Following up on my previous post, Curating the Contemporary online magazine has just published an interview of Rebekah and me with Miriam La Rosa.
This might give a better insight into the #exstrange project for Alejandro’s discussion, https://curatingthecontemporary.org/2017/04/24/6109/ <https://curatingthecontemporary.org/2017/04/24/6109/>

Bests,
Marialaura

> On 24-Apr-2017, at 7:47 PM, Marialaura Ghidini <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Hello everyone.
> 
> In my curatorial work with or-bits.com (2009-2015), http://or-bits.com, I mainly focused on two of the elements that Alejandro mentions in his questions. I was interested in exploring the spatiality of the webpage—and a website as a curatorial space—and the transition of artists’ ideas and artworks to the space of a webpage, to then ‘move’ them back again to an offline site.
> 
> If or-bits.com began with the idea of commissioning artists to create a web-based work in response to a word and brief, it soon expanded to include projects that, taking the website as departing point, adopted the format of an event, a gallery exhibition, a performative intervention or a radio show, for example. Such projects explored the idea and act of transitioning by showcasing versions of the work that had ben previously presented online. I used the adjective Offsite to define them because I wanted to keep with the fact that what was the central node for these activities was website. It was the point of departure. Most of the offsite activities are documented on the website blog, http://www.or-bits.com/blog/category/offsite-projects/. Similarly, the publishing series On the Upgrade, http://www.or-bits.com/editions.php, also explored the process of transitioning and the idea of distributed site-specificity, but it did so in relation to the print page. It aimed to ‘compare’ the web space with the print space—the book, the pamphlet, the editions in a box.
> The idea behind generating this movement to and from the website was to explore how online and offline exhibitions, modes of production and engagement could work with each other, ‘complement’ one another. I wrote at length about this in my PhD (2015). When online, two of my most recurring questions when discussing with the artists were, “How would you translate this idea to a web page? How do you see the audience engaging with your work, using a click or a mouse?”, and to Sara Nunes Fernandes—the web programmer—was, “How do you think we can practically do this?”. When offline, the main recurring questions were, “How do we refer back to the web-based work meaningfully?”, “How can we create a relationship between different sites?” We often used text—as in captions and descriptions—as well as visuals that would refer back to specific points in the website, to create a link to what I considered the ‘original’ source of the work.
> In a nutshell, over the course of its ‘life’, or-bits.com became a space for exploring such transitions and the changes they may bring about, practically and conceptually. This space, I feel, was not only for me—as its curator—but also for the participating artists, the contributing writers, the programmer, the other various collaborators, from designers, to guest-curators and hosting organisations. I feel that rather than collaborating with artists working with an “unsitely aesthetic”—as Alejandro says—, or-bits.com encouraged the participants to work “unsitely”.
> 
> I have to say that the question of audience engagement remained somewhat unresolved with orbits.com. The website had many visitors and received much interest, the Offline events brought us in touch, IRL, to some of our audience and also created new audience. However, after 5 years of activity, I felt that or-bits.com was not proposing a new way of engaging with art in a way that was more ‘meaningful” and satisfying to me. Perhaps, it is interesting to note that although some of the shows of or-bits.com were reviewed in magazines and online edited blogs, much of the writing failed to address and the artworks and artist’s practices, and only focused on the act of browsing an exhibition online, and the differences between doing that and viewing a show in a gallery space.
> 
> A more recent project, #exstrange (2017), http://exstrange.com, which I co-curated with designer and researcher Rebekah Modrak and ended two weeks ago, offered me a new opportunity to “engage with the creation of a new web platform” (Alejandro). #exstrange gave me the chance to think differently about curating and building platforms—in actual fact, Rebekah and I did not build a platform, but we appropriated an existing one—, as well as to explore audience engagement by exploiting the ‘trust’ that users put into a platform—or, as Alejandro says, in “the self-ethos a platform has in its own right.”
> #exstrange was an online curatorial project in which artworks were created, displayed and sold, auction-style, on eBay. From January 15th to April 7th , we presented one artwork-as-auction per day to interrogate the functioning of this e-commerce platform and the role of digital culture in everyday life. The show was live, and it included over 80 participants and guest-curators based in different parts of the world—from America to Europe, to Middle East, Asia and Australia. Our main interest was to work with the site-specificity dictated by the interface of the service we worked with, eBay, and to explore the types of encounters that could happen on an online market place between different communities of interest.
