Dear list
further to last week's post of the interview with Larry Rinder of the
Whitney, here is the transcript of a conversation I had the following
day with Christiane Paul...
yet again, this will be posted as a pdf to the crumb site when we update
it.

Feedback welcome, as are suggestions on updates for the crumb site's
content.
thanks,
Sarah

www.newmedia.sunderland.ac.uk/crumb

)))))))))))))

Interview with Christiane Paul, Adjunct Curator of  New Media Arts at
the Whitney Museum of American Art, New York. This discussion took place
on March 28, 2001 on the occasion of her exhibition Data Dynamics at the
Whitney Museum.
Sarah Cook


SC: How did you become involved in media art and in new media curating?

CP: My original background is in American literature. I did a lot of
work on poststructuralism, and when hypertext began to catch on in the
late 80s, early 90s, it seemed to literalise many of the theories of
poststructuralism, so I started working with hypertext software,
Storyspace in particular. I published a hypertext on T.S. Eliot's
Wasteland -- a guide to the poem. Hypertext was my entry point into new
media and when the Internet came about, I was already deeply immersed in
the background theory of this practice. I founded a magazine on new
media arts called Intelligent Agent in 1995 and have been chronicling
this type of art for a number of years.

SC: And your beginnings as a curator? Was it a turn from an interest in
hyperspace on the academic side and from publishing to organising
exhibitions in hyperspace?

CP: I don't think it is such a big step. Putting together an issue of a
magazine -- in terms of selecting the art and contextualising it -- is
very much like curating a show or creating a website. Just the physical
component of the installation is missing. I never felt it was a big step
and I had been consulting people for quite some time - mostly curators
at institutions who wanted to get into this field but didn't have any
idea of where to start.

SC: Can you tell me more about that, how you became involved as a
consultant and what kinds of questions were asked of you?

CP: People often contacted me and wanted me to tell them which net
artists were working in which area, for example performance, narrative
or activism. Or they already had a theme for an exhibition and wanted to
know if there was any net art that would fit in or touch upon the same
issue. I've been doing that for quite some time.

SC: Both in Europe and in the States?

CP: In the States only.

SC: How do you feel about how net art has found its way into the
institution? Has it been primarily artist-driven or has it been curators
going out and searching it out?

CP: That is very hard for me to say and I would tend to say that it is
more artist-driven. First of all, I think there is less of a problem
with the whole idea of the so-called "institutionalisation" of the art
when it comes to this medium -- net art seems to resist it. In the first
place, museums have to accomodate the art form and this process will
bring about interesting changes for them. And I think that net art is
still underrepresented in the museum world rather than having been
institutionalised. There are still only a few museums that are really
committed to this art -- commissioning it, exhibiting it -- and of
course net art has existed for quite some time. There is an online art
world with critics and curators, and there have been quite a few shows
online. I believe that although many artists create the art to
circumvent the traditional museum system, it also has a place in the
museum. Net art is ubiquitous, it has been created to be seen by
anybody, anywhere in the world at any time, and I would like to see it
in multiple contexts, the museum being one of them. It would be equally
strange if it would be left out of the museum when you can access it in
a shopping mall or in a cyber cafe.

SC: But there is an issue about the context of the museum and the
interface if you will, or modes of presentation. There are museums that
have left it out of their galleries but had works on their websites, and
museums that have put what is on the web into their galleries.

CP: All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the museum, I think,
but has a lot to do with physical space and the challenges of presenting
this type of art in physical space. I believe there is no one rule or
model of doing it. I would always decide on a case by case basis. There
are works where I would say, leave them alone, put up a kiosk or a
computer with a monitor and let people interact with them one on one. I
don't believe that projection is necessarily the best solution because
it can end up creating an experience similar to watching TV -- one
person having the remote control and 50 people watching in the
background -- that could really hurt the piece. All of the net art
pieces in Data Dynamics are shown as projection-installations but mainly
because all of them make sense in physical space or already have that
component. Disseminet, for example, has had it from the beginning -- as
a networked piece with telematic instruments as an interface. Netomat is
a piece that really rewrites browser conventions, and it begs to get out
of the browser window.

