Re: Re: Re: After net.art on 1998, my personal view...

Dear Mark;

That is the point !

perfectly understood ! this is the second meaning layer of these project, a way to criticize it as I said in my text:
"paintings are perfect dead flat stuff…"
they becaome alive through the meaing given by its context, modernism, capital fetichism….
as you said google is the last frontier…..


Cheers


Valery Grancher


mark cooley wrote:

> i understand that the paintings are somewhat ironic, yet i don't see
> how modernism is being reversed (rather it is being progressed - so
> maybe "postmodern" is a better term?) because the subject of painting
> has changed from so-called landscape, still life etc. to the web,
> which could be thought of as an extention of still-life or landscape.
> Whereas much of the history of European/U.S painting can be seen as a
> celebration of private property (capitalism) whether through
> representing actual objects (still-life) or landed property
> (landscape), web-paintings can be seen as a representation of capital
> in the information economy. you are capturing the icons of global
> capital (uncritically from what i can gather) - the digital landscape
> (not as a battleground of different interests and powers) but as
> stable, static (painting) landed property - google - the final
> frontier!
>
> mark cooley
>
>
>
> Valery Grancher wrote:
>
> > Dear Mark Cooley,
> >
> >
> > If you read my seconde text egarding my webpaintings, I say after
> > 'post net art' and 'post paintings', for the reason you are
> > mentionning.
> > Webpaintings is also mentionned as an ironical project for the same
> > reason, but on the other hand webapintings is modernist by rversing
> > the modernism process, this is waht is interesting on conceptual
> > level.
> > Of course net.art regarding technology was also a myth and something
> > neverdefined before ….
> >
> > All the art may be symbolized as socks: we may use them sometimes by
> > reversing them, puting inside space outside and aoutside space
> > inside…
> > This is the way I am playing
> >
> >
> > yours
> >
> >
> > Valery Grancher
> >
> > Valery Grancher wrote:
> >
> > > "Webpaintings": 1998-2004
> > > After net.art on 1998, my personal view…
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If you look art history and how it is dealing with paintings, you
> > can
> > > perceive that the main topic is always the subject painted on
> > canvas:
> > > From Giotto to today. Paintings has dealt with physical subject,
> > dealt
> > > with sometimes narration or no narration, and has interacted with
> > > other media like photography or with just its materiality and
> > > iconology…
> > > For artist from my generation, we grew up with video games and
> > > computers. The first iconology I perceived were icons from
> interface
> > > and software. The screen has defined a new window and has killed
> the
> > > camera obscura. The screen is not reflecting and difracting the
> > light
> > > like pigment but is generating electronic light. So today how to
> > paint
> > > something ? The skill doesn't matter. The main topic is to paint
> > > something that nobody painted before you (Miltos Manetas (1)). And
> > in
> > > my case, I would like to add: to paint something by defining a new
> > > iconoly (painting semiology)…
> > > Some peoples from my art public were surprised on 1998 to see that
> a
> > > conceptual artist like me who was one of the first to use internet
> > > media on 1994, 4 years later during the time when Net Art was
> really
> > > the most successfull art practice, is taking brush to produce
> images
> > > on canvas !
> > > I would say that I always perceived internet as a dynamic process,
> a
> > > network space where nothing may be freezed. Internet is dealing
> with
> > > new concept of time and space, and is defining on another way
> human
> > > identity and phenomenolgy. Net art is a process.This media has
> > evolved
> > > from 1998 until today to a huge market where we cannot find any
> TAZ
> > > (Hakim Bey (2)) like on 1994 when net art was conceived! The web
> and
> > > internet is today a space where branding icons are bringing a new
> > kind
> > > of consumerism (the hyperconsumerism) where also language may be
> > > commercialized ("google adwords", C. Bruno (3)) , a new kind of
> > 'pop'
> > > with its visual signs, logo, VIP and so on, so on…
> > > Like Vuk Cosik (the father of net art) is saying, NET ART IS DEAD
> !
> > > (4) it is dead because the context where net art was produced
> > doesn't
> > > exist anymore…
> > > But on the other I still think that some art form would and will
> be
> > > produced in interactions with Internet, but we cannot call it 'net
> > > art' anymore ! I do and I will also…
> > > But at the same time I decided to jump into the most
> 'prestigious',
> > > 'serious', 'outdated' and 'unpolitically correct' media on an
> > ironical
> > > way: 'Paintings' ! Many artist came from paintings to net art by
> > using
> > > on the screen the paintings iconology and metaphor (5), in my case
> I
> > > felt clearly that the only thing to do was to reverse the process:
> > > How should be paintings during internet time ? How to use computer
> > > iconology in paintings ?
> > > I think quite differently than some painters of my generation: I
> > said
> > > that we should paint something which was never painted before…
> > that
> > > is true… but painting is also a language and is not dealing with
> > > just images and subject and that's why I'm talking about
> iconology.
> > I
> > > deeply think that the only way to paint a painting in our internet
> > > time should not be to paint computers objects (still life) but
> what
> > > computers has brought in our reality theater, to paint what
> computer
> > > technology has changed in our way of seeing. That's why I choosed
> to
> > > paint website screen, computer screen, computer codes. By doing
> > this,
> > > I try to show that the computer iconology is changing all the time
> > and
> > > paintings are perfect Flat Dead Things which are freezing the
> topics
> > > painted. The result is that the paintings produced are always
> > > reflecting dead icons: The design of the website are changing all
> > the
> > > time, the software are changing also, and this is the same for the
> > > codes…
> > > Otherwise, I would say that the internet screen are little bit
> like
> > > landscape and still life. These pictures are osbsolete, and were
> > used
> > > so much that we cannot define anything specific, but at the same
> we
> > > are always fascinated by them. This is like a sunset, this is a
> > stupid
> > > and very kitsch 'cliche', but all the time by facing this natural
> > > phenomenon we are always fascinated because a specific and
> undefined
> > > detail inside this phenomenon is catching us: Miltos Manetas is
> > > calling it "Neen"(6).
> > > I will finish by saying that this is the first time in history
> that
> > > human is consuming language and iconology like daily products:
> > > I defined my own way of seeing by being confronted to my
> generation
> > > computer iconology, but my son will get another way of seeing by
> > being
> > > confronted to other technologies iconology.
> > > We jumped from the 'nature' phenomenology based on nature
> perception
> > > to cyber-phenomenology based on technologies interactions with our
> > > perception !
> > >
> > > Valery Grancher
> > > http://www.nomemory.org
> > > http://www.nomemory.org/webpaint
> > > http://www.nomemorybazaar.com
> > >
> > > N.B: This text will be published in my book "internet drawing" on
> > fall
> > > 2004 onestarpress editions: http://www.onetsarpress.com
> > >