> The main display site was eBay, where the artworks were scattered around the different categories of the e-commerce site; thus catering for various audiences, such as people looking for something to buy in the category Collectibles or Business & Industry, as well as people who followed us from within the art world. Our website functioned as an aggregator of the artworks-as-auctions, showcasing the live auctions on the main page—you can find all of them in the Auction Archive of the website, http://exstrange.com/auction-archive/—and it will be soon followed by a map showing all of the exchanges geographically. Social media became crucial to communicate with our audience and redirect them to the auctions on eBay. They also became an interesting linguistic curatorial tool, in that we started to incorporate the jargon of e-commerce in all our communication, as an indirect response, I assume, to the fact that we were adopting eBay as an exhibition site.
> 
> The story of #exstrange is a long one, and this email is already too long! I will add more another time. What I would like to conclude with is that #exstrange allowed us to: (1) curate while being curated by the eBay interface; (2) adopt a system of circulation that because of its inherent caracteristics (the categories, the question and answer section, etc) and function, facilitated different, and often more personal, relationships between the artists and the audience; (3) set up a model of intervention into an existing online site and service, which has its own ‘narrative’ and rhetoric, that anyone—artists, curators, etc.—could take up as they wish. As Greg Allen, http://greg.org/archive/2017/03/19/exstrange_curated_ebay-as-art-platform.html,  said in an online review of the project, "this is an #exstrange if I say so."
> 
> Looking forward to reading the other responses,
> Marialaura.
> 
> 
> On 23 Apr 2017, at 18:09, Alejandro Ball (PG Research) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Everyone,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> First off like to thank everyone that has contributed so far – you guys have put a lot on the plate to think about
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> At the moment, I’m picking out two different (though very interconnected at the same time) trains of thought: the politics of the platform, and the politics of building a platform. I can understand if people think this is potentially the same thing, but personally I feel that when thinking about building, this is (and maybe this is my naivety) something innocent maybe free of politics with a capital “P” as Marc and Diogo referenced in their posts. Yet still haves its politics within it, as seen from Max, Nimrod and Stanza’s posts where we hear about the facilitation and mitigation in the making process. On the politics of the platform, I feel this is potentially once a platform is established and has gained a recognition from audiences, regardless if the creator doesn’t feel the platform is. Because in a way I believe the audience gives a platform is political currency, but at the same time through this social investment, the organisers or creator(s) of the platform lose the totalising control they might have had in the building of the platform.
>> 
>> If we look at it like this, during building we do have to take into account who to have a cross connection with, what limitation might be incurred for using this tech over another, etc., however the degree of control is greater than let say creating an exhibitions programme and presenting it to an audience. You can be that person that makes brilliant content – but you still don’t get an audience – thus a greater level of compromises is incurred as the platform must abide by its own self-made ethos, which is what the audience invested in (and have their own interpretational take on it as well).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I like to now bring up a few key points that I thought were particularly interesting. The first is from Max:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> My final remark is on artists as platform builders rather than content creators. It seems young artists are increasingly aware and interested in the free user private platform model. This is not just becoming subjects of exploration but also that power relation is also becoming a transferred as a model of production. I don't know if this is historically the case but it feels more and more individual practitioners become their own institutions or studios or run their own schools and reflect platforms in their hybrid/expanded practices. This integration of web platform ecology into personal practices perhaps presents some challenges for curators and for artists. In a sparsely funded sector artists seem to be imitating platform economics in the hope of eventually flipping their followers into financial capital. Just as a platform such as Google will provide services for free because the value created by amassing users to train algorithms is far greater than the net costs of providing the service for free, in what way are artists imitating the same economic models?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> And the other Stanza:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> A platform for tomorrow's audience could be made in a similar way, whose aim would be  to operate on a variety of levels. However it will always be contained inside other systems. The system of gallery or controlling force has always indirectly tried to direct this and recent forays by the mainstream to art historicize these early years feel both relevant and insubstantial in equal measure. In so much as this discussion is working inside a similar institutional parameter.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I feel they both touch up on this idea, reflecting Max’s words, of Artist and platform builder then content creator. I think this is a really interesting point, because when talking about curating – there is a level of emulation from the curator in this process, yet in terms of content, the artist is the provider or maybe a collaborator.  It be interesting to think of this in conjunction with a curator that identifies as a platform builder as well, because then the two points I picked up on would maybe become intertwined to happen simultaneously, i.e artist doing a project on a establish curatorial platform, or vice versa.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I’ll leave it at that for now
