These virtual digital works are hidden from the naked eye but visible to anyone with an iPhone, Android or Nokia smartphone and an app called the Layar Reality Browser, that can be downloaded for free from iTunes, the Android Market or the Ovi Store.

For more about previous showings of (Un)seen Sculptures and to find out what’s been done in this field elsewhere in the world, follow some of the links in the AR Art Links box in the sidebar on this site.

If you want to create your own mobile augmented reality art, click on the DIY link at the top of this same site for some tips to get you started and some ideas about other directions to take your work.

14. April 2014, Seoul

Dear Lily & Honglei,


This is a formal invitation letter to attend the Digital Art Weeks festival in Seoul.

The ETH Zurich based festival Digital Art Weeks is a meeting point between art, science and technology. Over the last eight years, DAW has been fostering collaboration and knowledge exchange worldwide. Its program offers a unique insight into current research and innovations in arts, science and technology illustrating resulting synergies in a series  of interdisciplinary projects, making artist aware of impulses in technology and scientists aware of the possibilities of application of technology in the arts.

This year, the festival is organized in collaboration with Seoul National University, Sogang University, KAIST University,
National Chengchi University, Museum of Art on the SNU campus and Platoon Kunsthalle.

The festival will take place from the 2nd of October to 8th of December 2014 and includes the following events:

  1. Hybrid Highlights Exhibition in the Museum of Arts (MoA)

  2. The Conference on Convergence and Creativity Museum of Arts (MoA)

  3. OFF Label exhibition and performances in Platoon Kunsthalle Seoul

  4. Augmented Reality exhibition in the Changdeokgung Palace’s Secret Garden and Culture Station 281 Seoul

Your work regarding the themes of the Hybrid Highlights Exhibition as well as the OFF LABEL event represents an important contribution that will influence collaborative nature of the Festival. Due to funding guidelines and high cost of holding the festival, we have very limited possibilities of support. Therefore, we are providing this letter in hope that it will facilitate the access to other funding sources that are available to you. The festival in turn will provide a unique opportunity to present in diverse context with high level of visibility, which will inevitable further your career and offer future opportunities internationally.



Arthur Clay

Director DAW International


DAW Seoul Update

Dear DAW Participants,

We hope you are all doing well and enjoying the early spring weather. We are now in the middle of preparation for the DAW Seoul and would like to share with you some updates on the festival planning.

This year DAW festival will include the following events:

Hybrid Highlights Exhibition in MoA (Museum of Modern Art) Seoul


Participating Artists:
Jin-Kyu Jung, Simon Schubiger-Banz, Raffaello D’andrea, Enrico Costanza,
Jackson 2Bears, Ted Hiebert, Doug Jarvis, Haru Ji & Graham Wakefield,
K-Soul  & Jardin Cosmique, EPFL- Human Brain Project, John Craig Freeman,
Laile Pasquale, Selected Swiss Game Artist Designers


The Conference on Convergence and Creativity in MoA (Museum of Modern Art)

Convergence Section- Dae-Shik Kim and Bernhard Egger
Creativity Section- Haru Ji and Graham Wakefield
Hybridization Section- Lichia Saner-Yiu and Raymond Saner

4.10.2014 Convergence Section
11.10.2014 Creativity Section
18.10.2014 Hybridization Section


OFF Label exhibition and performances at Platoon Kunsthalle Seoul

3-5.10.2014 Performances
7-12.10.2014 Exhibitions

Participating Artists:
Urich Lau, Lim Shengen, K-soul, Stefan Mueller Arizona in collaboration
with Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz, Marcel Gaspar, Teow Yue Han


Augmented Reality exhibition in the Changdeokgung Palace’s Secret Garden
and Culture Station 281 Seoul

Lily & Honglei art studio, new media art

Ancient painting of Changdeokgung Palace and Huwon Garden, a UNESCO World Heritage site.

Lily & Honglei


Participating Artists:
Guests Artists Taipei, Virtuale Switzerland (Peter Aerschmann, Curious
Minds, Franzsika Furter, Herve Grauman, Michael Spahr)


Digital Art Weeks


Over the last few years, we have been witness to the emergence of the use of the virtual in public space. The manifestation of the virtual and the interplay of it with the real are changing the concept of public space and the perception of art that is now being presented in it. The integration process of the virtual into the real is also clearly affecting the way in which cultural institutions are now presenting and meditating art, as well as how this process is bringing the demand for new and innovate ways to link the virtual to the real GDR Fig 1. Photo of a Banksy graffiti work at the Israeli West Bank barrier in Bethlehem This change to the virtual has its root in the rise of affordable mobile technology and innovative software applications such as LAYAR and Junaio, which have allowed artists to make use of them in new ways. The application mobile technology in the realm of the arts has lead to completely new forms of art and has brought about new ways to consume and mediate it outside of the practices of established platforms such as museums and galleries. Further, artists have also found new solutions in terms of presentation and the ability to position “art” per se as an integral part of the community. The availability of art has increased and is now being consumed by a larger, more diverse audience. New aesthetics have emerged and are still maturing from the mobile arts movement and the way of understanding the arts today for artists, curators, theorists, and arts manager now entails intermediating between the real and the virtual, as well as between the artist and the larger non-museum going public.

Fig 2.  “AR Skywriting” by Will Pappenheimer

What is Augmented Reality Art?

In a similar way to the British graffiti artist, Banksy who in the early 90s’ went beyond the gallery walls by adding a touch of optical integration into street art, artists using Augmented Reality today to virtually place their work in public space can be understood more or less as the technically hip graffiti artists creating the street art of the 21st century. They, like Bansky have re-validated public space as a viable venue for the arts. But what exactly is Augmented Reality and how does it work? In its simplest sense, Augmented Reality enhances a real-world environment with graphics, audio or other stored or generated media. In this way, Augmented Reality is really the art of combining virtual content with physical reality. It can also involve engagement through interactivity and force the viewer into proactive participation in a way yet unknown to the art world.

Lily & Honglei new media art, new media artist from China

Lily & Honglei: Butterfly Lovers augmented reality art

Fig. 3. 2D AR Artwork (“Butterfly Lovers” by Lily & Honglei, Virtuale in Hong Kong 2013 during SIGGRAPH Asia)

Diverse Approaches to AR

AR artists have taken diverse approaches in terms of creating artworks using AR technology and these approaches can be passive or active in terms of interactivity and can include moving or non-moving images in 2D and or 3D. However, the art-object itself is actually of second importance, because the actual context of the artwork and how the visitor “explores” the work plays much more of a decisive role in terms of the artwork’s identity.

Fig. 4. 3D AR Artwork (“Orators” by John Craig Freeman, Virtuale in Hong Kong 2013 during SIGGRAPH Asia)

It is also important to understand that some AR artworks are viewable at only specific locations while others are viewable everywhere. In the opinion of the authors, those artworks that are at fixed locations tend to be of more relevance to the genre, because they stand in a more intimate relationship to the environment that they are placed in, offering a stronger dialog between the work and its locations. Some AR artworks are always facing you, meaning that the spatial relationship between the viewer and the artwork stays in constant relationship, but a few AR Artworks allow you to walk into them, letting the viewer explore them from the inside as well as from the outside.

Fig. 5. AR Artwork that is explored from the inside out (“Funnels” by Will Pappenheimer, No Need for Real Exhibition, Triennial di Milano)

Beyond Virtual Graffiti: Interactivity

Interactivity belongs to a second generation of AR artworks and it is important factor, because its use affects how an AR artwork appears and more so how it redefines the virtual space it is occupying. This type of interaction is unique to the genre and perhaps for the first time in history that the viewer is able to physically explore an artwork in such a way. In “Things We Have Lost” by John Craig Freeman, EEG is used to create interactivity between the viewer and the artwork. The work uses a database of objects that were collected by first asking the people what they’ve lost. These include a broad range of lost items from the usual things such as wallets, watches and money to less usual such as pensions, empires and dodo birds. During viewing, the participants conjure up the virtual objects by simply imagining them into existence using the brainwave sensor technology provided as they walk through the city. With the artwork, “Biomer Skelters” by Will Pappenheimer and Tamiko Thiel, it can be seen that AR has moved from its initial Bansky like beginning to fully interactive mobile artwork. For this work, a tour guide, wearing a heart rate monitor plants indigenous or exotic vegetation as they move through the city. Technically this works as follows.

Fig 6. “Drone” by Will Pappenheimer (Window Zoos Exhibition, DAW Singapore 2013)

The heart rate of each tour guide is picked up and then transmitted via Bluetooth to an Android cell phone. The tour guide starts a custom program and begins walking through the city and the phone begins to vibrate as vegetation is planted. The guide can walk as long as wanted, planting vegetation. In terms of the group being guided, each of its members uses an iPad or a cell phone logged onto the Biomer Skelters Layar from which they can view the creation trail and population of vegetation created by the guide.

From Pleasure to Politics

Works using AR are not only genre works or “art for art” per se. On account of the tools involved, how the artworks use public space, and the connections that can be made between the artwork and space, they are able to pick up on make diverse statements, become integral parts of missions (such as Sustainability) and take on diverse forms of representations and communication. The international arts group ManifestAr is a collective of artists working in diverse ways with the technology, but who as a group have been exhibiting worldwide. Their manifest gives some insight into to possible roles of AR artworks: ”Augmented Reality is a new Form of Art, but it is Anti-Art. It is Primitive, which amplifies its Viral Potency. It is Bad Painting challenging the definition of Good Painting. It shows up in the Wrong Places. It Takes the Stage without permission. It is Relational Conceptual Art that Self-Actualizes”.

Read more on Tafter Journal N. 66, December 2013

Cyber-Animism and Augmented Dreams: The urge to augment

by Tamiko Thiel


To those who were active in the first wave of virtual reality online in the mid 1990s, the current boom in augmented reality (AR) has a strange sense of déjà vu. Tamiko Thiel did pioneering work on online 3D virtual worlds with Starbright World from 1994-1997, and is now one of the founding members of the augmented reality cyberartists’ group Manifest.AR. In this informal report she explicates the underlying parallels she sees in the lure of cyberspace, then and now, and how AR artists are bringing the gap between seen and unseen realities.

Reconstituting History and Culture in New Media Art: Lily and Honglei's Work and Inspiration

Beijing artists Lily and Honglei (Xiying Yang and Honglei Li) have been developing ‘Land of Illusion’ new media art project since 2006. The piece is constructed in cyberspace with virtual traditional Chinese architecture where Lily and Honglei have created a series of networked-performances and multimedia installations. It is a cultural meditation engaging history, philosophy, as well as Chinese diaspora. The work examines the current economic development of China within the context of globalization, while simultaneously exploring the meaning of virtual online communities in terms of global dialogues as they relate to cultural roots and the fantasy of China. ‘Land of Illusion’ also functions as a net-art platform aiming to fulfill the premise that the Internet is the direct continuation of Enlightenment thought, namely by promoting cultural openness, decentralization and independent thinking. As Chinese contemporary artists, Lily and Honglei consider that these notions are extremely relevant to art-making. The book includes more than 100 images of Lily and Honglei’s virtual reality work, as well as animated films inspired by Chinese folkloric traditions.

Out new book ‘Fine Arts Film – Social Reflection in Multimedia Art’ is now available on – both paper back and Kindle edition:

Fine Art Film by Lily & Honglei

Honglei and Lily (Honglei Li, Xiying Yang) are two contemporary artists of our generation who represent the future direction of multimedia and mixed-realities arts for our time. Their first-hand experiences in Beijing for the greater part of their youthful years and later in New York City are inestimable, and bring a new vision to any society and institution which they engage. Lily & Honglei draw their generation¿s unique artistic expression informed by powerful eyewitness experiences resulting from ‘Tiananmen Incident’ to ‘September 11,’ a generation whose psyches are indelibly trapped in a struggle to make sense of a fractured world and a future, which will guarantee independent thinking. Lily & Honglei attempt to carve their personal path and journey for freedom of artistic and intellectual expressions. Their work asserts aspects of western fantasies that are revealed as ¿vacuous¿ when tested and that there is greater need than ever before for truthful understandings from both East and West as they enter into a newly profound global relationship.

– Bryan McFarlane

Printed Version:

Kindle Version:

The Immediated Now: Network Culture and Poetics of Reality

by Kazys Varnelis

Translation by Lily & Honglei

Translated from the English version at  (please visit the page for comments)

在整个九十年代,数字计算和网络技术在很大程度上只应用于办公室工作,其文化影响仅限于个别专有领域的爱好者。如果说这十年的新媒体艺术形成了一种非常重要的艺术亚文化,它基本上还是孤立和自我参照的,部分原因是由于艺术家们对黑客文化的迷恋,由于长期以来格林伯格主义者(Greenbergian)的艺术审察, 还由于艺术机构将其边缘化。在电脑离开有限的用户群体, 成为有广泛社会功能之前,瓦克﹒寇司克(Vuk Cosic),朱迪(Jodi),阿列克谢﹒舒利金(Alexei Shulgin),和希思﹒班廷(Heath Bunting)等艺术家重演了二十世纪初的前卫战略,同时将图形与八十年代黑客文化的程序演示平等化[1]

今天,相比之下,数字技术,是日常生活中的明确无误的存在,并逐渐与地来自主流社会的需要和公约不可分割的。网络文化是一个广泛的社会文化的转变,就像后现代性,并不限于科技发展或“新媒体” [2] 。正因为数字和网络技术的成熟与当代文化是不可分割的, 我们必须在更宽广的背景下理解其, 事实上, 这甚至比电视产生于后现代的现象更令人瞩目。今天, 可以说, 所有的艺术都是网络艺术的一种延伸。

