;-) My<br />point is closer to your point about NMA vs. Flash banners. NMA is<br />generally more engaging than flash banners, which are vapid and cheesy.<br />The comparison, which *isn't* apples to apples, can be informative. If we<br />ask *why* NMA is better, it helps to define NMA and shows areas where NMA<br />can find interesting work to do.<br /><br />Google Earth is closer to NMA than flash banners are because it both looks<br />good and makes you think (seriously, if it had been shown at Ars<br />Electronica a decade ago it would have made quite a splash). It can be<br />*mis*-described as NMA. I think that unpacking this *in some detail* would<br />be useful for thinking about NMA.<br />+Alexander Galloway replied:+<br /><br />Let me get this straight.. This thread is about how a Turner-prize potter<br />and a media historian don't think that net art is an avant-garde? Oh,<br />dear. Rhizome must be in a funk. He quotes Derrida, and everyone gets all<br />dewy-eyed and reverent.<br /><br />I'm interested in the refrain about there not being a proper critical<br />apparatus. I would suggest starting with his countryman Matthew Fuller, or<br />the media histories of Dieter Daniels or Florian Cramer, or the work of<br />Geert Lovink and Arjun Mulder (Adilkno's "Media Archive" remains one of<br />the stunning works of media studies), or Tilman Baumgartel's invaluable<br />double volume of interviews with computer artists, or Alan Liu's critique<br />of Jodi, or Mark B. N. Hansen's analyses of new media art aesthetics, or<br />the "Data Browser" series being published by Autonomedia. This is not to<br />mention the critical media studies of Lev Manovich, Wendy Chun, Friedrich<br />Kittler, Tiziana Terranova, and many, many, others. In addition we are<br />also graced with a series of art historical compendia on the subject, many<br />of which have been put through the ringer on this list: Blais & Ippolito<br />"At The Edge of Art"; Tribe & Jana "New Media Art"; Greene "Internet Art";<br />Stallabrass "Internet Art"; Paul "Digital Art"; Rush "New Media in Art";<br />Wilson "Information Arts." Incidentally, some of these latter books were<br />predicted (and upstaged) in 1997 by Vuk Cosic in his fictional "classics<br />of net.art" book series.<br /><br />Complaints about the present are often signs of a parochial imagination.<br />What interests me is not whether or not new media art is a type of<br />vanguard practice (for it absolutely and incontrovertibly is), but instead<br />what interests me is how these communities of insiders and outsiders are<br />constructed and maintained. It seems extremely important to some to defang<br />the work of say, Heath Bunting, as some sort of juvenile prank, or the<br />reverse, to induct Jodi into the canon of abstract modernism.<br /><br />A writer by the name of, ah-hem, Derrida also wrote about video art. And<br />he wrote about it in his own present, not as a reflection on the art of<br />the past.<br /><br />"One never sees a new art, one thinks one sees it; but a 'new art,' as<br />people say a little loosely, may be recognized by the fact that it is not<br />recognized."<br /><br />This type of voluntary, active blindness I find extremely interesting,<br />least of all because it offers a way out of the Kraussian cynicism that<br />new art is really all about repetition and recurrence. Derrida isn't<br />saying that we can't see the new. Quite the opposite. We believe we see<br />it, but we don't–that's the claim. And it is from this voluntary position<br />of "false" cultural production (seeing a fiction as true) that new art<br />gets made and experienced.<br /><br />This is a logic that shines through quite elegantly in the words of Ernst<br />Bloch, writing from an earlier moment in the machine age. "Someone once<br />said that people are in Heaven and don't know it; Heaven certainly still<br />seems somewhat unclear. Leave everything from his statement but the will<br />that it be true–then he was right."<br /><br />The so called "new media art ghetto" has been the topic of much<br />consternation recently on this list and elsewhere in the community. But I<br />wonder if it's not the type of emblem that all underground movements crave<br />and envy. Sure, it's not for everyone. People like Cory Arcangel and Jodi<br />have started making inroads in the establish art world without betraying<br />their cred as innovators in the scene. But I fail to see how a movement<br />with such an exciting history of experimentation and radical refusal<br />should be bothered by a few dismissive pot shots from the naysayers.