The Rhizome Digest merged into the Rhizome News in November 2008. These pages serve as an archive for 6-years worth of discussions and happenings from when the Digest was simply a plain-text, weekly email.
|
Subject: RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.08.04 From: digest@rhizome.org (RHIZOME) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:46:36 -0700 Reply-to: digest@rhizome.org Sender: owner-digest@rhizome.org RHIZOME DIGEST: October 8, 2004 Content: +note+ 1. Francis Hwang: Some notes from the Director of Technology, September 2004 +announcement+ 2. Fion Ng: Microwave International Media Art Festival 2004 - PROXY 3. Pau Waelder: Announcing The Stunned Net Art Open +opportunity+ 4. matthew fuller: Call for Participation : www.designtimeline.org 5. Richard Rinehart: New Media Faculty Position At UC Berkeley 6. Rodger john: Elsewhere Artist Collaborative: Updated Call: "Place to Figure out Things." +work+ 7. trashconnection: all rhizomers in one 8. andrew michael baron: all rhizomers in one, with links 9. Joseph DeLappe: The Great Debate: Battlefield Vietnam +comment+ 10. bensyverson: Just added to the Rhizome ArtBase: [N]+semble RTP #27 by Talan Memmott 11. bensyverson: Just added to the Rhizome ArtBase: Tour of the Chicago Technology Park by ryan griffis +thread+ 12. Liza Sabater, bensyverson, curt cloninger, Rob Myers, ryan griffis, Pall Thayer, Steve Kudlak, Jess Loseby, Francis Hwang, t.whid, jm Haefner, Eric Dymond, Alexander Galloway, Jim Andrews, ~~~~|\/\/\/\/\/\/|~~~~: Thinking of art, transparency and social technology + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 1. Date: 10.04.04 From: Francis Hwang <francis AT rhizome.org> Subject: Some notes from the Director of Technology, September 2004 Yeah, so, it's been a while since I did one of these. Sorry about that. Anyway, here are a few of the bigger features that have been added to the Rhizome website recently: 1. RSS feeds If you go to http://rhizome.org/syndicate, you'll see a list of RSS feeds. We've had the Net Art News feed for a while now; they are now joined by a Rare feed that you can use to preview published texts on the site, and an Artworks feed that notifies you of new artworks on the side. Feel free to use these feeds however you like. There are more on the way, too! 2. Artwork announcing Now when new artworks are added to the ArtBase, an email is sent automatically to the mailing list, too, so you can keep abreast of what's being added. 3. Some anti-spam tweaks Some inquisitive users reported that a few crafty spambots were finding out how to use the Raw list to send out spam, so I Googled a lot until I found out a bizarro majordomo hack that prevents this from happening. Anyway, it's stopped now, so thanks to my effort you should be getting only 99 spam emails a day instead of 100. Francis Hwang Director of Technology Rhizome.org phone: 212-219-1288x202 AIM: francisrhizome + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 2. Date: 10.04.04 From: Fion Ng <ngyc666 AT yahoo.com> Subject: Microwave International Media Art Festival 2004 - PROXY Hong Kong, 5 October, 2004 â?? Struggle, wonder, surprise. These truthful moments define the essence of the Microwave International Media Art Festival (MIMAF) 2004 â?? Proxy, a burgeoning annual media art event that is opening at 5:00pm on Saturday October 30th at Exhibition Hall, Hong Kong City Hall, Low Block (5, Edinburgh Place, Central, Hong Kong). Living in the globalize information age, the new technology of telecommunication like cell phone and global positioning system brace for the new order of the world. On one hand, these technologies cause convenience to our communication and worldwide access of information. But on the other hand, they are used for surveillance and even terror attack. â??Proxyâ?? is created to explore the telematic culture. From 31 October to 16 November, over 28 artists from around the world will exhibit 21 installation and net art works at Exhibition Hall, Hong Kong City Hall with 2-day seminars on 30 October and 1 November designed to stimulate discussion and provide a platform for the expression of new media art. The Festival will also feature the immense talent of local young artists and teenagers in HIGHBAND exhibition at Hong Kong Film Archive Exhibition Hall, during the installation and net art exhibition. In addition to the exhibitions, we are proud to invite Christopher P. Csikszentmihalyi and Jeremi Sudol, Computing Culture Group, MIT and Casey Reas, co-founder of â??Processingâ?? freeware, to hold 2 artist-in-residence workshops on 28-29 October and 2 November. Dazzling in style and content, the works showcased in our Video Screening programmes: â??Fascinated and Touchedâ??, â??Wave After Wave of New Japanese Animatorsâ??, â??Chinese Video Feastâ??, â??Urban Architexturesâ?? and â??Video Is Interesting, but Deadâ?? are an eclectic collection of renowned artistsâ?? video works including the Chinese artists in this year Shanghai Biennale. Guest curators Hanspeter Ammann (Switzerland) and Thomas Munz of Transmediale, Berlin (Germany) will meet the audience in the after-screening discussion. Other curators include Taruto Fuyama (Japan), Wu Meichun (China) and Videotage (HK). The Screenings will run on 3, 19-20 November at Cinema, Hong Kong Film Archive. On 20 November we will present a music and video performance "Electron" at Habitus as our closing event. Featuring artists include: Pixel Toy; ST Demos; SYMPOSIUM 4H; Teoh + Jean Sebastien Lallemand + Wilson Cheung; Vibration + Emergency LAB; Kar-Fai Samson Young + Carlyshemoss + Remus Ng Siufat. Featuring artists: Masaki Fujihata (Japan), â??Field-Work AT Alsaceâ?? (2002); Computing Culture Group, Media Lab, MIT (US), â??Computing Culture Groupâ?? (2004); Christa Sommerer & Laurent Mignonneau (Austria/France), â??Mobile Feelingsâ?? (2002-2003); Casey Reas (US), â??Seoul A & Bâ?? (2004); Bundith Phunsombatlert (Thailand), â??Path of Illusionâ?? (2002-2004); Golan Levins (US), "Dialtones (A Telesymphony)" (DVD) (2002); Marko Peljhan(Republic of Slovenia), "Makrolab-UNTP with TRUST-SYSTEM 77" (1994-2004); Bryan Chung (Hong Kong), â??Be a Hong Kong Patriot, part 2: The Fuzzy Wankerâ?? (2004); Christopher Lau & Kar Fai Samson Young (Hong Kong), â??Ritual Machineâ?? (2004); Net art curated by Casey Reas: Ben Rubin, Mark Hansen (US), Listening Post. 2002-2004; Peter Cho (US), Money Plus; Schoenerwissen/OfCD (DE),Minitasking. 2002-2004; Josh On (NZ, US), They Rule. 2001-2004; Cory Arcangel (US), Data Diaries. 2002; Jonah Brucker-Cohen, Mike Bennett (US,IR), BumpList; Nicolas Clauss, Jean-Jacques Birgé, Didier Silhol (FR), Somnambules. 2003; Lia (AT), Re-Move. 1999-2004; James Patterson (CA), Presstube. 2004; David Crawford (US, SE), Stop Motion Studies. 2002-2004; Susan Collins (UK), Fenlandia. 2004; NullPointer aka Tom Betts, Joe Gilmore (UK), rand()%. 2004; HIGHBAND exhibition: The Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts, Theatre Lighting & Sound Department, â??The Discovery of Light and Soundâ?? (2004); Derick Hui,â??What You See Is Not Thereâ?? (2004); Ko Kam Hon, Yu Kai Wood, Yu Wing Yi, â??CuteBoy Gadgetâ?? (2004); Ben Leung, Ken Liu, Moon Wang, Edward Tse, â??Wilsonâ?? (2004); and â??Selections of Robot Design (Primary and Secondary School)â?? by Hong Kong Robotic Olympic Association. Videotage provides free guided tours and talks for a full introduction of the works featured at the MIMAF exhibition at Exhibition Hall, Hong Kong City Hall target for students and teachers. The tour will be conducted in Cantonese and lasts for about an hour. Apart from the workshops, video screenings and â??Electronâ??, all events are free admission. MIMAF2004 is presented by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department. Co-organised by Microwave Co Ltd and Videotage. Supported by Hong Kong Arts Development Council, sponsored by School of Creative Media, City University of Hong Kong, German Projectors Group, All Nippon Airways, Austrian Consulate General, Hong Kong, CREAM Magazine, Consulate General of Switzerland, Goethe-Institut Hong Kong, Habitus, Hong Kong Arts Centre, Pro Helvita, Arts Council of Switzerland. Founded by Videotage in 1996, MIMAF is dedicated to the development of artists of independent vision and the exhibition of their new work. Since its inception, the Festival has grown into an internationally recognized resource for media and other artists. The Festival is held annually and is considered the premier showcase for Hong Kong and international media art works. ### Official website: www.microwavefest.net / www.lcsd.gov.hk/fp + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome is now offering organizational subscriptions, memberships purchased at the institutional level. These subscriptions allow participants of an institution to access Rhizome's services without having to purchase individual memberships. (Rhizome is also offering subsidized memberships to qualifying institutions in poor or excluded communities.) Please visit http://rhizome.org/info/org.php for more information or contact Rachel Greene at Rachel AT Rhizome.org. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 3. Date: 10.08.04 From: Pau Waelder <pau AT sicplacitum.com> Subject: Announcing The Stunned Net Art Open The Stunned Net Art Open http://www.netartopen.org http://www.stunned.org/netartopen This is the third year of the Net Art Open which was previously presented as part of the Irish Museum of Modern Art.com project.  Once again we have retained the central concept of the Net Art Open, an exhibition of net art in which every submission is accepted,  to provide an exhibition free of curatorial bias which presents a true snapshot of the state of the art today. In previous years the exhibition was, in some ways, a victim of it's own success with so many entries that it was hard, even with the best will, in the world to see every entry. So this year in recognition of these problems and of the changes in the way people surf the web  we have radically changed the format of the exhibition  to focus more attention on each individual work. In what we think is an internet first the 2004 Net Art Open exhibition will be blogged, one work at a time, with a new work every three days. RSS feeds will also be published so that viewers can follow the exhibition with newsfeed readers. The result is the 2004 Stunned Net Art Open,  net art from over 70 artists, an exhibition which presents a refreshing snapshot of the strength and diversity of the net art movement today. The Stunned Net Art Open http://www.netartopen.org http://www.stunned.org/netartopen More information from Conor McGarrigle http://www.stunned.org + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 4. Date: 10.04.04 From: matthew fuller <fuller AT xs4all.nl> Subject: Call for Participation : www.designtimeline.org Call for Participation www.designtimeline.org We would like to invite you to contribute to the online collective web design history timeline. This project wants to map your encounters with design for the World Wide Web. It is part of a larger project entitled A Decade of Webdesign that includes an international conference in Amsterdam, January 21-22, 2005. Open History Timeline www.designtimeline.org is an 'open research' website/database into the first decade of web design. The online forum is a visual and textual timeline generated out of a self-customizable questionnaire. Using a custom content management system the site will allows: . Users to add images, comments and links, making a collective history of webdesign as it developed. Such elements might include histories of their own first homepage; the first use of a technology; original html code; reminiscences of key designers, innovators, critics and technologists. . Using a question-based interface users can write their own questions and respond to those of others. All questions entered are available, ensuring that no one set of views or way of writing predominates. . Multi-lingual use. The site is designed for use for anyone involved in web design over the past ten years. It is also ideal as a simple structured tool which can be used for both research and teaching. This project is intended to be of interest to a broad range of disciplines from design to computer science and from history to sociology. If you are a teacher we would like to invite you to consider integrating this site into your curriculum, as a piece of independent research for students, as a set workshop, or as the basis of a sustained project. The project starts now and continues until the end of march 2005, at which point it will be archived. Please - make history! http://www.designtimeline.org Conference: A Decade of Web Design (www.decadeofwebdesign.org) Until recently web design discourses have been dominated by a frantic, market driven search for the latest and coolest. The ongoing media buzz around 'demo design' has prevented serious scholarship from happening. Technical innovations such as frames, flash, WAP and 3G have dominated the field. Until 2001 a substantial part of the sector's activities was geared towards instruction and consultancy. The dotcom crash and IT slump have cleared the field-but not necessary in positive ways. Due to budget cuts firms now believe they can do without design altogether. Instead of asking ourselves what the Next Big Thing will be, we firmly believe that future design can be found in its recent past that offers a rich mix of utopian concepts and undigested controversies. In short, these ten years of web design has seen design change as much as it has seen the impact of a new form of global media. We want to celebrate this and to use a consideration and testing of the recent past to provide a platform for thinking about what is to come. In this, the conference will be unprecedented, the first event of its kind. Sessions for the event will be: -Histories of Web Design What do social, technical and cultural historians propose as ways to make an account of the last decade? -Meaning Structures As automated site-design becomes increasingly important the history of the interweaving of technology and culture up to the point of semantic engineering is mapped out -Modeling the User Creativity and usability have often been set up as the two key poles of web design. This panel asks instead for a more sophisticated narrative about the change in understanding of user needs and desires over the last ten years - Digital Work Following on from the Digital Work seminar this panel brings together key observers and critics of the changing patterns of work in web design along with designers - Distributed Design The web amplified an explosion on non-professional design. This panel will ask what happens to design once it becomes a non-specialist network process. Confirmed Speakers Michael Indergaard, John Chris Jones, Olia Lialina, Peter Luining, Peter Lunenfeld, Geke van der Wal, Franziska Nori, Danny O'Brien (NTK), Steven Pemberton, Helen Petrie, Rosalind Gill, Adrian McKenzie, Schoenerwissen/OfCD, Jimmy 'Jimbo' Wales, etc. Further speakers are yet to be confirmed. Organization Media Design Research, Piet Zwart Institute, Rotterdam, http://pzwart.wdka.hro.nl/ Institute for Network Cultures, Hogeschool van Amsterdam Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam Register for the conference by sending an email to info AT networkcultures.org. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 5. Date: 10.04.04 From: Richard Rinehart <rinehart AT berkeley.edu> Subject: New Media Faculty Position At UC Berkeley Center for New Media, University of California at Berkeley. History & Theory of New Media. Rank open, effective July 1, 2005, pending budgetary approval. In the context of Berkeleyâ??s new Center for New Media, the successful candidate will develop courses, pursue interdisciplinary research initiatives, and help lead UC Berkeley in New Media studies. Teaching and research interests should include the historical contexts and theoretical framing of New Media, including the critical, cultural, and social assessment of New Media production and consumption processes. Applicants should demonstrate substantial background in one or more of the following fields: art history, history of photography, media history, film studies, and visual culture. They should also demonstrate broad knowledge of critical theory in the humanities, significant command of theoretical and technical issues in contemporary new media, and a record of engagement with technologists, designers, artists, and/or social scientists in new media studies. Special consideration will be given to applicants with strong leadership abilities. The successful candidate will be appointed in a relevant department or departments; possible primary departments include History of Art, Film Studies Program (a division of Department of Rhetoric), and the School of Information Management and Systems. Participation on the Executive Committee of the Center for New Media is expected. Applications must include a C.V.; a letter describing the candidateâ??s background and interests, including brief descriptions of possible courses; a one-page statement outlining a vision for interdisciplinary scholarship in history and theory of new media in the context of interdisciplinary new media studies; two recent essay-length publications or samples of work-in-progress; and names and full contact information for three recommenders. Female and minority candidates are strongly encouraged to apply. Application Deadline: December 1, 2004. Mail to: Whitney Davis, Chair, Department of History of Art and Director, Film Studies Program, Doe Library 416, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley CA 94720-6020. The University of California is an Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action Employer. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome is now offering organizational subscriptions, memberships purchased at the institutional level. These subscriptions allow participants of an institution to access Rhizome's services without having to purchase individual memberships. (Rhizome is also offering subsidized memberships to qualifying institutions in poor or excluded communities.) Please visit http://rhizome.org/info/org.php for more information or contact Rachel Greene at Rachel AT Rhizome.org. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 6. Date: 10.04.04 From: Rodger john <greensboroart AT yahoo.com> Subject: Elsewhere Artist Collaborative: Updated Call: "Place to Figure out Things." ELSEWHERE, art processes re-invent Art contexts. (Interpret the SPLACE thinking to itself) Dear eyes right at origin, Elsewhere Artist Collaborative, a conceptual artists space in Greensboro, NC, is seeking journeypeople to pursue artistic creations and criticism in a contextually interpreted and designed environment. Participating in a residency-like program, Journeypeople will be provided access to a 12,000 sq. ft. converted thrift store (stuck in a locational palindrome). Artists are expected to integrate the plethora of 70 years of thrift resources (toys, furniture, books, clothing, fabric, etc. etc. etc.) or their experience at Elsewhere into the content (subject or object) of their work. The objects within the space do not permanently leave the space, providing for the exploration of the potential for a fixed but transforming set of objects. Elsewhere artists explore traditional and emerging media and media fusion, representational possibilities, and community/communication models. Elsewhereâ??s non-commercial museum-type space is a constantly reflexive and evolving environment where artwork serves as dialogue and dialogue systems become artwork. Re-contextualized objects become the medium of expression and response between participants. Located in Greensboro, NCâ??s downtown, historic district, the experience of southern America offers a backdrop to Elsewhereâ??s conceptual, artistic and intellectual realm. Elsewhere houses a gallery/orientation center, press office, studio, kitchen, performance venue, library, fabric workshopâ??all installation pieces in themselves which serve as interactive environments that enable artists to comment on, discuss, and recreate traditional art, social, and cultural institutions. Artists are encouraged to redesign space and its accompaniments (objects) for a contextual artistic experiment that exposes process as art form. Elsewhere seeks innovative creators that are striving to apply their work and ideas to a large-scale project that cultivates individual initiative within a community of makers. Toys are people too. Journeypeople are needed to engage projects: spatial development and construction, documentation via still and video photography, fashion design, interior design and architecture, graphic design, magazine and newspaper publishing run in the press office, archiving, research, educational programming and design, business initiatives, art administration, and artistic pursuits in traditional and emerging art forms. After participating in the community for a week, Journeypeople submit documentable proposals for independent or collaborative projects. Elsewhere provides a network of local artists and students to connect journeypeople with free or inexpensive housing options. Elsewhere offers affordable meals through a food co-op, artistic access to the seemingly infinite resources, customizable space within which to work, and involvement in a community of artists all speaking to and interacting within a post-modern theme. Journeypeople may also be involved in the larger conceptual project that includes community interfacing programs and urban planning issues. While art objects must remain within the space and are subject to further conversion, artists have the opportunity to substantially build or augment a portfolio while exploring their media and contributing to an collaborative artistic endeavor. Those interested in the residency-style program should contact George Scheer (Collaborative Director) and/or Stephanie Sherman (Conceptual Director/Casting Director) at wanderingzoo AT mac.com or 336.549.5555. Internships and volunteer opportunities are also available. We will respond with a brief application process to gauge artistic synchronicity between the individual and project as a whole. Those interested in renting the resources for artistic productions or collaborations between Elsewhere and other organizations should also contact George. Elsewhere, a 501(c)3 organization, is funded in part by a grant from Greensboroâ??s United Arts Council. For more information, see www.homepage.mac.com/wanderingzoo. Signed, the understated + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 7. Date: 10.02.04 From: trashconnection <www AT trashconnection.com> Subject: all rhizomers in one all rhizomers in one - portrait gallery http://www.artknowledge.net/trashconnection/gallery/img.html + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + For $65 annually, Rhizome members can put their sites on a Linux server, with a whopping 350MB disk storage space, 1GB data transfer per month, catch-all email forwarding, daily web traffic stats, 1 FTP account, and the capability to host your own domain name (or use http://rhizome.net/your_account_name). Details at: http://rhizome.org/services/1.php + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8. Date: 10.04.04 From: andrew michael baron <baron AT parsons.edu> Subject: all rhizomers in one, with links All Rhizomers in one, with links to bios, click this link: http://www.rocketboom.com/rhizome/ Simple php script below: <?php $handle = opendir('img/'); if ($handle) { while (false !== ($file = readdir($handle))) { $filepart = str_replace(".gif", " ", $file); print "<a href=http://rhizome.org/member.rhiz?user_id=$filepart target=_blank ><img src=http://www.rhizome.org/directory/icons/$file></a>\n"; } closedir($handle); } ?> trashconnection wrote: Dear Curt, you better try to improve this: http://boijmans.kennisnet.nl/onderw/thema/graphim/b95007.jpg cc> the next step is to have each image link to that person's rhizome bio page. cc> _ all rhizomers in one - portrait gallery http://www.artknowledge.net/trashconnection/gallery/img.html + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 9. Date: 10.08.04 From: Joseph DeLappe <delappe AT unr.nevada.edu> Subject: The Great Debate: Battlefield Vietnam Announcing: Battlefield Vietnam: The Great Debate On Sunday, October 3rd, 2004, artist Joseph DeLappe re-enacted the first, 2004 Presidential Debate between Senator John Kerry and President George Bush in the PC online first person shooter game, "Battlefield Vietnam". The performance/re-enactment involved typing into "Battlefield Vietnam" online the entire transcript from the first presidential debate. DeLappe switched his profile, or name, during the gameplay from "George Bush" to "John Kerry", as needed, to recreate, through the instant, text messaging system used in the online game, the entire 14,000+ words. The transcript, used in printed form from the NYtimes on the web, were typed into the online gameplay over the course of an eight hour session, visiting multiple game servers in the US and abroad. "John Kerry" or "George Bush" were randomly assigned by the host servers to either the US, South Vietnamese Army or the NVA(North Vietnamese Army) teams during the numerous online game sessions, each lasting from 2 minutes to 1/2 hour. Each game session featured between 14 and 31 other online gamers. There was much reaction from the other players during the re-enactment: from righteous outrage to genuine political dialogue to being kicked several times from multiple servers. The experience was thoroughly exhausting, truly a monumental effort at absurdist, online political theater. Please visit my website to view a few screen shots and some composites of the text messages from the actual performance online: http://www.delappe.ws On Saturday, October 4th, DeLappe will re-enact the second "Town Hall" style presidential debate in a piece entitled: "Town Hall: Jedi Knight Outcast", using the "Starwars: Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast" online game as a platform for recreating this second presidential debate. DeLappe is considering re-enacting the third debate, focused on domestic issues, in the "Sims Online" game. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 10. Date: 10.06.04 From: bensyverson <rhizome AT bensyverson.com> Subject: Just added to the Rhizome ArtBase: [N]+semble RTP #27 by Talan Memmott *** I promised to practice what I preach about injecting criticality to RAW, so I think I'll comment on a few ArtBase additions as they come. Keep in mind that I'm no practiced artCritic, and my criticism is designed not to condescend or tear ppl down, but rather to spark [debate/discussion]. *** After reading Talan Memmott's bio, I'm almost ashamed to say that this is my first encounter with his work, so I took some time to explore his previous [work/writing/praxis]. Much of Memmott's other work uses text extensively, often in almost accidentally poetic arrangements, sometimes swimming in [diagrammatic/cut-up] visuals, everything occasionally converging to sublime effect. When his work is not impenetrable, it recalls and expands on a sort of vintage early-90s embodiment of HyperText that caused so much feather-ruffling then as the first formal innovation in literature since the cut-up method. In this spirit, most if not all of his work refuses to address the network directly, and some of his pieces are [navigated/operated] in a guided fashion, teasing the [user/reader/viewer] with the illusion of [control/interactivity] during linear segments. I found the majority of his work to be frustrating, curious and [encoded/encrusted] in an alien alternate-reality literature -- in other words, I enjoyed it a great deal. So it was with some confusion that I viewed [N]+semble RTP #27, which aside from its humorously baroque introScreens is devoid of text. Rather, as a "Recombinant Tone Poem," the work takes its cue from the musicTheory idea of a "tone poem," (also known as a "symphonic poem") which apparently [was/is] a short [symphonic/orchestral] piece which takes its cue from (or is supplemented by) literature, painting, or really anything non-musical. The DNA reference "recombinant" in the title might suggest some fancy genetic algorithms behind the curtain, but in reality, the piece is relatively straightforward. Balls revolve around three instruments, and by moving the mouse over these balls, a short ["phrase"/riff] on the instrument (chosen by random from a few pre-recorded samples) is played. By rapidly moving the mouse, one can generate a mild cacophony. In the spirit of a conventional tone poem, perhaps [N]+semble RTP #27 takes its cue from a specific external [concept/work], but if this is the case I was not able to discern the reference. Maybe, as a CyberPunkPoet, Memmott's reference is simply poetry or CyberPoetry. In any event, the work comes across as rather thin; unlike the body of his work, RTP #27 seems to be almost purely formalist, and worse, not even very aesthetically pleasing (at least to these eyes&&ears). As a soundToy, RTP #27 didn't hold my attention for longer than a commercial break. In all fairness, however, I am operating without the knowledge of how this piece fits into Memmott's overall practice; for all I know, this is a technical sketch for a more ambitious project, a toe-dip in the poolverse of soundToys, or actually more layered in meaning than I realize. - ben On Oct 5, 2004, at 12:23 PM, Rhizome.org wrote: > Just added to the Rhizome ArtBase ... > http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?27750 > > > + [N]+semble RTP #27 + > + Talan Memmott + > > [N]+semble RTP #27 is a recombinant tone poem for flute, vibraphone, > and tuba created in Flash. The piece is an interactive arrangement > instrument. As the user moves the cursor around the interface, sound > files of short musical phrase are activated and another file is > randomly selected. > The musical phrases are an original composition, but the arrangement > is of the phrases is left to user interaction with the application. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 11. Date: 10.07.04 From: bensyverson <rhizome AT bensyverson.com> Subject: Just added to the Rhizome ArtBase: Tour of the Chicago Technology Park by ryan griffis *** I promised to practice what I preach about injecting criticality to RAW, so I'll be continuing to comment on a few ArtBase additions as they come *** I love critical filters, so this work is right up my alley. Like a P2P MP3 armChair filmCritic DVD commentaryTrack, the Tour of the Chicago Technology Park exists as an unsanctioned separate-but-equal layer of information over the mundane. The information itself is rich but never didactic, illustrating the widely varied hystorical threads that are converging in the Chicago biotech industry, and looking forward to the results of that convergence. As a multiMedia project, it's available online as text, maps and audio, and was performed as a guided tour during version04 in Chicago. I haven't taken the audio to the actual site, but the fact that this project exists as an audioTour at all is rather tongue-in-cheek, so maybe the "full" experience is not required. The audio is peppered with resampled CTA sounds, and the text of the audio comes from various sources, but the voice-over itself is inhumanly straightforward (it's voiceSynthesis software). The synthesized voices are a little grating at times -- almost trance-like -- but luckily, the [gender/style] of the "speaker" is changed every couple of minutes. The Tour of the CTP presents an interesting alternative to the endless volley of text in activist emails and websites, and in the process finds a nice way to [access/understand/approach] the community it examines. It instantly made me consider possibilities for expansion; for example, imagine a "channel" or application for a nearFuture iPod/cellphone that assesses your position via GPS and provides running commentary for your location, perhaps with suggestions of other places of interest. One could walk around the city, soaking in physically situated information. Imagine guided activistDayTrips, or live boycottSubscriptions that direct you to alternative establishments... - ben On Oct 5, 2004, at 12:28 PM, Rhizome.org wrote: > Just added to the Rhizome ArtBase ... > http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?28147 > > > + Tour of the Chicago Technology Park + > + ryan griffis + > > How is corporate biotechnology shaping the spaces we live in? The > Travel Office's tour of the Chicago Technology Park is a guided audio > and web-based experience that places the city's current investment in > the "new economy" within the historical, and ongoing, practices of > social engineering through urban planning. A story of spatial eugenics > emerges out of the juxtaposition of texts and statements from > disparate sources that include Official state and city press releases, > corporate documents and activist archives. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 12. Date: 10/05/04-10/08/04 From: Liza Sabater <blogdiva AT culturekitchen.com>, bensyverson <rhizome AT bensyverson.com>, curt cloninger <curt AT lab404.com>, Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>, ryan griffis <grifray AT yahoo.com>, Pall Thayer <palli AT pallit.lhi.is>, Steve Kudlak <steve.kudlak AT cruzrights.org>, Jess Loseby <jess AT rssgallery.com>, Francis Hwang <francis AT rhizome.org>, t.whid <twhid AT twhid.com>, jm Haefner <j.haefner AT sbcglobal.net>, Eric Dymond <e.dymond AT sympatico.ca>, Alexander Galloway <galloway AT nyu.edu>, Jim Andrews <jim AT vispo.com>, "~~~~|\/\/\/\/\/\/|~~~~" <llacook AT yahoo.com> Subject: Thinking of art, transparency and social technology Liza Sabater <blogdiva AT culturekitchen.com> posted: Should we consider Bill Gates the Bin Laden of net art? The problem with Java --at least in some of the Head Potato's work-- is that because it works at the hardware level, it presents a whole 'nother level of problems. So the clocking will be fine on a Dell but fucked up on a HP. There will be flicker --and a horrid, ugly flicker-- one screen, but not the other. And all of this varies from one version of Windows to another. Of course, some artworks will look and even work completely different in a Mac. The Johns (Simon and Klima) have it right when they decided to control both the hardware and software. The time wasted banging heads on a keyboard and cursing at Gates could probably be used optimizing or even building "signature" hardware. I personally believe if you are going to sell software art at a gallery, that's the way to go. BTW, even JODI are shlepping their own hardware these days. But let me bring another issue to the table, one I think other net creatives have brought to light pretty well. It's the issue of TRANSPARENCY. Artists have always kept notes, some way or another, for their ideas and process. But it is not until they are dead (or made an offer they cannot refuse) that people can take a peek at them. If ever. But not just artist as in Art makers. Most people involved in creative work will keep some kind of record of their discoveries and obstacles. The problem, again, is that these are mostly kept tucked away in private libraries or bedroom drawers. I believe it is time for net artists to stop pretending anybody beyond their immediate peers understand what they are doing. Seriously. Not even the people in most arts organizations (I'm thinking granting institutions and the like) understand the difference between creating your own metasoftware in Java so you can create software art versus a person who gets their hands on Flash and makes an animation. To this day I find myself saying at art openings, "No, that Levin/Simon/Napier is not an animation. It's software creating the art." To which they most inevitably get the "deer in the headlights" look on their faces. Ugh. MTAA was interviewed for Petit Mort and it's worth the reading (great pics of the sexy beasts and a fantabulous one of EndNode AKA Printer Tree). This is the part that mostly caught my attention: I¹ve notice that your updating of art is similar to the way corporations are updating their services these days; for example banks make you transfer funds, make you fill out forms, make you find customer service, and sometimes even make you responsible for their quality control. Technology now a day has passed on a lot of duties to the customer. It has really become a self-service type of system. And although this would seem like cost cutting measures on the way they do business, we still don't see a decrease in their fees or cost of their products or services. It is helping them save money I¹m sure, but as consumer we are loosing our time in performing their services. Is that shift what you had in mind when you started these updates? TIM: We never spoke about it, but I definitely considered that being a change in the way the people interact online -a lot of the labor has been passed back to you. MARK: There are different concepts in our work, like when you think of the computer tree, which is basically a stage that we built for people online to perform on, it's trying to figure out a different audience relationship. A lot of what net art is interested in is the communication back and forth, the net being the space in-between, so the printer tree in some ways is also the space in-between. With this tree, it¹s audience, and some of the other things we¹ve done is trying to separate and move that relation ship between performance and viewer just slightly so that the relationship becomes a little fuzzier. I don¹t know if people need to know that when they see the piece to understand the relationship. [ The whole article is at http://www.petitemort.org/issue02/18/ ] This is an AMAZING insight. For one, I feel that one of the interesting failures of net art has been its inability to communicate OUTSIDE of its immediate clique. Not even people in the art world know or have even heard of net art / software art as we discuss it here in Rhizome. To most people NA / SA is what happens when you photoshop photography or make a video and put it on the net. So without even knowing it, MTAA has hit it over the head. For the one part, the technology used in net/software art --from the computers to the software or even the coding language-- passes unto you the onus of R&D, QA, and usability (we're not even touching cost). The technologies of canvases, stretchers, brushes, pigments, hammers and nails do not need any of those added costs to the process of art making. It's completely the opposite with anything involving digital technology. This is apparent with computers and software but what about the other art "corporations"? Think of the museum, the gallery, the academy, the audience and "the market" as corporations as well. If you buy into the belief that art is about the object and not the process, then a lot of the onus of making an art "object" out of what is basically electricity, falls unto you as well. So you find yourself in a situation in which you've just built from the ground up a meta-software that makes more software that is then what we call "software art", but nobody --not even your peers-- now about it because you've been focused on showing the final object and not the process. And because you've spent all that time on the art as object motif, your work --because it moves on a screen-- is still being seen by the audience immediately outside of the net/software art clique as animation or video because, you know, it moves. You can't blame them. If you do not distinguish what you do from the "proven" art forms, why should people understand what your work is about? Net Artists have been so caught up in the metaphor of the internet as a space for communication and social interaction that, ironically, most have not really used it as so in their own art spaces. Yes, there is Rhizome and all those artsy lists. But you cannot bring Rhizome Raw into your site and this is what each and every one of you should be doing. Let the flaming begin. There, I have said it. I truly believe that focusing on the conversations your art and art process can create is the only way to not just push your work forward, but to bring to light the artform you so lovingly/madly/cluelessly pursue. The net is not just a space, and the web is not just a canvas. They are processes as well. They are because humans use them. Art Websites should not be just galleries or studios. They need to be salons as well; places where each artist can reveal their work and play, their expertise and discoveries, their trials and tribulations. Yes people, I'm talking about the four letter words. Whether it is a wiki or a blog, I am talking about bringing social technologies into artists sites. And not just the tech but the practices of communication as well. We need to make your sites as dynamic as your art process. Why? By not doing it you are missing out on the opportunity of connecting with peers in other net cultures who, may not be artists but have the answers to your questions. Or you may miss the opportunity of having one more piece of information ready and available for your future audience to read and learn more about you and your process as an artist. Or who knows what other things are in store. It's been almost two years now since I wrote an art proposal, and quite frankly, I don't miss it. Those things are ghastly especially because software art, being a subset of a subset of art in most foundations, never fits all the requirements for documentation. So they want a video or slides of Shredder (I kid you not). In part because they are working with old paradigms of art, and in part because they most of the time do not have the "right browser" or the "right OS" or the "right hardware" to run most net/software art in the first place. So they go with what they think will be easy for them to use to judge the work --misunderstandings and hilarity ensues. UGH. I've blogmothered potatoland.blog. The intention? For the Head Potato to post some code and start conversations around it. Rant against the machines. Maybe even get some people to work out a bug or two. That sort of thing. I'm even fixing to have guest writers write about their favorite pieces... And in due time to raise resources for new projects. I'd love to try this experiment with more people. Be part of real-life conversations started by artworks, but mediated through the blogs. See what opportunities are opened up with this "new" socialization. Find out what happens when an artist's site goes from portfolio to notebook to salon, all in one swoop of technology. Any takers? This blogmother is ready to reproduce :) Cheers, l i z a + + + bensyverson <rhizome AT bensyverson.com> replied: On Oct 5, 2004, at 2:11 AM, Liza Sabater wrote: > Whether it is a wiki or a blog, I am talking about bringing > social technologies into artists sites. And not just the tech but > the practices of communication as well. We need to make your > sites as dynamic as your art process. I wholeheartedly agree, and this was one of our main [concerns/objectives] when criticalartware began to design liken, our current connexionEngine and discoursePlatform. Using liken, these discussions automagically [intertwine/crossbreed] based on group navigational patterns. Soon, with the addition of personalized RSS feeds, users will be able to customize their subscriptions & level of involvement so that they can stay engaged with any [topics/words/"authors"] they're interested in. Thus, the ability for multiple communities to exist inside the multiverse of liken is also a design objective, although in liken it's hard not to get drawn to every corner of the universe by following incidental [linkages/pathways]. And in liken, every time you click a link, you are changing the relationships between the nodes around you, and building new pathways. In this way, liken can serve simultaneously as a communicative outlet (ie [messageBoard/wiki (ours are likis)]), research tool and source of inspiration. By acting in a similar way to a humanBrain (making sumTimes outlandish connexions based on simple similarities), and because it will automatically link any text you put into it, liken serves as rich soil for creative life. - ben + + + curt cloninger <curt AT lab404.com> replied: Hi Liza, I'm part of a group [ http://www.themap.org ] here in Asheville, NC, trying to promote "media arts awareness," whatever that is. So far our main vehicle of promotion has been monthly screenings of experimental short films. So to broaden the spectrum, I recently gave this presentation on generative art [ http://www.lab404.com/ghost ]. It was initially set to happen at the Fine Arts Theater downtown where they have been showing the short films, but the owner of the theatre refused to host it because, in his own words, "there's no money in interactivity." Which is hilarious now that the gaming industry makes 3 times more money than Hollywood, but anyway. So it finally wound up happening at the Black Mountain College Museum and Arts Center, which was a good fit. It was a Bring Your Own Laptop event, so that people could experience the haptic reactivity of the pieces themselves. (We had to "borrow" the wireless network of the neighboring retail shop, but that's another story.) For those who didn't bring their laptops, I explained to them that what they were seeing projected on the wall was NOT the art. They were seeing a once-removed mediated version of the art. They were watching me interact with the art (in the case of the reactive pieces). Or they were watching me manually refresh the generative pieces. There is a world of difference between "jamming on" the "instruments" at http://www.pianographique.com , and watching the projected output of someone else jamming on those instruments. In any presentation like this, the "eureka" moments of audience revelation come not with the first run of the generative work, but with the second run. For instance, I showed the postmodernism generator [ http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern ] and began to explain about the dada software engine on which it was based and the database of discrete textual elements from which it drew, but when I hit refresh and the second iteration of text appeared on the wall, that's when they experientially "got it." Until some experience reveals the difference between a generative piece and a linear animation piece, the difference is lost. The best way to help users/patrons/co-participants/etc. experience these differences is not always apparent. It won't always happen in an hour-long talk. Which is why I linked the works, passed out the URL, and encouraged people to re-visit the works and explore them after the talk. Sometimes it takes fifteen minutes of personal interaction with one of these pieces, of "pushing at its edges" to appreciate the limitlessness of the generative piece versus the stasis of a mere linear animation. As the Strokes observe, "the end has no end." Prior to giving my talk on generative art, I was interviewed about the talk by the technology editor of the local paper. In the process, I showed him one of lia's gorgeous reactive pieces and suggested he might get a better sense of the work if he moved the mouse himself. He nodded, looked at me, and then stared at the mouse as if it was a piece of unknown alien hardware. He never did grab the mouse, but kept writing and asking questions. He had intellectually understood the concept of what was happening, and assumed that was good enough for his purposes. You might say he flipped through the Fluxus Performance Workbook, but never showed up for the Happening. I'm critical of heavy reliance on artist statements because they often provide an easy short-cut which excuses the artist from having to properly "embody" her concept into her artwork. Curatorially, I think the best way to get someone to appreciate the difference between generative artwork and mere linear animation is not to explain that generative work is made dynamically in real-time by algorithmic computation blah-blah-blah, but to direct the user to interface with the generative/reactive piece in such a way that she is led to "experience" the difference. This commission [ http://artport.whitney.org/commissions/softwarestructures/ ] is successful to me because it uses core code as a "control" to make apparent the "variable" of code-influenced visual aesthetics. It doesn't just explain how different programmer/artists have different coding styles, it "shows" a visceral example of those different styles. (In this respect, it's more interesting to me than CODeDOC [ http://www.whitney.org/artport/commissions/codedoc/ ], which foregrounds the nuances of coding as a problem-solving art in and of itself, and backgrounds the aesthetic nuances of the code-generated work. But then I never thought programming in and of itself was all that sexy.) The job of new media apologetics falls to curators like Christiane Paul, but also to artist/educators like Casey Reas, whose processing project with Ben Fry [ http://processing.org ] is a big step in the right direction. Some high-minded artists and critics may be above such entry-level "popularization," but unless somebody is willing to take the time to preach to someone other than the choir, we are left with academic research and a micro-scene mutual admiration society. (Our micro-scene is paradoxically "world wide," but it's no less micro- for all that. Visitor logs don't lie.) If generative art is difficult to understand as a medium, add network or installation aspects into the mix, and it gets even more challenging to teach, let alone sell. (My students and I visited http://www.bitforms.com in class yesterday, and they immediately noticed that Mark's first three pieces [ http://www.bitforms.com/artist_napier.html ] didn't have a "purchase" button.) Is transparent/opensource artist blogging the answer? It depends on how well one writes and thinks (and on how many people read your blog). Josh Davis used to give away his .fla files at http://praystation.com (and won the prix ars award for giving them away more than for the actual files themselves). Jared Tarbell continues the "opensource" .fla tradition at http://www.levitated.net/daily/ Heck, just viewsource at any dhtml-based net.art site, and there you are. To play devil's advocate, do we need to solve the problem of "net.art ghettoization?" What if net art is inherently ephemeral and outside of the white box and takes a fair amount of one-on-one 'puter time commitment to appreciate and will only be a footnote in the art history books? net.art started in a spirit of anarchic, outsider fun. Might we best be proceeding in a spirit of anarchic, outsider fun? I merely pose the question. peace, curt + + + bensyverson <rhizome AT bensyverson.com> replied: On Oct 5, 2004, at 2:06 PM, curt cloninger wrote: > To play devil's advocate, do we need to solve the problem of > "net.art ghettoization?" This was the question Lev Manovich raised two years ago in "New Media from Borges to HTML" ( http://www.nothing.org/netart_101/readings/manovich.htm ) when he said "new media field is facing a danger of becoming a ghetto whose participants would be united by their fetishism of latest computer technology, rather than by any deeper conceptual, ideological or aesthetic issues... I personally do think that the existence of a separate new media field now and in the future makes very good sense, but it does require a justification." (As a side note, this comment became the inspiration for the creation of http://www.newmediaghetto.org ) Personally, I find the danger palpable. Looking through the ArtBase, you can see the unbounded techNewPositivism -- implicit and overt -- expressed in much of the work. I call it FlashFormalism, although it's not limited to a particular authoring package; it's an attitude present in any work which is more concerned with "interactivity" (I prefer the term "cybernetics"), meaningless data wrangling, or pure formalism than contributing to the larger discussion. Sometimes these works take information as input to generate essentially abstract visual or auditory patterns, pretending that using a news headline feed instead of a random number generator makes the work more interesting. In fact, one such work is displayed like a badge on the lapel of Rhizome.org -- the spiky logo which allegedly changes based on some hidden (and probably more meaningful) data. The fact is that the logo is purely formal, and the underlying data is totally irrelevant to the real goal of the piece: pretty changing colors. The term "generative art" has gained currency lately as a way of legitimizing these activities, but the output created by so much of this "generative art" is inscrutably abstract. Unfortunately, abstraction no longer has the powerful political and conceptual weight it had at the end of the 19th century, so we are left with pretty sounds and pictures that are entirely impotent. In today's political climate, I find that particularly unforgivable. If the newmedia community as a whole doesn't move faster towards criticality, discourse and evolution, it risks the same fate psychedelia suffered by standing still and going from a powerful political medium in the 60s to an exhausted juvenile cliche in the 70s. - ben + + + curt cloninger <curt AT lab404.com> replied: Hi Ben, I think we're talking about several different things. A. Giving up on trying to fit net art into high gallery art strictures does not inherently imply: 1. techno fetishization 2. a-politicalization 3. abandonment to pure abstraction B. Abstract art does not inherently imply: 1. Psychedelia 2. Impotence For example, Paul Klee's work is neither psychedelic nor impotent and, although no longer contemporary or en vogue, was and is potent and relevant. I'd include Stan Brakhage in that category as well. C. Overtly political art does not inherently imply: 1. potency 2. maturity 3. proper moral use of art D. Generative techiniques in artwork do not inherently imply: 1. visual abstraction 2. a-conceptualization I guess when I say "ghetoization," I'm not attaching the "techno-masturbatory/self-reflexive" implications that Manovich does in his chapter. I hope to avoid those extremes as well. Ironically, by trying to "make a place" for net.art in the contemporary art world canon, critics and theorists are forced place inordinate emphasis on what net.art "uniquely is and is not" in relation to old media. Consequently, gallery showings of net.art can tend to over-emphasize technological/formal distinctions of the work while under-emphasizing its aesthetic or conceptual merits. "Classic, clear-cut examples" of net-specific art may make for dramatic object lessons, but they don't always make for interesting art. I mean "ghetoization" to imply, "net art outside the gallery structure, not making a whole lot of cash, not too concernet with making a place for itself, having fun." Outsider net.art may still be as political or conceptual as you like. It may even be highly popular. It's just more in dialogue with the audience of the network itself and less overtly in dialogue with the audience of the gallery. It's not trying to solve the curatorial challenges of its own historical dissemenation. peace, curt + + + bensyverson <rhizome AT bensyverson.com> replied: On Oct 5, 2004, at 4:48 PM, curt cloninger wrote: > A. Giving up on trying to fit net art into high gallery art > strictures does not inherently imply: > 1. techno fetishization > 2. a-politicalization > 3. abandonment to pure abstraction No, of course not. However, the "high art" complex has a heavily conceptual foundation, which is a useful context for moving actual discussion forward. Also, we must be extremely careful not to reject the hystorical conversations and work from which our current work emerges. The gallery is irrelevant, but the art world is not. > B. Abstract art does not inherently imply: > 1. Psychedelia > 2. Impotence I wasn't making the case that abstract art == psychedelia, but I will make the case that abstract art is impotent in today's art context. If anyone disagrees, then enlighten me: what does pure abstraction have to say? Is it a comment on our fragmented, post-modern times? If so, it's a half-century-old sentiment. Great art makes the people of its time uncomfortable -- I don't think abstraction has made anyone uncomfortable for decades. I'd go further and say that formalism hasn't made anyone uncomfortable in quite some either; representational or abstract, if all you have going for you is aesthetics, you're not really saying anything. > For example, Paul Klee's work is neither psychedelic nor impotent > and, although no longer contemporary or en vogue, was and is > potent and relevant. I'd include Stan Brakhage in that category > as well. And yet Klee's work was extremely challenging when it was being produced; at various times "primitivist," child-like, surrealist, cubist and transcendentalist, there was a heady conceptual backing to everything Klee did. All of these artistic movements that he was influenced by (and exerted influence on) were socially radical, as was his work (and even the very concept of abstraction, at that point). Similarly, Brakhage came out of the 1960s, and his desire to bring pre-verbal consciousness-expanding sublimity to the viewer, through the manipulation of light and the rejection of narrative and traditional film production techniques, was extremely provocative and radical. However, it's no longer 1917 or 1968. Abstraction/formalism is no longer [surprising/upsetting/challenging], even when it's on the computerBox. What does formalism have to say today? Lets break it down. Unlike Brakhage, these folks aren't breaking the means of production to interesting ends, nor are they saying anything uncomfortable or challenging. Apps like Flash and Photoshop were designed to make pretty pictures -- making swirling lines and random sounds in Flash is like making a traditional film in 1968, or painting straight portraits in 1917. Subtle statements can be made, but you contribute nothing to the global discussion we call "art." Creating your own tools is more interesting, but when the end result is the changing Rhizome logo, your hard work is for naught. It's the equivalent of the straight portrait painter grinding his own paints in 1917 -- admirable work for the service of art which has nothing to say. > C. Overtly political art does not inherently imply: > 1. potency > 2. maturity > 3. proper moral use of art I never said it did, and anyone who does has an extremely Marxist view of artmaking. However, I don't understand why someone would make art which says nothing when there is so much to say. > D. Generative techiniques in artwork do not inherently imply: > 1. visual abstraction > 2. a-conceptualization I love these rule systems you built! :) But really, I never implied anything about all "generative art." What I did was to suggest that the preponderance of "generative art" is [abstract/formal]. In this way, it's mostly about itself, and how cool it is that it's generating material, sometimes interactively, sometimes using clever data as input. In short, most "generative art" doesn't have much impact after the initial coolness, like browsing Wallpaper* magazine. > "Classic, clear-cut examples" of net-specific art may make for > dramatic object lessons, but they don't always make for interesting > art. Most certainly. Like the early video moment, sometimes the important discussion takes place outside the [gallery/museum] system, and the intersections with galleries are awkward and in many ways unsuccessful. The point is that it's important not to articulate newmedia as divorced from the hystorical threads that wove it. - ben + + + curt cloninger <curt AT lab404.com> replied: Hi Ben, It seems we fundamentally disagree on the importance of art being in dialogue with the contemporary art world. I don't think Klee or Brakhage's work is important or interesting primarily because it was radical or heady or novel in its time. Brakhage wasn't really making any sizeable waves in the 60s, and the work he made a few years ago is as intriguing as anything he's ever done. Art can speak individual to individual without proceeding through the sanctioned filters of the "contemporary art world" and still have great value and "potency" (yea, even potency for ye olde precious social change). This is the interesting thing about outsider art and one of the things I think the net is good for (if we'll let it be). Human culture has changed a great deal, but individual humans have been wired pretty much the same for a good while. If it's alway primarily about "forwarding the canonical dialogue," artmaking can quickly devolve into a chasing after newness, a sort of conceptual fashion show. Collectors as venture capitalists and artists as aspiring CEOs hoping to go public with their newest art venture. Where's the passion in that? What? You say passion's been out of date since Romanticism? Dang. This quote (which I've posted here before) seems pertinent: "An imbecile habit has arisen in modern controversy of saying that such and such a creed can be held in one age but cannot be held in another. Some dogma, we are told, was credible in the twelfth century, but is not credible in the twentieth. You might as well say that a certain philosophy can be believed on Mondays, but cannot be believed on Tuesdays. You might as well say of a view of the cosmos that it was suitable to half-past three, but not suitable to half-past four. What a man can believe depends upon his philosophy, not upon the clock or the century. If a man believes in unalterable natural law, he cannot believe in any miracle in any age. If a man believes in a will behind law, he can believe in any miracle in any age... It is simply a matter of a man's theory of things. Therefore in dealing with any historical answer, the point is not whether it was given in our time, but whether it was given in answer to our question." - g.k. chesterton, 1908 I would remix it this way, "What art a man can [enjoy/receive from/be moved by] depends upon his propensity, not upon the clock or the century." (But as t. whild has pointed out previously, the quote is almost 100 years out of date, so there you are.) peace, curt + + + bensyverson <rhizome AT bensyverson.com> replied: curt, at the risk of delivering a pt-by-pt response rather than an elegant and coherent essay, I'd like to address a few pts individually in-line. I apologize in advance for the length, but I promise there'll be some juicy nuggets sprinkled along the way! On Oct 5, 2004, at 11:02 PM, curt cloninger wrote: > It seems we fundamentally disagree on the importance of art being > in dialogue with the contemporary art world. Our dialogues are already being assimilated into the broader art context; this discussion we're having is art in dialogue with the contemporary art world. The dialogue that Beryl Korot, Phyllis Gershuny, and Ira Schneider fostered in Radical Software ( http://www.radicalsoftware.org ) was not really considered to be part of the general contemporary art narrative of the time (early 70s), but the art world has a way of swallowing engaging discussions, even if it takes a while. The problem I see is that the newmedia discussion is at risk of becoming less-than-engaging. If FlashFormalism continues to be received with excitement and a deafening silence of critical discussion, newmedia will be stillborn; irrelevant before it ever reaches critical mass. To avoid becoming such a footnote, we need to inject the criticality that's missing by not having a wider recognition && discussion in the hyper-critical art world. In fact, who better to critique this work than us, the combination [audience/creators]? I just don't see that critical discourse happening. I see a lot of wrangling over the terminology and technology, but not much attention paid to the ideas. > I don't think Klee or Brakhage's work is important or interesting > primarily because it was radical or heady or novel in its time. Then that truly is a fundamental disagreement, because both of those artists (and every other major artist in history, almost without exception) are remembered precisely because they challenged assumptions, made people uncomfortable, and posed controversial (if sometimes implicit) questions. I definitely want to avoid personal statements, but anyone who thinks these or any artists are [important/interesting] because their work is aesthetically pleasing has an [incomplete/impoverished] understanding of the hyperthreaded hystorical context in which the work was produced. All "important" work is about ideas; even the works of abstractExpressionists and 1970s minimalists made their own provocative arguments. > Brakhage wasn't really making any sizeable waves in the 60s, and > the work he made a few years ago is as intriguing as anything > he's ever done. However, how can you not see Brakhage as emerging from the hyperthreads running through the 1950s and 1960? Even his last works were products of a career forged in that climate, although by the 90s, also interwoven with all the threads in-between... It's not about waves, it's about the dialogue we as artists participate in by creating work. If what you do isn't challenging, you're not contributing to that dialogue. > Art can speak individual to individual without proceeding through > the sanctioned filters of the "contemporary art world" and still > have great value and "potency" (yea, even potency for ye olde > precious social change). Clearly, and no one disputes this. In fact, perhaps the most potent works exist on the fringe of that system. However, as the "contemporary art world" wrestles with how best to absorb us into their discussion, the problem they're encountering is not how best to fit us into a gallery, but rather how to [talk/write] about work that doesn't seem to have anything interesting to say. BUSTED. > This is the interesting thing about outsider art and one of the > things I think the net is good for (if we'll let it be). Let's not get started on "outsider" art, and the offensively condescending colonial-era mindset that celebrates "virgin" work unscathed by the evil corrupting influence of the art world dialogue. I thought we finally vanquished this pathologically naive Modernist impulse in the 80s. The reality is that, whether we know it or not, we are all drawing from similar hystorical hyperthreads. Art, advertising and popular culture are so [inbred/intertwined] that the difference between the art school graduate and the mythical kid from the projects is that the art school graduate can *sometimes* put a name to a handful of the people and movements they draw artistic inspiration from. To think the net somehow creates the opportunity for more "outside" voices is to get it exactly wrong. Instead, the net's interconwebness crossbreeds everything in it (including the artWorld and everything else) even faster, and even more than in any other media. "Outsider" art will emerge from this network of insiders known as the "interweb" about as often as wild feral adults will emerge from Manhattan. > If it's alway primarily about "forwarding the canonical > dialogue," artmaking can quickly devolve into a chasing after > newness, a sort of conceptual fashion show. WOAH D00D. It's not about the canon, or the cult of the new; it's about your work contributing to an ongoing and meaningful discussion. To call the distributed cognitive processing of the art community a "conceptual fashion show" is to declare war against intellectual pursuit! If we're going to go that route, how about you take all of the diamond-in-the-rough idiotSavant "outsiders" you can "discover," and I'll take all of the intellectually curious people who have anything to say. ;) > Collectors as venture capitalists and artists as aspiring CEOs > hoping to go public with their newest art venture. Where's the > passion in that? What? You say passion's been out of date since > Romanticism? Dang. Passion's always in, baby. To understand the art world, you need to understand the roles of (in alphaOrder) artists, critics, collectors, curators and [gallery owners/dealers]. They all have their own [economic/career] motives, and it's crucial to always remember this, no matter what they say about it all being about the art. Artists who get caught up in the economics and career strategies of the art world do so at the risk of confusing others' motives with their own, and diverting attention from their own work. See Exhibit A, Jeff Koons, who carefully engineered his own career, indeed making his celebrity a [focus/aspect] of his work -- however, it backfired when his popularity inevitably waned (as is the case with any celebrity who doesn't actively reinvent [him/her]self). What does that have to do with newmedia? Beats me -- the most interesting newmedia isn't happening on the front page of ArtForum, it's happening on and off lists like these. Unfortunately, we're just not engaging in enough critical discussion about that work. > "An imbecile habit has arisen in modern controversy of saying > that such and such a creed can be held in one age but cannot be > held in another." - g.k. chesterton, 1908 As charming as Chesterton's plea for the wisdom of the good ole days is, his comment fails to recognize the evolutionary nature of human discussion && activity. Today we understand Newtonian physics as the hystorical context from which Einstein's theory of General Relativity emerged. Newton's ideas were revolutionary, and extremely insightful, but on a solar or galactic scale, we now see they don't work as well, so Einstein proposed General Relativity to explain the discrepancies. Then scientists discovered that General Relativity doesn't work so well on the [atomic/subatomic] scale, so Quantum Mechanics was developed as a parallel model. This isn't to say that we look back at Newton or Einstein with scorn for being out of date -- quite the opposite; each is crucial for understanding the context and creation of the next. However, you never see scientists complaining that Quantum Mechanics and Superstring Theory are too fashionable, and that Newtonian physics worked fine for Newton so they should work fine for us today. Granted, the art world doesn't have as linear a narrative, but to rip artistic [theories/practices] out of their threads of hystorical context and drop them into the present is to pretend that the intervening years of discussion and debate never happened. It's willful intellectual amnesia. We are, after all, talking about Chesterton, so let's not forget-to-remember that he was a curmudgeonly sometimes anti-Semite, full time anti-Feminist and an art-school-educated anti-Artist: "the artistic temperament is a disease that afflicts amateurs." We could [explain/understand] his now-controversial positions by examining his hystorical context, but by his own direction, maybe he would rather we ignore his context and take his creeds of that era at face value. All of this is the long way of saying that newmedia disregards the threads which weave it at its own peril. So rather than watch this FlashFormalism float by and let myself become complicit in my silence, I solemnly vow to do my part to be a curmudgeon in my own way by contributing criticism and artwork to the discussion. - ben + + + Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com> replied: On Wednesday, October 06, 2004, at 08:37AM, bensyverson <rhizome AT bensyverson.com> wrote: >The problem I see is that the newmedia discussion is at risk of >becoming less-than-engaging. If FlashFormalism continues to be >received with excitement and a deafening silence of critical >discussion, newmedia will be stillborn; irrelevant before it ever >reaches critical mass. To avoid becoming such a footnote, we need >to inject the criticality that's missing by not having a wider >recognition && discussion in the hyper-critical art world. In >fact, who better to critique this work than us, the combination >[audience/creators]? I just don't see that critical discourse >happening. I see a lot of wrangling over the terminology and >technology, but not much attention paid to the ideas. Illustrating fashionable art discourse *will* lead to footnotes. net.art's would-be-social-engagement was trivial, getting some critical *distance* and autonomy is a good next step. R&D rather than R&R. >All of this is the long way of saying that newmedia disregards the >threads which weave it at its own peril. It becomes just the gilt on them at its own peril as well. >So rather than watch this FlashFormalism float by and let myself >become complicit in my silence, I solemnly vow to do my part to be >a curmudgeon in my own way by contributing criticism and artwork >to the discussion. Yes. But regarding the art, silence can be a statement, fantasy can be realistic and formalism can have social content and meaning. - Rob. + + + ryan griffis <grifray AT yahoo.com> replied: > WOAH D00D. It's not about the canon, or the cult of the new; it's > about your work contributing to an ongoing and meaningful > discussion. To call the distributed cognitive processing of the > art community a "conceptual fashion show" is to declare war > against intellectual pursuit! If we're going to go that route, > how about you take all of the diamond-in-the-rough idiotSavant > "outsiders" you can "discover," and I'll take all of the >intellectually curious people who have anything to say. ;) i'll add my own "woah dood" here. confusing sanctioned art world discussions with intellectual pursuit is a bit of a dishonest trick. Have you READ any of the well funded art pubs? how much "intellectual pursuit" did you find there? the art world is not about transparency. + + + bensyverson <rhizome AT bensyverson.com> replied: On Oct 6, 2004, at 3:35 AM, ryan griffis wrote: > i'll add my own "woah dood" here. confusing sanctioned art world > discussions with intellectual pursuit is a bit of a dishonest > trick. Have you READ any of the well funded art pubs? how much > "intellectual pursuit" did you find there? the art world is not > about transparency. Who says that's the artistic discussion that matters? Like I mentioned, the relevant artistic discourses are usually absorbed by the art world as an economicMachine from the outside. However, this fact does not render the art world irrelevant to newmedia; it's important to recognize that among the superstrings that resonate to form "newMedia," the artWorld is an important harmonic in that formative vibration, along with the parallel histories that accompany that [world/narrative]. You have to be clear about acknowledging that the economic aspects of the artWorld work in concert, but not always harmony, with the intellectual threads being spun. ArtForum is a trade magazine for [collectors/curators/gallery owners] about the art market -- to take it and it similar mags as representative of the whole of "ContemporaryArt" leaves out the world that critics and artists live in. In other words, it ignores the intellectual heart of the artWorld, which is lists like these, conferences like ReadMe, artSchools all over, and everywhere else discussion is taking place. What I'm saying is: wake up and realize that this is the "sanctioned art world," so lets have some real critical Discourse. + + + Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com> replied: On Wednesday, October 06, 2004, at 02:08AM, bensyverson <rhizome AT bensyverson.com> wrote: >I wasn't making the case that abstract art == psychedelia, but I >will make the case that abstract art is impotent in today's art >context. If anyone disagrees, then enlighten me: what does pure >abstraction have to say? Is it a comment on our fragmented, post- >modern times? If so, it's a half-century-old sentiment. Great art >makes the people of its time uncomfortable -- I don't think >abstraction has made anyone uncomfortable for decades. I'd go >further and say that formalism hasn't made anyone uncomfortable in >quite some either; representational or abstract, if all you have >going for you is aesthetics, you're not really saying anything. Pure abstraction is resistant to the dominant mode of criticism (the dreary romanticism of the expanded text), and a semiotised (grammatical, algorithmic, kitsch) culture. It certainly seems to make some people uncomfortable, and not just the plebs who still don't grok it. In a society where aesthetics has long since triumphed over ethics, aesthetic engagement is social engagement with or without Adorno. Pure aesthetics may find a new space, or at least a new point or angle. The contempt that mediatised govenrments express for Media Studies is telling, it is mirrored in the contempt aestheticised critical regimes hold for aesthetics. One of the damn things is indeed enough. Break-out is needed to get back in. - Rob. + + + Pall Thayer <palli AT pallit.lhi.is> added: If the things you're saying about the stagnation of new media art and lack of critical discourse are true, then I would have to assume that this is a US problem because those statements just sound absurd here in Europe. With all the conferences, workshops and exhibits going on all over Europe, public interest in new media is at an all time high. New books are being published, universities are constantly creating new programs to deal with the various facets of new media and well known museums are exhibiting more and more new media work. But you can always find a number of North American participants at the conferences and workshops here, which makes your statements even less convincing. From where I'm standing, it looks like there's *a lot* going on both in the fields of practice and theory. As far as your statements regarding the abstract go... When work is based on data that is converted to an abstract representation, that *is* quite a radical commentary on the state of our world right now. Today, everything around us is data that makes sense to some system it was created for. I was at the store yesterday and the price tag was missing on an item I purchased. I was able to tell the worker the price, but that had no meaning to her *system*. She couldn't just say, "OK, add an item to this list at the price of $22.43." She had to leave the register to go on a hunting expedition to find the barcode. That little thing that means absolutely nothing to us but everything to a stores cataloging and register system. So much so that the system can't do anything without it. So the practice of taking this data, that has the power to control our lives, and turn it into an abstract representation that is all about aesthetics and has nothing to do with the datas intended meaning, becomes very powerfull indeed. It's akin to the famous photo of a hippy putting a flower into the barrel of a soldiers rifle, converting the ominous killing machine into an ornamental vase. Pall + + + bensyverson <rhizome AT bensyverson.com> replied: On Oct 6, 2004, at 5:28 AM, Pall Thayer wrote: > From where I'm standing, it looks like there's *a lot* going on > both in the fields of practice and theory. I agree, and certainly more is happening in Europe, but I still see a gap in criticality. Works which leverage the latest technology receive the most discussion, and ideas often take a back seat to the enthusiastic rush to be the first to make the widget do X. > When work is based on data that is converted to an abstract > representation, that *is* quite a radical commentary on the state > of our world right now.... It's akin to the famous photo of a > hippy putting a flower into the barrel of a soldiers rifle, > converting the ominous killing machine into an ornamental vase. Thank you Pall, for providing a model for viewing these works. I remain unswayed though; not to bank everything on your final analogy, but often a data-fed work would look the same if it were fed random numbers, whereas "hippies" putting flowers in random locations would have a very different effect; those flowers were guided missiles. The question becomes, why bother feeding it real data if you need to be told what the work is [assimilating/reprocessing]? Just use random numbers! The conceptual statement about data overload remains the same. In fact, everything remains the same except the stale non-novelty that the work is drawing from live data. Just something to think about. Further, who is actually interested in the amount of data flowing around us constantly? I mean really interested. Is "too much information!" a viable platform for artistic activity, or is it a stalling tactic while one thinks of something more substantive to say? At a certain point, to comment on the sea of data is like commenting on the weather. Backbone traffic is high today, with a 30% chance of rain. Personally, I would hope we could leave this topic to the first-year New Media undergraduates and move on to something -- anything -- more intriguing. with optimism, - ben + + + curt cloninger <curt AT lab404.com> replied: Hi Ben (and all), I'll respond point by point to various posts: ben: The problem I see is that the newmedia discussion is at risk of becoming less-than-engaging. If FlashFormalism continues to be received with excitement and a deafening silence of critical discussion, newmedia will be stillborn; irrelevant before it ever reaches critical mass. To avoid becoming such a footnote, we need to inject the criticality that's missing by not having a wider recognition && discussion in the hyper-critical art world. In fact, who better to critique this work than us, the combination [audience/creators]? I just don't see that critical discourse happening. I see a lot of wrangling over the terminology and technology, but not much attention paid to the ideas. curt: I agree with Rob and Pall here. There is a way to critically discuss abstraction that may involve engaging in formalistic/graphic design aesthetics that seem outmoded to you. So we can't discuss them because such critical discourse is not currently en vogue? But aren't we the ones (critics, artists, curators) who shape where the critical dialogue is going? If things on the net are becoming more hodge-podged and interbred with pop culture, what's to keep art critics from approaching such pieces as rock music critics or graphic design aesthetes? Casey Reas is re-discovering Sol LeWitt and taking his instruction-based conceptualism to a more gorgeously abstract level. MTAA are reinterpreting early conceptual works and recontextualizing them in a hyper-mediated environment. None of this seems intellectually bereft to me, nor does it seem out of bounds or culturally irrelevant. If one current artistic mode is the remix, then we can expect to see earlier aspects of the "art tapestry" show up in the mix as well (whether consciously or unconsciously). curt: > I don't think Klee or Brakhage's work is important or interesting > primarily because it was radical or heady or novel in its time. ben: Then that truly is a fundamental disagreement, because both of those artists (and every other major artist in history, almost without exception) are remembered precisely because they challenged assumptions, made people uncomfortable, and posed controversial (if sometimes implicit) questions. curt: But is the sum of the worth of their art the fact that they were remembered for it? Had they not been remembered, would their art still have value as art? Can it still be appreciated out of the context of its production? There are plenty of artists who have gained notoriety for their craft and invention, working within a pre-defined tradition they didn't pioneer. Pre-impressionist artists, craftspeople in local artisan subcultures. ben: I definitely want to avoid personal statements, but anyone who thinks these or any artists are [important/interesting] because their work is aesthetically pleasing has an [incomplete/impoverished] understanding of the hyperthreaded hystorical context in which the work was produced. All "important" work is about ideas; even the works of abstractExpressionists and 1970s minimalists made their own provocative arguments. curt: So you assert. Here are some contrary voices: "Knowledge and intelligence are puny flippers alongside clairvoyance. Ideas are a dull gas, a rarefied gas. Only when clairvoyance is extinguished do ideas and the blind fish of their waters -- the intellectuals -- appear. The reason art exists is because its mode of operation does not take the mode of ideas." - jean dubuffet "Art is not there to provide knowledge in direct ways. It produces deepened perceptions of experience. More must happen than simply logically understandable things. Art is not there to be simply understood, or we would have no need of art. It could then just be logical sentences in a form of a text for instance. Where objects are concerned it's more the sense of an indication or suggestion." - joseph beuys "People who look for symbolic meanings fail to grasp the inherent poetry and mystery of the image. By asking, "what does this mean?" they express a wish that everything be understandable. But if one does not reject the mystery, one has quite a different response. One asks other things." - rene magritte Are they to be understood as Newton to your Einstein? That seems a convenient dismissal without having to actually counter the forcefullness of their positions. I'm hesitant to subscribe to the paradigm of paradigmatic revolutions in art and art criticism. As you concede, art ain't science. curt: > Brakhage wasn't really making any sizeable waves in the 60s, and the > work he made a few years ago is as intriguing as anything he's ever > done. ben: It's not about waves, it's about the dialogue we as artists participate in by creating work. If what you do isn't challenging, you're not contributing to that dialogue. curt: Challenging by whose criteria? As Pall points out, abstraction of data flows can be particularly challenging from several angles beyond just pure abstraction. Here are a few pieces to consider: http://textarc.org (from a lit crit angle) http://www.turbulence.org/Works/song/mono.html (from a synesthetic angle) http://rhizome.org/rsg (from a play angle) ben: As the "contemporary art world" wrestles with how best to absorb us into their discussion, the problem they're encountering is not how best to fit us into a gallery, but rather how to [talk/write] about work that doesn't seem to have anything interesting to say. BUSTED. curt: I'm not sure which critics you're talking about and which artists your talking about here. Anyway, is it the artist's role to give critics "interesting" fodder? What if the artist is diametrically opposed to the contemporary paradigms of materialistic critical discourse? cf: http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/essays/curt.html ben: "Outsider" art will emerge from this network of insiders known as the "interweb" about as often as wild feral adults will emerge from Manhattan. curt: Sweet prose. Well played. ben: To call the distributed cognitive processing of the art community a "conceptual fashion show" is to declare war against intellectual pursuit! If we're going to go that route, how about you take all of the diamond-in-the-rough idiotSavant "outsiders" you can "discover," and I'll take all of the intellectually curious people who have anything to say. ;) curt: http://www.deepyoung.org/current/outsider/ http://www.deepyoung.org/current/dyskonceptual/ ben: the most interesting newmedia isn't happening on the front page of ArtForum, it's happening on and off lists like these. Unfortunately, we're just not engaging in enough critical discussion about that work. curt: I totally agree. But then some work doesn't lend itself well to contemporary critical dicussion. Is the problem with the work, or with contemporary modes of critical discussion? If all you can say of work like http://www.complexification.net is that it's FlashFormalism [insert silence], then I don't know where we go from there. ben: It's willful intellectual amnesia. curt: another juicy nugget. excellent. ben: We are, after all, talking about Chesterton, so let's not forget-to-remember that he was a curmudgeonly sometimes anti-Semite, full time anti-Feminist and an art-school-educated anti-Artist: "the artistic temperament is a disease that afflicts amateurs." curt: And Picasso was a womanizer. And Pollock an alcoholic. And Wagner! ben: We could [explain/understand] his now-controversial positions by examining his hystorical context, but by his own direction, maybe he would rather we ignore his context and take his creeds of that era at face value. curt: Indeed he would (he might even take issue with you tacking on "of that era"). Either his argument fits into your box ["chesterton is outmoded"], or your argument fits into his ["ben is using a contemporary rhetorical gambit to avoid having to wrestling with the veracity of old ideas by declaring them outmoded"]. rob: Illustrating fashionable art discourse *will* lead to footnotes. net.art's would-be-social-engagement was trivial, getting some critical *distance* and autonomy is a good next step. R&D rather than R&R. neil young: the lasers are in the lab the old man is dressed in white clothes everybody says he's mad no one knows the things that he knows rob: Regarding the art, silence can be a statement, fantasy can be realistic and formalism can have social content and meaning. curt: Agreed (and so pithily expressed!) Indeed, art is the one realm of human activity where abstraction and formalism can *speak* into the cultural "dialogue." But now it's time to muzzle them and move toward a more didactic coceptualism because... ? rob: Pure abstraction is resistant to the dominant mode of criticism (the dreary romanticism of the expanded text), and a semiotised (grammatical, algorithmic, kitsch) culture. It certainly seems to make some people uncomfortable, and not just the plebs who still don't grok it. In a society where aesthetics has long since triumphed over ethics, aesthetic engagement is social engagement with or without Adorno. Pure aesthetics may find a new space, or at least a new point or angle. The contempt that mediatised govenrments express for Media Studies is telling, it is mirrored in the contempt aestheticised critical regimes hold for aesthetics. One of the damn things is indeed enough. Break-out is needed to get back in. curt: agreed. plus it's so danged pretty! (does this mean I can keep my subscription to wallpaper magazine?) + + + Steve Kudlak <steve.kudlak AT cruzrights.org> added: Well if I survive my doctor's appointment, he says sounding as ominous as possible, I will try to make up a set of explicated links to various scientific visualization tools. It is interesting because the same things are happening there. People oh and ah over the "VISIT" technology which is great when one has a big group right there to talk to, but doesn't work as well with real distance learning. It is interesting that the old "Slides with a lot of explanation" technique has its probelms. This improvement seems to leave a little to be desired, its pretty obvious to me that it was used in situations where topics like "cyclogensis" were often discussed and knowing all the steps were second nature. It doesn't do as well with "distance learning" where people perhaps haven't thought about the details of the process until knowing it is second nature. So lots of animations and some overlayed maps don't help as much unless you have an instructor pointing out the "easy to see" and "obvious" features. In the case of actually teaching something that people have to know well I don't think one can be quite as dismissive as "let's leave that to the undergrads and go onto something I think of as neat and interesting" but I am indeed mixing at least Lemons and Oranges and all their levels of meaning. I guess I should ask "praytell what are these more interesting topics." Anyway let's see if I call rustle up some links for people to look into, and then maybe those of mystical bent will start about what they see in the clouds.;) The VISIT homepage: http://www.cira.colostate.edu/ramm/visit/visithome.asp The Cyclogenisis Talk (requires a bit of memory;) has nice "clouds in the coffee" water vapor imagery. One of the "baroclinic leaves" on water vapor looks like some little homonuceulus(spelling?) to me!;) http://www.cira.colostate.edu/ramm/visit/cyclo/title.asp This page has various imaging related to current weather: http://www.cira.colostate.edu/RAMM/Rmsdsol/main.html NEXSAT Pretty Pictures (that alas are seldom current, you can look at the map for Monterey and know why I am in a bad mood as of late.;) http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/nexsat_pages/nexsat_home.html Note night mode is partucularly pretty and makes a good desktop. The images/pictures here are apt to not be up to date, so all the old imaging stuff is still useful. Anyway...Have Fun, Sends Steve + + + Jess Loseby <jess AT rssgallery.com> added: apologies - house full of ill children and I'm trailing behind the thread... > so, if you want to use flash, that's cool. but just do it having > decided to make your work for folks on IE/winXP and not the web in > general. in fact, i can't think of anything that works well locally > AND the web. even Java acts more differently on different platforms > than they admit. But we have always assumed, if we make it for the > web, it should work everywhere. very little actually does. Is it true that *we* always have assumed that it will work everywhere? Limitations set by software, viewers hardware, connections speed, plug-ins have always had to be a consideration for artists no matter which platform they themselves favoured. Have artists really believed that a work was globally accessible simply because it was on the net? When I first starting making work for the I used to get it in the neck for 'proofing' work on lists to check what problems people had. The response form the *net.art technical department* was that I should now these things before I started if I was doing things 'properly' (always seemed mildly patronizing). I do proof them myself now on various systems but I don't think I pick up as many issues as I did when I asked others to look - I simply can't know all the variables. My observation is that a majority of artists seem well aware of the viewing issue inherent on the web and respond in a number of different ways. Many appear to 'spread' their work amougst a variety of formats that will make a certain amount accessible to each group in the knowledge that very little will be accessible to all. It seems a bigger problem for artists who will only produce work using one particular technique, but what do you say to them - diversify? My feeling generally it that it still bandwidth (particularly outside the US) that is the primary mediator to what people can and cannot view rather than browser. With the extension onto PDA's etc this is even more of an issue. I know viewing work on a pda for the first time for me was a wake-up call - like jumping back 6 years where i waited patiently on the end of a dodgy dial-up to view works I was told were 'multi-platform'. A best I would say that the all that is possible is to recommend a particular browser or connection speed but know that you may never be able to do enough to be accessible to all. The rise of adware and the necessity for anti-spam/pop-ups, raised browser security has restricted previously accessible work unless you are happy to reconfigure your browser in response to each site. As I said, I also use firefox and safari on a mac as well as IE on a pc and these issues seem affect all equally. I went to look at a friends stunning VRML datascapes the otherday, changed browsers, downloaded the software I needed, tweaked various settings and then my processor was too slow and it all fell over. Would you argue that he should he stop making them? I'm interested in your thoughts in this, not trying to be pedantic:) jess. o /^\ rssgallery.com ][ + + + Steve Kudlak <steve.kudlak AT cruzrights.org> replied: That's why I posted the weather links. They actually try to get it all to work reasonably well in a variety of circumstances. Note when I explain weather stuff to Junior High students I usually have made a journey around the various public facilities to see of things work in various places. I mean one has to consider that not all folks in their early teens have a computer and can tweak things as needed. I do note sometimes adults give up prematurely. They throw up their hands very easily and just give up, when just a few things would have got them what they wanted. Giggle, medical people are the worst in this regard I have found so far. They are also the worst at listening to the advice of others. But I do digress and besides that could be just my experience. In general it is nice to have things work across platforms and across browsers and hopefully if even moderately daunting tweaks are spelled out and various factors are taken into consideration. It is understandable that things don't work on all things and all cicumstances. But sometimes the disregard is pretty arrogant but that I saw coming from the commercial sector or the wannabe commercial sector. There was a site called "Dimestore Productions" and it was pretty slanted to the latest and greatest. If you were caught in some place like West Virginia you were pretty much out of luck if you wanted to use the innovations the webmaster seemed to be installing. He was pretty arrogant about it too. This is what I don't like to see done. When people get very callous about getting things to work. I know to some folks these are grungy little details best left to "those who deal with such" but they are as important. Have Fun, Sends Steve + + + Plasma Studii - uospn£ <office AT plasmastudii.org> replied: >Have artists >really believed that a work was globally accessible simply because >it was on the net? seemed like that's what you were disgruntled about, but if that's not a prob to you, then no prob.. >My feeling generally it that it still bandwidth (particularly >outside the US) that is the >primary mediator to what people can and cannot view rather than browser. but even if the connection speed is slow, once it is downloads, files will either work or not, regardless of the speed they got there. and no matter what the speed, you'll still have to download the file first. (streaming is essentially just downloading in pieces, rather than all at one time) bandwidth has no effect in this case. >I went to look at a friends stunning VRML datascapes the otherday, >changed browsers, >downloaded the software I needed, tweaked various settings and then >my processor >was too slow and it all fell over. Would you argue that he should he >stop making them? not at all. but he should acknowledge (and probably does) that you are not his target audience. + + + Pall Thayer <palli AT pallit.lhi.is> replied: > Thank you Pall, for providing a model for viewing these works. I remain > unswayed though; not to bank everything on your final analogy, but often > a data-fed work would look the same if it were fed random numbers, I beg to differ. Different types of data have very different "characteristics" and give very different results. I agree that from your first-year undergrads you're going to get quite a bit of work that focuses a bit too much on the technical aspect and is lacking in concept but that really has nothing to do with what we're talking about. There's a lot of work being done by seasoned artists that deliver intruiging concepts related to the data being used. > All "important" work is about ideas; Using fancy tricks is nothing new to art. It's been there from day one and there's a lot of "important" work that is "important" because of the methods applied by the artist. I'll bet the first cave-painters said something along the lines of, "Watch this guys, I'm going to make the image of a horse magically appear on this wall!" The renaissance and perspective. Which is regarded as more important today? The subject matter or the technical aspect? Sunday at the Grande Jatte, it's all about the method. The "technology". OK, it's a wonderfull painting, there's something about it, but according to the books that wasn't Seurat's priority. Method does involve ideas and a couple of centuries down the road there's going to be "important" work from today where the "method" has become an "idea". hope the kids feel better. + + + curt cloninger <curt AT lab404.com> replied: Hi Ben, cf: http://www.file.org.br/file2004/filescript/english/textos/lev.htm particularly the final section, "Meaningful Beauty: Data Mapping as Anti-sublime" Manovich's proposed solution is *not* to make artistic visualizations more accurately/sceintifically representative of their data sources. Instead, he seems to recommend the injection of personal subjectivity into the mapping process -- not an abandonment of abstraction altogether, but the pursuit of a more intentional/resonant/subjective abstraction. peace, curt + + + Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com> replied: On 6 Oct 2004, at 08:23, bensyverson wrote: > All "important" work is about ideas; even the works of > abstractExpressionists and 1970s minimalists made their own > provocative arguments. This is untrue in one very important way: art that is about ideas tends to the illustrative or unartistic. Art that generates or is steeped in ideas (aesthetics) is quite a different proposition. As you say it can make provocative arguments. These may remain provocative decades or centuries after they are first shown. Pollock's work isn't about paint any more than Kruger's is about feminist semiotics or Cezanne's is about apples and crockery. Imagine looking at Digital Art with this knowledge. - Rob. + + + Plasma Studii - uospn£ <office AT plasmastudii.org> replied: going off from what liza and jess were saying, i should probably add that i think it is fundamentally the foremost important aspect of any art (and maybe even anything we do), to identify and mould our target audience. one will spring up by default if we aren't conscious of it, but the (only?) benefit of our deformed cortexes is that we can choose to be responsible for our actions. making art where the artist is really the target audience, often the only person it communicates a desired message, is fine. but folks need to be honest about it and just show it to themselves. on the other hand, if the target audience is wider, the artist has as much need to communicate so that audience gets the message, as they would want to speak the same language as the person they are buying a car from. there is a big difference how we speak when we want/need to be understood, we cater to whom we are speaking. some art now targets (speaks to) the gallery owners, curators, other artists. but art seldom targets people outside that tight group. this is fine, but artists need to take on responsibility of creating a kind of elitism. to some degree it is already happening, and even rhizome is really a members-only club. as artists, we can either make work someone outside the art scene would enjoy, don't show others our artwork, or lock the uninitiated out of the art scene altogether, admit only those who are happy to invent messages and attribute them to the work. abstract expressionists had no message. communicated to no one. but greenberg made messages and projected them onto the work (the message that there doesn't have to be a message). projecting messages is a curious feature of the art world, but one the art world has tacitly agreed on. so long as outsiders don't investigate, both parties are satisfied, as if a real conversation took place. And outsiders rarely interfere since they see nothing but to people gesticulating wildly but in (what appears to be, though could arguably be a private language) jibberish. on the other hand, if artists have nothing to say or aren't successfully saying anything to non-artists, there's no reason they can't just make art for storage. everyone CAN decide for themselves who the target is, who they are really speaking to. what if there was nothing wrong with not showing, not trying to communicate specifically to others. what if there was just a lot less art out there. would that be so bad? + + + Jess Loseby <jess AT rssgallery.com> replied: Hi Liza, > I believe it is time for net artists to stop pretending anybody beyond > their immediate peers understand what they are doing. Seriously. Not > even the people in most arts organizations (I'm thinking granting > institutions and the like) understand the difference between creating > your own metasoftware in Java so you can create software art versus a > person who gets their hands on Flash and makes an animation. To this > day I find myself saying at art openings, "No, that Levin/Simon/Napier > is not an animation. It's software creating the art." To which they > most inevitably get the "deer in the headlights" look on their faces. > Ugh. I'm very intrested in what you say here and I hoping to raise an issue that has bothered me for a while. I suspect your immediate reaction will be to disagree because I am going to talk about the art object but bear with me..:) My observation is that it seems to me that artists, particularly those form whose work is engaged is in the technology/process as art have an enormous desire for *understanding* by the viewer (be the gallery curator or joe bloggs). Not enjoyment, engagement, interest, curiosity, admiration (although liked) but understanding. Non- process led artists seem less concerened about this - possibly because they don't understand it all themselves:) What confuses me is, process-led artists are often pioneers, and may have taken years to get to the stage when they can *do-what-they-do* but that they feel frustrated and disappointed when others don't 'get it'; Feel slandered when their innovative processes are mistaken for *lessor* ones - although their process may often be entirely new, radical and/or complex. My dilemma seems to be that alongside this frustration, the case seems to be being made that without understanding there can be no longevity for net.art - or at least process led net.art. I wondered if there are any other parallels with the art.objects outside of net.object where this is apparent. Obviously there are examples of process-led genres within art but I've been asking myself wether these works/artists that achieved longevity did so because of an understanding of the process or the accessibility. By accessibility, I mean could the viewer engage with either of the process or the resulting art.object: be that aesthetically, theoretically or conceptually etc (even without understanding). Of course, technology has always had the *advantage* of the *wow factor* which can circumnavigate the understanding or engagement of the art object but *wow* is by its very natural temporary. I simply cannot think of an example of an art *ism* or *movement* that was received with understanding at this stage in its development but the reason it became a *movement* or *ism* does seem to be an engagement. However, only digital works seem to be *relying* on understanding for longevity and support and to be honest, seems to see engagement as secondary. I suppose the root of my being uncomfortable with your email is this: Why is it a problem that people think that Levin/Simon/Napier is animation - they might think that tempera is a town in sussex and bronze casting is something you when you fish - is that stopping them accessing, appreciating and enjoying the artwork on a level? What is most worthwhile for the artist understanding or engagement? What will lead to longevity and support - understanding or engagement? What I think I am trying to say in my normal stream of colloquial verbal diarrhea is: did they like it? If they did, do they really need to understand it? In relation to this, this is the part that mostly caught my attention... > Think of the museum, the gallery, the academy, the audience and "the > market" as corporations as well. If you buy into the belief that art > is about the object and not the process, then a lot of the onus of > making an art "object" out of what is basically electricity, falls unto > you as well. > So you find yourself in a situation in which you've just > built from the ground up a meta-software that makes more software that > is then what we call "software art", but nobody --not even your peers-- > now about it because you've been focused on showing the final object > and not the process. And because you've spent all that time on the art > as object motif, your work --because it moves on a screen-- is still > being seen by the audience immediately outside of the net/software art > clique as animation or video because, you know, it moves. But engagement (ie they 'liked it') naturally comes before understanding unless you are a part of the creation of the 'ism' or 'movement itself. Why should net.art be different in the way than any other art form even though the art may be more diverse and our locations global? > You can't blame them. If you do not distinguish what you do from the "proven" art > forms, why should people understand what your work is about? But even if you were working in a complex new way in a *proven* form, would you expect understanding anyway? Wouldn't you expect to have to (for a long time anyway) repeat and explain until more people were able to take on the explanations...? The speed of change,development and diversity in net.art reflects our technology and our time, but the people [viewers] are the same as they ever were, at best - mildly interested and mildly excited until the work permeates the culture on a historical and sociological level. There simply hasn't been the time for this to happen yet surely? The process may be new, the artform may be new but its interesting that you used the word 'proven'. Surely, the only thing that 'proves' an artform is longevity and its simply too early to have achieved that yet. > Net Artists have been so caught up in the metaphor of the internet as a > space for communication and social interaction that, ironically, most > have not really used it as so in their own art spaces. Yes, there is > Rhizome and all those artsy lists. But you cannot bring Rhizome Raw > into your site and this is what each and every one of you should be > doing. Let the flaming begin. There, I have said it. > I truly believe that focusing on the conversations your art and art > process can create is the only way to not just push your work forward, > but to bring to light the artform you so lovingly/madly/cluelessly > pursue. > The net is not just a space, and the web is not just a canvas. They are > processes as well. They are because humans use them. Art Websites > should not be just galleries or studios. They need to be salons as > well; places where each artist can reveal their work and play, their > expertise and discoveries, their trials and tribulations. Totally agree with all of this but I would beg that it is remembered that the viewers in these human process need more than explanation and a revelation - they need access: to the works, to the diversity, to the net itself. This requires platforms which require artists collaborating and building them, not just in university conferences, gallery talks where the same handful of speakers are shared globally but public spaces. I guess I'm talking about accessible public portals as well as personal ones. On a non sequitur that's why I still think rhizome membership fees are such a bad idea > Yes people, I'm talking about the four letter words. > > Whether it is a wiki or a blog, I am talking about bringing social > technologies into artists sites. > absolutely agree. > It's been almost two years now since I wrote an art proposal, and quite > frankly, I don't miss it. Those things are ghastly especially because > software art, being a subset of a subset of art in most foundations, > never fits all the requirements for documentation. So they want a video > or slides of Shredder (I kid you not). In part because they are working > with old paradigms of art, and in part because they most of the time do > not have the "right browser" or the "right OS" or the "right hardware" > to run most net/software art in the first place. So they go with what > they think will be easy for them to use to judge the work > --misunderstandings and hilarity ensues. UGH. You see - this frightens the life out of me: that you haven't written an art proposal in two years - because this is a vital way you will reach the understanding that *you* are looking for: by getting the work seen as much a humanly possible. Who cares that *they* don't understand the process if they hand over the grant/exhibition space - you can give talks, papers, interviews when you've got the money to the make the work, it's in their space and people are viewing it. Who cares if they ask for slides if it means you will get them in a room to listen to your ideas? Of course its part of the ridiculous antiquated gallery system and there is no way they can get any real impression of the work but it is the lousy inheritance of the fine art world. One day they may enter the 21st century (even if they entered the 20th it would be nice) but that's the system we're shackled with. Do you really think that will be able to access the language of a blog or wiki if they can't access the internet itself? If they can't handle a screenshot how are they going to handle the screen unless you show them...? This is what brings me down to earth: in 2004 in the digital age I have just inducted a group of 1year art/media/performance students. Do you know what I had to do for the first session...teach them how to set up an email account and show them what a forum was and how to sign in! These are educated, 18-25 year olds, in an affluent area of the south of england. If they have hardly got their foot on the digital ladder how are the upper-middle aged, technophobic, cosseted curatorial army that's out there going to access net.art unless we lead them physically by the hand. I know there are exceptions to this, I know many children are digital savvy at seven and a rising number global curators who are devouring work and lists with excitement but I still hold that they are the still the exception. > I've blogmothered potatoland.blog. The intention? For the Head Potato > to post some code and start conversations around it. Rant against the > machines. Maybe even get some people to work out a bug or two. That > sort of thing. I'm even fixing to have guest writers write about their > favourite pieces... And in due time to raise resources for new projects. > > I'd love to try this experiment with more people. Be part of real-life > conversations started by artworks, but mediated through the blogs. See > what opportunities are opened up with this "new" socialization. Find > out what happens when an artist's site goes from portfolio to notebook > to salon, all in one swoop of technology. > I think this is fantastic, can only be a good thing and one vital part of what is needed - but please, please start writing proposals again as well. Its not enough to have innovative, beautiful work if the people whose understanding and appreciation *you* crave cannot access it. It is the irony of the accessible net that it has become so inaccessible. I truly believe that critical to the longevity of net art is not understanding but platforms, doorways, spaces and people physically handing out invites. I know alongside the potential, the technology, the multi user and the global possibilities - accessibility to the work was [is] one of the primary dynamics of being a net.artist. But with the proliferation of e-z-search and adware we are getting harder and harder to find. I know your visitor numbers would make mine look like a bus queue, but the slowness of the trickle-down affect to 'understanding' makes it a priority to all net artists to spend time gaining opportunities to show beyond the net - to lead people back to it. Added to this technology is expensive, we all need grants and opportunities and (please god!) time to do what we want to do. The more net.artists prioritise getting their own opportunities the more will be created. The more oppertunities, the more chances for the works to engage and understanding to come. Its frustrating, time consuming and the majority of the time boring as hell - but without signposts and explanation to allow them to engage, I simply think we are asking to much of people to understand and support what they simply don't know how to access and longevity will not be obtainable. best as ever, and waiting for the flames:) jess. o /^\ rssgallery.com ][ + + + bensyverson <rhizome AT bensyverson.com> replied: GoodDay, > curt: > I agree with Rob and Pall here. There is a way to critically discuss > abstraction that may involve engaging in formalistic/graphic design > aesthetics that seem outmoded to you. So we can't discuss them > because such critical discourse is not currently en vogue? But aren't > we the ones (critics, artists, curators) who shape where the critical > dialogue is going? Yes, and that's exactly the point. So if you find aesthetic discussions titillating ("ooh, more brown!" ... "too many boxes!"), by all means, keepOnRawxin'InTheFreeWorld. I'm just trying to publicly raise the issue of whether this is how we want to let newMedia come to be defined. If it nM does become pigeon-holed as nice-looking clickable data pictures, I won't be a part of it, and neither will a lot of people who are currently engaged with this discussion. It's great that you bring up graphicDsign, because one needs only to look at your local graphicDsign [college/department] to see the Jihad that's being waged on ideas there. Kids arrive in graphicDsign classes expecting to receive training in industry-standard applications and be kept up-to-date on industry design trends, so that they may graduate with sufficient "mastery" to be employable as designers directly out of college. The expectation is that you can be trained as a Dsigner just like you can be trained as a XeroxMechanic. Given the radical artistic, conceptual and social hystorical hyperthreads that make up the area-of-activity we delineate (for economic reasons) as "graphicDsign," I find myself dismayed that the graduates of these programs are more excited about software upgrades than the ideas they're working with. And this is your model for how you want to talk about nM? Does anyone else have a problem with this? > If things on the net are becoming more hodge-podged and interbred with > pop culture, what's to keep art critics from approaching such pieces > as rock music critics or graphic design aesthetes? You miss the point that this interbreeding affects the critics as well, so that our artCritics can approach work not from "defined" perspectives (like that of a rock-onlyCritic, art-onlyCritic, Dsign-only enthusiast), but from a perspective that realizes how much everything bleeds together. So an artCritic approaching a piece as a rockCritic is simply being fatuous in [his/her] disregard for the dynamics which come to form creative "pieces" in our world. > Casey Reas is re-discovering Sol LeWitt and taking his > instruction-based conceptualism to a more gorgeously abstract level. Sure, but Casey's praxis is grounded in broader artEducational and artwarePopulism concepts, and is anything but design for design's sake. > None of this seems intellectually bereft to me, nor does it seem out > of bounds or culturally irrelevant. If one current artistic mode is > the remix, then we can expect to see earlier aspects of the "art > tapestry" show up in the mix as well (whether consciously or > unconsciously). Of course -- to be flip, that's all part of the blender we call life. In liken, the system I put in place on criticalartware.net, those partially digested chunks present themselves as part of hyperConnextive informationSuperTrails. The piece I'm missing is how to understand this pureFormalist newMedia in relation to those hyperChunks. Pall gave us the "TMI" model, but I don't think that's adequate to fuel or sustain this much discussion. If there is more intellectual life to FlashFormalism, someone please fill me in! > curt: > But is the sum of the worth of their art the fact that they were > remembered for it? Had they not been remembered, would their art > still have value as art? Can it still be appreciated out of the > context of its production? There are plenty of artists who have > gained notoriety for their craft and invention, working within a > pre-defined tradition they didn't pioneer. Pre-impressionist artists, > craftspeople in local artisan subcultures. Yeah, and they all weave their own beautiful life narratives. However, out of convenience, we don't attempt to talk about Every Single Artist Who Ever Lived, so we tend to focus on the ones who ignited our imaginations by doing things differently, and challenging the assumptions of the day. Those are the people we remember and discuss. No one wants to downplay the importance of an artisan who lived in 1825 and passed the traditional weaving style from one generation to another. However, it's facetious to suggest that [he/she] individually deserves the same amount of time in our discussion as Sol LeWitt, for example. Further, I take special exception to your implication that pre-Impressionist artists (ie, ALL art before the 19th century?) didn't "pioneer" anything of note, and are remembered for their "craft and invention." In reality, pre-Impressionist art is chock full of conceptualism, scandals, controversy and vigorous intellectual debate. They may all just look like Jesus paintings to you, but back then, even small formal differences were considered astonishing. Perspective was a ground-shakingly radical idea at one point. Paintings and sculptures had the raw visceral power that movies tend to claim today; they moved women to faint, men to kill, and artists to be ex-communicated. The idea that you would lump this group with craftspeople and artisans demonstrates a ghastly mischaracterization of artHystory. > curt: > So you assert. Here are some contrary voices: Have you ever heard of "anti-marketing marketing?" This is the strategy where you position yourself as against the system in order to catch the anti-marketing demographic in your audience. Take for example the Sprite ad campaigns of the past few years, which for the most part position themselves as beyond the hype -- the message is "drink whatever you want to! Just obey your thirst!" Same deal here. After (and during) the 1960s, people were growing tired of an art world crowded with "hippies," over-expressiveness, politicization and didactics. Minimalism was a knee-jerk reaction to that time, and many artists saw themselves as antiConcept, antiArt, antiCriticism. How embarrassing it must have been for them to be so hungrily swallowed and digested by the conceptual artCriticism machine they seemed to dislike so much. I won't bother to address each artist, as this could go on forever, but each of the artists you mention raised important questions and sparked immense debate, even if their work did most of the speaking. It's ludicrous to suggest they weren't engaged in the intellectual discussions of their times. > Challenging by whose criteria? As Pall points out, abstraction of > data flows can be particularly challenging from several angles beyond > just pure abstraction. Here are a few pieces to consider: Okay, lets consider them. > http://textarc.org (from a lit crit angle) This is a fantastic tongue-in-cheek piece from my perspective, but it is absolutely not abstract, nonConceptual, or formalist. This work engages with many debates, from ontological cartography and the problems with attempting to map concepts, to the struggle for interfaces to navigate such a multiVerse of meaning. criticalartware has a somewhat similar navigational system that allows a fixed-2D mapping of the relationships between all of our nodes: http://www.criticalartware.net/lib/liken/interfaces/nodemap/ > http://www.turbulence.org/Works/song/mono.html (from a synesthetic > angle) And you present yet another [navigational/cartographic] interface work which is neither abstract, nonConceptual or formalist. "The Shape of Song" is a fascinating way to [visualize/navigate] the patterns of music, and clearly has much to say. > http://rhizome.org/rsg (from a play angle) All of Radical Software Group's work, or Carnivore in particular? Carnivore is a particularly bad choice for you to hold up as an [abstract/nonConceptual/formalist] posterChild. Carnivore as a [project/platform] has a clear political and conceptual message about government and surveillance, and as it does nothing on its own, is indeed almost 100% conceptual -- before you can see or hear anything, you have to use a "client" to interpret the network data. These clients range from the conceptual to the pure formalist, but I'm not sure you can pin that on RSG -- after all, Carnivore is a complete conceptual artWork even without any clients, but the clients depend completely on Carnivore both conceptually and technically. > curt: > I'm not sure which critics you're talking about and which artists your > talking about here. Anyway, is it the artist's role to give critics > "interesting" fodder? Are you joking or not? Regardless, its the artist's role to make work which she is interested in, but it is her peer's role to provide criticism, discussion, debate, community and inspiration. I'd like to see more criticism and debate happening in our community. > Sweet prose. Well played. Thank my mother the Buddhist CyberRhetorician. ;) > http://www.deepyoung.org/current/outsider/ I can only play amateurCritic to your URIs for so long, Cloninger! :) Briefly looking at the above URI, I can't discern whether or not the authors of a couple of these pieces are being ironically retarditaire or if they are straightforward creative expressions. A few of them are fully situated in an artWorld context, some are by well-known artists. Clearly all of them draw from the globalVisualCultureMashup, and none of them are "outsiders." > http://www.deepyoung.org/current/dyskonceptual/ Some (well, really all) of these pieces are strikingly beautiful, but like candy bars, after the sweet taste, I'm left hungry for substance. None of the works [upset/surprised/confused/challenged] me sufficiently for me to remember them. That's my personal experience, but I'm suggesting that there are others who are unsatisfied with this FlashFormalism. > I totally agree. But then some work doesn't lend itself well to > contemporary critical dicussion. Is the problem with the work, or > with contemporary modes of critical discussion? You keep suggesting that contemporary critical discussion is somehow at fault for not "getting" the real work happening, when in reality, this is contemporary critical discourse right here on this list. If the people on this list respond to the work in silence, I would suggest that they aren't significantly affected by it, and I think that is indeed a problem with the work. > If all you can say of work like http://www.complexification.net is > that it's FlashFormalism [insert silence], then I don't know where we > go from there. It may be a fine distinction, but while I love the complexification.net work as astonishingly gorgeous [images/applets], I would hesitate to discuss the pieces in an art context. They are unmistakably powerful demonstrations of the power of a systemsApproach to artMaking, so certain people may find them shocking, and perhaps that's enough to entertain some discussion of them in an art context. Maybe they're inspirational enough that we don't need to even question their relevance. However, I can't imagine anybody from this list being very intellectually stimulated by these works; anyone with a passing familiarity with newMedia (or computerHystory) has seen bales full of work like this (albeit not always as beautiful). If it isn't FlashFormalism, what does it have to say? Lets compare it to some very similar works. What about Doug James' animation of 3,600 chairs stacked up and then colliding and deforming when knocked down? ( http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.08/play.html?pg=3 and http://graphics.cs.cmu.edu/projects/bdtree/etheater/ ) Here is a rule-based system that is producing a jaw-dropping and aesthetically astonishing feat, to the service of nothing but itself, just like complexification.net. What about Massive, Weta Digital's crowd simulation software ( http://www.massivesoftware.com/ )? I pose the question back to this community: if you're bored enough to be reading so far, is the complexification.net work intellectually stimulating? If it isn't, should we bother talking about it, and if so, why exactly? > Agreed (and so pithily expressed!) Indeed, art is the one realm of > human activity where abstraction and formalism can *speak* into the > cultural "dialogue." But now it's time to muzzle them and move toward > a more didactic coceptualism because... ? Wake up -- no one's muzzling them -- they just have nothing to say! I just want everyone to realize the path that newMedia is on, namely the screensaverization of our field. If anyone here is interested in real ideas, we need to get criticality back, and start raising a ruckus about all this technoPositivism and intellectually bankrupt abstraction! - ben + + + bensyverson <rhizome AT bensyverson.com> replied: On Oct 6, 2004, at 1:52 PM, Pall Thayer wrote: > There's a lot of work being done by seasoned artists that deliver > intruiging concepts related to the data being used. EXACTLY. There must be a [challenging/intriguing/upsetting] conceptual element for anyone to take interest. > Sunday at the Grande Jatte, it's all about the method. The > "technology". OK, it's a wonderfull painting, there's something about > it, but according to the books that wasn't Seurat's priority. Method > does involve ideas and a couple of centuries down the road there's > going to be "important" work from today where the "method" has become > an "idea". I totally agree -- Seurat's method was a vehicle for his socially radical concepts, addressing (as many Impressionists did) Science and Progress as oppressive, particularly as weapons against the "lower" class. It's also a good example to bring up, because Seurat developed his own idiosyncratic [process/methodology] -- I can guarantee that if Seurat were alive today, he wouldn't be working in FlashMX. Flash makes you far to complicit to make a statement as radical as Seurat's; Macromedia loves when people create pretty pictures in Flash. So the point is that abstraction fueled by data is not automatically interesting; there need to be, as you say "intriguing concepts related to the data being used," and a method that "involve[s] ideas." Ideas: 1 FlashFormalism: 0 BUSTED. - ben + + + Liza Sabater <blogdiva AT culturekitchen.com> replied: On Wednesday, Oct 6, 2004, at 10:25 America/New_York, Southworth, Kate wrote: > Liza, this is exactly the sort of space we are exploring in our work, > although possibly from a slightly different perspective, so if you > find anything that interests you in fuorange and the accompanying > paper we would really love to work with you on it. Hey Kate, Long time no read! I've been following the thread but am in the middle of putting together some punditry about the debates and dealing with some work. I'll respond fully soon. FYI, I am really serious about setting up people with blogs. I'll have more to follow soon. Best, l i z a + + + Liza Sabater <blogdiva AT culturekitchen.com> replied: On Wednesday, Oct 6, 2004, at 19:25 America/New_York, Jess Loseby wrote: > I wondered if there are any other parallels with the art.objects outside of net.object where this is apparent. The short answer: Yes. Where: Education. Parenting. Business. Journalism. Health. Software development --just to name a few. More soon. / l i z a + + + bensyverson <rhizome AT bensyverson.com> replied: On Oct 6, 2004, at 3:27 PM, ryan griffis wrote: > What is this "real criticalDiscourse" that you feel is lacking in the > art world? i'm not being antagonistic to "art about ideas" - what > isn't about ideas? Well, I think all art is about ideas, regardless of its creators intentions, just as I think all art tells a political story as well. The issue I'm raising is whether this FlashFormalism is about the ideas we find interesting, and if the discussion around it is critical enough. You put me in a tricky position; I don't want to call anyone out individually, because it's not about individual artworks, it's about the tone of the discussion. One problem with this kind of work is that by masking or disavowing its [ideas/politics], it becomes susceptible to projection. So people like me will look at it and say "wow, in a time of war, in a US election year, with a shadowGov ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1850236.stm ) doing gawdKnowsWhat, with corporations worldWide gaining power and influence at alarming rates, with oppressive software patent policies threatening developers, with an artWorld eagerly looking to us for the nextBigThing, THIS person has decided to generate random colors based on mouse location in FlashMX, to the delight of Macromedia. Sounds like a gigantic THUMBS UP to the status quo." Granted, I'm an ass. That doesn't change the fact that "no statement" is in fact one of the most telling. > But i'm reading this looking for the stakes - what's (y)our investment > in any of this? My investment is a decade of engaging with the web. I'd like to see newMedia thrive, and to do that we need to breed our own critical voices rather than wait for the artWorld to supply them. The discourse I do see isn't very critical. I see a lot of show+tell. > If you're saying that ReadMe, Rhizome, etc are where this > work/activity is being done, is your criticism about larger inclusion? > What is it you think people should be talking/writing about that they > aren't? No, we have enough inclusion. There are no barriers beyond the digitalDivide that prevent anyone from engagingWith && contributingTo newMedia. The problem is that as a community, we don't understand where we came from, and we're not very concerned with where we're going. > But this talk about "the current moment" sounds an awful lot like the > telecommunications industry. Interesting -- what would you prefer? > If Koons was producing his paintings via cell phone or bluetooth > enabled art, would he be more relevant to the discussion? At the moment, according to this crowd, unfortunately yes -- but if we were a little more critical, I would think it would be a resounding NO. - ben + + + bensyverson <rhizome AT bensyverson.com> replied: On Oct 6, 2004, at 2:29 PM, curt cloninger wrote: > Manovich's proposed solution is *not* to make artistic visualizations > more accurately/sceintifically representative of their data sources. > Instead, he seems to recommend the injection of personal subjectivity > into the mapping process -- not an abandonment of abstraction > altogether, but the pursuit of a more intentional/resonant/subjective > abstraction. mosDef. I would never argue that art needs to have any [representational/scientific/scrutable/"accurate"] aspects, but if you are going to deal with abstraction, you must do it with an understanding of the hystorical threads of abstraction (so that you are aware of the references you will make) and the hystorical threads of newMedia (for the same reasons). Then, if the work doesn't speak for itself, you have to be prepared to discuss the connexions you made. To this viewer, it's not enough to say "it's abstract, you know, its all graphic designy and shit. You like graphic design, right?" Especially when this is accompanied with the implication that graphicDsign is somehow apolitical and purely formal. This particular [viewer/listener] is not likely to be profoundly moved by abstraction ever in his lifetime, and whatever your excuses for making art are, the goal of every artist is to make a powerful statement. So if there are ideas to back up this FlashFormalism, they're going to have to be way more convincing that "TMI" - ben + + + bensyverson <rhizome AT bensyverson.com> replied: On Oct 6, 2004, at 2:30 PM, Rob Myers wrote: > This is untrue in one very important way: art that is about ideas > tends to the illustrative or unartistic. Art that generates or is > steeped in ideas (aesthetics) is quite a different proposition. As you > say it can make provocative arguments. These may remain provocative > decades or centuries after they are first shown. I absolutely agree (except for the part about art about ideas tending towards the unartistic). I'm not suggesting that art must be *about* ideas (although there's plenty of good work that's about ideas), but that art should at least *have* ideas or at least be the product of intellectual pursuit. > Pollock's work isn't about paint any more than Kruger's is about > feminist semiotics or Cezanne's is about apples and crockery. This business, I'm not so sure about... - ben + + + Jess Loseby <jess AT rssgallery.com> replied: Hi Liza, > I believe it is time for net artists to stop pretending anybody beyond > their immediate peers understand what they are doing. Seriously. Not > even the people in most arts organizations (I'm thinking granting > institutions and the like) understand the difference between creating > your own metasoftware in Java so you can create software art versus a > person who gets their hands on Flash and makes an animation. To this > day I find myself saying at art openings, "No, that Levin/Simon/Napier > is not an animation. It's software creating the art." To which they > most inevitably get the "deer in the headlights" look on their faces. > Ugh. I'm very intrested in what you say here and I hoping to raise an issue that has bothered me for a while. I suspect your immediate reaction will be to disagree because I am going to talk about the art object but bear with me..:) My observation is that it seems to me that artists, particularly those form whose work is engaged is in the technology/process as art have an enormous desire for *understanding* by the viewer (be the gallery curator or joe bloggs). Not enjoyment, engagement, interest, curiosity, admiration (although liked) but understanding. Non- process led artists seem less concerened about this - possibly because they don't understand it all themselves:) What confuses me is, process-led artists are often pioneers, and may have taken years to get to the stage when they can *do-what-they-do* but that they feel frustrated and disappointed when others don't 'get it'; Feel slandered when their innovative processes are mistaken for *lessor* ones - although their process may often be entirely new, radical and/or complex. My dilemma seems to be that alongside this frustration, the case seems to be being made that without understanding there can be no longevity for net.art - or at least process led net.art. I wondered if there are any other parallels with the art.objects outside of net.object where this is apparent. Obviously there are examples of process-led genres within art but I've been asking myself wether these works/artists that achieved longevity did so because of an understanding of the process or the accessibility. By accessibility, I mean could the viewer engage with either of the process or the resulting art.object: be that aesthetically, theoretically or conceptually etc (even without understanding). Of course, technology has always had the *advantage* of the *wow factor* which can circumnavigate the understanding or engagement of the art object but *wow* is by its very natural temporary. I simply cannot think of an example of an art *ism* or *movement* that was received with understanding at this stage in its development but the reason it became a *movement* or *ism* does seem to be an engagement. However, only digital works seem to be *relying* on understanding for longevity and support and to be honest, seems to see engagement as secondary. I suppose the root of my being uncomfortable with your email is this: Why is it a problem that people think that Levin/Simon/Napier is animation - they might think that tempera is a town in sussex and bronze casting is something you when you fish - is that stopping them accessing, appreciating and enjoying the artwork on a level? What is most worthwhile for the artist understanding or engagement? What will lead to longevity and support - understanding or engagement? What I think I am trying to say in my normal stream of colloquial verbal diarrhea is: did they like it? If they did, do they really need to understand it? In relation to this, this is the part that mostly caught my attention... > Think of the museum, the gallery, the academy, the audience and "the > market" as corporations as well. If you buy into the belief that art > is about the object and not the process, then a lot of the onus of > making an art "object" out of what is basically electricity, falls unto > you as well. > So you find yourself in a situation in which you've just > built from the ground up a meta-software that makes more software that > is then what we call "software art", but nobody --not even your peers-- > now about it because you've been focused on showing the final object > and not the process. And because you've spent all that time on the art > as object motif, your work --because it moves on a screen-- is still > being seen by the audience immediately outside of the net/software art > clique as animation or video because, you know, it moves. But engagement (ie they 'liked it') naturally comes before understanding unless you are a part of the creation of the 'ism' or 'movement itself. Why should net.art be different in the way than any other art form even though the art may be more diverse and our locations global? > You can't blame them. If you do not distinguish what you do from the "proven" art > forms, why should people understand what your work is about? But even if you were working in a complex new way in a *proven* form, would you expect understanding anyway? Wouldn't you expect to have to (for a long time anyway) repeat and explain until more people were able to take on the explanations...? The speed of change,development and diversity in net.art reflects our technology and our time, but the people [viewers] are the same as they ever were, at best - mildly interested and mildly excited until the work permeates the culture on a historical and sociological level. There simply hasn't been the time for this to happen yet surely? The process may be new, the artform may be new but its interesting that you used the word 'proven'. Surely, the only thing that 'proves' an artform is longevity and its simply too early to have achieved that yet. > > Net Artists have been so caught up in the metaphor of the internet as a > space for communication and social interaction that, ironically, most > have not really used it as so in their own art spaces. Yes, there is > Rhizome and all those artsy lists. But you cannot bring Rhizome Raw > into your site and this is what each and every one of you should be > doing. Let the flaming begin. There, I have said it. > I truly believe that focusing on the conversations your art and art > process can create is the only way to not just push your work forward, > but to bring to light the artform you so lovingly/madly/cluelessly > pursue. > > The net is not just a space, and the web is not just a canvas. They are > processes as well. They are because humans use them. Art Websites > should not be just galleries or studios. They need to be salons as > well; places where each artist can reveal their work and play, their > expertise and discoveries, their trials and tribulations. > Totally agree with all of this but I would beg that it is remembered that the viewers in these human process need more than explanation and a revelation - they need access: to the works, to the diversity, to the net itself. This requires platforms which require artists collaborating and building them, not just in university conferences, gallery talks where the same handful of speakers are shared globally but public spaces. I guess I'm talking about accessible public portals as well as personal ones. On a non sequitur that's why I still think rhizome membership fees are such a bad idea > Yes people, I'm talking about the four letter words. > > Whether it is a wiki or a blog, I am talking about bringing social > technologies into artists sites. > absolutely agree. > It's been almost two years now since I wrote an art proposal, and quite > frankly, I don't miss it. Those things are ghastly especially because > software art, being a subset of a subset of art in most foundations, > never fits all the requirements for documentation. So they want a video > or slides of Shredder (I kid you not). In part because they are working > with old paradigms of art, and in part because they most of the time do > not have the "right browser" or the "right OS" or the "right hardware" > to run most net/software art in the first place. So they go with what > they think will be easy for them to use to judge the work > --misunderstandings and hilarity ensues. UGH. You see - this frightens the life out of me: that you haven't written an art proposal in two years - because this is a vital way you will reach the understanding that *you* are looking for: by getting the work seen as much a humanly possible. Who cares that *they* don't understand the process if they hand over the grant/exhibition space - you can give talks, papers, interviews when you've got the money to the make the work, it's in their space and people are viewing it. Who cares if they ask for slides if it means you will get them in a room to listen to your ideas? Of course its part of the ridiculous antiquated gallery system and there is no way they can get any real impression of the work but it is the lousy inheritance of the fine art world. One day they may enter the 21st century (even if they entered the 20th it would be nice) but that's the system we're shackled with. Do you really think that will be able to access the language of a blog or wiki if they can't access the internet itself? If they can't handle a screenshot how are they going to handle the screen unless you show them...? This is what brings me down to earth: in 2004 in the digital age I have just inducted a group of 1year art/media/performance students. Do you know what I had to do for the first session...teach them how to set up an email account and show them what a forum was and how to sign in! These are educated, 18-25 year olds, in an affluent area of the south of england. If they have hardly got their foot on the digital ladder how are the upper-middle aged, technophobic, cosseted curatorial army that's out there going to access net.art unless we lead them physically by the hand. I know there are exceptions to this, I know many children are digital savvy at seven and a rising number global curators who are devouring work and lists with excitement but I still hold that they are the still the exception. > I've blogmothered potatoland.blog. The intention? For the Head Potato > to post some code and start conversations around it. Rant against the > machines. Maybe even get some people to work out a bug or two. That > sort of thing. I'm even fixing to have guest writers write about their > favourite pieces... And in due time to raise resources for new projects. > > I'd love to try this experiment with more people. Be part of real-life > conversations started by artworks, but mediated through the blogs. See > what opportunities are opened up with this "new" socialization. Find > out what happens when an artist's site goes from portfolio to notebook > to salon, all in one swoop of technology. > I think this is fantastic, can only be a good thing and one vital part of what is needed - but please, please start writing proposals again as well. Its not enough to have innovative, beautiful work if the people whose understanding and appreciation *you* crave cannot access it. It is the irony of the accessible net that it has become so inaccessible. I truly believe that critical to the longevity of net art is not understanding but platforms, doorways, spaces and people physically handing out invites. I know alongside the potential, the technology, the multi user and the global possibilities - accessibility to the work was [is] one of the primary dynamics of being a net.artist. But with the proliferation of e-z-search and adware we are getting harder and harder to find. I know your visitor numbers would make mine look like a bus queue, but the slowness of the trickle-down affect to 'understanding' makes it a priority to all net artists to spend time gaining opportunities to show beyond the net - to lead people back to it. Added to this technology is expensive, we all need grants and opportunities and (please god!) time to do what we want to do. The more net.artists prioritise getting their own opportunities the more will be created. The more oppertunities, the more chances for the works to engage and understanding to come. Its frustrating, time consuming and the majority of the time boring as hell - but without signposts and explanation to allow them to engage, I simply think we are asking to much of people to understand and support what they simply don't know how to access and longevity will not be obtainable. best as ever, and waiting for the flames:) jess. o /^\ rssgallery.com ][ + + + Francis Hwang <francis AT rhizome.org> replied: On Oct 5, 2004, at 3:06 PM, curt cloninger wrote: > It was initially set to happen at the Fine Arts Theater downtown where > they have been showing the short films, but the owner of the theatre > refused to host it because, in his own words, "there's no money in > interactivity." Which is hilarious now that the gaming industry makes > 3 times more money than Hollywood, but anyway. Sorry to be didactic, but is this really true? Every time I've looked into these numbers, they're always incorrect comparisons because they compare Hollywood's box office gross with video games' retail sales -- and completely ignore the billions that Hollywood makes through DVDs, VHS tapes, and license replays of movies on TV, never mind selling all those damned Matrix posters. I like me some video games, but I still do not believe they surpass film as a cultural force. Why? Because whenever I want to talk about video games I have to be careful not to dive into them too much if I'm in a group of people who may not give a shit. (This often plays out on gender lines a bit, but not always.) I never have to do that with movies. I hear "I don't play video games" a lot more than I hear "I don't watch movies". Francis Hwang Director of Technology Rhizome.org phone: 212-219-1288x202 AIM: francisrhizome + + + Francis Hwang <francis AT rhizome.org> replied: On Oct 6, 2004, at 12:02 AM, curt cloninger wrote: > Art can speak individual to individual without proceeding through the > sanctioned filters of the "contemporary art world" and still have > great value and "potency" (yea, even potency for ye olde precious > social change). This is the interesting thing about outsider art and > one of the things I think the net is good for (if we'll let it be). > Human culture has changed a great deal, but individual humans have > been wired pretty much the same for a good while. Yup. I don't think its necessarily a given that new media arts can become less ghetto-ized by being more closely associated with the arts world as a whole. The art world doesn't seem to be very good at de-ghettoizing itself. I think it's profoundly meaningful that MOMA's new admissions fee is $20 -- I have a lot of friends who never ever pay that much money to get into somewhere unless they're going to see a big-name rock star like Prince or Morrissey or Nick Cave. I'm sure that the MOMA people did their market research and decided that the high admissions fee will work out fine for them, but what does it portend for the ability of just anybody to spend an afternoon carousing the galleries if they're not already heavily invested in that world--i.e., they're an artist, designer, dealer, critic, etc. ... I look at the field of classical music and wonder if fine arts is heading in that direction. Do you suppose we'll ever see the day when people in the arts sit around fretting about how to get more young people into art? Francis Hwang Director of Technology Rhizome.org phone: 212-219-1288x202 AIM: francisrhizome + + + t.whid <twhid AT twhid.com> added: On Oct 7, 2004, at 1:43 PM, Francis Hwang wrote: > > On Oct 6, 2004, at 12:02 AM, curt cloninger wrote: >> Art can speak individual to individual without proceeding through the >> sanctioned filters of the "contemporary art world" and still have >> great value and "potency" (yea, even potency for ye olde precious >> social change). This is the interesting thing about outsider art and >> one of the things I think the net is good for (if we'll let it be). >> Human culture has changed a great deal, but individual humans have >> been wired pretty much the same for a good while. > > Yup. I don't think its necessarily a given that new media arts can > become less ghetto-ized by being more closely associated with the arts > world as a whole. The art world doesn't seem to be very good at > de-ghettoizing itself. But still, new media is a ghetto within (or perhaps a suburb of) what could be argued is the ghetto of the art world. I'm not sure if I buy the art world as ghetto. Exhibits A and B being Barney and Currin at the Guggenheim. Anecdotally, people whom I know aren't generally familiar with contemporary art visited these exhibitions. And there are plenty of other 'blockbuster' exhibitions of more established names (Picasso, Monet, blah, blah). But I'm ambivalent, it's hard not to notice that, generally speaking, contemporary art has a very small footprint in American culture. But is it because it's a ghetto? Or because it's a shining city on a hill? > > I think it's profoundly meaningful that MOMA's new admissions fee is > $20 -- I have a lot of friends who never ever pay that much money to > get into somewhere unless they're going to see a big-name rock star > like Prince or Morrissey or Nick Cave. I'm sure that the MOMA people > did their market research and decided that the high admissions fee > will work out fine for them, but what does it portend for the ability > of just anybody to spend an afternoon carousing the galleries if > they're not already heavily invested in that world--i.e., they're an > artist, designer, dealer, critic, etc. ... > > I look at the field of classical music and wonder if fine arts is > heading in that direction. Do you suppose we'll ever see the day when > people in the arts sit around fretting about how to get more young > people into art? === <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid> === + + + Curt Cloninger <curt AT lab404.com> replied: Hi Francis. I haven't done any research. I just like to throw around dramatic statistics that prove my point. (In this instance, it was an independent film theatre, so I don't think it's much of a stretch to say video games outsell independent films.) I found this article: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Artic le_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1084486208944 It seems like they are comparing gaming hardware+software sales to movie box office revenue. I'd like to see a more detailed break down comparing game rentals, movie rentals, etc. peace, curt + + + t.whid <twhid AT twhid.com> replied: On Oct 6, 2004, at 7:54 PM, bensyverson wrote: > I pose the question back to this community: if you're bored enough to > be reading so far, is the complexification.net work intellectually > stimulating? not to me. You're thoughtful reply was anything but boring and brought up many good points that I hope to respond to/reply to/comment on... > If it isn't, should we bother talking about it, and if so, why exactly? There is nothing to talk about. It's not formally, conceptually or aesthetically groundbreaking. It's pleasant. Even from a purely formal graphic design angle it's not very progressive: How is it different from my screensaver or iTunes visualizer other than it uses much more tasteful colors? It's cool that a lot of it seems to be OSS. === <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid> === + + + Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com> replied: On 7 Oct 2004, at 03:57, bensyverson wrote: > I absolutely agree (except for the part about art about ideas tending > towards the unartistic). I'm not suggesting that art must be *about* > ideas (although there's plenty of good work that's about ideas), but > that art should at least *have* ideas or at least be the product of > intellectual pursuit. In order for art to have ideas, for it to be critically interesting, it must have some degree of autonomy and it must be problematic for criticism (and language), of which it is the object. Critics (as we are being here), must look at it and curse the artists' name because they can see that there's something there, but they're going to have to work out what it is rather than reel off DeleuzeGuattariBaudrillardDerrida and go to bed early. This is not the difficult art argument. This is the good art argument. ;-) There are definite ideas in Flash formalism, and it is a definite social product, more so than the dreary new media weekend marxism of politically engaged net.art. The fact that FF defeats our critical language yet is striking, engaging, is healthy for all concerned. Imagine a world in which formal, algorithmic, visual art was realistic, necessary, even urgent. Now work back from that world to our own. Think of the impressionists, their tube paint and the new railroad network that took them from Paris to the nearby scenery they painted. Of the abstract expressionists, artificial mediums and individualism. Form follows function. Art has a social function. Cue jokes about recursion and currying. These pseudo-chaotic structures and seemingly ordered systems are our lives rendered for us to see, the space we live in (or that is dictated to us). This is how it is. This is keeping it real. The mapping is defensible. Don't shoot the messengers. ;-) >> Pollock's work isn't about paint any more than Kruger's is about >> feminist semiotics or Cezanne's is about apples and crockery. > > This business, I'm not so sure about... It'll grow on ya. ;-) - Rob. + + + jm Haefner <j.haefner AT sbcglobal.net> added: Of course, the noble thing to do is work for one's own reasons, but today how often is that really true? How can an artist be such without someone knowing about their work in some way? Artist seems to presume some thing is to be experienced that was created by them. Yes, the areas we choose to explore are purely our choice, but once it's put out in the world it becomes something entirely different. If thought is focused on the outside world viewing our work...it becomes about all that goes along with it. Like the artist statement -now the work is not the focus, but THE ARTIST. Culturally, I think we are setting up another form of audience targeting by providing competitions. It's a kind of self censoring in reverse. Hummm even art for storage seems to presume someone will take a look at it -don't you think. Jean + + + Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com> replied: On 7 Oct 2004, at 00:54, bensyverson wrote: > So if you find aesthetic discussions titillating ("ooh, more brown!" > ... "too many boxes!"), by all means, keepOnRawxin'InTheFreeWorld. There's a difference between abstraction, aesthetics, and vacuous prettiness. Critic beware. :-) > I'm just trying to publicly raise the issue of whether this is how we > want to let newMedia come to be defined. If it nM does become > pigeon-holed as nice-looking clickable data pictures, I won't be a > part of it, and neither will a lot of people who are currently engaged > with this discussion. Well nor will I but I don't think that's the issue here. Demanding pre-existent cultural/critical/textual import of digital art is demanding that it normalise itself with the entrenched values of the academic/commerical artworlds. Illustration is not the opposite of insignificance. > Given the radical artistic, conceptual and social hystorical > hyperthreads that make up the area-of-activity we delineate (for > economic reasons) as "graphicDsign," I find myself dismayed that the > graduates of these programs are more excited about software upgrades > than the ideas they're working with. Feed them "Emigre". ;-) > Of course -- to be flip, that's all part of the blender we call life. > In liken, the system I put in place on criticalartware.net, those > partially digested chunks present themselves as part of > hyperConnextive informationSuperTrails. The piece I'm missing is how > to understand this pureFormalist newMedia in relation to those > hyperChunks. Pall gave us the "TMI" model, but I don't think that's > adequate to fuel or sustain this much discussion. If there is more > intellectual life to FlashFormalism, someone please fill me in! Inasmuchas it is not simply illustrating and confirming the unreflective critical demands of cultural studies departments, ff is potentially more critical than anything that simply mirrors pre-existent "critical" virtues. We may have work to do if our language is not sufficient for the task. That would be exciting for a critic, surely? > Have you ever heard of "anti-marketing marketing?" This is the > strategy where you position yourself as against the system in order to > catch the anti-marketing demographic in your audience. Take for > example the Sprite ad campaigns of the past few years, which for the > most part position themselves as beyond the hype -- the message is > "drink whatever you want to! Just obey your thirst!" All those early conceptual art pieces, just words and ideas, are highly collectible now. ;-) > I'd like to see more criticism and debate happening in our community. Definitely. > If anyone here is interested in real ideas, we need to get > criticality back, and start raising a ruckus about all this > technoPositivism and intellectually bankrupt abstraction! I'm more concerned about asserting the supremacy of entrenched critical/artworld values and textuality over digital art. There *is* something there, or if there isn't, it's failure on terms that aren't fully captured by a signification/prettiness opposition. - Rob. + + + curt cloninger <curt AT lab404.com> replied: ben wrote: >whatever your excuses for >making art are, the goal of every artist is to make a powerful >statement. Oh the hyperbole! Play, hobbyism, a desire to create alternate worlds, a desire to bring things into being, a desire to communicate, personal therapy, intelleectual exploration, worship -- all valid reasons to make art, none having anything to do with making a powerful statement. Perhaps the goal of every B/MFA student is to make a powerful statement, but this too shall pass. + + + bensyverson <rhizome AT bensyverson.com> replied: On Oct 7, 2004, at 3:07 PM, Rob Myers wrote: > In order for art to have ideas, for it to be critically interesting, > it must have some degree of autonomy and it must be problematic for > criticism (and language), of which it is the object. Sure, it must be problematic, and not just for critics. So what makes you think FlashFormalism is problematic? The only thing problematic about it is that it's not problematic whatsoever! > Critics (as we are being here), must look at it and curse the artists' > name because they can see that there's something there, but they're > going to have to work out what it is rather than reel off > DeleuzeGuattariBaudrillardDerrida and go to bed early. Exactly. Yet there's no reason to curse the names of FlashFormalists. The work is so MindNumbingly boring that I can barely remember their names. > There are definite ideas in Flash formalism, and it is a definite > social product, more so than the dreary new media weekend marxism of > politically engaged net.art. The fact that FF defeats our critical > language yet is striking, engaging, is healthy for all concerned. The assertation that FlashFormalism is striking and engaging is almost rivals curtCloninger's riDONCulous suggestion that "outsider art" will reinvigorate newMedia. FlashFormalism defeats our critical language? Yes, in much the same way that cottonCandy defeats critical discourse by being irrelevant. > Imagine a world in which formal, algorithmic, visual art was > realistic, necessary, even urgent. Now work back from that world to > our own. Ok, here I go. ... That was an interesting trip, but meanwhile, back on planetEarth, FlashFormalism is anything but necessary and urgent. > Think of the impressionists, their tube paint and the new railroad > network that took them from Paris to the nearby scenery they painted. That's an interesting way to look at it -- I look at Impressionist work and see a radical protest at the dawn of the machine age. If you think their work was a joyful expression of how wonderful it was to take the train and paint flowers, you're missing the only thing in those paintings of interest to me. What I admire about them is the furiously angry assault on the blackened industrial wastelands their cities had become -- so angry that even their brushstrokes rebelled against being used as fully representational marks (like they were in the assemblyLine of quick-cash portrait painting). The impressionists were not formalists. > Of the abstract expressionists, artificial mediums and individualism. > Form follows function. The AbExers were not formalists either. > These pseudo-chaotic structures and seemingly ordered systems are our > lives rendered for us to see, the space we live in (or that is > dictated to us). This is how it is. This is keeping it real. The > mapping is defensible. That's about half of an idea, but not nearly enough to warrant the fullScale rejection of intellectual discourse and conceptualism. The important thing to keep in mind is that all art is conceptual, whether you like it or not, because it "happens" in the brain. If no one will step up to the plate and talk about this art, it's because not very much is happening in anyone's brain as they ingest it. > It'll grow on ya. ;-) Hopefully some of deesMemes will grow on you too :) - ben + + + Plasma Studii - uospn£ <office AT plasmastudii.org> replied: mixing up replies from two posts here... from twid: There is nothing to talk about. It's not formally, conceptually or aesthetically groundbreaking. It's pleasant. Even from a purely formal graphic design angle it's not very progressive: how is it any different from the screensaver on my Mac or the visualizer on my iTunes? How is it different from my screensaver or visualizer other than it uses much more tasteful colors? jess pointed out an important distinction between "understanding" and "enjoying". (both i would call "communicating", but that's a semantic thing.) one major distinction seems to be made, art has an element to be understood (a subjective argument, but one that we don't need to agree on) and screen savers main goal is just to keep the screen looking interesting when nothing else is happening. but this says more (between the lines). implies there is something better about belonging to the category "art". if the screen saver mesmerizes someone for 5 minutes and art with a concept loses their interest after 30 seconds, then why wouldn't we all want to call what we do screen savers? what is the benefit or why do we aspire to engage one way but de-value another? there is an unspoken sense here that "art" is a higher goal than "screen savers". not that it is or isn't, but why? from jm haefner: Of course, the noble thing to do is work for one's own reasons but fundamentally, why is that at all noble? why take the work out the front door, then? if our only motivation is to satisfy ourselves. if you make a painting purely to sell it for a profit, it is like any other job. why then do we both, take it out the door and do it for reasons other than pure profit? if it was only for personal satisfaction, there'd be no reason to show anyone else. Hummm even art for storage seems to presume someone will take a look at it -don't you think. with many artists i have known, they would be heart broken to throw out the paintings they did 20 years ago. the paintings are stored with the assumption, the artist will continue to look at them periodically through the years. not as a map of where they've been, but purely for their own appreciation and enjoyment/interest. + + + bensyverson <rhizome AT bensyverson.com> replied: On Oct 7, 2004, at 3:29 PM, Rob Myers wrote: > There's a difference between abstraction, aesthetics, and vacuous > prettiness. Critic beware. :-) Yes, but no one will flesh out for me why FlashFormalism isn't vacuous prettiness. I'm eager to know. We've heard the TooMuchInformation! explanation, but to me it rings hollow. Bueller? > Demanding pre-existent cultural/critical/textual import of digital art > is demanding that it normalise itself with the entrenched values of > the academic/commerical artworlds. Illustration is not the opposite of > insignificance. Read more closely -- I'm not trying to import newMedia into the "pre-existent" criticalModels used in contempArt, I'm trying to point out that there's NO critical discourse happening around this work, and I'm publicly asking why. I suspect the reason that FlashFormalism is totally impossible to discuss is because, as t.whid points out, there's nothing to discuss. It's oaklandStyle -- no there there. > Feed them "Emigre". ;-) They're too busy kerning ad copy for Starbucks at $100/hr to sit down and read about the [implications/hystories/theories] of typefaces... > Inasmuchas it is not simply illustrating and confirming the > unreflective critical demands of cultural studies departments, ff is > potentially more critical than anything that simply mirrors > pre-existent "critical" virtues. I think you may have just taken the Ridonculous Award from curt. Fuck cultural studies. I'm asking this group, this meeting of the minds, what is [critical/challenging/progressive] about FlashFormalism, and the sound you hear is the deafening silence of apatheticShrugs. > We may have work to do if our language is not sufficient for the task. > That would be exciting for a critic, surely? This is devastatingly depressing. There are so many discussions that have been woven together to form newMedia, and now you want to pretend not to see them and start over with new language. As if the cybernetics discussion in the earlyVideo moment isn't still relevant. As if the hypertext discussion of the earlyHypermedia moment isn't still relevant. As if "interactivity" and "cybernetics" are unrelated, and unrelated to what's happening now. This is one of the main reasons I built liken into criticalartware.net; from the very beginning we wanted to be sure that we were connecting with and expanding upon existing discussions that were directly relevant to the discussion of newMedia. Make up your own language if you like -- have fun reinventing the wheel and calling it something else. I'll keep working hard to [continue/reexamine/revive/extend] the discussions you're so eager to cast off. > There *is* something there, or if there isn't, it's failure on terms > that aren't fully captured by a signification/prettiness opposition. I'm waiting... ...Bueller? - ben + + + bensyverson <rhizome AT bensyverson.com> replied: On Oct 7, 2004, at 3:43 PM, curt cloninger wrote: > Perhaps the goal of every B/MFA student is to make a powerful > statement, but this too shall pass. Okay, but if the goal of FlashFormalism is not to be provocative and engage with ideas, then lets stop talking about them that way. Until someone gives me a reason not to, I'll refer to the purveyors of FlashFormalism as FlashArtisans, and consider their intellectual weight to be on a par with painted pottery. - ben + + + curt cloninger <curt AT lab404.com> replied: Hi Ben, one more round... ben: So if you find aesthetic discussions titillating ("ooh, more brown!" ... "too many boxes!"), by all means, keepOnRawxin'InTheFreeWorld. I'm just trying to publicly raise the issue of whether this is how we want to let newMedia come to be defined. If it nM does become pigeon-holed as nice-looking clickable data pictures, I won't be a part of it, and neither will a lot of people who are currently engaged with this discussion. It's great that you bring up graphicDsign, because one needs only to look at your local graphicDsign [college/department] to see the Jihad that's being waged on ideas there. Kids arrive in graphicDsign classes expecting to receive training in industry-standard applications and be kept up-to-date on industry design trends, so that they may graduate with sufficient "mastery" to be employable as designers directly out of college. The expectation is that you can be trained as a Dsigner just like you can be trained as a XeroxMechanic. Given the radical artistic, conceptual and social hystorical hyperthreads that make up the area-of-activity we delineate (for economic reasons) as "graphicDsign," I find myself dismayed that the graduates of these programs are more excited about software upgrades than the ideas they're working with. And this is your model for how you want to talk about nM? Does anyone else have a problem with this? curt: you're arguing with a straw man. You're describing bad graphic design education, but not all graphic design education is bad. Graphic design has a rich history of interesting artistic discussion. Kandinsky, Klee, Albers, Le Corbusier, Charles & Ray Eames, Tufte, Bruce Mau, Tibor Kalman, Stefan Sagmeister.I'd even include McLuhan and John Maeda in there. You're trying to drive a wedge between formalism and conceptualism that seems artificial. Could brown squares somehow embody a concept? Of course. Anyway, it's not an either/or. There are plenty of different kinds of new media art. Abstraction is just one aspect. Last time I checked, New media art was not in danger of being hijacked by graphic designers. If anything the scene could use a bit more craft. curt: > Casey Reas is re-discovering Sol LeWitt and taking his > instruction-based conceptualism to a more gorgeously abstract level. ben: Sure, but Casey's praxis is grounded in broader artEducational and artwarePopulism concepts, and is anything but design for design's sake. curt: I'm not advocating design for desisgn's sake. You seemed to be dismissing Casey's work as FlashFormalism. I was pointing out that it's not. Are you agreeing with me? ben: out of convenience, we don't attempt to talk about Every Single Artist Who Ever Lived, so we tend to focus on the ones who ignited our imaginations by doing things differently, and challenging the assumptions of the day. Those are the people we remember and discuss. curt: In art history class those are the artists we discuss. But on contemporary art bulletin boards we may discuss all sorts of off-the-radar contemporaries making all sorts of art for all sorts of reasons, many of whom will never be remembered, nor do they care to be remembered, nor are they making art in hopes of being remembered. Such are the joys of a contemporary art scene. ben: Further, I take special exception to your implication that pre-Impressionist artists (ie, ALL art before the 19th century?) didn't "pioneer" anything of note, and are remembered for their "craft and invention." curt: hyperbolic rhetoric. I said, "There are plenty of artists who have gained notoriety for their craft and invention, working within a pre-defined tradition they didn't pioneer. Pre-impressionist artists, craftspeople in local artisan subcultures." "plenty" is a far stretch from "all." ben: I won't bother to address each artist [dubuffet, magritte, beuys] , as this could go on forever, but each of the artists you mention raised important questions and sparked immense debate, even if their work did most of the speaking. It's ludicrous to suggest they weren't engaged in the intellectual discussions of their times. curt: you miss my point. I'm not saying they weren't important in their time. I'm saying they are still important now and they disagree with your assertion that all good art is about ideas. ben: > http://textarc.org (from a lit crit angle) This is a fantastic tongue-in-cheek piece from my perspective, but it is absolutely not abstract, nonConceptual, or formalist. > http://www.turbulence.org/Works/song/mono.html (from a synesthetic > angle) And you present yet another [navigational/cartographic] interface work which is neither abstract, nonConceptual or formalist. > http://rhizome.org/rsg (from a play angle) Carnivore is a particularly bad choice for you to hold up as an [abstract/nonConceptual/formalist] posterChild. Carnivore as a [project/platform] has a clear political and conceptual message about government and surveillance, and as it does nothing on its own, is indeed almost 100% conceptual -- before you can see or hear anything, you have to use a "client" to interpret the network data. These clients range from the conceptual to the pure formalist, but I'm not sure you can pin that on RSG -- after all, Carnivore is a complete conceptual artWork even without any clients, but the clients depend completely on Carnivore both conceptually and technically. curt: I mention the above pieces particularly because they are *not* purely abstract. I'm illustrating the fact that new media can successfully combine elements of visual abstraction with concept. It's not an either/or. Evidently we agree here. ben: > http://www.deepyoung.org/current/outsider/ I can only play amateurCritic to your URIs for so long, Cloninger! :) Briefly looking at the above URI, I can't discern whether or not the authors of a couple of these pieces are being ironically retarditaire or if they are straightforward creative expressions. A few of them are fully situated in an artWorld context, some are by well-known artists. Clearly all of them draw from the globalVisualCultureMashup, and none of them are "outsiders." curt: not in a stric art brut sense. That would be impossible. But they are outsiders to the net art scene. ben: > http://www.deepyoung.org/current/dyskonceptual/ Some (well, really all) of these pieces are strikingly beautiful, but like candy bars, after the sweet taste, I'm left hungry for substance. None of the works [upset/surprised/confused/challenged] me sufficiently for me to remember them. That's my personal experience, but I'm suggesting that there are others who are unsatisfied with this FlashFormalism. curt: it can't all be Debussey. Sometimes a modicum of t.rex is required. "My name is bubblegum I live for moon and sun Young and so much fun Life has just begun." - Sonic Youth Is it art? Whatever. ben: You keep suggesting that contemporary critical discussion is somehow at fault for not "getting" the real work happening, when in reality, this is contemporary critical discourse right here on this list. If the people on this list respond to the work in silence, I would suggest that they aren't significantly affected by it, and I think that is indeed a problem with the work. curt: the people on this list respond to in-depth critical analysis of most any piece of new media artwork with inordinate silence. it's the nature of the list. Ben: It may be a fine distinction, but while I love the complexification.net work as astonishingly gorgeous [images/applets], I would hesitate to discuss the pieces in an art context. They are unmistakably powerful demonstrations of the power of a systemsApproach to artMaking, so certain people may find them shocking, and perhaps that's enough to entertain some discussion of them in an art context. Maybe they're inspirational enough that we don't need to even question their relevance. However, I can't imagine anybody from this list being very intellectually stimulated by these works; anyone with a passing familiarity with newMedia (or computerHystory) has seen bales full of work like this (albeit not always as beautiful). curt: A pox on your shocking, challenging, intellectually stimulating critera, Ben Syverson! There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. ben: Wake up -- no one's muzzling [the contemporary abstractionists] -- they just have nothing to say! John Cage: I have nothing to say and I am saying it. Ben: The important thing to keep in mind is that all art is conceptual, whether you like it or not, because it "happens" in the brain. If no one will step up to the plate and talk about this art, it's because not very much is happening in anyone's brain as they ingest it. Curt: I couldn't disagree more. Art and music have the unique (dare I say "sacred") capacity to bypass the brain/mind and speak viscerally and non-textually to the core of us (spirit). If you don't get this (and few Marxist-influenced critics do), then you won't get art that does. Art is not an argument. I am the Lorax, I speak for the trees. + + + Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com> replied: On 7 Oct 2004, at 22:26, bensyverson wrote: > On Oct 7, 2004, at 3:29 PM, Rob Myers wrote: > >> There's a difference between abstraction, aesthetics, and vacuous >> prettiness. Critic beware. :-) > > Yes, but no one will flesh out for me why FlashFormalism isn't vacuous > prettiness. I'm eager to know. We've heard the TooMuchInformation! > explanation, but to me it rings hollow. Bueller? It isn't vacuous prettiness because it is realistic. It is descriptive of contemporary experience. That experience is aesthetic and systemic, yet chaotic for the individual. This is not an age where it's possible to paint on ceilings or floors. An obviously acute social commentary or deconstructive narrative would not be realistic. It would be a fantasy of critical engagement and import, a mere illustration or placebo. FF is realistic to the social conditions of its production. As I say, don't shoot the messenger. > Read more closely -- I'm not trying to import newMedia into the > "pre-existent" criticalModels used in contempArt, I'm trying to point > out that there's NO critical discourse happening around this work, Possibly that's because the discourse is happening within the work. >> Feed them "Emigre". ;-) > > They're too busy kerning ad copy for Starbucks at $100/hr to sit down > and read about the [implications/hystories/theories] of typefaces... Ew. :-( > I think you may have just taken the Ridonculous Award from curt. Cool. I'll hang it next to my bowling low score certificate. ;-) > Fuck cultural studies. I'm asking this group, this meeting of the > minds, what is [critical/challenging/progressive] about > FlashFormalism, However the examples you give and the language you use indicates certain pre-existent (and commonly held) ideas about what to be critical/challenging/progressive is. That is, the challenge must be one we can join, rather than one directed at us, and must be renderable in language. > This is devastatingly depressing. There are so many discussions that > have been woven together to form newMedia, Discussions in the work or around the work? > and now you want to pretend not to see them and start over with new > language. Beware of confusing the discourse around the work with the discourse in the work (the discourse of the work). > As if the cybernetics discussion in the earlyVideo moment isn't still > relevant. It's very relevant because it is exactly the kind of socially engaged formalism that it is important not to be aspect-blind to in FF. > As if the hypertext discussion of the earlyHypermedia moment isn't > still relevant. As if "interactivity" and "cybernetics" are unrelated, > and unrelated to what's happening now. This is one of the main reasons > I built liken into criticalartware.net; from the very beginning we > wanted to be sure that we were connecting with and expanding upon > existing discussions that were directly relevant to the discussion of > newMedia. Which is great, but slots very easily into the academic/commercial artworld. It's engages in existing discussions rather than revealing gaps in the language of that discussion. > Make up your own language if you like -- have fun reinventing the > wheel and calling it something else. I'll keep working hard to > [continue/reexamine/revive/extend] the discussions you're so eager to > cast off. I'm not suggesting we cast off history, far from it. I'm suggesting that we look at history to recover a current of resistance to the unreflective textual formalism of a criticism that FF is obviously anathema to. - Rob. + + + jm Haefner <j.haefner AT sbcglobal.net> replied: Ben, Are you suggesting that design is a natural talent? That critical, historical, contextual discussion doesn't happen in an academic environment in graphic design? That concept is not an issue in this type of curriculum? This seems a bit biased or naive. I agree that too often schools are under funded, and I certainly don't defend "processing" students using outdated software because after all, they are the customer, but to blanket state that that a "designer" can not be trained... Obviously, they are not going to be masters without experience, but then there doesn't seem to be a demand or pay for "masters." As to New Media, perhaps what we should be talking about is what an ideal environment might be to allow an artist to experiment and thrive -within an academic setting if they choose. The conversation is there, but I don't think you are listening. The silence that you hear is everyone wondering why you don't know -based on your statements- that not EVERY Flash piece is intended to be purely -> pretty, and if it conveys meaning/intent/criticality and it's ALSO pretty...hummm maybe that can be discussed as part of a built-in generics (like word processing software that only knows X number of words)...and not necessarily an insipid artist. >Read more closely -- I'm not trying to import newMedia into the >"pre-existent" criticalModels used in contempArt > There are so many discussions that >have been woven together to form newMedia, and now you want to pretend >not to see them and start over with new language. Can we say ...flip flop? I keep running into an old argument that in order art to be accepted as art it needs to be engaging on some level and that it is successful if it is understood. According to some who have weighed in on this topic, Abstract art fails this test, but when I consider generative programs and their extended explanations, I feel the same way and even consider it an abstract! It's that abstractness that IS engaging. AND another one...if the concept has to be explained or it¹s not understood, then it doesn¹t fit the criteria as successful either. I do have a bias about that for sure...so I might not be remotely interested in a work that captures other people's work, generates multiple images, or creates an online "society," but you can still tell me why you "like" it, and I won't shut you down. Jean + + + Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com> replied: On 7 Oct 2004, at 21:53, bensyverson wrote: > That's an interesting way to look at it -- I look at Impressionist > work and see a radical protest at the dawn of the machine age. If you > think their work was a joyful expression of how wonderful it was to > take the train and paint flowers, you're missing the only thing in > those paintings of interest to me. Yet they did paint flowers (well, fields). Without the technology of the train, tube paint, and state-sponsored colour theory we would not have those images. If this is the extent of it then it is problematic contrasted with... > What I admire about them is the furiously angry assault on the > blackened industrial wastelands their cities had become -- so angry > that even their brushstrokes rebelled against being used as fully > representational marks (like they were in the assemblyLine of > quick-cash portrait painting). ...the fact that these often politically active yet bourgeois artists were urbanites during the industrial revolution and political unrest in France. To look at the Impressionists as mere formalists or prettifiers is indeed a mistake of chocolate box proportions. When chocolate boxes have LCD screens printed on them, will those screens show FF? >> Of the abstract expressionists, artificial mediums and individualism. >> Form follows function. > > The AbExers were not formalists either. Absolutely. Yet they made forms. Ones that the unreflective can hang in their living rooms. A Pollock or a Rothko in the flesh is a breathtaking, powerful aesthetic experience. This doesn't mean that the work doesn't have or effectively communicate ideas. Far from it, the form allows the work to perform (fnarr) its function. And those forms, and that function, were informed (fnarr) by the ideology and technology of the day. >> These pseudo-chaotic structures and seemingly ordered systems are our >> lives rendered for us to see, the space we live in (or that is >> dictated to us). This is how it is. This is keeping it real. The >> mapping is defensible. > > That's about half of an idea, but not nearly enough to warrant the > fullScale rejection of intellectual discourse and conceptualism. Nonono. I'm not rejecting discourse or conceptualism. I am asking for it to be generated rather than illustrated or applied. > The important thing to keep in mind is that all art is conceptual, > whether you like it or not, I collect Art & Language monographs... :-) > because it "happens" in the brain. If no one will step up to the plate > and talk about this art, it's because not very much is happening in > anyone's brain as they ingest it. Possibly not. And very possibly it is minor. But it may be realistic, or necessary. And it is historically precedented. >> It'll grow on ya. ;-) > > Hopefully some of deesMemes will grow on you too :) This is the best thread for ages. :-) - Rob. + + + bensyverson <rhizome AT bensyverson.com> replied: On Oct 7, 2004, at 4:59 PM, curt cloninger wrote: > You're describing bad graphic design education, but not all graphic > design education is bad. And someone with herpes isn't always contagious. It's impossible to ignore the fact that graphicDsign has exploded from a niche industry into an army of pixelPushers, and equally impossible to ignore the assemblyLine pedagogy that produces them. > Last time I checked, New media art was not in danger of being hijacked > by graphic designers. If anything the scene could use a bit more > craft. Without railing on anyone in particular, all that's needed is to take a quick stroll over to the artBase. While there's a lot of great work in there, a lot of it is graphic design with an artist's statement. Sadly, a lot of the statements could be interchangeable. PersonX is "dealing with a sense of place" whereas PersonY is "addressing the body" yet both works are clicky color boxes in Flash. > curt: > I'm not advocating design for desisgn's sake. You seemed to be > dismissing Casey's work as FlashFormalism. I was pointing out that > it's not. Are you agreeing with me? Huh? When was I dismissing Casey's work? > In art history class those are the artists we discuss. But on > contemporary art bulletin boards we may discuss all sorts of > off-the-radar contemporaries making all sorts of art for all sorts of > reasons, many of whom will never be remembered, nor do they care to be > remembered, nor are they making art in hopes of being remembered. > Such are the joys of a contemporary art scene. Okay. Back to FlashArtisans. > you miss my point. I'm not saying they weren't important in their > time. I'm saying they are still important now and they disagree with > your assertion that all good art is about ideas. Whether or not they agree, their art is intellectually engaging, whereas FlashFormalism is (to me) not. Regardless of the artists' spin on their work, it can all be situated in an intellectual debate of their time. I'm waiting to see if FlashFormalism can say the same thing. > I mention the above pieces particularly because they are *not* purely > abstract. I'm illustrating the fact that new media can successfully > combine elements of visual abstraction with concept. It's not an > either/or. Evidently we agree here. Not really -- none of those pieces utilize visual abstraction. Every pixel in the first two pieces is procedural and representative, actually. What we agree on is that abstraction isn't incompatible with concept. What we don't agree on is the idea that interesting art can be antiConcept. > not in a stric art brut sense. That would be impossible. But they > are outsiders to the net art scene. Wow. Okay. It's a good thing you're there to discover them and allow their pathetic voices to be heard, then! I wonder what fresh insights they'll have from the outside! > the people on this list respond to in-depth critical analysis of most > any piece of new media artwork with inordinate silence. it's the > nature of the list. Sounds like a cool community, glad I joined. Anyone want a change? > A pox on your shocking, challenging, intellectually stimulating > critera, Ben Syverson! There are more things in heaven and earth than > are dreamt of in your philosophy. You're right. That's what this list is for, right? No one here is interested in the art world, right? Let's all sit around not discussing work, since it should be exempt from criticality. > I couldn't disagree more. Art and music have the unique (dare I say > "sacred") capacity to bypass the brain/mind and speak viscerally and > non-textually to the core of us (spirit). If you don't get this (and > few Marxist-influenced critics do), then you won't get art that does. > Art is not an argument. What's all this Marxist bullShizer you keep pulling? No one here is talking about art as production -- I'm just trying to poke the corpse of Rhizome to see if it's dead or just sleeping. - ben + + + Pall Thayer <palli AT pallit.lhi.is> replied: > I totally agree -- Seurat's method was a vehicle for his socially > radical concepts, addressing (as many Impressionists did) Science and > Progress as oppressive, particularly as weapons against the "lower" > class. I wonder how many years after Seurat's death this interpretation appeared. Is this what the contemporary art world of Seurat's time said about his art? We seem to all agree that Impressionism was an extremely important and good movement in various aspects. Did their contemporaries think so? Didn't their critics say things equivalent to, "...and consider their intellectual weight to be on a par with painted pottery." Anyway, you missed my point entirely (perhaps on purpose?). Do you truly think that Seurat's "socially radical concepts, addressing Science and Progress as oppressive" are what makes his work important today? > Perspective was a ground-shakingly radical idea at one point. It was? Hmm... I could have sworn that it was a technical trick, just like taking bits of data and presenting them as an image. Hey! Wait a second. You're right! Perspective was a ground-shakingly radical idea, just like taking bits of data and presenting them as an image! (my point being that your interpretation of what constitutes a method and what constitutes an idea seems to change when it's convenient to your argument) Back to the bit about Seurat and Impressionists. Your criticism of new media sounds a lot like the criticism given to the Impressionists during their time. I get the feeling that you haven't actually *examined* the work you're criticising. You may have glanced at a few projects but I don't think you get it, in the same way that the critics of the mid-nineteenth century didn't bother to *examine* the work of the Impressionists and therefore, didn't get it. ps. I agree with Rob, this is the best thread Rhizome has seen in a long time. As far as your goal of generating critical discussion goes, this is a huge success but your arguments are falling all over themselves: > And someone with herpes isn't always contagious. What kind of reasoning is that? So, uh... all graphic design education *is* bad because someone with herpes isn't always contagious? Pall + + + bensyverson <rhizome AT bensyverson.com> replied: On Oct 7, 2004, at 5:25 PM, Rob Myers wrote: > It isn't vacuous prettiness because it is realistic. It is descriptive > of contemporary experience. That experience is aesthetic and systemic, > yet chaotic for the individual. Oh really? Because that sounds like a cop-out of morbidly obese proportions to me. Either that or I'm missing out on "contemporary experience." My experience is nowhere near that aesthetically dazzling or dissociated. Is this experience something you need a $6000/month [live/work] loft in Manhattan and a steady diet of cocaine to understand? Because looking at the work, I don't get anything out of it. > This is not an age where it's possible to paint on ceilings or floors. ??? > An obviously acute social commentary or deconstructive narrative would > not be realistic. It would be a fantasy of critical engagement and > import, a mere illustration or placebo. What a bitterlyCyncial notion: don't bother even saying anything, because it doesn't matter and it won't change anything? Say that to Michael Moore's face. Say it to Picasso. Say it to any artist who has seen the impact their work has had. I'd say with the net, the possibilities for critical engagement and import are multiplied -- look at how much of an impact bloggers are having in this election. Sure, that's a political example, but it shows you the power of your chosen medium, no matter how willing you are to make excuses for not engaging it. > Possibly that's because the discourse is happening within the work. Really? I'm squinting now. Is it too small to read or something? Because as I mentioned before, the work isn't having any discussion that involves me. > However the examples you give and the language you use indicates > certain pre-existent (and commonly held) ideas about what to be > critical/challenging/progressive is. That is, the challenge must be > one we can join, rather than one directed at us, and must be > renderable in language. No -- forget language. If you can intrigue me without language, go for it. FlashFormalism does not intrigue me. You seem to think that it doesn't matter. "Not intrigued? Not challenged? Who cares! Art has many purposes! Plus, there's a hidden discourse in the work you can't see! No, don't worry about what that discourse is!" I'm being an ass, but seriously: what is the point of this list if not to move the discussion of newMedia forward? And if follows, that if that is indeed the purpose of the list, how can we do that if we can't engage with the work? And if we can't engage with the work, is it because we don't understand it, or that it isn't of interest? And how can we even begin to understand the work if some of us are unwilling to look at it critically? > Beware of confusing the discourse around the work with the discourse > in the work (the discourse of the work). Sure, art is intimately intertwined with the discussion surrounding it. In fact, artWorks [can/do] further this discussion, just as the discussion bears the fruit of artWorks. It's a living system. The problem comes when the discussion stops moving. Then the artWork has no lifeSupport. > It's very relevant because it is exactly the kind of socially engaged > formalism that it is important not to be aspect-blind to in FF. The earlyVideo moment was a time when, for the first time ever, artists had access to the tools of television production. In an already radical time, video became a weaponLike tool for shortCircuiting expectations. The very idea of seeing alternative media on a television screen was challenging, and spawned a vigorous intellectual debate. Most of the work was not formalist, although some of it indeed was. The formalist work of the time tended to be steeped in the ideas of consciousnessExpansion as outlined by geneYoungblood in Expanded Cinema and hands-on lectures, R. Buckminster Fuller in various texts and lectures, and others. In this way, the formalist work of that hystorical timeond was among the most conceptual. It's also important to note that at the time, there were no off-the-shelf tools for abstractVisual creation -- there was no equivalent to Flash. So artists (like danSandin, philMorton, davidBeck, georgeBrown, paikNamJune/shuyaAbe, steveRutt/billEtra and others) had to build their own tools, and the output and operation of each idiosyncratic tool was totally different. This is in stark contrast to the endless waves of clickable transparent cubes and lines that spring forth from Macromedia Flash plug-ins. If you can show me how FlashFormalism connects to the hyperthread of cybernetics, I'd love to see it. Or, if you can simply show me satisfactorily how FlashFormalism is "socially engaged," I'd love to see that. > Which is great, but slots very easily into the academic/commercial > artworld. It's engages in existing discussions rather than revealing > gaps in the language of that discussion. The appropriate response to gaps in the road is to fill them and keep the discussion rolling, not to tear down the whole bridge and disconnect the shores. (Boy, that was a metaphorFull!) > I'm not suggesting we cast off history, far from it. I'm suggesting > that we look at history to recover a current of resistance to the > unreflective textual formalism of a criticism that FF is obviously > anathema to. What a masterful turnabout on the fact that it is FlashFormalism, not critical discourse, which is unreflective. - ben + + + ryan griffis <grifray AT yahoo.com> replied: very interesting, if seemingly-not-getting-anywhere, discussion. is there any other kind? ;) in terms of the FF aesthetic that's being bandied about, i was just thinking that it's very strange to suggest that it has nothing to offer. Certainly it represents some aspect of a larger social imaginary that can be mined critically for all kinds of things in terms of the politics of aesthetics and desire. i may not find it very interesting beyond design as work, but the interesting project for a critic, and what i look for in critical writing, is to discuss and question what aesthetic choices are about in a larger sense. A couple of years ago, there was an article on the flash aesthetic http://www.ctheory.net/text_file.asp?pick=226 The work discussed isn't that interesting for me, but the implications found in it (how it relates, connects, reflects to larger phenomena) is. This may be the kind of criticism that many here despise (seems like i got into this with curt at some point? maybe not.), but it's what i'm interested in and find important. Reality TV is the most vapid and boring thing i've ever seen, and i like televised bowling, but i've read some pretty interesting criticism of it that i feel i learned something beyond the shows from. same thing with blogs. the FF aesthetic has also had a huge impact on the larger field of aesthetics, from painting to advertising. just a couple of thoughts... ryan + + + ryan griffis <grifray AT yahoo.com> replied: > Hummm even art for storage seems to presume someone will take a look > at it -don't you think. a friend recently told me that the painter Kevin Appel said that the more a work of art is handled, the more it's value increases. i recently helped deinstalled a huge cardboard and scrap wood sculpture by Hew Locke that someone had purchased for, well, a lot. it has spent way more time in storage than in exhibition. And the collectors are paying a fortune to house cardboard in a climate controlled archival storage facility! on the other hand, my partner gets paid less to take care of other artists children that art movers get paid to move their art. don't know what this means to the conversation. anecdotal trivia. ryan + + + bensyverson <rhizome AT bensyverson.com> replied: On Oct 7, 2004, at 5:30 PM, jm Haefner wrote: > Are you suggesting that design is a natural talent? Uhh, no. > That critical, historical, contextual discussion doesn't happen in an > academic environment in graphic design? That concept is not an issue > in this type of curriculum? This seems a bit biased or naive. I'm biased by experience -- they don't happen enough. If you have any doubts, walk into a graphic design firm and ask the interns who they're reading or why they want to design. > Obviously, they are not going to be masters without experience, but > then there doesn't seem to be a demand or pay for "masters." Mastery is an illusion. > The conversation is there, but I don't think you are listening. Oh? <crickets chirping> There's plenty of critical discourse about newMedia happening, it's just not taking place on this list. It should. > The silence that you hear is everyone wondering why you don't know > -based on your statements- that not EVERY Flash piece is intended to > be purely -> pretty, and if it conveys meaning/intent/criticality and > it's ALSO pretty...hummm maybe that can be discussed as part of a > built-in generics (like word processing software that only knows X > number of words)...and not necessarily an insipid artist. I have no issue with pretty work that has brains. My issue is with the glut of pretty work with nothing to say. Which is not to say that I don't like it -- some of it is nice as a diversion, much like reading Wallpaper, ArtForum, or watching trashTV. I just think it's weird how little it's challenged, particularly when I see a lot of work being posted that's critical in other ways.... > >Read more closely -- I'm not trying to import newMedia into the > >"pre-existent" criticalModels used in contempArt > > ++++ > > > There are so many discussions that > >have been woven together to form newMedia, and now you want to pretend > >not to see them and start over with new language. > > Can we say ...flip flop? HA! Speaking of importing language from suspect sources, you just did a File>Import on the Republican propaganda machine... If you would, as I mentioned, read more closely, you'll see I have no interest in adhering to the conventional critical models (models being ways of understanding hystory), but rather would like to connect newMedia to the many hystorical superStrings from which it is woven. Some of these myriad parallel hystories are not commonly [recognized by/incorporated into] the contempArt system && narrative. What I'm suggesting is that we recognize these threads && understand their discussions, as they are deeply influential && formative to the current context of newMedia. > I keep running into an old argument that in order art to be accepted > as art it needs to be engaging on some level and that it is successful > if it is understood. You can never "understand" anyone or anything -- it's such a final word. You can only hope to spark debate, open discussion, shock someone, confuse someone, delight someone. > It's that abstractness that IS engaging. Really? If I can ask in my most sincere and un-confrontational voice, what exactly is it about it that is engaging? Is it a visceral thing? What are the feelings you go through as you view it? Is it some kind of rush, or maybe a soothing calm? I'm most curious to know. > AND another one...if the concept has to be explained or it¹s not > understood, then it doesn¹t fit the criteria as successful either. Nah, there's too much work out there that leans on a concept too heavily to the detriment of the work. You run into problems when you start blaming your audience for not "understanding" your work. However, if your audience flat-out doesn't care about your work.... > I do have a bias about that for sure...so I might not be remotely > interested in a work that captures other people's work, generates > multiple images, or creates an online "society," but you can still > tell me why you "like" it, and I won't shut you down. I'm not shutting anyone down -- people just seem to be pretty irked by my questions about why there isn't more critical discussion about FlashFormalism here. I'm all for MORE discussion. > OH, and want your Web site redesigned? Nah, I like the suspense. Besides, I've got a few sites I have to get operational first. I'll be sure to post the links! - ben + + + bensyverson <rhizome AT bensyverson.com> replied: On Oct 7, 2004, at 6:47 PM, Pall Thayer wrote: > I wonder how many years after Seurat's death this interpretation > appeared. Is this what the contemporary art world of Seurat's time > said about his art? Who cares what the contemporary art world circa Seurat said about his work? I think it's pretty clear that he himself had these ideas in mind, and it's very difficult to look at his work today and not see this sociallyRadical perspective. > Do you truly think that Seurat's "socially radical concepts, > addressing Science and Progress as oppressive" are what makes his work > important today? I'm sure if you look at Seurat's contemporaries, they understood his work as addressing science, and clearly his work became important because it was both pretty and very different. Maybe the audiences of the day didn't connect the visual style to the politics of the work (and maybe Seurat didn't, at least consciously -- I'm not Seurat scholar), but there is an obvious connexion... Today is another issue. I'm confident that audiences today like Impressionism because it's "pretty." I can guarantee that audiences in the early impressionist era thought the work was anything but pretty. >> Perspective was a ground-shakingly radical idea at one point. >> > It was? Hmm... I could have sworn that it was a technical trick, just > like taking bits of data and presenting them as an image. It was a technical trick that sent shock waves through the art world and utterly astonished viewers. If you can say the same thing for FlashFormalism with a straight face, then we'll begin a debate about the relative impact they had. I'm not saying method can't be powerful -- I'm saying that the method in FlashFormalism isn't. > You may have glanced at a few projects but I don't think you get it, > in the same way that the critics of the mid-nineteenth century didn't > bother to *examine* the work of the Impressionists and therefore, > didn't get it. Maybe you're right! Maybe between the 11 years I've been browsing the web, the 10 years that I've been creating on it and the years I spent studying newMedia at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, I just haven't managed to see enough newMedia projects to even talk about it! Man, I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time. This whole "looking at work before critiquing it" thing is new to me. I've seen gigs of this bullShizer! I was bored with FlashFormalism in 1999, and I'm bored with it now -- in five years, it has not progressed in any discernible way. There's the smell of death wafting over it, and the inability for its community to accept criticism is the rigor mortis. > ps. I agree with Rob, this is the best thread Rhizome has seen in a > long time. As far as your goal of generating critical discussion goes, > this is a huge success Hooray! >> And someone with herpes isn't always contagious. > What kind of reasoning is that? So, uh... all graphic design education > *is* bad because someone with herpes isn't always contagious? I'm trying to say that terrible pedagogy and methodology has infected graphicDsign much like Herpes Simplex Virus. It is possible to have intercourse with the field of graphicDsign and not become infected, but your risk is much greater without criticalProtection, particularly during a formalistOutbreak. And much like Herpes, the corruption of graphicDsign is spreading at epidemical rates. What, that analogy wasn't clear? :) - ben + + + jm Haefner <j.haefner AT sbcglobal.net> replied: Ben, OK...how about if you help define what you mean by FlashFormalism? If we are talking about how Flash defines the use of color, form etc, I don¹t know how far that discussion will go without sounding pedantic unless we talk about the tool producing a generic look, its limitations, etc (but there are other lists that do that too). Unfortunately, when you talk about Web design for economy, there is little choice when it comes to subject or content, and metaphor is more or less trite (lashings anyone?). Therefore, I'm more likely to approach a discussion of Flash Web design from utilitarian point of view. Perhaps a discussion of the work in the ArtBase is in order, as I assume people are putting their work up to be critiqued, if not, then archived? Perhaps refreshing the purpose of ArtBase seems reasonable, because the selection criteria pretty much define what you seem to be talking about but the work does not always seem to hold up to that standard in my view (also what you intimate). When these works are selected, there are no reviews by those selecting the work, only an artist statement and bio produced by the artist. It then stands to reason, that work selected might not be all the selection criteria say it is. I suppose you are near correct in that there seem to be few interns reading tho some time back, I caught one of mine (yup, on the job) reading The Age of Spiritual Machines. Jean + + + curt cloninger <curt AT lab404.com> replied: Hi Ben, It seems like at this point you're grapsing at things about which to be contrary. I think you're best tactic for sparking dialogue is to get into the work piece by piece, preferably with as little hyperbole as possible. The works in ArtBase are easy targets. Not to dis the ArtBase, but it seeks to be fairly inclusive, and nobody is really looking to it as the be all end all archive of contemporary new media art. Let's look at the three pieces I mentioned, since each is more or less canonized (as much as any net.art work can be at this stage). You say that the Shape of Song ( http://www.turbulence.org/Works/song/mono.html ) and textarc ( http://www.textarc.org/ ) don't utilize visual abstraction, that every pixel is procedural and representational. Perhaps from a technical coding perspective. But data visualization is inherently abstraction. The artist is literally abstracting data (from text to animation in the first piece and from sound to shapeForm in the second). The artists could have abstracted the data any number of ways, but they chose to abstract it in very specific ways, not just to achieve accurate representation, but to achieve an abstract, aesthetic effect. These pieces are examples of abstract visualization working in tandem with meaningful data mapping. The pieces work not just because they are useful or accurate (indeed, neither are terribly useful), but also because they look interesting. Not SOLELY because they look interesting, but they do look interesting and intentionally so. Furthermore, the way in which they look interesting is intrinsically related to the data they are abstracting, but not merely arbitrarily driven by it. Each coder's "hand/eye/craft/aesthetic intent" is imposed on the way the their output looks (in the case of Shape of Song) and moves/reacts (in the case of TextArc). This is part of the art. Regarding carnivore ( http://www.rhizome.org/carnivore ) the genius of the piece is precisely that it farms out the last-mile aesthetics to "artisans" (if you must) who enjoy and are skillful at visual representation. Galloway tackled the obligatory political concept and coding. The political concept (surveilance) was/is very en vogue and thus a shoe-in for gallery-ization, but there's nothing terribly sexy about that aspect of it to me. The codidng took some doing, but it was basically just a reappropriation of government code already written. The real genius of the piece is twofold: 1. It takes brilliant advantage of the online community. It's true net art, not just because it runs on the network (again, an obligatory requirement), but because it optimizes the collaborative aspects of the networked community in its ongoing production. 2. In so clearly bifurcating the concept (backend) and the visual aesthetics (front end) it uses its literal, technical form as a meta-phor to foreground the split in art criticism between concept and visual aesthetics (the same split we've been dancing around for the last two days in these posts). The project then goes on to unite these two aspects into a single work, thus showing that the two aren't really diametrically opposed, but that they drive and complement each other and are "apiece." It's easy to look at Carnivore and get excited about the politcal aspects of surveilance. But that's the easy surface read of the project. You said earlier that RSG's part in the piece was concepetual. A facile critique. Their genius in the piece was to orchesetrate an outsourcing of the generic conceptual to the idiosynchratic abstract. And Alex's marketing genius in the whole project was to make it "about surveilance," when it's really not about surveilance at all (it only tracks traffic on a local network that has given it permission to do so). But the surveilance angle got it into the galleries. [Incidentally, Galloway also hired Takeshi Hamada ( http://www.hamada-takeshi.com/ ) to design the carnivore logo. Hamada is the same designer who designed the rhizome logo you so flippantly dissed.] Because it's not an either/or. curt: > you miss my point. I'm not saying [dubuffet, magritte, beuys] weren't important in their > time. I'm saying they are still important now and they disagree with > your assertion that all good art is about ideas. ben: Whether or not they agree, their art is intellectually engaging, whereas FlashFormalism is (to me) not. Regardless of the artists' spin on their work, it can all be situated in an intellectual debate of their time. I'm waiting to see if FlashFormalism can say the same thing. curt: argh! you're not hearing me. I'm not talking about whether you personally like FlashFormalism. I'm not talking about whether you personally like the work of these artists. You say, "whether or not they agree." They categorically disagree, and that's my point. You may assimilate them into your current historical paradigm to your own intellectual satisfaction, but if they were here today, they wouldn't go so quietly. They were working from a perspective that art is beyond idea. Their words and their work disagree with your stated position. ben: You're right. That's what this list is for, right? No one here is interested in the art world, right? Let's all sit around not discussing work, since it should be exempt from criticality. Brian Eno: Withdrawal in disgust is not the same as apathy. curt: OK. You've sufficiently goaded me to critically discuss http://www.complexification.net a bit (I've got some free time). But the piece I'll reference is admittedly not a "critic friendly" piece. That doesn't mean it's not a great piece. cf: http://www.rhizome.org/print.rhiz?7261 (a summary of my position regarding contemporary new media criticism). http://www.complexification.net/gallery/machines/interAggregate/index.php It owes an intentional debt to Pollock not only in its palette but in its application and process. Pollock was not a "chance operations" artist, but was very deliberate in his execution. His process was an admixture of chaos and craft, and part of that craft lay in how much chaos to allow into the work, when to allow it in, and how to allow it in. Similarly, Tarbell is not using Flash (as t. whid rightly observes), but Processing which compiles into Java, and then he's going behind and hand-tweaking the compiled java. The piece is generative, but not without Tarbell's particular, intentional visaul aesthetic, not just in the final output, but in the real-time "playing out" of the piece. Whereas Pollock's "hand" in real-time painting led to the production of a static final painting, Tarbell removes this process one step further. Tarbell's "hand" in real-time coding leads to the software's "hand" in real-time "painting," which in turn leads to the output of the static piece. In Pollock's case, the final piece shows evidence of Pollock's energetic "performance," that is, his painting of the piece. In Tarbell's case, the performance (the software's "drawing" of the art) *is* the actual piece. This generative "playing out" in turn shows evindence of Tarbell's coding "performance" which occurs off stage, but which is nevertheless observable by viewing the intentionally open source code. So it ain't just FlashFormalism, Ben. It's "speaking" about art history; about new media's relation to art history; about the nature of time-shiftedness and instruction giving; about the balance between chaos and control; about the continuum of performance, meta-performance (literally "script writing"), and object; about the relationship between process and visual aesthetics; about the relationship between code, hand, line, and dance; about the ability of software-based media to evince an idiosynchratic personal style. Plus it looks so danged pretty. And the beauty of it (literally) is, you don't have to grok the above insights to get something out of the piece. And you're not grocking those things (or you're doing an award-winning job at playing devil's advocate) because you've been conditioned to look for something heavy, political, important, groundbreaking, and immediately dialogue-able. (When intellectual stimulation leads to mental masturbation, call us. Our trained professionals are standing by.) If it's pretty and subtle and anti-sublime, it must not be saying anything. And if it happens to show some superficial resemblance to a screen saver, Egad! Out with the bathwater it goes. ben: What's all this Marxist bullShizer you keep pulling? No one here is talking about art as production. curt: No, but you're implicitly approaching art as material and humans as material. There's seems to be little room for the spiritual in the assumptions of your critical perspective. But then spirit went out with Romanticism, so you're off the hook there. It's so elegant. So intelligent. respectfully, curt + + + bensyverson <rhizome AT bensyverson.com> replied: On Oct 7, 2004, at 7:15 PM, ryan griffis wrote: > very interesting, if seemingly-not-getting-anywhere, discussion. is > there any other kind? ;) Heh, indeed. I'm quickly reaching a point where I've said what I want to say, and RAW can do with it what it will. I'm not really cut out for criticism. Makes me anxious to get back to work. :) It's been enjoyable, though! > in terms of the FF aesthetic that's being bandied about, i was just > thinking that it's very strange to suggest that it has nothing to > offer. Certainly it represents some aspect of a larger social > imaginary that can be mined critically for all kinds of things in > terms of the politics of aesthetics and desire. That's a vGood point -- I have been taking the approach of critiquing the work itself, but perhaps a more productive approach would be to critique the broader cultural phenomenon. > This may be the kind of criticism that many here despise (seems like i > got into this with curt at some point? maybe not.), but it's what i'm > interested in and find important. If we do get into critiquing the broader phenomenon, this will get messy, because as I mentioned before, it seems to be a massive ThumbsUp to the statusQuo, and as you mention, engages the politics of desire -- and more specifically in my opinion, demonstrates a slavish entrancement with the sumptuousness of consumption and eCommerce. To my eyes, it reads as anything but critical to these forces and utterly complicit in the suffering they inflict. - ben + + + bensyverson <rhizome AT bensyverson.com> added: On Oct 7, 2004, at 8:30 PM, jm Haefner wrote: > I don¹t know how far that discussion will go without sounding pedantic > unless we talk about the tool producing a generic look, its > limitations, etc (but there are other lists that do that too). The tools you use to produce a work are inseparable from the work; the use of Flash as a platform for activity has inherent political and aesthetic constraints and attachments. > Perhaps a discussion of the work in the ArtBase is in order, as I > assume people are putting their work up to be critiqued, if not, then > archived? Yes indeed -- I simply didn't want to get into the position of "calling out" specific pieces of art, but I'm glad that curt has brought up a few for me to examine. I'll take a look at them in an email response to his most recent post. - ben + + + Eric Dymond <e.dymond AT sympatico.ca> replied: Apparently video game sales have stalled at around 18-20~ billion dollars. Thats Gross sales. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2004-09-01-videogame-sal es_x.htm According to film sources, total movie revenues are in excess of 200 billion dollars.(these are all global sales figures) So the comparison, which is based on real Gross sales figures puts to lie the Game Industries myth. Still though, Games are a large part of the digital economy. Note that ebays net revenue(not gross) was 2.1 billion in 2003. + + + ryan griffis <grifray AT yahoo.com> replied: Nor are the two separate... Look at how the industries (are they really distinct?) cross in many blockbusters (which we seem to be talking about blockbusters, not independent film/video as curt pointed out) - the Matrix, Italian Job, etc. as you can tell "i don't play video games or i'd be able to name more. ;) ryan + + + Plasma Studii <office AT plasmastudii.org> replied: >Without railing on anyone in particular, all that's needed is to >take a quick stroll over to the artBase. While there's a lot of >great work in there, a lot of it is graphic design with an artist's >statement. Sadly, a lot of the statements could be interchangeable. >PersonX is "dealing with a sense of place" whereas PersonY is >"addressing the body" yet both works are clicky color boxes in Flash. this seems to describe contemporary art (and most of the web art scene). it relies on more rhetoric than being aesthetically interesting. and rhetoric (as you point out) that is easily interchangeable. whether it is Flash or ASCII art, the result for the viewer is the same. either the viewer brings to the meaninglessness object a meaning, or the viewer just sees no meaning in the object and stops there. some folks will enjoy the rhetoric, critical analysis, some will lose interest. so why do they need to by ANY object? Is there a more essential element than rhetoric? twhid made the best distinction ever, between ART and screen savers. there is ART that may have an element of concept, idea, etc. and then, maybe something like the statue of david, really just an old version of a screen saver. a visual veg-out promoter. stuff that was once called "art" but now the word means something else, but we keep using the word and the concept as though they apply. often with an air of pretentiousness, and rarely admitting it when pressed (switching definitions as needed), we really can and do distinguish between eye candy and conceptual representation! so what exactly makes either preferred? why does the art object that is not a screen saver exist? and visa versa. not that i think either shouldn't, this is not a judgement of them, but IS a fundamental question why value either? -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ PLASMA STUDII art non-profit stages * galleries * the web New York, USA (on-line press kit) http://plasmastudii.org + + + Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com> replied: On 8 Oct 2004, at 00:56, bensyverson wrote: > On Oct 7, 2004, at 5:25 PM, Rob Myers wrote: > >> It isn't vacuous prettiness because it is realistic. It is >> descriptive of contemporary experience. That experience is aesthetic >> and systemic, yet chaotic for the individual. > > Oh really? Because that sounds like a cop-out of morbidly obese > proportions to me. Either that or I'm missing out on "contemporary > experience." My experience is nowhere near that aesthetically dazzling > or dissociated. Is this experience something you need a $6000/month > [live/work] loft in Manhattan and a steady diet of cocaine to > understand? Because looking at the work, I don't get anything out of > it. I've never been anywhere near Manhattan. Politically, socially, artefactually, this is an age where aesthetics have trumped ethics and how. >> An obviously acute social commentary or deconstructive narrative >> would not be realistic. It would be a fantasy of critical engagement >> and import, a mere illustration or placebo. > > What a bitterlyCyncial notion: don't bother even saying anything, > because it doesn't matter and it won't change anything? No. Say it in a way that will have an effect, not in a way that the in-crowd can stroke their chins to. > I'd say with the net, the possibilities for critical engagement and > import are multiplied -- look at how much of an impact bloggers are > having in this election. Sure, that's a political example, but it > shows you the power of your chosen medium, no matter how willing you > are to make excuses for not engaging it. Blogs are a good example. >> Possibly that's because the discourse is happening within the work. > > Really? I'm squinting now. Is it too small to read or something? > Because as I mentioned before, the work isn't having any discussion > that involves me. Try holding it upside down. :-) > And how can we even begin to understand the work if some of us are > unwilling to look at it critically? How can we even begin to understand the work if some of us won't look at our critical ideas critically? >> It's very relevant because it is exactly the kind of socially engaged >> formalism that it is important not to be aspect-blind to in FF. > > The earlyVideo moment was a time when, for the first time ever, > artists had access to the tools of television production. This sounds an awful lot like playing with technology. ;-) > In an already radical time, video became a weaponLike tool for > shortCircuiting expectations. The very idea of seeing alternative > media on a television screen was challenging, and spawned a vigorous > intellectual debate. Most of the work was not formalist, although some > of it indeed was. The formalist work of the time tended to be steeped > in the ideas of consciousnessExpansion as outlined by geneYoungblood > in Expanded Cinema and hands-on lectures, R. Buckminster Fuller in > various texts and lectures, and others. In this way, the formalist > work of that hystorical timeond was among the most conceptual. It's > also important to note that at the time, there were no off-the-shelf > tools for abstractVisual creation -- there was no equivalent to Flash. > So artists (like danSandin, philMorton, davidBeck, georgeBrown, > paikNamJune/shuyaAbe, steveRutt/billEtra and others) had to build > their own tools, and the output and operation of each idiosyncratic > tool was totally different. They didn't build their own video cameras or recorders though. The blurry and|or pixellated limitations of the available base technology became associated with the work made using it. Kinda like with Flash. > This is in stark contrast to the endless waves of clickable > transparent cubes and lines that spring forth from Macromedia Flash > plug-ins. If you can show me how FlashFormalism connects to the > hyperthread of cybernetics, I'd love to see it. Or, if you can simply > show me satisfactorily how FlashFormalism is "socially engaged," I'd > love to see that. I'm going to write a longer piece, but I'm certainly not claiming it's committed art or anything. >> Which is great, but slots very easily into the academic/commercial >> artworld. It's engages in existing discussions rather than revealing >> gaps in the language of that discussion. > > The appropriate response to gaps in the road is to fill them and keep > the discussion rolling, not to tear down the whole bridge and > disconnect the shores. (Boy, that was a metaphorFull!) Or to erect a roadblock. :-) >> I'm not suggesting we cast off history, far from it. I'm suggesting >> that we look at history to recover a current of resistance to the >> unreflective textual formalism of a criticism that FF is obviously >> anathema to. > > What a masterful turnabout on the fact that it is FlashFormalism, not > critical discourse, which is unreflective. The messenger is now mostly lead. ;-) - Rob. + + + bensyverson <rhizome AT bensyverson.com> replied: On Oct 7, 2004, at 9:21 PM, curt cloninger wrote: > It seems like at this point you're grapsing at things about which to > be contrary. I think you're best tactic for sparking dialogue is to > get into the work piece by piece, preferably with as little hyperbole > as possible. Thanks for the advice -- I will follow it as best I am able 02. Although after seven hours straight today of responding to multiplePeeps, this may be the last word from me on this particular line of discussion, for fear of repeating myself and going around in circles forever. But I certainly appreciate the condescending tone; I'll be sure to lather it on liberally as well. > The works in ArtBase are easy targets. Not to dis the ArtBase, but > it seeks to be fairly inclusive, and nobody is really looking to it as > the be all end all archive of contemporary new media art. No, although that's essentially how it's framed by its creators -- the Rhizome.org front page used to read "Rhizome.org -> THE NEW MEDIA ART RESOURCE." ... T H E New Media Art Resource. The one, as in [Gnostic/Matrix] mythology, as in THE one. You think they didn't consider that? That's calculated. So if they're going to claim definitiveness, I will hold them to it. Rhizome and the ArtBase are thus representatives of newMedia as a whole, and should be approached as such. > You say that the Shape of Song ( > http://www.turbulence.org/Works/song/mono.html ) and textarc ( > http://www.textarc.org/ ) don't utilize visual abstraction, that every > pixel is procedural and representational. Perhaps from a technical > coding perspective. How about from a logical perspective? I define abstract as either non-representational or so obscurely representational as to be indistinguishable from non-representational. This is a fairly controversial distinction, but I believe in it. I think squares moving around the screen randomly is essentially the same as squares moving in the same manner but driven by stock prices. > But data visualization is inherently abstraction. In that case, a book is abstract art, because language is an abstraction of thought (which may be an abstraction of chemistry && physics?). Where do we stop? We get into stonerDiscussionLand. > The artist is literally abstracting data (from text to animation in > the first piece and from sound to shapeForm in the second). The > artists could have abstracted the data any number of ways, but they > chose to abstract it in very specific ways, not just to achieve > accurate representation, but to achieve an abstract, aesthetic effect. It's an aesthetic effect all right, but it's in no way abstract. Unless you're going to count sheet music as abstract as well. Of course in one sense (like language) it is, but as you can see, that's not a very productive avenue of discussion, is it? > The pieces work not just because they are useful or accurate (indeed, > neither are terribly useful), but also because they look interesting. Now who's using Marxist && scientific terminology? Who gives a fsck if they're "useful" or "accurate?" That's not at all what makes them interesting to me. What I find fascinating about them is the way that they pose questions about navigation and representation, and attempt to answer those questions. They are indeed interesting-looking -- they're fascinating shapes when you realize how they describe and navigate concepts and relationships. If you stripped away the conceptual element, and I only had the visuals, I would absolutely disagree that they were interesting-looking. > Furthermore, the way in which they look interesting is intrinsically > related to the data they are abstracting, but not merely arbitrarily > driven by it. Exactly! As you say, they are interesting in their way exactly because of the concepts happening. If the MIDI files in Shape of Song merely determined the amount to offset transparent squares, my interest wouldn't hold. > Each coder's "hand/eye/craft/aesthetic intent" is imposed on the way > the their output looks (in the case of Shape of Song) and moves/reacts > (in the case of TextArc). This is part of the art. Sure, no one doubts that nugget. I know you think I'm a negative d00d, but I'm not attacking individuality... > Regarding carnivore ( http://www.rhizome.org/carnivore ) the genius of > the piece is precisely that it farms out the last-mile aesthetics to > "artisans" (if you must) who enjoy and are skillful at visual > representation. You say genius, I say Galloway was making a considered move to maintain distance from this world of newFormalism while leveraging it to his advantage. This project allowed him to use the kind of splashy abstraction that gets people's attention without actually giving up his Conceptualist membership card. > Galloway tackled the obligatory political concept and coding. The > political concept (surveilance) was/is very en vogue and thus a > shoe-in for gallery-ization, but there's nothing terribly sexy about > that aspect of it to me. Nor to me. I find Galloway's work to have a fairly repellent tension between Hipsterism, Careerism and Hackerism. The thin concepts that do make their way into his work are, as you describe, unrelated to the ulterior motives that drive it. But they are indeed an easy sell to overEager galleries and institutions. > 1. It takes brilliant advantage of the online community. It's true > net art, not just because it runs on the network (again, an obligatory > requirement), but because it optimizes the collaborative aspects of > the networked community in its ongoing production. I would rephrase your first sentence to read "It takes advantage of his online community." Because the work was really about drawing attention to Rhizome.org as "THE new media art resource," and the awesomeness that is AlexGalloway. The more people who "collaborate" by contributing clients, the more press and attention he receives. This work engages the network on only the most superficial and rudimentary level; the net simply serves as a highFashion publicRelations network to draw people closer to Him. > 2. In so clearly bifurcating the concept (backend) and the visual > aesthetics (front end) it uses its literal, technical form as a > meta-phor to foreground the split in art criticism between concept and > visual aesthetics (the same split we've been dancing around for the > last two days in these posts). It is indeed a bifurcation, stemming from the realization that he could capitalize on the screensaverization of newMedia while maintaining his credibility as a "serious artist." In this way, all Carnivore clients become part of his work, which happens to be to his advantage, while he is absolved of the specific responsibility of authorship of those clients. He reaps the praise as the conceptualistMastermind behind the project, and artDirectors in magazines everywhere get to print prettyPictures. And it doesn't stop there.... > The project then goes on to unite these two aspects into a single > work, thus showing that the two aren't really diametrically opposed, > but that they drive and complement each other and are "apiece." Oh, everyone united in The House that Alex Built. It's touching! Truly touching, and also utter fantasy. In his masterStroke, Galloway gets credit for uniting conceptualism and aesthetics while actually driving them further apart. By implicitly encouraging the production of work that deals in [dataVisualization/dataAbstraction] (ie, Carnivore clients), Galloway ensures that there will be enough prettyDataPictures to draw people to Rhizome.org for some time, and leaves him plenty of time to create more hipsterCareerHacks. The division created is not a comment on the division, but rather a protraction of the division. > It's easy to look at Carnivore and get excited about the politcal > aspects of surveilance. But that's the easy surface read of the > project. You said earlier that RSG's part in the piece was > concepetual. A facile critique. It is conceptual, but it isn't about surveillance; it's about Alex Galloway. At least Jeff Koons' work is about how ridiculousness and shameless his carreeristNarcissism is. Galloway's work obfuscates the fact that it is un-ironically about how cool he is. > Their genius in the piece was to orchesetrate an outsourcing of the > generic conceptual to the idiosynchratic abstract. And Alex's > marketing genius in the whole project was to make it "about > surveilance," when it's really not about surveilance at all Exactly. Although one man's "marketing genius" is another's "doubleSpeak careerBuilding." > [Incidentally, Galloway also hired Takeshi Hamada ( > http://www.hamada-takeshi.com/ ) to design the carnivore logo. Hamada > is the same designer who designed the rhizome logo you so flippantly > dissed.] You're right -- I didn't spend enough time examining the Rhizome logo. Let's look at it together! Hmm. I see lines. No, let's dig deeper! Lines, as in linearity, as in 1-dimensionality, as in locked in a to-and-fro proto-Flatland hell (AbbottStyle). Deeper still! Okay, I see a hub and spoke, suggesting centrality, unification, Modernism. Deeper still! Wait, they seem to be different colors, so there must be multiple elements coming together in the same place! Like a city, which grows rapidly before calcifying into stone. Deeper still! What's that? You say these lines aren't simply random, but based on some... data? What kind of data? Oh, 11 herbs and spices, eh? Well, a secret's a secret -- I'll take your word that the lines are based on Something! What's that? You want a final analysis? It seems that this "Rhizome" is some sort of unified location for... Modernist secretDataPictures? There. I've just given the logo more thought than most Rhizomers probably [have/would care to]. Is there something deeper I should be "getting," or am I just not appreciating it enough somehow? > You say, "whether or not they agree." They categorically disagree, > and that's my point. You may assimilate them into your current > historical paradigm to your own intellectual satisfaction, but if they > were here today, they wouldn't go so quietly. I hate to say this, but if we start relying on the artists to interpret their own work, intellectual discourse in the art community will largely wither and die. Do you believe everything Warhol told you about his work? Of course not, you look at the work and you draw your own conclusions. The conclusion I've reached after snoring my way through five or six years of FlashFormalism is that I'd like to raise a little hell about why this work continues to be made. > Brian Eno: > Withdrawal in disgust is not the same as apathy. Breaking news: subscribing to Rhizome is NOT withdrawal in disgust, but rather fullOn engagement. If you really want to withdraw from the artWorld in disgust, unsubscribe and truly disEngage. > cf: http://www.rhizome.org/print.rhiz?7261 (a summary of my position > regarding contemporary new media criticism). yesYes, although I do find it rather curious to craft such a critique of criticism, when the piece is obviously part of that same critical discussion. > http://www.complexification.net/gallery/machines/interAggregate/ > index.php > So it ain't just FlashFormalism, Ben. It's "speaking" about art > history; about new media's relation to art history; about the nature > of time-shiftedness and instruction giving; about the balance between > chaos and control; about the continuum of performance, > meta-performance (literally "script writing"), and object; about the > relationship between process and visual aesthetics; about the > relationship between code, hand, line, and dance; about the ability of > software-based media to evince an idiosynchratic personal style. Plus > it looks so danged pretty. And the beauty of it (literally) is, you > don't have to grok the above insights to get something out of the > piece. This piece doesn't interest me, and to be honest, I don't really like looking at it. But let's skip past that. To pose a question that "Plasma Studii" raised, how much of your analysis is the kind of critical rhetoric you so despise, and how much do you really get out of the work? I'm fairly attuned to all of the fields of interest that you raise, but when I look at this piece, I can only get to a few of these concepts, and only when I really push myself. And afterwards I have the dirty feeling that intellectually, I just squeezed blood from a stone, and I might as well have been looking at a Hallmark card or a block of wood. It's like an artSchool exercise: write the artist's statement for the blackVelvet dolphinPainting. Lest this get into a personal quibble over what two people get from a single work, let me ask you this: if, as a hypothetical viewer, I'm not moved or impressed enough by a piece to give it even a few minutes of thought, will you really blame me? Can you really point the finger at me for not "grokking" it, and accuse me of intellectualSnobbery for asking why I see so many things like it? > And you're not grocking those things (or you're doing an award-winning > job at playing devil's advocate) because you've been conditioned to > look for something heavy, political, important, groundbreaking, and > immediately dialogue-able. Oh, I see you *can* point the finger at me. Okay. This must be a problem on my end. How did cCloninger find out about my artSchool brainwashing, anyway? That fox is always one step ahead... > (When intellectual stimulation leads to mental masturbation, call > us. Our trained professionals are standing by.) If it's pretty and > subtle and anti-sublime, it must not be saying anything. And if it > happens to show some superficial resemblance to a screen saver, Egad! > Out with the bathwater it goes. Yes, because my critique is superficial and categorical. Oh wait, it's not. I have no investment in overIntellectualizing anything. I'm simply making a small point about the overAbundance of FlashFormalism, and raising the issue of why there isn't more critical thought and discourse around it. You (and others) seem to agree that more critical engagement is desirable. So what, in precise terms, are we disagreeing about? Besides, you say "masturbation" like its a dirty and shameful word, but when I think about it, there is no better word to describe art! * Both are immensely pleasurable (unless you have "issues" as they call them) * Both are frowned upon in society (except by the enlightened few) -- even though *everybody* does it * Both have no "productive" purpose, yet, oddly, seem to stimulate those in production. * Both can take place in public, alone, in pairs, in groups, or with lubrication (see matthewBarney) * Both can be either invigoratingly expressive and sensual, or depressingly uninspired. * Both are necessary and fascinating * It's always weird when someone tries to teach you how to do either. All art is masturbation. Although not necessarily vice versa. ;) > No, but you're implicitly approaching art as material and humans as > material. Oh. Really? ... Nah... > There's seems to be little room for the spiritual in the assumptions > of your critical perspective. But then spirit went out with > Romanticism, so you're off the hook there. I don't like the word "spirit," just as I don't like the word "soul," as I think they're overUsed and at this point, bereft of the power that their meaning once held. I don't adhere to any specific conventional spirituality, but I place my own spirituality somewhere between Zen Buddhism and [Superstring Theory/M-Theory]. Not that it has any relevance to this discussion; if I am ever spiritually moved by a piece of Flash art, you will be the very first to know. Sincerely, - ben + + + Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com> replied: On Friday, October 08, 2004, at 10:50AM, bensyverson <rhizome AT bensyverson.com> wrote: >It is conceptual, but it isn't about surveillance; it's about Alex >Galloway. Now we're getting somewhere. :-) Replace "conceptual" with "aesthetic" and "surveillance" with "brown". We'll have to change Alex's name as well I suppose, but you get the idea. >At least Jeff Koons' work is about how ridiculousness and >shameless his carreeristNarcissism is. Koons' work is the most socially literate American art I've seen since I don't know when. The guy Gets It, can Explain It, and has done so through and in his work. Popples, the basketballs, the balloon dog, the pr0n, all are conceptually steeped aesthetic nightmares to beat class culture over the head with. All of which goes through and with the fact that he's a shameless careerist. >Do you believe everything Warhol told you about >his work? Yes. Particlarly the bit about other people making most of it. ;-) >> Brian Eno: >> Withdrawal in disgust is not the same as apathy. > >Breaking news: subscribing to Rhizome is NOT withdrawal in disgust, Is FF? >yes Yes, although I do find it rather curious to craft such a critique >of criticism, when the piece is obviously part of that same critical >discussion. If criticism is beyond criticism then it is surely worthless: for criticism the mark of value is being an object of criticism. >> And you're not grocking those things (or you're doing an award-winning >> job at playing devil's advocate) because you've been conditioned to >> look for something heavy, political, important, groundbreaking, and >> immediately dialogue-able. > >Oh, I see you *can* point the finger at me. Okay. This must be a >problem on my end. How did cCloninger find out about my artSchool >brainwashing, anyway? That fox is always one step ahead... I'm afraid this has been part of my argument as well. The virtue you seek does not have the virtue you seek. That is, an art that is obviously critical of something else that we can all agree with the criticism of and feel the virtue of criticising without ourselves being touched by that criticism is not particularly critical. It is an aesthetic of criticism rather than an ethic of criticism. >All art is masturbation. Although not necessarily vice versa. ;) If this list had a .sig that'd get my vote for it. :-) - Rob. + + + Alexander Galloway <galloway AT nyu.edu> replied: > What is "Flash formalism"? > > Has this been described anywhere? lev manovich has an essay on flash you might want to check out http://manovich.net/DOCS/generation_flash.doc + + + Jim Andrews <jim AT vispo.com> replied: > > What is "Flash formalism"? > > > > Has this been described anywhere? > > lev manovich has an essay on flash you might want to check out > > http://manovich.net/DOCS/generation_flash.doc Yes, I've scanned that before. But it doesn't mention "Flash formalism". 'Flash' and 'formalism' seem like an odd mix to me. Or remix, as the case may be. Most of the Flash work one encounters does not seem particularly 'formal', so I'm curious about the way that the word is being used and what work they are thinking of. There is quite a range to work done in Flash. Sometimes people do not distinguish between work done in Flash and work in Shockwave, which is done in Director (and can import SWF), and so 'Flash work' is implicitly assumed to encompass Shockwave work also. And then the similarities between Shockwave and Java work makes one wonder if the abstract critical category of 'Flash work' includes work in Java also. If it is difficult to pin the term down simply in the technology it references, it is harder to get much of a sense of the intended critical meaning concerning artistic matters. When I think of 'formalism' in art, the term 'austerity' comes to mind. This is typically more an approach in Shockwave and Java work rather than Flash work, though it is not unknown in Flash work. And forms of 'formalism' are usually associated with some sort of intellectual program which informs the world view of the art that arises from the scene. 'Program' would be literal, in the case of 'Flash formalism' rather than figurative? And 'formalism' is usually associated with a 'scene'. Whereas Flash and Director and Java are used around the world, the work is not containable within a scene. Also, 'formalism' generally conjures associations of work where the 'content' is emphasized less than the 'form'. But Flash work, at least somewhat naive Flash work, of which there is lots, given that it is often a popular culture tool, typically emphasizes content, not form. So I'm curious about the intended meaning of Ben and Curt's term 'Flash formalism'. ja + + + twhid <twhid AT twhid.com> replied: Just because Carnivore clients *can* be nothing but blinking lights responding to different network traffic it doesn't mean they have to: http://rhizome.org/software/carnivore/beige.jpg http://rhizome.org/software/carnivore/policestate12.jpg http://rhizome.org/software/carnivore/mtaa_carni.jpg http://rhizome.org/software/carnivore/networkisspeaking.jpg It's unfair to characterize Galloway's project in the way you are. He created a platform and different artists responded in different ways; he wasn't trying to capitalize on the "screensaverization" of new media. + + + curt cloninger <curt AT lab404.com> replied: Goooood Morning Ben! Shall we?... Ben: T H E New Media Art Resource. The one, as in [Gnostic/Matrix] mythology, as in THE one. You think they didn't consider that? That's calculated. So if they're going to claim definitiveness, I will hold them to it. Rhizome and the ArtBase are thus representatives of newMedia as a whole, and should be approached as such. curt: excellent! Also, I don't know whether I mentioned this yet, but I'm the man. Ben: How about from a logical perspective? I define abstract as either non-representational or so obscurely representational as to be indistinguishable from non-representational. This is a fairly controversial distinction, but I believe in it. I think squares moving around the screen randomly is essentially the same as squares moving in the same manner but driven by stock prices. curt: excellent! I define breathing as doubled over wheezing and so extremely out of breath as to not be able to speak. This is a fairly controversisal distinction, but I believe in it. Also, I define that I am the man. That's THE man. curt: > But data visualization is inherently abstraction. ben: In that case, a book is abstract art, because language is an abstraction of thought (which may be an abstraction of chemistry && physics?). Where do we stop? We get into stonerDiscussionLand. curt: Dooood, we've been in stonerDiscussionLand for the last three daze. [cf: http://www.larrycarlson.com for the accompanying screensaver ] curt: > The artist is literally abstracting data (from text to animation in > the first piece and from sound to shapeForm in the second). The > artists could have abstracted the data any number of ways, but they > chose to abstract it in very specific ways, not just to achieve > accurate representation, but to achieve an abstract, aesthetic effect. ben: It's an aesthetic effect all right, but it's in no way abstract. Unless you're going to count sheet music as abstract as well. Of course in one sense (like language) it is, but as you can see, that's not a very productive avenue of discussion, is it? curt: this piece is abstract and pretty in and of itself [ http://www.bitforms.com/images_ex/watt_napier5.jpg ]. if you disasgree then we disagree. curt: > The pieces work not just because they are useful or accurate (indeed, > neither are terribly useful), but also because they look interesting. ben: Now who's using Marxist && scientific terminology? Who gives a fsck if they're "useful" or "accurate?" That's not at all what makes them interesting to me. curt: yech. me either. we agree. ben: What I find fascinating about them is the way that they pose questions about navigation and representation, and attempt to answer those questions. They are indeed interesting-looking -- they're fascinating shapes when you realize how they describe and navigate concepts and relationships. curt: me too! we agree. ben: If you stripped away the conceptual element, and I only had the visuals, I would absolutely disagree that they were interesting-looking. curt: not me! we disagree. curt: > Furthermore, the way in which they look interesting is intrinsically > related to the data they are abstracting, but not merely arbitrarily > driven by it. ben: Exactly! As you say, they are interesting in their way exactly because of the concepts happening. If the MIDI files in Shape of Song merely determined the amount to offset transparent squares, my interest wouldn't hold. curt: nor mine! we agree. curt: > Regarding carnivore ( http://www.rhizome.org/carnivore ) the genius of > the piece is precisely that it farms out the last-mile aesthetics to > "artisans" (if you must) who enjoy and are skillful at visual > representation. ben: You say genius, I say Galloway was making a considered move to maintain distance from this world of newFormalism while leveraging it to his advantage. This project allowed him to use the kind of splashy abstraction that gets people's attention without actually giving up his Conceptualist membership card. curt: Actually, alex is a fan of the sensual. cf: http://www.afsnitp.dk/onoff/Projects/samyninterview.html curt: > Galloway tackled the obligatory political concept and coding. The > political concept (surveilance) was/is very en vogue and thus a > shoe-in for gallery-ization, but there's nothing terribly sexy about > that aspect of it to me. ben: Nor to me. I find Galloway's work to have a fairly repellent tension between Hipsterism, Careerism and Hackerism. The thin concepts that do make their way into his work are, as you describe, unrelated to the ulterior motives that drive it. But they are indeed an easy sell to overEager galleries and institutions. curt: but I'm not dissing Alex, nor would I define him as a careerrist. RSG is a collective, and they are the ones credited with the work. Furthermore, Alex is sharing Carnivore's gallery/festival recognition with all the people who wrote the modules. Carnivore is more like R&D than a gambit for net.art fame (an amusing notion in and of itself). If anything, alex will be remembered first and foremost as a new media theorist and educator. Alex, would you consider yourself a careerrist net.artist? curt: > [Incidentally, Galloway also hired Takeshi Hamada ( > http://www.hamada-takeshi.com/ ) to design the carnivore logo. Hamada > is the same designer who designed the rhizome logo you so flippantly > dissed.] ben: You're right -- I didn't spend enough time examining the Rhizome logo. Let's look at it together! Hmm. I see lines. No, let's dig deeper! Lines, as in linearity, as in 1-dimensionality, as in locked in a to-and-fro proto-Flatland hell (AbbottStyle). Deeper still! Okay, I see a hub and spoke, suggesting centrality, unification, Modernism. Deeper still! Wait, they seem to be different colors, so there must be multiple elements coming together in the same place! Like a city, which grows rapidly before calcifying into stone. Deeper still! What's that? You say these lines aren't simply random, but based on some... data? What kind of data? Oh, 11 herbs and spices, eh? Well, a secret's a secret -- I'll take your word that the lines are based on Something! What's that? You want a final analysis? It seems that this "Rhizome" is some sort of unified location for... Modernist secretDataPictures? There. I've just given the logo more thought than most Rhizomers probably [have/would care to]. Is there something deeper I should be "getting," or am I just not appreciating it enough somehow? curt: You're evaluating it by the wrong criteria. It's a logo, which is a graphic design element used for branding a corporation. In corporate america, you're logo can't change every time you use it or you've defeated your own purpose (although now you've got animated avatars like the Xingular logo that do change a bit, but that's off topic). So Rhizome's logo is intentionally anti-logo. What we are supposed to remember about it is that it's not the same, which is a cool way to [de/anti/un]-brand a net art resource called rhizome. So as generative art, it's not much, but as a logo, it's right clever. <dead horse> curt: > You say, "whether or not they agree." They categorically disagree, > and that's my point. You may assimilate them into your current > historical paradigm to your own intellectual satisfaction, but if they > were here today, they wouldn't go so quietly. ben: I hate to say this, but if we start relying on the artists to interpret their own work, intellectual discourse in the art community will largely wither and die. Do you believe everything Warhol told you about his work? Of course not, you look at the work and you draw your own conclusions. curt: they are not interpreting their own work. It has nothing to do with their work. They are admirable human beings convincingly exerting their personal opinions about art and life, and their opinions disagree with your opinions. </dead horse> > Brian Eno: > Withdrawal in disgust is not the same as apathy. ben: Breaking news: subscribing to Rhizome is NOT withdrawal in disgust, but rather fullOn engagement. If you really want to withdraw from the artWorld in disgust, unsubscribe and truly disEngage. curt: must I unsubscribe? say it ain't so! Can't I just lurk, occasionally dropping the cryptic science and every now and then getting into the odd three day "dialogue" with my home slice BEN SYVERSON? I'd like to think so! curt: > cf: http://www.rhizome.org/print.rhiz?7261 (a summary of my position > regarding contemporary new media criticism). ben: yesYes, although I do find it rather curious to craft such a critique of criticism, when the piece is obviously part of that same critical discussion. curt: what's even more curious is that I wrote that piece over two years ago on THIS VERY LIST! Hmmmmmmm. ben: > http://www.complexification.net/gallery/machines/interAggregate/ > index.php This piece doesn't interest me, and to be honest, I don't really like looking at it. But let's skip past that. curt: twist my arm. ben: To pose a question that "Plasma Studii" raised, how much of your analysis is the kind of critical rhetoric you so despise, and how much do you really get out of the work? curt: I am the Lorax. I speak for the trees. It's not my favorite job, but somebody's got to do it because the trees can't speak for themselves. In my most forthcoming confessional tone, I hostly derived those insights from the piece itself. With other peices of lesser aesthetic merit, I may have had to conjure up something to impose on them (which would have been fair game according to some but critically disingenuous to me). But not with this piece. ben: I'm fairly attuned to all of the fields of interest that you raise, but when I look at this piece, I can only get to a few of these concepts, and only when I really push myself. And afterwards I have the dirty feeling that intellectually, I just squeezed blood from a stone, and I might as well have been looking at a Hallmark card or a block of wood. It's like an artSchool exercise: write the artist's statement for the blackVelvet dolphinPainting. Lest this get into a personal quibble over what two people get from a single work, let me ask you this: if, as a hypothetical viewer, I'm not moved or impressed enough by a piece to give it even a few minutes of thought, will you really blame me? curt: sure I'll blame you. "Shame on you, Mr. President!" Laurie Anderson talks about giving memorized concerts in French and then going out on the streets of Paris with great confidence as a bi-linguist only to realize that she doesn't speak a word of French. I've always liked that story. Anyay, where were we? Ben: Can you really point the finger at me for not "grokking" it, and accuse me of intellectualSnobbery for asking why I see so many things like it? curt: You're seeing things that are superficially like it and lumping them all together. ben: How did cCloninger find out about my artSchool brainwashing, anyway? That fox is always one step ahead... curt: http://playdamage.org/58.html ben: I'm simply making a small point about the overAbundance of FlashFormalism, and raising the issue of why there isn't more critical thought and discourse around it. You (and others) seem to agree that more critical engagement is desirable. So what, in precise terms, are we disagreeing about? curt: If this is your small point, I can't wait to see your large point. ben: Besides, you say "masturbation" like its a dirty and shameful word, but when I think about it, there is no better word to describe art! * Both are immensely pleasurable (unless you have "issues" as they call them) * Both are frowned upon in society (except by the enlightened few) -- even though *everybody* does it * Both have no "productive" purpose, yet, oddly, seem to stimulate those in production. * Both can take place in public, alone, in pairs, in groups, or with lubrication (see matthewBarney) * Both can be either invigoratingly expressive and sensual, or depressingly uninspired. * Both are necessary and fascinating * It's always weird when someone tries to teach you how to do either. All art is masturbation. Although not necessarily vice versa. ;) woody allen: Don't knock masturbation; it's sex with someone I love. hip hop don't stop, the artist formerly known as el hombre + + + curt cloninger <curt AT lab404.com> added: Doh! It's not my term. Let Ben defend it. I just work here. Calling out Flash has always seemed a bit overly simplistic to me, what with action scripting and lingo and java all being languages that cause things to move. The relationship between the corporate ownerships of these languages/scripts and the effect that has on their artistic merits seems even more tenuous. carry on... Jim wrote: >So I'm curious about the intended meaning of Ben and Curt's term 'Flash >formalism'. + + + Jess Loseby <jess AT rssgallery.com> replied: in the name of sonny j and all his fluffy angels PLEASE lets not bring that reactionary, presumptive exercise in patronizing, *intellectual* snobbery back in to play. Any other of his essays, books , conference, papers, transcripts of his phone conversation even, but please not that *essay* please no, i beg nooooooooooooooo!!!! There IS NO generation flash!!!!!!! It's a manovich mythology!!! > > lev manovich has an essay on flash you might want to check out > > http://manovich.net/DOCS/generation_flash.doc > o /^\ rssgallery.com ][ + + + Francis Hwang <francis AT rhizome.org> replied: Good point. And there are a number of video games that get turned into blockbuster films, Resident Evil and Tomb Raider being the examples that come to my mind most easily. I wouldn't be surprised if there are some enterprising film production companies who have bought up small video game companies in the hopes of locking up the film licenses in the case of landing a hit video game. I remember there was a company that did the same with Dark Horse Comics in the '90s, though I don't remember how that worked out for them. (This was _after_ Tank Girl and The Crow were released as films.) Now, if we only had an independent games business to complement the indie film business, we'd be good to go. On Oct 8, 2004, at 2:18 AM, ryan griffis wrote: > Nor are the two separate... > Look at how the industries (are they really distinct?) cross in many > blockbusters (which we seem to be talking about blockbusters, not > independent film/video as curt pointed out) - the Matrix, Italian Job, > etc. as you can tell "i don't play video games or i'd be able to name > more. ;) > ryan Francis Hwang Director of Technology Rhizome.org phone: 212-219-1288x202 AIM: francisrhizome + + + Alexander Galloway <galloway AT nyu.edu> replied: > Alex, would you consider yourself a careerrist net.artist? i'm definitely a careerist.. but definitely not an artist. ;) > curt: >> [Incidentally, Galloway also hired Takeshi Hamada ( >> http://www.hamada-takeshi.com/ ) to design the carnivore logo. the carni logo was designed by Ryan McGinness. >> Hamada >> is the same designer who designed the rhizome logo you so flippantly >> dissed.] the rhizome logo was designed by Markus Weisbeck and Frank Hausschild of surface.de. + + + curt cloninger <curt AT lab404.com> replied: > curt: >> [Incidentally, Galloway also hired Takeshi Hamada ( >> http://www.hamada-takeshi.com/ ) to design the carnivore logo. alex: the carni logo was designed by Ryan McGinness. curt: Danged. I knew that. But it still proves my point that ds9rz r kewl. curt: >> Hamada >> is the same designer who designed the rhizome logo you so flippantly >> dissed.] alex: the rhizome logo was designed by Markus Weisbeck and Frank Hausschild of surface.de. curt: then what of this?: http://www.hamada-takeshi.com/portfolio/work/screenother/rhizome.html + + + ryan griffis <grifray AT yahoo.com> replied: > It's unfair to characterize Galloway's project in the way you are. He > created a platform and different artists responded in different ways; > he wasn't trying to capitalize on the "screensaverization" of new > media. i'd have to agree here - the attack on Carnivore diverted some of your questions Ben. making a career is not necessarily oppositional to making "critical art." if the piece doesn't represent the kind of severity your looking for, it's not because Galloway is making a career out of his work in the process. Sure marketing is involved, if it isn't, your working your ass of at a 9-5 to support the things you "really believe in." i've applied for enough teaching gigs (and reappointments) to know that there's marketing involved in just getting and keeping a job. while i think specificity is needed in criticism, the level of personalization in your critique is not exactly constructive or reflexive. and this isn't a defense of "careerism," which could stand a good deal of critique, but it would benefit from a more systemic analysis. and just a one liner on current abstraction: the reconfiguration of data into abstractions is connected with a whole range of post-image representation that is replacing naturalistic signs of "truth." (see the visible human project, the human genome project and the use of satellite/surveillance imagery). ryan + + + bensyverson <rhizome AT bensyverson.com> replied: On Oct 8, 2004, at 8:57 AM, curt cloninger wrote: > excellent! Also, I don't know whether I mentioned this yet, but I'm > the man. Sounds good to me, but now you have the burden of claiming to be The Man. In other words, now I'll look at you and get uncomfortable about your self-aggrandizement, unsure whether I should just move on whilst rolling my eyes, or if I should ask those around me whether they think you are, in fact, The Man. And now you can see my relationship to Rhizome.org. > excellent! I define breathing as doubled over wheezing and so > extremely out of breath as to not be able to speak. This is a fairly > controversisal distinction, but I believe in it. Also, I define that > I am the man. That's THE man. Okay, looks like this is my last round on the discoursePhunCarousel... > Dooood, we've been in stonerDiscussionLand for the last three daze. > [cf: http://www.larrycarlson.com for the accompanying screensaver ] Man, I didn't realize... See, I thought I was raising some fairly direct and realWorld questions about the quality of discourse on RAW revolving around formalism. I didn't realize this discussion was that deep... > this piece is abstract and pretty in and of itself [ > http://www.bitforms.com/images_ex/watt_napier5.jpg ]. if you > disasgree then we disagree. It's really funny -- knowing what it represents, it's pretty to me. However, if I hadn't ever seen Shape of Song, I wouldn't like that image -- it would just seem kind of 70s newModernism to me, definitely not the kind of aesthetics I naturally go for. > but I'm not dissing Alex I want to make clear that although I have some long-standing issues with aGalloway's work, I am not trying to "diss" him personally. I'm sure he's a rad d00d; I was just sketching a picture of why his work leaves a bad taste in my mouth. > RSG is a collective, and they are the ones credited with the work. Although in your discussion of Carnivore, it's interesting that aGalloway's name is the one that you bring up. I wonder why that is... Huh, and it seems like at all these galleries and festivals, aGalloway always seems to be there representin'. And it's a funny coincidence that in a recent article, The New York Times accidentally called Carnivore "his [Galloway's] Internet-based artwork." I can find articles counting aGalloway as the founding member of RSG, but it's funny how you never hear about the other members -- it's just described as a "loose group" of artists. The reality is that aGalloway is the beneficiary of all of the press, praise and cultural capital generated by RSG projects. > Furthermore, Alex is sharing Carnivore's gallery/festival > recognition with all the people who wrote the modules. Yes, in the role of facilitator, spokesMan and masterMind. He shares the recognition knowing full well (as a media savvy guy) that he will get the much more meaningful recognition as the grandArchitect. > Carnivore is more like R&D than a gambit for net.art fame (an > amusing notion in and of itself). Oh really? How many net.art projects do you know of that have an exhibition schedule, press history, press release style summary, and a link to a high resolution image gallery for the press complete with a boilerplate PR-style bio ( http://rhizome.org/carnivore/press_images.html ), all on the MAIN page of the project? You think this project is designed to engage you, the artist? No, it's specifically and painstakingly geared towards the press, from the very first words on the page, which after "Carnivore," are a quote from Artforum. That serves as your introduction to Carnivore. > So Rhizome's logo is intentionally anti-logo. What we are supposed to > remember about it is that it's not the same, which is a cool way to > [de/anti/un]-brand a net art resource called rhizome. You have GOT to be kidding me. Rhizome's logo may very slightly change, but it always looks the same. Sure, the spokes are different colors, and in different directions, but it's instantly recognizable, and you wouldn't need the "rhizome.org" text (which is, after all, static) to know where it came from. That's the definition of a good, old fashioned corporate logo. It would be like the Nike logo being slightly longer or shorter every time you saw it -- you would still instantly make the connection. > they are not interpreting their own work. It has nothing to do with > their work. They are admirable human beings convincingly exerting > their personal opinions about art and life, and their opinions > disagree with your opinions. Okay, let's listen to this artist. On Oct 8, 2004, at 9:55 AM, Alexander Galloway wrote: > i'm definitely a careerist.. but definitely not an artist. ;) If you believe that he is not an artist, then your argument stands. If you disagree with him, then your argument fails. Sure, he was being facetious, but how do you know other artists weren't as well? Where you there? How do you go about determining intentionality? It's all guesswork, so I go based on what I get out of the work. Your Modernist ideas about believing the "truth" of the artists words is head-scratchingly weird. > must I unsubscribe? say it ain't so! Can't I just lurk, > occasionally dropping the cryptic science and every now and then > getting into the odd three day "dialogue" with my home slice BEN > SYVERSON? I'd like to think so! Home slice! :) Sure, homeSkillet, just don't pretend to be on da outside, when you KNOW yo in here w/ me. - ben + + + bensyverson <rhizome AT bensyverson.com> replied: On Oct 8, 2004, at 1:37 PM, ryan griffis wrote: > i'd have to agree here - the attack on Carnivore diverted some of your > questions Ben. Interesting -- how so? I was asked directly about a few pieces, Carnivore being one. I delivered my honest response. Besides, I think Carnivore (as a non-feeling entity) can weather the criticism. ;) > making a career is not necessarily oppositional to making "critical > art." No, nor do I think successful people are "selling out." My problem with Carnivore is that it is duplicitous in its careerAspirationalism. > i've applied for enough teaching gigs (and reappointments) to know > that there's marketing involved in just getting and keeping a job. MosDef, but there are many different marketing strategies, the brand aGalloway employs being one of the more distasteful (at least in my book). I'm all for marketing -- Jeff Koons' [late80s/early90s] work made a huge impression on me. ++ I know what the job market is like, but aGalloway has a great job, and it's in no danger.... > while i think specificity is needed in criticism, the level of > personalization in your critique is not exactly constructive or > reflexive. I just calls 'em likes I sees 'em! To discuss Carnivore, I think you have to discuss and examine aGalloway as well. Although my view of the two and their relationship may not be flattering, I do believe it's constructive to the discourse surrounding Carnivore. > and just a one liner on current abstraction: the reconfiguration of > data into abstractions is connected with a whole range of post-image > representation that is replacing naturalistic signs of "truth." (see > the visible human project, the human genome project and the use of > satellite/surveillance imagery). That's a nice way of putting it. However, all of the projects you mention are fascinating because they offer us new insight and ways of viewing our world. In contrast, zoomyDataBoxes in Flash give me no new insight, and no new tools for seeing my world. Which is not to say that you were making that connexion -- I just want to make sure no one reads this and equates the massive effort and implications of the Human Genome project with some of the abstract dataTwiddling that goes on here. best, - ben + + + "~~~~|\/\/\/\/\/\/|~~~~" <llacook AT yahoo.com> added: flash is still too new, and still taking real baby steps toward an actual networked art, to have accrued a formalism just yet... i would save the fomalism for C++ work, some Java... ben: If you stripped away the conceptual element, and I only had the visuals, I would absolutely disagree that they were interesting-looking. curt: not me! we disagree. lewis: could you ever get to the pure visuals? could you ever experience the visuals without SOME patina of conceptualization? isn't that how the human race is doomed? + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome.org is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and an affiliate of the New Museum of Contemporary Art. Rhizome Digest is supported by grants from The Charles Engelhard Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, and with public funds from the New York State Council on the Arts, a state agency. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome Digest is filtered by Kevin McGarry (kevin AT rhizome.org). ISSN: 1525-9110. Volume 9, number 40. Article submissions to list AT rhizome.org are encouraged. Submissions should relate to the theme of new media art and be less than 1500 words. For information on advertising in Rhizome Digest, please contact info AT rhizome.org. To unsubscribe from this list, visit http://rhizome.org/subscribe. Subscribers to Rhizome Digest are subject to the terms set out in the Member Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php. Please invite your friends to visit Rhizome.org on Fridays, when the site is open to members and non-members alike. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + |
-RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.12.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.5.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.27.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.20.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.13.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.6.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.30.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.23.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.16.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.9.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.2.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.19.2007 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.12.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.5.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.28.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.21.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.14.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.7.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.31.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.24.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.17.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.10.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.3.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.26.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.19.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.12.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.5.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.29.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.22.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.15.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.8.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.1.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.25.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.18.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.11.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.4.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.27.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.20.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.13.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.6.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.30.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.23.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.16.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.9.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.2.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.25.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.18.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.11.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.4.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.28.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.14.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.28.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.14.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.7.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.31.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.24.01 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.17.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.03.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.20.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.13.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.06.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: November 29, 2006 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.22.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.15.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.08.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.27.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.20.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.13.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.06.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 09.29.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 09.22.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 09.15.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 09.08.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 09.01.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 08.25.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 08.18.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 08.11.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 08.06.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 07.28.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 07.21.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 07.14.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 07.07.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 06.30.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 06.23.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 06.16.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 06.02.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 05.26.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 05.19.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 05.12.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 05.05.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 04.28.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 04.21.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 04.14.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 04.07.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 03.31.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 03.24.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 03.17.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 03.12.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 03.03.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 02.24.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 02.17.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 02.10.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 02.03.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.27.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.20.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.13.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.06.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.30.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.23.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.16.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.09.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.02.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.25.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.18.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.11.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.4.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.28.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.21.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.14.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.07.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.30.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.23.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.16.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.9.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.2.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.26.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.22.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.14.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.07.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.31.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.24.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.17.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.10.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.03.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.26.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.19.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.12.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.05.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.29.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.22.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.15.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.08.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.29.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.22.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.15.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.01.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.25.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.18.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.11.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.04.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.25.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.18.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.11.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.04.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.28.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.21.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.14.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.08.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.01.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.17.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.10.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.03.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.26.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.19.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.12.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.05.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.29.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.22.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.15.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.08.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.01.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.24.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.17.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.10.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.03.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.27.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.20.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.13.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.06.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.30.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.23.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.16.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.09.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.02.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.25.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.18.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.11.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.04.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.28.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.21.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.14.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.07.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.30.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.16.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.09.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 04.02.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 03.27.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 03.19.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 03.13.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 03.05.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 02.27.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 02.20.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 02.13.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 02.06.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.31.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.23.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.16.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.10.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.05.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.21.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.13.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.05.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.28.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.21.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.14.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.07.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.31.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.25.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.18.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.10.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.03.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.27.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.19.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.13.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.05.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.29.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.22.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.17.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.09.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.17.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.10.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.03.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.20.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.13.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.06.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.29.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.22.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.15.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.01.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.25.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.18.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.11.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.04.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.27.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.20.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.13.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.6.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.30.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.23.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.16.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST:8.9.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.02.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.26.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.19.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.12.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.5.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.28.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.21.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.14.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.7.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.2.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.26.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.19.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.12.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.5.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.28.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.21.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.14.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.7.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.31.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.23.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.15.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.8.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.3.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.24.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.17.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.10.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.1.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.27.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.18.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.12.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.6.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.30.01 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.23.01 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 06.29.01 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.2.00 |
