Page 1

Post–Like & Share

This publication accompanies the hypothetical exhibition Post– Like & Share at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, on view from May 19 through June 21, 2016. This project was conceived and designed in the Typography 4: Print Editorial class at the Art Center College of Design. Authors: Artie Vierkant, Domenico Quaranta Catalog design & edited by: Christina Kwang Instructor: Stephen Serrato Printer: Typecraft Wood & Jones Typefaces: Replica, Apercu Pro © 2016 by Art Center College of Design, 1700 Lida Street, Pasadena, CA 91103 All rights reserved. All images are © the artists, reproduced with the kind permission of the artists and/or their representatives. Every effort has been made to contact copyright holders and to ensure that all the information presented is correct. Some of the facts in this volume may be subject to debate or dispute. If proper copyright acknowledgment has not been made, or for clarifications and corrections, please contact the publishers and we will correct the information in future reprintings, if any. ISBN 978-0-9802055-1-0

table of contents /* INTRODUCTION 10

What is Post–Internet?


In Between


Jon Rafman


Clement Valla


Artie Vierkant


Oliver Laric


Katja Novitskova


Aram Bartholl

/* SEE MORE 98

An Interview with Clement Valla


An Interview with Katja Novitskova


Artist Biography


List of Works


Selected Bibliography

what is post– internet? ARTIE VIERKANT “Post-Internet Art” is a term coined by Marisa Olson and developed further by Gene McHugh in the critical blog “Post Internet” during its activity between December 2009 and September 2010. Under McHugh’s definition it concerns “art responding to [a condition] described as ‘Post Internet’—when the Internet is less a novelty and more a banality. Perhaps... closer to what Guthrie Lonergan described as ‘Internet Aware’—or when the photo of the art object is more widely dispersed [&] viewed than the object itself.” There are also several references to the idea of “post-net culture” in the writings of Lev Manovich as early as 2001. Specifically within the context of this PDF, Post-Internet is defined as a result of the contemporary moment: inherently informed by ubiquitous authorship, the development of attention as currency, the collapse of physical space in networked culture, and the infinite reproducibility and mutability of digital materials. Post-Internet also serves as an important semantic distinction from the two historical artistic modes with which it is most often


associated: New Media Art and Conceptualism.

New Media is here denounced as a mode too narrowly focused on the specific workings of novel technologies, rather than a sincere exploration of cultural shifts in which that technology plays only a small role. It can therefore be seen as relying too heavily on the specific materiality of its media. Conceptualism (in theory if not practice) presumes a lack of attention to the physical substrate in favor of the methods of disseminating the artwork as idea, image, context, or instruction. Post-Internet art instead exists somewhere between these two poles. Post-Internet objects and images are developed with concern to their particular materiality as well as their vast variety of methods of presentation and dissemination. It is important to also note that “being Post-Internet” is a distinction which carries ramifications beyond the art context as a societal condition at large, and that it would be antithetical to attempt to pinpoint any discrete moment at which the Post-Internet period begins. Any cultural production which has been influenced by a network ideology falls under the rubric of Post-Internet. The term is not discretely tied to a certain event, though it could be argued that the bulk of the cultural shifts described herein come with the introduction of privately-run commercial Internet ser-

/* ART IS A SOCIAL OBJECT From the rise of a liberal market economy through the build-up and ubiquity of the “middle class,” art has matched and excused


vice providers and the availability of personal computers.

itself with the social conditions of its production. The rise of the “industrialized arts” gave way to lofty notions of art-after-object as late capitalism approached, all the while explaining itself as obligated to echo existing cultural conditions rather than move to shape them. Where are we left now? Art and arts pedagogy has become so inextricably linked with a variety of interpretations on the Conceptual art doxa that it would be impossible to argue against any artistic gesture being automatically tied to its reception and the language surrounding it. At least from a historical perspective, Conceptual art assured its own legacy by the overwhelming volume of language produced within and around it at a time when summary–through–language was the easiest means of disseminating an object (profoundly simpler, even, than reproducing a photograph). We find ourselves in radically different times. Increasingly the majority of both our cultural reception and production is mediated through some descendant of a Turing machine—taken now both technically and culturally for Turing’s “universal machine,” a “single machine which can be used to compute any computable sequence.”1 In cultural terms, assuming a certain level of access which does not yet exist in all cases,2 the ubiquity of these devices and their massively interconnected nature signifies two realities


which are crucial to an understanding of art after the Internet. Nothing is in a fixed state: i.e., everything is anything else, whether because any object is capable of becoming another type of object or because an object already exists in flux between multiple instantiations. The latter is a schema already intuitively arrived at by artists in recent history, prompting writers as diverse as Rosalind Krauss and Lev Manovich to proclaim a “Post-Medium Condition”3 and the rise of “Post-Media Aesthetics”4 (Krauss using it as a vessel to decry art marooned in medium specificity, what she calls “technical support;” Manovich uses it to offer a sketch of how one might categorize different types of art in an environment without traditional notions of “medium”). The former, an art object’s lack of fixity in representational strategy, is less often explored. This is not to say that artists are not involved in exploring the relationship of many copies and variations of a single object to one another. Artists like Oliver Laric and Seth Price routinely present multiple variations of the same object—Laric’s Versions exists as “a series of sculptures, airbrushed images of missiles, a talk, a PDF, a song, a novel, a recipe, a play, a dance routine, a feature film and merchandise,”5 Price’s Dispersion “[taking] the form of a widely reproduced essay, an artists’ book, a freely available online PDF, as well as [a] sculpture.”6 These works are emblematic as Post-Internet gestures and have surely been influential in different ways, but step only lightly away from the tautological rationale of Conceptual art (typified in POST-LIKE & SHARE

Joseph Kosuth’s 1965 One and Three Chairs, an arrangement of three versions of the same object, each signifying “chair,” and language surrounding the piece to assert that nothing is being missed and the art is in the idea—Kosuth’s “Art as Idea as Idea”). In the Post-Internet climate, it is assumed that the work of art lies equally in the version of the object one would encounter at a gallery or museum, the images and other representations disseminated through the Internet and print publications, bootleg images of the object or its representations, and variations on any of these as edited and recontextualized by any other author. The less developed stratagem for pointing to a lack of representational fixity is that of taking an object to be represented (to be more direct, presented) as another type of object entirely, without reference to the “original.”

“For objects after the Internet there can be no original copy.” Even if an image or object is able to be traced back to a source, the substance (substance in the sense of both its materiality and its importance) of the source object can no longer be regarded as inherently greater than any of its copies. When I take a moving image and represent it through an object (video rendered sculpturally in styrofoam for example), I am positing an alternative method of representation without ever supplying a way to view the source. A source video exists. The idea of a source video exists. But the way the object is instantiated denies both the necessity of an original and adherence to the representational norms that follow the creation of “video” as both technical device


and terminology.

The possibilities for these transformations, alternative methods of viewing “media” which essentially amounts to an arbitrary assemblage of data, has thus far been most thoroughly examined in the field of “information aesthetics,” a field as distanced from Post-Internet art as it is close to design, cartography, and indexing. Its fault is in its attempt to encapsulate large amounts of data—practical information, experience—into an aesthetic and understandable shorthand. In other words, information aesthetics provides in one object both a representation and the components which make up its source in an attempt to illustrate or arrive at knowledge. While Conceptualism as outlined by Kosuth may be limiting in its reliance on art propositions as enclosed tautological systems, its foundations—delineating progressive art with the same zeal Greenberg applied to ascribing modernism its “purity”7—hold true: “art’s viability is not connected to the presentation of visual (or other) kinds of experience.”8 For us to receive a piece of art and determine from it some piece of empirical information about the world at large would seem almost a bewildering proposition, even in a cultural climate where we have accepted that the singular qualification for the moniker “art” is

NOTES 1 Alan Turing, On Computable Numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem, in Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, Series 2 Volume 42(1937) 2 digital_divide 3 Rosalind Krauss, Reinventing the Medium from Critical Inquiry Volume 25, No. 2 (1999) 4 Lev Manovich, Post-Media Aesthetics (2001)

5 The Real Thing, interview with Oliver Laric by Domenico Quaranta, Art Pulse Magazine (2010), http:// interview-with-oliver-laric 6 Lauren Cornell, Seth Price artist page in The New Museum’s Free catalogue (2010), http://www. free/#sethprice 7 Clement Greenberg, Modernist Painting (1960)


the intention of any one individual to label it as such.

8 Joseph Kosuth, Art After Philosophy (1969)





between DOMENICO QUARANTA When, in the mid-1990s, was first named and theorised, it was mostly intended as an art form using the internet as its medium. This was the obvious consequence of the overlap between the notion of the internet as a communication tool, and the phrasal structure used to define art made for the internet, (ironically) inspired by medium-based definitions like "video art". Yet, if we go back to those early, and now somehow canonical, definitions, we can see that the best ones say something slightly different. In 1996, artist Joachim Blank wrote: "netart functions only on the net and picks out the net or the 'netmyth' as a theme. It often deals with structural concepts: a group or an individual designs a system that can be used by other people."1 A couple of years later, curator Steve Dietz wrote in the curatorial text of one POST-LIKE & SHARE

of the first online exhibitions: "For the purposes of this exhibition, '' is the more generic term we use to identify work for

MTAA Simple Net Art Diagram 1997, GIF animation

which the network is a necessary and sufficient condition.''2 Neither Blank nor Dietz even pronounce the w·medium". Blank focuses on the internet as the "homeplace" and the main theme of, and on collaboration as its signature practice. Dietz describes the network as the condition for—a definition that, whatever it means, goes beyond the idea of experimenting with a medium, and points again to the internet as the environment where the art takes place. The same idea is addressed by Simple Net Art Diagram, an animated gif released by the artist's collective MTAA in 1997.3 The gif displays two home computers connected by a cable. A speech bubble points to the cable, saying, “The art happens here”. If the verb ‘happen’ describes as an intrinsically performative


art form, the adverb ‘here’ makes clear that net. art is not just

something that you can code on a computer and then simply upload online; only happens ‘on the internet’, in the ethereal space connecting humans and computers. For net artists, as Miltos Manetas wrote on a website,

“outside of the internet there is no glory.4” What we should focus on, in order to understand the relationship of with the exhibition space, is what it exactly means, for a net artist, to be ‘on the internet’. In March 2013, American artist Parker Ito posted a video trailer on YouTube for his solo show at IMO, Copenhagen.5 The trailer, as the show, is called Parker Cheeto: The Net Artist (America Online Made Me Hardcore). The video starts with a short sequence ironically grabbed from the movie Excalibur, by John Boorman, 1981, and goes on showing Ito, in his inimitable outfit, skating in the gallery’s space during the setup, while other entities (a big plotter, some assistants) do the works for him. At some point, Ito stops skating and adds his signature to a print on the floor. The print displays the digital drawing of a flower bowl, and a text reading: “I heard that Picasso made around 250,000 works in his lifetime. I could make that many jpgs in five years. And when I say five years, I mean five minutes.” The soundtrack of the video is “The Dope Show”, by Marilyn Manson. This trailer says a lot about Ito’s practice and, more broadly, about himself as a “net artist”, but he doesn’t reject the gallery space and the production of offline artifacts—quite the opposite. The gallery’s walls are almost entirely covered with images, produced—as the video shows—mixing digital printing and painting.


what became over the last 20 years. Ito proudly describes

The original digital images are collages of found images, internet memes, drawings made by others, and black and white pictures of Ito as a young boy. The prints are made on special fabric that reflects light, and are completed with a layer of clear vinyl over the top, that makes them glossy and even more reflective. This use of reflective materials does not only make proper documentation impossible; it actually turns anybody who takes a picture of the work to circulate it on line into a collaborator of some sort (that’s what Ito means when he talks, in an interview, about “democratising the documentation process of my work”)6 Although shown in an art gallery, these images are made out of the internet and for the internet. In the same interview, Ito explains: “ was real before Y2K where it was actually very much about hacking and being techy/nerdy. Then Web 2.0 wiped that out and after that it’s not really relative to say ‘this is internet’ and ‘this is not internet’-because everything is.”7 If this allows him to act in the gallery space and produce marketable items, at the same time the ‘net artist’ Parker Ito treats the gallery space in a subversive way. He outsources production at any level of the creative process. He embraces plagiarism as his main creative strategy. He uses the exhibition space as a means to generate online relationships, in a way that turns it from the end point into the starting point of the creative process. He works at the pace of the internet (“and when I say five years I mean five minutes”). Finally, he playfully employs subversive affirmation—a strategy many net artists are familiar with—to bring to its extremes


the romantic idea of the artist genius that puts creativity in everything he does and turns matter and bits into gold by just touching them. In fact he still believes in what MTAA, and most early net artists with them, believed in the late-1990s—that the internet is a space, that is what happens in between people and computers and that it has the subversive potential to turn the artworld and its values upside down. What changed, since then, is our understanding of this space: which turned out to be not a virtual, abstract ‘cyberspace’, but an augmented version of the old, real world. So, you can now make paintings for the White Cube and be, nevertheless, a net artist. This turn didn’t happen in a minute, but it didn’t take much time either. This is one of the reasons why it was often interpreted as a compromise with the artworld, and with the market (which, in most of the cases, isn’t). But, in order to understand how it happened, we have to go through the whole process, starting from the very beginning.


“A radical art needs to do more than make politics its subject-matter; it must change the way it is made, distributed and seen.8” – Julian Stallabrass In the mid-1990s, when artists started making art online, this move was usually perceived as a radical, somehow heroic move out of whatever established art system you may experience in the real world. Net artists were, literally, “leaving reality behind”, as a famous etoy slogan read: not in the sense that they were escaping reality to live in a world of fantasy, but in the sense that they were approaching reality from a completely different perspective, and from a place working in a completely different way. On the internet, you could be everywhere and everybody at the same time, surfing on a space without physical boundaries, playing out different identities, writing and subverting your own rules. Art became dematerialised and could travel everywhere in the time of an eye blink. Being digital, it could be copied and manipulated. You didn’t need institutions. because you could be the institution, or the gallery, the curator, the art critic, all together. And, if you got bored of the traditional personas of the artworld, you could be everything else: a boy band; a terrorist cell; a corporation; a publisher; a spammer; a bot. Furthermore, you had a direct, intimate relationship with your audience, which was often very generous in terms of feedback. As Jodi said in a famous interview:


“When a viewer looks at our work, we are inside his computer. There is this hacker slogan: ‘We love your computer’. We also get inside people’s computers.

And we are honoured to be in somebody’s computer. You are very close to a person when you are on his desktop. I think the computer is a device to get into someone’s mind.9” Art was made, distributed and seen in a completely new way, and artists were very happy with it. At the same time, however, they were aware that this level of freedom couldn’t last forever. They were doing something new, radical and fresh, and sooner or later, the artworld would have noticed them. They were playing their game at the end of a century in which any kind of revolutionary statement either became part of the establishment or disappeared in the underground, and they were doing it on a techno-social platform that was rapidly becoming the centre of attention of Western society, recently re-branded “Information Society”. was, and somehow still is, a Temporary Autonomous Zone (TAZ), fully aware ,of its own impermanence.10 This awareness, together with the control over the means of its own storytelling, is at the origin of’s collective masterpiece, the one that will never become obsolete, consisting mainly of words and stories: its own myth. The myth that makes us, years later, still BETWEEN INTEGRATION AND AUTONOMY

talk about Vuk Casie, Netti me, the Toywar and Netochka Nezvanova. The myth that shapes Alexei Shulgin’s and Natalie Bookchin’s Introduction to, 1994–1999, a wonderful manifesto and, incidentally, one of the first ‘material’ works of, having been carved in marble by artists Blank & Jeron.11 The myth that still makes so many art students fall in love with, and that reverberates in Parker Ito’s trailer.

Natalie Bookchin and Alexei Shulgin Introduction to March-April 1999 Courtesy the artists

A consistent part of that myth is to be able to exist, as Shulgin and Bookchin put it, outside of “institutional bureaucracies”. At the very beginning, this meant to exist only outside of institutional bureaucracies. But as early as in 1999, it was already clear that: is undertaking major transformations as a result of its newfound status and institutional recognition. Thus is metamorphosising into an autonomous discipline with all its accoutrements: theorists, curators, museum departments, specialists, and boards of directors.12


Even if this process sanctioned the end of the first, ‘heroic’ period, it wasn’t the end of, but the start of a new phase, in which the practice exists between integration and autonomy, between free online distribution and the art market, between peer-to-peer exchange and authority structures, between the underground and the mainstream artworld. Instead of disappearing, the Temporary Autonomous Zone adapted to reality, and became more nuanced but permanent.

/* BRINGING NET.ART OFFLINE With these premises, it is no surprise that the first attempts to bring in to the exhibition place were curatorial, and not artist-driven, except in a few cases; and that they were highly controversial and debated. A good example was provided, in 1997, by documenta X, that introduced a selection curated by Simon Lamuniere, who was also the curator of the website. The interest for online art practices at one of the main contemporary art events in the world was very topical, and the projects worked well in a show focussed on the return of activist and political art. Some online projects which also featured an installation compoPOST-LIKE & SHARE

nent, such as Metronet by Martin Kippenberger, were well represented in the exhibition, while the projects that existed only online were accessible from the exhibition’s website and presented in a dedicated space designed as an office; there, they were available offline. As Jodi wrote in the forum, the office is:

“An unnecessary confusing symbolical construct, built without consultation of the artists. Net.projects don’t need such metaphors when presented in real-space exhibits, as tv-monitors don’t need a home-decor around them for viewing video. The office cliché also sucks because it gives a false group-label to artists whose only thing in common is their use of the net.13” What’s interesting in this debate about the presentation of web projects at documenta X is not just what’s said, but also what’s not said: the fact that a web project has to be presented on an online computer is taken for granted; what’s at stake is how you contextualise computers in an exhibition space. This is far from easy. At the time, computers in museums were often perceived as information desks; with their cables, their ugly screens, their peripherals, they looked like aliens in the clean design of the white cube; and the internet connection was often seen as an open invitation to the user to leave the work, go and check her email, or, even worse, to freely surf the internet. Computers were hidden, or presented in a way that tried to hide towers and cables; sometimes attention was hijacked from them showing the web-


sites on huge screens or projections. Other times, new interfaces

were developed in order to show websites. For the colossal net_ condition exhibition at the ZKM in Karlsruhe, 1999, the web projects were shown in an interactive installation display designed by artist Jeffrey Shaw, the Browser. The installation—a flat screen attached to the wall on runners and controlled by the viewer using a wireless keyboard—denatured the browsing experience, and was so alien to the works it provided access to that art critic Josephine Berry wrote on Telepolis that “one can only hope that the Net.Art Browser... is meant as some kind of a joke”.14 Although the black, monolithic ‘portal’ designed for the exhibition Art Entertainment Network, 2000, at the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis by Antenna Design was better welcomed, the experience conditions it provided were almost the same: all the works were accessed through a single interface, simply by rotating the portal on its axis, resulting in turning online navigation into a physical movement. In the meantime, artists and curators were starting to realise that providing access to the websites from the exhibition space might not be the best way to show web-based art in the physical environment, and that some level of ‘translation’ was required. For the exhibition Data Dynamics at the Whitney Museum, 2001. curator Christiane Paul worked with artists Marek Walczak and Martin Wattenberg to turn the web-based work Apartment into an inter-

Inspired by memory palaces, Apartment is a data visualisation project that provides a spatial visualisation of the words submitted by the user, using them to build apartments and to arrange them into buildings. For the presentation of their work—a computer virus called—at the 49th Venice Biennale the same year, and [epidemiC] chose a very different approach: the code of the virus—which was also a readable


active installation.

code poem—was printed on a big banner, displayed on two computers which were infecting each other, recorded on framed golden CDs and printed on t-shirts that were given for free to the visitors of the show. This move toward ‘materialisation’ by various means (prints, performance, installation, videos, ephemera or derivative objects) proved to be very effective, and in the following years it became one of the modes of presentation of netbased works in the physical space preferred by artists. While allowing the project a presence in the exhibition space comparable to the one usually given to other media, it avoided the misunderstanding still implicit in Apartment: that the presentation of net-based art had to be somehow ‘technological’.


/* SHOWING NET.ART AS AN AVANT-GARDE This shift, however, took some time, and was pursued more by individual artists than by curators; furthermore, it mainly concerned new projects and artworks. and not the early online artworks made in the late-1990s. So, when some curators, in the early 2000s, had to confront the attempt to put in a historical perspective, they had to face a problem: to deal with an art movement whose main products couldn’t be brought to the exhibition space, and that didn’t produce material artifacts, but events, relationships, documentary material and other ephemera. In other words, they had to deal with a movement that behaved as an avant-garde, and that should be curatorially treated as such, in order to fully display its potential. As the most radical avant-gardes such as Dada and Fluxus, and other underground movements such as Situationism and Neoism, early can’t be really understood looking at artifacts only; and if the artworks themselves can’t be effectively put on show in the exhibition space, in order to tell this story you have to adopt a completely different narrative model. One of the first attempts to make a show about without POST-LIKE & SHARE

computers was net.ephemera, curated by Mark Tribe, artist and founder of the online platform Rhizome, in 2002 at the Moving Image Gallery, New York. As Tribe himself explains on his website:

“Most is meant to be experienced as a solitary encounter. And many net artists saw their practice as oppositional to artworld institutions. Putting in the gallery involves a recontextualisation that can radically alter the experience and significance of the work. net.ephemera was an attempt to work around this problem by exhibiting ephemera—drawings, diagrams, notes, receipts and other physical artifacts—related to the making of net-based projects.15” The attempt to apply this model to an exhibition that really put in a historical perspective was made, one year later, by curator Per Platou with Written in Stone: A Archeology, at the Oslo Museum of Contemporary Art. The subtitle itself is telling: is a thing of the past. that should be treated with the tools of an archaeologist more than those of a contemporary art curator. As artist Olia Lialina wrote in a beautiful review of the show: Written in Stone makes no attempt to exhibit internet works right in the museum. No connected and decorated computers with partitioned plastic walls in between. No attempt to create a proper environment; to hide the internet and electrical cables or to make ikebanas of them. Those exhibitions never, ever


worked. No matter how much money was spent. In Oslo the com-

puters are finally removed.... Per Platou fills the space with three types of objects: the private stuff of artists, web project reproductions and mythical representations.16 The first were curious objects donated by the artists: catalogues, objects related to specific stories or events. The second were hi-res prints of website screenshots and videos documenting some online works while somebody else is interacting with them. The latter were tongue-in-cheek curatorial interventions, such as the six small plaster busts in a vitrine representing the ‘heroes’ of and the dot in the ‘’ label displayed as a shiny metal

Alexei Shulgin 3868dx 1998-ongoing, performance Courtesy the artist

Organised by artist and [epidemic] co-founder Luca Lampo in Milan in 2005, Connessioni leggendarie: 1995–2005 was another attempt to deal with the legend of The show also


ball on a velvet pillow, again in a vitrine.

included software art and media hacktivism projects from the early 2000s. Computers were not completely removed, but only used to show software artworks that couldn’t be displayed otherwise. Besides this section, the only computer featured in the show was Alexei Shulgin’s 386dx, the installation version of his infamous cyberpunk rock band, an old computer that sang with its electronic voice, played music and made visuals autonomously. Other projects were either reproduced, documented in visuals or reconstructed with a mix of documentation, original ephemera and storytelling. For example, experiments of ‘code poetry’ (mostly poems written mixing code and human language) were printed out to draw a connection with visual poetry from the 1970s; while a massive event such as the Toywar, 1999–2000, in which the internet community gathered to defend artist collective etoy, attacked by a giant online toys seller who wanted to kick them out of the internet (and steal their URL) was presented projecting a documentary about it and collecting on a single big print (not authored by the artists) hundreds of small images circulated online during the event, representing ‘toy.soldiers’ in the form of photoshopped Lego puppets.


/* FROM OUTER SPACE TO THE WHITE CUBE Besides these curatorial efforts, in the early 2000s net-based art started to be shown in the white cube thanks to the individual efforts of artists, and to their dialogue with curators and gallery managers. Translating a project from one context to the other was far from easy, and converting an online project into a series of marketable items that could be distributed in the art market was even harder. For a generation that was more used to the online environment than to the physical space, this was a process of trials and errors, and some contexts—such as the And/Or Gallery, an artist-run space founded in Dallas in 2006 by Paul Slocum and active until 2009—played an invaluable role in offering artists room for experimenting with modes of translation. Different strategies were tested, that followed the nature of the original work. If what we said at the beginning—that is not the result of the artistic use of a specific medium, but art that takes place in a specific environment—we may agree that is not a uniform, cohesive set of practices, but it displays as many behaviours, approaches and languages as art usually does in the physical space. If, when we are online, everything comes to us from the screen, in the exhibition space these differences are POST-LIKE & SHARE

amplified and brought to extremes. Online performances may be exhibited through documentation and derivative objects. Other works may be translated into prints, video or interactive installations. Some works may require a computer in order to keep their original meaning. To show his ASCII movies—popular films converted into text code and played by a Java machine that reads the text file—Slovenian artist Vuk Casie used a computer specially developed for artists, where all the hardware is hidden in a black box behind the screen—all you see is a screen hanging on the wall and playing a video—no tower, no cables, no keyboard. But what the computer is playing is not the original work translated into a heavy, hi-res video file: it’s, again, an extremely light text file executed by a software, and that could ideally be streamed online on a slow modem connection, making the moving image accessible to everybody. The original work is adapted to the white cube requirements, but the message is intact. In the same years, however, another process was taking place. Our relationship with the internet was changing fast. After the dotcom crash, some said that the internet was dead. It wasn’t, but this dramatic aftermath had at least two consequences. On the one hand, those who were working on it moved their interest from contents to structures, and started working on what later was labelled “Web 2.0”. On the other, what was first perceived as extraordinary and new became part of our daily routine. With broadband, the internet isn’t something you have to connect to (and rapidly disconnect from) anymore: it’s always there. When you are always online, at home, at work and while walking the dog, it becomes more and more difficult to perceive the internet as


“somewhere else”. More and more people became familiar with

internet cultures and languages. Your father may not understand you when you talk about memes, but he has a smile of recognition when you mention the dramatic chipmunk or the keyboard cat. As Olia Lialina wrote in 2007:

