Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/leon_a_01379 byguest on 27 September 2021

ABSTRACT Strategies, Voices only briefly mentionsthe likes of publication2013 histories or in-depth analyses of online art criticism. Even the duction [11] and electronic literature [12], there have been no independent print-based arts publishing [10], online art pro cussionlistsandAlthoughblogs.there studies have of been dis email systems, board bulletin critical art and projects art networked were etc. Twitter, Facebook, on discussions art the precedingFar age. read-write/Webmedia 2.0/social discussions imply that online art criticism is a product of the Yet these [9]. all 2015May in Minneapolis,MNArtists, and WalkerAge, the cohostedby Digital the Centerin cismArt three-day conference Superscript: Arts Journalism and Criti runupthe the to published [8] in articles other of flurry the Yelp”and of [7] Age Gat’s(2013) the Orit “Art in Criticism curator and critic art to Problem”[6] Saltz Jerry “My ticle Panero’sJames critic art arfrom rangescontroversial2010 This is. criticism art online what of discussion of level ing Hyperallergic 2010), established cast including entities, critical art online apparently successful of number increasing an are There commentary. art his [2] booking” criticism by the mainstream pressart foronline of tweeting [1] pioneer and a “Face as - regarded is Saltz Jerry critic Art Internet. criticismafterthe ofart for thoroughevaluationsofthechangingform andpreparetheway criticism (1980–1995)todocumentthishistory theauthorprovidesanaccountoffirstwaveonlineart article, criticism.Inthis literature, buttherehavebeennohistoriesofonlineart productionandelectronic publishing,onlineart print-based arts discussion forover30years.Therehavebeenstudiesofindependent forart hasbeenusedasaplatform the mainstreampress,yetInternet criticismby Saltzisregardedasapioneerofonlineart criticJerry Art s r Digital Critics e P l a c i r o t s i H ©2019 ISAST with thisissue. See www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/leon/52/1 forsupplementalfilesassociated Email: [email protected]. Hong Kong, Centre Level 7, 18 Tat Hong Avenue, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong. Charlotte Frost (art historian), School of Creative Media, City University of The Early History of Online Art Criticism Art Online of History Early The h C Modern Art Notes [5] (established 2009). There is also a grow a also is There 2009). (established [5] doi:10.1162/LEON_a_01379 R A AnIntroduction Criticism:Histories,Art to o l ArtFCity T T p e v i t c e F e [3] (blog established 2001;- pod [4] (established 2005) and 2005) (established [4] r o T S

Rhizome,

- - - - - of making and display but also produced works that required this time, artists not only revolted against established modes magazines themselves became truly conceptual [16]. During arts producedindependentlythat 1970s and 1960s the until notarguewasthatit PhillpotCliveand torians GwenAllen his art approach, experimental an promoted undoubtedly Minotaure (1917–1921), tant publications of the era included portant discursive forum for complex new art styles. Impor counterparts, Modernist art magazines had provided an im- various experimental were publications. platforms Just like critical their café-culture art online preceding Immediately In Afterall Online of online criticism. art history real uncoverthe to need we all arts—butfirst of the able to generate somehow “living” or iterative documents on a hybrid form—often open orparticipatory, fast-moving and convincingly be argued that art criticism is becoming more of mightLiteraryEventually itthe[15]. Horizonsfor ture:New electronic writing in her now-classic book Hayles’sKatherine ofN. literaturegenres theoristof survey ity and prepare the ground for future analyses—perhaps like my Rather [14]. aim toisaccount styles for of- era activ this of typology a offer or critique art online early natureof the Itcriticism. art notis my intention toprovide ananalysis of online of wave first the of origins the for account to begin to ARTEXT from platforms early of set a describe will I exchange.article media this In social of witnessing, sits atop and reflectsthe fast andfurious culture tique of digital culture; and the third, which we are currently cri intense an and lists discussion email-based in boom a by characterized was second publications; the and galleries independent in experimentation the extend to art criticism. The firstused pre- and early-Internet protocols Culture Monster [13]. It is my assertion that there have been three ages of online d epen d (1933–1939). However, although these publications en , t artcritical, A rt De De Stijl (1917–1932),

