 |
 |
Hi Johannes, Thank you for sharing the Cloudbrowsing link. The interface and visuals look amazing and though beyond the scope of our time & budget, it is nevertheless a strong example of immersion into web-space. It does what you point out: provide a joint experience. As you have noted out, this is a crucial question: joint vs isolated. The model of an non-interactive installation where there are multiple possibilities appeals -- one could create a group experience with several people looking at different parts but also sharing and moving in space around the work. The movement of bodies around monitors or printed material then creates gatherings around certain aspects of the work. When Nathaniel and I were discussion how to exhibit it, we thought of three options: * video: a single or multi-channel video of the text, discussions, some of the remixed videos relating to Wikipedia Art. The advantage is that this reflects the screen-based nature of the work, where you look at one screen at a time. The disadvantage is that we are tying problems of duration in non-interactive video installations. * text on wall, in the form of many different printed out materials of selected debates and conversations. The advantage is that this allows for people to select what to read on the walls and move at their own pace. The discourse around the work is mostly text, so this makes sense. However, in a gallery/festival setting, displaying oodles of text on the wall precludes all but the most patient viewer. * a performance, as I Sarah suggested, which appeals because of the ephemeral and potentially interventionist nature of it. however, the disadvantage is that it will be difficult to provide a context for Wikipedia Art: a feedback loop of discourse surrounding it. These are the conundrums of these three models, as I see them. So, in answer to your question about experience, we are likely looking at individual/isolated access, given that a joint and navigable experience presents practical issues. In this respect, if you (or anyone else) has some models or thoughts, we'd definitely appreciate them. Best, Scott Kildall -- + artwork: www.kildall.com + blog: www.kildall.com/blog On Dec 2, 2010, at 5:55 AM, Goebel, Johannes E. wrote: > I think the fundamental question is if such an exhibition is aiming at > addressing a joint experience of several people at a time, sharing the > same space and content as it "unfolds" (gets navigated) or if it is > meant for individual (isolated) access. > > For the latter, there are all those models with small, smallest and > larger screens/monitors. For the former the question is how to create an > environment which several (up to many) people can be in at the same > time. > > One of the successful approaches has been Cloudbrowsing by Bernd > Lintermann et al. which allows only one user to navigate but for others > to be part of that "journey" - one can talk about what one sees and > there is a spatial representation of the content which in turn is "smart > > http://www02.zkm.de/you/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59 > (with movie link showing the environment) > > "Whereas our computer monitor only provides a restricted frame, a small > window through which we experience the multilayered information > landscape of the Net only partially and in a rather linear mode, the > installation turns browsing the Web into a spatial experience" > > This version was made for a panoramic screen - but the model could be > adapted to a environment where several flat projections screens are hung > in a space - say six screens of 3mx4m hung in a space 150+ square > meters, hung not in a row but staggered or arranged in a way which gives > a layered depth perception ( a physical/spatial mapping of the navigated > space as it unfolds through the navigation and as the "smart" engine in > the back pulls related links). > > Johannes Goebel > EMPAC > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Curating digital art - www.crumbweb.org > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nathaniel Stern > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 8:06 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Wikipedia Art (was Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] December 2010 on > CRUMB) > > Thanks for the nudge, Sarah. Hello again, CRUMB. > You can see that Sarah pasted part of the initial email exchange below > (and I added some of her first comments to it), in case folks want to > re-look at the ideas batted about thus far. > > The most concise I can be: > > ***We're looking for ideas on how to exhibit "Wikipedia Art" at > Transmediale in February, and hope to - to use Sarah's phrase - > crowdsource curate the work via the expertise of this list. I'm guessing > we need something final before Christmas.*** > > A little more: > > The piece we exhibit could point to collaboration, discourse, > intervention, epistemology, the personalities behind the debates, or how > Wikipedia Art fits into broader histories of art or any of these > categories. Regardless of the route we choose, it should both play on / > reference the original performance on WIkipedia (and elsewhere), and > stand on its own in an interesting way. We're open to alternative modes > of exhibition: performance, video, sculpture, printed booklets, files > for download, mobile apps, another online project, etc.... We do have > lots of extant texts to use, by us and by others (including the one > we're growing here), that are part of and/or mediate the project on > varying levels, and might make for interesting "material". > > In terms of a deadline, I should probably defer to Stephen (Stephen?), > but my guess is that if ideas started flowing now, we could have > something final to go on before Christmas, giving Scott, the > Transmediale folks and I time to plan / produce it, whatever it might > be... > > Please join the discussion! > > nathaniel > http://nathanielstern.com > > > > On Dec 1, 2010, at 8:22 AM, Sarah Cook wrote: > >> Hi CRUMB list readers >> >> As it is the first of the month (white rabbits in the snow!) this is a > brief thank you to those who participated in the theme discussion for > October and November about jurying and online curating... I thought it > was useful the way it segued into discussions about copyright issues > online, and would urge you to continue to discuss and use this list to > ask those questions you would like answers to. Our apologies that we > have been traveling and teaching/lecturing so much we haven't been more > on top of moderating discussion here. >> >> That said, I was very glad of the suggestion which came mid-month to > contribute to a process to develop the WikipediaArt project for display > at Transmediale (crowdsourcing curating?) and I am concerned we don't > drop that thread. So I would urge CRUMB list lurkers to help out Scott > and Nathaniel in this -- so far no one has suggested any other ideas > than mine of remixing / mashing up in a performative style the > WikipediaArt debate text with another work. CRUMB, as a list, as a > distributed community, has never curated anything collectively before, > and so this could be a very nice way to end off the year, with something > productive. Nathaniel, can you rephrase what you want in as simple a > task/question as possible and set a deadline for answers and feedback? >> >> Meanwhile we'll try to keep the announcements to a minimum, while we > keep one eye trained on the ongoing government machinations here in the > UK which are affecting academia and the arts. Our next themed discussion > will be in February, and Beryl will tell you more about that soon. Do > please remember that the call for papers for the Media Art Histories > conference, Rewire, closes at the end of January... and we'll be hosting > a panel at CAA in New York in February, so if you want to meet up or > suggest discussions in the run-up to that, get in touch! And friend us > on Facebook > http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/CRUMB-The-Curatorial-Resource-f > or-Upstart-Media-Bliss/316359367817 >> >> Cheers from very snowy England, >> sarah >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 16 Nov 2010, at 20:27, Nathaniel Stern wrote: >>> >>>> The original Wikipedia Art took the form of a Wikipedia page, which, > given the citation mechanisms behind the site, also meant that all > discussions both inside and outside of Wikipedia were implicated. We > orchestrated a small number of interviews and articles and a bit of > participation, then let the work unfold as more folks got involved. We > believe that the discussions on, for example, Rhizome and ArtFagCity and > iDC, were as integral to the project as the mainstream press and > Wikipedia-based debates that allowed its very temporary existence on the > site. >>>> >>>> The Wikipedia Art Remixed project took quite a few forms, mostly > video, some sound, and a few images. There were reenactments and > mash-ups of the deletion debate and water-cooler discussions (Sean > Fletcher and Isabel Reichert, and Michael Szpakowski), baseball cars (Qi > Peng), rock music videos (Kent Watson), the addition of WIkipedia Art to > many other Wikis (Gregory Kohs), and so much more. >>>> >>>> For the New York gallery show, we worked with Sean Fletcher and > Isabel Reicher, whose video we absolutely loved, and got local actors to > perform the script from the aforementioned video. >>>> >>>> And Scott and I have ourselves been working on an academic chapter > about Wikipedia Art, which will appear in a book that critically > analyzes Wikipedia put out by the Institute of Network Cultures at the > University of Amsterdam next year. We've got a somewhat performed > 20-minute paper version of this, which we've given together in India, > and which I gave in Milwaukee and Scott gave in Amsterdam. We'd be happy > to send along the short or long versions of these, if you (again, > plural, for CRUMB) are interested. >>>> >>>> Given the piece's ongoing transformations around language and > dialogue, I love your idea of more re-mixes/mash-ups, and agree that > those that are either text- and/or net-based (given the piece's origins) > or performed live (given the performative nature of the piece) make the > most sense - both formally and conceptually. >>>> >>>> I'm keen to start on that list you mention - or perhaps two lists: > one for what to mix with, and one for the form it will take in > exhibition? - to see where it can lead. Your suggestions are top notch. > Perhaps we can add relational/dialogical art from other trajectories as > well: like Liam GIllick's spaces for discussion or Gonzales-Torres' > papers to walk away with (ah, no internet, can't look up the names of > those pieces!). With the latter, I'm enamored with the ppossibility that > people can take something physical away with them, since that's not how > we normally think of conceptual work or internet-art (or Wikipedia). > Perhaps a pamphlet or sticker, or a file they can download via bluetooth > or USB.... >>>> >>>> This is all very exciting. Looking forward to more. Best, >>>> >>>> nathaniel >>>> http://nathanielstern.com > > My inclination is to continue to mine the thread of hiring actors to > reenact the deletion debate, whether remixed with another text or not > (rule number 1: exhibition precedent: the one you mention). > Perhaps the other text with which it is remixed could be a text-based > work of art from the pre-Internet age (such as a Bruce Nauman > Instruction piece... though we could draw up a list which we could vote > on) or a text-based work from the Internet age (Douglas Davis's World's > Longest Sentence springs to mind, with the same possibility of having a > list of suggestions we could vote on). > > Then we could have a debate about how to document and exhibit the > reenactment of the debate.