BIO
Domenico Quaranta (1978, Brescia, Italy, http://domenicoquaranta.com) is an art critic and curator. He is a regular contributor to Flash Art and Artpulse. He is the editor (with M. Bittanti) of the book GameScenes: Art in the Age of Videogames (2006) and the author of Media, New Media, Postmedia (2010) and In Your Computer (2011). He has curated various exhibitions, including Holy Fire: Art of the Digital Age (Bruxelles 2008, with Y. Bernard), Playlist (Gijon 2009 and Bruxelles 2010) and Collect the WWWorld (Brescia 2011 and Basel 2012). He is a co-founder of the Link Center for the Arts of the Information Age (http://www.linkartcenter.eu/).

My Life Without Technoviking: An Interview with Matthias Fritsch


Matthias Fritsch is an independent artist from Berlin, most well known for his work Kneecam No 1—the live video that brought Technoviking to the internet. Over a decade after he uploaded the clip that went viral, Fritsch now is enduring a long legal battle with Technoviking himself, who sued for the reproduction, proliferation, and unwarranted use of his likeness. In response to the process, Fritsch is making The Story of Technoviking, a crowd-funded documentary that aims to shed light on the legal issues surrounding viral images. Below, Fritsch talks about what it’s like do battle in court with a viking, the ownership of images in the internet age, and hopes for his current project.

My Life Without Technoviking—since the trial began, Fritsch is no longer allowed to use images of the plaintiff's face.

DQ: Matthias, I'm of course curious about the video that originated it all. What was, for you, Kneecam No 1 (2000) before it became an internet meme? Why did you upload it to YouTube? Were you expecting such a viral reaction? What did you think when it happened?


What's (Really) Specific about New Media Art? Curating in the Information Age


This text has been written for the proceedings of the international conference "New Perspectives, New Technologies", organized by the Doctoral School Ca' Foscari - IUAV in Arts History and held in Venice and Pordenone, Italy in October 2011


The "portal" designed by Antenna Design to show net based art in the exhibition "Art Entertainment Network", Walker Art Center, Minneapolis, 2000. Courtesy Walker Art Center, Minneapolis.

 

In the late nineties and during the first decade of this century the term “new media art” became the established label for that broad range of artistic practices that includes works that are created, or in some way deal with, new media technologies. Providing a more detailed definition here would inevitably mean addressing topics beyond the scope of this paper, that I discussed extensively in my book Media, New Media, Postmedia (Quaranta 2010). By way of introduction to the issues discussed in this paper, we can summarize the main argument put forward in the book: that this label, and the practices it applies to, developed mostly in an enclosed social context, sometimes called the “new media art niche”, but that would be better described as an art world in its own right, with its own institutions, professionals, discussion platforms, audience, and economic model, and its own idea of what art is and should be; and that only in recent years has the practice managed to break out of this world, and get presented on the wider platform of contemporary art.

It was at this point in time, and mainly thanks to curators who were actively involved in the presentation of new media art in the contemporary art arena, that the debate about “curating new media (art)” took shape. This debate was triggered by the pioneering work of curators – from Steve Dietz to Jon Ippolito, Benjamin Weil and Christiane Paul – who at the turn of the millennium curated seminal new media art exhibitions for contemporary art museums; and it was – and still is –nurtured by CRUMB - “Curatorial Resource for Upstart Media Bliss” - a platform and mailing list founded by Beryl Graham and Sarah Cook in 2000 within the School of Arts, Design, Media and Culture at the University of Sunderland, UK. As early as 2001, CRUMB organized the first ever meeting of new media curators in the UK as part of BALTIC's pre-opening program – a seminar on Curating New Media held in May 2001.

In the context of this paper, our main reference texts will be CRUMB-related publications, from the proceedings of “Curating New Media” (2001) to Rethinking Curating. Art After New Media (2010), a recent book by Beryl Graham and Sarah Cook; and New Media in the White Cube and Beyond, a book edited by Christiane Paul in 2008. Instead of addressing the specific issues and curatorial models discussed in these publications, we will try to focus on the very foundations of “curating new media”, exploring questions like: does new media art require a specific curatorial model? Does this curatorial model follow the way artists working with new media currently present themselves on the contemporary art platform? How much could “new media art” benefit from a non-specialized approach? Are we curating “new media” or curating “art”? ...