<br /><br />One must remember that thirty years from now every young PhD candidate in<br />cultural theory and art history will be writing about turn of the<br />millennium digital culture, just as today they're writing about Stan<br />Vanderbeek, E.A.T., and Jack Burnham. Why? It's much easier to come to<br />terms with the past than it is the present. And so our hardest job is<br />still undone…<br />+Alexis Turner replied:+<br /><br />::Quoting "T.Whid" <twhid@twhid.com>:<br />::<br />::> I'm not arguing that NMA shouldn't be more engaging or, on a whole,<br />::> doesn't need improvement. I want it out of the ghetto as much as<br />::> anybody, but criticising it because it's not entertainment isn't the<br />::> strategy to get us there.<br /><br />Let me get one thing straight:<br />I'm not criticizing new media art because it's not entertainment. I'm<br />criticizing it because it's the antithesis of entertainment.<br /><br />There's a very entrenched belief that something has to be one or the<br />other, and that mere "entertainment" is a plebian bauble that must be<br />avoided at all costs. The reality, though, is that thoughtful, critical,<br />engaging, cerebral Art can be neither entertaining nor painful, or it can<br />be both. There are many places in the middle.<br /><br />When I suggest that art look to the entertainment sectors for inspiration,<br />I refer only to the responses that are illicited from the viewer, not the<br />content. Most entertainment is utter crap in terms of its content, but it<br />DOES offer an intangible "thing" to the viewer - a chance to be happy, a<br />chance to fulfill some desire, a chance to be amazed or surprised or<br />shocked, a chance to think, or be moved, or escape. Successful<br />entertainment does many of these things. What does NMA do?<br /><br />So, again, why are we so shocked that non-artists don't view art? Because,<br />honestly, what sick fuck is going to willfully go to partake of something,<br />again and again, that is painful but doesn't offer something "more" each<br />time? (I mean, besides an academic or an ascetic. They find "more" in<br />the strangest places.)<br /><br />Google Earth offers an entire world to explore. It takes a long time to<br />make one's way through an entire world, and there is always an intangible,<br />unknkown thing waiting around the corner. It excites us because it<br />promises us something new if we do it long enough. Maybe we will see an<br />airplane captured in mid-flight! Hey, I've never seen Borneo before! OMG,<br />there's an island in the middle of nowhere - I wasn't expecting that! I<br />bet I'm the only one to have seen this! It's the same reason people play<br />the lottery, or go to the circus, or watch a train wreck. *Because maybe<br />this time….* It's even the same reason that art museums work - because<br />in a still, contemplative space, the viewer is given a chance to realize<br />that they missed something the first time around. It's the reason a great<br />novel works (would you argue that novels are only art or only<br />entertainment, but not both? Personally, I can't think of anything more<br />entertaining than a damn good book - visual or no - and I would never in a<br />million years say that books are not art. Perhaps we differ on this<br />point.)<br /><br />Entertainment works because it sets up expectation and gives something,<br />ANYTHING to the viewer. Good art works for the same reason. The two are<br />not mortal enemies, locked in an eternal death match for the hearts and<br />minds of the<br />people.<br />+Jason Van Anden replied:+<br /><br />Are you suggesting that NMA is really some sort of academic viral media<br />scheme?<br />+Alexis Turner replied:+<br /><br />If by "viral" you mean something that gives its viewers the runs, then yes.<br /><br />If by "viral" you mean something capable of perpetuating and growing<br />itself, then no.<br />+Jason Van Anden replied:+<br /><br />Good answer - but you may have caught a stray bullet.<br />+Jason Nelson replied:+<br /><br />Alexis and others,<br /><br />I entirely agree. New Media art has the ability and technique to be both<br />highly entertaining and hard and conceptually thick.<br /><br />But….that might explain why so many once net artists are becoming video<br />artists or digital still artists or on interactive installation artists.<br /><br />Interactivity and all the entry points and multiple levels of net art<br />almost always bring some entertainment onto the screen. So to be accepted<br />by small circles, one must eliminate the fun, the interactive.<br /><br />hmmmmm…….kill entertainment equals video art…..<br /><br />hows this for entertainiing:<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.secrettechnology.com/evilmascot/mascotmascot.html">http://www.secrettechnology.com/evilmascot/mascotmascot.html</a><br />+Eric Dymond replied:+<br /><br />Don't we call that edutainment?<br />I honestly don't care if the user is happy, sad, entertained, or whatever<br />state they end up in emotionally.<br />I am not responsible for their happiness, and I hope I never am.<br />We make work that fits our artistic sensibilities, and if viewer likes it<br />or not matters not one iota at any point in time.<br />If you start making work that is aimed at entertaining then you are screwed.<br />As for conceptually thick…, I don't have a clue what "thick conceptual<br />work" could be.<br />Forget about conceptual concerns (as Robbin pointed out in his follow up<br />on Lewiitt) and worry about expressing something that somehow fits into<br />your need to put something down/on/out there.<br />Be expressive/impressive/contradictory/geometric/fluid/ whatever, just<br />don't be conceptual ( at least not in a systemic way, see Chronophobia).<br />Eric<br />also see Alex's post re: the first net art work.<br />+Jason Nelson replied:+<br /><br />I suppose I didnt explain myself clearly<br /><br />I agree with you Eric, almost entirely……my point has always been that<br />those small circles, that academic and world of "critical engagement" (we<br />all of course engage critically), once it has accepted an art form into<br />its fold, tends to demand certain types of work, work that is easily<br />slotted into their framework……and while this type of artwork might get<br />the write ups and all that, the artist tends to get lost in the mix….<br /><br />so hell yes….artists should create for whatever the hell they<br />want….that is the reason most of us started creating within new media or<br />net art or e-lit…that freedom of no certain framework.<br /><br />However, I do certainly disagree about not caring about the audience…..I<br />never create with a specific audience in mind, nor do I change my work or<br />emphasize certain aspects of my work for accolades or hits or<br />whatever…but I do want an audience, and I am immensely pleased if<br />someone enjoys my artwork in some small way…and if they dont, well that<br />is fine as well……<br />+Alexis Turner replied:+<br /><br />In response to Eric:<br /><br />(Work that is both conceptually thick and meant to be entertaining is<br />*potentially* edutainment. Making a user think and actually teaching them<br />something are different. Edutainment teaches.)<br /><br />My suggestion about considering the viewer is in response to one very<br />specific question that keeps cropping up here over (and over and over<br />and…) - why can't we get an audience?! Waaahhh!<br /><br />If you care about and want an audience, or if it bothers you that NMA is<br />in a ghetto, please read my posts. If you just want to make art and don't<br />give two shits about who/how many see it, what they think of it if they<br />do, and where you get money from to make it, then continue doing just what<br />you are doing and feel free to ignore most of what I say - it has no<br />application to you.<br /><br />===================================================<br /><br />On a slightly different note,<br />Can we please move the hell away from the word "entertainment?" So many<br />artists, critics, and academics immediately have a knee jerk reaction to<br />the word ("Entertainment is for the filthy unwashed masses, not ME"), that<br />I find it quite useless on here. I am referring only objects that people<br />respond to with anything other than disgust, hatred, or boredom. These<br />objects are created by many entities that understand human nature and<br />human needs, and manipulate that knowledge to acheive a result (I want<br />bodies in seats, I want to be considered brilliant, I want some fast<br />cash…whatever). The actual "entertainment" sector is the most visible<br />and probably largest of these, but it not even remotely the only one.<br /><br />Good lord, what on earth are you so afraid of? Can you make unique art? <br />Then I would hope you could debase yourself long enough to look at a piece<br />of ANYTHING IN THE OUTSIDE WORLD AT ALL without immediately running out<br />and copying it verbatim. Other forms are not infectious diseases that<br />will cause you to start plagiarizing them, in spite of what academic<br />theoreticians would have us believe. Are our minds so impotent and<br />powerless that, when exposed to a single commercial, we MUST HAVE JIFFY<br />PEANUTBUTTER RIGHT NOW? (Oh shit, I said JIFFY PEANUT BUTTER. Whatever<br />you do, do not go and buy JIFFY PEANUT BUTTER right now. Do not think<br />about JIFFY PEANUT BUTTER for the rest of the day. Especially do not think<br />about JIFFY PEANUT BUTTER tomorrow. Do not let JIFFY PEANUT BUTTER<br />insinuate itself into your life. Sweet. Jesus. I can't stop saying<br />JIFFY PEANUT BUTTER.)