[iDC] Off Topic: Defining networked art
Heidi May
mayh at ecuad.ca
Fri Dec 17 08:06:12 UTC 2010
Armin,
Thanks for your thoughts. I will have to read over your links and
think more about all of this. I really appreciate your input.
For now though, I do want to clarify that I don't intend to take a
technology-neutral view of networks, I just don't want to over-
emphasize the technology of the networks. And in order to do, I feel
that certain theories of being (ie. Jean-Luc Nancy) might better
inform a fuller and broader understanding of the notion of network and
network culture. I'm also influenced by Kazys Varnelis's writing "The
Immediated Now: Network Culture and the Poetics of Reality" http://varnelis.networkedbook.org/the-immediated-now-network-culture-and-the-poetics-of-reality/
I am now wondering if there was something in what I wrote that gave
you that impression (I will have to examine that more, maybe there is
something I don't see in how I am communicating my interests). It
could be that I didn't clearly express what I perhaps take for granted
with my work, in that this is a critical inquiry into the role
technology plays in our lives. For me, it is quite obvious what the
advantages are and I think people see this quite clearly, and perhaps
they see clearly the strong disadvantages. However, I'm interested in
exploring the complexity and what is not made visible. Yes, in some
cases, this may be the abstract qualities and the symbolic exchanges
and the potential for learning. But...the theories of learning I refer
to discuss how we often actually learn through conflict and
difference, through situations of tension.
"Similar to see mail art as a predecessor for net art is all well in a
certain sense but in another way it is a bit misleading. networks are
now near ubiquituous, you have them on your phone and on your
computer, you have them even in quite remote areas. networks and
computation are still the major driving engine of economic growth -
which is something you cant say of the postal networks of the
1960s-70s."
-- Yes, I'm glad you are pointing these things out as it is keeping me
in check with the complexity of my research.
"Now those net-entrepreneurs still understand the net much better than
many artists and theorists which is unfortunate because what they are
planning is both admirably smart and really evil and goes on unchecked
if people like us focus on producing beautiful ideas on the symbolic
layer alone. Castells made a big effort to understand the net but his
assessment is too optimistic and he fetishises the network form, so in
the end he is deterministic."
-- I definitely don't want to rely on Castells, or any one theorist.
So, I'm wondering if there is anything you feel, based on your
experience with thinking about all of this, that artists and educators
of artists should be doing in this area (in the ideal situation of
course). Speaking as an artist educator, how should we be
incorporating this subject matter into the projects we assign to art
students at universities and colleges? How can we push artists and
theorists forward to participate more with understandings of the net?
Do you see ANY value at all in revisiting pre-digital network
practices and perhaps extending some of that thinking/working into
explorations of current networks, and the relationships that transpire
and exit with/in the networks? Is philosophical thinking of us AS the
network helpful in any way and, if so, how can we integrate this into
art education?
Things to think about if you have the time....and hopefully you do!
Heidi
On 16-Dec-10, at 11:30 PM, Armin Medosch wrote:
> Heidi,
>
> I think a similar approach to yours was tried by Simon Pope when he
> curated the travelling exhibition Art for Networks in 2002. You can
> find
> a review here: http://www.a-n.co.uk/interface/reviews/single/67732
> It has been quite a while ago and I don't want to misrepresent Simon's
> views (you can find an interview here where he explains his intentions
> http://sites.google.com/site/ambulantscience/Index/texts)
> but as far as I understood he wanted to establish a richer and
> technology neutral understanding of networks; this at a time just a
> few
> years after some artists who were seen at the time to be leading
> net.artists had very publicly resigned.
>
> In my catalogue contribution I consciously focused on wrieless free
> community networks to highlight the physicality and reality of
> networks
> and that building networks _can_ be concomitant with building
> communities (which is very different from saying that networks foster
> communities which was one of the tropes of the 1990s).
>
> The problem with a technology-neutral view of networks and
> highlighting
> just the processes and communications is that you are engaging only
> with
> one specific layer, the top layer of symbolic exchanges and human
> understandable meanings. Below that however are several other layers
> which shape those communications insofar as they make possible certain
> things and disallow others. By ignoring all those layers they become a
> technological subconsious, a repressed which will return, demand its
> right to be recognised. It is like you want to talk about the beauty
> of
> mobility culture, i.e. cars without acknowledging that they are a
> disaster for the environment in quite many ways.
>
> Similar to see mail art as a predecessor for net art is all well in a
> certain sense but in another way it is a bit misleading. networks are
> now near ubiquituous, you have them on your phone and on your
> computer,
> you have them even in quite remote areas. networks and computation are
> still the major driving engine of economic growth - which is something
> you cant say of the postal networks of the 1960s-70s. For instance,
> reading an article on Google recently in the FT the author pointed out
> how it was Google's strategy to use the mobile phone operating system
> Android to also get into people's homes, to become part of the
> infrastructure of networked households. Now that's a viral strategy
> which is absolutely really stunning as it is based on a dialectics
> between being very small, very viral, just a piece of software, a
> widget
> voluntarily installed by people on their own phones, and this being
> brought together at the back end in giant data warehouses which
> harvest
> ever more knowledge about people and their relationships.
>
> Now those net-entrepreneurs still understand the net much better than
> any artists and theorists which is unfortunate because what they are
> planning is both admirably smart and really evil and goes on unchecked
> if people like us focus on producing beautiful ideas on the symbolic
> layer alone. Castells made a big effort to understand the net but his
> assessment is too optimistic and he fetishises the network form, so in
> the end he is deterministic. Maybe the question will soon be how we
> defend ourselves against networks, you know, skynet and all that ;-)
>
> regards
> Armin
>
>
> On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 22:18 -0800, 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
>
>
More information about the iDC
mailing list