Net Aesthetics 2.0 Panel

Posted by Lee Wells | Wed Feb 8th 2006 12:07 a.m.

Curious to hear what people thought about the Panel at EAI on Monday?

--
Lee Wells
Brooklyn, NY 11222

http://www.leewells.org
http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
917 723 2524
  • MTAA | Wed Feb 8th 2006 8:05 a.m.
    Lauren did a good job of keeping things focused. Both respondents were
    very good, I would have liked to hear more from Caitlin Jones -- her
    co-part, though good, was a bit too talkative, he could have been a
    bit more gracious and let CJ talk.

    The artist panelists were also good. They all kept it very succinct in
    showing highlights of their work. I had one quibble with the panel
    makeup in that 3 of the 4 artists had very similar approaches to
    making art on the web. I felt there could have been more of a range of
    artists.

    On 2/8/06, Lee Wells <lee@leewells.org> wrote:
    > Curious to hear what people thought about the Panel at EAI on Monday?
    >
    >
    > --
    > Lee Wells
    > Brooklyn, NY 11222
    >
    > http://www.leewells.org
    > http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
    > 917 723 2524
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >

    --
    <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
  • M. River | Wed Feb 8th 2006 9:46 a.m.
    > Curious to hear what people thought about the Panel at EAI on Monday?

    http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/mriver/rhz_field_trip.html

    and

    http://www.tinjail.com/tintype/?pA1
  • Jason Van Anden | Wed Feb 8th 2006 10:29 a.m.
    Will there be video or a transcript?
    jason van anden
    ---------- Forwarded message ----------From: Jason Van Anden <robotissues@gmail.com>Date: Feb 8, 2006 12:28 PMSubject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Net Aesthetics 2.0 PanelTo: "M. River" <mriver102@yahoo.com>Cc: list@rhizome.org

    Will there be video or a transcript?
    jason van anden

    On 2/8/06, M. River <mriver102@yahoo.com> wrote:> > Curious to hear what people thought about the Panel at EAI on Monday?>> http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/mriver/rhz_field_trip.html>> and>> http://www.tinjail.com/tintype/?pA1> +> -> post: list@rhizome.org> -> questions: info@rhizome.org> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support> +> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php>

    --Jason Van Andenhttp://www.smileproject.com

    --Jason Van Andenhttp://www.smileproject.com
  • Sal Randolph | Wed Feb 8th 2006 4:06 p.m.
    Some interesting things that came up during the panel:

    -- Outsider Imagery -- The widespread influence of what one of the
    artist's (Michael Bell-Smith) called 'internet folk art' -- animated
    gifs, avatars, personal blogs, home pages, mashups, game sprites,
    etc. All of the individual quirky production of gazillions of
    internet users. If you include webcams in that list, then all of the
    artists on the panel used some of these elements and aesthetics.

    -- Nostalgia -- Caitlin Jones brought up the question of whether most
    of the work had an aspect of nostalgia for earlier (more utopian?)
    technological times (sometimes just a few years ago) -- all the
    artists resisted this idea, saying pretty much that it was just too
    hard to keep up with the absolute now of the internet, and that using
    aesthetic elements which were a few years in the past was just a side
    effect of this. Despite that, once the idea of nostalgia was in the
    air, it was hard to dismiss.

    -- The Sublime -- interestingly the Sublime was somehow connected
    (during the discussion) with being in a gallery (as opposed to being
    online -- is that the mundane?) -- And as MTAA mentioned on their
    blog post ( http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/mriver/
    rhz_field_trip.html ) there was an amazing mashup on the projector
    for a good long time with the wikipedia entry for the sublime
    interrupted by manic (and gorgeous) jodi.org black and white pop-up
    windows. Sublime indeed. Other candidates for the sublime were
    Marisa Olson's & Abe Linkoln's universal acid videos (which you can
    see at http://www.universalacid.net/ ) , Michael Bell-Smith's video
    Continue (not online, but there's a still at http://
    www.foxyproduction.com/artist/workview/5/169 ) and Cory Archangel's
    classic Super Mario Clouds.

    -- Memes -- on the internets, no one can hear you unless you meme.
    Cory Archangel brought up the need for his online work to be meme-
    able, and also the idea that he keeps his internet work what he
    called 'fey' -- meaning that it has to function in the non-art
    context of someone running across it while at work etc. where it's
    "just a website". Internet artworks have to survive without the
    hushed chapel of the gallery, competing with all the other
    information & detritus, and amusement online. One of the strategies
    internet artworks use as a survival tool is to be meme-able.

