Four screengrabs AFC
“So I can go to the website and watch this, if I knew how?” the gray haired society woman asked her guide. She was speaking of Oliver Laric’s video 50 50, at the New Museum, a work she may not have connected with for a number of reasons, not the least of which being I was hogging the headphones.
I mention her words because they represent either the reason net art will never find an easy home in museums, or why it needs to be there. For many, the best and only way to display net art properly is virtually, and therefore its space in the museum doesn’t make much sense. Old lady society simply reaffirms this while kicking the artist for creating something in a medium she distrusts and will never adapt to. For others, her words reveal the necessity of giving net art a physical location because they underscore the responsibility of the museum to find and introduce the public to new art. Certainly this woman would never find 50 50 on her own, nor would she think about its value. While she may not contemplate it further, the museum gives an important seal of approval to art that at least increases the chances of that happening. I like to think Unmonumental Online’s presence in the gallery represents the end to the thought that the mere existence of Google should mean that people will naturally find all the art they never knew existed.
{ 38 comments }
Excellent post.
Excellent post.
Excellent post.
Excellent post.
Excellent post.
Excellent post.
I agree with you.
While using kiosk’ed computer terminals in a museum’s gallery is a really uncomfortable and awkward way to engage internet based works, their inclusion in the New Museum’s physical space is significant enough [for the reasons you described] for me to let it slide.
What’s left now is for someone to figure out how best to pull it off. The thing to do, it seems, is to find a way to addresses the physical context of the work without giving up the integrity it holds in the virtual world.
I agree with you.
While using kiosk’ed computer terminals in a museum’s gallery is a really uncomfortable and awkward way to engage internet based works, their inclusion in the New Museum’s physical space is significant enough [for the reasons you described] for me to let it slide.
What’s left now is for someone to figure out how best to pull it off. The thing to do, it seems, is to find a way to addresses the physical context of the work without giving up the integrity it holds in the virtual world.
I think the New Museum did it best for the Artbase 101 show in 2005. Many of the works were installed on flat screens from the Zenith Media sponsorship days and others were interactive, installed with sensors. My problem with the new media and sound components of unmonumental is that they look like an afterthought compared to the first cycle and second cycles, sculpture and the later addition of works on the wall with some adjustments to the placement of the sculptural work. I think the last two layers – sound and net art – look third tier in a hierarchy of mediums. Maybe it’s a step towards progress, but the museum has a history of presenting net art and new media projects that were better installed than they are this time around.
I think the New Museum did it best for the Artbase 101 show in 2005. Many of the works were installed on flat screens from the Zenith Media sponsorship days and others were interactive, installed with sensors. My problem with the new media and sound components of unmonumental is that they look like an afterthought compared to the first cycle and second cycles, sculpture and the later addition of works on the wall with some adjustments to the placement of the sculptural work. I think the last two layers – sound and net art – look third tier in a hierarchy of mediums. Maybe it’s a step towards progress, but the museum has a history of presenting net art and new media projects that were better installed than they are this time around.
I think the New Museum did it best for the Artbase 101 show in 2005. Many of the works were installed on flat screens from the Zenith Media sponsorship days and others were interactive, installed with sensors. My problem with the new media and sound components of unmonumental is that they look like an afterthought compared to the first cycle and second cycles, sculpture and the later addition of works on the wall with some adjustments to the placement of the sculptural work. I think the last two layers – sound and net art – look third tier in a hierarchy of mediums. Maybe it’s a step towards progress, but the museum has a history of presenting net art and new media projects that were better installed than they are this time around.
I think the New Museum did it best for the Artbase 101 show in 2005. Many of the works were installed on flat screens from the Zenith Media sponsorship days and others were interactive, installed with sensors. My problem with the new media and sound components of unmonumental is that they look like an afterthought compared to the first cycle and second cycles, sculpture and the later addition of works on the wall with some adjustments to the placement of the sculptural work. I think the last two layers – sound and net art – look third tier in a hierarchy of mediums. Maybe it’s a step towards progress, but the museum has a history of presenting net art and new media projects that were better installed than they are this time around.
I think the New Museum did it best for the Artbase 101 show in 2005. Many of the works were installed on flat screens from the Zenith Media sponsorship days and others were interactive, installed with sensors. My problem with the new media and sound components of unmonumental is that they look like an afterthought compared to the first cycle and second cycles, sculpture and the later addition of works on the wall with some adjustments to the placement of the sculptural work. I think the last two layers – sound and net art – look third tier in a hierarchy of mediums. Maybe it’s a step towards progress, but the museum has a history of presenting net art and new media projects that were better installed than they are this time around.