LEONARDO, Vol. 52, No.1,pp.37–43, 2019 P u b

Modern Art Notes l is h i ng Cabaret Voltaire (1916), Arts Wire Arts Merz (1923–1932) and Electronic , CultureGrrl in order to order in Litera­ and - - - 37 additional explanation and documentation. This new breed academics. With an eye for creative development, they de- of art publication started with publications like Diagonal, cided to provide artists such as Norman White with access Cero, Gorgona and Spirale, which were produced in short to their network to explore the creative possibilities of a net- print runs of a few hundred copies and often seemed as fleet- worked culture. White instantly saw the potential in their ing as some of the performative and conceptual artworks to email system, Mailbox, for extending some of the popular which they related. networked mail art projects that had previously taken more More famously, Avalanche, which was published between concrete form [18]. He went on to discuss the potential of the 1970–1976, established itself as a unique venue for demon- IPSA network with artist Bill Bartlett, who had been working strating conceptual and time-based arts. Part publication, al- on a collaborative network he had established with other art- ternative space and community hub, Avalanche was based in ists using Slow Scan TV (SSTV). As White and Bartlett, and the center of New York’s SoHo district as it began to emerge soon artist Robert Adrian X, enthused about the creative and as a cultural enclave. Rather than publishing what was strictly economic benefits of online communication, they developed considered “art criticism,” Avalanche featured interviews and a project to showcase their ideas at the Computing Cultures a variety of different forms of art documentation. Not only conference held in Toronto in 1979. Known as Interplay, it did it represent artworks and time-based performances or was an exchange-based art project supported by IPSA offices installations through photographs and written documenta- around the world (which already offered Mailbox access to tion, but artists could publish a set of instructions that the local artists). These artists saw the value in creating a hy- reader—and now artist—could use to create a performance brid platform somewhat akin to Avalanche by developing a themselves. Even more conceptual might be the use of type networked discussion/performance/collaboration/exchange. or other markings to demonstrate the passage of time or a Continuing in this way, IPSA released a cheaper version of particular gesture. In this way, the magazine was not just Mailbox to artists and, collaborating with the Vienna office of talking about art, it was (re)enacting and responding to it. the company, artist Robert Adrian X and IPSA programmer Central to the remit of publications like Avalanche was the Gottfried Bach began to develop a platform originally known idea of giving artists a voice equal to, if not louder than, the as ARTBOX in 1980 and as the Artist’s Electronic Exchange art critic’s. This was a time in which many initiatives such Network project, ARTEX, by 1983. as the Art Workers’ Coalition and feminist approaches to ARTEX involved creating an “intercontinental, interactive, art history sought to rebalance art-world power structures. –exchange program designed for artists and The in-depth interviews conducted by Avalanche’s found- anybody else interested in alternative possibilities of using ers, editor Liza Béar and artist and art historian Willoughby new technologies” [19]. Adrian lists its functions as: “1) an Sharp, show this shift of power and are often regarded as the email communication program for artists; 2) an organisa- magazine’s most important legacy. Despite the fact that, as tion/coordination utility for on-line events; 3) a medium for published, the interviews seem so conversational as to be text-based telecommunication projects” [20]. Arguably the unedited, Allen explains that meticulous editing was done in first online art discussion network, ARTEX ran until 1991, order to “preserve each artist’s idiom” and to provide “an au- involving over 35 globally dispersed artists and supporting thentic channel for the artist’s voice” [17]. Like the alternative pioneering networked artworks, including Adrian’s own The art spaces of the same era (for example: Apple, Gain Ground, World in 24 Hours (1982) and ’s La Plissure Du 98 Greene Street, 3 Mercer Street Store, 112 Greene Street, the Text (1984), “a world-wide, distributed narrative—a collec- Institute for Art and Urban Resources, Artists Space, Creative tive global fairy tale” [21]. Time, The Kitchen, The Alternative Museum, Franklin Fur- nace, Printed Matter, The Drawing Center, the New Museum ACEN and Fashion Moda), the magazine offered important new ARTEX was swiftly followed by the Art Com Electronic physical and political dimensions for exploring creativity. It Network (ACEN), an electronic platform for sharing infor- is perhaps unsurprising that the expansion of communica- mation on art conceived in 1984 by artists Carl Loeffler and tion and publishing technologies wrought by the Internet Fred Truck (Fig. 1). Early team member and archivist Darlene and the World Wide Web would further extend and remix Tong explains ACEN: these independent projects. The Art Com Electronic Network ACEN is an interac- ARTEX tive personal computer networking system developed by Art Com/La Mamelle, Inc. in San Francisco, California. Today’s well-established Web belies the fact that the U.S. Officially launched in April 1986, ACEN is designed as a Department of Defense’s 1967 ARPANET was initially just user-friendly information retrieval system dedicated to one among many. For example, I.P. Sharp Associ- the dissemination of information. The ates (IPSA) was a pioneering Canadian computer company target audience is artists, educators, students, art writers, founded in 1964 that developed time-sharing capacities and computer users, and designers, who are interested in keep- provided alternative communication networks while the ing current with activities and trends in contemporary art Internet (and even Usenet, another computer network de- and technology [22]. veloped by universities initially excluded from ARPANET’s connection) was still largely populated by researchers and Loeffler had established La Mamelle in 1975 as a hybrid

