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  November 2016

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING November 2016

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

CRUMB discussion: Methods for studying the (after)lives of Internet art

From:

Richard Rinehart <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Richard Rinehart <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:16:50 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (25 lines)

Thank you Karin for introducing and inviting all of us to discuss these questions. I have to admit that in the current moment, as the world turns upside down in the U.S. (though hardly exclusively) it’s difficult to concentrate on anything, but I’ll give it a solid go.

Your questions point in many directions including the need for new, or at least updated and expanded, art historical methodologies that address Internet art and within that new hermeneutics for grappling with continuously changing artworks (perhaps these would be called evolutionary hermeneutics or, ironically in the case of Internet art, stateful hermeneutics.)

But I wanted to back up first to the idea of studying the single work of Internet art. I get that we’re talking about a way to discuss artworks, per se, but starting with the single artwork may predetermine the range and type methods we devise. As Internet art and new media art more broadly was accepted into the mainstream art world (historically, I would argue that moment is 2000 and of course this is an ongoing event) it was accepted under the condition that each work be admitted separately and then assimilated into the discourse of contemporary art; it’s previous technological and social contexts downplayed if not erased. Stallabrass offers an analogy from “Netpioneers 1.0: Contextualising Early Net‐based Art”, page 167…

“The recent apotheosis of photography in the museum offers a warning [for Internet art]: the art‐historical texts that accompany, for example, Andreas Gursky’s major show at the Museum of Modern Art in New York (2001), or Thomas Struth’s show at the Metropolitan Museum (2003), certainly break photography out of its ghetto but at the cost of suppressing the history of photography, the comparisons being with the grand tradition of painting. It was as if photography could only be validated by (doubtful) associations with the already sanctified tradition of Western art.“

I get that the art world has moved past the practice of medium-specificity and that a positive part of this negotiation was to bring the rich intellectual toolkit of contemporary art discourse to bear on Internet art works. But I also think that the art world status quo was/is uncomfortable dealing with these new artworks on their own terms and that something was lost when the art world chose to atomize active communities into trendy (non)objects. It’s as if the wave of new media art broke upon the rock of the institution and we’re now studying the droplets. This negotiation took place only half in the light of public discourse and half more subtly behind closed doors. We see it in the pained look we get from a senior museum curator of painting when we utter the phrase “Internet art” at the curatorial meeting.

Back to methods. So, connoisseurship or close reading could certainly be applied in interesting ways to single works of Internet art. But Internet artworks may reveal new facets when seen in relation to other works or collectively. Toward that end, context-leaning methods such as social art histories might, for instance, name the relationship a given work has with a global tech industry/economy/culture outside the art world as one of those essential qualities that it shares with other Internet art works but not with oil painting. This is not to say that we should revive Greenberg, but only to say that focus and scale could be relevant to our discussion.

I apologize if I’ve unnecessarily focussed on the minutiae of this discussion, and of course it’s not meant as a criticism of the topic (we discussed this off-list before bringing it online.) But these questions got my mind spinning and this was simply the first go-round. Like I said, I’m distracted. I’m eager to hear what others here have to say on the meatier questions.


Richard Rinehart
Director
Samek Art Museum
Bucknell University
570-577-3213
http://museum.bucknell.edu


“Re-Collection: Art, New Media, & Social Memory” (MIT Press)
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/re-collection

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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