net art?

July 18, 2006

Type: discussion

is it my imagination or is it the case that there are fewer and fewer
posting on rhizome.org concerning net art, as opposed to news items about
gallery or museum etc work?

does this reflect more concern among the rhizome people for such work rather
than net art?

ja?
http://vispo.com

Comments

2006-07-19 18:23, Jason Nelson

Jim and others,

I agree completely. Well not completely as that implies some sort
of eternal agreement, which might be impossible given recent laws.

But…yes…it does appear there is more notice and less discussion.

So what does all this mean?

The more calls and notices would seem to mean that net art is thriving, and
that maybe it has moved towards more institutional worlds, than the vague
underground that has charged it along so curiously….

But on reading the calls for work, most of them center on video work
or installation whatnots, or digital prints. I suppose that's galleries need.
A website doesnt always gather big funds and fancy dress donors.
(although this will change, and rather soon I would imagine).

So maybe the temptation of openings and white walls has moved the
attraction.

Jason Nelson

Jim Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
is it my imagination or is it the case that there are fewer and fewer
posting on rhizome.org concerning net art, as opposed to news items about
gallery or museum etc work?

does this reflect more concern among the rhizome people for such work rather
than net art?

ja?
http://vispo.com

+
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> 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

———————————
Groups are talking. We´re listening. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups.

2006-07-19 22:05, Eric Dymond

Good point Jim. I hope it's just that the summer creates a less charged atmosphere, I think it's just a more reflective time.
Hopefully when September rolls around the discussions re. net.art will resume. I remeber someone on Matrix (Interaccess' old BBS) posting a message about letting the computers rest when the weather is so nice (I think it was Tom Leonardt) and it's not such a bad idea. Input time rather than output time.

Eric

2006-07-19 23:09, Alexis Turner

Shit, was I sleeping on the job?
-Alexis

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Eric Dymond wrote:

::Good point Jim. I hope it's just that the summer creates a less charged atmosphere, I think it's just a more reflective time.
::Hopefully when September rolls around the discussions re. net.art will resume. I remeber someone on Matrix (Interaccess' old BBS) posting a message about letting the computers rest when the weather is so nice (I think it was Tom Leonardt) and it's not such a bad idea. Input time rather than output time.
::
::Eric

2006-07-20 03:18, Salvatore Iaconesi

there's a lovely beach here, near rome, where they offer broadband internet
connection for free .. . :)

>– Original Message –
>Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 21:04:57 -0700
>To: [email protected]
>From: Eric Dymond <[email protected]>
>Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: net art?
>Reply-To: Eric Dymond <[email protected]>
>
>
>Good point Jim. I hope it's just that the summer creates a less charged
atmosphere,
>I think it's just a more reflective time.
>Hopefully when September rolls around the discussions re. net.art will resume.
>I remeber someone on Matrix (Interaccess' old BBS) posting a message about
>letting the computers rest when the weather is so nice (I think it was Tom
>Leonardt) and it's not such a bad idea. Input time rather than output time.
>
>Eric
>+
>-> post: [email protected]
>-> questions: [email protected]
>-> 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

2006-07-22 18:16, Jim Andrews

i was thinking of the rhizome.org web site, actually. most of the works on
the home page are not net art works.

i'm sure the gallery scenes are wonderful, but when i visit rhizome.org i'm
not so much looking for wonderful things in galleries or festivals in new
york and elsewhere as for excellent net art that i can experience without
having to fly to new york.

i'm not positing a conspiracy. you publicize the work you're close to,
knowlegeable about, involved in, getting news about. maybe there just is no
one working on the rhizome site who is heavy duty net art.

ja
http://vispo.com

—–Original Message—–
From: Jason Nelson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: July 19, 2006 5:23 PM
To: Jim Andrews; [email protected]
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: net art?

Jim and others,

I agree completely. Well not completely as that implies some sort
of eternal agreement, which might be impossible given recent laws.

But…yes…it does appear there is more notice and less discussion.

So what does all this mean?

The more calls and notices would seem to mean that net art is thriving,
and
that maybe it has moved towards more institutional worlds, than the vague
underground that has charged it along so curiously….

But on reading the calls for work, most of them center on video work
or installation whatnots, or digital prints. I suppose that's galleries
need.
A website doesnt always gather big funds and fancy dress donors.
(although this will change, and rather soon I would imagine).

So maybe the temptation of openings and white walls has moved the
attraction.

Jason Nelson

Jim Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
is it my imagination or is it the case that there are fewer and fewer
posting on rhizome.org concerning net art, as opposed to news items
about
gallery or museum etc work?

does this reflect more concern among the rhizome people for such work
rather
than net art?

ja?
http://vispo.com

2006-07-23 05:29, Salvatore Iaconesi

There is this thing.. post-media…

With the death of interaction-design critique is looking for "the next thing to sell". So they are inventing post-media.

It is a wonderful theory that effectively creates from scratch "something" that can be shown and sold in galleries and events.

Take the various disciplines of digital arts (be them network, software, generative.. whatever), apply post-medianism to them, and here you go: something materialized in the physical world, ready to be given a price tag, and sold.

"We make money, not art", ok. But is the focus changing direction?

The artist "was" dead. And it was a good thing.

Apart from that: welcome to all the event descriptions and reportages ( even mine :) ); i read them all. They are interesting and show that there is activity and thought, and a will to break the barriers running between who's connected and who's not.

s

Jim Andrews wrote:

> is it my imagination or is it the case that there are fewer and fewer
> posting on rhizome.org concerning net art, as opposed to news items
> about
> gallery or museum etc work?
>
> does this reflect more concern among the rhizome people for such work
> rather
> than net art?
>
> ja?
> http://vispo.com
>
>

2006-07-23 07:55, Jim Andrews

Hi Salvatore,

"post-media" was invented quite a while ago, i believe. i think it's a guattari term? anyway, check out http://aleph-arts.org/epm/eng , for instance, which has been and gone, but discusses "post-media". Or do you mean post-post-media?

In the "Webs" section of that site, they say

"Without Rhizome, there would be no 'international net.art community', or if there were, it wouldn't have the same form as it does. Rhizome is the place where 'everybody' gets informed and communicates the results of their creative practices on the Internet -and logically it is also the place where everybody goes to find out what's happening. Thanks to this, the form that the net.art community has adopted looks, at least here, like a 'community of media producers' -that is, like one where the audience and the collective of 'broadcasters' tend to coincide. If that is indeed the case, it is due above all to the experience of these kinds of lists, which incite their audience to online participation."

To me, an 'international net.art community' does indeed need some net art.

ja
http://vispo.com

> —–Original Message—–
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> Salvatore Iaconesi
> Sent: July 23, 2006 4:29 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: net art?
>
>
> There is this thing.. post-media…
>
> With the death of interaction-design critique is looking for "the
> next thing to sell". So they are inventing post-media.
>
> It is a wonderful theory that effectively creates from scratch
> "something" that can be shown and sold in galleries and events.
>
> Take the various disciplines of digital arts (be them network,
> software, generative.. whatever), apply post-medianism to them,
> and here you go: something materialized in the physical world,
> ready to be given a price tag, and sold.
>
> "We make money, not art", ok. But is the focus changing direction?
>
> The artist "was" dead. And it was a good thing.
>
> Apart from that: welcome to all the event descriptions and
> reportages ( even mine :) ); i read them all. They are
> interesting and show that there is activity and thought, and a
> will to break the barriers running between who's connected and who's not.
>
> s

2006-07-23 12:46, manik vauda marija manik nikola pilipovic

NYET ART(Rusian translati=
on for net art-nyet mean NO.)But that's second thing we wont to say.(Consid=
ered my self this year things goes better,you know eat almost every day,pe=
ople finally LOVE Serbs because of Tesla and that's why they going to give =
part of our Serbia-Kosovo with few hundred our monastery churches,and othe=
r object to i forgot whom…oh,yes people too,but who care for them,they're=
write off,Peter Handke was there,on Kosovo few days ago(for two week).We d=
on't know-maybe he can tell with his word what's going on there.Oh,yes some=
time we watch TV.My God!I don't know is that correct to talking about war w=
ithout pointed who's quilt(like it was in Serbia case,falseness constructio=
n,we seen that earlier in film withDustin Hofman and Bob DeNiro,and vice ve=
rse,one slut Onanpure was there with extended phallus in her filthy hand ha=
nd(total two),and she mix up lie and oral satisfaction,but…Oh yes I remem=
ber now "DEARTISATION",mean nothing,I've try on Google -nothing,nada,nichev=
o…We also like this Salvatore's nice thought about event description and =
reportages,but nobody believe me,they think it's propaganda,half of people =
from Rhizome isn't here anymore,I seen their name on big exhibition,everyon=
e's better then us,I believe it's because we are quilt backwards,in year or=
two even II word war is going to be (like first)caused by Serbs(some Hitle=
rovich…)Oh,yes,Guattary,yes,yes !He's good like bread,clever man,-no mone=
y in nyet art,we believe that there's no money for certain people,because o=
f certain reason.Yes,friendshit,and think like that,first time we publishe=
d our sentence on Rhizome,it was hundred years ago we were so happy.Sans th=
an we have about 1000 works on rhizome,everybody say to us how nice,god,dee=
p(like asshole)are they and nothing.Other people goes further but we stay,T=
his moron Abe Lincoln wrote something like:"You are happy that you are even=
on frizome.!Oh,baby you are happy you are live,you could tie shoelace…et=
c.
Love you specially all
your here forever
MANIK

Hi Salvatore,

"post-media" was invented quite a while ago, i believe. i think it's a
guattari term? anyway, check out http://aleph-arts.org/epm/eng , for
instance, which has been and gone, but discusses "post-media". Or do you
mean post-post-media?

In the "Webs" section of that site, they say

"Without Rhizome, there would be no 'international net.art community', or if
there were, it wouldn't have the same form as it does. Rhizome is the place
where 'everybody' gets informed and communicates the results of their
creative practices on the Internet -and logically it is also the place where
everybody goes to find out what's happening. Thanks to this, the form that
the net.art community has adopted looks, at least here, like a 'community of
media producers' -that is, like one where the audience and the collective of
'broadcasters' tend to coincide. If that is indeed the case, it is due
above all to the experience of these kinds of lists, which incite their
audience to online participation."

To me, an 'international net.art community' does indeed need some net art.

ja
http://vispo.com

> —–Original Message—–
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> Salvatore Iaconesi
> Sent: July 23, 2006 4:29 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: net art?
>
>
> There is this thing.. post-media…
>
> With the death of interaction-design critique is looking for "the
> next thing to sell". So they are inventing post-media.
>
> It is a wonderful theory that effectively creates from scratch
> "something" that can be shown and sold in galleries and events.
>
> Take the various disciplines of digital arts (be them network,
> software, generative.. whatever), apply post-medianism to them,
> and here you go: something materialized in the physical world,
> ready to be given a price tag, and sold.
>
> "We make money, not art", ok. But is the focus changing direction?
>
> The artist "was" dead. And it was a good thing.
>
> Apart from that: welcome to all the event descriptions and
> reportages ( even mine :) ); i read them all. They are
> interesting and show that there is activity and thought, and a
> will to break the barriers running between who's connected and who's not.
>
> s

2006-07-23 13:32, manik vauda marija manik nikola pilipovic

—– Original Message —–
From: manik
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 8:45 PM
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: net art?