SC: That work in particular has gone through a number of mutations. When
it was first shown at Postmasters Gallery it was as software...

CP: Yes. There is a very, very powerful engine behind it, and you can do
anything ranging from creating animated webs -- such as the Data
Dynamics website, which was created in Netomat -- to using it as a type
of search engine you dialogue with, in this case from two stations. The
way it is shown in San Francisco, as part of Telematic Connections, you
interact with it by phone. Netomat has all of these capabilities and
they manifest themselves in the way you show it. But in general, I think
it tries to present the web as an infinite data scape, data space.
Seeing Netomat in a browser window on your computer isn't necessarily
the best way of experiencing it.

SC: To get back to the question of the museum's role in exhibiting this
work, I think you're right that a lot of it has been artist-driven and
few museums are committed to showing it. The Whitney has been an
interesting casestudy because of the Biennial last year and now this
conglomeration of events happening with BitStreams and Data Dynamics and
the sound portion of the exhibition. Can you say a little bit about how
the three different elements came together? When I spoke with Larry
Rinder yesterday he mentioned having invited Deborah Singer to curate
the sound part but Data Dynamics really being a separate show.

CP: It was conceived as a separate show and was originally supposed to
open in the fall of last year. But due to space issues that never
happened, and then we also thought it would be very interesting and good
if the shows would connect, because BitStreams takes a much much broader
look at art in the digital age. It is not necessarily about using
digital technology as a medium but also about using it as a tool. So
ideally the shows should complement each other. And of course, if you
look at art in the digital age or the influence digital technologies
have had on art, you have to consider sound and what is going on in that
field.

SC: Do you worry that the two shows are confused as one and that
therefore the question of context is weakened?

CP: I know they are constantly being confused, but at least there are
brochures, there is information material available. Hopefully, people
will read the wall text and realise that Data Dynamics just focuses on a
very specific aspect of or narrative within net art, as opposed to
taking a general look at the medium.

SC: So you had a longer time line in putting together the show;
BitStreams happened in about 6 months...

CP: Yes.

SC: You were speaking earlier as we were getting our coffee about the
things technically within the institution which you didn't find out
until you'd already got rolling with the exhibition, for instance, the
decision to use wireless and the wires having been in temporary walls
which had been removed. How did you negotiate the space itself?

CP: Well, at this point in time it is still problematic to install these
shows in physical space because most museums aren't necessarily prepared
for it. I think one of the few museums which is very well equipped is
Kiasma in Finland -- they have everything in place. But of course it is
an issue for every museum. You need the connections. Most importantly,
you need personnel. In the beginning, the IT staff had to take care of
the installations if there was something wrong, and we later on hired
someone for tech support. There should be staff who can watch these
works on a continuous basis. Of course it really hurts the pieces if
they are down and things don't run smoothly, but I'm sure it will take
some time before you have the departments and technology in place. I
also feel it is not worth waiting for years until you can finally say,
"Okay, now we can start showing the art!"

SC: So your show has pushed boundaries within the institution itself
towards thinking about what it would be to have one of these pieces
permanently installed?

CP: Well I hope so. I hope people are thinking about it. And I think
yes, every show of this kind pushes boundaries and makes it clearer what
is required.

SC: In light of these problems over getting the equipment and
maintaining it, can you say something about the sponsorship of Data
Dynamics?

CP: The wireless connections were donated by Cableworx, and Data
Dynamics in general was sponsored by France Telecom -- they're very
interested in this type of technology, and are pretty artist-focused in
terms of their own R&D. They met all the artists and were discussing
collaborations. It was ideal. The show also received funding from the
Rockefeller Foundation.

SC: Do you see this happening on a global scale, that companies are
getting involved in this way? Or is it particularly American?

