[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> Sorry, there's no fee, c'mon it's just a link!

["Peter Lunenfeld" <peterl@artcenter.edu>]

>In fact, Frampton refused to screen the work, in the version of the 
>story he told me, unless he were paid. I believe it was Donald 
>Ritchie who was the curator involved. Someone will correct me if that 
>is wrong. Frampton, finally, did get paid and forever changed the 
>policy at MOMA. By today's standard's in that universe, showing at 
>MOMA is one of the best paying gigs you can get, at least for one 
>person shows.

Thanks to Keith Sanborn for helping to clear the fog on this. 

There's a lot to discuss in your post, but I'll leave much of that to
others. My main question for you revolves around your statement that
net.arts don't generate economic activity: 

>One may argue, of course, that the shift in the overhead from labor 
>time to material expenditure is symptomatic of the time in which we 
>live. Or put another way: what economic activity does the website 
>generate? There are no cleanup crews, guards, poster hangers, 
>printers, or delivery truck drivers. (One may reference the 
>socio-electronic food chain if one wishes, however.) 

I don't think this is defensible given the technology markets within which
net.artists find themselves working. To paraphrase Frampton and update it
via <nettime>: Did the crews who laid copper wire get paid? Did the crews
who came later and upgraded to cable get paid? Is the power company getting
paid? Are the ISPs getting paid? Is the museum systems administrator getting
paid? Are the hardware manufacturers getting paid for all those monitors and
CPUs scattered through museums? Are the exhibition designers getting paid
for building all those pedestals and elevated mouse pads? Are the makers of
the software getting paid? [Only the last question offers the possibility of
a negative answer.]

Museums are showing net.arts for reasons both good and bad. You're right
about the bandwagon "corporate synergy" effect, but there are also curators
who simply believe that net works can have a place within the structure of
the museum, especially if that structure opens up and becomes more flexible.
That opening and flexibility made it possible to screen avant-garde film and
video in the 60s and 70s at places like MOMA. We can have a much longer
debate on the effects of the institutionalization of avant-garde media (an
effect so strong that we can no longer use the term "avant-garde" with
straight faces). 

All of that taken into account, though, I don't see why Frampton's questions
shouldn't be posed today for artists working on the Web, who deserve to go
after "good paying gigs" as much as artists working in any other medium. 

Peter Lunenfeld


_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold