| We didn't have to go
far into the new millennium before the art world took some major notice
of high technology. In February and March of this year, three important
exhibitions dealing with the implications of digital technology just
may crack paradigmatic prejudices against plugged-in forms and subjects.
The shows, Telematic Connections: The Virtual Embrace which debuted
at the San Francisco Art Institute and then travels, the San Francisco
Museum of Modern Art's 010101: Art in Technological Times, and BitStreams
at the Whitney Museum of American Art, each employ a very different
look at their subjects. But the fact that they appear simultaneously
suggests there's some cultural common ground. What follows is an online
dialog with three curators involved with these concurrent exhibitions. [ed., SFAI, Feb. 2001]
Steve Dietz is Director of New Media Initiatives at the Walker
Art Center in Minneapolis and curator of Telematic Connections,
Lawrence Rinder is the Whitney's Anne & Joel Ehrenkranz Curator of
Contemporary Art and co-curator of BitStreams, and Benjamin Weil,
SFMOMA's Curator of Media Arts, is one of the six interdisciplinary
curators of 010101. The conversation was lead by Bay Area writer
Glen Helfand. (For exhibition dates and URLs, please see the end
of the document.)
Glen Helfand: It seems as if this is a touchstone moment
when major institutions are giving a seal of approval to art related
to the digital and various forms of high tech, allowing them into
main galleries rather than new media corners. Your exhibitions also
chart the increasing art world realization that tech-related work
doesn't solely exist on the computer screen, it can also play out
in actual space. What have been the developments and projects that
have laid the groundwork for this idea? How do you position your
Steve Dietz: While the press likes to frame, say, the inclusion
of net art in the 2000 Whitney Biennial as a "seal-of-approval"
event, I would argue that it's fundamentally an artistic choice,
not a museological or curatorial one. Historically, when the visual
arts departments of major museums began collecting photography-based
work, it wasn't because they woke up one morning and decided that
Cindy Sherman could hang next to--or at least near--Francis Bacon;
Sherman did. For various reasons--including monetary, I'm sure she
and her contemporaries felt that "visual arts" was a more appropriate
context for what they were trying to do than "photography." It was
the job of museums and curators to critically respond to this positioning.
In a similar way, many artists are now working with "technology"
and the networks for concrete and varied reasons. It is incumbent
on those of us working with institutions committed to the contemporary
to investigate an intersection.
One of those intersections for Telematic Connections is precisely
physical installations for which the global communications network
is a critical component. One of the things I found out in researching
the Telematics Timeline, which is intended as an open source context
for the works in the exhibition--anyone can add their own examples
to it is that there is a well-articulated, if not well-known history
of such works and events. Whether it is Myron Krueger's "responsive
environments" from the 70s in relation to Victoria Vesna's Community
of People with No Time or Joseph Weizenbaum's Eliza (1966) in relation
to Maciej Wisniewski's Netomatheque or Kit Galloway and Sherrie
Rabinowitz's Satellite Arts Project (1979) in relation to Paul Sermon's
Telematic Vision, there are important precedents for almost every
work in the exhibition. Precedents, I should add, by artists who
continue to produce work actively, although often outside of the
orbit of mainstream art institutions.
Lawrence Rinder: BitStreams is concerned specifically with
art that has been made with digital means and which reflects thematically
on life in the digital age. Thus, it is not simply a milestone in
the history of "tech-art" exhibitions--which go back several decades,
if not more--but, rather, a focused investigation of a newly ubiquitous
mode of imaging, communication, and production that has had a revolutionary
impact on both the art world and society at large. The 1999 exhibition
"Net_Condition" at ZKM (which Benjamin worked on if I'm not mistaken)
might be a considered a kind of precedent insofar as it focused
on the impact on art and society of a particular set of technologies.
