ARTBASE (1)
PORTFOLIO (3)
BIO
Marc Garrett is co-director and co-founder, with artist Ruth Catlow of the Internet arts collectives and communities – Furtherfield.org, Furthernoise.org, Netbehaviour.org, also co-founder and co-curator/director of the gallery space formerly known as 'HTTP Gallery' now called the Furtherfield Gallery in London (Finsbury Park), UK. Co-curating various contemporary Media Arts exhibitions, projects nationally and internationally. Co-editor of 'Artists Re:Thinking Games' with Ruth Catlow and Corrado Morgana 2010. Hosted Furtherfield's critically acclaimed weekly broadcast on UK's Resonance FM Radio, a series of hour long live interviews with people working at the edge of contemporary practices in art, technology & social change. Currently doing an Art history Phd at the University of London, Birkbeck College.
Net artist, media artist, curator, writer, street artist, activist, educationalist and musician. Emerging in the late 80′s from the streets exploring creativity via agit-art tactics. Using unofficial, experimental platforms such as the streets, pirate radio such as the locally popular ‘Savage Yet Tender’ alternative broadcasting 1980′s group, net broadcasts, BBS systems, performance, intervention, events, pamphlets, warehouses and gallery spaces. In the early nineties, was co-sysop (systems operator) with Heath Bunting on Cybercafe BBS with Irational.org.
Our mission is to co-create extraordinary art that connects with contemporary audiences providing innovative, engaging and inclusive digital and physical spaces for appreciating and participating in practices in art, technology and social change. As well as finding alternative ways around already dominating hegemonies, thus claiming for ourselves and our peer networks a culturally aware and critical dialogue beyond traditional hierarchical behaviours. Influenced by situationist theory, fluxus, free and open source culture, and processes of self-education and peer learning, in an art, activist and community context.
Net artist, media artist, curator, writer, street artist, activist, educationalist and musician. Emerging in the late 80′s from the streets exploring creativity via agit-art tactics. Using unofficial, experimental platforms such as the streets, pirate radio such as the locally popular ‘Savage Yet Tender’ alternative broadcasting 1980′s group, net broadcasts, BBS systems, performance, intervention, events, pamphlets, warehouses and gallery spaces. In the early nineties, was co-sysop (systems operator) with Heath Bunting on Cybercafe BBS with Irational.org.
Our mission is to co-create extraordinary art that connects with contemporary audiences providing innovative, engaging and inclusive digital and physical spaces for appreciating and participating in practices in art, technology and social change. As well as finding alternative ways around already dominating hegemonies, thus claiming for ourselves and our peer networks a culturally aware and critical dialogue beyond traditional hierarchical behaviours. Influenced by situationist theory, fluxus, free and open source culture, and processes of self-education and peer learning, in an art, activist and community context.
Emailing: wisdom_can_lie
WISDOM CAN LIE
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKEDGGGGEKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKEEEEDf;,,,itjLEKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
KKKKKKKKKKKKDGfjtii;::::,;;tjLEKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
KKKKKKKKKKKKDLjti;;,,,,,,;;tjLGEKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
KKKKKKKKKKKKKDfji;;,,,,,ijLLLLGGKKfLKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
KKKKKKKKKKKKKEGGLffi;;tLLfjjfjjLDLtLKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKDLfLGLf;ijttjjtitfGfiLKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
KKKKKKKKKKGfDELLLLfff;;ii;,,,itfGLfEKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
KKKKKKKKKKKEjLLjtiiffi;tti,,;itfGEKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
KKKKKKKKKKKKDfGLtiijftijji,;;itfLDKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKELjttffjti;;;itjfLDKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKDLjjfLfjjjjttjffLDKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
KKKKKKKEEEEEKKKKKDGjjffjjjttjffLfDKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
KKEDLffffffLLGGDEEDDLfjtiittjffjfGKKKKKKKKKKEEDDEEKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
EGttiiii;;iiittjjfLDDGGfjjjfjjtjLLGDDEEEEEEDGGLLLLGEKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
Ljt;;;;;;,,;;;iiiiitjfLGGGLfjjjjfjjjjjjffffffffLLLLLGDKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
Gfti;;;;,,;;;iiittjjjjjtttttjjjtttttjjjjjjjjjjjjjffjfLGEKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
KDfjti;;;;iiitttjjjjjjjjtttttttttttttttjjjjjjjti;,;titjLGEKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKE
KKGLjtiiiiitttttjjjttttttttttttttttttiitttti,::.. .::.:ijLGKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKEKf
KKDGfjttiiittttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiitti,,;i;:..... .:. .:;tjfGEKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKEGfj
KKEDGfjfjjtjjjjjtttiiii;;;;;;;iiiiijjii;;:..,:,:....... :tjfLLDKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKLtt;
KKKEDLjfDLffLLfjjtjjti;;;;;,,,;;;;tfLLjt,. .,.:....... ....;tfffGEEEE=
KKKKKKKKKKKELi,,,
KKKKKGffDEDLLLLfjjffji;;,,,,,;;;;;ijLLjti,:,;;::.::...... .:;ttjjGGGG=
DDEKKKKKKKEj;:.::
KKKKKKfffGEGLLLffjjttii;;;;;;;;;;iiii,::,;tt;,;,;,....... .,,itGLLLGG=
GGDEKKKKKGt,:...:
EEEKKKGftjfLGLLLffjjttiiiiii;;;;;;iiii;itjLLfi;;;;:::....,;;ijGLfLLDD=
GGGDEKKEGi,:.....
GGDDEEEGjtttLGGLfffjjttttiiiiiiiiiitjLLLLLLLGGLGti;;,,,,;,,,;;tfGEEEE=
EGGGLGDfi;::....
GGGDDEKKGfjttfGGLLffjjjtttiiiiiiiiiiitjjjtttfLGGGGf,,,;;,,::,,;tfLDKK=
EEDGGGfi;,,.....
DDDDDDKKELjtttGDGLLfffjjttttttiiiiiiiittttjjjjttfLGGGDGt;;;;;;ittjjLD=
EEDGLi;;;,,:...
DDGGGDDEKDLjtttLDGGLLfjjjttttttiiiiittttjjjtttttjjfDKKKEDfttiiiittjjj=
fjjjt;,,,,,:.....
GGGGGGGDEKDGfjttLEDGLLfjjjtttttiiiitttjjjjjjjjjjjffEKKKKKDLjtttjjjjtj=
ti;;;ii;;,:.. . .
GGGGGGGGGEEEGLfjjLEDGLLfjjttttttttttjjfffffffjjjjfDKKKKKKEEGLfjffjjjt=
i;;;;;;i,,:..
GGGGGGGGGGEKEGLLLGDKEGLfjjjttttttttjfLLLfjttiitttjLDEDDDDGGDGfjjjtiti=
i;;;;;it;:::.. .
GGGGGGGGGGGDKEEEDEEEKKDLfjjjtttttjffLLLjtiii;;;;;;;ijjtiiiijLfjti,,;i=
iiiiitjf;:......:
LGGGGGGGGGGGDEKEEEEEEDDGGffjjjjjjjfLLLttti;;;i;itttitiiii;;itffti,,,,=
;itiijft,.......,
LLLLLLLLLGLLGGKKKEEDLfffLGGLfffjffLLfjjjjjttiittiiiii;;,,;;;;itfft;,,=
,ittttji,.. ....
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLDKKEGffjjjjjjGDGLLLLLfffjjtttttiti;;,,::,,,;;;i;iitjjjt=
tjjtttt;:.. ....
ffffffffffffLLLGEELfffjjjjjtjDDLffjjttttitttti;;,,,:::::::,,;;;;;;;ii=
itttjtt;,.....:.:
ffffffffffffffffLLLjtjjjjjjjjjjttttittiii;;;;;;,,,,::::::::::::,;;,,,=
,,;jffji;::.:::.:
fffffffffffffffffjttijjfLffjtttiiiiiii;i;;;;;;,,,::,::::.::::::,,i,::=
:,ifGLfji,,:,,,:,
ffffffffjtiitttjijfGjtjLfjttiiiii;;;;,,,,,,,,,,,,,::.:::.::::,,,;i;::=
:,ifLLfjti;,;;;;;
LLffftttffLLttjttGEELffjtiii;;;i;;;;;,,,,,,,,::::::..::..::::,;itti::=
:,;tjfLjttiiittii
LLLLLLLLffttfGtiLGLLfjttii;;;;;;;;;;;;,,,,,,,::::::::::,:::,;;ijfj;:,=
,:,itjfGfjjjjffjf
GGGGGGGGGLLLGLjfGLLfjti;;;;;,,,,,;;,,,,,,,,:::::::...::,,,,;itfGGt;,;=
;,;ttfLKDGGGGGDLG
DDDDDDDDDDGGDDGGLfjiiii;;;;,;;,,,,,,,,,,,,,::::::::..::,;;itjLDGLi;ii=
iitjfGDEEEEEEEDKK
EDDEEDDEEDDDDDKGLftiiiii;;;,,,,;:;,,,:,,:,,,,,:::,:::.:,,ijffGEGLiiii=
iijffDGDGGLLLfffL
EKEKEEEKDEEDEDGGjtt;;i;;;,;,,,,,:,,,,,;i;,::,:;,,::,:,;;ijfGKDDftjtjj=
jLDEELfffjjffffff
As memories fade + wander back again
images loose the pain that living gives
dealing with existence
trying to discover essence
it lies outside/inside over,
around us
maybe we never had it,
just neurotics dealing with fear
but memories are our guidelines,
our connexion
to learning what is and what isn't
external space
it grows out there
memories fade and
wander back again
can we grow,
begin to learn/relearn
as worlds out there blow up and expand?
Implode
while we assess our smallness
uncomfortably,
too often
Deus is myth,
a part of our lives
reality is perception,
as is unreality
do we really want more,
is it such a bore?
We deal with consequence
and situation
modeling ourselves
on fickle ideals
as age creates
retro/wisdom
can lie
<<<<<index
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKEDGGGGEKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKEEEEDf;,,,itjLEKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
KKKKKKKKKKKKDGfjtii;::::,;;tjLEKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
KKKKKKKKKKKKDLjti;;,,,,,,;;tjLGEKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
KKKKKKKKKKKKKDfji;;,,,,,ijLLLLGGKKfLKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
KKKKKKKKKKKKKEGGLffi;;tLLfjjfjjLDLtLKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKDLfLGLf;ijttjjtitfGfiLKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
KKKKKKKKKKGfDELLLLfff;;ii;,,,itfGLfEKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
KKKKKKKKKKKEjLLjtiiffi;tti,,;itfGEKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
KKKKKKKKKKKKDfGLtiijftijji,;;itfLDKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKELjttffjti;;;itjfLDKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKDLjjfLfjjjjttjffLDKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
KKKKKKKEEEEEKKKKKDGjjffjjjttjffLfDKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
KKEDLffffffLLGGDEEDDLfjtiittjffjfGKKKKKKKKKKEEDDEEKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
EGttiiii;;iiittjjfLDDGGfjjjfjjtjLLGDDEEEEEEDGGLLLLGEKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
Ljt;;;;;;,,;;;iiiiitjfLGGGLfjjjjfjjjjjjffffffffLLLLLGDKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
Gfti;;;;,,;;;iiittjjjjjtttttjjjtttttjjjjjjjjjjjjjffjfLGEKKKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
KDfjti;;;;iiitttjjjjjjjjtttttttttttttttjjjjjjjti;,;titjLGEKKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKE
KKGLjtiiiiitttttjjjttttttttttttttttttiitttti,::.. .::.:ijLGKKKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKEKf
KKDGfjttiiittttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiitti,,;i;:..... .:. .:;tjfGEKKKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKEGfj
KKEDGfjfjjtjjjjjtttiiii;;;;;;;iiiiijjii;;:..,:,:....... :tjfLLDKKKKKK=
KKKKKKKKKKKKLtt;
KKKEDLjfDLffLLfjjtjjti;;;;;,,,;;;;tfLLjt,. .,.:....... ....;tfffGEEEE=
KKKKKKKKKKKELi,,,
KKKKKGffDEDLLLLfjjffji;;,,,,,;;;;;ijLLjti,:,;;::.::...... .:;ttjjGGGG=
DDEKKKKKKKEj;:.::
KKKKKKfffGEGLLLffjjttii;;;;;;;;;;iiii,::,;tt;,;,;,....... .,,itGLLLGG=
GGDEKKKKKGt,:...:
EEEKKKGftjfLGLLLffjjttiiiiii;;;;;;iiii;itjLLfi;;;;:::....,;;ijGLfLLDD=
GGGDEKKEGi,:.....
GGDDEEEGjtttLGGLfffjjttttiiiiiiiiiitjLLLLLLLGGLGti;;,,,,;,,,;;tfGEEEE=
EGGGLGDfi;::....
GGGDDEKKGfjttfGGLLffjjjtttiiiiiiiiiiitjjjtttfLGGGGf,,,;;,,::,,;tfLDKK=
EEDGGGfi;,,.....
DDDDDDKKELjtttGDGLLfffjjttttttiiiiiiiittttjjjjttfLGGGDGt;;;;;;ittjjLD=
EEDGLi;;;,,:...
DDGGGDDEKDLjtttLDGGLLfjjjttttttiiiiittttjjjtttttjjfDKKKEDfttiiiittjjj=
fjjjt;,,,,,:.....
GGGGGGGDEKDGfjttLEDGLLfjjjtttttiiiitttjjjjjjjjjjjffEKKKKKDLjtttjjjjtj=
ti;;;ii;;,:.. . .
GGGGGGGGGEEEGLfjjLEDGLLfjjttttttttttjjfffffffjjjjfDKKKKKKEEGLfjffjjjt=
i;;;;;;i,,:..
GGGGGGGGGGEKEGLLLGDKEGLfjjjttttttttjfLLLfjttiitttjLDEDDDDGGDGfjjjtiti=
i;;;;;it;:::.. .
GGGGGGGGGGGDKEEEDEEEKKDLfjjjtttttjffLLLjtiii;;;;;;;ijjtiiiijLfjti,,;i=
iiiiitjf;:......:
LGGGGGGGGGGGDEKEEEEEEDDGGffjjjjjjjfLLLttti;;;i;itttitiiii;;itffti,,,,=
;itiijft,.......,
LLLLLLLLLGLLGGKKKEEDLfffLGGLfffjffLLfjjjjjttiittiiiii;;,,;;;;itfft;,,=
,ittttji,.. ....
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLDKKEGffjjjjjjGDGLLLLLfffjjtttttiti;;,,::,,,;;;i;iitjjjt=
tjjtttt;:.. ....
ffffffffffffLLLGEELfffjjjjjtjDDLffjjttttitttti;;,,,:::::::,,;;;;;;;ii=
itttjtt;,.....:.:
ffffffffffffffffLLLjtjjjjjjjjjjttttittiii;;;;;;,,,,::::::::::::,;;,,,=
,,;jffji;::.:::.:
fffffffffffffffffjttijjfLffjtttiiiiiii;i;;;;;;,,,::,::::.::::::,,i,::=
:,ifGLfji,,:,,,:,
ffffffffjtiitttjijfGjtjLfjttiiiii;;;;,,,,,,,,,,,,,::.:::.::::,,,;i;::=
:,ifLLfjti;,;;;;;
LLffftttffLLttjttGEELffjtiii;;;i;;;;;,,,,,,,,::::::..::..::::,;itti::=
:,;tjfLjttiiittii
LLLLLLLLffttfGtiLGLLfjttii;;;;;;;;;;;;,,,,,,,::::::::::,:::,;;ijfj;:,=
,:,itjfGfjjjjffjf
GGGGGGGGGLLLGLjfGLLfjti;;;;;,,,,,;;,,,,,,,,:::::::...::,,,,;itfGGt;,;=
;,;ttfLKDGGGGGDLG
DDDDDDDDDDGGDDGGLfjiiii;;;;,;;,,,,,,,,,,,,,::::::::..::,;;itjLDGLi;ii=
iitjfGDEEEEEEEDKK
EDDEEDDEEDDDDDKGLftiiiii;;;,,,,;:;,,,:,,:,,,,,:::,:::.:,,ijffGEGLiiii=
iijffDGDGGLLLfffL
EKEKEEEKDEEDEDGGjtt;;i;;;,;,,,,,:,,,,,;i;,::,:;,,::,:,;;ijfGKDDftjtjj=
jLDEELfffjjffffff
As memories fade + wander back again
images loose the pain that living gives
dealing with existence
trying to discover essence
it lies outside/inside over,
around us
maybe we never had it,
just neurotics dealing with fear
but memories are our guidelines,
our connexion
to learning what is and what isn't
external space
it grows out there
memories fade and
wander back again
can we grow,
begin to learn/relearn
as worlds out there blow up and expand?
Implode
while we assess our smallness
uncomfortably,
too often
Deus is myth,
a part of our lives
reality is perception,
as is unreality
do we really want more,
is it such a bore?
We deal with consequence
and situation
modeling ourselves
on fickle ideals
as age creates
retro/wisdom
can lie
<<<<<index
Re: QuickView on Software Art
Amy Alexander:
Centralization causes marginalization of whomever is not in the "center."
Not to mention structural weakness (single point of failure - when the
"center" disappoints, the whole can fall apart.)
beautiful...well said.
marc
> QuickView on Software Art
> Amy Alexander, Florian Cramer, Matthew Fuller, Thomax Kaulmann, Alex
McLean,
> Pit Schultz,
> and The Yes Men, interviewed by Olga Goriunova and Alexei Shulgin.
> http://runme.org
>
>
> Olga Goriunova and Alexei Shulgin: Why are you personally attracted to
> 'software art'?
>
> The Yes Men: We are very interested in software art because of its
potential
> for automation! We can use these technologies to replace the artists. A
> wholesale replacement. Followed by leisure!
>
> Alex McLean: Because making code is empowering, but generally taught very
> badly. The act of programming is portrayed as systematic and uncreative.
> This may be appropriate for working on quality assured credit card
> transaction systems, but why apply it to programming as a whole? Software
> art might give us a place to look at the creation and use of software
> outside of formal business constraints, and the stereotypes thereby
> fostered.
> I'm also repelled by software art, because I see artists trying to employ
> software thoughtlessly. Hopefully software art will draw on its hackerly
> heritage enough to sidestep readymade wizardware.
>
> Thomax Kaulmann: Software art can be a manifold thing. It can look nice in
> source code or at runtime. It can influence culture or can give an
> impression of the present culture.
> Software art is just another art discipline and it is not defined.
> Art is always a matter of intention, there can be different media to
> transport one's vision: stones & hammer, canvas & color, camera & video or
> computers & software. An artist is intrinsically motivated to translate
> his/her ideas to a broader culture, through software as well.
>
> Amy Alexander: Hmm, it's a little like asking "why are you attracted to
> art?" isn't it :-)? I'm not sure verbal answers to such questions can be
> entirely satisfactory or productive. But to give a partial one: I think
> because software art is a mode of non-verbal expression relevant to
> contemporary culture - just as photography, video art, etc., were to the
> times in which they first appeared (and still are.)
>
> Matthew Fuller: Perhaps the conjunction of two highly productive and
> inventive forces, neither of which really wants the other is always going
to
> make for something interesting?
> What is named as contemporary art has responded to networks and
computation
> by taking on certain of the characteristics of networks - the formulation
of
> 'the relational aesthetic' for instance - without actually dealing with
the
> specific technologies.
> On the other hand, software cultures have only very rarely considered
> themselves to or have acted in a manner which is reflexive, in the way
which
> is most usefully and richly developed over the last century and a half or
so
> of art.
> Various conjunctions of these two patterns of activity, their mutual
> interference, seem to be generating some exciting or annoying or
disruptive
> or inventive effects. One cannot claim this for all of the work that
> operates here of course, but it is an opening to new conjunctures.
>
> Pit Schultz: Software art is attracting me because it is carrying a
> seductive promise that possibly software production could be seen as
> cultural production; that writing code has more meaning as making a
program
> run or crash or sell. It might place media art into the history of
> contemporary art with the passage of conceptual art for example.
> It poses questions of artisanship, and pragmatic aesthetics of code, a
kind
> of surplus that is not technological in terms of efficiency.
>
> Florian Cramer: If one defines (as the Read_me 1.2 jury did) software art
as
> art that is either based on formal instruction code or which is a cultural
> reflection of software, then there has been a lot of interesting artwork
> lately in this field that has a attracted me and which justifies to engage
> with this concept. Jodi's work of the past few years, which has radically
> shifted from browser art to manipulations of computer software, is one
> striking example. But aside from that practical observation, I am also
> attracted by theoretical issues, since, being an academic in comparative
> literature, I research the borders and grey
> areas of writing, executable code and art, from the permutational poems of
> the late antiquity to lullist and kabbalistic language speculation to up
to
> the very new situation that instruction code has become a mass commodity
and
> a material appropriated by artists in all kinds of ways. I thus would
never
> limit software art to craftsmanship of programming (i.e. software art as a
> Donald Knuth-style "art of programming"), but consciously take
speculative,
> unclean, or even non-computer-related approaches into account, from
certain
> forms of poetic play and conceptual art to the use of machine code
fragments
> as private languages in artistic "codeworks" like those I collate,
together
> with Alan Sondheim and Beatrice Beaubien, into the "nettime unstable
> digest".
> I should also add that I am a Free Software activist who perceives
operating
> systems (particularly those which don't create artificial frontiers
between
> "users" and "programmers" - i.e. Unix, Plan9, LISP machines) and software
as
> ways of thought and cultures that are in no way aesthetically, culturally
or
> politically "neutral". It thus follows that software and art, as modes of
> both cultural reflection and construction, are closely related to each
> other.
>
>
> Olga Goriunova and Alexei Shulgin: Which viewpoints on the issue you find
> most interesting?
>
> Alex McLean: That of the programmer, because I am one myself, and that of
> people using the software, because there is often great disconnection
> between software creators and their audience.
>
> Amy Alexander: I have a few interests: critical, political and
algorithmic.
> Critical: Software art helps us examine the biases and the influences on
> culture of software at large. Most non-art software pretends to be
neutral
> and objective technology - devoid of human influence. Software art opens
> itself up to examination of its human-created biases and its
> human-experienced influences - so it helps us understand how these factors
> operate in "normal" (non-art) software as well.
> Political: Governments and corporations use software and information
capital
> to exert influence. But artists and others can use software to
> strategically redistribute information capital in a more equitable, useful
> and entertaining manner. (Mi datamine es tu datamine.) In other words, I
> think it's important to realize that data and algorithms are separate
> things. Even proprietary data can often be publicly accessed (search
engine
> databases, etc.) But how it's used is in the algorithm - strategically
> written algorithms can provide a lot of leverage and be very handy as
> tactical media tools.
> And algorithmic for its own sake: the visceral, improvisational nature of
> art and communication through algorithms and coding.
>
> Matthew Fuller:
> Yes, it is the way in which various software art projects reveal the way
> software is embedded within wider currents of social and aesthetic
> composition.
> How does software manifest, reproduce or invent new relations, say of
class,
> or of processes of work and activity? How is it racialised? Is it so
> precisely in its 'universality'? Does it have a way of doing things built
> into it that enhances certain kinds of
> sociability, or act against them? We can ask these questions in a number
of
> careful ways, but also in a manner that acknowledges our embeddedness
within
> software as culture. Part of these discussions are already part of office
> culture, think of the drippy compensatory humour of 'Dilbert' cartoons;
> consumer culture, where it exceeds itself as simple passivity, the
inventive
> intermediate role of 'power users'; and, perhaps most usefully in this
case
> in the way that particular scenes invent new forms of software and new
ways
> of dealing with established forms - think of the now long term tradition
of
> the demo-scene for instance.
