Okay, here's the deal. This is where you should write your response to the assigned reading. We'll use your comments to start off our discussion in class on Monday, Nov. 21. Your response should be from one to three paragraphs in length, and you are free to react to the reading itself or to one of your classmates' responses.
posted by Peter
I would like to focus on the part where he talked about interactivity between different users of the space. He mentioned many forms of interactivity, what what I found interesting was the interaction and communication between users in the forms of the bulletin board. The artists view each other's work and are quick to respond in perhaps the most honest forms of answers because they are not identified with a face. Such honest and truthful critique may prove helpful because it gives almost an automatic feedback to the original artist. The original artists also benefits from this idea of an open net becasue s/he can quickly make changes to the art piece and post it up again. Or, s/he may also provide strong counterpoint equally honest as her/his counterparts.
In terms of community and identity, I find it to be an insignificant argument to say "how can we meet each other face to face>till we have faces?". By submitting your personal opinions to a bulletin board means putting forward an imaginary visual characteristic of yourself for other users to perceive. If a person's opinion and personality can be distributed across net activities and words, I find the physical face to be unnecessary. Often, these personalities are so disperse that groups or allies begin to form among users. Some users would "back up" or support the comments of another users. By having such interaction, a community is born.
-Olivia Fri.11.18
In terms of community and identity, I find it to be an insignificant argument to say "how can we meet each other face to face>till we have faces?". By submitting your personal opinions to a bulletin board means putting forward an imaginary visual characteristic of yourself for other users to perceive. If a person's opinion and personality can be distributed across net activities and words, I find the physical face to be unnecessary. Often, these personalities are so disperse that groups or allies begin to form among users. Some users would "back up" or support the comments of another users. By having such interaction, a community is born.
-Olivia Fri.11.18
posted by Olivia
I identified with many of the points in the question that dealt with inspirations of the Internet as a creative medium. Being new to this medium I have recently experienced many of the exciting moments Curt Cloninger discussed and many have also encouraged me to want to learn more about the Internet's potential.
The most prominent aspect that I appreciate is the geographically free abilities of the Internet. One could be anywhere in the world, with a computer and access to the Internet, and still possess the ability to post work to be viewed by anyone, anywhere.
One's ability to read about major world events on the Internet instantly or communicate through email and chat rooms is remarkable considering it used to take days, weeks, months or even years to communicate throughout history.
-Seth
The most prominent aspect that I appreciate is the geographically free abilities of the Internet. One could be anywhere in the world, with a computer and access to the Internet, and still possess the ability to post work to be viewed by anyone, anywhere.
One's ability to read about major world events on the Internet instantly or communicate through email and chat rooms is remarkable considering it used to take days, weeks, months or even years to communicate throughout history.
-Seth
posted by Seth
There are some issues listed in the 'Web as art media' that I do not nessisarily agree with. While earlier in the discussion Clonginer gives a breakdown of what the rules for net art are. In this latter section, he describes what the web can do for art, and I feel that some of his points are irrelevent to the medium. Specifically, point six, in which Cloginer describes net art wanting to be about identity. That is such a vague and unsubstantiated statement. It is also more about the subject matter of current net artists than the perks of using the internet as medium. One could also argue that all art is about identity, and the net adds nothing to this. Art has always been about expression, and expressing ones views, the artist confirms identity. This is not a new development. A medium cannot be described by the subject matter it contains; Monet is watercolor, watercolor is not Monet.
posted by Shao
While I agree with most of the definitions he gives for net art, some of his point seems somewhat outdated. Since the only reference of date in the article was 2002, I am assuming that the interview was conducted either during 2002 or after.
For example, I do agree with his opinion that net art should be somewhat bandwidth-aware. However, as the speed of internet continues growing, this restriction has grown looser. Moreover, as internet evolves (not necessarily about bandwidth), how people uses internet has also changes accordingly. Internet art would probably evolve with these changes as well, and I wish Cloninger covers it more in his interview.
By the way, I agree with Shao’s posting that some of Cloninger’s “net art wants to be” seems rather biased. While I see why he is making these statements, many things he mentioned are not unique to net art.
Tina
For example, I do agree with his opinion that net art should be somewhat bandwidth-aware. However, as the speed of internet continues growing, this restriction has grown looser. Moreover, as internet evolves (not necessarily about bandwidth), how people uses internet has also changes accordingly. Internet art would probably evolve with these changes as well, and I wish Cloninger covers it more in his interview.
