London Metropolitan University Digital Media Dissertation Module Code: CMPP08N Student ID: 10049443 Theodoros Giannakis 2011 Institutions of Art in the post-‐modernization media age.
(a reflection to the relation of the subject and the digital, technical and physical object)
Introduction My century, my beast, who will manage to look inside your eyes and weld together with his own blood the vertebrae of two centuries? So long as the creature lives it must carry forth its vertebrae, as the waves play along with an invisible spine. Like a child's tender cartilage is the century of the newborn earth. "To wrest the century away from bondage so as to start the world anew one must tie together with a flute the knees of all the knotted days. But your backbone has been shattered o my wondrous, wretched century. With a senseless smile like a beast that was once limber you look back, weak and cruel. to contemplate your own tracks.
Osip Mandelstam (1923)
Starting with this poem of Mandelstam (1923) and the questions of Agamben “Of whom and of what are we contemporaries?” and “What does it mean to be contemporary?“ (2009) placed during his seminar on Apparatus this study aims to research the written words in media. Almost all the materials used for this research were found in digital form. Institutions of Art have to be untimely to become contemporary. Those Institutions of Art which are really contemporary and truly belong to their time are those which are neither created in a specific way and at a specific time nor adjust themselves to the demands of the Contemporary. The above poem according to Aggamben (2009) does not reflect the poet’s thoughts on the transition from the one century to another, but it is rather a reflection on the relation between the poet and his time. It is the creative producer who must strongly lock his gaze into the eyes of his cosmic – beast, beyond the centuries, who must bring together the tiny pieces of the broken backbone of time using his/her own creative intelligence. The contemporary is the Partial After-‐Sense of the gaze. It is the process in which the
gaze together with the functions of the brain and the eyes tries to complement what is missing, what is not clear and what is difficult to understand or see. The Partial After-‐Sense is similar to what Agambel (2009) proposes: “The contemporary is he who firmly holds his gaze on his own time so as to perceive not its light, but rather its darkness.” Aims and Objectives Art institutions are going to change more in the next years than over the last decades. In the transition which is recognized for all of our society, a reflection of what goes on in society and what is changing is being encased the Institutions of Art. The digital media and especially the social media change from a kind of subculture into the mainstream. The introduction of content delivery devices and platforms, which proliferate rapidly, has led several of our major Art institutions into a mist of major technological upgrade and transformation. And what seems to change mostly is the mindset of the Institutions of Art, recognizing the digital media technology and the socius collaboration of the web [2.0] as well as the post media as manifestation of the Digital Age, as an urgent priority. Production in the fields of Art, culture and creative industries is by all means responsible -‐directly or indirectly-‐ for the transition to the Digital Age and the cybernetic post-‐modernization. The transition to what the sociologist Pascal Gielen (2010) suggests in his study “The Art Scene” as a highly functional part of our contemporary networking society. Many scholars and researchers investigate that transition of society, culture and economy, into the frame of information production and communication network systems, “a communication industry or culture industry” according to Paolo Virno (2004). The increasing use of technology changes the relationship between objects, curators and visitors in the Institutions of Art. Certainly we cannot deny it but we should be aware of the fact that our society is a mixing of analog economy and digital economy, of a born analog object and a born digital object. Even so, the computer itself, which is responsible for that radical change, indicates, under the term "machines control" the relationship between a capitalistic hardware and a social software "working together”. This relationship or separation between material and immaterial cannot only be observed from a traditional or updated philosophical point of view, but it should also be linked and observed through the prism of economy and culture in the post-‐Fordism and post media era. Museums, biennials, public galleries and general institutions of Art underwent a major change and try to incorporate characteristics that are necessary for a transition to being digital, which is inevitable. The merits and consequences of being digital are reflected in that distinction or merging of atoms and bits in which we can identify various characteristics in economic and cultural aspects. In both of them we can detect the transformation from the digitization of economy to digital economy, from the digitization of culture to digital culture. It is hard to talk about a recent crisis in the field of art production; somehow the art is always under a test and under a form of crisis for the object of art itself and
the spaces in which it is created and displayed. However, the crisis that spreads in the post-‐Fordism economy and the computer revolution and the Internet era, influences the art production in the creative and distribution section. This section is instantly related to the recent transition from the new media of modernity into the post media of the post-‐modernization. What I am hoping to investigate in this media text is a collection of fragments related to the transformation of the institutions of art in the post-‐modernization age. It is actually an attempt to analyze the transition of production and consumption, of contemporary art within the institutions of art into a potentially hybrid formation, between the digital and the analog. The main characteristic of the post-‐modernization era is the direct interlacement with practices deriving from past decades. In this way the “object” carries the memory of the technological evolution of an era, not only on the surface but also in the material, so that even after the use of the computer the way of thinking and the practices continue to exist. What I propose is a reexamination of the metaobjects of art as a new form of production related to both real and digital time; a hybrid production as well as a hybrid consumption of the cultural product in art centers and mainly in institutions of Art. I am investigating a media loop, in which the transition from the publication, participation and real time to cloud networks is the main focus, taking into consideration that each and every era during the past three decades does not delete the characteristics of the previous one; on the contrary it mingles them in a very creative way. So, every born analog object and every born digital object are carriers of an instantly contemporary memory (a paradox) connected with the object and the services, which are produced by an electronic/digital thought (e-‐sinithia /e-‐habit ). This memory remains vivid even after the computer shuts down. The following dissertation consists of the introduction, the literature review and the main part of the study which is a personal approach to the topic under the title “Institutions of Art in the post-‐modernization”. After the analysis of the role and the transformation of the Institutions of Art, there is a conclusion followed by the bibliography on which my research was based.
Literature review
The institutions of Art face the necessity to shift to a new phase of social, cultural and economic events, which characterizes our recently developed digital era in a post-‐Fordism cultural economy, recently known as “creative production and consuming environment”. The concept of the creative industries, as Ross (2007) presents in his study, was initially introduced in Australia in the early 1990s, but
its definitive expression, in the founding documents of DCMS in England, bore all the breathless hallmarks of New Economy thinking: technological enthusiasm, the cult of youth, branding and monetization fever, and ceaseless organizational change. Over the last three decades, institutions of Art have moved from the digital online publishing to the e-‐socius collaborations and to the real time and social cloud interactions, relationships and exchanges in the creative production of art objects and communication. In the contemporary field of cultural production, there is no abandonment; more often there is a dialogue between periods and an adaptation. The online digital publishing interlaces information with the socius collaborations and those two both interlace information with the real time digitalization and “the cloud of thinks”. The way in which the born digital object shares and exchanges information with the born analog object is, according to Reisinger (2010), a bunch of numerous transformation processes for the Born analog art production which take place before reaching the digital storage systems, where the information of the born analog object is then accessible in digital form via online databases. On the other hand, the Born digital object is present on the digital space and it is difficult to distinguish between a real time web and a latent copy or a digital artifact. Under the contemporary technological frame conditions the institutions of art are in need of clear provision of metadata, thus creating a ‘born hybrid object’ in the core of production intimately related to the Art institutions. Kittler (1999) suggests that the digitalization and circulation of information has become possible thanks to the unequal power relations which serve the need of constructing communication network system capable to survive an extraordinary catastrophic situation similar to a nuclear expose. He shows that the general digitalization of channels produces a diffused flow of data, and those data can be translated into any other media. Flow of data was something palpable for human beings from the very beginning of cultural and creative production especially in the field of art as Siegart (1999) suggests. Siegart (1999) sees that the development of real time networks leads to the end of art altogether. He observes that flow of data always has to be stored intermediately, somewhere on materials that are capable of undergoing a recognizable transformation by the data – on skin, clay, stone, paper or on the cerebral cortex – in order to be transmitted or processed, but as long as processing in real time is not available. However, the born hybrid object stands in between the transmission of data in the personal and social memory, material life and media information as Huyssen (1994) suggests. For him, the real time systems are erasing the historical distance between before and after, simultaneously giving way to access to the present. Huyssen (1994) thus suggests one idea about what the role of art institutions might be in the cybernetic post modernization era, he considers an institution of art as a place of resistance against the transformation caused by electronic and digital media. As long as they deal with things and as long as those things are “digital materialized”, institutions of art seem to becoming less resistant to the transformation of memory. Institutions of art are increasingly using technology to reach an audience outside their walls, expand their boundaries and enrich the institution-‐going experience,
to accept the opportunity to disconnect from our hyper-‐connected lives as well as the possibility of creating a myth. Collins (2002) suggests that in the new media – saturated world institutions of art are profoundly affected by the new means of data dissemination and communication that these technologies make possible. Such technologies bring into question the way art institutions operate. Collins (2002) observes that real time technologies are the cause of euphoria and anxiety during mass innovation, not mass production, in the contemporary culture, involving increasing demand for instant feedback and response. This epochal cultural displacement steps out of the Guttenberg parenthesis, that of Ong(1995) –Pettit(1997) observation term for the new media has accelerated into a threatening living space. This electronic space for Collins has profoundly altered the economies of the self and the nation-‐ state politics. The boundaries where the walls of division were once obvious are nowadays diffused. The private space has been invaded and invades the cybernetic post modernization’s “simulacrum of presence”. The global village of McLuhan (1962) has become the global city in the notion of Aristotle (2009). We could hypothesize that institutions of art in that global city are threatening the assumption that political action, that of “praxis”, is related to a single topographical location. It is not just a phenomenon of our cultural and economic transition from digitization to digital. It seems to be part of new cultural and creative relationships, in the inevitable zones of social and cloud networks which are a manifestation of the Digital Age. This need or necessity for reexamination of the relationships between object, curators and viewers in the Art Institutions begins, as it seems, very soon after the “birth” of the term “art institutions”. What Bennett (1995) describes as a prerequisite for the birth of Art institutions is the transition of the feudalism of the mid-‐nineteenth century to production, what is known as the second industrial or technological revolution. In that turning of feudalism into the technological industry, at the same time when feudalism earns the title of the employer, the worker earns a role of individuality which is the first version of the worker as a “decision maker”. The worker is becoming a viewer, the object is turned into subject and furthermore objectiveness is becoming subject. People in the exhibition space observe the object and people are observed by people, the relationship between the exclusive sphere immigrates in the public domain. Bennett (1995) proposes that institutions of art, while they seem to be public spaces, should be distinguished from public spheres so as to better underline their intermediary role in public culture. One of Bourdieu’s (1993 ) central concerns is the role that culture undertakes in the reproduction of public structures in everyday life as well as in cultural practices. Nearly seven decades after their firs appearance, cultural practices or else instituent practices, as Raunig(2006) places it when referring to Antonio Negri’s (1999) concept of “constituent power”, are now associated with “institutional critique” of both “generations”, self critical and social criticism. For Raunig(2006) those instituent practices will impel a linking to social criticism, institutional critique and self criticism, but without dispensing with artistic
competences and strategies, without dispensing with resources and effects in the art field. Those practices, like conceptual art and recently net art, were challenging not only the composition of the object, the form of distribution and commodity status but also the space in which the object embedded some critique in that way the authoritarian role of the institutions of culture, the relationship between systems of thought and the forms of material and symbolic power. This critique is not only in the form of creative and cultural production, as Fraser (2007) suggests, it is also embedded in people, it exists in the interests, aspirations and criteria of value that orient our actions and define our sense of worth and make up what Bourdieu calls habitus, the social-‐made body the institution-‐made mind. Sheikh (2006) in his notes on institutional critique, indicates a direct connection between a method being the critique and an object being the institution, the artist as subject performing the critique, included in the institutional framework. The trends of critique from the early 70s and the 80s according to Sheikh (2006) became part of the institutions of art, in the form of history and education, as did the contemporary immaterial labor, the de-‐materialized and the post-‐conceptual art. The "computer revolution" of the 1980s brought about dramatic changes in many aspects of contemporary society and more changes are irreversible. After what Holms (1998) calls the first computer revolution, in the post-‐Fordism model, especially the one that is related to the post media of what Ong’s (2002) calls “second orality”, the artists adapt contemporary practices related not only to production and distribution but also to communication and learning process. In that direction Anderson (2009) recognizes that participatory media tools provide a direct link to non-‐school culture and to non-‐ institution culture. In this way art teachers can incorporate these new technologies into their pedagogical practices and curricula in order to increase the relevance of the learning experiences offered to their students. Lastly, the arts themselves serve to counterbalance the infusion of new technology into our daily lives in the post-‐ Fordism era. Speaking about the critique of institutions Steyerl(2006) suggests that Fordism breaks down the representative public sphere in which the cultural institutions ought to be, and in that Fordism system the bourgeoisie decide that institution of art is closely related to the economy and as such they have to be subject to the laws of the market. In their need to escape the boundaries of institutions of art, Fraser (2006) observes that artists as well as global market and museums, have driven institutions of art to expand. The digital channels amplify and redefine production in everyday life, social networks reaching the everyday people expanding the frame and bring more of the world into it. However that frame has been transformed. In that transformation the media specific testing ground for many contemporary art practices has become the Art on the Net and especially the form of Net Art according to Reisinger (2010). However, it is not the distinction between the two of them, but the interrelations and the cooperation of the Born analog object and the born digital object that bring a change in the notion of art production. The digital forms of art production like Net art, give a kind of dynamic expression in their practices that reflects the influence and the change against the institutional bureaucracies. Shulgin and Bookcin (1999) see Net art as the technological birth of a malfunctioning piece of software. A problem in the programming society, the
bug, became an opportunity. On the transition of the avant-‐garde and the network in general, a culture is created, which is more inclined to thinking, working, interacting and producing. Art production according to Leadbeater (2009) lies in between the art production and the audience and it is not only embedded in an object. It is that hybridism of the object, the mythical relationships of the media and the materials that produce a transformation beyond the participation, and lead to the sphere of media myth, to the second orality of the digital culture. In that secondary orality of new media, as Ong (2002) suggests, the conversation around the participatory avant-‐garde of Leadbeater (2009) is being enriched by the ingredients of information in the media narration, from one generation to the next one, as part of the everyday life. In this view of digital media and art, the role of Art institutions is a place that provides, according to “The Art With”, the settings for creative interaction, communication and cultural transmissions. Avant-‐garde continues to return, as Foster (2009) says, from the future and becomes an archive of the future represented partially from the Net Art and the digital Art forms. The practices of “iconoclastic” shocking of the 20th century, which aims to make people think about the world, are transformed into the participatory conversation and post questioning of the 21st century, and make people acknowledge new points of view now interlaced with the real time and social cloud. The digital sphere brings the artist and the individual viewers in an almost equal position and on the same level in production as any institution of Art or creative industry, causing somehow the practical death of the author. Leadbeater (2009) suggests that web is creating a culture of working with people and not only working for people in the second period of the web that of participation, were the art institutions in the digital age are take from a principle which is placed in the hart of creative industries and social enterprises. There has been a shift, then, in the placement of institutional creative production, not only in historical time, but also in terms of subjects who direct and perform the creative production – it has moved from a social localization to a social globalization without forgetting that politic praxis is a localized function, like the virtuosity of Virno (2004) acting in the digital sphere of web. Groys (2008) sees that nowadays the contemporary art engages life beyond the boundaries of art institutions and forces them to change and get involved in a new digital economy, a direct dialogue and distribution of the art object, either a born digital or a born analog or more often born hybrid objects. Art institutions according to Groys (2008) make use of the value of art genius title and become a place of a myth of our age. The subjective choice of the post – Dusant “ready make” principle has become a place where decisions are made on what is considered as art and what not. Construct in this way the right prerequisite to accept the move/shift of the image in to that semi-‐religiosity space of low voice viewing high individuality and cult representation of information inside the notion sphere of Art institutions. Giving the audience direct access to a mentality model -‐that of the decision maker in the post-‐Fordism digital era-‐ the decision makers are transformed into knowledge cultural and creative workers. In that frame according to Groys (2008) institutions in the global media market seem not only to promote what is there and what the audience wants to experience but mostly to “educate” the
audience in order to distinguish what is considered old and what is up to date. An archive of memory that enables us to see what is different, new and contemporary. Art institutions in the age of digital media have lost the traditional comparison of past and present, and also there seems to be a shift of their role in setting aesthetics norms and define public taste in the new media. Art institutions are responsible and capable of linking or carrying and therefore managing a dialogue between the knowledge producer and the public. In an imaginary Art Institution an extension in the area of experience is observed, a virtual state of viewing and emotions in which Malraux (1951) suggests and proposes a concept of "technological" transformation, of what easily can be related to the digital transformation of institutional space. The context of the art object leads out of the boundaries of the institutions of art, and within this context the object of preservation can and must be viewed. It is the symptoms of globalization in contemporary Art production which drift institutions of art into a new frame of preservation. Malraux (1951) observes a shift from a specific content identification, a kind of a form of identity, towards the media themselves, more precisely the identity of the represented is not linked any more to the content and the identity of "aura" in the art work, especially in the pictures, but it is transformed more close to the hybrid object of art, and linked to his or her author. Those institutions of art like museums and biennials are responsible for transmutation of an aesthetic value, by looking everything as "images of things". However, in the digital transformation of society and the creative age of production the links and the relations of the produced “product” with the producer have become blurry and difficult to identify. That same product shared and even partially constructed in collaboration with others, and at the same time there is a relation between the information feedback and the produced object of art. The digital born “object”, the immaterial product created in the digital space, renews the meaning of “aura”. This “aura” that Benjamin (1936) intensely feels, exists only when the object is present. Benjamin suggests that the previous conditions of production and consuming are replaced by the mechanical and technical condition of reproduction. The loss of “aura” in mechanical reproduction marks the passage from the cult of the image, the cult of the “thing” to the “thing” as exhibit. A transition of that image or “thing” through the digital phase of human sense has become a perception in the changing historical circumstances and carries with it the notion of sociality. The social function has been added in the field of vision. In that moment the competence reaches a crisis point. The contemporary art according to Groys (2008) is able to form an image of zero in their mind of production, the complete and correct in every way balance of power. So, all the images of things become equal if there is not an image that results as a representation of an infinite power. The 20th century for Weibel (2006) became the visual symbol of the crisis, with virtuosity being responsible for the ties between the object and the pictorial representation. According to Cilliers (1998) a theory of representation is essentially a theory of meaning. And what seems to be important for the cybernetic post modernization
has become equally important for the institutions of art. The phenomenon rises in the field of computer power and brings the contemporary hybrid form in between the logic and the mental. The functional state of art institutions is meaningless without representation especially in the digital age, and thus Derrida (1983) suggests that representation may be explained by the importance of the image in our cultures. In the digital socium the praxis has its own place in the art scene and the second orality gives an extension in the sensing “through the eyes”. In that process Cilliers (1998) understood that relations between symbol and meaning became stronger. According to Sterelny (1990) functionalism of representation, a certain physical state of the computer production provides art institutions with two independent descriptions of the same event: one on the physical level, and one on the mental level. Most models of the mind incorporate a theory of language, considering language as a prime form of communication in the sphere of oral tradition, beyond technology of writing and the printing technology of Gutenberg’s parenthesis. The one we are about to turn to is no exception. That secondary orality in the digital age of post-‐ modernization and after-‐media is strongly related to information sensitivity and representation. The art media change into global informational and creative space, creating tensions around competence and legitimacy in the assumption that almost everyone is taking part in an artistic production and everything is art. Within this concept an important point in Weibel’s (2006) study is that what is experienced in the space of art institutions becomes part of the viewer’s perception and is considered art. And although this concept is theoretically accepted by the art institutions