Hi mark,
I agree…with you. I am so bored with all this shoulder jumping via
institutionally led propoganda.
Yep - Vuk Cosik can say whatever he wants, but it certainly is not
reflecting the reality of what is actually going on right now in many of
our lives as practicing networked/relational artists, and soft groups.
Surely this is all about claiming a section of history, (yawn) yet
again, taking away the 'authenticity' of what many of us are actively
continuing without the insecure need of institutional justification.
Killing and placing a flag on that mythical 'hermitcally sealed' moon,
just so one's name can be seen in lights as part of the delusory
spectacle, instigated by provincially minded academics, and tired and
worn out institutionally dissatisfied dependents. A sad state of affairs
indeed. It is a very interesting time - and we can observe now more than
ever where people's real intentions lie…
We are in the process of setting up a gallery in London, UK called HTTP
(The house of technological termed praxis), and we are already filled up
with a whole year of artists/soft groups who are actively involved with
with net art, sound art and relational art; young and old. We set up
this gallery, because we feel that fine art and connected institutions
and some curators have failed in democratizing, showing what is of value
out there, we are left with no other choice but reclaim what has been
taken away from networked creatives by institutionally bound power
hungry centralists, with an aim re-balance the ever changing picture out
there. And what is great about this is that we are getting a lot of
genuine interest from new, independent fine art groups, nationally and
locally and people, who would not normally view net art, and things
related - so all of this 'trying to kill' is a tactic to place certain
people on thrones, and it does nothing that is positive or progressive
to open up debate, or even empower the fluidity of the artist, curator
or connected creatives, or culture in the wider context.
Let those who rode the dot.com boom who are have run out of imagination
and fresh verve, fizzle out inside their bursted, restrictive bubble -
who in reality were obviously desperately reliant on capitalist-led
trappings and a need for historical mirrors to see themselves rather
than the larger picture, reflecting a weakness and failure to transcend
canon-led protocls - yes, may be they are dead. But there are plenty
more who are vibrant and alive, and they are the ones who will teach the
so called encased 'heroic period' - DEAD gurus, how to move beyond
lip-service. There is a lot going on, and it is linked to non-linear
behaviour, flexible manouvering, and beyond the remits of imposed
gate-keeping.
And yes - history will unfold…and it will not be fine art or singular
'minded', visionless academics who will be looked upon positively as new
histories/stories are declared, but the ever flourishing expansionist
individuals and groups, who are exploring their, collective,
collaborative, and authentic, re-evalutaing progressions of a socially
networked, and relationally 'embodied' creative world, beyond
institutionally directed mythologies - the real heroes (if there is such
a thing anymore).
'Kill the patriarch, not net art - you muppets…'
>"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
>>
>>
>>
>+
>-> post: [email protected]
>-> questions: [email protected]
>-> 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
>
>
>
>
'Kill the patriarch, not net art - you muppets...'
-
Type: discussion
Comments
very nicely put marc. it is ironic that the essay that sparked alot of this death business "the death of the author" can be read itself as an attack on capitalism, authenticity and avant-gardism. oh well…
good luck with the new gallery space - sounds great.
mark
marc garrett wrote:
> Hi mark,
>
> I agree…with you. I am so bored with all this shoulder jumping via
> institutionally led propoganda.
>
> Yep - Vuk Cosik can say whatever he wants, but it certainly is not
> reflecting the reality of what is actually going on right now in many
> of
> our lives as practicing networked/relational artists, and soft
> groups.
> Surely this is all about claiming a section of history, (yawn) yet
> again, taking away the 'authenticity' of what many of us are actively
> continuing without the insecure need of institutional justification.
> Killing and placing a flag on that mythical 'hermitcally sealed'
> moon,
> just so one's name can be seen in lights as part of the delusory
> spectacle, instigated by provincially minded academics, and tired and
> worn out institutionally dissatisfied dependents. A sad state of
> affairs
> indeed. It is a very interesting time - and we can observe now more
> than
> ever where people's real intentions lie…
>
> We are in the process of setting up a gallery in London, UK called
> HTTP
> (The house of technological termed praxis), and we are already filled
> up
> with a whole year of artists/soft groups who are actively involved
> with
> with net art, sound art and relational art; young and old. We set up
> this gallery, because we feel that fine art and connected
> institutions
> and some curators have failed in democratizing, showing what is of
> value
> out there, we are left with no other choice but reclaim what has been
> taken away from networked creatives by institutionally bound power
> hungry centralists, with an aim re-balance the ever changing picture
> out
> there. And what is great about this is that we are getting a lot of
> genuine interest from new, independent fine art groups, nationally
> and
> locally and people, who would not normally view net art, and things
> related - so all of this 'trying to kill' is a tactic to place
> certain
> people on thrones, and it does nothing that is positive or
> progressive
> to open up debate, or even empower the fluidity of the artist,
> curator
> or connected creatives, or culture in the wider context.
