features
Peter Lunenfeld Responds to crush on Nettime
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 23:20:13 -0700
From: Peter Lunenfeld
To: nettime
Subject:
To the curator, conceptualart.org, It's in the nature of speaking in public
that some people object to one's ideas, while others don't understand them.
You, however, have combined both postures, disliking what, in fact, I didn't
say. I'll let the others on the panel ignore, applaud or deny your reportage
on their comments, but I'll try to set the record straight on my positions.
You clatter on in a schoolmarmish way about whether or not the crash panelists
had "done their homework" (shades of Natalie Bookchin!). Right back atcha',
here's a list of corrections to your text:
>voiced by designer Peter Lunenfeld
I'm not a designer.
>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).
When did I say that I was "disturbed" by continuous orgasms? Talk about projecting
your own anxieties onto discourse. In any case, citing the popularity of cheesecake
confirms, rather than argues against my position that the pornographic imaginary
is central to net.culture.
>Mr. Lunenfeld indulged another myth of the effects of a network
> on society: the uncontrollable acceleration of culture.
Is the curator, conceptualart.org the first Amish net.artist? That would explain
the modesty of your lower case title. If, however, you don't live in an artificially
arrested, rural religious community, I find it hard to believe that you would
actually claim in the context of a symposium on net.art that acceleration is
a myth.
>Mr. Lunenfelds 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.
Funny how I smuggled my distrust of and distaste for art past all those editors at while writing art criticism for magazines like Artforum, Flash Art, Art issues., X-tra, etc., and have continued doing so in my column for art/text. You've got me dead to rights on one thing, though; I certainly prefer design I like to art that I dislike.
>In response 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.
At the risk of offending my gracious hosts at Berkeley, I did in fact directly cite the University of California system as ground zero for an increasingly pernicious beaux-arts digital pedagogy. Training students to think that they can only express themselves fully as "independent artists" rather than as "indentured designers" ensures years of cognitive dissonance except for those very few who make a career in the art world or by teaching in art departments. The vast majority of those trained in digital technologies in art departments do not follow that path, however, and move into what can be loosely called design professions. It's been my experience that for many of them, it is only when they determine precisely what constitutes a "professional ethic" that they are able to develop a voice in tandem with clients as opposed to feeling oppressed or superior to their commercial collaborators. Since you felt free to bring in the sidebar discussions that circled around the open forum, I'll do the same. I had at least half a dozen people who had graduated from undergraduate programs in art come up to me after the conference to say that I'd expressed something that had bothered them both consciously and in a subterranean way. They had gone into fine arts programs rather than design departments because for the past few years art programs have been the place where university administrators tended to be more comfortable investing money, faculty, and equipment for training in digital media. I would hope that my ten years of writing art criticism shields me from your accusation that I have contempt for art and artists. What's your defense from my charge that you neither respect nor understand the field of design and the work that designers do?
>If we define art as entertainment and pleasure, we pave
>the way for an overwhelming influx of the inoffensive and boring.
Absolutely everything I have ever said or written about aesthetics is diametrically opposed to collapsing art and entertainment. See "Triangulation: Media, Technology & Art" , "Hipbrow" , or, for extra credit homework as it's not available on the Web, my extended critique of Dave Hickey and the rest of the beauty camp in "High-Q Art: The Seductions of Broadcast Romanticism", X-tra v.II, n. 3 (Spring, 1999).
>As for the implications of not understanding
>or embracing net art, we will leave that
>for history to decide.
Responses to symposia can be an invaluable contribution to net.culture, opening
up the discussions to a vastly expanded audience. I appreciate the fact that
you devoted a whole day to the symposium, and then more time responding to it
on
Yours -- Peter Lunenfeld
# distributed via nettime
#
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net