[spectre] ICC and for the media art center of 21C

Sat Aug 27 19:33:21 CEST 2005

ah, stimulating comments, but I was in mid-rant Eric, so missedyour post
and have to go now but briefly, the issue of _where_ would such an
institution locate? it might be useful to take a lead from the festival
model that has no fixed location outside of some administrative base
[even that could be co-located], worked in partnership with small and
large organisations where appropriate, and was committed to responding
to changes in the global situation + cultural changes - delivering
events/activities/projects ... the participants/actors in network media
culture are globally spread, no doubt, so m aybe it's not a question of
Delhi or Bangalore, but Delhi and Bangalore and Beijing and Sao Paolo
and Berlin and London and so on ....

t
x

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Kluitenberg [mailto:epk at xs4all.nl] 
Sent: 27 August 2005 16:47
To: Spectre
Subject: Re: [spectre] ICC and for the media art center of 21C

Dear Andreas & Spectrites,

Just a few quick reactions to Andreas' questions...

Andreas Broeckmann wrote:
> i see a paradox (1/2) in the fact that (1) we are still talking about 
> 'exlaining what we are doing to a broader audience', countering a 
> prevalent ignorance about the impact of new technologies on
contemporary 
> society with a more critical understanding and media competence - i 
> agree with the analysis; yet (2) we also see a massive expansion of
the 
> field of digital culture, agrowing number of mainly young people who 
> inhabit that space, who are 'of that tribe', who 'live digital
culture' 
> - often even without a strong critical reflection, but more as a 
> quasi-natural, techno-social environment in which they grow up - and 
> swim like fish that don't see the water because they don't need to.

Yes, this is an obvious issue when the discussion is about media culture
suis generis, and I would agree immediately that it is absurd to think
about outreach for something that has already established itself so
deeply and broadly. As far as these kinds of media phenomenologies are
concerned what we need there is analysis, reflection, contextualisation,
rather than 'outreach'.

However, the way I understood the discussion so far was that we were
discussing the role of organisations who deal with the position of the
arts and artistic practice in the context of such new media cultures. If
one would insit on the concept of art that brings with it a certain
heritage and history, a certain professional identity, or a way of
looking at and dealing with things. Art is always a concept under
constant redefinition, and it is and will be strongly infused by the
wider context of media culture when it deals with electronic media, but
it would still remain different on the level of discourse, practice and
understanding.

If we still see some value to this concept of "art" in the wider context
of "media culture" (or new media culture), then we need to reflect that
specificity. It also requires mediation, just as contemporary art in
gerenal is not, at least not for a wider audience, something
self-evident or self-explanatory. Bottom-line is that I still think
there is some value to working with the concept of art in specific
situations and that therefore I am also interested what kind of
institutional structure (if at all) is most adequate to discuss,
analyse, present, mediate en develop such work.

As for De Balie, it's always been a place that is about more than art;
it deals with the intersection of culture and politics, and it offers
the exciting possibility to discuss issues of media arts practices
within a wider context of media culture, media politics, and what's
going on in general in society.

> could it be that the power lines that run through the 'digital 
> divisions' (there is not one digital divide, but many filiations of 
> difference, differentiation, slopes and breaks) are shifting? and
could 
> it be that the way in which institutions like the ICC or the ZKM were 
> set up was still very much following an 'old-style' cultural logic?

So here the question would be do we finally dissolve the category of
"art" and replace it with a broader cultural logic that looks at the
aesthetic, semiotic, social and political qualities of the kind of media
activity that is going on, or is there still a value in keeping such
disciplinary distinctions and profesisonal identities in place?
Or, is the notion of art possibly counterproductive in dealing with the
wider issue of contemporary media cultures?
Can these notions be employed side by side?
What then is the hierarchy of these concepts?

(...)