NYET ART(Rusian translati=
on for net art-nyet mean NO.)But that's second thing we wont to say.(Consid=
ered my self this year things goes better,you know eat almost every day,pe=
ople finally LOVE Serbs because of Tesla and that's why they going to give =
part of our Serbia-Kosovo with few hundred our monastery churches,and othe=
r object to i forgot whom…oh,yes people too,but who care for them,they're=
write off,Peter Handke was there,on Kosovo few days ago(for two week).We d=
on't know-maybe he can tell with his word what's going on there.Oh,yes some=
time we watch TV.My God!I don't know is that correct to talking about war w=
ithout pointed who's quilt(like it was in Serbia case,falseness constructio=
n,we seen that earlier in film withDustin Hofman and Bob DeNiro,and vice ve=
rse,one slut Onanpure was there with extended phallus in her filthy hand ha=
nd(total two),and she mix up lie and oral satisfaction,but…Oh yes I remem=
ber now "DEARTISATION",mean nothing,I've try on Google -nothing,nada,nichev=
o…We also like this Salvatore's nice thought about event description and =
reportages,but nobody believe me,they think it's propaganda,half of people =
from Rhizome isn't here anymore,I seen their name on big exhibition,everyon=
e's better then us,I believe it's because we are quilt backwards,in year or=
two even II word war is going to be (like first)caused by Serbs(some Hitle=
rovich…)Oh,yes,Guattary,yes,yes !He's good like bread,clever man,-no mone=
y in nyet art,we believe that there's no money for certain people,because o=
f certain reason.Yes,friendshit,and think like that,first time we publishe=
d our sentence on Rhizome,it was hundred years ago we were so happy.Sans th=
an we have about 1000 works on rhizome,everybody say to us how nice,god,dee=
p(like asshole)are they and nothing.Other people goes further but we stay,T=
his moron Abe Lincoln wrote something like:"You are happy that you are even=
on frizome.!Oh,baby you are happy you are live,you could tie shoelace…et=
c.
Love you specially all
your here forever
MANIK

Hi Salvatore,

"post-media" was invented quite a while ago, i believe. i think it's a
guattari term? anyway, check out http://aleph-arts.org/epm/eng , for
instance, which has been and gone, but discusses "post-media". Or do you
mean post-post-media?

In the "Webs" section of that site, they say

"Without Rhizome, there would be no 'international net.art community', or if
there were, it wouldn't have the same form as it does. Rhizome is the place
where 'everybody' gets informed and communicates the results of their
creative practices on the Internet -and logically it is also the place where
everybody goes to find out what's happening. Thanks to this, the form that
the net.art community has adopted looks, at least here, like a 'community of
media producers' -that is, like one where the audience and the collective of
'broadcasters' tend to coincide. If that is indeed the case, it is due
above all to the experience of these kinds of lists, which incite their
audience to online participation."

To me, an 'international net.art community' does indeed need some net art.

ja
http://vispo.com

> —–Original Message—–
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> Salvatore Iaconesi
> Sent: July 23, 2006 4:29 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: net art?
>
>
> There is this thing.. post-media…
>
> With the death of interaction-design critique is looking for "the
> next thing to sell". So they are inventing post-media.
>
> It is a wonderful theory that effectively creates from scratch
> "something" that can be shown and sold in galleries and events.
>
> Take the various disciplines of digital arts (be them network,
> software, generative.. whatever), apply post-medianism to them,
> and here you go: something materialized in the physical world,
> ready to be given a price tag, and sold.
>
> "We make money, not art", ok. But is the focus changing direction?
>
> The artist "was" dead. And it was a good thing.
>
> Apart from that: welcome to all the event descriptions and
> reportages ( even mine :) ); i read them all. They are
> interesting and show that there is activity and thought, and a
> will to break the barriers running between who's connected and who's not.
>
> s

2006-07-24 11:47, manik vauda marija manik nikola pilipovic

NYET ART(Rusian transla=
tion for net art-nyet mean NO.)But that's second thing we want to say.(Cons=
idered my self this year things goes better,you know: eat almost every day=
,people finally LOVE Serbs because of Tesla's 150 years and that's why they=
going to give part of Serbia-Kosovo with few hundred monastery,churches,=
and other object to… I've forgot whom…oh,yes people too,but who care fo=
r them,they're write off,Peter Handke was there,on Kosovo few days ago(for =
two week).We don't know-maybe he can tell with his word what's going on the=
re.Oh,yes sometime we watch TV.My God!I don't know is that correct to talki=
ng about war without pointed who's quilt(like it was in Serbia case,falsene=
ss construction,we seen that earlier in film with Dustin Hofman and Bob DeN=
iro,and vice verse,one slut Onanpure was there with extended phallus in her=
filthy hand hand(total two),and she mix up lie and oral satisfaction,but..=
.Oh yes I remember now "DEARTISATION",mean nothing,not even oposit of derat=
isation,but we find that word properly for our case,I've try to find dearti=
sation on Google -nothing,nada,nichevo…We also like this Salvatore's nice=
thought about event description and reportages,but nobody believe me,they =
think it's propaganda,half of people from Rhizome isn't here anymore,I've s=
een their name on big exhibition,everyone's doing better then us,I believe =
it's because we are quilt backwards,in year or two even II word war is goin=
g to be (like first)caused by Serbs(some Hitlerovich…)Oh,yes,Guattary,yes=
,yes !He's good like bread,clever man,-no money in nyet art,we believe that=
there's no money for certain people,because of certain reason.Yes,friends=
hit,and think like that,first time we published our sentence on Rhizome,it =
was hundred years ago we were so happy.Sans than we have about 1000 works o=
n rhizome,everybody say to us how nice,god,deep(like asshole)are they and n=
othing.Other people goes further but we stay,This moron Abe Lincoln wrote s=
omething like:"You are happy that you are even on rizome.!"Oh,baby you are =
happy you are live,you could tie shoelace…etc.
Love you…
your here forever
MANIK

Hi Salvatore,

"post-media" was invented quite a while ago, i believe. i think it's a
guattari term? anyway, check out http://aleph-arts.org/epm/eng , for
instance, which has been and gone, but discusses "post-media". Or do you
mean post-post-media?

In the "Webs" section of that site, they say

"Without Rhizome, there would be no 'international net.art community', or=
if
there were, it wouldn't have the same form as it does. Rhizome is the pl=
ace
where 'everybody' gets informed and communicates the results of their
creative practices on the Internet -and logically it is also the place wh=
ere
everybody goes to find out what's happening. Thanks to this, the form th=
at
the net.art community has adopted looks, at least here, like a 'community=
of
media producers' -that is, like one where the audience and the collective=
of
'broadcasters' tend to coincide. If that is indeed the case, it is due
above all to the experience of these kinds of lists, which incite their
audience to online participation."

To me, an 'international net.art community' does indeed need some net art.

ja
http://vispo.com

> —–Original Message—–
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> Salvatore Iaconesi
> Sent: July 23, 2006 4:29 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: net art?
>
>
> There is this thing.. post-media…
>
> With the death of interaction-design critique is looking for "the
> next thing to sell". So they are inventing post-media.
>
> It is a wonderful theory that effectively creates from scratch
> "something" that can be shown and sold in galleries and events.
>
> Take the various disciplines of digital arts (be them network,
> software, generative.. whatever), apply post-medianism to them,
> and here you go: something materialized in the physical world,
> ready to be given a price tag, and sold.
>
> "We make money, not art", ok. But is the focus changing direction?
>
> The artist "was" dead. And it was a good thing.
>
> Apart from that: welcome to all the event descriptions and
> reportages ( even mine :) ); i read them all. They are
> interesting and show that there is activity and thought, and a
> will to break the barriers running between who's connected and who's no=
t.
>
> s

2006-07-24 20:33, Eric Dymond

Jim Andrews wrote:

> is it my imagination or is it the case that there are fewer and fewer
> posting on rhizome.org concerning net art, as opposed to news items
> about
> gallery or museum etc work?
>
> does this reflect more concern among the rhizome people for such work
> rather
> than net art?
>
> ja?
> http://vispo.com
>
is this a net aet vs networked art question7

>

2006-07-25 03:54, Salvatore Iaconesi

> "post-media" was invented quite a while ago, i believe. i think it's a guattari term?

yup! it's correct. and i'm not referring to post-post media either :)

the two essential theoretical components of the theory ("equal dignity of all medias", and "mix'em up", as correctly reported by aleph-arts, which is a quite good site!) have some breathtakingly wonderful effects, and some darker ones. as with everything.

on on side, this "declaration" of dignity is a formalization of some of the concepts that helped make netart, software art, webart (and the rest of the family! :) ) concrete practices and disciplines (somehow too beautifully chaotic in essence, to be referred to as "disciplines" in the classical way… but that's the nice part of it, isn't it? ).

on the oter side it formalized, in too many cases, a merge in perspective of two very different worlds. digital is essentially different from physical. this does not mean it shouldn't have connections, or that you shouldn't mix both up, but the difference is something to understand and to use, if you feel like it.

and this created a.. what shall we call it.. a "tension", a little nervous twitch…

in one way or another there is this distributed feeling of "searching" .. is it the search for a definition? is it a search of recognition? of fame and money? of something to sell in galleries and the like?

too many times it's just a search of something that sounds like "i have A and B… i distort the way i use A and/or B and then i mix them up.. then i show it" .. and it reminds me too much of every art fair that i go to: the painting stuff is too many times a sterile search of the "next thing", in the same way …

this i think is the main glitch in things. as eric said in a wonderful way "networked art vs net art": do you use the media? do you build using the media? do you communicate through the media?

and, most of all: do you care about the concept? about the action? about the effect? about the significate? about me?

which are extremely different things!

s

Eric Dymond wrote:

> Jim Andrews wrote:
>
> > is it my imagination or is it the case that there are fewer and
> fewer
> > posting on rhizome.org concerning net art, as opposed to news items
> > about
> > gallery or museum etc work?
> >
> > does this reflect more concern among the rhizome people for such
> work
> > rather
> > than net art?
> >
> > ja?
> > http://vispo.com
> >
> is this a net aet vs networked art question7
>
> >

2006-07-25 04:49, Rob Myers

Quoting Salvatore Iaconesi <[email protected]>:

> the two essential theoretical components of the theory ("equal
> dignity of all medias", and "mix'em up",

Or, alternatively, "give the market what it wants".

"Postproduction" by Nicolas Bourriad looks at this sort of thing as a
follow up
to his earlier "Relational Aesthetics".

"Museum, Inc.: Inside the Global Art World" by Paul Werner gives an insider's
view of how contemporary art helps launder reputations and ideology.

And "Sweet Dreams: Contemporary Art and Complicity" by Johanna Drucker
might be
good for anyone who still needs an October detox.

- Rob.

2006-07-25 05:10, mez breeze

At 07:54 PM 25/07/2006, you wrote:
> > "post-media" was invented quite a while ago, i believe. i think
> it's a guattari term?
>
>yup! it's correct. and i'm not referring to post-post media either :)

[.warning.]

Ms Post Modemism has a herstory

–
[96]

_thick.memoir.cableing.nost[||neur]algia.bloody_
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/netwurker/

.

