<nettime> Re: RHIZOME_RAW: *korporat fasc!zt net art questionnaire!*

[dominique@hushmail.com]

>>1) How do you currently support you net art practice?

I use net.art in a capitalist society and therefore I use net.art like a
capitalist. Who wants a web site? I will make it for them. Such a talent!
Net.art is a design field. Nothing makes me happier than to recieve work
by a corporation and create for them precisely what is dictated to me, in
spite of being hired on the basis of my creativity . I am doing my part to
progress capitalist invasion of the net, to nail the coffin in the final
frontier, to get it over with. 

>>2) Do you believe that commercialisation is having an adverse effect on 
>net art?

How does commercialism adversely effect anything? Humans want to consume,
don't they? Far be it for us creative types to prevent humanity from
having what it wants. How elitist we are to assume that the internet
should not be used exclusively to sell goods. Art is useless to the
proletariot! Give them glistening shopping malls, and then knock them down
for glistening networks. Its all progress, if you ask me. Only when
net.art is wiped off of the face of the internet can the masses truly
embrace it. 

 > If so, what are the determining characteristics of net art that are being
> compromised?

We mistakenly believe it is revolutionary, and revolution does not exist. 
The internet is ruled by commerce; and America is Commerce; and America
then rules the internet. And so you will all be reduced to a marketing
demographic- as well you should be, because artists are just like everyone
else. 

You can claim to be a revolutionary, an activist; but one day yahoo's ad
banners will figure you out; will switch the golf add to match your
cookie, and sell you back your revolution, will air a nike ad because you
typed in anti-nike search strings, and who wins then? Certainly not the
revolution. The revolution is far long dead.  Humanity has killed it for a
better life through ebay- which I am a proud member of- and through the
.com. 

>>3) Is there something like a discrete net art object which can be bought 
>or sold?

The artist?

>>4) Does the sale of a piece of net art necessarily alter the work in and 
>of itself?

It makes it a legitimate work vs an inflated hobby. It ensures that
capitalism rescues yet another arena. When a net.art piece is sold, it
becomes public domain;  moreso when displayed to the public by the author;
because now the masses can observe it and they can say; "Yes, and he needs
the money, I hear," they can see the work is essentially themselves, that
art does not transcend any ideology of capitalism but rather is another
trading point, like a coin or a dollar, a stock or a bond; and then it is
a part of them;  is no longer heroic but a common event. We need nothing
more than to eradicate the belief that art is anything different. 

>>5) Do you believe that institutions should get involved in the preservation
>>of "classic' net art works?

Yes. I believe that every interesting work of internet art should be
purchased.  I believe it should be preserved; and prevented from change at
all costs. It should be advertised where those nike banners are. 

>>6) Is obsolescence an inherent characteristic of net art?

Yes, in its current incarnation. Hopefully, though, it can develop to a
more saleable product so the public can understand it. 

>>7) To your knowledge, what is the highest price ever fetched for a piece 
>of net art? What was the artwork in question?

Did the AOL-Netscape Merger go through? What a brilliant passion play if
it had.  The independant alternative browser sells its soul to the bright
shiny paradise of AOL! No price is high enough for such inspiring farce. 

>>8) How do you see the privatisation of the Internet affecting net art?

Finally, more work will be in the hands of fewer people; creating an
inflated value for created and sold works. Anyone can make net.art, and
anyone can make fascinating work for free; the question is who can sell
it. The fact that Granchers was one of the first to sell on the internet
is telling of what the public- and collectors-want. Who are we to prevent
them from having it? Grancher, more than anyone, deserves to make money
from his art. 

>>9) Do you consider the Internet to be a public or private sphere?

There is no difference.

>>10) How does your answer to question 9 influence your opinions about the
>>State's responsibility toward funding net art?

The state should not interfere with corporate funding. It is not efficient
enough. 

>>11) How important has the Open Foundation's patronage been to net art's
>>development?

Not very, I would presume. Most works at this point are corporate or
independant;  or independantly corporate. 

   
Get HushMail. The world's first free, fully encrypted, web-based email system.
Speak freely with HushMail.... http://www.hushmail.com

---
#  distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@desk.nl and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/  contact: nettime-owner@desk.nl