[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



I guess first off is the medium the message?

To elaborate I'm not sure in this over generalization if a couple things
that I see as separated but related topics are being addressed as a sum
which makes for an ineffective arguement that one at best can only
*generally* agree or disagree with at best.

I see artwork that addresses issues of the net - in other words- about
the net and related technologies = some sense of reflexivity. 

And then I see artwork that uses the net as a medium. It could be for
some of its unique properties or just as a means to convey the material.

The next thing that strikes me is that old chestnut Sturgeon's Law about
the very high percent of anything being crap. The only news might be is
the amount of crap profoundly higher or lower than some sort of defined
situation and why. I did not read any proof other than the person was
unimpressed in all sorts of general ways about a given medium and fished
around for generalized reasons why it might be so. I think burden is on
the commentator's critique is to justify such generalizations given a
great percent of so many things aren't of lofty standards.

The thing I see connecting "net.art" and "microsound" is only a small
portion of it is curated or critically reviewed. I'm not very sure the
situation is at all greatly different in say net.art, microsound or any
other umbrella term for an artform grouping with a similarly limited
amount of curation and critical review. One gets the freedom to defy the
"establishment" be they right or wrong, have that ideal of fairly equal
footing with all other "net.art" but also the mechanisms in place that
supposedly determine the signal from the noise good or bad are also in
little existance. 

The whole R&D connection comment seems pointless given complete lack of
examples. I can firmly believe an overwhelming percent of what's being
called net.art benefits not form any cabal with developers but from
simply re-utilizing 3rd party technology already developed for other
purposes. I'm really curious what net.art would actually look like if a
sizable percentage was R&D spinoff or testing. I'd bet the tools would
be more amenable and less focused on business needs. I'm not denying
that some net art has ties to some commercial enterprise, but the essay
sure seems to me like the author is grasping at straws for an
explanation 

Issues of access to tools are also at the core (if one must generalize).
To form a generalized view of the medium the most logical place to look
is at the people creating it and their characteristics (age, race,
gender, economics, etc.) that most frequently allows them access to the
tools.  Like artforms relying on some form of technology- photography or
video for instance, the tools don't make the artwork good, but taking
them away or lack of them kind of halts things in a profound way.
Likewise it shouldn't be a revelation that while curatorial and critical
barriers may be diminished, the diversity of work is surely reflected by
the diversity (or lack of diversity) of people utilizing the tools.
Clearly at least here there is simply a greater diversity of people
writing critical essays and delivering via the net than delivering the
art those essayists seek but is the enabling medium really at fault? 

nicholas kent
who collaborates on www.artskool.biz

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