2006-07-25 14:09, Steve OR Steven Read

It has become fashionable to bring internet/media art ideas into 'real' spaces, integrating with nature or urban areas or galleries or mechanics or such. These fashions come and go like the winds. This has happened with painting too, but luckily painting always 'triumphs' and comes back strong time and time again. Hopefully the same will be true for the fill-in-the-blank flavor of 'new media art' which one personally digs, net.art or otherwise. I don't think net.art is already dead, maybe it just smells a little funny?

2006-07-25 16:39, manik vauda marija manik nikola pilipovic

No,Steve OR Steven Read,I said No again you're wrong in such a way as white
f(blur)n rabbit could be wrong and I'm sure you know how they can be
wrong.Young rabbit especially,with blue eyes and Adidas sneakers on ears.Now
you could see how wrong you are because there's nothing wrong with nyet
art,or in other words 'this'come and go like winds,and other things (too) in
art are in same process,wind's everywhere in 'art'.DEARTISATION's general
process,not so tight connect with nyet art,but,being exposed to enormous
quantity of aggressive theorize this particularly branch of new media IMO
bit force own infrastructure(theory,history,aesthetic…etc)in hurry to
became part of 'oficial'art(whatever it is).But teach by experience of
photography we should be careful in define place of this specific
activity(nyet art).just I haven't seen anything in nyet art significant
enough to touch one special place in my entity.Why?There's one and only
reason-it's crisis in art(in general),that's THE DEARTISATION,something
terrible and destructive rule in world,there's no ethic,result's disappear
of aesthetic-lie's truth and vice versa,one pestilence devastate whole
world,arrogant and bloody…I'm sure you know about which country I'm
talking about.In this circumstance art could exist only in indication.Maybe
more in painting,but not necessary.There's also performance in
art,happenings,MANIK,and other phenomenon who keep some hope for
humanity.Fragile,more fragile than mighty,but it keep some hardly to
distinguish essence(not smell as you said in your uncultured 'inspiration'.
MANIK

/25/06 10:09:33 PM,Steve wrote:
It has become fashionable to bring internet/media art ideas into 'real'
spaces, integrating with nature or urban areas or galleries or mechanics or
such. These fashions come and go like the winds. This has happened with
painting too, but luckily painting always 'triumphs' and comes back strong
time and time again. Hopefully the same will be true for the
fill-in-the-blank flavor of 'new media art' which one personally digs,
net.art or otherwise. I don't think net.art is already dead, maybe it just
smells a little funny?

2006-07-25 17:03, Alexis Turner

Of course it's not dead. To be dead, net.art - art created for the Internet -
would require either the Internet or art to stop happening altogether.

Personally, I'd wager to say it hasn't really happened yet at all. Just some
cute but ineffective stabs at it the way a little baby stabs a piece of chalk at
the sidewalk.
-Alexis

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Steve OR Steven Read wrote:

::Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:09:33 -0700
::From: Steve OR Steven Read <[email protected]>
::To: [email protected]
::Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: net art?
::
::It has become fashionable to bring internet/media art ideas into 'real' spaces, integrating with nature or urban areas or galleries or mechanics or such. These fashions come and go like the winds. This has happened with painting too, but luckily painting always 'triumphs' and comes back strong time and time again. Hopefully the same will be true for the fill-in-the-blank flavor of 'new media art' which one personally digs, net.art or otherwise. I don't think net.art is already dead, maybe it just smells a little funny?
::+
::-> post: [email protected]
::-> questions: [email protected]
::-> 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
::

2006-07-25 17:32, Jim Andrews

digital art is a wide field. there is much happening for performance, installations, mobile networks, workshops, conferences, and so on, offline or concerning local networks. and that's all good to hear about. you click links on rhizome.org's home page and you go to sites informing you of such things, and you read descriptions of the projects and see photos maybe even a video or whatever. documentation about the project.

but i would also like to be informed via rhizome.org's web site of projects where you experience the art itself online, not just documentation about the art. and maybe it's my imagination but it seems to me i see less and less of that on rhizome.org's web site.

net art is for the world. or much of it is, deals with language issues in an international way, ie, presents the work in more than one language or has much to say independent of its particular written/spoken language. i'd like to see more of this sort of art on rhizome.org's home page.

ja
http://vispo.com

2006-07-25 18:22, Pall Thayer

I agree and second.

Pall

On 25.7.2006, at 23:32, Jim Andrews wrote:

> digital art is a wide field. there is much happening for
> performance, installations, mobile networks, workshops,
> conferences, and so on, offline or concerning local networks. and
> that's all good to hear about. you click links on rhizome.org's
> home page and you go to sites informing you of such things, and you
> read descriptions of the projects and see photos maybe even a video
> or whatever. documentation about the project.
>
> but i would also like to be informed via rhizome.org's web site of
> projects where you experience the art itself online, not just
> documentation about the art. and maybe it's my imagination but it
> seems to me i see less and less of that on rhizome.org's web site.
>
> net art is for the world. or much of it is, deals with language
> issues in an international way, ie, presents the work in more than
> one language or has much to say independent of its particular
> written/spoken language. i'd like to see more of this sort of art
> on rhizome.org's home page.
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com
>
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> 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
>

–
Pall Thayer
[email protected]
http://www.this.is/pallit

2006-07-26 11:50, Marisa Olson

Hey, Jim, et al.

Regarding Rhizome's front page content…

The reblog is managed by the Site Editors, so it is a reflection of
their diverse interests as much as what people are posting to Raw or
on other blogs that are then reblogged.

When I assign articles for Rhizome News, I try to maintain a balance
between various practices within our 'wide field,' as you put it,
including online & offline work. These News pieces also get reblogged.
Additionally, we are working on automating announcements about new
Member Curated exhibits and new additions to the ArtBase, so that they
are instantly reblogged. This may help in bumping up the number of
internet-based works that are linked on the front page.

Meanwhile, we'd love to see more of you initiating Member Curated
shows… It would be interesting to see what you are currently looking
at, and how you're contextualizing it…

I hope everyone's having a nice summer!

All the best,
Marisa

On 7/25/06, Jim Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
> digital art is a wide field. there is much happening for performance, installations, mobile networks, workshops, conferences, and so on, offline or concerning local networks. and that's all good to hear about. you click links on rhizome.org's home page and you go to sites informing you of such things, and you read descriptions of the projects and see photos maybe even a video or whatever. documentation about the project.
>
> but i would also like to be informed via rhizome.org's web site of projects where you experience the art itself online, not just documentation about the art. and maybe it's my imagination but it seems to me i see less and less of that on rhizome.org's web site.
>
> net art is for the world. or much of it is, deals with language issues in an international way, ie, presents the work in more than one language or has much to say independent of its particular written/spoken language. i'd like to see more of this sort of art on rhizome.org's home page.
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com
>
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> 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
>

2006-07-26 21:33, Eric Dymond

It's nice to see the wide field being covered, it's great to see how the protocols of the net have invaded other art practices.
It would also be nice to see a bias toward net.art on the main page.
Works that are complete unto themselves when viewed online.
It probably should be Rhizome's main focus. Not that the other mongrel works should be ignored, but after all I think net.art relies upon Rhizome as a its champion.
Eric

2006-07-27 06:46, M. River

I disagree with your call to narrow focus Rhizome on 'net.art

2006-07-27 07:30, Pall Thayer

I too disagree with such a call. However, I don't agree that screen-
based net.art is "done" or "over." There's still a lot of potential
to be explored. It may not be "in" at the moment, but that doesn't
mean it's "done." So it's up to the artists. Either go with the flow
or go with your convictions. If you feel you have something to add to
screen-based net.art, then do. My computer screen has 786, 432 pixels
and millions of colors. There must be something in there that hasn't
been explored yet and is worth exploring.

Pall

On 27.7.2006, at 12:46, M. River wrote:

> I disagree with your call to narrow focus Rhizome on 'net.art

2006-07-27 08:06, MTAA
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2006-07-27 08:07, MTAA

2006-07-27 08:40, Michael Szpakowski

Absolutely! Spot on.
m.

— "M. River" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I disagree with your call to narrow focus Rhizome on
> 'net.art

2006-07-27 09:26, marc garrett

Why has everyone conformed to using the term 'net.art', as in net.dot.art?

Historically net.art, mainly belonged to just a few elite artists
working on th Internet, Vuk Cosic made sure of this, and Manovich etc…

I have always been interested in those who did not bandwagon jump onto
the term 'net.art '- those who used 'net art' (without the dot), are the
real blood of net art - for they have to deal with not being supported
by history and cannons, and institutions.

marc

2006-07-27 09:47, Eric Dymond

I still think Jims observation was true, and I doubt this is a natural evolution. Just a maturing venue starting to look more and more like Art Forum and seeking a broader base.
And your Baseline looks pretty thin from here. But hey the lines are showing on all of us.
;-)
Eric

2006-07-27 10:48, Joseph Gray

My computer screen has 786, 432 pixels
> and millions of colors. There must be something in there that hasn't
> been explored yet and is worth exploring.
>
> Pall
>

not to mention that those 786,432 pixels can be updated at least 60 times
a second…

interactive network fed screen based media is defiantly stuck in a box,
but is by no means dead

2006-07-27 15:09, Jim Andrews

> I disagree with your call to narrow focus Rhizome on net.art
>
> Why? I feel that what you are really looking for, what you really
> miss finding here, is screen based work that looks like the good
> old days of net.art. Works that might make your browser jump
> around and flash on and off. Its been done. Its over. Move on.
>
> The net has changed and so has net art. My baseline definition of
> net art has always been - art that is located in an exchange
> between two or more computers via that net. Rhizome still posts
> about net art all the time. Its still here. Its here every day.
> p2p, rss, flickr, myspace, google ads, multi player, remote
> viewing, blog, vlog, blah, blah, blah
>
> And this concludes M.River of MTAAs quarterly rant/networked
> performance on Rhizome.org
>
> Keeping it real since 97

miss jodi? i always thought net.art was fabulous as in 'fable'. more than a few of us are not included in the cliquish way "net.art" is understood, though we were working at that time and continue at it to this day. "net.art" is a story told by museum curators posing as anti-gallery, isn't it?

but to move on,

"My baseline definition of net art has always been - art that is located in an exchange between two or more computers via that net."

it's true that the notion of net art is broadened to things like "p2p, rss, flickr, myspace, google ads, multi player, remote viewing, blog, vlog, blah, blah, blah". and pretty much all of the quoted examples operate on the public internet. as opposed to solely local networks or internet2 etc. stuff that operates solely on local networks or requires internet2 is surely still 'net art'. but if you're not in the local network or you're not at a research facility, in the case of internet2, you're out of the loop.

what i enjoy about net art is its international dimension that operates beyond the local and toward very wide availability. and work that is adventurous imaginatively and with whatever technologies support that wide availability, such as the ones you mention and also shockwave, flash, java, etc. but, mainly, works that you can experience on the net wherever you are. if rhizome's membership is to be international, it has to give us peons in the sticks something beyond documentation of stuff that happens elsewhere.

ja
http://vispo.com

2006-07-28 06:30, Jim Andrews

> I disagree with your call to narrow focus Rhizome on net.art
>
> Why? I feel that what you are really looking for, what you really
> miss finding here, is screen based work that looks like the good
> old days of net.art. Works that might make your browser jump
> around and flash on and off. Its been done. Its over. Move on.

