networked images and new media design

This morning I was watching vimeo footage forwarded by Nick, one of our colleagues at the Virtual Knowledge Studio. Designer Hendrik-Jan Grievink presented his book project on Wiki Loves Art at the CPOV conference in Amsterdam, held on March 27 and 28.

After interviewing Coralie Vogelaar at the Rijksakademie in January, and hearing Kim de  Groot (Jan van Eyck Academy) present her work at last week’s VKS Maastricht workshop, it struck me that there’s a lot of synergy between their individual projects and our work on Network Realism. It is very interesting how their work really embodies the idea that images are not merely tools, but are themselves sites of knowledge production and dissemination.  In the case of Hendrik-Jan, his forthcoming book on Wiki Loves Art (see also our two earlier blog posts on the topic) promises to be a critical reflection on WLA and Wikimedia Commons in general and an artistic re-use of images under CC-license at once. He hopes this will ‘create a never-ending loop’ of cultural capital. Coralie’s work – and her cooperation with Tinkebell is perhaps the most well-known example – also clearly reveals how the re-use of images and other sources on the web produces new, at times controversial, knowledge. Lastly, Kim de Groot is currently studying ‘the inverted relation between image and reality’ at the Jan van Eyck, in a project that specifically focuses on the performativity of images. Kim is coming to the Virtual Knowledge Studio on May 6th. I am really looking forward to exploring these and other links between our respective projects.



Filed under Uncategorized

5 responses to “networked images and new media design

  1. Sarah

    Hi Anne,

    Coralie and Tinkebell’s work has many sides to it, and I certainly value the discussion about the ethical implications of sending anonymous hate mail and, subsequently, of revealing the identity of the persons doing the ‘spamming’. The book has been very successful in triggering the debate about these issues, and in that sense I believe it still serves its intended purpose quite well.

    • Hi. Agree on most points. But to put words on my discomfort: What about the means to provoke this discussion? Does the end justify the means? Do two wrongs make a right? Is raising these issues so important as to justify associating with illegal and harmful acts, and are we convinced that this was the only way to raise them?

      • Yes, I see your point, but I would argue that one of the corollaries of the publication is exactly that it creates awareness of the boundaries between lawful and unlawful acts in cases like these, which are clearly in need of discussion, and that it is precisely such controversial acts that get us to think about these boundaries and whether or not we still want to draw them in the way we are used to.

  2. Well, for me, it’s pretty clear that the Cor/Tink use of personal information is harmful, and that I don’t like to further be associated with it as though it were a serious attempt at raising a careful and considered discussion of these issues.

    • Sarah

      I guess we’ll just have to agree to (partly) disagree on this subject. Of course I respect your opinion and I understand that you’re distancing yourself from their work. I think for me, in this case, it’s not a matter of it either being harmful or being careful. Putting the artists’ intentions aside for a moment, their work did in fact raise a number of nuanced discussions around issues of privacy and ethics, also on platforms that are otherwise more difficult to reach.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s