> At the same time, it's useful to work from the 'opposite' direction. There
> are some interesting currents that take advantage of the specific material
> qualities of particular kinds of coding culture. Think of some of the
games
> mods or some of the generative code work that really take advantage of the
> idiosyncratic, perverse and particular nature of code practices.
Exploiters
> of bugs. Make the machines stammer, speak in tongues.
>
> Amy Alexander: The algorithm is also very important here. The algorithm
that
> generates the output is an important and subjective thing, and in
commercial
> software, it often hides behind the veil of innocent, technological
> neutrality. An obvious example is Google's PageRank algorithm, which
> determines which sites appear towards the top of Google's results, and
which
> don't appear at all. The algorithm is very biased toward big sites,
> especially if they own lots of other big sites.
> But in their description at http://google.com/technology, Google explains
> that they rely on "the uniquely democratic nature of the web" and that
> "Google's complex, automated methods make human tampering with our results
> extremely difficult." Didn't humans write the algorithm?
> That is a very direct example. Software artists approach the subjectivity
of
> algorithms in different ways; some are more formal; many are more subtle.
> But because software art opens itself up to examination of its
subjectivity,
> and the fact that interface is driven by human-generated algorithms, it
can
> help us think about the broader software context.
>
> Pit Schultz:
> Which viewpoints? The view from the 'folkloristic' aspect of programmers'
> cultures, writing gimmicks. The aspect of generating a tree of knowledge
> out of existing material, by changing the viewpoint to it. The question if
> there's something else than an unlimited numbers of readymades to be
found.
> The archive aspect of an area of production, which is not yet bounded,
> territorialized. Something ambivalent that was already attracting me to
the
> possibility of net.art. A strange attractor for the possibility of
existence
> of such a genre?
>
> Florian Cramer: Georg Philipp Harsdoerffer's "Mathematische und
> philosophische Erquickstunden" ("Mathematical and philosophical
> recreations") from 1636 -- perhaps the first attempt to systematically
> combine poetics, mathematics and algorithmics into a playful whole,
Abraham
> M. Moles "First manifesto of permutational art" from 1963, Jack Burnham's
> exhibition "Software" from 1970, Geoff Cox', Adrian Ward's and Alex
McLean's
> 2000 paper "The aesthetics of generative code", Matthew Fuller's 2000
paper
> "It looks like you're writing a letter: Microsoft Word", the (to date:
four)
> jury statements of the Transmediale and Read_me juries, to some extent
also
> Larry Wall's papers on Perl and postmodernism. We could use more cultural
> criticism of software in general, and especially a criticism that sees
more
> than surface screen visual and which doesn't fall into the trap of
> simplistic analogies between structures in software and structures in
> society.
>
>
> Olga Goriunova and Alexei Shulgin: Programmers don't seem to be interested
> in submitting their works to art festivals and competitions. There is a
huge
> body of their work that might be interesting culturally and artistically.
> What are the possible strategies and interfaces that can help to make
those
> works visible in the extended software / art context?
>
> Alex McLean: Yes, programmers don't need institutionalised art festivals
or
> competitions. They have the Internet, and the grass-roots fact-to-face
> meetings that result from their online projects and discussions.
>
> Amy Alexander: Programmers don't need art festivals - hooray! Rewind back
to
> "net artists don't need museums", and multiply by a factor of two (because
> programmers typically don't consider themselves in the "art" field at
all.)
> So a programmer's work might be culturally and artistically interesting,
but
> you have to go where it lives instead of making it come to you. First we
> should ask ourselves, "is this a problem?" Personally, I don't think so.
> Centralization causes marginalization of whomever is not in the "center."
> Not to mention structural weakness (single point of failure - when the
> "center" disappoints, the whole can fall apart.)
> Do programmers feel the urge to be pulled into the "art context?" If not,
> then to do so might be to open a software art zoo and hunt down projects
to
> bring them into captivity - so we can gawk at them without getting our
> fingers dirty. Many authors won't want to be involved in "art"
> contextualizations at all. Others will if the context and culture seems
> inclusive and relevant to them. Programmers (among others) are turned off
by
> artspeak, or if every discussion refers back to postmodern philosophy.
These
> conversations exclude people, and it is in fact possible to have an
> intelligent, culturally relevant discussion without these as the focus.
> Also, it is helpful for non-programmers to read about, learn about, and
> experience geek culture. It is a culture, and it's about people, not
> technology.
> So anyway, hopefully runme.org takes a couple of positive steps: it's, we
> hope, easy to submit work to - you don't have to spend a lot of time
putting
> together a big press kit with lots of artspeak to impress some jury and
> mailing it in ... and you can invite someone else's work in, if they're
too
> busy or too shy to submit it themselves... it also tries to respect that
> software art comes from both "software" and "art" genealogies but is its
own
> thing. I think it's a problem when people try to interpret software art as
> strictly "software" or strictly "art." Time will tell if our diabolical
> plans have been successful. :-)
>
> The Yes Men: There are many examples of amazing "outsider art" that isn't
> recognized as
> such by the producer.. So I would think merely pointing them out, or
finding
> them and making contact with the producers is what would be most important
> first.
>
> Alex McLean: Yes, runme.org may be a start, allowing existing communities
of
> people interested in creative aspects of computing to share their view.
>
> Florian Cramer: I personally think runme.org is an excellent step in this
> direction. With its function as a download repository and weblog-style
> interface (as it was pioneered by Free Software websites like Slashdot.org
> and Freshmeat.net), it clearly overcomes some (so-to-speak) interface
design
> issues of the festival/competition/exhibition-oriented art system,
although
> I still think that both channels could and should co-exist. I find the
> exhibitions "I love you" (at MAK Frankfurt 2002 and at transmediale.03
> Berlin) and jodi's "install.exe" (at plug.in Basel 2002 and Buro Friedrich
> Berlin 2003) very successful presentations of software art in the language
> of the traditional art system, and the presentations are necessary to
> address a larger non-geek audience. Since runme.org got headline coverage
on
> Slashdot.org, I am quite optimistic that this is the way to go. In
general,
> Free Software self-organization provides good blueprints to software art
> self-organization.
>
> Pit Schultz: The question is what constitutes the 'software art context'?
> The software repository is known from shareware and other kinds of
> downloadable software tools. Is it applicable to the area of 'art' too?
If
> we talk about context, the question is what kind of 'institutions' make
> software art exists, where are its boundaries? Who constitutes these
> boundaries and how? And of course, is there a history of software art,
> assuming that it exists.
>
> Matthew Fuller: Roland Barthes suggested that a truly interdisciplinary
> object is one
> which is nameable by none of the disciplines that in part contribute to
> making it, or that congregate around it. Such an object is owned by no
one
> set of ideas and approaches. It demands that traditions become strange to
> themselves.
> So what is set in motion when art approaches the irritating subject of
> programming, what happens when the 'art' insistences on being incidental,
on
> being amateur, on being able to go wide-eyed or cunning into any context,
> comes into some relationship with technical
> skill?
> Equally, what happens when computing enters a context wherein every stage
in
> a process has aesthetic effects? What happens when computing's in-built
> judgments about what is 'optimal' or what is 'trivial' are subject to
> question and reinvention, or may even usurp its capacity to rule, to make
> rules? The revaluation of the trivial, of waste, of the past, of what has
> been shat out, and conversely, what it founds - the new - is one of the
> powers of art.
> I don't think that this work then that you ask about, that of programmers,
> needs 'help'. It doesn't need to be 'made visible'. We don't need
gestures
> of sympathy such as those repetitiously awarding Linux the name, 'Art' in
> order to make things possible. What is
> needed are more specific alliances with particular currents of programming
> and other strands of making culture; deranging gestures that bring new
> worlds to light; prison break-outs; sustained and thoughtful work that
makes
> itself available for use.
