----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
Yes I agree Christiane, it does depend on how you define ‘finance’…and this is 
perhaps the interesting thing and one reason I thought it would be a great 
place to begin a discussion on ‘now’ and ‘then’ in net.art….
I’m referring more to the idea of ‘financialisation’ as descriptive of 
contemporary capitalism. This goes further than the idea that it is the finance 
sector that both creates both capital (wealth) and crisis in contemporary 
capitalism - this is pretty much standard economic theory. Rather I am thinking 
off the back of theorists such as Christian Marazzi who tie financialisation 
directly to new ‘models’ of production and consumption or ‘the Google Model’. 
To quote Marazzi: 'The creation of networks, or, as they are called in the 
internet world, communities of consumers, who coproduce innovation, 
diversification, and identification with the brand, on the basis of open 
source’ (from the Violence of Financial Capitalism, p. 56).

Marazzi takes this further to suggest that it is  ‘living-labour’ (by which he 
means work covering all forms of life including working as and in leisure, 
sleep time, life administration etc AND all the services required to keep this 
living labour alive such as the health and education industries) that sustains 
the ‘innovation’ necessary for financial capital to deliver value for its 
shareholders. (this is a very reduced version of a complex argument!). 
Financialisation creates value (since it has no other mode of productivity) by 
parasitising on the creativity of living labour (which it also co-produces)

This then places ‘net. art’ in a very precarious and paradoxical position. Many 
of the early ‘nettime’ discussions from around 1997 were about the ways in 
which ‘net.art’ superseded and subverted an art market or ‘art on the net’ (the 
use of the web to promote art by the GLAM sector). Net art cut out middle 
people, bypassed curators, blurred the distinction between artist and 
audience/participant/artwork etc. BUT this is exactly the same mode of 
production Marazzi is talking about as ‘the Google model’….to what extent, 
then, is net art not simply an extension of financialisation (and of course at 
the other end, Nick’s post precisely shows the extent to which living labour is 
required to maintain net art).

So, then, yes… I think eToy is a really interesting example because it  has 
since 1994 pushed this relation of the network to living labour to an extreme 
by, as they say, ‘twisting values’….a very clever ‘corporate’ logo!



Anna Munster
Associate Professor,
Faculty of Art and Design
P.O Box 259
NSW 2021

> On 17 Sep 2016, at 3:13 AM, Christiane Paul, Curatorial 
> <christiane_p...@whitney.org> wrote:
> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
> It depends on how you want to define and delineate network and finance --  
> the ToyWar ultimately was a project very related to finance / the stock 
> market, and eToy of course early on used a revenue model based on shares. 
> GWEI (https://www.paolocirio.net/work/gwei/) and Paolo Cirio's Loophole for 
> all (https://paolocirio.net/work/loophole-for-all/) also are networked 
> finance projects....
> ________________________________________
> From: empyre-boun...@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au 
> [empyre-boun...@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au] on behalf of Stephanie 
> Rothenberg [rothenberg.stepha...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 11:34 AM
> To: soft_skinned_space
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Response to Anna: Nick Knouf, MAICgregator
> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu

empyre forum

Reply via email to