However, BitStreams takes a broader view of digital practice than
did "Net_Condition." Although digital media a re by definition "high-tech,"
their artistic products are not necessarily so: as evident in BitStreams,
artists are using digital media to create works that possess strong
physical, even visceral presences. Rather than seeing BitStreams
as a "seal of approval," I'd vastly prefer that people experienced
it simply as an opportunity to expand their knowledge of an important
new direction in contemporary art and, specifically, to become aware
of the incredible new modes of expression made possible by digital
Benjamin Weil: In regards to history, I tend to think there
a re two directions that have informed the selecting process for
010101. This said, I cannot speak for my colleagues, and will make
sure that I only reflect what my position is here. There's a consensus
that has resulted in this exhibition, which I am happy to say is
the result of shared interests and concerns. I would say that there's
a form a list approach and a more conceptual one. To a certain extent,
what interests me in the formal approach, is how the notion of painting‚or
sculpture‚can be carried out not only with traditional materials
(i.e. oil or acrylic, or whatever) on a flat surface we could call
canvas, but also in the digital realm. Interestingly enough, someone
compared Mark Napier's Fee to an abstract expressionist painting
generator! That denotes our interest in linking back to the past,
even if at times, this may appear as a far-fetched comparison. In
fact, Mark Napier's work is much more related to conceptual art
than to any formalist idea or approach to art! However, I think
that this idea of linking back to earlier art forms is important,
because 010101 is not a show about technology (I do not believe
any of the three shows we are referring to is, or at least, I hope
not.) Therefore it is essential to juxtapose the work of artists
being carried out in analog media and the ones carried out with
digital tools, be they digital "paintbrushes" or "chisels" or more
software-based, more conceptual ones. Because the boundaries are
not that easy to establish, there's photography, which lies half
way in between, in the case of someone like [photographer] Andreas
Gursky, who has been using computers to "finish" his work. Char
Davies' work may be immersive, it is also about surface, it is also
about lusciousness, and all these qualities I find very painterly.
The second premise in my opinion is more stemming out of conceptual
art, and that means that form is less important, if only because
it may be evolving. What we are gradually learning from unstable
media is that form may not be as important as content, which in
turn carries out intent. That's where online work may be most evidently
paced, at least the selection we offer as part of the 010101 show...
although of course, some may say the work of Entropy8Zuper! may
be more "painterly"!
I think that what is important with 010101 is that it is an exhibition
that acknowledges the formidable challenges that the collecting
and cultural disseminating institution has to face. Museums as we
know them are monuments to culture, as well as monuments FOR culture.
However the current state of culture is not interested in monumentalization.
It was interesting all of a sudden to see a candy piece by Felix
Gonzalez-Torres at MOMA in an exhibition with other woks of art
produced in different times of the "modern" era. The piece somehow
manages to avoid consecration, because it is desecrated by being
a space of partaking. I don't know how to express it better, but
I was really amazed at how this still functioned, 10 years later,
with less of an insider's feeling. It has become a public work,
and yet, it still managed to retain its extraordinary inherent quality.
What I am trying to say here, is that there is a type of art that
demands other museological practice, more humbling presentations,
which in turn makes the art idea more accessible. In the case of
010101 (and I believe the other two shows as well), we're trying
to understand what it means for art to be dissociated from its material
qualities. That is mainly brought by the fact art forms of today
will not have a defined existence, formally speaking. With digital
media the immediacy of formal obsolescence is even more crudely
posed. And maybe that aspect of things is important to look into,
when it comes to understanding what it means to be a museum, and
what it means to be a curator today.
What is also important here, is to realize that art is what is
important: not how it is made, or what it is made of. Maybe we are
finally coming to terms with the fact that art may not necessarily
be justified by the beautiful craftsmanship. Compelling concepts
and ideas well conveyed may be an acceptable level of acceptance
for art proposals! Maybe technology has consecrated that will to
be freed from the mastery of a craft artists have been craving for
since Duchamp--if not before!
We have not yet found a way to tackle the issue of how to include
art forms that historically were informed by technology. I think
here of artists who have pioneered technological forms, but who's
relationship to technology is very hard to decipher inside the traditional
canons of the art world. I'm thinking of artists such as Simon Penny
or Perry Hoberman, Michael Naimark or Jeffrey Shaw, or Lynn Hershmann,
and so many others. I think there's a lot of thought that needs
to be given to those investigations, how to re-integrate them within
the continuum of "Art" . This may be because these works maintained
a more "scientific" relationship to technology... This is a really
difficult issue, I think. But we need to sort out a way to be more
inclusive of these works in the future...
GH: How did you go about developing and focusing your
exhibition (and breaking it into thematic sections) in a climate
awash in vast, hyperbolic discussions of digital technology and
its economic and social impact? How much of that cultural phenomenon
is addressed within your exhibition?
