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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING  2002

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING 2002

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: February's topic: artist/critic/curator

From:

Sarah Thompson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 7 Feb 2002 16:02:41 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (111 lines)

Dear Crumb list

Last year, when I was writing content-type.org, I made two
significant mistakes.

The first was a number. The number was in fact the name of the art
collective 0100101110101101.org, which has made the most significant
art online of late, in my opinion. Namely, their
work: life_sharing. This mistake resulted in my writing being co-
authored without me even realising it. Florian Cramer performed an
interesting trick here..

The second was a word. I used the word net when I should have used
the word web. More precisely, when I emailed the Rhizome_Raw
mailing list in August to say that content-type.org was an anti-net
idea virus I should have said anti-web idea virus instead.

I am not anti-net or anti networks. I can see now though that I am,
in fact, very anti the current World Wide Web as a representation of
computer networks. This connects with several important issues which
affect artists, critics and curators involved online, and content
and content management are central to these issues.

Yesterday, I attended a lecture by Ted Nelson. This has made me
properly realise why I wrote content-type.org. At any rate, Ted
Nelson's lecture has significantly affected the following text:


The hierarchical structure of the web - using directories and URLs to
relate information - is quite simply too oppressive for most artists
to tolerate, and as a representation of networks ignores issues of
content management, creativity and most importantly social trust.

I realise now that I didn't like the web very much - it more and more
felt like an unacceptable representation of communication structures.
The fact that the media (broadcasting/publishing) industries have
increasingly imitated and appropriated these structures only adds
insult to injury in terms of exaggerating the impact of poor engineering
concepts. And these media organisations certainly aren't going to criticise
the engineering of the www.

This is also part of the media/art identity crisis, which is the
media's increasing management of art content, gatekeeping and the
over exploitation of cultural resources.

I also wrote about the fact that the creative skills of engineers in
the 1950ís/60ís/70ís were culturally ignored in the West, and are
still being ignored, as something which didn't happen and which is
thought to be irrelevant to the flourishing of creative communities.
Many see engineers as simply performing technical tasks - not
engaging with human issues of empathy and social trust at a very
creative level. Why do artists and engineers need to collaborate?
Because human understanding actually depends upon it. Scientists also
need to be more positively included in this dynamic.

Content is obviously affected fundamentally by networks. Computer
nets can be used in the processes of building social trust and making
art, as well as new forms of archiving. But only if the right
structures are being engineered. (This is what life_sharing was in
part about I think.)

The web is really not good enough at coping with this yet. Art cannot
be made, critiqued and curated within this hierarchical, directory;
URL based structure, unless it is to reveal the shortcomings in the
communication processes of that structure. Essentially this is what
net.art did. It's also what most web based 'browser' art does. But
there comes a point when this is not enough, and I think Josephine
Bosma might well agree here. Over-acceptance of the www by artists,
curators, critics and museums only oppresses all those cultural
producers and mechanisms and prevents them from dealing with the
complexities that they have been able to deal with in the past. An
unacceptable homogenisation begins to take place, and threatens to
destroy the very resources that ensure cultural understanding.

Related issues of content are very significant to this process. Being
able to relate deeply to ideas and imaginary constructs, as Ted
Nelson says, means being able to be free to interpret them, to relate
our own perceptions to them. In other words re-interpretation, as
Fred Madre says, by the viewer (user), artist, critic, curator,
whatever (!) has to be permissible. However, the current links based,
directory based system means that whenever this occurs within the
www, a hierarchy always appears even though that is not what was
intended or even desirable.

This engineered hierarchical system actually threatens social trust -
which is at best fragile within the largely text based environment of
the www - mostly because of the structures being used. The permission
to re-interpret content/material - to be able to map it into ones own
space, contravenes/exploits what many would see as the last remnants
of the space of the originator, artist/author/unique identity. This
is what many net artists have explored in their work,
but life_sharing reached a new level in terms of notions of space
and creative identity, which were literally shared and appropriated
by the collective.

What is being considered here is the ability to take material and
adapt it; have a conversation with it; relate to it; and importantly,
to change it. This has the effect of breaking down clear distinctions
between artist/critic/curator. In fact these distinctions can really
only properly occur within galleries, museums and media
publications/broadcasting, where the material factors define the
practice. Online these distinctions merely mimic their offline
counterparts, and not in a very convincing way. In other words,
within a networked electronic environment these distinctions should,
and do, become nominal, somewhat meaningless and unnecessarily hierarchical.


best,

Sarah Thompson.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
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