    -- The Game -- to roughly quote Michael Connor "The last thing you
    want to tell somebody is that the Superbowl is just a game -- 'turn
    that off, it's just a game'. Art isn't just a game. It's a
    *game*." Meaning that the fact the art world is a play space, and
    that art is a kind of game doesn't make it any less serious, if
    anything it makes it more serious. I believe he used the word
    'transcendent'. There's that sublime again.

    -- 2.0 -- No one on the panel really thought we were at a 2.0 moment,
    but I wonder if we might be without knowing it. To me the
    interesting element of what's usually called web 2.0 is the shift
    from websites as spaces of presentation towards websites as genuinely
    social spaces. Most of the panelists worked in the (very extended)
    tradition of video, so we didn't really see the other side of net
    art, the really networked, collaborative end of things which is a
    much a part of net art as what might be visible on a screen.

    >
    >
    > On 2/8/06, Lee Wells <lee@leewells.org> wrote:
    >> Curious to hear what people thought about the Panel at EAI on Monday?
    >>
  • MTAA | Thu Feb 9th 2006 8:51 a.m.
    nice round-up Sal :-)

    On 2/8/06, Sal Randolph <sal@highlala.com> wrote:
    >
    > Some interesting things that came up during the panel:
    >
    > -- Outsider Imagery -- The widespread influence of what one of the
    > artist's (Michael Bell-Smith) called 'internet folk art' -- animated
    > gifs, avatars, personal blogs, home pages, mashups, game sprites,
    > etc. All of the individual quirky production of gazillions of
    > internet users. If you include webcams in that list, then all of the
    > artists on the panel used some of these elements and aesthetics.
    >
    > -- Nostalgia -- Caitlin Jones brought up the question of whether most
    > of the work had an aspect of nostalgia for earlier (more utopian?)
    > technological times (sometimes just a few years ago) -- all the
    > artists resisted this idea, saying pretty much that it was just too
    > hard to keep up with the absolute now of the internet, and that using
    > aesthetic elements which were a few years in the past was just a side
    > effect of this. Despite that, once the idea of nostalgia was in the
    > air, it was hard to dismiss.
    >
    > -- The Sublime -- interestingly the Sublime was somehow connected
    > (during the discussion) with being in a gallery (as opposed to being
    > online -- is that the mundane?) -- And as MTAA mentioned on their
    > blog post ( http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/mriver/
    > rhz_field_trip.html ) there was an amazing mashup on the projector
    > for a good long time with the wikipedia entry for the sublime
    > interrupted by manic (and gorgeous) jodi.org black and white pop-up
    > windows. Sublime indeed. Other candidates for the sublime were
    > Marisa Olson's & Abe Linkoln's universal acid videos (which you can
    > see at http://www.universalacid.net/ ) , Michael Bell-Smith's video
    > Continue (not online, but there's a still at http://
    > www.foxyproduction.com/artist/workview/5/169 ) and Cory Archangel's
    > classic Super Mario Clouds.
    >
    > -- Memes -- on the internets, no one can hear you unless you meme.
    > Cory Archangel brought up the need for his online work to be meme-
    > able, and also the idea that he keeps his internet work what he
    > called 'fey' -- meaning that it has to function in the non-art
    > context of someone running across it while at work etc. where it's
    > "just a website". Internet artworks have to survive without the
    > hushed chapel of the gallery, competing with all the other
    > information & detritus, and amusement online. One of the strategies
    > internet artworks use as a survival tool is to be meme-able.
    >
    > -- The Game -- to roughly quote Michael Connor "The last thing you
    > want to tell somebody is that the Superbowl is just a game -- 'turn
    > that off, it's just a game'. Art isn't just a game. It's a
    > *game*." Meaning that the fact the art world is a play space, and
    > that art is a kind of game doesn't make it any less serious, if
    > anything it makes it more serious. I believe he used the word
    > 'transcendent'. There's that sublime again.
    >
    > -- 2.0 -- No one on the panel really thought we were at a 2.0 moment,
    > but I wonder if we might be without knowing it. To me the
    > interesting element of what's usually called web 2.0 is the shift
    > from websites as spaces of presentation towards websites as genuinely
    > social spaces. Most of the panelists worked in the (very extended)
    > tradition of video, so we didn't really see the other side of net
    > art, the really networked, collaborative end of things which is a
    > much a part of net art as what might be visible on a screen.
    >
    >
    > >
    > >
    > > On 2/8/06, Lee Wells <lee@leewells.org> wrote:
    > >> Curious to hear what people thought about the Panel at EAI on Monday?
    > >>
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >

    --
    <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
Your Reply