Re: <nettime> Re: olia lialina: Re:art.hacktivism (3x)

["nettime's_digestive_system" <nettime-l@bbs.thing.net>]

1........ Craig Brozefsky
2........ Craig Brozefsky
3........ Max Herman



1--------

Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 19:40:52 -0800
From: Craig Brozefsky <craig@red-bean.com>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Re: olia lialina: Re:art.hacktivism

olia lialina <olialia@teleportacia.org> writes:

>> Counter-question: Are you really familiar with the net in general
>> and net servers in particular? On any Unix-like server, it's quite
>> easy to set up a cron job that mirrors http://art.teleportacia.org
>> every one hour or even every five minutes if you like.
>
> of course it is possible but what sense do you see in it? what for will you
> waste your time making  mirrors of my gallery. you want to have it?

I don't think Florian wants your gallery, but I believe his question
was illustrating some problems with your description of "net art".
You say that one can make hundreds of copies, but the next day they
will be outdate.  Florian's question asked if this is true when one
can actually copy your whole site every few minutes, including the
updates you make.

You also said that the result after the update would be "outdated
pages with not actual information and broken links".  But this would
not be the case with a properly done mirror, which would have no
references to your page at all.  Another fun thing is that mirroring
software can do other transformations on your work, it could strip out
your name from all the pages, or translate it into a new language.

Mirrors also cannot handle information generated dynamically when the
user visits the site (without explicit cooperation of the site
constructors), instead of capturing the dynamics of the work, they
will just have a snapshot.  It's like the difference between a
photograph of a performan!ce art peice, and actually attending it.

You then said that online art is not frozen, like a book or a CD,
which is indeed true.  This is partly true.  Some online art is
static, while others are constantly changing.  The "copyability" of a
work, and the way copying impacts it are not universals across all net
art.

An interesting note, you refered to Florian's website which has been
placed under the GPL.  The GPL guarantees my ability to copy his site
and work, regardless of who distributes it.  This "copyability" and
more importantly, one's ability to modify these copies is the crux of
the GPL.  The GPL evacuates the "author" from a work, and any
authority they have over it, by making anyone else able to copy and
modify the work.  Copying in this case is not only a "big deal" is it
one of the primary goals of the license.

--
Craig Brozefsky                         <craig@red-bean.com>
Free Scheme/Lisp Software     http://www.red-bean.com/~craig
"riot shields. voodoo economics. its just business. cattle
 prods and the IMF." - Radiohead, OK Computer, Electioneering



2--------

Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 20:06:01 -0800
From: Craig Brozefsky <craig@red-bean.com>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Re: olia lialina: Re:art.hacktivism

Florian Cramer <paragram@gmx.net> writes:

> No, I wanted to suggest something else. If most "Net Art" merely consists of
> static files on servers, it interfaces so superficially with the Internet
> that it should be more properly named "Netscape Art". Thanks for mailing me,
> I will have to clarify this point on Nettime.

What if I don't look at it in Netscape?

In general I find this dispute over what "Net Art" is mostly serves to
provide one person with the ability to call someone else stupid, or a
fake, or disparage a work.  Perhaps it's also useful when applying for
specialized grants or jockeying for a position in a university.

Nope, not even the "endless possibilities for creative expression in
cyberspace" will escape institutionalization.  We already have
"Professors of Networks and Network Environments", not to disparage
any person with such a title, I like to eat and have a home too.

--
Craig Brozefsky                         <craig@red-bean.com>
Free Scheme/Lisp Software     http://www.red-bean.com/~craig
"riot shields. voodoo economics. its just business. cattle
 prods and the IMF." - Radiohead, OK Computer, Electioneering



3--------

Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 15:35:10 EST
From: Nmherman@aol.com
Subject: Re: <nettime> Re: olia lialina: Re:art.hacktivism

In a message dated 11/19/99 10:06:44 AM Central Standard Time,
olialia@teleportacia.org writes:

> of course it is possible but what sense do you see in it? what for will you
>  waste your time making  mirrors of my gallery. you want to have it? u want
> to simulate that you have it? can i ask you why? why possession or
immitation
> of possessing smth is so important for you?

I thought that Cramer's main point was that the issue of duplicating,
mirroring, or pirating sites was something of a moot point both from the
point of view of technology (anyone can mirror any site within five minutes
of its most recent alteration) as well as from a conceptual standpoint.

The second question is the most important to Cramer's critique as I read it.
He seems to argue that the technological ease of infinite duplication is
obscured by the traditional reason of the unique contribution of the artist
to any given content.  This obfuscation or misdirection lends urgency to the
idea of the particular url, created by particular artists, and sets the
browser-as-interface at the forefront of most concepts of net.art.  In this
environment, making one's url unique and compelling becomes a self-reflexive
exercise in media theory and alternative uses of digital technology--such as
the database--are conveniently suppressed.  (Switch's upcoming project about
the database per se in net.art is an exception.)

My sense is that Cramer is concerned about the superficial tendency inherent
to url/browser oriented concepts of net.art.  It's an easy template with
which to identify the work of a given artist or group, but may entail
problems in the limitations imposed on both the creation and use of net
content.  Museums and (museum-goers) may prefer an easily identifiable url
for their collection and this may have negative effects on the diversity of
digital artforms.

>  "This website ¿Florian Cramer, 1996-1999
>  The sourcecode of this website - including all Perl CGIs - is Free
Software
> and copylefted according to the GNU General
>  Public License "   --- this i found on your website, looks very romantic
in
> the context of your COUNTER-QUESTION
>
>  or you mean that you want to help me to promote the gallery making mirrors?
>
>  olia

I think the point here is that mirroring and authenticity of origin are not
really the only, or even the most important, issues facing digital or net
art.  Freezing attention on this debate, whether by promoting or opposing
unauthorized duplication, reifies the artist as more or less seamless
content-provider and unnecessarily limits our understanding to browser-art.
Cramer is suggesting the dilemma here is not as profound as it is so often
said to be.  It's important both to move beyond urls-as-art and to discover
or explore whatever else may be out there.

Max Herman
The Genius 2000 Project
www.geocities.com/~genius-2000



#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net