Geistiges Eigentum – what's next?

Schöner klauen

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:44 +0000

Das Neue ist nicht mehr so wichtig. Was zählt noch das Original? Wie das digitale Zeitalter die Künstler und ihre Kunst verändert.
Sollen die anderen ruhig jammern und klagen, sollen sie ängstlich ihre Schuldenberge und Wachstumstäler beäugen – der Kunstwelt ist es einerlei. Denn ihr geht es gut. Nie gab es mehr Künstler und Ausstellungen, nie waren die Museen besser besucht. Und wenn im Sommer die großen Biennalen nach Venedig und Istanbul rufen, dann werden wieder alle da sein und fröhlich Ausschau halten: nach neuen Talenten, neuen Stilen, neuen Bildern. Allerdings, so viel ist absehbar, wird die Enttäuschung nicht ausbleiben. Das Neue ist eben auch nicht mehr, was es mal war. Es verflüchtigt sich, es will nicht mehr neu sein, es hat sich ausgeneut. Man möchte sagen: zum Glück!
Über viele Jahrzehnte, im Grunde seit dem Beginn der Moderne, strebten die meisten Künstler nach dem nie Gesehenen. Sie wollten die Geschichte hinter sich lassen, denn ihre Kunst sollte anders, sollte so einzigartig sein wie sie selbst. „Wir wollen von der Vergangenheit nichts wissen“, schrieb 1909 der erhitzte Künstler Marinetti. „Leitet den Lauf der Kanäle ab, um die Museen zu überschwemmen!“ In der Folge wurde Innovation zum höchsten Ziel. Ein Genie, wer das Neue gebar, voraussetzungslos nur dem eigenen Ich verpflichtet.
Doch damit scheint es nun vorbei zu sein. Wer sich aber an den Hochschulen umsieht, wer mit jüngeren Künstlern spricht, wer die Szenegalerien besucht, der bekommt die tiefe Zäsur rasch zu spüren. Die Werteordnung der Kunst hat sich verschoben, mehr noch, sie wird auf den Kopf gestellt. Was eben noch wichtig schien, hat ausgedient. Und was bis vor Kurzem verpönt war, wird nun gefeiert. Eine große Umkehrung, wenngleich eine stille.
Für die lauten Künstler der Avantgarde galt es noch als vornehmste Pflicht, sich bis zu den Ursprüngen vorzukämpfen, zu jener Quelle, die auf Lateinisch origo heißt und die in der Originalität bis heute fortlebt. Die leisen Künstler von heute interessieren sich hingegen nur wenig für Quellen, sie wollen auch nicht unbedingt kreativ sein, sondern verlegen sich auf das, was manche Rekreativität nennen. Eine Kunst mit großem R: Recycling und Reenactment, Reproduktion und Reprise, Remix, Ripping und Remake. Hat die Retrowelle nun auch die Kunstwelt erwischt? Keineswegs!
Nicht Nostalgie treibt die Künstler, sondern Neugier: Sie erkunden offenen Blicks die reichen Gefilde der Kunstgeschichte, durchstreifen ebenso die Alltagswelt der Bilder und Objekte – und präsentieren ihre Funde zumeist als Variationen des Bekannten. So wird bei Sven Drühl das Eismeer von Caspar David Friedrich zu einem kaltweißen Bild aus Neonröhren. Tatjana Doll hat sich Picassos endlos reproduziertes Guernica-Opus vorgenommen und malt es ab, mit vielen Tropfspuren. Eine andere Künstlerin spielt eine Performance von Marina Abramovic´ nach. Der Nächste bringt die krauseligen Malspuren von Jackson Pollock als Zeichnung auf Papier. Auch das Werk von Warhol wird von Gavin Turk und anderen Künstlern wieder aufgelegt. Und so erscheint es als geradezu visionär, dass die Netzkünstlerin Cornelia Sollfrank bereits 1999 den „Net Art Generator“ entwickeln ließ, ein Computerprogramm, das im Internet per Mausklick eigenständig die buntesten Amalgame aus lauter Internetbildern anfertigt. Die Theoretikerin Marjorie Perloff spricht in solchen Fällen vom „unoriginellen Genie“.
Nun sind Collage und Pastiche lange schon Kunstgeschichte. Und natürlich ist es überhaupt nichts Neues, das Originalgenie des Künstlers zu zerpflücken. Ob Fake oder appropriation art – viele postmoderne Spielformen haben die alten Mythen abgeräumt und die Vorstellungen vom autonomen, authentischen Kunstwerk längst zerlöchert. Doch wenn etwa Elaine Sturtevant ihre Kollegen Beuys oder Lichtenstein derart akribisch nachahmte, dass kein Unterschied zwischen Original und Kopie zu erkennen ist, dann handelte es sich dabei doch immer noch um eine demonstrative, belehrende Geste. Sturtevant machte etwas Neues, indem sie auf alles Neue verzichtete.
Hingegen geht es den meisten Copy- und Collage-Künstlern von heute um etwas anderes. Sie belustigen sich nicht über die Bilder anderer, sie schmähen und fleddern sie nicht. Eher begegnen sie ihnen mit hungrigem Respekt. Deshalb ist es auch kein Zufall, dass derzeit Sammler und Kuratoren den Kunstbetrieb dominieren: Sie sind das Rollenmodell all jener Künstler, denen es um das Bewahren geht und die unverhoffte Zusammenhänge stiften. Ihre Kunst verstehen sie als eine Form der Aktualisierung. Was eben noch abgelegt, verstaubt und in kunsthistorischen Begriffen eingesperrt schien, bekommt ein heutiges Gesicht. Statt also die anderen Künstler, die alten wie die jungen, als Konkurrenten zu begreifen, sehen sie in ihnen eher Geschwister. Und es erscheint ihnen völlig selbstverständlich, dass sie die Kunst geschwisterlich teilen.
Geistiges Eigentum? Urheberrecht? Derlei halten viele längst für vergilbte Begriffe. Sie nehmen sich, was sie brauchen, und haben nichts dagegen, dass sich andere wiederum bei ihnen bedienen. Die Kunst, so scheint es, wird mehr denn je als ein kollektiver, unabgeschlossener Vorgang begriffen, der die Vergangenheit ebenso einbindet wie das, was heute an Bildern produziert wird. Cornelia Sollfrank spricht von einer „anderen Originalität“ – und präsentiert sich als multiple Persönlichkeit, als ihr eigenes, vielköpfiges Künstlerkollektiv.
