[NetBehaviour] darknetart

[ruth catlow]

Useful and provocative stuff Rob, thanks!

Do you have an answer to your own question?
 >Where is the darknetart?

and if you could point to darknetart from here (in the dim light) would 
it still be darknetart?

the thought of an anonymous audience is an intriguing one too.

i think that one of the powerful attractors of the early Internet 
netartists and especially net.artists (apart from the heroic thrills of 
pioneering in 'virgin' territory) was that it provided 1) the means to 
occupy the attentions of unimaginable audiences 2) to insert themselves 
into a new branch of the artistic canon (often while artfully disdaining 
it) 3) performing on and shaping new social spaces.

In the lightnet 1) we are all audiences in a phase of serious attention 
entropy 2) art is almost entirely marketised (thanks for the recent 
exposition by NBers in this 
http://www.furtherfield.org/netbehaviour/worries-about-blacklists 
conversation) and we don't hear much critique of the artistic canon 
these days 3) we can still act on (both perform and shape) networked 
social space but our actions are increasingly restricted by the 
expectations of well trained socialmedia users and threat of 
corporate-sponsored censorship with (recently postponed) SOPA and PIPA 
bills etc.

Art in the shadows is an intriguing proposition.

Let's go!

(but I probably won't 'see' you there)
: )
R



On 09/02/2012 21:05, Rob Myers wrote:
> The Internet is collaps(ing|ed) into the shareholder-value-maximising
> embrace of social networks and of smartphone and tablet Apps, and under
> the cosh of broadcast media necrophiliac international legal treaties
> econ signed in return for a few lunches and directorships.
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Boo-Hoo-Dot-Com-Story/dp/0099418371/
>
> Net art (and, if we must, net.art) was a transformation (in the
> mathematical sense) of the matrix (in the mathematical, philosophical,
> anatomical and cyberpunk senses) of the 1990s Internet.
>
> The contemporary net is being supplanted, or at least supplemented,
> morally and technologically by "darknets"
>
> http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt
>
> such as Freenet
> and GnuNet or cjdns. These are not yet as socially and
> economically central as Facebook and Google are, and they may never be.
> But then nor was the net itself in the 1990s in the moments before
> Theory realised that it had to shut net art the fuck up. The HTML 2.0
> web indicated a potential open future of great technical and moral and
> aesthetic possibility but not with any kind of certainty. As the
> darknets do now.
>
> So the Geocities or IRC or Mailing List art of 2012 should be on the
> inept fumblings towards truth of the P2P and crypto networks. An SNIU:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.#The_majority_opinion
>
> and/or a gentrification:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification
>
> of the kind that artists are always the pilot fish for.
>
> A risk, an uncertain future, but congruent with the aims that led
> artists to embrace (or at least productively dabble in) the
> pre-dot-com-IPO web.
>
> If we take Josephine Bosma's definition of net art as the art of
> internet cultures, where is the Darknet art (darknet.art or darknetart,
> for those of us who want a trademark)?
>
> Where is the darknetart?
>
> - Rob.
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20120211/155e02ac/attachment.htm>