RHIZOME DIGEST: 08.06.06

discussion

Posted Aug. 5 2006 20:00

RHIZOME DIGEST: 08.06.06

RHIZOME DIGEST: August 06, 2006 Content: +opportunity+ 1. Ana Carvalho: second call for papers 2. catforster@netscape.net: LiveBox gallery Open CAll +announcement+ 3. Turbulence: Turbulence Commission: "Machine Fragments" by Onomé Ekeh 4. ryan griffis: Fwd: There Has Been a Change of Plan 5. fanny@sjica.org: NextNew2006: Art and Technology opens in San Jose in conjunction with ISEA 6. Neural: Interferenze 2006, Naturalis Electronica +Thread+ 7. Ryan Griffis, Alexis Turner, Jim Andrews, salvatore.iaconesi@fastwebnet.it, marc, "T.Whid", mark cooley, manik, Patrick Lichty, Steve OR Steven Read: Re: net art? [Thread 2] + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome is now offering Organizational Subscriptions, group memberships that can be purchased at the institutional level. These subscriptions allow participants at institutions to access Rhizome's services without having to purchase individual memberships. For a discounted rate, students or faculty at universities or visitors to art centers can have access to Rhizome?s archives of art and text as well as guides and educational tools to make navigation of this content easy. Rhizome is also offering subsidized Organizational Subscriptions to qualifying institutions in poor or excluded communities. Please visit <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/info/org.php">http://rhizome.org/info/org.php</a> for more information or contact Lauren Cornell at LaurenCornell@Rhizome.org + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 1. From: Ana Carvalho <iana34@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Aug 1, 2006 Subject: second call for papers You might have already heard of, or even already be a contributor to, the VJ Theory project. If you haven't then the project falls into two areas: samples of work from the forthcoming book and the project/community which lives at: vjtheory.net This project intends to develop a community actively discussing and reflecting on philosophy and theory related with Vjing and realtime interaction. It is apparent, during workshops and discussions at Festivals and symposia, that practitioners of both VJing and Interactive Installations will quickly move on from problems with the practicalities of production to more complex ideas of how and why the process has, for example, significance for the viewer. There is a lack of written texts on the philosophies and theories related with VJing and realtime interaction. This project and the associated book, aim to bring together work by some of the foremost practitioners and academics in the field. We aim to produce a body of work which, for the first time, will address these theoretical issues and place the practices of VJing and Interactive Installation, into a useful context. Although we have received an excellent response in contributions for the book, there are also areas that, we as editors, feel need to be developed more. Areas we still need material: Politics (activism, guerrilla, community focused realtime interaction and performance) Intellectual property DIY culture Realtime interaction and performance as developing tools (pd/GEM/Arduino or MAX/MSP/Jitter as used in performance programming for example) Body If you know of any text which address these areas in relation to realtime interaction (either published or not) then please let us know. We also welcome other contributions you might have to the content of the web site We are accepting full texts, between 3000 and 5000 words. Deadline for submissions: 31st August + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 2. From: catforster@netscape.net <catforster@netscape.net> Date: Aug 5, 2006 Subject: LiveBox gallery Open CAll LiveBox Gallery Mod 70s Show OPEN CALL LiveBox Gallery issues an open call for its? Mod 70s show. Single channel video and animation interpreting or inspired by the pop culture happening labeled ?MOD 70s?, will be screened at Hejfina, in the Bucktown neighborhood of Chicago. Hejfina is a boutique on a main shopping street in Chicago. The space also serves as an interactive design lab, hosting installations by up and coming Chicago artists and various speakers on current topics in art and architecture. All submissions must be suitable for open public viewing. Work will be screened through Hejfina?s shop window and inside the store. Work screened on the window monitor will not have audio. Inside monitors will have audio and video. Submissions must be received by October 1st. Format: All entries must include a "digital" (CD) resume, bio, artist statement and short synopsis of the project, and jpg images. Video should be NTSC DVD, if your piece is in PAL, please send mini DV tape. Please use a standard DVD case (7?X5?) not a cassette case, and pack in bubble envelop. Note materials will not be returned, unless specifically requested. Please note whether you would be willing to screen your work silently on the window monitor. For additional information, check submissions on the website <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.liveboxgallery.com">http://www.liveboxgallery.com</a> Or contact Catherine Forster at liveboxg@netscape.net. (815) 236 5692. Send to: Catherine Forster LiveBox submissions 1031 North Shore Dr Crystal lake, IL 60014 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 3. From: Turbulence <turbulence@turbulence.org> Date: Jul 31, 2006 Subject: Turbulence Commission: "Machine Fragments" by Onomé Ekeh July 31, 2006 Turbulence Commission: "Machine Fragments" by Onomé Ekeh <a rel="nofollow" href="http://turbulence.org/Works/machinefragments/machine.html">http://turbulence.org/Works/machinefragments/machine.html</a> Needs Flash player 8+ and speakers; optimized for Internet Explorer and Safari Perhaps the question, "Can Machines Think"? should be re-articulated as "Is the Machine different from you or I"? Why is there a perceptive gap between our tools and ourselves? Do they also not constitute consciousness and by extension the body? The cultural schisms that generate this differentiation between "man" and "machine" are also responsible for spawning voids and displacements ? and the ghosts that inhabit them. It is these ghosts who constitute "Machine Fragments." Machine Fragments are essentially sound fictions spun from the perspective of sentient machines, testing humans for machine intelligence. Not so much to expose the machinic dimension in humans (we suspected as much), but to arouse the sense that "Machine" is also a kind of gender. "Machine Fragments" is a 2005 commission of New Radio and Performing Arts, Inc., (aka Ether-Ore) for its Turbulence web site. It was made possible with funding from The Greenwall Foundation. BIOGRAPHY Born and raised on most sides of the Atlantic, Onomé Ekeh started out as a painter, gravitated towards design and fell in love with cinema. The collusion effect is a lifelong fascination with hybrid forms of media and their perpetuation in contemporary culture. Ekeh has written for film, and literary and technological journals both in Europe and the United States; produced works for theater; and created "radio fictions." She is a frequent collaborator in a number of cross-disciplinary projects. She lives in New York City and has been the recipient of several fellowships and grant awards including the Jerome Foundation/Media Alliance (2000); Harvestworks Digital Media Center Artist-In-Residence (2002). Ekeh is currently a Fellow at the Kunstlerhaus Buchsenhausen in Austria. For more information about Turbulence, please visit <a rel="nofollow" href="http://turbulence.org">http://turbulence.org</a> Jo-Anne Green, Co-Director New Radio and Performing Arts, Inc.: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://new-radio.org">http://new-radio.org</a> New York: 917.548.7780 ? Boston: 617.522.3856 Turbulence: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://turbulence.org">http://turbulence.org</a> New American Radio: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://somewhere.org">http://somewhere.org</a> Networked_Performance Blog: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://turbulence.org/blog">http://turbulence.org/blog</a> Upgrade! Boston: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://turbulence.org/upgrade">http://turbulence.org/upgrade</a> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Support Rhizome: buy a hosting plan from BroadSpire <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/hosting/">http://rhizome.org/hosting/</a> Reliable, robust hosting plans from $65 per year. Purchasing hosting from BroadSpire contributes directly to Rhizome's fiscal well-being, so think about about the new Bundle pack, or any other plan, today! About BroadSpire BroadSpire is a mid-size commercial web hosting provider. After conducting a thorough review of the web hosting industry, we selected BroadSpire as our partner because they offer the right combination of affordable plans (prices start at $14.95 per month), dependable customer support, and a full range of services. We have been working with BroadSpire since June 2002, and have been very impressed with the quality of their service. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 4. From: ryan griffis <ryan.griffis@gmail.com> Date: Jul 28, 2006 Subject: Fwd: There Has Been a Change of Plan Begin forwarded message: > Raqs Media Collective : 'There Has Been a Change of Plan' > (Selected Works 2002-2006) > Nature Morte Gallery, A 1 Neeti Bagh, New Delhi > August 5 - 26, 2006 > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > Sometimes, adjustments have to be made. Schedules need calibration. > There are contingencies, questions, obstinate demands, weak excuses, > strong desires. You return to the city you never left. You pause, > take > stock. Sit still and let a conversation begin. Maybe? > > Around you, aeroplanes sit on wooden platforms in a wilderness like > widows on a funeral pyre. Clocks measure fatigue, anxiety and modest > epiphanies across latitudes. A door to nowhere stands obstinately > against the sky. All your cities are a blur. > > "Do you like looking at maps?" > > Meanwhile, measures are taken, shoes lost and found, ghost stories > gather, the city whispers conspiracies to itself, the situation is > tense but under control. Someone offers you a postcard. > > Now: Let's see what happens. > > – - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > Raqs Media Collective is pleased to announce its first solo > exhibition > in Delhi - 'There Has Been A Change of Plan' at Nature Morte Gallery. > The exhibition features selected works (2002 - 2006) in the form of > cross media installations with networked computers, objects, > postcards, > video, sound, prints and projections. > > Works exhibited include: 'Lost New Shoes', selections from 'A Measure > of Anacoustic Reason', 'Location (n)', '28.28 N / 77.15 E :: 2001/02 > (Co-Ordinates of Everyday Life, Delhi 2001-2002)', 'Erosion by > Whispers', 'Preface to a Ghost Story' and 'There Has Been a Change of > Plan'. (See Details in PDF attatchment with this mail) > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > About Raqs Media Collective > www.raqsmediacollective.net > > (Excerpt from the Wikipedia Entry on Raqs Media Collective - > www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raqs_Media_Collective) > > Raqs Media Collective was formed in 1992 by independent media > practitioners Jeebesh Bagchi, Monica Narula and Shuddhabrata > Sengupta. > Based in Delhi, their work engages with urban spaces and global > circuits, persistently welding a sharp, edgily contemporary sense of > what it means to lay claim to the world from the streets of Delhi. At > the same time, Raqs articulates an intimately lived relationship with > myths and histories of diverse provenances. Raqs sees its work as > opening out a series of investigations with image, sound, software, > objects, performance, print, text and lately, curation, that straddle > different (and changing) affective and aesthetic registers, > expressing > an imaginative unpacking of questions of identity and location, a > deep > ambivalence towards modernity and a quiet but consistent critique of > the operations of power and property. > > In 2001 Raqs co-founded Sarai (www.sarai.net) at the Centre for the > Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) in Delhi where they coordinate > media productions, pursue and administer independent research and > practice projects and also work as members of the editorial > collective > of the Sarai Reader series. For Raqs, Sarai is a space where they > have > the freedom to pursue interdisciplinary and hybrid contexts for > creative work and to develop a sustained engagement with urban space > and with different forms of media. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 5. From: fanny@sjica.org <fanny@sjica.org> Date: Aug 1, 2006 Subject: NextNew2006: Art and Technology opens in San Jose in conjunction with ISEA San Jose, CA ?The San Jose Institute of Contemporary Art (ICA) is proud to present the second annual NextNew opening on August 8th at our new location: 560 South First Street. This year, we have asked five well-established Bay Area new media artists to each choose a ?next new? artistic talent on the horizon. NextNew2006: Art and Technology will feature the technology-based work of Anthony Discenza, Kota Ezawa, Ken Goldberg, Ed Osborn, and Julia Page who all accepted our invitation to provide a visionary look at what the next new trends, movements, and/or ideas will be through the work of five emerging artists. Those ?next new? artists are Nate Boyce, Elise Irving, Daniel Massey, Joe McKay, and Stephanie Syjuco. NextNew2006 will coincide with the ISEA2006 Symposium on Electronic Art and the ZeroOne San Jose Global Festival of Art on the Edge, both of which will take place August 7 ? 13. The ISEA Symposium is a prestigious international art and technology conference that is sponsored biennially by the Netherlands-based Inter-Society for Electronic Art (ISEA). Every other year, cities around the world bid to host the symposium and this year it will be held in San Jose. ZeroOne is a milestone festival that will be held biennially in San Jose, making the work of the most innovative contemporary artists in the world accessible to an audience that is expected to come from around the world. In combination with NextNew2006, on Saturday, August 12th, the night of the ISEA Festival SoFA Block Party, the ICA and new media artist Clive McCarthy will present A Painting Performance, a multi-media, interactive street event in front of the former ICA location at 451 South First Street. McCarthy will create a dynamic architectural portrait that is a unique combination of cutting-edge technology and traditional painting and music, performed in front of a live audience. The NextNew2006: Art and Technology exhibition at the ICA and the accompanying Clive McCarthy performance raise significant and relevant questions for the viewing audience regarding issues of technology?s place and impact on contemporary art and culture. They are unique additions to the art and technology activities that will be taking place throughout the city during the Symposium and Festival. NextNew2006 and A Painting Performance are funded in part by Applied Materials Excellence in the Arts: a program of Arts Council Silicon Valley and a grant from the Fleishhacker Foundation. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + BNMI Announces International Co-production Labs BNMI has launched its new co-production residency model which includes three exceptional programs led by three peer advisors. Apply today for one of these outstanding opportunities! Co-production Lab: Almost Perfect Program Dates: November 5 - December 2, 2006 Application Deadline: July 15, 2006 Peer Advisors: Chantal Dumas (CND), Paula Levine (CND/US), Julian Priest (DK, UK) Co-production Lab: Liminal Screen Program Dates: March 5 - March 30, 2007 Application Deadline: October 2, 2006 Peer Advisors: Willy Le Maitre, (CND) Kate Rich (UK), Amra Baksic Camo (Bih) Co-production Lab: Reference Check Program Dates: June 24 - July 21, 2007 Application Deadline: December 1, 2006 Peer Advisors: Andreas Broeckmann (De), Anne Galloway (CND), Sarat Maharaj (Sa/UK) For more information visit: www.banffcentre.ca/bnmi/coproduction or email <bnmi_info@banffcentre.ca> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 6. From: Neural <a.ludovico@neural.it> Date: Aug 3, 2006 Subject: Interferenze 2006, Naturalis Electronica INTERFERENZE 2006, Naturalis Electronica With its 2006 edition, INTERFERENZE, international festival of sounds, new visual arts and media, is seated in the mountains of the partenio / Valle Caudina, which it will fill live performances, installations, projections, seminars, free camping, artists and public. Although INTERFERENZE is tied to the land, electronic and multimedia arts are its driving force: performances, installations, events, workshops and conferences complete the event. INTERFERENZE confirms its traditional division into three thematic macroareas: 1) SOUNDS, with laptop culture artists; 2) NEW MEDIA, video, software art and new technologies; 3) TALKS, WORKSHOPS, CONFERENCES. A new section will form part of INTERFERENZE 2006: NATURALIS ELECTRONICA, focused on the interconnection between electronic arts and the rural. The program 3 AUGUST h. 16 - Area Workshop: 'Digital Provinces' talk: "Innovation for the touristic development" Roberto Formato h. 17:30 - Area Workshop: workshop: "Building Solar Powered Robots" by Ralf Schreiber [Germany] h. 19 - Area Workshop: Slow Food gastronomic workshop about mushrooms and truffles: "Tuber Aestivum Boletusque" h. 20 - Area Click'n'Food: "Verdichtung von: Valle Caudina" / "Condensation of: Valle Caudina" a gastroacoustic performance by Ulrich & Kassian Troyer and Philip Furtenbach [Austria] h. 21 - Cage Stage: "Info Naturae 1.0" an audio/video performance by Emanuele Errante + Kinotek [Italy] Tape [Sweden] audio/video h. 23 - Moog Stage: Emi Maeda + Lia [Japan/Austria] audio (harp + electronics)/video "Moirè" an audio/video performance by O.blaat [Japan] Biosphere [Norway] audio/video 4 AUGUST h. 16 - Area Workshop: 'Digital Provinces' workshop: "Information technologies for developing countries" by Ingegneria Senza Frontiere - Sezione Napoli h. 17:30 - Area Workshop: workshop: "Mobile Devices for Art and Experimentation" by IMPROVe (Zeenath Hasan, Richard Widerberg) [Finland] h. 19:15 - Area Workshop: Slow Food gastronomic workshop about wines: "Vitia Vinorum" h. 20:15 - Area