[Fwd: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: 'Kill the patriarch, not net art - you muppets...']

July 25, 2004

Type: discussion

—————————- Original Message —————————-
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: 'Kill the patriarch, not net art - you
muppets…' From: [email protected]
Date: Mon, July 26, 2004 12:09 am
To: "mark cooley" <[email protected]>
————————————————————————–

I am kind of amused and saddened by all of this. This happened
a couple of years ago in the zine community. What it really meant
is that one or two of the luminaries decided he (rarely she) kind
of woke up one day and decided "the thrill is gone".

I know this will sound like sour grapes, but some years ago, well
it was around the time of the Loma Preita Earthquake (1989) someone
academics mainly art and lit types gave a conference on "cyberspace" and
some of us techies submited proposals but none of us got accepted because
we didn't fit "Gibson's vision" who was the author William Gibson of
Cyberpunk Science Fiction Fame at the time. It certainly did not relate to
how "cyberspace" was evolving at the time. Now luckily a local person
with better academic art credentials than I produced a pretty good book on
how cyberspace as evolving through the local
tree structureed(think threaded message mode) computer bulliten
boards in the local (Santa Cruz, California 1980s-1990s era).

Now I am techie, and I left my academic art side in stasis i.e. I was
probably still am a printmaker)…From my world view the technology is
finally getting rich enough and powerful enough that really reaaly
interesting stuff could be done, so it is hard to say it is dead.

In ways it is just beginning, this was why I was/am still so alramed with
the intrusion of the federal government into the doings of the the CAE
(Creative Arts Ensemble). I was hoping that a full and rich interaction
between the arts and biological sciences would start.

I dunno whether this whole think of declaring patricarchs is kind
of a high arts thing or something. I know that Bill Joy has made
all sorts of declarations about technology. I now that Bill Gates
makes his statements about technology and Linus Torvaldis and Richard
Stallman propose perfectly viable alternatives and no one takes any of
their statements as "the last word". But I notice that "X is Dead" is a
favourite proclamation of people in the arts and alternative
communities. Why would one person presume so much power over things? Seems
kind of arrogant to me.

Have Fun,
Sends Stve

> 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
> +
> -> 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
>