LR: I developed BitStreams by first looking at as much
work made with digital media as I could. I quickly became aware
that digital media have become virtually ubiquitous in the field
of contemporary art. Just about every gallery I went in to had at
least one, if not more, artists utilizing digital media to some
degree in their work. Not only young artists who have grown up in
the digital age and for whom it seems to be second nature, but also
older, established artists who have turned to these technologies
for various purposes. In order to focus the project, I decided that
there should be dual criteria for the exhibition: a.) works made
using digital technology and b.) works reflecting thematically on
digital effects or the experience of life in the digital age. I
did not feel that it would be advantageous to further categorize
the works included in the exhibition insofar as it might artificially
limit people's readings of what are phenomenally multi-dimensional
works. However, I did try to install the exhibition in such a way
that relationships among groups of works might become more evident.
SD: Part of my goal was to get past the idea of the survey.
Just as it seems nonsensical at this point to do an exhibition of
"painting" or "photography," I think that artists' practice is well
beyond "computers and art" or "net art" as useful intersections
for their work. I was interested in two more limited intersections:
physical interfaces to the network and utopian versus dystopic notions
of how the convergence of computing and communications (telematics)
brings us closer together--or doesn't. The desire to "connect" is
fundamental to being human, but what is the status of the virtual
embrace more than a century after the invention of "tele-technologies"
such as the telegraph and the telephone?
At the same time, this work does not happen in a vacuum, and in
"Tele-wood" I present clips from a series of Hollywood films about
this desire to connect across space and time, from "Beam me up,"
to the "integrator/disintegrator" in The Fly (1958) to telepathic
communication in a laughably bad Flash Gordon (1980). While Tele-wood
is intended as light-hearted, I think it is difficult to underestimate
the influence of past media-ized notions of the future as the cultural
fish tank in which we swim.
BW: I think that cultural climate at large is important
to consider as a decisive factor. Maybe it would not have been that
easy for "established" institutions to venture into such complicated
exhibition that literally questions the very structure of their
operation and poses very complicated problems in terms of organization.
The need to keep up with a fast evolving culturescape is certainly
a decisive factor in putting together these exhibitions. The museum
has an amazing opportunity to address issues that will enable the
institution to adapt to new art forms, and a new cultural context.
Perhaps it's time to put forward a third way between the good
old elitist approach to things and the "societe du spectacle" way
of dealing with things: there's got to be a way to think beyond
the dictatorship of the focus group that somehow fascinates the
non-profit world, and the ivory tower approach, that has somehow
been at the core of a traditional curatorial practice. Possibly,
this is what these shows really are about! At least I know that
partly informs 010101 (if not only my contribution to it!). The
museum has to continue being a space of cultural investigation and
discovery. It need not be the "discovery channel", though!
GH: Interestingly, there's not much crossover in terms
of artists in the exhibitions, and there are a number of young
or lesser-known names included in the rosters. Clearly this is a
very viable, active arena. In considering works, what kinds of themes
and aesthetic strains did you notice? Did you encounter types of
work that surprised you?
BW: For me, there 's been a lot of discovery, not only
through my own scouting, but through that of my colleagues. I
think that we sometimes tend to operate in very small circuits,
and opening up the field is an important part of our endeavor, to
learn from each other's discoveries and initiate a dialogue between
ourselves as curators. However, I think we need to avoid putting
together exhibitions that look like the treasure trove from
a trip to the unknown lands. That would be what a colleague of mine
once called very rightly "The Dangers of Tourism". This said, exhibitions
that are exploring the changes brought by technology in the practice
of art (understood at large here), and the consequent evolution
of museology will require some scouting, and consequently an opportunity
to display new works by lesser known artists, architects, designers,
We cross paths. This is exciting, it means we have a certain sense
of consensus; a common set of beliefs and interests. Maybe we are
in the process of articulating a critical discourse more suited
to new art forms... On the other hand, we do have different approaches.
I think‚from what I know ‚that the three shows we are talking about
are informed by different understandings, or rather, complementary
interests. I also think it is important to reiterate here that 010101,
contrary to the two other shows, is curated by more than one person,
five curators from various departments ranging from painting and
sculpture to media arts, design and architecture, to education.
Our scope of interest is consequently wider, and addresses other
issues, such as how to define art as a specific area of cultural
investigation. I have been talking about R&D [Research and Development],
which seems to irritate a few people.
However, I think to use "cultural R&D" is interesting as a premise,
as it enables us to go beyond the boundaries of "Art", and reach
out to practices that are equally challenging, if only in different ways. Not so long ago, when I visited the Exploratorium with
a gallerist, he smiled and said he thought that some of the exhibits
were better than a lot of art we see in galleries these days. Beyond
the evident sarcasm, I think that maybe what was being implied is
that art and science are not far removed, and that "fundamental
research" in the sphere of culture should be as acceptable as in
the sphere of science.