>
> Let those who rode the dot.com boom who are have run out of
> imagination
> and fresh verve, fizzle out inside their bursted, restrictive bubble
> -
> who in reality were obviously desperately reliant on capitalist-led
> trappings and a need for historical mirrors to see themselves rather
> than the larger picture, reflecting a weakness and failure to
> transcend
> canon-led protocls - yes, may be they are dead. But there are plenty
> more who are vibrant and alive, and they are the ones who will teach
> the
> so called encased 'heroic period' - DEAD gurus, how to move beyond
> lip-service. There is a lot going on, and it is linked to non-linear
> behaviour, flexible manouvering, and beyond the remits of imposed
> gate-keeping.
>
> And yes - history will unfold…and it will not be fine art or
> singular
> 'minded', visionless academics who will be looked upon positively as
> new
> histories/stories are declared, but the ever flourishing expansionist
> individuals and groups, who are exploring their, collective,
> collaborative, and authentic, re-evalutaing progressions of a
> socially
> networked, and relationally 'embodied' creative world, beyond
> institutionally directed mythologies - the real heroes (if there is
> such
> a thing anymore).
>
> 'Kill the patriarch, not net art - you muppets…'
>
>
>
>
>
> >"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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >+
> >-> post: [email protected]
> >-> questions: [email protected]
> >-> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
VG> A s i said net.art is term invented by some
VG> guy which is corresponding to one specific
VG> context and time which are over today.
Over today? Today of all days I get a message called Net Art News.
Possibly is this discrepancy artistically demanding. Does the point
between 't' and 'a' make difference? Let's try to translate.
(net.art is over today) News
Looks like somebody's ironic project I participate in.
I feel a bit ****ed over.
ha ha ha ha
you may call it internet art news or web art news or whatever :-))))
Valery
—– Original Message —–
From: "trashconnection" <[email protected]>
To: "Valery Grancher" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 7:23 PM
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: 'Kill the patriarch, not net
art - you muppets…'
> VG> A s i said net.art is term invented by some
> VG> guy which is corresponding to one specific
> VG> context and time which are over today.
>
> Over today? Today of all days I get a message called Net Art News.
> Possibly is this discrepancy artistically demanding. Does the point
> between 't' and 'a' make difference? Let's try to translate.
>
> (net.art is over today) News
>
> Looks like somebody's ironic project I participate in.
> I feel a bit ****ed over.
>
>
>
the only 'problem' is the 'dot' and the difference between 'net' and
'network'
there are oh so many rules you can tie to a 'genre'
'net' art forever
ps: can i get a tattoo done like abe's ? mail me :)
On 26 Jul 2004, at 21:08, v.grancher wrote:
> ha ha ha ha
> you may call it internet art news or web art news or whatever :-))))
>
>
> Valery
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "trashconnection" <[email protected]>
> To: "Valery Grancher" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 7:23 PM
> Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: 'Kill the patriarch,
> not net
> art - you muppets…'
>
>
>> VG> A s i said net.art is term invented by some
>> VG> guy which is corresponding to one specific
>> VG> context and time which are over today.
>>
>> Over today? Today of all days I get a message called Net Art News.
>> Possibly is this discrepancy artistically demanding. Does the point
>> between 't' and 'a' make difference? Let's try to translate.
>>
>> (net.art is over today) News
>>
>> Looks like somebody's ironic project I participate in.
>> I feel a bit ****ed over.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> 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
>
>
> 'Kill the patriarch, not net art - you muppets…'
>
I think this has to be my fav quote all year. Can we get it on a t-shirt?
j. o
/^ rssgallery.com
][
Jessica Loseby wrote:
> I think this has to be my fav quote all year. Can we get it on a
> t-shirt?
you could always cafepress it:
http://www.cafepress.com/cp/customize/
//jonCates
-> criticalartware -> core.dvr
http://www.criticalartware.net
<–! NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION EXCEPT ON RHIZOME.ORG WEBSITE AND EMAIL LISTS. !—>