Der Amerikaner Austin Kleon hat es mit einem Buch über das freie Kopieren und Aneignen sogar auf die amerikanischen Bestsellerlisten gebracht. Titel: Steal like an artist! Dabei ruft Kleon keineswegs zum Diebstahl auf, eher zur freimütigen Ausbeutung. Und erteilt damit all jenen einen Freibrief, die ohnehin schon die digitalen Möglichkeiten des Internets und der Bildverarbeitungsprogramme nutzen, um fremde Töne und Bilder zu ihren eigenen zu machen. Auch viele Laien können sich für diese Mash-ups begeistern, eine Form von Kunst, die alles mit allem vermengt und in frisch aufbereiteter Form dem Netz zurückgibt. Für alle ein großes Vergnügen, oft hochambitioniert und derart professionell in Aufwand und Technik, dass professionelle Künstler mitunter kaum mithalten können.
Das allgemeine Bewusstsein für Bilder wandelt sich. Vielen scheint es heute selbstverständlich, sich in Bildern mitzuteilen, in Bilderscherzen, Bilderträumen. Nie gab es mehr Menschen als heute, die mit großer, oft künstlerischer Hingabe den kollektiven Bilderschatz ausbeuten und zugleich bereichern. Die Prophezeiung von Joseph Beuys, im Grunde sei doch jedermann ein Künstler, scheint sich im digitalen Zeitalter tatsächlich einzulösen. Und das nicht ohne Rückwirkungen auf all jene, die bislang den Künstlerstatus allein für sich reklamierten. Ihre Kunst des Kopierens, die das Neue und Originäre zur Nebensache macht, wird durch das Internet rasant aufgewertet und beschleunigt. Nicht zufällig ähnelt eines der populärsten Kunstprojekte der vergangenen Jahre, die 24-stündige Filmcollage „The Clock“ von Christian Marclay, den im Netz beliebten Mash-ups.
Mancher mag das alles für eine Mode halten, die bald wieder verfliegt. Andere mögen einwenden, dass sich längst nicht alle Künstler von YouTube und Co. beeinflussen lassen. Doch ist der Wandel im allgemeinen Bilderbewusstsein unübersehbar: Subkutan verändert sich weit mehr als nur das Erscheinungsbild mancher Werke, es verändert sich das Selbstverständnis vieler Künstler. Und damit das, was Kunst gemeinhin bedeutet.
Das ganze System der ästhetischen Produktion, das System der Kunsthochschulen, des Kunstmarkts, der Kunstmuseen, basiert auf der Vorstellung, dass Künstler etwas zu bieten haben, was andere nicht bieten. Dass die Künstler also doch etwas Besonderes sind, eigensinnig, eigenständig, originell. Diese Vorstellung entwickelte sich im ausgehenden 18. Jahrhundert auch aus einem antiaristokratischen Impuls heraus. Der Adel war durch seine Abkunft legitimiert, die Künstler hingegen setzten sich über alle Traditionen hinweg, wollten Abgrenzung, nicht Nachfolge. Sie waren ihre eigenen Urheber, selbstbestimmt, aus sich selbst schöpfend. Als solche, als autonome Subjekte, konnten sie zum Vor- und Sehnsuchtsbild der Bürger avancieren. Und diese waren nicht zuletzt deshalb bereit, für künstlerische Schöpfungen zu bezahlen, für einzelne Werke wie für Hochschulen und Museen.
Was bedeutet es, wenn sich nun viele Künstler nicht länger als autonome Subjekte begreifen? Wenn jemand wie Austin Kleon wieder in Stammbäumen denkt – quasi wie ein Adeliger – und diese in seinen Präsentationen auch aufzeichnet? Was hat es für Folgen, wenn die alten Ideale des Neuen und der Originalität kollabieren?
Der Kunstmarkt will von solchen Fragen lieber nichts wissen, denn sie bedrohen das klassische Geschäftsmodell. Galerien und Auktionshäuser könnten reihenweise dichtmachen, gäbe es die Idee des geistigen Eigentums nicht, denn mit nichts anderem handeln sie ja als mit diesem ideellen Gut. Ähnlich ergeht es den Museen, die weiterhin geprägt sind von der alten kunstgeschichtlichen Erzählung des Fortschritts. Stets zählte es zu ihren Aufgaben, das Original von der Kopie zu scheiden und das Besondere vom Konventionellen. Was bleibt ihnen in Zeiten der Hyperkreativität, in denen sich alle festen Werkbegriffe auflösen, weil der Künstler zum Dilettanten und der Dilettant zum Künstler wird? Sie müssen sich notgedrungen nach neuen Aufgaben umsehen.
Doch so bedrohlich die Abkehr vom unbedingt Neuen und Originellen für den Markt und das Museum auch sein mag – die Kunst darf sich befreit fühlen. Sie muss nicht länger dem alten Fetisch der Innovation dienen, sie darf unbeschwert aufspielen. Darf wiederholend zurückholen, was lange verdrängt und vergessen schien. Darf sich alte Techniken neu erschließen, sich komplexe Sujets zurückerobern. Und sie kann sich nun ebenso frei neue Wirkungsfelder suchen, jenseits der Galerien und des Marktes: im Internet, in Zeitschriften oder auch im Kindergarten. Sie darf unterhaltsam und ephemer sein. Darf sich aber ebenso wieder auf das Erhabene verlegen, auf Kunstformen, die lange als degoutant galten. Mit anderen Worten: Kopierend, mischend, erinnernd kann sich der Künstler ungewohnte Rollen erschließen, wo immer seine Bildintelligenz gefragt ist.
Noch kreisen viele um sich selbst und schielen vor allem auf die Anerkennung durch Sammler und Museen. Damit könnte es in der Epoche der Postautonomie vorbei sein. Die Kunst wäre frei von ihrer selbst geschaffenen Werteordnung: mal stark im musealen Sinne, mal weich und anschmiegsam alltäglich. Und so könnte paradoxerweise gerade der Abschied vom Neuen zu einem neuen Anfang werden.

