*Okay, well, I reckon some brave volunteer has gotta do this....
(...)
"Within my recent writing, I suggest that we need to expand our understanding of networked art in order to obtain new understandings of network culture. I have been defining “networked art” as the following:
“…practices not based on art objects, nor digital instruments, but on the relationships and processes that occur between individuals (Bazzichelli, 2008; Kimbell, 2006; Saper, 2001)….Networked art, sometimes described as participation art (Frieling, Pellico, & Zimbardo, 2008), consists of multiple connections made through generative processes, often, but not always, incorporating digital technology. In many cases, the production and dissemination processes become the artwork itself.”
“….New understandings of network culture may require us to understand that technology enables social and economic activities, as opposed to something that determines society (Castells, 2001). This research will examine how art addresses aspects of network culture, in terms of it being a sociocultural shift that is not limited to digital technology (Varnelis, 2008)…By employing a broader understanding of the notion of network within analysis of networked art, this research aims to provide deeper understandings of network culture…”
"But after sitting with these ideas for awhile now and being confronted with needing to write a research proposal, I’m in the doubting phase that I think all graduate students go through:
"Is it really possible to use the term “networked art” in the way I would like to without it immediately conjuring up digital practices alone? (even though I acknowledge this in my argument)
"Am I just confusing things by saying that I am indeed interested in Internet art practices but only for the aspects I have defined above, and particularly in cases of artists who are interdisciplinary vs. strictly “digital”?
"Do people think about the differences between “network art” and networked art” the same way they might have distinguished between “net art” and “net.art”?
"In my writing, I opted to go with “networked” over “network” because there is more emphasis on being within a process (verb. vs. noun), but now I’m starting to regret that, thinking that “networked” might clearly imply dependence on an electronic system whereas a “network” might allow for more human connection. (For those who are familiar….I am a bit torn between Craig Saper’s (2001) use of the term “networked art” and Tom Corby’s (2006) use of the term “network art”)
"To make matters somewhat worse, I’ve been told by someone I respect in this area that the notion of “network” is actually not heavily dependent on “internet,” considering the long history of network associations before the internet. But this is someone who is quite knowledgeable of network notions in academia and English literature, and I question if those outside of academia feel the same way today. Speaking as an artist who teaches art at universities and college, I feel that “networked art” is immediately associated with digital and new media.
"Thoughts? Opinions?"... (((Pangs of solidarity? Spasms of pity?)))
