ANSWERS AND QUESTIONS ABOUT DIGITAL COLLABORATION.

Janet Cohen, Keith Frank and Jon Ippolito have been agreeing to disagree since they met in graduate school at Yale University in 1989. While most collaborative teams present their work as a united front, Cohen, Frank and Ippolito foreground the conflict underlying the collaborative process in work that has ranged from drawings to books to site-specific installations. Lately they have garnered attention for their on-line projects, visible at www.three.org. For this text, Cohen, Frank and Ippolito used an Internet messaging program to debate their preferences for and against working in digital media. A ground rule they set for the conversation was that any assertion by one participant had to end with a question to the other two.

Janet Cohen: We're having the first major disagreement (in short digital versus non-digital) in the life of our collaborative. From what I can tell, both of you now seem rather fascinated with exclusively investigating digital solutions as opposed to doing non-digital work. Can you foresee doing any more non-digital work?

Keith Frank: I don't recall ever ruling out any particular media. That was the one common attitude of our collaboration. At this point in time, you have ruled out digital work entirely. I think the real question is, why limit yourself?

JC: While neither of you has said "no non-digital work," your actions speak differently. For instance, the so-called off-line portion of the project for our project space show at Sandra Gering Gallery in New York City this coming winter is heavily influenced by and dependent upon computer and advanced imaging technologies. But you're right Keith, I have ruled out doing digital work. Do you want me to give you my reasons for doing so?

Jon Ippolito: Since when is digital versus non-digital the "first major disagreement in the life of our collaborative"? Isn't our entire dynamic based on disagreement?

JC: Can you think of any other philosophical/aesthetic disagreements we've had that have resolved themselves by one of us saying he/she can't/won't do work anymore because of that specific disagreement?

JI: No, I can't. And it's all the more odd because I see our digital work as just one facet of our entire production. For example, the reason we are planning to use computers to help us create the Gering installation is simply because using silk screen or other non-digital media would be prohibitively expensive and laborious. In fact, the only reason we are being offered a gallery installation is because I pressed for it, when the original offer came for an on-line-only exhibition! So what's with the digital v. non-digital obsession?

JC: The digital v. non-digital obsession is what I was trying to get at in my initial question to both of you. From what I can tell, both of you seem to be interested only in digital projects. If I had to venture a guess, your problem is that I have chosen to opt out of the digital work. Perhaps I can answer your question more precisely by quoting what I told the Italian magazine L'Espresso [article forthcoming]. We were asked, "Why do you do new media art?" I answered, "After working in new media art for the past few years, and after much thought on the matter, I have concluded that new media are not media I choose to work in. What now interests me in art is making and viewing art in its non-digital forms." So what's with each of your digital obsessions?

KF: It seems that you are opting not to have anything to do with digital work because it threatens to bring up uncomfortable questions regarding your present independent work. Don't you think that introducing art as a non-commodity is irreconcilable with your present practice?

JC: The commodity status of Internet work and my works on paper have absolutely nothing to do with my disinterest in doing Internet work, If I wanted to, I could devise a way to upload my baseball drawings on-line with all sorts of high-tech features and they might even be interesting. But, I don't want to do that. I think it's much more of a challenge to convey the time-based aspect of the work I do in a non-digital medium. I have no problem introducing art as a non-commodity . There is interesting work out there that challenges the commodity aspects of art. The reason I do work on paper is not because there is the potential to sell it. Internet work can also be sold. I think I'm taking more of a risk by doing work that is not trendy and is not what the art world is clamoring for. But Jon seems silent of late. Don't either of you have any questions for each other or are you both planning to badger me with digital questions until I'm blue in the face?

JI: Since you set up the question as an opposition between you and the two of us, it's hard not to follow that dynamic. Once when we made an argument drawing [a sequential plot of agreement and disagreement on a given topic] about pop music being conservative, it was you and Keith against me. When we argued about whether our grandparents were useful for anything but fertilizer, it was you and me against Keith. I don't think the question of digital versus non-digital is any more inflammatory than those topics. Or is there something I'm missing?

