>By sharing responsibility with the participant for accessing techno work
>the gallery/museum is losing some, if not alot, of its control over
>distribution. (In fact a big part of that control now lies with the new
Considering that many of the art works are time-based and/or rely on
continuous input from the audience, there is a loss of control over
content, too. Not to mention that many of the pieces are in a state of
'permanent beta' and never resemble a finished product and commodity.
>Which is why, Patrick Lichty says "I don't feel that there is a mandate for
>a physical show except for the fact that the audience seems to expect one"
>>i find mobile work more interesting at the moment for precisely this reason
>>- web-based work by comparison seems too rooted in a specific context (the
>>desk or home terminal) to be able to dal with these architectural rhetorics
>>without substantial changes in presentation modes.
In my opinion, there should be no "model" for presenting networked art or
net art other than a case-by-case one. There are works that lose their
inherent net-ness when shown as an installation/projection, and I would
tend to leave them alone and use the "traditional" computer/monitor set-up.
Since net art has been created to be seen by anyone (provided they have
access), anytime, anywhere, it shouldn't just flow above, beneath and
around the institution but also through it. Museums/galleries are just one
of the possible contexts for this art.
There are other works that beg to get out of the confinement of the browser
window (and it makes sense to project them), and many net/digital artists
are interested in establishing connections between the virtual and physical
world. I think one shouldn't assume that there is a clear separation
between the 2 realms (as different as they may be), not all of the artists
take a "net only" position when it comes to the presentation of the work.
I think any approach should be artist-based, as close to the artists'
intentions as possible.
I also don't believe in the "media lounge" as the presentation model of
choice -- it entails a certain segregation and mostly just becomes a
necessity because museums aren't sufficiently wired yet and only certain
areas are appropriately equipped for showing the art.
>Maybe the architecture of the gallery is not such a problem here as much as
>the technical participation structures within networked art itself? How can
>the gallery/museum 'control' participation when it also becomes a matter
>of the audience's technical skill and personal technological investment?
which I think is the key question at this point. You are dealing with
audiences that are ranging from interface-challenged to -knowledgeable and
everything in between, and it will take some time until there is a
willingness and skill for personal technological investment among the
audience at large.