Net art and Cultural Critique

Net communications: online project

Question 9: discuss the limits of net art as socio-political or cultural critique with reference to the work of specific artists or works.

Title: is it art or isn’t it?

‘I like to refer to [the net] as tamogotchi-culture. When you are online for twelve hours a day, your desktop becomes your visual environment. You talk with all these people while your doing your work [with video conferencing]. We practically live in the visual world of our desktops… We are the people in the little plastic egg.’ (media lounge accessed may 22nd)

The Internet refers to the global connection of networks via computers, through a common set of communication protocols (Tamu accessed May 22nd).Ultimately it is the open zone created in this cyberspace that allows Internet art to manifest itself on computer desktops throughout the world (Greene 2004). The computer can be can be both a channel and a means of production for the many different types of art forms. Ted Nelson coined the term, ‘hypermedia’, and it may be used to describe the ability of the computer to connect and recombine different components into structures above and beyond itself (Tofts: 2005). ‘Online’ art, arguably plays a major role in redefining some of the current materials in art making, distribution and consumption, and extending operations beyond the scope of ‘offline’ galleries, to the most remote networked computers (Greene 2004). Net art may therefore be perceived as a form of cultural production, and similarly, the media arts criticism of its own surrounding themes, forms, practitioners and meanings may be identified as a thing within the world of culture. Conversely, media art is intertwined with issues such as access to technology and decentralisation, hence it displays limits as a form of cultural critique within society. This essay will attempt to ‘deconstruct’ the newly defined genre that has seen a shift in space between mass media and physical being that comprises the complex fabric of contemporary life (Greene 2004). Perhaps then a possible distinction may be put forward as to whether or not ‘net art’ is a limited product of modern society, or if it holds a significant place socially.

Media arts have come to be recognised as the signature form of the twenty-first century – it is the art of this time (Tofts: 2005). Toft suggests that the discussion of media art includes and extends beyond the emerging technologies, and how artists use them so that now there is concern regarding artistry exploration of the social and cultural implications embedded within the very technologies that they are interacting with (2005:9). Toft seems to highlight the intervention of the computer as posing a threat to humanity. Advanced technology has enabled us to think differently about, ‘personal and collective identity, but at the same time question how far the human-computer interface can go before we compromise the very idea of humanness itself’ (2005:10). This is often exemplified through an individual’s reconsideration and comparison of such things as reality and virtual reality, space and place, and other notions of ‘being online’ (Tofts: 2005). Ultimately humans create culture, however net art and computer based works provide scope for reality and virtual reality to become integrated, so that the seemingly ‘fine line’ between the two spheres of society becomes skewed. It seems net art is limited in the sense that a subjective critique of a piece is unlikely. One individual can share an observational position as well as a manufacturing one. Therefore where does a critique start and where does one end?

More importantly are we critiquing reality or virtual reality – or are they now the same thing?

Tofts idea is further illustrated through the concepts of interactivity, interface and immersion. Audience participation has been redefined through net art as individuals shift from being spectators and participants to collaborators and ‘immersants’ (2005:17). The idea of immersion suggests that we are in the work rather then outside it, and Toft claims it is this feature of Net art that urges people to forget their immediate reality and become totally involved with the mediated reality of imaginary worlds (2005:18). The ‘Modern Compendium of miniature Automata’, is a work by Mark and John Lycette and it depicts and imaginary text in which we find strange, microscopic artificial art forms, ‘a steam-age boffin’s dabbling with nanotechnology’ (Tofts: 2005). Ultimately the work leads to a presentation of menus equipped with sliders that enable us to make our very own auto man – artificial life is not discovered but made (Tofts: 2005). In the construction of interactivity it seems that we are critiquing it simultaneously. If we are embedded within the virtual reality we have created it seems as though we may be destructing the creativity at the same time. Brenda Laurel places an innate focus on human-computer action as a type of dialogue between a person and a world, rather then a user and an aloof technology (Tofts: 2005). Interface is represented through the manifestation on the screen through the computer’s stored information, programs and functions (Tofts: 2005). Interactivity almost seems to be a dangerous tool – the possibilities of what might happen to us (as societies) if we relate to the data we encounter is endless. Art is conceptual, hence if the interface on net art is not comprehendible, how are we as a society meant to recognise or acknowledge the cultural expression? Perhaps the most challenging aspect concerning net art is interpretation. Artists can just as easily shape cultural expression by using the Internet as they can use it to insult society, therefore net art can just as easily be seen as a complimentary benefit to culture as it can a contradicting limitation.

Arguably, net art challenges the concept of art making as a more or less solitary and product producing activity (media lounge accessed may 22nd). Anna Munster’s Wundernet explores the 17th century concept of the cabinet of curiosities, but in addition to that interprets the Internet. Toft suggests that the construction of the black background and the iconic cabinet prompts us to ‘rummage around’ (2005:22). A strange quote is juxtaposed with the image of an insect and a URL that links us to a website which is devoted to strange paranormal phenomena and crypto-zoology in Australia (Tofts: 2005). Ultimately a certain level of conceptual depth is reached and the visual richness is heightened through the preceding search (Tofts: 2005). Repeating this process lays way for more quotes, images and URL’s to appear. This work exemplifies the shift in audience roles – as they now contribute actively to the piece. The interface within Munster’s piece demonstrates this notion as the situation of action creataes an improvisation in which audiences have a role to play (Tofts: 2005). In her written piece collaboration, intersection or Hybridisation, Munster highlights the implication of the observer’s position as an active producer of the scientific object under investigation (collaboration, Intersection or Hyridisation accessed may 23rd). It seems as though there is no balance between producer and consumer. Therefore, the likelihood of cultural critique eventuating from products of net art seems unlikely. In this particular instance the media artwork relies upon the place and actions of its audience to generate aesthetic experience. If audiences are incompetent in regards to using the Internet, or if they have no access to the service aesthetic values may not be extracted, and the overall impression of the piece is lost. Conversely, if there are no factors hindering audiences from accessing and using the page it can be an awe inspiring experience – in the case of Munster’s piece, she enables us to see for ourselves that the 17th century didn’t hold the patent on collecting strangeness (Tofts: 2005).

In virtual reality the interface is key to the media artwork and defines the character of interaction and perception (Grau: 2003). Oliver Grau suggests that the effect of the interface is a profound feeling of embodied presence that is accentuated by sound (2003:198). Char Davies’ Osmose best exemplifies this in its synthesis of the technical and the organic. Char Davies objective, to develop a natural interface is met through his accentuation of visual impressions, space alternates with microcosmic proximity and sonic architecture (Grau: 2003). Ultimately the observer associates frogs croaking and birdsongs to repeated bass tones that evoke meditative affects (Grau: 2003). People who have experienced the fifteen-minute emersion have responded to it suggesting it’s: ‘contemplative, meditative peace’, ‘I had a vertigo when looking down…’ ‘What a relief to get a go… that was the most mind-expanding piece of art I have ever been apart of’ (Grau: 2003). Grau suggests that the presence of a totality of images gives rise to a meditative absorption (2003:199). Davies also commented that he had hoped to create a spatiotemporal context – that is, a place in which you can explore the self’s subjective experience of ‘being-in-the-world’, as embodied consciousness in an enveloping space where boundaries between inner/outer and mind/body dissolve (Grau: 2003).

Through the study of different net art works, it seems that the biggest transformation in regards to shifts away from traditional art, is the need to engage the audience actively. Osmose provides a totally new reality that, ‘through physical and mental presence in the image world, effect a fusion and a moment of transcendence’ (Grau: 2003). Initially it was just the artists intentions to create a substitute for nature, however the innovative audience reception suggests that the purpose of the piece has relevancy to mind-expanding synthesis with technology as well. It is hard to decipher net art in comparison to breaking down traditional forms of imagery, such as paintings and sculptures. However, just as a physical image can be hung in a gallery and hold hidden messages, virtual art can be posted however hold different intentions. Perhaps we should not necessarily place limitations on net art, but rather distinguish it from traditional forms of art so that it is recognised as progressional. Similarly, we should not need to question whether net art is able to place a cultural critique on society, but rather acknowledge it as a cultural production, and therefore question how it plays out in society instead.

For example, Jeffrey Shaw’s work deliberately and self-consciously confronts us with the question of what immersion means in relation to physical rather than virtual space (Tofts: 2005). Toft’s suggests that Shaw’s immersive art works are highly self- conscious commentaries on the interplay between real and artificial places (2005:59). This ‘augmented reality’ is best demonstrated in The Virtual Museum. Here a visitor sits in a chair on a motorised rotating platform in front of a screen. The screen depicts five virtual representations of the very room in which the work is installed, and by rocking forwards and backwards in the chair the visitor is able to move their point of view through to the other rooms (Tofts: 2005). This piece is extraordinary in its ability to place the visitor both inside and outside the work. One again the receptors of this piece have been incorporated to gain aesthetics out of the work and we are exposed to a paradoxical collision of parallel worlds.

On the contrary, Alexei Shulgin suggests that art needs to take place in some form of physical place – such as an art gallery, and that the net lacks this bodily space (media lounge accessed may 22nd). He brings to light the idea that people are ‘getting lost’ because they do not know how to deal with the data they are getting and that this leads to misunderstandings that question the legitimacy of the art forms, ‘is it art or isn’t it?’ (media lounge accessed may 22nd). It seems that the ability for an individual to encounter computer-based art runs separately to that of an individuals ability to make sense of what they are seeing. Similarly, it seems idealist to suggest that a critical discussion of media arts is possible despite an inability on the audiences’ behalf to comprehend the piece. There needs to be a critical discussion of media arts in order to put across some form of cultural critique. Ultimately works of net artists are not analised in comparison with one another; hence we view the art from an external perspective that tries to place native online artworks in a chain of arts with a long offline history and theory (media lounge accessed may 22nd). Perhaps this is why we (as a society) have been so intrigued by net art – because as an audience we have been Phe nominalised (media lounge accessed may 22nd). Olia Lialiana brings us to think that net art is a, ‘vulgar, one season interest’ (media lounge accessed may 22nd). A realist perspective would suggest that Net arts potential lack of sustainability limits its ability to act as a cultural critique.

Internet and technology is entrenched within societies, for example the western world is largely impacted by the global phenomenon. Consequently, Internet art can be widely accessible. Despite its apparent popularity, the Internet and net art still adorn several criticisms, the first being that sometimes net art can be perceived as elitist. Rachel Greene puts forward that the Internet conditions users to become ‘indifferent’ to the ‘offline’ world (Greene 2004). This is legitimised through her view that participants often become wedged in the fields linguistic and practical intricacies, and that the Internet is a space of leisure and contemplation (Greene 2004). Greene also argues that the Internet and software artists (that is the works creators) are not ‘real artists’, but more often then not self identified programmers (2004:13).

‘This critique can be taken as a symptom of the changing modes of art and the evolving expectations of what artists should be, what skills or trades they should process, and what their critical concerns should be’. (2004:13)

Despite these critical issues, facts such as that Internet artistry has received copious amounts of attention from various influential quarters, suggests that net art is important in shaping cultural critique. Funding institutions, festivals, and major international museums have recognised this fact as they support net art through the development of programs (Greene 2004). Facilities that have shown encouragement include, Ars Electronica in Austria, ZKM: the centre for art and media in Germany, the Waag Society in Amsterdam, the Postmasters gallery in The United States (New York), and the Backspace in England (London) (Greene 2004). The wide-ranging support networks indicate that eventually net art will be able to expand so that there is more awareness and access to the process. Perhaps this expansion will lead to fewer limitations in regards to cultural critique.

From the rich visual style of Anna Muster, to the embodying virtual experiences offered through the works of Jeffery Shaw, Internet art is without question, an intricate part of modern day culture. Technology is like a landscape – it will continue to grow and become more progressive with the advent of new discoveries and admissions. Douglas Davis wrote, ‘technology’s influence upon the way we paint, sculpt and dance… is indirect as well as direct…[it is now in] our environment, our landscape. New tools and knowledge no longer hide from the artist: they surround him’ (Popper 2004). Traditionally, art portrays the moving world around it, however now art is able to move with society through the sciences. The integration of these two groups will not necessarily place limitations on cultural critique, but rather add new dimensions to it. Whilst Net art may seem self-destructing, it is still a modern conceptual form of expression that reflects new social standards.