THE THING: A Sysop Describes his Art Bulletin Board and the Network of which it is a Part

Andreas Rüthi

Vol 1 #1, Spring 1995

THE THING is an independent computer network, initiated in 1992 in New York by artists, art critics and curators. The following European cities are now connected: London (since 1994), Cologne, Berlin, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich, Vienna, Basel and Copenhagen. Future points of connection will be in Paris and Amsterdam.

Since the early-1990s, art discourse and the discussion of its social context have begun to have the equivalent standing in the actual realisations of artworks. This can be seen in the plethora of workshops, lectures and discussion events that more often than not follow institutional and curatorial frameworks, but hardly ever actively reflect the form of the discourse itself. Rather than following the classical mode of disseminating information, i.e. the lecturer (as transmitter) and the audience (as receiver), THE THING was conceived as a tool for artists, art critics and curators, to allow a multi-relationary communication and intervention, rather than being an end in itself. This choice of format is influenced by the dematerialisation of art’s parameters which began in the ’60s. The distribution of information in the art context takes certain discrete forms (whereby discrete knowledge = capital); the ability to be anonymous as a network user allows similar strategies. This fact makes one sceptical if, in the end, the hidden subtext is more significant to the art discourse than the ‘open’ discourse which is coded by other interests.

Up to now, public presentation of THE THING has primarily been indicated by the presence of a workstation in public galleries (Dagegen-Dabei: Production and Strategy in Art Projects since 1969 at Kunstverein Munich, and Interface at Kunstverein Hamburg). This signifies the activity but doesn’t encourage audience participation. Therefore, the importance is placed on the evidence that such an activity is currently taking place, rather than what is actually happening. If you consider that, in the paradigms of the ’90s, lots of artistic positions are contextual and/or intervention-based, then, as a result, every form of cultural activism can use electronic communication as a vital tool. This would mean that THE THING functions at the line between real artistic presence (exhibitions, workshops, discussions) and the ‘invisible’ forms of discourse, which have initiated the former or have been derived from them. Owing to the regularity and speed of the contact, this creates a social texture which printed media cannot develop as quickly. It is important to recognise that there can’t be editorial control of THE THING. Passive use is discouraged, since each user is intended to be both reader and writer. The result could be seen as a network of secret agents which represents a small part of the contemporary art scene. The linking up with the internet, in April 1995, is compatible with the structure and aims of THE THING. Assuming that we will see a further contextualisation of post-conceptual art, then we need to ask ourselves whether non-art areas will profit from the impulses of art or the other way round. In relation to THE THING, this could mean that, if we continue discussing art exclusively, the discussion could ultimately refer only to itself and go round and round in circles. The discourse between contextual art positions and those of external disciplines – such as biotechnology, media sciences, biology, ecology etc. – will create a perspective that is indispensable to the art of the ’90s. The merit of THE THING has been to locate the possibilities of technological communication within contemporary art. The border character of THE THING provides the possibility to create such a constructively mixed culture.