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  February 2013

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING February 2013

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Curating the Network as Artwork

From:

Roddy Hunter <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Roddy Hunter <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 10 Feb 2013 20:41:22 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (33 lines)

Hi all

Good to be swinging into the second week of the discussion. Thanks, Johannes and Annie for focusing minds on particular issues and questions. Also good to see we are beginning to see ‘concrete examples’ of network practice to discuss and evaluate. I will take a look a closer look at examples you offer, Annie, as well as work of other respondents and write in a later post. The main questions/issues you both raise seem to concern the usefulness or otherwise of thinking about networks-as-artworks, how to determine their success or failure and what role curating might have in these respects. These still seem to be areas needing conceptual clarification so we can move forward.

I think it can be useful to conceive of a network-as-artwork where production, distribution and reception integrate as closely as possible in the creative process. Typically, the institutional artworld conceives of these separately, often involving different agents of mediation: the artist being one, the curator being another, the critic and hypothetical ‘ideal’ spectator another still. This economy is well known of course and summarized usefully in Alloway, L. (1984) 'Network: The Art World Described as a System'. In: Alloway, L. 'Network: Art and the Complex Present'. Ann Arbor, MI, UMI Research Press, pp. 3-15. Hakim Bey has also equated increasing ‘degrees of mediation’ with corresponding interventions of Capital’ (Bey 1994. Available at: http://hermetic.com/bey/radio_se.html)

Clearly, this system places ‘artists in a submissive role’ as Clive notes and it's also not surprising that artists have regarded curating ‘as a very corrupt discourse.’ (O’Neill & Wilson, 2009. Available at: http://www.ica.org.uk/Emergence%20by%20Paul%20O'Neill%20&%3B%20Mick%20Wilson+17186.twl). More than this, I remember reading recently – but cannot locate the reference! – of an artist or curator who realised that while for Marx the issue was ownership of the means of production, their own preoccupation was with ownership of the means of distribution/reception or something like that. If anyone can help me re-locate that reference that would be great! 

In any case, the case for the network-as-artwork becomes clearer when regarded from this position. The historical backdrop of the ‘dematerialisation of the art object’, which while a somewhat erroneous term, does expand possible interfaces of aesthetic exchange to encompass always increasingly accessible communications technologies as well as discrete, bounded objects of beauty, fax machines as well as paintings. The communications interface, just as a conversation, requires co-presence and co-production of the aesthetic experience. This sense is typical of the 1960s and found too in Allan Kaprow’s ‘no audience, only participants’ approach to the Happening (Kaprow 1968. Available at: http://www.ubu.com/sound/kaprow.html).

Much of this work clearly takes advantage of any and all communication technologies, especially those that could have global reach. Extending the capacity to be together in different places in the same liminal moment seems aesthetically to be the driver. There is an ‘aesthetics of distance’ here which actually depends on being separate from each other in space and time. The experience of this relationship, the intersubjective exchange across space and time, becomes itself the aesthetic ‘object’. 
Manovich (2001) already points out that Benjamin defines aura 'as the unique phenomenon of a distance' (224) not of proximity. We shouldn’t necessarily assume an authentic desire to overcome physical, geographical separation between networkers: it is the romance of their geographical separation that becomes exotic and perhaps even an act of aesthetic love. Aesthetic experience, in my view and found I believe in Bakhtin, requires difference (non-coincidence) rather than synthesis of respective consciousnesses. Synthesis is often confused with empathy and thus thought of as an aesthetic event, where it is arguably more ethical. When the network-as-artwork ‘fails’ as Ken suggests and Johannes questions, is this failure understood in terms of aesthetic or ethical efficacy/sustainability? The difference between poetical and political economy?

These conditions all taken together mean arguably that Filliou and others becoming interested in the artist-networker position were in fact becoming engaged with curating. I was struck with Clive’s view that ‘curating (caring for) the network (as mutually authored projects) made sense as an artwork’ which was very well put. I like this because it refers to curating as an activity as opposed to a job or career. I think Filliou and other networkers (e.g. H.R Fricker and ‘The Decentralised Network Congress’) were behaving curatorially in setting/integrating the context of production, distribution, reception as an ‘open system’ in which to participate.

Two useful views on rethinking curatorial activity in the context of network-as-artwork:  

For artists, Paul O’Neill again:
“The term “artist curator”, which once simply referred to exhibitions curated by artists, is applied by [Gavin] Wade to those practitioners using exhibition design, architectural structures, and curatorial strategies as a way of presenting themselves, alongside other artists, to create composite public outcomes”.
O’Neill, Paul. (2012): The Culture of Curating and the Curating of Culture(s). MIT, p. 105

And for curators, CRUMB’s very own Beryl and Sarah:
“Curators who are truly interested in the decentralised, dematerialized activity of network-based arts have tried to change their curatorial tactics to be more in line with the artists, even if that means being increasingly misaligned with the traditional institutions for the presentation of art.” 
Cook, Sarah & Graham, Beryl. (2010): Rethinking Curating. MIT, p. 84

Rethinking relationships between production, distribution, reception (or at the risk of more hyphenating: production-as-distribution-as-reception, etc., etc.) is important and should welcome interventions from any perspective of hybridity and indeterminacy.

Hope I’ve explained my grounds for asking the question better!

Best wishes all, 

Roddy

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