这种调查不能仅限于网络,但也不能仅限于“艺术”。随着把文化产业的产品带入艺术,后现代主义提出所谓高和低的问题(认为沃霍尔或晚些的巴巴拉.克鲁格,辛迪.舍曼,杰夫.昆斯, 以及理查德普林斯, 为典型的早期现代主义的艺术家), 但网络文化将这种区别完全消除。网络文化中的艺术将观众的欲望显现化解为艺术合作, 并模糊了艺术与媒体和公众的界限 [3]。正象艾伦.刘所建议, 随着知识的广泛传播, 对时尚的态度和机敏变得比历史的深入了解更为重要,文化产物的 ‘酷’ 或‘不酷’比其地位的高和低更重要(实际上,现在普遍认为,除非该对象首先“很酷”,将它塑造成“高级”是一种媚俗之举) [4]。不过,作为网络艺术书籍而非网络文化产品中的一部分,我们的重点仍是艺术。但我们也将漫游得远一些,对文化产品,高,低等标准,在线或非在线作更广泛的调查。因此,本文探讨的不仅是关于Turbulence.org的内容,也包括电视与YouTube, 或者画廊。

具体说,这一章讲述网络文化产品如何利用现实,从电视现实节目、博客、MySpace、YouTube直到艺术画廊。现实艺术为高度的即时感打造了正式结构和更深的含义。但是这种直接是调解和分散的,而非真实与存在的。谈论一件作品是“现实”媒体并不意味着它不是编攥的。相反, “现实”媒体中的真实之所以迷人,是由于有现实电视节目、业余生成的内容,或以具体策略创作的专业 “艺术”:自我曝光、信息视觉化、文献资料员角色、混合以及参与艺术。我们也不应该期望所有这些是用来区别高、低艺术的途径;理所当然,以前的艺术也将影响原先的非艺术。在当即现实的背景下,本文将初步调查研究5个艺术方向。在看代这种艺术的实践时,重要的是了解它们在更广泛的网络文化中的意义,以及它们如何发挥作用。


就主题而言,与宫廷或理想化主题相反,经典现实主义歌颂日常生活。这的现实态度挑战贵族主义审美的主导地位,打破旧秩序中高尚主题及老生常谈的审美[5]。直到十八世纪,文化生产者认为发明创造应符合社会习俗与礼仪,他们依赖的是主观的内在能力,如洞察力与独到见解。在这方面,像现实主义小说家亨利﹒菲尔丁(Henry Fielding)、塞缪尔﹒理查森(Samuel Richardson),或者流派画家让-巴蒂斯-西美翁-夏尔丹(Jean-Baptiste-Simé), 或一个世纪以后的古斯塔夫﹒库尔贝(Gustav Courbet)其作品平行于笛卡尔(René Descartes),对于他们来说真理是个人观察的问题,理解是通过个人感官对世界进行认知的产品。随着将日常事物转化艺术,现实主义体现了人类想象力的改革潜力。

与早先的文学艺术相比,现实主义作品显得忽略形式,避免严格的传统结构[6]。这种对于预先定义结构的忽略强调了生活经验的首要地位——它是高于传统的。然而,现实主义仍依靠社会习俗来加强这一观念,人为普遍真理超越日常生活。以小说情节为例: 如果小说家讲述日常生活中的片断,这种片断的弧形叙事形式总要显示连贯性以及揭示日常生活的更深的意义。再以小说中个人性质为例:通过描绘内心世界斗争,小说描述了生活的全部,不只是它的公众外表,从而强调了个体的重要性,并给予个人行为和道德以新的价值。因此,当卢卡契(Georg Lukacs)赞誉现实主义作品全面地表现社会经济生活时,他阐述的现实主义背后的基本原则(如马克思主义的形式)[7]。现实主义的出现是伴随着资产阶级的崛起;以此类推,如果现在有迹象表明一个新的阶级结构正在形成——至少在发达国家中,劳动力的主要形式正从工厂工作转移到非物质生产与知识工作,我们不应该为这种新的认知世界的途径感到惊讶[8]

Figure 2
Richard Estes,《Oenophilia》, 1983

Figure 3
Peter Halley,《牢房里的烟囱管道》, 1985

后现代主义也是一个关键的过渡性时期,探索在大众传播媒介压力下的真实的碎片(包括符号和主题)[9]。超现实艺术家,如理查德|埃斯蒂斯(Richard Estes)发展了一种精神分裂意识的表象与符号,一种幻觉现实,其能力超过了无论是照片或眼睛,一个条件,哈尔﹒福斯特(Hal Foster)形容这种状态是 “被表象所淹没。” 挪用艺术家如理查德﹒普林斯(Richard Prince), 雪莉﹒莱文(Sherri Levine),以及(早期)辛迪﹒舍曼(Cindy Sherman)在质疑作品著作权和财产拥有权时评价道,现实是由媒体表现所构建的。像艾伦﹒麦科考伦(Allan McCollum)和彼得﹒哈雷(Peter Halley)等模拟艺术家延深了挪用艺术观念,他们创造所谓中性作品,自称既无情感、原创性也无作品著作权,而是迎合市场和媒体重复性质。在后现代主义的后期,赤贫艺术家如麦克﹒凯利 (Mike Kelly),保罗﹒麦卡锡 (Paul McCarthy),琪琪﹒史密斯 (Kiki Smith),安德烈﹒塞拉诺 (Andreas Serran)和(后期)辛迪﹒舍曼(Cindy Sherman)捕捉代表创伤的现实符号,通过模拟人体排泄物、受伤的躯体,或者损坏的童年物品来探索侵犯与亵渎。福斯特(Foster)指出,他们是在一种情感已殆尽的艺术氛围中创作。对后现代主义艺术家而言,创伤语汇同时是一种批判,是对个人身份的政治问题的呼吁[10]。总之,那么,后现代艺术是对于碎裂标志和主题的阐述[11]


儒勒﹒米什莱(Jules Michelet)的观察表明,每一个时代都梦想下一个时代的来临。后现代主义的梦想是网络文化[12]。为了声明叙事的死亡,后现代主义制造了围绕的跨国资本主义网络的、新的叙事[13]。然而,在后现代文化中,网络的作用还是新生的——显而易见,当互联网尚未私有化或被显著地资本殖民,当移动技术还是新事物——网络文化的复杂性——例如,开放资源的增长,知识工作者的崛起,信息商品盗版盛行,自下而上生产的重要性,以及报纸等传统信息产业的迅速衰落——都是未曾预见的。因此,正如后现代出现于现代主义过程完结之际,网络文化只能产生于后现代历程结束之时。今天,标志的破碎,主题的结束,任何媒体真实感的解体分裂都已是既成事实。如果后现代主义欢庆主题破灭,网络文化则认为这种破灭是理所当然的。


如果说现代主义将自身在历史叙事上合法化,后现代利用理论来批判这种合法性,并反映其自身地位,网络文化则消除任何历史或理论意义[16]。取而代之的只是留下直接现实,避开任何合法性或批评,仅此而已。批判工业社会的同质性常见于现代艺术中,后现代主义如今已吸收进经营理念,工厂工人被具有灵活就业 “自由”(这也意味着没有任何利益或工作保障)和作为创意阶层成员、具有自我表现特权的知识工人所取代[17]



