Most companies during that time were fake. When I was raising capital I used to tell people first we would be an entertainment company, then a service, then a utility. And how many companies are a success by accident (Burt's Bees, Mark Levinson, Craigslist etc) To claim after the failure that it was fake and performance art is ridiculous. If true, probably a crime. But to put in the domain of Art, someone has to know beforehand. Send a letter to yourself, notarize something, put a note in a public forum.

Josh likes attention.

"I vant to be a genius"

2000
joseph

i made this with epic in mind.

http://loshadka.org/billy/huge

Ha…Woah, Billy that is HUGE

I think the "epic" question was joined to the “can it make you cry?” question. I understood the question as being more about “can art on the web be operatic?” Sparse, quick, minimal, cleaver, abstract work (like Billy’s above) is what net art can do quite well. Artist like entropy8.com / zuper.org (Auriea Harvey and Michael Samy) use game space to build work with an operatic of scope. In general, large scale narrative works are rare gems on the net. Olina Lialina’s "My Boyfriend Came Back From the War" is a good example used by the panel. I would guess that someone will jump in here and say that their blog they have been working on for X number a years can be thought of as epic but I think that would be shoe-horning a bit. Just because it’s personal, does not mean it will have any resonance to a larger public.

Along this line - I kinda promised myself that I would not write anything about the panel. I think I’m still pissed off about that the whole mess. The after panel chat on the net is making it worse. So, I’m just going to toss this out because it’s been on my mind. I think this subject is also kicking about on another Rhiz. post. Ed asked about political art on the net and the whole panel just shrugged. That is except for Tom who went on for some time about how he blogged about 911 (Helen hissing with rage in my ear that night “Oh…that was you? You’re that guy? You’re THE guy that blogged about 911? What the FUCK.”)(I think was right before she started to heckle Tim.)

Anyways - Tracking Transience: The Orwell Project, Hasan Elahi, 2006, RSG's Carnivore 2001, Ricardo Dominguez - EDT / Floodnet, Michael Mandiberg’s Oil Standard 2007, Yes Men, obn.org (Old Boy Network), Kenneth Tin-Kin hung...and on and on

Direct action, agitprop, social contentions/ dialogue - just plain art and things that seem like art but may have different goals. It’s occurred in the past on the net and continues to be a possibility on the net now. It’s just may not be what the people on the panel are interested in making at this moment. And that is fine and good. I just do not want the subject and the possibility to be dismissed.

end note - Tim, who was on the panel, started this rant with a slap on the hand to the forehead moment afterwards. As in “ Doh. Why did I not say something?”

M.River,
Re: Helen being mad about something I said, she should have spoken up, instead of this after-the-fact sarcasm from you.
You missed my point, which is that a blog is a way for art and politics to exist side by side. They may occasionally spill over into each other but generally agitprop art is too simplistic to be of much interest. I've written on my blog about Stuart Davis's position of being political without making overtly political art, in the context of the contentious art of the 1930s.
And yes, the long form of a blog (combining art, writing, and media) can be the "epic" Ed was talking about, a point I also made in the panel.
Re: the panel and aftermath making you mad.
Tim did a "post mortem" the morning after that attempted to spin what happened, how the audience reacted, etc. I don't think it was very accurate.
I think the evening was fun, argumentative but notably free of acrimony, and the 2.0 discussion was good. The postpanel spin by the old guard Net artists has been angry and I would say threatened.
This anecdote about Helen is a good example.

You want examples?

--"hipsters /= artists"

--"It's basically the same thing large groups of teenage goth nerds were doing with their liveJournal group blogs back in 2001, except now there's something forward-looking and radical about it having to do with pop culture, memes, semiotics, and the promotional skillz of Marisa Olson"

--"I think what may have upset some of the more process oriented artists who see computer language knowledge as a key to expression was being told they were an older version of something they really had no desire to be a part of"

--"ironically posting links to existing media with your friends on a group blog"

And let's not forget

--"You’re THE guy that blogged about 911? What the FUCK."

I disagree with you that there is anything wrong about making overly political work. I would also not call any of the work I disagree with you that there is anything wrong about making overly political work. I would also not call any of the work I cited above simplistic. If your path is making art on your blog and adding in your thoughts on the world and culture at large now and then. Great. Keep it up. But that is not the only path.

What I wrote was not, nor is this sarcasm Tom. Your comment was naive, if not insulting. In the context of 911 and in the context of other artist who create artwork with a belief in social change, the comment on the panel came across as, to be somewhat polite, – strange.

Which brings me to “The postpanel spin by the old guard Net artists has been angry and I would say threatened”

I find this completely dull Tom. In the end, that’s what bothers me. Threatened? No. Just disappointed. With the million interesting things going happening in art and the net right now, the us vs. them conversation is uninteresting. Write about your work. Write about work around you that compels you. Listen to questions take the criticism with a grain of salt. I’ll buy you a beer and you can tell me I’m wrong if that helps.

Tom, I don't know if it's vanity, or simply a misunderstanding, but,
--"I think what may have upset some of the more process oriented artists who see computer language knowledge as a key to expression was being told they were an older version of something they really had no desire to be a part of"

means....

apples don't want to be oranges.

It's not meant to be insulting, but you did imply that your art practice (and by your own definition a form of Net Art 2.0 ) on the net somehow inherits and replaces art made by internet artists who aren't interested in blogs or social networks.
Once again, the network isn't a monarchy, noone is waiting for a coronation here.

M.River,
"If your path is making art on your blog and adding in your thoughts on the world and culture at large now and then. Great. Keep it up. But that is not the only path."

That's pretty reductive (and patronizing), but I understand things have gotten personal between you and me. (Tim, too, who's reduced to little "pranks"--pitiful.)

As you noted, no one else mentioned any of these "other paths" the night of the panel, including you. I put in my two cents and you don't agree with it. But fabricating comments you say I made ("I was the only one blogging on 9/11" or whatever) and saying artists were insulted by this is pretty low.

"but I understand things have gotten personal between you and me"

lord. it sounds like a line from some lame cowboy / cop film.

Nope, this is not personal. This is just a conversation in a public fourm. I'll stand by what I wrote. If you don't get it, that's not my problem. Later.

There's ambivalence in understanding of term*epic*.Is that something ‘outside’, or it’s something from ancient times where borders between outside and inside were on right place…which mean without strictly define place/line between?
Is *our* culture under epic or under lyric influence? And what’s *our*culture? West culture- globalism-or some culture without name…Local culture???But ‘local culture’ in Foucault interpretation is only way to fight against global power…to be precise-local discourse could be means to reach universal effect. In our case we are faced with some form of ‘global’ discourse which pretends to be universal. Good example is Moody’s writing…Such full of empty and stupid smugness. Isn’t it rude to ask about Duchamp? It’s so colonial…
What could we doo if is one or another?
Imagine Native American “Indians” legend and also native Serb legend about Kosovo (; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_epic_poetry ,
http://home.earthlink.net/~markdlew/SerbEpic/
is that some kind of primitive history(proto-history)without legal value, not confirmed and supported in right side of power/USA/ ?Or just myth –blur in time?
Both are ruined by capitalism, both are issue not very welcome in today’s politics discussions.
In beginning of XIX century epic poetry was popular around the ‘culture’ of West world’, something like ‘world music’.
Goethe was familiar with Serb epic poetry. Mallarme translates this poetry phonetically, like words without strictly meaning, like verse symmetric and universal in their own rhythm.
Now I have trouble to understand what the main problem in perception of epic is.
Is that arbitrary, non-hystoric aura, is it fact that epic could be good enough in Homer’s verse but not in other regia? After Serbs lost Kosovo these days… is epic serial from XIV century about Kosovo some kind of forgery? Wasn’t it just joke about Serb in Kosovo from XIV century? Serbs fuck bad and rarely and punish is to take them away this piece of their own country? Shiptars from Kosovo are fuck good, they have at least teen child from one woman and they deserve Kosovo? Is that fact or epic projection?
If is that so…isn’t USA epic about Iraq forgery, isn’t it just equivalent to Moody’s question about Duchamp?
Really:”Do you know Iraq? Do you know MANIK? Do you know Kosovo?”
You are one who shouldn’t know. You are out of epic, out of main stream, out of main road, out of history and culture. You should listen to your Moody’s and other Manowich’s…That’s new epic, that’s why Moody take part of Rhizome space…He personally, mmmaybe, don’t need that…it’s small and insignificant for his ambitions but it’s good for *HISTORY*, epic history of USA.Tom’s going to be part of NMA history no meter how bad artist he is…And all that *Via Rhizome*.After all: Rhizome prefer UK or USA artist than some Serbian motherfucker…MANIK.
Isn’t it so? So many friends from Rhizome wrote us personally but it’s dangerous to make ‘case’ about MANIK in public?!?
Our existence in global history (epic? lyric) depend on kindness of some Tom Moody or something insignificant like he/she is.
MANIK
PS:First divide between epic and lyric in theory was Schiler’s essay about naive and sentimental poetry…

Emerging from my summer vacation from everything for a minute...

