I hate labeling anything as an art movement. But this recent chatter and talk on this list about Net Art being dead, Charlie's article, the new New Media Taschen book etc…does signal something curious.
There seems to be a strong core of divers on this list. I use the term divers to describe
those who dive in and out of the established art world. These are artists whose work crosses too many boundaries, veers off into humor, into the poetry/fiction world,
isn't designy and clean, has sometimes low tech or messy tech, they are artists somewhat isolated by geography or connections. Sure their work might win some awards and appear in the festivals and galleries. But because they are eclectic and
strange. Maybe not describing their work via the right terminologies or addressing
the right issues.
Because of these and more they are divers, Dipping deep into the world that the Taschen book describes and the Charlie's criticize, and then back out. Their work is
difficult to write about, to discuss in the known terms, difficult to fit within chapters.
So, while the art world likes, and sometimes loves their work, they will rarely be
canonized, rarely be featured in chapters or built into singular heros.
And I would argue that it is this group, these divers are what net art should be, or rather what it is. They are ill-fitting, messy, isolated and yet connected, eclectic, scraping together code and software, ideas and poetry to create some truly unique
work.
And as divers we should know that the art world we dip into, should not be our main
audience.
It seems absurd that we aren't talking more about what Annie mentions below, about
finding ways to promote our work elsewhere, to circumvent those establishments
that drove us in this direction, that made us want to move outside the traditional infrastructures.
But…I keep saying this, and am beginning to sound preachy. Jeez though, we
put as much effort into promoting our work to the net, the global net, as we do
with applications for 2,500 dollar grants, we wouldn't care what Charlie said or how
many books we were left out of.
…….Jason
bram <[email protected]> wrote:
Art is a closed system that only sees what it already knows. (And is
very badly equipped to access new information)
I think we have to defend new media art
we will have to be missionaries
we will have to educate
we will have to infiltrate
we will have to explain
we will have to promote early netart
And at the same time we should go on to intertwine different spheres,
to develop new ways of seeing the same, never seen before, to
experiment beyond techniques, to develop new ways of generating sense.
Don't forget we (at least some of us) are on the internet because we
don't want to have "art" as our only customer, consumer nor as the
most important vector by which we work.
Yet, we want recognition from the art world because that's the place
we feel at home (at least some of us)
Restart reading at the beginning.
Annie Abrahams
PS 1
What's wrong with watercolours? I would be delighted if as many people
wanted to learn coding as watercolours. One can make cutting edge art
in watercolours, but it's rare.
Art is rare. So the article does not disappoint me. It talks about new
media. We exist!
PS 2
Please ARN explain us a bit more about your poietic aggregator?
Indeed, how many persons are behind?
Tell me why this is more than just another way to produce beautiful
abstract images?
I would like to have them too :)
- Hide quoted text -
On 8/18/06, ARN wrote:
> another quote:
> "The web, Charlie says, has the alarming potential of realising the idea of
> the artist Joseph Beuys, that everyone is an artist. This could spell the
> end of art as we know it, when everyone becomes a producer and we all drown
> in a sea of mediocrity made up of billions of minutely-niched microchannels."
>
> i think this is great, so will better write:
>
> "when everyone becomes a producer and we all grow in a great sea of
> experimentations made up of billions of creative microchannels."
>
> why being so alarmed by JB (& others) idea , Charlie ?
>
>
>
>
>
> marc wrote:
> > Wow - and now we have Charlie Gere putting us all down.
> >
> > "So are artists at the cutting edge of new-media technology? No, says
> > Charlie. One of the problems is that other stuff on the net is so much
> > more mind-blowing. A site such as Google Earth is so much more awesome
> > and thought-provoking than something an arty hacktivist can knock up on
> > her PC."
> >
> > I would love to have an open discussion with him about this stuff this
> > on-line.
> >
> > http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/mtaa/~3/13468813/the\_times\_uk\_does\_new\_media.html
> >
> >
> > Also check rhizome front page…
> >
> > Thanks Charlie, we love you two ;-)
> >
> > 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
>
–
"Bitter times, I wish I could reassure you."
.news series.
http://www.bram.org/press/rassur
+
-> 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
———————————
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
recent new media/net art debates/rebates: the new divers.
-
Type: discussion
Comments
It seems absurd that we aren't talking more about what Annie mentions
below, about
finding ways to promote our work elsewhere, to circumvent those
establishments
that drove us in this direction, that made us want to move outside the
traditional infrastructures.
But…I keep saying this, and am beginning to sound preachy. Jeez though,
we
put as much effort into promoting our work to the net, the global net, as
we do
with applications for 2,500 dollar grants, we wouldn't care what Charlie
said or how
many books we were left out of.
…….Jason
This makes a lot of sense, I think. How would you characterize that other
(or those other) audience(s) on the Web, say?
A couple of things come to mind.
A New Media Institute once flew me in to participate in a conference
called 'Sensing the News'. It wasn't an art institute, but a 'journalistic
think tank'. I was confused why they invited me to show my interactive audio
work and other work since I'm not a journalist, so I asked the organizer why
she invited me. She said that journalists also have to come to grips with
interactive media on the Web and the idea of the conference was to show the
people there, almost all of whom were journalists, possibilities both from
journalism and from other fields.
But of course!
Journalists give a damn about new media because they too have to come to
grips with it. More generally, if we ask who gives a damn about new media,
the most pressing audience consists of those who have to come to grips with
it.
ARN quotes Charlie Gere:
"The web," Charlie says, " has the alarming potential of realising the
idea of the artist Joseph Beuys, that everyone is an artist. This could
spell the end of art as we know it, when everyone becomes a producer and we
all drown in a sea of mediocrity made up of billions of minutely-niched
microchannels."
If "everyone becomes a producer" then they are part of the most pressing
audience for new media. Because producers need to come to grips with new
media. Questions and issues that arise and are relevant to producers may not
have dawned on those who are solely consumers of new media.
It isn't so much a matter of everyone becoming a producer of art, either,
but rather of new media in some form. Whether it is journalism or government
information or entertainment or educational, etc.
It would be wonderful to drown in a sea of educated, informed citizens of
enlightened democracies.
To go back to the beginning of my post, there is another part of the
audience I haven't mentioned, and that's the young. They grew up with the
Web. They are quite savvy about the Web even if their pop net is mainly for
yuks. There is useful work to be done in infiltrating the pop net, as well
as the other spheres I mentioned.
ja
http://vispo.com
to add to my last post.
the context in which kids study poetry is primarily in learning to read and
write. the study of poetry can also be part of a study of history or various
other fields–or of course you can simply study poetry, also–but poetry is
important in learning how to read and write because it often is amongst the
intensest engagements with language, freeest, most meaningful, least
formulaic, is ideally free-spirited and free-thinking. When you study how to
read and write, the reading and writing of poetry is extremely useful in
giving students a sense of some of the the limits and more passionate
aspirations of writing and thinking and feeling with language.
to be literate, one needs not only to be able to read but also write.
a majority of people in society know how to read and write.
they are producers of writing.
when everyone becomes producers of new media, we will no more drown in a sea
of mediocrity than we now do concerning the written word (we sort of
do–we're still above water though maybe weary). nor will it mean the end of
art any more than widespread verbal literacy spells the doom of the written
arts. we certainly become more selective.
ja
http://vispo.com
Ja, all good points. But you've left out the one totally insane idea that art
can possibly be for just regular people, people that don't *have* to give a damn
about it, but people that we could make do so if it were in a language they
spoke.
I'm not going into the streets and only speaking katharevusa because its "pure."
It's asinine and elitist, and, on a more practical level, no one would
understand what on earth I was saying. If I want to reach a wider audience, I
speak demotiki. If I want to throw in a little challenge (respect) for
my audience, I might mix and match. In this way, and in time, the language is
expected to converge to a nice blend of both. Such with language. Such with
art.
-Alexis
:: This makes a lot of sense, I think. How would you characterize that other
::(or those other) audience(s) on the Web, say?
::
:: A couple of things come to mind.
::
:: A New Media Institute once flew me in to participate in a conference
::called 'Sensing the News'. It wasn't an art institute, but a 'journalistic
::think tank'. I was confused why they invited me to show my interactive audio
::work and other work since I'm not a journalist, so I asked the organizer why
::she invited me. She said that journalists also have to come to grips with
::interactive media on the Web and the idea of the conference was to show the
::people there, almost all of whom were journalists, possibilities both from
::journalism and from other fields.
::
:: But of course!
::
:: Journalists give a damn about new media because they too have to come to
::grips with it. More generally, if we ask who gives a damn about new media,
::the most pressing audience consists of those who have to come to grips with
::it.
::
:: ARN quotes Charlie Gere:
:: "The web," Charlie says, " has the alarming potential of realising the
::idea of the artist Joseph Beuys, that everyone is an artist. This could
::spell the end of art as we know it, when everyone becomes a producer and we
::all drown in a sea of mediocrity made up of billions of minutely-niched
::microchannels."
::
:: If "everyone becomes a producer" then they are part of the most pressing
::audience for new media. Because producers need to come to grips with new
::media. Questions and issues that arise and are relevant to producers may not
::have dawned on those who are solely consumers of new media.
::
:: It isn't so much a matter of everyone becoming a producer of art, either,
::but rather of new media in some form. Whether it is journalism or government
::information or entertainment or educational, etc.
::
:: It would be wonderful to drown in a sea of educated, informed citizens of
::enlightened democracies.
::
:: To go back to the beginning of my post, there is another part of the
::audience I haven't mentioned, and that's the young. They grew up with the
::Web. They are quite savvy about the Web even if their pop net is mainly for
::yuks. There is useful work to be done in infiltrating the pop net, as well
::as the other spheres I mentioned.
::
:: ja
:: http://vispo.com
::
to add to my last post.
the context in which kids study poetry is primarily in learning to read and
write. the study of poetry can also be part of a study of history or various
other fields–or of course you can simply study poetry, also–but poetry is
important in learning how to read and write because it often is amongst the
intensest engagements with language, freeest, most meaningful, least
formulaic, is ideally free-spirited and free-thinking. When you study how to
read and write, the reading and writing of poetry is extremely useful in
giving students a sense of some of the the limits and more passionate
aspirations of writing and thinking and feeling with language.
to be literate, one needs not only to be able to read but also write.
a majority of people in society know how to read and write.
they are producers of writing.
when everyone becomes producers of new media, we will no more drown in a sea
of mediocrity than we now do concerning the written word (we sort of
do–we're still above water though maybe weary). nor will it mean the end of
art any more than widespread verbal literacy spells the doom of the written
arts. we certainly become more selective.
ja
http://vispo.com
ps: sorry if you're receiving this a second time. i posted this earlier but
it doesn't appear to have been posted, or at least i wasn't sent a copy.
software bug?