Hi everyone. Use this rudimentary wiki to post your response to the essay. Your response can be from a single paragraph to a page in length. Feel free to respond to the Cloninger interview itself or to one of your classmate's responses.
Also, be careful not to "refresh" the page in the browser after you post because it'll add it to the wiki twice!
Also, be careful not to "refresh" the page in the browser after you post because it'll add it to the wiki twice!
posted by Peter
Cloninger lists a series of things that net art does and does not want to be--it doesn't want to be static or discrete, but does want to be intimate, remarkable, collaborative, and decentralized. Net art does not want to be about machines, but about communication and identity.
I thought that this list of wants [in response to 'what can/can't the web do that other media can for art?'] wasn't really a direct answer to the question but interesting anyway.
The fact that Cloninger chose to dictate what web art WANTS to do rather than what PEOPLE want to do with web art was interesting. It suggests that he'll be talking about something other than the question [what can the web do for art...] because he words it so much differently.
But the things web art 'wants' really refer more to the restrictions and the possibilities of web art.
The things that the web enables artisits to do [communicate, collaborate, decentraliize-things that can be done over long distances in short periods of time online] are what Cloininger lists as web art's wants.
The restrictions that the web puts on art are listed as things that art doesn't want to be [obviously mechanical issues are something we have to deal with, but being discrete is sometimes a problem too, with so many websites and so much online activity, people seem to skim over things that don't directly involve them, rendering art discrete whether you want it to be or not].
That being said, I have to agree with Cloninger about what web art wants to be [read: what what the web can do that other meida can't] and what web art doesn't want to be [what the web can't do that other media media can], though it might be a little misleading at first.
--
side note, does anyone know when the interview was done?
I thought that this list of wants [in response to 'what can/can't the web do that other media can for art?'] wasn't really a direct answer to the question but interesting anyway.
The fact that Cloninger chose to dictate what web art WANTS to do rather than what PEOPLE want to do with web art was interesting. It suggests that he'll be talking about something other than the question [what can the web do for art...] because he words it so much differently.
But the things web art 'wants' really refer more to the restrictions and the possibilities of web art.
The things that the web enables artisits to do [communicate, collaborate, decentraliize-things that can be done over long distances in short periods of time online] are what Cloininger lists as web art's wants.
The restrictions that the web puts on art are listed as things that art doesn't want to be [obviously mechanical issues are something we have to deal with, but being discrete is sometimes a problem too, with so many websites and so much online activity, people seem to skim over things that don't directly involve them, rendering art discrete whether you want it to be or not].
That being said, I have to agree with Cloninger about what web art wants to be [read: what what the web can do that other meida can't] and what web art doesn't want to be [what the web can't do that other media media can], though it might be a little misleading at first.
--
side note, does anyone know when the interview was done?
posted by Cayla on May 15, 2006, 12:14 pm
I find two points of Cloninger's definition of net art particularly interesting. The idea that if a piece of art can be transferred to any media other than the net and be perfectly in tact, that it is not actually net, and the idea that net art by nature wants to be collaborative. The first thought is intriguing to me by virtue of the fact that it can be used to highlight what the net is uniquely capable of. Any project that only makes sense on the Internet can thus be analyzed to reveal a greater truth about the net and it's abilities. The focus on collaboration was interesting to me because I believe collaboration is a perfect case study on a unique strengths of the Internet. Websites like Wikipedia, and even Flickr and Youtube, harness the power of users to generate and regulate mass amounts of content. This wiki page itself is an example of just that. The ability to respond and adapt to previous user comments (EG: The interview can be no later than July 14, 2004, but if anyone else can pull a more accurate date, that's be awesome.) allows for an evolving discourse, and at some level, I would say that any such discourse, whether intended to be a work of art or not, can be viewed as an example of net art. After all, does art necessarily need to be intentional?
posted by Rick on May 21, 2006, 11:00 pm
I liked his ideas on community and collaboration. I remember earlier in the internet, there were lots of websites that had collaborative works. I don’t have any links to them anymore since I can’t remember them or it no longer exists, but it was a big thing in the mid to late 90’s. Lots of graphic designers did lots of grid based images, where each person was allocated a few squares of a larger image. It essentially looked like a big collage. I guess people got bored of them and started photoshop battles where someone would be begin the image and pass it to the next artist and add to it, much like one of those camp improv stories. One of the key features of the internet is the ability to communicate and collaborate. I think it’s a feature now that isn’t so apparent as users increase, and a lot of people become the audience and not part of a community. I guess that’s a big draw back of having so many people on the internet. I’ve seen lots of message boards and websites dying off because of this large signal to noise ratio. Not enough good raw content comes up, and not enough people contribute because they are expecting someone else to do it. Lots of sites that I go to now are just blogs, not so much message boards/ forums. There’s this growing trend in blogs where there’s a small community of artists posting stuff and commenting on each others blogs. But there’s a larger audience and an even larger mass of lurkers. I agree with Cloninger’s last few statements about being a part of a community or not. For the most part, lots of people don’t care enough for the survival of the community and lots of flame posts grow and grow. I guess the big what’s next is how to moderate and control a community. That’s a big problem in itself. People have to make more effort to police and moderate people who are in our out of a community and that’s a job no one wants to do. Like this assignment for example, students will post because they are assigned to do it. The incentive is a grade. But if this was something that was just options, no one or very few would post, because they would just wait for someone else to do it and just read it.
posted by Richard on May 22, 2006, 1:58 pm
In this interview, Curt Cloninger makes a few very valid points. One point in particular that stood out to me above the rest, was his position on the concept of net art. He states that, “if you can transfer your net art to another medium without hurting it or altering its impact, then it's probably not net art.” I agree with this statement for various reasons. The first reason I agree with this statement is tied in with the concept of the web itself. The web is a place for constantly changing medium. It is always available for updating, day or night, any minute of the day. It wouldn’t make sense for net art to not have this same flexibility. Why would a piece of art that is made and can never be changed again be considered web-worthy? If a picture is created by an artist and placed on the web, but it is also easily shown printed and hung up in a gallery, than it is not dynamic enough to be net art. Net art can constantly be changed and updated, as to suit the artists desires and needs. Secondly, the concept behind the web as a medium is also very important. It is a medium that has the ability to reach the global population. When an artist puts a piece of work on the web than they are saying to the world, that this is who they are and what they do. At that point in time that piece is available to anyone, no matter where they are. If this piece can then be taken off the Internet and shown in a small gallery to a select group of people, and still retain the same meaning, than it is not net art. It is just art that is universal in the sense that it has a generalized subject. Net art is created for the Internet, so the target audience is the world, and nothing smaller. If net art were than taken off the Internet and placed in a gallery it would not hold the same impact, because it would not be reaching out to its large target audience. It would be confined and basically useless because it would not have the same universality that it did online. Finally, net art can be collaborative, individual, or even both on different days. For example, one artist can make a piece and post it online. Another artist can see this work and contact the first artist. They can then work over the Internet in a collaborative way to enhance the first artist’s original work. The first piece can then be taken down and the new one put up, so the artwork now has to artists instead of just one. If the next day the original artist decides that he/she doesn’t like the collaborated piece, they can remake it again. The Internet allows this process to be a never-ending cycle, where artists can collaborate and work individually at the same time. Net art is a type of art that is always changing, and so this art must be suited to the flexibility that the medium in which it is represented permits.
posted by Brittany on May 22, 2006, 2:00 pm
Think of the Mona Lisa. Created in the 16th century by Leonardo da Vinci, it hangs today – in static two dimensional form – at the Louvre in Paris. Even if Leonardo were 500 years old and alive today, he could not manipulate its original form as can be done with internet-based art, as Curt Cloninger’s attributes of the form remark. For example, da Vinci could not today continue to grow on the Mona Lisa onto the original as there is limited canvas space. Nor could he do “it from deep in the Appalachian Mountains” and then immediately publish it, he needs the Mona Lisa to be with him. Plus, the Mona Lisa in painted form is purely visual versus incorporating of audio, video, animation, etc.
Now before you scoff at me how preposterous it is to compare THE Mona Lisa with contemporary internet art, let’s suppose that Leonardo da Vinci created the piece today as an internet artist, how would it look different, how would the experience be different? Well, for starters, the experience could be more immersive than just a two-dimensional painting (please disregard that the smile is enigmatic here and keeps some people awake at night) and rather a total audio, visual, and user-clickable landscape where the user could prod the Mona Lisa or vice-versa. Leonardo might even want to create a landscape of Mona Lisas where many can come to chat around, bringing the Mona Lisa from a static painting into a real-world experience where everyone could become a Mona Lisa – “live on the internet,” if you will. Here, “the artwork is the medium is the gallery” as Cloninger describes it, rather than having to venture into the Louvre to experience it. Just don’t put the Mona Lisa on a CDrom.
Now before you scoff at me how preposterous it is to compare THE Mona Lisa with contemporary internet art, let’s suppose that Leonardo da Vinci created the piece today as an internet artist, how would it look different, how would the experience be different? Well, for starters, the experience could be more immersive than just a two-dimensional painting (please disregard that the smile is enigmatic here and keeps some people awake at night) and rather a total audio, visual, and user-clickable landscape where the user could prod the Mona Lisa or vice-versa. Leonardo might even want to create a landscape of Mona Lisas where many can come to chat around, bringing the Mona Lisa from a static painting into a real-world experience where everyone could become a Mona Lisa – “live on the internet,” if you will. Here, “the artwork is the medium is the gallery” as Cloninger describes it, rather than having to venture into the Louvre to experience it. Just don’t put the Mona Lisa on a CDrom.
posted by Michael on May 22, 2006, 4:43 pm
From the lists of Cloninger's definitions of net art, I especially agree with the idea that it is intimate and the idea net art created connections between people. In other art mediums, art is to be displayed in a museum or posted on the wall, where they are in a certain public space with restriction and viewed en mass. Unlike these ordinary mediums for art, net art, or anything on the net can be seen online in the comfort of your home with a computer and an internet connection. "Most net art is experienced by one person, one monitor at a time, in their personal space, in their personal time." Also, this intimacy is true with not only the viewers but also with the creators of net art. The creators usually work in their personal space in what job they are given and then put up online through a server to be collaborated with other creator's works or just to be viewed by others. I feel this is what differences net art from other art mediums, in which, more is needed than a computer and a connection to the web. The second idea I felt strongly with was that net art is about people not machines. While it is truly the machines, the computers, that create the network itself, they are just structures used by people to connect to others that also uses the structures. Creators of net art use the technology to connect to others, showing others their works and also getting feedback from those others. And, I will like to add, that not all designers who work numerous hours on their computer talk the computer language but are translating their art with a computer as their tool and then again using technology to put the work up online. ^^
posted by Paula on May 22, 2006, 5:49 pm
According to Cloninger’s interview, internet-art can be a form of self-expression, considering that the web allows the artist to publish work at any point in time, even “deep in the Appalachian Mountains.” The Internet does not want to be static or discrete, but does want to be collaborative, intimate, remarkable, and decentralized. It wants to keep growing, where people can revisit the past and change the present according to new ideas and inspiration. For example, Wikipedia or Blogs gives users the ability to comment on previous postings. This opens a new form of discourse, one leading to another, and to a greater level, form networks between people (some information can be intimate like in web journals and others are global like in Wikipedia). I agree with most of Cloninger’s view on community and collaboration. Not only does the Internet offer people to collaborate on net projects, but also “users” from around the world can be involved with the net. They become part of the experience rather than being fed with content. For instance, when the user surfs through http://www.playdamage.org/, immediately they are introduced to a remarkable world of information through visuals, typography, and sound. When they click on the page, it brings them to a new random page. I thought that the randomness was quite interesting because it keeps you engage and wanting to know what appears next. Along the lines of Cloningner, I thought the collaboration aspect of the Internet has more of an advantage than other media because it doesn’t want to be like machines but instead, interactivity between local and global communities.
posted by Joann on May 22, 2006, 6:16 pm
According to Cloninger’s interview, internet-art can be a form of self-expression, considering that the web allows the artist to publish work at any point in time, even “deep in the Appalachian Mountains.” The Internet does not want to be static or discrete, but does want to be collaborative, intimate, remarkable, and decentralized. It wants to keep growing, where people can revisit the past and change the present according to new ideas and inspiration. For example, Wikipedia or Blogs gives users the ability to comment on previous postings. This opens a new form of discourse, one leading to another, and to a greater level, form networks between people (some information can be intimate like in web journals and others are global like in Wikipedia). I agree with most of Cloninger’s view on community and collaboration. Not only does the Internet offer people to collaborate on net projects, but also “users” from around the world can be involved with the net. They become part of the experience rather than being fed with content. For instance, when the user surfs through http://www.playdamage.org/, immediately they are introduced to a remarkable world of information through visuals, typography, and sound. When they click on the page, it brings them to a new random page. I thought that the randomness was quite interesting because it keeps you engage and wanting to know what appears next. Along the lines of Cloningner, I thought the collaboration aspect of the Internet has more of an advantage than other media because it doesn’t want to be like machines but instead, interactivity between local and global communities.