“Yesterday for me as an artist it made sense only to talk to people in front of their computers, today I can easily imagine to apply to visitors in the gallery because in their majority they will just have gotten up from their computers. They have the necessary experience and understanding of the medium to get the ideas, jokes, enjoy the works and buy them.17” For a younger generation of artists, there is not even a ‘yesterday’. They grew up with the internet, and read about in books or studied it at art school. They are not ‘coming back’ to a context­— the gallery, the institution—they escaped in the first place: they started working on both platforms simultaneously, and very natuunderstanding of internet and desktop languages and technologies, they often decide to use them in a very simple way, playing with ‘defaults’ and common settings, and contributing content to or rearranging content from the internet as any average user does, filling up YouTube with videos and Tumblr with images. This makes the issue of ‘translating’ works from the internet to the white cube much easier: images are turned into prints, videos are projected, etc.. But often, translation is not even an issue, because works are not first conceived for the internet and later translated for the exhibition space. Artists got used to making specific works for a specific context. Olia Lialina and Dragan Espenschied’s With Elements of Web 2.0, 2006, is a series of prints


rally. Online, even if they usually have a good knowledge and

combining functional elements, colours and styles familiar to everybody who uses tools like Google Maps or YouTube. The work talks to a gallery audience about the standardisation of online interfaces and the death of the ‘vernacular web’, but it doesn’t translate any on line artwork. Dutch artist Constant Dullaart, who developed a rigorous and prolific online practice, is reported to have said “don’t use the internet as a fucking condiment”. Dullaart is also active in the exhibition space in various ways, including performances in which he dumbly and repetitively executes tropes and icons we are familiar with on screen, such as the DVD bounce or the YouTube video loading animation.18 Some Artists develop complex bodies of work revolving around the same concepts, and dealing with different media. Versions, 2009, by Oliver Laric, is a video discussing the circulation of images in the internet age, and drawing links with the way humanity circulated, used and abused images in previous ages. The video is a collage of found material on both a textual and a visual level, and was placed online with the explicit intention to allow other artists and people to make versions of it. The video had two follow-ups, Versions, 2010, and Versions, 2012. At the same time, the imagery collected in the videos and the issues addressed by them produced further physical variations. Medieval sculptures defaced


or re-adapted during the Reformation were scanned, turned into three-dimensional models and then into painted sculptures; user variations upon a photoshopped image of Iraqi missiles were turned into pencil drawings; an old and expensive book about Roman sculpture was scanned and turned into a bootleg of itself, printed with an on-demand service and exhibited in stacks; painted replicas of Roman statues (derived from an ancient Greek prototype) were put on show in a plaster casts gallery; more recently, Laric started scanning an entire collection­with the plan of creating a bootleg copy of every item in it and making models freely available online for free download and manipulation.



While some artists decide to leave what’s made for the internet on line, some others developed different forms of translation. Rafaël Rozendaal’s signature works are simple, colourful, poetic animations placed on a dedicated URL. In the exhibition space, Rozendaal doesn’t simply project them on a wall, but he explores the very medium of projection and its potential to turn the online artwork into something different. Sometimes, he fills up the space with mirrors, smashed and scattered on the floor or laying along the wall; the same work may be projected many times, on a row or on different surfaces, as a perfectly keystoned projection or in


different configurations.

Rafaël Rozendaal 2008, dimensions variable, duration infinite Courtesy the artist Collection Sébastien de Ganay

Canadian artist Jon Rafman explored different translation possibilities for his project Brand New Paint Job, 2010–ongoing, a series of images—originally featured on a tumblelog—in which he uses masterpieces of modern and contemporary art as textures mapped onto three-dimensional models downloaded from Google 3D Warehouse: rooms, furniture, sculptures and any kind of object. The project expanded in different directions both online and offiine: in 2010, in collaboration with Tabor Robak, Rafman made BNPJ.exe, a three-dimensional navigable environment. Later on, some of these environments were released as video commercials of an unlikely interior design company (Interiors, 2013). Many images of the series have been exhibited as digital prints, some of them have been translated into sculptures and installations. In 2012, for a show at American Medium. New York, Rafman created the Umberto Boccioni Living Room Suite, where the painting La città che sale became a sofa, a carpet. a vacuum cleaner and a set of curtains. In 2013, for the project Palazzo Peckam in Venice—a meeting place for people visiting the Biennale—Rafman used a painting by Georgia O’Keeffe to design the entrance room of the exhibition space.


If, in recent years, net-based art usually manifested itself in the physical space in ways that exclude the simple presentation of the online work via a computer. on a curatorial level different experiments have been made—mostly by artists—to bring the online context offline. On 20 July 2010 Rafaël Rozendaal organised the first Bring Your Own Beamer (BYOB) in Berlin, a one night exhibition “hosting artists and their projectors”. The curator of a BYOB— released as an open exhibition format­ —basically has to find a space and invite as many artists as he wants to show their work using their own projector. In absence of a predetermined setup, exhibitors are free to experiment and improvise, working in the available space and projecting on different surfaces.19 A few weeks before the first BYOB, German artist Aram Bartholl I curated the first Speed Show, a exhibition organised in an internet cafe. According to BartholI. a Speed Show—another open format—can be organised by simply renting all the computers in an internet cafe for a couple of hours, and setting the browser on each computer in order to show a specific work available online. Invited visitors and usual customers are free to sit and use the computers, but having a work of art instead of the usual Google homepage as the starting point of their navigation.20 Both BYOBs and Speed Shows spread like memes, with dozens of events organised all around the world. Both the formats display similar features: they are cheap, fast and easy to organise; they are anarchistic and ‘joyful’—like a rave party; they are meant to gather communities born online and to facilitate dialogue and exchange between their members; they leave the art where it is— online, or on the artist’s desktop—but at the same time manifest


themselves in the physical space. They bring out of the internet

some of the things that still make the online environment so exciting for artists—the sense of community, the DIY approach, the


Rafaël Rozendaal BYOB 2010–ongoing, New York and Tokyo Courtesy the artist

idea of operating out of existing social and institutional structures, and in a public space. Aram Bartholl is a tireless test driver of alternative ways of bringing the digital into the physical world. In 2011, he revived dumped CRT screens from the streets of Berlin to show until they were finally brought to the landfill. In October 2010 he installed the first Dead Drop, a USB flash drive embedded into a public wall and accessible to everybody. Over 1,000 Dead Drops are installed across the globe, allowing people to drop and take electronic files as they wish. An anonymous, offline, peer-to-­ peer file sharing network. Dead Drops are not primarily for art purposes, although they have been used in the organisation of a number of events and exhibitions. This is, instead, the main purpose of the DVD Dead Drop installed by BartholI in 2012 outside the Museum of Moving Image in New York. Located outside the museum, close to the entrance door. and so available to passers-by 24 hours a day, the work is a DVD burner that. when you insert a blank DVD, gives you back an exhibition of digital artworks. Finally, in February 2013 he organised at the XPO Gallery in Paris the show Offline Art: New2, in which every artwork on show was only accessible locally through a dedicated wireless network. on the visitor’s personal device. According to the project description: Browser-based digital artworks are broadcast locally from wifi routers, which are not connected to the internet. Each artwork is


assigned a single wifi router. which is accessible through any device, like smartphones, tablets or laptops. To access the different artworks, the visitor has to connect to each network individually. The name of the network reflects the name of the artist. No matter what URL is opened, only the specific artwork appears in the browser. A small web server holding the art piece is installed on a USB flash drive, which is connected to the router. Like frames holding the art, the routers are hung in the exhibition space, which is otherwise empty.

“The art itself becomes visible only on the visitor’s private screen. The pieces are widely accessible locally but disconnected from the internet.21” This solution may seem absurd and provocative, and it is, to a certain extent. At the same time, however, it reminds us that the relationships between the online space and the physical space are not fixed, and are strictly connected to the social use of both spaces. This changed dramatically over the last 20 years, since the advent of the World Wide Web; and there is nothing at the moment that would allow us to think that in the next 20 years the pace of this change will slow down. Native to online space, is not bound to the rules and POST-LIKE & SHARE

requirements of the white cube. It can fit in to it and do so very well, but many other possibilities of circulation and distribution are already available, and more will probably make their appearance in the near future. In five years, this book will look pretty old. In 20, it will look like archeology, and so will this text. But don’t underrate it for that. Archaeology is important: it shows us where we belong.



1 Blank, Joachim, “What is netart ;-)?”, 1996, txt (accessed April 2013). 2 Dietz, Steve, “Beyond Interface: Net Art and Art on the Net II” in Museum and the Web, 1998, www.walkerart. org/archive/7/B5739D78AF125E8B6173.htm (accessed April 2013). 3 See (accessed 2013). 4 See outsideoftheinternetthereisnoglory/ (accessed 2013). 5 See (accessed April 2013). 6 Bordorff, Maria, “America online made

single/article/america-online-made-me- hardcore/ (accessed April 2013). 7 Bordorff, “America online made me hardcore. Interview”. 8 Stallabrass, Julian, Art Incorporated, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2004, p. 191. 9 Baumgärtel, Tilman, “Interview with Jodi” in Telepolis, 6 October 1997, artikel/6/6187/1.html (accessed April 2013). 10 See Hakim Bey, TAZ. The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological Anarchy, Poetic Terrorism, Autonomedia, 1985, 1991,

me hardcore. Interview” in Kopenhagen Magasin, 25 March 2013, http://

cont.html (accessed April 2013). 11 Shulgin, Alexei and Natalie Bookchin, Introduction to (1994–1999),

12 13


15 16

1999, (accessed April 2013). Shulgin and Bookchin, “Introduction to (1994-1999)”. Jodi, “dx webprojects”, 9 July 1997, debate/0010.html (accessed April 2013). Josephine Berry, “The Unbearable Connectedness of Everything” in Telepolis, 29 September 1999, (accessed April 2013). See ephemera/ (accessed April 2013). Lialina, Olia, “Little Heroes and the Big Dot” in Teleportacia, [2003] observation/oslo/oslo.htm

(accessed April 2013). 17 Lialina, Olia, “Flat Against the Wall”, 2007, http://art.teleportacia. org/observation/flat_against_the_ wall/ (accessed June 2013). 18 Esposito, Alana Chloe, “‘Don’t use the internet as a fucking condiment’: Net Art at Art Dubai” in Art Fag City, 30 March 2012, http://artfcity. com/2012/03/30/don%E2%80%99t-use-the- internet-as-a-fucking-condiment-net- art-at-art-dubai/ (accessed June 2013). 19 See (accessed June 2013). 20 See (accessed June 2013). 21 See new2.html (accessed June 2013).




jon rafman


Sycamore Drive: Willowgreen, Kilrush, Co. Clare, Ireland – Google View Jon Rafman • 2010

Archival pigment print on Hahnemühle paper 40"×64"


Edam, North Holland, Nederland – Google View Jon Rafman • 2009

Archival pigment print on Hahnemühle paper



28052 Oak Run Rd, Central Shasta, CA, USA – Google View Jon Rafman • 2009

Archival pigment print on Hahnemühle paper 40"×64"


Fuji-Q Highland, 5-6-1 ShinNishihara, Fujiyoshida, Yamanashi, Japan – Google View Jon Rafman • 2009

Archival pigment print on Hahnemühle paper 40"×64"

Cambie Rd & Brown Rd, Richmond, BC, Canada – Google View Jon Rafman • 2009

Archival pigment print on Hahnemühle paper 40"×64"

Mexico 178, Yucatan, Mexico – Google View Jon Rafman • 2012



Archival pigment print on Hahnemühle paper

Rv888, Finmark, Norway – Google View Jon Rafman • 2010

Archival pigment print on Hahnemühle paper 40"×64"


Rv890, Norway – Google View Jon Rafman • 2011

Archival pigment print on Hahnemühle paper 40"×64"

Altus Ave., Mojave, California – Google View Jon Rafman • 2012

Archival pigment print on Hahnemühle paper 40"×64"




clement valla


The Universal Texture Clement Valla • 2012 POST-LIKE & SHARE

Inkjet on canvas 18"×13"

The Universal Texture Clement Valla • 2012

Inkjet on canvas



The Universal Texture Clement Valla • 2015

Inkjet on canvas 18"×13"


46 Clement Valla • 2013





Postcards from Google Earth Clement Valla • 2010

Inkjet on paper 4"×6"




artie vierkant


Image Object Artie Vierkant • 2015

Aluminum and vinyl 49"×49"×38"



Image Object Wednesday 3 June 2015 3:27PM (Weekends) Artie Vierkant • 2015

UV print on aluminum composite panel 65"×65"

Image Object Monday 27 April 2015 1:22PM (Cura) Artie Vierkant • 2015

UV print on aluminum composite panel 65"×65"


Image Object Tuesday 14 July 2015 11:44AM (Westfalischer) Artie Vierkant • 2015

UV print on aluminum composite panel



Image Object Thursday 4 June 2015 1:45PM (From) Artie Vierkant • 2015

UV print on aluminum composite panel 65"×65"


Image Object Monday 25 April 2011 5:01PM Artie Vierkant • 2011

Inkjet on sintra 23.5"×55"×.5"


Image Object Monday 25 April 2011 8:01PM Artie Vierkant • 2011

Inkjet on sintra 23.5"×55"×.5"



Image Object Thursday 26 April 2012 3:01PM Artie Vierkant • 2012

Inkjet on sintra 54"×16"




oliver laric



Relief (Utrecht) Oliver Laric • 2015

Polyurethane (turquoise, white, & magenta), pigments, tobacco, recycled cork, shredded CDs, hologram scraps 19"×26"×4"


Relief (Utrecht) Oliver Laric • 2011

Polyurethane (blue, green, & yellow), pigments, tobacco, recycled cork, shredded CDs, hologram scraps 19"×26"×4"


Relief (Utrecht) Oliver Laric • 2011

Polyurethane (green, blue, black, grey), pigments, tobacco, recycled cork, shredded CDs, hologram scraps



Relief (Utrecht) Oliver Laric • 2011

Polyurethane (yellow & black), pigments, tobacco, recycled cork, shredded CDs, hologram scraps 19"×26"×4"




Icon (Utrecht) Oliver Laric • 2009

Polyurethane sculpture






katja novitskova



Approximation (toucan) Katja Novitskova • 2014

Digital print on aluminum, cutout display 55"×86"



Innate Disposition Katja Novitskova • 2012

Digital print plastic cutout displays 55"×95"×14"



Innate Disposition Katja Novitskova • 2012

Digital print plastic cutout displays 55"×95"×14"



Approximations III Katja Novitskova • 2013

Digital print on aluminum dibond, cutout display



Pattern of Activation Katja Novitskova • 2014

Arrow sculpture: cast polyurethane, laser cut steel armature 57"×98"×79" (with trampoline)


Katja Novitskova • 2013

Digital print on aluminum dibond, cutout display 57"×51"×8"


Approximation V Chameleon

Approximation Mars I Katja Novitskova • 2014

Digital print on aluminum, cutout display, plant granulat 55"×95"×14"



Katja Novitskova • 2012


Free Market Found image of Orlando Toro, found image of a SLLIMM-nano intelligent power modules produced at STMicroelectronics factory in Catania, digital print on PVC, cutout advertisement display 37.5"×27.5"×4"

Branching I Katja Novitskova • 2013

Digital print on aluminum dibond, cutout display




aram bartholl


Point of View Aram Bartholl • 2015

C-print on pine wood cut outs

What are you waiting for? Aram Bartholl • 2013

Acrylic screen print on wood



Come get some Aram Bartholl • 2014

4-color screen print series, acrylic on canvas 90.5"×71"





123456 Aram Bartholl • 2014

Pen plotter series, pencil on paper 40"Ă—79"


Are you human? Aram Bartholl • 2011

Aluminum anodized, laser cut Dimensions variable: 13.5" – 22"×27.5" – 37"×.12"


‘Aram Bartholl” Google search Aram Bartholl • 2011

Ink on paper 70"×70"



Forgot your password? Aram Bartholl • 2013

Books, 8 volumes, hardcover, 800 pages each 8.26"×10.6"





Map Aram Bartholl • 2013

Wood board, wood beams, paint 236"×138"×13.8"


an interview with clement valla 98

Clement Valla, a Brooklyn-based new media artist and Rhode Island School of Design (RISD) professor, explores the underlying processes that produce contemporary maps. Valla focuses on our maps’ fringe conditions, the edges where their perfect sheen frays. While intellectually we understand that our maps are always only representations of the world, sometimes we forget that. Via email, I conversed with Valla to get his perspective on these maps. Ben Valentine:

In “No to NoUI,” Timo Arnall wrote: “Invisible design propagates the myth of immateriality. We already have plenty of thinking that celebrates the invisibility and seamlessness of technology. We are overloaded with childish


For thousands of years we have sought to map our world. In the 1670s, Giovanni Domenico Cassini began what became the first accurate, countrywide topographical map of France. The process took over a hundred years to complete; the map had to be finished by his children and later his grandchildren. As our technology has grown more precise, faster, and scalable, so have our maps, becoming globally comprehensive.

mythologies like ‘the cloud’; a soft, fuzzy metaphor for enormous infrastructural projects of undersea cables and power-hungry data farms. This mythology can be harmful and is often just plain wrong. Networks go down, hard disks fail, sensors fail to sense, processors overheat and batteries die.” (Timo Arnall, “No to NoUI,” Timo Arnall, March 13, 2013.) As these mapping technologies become more comprehensive and precise, windows into their inner workings like those that you have documented will disappear, leaving us with a false impression of a comprehensive, seamless, and perfect map. What are the embedded politics of a map such as this? Clement Valla:

I’ll start with the first part of that question. I’m not so sure the ruptures or windows into the inner workings of mapping technologies will ever disappear. Rather, the representations of these maps will start looking more ordinary. For example, the current trend is for maps to look more like photography, using 3-D, perspectival points of view. So we have developed a kind of habitual, unquestioning response to them because we are so conditioned to a particular way of looking at photographs. Or perhaps the maps will evolve into some new form of representation, new images, that we will also become habituated to. The key thing is that in their everyday use, the representations



become habitual and ordinary. But then there will always be a way to take this completely ordinary, plain thing and reveal its biases, its brittleness, and the particularities of its representation and mediation. Getting back to your question: the politics of such a map is as old as mapping itself but with some new particularities. Maps have always been representations of space produced by entities with financial or political power. These representations become problematic when they take on the air of objective truth through use and habit. A common example is how strange it is to look at a south-up map. So the map or territory issue here is pretty well staked out. What aggravates the problem in this era is automated symbolic


manipulation by algorithmic entities. In other words, the

AN INTERVIEW WITH CLEMENT VALLA Clement Valla Postcards from Google Earth 2010 Website and postcards Courtesy the artist

apparatus producing the map is automated to such a degree that it becomes easier to believe it is truthful. It is harder to spot the biases and easier for us to imagine that algorithms deal with the data objectively. So the work of understanding the gap between the map and the territory becomes the work of understanding the biases in the algorithms, the sensors, and the mechanics of the map-making apparatus as a whole. BV:

In “The Universal Texture” you write, “Nothing draws more attention to the temporality of these images than the simple observation that the clouds are disappearing from Google Earth. After all, clouds obscure the surface of the planet so photos with no clouds are privileged. The Universal Texture and its attendant database algorithms are trained on a few basic qualitative traits—no clouds, high contrast,


shallow depth, daylight photos.” (Clement Valla, “The Universal Texture,” Rhizome, July 31, 2012.) What do you see as the endgame here? What else will be erased from our maps? CV:

Wow, great question, but I really have no idea. This comes down to what is deemed useful to those building the apparatus. In my essay I tried to make the maps sound like the equivalent of shopping malls and contemporary airports: spaces that are always on, full of sedate spectacle, cheap and glossy, and perfect for pushing consumption—basically the kind of space described by Rem Koolhaas in his essay “Junkspace.” So as the maps evolve, and data collection and advertisements evolve, the designers of these systems will gravitate towards elements that are the most monetizable and try to edit out elements that cause any sort of friction in the use-data-mining-advertisement cycle. What will keep users mildly entertained enough to keep contributing? What functions will be useful enough to keep users clicking? What will divert attention away from the maps? Pushing the mall/airport analogy, I’m assuming the maps will tend towards the colorful antiseptic: just enough flavor to seem wonderful but no real representation of poverty, war, ecological



catastrophe, inequality, or anything no one wants to talk about while shopping for the perfect screen-cleaning solution or trying to get from highly ranked point A to highly starred point B.

Clement Valla 3D-Maps-Minus-3D 2013 Website Courtesy the artist


Your 2010 series Postcards from Google Earth, the 2012 essay “The Universal Texture,” and your 2013 project 3D-Maps-Minus-3D all bring to the fore the hidden systems and limitations of these new mapping technologies. As these technologies rapidly advance and the limitations you have documented are programmed away, what level of detail and capabilities do you envision these mapping programs will possess in our lifetime?


That’s a tough question as I don’t think I’m so good at speculating on the future. The one place I see much of this going is the increasing integration of geographic data, and geo-location functions within the other services of these tech companies, like self-driving cars, mobile platforms, invasive eyewear, and so on. The financial incentive for all this will probably still be based on advertising and monetizing our attention, using the very data we generate while using these services—so, kind of, an infernal loop. Geographic data is just another part of the metadata that we will generate for free to get to use some nifty new techno-thingy, and that will be aggregated, mined, and sold. My sense is that the big mapping battle between Nokia, Google, Apple, and Microsoft has a lot to do with owning the infrastructure that will collect the most metadata from our devices and the logical solution to the Streetview car problem: How do we get more Streetview cars? How do we update the map more frequently? How do we know where everyone is on the map? Well, why don’t we stick everyone in a Google car?


Do you see open source mapping projects such as Open Street Map becoming more robust and used? What role will they play in the future?


I am actually quite pessimistic about this one. I am excited by the


cars. I could be wrong, but I almost think the self-driving car is

tools and the development of open-source mapping projects, but I think there’s an imbalance in terms of access to data. Google Glass, i-Phones, self-driving cars—all of these devices will eventually be used as data-gathering points to feed the maps of the corporate giants. Until people realize their data has actual value and are unwilling to give it up for so-called free services but rather direct their data consciously and politically, it will be increasingly hard for open-source projects that rely on large data sets to compete. Furthermore, the only options seem to be either corporate or open-source, whereas traditional big data and mapping had been the province of governments. Opensource tools could work out extremely well using open, taxpayer-funded, government-produced data. But the scales seem to be tipping in favor of privatized, ad-funded data instead.




an interview with katja novitskova “I’m already like, ‘shit, I should just stick with PhotoShop and ordering things from companies, instead of doing it myself.” Katja Novitskova doesn’t know what day it is. She’s been working with “some form of rubber, resin, something” for the upcoming group show ‘Unstable Media’ at Martin van Zomeren gallery in Amsterdam, and it turns out it’s a substance that’s fine for most people but toxic to her. In addition to the blisters she shows me through Skype across her arms, she is on medication that makes her feel weird and disoriented. She’s a visual artist, working at the centre of the hazy post-internet realm, who is literally allergic to IRL but only some of it. “For the show

in Paris [Art of Living at Galerie Valentin], I did a bunch of little knives, they look like a mix of a shank and prehistoric axe, from a different material and that was fine.”


Novitskova also happens to use the word “allergy” to describe her reaction to the use of terms like “neo-liberalism” and “late-capitalism” because as a Bachelor in Semiotics and Culture Studies she’s come to realise there’s a world outside language, while that particular lexicon comes loaded with a critical ideology. But there’s even her own existing ideology, of an integration of online and offline media, that manages to filter through to her own vocabulary. Novitskova refers to her interrogative position on criticality as being a “search mode” and the contemporary visual fashion for Gulf Futurism, as a certain “meme”, started by tumblr and proliferated by the likes of Kari Altmann, Fatima Al-Qadiri, Iain Ball and Emily Jones, among others. Even her own interest in the 2010 trend mutates and manifests itself through her twitter tagline, “everything pseudo-saudi”, referring to her current computer font of choice, while her thumbnail features an Arabic text translation of “I Google Myself”, a piece produced for PWR Paper before the Arab Spring, gaining greater significance thereafter. So, in the context of an artist who’s forgotten that her webcam’s on while itching her arms and blankly staring at her twitter account, it’s these complex interactions between message and mediation, forms and formats, that makes Novitskova’s body of work the most relevant piece of cultural examination, inside and out.

Jean Kay:

It’s interesting that you’re making such tangible, physical work because the aesthetic that you work with seems so virtual.

Katja Novitskova:

Yeah but it needs to be materialised. I’m doing this residency in Amsterdam where I have access to these material experiments. One of the premises of me getting this residency was to work with more unexpected materials that I would not be able to access very easily, ordering things online. So the first physical


experiment went bad because it made me sick [laughs].


It’s so funny that you are having an allergic reaction to the physical product.


I think, intuitively, I know I’m not the person to be this craftsman. I’ve always known that, in a way, but then I’m still eager to explore it a bit more.


I guess your whole practice is based on that integration of physical and virtual modes.


One of the things that I realised I’m trying to communicate is that it’s more a gradient, or spectrum, rather than an opposition between the virtual and physical because it kind of melts into each other. There’s no clear distinction between one and another, in a way. I use the word ‘digital’ rather than ‘virtual’ because it’s a bit more clear, a bit more precise. But now I’m trying to make works that are aware of these gradual translations between the two. Usually, the point is to outsource this production and to act like this small business entity that makes a file and sends it to another small company that produces it and you get an object. So even the production of the object was a bit outsourced. Now, since I’m craft and do some things, but I already failed at it and something went wrong. Now I’m also exaggerating this artist position a bit and trying to combine the previous method with a bit of a renewal method. For instance, I’m painting things with nail polish and things like that, which I haven’t done before.


It’s interesting that you say ‘digital’ is a more precise term to use because virtual makes it sound like it’s almost imaginary. We’ve always interacted with some kind of interface, pixelated or not. Reading a book offers an experience beyond the physical.



in this art context, I decided to play an artist role, to do some

You can even say the alphabet is a form of code. There’s this spectrum of analogue codes becoming digital. It’s not that clear and that’s the interesting part.


You’ve got the same problem with defining what ‘digital culture’ actually is, in distinguishing it from, ‘print’ or even ‘oral’ culture. It all still has something to do with language.


There’s also no real subject. I’m not interested in these distinctions between media. I’m interested in how this new media actively redefines the world and culture, and everything. It’s like the digital medium is just a means to a certain subject, or a certain exploration. Of course, by doing that, you look at the medium itself but it’s not the subject.


Do you think about your aesthetic being formalised in some away?


Like a sort of schematic? The main aesthetical principle that I have is it has to trigger something in my brain and I think that every artist has their own thing that makes them make certain aesthetic choices over others. I’m very aware that I have this because when I make work, apart from the conceptual, it’s a very visual process. And at a certain point I just make these


choices that feel right. That can end up indeed being some kind of formula that I have and it’s just a way of making, on one hand. On the other, my work is about this playing with formats; existing formats like file formats all the way to the object format. Then it’s species, ideologies, even certain things that come into existence and then expire. I like this word ‘format’. I’m consciously playing with these formats, of course, and even with formats that are present in contemporary art. For instance, there’s this format of print on the wall, or of painting, or sculpture. I’m half consciously playing with all these formats. It’s like the smartphone as a format. This is more the material form of it but the detail and aesthetic choices are not a formula that I have, they’re very… I really have to like it myself before I make use of it [laughs]. JK:

Obviously, they bare close resemblance to corporate aesthetics.


Well, the corporate aesthetic is a format and I’m making a use of it. Stock animal documentary is a format, stock photography is a format, stock photography that deals with economics is a format. It’s a little pool of imagery that a lot of people make use of and that’s really popular… certain animals symbolising wild nature or something. I make use of this quite consciously and because I’m trying to mix the corporate aesthetic with the natural aesthetic, I’m trying to expose both of them as formats. I’m also interested in the nature of economics so it works on several layers, it works in this very visual layer but it also works on a conceptual layer.

POST-LIKE & SHARE Katja Novitskova Next Best Thing to Being There 2012 Courtesy the artist


That idea of the economy in your work is reflective of the use of these formats that market an experience or “authenticity” through this construct of nature through imagery.


I think Timur Si-Qin and Agatha Wara, who I worked with before, write about this. They explain things better than I would, but I agree with them that it’s basically objects and imagery and the whole ecological layer on the societies, which is there to grab our attention and to sell us something. In order for this to happen, the image itself, or the stories that they’re showing have to grab our attention. So there’s a certain visual narrative element that they use and they think work. I’m more interested in it in terms of


material. There’s so much more art in advertisement, this mass of

things, the banners, the cut-outs, the displays, the flags, the pens; all this marketing stuff that is being produced massively every year, or images just to be this interface between certain products and people. In a way, I think it makes sense to think of art in relation to this attention-grabbing advertisement, especially how it exists online. Where it can be as public as an artwork, where everything is democratic. That’s at least a few years ago, when there was no differentiation if you were looking at adver-

Katja Novitskova Orlando Group Exhibition Installation View 2012 Courtesy the artist


It’s all connected. Obviously as an artist, or a person, you respond to your context and your context is a world of advertising.


Yeah it’s environment and it’s an environment, which is trying to grab our attention. Of course, we’re so aware of it by now that, I think, a lot of us choose which advertisement to be affected by


tisement images or art online; it’s just a jpeg.

and which not. It’s a bit like that with art, except art is just like an advertisement of itself already [laughs].




Exhibition History 2015 Musée d’art contemporain de Montréal Anti-Grand: Contemporary Perspectives on Landscape, Joel and Lila Harnett Museum of Art, University of Richmond Museums, VA (forthcoming, January) What Remains, Museum of Contemporary Photography at Columbia College Chicago, IL


2014 Jon Rafman: The end of the end of the end, Contemporary Art Museum St.

Jon Rafman was born in 1981 in Montréal, where he continues to live and work. He earned a BA in philosophy and literature at McGill University and went on to complete an MFA at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. Despite his youth, he has already garnered remarkable success and visibility: exhibitions at the New Museum (New York, 2010), Saatchi Gallery (London, 2012), Museum of Contemporary Art (Rome, 2010), Palais de Tokyo (Paris, 2012) and Fridericianum (Kassel, 2013); and articles in Artforum, Art in America, Modern Painters and Frieze magazines.

2013 Annals of Time Lost, at Future Gallery, Berlin A Man Digging, at Seventeen Gallery, London You Are Standing in an Open Field, Zach Feuer Gallery, New York Where are we now?, The Collection Museum, Lincoln, UK Speculations on Anonymous Materials, Fridericianum, Kassel, Germany ANAMERICANA, Depart Foundation, Rome, Italy Drone: The Automated Image, Le Mois de la Photo à Montréal, Montreal, Canada Frequency: Lincoln Digital Cultures Festival, London, UK MAMA Showroom, Rotterdam, Netherlands The Photographer’s Gallery, London, UK Center for Photography at Woodstock, Woodstock, NY Ed Ruscha Books & Co., Gagosian Gallery, New York, NY Extravagant Features, C24 Gallery, New York, NY Jew York, Zach Feuer Gallery, New York, NY

Rafman’s work focuses on technology and digital media, and emphasizes the ways in which it distances us from ourselves. He offers a way to look at the melancholy in our modern social interactions, communities and virtual realities from an accessible place of humour and irony. His films and art are hauntingly evocative and utilize extremely personal moments to reveal how pop-culture ephemera and advertising media shape our desires and threaten to define our being. He has explored the identities and history of some of our most common virtual worlds—Google Earth, Google Street View and Second Life. Though Rafman rarely takes a moral stance toward the messaging behind his art, it consistently asks us to evaluate what it means to be human in the context of these new and ambiguous digital realms. Rafman celebrates and critiques contemporary culture, while at the same time revealing the origins of modern loneliness and alienation. An ongoing project of Rafman’s involves a tour around the virtual universe of Second Life, which is hosted by his avatar Kool-Aid Man. The work deals with how users employ creative exploits in order to bring to life an idealized self and entertain sexual fetishes in the virtual world.


Louis, MO Hope Springs Eternal, Galerie Antoine Ertaskiran, Montreal, QC Independent Fair, UNTITLED, New York, NY DISown, Installation in Red Bull Studios, Chelsea, curated by DIS Magazine, New York, NY Powerball Installation at The Power Plant, in collaboration with Galerie Antoine Ertaskiran, Toronto, Canada By Proxy, James Cohan Gallery, New York, NY New Systems, New Structures 001, William Arnold, Brooklyn, NY Today : Morrow, Balice Hertling, New York, NY Private Settings, Museum of Modern Art in Warsaw, Poland Gang Signs, Future Gallery, Berlin, Germany AIRBNB Pavilion, 14th Venice Architecture Biennale, Italy Silicon Valley Contemporary, San Jose, CA Science Fiction: New Death, Foundation for Art and Technology, Liverpool, UK Art Post-Internet, Ullens Center for Contemporary Art, Beijing, China Speaking Through Paint: Hans Hofmann’s Legacy Today, Lori Bookstein Fine Art, New York, NY What is a Photograph? International Centre for Photography, New York, NY

2012 Mirror Sites, International Art Object Galleries and M+B Gallery, Los Angeles, CA Nine Eyes of Google Street View, Angell Gallery, Toronto, ON BNPJ MMXII, American Medium, New York, NY Rome wasn’t built because no one was doing anything that day, Outpost, Norwich, UK Nine Eyes, Moscow Photobienniale, Central Exhibition Hall Manege, Moscow, Russia Public, CONTACT Photo Festival, Museum of Contemporary Canadian Art, Toronto, ON Screenshots, William Benton Museum of Art, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT Mapas Invisibles, Luis Adelantado Gallery, Mexico City, Mexico 2011 Point-of-Presence, TRUCK Contemporary Art Gallery, Calgary, AB Format, The Luminary Center for the Arts, St Louis, MO *new jpegs*, Johan Berggren Gallery, Malmo, Sweden From Here On, Les Rencontres d’Arles Photographie: International Photography Festival, Arles, France Alrededor es imposible, La Casa Encendida, Madrid, Spain. Stone Sky over Thingworld, Bitforms, New York, NY Offline, Temple Bar Gallery, Dublin, Ireland Pepsi Throwback Label on a New Coke Can, Reference Gallery, Richmond, VA Read/Write, 319 Scholes Gallery, Brooklyn, NY


2010 The Age Demanded, Golden Age, Chicago, IL Free, New Museum, New York, NY Maps & Legends, Fotographia Festival Internazionale di Roma, Museum of Contemporary Art of Rome, Italy Repair, Ars Electronica Festival, Linz, Austria A Unicorn Basking in the Light of Three Glowing Suns, DeVos Art Museum, Marquette, MI Man in the Dark, The Woodmill, London, UK Within which all things exist and move, Art 45, Montreal, QC Enchanted, The School of Development, Berlin, Germany FutureEverything Festival, Manchester, UK “Sculpture Storage”, LaMaMA Gallery, New York, NY “Avatar 4D”, Noma Gallery, San Francisco, CA 2009 15th Anniversary Slamdance Film Festival, Park City, UT European Media Arts Festival, Osnabrueck, Germany “13th REGARD”, Saguenay Film Festival, Saguenay, QC 25th Anniversary Kassel Dokfest, Kassel, Germany “Video_Dumbo”, Arts Under the Bridge Festival, Brookyln, NY “Mental Dynamics”, Synchronicity Gallery, Los Angeles, CA “Poke!” FotoFest Gallery, Houston, TX “Save for the Web” Xpace, Toronto, Canada



2015 “Surface Proxy,” XPO GALLERY, Paris, France “You! What Planet Is This?*,” Roomservice Gallery, Brooklyn, NY “Visual Leaders Award 2015,” House of Photography, Hamburg, Germany “oxi more on,” Espace Verney-Carron, Lyon, France “Globale: Infosphere,” ZKM, Karlsruhe, Germany “L’art et le numérique en résonance: Conséquences,” Maison Populaire de Montreuil, Montreuil, France “Digital Nature,” Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA), London, UK “Greetings from Lake Zwenkau,” FJORD, Philadelphia, PA “Phantom Vibrations,” University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY “The 27th Dimension,” Spring/Break Art Show at Skylight at Moynihan Station, New York, NY “Maximum Sideline,” Proxy, Providence, RI “Promenons-Nous,” L’abbaye d’Annecy-le-Vieux, Annecy-le-vieux, France “Sécurité : Que Reste-t-il De Nos Espaces De Liberté?,” Art Souterrain, Montreal, Canada “Nature Loves Courage,” the New York Professional Outreach Program, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 2014 “Surface Survey,” Transfer Gallery, Brooklyn, NY “Iconoclashes,” ADA Gallery, Richmond, VA Thomassen Gallery, Gothenburg, Sweden “Hike, Hack / Hic et Nunc,” XPO Gallery, Paris, France “Placemakers,” swissnex, San Francisco, CA “Festival des Images,” Vevey, Switzerland “Nets: Weaving Webs in Art,” Kunsthalle zu Kiel, Kiel, Germany “Synthetisch Vernünftig,” Lab for Emerging Arts and Performance (LEAP), Berlin, Germany “Unmasking the Network,” ASC Projects, San Francisco, CA “Spring Exhibition 2014,” Kunsthal Charlottenborg, Copenhagen, Denmark “PostPictures,” Bitforms Gallery, New York, NY “Internet Aware: Selections from,” Ace Hotel, New York, NY “Ten – 10 Curators, 100 Artworks,” Cindy Rucker Gallery, New York, NY “Transform,” Wasserman Projects, Birmingham, MI “Hi Res,” Plug Projects, Kansas City, KS 2013 “Iconoclashes,” Mulherin + Pollard, New York, NY “Paddles On!” Phillips auction house, New York, NY “Surveying the Terrain” CAM, Raleigh, NC “Terrifying Noble Splendid,” Temp Art Space, New York “Baadlands: an Atlas of Experimental Cartography,” Tin Sheds Gallery, Sydney, Australia “Journey Forth,” Gallery Wendi Norris, San Francisco, CA “Vanishing Point,” Bitforms Gallery, New York, NY “Mama Birding,” Communication Art Gallery, Toronto, Canada “#FuturMyth,” 319 Scholes, New York, NY “Chasing Horizons,” Villa Terrace Decorative Arts Museum, Milwaukee, WI

In his series Postcards from Google Earth, Valla collects screenshots from Google Earth showing various places photographed by satellite (roads, bridges and dams). Some structures that are difficult for software to interpret, give a distorted impression, closely embracing the Earth’s surface. Postcards from Google Earth presents a computerised adaptation of the world highlighting the program’s digital errors.


Exhibition History

Clement Valla was born in 1971 and trained as both an architect and designer. He is a Brooklyn-based artist whose work focuses on computer-based picture-producing apparatuses, and how they transform representation and ways of seeing. This focus stems from the realization that more images are being produced and parsed by computers today than are being made and seen by humans. His work includes photography, sculpture, and also software.

