Evgeny Gorny - Alexei Isaev 8-(

This talk began with a typical 'How are you?', and nearly at once it rushed to new projects by Evgueny Gorny. His prime project for the moment is organizing of the Institute of data cybernetic research. 

A.I. Would you tell how did you come to the idea of founding this Institute, and what are your goals and purposes?

E.G. Usually, ideas occur like shot of enlightenment. No doubt something has been preparing to come out though the ideas itself occured to me abruptly. Actually, I get a sort of satisfaction of editing the Net-culture department in russ.ru, but I don't feel like realizing my potential - the budget is small, and I perform within restricted limits of a different project which is only a part of a series of author projects, etc.

A.I. You've engaged in Net-culture for long… Aren't you bored? A man is engaged in something, he invests everything he has, generates a situation. Net-culture is here now thought it exists due to intellectual investment of many people that started talking of it, describe this phenomenon and create welcoming situation. As far as I could judge from my projects, at a certain moment one is eager to get a sort of return. One invested, like Frankenstein, created a body, and is looking forward to the moment of enjoyment when his baby becomes alive, grows up… 

E.G. … and gains independence.

A.I. Do you feel return of intellectual investment which started in Zhurnal.ru? This was the first and the only Russian magazine engaged in the cultural aspect of the Internet. Perhaps it looked marginal, but the Net-culture is marginal by itself. So, does this virtual body (the Net-culture) give you something in return, do you enjoy it, or does it still remain independent?

E.G. I'm not its father creator, I'm just one of… Regarding the Net-culture (in russ.ru), it has obvious shortcomings. Firstly, this is a narrow scale issue, only one column in the magazine, and not a whole one with branches within it. One of the reasons is legalization of the Net as a mass-media. As a result many topics that earlier were automatically regarded as Net-culture, at the moment, are automatically loaded in other headings (politics, culture, etc.). Topical spectrum of my heading became very restricted having lost much from the Net-culture. And this already not the Net-culture but civilization or culture in the off-line sense. And the reflection is what was left for me, together with some pure on-line stuff, though we comprehend that there's no pure on-line stuff. Thus, I've got a restricted budget and restricted opportunities. Average material makes two columns and two articles per week for the moment, and I can't say that's much. If we take the Net-culture in a wide sense, in this regard I also feel lack of theoretic and academic thinking on the Net. In the West, they have a number of theoretic and other editions and institution of an academic type. We don't - what we have here is publicism on various points, or games, or mystifications and leg-pulls. I don't say we mustn't have all that, nevertheless we lack a particular systematic and metaphysical approach towards electronic media.

A.I. Grounding on Western and Russian materials collected for our edition, I can constitute that, in the West (contrary to Russia), there're both, ideology and philosophy, and systematization, there's even a particular language which has formed and continues to form, and which is used in discourse on development of media-culture and technology. The authors might stick to polar opinions, though they speak the same language, the language of common notions. And the unique language allows to take part in general discussion and to persist in one's position.

E.G. In fact, they use many languages, and the language of the article in 'The Wired' differs from that in 'The Mediamatic'.

A.I. Perhaps, it's not the language but the tongue practice and general basic notions that appeal to stable theories…

E.G. … since there're theorists and literature on this subject.

A.I. When you listen to discussion of Russian authors you have a feeling that the majority is basing on their own home-made conceptions that are not stable, and are not able to generate room for joint games, reflections and research in the discussed direction. You feel unsteadiness of the ground of Russian discussion, absence of worked out norms that could serve as basic ones and help to discuss perspectives of creation of the media-theory (as an actual instrument for analyzing interaction of culture and technology in Russian).

E.G. There's no theoretical space in Russian. I had an idea to write a book, and it reincarnated into another one which was preparing of collected articles named 'The Internet and Cyberculture in Russia'. The target is to take actual basic texts that are separated and are not at hand, so are not taken into account today. If we collect this textual material under one cover, perhaps, it would do for generating theoretical space. Though, I still can't accomplish the idea because of permanent routine work.

A.I. So, do you believe that such an edition would be interesting and actual?

E.G. It's actuality is aligning. As it once happened with the notion of Tartu underground culture. I wrote an article about it, made a report, and people started thinking using this category. Here we are with the actuality. Actuality is created by means of clear and corrected conception. One of the goals of the Institute is to comprehend the theoretic level of the Russian Internet in the sense of pure reflection , and in practice. At the moment I'm much interested in the linking of the Internet and academy. I'm interested in projects of an academic type. And the first of them is Russian Virtual Library (www.rvb.ru).

A.I. Specify, please, whether this project is connected with the new Institute?

E.G. This is not an easy question.

Few extracts form discussion on Net-art (from the point of a viewer and a thinker, an editor and an artist).

E.G. There's no sense in repeating discussed points on the Net-art. The Net takes away opposition between marginal and official, since there's no actual center. There's multiplicity. You can't measure everything with the help of numbers (or traffic). New communities based on interests are easily formed taking away space restrictions…

A.I. Is this good for the culture and the artist?

E.G. It is, and it is not. We can easily communicate on-line which negatively says on live communication. Though, without the Internet we'd be too restricted in our opportunities. Art, culture, subculture and the product of creation might be sold (you can't sell your inspiration, the script is salable), though it's production is not stipulated by utilitarian targets, some of creative actions are interlaced with every-day life. To create, you must quit your routine activity, you have to stay in hibernation. To make something just because you want it. Though the results of your uninterested activity might be utilized by politicians in the purpose of advertisement, thus ideologizing them and disqualifying as pure creation. Politicians and trade-men are parasites permanently utilizing products of spiritual activity for advertising purposes. The act of creation is always on the verge of its utilization. As far as it is used for some targets it stops being a creative act. And the creator transforms, degrades, he can't continue with the same activity. An artist has always to search for loop-holes to preserve his activity alive. The latter tends to grow numb, and what is numb badly needs cutting off like nails or hair.

A.I. You're talking of ideology and technology of creation, so could this be used as an advice, as an applied value? Or do you consider the point in a pure theoretic aspect?

E.G. I don't believe I have the right of advising. People make individual decisions. My observation shows the permanent transformation of mode of creative activity, nothing remains the same as it used to be. This is also true for the Net-culture as a sort of utilitarian activity which becomes salable in a time. What is in store for us with the on-line creative activity? It's obviously dematerialization and invisibility of the material, it's total disappearance. Here we have pluses and minuses of the Internet once again. With a huge electromagnetic impulse, the data will be deleted. And the Pyramids will remain. This adds a feeling of instability of what's going on. Everything becomes more illusive, immaterial and spiritual.

A.I. This apocalyptic picture deals not only with art, but with culture as a whole, with destruction of everything, the Mashkov's Library, your Russian Virtual Library… Though the nuclear war might destroy not only the digital but all the culture including the Pyramids…

E.G. Danger is similar for everyone. What is principal for me is polyinformation and polymediality. The virtual library is virtual since is involves various media as an insurance. Nevertheless, virtuality will become more and more real, as it is described in science fiction. People will there with their culture and art. Though creation of these virtual worlds will be an artistic activity. Interactivity will be exposed through various people creating these worlds.

A.I. You've painted Utopia.

E.G. But the matter is getting in that way.

(The corder turned off each time the word 'virtual' was pronounced, perhaps, hinting it would turn into dead medium.)