Download - Museum as Digital Institution
-
7/29/2019 Museum as Digital Institution
1/13
AAANZ Conference 2004: Present Pasts - Present Futures
Digital and new technologies, and art and art writing stream.
Can the museum become a digital institution?
George Petelin
all configurations that have previously existed on this earth must yet meet,
attract, repulse, kiss, and corrupt each other again....
Heinrich Heine (quoted in the introduction to Friedrich Nietzsches The Gay
Science)
I wish to examine and compare two significant phases in the history of image
making that have occurred in my time: the interternational avant-garde that
emerged during the mid 20th century and the phenomenon of net.art that
began towards the end of that century. This comparison will be in terms of
both the discursive links that generate their rationale and their relation to the
institution of the museum.
The mid 20th century Avantgarde can be characterised as having performed a
series of critiques of the premises that had underpinned Modernist art
practice. All of these were imbricated with the issue of arts autonomy, from
society, or from Life as it is often expressed, and internally, among the
different historical genres and media that formed the traditions of Western art
practice. I will briefly establish what these were, and then return to them in
relation to net.art.
The avant-gardes critiques, for the purpose of this paper, will be reduced to
just five: critique of the Subject, critique of the Object, critique of the Body,
critique of the Concept, and critique of the Museum.
The avant-gardes critique of the Subject can be located in Pop Arts
eradication of Abstract Expressionisms painterly signifiers of subjectivity for
example by Lichtenstein, and in the austere rebellion, against the spiritual
claims of artists such as Mark Rothko and Barnett Newman, by Frank Stella,
Carl Andre, and Richard Serra. This critique results in an increasing
emphasis on the materiality of art. What you see becomes not just what you
-
7/29/2019 Museum as Digital Institution
2/13
see but also what you can touch; what occupies three dimensions; what has
weight ; what even threatens you with its presence. Thus, Donald Judd
becomes the focus of debates concerning the illegitimacy of relief on the
grounds that it offends the autonomy, in the terms established by Clement
Greenberg, of both sculpture and painting.
This debate about Greenbergian autonomy, while it deflects the more
important consequence of this artthat of its challenging but always
ambivalent position regarding the autonomy of art from lifeI will argue
remains a defining characteristic of digital non-art (that later becomes
recognised as art) but also, I will argue that this practice, like the mid 20 th
century avant-garde, despite its materialist concerns, continues to engage
with the dialectic of the sublime.
Ironically, the objecthood of Minimalisms works that logically evolved out of
Greenbergian anti-illusionist principles, as Fried1 observed, results in a
theatricalitymakes one aware of the context and of the viewers presence.
This has both the effect of shattering the apparent self-sufficiency or
autonomy of the object and re-invoking the sublimebut now as a material
rather than as a spiritual experience. The Andre bricks can be tripped over,
the Serra wall could crash on its spectators, and Serras act of splashing
molten lead could certainly inflict mortal damage. The transience of human
existence in the face of infinity becomes immanent rather than merely
contemplated.
A second irony emerges out of the uniformity and anonymity of objects
employed non-representationally. As Robert Morris and Dan Flavin (and,
indeed, also Carl Andre) discovered, the object as module has no necessity
to be unique. However, it, or its replacements, can undergo countless
reconfigurations in the production of new, relocated or totally unprecedented,
works. This inherent implication of objecthood leads directly to the notion that
the Object may be redundant, and that the remaining art consists in
something immaterialalbeit now conceptual rather than spiritual. This, of
course, fused with late Vietnam War anti-commodity sentiments and
Duchampian notions of the non-retinal to give us various forms of post-
object art.
-
7/29/2019 Museum as Digital Institution
3/13
The materialists rediscovery of a sublime, together with an organic view of
objects from within their ranks by artists such as Eva Hesse and Louise
Bourgeois, also allows the Body, particularly within various forms of
performance and event art, to be understood as the last stake when spirit and
object are no longer considered of consequence. An exploration of either the
limits of the body, or its genderisation, thus forms the focus of much
performance art. At the same time, performance and installation both tend
towards an independence from the Museum and hence integration with Life
a complete reversal of Kantian autonomy. The embracing of chance as a
principle that is out of the control of the institution within many avant-garde
practices is emblematic of this. In more recent times, art based on post-
humanist notions addresses the obsolescence of the body. What invariably
replaces the body in this discourse is technologyexplicitly, as in Stelarcs
work, or implicitly as in the anonymous, dispersed, and frequently automated
authorship of net.art. Mark Hansen even argues that, uniquely, digital art
results in a dissolution not just of the author but of the viewer2.
