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

[jan larsson <jlarsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

shouldn't "net.art" require the use of the net? in that case microsound =20=

is off the hook.

or how is "net.art" defined? I dont know, my conclusion is that the =20
internet sucka as a context for art.

just like it sucks when it comes to human communication.

torsdagen den 20 februari 2003 kl 07.20 skrev ph!L @ c e n t i b e l:

> 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 =20=

> are,
> I think, overly general. Some of the relationships she points out - =20=

> 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 =20
> practice
> I want to have for my MFA project.
>
> And to reiterate Kim's question: is microsound net.art? Or, are at =20
> 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?
>
> 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.
>> I still need to think more about it, but it could help if you said =
why
> you
>> don=B4t agree with her statement.
>> I could only say for the moment that I believe this could be totally
>> relevant to a very good microsound discussion.
>> cheers
>> nelson
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "ph!L @ c e n t i b e l"
>> To:
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 5:40 AM
>> Subject: [microsound] Coco Fusco on net.art: discuss
>>
>>
>> In an effort to both preserve the momentum of recent debates *and*
> steer
>> discussion back on-topic, I humbly submit the following link to an
>> article by critic Coco Fusco on net.art:
>>
>>
> http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0208/=20
> msg00111.html
>>
>> I post this article because, while I don't agree with a lot of what
> she
>> has to say, I think her critical attitude towards net.art could
> provide
>> fodder for some discussion. Further, I wonder to what extent her
>> conclusions could apply to microsound also, given its connection with
>> the kind of net.culture under critique in her text.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Get the FREE email that has everyone talking at
> http://www.mail2world.com
>
>

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