KF: It's wrong to artificially change the dynamic of the argument just because it becomes uncomfortable. When many museums are interested in presenting digital works, I will cede the point that you are "taking a risk" by making non-digital "radical" work. Collectors are obsessed with possessing one-of-a-kind rarities and digital work does not support this model. Don't you think collectors are reluctant to purchase digital work?

JI: Is the trepidation collectors feel in the presence of on-line art any greater than how they felt when Sol LeWitt was first drawing lines on the wall and Mel Bochner was pitching pennies on the floor? The work these artists introduced in the 1960s and '70s is now sold via certificates of authenticity. More importantly, they weren't afraid of venturing into territory that others didn't recognize as art. The three of us know prominent dealers who confess to having trouble marketing collaborative work. So does collaboration in digital media have to be any different from collaboration in any other media?

JC: No, it doesn't. But in response to your first question, Jon, I think the trepidation collectors feel with on-line art is different than what collectors experienced in the early days of conceptual art. By now collectors are accustomed to certificates of authenticity. I think the reluctance to purchase certificates of authenticity for online art is in part due to the global accessibility of most of the work but it also has to do with the work itself. There's a lot of bad Internet art out there. Don't you think that the quality, or lack thereof, in much of the work has something to do with the inability to sell it?

JI: Yes, there's a lot of bad Internet art out there. But have you stepped into any galleries lately?

KF: We have been deluged with bad art in the galleries. This has not deterred collectors. And global accessibility gets back to the point about obsession with sole proprietorship. Neither of these reasons excludes digital work from the world of art. The point is, art is not about selling. Artwork should be thought provoking, don't you think?

JI: Our past works have been thought provoking in the sense that they alert people to the conflicted collaborative process that usually underlies creation in any medium. Most people don't think of hanging a group show as a competitive process, but our installation "A Little to the Left: Competititve Curating of a Hypothetical Exhibition" [originally installed at the Bergen Museum of Art and Science in New Jersey, 1995-96] revealed that where a painting gets installed is a product of conflicting interests rather than Platonic necessity. While in the past we haven't excluded any media from our "palette," it's interesting to ask how different media do or do not lend themselves to revealing the process of collaboration. It would be difficult, for example, for us to figure out a way to embody our process in an easel painting. Set aside for now the question of whether or not anyone has created a masterpiece in digital media. Don't you think the Internet's flame wars and many-to-many communication links make it a ri ch medium for investigating collaborative work?

JC: Jon, you're overemphasizing the flame wars on the Internet. I never get involved in flame wars (with the exception of talking to you guys). Most of my Internet experience is comprised of e-mail with friends and colleagues and surfing the Web to read news and do research. I can see why you think the Internet may have great potential for investigating collaborative work, but do you really think the work we've done on-line has investigated the intricacies of collaboration as much as our off-line work has probed the issue?

KF: No, especially since after two on-line projects [Agree To Disagree Online (1996-97) and The Unreliable Archivist (1998)] you've called it quits. You saying that you don't get involved in flame wars is like me saying that I don't get involved in newspaper headlines. Just because you choose not to participate in something doesn't mean it's not having a great influence on the society at large. So is your reluctance to participate in the digital realm a result of the fact that your friends and colleagues only use the Internet as a glorified postal system?

JC: I'm glad that you agree that our on-line work doesn't investigate collaboration. But I absolutely disagree with your implication that we've done too few on-line projects' and that I'm not willing to work at this. We've been focusing on digital work for almost three years now. The Gering project will be the third full-fledged Internet project. Yet the "Variable Media" show [at Four Walls, San Francisco, 1999] as well as the off-line component of the Gering show were/are heavily influenced by digital components. The L'Espresso interview was all about new media art. Also, both of you envision the variable media contract project [guidelines for recreating the same artwork in different media] as a digital project whereas I see it as a non-digital project. Your analogy about flame wars and headlines makes no sense, so I'll ignore that. As for not participating in the chat/flame wars on the Internet, I admit that I don't, but I think that my experience of the Web is not at all atypical. And in answer to your las t question, I'd say that using the Internet for research and news-gathering is a far cry from this "glorified postal system" you refer to. So my question to you, Keith, is: why is everything better if you can do it with a computer and/or transmit it over the Internet?

