Hi James Points taken.
Thank you. B On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 17:16, James Wallbank <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Bronac, > > I've always believed in the truism "ars longa, vita brevis". You only > really see what an artwork is in time. > > Lev is right that some artworks become hopelessly outdated, or just of > interest as an experiment - a record of a moment. But some are still highly > relevant. > > Now, in 2020, I'm seeing, thanks, in part, to COVID19, propositions like > "TTTP (Technology To the People)" and "Teledildonics" become not simply > provocations, but actual products. The idea that the homeless should accept > payment by contactless credit card machine is "Big Issue" policy. The idea > that you might use devices to have remote sex over the network has become > standard operating procedure for sex workers in lockdown! > > The digital artworks of the '90s were often forward-looking. But, for me, > the ones that still resonate were consciously backward-looking as well, and > often had a kind of wistful, critical quality. At the time I railed against > works that I saw as little more than "product demonstrations". Some of them > (I'll name nobody!) were very high profile, and had spectacular sponsorship > and hype. Those works do now seem laughably dated and irrelevant - but even > so, they may have been interesting experiments at the time. > > All the best, > > James > ===== > On 21/09/2020 16:43, bronac ferran wrote: > > Dear James > > Fascinating, but inevitably some thoughts arise > > I'd already been viewing Lev's cri de coeur as his Hamlet moment, or > better still, his anthropophagic minute: Tupi or not Tupi, as our Brazilian > forefathers warned us. How to breathe life into old stuff? To regurgitate > the swallowed? To unearth the only recently buried? To undigest the > consumed? To tikkik the contemporary back into the retro? > > And why? > > Oh why. The glamour of the nineties. A fin de millennial revival to > distract us from wherever we are now: a reaping of those whirlwinds now > that they have ceased to be gyres. > > Ah-but. Might we then tilt at digital windmills even further? Might > certain long winded ramblings practiced so long on nettime channels find a > place of solace in extensive articles in print about why the nineties > mattered? > > But that is only half the question. > The other bit missing is why Lev told us the truth about the matter? Was > Hamlet mad, or simply grieving? > > B > > -- > Bronaċ > > > On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 16:16, James Wallbank <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello Nettime! >> >> This conversation is simply *too* *interesting*! >> >> I'm a bit busy right now, but just want to register that I have loads of >> responses. >> >> What is "digital art"? Where is the boundary between digital art and art >> that engages with the digital? >> >> The artworks that I and my friends made in the mid 90s, under the banner >> "Redudant Technology Initiative" were always embodied in physical computers >> - they were installations and objects. If you make objects (as I do), you >> know that they change over time. >> >> Sometimes I think that the "prank", the "intervention" or the >> "interactive" that characterises much of how Lev describes digital art >> doesn't quite do this - it's more performative and of the moment. It isn't >> meant to have a presence over time. >> >> I think that the theme of RTI artworks was redemption, the reclamation of >> objects from the universal process of decay. Philip K Dick called this >> "kipplization". The tendency of all things to degenerate into trash. We >> used then ancient computers to make installations, in the knowledge that we >> were already working with the semi-functional, the antiquated, the >> obsolete. We weren't just advocating recycling, and exploring our software >> skills, we were also raging against entropy - the "accelerated decrepitude" >> of the digital age. >> >> That feeling of sadness, or tragedy that Lev identifies was ALWAYS AN >> INTENDED PART OF THE WORK. >> >> Before making those artworks, one of my earliest "digital" installations >> was a complete list of identified computer viruses, painted in clear >> varnish onto 1m x 2m sheets of raw steel. (Eight of them, I think - maybe >> 10!). Visitors to the gallery were invited to spray the steel with >> corrosive liquid (water, salt and vinegar) which made the piece decay, and >> the image appear. (The varnish protected the virus names.) I knew that this >> process of decay was unstoppable. The piece would slowly rust into oblivion. >> >> Similarly, each time we exhibited the "Lowtech Videowall", we resisted >> careful packing and cleaning, so the installation (comprising 36 25-33mHz >> computers, and a powerful 66mHz server!) accumulated dents, scratches and >> grime. We conceded that it was legitimate to clean the screens. >> >> Now here's a thing. I have stored those artworks for the last 20 years. >> They have become even more antiquated. The 486s that were, at the time, >> obsolete, have now become antique. The '80s styling of the cases has become >> fascinating in a way that it wasn't at the time. At the time, the Lowtech >> Video Wall was something of a demonstration of technical prowess. Should I >> show it again, it will be so again. The effort and skill required to revive >> 30-year-old machines will be, if anything, greater than it was to repair >> and reuse them in the first place. Perhaps it's impossible, and entropy has >> already won. >> >> The rusting artwork I mentioned of is still in storage. Whether the list >> of virus names that was first applied to it is still legible, I don't know. >> All was predicted, and all has come to pass. >> >> If anyone ever wants to help me break open the digital pyramid, to exhume >> and reanimate the works for exhibition, I'd love to talk. >> >> Best regards, >> >> James >> ===== >> On 17/09/2020 08:37, Geert Lovink wrote: >> >> URL or not but this is too good, and too important for nettimers, not to >> read and discuss. These very personal and relevant observations come from a >> public Facebook page and have been written by Lev Manovich (who is “feeling >> thoughtful” as the page indicates). >> >> — >> >> >> https://m.facebook.com/668367315/posts/10159683846717316/?extid=fWYl63KjbcA3uqqm&d=n >> >> My anti-digital art manifesto / What do we feel when we look at the >> previous generations of electronic and computer technologies? 1940s TV >> sets, 1960s mainframes, 1980s PCs, 1990s versions of Windows, or 2000s >> mobile phones? I feel "embarrassed. "Awkward." Almost "shameful." "Sad." >> And this is exactly the same feelings I have looking at 99% of digital >> art/computer art / new media art/media art created in previous decades. And >> I will feel the same when looking at the most cutting-edge art done today >> ("AI art," etc.) 5 years from now. >> >> If consumer products have "planned obsolescence," digital art created >> with the "latest" technology has its own "built-in obsolescence." // >> >> These feelings of sadness, disappointment, remorse, and embarrassment >> have been provoked especially this week as I am watching Ars Electronica >> programs every day. I start wondering - did I waste my whole life in the >> wrong field? It is very exciting to be at the "cutting edge", but the price >> you pay is heavy. After 30 years in this field, there are very few artworks >> I can show to my students without feeling embarrassed. While I remember why >> there were so important to us at the moment they were made, their >> low-resolution visuals and broken links can't inspire students. // >> >> The same is often true for the "content" of digital art. It's about >> "issues," "impact of X on Y", "critique of A", "a parody of B", "community >> of C" and so on. // >> >> It's almost never about our real everyday life and our humanity. >> Feelings. Passions. Looking at the world. Looking inside yourself. Falling >> in love. Breaking up. Questioning yourself. Searching for love, meaning, >> less alienated life.// >> >> After I watch Ars Electronica streams, I go to Netflix or switch on the >> TV, and it feels like fresh air. I see very well made films and TV series. >> Perfectly lighted, color graded, art directed. >> >> I see real people, not "ideas" and meaningless sounds of yet another >> "electronic music" performance, or yet another meaningless outputs of a >> neural network invented by brilliant scientists and badly misused by >> "artists." >> >> New media art never deals with human life, and this is why it does not >> enter museums. It's our fault. Don't blame curators or the "art world." >> Digital art is "anti-human art," and this is why it does not stay in >> history. // >> >> P.S. As always, I exaggerated a bit my point to provoke discussion - but >> not that much. This post does reflect my real feelings. Of course, some of >> these issues are complex - but after 30 years in the field, I really do >> wonder what it was all about) >> >> P.P.S. >> >> The mystery of why some technology (and art made with them) has >> obsolescence and others do not - thinking about this for 25 years. We are >> fascinated by 19th-century photographs or 1960s ones. They look beautiful, >> rich, full of emotions, and meanings. But video art from the 1980s-1990s >> looks simply terrible, you want to run away and forget that you ever saw >> this. Why first Apple computers look cool, cute, engaged? But art created >> on them does not? And so on. I still have not solved this question. >> >> Perhaps part of this has to be with the message that goes along with lots >> of tech art from the 1960s to today - and especially today. 19th or >> 20th-century photographs done by professional photographs or good amateurs >> do not come with utopian, pretentious, exaggerated, unrealistic, and >> hypocritical statements, the way lots of "progressive art" does today. Nor >> do their titles announce all latest tech processes used to create these >> photographs. >> >> -------------------- >> Ars Electronica 2020: >> https://ars.electronica.art/keplersgardens/en/ >> <https://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fars.electronica.art%2Fkeplersgardens%2Fen%2F&h=AT2w4OEuuoeVihKs5LjapuFkzEqtX9kuEBqihrvRbLxcuGHrMqRyRMepEAj7BPSSlqJg9BXKo7LkCG_hIaW69JvA5Kxej9OYXAGjkGNmEm3brgToON6XJYp7Et8r5tsIzkFwbrHkPa3zDVfvnsoo2zo5TMf5GxGjT83hCGKqrSbm> >> >> -------------------- >> Video illustration: Japanese robot at Ars Electronica 2010 - >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmabKC1P51A >> <https://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DmmabKC1P51A&h=AT0ZZLvc7X9Tf8ucLLR-DUPF7ioMwdtdLBafjgz2Y_Fq9EBhcL-jiyga7ljPRHx0Quc6zpegRFbBFcgLw7VFffy0xT4s9Y_QZ1lFGsTgU2dNuph12NAxFyRRUwNZ0uai5yQJ3nDDib4h4xcmlL6vHlPXM27bHgOHtAZB67GwKbei> >> >> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission >> # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, >> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets >> # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l >> # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected] >> # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: >> >> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission >> # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, >> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets >> # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l >> # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected] >> # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: > > > > -- > Bronaċ > > > -- Bronaċ
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected] # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