Epic... Interesting that we are interested int hese things. Wonder why.

I think that there are elements of what was called the theatrical in art, the grand.
I remember seeing the huge install by the Piotr Uklanski in Gagosian. These massive, sweeping pieces. That was epic.

The cry factor didn't make it for me. I'd be more for awe...

First off - Yael Kanarek - World of Awe. Good lord - this thing has morphed so many times, is so huge,,,
MTAA, 1 Year Performance Video) - another wonderfully mad piece. Its time factor.
The whole of Manik's word interventions.
Lialina's My Boyfriend...
ETOY Vault, Toywar

I think time is a factor here...

MANIK makes a good point here, which is that political art usually means political art acceptable to the US liberal left.
Since 9/11 (if I can mention that date) I've been reading more writing by the non-Interventionist right.
One of their tenets is that the US Kosovo war was a warm-up for the Iraq war and that the liberal hawks provided cover for BushCo by supporting the idea of humanitarian war.
I was appalled by the bombing of Belgrade (I'm sure other bloggers were, too, Mike) but if I'd made some "political art" that said in effect "US Out of Kosovo, the Serbian Homeland" (and let's say it was fantastically clever and not just a slogan) would it have gotten to square one with any US arts funding entity?
What if I wanted to make political art saying "keep immigrants out of the US?" (The opposite of my belief--just a hypothetical.)
Because of this bias, and the simplicity of political art generally, I'd rather deal with such issues in written form, where a nuanced view can be developed. Sorry if that is insulting to anyone.
Duchamp was mentioned because he is the lingua franca of the International Gallery Art scene (which I'm told is now centered in Europe). "Do you know who Duchamp is?" is a litmus test all who would be artists must take. (I also happen to think he is more relevant than, say, Broodthaers, to 2.0 practice)

Just so it's clear, this whole thread was based on T.Whid's and M.River's not listening to the moderator's questions.

Although it's good to see a new topic here, I really don't see why or how it matters if any netart may or may not be "epic". Actually, I don't think that truly "epic" work would go over very well today. Contemporary culture isn't epic in the sense that it doesn't allow for heros, reverence or "epic" moments. It's fast, fleeting and quickly forgotten.

+++

"Contemporary culture isn't epic in the sense that it doesn't allow for heros [snip]"

What about Batman and the rest?

;-)

This is a general note rather than a poke at Tom, but when I read;
"Duchamp was mentioned because he is the lingua franca of the International Gallery Art scene"
- that struck a chord with me about something I've been thinking about. For the past year or so, I've been thinking about the gallery, collectors, museums and the "International Gallery Art Scene". The Holy Fire show was great research, so was Art Brussels, AB Miami, and a lot of other points of intervention "inside the scene".

But "epic art" transcends this.

Although I work in it part of the time, there are times when I find the gallery/museum/academy etc. ecosystem solipsistic and boring as hell. We have a bunch of very well-regarded people talking, largely, to a very narrow niche - no one's been saved, and in the end, what's been gained? Perhaps chasing some inspiration. About it.

Perhaps it's a crisis of faith, but I think that this is why I have never called myself an artist, because this ecosystem is about art as self-fulfilling tradition, and I don't like being that confined, although I'm part of it. But obsessing about how one is going to get positioned here or there or make the next piece or whatnot - it's just onerous.

And this is why I liked Duchamp - because he was one of the biggest wrenches in the gears of the art machine of the 20th Century. From the Armory Show to the Larrge Glass to (pretty much) going off and playing chess for decades while making the Illuminating Gas (Now that's EPIC!). I think that this is why there is a hate/reverence relationship to Duchamp. He played both sides of the chessboard with a skill that infuriated and amazed the world, playing both inside and throwing boulders at the art world with an unparalleled undeniability. He both refuted the art world while creating work that we're still wrestling with.

I think in many ways, this open contradiction, rather than today's cool irony, is what I love about Duchamp, and (from my research) he was a charming fellow all the while.

But I'm not addressing Web 2.0...

The epic pre-exists the colonialist/Orientalist episteme. This thread’s proposed intersections between the two are a product of retrospective projection.

Let’s take as a modest baseline Jameson’s definition of colonialism:

“Colonialism means that a significant structural segment of the economic system as a whole is now located elsewhere, beyond the metropolis, outside of the daily life and existential experience of the home country, in colonies over the water whose own life experience of the home country, in colonies over the water whose own life experience and life world—very different from that of the imperial power—remain unknown and unimaginable for the subjects of the imperial power, whatever social class they may belong to. Such spatial disjunction has as its immediate consequence the inability to grasp the way the system functions as a whole…. Daily life and existential experience in the metropolis … can no longer be grasped immanently; it no longer has its meaning, its deeper reason for being, within itself.” (“Modernism” 50-51)

In the days of epics, conquering meant something different than it did, say, before the 17th century (roughly around the time that the above definition of colonialism kicks in with the maritime mercantilist prefigurations of modern imperialism). After a war, when Country X had conquered Country Y, country X’s people would move into Y and mix with the populations there (e.g., the Angles’ and Saxons’ takeover of Celtic Britain, the Aryan conquest of the Dravidian countries of the Subcontinent). It was not really a case of a distant cultural metropolis from the subjugated countryside. War was a merger of territory, populations, and capital (see Marinetti on the history of rape). The great colonizers gave to and took from the arts of the conquered (not necessarily isomorphically, but definitely dialectically).

The Hittites, for example, incorporated Sumerian, Akkadian, and even Vedic arts of sculpture, cuneiform, calligraphy, law, horsemanship, religion, technology, and literature. “Hittite culture” is no monolith, being itself a bricolage of Anatolian, Near Eastern, Proto-Indo-European, and Eastern Semitic cultures. In this culture there was no truly solar element toward which other cultural organisms in the Hittite tableau had to attach to to survive (as in, for example, Turkish court culture in India under Babur, or Chinese court culture in Silla Korea).

In our mindest of the Internet or postmodernism we sometimes forget how “cosmopolitan” many ancient civilizations were. In fact, postmodernism’s values are largely late reactions to colonialist demarcations amplified by maritime separations of metropolis and country – Modernism’s celibate machines.

The Internet has the potential to tap into the positive/formative values of that ancient cosmopolitan outlook, as opposed to postmodernism’s negative/reactionary values. The former is “positive” in that different arts, regions, and discourses can merge or complement each other organically, as opposed to postmodernism’s exhausted irony of reductive duplication, collage, reframing, hypersurface, etc.

So I disagree with MANIK and Foucault that the local is the only available antithesis to colonialist power. The authenticity of the “local” is unverifiable, ever suspect, and subject to propagandic mutilation and manipulation. The semantics of the local are so unstable that Team Goebbels could hack three different German histories, Icelandic saga, Norse mythology, Sanskrit symbols, and other cultural bits toward a German aesthetic.

These are a few but not all the reasons why Internet may be a capable platform for the epic.

this is epic net art:

Heroes? They're just obscured by the noise.
I see Rem Koolhaas everywhere, Eno. Gore, Gates, Oprah, Madonna, Koons.
Maybe not heroes, but we have stars again.

Batman! Yeah! Batman!

Actually, I propose a net art piece where we all submit an MP3 or video clip reprising Michael Keaton's epic line, I'm BATMAN!

Kilmer, Clooney, hell, all of us are BATMAN!