KF: As far as my analogy goes, the point you have chosen to ignore is that just because you choose not to participate in something doesn't indicate that it has no social impact. Janet, the company you keep colors your Web experience. If I'm hanging out with vegetarians and ask them what they think of the new steak house, I'm quite sure I'm going to get a less than favorable review. Your experience is not necessarily typical. Computers and the Internet are not "better" for everything--for some things, yes, but not everything. The point I've been trying to make is that they merit consideration--which is something you refuse to give them. In Sentences on Adversarial Collaboration [1994] you said, "During the collaborative phase of a project we are open-minded; we attempt to consider everything, and then dismiss most of it." Should this be updated to read "During the collaborative phase of a project we are kind of open-minded; we attempt to consider everything except digital work, and then dismiss most of what is not executable in a pre-approved, historically certified art medium"?

JI: It's not just Janet who's dismissing on-line culture without offering any reasons for doing so--it's the initial reaction of a lot of people who feel left out of the "digital revolution." It's a shame, because we need more thoughtful critiques of new media to counter the technoutopians for whom 1s and 0s are a kind of religion. Religions are easily co-opted by other interests, just as the Internet is now in danger of becoming little more than a marketing tool for corporate America.

The question is not whether society should embrace digital technology; that choice has already been made. The question is what are the technology's dangers we should be wary of (such as the ease with which personal data can be bought and sold) and what are the technology's strengths that we should exploit (such as its potential for breaking art out of the elite world of dealers, collectors and museums)?

JC: Jon, do you want reasons for my dismissal of Internet art? I think most of the art on the Internet is no good. I think the Internet as an art medium is a flash in the pan. I'm not interested in what happens with digital art. (I thought I made it clear that I have no problem with the notion that Internet art might pose a threat to the art world's power structure.) I don't feel left out of the so-called digital revolution. Hell, our work is taking off in the world of digital art: we're in a lot of shows and people are writing about the work. But that does not mean it's worth continuing. And Jon, it's not as simple as determining the strengths and weaknesses of technology. There are many other questions to pose in considering the validity, future and wisdom of doing digital work.

While I'm now exiting the realm of digital art, you're wrong in saying that I've dismissed digital technology outright. I have abided by our doing digital work for the past few years, but after giving this matter much thought, I've concluded, for many reasons, that digital media are not media I choose to work in. As for my attitude during the collaborative phase, I'm still open-minded: I have thought about digital art and based on my experience with it, I'm now ready to reject it just as we've rejected media such as food and oil paint for our projects. I'm sorry that neither of you like my attitude toward digital work, but I'm equally displeased with your attitude toward digital work. The three of us have to admit that this is a major issue on which we disagree. I wish you well in your digital work, but it's time for me to return to my drafting table.

KF: I will not accept that "most of the art on the Internet is no good" as a valid reason for not making digital work. There have been billions of horrible drawings made over the past 100 years but this fact does not keep you from making drawings. By the way, thank you for humoring Jon and me while we catered to the masses by creating works in order to be "trendy." And Janet, the "no work made of food" rule was a joke, and I know we never said "no oil paint."

JI: This conversation has died--of Hardening of the Categories.

JC: I think we're done. Can we agree on that?

JI: I think what you're saying is that you're done.

JC: Yes.

When they are not busy arguing with each other, JANET COHEN makes her own art independently, KEITH FRANK practices Web design and programming and JON IPPOLITO is Assistant Curator of Media Arts at the Guggenheim Museum in New York City.