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

[John Klima <klima@echonyc.com>]

anges-allés wrote:
> 
> 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.

again, for me, this is simply not the case. i benefit just as much as
they do. i'm glad they show it at all. there are plenty of people inside
that institution who wish it wasn't there in the first place. there are
plenty of filthy rich donors who hate net art. there just happens to be
a few that don't. i've sacrificed every sense of security in my life for
the opportunity to establish my medium in the museum and fine art realm,
and you, my friend, *will* benefit from this whether you want to or not.

> >many 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."

creativity throughout history has taken, and continues to take, many
forms. this is a given, everyone knows this. each flavor of creativity
has its arena, sometimes the arenas get blurred. this is a good thing,
blurring is good, it makes people question there assumptions about what
they are seeing.  stick a comic book in an art museum and then someone
who hadn't before considered a comic book to be art, will. you must
agree that opening someone's mind to this thought is a good thing!

all the revolutions you mention above, i participated in 15 years ago. i
was a punk, i had a widely distributed zine, Day and Age, contributed to
another, Geek Attack, i am a DIYer, from cars to furniture to code. i
slam danced and panhandled spare change on the steps of the nation's
capital. none of these things negate my ability or desire to paticipate
in the arena of museum art. why should they?
 
> >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? 

when somebody gives you money to go off and be a flake, they want to
know their money is well spent. i'm not talking about the respect "I"
get for showing in a museum, i'm talking about putting a comic book into
a museum so that people see the comic book as art. it benefits us all
when any one of us shows in a major institution. i happen to be luck
enough to benefit a great deal. but nobody is ever gonna give money out
at random, which is what you are suggesting. do you really think this is
how it should work? sign on this list and eventually your name comes up
and you get some money?

> I believe firmly
> that proposals should consist of  the proposal alone. 

90% of what is considered in a proposal *is* just the proposal, once it
gets to the panel. the other 10% is the confidence level that the artist
obtains in the eyes of the panelist.  it can be a great proposal, but if
the panel doesn't think the artist can actually accomplish it, they aint
gonna get it.  past work establishes credibility. nothing wrong here.
the problem is that many good proposals by lesser known artist never
make it the panel, they are pre-screened in "phase one." there's not a
whole lot that can be done about that, other than paying the panelists a
bit more so they spend more time looking at more proposals.

i have sent out countless proposals, i have only ever recieved one
acceptance, just last week. what i did starting out, was to focus on the
more inclusive arenas like web3d and vrml-art the "easy" things to get
into. i met people, i got to know them, they asked me to show work in a
festival, i met more people, i volunteered, i helped with tech setups, i
guided novices and old folks through net art sites, other artist's sites
as often as mine (i once tried my best to explain and demonstrate
01010011010.org [sic] to someone who spoke very little english, and i no
french, that was a toughy). 

> Context is
> irrelevant to effective art; 

context is everything

> and reviews
> of previous works are opinions.

no grant or commission i ever applied for asked for reviews. they didn't
want them. i don't know if this is the norm or not. my only review in an
art mag (art in america, bitstreams) was a complete, uneducated,
trashing.  my reviews in non-art publications have been unanimously
appreciative. 
> 
> 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?

i certainly would encourage this, its a very good idea. i think the
challenge ahead regarding 
preservation is going to need to be approached from many angles, and
will benefit from input and endeavors from a number of arenas. i also
think the museum can make a valuable contribution to this effort as
well. minimally, museums can warehouse in climate controlled storage,
"period" equipment loaded with "period" software, so migration and
emulation can be possible many years down the road. you know, like
cryogenically freezing a near-dead person for revival when a cure is
found. turn the machine on a couple times a year, make sure it works,
turn it off. this could easily be a museum's greatest contribution to
our legacy.

best,
j