Hi Simon, Charlie & all,

Unfortunately, I was not present at Moot, but I do appreciate Charlie's 
(possibly more general) concerns regarding an all familiar scenario of 
conferences replaying the concept of technological determined ideoligies 
through technology as a means to an end. In fact, I've just written 
about this in a paper submitted last week to Leonardo, in it I begin to 
question the notion of 'New', in 'New Media art' - "There is a demand 
for artists to introduce themselves as 'New', and 'exciting', as 
technicians feeding the creative economy, as in what Haiven terms as 
'creative capitalism'. In part, it creates extra confusion for media art 
culture, which has helped in the establishing a schizm, the term 'New 
Media Art'.

And yes, technology combines all of these different digital art 
processes and its ever widening, interrelated disciplines. Yet, when 
using a simple word such as ‘New’, it proposes as part of its meaning 
that it’s all about the ‘New’, as in, use of ‘New technology’ as an 
outright goal or a means to an end. This is a misleading term, and does 
not accurately reflect a field of practice incorporating crossovers and 
transdisciplinary understandings, uniting our engagement and 
experimentation with technology at a ‘variety of levels’, which also 
include ecological tendencies as well as social interpretations. Out of 
this, arrives a filtering process whereby assumptions and prescribed 
definitions reflect upon those who pragmatically abide with the 
dominating rules, or just so happen to fit into this reductionist gauge. 
In one sense, this relates to a form of top-down ‘cultural’ curating and 
then moves into other modes of standardization, initializing 
‘extra-loaded’ mono-cultural themes prompting domination. This 
instigates conditions where on the whole artists working with technology 
become valued not because of their content or ideas, but mainly by the 
technological innovation itself.

Personally, I am interested in artworks and ideas exploring beyond the 
technology itself where values occur between machines, people and the 
contexts being engaged with. I was especially interested in Charlie's 
words in a recent interview on Furtherfield 'Community without Community 
in Digital Culture' 
(http://www.furtherfield.org/features/interviews/community-without-community-digital-culture-interview-charlie-gere), 
where he says "I am not a particular advocate of digital technology, and 
while I appreciate its uses, I also think we must try to be aware of how 
it determines the way in which we think, and in which we conceive of the 
world. Above all we should not regard it as merely a conduit to an 
uncomplicated world simply out there, but rather the means by which a 
particular world comes to be for us. That said, this is very hard, given 
that in my view, and to adapt a well-known phrase from Derrida, il n'y a 
pas de hors-media, there's no Archimedean point outside of our medial 
condition, from which we can understand it as from a god's eye view. 
'Media determine our situation' as Friedrich Kittler put it."

This is significant, because if we are discussing ideas around 
'transformation', we need to define intentions, frameworks, contexts of 
what we are dealing with, and whether we are interested in moving beyond 
relying on the medium itself as the message, or as our main voice. Of 
course, reclaiming how we use technology is part of this, as well as how 
we deal with the ethical realizations connected with our uses of 
technology. I have noticed an awful lot of art work being supported 
which maintains a less critical approach in respect of challenging the 
hegemony, and is closely intune with 'happy clappy' creative industry 
remits. But, also we need to be careful of how collaborative and 
transdiscilinary arts are moving into similar cheesy territories. Of 
course, we are living in an age where neo-liberal agendas are dominating 
our creative voices and cutting anything of 'explorative' value is the 
order of day - cultural suicide.

“...the role of the artist today has to be to push back at existing 
infrastructures, claim agency and share the tools with others to 
reclaim, shape and hack these contexts in which culture is created.” 
(Catlow 2010) Can Art do Technology and Social Change? Ruth Catlow. 
October 2010.
http://www.axisweb.org/dlForum.aspx?ESSAYID=18115

I think it's also important to recognise that art is not the domain of 
academia, and (especially) not 'mainstream art culture' as they would 
have us believe. BritArt’s dominance of the late 80s and 90s UK art 
culture dis-empowered the majority of British artists, dominating other 
artistic discourse and fuelling a competitive and divisive attitude for 
a shrinking public platform for the representation of their own highly 
marketed work. This resulted in many artists replicating this art in 
order to be accepted into mainstream galleries and art magazines. This 
tactic of domination through market forces and elite friends in high 
places created what we know as BritArt.

