Terrence writes;
I think it is about being recognized for their work in a traditional
institution. There is also the issue of being ligitimized? I think they (��ark
) don't care about that too much. I belive they are mostly into getting higher
profile for their agitprop. Seems ok to me. They make some good points.
Undermining the Idea of getting into the Whitney is funny and they managed to
raise funds for their projects. That's cool.
I agree the webart could remain as it is but think it also a matter of the
webartists "connecting" to the funding that traditional galleries provide. Lets
be fair all should get some chance. They are a new media and there is an
cultural education element to consider when they showcase this new work at
their 'institutional server'.
I don't think they are competing for exhibition space as much as painter's and
installation artists who's larger works can 'suck' wall and storage space.
As a matter of archiving I like the idea that digital art can be erased so
easily. It is a cool clean way to recycle art. This is sacrilige in web art
circles but as a e-mail performace artist what can I (not) say?
Maybe some art is too easy to ignore. I think web art as a kiosk would cause
kids at the video play space to protest an get them confused or angery if they
were in a gallery and there was no curves or deaths to score.
I can see webart as interactive projections in a large space as well someday.
off topic;
Has anyone done Odor art? I am working on some new work that I call Scent's of
Art for the home or gallery. It takes no space at all! Scent rings lightbulbs
and secret art oils. Smell the difference!
http://www.thehungersite.com/
terrence kosick
artnatural takes a deep breath
Sol Nte wrote:
> Thanks Carol for posting this.
>
> I have to say that I don't really understand the point of displaying
> websites on computers in galleries. Yes I think there should be public
> access machines for people to generally browse the web as well as to view
> art sites but when you start putting computers in galleries to do it it
> seems like a waste of the physical space. Artists have enough of a job
> trying to get gallery space to show traditional physical works without
> wasting that space to position a computer just like the one people could use
> in libraries, cybercafes, their own homes in fact anywhere else to view
> exactly the same content. There is altogether too little space available to
> display physical artworks to waste it with computers. The web offers an
> alternative way to display artwork outside of the gallery system, in many
> ways its power is very similar to mail art's negation of the role of the
> gallery in presenting art surely these people at the Whitney realise that.
> Maybe they just want to make sure they don't get accused of ignoring new
> media, who knows?
>
> Also it seems to me that RTMark has done nothing with this other than be
> controversial for its own sake. Why didn't they just exhibit a link to the
> hunger site or something like that. To me it says a lot that only 20 pages
> have been sent in to be displayed via RTMark...that's quite a lack of
> interest! Maybe more people will send stuff but ultimately the whole thing
> seems a fairly pointless exercise compared to the somewhat better things
> that RTMark has done in the past.
>
> cheers,
>
> Sol.
