"Like Vuk Cosik (the father of net art) is saying, NET ART IS DEAD ! (4) it is dead because the context where net art was produced doesn't exist anymore…
But on the other I still think that some art form would and will be produced in interactions with Internet, but we cannot call it 'net art' anymore ! I do and I will also…
But at the same time I decided to jump into the most 'prestigious', 'serious', 'outdated' and 'unpolitically correct' media on an ironical way: 'Paintings' ! Many artist came from paintings to net art by using on the screen the paintings iconology and metaphor (5),"
At the risk of opening up the "death of net art" debate again. It seems that you are saying that you switched from net art to painting-the-net because the context for net art was dead, but, one could argue that the context for painting was dead when the photograph was developed over a hundred years ago, yet you are calling what you do "Painting." So why do artists who use networks as an approach to making art have to rename the practice? Why not rename what you do something else besides "painting?"
Personally, i think this whole "the death of net art" stuff stinks of avant-gardism, which one may think died with Modernism, but i guess both myths are alive and well. the myths vary but often go something like this… declare the practice that you do extinct (along with everyone doing it) and go on to the NEXT LEVEL (which in this case is something much older and arguably out of date than net art) and then declare yourself THE FIRST to do that. but i say art only exists as a simple hierarchical timeline if you want to be reductionist (and a modernist). If the newness of painting exists in the subject as you suggest (painting what has never been painted) then why does the newness of net art exist in the context of the technology? …and on a related note the whole "Father of Net Art" stuff is so patriarchal and boring.
respectfully
mark cooley
Valery Grancher wrote:
> "Webpaintings": 1998-2004
> After net.art on 1998, my personal view…
>
>
>
>
> If you look art history and how it is dealing with paintings, you can
> perceive that the main topic is always the subject painted on canvas:
> From Giotto to today. Paintings has dealt with physical subject, dealt
> with sometimes narration or no narration, and has interacted with
> other media like photography or with just its materiality and
> iconology…
> For artist from my generation, we grew up with video games and
> computers. The first iconology I perceived were icons from interface
> and software. The screen has defined a new window and has killed the
> camera obscura. The screen is not reflecting and difracting the light
> like pigment but is generating electronic light. So today how to paint
> something ? The skill doesn't matter. The main topic is to paint
> something that nobody painted before you (Miltos Manetas (1)). And in
> my case, I would like to add: to paint something by defining a new
> iconoly (painting semiology)…
> Some peoples from my art public were surprised on 1998 to see that a
> conceptual artist like me who was one of the first to use internet
> media on 1994, 4 years later during the time when Net Art was really
> the most successfull art practice, is taking brush to produce images
> on canvas !
> I would say that I always perceived internet as a dynamic process, a
> network space where nothing may be freezed. Internet is dealing with
> new concept of time and space, and is defining on another way human
> identity and phenomenolgy. Net art is a process.This media has evolved
> from 1998 until today to a huge market where we cannot find any TAZ
> (Hakim Bey (2)) like on 1994 when net art was conceived! The web and
> internet is today a space where branding icons are bringing a new kind
> of consumerism (the hyperconsumerism) where also language may be
> commercialized ("google adwords", C. Bruno (3)) , a new kind of 'pop'
> with its visual signs, logo, VIP and so on, so on…
> Like Vuk Cosik (the father of net art) is saying, NET ART IS DEAD !
> (4) it is dead because the context where net art was produced doesn't
> exist anymore…
> But on the other I still think that some art form would and will be
> produced in interactions with Internet, but we cannot call it 'net
> art' anymore ! I do and I will also…
> But at the same time I decided to jump into the most 'prestigious',
> 'serious', 'outdated' and 'unpolitically correct' media on an ironical
> way: 'Paintings' ! Many artist came from paintings to net art by using
> on the screen the paintings iconology and metaphor (5), in my case I
> felt clearly that the only thing to do was to reverse the process:
> How should be paintings during internet time ? How to use computer
> iconology in paintings ?
