Re: Don't Call it Art: Ars Electronica 2003

Hi Lev,

It seems to me the "problem" with software-centric art lies more with
a general curatorial inability to contextualize it within
contemporary art, and less with the software artist's inability to
intentionally fit herself into a contemporary art context. Yes,
Duchamp is remembered because of his ability to contextualize his
work, but then a major goal of his work was to criticize art
institutions. So of course he is well remembered for this – *by art
institutions.* It's the same reason that books about the web sell
inordinately better at Amazon that at brick and-mortar-stores –
because people who surf the web are inordinately interested in the
web. Art historians and critics are inordinately interested in
"defining art moments," "new movements," etc., particularly ones with
clear and discernible narratives. Manifestos-R-Us. So the "problem"
is not that generative/reactive art as a genre lacks a cohesive,
self-aware narrative; the problem is that contemporary art historians
expects such a narrative.

compared to Duchamp's work, Lia's work [ http://www.re-move.org ] is
much less self-aware, but is it any less valuable? Were she Vannevar
Bush (or even Golan Levin), she would perhaps be more inclined/able
to write para-art texts eloquently and perspicaciously situating her
own work in terms of contemporary culture. But should such didactic
self-awareness necessarily be the artist's role? I assume Lia is
well-enough aware of how her work fits in. She curated the online
section of the AbstractionNow exhibit that you mention [
http://www.abstraction-now.at/the-online-project/ ].

A lot of reactive/auto-generative art is, for lack of a better term,
outsider art. The time, aptitude, and obsessive exploration it takes
to even be able to create stuff in this genre means its practitioners
are more likely to spend their time listening to underground net
radio and tweaking code than perusing Adorno and Foucault. So a rift
developes. On the one hand, you have a group of contemporary artists
swimming in conceptual allusion, but their work displays the
aesthetic craftsmanship of a wet mop. On the other hand, you've got
these idiot savante coder geeks cranking out gorgeous stuff, with no
idea of (or concern with) how it might fit in anywhere.

The new media artist needs a new media curator, and the outsider new
media artist may even need an outsider new media curator, as
Anne-Marie Schleiner observes:
http://www.intelligentagent.com/archive/Vol3_No1_curation_schleiner.html
The RUNME.ORG categories are a good example. Alexei created an
entirely new category ("institutional critique") for one of my
pieces. For a while, my piece was the only one in that category, but
now there are two more:
http://runme.org/categories/+institutional_critique/
This "curation as ongoing research" approach is a much more robust
way to deal with emerging media. Rather than playing canonical
gatekeeper ("we know what belongs *inside* and what stays
*outside*"), the curator acts more like a documentary archivist,
along for the ride, analyzing as he goes, wondering where it will all
end up.

There are software artists who have both the skills and the concepts.
Golan Levin and Mark Napier come to mind. Carnivore is particularly
ingenious in its partitioning of skills and concepts. Alex Galloway
took care of the conceptual load up-front (or more accurately,
in-back), and then he farmed out the sensory-aware aesthetics to
those artists interested in developing the modules. Thus e8z was
free to make a wacky 3D world, josh davis was free to make some
pleasant and well designed circles, etc. The conceptual artist did
what he was good at without having to tackle sensory effects, and the
coder artists did what they were good at without having to carry the
full load of establishing an overarching conceptual context for their
work. Kind of like an information architect collaborating with a web
designer. Carnivore has a back-end and a front-end, not just
technichally but also artistically. Very clever.

Finally (and this is sort of off topic), when you say "design," you
seem to have graphic design in mind. But design encompasses 3D
product design, new media design, software design, and even
architecture. Not just Klee but also Gropius, so to speak. When
Casey Reas tells you he is a designer, he's probably referring to
design in this broader sense, as a discipline that approaches
problems from a uniuqe perspective known as "design." (Casey, if
you're reading this, feel free to chime in.) This broader definition
of design might situate it closer to software art than you originally
allow.

peace,
curt