Late to a discussion about archives, sorry. Yes, I think you’re right that computers are performative spaces, and it’s perhaps because of this that the idea of an archive sits a bit strangely. Yes preservation is a ‘re-performance’, or at least, when that preservation is re-enacted each time we experience it through a machine. It’s the same re-enactment that takes place immediately after the work is finished, to greater or lesser degrees of similarity. This is especially true for things passed through a network to a client that could be anything. So, an archive is just a version of something that was versioned every time it was performed by machines. In this way, emulation has no special meaning, and authenticity doesn’t make any sense.
> '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? I think this is especially interesting. Curating, reenacting, and remembering and three beautiful ideas of how to deal with oldness. All these things. > On 13/01/2015, at 1:52 pm, Luke Munn <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