CP: I would hope that this scenario turns into a kind of sponsorship
that gets more interesting, on all levels. In the past, sponsorship was
mostly about PR, it didn't necessarily mean that art or the company had
anything to offer to each other, but I think that has radically changed.
There are many companies that have terrific technology in their R&D
labs; there are many artists that would be interested in using that
technology for their concepts and ideas. Ideally I would like to see
more of an exchange or collaboration there. And I don't think that it
should be a case of getting artists to beta-test technology. That isn't
a good idea and something I am not interested in.

SC: I've been asking curators how they document these shows because I
know having worked at museums that there are traditional ways of doing
exhibition documentation -- you hire a photographer who shoots some
slides, and then they go into a box in the archive. With new media shows
each one sets a precedent for presentation of this work, for interaction
in a particular space. How have you approached that?

CP: Well it is of course much more difficult to document it. But I
believe there have been lots of precedents -- film projections,
performances -- they present at least similar challenges. And of course,
all the works will continue to exist in their web version and have
existed like that for a couple of years, at least some of them. Then you
have all the traditional means of video documentation and photography,
and I also very much believe in keeping a record of the process. Marek
Walczak, who co-created The Apartment, is an architect and he did
numerous sketches of various ways of installing the work in the gallery.
And I have my own maps of the gallery in different versions, both the
way we originally mapped out the installations and what they evolved
into; because it is a process and things constantly change. And all
these things, from ephemera to photos to all the exchanges with the
artists in terms of negotiating how to put the elements in place are
worth keeping and documenting.

SC: I wanted to ask you about Artport on the Whitney's website. How long
has that been up and how it has been received and what was the impetus
for creating it?

CP: It has been up just for a month and it is for now only a modest
backbone. We created it because we felt that there should be a website
dedicated to net art and digital art, in particular, as there is no
section on the Whitney site that documents this type of art. And then we
also needed a space to archive information about Data Dynamics. So right
now Artport is just a very modest site with a resource section and
archive. Artists are creating splash pages on a monthly basis with
embedded links to their current and previous work, so that is one way of
documenting their projects. And the next step will be to develop it more
into a real communication platform. Martin Wattenberg who created The
Apartment is doing the first commissioned work for the site, a map and
"Idealine" of net art, and I am also talking to other artists about
turning Artport into a real portal with a bulletin board and places for
exchange. Ideally the functionality should be handled automatically by
the interface, giving people the opportunity to search for information
under various criteria from various perspectives and discuss the art.

SC: What is interesting is that you've archived on Artport previous net
art exhibitions, previous collections and I wonder how that falls within
the remit of the Whitney to be the museum of American Art and the
international nature of net art.

CP: That was one of the first discussions I had with Max Anderson, the
Whitney's director --how do we combine the Whitney's focus on American
art with the global aspects of net art. The Whitney's definition of
American artists is "artists living and working in the US." If you look
at the last Whitney Biennial, there were a lot of artists from all over
the world included but all of them are living and working in the US. I
posed the question, "what if an artist has a server in the US, doesn't
that mean they are working in the US because their work resides here?"
It made sense to Max but other curators tend to disagree. I think
everyone working on the web is really creating for a global audience.
There are projects out there that are "national" in their focus, but in
terms of content, not distribution. When you are creating this type of
work, you know that once you upload it, it will be available to the rest
of the world. And if you are dealing with conditions in one particular
country or society, you know that the statement you are making is going
to be presented in a global context. That's why we have the term
"netizens" -- people on the net subscribe to its superstructure and
don't necessarily define themselves in terms of nationalities as such.

SC: Yes, the marriage of irational.org and the Bureau of Inverse
Technology demonstrates what you have to do in order to live and work in
one country even though it may be irrelevant in your practice. I'm
curious also about the fact that Artport archives other exhibitions that
are available on other museum websites.

CP: They aren't archived on the Whitney's end, Artport just provides a
link to them.