Click'n'Food: "Verdichtung von: Vallecaudina" / "Condensation of: Valle Caudina" a gastroaocustic performance by Ulrich & Kassian Troyer and Philip Furtenbach [Austria] h. 21:15 - Cage Stage: Deaf Center [Norway] audio/video Elio Martusciello, Salvatore Borrelli [Italy] audio h. 23 - Moog Stage: AGF [Germany] audio Vladislav Delay [Finland] audio Deadbeat [Canada] audio 5 AUGUST h. 12 - Area Workshop: workshop: "An Earful of Italy. An Acoustic Ecology project for Valle Caudina" Dinahbird [UK], Jean-Philippe Renoult [France], Kate Sieper [Australia] h. 16 - Area Workshop: 'Digital Provinces' minitalk: "MAO - Media Arts & Office onlus preview" Vito Campanelli, Francesco Quarto 'Digital Provinces' open session: "Esperienze e sfide per il mondo Open Source nelle Province Meridionali" relatori: Mario Torre, CTO SO.PR.IND. srl: "Open Source e Pubblica Amministrazione" Daniel Donato, Hackaserta 81100: "Free Software, filosofia e case studies di successo" Fausto Napolitano, ADDs Security: "Open Source e Sicurezza nelle Piccole e Medie Imprese" Vito Campanelli e Francesco Quarto, MAO - Media & Arts Office: "Open Source, Culture e Arti Digitali" Alessandro Ludovico, Neural: "Open Source at large, prodotti collettivi dentro e fuori lo schermo" ISF (Sezione di Napoli): "Webgis su piattaforma freesoftware" h. 17 - Area Workshop: mobile art live: "An Earful of Italy, Collective Performance" Dinahbird [UK], Jean-Philippe Renoult [France], Kate Sieper [Australia] + IMPROVe (Zeenath Hasan, Richard Widerberg) [Finland] h. 18:30 - Area Workshop: Slow Food gastronomic workshop about wines and cheeses: "Tres Casei, Tria Vina" h. 20 - Area Click'n'Food: "Verdichtung von: Vallecaudina" / "Condensation of: Valle Caudina" a gastroaocustic performance by Ulrich & Kassian Troyer and Philip Furtenbach h. 21 - Cage Stage: The Sine Wave Orchestra [Japan] audio/sine wave Zavoloka [Ukraine] audio "Behind the Eyes" a dance/sound performance by Gabriella Cerritelli + Retina.it [Italy] h. 23:30 - Moog Stage: Background / A Touch of Class night additional visuals Brutus [Italy]: Warmdesk [USA] audio Repeat Orchestra [Germany] audio Andy Vaz [Germany] audio/dj 3/4/5 August h. 19/02 - Area Deleuze: Screenings: Semiconductor [UK]: "Worlds in Flux" "Big Bang - Restarting the Natural World": Tanja Puustelli [Finland] "Milking the Cow" Alan Sondheim [USA] "Laminanimal" Anders Weberg & Robert Willim [Sweden] "Surreal Scania" Doron Golan [Israel/USA] "Buda" Scott Hessels & Gabriel Dunne [USA] "Celestial Mechanics" Jeffers Egan & Jake Mandell [USA] "Slither" Lorenzo Oggiano [Italy] "Quasi-Objects" Vita Berezina-Blackburn [Russia] "Benign Beings" Onoxo [Croatia] "Clean Exp M" Bianco-Valente [Italy] "Spread" Brian Kim Stefans [USA] "VEX #5" Andrea Melloni [Italy] "Microsoundscape #1" http:// www.cubificio.org h. 19/02 - Area Workshop: Installazioni: "Acquatic" Marianne Decoster-Taivalkoski [Finland] "Living Particles" Ralf Schreiber [Germany] "Process 6,7,8" Casey Reas [USA] "Puppet Tool" - "Pâté à Son" LeCielEstBleu [France] – Alessandro Ludovico Neural Magazine - English (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://english.neural.it/">http://english.neural.it/</a>) Italian (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://neural.it/">http://neural.it/</a>) Latest Printed Issue - <a rel="nofollow" href="http://neural.it/n/nultimoe.htm">http://neural.it/n/nultimoe.htm</a> Subscribe - <a rel="nofollow" href="http://neural.it/subscribe/">http://neural.it/subscribe/</a> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome.org 2005-2006 Net Art Commissions The Rhizome Commissioning Program makes financial support available to artists for the creation of innovative new media art work via panel-awarded commissions. For the 2005-2006 Rhizome Commissions, eleven artists/groups were selected to create original works of net art. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/commissions/">http://rhizome.org/commissions/</a> The Rhizome Commissions Program is made possible by support from the Jerome Foundation in celebration of the Jerome Hill Centennial, the Greenwall Foundation, the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, and the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs. Additional support has been provided by members of the Rhizome community. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 7. From: Ryan Griffis <ryan.griffis@gmail.com>, Alexis Turner <subbies@redheadedstepchild.org>, Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com>, salvatore.iaconesi@fastwebnet.it <salvatore.iaconesi@fastwebnet.it>, marc <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>, "T.Whid" <twhid@twhid.com>, mark cooley <flawedart@yahoo.com>, manik <manik@sbb.co.yu>, Patrick Lichty <voyd@voyd.com>, Steve OR Steven Read <steveread@mindspring.com> Date: Jul 28 - August 6, 2006 Subject: Re: net art? [Thread 2] +Ryan Griffis posted:+ On Jul 28, 2006, at 5:07 PM, Alexis Turner wrote: > > On the contrary, I'm suggesting that culture is made up of many, > many things and > evolves for many, many reasons, not merely the trite and lame > argument that we > are capitalist whores. it's equally lame and trite to equate capitalism with economic determinism. i don't think Mark ever made such a lazy equation. i also don't think anyone's talking about "culture" in some larger, universalizing sense. Of course culture is made of many things. You don't have to be Levi-Strauss to state that. But one can look for dominant systems within different contexts, and not fall into some relativistic paralysis. You also don't have to buy classical economic theory (or simplified marxism) to use the identifier "capitalism" and attempt a critique of it. Good lord, the Frankfurt School established that more than 60 years ago, if Marx didn't first. We can write that off as academic hoo-ha, but then we can write off anything if it doesn't suit our needs/ reaffirm our ideas. i don't buy the totality of psychoanalysis, but i also don't think it's all crap either. Capitalism is a broad ideology, and arguably the one most directing our way of life. If you don't think so, i'd like to hear another suggestion. And not just another analysis of how economics is REALLY just the expression of other psycho-social desires. duh. Maybe the label is losing its usefulness here, but that's another discussion. i don't know what this is about any more, but i've contributed my worthless, non-art-related rant nonetheless :) +Alexis Turner replied:+ Okay then. I think the real discussion we are all having boils down to whether net art as has been practiced is "dead" or still evolving. Personally, I say neither. I say it hasn't been born yet at all. The Internet in its current incarnation is broken. It's dying. It's a short matter of time before it is supplanted by something we don't even begin to envision right now. So, quite simply, the thing we are calling "net art" right now will not have a chance to figure out how to work before its vehicle is completely snatched out from underfoot. So, for those who want to move on to bigger and better things: bully for you - that's the right attitude, even though what you discover tomorrow is going to be looked at as ancient and retarded by the new turks in 2 years. Enjoy being a turk now. You don't have an inkling where we will be, but you keep trying, and what else can you do? You might as well wring the life out of the thing while it is here. Plus, hell, it will put you in a better position to understand where we end up, and maybe even guide the way just a little. For those of you getting misty eyed over the lack of rumination in the field, you are both right and doomed. No art can be worth the pot it's pissed in if there's nothing "behind" it, and this is exactly why the majority of current net art sucks, and hard. That said, the Internet as it stands right now is a tiny, meteoric spark that is gleaming its last gleam. By the time you decide how to make net art that is worthwhile, it will be too late and you will have to start over from scratch. That is not to say that reflection is not a worthwhile goal, but to pine for the days when one could spend 30 years perfecting mastery of a medium exhibits an inherent lack of understanding of this particular medium. The very act of creating with it, of making it do beautiful or interesting things no one has thought of is the very act that causes it to evolve. So the issue about capitalism turning us all into consumers thirsting hungrily for the next big thing is misguided. It isn't about capitalism. It isn't about handy, tried and true paradigms that we all have in our back pockets to pull out as the bogeyman/trump card whenever we think a system is flawed. It's about real people, big researchers and the little basement hobbyists being intrigued by, pushing, hacking, tinkering, and ultimately being dissatisfied with an incomplete system. The Internet has a potential that hasn't been realized, and pushing to make it better, rather than sitting and mulling over a broken system without fixing it (because it demands our contemplation), is what people that realize this do. Not because they have already consumed it and crapped it out, not because they are bored with it, but because they realize it has an untapped potential that would be criminal not to try and discover. +[In response to an earlier