By the way, I agree with Shao’s posting that some of Cloninger’s “net art wants to be” seems rather biased. While I see why he is making these statements, many things he mentioned are not unique to net art.
Tina
posted by Tina
Going off the topic net art a bit, I'd like to highlight a statement made by Cloninger : "I don't know if I'm primarily anything....Hopefully my graphic design will be artistic, and hopefully my art will be well-designed." I appreciate the fact that Cloninger, while acknowledging the fact that art and design may involve different thought processes and preconceptions, does not try to define himself as either one. Art and design are sometimes viewed as existing independent of each-other, which can be true in several instances. However, I believe it is usually (though not always) a good sign in either, design or art, if both mindsets were used in the creative process. Even if the final outcome is unaffected, it is simply a sign that the work was more thought-out. However, there are scenarios where this can lead to things being over-thought, where circumstances call for a more immediate, maybe primal or even "dumbed down" response. As far as this, I really see no difference between net art and any other traditional form of art.
Overall though, net art undoubtedly provides a unique experience when compared to other forms of art. These other works may be things as diverse as interactive installations, video, painting, or sculpture. However, they are still linked by the fact that they are usually viewed in galleries, or some other place where either the artist of curator has had some control over the surrounding physical space. This is obviously not true, under usual circumstances, of net art. It is a different challenge to make someone feel "immersed" online, rather than in a prepared space.
-Omar
Overall though, net art undoubtedly provides a unique experience when compared to other forms of art. These other works may be things as diverse as interactive installations, video, painting, or sculpture. However, they are still linked by the fact that they are usually viewed in galleries, or some other place where either the artist of curator has had some control over the surrounding physical space. This is obviously not true, under usual circumstances, of net art. It is a different challenge to make someone feel "immersed" online, rather than in a prepared space.
-Omar
posted by Omar
Curt Cloninrer’s rules for net art make sense but most of the visual aspects of the artist’s online work seem to look better if they were printed. I understand how net art should be minimal to cater to a variety of internet connections but I feel like Curt’s artwork is a bit too minimal. Maybe that is his style, but it hurts my eyes to see un-anti-aliased lines and background images with artifacts. The idea of bandwidth has evolved and computers can handle beautiful online works these days. Of course, all the other rules discussed by Curt, I think, should still apply to net art but the idea of bandwidth needs to be altered and with that, the style of artwork Curt produces. Curt says that net art does not want to be mechanical but his works do show signs of it. His works are sometimes very rigid, repetitive, and unsmoothed for my tastes and makes me consider the whole mechanical aspect of his work. There are ways to make algorithms and coding look organic; that is when the work succeeds, and the technique fools the audience.
posted by Tony
I agree with Tina about the interview being completely outdated. I had to constantly keep in mind when reading certain things (ie. the supposed small amount of net art examples) but found it difficult to get past that aspect. In terms of net art though, I find the whole genre to be very beautiful and inspiring. I think in a way Curt Cloningers verbal expressions on the idea of net art seem to embody more of a relevance than do his work. However, I like to give him the benefit of the doubt and interpret his crude style as somewhat of a reference to the beginnings of media arts, and i do tend to have a huge appreciation for that style. On the other hand though, I feel as though Curts work begins to lose a bit of its genuineness in the very beginning of the interview when he claims that he hopes it is something that is well-designed, while at the same time being art. When he begins to refer to his art as also being designed, I belive it becomes something that is judged differently than it would be if it were to just be referred to as art; and necessarily not in a way that would be to his benefit or do his work more justice. A lot of the time, it seems as though design brings with itself the connotation of being something manifesting out of new ground breaking technology. In that way, artwork on the web tends to be considered design, and forgets that it is still possible for it to exist simply as art in the context of a new medium.
And in relation to Clonginger's comment about "interactivity" being too broad of a term...I think that's what makes it such a necessary word to use and allows room for the endless types of new technologies that have not yet even been created to grow freely in to any sort of direction.
