Is Net Art Public Art?
New forms of contemporary art have emerged that are reliant on the power of computers and the networks they exist in. One category of this new kind of art is called Net Art.
Net Art shares some key features of Public Art, and some pertinent differences. Net Art is work that relies on communication networks to exist. The defining characteristic of Net Art is that its identity chiefly relates to its context - the internet, just like Public Art chiefly relates to the context of community space. Net Art may even be thought of as a sub-category of Public art, because much of the internet is community space.
The key difference - of course- is that to experience Public Art you should be physically present with the artwork at a certain place and time. With Net Art that is often impossible because it manifests itself through the mediation of a computer. Of course there can be physical constructions (robotics) that are actuated by the internet, but many times the work does not physically exist at all.
In any case I find it to be an interesting field of contemporary art which seems to thrive better in urban centers, but seems supremely suited to rural areas. In any case I thought I’d share some links and see what people think. (You may need to download a Shockwave, Processing, Java or Flash player for some of the links.) Is Net Art a viable art form and is it deserving of public financial support in the form of grants or public art awards?
http://www.whitneybiennial.com/ - A good introduction to the breadth of Net Art.
http://www.webyarns.com/ - Net Art relating to literature, audio and images
http://davebollinger.com/works/ - Generative drawings
http://www.ertdfgcvb.ch/ - Interactive experiences - not unlike mellow video games
http://www.lecielestbleu.com/html/main_lceb.htm - Pâte à Son sound game, and links to other arts sites.
http://www.poemsthatgo.com - video and poems
http://www.play-create.com - interactive audio video
Filed under: Public Art, Technology and the Arts and
Cool links. Net art can be interesting, and it pushes some boundaries, but just because art is in the public realm doesn’t make it public art.
Hi–
Thanks very much for mentioning my site in your post. I appreciate it!
yours,
alan bigelow
Net art is cool, but just because something is accessible to the public, doesn’t make it public art.
I would call it theme-based art, not unlike theme based music eg - ‘gansta rap’ or ‘Christian rock’, super-appreciated by a core niche (in this case techies) but too narrow for broad appeal. Usually these genera’s uses the theme as a crutch for an weak and often lame product, again eg - ‘gansta rap’ and ‘Christian rock’.
The use of the term “Net Art” is conditional on Digital Art, which is made with a computer and then uploaded to a server and accessed through a website on the internet and then it is “Net Art.” Net Art/Digital Art certainly “exists” as code, much like this Wordpress blog exists as javascript and CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) code, Adobe’s, formerly Macromedia’s, Flash video and Action Script, etc. For instance, here is a sample of the CSS, or Cascading Style Sheet, theme code for this blog:
http://virtualmac.edublogs.org/wp-content/themes/quadruple-blue/style.css
/*
Theme Name: Quadruple Blue
Theme URI: http://www.wpdesigner.com
Description: A cracking little four column number.
Version: 1.0
Author: Small Potato
Author URI: http://www.wpdesigner.com/
This theme is released under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
*/
body, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, address, blockquote, dd, dl, hr, p, form{
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
}
* * *
You’ll see a reference to something called the Creative Commons Attribution license at the beginning of the code. I suggest you go to Creative Commons dot org and see what it’s all about, but, in the meantime, a Creative Commons Attribution license simply means that you can fool around with the code and stylesheets for this blog, for instance–only if you are the blog owner, of course, because we wouldn’t want you to hack into this blog and fool around with it now, would we?–and the folks at Wordpress don’t mind and in fact encourage you to elaborate on their designs, if you wish, because they believe:
“You are free:
* to Share — to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
* to Remix — to make derivative works
Under the following conditions:
*Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
* For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this [The Creative Commons website] .
* Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.
* Apart from the remix rights granted under this license, nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author’s moral rights.”
* * *
But I digress.
