[NetBehaviour] Distant, a new Net Art work by Marc Garrett.

[marc garrett]

Hi Rich & all,

Sorry for not responding to your post sooner. I did have some text ready 
a couple of days ago, but accidentally pasted over the original text 
with something else - ooops.

I am going to respond to some of your points in separate emails so that 
the answers are not too long.

I have had a lot of response publicly to the text that I originally 
wrote which went with the mail-out for the new Net Art piece, Distant. 
Although there were some very interesting mails sent to me personally, 
from those who have in the 'past and still do' practice Net Art 
themselves now. Who found the statement relevant in saying something 
that has not been dealt with until now. There were also curators, 
academics who responded as well...

 >you raise some good questions.
 >you may or may not have noticed that i've made a bit of a move away from
 >net art in  the last couple of years - but it doesn't mean that i
 >haven't been thinking about net art. i think i've been asking myself the
 >same questions, and i've been a bit blind-sided by the whole 'net art is
 >dead' thing. it seems unfair to declare something dead when it clearly
 >has scope for development, growth and further exploration. net art
 >relies on technology (hardware, software, networks, screens, projectors,
 >gadgets, satellites, bits of wire, etc... etc...) in order to exist.

Yes Rich - I have noticed the change in direction regarding your 
creation of Net Art. I myself have only got back into making Net Art, as 
in my own work more recently. Having said this, I have been involved in 
various collaborative Net Art and Media Art related projects which I 
have enjoyed doing immensely, and will carry on being part of. I think 
that now is the perfect time for those who felt suffocated by the noise 
of others over one's own practice to reclaim it once again. I also think 
that there will be troubles on the way from those who do not wish for 
their history to be superseded by a more contemporary form of Net Art as 
it regains popularity.

Helen said, as far as she was concerned that she did not think that Net 
Art was dead. And I know this is what many others feel in respect of 
them making still making the work themselves as artists. Yet, there are 
those out there who are making cultural and creative capital out of the 
notion of it being dead, because it serves them well that it is put in a 
historical context, which is more manageable and easier to control for 
their own agendas. My argument, is that we know that it is not dead but 
we need to claim it now before it is dead, and re-engage the sharing of 
its overall identity together, so to bring about a more contemporary 
presence of Net Art, so that it becomes our medium once again.

 >i started to drift away from net art because i felt that it seemed to be
 >getting gradually more concerned with the technological side - few works
 >actually engaged me above the level of 'oh, that's clever' and i also
 >witnessed a lot of technology snobbery; people snubbing other's work
 >because they didn't use the 'right' software etc...

I feel that there is a subtle shift when thinking about how important 
the art is, on par to the technology made in the creation of Net Art. 
Perhaps, Net Artists need to be clearer themselves in approaching their 
work in a way which is less promoting how amazing the technology is, and 
more (possibly) about making works that offer deeper questions or a 
greater sense of wonder, or something equally poignant.

 From my own perspective, I think that using non propriety software is 
an essential escape from being caught up in a 'creative industry led' 
framework. By questioning one's own use of what software and how one 
crafts their work, in an Net Art context is actually part of the 
palette. Although, I am much more interested in how people make it in 
respect of their palette-like limitations. Meaning that just like the 
Dogma film-makers felt that the use of technology by film-makers became 
complacent and lazy, due to reliance on how whizz-bang the technology 
was, instead of the how interesting the content was. So I am asking for 
an art that is less bourgeois in its attitude and approach.  

This does not mean political, it more means getting back to the craft as 
much as the the content of what we are all dealing with.

Will chat about this more soon, thanks :-)

marc

hey marc

you raise some good questions.
you may or may not have noticed that i've made a bit of a move away from
net art in  the last couple of years - but it doesn't mean that i
haven't been thinking about net art. i think i've been asking myself the
same questions, and i've been a bit blind-sided by the whole 'net art is
dead' thing. it seems unfair to declare something dead when it clearly
has scope for development, growth and further exploration. net art
relies on technology (hardware, software, networks, screens, projectors,
gadgets, satellites, bits of wire, etc... etc...) in order to exist. net
art relies on technology to deliver it to the audience. technology -
"the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area"
- is a developing field - computers get faster and smaller. access to
the internet becomes more widespread and mobile. new software is being
developed all the time - both by major companies and individuals.
what i'm trying to say is - there's a lot of scope for development; for
new, more interesting, engaging works, as long as at the core of the
work there is still (as you write with a capital 'A') Art.
i started to drift away from net art because i felt that it seemed to be
getting gradually more concerned with the technological side - few works
actually engaged me above the level of 'oh, that's clever' and i also
witnessed a lot of technology snobbery; people snubbing other's work
because they didn't use the 'right' software etc...
what matters is the Art. i don't care if a piece of work uses the latest
'thing', only that it's the right 'thing' for the purpose.
i like your idea of starting afresh - re-evaluating what you do and why
you do it. i've been thinking a lot about making more net works but feel
i don't want to do it just for the sake of it. i'm a big believer in the
work dictating what media to use, rather than deciding that i'm going to
be a net artist and trying to force ideas that might be best expressed
as photographs or installation into a net-shaped hole.
i have taken a lot from my net/digital practice into my recent
installation works though: i use autoCAD and 3d rendering to draw models
and experiment with spaces, and use my website to show ideas and
experiments in progress and get feedback. the installation works
themselves are in some sense open source. the materials i use to build
with are reclaimed, found and/or left over from previous exhibitions by
other artists (a process i often used in net artworks - using bits of
code etc... found online). afterwards the materials are returned to
where they were found or recycled - to be used again either by other
artists or by industry.
the net.weight project (which is slowly growing) is my attempt to
reconcile the net and installation strands of my practice - to find
crossovers of thinking between the two.