norms, they fail to find a solution to a kind of problem caused by the relationships of art with the masses and therefore the art institutions themselves with the visitors. Following a critique in the institution of art, Weibel (2006) recognizes the production of an advanced package of emotions in the institutions, which is what post-‐Fordsim production identifies as immaterial labor. Art institutions claim there is a continuing action, that of praxis, they "permanently" produce movements in their trying to engage the visitor in the action itself, tending to a kind of communication between praxis and poiesis. In their attempt to change into a more attractive and visible space, the institutions turn into a hybrid state between the creative industry and the recognition that they are public instruments of communication even if they are sponsored by private funds. Weibel (2006) sees a dynamic co-‐operation between the audience and the Art institution operators. The audience turns from the passive viewer that he used to be into an active and interactive agent. Now the observer-‐viewer is involved in the construction and the cognitive process, as well in the intellectual relations of production but not in the creation/realization of art projects itself. In this way the viewer observes the creative production of others, and at the same time he/she is being observed. In a post-‐Fordism immaterial model this is of great importance in the age of informative social networks. Lazzarato (1996) recognizes a demand for skills development on behalf of the worker in the age of informative social networks, which involves the management process in the cyber post-‐modernization. This immaterial labor is a demand addressed to manual labor, it is a transformation and a drifting from the new communication technologies and the culture industries, which remodel the
relationships between conception and execution, between labor and creativity, between author and audience. The knowledge worker becomes a manager, one individual in collaboration. This transformation into a high skilled worker, this communication model fails owing to the collision of interests. Lazzarato (1996) sees this social transformation as a “silent revolution” which exists beyond the newly created needs and demands of capitalism, as a reconfiguration of its own structure of meanings in the anthropological reality. In that “silent revolution” the “ideological product” reexamines the meaning of reality. This new mode of seeing and knowing demands new technologies and new technologies demand new ways of seeing and knowing. This rapid metamorphosis of reality into a hybrid state between poiesis and praxis, between material and immaterial, hardware and software, this urgent commitment of thinking within the computer revolution and the contemporary use of computer, as Hardt and Negri (2000) point out, is responsible for the redefinition of laboring, economical and cultural practices and social relations. These practices and relations remain intact even if there is no direct contact with the computer itself. In the digital technology the Internet -‐because of its characteristics-‐ has become a channel for power distribution and nobody controls it yet. Where Internet exists as manifestation of digital age, in a hybrid state, decisions are made on its future and in reality it is controlled by the holders of the "rows flows". Those “rows flows” idioms which are part of the informational economy and communication technologies have become responsible for the changing in the nature and quality of labour in the creative industry and the system of art institutions. A continual exchange of data and “rows flows” of knowledge and information, produces an immaterial process of labour, in which no material or end product and durable goods exist or at least are visible, but this exchange produces rather immaterial goods, like culture, knowledge, information and communication. According to Bourdieu (1993) those exchanges are constructing the structure of the distribution of the cultural capital and economical capital that are stake in the field of cultural production. Any changing and transformation that took place in this field has changed the meaning of relationships between work and the field. When the institutions of art are transformed it is because the relationships with the produced art object are changing. The arrival of contemporary artistic practices and especially those practices closely related to the digital revolution of computers in the field of artistic production, transforms the problem the moment the production is coming into being. In the representation of the reasonable and acceptable relation to the work of art as praxis of re-‐action, the creation and creative production make exact copies of themselves, without any mention to anything outside this process. That produces the paradox of being finished and therefore not being able to be changed in an endless loop, as Bourdieu (1995) suggests, and the art production is linked to the institution of art as an object that spends time thinking about its art production in a serious and quiet way, keeping and protecting the work of art from damage, change or waste, both materially and symbolically. Work of art is real in the field
of art production as a symbolic object and becomes part of the digital culture production beyond materiality. The cultural producers have the necessary physical strength, mental power, skill, time, money or opportunity to use the power they are given, particularly in periods of crisis. Negri and Hardt (2000) see the necessity that the knowledge worker can follow the changes in strategies, by being part of the intellectual elite, independent from the capital. This newly formed post-‐Fordism “intellectual elite” is an extension of the hybrid state between labor and political activity, when labor of poesies exploits the skills of political activity of praxis. Virno (2004) suggests the term virtuosity to explain and define it. For Virno (2004) virtuosity is an activity in the sense of Aristotelian (2009) term of praxis, in which the activity of a virtuoso, a person in an elaborately performance, produces the experience of witnessing how the message is being constructed, and at the same time its existence requires the presence of the others. In this way every acting person needs the presence of others for an action to be considered as praxis. Bourdieu (1993) sees in the cult of the virtuoso a leading of the viewers to think that works of art should be performed, and that work of art uses a substance of memory which has the effect of preventing the collected and not included avant-‐garde artwork, which should be presented only once. This " socium dynamic cloud" of productive/creative activities that Terranova (2000) notices in the cyberspace of the Internet population, consists of knowledge hierarchies, of technical and cultural nature, that are responsible for the shift from virtuality to actuality. Bourdieu (1993) understands that the difference between the work of art and the simple, ordinary things has become important especially for the digital production. The basic idea of this ontological difference must be sought in an institution of art. The subject of production of artwork -‐ of its importance and value but also of its meaning, what it expresses and what it represents-‐ is not the producer who creates the object in its materiality, but rather the entire set of agents engaged in the field. Danto (1997) discovered the change character, ex-‐ instituto as Leibniz(2007) would have said, of the unexpected, unwilling and not convenient change of the value created by the field through an exhibit in a place which is both consecrated and consecrating. In this frame the desires of the cultural capital and the living labour stop coinciding with each other. In that way the abundance of cultural, technical and affective production in the Web is affected by the latest form of production in the "anarchy capitalism". Virno’s (2004) hypothesis is that cultural industry bears all the characteristics of other industries in post-‐Fordism and also exploits these characteristics and the communication procedures of the field of art production. Gielen (2010) sees the artist in post-‐Fordism as a prototypical post-‐Fordism worker, as someone who can work everywhere, always in flowing projects, as someone whose ideas are of major importance for the creative industry and not their products. It is actually the potentiality and the hope for good ideas that is "contracted" by the Art Institution, as a good work might arise. In this context of culture industry the virtuosity of the knowledge worker is founded at the performing instead of implementing ideas. This performing of ideas is introduced concisely or not by people like Marcel Duchamp, for example, who is