Digital art certainly “exists” insofar as you can print it, burn it onto a disc, project it from a projector or listen to it on a media player. I think artists who want to go digital are going to have re-think aspects of their personal artistic territory, possession, whatever-you-call-it, copyright, even marketing. The joy, right now, that is found on the internet, is due almost exclusively to what’s called the peer-to-peer file-sharing scene. That’s where the terms “remix” and “mash-up” become viable in themselves as they apply to the acquisition of, say, music in the form of a computer audio file (mp3) and the subsequent manipulation of said music in combination with other music or other media and the sharing thereof with your buddies for personal entertainment purposes only. The disturbing thing about this to governments and their kissing cousins, the artists, is that these things are all happening with a minimum exchange of money, usually the cost of your computer, your CDs, say, and the fee charged by your ISP. This is terrifying thing to some people and indeed some governments and artists say file-sharing is, in fact, terrorism.
Governments and artists are kissing cousins in that they have a real mental problem with and a prejudice against file-sharing and the “theft” of their extremely valuable and often priceless works of art and the perceived loss of their “intellectual property rights” insofar as they have very little control over the propagation of their priceless works of art on the internet once a user finds it worth a look or a listen.
Why is this bad? Because if you declare a particular digital work of art you created all by yourself to be a priceless work of staggering genius, you’ll be hard-pressed to convince the Maine Arts Commission, for instance, that it is valuable in and of itself when it can be had for the proverbial dime-a-dozen by every Tom, Dick and Harriet out there, so maybe you better not put your works of art, your priceless works of staggering genius, up on the internet after all.
Just kidding.
I could go on but I won’t. I see I am boring you.
Now, of course, as a digital artist you can digitally watermark your work, but for a real artist (that’s me), art becomes not-art when you stick a great big watermark on a nice image. I think only bums and dilettantes and Republicans and Christian rock stars watermark their digital art. I believe if it’s good enough to be called art, then it’s good enough to stand on it’s own, propagate itself around the world, and it doesn’t need you–or me–anymore, so get over yourself already.
But I digress.
I thought I had submitted a post but it doesn’t seem to be here.
Short version:
If you are going to be a net artist take care to check out the terms of online agreements or you may potentially find your monetary rights to be the least of your concerns.
Consider the potential for better and for worse of the New England Cultural Data base terms of agreement found at http://www.culturecount.org/public/terms.aspx
Their policy regarding digital art is included in the secition titled 12. Good Samaritan Content and Complaint Procedures Policy.. In so many words it says you have no protection except at the sole discretion of NECD
“Waiver of Claims and Remedies. We expect all users of Our site to take responsibility for their own actions and cannot and do not assume liability for any acts of third-parties which take place at Our site. By taking advantage of the Good Samaritan procedures set forth herein, YOU WAIVE ANY AND ALL CLAIMS OR REMEDIES WHICH YOU MIGHT OTHERWISE BE ABLE TO ASSERT AGAINST US UNDER ANY THEORY OF LAW (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS) THAT ARISE OUT OF OR RELATE IN ANY WAY TO THE CONTENT AT THIS SITE OR OUR RESPONSE, OR FAILURE TO RESPOND, TO A COMPLAINT.”
The good samaritan policy concerns actions taken toward “third parties”, meanwhile the NECD has already asserted totalitarian rights over submitted content in paragraph 8.
License. By submitting any content to Our site, You grant to Us a perpetual, unlimited, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, assignable, and worldwide license, to make, copy, perform, publish, display, distribute, transmit, translate, modify, prepare derivative works and use the content in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or hereinafter developed for the full term of any rights that may exist in that content. You also agree to waive and never assert any moral rights that You may have in the content submitted to Us.
Sonds like a deal, think of what you get in return.. a listing on the New England Cultural Data Base.
Or if you still don’t think it is a good deal you can opt out for other data base listings that do not require you to agree to non-negotiable online terms of agreement. I have collected a few of those sites at http://www.andersenstudio.com/NewEngland.html
I am interested to see if anyone else has a response to the NECD terms of agreement. Most people I know shrug it off, but then on the other hand, I don’t see a lot of listings on their sites and I have noticed that some of the listings are limited to smail mail addresses and do not submit online content.