message from Mark Cooley,] Alexis Turner added:+ ::are you really suggesting that a society's ::visual culture evolves independently from it's political and economic culture? On the contrary, I'm suggesting that culture is made up of many, many things and evolves for many, many reasons, not merely the trite and lame argument that we are capitalist whores. The specific phenomena you mentioned (the incessant need to move on to newer and cooler things) is the subject of the article I linked to, and, as such, it would probably be an interesting read for you, regardless of whether you or I or anyone else believes that newer and better is a worthwhile goal or an empty one. So here's that link again for anyone who missed it the first time: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/ed-boygenius.html">http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/ed-boygenius.html</a> +Jim Andrews replied:+ One of the forms I've been working in since about 99 is interactive audio for the Web. But I don't think it's over and here's why. First, I do think that certain sub-areas have been explored to the point where it would be hard to make something in those areas that was sufficiently original to be taken seriously as *new art* ("new" not simply in the temporal sense but conceptual sense), though the piece might have other significance. But there are whole areas of interactive audio for the Web that have not been addressed very well yet, and interesting approaches to these areas can be both taken seriously as new art and also have other significance. For instance, although the Web and Net have changed the business and distribution of music via things such as P2P, how much have they actually changed music itself? Not much. What hasn't happened very much yet is the development of distinctive forms of music arising from the Web and Net. Though you can hear intimations of it in several pieces at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://vispo.com/misc/ia.htm">http://vispo.com/misc/ia.htm</a> . But i think one of the problems concerning why this hasn't happened yet is its going to require a fairly high level of programming together with innovative musicianship. Whereas the plink and plunk stage of interactive music for the Web is more or less over in terms of generating significantly *new* art. The inroads from here on in concerning *new* interactive audio for the Web are going to come from the sorts of artists Pall alludes to. He says "The difference between work done by people who have really taken the time to discover, understand and conquer (or succumb to) their chosen medium or media and the work done by those who barely spend enough time with it to scratch the surface before they move on to something else, is huge." There's nothing nostalgic about this point of view. Also, the notion that artists who barely spend enough time with a form to scratch the surface can kill off an art with their minor explorations, which seems to be what M. River is implying, doesn't hold a lot of water. Unless the art somehow could only support shallowness. Innovation can happen at the shallow levels of art, such as being the first to use a technology, or at deeper levels. I think it's important to challenge ourselves to try to distinguish between shallow innovation and deeper achievement in innovation. But there's always some other agenda below the surface in claims about this or that being dead or alive. Recently I read people associated with Processing saying "the productive phase of Shockwave experiments" is over. You have to consider the source. +salvatore.iaconesi@fastwebnet.it replied:+ once i was just plain tired.. i used to do strange stuff at rave parties or in other peculiar situations… and if i said i made digital art they went like "oh, so are you a dj or a vj"? :) mixing medias is a great idea. leveraging the paths to "globality" offered by netart is another wonderfully great idea. but/and we're stuck in this physical world: we want to see humans, touch humans, talk to humans. the human body, the physical environment, natural/unnatural hierarchy … we want it and we aim to be part of it. i would love a world where a netart performance could get me the effects i get, let's say, with a live performance with a nice lady getting icons body-painted while my software automas eat everything up and show it on a projection screen. other things that are, possibly, more beautiful just don't get the same effect. the physical body is so strong, and it is a preferential path to the mind. the real problem is: why am i so much happier if i see 100 people enjoy a live performance of mine than if i see a web counter telling me 100 people browsed a netart piece of mine for a couple of hours each? even if the concept is so much stronger … it's like when you play electronic music along with analog intruments.. when a "real" guitar joins in you, simply, notice it, and it stands out. nothing's dead and all medias have same dignity. and, possibly, everything can be used as a lesson. i am a nerd. :) i love what i do with technology. i have a fetish for technology. and, specifically, for networks. but i am a punkish nerd. i need the feel of the body as well. when i added "post-media" to the discussion, i was talking about this. post media could have been my little heaven, joining tech and body. instead it has become, too many times, a way to gratify the body, sacrificing the concepts. it looks as if people are so much happier if they have something nice to show "live" in a nice and famous venue (and possibly sell it), than to create something *really* significative on the web, for example. "I did this beautiful project on the web, and i showed it at the MOMA" :) the concept shifts. I saw loads of beautiful things hanging on walls, coming out from beautifully written software: paintings, for example. but what's the point? it's not that i don't like them, and contaminating other disciplines has a meaning in itself, too. it's just that you loose the grasp on the breakthrough: you easily become *another* artist trying to sell something "hanging on a wall". does pureness pay? i don't kow. all i know is that i'm getting loads of festival invitations to perform the "digital sabba" (a performance on mysticism where a ritual is decontextualized into a digitally mystical one.. the lady dances, a guy gets tied, live music performance, body art and software automas doing conceptually esotheric stuff). And i'm receiving none for let's say, OpenSourceIdentities (a website where you post your personal data, ID scans, email address passwords, grocery list …. a self-spyware ), which is a much more powerful concept, but it doesn't have the lovely lady in it :) +marc replied:+ Hi Silva & all, As many probably know from long ago on this list, I have been very much pro- net art, and still am. At Furtherfield, we still view Net Art as being a main interest and passion, even though we have adapted with the aim of exploration, not because net art is dying but because we feel that it is expanding its roots into multi-various forms of creative outreach, and contemporary contexts. I personally come from a place of activism, art and networked consciousness, linking very much with a net art focus - not from a film perspective, 'soft cinema' (Manovich etc). I feel that there has been a divide between those who have officially been placed in the history books as 'net.artists' and those seen as 'net artists', and because only a few top names have been repeatedly banded about as the main figures of this net-based creativity, Internet art suffered a kind of cultural drought. Which is not good for any artist working in such closely related mediums. Although, things are changing. There have been certain curators who have kept on showing the same old faces, over and over again - who have not opened up their curatorial remits for other lesser known creatives, who may not be using the same inscribed protocols, or academic language to justify their intentions. "In my opinion net.art is pretty much what can be thought of a movement, both geographically and chronolically defined… eventually net.art died…" Net.Art did not die - it became a historical commodity for those who planned it in such a way. It was not the dot.com boom that shattered the (hoped) growth of the movement, it was those who decided to hand in their cultural cache at that time to move on to different pastures so that they could move into a gallery system, keeping themselves valid in a curatorial context. "and net art or internet art became the standard category for online based artistic projects…" I feel that net art has always been (officially) a sub-category, along side net.art, in terms of institutional control. They both happened at the same time as far as I am concerned - net art, is probably a poorer relative of the very well promoted and deliberately inserted form of net.art. In fact, I suppose net art, was the main movement and net.art was a smaller more specific, trendier, personality driven and modernist proposed version of it. It worked well for those who really believed in the myth of the artist as 'star' so that they could get a piece of the 'heroic-artist' pie. The irony is that, some of these groups such as irational.org are actually brilliant (well i think so), as well being supporting by such systems - so it is not as black and white as some of us would wish to presume - just because certain groups get recognised and supported does not mean that they are evil - it has much more to do with the culture around it, and what ethical responsibilities were seriously explored (if any) by the more centralized, 'top-down' orientated organizations, such as ars electronica and 'older' rhizome - remits. I say 'old' rhizome because it seems that the new rhizome, in its character, even though it is not primarily net art focused alone, in its behaviour is net art, and the new team of rhizome have made a tremendous effort to break down the older more centralized way of being, that it was once. It seems less elitist, and more open minded in the way that it engages, in working with people who use the list these days, and willing to try out a few things. Let's not forget that net art is also thriving elsewhere, other than just on this list and on rhizome - the syndicate mailing list still has some serious net artists working on there, such as Auriea Harvey (entropy8zuper) and lo_y, and a dynamic (sometimes scary) community, dedicated to net art, and related contexts. and more of course… I was with irational.org, in the early days - working with Heath Bunting on various projects. The Cybercafe BBS, and Savage yet tender pirate radio and alternative networked art projects, that hacked phones (phreaking) and other things - but was much more interested in more collaborative net art and the communities that formed with it, and those who were not seen as net.art, still am. Even though I value some these net.artists and what they have given our culture, I also wish that some them were less desperate in getting their own names known and more interested in breaking down the patriarchal barriers that supported their endeavours. Some of the net.artists out there are still radical, yet there are those who pretend that they are great by proposing themselves as great, as (supposed) brilliant academics who are really just interested in power alone and where that gets them - I see these types, as weak and shallow individuals, hiding behind institutional walls, rather than changing institutions for the better - cowards. The spirit of net.art, has been supported by net art - and those net.artists owe much to net art for bringing in a larger audience and context, which has at the same time kept it all alive. Net art lives on but in various forms. I have been involved in 3 new classes last year, where students are exploring and learning about net art as part of the curriculum, I teach a balanced version of what that is, featuring those who have not been allowed into the hall of fame as 'net.art', as well as those who have… Now history is being rewritten - at last by young new writers who are not diverted by the pressure of net.art 'star' orientated fractions, which is beginning to include those who were left out and others who did not quite fit the prescribed remit of institutional, academic laziness. In fact, I think that it is a great time to be doing net art :-) marc In my opinion net.art is pretty much what can be thought of a movement, both geographically and chronolically defined… eventually net.art died… and net art or internet art became the standard category for online based artistic projects… +T.Whid posted [with new subject line, 'dot.com implosion killed net art?':+ Hi all, re: the discussion about netart being weakend/not-as-interesting/killed/whatever-you-want-to-call-it There has been several assertions made that the dot.com bust poured cold water on the movement but I wanted to look at it a little more closely. As some of you know, M.River and I were very much involved with the netart movement from 97 onward. I was also working within thedot.com bubble at the time and was very attuned to its movements. I remember knowing there was trouble with the bubble in mid-'00. Then, by late 00/early 01, it was obvious to everyone that the burst had happened. (See this graph of the nasdaq: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/NASDAQ_IXIC_-_dot-com_bubble_small.png">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/NASDAQ_IXIC_-_dot-com_bubble_small.png</a>). I was out of work in early/mid 00 and it was super-easy to get a dot.com gig at the time due to the fact that the forward momentum of companies isn't as easily stopped as the rise of their stock price. Remembering the crash, I was thinking at the time that it *would* throw cold water on the netart movement and thinking that it didn't seem to be happening. Probably due to the fact that museums and art institutions are even slower moving than businesses, it took a good year or two after the dot.com burst for the net art fad to fizzle in the art institutions. Not to say that the dot.com collapse didn't help cause it, but it took a while for it to be felt. + marc replied:+ Hi T.Whid & all, >Remembering the crash, I was thinking at the time that it *would* throw cold water on the netart movement and thinking that it didn't seem to be happening. As long as one has a computer that is connected to another computer, or network, or Internet - netart will go on, no matter what other so called 'knowing' individuals would prefer us to think. The idea of netart and the death of it has come up so many times on this list, one would have to think - how many times can it die if it did, which of course, it is not dead - it's mythology and political to want it to… +marc added:+ >the important question > is whether or not netart will be *relevant* in the future. By > relevant I mean, relevant to collectors, art-thinkers, other artists, > curators, gallerists, etc etc. After all, isn't that what people mean > when they speculate whether or not a certain art form/medium/technique > is 'dead?' Regarding collections and commissions - I know that the Tate Gallery in the UK collect various netart works. Which is a positive step in respect of on-line archiving and getting it seen to a wider audience out there. Also, groups like V2, have been supporting media art and netart in various ways. I am not so worried about netart as some, and think that netart is alive and kicking and that it is moving into different areas, networked and through different activities that may not immediately look like net art but, has its spirit and is influenced by what it still is and was, possessing contexts that work to inform this contemporary creativity. A good example is Node.London <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nodel.org/">http://www.nodel.org/</a>, which was a decentralized, networked, consensus based (most of the time) and used regions (areas, places) as nodes around the whole of London - representing netart and media arts for a month. To be honest - we were not prepared for the amount of people who would get involved to show their work - in the end we had too many venues and far too many events, artists through the month. On one hand, certain 'sack-heads' would go for the obvious and unimaginative retort and say 'hey - there was too much and you were not able to deal with the overload', my retort would be 'calm down and breath the creative air - you have just experienced a change in culture, and the doors were opened and now we are seeing more media art and netart than what we all thought was actually there.' By exploring open source, using its methodology and practise, which is strongly connected to D.I.Y culture and social contexts - London experienced something special and different for a change, and it was a change. There are some who would rather that it did not happen, they are the people who would prefer such creativity to stay contained, and not be seen. So that they could provide their own limited canon, regarding what it is that we are all involved in - by taking control of our own culture, we create more outlets for others to be let in and get more involved, which can't be bad thing… And of course, netart in its pure form is still being made. Such as: Slippage - <a rel="nofollow" href="http://slippage.net/">http://slippage.net/</a> OneSmallStep - <a rel="nofollow" href="http://flawedart.net/files/nospacelikemyspace">http://flawedart.net/files/nospacelikemyspace</a> Oil Standard - <a rel="nofollow" href="http://turbulence.org/Works/oilstandard/">http://turbulence.org/Works/oilstandard/</a> The Danube Panorama Project - <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.danubepanorama.net/en/Main/About?from=Main.Index">http://www.danubepanorama.net/en/Main/About?from=Main.Index</a> Glitchbrowser - <a rel="nofollow" href="http://glitchbrowser.com/">http://glitchbrowser.com/</a> There's loads more I could mention and probably should do but do not possess time to do so, but in other projects… I am not worried about history, only that in the recent past that the wrong people have been writing about it - if we make sure that we are doing our best to change things by either creating it, showing it, writing about it, talking about it, using it and getting on with it - then we can let history look after itself, for we are making history right now. I feel that sometimes (including myself here) that, we are actually more in control of our own histories than we originally may have thought. I mean, we are the 1st generation to have such networks at hand to help us contact