[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
<eyebeam><blast> Only questions.2
Addendum: more questions
February 2 - February 8, 1998
114 questions asked.
56. Why should artists be so concerned with questions of art?
57. Is it that art has become so hermetic it is left only with its own
image to contemplate?
58. I really wonder what he means by modernisation?
59. Is Lev aware of this, and how his argument simply deconstructs due
60. what ever modernising might mean?
61. do we need national schools of net art?
62. Led by great talents of dictatorial artists likening those of the
canonized male auteurs of cinema, who have the vision needed for making
"real" art on the web?
63. And who is this "we" anyways?
64.While discussing skills in net art, are we discussing technical
skills, or issues of content, skills in networking?
65. Are we assuming the web artist to be someone self-contained in his
skills, independent in his mastery of the medium, an Artist in the
romantic sense -or, good lord, a networker, capable of co-operation...at
large from the lonely atelier?
66. Does not matter what is "Art" in this case, or yes?
67. Isn't there also, and perhaps more importantly, a question of
68. Who is the audience for net art?
69. This too, starts with questions of access, no?
70. am i the only one who finds this copywriting stategy of
appropriating the net-address syntax and punctuation to make poy look
"cyber" a bit idiotic?
71. i want to know who among us are artists who have chosen the web as
their principal medium?
72. i mean who's going to take it forward?
73. For what purpose, all of this practice, for whom, for what
audiences, within what political economy?
74. Isn't this sort of like the criteria for prime time television
educational publications, etc?
75. Do "we" want information to look like that?
77. Isn't it (CHOOSE ONE: ironic.absurd/rather disgusting) that
deprivation and lack of access are always "local issues" when the person
responding doesn't have a problem getting access?
78.Deleuze and Guattari? The Spanish gusys, eh?
79. What are the "borders of artistic practice?
80. Are they not diffuse, or already imploded to a degree that they
81. Isn't the idea of penetrating a border a throwback to an expired
82. Are you posing questions about the different "virtuality" of being
defined by numbes on a magnetic strip, or by a retinal scan?
83. Are you implying ethical problems with these technologies?
84. What are the "aesthetic fields" you describe, and what is the
"political question"...personal identity, autonomy, being observed?
85. Does anyone recall the role an ATM camera played in the Oklahoma
86. Can we represent an alternative to the Sensar Inc world?
87. Can we play the same game?
88. can we use the same language?
89. can we transform it?
90. how do we make a difference?
91. Are there still differences to be desired?
92. Can we believe in something new in the future without believing in
our capacity to make a project about it?
93. Are we lost inside the language game of science and technology?
94. Could someone please explain why expansion is seen as immersion, &
contraction to beaming?
95. The Big Bang was expansion, The Big Crunch, contraction......it
96. what kind of 'recognition' will we have been waiting for?
97. Guess 'video' will stream my way?
98. But information?
99. What will my upload speed be?
100. How does class enter into these practices?
101. shouldn't we take note of the quasi-demise of what I call the
'darknet,' the older text-based Net?
102. So what sorts of virtualities, subjectivities, communities, are
developing in its stead?
103. Can webchat do what IRC does/did?
104. An inverse instance of the above?
105. is it true?
106. something to do with Piaget?
107. why should the lens based scan of an eye have any particular
veracity beyond the contingent parameters of our expectations of the
media and the 'nature' of the image?
108. is it a useful goal, or a model received from previous generations
of artists and critics?
109. What are the "borders of artistic practice?"
110. Are they not diffuse, or already imploded to a degree that they
111. Isn't the idea of penetrating a border a throwback to an expired
112.Why then would we continue to call what-we-might-do "art" and the
person who-does-it an "artist?
113. Why might we still harbor such a disingenuous distinction?
(forgive omissions and repetitions, this is compiled by the
a critical forum for artistic practice in the network
texts are the property of individual authors
to unsubscribe, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with the following single line in the message body:
information and archive at http://www.eyebeam.org
Eyebeam Atelier/X Art Foundation http://www.blast.org