[iDC] Off Topic: Defining networked art

Thu Dec 16 18:37:52 UTC 2010

Heidi,

I agree with you and Brian, there is no way of bypassing mail art when 
you tell the history of network(ed) art.

In a book I co-authored in Italian a while ago I defined net.art (with 
the dot) as an Internet-based art which is simultaneously an art of 
networking. Conversely, net art would define an art that relied on the 
Internet mainly as a distribution channel, with no intention to set in 
motion circuits of exchange. This definition was largely based on 
debates that took place on nettime in the mid-1990s, Andreas Broeckman's 
definition of the aesthetics of the machinic, and some of the networking 
practices you are describing below.

Now, it is certainly true that the term "networked art" is mostly 
associated with the Internet. However, there are way of expanding the 
connotative field of the term by expanding the definition of "what is a 
network" beyond the Internet. For instance, in this essay 
(http://deseriis.networkedbook.org) I tried to expand on Samuel Weber's 
suggestion that what holds a network together are the narratives and 
stories that people tells. Drawing on Arquilla and Ronfeldt's notorious 
essay on Netwar, in Target of Opportunities Weber conflates military, 
religious, and Internet-based networks to suggest that narratives come 
to play a crucial cohesive function when a center lacks a center or a 
leader. This is particularly true when we start thinking of networks in 
a diachronic rather than merely synchronic fashion. Simply put, if 
monotheistic religions have survived well beyond the life and death of 
their prophets it is because their words were translated into messianic 
narratives that were powerful enough to be handed down over centuries. 
Likewise, I believe that as a credo free software will survive the 
Richard Stallmans and Linus Torvalds only if besides producing reliable 
software the Free Software movement will be able to produce stories that 
inspire generation to come. (Steven Levy's Hackers: Heroes of the 
Computer Revolution is an important contribution in that direction, imho).

All of this is to say that once we provide an inter-generational 
definition of what is a network, a networked art can be understood as an 
art that is handed down from node-to-node and link-to-link. So I would 
personally not worry too much over how the term is generally understood, 
but rather how you define your term(s) and whether you make clear that 
your definition of networked art exceeds the boundaries of 
techno-determinism.

