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.
Re: botanical garden?
Hi Manik,
Perhaps we are - we need to watch out for the pruning shears, that aim
to prune net art (and media art) into a more cosy bonsai, centralized
plant...
" The art of growing dwarfed, ornamentally shaped trees or shrubs in
small shallow pots or trays."
http://www.answers.com/bonsai&rg
marc
>Hi Marc & all,
>Are you talking there about botanical garden?
>Love
>MANIK
>
>7/30/06 3:09:40 PM,marc <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>wrote:
>Are you
>Hi Silva & all,
>
>As many probably know from long ago on this list, I have been very much
>pro- net art, and still am. At Furtherfield, we still view Net Art as
>being a main interest and passion, even though we have adapted with the
>aim of exploration, not because net art is dying but because we feel
>that it is expanding its roots into multi-various forms of creative
>outreach, and contemporary contexts.
>
>I personally come from a place of activism, art and networked
>consciousness, linking very much with a net art focus - not from a film
>perspective, 'soft cinema' (Manovich etc).
>
>I feel that there has been a divide between those who have officially
>been placed in the history books as 'net.artists' and those seen as 'net
>artists', and because only a few top names have been repeatedly banded
>about as the main figures of this net-based creativity, Internet art
>suffered a kind of cultural drought. Which is not good for any artist
>working in such closely related mediums. Although, things are changing.
>
>There have been certain curators who have kept on showing the same old
>faces, over and over again - who have not opened up their curatorial
>remits for other lesser known creatives, who may not be using the same
>inscribed protocols, or academic language to justify their intentions.
>
>"In my opinion net.art is pretty much what can be thought of a movement,
>both geographically and chronolically defined... eventually net.art died..."
>
>Net.Art did not die - it became a historical commodity for those who
>planned it in such a way. It was not the dot.com boom that shattered the
>(hoped) growth of the movement, it was those who decided to hand in
>their cultural cache at that time to move on to different pastures so
>that they could move into a gallery system, keeping themselves valid in
>a curatorial context.
>
>"and net art or internet art became the standard category for online
>based artistic projects..."
>
>I feel that net art has always been (officially) a sub-category, along
>side net.art, in terms of institutional control. They both happened at
>the same time as far as I am concerned - net art, is probably a poorer
>relative of the very well promoted and deliberately inserted form of
>net.art.
>
>In fact, I suppose net art, was the main movement and net.art was a
>smaller more specific, trendier, personality driven and modernist
>proposed version of it. It worked well for those who really believed in
>the myth of the artist as 'star' so that they could get a piece of the
>'heroic-artist' pie.
>
>The irony is that, some of these groups such as irational.org are
>actually brilliant (well i think so), as well being supporting by such
>systems - so it is not as black and white as some of us would wish to
>presume - just because certain groups get recognised and supported does
>not mean that they are evil - it has much more to do with the culture
>around it, and what ethical responsibilities were seriously explored (if
>any) by the more centralized, 'top-down' orientated organizations, such
>as ars electronica and 'older' rhizome - remits.
>
>I say 'old' rhizome because it seems that the new rhizome, in its
>character, even though it is not primarily net art focused alone, in its
>behaviour is net art, and the new team of rhizome have made a tremendous
>effort to break down the older more centralized way of being, that it
>was once. It seems less elitist, and more open minded in the way that it
>engages, in working with people who use the list these days, and willing
>to try out a few things.
>
>Let's not forget that net art is also thriving elsewhere, other than
>just on this list and on rhizome - the syndicate mailing list still has
>some serious net artists working on there, such as Auriea Harvey
>(entropy8zuper) and lo_y, and a dynamic (sometimes scary) community,
>dedicated to net art, and related contexts. and more of course...
>
>I was with irational.org, in the early days - working with Heath Bunting
>on various projects. The Cybercafe BBS, and Savage yet tender pirate
>radio and alternative networked art projects, that hacked phones
>(phreaking) and other things - but was much more interested in more
>collaborative net art and the communities that formed with it, and those
>who were not seen as net.art, still am. Even though I value some these
>net.artists and what they have given our culture, I also wish that some
>them were less desperate in getting their own names known and more
>interested in breaking down the patriarchal barriers that supported
>their endeavours.
>
>Some of the net.artists out there are still radical, yet there are those
>who pretend that they are great by proposing themselves as great, as
>(supposed) brilliant academics who are really just interested in power
>alone and where that gets them - I see these types, as weak and shallow
>individuals, hiding behind institutional walls, rather than changing
>institutions for the better - cowards.
>
>The spirit of net.art, has been supported by net art - and those
>net.artists owe much to net art for bringing in a larger audience and
>context, which has at the same time kept it all alive.
>
>Net art lives on but in various forms. I have been involved in 3 new
>classes last year, where students are exploring and learning about net
>art as part of the curriculum, I teach a balanced version of what that
>is, featuring those who have not been allowed into the hall of fame as
>'net.art', as well as those who have...
>
>Now history is being rewritten - at last by young new writers who are
>not diverted by the pressure of net.art 'star' orientated fractions,
>which is beginning to include those who were left out and others who did
>not quite fit the prescribed remit of institutional, academic laziness.
>In fact, I think that it is a great time to be doing net art :-)
>
>marc
>
>
>In my opinion net.art is pretty much what can be thought of a movement,
>both geographically and chronolically defined... eventually net.art
>died... and net art or internet art became the standard category for
>online based artistic projects...
>
>________________________________
>
>De: owner-list@rhizome.org em nome de marc
>Enviada: qui 27-07-2006 16:31
>Cc: list@rhizome.org
>Assunto: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: net art?
>
>
>
>
>Why has everyone conformed to using the term 'net.art', as in net.dot.art?
>
>Historically net.art, mainly belonged to just a few elite artists
>working on th Internet, Vuk Cosic made sure of this, and Manovich etc...
>
>I have always been interested in those who did not bandwagon jump onto
>the term 'net.art '- those who used 'net art' (without the dot), are the
>real blood of net art - for they have to deal with not being supported
>by history and cannons, and institutions.
>
>marc
>
>
>
>
>+
>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>+
>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
>
>
--
Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
Node.London - http://www.nodel.org
Perhaps we are - we need to watch out for the pruning shears, that aim
to prune net art (and media art) into a more cosy bonsai, centralized
plant...
" The art of growing dwarfed, ornamentally shaped trees or shrubs in
small shallow pots or trays."
http://www.answers.com/bonsai&rg
marc
>Hi Marc & all,
>Are you talking there about botanical garden?
>Love
>MANIK
>
>7/30/06 3:09:40 PM,marc <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>wrote:
>Are you
>Hi Silva & all,
>
>As many probably know from long ago on this list, I have been very much
>pro- net art, and still am. At Furtherfield, we still view Net Art as
>being a main interest and passion, even though we have adapted with the
>aim of exploration, not because net art is dying but because we feel
>that it is expanding its roots into multi-various forms of creative
>outreach, and contemporary contexts.
>
>I personally come from a place of activism, art and networked
>consciousness, linking very much with a net art focus - not from a film
>perspective, 'soft cinema' (Manovich etc).
>
>I feel that there has been a divide between those who have officially
>been placed in the history books as 'net.artists' and those seen as 'net
>artists', and because only a few top names have been repeatedly banded
>about as the main figures of this net-based creativity, Internet art
>suffered a kind of cultural drought. Which is not good for any artist
>working in such closely related mediums. Although, things are changing.
>
>There have been certain curators who have kept on showing the same old
>faces, over and over again - who have not opened up their curatorial
>remits for other lesser known creatives, who may not be using the same
>inscribed protocols, or academic language to justify their intentions.
>
>"In my opinion net.art is pretty much what can be thought of a movement,
>both geographically and chronolically defined... eventually net.art died..."
>
>Net.Art did not die - it became a historical commodity for those who
>planned it in such a way. It was not the dot.com boom that shattered the
>(hoped) growth of the movement, it was those who decided to hand in
>their cultural cache at that time to move on to different pastures so
>that they could move into a gallery system, keeping themselves valid in
>a curatorial context.
>
>"and net art or internet art became the standard category for online
>based artistic projects..."
>
>I feel that net art has always been (officially) a sub-category, along
>side net.art, in terms of institutional control. They both happened at
>the same time as far as I am concerned - net art, is probably a poorer
>relative of the very well promoted and deliberately inserted form of
>net.art.
>
>In fact, I suppose net art, was the main movement and net.art was a
>smaller more specific, trendier, personality driven and modernist
>proposed version of it. It worked well for those who really believed in
>the myth of the artist as 'star' so that they could get a piece of the
>'heroic-artist' pie.
>
>The irony is that, some of these groups such as irational.org are
>actually brilliant (well i think so), as well being supporting by such
>systems - so it is not as black and white as some of us would wish to
>presume - just because certain groups get recognised and supported does
>not mean that they are evil - it has much more to do with the culture
>around it, and what ethical responsibilities were seriously explored (if
>any) by the more centralized, 'top-down' orientated organizations, such
>as ars electronica and 'older' rhizome - remits.
>
>I say 'old' rhizome because it seems that the new rhizome, in its
>character, even though it is not primarily net art focused alone, in its
>behaviour is net art, and the new team of rhizome have made a tremendous
>effort to break down the older more centralized way of being, that it
>was once. It seems less elitist, and more open minded in the way that it
>engages, in working with people who use the list these days, and willing
>to try out a few things.
>
>Let's not forget that net art is also thriving elsewhere, other than
>just on this list and on rhizome - the syndicate mailing list still has
>some serious net artists working on there, such as Auriea Harvey
>(entropy8zuper) and lo_y, and a dynamic (sometimes scary) community,
>dedicated to net art, and related contexts. and more of course...
>
>I was with irational.org, in the early days - working with Heath Bunting
>on various projects. The Cybercafe BBS, and Savage yet tender pirate
>radio and alternative networked art projects, that hacked phones
>(phreaking) and other things - but was much more interested in more
>collaborative net art and the communities that formed with it, and those
>who were not seen as net.art, still am. Even though I value some these
>net.artists and what they have given our culture, I also wish that some
>them were less desperate in getting their own names known and more
>interested in breaking down the patriarchal barriers that supported
>their endeavours.
>
>Some of the net.artists out there are still radical, yet there are those
>who pretend that they are great by proposing themselves as great, as
>(supposed) brilliant academics who are really just interested in power
>alone and where that gets them - I see these types, as weak and shallow
>individuals, hiding behind institutional walls, rather than changing
>institutions for the better - cowards.
>
>The spirit of net.art, has been supported by net art - and those
>net.artists owe much to net art for bringing in a larger audience and
>context, which has at the same time kept it all alive.
>
>Net art lives on but in various forms. I have been involved in 3 new
>classes last year, where students are exploring and learning about net
>art as part of the curriculum, I teach a balanced version of what that
>is, featuring those who have not been allowed into the hall of fame as
>'net.art', as well as those who have...
>
>Now history is being rewritten - at last by young new writers who are
>not diverted by the pressure of net.art 'star' orientated fractions,
>which is beginning to include those who were left out and others who did
>not quite fit the prescribed remit of institutional, academic laziness.
>In fact, I think that it is a great time to be doing net art :-)
>
>marc
>
>
>In my opinion net.art is pretty much what can be thought of a movement,
>both geographically and chronolically defined... eventually net.art
>died... and net art or internet art became the standard category for
>online based artistic projects...
>
>________________________________
>
>De: owner-list@rhizome.org em nome de marc
>Enviada: qui 27-07-2006 16:31
>Cc: list@rhizome.org
>Assunto: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: net art?
>
>
>
>
>Why has everyone conformed to using the term 'net.art', as in net.dot.art?
>
>Historically net.art, mainly belonged to just a few elite artists
>working on th Internet, Vuk Cosic made sure of this, and Manovich etc...
>
>I have always been interested in those who did not bandwagon jump onto
>the term 'net.art '- those who used 'net art' (without the dot), are the
>real blood of net art - for they have to deal with not being supported
>by history and cannons, and institutions.
>
>marc
>
>
>
>
>+
>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>+
>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
>
>
--
Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
Node.London - http://www.nodel.org
Re: dot.com implosion killed net art?
Hi T.Whid & all,
>Remembering the crash, I was thinking at the time that it *would*
throw cold water on the net art movement and thinking that it didn't
seem to be happening.
As long as one has a computer that is connected to another computer, or
network, or Internet - net art will go on, no matter what other so
called 'knowing' individuals would prefer us to think.
The idea of net art and the death of it has come up so many times on
this list, one would have to think - how many times can it die if it
did, which of course, it is not dead - it's mythology and political to
want it to...
marc
> Hi all,
>
> re: the discussion about net art being
> weakend/not-as-interesting/killed/whatever-you-want-to-call-it
>
> There has been several assertions made that the dot.com bust poured
> cold water on the movement but I wanted to look at it a little more
> closely.
>
> As some of you know, M.River and I were very much involved with the
> net art movement from 97 onward. I was also working within the dot.com
> bubble at the time and was very attuned to its movements.
>
> I remember knowing there was trouble with the bubble in mid-'00. Then,
> by late 00/early 01, it was obvious to everyone that the burst had
> happened. (See this graph of the nasdaq:
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/NASDAQ_IXIC_-_dot-com_bubble_small.png).
>
>
> I was out of work in early/mid 00 and it was super-easy to get a
> dot.com gig at the time due to the fact that the forward momentum of
> companies isn't as easily stopped as the rise of their stock price.
>
> Remembering the crash, I was thinking at the time that it *would*
> throw cold water on the net art movement and thinking that it didn't
> seem to be happening.
>
> Probably due to the fact that museums and art institutions are even
> slower moving than businesses, it took a good year or two after the
> dot.com burst for the net art fad to fizzle in the art institutions.
> Not to say that the dot.com collapse didn't help cause it, but it took
> a while for it to be felt.
>
--
Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
Node.London - http://www.nodel.org
>Remembering the crash, I was thinking at the time that it *would*
throw cold water on the net art movement and thinking that it didn't
seem to be happening.
As long as one has a computer that is connected to another computer, or
network, or Internet - net art will go on, no matter what other so
called 'knowing' individuals would prefer us to think.
The idea of net art and the death of it has come up so many times on
this list, one would have to think - how many times can it die if it
did, which of course, it is not dead - it's mythology and political to
want it to...
marc
> Hi all,
>
> re: the discussion about net art being
> weakend/not-as-interesting/killed/whatever-you-want-to-call-it
>
> There has been several assertions made that the dot.com bust poured
> cold water on the movement but I wanted to look at it a little more
> closely.
>
> As some of you know, M.River and I were very much involved with the
> net art movement from 97 onward. I was also working within the dot.com
> bubble at the time and was very attuned to its movements.
>
> I remember knowing there was trouble with the bubble in mid-'00. Then,
> by late 00/early 01, it was obvious to everyone that the burst had
> happened. (See this graph of the nasdaq:
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/NASDAQ_IXIC_-_dot-com_bubble_small.png).
>
>
> I was out of work in early/mid 00 and it was super-easy to get a
> dot.com gig at the time due to the fact that the forward momentum of
> companies isn't as easily stopped as the rise of their stock price.
>
> Remembering the crash, I was thinking at the time that it *would*
> throw cold water on the net art movement and thinking that it didn't
> seem to be happening.
>
> Probably due to the fact that museums and art institutions are even
> slower moving than businesses, it took a good year or two after the
> dot.com burst for the net art fad to fizzle in the art institutions.
> Not to say that the dot.com collapse didn't help cause it, but it took
> a while for it to be felt.
>
--
Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
Node.London - http://www.nodel.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: net art?
Hi Silva & all,
As many probably know from long ago on this list, I have been very much
pro- net art, and still am. At Furtherfield, we still view Net Art as
being a main interest and passion, even though we have adapted with the
aim of exploration, not because net art is dying but because we feel
that it is expanding its roots into multi-various forms of creative
outreach, and contemporary contexts.
I personally come from a place of activism, art and networked
consciousness, linking very much with a net art focus - not from a film
perspective, 'soft cinema' (Manovich etc).
I feel that there has been a divide between those who have officially
been placed in the history books as 'net.artists' and those seen as 'net
artists', and because only a few top names have been repeatedly banded
about as the main figures of this net-based creativity, Internet art
suffered a kind of cultural drought. Which is not good for any artist
working in such closely related mediums. Although, things are changing.
There have been certain curators who have kept on showing the same old
faces, over and over again - who have not opened up their curatorial
remits for other lesser known creatives, who may not be using the same
inscribed protocols, or academic language to justify their intentions.
"In my opinion net.art is pretty much what can be thought of a movement,
both geographically and chronolically defined... eventually net.art died..."
Net.Art did not die - it became a historical commodity for those who
planned it in such a way. It was not the dot.com boom that shattered the
(hoped) growth of the movement, it was those who decided to hand in
their cultural cache at that time to move on to different pastures so
that they could move into a gallery system, keeping themselves valid in
a curatorial context.
"and net art or internet art became the standard category for online
based artistic projects..."
I feel that net art has always been (officially) a sub-category, along
side net.art, in terms of institutional control. They both happened at
the same time as far as I am concerned - net art, is probably a poorer
relative of the very well promoted and deliberately inserted form of
net.art.