The Postmedia Perspective


The following excerpt comes from the final chapter of my book Media, New Media, Postmedia, recently published in Italian by Postmediabooks, who kindly gave Rhizome permission to republish it in English. The book is an attempt to analyze the current positioning of so-called “New Media Art” in the wider field of contemporary arts, and to explore the historical, sociological and conceptual reasons for its marginal position and under-recognition in recent art history.



Discussions (51) Opportunities (5) Events (38) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: RHIZOME_RAW: cheesy SL


Hi Damian,

> i've watched some of Gazira Bebell's videos and they just don't touch me
> at all. it's kind of interesting but i don't feel like there's someone
> /performing/. there's no risk. part of performance is the fact of having
> someone flesh and blood right there. but in SL, everything matters less,
> there's less emotional engagement, and so it's so much harder to care.

here you are discussing a limit of SL as a performative context. "There
is no risk. no flash and blood". This is exactly the point raised by Eva
and Franco Mattes in their Synthetic Performances. They say: "We chose
actions that were particularly paradoxical if performed in a virtual
world... everything is mediated, nothing is spontaneous. More or less
the opposite of what performance art is supposed to be."

they are exploring the limits of virtual environments, and the meaning
of what we call "second life" (virtual life? life on the screen?)

Gazira is doing the same, in a very different way. Choosing to hyde her
"real" identity, she makes the "virtual life" her only possible way of
exhistence. An exhistence in which coding and living are the same, and
in which software means action. Her work doesn't touch you. Maybe that's
exactly her point: what do people and avatars have in common? can they
communicate, share their feelings? or are they completely "alien" to
each other? Can we say code = performance? You say no. She says yes.
Good? Wrong? That's not the matter. It's a statement, artistic research.
I'm happy that someone is doing it.

Bye,
dom

--

Domenico Quaranta

mob. +39 340 2392478
email. qrndnc@yahoo.it
home. vicolo San Giorgio 18 - 25122 brescia (BS)
web. http://www.domenicoquaranta.net/

DISCUSSION

Re: RHIZOME_RAW: cheesy SL


Hi Damian,

> i've watched some of Gazira Bebell's videos and they just don't touch me
> at all. it's kind of interesting but i don't feel like there's someone
> /performing/. there's no risk. part of performance is the fact of having
> someone flesh and blood right there. but in SL, everything matters less,
> there's less emotional engagement, and so it's so much harder to care.

here you are discussing a limit of SL as a performative context. "There
is no risk. no flash and blood". This is exactly the point raised by Eva
and Franco Mattes in their Synthetic Performances. They say: "We chose
actions that were particularly paradoxical if performed in a virtual
world... everything is mediated, nothing is spontaneous. More or less
the opposite of what performance art is supposed to be."

they are exploring the limits of virtual environments, and the meaning
of what we call "second life" (virtual life? life on de screen?)

Gazira is doing the same, in a very different way. Choosing to hyde her
"real" identity, she makes the "virtual life" her only possible way of
exhistence. An exhistence in which coding and living are the same, and
in which software means action. Her work doesn't touch you. Maybe that's
exactly her point: what do people and avatars have in common? can they
communicate, share their feelings? or are they completely "alien" to
each other? Can we say code = performance? You say no. She says yes.
Good? Wrong? That's not the matter. It's a statement, artistic research.
I'm happy that someone is doing it.

Bye,
dom

--

Domenico Quaranta

mob. +39 340 2392478
email. qrndnc@yahoo.it
home. vicolo San Giorgio 18 - 25122 brescia (BS)
web. http://www.domenicoquaranta.net/

DISCUSSION

Re: RHIZOME_RAW: cheesy SL


Jim Andrews ha scritto:

> Could somebody who knows SL really well please send some URLs to
> strong art in SL?

here is the real thing...

"Collateral Damage"
The Show, April 2007
http://slurl.com/secondlife/Locusolus/126/98/41

here some images and texts:

http://gazirababeli.com/CD.html

bye,
dom

--

Domenico Quaranta

mob. +39 340 2392478
email. qrndnc@yahoo.it
home. vicolo San Giorgio 18 - 25122 brescia (BS)
web. http://www.domenicoquaranta.net/

DISCUSSION

Re: RHIZOME_RAW: cheesy SL


Hi Eric,

> Domenica uttered the unbelievable comment:

Domenico. I'm male, both in RL and SL :-)

> " chimera becomes the truth when enough people believe in it: " no it
> doesn't. Hitler, Musolini, George Bush, Jimmy Jones , et al convinced
> many that their *world* was truthful. The victims of the Jonestown
> massacre qualify as enlightened and right thinking by your
> definition. It is chimera, it is a restrictive environment. It is a
> lie.

Quite an interesting strategy, to take a statement out of its contest
and apply it to the history of the world in order to question it. But,
let's follow you on your own terrain...

They are not "enlightened" or "right". As every social community, they
have (or had) their own truths, and their own rules. I'm against the
death penalty, but I have to recognize that it's real in the US; and
it's the right thing to do for many people...

But coming back to my point: what I was saying is:

1. (quite banal, indeed) that people "living" in Second Life, as well as
in other simulated worlds (and in every networked community), have their
own rules and laws; they can accept them or fight against them, but they
have to respect them if they want to be part of the community;

2. that people living in simulated worlds perceive what they are doing
there as REAL. They are not taking themselves TOO seriously, as
Salvatore claims; they are simply taking themselves seriously. You can
keep on thinking that they are just data on a server: but, this way, you
will never be able to understand not only SL, but every digital
environment. If SL is a chimera, Odyssey is not a real exhibition space,
art in SL is not real and Sugar is taking herself too seriously, then
Rhizome is a chimera, the Artbase is not a real exhibition space, net
art is not real and, let's say, Mark Tribe is taking himself too
seriuosly...

dom

--

Domenico Quaranta

mob. +39 340 2392478
email. qrndnc@yahoo.it
home. vicolo San Giorgio 18 - 25122 brescia (BS)
web. http://www.domenicoquaranta.net/

DISCUSSION

Re: RHIZOME_RAW: second life dramas


Hi Rhizomers,

being involved in this story in many ways (pretending to be friend to both Salvatore and Sugar, and as co-curator of the Gate event), I posted a comment on it on my blog. Here it is:

http://www.domenicoquaranta.net/blog/2007/10/troubles-in-paradise-how-happened-that.html

Below a text only version

dom

---

Troubles in Paradise. How happened that an artist was banned from the Odyssey Sim

Some days ago (namely on Saturday, October 06, 18:42 Second Life time), an artist was banned from Odyssey. No playing: Odyssey [http://odysseyart.ning.com/], well know in Second Life as the most free, open-minded context for artists and performers, the place where Gazira Babeli set her retrospective and where most of Second Front's performances took place, for the first time seems to set a limit to the freedom of its own residents. Someone ate the forbidden apple, and was expelled from Paradise.
This is, at least, what we could understand reading a current thread [http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread'350&page=1#50255] on Rhizome. But what really happened that awful day? How can we explain it? Let's start from the beginning.

Salvatore Iaconesi [http://www.artisopensource.net/], alias xdxd, is an Italian new media artist, activist and open source coder who did an impressive amount of work in many fields, ranging from generative art to artificial intelligence, from performance to code poetry to interactive installations. Some months ago, he entered Second Life and he did some un-authorized installations at Ars Virtua and in other places. In many private and public discussions, he never made a mistery of his criticism against Second Life. As most of the best artists inside there, he is conscious to be in a technically limited environment, where most of the things pretending to be “art” are childish efforts, miles and miles away from what we currently call “contemporary art”. But the fact that he kept on working in Second Life demonstrates that he sees in it an interesting socio-cultural context, where he can play with its human (or inhuman) dynamics. Or, in his own words [http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread'362&page=1#50250]: “I really don't even value Second Life so much. Want to know what i find interesting in it? the social-niche mindfucker that it became, and the way that it has been exploited from mass media, and the mechanisms behind mediocre people using it to gain attention, and a badly-recycled form of human nature struggling to come out over there, too.”
So, he subscribed the Odyssey community and, during the Gate event [http://www.domenicoquaranta.net/blog/2007/09/gate.html], he sent out a robot avatar who talked with other avatars in German, using fragments coming from Franz Kafka's books, and he hacked another's artist work filling it up with jelly polygons. He called this performance I love recursiveness. I was aware of the first performance and I liked it, since it played with SL's “social software” and had a kind of surreal effect that I can't praise more.

