JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING  March 2010

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING March 2010

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Models of variable media acquisition

From:

Jon Ippolito <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Jon Ippolito <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 17 Mar 2010 02:55:37 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (47 lines)

Hi CRUMBers,

> Back in the day at the Guggenheim, Jon 
> Ippolito was thinking of how to build in preservation and access as 
> part of the commission/purchase/exhibition of new media art...
> Jon, do you want to describe that model for us?

Thanks for the nod, Rick, though plenty of other cooks added ingredients to the Guggenheim's variable media acquisition model, including conservator Carol Stringari and legal council Maria Pallante. Based on my experience at DOCAM, I'm glad to say the original recipe seems to have been plucked up and tweaked by a wide swath of museums involved with new media.

Below are six key features of the model, along with reflections on their success or failure based on an unscientific poll of contemporary art conservators I met at DOCAM, including Joanna Phillips (Guggenheim), Tiziana Caianiello (IMAI), and Glenn Wharton (MoMA).

1. The big add-on to our accession process was to interview the artist about how her work might change, if at all, in the future due to shifts in technology and other factors. The results were recorded in a Variable Media Questionnaire. If my informal poll is any judge, this practice seems alive and well; lots of DOCAM participants reported using an artist's questionnaire of some kind in their acquisitions.

That said, a recurring theme at DOCAM was how this re-validation of intent over material can make life easier for artists than for conservators. Although I don't recall this happening in my experience, evidently some artists have used the variable media philosophy as a pretext for dumbing down their work's technical requirements so as to nab a show at a prestigious venue. ("You don't have a film looper? That's OK, we can show it on video.")

An artist all too willing to sacrifice the historical and aesthetic specificity of particular equipment might strike a conservator as a sellout, and sometimes rightly so. Maybe the variable media paradigm has reinforced this reprehensible behavior. But I have to say, as an artist active on the Internet in the 1990s, my work never *had* a particular medium. My collaborators and I knew our Web sites would be seen in Netscape and Internet Explorer, on screens small and large, in millions of colors or only 256, over T1 lines and over 2400 baud modems. (I'm guessing Simon Bigg's with me on this one.)

This goes for many installations too: the work Apartment by Martin Wattenberg, Marek Walczak, and Jonathan Feinberg underwent two dozen variations in an 18-month period--not because the artists were pandering to curators, but because new media art, like a shark, has to keep moving to survive:

http://thoughtmesh.net/publish/11.php#appendix

Conservators and other historical materialists may be reassured to learn that the newest version of the Variable Media Questionnaire casts a net far beyond the artist to register opinions on a work's future. More on that in another post.

2. At the Guggenheim we wrote an acquisition contract that explicitly required the museum to abide by the artist's variable media guidelines, and I was told that this is still the case. Benjamin Weil's "Care Contract" sounds similar, though I don't know its details. As evidence that this practice is beginning to spread, I was pleased to stumble upon this similar agreement for commissions with the city of San Jose, which Steve Dietz tells me probably reflects the influence of Barbara Goldstein and Mary Rubin (at least in section 17, "Variable Media Artwork Guidelines"):

http://tinyurl.com/yewemm8

3. For the budget of its 2002 online art commissions (Mark Napier's net.flag and John Simon's Unfolding Object), the Guggenheim took 15 percent and put it in a variable media endowment. The interest from that endowment over time was supposed to build up and supply a fund to pay programmers to re-create (say) net.flag in a post-Java version, or to update the flags it referred to to match the geopolitical realities of the year 2050. As far as I could tell, this practice *hasn't* survived well--but I still think there's a strong case to be made for it.

4. We wanted to get the source code for every work, but couldn't always, even for works we were legally required to preserve. I gathered from DOCAM that this is a recurring problem for certain artists. Although we never implemented it in my tenure at the Guggenheim, the Open Art Network proposed a third-party code escrow, comparable to the practice in commercial software development, whereby an artist would agree to let the museum have its paws on the code once it is no longer of (commercial) use to the artist. Glenn Wharton confirmed this strategy seems to be getting some consideration today, at least at his museum.

5. Though launched in 2002, Napier's net.flag remains to this day a popular online destination, to which random visitors still add about one new flag per hour. The artist felt the work required a persistent public presence, and I agreed--so we added a clause to the contract requiring the Guggenheim to keep the work up as long as technically and financially feasible. Further, if at some future date the museum can't handle this responsibility, the artist is fully in his rights to host it himself. ("If you can't take care of this puppy, back he goes!") From the sounds of Marcia Tanner's example, this practice may have survived in certain variations for other online works.

6. Even when a work is publicly available in the short term (like Napier's), if you've carefully documented its variable media aspects, you can argue that in the long term you may be the only museum with the knowledge necessary to re-create it. While the notion of exclusive ownership is counterproductive to preservation--something Rick's Open Museum is explicitly designed to correct--it is nevertheless the way most mainstream art collectors think. So I made that argument to the Guggenheim's Acquisition Committee about our Internet art commissioning program in 2001, and they bought it (literally).

For related reasons, I believe it's a mistake to confuse a work's commission or market price with its inherent value. I'm assuming a lot of new media commissions only net the artist something in the low five digits--or nothing at all. (In 1998 I got $1500 for a prestigious commission--and had to split it three ways with my collaborators.)

But take the longer view. An intern of mine once asked what you would get if you could add up all the money a museum spent migrating, emulating, and otherwise re-creating a work from now to the future. At first I thought this was a pointless question, but on reflection realized it was an ingenious way to establish a lower limit on the value of an artwork. Plenty of people buy a cat for 10 dollars and then drop a cool thousand on shots at the vet. Which outlay better represents the value of that animal to its owner?

Cheers,

jon

______________________________
Forging the Future:
New tools for variable media preservation
http://forging-the-future.net/

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager