Thoughts & reevaluations

After the original posting of 'Gate-keeping & Who gets seen?' that was posted
on the Rhizome Raw list. I received many encouraging personal emails from various
people who generally shared such views, or at least felt that it was relevant to
mention in some form or other mutual reasoning's. Then I received some personal
misgivings from other people later on, many of them who were in fact friends.
Mainly mentioning that they were worried that when writing a piece such as this,
that it could be perceived the wrong way by many people. And that it possibly
could be used by those in question as an excuse in pertaining to traditional
the easy option by playing the whine card.

Rather than taking on the very real challenges at hand, certain default lead individuals and groups would rather just say ah, he or she is just whining. One of the most commonly used weapons, tactics by despotic rulers, or tactically controlling organizations; is to drown out valid concerns, dissent and social disquiet by stigmatizing them as whiners. Dumbing it down to a level that cheapens the original intention itself. Putting it all down to a reflection of jealousy. That the critic really just wants to be in power holding the reigns instead. And that they, he or she cannot sort out their own patch, lives, change situations to further their own needs or desires. If only it was as easy as this, a black and white scenario but it is not. We are dealing with a much more subtle form of circumstance here than just plain emotional insecurities.

In essence these tactics and responses are psychologically understandable and are reactionary. Such properties are mannerist, whether conscious or not do inflict disempowerment and trivialize the disputer's voice, diverting one away from the actual context of what was originally argued or disputed. A patriarchal function that pulls rank, displacing the upstart in question and literally placing them to the back of the queue.

To judge in haste does not help anyone for there are many who are not asking for the pretentious throne of heroic fame. As in personality driven desires but a new way out of the trap that we are all presently clogged up in.

Yes, there are many people who complain all of the time and do nothing about it. For whatever reason they cannot get it together to change their own or collective habitual circumstance. Yet, the latter is a far cry from actually trying to doing something about it. The intention behind this is not to just be part of a discourse that obviously can be very useful in loosening the official straps and constraints that many are entwined in. It is also a declaration of real front line knowledge from practitioners, sharing and receiving information.

There are certain individuals who think that it is not their remit or role to get involved with discussing with artists or non academics on open lists. That jumping into the fire will only serve to weaken their own position or status. This could be true, it might be nonsense but we do know that there are certain curatorial lists and net based bbs's out there who would prefer to share such difficult issues amongst their own kind. Those who will not question their position but will equally theorize till the cows come home rather than actively break down divisions.

So when someone such as myself tries to grapple openly to an open list like this regarding inequalities or other issues, there is a process of subjective declaration and a function of vulnerability. Being open to conflict, and potential criticism from many who read such posts on lists. Thankfully, most of the time people are pretty generous, even though I have had my own fair share of experiencing the brunt of online personal attacked's; that have to be honest been positive, one can learn something from anything. Some openly challenge, some just steer clear and some like to dip in occasionally.

When one is actually part of a creative field such as net art/new media. And is aware of certain opposing forces contrary to creative freedoms and is genuinely interested in sharing troublesome flaws that are either lodged in ourselves, or perpetrated institutionally. It is usually constructive to air ideas and thoughts (they do not necessarily have to be academic) and go through the positive process of discovering where some the issues lie theoretically and in practise

Another issue that has reappeared on the ever dysfunctional vista, to the fore, is that many artists are scared to openly challenge the structures in place that have thwarted their own possible progressions in the art arena. I have experienced this, heard it from artists, curators and have been quite shocked by it, not believing my ears. And then there are those who are doing very well themselves in such fields but do not wish to rock the boat because they believe that it will threaten their own (so called hard earned) status, building an emotional safety net protecting their place in the pecking order. This has also shocked me, but of course why should one be surprised? For change is not an actual collective vision lead reality in the art world, other than within the safe context of new work, new artists, new ideas but not in respect of real structural change in the way that things are set up.

In addition to the problems already noted, there is yet another typical misleading element that many throne bearers and alike, all too readily assume and propagate. That people who question such established norms are dangerous. Excuse me while I yawn my fluffy socks off! Also, that such people are backward nihilists who are not proposing justice or mutualism for all but are motivated by the glory of power. Such ghettoizing is frankly delusional and surely more to do with comfort than reevaluation, insecurities that do not serve any constructive platforms or debate other than perpetrating a tiresomely comforting fear, based on ill -informed conservatism.

