Dot Art: e-flux and the Issue with Administrating the Internet

“Hi there, let’s not get too paranoid.” So stated art network e-flux in response to a growing outcry regarding its plans to administer the .art domain. In a bold initiative, e-flux has announced its bid for the .art domain through The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which reportedly cost $185,000 and promises to far exceed that if accepted. If successful, e-flux would administer the domain, selecting who is allowed to possess the domain extension and what it is used for in the future. In its announcement, the site hinted at a curatorial process of peer review to select who is allowed to use the .art name space and for what purposes. Its application is going against major corporate-backed interests and clear land-grabs, along with a few semi-legitimate claims (full list here). However, the question I’m interested in is not whether e-flux should be the entity to own the name, but should the internet really be curated?

The point of view of e-flux as presented in the application is extraordinarily problematic as it couches the appeal in terms of the .art domain needing to serve the function of shaping future generations’ conception of art and mitigating taste, all the while entrenching its own views as the basis of how art is experienced online. In its press release it states, “as millions of people around the world use the internet to find answers to questions about art, the results they get will, over time, shape their conception of art” and that it “envisions this new space as a reliable, ethical, selective, and educational resource.” In some sense, this is certainly a noble cause as e-flux attempts to carve out a meaningful space for artistic presentation and discussion online–an ambitious but logical extension of their current work. They even plan to donate some of the revenue back to underfunded arts organizations in the form of grants and awards. I’m reasonably confident that no other applicant would be willing to do a fraction as much to intentionally develop the space for the benefit of artists and the institutions that support them. Nonetheless, given the amount of power (and money—a lot of money) the domain will generate and the aggressive curatorial strategy e-flux has consistently shown, the .art domain is sure to prove contentious.

e-flux’s Facebook announcement of its plans met immediate backlash from concerned artists seeing the move as inherently opposed to the openness of the online ecosystem. In a heated stream of comments on e-flux’s Facebook announcement, user Falke Ospina notes that “.art becomes a legitimation system. maybe with peer assessment, but that would basically consist of institutions or institutionalized approved by e-flux doing the assessing. why would you want to install such a monopoly position? whether or not this is controlled from within the field, if it is in the hands of one body, isn’t it still about power?” The site’s response that “we are not monopolists and do not intend to run this as a boutique” employs the circular logic consistent throughout its communication about the matter and is depressingly similar to the argument of any business/politician/institution under attack: we’re the good guys, you know us, you should be scared of the other ones looking to profit off of you, not us.

Yet, throughout its history, e-flux has always had a tendency to support the entrenched, established institution over emerging ideas in unexpected places. Its model is built on selectivity, exclusivity and expense that necessarily preserves the service only to those institutions selected and able to pay a premium to release an announcement to its extensive listserv. What does selectivity look like when you are not simply curating a listserv or publishing journal, but administering a top level domain that could affect millions of people? Or what do they mean when they state that they are “the only applicant from the art community” when, most notably, Deviant Art has also applied? I think it is clear that they mean they are the only applicant from their art community, which is also perhaps my art community, but is certainly not that of everyone who attempts to carve out some stake in the broader art community.

As problematic as e-flux’s application is, the reality is that this is a land grab and a guaranteed goldrush. We’re in a recurring frontier and someone wants to carve it up. The domain is scarce, the demand is high, and speculators are salivating like they are at auction for a Warhol. E-flux is genuinely likely to make the .art domain interesting, engaging and, yes, educational. It may prove, as e-flux founder Anton Vidokle told The Gallerist, to “make art on the internet really comprehensible.” Let’s hope that, should they be selected, they learn that power is precarious. Wars are fought over frontiers.


Image courtesy of e-flux’s Pawn Shop exhibition from 2007-8. Proceeds from the project went to benefit Doctors without Borders.

There are 2 comments

Add yours
  1. Anton Vidokle

    Dear James, we are not planning to curate the art domain, should we get to develop it. Not sure why you assume we would do that. What is important is not to sell name space indiscriminately only to maximize profits, and to prevent speculators from registering names that belong to other organizations and individuals. Applications for name spaces will indeed be reviewed, primarily to make sure that only James McAnally will be able to register JamesMcAnally.art or only the Luminary Center can get LuminaryCenter.art

    As far as trust goes: people who work at e-flux are artists and writers, just like yourself. We are not politicians or businessmen, and do not employ such logic. Its very important that there is some solidarity in the artistic community, and that we trust our fellow practitioners. If we can’t manage that, our community will always be prey to the rich and powerful of this world, who will just continue milking it for money, creativity, gentrification, social prestige or whatever it is they want to get from artists.

    Lastly, the gold rush is not guaranteed: most domains other than .com have failed to earn much money. However if the art domain is popular, this could create a significant source of independent funding for art at a time when such resources are rapidly disappearing world wide. We will try to realize this, and to do so we really need community support rather than mistrust and skepticism.




  2. James McAnally


    Thank you for your thoughtful response to the article and for providing more context for myself and other readers. The oversight of the .art domain is going to be problematic, regardless of whose application is ultimately chosen. I’ve tried to make clear that, of the options, I would strongly support e-flux’s bid to administer the space, with a few caveats–namely, that there is an innate awareness of the inherent control that a single company (or nonprofit) will hold and the value of transparency and dialogue in the process of creating this domain space.

    This particular article was written in response to the posture that I saw in e-flux’s social media responses to those criticizing the plan. Building community support and consensus on such a potentially sensitive issue requires an understanding of why others might oppose it. e-flux may generously and fairly administer the domain if selected, but the posture I have observed so far defaults to defensiveness and lack of understanding of the other (primarily what I saw in the Facebook comments I quoted). e-flux is certainly a respected organization–deservedly so–but it is not necessarily representative or understanding of the full spectrum of artistic practice.

    The question of curation is always one of selectivity and, the broader the platform, the more difficult those questions become. I don’t believe that the domain will be strictly curated, but would Deviant Art, for example, be granted a .art domain? They are not, as e-flux has assumed, part of the “art community,” but do directly provide a platform for artists. It is not curated or selective, so it has artists mixed with those more tangential to artistic practice– perhaps like the .art domain itself. More transparency as to how it would be administered would perhaps help build consensus and eliminate questions such as mine.

    I myself will likely comment in support of e-flux’s application (https://gtldcomment.icann.org/comments-feedback/applicationcomment/viewcomments), but hold to the position that this process should be open to critique and questioning, in the hopes of more honestly carving out a meaningful space for art online.


Post a new comment