implicit art

art and ecology, fiction and geek stuff, culture and philosophy, parenting and life, etc

implicit art

creative commons

Archives

17 October 2009 by nathaniel

Nathaniel Stern, PhD

Had my VIVA yesterday, for my dissertation. It was awesome – amazing feedback, a great discussion, some provocative comments. My examiners really engaged with the text in ways that any doctoral student would be thrilled by. I’ll write about it some time, but am too busy celebrating right now. Anyhow, no revisions: I’m a doctor.

Woot.

Posted in art, art and tech, creative commons, me, milwaukee art, reviews, stimulus, technology, theory, uncategorical ·

Archives

02 August 2009 by nathaniel

Networked: a networked_book about networked_art

The amazing folks at turbulence.org have done it again! See below.

Networked_Performance — Networked: a networked_book about networked_art
Networked: a (networked_book) about (networked_art) INVITES YOU TO PARTICIPATE: Two years in the making, Networked: a (networked_book) about (networked_art) is now open for comments, revisions, and translations. You may also submit a chapter for consideration.

Please register and then Read | Write:

The Immediated Now: Network Culture and the Poetics of Reality
Kazys Varnelis

Lifetracing: The Traces of a Networked Life
Anne Helmond

Storage in Collaborative Networked Art
Jason Freeman

Data Undermining: The Work of Networked Art in an Age of Imperceptibility
Anna Munster

Art in the Age of Dataflow: Narrative, Authorship, and Indeterminacy
Patrick Lichty

BACKGROUND

Networked proposes that a history or critique of interactive and/or participatory art must itself be interactive and/or participatory; that the technologies used to create a work suggest new forms a “book” might take.

In 2008, Turbulence.org and its project partners — NewMediaFix, Telic Arts Exchange, and Freewaves – issued an international, open call for chapter proposals. We invited contributions that critically and creatively rethink how networked art is categorized, analyzed, legitimized — and by whom — as norms of authority, trust, authenticity and legitimacy evolve.

Our international committee consisted of: Steve Dietz (Northern Lights, MN) :: Martha Gabriel (net artist, Brazil) :: Geert Lovink (Institute for Network Cultures, The Netherlands) :: Nick Montfort (Massachusetts Institute for Technology, MA) :: Anne Bray (LA Freewaves, LA) :: Sean Dockray (Telic Arts Exchange, LA) :: Jo-Anne Green (NRPA, MA) :: Eduardo Navas (newmediaFIX) :: Helen Thorington (NRPA, NY)

Built by Matthew Belanger (our hero!), http://networkedbook.org is powered by WordPress, CommentPress and BuddyPress.

Networked was made possible with funds from the National Endowment for the Arts (United States). Thank you.

We are deeply grateful to Eduardo Navas for his commitment to both this project and past collaborations with Turbulence.org.

Jo-Anne Green and Helen Thorington
jo at turbulence dot org
newradio at turbulence dot org

Posted in art, art and tech, creative commons, exhibition, Links, me, milwaukee art, re-blog tidbits, research, stimulus ·

Archives

30 July 2009 by nathaniel

Wikipedia Art in the Wall Street Journal

Article on Internet Art in the Wall Street Journal, with a short segment on Wikipedia Art. Here’s the link (subscription needed after a week, so here’s a PDF: The Internet as Art).

Schweet!

Posted in art, art and tech, creative commons, Links, me, milwaukee art, pop culture, re-blog tidbits, reviews ·

Archives

02 June 2009 by nathaniel

Wikipedia Art in Venice: call for remixes

SEE THE CALL AND THE REMIXES SO FAR

Wikipedia Art – originally an editable encyclopedia entry as art work – applied for and was denied citizenship on Wikipedia. It now seeks refugee status in Venice through the establishment of The Wikipedia Art Embassy. Encyclopedic ambassadors, Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern, invite writings on, and creative remixes and alternative wiki postings of, the Wikipedia Art project itself. Each will be featured on their now infamous site, wikipediaart.org

Wikipedia Art , officially part of Venice Biennale, has been called “more Wikipedia than Wikipedia” by Miltos Manetas, curator of Padiglione Internet (the Internet Pavilion). It is an incorporation of not only the artists’ primary concept, but the debates, biases and power struggles behind how it continues to exist. Now, Kildall and Stern are re-releasing Wikipedia Art – the story, the concept, the logo, its texts and name – under a Creative Commons license (CC-by). They request public remixes, transformative art and derivative works. They offer the piece up to business and info Wikis, to songwriters, fellow artists and filmmakers, to journalists and storytellers. Despite its absence from the number one source of online information, it perseveres in its temporary yet virtual housing in Italy (and Everywhere Else).

Kildall and Stern continue their examination and intervention into how Wikipedia has reframed knowledge, by asking the public to re-look at and re-make Wikipedia’s mode of online knowledge production. Wikipedia is not open to any editor, not a democracy, and in a great position of power. While an amazing resource, as with any powerful institution, its users – the general public – should continuously question Wikipedia’s methodologies and the power brokers that control them. Wikipedia Art re-engages that general audience; it features any artist or writer who wishes to take part; it frames all public discourse and activity as an ongoing intervention into knowledge and authority – on Wikipedia, on the Internet, in Venice and beyond.

Download the call for remixes (pdf)
See the call and the remixes so far

Posted in art, art and tech, creative commons, exhibition, me, milwaukee art, stimulus, uncategorical, youtube ·

Archives

01 June 2009 by nathaniel

how to write an artist statement, part 1

Like making art, there are no steadfast rules to writing artist statements – and even the best of us fail sometimes – but there are of course some decent guidelines one might consider following. Below is an ongoing list I’ve started giving to my students: 3 things that should be in an artist statement, and 7 guidelines for sticking to them. Bear in mind here that there are two kinds of artist statements: one for an individual work, and one for your overarching practice. Always start with the former (which is what these guidelines are about); the only way to know what “all” your work is doing is to be familiar with each piece first. Hope this helps!

Art work descriptions and statements should be about 300 – 500 words, and strictly address the following:

  1. What “is” the work? Describe it as an object, installation or situation in a way that enables visual and/or sensual comprehension. This is not what the piece is about. I mean it literally / physically: what are your art piece’s individual components and materials, and how do they work together as a whole?
  2. What do we see or experience? If it’s an installation, consider a walk-through, a description of how it looks, sounds, smells, feels (again, not emotionally or conceptually, but physically), and what actions viewers have taken in and around it. If it’s a situation, describe the relationships (and power structures) you are intervening in and how participants might perform them. Many works would likely need to address both what we experience and what we do as an audience or participants in front of it / around it / with it. How do viewers relate to the work, to the artist, to each other…?
  3. What’s at stake? Why is this important to you? Why should it be important to me / others? You can briefly address or allude to conceptual issues here, but be specific rather than general. How does the piece itself address these concerns? How do we encounter them in our experience of it, and what value lies in that encounter?

Some guidelines to follow:

  1. This is not a mystery novel. Start with a one-sentence description that encompasses all of the above to some extent – especially what it is – then unpack each of the listed items as is needed.
  2. No generalizations. Do not make assertions about art works in this field generally being “like this” or how “the majority of people” think or act a certain way; rather explain your interests in certain areas of investigation in implicit relation to (un)said state of the arts.
  3. Avoid phrases like “viewers will experience.” You do not know what they will experience, and most readers will think it arrogant (if only unconsciously) if you try to pull this off. If you desire this approach – to describe what the piece does to people – say what you (personally) see or have made in the work, or what viewers have actually said or done (“in the past, I’ve seen participants”), rather than asserting what they will do or say in the future.
  4. Do not put all your interests and tie-ins and interwoven ideas here. This is a concise description of the work – what it looks like, what we experience, and what is at stake – that can be read into by others, and everything else should be built into the piece itself. Feel free to be ambiguous with a small amount of language, to allude to larger / more concepts towards the end, but you must explicitly state one through-line only in this statement.
  5. No undefined terms. Do not use words like “performative,” “poststructural,” “deconstruct,” or “postmodern,” “other,” “gaze,” or “feminist,” without defining them. If you can’t describe what you mean by these kinds of jargonny words in a short sentence (which is preferred to actually using them), then you yourself do not understand clearly enough what they mean in/to your practice/this piece, and so neither will we, the readers. Even poetic, simple terms – especially hyphenated ones – should be avoided unless you explicitly describe what you mean by them.
  6. DESCRIBE. Remember: an artist statement should enhance my experience of your work by describing it, not justifying it, obscuring it, or simply listing the ideas you were thinking about or papers you were reading whilst you were making it. The biggest mistake artists make here is to think that because they were reading or thinking about a specific concept when they made the piece, then the piece is about that. Listen to critique, watch others with the work, and relate what it is actually doing and how. The statement is about looking and watching your work then describing what you see, not producing a project then justifying its existence.
  7. Excite your reader. This should be fun and interesting. If it’s not, you lose me. Think journalism: first summarize the whole thing, but simultaneously make me want to read on (and experience the work for myself); the rest should unpack it, give me a sense of some understanding but also make me want to see or research more on you and the piece.

Hope this helps!

Next up: how to write an artist statement, part 2, on how to write an overarching statement

[adinserter block=”2″]

Posted in art, creative commons, me, stimulus, theory ·

Archives

22 May 2009 by nathaniel

Jimmy Wales talks Art and Wikipedia

Nice to see Jimbo talk about Art and Wikipedia. It’s worth a read if only to hear how carefully Wikipedia’s figure-head thinks and speaks in relation to notability and possibilities with arts coverage on Wikipedia. I agree with all of what he says (although it’s admittedly very noncommittal – so hard to disagree with), and wish most of the Wikipedia editors were as even-handed as he seems to be in this interview.

Link to part 1; link to part 2.

Posted in art, art and tech, creative commons, me, milwaukee art, news and politics, re-blog tidbits, stimulus, technology, theory, uncategorical ·
← Older posts
Newer posts →

Categories

Tags

aesthetics alice wilds art artist feature avant-garde books briefiew coding comics concern culture digital studio drawing ecology engineering fantasy fiction goods for me google ilona andrews jon horvath kate daniels milwaukee mo gawdat nathaniel stern paduak philosophy public property reading review sean slemon self-enjoyment Steve Martin syllabus sharing teaching technology TED TEDx trees urban fantasy web-comics webcomics whitehead world after us writing

nathaniel’s books

Interactive Art and Embodiment book cover
Interactive Art and Embodiment: the implicit body as performance

from Amazon.com

Buy Interactive Art for $30 directly from the publisher

Ecological Aesthetics book cover
Ecological Aesthetics: artful tactics for humans, nature, and politics

from Amazon.com

All content © 2025 by implicit art. Base WordPress Theme by Graph Paper Press