posted by Joann on May 22, 2006, 6:30 pm
I support any kind of artist that uses her or his art to 'serve' the public. Cloninger see's net art as non-didatic, which encourages users to 'use' the 'unfinished' artwork to finish or add to the work. Cloninger says, "When I make internet art, every computer in the world that's online is immediately ready to show it," which basically allows all artists, whether a professional or amateur, to show the world their work. From the interview I got the impression that net art eliminates the dividing line between artist and audience because these terms become less clear in the world of net art in the way that 'users' or the audience can add to the work which becomes more community based, unlike the exclusive and elitist nature of the traditional artworld. A unique characteristic of the Web that's at the top of Cloninger's list, "MANY-TO-MANY NETWORKING," explains that the early goals of the net was to distribute and de-hierarchize, making all servers equal.
My initial reaction to the work, like many others, is that it looks rough and has a retro feel/look to it, yet, after reading the interview I understand why it 'looks' the way it does. I respect Cloninger's drive to remain restricted by bandwidth and trying to remain minimalistic and true to this principal. He says, "So if the piece was made from the beginning with the restrictions of the internet in mind, and if those restrictions somehow effect the piece in a crucial way, then it's net art."
He believes net art doesn't want to be static, which clearly goes back to the characteristic of "location-independent and/or device-independent" which means the artwork can be experienced anywhere and not restricted to a specific gallery space.
"WHAT IS THE WEB GOOD FOR?" and "WHAT CAN THE WEB DO THAT OTHER MEDIA CAN'T DO?" are questions that Cloninger asks in trying to break the tradition of trying to get the internet to do what we want it do and focus entirely on our ability to be curious and to be creative in the way we experience and use the web.
Though I respect his ambition, I wonder about his position in regarding his advocation of "Net art wanting to be decentralized" in which he states "No single body arbiting what is or isn't net art" yet he is guilty of arbiting what is or isn't net art in his description that net art is restricted by bandwidth and that "If you can transfer your net art to another medium without hurting it or altering its impact, then it's probably not net art." im just curious to know what he meant by this decentralizing thing....alright peace.....
-nak
posted by Nak on May 22, 2006, 6:53 pm
I support any kind of artist that uses her or his art to 'serve' the public. Cloninger see's net art as non-didatic, which encourages users to 'use' the 'unfinished' artwork to finish or add to the work. Cloninger says, "When I make internet art, every computer in the world that's online is immediately ready to show it," which basically allows all artists, whether a professional or amateur, to show the world their work. From the interview I got the impression that net art eliminates the dividing line between artist and audience because these terms become less clear in the world of net art in the way that 'users' or the audience can add to the work which becomes more community based, unlike the exclusive and elitist nature of the traditional artworld. A unique characteristic of the Web that's at the top of Cloninger's list, "MANY-TO-MANY NETWORKING," explains that the early goals of the net was to distribute and de-hierarchize, making all servers equal.
My initial reaction to the work, like many others, is that it looks rough and has a retro feel/look to it, yet, after reading the interview I understand why it 'looks' the way it does. I respect Cloninger's drive to remain restricted by bandwidth and trying to remain minimalistic and true to this principal. He says, "So if the piece was made from the beginning with the restrictions of the internet in mind, and if those restrictions somehow effect the piece in a crucial way, then it's net art."
He believes net art doesn't want to be static, which clearly goes back to the characteristic of "location-independent and/or device-independent" which means the artwork can be experienced anywhere and not restricted to a specific gallery space.
"WHAT IS THE WEB GOOD FOR?" and "WHAT CAN THE WEB DO THAT OTHER MEDIA CAN'T DO?" are questions that Cloninger asks in trying to break the tradition of trying to get the internet to do what we want it do and direct our focus entirely on our ability to be curious and to be creative in the way we experience and use the web.
Though I respect his ambition, I wonder about his position in regarding his advocation of "Net art wanting to be decentralized" in which he states "No single body arbiting what is or isn't net art" yet he is guilty of arbiting what is or isn't net art in his description that net art is restricted by bandwidth and that "If you can transfer your net art to another medium without hurting it or altering its impact, then it's probably not net art." im just curious to know what he meant by this decentralizing thing....alright peace.....
My initial reaction to the work, like many others, is that it looks rough and has a retro feel/look to it, yet, after reading the interview I understand why it 'looks' the way it does. I respect Cloninger's drive to remain restricted by bandwidth and trying to remain minimalistic and true to this principal. He says, "So if the piece was made from the beginning with the restrictions of the internet in mind, and if those restrictions somehow effect the piece in a crucial way, then it's net art."
