2004 EDITION > NET ART INTERVIEWS 

by ISABELLE ARVERS

to MICHAEL WILSON, EDDO STERN, PETER BRINSON:
C-LEVEL MARCH 2004    
 
http://www.c-level.cc/
 
IA Is there a manipulative power inside an interactive picture?
MW Yes - interactive mediums (as they exist today) reflect the author's fixed set of possibilities. The "user" is offered the semblance of free will, but 
in fact he/she may only act within the confines of a matrix of predestined 
combinations. This illusion of choice is similar to that offered by 
advertising.
IA Does interaction mean necessarily mind participation?
MW No - one may "interact" - or trigger responses within a causal mechanism - 
without knowing it.
IA What are your monsters?
MW If "monster" refers to threatening agents of a certain chaotic or 
destructive capacity, one can identify many institutions and/or corporate 
interests that fit the description.
IA Could you qualify yourself as an entertainer?
MW If by entertainment you mean a kind of surplus activity as defined by 
current cultural values - yes.
IA Do you think that a state has an interest to give knowledge to the masses?
MW It depends on the type of knowledge. The American model, for example, seeks 
to provide its citizens with enough technological education to produce a 
reliable supply of information workers. Here, the "state" seeks only to 
secure and maintain economic dominance and domestic security (a prerequisite 
for maintaining a productive workforce). Although the US is a caricature of 
Machiavellian excess in this respect, even the most benevolent regime 
necessarily emphasizes pragmatic action - a position anathema to that of the 
artist.
IA Do you feel close to the idea of the artist as a visionary?
MW Yes, the artist is only an effective agent (or "cultural worker" - the model 
prescribed by the last 30 years of art theory) if he/she is capable of 
envisioning radical possibility. An artist is not just a problem-solver 
within a larger mechanism - he/she must be capable of operating outside of 
social reality.
IA you think that the artist has to enlarge people awareness? Is it your 
role, our role?
MW A cultural agent who reinforces the consensus reality or dominant paradigm 
is not an artist - he/she is a designer - rearranging available forms for 
the amusement of the status quo.
IA At the "entertainment republics" time, is it possible to use entertainment 
strategies to educate people?
MW Yes, but a more expansive notion of entertainment is needed.
IA Do you agree with Anne Marie Schleiner when she writes: "computer games 
are socializing younger generations of post-industrial citizens."
MW Yes, it's a time-consuming activity with a fairly steep learning curve, so 
the notion that social relationships could be affected is probably valid. 
It's also one of the reasons that we're trying to create an alternative 
gaming model - one that engages extreme (dystopian/utopian) social phenomena 
in order to present the user with an escape "into" historical reality - in 
order to explore the very ideological positions that inform our notions of 
"entertainment", "play" and "productive vs. destructive activity". For 
example, what is Koresh defending and why can't he be "reasoned" with? Why 
are his activities considered threatening to the dominant culture? What do 
they gain by destroying him? The violent core of Waco is irreconcilable 
ideological conflict - thus, the only effective tool of communication 
available to both sides is the gun.
___________________________________________________________________

