Hold on to your beers. Some more about terminology etc, which seems
necesary. It would not cause much discussion if it weren't.
> >.museum story as highlighted by Jon Ippolito.
> Hmm.. I don't remember that specific reference. Was it in his "Museum of
> the Future" talk?
It was his letter about the suffix .museum:
article by Mirapaul:
> Yes, I see your point but with a very broad approach we also run the risk
> of disappearing into meta-theory or theories of "everything".
True, but this has been the case ever since reproduction techniques and
mass media changed art. I am sure we can find a way to deal with it
which escapes the object and market oriented cliche-s. It seems as if
the solution of the valuation of art since early modernity has been an
easy one: cling to the object. We should find other ways to (literally
and philosophically) deal with art. Or shouldn't we?
> Not to dwell on this point too much but I have always viewed the jodi.org
> actions as an attempt not to self-promote but as a warning (404) that with
> this contact between different cultures there will be attempts to curtail
> the freedom we take for granted on the Internet if we don't think through
> our response better.
I agree with you completely.
> Do we trust our handlers/curators to know what to do?
I think you should trust them like you trust the rest of all human
> Arguing that code art is part of net art is clearly incorrect. As Josephine
> says, code is what underlies all computer communications, and also all
> computer applications. It is not dedicated to networks..
Great to see you always, Simon. You are obviously correct that code
comes before networking or anything else. My preference for 'net' still
stands though (and maybe I should emphasize again that I would prefer
not to have to use any of these prefixes like net or code at all). The
reason for my preference is that I have always preferred bigger pictures
over stand alone situations. Culture (and art) is not something without
a context, and I would like to get that context into view. Even if code
is in everything, it seems (!) mostly a highly individual enterprise. Of
course we can look at open source software (or something like it) but
then we are talking networks again. The challenge of new media lies in
the way cultural expressions are multiplied and changed. This is
something mostly represented by networks imho (and humble it is, I look
forward to your reply).
I am not interested in hierarchies. "net art being a sub-genre of
digital art" as you say is not correct in my eyes though. Digital art is
a way too limited term (and maybe genre) for me. Like video art it had
little or no connection to larger media (and thus social and cultural)
> Perhaps we could introduce the conept of "TAN" -
> temporary autonomous nomenclature, which is is useful for
> a specific discussion but not necessarily "everlasting."
lovely. I will keep that one in mind. The latin might proof a problem
for popular use though.
> (and the corollary is that language has an arbitrary relationship
> to the physical world, which corrals a whole other set of discussions)
Language to me does not have an arbitrary relationship with the world
itself, but we have an arbitrary relationship with the world. Language
shows/forms/explains how we see and deal with the world (and how we
think about it, of course). In that sense the relationship between
computers (and their code) with the world should be closely related to
the relationship between humans and the world. We create that language
and that code.
> .. it is difficult to classify the completion of work if it is
> in a state of process, and in many cases, I believe that the
> nature of the work shifts across conventional boundaries
> with time.
That is a very interesting topic to keep in mind for curatorial
discussions. How do curators deal with this? Works on the net can run
for a long time/develop slowly. Art practices outside the net know/have
this too though.
> In short at the moment it might be more useful to consider
> works in a much more nebulous metagenre while considering
> the particular work in very specific terms with only moderat
> necessity for placement within genres.
I am afraid this is where my knowledge of english fails me. You seem to
contradict yourself, but maybe I misunderstand.