features
CRUSH: a response to CRASH: UC Berkeley Symposium on Critical and Historical Issues in Net Art
What follows is a response to the recent “Crash” symposium at UC Berkeley. The symposium consisted primarily of three events: A Lecture by Steve Dietz held on Wednesday February 16th, a presentation of artist’s works on Friday February 18th, and finally a discussion entitled “The Critics Respond” that took place on Saturday the 19th. This review focuses primarily on “The Critics Respond”. Many of the quotations are from memory, as conceptualart.org wasn’t able to come up with the $40 for tape recordings of the proceedings. We believe that the spirit (if not the exact phrasing) of our quotations is accurate, and welcome any appropriate corrections.
For a full explanation of the scheduling of the event see: http://digitalmedia.berkeley.edu/berkeley_netart2000/events.html
Having missed the day of artists presentations on Friday, the stage for “The
Critics Respond” was set for conceptualart.org by Steve Dietz’s Wednesday
lecture entitled “Signal or Noise: The Network Museum”. This lecture
adequately presented the struggle that an institutional representative has when
confronted with a medium that defies objectification and commodification to
the extreme. How does the institution respectfully embrace this non-object called
net art? How does the museum incorporate the greater museum known as the internet?
If the artist already has a venue, what purpose does the museum serve for this
type of art? In the view of conceptualart.org, these questions were all presented
in one form or another. Mr. Dietz’s broad answer to these questions was
telling. “The museum must embrace net art or be relegated to the position
of the museum of the 20th century” Mr. Dietz’s subsequent preoccupations
with the 21st century in no way contradicted this statement.
Net artists appeared throughout these discussions as prey to the institution.
It became clear that the institution or at least the institutional mind, fears
that the net artist may put them out of business by offering art that exists
outside of the confines of the museum or by publishing theory and criticism
from outside of the walls of the university. When discussion might have been
better focused on the concerns of the community of artists and net-art theorists,
the conversation constantly found itself bogged down by old and tired definitions
of art, and lame attempts to conform net art to these same definitions and paradigms.
It should have been no surprise when SFMOMA curator David Ross, somewhat uncomfortably
distracted attention from his use of the phrase “paradigmatic shift”.
The phrase was uttered, it had to be. Net art offers, and nearly requires a
paradigmatic shift, yet many of the participants in this symposium spent so
much of their energy bemoaning the fact that net art does not fit into any predefined
paradigm. Or they were heard to announce false differentiations between traditional
art practice and net art practice. Even in the midst of somewhat informed discussion
of browser based art, all talk seemed to focus on critique of the interface,
as if it were photography or painting.
A most disturbing example of a discussion of false distinctions was Charles
Altieri’s pronouncement that “deep and moving” were adjectives
that could not be used to describe net art. This statement alone could give
rise to hours of discussion for most of the editorial staff at conceptualart.org,
but there’s more. As an alternative to these adjectives Mr. Altieri proposed
that the panel discuss how to formulate a ”language of praise” for
net art. Somehow Mr. Altieri failed to understand that net artists find ways
to praise one another’s work all the time. Perhaps the real problem for
Mr. Altieri and those who took up his cause is that these same artists are not
beating down the doors of the museum demanding the praise of traditional art
criticism. Are we to believe that net art is somehow devalued by Mr. Altieri’s
inability to succinctly praise it?
And so.... the entire morning session on Saturday was spent discussing how
to develop this "language of praise" for net art. How do we differentiate
praise from hype? (Lunenfeld) Why should we care about net art? (Dietz) How
can the net artist create art that is like a cake that you can eat and enjoy
and have still be there? (Failing)
This last question was typical of the florid arguments attempting to fit net art into a predefined paradigm of art practice. In response to this question, Anne Wagner quite appropriately reminded us that “not all art is about satiety or pleasure”, that Patricia Failing’s concerns about how net artists should create work of the “have your cake and eat it too” variety might have little to do with what NET art needs to do, and more to do with what Ms. Failing, perhaps mistakenly, thinks ALL art should do.
Far too often this floundering distraction took hold of the entire panel. Too
often the panelists became mired in questions of what the speakers’ definition
of art was, or how the speaker might be able to discuss net art in more traditional
terms. Hal Foster seemed to lead the charge for this latter way of thinking
most vocally. With an air of frustration Foster asked about net arts modalities
and their order...referring to visual, textual, linear, and narrative modalities
as examples. While elements of these questions have their place in this discourse
their presentation was diminished by Mr. Foster’s early admission of a
lack of respect, concern, and understanding for net art. This admission, in
the end, did not serve Mr. Foster very well. In the end he sounded like a smart
student that hadn’t done his homework. He came up with some interesting
approaches, but got bogged down by any attempt at fleshing out details.
Foster’s line of questioning was valuable in that it revealed the difficulty
of recognizing the distinctive aspects of the medium for one who does not understand
the very basic nature of the network. When Foster referred to the dominance
of the screen in net art, he revealed yet another central misconception in many
of the panelists arguments. It was all too clear that many on the panel saw
the network and the interface as a united entity. There was no discussion of
interface...no discussion of the visual on the screen being merely an interface
to a network project that is quite invisible. The problem, clearly was that
many panelists were seeing the image on the screen as the work, and wanting
to critique the screen as one would critique other visual media. Here we would
like to interject, that if the institution would like to work with the net artist,
it should at least learn to understand the subtleties of the medium. The distinction
between network and browser is not even a particularly subtle distinction.
The myopic preoccupation with the browser seemed to be most prominently voiced
by designer Peter Lunenfeld, whose long winded monologues on hype and hyperdriven
media quickly grew tiresome. In his argument that pornography on the net has
somehow mutated us into a society looking for one extended come shot, we at
conceptualart. org were led to think that individuals find on the net what they
are looking for. If Mr. Lunenfeld is really disturbed by this one continuous
orgasm, perhaps he should visit the outrageously popular cindymargolis.com where
prurient interest are most assuredly indulged, but not a single bodily fluid
is spilled (on screen).
It seemed far too easy for Mr. Lunenfeld to argue that the network is all about commercial branding and speed using “thumb-candy” video games like “Tomb Raider” as an example. By pointing his “critical eye” toward games that are moving more and more into the realm of “thumb candy”, Mr. Lunenfeld indulged another myth of the effects of a network on society: the uncontrollable acceleration of culture. Should we decide that discussing video games is valuable to this discussion, Mr. Lunenfeld’s comments still sound ill informed at best. In this case we point Mr. Lunenfeld to the popularity of computer strategy games like Warcraft, StarCraft, Comand and Conquer, Civilization, Myth, and even Pokemon. These games are more reminiscent of the Avalon Hill board games of the 80’s than the Sonic the Hedgehog thumb candy Mr. Lunenfeld is so attracted to. Likewise these games are networkable, allowing users to play with and against one another, in a new and complex version of chess in the park. For crissakes, even Doom and Quake owe a large portion of their appeal to an increased level of resource management and strategy. Rephrasing our previous concern, individuals find in technology what they are looking for.
Mr. Lunenfeld’s preoccupation with the commercial in his discussion of culture might have served to add to the discussion if it were not for his apparent distrust of and distaste for art in favor of design. In response to one audience member’s question about the differences between art and design practice, Mr. Lunenfeld began a diatribe about trying to teach design to artists who resisted a “professional ethic”. Given that Mr. Lunenfeld did not give any specifics, we are left to believe he is complaining about not being able to break the will of artists that have an interest in challenging corporate interests through personally expressive design. Is Mr. Lunenfeld afraid that the “artists” in his design classes might embarrass him by working for one of his favorite sponsors without displaying the appropriate “professional ethic”. Mr. Lunenfeld’s pronouncements that somehow the popularity of Laura Kroft of “Tomb Raider” fame provides an important model for artistic production seemed to us, in our most generous of moods, overzealous. Once again the arguments here were less about understanding what net art is, and more about the participant giving voice to their own cultural preoccupations.
Mr. Lunenfeld’s commercial focus brings up several related issues. In the
context of Steve Dietz’s presentation on Wednesday night of the Walker
Art Center’s Art Entertainment Network (http://aen.walkerart.org/), Mr.
Lunenfeld’s arguments take on a new and perhaps less benevolent sheen.
By presenting the museum as equivalent to a portal site (like Yahoo) as Art
Entertainment Network does.....By contextualizing artistic expression as entertainment
aren’t we also limiting art’s possibilities? By using corporate success
as our benchmark are we similarly limiting art’s possibilities? If a work
of art is not entertaining ... does that mean it is not good art? If a work
of art is not attractive, can it be appealing on another level? If a work of
art is not marketable should it still be supported by the art establishment?
As institutions begin to depend on corporate sponsorship to fund their forays
into the world of digital media...is the high tech gadgetry worth the sacrifices
in expression that might be required to maintain that support? If we define
art as entertainment and pleasure, we pave the way for an overwhelming influx
of the inoffensive and boring. Once again we are reminded of the gravity of
Anne Wagner’s statement that “not all art is about satiety or pleasure”.
Most prominently in opposition to the browser-deep, popular culture critique were Victoria Vesna and Fabian Wagmeister. Mr. Wagmeister and Ms. Vesna both took up the cause of site specificity on the internet. In fact, Ms. Vesna began what we took to be a quite compelling discussion of site specificity...referring to the development of Hans Haacke’s work as it moved into the milieu of the museum, and how it began to address political concerns surrounding the museum. We were quite interested. Regardless of the organizers’ initial intent, the moderator chose to firmly silence Ms. Vesna for allegedly rambling off topic. This might have been a less egregious error on the part of the moderator had he not later allowed Mr. Lunenfeld to “overrule” an attempt to quiet him in the midst of one of his off-topic hype/hyper/orgasmatronic/thumb candy rants.
