Re: [-empyre-] Museums (was Re: copyright)

[anges-allés <777@anatomyofhope.net>]

John Klima wrote:

> judging from the lines around the block at the whitney, i'd have to
> (respectfully) disagree with your statement that museums appeal to a
> very narrow audience.  it has been very much an issue for museums as of
> late to increase their attendance, which is precisely why they are
> messing around with net.art in the first place. the general public seems
> to like quite a bit of it. 

But here I see the core argument I am making: The museums are 
benefitting more from thier
involvement with net.art, than most net.artists are with thier 
affiliation with museums. I can list
a number of effects that museum involvement has had on net.art and it's 
development.



> mumany years ago i had a long discussion with a guy who was
> sure that in the future, the "art world" would indeed cease to exist and
> in its place would be the simple appreciation of the thought well
> thought, the object well made, the ascendance of design. 

But it is not merely the ascendance of design. There is also at issue 
the DIY movements, the
independant movements, the punk movements. What comes out of something 
like the internet,
the zine revolution, and the rise of the blog, is a sense of the 
personal communication to the
masses. Creativity is no longer rarefied to the arena of "art."


> it *has* to be shown in
> the museum context for it to gain the respect and appreciation it
> deserves, and that respect then creates a level playing field so that
> net artists can compete with "other" artists for available resources,
> enabling them to make the best work they possibly can. 

The idea that "respect" is needed for a work to get funding is a sad 
state, and one thing I dislike
about the art world: Why does a CV have any impact on the quality of a 
work being submitted for
funding, why do the reviews of art critics have anything to do with 
purse strings? I believe firmly
that proposals should consist of  the proposal alone. Context is 
irrelevant to effective art; and reviews
of previous works are opinions. This sort of cult of opinion severely 
limits the work that gets funding;
meanwhile, it has no impact on how it effects people, or how it 
communicates an idea. Simply put: I
don't trust "respect" as a barometer. It is completely subjective and 
cannot be quantified, so why worry
about it? It is also the major contributor to what makes the art world 
ineffective: Art Politics. Who,
at the end of the day, is the Alpha Net.Artist? Who is at the top of the 
food chain, and why? Who is
at the bottom, and why?


> and third,
> museums have always been the "cold storage" of culture. the history of
> net art has a greater potential to be preserved if it is in the
> collection of a museum. i know i'd love to be able to see jodi's first
> work again, i don't know if its even possible. if it were in a
> collection, i'd have the chance. 

What if people could develop a web archive, so that web sites of any 
kind could be effeciently
retrieved and redistributed, not merely art? As technology advances, 
this is likely to become a
reasonable possibility. [We already have a virtual web archive, I'm not 
sure of the link.] Would
you oppose this as a method of storing and backing up digital art? If 
so, Why?


Cheers,
-e.