to PAVU EXECUTIVES, MARCH 2004 
 
http://www.pavu.com
 
IA  Is there a manipulative power inside an interactive picture?
OG Absolutely ! It is only a matter of degree depending on whether  you 
scratch a Mormon or a Dud.
ED The question is impossible to answer with one thing; one could for  
instance say with some justification "the bottle bottom theory" but  then 
that goes back to the microscope - otherwise no one would ever see  the ship inside the bottle - and that to the lens, and eyeglasses may  be as 
important as ships in bottles, and so on.
But  we'll  suggest the quantum theory, and include emphatically  quantum 
field theory. The quantum theory forces a revision of our mode  of thinking 
which is far more profound than Newtonian mechanics or the  Copernican 
revolution or relativity. Note that the latter is really in  principle 
impossible, for reasons which have little to do with the  famous Uncertainty 
Principle and a lot to do with exponential  explosions of computations.
CP  i don't understand.
http://www.blue.fr/vinci/dessins/e1.html
IA Does interaction mean necessarily mind participation?
OG Well, a full turntable tour can show that in some cases,  interaction 
does not even mean participation. But this is rare, and in  most situations, 
  the largest spectrum plaids in favour of  reinstatement of the spirit into 
its genuine function. Of course, the  situation is quite different depending 
on whether you scratch a Mormon  or a Dud and is such case, the answer will be no.
ED  We've had social software for 2000 years at most, dated from  Plato's 
Caveat system, and we've only had 10 years or so of widespread  
availability. Writing social software is hard. And the act of writing  
social software is more like the work of an economist or a political  
scientist.
Prior to the Internet, the last technology that had any real effect on  the 
way people sat down and talked together was the table. So it's not  like a 
cake recipe.
We're still learning how to make these kinds of things and of course  they 
differ platform to platform. Still, you now can do soft forking  and soft 
spooning. Social software is like that.
CP  physical ones,.. not always.
IA What are your monsters?
OG  As I said in the french version of this interview, there is a  third 
way in which monsters practice the souple hand style on such high  level 
that it is impossible to set them apart from the masters. But in  the 
english version, things don't go the same, while samples and  masters 
produce a very expressive chiasma that shakes the premium  quality value. 
Shapes look different, but in the end, it so happens  that bifocal 
spectacles become useless.
CP  smokin' bluntz in the car on the nextroute
ED Our monsters come in all shapes and sizes, they also fly. They  have a 
role in any good scenario, and are not used unless they have a  purpose. 
They also tells us that we really completely know the rules of  the game 
which all particles and quanta are playing, so that we can  understand 
everything about ourselves and the world.
IA  Could you qualify yourself as an entertainer?
OG  pavu.com is the Shahriar of the entertainment. Thus, most of the  time, 
we provide the khalifat with belt drive trainings and petrolette  licenses.
ED  There is a lot of confusion surrounding our field. But we are  rockers 
II.
CP  who's who.!.. you entertain me now . . .
IA  Do you think that a state has an interest to give knowledge to the
masses?
ED That hoary problem, as ever in the past, provokes discussion. Like  the 
squaring of the circle it remains unsolved, but unlike it,  continues to be 
the ever-burning question of the day. That is because  the problem is not 
one of mere theoretical interest: it renews and  revives in every-day life 
and presses ever more urgently for solution.
This is the kernel of the problem, as we see it. This does not mean, of  
course, that we must think of waiting for the age of universal harmony.
CP  in a transmition when the quantity of noïse is bigger than the quantity 
of information in a message , the noise became the message .. . another 
point is the vibes ... http://sgm.epfl.ch/enseignement/cours/0304-2/037.pdf 
. .. and now close your eyes. .... . http://www.winwinworld.net/
OG  Generally, given knowledge has very bad teeth. On the other hen,  
ignorants don't bite their dogs. Serious oral knowledge can help the  
deprived persons to feed with meat instead of mascarpone and thus to  access to the status of vegetarian that is the ulimate state of the  intelligence. 
After all, the bull always comes before the plough.
IA  Do you feel close to the idea of the artist as a visionary? Then  do 
you think that the artist has to enlarge people awareness? Is it  your role, 
our role?
OG  Actually, it is the visionary who is commonly regarded as an  artist - 
there is only one step from Galileo to Cape Canaveral,  Léonardo leads us in direct line to the Koursk.  Giordano Bruno and the  Mona Lisa is altogether chance mishaps due to an excess of visions and  Vincent Van Gogh was probably never insane of Afflelou.
ED The artist no longer has to play the role of an visionary. The  
project, tactics and goals to be adopted are a matter for those who do  the 
fighting. What the artist can do is to provide instruments of  analysis, and 
at present this is the critic's essential role. What's  effectively needed 
is a ramified, penetrative perception of the  present, one that makes it 
possible to locate lines of weakness, strong  points, positions where 
instances of power have secured and implanted  themselves by a system of 
organisation dating back over 150 years.
In other words, a topological and geological survey of the battlefield  - 
that is the artist's role. Thousands of men had seen oyster shells  upon the 
hills. But it took Leonardo Da Vinci to realise that they  showed the land 
had once been under the sea.
CP  today the practice raises more the ballistique one than of the  
foil...
http://www.irisa.fr/vista/Themes/Demos/Robotiques/SuiviMvt/Suivi_reel.html
IA  At the "entertainment republics" time, is it possible to use
entertainment strategies to educate people?
ED  As always with entertainment, one is faced with complex phenomena  
which don't obey the Hegelian form of the dialectic. There is an  extremely 
complex system of relations which leads one finally to wonder  how, given 
that no one person can have conceived it in its entirety, it  can be so 
subtle in its distribution, its mechanisms, reciprocal  controls and 
adjustments. It's a highly intricate mosaic. During  certain periods agents 
of liaison appear as entertainers.
Take the example of intelligence since the early twentieth century: one  
cannot determine theoretically whether one propaganda is better than  
another. In other words, there is no ABC of propaganda. One can make  
propaganda, or one cannot. Propaganda is an art.
CP we need another drink , don't you think. . .?
OG  When a question induces a single answer twice, then it is time to  
screen it through post-prométhéan philosophy prism :  "No need fire to  blow the lighter." In other words, it is impossible to educate people  on a 
Ducati without the science of Netotchka Nezvanovna.
IA  Do you agree with Anne Marie Schleiner when she writes: "computer  
games are socializing younger generations of post-industrial citizens."
ED To a sociologist, even the leisure activity of going out for a  pizza 
with friends involves political process. The question of what  goes on the 
pizza, for instance, often requires discussion and debate.  And, as is the 
case in formal political institutions, those who supply  the transportation 
or the money often have a disproportionate influence  in the decision.
CP  please mom buy me a computer. ..   Mom : you want to be  informatician  ..?
CP  No moooomm   . . .. just  citizen.. . clik 'n choose,
Rock 'n folK !  ..
OG  In its time, the Ford T defined the standards of the modern  western 
society.  Today, the lunar jeep definitively ceased nourishing  the 
imagination of rising generation.  One must thus content with  concepts such 
as FishDrowning and openDoorSmash if one wants to  circumscribe the 
communication territories within reasonably permeable  limits.  The way 
indicated by Jung to escape from it consists in  carrying the glance towards 
the "depths" of Self, to integrate  archetypic energies which it reveals.  
This "process of individuation"  is the prerequisite which will in the long 
term open the ways of a  "compromise between the individual and the 
society". But as we all  know, it's a long way to Tipperary.
 
