JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING  2001

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING 2001

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Showing it: Two case studies

From:

Christiane Paul <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Curating digital art - www.newmedia.sunderland.ac.uk/crumb/

Date:

Thu, 3 May 2001 16:11:56 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (54 lines)

>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
>media-industries)

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.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager