RE: [-empyre-] we-blog introduction

["rich white" <counterwork@blueyonder.co.uk>]

hi chris

great work and great questions.
I've been looking at similar questions in my own work. a project I did
for www.furtherfield.org tried to deal quite specifically with the
problems of originality in net.art. archive of this work can be seen
here http://www.counterwork.co.uk/create/remove/.

I'm afraid I am as yet unable to get to the bottom of the question of
what is the artwork? although I am, currently, leaning heavily towards
the idea that the work is not complete until viewed, thus making the
artwork the file that appears on the browser? this opinion may change! I
am very intrigued by the idea that the web-based work automatically
makes perfect copies of itself purely through the process of being
viewed. the exact same code to produce that work duplicating itself
every time someone clicks on your link and downloads your page. kind of
schroedingers cat-like, it remains unique as long as nobody looks at it.
the problems of where the original resides and the validity and value of
copies made by other people is also tricky. digital copies are identical
(although techies might be able to tell us something here that might
help?) there is no room for 'the hand of the artist'. when a forger
copies a painting he has to replicate the style, method and materials of
the artist. this same skill is unnecessary when pushing ctrl+c. the mark
of the net.artists' touch is less apparent (possibly even not apparent
at all?) a little more can be read here
http://www.counterwork.co.uk/create/remove/create/README001_originalityi
ndigitalart.htm.

rich white
www.counterwork.co.uk


*What is the art work? The HTML markup? The image that
the browser makes? The way the image is delivered and
made by the browser?

*Is the image temporary, something always being
completely remade, or is it something static? HTML is instructions to
the browser; does the image exist without the browser?

*The image is made by the browser- is it a
reproduction, an endless, infinite reproducible?

*Which image is original- the one on my monitor or
yours?  The one in Dreamweaver, pre-browser? Or, is an
original even possible?  Does it matter?

*The network as a distribution model- is it art
trucking, and the browser is the loading dock?

*Who owns the work?  Once on the web I really have no
control over it.  Google and archive.org capture
everything- do I own my own work when I can't control
it, and does that matter?  Does Creative Commons
actually mean anything?

*When others take the work as a screenshot and make a
GIF or JPEG- is that still the work?

*Is the code the artifact, or is the image the
artifact?

*Who would buy this? Is it for sale?  How would one
sell a coded image?

*Currently in weblog culture, like much of the web,
content is free.  What is the value of free? Is it
simply a random act of kindness ;-)  Is free art
really art?  What is the economy of the web? 
Reputation?  Reliablity?  Consistency?  Generosity? 
How is this related to and different from the art
world(s)?

*There are a number of ways the drawings are framed. 
There is often framing in the image. There is a kind
of technologically contextual framing: table; page;
browser; monitor; OS; network; etc.  There is the chronological,
performative framing of the weblog. 
And there is the weblog as a cultural, medium-specific
frame (in the sense of George Lakoff's ideas about how
language frames an issue).  Another way of referring
to all of this is a kind of layering, but I like the
term "framing" because for me it fits the use of
images better.  I'm interested in all of these
different kinds of frames, and what they mean to a
weblog practice.

That's plenty for now.  Good to be here.

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