Gets my vote - excellent!
Taylor Nuttall (private e-mail)
[log in to unmask]
also work contact:
[log in to unmask]
On 5 Feb 2010, at 17:37, Domenico Quaranta <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi crumbers,
> I just posted this on Will Gompertz blog...
> I had some funny time reading this article and all the reactions it
> produced, on this blog and around the Web (check out, among other
> things, Lauren Cornell's contribution on Rhizome - http://rhizome.org/editorial/3282
> – and the CRUMB thread onhttp://www.crumbweb.org/). Personally, as
> an art critic strongly interested in Net Art, I don't think that Mr.
> Will Gompertz just needs some links to "hot" web projects, neither
> informations of any kind. He doesn't write "I can't find any net-bas
> ed art", but "I can't find any net-based art of note". As the follow
> ing statement suggests, Mr. Gompertz knows very well what Net Art is
> : "Duchamp and the Dadaists would have had hours of artistic amuseme
> nt creating spoof websites, unintelligible Wiki entries and general
> questioning of the status quo." Well, at least 50% of the best Net A
> rt is "spoof websites, unintelligible Wiki entries and general quest
> ioning of the status quo."
> So, if I see a problem here, it isn't a problem of ignorance, but of
> critical judgement. What we have here is a mid-career art critic -
> one who wrote for the Times and the Guardian and who ran Tate Online
> before joining the BBC as arts editor - who claims that, among the
> many net art projects he came in touch with along his brilliant
> career, he didn't find anything that can be described as "a
> significant artwork". This may mean either that Net Art, along the
> last 15 years, didn't produced anything noteworthy or that Net Art,
> after roughly 15 years of existence, still challenges the evaluation
> criteria and critical tools available for a mid-career,
> traditionally trained contemporary art critic.
> Both the options above can be right of course. My little experience
> in the field makes me believe in the last one. It may help us to
> understand why, among other things, important art critics not
> strictly connected with the art market (and thus potentially
> interested in critical practices), such as Hal Foster or Rosalind
> Krauss, were never able to get it. And I think that, if we'll be
> able to focus the discussion on these topics - how Net Art
> challenges traditional criticism? do we really need "other criteria"
> in order to understand it and its positioning in the contemporary
> art field? - Mr. Gompertz's remarks will turn out to be really useful.
> My bests,
> Domenico Quaranta
> web. http://domenicoquaranta.com/
> email. [log in to unmask]
> mob. +39 340 2392478
> skype. dom_40