But the heritage of todays technological art would not be complete without a
critique of Concept that, again dialectically, emerged out of conceptual art
itself. The attempts to engage with concepts directly, soon led to the
realisation that concepts are embedded in language, be it verbal or visual.
Concepts thus evaporate in the face of a material presenceculture.
Postmodernism as a historical art style with its self-conscious manipulation of
appropriated signifiers is a direct heir to this tradition, but net art with its
inherent dependence on computer languages is even more so. So again
there is an ambivalent consciousness of both the ethereal nature of
information and its dependence on material hardware and the conventions of
software.
While performance, installation, and some forms of conceptual art were all
initially intent on making the museum redundant, we now know that the
museum proved remarkably resilient. Art may have merged with life at its
edgesin instances such as Fluxus and the Situationistsbut it always crept
back to its institutional haven. The reason this occurred was that the museum
made itself indispensable to the economy of arts distribution, reception, and
exchange, each of which in turn underwrote arts production. Also, the
-
7/29/2019 Museum as Digital Institution
4/13
museum acquired a flexibility that enabled it to absorb and commodify
critiques of itself. This flexibility is precisely due to the autonomy from real
life concerns in the Kantian tradition that the museum embodies and that
radical art had tried to escape.
However, as we know, that autonomy is regularly strained through what
Decter3 called the strategy of Critical Complicity and Complicit Criticality
between the museum and artiststogether with the dependence of the
museum on public funding. Attempts at government censorship, public
outrage, and media ridicule have in the main become replaced by a form of
bribery in terms of grants and funding priorities. The museum has adapted to
each avant-garde, but together with its governing constituency also sets rules
by which this adaptation takes place.
In another sense, the museum is a discursive framework that we carry around
with us, by means of which we identify both art and anti-art. Its existence
precedes our engagement with art and sets the parameters according to
which we apprehend it. The only things that escape these parameters are
things that are not considered art at all. The producers of non-art, as
opposed to anti-art, however, are still free to adopt some of the traditions of
art that circulate in our society. Thus you can idolise Duchamp and Fluxus for
their philosophies of life while working in business, science, or technology
and have no expectation that your work has anything to do with galleries. As
a participant in the 1998 Walker Art Centre and Rhizome sponsored listserv
on net.art Brian Molineaux observes Modernism is obviously more than an
art movement, having seeped into the very fabric of society.
David Ross ex-director of SFMOMA observes:
There are probably many people working within this space who don't necessarily
consider themselves artists because they don't want to l imit themselves and their
activity by a set of prejudices and pre-definitions of artistic practice.4
The producers of what has come to be called net.art were, at least initially,
like this. Their work contrasted with what many museum web sites promoted.
Director ofCultureNet DenmarkPia Vigh recalls that while museums started
to catch on to the Internet as an art medium in the last years of the nineties
and began to collect, commission and exhibit net-based artworks, most artists
-
7/29/2019 Museum as Digital Institution
5/13
who interest them actually made their names outside the gallery-museum
matrix5.
And although Museums have begun the absorption process of net non-art,
they still mainly mediate physical art digitally or at best supplement physicalart with web-friendly products commissioned from established artists. In an
article titled Hacking Culture, presented at a Museums & the Web
Conference Vigh still laments, in 2002, that the popular understanding of
new media identifies it with the use of a computer for circulation and
exhibition, rather than production 6. This is not merely a misunderstanding,
however, because, as I will argue, there is an intrinsic interpenetration of
production and distribution, as well as of exchange and critical discourse,
crucial to understanding the significance of net.art.
The generally acknowledged father of net art, Slovenian Vuk Cosic, worked
as political activist and cultural manager, and studied archaeology, when in
1995 he made a website for a little festival he was associated with just to
see how it works7. (In some interviews he admits to have dabbled in collage
and land art before becoming a net artist, but he is essentially trained in
archaeology and still talks of completing his PhD in that discipline). In 1996, a
year later, he created Net art per se8, a site that outlined a manifesto for
net.art and involved a conference that invited a substantial core of the
personnel who have since become the leading lights of this genre. As Cosic
remembers:
That was pretty surprising for a lot of people. And I was very surprised that these guys at
this conference appreciated my work. And that's the beauty of all of this that developed
out of this conference. It's like me and Heath Bunting and Alexej Shulgin and Olia Lialina
and Jodi (a collaboration between European artists Joan Heemskerk and Dirk Paesmans)
had studios next to each other, where we could look at what the others were doing9.
This conference was entirely self-generated and resulted in an amazingly
fruitful professional relationship across national borders. Cosic frequently
compares his relation to his colleagues with that of Picasso and Braque and
that of the Italian and Russian Futurists. It usually goes like this, says Cosik:
Jodi do something new - and they are crazy, they are maniacs, they create
something new every other day - and they send the URL to me, and ask: What do
-
7/29/2019 Museum as Digital Institution
6/13
you think about this? And there are collaborations over the net, too, and group
projects. We steal a lot from each other, in the sense that we take some parts of
codes, we admire each others tricks. Jodi are very interesting in their exploration of
technology, but Heath is magnificent in his social awareness and his glorious
egotism, or Alexej with his Russian temperament. Cyber-Majakowski, someone once
called him10.
This relationship is quite different from the jealously guarded creativity of
mainstream art, as Vigh observes:
Since net artists are not sufficiently economically supported through the
consumption of their work, net artists are not that concerned with copyright. The
basis for netart is an economy ofexchange. Pecuniary economy has been
introduced during the last two years but still exchange remains the most important.
This exchange is interlinked with the free software communitynet artists tend to
use free software and net artists that develop software tend to share this with the
netart community. Often source code is distributed in extensive friendship/colleague
networks or even publicly for download. Software developed by the free software
community is often protected by anti commercial licenses, for example by the
common GNU, General Public Use license. Net artists dealing with this exchange
are concerned about copyright only in the sense that the work stays free/part of the
exchange11
.
Although mostly committed to romantic notions of freedom, net.artists, like
other hacker communities, began by selective involvement and exchange.
Their websites were often distinguished by addresses such as
http://wwwwwwwww.jodi.org orhttp://www.0100101110101101.org, that an
ordinary citizen would not come upon except by the most remote accident.
What is it, apart from their romantic role-play that characterises net.artists as
a latter-day avant-garde? They are patently heirs to conceptualism in that
their products are ephemeral and based on reconfiguration of often modular
components. And like advanced conceptualism their work is materialist in its
denial of subjectivity and embrace of cultural meaning specific to their
community. And although it treats the body as largely redundant, I will argue
that it continues to evoke the sublime. But, most important of all, it continues
to engage with Greenbergian notions of autonomy. What distinguishes it from
http://wwwwwwwww.jodi.org/http://www.0100101110101101.org/http://wwwwwwwww.jodi.org/http://www.0100101110101101.org/ -
7/29/2019 Museum as Digital Institution
7/13
other forms of web art is its concern for the intrinsic nature of its own medium
rather than the mediation of something extrinsic to it.
To recall Clement Greenbergs dictum:
the essence of modernism liesin the use of the characteristic methods of adiscipline to criticise the discipline itself.The task of self criticism became to
eliminate from the effects of each art any and every effect that might conceivably be
borrowed from or by the medium of any other art12.
How net.art is distinguished from other phenomena on the web is best
illustrated by the http://wwwwwwwww.jodi.org site which requires some
programming savvy to be understood at all. When you first enter it, all you
see is rows of strokes and numbers and dismiss it as simply meaningless, buta programmer curious to investigate what might have gone wrong with the
source code to generate this gibberish would press the source button on
their browser to find not the expected rows of html code, but a visual diagram.
The code thus acts as the image and the picture acts as the code.
Synchro mailby Lisa Jevbratt13invites you to send an individual email totally
anonymously to a totally random destination and then graphically represents
the choices made. Thus it consists entirely of inherent functions of the
technology rather than mediate some extrinsic topic. Programming can play
even a more complex role in some net.art. Riot, Shredder, and Landfillby
potatoland.org, for instance, each provide alternative browser experiences
that radicallyor even traumaticallydisrupt the spatial metaphors of
normal websurfing sufficiently to make you fear for the survival of your data.