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hope to hear more from everyone soon
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Best
>> 
>> Alejandro
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> From: Curating digital art - www.crumbweb.org <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of marc garrett <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: 21 April 2017 14:27:43
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] CRUMB discussion – April - on Internet art and platform building
>> 
>> *Hi all,Thank you Alejandro for inviting me to take part in the discussion
>> on this list.On the subject of ‘curating as platform building’, like Steve
>> Dietz I identify myself as a ‘serial platform builder’. The 2013 paper
>> ‘PLATFORM POLITICS’, on Culture Machine, edited by Joss Hands, Greg Elmer
>> and Ganaele Langlois - http://bit.ly/2oUYoff <http://bit.ly/2oUYoff> still
>> chimes best with my own understanding of what platforming is. They say
>> "Platforms can be characterized as resting on already existing networked
>> communication systems, but also as developing discrete spaces and
>> affordances..." They also say, "the nature and distinctive aspects" of the
>> platform, "is more than just a neutral space of communication" and is a
>> "complex technology with distinct affordances that have powerful political,
>> economic and social interests at stake. In this respect the platform is
>> regarded as a zone of contestation between different configurations of
>> capital, social movements, new kinds of activist networks, and open source
>> and proprietary software design. Platforms also constitute spaces of
>> struggle between mass movements and governments, users and the extractors
>> of value, visibility and invisibility." And, “The platform, then, does not
>> just represent a question of software and control. It also connects to
>> wider social struggles: a ‘political platform’ can frame political
>> discourse more generally.” Whatever political orientation, platforming is a
>> political action, and it is not a neutral thing. So this needs to be taken
>> into consideration when thinking about curating as platforming. Some may
>> disagree here, but most common current approaches to curation as
>> platforming is to repeatedly present historical art canons to the world in
>> ways that support and reinforce those ideas and artists that have already
>> been valorised by the establishment. This unfortunately by default becomes
>> more about building on top of established hierarchies.Actually, I think one
>> of the best platformed exhibitions by an institution in recent times, was
>> at the V&A, which was the brilliantly conceived exhibition ‘Disobedient
>> Objects’, it was about art and design produced by grassroots social
>> movements, much of the work was “loaned from activist groups from all over
>> the world, bringing together for the first time many objects rarely before
>> seen in a museum.” http://bit.ly/2oTN6Wt <http://bit.ly/2oTN6Wt> The
>> ingenuity of the framing for the  exhibition and catalogue was audacious,
>> especially if we consider how backward and conservative the UK is at the
>> moment has been since the 2007-8 crash. The curation to into account the
>> histories of both individual activists and the groups, communities and
>> contexts in which they worked. Different histories, and voices were
>> respectfully built into the framework of the project. In this way it it
>> avoided a colonisation effect  but instead retained its revolutionary
>> spirit. The content and context was allowed to breath on its own terms. To
>> pull it off in a big institution such as the V&A, I think was visionary.
>> Also, I think Occupy as a movement was brilliantly platformed and well
>> curated. Activists collectively built contexts that included modes of:
>> production, curation, activism, generosity, and grounded, grassroot values,
>> in-tune with collaboration, technical tools, with sharp institutional
>> critique, all as a contemporary form of innovative and political, avant
>> garde. They possess the necessary ingredients in which to build platforms
>> of cultural value, based on emancipation, and on infrastructural and
>> context hacking. Occupy has demonstrated how people collectively, and
>> directly challenge the conditions and structures affecting their social
>> contexts. What connects the Occupy movement with the intentions and spirit
>> of Furtherfield, is their shared interest with scholars in the humanities
>> and social sciences, entwined with values that include an unswerving
>> dedication towards DIY, and grassroots culture, alongside a critique
>> against establishments dominating our cultural narratives. Like
>> Furtherfield, Occupy explores its critical values, ideas and actions, with
>> others independently of their institutional status.This breaks down class
>> divide and other separatist functions. Like Occupy Furtherfield also
>> generates and constructs “experimental spaces through the combination of
>> material practices and symbolic forms with egalitarian rules of
>> communication and the barter of commodities as well as the production of
>> representations.” (Abend and Annika 2015) http://bit.ly/2pGXgMT
>> <http://bit.ly/2pGXgMT> A project worth highlighting which has been growing
>> the last few years, which asks similar questions, is Cornelia Sollfrank’s
>> ‘Giving What you Don’t Have’ (GWYDH). The research project is a series of
>> video interviews that has invited: artists, techies, hacktivists, curators
>> and academics, to talk about their own experiences, inspirations and
>> intentions; on the subject of new forms of collaborative production, where
>> it involves a “shift from artefacts to the provision of open tools and
>> infrastructures, the development of formats for self-organisation in
>> education and knowledge transfer, (the potential and the limits of) open
>> content licensing as well as the creation of independent ways of
>> distributing cultural goods. An implicit part of Giving What You Don't Have
>> is a suggested reconceptualization of art under networked conditions.”
