Discussions (31) Opportunities (0) Events (0) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

What?


Erika: Certainly. (See "It's very rhizomatic but it's also a mess to read"...)
There's a very interesting discussion about wether media art even exists, but it's in German :(
http://www.mail-archive.com/rohrpost@mikrolisten.de/msg02075.html

Tom can you give an example for such "element[s] of conscious opposition to old-guard net art practice"? I agree that a lot of the good new shit is "looking back to '60s (text-centric, gallery-centric) conceptual art for models", I often wonder why. Artist websites seem to imitate aesthetics of a gallery, white, clean and neat. This is something I will never understand, since in my eyes the web is about everything BUT that form of presentation. It even clashes with a post-post modern attitude where everything is equally meaningful. Looks like everyone's trying to hide behind the eminent authenticity of conceptual and minimal art, since clearly nobody knows where net.art should go.

I have to admit however, that I love all the new stuff (such as my own hehe) and it's level of communication. But it's easy to like it: it's like riddles and the key to the answer is your own cultural competence. Everytime you "get" such a piece of art, it's a feeling of success. And that's always positive (only if the difficulty level is not too low and "everybody" could get it). And if it even appears waterproof concerning authenticity (due to a conceptual aspect) whattaya know; it's art!

DISCUSSION

What?


Damon's list came after my comment. But yeah, my pleasure. I don't know if it has anything to do with fragile and complicated things vs. mainstream internet culture things (pardon my limited english skills).
It seems that we (3rd generation net artists how Olia calls us) were trashed with all that cultural content by the media and finally grew up to communicate in a way which is all about quoting or remixing that garbage (even if it concerns new phenomena); where as 1990s net.art was more trying to come up with a intentional concept and seemed to have an answer prepared for even the un-asked questions. To me it really seems like the newer net art is more about processing cultural input than it is about the dimensions and the possibilities of the web. Frames and hypertext, code and generative art, Mille Plateau and Rhizomes; that's all very interesting things concerning the concepts of mediated perception. But to me the stuff which is going on today is more about presets and terms of mainstream perception. I might not be sober at this moment, but I hope this still makes sense tomorrow. Call it reactionary, but I feel like anything you do (appropriate, remix, or just getting inspired) is some sort of reaction since we have been so exposed to media (old and new). Wether it's cheesy marquee tags or fancy iChat effects or (whatevs) it's all about the cultural competence and less about a new frontier.

Da da da ich lieb dich nicht du liebst mich nicht...

DISCUSSION

What?


Sucks I'm missing the panel
image

DISCUSSION

What?


I was so eager to mention the term sell-out somewhere in my comment (just to cause more attention and stuff to talk about), but I must have forgotten...

DISCUSSION

What?


I love fights. That's the only time when all these artists, critics and interested /-ing people stop being nice and smalltalky, and finally start risking a statement. When I came to New York I was excited to finally talk to people rather than writing, I was hoping to sit in bars and talk until my mouth gets fuzzy. That's why I was surprised that everyone was very well-behaved in person, and that people don't talk about their stuff so much. Maybe I am too ambitious, but where I come from we are not afraid to drop our pants!

I often regret things I say during an argument, but while I believe what I said was dumb the other people might at least be inspired. As long as a couple of braincells play billard it's all good! So stop making clear who was saying what or defending yourselves, and allow each other the shot.

What I find about all these general discussions about internet art is that there seems to be a conflict bewteen the perspectives net art once promised, how and especially the fact THAT it defined its key points on one side, and on the other side how the best works of today's internet art don't even need such an ideology. "How come that piece by John-Michael or Oliver rocks so much without being loyal to its genre? How come it feels like THIS is the genre instead of what everyone agreed on? Where are the dogmas, this is getting ordinary!" one could say.

And even though it's clear by now that net.art doesn't equal today's net art and the rules are that there are no rules and uncool is the new cool and all that, it still feels strange, for instance, to try to turn immaterial works into objects (in order to sell them). As strange as buying mp3s.
But its not that some of those dogmas are still around, maybe its just sanity that tells us websites don't belong on DVDs, or it's only right that internet art is art on the internet (not inside galleries or museums) and doesn't cost anything! But who cares about sanity?

Anyways, talking is much more fun than writing and can carmouflage my pointless arguments much better. Before I go back to Germany on friday, I hope to get into a fight about something like this, because that's what I came here for.