_________________________________________________________
  
to FRAN ILICH, FEBRUARY 2004
 
http://delete.tv/

IA  Is there a manipulative power inside an interactive picture?
FI of course, even in interactive cinema most of the time there is an 
invisible wizard of os who decides what scenes get shot, and which get 
deleted. but at least there is a sense of participation of the 
audience/user. he gets to exercise choice, and those, he gets to exist 
within the actual plot of the movie. we have to remember that no matter how flexible and interactive real life is, it's still limited among it's 
choices. we still have to question if we really are free to choose, when 
options are not infinite.
On the other side, there are interactive films whose continuity is based on 
random scripts... i don't know about that, it's scary, isn't? to think some 
person wrote the script and one can only hope things come out ok. it kind of reminds me of the tragic drama, and how the ancient gods always decided the fate for humans. and it's unbelievable to think even in computers we are 
coming back to such primitive structures, even though they are sometimes 
disguised as ultra evolved.
IA  Does interaction mean necessarily mind participation?
FI  no, not at all. au contraire, if somehow interactivity works it's 
because it follows the logic of corporate capitalism. we actually think we 
are choosing, but we are only consuming what we prefer of whatever options there seem to be. in this way i side more with such thinkers/practicians as brasilian augusto boal who invented the amazing technique of the theater of the opressed and jean-paul sartre.
IA What are your monsters?
FI  people who live their own life as spectators, of course.
IA  Could you qualify yourself as an entertainer?
FI  i believe so, as the city has become a stage where everyone is an 
observer.
IA  Do you think that a state has an interest to give knowledge to the 
masses?
FI  not at all. they want to give the knowledge needed to keep things in 
order. they want to keep secret the fact that another world is possible!
IA  Do you feel close to the idea of the artist as a visionary? Then do you 
think that the artist has to enlarge people awareness? Is it your role, our 
role?
FI  i don;t think the artist has or can be a visionary. maybe sometimes 
visionaries can become artists. and really, people must learn to become 
responsible of themselves. if we can help in lending a tool, a technique, an 
idea, or inspiration, that's great. one can only do what he must do. we are 
just ordinary human beings trying to break free.
IA At the "entertainment republics" time, is it possible to use 
entertainment strategies to educate people?
FI  i think so.
IA : Do you agree with Anne Marie Schleiner when she writes: "computer games are socializing younger generations of post-industrial > citizens."
F I  thru all the ages of humanity one thing has remained true: the human 
must adhere to the program! hehehe. network games are as much of a space as 
a physical space, and those they are social. but other games can be as 
isolating as fiction books or tv, but still sometimes they can inspire don 
quijotes all around the globe!
 _____________________________________________________ 

