Advertisement

The Internet as Liberating Space for the Visual Arts: Political Hopes and Sociological Realities

  • Mia Rosa Koss HartmannEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter examines how the Internet and visual art may co-produce particular liberating spaces. Both arenas are attributed great political hopes in their capacities to bring unjust hegemonies to the fore, and to mobilize critical reflexivity and dialogue. However, sociological observations of the deep entanglement of art with hegemonies of convention raise the question of how free the freeing forces of the synergy between visual art and the Internet are. Interviews with visual artists from the Danish net art group Artnode explore their resilient hopefulness for the synergy between visual art and the Internet, and how realities have consolidated in both disappointments and accomplishments over three decades of artistic experimentation. From these experiences, the art-Internet synergy is exemplified in terms of its transformative and antagonist liberating capacities. As a transformative space, the Internet potentially offers an innovative space for experimentation, but because it is mobilized as an oppositional space parallel to the established art world, it becomes insulated and the price is lack of recognition. Antagonist capacities of the art-Internet synergy refer to socially engaging criticism. The Internet may enable reflexivity, but given challenges, but this must be specifically designed for and cultivated.

Literature

  1. Alacovska, A. (2018). Keep hoping, keep going: Towards a hopeful sociology of creative work. The Sociological Review, 1(19).Google Scholar
  2. Baumgärtel, T. (2008/1999). Netkunst. Historisk rids over det kunstneriske arbejde med telekommunikationsmidler. In J. Lillemose & N. Recke (Eds.), Vi elsker din computer. En antology om netkunst redigeret af Artnode. Det Kongelige Danske Kunstakademis Billedkunstskoler (Originally published in English in 1999 with the title: Net art. On the history of artistic work with telecommunication. In T. Druckrey & P. Weibel (Eds.), Net condition: Art and global media. Cambridge: MIT Press).Google Scholar
  3. Becker, H. S. (1974). Art as collective action. American Sociological Review, 39(6), 767–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, H. S. (2008/1982). Art worlds. 25th anniversary edition published by the University of California Press (Originally published in 1982 by The Regents of the University of California).Google Scholar
  5. Bengtsen, P. (2013). Beyond the public art machine: A critical examination of street art as public art. Konsthistorisk tidskrift/Journal of Art History, 82(2), 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benjamin, W. (1936). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In H. Arendt (Ed.) & H. Zohn (Trans.), Illuminations: Essays and Reflections (pp. 217–252). New York: Schocken.Google Scholar
  7. Berry, J. (2008/2001). Re-materialiseringen—blot en gentagelse? In J. Lillemose & N. Recke (Eds.), Vi elsker din computer. En antology om netkunst redigeret af Artnode. Det Kongelige Danske Kunstakademis Billedkunstskoler (Originally published in English in 2001 with the title: Re-dematerialisation of the object & the artist in biopower. Nettime, February 5).Google Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, P. (1984a/1979). Distinction. London and New York: Routledge (Originally published in 1979 with the French title: La Distinction by Editions de Minuit).Google Scholar
  9. Bourdieu, P. (1984b). The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bradley, W., & Esche, C. (2007). Art and social change: A critical reader. London: Tate Publishings.Google Scholar
  11. Darts, D. (2004). Visual culture jam: Art, pedagogy, and creative resistance. Studies in an Education: A Journal of Issues and Research, 45(4) (2004), 313–327.Google Scholar
  12. De La Fuente, E. (2007). The new sociology of art: Putting art back into social science approaches to the Arts. Cultural Sociology, 1(3), 409–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deleuze, G. (1992/1988). The fold: Leibniz and the baroque. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press (Originally published in French in 1988 with the title: Le Pli: Leibnitz et le Baroque by Les Éditions De Minuit).Google Scholar
  14. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1972). Anti-oedipus. Trans. R. Hurley, M. Seem, & H. R. Lane. London and New York: Continuum, 2004. Vol. 1 of Capitalism and Schizophrenia. 2 vols. 1972–1980. Trans. of L’Anti-Oedipe. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
  15. Ekman, U. (Ed.). (2013). Throughout: Art and culture emerging with ubiquitous computing. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Ferdinand, P. (Ed.). (2000). The internet, democracy and democratization. Abingdon: Frank Cass Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Greaves, K. (2014). Hell-horse: Radical in Nazi-occupied Denmark. Oxford Art Journal, 37(1), 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greene, R. (2008/2000). Webarbejder: en historisk oversigt over Internetkunsten. In J. Lillemose & N. Recke (Eds.), Vi elsker din computer. En antology om netkunst redigeret af Artnode. Det Kongelige Danske Kunstakademis Billedkunstskoler (Originally published in English in 2000 with the title: Web work: A history of internet art. Artforum).Google Scholar
  19. Harvie, J. (2013). Fair play—Art, performance and neoliberalism. Performance Interventions. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Ilchuk, Y. (2017). Hearing the voice of Donbas: Art and literature as forms of cultural protest during war. Nationalities Papers, 45(2), 256–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Katz, J. (1997). The digital citizen. Wired, pp. 68–82.Google Scholar
  22. Katz, M. (2018, April 23). Augmented reality is transforming museums. The Wire, Culture. https://www.wired.com/story/augmented-reality-art-museums/.
  23. Khaire, M. (2015). Art without borders? Online firms and the global art market. In O. Velthuis & S. B. Curioni (Eds.), Cosmopolitan canvases, the globalization of markets for contemporary art. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kristensen, J. T. (2017, January 14). En note om Artnode. Idoart.dk.Google Scholar
  25. Landgreen, M., Hinnum, S., & Olsen, S. K. (Eds.). (1997). Inserts. 67 kvindelige kunstnere i Danmark. Artnode Production.Google Scholar
  26. Lievrouw, L. A. (2014). Materiality and media in communication and technology studies: An unfinished project. In T. Gillespie, et al. (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lillemose, J., & Recke, N. (Eds.). (2008). Vi elsker din computer. En antology om netkunst redigeret af Artnode. Det Kongelige Danske Kunstakademis Billedkunstskoler.Google Scholar
  28. Lovejoy, M. (1997). Postmodern currents: Art and artists in the age of electronic media. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  29. Mouffe, C. (1991). Democratic citizenship and the political community. In The Miami Theory Collective (Ed.), Community at loose ends (pp. 70–82). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  30. Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. London and New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  31. Mouffe C. (2007). Artistic activism and agonistic spaces. Art & Research: A Journal of Ideas, Contexts and Methods, 1(2), 1–5.Google Scholar
  32. Mouffe, C. (2008). Art and democracy: Art as an agnostic intervention in public space. Open 14. Rotterdam: NAI Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Mouffe, C., Deutsche, R., Joseph, B. W., & Keenan, T. (2001). Every form of art has a political dimension. Grey Room, 2(Winter), 98–125.Google Scholar
  34. Neal, T. M. (1999, November 29). Satirical web site poses political test. Facing legal action from Bush, creator cites U.S. tradition of parody. Washington Post Staff Writer, p. A02.Google Scholar
  35. Noveck, B. S. (2000). Paradoxical partners: Electronic communication and electronic democracy. In P. Ferdinand (Ed.), The Internet, democracy and democratization. Abingdon: Frank Cass Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Prior, N. (2011). Critique and renewal in the sociology of music, Bourdieu and beyond. Cultural Sociology, 5(1), 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sauvagnargues, A. (2013/2005). Deleuze and art. London: Bloomsbury Academic (Originally published in French with the title: Deleuze et l’art by Presses Univesritaires de France).Google Scholar
  38. Schreiber, R. (2008/2001). Net.kunst: efter det utopiske øjeblik? In J. Lillemose & N. Recke (Eds.), Vi elsker din computer. En antology om netkunst redigeret af Artnode. Det Kongelige Danske Kunstakademis Billedkunstskoler (Originally published in English in 2001 with the title: Net.Art: Shredding the Utopian moment. A Critical Journal of the Arts in Baltimore and the World, Issue 7).Google Scholar
  39. Shanken, E. A. (2009). Art and electronic media. London: Phaidon Press Limited.Google Scholar
  40. Shklovsky, V. (1988). Art as technique. In D. Lodge (Ed.), Modern critic is mandatory: A reader (pp. 15–30). New York and London: Longman.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MIT Sloan School of ManagementCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Copenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark

Personalised recommendations