SD: It didn't surprise me that many artists are actively
working with non-WIMP (Windows, Icons, Menus and Pointing devices)
interfaces to the virtual world of the networks, who were not interested
in positioning their work's thematic as "techno." But I was excited
to more fully discover the really rich discourse and activity that
preceded these efforts. When you re-read Gene Youngblood's Expanded
Cinema, you realize how prescient he was about what the Internet,
some 20+ years later, has allowed to penetrate cultural consciousness
at a much broader level. But he was not a lone voice. There was
a lot of significant activity and theorizing going on that was simultaneously
more techno-fetishistic because there was not a ubiquitous network--technology
had not become like electricity--and more generalized around the
idea of communication because there wasn't such a convergence on
a single protocol, like the World Wide Web. The theory had to work
cross-platform, so to speak, whether you were using a fax machine
or a telephone or a computer.
LR: There were several "strains" of work that emerged
as I selected works for the exhibition. Some artists, such as Michael
Rees and Craig Kalpakjian, explore the realm of virtual reality,
creating bizarre images and objects that are entirely constructed
by means of software programs and yet which possess an uncanny degree
of verisimilitude. Another large group is concerned with the ways
that digital media can transform pre-existing images, challenging
our notions of objective truth and of originality. Paul Pfeiffer,
Warren Neidich, Lynn Marie Kirby, Lutz Bacher, Jon Haddock, and
Carl Fudge are all exploring this provocative terrain. John Klima
and Lew Baldwin as well as all the artists included in Christiane
Paul's exhibition Data Dynamics (which will be on view simultaneously
with BitStreams at the Whitney) are engaged with ways that physical
movement and information flow can be "mapped," that is represented
graphically and dynamically in real time.
This group of artists benefits especially from the unique capacities
of the Internet to carry streaming data from all corners of the
world. Many artists use digital media as an intermediate stage in
creating a final work that is often fabricated by hand using traditional
artmaking methods. Carl Fudge, for example, digitally developed
the composition of his print series, Rhapsody Spray, but made the
final piece with a painstaking silkscreen process. Similarly, Robert
Lazzarini, uses three-dimensional modeling programs to create the
compound distortions in his skulls, but the sculptures themselves
are meticulously honeymooned of solid bone. While works such as
these remind us of how our perceptions of form, color, space, and
time have been transformed by digital technology, a number of artists
comment overtly on the experience of life in the digital age. Jeremy
Blake's five-channel animation, Jim Campbell's ethereal LEDs, and
Leah Gilliam's graveyard of outmoded Macs all raise disquieting
emotions concerning our race towards a cybernetic future .
GH: Can you point to any specific pieces that most succinctly
address themes in your exhibition?
SD: No. I would expect that each work complicates and
escapes to some extent my curatorial vantage point. Tina LaPorta's Re:mote_corp@REALities,
perhaps because it is edited as a linear video, is very pointed
about the thematics of distance and (dis)connection. But it is important
to experience the visceral virtual embrace of these projects. Do
you like it?
BW: No. I think the show is a mosaic that is well balanced.
Each work has its own value in the making of an overall curatorial
statement about what we collectively believe is a possible snapshot
of the current state of things. 010101 is a show that is deliberately
global (as much as some may say there 's a serious lack of African
representatives!), and as deliberately trying to circumvent the
notion of media as a determining factor for a show about technology.
There are web sites, "VR" installations, video projections, "physiological
architecture", photography, designed environments, installations,
drawing, painting, and sculpture (the three latter terms here referring
to more "traditional" art forms). Just as an example of interesting
crossovers, that denote artists increasingly working across‚beyond?‚media,
I like the fact, that an artist understood as a painter ‚ Matthew
Ritchie‚participated in this show with an online contribution. Maybe
that epitomizes the interest we have as a group of curators, to
cut across our various "disciplines" to find a common ground of
operation so as to really try and address the current state of the
To go back to the issue of trend. I think that this echoes the
first question you ask, Glen. Painting, for instance, is no longer
limited to the canvas. For instance, the work of an artist like
Paul Pfeiffer, is‚in my opinion‚very much informed by painting.
