'Six Rules Towards A New Internet Art'- Reconsidered

Eryk's Salvaggio 'Six Rules Towards A New Internet Art'- Reconsidered

"Image is nothing. Thirst is everything. Obey your thirst." - Sprite Soft D=
rink Advertisement.

'I think Net Art will be more interesting and challenging when artists/crea=
tors begin to get used to defying the medium itself. As in not doing what o=
ne is supposed to do in accordance to the medium's demands. This of course =
will take time because a plateau has not yet been reached by any stretch of=
the imagination. Once the distraction of [medium] wars are left behind; in=
respect of whether one should use Flash or ASCII, or any other form of com=
puter technology function. Then the sky really is the limit'.

Eryk's Salvaggio rules, I believe are a personal idea and not a manifesto a=
nd Eyrk seems to have an agenda behind his 'Six Rules Towards A New Interne=
t Art' that has not yet been coherently declared. His take sits well next t=
o Baudrillard's conception that in late capitalist consumer society there h=
as been a shift in which images and signs have increasingly become commodit=
ies. Even though in his text he places a disclaimer contradicting this 'Thi=
s has nothing to do with corporate/anti-corporate; and should not be mistak=
en as the most radical rule'. Yet when looking at Salvaggio's work, he does=
on the whole tend to try to eradicate references to image, his recent work=
s are an accumulation of texts forming a larger image, thus still showing h=
is distrust of images and their possible connotations.

After Sept 11th, one thing we can be sure about is, that we [the world] wer=
e submitted repeated images of the terrorist attack and we did not believe =
it was happening. The broadcasting of the incident served more to desensiti=
ze the world from the realness of what actually happened. Of course, the vi=
ewing of a mass of people, another culture's pain is nothing new, but in re=
flection America is not in the habit of being the victim itself. In reflect=
ion, it seems that the only resource that America had when displaying its n=
ational sense grief was via its own terrestrial media, yet the rest of the =
world was tired of seeing the images repeated over and over again. It was l=
ike watching another American blockbuster, people could not quite believe t=
heir own eyes. And who could blame them? Infotainment is America's greatest=
asset, and its allegiance to corporate domination over its people's lives =
is paramount. Because we are all used to viewing advertisements repeatedly,=
propaganda imposed upon our tired eyes non stop above social interest. The=
inherent isolation that mediation gives, caused confusion and a recognitio=
n of a spiritual vacuum in America, as well as everywhere else in the Weste=
rn dominated zones.

Eryk's piece September 11th, 2001 consisted of motion footage of United Air=
lines Flight 175 striking the South Tower of the World Trade Center. Declar=
ed his distrust of televised images 'When I started seeing images of people=
leaping from the towers in magazines and newspapers, it left me feeling li=
ke we had missed the real essence of what had happened, that these lives ha=
d become images, tape loops, and symbols'.

So the image had finally been fully realized in the ultimate sense, it offe=
red no recourse or definition or communication, when the news channels trie=
d to put across the feeling of death and pain. America was eaten by its own=
myth making, the media had finally ate itself. Part of the issue is that d=
enial seems such an intrinsic part of America's psyche. As a modern nation =
movies and advertisements are part of its own history, even when films are =
made as a historical reference to its own culture and world events that act=
ually happened. Events have been altered, changed so things are much more p=
alatable for the consumer. There are no factual references to real-life sit=
uations that the viewer can rely on and trust anymore. A truly mediated cul=
ture that has been traveling in Hyper - Reality. It seems real but is not q=
uite real. A consumer culture is a mediated culture, defined by culturalize=
d existence - via information via external sources. Infotainment is a produ=
ct and it constantly produces misinformation for commercial gain. Therefore=
realism is not of interest, yet that is where many truth's and hard facts =
do rest, even if it is balancing on a knife edge.

'WWII seems to have been the last "real" war. Hyperreal war began in Vietna=
m, with the involvement of television, and recently reached full obscene re=
velation in the "Gulf War" of 1991. Hyperreal war is no longer "economic", =
no longer "the health of the state". The Ritual Brawl is voluntary and hon-=
hierarchic (war chiefs are always temporary); real war is compulsory and hi=
erarchic; hyperreal war is imagistic and psychologically interiorized ("Pur=
e War"). In the first the body is risked; in the second, the body is sacrif=
iced; in the third, the body has disappeared'. Hakim Bey.