1.
Because I am an asshole, I like to read The Believer. There was a quote I read this morning that has stuck with me all day and I don't know why; it's from novelist Tom McCarthy:

"One of the real structural understandings of great literature is that it's an event. It's not something you can contain and narrate but it's like this seismic set of ripples that goes on throughout time, backward and forward. Contemporary novelists don't really understand that, but contemporary artists do."

Seems like that would be the most pertinent definition for "epic" net.art that I could ever muster; we focus a lot of our efforts (in web-based whatever-making) on ripples outward, but not the art itself as one ripple in a time line. Not sure if that is for the better or the worst, but it's an observation.

2.
Regarding this old-guard net.art stuff, Tom, I'm sure the 2.0 is a distinction that makes things easier on a marketing/strategic level, but at the same time, this discussion - intended to build up a generation gap of some sort - is failing. From my perspective, it reminds me of my own annoyance with the Fluxus old guard that were resistant to embracing new work without some kind of distinction. "Fluxist," I believe they settled on, which I'm pretty sure we can all agree is totally stupid.

But I guess it goes to show the value of the "brand names." Net.art has left a rather tired legacy, in hindsight, and that's something that the handful of still-working artists are also struggling with, because, to be fair, a lot of them are solid artists who got put on the burned-out end of a hype-wick. The energy has been sucked out of net.art because it was so over-amplified in its infancy. I almost shudder to think how many artists in the first net.art section of the Whitney Biennial are still making work; I would not be shocked if the net.art bubble's burst left a lot of very awkward crow being eaten by those who went to bat for it; the result is a kind of net.art fatigue, and I don't blame anyone who wants to reboot the franchise.

That said, you've yet to answer a single question I've asked regarding why you think the "2.0" is valid or earned, but then, I have no idea if you even wanted the "2.0" in the first place, so, whatever. The point is, I guess, that the "old guard" isn't doing this just to be a bunch of pricks. I, for one, would be glad to jump on the 2.0 bandwagon if it could be properly defined as something that hasn't already had the marrow sucked out of its dry bones, and I have yet to see that in any of these discussions.

So why does it matter?

Different between facts and humanistic believe is insurmountable.
Vijay,if you have something to say first check around,use Internet-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthrate
http://www.wluml.org/english/pubsfulltxt.shtml?cmd%5B87%5D=i-87-2631
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1373467.php/BACKGROUNDER_Kosovo_-_Europes_highest_birth_rate_smallest_GDP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo#Demographics...

Michael...is fact that somebody have teen children and other just one racism? When MANIK talk about something important,he/she always use facts.You are one who melted facts in ideology no matter of price.It’s not our fault you have strong feeling about Shiptars.After all...there’s nothing to be shame of.
We can’t see rolle of Internet in your life.Just tell us that you never heard for Afganistan-Kosovo *drugs road*?You’ve never heard for Shiptars hospitals for taking Serb prisoners organs... from live Serbs?Where have you been all that time.Walking around in countryside?
Bondsteel?...Nothing!( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Bondsteel )
http://english.pravda.ru/world/europe/02-04-2008/104752-Carla_del_Ponte-0
Isn’t it just like Nazi project,eugenica http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics ?
MANIK is racist when he/she said ’Hitler ordered to kill six billion Jews?'

Extremly high natality come after sex,so in best case Serbs should be angry on MANIK because of his/her observation about their sexual potential,not Shiptars, not you...Vijay and Michael.

High natality is and it always was Shiptars national and state project.Just compare numbers from 80-es and end of 90-es.You could see there high expanding of Shiptar population and reduce number of Serbs and others(just look at link here,you don’t have to add nothing,just read ...).
Vijay-MANIK newer conect *power*in wider sense of that word with ’colonial power’.It’s bit naive to make that kind of tautology.Power IS colonial,imperial,destructive,ugly,best,left and right,power’s everywhere and fight for power start local,just like Foucault said.Or to make you easier to understand-is Texas place where you fill sorry for emigrants and fight for their rights?And by the way:do they demand Texas to be part of Mexico like Shiptars already make Kosovo in close future part of Great Albania?MANIK’s not interested in questions about natality, here’s question about how some ethnic group use this natality in politics purpose.

All MANIK have to say is on Serb.We are going to publish our articles on Rhizome.That’s our gift to Rhizome members.As we could see even with Internet some of you are lazy to check out what’s going on.
MANIK’s sure that language couldn’t be obstacle for local,Rhizome prophets

After essay:“About indifference“,published on Rhizome_Raw
(http://hansbernhard.com/TEXT/2000_2002/2002_MANIK_DIALOGUE/manik_ptt_yu_003.html )






MEDIJI
ILI ESTETIKA OGRANICENOG SUVERENITETA
(MEDIUM,OR AESTHETIC OF LIMITED SOVEREGNITY )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_%28communication%29

Interpretacija uloge kulture je temeljni zadatak svakog ljudskog drustva jer je to i uslov njegovog nastanka i opstanka.Nedovoljno teorijski objasnjena(+ osmisljena+konceptualizovana)s obzirom na strateske potencijale kultura svojim pojavljivanjem ,gledano istorijski ,ipak 'a priori' gradi svoja znanja kroz svoj diskurs i tako reprezentuju i uslove za ostvarivanje sebe kao proizvoda svojih imanentnih mogucnosti u odredenoj epohi.Oblast kulture,a tu za ovu priliku izdvajamo specificno drustveno polja razmene ideoloskih i mentalno-kreativnih resursa-*umetnost*-prolazi kroz promene izazvane i izazivane tehnickim performansama novih medija i tehnologija zasnovanih na vodecoj ulozi kompjutera.

Moguce je da smo u procesu kada vec osecamo nove relacije izmedu teorije i prakse.Jedno vreme praksa je bila razmatrana kao aplikacija teorije,kao konsekvenca teorije;nekada je praksa inspirisala teoriju,bila je neizbezna u kreiranju teorijskih formi.U svakom slucaju ta relacija je bila razumevana u terminima koji su se koristili u procesima totalitarizacije.Medutim ovaj odnos teorije i prakse se moze sagledati i na drugaciji nacin.Njihova isprepletanost je daleko vise parcijalna i fragmentarna:sa jedne strane teorija je uvek lokalizovana i uodnosena na jedno limitirano polje pa se potom kao takva projektuje na druge sfere,manje ili vise udaljene od pocetne(od polja pocetnog razmatranja).Veze koje se sadrze u aplikaciji teorije nikada nisu stvar slucajnosti.Kada se teorija premesti sa svog odgovarajuceg polozaja(domena)ona pocinje da stvara prepreke,zidove,blokade prema drugim tipovima diskursa.Praksa je set relacija od jedne teorijske tacke do druge,dok je teorija relacija od jedne prakse do druge.
"Nema teorije koja bi se razvijala bez eventualnog susreta sa zidom,preprekom,a praksa je neophodna da bi prosla kroz taj zid."(Gilles Deleuze)

U tom smislu teorija ne izrazava,prevodi,ili sluzi da bi aplicirala praksu:ona jeste praksa.Ali to je lokalna i regionalna praksa,to je borba protiv moci,borba koja se koristi da bi se moc otkrila tamo gde je najmanje vidljiva.To nije 'probudena svest' za koju se treba boriti(jer mase su ponekada svesne da je svest forma znanja,da je svest baza za subjektivnost,da je to prerogativ koji preuzima burzoazija ...Ali preuzimanje moci je dirigovano nezavisno od onih koji se bore za moc i nije u sluzbi njihovog prosvetljavanja sa sigurne distance.*Teorija*je regionalni sistem borbe.
Mada je primena kompjutera u svim vidovima birokratske infrastrukture vec uhodana praksa ipak postoji odredeno distanciranje kada je u pitanju aplikacija kompjuterskih tehnologija na umetnost.Jedan od glavnih argumenata protiv kompjuterom generisane umetnosti je da umetnikova ruka ima jos toliko mnogo da 'kaze',da to ne moze nikakva masina da uradi,da je rad na komjuterskoj umetnosti tek mehanicki odnos sa masinom ...itd. Geteova opaska kako ne postoji 'potpuno originalan rad' vec da je sve rezultat i proizvod citave mnozine uticaja ostaje sustinska za razmatranje moguce teorijske obrade New Media Art(kasnije NMA) i klasicnih medija kroz sagledavanje svih nivoa i stepena njihovih medu/uticaja(inter-relacija) tokom istorije.New Media Art je mesto proizvodenja specificne socijabilnosti.Ovde se moze primeniti fukoovski shvacana istoricnost kao proces zbrajanja,uporedivanja i klasiranja mnostva 'malih' pritocnih istorija,istorija koje su dosle sa strane('teorija gosta' u filozofiji Deleza i Gatarija na primer),istorije pisane iza drustvenih rubova,sa one strane,u sivim zonama... Znanje o uticajima i razvijanju plastickih ideja u specificnom poimanju vremena i prostora koje se formira putem upotrebe kompjutera je moguce klasifikovati kao specificno(NMA tada ima i svoju istoriju?).To je znanje koje jos nisu oblikovale velike ideolosko-estetske cistke,to je nastajuca istorija jedne manjinskosti,ta istorija se upravo zbog toga zbraja kako u svojim etabliranim,tako i u sporednim ili tek razvijajucim formalizacijama bez bojazni sto nas ocita razlika izmedu standardnih plastickih objet d'art(slika,crtez,skulptura)i npr.radova koji koriste HTML na prvi pogled ubeduje da je to nemoguc zadatak.

