Re: <eyebeam><blast> Internet, modernisation and net.art

[blast-agent <agent@blast.org>]

malgosia askanas <ma@panix.com> wrote:

This discussion of access proceeds as if it was just a question of the
artist having access to the Net.  Isn't there also, and perhaps more
importantly, a question of audience?  Who is the audience for net art?
This, too, starts with questions of access, no?  It starts with access,
but doesn't stay there.


--------------------------------------------


Lev Manovich wrote:

> And this is why we, in the West, should not expect culturally-specific

> Internet art, should not wait for Internet dialects, for some national

> schools of Net art. This simply would be a contradiction in terms. To
> expect diffirent countries to create their own national schools of Net

> art is the same as to expect them to create their own customized
brands
> of Coca-Cola. The sole meaning of Coca-Cola, its sole function is that

> it is the same everywhere.

Ivison Douglas <ivisond@MAGELLAN.UMontreal.CA> wrote:

Actually, Coca-Cola slightly varies from place to place & that is of
course the case for much of global mass culture: minor, maybe
superficial, variances.  These inflections are more important than this
discussion seems to allow.


------------------------------------------------


Alan Myouka Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com> wrote:

I get worried when one talks about _the_ new information network of any
sort. I get worried when one talks about _artistic practice within this
network_ - because it seems to me that already totalization, manifesto,
and foreclosure are setting in. I think there are a panoply of circuits
and circulations, dispersions all over the place. Look at the way the
MOOs are dying out say and ThePalace is growing.

Perhaps better to think of communities, say, or even small towns – where
not everyone might think alike, know everyone, agree with everyone, even
believe they're in the same space as everyone else. Or perhaps a model
might be based on psychosis, just as D/G worked through schizophrenia.

In some places economics _are_ the deciding factor of course, and in
others, obscurity. I waver over jodi.org for example - half the time I'm
enthralled, and half the time I think they're part of the tendency to
obscure information, mystify.

For what purpose, all of this practice, for whom, for what audiences,
within what political economy?

With what histories, for that matter/


----------------------------------------------


{ brad brace } <bbrace@wired.com> posted an excerpt from
http://switch.sjsu.edu:/web/art.online2/brett.links/conjuring.html

"Art as represented on the web, the hundreds of museum, gallery,
education and working artist sites, serve to conceal that it is art
practice itself that is dead.

A perhaps more accurate way of positioning art within such an analysis
is that art is an impotent cultural form living on artificial life
support through art administration and institutions.

Art in this sense, on the web or in the world, exists to rejuvenate the
fiction of art. This notion of art as living meaninglessly on artificial
life support impacts a variety (perhaps a plurality), of less
theoretical social perspectives.

It would be sad if artists were the last people to either understand or
accept that this analysis has both enough theoretical validation and
public support to undercut the cultural impact of almost anything called
art. If this were the case, there would be no time to escape what
amounts to a burning house."


-----------------------------------------------


In response to 404@jodi.org’s  "Wlcm" post and
Gregpliska@aol.com’s reply,
morning glory <glory@vibert.demon.co.uk> wrote:

_n th 14th cntry BC t _grt nr Bybls n th cst f Syr, cnfrm scrpt sng 22
sgns ws dvlpd. Th sgns wr ll  cnsnnts, nd th vwls, whch wr nt wrttn dwn,
wr sppld  by th rdr.

Glry


--------------------------------------


Jouke Kleerebezem <jouke@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>we should finally scale down our efforts, trim our
>communications, privilege our servers to just those few whose thoughts
>will make a difference to us, reconnect, open and close again, open and

>close, privilege, process, open and close, breathe some intelligence
>into our actions, and see what information looks like from then on.

<tglatz@mosquitonet.com> responded:

Isn't this sort of like the criteria for prime time television,
educational publications, etc?  Do *we* want information to look like
that?

May this be a thought that makes a differenz to *us*.


--------------------------------------------




-------------------------------------------------------------
a critical forum for artistic practice in the network
texts are the property of individual authors
to unsubscribe, send email to eyebeam@list.thing.net
with the following single line in the message body:
unsubscribe eyebeam-list
information and archive at http://www.eyebeam.org
Eyebeam Atelier/X Art Foundation http://www.blast.org
-------------------------------------------------------------