What we need is academics and practitioners to start getting real and begin to communicate in a way that breaks down jargon. Start sharing new ways of creating agendas non linear and linear, whatever it takes. To bring about a change that serves a larger group rather than the same old circle jerking built fences that offer no future other than status to the few. A new Cooperation between certain elements can happen, if people really want it. If they do not, it will stay

'Gate-keeping & Who gets seen?'


'And I find it kind of funny
I find it kind of sad
The dreams in which I'm dying
Are the best I've ever had
I find it hard to tell you
'Cos I find it hard to take
When people run in circles
It's a very, very
Mad World'
Tears For Fears - Mad World.


Thomas Moore said 'All attempts to give a strict form to life, even if they are based in a fantasy of self improvement, participate in Sadeian monastic ideals'.

I can understand Jess Loseby's declaration of doubt regarding Manovich's decision not to include certain groups, other forms of net, digital creativity; yet I also understand that it is much more to do with circumstance rather than the content of what he writes alone. In agreement with Patrick Lichty, I feel that he contributes but not with 'as a wide a net' as some of us on the front line would wish for. The only people who can really change this is ourselves (like Patrick mentioned again). And I feel that this actually happening anyway, with many of us who have formed D.I.Y. net groups.

Personally I feel that the greater issue that needs defining here is of representation. Who gets seen? I remember looking in an archive of Manovich's files under section 'F' with a hopeful curiosity, wondering if he had mentioned Furtherfield at all; I laughed out loud to myself when I discovered a reference to Forest Gump and nothing of ourselves.

It is important to mention before presumptions prevail that changing things just for the sake of it is not what is proposed here (this should be obvious). Putting in place a young proud child who knows nothing but ego-based energies is not what is being asked for. For many can be 'Bamboozled' into being fooled into what seems to be fresh, urgent and wild, yet what is really in place is just the spirit of greed and a stronger ally to isolation.

There is a big difference between intellectual argument and academic argument. Academic argument comes from a place of culturalized reference, high art, high science, or accepted and (supposed) informed knowledge that has been institutionally accepted. This means that if you use an academic argument, you are more likely to be agreed with by those who value such structures and theories. Because they instantly understand the triggers, signifiers being inferred. Thus, an immediate rapport occurs, a kind of mental handshake and recognition that one has equally gone through the same learning processes. This is of course a positive experience for those who wish to have their so called educational references re-affirmed, but it serves no solution to solve the issue or crux, that 'Academia' only serves the few.

What this means is that the probability in respect of those who have not had
institutional support compared to those who have had institutional support,
regarding being seen by writers and critics with strong institutional connections, is a vast chasm. For institutional historians for some reason by habit it seems do not value social change, they value history instead. Thus they do not feel that it as part of their remit to put forward a more democratic vision.

I read Manovich's recent article which was posted on this list a few days ago 'Don’t Call it Art: Ars Electronica 2003' mentioning that Ars Electronica's decision to focus mainly on coding was a form of cultural isolationism. This was, in fact a very important thing to say. For I can remember thinking to myself, mmm Furtherfield are doing some pretty interesting things but we cannot get involved with this festival because we are eclectic and consciously trying not to be singular and actively relational in matters regarding digital, new media and net art explorations. So our group was isolated because we did not fit into a limited theme, and us being more open in our field of practice, ideas and function. Which is no great loss really as far as Furtherfield are concerned because we are
changing things in our own way, which is actively open to using the mode of 'soft group' maneuvers, hopefully more fluid in its essence and aiming beyond established static, revisionist tactics.

Jean Dubuffet wrote 'What cultured people want, in terms of language (and thought), is to be well-defined, correctly positioned in strictly combined terms, and this is what they call good speech, good thought, and good writing. But they do not realize that they are thereby creating a closed circuit that leaves no room for anything but what was there in the first place---except for the decomposition inherent to all closed circuits, like moss that grows in a hermetically sealed jar.'

So, all Ars Electronica really did was promote what was already getting seen and promoted and what was accepted institutionally. Yawn ...I remember a similar experience in the UK in March 2003 with the Tate Gallery. With user_mode = emotion + intuition in art + design - a symposium. We applied to attend this conference and received a standard email from them mentioning why Furtherfield we were not good enough to attend the conference. In response to that email I created this piece of work -
http://www.furtherfield.org/mgarrett/email_art/docs/anti_net_art_society.htm

What really annoyed me was that the people that they assumed new about the context of the theme that they were peddling were mainly just the same as you would find at any other new media conference around the world. Most of them already very well established or entwined within institutions, or very well connected with them. It was like there was this massive crane lifting all their bodies from across the vast waters of the world and dropping them into seats at each conference. First class bookings with their names on the seats. It seemed like the decision had already been made and why did we bother applying when they were obviously not really interested in genuine groups who were actually doing it for real on the front line actively changing things on their own terms?

