Alexis Turner
Since 2005
Works in United States of America

BIO
http://redheadedstepchild.org/

I am not an artist.
Discussions (61) Opportunities (0) Events (0) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: net art?


::(and consumption) which also makes these ideological demands. this is not new
stuff and it can hardly be dismissed outright as "crap" outright and without argument. open a book.

No, it's not new, nor is it total crap on a theoretical level - that said it IS
worthless crap on a more practical level. I certainly don't need to open
another book on it, when there are already appoximately 25,000 books on the
particular subject. If we as academics haven't identifed a connection between
these topics thoroughly enough yet, let's stop kidding ourselves and admit we
aren't going to until we take a different tack. On the other hand, if we HAVE
identified your precious connections, we obviously haven't translated that
knowledge into anything productive for society at large - rather, we're still
writing 25,000 MORE books rehashing the same old shit. A little air freshner is
in order.
-Alexis

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: net art?


Okay then. I think the real discussion we are all having boils down to whether
net art as has been practiced is "dead" or still evolving. Personally, I say
neither. I say it hasn't been born yet at all.

The Internet in its current incarnation is broken. It's dying. It's a short
matter of time before it is supplanted by something we don't even begin to
envision right now. So, quite simply, the thing we are calling "net art" right
now will not have a chance to figure out how to work before its vehicle is
completely snatched out from underfoot.

So, for those who want to move on to bigger and better things: bully for you -
that's the right attitude, even though what you discover tomorrow is going to
be looked at as ancient and retarded by the new turks in 2 years. Enjoy
being a turk now. You don't have an inkling where we will be, but you keep
trying, and what else can you do? You might as well wring the life out of the
thing while it is here. Plus, hell, it will put you in a better position to
understand where we end up, and maybe even guide the way just a little.

For those of you getting misty eyed over the lack of rumination in the field,
you are both right and doomed. No art can be worth the pot it's pissed in if
there's nothing "behind" it, and this is exactly why the majority of current
net art sucks, and hard. That said, the Internet as it stands right now is
a tiny, meteoric spark that is gleaming its last gleam. By the time you decide
how to make net art that is worthwhile, it will be too late and you will have to
start over from scratch. That is not to say that reflection is not a worthwhile
goal, but to pine for the days when one could spend 30 years perfecting mastery
of a medium exhibits an inherent lack of understanding of this particular
medium. The very act of creating with it, of making it do beautiful or
interesting things no one has thought of is the very act that causes it to
evolve.

So the issue about capitalism turning us all into consumers thirsting hungrily
for the next big thing is misguided. It isn't about capitalism. It isn't
about handy, tried and true paradigms that we all have in our back pockets
to pull out as the bogeyman/trump card whenever we think a system is flawed.
It's about real people, big researchers and the little basement hobbyists being
intrigued by, pushing, hacking, tinkering, and ultimately being dissatisfied
with an incomplete system. The Internet has a potential that hasn't been
realized, and pushing to make it
better, rather than sitting and mulling over a broken system without fixing it
(because it demands our contemplation), is what people that realize this do.
Not because they have already consumed it and crapped it out, not because
they are bored with it, but because they realize it has an untapped
potential that would be criminal not to try and discover.
-Alexis

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Ryan Griffis wrote:

::Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:58:50 -0500
::From: Ryan Griffis <ryan.griffis@gmail.com>
::To: rhizome rhizome <list@rhizome.org>
::Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: net art?
::
::On Jul 28, 2006, at 5:07 PM, Alexis Turner wrote:
::>
::> On the contrary, I'm suggesting that culture is made up of many, many things
::> and
::> evolves for many, many reasons, not merely the trite and lame argument that
::> we
::> are capitalist whores.
::
::it's equally lame and trite to equate capitalism with economic determinism. i
::don't think Mark ever made such a lazy equation. i also don't think anyone's
::talking about "culture" in some larger, universalizing sense. Of course
::culture is made of many things. You don't have to be Levi-Strauss to state
::that. But one can look for dominant systems within different contexts, and not
::fall into some relativistic paralysis.
::You also don't have to buy classical economic theory (or simplified marxism)
::to use the identifier "capitalism" and attempt a critique of it.
::Good lord, the Frankfurt School established that more than 60 years ago, if
::Marx didn't first. We can write that off as academic hoo-ha, but then we can
::write off anything if it doesn't suit our needs/reaffirm our ideas. i don't
::buy the totality of psychoanalysis, but i also don't think it's all crap
::either.
::Capitalism is a broad ideology, and arguably the one most directing our way of
::life. If you don't think so, i'd like to hear another suggestion. And not just
::another analysis of how economics is REALLY just the expression of other
::psycho-social desires. duh. Maybe the label is losing its usefulness here, but
::that's another discussion.
::i don't know what this is about any more, but i've contributed my worthless,
::non-art-related rant nonetheless :)
::ryan
::+
::-> post: list@rhizome.org
::-> questions: info@rhizome.org
::-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
::-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
::+
::Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
::Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
::

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: net art?


::are you really suggesting that a society's
::visual culture evolves independently from it's political and economic culture?

On the contrary, I'm suggesting that culture is made up of many, many things and
evolves for many, many reasons, not merely the trite and lame argument that we
are capitalist whores. The specific phenomena you mentioned
(the incessant need to move on to newer and cooler things) is the
subject of the article I linked to, and, as such, it would probably be an
interesting read for you, regardless of whether you or I or anyone else believes
that newer and better is a worthwhile goal or an empty one.

So here's that link again for anyone who missed it the first time:
http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/ed-boygenius.html

-Alexis

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, mark cooley wrote:

::Alexis, i realize that i haven't defended my argument adequately, but i
can't see what your rant has to do with addressing anything that i've said.
don't get me wrong i love to rant.
i think that's pretty easy to dispute, but we probably disagree on that
fundemental issue. so there's probably not much to talk about beyond that.
::
::mark
::
::
::Alexis Turner wrote:
::
::> That big, bad, capitalism monster/consuming fuckface. He's just
::> EVERYWHERE,
::> isn't he?
::>
::> Although parts of the following article are total crap, I would be
::> very happy if
::> people on the list would read it so as to at least riff off it and/or
::> think
::> about what it suggests about other angles of society beyond just the
::> fact that
::> we are all walking wallets with mouths, and thus cannot possibly be
::> influenced
::> by anything other than the consumer industry (speaking of which, may I
::> also ask
::> why in the hell one would pursue art, since presumably the need to
::> create
::> something for its own sake rather than ridiculously large monetary
::> gain would
::> never have even OCCURED to anyone if, in fact,
::> capitalism is truly the one sole influence of everything in all of
::> society
::> forever and ever amen?).
::>
::> http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/ed-boygenius.html
::>
::> Thanks,
::> Alexis
::>
::>
::> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, mark cooley wrote:
::>
::> ::Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:41:34 -0700
::> ::From: mark cooley <flawedart@yahoo.com>
::> ::To: list@rhizome.org
::> ::Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: net art?
::> ::
::> ::i also disagree with m river's statement -
::> ::
::> ::> Why? I feel that what you are really looking for, what you really
::> ::> miss finding here, is screen based work that looks like the good
::> ::> old days of net.art. Works that might make your browser jump
::> ::> around and flash on and off. Its been done. Its over. Move on.
::> ::
::> ::the subject of what is dead and what is not - what is cool and what
::> is drool has come up fairly often here. i remember the fairly
::> animated discussion some time ago concerning the supposed "death of
::> net art". what is usually lacking in these bold statements about
::> getting passed the past - going on to new brave new frontiers etc. is
::> the basic question "why"? maybe some things are worth keeping around.
::> How ridiculous it is anyway to talk of abandoning things that are 10
::> years old or less. I think Jim is right, is there no more to be
::> explored with screen based net art - it's been exhausted in that short
::> of time? It must not have had much to offer in the first place. But
::> beyond that, back to the question "why". I think that it needs to be
::> addressed that the rhizome community is part of at least two
::> industries that are interconnected - the culture industry and the
::> technology industry. Both industries are themselves expressions of
::> this thing called capitalism. i think i!
::> t'!
::> :: s worth exploring the desire to constantly "move on" in terms of
::> the consumer society. this fiction that envelops both the culture
::> industry (fine art) and the technology industry says that "new is
::> always better," "innovation always leads to better things." Aren't we
::> just feeding the beast here when we say that we need to move on for no
::> better reason that something has already been done? is nothing worth
::> saying twice? is art is out there to be consumed and thrown away like
::> everything else? this is why i think the discourse around tactical
::> media is so much more constructive than that of fine art - when media