Sada smo u tranziciji od 'prema -objektu-orijentisane' prema 'sistemski-orijentisanoj' kulturi.Ovde se promene krecu ne 'od' stvari vec od nacina na koji su stvari uradene.Takode,vazno je a i nezaobilazno sa tom reci 'vazno' reci i kljucnu rec-*informacija*-.Kada su kompjuteri u pitanju to je rec koja ce nas uputiti na esencijalno ovog medija-/'informacija je medijum'!/ Kompjuter je,naravno, medij koji prenosi informacije pa ga u tom smislu i prepoznajemo kao nesto sto ne pripada tek novoj tehnoloskoj generaciji kao varijacija...slikarske boje su,na primer, u svojoj dugoj istoriji imale nekoliko markantnih i revolucionarnih pomaka;prelazak sa jajcane tempere na uljane boje a zatim na akril i...t...d.Sve sto pripada oblasti umetnosti kompjutinga vec je deo sustinski drugacijeg sistema razmene robe i dobara koji se razvija kroz razlicite stilove disperzije ili distribucije informacije.Nacin na koji se informacija prezentuje odreduje njen kvalitet i domet.Mozda bi se moglo govoriti pre o osecanju za *cyber tajming* nego o necijem poznavanju hardvera ili softvera,mozda je upravo cyber tajming ili neka vrsta jos neadekvatno imenovanog osecanja za dubinski strukturisan smisao u novim medijima a ne aplikativnost nekog rada iz novih medija u potencijalnu istoriju NM po kriterijumima tradicionalne estetike ono odlucujuce za format i doseg informacije.Materija generisana kroz kompjuter se koristi efektima i sinhronije i dijahronije ,sto znaci da se potencijal odaslane informacije prepusta jednom semiotickom ruletu u kojem 'kuca uvek dobija'.Pri tome 'kuca' jeste zbir ideoloski koncipiranih odstupnica/metafora pre nego akcionih strategija koje bi vodile prema *novom*.Rec je o distribuciji senzacija:u ovom slucaju informacija je prva i ona preuzima na sebe specificnu ulogu oznacujuceg.Ukoliko dozvolimo da se izmedu informacije i primaoca desi 'semioticki metez' vrata za heuristiku novih medija su odskrinuta.Kompjuter je ekstenzija kreativnog uma jer koristi informacije a te informacije mogu da se krecu od reklamnog materijala,preko informacije o izgledu nekog umetnickog dela do ilustrovanog uputstva kako napraviti razorni eksploziv u kucnoj radinosti.Napokon-informacija moze da preuzme i formu necega sto ce biti nazvano 'umetnost novih medija' -NMA-pa ce i pored estetskog impulsa ili instinkta da se takav -cyber-objet -d'art- gleda kao prostiranje podlozno estetskom rekognosciranju uvek biti jasno da u pozadini takvog zahvata u tkivo estetskog stoji diskurs nastao iz bazicnog koda (01).Temeljnu pometnju u nastajucu teoriju novih medija unosi njihova neesteticka sustina.Kod u svojoj intenciji nije izmisljen da prenese esteticku poruku,on prenosi informacije kao takve.Razrada koda i njegova strateska upotreba dovode do aplikacije estetskog na jednu estetici sasvim ravnodusnu materiju kao sto je to informaticki kod.Programer pise program koristeci kod.On pise tekst masinskim jezikom koji ce biti interpretiran od masine.Kod je masinski jezik kao sto je francuski govorni jezik u Francuskoj.Onaj koji pise kod govori isti jezik kao i masina.Strateski potezi u okviru jedne specificne umetnicke prakse menjaju se radikalno kada se promene neko od temeljnih nacela koji su tu praksu uspostavljali('teorija sistema',Niklas Luhmann/Luman).Promene u umetnosti mogu biti skokovite i naizgled 'revolucionarane' ili tektonske koje idu u dubinu i sporo se razaznaju dok njihovi efekti ne dodu do punog izrazaja.Pri tome je remiks vrhovno sintaksicko nacelo kojim se mnogi,ako ne i vecina NMA(New Media Art/ists)rukovode.Remix ovde ima funkciju razrade i formalizacije informacije a ova pak kao anamorfoza sebe same,kao zamumlani eho sabira se i re-aktuelizuje u kontekstu komjutera kao sredine (enwironment) ili posrednika ... u delove,cvorove nekog auraticnog 'DNK' prepleta,uvrnute dvostruke spirale genoma informacije da slikovito oglasimo ovu dijalekticku dinamiku u prostoru episteme novih medija.Primice se cas kada ce biti "dokazano" da je jedno NMA *umetnicko delo* ili delo koje pripada svetu umetnosti.Za sada ta mogucnost luta cyber svemirom kao meteor trazeci idealni oblik okolnosti da se tu uzglobi.Ovo uzglobljenje je i objava da je postajanju kraj i da pocinje Istorija Umetnosti Novih Medija.Nista,medutim, nije unapred odredeno-polje informacije koja postaje delo iz umetnosti je odraz egzistencije umetnika koja se krece nomadski od tacke do tacke u prostoru medija(misao je prostorna kategorija)...Kretanje je,pri tome, ekstenzivno a brzina intenzivna.Mada vreme kao fenomen implicira ekstenzivnost(ili mehanizme dijalektickog strukturisanja realiteta,u oba slucaja zamisljamo hronoloski proces u kojem je samo kretanje uslov bez kojeg se ne moze):intenzitet je apsolutna kategorija bivstva u bivstvujucem,cisti intenzitet koji svojim pojavljivanjem osvetljava trenutak svoje prolaznosti.Na mestu modernistickog projekta koji se dugo razvija pojavljuje se fluks,namesto koncepta koji se razvija u fazama sada se ispoljava dijahronija... iznenadujuca je nepredvidljivost energije gesta.Postmodernisticko slikarstvo otkrilo je energiju koja slavi disperziju,koja se ponasa fraktalno i bez etickih je etalona.Biti jeste eticno...Ne-biti takode... Informacija je u svom fenomenoloskom obliku takode izvan etike ili estetike.Odlucujuce za aplikaciju informacije koju kompjuter generise u umetnicko jeste intenzitet svesnog ili impulsivnog shvatanja specificne razlike ovog medija u odnosu na sve sto je pre njega postojalo.Ili,drugacije;ono sto se moze ocekivati kao 'doprinos' NMA jeste u definisano u specificnom segmentu koji pripada samo procesu koncipiranom i sprovedenom tako da sadrzi ono specificno i neponovljivo,ono sto NMA cini posebnim.Posto kruzimo oko necega sto jos nije etablirano kao specificno znanje,ponavljamo da je NMA posebna koliko smo u stanju tu posebnost da ekstrahujemo iz jedne standardne istorijske akumulacije specificnosti(mislimo na ono specificno u NMA).