Another example, Carnivore by Alex Galloway and the Radical SoftwareGroup, is a surveillance tool for data networks. At the heart of the project,
their site explains,
is CarnivorePE, a software application that listens to all Internet traffic (email, web
surfing, etc.) on a specific local network. Next, CarnivorePE serves this data stream
over the net to an unlimited number of creative interfaces called "clients." The clients
are each designed to animate, diagnose, or interpret the network traffic in various
ways.
http://wwwwwwwww.jodi.org/http://wwwwwwwww.jodi.org/ -
7/29/2019 Museum as Digital Institution
8/13
CarnivorePE is inspired by DCS1000, a piece of software used by the FBI to perform
electronic wiretaps14.
What results from this painstakingly programmed software, however, is not
security surveillance, but a continuous organically unfolding image that is a
real-time reflection of the very pulse of the web. The sinister aspect of this is
that the author admits that this software could actually be used for obtaining
data illegally. That the core software is capable of multiple uses is
demonstrated by the series of further artistic applications of it by other
prominent net.artists also linked to this site.
A considerable number of such sites both expose moral consequences of the
webs own nature and incorporate, once again, a sublime edge through some
form of digital terror. Most notable, were Biennale.py15a virus artwork by
0100101110101101.org released and sold as source code on t-shirts and on
CD-Roms at the 2001 Venice Biennale, and Forkbomb16, a code that
executes forked instructions that gradually use up the resources of a
computer until it crashes. Their intention to be art differs in degree but their
claim to be sublime consists in that both of them employ programming
considered amongst hackers to be as remarkably elegant as it is destructive.
But having identified that net.art participates in precisely the same dialectic
as did avant-gardism, what is different about it? The most significant
difference as I have already suggested, is net.arts capacity to be
simultaneously a site of production and of its own distribution and, in addition,
the ability, as David Ross puts it, to collapse the distinction between critical
dialogue and generative dialogue. Thus net.art makes, exhibits, and critiques
itself simultaneously.
As Pia Vigh observes, we are faced with the paradox that the Internet is the
perfect tool to bring down all hierarchy and bring art and culture directly to
the audience. Vigh is somewhat deferential to net.art under the
circumstances, judging that
Although net art does not need museums, one can still see how museums of
contemporary art need net art. Public museums of contemporary art are meant to cover
the whole field of contemporary art, and therefore they must necessarily also cover net
-
7/29/2019 Museum as Digital Institution
9/13
art. If museums have to take net art seriously, they have to start with the already
established competencies and viable forums outside the museums. Museums that wish
to cover net art should join these forums. For the sake of the reputation of museums in
the net art environment, it is essential that they do not appear to be parasites or lusers -
mere users of net art who just download the resulting works of art without contributing totheir structural strengthening and the more process-oriented development17.
The net has developed numerous virtual institutions of its own that enable it
to filter, exhibit, archive, and debate its own production.
As Vigh observes.
One can point to private net art institutions such as Rhizome in USA
(http://rhizome.org/fresh/), ArtNet in Norway (http://kunst.kulturnett.no/artikkel.php?
navn=artnet), and Artnode (http://www.artnode.dk/) in Denmark, as well as mailing lists
such as nettime, which has grown on the Internet, as important disseminators of net art,
because they support dialogue with and about net art and the Internet. Unlike the
established art institution, these independent institutions are all a product of the Internet
focused on net art and the impact of the Internet on cultural and societal development.
Rhizome.org, is a non-profit organization founded in 1996 to provide an
online platform for the global new media art community. For ex-SFMOMA
director David Ross it replaced Echo (a more general subscription based NYbased online community) as well as reading all art magazines18. Despite its
influence, the nature of the net allows Rhizome to be a shoestring enterprise.
I discover, from its forum archives, that It's a guerrilla operation with no
money. It's three people running it (Rachel Green, Alex Galloway, Mark
Tribe). More recently, Russian net.artist Olia Lialina has set up
Teleportacia.org19 to publish, publicise, and, amazingly, market, her own
ephemeral and infinitely copyable works.
This incestuous simultaneity inherent in the medium results both in its
strengths and its Achilles heel: the only thing that net.art cannot provide for
itself is objective external validation. Although it has generated its own
virtual institutions, by virtue of their medium, these are as suspect as the
hoax site reproductions that are its trademark. It is impossible to gauge which
iteration of an interview, or version of history, or attribution of authorship, or
physical location is genuine. So while peer support within the net community
helps establish credentials, ultimately there is a temptation to seek flattery
http://www.rhizome.org/http://www.rhizome.org/ -
7/29/2019 Museum as Digital Institution
10/13
and perhaps profit from outside.
Museum accreditation, however, is tied to its exhibition of the work, which for
net.art remains problematic. Vigh argues that
Most often a museums approach to net art is to view net art merely as the cultural
heritage of tomorrow. Which of course is true! Yet net art cannot be fixed in time.
Works of net art cannot be institutionalised as autonomous art objects isolated from the
context of the Internet, because they relate to the artistic idioms and discourse of the
Internet. It is dynamic art, the significance of which arises out of the encounter between
the artwork, the audience, and the context...20
Moreover, the extent of the phenomenon cannot be understated. As one
curator finds
There are no fanfares, no fireworks, no ticket booth at the entrance. Just scores of
pages, spawning like mushrooms, scattered like snowflakes all over the Web21.
Despite these difficulties, Museum recognition for the pioneers of this
practice has come about rapidly over the past few years. Museums such as
the Walker in Indianapolis, the Whitney22, the Tate23, the SFMOMA24, The Dia
Foundation25, and, in Australia, The National Gallery of Victoria26 have all
established sections on their web site dealing with the net.art phenomenon.
Within the ranks of net.artists there remains an ambivalence about this. Tom
Bell writing to the Poetics of Internet art/activism section of Walker Art
Centres Shock of the ViewListserv discovers that
Apparently I dont have enough money and computing power to get to the Whitney
past the ad. I think the takeover by commercialism and costly technology and
software is one of the things artists might address rather than succumbing27.
Valry Grancher, a digital and conceptual artist who, out of apparent
frustration with the corruption of net.art has returned to painting, laments:
I would say that I always perceived internet as a dynamic process, a network space
where nothing may be freezed. Internet is dealing with new concept of time and
space, and is defining on another way human identity and phenomenolgy. Net art is
a process. This media has evolved from 1998 until today to a huge market where we
cannot find any TAZ (Hakim Bey like on 1994 when net art was conceived! The web
and internet is today a space where branding icons are bringing a new kind of
-
7/29/2019 Museum as Digital Institution
11/13
consumerism (the hyperconsumerism) where also language may be commercialized
("google adwords", C. Bruno), a new kind of 'pop' with its visual signs, logo, VIP and
so on, so on...
Like Vuk Cosik (the father of net art) is saying, NET ART IS DEAD ! it is dead
because the context where net art was produced doesn't exist anymore...28
The pioneers of net.art appear to have anticipated this at least since 1999, as
Natalie Bookchin and Alexei Shulgins site titled Introduction to net.art 1994-
199929indicates. Here they identify net.arts beginnings as the ultimate
modernism promising 0% compromise and, after listing its various forms of
intervention, announce that net.art is undertaking major transformations as a
result of its newfound status and institutional recognition and admit that this
materialisation signals its demise. They then make an ironic but remarkablyaccurate list of the career strategies necessary to be a successful modernist
artist. However, they conclude, optimistically in terms of avant-garde values,
with a Utopian appendix (after net.art) that suggests that the insurgence is
not over, just ready to shift arenas. This is consonant with the theory of
Temporary Autonomous Zones30 promoted by underground theorist known
as Hakim Bey, who is a kind of cult guru of hackers, and who among other
strategies sets his Guy Debord-like ideas to heavy-metal music31. In a
nutshell, he argues that revolution is unproductive because it invariably
results in conservative backlash and that, instead, radicals should enjoy
themselves through guerrilla skirmishes on ever-shifting territories and take
advantage of whatever benefits they can gain.
Debate on associated listservs exposes two sets of attitudes regarding
whether the territory is yet ready to be vacated. As Rachel Greene, an editor
ofRhizome and now author of this years definitive book on Internet art by
Thames and Hudson32, sums up:
Artivist Heath Bunting laid down two strategies: for those interested in getting work into
galleries and museums, these artists need to understand the marketing machines of the
art world and (perhaps) build on them. Those who came to the network because
they were interested in avoiding these systems, as Bunting did, should
build their own economies and structures. One artist who has done so is
Russian Olia Lialina, who showed her new gallery space -->http://art.teleportacia.org.
Those who have (naive) monolithic contempt for the academy, the museum,
http://art.teleportacia.org./http://art.teleportacia.org./http://art.teleportacia.org./ -
7/29/2019 Museum as Digital Institution
12/13
etc. are missing out. Guaranteed, there are people in these places who might be
interested in their work. Teach collectors, potential sponsors and art world thought
leaders about new media art. How to get them interested? Infiltrate mainstream
journalism and media, organize events and shows. Just do it. If you believe those with
money and power have built a mall, build a new one. Or assimilate into the system andconstruct from there33.
P.S. she advises, and if you sell out, don't sell cheap. Nietzsches
eternal return conceded, Modernist idealism is certainly not quite
what it used to be!
George Petelin, Senior Lecturer (Art Theory),
Queensland College of Art, Griffith University
NOTES
-
7/29/2019 Museum as Digital Institution
13/13
1Michael Fried,Art and objecthood : essays and reviews Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1998.
2 Mark. B. N. Hansen, New philosophy for new media, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Mass, 2004.
3 Joshua Decter, De-Coding the Museum, Flash Art, Vol XXIII, Nov.-Dec., 1990, No. 155, pp. 140-142.
4 David Ross,Art and the Age of the Digita, 1999, http://switch.sjsu.edu/web/ross.html
5 Pia Vigh, Museums & the Web Conference 2002, http://www.archimuse.com/mw2002/speakers/index.html
6
Pia Vigh, Museums & the Web Conference 2002, http://www.archimuse.com/mw2002/speakers/index.html7 http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9709/msg00053.html
8http://www.nomemory.org/webpaint/data/text2.htm
9 www.ljudmila.org/nettime/
10 www.ljudmila.org/nettime/
11 Pia Vigh, Museums & the Web Conference 2002, http://www.archimuse.com/mw2002/speakers/index.html
12 Clement Greenberg, Modernist Painting1960, http://www.sharecom.ca/greenberg/modernism.html
13http://128.111.69.4/~jevbratt/syncro_mail/unconscious_collective/
14http://www.rhizome.org/carnivore/
15
http://www.0100101110101101.org/home/biennale_py/16 http://www.runme.org/project/+forkbomb/
17 Pia Vigh, Museums & the Web Conference 2002, http://www.archimuse.com/mw2002/speakers/index.html
18 David Ross,Art and the Age of the Digital1999, http://switch.sjsu.edu/web/ross.html
19 http:// teleportacia.org
20 Pia Vigh, Museums & the Web Conference 2002, http://www.archimuse.com/mw2002/speakers/index.html
21 Lee Hsin Hsin 1998 http://www.archimuse.com/mw98/papers/lin/lin_paper.html#Web%20Art
22http://www.whitney.org/exhibition/2kb/internet.html
23 http://www.tate.org.uk/netart
24 http://010101.sfmoma.org/
25 http://www.diacenter.org/webproj/index.html
26 http://www.acmi.net.au/2004/
27http://209.32.200.27:8080/~shock
28 http://www.nomemory.org/webpaint/data/text2.htm
29http://www.easylife.org/netart
30 http://www.hermetic.com/bey/taz3.html#labelTAZ31 http://www.roadkill.com/MDB/album.phtml/20118
32 Rachel Greene, Internet Art, Thames & Hudson, London 2004.
33http://209.32.200.27:8080/~shock
http://www.archimuse.com/mw2002/speakers/index.htmlhttp://www.archimuse.com/mw2002/speakers/index.htmlhttp://www.nomemory.org/webpaint/data/text2.htmhttp://www.nomemory.org/webpaint/data/text2.htmhttp://www.ljudmila.org/nettime/http://www.ljudmila.org/nettime/http://www.archimuse.com/mw2002/speakers/index.htmlhttp://128.111.69.4/~jevbratt/syncro_mail/unconscious_collective/http://www.rhizome.org/carnivore/http://www.archimuse.com/mw98/papers/lin/lin_paper.html#Web%20Arthttp://209.32.200.27:8080/~shockhttp://www.easylife.org/netarthttp://209.32.200.27:8080/~shockhttp://www.archimuse.com/mw2002/speakers/index.htmlhttp://www.archimuse.com/mw2002/speakers/index.htmlhttp://www.nomemory.org/webpaint/data/text2.htmhttp://www.ljudmila.org/nettime/http://www.ljudmila.org/nettime/http://www.archimuse.com/mw2002/speakers/index.htmlhttp://128.111.69.4/~jevbratt/syncro_mail/unconscious_collective/http://www.rhizome.org/carnivore/http://www.archimuse.com/mw98/papers/lin/lin_paper.html#Web%20Arthttp://209.32.200.27:8080/~shockhttp://www.easylife.org/netarthttp://209.32.200.27:8080/~shock