re-best work with Flash? [apres whidden]

ok. this is why i dislike the phrase "conceptual artist." the logic
of its established use sets the phrase up as an oxymoron, as if
"other" artists are conceptless… i like t.whid's "conceptualists"
better, but i'd still mailbomb that term, if i could…

and i know this conversation started with talking about flash, but
after reading t's notes, especially this one…

>who are these entrenched conceptualists keeping out the visual
>aesthetic in net art?

i can't help but remember the debate we all had about cory arcangel
when data diaries came out. i think cory's work is amazing, visually,
but many people seemed to feel that his "dirt aesthetics"
deprioritized the visual (i disagree, but even if so, what's wrong
with that?) and favored the conceptual.

both in the case of that work (which was based on QT films), and in
much discussion about flash art, the work frequently gets criticized
for having a "pointless" existence on the web–see, for instance, the
rhizome-archived debates of the 2000 Net Art Webby jury, regarding
heavy industries's project. the argument made by some was that it was
not net art, but simply a film, which could have shown anywhere. of
copurse, this was situated within a weby context, which is initself a
self-proclaimed "best practices" context and the sense was that chang
was less experienced in net work… but the second/implied argument
was that net art needed to be self-reflexive of its
status/site-specificity as net art. or should i say net.art? :)

i've been a bit deluged with e-mails and am wading into this
conversation without being caught up (please forgive), but it occurs
to me that (has it not already been considered) we might think about
checking these demands–with which i admit to struggling, myself…

also to be checked is the assumption that a larger amount of data or
a different kind of data is somehow more valid than another, as
"data" and/or as "art" and/or as "visual art."

i do sympathize with current arguments about getting over blaming the
"primitive" state of the web (another horrible word!), but i have
trouble agreeing with ones that work should somehow live up to the
newly "advanced" state of the web & it's accoutrements.

maybe it is about time we relate these arguments to the old painting
vs photography arguments, because that's what it's starting to feel
like. ansel adams's representations of rocks & trees are no more or
less valid to me as data-visualization and/or art than a painting.
and it's no skin off my back that some of the big "early california"
landscape painters worked from photos.

what matter what's speaking?

_________________
Marisa S. Olson
Associate Director
SF Camerawork
415. 863. 1001