>> Giving What You Don’t Have. Cornelia Sollfrank, Joss Hands & Rachel Baker.
>> Furtherfield Oct 2013. - http://bit.ly/2os4Eat
>> <http://bit.ly/2os4Eat>Having a say on the concepts, motives, making and
>> production of the tools we use is a way of having control over our own
>> societal relations, and the knowledge obtained through this helps us to
>> build and reflect on real life conditions, and circumstances. With this in
>> mind, through the years we haves co-built with our ever changing community,
>> different tools and online platforms. All of them feature their own
>> specific, and artistically led and community orientated needs. Discourse
>> about art, technology, and society, has always been facilitated in the
>> midst of an active, local and international, neighbourhood of artists and
>> thinkers, through accessible, Internet based networking systems and
>> platforms. In return, this has helped to build and support a well
>> connected, network of creative types, who wish to extend their ideas
>> further than within officially condoned established zones. This does not
>> mean that all the individuals and groups involved are all separate from
>> more established institutions. But, it does mean there is room for those
>> who are not part of an institution, or particular field of practice. Thus,
>> this feeds a practical, spirited need, for a socially grounded place, a
>> mixed community and or group, to work with, for sharing production and
>> exploration where engaging ideas can emerge through the experience of:
>> critique, collaboration, code, software, networks, activism, ARTware,
>> curating, art production and art making.Whether it’s web platforms,
>> exhibition spaces, or any other environment, we all bring along our own
>> (and or collective) ambitions and identities into the mix. Our ongoing
>> dedication to building independent and DIY, art platforms, shows how the
>> spirit and ideas of punk has played a key role in influencing and shaping
>> Furtherfield’s identity; through its earlier phases and up till now. This
>> can be seen going back to early days of pirate radio broadcasting from
>> numerous lofts in Bristol, co-running BBS systems, making street art, net
>> art, other projects in the streets, running a warehouse space as a lab and
>> art gallery, various online platforms, to its current incarnations of two
>> spaces in the park, of Finsbury park, London. These all were and are,
>> grassroot and DIY based platforms, and currently we are directly engaged in
>> platforming the park, and we are becoming more inclusive than ever before,
>> whilst asking necessary and important questions about the world we all live
>> in.*
>> 
>> 
>> *Wishing you well.*
>> Marc
>> 
>> 
>> On 5 April 2017 at 16:23, Alejandro Ball (PG Research) <
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear List,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This month’s CRUMB discussion will explore the topic of ‘curating as
>>> platform building’ for the display of Internet art, reminiscent of how
>>> curator Steve Dietz has always described himself as a ‘serial platform
>>> builder’.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> In the past, both gallery exhibitions, such as Electronic Superhighway
>>> (Whitechapel 2016), and distributed or non-localised online projects, such
>>> as Tate’s net art commissions, have exhibited the friction that exists
>>> between the spatial dimensions of online and offline presence. Writers such
>>> as Geert Lovink and Jonathan Crary point to how this friction is also felt
>>> in the consumption of social media.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Through my work with PIL Project<http://pilproject.net/> platform and
>>> other online curatorial projects, I am now actively engaging with the
>>> creation of a new web platform for the display of Internet art, and
>>> co-curating exhibitions to gather data on how to exhibit artists whose
>>> practice encompasses an “unsitely aesthetic”, termed by Maria Miranda:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> "Instead of focusing on remix as the key to network culture […] I have
>>> suggested another aesthetics, unsitely, which though by no means a dominant
>>> aesthetics, is nonetheless fostered by the conditions of network culture.
>>> […] one of the conditions that [Kazya] Varnelis describes as significant
>>> for network culture is the lack of a dominant physical site, that is, the
>>> lack of a fixed desktop computer with its graphical user interface
>>> (monitor) – and its specific and fixed relation between screen and user –
>>> to the currently popular wireless smart devices. It is this lack of a
>>> single, fixed physical site that contrasts the two distinct eras for
>>> artists – digital and networked – and that highlights the idea of
>>> unsitely."(Miranda, 2013: 60)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I am also researching current spatial perceptions in exhibition making
>>> through the engagement of a multi-sited exhibition, or a distributive
>>> exhibition model (Cook, 2008; Ghidini, 2015).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Through this discussion, we hope to explore the changing nature of both
>>> the exhibition and spatial perception more generally under the theory of
>>> the ‘semantic web’ (Berners-Lee, Hendler, Lassila, 2001; Berners-Lee,
>>> 2009). How can curators engage in the production of new web-platforms for
>>> the exhibition of Internet art that are more versatile to artists working
>>> with an “unsitely aesthetic”?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Other key questions this discussion aims to address
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> What are the essential qualities an Internet platform needs to
>>> successfully display a multi-sited artistic practice?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> When engaging with social media platforms, or any other platforms (both on
>>> and off line), how do we maximise these components integration into the
>>> wider exhibition project?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> How can we make a non-localised event ‘feel’ more intimate for audiences,
>>> as if it were ‘In Real Life’ (IRL)?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> How can online/internet-based projects contribute to the change in spatial
>>> perception?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Following the format of other successful discussions on CRUMB we hope to
>>> collaboratively explore these questions and invite you to join us in this
>>> discussion by posting your thoughts, personal experiences or references.
>>> Your participation is greatly appreciated.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> invited respondents:
>>> 
>>> I am proud to introduce you to our invited respondents and I would like to
>>> thank them, as they already help to ensure that this discussion represents
>>> a rich range of voices from the field.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Inês Costa is the Exhibitions Assistant at the Whitechapel Gallery, and an
>>> independent curator and photographer. Recent projects include PROTECHT
>>> (2015) and IT IS PROBABLY BETTER TO START FROM ZERO (2016). She is
>>> currently collaborating with Alejandro Ball as part of the agorama.org.uk<
>>> https://agorama.org.uk/> project.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Diogo Cruz is an artist based in Munich and Lisbon. His work materializes
>>> analogies that interrelate disciplines, with a quite rigorous and
>>> elaborated process, creating symmetric and ironic objects.
>>> 
>>> diogocruz.net<http://www.diogocruz.net/>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Joseph Delappe is the Professor of Games and Tactical Media at Abertay
>>> University in Dundee, Scotland. A native San Franciscan, he has been
>>> working with electronic and new media since 1983, his work in online gaming
>>> performance, sculpture and electromechanical installation have been shown
>>> throughout the United States and abroad.
>>> 
>>> delappe.net<http://www.delappe.net/>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Steve Dietz is a serial platform creator. He is the Founder and Artistic
>>> Director of Northern Lights.mn, and the former Curator of New Media at the
>>> Walker Art Center in Minneapolis (Minnesota).
>>> 
>>> northern.lights.mn<http://northern.lights.mn/>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Max Dovey, Live artist working in technology, politics and governance.
>>> Writer & researcher at Institute of Network Cultures.
>>> 
>>> maxdovey.com<http://www.maxdovey.com/>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Rebecca Edwards is Curator of arebyte Gallery (London) and arebyteLASER
>>> (London), a project space located in arebyte's studio complex in
>>> Clerkenwell. She is currently running the Hotel Generation programme at
>>> arebyteLASER, a series of fast-paced exhibitions by young artists from
>>> different cities.
>>> 
>>> arebyte.com<http://www.arebyte.com/home/4578362226>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Steve Fletcher is the director and co-founder of Carroll/Fletcher Gallery
>>> (London), his work includes Carroll/Fletcher’s online platform Onscreen,
>>> which focuses on an online cinema showing a dynamic curated programme of
>>> artists’ and experimental film.
>>> 
>>> carrollfletcheronscreen.com<http://carrollfletcheronscreen.com/>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Marc Garrett is Co-Founder & Co-Director of Furtherfield. As well he is an
>>> artist, curator, writer, activist, educator and musician. Marc is currently
>>> studying his PhD at Birkbeck University on the theme of Art, Technology and
>>> Social Change.