> i'm not trying to contradict anything that has been said here, i'm
just 
> trying to see whether we can move this train of thought a bit further,

> closer to where we are already, at least that's what it feels like. as

> shu lea said, we are already on the move...
> 
> yukiko writes:
> 
>> ...now is a hard situation.. but i believe the problem we face would
>> be a good chance for us to head for the media art center of 21C.
> 
> what would this place look like? personally, i don't believe that we
can 
> all be 'roaming residents', i believe in the creation of temporary
sites 
> where people can meet, talk, work and celebrate together - we are
social 
> animals, we need that. and if you go nomadic, someone will have to
caary 
> the tent, and someone will have to make sure that WLAN access will be 
> open at our next camp site.
> 
> what would a place look like, that is a little bit slower than the 
> technical and cultural development, that keeps open for change and is 
> also open for taking in and digesting, meshing, all the different 
> energies that people who identify with this digital culture, and want
to 
> share in shaping it, bring with them?

Such a place would definitely be somethig that uses a broader defintion
of its terrain as (new) media art. It's hard to say. I still see a lot
of difference between artist, activists and free software scenes and
cultures. They do not self-evidently connect and communicate to each
other, even if they all share the same digital instrumentarium. This
could be one of the challenges facing such a new style institution, to
bridge between these kinds of cultures deeply immersed in the digital
realm, and simultaneously to a broader audience that either tinkers away
at home or is not immersed quite as deeply into the digital but finds
itself still fascinated.

One question I've been having about this for some time is wether it
should be a physical site at all (a building as a home base), or rather
a set of facilties that enables an essentially decentralsied activity to
happen. The rather obvious answer could be that it's probably a hybrid
of both, both a home base or "camping site" and a media structure,
because places are still important, meeting places, but also places of
indentification - so the importance of "place" should not be written
off. But quite obviosuly, having only a building or meeting place is
certainly not enough and stands in contradiction with the kind of
cultures such a new instution is supposed to exist for.

A third problem is that of the nature of networked social spaces. They
are most often not 'designed', but rather 'emerge' out of a set of
specific social conditions, the need and desire of certain people to
work together on shared interests. How an 'institution' of whatever kind
can facilittate or support this kind of activity is extremely
complicated to figure out - it should neither be to 'ephemeral' nor too
restrictive. Should the new institution thus just 'offer space' and
refelect and analyse what is going on? What then is its legtimation for
existing in the first place?
Thus, sheading the identity of "media art" as a guiding concept for the
mission of such a centre makes it immediately a tricky affair.

Also the question would be what the presentation strategies of such a
new centre would be - conventional formats such as the exhibition, stage
production, concert, etc... all seem a bit incomplete or inadequate to
capturing the spirit of the new media cultures. Putting up terminals in
a public space is totally inapt, better to watch it at home on your adsl
or cable connection. Workshops, seminars, lectures, etc... all fine but
we can do that withou any problem alsready now at De Balie, V2_,
Transmediale and all these other places.
Should the new institution necessarily have to be a place where you can
offer experiences the audience could not possibly have at home? If so,
would that not make you depenend on always being ultra high-tech?
Or conversely, should it be 'just' a meeting place with basic
faciltiies? But what makes it special then?

In Amsterdam we made plans for such a new media culture centre for the
21st century, and we're still actively discussing such an idea. But for
now I have not heard a convincing answer to the dilemma's pointed out,
and if you would take a bit more time to think about it, I'm sure there
would be many more to point out. I think it's a wortwhile discussion,
but by no means an easy one....

> places like this have been talked about before. politics, funding 
> structures, and the cultural ignorance of decision makers may be
against 
> them. but they may be a way out of what looks like the demise of 90s 
> media culture.

OK - so then let's talk about 'how'?

And where should we set it up - in Delhi? in Bangalore? In Beijing? or
Sao Paolo perhaps?
Or why not in Ramallah?

I'll stop there...

bests,
eric

______________________________________________
SPECTRE list for media culture in Deep Europe
Info, archive and help:
http://coredump.buug.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/spectre

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________