> Imagine Rule #5 of the Six Rules Towards A New Internet Art.
>
>
http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?3236Eryk strikes again. Personally, being of the anarchist pursuasion, I don't
hold much with rules.
Anyway, these rules are little more than a desire to
a)see the work in isolation:
2. No introduction pages - never apologise, never explain
6. The work stands alone - no CVs, the artist ceases to exist
and b) impose formal constraints on work:
1. No Flash - its too common
3. No more art for the sake of error - its too common
4. Images must be unique to the sitemaker - you will knit your own images
5. Technology is not a subject. The internet is not a subject - these
subjects are simply irrelevant, my dears
If we conform to these 'rules', we get to be 'New Net Art'. Well, of course
everyone is completely free to invent their own movements, groupings,
heresies, parties and sects. But is it art, and more to the point, is it any
good, new, net, art or whatever.
To strip Eryk down to the essense (with apologies for the editing):
Boundaries ... inspired ... "heroic" early net.art
... a homoginization of net.art ... A design aesthetic prevails ... with no
message or point or content.
... we seem mired in ... the trappings of tradition
The new net.art will not appeal to [unbelievers]
... frustration at ... work on the internet ... has started to bore me
... means of provocation to thought
... other artists ... are ... falling into ... traps;
the work I list below is ... merely rampant;
Eryk's posting raises these issues for me:
Surely in all areas of art, most is unimaginative and derivative. Visibly
successful artists will 'inspire' countless copycats. Art becomes what art
is seen to be. It is incredibly hard to break out of this vicious circle.
Why do you think that your list will lead to the production of any art at
all, let alone great art?
Why are you driven to a public declaration of your dissatisfaction with the
state of (digtally based) art? Is this a professional view, or a personal
view? Does it bug you as an art consuming member of the public that there
just isn't enough art about these days (goddam it, when I was a lad ...) or
as an artist who needs to absorb x amount of art a week to survive (just
need to find one more show before friday)?
I find Eryk's rules a bit negative to do any good. Don't do this, don't do
that, don't use this, don't use that. Actually the only positive rule is
'you must use your own images' (which could also be construed as a negative
rule - don't use other people's images). But how radical is this? I mean,
it's Warhol and Duchamp v. every art school ever ...
My view would be that a huge amount of work needs to be produced in order
for the good stuff to emerge. It seems that one of the wonders of the global
art scene is that there is so much going on, so much work towards the
production of art. In this sea swim all art producers, all existing
somewhere in the food chain. This is not a bad thing, it is the driver of
art. Can you imagine a world in which only 'good' art is produced?
I think that one thing
Art-Which-Originates-To-Some-Degree-From-The-Digital-Realm needs is to align
itself more with the long existing and structured non-digital art world. One
of the problems with AWOTSDFTDR is that the tools and the routines are so
seductive, so replete with possibility. The distribution mechanism is so
open, so grateful. The colours are dead sexy. Flash is flashy. Viruses are
nom de la jour. Whatever it might seem from inside Rhizome, almost the
entire world doesn't have a clue how this is all done (and nor do I, come to
that).
Maybe what Eryk is saying is 'Look guys, we're about to be rumbled that we
are in love with our tools but have not managed to rise above them.'
Here's my stab at some rules of thumb for artists who happen to find
themselves working in the digital zone:
Make work with atoms on a regular basis
Don't master your tools, let them confuse you
Aspire to allude to something fundamental to humanity but don't care if
no-one gets it
Let your work slide back and forth between the digital and the analog
Aspire to be exhibited in the greatest of galleries and to win the greatest
of art prizes
Don't be afraid to throw a pot of paint in the eye of your fellow artists
Eryk also said:
>If no one responds to it, I am quitting the list.
Actually, if it wasn't for the few Eryks, I would quit this list.
Does anyone else feel that there is little or no discussion, community,
passion, planning on this (or any other) list?
Cheers,
Ivan