> This is what I think is a big strength of the genre, and my issue is
mainly
> with curators, historians, and artists who try to ascribe their own
agendas
> upon the artform, instead of allowing it to be a bit more amorphous.
> Conversely, I realize that without some structure, we could never get
along
> iwth any museum board, and we would never get funding.

I am working in funding body.  It does funded new media work and there is
certain institutions receive funding, and a lot of interesting project going
on. However, I do agree the structure not there, e.g. network, education,
promotion...   In the recent selection of Award for Artists (one of the
funding scheme) the quality of applications that we received in the new
media arts section is so bad (not being critical, but really is true) I
wonder why the sector keep shouting there is no funding while we only
receive poor application? I understand there is frustration there to deal
with the funder, but the situation should be changed, both the attitude and
communication of both the funded and funding bodies.

'This is a great approach, but the question remains: Which institutions are
willing to work with the artists, and which artists are willing to work
hand-in-hand with an institution? I'd love to give it a try.'
This is the problem we need to look into, the problem existing probably
because there 'cultural baggage' tied up with the mind of both institution
and artists. I am working with both artists and art organisations, the
funding body itself is a big institution. It is a love and hate
relationship.

I do subscript Rhizome, but it is not my whole life.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Lichty" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: Dead and gone?


> we won't disappear
> > >just yet but the very real possibility is there ...
> >
> > well your priorities are certainly right by attempting to keep it
> > free, i think the solution in these situations is to diversify,
> > rhizome have started renting out server space and teaching to
> > subsidise themselves, highly commendable directions which will have
> > guaranteed returns. i hope you don't disappear and manage to find
> > solutions to this.
>
> So far, The mercantile solutions aren't doing the trick, although the
Thing
> seems to be holding it together,  even though they have the yearly crisis.
>
>  The 'death' of net art, or its
> > >so-called demise, likely alludes to the inability tof the museum to
> > >integrate it on any appreciable scale,
> >
> > yet they will try, the latest major institution i suppose being the
> > Tate in London - http://www.tate.org.uk/netart/
>
> Sure, the Whitney has the Artport, but my point is talking about
integration
> within the gallery, which is a bit antithetical to the genre, but I think
> that it's necessary as a form of bridge.
>
>
> > as an artist i too see less and less well thought out and analytical
> > work, this is part of it i feel, i would rather net.art guarded the
> > all embracing philosophy of everyone being a net.artist from a run of
> > the mill 'flash artist' to people who are doing ascii only work such
> > as the ascii art ensemble.  i feel resentful both for myself and
> > others at attempts such as vuk cosic's pre-emptive retirement to kill
> > off net.art or indeed any one persons / institutions effort to
> > formulise net.art into something nice and tangible it can handle and
> > would rather i edited and censored my own viewing of the work.
>
> This is what I think is a big strength of the genre, and my issue is
mainly
> with curators, historians, and artists who try to ascribe their own
agendas
> upon the artform, instead of allowing it to be a bit more amorphous.
> Conversely, I realize that without some structure, we could never get
along
> iwth any museum board, and we would never get funding.
>
>
> > >What I witnesses afterwards was a repeating patterrn of new
> > >technologies/techiques that created a temporary vacuum of desire, with
a
> > >subsequent flood of hopefuls into that area.  This was the case in
> computer
> > >repair, desktop publishing, paralegals, ad infinitum.  Can it be said
> that
> > >net art is the victim of the desperate art throngs for recognition,
> seeking
> > >out the 'next big thing'.
> >
> > it is strange that net.art could be fitted into this categorisation
> > but since when has art (except for really late 2Oth century) really
> > offered good returns with regard to money, career prospects etc so i
> > don't think thats quite it
>
> Sorry if I alluded to this being any form of 'cash cow', I was speaking
more
> in terms of cultural capital.
>
> ... or the 'ad&d' awards and left out in the cold felt
> > they needed to find an edge that might get them some employment -
> > what do i do? i design in flash as do a plethera of others so how do
> > i spice this up, i say i'm a net.artist in my spare time so i've just
> > added an element / suggestion of intensive research and
> > experimentation into new techniques and ideas!
>
> Good point, and that's an aspect.  Surely this is another area of the
milieu
> that's quite telling.  Probably a bit of hunger, a little opportunism, a
> little dreaming, and so on...  However, with its growing popularity, there
> does seem to be a bit of a gold rush on.
>
> > >Another aspect I see is what I call the "prosumer effect'.  This comes
> from
> > >consumer computer culture overlaying itself upon other areas of
culture.
> > >One example is that of a show I was exhibiting a large-scale print in
in
> > >1994, with a mother and her 9-year old viewing it, with her saying
"maybe
> > >you can do that!".  Upon askign her about her comment anonymously, she
> said
> > >that their son was good with a computer, and that he could possibly do
> that
> > >due to his proficiency with it.
> >
> > but i wonder!!  is'nt this good? surely thats a plus that through
> > net.art a kid of 9 can create works which could possibly have no
> > distinction from those created by an artist who has been working for
> > many years at his 'craft' and been patronised and hung by an
> > institution?
>
> Good point.  My mentor in grad school (whom, I feel, taught me so well
that
> I left before finishing - I think it had something to do with snatching
that
> pebble out of his hand) once said that the most honest art he had ever
seen
> was made by a 2-year old.  I would argue that in the case of net art, this
> would be possible, but unlikely.  There is too much cultural baggage tied
up
> with it; such as proficiency, access, etc.
>
>  this certainly is'nt a simply matter and opens a whole
> > can of worms on originality, concept, copyright, production, art as
> > unique object etc to name but a few!
>
> Exactly.
>
> > >As a quick aside, it seems that from a historical perspective that
> > >legitimacy in art practice is built on materialism, by and large, even
> from
> > >the perspective of Fluxus.
>
> > i agree to this but feel the solution is not for artists to give in
> > to institution presure but rather to attempt to work with them to
> > find solutions to dealing with this problem,
>
> This is a great approach, but the question remains: Which institutions are
> willing to work with the artists, and which artists are willing to work
> hand-in-hand with an institution? I'd love to give it a try.
>
> > >Oh, one last thing - there is the continual background noise of
> > >technofetishism in regard to techniques used online.  there are many
who
> > >assert that HTML-based art is dead - I mean HTML-only work, maybe some
> > >animated GIF's, etc.  I would disagree, but the available terrain to
> explore
> > >is well worn.  Such an area of net art is a great challenge.
>
> > it is well used already but so too is painting in classical art, i
> > personnally feel that paint based arts are dead but hold this as a
> > personal view point or outlook from my work, so not necessarily true
> > for others, i would also hasten to add that i started as a painter
> > so....
>
> Now this is an interesting take - is HTML the oils of net art?  Is it the
> classical form?  That's something that I hadn't thought of.