I think the New Museum did it best for the Artbase 101 show in 2005. Many of the works were installed on flat screens from the Zenith Media sponsorship days and others were interactive, installed with sensors. My problem with the new media and sound components of unmonumental is that they look like an afterthought compared to the first cycle and second cycles, sculpture and the later addition of works on the wall with some adjustments to the placement of the sculptural work. I think the last two layers – sound and net art – look third tier in a hierarchy of mediums. Maybe it’s a step towards progress, but the museum has a history of presenting net art and new media projects that were better installed than they are this time around.
I think the New Museum did it best for the Artbase 101 show in 2005. Many of the works were installed on flat screens from the Zenith Media sponsorship days and others were interactive, installed with sensors. My problem with the new media and sound components of unmonumental is that they look like an afterthought compared to the first cycle and second cycles, sculpture and the later addition of works on the wall with some adjustments to the placement of the sculptural work. I think the last two layers – sound and net art – look third tier in a hierarchy of mediums. Maybe it’s a step towards progress, but the museum has a history of presenting net art and new media projects that were better installed than they are this time around.
Sara: Overall the idea of mounting the show in stages was a colossal misstep I think. The first install looked unfinished, the second looked better, but removed some works, and nobody pays attention to the third and fourth – arguably the second stage even got short shift. Exhibitions aren’t like a TV series, or a story where a chapter gets published once a month. People simply aren’t accustomed to viewing them that way, and that’s not going to change, just because a few curators set it up that way. Unmonumental did a huge disservice to almost the participating artists.
Sara: Overall the idea of mounting the show in stages was a colossal misstep I think. The first install looked unfinished, the second looked better, but removed some works, and nobody pays attention to the third and fourth – arguably the second stage even got short shift. Exhibitions aren’t like a TV series, or a story where a chapter gets published once a month. People simply aren’t accustomed to viewing them that way, and that’s not going to change, just because a few curators set it up that way. Unmonumental did a huge disservice to almost the participating artists.
Sara: Overall the idea of mounting the show in stages was a colossal misstep I think. The first install looked unfinished, the second looked better, but removed some works, and nobody pays attention to the third and fourth – arguably the second stage even got short shift. Exhibitions aren’t like a TV series, or a story where a chapter gets published once a month. People simply aren’t accustomed to viewing them that way, and that’s not going to change, just because a few curators set it up that way. Unmonumental did a huge disservice to almost the participating artists.
Sara: Overall the idea of mounting the show in stages was a colossal misstep I think. The first install looked unfinished, the second looked better, but removed some works, and nobody pays attention to the third and fourth – arguably the second stage even got short shift. Exhibitions aren’t like a TV series, or a story where a chapter gets published once a month. People simply aren’t accustomed to viewing them that way, and that’s not going to change, just because a few curators set it up that way. Unmonumental did a huge disservice to almost the participating artists.
Sara: Overall the idea of mounting the show in stages was a colossal misstep I think. The first install looked unfinished, the second looked better, but removed some works, and nobody pays attention to the third and fourth – arguably the second stage even got short shift. Exhibitions aren’t like a TV series, or a story where a chapter gets published once a month. People simply aren’t accustomed to viewing them that way, and that’s not going to change, just because a few curators set it up that way. Unmonumental did a huge disservice to almost the participating artists.
Sara: Overall the idea of mounting the show in stages was a colossal misstep I think. The first install looked unfinished, the second looked better, but removed some works, and nobody pays attention to the third and fourth – arguably the second stage even got short shift. Exhibitions aren’t like a TV series, or a story where a chapter gets published once a month. People simply aren’t accustomed to viewing them that way, and that’s not going to change, just because a few curators set it up that way. Unmonumental did a huge disservice to almost the participating artists.
Sara: Overall the idea of mounting the show in stages was a colossal misstep I think. The first install looked unfinished, the second looked better, but removed some works, and nobody pays attention to the third and fourth – arguably the second stage even got short shift. Exhibitions aren’t like a TV series, or a story where a chapter gets published once a month. People simply aren’t accustomed to viewing them that way, and that’s not going to change, just because a few curators set it up that way. Unmonumental did a huge disservice to almost the participating artists.
Great post, yes. Many important issues are raised.
