forgive my bad writing - late night last night reading too much in bed
rather than sleeping...
marc
Hi Jon, Alison & all.
Will get back to you both, with answers for your last post later...
Apologies for creating yet another thread. I just wanted to try and
focus some ideas around networked art & the Netopticon, with the view
that the various other parts of the (excellent) discussion threads can
continue with their own routes and expansive possibilities also...
I think what's interesting in respect of your own work, is that it has
been around as long as the growth of what we have noted (here) as the
Netopticon. And artists working on networks have a particular
connection with the technology and how in its distributive nature,
possesses a difference than 'singular' object-hood. Many have
discussed that copys or reproduction of images, sound, videos etc...
on the Internet, challeneges the concept of what has been perceived as
'original'. Yet, I am not sure if this is completely true. Because,
out of each creative action occurs a new context and meaning, which
comes from the decisions and concepts explored behind an artwork
itself. Changing the context of anything gives new light upon any
subject, medium or concept.
In the publication on Autonomedia 'Creating Insecurity: Art and
Culture in the Age of Security'. Daniela Ingruber writes "The only
reply to today's security mania is the artificial - art. The obsession
can be escaped by dismissing the real. Art irritates. Art consists of
irregularities. Nothing is so far from security as art; and of all
types of the artificial, film is the most peculiar when it comes to
security issues: the same technology can be used for both: security
and film..." Security Mania: Flim as a tool of healing. Escaping or
fighting insecurity. http://www.autonomedia.org/node/101
So, this leads me to your one of your artworks 'A Short Film About
War' http://www.thomson-craighead.net/docs/warfilm.html - from a
series of what you call 'desktop documentaries'.
Mark Cooley wrote what I thought was an insightful article about this
work, saying "...given that the user/subject is provided with an
impressive enough spectacle to call his or her own. Who is freer (in
individualist terms) than one who can virtually see / possess
everything? I am a god in front of my screen, but one who's both
omnipotent and impotent. With a click I become master of my destiny,
but my destiny is not my own."
Keeping this theme of the netopicon in place; I would be interested to
know what you both think regarding the circumstance of making your
art with similar tools as corporations and surveillance groups do,
especially in the context of film or video and use of networks?
Wishing you well.
marc
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