I'm not sure you were implying that screen-based net art is over. That's a pretty wide range, actually. So I kind of doubt it. I mean, that includes audio as well as visual. And interactive possibilities. So the information space is wider than video for the net, say, includes video for the net.

My own feeling is that monitor-based net art will be around as long as the internet is around, though of course the monitors will change, maybe the mouse/keyboard io will change, the computers themselves will change, browsers will change and maybe something else will replace them, the typical bandwidth will change, and so forth.

Also, the social structures of net communication will broaden. But one thing I hope will continue is ease of getting international information. There are exceptions, such as China, where tens of thousands of people are employed to enforce bans on looking abroad into innumerable information sources. And North Korea. But if people can see what's going on elsewhere in the world, they are less likely to tolerate a situation at home that doesn't live up to what people elsewhere in the world have, or where the government is feeding them propaganda.

So, in a sense, international net art is a part of an ideal of global communications. And it isn't a cure all, global communications. But it beats a situation where people are treated like mushrooms: keep em in the dark and feed them shit.

And part of that ideal is access to work that in some sense transcends not only national boundaries but language boundaries. Art that is for the world. The art of global communications. I hope that is around for a long time. And screen-based net art is an important part of it.

Moreover, the artistic possibilities it presents, it seems to me, are a very long way from exhaustion.

Rhizome has been a crucial organization in propagating this ideal. I really hope it continues to do so.

ja
http://vispo.com

2006-07-28 10:41, mark cooley

i also disagree with m river's statement -

> Why? I feel that what you are really looking for, what you really
> miss finding here, is screen based work that looks like the good
> old days of net.art. Works that might make your browser jump
> around and flash on and off. Its been done. Its over. Move on.

the subject of what is dead and what is not - what is cool and what is drool has come up fairly often here. i remember the fairly animated discussion some time ago concerning the supposed "death of net art". what is usually lacking in these bold statements about getting passed the past - going on to new brave new frontiers etc. is the basic question "why"? maybe some things are worth keeping around. How ridiculous it is anyway to talk of abandoning things that are 10 years old or less. I think Jim is right, is there no more to be explored with screen based net art - it's been exhausted in that short of time? It must not have had much to offer in the first place. But beyond that, back to the question "why". I think that it needs to be addressed that the rhizome community is part of at least two industries that are interconnected - the culture industry and the technology industry. Both industries are themselves expressions of this thing called capitalism. i think it's worth exploring the desire to constantly "move on" in terms of the consumer society. this fiction that envelops both the culture industry (fine art) and the technology industry says that "new is always better," "innovation always leads to better things." Aren't we just feeding the beast here when we say that we need to move on for no better reason that something has already been done? is nothing worth saying twice? is art is out there to be consumed and thrown away like everything else? this is why i think the discourse around tactical media is so much more constructive than that of fine art - when media tacticians "move on" it is in relation to something - in relation to a social context that means something conceptually. If a tactical media piece works it's because the producers were aware of social context and how their work will operate within it. if your a tactical media practitioner and you start using video news releases, for example, it's not because you want to be the first cutting edge artists to do that - it's bec!
ause tha
t's what will work if you want to get on the 6:00 news. there's a goal there that is real. i have little use for all these avant garde-isms that attempt to discredit with silly statements like "that's been done". yeah so? the question is, "did it work, and if so, what did it work to do?" then we can ask, "should we do it again? will it work a second time? Who wants to live in a society where everyone throws away the language and tools of their culture every couple of years?

Jim Andrews wrote:

>
> > I disagree with your call to narrow focus Rhizome on net.art
> >
> > Why? I feel that what you are really looking for, what you really
> > miss finding here, is screen based work that looks like the good
> > old days of net.art. Works that might make your browser jump
> > around and flash on and off. Its been done. Its over. Move on.
>
> I'm not sure you were implying that screen-based net art is over.
> That's a pretty wide range, actually. So I kind of doubt it. I mean,
> that includes audio as well as visual. And interactive possibilities.
> So the information space is wider than video for the net, say,
> includes video for the net.
>
> My own feeling is that monitor-based net art will be around as long as
> the internet is around, though of course the monitors will change,
> maybe the mouse/keyboard io will change, the computers themselves will
> change, browsers will change and maybe something else will replace
> them, the typical bandwidth will change, and so forth.
>
> Also, the social structures of net communication will broaden. But one
> thing I hope will continue is ease of getting international
> information. There are exceptions, such as China, where tens of
> thousands of people are employed to enforce bans on looking abroad
> into innumerable information sources. And North Korea. But if people
> can see what's going on elsewhere in the world, they are less likely
> to tolerate a situation at home that doesn't live up to what people
> elsewhere in the world have, or where the government is feeding them
> propaganda.
>
> So, in a sense, international net art is a part of an ideal of global
> communications. And it isn't a cure all, global communications. But it
> beats a situation where people are treated like mushrooms: keep em in
> the dark and feed them shit.
>
> And part of that ideal is access to work that in some sense transcends
> not only national boundaries but language boundaries. Art that is for
> the world. The art of global communications. I hope that is around for
> a long time. And screen-based net art is an important part of it.
>
> Moreover, the artistic possibilities it presents, it seems to me, are
> a very long way from exhaustion.
>
> Rhizome has been a crucial organization in propagating this ideal. I
> really hope it continues to do so.
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com
>
>
>

2006-07-28 11:45, Alexis Turner

That big, bad, capitalism monster/consuming fuckface. He's just EVERYWHERE,
isn't he?

Although parts of the following article are total crap, I would be very happy if
people on the list would read it so as to at least riff off it and/or think
about what it suggests about other angles of society beyond just the fact that
we are all walking wallets with mouths, and thus cannot possibly be influenced
by anything other than the consumer industry (speaking of which, may I also ask
why in the hell one would pursue art, since presumably the need to create
something for its own sake rather than ridiculously large monetary gain would
never have even OCCURED to anyone if, in fact,
capitalism is truly the one sole influence of everything in all of society
forever and ever amen?).

http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/ed-boygenius.html

Thanks,
Alexis

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, mark cooley wrote:

::Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:41:34 -0700
::From: mark cooley <[email protected]>
::To: [email protected]
::Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: net art?
::
::i also disagree with m river's statement -
::
::> Why? I feel that what you are really looking for, what you really
::> miss finding here, is screen based work that looks like the good
::> old days of net.art. Works that might make your browser jump
::> around and flash on and off. Its been done. Its over. Move on.
::
::the subject of what is dead and what is not - what is cool and what is drool has come up fairly often here. i remember the fairly animated discussion some time ago concerning the supposed "death of net art". what is usually lacking in these bold statements about getting passed the past - going on to new brave new frontiers etc. is the basic question "why"? maybe some things are worth keeping around. How ridiculous it is anyway to talk of abandoning things that are 10 years old or less. I think Jim is right, is there no more to be explored with screen based net art - it's been exhausted in that short of time? It must not have had much to offer in the first place. But beyond that, back to the question "why". I think that it needs to be addressed that the rhizome community is part of at least two industries that are interconnected - the culture industry and the technology industry. Both industries are themselves expressions of this thing called capitalism. i think i!
t'!
:: s worth exploring the desire to constantly "move on" in terms of the consumer society. this fiction that envelops both the culture industry (fine art) and the technology industry says that "new is always better," "innovation always leads to better things." Aren't we just feeding the beast here when we say that we need to move on for no better reason that something has already been done? is nothing worth saying twice? is art is out there to be consumed and thrown away like everything else? this is why i think the discourse around tactical media is so much more constructive than that of fine art - when media tacticians "move on" it is in relation to something - in relation to a social context that means something conceptually. If a tactical media piece works it's because the producers were aware of social context and how their work will operate within it. if your a tactical media practitioner and you start using video news releases, for example, it's not because you!
w!
:: ant to be the first cutting edge artists to do that - it's bec!
:: ause tha
::t's what will work if you want to get on the 6:00 news. there's a goal there that is real. i have little use for all these avant garde-isms that attempt to discredit with silly statements like "that's been done". yeah so? the question is, "did it work, and if so, what did it work to do?" then we can ask, "should we do it again? will it work a second time? Who wants to live in a society where everyone throws away the language and tools of their culture every couple of years?
::
::
::
::
::
::
::Jim Andrews wrote:
::
::>
::> > I disagree with your call to narrow focus Rhizome on net.art
::> >
::> > Why? I feel that what you are really looking for, what you really
::> > miss finding here, is screen based work that looks like the good
::> > old days of net.art. Works that might make your browser jump
::> > around and flash on and off. Its been done. Its over. Move on.
::>
::> I'm not sure you were implying that screen-based net art is over.
::> That's a pretty wide range, actually. So I kind of doubt it. I mean,
::> that includes audio as well as visual. And interactive possibilities.
::> So the information space is wider than video for the net, say,
::> includes video for the net.
::>
::> My own feeling is that monitor-based net art will be around as long as
::> the internet is around, though of course the monitors will change,
::> maybe the mouse/keyboard io will change, the computers themselves will
::> change, browsers will change and maybe something else will replace
::> them, the typical bandwidth will change, and so forth.
::>
::> Also, the social structures of net communication will broaden. But one
::> thing I hope will continue is ease of getting international
::> information. There are exceptions, such as China, where tens of
::> thousands of people are employed to enforce bans on looking abroad
::> into innumerable information sources. And North Korea. But if people
::> can see what's going on elsewhere in the world, they are less likely
::> to tolerate a situation at home that doesn't live up to what people
::> elsewhere in the world have, or where the government is feeding them
::> propaganda.
::>
::> So, in a sense, international net art is a part of an ideal of global
::> communications. And it isn't a cure all, global communications. But it
::> beats a situation where people are treated like mushrooms: keep em in
::> the dark and feed them shit.
::>
::> And part of that ideal is access to work that in some sense transcends
::> not only national boundaries but language boundaries. Art that is for
::> the world. The art of global communications. I hope that is around for
::> a long time. And screen-based net art is an important part of it.
::>
::> Moreover, the artistic possibilities it presents, it seems to me, are
::> a very long way from exhaustion.
::>
::> Rhizome has been a crucial organization in propagating this ideal. I
::> really hope it continues to do so.
::>
::> ja
::> http://vispo.com
::>
::>
::>
::+
::-> post: [email protected]
::-> questions: [email protected]
::-> 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
::

2006-07-28 12:52, M. River

mark cooley wrote:

> i also disagree with m river's statement -

I'd like taht on a t-shirt :)

"the subject of what is dead and what is not - what is cool and what is drool has come up fairly often here. i remember the fairly animated discussion some time ago concerning the supposed "death of net art". what is usually lacking in these bold statements about getting passed the past - going on to new brave new frontiers etc. is the basic question "why"? maybe some things are worth keeping around."

