[spectre] TAKE-OVER!

[Chris Byrne]

At 5:36 pm +0200 25/9/01, Lorenzo Taiuti wrote:
>?
>Dear Jeremy,luci,Eric,Chris,Annick etc...
>i would not imagine that proposing the "TakeOver" discussion would become
>>almost a "chat line"! I cannot keep track of arguments...

Perhaps we've wondered off-topic a little!

It seems to have annoyed Timothy Druckrey (apologies). I am still trying to
work my way through the weighty book he edited for Ars Electronica, which
does contain some landmark essays on art and technology. The discussion
today has very much covered old ground in trying to recommend beginner's
links to media art theoretical texts - but this poses a question about the
accessibility of key critical texts to a wider readership.

For example, someone interested in art, technology and the networked
society might be pointed towards, say the nettime archive. Many interesting
texts going back some way. But a little daunting for a newcomer, perhaps! I
think this is one of the issues we've been trying to address - the problem
of hermetic discourse, of the media art scene only talking to itself often
using highly codified terminology.

>The idea of the online stuff it's good. But maybe we could just insert a
>>special container in the spectre website putting together addresses and
>e-mails >on the take over issue.

The question still seems to be: Take Over by whom?

>I teach, work and write on new media and problems keep crossing.
>Expecially about teaching. And surely i would like a turn-over of ideas.
>But i wanted to say a few things on my first intervention.
>1) The most visible elements of "take-over" in Linz were: The presence of
>>Guggenheim web curator- The spasmodic admiration for Oliviero Toscani
>(The Man >who made Money ? Culture together!) - The presence of
>pretty/teeny/young/things >discovering new ideas for commercialising web
>in the ?Electro-Lobby-
>2) The Guggenheim web/curator made a very obvious move to open to the
>supposed >cyber/audience sayng how bad is the art system not to notice the
>very new >things happening in the technoart scene. The teen/genious of
>electrolobby were >just themselves: young people getting immediately to
>commercial visibility >because of?the peculiarity of the new/commerce.
>Oliviero Toscani represented his own monument. 3) All three exemples do
>not >answer exactly to the solutions technoart first thought as original
>way out >from the contradictions between creativity and production.?

Perhaps these contradictions are irreconcilable under a market economy. I
think that the utopian rhetoric surrounding art and technology is often too
hopeful. It is very interesting and positive to experience creative
innovation by artists, but there are many others who are contributing to
the discourse. I think the thesis of Ars Electronica this year was
interesting, perhaps the examples given just did not supply sufficient
evidence to 'prove' the thesis?

>4) On the other side the charming marginality of the techno-art scene is
>more >and more approached by artists from the contemporary art scene that
>are >attracted ( like the bordeline control devices of Paul Garrin) by
>anything that >moves: And they shoot on anything. This kind of integration
>seems to be leading >to shapeless integration ( videoart is under the same
>spell) and the password >of the art scene about the new Media is " Oh,
>it's just like any other >medium...The Artist must be free to experience
>anything....". I think i >remember that new Media had a strong and
>innovative approach to creativity and >communication. Is that all gone?

The art market's rate of co-option of new trends has accelerated. It took
some time for video art to be acceptable as a commodity suitable for
commercial galleries an collectors (with notable exceptions). Computer art/
tech art/ net art is still to some extent problematic for the more
conservative end of the market and for most institutions, but there are a
number of examples in recent years which have demonstrated to those in the
broader contemporary/fine art scene that a career might be built from
working in these areas. This may be a positive development: but the
inevitable processes of the art world (building of Canons, exhibiting work
which 'fits' in a gallery space) may neglect certain areas of practise
which the media art scene might regard as important.

One solution is to disseminate more information on the history of computer
art/ tech art/ net art so that curators and artists can research the area
more effectively.

Chris

--------------------------------------------------------
Chris Byrne                          chris@mediascot.org
--------------------------------------------------------
New Media Scotland                 tel: +44 131 477 3774
P.O. Box 23434, Edinburgh EH7 5SZ  fax: +44 131 477 3775
Scotland, UK                    http://www.mediascot.org
--------------------------------------------------------