On 17 May 2004, at 10:11, Naomi Spellman wrote:

> This list is petering out i think. . .but i should reply to chris
> byrne's?
> -yes, thanks, there is a lot I did not qualify. It was meant with a
> little
> irony, which doesn’t travel well. As an artist who’s not a critic, I’m
> indulging in exploration of medium to end of questioning/mediating
> experiences.

You don't need to be a critic to be aware of theoretical and historical
currents or take account of them in your practise.

> But I do look forward to works engaging a viable critique of
> systems of control. In my posting I anticipated hacking as the thing
> that
> introduces a viable critical tool in mobile wireless media, in the same
> way that hackers introduced tools for critique for NetArt
> practitioners.
> Hacking can engage a meaningful critique, whereas employing the medium
> as
> a platform for critique is questionable in the context of a small
> homogeneous audience.

Hacking is certainly a creative activity, at least when applying the
broadest sense of the term. Some hacking gets close to artistic
concerns. I think that the relationship with the viewer/user is an
important distinction between art and hacking. I disagree with your
views on the audience for mobile wireless media. As these media are
much more widely spread globally than fixed line Internet, the
potential audience is much more diverse.

> RE: NetArtists in the 1990’s attempts undermine
> systems of control - Maybe JODI succeeded in undermining expectation
> when
> surfing online, and Critical Art Ensemble denial of service attacks
> succeeded in proving we could fuck with authority, and RTMark and
> irrational prove that we can utilize corporate strategies and tools for
> subterfuge, for pranks, but their success ultimately did not go beyond
> exposing weaknesses, insuring a fix for these gaps or oversights, and
> in a
> general sense ensure the public and governing powers remember that
> these
> evolving telecom technologies offer unpredictable opportunities for
> infiltration and disruption, as well as for organization and info
> distribution.

All laudable aims in themselves, surely? Why not approach locative
media with a similar spirit?

> But maybe the latter two successes are better attributed to
> activists or to accidents, for example the distribution of image of
> Iraqi
> prisoner abuse, taken by amateurs who did not intend its distribution
> to
> the public.

If I remember correctly it was a television news item that first broke
the story and showed the images: '60 minutes'? Sure the Internet played
an important role, but it was old-fashioned journalism that brokered
the relationship with a mass audience.

> Regarding ineffectiveness of other art movements in undermining
> systems of
> control:
> Conceptual art: if duchamps toilets (is that picture true or false?) or
> his other found object exhibitions declared the first FU to the art
> authorities, and michael asher’s minute displacements of gallery
> architecture asked us to look closer at the house of art, and
> baldessari
> succeeded in selling printed texts for $tens of thousands (i really
> like
> his work, actually) ultimately this game of biting thehand that feeds,
> and
> Do you get it?, played very well into a need for just enough
> intellectual
> engagement and provided a safe venue for social criticism.

It seems you're saying that because various artists throughout the
history of art did not succeed in changing the world in revolutionary
ways, that's a justification for a denial of any critical engagement
with your chosen medium? Sounds like a poor excuse.

> Coopting feminist movement tactics of subterfuge: Look at the media
> image
> installations of Robert Heinekin. Unlike his male counterparts in
> earlier
> times, hausmann, Grosz, Ernst, heartfield, Heinekin engages a gender
> specific critique, a la Hoech, but he exploits the subjugation and
> excess
> more than he questions it. Vito Acconci’s visceral bodyworks and
> performances succeeded in garnering him fame that eluded his feminist
> counterparts, whose insertion of body into artwork and use of body as
> art
> tool came well before (he has since grown up and become an architect).
> Its
> not just the timing-yves klein beat everyone to the punch - but more
> importantly the context. A room full of nakes beautiful women under a
> male
> director doesn’t make the same statement as a female performer, alone,
> introducing her naked body into an artwork (Schneeman, EyeBody series).
> Contrast with gilbert & george, whose performances were inclusive more
> than exclusive, accessible to a wider audience, and extended beyond
> theimmediate experience- although asking similar questions.
>
> At issue here is the use of tactics and language of anarchy and
> rebellion,
> without a genuine need to change things, the misapplication or
> thoughtless
> application of criticality within contexts that preclude effectiveness.

So any critical engagement with the medium is just a rebellious
gesture, essentially meaningless? That's a position, but I
fundamentally disagree. What's the alternative you propose? A
celebration of 'newness' for it's own sake?

> Regarding freedom from jurisdiction of art world politics-
> For me the critieria is that for now the concepts, aesthetics, and
> tactics
> employed in locative media are not dictated by the preferences of
> curators, gallerists, and museum directors, as established art forms
> often
> are.

I don't think we'll need to wait too long for the art world to engage
with this medium: the very fact we're participating in a discussion via
a list called 'New Media Curating' indicates there is a strong interest
already.

> I have not read a proper review of this type of work in a major art
> publication – or anywhere, for that matter! The audience differs from
> the
> museum or gallery public – one is likely to encounter hobbyist or
> specialists in GIS and mapping, archaeology, history, education,
> performance, urban studies, naturalists, tech aficionados, etc.

Sounds a bit like the early days of Internet art, or video art. You
forgot to mention the other specialists: curators, gallerists, festival
organisers, theorists; people from all of these disciplines were
represented at Futuresonic, where a number of locative media projects
were presented to an audience.

> The lack
> of a targetable audience, the close affiliation of the medium with the
> infrastructure and function of commercial interests, its
> site-specificity,
> taints the medium for an elite and conservative art system. Again, the
> environment I find myself in is, I think, acute in some of these
> tendencies. I believe art audiences elsewhere are more diversified, and
> that artists elsewhere who can attach themselves to a support structure
> (almost nonexistent here) are not as likely to feel pressured to
> create or
> fit into a commodifiable image.

If I understand this correctly you are making an argument for 'pure'
research, supported through working in the commercial fields of media
and software development for the mobile networks. A reasonable
strategy, but I don't see how this prevents you from producing works
which are commodifiable, or manufacturing an image for yourself which
is. For example, you have a custom url for your project,
'www.34n118w.net', and a strapline 'mining the urban landscape', both
of which are included in your e-mail signature file. This is a classic
contemporary marketing technique, which suggests you are not above
commodifying your work.

> Unclassifiable: in formulating a way to frame this work and in
> creating a
> language with which to do so, I think there is sometimes an assumption
> that what we are all talking about is understood. And it is not! I have
> been oriented lately toward interactive works employing environmental
> sensing and environmental data sets, which for me undermines an
> emphasis
> on location and mobility, and frames the work as environment-aware. And
> there are many flavors floating around, in the way of technologies
> used,
> goals, and ways of framing the work. In the same way that computing
> arts
> erased or questioned boundaries between formerly distinct types of
> work or
> media, I think mobile media opens our perspective regarding how
> experiences are understood or hierarchized. So, my concern is about
> forcing a medium into a limiting framework. I don’t really believe it
> is
> unclassifiable, is anything unclassifiable? - rather I would like to
> challenge practitioners question how it is being classified.

I agree that this questioning is necessary if we are to develop a
meaningful grammar to describe these new media. A diversity of
approaches is also necessary: even from those who engage with 'art
world politics'.

> Re: intrinsic value of experimental mobile wireless works: I was
> thinking
> of economic value, and not what it brings us as an experience. One of
> the
> major realisations of the dotcom era is the discovery that people will
> not
> pay for internet-based cultural content. I can remember a discussion
> regarding (one of ) the first interactive novel online, delirium, 1995.
> Sony was hosted this work on an experimental basis. The concern of the
> sony people was the payment model – should it be pay per view, per
> work,
> by subscription, etc. What none of us comprehended at the time was this
> was a moot point. Payment schemes for most online content would involve
> advertisers and the collection of personal information, both of which
> remain largely unregulated here, as well as the drastic reduction in
> quality and quantity of content. I can’t imagine that experimental
> content
> delivered on mobile wireless will be any different, although it point
> the
> way to viable commercial applications.

This is exactly the difference: to consume most wireless content the
viewer/user needs to pay the network provider to receive the data (with
the exception of Wi-Fi perhaps). Maybe the subscription models will
change, but this is the main difference with the Internet model. Having
said that, anyone still on a dial-up Internet connection may still have
to 'pay per view' as it were. In 1995, I expect the majority of
Internet users were in the US, with free local calls - so there would
be a resistance to paying for Internet from that circumstance. The
resistance would also come from those who were expected to pay twice -
once to connect to the Internet, and again to view the content.

The mobile wireless networks have based their charging around the
telephony model, so users/consumers are used to 'pay as you go' or a
monthly subscription. They're also accustomed to paying for text
messages, ringtones, etc. So maybe the pay per view model would work,
if the content provider had an agreement with the network provider.
This then leads to a commercial hierarchy of content providers
separating those who share revenue with the networks and those who do
not.

Finally, intrinsic value does not equate to economic value: whilst the
system we live under attempts to make the two synonymous at every
available opportunity, it is important to remember they are not the
same. Otherwise, we might start believing dangerous notions like 'rich
people are more valuable than poor people'. You may argue that is the
world we live in, but not everyone agrees with this state of affairs.

--------------------------------------------------
Chris Byrne
New Media Scotland
P.O. Box 23434, Edinburgh EH7 5SZ
Tel. +44 131 477 3774
[log in to unmask]
http://www.mediascot.org
--------------------------------------------------