Ok. One more try and then I

2006-07-28 13:08, mark cooley

Alexis, i realize that i haven't defended my argument adequately, but i can't see what your rant has to do with addressing anything that i've said. don't get me wrong i love to rant. are you really suggesting that a society's visual culture evolves independently from it's political and economic culture? i think that's pretty easy to dispute, but we probably disagree on that fundemental issue. so there's probably not much to talk about beyond that.

mark

Alexis Turner wrote:

> That big, bad, capitalism monster/consuming fuckface. He's just
> EVERYWHERE,
> isn't he?
>
> Although parts of the following article are total crap, I would be
> very happy if
> people on the list would read it so as to at least riff off it and/or
> think
> about what it suggests about other angles of society beyond just the
> fact that
> we are all walking wallets with mouths, and thus cannot possibly be
> influenced
> by anything other than the consumer industry (speaking of which, may I
> also ask
> why in the hell one would pursue art, since presumably the need to
> create
> something for its own sake rather than ridiculously large monetary
> gain would
> never have even OCCURED to anyone if, in fact,
> capitalism is truly the one sole influence of everything in all of
> society
> forever and ever amen?).
>
> http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/ed-boygenius.html
>
> Thanks,
> Alexis
>
>
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, mark cooley wrote:
>
> ::Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:41:34 -0700
> ::From: mark cooley <[email protected]>
> ::To: [email protected]
> ::Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: net art?
> ::
> ::i also disagree with m river's statement -
> ::
> ::> Why? I feel that what you are really looking for, what you really
> ::> miss finding here, is screen based work that looks like the good
> ::> old days of net.art. Works that might make your browser jump
> ::> around and flash on and off. Its been done. Its over. Move on.
> ::
> ::the subject of what is dead and what is not - what is cool and what
> is drool has come up fairly often here. i remember the fairly
> animated discussion some time ago concerning the supposed "death of
> net art". what is usually lacking in these bold statements about
> getting passed the past - going on to new brave new frontiers etc. is
> the basic question "why"? maybe some things are worth keeping around.
> How ridiculous it is anyway to talk of abandoning things that are 10
> years old or less. I think Jim is right, is there no more to be
> explored with screen based net art - it's been exhausted in that short
> of time? It must not have had much to offer in the first place. But
> beyond that, back to the question "why". I think that it needs to be
> addressed that the rhizome community is part of at least two
> industries that are interconnected - the culture industry and the
> technology industry. Both industries are themselves expressions of
> this thing called capitalism. i think i!
> t'!
> :: s worth exploring the desire to constantly "move on" in terms of
> the consumer society. this fiction that envelops both the culture
> industry (fine art) and the technology industry says that "new is
> always better," "innovation always leads to better things." Aren't we
> just feeding the beast here when we say that we need to move on for no
> better reason that something has already been done? is nothing worth
> saying twice? is art is out there to be consumed and thrown away like
> everything else? this is why i think the discourse around tactical
> media is so much more constructive than that of fine art - when media
> tacticians "move on" it is in relation to something - in relation to a
> social context that means something conceptually. If a tactical media
> piece works it's because the producers were aware of social context
> and how their work will operate within it. if your a tactical media
> practitioner and you start using video news releases, for example,
> it's not because you!
> w!
> :: ant to be the first cutting edge artists to do that - it's bec!
> :: ause tha
> ::t's what will work if you want to get on the 6:00 news. there's a
> goal there that is real. i have little use for all these avant
> garde-isms that attempt to discredit with silly statements like
> "that's been done". yeah so? the question is, "did it work, and if
> so, what did it work to do?" then we can ask, "should we do it again?
> will it work a second time? Who wants to live in a society where
> everyone throws away the language and tools of their culture every
> couple of years?
> ::
> ::
> ::
> ::
> ::
> ::
> ::Jim Andrews wrote:
> ::
> ::>
> ::> > I disagree with your call to narrow focus Rhizome on net.art
> ::> >
> ::> > Why? I feel that what you are really looking for, what you
> really
> ::> > miss finding here, is screen based work that looks like the
> good
> ::> > old days of net.art. Works that might make your browser jump
> ::> > around and flash on and off. Its been done. Its over. Move on.
> ::>
> ::> I'm not sure you were implying that screen-based net art is over.
> ::> That's a pretty wide range, actually. So I kind of doubt it. I
> mean,
> ::> that includes audio as well as visual. And interactive
> possibilities.
> ::> So the information space is wider than video for the net, say,
> ::> includes video for the net.
> ::>
> ::> My own feeling is that monitor-based net art will be around as
> long as
> ::> the internet is around, though of course the monitors will change,
> ::> maybe the mouse/keyboard io will change, the computers themselves
> will
> ::> change, browsers will change and maybe something else will replace
> ::> them, the typical bandwidth will change, and so forth.
> ::>
> ::> Also, the social structures of net communication will broaden. But
> one
> ::> thing I hope will continue is ease of getting international
> ::> information. There are exceptions, such as China, where tens of
> ::> thousands of people are employed to enforce bans on looking abroad
> ::> into innumerable information sources. And North Korea. But if
> people
> ::> can see what's going on elsewhere in the world, they are less
> likely
> ::> to tolerate a situation at home that doesn't live up to what
> people
> ::> elsewhere in the world have, or where the government is feeding
> them
> ::> propaganda.
> ::>
> ::> So, in a sense, international net art is a part of an ideal of
> global
> ::> communications. And it isn't a cure all, global communications.
> But it
> ::> beats a situation where people are treated like mushrooms: keep em
> in
> ::> the dark and feed them shit.
> ::>
> ::> And part of that ideal is access to work that in some sense
> transcends
> ::> not only national boundaries but language boundaries. Art that is
> for
> ::> the world. The art of global communications. I hope that is around
> for
> ::> a long time. And screen-based net art is an important part of it.
> ::>
> ::> Moreover, the artistic possibilities it presents, it seems to me,
> are
> ::> a very long way from exhaustion.
> ::>
> ::> Rhizome has been a crucial organization in propagating this ideal.
> I
> ::> really hope it continues to do so.
> ::>
> ::> ja
> ::> http://vispo.com
> ::>
> ::>
> ::>
> ::+
> ::-> post: [email protected]
> ::-> questions: [email protected]
> ::-> 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
> ::

2006-07-28 14:52, Pall Thayer

As a tech-art journal, it's Rhizome's job to keep up with the new.
What's happening now? What directions might things be moving in?

However, as far as personal practice goes, I think that the artists
who maintain some sort of focus rather than trying to jump on the
bandwagon every time something new pops up, will be more satisfied
with the fruits of their labor in the long run.

The difference between work done by people who have really taken the
time to discover, understand and conquer (or succumb to) their chosen
medium or media and the work done by those who barely spend enough
time with it to scratch the surface before they move on to something
else, is huge.

Pall

On 28.7.2006, at 18:52, M. River wrote:

> mark cooley wrote:
>
>> i also disagree with m river's statement -
>
> I'd like taht on a t-shirt :)
>
> "the subject of what is dead and what is not - what is cool and
> what is drool has come up fairly often here. i remember the fairly
> animated discussion some time ago concerning the supposed "death of
> net art". what is usually lacking in these bold statements about
> getting passed the past - going on to new brave new frontiers etc.
> is the basic question "why"? maybe some things are worth keeping
> around."
>
>
> Ok. One more try and then I

2006-07-28 16:07, Alexis Turner

::are you really suggesting that a society's
::visual culture evolves independently from it's political and economic culture?

On the contrary, I'm suggesting that culture is made up of many, many things and
evolves for many, many reasons, not merely the trite and lame argument that we
are capitalist whores. The specific phenomena you mentioned
(the incessant need to move on to newer and cooler things) is the
subject of the article I linked to, and, as such, it would probably be an
interesting read for you, regardless of whether you or I or anyone else believes
that newer and better is a worthwhile goal or an empty one.

So here's that link again for anyone who missed it the first time:
http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/ed-boygenius.html

-Alexis

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, mark cooley wrote:

::Alexis, i realize that i haven't defended my argument adequately, but i
can't see what your rant has to do with addressing anything that i've said.
don't get me wrong i love to rant.
i think that's pretty easy to dispute, but we probably disagree on that
fundemental issue. so there's probably not much to talk about beyond that.
::
::mark
::
::
::Alexis Turner wrote:
::
::> That big, bad, capitalism monster/consuming fuckface. He's just
::> EVERYWHERE,
::> isn't he?
::>
::> Although parts of the following article are total crap, I would be
::> very happy if
::> people on the list would read it so as to at least riff off it and/or
::> think
::> about what it suggests about other angles of society beyond just the
::> fact that
::> we are all walking wallets with mouths, and thus cannot possibly be
::> influenced
::> by anything other than the consumer industry (speaking of which, may I
::> also ask
::> why in the hell one would pursue art, since presumably the need to
::> create
::> something for its own sake rather than ridiculously large monetary
::> gain would
::> never have even OCCURED to anyone if, in fact,
::> capitalism is truly the one sole influence of everything in all of
::> society
::> forever and ever amen?).
::>
::> http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/ed-boygenius.html
::>
::> Thanks,
::> Alexis
::>
::>
::> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, mark cooley wrote:
::>
::> ::Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:41:34 -0700
::> ::From: mark cooley <[email protected]>
::> ::To: [email protected]
::> ::Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: net art?
::> ::
::> ::i also disagree with m river's statement -
::> ::
::> ::> Why? I feel that what you are really looking for, what you really
::> ::> miss finding here, is screen based work that looks like the good
::> ::> old days of net.art. Works that might make your browser jump
::> ::> around and flash on and off. Its been done. Its over. Move on.
::> ::
::> ::the subject of what is dead and what is not - what is cool and what
::> is drool has come up fairly often here. i remember the fairly
::> animated discussion some time ago concerning the supposed "death of
::> net art". what is usually lacking in these bold statements about
::> getting passed the past - going on to new brave new frontiers etc. is
::> the basic question "why"? maybe some things are worth keeping around.
::> How ridiculous it is anyway to talk of abandoning things that are 10
::> years old or less. I think Jim is right, is there no more to be
::> explored with screen based net art - it's been exhausted in that short
::> of time? It must not have had much to offer in the first place. But
::> beyond that, back to the question "why". I think that it needs to be
::> addressed that the rhizome community is part of at least two
::> industries that are interconnected - the culture industry and the
::> technology industry. Both industries are themselves expressions of
::> this thing called capitalism. i think i!
::> t'!
::> :: s worth exploring the desire to constantly "move on" in terms of
::> the consumer society. this fiction that envelops both the culture
::> industry (fine art) and the technology industry says that "new is
::> always better," "innovation always leads to better things." Aren't we
::> just feeding the beast here when we say that we need to move on for no
::> better reason that something has already been done? is nothing worth
::> saying twice? is art is out there to be consumed and thrown away like
::> everything else? this is why i think the discourse around tactical
::> media is so much more constructive than that of fine art - when media
::> tacticians "move on" it is in relation to something - in relation to a
::> social context that means something conceptually. If a tactical media
::> piece works it's because the producers were aware of social context
::> and how their work will operate within it. if your a tactical media
::> practitioner and you start using video news releases, for example,
::> it's not because you!
::> w!
::> :: ant to be the first cutting edge artists to do that - it's bec!
::> :: ause tha
::> ::t's what will work if you want to get on the 6:00 news. there's a
::> goal there that is real. i have little use for all these avant
::> garde-isms that attempt to discredit with silly statements like
::> "that's been done". yeah so? the question is, "did it work, and if
::> so, what did it work to do?" then we can ask, "should we do it again?
::> will it work a second time? Who wants to live in a society where
::> everyone throws away the language and tools of their culture every
::> couple of years?
::> ::
::> ::
::> ::
::> ::
::> ::
::> ::
::> ::Jim Andrews wrote:
::> ::
::> ::>
::> ::> > I disagree with your call to narrow focus Rhizome on net.art
::> ::> >
::> ::> > Why? I feel that what you are really looking for, what you
::> really
::> ::> > miss finding here, is screen based work that looks like the
::> good
::> ::> > old days of net.art. Works that might make your browser jump
::> ::> > around and flash on and off. Its been done. Its over. Move on.
::> ::>
::> ::> I'm not sure you were implying that screen-based net art is over.
::> ::> That's a pretty wide range, actually. So I kind of doubt it. I
::> mean,
::> ::> that includes audio as well as visual. And interactive
::> possibilities.
::> ::> So the information space is wider than video for the net, say,
::> ::> includes video for the net.
::> ::>
::> ::> My own feeling is that monitor-based net art will be around as
::> long as
::> ::> the internet is around, though of course the monitors will change,
::> ::> maybe the mouse/keyboard io will change, the computers themselves
::> will
::> ::> change, browsers will change and maybe something else will replace
::> ::> them, the typical bandwidth will change, and so forth.
::> ::>
::> ::> Also, the social structures of net communication will broaden. But
::> one
::> ::> thing I hope will continue is ease of getting international
::> ::> information. There are exceptions, such as China, where tens of
::> ::> thousands of people are employed to enforce bans on looking abroad
::> ::> into innumerable information sources. And North Korea. But if
::> people
::> ::> can see what's going on elsewhere in the world, they are less
::> likely
::> ::> to tolerate a situation at home that doesn't live up to what
::> people
::> ::> elsewhere in the world have, or where the government is feeding
::> them
::> ::> propaganda.
::> ::>
::> ::> So, in a sense, international net art is a part of an ideal of
::> global
::> ::> communications. And it isn't a cure all, global communications.
::> But it
::> ::> beats a situation where people are treated like mushrooms: keep em
::> in
::> ::> the dark and feed them shit.
::> ::>
::> ::> And part of that ideal is access to work that in some sense
::> transcends
::> ::> not only national boundaries but language boundaries. Art that is
::> for
::> ::> the world. The art of global communications. I hope that is around
::> for
::> ::> a long time. And screen-based net art is an important part of it.
::> ::>
::> ::> Moreover, the artistic possibilities it presents, it seems to me,
::> are
::> ::> a very long way from exhaustion.
::> ::>
::> ::> Rhizome has been a crucial organization in propagating this ideal.
::> I
::> ::> really hope it continues to do so.
::> ::>
::> ::> ja
::> ::> http://vispo.com
::> ::>
::> ::>
::> ::>
::> ::+
::> ::-> post: [email protected]
::> ::-> questions: [email protected]
::> ::-> 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
::> ::
::+
::-> post: [email protected]
::-> questions: [email protected]
::-> 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
::

2006-07-28 16:46, Jim Andrews

One of the forms I've been working in since about 99 is interactive audio for the Web.

But I don't think it's over and here's why.

First, I do think that certain sub-areas have been explored to the point where it would be hard to make something in those areas that was sufficiently original to be taken seriously as *new art* ("new" not simply in the temporal sense but conceptual sense), though the piece might have other significance.

But there are whole areas of interactive audio for the Web that have not been addressed very well yet, and interesting approaches to these areas can be both taken seriously as new art and also have other significance.

For instance, although the Web and Net have changed the business and distribution of music via things such as P2P, how much have they actually changed music itself? Not much. What hasn't happened very much yet is the development of distinctive forms of music arising from the Web and Net. Though you can hear intimations of it in several pieces at http://vispo.com/misc/ia.htm .

But i think one of the problems concerning why this hasn't happened yet is its going to require a fairly high level of programming together with innovative musicianship. Whereas the plink and plunk stage of interactive music for the Web is more or less over in terms of generating significantly *new* art. The inroads from here on in concerning *new* interactive audio for the Web are going to come from the sorts of artists Pall alludes to. He says

"The difference between work done by people who have really taken the
time to discover, understand and conquer (or succumb to) their chosen
medium or media and the work done by those who barely spend enough
time with it to scratch the surface before they move on to something
else, is huge."

There's nothing nostalgic about this point of view.

Also, the notion that artists who barely spend enough time with a form to scratch the surface can kill off an art with their minor explorations, which seems to be what M. River is implying, doesn't hold a lot of water. Unless the art somehow could only support shallowness.

Innovation can happen at the shallow levels of art, such as being the first to use a technology, or at deeper levels. I think it's important to challenge ourselves to try to distinguish between shallow innovation and deeper achievement in innovation.

But there's always some other agenda below the surface in claims about this or that being dead or alive. Recently I read people associated with Processing saying "the productive phase of Shockwave experiments" is over. You have to consider the source.

ja
http://vispo.com

2006-07-28 16:58, ryan griffis

On Jul 28, 2006, at 5:07 PM, Alexis Turner wrote:
>
> On the contrary, I'm suggesting that culture is made up of many,
> many things and
> evolves for many, many reasons, not merely the trite and lame
> argument that we
> are capitalist whores.

it's equally lame and trite to equate capitalism with economic
determinism. i don't think Mark ever made such a lazy equation. i
also don't think anyone's talking about "culture" in some larger,
universalizing sense. Of course culture is made of many things. You
don't have to be Levi-Strauss to state that. But one can look for
dominant systems within different contexts, and not fall into some
relativistic paralysis.
You also don't have to buy classical economic theory (or simplified
marxism) to use the identifier "capitalism" and attempt a critique of
it.
Good lord, the Frankfurt School established that more than 60 years
ago, if Marx didn't first. We can write that off as academic hoo-ha,
but then we can write off anything if it doesn't suit our needs/
reaffirm our ideas. i don't buy the totality of psychoanalysis, but i
also don't think it's all crap either.
Capitalism is a broad ideology, and arguably the one most directing
our way of life. If you don't think so, i'd like to hear another
suggestion. And not just another analysis of how economics is REALLY
just the expression of other psycho-social desires. duh. Maybe the
label is losing its usefulness here, but that's another discussion.
i don't know what this is about any more, but i've contributed my
worthless, non-art-related rant nonetheless :)
ryan

2006-07-28 18:22, Alexis Turner

Okay then. I think the real discussion we are all having boils down to whether
net art as has been practiced is "dead" or still evolving. Personally, I say
neither. I say it hasn't been born yet at all.

The Internet in its current incarnation is broken. It's dying. It's a short
matter of time before it is supplanted by something we don't even begin to
envision right now. So, quite simply, the thing we are calling "net art" right
now will not have a chance to figure out how to work before its vehicle is
completely snatched out from underfoot.

So, for those who want to move on to bigger and better things: bully for you -
that's the right attitude, even though what you discover tomorrow is going to
be looked at as ancient and retarded by the new turks in 2 years. Enjoy
being a turk now. You don't have an inkling where we will be, but you keep
trying, and what else can you do? You might as well wring the life out of the
thing while it is here. Plus, hell, it will put you in a better position to
understand where we end up, and maybe even guide the way just a little.

For those of you getting misty eyed over the lack of rumination in the field,
you are both right and doomed. No art can be worth the pot it's pissed in if
there's nothing "behind" it, and this is exactly why the majority of current
net art sucks, and hard. That said, the Internet as it stands right now is
a tiny, meteoric spark that is gleaming its last gleam. By the time you decide
how to make net art that is worthwhile, it will be too late and you will have to
start over from scratch. That is not to say that reflection is not a worthwhile
goal, but to pine for the days when one could spend 30 years perfecting mastery
of a medium exhibits an inherent lack of understanding of this particular
medium. The very act of creating with it, of making it do beautiful or
interesting things no one has thought of is the very act that causes it to
evolve.

So the issue about capitalism turning us all into consumers thirsting hungrily
for the next big thing is misguided. It isn't about capitalism. It isn't
about handy, tried and true paradigms that we all have in our back pockets
to pull out as the bogeyman/trump card whenever we think a system is flawed.
It's about real people, big researchers and the little basement hobbyists being
intrigued by, pushing, hacking, tinkering, and ultimately being dissatisfied
with an incomplete system. The Internet has a potential that hasn't been
realized, and pushing to make it
better, rather than sitting and mulling over a broken system without fixing it
(because it demands our contemplation), is what people that realize this do.
Not because they have already consumed it and crapped it out, not because
they are bored with it, but because they realize it has an untapped
potential that would be criminal not to try and discover.
-Alexis

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Ryan Griffis wrote:

::Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:58:50 -0500
::From: Ryan Griffis <[email protected]>
::To: rhizome rhizome <[email protected]>
::Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: net art?
::
::On Jul 28, 2006, at 5:07 PM, Alexis Turner wrote:
::>
::> On the contrary, I'm suggesting that culture is made up of many, many things
::> and
::> evolves for many, many reasons, not merely the trite and lame argument that
::> we
::> are capitalist whores.
::
::it's equally lame and trite to equate capitalism with economic determinism. i
::don't think Mark ever made such a lazy equation. i also don't think anyone's
::talking about "culture" in some larger, universalizing sense. Of course
::culture is made of many things. You don't have to be Levi-Strauss to state
::that. But one can look for dominant systems within different contexts, and not
::fall into some relativistic paralysis.
::You also don't have to buy classical economic theory (or simplified marxism)
::to use the identifier "capitalism" and attempt a critique of it.
::Good lord, the Frankfurt School established that more than 60 years ago, if
::Marx didn't first. We can write that off as academic hoo-ha, but then we can
::write off anything if it doesn't suit our needs/reaffirm our ideas. i don't
::buy the totality of psychoanalysis, but i also don't think it's all crap
::either.
::Capitalism is a broad ideology, and arguably the one most directing our way of
::life. If you don't think so, i'd like to hear another suggestion. And not just
::another analysis of how economics is REALLY just the expression of other
::psycho-social desires. duh. Maybe the label is losing its usefulness here, but
::that's another discussion.
::i don't know what this is about any more, but i've contributed my worthless,
::non-art-related rant nonetheless :)
::ryan
::+
::-> post: [email protected]
::-> questions: [email protected]
::-> 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
::

2006-07-28 18:31, mark cooley

Alexis - I agree that (visual)culture is not purely economic / political, as you say, "it is made up of many things" - nothing is monolithic is it? but i'm also not assuming that it exists autonomous of those things either. if we assume that visual cultures, or more specifically Art, is at least somehow connected to political culture and economic culture then it may be of benefit to look at how to discover where those intersections are. especially, if we are critical of our dominant economic and political culture (which i am). originally, i was attempting to make connections between the classic avant garde assumption that Art can be graphed as a progressive timeline where each turn of events leads onward to some better future to the capitalist mode of production (and consumption) which also makes these ideological demands. this is not new stuff and it can hardly be dismissed outright as "crap" outright and without argument. open a book.

mark

> > On the contrary, I'm suggesting that culture is made up of many,
> > many things and
> > evolves for many, many reasons, not merely the trite and lame
> > argument that we
> > are capitalist whores.

ryan griffis wrote:

