Tomorrow I will be on a panel the Catharine Clark Gallery to talk about my role in acquiring Ken Goldberg’s Memento Mori. You can read all the details in this press release.

Portion of image on "Imaginary Museum Projects" by Tjebbe van Tijen

Here is the question of the day: If an organization is set up to help promote and promulgate Internet Art, what should that organization be chartered to do? That was the question at a lunch with the kind lady I had met last Thursday and her husband,also very kind (see previous post).

It’s not an easy question to answer. You can’t just throw money up in the air and expect it to rain art. So where does one start?

First off, let’s look at the different sorts of collectors. I see three broad groupings of Internet Art collectors:

1. The young people, the people of modest means and the older people of this world. Counting the people of the third world, this is by far the largest group. For these the opportunity to view and enjoy a work of art should freely available without restriction.

2. The ordinary people of this world. By this I mean the people who live in houses and (traditionally) hang pictures pictures on their walls. For this group, the opportunity to view art should relate to the cost of the paintings and other items they collect.

3. The patrons of this world. The people who support artists such as Matthew Barney, Jeff Coons, Damien Hurst, Bruce Nauman et al.  For these people the opportunity is to be the patrons of future art – to discover new talent and to be recognized as givers.

Now what could our imaginary organization do to help these three categories of collectors?

1. Young, modest and old.

Virtually all the Internet art that has been done to date, since it is freely available, supports this group. There could be a lot more and it could be a lot better. For example, there could be targeted social networks to help art lovers bookmark and discuss new sites. There could be curatorial and docent pages to help visitors learn to appreciate Internet Art.

But the overarching element, given that most young artists are likely to be members of this category, would be to provide hosting and support services for artists seeking a place to put their web sites.

Secondly,  looking at things like the Google Summer of code and the YouTube symphony as examples, it is not hard to image a summer of Internet Art where students are invited to submit proposals for awards to work on a summer project. Some could be individual, some could be collective. The sponsors could be a combination of private and non-profit organizations.

2. Ordinary People

For this category, I see web sites being created and sold to collectors as multiples. Every collector’s work would have a unique URL and probably at least a small customization such as “This web site is in the collection of Mary Jones”. The domain name registration and hosting would be offered as a service and sold as extra. The initial purchase might include a number of years of support. The price would be average a few thousand dollars per individual site with the artist typically offering ten or so examples.

In most cases, these web sites would be sold or auctioned by galleries. The role played by our imaginary organization would be a supplier of hosting, domain name, portal, and publicity services. Keeping Internet Art sites continuously available would be the bread and butter of our imaginary organization.

3. Patrons

At the high end is where I get a little bit uncertain. For the time being there is no high art web artist. And, as far as I know no top ranked artist in any other medium has attempted to create a web site as a work of art. It will happen sometime. It’s just a question of when and which will come first the collector or the artist? Actually, it will probably be the gallery. But when the patrons do start collecting Internet Art they too will need the hosting and other support service. They because the sites they collect will be highly visited there may be significant bandwidth issues.

Also at this level there will be greater demands such as (thinking off the top of my head) web sites that need thirty simultaneous screens, web sites that control robots or have other tele-presence issues, web sites that interact with huge audiences. All of these are special needs and, again, or imaginary organization could be instrumental in sourcing and supporting these needs.

There are many more issues and possibilities. I hope to discuss these in future posts.

But for now let’s just finish by thinking of the structure of our imaginary organization. Is it a museum? It is a private company?  First, I don’t think is a traditional museum. The needs of collectors and the obligations of a museum are different (see my previous post). Is it a private company? Possibly, but I do feel that most people would want to keep their art out of commercial hands. They would prefer an organization with a longer term point of view. So I see the ideal structure of our imaginary organization as being a foundation or a not–for profit with a charter to support Internat artists, their art and their collectors.

What made me lose my 'art in San Francisco...

