RE: [-empyre-] Size matters?

[Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Charlotte Frost wrote:

> I am not saying that net art needs the history of art, or needs validation,
> but what I am asking is how net art can negotiate both these art world
> concepts?
Perhaps I've known odd art historians, but many do seem involved with 
ephemera, and you mentioned conceptual art actually in that regard. There 
is plenty of precedent, from Klein's Iris Clert Gallery (no)show to the 
N.E. Thing Company of the 70s. There are numerous books on conceptual art, 
performance art, of course Laurel's theater/computer paradigm, etc. I also 
don't think there's _the_ history of art, so much as histories - look at 
the recuperation a couple of decades ago, of the 'meaning' of lapis lazuli 
in Renaissance art, or Steinberg's work on Christ's erections literally 
wiped out in the Victorian period.

Validation is tricky as well; here Wittgenstein's games is the most useful 
for me - validation for whom? with whom? etc. - At the same time Andre's 
Lever was decried by the London public, it was validated by art historians 
of a particular persuasion. This thing goes on and on - look at Chaucer's 
reputation or the pre-Raphaelites for the past century and a half.

> I am asking this firstly because I wonder if net art's apparent rejection of
> more traditional systems forces it to build its own secondly does net art
> force existing systems to adapt to its new offerings and thirdly whether
> this causes both sides to inevitably acknowledge each other. I see the
> history of art in so much net art output, even if as a rejection of it,
> which makes me see the two as a syzygy, they oppose each other, but are
> allied because of this opposition.

Well, first, as I questioned, is there "net art" - or are there a variety 
of practices? Are the BMW movies net art? We could debate this endlessly. 
So I don't see "both sides" - but rather multitudes of viewpoints - just 
as, for example, it's clear here that there are numerous viewpoints about 
lists themselves, depending on one's experience.

For me, for example, nettime is crashing - it's all political now, yet 
almost nothing of cultural politics, art, etc. It used to be a mix. Now 
what separates it from any other site of political commentary? Why should 
anyone except the writers pay any attention to it? (Mentioning this 
because nettime was brought up elsewhere.)
> Also, as there is a lot from offline that is reflected online, in an albeit
> technological translation I wonder whether/what elements of the online art
> world are building structures reminiscent but not wholly reflective of those
> offline. And if this is the case, despite the fact net art often bills
> itself as anti-establishment, might it be rather more reliant on conversions
> and extensions of existing models than we realise, after all, net art isn't
> all new and a computer is just another prosthesis...Therefore I am wondering
> what reflections the list has off line, other than real conversations or
> letter writing, because I think the list offers something else, perhaps more
> aligned, perhaps not, with offline art world systems...
Well again and again, what list? what net art? Cybermind had a conference, 
I did a book 'out' of it to some extent (including though people like 
Zizek, Kittler, Aycock, etc.), there was a MOO for a while, etc. Other 
lists like Leri had different extensions.

And when you say "existing models" - it's more that at least some of the 
models, museums and galleries, at least here in NY, are following online 
cultures more than the other way around. For every museological site, 
there's an independent mez or myself, etc.

> I think it is undoubtedly the case that the main source of validation for
> net art is the text, whether it should be or not, whether it needs it or
> not, which is of course less anti-establishment or 'new' than one might have
> thought. In fact, text is everywhere for net art, as critique and direct
> marketing, it facilitates curation by explaining the conceptual links
> between works, in an absence of physical proximity, and in the form of code,
> text creates the works themselves! However placing such disproportionate
> emphasis on text, over the gallery or institution, still constitutes a shift
> and might require additional adaptations more aligned to this textual
> allegiance. So what is this textual architecture?

Well, art is a confluence of discourses; this is a fairly accepted 
approach, I think. And as discursivity, there are language games, sites, 
withdrawals, enclosures, etc. etc. So text is in relation to critique - 
Bourdieu wrote extensively on this stuff in Distinction.

