Cornelia Sollfrank on 21 Feb 2001 15:40:55 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
[Nettime-bold] Re: Re: Re: <nettime> Re: Re: net art history, forward |
the following text by natalie bookchin was written in preparation of a panel discussion which recently took place in kuenstlerhaus bethanien, berlin. i would like to forward it to you as it contains some stronge arguments coming from an artist's (and activist's) perspective, and also suggests a very differenciated view which leads somewhere instead of just looking backwards and complaining. c.s. ----------------------------------------- http://www.bethanien.de/mal/netsplit.html for gerrit golke's preliminary text ----------------------------------------- In preparation for this talk I was sent a series of speculative questions by Gerrit Gohlke proposing issues to be covered on this panel. He suggests that thus far, net art has failed to deliver what it had originally promised. It has not destablized and offered a way out of the traditional art system or provided access to a social reality through the networks. Proposing a "net split" he argues that many of net art's protagonists have either turned away from art and towards political activism or entered a mainstream art world with worn-out strategies, and he ends by suggesting that perhaps the Internet has been overrated as an aesthetic medium. I wanted to begin with this summery because it contains some common assumptions about net art that I would like to call into question. First, I should begin by saying that there is no doubt the net is here to stay and artists are and will continue using it. The question proposed as the topic for the panel can not begin to account for the fact that the net has become an indispensable tool and material for numerous artists. Moreover, as audiences on the net get larger so do the possibilities for artists to tap into them. As activities on the net become more formalized, so do the possibilities for artists to manipulate those same forms. Thus, the more relevant question for me is less whether net art is making enough innovative strides at the moment, or if net art failed, but rather how has the net altered artistic production? I also wonder how useful it is to qualify and limit our understanding of the diverse ways that artists are using now the net by applying the label net art to all these different artistic activities. Such practices include the regular emergence of international collectives and networks of artists developing projects across distances, performative network manipulations (such as this past summer's borderhack project in Tijuana which was as much of an international net performance as it was a live local event), or even the ways in which the net still functions as a cheap and easy method for artists to have direct contact with audiences, regardless of whether they choose to be or are accepted in the traditional art system. It is not uncommon today in some circles to harp back nostalgically to the early days of net art when there was an apparent wave of creativity that has now subsided, those days when a small international group of people named and produced a lot of "net dot art". Where have they all gone? But there is another way to think about this. I think the fact that art production on the net was thrust into the limelight very quickly and for a short period of time had more to do with both very creative manipulation of networks and with a growing awareness of how information could travel over the net, than with a rush of artists' websites sweeping the net. These creative manipulations were used in such a way that propelled a particular group of people into a highly visible place, and this activity was then, quite self consciously labeled net.art. This is not to dismiss early net.art as mere self promotion. Rather I am arguing that the "art" was located less in the individual web sites and more in the fierce collective manipulation of all aspects of the networks: mailing lists, spam, email, websites, links, web rings and mirrored sites: all devices for trespassing into and parasiting networks for alternative ends. This concerted effort created the earliest net art "movement", a first wave of artists who knew how to work the net. As Health Bunting wrote to me in an email in 1997, "i think self promotion is a viable tactic for infiltration in this current art star system. many of my european friends who have not yet suffered advanced capitalism (thatcherism) still have an aversion to these methods." By focusing primarily on network manipulation, these works took on and engaged the materials of the net. Their self referentiality was an important aspect of an art grappling with new materials and a new medium. Artists are of course still manipulating the net, but in the most compelling works, the focus is no longer just on the process itself, nor on artists simply directing attention to themselves. For example, it is not enough just to highjack people to your site, as it was in 1995. (Moreover so called hijacking has since been appropriated by the porn industry. Last year a porn company was sued for "highjacking" unwitting audiences who claimed they were taken to porn sites against their will, and their jobs were put into jeopardy when they were discovered by their bosses viewing this same porn). The question for artists now is what to do with your captive audience once you have their attention. I would like to refer back now to another speculation that I received