"Oko voli da vidi novo!"
kineska je poslovica a to novo treba shvatiti kao nesto sto nastaje na mestu onoga sto je bilo.Zamena.Posteriornost odreduje 'umetnicku realnost' koja postaje dopisujuci se u Istoriju Umetnosti dok se desavanja u ovom trenu aktuelnosti odupiru sistematskom imenovanju.Vidljiva je grcevita potreba da se praksa,bar u MNA, cim pre teorijski utemelji kao rezultat novih poietickih/od grckog poiesis/ postupaka ali i kao odustajanje od starog i neupotrebljivog u svojoj ne-aktuelnosti,od diskursa sveta koji vise *nije tu*.Promene u umetnosti oduvek su bile indukovane kretanjima u okviru drustva ali su i odrazavale promene u tom drustvu.Najzad;ako je samo postojanje smisleno kao takvo,cemu gomilati suvisna pitanja,cemu se ne zadovoljiti stalnim i ponovnim potvrdivanjem istog?(ponavljanje paterna u tetovazama ili ukrasima u primitivnim drustvima,neke od njih traju neizmenjene vekovima sto pokazuje da se radi o izdvojenim drustvima cvrsto strukturisane ideologije i hijerarhije).

Granica izmedu NMA i 'klasicne' umetnosti je rastresita,fluidna i vise inspirise na prelaze/transgresije/nego na razdvajanje.Slikarstvo se sve vise bavi samo sobom kao rezultatom odredenih procedura cesto dovedenih do virtuoznosti kao sto je to slucaj sa novom generacijom kineskih umetnika koji dominiraju na svetskom slikarskom trzistu.Na drugoj strani efekti i uticaji kompjuterske,ekranske slike(image)posebno u tehnoloski naprednim drustvima sve vise fiziognomisu recentnu svetsku likovnu scenu(prozimanje 'klasicnih'i novih medija,objet d'art sa ekranskom slikom,projekcija i projektibilnost sa odrazom i 'auraticnom'(u smislu kako je Benjamin shvatao)likovnim senzacijama.Ako se uporedi broj kompjutera i Art vasara(Art Fair) jasno je da Internet tu u nominalnoj prednosti(sto ne govori nista i o prednosti u smislu 'kvaliteta'). Baza Google Images podataka beskrajna je riznica prizora.Tu se nazire i moguca demokraticnost novih medija,ili bar njena populisticka potencijalnost.Sama mogucnost da se za svako raspolozenje i svaku misao,rec, nadu po nekom sistemu odabrane slika,dijagram ili neka druga plasticka ekranska senzacija koja se moze preneti na slikarsku podlogu neminovno uvodi nove elemente u sam korpus slikarstva.Discipline sa specificnim zahtevima i pravilima koje nastaju u interrelaciji izmedu najnovijih tehnologija stampe i kompjutera vec je unela promene u diskurs o slikarstvu.Printovi koji su tehnoloski toliko usavrseni da mogu da oponasaju akril ili ulje na platnu cine novi prostor u okviru plasticke umetnosti koji tek treba razotkriti u njegovoj slozenosti.Da proces nije jednostavan dovoljno je prisetiti se sudbine fotografije i vremena koje je bilo potrebno da se ona pocne tretirati kao umetnost.Mada postoji svest o tome da se zaista dogada nesto epohalno novo u umetnosti ,nesto sto jos nema ni konacnu formu a ni ime i da ce to novo za duze preuzeti stvarnost 'sveta umetnosti' cini se da teorija uspeva da svojim sredstvima prepozna i imenuje ovu praksu u nastajanju,ali da ne moze da se odvoji od ideoloskog i ideologizirajuceg tereta koji nosi iz proslosti.Teorija promislja net. art ili NMA kao sto je to cinila sa 'klasicnim'umetnickim disciplinama i to samo u sferi estetickih konvulzija ove nove discipline vizuelnog i verbalnog iskazivanja estetickih stavova,dakle samo i kada je 'dokazano'da se tu zaista radi o NMA...a to dokazivanje zavisi od nasleda klasicne estetike pa se stvara privid kruzenja bez impresivnih rezultata.Cesce je pitanje o tome sta je to specificno sto cini jedan arte fakt delom iz NMA nego pitanje o tome sta to konkretno delo/objet d'art donosi u smislu estetskog.Za delo iz kompjuting umetnosti je ,dakle,vaznije da ga prvenstveno poznamo i priznamo kao takvo nego da se raspravlja o njegovoj estetici(ako i dode do takve rasprave ona se desava a posteriori kada se konsenzusom odluci da se tu zaista radi o NMA ).

"Kraja nema i opasno je izmisliti ga"(E.Kaneti)

MANIK



And:

TEHNE ILI SOUND OF SNOWING

MANIK je fenomen koji sebe oblikuje kroz rizomaticko multimedijsko nastajanje. Svoj rad MANIK naziva *tehne*.

Po Fukou(M. Foulcaut):

”…tehne/tecne/ implikuje epistemu koja podseca na poznavanje principa pojavljivanja odredenih formalizacija.Kao rezultat znanja i opredmecivanja tog znanja indukovan je novi sistem razumevanja. Distribucija i tehnologija tog razumevanja je-tehne.

Tehne predpostavlja znanje o razlikovanju izmedu pravljenja i/ili cinjenja kao opozita”bezinteresnom razumevanju”koje je uobicajen opis kada se govori o ‘epistemi’pa se tako bolje razume distinkcija izmedu epistema.Tehne ,gledano istorijski ,‘a priori’ gradi svoja znanja i svoj vlastiti diskurs i tako reprezentuje i*uslove za ostvarivanje sebe kao proizvoda svojih imanentnih mogucnosti*u jednoj odredenoj epohi.”



~ ~ ~ ~ ~



Od pocetka svoje istorije filozofija razdvaja tehne ( tekhne ) od episteme (episteme).Ta distinkcija jos nije bila sacinjena u Homerovo vreme.Odvajanje je determinisano politickim kontekstom kada je grupa filozofa optuzila Sofiste za instrumentalizovanje logosa, retorike i logografije za sticanje moci a za odricanje od znanja.



U hajdegerijanskom vokabularu tehne (techne) kao projekat Zapada ili 'Zapadne civilizacije' jeste instrumentalizovanje,preuzimanje,zakljucavanje,utamnicenje,ili definisanje zelje kao okvira za manipulaciju ili opstrukciju.To je 'Gestell',sistematizacija principa razloga u tehnickom procesu koji predpostavlja racio,ispitivanje znanja. Ovako definisanoj upotrebi tehnologije Hajdeger(Heidegger)suprotstavlja ocito stariju tehne koju su Grci zvali poezija(poesis).On tako dovodi u pitanje uobicajeno shvatanje istine koje se ocito nalazi kao prepreka na putu otkrovenja...istine bica ili sustine.Kao proizvodnja, 'poesis' tehnicki jeste vid otkrovenja.Kao sto je Hajdeger rekao u svom ogledu"Pitanja koje se ticu tehnologije"

;"Sustina tehnologije nije nesto tehnolosko."



Tehne se prevodi kao ~umetnost~,ali to znacenje precizno odreduje aplikaciju odredenog znanja u svrhu proizvodenja specificno koncipiranog produkta.Aristotel pise:"Svaka umetnost (tekhne)u svom nastajanju razmatra nesto sto se pretvara u bice(postojanje),trazi tehnicka i teoretska znacenja tog proizvodenja stvari koje pripadaju kategoriji moguceg i ciji razlog(aitija,causa) lezi u onome koji proizvodi a ne u onome sto je proizvedeno."Za Aristotela tehne sebe smesta izmedu prirode i ljudske zajednice kao kreativnu medijaciju a da bi kreirala ono sto sama priroda nije u stanju da sacuva kao svoj trajan proizvod(nije u stanju da arhivira svoju pojavnost).



Maks Veber(Max Weber)vidi ovako instrumentalizovanu racionalnost kao deo modernizacije procesa,kao 'slobodno vrednovanje' iz-racunjive efikasnosti kakvog administrativnog procesa.Racionalnost predstavlja fenomen nesavladive ekstenzije ovih vidova socijalnog subjekta na kriterijume racionalnog odlucivanja koje je u korelaciji sa industrijalizacijom rada.To karakterise kapitalizam.Markuze(Marcuse)ovoj ideji dodaje da je racionalizacija u stvari skriveni sistem dominacije(sto je za neke femisticke mislioce rodovsko ponasanje,deo muskog projekta dominacije,radanje poricanja meduzavisnosti u supstituciju kontrole i posedovanja.Instrumentalizovana racionalnost je "normalizovana" i "disciplinovana" racionalnost.