<br />-A.<br /><br />PS: To quit blabbing and make things concise, I'll just say that my<br />overall point is simply that the ghetto|bubble is not something others<br />have put NMA into - it is something NMA keeps itself in by its<br />unwillingness to sully itself with the <strike>outside world</strike><br />JIFFY PEANUT BUTTER.<br />+Eduardo Navas replied:+<br /><br />Hello everyone,<br /><br />Most interesting thread. I shall contribute my ones and twos (as in my<br />decks). Some of Charlie's comments I find polemical. I reflect on his<br />position below, keeping in mind much of what's been said around them<br />already.<br /><br />Here it goes,<br /><br />On 9/6/06 1:55 AM, "Gere, Charlie" <c.gere@lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:<br /><br />> I do not 'put down' NMA, but I am interested in finding out what it offers<br />> that is distinct from other uses of new media. I am afraid that the fact<br />that<br />> what I said was described as 'putting down' does rather confirm my sense<br />that<br />> many people involved in this area are simply not prepared or interested in<br />> discussing the work, other than in a very self-congratulatory or<br />interior way<br />> that serves the work ill, and which does not bode well for its<br />development. I<br />> must reiterate that I think (and have often proclaimed, at recent<br />conferences<br />> at Banff and Liverpool for example) that NMA is deeply compromised by its<br />> failure to develop a proper critical apparatus, and, even more to the<br />point, a<br />> stronger sense of what such work is actually intending to achieve.<br />><br />I don't think this is true at all. If anything NMA has and is developing<br />it's own institutional support that is in some ways complemented by more<br />established organizations. Granted that such support is not immense, but<br />it's happening. To be specific to the North of the globe, the Whitney at<br />least still has the commissioned project up on artport, and the Tate has<br />commissioned works collaboratively with the Whitney in the last few<br />months, then you have the recent ISEA events which prove that NMA has<br />developed a strong community. And of course there is Rhizome working with<br />the New Museum to make NMA more accessible to the general art public. And<br />as we know, when this happened initially a lot of noise was made on this<br />list because it smelled like the good old institution was taking over the<br />great dream of what NMA could have been. Yet, here is Rhizome, with its<br />complicated past standing as a bridge between the major institutions and<br />the more esoteric groups of NMA, riding that fine line between straight<br />institutional immersion and a more peripheral practice. Take it or leave<br />it it's a mixed bag one that is now part of our history.<br /><br />To add briefly, I think of lists like IDC, and New Media Curating which<br />function at a very high critical level (I know you mention them below).<br />And ultimately, I consider NMA to be developing it's own set of critics<br />that don't have to be directly accepted by the more traditional artworld.<br />It's not necessary to write in Artforum to contribute to culture. Really.<br /> If anything the emerging critics and curators could and do function as<br />bridges between institutions.<br /><br />> My point about Google Earth is not that it is better as art than, say,<br />Jodi,<br />> but that it is considerably more technologically sophisticated, as one<br />would<br />> expect of a piece of software developed by a powerful media company. This<br />> certainly does not make it more worthy, worthwhile or intellectually<br />engaging<br />> than a piece of NMA, but it does make it a lot more fun to look at. To be<br />> honest, given a choice between having my browser get fucked up by<br />jodi.org and<br />> zooming around the world on google earth I would almost always choose the<br />> latter. The former is interesting once, but rather dull the next few times,<br />> while the latter may be devoid of intellectual depth, but is incredibly<br />> engaging and rich as an experience. Don't, please, get me wrong. I<br />admire the<br />> work of Jodi and use it in my teaching as an exemplary body of work<br />> deconstructing the internet etc… But let's be honest, it's pretty<br />interior<br />> stuff. This is similar to how I greatly admire and gain from looking at the<br />> paintings!<br />> of Robert Ryman for example, but get far more pleasure from watching<br />Shrek or<br />> Heat<br />I think this comparisons have already been discussed by many on the list.<br />T. Whid stated that we should not compare apples with Oranges. But let's<br />take this proposition a bit further.