He believes net art doesn't want to be static, which clearly goes back to the characteristic of "location-independent and/or device-independent" which means the artwork can be experienced anywhere and not restricted to a specific gallery space.
"WHAT IS THE WEB GOOD FOR?" and "WHAT CAN THE WEB DO THAT OTHER MEDIA CAN'T DO?" are questions that Cloninger asks in trying to break the tradition of trying to get the internet to do what we want it do and direct our focus entirely on our ability to be curious and to be creative in the way we experience and use the web.
Though I respect his ambition, I wonder about his position in regarding his advocation of "Net art wanting to be decentralized" in which he states "No single body arbiting what is or isn't net art" yet he is guilty of arbiting what is or isn't net art in his description that net art is restricted by bandwidth and that "If you can transfer your net art to another medium without hurting it or altering its impact, then it's probably not net art." im just curious to know what he meant by this decentralizing thing....alright peace.....
posted by Nak on May 22, 2006, 6:56 pm
In the website, Curt Cloninger states "The online world is networked, which means there are living PEOPLE out there... Any place where people share beliefs and concerns and humor and friendship and commitment -- that place is a real world." I agree with his idea that the net work is not just a working place through the media but a real interactive place for people to share their thought from different locations. For me, I used the online chat rooms or discussion bullets a lot whenever I have questions. The question can be something like “how WWI begins” to “how much is the new Nike sports shoes in Gilroy mall?” Even though people may argue there is no realistic individuals talk with you, the community of the online world does spring up in last ten years. Students use the msn or aim to discuss homework instead of calling on the phone or mailing, and businessmen choose to have online face to face meeting instead of gathering people from different areas. Like Curt Cloninger refers in the web page, he says that the Net art wants to be about intimate, remarkable, identity, communication and collaborative. And, all of these elements are enclosed in the online world. At this moment, I would say that the community is exit nowadays. What you can learn or what you can get in the online world could be even more detailed and profound than what you can reach in the books.
posted by Wei on May 22, 2006, 6:57 pm
Personally, I think Cloninger is somewhat contradictory. At first he tries to dodge the question “Do you consider yourself primarily a designer or primarily an artist?” by giving this roundabout response that I guess is supposed to allude to his desire for the breakdown of genre boundaries? Then when prompted about his essay on internet art, he lays down nine strict guidelines as to what internet art has to be. One thing I really disagree with is his declaration that Internet art is something that can’t be transferred to another medium. To me, this just says that he has a closed, elitist view on what Internet art is. The way I see it, something that can be created in the computer with the intention of many people seeing it is Internet art. I think he is just fascinated by the fact that he can make these, in my opinion, Claris Homepage 2.0 looking web pages that really aren’t art, but semi-creative use of HTML and the Internet. Yet, he disguises it as art simply so he can call it “art”. The “Titler” website looks like one big browser error, yet obviously this look was intentional, why? Is it different for the sake of being different? Is it different because he think people will think its cool and then make their websites, cough excuse me, “internet art” look like it? I feel like he is trying to create strict guidelines for what fits into his cool club of “internet art”, and if it doesn’t fit one of the guidelines, such as “being able to be transferred to another medium”, then its sooo 1990’s and its not internet art. It seems he has a bit of a conflict with Net-art rule #8, “Net art wants to be decentralized. No single body arbiting what is or isn’t net art,” considering he basically does that himself.
posted by Chris on May 22, 2006, 7:29 pm
In Cloninger's interview, his descriptions about "Web Art as Media" was what I found most intruiging. His third point that he makes about web art being "intimate" is probably something I had never really thought about. It's true however, you can view web art at your own expense or non-expense, at your own convenient time, in your own enviornment. You aren't standing in line to see it, or looking over people's heads and bodies to see a little painting, or you aren't being taken on a guided tour. Granted that a group of people can view a computer screen at the same time but what is unique is that its always there for you to revisit or re-experience just for yourself.
Another point that Cloniger makes is that the Internet is a "network of people, not machines". I found this point rather interesting especially with his idea about belonging to a community at the end of the interview. I think people unfamiliar with Media Art in general overlook that there is a person behind the machine. The machine is merely a creation tool. Adobe programs don't just spit out artwork. They are just another creation tool. Mac or Dell, Adobe or Macromedia, there are many ways to go about creating art, specifically web art, but there is always a common ingredient, the creativity and ideas of a person(s), not a machine.
