Internet Art Survives, But the Boom Is Over -NY times

Posted by M. River | Wed Mar 31st 2004 9:36 a.m.

In a small article in the New York Times this morning
(sorry, it does not seem to be online) entitled
'Internet Art Survives, But the Boom Is Over
  • MTAA | Wed Mar 31st 2004 10:05 a.m.
    here's the link:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/31/arts/artsspecial/31SISA.html

    On Mar 31, 2004, at 8:36 AM, Mark River wrote:

    > In a small article in the New York Times this morning
    > (sorry, it does not seem to be online) entitled
    > 'Internet Art Survives, But the Boom Is Over
  • M. River | Wed Mar 31st 2004 10:19 a.m.
  • marc garrett | Wed Mar 31st 2004 10:26 a.m.
    Killing things is a political act...

    Killers of other people's aspirations do not have the right to quell
    what is not theirs...

    marc

    >In a small article in the New York Times this morning
    >(sorry, it does not seem to be online) entitled
    >'Internet Art Survives, But the Boom Is Over
  • Kanarinka | Wed Mar 31st 2004 10:52 a.m.
    DEAD! that's cool!

    goodnight internet art! goodnight pixels! goodnight superfluous data
    mapping! goodnight digitalia! goodnight perfunctory interactivity!

    now let's do some interesting stuff.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf
    Of t.whid
    Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 9:04 AM
    To: list@rhizome.org
    Cc: Mark River
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Internet Art Survives, But the Boom Is Over
    -NY times

    here's the link:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/31/arts/artsspecial/31SISA.html

    On Mar 31, 2004, at 8:36 AM, Mark River wrote:

    > In a small article in the New York Times this morning
    > (sorry, it does not seem to be online) entitled
    > "Internet Art Survives, But the Boom Is Over", Cory
    > Arcangel, Rachel Greene, Jonah Peretti, Mark Tribe and Lawrence Rinder

    > talk about the death of Net Art. Yup, that's right, it's now
    > officially officially, officially
    > over and dead.
    >
    > Or, as Mark Tribe calls it and MTAA officially agrees, "Undead".
    >
    > So, let's all get together tonight to celebrate Undead
    > Net Art at the Drinkin and Drawin' Championship, 2004
    >
    > http://tinjail.com/drinkAndDraw/
    >

    ===
    <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
    ===

    +
    -> post: list@rhizome.org
    -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    +
    Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
  • MTAA | Wed Mar 31st 2004 11:05 a.m.
    my initial thoughts,

    Lots of us here in the NYC net art crowd have been sorta talking about
    this for a while. I've talked to many folks from back-in-the-day who
    say things like, "It's not like it used to be," or "the excitement's
    gone" and things along those lines.

    This has been brought up on this list before when Rhiz combined with
    the NuMu. At the time I was quoted in the NYT saying something like,
    "is this digital art not standing on it's own legs or being is it being
    brought into the larger art world?"

    My point being that it's been in the air (around NYC anyway).

    But seeing these quotes in the NYT from our friend's and colleagues...
    It makes it so public, I feel like, "sssshhhhh, don't tell people we're
    having our doubts about this whole endeavor!"

    On Mar 31, 2004, at 8:36 AM, Mark River wrote:

    > In a small article in the New York Times this morning
    > (sorry, it does not seem to be online) entitled
    > 'Internet Art Survives, But the Boom Is Over
  • marc garrett | Wed Mar 31st 2004 11:11 a.m.
    Alexei & heath killed it ages ago & became with a little helping hand
    from Lev.M ...

    why try to kill it again...

    ah yes - i forgot - HISTORY.

    I've got an Idea Lets kill history!!

    Yeah - history is dead.

    marc

    >ah, here it is...
    >
    >http://nytimes.com/2004/03/31/arts/artsspecial/31SISA.html
    >+
    >-> post: list@rhizome.org
    >-> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    >+
    >Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
    >
    >
    >
  • brad brace | Wed Mar 31st 2004 11:38 a.m.
    same ol' shtick: artworld acolyte-victims promote recent
    aspects of technology/media, then gesture as if to close the
    door behind 'their' flash-in-the-pan... never anything
    sustaining...