> I think quite differently than some painters of my generation: I said
> that we should paint something which was never painted before… that
> is true… but painting is also a language and is not dealing with
> just images and subject and that's why I'm talking about iconology. I
> deeply think that the only way to paint a painting in our internet
> time should not be to paint computers objects (still life) but what
> computers has brought in our reality theater, to paint what computer
> technology has changed in our way of seeing. That's why I choosed to
> paint website screen, computer screen, computer codes. By doing this,
> I try to show that the computer iconology is changing all the time and
> paintings are perfect Flat Dead Things which are freezing the topics
> painted. The result is that the paintings produced are always
> reflecting dead icons: The design of the website are changing all the
> time, the software are changing also, and this is the same for the
> codes…
> Otherwise, I would say that the internet screen are little bit like
> landscape and still life. These pictures are osbsolete, and were used
> so much that we cannot define anything specific, but at the same we
> are always fascinated by them. This is like a sunset, this is a stupid
> and very kitsch 'cliche', but all the time by facing this natural
> phenomenon we are always fascinated because a specific and undefined
> detail inside this phenomenon is catching us: Miltos Manetas is
> calling it "Neen"(6).
> I will finish by saying that this is the first time in history that
> human is consuming language and iconology like daily products:
> I defined my own way of seeing by being confronted to my generation
> computer iconology, but my son will get another way of seeing by being
> confronted to other technologies iconology.
> We jumped from the 'nature' phenomenology based on nature perception
> to cyber-phenomenology based on technologies interactions with our
> perception !
>
> Valery Grancher
> http://www.nomemory.org
> http://www.nomemory.org/webpaint
> http://www.nomemorybazaar.com
>
> N.B: This text will be published in my book "internet drawing" on fall
> 2004 onestarpress editions: http://www.onetsarpress.com
>
Re: After net.art on 1998, my personal view...
-
Type: discussion
Comments
At 01:49 AM 26/07/2004, you wrote:
>"Like Vuk Cosik (the father of net art)
…+ whos the mother?
.©[lick].
-
-
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker
http://www.livejournal.com/users/netwurker/
i understand that the paintings are somewhat ironic, yet i don't see how modernism is being reversed (rather it is being progressed - so maybe "postmodern" is a better term?) because the subject of painting has changed from so-called landscape, still life etc. to the web, which could be thought of as an extention of still-life or landscape. Whereas much of the history of European/U.S painting can be seen as a celebration of private property (capitalism) whether through representing actual objects (still-life) or landed property (landscape), web-paintings can be seen as a representation of capital in the information economy. you are capturing the icons of global capital (uncritically from what i can gather) - the digital landscape (not as a battleground of different interests and powers) but as stable, static (painting) landed property - google - the final frontier!
mark cooley
Valery Grancher wrote:
> Dear Mark Cooley,
>
>
> If you read my seconde text egarding my webpaintings, I say after
> 'post net art' and 'post paintings', for the reason you are
> mentionning.
> Webpaintings is also mentionned as an ironical project for the same
> reason, but on the other hand webapintings is modernist by rversing
> the modernism process, this is waht is interesting on conceptual
> level.
> Of course net.art regarding technology was also a myth and something
> neverdefined before ….
>
> All the art may be symbolized as socks: we may use them sometimes by
> reversing them, puting inside space outside and aoutside space
> inside…
> This is the way I am playing
>
>
> yours
>
>
> Valery Grancher
>
> Valery Grancher wrote:
>
> > "Webpaintings": 1998-2004
> > After net.art on 1998, my personal view…
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > If you look art history and how it is dealing with paintings, you
> can
> > perceive that the main topic is always the subject painted on
> canvas:
> > From Giotto to today. Paintings has dealt with physical subject,
> dealt
> > with sometimes narration or no narration, and has interacted with
> > other media like photography or with just its materiality and
> > iconology…
> > For artist from my generation, we grew up with video games and
> > computers. The first iconology I perceived were icons from interface
> > and software. The screen has defined a new window and has killed the
> > camera obscura. The screen is not reflecting and difracting the
> light
> > like pigment but is generating electronic light. So today how to
> paint
> > something ? The skill doesn't matter. The main topic is to paint
> > something that nobody painted before you (Miltos Manetas (1)). And
> in
> > my case, I would like to add: to paint something by defining a new
> > iconoly (painting semiology)…
> > Some peoples from my art public were surprised on 1998 to see that a
> > conceptual artist like me who was one of the first to use internet
> > media on 1994, 4 years later during the time when Net Art was really
> > the most successfull art practice, is taking brush to produce images
> > on canvas !