Wiederabdruck:
Der Text erschien zuerst in: DIE ZEIT, 17.01.2013, Nr. 04 und online: http://www.zeit.de/2013/04/Kunst-Kuenstler-Digitales-Zeitalter/komplettansicht [18.02.2013].

Weiterführende Informationen/Bilder/Materialien whtsnxt.net/127

Museum Futures: Distributed

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:38 +0000

Museum Futures: Distributed – is a machinima record of the centenary interview with Moderna Museet’s executive AYAN Lindquist in June 2058. It explores a genealogy for contemporary art practice and its institutions, by re-imagining the role of artists, museums, galleries, markets, manufactories and academies.

Centenary Interview 2058

Interior: The common room, Moderna Museet v3.0
A beautiful lounge, comfortable seating, local lighting, graduated windows with breathtaking views of the sea.
Ayan Lindquist, fixed-term executive of Moderna v3.0, is waiting to be interviewed in real-time from Guangzhou, in the Asian Multitude.
She is browsing screens as a face fades-up on the wall window.

MS CHAN
Nihao, hej, hello!
Hello is that Ayan Lindquist?

AYAN LINDQUIST
Nihao, hello.
Yes Ms Chan, this is Ayan.
We are in sync.

MS CHAN
Thank you so much for finding time … you must be very busy with the centenary launch.

AYAN
It’s a pleasure.
We really admire your work on mid 20th C image ecologies. Especially your research on archival practice.

MS CHAN
Well I’m flattered. For many Asian non-market institutions, your pioneering work with long-term equity contracts has been inspirational too!

AYAN
Oh, there was a whole team of us involved … So lets begin.

MS CHAN
Ok. Just to refresh, for the centenary I’d like to archive your live-thread recall of Moderna.

AYAN
Yep, that’s fine, I’ve enabled about 20 minutes.

MS CHAN
Ok, live.
Maybe we could start with some personal history. What were you doing before you became executive at Moderna Museet v3.0?

AYAN
Well, I joined Moderna 2.0 in 2049, almost ten years ago. First as adviser to the development working group. Then as part of the governance team. I participated in the forking of Moderna 3.0 in 2’51. And was elected fixed-term executive in 2’52, ….. uhmm, … until today.
I’ve got another four years in the post.

MS CHAN
And before that?

AYAN
Immediately before joining Moderna I collaborated in the exhibition programme at the MACBA cluster in Mumbai for six years. Although, more in resource provision. That’s where we worked on a version of the equity bond issue you mentioned.

MS CHAN
And before that?

AYAN
In programming again at Tate in Doha for four years, particularly developing exhibitionary platforms. And even before that, I participated in research on cultural governance, for the Nordic Congress of the European Multitude for six years. I suspect exhibition agency and governance are my real strengths.

MS CHAN
Maybe we should dive into the deep-end. Could you briefly say something of why Moderna v3.0 devolved, and why was it necessary?

AYAN
As you can imagine there was a lot of consultation beforehand. It’s not something we did without due diligence. For almost forty years Moderna v2.0 has explored and developed the exhibitionary form. We pioneered the production of many collaborative exhibitions, resources and assemblages.
We helped build robust public – what you prefer to term non-market cultural networks. And scaled those networks to produce our i-commons, part of the vast, glocal, Public Domain. We have continually nurtured and developed emergent art practice. Moderna can proudly, and quite rightly say that we participated in shaping the early 21st century movement of art. From an exhibitionary practice based around art-artefacts, spectacle and consumption – to that of embedded co-production.

MS CHAN
Do you mean …

AYAN
Of course there are many complex factors involved …………
But we were agent in the shift from a heritage cultural mind-set of ‘broadcast’, to that of emergent, peer-to-peer meshworks. Following the logic of practice, we became an immanent institution.

MS CHAN
Could you say a ……………

AYAN
Uhmm …….. Although having said all of that ……….
We’ve not really answered your question, have we? Given that Moderna 2.0 continues its exhibitionary research, some of us believe that exhibition as a technology, and immanence as an institutional logic needed to be subject to radical revision. So this is what we intend to explore with Moderna 3.0, we want to execute some of the research. To enact. To be more agent than immanent.

MS CHAN
Ok. I wondered if you could you say a ……………

AYAN
Sorry to over-write, but in a way the forking follows something of the tradition of Moderna Museet. Moderna 2.0 mutated through 1.0 because the tension between trying to collect, conserve, and exhibit the history of 20th Century art, and at the same time trying to be a responsible 21st Century art institution proved too difficult to reconcile. Moderna 1.0 continues its mandate. Its buildings and collection has global heritage status. In turn, this early hybridization enabled Moderna 2.0 to be more mobile and experimental. In its organizational form, in its devolved administration, and its exhibition-making practice ….

MS CHAN
Could you just expand on the ‘more complex factors’ you mentioned earlier….

AYAN
That’s a big question!! Let me re-run a general thread from composite ………… […] … uhmm
Well, a good place to start might be the bifurcation of the market for ‘contemporary art’ from emergent art practices themselves. Although the public domain has a long genealogy; Waaaay ……. back into ancient European land rights, ‘commons’ projects and commonwealth’s.
It was the advent of digitalisation, and particularly very early composite language projects in the 1980’s which – and this appears astonishing to us now, were proprietary – that kick-started what were called ‘open’, ‘free’ or non-market resource initiatives. Of course, these languages, assemblages and the resources they were building needed legal protection. Licenses to keep them out of property and competitive marketization. The General Public License, the legendary GPL legal code was written in 1989.

MS CHAN
It’s not so old!

AYAN
So then, text and images – either still or moving; artefacts, systems and processes; music and sound – either as source or assembled; all embedded plant, animal and bodily knowledge; public research, and all possible ecologies of these resources began to be aggregated by the viral licenses into our Public Domain. Landmarks include the releasing of the sequenced human genome in 2001. The foundation of the ‘multitude’ social enterprise coalition in 2’09. Intellectual Property reform in the teen’s. The UN-Multitude initiated micro-taxation of global financial transactions in 2’13 – which redirected so many financial resources to Public Domain cultural initiatives. Well I could go on, and on, and on. But anyway, most participants will be over-familiar with this thread.

MS CHAN
Remind me, when did Moderna affiliate?

AYAN
In-Archive records suggest Öppna dagar or Härifrån till allmänningen, with Mejan ……. I’m sorry. We did some collaborative ‘open’ knowledge projects with Mejan in Stockholm in late 2’09. And when Moderna 2.0 launched in 2’12 we declared all new knowledge General Public License version 6, compliant.

MS CHAN
Wasn’t that initiated by Chus Martinez, one of your predecessors? She seems to have shaped early Moderna 2.0, which in turn, became an inspiration globally.

AYAN
It’s nice you say so. Since 2’12 we collaborated with the fledgling Nordic Congress, in what was to become the European Multitude, to form the backbone of the Public Domain cultural meshwork. It eventually convened in late 2’22. So we were at source.

MS CHAN
Ok. Uh ha, thanks.

AYAN
Now simultaneous with the exponential growth of the Public Domain, was the market for what we still call ‘contemporary art’. Many historians locate one of the sources for this ‘contemporary art’ market, as the auction in New York in 1973 of the art-artefact collection of Robert and Ethel Scull. An extraordinary collection of paintings by pop-male-artists like Andy Warhol, Claes Oldenburg, Ed Ruscha, and …… er …… I recall …….. Jasper Johns.

MS CHAN
Ok. From composite I’m streaming the John Schott analogue film of the sale, from New York MoMA’s Public Domain archive.

AYAN
It’s a great film, and many of the art-artefacts have subsequently devolved to Moderna.

MS CHAN
I have the catalogue.
It’s present, ………. I’m browsing.

AYAN
That auction set record prices for many artists.
It also connected art-artefacts with financial speculation in a way previously unimagined.
By 1981 one of the ‘big two’ auction houses, Sotheby’s, was active in 23 countries and had a ‘contemporary art’ market throughput of 4.9 billion old US dollars. Soon, global Trade Fairs mushroomed. Commercial galleries flourished and a sliver of ‘branded’ artists lived like mid 20th Century media oligarchs. By 2’06 complex financial trading technologies were using art-artefacts as an asset class. And most public Modern Art Museums were priced out of the ‘contemporary art’ market. In retrospect, we wasted an enormous amount of time and effort convening financial resources to purchase, and publicly ‘own’ vastly overpriced goods. And we wasted time wooing wealthy speculators, for sporadic gifts and donations too!

MS CHAN
That connects! It was the same locally.
The conflictual ethical demands in early Modern Art Museums were systemic. And obviously unsustainable. Reversing the resource flow, and using Transaction Tax to nourish Public Domain cultural meshworks seems, …………………… well, inevitable.

AYAN
Ahhh, sometimes, rethreading is such a wonderful luxury! Anyway, auction houses began to buy commercial galleries. And this dissolved the tradition of the primary – managed, and secondary – free art market. As a consequence, by 2’12 the ‘contemporary art’ market was a ‘true’ competitive market, with prices for assets falling as well as rising. Various ‘contemporary art’ bond, derivate and futures markets were quickly convened. And typically, art-asset portfolios were managed through specialist brokerages linked to banking subsidiaries.