::> tacticians "move on" it is in relation to something - in relation to a
::> social context that means something conceptually. If a tactical media
::> piece works it's because the producers were aware of social context
::> and how their work will operate within it. if your a tactical media
::> practitioner and you start using video news releases, for example,
::> it's not because you!
::> w!
::> :: ant to be the first cutting edge artists to do that - it's bec!
::> :: ause tha
::> ::t's what will work if you want to get on the 6:00 news. there's a
::> goal there that is real. i have little use for all these avant
::> garde-isms that attempt to discredit with silly statements like
::> "that's been done". yeah so? the question is, "did it work, and if
::> so, what did it work to do?" then we can ask, "should we do it again?
::> will it work a second time? Who wants to live in a society where
::> everyone throws away the language and tools of their culture every
::> couple of years?
::> ::
::> ::
::> ::
::> ::
::> ::
::> ::
::> ::Jim Andrews wrote:
::> ::
::> ::>
::> ::> > I disagree with your call to narrow focus Rhizome on net.art
::> ::> >
::> ::> > Why? I feel that what you are really looking for, what you
::> really
::> ::> > miss finding here, is screen based work that looks like the
::> good
::> ::> > old days of net.art. Works that might make your browser jump
::> ::> > around and flash on and off. Its been done. Its over. Move on.
::> ::>
::> ::> I'm not sure you were implying that screen-based net art is over.
::> ::> That's a pretty wide range, actually. So I kind of doubt it. I
::> mean,
::> ::> that includes audio as well as visual. And interactive
::> possibilities.
::> ::> So the information space is wider than video for the net, say,
::> ::> includes video for the net.
::> ::>
::> ::> My own feeling is that monitor-based net art will be around as
::> long as
::> ::> the internet is around, though of course the monitors will change,
::> ::> maybe the mouse/keyboard io will change, the computers themselves
::> will
::> ::> change, browsers will change and maybe something else will replace
::> ::> them, the typical bandwidth will change, and so forth.
::> ::>
::> ::> Also, the social structures of net communication will broaden. But
::> one
::> ::> thing I hope will continue is ease of getting international
::> ::> information. There are exceptions, such as China, where tens of
::> ::> thousands of people are employed to enforce bans on looking abroad
::> ::> into innumerable information sources. And North Korea. But if
::> people
::> ::> can see what's going on elsewhere in the world, they are less
::> likely
::> ::> to tolerate a situation at home that doesn't live up to what
::> people
::> ::> elsewhere in the world have, or where the government is feeding
::> them
::> ::> propaganda.
::> ::>
::> ::> So, in a sense, international net art is a part of an ideal of
::> global
::> ::> communications. And it isn't a cure all, global communications.
::> But it
::> ::> beats a situation where people are treated like mushrooms: keep em
::> in
::> ::> the dark and feed them shit.
::> ::>
::> ::> And part of that ideal is access to work that in some sense
::> transcends
::> ::> not only national boundaries but language boundaries. Art that is
::> for
::> ::> the world. The art of global communications. I hope that is around
::> for
::> ::> a long time. And screen-based net art is an important part of it.
::> ::>
::> ::> Moreover, the artistic possibilities it presents, it seems to me,
::> are
::> ::> a very long way from exhaustion.
::> ::>
::> ::> Rhizome has been a crucial organization in propagating this ideal.
::> I
::> ::> really hope it continues to do so.
::> ::>
::> ::> ja
::> ::> http://vispo.com
::> ::>
::> ::>
::> ::>
::> ::+
::> ::-> post: list@rhizome.org
::> ::-> questions: info@rhizome.org
::> ::-> subscribe/unsubscribe:
::> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
::> ::-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
::> ::+
::> ::Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
::> ::Membership Agreement available online at
::> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
::> ::
::+
::-> post: list@rhizome.org
::-> questions: info@rhizome.org
::-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
::-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
::+
::Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
::Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
::

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: net art?


That big, bad, capitalism monster/consuming fuckface. He's just EVERYWHERE,
isn't he?

Although parts of the following article are total crap, I would be very happy if
people on the list would read it so as to at least riff off it and/or think
about what it suggests about other angles of society beyond just the fact that
we are all walking wallets with mouths, and thus cannot possibly be influenced
by anything other than the consumer industry (speaking of which, may I also ask
why in the hell one would pursue art, since presumably the need to create
something for its own sake rather than ridiculously large monetary gain would
never have even OCCURED to anyone if, in fact,
capitalism is truly the one sole influence of everything in all of society
forever and ever amen?).

http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/ed-boygenius.html

Thanks,
Alexis

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, mark cooley wrote:

::Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:41:34 -0700
::From: mark cooley <flawedart@yahoo.com>
::To: list@rhizome.org
::Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: net art?
::
::i also disagree with m river's statement -
::
::> Why? I feel that what you are really looking for, what you really
::> miss finding here, is screen based work that looks like the good
::> old days of net.art. Works that might make your browser jump
::> around and flash on and off. Its been done. Its over. Move on.
::
::the subject of what is dead and what is not - what is cool and what is drool has come up fairly often here. i remember the fairly animated discussion some time ago concerning the supposed "death of net art". what is usually lacking in these bold statements about getting passed the past - going on to new brave new frontiers etc. is the basic question "why"? maybe some things are worth keeping around. How ridiculous it is anyway to talk of abandoning things that are 10 years old or less. I think Jim is right, is there no more to be explored with screen based net art - it's been exhausted in that short of time? It must not have had much to offer in the first place. But beyond that, back to the question "why". I think that it needs to be addressed that the rhizome community is part of at least two industries that are interconnected - the culture industry and the technology industry. Both industries are themselves expressions of this thing called capitalism. i think i!
t'!
:: s worth exploring the desire to constantly "move on" in terms of the consumer society. this fiction that envelops both the culture industry (fine art) and the technology industry says that "new is always better," "innovation always leads to better things." Aren't we just feeding the beast here when we say that we need to move on for no better reason that something has already been done? is nothing worth saying twice? is art is out there to be consumed and thrown away like everything else? this is why i think the discourse around tactical media is so much more constructive than that of fine art - when media tacticians "move on" it is in relation to something - in relation to a social context that means something conceptually. If a tactical media piece works it's because the producers were aware of social context and how their work will operate within it. if your a tactical media practitioner and you start using video news releases, for example, it's not because you!
w!
:: ant to be the first cutting edge artists to do that - it's bec!
:: ause tha
::t's what will work if you want to get on the 6:00 news. there's a goal there that is real. i have little use for all these avant garde-isms that attempt to discredit with silly statements like "that's been done". yeah so? the question is, "did it work, and if so, what did it work to do?" then we can ask, "should we do it again? will it work a second time? Who wants to live in a society where everyone throws away the language and tools of their culture every couple of years?
::
::
::
::
::
::
::Jim Andrews wrote:
::
::>
::> > I disagree with your call to narrow focus Rhizome on net.art
::> >
::> > Why? I feel that what you are really looking for, what you really
::> > miss finding here, is screen based work that looks like the good
::> > old days of net.art. Works that might make your browser jump
::> > around and flash on and off. Its been done. Its over. Move on.
::>
::> I'm not sure you were implying that screen-based net art is over.
::> That's a pretty wide range, actually. So I kind of doubt it. I mean,
::> that includes audio as well as visual. And interactive possibilities.
::> So the information space is wider than video for the net, say,
::> includes video for the net.
::>
::> My own feeling is that monitor-based net art will be around as long as
::> the internet is around, though of course the monitors will change,
::> maybe the mouse/keyboard io will change, the computers themselves will
::> change, browsers will change and maybe something else will replace
::> them, the typical bandwidth will change, and so forth.
::>
::> Also, the social structures of net communication will broaden. But one
::> thing I hope will continue is ease of getting international
::> information. There are exceptions, such as China, where tens of
::> thousands of people are employed to enforce bans on looking abroad
::> into innumerable information sources. And North Korea. But if people
::> can see what's going on elsewhere in the world, they are less likely
::> to tolerate a situation at home that doesn't live up to what people
::> elsewhere in the world have, or where the government is feeding them
::> propaganda.
::>
::> So, in a sense, international net art is a part of an ideal of global
::> communications. And it isn't a cure all, global communications. But it
::> beats a situation where people are treated like mushrooms: keep em in
::> the dark and feed them shit.
::>
::> And part of that ideal is access to work that in some sense transcends
::> not only national boundaries but language boundaries. Art that is for
::> the world. The art of global communications. I hope that is around for
::> a long time. And screen-based net art is an important part of it.
::>
::> Moreover, the artistic possibilities it presents, it seems to me, are
::> a very long way from exhaustion.
::>
::> Rhizome has been a crucial organization in propagating this ideal. I
::> really hope it continues to do so.
::>
::> ja
::> http://vispo.com
::>
::>
::>
::+
::-> post: list@rhizome.org
::-> questions: info@rhizome.org
::-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
::-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
::+
::Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
::Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
::

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: net art?


Of course it's not dead. To be dead, net.art - art created for the Internet -
would require either the Internet or art to stop happening altogether.

Personally, I'd wager to say it hasn't really happened yet at all. Just some
cute but ineffective stabs at it the way a little baby stabs a piece of chalk at
the sidewalk.
-Alexis

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Steve OR Steven Read wrote:

::Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:09:33 -0700
::From: Steve OR Steven Read <steveread@mindspring.com>
::To: list@rhizome.org
::Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: net art?
::
::It has become fashionable to bring internet/media art ideas into 'real' spaces, integrating with nature or urban areas or galleries or mechanics or such. These fashions come and go like the winds. This has happened with painting too, but luckily painting always 'triumphs' and comes back strong time and time again. Hopefully the same will be true for the fill-in-the-blank flavor of 'new media art' which one personally digs, net.art or otherwise. I don't think net.art is already dead, maybe it just smells a little funny?
::+
::-> post: list@rhizome.org
::-> questions: info@rhizome.org
::-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
::-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
::+
::Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
::Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
::