z rozhovoru s jo-anne green


// spolu s helen thorington rozbehla v 1997 web http://turbulence.org
na ktorom vytvaraju archiv sietovych artworkov, dnes vyse 100 kuskov,
autorom sa tiez snazia zaplatit honorar vzdy par tisic buckov.
v 2004 spustili networked_performance blog, hodne sledovany.
a prave spustaju dalsi blog venovany recenziam sietovej hudby
(networked_music blog) //


..I see “the public” and “the art market” as different entities that occasionally converge. When you consider the mainstream art market and the relatively narrow public it serves, juxtaposed with the promise of the Internet—bottom-up, participatory, low cost distribution mechanism—net art is accessible to a far wider audience. Yet, many feel that without the legitimacy afforded by traditional art world establishments—museums, galleries, collections—net art cannot survive. As things stand, I don’t see how these two worlds can ever merge. The art world still wants art stars and still needs physical objects that can be bought and sold. Who would want to invest in an art work that cannot be preserved, or that has no original and possibly infinite copies? A lot of networked art is about experiences not things. It is unpredictable, in flux, open to input, and dependent on its users. It will always need its own funding mechanism—grants, residencies, live events. Why even attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole?

..(Can you tell us a few words about the latest works you commissioned? Which criteria guided the selection?)
Turbulence’s strength is the diversity of its commissioned works. Helen’s background is in literature and sound. Mine is in the visual arts (I was a printmaker, then a painter and book artist). We both have a deep connection to dance; Helen has composed for it and I grew up watching it. And we care deeply about human rights and political activism. This definitely influences our choices, but there are other criteria we look for as well. How effectively does the work make use of networked and database technologies? How open is it to user participation? What type of experience will the user have?

..I think the strongest connection between much of the work [we write about on turbulence.org] is how much the roles of “artist” and “audience” have shifted. Because so many networked pieces rely on the people formerly known as the audience to “complete” them, there’s a level of performativity—or user action—required, whether users are playing mixed reality games, or adding their stories to a database of hundreds of others’ stories. There’s a level of physical engagement—from the miniscule click of a mouse, to drawing and typing, to the choreography of full-bodied movement—that has turned the paradigm of solitary digital immersion and disconnection on its head. In fact, networked art experiences can be far more connected and “real” than traditional art ‘experiences’. Sure, paintings elicit visceral and deeply emotional responses, and to some extent allow the viewer to complete them. But those experiences are often intensely private and self-contained. Watching participants draw together in public or jump up and down to effect an installation, you cannot help but be aware of how categorically social networked art can be and just how strong the desire to connect with other people is. People want to feel like they’re making a difference and that there’s a role for them to play. Digital networks are making this possible.

..One can definitely trace much of today’s practice to Marcel Duchamp/Dada, John Cage, Alan Kaprow/Happenings, Fluxus, and the Situationists (and many more). The shift from passive audience to engaged participant, non-linearity, chance and randomness and the question “what is art?” all derive from these artists and movements. Ironically, these user-centric precedents—you, afterall, can be an “artist” too—have historically alienated traditional art audiences. For centuries, the western artist was elevated above society (Martha Woodmansee’s 1994 study, The Author, Art, and the Market: Rereading the History of Aesthetics, provides a detailed analysis of how changing market conditions in the eighteenth century facilitated the development of a romantic view of authorship), perceived as the solitary genius whose objects are eventually valued beyond almost anything else in western culture (from an investment standpoint). After many years, the sudden shift to urinal–as-art was an enormous affront to the public. Even though the every day is far more accessible and inclusive than the rare, extraordinary gifts of the few, the public quickly became more comfortable with “experts” telling them what is and is not art. There are strong human tendencies toward the dissolution of the boundary between art and life, but art institutions are clinging to their privileged place in our culture. Networked technologies are revolutionizing society. It’s impossible to predict where they will take us, but clearly, our way of life is going to radically change. Hopefully, the art world will change too.


Interview with Jo-Anne Green, 5.marec 2007, http://www.we-make-money-not-art.com/archives/009375.php

--

http://www.turbulence.org/
http://www.turbulence.org/blog/
http://transition.turbulence.org/networked_music_review/