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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING  July 2012

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING July 2012

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: July Theme: Collecting New Media Art

From:

Domenico Quaranta <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Domenico Quaranta <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 4 Jul 2012 16:43:17 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (179 lines)

Dear List,

it's a great opportunity for me to be invited to participate in this
discussion. The issue of collecting has obsessed me for a long time,
and still does. At the same time, I'm a little bit overwhelmed by the
need to reduce my ideas about this issue, which are very layered, to
the form of a short statement, in a language that is not my native
one. Hope it will work....

For the sake of clarity, I will try to divide the topic in three
different areas:

1. collecting new media art;
2. collecting unstable media;
3. collecting the digital.

1. Collecting new media art. New media art IS collected, by private
collections and institutions, as long as its cultural relevance is
accepted in the art market field. That is, not so much, because
galleries, art critics and curators didn't do a great job so far in
making this cultural relevance a widespread truth in the field of
contemporary art; and yet, enough to allow anybody to make a nice "new
media art show" with collected or collectable works provided
exclusively by private and institutional collectors or commercial
galleries. That's what I - together with Yves Bernard - tried to do in
2008, with the show Holy Fire. Art of the Digital Age (iMAL,
Bruxelles, <http://www.imal.org/HolyFire/>). Budget limitations didn't
allow us to provide a veritable snapshot of new media art collecting
all around the world at the time, but I still believe that the
exhibition was quite well representative of the forms in which new
media art entered art collections: mostly in traditional, accepted,
stable forms, such as digital prints, editioned videos, byproducts,
and sometimes well crafted, artist's designed, plug-and-play "digital
objects": from John Simon's art appliances to Boredomresearch screens,
from Electroboutique's self-ironic works to Lialina & Espenschied's
touch screen version of the web piece Midnight (2006). This is no
surprise. Like it or not, digital media - like all unstable, variable
media - challenge collecting in many ways. And along the XXth century,
radical forms of art had always to face this conundrum: either accept
compromise or stay out of the market. Performance art entered the
market through documentation; video entered the market through video
installations and editioned VHSs or DVDs; conceptual art entered the
market through objectification and autenticity certificates.

Many of my friends think that compromise is a bad thing, and they
dismiss these "products" as just a bad way to make money. If this
argument was true, it would only mean that 99% of new media /
performance / video / conceptual artists are just idiots, because they
sold their soul to the Devil without actually changing their financial
situation at all. The truth is that traditional artifacts often work
as a preservation strategy for the artist himself, who doesn't know
any other way to ensure his own (digital) artwork to the future. They
are also means of dialogue and mediation, that help artists
approaching audiences and collectors that may be unfamiliar with
digital technologies, but also different spaces and different
contexts: a clever choice, when technology is not the core topic but
just a tool, or a display, or one of the many possible interfaces to a
content.
In terms of quantity, when (in 2009 and 2010) I was curating the
Expanded Box section for the Arco Art Fair in Madrid, I counted around
50 commercial galleries all around the world working with at least one
out of 136 artists that could be connventionally described as "new
media artists", from Vera Molnar to Raphael Lozano-Hemmer. Either
these dealers are bad businessmen who find a perverse pleasure in
failure, or they have a small but brave network of collectors
interested in new media art. So, again: new media art is collected.

2. Collecting unstable media. New media art CAN ALSO BE collected in
its unstable, computer based, digital form. This is difficult, but not
impossible. And it already happened, quite a few times. Why not? In
the past, collectors bought conversations, candies, fresh fruit,
living and dead flies, dead and badly preserved sharks, performances:
why should they be afraid of old computers, interactive installations,
websites, softwares, etc.? Also, collectors (expecially private
collectors) are the kind of people who love challanges and risky
businesses. Paradoxically, in the art world it seems to be easier to
sell challanges than compromises. What they want in return is cultural
and economic value. Collectors can buy almost anything, if it is
interesting, highly desiderable, and if it can be sold back to
somebody else at an higher price tag (not necessarily in this order).
In collecting, the preservation issue always comes later. But both
cultural and economic value are not a given. They have to be created,
in a convincing way. That's why collecting new media in its unstable
forms is going to be just a funny experiment, and an innocent game,
until artists won't start talking to the right people, and until
galleries, museums, curators and critics won't be able top persuade
the art world about its cultural relevance.