> > I would say that I always perceived internet as a dynamic process, a
> > network space where nothing may be freezed. Internet is dealing with
> > new concept of time and space, and is defining on another way human
> > identity and phenomenolgy. Net art is a process.This media has
> evolved
> > from 1998 until today to a huge market where we cannot find any TAZ
> > (Hakim Bey (2)) like on 1994 when net art was conceived! The web and
> > internet is today a space where branding icons are bringing a new
> kind
> > of consumerism (the hyperconsumerism) where also language may be
> > commercialized ("google adwords", C. Bruno (3)) , a new kind of
> 'pop'
> > with its visual signs, logo, VIP and so on, so on…
> > Like Vuk Cosik (the father of net art) is saying, NET ART IS DEAD !
> > (4) it is dead because the context where net art was produced
> doesn't
> > exist anymore…
> > But on the other I still think that some art form would and will be
> > produced in interactions with Internet, but we cannot call it 'net
> > art' anymore ! I do and I will also…
> > But at the same time I decided to jump into the most 'prestigious',
> > 'serious', 'outdated' and 'unpolitically correct' media on an
> ironical
> > way: 'Paintings' ! Many artist came from paintings to net art by
> using
> > on the screen the paintings iconology and metaphor (5), in my case I
> > felt clearly that the only thing to do was to reverse the process:
> > How should be paintings during internet time ? How to use computer
> > iconology in paintings ?
> > I think quite differently than some painters of my generation: I
> said
> > that we should paint something which was never painted before…
> that
> > is true… but painting is also a language and is not dealing with
> > just images and subject and that's why I'm talking about iconology.
> I
> > deeply think that the only way to paint a painting in our internet
> > time should not be to paint computers objects (still life) but what
> > computers has brought in our reality theater, to paint what computer
> > technology has changed in our way of seeing. That's why I choosed to
> > paint website screen, computer screen, computer codes. By doing
> this,
> > I try to show that the computer iconology is changing all the time
> and
> > paintings are perfect Flat Dead Things which are freezing the topics
> > painted. The result is that the paintings produced are always
> > reflecting dead icons: The design of the website are changing all
> the
> > time, the software are changing also, and this is the same for the
> > codes…
> > Otherwise, I would say that the internet screen are little bit like
> > landscape and still life. These pictures are osbsolete, and were
> used
> > so much that we cannot define anything specific, but at the same we
> > are always fascinated by them. This is like a sunset, this is a
> stupid
> > and very kitsch 'cliche', but all the time by facing this natural
> > phenomenon we are always fascinated because a specific and undefined
> > detail inside this phenomenon is catching us: Miltos Manetas is
> > calling it "Neen"(6).
> > I will finish by saying that this is the first time in history that
> > human is consuming language and iconology like daily products:
> > I defined my own way of seeing by being confronted to my generation
> > computer iconology, but my son will get another way of seeing by
> being
> > confronted to other technologies iconology.
> > We jumped from the 'nature' phenomenology based on nature perception
> > to cyber-phenomenology based on technologies interactions with our
> > perception !
> >
> > Valery Grancher
> > http://www.nomemory.org
> > http://www.nomemory.org/webpaint
> > http://www.nomemorybazaar.com
> >
> > N.B: This text will be published in my book "internet drawing" on
> fall
> > 2004 onestarpress editions: http://www.onetsarpress.com
> >
fathers are so 2003.
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,63203,00.html?
tw=wn_story_related
> At 01:49 AM 26/07/2004, you wrote:
>> "Like Vuk Cosik (the father of net art)
>
>
> …+ whos the mother?
>