[iDC] Off Topic: Defining networked art

Sun Dec 19 00:02:14 UTC 2010

Hi Heidi and all,

I do, like Brian, think you are researching a very very interesting subject.

However reading through the posts a question came up. Can it be that  
the very interesting struggles/questions you are having are precisely  
because art you refer to resists definitions based on materiality,  
media, concepts, political stance, locality, etc..?

All the best!

Aharon
xx

Quoting Heidi May <mayh at ecuad.ca>:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>