Gaby Wijers started  this discussion session by giving the overview of the digital canon project. In this project, LIMA, in collaboration with a variety of experts, is working towards bridging the gap between contemporary art and digital art by highlighting the digital heritage of the Netherlands. Furthermore, the practice of canonising as such forces us towards the critical reflection and articulation of our digital past. After the initial workshop at Transmediale 2018 in which LIMA opened the discussion about the canonisation of digital art, LIMA has continued to collaborate with experts in the field to delineate this emerging digital art canon. During this second open discussion, one of the major conversations was about how to create a red thread throughout this canon—if we are talking about Dutch digital art, how are we defining what is ‘digital’ and what is ‘Dutch’? Darko Fritz emphasises the responsibility of experts to be strict with their definitions, and proposes that we should consider ‘digital’ works those that have at least one digital component, such as a converter. On the other hand, Martijn van Boven focuses on the cultural ways in which artists have influenced each other, arguing that sticking with predetermined definitions of what is ‘digital art’ is not necessarily the main focus. Rather, he states, “the intention is to give an overview on how digital culture in Holland has been formed”. Furthermore, giving a strict overview of Dutch art is to some extent impossible due to the porous character of national boundaries. Indeed, many artists travelled through the Netherlands, influencing the art scene but not necessarily staying for a prolonged period. The question also remains as to what degree the canonisation of digital art can be a trans-disciplinary project, and whether this format will achieve LIMA’s aims. Incompleteness, as was discussed, is inevitable, and decisions of what to include must be made according to a stronger curational red line along LIMA’s aims. Dieter Daniels has created the mediaart.net project, which was more about video conservation and digitisation, and he shares the categories he used at the time. He also advises that LIMA give context to to the interesting and important reasons why artists came to the Netherlands to create an understanding of why the Netherlands has a particular specificity. As Darko Fritz points out, for example, the Netherlands was the first country to have digitally designed money and stamps.This way of approaching the experimental digital culture of the Netherlands allows for cultural influences to be taken into account without creating strict categorisations of what is to be considered ‘Dutch’ enough to enter the canon. Indeed, it was suggested to not only include artists and their artworks but also institutions, networks, festivals, places of production, and cultural phenomena fostered by digital culture.

Throughout the discussion, as Dieter points out, it becomes clear that the canon has both a conceptual but also strategic side—LIMA uses  the canon as starting point for new discussions and practices around digital art history and conservation, creating a new ‘best practice’ for caretaker-ship of these works. As such, the canon is geared towards the cultural heritage sector and the museum sector. One of the suggested names of the project, ‘Unknown Pioneers of Digital Art’ points to the potential that the project has to bring new awareness of digital art practices and works as part of broader art histories, bringing them to the fore of broader art audiences. Edwin van der Heide also proposes to think about creating a (traveling) exhibition as a way to connect to these institutions, and to showcase important digital artworks throughout Europe. This would allow LIMA to include the histories of these institutions and to highlight what remains in their archives. Furthermore, most museums have annual programs of art and technology, and LIMA’s innovative programming could fit in this already-existing framework.

As Gaby states, the canon represents a way to ‘sustain a body of work’ as well as educate people on the roots of digital art and its history, which already began in the fifties and sixties. The project is twofold. Besides an actual list, the project is fosters a critical discussion on the process of canonisation itself. Sanneke Huisman presents several questions about canonisation from the point of view of an art historian in the digital art field: Who decides what criteria to use? Are these also valid within digital art or contemporary art? The project has always been two-fold: it takes the form of a canon but it is also about opening up of a debate about how the structures of a digital canon function. Although the shortlist is a statement, it is rather conceived of as a starting point for a larger discussion. Most of all it is a call to bring attention to the world of digital art and the caretakership that it requires. The project urges larger art institutions to bring these ‘unknown pioneers’ into the mainstream consciousness, and to safeguard their works, bringing light to the important historical beginnings of our digital culture as we understand it today.

Participants

Edwin van der Heide, Darko Fritz, Peter Mertens, Martijn van Boven, Gaby Wijers, Dieter Daniels, Sanneke Huisman, Axelle Van Wynsberghe, Anne Nigten

Raised questions and concerns

1.How can the digital canonisation project be better structured around a framework that serves LIMA’s project strategy and objectives?

2.What do we really mean by ‘digital’? Should we stick with a more traditional framework, or think about digital culture in the broader sense?

3.How does digital art alter the concept of a ‘canon’ in the first place?

4.How are we to differentiate between what works truly qualify as ‘digital’ art? Must they have ‘digital’ components, or simply be influenced by / have influenced ‘digital culture?

5.Should we include electronic art within the canon?

6.There are concerns over the overlapping fields included in the canon. To which degree should the canon aim to be interdisciplinary; including works from the sound and music field, for example?

7.What does the list represents as a ‘Dutch canon’? Should ‘Dutch’ works be measured by the time that the artist spent in the Netherlands, and should collaborations be counted?

8.Could this canonisation project additionally result in a (traveling) exhibition?