Interview: Carlos Katastrofsky

In this exhibition you are showing pieces on the net and in physical gallery spaces. How are the relation between on- and offline projects?

As someone who is making art on the Internet I've got always to fight with one essential problem: Internet Art is considered to be something that resides on the net and therefore doesn't need to be shown in exhibition venues. All you need to go to an exhibition - literally spoken - is a computer and Internet access. This is one of the most important attributes of internet art and one of the causes why this form of art was hyped as "democratic" and "avant garde" in the late nineties.

As an artist it's fun to make stuff that can instantaneously be shown worldwide without the usual problems of transporting the works, insurance issues, etc. etc. But right here lies the downside of this: If you're part of a festival, an exhibition or else, how are your works shown? And if you're honest - can it be shown anyway? The idea of Internet Art is to be accessible for everyone - isn't showing it in an exhibition a contradiction? And last but not least it is thought to be watched in any place you like -at home, at the office, at an Internet cafe or wherever. Doesn't showing it in a gallery by this remove some of its content?

To get deeper into this issues I'm currently trying to develop methods to make Internet Art exhibitionable via physical (and sometimes even offline) pieces. This is one main focal point in this whole project currently on display here in Denmark and the cause for showing a mixture of both.

Carlos Katastrofsky: Objects of desire,		Carlos Katastrofsky: Objects of desire,

The theme of the exhibition is Interference, why do you find this phenomenon interesting?

Interference describes a process that can be found in various fields. In Physics you have e.g. the interference of waves, you have interference in Communication, in Chemistry, in Psychology, Statistics, Sports, Language and so on. But it describes always something similar: The mutual interaction of elements.

Starting from this point of view the initial usage of the word was -for Annette and me- to describe what happens when a curator and an artist work together on an exhibition. At the same time the term shows rather clearly what the exhibitions are about: The space of transition between the online works and the physical objects.

You have been working together with Annette Finnsdottir in an open curatorial exchange, why is this important?

The processes behind curating a show are normally hidden. Who decides about the modalities in an exhibition, what are the lines of thought followed in the planning phase, how do contexts emerge in a working process or other questions are for some purposes usually not possible to ask. It's like a medieval myth: In planning a show you seem to be an unquestionable genius working on a secret formula. But this shouldn't be always the case.

In general many attempts to open up processes of investigations are currently evolving: The open source movement, do-it-yourself and tinkering movements etc. Basically I would say this is a natural declining process of the over-regulation of knowledge nowadays which possibly lets you earn a lot of money by trading secrets, or suing people for using them without permission, but in the end harms more than it helps.

The open exchange between us was just a small experiment in this direction. But we learned a lot... in fact I would assume we got much more than we gave in these discussions.

You seem to find the material for your works on the internet, how do you see the relation between the net and the physical world?

Mmmh... that's a tough question. Sometimes I think that the net is some kind of lab for ideas that later can be transformed into something usable for "fleshspace". But you also have rather extreme forms of already existing things there growing exuberantly (think of porn, online trading, spam or written communication in general, not to mention other things like online video, etc. etc.) and by this transforming themselves to something new. In western culture I would say it's impossible to separate the two already. Both are extremely interconnected.

Carlos Katastrofsky: Serial porn,		Carlos Katastrofsky: Serial porn,

In the presentation of the piece ‘serial porn’ your method is described as detournement, a method developed by the Situationists in the sixties. Do you feel connected to this or other historical artistic practices? And if so why?

Definitely. I am seeing my work deeply grounded in art history. Partly this comes from my education as sculptor but more important is the context how I'm developing my stuff. It is an act of questioning the existing, not of seeking better solutions for something. The first doesn't exclude the latter, hopefully, but I'm trying to ask questions not to give solutions. And to me this is something that is evident in art, but not always in -let's say- technology, which is often the context where Internet-related art is presented in. I hope this doesn't come across as conceited but this is really something I'm very committed to.

Which qualities define in your opinion a piece as being netart, as opposed to a broader category of media art or art being mediated through the web?

The usage of the net as material to work with structurally.

Carlos Katastrofsky: Entropy,		Carlos Katastrofsky: Entropy,

Why do you think we see so little netart in galleries and museums?

I guess this has a lot of different reasons. One of them surely is the misunderstanding that technology hasn't got anything to do with art. I mean you just have to look at gothic cathedrals. No one would doubt they are great examples of "Gesamtkunstwerke". And technology is an extremely important part of them as it constitutes their appearance. Another reason might be the difficulties in handling those works of art - you need some special skills when dealing with Netart that are normally not present in places which usually handle e.g. paintings. Also one might think of the difficulties of selling those immaterial works, the unfamiliarity of the public with such art forms or the still unsolved questions of how to present them correctly and the lack of best practice examples. Very often the people running exhibition venues don't even know that Netart exists.

Politics and economy are also present issues in your works. How do you see the relation between netart and activism?

I think the relationship between those two is a quite strong one though I wouldn't see my stuff in an activistic context. There are many very good examples for joint ventures of Netart and activism out there, e.g. The Yes Men, but I'm not sure if this isn't problematic sometimes. To me the "Netart-feature" of some activist projects isn't something I would call Netart or separate from the rest but just see as a part of an activistic work. Here I would very often consider the net to be only a medium of expression, not the material to work with.

Carlos Katastrofsky: Landscapes,

In your webpage you define yourself as a ‘net citizen since 2004’, what kind of citizenship does this imply?

Citizenship in general means being part of a community and having the rights to political participation. Using the net not only to write an email from time to time but seeing it actually as a space that is part of our lives is already constituting a net-citizenship to me.

A questioning of authorship/copyright/ownership seems to be central for your practice. How would you like the relation between producer, curator and consumer/art market to be in an ideal world?

The ideal relationship does not exist as long as those statuses exist.

Thank you.

Carlos Katastrofsky: Landscape,