interested in the ideas around the object and not the object itself, and this is a social function which resembles a kind of laboratory according to Gielen (2010). Boltanski and Chipello (2005) in the new spirit of capitalism conclude that the new capitalism of the 70s embarrasses the artistic critique and one thing of this artistic critique is the way artist work -‐being autonomous, being creative, being flexible. In that economy of ideas Gielen (2010) sees an evolution, in which the artist or knowledge worker is chosen for good ideas and that happens more often in Art institutions since the boom of biennials where a good idea is an appropriate idea. In that way the exhibition is related to a social-‐, political-‐ or geographical context. The biennials deliver a new good and appropriate idea that fits in with that context. The idea of the immaterial labor in Art Institutions like museums, public galleries and biennials, is a promise for a good and appropriate exhibition and that promise is contracted and subsequently "capitalized". That comes with the idea to control production, to build a relationship with the press, to see or to calculate if a promise will somehow come out on the scene, especially on the art scene. Stiegler (2009) in his try to understand the new contemporary political economy suggests a dialogue and a debate with Marx, and places a question related to work and labor today. However, the philosophy of our time has left the idea of a political economy, and this is considered as an unsuccessful turn of events. For Stiegler (2009) the reason why economism has led to very bad and shocking outcomes, nevertheless the lack of a critique on today's economy generates other frightening and shocking characteristics, at the same time leaving the coming generation tragically unprepared. Stallabrass (2004) points out that the economy of art -‐that of cultural capital-‐ reflects the economy of finance capita, bringing the finance with the cultural capital in a dialogue within the economy related to the field of art production. Lessig (2008) speaks about three types of economies and he characterizes them as a commercial, sharing and the hybrid of the two. Those approaches of economy forms of Stallabrass (2004) and Lessig (2008) seem equal or similar but they are not the same. A commercial economy for Lessig (2008) means an economy in which money or price is the most important part of argument of the usual or ordinary exchange. On the other hand the sharing economy is mostly a participation economy. The institutions of art live in a digital transformed society, in a large number of different commercial and sharing economies, all in the real time web. Those economies become more attractive when they are combined with one another, and the creative and cultural production become richer due to this diversity, due to this hybridism. There is a distinction between the cultural capital and the share economy which is detectable in the interlace hybrid form with the finance capital. In that direction Anil Dash (2007) in the hybrid economy has posed the question if a service or a company on the Internet for example should pay the creative knowledge worker in the participation economy for the creation of the most popular production, like an image on site. The Internet and the newly-‐formed creative industry have caused an explosion in the opportunities for art and creative business in general, especially in the e-‐commerce sector, giving the chance to make money by making old business work better. It has also made it possible for the institutions of art to do new business that before the Net were not even conceivable. Lewis and Sokoloff (2009) have shown that economists
have so little interest or give no attention to the market value of works of art, and even less to a series of actions that art take in order to achieve a result by which artists bring this value into existence. Lewis and Sokoloff (2009) continue with a suggestion of producing inexpensive materials. The cause of greatly valuable possessions and large amounts of money has long been a focus of popular interest. The failure of the alchemists on some occasions but not always, achieving the efforts of contemporary Internet entrepreneurs. but for the cause of the most resent ideas and methods economist have arrange little eager wish to know how artists have turned simple canvas and painted on objects of great worth. Creative industries are a competition zone in the object making. Lovink and Rossiter (2007) suggest that policies are drawn up based on some believes without having any proof about the diffused edges of the nature of cultural and economic rows flows. In a particular position creativity is anything but global. Cunnincham (2001) points out that the elements necessary for the success and continuous existence of the global economy are found in the art production figures and in the previous classification of art and culture industries. Perspectives of an economical, political and social idiom in the field of art production of the new classification of the creative industries unfold practices of production in art field which lead to a vocationalism and transmitting, especially in the digital field of production, social inclusions and urban regeneration, reflecting some of the social cost of the creative industry economies and social practices. Institutions of art take advantage of technological and organizational innovation that characterizes the creative industries, and enable new relationships with customers and the public in digital media production. In that frame Cunningham (2001) continues and observes that creative industries and the art institutions are less national, less local or regional and more global, and they bear the contemporary characteristics of the secondary orality economy in the post-‐ modernization media era, like interactivity, customization, performance, collaboration and networks. Ross (2009) suggests that places related to the cultural and creative production, like art institutions, are used to drive to an economic growth and turn into more advanced level regions, which do not want to be left out of the knowledge society. The physical construction of the Web has itself been a gigantic cultural and creative industry, reorganizing the structure of many procedures in the classical economy and transforming the idiomatic artists and designers into everyday life producers. In the 1990s Ross (2007) observes that if the managers of creative and cultural production tries to add value to the relation between production and object, they have to accept a situation in which all the economic activities of the arts and culture producers, especially the professional ones, together with the software producers are capable to produce capital not only cultural capital but also finance capital. It seems logical in that direction for the contemporary institutions of art in the new economic development to try to prove that they can produce their own intellectual property and add value to objects by moving to what Ross(2007) refers to as “home grow innovation”. That should happen inside the institutions not only by imitating or adapting foreign inventions but by producing new ideas independently. This independency has become a model for the new economy.
For Von Osten (2006) this model is responsible for a complete change of the direction of the economy towards a cultural character (culturalisation), as well as a change of the direction of the culture towards an economical character (economization). Guattari (1992) suggests that in the post media era, which is characterized by re-‐appropriation and re-‐sigulatization of the use of the digital media, access to data bases, interactivity, media libraries, etc., “technological development and social experimentation” is possible to lead production to a further step beyond the Guttenberg parenthesis, towards the dominance of the digital constructed perception and affect, thru a reflection on the relation of the subject and the digital, technical and physical object. Under Godel’s proof everything is a sort of an open system, they all interact somewhere with something other than themselves. Weibel (2006) sees the new second phase of the media as an artistic and epistemological ability to recognize and understand value and perform the combined media worlds of the post media. This combination of the media is part of the post parenthetical area of interest and activity of cultural production, in which Pettit (1997) suggests among other things the distinction between two similar things, the author and the performer. In the digital frame of post-‐co-‐movement media like real time networks, social clouds and socius communication, institutions of art reexamine and reconstruct the use of “popular antiques” which Pettit (1997) describes as a surviving inheritance of the past. The secondary orality institutions of art adapt an inevitable contemporary digital exchange of information and communication that live and develop in the present, sometimes with a minimum latency regarding the feedback/exchange within the real time web. But that fundamental kind of information, which exists independently of the culture of the observer, is not the same as the kind of information we can put in computers, a kind that supposedly wants to be free. Ong (1982) suggests that within the Gutenberg parenthesis the world is commodified, as the substance of art and cultural products can be traded, bought or sold in the culture industries, which is clearly transferred to the new media. The way of discovering what is true by considering opposite theories on the secondary orality seems in the digitalization era as a kind of resistance against control and limitation. In that computer revolution Kaplan (2007) points that Ong makes creative producers think that production has a history that imbricate with technology, which is itself a social process, colored with the ability to control people and events around it and dynamically changed by the creative people intention or the knowledge worker intention. Faigley (1992) claims in his study that secondary orality has the paradoxical result of a particular influence, making possible or easier to bring about commonality and at the same time social division. An important factor of what Ong, Pettit and Joyce named secondary orality in the institutions of art is the relationships that are created in the production and the experience or view and even the consumption at all levels that it might take place inside the field of the cultural and creative produced object. Weibel (2006) suggests that in the media context that exists in the contemporary digital age of post-‐modernization, people get knowledge by their right to have a similar social position and receive the same treatment of the lay public of the Art-‐producer, the cultural producer, and those who refuse to see the value of culture and art, the knowledge worker and the subject in the history of art. The
