Hi everyone, seem to have missed a few emails as my account put them
in a bulk folder thinking they were spam, so i'll try and get to each
of them here now....
>I have to say that I=B9m offended by this whole thread on Rhizome and this is
>likely the first time I have posted to this listserve. I=B9m offended because
>I feel Rhizome and any online net art institutions/orgs like it are
>essential to the community of artists and researchers that have developed
hi Camille, first i'd like to say its great you joined the list and i
hope you stay on to participate as i know your involved in a very
good festival (far from being just a poor grad student) so you have a
lot to add here!
i can't stress this enough i did say in the first postings about
this, that this was'nt about rhizome as such but that the recent
changes in rhizome and one or two other occurances in the net.art
'world' caused me to initiate the discussion. one of the people who
responded picked up on the rhizome element and continued conversation
about that. its a big thing and is unavoidable at the moment but the
discussion was on what we as net.artists can do to develop and
further the situation of net.art, how we can make approaches to
institutions so that we have more input on how our work is shown and
archived, how to generate solutions to showing net.art in physical
spaces, issues to do with funding, how we could develop new formats
to share information accross communities and generally make net.art
please anyone on the list who is following this discussion don't feel
any animosity about this or feel alienated from the discussion, have
your say!!, what i am hoping we will achieve is some open critical
discussion where we might come up with some ideas and solutions!
>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.
what are the Thing doing these days? its been a while since i saw
anything involving them, their net.presence seems to have diminished!
>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.
i was reading something somewhere (perhaps it was here, not sure)
from a curator giving suggestions as how to tackle this fundamental
problem. they suggested two approches. the first being that you
create something unique in terms of the way the work is presented /
interfaced with in a public space such as a gallery. this was
interesting but i think would fail for a high majority of net.art
projects because by adding this 'unique' location based experience,
well the work is no longer really a piece of net.art but more a
combination of net.art and installation to some degree.
the second seemed when i read it sort of obvious and banal, but on
reflection quite clever, they suggested net.art that was to be shown
in a gallery or indeed any location should be created in some way
that it was site specific, now this seems quite fixed and
immediatlely you think the work has to be some sort of response to
the physical space and so would influence both content and
presentation, but seeing as a lot of net.art plays on elements to do
with key themes such as location (or more absence here), identity
(until now tied to the physical but here using the new concept of
avatars), the body (elements of both the previous) and the network
(the new location?) it gives much wider and flexible elbow room!!
not perfection by any means but one of the best approaches i've heard
>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.
yes i agree it is unlikely, but the possibility is there and
especially within net.art identity and age become meaningless as this
is played upon / created to such a great extent within this medium
(or bricolage of mediums!).
>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.
and here's the stumbling block! certainly i'd love to have some
access to an art institution here in England where i could start have
some input but it does seem to be incredible hard to break into them.
up till now i've worked voluntarily with one media community based
festival for new media for a year here and put in quite a bit of work
to keep their website ticking over and attempt to get them to widen
their vision. only to find recently the festival taken away from us,
handed over to another group who bought a new domain name for the
festival (we owned the original), started a new website which for the
moment has only a splash screen even though the event itself will be
happening in less than 15 days, plans to not allow any of the former
community (mailing list of over 100 at one stage) participate in
ether the website (its all in flash, no database used, no structure
so impossible to update easily) or the mailing list (they are now
using none) and never communicated any information to us about what
was happening even though we had worked for free and intented to
continue doing so! so what do you do in a situation like this where
you can't even give your services away?
the reason i posted here as opposed to say "_arc.hive_ ", "nettime",
"spectre", "rhizome" whatever... was because this list is
specifically on curating and i know there are people in institutions
on this list, who unfortunity for the most part have stayed silent
for the moment, i second your "i'd love to give it a try" so why
does'nt some institution take us up on the offer?
>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.
perhaps your not shouting loud enough? what is the name of the
funding body because from what you have said here it does'nt ring any
bells with me? i can't comment too much from the organisers side as
i don't have direct experience of artists submissions so i don't know
whether they are generally good or bad but i will say if the awards
are open to me (nationality, location etc) then i would apply so...
please tell us more!
>I would, however, like
>to throw out the idea that net art is a critical stance rather than an art
>form, much the same way as "conceptual art" now is. Can a painting be net
>art? Sure, why not?
mmmm interesting stance, i'm not a purist by any means and certainly
don't hold with ideas that net.art is only ascii based etc but i need
to think on this one, you've made me hesitate, so i think i'm in
agreement with you!
>So where is the net art discourse? Not with Lev Manovich, heaven forbid
slap your hand for going against the tides of popularism!!! :)
>I've decided we may have came up with an answer. Not THE answer but
>certainly >a response to this particular call.
>More over the weekend.
[log in to unmask]