to NATALIE BOOKCHIN, FEBRUARY 2004

http://action-tank.org/
http://agoraxchange.net/
http://metapet.net/

IA Is there a manipulative power inside an interactive picture?
NB All pictures can manipulate, meaning they can provoke response in a viewer and they take a position in what they include or leave out. Interaction exists in all objects and pictures outside ourselves that we are made to 
confront. Interactivity attempts to direct this confrontation, and thereby 
seeks to choreograph the focus of the viewer,
IA Does interaction mean necessarily mind participation?
NB Yes interaction invites, or rather, insists on participation. Sometimes this participation involves the mind, sometimes it is mindless.
IA What are your monsters?
NB I am experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of having been sliced through the front of my torso and back of my torso recently. At night I sleep on my back, for the first time since I can remember, to quell the monsters that try to attack my body once more.
IA Could you qualify yourself as an entertainer?
NB Only when I throw parties and dinners. Not in my art. That is not at all my intention. Engagement, yes, entertainment, there are many better ways.
IA Do you think that a state has an interest to give knowledge to the masses?
NB Less knowledge and more ideology and mythologies that construct the belief in the need for and solidity of a state as an entity.
IA Do you feel close to the idea of the artist as a visionary?
NB No. not at all. Artists are just those that spend time (some of us anyway) thinking hard about some things and then try to share that with others. We are no more special than any other, we just happen to have the luxury or the need to invoke or provoke thought, feeling, or cognition.
IA Then do you think that the artist has to enlarge people awareness? Is it 
your role, our role?
NB Yes, it is one of the roles I hope I can have in my work.
IA At the "entertainment republics" time, is it possible to use entertainment 
strategies to educate people?
NB SUre.  entertainment, pleasure, play, are all great and useful strategies to educate, motivate, provoke and dismantle staid visions, thoughts and 
emotions.
IA Do you agree with Anne Marie Schleiner when she writes: "computer games are socializing youngergenerations of post-industrial citizens."
NB sure.

 

to NATHAN HACKTIVIST, February 2004

http://www.carbondefense.org/

IA Is there a manipulative power inside an interactive picture?
NH The term interaction is so obviously problematic that it is hard to 
answersuch a question or for me to even visualize what an "interactive 
picture"might be. I think mostly of Erkki Huhtamo's earlier writing on 
interactionand the question of interactivity, it's levels, and degrees, etc. 
Is there amanipulative power? of course. Most interactions are designed 
around apresumption of human actions / movements / and motives. Humans are 
adaptablecreatures that simply compensate for poor design - and sometimes 
pay theprice in physical torment such as carpal tunnel syndrome. The 
designerusually must rely on a manipulation of audience or participant to 
accountfor the impossibility of truly passive interaction in a space such as 
agallery. Looking is the interaction, redirecting that look is 
themanipulation tactic.
IA Does interaction mean necessarily mind participation?
NH Not if you look at the category of interactive art currently modeled 
andexemplified at galleries and events. It might be ideal to consider that 
anecessity but even that would become a fatal flaw. There are levels 
ofinteractive engagement. I flip a switch and a light turns on is one level. 
Asecond level might be generative: I flip a switch in a certain pattern at 
acertain time and with a certain force a light turns on. Artists 
anddesigners rarely account for the specificity of their audience. More 
oftenthan not, they need only a body - with little distinctions between 
bodies.
Most interactive work does not account for the participants, sex, 
gender,ethnic background, likes and dislikes, styles, blood type, 
favoritetoothpaste, fetishes....these are all somehow unimportant as long as 
you cantrigger a sensor. So no interaction definitely in it's 
currentexemplification, mean mind participation - but perhaps the artist 
might usesome mind participation in devising experiences.
IA What are your monsters?
NH Being bored is my monster.
IA Could you qualify yourself as an entertainer?
NH Yes of course. Much of my works end up being delivered as lectures 
orworkshops. These are performances and I hope in some way to remain at 
leastentertaining - we all want to be stimulated, sexually, 
intellectually,argumentatively. I am entertainer and entertained.
IA Do you think that a state has an interest to give knowledge to the masses?
NH A state has a deep interest in filtering knowledge. It is how you 
bothexercise and showcase power. To maintain a power relationship you 
mustdemonstrate the ability to control the information and communication 
gatesthen you must place complacent guards at the doors. The artist must 
findways to escape the filters and look to the periphery to find the hidden 
andobscured. The artist in many different ways and mediums, is a collector - 
ofknowledge, of history, of objects. The artist presents the 
unfilteredresearch to an audience therefore upsetting the state.
IA Do you feel close to the idea of the artist as a visionary? Then do you
think that the artist has to enlarge people awareness? Is it your 
role,our role?
NH I think I explained that above as best I can. I do not think it is a 
futurevisionary role but a peripherally visionary role.
IA At the "entertainment republics" time, is it possible to use entertainment 
strategies to educate people?
NH This I have no answer to right now. I think we will see after many 
moreexperiments. I am only working to educate myself - I do not claim to 
haveany set of knowledge that might benefit anyone other than myself. My 
goal isnot to produce didactic work that teaches but rather exposes 
alternativeways of learning.
IA Do you agree with Anne Marie Schleiner when she writes: "computer games 
are socializing younger generations of post-industrial citizens."
NH Computer games only scare those that don't play them. It has always beenthis 
way with medias. I'm not scared yet - the TV is still killing me.
_____________________________________________________________________________