Slight prick about the use of Net Art. Sensors: most likely not Net Art. Actually, the “Net” in Net Art I think stands for Netscape. um, yea, that is enclosed in tags. yes? Anyways, I think few (if any) of these works are Net Art to me… and actually have more to do with Video Art than anything else. “Made with Computer” does not a Net Art make, nor Digital Art; yes, lets go that far. Otherwise, every photographer that does not cling to analog is a “digital artist.” And, yes, I guess that would also include any video artist after the portapak. Wait, I think the portapak had a CCD!
About Borna’s comment:
The thing is how to address a physical space when there was none to address in the first place. 50/50 in particular deals in a specific kind of space, network space, which is then exposed to be the very banal, but most real and revealing of personal spaces. How this engages the gallery/museum is irrelevant in my opinion. It is like asking a painting to address where it is hung (Yes, yes, some do, but you get the point). 50/50 could be a piece of Video Art, which just happened to be made by asking Google the right question. If we ask Google something, does it become Net Art? Well, I guess that is a good question, and I don’t know the answer to that. I guess it is a question of how you are using Google to get your art to “work.” And I think that we should remember that Digital Art does not need to be interactive.
That said, I don’t see how else that piece could have been shown, other than huge and with a booming soundsystem, if only to note the “materiality” of online media sources… I can just see those huge blocky pixels + hear that aliased to death sound. That would have been special. Although I must say that seeing 50/50 in something other than a browser+laptop was a different enough experience for me. I even saw some details I hadn’t noticed before, and I have seen the piece more than 10 times. I agree with AFC:
“…museum gives an important seal of approval…”
Yes, and this seal of approval affects how we view art. If you want to get into silly-but-relevant comparisons (and you are dying to, aren’t you?) it is like seeing a movie at the theater vs. watching it in your TV. With commercials.
Then again, at least they were not bunched up in a dark room, in a loop, tossed together as “the digital video program.” Now that would have been brutal…
2c’s, from:
c.
Great post, yes. Many important issues are raised.
Slight prick about the use of Net Art. Sensors: most likely not Net Art. Actually, the “Net” in Net Art I think stands for Netscape. um, yea, that is enclosed in tags. yes? Anyways, I think few (if any) of these works are Net Art to me… and actually have more to do with Video Art than anything else. “Made with Computer” does not a Net Art make, nor Digital Art; yes, lets go that far. Otherwise, every photographer that does not cling to analog is a “digital artist.” And, yes, I guess that would also include any video artist after the portapak. Wait, I think the portapak had a CCD!
About Borna’s comment:
The thing is how to address a physical space when there was none to address in the first place. 50/50 in particular deals in a specific kind of space, network space, which is then exposed to be the very banal, but most real and revealing of personal spaces. How this engages the gallery/museum is irrelevant in my opinion. It is like asking a painting to address where it is hung (Yes, yes, some do, but you get the point). 50/50 could be a piece of Video Art, which just happened to be made by asking Google the right question. If we ask Google something, does it become Net Art? Well, I guess that is a good question, and I don’t know the answer to that. I guess it is a question of how you are using Google to get your art to “work.” And I think that we should remember that Digital Art does not need to be interactive.
That said, I don’t see how else that piece could have been shown, other than huge and with a booming soundsystem, if only to note the “materiality” of online media sources… I can just see those huge blocky pixels + hear that aliased to death sound. That would have been special. Although I must say that seeing 50/50 in something other than a browser+laptop was a different enough experience for me. I even saw some details I hadn’t noticed before, and I have seen the piece more than 10 times. I agree with AFC:
“…museum gives an important seal of approval…”
Yes, and this seal of approval affects how we view art. If you want to get into silly-but-relevant comparisons (and you are dying to, aren’t you?) it is like seeing a movie at the theater vs. watching it in your TV. With commercials.
Then again, at least they were not bunched up in a dark room, in a loop, tossed together as “the digital video program.” Now that would have been brutal…
2c’s, from:
c.
Great post, yes. Many important issues are raised.
Slight prick about the use of Net Art. Sensors: most likely not Net Art. Actually, the “Net” in Net Art I think stands for Netscape. um, yea, that is enclosed in tags. yes? Anyways, I think few (if any) of these works are Net Art to me… and actually have more to do with Video Art than anything else. “Made with Computer” does not a Net Art make, nor Digital Art; yes, lets go that far. Otherwise, every photographer that does not cling to analog is a “digital artist.” And, yes, I guess that would also include any video artist after the portapak. Wait, I think the portapak had a CCD!