In fact, I suppose net art, was the main movement and net.art was a
smaller more specific, trendier, personality driven and modernist
proposed version of it. It worked well for those who really believed in
the myth of the artist as 'star' so that they could get a piece of the
'heroic-artist' pie.
The irony is that, some of these groups such as irational.org are
actually brilliant (well i think so), as well being supporting by such
systems - so it is not as black and white as some of us would wish to
presume - just because certain groups get recognised and supported does
not mean that they are evil - it has much more to do with the culture
around it, and what ethical responsibilities were seriously explored (if
any) by the more centralized, 'top-down' orientated organizations, such
as ars electronica and 'older' rhizome - remits.
I say 'old' rhizome because it seems that the new rhizome, in its
character, even though it is not primarily net art focused alone, in its
behaviour is net art, and the new team of rhizome have made a tremendous
effort to break down the older more centralized way of being, that it
was once. It seems less elitist, and more open minded in the way that it
engages, in working with people who use the list these days, and willing
to try out a few things.
Let's not forget that net art is also thriving elsewhere, other than
just on this list and on rhizome - the syndicate mailing list still has
some serious net artists working on there, such as Auriea Harvey
(entropy8zuper) and lo_y, and a dynamic (sometimes scary) community,
dedicated to net art, and related contexts. and more of course...
I was with irational.org, in the early days - working with Heath Bunting
on various projects. The Cybercafe BBS, and Savage yet tender pirate
radio and alternative networked art projects, that hacked phones
(phreaking) and other things - but was much more interested in more
collaborative net art and the communities that formed with it, and those
who were not seen as net.art, still am. Even though I value some these
net.artists and what they have given our culture, I also wish that some
them were less desperate in getting their own names known and more
interested in breaking down the patriarchal barriers that supported
their endeavours.
Some of the net.artists out there are still radical, yet there are those
who pretend that they are great by proposing themselves as great, as
(supposed) brilliant academics who are really just interested in power
alone and where that gets them - I see these types, as weak and shallow
individuals, hiding behind institutional walls, rather than changing
institutions for the better - cowards.
The spirit of net.art, has been supported by net art - and those
net.artists owe much to net art for bringing in a larger audience and
context, which has at the same time kept it all alive.
Net art lives on but in various forms. I have been involved in 3 new
classes last year, where students are exploring and learning about net
art as part of the curriculum, I teach a balanced version of what that
is, featuring those who have not been allowed into the hall of fame as
'net.art', as well as those who have...
Now history is being rewritten - at last by young new writers who are
not diverted by the pressure of net.art 'star' orientated fractions,
which is beginning to include those who were left out and others who did
not quite fit the prescribed remit of institutional, academic laziness.
In fact, I think that it is a great time to be doing net art :-)
marc
In my opinion net.art is pretty much what can be thought of a movement,
both geographically and chronolically defined... eventually net.art
died... and net art or internet art became the standard category for
online based artistic projects...
________________________________
De: owner-list@rhizome.org em nome de marc
Enviada: qui 27-07-2006 16:31
Cc: list@rhizome.org
Assunto: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: net art?
Why has everyone conformed to using the term 'net.art', as in net.dot.art?
Historically net.art, mainly belonged to just a few elite artists
working on th Internet, Vuk Cosic made sure of this, and Manovich etc...
I have always been interested in those who did not bandwagon jump onto
the term 'net.art '- those who used 'net art' (without the dot), are the
real blood of net art - for they have to deal with not being supported
by history and cannons, and institutions.
marc
+
-> 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
As many probably know from long ago on this list, I have been very much
pro- net art, and still am. At Furtherfield, we still view Net Art as
being a main interest and passion, even though we have adapted with the
aim of exploration, not because net art is dying but because we feel
that it is expanding its roots into multi-various forms of creative
outreach, and contemporary contexts.
I personally come from a place of activism, art and networked
consciousness, linking very much with a net art focus - not from a film
perspective, 'soft cinema' (Manovich etc).
I feel that there has been a divide between those who have officially
been placed in the history books as 'net.artists' and those seen as 'net
artists', and because only a few top names have been repeatedly banded
about as the main figures of this net-based creativity, Internet art
suffered a kind of cultural drought. Which is not good for any artist
working in such closely related mediums. Although, things are changing.
There have been certain curators who have kept on showing the same old
faces, over and over again - who have not opened up their curatorial
remits for other lesser known creatives, who may not be using the same
inscribed protocols, or academic language to justify their intentions.
"In my opinion net.art is pretty much what can be thought of a movement,
both geographically and chronolically defined... eventually net.art died..."
Net.Art did not die - it became a historical commodity for those who
planned it in such a way. It was not the dot.com boom that shattered the
(hoped) growth of the movement, it was those who decided to hand in
their cultural cache at that time to move on to different pastures so
that they could move into a gallery system, keeping themselves valid in
a curatorial context.
"and net art or internet art became the standard category for online
based artistic projects..."
I feel that net art has always been (officially) a sub-category, along
side net.art, in terms of institutional control. They both happened at
the same time as far as I am concerned - net art, is probably a poorer
relative of the very well promoted and deliberately inserted form of
net.art.
In fact, I suppose net art, was the main movement and net.art was a
smaller more specific, trendier, personality driven and modernist
proposed version of it. It worked well for those who really believed in
the myth of the artist as 'star' so that they could get a piece of the
'heroic-artist' pie.
The irony is that, some of these groups such as irational.org are
actually brilliant (well i think so), as well being supporting by such
systems - so it is not as black and white as some of us would wish to
presume - just because certain groups get recognised and supported does
not mean that they are evil - it has much more to do with the culture
around it, and what ethical responsibilities were seriously explored (if
any) by the more centralized, 'top-down' orientated organizations, such
as ars electronica and 'older' rhizome - remits.
I say 'old' rhizome because it seems that the new rhizome, in its
character, even though it is not primarily net art focused alone, in its
behaviour is net art, and the new team of rhizome have made a tremendous
effort to break down the older more centralized way of being, that it
was once. It seems less elitist, and more open minded in the way that it
engages, in working with people who use the list these days, and willing
to try out a few things.
Let's not forget that net art is also thriving elsewhere, other than
just on this list and on rhizome - the syndicate mailing list still has
some serious net artists working on there, such as Auriea Harvey
(entropy8zuper) and lo_y, and a dynamic (sometimes scary) community,
dedicated to net art, and related contexts. and more of course...
I was with irational.org, in the early days - working with Heath Bunting
on various projects. The Cybercafe BBS, and Savage yet tender pirate
radio and alternative networked art projects, that hacked phones
(phreaking) and other things - but was much more interested in more
collaborative net art and the communities that formed with it, and those
who were not seen as net.art, still am. Even though I value some these
net.artists and what they have given our culture, I also wish that some
them were less desperate in getting their own names known and more
interested in breaking down the patriarchal barriers that supported
their endeavours.
Some of the net.artists out there are still radical, yet there are those
who pretend that they are great by proposing themselves as great, as
(supposed) brilliant academics who are really just interested in power
alone and where that gets them - I see these types, as weak and shallow
individuals, hiding behind institutional walls, rather than changing
institutions for the better - cowards.
The spirit of net.art, has been supported by net art - and those
net.artists owe much to net art for bringing in a larger audience and
context, which has at the same time kept it all alive.
Net art lives on but in various forms. I have been involved in 3 new
classes last year, where students are exploring and learning about net
art as part of the curriculum, I teach a balanced version of what that
is, featuring those who have not been allowed into the hall of fame as
'net.art', as well as those who have...
Now history is being rewritten - at last by young new writers who are
not diverted by the pressure of net.art 'star' orientated fractions,
which is beginning to include those who were left out and others who did
not quite fit the prescribed remit of institutional, academic laziness.
In fact, I think that it is a great time to be doing net art :-)
marc
In my opinion net.art is pretty much what can be thought of a movement,
both geographically and chronolically defined... eventually net.art
died... and net art or internet art became the standard category for
online based artistic projects...
________________________________
De: owner-list@rhizome.org em nome de marc
Enviada: qui 27-07-2006 16:31
Cc: list@rhizome.org
Assunto: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: net art?
Why has everyone conformed to using the term 'net.art', as in net.dot.art?
Historically net.art, mainly belonged to just a few elite artists
working on th Internet, Vuk Cosic made sure of this, and Manovich etc...
I have always been interested in those who did not bandwagon jump onto
the term 'net.art '- those who used 'net art' (without the dot), are the
real blood of net art - for they have to deal with not being supported
by history and cannons, and institutions.
marc
+
-> 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
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: net art?
Why has everyone conformed to using the term 'net.art', as in net.dot.art?
Historically net.art, mainly belonged to just a few elite artists
working on th Internet, Vuk Cosic made sure of this, and Manovich etc...
I have always been interested in those who did not bandwagon jump onto
the term 'net.art '- those who used 'net art' (without the dot), are the
real blood of net art - for they have to deal with not being supported
by history and cannons, and institutions.
marc
Historically net.art, mainly belonged to just a few elite artists
working on th Internet, Vuk Cosic made sure of this, and Manovich etc...
I have always been interested in those who did not bandwagon jump onto
the term 'net.art '- those who used 'net art' (without the dot), are the
real blood of net art - for they have to deal with not being supported
by history and cannons, and institutions.
marc
=?UTF-8?B?QWJpb2dlbmVzaXM6IG9ubGluZSBQZXJmb3JtYW5jZSBieSBUYWxlIG8= =?UTF-8?B?ZiBUYWxlcyAtIFRodXJzZGF5IEp1bHkgMjd0aCA3LjAwcG0g4oCTIDguMDAgcG0= =?
Abiogenesis
-----------------
The Game/Play team are pleased to present:
An online performance by Tale of Tales - Auriea Harvey and Michael
Samyn, in The Endless Forest.
Thursday July 27th 7.00pm - 8.00 pm (BST)
Free, all are welcome...
To play:
Download the Endless Forest 'social screensaver'
http://www.tale-of-tales.com/TheEndlessForest/
Come and meet us online within the live, real-time world of 'The Endless
Forest'.
"The Endless Forest by Tale of Tales is a game about beauty, wonder,
calm and peace. There are no stealth missions, no guns to swap, no
armour or enemies. Taking on the role of a somewhat dreamy deer who
wanders through an endless forest imbued with magical powers that seem
as unpredictable as mesmerising, players of The Endless Forest are
invited to hang out and roam amidst beautiful trees, old mysterious
ruins, an idyllic pond and happy flower beds. Without a goal of any
sorts, they soon find that there’s more to the forest than just mere eye
candy." Maaike Lauwaert & Martijn Hendriks.
Read full text http://blog.game-play.org.uk/?q=TheEndlessForest
"In keeping with Wirefire, an earlier project involving a series of
intimate live, online performances on the theme of love, the artists
intermittently appear as the ‘gods’ of the Endless Forest. Using a
system they call Abiogenesis the virtual woodlands become a mutable
stage for the artists’ performances." Ruth Catlow & Marc Garrett
Read full text http://blog.game-play.org.uk/?q=MARC\_GARRETT\_RUTH\_CATLOW
The touring Game/Play exhibition is currently showing at Q Arts, Derby
and HTTP, London.
http://blog.game-play.org.uk
-----------------
The Game/Play team are pleased to present:
An online performance by Tale of Tales - Auriea Harvey and Michael
Samyn, in The Endless Forest.
Thursday July 27th 7.00pm - 8.00 pm (BST)
Free, all are welcome...
To play:
Download the Endless Forest 'social screensaver'
http://www.tale-of-tales.com/TheEndlessForest/
Come and meet us online within the live, real-time world of 'The Endless
Forest'.
"The Endless Forest by Tale of Tales is a game about beauty, wonder,
calm and peace. There are no stealth missions, no guns to swap, no
armour or enemies. Taking on the role of a somewhat dreamy deer who
wanders through an endless forest imbued with magical powers that seem
as unpredictable as mesmerising, players of The Endless Forest are
invited to hang out and roam amidst beautiful trees, old mysterious
ruins, an idyllic pond and happy flower beds. Without a goal of any
sorts, they soon find that there’s more to the forest than just mere eye
candy." Maaike Lauwaert & Martijn Hendriks.
Read full text http://blog.game-play.org.uk/?q=TheEndlessForest
"In keeping with Wirefire, an earlier project involving a series of
intimate live, online performances on the theme of love, the artists
intermittently appear as the ‘gods’ of the Endless Forest. Using a
system they call Abiogenesis the virtual woodlands become a mutable
stage for the artists’ performances." Ruth Catlow & Marc Garrett
Read full text http://blog.game-play.org.uk/?q=MARC\_GARRETT\_RUTH\_CATLOW
The touring Game/Play exhibition is currently showing at Q Arts, Derby
and HTTP, London.
http://blog.game-play.org.uk