I don't think it's enough to say Foster/Mulvey/AN Other hasn't evolved
- that the lack of purchase of net art practices on the mainstream art
world is the fault of stuffy academicians too deeply entrenched in
mainstream discourses. Like I said earlier, this kind of
self-ghettoizing closes down opportunities for more nuanced
understandings of what's happening or might happen.
I suspect that we're moving into a post network media age now anyhow (I
hope so anyhow). Basically the network isn't about communication or
technology, it's about relations between between ecologies (natural,
social and technological). It's in the articulation of these domains
that a "networked art" can really contribute too and develop cultural
Simon Biggs wrote:
> Hal Foster hasnıt evolved. Being smart doesnıt guarantee that.
> I was at a Laura Mulvey talk last night. She is super-smart, one of the most
> important film theorists of the past forty years. She was discussing new
> media and digital systems but was doing so within a structural materialist
> approach that still spoke the language of media specificity. It was as if
> convergence media had never happened. I felt like I was in a flash-back to
> 1986. Her lecture was lovingly constructed and beautifully presented with
> loads of interesting insights. But her hypothesis was totally wrong. She has
> not evolved either and this disallows access to the new discourses that have
> emerged since the 1990ıs.
> There was a key point I would say it was probably around 1988 to 1990
> when the terms of debate shifted completely. It wasnıt noted at the time,
> really, although some people had a sense of something happening (being in
> the midst of it). In retrospect the indicators are clearer.
> Are there any suggestions for other years?
> Simon Biggs
> [log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask]
> Skype: simonbiggsuk
> edinburgh college of art
> Creative Interdisciplinary Research into CoLlaborative Environments
> Electronic Literature as a Model of Creativity and Innovation in Practice
> From: tom corby <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: tom corby <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 17:59:01 +0000
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] new media at the BBC
> "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."
> Thank you Domenico, this is a really useful post. In regard the 2
> possible reasons why contemporary art critics don't "get net art" its
> probably really a mixture of the 2.
> I do however find it worrying that intelligent cultural commentators
> like Hal Foster don't really engage the net art phenomena. It's not
> enough to dismiss this as conservatism or technophobia which are the
> normal responses. Some productive soul searching on theses issues would
> be a useful outcome of Gompertz's blog.
> Domenico Quaranta 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-based art", but "I can't find any
>> net-based art of note". As the following statement suggests, Mr.
>> Gompertz knows very well what Net Art is: "Duchamp and the Dadaists
>> would have had hours of artistic amusement creating spoof websites,
>> unintelligible Wiki entries and general questioning of the status
>> quo." Well, at least 50% of the best Net Art is "spoof websites,
>> unintelligible Wiki entries and general questioning 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
> Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201