> On Jul 28, 2006, at 5:07 PM, Alexis Turner wrote:
> >
> > On the contrary, I'm suggesting that culture is made up of many,
> > many things and
> > evolves for many, many reasons, not merely the trite and lame
> > argument that we
> > are capitalist whores.
>
> it's equally lame and trite to equate capitalism with economic
> determinism. i don't think Mark ever made such a lazy equation. i
> also don't think anyone's talking about "culture" in some larger,
> universalizing sense. Of course culture is made of many things. You
> don't have to be Levi-Strauss to state that. But one can look for
> dominant systems within different contexts, and not fall into some
> relativistic paralysis.
> You also don't have to buy classical economic theory (or simplified
> marxism) to use the identifier "capitalism" and attempt a critique of
>
> it.
> Good lord, the Frankfurt School established that more than 60 years
> ago, if Marx didn't first. We can write that off as academic hoo-ha,
> but then we can write off anything if it doesn't suit our needs/
> reaffirm our ideas. i don't buy the totality of psychoanalysis, but i
>
> also don't think it's all crap either.
> Capitalism is a broad ideology, and arguably the one most directing
> our way of life. If you don't think so, i'd like to hear another
> suggestion. And not just another analysis of how economics is REALLY
> just the expression of other psycho-social desires. duh. Maybe the
> label is losing its usefulness here, but that's another discussion.
> i don't know what this is about any more, but i've contributed my
> worthless, non-art-related rant nonetheless :)
> ryan

2006-07-29 02:20, Salvatore Iaconesi

once i was just plain tired.. i used to do strange stuff at rave parties
or in other peculiar situations… and if i said i made digital art they
went like "oh, so are you a dj or a vj"? :)

mixing medias is a great idea. leveraging the paths to "globality" offered
by netart is another wonderfully great idea.

but/and we're stuck in this physical world: we want to see humans, touch
humans, talk to humans. the human body, the physical environment, natural/unnatural
hierarchy … we want it and we aim to be part of it.

i would love a world where a netart performance could get me the effects
i get, let's say, with a live performance with a nice lady getting icons
body-painted while my software automas eat everything up and show it on a
projection screen.

other things that are, possibly, more beautiful just don't get the same effect.
the physical body is so strong, and it is a preferential path to the mind.

the real problem is: why am i so much happier if i see 100 people enjoy a
live performance of mine than if i see a web counter telling me 100 people
browsed a netart piece of mine for a couple of hours each?

even if the concept is so much stronger …

it's like when you play electronic music along with analog intruments.. when
a "real" guitar joins in you, simply, notice it, and it stands out.

nothing's dead and all medias have same dignity. and, possibly, everything
can be used as a lesson.

i am a nerd. :) i love what i do with technology. i have a fetish for technology.
and, specifically, for networks.

but i am a punkish nerd. i need the feel of the body as well.

when i added "post-media" to the discussion, i was talking about this. post
media could have been my little heaven, joining tech and body. instead it
has become, too many times, a way to gratify the body, sacrificing the concepts.
it looks as if people are so much happier if they have something nice to
show "live" in a nice and famous venue (and possibly sell it), than to create
something *really* significative on the web, for example.

"I did this beautiful project on the web, and i showed it at the MOMA" :)

the concept shifts.

I saw loads of beautiful things hanging on walls, coming out from beautifully
written software: paintings, for example. but what's the point?

it's not that i don't like them, and contaminating other disciplines has
a meaning in itself, too. it's just that you loose the grasp on the breakthrough:
you easily become *another* artist trying to sell something "hanging on a
wall".

does pureness pay?

i don't kow. all i know is that i'm getting loads of festival invitations
to perform the "digital sabba" (a performance on mysticism where a ritual
is decontextualized into a digitally mystical one.. the lady dances, a guy
gets tied, live music performance, body art and software automas doing conceptually
esotheric stuff). And i'm receiving none for let's say, OpenSourceIdentities
(a website where you post your personal data, ID scans, email address passwords,
grocery list …. a self-spyware ), which is a much more powerful concept,
but it doesn't have the lovely lady in it :)

s

> So, in a sense, international net art is a part
> of an ideal of global communications.
> And it isn't a cure all, global communications.
> But it beats a situation where people are treated
> like mushrooms: keep em in the dark and feed them shit.
>
> And part of that ideal is access to work that in some
> sense transcends not only national boundaries but language
> boundaries. Art that is for the world. The art of global
> communications. I hope that is around for a long time.
> And screen-based net art is an important part of it.
>
> Moreover, the artistic possibilities it presents,
> it seems to me, are a very long way from exhaustion.

2006-07-29 02:27, Salvatore Iaconesi

>The difference between work done by people who have really taken the
>time to discover, understand and conquer (or succumb to) their chosen
>medium or media and the work done by those who barely spend enough
>time with it to scratch the surface before they move on to something
>else, is huge.

:)

this is perfect.

.. and who cares if it's on screen, on the net or in a museum's basement,
or in mine.

s

2006-07-29 10:08, mark cooley

"It's about real people, big researchers and the little basement hobbyists being
intrigued by, pushing, hacking, tinkering,"

sounds like a microsoft commercial. but i suppose their "innovation" has nothing to do with Capitalism either.

Alexis Turner wrote:

> Okay then. I think the real discussion we are all having boils down
> to whether
> net art as has been practiced is "dead" or still evolving.
> Personally, I say
> neither. I say it hasn't been born yet at all.
>
> The Internet in its current incarnation is broken. It's dying. It's
> a short
> matter of time before it is supplanted by something we don't even
> begin to
> envision right now. So, quite simply, the thing we are calling "net
> art" right
> now will not have a chance to figure out how to work before its
> vehicle is
> completely snatched out from underfoot.
>
> So, for those who want to move on to bigger and better things: bully
> for you -
> that's the right attitude, even though what you discover tomorrow is
> going to
> be looked at as ancient and retarded by the new turks in 2 years.
> Enjoy
> being a turk now. You don't have an inkling where we will be, but you
> keep
> trying, and what else can you do? You might as well wring the life
> out of the
> thing while it is here. Plus, hell, it will put you in a better
> position to
> understand where we end up, and maybe even guide the way just a
> little.
>
> For those of you getting misty eyed over the lack of rumination in the
> field,
> you are both right and doomed. No art can be worth the pot it's
> pissed in if
> there's nothing "behind" it, and this is exactly why the majority of
> current
> net art sucks, and hard. That said, the Internet as it stands right
> now is
> a tiny, meteoric spark that is gleaming its last gleam. By the time
> you decide
> how to make net art that is worthwhile, it will be too late and you
> will have to
> start over from scratch. That is not to say that reflection is not a
> worthwhile
> goal, but to pine for the days when one could spend 30 years
> perfecting mastery
> of a medium exhibits an inherent lack of understanding of this
> particular
> medium. The very act of creating with it, of making it do beautiful
> or
> interesting things no one has thought of is the very act that causes
> it to
> evolve.
>
> So the issue about capitalism turning us all into consumers thirsting
> hungrily
> for the next big thing is misguided. It isn't about capitalism. It
> isn't
> about handy, tried and true paradigms that we all have in our back
> pockets
> to pull out as the bogeyman/trump card whenever we think a system is
> flawed.
> It's about real people, big researchers and the little basement
> hobbyists being
> intrigued by, pushing, hacking, tinkering, and ultimately being
> dissatisfied
> with an incomplete system. The Internet has a potential that hasn't
> been
> realized, and pushing to make it
> better, rather than sitting and mulling over a broken system without
> fixing it
> (because it demands our contemplation), is what people that realize
> this do.
> Not because they have already consumed it and crapped it out, not
> because
> they are bored with it, but because they realize it has an untapped
> potential that would be criminal not to try and discover.
> -Alexis
>
>
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Ryan Griffis wrote:
>
> ::Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:58:50 -0500
> ::From: Ryan Griffis <[email protected]>
> ::To: rhizome rhizome <[email protected]>
> ::Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: net art?
> ::
> ::On Jul 28, 2006, at 5:07 PM, Alexis Turner wrote:
> ::>
> ::> On the contrary, I'm suggesting that culture is made up of many,
> many things
> ::> and
> ::> evolves for many, many reasons, not merely the trite and lame
> argument that
> ::> we
> ::> are capitalist whores.
> ::
> ::it's equally lame and trite to equate capitalism with economic
> determinism. i
> ::don't think Mark ever made such a lazy equation. i also don't think
> anyone's
> ::talking about "culture" in some larger, universalizing sense. Of
> course
> ::culture is made of many things. You don't have to be Levi-Strauss to
> state
> ::that. But one can look for dominant systems within different
> contexts, and not
> ::fall into some relativistic paralysis.
> ::You also don't have to buy classical economic theory (or simplified
> marxism)
> ::to use the identifier "capitalism" and attempt a critique of it.
> ::Good lord, the Frankfurt School established that more than 60 years
> ago, if
> ::Marx didn't first. We can write that off as academic hoo-ha, but
> then we can
> ::write off anything if it doesn't suit our needs/reaffirm our ideas.
> i don't
> ::buy the totality of psychoanalysis, but i also don't think it's all
> crap
> ::either.
> ::Capitalism is a broad ideology, and arguably the one most directing
> our way of
> ::life. If you don't think so, i'd like to hear another suggestion.
> And not just
> ::another analysis of how economics is REALLY just the expression of
> other
> ::psycho-social desires. duh. Maybe the label is losing its usefulness
> here, but
> ::that's another discussion.
> ::i don't know what this is about any more, but i've contributed my
> worthless,
> ::non-art-related rant nonetheless :)
> ::ryan
> ::+
> ::-> post: [email protected]
> ::-> questions: [email protected]
> ::-> 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
> ::

2006-07-30 07:04, marc garrett

Hi Silva & all,

As many probably know from long ago on this list, I have been very much
pro- net art, and still am. At Furtherfield, we still view Net Art as
being a main interest and passion, even though we have adapted with the
aim of exploration, not because net art is dying but because we feel
that it is expanding its roots into multi-various forms of creative
outreach, and contemporary contexts.

I personally come from a place of activism, art and networked
consciousness, linking very much with a net art focus - not from a film
perspective, 'soft cinema' (Manovich etc).

I feel that there has been a divide between those who have officially
been placed in the history books as 'net.artists' and those seen as 'net
artists', and because only a few top names have been repeatedly banded
about as the main figures of this net-based creativity, Internet art
suffered a kind of cultural drought. Which is not good for any artist
working in such closely related mediums. Although, things are changing.

There have been certain curators who have kept on showing the same old
faces, over and over again - who have not opened up their curatorial
remits for other lesser known creatives, who may not be using the same
inscribed protocols, or academic language to justify their intentions.

"In my opinion net.art is pretty much what can be thought of a movement,
both geographically and chronolically defined… eventually net.art died…"

Net.Art did not die - it became a historical commodity for those who
planned it in such a way. It was not the dot.com boom that shattered the
(hoped) growth of the movement, it was those who decided to hand in
their cultural cache at that time to move on to different pastures so
that they could move into a gallery system, keeping themselves valid in
a curatorial context.

"and net art or internet art became the standard category for online
based artistic projects…"

I feel that net art has always been (officially) a sub-category, along
side net.art, in terms of institutional control. They both happened at
the same time as far as I am concerned - net art, is probably a poorer
relative of the very well promoted and deliberately inserted form of
net.art.

In fact, I suppose net art, was the main movement and net.art was a
smaller more specific, trendier, personality driven and modernist
proposed version of it. It worked well for those who really believed in
the myth of the artist as 'star' so that they could get a piece of the
'heroic-artist' pie.