Stewart Home proposes that the YBA movement's evolving presence in art 
culture fits within the discourse of totalitarian art. “The cult of the 
personality is, of course, a central element in all totalitarian art. 
While both fascism and democracy are variants on the capitalist mode of 
economic organisation, the former adopts the political orator as its 
exalted embodiment of the 'great man,' while the latter opts for the 
artist. This distinction is crucial if one is to understand how the yBa 
is situated within the evolving discourse of totalitarian art.“

So, in keeping with the theme currently being discussed here - where are 
the artists and artist groups exploring beyond their 'celebrity' alone, 
and seriously engaging in transformation not only through their use of 
technology, but adding value to life and culture at the same time, in 
whatever way?

Does it matter whether it is on-line, can we bring about an 
understanding via a kind of networked conciousness 'after the net' into 
the physical realm, but with added sensibilties learnt from our uses of 
technology with others which add new experiences, values and playful 
awkwardness?

Is it enough just make art that is digital? Is it enough just to make 
pretty pictures on the Internet?

What and where are the essential questions being asked; not just in 
theory but in art practice that enbody a nuanced facilitation of 
adapting forms of creative innovation - not in terms of capital (alone) 
but, also as an genuine expansion of dialogue and metalogues, where the 
work brings about not necessarily social change as a main goal, but an 
inclusion of space for all kinds of creative, social emancipation, 
linked to enhancing and liberating artistic practice at the same time?

When we began the practice of DIWO allowing space for an openness where 
a rich mixing of components from different sources crossover and build a 
hybrid experience. It was to challenge and renegotiate the power roles 
between artists and curators. Bringing all actors to the fore, artists 
become co-curators alongside the curators, and the curators themselves 
can also be co-creators. It is a living art, exploiting contemporary 
forms of digital and physical networks as a mode of open praxis, as in 
the Greek word for doing, and as in, doing it with others. I know that 
many bulk at the notion of collaboration, for reasons which are 
justified - a bit like my distrust of clowns, jugglers, mime artists and 
bongo players. But, emancipation is the key word here.

And, unless we are interested in collectively dealing with the cutting 
down of our creative and educational lives that the powers that be 
enforcing upon all of our insitutions and independent practices across 
the board; and find creative ways around this destruction of our current 
and future imaginations - we might as well go to McDonalds and ask for a 
job now. “Meanwhile, the same system imprisons everyone’s creativity in 
the prism of brutal economic “necessity.“ Today’s Van Goghs are working 
at McDonalds. Tomorrow’s Mary Shelleys are graduating owing a fortune in 
student loans.” Privatizing creativity: the ruse of creative capitalism. 
Max Haiven on October 10, 2012. 
http://artthreat.net/2012/10/privatizing-creativity/

Wishing all well.

