botanical garden?

Hi Manik,

Perhaps we are - we need to watch out for the pruning shears, that aim
to prune net art (and media art) into a more cosy bonsai, centralized
plant…

" The art of growing dwarfed, ornamentally shaped trees or shrubs in
small shallow pots or trays."
http://www.answers.com/bonsai&rg

marc

>Hi Marc & all,
>Are you talking there about botanical garden?
>Love
>MANIK
>
>7/30/06 3:09:40 PM,marc <[email protected]>wrote:
>Are you
>Hi Silva & all,
>
>As many probably know from long ago on this list, I have been very much
>pro- net art, and still am. At Furtherfield, we still view Net Art as
>being a main interest and passion, even though we have adapted with the
>aim of exploration, not because net art is dying but because we feel
>that it is expanding its roots into multi-various forms of creative
>outreach, and contemporary contexts.
>
>I personally come from a place of activism, art and networked
>consciousness, linking very much with a net art focus - not from a film
>perspective, 'soft cinema' (Manovich etc).
>
>I feel that there has been a divide between those who have officially
>been placed in the history books as 'net.artists' and those seen as 'net
>artists', and because only a few top names have been repeatedly banded
>about as the main figures of this net-based creativity, Internet art
>suffered a kind of cultural drought. Which is not good for any artist
>working in such closely related mediums. Although, things are changing.
>
>There have been certain curators who have kept on showing the same old
>faces, over and over again - who have not opened up their curatorial
>remits for other lesser known creatives, who may not be using the same
>inscribed protocols, or academic language to justify their intentions.
>
>"In my opinion net.art is pretty much what can be thought of a movement,
>both geographically and chronolically defined… eventually net.art died…"
>
>Net.Art did not die - it became a historical commodity for those who
>planned it in such a way. It was not the dot.com boom that shattered the
>(hoped) growth of the movement, it was those who decided to hand in
>their cultural cache at that time to move on to different pastures so
>that they could move into a gallery system, keeping themselves valid in
>a curatorial context.
>
>"and net art or internet art became the standard category for online
>based artistic projects…"
>
>I feel that net art has always been (officially) a sub-category, along
>side net.art, in terms of institutional control. They both happened at
>the same time as far as I am concerned - net art, is probably a poorer
>relative of the very well promoted and deliberately inserted form of
>net.art.
>
>In fact, I suppose net art, was the main movement and net.art was a
>smaller more specific, trendier, personality driven and modernist
>proposed version of it. It worked well for those who really believed in
>the myth of the artist as 'star' so that they could get a piece of the
>'heroic-artist' pie.
>
>The irony is that, some of these groups such as irational.org are
>actually brilliant (well i think so), as well being supporting by such
>systems - so it is not as black and white as some of us would wish to
>presume - just because certain groups get recognised and supported does
>not mean that they are evil - it has much more to do with the culture
>around it, and what ethical responsibilities were seriously explored (if
>any) by the more centralized, 'top-down' orientated organizations, such
>as ars electronica and 'older' rhizome - remits.
>
>I say 'old' rhizome because it seems that the new rhizome, in its
>character, even though it is not primarily net art focused alone, in its
>behaviour is net art, and the new team of rhizome have made a tremendous
>effort to break down the older more centralized way of being, that it
>was once. It seems less elitist, and more open minded in the way that it
>engages, in working with people who use the list these days, and willing
>to try out a few things.
>
>Let's not forget that net art is also thriving elsewhere, other than
>just on this list and on rhizome - the syndicate mailing list still has
>some serious net artists working on there, such as Auriea Harvey
>(entropy8zuper) and lo_y, and a dynamic (sometimes scary) community,
>dedicated to net art, and related contexts. and more of course…
>
>I was with irational.org, in the early days - working with Heath Bunting
>on various projects. The Cybercafe BBS, and Savage yet tender pirate
>radio and alternative networked art projects, that hacked phones
>(phreaking) and other things - but was much more interested in more
>collaborative net art and the communities that formed with it, and those
>who were not seen as net.art, still am. Even though I value some these
>net.artists and what they have given our culture, I also wish that some
>them were less desperate in getting their own names known and more
>interested in breaking down the patriarchal barriers that supported
>their endeavours.
>
>Some of the net.artists out there are still radical, yet there are those
>who pretend that they are great by proposing themselves as great, as
>(supposed) brilliant academics who are really just interested in power
>alone and where that gets them - I see these types, as weak and shallow
>individuals, hiding behind institutional walls, rather than changing
>institutions for the better - cowards.
>
>The spirit of net.art, has been supported by net art - and those
>net.artists owe much to net art for bringing in a larger audience and
>context, which has at the same time kept it all alive.
>
>Net art lives on but in various forms. I have been involved in 3 new
>classes last year, where students are exploring and learning about net
>art as part of the curriculum, I teach a balanced version of what that
>is, featuring those who have not been allowed into the hall of fame as
>'net.art', as well as those who have…
>
>Now history is being rewritten - at last by young new writers who are
>not diverted by the pressure of net.art 'star' orientated fractions,
>which is beginning to include those who were left out and others who did
>not quite fit the prescribed remit of institutional, academic laziness.
>In fact, I think that it is a great time to be doing net art :-)
>
>marc
>
>
>In my opinion net.art is pretty much what can be thought of a movement,
>both geographically and chronolically defined… eventually net.art
>died… and net art or internet art became the standard category for
>online based artistic projects…
>
>________________________________
>
>De: [email protected] em nome de marc
>Enviada: qui 27-07-2006 16:31
>Cc: [email protected]
>Assunto: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: net art?
>
>
>
>
>Why has everyone conformed to using the term 'net.art', as in net.dot.art?
>
>Historically net.art, mainly belonged to just a few elite artists
>working on th Internet, Vuk Cosic made sure of this, and Manovich etc…
>
>I have always been interested in those who did not bandwagon jump onto
>the term 'net.art '- those who used 'net art' (without the dot), are the
>real blood of net art - for they have to deal with not being supported
>by history and cannons, and institutions.
>
>marc
>
>
>
>
>+
>-> post: [email protected]
>-> questions: [email protected]
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>+
>-> post: [email protected]
>-> questions: [email protected]
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
>
>


–
Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
Node.London - http://www.nodel.org