<br /><br />The word entertainment was thrown around vs. art. And the question<br />implicitly came up, "what is art" to which Charlie responded in a later<br />post that it is an elitist practice which costs a lot of money in<br />education to be part of.<br /><br />But the real question is, what are the roles in culture of the examples<br />given by Charlie above? The difference is that Google Earth and Jodi have<br />different roles. One is a tool for research in the service of very<br />diverse interests (google earth) while the other is an art work that<br />proposes specific questions about its subject (the net and the browser). <br />That someone may find google Earth more appealing than Jodi, or to even<br />compare them on the same line, means that a specific interest in what art<br />should be or be like is being played out. This is one of the reasons why<br />critics and theorists tend to develop a bad name from time to time,<br />because they are not always willing to observe and define according to<br />what has happened or is happening, but instead demand that things move in<br />certain forms according to their visions.<br /><br />Google Earth and Jodi have complementary roles that are not in opposition,<br />both can and do support each other based on their particular roles at<br />large. And to compare them to make sense of intellectual rigor versus a<br />fun experience simply does not work when it comes to understanding how<br />culture works. They are part of the spectrum and can relate when<br />considering the tools used (browsers, code etc. to some degree) but cannot<br />be presented in opposition. they depend on different institutions and ask<br />of the user a different frame of mind, that can be aesthetically pleasing<br />but with different political outcomes.<br /><br /><–snip–><br /><br />> OK, so new media art has reemerged, and is supposedly thriving at ISEA, and<br />> elsewhere, but I am sure that many reading this on Rhizome will have had<br />the<br />> same experiences I have, of going to conferences and new media events and<br />> seeing exactly the same faces there. This is pleasant as one can catch<br />up with<br />> friends (if I still have any in the new media art world after this<br />exchange),<br />> but also somewhat depressing. Among other things I think it means a lack of<br />> critical debate and engagement, and a sense of being an embattled minority,<br />> who daren't engage in criticism of any of the work as that would play<br />into the<br />> hands of those who would dismiss NMA. Thus the sense of embattled<br />> self-congratulation and, in my view, the rather defensive and<br />over-sensitive<br />> reactions to the piece in the Times.<br />NMA circles might be insular, but then I think this is not much different<br />from the artworld that most people think about or are part of. I go to<br />openings in Lalaland from time to time and see the very same people there.<br />Very small circles. I can go months without appearing and there is<br />someone there that I know, always. Both worlds are small, and I do<br />believe they are more in touch than some people are willing to admit. The<br />question is why this preoccupation to supposedly get NMA "out of the<br />Ghetto"? To this I will come back very soon.<br /><br />> One of the corollaries of this is that much of the work is extremely<br />obscure<br />> for anybody other than those in the know, and sometimes even for them.<br />> Recently I saw Alex McLean do one of his improvised programming<br />performances.<br />> I thought it was great, but then I am very familiar with the area, and<br />should<br />> be one of those who does 'get' such work. Imagine being someone less<br />informed<br />> and trying to get what is going on or, perhaps more pertinently, why they<br />> should be interested in such an event.<br /><br />In a more recent post you explained how art is elitist, esoteric. And<br />then there's NMA which appears to be "more" esoteric, yet it apparently is<br />not elitist because it's in the… Ghetto? What does it mean that the<br />artworld does not get it? Does it mean that NM artists have to waterdown<br />their work so that it is understood by the general art public and get a<br />way into an established institution? Who wants in that way? Why? This<br />is the old avant-garde position going back to Courbet and the whole crisis<br />in the academy that a century later Greenberg made a career out of.