38 Frost, Digital Critics

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/leon_a_01379 by guest on 27 September 2021 arts publisher and shortly aft erward as a physical arts center—featuring an exhibi- tion space, bookshop, studios, archives, storage and offi ces—on 12th Street in San Francisco. He had an abiding interest in facilitating collaboration among artists working with emerging art forms such as performance and and envisioned La Mamelle’s various strands of activity and platforms for creativity as a way to “nourish” dematerialized art forms. As Tong and Loeffl er put it:

La Mamelle was part of an international wave of artists’ activity and networked Fig. 1. The Art Com Electronic Network start menu, 1986. (Image: Fred Truck. © ACEN/La Mamelle.) with other artists worldwide who were similarly engaged in creating art out- side the mainstream art context and who utilized artist- Loeffl er and Art Com (the name was eventually adopted generated publications and new forms of media to create by the organization and its art space as well) were a prolifi c and disseminate work. As more artists began to network, experimental publishing unit, and as new communication projects and activities became more collaborative and in- technologies emerged, online publishing seemed the logical terdisciplinary, fuelling a cross-fertilization of ideas, tech- next step. niques, and forms [23]. ACEN was accessed via the WELL (Whole Earth ’Lectronic Link), one of the most important early online community As an arts space, La Mamelle was known for staging live platforms. Th e WELL was run on a bulletin board system art. Practitioners were oft en given free run of the building (BBS)—a type of communication platform that was the re- and could use whichever parts of it were most conducive to sult of a deep, dark and very snowy Midwestern winter in the work they wanted to produce. For example, Tong and 1978, when two computer enthusiasts, Ward Christensen and Loeffl er recall a work presented in 1976 called Vicarious En- Randy Suess (both members of CACHE, the Chicago Area counters, in which artist Willoughby Sharp, concealed above Computer Hobbyists’ Exchange), compelled by the need to an entrance, would watch people arriving and then broadcast share fi les without having to travel through the snow, cre- a welcoming video to them while they were in the freight ated the equivalent of a dial-up cork notice board. Online elevator ascending to the gallery space [24]. Other parts community writer Howard Rheingold explains the system of the building were used to mount static documentation they created: of these sorts of dynamic actions, and, headed up by artist Nancy Frank, La Mamelle amassed an important archive of A BBS is a personal computer, not necessarily an expensive video art. one, running inexpensive BBS soft ware, plugged into an Th en there were La Mamelle’s publishing activities. Loef- ordinary telephone line via a small electronic device called fl er had earlier founded the Associated Art Publishers group, a modem. . . . Attach a modem to your computer, plug the which supported art publishing events including a 1977 con- modem into your telephone, create a name for your BBS, vention that gathered hundreds of artists and art publishers post the telephone number on a few existing BBSs, and from all over the Western world for discussions, presenta- you’re in the virtual community business. People call your tions and exhibitions. Th e organization put out its own publi- BBS number and leave private messages or public informa- cation, La Mamelle, which became Art Contemporary in 1976 tion [26]. and then Art Com in the early 1980s. Art Com made a name for itself experimenting with formats and producing peri- Th e California-based WELL began life as a BBS in 1985. odicals in video, audio, microfi che and even rubber-stamp It was started by Stewart Brand and Larry Brilliant, both of form. Tong and Loeffl er describe these types of initiatives: whom had solid fi rst-hand experience of alternative com- munities. Brilliant had lived for many years on the Hog Farm Th e organization also published Videozine and Audiozine, commune and aft er this had harnessed computer-mediated electronic format publications in which artworks by par- communication technologies to assist him in his medical ticipating artists occupied a specifi ed number of “electronic work. Brand had co-founded the Whole Earth Catalogue, a pages” in actual program time. Videozine featured time- manual and sales catalogue for the DIY, communal, sustain- based visual anthologies of video and performance work. able lifestyle. Th e WELL became a highly successful platform Audiozine featured sound poets and language-oriented for connecting alternative communities and special-interest work. Th e organization also publishedImagezine , a single- groups. Founding staff knew how to engage participants by image periodical on rubber stamp, which paid homage to off ering free accounts to interesting speakers, but it was not various correspondence artists [25]. until the Grateful Dead community (known as “deadheads”)