marc


 > Charlie, everyone
 >
 > It's interesting to read about the Moot, which I also attended. The 
first thing I'd like to point out is that most of the presenters at the 
Moot were not associated with the AHRC or the advisory group. My 
understanding is that a wide range of people were invited to present, 
from as many of the sectors as possible that the AHRC works with. It's a 
broad remit the Council addresses (the creative arts are just one 
element) and although there are no doubt some universals across 
disciplines it is the case that each has its own take on the issues and 
how the digital can be transformative. They all have to be accommodated 
and reflected upon and we can learn a lot from each other as we do this.
 >
 > Charlie led a great panel at the Moot and challenged some of the 
premises of the event. It was what was hoped for. Whilst I agree that it 
was difficult to discern clear lines of travel at the Moot (much less 
define in what sense the digital can be transformative), likely due to 
the many views articulated, I am confident the conversations being had 
at the AHRC, and within the advisory group, are engaging the profound 
end of the spectrum when it comes to how the digital can be 
transformative. Do not expect to see projects being supported that do 
more of the same - big data digitisation projects, social media mining 
for qualitative research and digital conservation projects are unlikely 
to be funded. The AHRC is looking for the researchers and practitioners 
who are looking to how new technologies can be transformative. I'm 
thinking about the theme in terms of human evolution and specifically 
how we evolve as a homo-technical apparatus. We are our technologies and 
they are us, from language to computers. Radical changes in one element 
in a system will lead to change across that system. Change of this ilk 
is profound and work that engages this is likely to be supported. If 
that is a bit like the 90's (of which I generally have find memories) 
then I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
 >
 > best
 >
 > Simon
 >
 >
 > On 21 Nov 2012, at 19:31, Gere, Charlie wrote:
 >
 >> Hi all
 >>
 >> Just to add a few more thoughts on the Moot, which I also attended. 
My major problem with what is a well intended move on the part of the 
AHRC - to fund work on digital transformations - was that, on the 
evidence of the Moot at least, there is little real engagement with 
actual transformations brought about by these new technologies. Part of 
the problem was the relentless focus on kit, as if the issues of how 
digital technologies are changing our lives could be reduced to what 
academics could do with snazzy hardware and software. There was little 
sense that these technologies are potentially transforming the arts and 
humanities out of all recognition or that the real transformations are 
not taking place at the level of equipment but rather at the structural 
level.
 >>
 >> Katrina on the other hand expressed it beautifully in her 
contribution to the panel I chaired, when she described the changes in 
the very ontology of the image brought about by digital social networks, 
as well as in our reception of such images. I thought that her 
contribution and those of other panelists on the panel took the debate 
to a different level, as did some other contributors at other times in 
the day. But the general tone of the event mostly militated against this 
kind of thinking.
 >>
 >> WIth all due respect to the organisers to some extent it felt like 
the kind of event that happened in the early 1990s, when excitement over 
the technological possibilities of the digital was the main focus. But 
rather than carp perhaps this might offer us opportunities, virtually or 
otherwise, to debate what a genuinely critical approach to digital 
transformations might look like, and how the AHRC might fund that. 
Otherwise my major fear is that the limited number of funding 
opportunities offered will go to instrumental projects involving the 
application of data mining, visualization etc... rather than the, in my 
view more needed, focus on the transformative effects of these media on 
culture and society
 >>
 >> Charlie
 >> ________________________________________
 >> From: Curating digital art - www.crumbweb.org 
[[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Sarah Cook 
[[log in to unmask]]
 >> Sent: 21 November 2012 18:23
 >> To: [log in to unmask]
 >> Subject: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Fwd: November Theme: Curating on and 
through web-based platforms
 >>
 >> This message from Katrina was meant to go to the list... so I am 
forwarding now...
 >>
 >> Begin forwarded message:
 >>
 >> From: "Sluis, Katrina Patricia" 
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
 >> Date: 21 November 2012 08:34:07 GMT
 >> To: Sarah Cook 
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
 >> Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] November Theme: Curating on and 
through web-based platforms
 >>
 >> Hi all
 >>
 >> Just to add briefly to Sarah's comments, I think one of the issues 
with the way the AHRC 'moot' was framed is that there was an absence of 
self-reflexivity about how 'digital transformations' apply to 
epistemologies, ontologies and practices within disciplines and not just 
'wider culture'. Although there was a great buzz about new 'methods' 
(especially as it potentially gives humanities scholars the ability to 
do quantitative research and embrace positivism) and disseminating 
'research in progress ' it felt at times that 'method' filled in for 
critical thinking about the politics of software and related tools.
 >>
 >> Secondly, for those CRUMBsters in London, you may be interested in 
an upcoming panel on 4th Dec at The Photographers' Gallery: "All your 
cat memes are belong to us" where speakers will explore key questions 
around the image economy of the web, from LOLcats to Flickr, 4Chan to 
twitter, as well as issues arising from the curation of online 
photographic practices within the gallery/museum.
 >>
 >> The panel includes Dr Lop Lop, who established the popular Flickr 
group Somebody else's cat, Dr Alexandra Moschovi, Lecturer in 
photographic theory and history, University of Sunderland, Dr Olga 
Goriunova, Assistant Professor at the Centre for Interdisciplinary 
Methodologies, Warwick University.
 >> http://thephotographersgallery.org.uk/all-your-cat-memes-belong-to-us
 >>
 >> Looking forward to the rest of the discussion.
 >> Katrina
 >>
 >>
 >> University of Sunderland - Shortlisted for the Times Higher 
University of the Year 2012
 >>
 >
 >
 > Simon Biggs
 > [log in to unmask] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK 
skype: simonbiggsuk
 >
 > [log in to unmask] Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh
 > http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ 
http://www.movingtargets.org.uk/
 > MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices
 > 
http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php
 >

-- 
--
Other Info:

Furtherfield - A living, breathing, thriving network
http://www.furtherfield.org - for art, technology and social change since 1997

Also - Furtherfield Gallery&  Social Space:
http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery

About Furtherfield:
http://www.furtherfield.org/content/about

Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.
http://www.netbehaviour.org

http://identi.ca/furtherfield
http://twitter.com/furtherfield