Last night I attended a reception relating to SFMOMA. I don’t want to be precise about the details because I’ve not asked  the people involved for permission to do so. What I do want to record is my excitement and thrill regarding several of the dialogs that took place during this reception regarding Internet Art.

My feeling is that Internet art -  just like so many other things that relate to the Internet – will be launched, bloom and prosper somewhere around San Francisco and the Bay Area. It logically follows that the progenitors of such an art movement would be in the same age group as are all the current flock of Internet titans and techies.  Thus the people I have been interested in talking to have been roughly 24 to 36 years old.

Well, the attendees of  last night’s reception were – gasp! -  in my age group. And they became excited really excited about talking and considering Internet Art. Shock and awe. My age group is always telling me how much better paper is than screens or putting oil on canvas will forever reign as the supreme art or real musicians play cellos and pianos. Not so last night. I heard some very conscious acknowledgments on the validity of Internet Art.

Why did this happen? Why did this group of people really spark up? I think the thing that is special about this group of people is that they are all collectors of contemporary art including new media. These people have few pre-conditions that art can only takes place on certain accepted forms of media. The eyes and ears of these collectors are open to being informed by any channel that attempts to communicate.  And, thus, these collectors are perfectly happy in considering the Internet as a valid art delivery system as valid as any other media.

This is a breakthrough for me. I have thought that the people who would be naturally, organically interested in collecting Internet Art would be the young techie professionals that live, breath and fly on the Internet. And then they go off and purchase condos in art moderne buildings and fill them full of pop-surrealism paintings. Sure I am happy for them.  “But what about the art of the Internet?” I scream. Shrug and a blank stare.

But not last night. Yay! And there was one moment that was really special. I was talking to a lady who is a really good collector. She’s so good that if I say anything more you’ll know who she is. Anyway, she’s really interested in in what I was talking about and even in pursuing the conversation. But she had this really strict admonition. In no uncertain terms, she plainly and sternly stated: “It must be fun!”

Click. My mind does a thump-click. Over the last two years I have researched (from time to time) reasons on why people collect art (or anything for that matter). Frankly, the psychology of art collecting is not a very well documented topic. And when it is, the discussion usually revolves around things like preservation, research, bringing attention and all matter of technical aspects. But these are pretty much all things that museums do. And if there is one thing I’ve learned being around museums and collectors is that what they both do is not the same at all. But it’s hard to put your finger on why. Yes, they both follow a very parallel path. But, bingo,  museums don’t acquire works just simply for the fun of it.

So, yes, kind lady of last night I have heard and retained your collector’s credo: collecting must be more fun than a barrel of monkeys. And the fun we are talking about is the big fun. It includes tickling and giggling. And it includes schadenfreude.  It includes singing the blues and laughing at a funeral. And much more. And we”ll explore the psychology and motivation of this credo more later I’m sure. But for now it’s time to go out and have some, you guessed it, fun…

It’s time to start posting to AotN again. It’s been over six months since I finished the two courses on new media  taught by Dr Christiane Paul at UC Berkeley, yet I have been incapable of producing a new post. The whole point of taking the courses was to help me write better posts.

But she was so good. And the readings she assigned were so good. Dr Paul is a true educator. She takes the mumbled, babbled question of a student, summarizes it far more eloquently than what was first voiced, then responds with a breadth and clarity that adds layers of extra meaning to the student’s original query. The readings from PDFs, web sites or the New Media Reader pushed deeper and deeper as the courses progressed and we students could reference the knowledge of previous readings on the later readings.

One work that she hardly mentioned is her own work Digital Art – which has just come out in a second edition. The image for this post is the book cover. I have just ordered a copy from Amazon.

I feel that my thoughts and writing style are so childish in comparison. Perhaps I can make up for the of the lack of quality with my enthusiasm. Nevertheless I am reminded of Sir Isaac Newton’s words “If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of Giants.” But in my case, I am still standing somewhat nearer their giant armpits.

June 3 was the last day of the Berkeley Big Bang and a celebration of forty years of Leonardo.

Introduction: 40 Years of Leonardo

Stephen Wilson kicked off the event with refections on the 40 years of Leonardo – the International Society for the Arts, Sciences and Technology. He wondered “How will the Journal survive?” given the mounting language and production issues.

He then presented a review of computers and art thirty years ago (the time he joined Leonardo and today. I can quibble with facts. He twice mentioned Wired magazine when I believe he intended to say Byte magazine. He talks about the lack of art in the computer field in 1979, yet Melvin Prueitt’s books on computer graphics had already entered their Dover reprints stage of life by 1974. But I cannot dispute his conclusions: the world of art and computers has grown from a smaller and lonelier place to a huge place that nonetheless has issues such as still being marginalized.

Osmosis: What Can Arts Do for the Sciences:

Piero Scaruffi introduced the first panel.

Chris Chafe pointed out that art poses questions that are interesting to science. A clip of a young Chinese virtuoso playing the arhu demonstrated the complexity of motion a human body can generate manipulating a musical instrument. Even a guitar player being monitored using ninety channels of data just begins to provide the data (let alone the computation) needed to synthesize a computer generated simulation

Bronac Ferran reminded us that we live in a world of science but the laymen so often does not understand this. She referred to a range of artists from Gustav Metzger to Isaac Asimov as precursor to scientific events. Then talking about partnerships between Art and Science she showed a lovely clip of prismatic reflections in the Berkeley Hills created by Liliane Lijn in 2007

Melinda Rackham described successes in twenty years of embedding artists in scientific laboratories which she described using terms such as “nimble innovation” and a “playful polygamy”. She showed several projects. A strong requirement is that all artists must keep logs – while respecting IP and confidentiality. A good example was Leah Heis blog at heiss.anat.org.au. She left us with her vision of placing creativity at the center of culture.

Jim Crutchfield covered some of his work in partnership with David Dunn a musician. A quite unanticipated affect was discovered while researching the infestation of pine tree by bark beetles. This is a major out break affecting millions of trees in the American West. It turns out that the beetles may be helped by the trees. Drought causes chemical changes in the resin which generate ultrasounds that may attract the beetles. A discovery made by artists and scientist working together. How can we further facilitate smart people talking?

Brilliant Noise: How data Becomes Experience for Artists and Scientists.

Tami Spector introduced the panel.

Camille Utterback led us through several of her projects of interactive video installations – using these to offer insights into the artistic process. So, for example, “Noise is what frustrates clear interpretation.” and “How to use messiness to create mystery?” and “how to use accidents?”

Laura Peticolas is an astronomer who works with sonifying astronomical data. She worked with Lialine Lijn, providing the soundtrasck for her film shown by Bronac Ferran. With her curerrent project she was trying to 1. data scientist could use. 2 Build a public outreach 2. Generate great music. She found it impossible to do all three so concentrated on 2 – but the concentration seems to have helped 1 asnd 3.

Douglas Kahn ran us through the history of “whistlers” – naturally-occurring very low frequency radio signals. These may have first been heard by mankind in 1876 well before the invention of the radio by Thomas Watson (Alexander Graham Bell’s partner) when they built the first test lines. Ever since they have been used by artists. Sometimes unsuccessfully such as Merce Cunningham’s failed attempt in 1966 but more often to good results such as Alvin Lucier’s Sferics in 1981.

The New Sensuality: Epistemologies of the Very, Very Small

Piero Scaruffi introduced the panel.

Jennifer Frazier described the challenges challenge of presenting nanoscience: “We cannot see it!” It’s very, very, very small. The usual scales are 10 to 1000 nanomaters. DNA molecules is about 2 nm across while a virus is about 1000 nanometers. And things behave differently “down there” for example small particles of gold look red and aluminum may spontaneously combust. The Exploratorium frequently works with artists to come with new ways of visualization.

Wayne Lanier showed his work in micro videography. He pointed out that when we view the unfamiliar we have dificulty seeing what’s there. It is very difficult for the brain to attach meaning to images it cannot identify. Using his images alongside his own musical compoisitions and a colleaague’s he put forward the very provocative thought that there is something in a combined video/musical sequence that may help the brain interpret the unusual.

Ruth West told us that Charles Darwin faced a visual problem: how to illustrate evolution? In our modern world we face many issues with rendering the many abstractions we deal with in high-density samplings of complex phenomena – with things that are multi-scale and multi-modal such as metagenomics. She turned perception inside out “how you think you see determines what you see “. And she left us witrh a difficult question “Is the an alternative to the zoom?” Is the another way to negotiate multi-scalar data especially when there are gaps in the data?

Finally Tami Spector presented the winners of the first Leonardo Art/Science Student Contest.

All in all the Berkeley Big Bang was a fascinating three day experience. The presentations were more artistic than the usual academic presentations. The talks were more erudite than the usual museum talks. The combination of the two styles made for a very riuch and nuanced symposium. Bravo and thanks to Rick Rinehart, DMAX and BAM/PFA!

Rick Rinehart kicked off by reminding us that this a symposium on new media and the body. This is an event sponsored by DMAX which is chartered to provide exhibits, educational opportunities, support the art community (with a blog) and build a collection in an open museum. Throughout the day Rick was the somebody who reminded us of the embodiments of the talks.

Ken Goldberg limped to the podium – his foot in a cast as a reminder of the frailty of human embodiment. And he reminded us about about the Berkeley Center for New Media and the ways that media can be made real – even ideas can be media or as McLuhan pointing out that a light bulb is a medium. But Ken’s principle objective was to introduce our keynote and plenary speakers which he did with great warmth and pleasure.

Did you ever have a moment when you thought “Ah, this is why I went to University”? Hubert Dreyfus is an embodiment of such a notion. Fifty minutes of fast talking on Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and Heidegger et al but all in a followable and clear manner supported by understandable examples. The thrust was to examine the possibility of whether an authentic or valid existence could be pursued with a virtual world such as Second Life (SL). In other words could there be a valid human embodiment there. Dreyfus posited that we need to have meaningful events – from family meals to weddings and funerals – where there are are intercorporeality, moods to be shared, a sharing of the sharing and a sense that one’s own contribution has affected the mood. Perhaps he did not feel that the current Second Life enabled the required communication of moods, but it was apparent his snooping in SL had provided him with so much food for thought (if not on the actual table) that he was excited to listen to the next speaker.

With that, BAM/PFA Board member Jane Metcalfe, introduced Philip Rosedale, founder of Linden Labs and creator of Second Life. Philip never once talked about Intelligent Design. He didn’t need to. He was so happy to be talking with Dreyfus, so enthusiastic about SL, so charming with the audience that you want to to call it Happy Design or something. Anyway he raptured us by pointing out that the new web-cams will have certain depth-perceptions aspects worked out. In tern this will allow separation of foreground and background which in tern will vastly speed up processing of gestures. The avatar of the future will be an embodiment of algorithms and human gestures. Given the ten year lag between what we see in computer generated movies and what us available in games, the emotions and moods you saw in Lord of the Rings wil be available in SL in eight or so years. Well with Dreyfus’ challenge and Rosedale’s resolution, if you listened carefully, you could hear Martin Heidegger up in heaven popping a Champagne cork.

Two more speakers before lunch:

Chris Fallon compared the embodiment of crowds in say, Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will to the computer generated multitudes in Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings – and asked us to ponder if these bodies have a political element.

Brooke Belisle prepared us for viewing Jim Campbell’s Home Movies. She told us that we would feel before we see. That we would understand before we recognize.