Frost, Digital Critics 39

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/leon_a_01379 by guest on 27 September 2021 congregated on the WELL that its popularity really exploded. est in building creative networks led him and his students This was because a subgroup of deadheads would spend their to establish a newsletter/discussion forum using UNIX (an time following the band from gig to gig, leading a nomadic operating system developed by Bell Labs and made available lifestyle that such an efficient communication network could to universities in the 1980s) [29]. Meanwhile the scientist- keenly support. Tong explains in her 1987 article that BBS and turned-artist Frank Malina had established a rigorous aca- later email were perceived as time- and cost-efficient means demic journal for the discussion of art/science projects in of sharing information across a “geographically dispersed 1968 and called it Leonardo. Leonardo would considerably audience” and that “the concept of Interactive communica- expand its program when Malina’s son, Roger F. Malina, took tion enhances artists’ abilities to keep in touch and have a over as board chairman and formed the International Society voice in current art issues” [27]—clearly echoing Avalanche for the Arts, Sciences and Technology (ISAST) in 1982. Artist et al. A true collaboration—conceived by Loeffler, developed Judy Malloy, a producer of pioneering works of electronic by programmer Frank Truck and populated by editor Anna literature, joined the team in 1991 to curate a strand for the Couey, with hundreds of artists with access to the WELL journal called Words on Works, which comprised artists’ [28]—ACEN continued to develop fertile ground for art dis- statements about their digital and ; she then cussion online. began writing the Leonardo Electronic News (LEN) bulletin. When Roger Malina met Lauzzana, seeing possible connec- fAf, LEA, Matrix tions with his organization’s online offerings, he pledged sup- Fine Art Forum, more generally known as fAf, was an In- port for fAf, and Malloy became coordinating editor. ternet-distributed art bulletin and network set up by artist For nearly five years resources were shared and larger au- Ray Lauzzana in 1987 (Fig. 2). Within his own work, Lauz- diences were reached, until in 1993 Leonardo/ISAST joined zana had begun to experiment with the concept of commu- forces with the MIT Press not only to publish books but to nication networks, and as a professor at Amherst College he create the Leonardo Electronic Almanac (LEA), a reincarna- set about establishing a computer graphics department and tion of LEN, which, under the editorship of Craig Harris, expanding the college’s tech resources. He then went on to would build a network of projects utilizing emerging media produce mail art in a project with students on a 3D design to explore the intersections of science, technology and the course, proposing that students invite artists from around the arts [30]. Although LEA originally shared much of its con- world to share and exchange artworks with them. This inter- tent in an emailed bulletin—like fAf did—it eventually built an extensive web resource. Similarly LEA was seen more as a journal, with a quicker turnaround conducive to exploring new online and interac- tive technologies for demonstrating and contextualizing art. fAf kept to its news and announcements–driven model under the new management of artist Paul Brown, who moved it to a Gopher format (an early web system that allowed for easy distri- bution of documents via set menus) and then HTML/the Web. From 1996 fAf was produced by art, design, media and journalism students at the Queensland University of Tech- nology, who could take an interdis- ciplinary elective for degree credit. Over the years fAf supported an on- line gallery of artworks and archived conferences, including ISEA (Inter- national Symposium on Electronic Art). All the projects continued to expand and require more staff, with fAf being handed over to Editor-in- Chief Nisar Keshvani in 1998 and Editor Linda Carolli in 2001. The platform ceased to operate in 2004, when Australia Council for the Arts funding was withdrawn. Fig. 2. Banner from Fine Art Forum, 1987. (Image: Paul Brown. © Fine Art Forum.)

