Within Post-Internet: Part One - Louis Doulas

Within Post-Internet: Part OneLouis DoulasNoteThis essay was originally intended to exist alongside of, what was to be,an ambitious essay series expounding on what was, and can be called, the“Post-Internet condition.” Written in late 2010 and published in early 2011,“Within Post-Internet: Part One” was a modest (and perhaps naive) attemptat making lucid the term “Post-Internet,” as well as a defense of what it purportedlyexemplified. (At the time the term was met with bewilderment,speculation, and for the most part being used uncritically–the exception beingthe excellent expositions initially put forth by Gene McHugh and ArtieVierkant.) There is a considerable amount of material I trimmed at the lastminute before debuting the essay on Pool (www.pooool.info), a website andpublication I founded in 2011. My intention was to publish these omissionsin Pool as new essays in the series mentioned, however, I never even madeit that far. After some time, I could no longer find myself interested in defendingthe term. Feeling I could no longer identify with the term–as wellas the community it supposedly framed–I eventually abandoned the project.What you read here then is only an incomplete and initial framework, a kindof introduction that falls a bit short in many places. That said, given theseshortcomings, I hope the reader can still take away a morsel of somethingfrom it.1. Sketching a genealogyWhile Post-Internet is a term still awkward and vague to many, it wasfirst conceived by artist Marisa Olson, most widely encountered in a 2008interview conducted through the website, We Make Money not Art. Herdefinition acknowledges that internet art can no longer be distinguished asbeing strictly computer or internet based, rather, it may be identified as anytype of art that is in some way influenced by the internet and digital media.“I think it’s important to address the impacts of the internet onculture at large, and this can be done well on networks but can1

and should also exist offline.” 1In the interview, she also aligns her definition alongside net artist GuthrieLonegran’s own term, “Internet Aware Art,” 2 which is taken to be understoodas the following: when the documentation of an art object is more widelydispersed and viewed than the actual object itself. More recently in 2009,writer Gene McHugh further articulated the definition, understanding it tobe when the internet is, “less a novelty and more a banality.” 3 Furthermorein 2010, in artist Artie Vierkant’s essay, “The Image Object Post-Internet,”Vierkant considers the term,a result of the contemporary moment: inherently informed byubiquitous authorship, the development of attention as currency,the collapse of physical space in a networked culture, and theinfinite reproducibility and mutability of digital materials. 4Each definition and interpretation, though varying slightly in meaning,ultimately results in what is a proposal for a new definition of art: one thatexists under some form of network influence. A 2011 tweet from artist Harmvan den Dorpel perhaps best reveals these conditions.Doesn’t the impact of the internet on arts reach far beyond artthat deals with the internet? 5Thus, Post-Internet, specifically within the context of art, simply couldbe understood as a term that represents the digitization and decentralizationof all contemporary art via the internet, signifying as well, the abandonmentof all New Media specificities. Post-Internet then, it seems, is not a category,but a condition: a contemporary art.1 Regine Debatty, “Interview with Marisa Olson,” We Make Money not Art (2008),http://we-make-money-not-art.com/archives/2008/03/how-does-one-become-marisa.php2 Thomas Beard, “Interview with Guthrie Lonergan,” Rhizome, (2008),http://rhizome.org/editorial/2008/mar/26/interview-with-guthrie-lonergan/3 Gene McHugh, Post-Internet blog, (2009-11), http://122909a.com/4 Artie Vierkant, “The Image Object Post-Internet,” Jst Chillin’, (2010),http://jstchillin.org/artie/vierkant.html5 Harm van den Dorpel, Tweet, (2011), http://twitter.com/#!/harmvddorpel2