>>> 
>>> Furtherfield.org<http://furtherfield.org/>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Marialaura Ghidini is a contemporary art curator and researcher. She was
>>> founder director of the web-based curatorial platform or-bits.com<
>>> http://or-bits.com/> (2009-2015). Currently she is faculty and course
>>> leader for the Bachelor in Creative Arts in Experimental Media Arts at the
>>> Srishti Institute of Art, Design and Technology in Bangalore (India).
>>> 
>>> exstrange.com<http://exstrange.com/>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Georgia Spickett-Jones is a London-based interdisciplinary artist and
>>> researcher with a preference for politics and Poland.  A current
>>> collaborator of Alejandro Ball’s project agorama.org.uk<http://agorama.
>>> org.uk/>.
>>> 
>>> georgiaspickettjones.eu<http://georgiaspickettjones.eu/>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Nimrod Vardi is Director and Curator of arebyte Gallery (London), a New
>>> Media and Performance Art space in Hackney Wick. He has been working
>>> locally and internationally on a range of projects and events. He is a
>>> Sundance New Frontier Alumni and a BecomeBecome Fellow.
>>> 
>>> arebyte.com<http://www.arebyte.com/home/4578362226>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Stanza is an artist whose mediums include netart, paintings, videos,
>>> installations, software systems and public artworks. Stanza’s has an
>>> expansive body of work that includes the platform soundtoys.net<http://
>>> soundtoys.net/> and the Net Art Museum.
>>> 
>>> stanza.co.uk<http://www.stanza.co.uk/index.php>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> References:
>>> 
>>> Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., and Lassila, O. (2001) “The Semantic Web.”
>>> Inria.fr [Online] available from: https://www-sop.inria.fr/
>>> acacia/cours/essi2006/Scientific%20American_%20Feature%20Article_%20The%
>>> 20Semantic%20Web_%20May%202001.pdf [last accessed: 05/10/16].
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Berners-Lee, T. (2009) Tim Berners-Lee: The next web. [Online video].
>>> February 2009. Available from: https://www.ted.com/talks/tim_
>>> berners_lee_on_the_next_web?language=en#t-960021 [last accessed:
>>> 05/10/16].
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Cook, S. and Graham, B. (2010) Rethinking Curating: Art after New Media.
>>> London: MIT Press.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ghidini, M. (2015) Curating Web-based Art Exhibitions: Mapping Their
>>> Migration and Integration with Offline Formats of Production. PhD.
>>> University of Sunderland.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Miranda, M. (2013) Unsitely Aesthetics. Berlin: Errant Bodies Press.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>> Alejandro D. Ball
>>> 
>>> 
>>> DJCAD PhD Student
>>> 
>>> Visual Research Centre (VRC)
>>> 
>>> Dundee Contemporary Arts,
>>> 
>>> 152 Nethergate,
>>> 
>>> Dundee DD1 4DY
>>> 
>>> Tel: 07522849666
>>> 
>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>> 
>>> 
>>> http://www.amacollective.org
>>> 
>>> http://curatingthecontemporary.org
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Marc Garrett
>> 
>> Co-Founder, Co-Director and main editor of Furtherfield.
>> Art, technology and social change, since 1996
>> http://www.furtherfield.org
>> 
>> Furtherfield Gallery & Commons in the park
>> Finsbury Park, London N4 2NQ
>> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery
>> Currently writing a PhD at Birkbeck University, London
>> https://birkbeck.academia.edu/MarcGarrett
>> 
>> Curating, Touring Exhibition
>> Monsters of the Machine:Frankenstein in the 21st Century
>> At Laboral, Spain until Sept 2017 http://bit.ly/2eGdpw1
>> Visiting other countries soon...
>> 
>> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096
> 
> ---------------------
> Marialaura Ghidini | Faculty | Center for Experimental Media and Art
> Srishti Institute of Art, Design & Technology
> P.O Box 6430, Yelahanka New Town - Bangalore
> T: +91 80 49000807 | www.srishti.ac.in
> 
> This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have erroneously received this message, please delete it immediately and notify the sender. Thank you.

---------------------
Marialaura Ghidini | Faculty | Center for Experimental Media and Art
Srishti Institute of Art, Design & Technology
P.O Box 6430, Yelahanka New Town - Bangalore
T: +91 80 49000807 | www.srishti.ac.in <http://www.srishti.ac.in/>

This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have erroneously received this message, please delete it immediately and notify the sender. Thank you.