I have to admit, as someone who floats along the surface, I'm often misinterpreting and getting confused on the topic, which isn't helped by my tendency to re-appropriate ideas and terms in ways that work for me. "Sub-amateur" got me excited because that's where I saw myself - as somebody who isn't an artist and who doesn't want to be taken seriously, but has a bit of a background and just wants to explore, discover and maybe even create.
Basically, net art is my hobby, and I get the impression that this is true for a lot of people (though I'm sure nobody would snub a gallery or group exhibition invite), and though we are not "serious" (chilling for the sake of chilling), we do still engage, develop interesting ideas and, in turn, produce quite a lot of stuff. It could be therefore reasonable to be considered as a "category" (maybe a sub-category of the amateur?) within the net art "scene." Because, although the work might not be produced as "serious work," it is still worth looking at and at times even contemplating seriously. However, because it was never really intended to be a "work of art" per se, you will find a different, perhaps more casual (I'm tempted to say disinterested, but the term is too loaded to throw around so, erm, casually), approach to subject matter. What that different "attitude" or approach is, I have no idea, and maybe I'm needlessly picking at the fly shit, but that's only because I'm in no way qualified to get into it.
Posts
5 comments:
OK, if I see the term sub-amateur used in the future I will ask if they mean the lalBLOG sub-amateur or the Ed Halter sub-amateur, ha ha. Your explanation presents a need for the term--a case I don't think Halter makes. He starts off talking about museum-exhibited artists (Robert Frank et al) and there's no question he means for the artists he champions (Guthrie, Petra et al) to be considered capital A artists but then, he's using this confusing term. There is always the problem of people who consider themselves hobbyists who actually produce better work than "Artists" whose careers are stalled, on autopilot, or on a downhill trajectory. (This is true in painting, too.) I don't think Halter gives this any consideration at all. "More aware or ambitious subcategory of amateur" makes perfect sense as you describe it and I agree it encompasses a lot of people doing good work. "Sub-amateur" on its face implies beneath or worse than amateur, which maybe some artists are, on a completely ironic level or because they are, um, bad. As for just chillin', you may be but the jstchillin website folks aren't being entirely sincere--they are hardworking artists who talk the artspeak talk and want the institutional recognition but are using the personae of "slackers." If I had more time I would explain why the dumpers and tumblr-ers I like are deserving of equal consideration and recognition to the so-called A list artists that institutions are always promoting. But I need to get back to making animated GIFs.
I want to say that this problem is new thanks to the internet - that the exposure the internet give (giving amateurs access to more and giving the world more access to the amateurs and their work)- but that's probably naive on my part. I guess it's a discussion that will eventually need to be had on a more serious level.
So far what I've really done is expose my tendency to take terms and make them work for me despite their actual intended use. I did all the way through uni, getting comments like "interesting, but that's not what they meant." Maybe that's why I love animated gifs and dump so much!
The Net has a leveling effect that makes it harder to cling to categories such as artist, design professional, illustrator, desktop publisher. The work sort of floats around for the taking and sheds more of its origins with each success reblogging or remixing. The people who work with this material and are savvy about it I'm going to continue to call "artists." You can use (and improve) Ed's term--I just felt pangs of conscience that I seemed to be endorsing his ideas about Web 2.0 art when I think they are mostly wrong. He starts his essay talking about the problem of Robert Frank's snapshots of his friends (are they art because he is an artist?) and winds up talking about Guthrie Lonergan re-representing someone's supersoaker collection. There is no connection at all. I guess what I'm saying is the people who are supposed to be discussing this on a more serious level are mostly dropping the ball, so we have to dope it out ourselves.
Is it because they're just trying to create arguments where there doesn't need to be one? Or is it because they keep trying to approach net art using "art" examples and taxonomy where, if they just took the time to get their hands dirty and browse (loads), they would see they don't always work?
In Halter's case it seems like going in with preconceived ideas and trying to prove them, rather than starting with the work and having theories proceed from it. I sat with him on the Net Aesthetics 2.0 panel in '08 and he had prepared questions like "is there an epic net art?" and "can there be emotions in net art?" which seemed oddly out of step with all the discussions Nasty Netters had been having about GIFs and such. In separate essays he and Marisa Olson talked about found photos and film footage as somehow the key to understanding current work--that's an aspect of it but not the only aspect. I think it's a case of critics wanting to explain artists' work to them rather than listening to the artists.
Post a Comment