Re: [microsound] Coco Fusco on net.art: discuss

["ph!L @ c e n t i b e l" <hellomynameisphil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

------=_NextPart_000_114D1_01C2D865.18152290
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I find Fusco has a tendency to totalize which risks undercutting the
strength of many of her arguments. Many of her critiques of net.art are,
I think, overly general. Some of the relationships she points out - such
as saying that net.art is basically R&D for the software industry - are
a little simplistic, though not entirely untrue, from what I can see.
But when I read Fusco's piece in late August when it came out, it was a
real bombshell. It made me realize how uncritical I had been about my
practice and its social reality. I was glad to read it just before
starting school, because in many ways it has guided the kind of practice
I want to have for my MFA project.=20

And to reiterate Kim's question: is microsound net.art? Or, are at least
some of these critiques applicable to microsound? Is it meaningless on
purpose? How open is microsound to appropriation by the hip wing of the
software industry? (doesn't Kid606 have a sponsorship from Native
Instruments?) Are us microsounders less concerned than we should be
about the appropriation of our work by advocates of the free-trade
version of the "information economy" or by people with less-than-holy
agendas?=20

It's great that we can argue at length about transportation and WWII
history. Now I suggest we talk about the contemporary context and how
our practice fits within it.

Phil

>really interesting article, phil.=20
>I still need to think more about it, but it could help if you said why
you=20
>don=B4t agree with her statement.=20
>I could only say for the moment that I believe this could be totally=20
>relevant to a very good microsound discussion.=20
>cheers=20
>nelson=20
>
>
>----- Original Message -----=20
>From: "ph!L @ c e n t i b e l"=20
>To:=20
>Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 5:40 AM=20
>Subject: [microsound] Coco Fusco on net.art: discuss=20
>
>
> In an effort to both preserve the momentum of recent debates *and*
steer=20
> discussion back on-topic, I humbly submit the following link to an=20
> article by critic Coco Fusco on net.art:=20
>=20
>
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0208/msg00111.html
>=20
> I post this article because, while I don't agree with a lot of what
she=20
> has to say, I think her critical attitude towards net.art could
provide=20
> fodder for some discussion. Further, I wonder to what extent her=20
> conclusions could apply to microsound also, given its connection with=20
> the kind of net.culture under critique in her text.=20
>=20
> Phil=20
>=20

_______________________________________________________________
Get the FREE email that has everyone talking at
http://www.mail2world.com

------=_NextPart_000_114D1_01C2D865.18152290--

------------------------------