8/8/2019 Art Meet Net, Net Meet Art (Matthew Fuller)

1/2

IntermediaArt: Art meet Net, Netmeet Art

InTermeCiarT

n^t- ,o^ '.L i^kes}q/r{"l- -

Wr^*-* .rS u^or iu. ^al- .

qo

29lO7lO9 16:O7

lntermedia rt Home Prcqrammes Archive Pdcsts Discussians AbotJ! Subscribe

l{ew l'4edi. undnd PerformanceView all Net Art Event$ Srgadcast$ Interview$ TexlsArt meet Net, Net meet Art 2000Matthew Fuller

Log on to the Tate website and behind he first window opened up in your browseryou'll find another, ts double.You're not on the receivingend of an information erviceabout the galleries,but in the middle of a work of art. Hanvood,a member of thea*ists' group Mongrel,has copied he officialwebsite,and switched ts conlents. f5-."'re reading his essay however,you're comingvia the 'contextualised'oute n whicha paid know-it-allexpatiateson these newly commissionedworks.Artworkhas been made via computernetworkssince hey have been around. n thenineteensixties, his meant using the privatenetworksheld by corporations nduniversities. rom the eighties,bulletinboard systemssuch as the Jfrilg-lgtwor( - 6 Jwhich stillrun today - runningover into he lnternetand later via the Vprld Wide Webprovideda widely exploited ealm or production, ommunication nd invention orartistsand many others.Throughout his time, such work was only occasionally nd tangentially overedby \institutions. he net is a tricky space or organisations rientedaround neatly \provenancedobjects ocked nto standard ssue art modes.Although n the last few \years severalmajor museumsworldwidehave showcased his area of work, it remains {at that showcase evel - like paintingby chimpanzees.Although his is the firsl new Imediumsincevideo, he art punditocracyeassured hemselves hat they could safely fwait a hundredyears until he nets, ike film, became a respectable rt form. "/- actiongoes on independently. rtists set up web-sitesand circulate heiraormationia the net. Mailing istsand news serviceshave grown up to link theinformationo people2.When galleries nd museumsare used, t's mainlyas anadjunct o a process hat is alreadyongoing.They provide egitimation, rangeofvocabularies,heoreticalools for thinking hrough and makingwork, and importantly,access o other audiencesand participants.t's this, rom the artist'spointof view thatmakesthem worth dealingwith. On one level hen, t's equivalent o dance musicmakers icensingsome of their tracks o majors and publishingothers ndependently.But it's not us t an alliance.betweenraders.There'sa certainkind of utopianopportunismhat dovelailsnicelywith the technology.This, on the one hand allowsartistsa greaterrealm of manouevre. Mongrel or instanceusuallycreale a triangularrelationof circulation dr their.workbetweenart structures; ulturesof the net; and thesocial, amilialand communitynetworks hat they operate n. This allows them to avoidbeingpinneddown in any one domain,but also usefully o createways of making hecontexts n whichhy opeTte trange o themselves.)On the other hand, l finds nthe netsa way to iiate or take part in a processof producingclustersof data,ofsigns, but not pretendor even hope o have any determining ontrolover theiroutcome:data can be moved and data can be mutated.At the same time though, t's not an uncomplicated tory.Somethinghappeneda fewmonthsbeforeTate Modern ooened ts doors on Bankside.Round he corner,a soace

/www.tate.org.uk/ntermed aart /entry1 618.shtm Page1 sur 3

8/8/2019 Art Meet Net, Net Meet Art (Matthew Fuller)

2/2

Art: Art meet Net. Net meet Artrun by artistsand others, hat was one of the richestnodesof net-culture n London,Backspace3, ad its doors closedby bailiffs.The ownersof WincheslerWharf havemore money to make from the localproperty boom'-Boom suggestsa blow-out,a bitof excitement, ut it's simply he story of the removalof access o land, of places olive,work and socialisero mpeople n the city.This s a storystuckon repeat.On theother side of the water from a guttedBackspace, he city's inancialdoubleratherprefers o see itselfmirrored n a furnaceof symbolicpower. Connected? ust a storyof one hing closing, nd something ls eopeningup...The last year or so in the UK saw an enormousamountof investment n internet-relatedcompanies. t clickedrather oudly hat you could stick a website n front of awarehouse nsteadof a chain of distributors nd retailers.A seperateventure rom thisone even sees the Tate sho rtly oining orceswith MOMA New York for an online retailsite. Suddenly,at the same time, the work of arlistsusing he web seems ripe or aninilialpublicoffering.The Tate itselfhas had little previousconnectiono this area of work. As an institution,it has only recentlycome to accommodatephotographyor video: he focus is firmly onvisually leasurable, inutely isciplined, ingular ndvaluable bjects.What sinteresting herefore s not simply hat it has chosen o begin an involvementnow. Forculture-bunkers,he decisionmust be made to collectnow or face the possibility farchival ack. This is of course only a possibility,here s much art in the collectionofthe Tate to which publicmemory s effectively epressed,which exceedswhat isretrospectivelyn favour:kineticart anyone?What is interestings exactlyhow the Tatehas gone aboutbeginning o establishan involvementwith artistsworking n this area.According o the sociologist ean Baudrillard,...the ixed reserveof the museum snecessary or the functioningof the sign exchangeof paintings.Museumsoftenplaythe role of banker n the politicaleconomyof paintings."4 he Tate demonstrablyfollows his functionof the art museum.But crucially, n coming o someaccommodationwith the nets it has had to abandon he gold standard hat its reserveis foundedupon. lndividualauthorship;good provenance f works; uniqueness fobjects; he 'autonomy'of art; are all usurpedby the artists,groupsand processesproducing he most suggestivework on the web. (Coupledof course s a tidy rangeoftechnological bstacles o the prolonged ollection, rchivingand storageof networkedmaterial.)The gold standardwhich the Tate calculateswill suffice or now, s that ofthe distinguished uevre of the artistscommissionedor this series.But here's he rub:thosewho pull the bestwork off on the web are usuallyequallyas bent on pulling herug from underneath hemselves.It is in finding room for their web-site o be cack-handed, amning,unpredictable ndfull of bad memories n the way that it has with Hanrtrood'sppropriation f the site thatthe Tate succeeds,possiblyas the first nstitution f its kind o do so, to begin o dealwith work on the web more on its own terms than those of the museum.Whilst hissuccess s quite probablyattributable o a confidence hal art cannot produceanytrauma n the gallery'ssmooth publicpresentation f itself, t is a fortuitousbeginningthat will hopefullybe made more of. JODI, the inventively ugged-outproducersofsitesand downloadablesuc has 4045,0556 and SODTonce claimed hat,"Net.artistsive on the web". For artistsworkingvia the nets to now involvemuseumsas one of the mediasystems hroughwhich theirwork circulateswhat is crucial s,alongside he avoidanceof being simplynailed down by the spotlight, o attempt oestablish,not a comfy mode of l[ving.for he museumon the networks,but a series ofprototypes or and chanceSat somethingother and more mongrel han both.Both of thesevariedsystemsas they intermeshare interrogable long he linesof theirformsof sociability, egreesof openness o use and participation,nsistence nparticular epresentational rotocols,expressionor obfustication f technologicalmateriality, apaciftesor rdingand re-writingof underlying chemas,and so on. lt isto what extent at eath momenl of their permutations hey are unable o providegrounds or generalisation to demandclose attention and at the same time providenew visions or the reconfigurationf the networksand the museumand what mightalreadybe coming after them that they can be consideredusefuland, back to JODI,alive.

II

2st*Lry+t7

www.tate.org.u / ntermed aart /entry1 618.shtm

Lorup*

Page2 sur 3