function of the social media in the participation and cloud phase of the digital age is understood as a place where a new kind of democratic contemporary art comes to birth, a birth that is accepted and endured by the 'user innovation' or 'consumer generated content'. The platform for this participation is the Internet, where everyone can produce and manipulate data and information. Weibel (2006) recognizes the existence of a place, a space and an institution, where the public can provide their work to others with the support of media art, without the protector of the standards criteria and benchmarks. Gibson (2000) suggests that the exchange of information in the electronic media is much faster than in traditional media, and thus they make a direct and closer to real time conversation about their contents possible. An information available to people especially in an electronic media can be discussed in a formal way, in a much more lively style that is popular on the digital social media, a style closer to face to face communication. Social and cloud networks, especially in the turn towards the participation and real time of web 2.0, are based on a set of important changes in people’s relationships regarding the exchange of information and their communication between each other. We have to take into consideration that the structuralisation of the digital ‘institutions of art’ and any form in digital sphere is related to the designers and users of neural networks. The network represents a key organizational principle for understanding contemporary politics, society and life in general. Institutions of Art, as Cox (2007) suggests using Foucault’s () term biopolitics, network types of organization became noticeable to more and more prescribe power relations and control structures. In the second generation of global system of interconnected computer networks a set of technological, economic and social trends is constructed and it is characterized by user accessibility, openness and participation, regarding both humans and machines. What is important for art institutions in the digital age is that almost everything has the right to happen almost in real time. It is now more than ever before that art production can be controlled even the time it is created and almost at once the produced object can be distributed. However, the services and the functions of the art institutions space produce some kind of value in the process of creation that gives value in the taste of the audience more than the end product. What makes an institution of art contemporary in digital age are the not perfect coincidences. Institutions of Art in the post-‐modernization media. According to Weibel (2006) the first period of the media has more or less come to an end. Digital art production and production in the art field have shown their strength of imagination in virtual worlds. In an artistic and epistemological sense, a new second phase takes place in the field of digital media production and in the institutions of art. In the period of real time web and cloud networks the digital media and the media in general are mixed together. This mix, however, is not experienced only between the born digital objects and the born
analog objects but in their interrelation, which Negroponte (1996) describes as a paradoxical dichotomy between the atoms and the bits. This inevitable separation or combination of atoms and bits is equally shared in the structure characteristics of the contemporary institutions of art and it results in an instant simultaneous dualism, that of hybrid institution of art. When things and ideas are not totally abandoned in their primary phase but they proceed to a next phase, they are combined together in order to establish a new layer of functions in their structure. The publication phase is mixed with the participation phase and they all together are mixed with the real time and cloud phase. It seems more like a social relation in the notion of technology, which takes place there where somehow the traditional tribal and cult are partially replaced or transformed by the evolution of contemporary technology. Everything that can be digital will be digital. Atoms and bits are a state of vision for a creative human-‐computer relationship. “Tangible bits” make it possible for us to interact with them with our muscles as well as our minds and memory. In our age, as Lanier (2010) observes, the cybernetic post modernization structure of a person has been refined and improved because of many changes that have been made by a very large, very long and very deep encounter with physical reality-‐a physical substance event. The semiotic and biologic domains are paralleled in the hope of an economic exchange between each other. As a result of a particular action, the digital according to Pasquinelli (2008) can with no difficulty render the offline world as a sort of “Google-‐like utopia of universal digitization” (Pasquinelli, 2008). A physical substance event can be changed into a new form and mapped onto the immaterial surface, and in an opposite way, the immaterial can with no effort be embodied in materiality. At the final phase of the society of the spectacle -‐with a lot of things close together-‐ material economy is unexpectedly founded on the basic and most important part of immaterial production. Institutions of Art are surrounded by the relics of the post-‐Fordism factory, where guesses and assumptions are no longer profitable over the interminable, the long “boring and annoying” field of the Internet. The culture economy reveals its preferences about forms that can be seen and felt. Taking into consideration how McDonald (2006) uses the term familiarity in the Digital Heritage, as one of the characteristics that give information to the ‘acceptability of a surrogate’, Institutions of Art with the digital surrogate try to possess enough information for a particular purpose, which would make it possible for an audience to inspect the entire exhibited ‘object’ and live an experience close to the authentic experience of the object, that of the time of its capture. Lanier (2010) suggests that if canned content starts to be a solid product to be sold on the Internet, the return of live performance of orality—in a new contemporary technological context—might be “the starting point for new kinds of successful business plans” (Lanier, 2010). On the contrary, Isocrates and other early Greek thinkers were not that textually dominated but their thinking procedures were based on the oral. They were holistic rather than abstractly analytic. Other than Plato's (2009) linear chirographic procedures, the holistic thinking of Isocrates and other pre-‐Platonic
Greek thinkers tries to manage chaos rather than carefully package thought. For this reason, such thinking is particularly interesting in terms of the information chaos in which we must live today. Throughout history, oralism has been a means of managing chaos. In our present situation, the linear thinking, which has dominated in the West since Plato and Aristotle, is not eliminated but it is only of limited usefulness. We are commonly not aware of the complex history of orality and literacy and of the effects of this history on the depths of human consciousness, where electronic communication and post (co-‐movement) media are now having profound and yet not understood effects. A big part of the Gutembergian parenthesis is resynthesized in the post-‐ modernization or it is abandoned by taking a step out of the parenthesis. The institutions of art follow this step. In the study “Art Time and Technology” Gere (2006) suggests that the history of contemporary art can be read as a history of artistic responses to the increasing speed and the accelerating evolution of technology in the modern era and, secondly, that if art is to have a role or a meaning at all in the age of real time technologies it is to keep our human relation with time open in the light of its potential foreclosure by such technologies. Those real time technologies that seem to be closely related to the interaction of the oral performer are impregnated with the characteristics of the meta-‐mythical era of the after-‐ Gutenberg parenthesis, in other words with the secondary orality performance. Spaces for such kind of transformations to take place are the Institutions of Art. Allowing richer and more vivid interaction patterns, digital media may arouse a sense of closeness and community. A group of artists who exist independently in a different physical space and different geographic locations, they are long distances apart and they might have never met or even heard of each other, can now collaborate in structures that are almost, but not exactly, the same as e-‐business, at the same time on many different continents, in move, at different times, theoretically day and night. Gielen (2010) reexamines the position of artistic labor inside a world economy that has taken a cultural turn. In addition, Institutions of Art are steeped in the importance of “communication, inventiveness and immaterial labor”, in which Gielen emphasizes how the world operates today in the information service and cultural economies that are different qualities of contemporary capitalism. However, post industrialism does not put the artist in the “driving seat of society; it commodifies flexibility, creativity, networking and conviviality, thereby collapsing the critical difference between artistic labour and wage-‐labour”. (Gielen, 2010) In that transformation of the Institutions of Art and the society, which is embraced in the post Fordist economy of the cybernetic post modernization and computer control, the definition of the real has started to be what is able to achieve an equivalent reproduction. “The real is not only what can be reproduced, but that which is always already reproduced. The hyper real…which is entirely in simulation.” (Baudrilliard, 1983). From another point of view the “ hybrid object” in the contemporary institutions of art encloses the encounter between the art and the audience and has become a container of characteristics related to the process, to the communication and relationships in the sphere of the digital.
