[NetBehaviour] NetBehaviour Digest, Vol 150, Issue 4

Bootymachine bootymachine at bootymachine.net
Sun Apr 6 21:33:39 CEST 2008


Thanks for the answer, very interesting indeed. I do agree at most  
times and definitely shall think a bit more about your words. I find  
it to be very constructive sharing thoughts on net art in an open  
space like this one, very constructive and motivating.
Cheers
Z

Bootymachine www.bootymachine.net
experimental groove experiment
bootymachine at bootymachine.net



On 3 avr. 08, at 13:00, netbehaviour-request at netbehaviour.org wrote:

> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 11:55:48 +0000
> From: "Pall Thayer" <pallthay at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Netart 2.0 is not net.art
> To: "NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity"
> 	<netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<e3a34e0e0804020455m52106130hf0cf9de1695c3ca5 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi Z,
> Thanks for the interesting comments. I'd like to  point out again  
> that a
> manifesto is not by any means a formal, logical philosphical  
> argument. It is
> a personal declaration of opinions and/or intentions. By saying this  
> I'm not
> trying to stave off any discourse but merely pointing out that this  
> is not
> intended to describe or define a collective body of work other than  
> my own.
> However I do welcome any and all comments and am truly interested in  
> hearing
> how these ideas fit into (or don't fit into) other artists' practice.
>
> Netart 2.0 is not net.art
>>
>> Do you mean net art? web art? internet art? When I read the following
>> text, I get the feeling you understand the creative net started  
>> with the
>> web. There have been works done before (e.g. using news groups and
>> FirstClass communities), and these well before 1991 and I feel the
>> distinction is necessary for the coherence of a manifesto that  
>> would speak
>> to novice but also old-timers. The web's just the tip of the  
>> history of
>> online art and I am not sure I understand well what you are  
>> focusing on.
>> When you speak about casual internet users, I believe you mean web,  
>> and
>> mass-media-like consumers. But then again you state in a further  
>> point that:
>> 'Netart 2.0 is not dependent upon The World Wide Web'. I'm a bit  
>> stuck there
>> in the comprehension of your text.
>>
>
> Here I am referring to net.art (net-dot-art) as the work of a very  
> specific
> group of artists in the early to mid 90's that coined the term as  
> their own.
> I don't recall who they all were but the ones I remember were Vuc  
> Cosic, Lev
> Manovich (I think), Olia Lialina and Alexei Shulgin. It's not a  
> negative
> comment on their work but merely a reminder that Internet based art  
> hasn't
> stayed grounded within the early work of these individuals. It has
> progressed to a degree that warrants re-consideration on its own  
> merits. I'm
> not by any means denying the significance of this earlier work, just
> pointing out that Internet-based art has evolved.
>
>
>>
>> Netart 2.0 is dynamic
>>
>> By that I understand you mean the content is dynamically generated
>> acording to both the human and the machine context, giving life to a
>> creative avatar. Again, it seems essential to me that if you're  
>> speaking of
>> the web, since the early years net art was dynamic. In fact it was  
>> already
>> before the web, thought there weren't as many viewers-consumers to  
>> check it
>> out and the communities where more focused and less generalist. It  
>> is true
>> the trend is towards more than an simple html web page collection  
>> including
>> hyperlinks, but this doesn't seem enough to define a second  
>> generation of
>> net art, or at least not like that.
>>
>
> I'm not limiting my statements to the Web. The Internet is much more  
> than
> the web. Try this for instance; If you're using Mac OS X, open the  
> terminal
> application, type: telnet anmo.iu.liss.org 4000 then hit return.  
> After a
> short while the window will begin displaying a bunch of nonsense. What
> you're seeing is live seismic data (in binary form) being  
> transmitted over
> the Internet. This transmission has nothing to do with the web. Here's
> another thing to try that will make a bit more sense. In a terminal  
> window
> type: telnet towel.blinkenlights.nl and hit return. Again, this has  
> nothing
> to do with the Web but is being streamed over the Internet.
>
> Regarding the "dynamic". Not too many years ago, work that was built  
> around
> the artist creating a number of static HTML pages and linking them  
> together
> internally, was considered Netart. That can be said to be dynamic in  
> a sense
> as it is action-based but eventually you will find yourself in an  
> unchanging
> loop. Today, with the general public constantly pouring new content  
> into the
> Internet and the linking of measuring and recording equipment to the
> Internet (as in the seismic data sample above) the work can be much  
> more
> dynamic with the action being mixed with live, real-time data in a  
> way that
> the work constantly evolves into something else, never repeating  
> itself.
>
>
>>
>> Netart 2.0 cannot function without an active network connection
>>
>> I don't understand how you can talk about net art without the net.  
>> You may
>> have a representation of net art that is disconnected but it will  
>> just be
>> that, a passive representation of net art and not net art. I  
>> believe you
>> might misunderstand net art 1.0 as software art or multimedia.
>>
>
> A lot of work has been produced that gives the appearance of being
> dynamically linked to the Internet but isn't really. I'm referring for
> instance to Flash movies and websites that could essentially be  
> downloaded
> in their entirety and run locally with no Internet connection at  
> all. I gave
> a talk once at the art academy here in Iceland where I explained  
> this by
> giving a few examples. For instance, I located a Flash movie in
> Rhizome.org's artbase that was labeled as Netart, ran it once while
> connected to the Internet, then downloaded it to my computer,  
> unplugged the
> ethernet cord and ran the Flash movie again. It ran just as well as  
> when I
> was connected. There is a lot of other work that will stop  
> functioning as
> soon as you disconnect from the Internet. I'm saying that that is  
> Netart
> 2.0, the other work essentially just uses the Internet for  
> distribution.
>
>
>>
>> Netart 2.0 may or may not be interactive
>>
>> In my understanding net art requires a network to be, therefore an
>> interaction between at least two entities (human or machine). I  
>> believe the
>> term 'viewer' needs a better definition for your manifesto. Also,on  
>> the
>> internet there is required interaction as it is a fundamental of  
>> even the
>> earliest web pages (hypertext). Interactivity is what generated net  
>> art.
>>
>
> OK, let's refer then to the "viewer" as "the person experiencing the  
> work."
> That person does not need to interact with the work. The work can be
> interacting internally with data accessible over the network. And  
> again, you
> refer here to "web pages" whereas the Internet is far more extensive  
> than
> that. Yes, the work is interactive in the sense that it is  
> interacting with
> network but more often than naught, when people use the term  
> "interactive"
> they are referring to the ability of those experiencing the work to
> influence it through interactivity. It's part of the experience as  
> well as
> the production. I'm essentially saying that it can be part of the  
> production
> without being part of the experience.
>
>
>>
>> Netart 2.0 may or may not be accessible on-line
>>
>> Do you mean there can be an offline network for net art to exist?  
>> And does
>> the real-world correspond to this new environment for net art 2.0?  
>> (I have a
>> small definition of web 3.0 as 'the biological, digital analog web  
>> where
>> information is made of a plethora of digital values coalesced for  
>> sense and
>> linked to the real-world by analog interfaces' on
>> http://www.zzz.ch/bootymachine/web3.0/  , maybe it can relate to  
>> this, I'd
>> be happy to get your feedback).
>>
>
> What I mean here is that the result of the work, what the public
> experiences, doesn't have to be experienced over the Internet, i.e.  
> on a
> webpage. It can be a gallery installation consisting of a computer or
> computers connected to the Internet, extracting data to produce the  
> work.
> There is a common assumption that all Netart can be experienced from  
> the
> solitude and comfort of one's home. This is not always the case. A  
> lot of
> the work of Jonah Brucker-Cohen is a good example of this.
>
> In a way, you could say that this touches on your discussion about the
> evolution of the web. I think you're right in that we will be  
> experiencing
> more of the Internet in our "biological" surroundings especially  
> with the
> growing ubiquity of wireless connections and small, simple devices  
> that are
> capable of using them. I heard about a group recently that built a
> wifi-enabled webserver that they called "The Fly" because it wasn't  
> much
> larger than a fly.
>
>
>>
>> Netart 2.0 is not science
>>
>> Here, I don't understand why and how you can exclude the science in  
>> net
>> art (or online art). Basically working with media protocols to put  
>> the work
>> online already induces a bias in the work that just doesn't make it
>> artist-only-created. All who creates using these tools know what the
>> limitations inherent to protocols can do to the creative process,  
>> and to me
>> it is part science not to be random noise (even if it is beautiful  
>> noise).
>> My personal view is that you can simply not say that of any net  
>> art, as
>> there is automatically some part of science in the use of language.
>>
>
> Based on what you say here then painting is science as well, as is  
> pottery
> and a variety of other forms of artistic creation. The way I see it,  
> the
> ultimate goal of science is to provide answers that are as  
> infallible as
> possible. Art does just the opposite. If it attempts to answer  
> anything at
> all, it usually does so in a much more suggestive manner. More often  
> though,
> it suggests questions. I think that artists tend to work in a much  
> more
> chaotic and fluid manner than scientists. Scientists are methodical,
> cataloging everything that happens along the way. Perhaps some  
> artists do
> this as well but for me, science has no more to do with the way I  
> create my
> art than what it has to do with i.e. painting. The sciences provide  
> the
> materials but that's where the relationship ends. One of the reasons I
> pointed out the seismic data above is that I'm currently creating a  
> piece
> that uses live, real-time seismic data obtained over the Internet.  
> It really
> doesn't matter to me what the numbers I receive mean. My handling of  
> them
> within the framework is entirely qualitative. What matters to me is  
> how they
> affect the resulting visuals. Yes, an actual earthquake will produce  
> the
> most dramatic results in the work but what that means as far as the  
> tectonic
> plates go, doesn't matter to me at all. So I'm using scientific  
> readings in
> a very non-scientific way and I can do that because my artwork is not
> science.
>
>
>>
>> Finally, I just want to say I really don't see much in your  
>> manifesto that
>> defines 'newness' from what net art is (I mean v1.0). Most of what  
>> you state
>> was already there since a long time, but it is true most casual- 
>> viewers'
>> online experience dates only from a few years at max. Maybe there  
>> should
>> first be a manifesto to better define net art 1.0 ?
>>
>
> You are correct. These points I mention have been around for a long  
> time
> now. But until now I don't know of anyone who has specifically  
> discussed
> these points in this manner in an attempt to define their work and  
> that's
> why I wrote it.
>
> best r.
> Pall

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20080406/79d796df/attachment.htm>


More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list