And in relation to Clonginger's comment about "interactivity" being too broad of a term...I think that's what makes it such a necessary word to use and allows room for the endless types of new technologies that have not yet even been created to grow freely in to any sort of direction.
posted by Evelina
After reading Curt Cloninger's interview, I found a few comments of his that were rather interesting especially those regarding what Net Art is by his definitions. He mentions that Net Art has to be put onto the Net and must follow the restrictions of the Net, especially regarding bandwith, but because of the addition of broadband and the promise of faster speeds in the future the Net is becoming less and less restrictive. Also the ability of devices to connect to the Net are becoming more available. Objects such as USB drives and Digital cameras that are Wi-Fi capable are allowing devices which are not computers themselves to connect to the Net. I realize this interview is old and his definitions are based on older work, such as his work on playdamage.org. Because of these new breakthroughs in technology, Net art is not restricted to the computer web browsers anymore, Nor is it restricted to the constrains of just HTML and CSS. We have so many more new programming tools such as Java, Flash, XML, and the upcoming AJAX programming language that the limit of what Net Art can be has become blurred. What is just computer art and what is Net Art become one blurred. Cloninger's Net Art displays more of what the Net was originally created for mixed with the Net users of the time working with a the Net's technologys to create art. It feels more like a technological experiment of the early and mid 90's rather then completed work of anykind. I do repsect that it is because of the push of artist's like Cloninger that Net Art has emerged and evolved rapidly, but I disagree with the overall statement that there are any rules to Net Art as a medium. I feel he should have referred it the Net Art he was speaking of as a specific period as they do in any other art, (i.e. expressionism, realism, cubism) rather then making rules to what Net Art is. Net Art is just beginning and the technology keeps changing and becomes more an more complex and open to more ideas and eliminates more rules then it sets. Cloningers Net Art is about the recent past and we do not know what the Net Art of the future will be like.
posted by Armond
First off, i have to say that this article (or interview) brought up many interesting facts about web art that i had never considered. As ignorant as it maybe i never really thought of internt work as "art" and i'm supposing that that would be due to the lack of time spent investigating the internet and my shallow span of internet knowledge- i just don't know whats out there. Therefore, while i was reading the article i began to gain some perspective as to what true web art is and that it really is quite a bit more (still an understatment) than an interesting, functional web page. When Cloninger goes on about the rules of net art it became clear that web is truely an interactive statment focusing on the concept of an ever-changing cybernetic space inwhich anyone can add/delete or alter without worrying about boundaries of thought, interpretation or territory. When taking a true piece of net art out of it's context it becomes, like Cloninger states, useless. Net art is ALL about context.
Secondly, i found it to be very thought provoking when Cloninger went into talking about media artists focusing on what the implied "we" can do to alter or bend the internet rather than learning, understanding and then working with the existing properties of the web. There are as i understand it, so many possiblities in web which have not yet been explored- and i can't even go into what those are because i really don't know (or else i would have done it).
Lastly, tis' time for senior Peter to check this page and therefore i must cut this short (obviously i had many other things to say, since this is one of my strongest areas). goodbye, i will see everyone in class tomorrow. smiley face dude, yeah?
Secondly, i found it to be very thought provoking when Cloninger went into talking about media artists focusing on what the implied "we" can do to alter or bend the internet rather than learning, understanding and then working with the existing properties of the web. There are as i understand it, so many possiblities in web which have not yet been explored- and i can't even go into what those are because i really don't know (or else i would have done it).
Lastly, tis' time for senior Peter to check this page and therefore i must cut this short (obviously i had many other things to say, since this is one of my strongest areas). goodbye, i will see everyone in class tomorrow. smiley face dude, yeah?
posted by Troy
I think that web work is more of a "design" than "art".
For the most part, I don't consider web work as "art". Whenever I surf online, I feel like I'm just going from web sites to web sites rather than seeing art works. Even when I see art works online, I have to agree with Tony that most of them (I want to say all of them) are better in print. The colors or porportions are always off from the real art piece.
Even though I don't see web work as "art", I can see it being partially a "design". This I have experienced from making my own web sites. There are massive planning and designing involved before you even start coding. And when we see a good website, we usually say that it is well-designed, not well-art(?)
I guess it could be an ongoing debate whether web work is design, art, neither, or both.
For the most part, I don't consider web work as "art". Whenever I surf online, I feel like I'm just going from web sites to web sites rather than seeing art works. Even when I see art works online, I have to agree with Tony that most of them (I want to say all of them) are better in print. The colors or porportions are always off from the real art piece.
Even though I don't see web work as "art", I can see it being partially a "design". This I have experienced from making my own web sites. There are massive planning and designing involved before you even start coding. And when we see a good website, we usually say that it is well-designed, not well-art(?)
I guess it could be an ongoing debate whether web work is design, art, neither, or both.
posted by Agnes