>
>
> Olga Goriunova and Alexei Shulgin: Software art seems to be quite an open
> field yet, possibly due to the reason it is very diverse and in many
> respects is based on the programmers' culture that is hard to grasp. While
> contextualizing grassroot movements like this one and thus, providing an
> access to
> interesting practices to larger audience, we are at the same time
inevitably
> packaging them for easy appropriation by art institutions. How do you
think
> we can deal with this problem?
>
> Alex McLean: Having people with broad knowledge and experience of
> programming
> languages forming part of art institutions. Critics should become
literate
> in some of the many languages of software art before trying to understand
> its context. Right now I think many art institutions are too software
> illiterate to be of any interest to software artists.
>
> The Yes Men: Yes! Just like the outsider artists... Well, it seems the
> important thing
> is to respect the desires and intentions of the creator... See if they
want
> to be appropriated first. If appropriation involves a compromise of
> integrity, then figure out in each instance how to make the work useless
to
> the dominant narrative...?
>
> Pit Schultz: How did other types of 'immaterial art' deal with this
problem?
> How did early computer graphics deal with it, or certain kinds of Fluxus?
> The question is for me first of all is there a 'style' a kind of common
> 'ductus' which one can see after the years surrounding different forms of
> 'conceptualism'. The suggestion is that there is a difference
> to be made in relation to other forms of art, which are based on the
> postulation that a new 'form' is found, only through the use of a specific
> 'new' medium. The autonomy of media art in relation of contemporary art
has
> to be questioned, on the other hand the way the art operating system
> processes incoming 'new forms' has to be questioned too. Software and the
> net allows to run a 'museum' with much less funds than elsewhere, this
poses
> questions of what defines the needed power relations of representation
which
> are constituting an art form.
> "Software art" insofar is not new, but it reflects, enhances, explores the
> role of software in a post-industrial society and afterwards. What is the
> role of the original, the author, the object, can one apply other basic
> questions of the predecessors of this potential art genre in a new way?
How
> do seemingly successful works function gaining a market? (rhizome list
etc.)
> What kind of criteria they seem to fulfill? Is there any place of
> constituting itself outside of an institutional interest? As with any art
> I'm also interested in the art which hasn't to be called art.
>
> Matthew Fuller: This question might also be posed from a different
> perspective. If art institutions are treated simply as a particular and
> distinct part of a number of interlocking, but also partially
differentiable
> processes and institutions it is useful to use them and take part in them
> for those things that they do well. .
> I also think that in general it is wise to avoid becoming involved solely
in
> one kind of institutional structure. The advantage of the internet and
> other distribution mechanisms is that you can be active in art contexts,
but
> also develop relations to other circuits of distribution: shareware,
module
> libraries, free software, gratis CD ROMs and so on. Work to multiply
these.
> Mongrel for instance always triangulates what it does, using the net,
> streets / communities, and art systems to reinforce each other, but also
to
> make sure that no one mode dominates the others.
>
> Amy Alexander: I don't worry about this. Art institutions (including
> runme.org!) can and
> will appropriate anything they want - the thing about digital projects of
> course is that in general, they're infinitely reproducible - so an
> institution jumping onto the net doesn't interfere with other nodes and
> modes of distribution. It just jumps on the bandwagon. People can decide
for
> themselves which packagings they find most interesting.
>
> Florian Cramer: This is a question that applies to any labeling and
> contextualization of art. Recuperation is inevitable as soon as you call
> something "art", and of course we ourselves do contribute to that
> recuperation. I don't care, and even think it's good to recuperate certain
> things -- like, for example: hacker code -- to save it from being
overlooked
> or forgotten. It's rather problematic if the recuperation happens the
other
> way round, as problematic exploitation of programmer's cultures through
> artists (like in the RSG Carnivore project and - despite its good
intentions
> - the "CODeDOC" exhibition at
> the Whitney museum).
>
> ______________________________________________
>
> February, 2003.
>
> This document is copylefted under the Open Publication License
> <http://www.opencontent.org/openpub> and may be freely copied and
> used.
>
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> 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
>
Centralization causes marginalization of whomever is not in the "center."
Not to mention structural weakness (single point of failure - when the
"center" disappoints, the whole can fall apart.)
beautiful...well said.
marc
> QuickView on Software Art
> Amy Alexander, Florian Cramer, Matthew Fuller, Thomax Kaulmann, Alex
McLean,
> Pit Schultz,
> and The Yes Men, interviewed by Olga Goriunova and Alexei Shulgin.
> http://runme.org
>
>
> Olga Goriunova and Alexei Shulgin: Why are you personally attracted to
> 'software art'?
>
> The Yes Men: We are very interested in software art because of its
potential
> for automation! We can use these technologies to replace the artists. A
> wholesale replacement. Followed by leisure!
>
> Alex McLean: Because making code is empowering, but generally taught very
> badly. The act of programming is portrayed as systematic and uncreative.
> This may be appropriate for working on quality assured credit card
> transaction systems, but why apply it to programming as a whole? Software
> art might give us a place to look at the creation and use of software
> outside of formal business constraints, and the stereotypes thereby
> fostered.
> I'm also repelled by software art, because I see artists trying to employ
> software thoughtlessly. Hopefully software art will draw on its hackerly
> heritage enough to sidestep readymade wizardware.
>
> Thomax Kaulmann: Software art can be a manifold thing. It can look nice in
> source code or at runtime. It can influence culture or can give an
> impression of the present culture.
> Software art is just another art discipline and it is not defined.
> Art is always a matter of intention, there can be different media to
> transport one's vision: stones & hammer, canvas & color, camera & video or
> computers & software. An artist is intrinsically motivated to translate
> his/her ideas to a broader culture, through software as well.
>
> Amy Alexander: Hmm, it's a little like asking "why are you attracted to
> art?" isn't it :-)? I'm not sure verbal answers to such questions can be
> entirely satisfactory or productive. But to give a partial one: I think
> because software art is a mode of non-verbal expression relevant to
> contemporary culture - just as photography, video art, etc., were to the
> times in which they first appeared (and still are.)
>
> Matthew Fuller: Perhaps the conjunction of two highly productive and
> inventive forces, neither of which really wants the other is always going
to
> make for something interesting?
> What is named as contemporary art has responded to networks and
computation
> by taking on certain of the characteristics of networks - the formulation
of
> 'the relational aesthetic' for instance - without actually dealing with
the
> specific technologies.
> On the other hand, software cultures have only very rarely considered
> themselves to or have acted in a manner which is reflexive, in the way
which
> is most usefully and richly developed over the last century and a half or
so
> of art.
> Various conjunctions of these two patterns of activity, their mutual
> interference, seem to be generating some exciting or annoying or
disruptive
> or inventive effects. One cannot claim this for all of the work that
> operates here of course, but it is an opening to new conjunctures.
>
> Pit Schultz: Software art is attracting me because it is carrying a
> seductive promise that possibly software production could be seen as
> cultural production; that writing code has more meaning as making a
program
> run or crash or sell. It might place media art into the history of
> contemporary art with the passage of conceptual art for example.
> It poses questions of artisanship, and pragmatic aesthetics of code, a
kind
> of surplus that is not technological in terms of efficiency.