About Borna’s comment:
The thing is how to address a physical space when there was none to address in the first place. 50/50 in particular deals in a specific kind of space, network space, which is then exposed to be the very banal, but most real and revealing of personal spaces. How this engages the gallery/museum is irrelevant in my opinion. It is like asking a painting to address where it is hung (Yes, yes, some do, but you get the point). 50/50 could be a piece of Video Art, which just happened to be made by asking Google the right question. If we ask Google something, does it become Net Art? Well, I guess that is a good question, and I don’t know the answer to that. I guess it is a question of how you are using Google to get your art to “work.” And I think that we should remember that Digital Art does not need to be interactive.
That said, I don’t see how else that piece could have been shown, other than huge and with a booming soundsystem, if only to note the “materiality” of online media sources… I can just see those huge blocky pixels + hear that aliased to death sound. That would have been special. Although I must say that seeing 50/50 in something other than a browser+laptop was a different enough experience for me. I even saw some details I hadn’t noticed before, and I have seen the piece more than 10 times. I agree with AFC:
“…museum gives an important seal of approval…”
Yes, and this seal of approval affects how we view art. If you want to get into silly-but-relevant comparisons (and you are dying to, aren’t you?) it is like seeing a movie at the theater vs. watching it in your TV. With commercials.
Then again, at least they were not bunched up in a dark room, in a loop, tossed together as “the digital video program.” Now that would have been brutal…
2c’s, from:
c.
Great post, yes. Many important issues are raised.
Slight prick about the use of Net Art. Sensors: most likely not Net Art. Actually, the “Net” in Net Art I think stands for Netscape. um, yea, that is enclosed in tags. yes? Anyways, I think few (if any) of these works are Net Art to me… and actually have more to do with Video Art than anything else. “Made with Computer” does not a Net Art make, nor Digital Art; yes, lets go that far. Otherwise, every photographer that does not cling to analog is a “digital artist.” And, yes, I guess that would also include any video artist after the portapak. Wait, I think the portapak had a CCD!
About Borna’s comment:
The thing is how to address a physical space when there was none to address in the first place. 50/50 in particular deals in a specific kind of space, network space, which is then exposed to be the very banal, but most real and revealing of personal spaces. How this engages the gallery/museum is irrelevant in my opinion. It is like asking a painting to address where it is hung (Yes, yes, some do, but you get the point). 50/50 could be a piece of Video Art, which just happened to be made by asking Google the right question. If we ask Google something, does it become Net Art? Well, I guess that is a good question, and I don’t know the answer to that. I guess it is a question of how you are using Google to get your art to “work.” And I think that we should remember that Digital Art does not need to be interactive.
That said, I don’t see how else that piece could have been shown, other than huge and with a booming soundsystem, if only to note the “materiality” of online media sources… I can just see those huge blocky pixels + hear that aliased to death sound. That would have been special. Although I must say that seeing 50/50 in something other than a browser+laptop was a different enough experience for me. I even saw some details I hadn’t noticed before, and I have seen the piece more than 10 times. I agree with AFC:
“…museum gives an important seal of approval…”
Yes, and this seal of approval affects how we view art. If you want to get into silly-but-relevant comparisons (and you are dying to, aren’t you?) it is like seeing a movie at the theater vs. watching it in your TV. With commercials.
Then again, at least they were not bunched up in a dark room, in a loop, tossed together as “the digital video program.” Now that would have been brutal…
2c’s, from:
c.
Great post, yes. Many important issues are raised.
Slight prick about the use of Net Art. Sensors: most likely not Net Art. Actually, the “Net” in Net Art I think stands for Netscape. um, yea, that is enclosed in tags. yes? Anyways, I think few (if any) of these works are Net Art to me… and actually have more to do with Video Art than anything else. “Made with Computer” does not a Net Art make, nor Digital Art; yes, lets go that far. Otherwise, every photographer that does not cling to analog is a “digital artist.” And, yes, I guess that would also include any video artist after the portapak. Wait, I think the portapak had a CCD!