His recent show ‘Surface Proxy’ at XPO Gallery played two dimensional reproductions against three dimensional ones by wrapping sculptures in their own images. His work was included in the “Paddles On!” auction at Phillips, organized by Lindsay Howard. His work has also been exhibited at The Indianapolis Museum of Art, Indianapolis; Museum of the Moving Image, New York; Thommassen Galleri, Gothenburg; Bitforms Gallery, New York; Mulherin + Pollard Projects, New York; DAAP Galleries, University of Cincinnati; 319 Scholes, New York; and the Villa Terrace Decorative Arts Museum, Milwaukee. His work has been cited in The Guardian, Wall Street Journal, TIME Magazine, El Pais, Huffington Post, Rhizome, Domus, Wired, and The Brooklyn Rail. Valla received a BA in Architecture from Columbia University and an MFA from the Rhode Island School of Design in Digital+Media. He is currently an assistant professor of Graphic Design at RISD. 117

“Art Hack: God Mode,” 319 Scholes, New York, NY “DVD Dead Drop Vol. 5 – BEST OF,” Museum of the Moving Image, NY 2012 “Google Earth Skyscrapers, Google Earth Bridges,” L’unique, Caen, France “Gobal Space,” Indianapolis Museum of Contemporary Art, Indianapolis, IN “Collect the WWWorld,” 319 Scholes, New York, NY “Hoggard Wagner Collection,” English Kills Gallery, Bushwick, Brooklyn, Ny “Momenta Art Benefit”, Momenta Art, Brooklyn, NY “Photogenus,” DAAP Galleries, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH “The Download,”, New York, NY “Localize,” Potsdamer Stadtkanal, Potsdamer, Germany “SPLASH #1,” PHrame/RECYCLART, Bruxelles, Belgium “Interrupt,” Brown University, Providence, RI “Sys(x)tem,” Splatterpool, New York, NY 2011 “Jenny Odell and Clement Valla — Meridian,” Wire & Nail, San Francisco, CA “Paradise,” Rencontres Internationales Paris/Berlin/Madrid, Antiguo Edificio De Tabacalera, Madrid, Spain TV Cable Broadcast, Souvenirs From Earth TV, Cologne, Germany “Pixellence”, Schol of Visual Arts, New York, NY “Help Wanted”, Culturehall Feature Issue 69, “The Real and the Represented,” Little Paper Planes, Oakland, CA “The Wassaic Project Summer Festival,” The Wassaic Project, Wassaic, NY “pixilerations [v.8],” Sol Koffler Gallery, Providence, RI


2010 “Public Records,” Public Fiction (the museum of), Los Angeles, CA “Like Death, Santa Fe Will Catch Up With You In The End, Kevin Zucker and Chris Ho”, Fisher Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico; participant “The Big Country,” The Moviehouse in Millerton, Millerton, NY “pixilerations [v.7],” Sol Koffler Gallery, Providence, RI “A Flawed Providence,” Dorsch Gallery, Miami, FL “The Wassaic Project Summer Festival,” The Wassaic Project, Wassaic, NY “ELOAI,” Brown University, Providence, RI 2009 “Left To Chance,” Firehouse 13, Providence, RI “pixilerations [v.6],” Sol Koffler Gallery, Providence, RI “The Wassaic Project Summer Festival,” The Wassaic Project, Wassaic, NY MFA Thesis Exhibition, Rhode Island School of Design Rhode Island Convention Center, Providence RI “Boston CyberArts Festival,” Boston, MA “Six Geometric Figures within Six Geometric Figures by Mechanical Turk Workers,” Center for Integrated Technology, RISD, Providence, RI

2008 “Reverse Turing Tests: Hilary Berseth and Kevin Zucker,” Eleven Rivington, New York; collaborator on Zucker’s “curated” paintings “From Big Box to White Box,” Gelman Gallery, Chace Center, RISD, Providence, RI “MircroMediations,” Sol Koffler Gallery, RISD, Providence, RI


Artie Vierkant, born in 1986 in Breinerd, MN, studied Fine Arts at the University of Pennsylvania, and graduated with an MFA at the University of California. He now lives and works in New York. Exhibition History 2015 Image Objects - Mesler / Feuer, NY AN ON MO SA NS - Feuer / Mesler, New York Yves Klein Archives, Paris *forthcoming Image Objects - organized by Public Art Fund, City Hall Park, NY Para/fotographie - Westfalischer Kunstverein, Munster Germany Feature Description - Centre d’art Galerie Edouard Manet, Gennevilliers, France Clouds in the Cave - Kunsthalle Freiburg, Freiburg, Switzerland Incorporate Me, curated by Robin Lynch - CCS Bard Galleries and Hessel Museum of Art, Annandale-on-Hudson, New York Milk Revolution - American Academy Rome, Rome 2014 A Model Release - Untitled, New York Antoine Office, Antoine Casual - Carl Kostyal, London Usage Pending - Higher Pictures, NY Original Work - Weekends, Copenhagen Art Post Internet - Ullens Center for Contemporary Art, Beijing What is a Photograph? - International Center of Photography, New York Magic Touch - CCA Derry~Londonderry, Derry UK Fool Disclosure - Henningsen Gallery, Copenhagen 2013 US 63185969 B1, US 8118919 B1; (Exploits), New Galerie, Paris Configure - Exile, Berlin Trending - Untitled, New York Time Machine - Fonds M-ARCO, Marseille France Display - Galerie Hussenot, Paris Surface Tension, curated by Franklin Melendez - Galerie Andreas Huber, Vienna Photo Levallois Festival, Paris Rematerialized - New Galerie, Paris & New York Gisele Freund 2013 - New Galerie, New York Compression Artifacts - Undisclosed Location, North Salem, NY Beyond the Object - Brand New Gallery, Milan Italy Parker Ito See Also: Lai Fun, List of Pasta, Soba - Steve Turner Contemporary, Los Angeles 2012 Soundworks - Institute of Contemporary Art (ICA London), London, UK Motion - Seventeen Gallery, London, UK The Millenial Biennial, organized by Brad Troemel - Rod Barton, London Say Goodbye to Hollywood - Import Projects, Berlin This Town Deserves a Better Class of Criminals - New York Gallery, New York Net Narrative - Carlos / Ishikawa, London, UK Streamlines - Kansas Gallery, New York, NY Ur - Room East, New York, NY 2011 Artie Vierkant - China Art Objects, Los Angeles, CA Copy Protection / Kopierschutz - Club Midnight, Berlin Image Objects - REFERENCE Gallery, Richmond, VA Banal Inferno - Centre for Contemporary Arts, Glasgow UK The Greater Cloud - NIMk (Netherlands Instituut voor Mediakunst), Amsterdam, Netherlands

Vierkant makes art that is centred upon the importance of representation across media. This is evidenced throughout his practice, whether in the documentation or the process of creating his works. The interaction between physical and digital entities propagates debates related to both the development of art in a “post-internet” age and to its contemporaneous Intellectual Property rights. Vierkant’s work often exists within the nexus of the physical and the digital, resulting in a hybridisation, illustrated in his decisive exhibition Image-Object, in which works were photographed and then transformed. There is a definite tangible element, communicated through photography, which necessitates the capturing of a physical object. However, by altering the compositions digitally, something fundamentally different and physically nonexistent is created. A digital-image-only existence. Accordingly, Vierkant subverts the conventional teleology of art, which usually ends with the exhibition. This speaks to the evolution of an increasingly digitised culture, in which online interactions are rapidly overtaking physical encounters. In The Image-Object Post Internet Vierkant views his work as a part of a system of meaning, where “Post-Internet objects and images are developed with concern to their particular materiality as well as their vast variety of methods of presentation and dissemination.” Resultantly, the materials he uses, such as aluminum, stainless steel and fibreglass, become representative of the current technological apex.



* new jpegs * - Johan Berggren Gallery, Malmo, Sweden Generation - Showroom MAMA, Rotterdam, Netherlands READ/WRITE - 319 Scholes, Brooklyn, NY Saint Lawrence Ice curated by Ben Schumacher - Wolfe Island, Ontario Mobile Device - Bodega, Philadelphia PA 2010 REAL PROPER - PRETEEN Gallery, Hermosillo, Mexico Bring Your Own Beamer (New York) - Spencer Brownstone Gallery, New York, NY Bring Your Own Beamer (Los Angeles) Roski Gallery USC, Los Angeles ,CA Area / Zone - Bruce High Quality Foundation University, New York, NY Loadbang - Butcher Gallery, Toronto, ON Sculpture Storage curated by The Cave - LAMAMA Gallery, New York, NY READY OR NOT IT’S 2010 - LACMA & Walker Art Center Facebook Pages w/ The Jogging, The Internet



2017 S.M.A.K., Ghent (forthcoming) 2016 Secession, Vienna (forthcoming) Liverpool Biennial 2016 (forthcoming) SeMA Biennale Mediacity Seoul 2016, Seoul Museum of Art (forthcoming) Grand New, Future Gallery, Berlin L’image Volée (curated by Thomas Demand), Prada Foundation, Milan Gund Commons, Museum of Contemporary Art, Cleveland Electronic Superhighway, Whitechapel Gallery, London Dreaming Mirrors Dreaming Screens, Sprüth Magers, Berlin 2015 TF, Kaikai Kiki Gallery, Tokyo Oliver Laric, CCA, Tel Aviv Giving Away the Moulds Will Cause No Damage to His Majesty’s Casts, Austrian Cultural Forum, London Eyeworks Festival of Experimental Animation, Chicago (screening) 10, Chambres à part, Laurence Dreyfus – LDAC, Paris Technologism, Monash University Museum of Art, Melbourne GLOBAL: Infosphere, Center for Art and Media Karlsruhe (ZKM), Karlsruhe, Germany Screen Play: Life in an Animated World, Albright-Knox Art Gallery, Buffalo Sculptures Also Die, Centre for Contemporary Culture Strozzina, Palazzo Strozzi, Florence The Camera’s Blind Spot II, Extra City Kunsthalle, Antwerp Inhuman, Fridericianum, Kassel Moment!, Kunstverein, Göttingen Triennial: Surround Audience, New Museum, New York All Tomorrow’s Past, Kunsthaus Hamburg Lumination, Patricia Low Contemporary, Gstaad, Switzerland Hybridize or Disappear, Museu Nacional De Arte Contemporânea Do Chiado, Lisbon 5, MK Gallery, Buckinghamshire (screening) 2014 Oliver Laric, ar/ge kunst Galerie Museum, Bolzano, Italy Oliver Laric, Tanya Leighton, Berlin Oliver Laric: Lincoln 3D scans, The Collection and Usher Gallery, Lincolnshire Yuanmingyuan 3D, ENTRÉE, Bergen Black Box: Oliver Laric, Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Washington Versions, Henningsen Gallery, Copenhagen Been Caught Stealing, Kunsthalle Exnergasse, Vienna Jerwood Encounters: TTTT, Jerwood Space, London Arena, Center of Contemporary Art Znaki Czasu - CoCA, Torun Art Post-Internet, Ullens Center for Contemporary Art, Beijing To continue. Notes towards a Sculpture Cycle. First chapter: Matter, Nomas Foundation, Rome RAW 2014, Reed College, Portland Tonight, you can call me Trish, LAB Gallery, Dublin Over & Over the Rainbow, The Israeli Center for Digital Art, Tel Aviv 2013 Art Basel Miami Beach (with


Exhibition History

Oliver Laric was born in 1981 in Innsbruck, Austria and currently lives and works in Berlin. He studied at the University of Applied Arts in Vienna. Oliver Laric’s work seeks to parse the productive potential of the copy, the bootleg, and the remix, and examine their role in the formation of both historic and contemporary image cultures. He operates in a simulacral space where concepts of authorship, truth, presence, original and copy are shown to be obsolete, or at least irrelevant. His art has been deeply rooted in the concept of questioning ownership, with his works over the years not only being interesting and provocative, but also entertaining and humorous at times, as he has made kopienkritik, or ‘copy criticism’ a modern genre and process of his own. This process is intimately tied to his intuitive, idiosyncratic brand of scholarship, which he presents through an ongoing series of fugue-like expository videos (Versions, 2009–present), and further elaborates through his appropriated object works, videos, and sculptures, all of which are densely conceptually layered and often make use of recondite, technologically sophisticated methods of fabrication. Straddling the liminal spaces between the past and the present, the authentic and the inauthentic, the original and its subsequent reflections and reconfigurations, Laric’s work collapses categories and blurs boundaries in a manner that calls into question their very existence.

His videos and Internet-based works draw on footage, mostly scoured from the Web, that he edits to generate new meaning. Often his individual works function like templates that, once released online, become used and remade. With Touch My Body (Green Screen Version), Laric used a green-screen filter to block out all content in pop star Mariah Carey’s “Touch My Body” video. This new version was then put on YouTube for anyone to remix by layering new graphics and thus creating new narratives. 121



Aleksandra Domanoviπ) 5, Seventeen Gallery, London Verze, FUTURA Center for Contemporary Art, Prague Versions, MIT List Visual Arts Center, Cambridge East Coast: Damn braces: Bless relaxes, Whitechapel Gallery, London Casting a wide net, Postmasters Gallery, New York City Speculations on Anonymous Materials, Fridericianum, Kassel Aaa Cc Dd Ee G H Iiii J Kk Lll M Nn Oooo Rrrr U, Alpineum Produzentengalerie, Lucerne der schein | glanz, glamour, illusion, Kestnergesellschaft, Hannover In God We Trust, Zacheta - National Gallery of Art, Warsaw You Only Fall Twice, Centre for Contemporary Art, Derry Time Machine, M-ARCO, Marseille Kahtluse Varjud, Tallinn Art Hall, Estonia For My Eyes Only, Maribor Art Gallery, Austria Prada Pravda, Tartu Art Museum, Noorus Gallery and Y-gallery, Tartu, Estonia Marqués par une image, L’Abbaye, Annecy-le-Vieux Shadows of a Doubt, Tallinn Art Hall, Estonia The Time of Our Image, Tallinn Art Hall, Estonia Reality and Constructed Factual, Unit 2, Speedwell Works, Sheffield, UK Chambres à Part VIII: Seeing is a Fable, Laurence Dreyfus – LDAC, Paris Love of Technology, Museum of Contemporary Art, North Miami, FL Born This Way, Monica De Cardenas, Milan A Different Kind of Order: The ICP Triennial, ICP, New York Souvenir, Galerie Perrotin, Paris Berlin.Status 2, Künstlerhaus Bethanien, Berlin The Feverish Library (continued), Capitain Petzel, Berlin Analogital, Utah Museum of Contemporary Art, Salt Lake City Version Control, Arnolfini, Bristol Involucion, Otras Obras, Tijuana Ensemble, Backlit, Nottingham Gordian Conviviality, Import Projects, Berlin When Violence Becomes Decadent, ACC Weimar Permutation 03.x, P!, New York Out of Memory (curated by Eleanor Cayre), Marianne Boesky Gallery, New York 2012 Versions, Art Statements, Art|43|Basel, Basel Villa du Parc Centre d’art Contemporain, Annemasse, France (with Aleksandra Domanoviπ) Frieze, New York (with Aleksandra Domanoviπ) Be Water My Friend, Tanya Leighton, Berlin Oliver Laric / Martin Westwood, Peles Empire, London Surface Tension, Future Gallery, Berlin Imagine the Imaginary (curated by Julien Fronsacq), Palais de Tokyo, Paris The Feverish Library, Friedrich Petzel Gallery, New York Images of the 21st century, Museum of the Image, Breda, Netherlands Panem Et Circenses, Rob Tufnell at 83 Page St, London The Imaginary Museum (curated by Bart van der Heide), Kunstverein München, Munich Alienate/demonstrate/edit, Artspace, Auckland When Violence Becomes Decadent, Freies Museum, Berlin Fourth Wall, Vox Populi Gallery, Philadelphia Motion, Seventeen Gallery, London (Curated by Tim Steer & Ceci Moss) Toward a warm math, On Stellar Rays, New York Alpenrepublik, Kunstraum, Innsbruck Lilliput, High Line, New York Keeping up Appearances, Kunstverein Wiesbaden La Loge, SAKS, Geneva Surface in Volume, Luce Gallery, Turin In Other Words, NGBK, Berlin Game On / Re-Newing Media Art: a touring initiative, Glucksman

Gallery, Cork, Ireland Net Video, Black Box, Givon Art Gallery, Tel Aviv Images Rendered Bare. Vacant. Recognizable, Stadium Gallery, New York A Duck, A Rabbit and A Rabbit and A Duck,, London Is This Thing On?, Contemporary Art Center, Cincinnati Out-of-_________, Michael Benevento, Los Angeles 2011 Diamond Grill, Seventeen Gallery, London Kopienkritik, Skulpturhalle Basel, Basel 山寨 Shanzhai Turbo, Western Front, Vancouver An Image (curated by Alessio Ascari), Kaleidoscope, Milan, Italy What’s Next – The Future of the Photography Museum, FOAM, Amsterdam Music for Insomniacs, Proyectos Monclova, Mexico City Pentimenti, Kleine Humboldt Galerie, Berlin Priority Moments, Herald St, London Frieze Projects, Frieze Art Fair, London Collect the WWWorld. The Artist as Archivist in the Internet Age (curated by Domenico Quaranta), Spazio Contemporanea, Brescia, Italy 10x10: The Feast, European Culture Congress, Warsaw, Poland Facts about the Past, Extra Extra, Philadelphia Play Bach, Circuit, Lausanne, Switzerland Memery, MASS MoCA, Massachusetts Grouped Show, Tanya Leighton, Berlin Momentum, The Nordic Biennial, Moss, Norway Based in Berlin, Atelierhaus Monbijoupark, Berlin My War, Agnes Etherington Art Centre, Kingston, Canada The Passenger, Galerie Paul Andriesse, Amsterdam The Post Internet Survival Guide, Gentili Apri, Berlin Microstoria, Talbot Rice Gallery, Edinburgh You don’t love me anymore, Westfälischer Kunstvereien, Münster A painting show, Autocenter, Berlin USER_FRIENDLY, Plateforme, Paris 2010 Regionale 11 - The Forever Ending Story, Ausstellungsraum Klingental, Basel Eli Manning, Reference Art Gallery, Richmond Young Artists’ Biennial Bucharest (curated by Mica Gherghescu), Stirbei Palace, Bucharest My War (curated by Andreas Broeckmann, Heather Corcoran and Sabine Himmelsbach), FACT Liverpool, Liverpool; Edith-Ruß-Haus, Oldenburg CODE Live 1, Great Northern Way Campus, Vancouver CUE: Artists’ Video (curated by Diana Augaitis and Christopher Eamon) Vancouver Art Gallery, Vancouver BYOB, Bureau Friederich projectstudio, Berlin Foto 30, Proyectos Ultravioleta, Guatemala A secret understanding, Balaklava Odyssey, Sevastopol, Ukraine A secret understanding, Media Depot, Lviv, Ukraine Syncopation, Grimmuseum, Berlin Meer, Voorkamer, Antwerp Videodrome, Autocenter, Berlin Turboprops, Institute of Social Hypocrisy, Paris Bratislava Biennale, Space Gallery, Bratislava Video Dumbo, curated by Caspar Stracke and Gabriela Monroy, New York Session_8_Video, Am Nuden Da, London Surfing Club, [], Basel Surfing Club, Espace Gantner, Bourog Quarterly Site #4: Registers, LVL3, Chicago 2009 Combination of works, Pavillion 2009, Oslo The World is Flat (curated by Lauren Cornell), X-Initiative, New York New Wave – Internet Pavilion – 53rd Biennale di Venezia (curated

by Miltos Manetas), S.A.L.E Docks, Venice A Secret Understanding, Kunsthaus Graz Once Upon a Time in the West (curated by Dominico Quaranta), Pixxelpoint, Nova Gorcia A combination of Works by Oliver Laric and Wojciech Kosma, Pavillion 2009, Oslo Session_7_Words, Am Nuden Da, London Versions (curated by Annet Dekker and Constant Dullart), Nederlands Instituut voor Mediakunst, Montevideo/Time Based Arts, Amsterdam The True Artist Helps the World by Revealing Mystic Truths (Curated by Ellis McDonald), Liberty Corner, Dublin Back to the Future (curated by Cason Chan), COMA Centre for Opinions in Music and Art, Berlin AFK Sculpture Park (curated by Daniel Keller and Nik Kosmas), Atelierhof Kreuzberg, Berlin The New Easy (curated by Lars Eijssen), Art News Projects, Berlin Image Search (curated by Jamie Sterns), P.P.O.W. Gallery, New York Earth Not a Globe (curated by Dani Admiss), Rokeby Gallery, London Doing Boundless (curated by Maja Block), Platform 3, Munich In Real Life (curated by Laurel Ptak), Capricious Space, New York Readymade or Not (curated by Aimee Lust), Video Gallery, New York Bad Day (curated by Eva Michon), Emporium Gallery, Montreal 2008 50 50 2008Touch My Body, Seventeen, London Les Urbaines (curated by Guy Meldem), Espace Doll, Lausanne Montage: Unmonumental Online, New Museum of Contemporary Art, New York Last Chance to see the Show (curated by Christian Alandete and Esther Lu as part of the exhibition The Rest of Now, curated by Raqs Media Collective for Point Ephemere, Paris), Manifesta 7, Trentino The New Easy (curated by Lars Eijssen), Agentur, Amsterdam Shift Festival (curated by Raffael Dörig and Daniel Baumann), Dreispitzareal, Basel The Steve Guttenberg Galaxy, Seventeen, Wharf Road Project, London I Love the Horizon (curated by Andro Wekua and Daniel Baumann), Le Magasin/Centre National d’Art Contemporain Grenoble Episode 25: Activities in time and space (curated by Andy Simionato), Careof – Fabbrica del Vapore, Milan Second Thoughts, Hessel Museum, New York Monologs (curated by Elisa Eliash), Galeria Animal, Santiago de Chile Love Design Delirium (curated by Nous Faes), Kunstraum NOE, Vienna 2007 Ursula Blickle Video Prize, Kunsthalle Wien, Vienna Becks Fusions (curated by Forma), Institute of Contemporary Art, London 2006 Character Reference (curated by Caitlin Jones), Bryce Wolkowitz Gallery, New York

Katja Novitskova was born in 1984 in Talinn, Estonia and now lives and works between Amsterdam and Berlin. She studied graphic design at the Sandberg Instituut, Amsterdam and holds an MSC at University of Lübeck, Germany. 2014 Art Basel Statements, with KraupaTuskany Zeidler, Basel S.A.L.T.S., Basel Spirit, Curiosity and Opportunity, Kraupa-Tuskany Zeidler Mottahedan Projects, duo with Florian Auer, Dubai (UAE) Art Post-Internet, Ullens Center for Contemporary Art, Beijing (RC) TEDxVaduz Redux, T293, Rome (IT) Literacy – Illiteracy, 16th Tallinn Print Triennial, Kumu Art Museum, Tallinn (EE) 2013 Rijksakademie OPEN, Amsterdam Sunday Fair, duo presentation with Avery Singer, Kraupa-Tuskany Zeidler, London MiArt, solo presentation, KraupaTuskany Zeidler, Milan 14.12.13, curated by Kraupa-Tuskany Zeidler and Armen Avanessian, Berlin Come, All Ye Faithful, curated by Carson Chan, Grieder Gallery, Zürich Mawu-Lisa II, curated by Amalia Ulman, Courtney Blades, Chicago, USA Current Model Like New, curated by Loney Lauren Abrams, Flux Factory, Long Island City, USA Shadows of a Doubt, curated by Niekolaas Lekkerkerk, Kunstihoone, Tallinn Speculations on Anonymous Materials, Fridericianum, Kassel Playing Nature, curated by Katia Krupennikova, CCA Sokol, 5th Moscow Biennale Notes (on de-classing), curated by Vincent Honore, Galleri Opdahl Stavanger Shift, Future Gallery, Berlin Over the Valley, curated by Lucy Chinen, Steve Turner Contemporary, Los Angeles Art of Living, curated by Luca Francesconi, Galerie Valentin, Paris Unstable Media, curated by Anne de Vries, Martin van Zomeren, Amsterdam Pattern Repeat, Gloria Knight, Aukland Re-materialized, curated by Toke Nielsen, New Galerie, Paris Collapse, Fluxia, Milan Plants vs. Zombies, Boetzelaer|Nispen, Amsterdam 2012 MACRO EXPANSION, KraupaTuskany, Berlin Appendix, Portland Hotel Palenque, French Reviera, curated by Elise Lammer, London CCS Bard, NY, duo show with Timur Si-Qin #8, Health Club, curated by Beata Wilczek, Czarny Neseser, Wrocław, Poland Profit | Decay, duo show with Amalia Ulman, Arcadia Missa, London Public iPad Lounge, curated by Parker Ito, Steve Turner Contemporary, Untitled Art Fair, Miami Beach Shell-Reflexives, curated by Agatha Wara, Downtown ArtHouse, Miami Archaeology and the Future of Estonian Art Scenes, curated by Kati Ilves, KUMU, Tallinn, Estonia Calibration Shift, Third Party Gallery, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA No More Westerns, Impakt Festival 2012, Utrecht, Netherlands Orlando, curated by Luca Francesconi, Fondazione Brodbeck, Catania, Italy Nomadik, BWA Wraclow, Poland Net Narrative, curated by Harry Burke, Carlos/Ishikawa, London DVD Dead Drop, curated by Aram Bartholl, Museum of Moving Image, NYC

Novitskova interrogates the positions and locations where the technological and physical coincide, understanding them as two facets of the same ideological continuum. Blurring distinctions between media, she is interested in the interpretation and perception of visual material and works with digital collages, sculptures and installations. Katja Novitskova also released a text, Post Internet Survival Guide in 2010, an exploration into the creation and distribution of art online in that year. It is both the artist’s publication and an installation; not solely to be read, it has also featured as the subject of numerous artworks. As digital materials rapidly change, an image can soon alter and take on new meanings. In the foreword to the book, Novitskova asserts that “the notion of a survival guide arises as an answer to a basic human need to cope with increasing complexity.” She describes it as an essential tool that addresses the space “where we ask ourselves what it means to be a human today.”


Exhibition History

Novitskova draws attention to the human inclination to interpret information through reliance on prior knowledge; often people unconsciously attempt to perceive images and recognisable subjects in the form of abstraction. Novitskova investigates the complexity of human behaviour, our engagement with the physical and digital world that surrounds us, and the online circulation of visual forms. Her work is both integrated in the digital world and provides analysis of it.


Brand Innovations for Ubiquitous Authorship, curated by Artie Vierkant, Higher Pictures, NYC The Still Life of Vernacular Agents, curated by Nadine Zeidler, KraupaTuskany gallery, Berlin Contemporary Estonian Graphic Design (2001-2011), curated by Indrek Sirkel, Estonian Museum of Applied Art and Design EU, curated by Tanya Rumpff, Museum Het Tongerlohuys, Roosendaal 2011 sunny n shiiite, curated by Adam Cruces SO REAL, b-galleria, Turku, Finland BYOB Amsterdam, curated by Rafael Rozendaal Speed Show Berlin, curated by Aram Bartholl group show curated by Johan Kauth, FAT Form, Amsterdam Mawu-Lisa, curated by Amalia Ulman, New Gallery London, London, UK Arcuri, Novitskova, Rodriguez, curated by Chelsea Culp, New Capital, Chicago, USA Oggetto Soggetto, curated by Ricardo JuĂĄrez and Silvia Bianchi, Centro de Arte 2 de Mayo, Madrid, Spain Metrospective 1.0, curated by Carson Chan and Mike Ruiz, Program, Berlin BYOB London, curated by KERNEL Post Internet Survival Guide, Future Gallery and Gentili Apri, Berlin Sandberg Institute at NIMk #3, curated by Emile Zile, Netherlands Media Art Institute (NIMK), Amsterdam 2010 Speed Show vol.4, curated by Aram Bartholl, NYC Next Big Thing, Sandberg Instituut graduation show, Brakke Grond, Amsterdam BYOB (Bring Your Own Beamer), curated by Anne de Vries and Rafael Rozendaal, Berlin



2009 Utopian Grids, Sandberg Instituut exhibition, De Verdieping, Amsterdam Amsterdam Biennale 2009: Tallinn pavilion, curated by Margit Säde, Mediamatic, Amsterdam