After lunch:

Eric Paulos told us about his efforts to design mobile sensing devices that could measure gas concentrations accurately in a small form factor. The goal being to get them inexpensive enough so that they would be readily available for ordinary human beings to measure air quality in their own neighborhoods.

Nancy Van House provided fascinating insights regarding imagery on the web. For example: some people prefer looking at other people’s Flickr images because there’s less whining then on the blogs. She proposes that there is an autobiographical impulse, a need to say “I was there!”

Kimiko Ryokai showed her Spyn System: a project that captured the images voices of eight knitters as well as data points obtained by impregnating the wool with inks visible under special lighting conditions. She could tell when the knitter had said a story by looking for signs in the scarf or sweater. Then she showed the I/O Brush which pulled images off an object and pushed them onto the screen. Delightful steampunk-like alternative futures.

Yehuda Kalay walked us down 7th Street. The 7th Street of the 1950s. A street that was ‘Downtown’ for black people from all over the Bay area and then taken away from them by the construction of BART and the Post Office. All this was developed using a game engine. So many issues were in the process ranging from the feelings of the people who had worked or lived in the neighborhood to establishing the best date to be represented.

Shannon Jackson gave a talk that was as much of a performance as a talk. Rapidfire, charged with bullet points. The new media performance is 1. performing body. 2. one who experiences. 3. The one who produces. Each has its peculiarities. Each has, as Walter Benjamin points out, things it usually does not want to show. For example we think of new media as being computer-generated but in reality it’s multitudes of engineers, technicians and programmers running the computers that make new media.

Kris Paulsen brought the body back into new media. Looking at Medium Cool filmed in Chicago in 1968 with actors intermingled in actual protests or Chris Burden getting himself shot in 1971 as a work of performance art or Vafaa Bilal in Domestic Tension 2007 getting web site visitors to sheet him with paint balls. All these are examples of putting themselves in harm’s way in the name of art and adding touch as well as vision in dealing with handling distance.

And at last we had three artists talks. These remarks are a bit shorter because it is 1:30 am and I must get ready for Day 3.

Bruce Charlesworth talked about making even himself uncomfortable – but was very happy later meeting up with curator Marcia Tanner at the reception.

Lian Sifuentes delighted in being a professor talking about a film maker filming a performance where the creator of the piece was herself.

Scott Snibbe was perhaps the most disembodied of all. He asked us mysterious questions such as “where is the end of the hand?” and pointed out that in certain circumstances the shadow is more real than the person.

And with those thoughts in mind Rick Rinehart closed the session and asked us all to go out and enjoy viewing Scott’s new work Falling as well as enjoying our bodies’ call for food and wine as well as music from DJ Kid Kameleon.

And so was it a thrilling day? Well not really. But there were plenty of thrilling moments when I heard somebody say something that really rang true. And I think I am beginning to see that a museum that is connected to a university may be quite a different thing than a standalone museum. But enough for now. Let’s start thinking about BBB Day 3…

Progressing from 8-bit/pixel art projects, we are moving onto re-hash work from the dot-come era. Triptych is data overload. Triptych is too much of a bad thing is a good thing. Triptych is de-construction with neither instruction nor construction. Triptych is your Triple-A journey to nowhere.

Tryptych just fits in to my definition of web art. There are links and they do take you to different pages. Three of the pages are empty profile pages for the authors and two other pages bring you to archived pages that re-hash the hash that the other pages had already re-hashed. Therefore the site is not just a digital video piece. It is interactive. It is built upon a Blogger account bludgeoned into submission to be outrageous.

Do I like it? Not really. Does it make a statement about this time period? Only time will tell. Will it cause furor/consternation and intellectual discourse. Probably not.

But it is Web Art. And any and all such experiments are to be applauded. One day there will be artists that will find the wormholes into new dimensions of art through the Internet. Triptych.tv is one of those first halting steps.

triptych.tv [via rhizome]