As for the second act, it is more debatable, since it was an act of vandalism against another's artist work. I will come back to this issue soon. By now, we have to think about one of its consequences: it made the sim crash. Odyssey crashed during the Gate event, a four days long streaming between Odyssey and the iMAL Art Center in Bruxelles I helped organizing, an open stage for performance and interaction with a real life audience. And this is a problem.

At this point, another actor got in the drama. Sugar Seville is Odyssey's manager. That means that she is responsible in front of the artists and the visitors of what happens on her island - and, in that particular occasion, she was responsible in front of iMAL and its audience. She contacted xdxd and she banned him from Odyssey. Good? Wrong? In my opinion, she did the right thing: that was her role in the drama. She had to protect herself, her place, her audience and her artists, and she did it. Xdxd's work was an act of griefing - no matter if there was an artistic statement behind it.

Now Xdxd is playing the role of the victim on Rhizome: but that's just the last development of a screenplay he wrote down from the very beginning. As he told me in a private conversation, the crash was part of this screenplay: “the crash caused by overload was part of the performance... It's a criticism against the infrastructure (social, technological, perceptive), a criticism which included the server's crash.” And he was happy when he was banned from Odyssey: complete success!

“People take themselves seriously on a platform that don't let you to do it. You ban me from your own space in SL? I can come back whenever I want. How can you take seriously this thing? What does it mean?” This is Xdxd's point. He wanted to demonstrate that, in virtual environments, you are never safe, you can't preserve your own property, you can't apply “the rules of property and commerce” which work well in real life. Did he succeed?

At the beginning I though, as Lee Wells [http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread'350&page=1#50255] does, that Xdxd simply chose the wrong target, and that his performance is more similar to real vandalism than to graffiti. But Xdxd's words reminded me another similar artist's performance, happened some years ago. In February 1999, 0100101110101101.ORG [http://www.0100101110101101.org/home/copies/story.html] (yes, Eva and Franco Mattes) downloaded all the contents of another artist-run website (Hell.com) and uploaded them on their own website. Hell.com described itself as a “private parallel web”, closed to non invited visitors. Fighting against this kind of use of the web, 0100101110101101.ORG put online an “anticopyright version”, open to everyone. No matter who was right or wrong: two completely different visions of the Net were fighting against each other. Hell.com blamed 0100101110101101.ORG for theft and threatened them with an international lawsuit for copyright violation. This was good in two ways: because they had the right to do it and because, doing this, they successfully completed the drama written down by 0100101110101101.ORG.

Now a similar thing is happening. Two completely different visions of virtual worlds are fighting against each other. The first says that virtual life is completely different from real life, and that you can't import in virtual worlds concepts such as property and business. Who minds if I vandalize an artwork? Com'on, its digital! Who minds if I break down a gallery's window? They are just polygons!
The second claims that there is not so much difference between virtual and real life, maybe because our real life more and more relies on virtual laws; that property is valid also in virtual life, and that a criminal gesture is not less dangerous because it relies on an artistic statement; that things must be taken seriously in virtual worlds, because more and more people are taking them seriously.

Personally, I think that there are no such things as chimeras and truths. A chimera becomes the truth when enough people believe in it: that's good for God, peace and democracy, and even for art: why it can't be good for virtual lives? If most of the people believe that what they are doing in virtual worlds is REAL, it is. If most of the people think that vandalizing an artwork in Odyssey is like doing it in a real gallery, they are right. And Xdxd is wrong.

That said, I love recursiveness is a nice piece of art not because (as Xdxd says) of its relationship with other examples of provocative contemporary art, but because it raised a problem and a discussion. In the same time, Sugar did the right thing banning him from Odyssey, because she made the performance succeed; and she'll do an even better thing readmitting him on Odyssey, as she suggests at the end of the chat. Because irresponsibility is for children and artists, and Xdxd is not a child. Maybe he is a crap artist (I don't think so, indeed), but how many crap artists are in Second Life?

--

Domenico Quaranta

mob. +39 340 2392478
email. qrndnc@yahoo.it
home. vicolo San Giorgio 18 - 25122 brescia (BS)
web. http://www.domenicoquaranta.net/