Another point that Cloniger makes is that the Internet is a "network of people, not machines". I found this point rather interesting especially with his idea about belonging to a community at the end of the interview. I think people unfamiliar with Media Art in general overlook that there is a person behind the machine. The machine is merely a creation tool. Adobe programs don't just spit out artwork. They are just another creation tool. Mac or Dell, Adobe or Macromedia, there are many ways to go about creating art, specifically web art, but there is always a common ingredient, the creativity and ideas of a person(s), not a machine.
posted by Carly on May 22, 2006, 8:28 pm
Art can be categorized by how it was created, the time period it was created (and the ideas that are associated with it), who created it and what medium was used: Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa was an oil on wood Renaissance painting created between 1470-1528. Although Cloninger's idea of net-art touches on each of the subjects, there is no piece of net-art that has a concrete answer to all of those questions, making it unique from its predecessors. While that is an interesting subject in itself --proof because all the posts are about how cool web-art is because of its uniqueness-- I can't help but feel that attaching the word "art" to "net" is contradictory.
Post-internet, art was the expression of a person's mind; the visual representation of human emotion of either an individual or a group of people with similar ideas. Some net-art still fits that idea, but Richard and Brittany find the idea that internet-art is interesting because it is no longer an individual's idea; that the artwork can evolve with each passing participant. Although there might be an intimacy between the viewer and the piece, there is no longer the intimacy between the creator and the piece, which may be a good or bad thing, but because of the lack of the latter intimacy, I hardly call internet-art, art. Paula argues that "it is intimate and the idea net-art created connections between people". However, net-art fails to create a connection between the creator and the piece-- if so many people (sometimes, people don't control who can contribute) make one thing, the idea often becomes blurred or altered so that it does not specifically convey a single emotion/idea), especially if there is no mediator. Furthermore, if a piece of art, Brittany says, "can constantly be changed and updated, as to suit the artst's desires and needs" then the piece can never be finished. The creator can never have a finished piece that he is proud of. The idea is always changing and therefore lacks definition.
While I agree that internet-art is definitely something awesome, perhaps we
should rename it to something else. Net-collaboration or something?
Anyway, other than that, I think that net-collaboration (and so I rename it) is
quite awesome; it opens a lot of opportunities for new things to be created-- like whoa, I could collaborate with people accross the world! But of course, Cloninger does a good job explaining each one of those.
I find it interesting how he separates himself from art, but still calls it art.
Post-internet, art was the expression of a person's mind; the visual representation of human emotion of either an individual or a group of people with similar ideas. Some net-art still fits that idea, but Richard and Brittany find the idea that internet-art is interesting because it is no longer an individual's idea; that the artwork can evolve with each passing participant. Although there might be an intimacy between the viewer and the piece, there is no longer the intimacy between the creator and the piece, which may be a good or bad thing, but because of the lack of the latter intimacy, I hardly call internet-art, art. Paula argues that "it is intimate and the idea net-art created connections between people". However, net-art fails to create a connection between the creator and the piece-- if so many people (sometimes, people don't control who can contribute) make one thing, the idea often becomes blurred or altered so that it does not specifically convey a single emotion/idea), especially if there is no mediator. Furthermore, if a piece of art, Brittany says, "can constantly be changed and updated, as to suit the artst's desires and needs" then the piece can never be finished. The creator can never have a finished piece that he is proud of. The idea is always changing and therefore lacks definition.
While I agree that internet-art is definitely something awesome, perhaps we
should rename it to something else. Net-collaboration or something?
Anyway, other than that, I think that net-collaboration (and so I rename it) is
quite awesome; it opens a lot of opportunities for new things to be created-- like whoa, I could collaborate with people accross the world! But of course, Cloninger does a good job explaining each one of those.
I find it interesting how he separates himself from art, but still calls it art.
posted by Camile on May 22, 2006, 8:50 pm
It was actually kind of funny reading this interview because in a way it was a rehash of everything Cloninger covered in his "Understanding Web as Media" outline, but on a much more personalized level.
BUT, that aside Cloninger definitely struck a chord with his discourse about the collaborative capabilities of net art, in which the concept of other users adding to a work keeps it in a constant, unfinished state. At the same time, this also gives way to more experimental ventures; since the internet doesn’t exactly belong to any single entity, anything can happen. The fact, too, that these updates can be published and made live almost immediately completely distinguishes net art from that of its more traditional cousins.
