You are here Art after the internet : edit by Omar Kholeif
New Aesthetics and its politics : James Bridle
Bridle은 New aesthetic을 처음으로 제시했다. 아주 최근의 논의인데 이것은 digital network, system과 긴밀하게 미학을 접목시키는 것이다. 다름 쓸만한 구석이 있다.
The new aesthetics is a term coined by James Bridle, used to refer to the increasing appearance of the visual language of digital technology and the internet in the physical world, and the blending of virtual and physical. .. The new aesthetic is colliectively intelligent. It is diffuse, crowdsourcey, and made of many small pieces loosely joined. It is rizhomatic, as the people at Rhyzome would likely to tell you. (21)
They are only momentary representations of ongoing processes-as indeed the New Aesthetic is intended to be. Each image is a link, hardcoaded or imaginative, to other aspects of a far greater system, just as every web page and every essay, and every line of text written or quoted therein, is a link to other words, thoughts, and ideas. Again, in this, the New Aesthetic reproduces the structure and disposition of the network itself, as a form of critique. (23)
The New Aesthetics articulates the deep coherence and multiplicity of connections and influence of the network itself. I believe that much of the weak commentary of the New Aesthetic is a direct result of a weak technological literacy in the art, and the critical discourse that springs from it. It is also representative of a far wider critical and popular failure to engage fully with technology in its construction, operation, and affect. : 뉴미디어 아트 초기에 그러했듯이 뉴미디어에 대한 literacy가 결핍되어 있는 상태로 critical thorught할 수가 없다는 문제는 여전히 지속되고 있다. (26)
Art after social Media : Brad Troemel
The music, film, television, and print industries have been overturned by Web 2.0, yet the art world remains in transition, negotiating a complicated and relatively new relationship with social media. ..On the one hand, there exists a utopian vision for art on the internet based on sharing… On the other hand, there is a competitive art market, where an unprecedented number of artists use marketing and business strategies. (37)
David Joselt의 Image fundamentalist / image neoliberal / image anarchist 개념 도입하는데, 이 중에 마지막 것이 현재의 network, internet의 기본적인 특성과 맞닿아 있다. Image anarchist reflects a generational indifference toward intellectual property, regarding it as a bureaucratically regulated construct. .. Image anarchism is a path that leads to exist outside the traditional context of art. (38-39)
Postmodern theorists have long advocated an understanding of reality in which there is no uniform vantage point but instead a multiplicity of coexisting perspective. … Images of artworks can travel as far and as fast as an audience commands. Throughout this process, contextual information is divorced from the artwork. (39)
Without the traditional concept of property, authorship, or context in place, artists are using social media to strategically manage perceptions of their work-transforming it from a series of isolated projects to a streaming feed that transforms the artist’s identity into a recognizable brand. (40)
Mode of production employed by artists are often a reflection of the larger cultural zeitgeist- for example, Marcel Duchamp’s readymade came at a time of transition when consumers were first buying mass-producded goods. .. And for the generation of artist coming of age today, it is the high-volume, fast-paced endeavour of social media’s attention economy that mimics the digital economy of stock trading, a market increasingly dominated by computer-automated algorithmic trades. For these artists, art is no longer merely traded like a stock-it’s created like one, too. (42)
Art after social media is paradoxically the rejection and reflection of the market. In practice and theory there two seemingly divergent developments are reconcilable because each contains parts of the other. (42)
Post-Internet : what it is and what it was : Michael Connor
이 글은 web2.0 (2006)이후의 인터넷이 아트에 미치는 영향에 대해 이야기하고 있다. 또한 iPhone 의 등장 (2007) 이후 어떠한 일이 벌어지는지도 추적한다.
It means that we live in a time subsequent to the internet’s saturation of most of the world’s surface area and human population, and of our individual consciousness. .. While its was once used to describe artists who acted as participant-observers of internet culture, it now more typically evokes complete embeddedness in a ubiquitous network culture. (57)
Net Aesthetics 2.0. : the 2.0. in the panel’s title was,in part, a slightly facetious nod to the hype surrounding Web 2.0, a term used to describe the increasing use of centralized services rather than independent websites to share and access content online. While the term involved a certain amount of hype, it was clear that the web’s culture was changing: social networking sites were growing in popularity, and … 2.0 was a nod to changing conditions on the web as a whole, but it was also a provocation, suggesting that the stakes of net art had changed from its first phase. (58-59)
It isn’t so much that her artistic project changes. It’s the web, and the critical discourse around it, that changed. .. But with the rise of Web 2.0, they started to get a lot better at doing so. Content creation and sharing was no loner a specialist pursuit; it was like punk rock times a million. … By 2006, the time of the Net Aesthetics 2.0 panel, coming to grips with user-generated content on a range of levels seemed much more pressing than being a content-creating user oneself. Artie Vierkand characterized this shift as follows: “Artists after the internet thus take on a role more closely aligned to that of the interpreter, transcriber, narrator, curator, architect” They were interested in commenting on the cultural production that surroended them, and in designing contexts within which other uses might create their own content. (61)
2006년이 web2.0이었다면 2007년 아이폰이 나오면서 또 한 번의 변화를 맞이한다.
After 2006, the conditions of the internet changed again, and radiply. .. the iPhone was released in 2007. This boundary was eroded with the proliferation of smartphones and the growing pressures of an attention-based economy. There was no ‘after’ the internet, only during, during, during.
In this context, it is no longer makes sense for artists to attempt to come to terms with ‘internet culture’, because now ‘internet culture’ is increasingly just ‘culture’. In other words, the term ‘post-internet’ suggest that the focus of a good deal of artistic and critical discourses has shifted from internet culture as a discrete entity to an awareness that all culture has been reconfigured by the internet, or by internet-enabled neoliberal capitalism. (61)
Many of artist who have been working on these questions recently are acting less as interpreter, transcriber, narrator, curator, architect, and more as knowing participants in a system of circulating data in which the line between artist-made, user-generated, and commercial content is decidely blurred. (61)