将直接真实对网络文化的重要性表现得最清楚是电视真人秀节目和网络摄像。在90年代和21世纪初,如MTV《真正的世界》,承诺节目是对日常生活的一瞥。但是,通过一个有长久习俗的媒介的演播,它迅速下降为剧本制作产品,像《大哥哥》、《幸存者》或《恐惧因素》、《美国偶像》,只不过是改写的游戏节目,其中包括现金奖励,或对选手进行媒体明星的许诺[20]。现实电视节目已明确地纳入电视文化,然而,在喜剧《办公室》——被框架为一个现实电视节目——其中人物经常直接对电视镜头谈话,并维持该节目的网站博客。 2005年,在一个艺术与现实电视的交叉节目中,马里萨|奥尔森Marisa Olson为《美国偶像》试镜,并有关于该过程的博客

最纯粹的现实文化不是在电视上,而是网上摄像。在Jennicam中,珍妮(Jennifer Ringle)为每日300至400万访客提供了一个未经审查、对她个人生活的连续窥视。像其他网络摄像,或与此类似的、最近的实时传送网站,《Jennicam》表现现实文化的重要方面:没有叙事弧线或任何更深一层的意义,而是瞥视一个希望暴露自己的个体的私人生活。这一瞥是不是单向的; Ringley经常与观众通电子邮件和聊天,该过程也可见于《Jennicam》。

第二个传送24小时的网络摄像是Anacam,由艺术家安娜﹒伍格(Ana Voog)创作。自1997年播放以来,像《Jennicam》一样,《Anacam》是对伍格生活的一瞥。不同之处是她的项目包括表演艺术,并指示在无形的观众作为鉴赏家与偷窥狂的不断监查下,它终将崩溃在表演与生活之间。伍格在镜头前进行性活动,并将于1998年施行隆胸术[21]

除了网络摄像,即时现实盛产整个互联网文化。博客、社交网站和Twitter都提供了自我曝光的平台。eBaum世界或 YouTube等网站在很大程度上具有相同功能,大多数录像据称是真实的,有的滑稽、愚蠢、或危险的事情,有的直接与观众对白,所有这些做法的意图都是吸引在线观众。电脑病毒营销和媒体制作商(如“寂寞女孩15”或“小洛卡”)也利用直接与观众对白以及业余网络影像产品来达成这种吸引力[22]。最近,甚至色情文学都失去了虚构感、叙事弧线与利润——颇具有讽刺意味的是,在20世纪90年代“”时代,色情业曾被认为是一种稳定盈利的互联网企业。相反,这类产品是由越来越多的业余爱好者制作并上传到XTube或4chan等网站。

自我曝光比较著名的例子之一是最近的艺术作品《无题》(2003年),其中安德烈|弗雷泽(Andrea Fraser)自拍她与支付了$ 20,000的赞助者的性行为,当这个行为的录像在一家画廊播放时,它的版本即被出售掉。该作品含蓄地提出疑问:赞助人付款是为了与弗雷泽发生性行为,还是为了在画廊曝光?与此形成对比的是特蕾西﹒安妮姆(Tracey Enim)的《我的床》(1998)。它揭示了后现代主义和即时现实的差异。安妮姆对性的探索都记录在她的床上,研究错乱行为,以便与她的赤贫艺术作品对位。安妮姆的床是以所谓的神经衰弱为框架,指向一个混乱的叙述,艺术家时而吹嘘、时而为性混杂搅扰不安。床是作品的关键,是安妮姆的表演的指数,也是用来验证作品真实性和存在的设备。相比之下,弗雷泽的作品更多的是事实,是经策划的自我曝光再到媒体复制。

艺术家、理论家约旦﹒克兰德尔(Jordan Crandall)写道:“这种文化在许多方面似乎更多是表象而非具像:我们不由得要引起别人的注意,为不可见的眼睛而行动,并发展新的联结形式——仿佛这就是我们继续生存的条件,是我们价值的标志。”克兰德尔还指出这种彰显的另一方面, 即以跟踪与监视科技的面目出现[23]。作为福柯(Foucault)的全景监狱的现代对应物,在“监视艺术”名义下,许多艺术家如克兰德尔自己、迪勒(Diller)和斯高分多(Scofidio),自主应用研究所,以及逆科技局在这方面探索并提出评价对象[24]

监测艺术往往扮演对一个神秘、未知力量进行观察的角色。艺术家珍妮|卡迪夫(Janet Cardiff)的《在劳拉眼中》(2005年)则是个例外。卡迪夫为这件作品建构了劳拉这一角色,一名因为监视绰号“兔子”的小偷而痴狂的警卫。在温哥华美术馆的展览中,该作品没有交待这是一个艺术作品,甚至允许参观者来控制画廊的安全摄像机(该画廊的赞助者或地理位置未在网站上标明)。如果该作品最终显得过于做作而难以维持观众的怀疑,它也还是在即时现实中考察了监视与曝光两方面(劳拉谈论她的生活和行为的愿望),同时谐谑真实的定义[25]

Figure 6
Burak Arikan, 《我的钱包》, 2007

如同卡迪夫的《劳拉的眼睛》,布拉克﹒阿勒坎(Burak Arikan)的《我的钱包》(2007年的Turbulence委托项目)混合监督和自我曝光,披露他的三年的财务记录,并应用软件来预测他未来的消费习惯。《我的钱包》质疑金融业坚称的透明度和财政管理问题,尽管该行业坚持它对我们的不透明政策。此外,通过利用软件预测自己未来的支出能力,阿勒坎不仅模仿这类公司的行为,他还证明我们的选择——在此例中是金融选择——是构建于信息网络之内[26]



信息视觉化近来已成为人们关注的焦点——最引人注目的是2009年纽约现代艺术博物馆(MoMA)的《设计与弹性思维》展览。乔纳森﹒哈里斯(Jonathan Harris)和2008年赛普﹒坎瓦尔(Sep Kamvar)的《我想让你要我》(2008年)是这类作品的例子。它建立在他人自我曝光的行为上。再者,被约会网站的成员的自我描述与对同伴欲望的追踪所吸引,哈里斯与坎瓦尔将他们的短语呈现在高分辨率的触摸屏上[28]。金(Yunchul Kim)的《(无效)交通》(2004)是另一个信息视觉化的例子,它利用ASCII字符来表示的数据流量,从而唤起了一个“黑白数字有机体” 或 “太阳表面”的意念[29]

Figure 7

但信息视觉化的涌现是源于它对数据的美化和对技术的信心。如果说信息视觉化是现代主义的最显注的继承者,它的起源不是破坏性的20世纪20年代的前卫现代主义,而是20世纪50年代和60年代的现代主义。为了在官僚科技化的状态下和解思维与感觉,战后现代主义是福特主义公司(Fordist corporation) 的视觉代表。反过来,信息视觉化是对在过去10年中流行的“有效市场假说”的回应, 那是一种容易从网络上获得的所谓信息财富,它允许市场有效、合理地运作。举个例子,本﹒鲁宾(Ben Rubin)和马克﹒汉森(Mark Hansen)的《活字》(2007年),采用560台真空荧光显示屏,安装在纽约时报大厦大堂中。每个屏幕显示的资料是从当天的故事、文件档案,以及参观者在纽约时报网站的活动发掘而来[30]。远远超过任何晚期现代绘画,这件作品为该公司的控制和有效提取信息能力大做广告,使之变成了怀疑对象。随着声称能够创建新的用户界面,信息视觉化往往是设计公司或程序员的职权范围,并可以得到企业赞助资金。很难说它是最新型艺术作品的开始。

Figure 8
Josh On,《他们统治》(2004)

战略媒体活动家已经江信息视觉化用于进行政治进程。受到20世纪90年代后期马克﹒隆巴迪(Mark Lombardi)的关于网络丑闻的优雅铅笔素描的激发,他们开始揭露隐藏的权力网络,在《世界政府》、乔希的《他们统治》等“反地理”作品中进行评论。这些作品旨在开解繁杂交织的网络权力,而耐人寻味的是,由于将网络权力削减,这些作品会受到阻碍[31]。尽管作品仍很迷人,其媒介和意向还不大清楚。

Figure 9
Scott Hug,《消费者情绪》, 2009

Figure 10
Scott Hug,《美国生活评估》2009

在《个人理财、国家状况、消费者情绪、美国对同性恋关系道德的认知与死刑》(2009 年)中,斯科特﹒哈格(Scott Hug)评价当今无处不在的信息视觉化和网络文化的以及对数据的过渡迷恋。该作是他画在木料或由旧的《国家地理》中的图像叠加成的一系列饼状图表,颜色则是时装预测色彩表。哈格将盖洛普民调数据抽出,并填充到平淡无奇的饼状图表中,他模拟了信息视觉化如何使数据焕发令人狂喜审美魅力,同时也批判网络文化对数据的过渡迷恋。


如果信息视觉化是将高质量数据美学化,来表现对现实的洞察,文献资料艺术则将现实表现为叙事。对所有当即现实的注册者而言,只有文献纪录是保持叙述性和连贯性的标识。但是,为了保持这种一致性,文献资料艺术将现实作为脚本和操作对象,并不只是给定的内容。在这方面,今天,文献资料又是小说的继承者。例如,大卫﹒福斯特﹒华莱士(David Foster Wallace)的写作中,小说与非小说的区别是很难加以分辨的,特别是因为两者都有丰富的脚注注明,其重要性与主要叙事相同。但是纪录片的崛起最容易在电影中看到,在过去十年中,它深受批评家、观众与电影制片人的欢迎。电影《灰熊人》、《特殊尺寸的我》、《企鹅的游行》、《难以忽视的真相》以及《华氏911》等,形成一种影院氛围。在这一领域,作者越来越将这些素材视作画布,对现实进行高度演绎。荷索(Werner Herzog)是著名纪录片制作人之一,以之作为制作 “诗意的、令人迷醉的真实”的基础[32]。随着互联网的普及,纪录片很容易被共享,它们的脚本正迅速曝光。例如威廉﹒吉尔萨(William Jirsa)对纪录片的审查中,他出现在荷索的《世界末日》(2009年)、或众多反响的摩根﹒斯普尔洛克(Morgan Spurlock)的《超码的我》(2004年)和迈克尔﹒摩尔(Michael Moore)的《科伦拜恩的保龄球》(2002年)中。

网络文化中艺术的主要形式之一是大尺度摄影,特别是托马斯﹒德曼(Thomas Demand),安德烈﹒亚斯古尔斯基(Andreas Gursky),坎迪答﹒荷弗尔(Candida HÃfer),阿克塞尔﹒于特(Axel Hutte),托马斯﹒拉夫(Thomas Ruff),以及托马斯﹒施特鲁特(Thomas Struth),他们都于70年代中期跟随本德(Bernd)和希拉﹒倍彻(Hilla Becher)在杜塞尔多夫学习。这些摄影作品,连同其他摄影师如杰夫﹒沃尔(Jeff Wall)或杉本博的作品,不仅在尺度上,其对现实的描述性也可与19世纪沙龙绘画角逐。创作如此生动、清晰的作品需要劳力以及人为处理,以达到赫尔佐格所谓的“狂喜的真相”,因而许多摄影师自由地创造他们想要的世界意象,甚至不惜进行后期处理。德曼作为最年轻的杜塞尔多夫学校成员,通常用纸来构建作品,看起来几乎与他想要表现的现实难以区分,因此质疑文献资料的创建性质。

但是,这种为画廊和茶几艺术书籍而创作的摄影是过渡的,它那自认为是绘画——视觉艺术顶峰形式——的继任者地位是值得疑问的。随着传统结构的解体,特别是繁荣在洛杉矶的自发织组织机构, 那里, “地用途释义中心”调查被忽略的用于工业、军事以旅游的自然景观, “数学研究所” 探讨计算数字,Velaslavasay公司显示全景成像,……. AUDC(最初在洛杉矶,现在在纽约)通过似乎非现实却是真实的情况来探索现代文化,他们既利用理论,也通过建筑图纸、模型和图片进行研究[33]

Figure 11
侏罗纪技术博物, 《The Sonnabend Model of Obliscence》

如果一些自发组织机构(如土地用途释义中心、AUDC)从事非传统的研究,另一些创造虚构(或部分虚构)的现实,这往往是尽其能事地打破艺术与现实、艺术家、策展人、真实和构造之间的界限。这些作品借鉴了文献资料和后观念艺术实践。80年代后期开始,伊利亚﹒科巴科夫(Ilya Khabakov)和马克﹒狄安(Mark Dion)等艺术家,离开了简单的挪用模式和后现代艺术家所实践的简单学院式批评, 而走向更复杂的关系。一般而言,这一代的出发点是16和17世纪好奇心,为博物馆制作的模型,其中自然和人为的奇迹并列在异质系统(idiosyncratic system)中,因其感官刺激能力而富有价值。如果好奇平行于对美的迷恋,它就是一个精致的时代错误,它取代美,作为到商品化时期的过渡。返回自治艺术与博物馆,这些作品让人想起现代艺术以前的时代, 那时, 即使预计艺术会在网络文化时代消溶, 艺术还是与生活结合,没有自成一体。…… [34]

Figure 12
The Chadwicks, 《The Genretron》(2008)

又如,在查德威克(Chadwicks)合作,作为“著名鉴赏家、船长、海军工程师和业余史学家”的(假)家族后代, 追溯其荷兰扩张时代的起源。他们恶意地努力说服公众以博取各种索赔,制造了破坏性、甚至完全疯狂的历史重构,这引起了对即刻现实的质疑。为了造成混淆,在最近的出版物《查维克家庭论文:公开掠影》中,《内阁杂志》编辑斯纳|纳杰菲(Sina Najafi)以讨论方式发起对这件作品的假攻击。

战略性媒体也从事这类虚拟,例如,《是,伙计》(其中一人,伊戈﹒瓦莫斯Igor Vamos,也参与“地用途释义”工作)制作了一些假网站,并假装为政府机构和企业的代言人,进行狠毒的批评。这其中包括世界贸易组织的模仿网站(,假埃克森产品网站,它将十亿气候变化的受害者的尸体转化为石油(,被ISP关闭)以及假的印刷版《纽约时报》(与相应的网站,发行《伊拉克战争结束》等标题文章。除了以颠覆和幽默的方式传递他们的信息,这些作品使观众质疑,媒体可以如何轻而易举地为权力阶层编造事物的意义。


