ARTBASE (2)
BIO
Jim Andrews does http://vispo.com . He is a poet-programmer and audio guy. His work explores the new media possibilities of poetry, and seeks to synthesize the poetical with other arts and media.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: net art?
One of the forms I've been working in since about 99 is interactive audio for the Web.
But I don't think it's over and here's why.
First, I do think that certain sub-areas have been explored to the point where it would be hard to make something in those areas that was sufficiently original to be taken seriously as *new art* ("new" not simply in the temporal sense but conceptual sense), though the piece might have other significance.
But there are whole areas of interactive audio for the Web that have not been addressed very well yet, and interesting approaches to these areas can be both taken seriously as new art and also have other significance.
For instance, although the Web and Net have changed the business and distribution of music via things such as P2P, how much have they actually changed music itself? Not much. What hasn't happened very much yet is the development of distinctive forms of music arising from the Web and Net. Though you can hear intimations of it in several pieces at http://vispo.com/misc/ia.htm .
But i think one of the problems concerning why this hasn't happened yet is its going to require a fairly high level of programming together with innovative musicianship. Whereas the plink and plunk stage of interactive music for the Web is more or less over in terms of generating significantly *new* art. The inroads from here on in concerning *new* interactive audio for the Web are going to come from the sorts of artists Pall alludes to. He says
"The difference between work done by people who have really taken the
time to discover, understand and conquer (or succumb to) their chosen
medium or media and the work done by those who barely spend enough
time with it to scratch the surface before they move on to something
else, is huge."
There's nothing nostalgic about this point of view.
Also, the notion that artists who barely spend enough time with a form to scratch the surface can kill off an art with their minor explorations, which seems to be what M. River is implying, doesn't hold a lot of water. Unless the art somehow could only support shallowness.
Innovation can happen at the shallow levels of art, such as being the first to use a technology, or at deeper levels. I think it's important to challenge ourselves to try to distinguish between shallow innovation and deeper achievement in innovation.
But there's always some other agenda below the surface in claims about this or that being dead or alive. Recently I read people associated with Processing saying "the productive phase of Shockwave experiments" is over. You have to consider the source.
ja
http://vispo.com
But I don't think it's over and here's why.
First, I do think that certain sub-areas have been explored to the point where it would be hard to make something in those areas that was sufficiently original to be taken seriously as *new art* ("new" not simply in the temporal sense but conceptual sense), though the piece might have other significance.
But there are whole areas of interactive audio for the Web that have not been addressed very well yet, and interesting approaches to these areas can be both taken seriously as new art and also have other significance.
For instance, although the Web and Net have changed the business and distribution of music via things such as P2P, how much have they actually changed music itself? Not much. What hasn't happened very much yet is the development of distinctive forms of music arising from the Web and Net. Though you can hear intimations of it in several pieces at http://vispo.com/misc/ia.htm .
But i think one of the problems concerning why this hasn't happened yet is its going to require a fairly high level of programming together with innovative musicianship. Whereas the plink and plunk stage of interactive music for the Web is more or less over in terms of generating significantly *new* art. The inroads from here on in concerning *new* interactive audio for the Web are going to come from the sorts of artists Pall alludes to. He says
"The difference between work done by people who have really taken the
time to discover, understand and conquer (or succumb to) their chosen
medium or media and the work done by those who barely spend enough
time with it to scratch the surface before they move on to something
else, is huge."
There's nothing nostalgic about this point of view.
Also, the notion that artists who barely spend enough time with a form to scratch the surface can kill off an art with their minor explorations, which seems to be what M. River is implying, doesn't hold a lot of water. Unless the art somehow could only support shallowness.
Innovation can happen at the shallow levels of art, such as being the first to use a technology, or at deeper levels. I think it's important to challenge ourselves to try to distinguish between shallow innovation and deeper achievement in innovation.
But there's always some other agenda below the surface in claims about this or that being dead or alive. Recently I read people associated with Processing saying "the productive phase of Shockwave experiments" is over. You have to consider the source.
ja
http://vispo.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: net art?
> 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
>
> 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
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: net art?
> 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.
>
> The net has changed and so has net art. My baseline definition of
> net art has always been - art that is located in an exchange
> between two or more computers via that net. Rhizome still posts
> about net art all the time. Its still here. Its here every day.
