hi pall,
thanks very much for this elaboration. i have one question which
relates to the point about netart 2.0 not being epic, where you say
"A call for work that states that works should be no longer than xx
minutes automatically excludes netart."
i work in cyberformance - live online performance - which pretty much
fits all of the points apart from this one; in fact this week we'll
be sending out a call for performances that will state a time limit ;
) i regard this area of practice as being a part of the bigger field
of netart (as well as other linked/overlapping and sometimes
disparate fields such as networked performance, digital performance,
theatre, etc) but according to this point in your manifesto, it's not
... (maybe it's net art?)
you say that netart 2.0 has the potential to keep going forever &
therefore it has to keep going - but you've also said that it doesn't
have to be interactive just because it can be. so why do you think it
can't or shouldn't stop? there must be heaps of examples of work
(performances for starters, but also many other forms of netart) that
don't keep going "forever", especially those that depend on
technology that becomes obsolete.
h : )
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 <http://flickr.com>flickr.com or all of
the blogs on <http://technorati.com>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>http://www.this.is/pallit
*****************************
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
--
____________________________________________________________
helen varley jamieson: creative catalyst
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.creative-catalyst.com
http://www.avatarbodycollision.org
http://www.upstage.org.nz
http://www.writerfind.com/hjamieson.htm
____________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