即刻现实使我们信息超载。在网络文化中,信息处理的主要战略不是释义,而是聚合。因此,如报纸和电视网络传媒已将自己的文化主宰地位割让给基于软件的聚合体,如“谷歌新闻”(它吹说:“新闻的选择和在页面的位置是由计算机程序自动确定的”)、“亚马逊”(Amazon)、Netflix公司和 iTunes。该软件引擎能根据使用者兴趣自动选择,并提供前所未有的大量信息[35]。聚合体也有自助端。Amazon、Kaboodle、YouTube、、Imagefap、Rhizome和Flickr等网站鼓励用户编写自己的选择表;社交网站的个人资料页则都是由社会关系、文化利益和专业背景构成。其结果是最常见的“网络大众”宣言。聚合体成为一种描述网络中的自我的手段,这比其他任何个人鉴定或自白更有效。博客也体现了网络聚合体造成的作者权的变化。为了利用博客自我曝光,作者也经常引用来自其它博客、网站、技术产品、文章与书籍评论的内容。像“美Delicious” 社会书签、FFFFOUND!或Tumblr等网站是更胜一筹,后者为简短博客文章而设计,包括照片、格言、链接、音频或视频的引用内容。唯一的评论往往是该作品的策划情况。艺术家——尤其是“职业网民”——也在这个名单之列。以格思里的《MySpace介绍播放表》为例,这是一组策划的视频短片集,由个人向MySpace观众进行自我介绍(因而是一个自我曝光的集和)。

在网络文化中,艺术家作为集结者的角色逐渐取代了先前的制作者角色。在这里所讲的网络艺术里,艺术家都将以前的艺术策划经验与集体自助的方式实施于网络文化。这种艺术实践通常更积极的方式讲述消费主义,而不像后现代主义时期艺术家倾向于将消费作为一个没有文化、缺乏反思、轻信媒体的个人活动。如理查德﹒普林斯(Richard Prince)和杰夫﹒昆斯(Jeff Koons)等后现代艺术家将消费描绘成令蠢人欣喜若狂的活动。这种作品总是有点玩世不恭,因为它本身就是在经营奢侈品(众所周知,理查德﹒普林斯的一件作品是第一张销售超过100万美元的照片),是艺术传统的非异化[36]。但在80年代末和90年代初,当艺术市场达到新的高度, 使之成为最疯狂的消费形式时, 艺术成为了社会学批判的主体。同时,艺术家开始从事策展实践,例如,1988年,达明﹒赫斯特(Damien Hirst) 为他的学生策划了《冻结》展览。


Figure 13
《高漠试验场》Noah Purifoy Site, photo by Guy Lombardo

以《高漠试验场》为例,有些艺术家安德烈|齐特尔(Andrea Zittel)和丽莎|安妮|奥尔巴赫(Lisa Anne Auerbach)与画商肖恩|雷根(Shaun Regen),约翰|康纳利(John Connelly)和收藏家安迪(Andy Stillpass)在莫哈韦沙漠创造了一个周末之久的活动,那里有实验艺术场所、烧烤场地交换集会和地方活动[38]。或以司各特|哈格的另一件作品为例,《K48》(以及相关博客,,其中他不仅展示自己的、更有其他艺术家的作品——包括音乐CD ——他的兴趣所在。如果K48是肯定自我表达,这种表达是由他的艺术产生的集合内容组成。另一个例子是《随机规则:选自YouTube一个艺术家频道》(2009 年),其中玛瑞娜(Marina Fokidis)聚集了一群艺术家——安德烈(Andreas Angelidakis),Andreas Angelidakis, Aids 3D, assume vivid astro focus, Pablo Leon de la Barra, Eric Beltran, Keren Cytter, Jeremy Deller, Cerith Wyn Evans, Dominique Gonzalez Foerster, Dora Garcia, Rodney Graham, Annika Larsson, Matthieu Laurette, Ingo Niermann, Miltos Manetas, Ahmet Ögüt, Angelo Plessas, Lisi Raskin, 以及 Linda Wallace——他们将喜欢的YouTube作品搁在一起放映[39]

其它艺术家还有“职业网人,”像马里萨﹒奥尔森(Marisa Olson)称呼的那样他们,在一种似乎是美感停顿的状态下,寻找平庸、设计糟糕的网络元素。2006年, “冲浪俱乐部” nastynets.com出现为这次运动的震中(它本身与www.worstoftheweb.com或4chan.org网站并没有太大区别),最近www.spiritsurfers.net加入了运动。

Figure 14
Oliver Payne and Nick Relph, 《阿氏的藏匿》, 2007

但是,自我曝光、视觉信息化以及艺术家作为文献记录者的初衷可能有所不同。艺术家作为聚结者的角色也可以是玩世不恭,或市场狂欢。以尼克|雷尔夫(Nick Relph)和奥利弗﹒佩恩的《阿氏的藏匿》(2007)为例,艺术家们展示了一个短暂的收藏,这件装置是画廊主阿士﹒朗格(Ash Lange)的藏品,它模仿迈阿密海滩巴塞尔艺术展中的普拉达商店。关键性的距离与缺失都不难发现。


我们说艺术家作为聚合者就像艺术家作为混音师。在当代网络化大众的社会背景下,消费者和生产者的传统关系已被消除。业余艺术家的作品——往往是由传统媒体的内容混合而来——在互联网、特别是在视频共享网站YouTube、 Flickr等照片共享网站、deviantArt以及博客上广泛流传。这些工作正被其他业余艺术家贪婪地消耗,接着可能产生第二阶混合作品。

如果混合是由于挪用艺术方式而蓬勃发展,不通于后现代主义的是,它把挪用视作给第条件。在后现代的挪用艺术中,再利用具有讽刺意味以及高度的俄狄浦自我意识。由于雪莉|莱文 (Sherri Levine)再挪用由沃克|埃文斯(Walker Evans)和理查德|普林斯的博物馆广告照片时,人们想要评判原作者的地位。但挪用的艺术家——最著名的算是杜尚——仍然在一个既定的艺术传统下工作,即利用挪用与加框手法。在他们的方法中,独创性仍是至关重要的,不论作为评判机构还是作为辅助——说到底,要是杜尚没在小便器上签名,这件作品就根本不存在。因此,莱文的作品质疑启蒙时期提出的作者和原创性观念;其实这些观念早已过时[40]。从互联网上将图像粘贴到 PowerPoint、在博客引用上Tumblr最喜欢的图像是司空见惯的事,挪用已成为一种休闲。那么,这类后现代主义作品是过渡性的。以作者和原创性作为出发点已不再富于创造性[41]

尼古拉﹒包锐欧德(Nicolas Bourriaud)认为,这种缺乏独创性正使混合艺术(他用的词是“后期制作”)适合于网络文化。包锐欧德解释说, 与后现代艺术家相反,对于皮埃尔﹒于热(Pierre Huyghe)和道格拉﹒斯戈登(Douglas Gordon)等艺术家而言,问题不再是独创性,而是本能地把艺术作品视为在网络内构成的对象,它们的意义是由与其它事物的相对位置以及理用方式而定的[42]。像DJ或程序员一样,这些艺术家更多的是重组而非创建[43]。重要的是,由于网络的普及, 全球化和历史信息的传播无所不在, 混和艺术正是在这个时刻进行的。 包锐欧德总结道:“艺术问题不再是 ‘怎样才能新颖’而是‘我们怎样处理我们已有的材料。’换句话说,‘我们如何能从构成日常生活的毫无秩序的大量对象、名称和参照物中,创造出独特性与意义?[44]