40 Frost, Digital Critics

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/leon_a_01379 by guest on 27 September 2021 Also in 1987, Matrix, a Canadian platform for network- ArtsNet (Australia), Arts Wire (U.S.A.), USENET (interna- ing, news and discussion, was established. It was set up by tional) and the WELL (U.S.A.). Likewise people themselves artist-run Toronto art space Inter/Access (originally Video- worked across different platforms. The ever-present Malloy tex), which, in addition to having an exhibition space and was the founder and co-host of the Arts conference on the publishing program, provided access and training for artists WELL from 1993 on, and F.A.S.T (Fine Art Science and Tech- in electronic and computer-based communications. To be- nology), a WELL-based forum, on behalf of fAf. She was so gin with, Inter/Access provided a discussion platform based integral to the foundations of electronic and online writing on the interactive-television model of Telidon, which was a and creativity that entire books could be dedicated to her kind of precursor to the Web. In fact, Telidon most closely work alone—which is why Duke University has acquired resembled the U.K.’s Teletext format of television-based Malloy’s personal archives [35]. data-sharing, which originated a few years earlier. Eventu- ally equipment costs forced Telidon out of the market, and Conclusion Matrix was regenerated as a BBS. Like La Mamelle, Inter/ These projects show that well before Jerry Saltz had a Face- Access focused on a great deal of time-based and electronic book page, emerging communication technologies were be- art and, for example, are known for showing work by artists ing used by communities who wanted to explore what art such as Vera Frenkel and Norman White, so their Matrix could be online. As previously stated, it has not been my platform seemed the logical next step. intention here to analyze the style of art critical materials produced online in the 1980s but rather to begin to docu- Arts Wire ment the existence of these early online art critical platforms. Conceived by artist Anne Focke, Arts Wire was brought What they have in common is that they primarily extended to fruition with the help of Ted Berger and the New York efforts first born in the 1960s to experiment with new modes Foundation for the Arts in 1992. Again, this was a computer of art production and dissemination. They often supported network dedicated to artistic activity—helping artists access collaborative projects and developed a variety of art writ- “news, information, and dialogue on the social, economic, ing that was not restricted to traditional art criticism but philosophical, intellectual, and political conditions affect- spanned news, discussion, interviews, fiction and hybrids ing the arts and artists” [31]. Judy Malloy, active on ACEN, thereof. They were also largely the products of the West’s the editor of Leonardo Electronic News (soon to be the Leo­ disproportionate access to the Internet. Although by the mid- nardo Electronic Almanac) and, joined the Arts Wire facili- 1990s, thanks to the invention of email-based discussion lists tators (including Art Com/ACEN’s Anna Couey) in 1993. (or listservs), online art criticism experienced an explosion of In this time before web browsers and other standardizing platforms and participants that partially redressed this bal- tools, users needed to connect to modems and execute ance. The second wave of online art criticism developed from command-line text to access different parts of a website. a variety of remits and locations from the controversial Thing It was complicated and time-consuming, and computers/ [36] (1991) to the net culture critical Nettime [37] (1995); the modems were slow, so one of Malloy’s initial tasks was to help net art seedbed [38] (1996); the political Eastern artists with the laborious task of getting online. She edited the European Syndicate [39] (1996); the experimental 7-11 [40] Current news bulletins put out by Arts Wire in website and (1998); the curatorial New Media Curating [41] (2000); the emailed form. feminist Undercurrents [42] (2002); and the creative Netbe­ In addition to sharing news, hosting artists’ websites and haviour [43] (2003). collaborative art projects, Arts Wire was also known for Regardless of their various origins, these founding online holding online art “conferences.” In fact, “until 2001, Arts art critical platforms are an essential part of the history of art Wire hosted over 80 arts discussion conferences and over criticism, and yet their stories and archives are in jeopardy. 100 websites for artists and arts organizations, and [their] All art criticism tends toward an ephemeral form that is dif- Map included links to over 400 artists and arts organiza- ficult to research, and this is only intensified online. Many -ar tion members” [32]. These themed discussion spaces ranged chives of online art criticism are no longer publicly available from “ARTISTS,” which was a general and ongoing discus- (even organizations like Rhizome are missing parts of their sion, to “PROJECTARTNET,” which was described as a collection), while the histories of such platforms are largely “San Diego–based community arts networking project that oral and seldom accounted for. Such research issues are not brought children from schools in immigrant neighborhoods just confined to older platforms. Facebook is not indexed in online to create a community history” [33]. A popular forum any useful way and introduces valuable nontextual elements within Arts Wire was the conference set up by (such as the “like” button) that require specific treatment. A Couey and Malloy in 1993. Discussion was organized around result of this is the development of Rhizome’s Webrecorder a “virtual residency” program in which artists would be in- tool, which aims to help online art discussion communities vited to use the conference to discuss their work [34]. There more comprehensively archive their discussion data [44]. were also many cross-platform projects. For example, in No- The task that faces us now is to archive and preserve as much vember 1992 Malloy and Eric S. Theise started a discussion, as possible of the 30-year history of online art criticism and “Cultures in Cyberspace,” across the following platforms: prepare the way for thorough evaluations of the changing American Indian Telecommunication/Dakota BBS (U.S.A.), form of art criticism after the Internet.

Frost, Digital Critics 41

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/leon_a_01379 by guest on 27 September 2021 References and Notes Facebook and Twitter—as well as analyzing the types of criticism to which they give rise. 1 Kelly Crow, “Provocative Art-Basel Tweets Make Jerry Saltz the Jonathan Swift of Social Media,” Wall Street Journal, Speakeasy 15 Hayles [12]. (5 December 2014): https://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2014/12/05 /with-provocative-art-basel-tweets-jerry-saltz-becomes-jonathan 16 Clive Phillpot and Gwen Allen from Gwen Allen, Artists’ Magazines: -swift-of-social-media/ (accessed April 2015). An Alternative Space for Art (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011) p. 3.

2 Leon Neyfakh, “The Many Friends of Jerry Saltz,”New York Observer 17 Allen [16] p. 111. (17 February 2010): www.observer.com/2010/02/the-many-friends -of-jerry-saltz/ (accessed April 2015). 18 Jeremy Turner, “ ‘OUTER SPACE: The Past, Present and Future of Telematic Art—04’ Interview with Norman White about Early Tele- 3 Modern Art Notes podcast: www.manpodcast.com/ (accessed April matic Art at Open Space Gallery in Victoria, Canada” (conducted 2015). by email, December 2003): www.openspace.ca/Norman-White -Interview-2003. 4 ArtFCity: www.artfcity.com/ (accessed April 2015). 19 “Robert Adrian X «ARTEX»,” entry on Media Art Net: www.medi 5 Hyperallergic: www.hyperallergic.com/ (accessed April 2015). enkunstnetz.de/works/artex/.

