0100101110110101.org

http://www.0100101110110101.org
http://www.0100101110101101.org (sister site)

One of the originators of the ASCII school of net.art, along with jodi.org. 0100101110110101.org pioneered the plagiarism-style of online art by cloning entire sites and distorting, enhancing, honoring or mocking their contents in some way. Victims included hell.com, jodi.org, etoy, Art.Teleportacia and plagiarist.org (this last which responded by cloning 0100101110110101.org, which then cloned the clone, who then cloned the clone of a clone, ad infinitum).

As of this writing, the current site is a clone of the Rhizome net.art site. The sister site, 0100101110101101.org contains the previous incarnation, a parody of Napster-style file sharing, called life sharing. In this case, the entire contents of the 0100101110110101 server machine is publicly viewable at 0100101110101101.org; that means all web content, past, present and in development, private files, pictures and email are being shared to the world.

The following is a self-interview posted to rhizome.org's net.art list.

To: list@xxxxxxxxxxx 
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: self-interview of 0100101110110101.org 
From: 0100101110110101 <propaganda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 00:23:22 +0100 
Reply-To: 0100101110110101 <propaganda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sender: owner-list@xxxxxxxxxxx 
User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i 

Anti-Post-Net Art

A self-interview of www.0100101110110101.org

0: How would you compare the mutations of your web site - second-last was the file directory of "life_sharing" - to the self-referential continuity of Net Art in the progression from Heath Bunting and jodi to Lisa Jevbratt? Are you concerned with that 'code attitude' and the other members of the ASCII school of Net Art?

1: There may be superficial parallels, but actually we think we fall closer to the anti-aestheticist side of this kind of activity. For instance our early practice of breaking off and stealing little pieces from sculptures and installations in museums is an example of trying to create similar ruptures as Alexander Brener's spray can attack on the Malevich painting or Oleg Kulik's crawling around on all fours with a neck brace on. This kind of intervention may seem old-fashioned to some people who value the pseudo-ruptures induced into digital data by Jodi, Heath Bunting and Vuk Cosic. But we have to reject their surface hype appeal on the basis of our dislike of the media art hype and the factual Net Art star cult surrounding them. Actually, some data on the new incarnation of our web site suggests that Bunting's and Cosic's resignment from Net Art was intentional and contrived precisely to trivialize their work. You may of course notice that we have not quit. We are willing to reject the 'easy out' of trivialization through has-been-Net Art star cult status.

0: And clearly this is the connection between your work and that of body art actionists like Kulik, the false timelessness?

1: Actually it is hard to say. Net Artists have had to take a step back in order to reflect the digital codes they appropriated, and then another step back to analyze the first step. This is why we use the term "Anti-Post-Net Art" instead of simply "Post-Net Art." This term precisely dictates a second level of removal from the commodity value of digital art - it is not some mind game, but a clear political statement: We are not willing.

0: Would you mind if people see this as a traditional avant garde attitude?

1: Well, you may have noticed that our approach, which is perhaps situationist if anything, is to take the code of a Net Artists like jodi and copy them, but altering some of it, like the color of a page, or some words contained in them... whatever seems marginal. And then this appropriation becomes the underlying marginality of our own work. Remember Duchamp's emphasis on the studio-editor. We essentially use it but ignore it simultaneously, as if to say that these historical links are not what it's about.

0: The most recent incarnation of http://www.0100101110110101.org, "dates", is a simple list of Net Artists' names, each printed into one file. When you use the names of your current lovers to title each file and record your dates as well, are you intending to trivialize Net Art, or is it a radical bisexual statement against the predominance of heterosexual lifestyles in net and media art?

1: Either interpretation would hold water, but we prefer to think of it as a certain ordering of the universe, simply we dated so-and-so on that day and thought of that Net Artist at the same time. We don't think it's name dropping because we take it one step further than that by using our lovers' names as titles. Also, these Anti-Post-Net Art works are anti-conceptual, since the focus is on the person and not on the idea.

0: In this way, you can avoid two of the major traps of Net Art, the need to be innovative and the need to be recognized in the Net Art community.

1: We think so, this is the primary mood of our work. The 80's were about "attitude," the 90's were about "theory," we think the next ten years are about the synthesis of the performative and the conceptual - about "attitude as theory." We suspect that we won't see much changing after that in Net Art, we've set it all up that way.