What is more interesting in the case of 010101 is how certain
trends emerge of the final checklist that may not have been evident
beforehand. Take, for instance, the issue of immersion, or immersive
experience. Char Davies posited her work that way. However, I completely
believe the work of Miyajima falls into this category, and so does
the work of Rodney Graham, so does Brian Eno ... and the work of
Decosterd & Rahm as well; not to mention the work of Jeremy Blake.
So what is immersive? How does a work captivate our intelligence,
our sensitivity? How does it engage our body in the experience of
GH: In organizing the project, did you consider the need
to seduce or convince audiences more attuned to conventional media
that the work is valid and/or beautiful? Do you feel the public
is well versed enough through daily computer use for the works to
make sense right off the bat? For certain works where technology
is an integral issue, how much do you feel should be spelled out
in wall labels?
SD: This is a tough one. Of course, it's important to
set up the exhibition in a way that will make sense to the visitor
and, I believe, give them multiple and varied "hooks" on which to
hang their interest. At the same time, I think it's important not
to fall into the trap of trying to convince people that such and
such a piece is "as good as" something they already know. I think
part of the point is to encourage people to explore beyond what
they are comfortable with.
And I'm also completely confident that many, many visitors will
actively enjoy the engagement of interactive works, even though,
like any stimulating work of art, it will take some effort to make
one's peace with the work, so to speak.
BW: I think that, despite "direct" curatorial contribution
(selecting artists and projects for the exhibition), the contribution
of John Weber, SFMOMA's Curator of Education, has been seminal,
in that he's been equally interested (and focusing the interest
of the group) in how to create layers of interpretative material
to foster interest and curiosity from audiences. The exhibition
will have extended labels, and there will be a stream of "think
texts" that will foster various thought processes while walking
through the gallery part of the exhibition. As a pendant to this,
I think of the "sitestreaming" experiment as being a really interesting one: it is the first time there will be an attempt to think
about how online art can be framed without necessarily killing the
opportunity to discover the work through a more direct access.
Along with the artist statements and notes that compliment curatorial
interpretations, there is a sum of possible filters to understand
the work that are readily available, both online and in the gallery.
Layering information is, I think, a very important point in that
experiment. Needless to say, showing new art forms calls for a thorough
reassessment of museological practice.
LR: I did not feel that anything was needed to make the
exhibition more seductive. As it is, the works in BitStreams a re
extremely sensual and often quite physical. I think that the relatively
familiar forms of many of the works may put the audience at ease
and allow them to appreciate some of the more subtle transformations
taking place in digitally-produced works. In part because the role
of digital technology may not be immediately evident in some of
the pieces, we decided to produce didactic labels for each and every
artist explaining in simple terms how their works were made.
GH: From a visual standpoint, will your exhibition be
a challenge to conventional museum display? Does it expand the notion
of art experience with increased numbers of immersive environments
and sound projects? What kind of installation issues do these raise?
BW: Intrinsically, it has to. There are a lot of issues
that very much challenge the way the installation of an exhibition
takes place. Issues of access, labeling, presentation, sound bleed,
traffic flow, etc. are raised. They call for a new way to think
about our work, and the way we create a perception of the museum
as being a space of experiment. Again, it is not about competing
with the more leisure-oriented types of activities. Rather, it is
about possibly reflecting upon how we can incorporate live culture
without immediately turning it into something inert! I think that
the think texts will be an interesting test, as will be the experiment
at exhibition design, carried out both online and offline, by a
team of architects who have made very bold statements. Maybe that
will be perceived as the boldest move or maybe it will be a complete
failure. But the fact is that we need to try to see how we can evolve
the antiseptic, well lit white cube model, which is as constraining
as 19th century velvet walls and curio cabinet-like presentations!
LR: Probably the most unfamiliar component of BitStreams,
for the average visitor, will be the large and central presence
of sound art. Over the past few years, sound art has become a key
element of the contemporary art scene, though not much recognized
at larger museums and arts institutions. Sound artists, in particular,
have been tremendously impacted by digital technology. Thus, half
of the artists in BitStreams work exclusively with sound. Their
works were selected by the exhibition co-curator Debra Singer and
installed in a specially designed listening space designed by the
great New York-based architecture firm, LOT/EK.
SD: The first museum to use a computer in an exhibition
was the Jewish Museum for Jack Burnham's Software in 1970. A team
of DEC engineers was engaged to set up a PDP--an early time-share
computer--to run some of the works, such as Hans Haacke's Visitor
Profile and Ted Nelson's Interactive Catalog. It wasn't working
at the opening and apparently was often "down" during the exhibition.
