Re: [-empyre-] Re: empyre digest, Vol 1 #168 -

[valerie <valerie@mobilegaze.com>]

Hi Adrian -


> my own *personal* preference is that i've no intention of 
> watching/reading/using monuments on a computer screen. monuments 
> belong on the silver screen or are bits of real estate on walls or 
> in the sculpture garden, or lie between covers. i want stuff i can 
> play with, read, use, explore, tease, be teased by, while i'm 
> online, in amongst all the other things i do on my computer *at the 
> same time*. and putting stuff in galleries, while authenticating 
> net.art within some definition of high culture, doesn't do this.

I agree w/ your point that putting works in museums does not make it 
more of a work. However, I think that there are interesting spatial 
elements that can be explored in "real" space.

> the other really obvious thing i struggle with is the definition 
> stuff. i do stuff online and just stick it there. that's what i like 
> about it. then later someone comes along and says can they stick it 
> into a net.art show. sure. at what point did it become art? if it 
> wasn't before, what was it? if it is after, then i'm not too happy 
> about art only being art when it is institutionally codified since 
> there's an awful lot of art that rather obviously is not about this.

Yes - this phenomenon is quite strange. I teach design and digital 
imaging / sound students and the line between what is "art" and "not" 
is increasingly difficult to define. Especially with technology which 
has so many uses. I am thinking of a time when the materiality of an 
object would define it as art.

--
MobileGaze: on-line culture.
http://www.mobilegaze.com

Matter + Memory net.art exhibition
http://www.mobilegaze.com/m+m