 |
 |
Some good points here Kelli. I'm doing a project with the BBC at the moment of which I will post in the coming months as it directly relates to this discussion. It's a Leviathan, with very complex and horizontal lines of reporting. You get the go-ahead for something from one manager that months down the line gets overruled by someone else. That said, as I'm working with some incredible people, passionate, imaginative, creative. The issue of the visibility or otherwise of net art is complex. Firstly as Kelli notes, it is a subset of a subset of culture. Most people "in the real world" barely register contemporary art let alone some of the fringe experimental work however good it is. The second point, and I know this is going to sound a bit contentious, is that there is a very live strain of "self-ghettoizing" in the media art community that maybe, just maybe contributes to its isolation. This isn't of course to deny that immanent to many of the practices we engage in is a critique of the power structures of money, patronage etc. that under-grids the whole artworld shebang..... Kelli Dipple wrote: > hmmm yes.. > > It certainly doesn't surprise me that in an institution the size of the BBC which spans more than one city, one department does not know what another department is doing. That is not uncommon. Regarding the interesting note submitted by someone earlier; that BBC Innovation is undertaking a project related to the field. > > One has to consider what one might mean by 'good' > > I this context, good = popular > In the world of high profile websites, popular = 10 000 - 30 000 hits a month. > There is your bottom line. > > This is certainly not my personal definition of good. Stats or bums on seats is one thing. But as Mike asserts, by making such a provocation, many people have been inspired to post on the blog. This makes his work, lets think about it for a minute... 'popular' which is 'good', yes, no, which ever way you may swing. Next time he reports on the impact of his work he will be reporting a set of stats, he won't be quoting what was said. > > How many BBC arts journalists have ever breathed a reference to 'net art'? > > Let's face it, there are many people in the world who would be unable to recognise net art if they saw it and even if they did recognise it, there are not so many who would be able to read its particular aesthetic codes and language, in order to make an informed position on whether or not it was 'good' art. > > The fact of the matter is, that museums commissioning a few net art pieces for their websites is not enough. We need to do more that that. In order to contextualise net-based work and aid audiences (and journalists, critics etc) ability to read and enjoy it, museums (and other institutions reaching a wide audience, who are able) need to connect this work to a history and to a broader field practice. net art did not come out of nowhere and does not function entirely in isolation. Though this is the way it is often presented in the museum context - where this particular journalist is coming from. > > Those of us on this list, who work in museums, are doing our best. It has been a long, drawn out set of episodes leading up to this moment in 2010. I remain optimistic that things are and will continue to change. > > The fact of the matter is, that it is becoming increasingly difficult to contextulise the majority of contemporary art to a general public, without going back to review art post 1960 and expand upon narratives which situate themselves around work that is time-based, media-based, performative, ephemeral or social in nature. Media was left out of history, women were left out of history, non-western art, performance... were all left out. Museums are having to go back and re-address the narratives represented by their collections, such that the leap from modernism to the present is not so vast. > > Kelli > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Curating digital art - www.crumbweb.org on behalf of Mike Stubbs > Sent: Fri 2/5/2010 8:05 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] new media at the BBC > > dont give him more airspace > remmber he is clever at social media > nowt like controversy........ > > m > Mike Stubbs > Director/CEO > FACT > 88 Wood Street > Liverpool L1 4DG > > + 44 (0) 151 707 4444 > + 44 (0) 7876 560657 > > www.fact.co.uk > skype name: mikestubbs45 > > > > > On 5 Feb 2010, at 00:29, marc garrett wrote: > > >> Hi Sarah & all, >> >> The irony here is that, Will's post probably did our shared practice >> a favour as mentioned by one individual on the bbc blog. I am going >> away now to Transmediale, my first time believe it or not... >> >> I wish to thank your good self, and everyone else for all the >> 'personal' posts in response the post below. Typically, I have not >> had the time to get back to everyone, and there are lots - which is >> extremely reassuring. So, next week I will reply to all emails >> personally and discuss how things can move on. >> >> Much thanks, and chat soon :-) >> >> marc >> >>> hi all >>> >>> Marc, as you know, you can count me in. You can count me in on >>> anything you guys get up to, and this project sounds especially up >>> CRUMB's alley. >>> >>> As for Will's blog post, I have posted a comment there, and >>> suggested that for his first (remedial) lesson in net art history >>> he could reassemble the material the BBC commissioned and hosted >>> about 'art for networks' which Simon Pope initiated. :-) >>> >>> sarah >>> >>> >>> On 4 Feb 2010, at 12:40, marc garrett wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> This is as good as time as any, to let you know about a project >>>> that we are currently engaged with called 'Hyperlink'. >>>> >>>> Hyperlink, is about collaborating with journalists, curators, >>>> editors who are directly involved in mainstream arts practice. >>>> >>>> The aim of the project is to create 'real' opportunities in >>>> bringing about change in the mainstream art arena, in seeing media >>>> arts as part of a more widening creative field - as part of a >>>> larger and dynamic and fascinating creative discourse that all can >>>> observe as art. >>>> >>>> - We will be sharing responsibilities of selection with mainstream >>>> curators from private galleries and public galleries, in co- >>>> curating exhibitions. >>>> >>>> - We will be holding panel discussions at art fairs and festivals >>>> such as Frieze about specific artworks, and considering such works >>>> as already accepted within a widening arts culture. >>>> >>>> - We will be collaborating with writers from various magazines >>>> such as Art Monthly, AN, Time Out, Frieze and more, who frequently >>>> write about more traditional forms of art. >>>> >>>> - We will be going to media arts festivals with mainstream arts >>>> curators and writers/academics, choosing artworks to be shown back >>>> in the UK. >>>> >>>> - We are already holding a radio discussion about the subject of >>>> mainstream art and connected cultures, and the idea of bringing >>>> about the inclusion of media arts into this potentially widening >>>> field, on the radio at 'FUTURITY NOW!' at Transmediale between >>>> 11-1 pm Sunday 7th, on Hausradio - station melt. >>>> >>>> - We already have a meeting when we get back from Transmediale >>>> with various curators, writers from mainstream arts organisations, >>>> to discuss how to move things on. >>>> >>>> - We will be choosing an artwork or artworks from ISEA, to come >>>> back to the UK to been seen by a mixture of media art audiences as >>>> well as those outside of media art contexts, encouraging debate >>>> and interest in media art culture, in a way that focuses on the >>>> work and its multi-related values and informed approaches, >>>> concepts and contextual influences. >>>> >>>> If, there is anyone here who is genuinely interested in actively >>>> being part of breaking down this divide, between traditional arts >>>> and media arts. And is interested in sharing with us the journey >>>> in making such a thing happen, please contact us - we are serious >>>> and dedicated in pushing things forward - please contact - [log in to unmask] >>>> or Ruth Catlow at [log in to unmask] >>>> >>>> There are various ways we can help each other creating significant >>>> changes beyond what we have now ... >>>> >>>> >>>> wishing you all well. >>>> >>>> marc >>>> >>>> A living, breathing, thriving networked neighbourhood... >>>> >>>> We are on Twitter >>>> http://twitter.com/furtherfield >>>> >>>> Other reviews/articles/interviews >>>> http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php >>>> >>>> Furtherfield - online media arts community, platforms for creating, >>>> viewing, discussing and learning about experimental practices at the >>>> intersections of art, technology and social change. >>>> http://www.furtherfield.org >>>> >>>> HTTP Gallery - physical media arts Gallery (London). >>>> http://www.http.uk.net >>>> >>>> Netbehaviour - an open email list community engaged in the process >>>> of >>>> sharing and actively evolving critical approaches, methods and ideas >>>> focused around contemporary networked media arts practice. >>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org >>>> >>>> Furtherfield Blog - shared space for personal reflections on media >>>> art >>>> practice. >>>> http://blog.furtherfield.org >>>> >>>> VisitorsStudio - real-time, multi-user, online arena for creative >>>> 'many >>>> to many' dialogue, networked performance and collaborative polemic. >>>> http://www.visitorsstudio.org/x.html >>>> >>>> Furthernoise - an online platform for the creation, promotion, >>>> criticism and archiving of innovative cross genre music and sound >>>> art >>>> for the information & interaction of the public and artists alike. >>>> http://www.furthernoise.org >>>> > >