The irony is that, some of these groups such as irational.org are
actually brilliant (well i think so), as well being supporting by such
systems - so it is not as black and white as some of us would wish to
presume - just because certain groups get recognised and supported does
not mean that they are evil - it has much more to do with the culture
around it, and what ethical responsibilities were seriously explored (if
any) by the more centralized, 'top-down' orientated organizations, such
as ars electronica and 'older' rhizome - remits.

I say 'old' rhizome because it seems that the new rhizome, in its
character, even though it is not primarily net art focused alone, in its
behaviour is net art, and the new team of rhizome have made a tremendous
effort to break down the older more centralized way of being, that it
was once. It seems less elitist, and more open minded in the way that it
engages, in working with people who use the list these days, and willing
to try out a few things.

Let's not forget that net art is also thriving elsewhere, other than
just on this list and on rhizome - the syndicate mailing list still has
some serious net artists working on there, such as Auriea Harvey
(entropy8zuper) and lo_y, and a dynamic (sometimes scary) community,
dedicated to net art, and related contexts. and more of course…

I was with irational.org, in the early days - working with Heath Bunting
on various projects. The Cybercafe BBS, and Savage yet tender pirate
radio and alternative networked art projects, that hacked phones
(phreaking) and other things - but was much more interested in more
collaborative net art and the communities that formed with it, and those
who were not seen as net.art, still am. Even though I value some these
net.artists and what they have given our culture, I also wish that some
them were less desperate in getting their own names known and more
interested in breaking down the patriarchal barriers that supported
their endeavours.

Some of the net.artists out there are still radical, yet there are those
who pretend that they are great by proposing themselves as great, as
(supposed) brilliant academics who are really just interested in power
alone and where that gets them - I see these types, as weak and shallow
individuals, hiding behind institutional walls, rather than changing
institutions for the better - cowards.

The spirit of net.art, has been supported by net art - and those
net.artists owe much to net art for bringing in a larger audience and
context, which has at the same time kept it all alive.

Net art lives on but in various forms. I have been involved in 3 new
classes last year, where students are exploring and learning about net
art as part of the curriculum, I teach a balanced version of what that
is, featuring those who have not been allowed into the hall of fame as
'net.art', as well as those who have…

Now history is being rewritten - at last by young new writers who are
not diverted by the pressure of net.art 'star' orientated fractions,
which is beginning to include those who were left out and others who did
not quite fit the prescribed remit of institutional, academic laziness.
In fact, I think that it is a great time to be doing net art :-)

marc

In my opinion net.art is pretty much what can be thought of a movement,
both geographically and chronolically defined… eventually net.art
died… and net art or internet art became the standard category for
online based artistic projects…

________________________________

De: [email protected] em nome de marc
Enviada: qui 27-07-2006 16:31
Cc: [email protected]
Assunto: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: net art?

Why has everyone conformed to using the term 'net.art', as in net.dot.art?

Historically net.art, mainly belonged to just a few elite artists
working on th Internet, Vuk Cosic made sure of this, and Manovich etc…

I have always been interested in those who did not bandwagon jump onto
the term 'net.art '- those who used 'net art' (without the dot), are the
real blood of net art - for they have to deal with not being supported
by history and cannons, and institutions.

marc

+
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> 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

2006-07-30 14:45, Alexis Turner

::(and consumption) which also makes these ideological demands. this is not new
stuff and it can hardly be dismissed outright as "crap" outright and without argument. open a book.

No, it's not new, nor is it total crap on a theoretical level - that said it IS
worthless crap on a more practical level. I certainly don't need to open
another book on it, when there are already appoximately 25,000 books on the
particular subject. If we as academics haven't identifed a connection between
these topics thoroughly enough yet, let's stop kidding ourselves and admit we
aren't going to until we take a different tack. On the other hand, if we HAVE
identified your precious connections, we obviously haven't translated that
knowledge into anything productive for society at large - rather, we're still
writing 25,000 MORE books rehashing the same old shit. A little air freshner is
in order.
-Alexis

2006-07-30 22:45, mark cooley

Alexis Turner wrote:

> No, it's not new, nor is it total crap on a theoretical level - that
> said it IS
> worthless crap on a more practical level.

I think it is a mistake to seperate theory from practice. Every practice already has a theory built in (though it often goes unrecognized as such). Stating that a theory is not practial makes no sense as a blanket statement. Every theory is practical given that it is not put into a practice that runs counter to the theory's aims. Greenberg's theory may be practical if you want to be an abstractionist, but it may seem like a load of crap if you're into conceptual art. This is because there are two different desires at work here. It's like when the neocons say diplomacy doesn't work. What they mean is that diplomacy is not going to get us what we want. We'll need a war for that.

> I certainly don't need to open
> another book on it, when there are already appoximately 25,000 books
> on the
> particular subject. If we as academics haven't identifed a connection
> between
> these topics thoroughly enough yet, let's stop kidding ourselves and
> admit we
> aren't going to until we take a different tack.

There's no "if" about it. The connections have been made. And sorry about the crack about picking up a book - that was a little harsh.

<On the other hand, if
> we HAVE
> identified your precious connections, we obviously haven't translated
> that
> knowledge into anything productive for society at large - rather,
> we're still
> writing 25,000 MORE books rehashing the same old shit. A little air
> freshner is
> in order.

Speak for yourself. I know many artists who put theories of political economy to work in art and their everyday lives and they are doing productive things for society. It seems that you have contempt for academics who just write books about theory and never do anything with it in the world. But I'm perplexed because when someone writes on this list attempting to discuss theory in a practical sense you react with scorn. You've not offered any logic behind your arguments - just that you have a general bad attitude toward looking at art as a part of a politically and economically engaged system. I see little value in continuing.

2006-08-02 10:38, Rhizomer

hi!

I would have to strongly disagree with the sentiment that the internet is broken or dying. The empirical data shown below is a graphical representation of the current AS's trended since 1994 in the internet core routing table.

http://bgp.potaroo.net/

The internet currently facilitates interconnectivity between more hosts that ever. More data, more bandwidth, more people, and more access.

Public wireless networks offer anonymization of ip addresses. Learn about networks and their operation, theres so much to execute in terms of pro-decentralization, open information sharing and social interventions for any individual who seeks to do so.

We still have routers and switches that have been on-line since the inception of DARPANET decades ago! Not only that, they route billions of terabytes every day! Your generalization that it will be supplanted to something we don't recognize is very incorrect. IP v6 was released several years ago and really embraced by the IETF as being the nextgen protocl for networks. IP v4, as old as it is, is still the predominant protocol on the internet and will be for at least the next decade. So as long as their are IP networks, there will be hosts connected to them. Given this, the direction might be to become more adept at writing dynamic code like perl or learning unix systems to achieve a more conceptual end. Using technology as a means for making a statement is something that the computer underground has been executing on for a long time.

chad
www.chadscoville.com

Alexis Turner wrote:

> Okay then. I think the real discussion we are all having boils down
> to whether
> net art as has been practiced is "dead" or still evolving.
> Personally, I say
> neither. I say it hasn't been born yet at all.
>
> The Internet in its current incarnation is broken. It's dying. It's
> a short
> matter of time before it is supplanted by something we don't even
> begin to
> envision right now. So, quite simply, the thing we are calling "net
> art" right
> now will not have a chance to figure out how to work before its
> vehicle is
> completely snatched out from underfoot.
>
> So, for those who want to move on to bigger and better things: bully
> for you -
> that's the right attitude, even though what you discover tomorrow is
> going to
> be looked at as ancient and retarded by the new turks in 2 years.
> Enjoy
> being a turk now. You don't have an inkling where we will be, but you
> keep
> trying, and what else can you do? You might as well wring the life
> out of the
> thing while it is here. Plus, hell, it will put you in a better
> position to
> understand where we end up, and maybe even guide the way just a
> little.
>
> For those of you getting misty eyed over the lack of rumination in the
> field,
> you are both right and doomed. No art can be worth the pot it's
> pissed in if
> there's nothing "behind" it, and this is exactly why the majority of
> current
> net art sucks, and hard. That said, the Internet as it stands right
> now is
> a tiny, meteoric spark that is gleaming its last gleam. By the time
> you decide
> how to make net art that is worthwhile, it will be too late and you
> will have to
> start over from scratch. That is not to say that reflection is not a
> worthwhile
> goal, but to pine for the days when one could spend 30 years
> perfecting mastery
> of a medium exhibits an inherent lack of understanding of this
> particular
> medium. The very act of creating with it, of making it do beautiful
> or
> interesting things no one has thought of is the very act that causes
> it to
> evolve.
>
> So the issue about capitalism turning us all into consumers thirsting
> hungrily
> for the next big thing is misguided. It isn't about capitalism. It
> isn't
> about handy, tried and true paradigms that we all have in our back
> pockets
> to pull out as the bogeyman/trump card whenever we think a system is
> flawed.
> It's about real people, big researchers and the little basement
> hobbyists being
> intrigued by, pushing, hacking, tinkering, and ultimately being
> dissatisfied
> with an incomplete system. The Internet has a potential that hasn't
> been
> realized, and pushing to make it
> better, rather than sitting and mulling over a broken system without
> fixing it
> (because it demands our contemplation), is what people that realize
> this do.
> Not because they have already consumed it and crapped it out, not
> because
> they are bored with it, but because they realize it has an untapped
> potential that would be criminal not to try and discover.
> -Alexis
>
>
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Ryan Griffis wrote:
>
> ::Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:58:50 -0500
> ::From: Ryan Griffis <[email protected]>
> ::To: rhizome rhizome <[email protected]>
> ::Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: net art?
> ::
> ::On Jul 28, 2006, at 5:07 PM, Alexis Turner wrote:
> ::>
> ::> On the contrary, I'm suggesting that culture is made up of many,
> many things
> ::> and
> ::> evolves for many, many reasons, not merely the trite and lame
> argument that
> ::> we
> ::> are capitalist whores.
> ::
> ::it's equally lame and trite to equate capitalism with economic
> determinism. i
> ::don't think Mark ever made such a lazy equation. i also don't think
> anyone's
> ::talking about "culture" in some larger, universalizing sense. Of
> course
> ::culture is made of many things. You don't have to be Levi-Strauss to
> state
> ::that. But one can look for dominant systems within different
> contexts, and not
> ::fall into some relativistic paralysis.
> ::You also don't have to buy classical economic theory (or simplified
> marxism)
> ::to use the identifier "capitalism" and attempt a critique of it.
> ::Good lord, the Frankfurt School established that more than 60 years
> ago, if
> ::Marx didn't first. We can write that off as academic hoo-ha, but
> then we can
> ::write off anything if it doesn't suit our needs/reaffirm our ideas.
> i don't
> ::buy the totality of psychoanalysis, but i also don't think it's all
> crap
> ::either.
> ::Capitalism is a broad ideology, and arguably the one most directing
> our way of
> ::life. If you don't think so, i'd like to hear another suggestion.
> And not just
> ::another analysis of how economics is REALLY just the expression of
> other
> ::psycho-social desires. duh. Maybe the label is losing its usefulness
> here, but
> ::that's another discussion.
> ::i don't know what this is about any more, but i've contributed my
> worthless,
> ::non-art-related rant nonetheless :)
> ::ryan
> ::+
> ::-> post: [email protected]
> ::-> questions: [email protected]
> ::-> 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
> ::