3. Collecting the digital. The digital is challenging collecting in
many ways, but the biggest challenge is probably connected to its
reproducible, sharable nature. This turns scarcity into something
completely artificial, and abstract. You can keep making limited
editions, but you can't lie to yourself: there is no difference
between the five certified copies of that video and the sixth one,
that somebody uploads to YouTube and that hundreds of people all
around the world download on their desktop. No difference except an
abstract, ritual act of transferral of ownership. And there is no
difference between the 5 collectors who bought the video and the 500
ones who downloaded it for free: the latter don't own a bootleg, a bad
copy, but the same file; they just don't own a certificate.

The other problem is sharing. A collector can accept almost
everything, if he is rewarded with cultural and economic value. Yet,
what most collectors can't still accept is to be the owners of
something that is available for anybody else for free. Why should I
buy a website and leave it publicly accessible to anybody, as Rafael
Rozendaal suggests in his beautiful contract <http://www.artwebsitesalescontract.com/
 >? Why should I have no privileges and no rights, only duties? Why
should I buy an animated gif (or a video, or a sound file) and allow
it to circulate freely on the internet in the very same form?

It would be easy to conclude that, because of this, traditional forms
of collecting won't never apply successfully to digital art forms.
Brad Troemel recently wrote: “The commodification of internet art is
not going to happen in the way the art market has traditionally
operated or in any way currently being attempted. This all comes down
to a simple square-peg-in-a-circular-hole economic dilemma, which is
that digital content is infinitely reproducible and free while
physical commodities are scarce and expensive.” <http://thecreatorsproject.com/blog/digart-why-your-jpegs-arent-making-you-a-millionaire
 >.

What's true in this is that the digital allows another form of
collecting, free of any money investment and available to anybody:
downloading. This form of collecting has been widely practiced for any
kind of digital content: from animated gifs to amateur photographs,
from videogames to pornographic pictures. For example, a collection
that is highly valuable to me is Travis Hallenbeck's Windows Meta File
Collection, that can be downloaded from here: <http://anotherunknowntime.com/wmf.html
 >. Hallenbeck collected more than 3,000 cliparts in an obsolete file
format, that doesn't work properly on most modern computers. Most of
these images – designed by amateur and professional designers along
the 90s – are now rare, so Hallembeck's collection has an high
cultural value. But any time anybody downloads his collection, he
becomes the owner of a perfect copy of it – thus making these images
less rare. Furthermore, since Hallenbeck is an artist, we should
consider his collection a work of art: a work of art we can “collect”
just clicking on the zipped folder. Is my act of collecting less
legitimate because I didn't pay, and I didn't get a certificate in
return? Hallenbeck is not selling his work of art on dvd, and he is
not writing certificates of authenticity for those who buy it. There
is no other way to collect this work of art: you can just download it
for free.

Suppose that, in 50 years, Hallenbeck website won't be online anymore.
Net art will be an highly respected form of art. And you, who
downloaded this file and made your best to preserve it, will be the
unique owner of a great net art masterpiece. Will museums consider you
a legitimate collector?

What I mean here is that, even if a digital file can be reproduced
infinite times with no loss of quality, scarcity is always around the
corner. With the digital for the first time, art preservation can
become a social, distributed thing, not something regulated only by
those in power, such as institutions and economic elites. And thus do
collecting.
And yet, this doesn't mean that traditional forms of collecting won't
never apply successfully to digital art forms. Art collectors should
be brave enough to confront the challenge, and accept the idea of a
shareable property. When they will, they'll realize that becoming the
legal, unique owner of something that can still be enjoyed, played,
stolen, remixed by hundreds of people every day is an immense
pleasure. Owning and sharing: isn't it what God is doing with his own
property, after all?

Thank you for your patience,

My best,

Domenico

---

Domenico Quaranta

web. http://domenicoquaranta.com/
email. [log in to unmask]
mob. +39 340 2392478
skype. dom_40

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
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


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

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