Thanks for responses guys, was expecting another monologue ending in radio silence to be honest. ;-) Some quick responses....
'dated' - @Sean Of course an archive by definition contains older material, understood. I guess the interesting thing for me just browsing some of the ADA works is what appears dated (anachronistic) and what doesn't. Much of what appears as 'net art' or even 'new aesthetic' camp falls into the former for me, while occasional works such as Thompson & Craigheads 'Thalamus' somehow avoid this visual pigeonholing. In other words, the works which deal *structurally* with the digital (nonlinearity, memory, performativity, etc) seem to wear much better than the works which deal with it formally or aesthetically. Or, as @John notes, the digital medium is more 'accidental' due to its ubiquity. Of course the medium matters but there is work that is less or more medium-specific I think (think Nam June Paik, JODI, etc). FWIW I find the idea of a self-built archive as counter-power rather precarious, control can still exist with decentralization (Galloway). This might seem a rather abstract point, but it actually becomes practical very quickly. If we admitted that every org comes with its own biases, ADA could be built on a mix of (politically flawed but usability-wise flawless) technologies, YouTube, etc. Instead ADA must maintain this kind of outsider/open source status and runs choppy self-hosted video and Typo3 pages which break on mobile. 'dated vs dynamic' - @Lucy Yes I guess this gets into the function of an archive today. Is it meant to preserve in some minimal sense as much work from as long ago as possible? When tweets get pushed below the monitor 'fold' in 30 seconds, what is old anyway? In a post web 2.0 space, Is the ability to 'curate' these works a vital feature for using and remembering them? Dragan Espenshied, archivist at Rhizome, has some really interesting thoughts about the computer as primarily a performance space. If the preservation of work is seen more as a 're-performance', then ideas of emulation and accessibility trump those of authenticity. A cloud--based Netscape Navigator streaming over broadband into a Chrome window. http://rhizome.org/editorial/2014/oct/22/big-data-little-narration/ cheers, Luke On 13 January 2015 at 11:42, Lucinda Wheeler <[email protected]> wrote: > Good thread. > > I am interested in the Anarchive > > http://www.researchcatalogue.net/view/89371/89372/0/21 > *The Anarchive. The anarchive refers to the fact that the archive in the > digital age never sits still. Digital media events are reactivatable by > nature, and lend themselves to re-uptake, remix and contagion. There is an > in-built unruliness to them. This calls into question traditional practices > of documentation and archiving, which operate on a model of passive > storage. The anarchive is a kind of dynamic, open-air archiving in which > media events are let loose to proliferate through networks, mutating as > they go, and triggering follow-on events.* > > Lucy Wheeler > > > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 22:37:21 +0000 > > CC: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Ada_list] another ADA > > > > > Just replied offline to Luke, putting him in touch with Oliver Grau who > runs the other ADA project > > > > two cents worth: > > > > Digital: for fifty-odd years this wasn’t ubiquitous: anyone older than > forty will remember trying to explain to people what email was or the web. > The problem with the idea of The Digital (and I share din this) was > speaking/writing as if there were only one. From roughly 1915 to roughly > 2000, the word “film” meant a flat rectangular movie made with > photomechanical technologies. From about 1949 to about 2000, TV meant a > flow of images and sound sectioned into programmes / ads/ dents etc using > basic set-ups and kit. Thus the idea that ‘film’ and ‘TV’ were > medium-specific media. Digital was never that specific. Instead, like post > 2000 film / TV (print, sculpture, take your pick), each new job involved > inventing new plug-ins at least, often new software, not infrequently new > machinery. Digital = medium very specific. To understand a work, you need > to understand the specific kit used. > > > > this would be one reason why things in the archive look dated. Um. > Satchmo c. 1926 sounds “dated”. The General looks dated. 80s synth pop > sounds dated. Inventing a new way of making and distributing involves > things that we like and things we don’t like decades later. The important > thing is that the invention of a new medium - and the digital was not > always ubiquitous and familiar - involved loads of things we no longer use > and have forgotten. Whatever happened to vector screens? Why is CSS > “better” when it ends the user’s control over design? Is there nothing to > learn from the lost experiments of the past? > > > > the archive is a living entity - Derrida and Foucault were wrong. Or if > not: when the archive already exists (as in state archives) it may be an > instrument of power - when WE build an archive it may be an instrument of > counter-power > > > > Kaupapa maori has something to teach us about how to respect the past > > > > sean > > > > > > > On 12 Jan 2015, at 21:54, John Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 12/Jan/15 13:52, Luke Munn wrote: > > >> Contains some great learnings on how not to setup a digital archive. > > > > > > snip... yep Luke, I agree... > > > > > >> The distinct (and must be said, dated) aesthetic of most of these > works > > >> nevertheless poses an interesting question for our ADA too. What role > does > > >> the 'digital' now have as commonality when digital and network > technologies > > >> have shifted from marginal to ubiquitous? In other words, when the > internet > > >> has become banality and 'every artist working today is a post internet > > >> artist, lets move on' (Darling), does it make any sense to > differentiate > > >> 'digital' as both a separate medium and community? When 90% of your > > >> 'viewers' are hits on your website looking at photoshopped > documentation > > >> taken with CCD chips, where is the boundary line? I don't really have > > >> answers to these questions, and personally find communities like ADA, > > >> Rhizome and Net-time hugely beneficial, but its worth thinking about > what > > >> we mean with terms like 'digital art' and what the real common > threads in > > >> these works and communities are. > > > > > > There was a similar implosion in the 'world' of art photography when > it came 'round that it simply another tool for an artist to use, another > way of putting a mark on paper. Across Europe & elsewhere numerous photo > museums and photo 'centers' closed because the distinction that it was a > 'special' medium was redundant. They were used in the heyday as funding > tools to secure funding/public support for artists working in that > 'revolutionary new medium'... This after a decades-long fight to be > 'recognized' as an art medium at all... sounds familiar... > > > > > > In the digital it is somewhat similar -- with only narrow slices not > meant for projection/screen or, in some cases still, paper or other 2D > substrate -- or analog speakers -- there isn't much that does not 'fit' > under what has become a swath of traditional rubrics: sound art, > documentation of performance art, moving images, etc. > > > > > > Certainly projects that are using/creating digital tools to do other > things is imho a legit application of the 'digital art' idea. As an artist > that worked and still occasionally works using 'the network' as site and > partially as medium, even that area of working seems to have become > ubiquitous (and in a perverse way, utterly banal) -- to the point that I > keep running into younger artist who tell me they are doing "the first > network music collaboration" of some sort, huh? > > > > > > The whole field seems to be a mash-up of sustainability, diy, diwo, > 3D-printing, bio-art, balh-blah-blah, and whatever the latest spin tossed > out by Silicon Valley. Yep, the distinction is becoming passé... > > > > > > JH > > > -- > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > Dr. John Hopkins, BSc, MFA, PhD > > > grounded on a granite batholith > > > twitter: @neoscenes > > > http://tech-no-mad.net/blog/ > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Ada_list mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://ada.net.nz/ > > > > > > > > > Manage your list membership (Subscribe, Change to digest, Unsubscribe) > > > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/ada_list > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ada_list mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://ada.net.nz/ > > > > > > Manage your list membership (Subscribe, Change to digest, Unsubscribe) > > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/ada_list >
_______________________________________________ Ada_list mailing list [email protected] http://ada.net.nz/ Manage your list membership (Subscribe, Change to digest, Unsubscribe) http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/ada_list