others outside of our nations, to promote, explore dialogue and present and share our creative endeavours. If net art does die, it will die not because it is dead or killed by anyone (they are not worth listening too) but more because it lives via mutation, beyond its original forms/medium and reliving its essence through our own influencing agency. +Ryan Griffis replied:+ > IMHO, mail art is more-or-less irrelevant. I don't want that to happen > to net art. i guess such a concept depends on the understanding of both "mail art" and "irrelevant" though… personally, i always had a hard time thinking about "mail art" as defined by the medium, and the same is true for me when thinking about "net art." Thinking about both within a larger process that could be called "networked" (ala Saper) makes more sense to me. Interesting "mail art" IMHO is not reducible to the medium, although it's not separable from it either. in my amateur opinion, the expansion of net art reflects a recognition of "net" as short for "network" not "Internet." Don't get me wrong, there's lots of formal and conceptual specificity to the Internet (and down into its widely used components of the web, email, IRC, etc) that HAS to be considered and can't be overlooked, at least not in a formal, political and historical context. But i would also propose that the Internet occurs within an even larger context, so does the art happening because of it - as twhid's account of the dot com boom/bust anecdotally assumes. Of course, there is a lot to be critical of here, especially as it relates to the conditions/demands of the "market" and notions of scarcity. The most interesting/relevant net art work for me, is that which situates the specificity of network technology within the systems that give it value (whether that's idiosyncratic, Political, tactical, sexual, whatever). So i can't see claiming that "mail art" is irrelevant… in some ways that project by Mandiberg that won a RHZ commission brings together "mail art" and "net art" by engaging the ecological politics of the virtual economy. In an updated anthology of mail art, i would include that project, even though it doesn't USE mail, it is dependent on it. no one asked what i thought, but there it is anyway :) +Jim Andrews replied:+ i wonder how economic factors affect art in different places. for instance, in large cities, where everything is so expensive, i wonder if the 'value' (in the broadest sense) of something like netart is more inflected with economic associations than in smaller places. if an art does not or cannot establish an explicit economy of the art object and, further, the economic culture (dotcom industry in this case) tanks, people in larger cities may find the art increasingly difficult to fund even indirectly, and this diminishment in the economic value of the whole activity results in less involvement all round in the art. which brings about also not simply a diminishment in the economic 'value' of the activity but a subjective change in the perceived 'value' of the art or activity. whereas in smaller places, where it's sometimes more possible to do things that aren't necessarily funded (if anything at all is to be done), the economic state of the art is not as influential. and people in smaller places can mistake the influence of economic imperative in larger cities for shallow, fickle fashion-mindedness whereas it's mostly people going where there are at least a few dollars to pay the rent and get paid for work in places that are outrageously expensive and, even at the best of times, artists have to spend more time paying the rent than making art. and, in smaller places, the big city collectors, curators, publishers, patrons and gallerists etc are more or less out of reach anyway, ie, that 'economy' is 'irrelevant' to getting on with things, is no help. and, similarly, in the big cities, notions of the value of art that are not predicated on some sort of pseudo economic market value are insupportable by the above logic. or am i all wet on this? also, compare the 'economy' of visual art with literary art. ezra pound once remarked 'It's true there's no money in poetry. But, then, there's no poetry in money, either." the ragged 'economy' of poetry trades in things like teaching positions and who publishes your work and who writes about it, not at all in the monetary worth of the work itself, because everybody is penniless in that regard. +mark cooley posted:+ Alexis - I agree that (visual)culture is not purely economic / political, as you say, "it is made up of many things" - nothing is monolithic is it? but i'm also not assuming that it exists autonomous of those things either. if we assume that visual cultures, or more specifically Art, is at least somehow connected to political culture and economic culture then it may be of benefit to look at how to discover where those intersections are. especially, if we are critical of our dominant economic and political culture (which i am). originally, i was attempting to make connections between the classic avant garde assumption that Art can be graphed as a progressive timeline where each turn of events leads onward to some better future to the capitalist mode of production (and consumption) which also makes these ideological demands. this is not new stuff and it can hardly be dismissed outright as "crap" outright and without argument. open a book. mark > > On the contrary, I'm suggesting that culture is made up of many, > > many things and > > evolves for many, many reasons, not merely the trite and lame > > argument that we > > are capitalist whores. +mark cooley added:+ Alexis Turner wrote: > No, it's not new, nor is it total crap on a theoretical level - that > said it IS > worthless crap on a more practical level. I think it is a mistake to seperate theory from practice. Every practice already has a theory built in (though it often goes unrecognized as such). Stating that a theory is not practial makes no sense as a blanket statement. Every theory is practical given that it is not put into a practice that runs counter to the theory's aims. Greenberg's theory may be practical if you want to be an abstractionist, but it may seem like a load of crap if you're into conceptual art. This is because there are two different desires at work here. It's like when the neocons say diplomacy doesn't work. What they mean is that diplomacy is not going to get us what we want. We'll need a war for that. > I certainly don't need to open > another book on it, when there are already appoximately 25,000 books > on the > particular subject. If we as academics haven't identifed a connection > between > these topics thoroughly enough yet, let's stop kidding ourselves and > admit we > aren't going to until we take a different tack. There's no "if" about it. The connections have been made. And sorry about the crack about picking up a book - that was a little harsh. <On the other hand, if > we HAVE > identified your precious connections, we obviously haven't translated > that > knowledge into anything productive for society at large - rather, > we're still > writing 25,000 MORE books rehashing the same old shit. A little air > freshner is > in order. Speak for yourself. I know many artists who put theories of political economy to work in art and their everyday lives and they are doing productive things for society. It seems that you have contempt for academics who just write books about theory and never do anything with it in the world. But I'm perplexed because when someone writes on this list attempting to discuss theory in a practical sense you react with scorn. You've not offered any logic behind your arguments - just that you have a general bad attitude toward looking at art as a part of a politically and economically engaged system. I see little value in continuing. +manik posted:+ Our meditations about interlaced,influence and connections between state in society and it's reflection on "Art Computing"so unmistakable ignored on Rhizome_Raw that we've finally came closer to trap/mistake we made in our own praxis.If we talk about difficulty to see and accept something obvious/close/near(that hurt!)how could we ask exactly the same from other people.Other words:Arno Becker and parallel with Nazi and contemporary West art (with special turn on"Art Computing")was wrong,same way it was wrong to transfer whole world guilt on Eskimo and Amazonian tribes.Now we have proof of their innocent and we could kill some children(today three years old girl from Lebanon good train and indoctrinate could endanger American interest on 'East'.) What's our point?Our point's that if you couldn't,or if you refuse to 'take'our opinion about things(you are so high that our'words'hardly reach even close to you,and if we are lucky it happen that's just mumble of something alien,dangerous and threaten for you?But what about "Freedom of speech"?Isn't it same time right to be listen and visible?We're free to scream in prison America(that mean your responsibility is undoubted)make of our,and many other countries around the world,so we suppose that's only voice you expect to hear from,outthere-nowhere.Oh,yes,you have some employee philosopher(Zizek for example),or artist(Cosic for example),mainly from small countries anxious to reach West by short way.That's why Zizek take(it was few years ago hundreds thousand of $,to "criticize"American politics,but not so hard,it's like sado-mazo game,not snuff…).We don't want to waste our precious time on other one. So,Soros(George or Georgy)make ""our"" art scene in Serbia with his money and our 'people',same as in many country in region.It'(or should we said 'he')is American product,and your responsibility for people like Soros is undoubted.You could say what's wrong with donation for art?Nothing except that it wasn't 'art',it's always ideology,and influence on main strategic processes in some country.Soros,now,have concession on biggest cable net in Serbia.And there's some money even for you-undoubted.Same as you drive with stolen oil, my money's in your pocket(Twid know that very well).So,lets open cart:Rhizome.org loose essence and basic idea of rhizome in(D&G)sense,which mean that everywhere,in every place could growth something big,small,extraordinary or average,but it can growth and our reason for being on Rhiozome.org is that fact,this trace of freedom. Now Rhizome.org is one of instrument of American hegemony more open than ever.Manager of org.Lauren Cornel in her interview mentioned only two names from Europe,which is proof that she have mission to destroy idea of Rhizome in America,or she's just (politically) naive…We doubt in second option. Delleuse&Guattari idea is not something untouchable and sent.actually it's good to discus about basic thing in their philosophy,but let us from other countries be at lest fair treatment.Rhizome.org is big and it's infrastructure is good and strong enough to hold out artist and other people from all around the world.Rhizome.org don't need to be one more toy in bloody hand of American administration. +Patrick Lichty posted:+ Hello, all, Sorry to be so silent - have been working on a very large Intelligent Agent (132 pp.) among other things. This thread is very interesting, and also brings up a number of concerns. The idea of New Media forms (or even broader techno-art forms), their relevance, and adnerence to same by (even small) insitiutions brings up a lot of issues. This is a conversation that I have at times when collecting material for Intelligent Agent. We have a mission to address New Media Art, have had (more or less) since we started in the mid-90's. Rhizome has a mission for Net Art (insert definition here) as well. I'll get into the problem with definitions, then get into relevance and and legitimacy. I think it's agreed that we are in a genre/medium/movement that is very, very fluid; one that changes slightly many times a year. This is due to the exploration of rapid changes in culture, technologies, etc. that are intrinsic to what we do. My thought on the matter is that taxonomy tries to drive a stake and create a larger set of meaning in the definition of art. For all my issues with it, the name "New Media" is probably useful in that it is so nebulous and vague. >From this, my practice at IA has been to include things like influences on New Media, techno-arts that are sister forms, and so on. In my practice, I do not think I have made a piece of net art per se since 2000, with my Sprawl project for the Smithsonian. No, wait - there were a number of live pieces I did in the last 2 years, but that's byod the point. The point is that while I am not as concerned with 'net art' specifically, I certainly do New Media on a regular basis, much of it offline, and I am looking at things like RFID, Bluetooth, remote observation droids, and my ongoing work in mini video devices, mobility, and VR. Relevance This conversation really perked up my ears. The thing that was of great interest was that the word 'relevance' was used in the same paragraph with 'curators, gallerists, and collectors'. This brings up the difference between artistic relevance, cultural relevance and cultural capital. First, one has to think about the issue of relevance as a priori statement. When one wants to engage with relevance per se, one engages with the desire to be placed within the communities and traditions in society and culture at hand. Can we say that relevance is "required" or "necessary"? Not really, but I think that Recognition is core to that argument. The two are tightly linked, and is the subject for anoter large conversation. In the case of artistic relevance, assuming we are talking about artists with a good acumen for art, the 'relevant' is defined by the artist in context with their practice. Does this form comment on the issues desired in a way that serves the artist and the issues best, critical or formal? That gets close to cultural relevance, as successful work usually has a strong link between cultural and artistic relevance. Does the work engage with historical memes, current events, execute their ideas in a powerful and concise way, and so on? But then, the recognition of culturally relevant work gets into the realization of cultural capital. This is where the link between "relevance" and the "curators and collectors" comes in. It's interesting to note the phenomenon of collection of software pieces like Napier's and the objectification of Simon's and Campbell's work. What then, is the relationship between "relevance" and "recognition", or even the legitimization of forms by institutions? Also, why are we concerned with formal defintiions like Net Art and their continuation in such a mutable field of inquiry? Is it to let the scholars, curators, and audiences catch up? This is a bit of a problem, as Christiane has said that the more experimental types like myself are often doomed to be "pre-moded" unless we ease back a little at times and let the institutions catch up a little. The questions then are fairly straightforward, and probably in the area of practice and intent. What are you looking to accomplish with the work, is it more personal, public, institutional, capitalistic? Likewise, how do artists working in these mercuric forms see their cultural communications channels legitimizing these forms on larger scales, and want those channels to help create a context for legitimacy? As for me, I'm much more interested in sharing the work as a form of dialogue, but this is something I've been pretty remiss in lately. But then, it's really desirable to get support, as (like me) without indpendent support, a lot of us tend to go academic. I stayed indie for 14 years; that's not bad. I hope this is worthy grist for the mill. +Steve OR Steven Read replied:+ With all this discussion of things getting 'killed'…things dying, dead, crashing, busted, taken over…I'm beginning to get scared. This art world surely is a dangerous place. But seriously… Would be interesting if a correlation did exist. Thesis/Essay anyone? I think artists didn't want to be 'limited' anymore to the set of materials commonly used for net art (browser interfaces and languages). Not that these materials are anywhere close to exhaused. But I have to admit that the 1990's HTML and Flash toolsets were/are fairly limited. We live in a world of meta-meta-tools. Tools creating layers and layers of more tools. Conforming to toolsets that allow for viewability via http is limiting yet still challenging, like painting or writing. This is one reason I love net art. I remember putting terminal-browser-based net art into galleries on monitors. Most people I don't think could engage with it very well. People who leave their desk and enter a gallery want something different from what their desk had to offer. Thus, as mentioned by others here, gallery-net-art-whatchamacallit has evolved into new directions that reflect its present canonization and integration. I still think plenty of desk-net-art is still coming out though, whether its called net.art or screen art or desk art or cubicle art. I remember VRML as being super cheesy. What ever happened to that? +[In response to Jim Andrews,] mark cooley posted:+ I think you make some nice conncetions here. I especially like how you conflate to some degree economic value and perceived aesthetic value. > this diminishment in the economic value of the whole activity results in less > involvement all round in the art. which brings about also not simply a > diminishment in the economic 'value' of the activity but a subjective > change in the perceived 'value' of the art or activity. As far as your statement on the lack of an economy of the art object whereas net art is concerned it might be interesting to look at conceptual art and early performance work as a way to understand how they were brought into the major art institutions and what was gained and lost in the process. i think there is an uneasy alliance that happens here. If we are talking conceptual and performance of the 60's and 70's (as an example) much of the work resisted the aesthetics, politics and economics of the modenist art museums, but found itself being absorbed into those same institutions eventually anyway. Artists were able to support themselves and the genre gained widespread acceptence as "Art", yet much of the original point of these works was hidden or lost and replaced with an institutional narrative. It is now possible, for instance, to open an art book and see Kosuth's One and Three Chairs discussed with a formalist vocabulary. I think I may have taken this off in anot! her direction. Sorry. It would be nice to see more written along the lines that you have laid out here. +Jim Andrews replied:+ Well, one thing that can be said for the galleries is that they are in advance of the publishers, for the most part, concerning net art and the digital more broadly. I'm basically a writer and fled with gratitude to the Net when the Web opened up. Because I had little company in the sort of art where I live. Because I also work with the visual and publishing such material is difficult for publishers. And expensive. Because I also am a programmer and audio guy and can attempt to put it together. Because I can publish my work as well as I have the skill to do on the Web at relatively little financial cost. Because books in Canada have a hard time getting outside Canada or having more than 300 copies printed whereas the Net is widely international. Because neither Borges nor Burroughs could have been Canadian writers. Because the other artists I'm interested in tend to be interested in the Net and their work is on it, often. Because it's possible to take poetry in directions on! the Web that poetry has rarely suffered. Because it still thrills me occassionally. Because we are creating a world wide web of art and ideas accessible to increasingly large portions of the world and we have the opportunity to make that worthwhile for people now and perhaps for the future. Because my daddy taught me there's nothing better for the world than communication between people where before there was ignorance and fear of the other and the unknown. Because we need to learn how to feel and think with this technological extension of our voice and writings and cognitive abilities so we can create something other than grasping, poking claws with it. Because computers should expand our humanity, not simply diminish it. Because I like books but my work usually doesn't fit well inside of them. Because, as a writer, my focus is on publishing, mainly, rather than performance or installation, etc. It seems that net art has typically had more involvement from visual artists than from writers though, of course, it tends to turn visual artists toward writing and writers toward some involvement with the visual. But publishers aren't quite sure what to make of digital literary art if couldn't fit in a book. And will remain that way while they focus singly on print. If net art is 'out of fashion' in media art/visual arts now, perhaps the writers are still in some sort of process of exploration of it. Perhaps the net is more frequently apt for writers than for visual artists. In that there are all sorts of visual arts that don't fit on the screen well or at all, whereas the screen is more accomodating to wide ranges of approaches to writing. Computers are language/logic machines. They are implicated in language down to the machine language and theoretical level (computer science students study a course sometimes called 'language and the theory of computation'). I've read some of Kosuth's writing. He's a strong writer. He said the concrete poets were stupid about language. He isn't a visual poet but a visual artist of conceptual art. Which is to say he isn't so much interested in the 'shadows on the wall' as the concepts that eddy mysteriously among the shadows. And it seems, reading his writing, that he is/was also rather formidably Marxist. But my whole knowledge of his work is within the last eight years, so I'm not sure what has been lost in the process you describe. I have read his collection of writings Art After Philosophy and After, but it's been a while. Does he condemn formalism of some type? +[In response to Jason Nelson,] Mark Cooley wrote:+ nicely put. the academic dillema is difficult because getting work into bigger institutions also leaves out certain possibilities. i've a list of projects that i've been putting off now partly because they are more activist oriented things and won't count for anything to my bosses. how can they evaluate an installation in a Walmart parking lot. There are publications that may be interested in that sort of thing but it takes a constant effort to educate those in charge of tenure process ect that these things are valuable. however it possible to be subversive within the institutions (and fun when you can get away with it) as net art moves into the institution and takes on a place in Art History it becomes even more important to have voices on the inside critiquing that process. There are artists that have done this beautifully for years in other genre. Hans Haacke, Andrea Frasier, Martha Rosler and many others. I think in general the problem with New Media art is that there seems to be very little criticism of the institution in terms of political economy. sure there is a boat load of political work but very little that touches on the political economy of New Media. Artist's are happy to work with criticism of U.S. foriegn policy etc, economic globalization etc. but it seems whenever we start talking about how Art might be implicated in those things then people get very uncomfortable. if you talk about the coffee trade people get up in arms, but if you talk about how computers are manufa! ctured and under what conditions all of a sudden there is all kinds of reactionary statements about how New Media Art has nothing to do with politics and economics. That's like saying the gas i put in my car has nothing to do with the war we're in because I like to drive my car. There is an ideologies that help us to avoid seeing these connections. Long ago I noticed that Rhizome has "technophobia" as a key word. I'm waiting for "Technophilia" to be added. I'm guessing that there are not a whole lot of technophobes reading this list. Technophiles though may be another story. Jason Nelson wrote: > Jim (and others), > > Such great words here. There always seems to be this fight, this > sort of strange > need for institutional acceptance. These institutions with heavy > doors, locked with > tents and sleeping bags of artists waiting outside for entry. The > large bouncer of > curators, and funding bodies. > > I might have mentioned this before. But I'm in a quandry. The > difficulty of being in > academia is that one must constantly "measure" the impact of their > work. > > So in one way, the pay and security is pleasing, but in another an > artist must find > the most "known" institutions and send your work there. And while > those venues are > most likely filled with gorgeous people, with sturdy ankles, they > really shouldnt be our sole audience. And in fact they should be a > very minor part of how net artwork should be shared, let's say 15 > percent. Lets say that. > > And yet that is the audience that gives the > least….well…um….audience. For example > I recently had a few older works, Uncontrallable Semantics, This is > how you will die, > and Hermeticon, picked up by sites like Fark.com and I-AM-BORED.com > and other > link aggregators. And with that has come 2.2 million visitors to my > site secrettechnology.com in the past 4 months. In addition this > audience e-mails you and > suggests your work in that wonderful viral way, that blog to site to > forum to newspaper sort of way. And you can see them go through entire > works, spending sometime > an hour or more exploring. This is the audience I want and this > should be the audience > we seek. > > What this then suggests is that part of this discussion about net > art dead or dying or > failing etc….is because so much of it moving to institutions. > While this could lead to > more funding, more respect in some circles, it is the wrong > direction for net art to swim. Or maybe it simply is the wrong SOLE > direction. Institutions are here to share artwork > with some audience. But we circumvent the need for institutions. > Well….almost > there is still the point about funding. Well….not sure what to say > about that. > > Also….it does appear that many former net artists have moved to > installation or > what seems to be mislabelled as new media art: video art. This again > seems to be > sign of net artists moving towards buildings, rather than the web. > > So consider this missive another well traveled call for swimming in > what ever the hell > direction you want. I want to be a cowboy. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome.org is a 501©(3) nonprofit organization and an affiliate of the New Museum of Contemporary Art. Rhizome Digest is supported by grants from The Charles Engelhard Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, and with public funds from the New York State Council on the Arts, a state agency. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome Digest is filtered by Marisa Olson (marisa@rhizome.org). ISSN: 1525-9110. Volume 11, number 29. Article submissions to list@rhizome.org are encouraged. Submissions should relate to the theme of new media art and be less than 1500 words. For information on advertising in Rhizome Digest, please contact info@rhizome.org. To unsubscribe from this list, visit <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/subscribe">http://rhizome.org/subscribe</a>. Subscribers to Rhizome Digest are subject to the terms set out in the Member Agreement available online at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/info/29.php">http://rhizome.org/info/29.php</a>. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +