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. …