best,
Marco Deseriis

On 12/16/10 10:53 AM, Brian Holmes wrote:
> I like this genealogical definition of network art very much,
> particularly its roots in the work of Robert Filliou and the mail
> artists. Imho it's the untold prehistory of the organizational forms and
> intrinsic sociability of the information age. I always wanted to write
> about such topics in the exquisite detail that you're clearly headed
> towards, but all I got in the end was the third section of an omnibus
> essay about, well, everything under the sun (plus vampires in the
> conclusion):
>
> http://brianholmes.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/the-absent-rival
>
> If you look in that third section you'll see that in 1992 the mail
> artist Vittorio Baroni made "networking" into the trunk of his "Organic
> Tree" of multiply authored art forms. The "ing" may be the way for you
> to go, Heidi. To my ear and eye, "networked" is ineradicably associated
> with a slew of cables running under the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. At
> this point it is difficult to even remind people that there was history
> before Facebook, so you're right, there's an issue with the vocabulary.
> I would vote for "networking," "networking art," "networking practices
> in art," and so on, with copious allusions to Filliou's "Eternal
> Network." But with any luck you will now get a rush of distributed
> creativity on this question, and when all the advice has been sifted you
> can tranquilly continue what looks like a great great project!
>
> best of luck with it, Brian
>
> On 12/16/2010 12:18 AM, Heidi May wrote:
>> What is network and/ or networked art?
>> The main question is quite simple, but as you will see I have been
>> delving into philosophy and art history to get to a better
>> understanding of the meaning of "network" in art:
>>
>> For the past several months I have been thinking deeply about this. I
>> spent the summer working on comprehensive exam papers for my current
>> PhD program, in which I defined for myself a definition of networked
>> art that I felt was perhaps a challenge to the mainstream notion of
>> “network”. Without getting too much into the literature I based this
>> on (ie. Jean-Luc Nancy), I argued that by using the word network, the
>> Internet itself is predominant over any other associations we might
>> have (see Sack, 2007 on “network aesthetics”) and that if artist
>> educators focus more on what emerges within the relations and
>> processes of a network, such as with Internet art, then we can perhaps
>> gain new understandings of network culture that reflect more the
>> sociocultural aspects as opposed to just the technological aspects. I
>> refer to Fluxus practices, most specifically mail art, and the ideas
>> explored by George Maciunas and Robert Filliou, connecting this to
>> later relational art and participatory art practices. My interests
>> pertain to aspects of what I am calling “relational learning,” thus I
>> see these networked forms of art to be significant...yet not just in
>> terms of individuals collaborating, but most importantly on the
>> emergent knowledge that occurs in these processes.
>>
>> Within my recent writing, I suggest that we need to expand our
>> understanding of networked art in order to obtain new understandings
>> of network culture. I have been defining “networked art” as the
>> following:
>>
>> “...practices not based on art objects, nor digital instruments, but
>> on the relationships and processes that occur between individuals
>> (Bazzichelli, 2008; Kimbell, 2006; Saper, 2001)....Networked art,
>> sometimes described as participation art (Frieling, Pellico,&
>> Zimbardo, 2008), consists of multiple connections made through
>> generative processes, often, but not always, incorporating digital
>> technology. In many cases, the production and dissemination processes
>> become the artwork itself.”
>>
>> “....New understandings of network culture may require us to
>> understand that technology enables social and economic activities, as
>> opposed to something that determines society (Castells, 2001). This
>> research will examine how art addresses aspects of network culture, in
>> terms of it being a sociocultural shift that is not limited to digital
>> technology (Varnelis, 2008)...By employing a broader understanding of
>> the notion of network within analysis of networked art, this research
>> aims to provide deeper understandings of network culture...”
>>
>>
>> But after sitting with these ideas for awhile now and being confronted
>> with needing to write a research proposal, I’m in the doubting phase
>> that I think all graduate students go through. Is it really possible
>> to use the term “networked art” in the way I would like to without it
>> immediately conjuring up digital practices alone? (even though I
>> acknowledge this in my argument) Am I just confusing things by saying
>> that I am indeed interested in Internet art practices but only aspects
>> I have defined above, and particularly in cases of artists who
>> are interdisciplinary vs. strictly “digital”? Do people think about
>> the differences between “network art” and networked art” the same way
>> they might have distinguished between “net art” and “net.art”? In my
>> writing, I opted to go with “networked” over “network” because there
>> is more emphasis on being within a process (verb. vs. noun), but now
>> I’m starting to regret that, thinking that “networked” might clearly
>> imply dependence on an electronic system whereas a “network” might
>> allow for more human connection. (For those who are familiar....I am a
>> bit torn between Craig Saper’s (2001) use of the term “networked art”
>> and Tom Corby’s (2006) use of the term “network art”)
>>
>> To make matters somewhat worse, I've been told by someone I respect in
>> this area that the notion of "network" is not heavily dependent on
>> "internet," considering the long history of network associations
>> before the internet. But this is someone who is quite knowledgeable of
>> network notions in academia and English literature, and I question if
>> those outside of academia feel the same way today. Speaking as an
>> artist who teaching art at universities and college, I feel that
>> "networked art" is immediately associated with digital and new media.
>>
>> Thoughts? Opinions?
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> Heidi May
>>
>>
>> ..................
>> HEIDI MAY
>> http://heidimay.ca
>> http://postself.wordpress.com
>> http://heidimay.wordpress.com
>>
>> Instructor, Emily Carr University of Art + Design.
>> http://www.ecuad.ca/people/profile/14163
>> PhD student, University of British Columbia. http://edcp.educ.ubc.ca/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (distributedcreativity.org)
>> iDC at mailman.thing.net
>> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
>>
>> List Archive:
>> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>>
>> iDC Photo Stream:
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
>>
>> RSS feed:
>> http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
>>
>> iDC Chat on Facebook:
>> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
>>
>> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref
> _______________________________________________
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (distributedcreativity.org)
> iDC at mailman.thing.net
> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
>
> List Archive:
> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>
> iDC Photo Stream:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
>
> RSS feed:
> http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
>
> iDC Chat on Facebook:
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
>
> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref
>