SC: I think this is something which might become increasingly confusing
in regards to traditional museums and their authorship over past
exhibitions. One remembers that a particular exhibition was at a
particular museum, especially in the case of groundbreaking shows. For
instance, Thelma Golden's Black Male show was here at the Whitney. With
the web those boundaries are becoming blurred as well because museums
aren't as able to take authorship of these online exhibitions.

CP: True.

SC: Do you feel pressures as a curator within an institution of
authorship in that sense?

CP: Not really, I must admit. I don't know if I am just ignoring them
but I don't think so . In terms of Artport's mission, what the site is
meant to be -- and what users really need -- is a portal to art on the
net since we are dealing with a medium that essentially is a
communication network allowing for hyperlinked context. I wouldn't go to
other institutions' websites if they only archived their own shows, I
would rather go to Rhizome where I have a real portal to everything that
is going on, including exhibitions at all the museums. That structure is
much more helpful when it comes to providing a resource. People will
still realise that they are travelling to different institutions by
following a link. The sites are opening in a different window, they have
a different url, so I think only a few people would be confused about
where the exhibition actually took place. When it comes to online
exhibitions only it doesn't even matter that much anymore, they didn't
have a physical component in the first place.

SC: I think it is curious because it is something that museums have
traditionally clung to and people have understood museums as purveyors
of a certain type of direction and they have gained their reputations on
this. I'm looking to see how this might challenge museums to open
themselves up to a kind of sharing which they haven't before.

CP: The Whitney is very open to this form of collaboration and sharing.
So it has been no problem and it has been encouraged.

SC: I have a standard list of questions I ask curators about their
working methods. Where do you go to see work, do you subscribe to lists,
what do you read? I ask these basic questions about production in part
because there are so many curators in small regional galleries who have
been advised by a director that they need to get into new media, perhaps
in thinking that by doing a new media show they'll get sponsorship for
their gallery. There are curators stepping out for the first time, and
as you've said you've been a consultant in this field. Are there sites
you go to all the time or particular festivals?

CP: First of all I've been involved in this field for almost a decade
and through the new media magazine I published I established a really
broad network of contacts worldwide. I know many of the artists out
there and they are constantly contacting me and sending me updates about
their work and information about projects they are involved in. When it
comes to net art exhibitions, they are always accessible online, even if
they have a physical component. I am subscribed to many lists -- such as
Rhizome, Nettime, Faces -- although it is hard to keep track of
everything and read all of them. But this is my standard reading. I also
find festivals very interesting, but I seldom encounter work there that
I haven't heard about before. Festivals are most helpful in terms of
networking -- meeting the people I've known only virtually is always
interesting. There are of course more festivals in Europe, from Ars
Electronic and DEAF to EMAF, Transmediale and VIPER.

SC: A last question is what you see as the future of new media curating.
In your opinion, are there differences in approaches to the media from
those trained in a curatorial/museum studies field rather than those
coming from an art practice background? Are there differences in
curating between those working independently and those working in
institutions?

CP: Perhaps this will change in the future but right now these
categories don't really seem to apply. People who are working with new
media come from very different backgrounds because way back when we
studied and went to school, this type of art didn't exist. It was called
multimedia and it was still something very different. There were no
programmes, you couldn't get an MA or PhD in new media arts or
curatorial studies, which is possible now. I find it very interesting
that people who come from very different backgrounds have established
one worldwide community. Some of the people I have known for a long time
or I have been working with here in New York are now at museums,
Benjamin Weil for example who founded ada’web and is now at SFMOMA. Six
years ago, a handful of New York new media organizations founded the
Foundation for Digital Culture. Intelligent Agent was part of that
group, which included Rhizome, The Thing, Fakeshop (at that point, they
were still called Floating Point Unit), and many artists. I still feel
very much embedded in that community, this is where I am coming from. I
am not approaching this field from the outside, through a museum,
without any previous contact with the art or the community. But I don't
know if that will necessarily be the case when it comes to the future of
new media curating.