In some senses, the presentation of computer-based art has been
trying to solve that problem ever since. Because Telematic Connections
will travel to other sites, Independent Curators International (ICI--the
exhibition organizer--has put a lot of effort into creating an infrastructure
that is both robust and portable. But it has involved whole new
categories of personnel that don't fit conveniently into conventional
exhibition functions such as registrar or preparatory.
In terms of the visual look of the installations, I don't think
that's a particular issue. Every contemporary exhibition has plenty
of "weird" stuff these days. But there is potentially a participation
problem. Most of the works in Telematic Connections don't "do" anything.
Paul Sermon's couches are just that until they are activated by
visitors sitting down on each one and interacting with each other--turning
into participants rather than viewers. Of course, this is also a
virtue. I've seen--and participated in--many installations where it's
hard to get people to leave, they are so engaged by the work.
GH: Each of your exhibitions has an accompanying website
and/or web project section. How did you develop this a rea? How
does it differ from the gallery component? Does the opportunity
to present a larger amount of contextual information--essays, related
projects, biographies, etc.--have any impact on the curatorial process?
Do you feel it allows you to engage with more complex ideas than
a traditional gallery exhibition?
SD: In the past, I have primarily curated exhibitions
that are only online, so it's been interesting to adjust to the
idea, say, of a fixed, delimited text that goes up on the walls--or
that the walls are fixed and delimited for that matter. The tension
is that I don't see the website, which I collaborated with Carl
DiSalvo, as "just" a reflection of the physical exhibition. It's
like Englebart's idea of human intelligence augmentation. The symbiosis
of physical and virtual installations is a complex system, which
feeds on itself to allow possibilities that cannot be achieved in
either dimension alone.
LR: The BitStreams web site was developed by Nettmedia,
a web design firm noted for their work with David Bowie and the
Lilith Fair. We envision it as an online catalog that will enable
us to present kinds of information that our audience would not have
access to in a printed publication. We plan to include, for example,
numerous sound and video clips, interviews with selected artists,
and links to related sites. We did not want to fill the galleries
with lots of high-tech educational gadgetry and so the website
was a perfect vehicle for these kinds of materials.
BW: In the past couple of years, the web has become an
integral part of our cultural environment, for better or for worse.
It has permeated a very large part of our daily lives, and profoundly
modified our relationship to time, to services, and of course to
control and access to information. This sounds like a really obvious
thing, right? However, as we ponder on the way the world has changed
in the past couple of years, it is undeniable that the contribution
of the web (and the online realm at large) is phenomenal.
So how would it be possible to reflect upon the state of culture
today, and not include a web component to this endeavor? In the
case of 010101, there are two distinct yet related aspect to the
online part of the show: one is the documentary part, the other
is the "exhibition space" part. I put this between quotation marks,
because I do not necessarily think that the metaphor of the gallery
is an applicable one to the online medium, which is more time-based,
and fluid. Is the web site a stage? Maybe... I think we still need
to think more about how to understand this environment, rather than
hastily try to apply models we know in order to feel more comfortable
with a cultural sphere that is totally amorphous and constantly
The second part is the various layers of information that may
be applied to the art experience. I think it is important to point
out that the premise here is a one of proposal and experiment. We
cannot claim a solution. Rather, we investigate in real time. This
is NOT about affirmation. Maybe that is linking back to what the
original intent of the museum of modern art is about. As we are
entering the 21st century, we are faced with all these issues. What
is a museum of modern art? How do we reflect upon cultural evolution?
How do we adapt to the ever-changing nature of contemporary art
practice? Again, I think that the will to provide tools for interpretation
without imposing one and only way of looking at the work on display
is a very important and conscious aspect of the 010101 curatorial
strategy. It will hopefully be understood as such. Mapping, offering
different trajectories, a set of information and interpretation
layers is what new technology has fostered. It will also, hopefully,
engage various audiences in a new fashion.
010101: Art in Technological Times
San Francisco Museum of Modern Art
Online Exhibition: January 1, 2001
Gallery Exhibition: March 3 ‚ July 8, 2001
Whitney Museum of American Art
Exhibition: March 22-June 10, 2001
Telematic Connections: The Virtual Embrace
San Francisco Art Institute
Gallery Exhibition: February 7 ‚ April 1, 2001
Online Exhibition: http://www.telematic.walkerart.org
For information on tour dates for Telematic Connection: http://www.ici-exhibitions.org