<br /><br />This is a conundrum that I experienced while Christiane Paul lectured at<br />the last LACMA institutional critique in 2005. At one point Christiane<br />found herself explaining how NM works contribue to culture to a German<br />curator who simply did not see the point in Vuk Cosic's stripping of the<br />Documenta site. Her presentation turned into an educational moment, almost<br />like in the classroom, and the curator just sat there, not getting it. <br />What this means is that NMA has its own codes, it is developing its own<br />way of functioning it depends on institutions that are not always<br />connected to museums, and this is fine, but to demand that it somehow<br />become absorbed by the mainstream out of its supposed ghetto is<br />disconcerting to hear.<br /><br /><–snip–><br /><br />> At the risk of sounding elitist and reactionary I strongly believe in<br />the need<br />> for something called art to continue to exist away and apart from the more<br />> general world of creative production. In particular I believe that one<br />of the<br />> preconditions of art is to be something that is an event, that is<br />> unprecedented, and which requires us to revise and expand our capacity to<br />> engage with and understand the world. Thus any art that is of interest<br />must,<br />> by this definition at least, be difficult, hard to grasp at first. On this<br />> count Jodi is most definitely art, whereas Google Earth is nothing more<br />than<br />> clever software.<br /><br />This sounds a lot like Greenberg. Perhaps we should reconsider the role<br />of the gatekeeper? Is this not something that is largely discussed in NMC<br />and IDC today? Why does art still need this separation and rigor that you<br />demand, why? Why does NMA have to fit into the art institution like<br />previous practices? I don't think it completely can, it moves too fast,<br />it is always dependent on the development of new technologies, even when<br />the artists don't develop them and come to use them after it has been<br />absorbed by the culture industry. The truth is the artworld is even more<br />behind in this sense. Asking the NMA move out of its ghetto may be asking<br />that it bend backwards to become assimilated by the art institution. And<br />is this really healthy when the practice has already developed it's own<br />codes that are not fully dependent of pre-existing institutions? Maybe<br />times are changing and we should be more conscious and accept this. The<br />art institution will change as it learns more about NMA.<br /><br />> NMA should be monstrous, in the sense that Derrida uses that term, in<br />that it<br />> is then able to open out the possibility of the future. But in the end<br />it must<br />> also be able to acquiesce to hospitality and be domesticated (those who<br />came<br />> to the New Media Curating conference in Liverpool earlier this year, should<br />> know of my interest in tropes of hospitality and domestication in<br />relation to<br />> NMA)<br /><br />I find the notion of domestication quite disturbing. Why should NMA be<br />domesticated? So that it can be comfortably assimilated by the already<br />established art institutions? What does domestication really imply? It's<br />a colonial ideology of making sure something functions according to a<br />particular vision–it is a demand for assimilation based on pre-existing<br />parameters. NMA should not be domesticated, but simply understood<br />according to what is has and is contributing to the world at large.<br />+Don Relyea replied:+<br /><br />I think Charlie and Alexis make some really good points.<br /><br />One day I was fiddling with the jargon on one of my art project webpages<br />and I noticed that the Google adsense script became confused about whether<br />the page was about art or technology. I laughed and realized I had lost<br />focus on the art in my art project.<br /><br />What is new media art's place in the overall world of art? Is it<br />reasonable to assume that NMA should be or will be held to different<br />standards than regular art simply because it uses new and different<br />technology? Is it reasonable to assume that new media artists don't bear<br />the same responsibilities that regular artists bear. Is it reasonable to<br />make a distinction between the new media artist and the regular artist?<br /><br />When Charlie mentioned context and museums I thought about what it is that<br />makes a work of art good enough to get into a museum. I thought about<br />several of my favorite works in museums. Typically the works speak on<br />several levels to a broad audience and their place in the spectrum of art<br />history is obvious. In some cases they are profound and in some humorous<br />and whimsical but their message is communicated clearly to their intended<br />audience. Children can marvel at their aesthetic and intellectuals can<br />chew on their gristle.<br /><br />A show that came to mind was the Calder exhibit that came through town<br />when I was young(7 or 8). I remember being amazed at the mobiles and<br />kinetic sculptures even though I had no clue about the science behind<br />them. Later when I took physical science I remembered Calder's work and<br />revisited it and it spoke to me at another level. Calder had made the<br />technology behind his work transparent to the viewer. Calder's work <br />required no knowledge of physical science to appreciate, but if you have<br />the knowledge you appreciate it even more.<br /><br />If NMA wants to be more successful in the overall art world NMA needs to<br />do the same thing. It needs to speak to a broad audience on several<br />levels, it needs to be deep enough to be not understood immediately but<br />easy enough to understand when the viewer puts forth some effort. It needs<br />to say something meaningful. It needs to be packaged in a way that art<br />historians can easily see the context and place in the spectrum of art<br />history and write about it intelligently. If I am not a techno-weenie I<br />should still be able to appreciate NMA.<br /><br />In real life if you want to get technical work published in mainstream<br />magazines you have to simplify the work down to terms normal readers and<br />the editor will understand otherwise you run the risk of limiting your<br />exposure. I don't know any art historians with computer science and<br />engineering degrees, most have art history degrees. So it stands to reason<br />if you want art historians to write about your work you need to package it<br />in ways that make their job easier. I'm not saying simplify your work, I'm<br />saying simplify the way you write about and package your work.<br /><br />Google Earth makes the technology transparent to its users, that is one of<br />the reasons why it is so engaging. It's fun, it works and its easy to use.<br />I don't think Google Earth is art but I certainly think it could be used<br />in a work of art.<br /><br />I am not opposed to art being fun, engaging and easy to use either.<br /><br />Also since I am fairly new here I'm pre-emptively apologizing for<br />re-stating anything that has already been said before my arrival.<br />+Christina McPhee replied:+<br /><br />unless…………………you are the banner art collective!<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.bannerart.org/">http://www.bannerart.org/</a><br /><br />courtesy of Brandon Barr and Garrett Lynch.<br /><br />critical thinking and conceptual development within the medium.<br />+Jason Nelson replied:+<br /><br />The are many issues belting about within this new media art debate, "the<br />domination of the conceptual", " academic/critical acceptance", "loss of<br />fun" and on.<br /><br />However, the one central and underlying ghost floating beneath nearly all<br />these posts is audience. Some dont care about audience, some are angry<br />about being ignore by a particular audience, and others want to change the<br />audience.<br /><br />But, what we sound like are a bunch of starving accountants in the desert<br />fighting over<br />the last few mice and edible cacti. If the few hundred (being generous) of<br />us actively making work really tried to expand our audience (or not),<br />finding users and viewers outside these small circles, we really wouldnt<br />care about not getting two thousand dollar grants or bother ourselves with<br />a single essay.<br /><br />I mean seriously can someone tell me why one might get 100 hits from an<br />online<br />gallery's posting of artwork, while a mention on a radio station blog or<br />landscaping site brings in thousands, or tens of thousands. This is not to<br />criticize art centered sites, but instead to again call for us to apply<br />some of our amazing creativity and processing and technical prowess to<br />building a larger, more diverse audience.<br /><br />And no….I am not saying we should make work targetting a wider audience,<br />but that with the hundreds of millions of possible viewers/users, surely<br />there are a few percentage points interested in our crazy creations.<br /><br />Is one art critic worth more than a hundred plumbers?<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />Rhizome.org is a 501©(3) nonprofit organization and an affiliate of the<br />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 the<br />Visual Arts, and with public funds from the New York State Council on the<br />Arts, a state agency.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />Rhizome Digest is filtered by Marisa Olson (marisa@rhizome.org). ISSN:<br />1525-9110. Volume 11, number 34. 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 />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br />