6 James Panero, “My Jerry Saltz Problem,” The New Criterion, De- 20 Text from Robert Adrian X’s website: www.alien.mur.at/rax/BIO cember 2010: www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/My-Jerry-Saltz /telecom.html. -problem-6502 (accessed April 2015). 21 Robert Adrian X, “La Plissure Du Texte: a distributed authorship 7 Orit Gat, “Art Criticism in the Age of Yelp,” Rhizome, 12 November project for ARTEX, December 11–23 1983”: www.alien.mur.at/rax 2013: http://rhizome.org/editorial/2013/nov/12/art-criticism-age /ARTEX/PLISSURE/plissure.html (accessed April 2015). -yelp/ (accessed April 2015). 22 Darlene Tong, “The Art Com Electronic Network: Artists’ Publish- 8 See Steven Cottingham, “No one cares about art criticism: Advocating ing for Personal Computers,” Electronic Publishing Business, 5, No. 1 for an embodiment of the avant garde as an alternative to capitalism,” (January 1987) p. 8. Temporary Art Review (23 March 2015): www.temporaryartreview .com/no-one-cares-about-art-criticism-advocating-for-an-embodi 23 Darlene Tong and Carl Loeffler, “La Mamelle/Art com, San Fran- ment-of-the-avant-garde-as-an-alternative-to-capitalism/ (accessed cisco,” in Gabriele Detterer and Maurizio Nannucci, eds., Artist-run April 2015) and Char Jansen, “The Internet as a Platform for Art Spaces (Zurich: JRP|Ringier, 2012) p. 156. Criticism, and Dildos,” ArtSlant (24 March 2015): www.artslant.com /ny/articles/show/42419 (accessed April 2015). 24 Tong and Loeffler [23] p. 157.

9 Superscript Conference, Walker Art Center May 2015: www.walker 25 Tong and Loeffler [23] p. 163. art.org/superscript/ (accessed May 2015). 26 Howard Rheingold, The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the 10 See Johanna Drucker, The Century of Artists Books (New York: Gra- Electronic Frontier, 2nd Ed. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000) nary Books Inc., 1994); Gwen Allen, Artists’ Magazines: An Alterna­ p. 133. tive Space for Art (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011). 27 Tong [22] pp. 9–10. 11 See Julian Stallabrass, Internet Art: The Online Clash of Culture and Commerce (London: Tate Publishing, 2003); Christiane Paul, Digital 28 Fred Truck to Charlotte Frost, 5 October 2013, “History of the Art Com Art (London: Thames and Hudson, 2003); Rachel Greene, Internet Electronic Network.” Available at New-Media-Curating Archives: Art (London: Thames and Hudson, 2004); Tom Corby, ed.,Network www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1310&L=new-me Art: Practices and Positions (London: Routledge, 2005); Jolene Blais dia-curating&F=&S=&P=44700 (accessed April 2015). and Jon Ippolito, At the Edge of Art (London: Thames and Hudson, 2006); Oliver Grau, ed., MediaArtHistories (Cambridge, MA: MIT 29 Ray Lauzzana interviewed by Robin Yee, “fAf_15 Commemorative Press, 2007); Omar Kholeif, ed., You Are Here: Art after the Internet CDROM Interview: Ray Lauzzana, fAf founder” (2001): www.kesh (Manchester: Cornerhouse and SPACE, 2014). vani.com/print/features/ray.htm (accessed April 2015).

12 See Jay David Bolter, Writing Space: The Computers, Hypertext, and 30 Craig Harris, “Historical Perspective: Leonardo Electronic Alma- the History of Writing (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, nac,” Leonardo Electronic Almanac 17, No. 1, (2011): www.leoalmanac Inc., and the University of North Carolina, 1991); George Landow, .org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/20_LEA_Vol_17_No_1_Harris HyperText 2.0: The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory .pdf (accessed April 2015) pp. 188–195. and Technology (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1997); Janet H. Murray, Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cy­ 31 Judy Malloy, “Memories of Arts Wire,” the WELL: www.well.com berspace (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997); N. Katherine Hayles, /user/jmalloy/arts_wire.html (accessed April 2015). Electronic Literature: New Horizons for the Literary (University of Notre Dame Press, 2008). 32 Malloy [31].

13 Kerr Houston, An Introduction to Art Criticism: Histories, Strategies, 33 Malloy [31]. Voices (New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc., 2013) p. 79. 34 Participants included: David Blair, Ben Britton, Bill and Mary 14 In my recently published Art Criticism Online: A History (Canter- ­Buchen, Hank Bull, Tim Collins and Reiko Goto, Abbe Don, Rob- bury, U.K.: Gylphi, 2019), I provide a history of all three waves of ert Edgar, Joann Gillerman, Lucia Grossberger-Morales, Eduardo online art criticism. Expanding substantially on the introduction to Kac, Nancy Paterson, Tim Perkis, Mark Petrakis, Sonya Rapoport, the first wave I have presented here, I also detail the 1990s listserv Sara Roberts, Jim Rosenberg, Henry See, Bonnie Sherk and Fred era and post-2000 blogging—through to social media platforms like Truck.

42 Frost, Digital Critics

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/leon_a_01379 by guest on 27 September 2021 35 “The Judy Malloy Papers, 1956–2010”: www.library.duke.edu/ruben 43 Netbehaviour: www.netbehaviour.org (accessed April 2015). stein/findingaids/malloyjudy/#c01_7 (accessed April 2015). 44 Zachary Kaplan, “The Accidental Archivist: Criticism on Facebook, 36 Thing: www.thing.net (accessed April 2015). and How to Preserve It,” on Rhizome (29 May 2014): http://rhizome 37 Nettime: www.nettime.org (accessed April 2015). .org/editorial/2014/may/29/preserving-facebook-criticism (accessed April 2015). 38 Rhizome: www.rhizome.org (accessed April 2015). 39 Syndicate is no longer online (accessed April 2015). Manuscript received 19 May 2015. 40 7-11 is no longer online. 41 New-Media-Curating: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin Charlotte Frost is a contemporary art historian and experi­ ?A0=NEW-MEDIA-CURATING (accessed April 2015). mental scholar of the digital humanities. She is the author of 42 Undercurrents: https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/under Art Criticism Online: A History (Canterbury, U.K.: Gylphi, currents (accessed April 2015). 2019.

CALL FOR PAPERS

STEAM Initiative on Education: Leonardo Special Section

Guest Co-Editors: Tracie Costantino (RISD) and Robert Root-Bernstein (Michigan State University)

The STEAM movement, focused on integrating arts (broadly encompassing visual and performing arts, crafts and design) into science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education is well underway. We are avid advocates of this movement but worry that integration of arts and sciences into curricula from K–12 through graduate and professional education is not supported by sufficiently rigorous pedagogical studies. If STEAM is to succeed, it must be underpinned by pedagogical principles, methods and materials of high quality and reliability. Toward that end, the Editors of Leonardo have decided to create a STEAM Initiative on Education that will devote a section of the journal to innovative, inspiring and important studies of STEAM pedagogies.

In the spirit of interdisciplinarity, we explicitly welcome diverse methodologies such as mixed methods designs and novel assessment methods designed to meet the special needs of STEAM educators. We particularly welcome studies employing well-designed, randomized classroom controls and utilizing well-validated learning measurement standards, but Leonardo recognizes that one of the challenges of STEAM integration is that it may require new approaches to teaching and learning. We therefore welcome articles that are focused on the development and testing of novel approaches and methods for purveying and evaluating integrated learning.

Manuscript Submissions We are seeking manuscripts up to 2,500 words. See leonardo.info/authors-journals for detailed instructions.

To submit a paper, upload the manuscript and art at .

Frost, Digital Critics 43

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/leon_a_01379 by guest on 27 September 2021