But there is also net art that leaks 'around' text - it depends, again, on 
the definition of text. Is all code text? Are all images text in terms of 
their perception or reception theory? I go back to Metz's difficulty with 
cinematic language vis-a-vis semiosis and language. Instead of text, I'd 
work with Peirce's notion of 'sheet of assertion,' which I've treated as a 
symmetrical substructure - in order to read this, for example, every 
letter is spaced in such-and-such array, etc., concrete poetry notwith- 
standing (and that's within the symmetrical substructure, online, of the 
pixelled image itself).
> > From this, still keeping my art historian outfit on (actually I don't think
> I have one;-), I end up asking if the list is an art historical archive of
> net art, and if so, should we be looking to stabilise and historicise the
> archive of the list as much as groups are already looking at preserving the
> art? List archives are not easy to search, and compared to books they are
> difficult to work from so what role does the list play in the safeguarding
> and historicising of works for the future, if any?
I apologize for coming in late here - what list are you referencing? There 
aren't that many people net artting the list, so to speak - mez, nn, 
solipsis, noemata, lacook, meskens, myself, but it doesn't go on forever. 
For myself, I have the http://www.asondheim.org/ site, which Ivan Pope 
provided gratis and wonderfully, which has all of my elist work on it. mez 
has her own site, etc.

> When I see a list posting covered in text with lots of links, because of the
> format/protocol of lists, it reminds me of the gallery in reverse. Instead
> of big pictures on the wall with little texts next to them, we hang the text
> big and put lots of little links to the art...Eventually the list could
> provide the equivalent  structure to the art gallery, for work that cannot
> be physically housed, providing its context, publicity and validation (if so
> required), so is the list the preservation of net art that some have been
> looking for all along. I dunno?!

Well, one doesn't have to subscribe to an art gallery. One just walks in. 
One doesn't have to get along with the other people in the gallery. I've 
now got a kill file, so I don't get too upset at some people's postings. I 
don't have to do that at Sonnabend. In some ways corporate space is a lot 
freer and more democratic, most often kinder, than most lists I've been 
on. I'm lucky with cybermind, etc. etc. - they're open to just about 
anything.
> Of course as is the case with the speed of construction in the e-age, we
> must inevitably look beyond the structures we are currently creating, and it
> seems fair to say that it wont be long before the relatively low-tech list
> is adapted or superseded to better house the debates it has helped grow and
> nurture, but it is important to understand its foundations and potential
> before we build on its hopefully solid ground, lest list subsidence hamper
> our plans...
It's precisely because of low-tech that lists, like IRC, will stay around.

> As Jim rightly notes, language isn't necessarily the written word, but I
> feel that the written word just seems incredibly important to net art. And I
> wonder, although these thoughts are not fully formed, if we are not just
> discussing the language of new media, but creating it???
There is no "the" language, again. At least for my most recent work, the 
written word isn't that important; I also don't think that images are 
language or even necessarily linguistic.

> Anyway Alan, I am aware of some of the projects out there, but when I began
> this research, I struggled to find more information and nobody on lists
> wanted to help me :-( so I had to begin with the information I had. I
> appreciate that in light of what you are saying, I may need to adjust my
> ideas, but you might see how I formed some of them and am grateful for your
> info...I couldn't find your Being Online book anywhere so I have yet to read
> it!

Hell and darnations! It's Being On Line, Lusitania books; it might be out 
of print at the moment. My Apologies.
> I hope that is clearer, although I know its is very disjointed and if I was
> having this conversation in person there would be a LOT of frantic hand
> waving!
Not to mention giggles and coffee -

> Anyway I want as many arguments as possible, so that I can clarify my 
ideas
> both for myself and for the panel at ISEA...you all have till Thursday night
> (UK time) to catch me! :-)

Hope this reaches you in time...

yours, Alan

> Charlotte
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre


recent http://www.asondheim.org/ 
http://www.asondheim.org/portal/.nikuko
WVU 2004 projects http://www.as.wvu.edu/clcold/sondheim/files/ 
Trace projects http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/writers/sondheim/index.htm 
partial mirror at http://www.anu.edu.au/english/internet_txt