carey young on Thu, 13 Mar 97 05:04 MET |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: nettime: Art on Net |
Net Art is Not Art??? by Carey Young (A response to 'Art on the Net not Net-Art,' by David Garcia) David Garcia raises some useful and interesting issues in his essay, but may be a little too hasty in damning Net art with an 'ideology.' Of course, the Net offers a "tool" for artists, but there is precious little art on the Net which has any sense of the rich context in which it is situated. It is too early to see any sort of artistic 'ideology' appearing, let alone congealing around Net artworks. It seems to me that there is at present a distict lack of art activity which actually exposes and explores the Net's possibilities, rather than employing it as a glorified catalogue, a function which may of course be categorised as useful, but hardly scintillating. Here and there (as I said, they are a rare species) can be found the occasional project which makes an active use of its location on the Net, without losing any engagement with contemporary critical debates which this 'formalist' position might suggest. I am thinking of work which specifically involves and incorporates hypertext, hyperlinks, Web-cams and other Web-specific devices. Not that this is overtly formal work, just work which makes an intelligent commentary on its Web-sitedness, as well as having its own artistic meanings. After all, each Net artwork is constituted from an electronic and analogue fabric, a spatialised hypertextual 'environment,' which will always contextualise the viewer's/users experience of it. To ignore this, when making a Net art piece, could never be defined as 'wrong', of course. It would just mean a lack of possible depth. This is not, however, a call for a move back to the formal values of modernism! I agree with Garcia's point that Net art could, at this early stage in its development, be dragged down with " the theoretical somersaults and tedious technological formalism that accompanied debates about what might or might not be *real* "video art". " But what I feel is missing from this argument is the fact that Net art has a very particular location which, we might say, offers a new location for art experience. Artists working with the Net have a vital role to play, in the sense of offering interventions into the usual experiences, expectations or possibilities afforded by the Net. These are still new experiences for most people, and thus some definition of what 'happens' on or in the Net can be an engaging and meaningful aspect of contemporary Net art (and perhaps its future incarnations: in a medium which develops so fast, who is to say that this condition will diminish?) In this sense, Net artworks which make particular, and perhaps I should say 'conceptual' use of their Net location are not merely bogged down in formalist dogma, but may perhaps be commenting on and engaging with their environment in a way we already understand, primed by more traditional artforms. The most resonant Net artworks thus have a sensitivity to space and to location, albeit its own electronic variety, which is traceable through that grand linear sweep of 'Art History.' While it is not vital to compare Net art with other artforms, since it has its own powerful voice (even if Garcia is perhaps suggesting we do not concentrate on this) it is interesting to do so in order to speculate upon what its possibilities might be. I personally feel that with many of the most interesting sites there are strong links to sculpture (1), to telematic art of the last twenty years, and to land art. The most useful comparison I have found is, however, with installation. Michael Archer, in an recent edition of the British art magazine Art Monthly, states that "there are grounds for saying that installation is the current condition of art... (the term's) widespread use demonstrates... the widespread assumption of a certain spatial sensibility. It is an index of how we might inhabit a space which is always multiple -always spaces - and of how we interact with the bodies and objects, both near and far, around us." (2) Give or take a few word changes, this could be seen to describe Net art works which inhabit the Net in a provocative way. Perhaps Net art as a 'genre' could operate on one level as an index of how we might inhabit and interact with electronic space. And for this to work, I believe Net artworks must first have a strong sense of their own electronic identity. Although some sites do work well as homes for an artist's non-digital work, we are perhaps talking more of a Net art which explores the potential of the medium in terms of of defining and then utilising a language in a sophisticated way. Georgina Starr, for example, as Garcia states, is making compelling video work. But if her work appears "natural," it is surely because she is employing the specific 'language' of the camcorder. It implies a rejection of aesthetics which may be seen as 'traditional' to both video art and to television production, to name but two. A sophisticated strategy, which works so well precisely because it seems so natural. It is like this, too, with the most resonant Net artworks. They often make use of strategies inherent to the Net's fabric, hyperlinks, web-cams etc, and do so effectively because they understand that particular language. Understanding (and perhaps defining) does not necessarily mean a crass and closed statement of technological and technical possibilities. I doubt many people would be interested in sites which do no more than announce their own web-location. Rigor Mortis would soon set in to both brain and modem. Art which 'happens to appear on the net,' as Garcia wants it, is not the only way art should appear on the Net. We can keep the freshness and apparent accessibility of Georgina Starr's work, to continue with this example. It just takes sensitive, and dare I say it, intelligent use of Net 'language' to make work which has the depth to operate illuminatingly in its own space. A sense of the Net's own fabric may perhaps not, in this light, be Garcia's "wrong direction." It may in fact be an essential tool for the artist to deploy: we are talking about effective commnunication, and for that, one must learn the lingo. ----------------------------------------------------------- (1) An interesting and related essay, for example, is 'Sculpture in the Expanded Field,' Rosalind Krauss (in Hal Foster, ed., 'The Anti-Aesthetic,' Bay Press, Seattle 1983.) Krauss' writes on the changes which sculpture, as a genre, has undergone in the transition from pre-modernity through to postmodernity. Her comments on the spatial placement of an artwork (sculpture in this case) in relation to its immediate surroundings can easily be related to Net artworks if they are seen as art 'objects' with a hypertxtual or spatial placement. (2) M. Archer, 'Accomodating Art,' in Art Monthly, Sept 96 c.young@rca.ac.uk -- * distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission * <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism, * collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets * more info: majordomo@is.in-berlin.de and "info nettime" in the msg body * URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner@is.in-berlin.de