Begin forwarded message:

> From: Domenico <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 2 June 2009 17:50:13 BDT
> To: Sarah Cook <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] June 09 theme: documentation  
> versus preservation
>
> Hi Dears,
>
> even if I'm not an invited respondent, I take the chance of some  
> spare time (today it's Italy's Republic Day) to try to make my  
> homework and try to reply to Sarah's interesting questions...
>>
>> 1. Can documentation alone be a form of preservation?
>
> It does. Actually I think that, in certain cases, documentation  
> works better than any attempt to preserve the actual "new media  
> object". This, of course, is particularly true when it comes to  
> projects that are based on process, media hacking, narrative and  
> any form of networking. No surprise that documentation (in a  
> broader sense) is often chosen by artists as a preservation  
> strategy. Think, for example, to UBERMORGEN.COM's “old media  
> installations”, in which prints, videos, paper sculptures, overhead  
> projectors etc. are used non only to bring something happened on  
> the net to the art audience, but also to preserve it. When I asked  
> Eva and Franco Mattes how should we preserve early net art, they  
> replied: “Write a novel!”. Indeed, this is happening many times:  
> the Toywar is best preserved by the documentary movie Infowars and  
> the Digital Hijack by the book Leaving Reality Behind; the Yes Men  
> hacks by their own movies; Olia Lialina's My Boyfriend Came Back  
> From the War by the tributes collected in her Last Real Net Art  
> Museum (I hope she agrees ;-); Casey Reas' software by his prints  
> and sculptures. In all these cases, “preserving” the website or the  
> software, its look and feel, the way it was experienced at the time  
> does not mean preserving the actual work at all. Be formalist in  
> NMA preservation and you'll lose the best of it.
>>
>> 2. What has worked and what has not in terms of media art works  
>> being acquired into other institutional collections or frameworks  
>> (obvious examples include: the Turbulence commissioned works at  
>> DIA; ada'web at the Walker Art Center; Netzspannung at ZKM;  
>> Rhizome being a part of the New Museum). Are these documentation  
>> or preservation strategies? Can they even be compared or does  
>> everything always have to be argued for on a case-by-case basis?  
>> What has happened to the media art archive initiatives - some of  
>> which have been described on this list as embryonic or even  
>> stillborn? Should we be building new joint archives or should we  
>> be lobbying existing organisations to do more? If you are a new  
>> media artist and are considering preparing a proposal for your  
>> work to be acquired by an organisation what would your FAQ or  
>> minimum criteria to them include?
>
> What hasn't worked? Probably the fact that there were no money (or  
> very little amounts of money) involved in these so-called  
> acquisitions. When an artwork has no position in the art market,  
> its value is only abstract, and becomes = 0 when the little  
> investment made in “new media acquisitions” drops out of the  
> budget. There are no “new media acquisitions”, there are just  
> institutions spending large amounts of money to buy artworks that  
> they consider valuable for any reason. When this will happen with  
> the art formerly known as New Media Art, of course institutions  
> will do their best to preserve what they bought – not to preserve  
> New Media Art, but the single piece they bought that involves  
> digital technology. Actually this is already happening: the MET  
> bought works by Wolfgang Staehle and Jim Campbell some years ago.  
> What are they doing with these pieces? This is really interesting  
> to me.
>
>> 3. Does new media art have an advantage in its documentation over  
>> other forms of art in that it is sometimes possible to reproduce  
>> it and multiply it, making many versions of the so-called  
>> original? What if online platforms and art-project databases were  
>> to be 'archived' or 'accessioned' into many collections or on many  
>> servers, distributing the task of preservation?
>
> Some time ago I was looking for an old piece of net.art, FuckU- 
> FuckMe by Alexei Shulgin. The link from http://www.easylife.org/  
> doesn't work anymore – in other words, the work is not available  
> anymore at its original location (http://www.fu-fme.com/). Luckily,  
> a web user was brave enough to make the original website available  
> at the URL http://www.welookdoyou.com/fufme/. Cool: reproduction  
> means survival. But I was even happier when I googled “FuckU- 
> FuckMe”, and I found out a plenty of interesting responses to the  
> project: magazines describing it as the “gift of the week”, people  
> asking in forums how they can buy it etc (check http:// 
> www.google.com/#hl=en&q=FuckU-FuckMe&btnG=Google 
> +Search&aq=f&oq=FuckU-FuckMe&aqi=&fp=2Inaafc1UxE). This is in my  
> opinion the best way for this project to survive; and this should  
> be preserved on a first level.
> What I'm trying to say, again, is that there are no general rules.  
> Of course, reproduction can be useful and mirroring is a wonderful  
> and successfull practice. But if this projects survived, without  
> any protection, just because it was a great project, tons of  
> digital artworks are virtually dead EVEN IF they “survive” in the  
> web archive, in mirrors and in the cache of hundreds of casual  
> visitors.
>
> Enjoy the debate!
> dom
>
> ---
>
> Domenico Quaranta
>
> mob. +39 340 2392478
> email. [log in to unmask]
> home. vicolo San Giorgio 18 - 25122 brescia (BS)
> web. http://www.domenicoquaranta.net/
>
> "The world we actually have does not meet my standards". Philip K.  
> Dick
>
>
>