Net art and browser art do not have to be the same thing, and this symposium
had every potential to provide a point of departure from the browser based discussion
that was informed in no small part by Berkeley’s proximity to so many of
Amerca's highest tech dot com enterprises. In the interest of being entertaining
or inoffensive or....whatever ... the symposium indulged all flights into the
realm of the visual. From 10 AM to 3:30PM any specific references to the network
were generally speaking passed over. Was this perhaps because the museum does
not feel equipped to evaluate the network? And so....in the final half hour
of the day, starting around 3:30pm....Lev Manovich announced that net art is
about the signal. Video art ushered in the development of an art form that could
move away from the object and into the realm of the signal, and now we have
a medium that many artists are working in that doesn't even present itself on
a tradable tape. Net art is pure signal. No wonder the institution gets in such
a muddle when it sets up a symposium about net art and tries to make it conform
to their preconceived notions of what art is. You cannot frame a signal. Of
course designers don’t want to talk about the artistic possibilities of
the network. Formatting the signal has no anolog to the printed page outside
of the browser. Thank you for the clarity, Mr. Manovich.
In all of this madness and floundering, we of course chose a couple of favorites,
specifically Anne Wagner and Lev Manovich. Thank the heavens for Lev Manovich.
Shortly before Mr. Manovich’s prepared remarks, a few audience members,Shawn
Brixey, and a few other panelists (remember there were nearly 20 of them) managed
to at least address the motivations of corporate support for digital equipment
in art departments, acknowledging that these interests were not always purely
philanthropic. As the last presenter in this muddle of participants (all on
stage simultaneously) Lev Manovich reminded all in attendance that the assembled
American and presumably Silicon Valley -hip crowd were lagging behind the rest
of the world in their discussions of the philosophical and cultural implications
of the network. Most notably, he mentioned the Soros Foundation funded efforts
in new media throughout Eastern Europe, and the fact that many of the desultory
threads presenting themselves during the day’s conversation had long since
been visited in these countries, where support for artistic endeavors in technology
is more common and less corporate.
At this point we began to twitch in our seats as we began to realize the depths
of the detrimental effects of this Silicon Valley dot com boom. For the near
term, all of the great artistic minds are being herded into these corporate
venues... learning a “professional ethic”, and contributing, through
neglect, to an institutional ignorance of the non-commodity value of art forms
that are non-visual and non-objectified. And why shouldn’t that be the
case, after this symposium, we suggest that the digital media student at Berkeley
might be inclined to adopt the following line of reasoning: Because I have learned
to program Perl and javascript and have constructed digital interfaces, should
I exercise those skills in an art world that is still flummoxed by questions
of how it can praise me, and why it should care about what I do? Or should I
put those skills to use in the corporate arena, where praise is plentiful in
the form of money? Why should I explore the uniqueness of the medium when there
is no support for it? I can make drop shadowed, roll-over laden web sites with
Photoshop and HTML, and there is plenty of praise and support for that.
Anne Wagner, as an art historian who was not an “insider” to net art
debates, did her homework, and was prepared to talk visually of limited palettes,
and conceptually of the myths that inform people’s approaches to new technology.
She quite powerfully made reference to the “myths” required for the
net artist to begin work: novelty, ubiquity, and freedom. Indeed, a discussion
of the mythical nature of these assumptions.... that somehow the novelty of
a new technology can create a new and interesting art form, that computing is
ubiquitous(if that were true perhaps the symposium members would have been generally
better informed), that the process of creating on the computer somehow allows
for greater freedom...would have been more to the heart of things, but debating
these points would have required that more of the panelists had at least a cursory
understanding of the technology behind the work. By referring to the creation
of art as a means of figuring a dream of an alternative to consensus reality,
Ms. Wagner gives conceptualart.org the encouragement to agree that art can and
should figure these alternatives, and that work which attempts to imitate it’s
corporate counterparts works against this project. Ms. Wagner’s comments
were a series of treats offered to all in attendance, but (unfortunately) rarely
taken up for further exploration.
In evaluating what was supported and what rejected or overlooked in the course
of this symposium, we begin to wonder if the point of the symposium was to try
to convince net artists to make work that the institution can embrace. I t was
curious seeing the large number of hands that went up in the audience when a
panelist asked to see how many audience members considered themselves net artists.
It was also curious that these audience members were not allowed more opportunities
for questioning and commentary. In the end it began to sound like all of this
intellectual floundering was the critics’ way of telling the attendant
net artists and theorists “This stuff is too hard”. In silencing Victoria
Vesna, as well as neglecting the audience, the symposium organizers also suggested
that allowing those who practice in the medium to contribute would only confuse
the panelists more. Our response to these attitudes at conceptualart.org is
as follows, “The institutions....the museums, the universities, the galleries
.... must figure out how to understand the intricacies of the network if they
want to understand and embrace net art ... “ As for the implications of
not understanding or embracing net art, we will leave that for history to decide.