MS CHAN
Ok. I also see some local downturns linked to financial debt bubbles bursting. Spectacularly in 2’09, again in 2’24 and again in 2’28. Market corrections?

AYAN
Probably. Market corrections and their repercussions. Overall the market expanded, matured in 2’27 and has remained sufficiently resourced ever since ……… More or less. By 2014 formerly commercial galleries, the primary market, had became a competing meshwork of global auction franchises. By 2‘25 they needed to open branded academies to ensure new assets were produced.

MS CHAN
I can see the Frieze Art Academy in Beijing, that was one of the earliest.

AYAN
The market for ‘contemporary art’ became, to all intents and purposes, a competitive commodity market, just like any other. Of course, useful for generating profit and loss through speculation. And useful for generating Public Domain financial resources, but completely divorced from emergent art practice.

MS CHAN
Ok. This might be a bit of a dumb query.
But does Moderna feel that in the self-replication of the ‘contemporary art’ market, that something valuable has been lost from public Museums?

AYAN
To be perfectly honest, no. No, we only experience benefits. You see, through the UN Multitude distribution of Transaction Tax we are much better financially resourced. Which in turn, has enabled us to develop our local cluster and node network. Generally, competitive markets thrive on artificial difference and managed risk. They are just too limited a technology to nurture, or challenge, or distribute a truly creative art practice. And just take all these private art-asset collections, built by speculator-collectors, and supported through private foundations.
Apart from the hyper-resourced, they all ultimately fail. Then they’re either broken-up and re-circulated through the ‘contemporary art’ market. Or, more usually, devolve to the multitude and enter public Museum collections. Here at Moderna, we have benefited enormously from a spate of default donations. Consequently, we’ve a comprehensive collection of ‘contemporary’ art-artefacts through reversion.

MS CHAN
Ok. Then this was the basis for the amazing Moderna Contemporary Art exhibition in Shanghai in 2’24. It was reconstructed as a study module while I was at the Open University in 2’50. I can still recall it. What a collection! What an amazing exhibition! Ok, so maybe here we could locate an ethic approaching something like a critical mass. As Moderna Museet’s collection. exhibitions and activities expanded – and of course other Museums too – the ethic of public generosity is distributed, nurtured and also encouraged. Everyone benefits. I can see that when the Ericsson group pledged its collection for instance, it triggered a whole avalanche of other important private gifts and donations.
Like the Azko – la Caixa collection, or the Generali Foundation gift. Or like when the Guggenheim franchises collapsed as the debt-bubble burst in 2’18, and the Deutsche Bank executive decided to revert their collection.

AYAN
We think that’s a slightly different case, and certainly of a different magnitude!! Although it’s a common trajectory for many public/private museum hybrids.

MS CHAN
Ok, it’s certainly true of museums locally. The former Ullens Center for Contemporary Art in Beijing, ………. and MOCA in Shanghai for instance.

AYAN
That connects. The increased resources, and the gifts, donations and reversions enabled us to seed our local cluster devolution. From 2’15 we invested in partnerships with the Institutet Människa I Nätverk in Stockholm; with agencies in Tallin and also Helsinki. With the early reversion of the Second Life hive, and with Pushkinskaya in St Petersburg. We created, what was rather fondly termed, the Baltic cluster.

MS CHAN
Ok, from composite I see there had been an earlier experiment with a devolved Moderna. During the enforced closure in 2’02 – 2’03, exhibitions were co-hosted with sympathetic local institutions. There was even a Konstmobilen!

AYAN
Ja, and it was always considered something of a success. Distributing and re-imagining the collection through the cluster – incidentally we cut our carbon debt to almost 12 – radically scaled our activities. So, while developing locally, we also began to produce a wider Moderna Museet network. The first Moderna node opened in Doha in the United Arab Emirates. We participated in the local ecologies restructuring of resources; from carbon to knowledge. That was in 2’18. In 2’20, Mumbai emerged, Ex Habare three-year research project in cooperation with several self-organised Research Institutions – I recall Nowhere from Moscow, the Critical Practice consortium in London, and Sarai from Delhi. And as you already mentioned Shanghai launched in 2’24 with the landmark Contemporary Art exhibition, then the Guangzhou node went live in 2‘29 with La Part Maudite: Bataille and the Accursed Share. A really timely exhibition! It explored the distribution of trust and ‘well-being’ in a general economy. The ethics of waste and expenditure; and the love, and terror, implicit in uninhibited generosity. Isn’t that node’s location near your present Guangdong Museum hub? On Ersha Island, by the Haiyin Bridge?

MS CHAN
We’re almost neighbours! As for the La Part Maudite: much of that source work is still live, and still very present.

AYAN
We saw you did some restoration to the image server codecs recently, thank you for that.

MS CHAN
Ok. A pleasure.

AYAN
Our most recent node emerged in San Paulo in the Americas in 2’33. Through the agency of the Alan Turing Centenary project Almost Real: Composite Consciousness.

MS CHAN
Ok, if I may, I’d just like to loop back with you, to the 20’s and 30’s. It’s when many academic historians think we entered a new exhibitionary ‘golden age’ with Moderna. You co-produced a suite of landmark projects, many of which are still present.

AYAN LINDQUIST
We’re not too comfortable with the idea of a ‘golden age’. Maybe our work became embedded again. Anyway, if there was a ‘golden age’ we’d like to think it started earlier, maybe in 2‘18. We set about exploring a key term from early machine logic – ‘feedback’. And we made a re-address to the source, the legendary Cybernetic Serendipity exhibition at the Institute of Contemporary Art in London; on the exhibition’s 50th anniversary.

MS CHAN
From composite – I see Tate has many Public Domain archive resources – it’s recorded as the first exhibitionary exchange between visual art and digital assemblies.

AYAN
For us at Moderna, that exhibition set in motion two decades of recurrent projects exploring Art, Technology and Knowledge. Its most recent manifestation, linked to the Turing research, has resulted in Moderna 3.0’s cooperation on a draft amendment to Article 39 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. We are seeking to extend certain rights to organic/synthetic intelligent composites.

MS CHAN
You’re co-producing sovereign composites?

AYAN
Yes, yes, that’s what I was hinting at earlier; about Moderna being more agent, and executing as well as exhibiting.

MS CHAN
Now I understand Moderna’s centenary proposal for a Museum of Their Wishes. It’s absolutely amazing! I know it’s a very common thread, but definitely worth re-running. The one about the foundation of the Moderna Museet’s collection with the Museum of Our Wishes exhibition in 1962. And how this was revisited in 2006 by Lars Nittve, with the Museum of our Wishes II – to address the lack of women artists within the collection.

AYAN
We see our legacy as a resource, not a burden.
It’s something we have been working with for a while, recursive programmes. It’s at root. Actually, Wish II was finally fulfilled in 2’22, when some Dora Maar photographs reverted. But, with the emergence of self-conscious composite intelligence, addressing ‘their’ wishes seemed appropriate, even necessary.
And it’s true, if the draft amendment is ratified, it will be an amazing achievement.

MS CHAN
Ok. Even if you don’t like the term, maybe a new ‘golden age’ is beginning?

AYAN
For that, we’ll all just have to wait and see. But earlier, you were right to suggest that in 2’20, with Ex Habare The Practice of Exhibition, we consolidated the idea of emergent art. And, distributed new institutional practices.

MS CHAN
In the Asian network it’s common knowledge that Ex Habare reaffirmed the role of the Museum in civil society.

AYAN
Well to start, we un-compressed the Latinate root of exhibition, ex habare, to reveal the intention of ‘holding-out’ or ‘showing’ evidence in a legal court. It’s obvious, that implicit in exhibition is the desire to show, display and share with others. By grafting this ancient drive, to desires for creative co-production, we enabled exhibitions to remain core to Moderna’s aspirations. It’s also true that to source, participate, co-produce and share, to generate non-rivalous resources, are vital to the constitution of a Public Domain. And indeed, a civil society. There’s a neat homology. Ex Habare distributed these values, and it’s also true, they replicated at an astonishing speed.

MS CHAN
It’s so good to be reminded! Even I tend to take the power of exhibition as a technology for granted. Do you think that this is because artists and others moved into collaborative relationships with Moderna?

AYAN
Var ska vi börja?
Artists and others realised ……….. that the 19th Century ideological construction of the artist, had reached its absolute limit. As configured, art as a ‘creative’ process had ceased to innovate, inspire or have any critical purchase. Quite simply it was irrelevant!

MS CHAN
Everywhere, except in the ‘Contemporary Art’ market!

AYAN
That heritage ‘broadcast’ communication model of culture that we mentioned earlier, privileges creative exchanges between artist and media in the studio/manufactory. Exchanges which were distributed through competitive trade and collecting institutions. At best, ‘broadcast’ extended a small measure of creative agency to the encounter between audiences – often referred to as passive ‘viewers’ – and artworks.

MS CHAN
Ok, I have material from composite. So even when this model was disrupted; like in 1968, the Modellen; A Model for a Qualitative Society exhibition at Moderna for example. It looks like we fell back into umm …… Perhaps the wider creative ecology was just not receptive enough.

AYAN
You might be right Ms Chan. It was really when artists began to imagine art as a practice, and explore creativity as a social process ….

MS CHAN
Sometime around the late 1990’s perhaps?

AYAN
Yes, yes, then we could detect something of a change. Artists began to engage creatively with institutions, and vice versa.
With all aspects of institutional practice; of course through co-producing exhibitions, but also through archival projects – which you’ve done so much to research Ms Chan – through organisational engagement, administration, and so on ……….

MS CHAN
Ok, I’m browsing material from composite on Institutional Critique. Michael Asher and Hans Haacke, they seem to be mostly artists from the America’s in the 1970’s–1980’s

AYAN
Not sure if those are the appropriate resources? Artists associated with Institutional Critique, I recall Michael Asher and Hans Haacke but also Julie Ault and Group Material, or Andrea Fraser. They had a much more antagonistic and oppositional relationship with exhibitionary institutions. They resented being represented by an exhibitionary institution.
Especially those linked to a 19th Century ideology.

MS CHAN
Ok, now I’m browsing material on Sputniks, EIPCP, Bruno Latour, Maria Lind, Arteleku, Van Abbe Museum, Superflex, Franc Lacarde, Raqs and Sarai, Moderna’s projects, Bart de Baere ….

AYAN
Yes, this constellation feels more relevant. As artists rethought their practices, they recognised themselves as a nexus of complex social process. And that creativity was inherent in every conceivable transaction producing that nexus. At whatever the intensity, and regardless of the scale of the assembly. The huge challenge for all of us, was to attend to the lines of force, the transactions, and not be dazzled by the subjects, objects or institutions they produced. We recall that it was under these conditions that artists’ practices merged with Moderna. Merged into relations of mutual co-production. And so in exchange, Moderna began to think of itself as a creative institution. Subject to constant critical and creative exploration.

