Heidi;
Can you give the bibliography of your references?
Thanks.
Joel
----- Original Message -----
From: Heidi May
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 2:48 PM
Subject: [NetBehaviour] defining "network/ed" in art
Hi there,
I'm new to this list and have yet to have a chance to diligently search
through the archives to see what has already been discussed about my
inquiry....however, I will very much appreciate any and all thoughts you might
have on my questions.
The main question is quite simple, but as you will see I have been delving
into philosophy and art history to get to a better understanding of the meaning
of "network" in art: What is network and/or networked art?
For the past several months I have been thinking deeply about this. I spent
the summer working on comprehensive exam papers for my current PhD program, in
which I defined for myself a definition of networked art that I felt was
perhaps a challenge to the mainstream notion of “network”. Without getting too
much into the literature I based this on (ie. Jean-Luc Nancy), I argued that by
using the word network, the Internet itself is predominant over any other
associations we might have (see Sack, 2007 on “network aesthetics”) and that if
artist educators focus more on what emerges within the relations and processes
of a network, such as with Internet art, then we can perhaps gain new
understandings of network culture that reflect more the sociocultural aspects
as opposed to just the technological aspects. I refer to Fluxus practices, most
specifically mail art, and the ideas explored by George Maciunas and Robert
Filliou, connecting this to later relational art and participatory art
practices. My interests pertain to aspects of what I am calling “relational
learning,” thus I see these networked forms of art to be significant...yet not
just in terms of individuals collaborating, but most importantly on the
emergent knowledge that occurs in these processes.
Within my recent writing, I suggest that we need to expand our understanding
of networked art in order to obtain new understandings of network culture. I
have been defining “networked art” as the following:
“...practices not based on art objects, nor digital instruments, but on the
relationships and processes that occur between individuals (Bazzichelli, 2008;
Kimbell, 2006; Saper, 2001)....Networked art, sometimes described as
participation art (Frieling, Pellico, & Zimbardo, 2008), consists of multiple
connections made through generative processes, often, but not always,
incorporating digital technology. In many cases, the production and
dissemination processes become the artwork itself.”
“....New understandings of network culture may require us to understand that
technology enables social and economic activities, as opposed to something that
determines society (Castells, 2001). This research will examine how art
addresses aspects of network culture, in terms of it being a sociocultural
shift that is not limited to digital technology (Varnelis, 2008)...By employing
a broader understanding of the notion of network within analysis of networked
art, this research aims to provide deeper understandings of network culture...”
But after sitting with these ideas for awhile now and being confronted with
needing to write a research proposal, I’m in the doubting phase that I think
all graduate students go through. Is it really possible to use the term
“networked art” in the way I would like to without it immediately conjuring up
digital practices alone? (even though I acknowledge this in my argument) Am I
just confusing things by saying that I am indeed interested in Internet art
practices but only for the aspects I have defined above, and particularly in
cases of artists who are interdisciplinary vs. strictly “digital”? Do people
think about the differences between “network art” and networked art” the same
way they might have distinguished between “net art” and “net.art”? In my
writing, I opted to go with “networked” over “network” because there is more
emphasis on being within a process (verb. vs. noun), but now I’m starting to
regret that, thinking that “networked” might clearly imply dependence on an
electronic system whereas a “network” might allow for more human connection.
(For those who are familiar....I am a bit torn between Craig Saper’s (2001) use
of the term “networked art” and Tom Corby’s (2006) use of the term “network
art”)
To make matters somewhat worse, I've been told by someone I respect in this
area that the notion of "network" is not heavily dependent on "internet,"
considering the long history of network associations before the internet. But
this is someone who is quite knowledgeable of network notions in academia and
English literature, and I question if those outside of academia feel the same
way today. Speaking as an artist who teaching art at universities and college,
I feel that "networked art" is immediately associated with digital and new
media.
Thoughts? Opinions?
thanks,
Heidi May
..................
HEIDI MAY
http://heidimay.ca
http://postself.wordpress.com
http://heidimay.wordpress.com
Instructor, Emily Carr University of Art + Design.
http://www.ecuad.ca/people/profile/14163
PhD student, University of British Columbia. http://edcp.educ.ubc.ca/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
