Conversation with

Association for Temporary Art [a:t]

Conversation with [a:t] in Swedish

Annika Hansson is the chief editor of CRAC in Context www.crac.org . At the same time, she contributes to the Moderna Museet web site www.modernamuseet.se. Earlier, she was the chief editor of Art Orbit www.artnode.se/artorbit .

KH & ÅA (Karin Hansson and Åsa Andersson): The starting points were multiple. For a long time, we had been trying to create a platform for discussing and, hopefully, changing the role contemporary art has in the public dialogue. To expand, through direct action, the boundaries of artistic work into contexts larger than the traditional gallery room. The idea isn't exactly new or unusual, but still it's difficult enough to instil life into the role of the artist, otherwise rarely fraught with conflict.

At the same time, we wanted to attract more artists to our own domain - that of information technology - so as to be able to discuss issues we thought would be interesting from an artist's point of view.

It isn't entirely uncommon for artists to realise their projects with the help from a group of people which provide materials and services. Rather, this is an existing method of working, which obviously becomes part of the process, but also of the final work. The artistic dialogue with a number of people, from carpenters to management executives, is both difficult and interesting, sometimes more interesting even than the dialogue eventually held with a more artistically experienced public. In [a:t] we wanted, among other things, to shed light on this role, but we also wanted to be more organised so as to make the role easier to deal with. It's a lot easier for a group to make things happen than it is for an individual artist.

The condition for the project, then, was for us to connect artists to companies which in some way or another were interesting to the artists - either because they could provide them with materials, or because they could contribute on a more theoretical level, with interesting input. Companies could also provide Internet access and a certain amount of education to those artists lacking computer skills. The reason the Internet was such a central feature back then was that, to the public, it was a relatively new phenomenon, and there was a big interest in exploring this among artists. What was initially planned to be a regular exhibition was therefore transformed into an event which only took place on the 'net. Another special feature for those of us who took part in the project was the discussion within the group; thanks to a shared e-mail mailing list, we could keep the discussion alive in a better way than what is usually the case at group exhibitions. Ideas and anecdotes could be spread continuously within the group, the members of which also met regularly IRL during the course of the project. The reason why the Internet still seems so central is pretty simple. Even though we see it as one medium among others, everything we've done is still up there, in the gigantic file cabinet that is the Internet, in contrast to regular exhibitions and seminars, which only involve those who attended at a certain time. The Internet is also a symbol of the radical changes affecting today's society, changes which have been in progress throughout the 20th century with the emergence of new communication tools such as the radio, the telephone, and television. The field of information technology today employs as many programmers as it does advertising agencies and management consultants, plus it's a very expansive industry in constant change. In short, it's a fascinating sphere to be a part of.

"In addition, we want to create cheap solutions where the emphasis is on ideas rather than form, where technique isn't likely to become an obstacle. On the other hand, it is a good thing that more and more people familiarise themselves with the medium; this shifts the focus away from the technique towards what we're actually trying to say through it."

AH: Quite a few things have changed since 1995 as far as the opportunities of the Internet are concerned; the Swedish Welfare State has connected itself to the Internet and the bandwidth is increasing in reply to demands on higher speed and availability. This change of the technical conditions, has it changed the way you work as artists with the Internet within this project?

KH & ÅA: No, in purely technical terms not that much has really changed; the Internet is still pretty primitive unless you have the very latest software and processors, and we don't. In addition, we want to create cheap solutions where the emphasis is on ideas rather than form, where technique isn't likely to become an obstacle. On the other hand, it is a good thing that more and more people familiarise themselves with the medium; this shifts the focus away from the technique towards what we're actually trying to say through it. But of course, we welcome projects and ideas which use new applications.

AH: In [a:t] there's also as much space for a theoretical discussion. On the whole, artists who work with art for the Internet seem to be both aware of the need of such a discussion, and also interested in helping to shape it. Why is this important to you?

KH & ÅA: The expression is the central thing, then you use any means at your disposal. Every way of expression has its limits and we are shaped by them. "The medium is the message." Moving freely between different methods of expression helps you keep your mind clear. Artistic activity constantly swings between action and reflection; the work of art explores things which you don't really know what they are, the theory comes in retrospect, as a sort of supplementary work, and in turn gives rise to new questions. Ideas have to be tested, shaped through action, in order for them to have some kind of foundation to stand on.

AH: In your project, artists are connected to the business worlds, or is it the other way around? What kind of cooperation is there between [a:t] and the companies?

KH & ÅA: Very different kinds. Up until now, we haven't had any real sponsor who has entered with any substantial sums of money. Instead, what we have is a patchwork of favours and favours in return. In the first place, we've contacted and worked with companies where both of us have benefited from the cooperation, where there's been a direct interchange. An important part of this interchange are the discussions that arise. Normally, the companies aren't the ones that cooperate; rather, persons from those companies take more of a personal interest in our project simply because they enjoy being a part of it.

"The hierarchical structures are quite numerous, especially in the art world, and the question is what is worse: to adapt oneself in order to get grants, or to get sponsors."

AH: This spring I have attended two seminars on "Artists in the business world". Critics claim this is an unholy alliance and that artists enter the business world quite naïvely (without realising that they're given a place in the hierarchical structure, etc.). What do you think of this criticism?

KH & ÅA: I would love to discuss it with the critics, it is undeniably a delicate issue. The hierarchical structures are quite numerous, especially in the art world, and the question is what is worse: to adapt oneself in order to get grants, or to get sponsors. The artist has always been a jester, entertaining whoever could afford to pay him. We would rather prostitute ourselves as wage earners than as artists. The trick is to stay close to the powers which give you the means to fulfil the goals without being a mean that fulfils the powers.

AH: I'm thinking about the young artists at Ars Electronica who initially, as long as they made "just enough" fun of the company, were sponsored by Microsoft. As soon as the company thought the artists had crossed a line, all influx of money was stopped. Is there room for criticism or irony in the cooperation between [a:t] and the companies?

KH & ÅA: Yes and no. Those companies which take an interest in us because we represent "Art", a nice thing in their opinion, tend to feel a bit deceived. Those who take an interest in us because we have different thoughts and ideas usually know how to deal with our criticism. At the same time, our ambition isn't to secure sponsors and then "do our thing", we see the sponsorship as part of the concept, so naturally the companies are part of the work. A case in point is "Museum of Temporary Art", which is sponsored by Torget [a large web site maintained by the Swedish Post Office, transl. note]. There we poked fun at the modern idea of spreading culture to everyone, rather than at Torget, which has similar objectives. To us it was natural to do this in the same populist spirit of the tabloids as Torget stands for. But we are obviously aware of the risk of crossing the line, and that someone all of a sudden could think that we're damaging the company's reputation, it has even happened to us a couple of times. But this is a lot more interesting and easy to confront - in rational terms - than for instance the censorship performed by the art institutions beneath the cover name of "artistic quality".

"We also make pretty stiff demands on the artists we work with - in terms of them being open about their work and prepared to discuss it with us. We don't believe in the lone genius for one second, we believe that ideas get sharper if they are up for discussion at an early stage."

AH: The works at the [a:t] web site are of a high artistic quality, both in terms of ideas and of form. How is the process of selecting artists and/or works?

KH & ÅA: Thanks! The selection isn't a very easy process. We arrange exhibitions because they always lead to things that differ from the initial plan, and we don't choose works, we choose artists that we find interesting and who we believe can produce even more interesting works given the right circumstances. When we started the first project we turned to artists who worked rather freely with several different media. We thought that if we could get artists to think in terms of relations - spatial and conceptual - then that would be a method well suited to hypertext, and that was a more interesting criterion for us than any particular computer skills. We also make pretty stiff demands on the artists we work with - in terms of them being open about their work and prepared to discuss it with us. We don't believe in the lone genius for one second, we believe that ideas get sharper if they are up for discussion at an early stage. It's possible that the fact that we are artists ourselves makes it easier for the participating artists to accept this. It would probably be quite different if we were theorists using the exhibition as a way to illustrate our preconceived ideas.

AH: I use the [a:t] web site as a kind of gateway to the Internet jungle, a sort of "quality marking". That very problem, of finding interesting web sites, is a thing I discuss frequently with colleagues. Recently we started exchanging bookmarks to find interesting works faster. Is that something you think about, how visitors are to find [a:t]? Do you get feedback from visitors to the web site?

KH & ÅA: Lately we've been rather bad at promoting ourselves, we've focused more on projects underway. But before that we placed ads in all sorts of places (the ones you get for free), and we still get comments from visitors to the site. The problem is to accommodate everyone, we don't have the resources to be a kind of service for those interested in art, plus there are others who have taken that upon themselves, such as Artnode and Kulturnät Sverige [Culture Network Sweden, transl. note].

"The poor culture journalists have so many things to see and be the experts on that it's normal that they can't pay much attention to a still quite marginal art form, in this case Internet art - which also demands that you're familiar with both contemporary art and information technology."

AH: Soon a few articles on Internet specific art, written by myself and Charlotte Bydler, will appear in a Swedish evening paper. There, among other things, we criticise the fact that culture desks don't review or even comment on Internet art. Is that a matter you have an opinion on?

KH & ÅA: Well, we're pretty badly informed in that area, and we don't really have any complaints ourselves, since we've always managed to attract good media attention. Maybe not chiefly from the culture editors, but more from general and more IT oriented media. The poor culture journalists have so many things to see and be the experts on that it's normal that they can't pay much attention to a still quite marginal art form, in this case Internet art - which also demands that you're familiar with both contemporary art and information technology.

AH: I find it absurd that Sweden as a whole is connected to the Internet to such an extent, and yet Internet art is nowhere to be found in the traditional venues for contemporary art, such as the museums, the art galleries and the institutions. Do you have any idea why that is? Or an opinion on it?

KH & ÅA: Well, now that almost 50% of the Swedes are online it doesn't really matter that much if the museums aren't up to speed, does it? Plus, the libraries are still there despite attempts to the contrary, and they can often provide Internet access. But the museums will soon catch up, so we're not in such a hurry! But why should the museums sponsor Compaq when they can't even pay the artists who exhibit there? Soon not only art will be done for free, computers will also be very cheap - experts predict that the price development for computers will be similar to that of the cellular phones.

Translation by Johan Gille