For me, the net itself (when solely the net) feels better for idiosyncratic wunderkammer than monumental institutions. (My own is here: http://deepyoung.org )
Regarding shows in physical galleries, there is the story of the little girl who can't sleep because she's scared. Her mom comforts her by reminding her, "you're never alone; god is always with you." The girl says, "i know that, but i want someone with skin on." Sometimes i want to make art with skin on (however transparent the skin). My ideal institution (like my ideal practice) would fold into physical space and back onto the network and back into physical space, over and over, modulating as it folds. This requires a practice of "documentation" where the documentation of one project becomes the source material/media for the next project. Dreams made real made dreams made real made dreams made... Or (a la REM), reconstruction of the fables of the reconstruction of the fables of the... The third space is in the folding process itself. On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Randall Packer wrote: > Curt, my response would be for net artists to build their own guggenheims > of monumentality that can only be served by the network. I don¹t think the > networked aspirations begun in the 1990s have yet to be completed! >
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