I wonder though what net art seeks to do in the long run. Cloninger clearly established the many factors making up its identity; but one has to ask if there is some kind of ultimate goal that net art wants to attain – what is its purpose? Is it more a medium of expression, a way to solve problems, or both? I personally see it as the middle ground between art and design. People commonly misinterpret them to be one in the same, but the real difference is that art is done for the self, whereas design addresses everyday problems. Net art seems to be reflective of the art’s experimental nature, but constructed in a designed manner. So I ask, if we’ve always been trying to get the internet to do what we want it do – and as technology continues evolving – what are the potential applications for this digital art form? In other words, what is net art’s place in the spectrum, its role in the larger context? I would’ve liked to hear Cloninger’s thoughts on this.
BUT, that aside Cloninger definitely struck a chord with his discourse about the collaborative capabilities of net art, in which the concept of other users adding to a work keeps it in a constant, unfinished state. At the same time, this also gives way to more experimental ventures; since the internet doesn’t exactly belong to any single entity, anything can happen. The fact, too, that these updates can be published and made live almost immediately completely distinguishes net art from that of its more traditional cousins.
I wonder though what net art seeks to do in the long run. Cloninger clearly established the many factors making up its identity; but one has to ask if there is some kind of ultimate goal that net art wants to attain – what is its purpose? Is it more a medium of expression, a way to solve problems, or both? I personally see it as the middle ground between art and design. People commonly misinterpret them to be one in the same, but the real difference is that art is done for the self, whereas design addresses everyday problems. Net art seems to be reflective of the art’s experimental nature, but constructed in a designed manner. So I ask, if we’ve always been trying to get the internet to do what we want it do – and as technology continues evolving – what are the potential applications for this digital art form? In other words, what is net art’s place in the spectrum, its role in the larger context? I would’ve liked to hear Cloninger’s thoughts on this.
posted by Kelly on May 22, 2006, 8:53 pm
Viewing the internet not as a system that just hooks you up to cool stuff [net art, portfolio sites, blogs, games, etc.], but viewing the internet as really coming to life when people are interacting and engaging one another really stands out in this article about Cloninger. Though this is not a new concept its nice to be reminded about this facet I keep forgetting about, even if it is by an internet hippie. Using the internet with the purpose of bringing people together to work on something is getting easier through new technologies and is becoming more common which in turn is driving more people to create ways to make it easier and to invent technologies to utilize this aspect of the internet. This is a positive part of technology that is making the world a 'smaller' place as well as an easier place to gain factual information [more people interacting means there is a more likely chance you will have someone tell you correct information], sometimes [more people interacting means more people giving their opinion, which may be wrong and could be confusing telling who is correct].
posted by Luca on May 22, 2006, 8:56 pm
“An original is a creation motivated by desire. Any reproduction of an original motivated be necessity. It is marvelous that we are the only species that creates gratuitous forms. To create is divine, to reproduce is human.” –Man Ray. The spontaneity and replicable affinity that the web has is very similar to life and its many interactions. Curt Cloninger had many interesting points on the medium of the web and its specificity. I feel that in order to truly work in any medium, one must understand the advantages and disadvantages of that medium. Cloninger’s views on internet art and internet art websites are parallel to some of the ideologies of the Dada movement and the anti-art. Challenging traditional art and distinguishing internet art as its own medium, I feel that Cloninger has contributed to the web medium as Kracauer did for film. It is very inspiring to read his views on internet art and his comparison of the medium to life itself.
posted by Shaun on May 22, 2006, 9:11 pm
where is "Craftsmanship" and "Physicality?"
After reading this, I'm having the impression that net art is devoid of the two keywords mentioned above. Upon discussing about what art is, I think it's really important to incorporate two of those keywords, and because seemingly net art does not possess those aspects, I think it should be called something else, rahter than net art.
"Craftsmanship"
I thinks this becomes an issue, and was a big subject while ago, but where has the notion of craftsmanship has gone when a method of expression completely becomes dependent of the viewer's browser? how can the artist strive to perfect his work? How can the mentality of sculptor trying to perfect the form can apply to a net artist?
"Physicality"
In an art form where everything is only seen through the screen, net art loses its physical entity. I think this corresponds with Cloinger's statement "Internet doesn't want to be static." In replace of gainig the dynamicness, net art has lost physicality. Net art, by definition, is without physicality.
After reading this, I'm having the impression that net art is devoid of the two keywords mentioned above. Upon discussing about what art is, I think it's really important to incorporate two of those keywords, and because seemingly net art does not possess those aspects, I think it should be called something else, rahter than net art.
