New media art shouldn't suck

<http://www.mtaa.net/mtaaRR/news/twhid/new_media_art_shouldn_t_suck.html>

AFC has a good post today
<http://artfagcity.blogspot.com/2006/08/new-media-why-it-doesnt-suck-part-two.html>
about the realities of new media artists crossing-over into the larger
art world. Here's the bit that should be common sense to new media
artists (but often isn't):

+++

AFC quote:

Unlike many professions, there are a great number of people within the
art world who could give a shit about the Internet. [

Comments

, marc garrett

Hi T.Whid,

Yes - a problem.

We have recently been funding the making of some films about net
artists/media arts, with the aim of sending them to various education
organisations & to be part of some exhibitions - and also promoting them
to various television companies. Which seem to be quite popular - some
of the local audiences who have been coming to the space (HTTP) are
finding it a lot easier in viewing these films, about the artists and
the work. Usually before they view much of the work online itself.

We are also in the process of building an online facility where net
artists/media artists who wish to share their practise and want to
explain 'one' project - they can do, by uploading a film about it and
giving a story about it.

It will be up in a couple of weeks hopefully.

What I find in respect of many artists is, that if they are given the
chance to speak for themselves about their work - usually people get it
if it is not too bound up in jargon. But of course, we have to be
careful not to lower the standards I suppose - the art still needs it
raw dynamic and intensity.

wishing you well.

marc


> <http://www.mtaa.net/mtaaRR/news/twhid/new_media_art_shouldn_t_suck.html>
>
> AFC has a good post today
> <http://artfagcity.blogspot.com/2006/08/new-media-why-it-doesnt-suck-part-two.html>
>
> about the realities of new media artists crossing-over into the larger
> art world. Here's the bit that should be common sense to new media
> artists (but often isn't):
>
> +++
>
> AFC quote:
>
> Unlike many professions, there are a great number of people within the
> art world who could give a shit about the Internet. [

, x-arn

T.Whid wrote:

> MTAA has been wanting to move into the gallery for quite some time
> now. In order to do so, we'll need to start thinking that our audience
> is completely ignorant of digital culture. We can't expect them to be
> geeks that are excited about a good hack. We'll need to communicate
> our emotion, interest and excitement. We can't expect them to share it
> until we communicate every bit of it.

Making art with the internet is just like making art with anything else. It
just says that you don't need the 'art world' to do it, unless you need the
money from this art world.

What you're telling about is not a lack of digital culture from the
audience, but a lack of audience's power on what you can do. It's the same
if you put a piece of plastic with a mirror on a beach, not many people will
see that as art, everyone can do it, and yes precisely, it's just a human
act which says that art is just a human thing.. and this act doesn't need
any 'art world' to mystify the act. The 'art world' of such an act is simply
the world itself, and so it is for a net.art piece.

try it: http://yann.x-arn.org/wiki/Arc

, ryan griffis

It's interesting to hear someone in the art world say that "peer-to-
peer" is jargon, while shows can be titled things like, say,
"Dereconstruction."
Maybe if it was B2B, rather than P2P, it would generate more
interest :) Geez, it's not as if the art world is still using the
telegraph. Is it really possible that people buying thousands of
dollars + of art really don't know what "peer-to-peer" means? Seems
unlikely. Do they care or like it? i guess that's another issue.
But i honestly can't imagine it being any more difficult to explain
what "peer-to-peer" means than something like "cultural hybridity" or
many of the vaguely theoretical signifiers widely used in art.
i think if the significance of Dada (not to mention the non-concept
of "dereconstruction") can be explained to a general audience, "file
sharing" shouldn't be too difficult. Obviously, it's not a matter of
simple semantics and vocabulary at issue here, and museums have a
somewhat different mandate than galleries. i agree with the need to
make clear the significance/interest of work without relying on the
capital of catch phrases, but i'm also skeptical that the ideas MTAA
is talking could be read as exclusionary in the context of the art
world. Then again, if it's just a pragmatic issue of gaining
acceptance in their terrain, i guess all of this is really irrelevant
– it's just easier to do what is expected.
Aside from the obvious problem of value appreciation/depreciation
(art object vs. software), could it also be an issue of High Art's
historic problem with the kitsch factor of popular media and language
(i.e. commercially vulgar rather than transcendent)? just a thought,
maybe not on target.
ryan

, Jim Andrews

> Aside from the obvious problem of value appreciation/depreciation
> (art object vs. software), could it also be an issue of High Art's
> historic problem with the kitsch factor of popular media and language
> (i.e. commercially vulgar rather than transcendent)? just a thought,
> maybe not on target.
> ryan

I suspect that actually is on target.

Also, just because an art pro couldn't care less about the Internet as an
art medium, it doesn't mean he or she doesn't have some ideas about what is
to be found on the Internet. Very likely he or she just has not found much
net art on it but is somewhat familiar with any number of other dimensions
of the Internet. Such as the pop net for teenagers (if he or she has kids)
which consists mainly of IM, youtube-like videos, viral games, and other
assorted yuks. And shopping sites. Etc.

To make an analogy with TV, it's as though there are interesting TV stations
that are in unusual channel locations that aren't covered in the usual TV
guides.

ja
http://vispo.com

, Pall Thayer

On 15.8.2006, at 15:06, T.Whid wrote:

>
> AFC quote:
>
> Unlike many professions, there are a great number of people within the
> art world who could give a shit about the Internet. [