ARTBASE (2)
BIO
Jason Van Anden is a new media activist, artist, inventor and robot maker. His creations are exhibited internationally, receiving recognition in the art, science, technology and gaming communities. More about Jason and his work can be found at his website www.smileproject.com.
Re: Net Art Market
Matthew Mascotte brought up last year's Rhizome videogame art commission as an example of artists "clamoring" for crumbs. My proposal, Farklempt! was proposed as a way to break a creative loop I was stuck in. Luckily it was selected by the community - and this brings the discussion full circle.
Farklempt! received a lot of press after its release last January. Tens of thousands of visitors from all over the world came and interacted with it. This was tangible evidence to me that net art has legs.
There are plenty of working models of self sustaining ephemeral media. Movies, Radio, TV, WWW, videogames, iTunes and NetFlix come to mind ... I am guessing that these models are based upon the publishing industry that preceded them.
Speaking of books, on my commute I am currently listening to "The Speed of Sound, 1926-1930" by Scott Eyman. This is an interesting history of sound in film. It starts out describing several failed attempts at sound before "The Jazz Singer" captured the public's attention and completely changed the rules.
.. stay with me a sec ...
I recently finished "I Bought Andy Warhol" by Richard Polsky and "Emmergence" by Steven Johnson. The former recounts the author's personal odyssey to own a Warhol Silkscreen - and in the process describes some of the inner working of the gallery system. The latter is an easy read about emergent systems.
Connecting the dots ... I suspect net art will be supported by the public, eventually. I am not sure the current top down "brick and mortar" gallery system is built for this.
Bottoms Up.
Jason Van Anden
www.smileproject.com
Farklempt! received a lot of press after its release last January. Tens of thousands of visitors from all over the world came and interacted with it. This was tangible evidence to me that net art has legs.
There are plenty of working models of self sustaining ephemeral media. Movies, Radio, TV, WWW, videogames, iTunes and NetFlix come to mind ... I am guessing that these models are based upon the publishing industry that preceded them.
Speaking of books, on my commute I am currently listening to "The Speed of Sound, 1926-1930" by Scott Eyman. This is an interesting history of sound in film. It starts out describing several failed attempts at sound before "The Jazz Singer" captured the public's attention and completely changed the rules.
.. stay with me a sec ...
I recently finished "I Bought Andy Warhol" by Richard Polsky and "Emmergence" by Steven Johnson. The former recounts the author's personal odyssey to own a Warhol Silkscreen - and in the process describes some of the inner working of the gallery system. The latter is an easy read about emergent systems.
Connecting the dots ... I suspect net art will be supported by the public, eventually. I am not sure the current top down "brick and mortar" gallery system is built for this.
Bottoms Up.
Jason Van Anden
www.smileproject.com
Re: Net Art Market
I found the softwareartspace website (#1 in Curt's list) intellectually interesting given this discussion, particularly in regards to "paneling". Here we have an actual artwork in the frame of my monitor in the frame of the browser in the frame of a bitmap in the frame of a picture of a monitor in the frame of reference of a frozen someone else interacting with it. Talk about hardcore conceptual digital art!
Quick replies...
Jason Nelson wrote:
> It seems to me that what needs to happen is for
artists or curators to convince others (companies,
wealthy collectors, etc...) that featuring net art on
their sites is the same thing as hanging paintings on
the wall, or putting sculptures in the main foyer.
Patrick Lichty wrote:
> Maybe. Somehow there doesn't seem to be a social contract
that buyers can make sense of at the moment (or many
instances of them)
Both excellent points. Do you think that it is possible to define this contract from the bottom up?
Regina Celia Pinto wrote:
> Well, browser at:
http://arteonline.arq.br/newsletter/debate.htm
Museum's newsletter has changed some information on this issue since
last February. There you will find a link to Edward Picot's
interesting >article on this subject.
I read the Picot article but did not realize there was a discussion that followed (http://arteonline.arq.br/newsletter/debate.htm). I plan to read it.
Thanks All,
Jason Van Anden
www.smileproject.com
Quick replies...
Jason Nelson wrote:
> It seems to me that what needs to happen is for
artists or curators to convince others (companies,
wealthy collectors, etc...) that featuring net art on
their sites is the same thing as hanging paintings on
the wall, or putting sculptures in the main foyer.
Patrick Lichty wrote:
> Maybe. Somehow there doesn't seem to be a social contract
that buyers can make sense of at the moment (or many
instances of them)
Both excellent points. Do you think that it is possible to define this contract from the bottom up?
Regina Celia Pinto wrote:
> Well, browser at:
http://arteonline.arq.br/newsletter/debate.htm
Museum's newsletter has changed some information on this issue since
last February. There you will find a link to Edward Picot's
interesting >article on this subject.
I read the Picot article but did not realize there was a discussion that followed (http://arteonline.arq.br/newsletter/debate.htm). I plan to read it.
Thanks All,
Jason Van Anden
www.smileproject.com
Re: Net Art Market
Hi Curt,
Just got home from said day job - decided to reply instead of create art for the moment - you be the judge. I am not sure I understand the make art for free as an alternative to "paneling" comment, but I totally get the rest of what you are saying.
Perhaps I am an idealist or naive, but I believe there is a market out there the galleries (and apparently we) do not yet understand - by way of bringing this up I am trying to find clues as to what this might be.
Jason Van Anden
www.smileproject.com
Just got home from said day job - decided to reply instead of create art for the moment - you be the judge. I am not sure I understand the make art for free as an alternative to "paneling" comment, but I totally get the rest of what you are saying.
Perhaps I am an idealist or naive, but I believe there is a market out there the galleries (and apparently we) do not yet understand - by way of bringing this up I am trying to find clues as to what this might be.
Jason Van Anden
www.smileproject.com
Re: Net Art Market
Hi Curt,
Thanks for the feedback.
My motives are pretty simple: to find a support system that enables me to devote myself to making art full time.
I had a feeling that this topic may have been brought up before, and this is why I was asking about it here; Rhizome community as a collective institutional memory. Where or how else would I find this information if I was not around when the topic got stale? What terms would I Google?: art net business sale etc... try them and you will see how easily that system breaks down.
Which brings up another point - it seems like there is a riddle to be solved in that "old art" galleries need to promote their wares online (artnet.com), and yet online artists have so much difficulty finding a market in their own element.
I had an excellent aesthetics teacher in college named Larry Bakke, who would rant about how "new" media typically anchored itself to old media before finding its own. Fake wood paneling stuck to the sides of station wagons was a favorite example of his. Of your examples - I think that only #7 starts to transcend the paneling.
Jason Van Anden
curt cloninger wrote:
> Hi Jason,
> Here are some money-making models...
Thanks for the feedback.
My motives are pretty simple: to find a support system that enables me to devote myself to making art full time.
I had a feeling that this topic may have been brought up before, and this is why I was asking about it here; Rhizome community as a collective institutional memory. Where or how else would I find this information if I was not around when the topic got stale? What terms would I Google?: art net business sale etc... try them and you will see how easily that system breaks down.
Which brings up another point - it seems like there is a riddle to be solved in that "old art" galleries need to promote their wares online (artnet.com), and yet online artists have so much difficulty finding a market in their own element.
I had an excellent aesthetics teacher in college named Larry Bakke, who would rant about how "new" media typically anchored itself to old media before finding its own. Fake wood paneling stuck to the sides of station wagons was a favorite example of his. Of your examples - I think that only #7 starts to transcend the paneling.
Jason Van Anden
curt cloninger wrote:
> Hi Jason,
> Here are some money-making models...
Re: Net Art Market
Hi Patrick,
I can think of two ways that money has been found to fuel Conceptualism:
1.) public support
(ie: DIA, NEA, etc...)
2.) retro-fit into "old art" gallery model
(ie: documentation for sale as limited edition prints)
Clearly there are plenty of examples of net art that has adopted this approach. It seems to me that where these forms differ is in the distribution.
Jason Van Anden
www.smileproject.com
I can think of two ways that money has been found to fuel Conceptualism:
1.) public support
(ie: DIA, NEA, etc...)
2.) retro-fit into "old art" gallery model
(ie: documentation for sale as limited edition prints)
Clearly there are plenty of examples of net art that has adopted this approach. It seems to me that where these forms differ is in the distribution.
Jason Van Anden
www.smileproject.com