New York, August 8, 2008 Dear Ela, I'd like to answer your question about how and where the "real" and the "virtual" meet, confront, and influence each other in my work. I see the virtual and the real as coexisting worlds, with not much difference on a cultural level, as all contemporary culture is influenced by technology, respectively the Internet. The distinction of material versus immaterial is way older than net art, going back to conceptual art, video art etc. which is in a way again part of Internet-based art now. There are some truly new notions when it comes to art on the Internet, one of them the instant participatory exchange of wide amounts of information and the communication between these participants. I see the translation between these worlds as a fascinating, cross-pollinating experience, and I am intrigued by applying the rules of one world to the other and vice versa, and enjoy the outcome. So, on a practical level, when I approach a new art piece I usually start with finding analogies situated between the virtual and the real. Most of my works have a Web-driven component: in the case of "physical" installations or performances the driving force is the activity deriving from the Web, which alters or directs the piece on the fly. Some other works are even removed from the Web but still carry its structure and philosophy, and then on the other end of the spectrum, there are the "pure" net art pieces, that just exist online. To go back to the term "translation", I am interested in a cultural translation of structures, but also a "material" translation, treating the "immaterial" as something haptic, and vice versa. This brings me to another topic touched upon before: Labeling. What is interesting about it is that it seems to be a cultural necessity to a certain degree. It is important so we can understand each other. But often definitions outgrow their own life span and become senseless, empty, too wide and vague. (Although I have been always attached to the Wittgensteinian approach that our reality is based on the words we use, I see this still applied in describing concepts with as many words as needed, which seems an "activity", rather than labeling, which can have an inert affect on the thinking process.) So how about terms such as Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, or even net art 1.0 and net art 2.0? I came across some very intriguing discussion threads on RHIZOME_DISCUSS (Net Aesthetics 2.0 postmortem) following a panel at the New Museum in the beginning of June 08 called "Net Aesthetics 2.0" (I was on my way back to the US from Europe, therefore I couldn't go). One of the main questions raised there was the "versioning" of artistic directions. The discussion list illustrates the vivid emotions these distinctions and "forced-on" terms have on us. But it also shows that labeling is not an issue for all artists. One definition, I'd like to point out, sees v1.0 as more reflective on conceptual ideas of the Web and as just "purely" online, whereas net art 2.0 as more hybrid and using all different media… Many of my works have both a "pure" net art version and a physical one, or, as explained before, a "Web-driven" instance of the same work. I like the term "internet-aware" I just came across on Tom Moody's Blog, where he describes it being attributed to Guthrie Lonergan's terminology in regard to his work. I see this term very much describing the overall cultural work that's happening right now, and the approach of including art that deals on several levels with the Internet into museums and galleries. Concluding, and to wrap up my meanderings, I think that Web-driven works will do well in museums, as the common mindset is ready for it and understands the world of the Web, even outside the home computer by now. It is part of our culture and therefore is dispersed in everything we do. So we can use it in a larger, more metaphorical way – apply it to sculptures or performances; have all art breathe the spirit of the Web. This is I think also happening in the intersecting works of artists and curators, as the boundaries blur in all of our activities and we invite each other into our worlds. And we are actually also sharing our experiences in the same medium where the work exists: online and in its formation in physical space. Best wishes, Berlin, August 12th 2008 Dear Ursula, Thanks so much for these interesting thoughts. I believe you are right with your appraisal about museums being ready for web-based art. However, the question remains if galleries are ready for it, too. Net artists and the art market still seem to pull in different directions. I wonder when we will witness the first mega-selling web-based project revolutionizing the art market… Finally, I just want to mention another major challenge that I regularly come across in my work (and in our collaboration, too): It's the English language! Since my work is so much bound to text production for international platforms, I write in English most of the time, or, as McKenzie Wark has put it: in "Euro English." My English is one of the various "Englishes" that can be found out there on the web. However, I get an awkward feeling about this one and only, universal idiom of the netizens at times. There is clearly an English language dominance in the theory and mediation of net-based artworks. To what extend does this influence the perception of those works? And if I ask myself: how does this limit my scope of expression as a non-native speaker? Of course, I could write a text in German first and then translate it into English, but in fact I never do that. I write in English right away, somehow relying on the experience that I will be able to make myself understood among my fellow global communicators. And at the same time accepting that a multi-lingual web would not hold the potential for a killer application. But why not? It would certainly add more viewpoints, expressions and opinions to the debate on net-based art. Geert Lovink reflects in his essay Language? No problem on the role of the English language in the age of the net. I quote his proposal for a shared translation platform, which I think could be an interesting idea: 'To overcome the situation that translation is everyone's own business, it would be great if we could socialize this problem and create a kind of 'virtual translation desk'. A place on the Net where authors, translators, and editors could meet. (…) Many people think that this already exists, but this is not the case. Yes, professional translators are there. They work for big companies, like the simultaneous translators and only big and expensive conferences can effort them (…) But none of those are on the Net (why should they, anyway?).' And if I bring this proposal further to our topic I can see a platform where international curators could engage in a mutual exchange about translation strategies, or, when translation might not be possible due to different cultural backgrounds: about paraphrasing or even coining new expressions that could enrich the debate. I am counting 3.261 words by now: text limit exceeded. Greetings, |
|||