"Racionalizacija" i "instrumentalizovani razlog"korisceni su za opis organizacionih principa socijalnih formacija,za vrednovanje orijentacija personalnosti i znacenja kulturnih struktura.Za 'frankfurtsku skolu' tehnologija je forma "instrumentalizovanog razloga" koji je u isto vreme i *reifikacija tog razloga*,ali i reifikacija kao razlog*koja suspenduje presudivanja na njihovu unutrasnju logiku.Habermasova kritika 'instrumentalizovane racionalnosti' je da sistem racionalnosti,a ekonomska i birokratska racionalnost posebno prete komunikativnim procesima u *zivom svetu*.Aplikacija tih sistema u zivi svet cine funcionalnim paterne zamisljanja funkcionalnim.Oni sluze za legitimisanje imperativa samog sistema i za zamenu moralno-prakticnih razmatranja za tehnicka pitanja.



Za neke autore praksis(praxis) je mesto na kojem misljenje koje izbegava nihilizam referise na instrumentalizaciju ali i na tehne.To je koncept integracije teorije i prakse.



MANIK formalizuje svoj rad kroz medijaciju medu medijima u ovom slucaju galerijskih izlozbi i radova ‘galerijskog tipa’ i medija nove umetnosti-NMO(New Media Art) ili ‘ computing art‘–a koje sluze kao polja za razradu opstijih i strateskih poduhvata u prostorima intermedijskog delovanja.Tehne se ovde pojavljuje dvojako : sa jedne strane kao upis ili urez u tkivo drustva(estetsko,politicko,kao simulakrum ekonomskog...itd.) i sa druge strane tehne se formalizuje kroz rezultate poznavanja zanata,slikarskog odnosno vajarskog (u slucaju MANIK-a).

Na MANIK-ov nacin shvacena tehne novim je iscitavanjem premestena u dugo ne-dopisivano polje delovanja.Istorijski tehne se reaktuelizuje kroz procese reinterpretacije,ponekad nadgradnje a ponekad izostavljanja citavih znacenjskih blokova koji su oblikovali tako-nazvani *modernisticki subjekat*u umetnosti.Tehne je ultra-retro-introspekcija a etabliranje cinjenica/kao procesa i/ili objekata/ koje proizilaze iz takvog procesa zauzimaju u odnosu na umetnost,ali i estetiku(u cija se polja po automatizmu smestaju silnice tehne)specificno mesto,mesto koje MANIK re-aktuelizuje,na koje ukazuje i prakticno i teorijski. Rezultati ovih procesa jesu formalizacije koje mogu da se imenuju kao:slika,skulptura ili crtez…ali takode i HTML,ili pisana izjava na blogu,dogadanje ili predstavljanje u fizickom obimu performansa ali i rad na komjuteru, on line,koje moze da se shvati i kao svojevrsni performans.Tehne predpostavlja i izlozbu u celini sa svim pripadajucim delovima:postavka,katalog,izjave i iskazi u vezi sa izlozbom,najzad i sama odluka da se izlaze bas na ovom specificnom mestu,izbor sam, deo je tehne procedure.

Percepcija “arte fakata”,medutim,koji proizilaze i proizvod su cinjenja tehne nemoguca je bez poznavanja teorijskih premise na kojima se tehne zasniva.

Tumacenje intencija koje predpostavlja tehne a koje bi se mogle smatrati za prolegomenu u razradi episteme koju tehne ptredpostavlja odvija se na nekoliko nivoa:

a./ odluka da se disciplina rada u umetnosti preimenuje u rad na tehne.

b./u skladu sa ‘odlaganjem ocekivanja da se delo gleda kao delo *iz*umetnosti’

donose se odluke koje su konceptualno vezane za sprovodenje tehne.

Na primeru slike koja predstavlja okean moze se videti kako se isti prizor varira od slike do slike,kako od ‘deskriptivnog’kolorita ista geografska odrednica-okean-postaje crno bela slika,a zatim se isti prizor transformise u sliku u varijacijama razlicitih crvenih boja…Tako pokazujemo da se na samo jednom segmentu moze razvijati slozeni proces menjanja kodova,asocijativnih i ‘ideoloskih’nivoa slike sto u razradi tehne predpostavlja da se ne vodi striktno racuna ko je od MANIK-a naslikao koji deo na nekoj od slika.Ovo je jedan ilustrativni primer koji upucuje na tehnologiju u sprovodenju tehne,odnosno na etiku koja je imanentna tehne( shvacene na MANIK-ov nacin).

c./dela koja su proizvod tehne eksplicite upucuju da se gledalac oseca ‘kao da se akcija ne dogada u dobro poznatim i uhodanim mentalnim prostorima koji su svojstveni i pripadaju/samo/ klasicnom poimanju umetnosti’,vec se prostiranje u okviru tehne nadaljuje i grana,pojavljivanje jednog rada je cesto tek uslov da se pojavi citava serija radova koji ce imati veze medu sobom.Te veze nisu hijerarhijske vec rizomaticne ,to jest:pojavljuju se ne kao *komad*/’arte fakat’ u klasicno shvacenoj tehnologiji proizvodenja umetnosti i objektizacije umetnickih intencija vec se u svom pojavljivanju vezuju za unutrasnju logiku koju tehne predpostavlja(to su pitanja o delotvornosti nekog prizora,nacina kako je on preveden iz latentnog u vidljivo,koji su specificni razlozi doveli do toga da se jedan prizor slika na odredeni nacin,i dalje-posto je tehne jedan zatvoreni i nikad zavrsivi sistem(episteme)pitanje varijacija jedne teme postaje jedna od kljucnih celina u okviru tehne .Dela nastala u tehne jesu rizomaticna,ona su ideoloski decentrirana(nemaju ‘korektno’,dakle po uzusima nekih od vazecih main stream estetickih struktura odabrane niti poredane kodove proistekle ,uvek kada se radi o kodovima te vrste iz *ideoloski korektnog*).Veze unutar jedne episteme koju tehne ima integrisanu u sebi jesu skokovite,asinhrone,superpozicijske/kao da i ne koji u spinu nisu niti da,niti ne vec su to istovremeno-da/ne/ne/da…itd.

d./*uslovi za omogucavanje*(Bedigungen der Moglichkeit)kao filozofski koncept postali su popularni zahvaljujuci Kantu.Uslovi za omogucavanje neophodan su okvir za moguce pojavljivanja odredene liste ‘entiteta’.To se obicno tumaci kao koncept unilateralne kauzalnosti ili cak kao nacelo interakcije(grcka rec aitija koja je prevedena na latinski kao causa sadrzi u svom znacenju i pojam moralne odgovornosti za ucinjeno sto nije slucaj kod causa .Ovo je vazno jer aitija potice iz epohe kada je u /antickoj/Grckoj umesto umetnosti postojala tehne…”).

"U prevodima su se izgubile citave civilizacije.”M.Heidegger)

Na primer-razmotrimo kocku nacinjenu necijom rukom;sve kocke su trodimenzionalne.Ako je objekat trodimenzionalan tada je to objekat u ekstenziji.Ali ta ekstenzija je nemoguca bez prostora.Zbog toga je prostor *uslov za omogucavanje* ove ekstenzije jer on jeste neophodan /uslov za omogucavanje/ da kocka postane.Dakle taj prostor nije prouzrokovao kocku,to je uradio onaj koji ju je nacinio, ta kocka i prostor su entiteti koji se razlikuju,medu njima postoji distinkcija a sam prostor nije deo definisanja kocke.

Ovim smo se priblizili razmatranju odnosa izmedu tehne i efekata tehne-objekata oznacavajucih za tehne ali i oznacenih od tehne.Sama tehne je prostor:konceptualni,istorijski,povesni,esteticki,drustveni,kulturni i bioloski koji u novim uslovima distribucije znacenja(u dijalektici oznacenog i oznacavajuceg)zauzima mesto *uslova za omogucavanje*same sebe,to jest *tehne*.

(“…tehne stvara uslove za ostvarivanje sebe kao proizvoda svojih imanentnih mogucnosti.”)

e./interakcija(u nasem slucaju izmedu tehne i objekata kao rezultata tehne pri cemu se pojmu ‘objekat’daje najsire znacenje koje se proteze sve do ‘ideoloskog objekta’pa do ‘kulturne cinjenice’ ili ’cinjenice iz fizickog sveta)obuhvata posebnu vrstu akcije izmedu dva i/ili vise objekata koji emaniraju jedan na drugog neki efekat.Ideja o dvosmernom efektu je esencijalna u konceptu interakcije,a kao opozit jednosmernom efektu kauzalnosti.Termin koji se usko vezuje za interakciju je ‘interkonekcija’a taj termin barata sa interakcijama interakcija u okviru nekog sistema;kombinacija mnozine jednostavnih interakcija mogu da dovedu do pojavljivanja iznenadujucih fenomena.Jer svi sistemi su u isto vreme i povezani ali i nezavisni(pa tako i sistem u kojem su tehne i proizvodi tehne najuze povezani ali i razdvojeni).Svaka akcija predpostavlja konsekvence.

f./Peter Korning(P.Corning)pise:”Mora li takva sinergija da bude opazena/posmatrana u poretku znacenja svojih pojavljivanja ?Ne nuzno.

Sinergija asocira na hitnost i merljivost,realna je i merljiva cak i kada nema nikoga da je posmatra.

g./u socijalnim naukama(ovde cemo opet paznju obratiti na delo Misela Fukoa(Michel Foucault)na diskurs se gleda kao na institucionalizovani nacin razmisljanja,socijalnim ogranicenjima je definisano sta se sme reci o specificnoj temi,ili,kako bi to rekla Dzudit Batler(Judith Butler)da su to”limiti prihvatljivog govora” –ili moguce istine.Diskursi su ovde videni kao efekti nasih pogleda na sve stvari;nemoguce je umaci diskursu.Na primer,dva potpuno drugacija diskursa mogu da budu upotrebljena da bi opisala gerilski pokret i to u prvom slucaju kao ‘borbu za slobodu’,a u drugom kao ‘terorizam’.Izabrani diskurs oslobada vokabular,ekspresiju pa i stil potreban za komunikaciju.Diskursi su povezani sa razlicitim teorijama moci i drzave,najzad dokle je diskurs sposoban da nastaje gledamo na njega kao na nesto sto ce definisati i samu realnost.

U svojim ranim radovima Fuko razvija zapazanja o diskursima-definise diskurse kao sisteme misljenja,ideja,stavova,pravaca akcije,verovanja i prakse koji sistematski konstruisu subjekt i svet o kojem on/subjekt/ govori.Fuko prati ulogu diskursa u sirim socijalnim procesima legitimisanja moci,istice konstruisanje vazece istine,kako se ta istina odrzava i koje relacije u okviru moci ta istina nosi sa sobom.

Diskurs je medijum kroz koji relacije moci proizvode ‘govoreci subjekat’.Fuko tvrdi da su moc i znanje u inter-relaciji pa se zbog toga meduljudske relacije u stvari borbe i pregovori oko i o moci.Moc je uvek prisutna u diskursu i moze da proizvodi ali i da opstruise istinu.Diskurs je prema Fukou povezan sa moci tako sto rukovodi pravilima iskljucivanja.Diskurs je tako kontrolisan od ‘objekata’u zavisnosti od toga o kakvom i kojem to objektu govori,sta se o njemu moze reci,koji rituali su mu svojstveni,gde i kada neko moze govoriti i tako biti privilegovan…Ko moze da govori!

Odmeravajuci frazu ‘moc znanja’ Fuko kaze da je znanje kreator ali i proizvod moci.

U "Filozofskom diskursu modernosti" Habermas razvija shvatanje intersubjektivnog vrednovanja i istine da bi ucesnicima('korisnicima') diskursa oznacio pet kljucnih tacaka koje su neophodne kao uslov da bi se diskurzivni proces zadrzao u okvirima etike.

1./Habermas primecuje da diskurs po sebi ne moze da osigura da ce se u njegovom okviru desiti i demokraticnost i eticnost.Ali diskurs o diskursu etike jeste ono sto Habermas nudi.Ovo je temeljna ideja u njegovom razmisljanju:on opisuje za nas utopiju komunikacijske racionalnosti ali ne i kako da je sprovodimo.Habermas pominje nedostatak 'krucijalnih institucija',nedostatak 'krucijalne socijalizacije' i 'siromastvo,izrabljivanje,degradaciju' kao barijere u formiranju diskursa i eventualnih odluka koje bi takav diskurs mogao da sugerise.

2./svi ucesnici treba da imaju jednake mogucnosti da predstave i kritikuju validnost tvrdnji sazetih u diskursu(autonomija)

3./ucesnici treba da budu 'voljni' da shvate i sa-ucestvuju u vrednovanju tvrdnji iznesenih u/o diskursu(idealna uloga govorenja)

4./postojeca moc koja se ogleda u razlicitosti medu ucesnicima (u njihovoj 'moci ubedivanja')ne treba da utice na kreiranje konsenzusa(neutralnost moci)

5./ucesnici u formiranju diskursa treba otvoreno da iznesu svoje ciljeve i intencije i da sa tih pozicija objasne svoje strateske akcije(transparentnost)

Tu je i sesti uslov-neograniceno vreme.U drustvu koje sledi ovaj model politicari i gradani(ili u nasem slucaju teoreticari i oni koji sprovode tehne) zajedno ucestvuju u javnoj debati.Participacija u ovakvoj debati je *diskurzivna* participacija. Ta participacija je nepristrasna i kao takva odgovara kriterijumu"komunikacijske racionalnosti".Komunikacijska racionalnost priziva stariju ideju logosa koja je tu dovedena u ravan sa konotacijama sile izgradene na konsenzusu diskursa u kojem su ucesnici izneli svoje na subjektivnosti izgradene poglede na racionalno motivisan sporazum.

Poenta je transformisanje kritike rukovodeno neophodnim ogranicenjima u jednu prakticnu kritiku koja preuzima formu moguceg prestupa.Ili kako bi to Fuko rekao:"Kriticizam nece vise biti praktikovan u iznalazenju formalnih struktura sa univerzalnim vrednostima vec pre kao istorijsko istrazivanje."

Moguce je da smo u procesu kada vec osecamo nove relacije izmedu teorije i prakse.Jedno vreme praksa je bila razmatrana kao aplikacija teorije,kao konsekvenca teorije;nekada je praksa inspirisala teoriju,bila je neizbezna u kreiranju teorijskih formi.U svakom slucaju ta relacija je bila razumevana u terminima koji su se koristili u procesima totalitarizacije.Medutim ovaj odnos teorije i prakse se moze sagledati i na drugaciji nacin.Njihova isprepletanost je daleko vise parcijalna i fragmentarna:sa jedne strane teorija je uvek lokalizovana i uodnosena na jedno limitirano polje pa se potom kao takva projektuje na druge sfere,manje ili vise udaljene od pocetne(od polja pocetnog razmatranja).Veze koje se sadrze u aplikaciji teorije nikada nisu stvar slucajnosti.Kada se teorija premesti sa svog odgovarajuceg polozaja(domena)ona pocinje da stvara prepreke,zidove,blokade prema drugim tipovima diskursa.Praksa je set relacija od jedne teorijske tacke do druge,dok je teorija relacija od jedne prakse do druge.Nema teorije koja bi se razvijala bez eventualnog susreta sa zidom,preprekom,a praksa je neophodna da bi prosla kroz taj zid.(Gilles Deleuze)



U tom smislu teorija ne izrazava,prevodi,ili sluzi da bi aplicirala praksu:ona jeste praksa.Ali to je lokalna i regionalna praksa,to je borba protiv moci,borba koja se koristi da bi se moc otkrila tamo gde je najmanje vidljiva.To nije 'probudena svest' za koju se treba boriti(jer mase su ponekada svesne da je svest forma znanja,da je svest baza za subjektivnost,da je to prerogativ koji preuzima burzoazija ...Ali preuzimanje moci je dirigovano nezavisno od onih koji se bore za moc i nije u sluzbi njihovog prosvetljavanja sa sigurne distance.*Teorija*je regionalni sistem borbe.

Pocinjemo da razumevamo prirodu eksploatacije i do sada bi trebali da do kraja shvatimo samu prirodu moci.Moguce je da Marks(Marx) i Frojd(Freud)ne mogu mnogo da pomognu i da zadovolje nasu zelju za razumevanjem te enigmaticne stvari koju mi nazivamo moc,koja je u isto vreme i vidljiva i nevidljiva,prisutna i skrivena,sveprisutna.
“Teorije vlasti i tradicionalne analize njihovih mehanizama ne iscrpljuju polja gde se moc ispoljava i gde ona funkcionise.” (Foucault)

MANIK,MAJ 2008.

(Napomena:Tekst ciji naslov "Tehne ili sound of snowing"napisan je kao uvod u MANIK-ovoj aplikaciji za konkurs za izlozbu.
Ovaj tekst je povezan sa tekstovima koji su pratili ranije MANIK-ove izlozbe i sa njima sacinjava 'teoriju u nastajanju'koja je integralni deo MANIK-ove tehne.Tekstovi koji predhode 'Tehne ili sound of snowing';
BUDUCNOST SLUTI prelazni oblik
ili
kako ne biti covek
MANIK,THE MISSING PEOPLE
MANIK-FULL SIZE IMAGE
( http://www.seecult.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=890&start=0 )
*Tehne* se pominje u ranijim tekstovima bez odgovarajucih objasnjenja a posto je upravo ovaj termin oznacujuci za razradu ukupnog MANIK-ovog rada i to od samog nastanka MANIK-a 1999 smatramo da je sa objasnjenjem i interpretacijom ovog drevnog termina za ovu priliku dekonstruisanog i dekontekstuelizovanog nacinjen znacajan pomak u teorijskom razumevanju celokupnog MANIK-ovog radnog opusa.

Michael Szpakowski wrote:

<High natality is and it always was Shiptars national and state project>

>It's a classic racist trope.

Is that mean MANIK's classic?

>So, I have no problem with
>"Some Albanians ( for material and explicable reasons) are drug dealers"

It's not like that...That's big bussines.Billions of $$$$$$$$$$$$>>>>>>>>>>>>

>Which will it be? - backward and historically outmoded nationalism, or a vision of a future where the Serb and >Albanian masses (not easily won, of course; nothing worth fighting for usually is) stand together, in defence of their >common interests, against capital and imperialism...

OK.Give us your hose and all your money than we are going to pay YOU and Shiptars to fight against capital with your own money.That's kind of help we Serbs get from West.
MANIK

Hi T.Whid,

I wouldn't hold my breath regarding epic net art being spotted. Mainly because I feel that there is plenty of epic net art out there already (too tired to mention just what, right now but will do if pushed) - similar questions keep being asked over again. I think that it is a silly question and plays in the hands of those who wish to create a more hegemonic structure that hides the larger context of what net art is and could be, it is a distraction.

marc

marc,

push.

word. thanks marc!

The recent post about the new project
Solar Hills, a collaborative installation by British artist Liliane Lijn and Berkeley-based astrophysicist John Vallerga

and

David Ellis's current xhibition, Dozens at Roebling Hall in NYC http://www.roeblinghall.com

are

pretty epic. in terms of scale and technology. Ellis's show has been extended through July 12!!!!

video of the show here:

http://www.vimeo.com/1201340

Best,

Matthew

Fanfiction sites (based on Harry Potter, Star Wars, Tenchi Muyo, etc.) fit the notion of "epic net art" a) in the most conservative definition of "epic" and b) they're "net art" in that they continue epics that existed prior to the Internet, but their composition, sharing, and Parry-Lord-formulaic grafting & recycling could not happen without the Internet (following Pall Thayer's or T. Whid's definitions of "net art"), fleshing out characters that were minor in the original material, e.g., those sites' stories about Wedge Antilles (the early 90s had an obscenely popular cult site about him), if printed, would fill bookshelves.

MUDs et al. are epic net art where the roles of hero and bard happen to be played by the same person (like rap).

"All the muttering about the 'newer generation' of Internet artists having more gallery success is also a bit of a distraction. I guarantee that Vuk, Olia, Thomson and Craighead alone have sold/exhibited more work in the past three years than all of the newer generation put together."

Caitlin -

As for me, I never mentioned "success". What I was interested is in regards to the gallery/art world-centric view of many of the new MFAs coming out of New Media programs. I spent time with the artists you mention this spring, and although they are being represented at the major fairs, they are far from ready to buy the Lexus.

Therefore, not a distraction at all. I think it's a good barometer of where many of the artists (that I see in Chicago, Brussels, San Fran, and elsewhere) are pointing their vector of effort. To me, this shows me what is being "seen as important", when only 40 years ago, media art was still in a mode of challenging the galley and the object itself. This is a major shift...

In an odd sort of way, and although Warhol was the height of art world hip, I feel like the shift from Warhol's Factory to Murakami's "Corporation" shows the shift from a carefully positioned, decentered object (Warhol) to a commoditized niche-production fetish (Murakami's Louis Vuitton bags).

This move to art world traditionalism, in my mind, merely becomes a marketing system for fetish objects, and is pretty boring (except for Murakami et al, who seem very "aggressive" about taking the wrecking ball to culture through the mass market, and are pretty unabashed about it.

I sometimes wonder, "whither Fluxus, Situationism, Conceptualism, the non-objective...?" I think that once the promise of money dries up, this will breathe a little life into things again.

But to my original point, before the New Media Grad programs of the late 90's/2000's the vector was pointed at festivals, guerrilla venues, etc. Now, the thrust seems much more attuned to Academy->Gallery/Museum/Academy, and I'll say that I'm part (in part) of that machine. Far from being a red herring, it's a real phenomenon.

Personally, i'm trying to figure how to find a way to derail that train, and find new ways to get art out of the "art circuit". which is always the most interesting and surprising place to work (for me).

But don't get me wrong, I'm not abandoning my gallery or bowing out of the larger ProspectOne Bi. It's just saying that that's more "the work" rather than "the mayhem". I'm a tenure-track academic, after all...
:P 9_9

Hi Vijay,

It's tough understanding things sometimes. Especially for myself at the moment because I am in the middle of setting up a show at our space HTTP Gallery for Richard Wright's 'How to Talk to Images' http://www.http.uk.net/exhibitions/HTTTI/index.shtml. The opening this evening. So it has been a bit busy at this end of the pond...

Getting back to you regarding your interpretations of a piece of text I had written to you earlier. I feel that (C) is probably the closest, or at least touching upon it some respect.

>c) if there were a piece of epic net art, that any accolades it could/would
receive for being epic would be ipso facto spurious? If this is what you're
saying, then it begs the question: are any of the pieces that you've posted
here in connection with "epic net art" only associable with the epic in
spurious ways?

I think that firstly, we probably need to admit (literally) that we are not just dealing with the idea or notion of an "epic net art", we need to know more, or at least get to grips with what epic means to us, now.

I suppose, to be more succinct when discussing my own perception of what 'epic' means for me. Is that it's meaning or context has different interpretations in accordance to where one sits in the food chain. That it may not necessarily be the idea that is the 'epic', but perhaps more the journey that many of us take in becoming who we are as creative individuals or collaborators.

For instance in one my of fave books in the early nineties written by a Turkish artist called Bedri Baykam called 'MONKEYS' RIGHT TO PAINT'. He writes about his personal journey about his big struggle against the western art Establishment's one sided history making and prejudices. " The fight of a cultural guerilla for the rights of non-western artists and the empty world of the neo-ready mades".

His struggle is different but reflects what I have felt through my own early years when dealing with more established art institutions and academics. I have always been against the term 'net.art', or at least Vuk Cosic's tactics of placing a few individuals in Internet art history, appropriating a net 'dot' art 'epic', the (supposed ironic) 'Heroic Period'. for this takes away from the many and hands over the accolade of history to but a few - they then become historical 'epics', via a modernist behaviour of creating genius's that end up as representatives above other supposed, seemingly 'bad net art'. This is a hegemonic act.

So my real heroes in net art, are those who have not been fairly represented - this my own personal position and concept of what a real 'epic' can be. It is about the struggle of becoming...

chat soon :-)

marc

THis is Epic

The performance was epic, but it wasn't epic net art

I humbly submit http://rhizome.org/discuss/view/40919#54367.

Vijay