Francesca di Rimini was doing stuff on MOOs and MUDs early on (pre-1997). There was also activity, pre-web, on the Artnet network. To research details on this early activity I'd try finding people at the Well who were around at that time.
best
Simon
On 3 Oct 2013, at 10:18, "Christiane Paul, Curatorial" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> There definitely was art-talking in LambdaMOO, but I don't have concrete leads (Judy Malloy has written about Narratives and Narrative Structures in the environment - http://www.well.com/user/jmalloy/moopap.html).
> Robert Nideffer's PROXY was a very involved art project that used a MUD structure (it was included in the 2002 Whitney Biennial).
> Christiane
> ________________________________________
> From: Curating digital art - www.crumbweb.org [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Charlotte Frost [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 2:25 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: October's theme: Art History Online, an introduction
>
> Thanks Rob.
>
> I'm unaware of any art-talking/making MUDs or MOOs - anyone? This is a
> definite gap in my knowledge!
>
> I *think* I first posted to Rhizome and lurked on Nettime. My first F2F
> with any of these online art types was with Marc Garrett and Ruth Catlow
> at Furtherfield. I wrote and asked them what Furtherfield was all about
> and whether I could get involved - it seemed the best way to learn. And I
> also started writing Net Art News for Rachel Greene around that time -
> again because I wanted to learn. I felt like there were pre-arranged codes
> of conduct for lists and that I hadn't got the memo. In a way, I suppose
> there were. Pit Shultz explained this situation in an interview in Mute in
> 1997 - that things kind of just worked themselves out:
>
> 'The phenomenon is, and I think this is not such a rare thing, that a
> group of people, in a repetitive, communicative environment, begin to
> filter a field of possible 'communication acts' in a certain way, quasi
> machinic. You don't have to be professional or especially skilled in the
> beginning. The production of 'information' along the borderline of
> noise means to constantly refine a social context, maybe an artificial
> one, what some call immanent, I mean with rules which are self-evident,
> and are interdependent in a dynamic way.'
>
> http://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/mute-conversation-nettime-pit-sc
> hultz-digital-publishing-feature
>
> Before we even get into any discussion of lurking and flaming, I wonder if
> you or anyone else has any thoughts on how prohibitive online spaces can
> be to newcomers. I'm about to run the 3rd Academic Writing Month, which
> uses a lot of Twitter, and someone just said to me they were scared to
> death of taking part the first time round.
>
> And also I like your point - if I'm understanding correctly - about
> different spaces giving rise to different types of interaction/discussion.
> Today it's easy to compare the 'brands' of different social media
> platforms but it's difficult to get a sense now of how one list would have
> differed from another - except by asking people to comment. So I'd love to
> know which lists people used and why? Why the Syndicate rather than
> Rhizome? Was it just geographical allegiance or was there a different type
> of discussion or a different value in being involved?
>
> All anecdotes and examples welcome. By the end of this month I'd love to
> have collaborated on a vast archive on the history of online art
> discussion - feel free to respond on list or elsewhere and post us a link!
>
>
>
>
> On 03/10/2013 10:16, "Rob Myers" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> On 01/10/13 03:53 AM, Charlotte Frost wrote:
>>>
>>> So, first up, what was YOUR first experience of online art discussion?
>>
>> It was 1996 and I had signed up to an art mailing list (I cannot now
>> remember its name or where the archive of my old [log in to unmask] college
>> account is).
>>
>> But I didn't have a handle on the shared academic or specific mailing
>> list culture that would have allowed me to participate constructively.
>>
>> This meant that I made a lot of elementary mistakes. For example I
>> replied to a cross-posted essay as if it was a comment by someone on the
>> list. This annoyed people and left me feeling alienated.
>>
>> So my first experience of online art discussion was of its social and
>> technological form rather than any specific art historical content.
>>
>> Perhaps I would have done better if I'd tried IRC or the MOOs instead (I
>> knew about MediaMOO), something more realtime and social. Maybe that's
>> just technological determinism.
>>
>> But surely part of the reason for this discussion is the idea that new
>> tools and new media create new possibilities for discussion. And if this
>> is the case, the technological and emergent social differences between
>> the various means of discussing art online will affect the discussions
>> that take place using them.
>>
>> - Rob.
>
Simon Biggs
[log in to unmask]
http://www.littlepig.org.uk @SimonBiggsUK http://amazon.com/author/simonbiggs
[log in to unmask] Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/edinburgh-college-art/school-of-art/staff/staff?person_id=182&cw_xml=profile.php
http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/simon-biggs%285dfcaf34-56b1-4452-9100-aaab96935e31%29.html
http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.org.uk/ http://designinaction.com/
MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php
|