    --- bbs: brad brace sound ---
    --- http://63.170.215.11:8000 ---

    The 12hr-ISBN-JPEG Project >>>> posted since 1994 <<<<
    "... easily the most venerable net-art project of all time."

    + + + serial ftp://ftp.eskimo.com/u/b/bbrace
    + + + eccentric ftp:// (your-site-here!)
    + + + continuous hotline://artlyin.ftr.va.com.au
    + + + hypermodern ftp://ftp.rdrop.com/pub/users/bbrace
    + + + imagery ftp:// (your-site-here!)

    News: alt.binaries.pictures.12hr alt.binaries.pictures.misc
    alt.binaries.pictures.fine-art.misc alt.12hr

    . 12hr email
    subscriptions => http://bbrace.laughingsquid.net/buy-into.html

    . Other | Mirror: http://www.eskimo.com/~bbrace/bbrace.html
    Projects | Reverse Solidus: http://bbrace.laughingsquid.net/
    | http://bbrace.net

    { brad brace } <<<<< bbrace@eskimo.com >>>> ~finger for pgp
  • marc garrett | Wed Mar 31st 2004 11:44 a.m.
    http://www.furtherstudio.org/live/

    I'm on there now if you fancy a play - just typr in your alias...now!

    marc
  • Rob Myers | Wed Mar 31st 2004 11:49 a.m.
    On Wednesday, March 31, 2004, at 03:59PM, Kanarinka <kanarinka@ikatun.com> wrote:

    >DEAD! that's cool!
    >
    >goodnight internet art! goodnight pixels! goodnight superfluous data
    >mapping! goodnight digitalia! goodnight perfunctory interactivity!
    >
    >now let's do some interesting stuff.

    Seconded.

    What would people say were the masterpieces of net.art? Anything of interest for its aesthetics rather than its technology, funding or launch party?

    =- Rob.
  • Jim Andrews | Wed Mar 31st 2004 7:43 p.m.
    > Killing things is a political act...
    > Killers of other people's aspirations
    > do not have the right to quell what is not theirs...
    > marc garret

    > Alexei & heath killed it ages ago
    > & became with a little helping hand
    > from Lev.M ...
    > why try to kill it again...
    > marc garret

    > same ol' shtick: artworld acolyte-victims promote recent
    > aspects of technology/media, then gesture as if to close the
    > door behind 'their' flash-in-the-pan... never anything
    > sustaining...
    > brad brace

    the above seems more memorable to me than anything i read on the nytimes or
    other rhizome posts today.

    must say i was a bit disappointed in rachel's remarks, if they're accurately
    quoted in the times. on the other hand, i know running a list can be pretty
    brutal thankless work and there comes a point when you have to leave and do
    something else to maintain your own ability to pursue things with gusto (and
    try not to kill it in the leaving).

    i am on another list, recently started, populated almost exclusively by
    canadian print-based poets very blue about publishing and reviewing etc in
    canada. which is one of the reasons some of us moved to the net, to try to
    do something different and our own and not have to wait on the approval of
    publishers publishing a relatively narrow range of types of work...among
    other reasons. it is not less viable an option now than it was in 1995
    despite the intervening, significant work on the net, though it would be
    fruitless to reiterate that work. trendy fashion statements should not be
    mistaken for significant analysis.

    the idea and feeling that, more generally, art is dead has been a
    significant part of art for quite a while. we labour with the life and death
    of art daily, do we not? This is true in the art of poetry and has been for
    a long time. It has not been felt so strongly to apply also to net.art
    because net.art has been shiny and new. But now we feel it in the same sort
    of way we feel it about more traditional arts. As Brad implicitly points
    out, it seems to me, simply moving to the next new tech/media to recapture
    that sense of (superficial) energy is a fool's game. The 'life' of art is
    invisible.

    ja
  • abe | Wed Mar 31st 2004 11:24 p.m.
  • Patrick Simons | Fri Apr 2nd 2004 6:27 a.m.
    So,.......

    If history is dead, narrative is dead, art is dead, culture is dead, ideology is dead, class is dead, the cold war is dead, modernism, net art is dead..
    .......

    does that mean that...

    capitalism , dialectical materialism , cultural resistance, class antagonism, propaganda, American cultural dominance and hegemony,

    are dead?

    of course it doesn't.

    Does it mean that net art as Greenbergian self referencing high (with a post mod twist) modernism is now exposed as the surfacey decadent irrelevance that I think a lot of this community felt it to be , is dead, then did it ever leave the test tube really because what was its' purpose beyond providing a medium for cultural- media-communication theorists to dabble in the experience of creative activity to make some stuff .

    The idea that a self appointed group of pioneers, a heroic avant garde could be so self aware and self conscious, that all that is left to them is to announce their own demise seems right some how.

    If it is true for net art as a vague collectivity, however, then surely it should be forced out, replaced by something new and more culturally relevant, of our time...

    not handing in its' employment card and retiring to the suburbs.

    Unless it has been nothing more than that all the time.

    the net art that inspired me to get involved in this medium was exciting, critical and of the time, not painfully self aware and directionless.

    Those of you who will now fight over the claims to have sounded its deathknell first look frightened and shallow, dilettantes.

    Patrick
    G9

    abe wrote:

    > http://www.linkoln.net/neversaydie.jpg
  • Tim Portlock | Sat Apr 3rd 2004 8:05 p.m.
    But what does it mean and how is it decided for this artform to be dead? Like painting was "dead"? not moving units? conceptually boring and exhausted? not getting to the next level at the institutional level? I realise the Walker ratcheting down on digital art means someone has made a decisioin that this type of work is not the way to go but what was the sign? Being that I dont live in New York I am not privy to the secret doubts that have been whispered about. And I find this ironic since a lot of my digital artist freinds held painting up as a dead artform only for the situation to now suddenly be officially declared the reverse.
  • Lee Wells | Sun Apr 4th 2004 11:32 a.m.
    I would say that digital computer dependent artwork will die. Will
    become dead-tech.
    Newer operating systems will not be able to view or play the media. In
    the next couple years it will be had to find a VHS player to view the
    tapes that were made 5 years ago.
    Painting if done correctly will last for 100's, perhaps thousands of
    years.

    All art is dependent upon the stability of its medium and the expertise
    of its creator.

    Cheers,
    Lee
    On Saturday, April 3, 2004, at 07:05 PM, Tim Portlock wrote:

    > But what does it mean and how is it decided for this artform to be
    > dead? Like painting was "dead"? not moving units? conceptually boring
    > and exhausted? not getting to the next level at the institutional
    > level? I realise the Walker ratcheting down on digital art means
    > someone has made a decisioin that this type of work is not the way to
    > go but what was the sign? Being that I dont live in New York I am not
    > privy to the secret doubts that have been whispered about. And I find
    > this ironic since a lot of my digital artist freinds held painting up
    > as a dead artform only for the situation to now suddenly be officially
    > declared the reverse.
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
    >
    _________

    Lee A Wells
    mobile: 917 723 2524
    studio: 718 349 7951

    lee@leewells.org
    http://www.leewells.org
  • joseph mcelroy | Sun Apr 4th 2004 5:16 p.m.
    oh. give me a break. do you think there are no conscious decisions to preserve paper, brick, and walls? If we assume the continued progression of our civilization, then there is nothing to preclude the long term preservation of digital media by interested parties.

    on the other hand, how successors to our civilization might decide to preserve our digital residue, i cannot fathom at this time.

    joseph

    lee wells wrote:

    > I would say that digital computer dependent artwork will die. Will
    > become dead-tech.
    > Newer operating systems will not be able to view or play the media.
    > In
    > the next couple years it will be had to find a VHS player to view the
    > tapes that were made 5 years ago.
    > Painting if done correctly will last for 100's, perhaps thousands of
    > years.
    >
    > All art is dependent upon the stability of its medium and the
    > expertise
    > of its creator.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Lee
    > On Saturday, April 3, 2004, at 07:05 PM, Tim Portlock wrote:
    >
    > > But what does it mean and how is it decided for this artform to be
    > > dead? Like painting was "dead"? not moving units? conceptually
    > boring
    > > and exhausted? not getting to the next level at the institutional
    > > level? I realise the Walker ratcheting down on digital art means
    > > someone has made a decisioin that this type of work is not the way
    > to
    > > go but what was the sign? Being that I dont live in New York I am
    > not
    > > privy to the secret doubts that have been whispered about. And I
    > find
    > > this ironic since a lot of my digital artist freinds held painting
    > up
    > > as a dead artform only for the situation to now suddenly be
    > officially
    > > declared the reverse.
    > > +
    > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > > +
    > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > > Membership Agreement available online at
    > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    > >
    > >
    > _________
    >
    > Lee A Wells
    > mobile: 917 723 2524
    > studio: 718 349 7951
    >
    > lee@leewells.org
    > http://www.leewells.org
    >
  • Rob Myers | Sun Apr 4th 2004 6:12 p.m.
    Digital art needs to be bitfast*. Choosing a well-documented,
    easily-reimplemented format (like Lisp for programs, a subset of
    PostScript for images, and a raw audio or video format) is a good bet
    for archive quality work. Publish the work as a literate program and
    it's documented and not even on digital media, although how interesting
    that would be for sound I don't know. :-)

    - Rob.

    * - Like lightfast, only against bit-rot.

    On 4 Apr 2004, at 21:16, joseph mcelroy wrote:

    > oh. give me a break. do you think there are no conscious decisions to
    > preserve paper, brick, and walls? If we assume the continued
    > progression of our civilization, then there is nothing to preclude the
    > long term preservation of digital media by interested parties.
    >
    > on the other hand, how successors to our civilization might decide to
    > preserve our digital residue, i cannot fathom at this time.
    >
    > joseph
    >
    > lee wells wrote:
    >
    >> I would say that digital computer dependent artwork will die. Will
    >> become dead-tech.
    >> Newer operating systems will not be able to view or play the media.
    >> In
    >> the next couple years it will be had to find a VHS player to view the
    >> tapes that were made 5 years ago.
    >> Painting if done correctly will last for 100's, perhaps thousands of
    >> years.
    >>
    >> All art is dependent upon the stability of its medium and the
    >> expertise
    >> of its creator.
    >>
    >> Cheers,
    >> Lee
    >> On Saturday, April 3, 2004, at 07:05 PM, Tim Portlock wrote:
    >>
    >>> But what does it mean and how is it decided for this artform to be
    >>> dead? Like painting was "dead"? not moving units? conceptually
    >> boring
    >>> and exhausted? not getting to the next level at the institutional
    >>> level? I realise the Walker ratcheting down on digital art means
    >>> someone has made a decisioin that this type of work is not the way
    >> to
    >>> go but what was the sign? Being that I dont live in New York I am
    >> not
    >>> privy to the secret doubts that have been whispered about. And I
    >> find
    >>> this ironic since a lot of my digital artist freinds held painting
    >> up
    >>> as a dead artform only for the situation to now suddenly be
    >> officially
    >>> declared the reverse.
    >>> +
    >>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    >>> +
    >>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >>> Membership Agreement available online at
    >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >>>
    >>>
    >> _________
    >>
    >> Lee A Wells
    >> mobile: 917 723 2524
    >> studio: 718 349 7951
    >>
    >> lee@leewells.org
    >> http://www.leewells.org
    >>
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
  • Tim Portlock | Mon Apr 5th 2004 7:17 a.m.
    The difficulty in maitaining computer based art does not seem to me to be a signifcant element in the "death of netart". I know a lot of art institutions have a bit of difficulty figuring out how to sell it and upkeeping the technology but at the end of the day if there was money (i.e. gallery sales) then something would be figured out. Think of how earthwork, the work of Joseph Beuys and conceptual art manages to get archived. But this has nothing to do with the topic which was...

    What is it that indicates the death of this artform? When those people where quoted for the "death" article the most signifcant reason that is given is that it is really difficult to maintain an online community. This surly cant be the only reason. Does this has something to do with whatever it is that is causing the resurgenece of painting?

    This issue is particularly compelling as every university art program in the US is rushing to create a digtal art major.

    Rob Myers wrote:

    > Digital art needs to be bitfast*. Choosing a well-documented,
    > easily-reimplemented format (like Lisp for programs, a subset of
    > PostScript for images, and a raw audio or video format) is a good bet
    > for archive quality work. Publish the work as a literate program and
    > it's documented and not even on digital media, although how
    > interesting
    > that would be for sound I don't know. :-)
    >
    > - Rob.
    >
    > * - Like lightfast, only against bit-rot.
    >
    > On 4 Apr 2004, at 21:16, joseph mcelroy wrote:
    >
    > > oh. give me a break. do you think there are no conscious decisions
    > to
    > > preserve paper, brick, and walls? If we assume the continued
    > > progression of our civilization, then there is nothing to preclude
    > the
    > > long term preservation of digital media by interested parties.
    > >
    > > on the other hand, how successors to our civilization might decide
    > to
    > > preserve our digital residue, i cannot fathom at this time.
    > >
    > > joseph
    > >
    > > lee wells wrote:
    > >
    > >> I would say that digital computer dependent artwork will die. Will
    > >> become dead-tech.
    > >> Newer operating systems will not be able to view or play the media.
    > >> In
    > >> the next couple years it will be had to find a VHS player to view
    > the
    > >> tapes that were made 5 years ago.
    > >> Painting if done correctly will last for 100's, perhaps thousands
    > of
    > >> years.
    > >>
    > >> All art is dependent upon the stability of its medium and the
    > >> expertise
    > >> of its creator.
    > >>
    > >> Cheers,
    > >> Lee
    > >> On Saturday, April 3, 2004, at 07:05 PM, Tim Portlock wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> But what does it mean and how is it decided for this artform to be
    > >>> dead? Like painting was "dead"? not moving units? conceptually
    > >> boring
    > >>> and exhausted? not getting to the next level at the institutional
    > >>> level? I realise the Walker ratcheting down on digital art means
    > >>> someone has made a decisioin that this type of work is not the way
    > >> to
    > >>> go but what was the sign? Being that I dont live in New York I am
    > >> not
    > >>> privy to the secret doubts that have been whispered about. And I
    > >> find
    > >>> this ironic since a lot of my digital artist freinds held painting
    > >> up
    > >>> as a dead artform only for the situation to now suddenly be
    > >> officially
    > >>> declared the reverse.
    > >>> +
    > >>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > >>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > >>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    > >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > >>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to
    > non-members
    > >>> +
    > >>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > >>> Membership Agreement available online at
    > >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >> _________
    > >>
    > >> Lee A Wells
    > >> mobile: 917 723 2524
    > >> studio: 718 349 7951
    > >>
    > >> lee@leewells.org
    > >> http://www.leewells.org
    > >>
    > > +
    > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > > +
    > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > > Membership Agreement available online at
    > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
  • Rob Myers | Mon Apr 5th 2004 7:41 a.m.
    On Monday, April 05, 2004, at 11:17AM, Tim Portlock <timportlock@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >This issue is particularly compelling as every university art program in the US is rushing to create a digital art major.

    Digital Art is not the same as net art. When I was at Middlesex in the mid-1990s we used to do "Interactive Multimedia"* and before that they did computer graphics or computer animation. I think what I currently do would be considered application programming or AI. It's still digital art, I've only ever done a couple of pieces that even run on the net.

    Net art's collapse will get a few players some more publicity, but it's as irrelevent to the future of digital art as Neo Geo's market collapsing was to the future of painting. Digital Art can be taught independent of any current fads: aesthetics and programming are two vital skills for the twenty-first century and they deserve to be taught together.

    - Rob.

    * - Actually we did "Digital Art", but people used to look at you funny if you told them that.
Your Reply