Category Archives: Reading Response 3 (June 2)

Reading Response #3 – Jack Lambermont

Attempting to enforce a code of ethics on the media is a pointless endeavour, as the content is passed through so many filters and interpretations that enough grey area is laid down that anything can be gotten away with.

So, I think its very important for artworks to recreate “unethical” media practices in an effort to expose their presence and perhaps get people to think more about how slanted and manipulative the media can be.

I question how unethical something can possibly be with such an important end goal of helping to understand a deceitful system of delivering information and content.

tshirt

where-next t-shirt

Quaranta brings up the example of where-next, where users can attempt to predict the next big terrorist attack to win a t-shirt, whose intentions are to critique the fact that users would be willing to participate in such a game just for a shirt. I consider the idea and selection process to be more tasteless than unethical, and the final product to be an interesting and important critique.

As for myself, I can’t say ethics come consciously into play when i make my work, nor do consider any of it “necessary” (and couldn’t imagine a situation in which i would be inclined to make a “necessary” work).

—-

For a website to become an installation, it isn’t enough to just be published to the web. The website has to be in some way referential to, and crafted around, the virtual “space” that it occupies. If the site can successfully do this, I don’t think it is necessary for the work to be curated or placed into a physical exhibition space to have an “aura” and produce its intended effect.

Screen Shot 2015-06-03 at 5.34.12 PM

http://www.computersclub.org/

Physicality only amplifies a works aura in the sense that it satisfies the classic art-viewing expectations of the public. I don’t agree with Groy that there is an inherent purity to that method of delivery, so long as the “universe” created by the work of art is aware of where and how it is being transmitted to its audience.

'.__('Continued reading >', 'simplr').'')*/ ?>

Reading Response #3

by Emily-Rose Gibbons

Quaranta mentions the idea of ‘pure media hacking’, offering the motto: “No ethics. No message. No content.” In this distilled manifesto, Quaranta seems to propose that a radical awakening about representation in the media may have little to do with abiding by a code of ethics. What are your own thoughts on this matter? Would you forgo ethics in making an online artwork or design project you see as powerful and necessary?

The way in which many people consume media is a serious concern. The Internet, especially, brings this problem –or, dare I say crisis–to light. For instance, on a daily basis I see fellow Facebook friends sharing news articles from unreliable sources (and even on occasion, parody news sites) and getting very worked up about the content, even though it isn’t true. In less extreme but equally as horrifying cases, online publications will dramatically emphasize a particular finding of a study (“Drinking lemon juice daily will make you lose weight!”) but fail to mention all other important factors involved in the case (…”instead of drinking soda”), and hence, have many readers convinced that their daily glass of lemon juice is making them lose weight. Clearly there is a definite need to educate people on how to properly navigate and interpret media.

If I were to forgo ethics in making an online artwork that I see as powerful, I would certainly have to largely contemplate how far the notions of ethics would be stretched and how this break from ethic code would be appropriated. If a piece of artwork can evoke positive change –whether that be the flick of a switch in an individual’s mind or even the law (like the interventions of Edward Snowden or Julian Assange – obviously outside of the art world bubble but certainly in a similar ethical realm), I am all for that. In fact, we need that. However, I do think it is important to contemplate such dramatic ideas and consider all possibilities and other options before executing them –perhaps in some situations it would be possible to send just as powerful a message in a more subtle way, without breaking the code of ethics. It is important to justify why ethic code is being broken and how it will be received by viewers.

How can a website function as an installation? How does this concept of websites satisfy both Groy’s and Quaranta’s arguments for the “here and now” of an artwork?

Groy’s believes that the aura of a computer artwork can only be “cured” by “bringing it to the exhibition space” (page 158). From Groys’ viewpoint, an exhibition space of an artwork is similar to that of the traditional art world. If the material artwork is not in a single physical space, it is not an original work; it becomes a copy. The work becomes unauthentic and its aura lessened when it is not in an exhibition space because “the quality of the presence” (or “here and now”) is “depreciated” (page 158). In his words, “the presence of the original is perquisite to the concept of authenticity” (page 158).

To satisfy Groy’s argument of the “here and now” of an artwork, a website would have to be only in a single viewable space such as a gallery. Only the people in the gallery, suspended in a specific time and location, would be able to fully be in the presence of the original online artwork. In my opinion, this is very outdated way of understanding art.

On the other hand, Quaranta states that online art exists as a unique type of installation. Quaranta views the “here and now” of online art in terms of location, and even compares a website to a building with a specific name on a map –it takes up a space. As Manetas stated: “anything that can be found on the Web has a physical presence. It occupies real estate” (page 160).  A website physically exists as a file in someone’s computer in a specific location, uploaded onto a server also in a specific location: this is the “here and now” of a website and it can be visited by typing the name of the site into a URL bar.

Quaranta concludes the piece with a call to faith in a new kind of art form and way of distributing of art, as discussed in the first assigned reading. The newer mode of accepting online artwork would involve changing one’s idea of ownership: if you want to buy a website, “you need faith because you are buying an invisible original… In other words, you need the faith required to recognize art out of the context.” (page 161) In order to properly accept or at the very least fully grasp online art, understanding the revised ways in the display and context of artwork is certainly needed. Online art is not traditional and in my opinion, it should not be thought of in a traditional art context: it doesn’t make sense to compare such a different medium to something it is most certainly not. It is embedded in us to think in such a way and in order to accept online art as art, we need to move on from this very particular mindset, as earlier stated by Quaranta.

'.__('Continued reading >', 'simplr').'')*/ ?>

Reading Response 3 – Lindsey Luckevich

After Nikeplatz, 0100101110101101.org said that businesses like Nike are machines, an “intangible entity” dependent on people’s perception of it. Isn’t it noble to fight the machines? I’d like to address this question with an anecdote. I know a guy, a hacker going by the name Defiant, who spent 9 months in a federal penitentiary after hacking the website of the largest cable provider in the US, Comcast. Excerpt from a Wired article explaining what happened:

Screen Shot 2015-05-31 at 5.55.25 PM

Like most Americans, I hate Comcast, and I can definitely support vandalizing their webspace. I support this kind of humour, and I think the hack is interesting to think about as an art intervention. Inflicting juvenile internet humour on an evil corporation like Comcast makes good use of the hacking medium. Hacking is typically done under a pseudonym, and does not necessarily reveal its motivation. “It must hide its ideology, or be so violent that its ideology is unclear” (32).

I tell this story to say while I respect this hack, I can’t see myself undertaking anything similar. Granted, these actions were criminal, but that’s just a matter of jurisdiction. I could comment critically on Comcast without actually imposing a threat on their business and feel comfortable about it, but I’m not sure I’d be comfortable if I really impacted them, which is a terrible thing to realize, honestly.

Websites are site specific if they are designed with consideration to the environment of the internet. The online atmosphere and the nature of networked communications create a new, highly specific public audience: the mass of people logged in. Really, if a website is designed to be a website it is a site specific installation. If the website is duplicated, archived or cached, it is no longer site specific because it does not have the same context as the original. Benjamin says reproduction doesn’t destroy the aura of a piece, it just diminishes it because we cannot perceive the original’s unique place in time and space. Groys says “the aura of a digital file is the consequence of its own invisibility” (158) and this aura is sacrificed when the file is viewed and can only be regained when given a presence, an exhibition space, a URL. Quaranta says a website can be describe as an installation because it locates a series of fragments in a specific, unique space. Bits of data are stored and assembled to create a specific work in a specific place. This work, on the web, is auratic because of its location.

'.__('Continued reading >', 'simplr').'')*/ ?>

Reading Response #3 – Jacqueline Carlos

1. Quaranta mentions the idea of ‘pure media hacking’, offering the motto: “No ethics. No message. No content.” In this distilled manifesto, Quaranta seems to propose that a radical awakening about representation in the media may have little to do with abiding by a code of ethics. What are your own thoughts on this matter? Would you forgo ethics in making an online artwork or design project you see as powerful and necessary?

The ideology of media abiding by a code of ethics is one Quaranta satirically pokes fun at. Media does not care for ethics nor does it have to. As mentioned early in the article, media manipulates truth but it itself is manipulated thus interfering with the flow of information. My thoughts on the matter seem almost irrelevant. I do not believe that I am an educated enough individual to be an activist for anything that would concern me to forgo ethics to make an online artwork. However, with this in mind, I think it is 100% necessary that it is done. The idea that brand identity has taken precedence over cultural identity is a scary concept which should be addressed. If anyone can address the capitalism of the post-internet world we live in and they need to forgo ethics for their statement I support it. As the forged originals movement embodied, you cannot forge a copy if there is no original so if there is only an intangible commercialized brand identity to fight with an equally intangible ethicless online work, so be it.

2. How can a website function as an installation? How does this concept of websites satisfy both Groy’s and Quaranta’s arguments for the “here and now” of an artwork?

A website functions as an installation in the way that it locates its work on a place in the internet. Groy’s argument for a here and now of an artwork calls for exhibition space to establish an aura. He calls for the space to “restore” an aura that a work could not have in the digital realm. Quaranta’s argument for here and now counters Groy’s exhibition space by quantifying a website as a space. He outlines the URL as a space on a server, an address in the world of the wide web. A website is an invisible original, an exhibition space in its own. It holds the aura of the visuals upon it. There is a relationship between location and content which Groy and Quaranta are both looking for in the reputable display of art. The aura is not lost when the piece is located, and if that location be in a gallery on a wall or on a corner of the internet, the piece has aura and the piece can live it’s purpose.

 

'.__('Continued reading >', 'simplr').'')*/ ?>

Reading Response 3 – Montana

In terms of not keeping to the “code of ethics” to promote a radical awakening with the means “pure media hacking” can draw some issues in regards to activism. Though in the code of ethics it states that one must “maintain confidential information and privacy”, there are already issues with that currently. As many websites such as Google, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook etc. are selling people’s information to 3rd party companies in order to gain advertising revenue is already an issue in today’s society. It is already difficult to stay “anonymous” on the internet, that “pure media hacking” not regarding the code of ethics, in my opinion is not really a problem. As it is almost a rebuttal to what is going on with online privacy, if major companies are not keeping to the code of ethics, do activists have to hold the same standards?

I personally would not forgo ethics in my online art unless it is to prove a point, as I stated before, maintaining confidential information and privacy is an issue with many huge corporations, and so with this “rule” I would a be a little more lenient, however, I will abide to the law in any circumstance.

—–

When it comes to websites, websites can work similarly to how a gallery space works, but in a more interactive manner. Meaning that when it comes to the viewer, the viewer will have a person connection to the work itself as they can manipulate it and interact with it. Many people have personal computers at home, an in a gallery space, arguably many will want to have some “alone time” with pieces to fully experience the piece itself, and with the use of a personal computer, one can do this.

However, in an exhibition many can experience an installation at the same time, similarly to the website as it is shared from a server, anyone in the world can view it, sometimes at the same time. This is the “here and now” that both Groy and Quaranta explain. The website or file is the original source of its content; the path name of any website.

 

 

'.__('Continued reading >', 'simplr').'')*/ ?>

Blog Response 3 – Laura Rojas

1. Quaranta mentions the idea of ‘pure media hacking’, offering the motto: “No ethics. No message. No content.” In this distilled manifesto, Quaranta seems to propose that a radical awakening about representation in the media may have little to do with abiding by a code of ethics. What are your own thoughts on this matter? Would you forgo ethics in making an online artwork or design project you see as powerful and necessary?

I agree with Quaranta – sometimes, ethics need to be pushed aside when it comes to creating a work that carries a strong message. Depending on the piece, the initial shock-value that comes with the forgoing of ethics can be crucial to making the viewer understand what the artist is trying to protest.

Not the greatest example (but unfortunately the only one I can think of right now), LUSH cosmetics commissioned a performance piece back in 2012 where an artist attempted to raise awareness for the fight against animal testing by putting herself through the same tests that lab animals are forced to comply with.

Although this was just a performance, many argued that it wasn’t “ethical” and were disturbed by it, which was exactly what it was meant to do.

While reading F for Fake,  I was kind of offended at the Where-Next project that was discussed on page 32. Everything about it gave me a pretty weird “this is gross and wrong” feeling, until I realized that was exactly the point and understood it.

2. How can a website function as an installation? How does this concept of websites satisfy both Groy’s and Quaranta’s arguments for the “here and now” of an artwork?

A website can function as an installation because it exists in a space, obviously also has a location and a (web)address, and displays an interactive work of art like a physical installation would. Experiencing a website is much like an visiting an installation- it becomes a submerging and wholly interactive experience. The most fascinating part about that is that the concept still applies even when the website isn’t intentionally meant to be art.

'.__('Continued reading >', 'simplr').'')*/ ?>

Reading Response 3

Quaranta mentions the idea of ‘pure media hacking’, offering the motto: “No ethics. No message. No content.” In this distilled manifesto, Quaranta seems to propose that a radical awakening about representation in the media may have little to do with abiding by a code of ethics. What are your own thoughts on this matter? Would you forgo ethics in making an online artwork or design project you see as powerful and necessary?

Absolutely not. I believe that credit should be given where credit is due. Far too often I hear of people posting their work online, only how have it picked up by a large corporation to use as a part of a product. The artist is almost never informed of this because the corporation thinks, “What are they going to do about it? They’re not famous, so we can easily get away with this.” Whereas they may have been able to make a name for themselves if they had respected the creators work. I can remember a few years ago, I read about a woman, Katie Woodger, who made a lovely painting of Alice in Wonderland. A while after she shared this beautiful painting on the Internet, she found a makeup bag on the Disney store website that copied her piece completely, as well as a shirt that resembled the composition of it.

 

AlicePainting

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130409/09473422634/copyright-maximalist-disney-accused-copying-artists-painting-cosmetic-bag.shtml

 

Although this IS a painting that was inspired by the Disney movie, there was absolutely no credit given to the artist as far as I know, and she was not informed of its use. I feel that even if they are not going to be paid for the usage of the work, credit should still be given in some way. However I feel this is more an issue of plagiarism than inspiration in this instance of the makeup bag.

 

As far as online art is concerned, as in pieces of work designed purely to be viewed on the Internet, I don’t think it is as simple to answer. While I still believe that credit should be given whenever possible, if you are merely pulling out code from one site to use in your own, I don’t think this would be considered the same thing, seeing as they would have been able to do this on their own anyway. This may be my opinion based on the fact that I actually don’t know much about coding websites. I may be uninformed of certain methods used to design websites. But as far as I know, it sounded like Quaranta was talking about an instance where someone saved the code and republished it exactly. In this instance I would say credit should still be given in some way, shape, or form.

 

How can a website function as an installation? How does this concept of websites satisfy both Groy’s and Quaranta’s arguments for the “here and now” of an artwork?

I think a website is definitely an installation. It is an accessible, yet intangible installation that occupies the space of the browser. In class we have learned that certain things can be viewed different in certain browsers. Similarly, installations are displayed differently depending on the location. Tangible materials over time can degrade in durability, just as software may change and render an old website unable to view, as seen in jQuery with new versions coming out quite often, forcing the sites to be updated manually.

 

Groys speaks often about these invisible files on a computer having an aura. He states that its aura is most present when the files or documents or sites are in their invisible state, making the existence of it more influential than the actual thing itself. The Internet has become something of a safety net over the years. There isn’t much you would need to know that you can’t find out online. “Here and now” and the idea of an aura combine here to blanket users in the comfort of accessible knowledge. Knowing you can access the phone number to a business can be the aura of its invisibility, and “here and now” is actually getting it.

 

When it comes to art, the Internet has been both a helpful tool as well as a destructive crutch. The way Groys speaks about it, he makes it sound like a website is a work of art in itself. A website can satisfy both Groys and Quaranta’s opinions because it can be there one second, and gone another, but it still exists, its aura is still present, and the content of the website, whether it’s text, images, or video. These elements of the website can still disappear similarly to how Groys and Quaranta talk about digital files, but they will always be accessible. This is even better than tangible objects like DVDs and statues, because anyone can access them form anywhere. They don’t have to go anywhere to enjoy a work of art.

'.__('Continued reading >', 'simplr').'')*/ ?>

Blog Response 3

media aunthenticity is almost utterly flatten to me. I am desensistized to biased, fictious fact that trickle through media persons. Coporations and the government are highly branded machines of propaganda. Growing up in this sort of media landscape I am aware of media creation. As an artist I am very aware of self-representation and how it can extend an artist past themselves into a larger than life character. To me moral and ethics come into question when if I try to represent or speak about an oppressed person or community. I feel it is important for these minorities to be able to speak for themselves and represent through a specific lens. Context is a huge part of belivability in media. While digital media is often montaged and functions withtin a totally fragmented cacophanie of media, that often are biproducts of privatized control. I don’t think the government or groups of privatized corporation that drive capitalism approach media representation ethically so why should anyone else.

 

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/video/love-industries-digital-sex-669

This link shows how immersive technologies is being used by the porn industry. This  and the game industry will inevitable take unethical actions into a virtual simulation. I find this to be going into an unethical realm. This post reminds me of a movie that foreshadows, immersive virtual reality following a murder plot : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yaXPx6xWEQ 

 

A website functions as an installation for a few reasons. Websites have a lifespan, a user can visit the url it’s unique location and might not be there. The website is an installation because it is a space that host single digital works or multiple digital works. This essay states that digital files are invisible until performed visualization. The website is then a space that hosts many performative visualizations and arranges them within a space. This notion of the website as a medium reintroduces the aura back into digital work (copies). The copy in Groy’s view only has aura if it is printed out or documented and have a physical copy. I feel this would be justification of post-net artworks. This physicality while still a surrogate has aura. Walter Benjamin’s idea of aura needs a time and place for the work(s) to have an aura. From what Maneta’s is saying in this essay is that the unique location of a website url is the manifestation of the here and now of the art work

 

 

'.__('Continued reading >', 'simplr').'')*/ ?>

Use of this service is governed by the IT Acceptable Use and Web Technologies policies.
Privacy Notice: It is possible for your name, e-mail address, and/or student/staff/faculty UserID to be publicly revealed if you choose to use OCAD University Blogs.