[iDC] Off Topic: Defining networked art
Simon Biggs
simon at littlepig.org.uk
Mon Dec 20 09:34:13 UTC 2010
Hi Seeta
It's important that somebody is writing these pieces. We lost Carl Loeffler
a few years ago and Judith Hoffberg last year, key people in La Mamelle and
the mail-art and art-zine scene in San Francisco through the 70's and 80's.
History's are harder to write without primary sources. It's also important
to recognise that this scene, whilst often geo-localised, had nodes all over
the world. Santiago de Chile and Adelaide, Australia (my original hometown)
were two that were very active - I think a sense of isolation was a driver
in the early artistic engagement with communications media, along with
personalities. The people involved in this area were geographically
scattered but worked hard to establish connections in what seemed a
generally indifferent, if not hostile, climate.
Whilst some of this activity is recognised as part of the pre-history of
contemporary networked art practices much of it remains below the radar. For
example, one of the major figures of that time was Eugenio Dittborn. He
remains a respected but rather obscure artist, not part of mainstream
discourse on the arts. His thing was airmail paintings, produced as a direct
response to the political turmoil in Chile during the 70's and 80's and the
daily censorship he had to deal with. With growing political censorship of
the internet becoming the norm (China and Australia are two examples, but
the UK government has today announced its intention to introduce blanket
internet content filtering - it already runs light-touch filtering to take
out kiddy-porn) it would seem that interest in the work of artists such as
Dittborn may revive, as it serves as an indicative precursor for others.
Best
Simon
On 19/12/2010 17:56, "Seeta Peña Gangadharan" <whoa at stanford.edu> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My name is Seeta Peña Gangadharan. I'm very new to this group. Just
> caught wind of this particular thread and wanted to share a piece that
> seems relevant to the conversation.
>
> The article <http://nms.sagepub.com/content/11/1-2/279.short> is: "Mail
> Art: Networking without Technology." I looked at the cultural practices
> of mail artists and other networked artists in the San Francisco Bay
> Area, and how their work crossed paths with early adopters of the
> internet (e.g., the virtual community of The Well in the mid 80s). My
> argument had to do with the way that networked art supported an
> emerging, tech-based discourse around networked culture. The encounters
> between mail artists, other networked artists, alternative arts groups
> like La Mamelle, and folks at The Well served as important breeding
> ground for network logics. These encounters were not exploring technical
> aspects of digital networks per se... but cultural ones related to play
> (pseudonymity, anonymity), egalitarianism, collaboration, and other
> relational ideals.
>
> Related to Heidi's original questions, the connections between mail art,
> pre-digital networked arts, net art, and more seem evident to me,
> especially when considering the role of alternative arts groups like La
> Mamelle. A whole slew of artists passed through this community of
> practice; and while some stayed within their own, original domains,
> others moved from one medium to the next and experimented in new ways.
> The sum of experiences, I think, contributed to current day
> understandings and experiences of network culture.
>
> Anyway... sounds like an amazing project and I wish you the best with it.
>
> Seeta
>
>
> On 12/19/10 9:44 AM, Radhika Gajjala wrote:
>> Good point Aharon.
>>
>> might be� a good idea to start doing a search for locative media (art)
>> as well... and see how it connects/relates to the notion of networked art
>>
>> Dale Hudson and Patricia Zimmerman have some work about Locative media
>> where they talk about the
>> spatio-temporal reconfiguring that that reflects...
>>
>> Hudson, D., & Zimmermann, P. R. (2009). TAKING THINGS APART: LOCATIVE
>> MEDIA, MIGRATORY ARCHIVES, AND MICROPUBLICS. /Afterimage/, 36(4), 15-19.
>>
>> also - I dont know how many of you are also on the Air-l list proc -
>> but recently there was an exchange about MMORPGS and Virtual worlds and
>> someone fwded a link to a thesis that does an interesting critique
>> that in my reading dislodges the ever continuing binary of virtual and
>> real in the
>> way that we articulate our research projects... (see
>> http://info.tse.fi/julkaisut/vk/Ae11_2009.pdf )
>>
>> r
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 7:02 PM, <aha at aharonic.net
>> <mailto:aha at aharonic.net>> wrote:
>>
>> 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 <mailto: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 <http://distributedcreativity.org>)
>>>>> iDC at mailman.thing.net <mailto: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 <http://Del.icio.us> by
>> adding the tag iDCref
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
>>> (distributedcreativity.org <http://distributedcreativity.org>)
>>> iDC at mailman.thing.net <mailto: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 <http://Del.icio.us> by
>> adding the tag iDCref
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
>> (distributedcreativity.org <http://distributedcreativity.org>)
>> iDC at mailman.thing.net <mailto: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 <http://Del.icio.us> by adding
>> the tag iDCref
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Radhika Gajjala
>> Director, American Culture Studies
>> Professor of Communication Studies and Cultural Studies
>> 101 East Hall
>> Bowling Green State University
>> Bowling Green, OH� 43403
>>
>> http://personal.bgsu.edu/~radhik <http://personal.bgsu.edu/%7Eradhik>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
Simon Biggs
simon at littlepig.org.uk
http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
s.biggs at eca.ac.uk
http://www.elmcip.net/
http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/
More information about the iDC
mailing list