in the preliminary email about this panel, which suggested that many net artists have moved away from art into political activism. This position assumes that one is either making art or making politics and sets up a great divide between the two spheres. In fact, I think that the net has facilitated just the opposite - that is, an ease in which one can move between different spheres and contexts in the same work, not just referring to, but actually entering into them. It is of little effect for artists to refer to the political only from privileged spaces dedicated to the viewing of art nor the expected social spaces delegated to political activism. The net has made it simple to shuffle between these different areas, permitting artists to show up where they are neither expected nor particularly wanted. As artists have become more adapt at working the material of the net, questions of how to use this manipulation to engage in different levels and subjects have become more critical. Early net artists' investigations into alternative distribution systems are now being put to use by newer art collectives, but the subject is now not distribution itself, but rather a distributed political or social critique. Today there are artists whose creative and subversive uses of the net intentionally rub themselves against the grain not just of the art system but of the larger mainstream in a way that produces a quite visible effect. This work reaches sizable audiences unthinkable before the net, stretching as far and wide as the offices of major political candidates, the Pentagon, the director general of the WTO, and frequently showing up in the channels of mainstream media. One recent example is the project voteauction.com, which used all the conventions of the online auction house to highlight and provoke a corrupt system posing as a democracy, and in turn, created a not insignificant ripple in art, mainstream media and political realms. There is an important legacy of artists who have been concerned not just with the depiction of political content, but with the politics of distribution and display. Since we are in Berlin, I will mention Berlin's own John Heartfield. A proto-net artist of sorts, he made political performance out of the manipulation of his public identity by cutting his name Helmut Herzfeld and pasting a new anglicized one, John Heartfield, in a show of disgust for the nationalist proto-fascist regime under which he was living. Perhaps more relevant to today's conversation were his innovative methods of distribution, whereby he used the new mass media to disseminate his subversive and political photomontages, aiming for and reaching not the galleries and museums, but the streets. Finally I would like turn to a brief discussion of a project I am currently developing, first because it attempts use the methods I have been outlining and second because it is a project that would be unthinkable without the Internet. It first requires a little bit of background information . There are a series of shows and commissions on the subject of genetics currently underway in the States. As part of this initiative, I was invited by a NY public art organization to develop a public art project. Along the way, I made an intermediary piece (with Jin Lee), a power point presentation called Biotaylorism, which addresses how, by combining Taylorist and Fordist methods with biotechnology, organic life is now being internally optimized for better business solutions. The project was included in a traveling exhibit called "Paradise Now, Picturing the Genetic Revolution", in NY this past fall. As it turned out, the show had a range of biotechnology corporate sponsorship, backing an unusually extensive amount of promotion, included full page ads in the NY Times and a panel discussion featuring no artists, but instead biotechnology industry luminaries such as Craig Venter. (CEO of Celera). This show is not unique. As I mentioned, there are currently underway a number of other such well funded shows and grants to artists to produce work in this area. Regardless of the good intentions of the curators, the bill is being partially footed by biotech companies and their PR firms. And in Europe, Ars Electronica has had biotechnology as its theme for the last 2 years. One of its main sponsors is none other than the Swiss biotech giant, Novartis. Although corporate sponsored shows on biotechnology are by now nothing new, (see Yvonne Volkart's essay "Art Strategies of the New World Order, or, What do resistant art works look like?") this new burst of sponsorship for "gene-art" coincides with a major PR campaign begun last year by a consortium of the world's seven top biotechnology companies called "Good Ideas are Growing". The industry saw it as a critical time to push for public acceptance of genetic research and development, particularly in the States. While there had been general complacency on the part of Americans in the past in regards to genetically modified foods and research, the mood was starting to change. The aim was thus to avoid a public relations disaster such as the one that had taken place in Europe over the past few years, where biotechnology was met with fierce public resistance. The campaign consists of so called educational science exhibitions, ads, and the sponsorship of genetics-theme based cultural programs such as art exhibitions, conferences and art commissions. The question was then what do these corporations want from artists, and how can