We all know how popular Flash was during the (so called) dot com revolution=
in displaying corporate web sites, terrestrial advertising and of course, =
many films. Flash use has come a long way since the corporate 'show off' da=
ys - when one used to visit business sites and flash noise/visuals explodin=
g before your eyes with a funky beat, imposing a maelstrom of nonsense grap=
hics. Now, artists who use flash themselves are pushing things by using the=
medium for their own terms. What I find interesting, or contradictory to t=
he shortly experienced, net art tradition; a good lesson for all to learn. =
Is that many Flash artists are managing to declare human emotion in their w=
ork successfully. An emotional visceralness communicating to a larger audie=
nce outside the traditional [in house] art-speak.

Eryk Salvaggio's distrust for the generalized image and its potential hyper=
eality and blanketing effect on art are worth acknowledging. But first, one=
must consider the 'word' and its own role historically and its function in=
the 'misinformation age'. Text is seen as the more intellectual form of co=
mmunicatory functions. And ownership of the written word has of course been=
an issue for many years. If one was to immediately accept an idea, without=
first considering one's own 'embodied' grounded beliefs. Then jumping onto=
someone else's conceptualized notion would and can only be considered as b=
andwagoning. Text has been the more traditional cannon for archiving inform=
ation, issuing news and of course, rules. Text tells lies just as much as i=
mages. altering subconscience, perceptions and socially constructed cranium=
s. Images traditionally have been more to do with symbols and metaphors, si=
gnifiers.

'didacticism often plays fast and loose with the truth'. N.Chomsky.

If an institution claims an idea, then removes the author who originated it=
s idea, then that institution can claim leverage by using that idea; thus g=
ain control and pushing its originator aside. M.Garrett.

The selection process of what is seen and read, declares who is judging wha=
t is allowed to be read and seen, a problem that is timeless. Whoever contr=
ols language controls us, and language comes in many forms. It can come in =
the form of a critical text supported by an institution and promoted by the=
media because it latches onto their own assumptions at that time. Or it ca=
n be promoted using terrestrial outlets where people who are not less to re=
ad due to de-education, are more reliant on visual information. So text or =
the use of an image can both be a lie, or messenger of mythologies. What r=
eally matters is the source, where the information has come from and why. T=
he itemizing of Flash as inferior to other forms of creative functions, doe=
s not take into account the context of an artists' own personal reasons and=
purpose for using such a medium.

I am sure Eryk himself would love it if someone offered an equivalent examp=
le, contrary to his notion. An alternative set of rules. The positive thing=
that has come about out of this, is that people are asked why are they usi=
ng the medium? Once the individual concerned has conceptually and intuitive=
ly reevaluated the use of a medium of whether it is appropriate in referenc=
e to their idea(s). A more truthful outcome can be realized, in why they ar=
e using their chosen medium. Let's face it, we are all using a corporate me=
dium - its called a computer.

Making art on the net is a craft, it still involves transmuting a concept. =
And the last thing we all want (I hope) is to get trapped in isolating arti=
sts. If that happens, then we might as well become modernists, and start ar=
guing and putting up fences, using Greenbergian terms (which is a 20th cent=
ury issue) defining the good from the bad. When you define or create rules =
you create borders, fences that people feel hesitant to cross because they =
feel victimized for doing so. This creates a virtual 'art school' compariso=
n that as far as I am concerned should be questioned. Inside, outside, bad,=
good; is not the best way for artists when they should be given the chance=
to explore any medium they choose for their own reasons. By adhering to th=
e process of determining what medium one should use, one creates a 'policed=
' aesthetic which is qualitative. Aesthetic value is ultimately created by =
taste. The cultivation of taste usually occurs via culturalization, "cultiv=
ated" taste. Rules are good to break and I suggest breaking the rules.

Eryk says 'Boundaries are what inspired the "heroic period" of early net.ar=
t- boundaries such as bandwidth, browser design limits, etc. Ironically; as=
bandwidth has expanded and browers more flexible, we have also seen a homo=
ginization of net.art. A design aesthetic prevails; as we see slicker and s=
licker "art" sites with no message or point or content'. I would have to di=
sagree here, for now we are witnessing new artists exploring emotion/ideas =
that do declare real content and message such as Jess Loseby. And actually =
does go further than a lot of 'cyber art', implying that if the artist is g=
ood enough the communication and meaning goes beyond the medium itself. So =
perhaps Eryk's excellent and thought provoking manifesto needs to be update=
d.

marc garrett