"Craftsmanship"
I thinks this becomes an issue, and was a big subject while ago, but where has the notion of craftsmanship has gone when a method of expression completely becomes dependent of the viewer's browser? how can the artist strive to perfect his work? How can the mentality of sculptor trying to perfect the form can apply to a net artist?
"Physicality"
In an art form where everything is only seen through the screen, net art loses its physical entity. I think this corresponds with Cloinger's statement "Internet doesn't want to be static." In replace of gainig the dynamicness, net art has lost physicality. Net art, by definition, is without physicality.
posted by Togo on May 22, 2006, 9:48 pm
What's real nice about Cloninger's proclaimed "Net Art" is the idea that practically anyone can showcase their work and anyone can see it. It makes the title of "artist" less exclusive. For example, not every artist can easily have their work displayed in a museum or fly to the Louvres to see the actual Mona Lisa, whereas every internet artist can post to the internet for all the world to see with ease. It allows a broader amount of people to be acknowledged artistically. Artists can also get instant feedback through comments, emails, etc.
There's something though disheartening about the "intimacy" Cloninger mentions. While it takes much less effort to access art, we lose the atmosphere and ritual of going to see art. It's nice to just walk through a museum, or exhibition and take it all in. You don't experience the Getty garden or expensive coffee or creepy looking people at a random artsy website. I'm not saying that I don't like Net Art (I mean, in ways, much of our own websites are forms of net art). I guess, net art just reminds me how fast-paced our world its - so fast that art can just be clicked away.
There's something though disheartening about the "intimacy" Cloninger mentions. While it takes much less effort to access art, we lose the atmosphere and ritual of going to see art. It's nice to just walk through a museum, or exhibition and take it all in. You don't experience the Getty garden or expensive coffee or creepy looking people at a random artsy website. I'm not saying that I don't like Net Art (I mean, in ways, much of our own websites are forms of net art). I guess, net art just reminds me how fast-paced our world its - so fast that art can just be clicked away.
posted by Roxanne on May 22, 2006, 11:03 pm
Reading about net art, it is interesting how limited this type of art form really is. It seems that Cloninger takes advantage of this minimalist structure in the work he does. I like the idea of how net art is very dynamic and is this unfinished art that is constantly evolving though time. I also thought this idea of hacking a message board code to create a live internet performance was very intriguing.
On the other hand though, it seems that net art has a very limited accessibility. It's true that people are able to access the art instantly across the globe, but still this is limited to those who have both access to a computer and access to the internet. There is still a large majority of the world who would neither be able to create nor view this type of art form. Not only that, but even after having access to the internet, some net art pages, such as titler.com have even more requirements in order to experience the art.
Moreover, the reliability of the internet is not perfect. That which is not maintained and update has the potential to be lost in the vast internet ocean. For example, one of the links on the article page is broken(http://www.lab404.com/grace/).
Though net art has some very intriguing aspects and interesting possibilities, there still exists many downsides to this form.
On the other hand though, it seems that net art has a very limited accessibility. It's true that people are able to access the art instantly across the globe, but still this is limited to those who have both access to a computer and access to the internet. There is still a large majority of the world who would neither be able to create nor view this type of art form. Not only that, but even after having access to the internet, some net art pages, such as titler.com have even more requirements in order to experience the art.
Moreover, the reliability of the internet is not perfect. That which is not maintained and update has the potential to be lost in the vast internet ocean. For example, one of the links on the article page is broken(http://www.lab404.com/grace/).
Though net art has some very intriguing aspects and interesting possibilities, there still exists many downsides to this form.
posted by Mike on May 23, 2006, 12:17 am
Net art is definetly a growing and very interesting medium for personal expression. It has a lot of unique qualities that I am not particularly excited about, and then a few that make net art what it truly is. The availibility of having it 24/7 and 365 days a year (assuming your server does not crash) is very beneficial becuase users have access to it at all times. However, it is not like a gallery where there is a designated place for the art work, or where it has to be mutually accepted by more than one person to be considered 'gallery-worthy'. This pretty much means that anyone can adhere to the rules Cloninger stated and create 'net art' when it could just be a crappy webpage. The more static art world of painting and drawing is also filled with a lot of crappy art, but usually that crappy art never makes it to a gallery, and no one has to view it. However, despite the chance of all the crappy net art that could be produced it is still a very unique medium that is open to anyone with an internet connection. It is an art form for a much more average user, and a common medium through most people in the world. I think that this is where its strengths lie; the fact that net art does not have to be exclusive, but is open to every individual if they are willing to find it, or atleast to make something on thier own.
posted by Nick on May 23, 2006, 11:13 am