we possibly avoid giving it to them? Corporate sponsors are pretty certain that artists will serving as a comfortable buffer offering the public non-threatening points of entry into these otherwise threatening industries. With artists making biotechnology and genetics the subject of aesthetic contemplation and creative visual representation, what might have seemed disturbing becomes engaging, accessible and easier to accept as our present reality. Colorful and so called "open discussions" on the complex ethical dilemmas are likely to assuage public anxieties, conveying the impression that democratic discussion is taking place. The very question of whether biotechnology or genetics should continue in their present tracks is not even broached. This instead becomes a given - an inevitability. Less aesthetic questions concerning economic interests are generally not discussed. And by keeping these discussions in the safe spaces delegated to art, even the most critical of questions will not threaten the industry. In developing a project, it has been essential for me to think tactically about how to negate the instant neutralization of this highly politicized subject. All the issues discussed above - context, distribution, and form - have been essential considerations. For this reason, I realized that I need to make a project that can function autonomously - and move easily in or outside of the sphere of "art". Second, it is critical to make central to the project the issues of economic and corporate interests and how they shape and define the science. Thirdly because images are always easier to co-opt than action, I will set up a structure that will encourage participants to become both invested in and involved with politicized and socially charged actions. I decided to make an on-line game-called Man-Alife, modeled on a virtual Tamagotchi game, where the virtual pet is a human worker and you, the player, become a manager. You begin the game by selecting traits that you think are most desirable for your worker/pet. Next you must run your pet through a genetic screening test, which although unreliable and costly, will determine whether he or she qualifies for health insurance or is employable, and at what level. The test results of course may affect your pet's happiness, anxiety and energy levels. Knowing the potential risks may motivate you to select appropriate lifestyle choices, should you have enough points to afford to do so. The game takes place in a virtual work place, where you must earn points to feed, replenish and manipulate your pet. Feeding keeps up energy and happiness levels so that your pet can work efficiently and earn more points. Working your pet depletes its energy and food levels and overwork or over supervision can lower efficiency, happiness and health levels. There are numerous options for modifying your pet's body and mood to potentially affect its value, performance and job ranking, but these modifications entail costly and at times risky procedures. Overmodification or an abuse of rejuvenators can lead to inefficiency, job demotion, job or insurance loss, and an untimely death. If you don't have enough money - for example in the case of a pet that has not been given a job or health insurance as a result of the genetic screening test - or if you simply want or need to earn more points, you can leave the workplace and temporarily enter another game environment where you have other options for earning points. There, you can play a "knowledge game" on the subject of work, science, health or reproduction. Or you can venture into the thrills and challenges of real life actions and participate in a variety of on or off line interventions or subversive projects on the subject, thus earning mega-points for your pet. One final word in on the net: the net is the only site where I could realistically develop such a project that could function with ease either as a real game, as an investigation into the interests of corporate biotechnology and genetics industries and as an art project, and that in its different faces could potentially attract a broad and not always prepared audience. Using the format of a game puts players inside the story, implicating them in this political narrative, and the net allows me to subsequently direct these same audiences/players to an extensive database of information and to activities on the subject, and potentially propel them towards various actions -all under the same umbrella. To close, I don't think it is time to either celebrate or bemoan art on the net as simply a new genre in the museums, nor is it time for artists interested in productive critical strategies to close the book (turn off the switch) on net art. ------ see also Jackie Stevens The Industry Behind the Curtain http://rtmark.com/rockwell.html Natalie Jeremijenko , PARADISE NOW/INVEST NOW http://www.cat.nyu.edu/investnow/ Yvonne Volkart, "Art Strategies of the New World Order, or, What do resistant art works look like?" ::::::::::::::"A smart artist makes the machine do the work"::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::: _____________________________:::::::::::net.art generator::::::: :::::::::::::: http://www.obn.org/generator:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Cornelia Sollfrank | Duncan of Jordanstone University | Dundee | Scotland _______________________________________________ Nettime-bold mailing list Nettime-bold@nettime.org http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold