Simon/list,

I haven't posted here before but I was interested in the issue you
raised recently. I have worked on both the production and curatorial
ends of 'new media' exhibition, including (as you will know only too
well) working as lead curator on the new digital gallery at the UK's
National Museum of Photography Film & Television, (which incorporates
a number of large-scale projects by media artists). I haven't been
able to keep up with all of the ensuing debate so forgive me if I'm
just repeating views that have already been well rehearsed.

Although the economics of the issue are crucial, I don't think the
grievance you raised can entirely be explained away in the lack of a
clear economic model for net art. It can also sound uncomfortably
like shifting the blame onto the victim: okay, so net artists are
vulnerable in this sense. But rather than take this as opportunity to
exploit them, exhibiting museums must be expected to have a sense of
obligation towards all artists - that may or may not be expressed in
financial terms, but at the very least is founded on dialogue and
agreement.

I would guess that part of the rationale of the curatorial
staff/institution over the issue in question might be that the work
was already in the public domain, and 'all' they were doing was
'pointing' to it. This won't do. Although artists who exhibit on the
net understand that they forfeit control of viewing conditions,
linking, the re-cycling of code, etc., we move into a different
register when it comes to a museum 'appropriating' work - because of
the museum's privileged position within (and in many respects, self
appointed stewardship of) the 'art world'. Thus even if the
institution in question has not compromised itself legally, it is
morally culpable.

We all know that when a show is put together - be it by an individual
or group - the curatorial act in some sense makes the artist's work a
part of its 'agenda' and the 'world-view' (explicit or otherwise) it
represents. This is true even if the curatorial enterprise does not
aspire to any a priori position or thematic - as when claiming, for
example, the status of 'documentary survey'.

Moreover, if the work the curatorial 'project' references (or 'points
to') is exhibited within, or in some way accessed through, a well
known museum, (and thereby framed with reference to the overall
meanings ascribed to such venues, including the institution's
particular history, collection bias, exhibitions record, audience
profile, marketing efforts, etc, etc,) then de facto the work also
becomes a constituent in the ongoing 'dialogue' between the
institution and its multiple constituencies of interest. Therefore it
is not unreasonable to say that in some senses the institution not
only constructs but also 'appropriates' a part of the symbolic value
of the artwork for its own good, and perhaps not so good, ends. For
many artists this is not too much of an issue - at least in part
because when based upon prior agreement, there is a transaction in
which the artist 'appropriates' part of the symbolic value of the
institution for her/his good and not so good ends.

This is not a bash at museums. It is simply restating something we
all understand so well that it hardly seems worth reiterating. Except
that it tends to suggest that the curator(s) who linked to your site
without having the grace to request this of you (whether or not fees
were to be involved) must have been well aware of what they were
doing. Unfortunately, therefore, it seems like a case of gross
arrogance based upon a total lack of sensitivity for the subject and
those who perform it, with a spectacularly negligent (i.e.,
unthinking and uncritical) approach to their own roles. Still, by
raising the debate you may at least have helped make this behaviour
less acceptable in the future.

Best,

Malcolm.

--
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Malcolm Ferris,
Leader of the Centre for Research in Electronic Art & Communication.
http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes/practice/creac/
The Faculty of Art & Design,
University of Hertfordshire,
College Lane, Hatfield, Herts., AL10 9AB, UK.
email: [log in to unmask]
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX