Hi people,I just stumbled across a thread on Netbehaviour from a few weeks ago discussing a brief and perhaps slightly cryptic manifesto I wrote a couple of years ago. In the thread, Marc Garrett ponders whether or not he should ask me to clarify. Well, he didn't but I'm more than happy to do so anyway. First of all, I'm surprised this popped up at all since when I wrote it I announced it once on Rhizome and haven't mentioned it since. I don't even have a link to it on my sight even though it still resides on my server. The manifesto was written in part out of frustration. Frustration with what I felt had become common assumptions regarding networked art that I didn't (and don't) agree with. These assumptions were things I came across in calls for work, theoretical writings on networked art and various other formal and informal descriptions of networked art. So here comes a somewhat more detailed discussion of the manifesto and its parts.
Netart 2.0: A Manifesto of Variable Manifestation Initial draft October 18, 2006 Netart 2.0 is not net.art ++The internet has changed a lot in recent years. Casual Internet users have become content producers as well as content consumers. These shifts in the way the public uses the internet is reflected in more recent netart. Netart 2.0 is dynamic ++Whereas a lot of the older netart was essentially static, i.e. a lot of the Flash and pure html/javascript type stuff, recent developments such as public API's and xml feeds, have made the tracking and usage of recently updated material easier than it was before. Therefore, more recent netart works are much more dynamic than their earlier counterparts. The result is work that doesn't outdate as far as material goes. The content of the work follows popular trends even as those trends evolve. Netart 2.0 cannot function without an active network connection ++Because of what I mentioned in the previous section, it's impossible to download this type of work and run it without a network connection which is something you could do with a lot of the older net.art. You could download the whole site and run it locally. You can't download all of flickr.com or all of the blogs on technorati.com and then run them locally. The work doesn't function at all without a constantly active network connection. A gallery that requests an "emergency" version of work to run locally in case something "goes wrong" with the network connection really misunderstands netart. Netart 2.0 may or may not be interactive ++Direct interactivity is not a requirement in netart. A lot of interesting work has been made over the years that doesn't involve interaction from the viewer. For some reason, some people seem to assume that all netart engages the viewer interactively. Just because it can doesn't mean that it has to. Netart 2.0 may or may not be accessible on-line ++That a work of art is categorized as netart doesn't automatically mean that it can be viewed over the network. It simply means that the work utilizes the network in a persistently active way. Netart 2.0 must appeal to at least one of the human senses ++Netart doesn't have to include video and text and audio, etc. Even if it contains only one of these, it can still be valid netart. Sometimes less is more. Netart 2.0 reflects contemporary culture ++This harks back to "Netart 2.0 is dynamic." Current netart has the ability to reflect contemporary culture even as culture progresses and changes. Netart 2.0 is not epic ++Netart, because it has the potential to continue running "forever", doesn't reach a point of finality. It doesn't start here and end there. It just goes on and on. A call for work that states that works should be no longer than xx minutes automatically excludes netart. Netart 2.0 is not science ++Netart projects are art projects, not science projects. I personally don't think a project can really "work" as both science and art. The goals are very different. Yet we hear various different mixtures of the terms blurring, boundaries, art and science. Also, there are many who assume that any computer-based art is due to collaborations between scientists and artists. This is not necessarily the case and in my personal view, computer-based art created by artists alone is much more compelling than that which is created in collaboration with people from the computing sciences. Netart 2.0 is historically grounded ++Netart is something new (yes, compared to painting, sculpture, etc. it's still new). But it's not without precedence. It is a logical contemporary shift in the arts that follows from closely related history that doesn't necessarily involve computers or technology. Netart 2.0 cannot function without electricity ++Hmmm.... I don't remember why I put this in there but netart obviously cannot function without electricity. Netart 2.0 is automated ++Touching again on the idea of art that follows contemporary culture, painters and sculptors can of course allow their work to follow contemporary culture but netart can do it automatically. Without intervention. Netart 2.0 is not virtual ++"Virtual art" is terrible term. Art is never virtual. It either is or it isn't. Netart 2.0 is not dependent upon The World Wide Web ++Their are hundreds of ways in which you can connect to the Internet and the WWW is just one. Netart can use any of these methods. I hope that explains at least some of the issues. If not, I'm happy to discuss them. But keep in mind that the good thing about a manifesto is that it is not a logical, philosophical or theoretical argument. It's a personal interpretation. So there is no such thing as wrong or right here, but if anyone disagrees with any of these points I'd like to here what those disagreements are and why.a best r. Pall Thayer -- ***************************** Pall Thayer artist http://www.this.is/pallit *****************************
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