>
> Florian Cramer: If one defines (as the Read_me 1.2 jury did) software art
as
> art that is either based on formal instruction code or which is a cultural
> reflection of software, then there has been a lot of interesting artwork
> lately in this field that has a attracted me and which justifies to engage
> with this concept. Jodi's work of the past few years, which has radically
> shifted from browser art to manipulations of computer software, is one
> striking example. But aside from that practical observation, I am also
> attracted by theoretical issues, since, being an academic in comparative
> literature, I research the borders and grey
> areas of writing, executable code and art, from the permutational poems of
> the late antiquity to lullist and kabbalistic language speculation to up
to
> the very new situation that instruction code has become a mass commodity
and
> a material appropriated by artists in all kinds of ways. I thus would
never
> limit software art to craftsmanship of programming (i.e. software art as a
> Donald Knuth-style "art of programming"), but consciously take
speculative,
> unclean, or even non-computer-related approaches into account, from
certain
> forms of poetic play and conceptual art to the use of machine code
fragments
> as private languages in artistic "codeworks" like those I collate,
together
> with Alan Sondheim and Beatrice Beaubien, into the "nettime unstable
> digest".
> I should also add that I am a Free Software activist who perceives
operating
> systems (particularly those which don't create artificial frontiers
between
> "users" and "programmers" - i.e. Unix, Plan9, LISP machines) and software
as
> ways of thought and cultures that are in no way aesthetically, culturally
or
> politically "neutral". It thus follows that software and art, as modes of
> both cultural reflection and construction, are closely related to each
> other.
>
>
> Olga Goriunova and Alexei Shulgin: Which viewpoints on the issue you find
> most interesting?
>
> Alex McLean: That of the programmer, because I am one myself, and that of
> people using the software, because there is often great disconnection
> between software creators and their audience.
>
> Amy Alexander: I have a few interests: critical, political and
algorithmic.
> Critical: Software art helps us examine the biases and the influences on
> culture of software at large. Most non-art software pretends to be
neutral
> and objective technology - devoid of human influence. Software art opens
> itself up to examination of its human-created biases and its
> human-experienced influences - so it helps us understand how these factors
> operate in "normal" (non-art) software as well.
> Political: Governments and corporations use software and information
capital
> to exert influence. But artists and others can use software to
> strategically redistribute information capital in a more equitable, useful
> and entertaining manner. (Mi datamine es tu datamine.) In other words, I
> think it's important to realize that data and algorithms are separate
> things. Even proprietary data can often be publicly accessed (search
engine
> databases, etc.) But how it's used is in the algorithm - strategically
> written algorithms can provide a lot of leverage and be very handy as
> tactical media tools.
> And algorithmic for its own sake: the visceral, improvisational nature of
> art and communication through algorithms and coding.
>
> Matthew Fuller:
> Yes, it is the way in which various software art projects reveal the way
> software is embedded within wider currents of social and aesthetic
> composition.
> How does software manifest, reproduce or invent new relations, say of
class,
> or of processes of work and activity? How is it racialised? Is it so
> precisely in its 'universality'? Does it have a way of doing things built
> into it that enhances certain kinds of
> sociability, or act against them? We can ask these questions in a number
of
> careful ways, but also in a manner that acknowledges our embeddedness
within
> software as culture. Part of these discussions are already part of office
> culture, think of the drippy compensatory humour of 'Dilbert' cartoons;
> consumer culture, where it exceeds itself as simple passivity, the
inventive
> intermediate role of 'power users'; and, perhaps most usefully in this
case
> in the way that particular scenes invent new forms of software and new
ways
> of dealing with established forms - think of the now long term tradition
of
> the demo-scene for instance.
> At the same time, it's useful to work from the 'opposite' direction. There
> are some interesting currents that take advantage of the specific material
> qualities of particular kinds of coding culture. Think of some of the
games
> mods or some of the generative code work that really take advantage of the
> idiosyncratic, perverse and particular nature of code practices.
Exploiters
> of bugs. Make the machines stammer, speak in tongues.
>
> Amy Alexander: The algorithm is also very important here. The algorithm
that
> generates the output is an important and subjective thing, and in
commercial
> software, it often hides behind the veil of innocent, technological
> neutrality. An obvious example is Google's PageRank algorithm, which
> determines which sites appear towards the top of Google's results, and
which
> don't appear at all. The algorithm is very biased toward big sites,
> especially if they own lots of other big sites.
> But in their description at http://google.com/technology, Google explains
> that they rely on "the uniquely democratic nature of the web" and that
> "Google's complex, automated methods make human tampering with our results
> extremely difficult." Didn't humans write the algorithm?
> That is a very direct example. Software artists approach the subjectivity
of
> algorithms in different ways; some are more formal; many are more subtle.
> But because software art opens itself up to examination of its
subjectivity,
> and the fact that interface is driven by human-generated algorithms, it
can
> help us think about the broader software context.
>
> Pit Schultz:
> Which viewpoints? The view from the 'folkloristic' aspect of programmers'
> cultures, writing gimmicks. The aspect of generating a tree of knowledge
> out of existing material, by changing the viewpoint to it. The question if
> there's something else than an unlimited numbers of readymades to be
found.
> The archive aspect of an area of production, which is not yet bounded,
> territorialized. Something ambivalent that was already attracting me to
the
> possibility of net.art. A strange attractor for the possibility of
existence
> of such a genre?
>
> Florian Cramer: Georg Philipp Harsdoerffer's "Mathematische und
> philosophische Erquickstunden" ("Mathematical and philosophical
> recreations") from 1636 -- perhaps the first attempt to systematically
> combine poetics, mathematics and algorithmics into a playful whole,
Abraham
> M. Moles "First manifesto of permutational art" from 1963, Jack Burnham's
> exhibition "Software" from 1970, Geoff Cox', Adrian Ward's and Alex
McLean's
> 2000 paper "The aesthetics of generative code", Matthew Fuller's 2000
paper
> "It looks like you're writing a letter: Microsoft Word", the (to date:
four)
> jury statements of the Transmediale and Read_me juries, to some extent
also
> Larry Wall's papers on Perl and postmodernism. We could use more cultural
> criticism of software in general, and especially a criticism that sees
more
> than surface screen visual and which doesn't fall into the trap of
> simplistic analogies between structures in software and structures in
> society.
>
>
> Olga Goriunova and Alexei Shulgin: Programmers don't seem to be interested
> in submitting their works to art festivals and competitions. There is a
huge
> body of their work that might be interesting culturally and artistically.
> What are the possible strategies and interfaces that can help to make
those
> works visible in the extended software / art context?
>
> Alex McLean: Yes, programmers don't need institutionalised art festivals
or
> competitions. They have the Internet, and the grass-roots fact-to-face
> meetings that result from their online projects and discussions.
>
> Amy Alexander: Programmers don't need art festivals - hooray! Rewind back
to
> "net artists don't need museums", and multiply by a factor of two (because
> programmers typically don't consider themselves in the "art" field at
all.)
> So a programmer's work might be culturally and artistically interesting,
but
> you have to go where it lives instead of making it come to you. First we
> should ask ourselves, "is this a problem?" Personally, I don't think so.
> Centralization causes marginalization of whomever is not in the "center."
> Not to mention structural weakness (single point of failure - when the
> "center" disappoints, the whole can fall apart.)
> Do programmers feel the urge to be pulled into the "art context?" If not,
> then to do so might be to open a software art zoo and hunt down projects
to
> bring them into captivity - so we can gawk at them without getting our
> fingers dirty. Many authors won't want to be involved in "art"
> contextualizations at all. Others will if the context and culture seems
> inclusive and relevant to them. Programmers (among others) are turned off
by
> artspeak, or if every discussion refers back to postmodern philosophy.
These
> conversations exclude people, and it is in fact possible to have an
> intelligent, culturally relevant discussion without these as the focus.
> Also, it is helpful for non-programmers to read about, learn about, and
> experience geek culture. It is a culture, and it's about people, not
> technology.
> So anyway, hopefully runme.org takes a couple of positive steps: it's, we
> hope, easy to submit work to - you don't have to spend a lot of time
putting
> together a big press kit with lots of artspeak to impress some jury and
> mailing it in ... and you can invite someone else's work in, if they're
too
> busy or too shy to submit it themselves... it also tries to respect that
> software art comes from both "software" and "art" genealogies but is its
own
> thing. I think it's a problem when people try to interpret software art as
> strictly "software" or strictly "art." Time will tell if our diabolical
> plans have been successful. :-)
>
> The Yes Men: There are many examples of amazing "outsider art" that isn't
> recognized as
> such by the producer.. So I would think merely pointing them out, or
finding
> them and making contact with the producers is what would be most important
> first.
>
> Alex McLean: Yes, runme.org may be a start, allowing existing communities
of
> people interested in creative aspects of computing to share their view.
>
> Florian Cramer: I personally think runme.org is an excellent step in this
> direction. With its function as a download repository and weblog-style
> interface (as it was pioneered by Free Software websites like Slashdot.org
> and Freshmeat.net), it clearly overcomes some (so-to-speak) interface
design
> issues of the festival/competition/exhibition-oriented art system,
although
> I still think that both channels could and should co-exist. I find the
> exhibitions "I love you" (at MAK Frankfurt 2002 and at transmediale.03
> Berlin) and jodi's "install.exe" (at plug.in Basel 2002 and Buro Friedrich
> Berlin 2003) very successful presentations of software art in the language
> of the traditional art system, and the presentations are necessary to
> address a larger non-geek audience. Since runme.org got headline coverage
on
> Slashdot.org, I am quite optimistic that this is the way to go. In
general,
> Free Software self-organization provides good blueprints to software art
> self-organization.
>
> Pit Schultz: The question is what constitutes the 'software art context'?
> The software repository is known from shareware and other kinds of
> downloadable software tools. Is it applicable to the area of 'art' too?
If
> we talk about context, the question is what kind of 'institutions' make
> software art exists, where are its boundaries? Who constitutes these
> boundaries and how? And of course, is there a history of software art,
> assuming that it exists.
>
> Matthew Fuller: Roland Barthes suggested that a truly interdisciplinary
> object is one
> which is nameable by none of the disciplines that in part contribute to
> making it, or that congregate around it. Such an object is owned by no
one
> set of ideas and approaches. It demands that traditions become strange to
> themselves.
> So what is set in motion when art approaches the irritating subject of
> programming, what happens when the 'art' insistences on being incidental,
on
> being amateur, on being able to go wide-eyed or cunning into any context,
> comes into some relationship with technical
> skill?
> Equally, what happens when computing enters a context wherein every stage
in
> a process has aesthetic effects? What happens when computing's in-built
> judgments about what is 'optimal' or what is 'trivial' are subject to
> question and reinvention, or may even usurp its capacity to rule, to make
> rules? The revaluation of the trivial, of waste, of the past, of what has
> been shat out, and conversely, what it founds - the new - is one of the
> powers of art.
> I don't think that this work then that you ask about, that of programmers,
> needs 'help'. It doesn't need to be 'made visible'. We don't need
gestures
> of sympathy such as those repetitiously awarding Linux the name, 'Art' in
> order to make things possible. What is
> needed are more specific alliances with particular currents of programming
> and other strands of making culture; deranging gestures that bring new
> worlds to light; prison break-outs; sustained and thoughtful work that
makes
> itself available for use.
>
>
> Olga Goriunova and Alexei Shulgin: Software art seems to be quite an open
> field yet, possibly due to the reason it is very diverse and in many
> respects is based on the programmers' culture that is hard to grasp. While
> contextualizing grassroot movements like this one and thus, providing an
> access to
> interesting practices to larger audience, we are at the same time
inevitably
> packaging them for easy appropriation by art institutions. How do you
think
> we can deal with this problem?
>
> Alex McLean: Having people with broad knowledge and experience of
> programming
> languages forming part of art institutions. Critics should become
literate
> in some of the many languages of software art before trying to understand
> its context. Right now I think many art institutions are too software
> illiterate to be of any interest to software artists.
>
> The Yes Men: Yes! Just like the outsider artists... Well, it seems the
> important thing
> is to respect the desires and intentions of the creator... See if they
want
> to be appropriated first. If appropriation involves a compromise of
> integrity, then figure out in each instance how to make the work useless
to
> the dominant narrative...?
>
> Pit Schultz: How did other types of 'immaterial art' deal with this
problem?
> How did early computer graphics deal with it, or certain kinds of Fluxus?
> The question is for me first of all is there a 'style' a kind of common
> 'ductus' which one can see after the years surrounding different forms of
> 'conceptualism'. The suggestion is that there is a difference
> to be made in relation to other forms of art, which are based on the
> postulation that a new 'form' is found, only through the use of a specific
> 'new' medium. The autonomy of media art in relation of contemporary art
has
> to be questioned, on the other hand the way the art operating system
> processes incoming 'new forms' has to be questioned too. Software and the
> net allows to run a 'museum' with much less funds than elsewhere, this
poses
> questions of what defines the needed power relations of representation
which
> are constituting an art form.
> "Software art" insofar is not new, but it reflects, enhances, explores the
> role of software in a post-industrial society and afterwards. What is the
> role of the original, the author, the object, can one apply other basic
> questions of the predecessors of this potential art genre in a new way?
How
> do seemingly successful works function gaining a market? (rhizome list
etc.)
> What kind of criteria they seem to fulfill? Is there any place of
> constituting itself outside of an institutional interest? As with any art
> I'm also interested in the art which hasn't to be called art.
>
> Matthew Fuller: This question might also be posed from a different
> perspective. If art institutions are treated simply as a particular and
> distinct part of a number of interlocking, but also partially
differentiable
> processes and institutions it is useful to use them and take part in them
> for those things that they do well. .
> I also think that in general it is wise to avoid becoming involved solely
in
> one kind of institutional structure. The advantage of the internet and
> other distribution mechanisms is that you can be active in art contexts,
but
> also develop relations to other circuits of distribution: shareware,
module
> libraries, free software, gratis CD ROMs and so on. Work to multiply
these.
> Mongrel for instance always triangulates what it does, using the net,
> streets / communities, and art systems to reinforce each other, but also
to
> make sure that no one mode dominates the others.
>
> Amy Alexander: I don't worry about this. Art institutions (including
> runme.org!) can and
> will appropriate anything they want - the thing about digital projects of
> course is that in general, they're infinitely reproducible - so an
> institution jumping onto the net doesn't interfere with other nodes and
> modes of distribution. It just jumps on the bandwagon. People can decide
for
> themselves which packagings they find most interesting.
>
> Florian Cramer: This is a question that applies to any labeling and
> contextualization of art. Recuperation is inevitable as soon as you call
> something "art", and of course we ourselves do contribute to that
> recuperation. I don't care, and even think it's good to recuperate certain
> things -- like, for example: hacker code -- to save it from being
overlooked
> or forgotten. It's rather problematic if the recuperation happens the
other
> way round, as problematic exploitation of programmer's cultures through
> artists (like in the RSG Carnivore project and - despite its good
intentions
> - the "CODeDOC" exhibition at
> the Whitney museum).
>
> ______________________________________________
>
> February, 2003.
>
> This document is copylefted under the Open Publication License
> <http://www.opencontent.org/openpub> and may be freely copied and
> used.
>
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> 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
>
Terrorism pure and simple
Terrorism pure and simple
Three versions of the news:
I turned on CNN briefly this afternoon and caught their military expert,
General Barry McCaffrey (US Army, ret.) answering questions about war
strategy from a CNN anchor in a distinctly belligerent tone to interspersed
clips of convoys and American foot soldiers moving through blowing sand.
Here are a few phrases I managed to jot down: When asked about "the battle
for Baghdad," he said, "We gotta get into town, bust their chops, and get
outta there." And a little later he asked rhetorically, "Do you bust in
there, take them down, or do you end up in a 90-day stand-off?" On the
subject of sand storms grounding planes, he commented, "But thank God for
the US artillery. without that we'd be in trouble out there." And so on and
so forth, his face perched on a red (and orange lettered) "operation IRAQI
FREEDOM."
Here, on the other hand, is a telegraphic private note to a friend of mine
from a Brit reporter, which in a few well-chosen words offers a distinctly
more realistic vision of this war as it's unfolding: "had a hairy weekend in
southern iraq since last i messaged. the south which was supposed to hate
saddam has turned out not to be very welcoming. terry lloyd was killed just
along the road from me on Saturday. horrible stuff. and all the iraqis we
met were asking for water because their supply had been cut."
To read a more formal version of this
http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?emx=x&pidQ8
Three versions of the news:
I turned on CNN briefly this afternoon and caught their military expert,
General Barry McCaffrey (US Army, ret.) answering questions about war
strategy from a CNN anchor in a distinctly belligerent tone to interspersed
clips of convoys and American foot soldiers moving through blowing sand.
Here are a few phrases I managed to jot down: When asked about "the battle
for Baghdad," he said, "We gotta get into town, bust their chops, and get
outta there." And a little later he asked rhetorically, "Do you bust in
there, take them down, or do you end up in a 90-day stand-off?" On the
subject of sand storms grounding planes, he commented, "But thank God for
the US artillery. without that we'd be in trouble out there." And so on and
so forth, his face perched on a red (and orange lettered) "operation IRAQI
FREEDOM."
Here, on the other hand, is a telegraphic private note to a friend of mine
from a Brit reporter, which in a few well-chosen words offers a distinctly
more realistic vision of this war as it's unfolding: "had a hairy weekend in
southern iraq since last i messaged. the south which was supposed to hate
saddam has turned out not to be very welcoming. terry lloyd was killed just
along the road from me on Saturday. horrible stuff. and all the iraqis we
met were asking for water because their supply had been cut."
To read a more formal version of this
http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?emx=x&pidQ8
Emailing: anti_net_art_society
Anti-Net Art Society
The Following information was taken from a cynical trial conducted by=
the
Anti-Net Art Society. Click Here for Entire Study.
Hello, My name is Dr. Yes Sir I will do as you wish - Johnson, =
President of the Anti-Net Art Society.
Our well known and established organization is constantly resea=
rching and developing methods and products to slow down and even reverse th=
e independent and ever creative effects of Net Art and its recent achieveme=
nts. I'm writing to share with you an important strategic breakthrough in t=
he treatment of Net Art.
Very recently, a product was released by the name of Dehumanizi=
ng the Internet.
This non revolutionary product is institutionally proven to rev=
erse the independent Net Art process.
Our aim is to promote only those that we have supported or have=
close connections to, or allegiances to, during the so called 'heroic age'=
, thus actively leaving out those who were not supported and are still not =
affiliated to many of our established structures; thus leaving them out of =
the picture of accepted history. Our tactic is a breakthrough, we create a =
conference or exhibition and many apply from all over the world, then we tu=
rn down those who are not connected to or supported by affiliated instituti=
ons; using this disclaimer: 'We received proposals from hundreds of artists=
, theorists, researchers, scientists and performers in over 25 countries. T=
he overall standard of proposals was extremely high, and unfortunately we h=
ad to make some very tough decisions to arrive at a program which we feel f=
itted the thematic and topical focus we were trying to achieve'. Of course,=
we knew that many of the more underground Net Artists would apply but if y=
ou want the best, meaning those of whom who are already accepted, we highly=
recommend that you use this very effective method of objective deduction.
So use this incredible disclaimer yourselves, completely unpara=
lleled by any method of isolation on the market today, a perfect divide and=
rule tactic. This is an ideal way for us to get rid of those upstarts who =
question our ethics, leaving them to rot with those 'normal' people who are=
not institutionally proven:
The Following information was taken from a cynical trial conducted by=
the
Anti-Net Art Society. Click Here for Entire Study.
Hello, My name is Dr. Yes Sir I will do as you wish - Johnson, =
President of the Anti-Net Art Society.
Our well known and established organization is constantly resea=
rching and developing methods and products to slow down and even reverse th=
e independent and ever creative effects of Net Art and its recent achieveme=
nts. I'm writing to share with you an important strategic breakthrough in t=
he treatment of Net Art.
Very recently, a product was released by the name of Dehumanizi=
ng the Internet.
This non revolutionary product is institutionally proven to rev=
erse the independent Net Art process.
Our aim is to promote only those that we have supported or have=
close connections to, or allegiances to, during the so called 'heroic age'=
, thus actively leaving out those who were not supported and are still not =
affiliated to many of our established structures; thus leaving them out of =
the picture of accepted history. Our tactic is a breakthrough, we create a =
conference or exhibition and many apply from all over the world, then we tu=
rn down those who are not connected to or supported by affiliated instituti=
ons; using this disclaimer: 'We received proposals from hundreds of artists=
, theorists, researchers, scientists and performers in over 25 countries. T=
he overall standard of proposals was extremely high, and unfortunately we h=
ad to make some very tough decisions to arrive at a program which we feel f=
itted the thematic and topical focus we were trying to achieve'. Of course,=
we knew that many of the more underground Net Artists would apply but if y=
ou want the best, meaning those of whom who are already accepted, we highly=
recommend that you use this very effective method of objective deduction.
So use this incredible disclaimer yourselves, completely unpara=
lleled by any method of isolation on the market today, a perfect divide and=
rule tactic. This is an ideal way for us to get rid of those upstarts who =
question our ethics, leaving them to rot with those 'normal' people who are=
not institutionally proven:
<<<Random>>>
Marc Garrett e un artista che si muove in diverse direzioni -dalla net art
alla musica- ed e il co-fondatore, insieme a Ruth Catlow, del collettivi
furthefield.org e furthernoise.org. Questo progetto in particolare tratta
dell'arte via posta elettronica, o meglio, dei messaggi e-mail come forma d'
arte. Si ritorna cosi alle radici della net art, basti pensare che il
termine stesso net art e stato coniato proprio tramite un'e-mail spedita da
un anonimo mittente ad uno dei "padri fondatori" del movimento, Vuk Cosic.
Il messaggio era composto solamente da caratteri ASCII completamente
indecifrabili e le uniche parole leggibili erano proprio net.art.
E l'E-Mail Art si ricollega, oltre che alla Mail art storica (quella
analogica), anche ad un'altra delle prime forme di arte digitale e cioe l'
ASCII art, l'arte di disegnare utilizzando soltanto i caratteri del codice
ASCII. Marc Garrett ha quindi creato questa piccola collezione di e-mail
raccolte durante vari anni e che vogliono essere una sorta di archivio di
cio che si puo fare attraverso un programma di posta elettronica e una
manciata di caratteri tipografici.
Come precisa l'artista non tutte le istituzioni sono interessate a questo
tipo di arte, pertanto e importante che qualcuno archivi e conservi questa
forma di creativita in modo che non si disperda. (raffaella albamonte
siciliano)
Links
Email Art
alla musica- ed e il co-fondatore, insieme a Ruth Catlow, del collettivi
furthefield.org e furthernoise.org. Questo progetto in particolare tratta
dell'arte via posta elettronica, o meglio, dei messaggi e-mail come forma d'
arte. Si ritorna cosi alle radici della net art, basti pensare che il
termine stesso net art e stato coniato proprio tramite un'e-mail spedita da
un anonimo mittente ad uno dei "padri fondatori" del movimento, Vuk Cosic.
Il messaggio era composto solamente da caratteri ASCII completamente
indecifrabili e le uniche parole leggibili erano proprio net.art.
E l'E-Mail Art si ricollega, oltre che alla Mail art storica (quella
analogica), anche ad un'altra delle prime forme di arte digitale e cioe l'
ASCII art, l'arte di disegnare utilizzando soltanto i caratteri del codice
ASCII. Marc Garrett ha quindi creato questa piccola collezione di e-mail
raccolte durante vari anni e che vogliono essere una sorta di archivio di
cio che si puo fare attraverso un programma di posta elettronica e una
manciata di caratteri tipografici.
Come precisa l'artista non tutte le istituzioni sono interessate a questo
tipo di arte, pertanto e importante che qualcuno archivi e conservi questa
forma di creativita in modo che non si disperda. (raffaella albamonte
siciliano)
Links
Email Art