looking forward to seeing what you and ruth get up to in banff

best

rich

http://www.counterwork.co.uk
http://www.counterwork.co.uk/net.weight


marc garrett wrote:
 > > Distant, a new Net Art work by Marc Garrett.
 > >
 > >
 > > Distant:
 > > http://www.furtherfield.org/mgarrett/distant/
 > >
 > > Statement about why I am Making Net Art Once More:
 > >
 > > I have been going through some changes regarding what type of 
personal,
 > > individual artwork that I wish to explore these days. Even though I am
 > > involved in various high-tech projects which are mainly 
collaborations,
 > > that are related to larger projects. I wish to return to making Net 
Art,
 > > reconnect to what has always been my favourite form of creativity and
 > > expression.
 > >
 > > The reasons that I have decided to do this is, because I feel that 
it is
 > > time for me to re-explore what Net Art can really be now, as part 
of my
 > > varied practice. Times have changed, Net Art is dead as far as many
 > > others have been concerned, who originally made useful careers in
 > > writing about it and becoming 'heroic' artists from it. I intend to
 > > rebuild my own practice on an Art that was killed by its own culture.
 > > Those who loved it also decided to kill it even though other Net 
Artists
 > > around at that time were still making it, less considered in regard to
 > > the repercussions of what it meant to them and culture as a whole. For
 > > me, history is really not enough to define a creative culture as
 > > magnificent and dynamic as Net Art. It may be fine for those who were
 > > represented at that time, but surely there are even moments of 
doubt, a
 > > lingering spectre that says that it all went wrong. I feel that those
 > > few who were selected to be part of the (ironic) 'Heroic Period', have
 > > limited their own expansion. I know that many who have made Net Art in
 > > the past do not wish to be left behind, lost in the history books, as
 > > ghosts and may find this interesting themselves, as well as a budding
 > > contemporary generation of new Net Artists.
 > >
 > >
 > > Rather than be part of a past mythology, I wish to be part of current
 > > reality. I am of course very aware of the contemporary technologies 
that
 > > control the Internet via corporate means, and how the rabid thirst of
 > > those who wish to be technologically determined, by this mannerist
 > > behaviour, are more interested in being led by others who are not
 > > interested in Art, and rather are more interested in being in 
positions
 > > of power over Media Art culture, via creative industry imposed
 > > protocols. To me, on the whole it says more about spectacle and how
 > > money is dictating people's intentions and causing diversions from
 > > seeing what is of value culturally. As far as I am concerned, it is 
more
 > > important to make Art.
 > >
 > > Perhaps Net Art was destined to die, may be it had to die so that 
others
 > > could explore their own perceptions, reasons and creative voices 
without
 > > the pressure of having to conform to dictates that proposed ideas 
which
 > > in reality meant nothing to many Net Artists out there, other than to
 > > those who instigated such power-related gestures in the first place.
 > >
 > > So, even though I am not expecting any great come back of a new Net 
Art
 > > consciousness from my own future ventures in reclaiming a practice 
that
 > > I believe was killed before its time, mistakenly. I am asking those 
who
 > > had decided to moved away from making Net Art (some of course moved on
 > > naturally) to respect my decision in embarking in something that 
was and
 > > is still an expression that I feel offers the world, contemporary
 > > experiences and ideas, that are still unique which can be given a 
second
 > > chance by actively and consciously engaging in the now.  
 > >
 > >
 > > For me, because there is no longer the hype about a new Internet and
 > > because it is a time of trouble in respect of economy depressions 
around
 > > the world, as well as many people only exploring technology for the 
sake
 > > of it, and because we need to be more ecological in our practices. We
 > > also need to come to terms in re-evaluating why we are doing what 
we do
 > > now, and how can we reclaim our creative histories and voices in a way
 > > that has more meaning, rather than through processes of mechanistic 
and
 > > personality driven motives alone. I want to build something that does
 > > not just reflect me being a slave to technology, corporate control and
 > > traditional Art world agendas. The Art will have its own voice on its
 > > own terms
 > >
 > > The latest work 'Distant' is not trying to be clever via the 
technology,
 > > it is Art. An object, a contemporary piece that is well aware that 
it is
 > > no longer in fashion. Therefore, it is authentic.
 > >
 > > marc garrett
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > > Other Related News:
 > > On the 29th of this month, Ruth Catlow and myself are going on an
 > > artists residency at Banff, Canada. Through the whole of the month
 > > during March, we will both be collaborating to make new Net Art
 > > together. It will include open source and it will involve much coding.
 > > As we explore the possibilities of using contemporary resources 
that can
 > > be used for our Net Art practice, we will set up a portal or blog that
 > > displays our research as it happens. As well as the Art that we both
 > > create.
 > >
 > > We are, of course interested to hear from those who are also 
re-engaging
 > > in the making of Net Art, using free software, free media, open source
 > > materials as well as their own ideas about it. It is an exciting time
 > > for us, what is there to lose but gaining the pleasure of doing 
what we
 > > really want to do:-)
 > >
 > >
 > > _______________________________________________
 > > NetBehaviour mailing list
 > > NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
 > > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
 > >
 > >
 > >   

-- _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing 
list NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org 
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour