Tag Archives: writing

The Postmedia Perspective

I am currently contemplating this amazing piece of writing:


A [postmedia] world in which it no longer makes sense to distinguish, as Bourriaud did in 1998, and as the paradigm implicit in the term New Media Art does, between art which uses computers and art which doesn’t; a world in which on the other hand it increasingly makes sense to distinguish between art that acknowledges the advent of the information society and art that retreats to positions typical of the industrial era we are moving out of.

– Domenico Quaranta (2010). Media, New Media, Postmedia

Leave a comment

Filed under with/in process

What is network(ed) art?

So…the writing and research process continues on…

I have not had the amount of time I would like to focus on this. I have been teaching 2.5 courses this term, all with new content. However, I did present at the International Digital Media Art Association conference in early November and exhibited artwork there as well. I was also informed that my SSHRC proposal made it out of the department for review, so that’s good news. Then there was the writing of 2 papers for presentations I will be doing at CAA in February.

Back to the PhD….
I still have to revise one of my comprehensive exam papers as well as continue to draft my dissertation research proposal. I have a meeting set up in January with my committee and I’m not sure how it’s all going to get done by then.

I have been mulling over the input I received at my last committee meeting in October and am now shifting my research focus (my main questions and approach) back to where it was in the summer, yet still informed by all of the ideas I have done since then. I think I was under some false impressions from my first committee meeting in the Spring when it seemed that I could basically make this all about art, as opposed to education….but now I’ve been reminded that this is an education degree, working from within the social sciences. Thus, I can’t just focus on art and then merely point towards implications for education….so I’m shifting back again in order to refine my methodology more.

I really need a pep talk at this point…and several pats on the back 🙂

Now, this is where you come in — well, anyone who might be reading this who has an interest in networks and art — or, if not, then this will basically exist as a digital archive of my mental brainstorming process…

I have been delving into philosophy and art history to get to a better understanding of the meaning of “network” in art. Now, here’s the longer version of the question:

For the past several months I have been thinking deeply about this. I spent the summer working on comprehensive exam papers for my current PhD program, in which I defined for myself a definition of networked art that I felt was perhaps a challenge to the mainstream notion of “network”. Without getting too much into the literature I based this on (ie. Jean-Luc Nancy), I argued that by using the word network, the Internet itself is predominant over any other associations we might have (see Sack, 2007 on “network aesthetics”) and that if artist educators focus more on what emerges within the relations and processes of a network, such as with Internet art, then we can perhaps gain new understandings of network culture that reflect more the sociocultural aspects as opposed to just the technological aspects. I refer to Fluxus practices, most specifically mail art, and the ideas explored by George Maciunas and Robert Filliou, connecting this to later relational art and participatory art practices. My interests pertain to aspects of what I am calling “relational learning,” thus I see these networked forms of art to be significant…yet not just in terms of individuals collaborating, but most importantly on the emergent knowledge that occurs in these processes. Continue reading


Filed under with/in process

defining my research > take 2

Processes, Relations, and Situations: Expanding Understandings of Networked Art

My research examines notions of network and learning in the production, dissemination, and reception of contemporary art. The relational aspects of a network are often overlooked in a society that has become dependent upon the electronic information systems of the Internet – the network of all networks. I propose an understanding of “networked art” that is not based on art objects, nor digital instruments, but on the relationships and processes that occur between individuals (Bazzichelli, 2008; Kimbell, 2006; Saper, 2001). Through qualitative research that employs hermeneutic methods of aesthetic analysis, I explore how networked art might make available new understandings of network culture, and what networked art can contribute to ideas of teaching and learning.

Theoretical Framework and Context
Understanding art today requires a conceptual shift away from the aura of the art object, to the encounter with the artwork and an acknowledgement of the social relations produced from this experience (Bishop, 2004, 2006; Bourriaud, 1998/2002). 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. Contemporary art practices like networked art share conceptual overlaps with current Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under with/in process