2015 Point Of View, Babycastles, NYC Art In The Age Of Planetary Computation, Witte de With, Rotterdam PBKAC - IMHO ,Haus der Elektronischen Künste, LISTE art fair, Basel Offline Art: Are you still there? Museum Angewandte Kunst; Frankfurt NEULAND Kunsthaus Kaufbeuren, Germany 2014 Hurt me plenty, DAM Gallery Berlin End User Hayward Gallery Project Space, London The Darknet Kunsthalle St.Gallen, Switzerland Cuban Contemporary Art Salon Centro de Desarrollo de las Artes Visuales, Cuba SNEL HEST Alingsås Kosthall, Denmark Archipel in√est, Urbane Künste Ruhr, Recklinghausen Painters and Poets, Mestna galerija Ljubljana, Solvenia Hyperresemblances: REALITY FX, The Wallach Art Gallery, Columbia University, NYC FULL SCREEN, xpo gallery, Paris MOTI HOTEL MOTI Museum of the Image, Breda, Netherlands UNPAINTED Media art fair at Postpalast, Munich

2013 RETWEET IF YOU WANT MORE FOLLOWERS, xpo gallery, Paris Go!Go!Go!, Aksioma, Ljubljana 30C3: 30th Chaos Communication Congress, Hamburg The Influencers Festival Barcelona, Spain YIA ART FAIR with xpo gallery, Paris, France Todaysart, festival, The Hague, Netherlands FACELESS, quartier 21 Museums Quartier, Vienna In Medias Res, Galerie Verney-Carron, Lyon, France Public Abstraction Private Construction VI VII, Kunstverein Arnsberg, Germany DAM Gallery, Berlin, Summer Splash 2 Motorenhalle Dresden, Germany, Fußnoten zum Aufbruch Carroll / Fletcher, London Brand Innovations for Ubiquitous Authorship Eyebeam, New York, FAT GOLD Arts Santa Mónica, Barcelona, Spain, From here on 2012 Reply All, DAM Berlin, Germany [DAM] Berlin, Germany, Meine Wunderkammer centralTrak, UT Dallas, US, Co- ReCreating Spaces Backjumps, Berlin, Germany, Rock the Block Mueum of Moving Image, New York, DVD dead drop Künstlerhaus, Vienna, Megacool 4.0 UMOCA Utah Museum of Contemporary Art, USA, Cantastoria Luis Adelantado Mexico, Mexico City, Invisible Maps Family Business, New York, NYC, It’s a small small world Maison d’Ailleurs, Yverdon-les-Bains, Switzerland, Playtimes The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, Israel, Curious Minds International Film Festival Rotterdam, Netherlands, Signals: For Real Bemis Center for Contemporary Art, Omaha, USA

In his art work Aram Bartholl thematizes the relationships between net data space and public everyday life. “In which form does the network data world manifest itself in our everyday life? What returns from cyberspace into physical space? How do digital innovations influence our everyday actions?” Through his installations, workshops and performances Bartholl developed a unique way to discuss the impact of the digital era on society. In his series of physical objects recreated from digital space and a series of light installations he questions the technology driven society and the tension of public on- and offline space. Workshops and group performances play a central role in his interest to create offline social platforms and situations to discuss day to day life in the era of Google, Facebook, Twitter and co.


Exhibition History

Aram Bartholl has been working in Berlin since 1995. He studied architecture at the University of the Arts UdK Berlin and graduated there in 2001. Bartholl worked as a freelancer for DMC, MVRDV, IEB Berlin and Fraunhofer Institut FOCUS among others. His installations and performances have been shown at numerous festivals, museum and gallery shows worldwide. Often he is invited to give workshops and to present his work at conferences and universities/art schools. Aram Bartholl is a member of the ‘Urban Media Salon’ Berlin and member of the NYC based ‘Free, Art & Technology Lab’ aka ‘F.A.T. Lab.’ Institutions like the annual Chaos Communication Congress and the discussion on net politics, copyright, DIY movement and the web development in general do play an important role in his work. Aram Bartholl collects impressions on streetart, games, privacy, copyright and neoanalogue culture in his blog.


2011 Cabaret Voltaire, Zurich, Dada New York II HKW, Berlin, Germany, Tracing Mobility Video_Dumbo, New York, USA, Quasi Cinema [DAM] Berlin, Germany, Experience Space The Pace Gallery, New York, NY, Social Media [DAM] Cologne, Cologne, Germany, Ready for upgrade MoMA Museum of Modern Art, New York, NY, Talk to me Les Rencontres d’Arles 2011, Arles, France, From here on Portsmouth Museum of Art, Portsmouth, USA, The Uncommon Portrait Devotion Gallery, New York, USA, Alternative Controllers Jeu de Paume, Virtual Space, Paris, France, Identités précaires Kumu, Tallinn, Estonia, Gateways 2010 Kunsthal KAdE, Amersfoort, Netherlands, ShadowDance Kunstraum Kreuzberg, Berlin, Germany, Locate Me Desingel, Antwerpen, Belgium, Gamezone Public Art Festival, Taipei, Taiwan, GOOD TIME Art Space Riga, Riga, Latvia, Sterne Sehen NIMK Netherlands Media Arts Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Space Invaders ISEA, Dortmund, Germany, ISEA2010 Exhibition


2009 5 Minute Museum, STRP, Eindhoven, Netherlands, Random Screen FACT, Liverpool, Great Britain, Space Invaders Microwave, Hong Kong, Nature Transformer Gallery Ofroom, Vienna, Austria, BLK River Festival Brigham Young MoA, Utah, USA, Mirror Mirror: Contemporary Portraits and the Fugitive Self Gallery Space CAN, Seoul, Korea, Lack of electricity Laguna Art Museum, Laguna Beach, CA, USA, WoW: Emergent Media Phenomenon Biennial International Festival Of Visual And Performing Arts, Barcelona, Spain, InnMotion Bremer Kunstfrühling, Bremen, Germany, Springt! MUZ, Szczecin, Poland, Inspiracje art festival Planetart, Amsterdam, Netherlands, DADAMACHINIMA 2008 Weserburg | Museum of Modern Art,Bremen, Germany, Video Award Bremen, eARTS, Shanghai, China , Urban Space, Time to Play Australian Centre for Photography, Sydney, Australia, Avatar Total Museum of Contemporary Art, Seoul, South Korea, Hack the City Koldo Mitxelenam, San Sebastian, Spain, Try again NIMK Netherlands Media Art Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Public Privacy Futuresonic, Manchester, Great Britain, Offline Social Networks Casa del Encendida, Madrid, Spain, Try again Richman Gallery, Baltimore, USA, Cardinal Points Club Transmediale, Berlin, Germany, Being Bold 2007 Skulpturenpark, Berlin, Germany, Sandbox Berlin Ars Electronica, Linz, Austria, Goodbye Privacy Newcastle’s Discovery Museum, Newcastle, Great Britain, Our Cyborg Future? Laboral, Gijon, Spain, Gameworlds Eyebeam, New York City, USA, Open City Vooruit, Gent, Belgium, Time’s up Transmediale, Berlin, Germany, Unfinish! TENT, Rotterdam, Netherlands, Borderline Behaviour


2006 HAU2, Berlin, Germany, First Play Berlin Plattform Bohnenstrasse, Public Space Exhibition, Bremen, Germany, Ars Electronica, Linz, Austria, Simplicity

Viper, Basel, Switzerland ENEMY Gallery, Chicago, USA, 3rd (A) r4WB1t5 micro.fest 2005 22C3 Chaos Communication Congress, Berlin, Germany 2004 21C3 Chaos Communication Congress, Berlin, Germany

/* LIST OF WORKS Jon Rafman Sycamore Drive: Willowgreen, Kilrush, Co. Clare, Ireland — Google View 2010 Archival pigment print on Hahnemühle paper 40”×64” p.36 Jon Rafman Edam, North Holland, Nederland — Google View 2009 Archival pigment print on Hahnemühle paper 40”×64” p.37 Jon Rafman 28052 Oak Run Rd, Central Shasta, CA, USA – Google View Jon Rafman • 2009 Archival pigment print on Hahnemühle paper 40”×64” Jon Rafman Fuji-Q Highland, 5-6-1 ShinNishihara, Fujiyoshida, Yamanashi, Japan — Google View 2009 Archival pigment print on Hahnemühle paper 40”×64” p.38 Jon Rafman Cambie Rd & Brown Rd, Richmond, BC, Canada — Google View 2009 Archival pigment print on Hahnemühle paper 40”×64” p.38 Jon Rafman Mexico 178, Yucatan, Mexico — Google View 2012 Archival pigment print on Hahnemühle paper 40”×64” p.39

Jon Rafman Rv890, Norway — Google View 2011 Archival pigment print on Hahnemühle paper 40”×64” p.40 Jon Rafman Altus Ave., Mojave, California — Google View 2012 Archival pigment print on Hahnemühle paper 40”×64” p.40–41 Clement Valla The Universal Texture 2012 Inkjet on canvas 18”×13” p.44–45 Clement Valla The Universal Texture 2015 Inkjet on canvas 18”×13” p.45 Clement Valla 2013 Website p.46–47 Clement Valla Postcards from Google Earth 2010 Inkjet on paper 4”×6” p.48–51 Artie Vierkant Image Object 2015 Aluminum and vinyl p.54–55 Artie Vierkant Image Object Wednesday 3 June 2015 3:27PM (Weekends) 2015 UV print on aluminum composite panel 65”×65” p.56 Artie Vierkant Image Object Monday 27 April 2015 1:22PM (Cura) 2015 UV print on aluminum composite panel 65”×65” p.56

Artie Vierkant Image Object Tuesday 14 July 2015 11:44AM (Westfalischer) 2015 UV print on aluminum composite panel 65”×65” p.57 Artie Vierkant Image Object Thursday 4 June 2015 1:45PM (From) 2015 UV print on aluminum composite panel 65”×65” p.57 Artie Vierkant Image Object Monday 25 April 2011 5:01PM 2011 Inkjet on sintra 23.5”×55”×.5” p.58 Artie Vierkant Image Object Monday 25 April 2011 8:01PM 2011 Inkjet on sintra 23.5”×55”×.5” p.58 Artie Vierkant Image Object Thursday 26 April 2012 3:01PM 2012 Inkjet on sintra 54”×16” p.59


Jon Rafman Rv888, Finmark, Norway — Google View 2010 Archival pigment print on Hahnemühle paper 40”×64” p.39

Oliver Laric Relief (Utrecht) 2015 Polyurethane pigments, tobacco, recycled cork, shredded CDs, hologram scraps 19”×26”×4” p.62–67 Oliver Laric Icon (Utrecht) 2009 Polyurethane sculpture p.68–71 Katja Novitskova Approximation (toucan) 2014 Digital print on aluminum, cutout display 55”×86” p.74 Katja Novitskova Innate Disposition 2012 Digital print plastic cutout displays 55”×95”×14” p.75–76 Katja Novitskova Approximations III 2013


Digital print on aluminum dibond, cutout display p.77 Katja Novitskova Pattern of Activation 2014 Arrow sculpture: cast polyurethane, laser cut steel armature 57”×98”×79” (with trampoline) p.78 Katja Novitskova Approximation V Chameleon 2013 Digital print on aluminum dibond, cutout display 57”×51”×8” p.79 Katja Novitskova Approximation Mars I 2014 Digital print on aluminum, cutout display, plant granulat 55”×95”×14” p.79 Katja Novitskova Branching I 2013 Digital print on aluminum dibond, cutout display p.80–81 Katja Novitskova Free Market 2012 Found image of Orlando Toro, found image of a SLLIMM-nano intelligent power modules produced at STMicroelectronics factory in Catania, digital print on PVC, cutout advertisement display 37.5”×27.5”×4” p.81 Aram Bartholl Point of View 2015 C-print on pine wood cut outs p.84 Aram Bartholl What are you waiting for? 2013 Acrylic screen print on wood p.84–85 Aram Bartholl Come get some 2014 4-color screen print series, acrylic on canvas p.85


Aram Bartholl 123456 2014 Pen plotter series, pencil on paper

40”×79” p.86–89 Aram Bartholl Are you human? 2011 Aluminum anodized, laser cut Dimensions variable: 13.5” – 22”×27.5” – 37”×.12” p.90 Aram Bartholl ‘Aram Bartholl’ Google search 2011 Ink on paper 70”×70” p.90 Aram Bartholl Forgot your password? 2013 Books, 8 volumes, hardcover, 800 pages each 8.26”×10.6” p.91–93 Aram Bartholl Map 2013 Wood board, wood beams, paint 236”×138”×13.8” p.94–95

/* SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY DZIEKAN, VINCE. Virtuality and the Art of Exhibition: Curatorial Design for the Multimedial Museum, Bristol: Intellect, 2012. GRAHAM, BERYL, SARAH COOK. Rethinking Curating: Art after New Media, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010. GREENE, RACHEL. Internet Art, London: Thames & Hudson, 2004. KHOLEIF, OMAR. You Are Here: Art After the Internet. London: Cornerhouse, 2014. Print.

LAMBERT, NICHOLAS, JOANNE McNEIL, and DOMENICO QUARANTA. Art and the Internet. London: Black Dog, 2013. Print. LUNFIELD, PETER ed., The Digital Dialectic: New Essays on New Media, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 2003. McHUGH, GENE. Post Internet: Art and Performance in the Networked Field, Annandale-on-Hudson: Centre for Curatorial Studies, Bard College, 2009.


Lab 404, website of Curt Cloniger, net.artist and curator—

Net Art Database; screencasts of users interacting with net art— PAUL, CHRISTIANE. Digital Art, London: Thames & Hudson, 2003. VIERKANT, ARTIE. The Image Object PostInternet (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <http://www.artlurker. com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/imageobject-postInternet.pdf>.


Post–Like & Share  
Post–Like & Share