[flashvideo file= image= width=500 height=400 /]
Mark Leckey, Fiorucci Made Me Hardcore, 1999
马克﹒莱科伊(Mark Leckey)运作画廊和博物馆,也有MySpace网页,是一个经验丰富的混和艺术家,1999年,他利用发现的20世纪70、80年代英国舞蹈录像制作了开创性的视频作品,题为《菲奥鲁奇让我变坚硬(Fiorucci Made Me Hardcore)》,在其中他阐发了舞蹈文化的仪式性涵义。最近他的演讲包括网络文化理论(如《Wired杂志》主编克里斯|安德森Chris Anderson的《长尾》)的讲座,跨越了一连串的参照——从纯艺术到流行文化。正如他为泰特奖提名所拍摄的陈述中宣称的,莱科伊的目标是,描述概括的网络文化诗学:“改造我的世界,使之更是它自己。”在《伊文制造(Made in ‘Eaven)》(2004年)中,莱科伊再现杰夫|昆斯的《兔子》雕塑,当制高点推进到雕塑时,莱科伊自己的工作室被显现在电脑三维图像中。

混合艺术不仅限于音频或视频形式。在《明星日记》(2004-2007)中,爱德华|纳瓦斯(Eduardo Navas)将《安迪|沃霍尔日记》放在博客上作为样品,以此反映网络上名人与隐私的角色。又如《最后的晚餐》中,沃霍尔异常出色地模仿他的模仿者……[45]。纳瓦斯还加入了安迪可能浏览的、有关日记内容的网络链接到。

除了聚合,职业网人也混合网络语汇。“鲜红电气公司”(Scarlet Electric)的,约翰﹒迈克尔灵(John Michael Boling)的《哺乳动物的时代》(Guthrie Lonergran)都是职业网人创作的例子。

[flashvideo file= image= width=500 height=420 /]
Oliver Laric, 《787幅剪贴画》2006

[flashvideo file= image= width=500 height=301 /]

Oliver Laric, 《版本》2007
奥利弗|拉瑞克(Oliver Laric)是当今最善于混和创作的艺术家之一,他的作品风格在互联网、尤其是YouTube上令人瞩目。拉瑞克通常在网上展示作品,他把业余视频看作被发现的媒体环节。在《50 50 2008》(2008年)中,他混和了YouTube上的业余作品片断而组成一首连续的、由“50美分”演唱的歌曲,它本身就是他早期作品的混合。在《787幅剪贴画》(2006年)中,他把787幅剪贴画图像组装成一分钟五秒的影像,这件循环录影作品流畅地汇集了所有种族和活动,不仅表现他自己的能力,而且还暗示一切早已被完成了。在《史提夫|汪达双人舞(Stevie Wonder Duets)》(2007年)中,他将从YouTube上找到史提夫|汪达的歌曲——一个是音乐,一个是演唱——并置一处,在发送回网络,由此使我们认识到时间的流动。马里萨|奥尔森(Marisa Olson)认为,拉瑞克的目的是把他的作品送回它的发源地[48]。最后的《版本(Versions)》(2009年),拉瑞克创作了有些类似莱克伊的表演的叙事,一件时而合理、时而有点荒谬的理论作品,包括篡改的伊拉克导弹照片、非法盗版电影、嫁接到色情明星上的名人头像,等等。拉瑞克告诉我们,混合艺术允许平行世界的无限性得到扩展。不过,目前还不清楚,混合方式除了能产生大量疯狂作品,它那泛滥的网络产品是否会受到职业网人或拉瑞克这样的艺术家的青睐。

在世纪之交,伯瑞奥德(Bourriaud)首先确立了“关系美学”,参与艺术是开放性的,作者的任务只是在观众行为的基础上编程。瑞克瑞特|尼加(Rikrit Tiravanija)是最重要的参与艺术家,他在画廊里放满纸盒子,里面装有汤或布丁,供参观者做饭、食用,并构造著名建筑结构的混合体(如用镜子制成的辛德勒众议院,由木头作成的Maison Dom-Ino结构),他由此鼓励观众参与、创建到活动中来[49]

从90年代初开始,“关系美学”预见了10年后联网大众和开放资源文化的发展。用户生成的网上内容,诸如Flickr、deviantART以及同行生产的共享的软件,如Apache网络服务器软件、Linux操作系统或Drupal内容管理系统,现在已不是非同寻常的事,而只是日常生活的一部分。伴随反对版权斗争的持续的地下盗版运动,“互联网文化”走向这样的未来:信息失去其作为商品的地位,随着其扩展,资本主义将会消亡。或者相反,由于缺乏开放性,对Flickr或deviartART的选择暗示着自由文化可能永远不会到来,而免费同行产品可能变成另一种资本寄生的方式,迫使我们在自由时间工作。令人不安的是,参与可以成为顺从的载体,如同《哈珀杂志》编辑Bill Wasik创作的闪族现象,验证对时髦的轻信[50]

最好的参与艺术体现了互联网的乌托邦雄心及其对所有人的开放。对此,我们要举个例子——,它是一个艺术互联网的机构,也是一个任何人都可以加入的俱乐部,经营意图是建立一个自由论坛。洛杉矶的非盈利网络艺术组织“泰利奇艺术交流(Telic Arts Exchange)” 是一个没有课程的“公立学校”,由个人建议设立课程,其它人可以参加。

Figure 15
Aaron Koblin,《绵羊市场》2006

当一些艺术家以观众直接参与的形式工作,另一些则探讨参与与市场的关系。例如,在,佩里﹒巴德(Perry Bard)邀请世界各地人民参与重新编辑维尔托夫(Dziga Vertov’)的《一个扛摄影机的人》(1929)。《羊市场》(2006年),阿伦﹒考林(Aaron Kolblin)则在Amazon.com上的支付了10,000名工人(机械土著)每人0.02美元来 “画一头面向左的羊”,从而制造宏大的绵羊景观。与Takashi Kowashiba合作,考林也创作了《一万美分》,一张由10000幅影像组成的100美元的钞票,分别由Amazon的机械土著画成,他们每人挣一分钱。






[1] Lev Manovich, The Language of New Media (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2001).

[2] If, following Fredric Jameson, the colonization of all parts of life by capital drove the postmodern turn, the colonization of all parts of life by telecommunications, digital technology, and globalization drives the emergence of network culture. Fredric Jameson, “Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Capitalism,” New Left Review 146, (1984): 59-92. On the importance of the network today see and Manuel Castells, The Rise of the Network Society, 2nd ed. (Oxford ; Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2000) and Kazys Varnelis, “Introduction,” The Meaning of Network Culture. A History of the Contemporary,

[3] Kazys Varnelis, “Conclusion. The Meaning of Network Culture” in Varnelis, ed. Networked Publics (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008), 150.

[4] Alan Liu, The Laws of Cool: Knowledge Work and the Culture of Information, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004).

[5] Ian P. Watt, The Rise of the Novel: Studies in Defoe, Richardson and Fielding, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001), 9-34.

[6] In this, modernism can be seen as a subspecies of realism, representing individual interpretation of universal truths more thoroughly than could be done within the strictures of mimesis.

[7] Georg Lukacs, “Realism in the Balance,” in Ronald Taylor, Aesthetics and Politics: Debates Between Bloch, Lukacs, Brecht, Benjamin, Adorno (New York: Verso, 1980), 28-59.

[8] Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), 289-294. Liu, The Laws of Cool, 14-76.

[9] Generally speaking, where modernism, like realism, still holds out of the promise of a unified subject and a whole sign, postmodernism abandons that.

[10] See Foster, “The Return of the Real” in The Return of the Real (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1996), 127-170 and Whitney Museum of American Art, Abject Art: Repulsion and Desire in American Art, Selections from the Permanent Collection, June 23-August 29, 1993, (New York: The Whitney Museum of American Art, 1993).

[11] Jameson, 71-73 as well as Hal Foster, “(Post)Modern Polemics”, Recodings (Seattle: The Bay Press, 1985), 121-138.

[12] Michelet writes “Chaque époque rêve la suivante in Avenir! Avenir!, Europe 19 no 73 (January 15, 1929), 6 quoted in Walter Benjamin, “Paris, the Capital of the Nineteenth Century,” The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008), 97.

[13] Leo Marx “Live History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1994), 256.

[14] Varnelis, 154. See also Kenneth J. Gergen, The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life, (New York: Basic Books, 2000) and Brian Holmes, “The Flexible Personality. For A New Cultural Critique,”

[15] This idea relies on Jean Baudrillard’s concept of the simulation, but in its very language, the simulation still holds out a premise that it is produced by the media industry for us to occupy indirectly. Immediated reality is produced by everyone, constantly, and the media industry’s influences fades in it, or rather is transformed.

[16] Margriet Schavemaker, Mischa Rakier, eds. Right About Now: Art & Theory since the 1990s, (Amsterdam: Valiz, 2007), 9-10.

[17] Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello, The New Spirit of Capitalism (New York: Verso, 2005).

[18] A foundational text for theories of beauty in art is Dave Hickey, The Invisible Dragon. Four Essays on Beauty in Art (Los Angeles: Art Issues Press, 1993). It is important to note that to avoid accusations of his definition of beauty being kitsch, Hickey makes it cool by framing it within a discussion of Robert Mappelthorpe’s photography. With Harvey’s guidance (along with that of the likes of Peter Schjeldahl and Jeremy Gilbert-Rolfe), abject art — from Mappelthorpe to Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ to Damien Hirst’s sharks — was reconstructed as beautiful, leaving behind postmodernism for the cool art of the post-critical era. See also Bill Beckley and David Shapiro, eds. Uncontrollable Beauty: Towards a New Aesthetics. (New York: Allworth Press, 1998). The same is true of decon in architecture. When Bilbao was completed, instead of being seen as decon, it was received as a project to be understood solely in terms of its beauty and the transformational potential of that beauty on cities.

[19] Nicolas Bourriaud, Altermodern, (London: Tate Publishing, 2009).

[20] Mark Andrejevic, Reality TV: The Work of Being Watched, (Lanham, MD: Rowman Littlefield Publishers, 2003).

[21] Denise Grady, “Cosmetic Breast Enlargements Are Making a Comeback,” the New York Times, July 21, 1998,

[22] Adrienne Russell, Mimi Ito, Todd Richmond, and Marc Tuters, “Culture: Media Convergence and Networked Participation,” in Varnelis, Networked Publics, 62-66.

[23] Jordan Crandall, “Showing,”

[24] On surveillance art, see Thomas Y. Levin, Ursula Frohine, and Peter Weibel, CTRL [SPACE]: Rhetorics of Surveillance from Bentham to Big Brother (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2002).

[25] Sarah Boxer, “When Seeing is Not Always Believing,”

[26] Greg J. Smith, “Burak Arikan Interview” Serial Consign. Digital Culture & Information Design,

[27] There are, to be fair, other artists working with code, most notably those, such as Natalie Jeremijenko, who explore it in a critical way, creating a critical version of maker culture. It is a blindness of this essay to not include that sort of work and the original author hopes that an astute reader/editor will add a section on this.

[28] See also Nell Boeschenstein, “I Want You to Want Me,” for an essay embedding the work into the convoluted condition of immediated reality, including her own self-exposure and discomfort with it.

[29] Yunchul Kim, (void) traffic,



[32] Werner Herzog, “Minnesota Declaration: Truth and Fact in Documentary Cinema,”

[33] Jeremy Rosenberg, “Postcard from L. A.,” Exhibitionist,

[34] For the Museum of Jurassic Technology and its deployment of wonder see Ralph Rugoff, Mr. Wilson’s Cabinet of Wonder (New York: Verso, 1995).

[35] Nicholas G. Carr, The Big Switch: Rewiring the World, from Edison to Google, (New York: W. W. Norton Co., 2008).

[36] Nicolas Bourriaud, Postproduction (New York: Lukas & Sternberg, 2002), 87.

[37] Bourriaud, Postproduction, 39-40.


[39] Marina Fokidis, “Random Rules — Artists’ Selections from YouTube,” posted on Networked_Performance, by Jo-Anne Green (March 26, 2009),

[40] See Rosalind Krauss, The Originality of the Avant-Garde and Other Modernist Myths (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985).

[41] On remix see Edouardo Navas, “Remix Defined,” and William Gibson, “God’s Little Toys,” Wired 13.07 (2005),

[42] Bourriaud, Postproduction. For Bourriaud, “Postproduction apprehends the forms of knowledge generated by the appearance of the Net.”

[43] Bourriaud, “Public Relations,” interview by Bennett Simpson, ArtForum, (April 2001), 47.

[44] Bourriaud, Postproduction, 17.

[45] Eduardo Navas,”Andy: Meta-dandy,”

[46] By this I mean they tend to be done recently but can be taken from as far back as the early 1960s, when it had become clear that modernization, in its first phase at least, was complete and the idea of “the contemporary” began to emerge. Among the first cultural institutions to recognize this, the Museum of Contemporary Art, was founded in Chicago in 1967. On “the contemporary,â�� see, for a start, Arthur Danto, After the End of Art: Contemporary Art and the Pale of History (Washington DC: National Gallery of Art, 1997), 10-11.

[47] On nostalgia in postmodernism, see Jameson, “Postmodernism,” 67. On allegory see Craig Owens, “The Allegorical Impulse: Toward a Theory of Postmodernism,” parts 1 and 2, Beyond Recognition: Representation, Power, and Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), 52-87. On periodization and network culture see Kazys Varnelis, “Network Culture and Periodization,”

[48] Marisa Olson, “Putting the You in YouTube,”,

[49] Nicholas Bourriaud, Relational Aesthetics (New York: Lukas and Sternberg, 2002). See also Claire Bishop, ed. Participation (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2006).

[50] Bill Wasik, “My Crowd, Or Phase 5: A Report from the Inventor of the Flash Mob,” Harper’s Magazine (March 2006), 56-66

Next Page »