About Borna’s comment:
The thing is how to address a physical space when there was none to address in the first place. 50/50 in particular deals in a specific kind of space, network space, which is then exposed to be the very banal, but most real and revealing of personal spaces. How this engages the gallery/museum is irrelevant in my opinion. It is like asking a painting to address where it is hung (Yes, yes, some do, but you get the point). 50/50 could be a piece of Video Art, which just happened to be made by asking Google the right question. If we ask Google something, does it become Net Art? Well, I guess that is a good question, and I don’t know the answer to that. I guess it is a question of how you are using Google to get your art to “work.” And I think that we should remember that Digital Art does not need to be interactive.
That said, I don’t see how else that piece could have been shown, other than huge and with a booming soundsystem, if only to note the “materiality” of online media sources… I can just see those huge blocky pixels + hear that aliased to death sound. That would have been special. Although I must say that seeing 50/50 in something other than a browser+laptop was a different enough experience for me. I even saw some details I hadn’t noticed before, and I have seen the piece more than 10 times. I agree with AFC:
“…museum gives an important seal of approval…”
Yes, and this seal of approval affects how we view art. If you want to get into silly-but-relevant comparisons (and you are dying to, aren’t you?) it is like seeing a movie at the theater vs. watching it in your TV. With commercials.
Then again, at least they were not bunched up in a dark room, in a loop, tossed together as “the digital video program.” Now that would have been brutal…
2c’s, from:
c.
In response to ‘c’: Net art refers to artwork designed for the Internet. Sensors do not make internet or net or netscape art but were a way of expressing the interactivity of the web. A more interesting experience than standing with headphones watching utube videos.
In response to ‘c’: Net art refers to artwork designed for the Internet. Sensors do not make internet or net or netscape art but were a way of expressing the interactivity of the web. A more interesting experience than standing with headphones watching utube videos.
In response to ‘c’: Net art refers to artwork designed for the Internet. Sensors do not make internet or net or netscape art but were a way of expressing the interactivity of the web. A more interesting experience than standing with headphones watching utube videos.
In response to ‘c’: Net art refers to artwork designed for the Internet. Sensors do not make internet or net or netscape art but were a way of expressing the interactivity of the web. A more interesting experience than standing with headphones watching utube videos.
In response to ‘c’: Net art refers to artwork designed for the Internet. Sensors do not make internet or net or netscape art but were a way of expressing the interactivity of the web. A more interesting experience than standing with headphones watching utube videos.
I take exception to the notion that “sensors make a more interesting experience than standing with headphones watching utube videos.” Under that optic, all non-interactive art is uninteresting (is seeing a painting or a sculpture more interesting with sensors?). As I said before, not all digital art must be (or should be) interactive. Interactivity is simply a strategy in art making (note that interactivity need not be digital), and it should be used only when it is conceptually appropriate.
c.
I take exception to the notion that “sensors make a more interesting experience than standing with headphones watching utube videos.” Under that optic, all non-interactive art is uninteresting (is seeing a painting or a sculpture more interesting with sensors?). As I said before, not all digital art must be (or should be) interactive. Interactivity is simply a strategy in art making (note that interactivity need not be digital), and it should be used only when it is conceptually appropriate.
c.
I take exception to the notion that “sensors make a more interesting experience than standing with headphones watching utube videos.” Under that optic, all non-interactive art is uninteresting (is seeing a painting or a sculpture more interesting with sensors?). As I said before, not all digital art must be (or should be) interactive. Interactivity is simply a strategy in art making (note that interactivity need not be digital), and it should be used only when it is conceptually appropriate.
c.
I take exception to the notion that “sensors make a more interesting experience than standing with headphones watching utube videos.” Under that optic, all non-interactive art is uninteresting (is seeing a painting or a sculpture more interesting with sensors?). As I said before, not all digital art must be (or should be) interactive. Interactivity is simply a strategy in art making (note that interactivity need not be digital), and it should be used only when it is conceptually appropriate.
c.
I take exception to the notion that “sensors make a more interesting experience than standing with headphones watching utube videos.” Under that optic, all non-interactive art is uninteresting (is seeing a painting or a sculpture more interesting with sensors?). As I said before, not all digital art must be (or should be) interactive. Interactivity is simply a strategy in art making (note that interactivity need not be digital), and it should be used only when it is conceptually appropriate.
c.
I take exception to the notion that “sensors make a more interesting experience than standing with headphones watching utube videos.” Under that optic, all non-interactive art is uninteresting (is seeing a painting or a sculpture more interesting with sensors?). As I said before, not all digital art must be (or should be) interactive. Interactivity is simply a strategy in art making (note that interactivity need not be digital), and it should be used only when it is conceptually appropriate.
c.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }