<nettime> continuing with venice, an option

[kuni <kuni@mail.uni-mainz.de>]

dear nettimers,
the following was written two days ago to answer personally
to a personal reaction vuk sent in reply to my reaction to
"venice, an option". while at first a personal answer seemed
to me appropriate enough, already when writing it down
I felt it should go to the list, too.
not only as my point was for sure not a personal thing, but
also as it was, well, predictable, that a sparse comment
like that would easily generate misreadings.
again, the comments you will find below are neither to be
considered as sufficient nor they are explicit in all parts,
so maybe I will continue with some points in a next mail.
anyway, first of all here's what I submitted to vuk:

+++++++++ to vuk on tue, 06 mar 2001 ++++++++++++++++++++++



dear vuk,

thanx for your personal reply.
> just a line to say thanx for having the reflex to send something to the
> list.
indeed I had no reason for a personal reflex, cause the issue
was definitely not a personal one and in a way related to the
discussion on nettime as a whole.
(one the one hand side, as connie wrote, it's some way great to
see that *hey* there's something like a discussion on nettime and
*hey* it could be perceived as a proof that there are still people
seriously thinking about the outcome of artistic activities on the net.
on the other, if you take a closer look, one could feel inclined to
perceive it as just another output of the *struggle of the year*,
that is: who is the right person to write the true history of
webbased art in general and esp. the true history of net.art. how boring.)

> The no.chicks thing is not a matter of curatorial intention
huh? but what? mere accident?
did you use some generator machine?
;-)
[and s.v.p. don't say: it's just about personal relationship,
therefore no matter of curatorial intention. I do not believe
in curators pretending to be 'objective'. curating is about
personal relationship, at least it is one aspect - not
in the sense that curators will always show their nieces and
nephews and the son of their future employer, but simply because
of the simple fact that you need personal interest in any work
you seriously want to relate to. at least this is mho. so this
was/is for sure not my point, too, when reacting to your venice
mail...]


> (not to mention
> jo of jodi, and the part of 10101010 you found missing).
oups, right, my fault.
anyway, while this improves the gender related rate significantly,
you might have read between the lines that my point was not 
to count the noses. as explained more explicitely above.
and I hope I do not have to point out that I am also the
very last person who would like to establish somehing like a, *uh*
*feminine/feminist esthetic for/of net.art* (well,
you know we tried to propose the "femmy" as a wonderful,
high-regarded price for that - unfortunately the sfmoma
failed to grasp the idea, unfortunately...).
I am just bored, if not completely pissed about all the
exitement currently invested in the process of becoming art history.
I mean: to work with the operating systems being part of
this process for sure is not something I would blame anybody for
(it's just part of daily economy). this takes place anyway.
but this means also there might be other issues more
fruitful and interesting to invest energy in than trying to write
_the_ history of net.art matching perfectly the criteria of traditional
art history. I mean, one can work with that, but write it yourself?
what a waste of time. at least I don't feel inclined to do so.
[again, this is not to be read as some kind of personal complain,
but rather a general statement related to the process going on on
nettime and elsewhere.]
and, well, being myself trained as art historian, I would even not
deny completely the idea of art history as such
(incl. net_withorwithoutdot_art history as part of it),
not only as this is one of our financial ressources
(cultural capital former or later to be changed into money capital),
but also as there is - or at least should be - the aspect of collecting
data for cultural memory, that is: not to forget about work that
was done.
but I always had & will always have harsh problems with a notion
of art history that is too eager to meet the 'needs' and patterns
of its owh tradition. esp. with one being self-ignorant
about well-established mechanisms of exclusion
(incl. the gender-related ones that still are really
enjoying a good time - and I would go so far to see the ongoing
mood to consider grrlpower and cyberfeminism as a very fashionable
thing in netculture rather being a part of this than anything else).
why match them again and again. I'd assume, matching about
75% of the patterns (like: a well-chosen bunch of avant.garde
gestures, manifestos, relating work to other work etc.) should
be always enough...
;-)


oups, that was far more than 8 words too much, maybe.
however.

> I should say I liked your mail
> and i somehow mean it
dito.
best,
kuni

ps: just thought I maybe should repost this to nettime list, too,
as again it is not about personal matter. okay if I do
incl. your quotations?

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net