2. Post-Internet as a conditionIt is through such an understanding that we can propose all contemporaryart created after the internet to be deduced to an art that has been, tosome effect, mediated by the network itself, along with the properties of othermedia technologies and consumer products. At its most basic, this is art’sdouble existence through various forms of digital documentation (standardizedfrom the 90s onward based on emerging prosumer technologies) rangingfrom videos to gifs to jpegs, and ultimately to its presentation on the artistwebsite, as well as its dissemination to other websites, blogs, etc. At its mostcomplicated, however, is art’s transformation from its previous traditionalexistence into one that explicitly utilizes the properties most intrinsic to thenetwork itself. What does this mean? What now exists, is an art that ismade before the internet–and thus before its assimilation into the network–and an art that is made during or after this. It is perhaps because emergingtechnology, namely the internet, has altered the way we contextualize art,that the future of art, if we are to be so bold, will exist under heavy influenceof such arrangements. All art, if we are to speculate, will soon enough–if notalready–fully incorporate, and eventually embody or exploit these properties.Contemporary art and its participants thus redefine themselves through theseconditions.3. Abandoning New MediaAs very hastily outlined above, there exists an art that relies on digitizationand the internet to represent and disseminate itself into the world,simply for documentary purposes, merely as a means to an end, and an artthat creatively and critically engages these platforms either through physicalrealization, “immaterial” formats, or both. The large range of works producedwithin this latter type of art making, however, yield a multitude ofintentions, aesthetics, and philosophies, all varying between its participantsin oscillating levels of self-awareness and criticality. Because the practiceswithin this type of art making are largely divergent, they seem to beg forsome clarification through one definitive term. And, it is here, one mightrecall Lev Manovich’s ambitious blueprint comprising five basic principles 66 Lev Manovich, The Language of New Media, Cambridge: MIT Press, (2001),http://www.manovich.net/LNM/index.html3

for what constitutes and determines, what we would typically consider tobe “New Media” artworks. 7 However, what is formerly recognizable as NewMedia art today is met with an abundance of different understandings anddefinitions, and thus Manovich’s principles lose some, if not all, of their tractionin cooperating with, what seems to be, an ever expanding term. In anonline article published this year focused on such concerns, artist Brian Kheknicely summarizes the amalgamated term as it exists today,I think it’s also important to remember that New Media art isn’tlimited to digital or online works either. New Media related conceptsand dialogue can be expressed in any medium. With thatlogic I’ve always had some problems with identifying things asNew Media art. For me, it tends to behave as a term for workthat involves current technology and phenomena associated withit. Others use it specific to work that utilizes New Media as amaterial. 8Through Khek’s understanding, we can see how New Media as a term isone that determines itself through a large and expansive canon. However,just as Olson recognized that internet art belongs to both an offline and onlineexistence, the dissolution of New Media as a defining term is determined byits ubiquitous translation and integration into the work of all contemporaryartists. As technology and the internet inherently inform and mediate thework of the contemporary artist, the abandonment of New Media is markedwith the abandonment of its specificities, recognizing that Post-Internet generouslyencapsulates all of these conditions. But, because Post-Internet opensup such a large pool of work, new, temporary classifications as a strategy forcomprehension must be carried out. Such classifications may likely evenechoe Manovich’s own principles.7 Manovich’s five principles are a well-organized method for “New Media” identificationusing numerical representation, modularity, variability, automation and transcoding asdefining characteristics.8 Yolanda Green, “An Unknown Error Has Occurred: New Media and Glitch Art,”Chicago Art Magazine, (2011), http://chicagoartmagazine.com/2011/01/an-unknownerror-has-occurred-new-media-and-glitch-art/4

4. Speculating on what’s to comeLet’s recap. Today, we find that most of all our art experiences aremediated online, as an art existing through various forms of digital documentation.If all Post-Internet artists have one thing in common it is that alltheir artwork is digitized and may be regarded as existing in “immaterial”formats as “immaterial” entities, regardless of intention. However, a conflictcan be observed from these commonalities: certainly not all digitized, immaterialartworks adhere to the same intentions. While all contemporary artmay very well be digitized online and “equalized” in this vein, it is becauseeach artist utilizes these platforms so differently, for different purposes andwith different agendas that conflicting notions of display emerge. If we followthese conflicts, what we arrive at is an art that is digitized through conversionand an art that is digitized from inception. The former would include artobjects that have been digitally documented, and the latter would includewebsites, digital images, videos, sound pieces, etc., essentially all media thatdoesn’t require exhibition outside one’s own private computing space, anart strictly created on the computer (or through other digital technologies)meant for viewing on the computer (or projection, monitor, etc.). This typeof art likely regards the gallery context display of itself as an ornamental one,unnecessary for the experience of such works. There is a difference then, inan art that chooses to exist outside of a browser window and an art thatchooses to stay within it–that continues to stay digitized and immaterial.This difference also means recognizing the distinct polarities between onlineand offline art models and the translations that occur from one space to theother. It is here a potential severance between participants exists and assuch, ultimately comes down to the philosophies and politics of the artist:between what we can call the traditional and the ideal.20105