> p2p, rss, flickr, myspace, google ads, multi player, remote
> viewing, blog, vlog, blah, blah, blah
>
> And this concludes M.River of MTAAs quarterly rant/networked
> performance on Rhizome.org
>
> Keeping it real since 97
miss jodi? i always thought net.art was fabulous as in 'fable'. more than a few of us are not included in the cliquish way "net.art" is understood, though we were working at that time and continue at it to this day. "net.art" is a story told by museum curators posing as anti-gallery, isn't it?
but to move on,
"My baseline definition of net art has always been - art that is located in an exchange between two or more computers via that net."
it's true that the notion of net art is broadened to things like "p2p, rss, flickr, myspace, google ads, multi player, remote viewing, blog, vlog, blah, blah, blah". and pretty much all of the quoted examples operate on the public internet. as opposed to solely local networks or internet2 etc. stuff that operates solely on local networks or requires internet2 is surely still 'net art'. but if you're not in the local network or you're not at a research facility, in the case of internet2, you're out of the loop.
what i enjoy about net art is its international dimension that operates beyond the local and toward very wide availability. and work that is adventurous imaginatively and with whatever technologies support that wide availability, such as the ones you mention and also shockwave, flash, java, etc. but, mainly, works that you can experience on the net wherever you are. if rhizome's membership is to be international, it has to give us peons in the sticks something beyond documentation of stuff that happens elsewhere.
ja
http://vispo.com
>
> 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 net has changed and so has net art. My baseline definition of
> net art has always been - art that is located in an exchange
> between two or more computers via that net. Rhizome still posts
> about net art all the time. Its still here. Its here every day.
> p2p, rss, flickr, myspace, google ads, multi player, remote
> viewing, blog, vlog, blah, blah, blah
>
> And this concludes M.River of MTAAs quarterly rant/networked
> performance on Rhizome.org
>
> Keeping it real since 97
miss jodi? i always thought net.art was fabulous as in 'fable'. more than a few of us are not included in the cliquish way "net.art" is understood, though we were working at that time and continue at it to this day. "net.art" is a story told by museum curators posing as anti-gallery, isn't it?
but to move on,
"My baseline definition of net art has always been - art that is located in an exchange between two or more computers via that net."
it's true that the notion of net art is broadened to things like "p2p, rss, flickr, myspace, google ads, multi player, remote viewing, blog, vlog, blah, blah, blah". and pretty much all of the quoted examples operate on the public internet. as opposed to solely local networks or internet2 etc. stuff that operates solely on local networks or requires internet2 is surely still 'net art'. but if you're not in the local network or you're not at a research facility, in the case of internet2, you're out of the loop.
what i enjoy about net art is its international dimension that operates beyond the local and toward very wide availability. and work that is adventurous imaginatively and with whatever technologies support that wide availability, such as the ones you mention and also shockwave, flash, java, etc. but, mainly, works that you can experience on the net wherever you are. if rhizome's membership is to be international, it has to give us peons in the sticks something beyond documentation of stuff that happens elsewhere.
ja
http://vispo.com
Interactive Audio for the Web
I've been putting together a page of links, recently, to works of
interactive audio for the Web; the links are at http://vispo.com/misc/ia.htm
. There are 37 annotated links to work by artists from 16 countries. The
works date from around 1997, when Shockwave came out, to the present. Some
reflections, below, after having put the links together. And many thanks to
Regina Celia Pinto for having done the graphics on the links page and at
http://vispo.com/misc/iad.htm , where the below writing is published.
ja
INTERACTIVE AUDIO FOR THE WEB
Interactive audio works for the Web are for the world. This is how most
people will experience interactive audio works. Not in museums or galleries,
but at home on their computer screen surfing the Web, possibly with their
speakers hooked up to their stereo or with headphones or with small speakers
as monitor 'ears'. In the same space they do their work on the computer,
play computer games, listen to audio of many types, watch videos, and so
forth.
Interactive audio works combine many of these activities. They tend to be
like computer games in that you play using the mouse and/or keyboard. And
sometimes they invite compositional activity, invite the player to produce
something. Sort of like work. Usually more fun than work but no pay cheque.
And of course interactive audio involves listening to audio and, usually,
watching accompanying visuals. And possibly communication with others.
It's a different way to experience audio than we normally do. And, also, it
can produce different types of audio than we normally hear because of the
interactive/generative and networked dimensions. What you hear generally
depends, to some extent, on what you do with the mouse and/or keyboard. And
the programs have access to a lot of sound on the Internet.
It tends to be a personal experience. Someone looking over your shoulder
doesn't get the same rush you do because it's dancing with you, not them.
You are playing it. Perhaps a bit like an instrument is played or perhaps
like a computer game is played, or possibly as a game of Scrabble is played
(compositionally), but also as a video or an mp3 is played, or possibly as
some combination of several of these.
Almost always, the compositional dimension is unlike composing on a piano or
normal instrument. It's more like joining into a duet where the other person
is already playing a particular piece and you riff on it. You explore the
combinatorium of (usually) phrases that are already present rather than
compose a piece from scratch. So a different notion of a piece of music is
presented. A piece of music not as something that plays from beginning to
end, but as a combinatorium of parts that you sequence and possibly layer
according to your actions and the way the program's compositional logic
responds to your actions.
It probably won't replace the music video or the mp3. It will develop in
parallel with other types of music
interactive audio for the Web; the links are at http://vispo.com/misc/ia.htm
. There are 37 annotated links to work by artists from 16 countries. The
works date from around 1997, when Shockwave came out, to the present. Some
reflections, below, after having put the links together. And many thanks to
Regina Celia Pinto for having done the graphics on the links page and at
http://vispo.com/misc/iad.htm , where the below writing is published.
ja
INTERACTIVE AUDIO FOR THE WEB
Interactive audio works for the Web are for the world. This is how most
people will experience interactive audio works. Not in museums or galleries,
but at home on their computer screen surfing the Web, possibly with their
speakers hooked up to their stereo or with headphones or with small speakers
as monitor 'ears'. In the same space they do their work on the computer,
play computer games, listen to audio of many types, watch videos, and so
forth.
Interactive audio works combine many of these activities. They tend to be
like computer games in that you play using the mouse and/or keyboard. And
sometimes they invite compositional activity, invite the player to produce
something. Sort of like work. Usually more fun than work but no pay cheque.
And of course interactive audio involves listening to audio and, usually,
watching accompanying visuals. And possibly communication with others.
It's a different way to experience audio than we normally do. And, also, it
can produce different types of audio than we normally hear because of the
interactive/generative and networked dimensions. What you hear generally
depends, to some extent, on what you do with the mouse and/or keyboard. And
the programs have access to a lot of sound on the Internet.
It tends to be a personal experience. Someone looking over your shoulder
doesn't get the same rush you do because it's dancing with you, not them.
You are playing it. Perhaps a bit like an instrument is played or perhaps
like a computer game is played, or possibly as a game of Scrabble is played
(compositionally), but also as a video or an mp3 is played, or possibly as
some combination of several of these.
Almost always, the compositional dimension is unlike composing on a piano or
normal instrument. It's more like joining into a duet where the other person
is already playing a particular piece and you riff on it. You explore the
combinatorium of (usually) phrases that are already present rather than
compose a piece from scratch. So a different notion of a piece of music is
presented. A piece of music not as something that plays from beginning to
end, but as a combinatorium of parts that you sequence and possibly layer
according to your actions and the way the program's compositional logic
responds to your actions.
It probably won't replace the music video or the mp3. It will develop in
parallel with other types of music
Re: Re: Re: net art?
digital art is a wide field. there is much happening for performance, installations, mobile networks, workshops, conferences, and so on, offline or concerning local networks. and that's all good to hear about. you click links on rhizome.org's home page and you go to sites informing you of such things, and you read descriptions of the projects and see photos maybe even a video or whatever. documentation about the project.
but i would also like to be informed via rhizome.org's web site of projects where you experience the art itself online, not just documentation about the art. and maybe it's my imagination but it seems to me i see less and less of that on rhizome.org's web site.
net art is for the world. or much of it is, deals with language issues in an international way, ie, presents the work in more than one language or has much to say independent of its particular written/spoken language. i'd like to see more of this sort of art on rhizome.org's home page.
ja
http://vispo.com
but i would also like to be informed via rhizome.org's web site of projects where you experience the art itself online, not just documentation about the art. and maybe it's my imagination but it seems to me i see less and less of that on rhizome.org's web site.
net art is for the world. or much of it is, deals with language issues in an international way, ie, presents the work in more than one language or has much to say independent of its particular written/spoken language. i'd like to see more of this sort of art on rhizome.org's home page.
ja
http://vispo.com