So, what I have learnt from this is what I already new. That many institutional people who organize these events do not do their research and also are not informed culturally, or possibly re-evaluating their own ideas regarding contemporary new media. They are not looking or seeing what is actually happening - so they rely on information that tells them what is happening instead. So, just like we all get second-hand news, that does not reflect in reality of what is happening out there in the world politically and socially. They get information that has been appropriated by the institutional means.

The seemingly innocent and blind trust handed over to such organizations is suspect and heartrending. A passive role takes place that sublimate’s the individual’s own will to discern self worth. A to B is the goal and what lies in between is of no immediate interest.

Whether this is done deliberately or via ignorance, what occurs out of this is a biased misinterpretation, interpretation in the from of propaganda. So those who have taken the trouble to be independent due to the unbalanced nature of institutional control in respect of new media activity, will be continue to be shunned until institutions learn to grow up and see beyond their own limitations. It is not independent groups that isolate institutions, it is the way that it is all set up.

The psychological relationship between academic intelligence and outsider
intellectuals, has been a constant battle through history and one that institutions should not be proud of. The stance that many academic individuals use to hide their emotional and intellectual inadequacies is to add clout to their own use of language by imposing the official 'wild card' that they know more because they have gone through the process of induced learning. This failing of coming to terms to the idea, the reality that actually there might be equivalent, relevant ideas and people out there that have not of been processed by the same protocols, is shameful. For this puts in place barriers enhanced via denial, plus the default of the traditional and tiresome dichotomy of, we are right and you are not. 'we are right and you are not' does not even have to be said, for it is assumed - what is seen as officially accepted and what is not.

The Power of the institutions such as museums, galleries and libraries has always had a cultural, psychological and social impact on how creativity is perceived in the public's eye. Within the educational establishment, Postmodernist theorists and critical minded artists, have had a dramatic influence in changing the order of things, with occasional small tremors of art activism trickling out of the contained art world and its institutions.

If we are to move forward culturally at all we need people in gate-keeping
positions to take responsibility and realize that 'it isn't only Rock n' Roll'. This is people's lives that are being influenced by their decisions to isolate others, so their reasoning's have to be self critical, and even emotionally informed. There is an already accepted notion, almost like a mutual (misogynist) handshake. So what we have here is a war about our own histories unfolding before our very eyes. This of course is not a new problem and those who would rather see a broader representation occur will be perpetually disappointed because of the fact that if one expects some one who values institutional protocol to declare such issues then they are quite literally barking up the wrong tree. May be we should pee on that tree rather than bark at it.

Whenever groups have actively challenged institutional 'sloppiness, and accepted defaults, good things have happened culturally. Even though it can a painful laborious process, enlightenment is a necessity if humanity is to move on to heal their turf. The explorative, creative individual does not have to conform and feel limited, contained by society's lack of imaginative adventure. A shift has been taking place as a mass collective geo-autonomy has been growing. As this global movement fluctuates, regroups and forms various factions of self styled (D.I.Y.)
initiatives have occurred. New opportunities have opened up for people who once did not fit into the Art establishment's stranglehold on creativity. Thus there is a fresh role and place in the world for independent Artists, Entrepreneurs, Creative individuals and Collectives in the 21st Century who are no longer reliant on institutions alone to further their adventurous ambitions.

whine.

INTRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: whinged, whing·ing, whing·es Chiefly British To complain or protest, especially in an annoying or persistent manner.
ETYMOLOGY: Dialectal alteration of Middle English "whinsen", from Old English "hwinsian". OTHER FORMS: whinger ?NOUN; whinging·ly ?ADVERB
http://circadianshift.net/archives/2002_10.html

Originally posted on the Rhizome.org Raw list in response to various emails concerning a debate that came about through a discussion with Jess Loseby, Patrick Lichty & Jim Andrews.It got me thinking and inspired me to write around the issues from my own perspective as an artist, writer and curator.

The section below features some add in's and answers to various questions and replies regarding the original article. You can still read 'Gate-keeping & Who gets seen?' Which has been inserted after these current updates and thoughts, further down the page.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Later a shorter version of this text was posted on the Crumb list (New Media Curating) this caused controversy