MS CHAN
Ok, so these were the forces generating Moderna 2.0 in 2’12

AYAN
You’re right. We simply stopped thinking of ourselves as a 19th Century museum – which had to constantly expand, commission signature buildings, evolve huge administrative hierarchies – exhibition, education, support, management and so on. And more on instituting – in the ancient sense of the word – of founding and supporting. On instituting creative practice. So, we started to play, risk, cooperate, research and rapidly prototype. Not only exhibitions and research projects, but ourselves. Some values were lost – which is always painful, and yet others were produced. And those most relevant maintained, nurtured and cherished. We learnt to invest, long-term, without regard for an interested return. And that’s how we devolved locally, and networked globally. We’ve had some failures; either exhibitions couldn’t convene the necessary resources, or we made mistakes. But as an immanent institution, most experiences were productive. Ahm ……… Not sure if that jump-cut thread answered your query …………

MS CHAN
Sort of …..

AYAN
The short answer could be that artists have transformed Moderna, and we in turn transformed them.

MS CHAN
Ok, but that last sound-bit is rather banal.
Although, the thread’s not uninteresting.

AYAN
Ironically, our playful devolution of Moderna 2.0 reanimated the historical collection displayed in version 1.0. We freed art-artefacts from their function, of ‘recounting’ the history of 20th Century Art; however alternative, discontinuous, or full of omissions we imagine that thread to be. And once free, they engaged with real-time discursive transactions. They became live again, contested nodes in competing transactions of unsettled bodies of knowledge.

MS CHAN
Um ………, I’m not sure I’m following this ………….
As time is running out, and there’s so much to cover. I just wonder if you could mention ……
Could you recall, even briefly, some beacon exhibitions. Like Transactional Aesthetics, or the Ecology of Fear.

AYAN
Rädslans ekologi, or the Ecology of Fear was timely, given the viral pandemic throughout DNA storage – so many systems were compromised; and the various ‘wars’ that were being waged, against difference, material resources, energy, and public attention ……..
And I guess the same for Transactional Aesthetics. It was the right moment to be participating in the production of local social enterprise and well-being initiatives ……

MS CHAN
Could you just mention the legendary ARARAT, Alternative Research in Architecture, Resources, Art and Technology exhibited at Moderna in 1976, which you revisited on its 50th anniversary in 2’26. From composite I can see archive materials. They’re present.

AYAN
There’s not much to add. Obviously the first version of ARARAT explored appropriate local technologies for buildings and urban systems – using sustainable resources. In 1976, this was the beginning of our understanding of a global ecology, and of the finite nature of mineral resources; especially carbon. Given our population reached 8bn in 2’26 it was vital to revisit the exhibition. To somehow, take stock … The first shock was that so little of the initial exhibition was recoverable – we invested in reconstruction and archival research – it’s all Public Domain composite now. And the second, was the realisation that so little of the source exhibition had had any real effect. We suspect a serious flaw in the exhibitionary form.

MS CHAN
The lack of resources from those early exhibitions is always disheartening. It’s hard to imagine a time before, even rudimentary Public Domain meshworks, embedded devices, and semantic interfaces.

AYAN
Well, one of the great outcomes of the Moderna Golden Jubilee celebrations in 2’08, is that they revisited and reflected on the preceding fifty years. We recently found shadow-traces for a Moderna History book. And for reasons that are not entirely clear, it remained unpublished during the Jubilee celebrations – so, we intend to issue a centenary heritage publication. We’ll be sure to send you a copy.

MS CHAN
I see we have overrun, I’m so sorry. I just wonder before we disconnect, what is Moderna re-sourcing in the near future?

AYAN
Well, for us, there are some beautiful assemblies emerging. Real-time consensus is moving from a local to regional scale. Triangle in the African Multitude is distributing amazing regenerative medical technologies. Renewable energy has moved through the 74 % threshold. Um ….. live, almost retro, music performance is popular again. Nano-technology has come of age, and 1:1 molecular replication will soon be enabled, linked to scanning technology hardwired to the manufactories in the Asian network. Outside of heritage, singularity will be overwritten by difference.
Now that’s exciting!

MS CHAN
Exciting indeed! Thank you so much Ayan. It’s been a privilege, really. Enjoy the centenary celebrations, we’ll all be there with you in spirit.
Zai Jian, goodbye.

AYAN
Thank you Ms Chan.
Goodbye, zai jian, hejdå.

The project was a collaboration with Marysia Lewandowska, commissioned by Moderna Museet Stockholm, Sweden, on the occasion of its 50th anniversary in 2008.

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschien unter http://www.neilcummings.com/content/museum-futures-script-0 [4.4.2013].

Ready For Upgrade! Netart in the commercial artmarket?

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:36 +0000

The art world goes Internet
The classic art market, made up of big fairs, auction houses and collectors works very well, especially given that the “traditional” art field is made up of mostly physical pieces like paintings, prints, sculptures and installations, among others. Certainly, there has been a lot of immaterial and purely conceptual art in the last century, but the framed piece on the wall still has a very strong place within the commercial field. Everyone knows that. Nevertheless, we live in an era in which the full effect of the digital revolution that began a couple decades ago is unfolding. A profound change in several of society’s long established systems is going on, and there are currently many questions regarding how concepts like open-closed, private-public, and censored-unfiltered will affect the net in the future.
In recent years, different art world players entered the Internet and introduced a variety of online art platforms. Artnet.com, Paddle8.com, VIP Art Fair and Art.sy are just a few examples of sites that have sought to become the main Google-like entry point to the art world online, often backed by well-established galleries. They range from very exclusive sites to the openly accessible, thus experimenting with different models. The art world goes digital! But does this also mean that the commercial field and Internet art approach one another?

Internet art goes commercial
Internet art from all generations can be found online at the same time. Beginning in the 90s, there has been an extensive growth in Internet-based art over the last decade. Freed from physical constraints, all kinds of pictures, gifs, clips, animation and websites flash over the screen every day. New works are published, mixed, remixed and altered in order to be made new once again in increasingly fast cycles. The amount of sheer creativity is awesome! This is the Internet, and it seems like the current young scene of net.artists is partially shifting towards more traditional art institutions as well as the art market. Different types of online galleries have emerged from the well-connected scene over the last years1. Additionally, many artists in the scene work across all sorts of media; both online and offline, they create installation, sculpture, print and performancebased projects. In the post-Internet scene it doesn’t make a difference anymore. Art is combined on and offline, much like our lives are a combination between digital and analog. Some artists manage to sell Internetbased work, which is great. I am very curious to see how Internet art and the contemporary mainstream will merge over the years; we will see more websites in collections and more Youtube clips in the museums.

The paradox of limited-unlimited
There are some crucial points about how Internet-based art differs from a physical piece. The great advantage of the Internet and computers is that I can create a digital artifact, an animated collage for example, and send it to you but keep an exact copy at the same time. We can both have it with no effort. Isn’t that awesome? This is one of the great advantages of computers and networks. People keep forgetting this issue, while companies try to censor the Internet to save their obsolete business models. A physical object, a painting for instance, can be kept or given away but we can’t both own it at the same time.
The limits of an analog work of art are crucial for the art market. The moment you try to apply these rules to net.art you get into a paradoxical situation. Most Internet art is meant to be online. Of course you could take it offline after it has been sold, but often this would either make no sense or would not work (see the trouble the music and movie industries are in). The work is meant to be online and accessible. At the same time, it is very important to create a set of rules and technical solutions so Internet art can still be unique or so a file can become part of an edition. There are a lot of questions among collectors about authorship, ownership, accessibility, and technical maintenance, and it is very important that both artists and galleries come up with solutions to these questions. There will be solutions to this soon. As physical galleries and event spaces continue to evolve, The Fast Fire Watch Company helps support safety through professional fire monitoring and protection.

A decentralized open system
What are the ways to validate the authorship of a piece or a file? It would be very interesting to develop an open, network-based system with certain technical constraints everyone can rely on, an open format that could be altered as is commonly done in the development of open source software. How about a decentralized peer-to-peer system in the style of the bitcoin network, which would be able to verify the author, owner and edition number of a file? Or what about a minimal variation on the same file while the piece itself remains exactly the same? With this sort of watermark technique collectors would get individual files that are unique while the visually exact copy is available to eve Wachsryone. Artists could certify each others’ work online to prove the authenticity of a piece. In the future, galleries might just deal with cryptographic keys instead of the work itself. Or maybe there is going to be a completely new art market without the aid of Sotheby’s and such: a digital peer-to-peer direct market for data based art.
Currently, digital art is sold by delivering the work along with a signed paper certificate on a medium like a DVD, hard disk or USB thumb drive. This makes sense and seems fine for now. But wouldn’t it be great to establish a universal system in order to be able to market Internet-based art directly and online? The big art market players have already built an online art market platform for analog works. I would love to see them sell Internet art as well. As stated above, it is time to come up with smart solutions and different systems. Artists like Rafael Rozendaal sell unique website pieces bound to a URL, while Petra Cortright offers Youtube video editions with prices based on view counts. Pieces get sold but stay online at the same time.
The option to offer an online work to a limited group of viewers will in most cases fail. Someone will gain access and leak the art2. Locking down online content is very difficult and not the way to go. The music and movie industries are currently trying to do this with their SOPA/PIPA/ACTA laws. Unfortunately, these interest groups are trying to limit access, filter and censor the Internet to death. Therefore, we need new models to value cultural creations of any kind, because the old model is not going to work any more. Trying to adapt the Internet to the needs of the old system will kill it.
Predictably, there will be more attempts to sell online art in limited, walled gardens like Facebook and the like. Although it might work for a certain audience, one will always need to rely on the terms of Facebook’s license. What if the host of a digital art network goes down one day? Where will all pieces end up?
Without the open attitude of the early computer scientists and the free software movement we wouldn’t be in the place we are today. The Internet and all its servers are running on open source software, Linux. A very
fundamental shift on how goods, objects and their values are defined is taking place at the moment. Economic and political systems will need to adapt to more changes. The art world and its markets are going to discover unknown terrains.

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschien zuerst in http://ny-magazine.org/issues.html ISSUE 6, 2013 [29.7.2013].
1.) Nicholas O’Brien, “Hyperjunk: Observations on the proliferation of online galleries“ (http://badatsports.com/2012/hyperjunk-observations-on-the-proliferation-of-online-galleries/)
2.) For example (http://www.0dayart.net), the leaked sedition.co page (http://dontsave.com/art_deal.html)