If the information of a given event, situation or object in the field of art production does not have presence on the web, it hardly exists. This is somehow responsible for the transformation of the relations between objects, artists, curators, visitors and institutions of art in the digital age. The newly produced information from the primary experience of the object, e.g. a digital image of that object, gains through the web a portion of the same value as the original, in the distribution channels of the institutions of art. Mc Donald (2006) understands digitalization of the born analog object according to its position in media communication. In this way the Institutions of Art have the purpose to communicate their products through the right channels to one or more viewers or to audiences all over the world. Every part of production, from creator to receiver, has an influence on the quality of the digital products, and therefore it influences the effectiveness of the communication process. Noise in the channel, however, may cause a loss of respect of the transmission, and the typical or noticeable qualities of both the original analog or digital born object and the reproduced analog or digital born object limit the overall physical or mental power of the system to render the product. In some cases this limitation is embedded in the born hybrid object in a delicate balance, turning it into an acceptable contemporary, almost mainstream form. This form exists at the same time in a devise in relation to the physical world and independent of the device in the physical world. According to this, we have to recognize the existence of the hybrid Institution of Art somewhere between the digital institution and the analog institution. Viewing conditions in each case affect the perception of the person viewing or experiencing the exhibited products and byproducts. The post-‐modernization media transform the institutions of art into a laboratory capable to carry and research the values of art production. Hegels (1998) suggests that in the institutions of art, art remains a thing of the past, while in the post-‐modernization media there is a question placed about what is considered as past. With the post-‐modernization media the art production is not detached from its living environment, the living environment become mobile in the channels of the digital. The suggestion that art and art production exist from the very beginning in a certain social and physical situation is problematic and unstable. Probably the Institutions of art in the post-‐modernization media era give artworks more autonomy than they did in the traditional institution forms. However, Adorno (1983) suggests that the autonomy of the object of art cannot be very powerful if it is with no difficulty "negated by its physical situation." The post media production for the institutions of art are closer to Proust’s positive thesis in terms of life. A celebration of the chaos in the wide range of artworks is connected via rows flows of "memory and consciousness”. The art institutions for Proust in the post-‐modernization age could be the very mind of the contemporary artist, where the birth of artworks takes place. The "laboratories"-‐ institutions of Art represent the dialectical structure of their process of living. The word laboratory according to Zulaika (2003) "evokes ongoing process and experiment, producing the ongoing living of artworks, their life after death.” In post-‐modernization age almost all forms of art begin to come together, and as different media become less clear and chaotic and the planned work of art
becomes more common, Institutions of art and contemporary artist are urged to find the importance of Art production itself, according to Kosuth’s (1991) ideas. Somehow everyone becomes media, artists and institutions of art. This tactics responds to the progressive commercialization of information, of sharing, of context and networking and of art expression and practices. Gielen (2010) suggests that artist and the art production in the Post Fordism is a prototypical post Fordism worker model. The frame of ideas produced by the post Fordism worker in the culture industry is founded in the form of conceptual performing of ideas, leading into a conceptualization of almost all the media, according to Krauss (1999), in order to contextualize the post-‐modernization media. Krauss (1999) articulates the promise of an arrangement in "differential specificity", an idea that knows and articulates the difficulties to understand the post media through a thinking of the outmoded forms that exist together in a quiet and a serious way. But for Badiou (2003) conceptual art projects develop all the details, on the wider rank, as a “tactical replacement of the marketable art product by taking critical attitudes toward art, that is the replacement of the “object” with the “idea”. In addition, the replacement of the “object” with the “idea” “remained internal to the discourse of the institution of art, on the one hand and well situated in the logic of post-‐Fordist reproduction and what is referred to as ‘cognitive capitalism’ on the other hand.”(Badiou,2003 ) Taking inspiration from Benjamin’s(2002) description of the flâneur, artists and Institutions of Art should walk across the shiny passages of consumer culture, acting as shoppers that don not buy goods, but experience them through empathy and intimate understanding (Einfühlung), through an astonished glance. For the Institutions of art the idea of media was questioned first by the growth of contemporary or new artistic languages and practices and then by the arrival of the digital revolution of the media. However, we have to recognize the functionality of the post-‐modernization production in both states of the Institutions of Art. It exists somewhere in between the synergism of the conceptual and the craft, the digital and the analog, the material and the immaterial, the writing and the oral, the atoms and the bits, the speculative and the craftsman. It is this combined power of the above duality’s synergies when they work together, that Institutions of art and contemporary (art) production in general can take advantage of, which is greater than the total power achieved by each one working separately. The post-‐ modernization media of our times flirts with a hybrid “connection” that grows in between two centuries as the poet Mandelstam (1923) captures in his poem “the Century”. This cosmic beast demands the playfulness, not always with the same analogy, nor with the domination of the one over the other, suggesting the hypothesis of a potential co-‐existence, collaboration. A collaboration that recalls primary subjects on the scene, on the defragmentation in the field of art production, distributions and economies. All of our actions are placed onto those unavoided evolutions and research of cosmos inside a global retribalization of what McLuhan (2011) suggests, and they bear more of a sign of the age of the contemporary. Institutions of art are invited to be not only a place of re-‐collection but also a place of re-‐supply and feedback for the cultural industry. They bear the tribal
coat of arms within the contemporary creative digital economy. A coat, which will not only characterize the position of Institutions via the archiving process and presentation but will also characterize them as creative and active spaces of art and communication. Conclusion In this media text there has been an attempt to study and analyze the relationships and reflections of the Institutions of Art in the post-‐modernization era. Through a fragmentary presentation of ideas related to questions regarding economic, social and cultural issues, I have tried to cover a wide range of functions and concerns related to art production as well as cultural consumption. Furthermore, Institutions of Art as well as their struggle to be integrated into the post-‐modernization industry of information, the transformation of the whole place, society, economy, labour, object through the digital revolution, which affects the institutions of Art, are also topics that partially covered in this dissertation. What seems to be essential for understanding the future of the art object and for keeping up with the times is to understand the age and time we live in. That means to understand that technology is part of evolution. Thus, I suggest that technology is to a large extent part of everyday life and that should we desire to understand the development of the institutions of art, we must be able to recognize and read what influences the way they work directly or indirectly. Bibliography Adorno, T. W. “Valery Proust Museum”, Prisms, trans. S. and S. Weber. MIT Press, 1983. Agamben, G., 2009a. “What Is an Apparatus?” and Other Essays, Stanford University Press. Agamben, G., 2009b. “What Is an Apparatus?” and Other Essays, Stanford University Press. al, P.B. et, 1996. The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field 1st ed., Stanford University Press. Anon,
2011a. McLuhan Playboy Interview — Reclusland. Available http://www.reclusland.com/compass/2009/01/26/mcluhan-‐playboy-‐
at:
interview/ [Accessed August 29, 2011]. Anon, 2011b. The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan « NextNature.net. Available at: http://www.nextnature.net/2009/12/the-‐playboy-‐interview-‐marshall-‐ mcluhan/ [Accessed August 29, 2011]. Anon, 2005. Third Text Vol 18 No 6 2004, Routledge. Ardouin, C. & Belting, H., 2007. Contemporary Art and the Museum: A Global Perspective, Hatje Cantz. Aristotle, 2009. The Nicomachean Ethics Revised., Oxford University Press, USA. Arthur Danto, After the End of Art – Contemporary Art and the Pale of History, Princeton University Press, 1997, Badiou, A., 2008. Logics of Worlds First Edition., Continuum Pub Group. Badiou, A., 2003. Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism 1st ed., Stanford University Press. Badiou, A., 2007. The Century 1st ed., Polity. Badiou, A. & Feltham, O., 2007. Being and Event, Continuum. Barthes, R., 1972. Mythologies, Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Baudrillard, J., 1995. Simulacra and Simulation, University of Michigan Press. Bellof, L. 2006 When The Cables Leave, The Interfaces Arrive -‐ immaterial networks and material interfaces. Technoetic Arts: A Journal of Speculative Research, Volume 4.3 Benjamin, W., 2002. The Arcades Project, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Benjamin, W., 2008. The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility, and Other Writings on Media, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Benjamin, W., 2010. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, CreateSpace. Benjamin, W., 2006. Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings, Volume 3: 1935-‐1938, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, P., 1987. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste 1984th ed., Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, P., 1993. The Field of Cultural Production, Columbia University Press. Bruyne, P.D. & Gielen, P., 2011. Community Art: The Politics of Trespassing, Valiz/Antennae Series. Buntinx, G. et al., 2006. Museum Frictions: Public Cultures/Global Transformations, Duke University Press Books. Center for History and New Media, Zotero Quick Start Guide. Available at: http://zotero.org/support/quick_start_guide. Cilliers, P., 1998. Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems 1st ed., Routledge. DEBORD, G., 2000. Society of the Spectacle, Black & Red. Denham, M.A., 2011. A Collection Of Proverbs And Popular Sayings Relating To The Seasons, The Weather, And Agricultural Pursuits; Gathered Chiefly From Oral Tradition, Harrison Press. Don Tapscott, Grown Up Digital, McGraw-‐Hill eBooks 2009; John Palfrey, Urs Gasser,
Born Digital. Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives, Basic Books, New York 2008. Donna Haraway, "A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-‐Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century," in (New York; Routledge, 1991). Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (New York; Routledge, 1991) Dibbell, J., 1999. My Tiny Life: Crime and Passion in a Virtual World 1st ed., Holt Paperbacks. Djerassi, C., 2008. Four Jews on Parnassus-‐-‐A Conversation: Benjamin, Adorno, Scholem, Schonberg by Carl Djerassi With Illustrations by Gabriele Seethaler First Ed., Columbia University Press. Eltis, D., Lewis, F.D. & Sokoloff, K.L., 2009. Human Capital and Institutions: A Long-‐Run View 1st ed., Cambridge University Press. Fraser, A., 2007. Museum Highlights: The Writings of Andrea Fraser, The MIT Press. Fraser, A. et al., 2006. Institutional Critique and After, JRP|Ringier. Gadamer, H.-‐G. Truth and Method, trans. J. Weinsheimer and D.G. Marshall. London: Continuum, 2004. Gielen, P., 2010. The Murmuring of the Artistic Multitude: Global Art, Memory and Post-‐ Fordism, Valiz. Gielen, P. & Bruyne, P. de, 2010. Arts in Society: Being an Aritist in Post-‐Fordist Times, NAi Publishers. Greene, R., 2004. Internet Art, Thames & Hudson. Groys, B., 2008. Art Power, MIT Press. Groys, B. & Weibel, P., 2010. Medium Religion: Faith, Geopolitics, Art, Walther König. Guattari, Fã©., 1995. Chaosmosis: An Ethico-‐Aesthetic Paradigm, Indiana University Press. Halbwachs, M., 1992. On Collective Memory 1st ed., University Of Chicago Press. Hegel, Georg W. F., 2009. The Phenomenology of Spirit, Digireads.com. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, 2004. Introductory Lectures on Aesthetics, Penguin Classics. Heidegger, M. “The Origin of the Work of Art”, Poetry Language Thought, trans. A. Hofstadter. New York: Harper & Row, 1975. Hinderliter, B. et al., 2009. Communities of Sense: Rethinking Aesthetics and Politics, Duke University Press Books. Joyce, M., 2007. Was: annales nomadique: a novel of internet 1st ed., Fiction Collective 2. J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.) Museums and the Web 2010: Selected Papers from an International Conference. . Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, 2010, p. 3 also available at http://www.archimuse.com/publishing/mw_2010_intro.html Krauss, R.E., 2000. A Voyage on the North Sea: Art in the Age of the Post-‐Medium Condition, Thames & Hudson. Krysa, J., 2006. Curating Immateriality, Autonomedia. Lanier, J., 2011. You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto Reprint., Vintage. Lessig, L., 2008. Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy, Penguin
Press HC, The. Lev Manovich, “Post-‐Media Aesthetics”, sd (2000 www.manovich.net/DOCS/Post_media_aesthetics1.doc.
–
),
online
at
Levi-‐Strauss, C., 1995. Myth and Meaning: Cracking the Code of Culture 1st ed., Schocken. Lovink, G. & Rossiter, N., 2007. MyCreativity Reader (My Creativity) -‐ A Critique of Creative Industries, Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam 2007. Marshall McLuhan, Playboy Magazine, March 1969, c 1994. It has been modestly redacted and slightly edited (by, Phillip Rogaway) for use in UC Davis’ ECS 188, “Ethics in an Age of Technology.” Merleau-‐Ponty, M. “Indirect Language and the Voices of Silence”, The Merleau-‐Ponty Aesthetics Reader, ed. G.A. Johnson, trans. M.B. Smith. Evanston: Northwestern UP, 1993. Negroponte, N., 1996. Being Digital 1st ed., Vintage. Pettit, T , 1997 Media in Transition 5: Creativity, Ownership and Collaboration in the Digital Age Plenary 1: “Folk Cultures and Digital Cultures” -‐ BEFORE THE GUTENBERG PARENTHESIS: ELIZABETHAN-‐AMERICAN COMPATIBILITIES Peter Weibel, “The Post-‐media Condition”, in AAVV, Postmedia Condition, cat., Centro Cultural Conde Duque, Madrid 2006, Prelom kolektiv, Prelom Journal for Images and Politics fall 2006, edition in english, Akademija, Beograd, European Cultural Foundation ALMOSTREAL Plato, 2009. Apology, Crito, and Phaedo of Socrates, IndyPublish. Plato, 2003. The Symposium, Penguin Classics. Poulakos, T. & Depew, D., 2009. Isocrates and Civic Education, University of Texas Press. Rowell, M. “A sense of place/a sense of space: the sculpture of Jorge Oteiza”, in Oteiza: Mito y Modernidad/Mitoa eta Modernotasuna. Bilbao: Guggenheim Bilbao Museoa, 2004. Schubert, K., 2009. The Curator’s Egg: The Evolution of the Museum Concept from the French Revolution to the Present Day Third Edition., Ridinghouse. Shaw, J. & Weibel, P., 2003. Future Cinema: The Cinematic Imaginary After Film, The MIT Press. Stallabrass, J., 2004. Art Incorporated: The Story of Contemporary Art 1st ed., Oxford University Press, USA. Stiegler, B., 2010. For a New Critique of Political Economy 1st ed., Polity. Trant, J. and D. Bearman (1997). “Preface. Museums and the Web: a conference, a community, and a challenge”. In D. Bearman and J. Trant (eds). Museums and the Web 97: Selected papers. Pittsburgh: Archives & Museum Informatics, Turner F., 2007, From Counterculture to Cyberculture. Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism, Chicago University Press. Turner, F., “Burning Man at Google: A Cultural Infrastructure for New Media Production”, New Media & Society, Vol.11, No.1-‐2 (April, 2009), Virno, P., 2004. A Grammar of the Multitude: For an Analysis of Contemporary Forms of Life (Semiotex First US edition., Semiotext(e). Weibel, P., 1899. Peter Weibel: The Open Work 1964 -‐ 1979, Hatje Cantz Publishers.
Wellman, J.L., 2009. Organizational Learning: How Companies and Institutions Manage and Apply Knowledge, Palgrave Macmillan. Williams, K., 2011. Crossroads: History of Science, History of Art: Essays by David Speiser, vol. II 1st ed., Springer Basel. Zulaika, J. “Introduction: Oteiza’s Return from the Future”. In J. Oteiza, Oteiza’s Selected Writings, ed. J. Zulaika, trans. F. Fornoff. Reno: University of Nevada