 
 to PETER LUINING, APRIL 2004 
 
www.ctrlaltdel.org/
IA Is there a manipulative power inside an interactive picture? 
PT Could you be more precise? 
IA Does interaction mean necessarily mind participation? 
PT Please define what you mean here? To come up with a clear definition of
interaction I always define it as interacting that has to do with changing
the physical state of an artwork. In this sense to me it's a mistake to say
that a picture can interact with a mindstate because it doesn't change
anything physical. If you want to relate interaction with a changing
mindstate you'll get a total meaningless definition because we are in this
sense always "interacting".
So for me interactive arts are arts that let people change the physical
state of an art work. Examples are amongst others works by the artist
Rirkrit Tiravanija who for example puts things in a space and people can
change the position of the things, play with them, etc. or Jodi's untitled
game, you can play and you can manipulate it directly. 
IA  By interactive picture, I mean all the images with which we can
interact, in games, installations, networks, CD, DVD. The second question is
about interactivity with artworks or with life. I was educated by cultural
sociology that argues that everything is cultural and pre-determined, so
what is the part of freedom or consciousness in our actions in life or in
our interactions with artworks? The two first questions are related to each
other. 
PT I would define an interactive artwork as a piece in which you can change
something virtual or physical, so that the piece stays changed after
altered by a user.
The implications you ask for are of course something different. In fact this
brings into mind research of how people act or don't, and for example how
they move through (virtual) space. Somehow I have to think of
psychogeography and the ways people read information (in our western culture
this is left right, in lot of other cultures it is right to left).
Though aware of this kind things, and knowing that in the
(interaction)design area there's lots of interest in this kind of research I
never went deep into it. On the more practical level though, you can't get
around it. And with this I especially want to point to interactive
installations or netart presentations in artspaces and museums. Here the
problem is in my eyes even on another level and is not how people interact,
but if they will interact with an artpiece at all. I have done a lot of
experimenting with installations in which people could interact. And of
course at openings everybody is always playing with them, but my experience
is that after the opening hardly anybody touches the thing. Though there is
I think a cultural difference with this. Especially in countries located in
Northern Hemisphere the art audience is educated to have respect towards
artworks and art is mostly a solitaire experience, this results in people
hardly daring to touch or change artworks if they are confronted with them.
And with technical stuff there's of course also still the fear of a
potential user that (s)he could do something wrong and damage the equipment.
In the more Southern countries there's a different attitude towards art. A
lot of people visit artspaces always in small groups that discuss the things
they see and probably because they are in groups are more open to try
technical things out. So when confronted with something that needs
interaction they will in most cases play with it. 
 IA What are your monsters? 
PT Because the theme is mindcontrol I guess you aim here at monsters in the the
sense of spooks? 
IA Could you qualify yourself as an entertainer? 
PT No, I see myself as an artist. 
IA Do you think that a state has an interest to give knowledge to the
masses? 
PT What is a state and who make up a state? Probably you mean here the people
in power of a state... If this is correct, yes I think that the people in
power have an interest in giving knowledge to the masses, but of course only
if it is knowledge that fits the needs of those who are in power. 
IA Do you feel close to the idea of the artist as a visionary? 
PT No, I think the idea of the artist as a visionary is a idea that stems from
the worn out classic idea of the avant-garde. As Peter Burger pointed out in
his book "The theory of the Avant Garde" the only mission of the avant garde
is to abolish art and to bring art in everyday life, a mission that from the
beginning was set to fail because when everything is art, art becomes
obsolete. 
IA Then do you think that the artist has to enlarge people
awareness? 
PT No, I want to recall Marx here "the masses can only become aware of their
position by themselves" I don't believe in Leninist or Stalinist doctrines
of an avantgarde. 
IA Is it your role, our role? 
PT For god sake no. I think art needs it's space and freedom, it should not be
invaded by social cultural theories and dogmas. History over the last 30
years has shown that importing those theories in the field arts in most
cases just let to boring and predictable art. Please let people that make
literal translations of this theories into art go and do something else and
become for example theorists. 
BTW this doesn't mean that I hate social engagement, but just that it
shouldn't become a dominant and or dogmatic factor in the arts or production
of art. What artists on the other hand could do is be more critical about the
context in which they show their work themselves or better be aware what
organizers or sponsors aim at with festivals and competitions. A good
example of this is El Mundo's (Spanish rightwing newspaper) that did a
netart competition and presentation at Arco (Spanish art) back in 2001.
Nearly the whole netart community jumped on this occasion without realizing
that netart could be used by this newspaper to give it a progressive image. 
IA At the "entertainment republics" time, is it possible to use
entertainment strategies to educate people? 
PT Here we go again... As said above I don't see any sense in educating people
with art or art entertainment strategies. Most of the art that is made that
way is more boring than the latest version of... Quake. Also I think
that the only people who are interested in this kind of work are
people that are already engaged. 
IA Do you agree with Anne Marie Schleiner when she writes: "computer
games are  socializing younger generations of post-industrial citizens." 
PT Really nothing to add here because though I understand Anne Marie
Schleiner point and I think it's interesting, for me it's really far away
from my practise as an artist. To bring it back to a more practical level
that's of more interest to me, I think computer games and game modules but
also things like cell phones do not only shape a new kind socialization for
younger generations (think of sms). But make handling these technological
devices for them much easier. For example: where I see children easy reach
out to a mouse in exhibition space and immediately start to try out and
play with a piece of software, a lot of "older" people often think twice
before they start to play. 
Somehow this last question made me aware of underlying premises of the
earlier questions of your interview. And probably I would have answered
some different when I would have started with the last question.
Though I really think that new technology changes all kind of
behaviour and the way we
think, most of it's implications are really still in the phase of
speculation. What I said somewhere earlier, there's lots of research
going on how people go through pages or navigate through games
especially in the field of (action)design. Artists working in this
field often don't have or use this knowledge, and
what they in a lot of cases simple do is reverse of better subvert standard
ways of navigation or for example hacking characters out of a game. All this
gives interesting opportunities to show how we already are used to deal with
ways the industry delivers ways of interaction. But if you relate it to art,
most of this work doesn't seem to get rid of the games aesthetics and
besides that the work is of course using aesthetics of failure (see
also Michelle White's "Aesthetics of failure") which is nowadays
becoming more and more a kind of well known and wide applied strategy
that seems to go dead end. Somehow it strongly reminds me of
deconstructivist discussions that in fact you only
can deconstruct and deconstruct because meanings will always become
coagulations and therefore totalitarian. So deconstruction became a goal in
itself which delivered in the end nothing new.