Thanks Rob.
I'm unaware of any art-talking/making MUDs or MOOs - anyone? This is a
definite gap in my knowledge!
I *think* I first posted to Rhizome and lurked on Nettime. My first F2F
with any of these online art types was with Marc Garrett and Ruth Catlow
at Furtherfield. I wrote and asked them what Furtherfield was all about
and whether I could get involved - it seemed the best way to learn. And I
also started writing Net Art News for Rachel Greene around that time -
again because I wanted to learn. I felt like there were pre-arranged codes
of conduct for lists and that I hadn't got the memo. In a way, I suppose
there were. Pit Shultz explained this situation in an interview in Mute in
1997 - that things kind of just worked themselves out:
'The phenomenon is, and I think this is not such a rare thing, that a
group of people, in a repetitive, communicative environment, begin to
filter a field of possible 'communication acts' in a certain way, quasi
machinic. You don't have to be professional or especially skilled in the
beginning. The production of 'information' along the borderline of
noise means to constantly refine a social context, maybe an artificial
one, what some call immanent, I mean with rules which are self-evident,
and are interdependent in a dynamic way.'
http://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/mute-conversation-nettime-pit-sc
hultz-digital-publishing-feature
Before we even get into any discussion of lurking and flaming, I wonder if
you or anyone else has any thoughts on how prohibitive online spaces can
be to newcomers. I'm about to run the 3rd Academic Writing Month, which
uses a lot of Twitter, and someone just said to me they were scared to
death of taking part the first time round.
And also I like your point - if I'm understanding correctly - about
different spaces giving rise to different types of interaction/discussion.
Today it's easy to compare the 'brands' of different social media
platforms but it's difficult to get a sense now of how one list would have
differed from another - except by asking people to comment. So I'd love to
know which lists people used and why? Why the Syndicate rather than
Rhizome? Was it just geographical allegiance or was there a different type
of discussion or a different value in being involved?
All anecdotes and examples welcome. By the end of this month I'd love to
have collaborated on a vast archive on the history of online art
discussion - feel free to respond on list or elsewhere and post us a link!
On 03/10/2013 10:16, "Rob Myers" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>On 01/10/13 03:53 AM, Charlotte Frost wrote:
>>
>> So, first up, what was YOUR first experience of online art discussion?
>
>It was 1996 and I had signed up to an art mailing list (I cannot now
>remember its name or where the archive of my old [log in to unmask] college
>account is).
>
>But I didn't have a handle on the shared academic or specific mailing
>list culture that would have allowed me to participate constructively.
>
>This meant that I made a lot of elementary mistakes. For example I
>replied to a cross-posted essay as if it was a comment by someone on the
>list. This annoyed people and left me feeling alienated.
>
>So my first experience of online art discussion was of its social and
>technological form rather than any specific art historical content.
>
>Perhaps I would have done better if I'd tried IRC or the MOOs instead (I
>knew about MediaMOO), something more realtime and social. Maybe that's
>just technological determinism.
>
>But surely part of the reason for this discussion is the idea that new
>tools and new media create new possibilities for discussion. And if this
>is the case, the technological and emergent social differences between
>the various means of discussing art online will affect the discussions
>that take place using them.
>
>- Rob.
|